Question about the Crusades

[Laiska-Jaakko]

So, from what (apparently little) I've read about the Crusades, I take it it took the crusaders great struggle to seize the holy land and they weren't that good at keeping it either. The arab forces greatly outnumbered them and to them, the crusaders were something like a border skirmish. And yet in Assassin's Creed, the civilians and public agitators speak of the crusaders with fear, as though they were a terrible force, looming at their very doorsteps.

So how is it? Were the crusaders powerful enough to earn respect from their arab foes? I've also gotten the impression that the heavy cavalry fighting style used by the europeans wasn't exactly effective against whatever it was the saracens were using. Have I misunderstood?

 

[Allegro]

I believe Crusaders being outnumbered is an hoax created by eurocentrism. You just dont attack headbutt into zergs, especially despite great attrition and no absolute technological advantage. Besides, Muslims themselves were having political strives and convincing tribes to fight under a banner wasnt easy.

 

[Archonsod]

It's not quite as simple or as polarised as it's portrayed. For a start, it wasn't Christian against Muslim or Arab against European, there were coalitions which crossed ethnic and religious boundaries, some politically motivated, some marriages of convenience and nearly all involving large sums of money As a result, the gains and losses were likewise not as simple as who killed who. Some nobleman in Spain kicks the bucket and through a variety of political alliances, inheritance customs, oaths of fealty and the like some African suddenly finds himself ruler of somewhere in Jerusalem because his best friend's sister's cousin twice removed's father once happened to sell a venetian merchant this really great horse, the merchant of course knew a man who knew this other man who was friends of this guy from a tavern .... Really, the religious aspect was more of a recruiting tool for the kind of political infighting you find occurring just about everywhere.

As for fear, large bodies of armed men tend to disturb civilian populaces no matter whose side they happen to be on. Tends to be a universal fact of life.

 

[Barry_bon_Loyale]

And yet in Assassin's Creed, the civilians and public agitators speak of the crusaders with fear, as though they were a terrible force, looming at their very doorsteps.

Seconded to what was said above, but also remember that you should take everything in Assassin's Creed's with a grain of salt.  I'm glad I finally get to rant about this.

I haven't played Assassin's Creed, but knowing how the game works and what it's about lets me know that whoever designed has little understanding about the Assassins. 

In the first place, and this pertains to your question, Assassins did not actually target Crusaders.  The Assassins were a powerful political entity, but in the Holy Land they mainly stuck to Islamic targets.  This is for a few reasons.  One, they were already constantly in a struggle against orthodox Islam (the Assassins were Shiahs).  Two, instead of seeing Christian invaders as the common enemy, the Assassins actually saw orthodox Islam as the common enemy. 

The Assassins often made alliances with the Crusaders, taking commissions from Richard the Lionheart, treaties with Baldwin II, and several times trying to murder Saladin. 

In the second place, one Assassin carrying out nine assassination, or even more than one or two, is not realistic or how the Assassins operated.  Despite what you may get from Assassin's Creed, or even read on Wikipedia, but the Assassins were not a group of highly-trained, professional, ninja-like assassins.  They were actually a group of highly indoctrinated fanatics, who typically "went down with the ship".  They were trained enough to murder a target, but were not expected to return. 

They were actually a dangerous religious sect whose power was built more around fear than actual ability to assassinate.  Many assassinations flat out failed (including the many attempts on Saladin).  A large source of their power came from the fear and awareness that seventy thousand followers were willing to kill, or die, at the drop of a hat. 

So that was Assassin's Creed for how it pertains to the actual Assassins.  Regarding civilian's fear of Crusaders, I agree that civilians scarcely appreciate any kind of foreign military presence. 

 

[Archonsod]

Despite what you may get from Assassin's Creed, or even read on Wikipedia, but the Assassins were not a group of highly-trained, professional, ninja-like assassins.  They were actually a group of highly indoctrinated fanatics, who typically "went down with the ship".  They were trained enough to murder a target, but were not expected to return. 

IIRC their motivations were not a million miles away from modern suicide bombers.

So that was Assassin's Creed for how it pertains to the actual Assassins.  Regarding civilian's fear of Crusaders, I agree that civilians scarcely appreciate any kind of foreign military presence.

Even native military presence tends to invoke the same effect, although not necessarily to the same degree.

 

[Barry_bon_Loyale]

Despite what you may get from Assassin's Creed, or even read on Wikipedia, but the Assassins were not a group of highly-trained, professional, ninja-like assassins.  They were actually a group of highly indoctrinated fanatics, who typically "went down with the ship".  They were trained enough to murder a target, but were not expected to return. 

IIRC their motivations were not a million miles away from modern suicide bombers.

From what I read, they're quite similar.  I just didn't want to be the first to draw that comparison. 

 

[Jec94227]

Uh, assassins targeted everyone. They were paid killers, just like soldiers, however, many were more skilled in the sneaking/fighting arts. For example, the Hasharin(sp definatly, just going from memory here) were muslim. And in Assassins Creed, did you notice playing as a character that is middle eastern in appearence? Or taking orders from other middle-easterners? Kinda makes sense that he would be targeting the 'Franks'.

Oh, and are you saying that you are getting actual historical knowledge from a video game? Bad idea mate.

 

[Barry_bon_Loyale]

Uh, assassins targeted everyone. They were paid killers, just like soldiers, however, many were more skilled in the sneaking/fighting arts. For example, the Hasharin(sp definatly, just going from memory here) were muslim.

