Mod: MA al-Nadim - The thousand and one nights 1.01)

[Wrana]

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Actually, the arabs as of the crusades favored mounted archers, and did use composite bows almost exclusively. Their favorite tactics include riding up to opposing cavalry and firing at close range to shoot the horses out from under them (European cavalry of the time did not wear barding typically, and not at all in the crusades because of exhaustion concerns), and pretending to run away while firing behind them to lead their pursuers into a trap. Islamic mounted archers of the time were perhaps the most accurate in the world, and the practice of archery was quite popular because of Mohammad's pronouncement that archery was the only sport the angels stopped to watch.

Well, you probably remember that Seljuks were not Arab people... I've said that they used Turk mercenaries and/or warrior slaves specifically for this. Pretending to run away certainly took place often. Firing at close range - surely (by the way, Arab farisi often did that with javelins). Generally, hit-and-run tactics was common for Arab warriors. But they didn't use archery so much nor so exclusevely as is often thought. While they often attacked in hand-to-hand.
As for mounted archers... Islamic - probably, Arab - no. And even for the first point you shouldn't say so when you surely remember that the Mongols emerged on the historical scene right at this time! For them this was not a sport for angels - but a means to feed their childern... Really, I don't know of a case where individual Turkish and Mongolian bows were tested at the same conditions - but as for using them in mass, Bayazed the Lightning was sent into Tamerlan's capital in an iron cell...

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

Islamic heavy cavalry at the time did not use lances, although they did use spears. The prepared warrior also carried a sword, mace, and axe - although the sword was the preferred weapon (for a number of reasons, but most likely because Mohammad states that the sword is a holy weapon). The idea of a heavy cavalry charge, european style, was shocking to them in the first crusade (and possibly accounts for some crusader wins against superior numbers).

What you mean by lances then? THey surely didn't use "hand battering rams" of later knights - but then, neither did European knights of the time... They used what is called in the game "light lance" - a long spear used specifically by cavalrymen. Considering other weapons - yes, certainly. I can even add that an Arabian mythology of a sword predates Mohammed (while poetry begins to speak in bow metaphors only after conquest and absorbtion of Persia, by the way). Considering charges I'd say that they probably didn't often perform charges which should carry them through the enemy. Anything more definite would be an overstatement. As for reasons for success of "Franks" in first Crusade - I think there was a number of them, but I didn't study this one in particular detail. There is an opinion that Western knights just used taller and more heavy horses than those in use in Levant and so had a definite advantage in head-on collision. Something may be attributed to difference in armor (even though it was not so big as is often depicted). There were also political reasons... Though the tactics crusaders used had played their role also (but these tactics also included things other than massed mounted charge!).
And of course, considering superior numbers - we should not take crusaders' reports literally. For example, it's certain that the numbers of Constantinopolis' defenders against the 4th Crusade were much less than Villehardouin states. The same is proved in many other instances.

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

The armor of their light and heavy cavalry was nearly identical - typically a maille shirt, leggings, heavy boots, a metal cap - often worn under turban and robes, although sometimes a metal cuirass was worn on top of this. Heavy cavalry carried a shield.

I wouldn't even be so preposterious as to insist that they HAD definite light and heavy cavalry which had this specific difference in equipment! There was difference between farisi and nomad cavalry, yes. Both had warriors with differing arms and armor, yes. But mainly the difference was on individual level, with more wealthy warriors having better equipment (unless they considered speed to be of more advantage, of course!). Joinville states that Bedhouines never wear armor, but I think that it may be a rhethorical overstatement (or he didn't consider light armor they did wear as armor. or any number of other reasons. But this shows that their equipment was lighter as a rule).

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

(Note, in proper usage, 'light' means the unit had a ranged weapon and claims nothing about armor.)

Ha! You think there is a proper usage?! I've heard several such... And in contemporary sources... I remember such termins used by Byzantians (in the usage you consider improper, mostly, afair), but neither Westerners nor Arabs. As for later terminology, it was quite certain in case of cavalry and had no relation to either weapon nor armor: it depended on which horses this type of cavalry used! Unfortunately, using this is unpracticable in case of Dominions... Generally, light vs heavy is defined on the basis of mobility, tactical and mainly strategical. This mobility comes for the cost of lighter equipment, so heavy troops have general advantage on the battlefield. So, for example, pavise crossbowmen were never "light" troops. And while hussars and cuirassirs both had missile weapons and swords, the former were light troops and the latter heavy (and carabineers - really, cuirassirs without cuirass - were heavies, too).

Originally Posted by Squirrelloid

I can provide sources.

So, generally, can I. Isn't it interesting? (except I really don't remember 1st Crusade. But if you insist, I can look up primary sources on this...)