So, how exactly were the Arabs able to counter the Europeans during the crusades?
Seems to me the Europeans had the advantage of better armor and cavalry. Everything I read indicates the Arabs had the edge on steel quality and ingenuity, but it seems to me that their weapons were mostly designed to fight lightly armoured opponents, instead of plate or hauberk clad enemies.
Was there anything the Arabs had going on that allowed them to counter heavy armor?
Is this why the Europeans curb stomped the Arabs before Salladin got their shit together?
>>44523403
Camel Cannons.
>>44523403
>So, how exactly were the Arabs able to counter the Europeans during the crusades?
They didn't
If you wonder why people can win single battles and small campaigns with worse warriors and technology, you'll see that it happened again and again throughout history, war is not a game and doesn't follow strict rules or simple logic
>>44523403
this seems like a /his/ question
>>44523403
There's more to war than having the best armour and horses, also more to war than just winning battles.
>>44523403
Why are you posting this on /tg/?
At least go to /int/ or /his/, the latter would be more appropriate and the former would give you way better answers, /tg/ doesn't know shit about the real world and history in particular.
Weapon discussions always make me cringe here, how people manage to ignore simple logic is simply beyond me.
>>44523524
/tg/ is the board for weapons and armor questions.
In case you missed, OP is asking about Euro armor vs Arab armor
>>44523582
>/tg/ is the board for weapons and armor questions.
It's not and it doesn't know shit about either, fuck off
>>44523403
It has more to do with Genghis Khan eating their collective buttholes from the east than anything.
>>44523403
>Was there anything the Arabs had going on that allowed them to counter heavy armor?
Numbers and homefield advantage.
Most crusaders went home, after conquering the cities. What was left was a skeleton guard.
>>44523582
I thought that was /k/
>>44523403
The Arabs had a lot more guys, the Europeans weren't logistically prepared for anything.
>>44523612
Then why didn't the spoopy skellitons scare the goat fuckers away?
>>44523524
>/his/
>knowing anything about this kind of things
you are funny
>>44523403
>Everything I read indicates the Arabs had the edge on steel quality
source? sounds like bullshit to me.
> instead of plate or hauberk clad enemies.
good thing that plate wasn't a thing during most of the crusades and it was developed only later
Also your pic shows a WAAAAAY later european knight that would be in the crusades.
>>44523403
>Europeans had 16th century armour in the 12th century
>>44523403
Remember, plate wasn't used for the majority of the crusades, so both sides were fairly equal as far as armor went. Also, Arabs could bring in reinforcements more easily due to the location and were usually more united. Furthermore, the Arabs and Byzantines had more advanced tactics than Westerners. A Crusader army for much of the time was made up of dozens of different lords each leading their own small army as part of the whole. They often feuded and split, and there was little ability to lead them tactically. Meanwhile, the average Turkish or Arab army had a general who could command the whole force. Also, the Muslims made heavy use of horse archery.
The irrelevance of plate armour to the crusades has already been addressed. As for chainmail, I find it hard to believe that the arabs were unable to deal with this kind of armour. After all, they used it themselves.
>>44523403
>Was there anything the Arabs had going on that allowed them to counter heavy armor?
The armor in your picture dates from the mid 15th - early 16th century, long after the Crusader States had already fallen.
Pic related is a way better representation of what a typical Crusader might have looked like.
>>44523520
>So, how exactly were the Arabs able to counter the Europeans during the crusades?
>They didn't
Considering the last Crusader State fell to the Mamluks in 1289, I'd say they countered them pretty well.
>>44523612
>Numbers and homefield advantage.
>Most crusaders went home, after conquering the cities. What was left was a skeleton guard.
The First Crusade only succeded due to taking the Fatimids almost completely by surprise.
The Fatimids retook it from the Seljuks about a year before the Crusaders arrived. When they set out, it was in Seljuk hands, but by the time they got there, it had been in Fatimid hands for about a year. They were perfectly aware of this, because the Fatimids had sent them ambassadors for months saying "hey great job against the Turks our dear friends, by the way we already liberated Jerusalem so no need to do that right?" The defender of the city against the Crusaders was Iftikhar al-Dawla, the Fatimid governor of Palestine. The Fatimids were nominally allies of the Byzantines and initially assumed that the Crusaders were Byzantine mercenaries and thus weren't going to be hostile to them. It was only as the Crusader army continued to march south after Antioch and brushed off Fatimid emissaries that they realized that these people were actually their enemy. Al-Afdal mustered an army to meet them, but he arrived too late to save Jerusalem, and then the Crusaders defeated him at Ascalon shortly thereafter.
>>44523403
>the Arabs
Weren't the majority of the parties involved not Arabs? Like Saladin was an Iraqi Kurd from an armenian family, I think, and the turkish merchenaries that got hired by everyone were still pretty much slavs at that point.
>>44523701
>not knowing about Euro Time Travel
>>44523403
Crusaders weren't wearing plate. They wore mail, exactly like the Arabs. Plate didn't appear until much later.
>>44523403
>they were wearing Realistic Armor™ but they lost
>h-how is this possible??
Armor spergs, everyone. Still don't understand armor doesn't make you invincible.
>what are crusader states
The same way the Viet Cong won.
For the Crusaders/USA it was a stupid game.
For the Saracens/VC it was a living.
The power of Allah, obviously.
The equipment and style of fighting of both sides was very similar except for the use of horsearchers, but infantry crossbowmen seem to be able to effectively counter horsearchers.
As has been said, the Christians won largely because the other side was fighting amongst themselves, not because of tactical differences. Horse archers are seriously over-rated - they are hyped almost as badly as English longbowmen. Nobody won a battle simply because of horse archers
Something to add to this discussion, the Muslim forces had certain advantages over the crusaders in terms of tactics. Crusader forces fought the same way they would in Europe with heavy cav charges into static inf lines and wearing heavy armor. In the middle east however they used skirmisher style fighting tactics with lighter cav and mounted archers. Its really hard to use heavy knights with lances against an enemy who is lighter and faster then you.
Another thing which I am surprised no one else mentioned: THE MIDDLE EAST IS FUCKING HOT. European style armor sucks for fighting in the middle east. Yes Muslim forces had an equivalent of a knight with heavy armor, but they wore pure chain-mail including on their heads and/or lamellar style leather and chain-mail parts and there were alot less of them in a standard Muslim army. European armor of the time was a chainmail overcoat, a cloth undershirt and tights, metal shin-guards/greaves,and a solid metal helmet(which acted like sticking your head in an oven and was fixed from that issue by putting on a cloth headdress over the helmet to at least keep the sun off of the metal). Basically in a field battle your knights would have a very short period of time they would be effective before heat stroke would start setting in. In fact one of Saladin's favorite tactics was to take control of the local oasis before a battle so the crusaders couldn't get to it and then taunt the crusaders by pouring water into the sand in-front of them.
>>44525805
>For the USA, the Vietnam war and its proxy wars in the surrounding countries were a stupid game.
You should really try to keep salt from getting into that butthurt.
>>44526796
>one side uses mail
>the other side uses mail as well, both sides occasionally even wear multiple shirts on top of each other
>both sides consider getting a cold from all that mail to be a major problem because colds could be fucking deadly back then
>one side is worse off because their non-oriental metal rings are somewhat more troublesome in hot weather
LOGIC
>>44526943
I guess you missed the solid full face metal helmets and the fact that less Muslim forces wore heavy armor part...
>>44523403
Have you tried wearing armor over there? Shits hot yo
>>44524037
Why did he keep a small apple pie inside his chainmail hoodie?
>>44527162
In case he got hungry, duh.