Not sure who that was directed at (the original poster or myself), but clearly above I've discussed the notion that Assassins did not target Crusaders, rather used the Crusades as a venue to further weaken their Islamic enemies.  And no one said Assassins weren't Islamic - that's a given.   

And they weren't exactly paid thugs; they were a highly religious political entity that had political motivations behind their assassinations.  Their goal was to politically gain control over their numerically superior orthodox Islamic enemies (the Assassins were Shiahs).  They weren't just a band of mercenaries - that connotation comes from the modern use of the word "assassin". 

So no, they did not target everyone.  That is a notion that Assassin's Creed states and one that does not hold up to history.  Remember, they were a group of religious fanatics with a very clear goal in mind, not a group of skilled warriors who were thugs for hire.  So no, it would not make sense that they targeted Franks.  Reread the above post to find out why. 

I would recommend Secret Societies - A History by Arkon Daraul.  Its opening chapters are about the actual history of the Assassins and it largely contradicts most of what you said. 

Oh, and are you saying that you are getting actual historical knowledge from a video game? Bad idea mate.

Again, I don't know who that is directed at.  Assuming it's me, I've clearly stated that you shouldn't get knowledge from video games. In fact it was the first sentence I wrote.  If it was to the original poster, well, that's on him.   

 

[Swagg3r]

Thanks for kicking ass in the name of historical exactitude, Barry_bon_Loyale. (Love your work on Europa 1300 AD, by the way.)

 

[Jec94227]

Well, I stand corrected then. Thank you for having the grace not to be a total **** in victory.

 

[Adviser]

I've also gotten the impression that the heavy cavalry fighting style used by the Europeans wasn't exactly effective against whatever it was the Saracens were using. Have I misunderstood?

It wasn't, at least not in the beginning since European knights were heavily armoured and Saracens used light equipment. So neither side had any advantage over other since knights were hard to kill , because of the armour they wore, but they got easily tired because of the heat, mean while Saracens weapons weren't made to beat up their enemies like the European weapons, but they were used to fight in the heat. In the end they got used to fight each others and tactics started to take more important role in the war.

 

[Archonsod]

European cavalry was terribly effective against the Saracens. The problem was it was also terribly restricted; European horses require large amounts of fresh water and forage, which is incredibly scarce in a desert and near desert. The old tactic (still used in the region during both world wars) of controlling the water supply before your enemy got there proved just as effective as it always has. The result was the Europeans were highly restricted in how far they could advance cavalry into the interior, which ultimately ruled out ever having effective control of the region.

 

[Mk3390]

I think people tend to overestimate the hashashins, but I wouldn't want to be the one to underestimate them. True they were fanatical, they also were a fear inspiring force in the region. If they wanted someone dead it usually happened. Also, the assassins are ismali ****es, which alienated them from almost all other sects even the regular 12er ****es. BTW it took the mongols to eventually trick them into dieing off.

 

[McBeverage]

Thread Necromancy, Mk3390?

The hashashin were indeed deadly; however, they were not as mighty as historical thing make them out to be.

For some reason, when I think about how they fell, the idea of intrigue stands out in my mind most.

 

[Mk3390]

Yea, it's sad that they fell only because their leader was tricked into believing the mongols wished to befriend them...If they hadn't fallen would they have been some of the first advocates of personal firearms?

 

[McBeverage]

Quite possibly; although their firearm tactics would've gravitated less towards the "mass battlefield" tactics and more towards the "sniper rifle" style firearms.

 

[Mk3390]

Yea Personal firearms. Plus they were close to the moguls and china which wouldve given 'em easier access to the weaponery.

 

[McBeverage]

Would it have also given them more need?  IIRC, the chinese and moguls weren't nearly as expansionist as their european counterparts.

 

[Mk3390]

Comeon the moguls conquered all of india and pakistan area. Granted they stopped there cause of political strife. Not to mention they would've had to war on the Hashashins cause of denominational issues.

 

[Setrus]

So, from what (apparently little) I've read about the Crusades, I take it it took the crusaders great struggle to seize the holy land and they weren't that good at keeping it either. The arab forces greatly outnumbered them and to them, the crusaders were something like a border skirmish. And yet in Assassin's Creed, the civilians and public agitators speak of the crusaders with fear, as though they were a terrible force, looming at their very doorsteps.

So how is it? Were the crusaders powerful enough to earn respect from their arab foes? I've also gotten the impression that the heavy cavalry fighting style used by the europeans wasn't exactly effective against whatever it was the saracens were using. Have I misunderstood?

Just wanted to add to the whole fear thing since people seem to ignore that issue...

In the first crusade a LOT of people died. Of the crusaders there were like 1/5 left after the capture of jerusalem. No matter the casualties they kept freaking going, that right there is creepy enough.
But then you have accounts of them eating their killed foes! Now granted, it's understandable, you've spent three months without proper food or water while marching around under the burning sun and if you don't eat the guy that you killed you'll probably die...but it's still freaky!
So you have this crazy army of casualty-ignoring cannibals coming into your lands, and what do they do? They capture jerusalem and slaughter every single person in it!
That's like if the germans would have killed every citizen in Paris after capturing it during ww2, people would just go: "Damn I knew you were jerks but....daaamn!"

How to top all that?
Have these crazy city-slaughtering cannibals suddenly telling you that they're here to stay in your neightberhood.

*I* would be scared of them.