Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

Roland_Bootykicker t1_j3ypoxf wrote

Lots of general remarks in this comment section about jihad and fractiousness and “Arab armies,” but it’s helpful to talk about this specific situation. After the Field of Blood, Il-Ghazi didn’t besiege Antioch, but he did lead a raiding army all the way to the Mediterranean coast.

As far as we can tell from the sources, Il-Ghazi’s army in 1119 was made up primarily of Turkmen nomads. These nomads all owned horses and were capable horseback archers, making them very effective warriors in the right situations. However, their main source of income was actually herding sheep and other herd animals - most of them weren’t professional soldiers. Il-Ghazi recruited these nomads mainly from eastern Anatolia, where they would graze their herds and move from pasture to pasture. The longer they were at war and away from their herds, the less they were able to access their stable source of income.

In order to keep his army in the field for as long as possible, Il-Ghazi had to make sure he could pay them. He couldn’t give them wages like one would to professional soldiers, and he couldn’t give them land in exchange for military service like Frankish lords did to their knights. He basically promised them that they would get paid out of the things they were able to steal from raiding the countryside around Antioch.

The good thing about this system is it let Il-Ghazi and people like him do a lot of raiding, because it paid for itself to an extent. The bad thing about this system is that it restricted the things Il-Ghazi could do other than raiding. A long siege was not an attractive prospect for Turkmen nomads - their risk of injury or death was high, and they weren’t able to get wealth from raiding while besieging a city.

Il-Ghazi didn’t have enough money on hand to keep his army together long enough to besiege Antioch - the only thing he could really do (apart from taking a few small castles) was carry out a massive raiding operation, which is what he did. He didn’t achieve any major strategic victory, but he got lots of money in a short amount of time, and he bolstered his reputation with a group of effective Turkmen fighters.

Il-Ghazi couldn’t keep his army together if he wasn’t consistently raiding the countryside around Antioch to pay them. This was why it was so difficult to keep an army together for extended campaigns.

2,232

DJacobAP OP t1_j3yrfl9 wrote

Thank you, this is the sort of answer I was looking for. That makes sense, the 'Franks' would've been bound to their land and lord whereas these nomads were more mobile and the prospect of a long siege, especially against a city like Antioch wouldn't have seemed very appealing. Infact now that I think about it, I haven't read about any long siege of a major crusader city until very late into the period, whereas the crusaders had pretty much taken Jerusalem, Antioch and Tripoli by siege. Long and brutal ones in the case of the latter two.

469

Roland_Bootykicker t1_j3ys7qh wrote

No worries - really happy to help! For a detailed breakdown of military organisation in the 12th century Levant, check out The Crusader Armies by Steve Tibble. For some more detail on Il-Ghazi, the classic reference is a biographical article by Carole Hillenbrand (whose work on the Islamic perspective on the crusades is essential reading imo).

186

naim08 t1_j3zy8b8 wrote

Your answer was terrific. One minor note: if sieges weapons or mines are being used, then you’d prob need engineers, possibly blacksmiths, possibly sappers, etc whom all require upfront payment. Especially during the latter of the medieval age and gunpowder revolution, such was the case.

35

Lord0fHats t1_j407fro wrote

It's worth noting this is a fairly common issue facing generals throughout history and not unique to Il-Ghazi.

27

AtomicSamuraiCyborg t1_j408vgi wrote

Another relevant point is that the nomads were unlikely to have developed significant logistics chains. Being nomads and herdsmen, they are highly efficient when they are roaming over good grazing country for their mounts and herds, and can move extremely fast and require little supply. But as soon as they DON'T have that, they are forced to forage for grazing/provender and their own supply. Going on campaign like this, they're not bringing their herds with them, those stay with their clan. It's their wealth and means of sustenance, it's too risky to bring on campaign. So it's just the nomads serving as warriors and whatever supply train/herds they've brought. They intend to raid and forage for everything else they need, possibly rely on the commander they're serving to provide some supplies as well.

But foraging and raiding have diminishing returns. You can only rob people once, twice if you were generous the first time or waited awhile. Once you've taken everything, there's nothing left. Raiders drive sedentary people away, and they won't come back until they're gone. No point in going home and planting again, just to get raped and pillaged again, if you have any other option. Armies also hunt more game than is sustainable; armies are like swarms of locusts, they strip everything bare. Which means if you're trying to live by foraging (that's not the robbery kind of foraging) you have to keep going further and further afield to find anything, which goes the same for raiding. The further out you are, the more isolated you are, the more likely it is you encounter a superior enemy force and get destroyed. The more the army disperses it's strength, the less effective the siege is. Messengers slip through the lines, the defender sally out, relief forces can get closer without being detected by scouts.

And finally, nobody wants to be the attacker in a siege. Siege camps are awful, filthy places where disease is rife. You're sitting there every day, digging and working and getting shot at, with very little ability to strike back. It sucks, and it's hard to motivate an army to do it with gusto. Nomads are even less likely to care; they are here to raid, it's what they're good at and what they want to be doing, for the reasons above. Fighting in a siege is the kind of thing they absolutely don't want to be bogged down in. Sieges also drag on and on, and most end without taking the city or bastion. It has a low chance of working, honestly. It's simple math to see what a bad deal it is for the nomad raiders, something they are keenly aware of.

