TR Turkic- Military culture thread

[Ardabas34]

@Pukovnik7

Kilijarslan I attacked a 50.000 stong crusader army with 6-8000 Seljuks because he recently defeated peoples crusade and expected a similiar peasant army.
He still inflicted more casualties 4000 while crusaders inflicted 3000.
Then crusaders came to Antioch where an Armenian convert by the name Firouz betrayed and let the crusader army in during night. Crusader army was saved from getting sandwiched between city walls and the incoming relief army.

Kilijarslan I and his son Mesut I took their revenge in Crusade of 1101 and 2nd Crusade. Western historiography completely ignores these crusades even though they were nowhere near less significant in numbers than first crusade or third crusade.

Kilijarslan defeated 3 crusader armies in a row in crusade of 1101.
His son in 2nd crusade, Mesut I defeated German Emperor Conrad III and his nephew Frederick Barbarossa in 1147 and French King Louis in 1148 along with German leftovers.

In 1176 in battle of Myriokephalon Mesut I's son Kilijarslan II defeated Byzantines. Battle of Myriokephalon in Turkish historiography is remarked as the battle that made it certain Turks are to stay in Anatolia. It reversed the gains of Byzantine Empire in first crusade.

​

Kilijarslan II, 73 years old, divided his realm between his 11 sons in 1186. He gave Konya to his eldest son Qutb-al din.
In 1190 Frederick Barbarossa came in third crusade. Despite the fact that Kilijarslan II told his son to let them pass to Ayyoubid lands, his son didnt listen to him and attacked. That is the force Barbarossa defeated. He was also experienced from his defeat in 2nd Crusade when he was with his uncle Conrad III. He defeated army of a prince of a divided realm. After that Frederick drowned in a river passing.


After these, Khwarezmian Empire, founded by a Seljuk general, was invaded by Mongols in 1231. Many Turkic warriors fleeing took refuge in Ayyoubids. These people would later be known as Mamluks.
First they defeated crusaders in Jerusalem.
Over this all the crusader states/orders around Levant would unite and attack in battle of La Forbe. These Khwarezmian warriors were very skilled. After this defeat crusader states were never able to deploy a field army ever again.
All the crusader states were swallowed by the Khwarezmian warriors one by one.

Over this, French king Louis organised 7th crusade in which he was constantly defeated so bad that at the end he even fell prisoner. Khwarezmian warriors after 7th crusade assassinated the last sultan and established the Mamluk Empire. They also defeated Mongols in ain-Jalut.

Mamluks were like terminators of medieval age. They defeated Mongols from one hand and crusaders on the other.

 

[Domobran7]

Kilijarslan I attacked a 50.000 stong crusader army with 6-8000 Seljuks because he recently defeated peoples crusade and expected a similiar peasant army.
He still inflicted more casualties 4000 while crusaders inflicted 3000.
Then crusaders came to Antioch where an Armenian convert by the name Firouz betrayed and let the crusader army in during night. Crusader army was saved from getting sandwiched between city walls and the incoming relief army.

And he still failed to stop the Crusaders, because they had adapted Byzantine tactics which were successful of holding the horse archers at bay. Also, Kilijarslan never actually attacked the main Crusader force; he only ever engaged the vanguard. So he used 6 000 - 8 000 cavalry to engage some 10 - 15 000 Crusaders, of which 2 000 - 3 000 were cavalry. He was not actually at disadvantage in military strength in the engagement itself.

Kilijarslan I and his son Mesut I took their revenge in Crusade of 1101 and 2nd Crusade. Western historiography completely ignores these crusades even though they were nowhere near less significant in numbers than first crusade or third crusade.

Kilijarslan defeated 3 crusader armies in a row in crusade of 1101.
His son in 2nd crusade, Mesut I defeated German Emperor Conrad III and his nephew Frederick Barbarossa in 1147 and French King Louis in 1148 along with German leftovers.

