failsafe07
failsafe07 t1_j3zapad wrote
Reply to comment by GRCooper in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
The crusaders were a deeply fractious bunch almost from the get go though. It would repeatedly bite them throughout the period. It didn’t during the first crusade in large part because the region was, if anything, even more fractious than the crusaders were, and to top it off, the specific parts of the region were something of a liminal space between the major powers of the region so after Antioch there wasn’t really anybody with any particular ability or will to stop the progress of the crusade to Jerusalem, so all the infighting wound up not really mattering
failsafe07 t1_j3z9u84 wrote
Reply to comment by KwisatzHaderach38 in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
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
failsafe07 t1_j3zbzz9 wrote
Reply to comment by KwisatzHaderach38 in Were muslim armies harder to maintain in the field? by DJacobAP
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