There's also the nature of the nomad clans and their relationship with the commander. Nomads are, universally, proud and independent people, shaped by their way of life. If they don't like you and your bullshit, they pack up and move on. They aren't feudal serfs, who are tied by land, oaths, and family back on that land to their lords. They have a high probability of telling you to fuck off and riding away and you not being able to do much about it. They are less levied troops or sworn soldiers than allies of convenience. They are here for the raiding and booty, and your campaign is a good excuse for it. As soon as the raiding and booty prospects look bad, they're gonna fuck off and find better prospects.

64

Vorpalis t1_j3z9z9c wrote

Huh, that’s the exact same problem T. E. Lawrence had ~800 years later.

49

amitym t1_j404al8 wrote

Well you know it's like the narrator in that one video game says:

Economics.

Economics never changes.

64

Vorpalis t1_j409eo5 wrote

Patrolling the Hejaz almost makes you wish for a nuclear winter!

31

Viles_Davis t1_j3zctou wrote

Exacting assessment. Well phrased and clearly well thought-out.

24

Tuga_Lissabon t1_j406ysz wrote

Excellent point.

Also nomadic turkmen are excellent on horseback - hugely dangerous troops which, even when defeated, are hard to pin down and destroy as they'll just vanish - whereas siege work is trench work, digging, setting up siege engines, going through a breach, fighting at the closest and nastiest quarters.

Exactly the fighting they are not built or armed for, and they usually would be unarmoured or have little of it.

22

thrillhouss3 t1_j3z6y6n wrote

The only answer in this whole comment section. Thank you.

13

InformationHorder t1_j3z18gb wrote

Sounds like the inspiration for the Dothraki in GoT. They just wanna raid and pillage and move on.

8

KwisatzHaderach38 t1_j3z2bl2 wrote

GRRM based the Dothraki on the Mongols and other nomadic horse cultures, but yeah similar fighters, similar lifestyle.

37

Spacefungi t1_j40zkbr wrote

GRRM based the Dothraki on stereotypes about nomadic people, not on the nomadic horse cultures themselves and is often even as far as from the truth as you could be.

https://acoup.blog/2020/12/04/collections-that-dothraki-horde-part-i-barbarian-couture/

Some notable examples: Dothraki hate sheep to the point of killing them and not eating them and only care about horses, while for nomads livestock is their literal sustenance. Dothraki culture also seems to revolve strongly around rape and murder and other barbaric acts that would not be condoned in true historical nomadic cultures.

This wouldn't even be that bad if GRRM just said it was fantasy. Instead he claims it is realistic worldbuilding based on real cultures with a dash of fantasy.

27

trowawufei t1_j4211i7 wrote

I will say that he paints a picture of the Dothraki “horde” as an extremely complex system that requires excellent communication and coordination processes. Daenerys didn’t get raped by Khal Drogo in the books, but maybe you’re referring to other incidents.

3

Irichcrusader t1_j411du8 wrote

I suppose you could argue that this view of the Dothraki in GRRM's works comes from the fact that we're usually getting an outsider's perspective on them. Of course they seem utterly barbaric to more "civilized" peoples because all they ever see is the violence and rape, never what goes on in the quieter moments.

That said, surly it can't be denied that nomadic tribes on the warpath could be utterly brutal. There's a reason why groups like the Mongol's had a fearsome reputation, they tended to make terrible examples of cities that defied them.

2

Spacefungi t1_j41200a wrote

The problem is that GRRM gives us an insider view, which confirms all these outsider stereotypes to be true.

If we would only learn about the dothraki culture from outsiders and hearsay in his books it would indeed be more realistic, but instead we witness ourselves that the dothraki do indeed murder/rape people of their own ingroup, senseless killing of sheep and other nonsense ourselves when we follow characters inside a dothraki group.

21

Irichcrusader t1_j416j4g wrote

Fair point, been a while since I read the books so I thought most of what we get are outsider perspectives. The killing of sheep and their whole thing about them only eating horse meat is definitely stupid when you stop to think about it.

4

failsafe07 t1_j3z9u84 wrote

Although it is worth noting that as far as AGOT/ASOIAF goes there are some pretty robust critiques of the way the show/books portray steppe and indigenous American peoples. It’s more of a deeply problematic caricature than an authentic portrayal of we’re being honest

−8

KwisatzHaderach38 t1_j3zbbqp wrote

Doesn't really pertain to where he took the inspiration from, but sure, they're basically a faceless deus ex machina in the show, not much different from the green, scrubbing power of the Army of the Undead in the LOTR films. The ASOIAF books have a lot more nuance, but we'll see how that plays out if he ever finishes the final two.

24

failsafe07 t1_j3zbzz9 wrote

The book Dothraki are definitely better than the show, although they still have major issues. Bret Deveraux had a great series of articles on the subject over on his blog.