While true, this in no way proves that "Mamluks were like terminators of medieval age". Fact is, it is impossible - especially in the Middle Ages - to mount a successful campaign without local support. The First Crusade was successful due to 1) Muslim disunity and 2) Byzantine support. Muslim powers were far more united in the later crusades, whereas Westerners for their part did their best to antagonize the Byzantines.

What is far more impressive is the fact that Crusader states lasted for as long as they did, despite their own chronic disunity and best efforts to antagonize the Byzantine Empire, which was the only power capable of providing any sort of useful assistance.

Mamluks were like terminators of medieval age. They defeated Mongols from one hand and crusaders on the other.

Defeating Mongols in a defensive campaign is far less impressive than it might seem.

 

[Manomed]

very succesful crusades these are jsut some examples

 

[Ardabas34]

And he still failed to stop the Crusaders, because they had adapted Byzantine tactics which were successful of holding the horse archers at bay. Also, Kilijarslan never actually attacked the main Crusader force; he only ever engaged the vanguard. So he used 6 000 - 8 000 cavalry to engage some 10 - 15 000 Crusaders, of which 2 000 - 3 000 were cavalry. He was not actually at disadvantage in military strength in the engagement itself.

This is a Eurocentric take. Allow me to explain why. Asiatic medieval war tactics focused on the strategical dimension, not only the tactical one. What I mean is using the mobility advantage, reconnaisance, logistics. Isolating parts of stretched out enemy army and attacking at the right time. That is also part of the outplaying. Seljuks didnt get to attack only 20.000 part because they were lucky. It is because cohesion of crusader army was bad, Seljuks were more mobile and had superior reconnaisance.

Ha, where did they make the mistake? They underestimated the endurance capacity of crusaders because like I said they expected another peasant army. So that 20.000 part endured enough for the rest to catch up.

While true, this in no way proves that "Mamluks were like terminators of medieval age". Fact is, it is impossible - especially in the Middle Ages - to mount a successful campaign without local support.

Mongols beg to differ. I dont think they had local support in Khwarezmian campaign or China campaign. Same could be said for Mahmud al Ghazni or Tamerlane in India.

What is far more impressive is the fact that Crusader states lasted for as long as they did, despite their own chronic disunity and best efforts to antagonize the Byzantine Empire, which was the only power capable of providing any sort of useful assistance.

What people miss is that there were more Christians in Middle East compared to today. There was an Armenian kingdom in Cilicia.
Go to 7:26

Also crusader states were always in the periphery of Mediterranian sea because seas belonged to Christians. Muslims couldnt catch up with Christians on sea until Ottoman Empire.

Long story short fall of Great Seljuk Empire and Mongol invasion created a time of turmoil in Middle East. Anatolia was a place of civil war especially Danishmendids, Ridwan of Aleppo and Sultanate of Rum. Once Mamluk Empire rose as a centralised power and Seljuks got their shit together, crusaders were doomed to fail.

 

[Domobran7]

This is a Eurocentric take. Allow me to explain why. Asiatic medieval war tactics focused on the strategical dimension, not only the tactical one. What I mean is using the mobility advantage, reconnaisance, logistics. Isolating parts of stretched out enemy army and attacking at the right time. That is also part of the outplaying. Seljuks didnt get to attack only 20.000 part because they were lucky. It is because cohesion of crusader army was bad, Seljuks were more mobile and had superior reconnaisance.

Ha, where did they make the mistake? They underestimated the endurance capacity of crusaders because like I said they expected another peasant army. So that 20.000 part endured enough for the rest to catch up.

I am aware of all of that, as were the Crusaders. And he did succeed in Battle of Merisvan. But as usual, the military advantage was a zig-zag affair, and by the Third Crusade Saladin was unable to stop the Crusaders from reaching Jaffa.

And Crusader strategy was extremely effective considering their limited resources. Sure, we like to talk about the Crusades themselves, but the fact is that the Crusader states managed to survive for a very long time, with limited outside assistance, in an extremely hostile environment. Which basically had to do with normal European castle strategy.

Mongols beg to differ. I dont think they had local support in Khwarezmian campaign or China campaign. Same could be said for Mahmud al Ghazni or Tamerlane in India.

