[Noah A. Sabouni]

I believe the mamluke is the saracen that beat the crusaders back. Mamlukes had armor as heavy, if not as heavy as crusaders. They shared all of the weapons like a crusader, and they had horse archery along with damascus steel.

Any thoughts?

[Peter Lyon]

Training. If I remember right (and I know there are more knowledgeable people here to help) the Mamelukes were originally slaves taken to Egypt from the Caucasus region; they were impartial to palace politics originally so were good soldier material. They were trained specifically to fight from childhood without the burden of other duties that the European knight had (they were also trained soldiers, but in a different way). The mamelukes were superb horsemen and archers among other things, and very disciplined. They also had the advantage of fighting on "home" territory against the Europeans.

Command and control is another issue - Mamelukes were a unified force, the Europeans often suffered from disjointed and sometimes poor leadership.

[Noah A. Sabouni]

I agree with many things. The mamlukes had also great close quarters weapons. I do believe a knight is a great warrior whom is up there.

My personal belief is that europe and the middle east had the best ancient and medieval warriors, agreed?

[Luka Borscak]

Wars are rarely won because one force has better individual soldiers than other or slightly better equipment. Muslims didn't have much success in fighting Crusaders until they unified under Sultans like Saladin. Unity, numbers and resources won the Muslims a war, not superior weapons, not even superior discipline. Mamluks were good, disciplined, professional warriors, but so were knightly orders like Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights.

[Noah A. Sabouni]

[Luka Borscak]

[Noah A. Sabouni]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

I'm with Noah on Hattin. It was a very strategic battle and Saladin's movements leading up to the confrontation and timing of the battle are to be regarded as an example of excellent generalship. The haste and overconfidence of the Frankish army also accounts for much of the utter defeat of that encounter, however...

Otherwise, it is pointless to argue about manpower - the Franks were clearly outnumbered in Syria throughout the twelfth century generally speaking - though in some particular engagements they did gain numerical advantages, the records (both Frankish and Arabic) indicate that it was usually otherwise. Defensive strategies and the control of the coastlines were what provided the military lifeline for the crusaders, far more than any intrinsic technological or disciplinary advantages of European soldiers.

-Gregory

[Noah A. Sabouni]

It's just kinda upsetting that people make the Crusades sound like a bunch of super all powerful Europeans vs thousands of I'll equipped amateurs.

In reality both sides had probably some of the best warriors in the medieval world *cough cough* not the samurai

[Pieter B.]

While Hattin was indeed a good move on Saladins side there was something else at play.

The movie Kingdom of Heaven depicts the choice to confront Saladin in open battle as a somewhat rash one. While it's true the Crusaders were a bit overconfident their decision to strike out is a somewhat sensible one. Open battle of which they had won a few in a recent string of victories seemed like a good thing to do rather than wait for Saladin to come to Jerusalem and play this game called: Not starving in the worlds worst supplied city.

As for the stereotype of all powerful crusaders. It is indeed the case that the cavalry arm of the crusaders was more heavily armed and armored than most of their adversaries and this can contribute to the idea that the troops were of a higher quality.

[Mart Shearer]

[Noah A. Sabouni]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

[Noah A. Sabouni]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

You're right, Noah, I had forgotten about both Battles of Homs! My apologies. The second battle was a very serious engagement, however in the first battle only about six thousand Mongols participated and it was during a time of civil war within the Mongol Empire. I do not consider it a very serious engagement or a worthwhile showing of military might. I had never read about the Battle of Marj al-Saffar, though it does indeed seem like quite a handsome display of military skill on the part of the Mamlukes.

It is important to consider also that the Ilkhanate begun under the reign of Hulagu was not part of the main Mongolian empire, and no campaigns directed by an actual Great Khan were ever made against the Mamlukes - in other words, the best of the Mongol's armies never fought against the best of the Mamlukes.

-Gregory

[Noah A. Sabouni]

[Gregory J. Liebau]

The Mongolian empire was more or less a confederacy of subordinate states run by Mongolian warlords, and was comprised of people of all of the "nationalities" that they successfully occupied. The Mongols themselves were not an extremely numerous people, but they incorporated dozens and dozens of different tribes into their military system as they extended their range throughout the Steppes and into Eurasia. By the time of the Mamluke wars only a small percentage of the fighting men in the Mongol armies would have been of true Mongolian descent, although many of them would have been raised in the same lifestyle and lived their lives under Mongol rule.

-Gregory

[Benjamin H. Abbott]

The who-was-the-best question can't be answer with any clarity, especially outside of a shared social context with strong documentation. We can perhaps claim with a measure of a confidence that the Swiss were the best heavy infantry in Europe (or in Western Europe) from approximately 1450-1550, because so many period texts take or support this position. Declaring a best across time and space strikes me as reaching. The Mamlukes during the era of the Crusaders and after certainly had impressive warriors and equipment, but who can say how they compared with troops they never faced?

[Noah A. Sabouni]

[Gregory J. Liebau]