I’m a big fan of GRRM and I really hope he’s able to finish the series, because I badly want to read them, but I also like to acknowledge where he falls short in certain areas

6

leb0b0ti t1_j3zt7lk wrote

I mean.... It is a work of fiction after all. Why should we judge the historical accuracy of a story about dragons, undeads and magic ?

17

Redingold t1_j40wuj3 wrote

Because Martin directly claims they're an amalgam of real historical cultures with only a dash of fantasy. He makes a direct claim to historical accuracy and it doesn't hold up in the least. Martin has consciously cultivated the appearance that his series is "how it really was" and that in turn distorts what people think about real history.

14

leb0b0ti t1_j41dgn2 wrote

Ah ok, didn't know he was making such claims.. Must've been a sales pitch because it doesn't make any sense to claim there's any historical accuracy in a fantasy story about dragons lords.

3

OisforOwesome t1_j40e3nr wrote

This is one of those cases where historical accuracy would have made the show better.

If the showrunners had cared at all about making the Dothraki a credible threat, a few scenes of them doing actual Mongol horse archery stuff would have gone a long way to establishing why everyone in Westeros was frightened of them instead of that being an informed attribute.

9

leb0b0ti t1_j41cys8 wrote

I agree that actual horse archery would've been really cool to see on screen !

2

69SadBoi69 t1_j4098sn wrote

I think he is saying not that they're inaccurate historically but that they are too much of a one-dimensional charicature to take seriously

4

KwisatzHaderach38 t1_j3zfxva wrote

Sure, GRRM can't have it both ways. He's specifically mentioned the Mongols, Huns, the great plains nations, all as inspirations because it's a good talking point to sell the pseudo-authenticity of the books, but was very lazy at best in his depictions because he envisioned them functioning as the trope of "barbarians" without actually putting much thought into what that reveals about his own perspective. He's tried to smooth it over with the "mixed with fantasy" qualifiers, but that's pretty weak. Love the books and the show both, but as far as history goes, it's all much more telling about the stereotypes held by the western mind than anything real.

10

KwisatzHaderach38 t1_j400f02 wrote

In George's defense, at some time in the early 90's this man thought to himself, I want to see ice zombies attacking a gigantic medieval fortress with dragons overhead. I'll always love him for that.

10

mangalore-x_x t1_j41k27z wrote

The same could be said about how he portrays European medieval culture.

It is the typical "Medieval Europe being brutish and unsophisticated" Well, in true medieval Europe you could be sued for that.

3

Devoidoxatom t1_j3zp90s wrote

Yeah. The difference is we barely seen horse archers in the show which was the horse nomad specialty.

28

Antisocialite99 t1_j3zt8w9 wrote

It was also the thing that made them victorious in battle.

Same with the Sessanid empires horse troops.

Instead dothraki had those stupid sickle things. The fight scene with Jonah Mormont in full armor just not even having to try to trap the guys sickle and easily kill him is it's own demonstration for how useless those are.

And that's key... because they aren't envisioned as having enemies they face in battle that would define their own tactics weapons etc in reaponse to them.

19

KombuchaBot t1_j4081o4 wrote

Yeah fighting against someone in armour necessitates a stabby weapon not a cutting one.

Matt Easton of Scholagladatoria on YouTube is quite informative on this

9

Devoidoxatom t1_j3zun81 wrote

Yeah, afaik those sickle type blades were used against cavalry, not by them

3

meneldal2 t1_j40fysd wrote

They didn't have the best guys for making the fights a bit more realistic.

2

srgonzo75 t1_j43lxk1 wrote

The khopesh (closest thing you’ll see to a Dothraki arakh) wasn’t steel, when it was in use, and it wasn’t used against heavily armored opponents. It was handy for slashing an opponent while one was in a chariot and moving at a good pace. Scimitars and samshirs operate on a similar principle, using a single edge for greater efficacy when riding past an opponent to slash at them or their mount.

1

Litenpes t1_j3zzaoo wrote

Excellent summary. One question, why couldn’t he pay them lika an ordrinary army? Or wouldn’t there be a money issue with an ordinary army as well?

2

Irichcrusader t1_j412fdv wrote

Armies eat through money like you wouldn't believe and before the rise of modern banking institutions, it was extremely difficult to raise funds for a protracted campaign. I don't know if Arab armies in this time differed much from Europeans in how they raised funds, but I can say that European rulers in the time of the Crusades had to go to extreme measures to get the necessary cash. This usually involved selling or loaning out their land to monasteries for a set number of years, selling titles, taking loans from Jewish moneylenders (or outright stealing it) and gathering whatever they could through new taxes. Even then, most Crusaders who came back alive tended to be near penniless.

10

ThoDanII t1_j40ir4u wrote

Paying an ordinary army with money was the exception, not the rule

5

amitym t1_j404k16 wrote

They are saying that there was literally nothing to pay with. No cash.

3

Tiny_Eye1310 t1_j40n3zf wrote

This is a splendidly written reply that I agree with 100%

1

Just_get_a_390 t1_j406uka wrote

Why was he not able to pay them regular wages? The point about land is very interesting though.

−3

MoSummoner t1_j407eng wrote

Seems like they didn’t have enough for that or the shepherd job paid better

3