Mongol campaigns were highly dependant on local support. Where that was nonexistent, they usually failed. Their China campaign was in fact waged mostly by Chinese infantry and Chinese engineers. Khwarazmia on the other hand basically folded onto itself due to internal disunity. They essentially just surrendered en masse.

Long story short fall of Great Seljuk Empire and Mongol invasion created a time of turmoil in Middle East. Anatolia was a place of civil war especially Danishmendids, Ridwan of Aleppo and Sultanate of Rum. Once Mamluk Empire rose as a centralised power and Seljuks got their shit together, crusaders were doomed to fail.

True. But even so, Muslim reconquest of Crusader states took from 1265 to 1291. Considering the strategic situation at the time, that does not really speak of an overwhelming superiority of the Mamluks in terms of actual art of war.

 

[Ryder]

Actually, they succeeded. This was Anatolia before the First Crusade:

This was after it:

So the First Crusade was actually a major success. Byzantines basically retook all the areas they were aiming to retake: only the interior of Anatolia remained Turkic, and while they definitely wanted to take that as well, it was not a priority.

Byzantines largely failed by themselves so they needed crusader assitance to take it back. But the byzantines lost a critical battle where they could not push the Seljuks out of Anatolia. We are talking about the Seljuks of Anatolia not the Empire itself as the empire collapsed into warring states.

Byzantines got themselves temporary success with crusader aid. Crusader aid backfired as the Byzantines expected middle eastern lands to be handed back over. The Crusaders said NO.

 

[Ryder]

And he still failed to stop the Crusaders, because they had adapted Byzantine tactics which were successful of holding the horse archers at bay. Also, Kilijarslan never actually attacked the main Crusader force; he only ever engaged the vanguard. So he used 6 000 - 8 000 cavalry to engage some 10 - 15 000 Crusaders, of which 2 000 - 3 000 were cavalry. He was not actually at disadvantage in military strength in the engagement itself.

While true, this in no way proves that "Mamluks were like terminators of medieval age". Fact is, it is impossible - especially in the Middle Ages - to mount a successful campaign without local support. The First Crusade was successful due to 1) Muslim disunity and 2) Byzantine support. Muslim powers were far more united in the later crusades, whereas Westerners for their part did their best to antagonize the Byzantines.

What is far more impressive is the fact that Crusader states lasted for as long as they did, despite their own chronic disunity and best efforts to antagonize the Byzantine Empire, which was the only power capable of providing any sort of useful assistance.

Defeating Mongols in a defensive campaign is far less impressive than it might seem.

Mongols were literally beating everybody.

Mamluks and Mongols faced each other both on open areas.

Funny how Europeans brag about beating the Mongols when their record is basically staying in their castles LOL.

 

[Ryder]

The Ottomans and Germans in WW1 tried to utilise Pan Islamism, Pan Turanism and Pan Turkism to make the Turks of Central Asia rise up against Russia.

But barely had an.effect on the native nomads.

 

[Ardabas34]

The Ottomans and Germans in WW1 tried to utilise Pan Islamism, Pan Turanism and Pan Turkism to make the Turks of Central Asia rise up against Russia.

But barely had an.effect on the native nomads.

You need capital to spread your message. Turks never had the capital.

 

[Ryder]

You need capital to spread your message. Turks never had the capital.

Indeed whats interesting is how religious leaders in Central Asia epoused not just Pan Islamism but also Pan Turkism.

Nowadays a lot of Muslims eapecially Turks reject ethnic identities for this Ummah bs.

While in the past it was a different story. Urbanised areas of Central Asia likely allowed idea to spread while in the country especially nomads who go place to place would barely be affected by these ideas.

Russians even reported that the nomadic Turks despite calling themselves Muslims still followed Shamanism or Tengrism.

Whats interesting guys how in parts of the Islamic world you still had people who have not embraced Islam well into the 1800s.

In parts of Arabia you still had some Pagan Arabs while the Afghan region called Kafiristan only became Muslim in the 1800s.

I think isolation and geogrpahy play a role.

Islam and Christianity has always benefitted from urbanisation due to empire and the sponsorship from various empires.

Abbasaid caliphate sent religious scholars to Volga Bulgaria even to the Khazars as goodwill trips.

 

[Domobran7]

Mongols were literally beating everybody.

Mamluks and Mongols faced each other both on open areas.

Funny how Europeans brag about beating the Mongols when their record is basically staying in their castles LOL.

"Staying in the castles" is literally the most sane strategy against any invader, not just the Mongols. Only idiots go out in the field to get killed needlessly.

Byzantines largely failed by themselves so they needed crusader assitance to take it back. But the byzantines lost a critical battle where they could not push the Seljuks out of Anatolia. We are talking about the Seljuks of Anatolia not the Empire itself as the empire collapsed into warring states.

Byzantines got themselves temporary success with crusader aid. Crusader aid backfired as the Byzantines expected middle eastern lands to be handed back over. The Crusaders said NO.

That much is true, although I would not say that Crusades backfired because the Crusaders refused to hand back the middle eastern lands. Crusader states had significant value as a buffer zone. Reason why Crusades backfired was that Western Europeans and Byzantines simply did not understand each other.

 

[Ryder]

"Staying in the castles" is literally the most sane strategy against any invader, not just the Mongols. Only idiots go out in the field to get killed needlessly.

That much is true, although I would not say that Crusades backfired because the Crusaders refused to hand back the middle eastern lands. Crusader states had significant value as a buffer zone. Reason why Crusades backfired was that Western Europeans and Byzantines simply did not understand each other.

Crusaders put men and money into taking those places. Not to mention they were in hostile territory where they faced casualties from disease, thirst and hunger while being harassed by local forces.

Byzantines just coming and demanding they give it all back is pretty insulting. Byzantines have also left crusaders largely to be on their own.

Basically Byzantines said whatever lands you take you have to give it back to us. Byzantines underestimated the Crusaders by thinking they were just doing their dirty work.

Their cooperation was basically working together while at the same time they had numerous clashes.

Interesting how in the Ayn Jalut battle the Crusader states allowed the Mamluks to cross their territory to fight the Mongols. Also been numerous examples of the Crusaders allying with the Mongols.

Their geopolitics was to balance both the Muslims and the Mongols. Crusaders also feared the Mongols because they were an enemy that was not comfortable.

They were comfortable with their Muslim enemies because they knew them but the Mongols were unpredictable in the Middle East.

Kawazmian Empire has to be blamed their stupid governors killed Mongol envoys which gave the Mongols a reason to invade due to this this opened a gate for the Mongols to reach the Middle East and Europe.

Im really thinking if this did not happen the Mongols would be too occupied in trying conquer China.

Then again they still could have invaded. But it was better if it was delayed.

 

[Domobran7]

Crusaders put men and money into taking those places. Not to mention they were in hostile territory where they faced casualties from disease, thirst and hunger while being harassed by local forces.

Byzantines just coming and demanding they give it all back is pretty insulting. Byzantines have also left crusaders largely to be on their own.

Basically Byzantines said whatever lands you take you have to give it back to us. Byzantines underestimated the Crusaders by thinking they were just doing their dirty work.

Their cooperation was basically working together while at the same time they had numerous clashes.

Byzantines assisted Crusaders with logistics as well as military assistance. But to Byzantines - and correctly - the places Crusaders had taken back were Byzantine lands by right. People living in those cities were subjects of the Emperor, and thus Byzantines could not allow the places to be looted. To Crusaders, who had come from Western Europe where looting a city was normal, this was basically treacherous behavior. But the "give cities back to the Byzantines" part was not that much of an issue: it was in the original agreement, and target of the Crusade was, ultimately, the Holy Land. And keep in mind that, as I have pointed out, the Byzantines did reconquer a lot of Anatolia thanks to the Crusaders.

The agreement broke down not because of different expectations, but because of the miscommunication. Byzantine army was following the Crusaders to garrison cities that had been taken back, provide logistical support and also provide relief when necessary. But when Crusaders besieged Antioch, Bohemond decided to take it for himself - and since he had agents in the city, and Crusaders needed a base of operation, they gave in. Problem occurred because there was a Seljuk army nearby, and Crusaders were put under siege. Army of Stephen the Blois was nearby, but Stephen himself assumed that city could not be saved, and deserters confirmed this opinion. Thus, Stephen marched his army back towards Constantinople, and when he met Alexios, he convinced the Emperor that the Crusaders had succumbed. Between this, reports of the other deserters, and presence of a second Seljuk army in Anatolia, the Emperor decided to return to defend his own territory.

Naturally, Crusaders - not knowing the context and probably not caring - interpreted this as treason, and decided to act for their own from then on, carving out their own personal principalities. Alexios didn't really care, as Crusader states were a useful buffer, and he continued to provide assistance as much as he could. But his ability to actually do so was quite limited.

Interesting how in the Ayn Jalut battle the Crusader states allowed the Mamluks to cross their territory to fight the Mongols. Also been numerous examples of the Crusaders allying with the Mongols.

Their geopolitics was to balance both the Muslims and the Mongols. Crusaders also feared the Mongols because they were an enemy that was not comfortable.

They were comfortable with their Muslim enemies because they knew them but the Mongols were unpredictable in the Middle East.

True. Better the devil you know and all that, but even before then, Crusader princes were more than happy to ally with their Muslim counterparts - including, in many cases, when fighting against other Crusader states.

Kawazmian Empire has to be blamed their stupid governors killed Mongol envoys which gave the Mongols a reason to invade due to this this opened a gate for the Mongols to reach the Middle East and Europe.

Im really thinking if this did not happen the Mongols would be too occupied in trying conquer China.

Then again they still could have invaded. But it was better if it was delayed.

Agreed.

 

[Ravenman]

Our defence industry is booming. The Ottoman Empire will strike back!

 

[Tornadoss]

Our defence industry is booming. The Ottoman Empire will strike back!

wake up, there is no Ottoman Empire anymore.

 

[Ryder]

wake up, there is no Ottoman Empire anymore.

Why get triggered?

Nothing wrong in what he said its just a nice pun and a nice acknowledgement of the past.

Dont forget the Falklands war the headlines had The empire strikes back!!

Doesnt mean the Ottomans are coming back or another empire.

 

[Rodeo]

Why get triggered?

Nothing wrong in what he said its just a nice pun and a nice acknowledgement of the past.

Dont forget the Falklands war the headlines had The empire strikes back!!

Doesnt mean the Ottomans are coming back or another empire.

Because there are enough lunatics walking among us who actually entertains the idea. You can't always tell if it's sarcasm or not.

 

[Manomed]

Why get triggered?

Nothing wrong in what he said its just a nice pun and a nice acknowledgement of the past.

Dont forget the Falklands war the headlines had The empire strikes back!!

Doesnt mean the Ottomans are coming back or another empire.

Yeah lets bring back the monarchs DDDDD who literally left us to die

 

[Ryder]

Because there are enough lunatics walking among us who actually entertains the idea. You can't always tell if it's sarcasm or not.

Nearly everybody talks about the good old days.

Not just Turks who have this Ottoman nostalgia. American, British, French, Italians, Germans even the Australians have nostalgia over good old days.

It has no affect in geopolitics.

Russians still hold onto to their glory days. No doubt this nostalgia could fuel geopolitics just like Russia invaded Ukraine but remember Russia's foreign policy runs more deeper than old glory of the Tsars and the Soviets.

Ottoman Empire is not coming back at all I just hope the Republic of Turkiye becomes more stronger than any of its predessors. Always strive to be better than your ancestors.

 

[Ravenman]

wake up, there is no Ottoman Empire anymore.

So the CHP and IYI are telling lies then about Erdogan?

Only if you know geopolitics, you know that history is repeating itselves and than you can see that Legends are coming back with Putin (Soviet Union), Xi Jingping (Tang Dynasty), Macron (Napoleonic Empire) and Erdogan (Ottoman Empire).

It's written in the skies. Bad news for all religion-haters. You cant stop the wheel.