Horns of Hattin, and Saladin's generalship

To Desert Wolf-This is not bashing of Saladin's character. I admire him greatly for his tolerance, kindness, piety, chivalry, and for the fact that he used all of his money to better the lives of commoners and died a poor man as a result. I also admire him for his self controll in not attacking the Kingdom of Jerusalem when his sister was taken captive by Reynald the lord of Al Kerak, and know that Philip Augustus went to war with England and many parts of France ruled by Richard the Lionheart for that reason. I know he was an exceptionally brilliant man, and I feel his examples of tolerance and kindness in an intolerant and brutal age should be tought as virtue. I am not attacking his character I am merely questioning how good a military leader he truly was based on extensive reading about the subject from both the Arab and Crusader point of view because his great victories do not seem to have happened because of him, and he did have a big part in his embarrassing defeats like Arsuf and Jaffa, and I am just exploring that because the title of great warrior is one of the things he has been called over the centuries.

In 1187 the Kingdom of Jerusalem gathered it's greatest army together, to defeat Saladin who invaded after Reynald attacked Mecca and Medina with a large fleet.

The armies of both sides were about even, although Saladin had more soldiers the knights of the Kingdom, and especially the Templars and Hospittillers more then evened it out, and Saladin's army was not much larger then the crusaders anyway.

However the Kingdom was lead by the inept and innefective Guy de Lusignan, who was merely a puppet for the equally stupid Gerard de Rideford, and Reynald.

Step by step during the campaign Guy de Lusignan ignored the good advice of Raymond III in favor of very stupid advice from Gerard and Reynald.

First the King decided to listen to them about marching to relieve Tiberius, which was surrounded by desert and easily retakable later because Saladin's army had to drink.

Second he listened to them to leave the only spring in the region in order to face Saladin in the desert after a forced march.

Third he then decided to go on the offensive after his soldiers had all spent hours in the desert without any water, and met Saladin at Hattin.

That is when the battle started and here is what happened roughly.

1.Saladins army set a fire to the fields to give the crusaders extra discomfort.

2.The crusader state's infantry burdened by the weight of their armor were routed and forced to surrender.

3.Guy tries to order a break out to his knights but because his army at that point was disorganized only Raymond III and his provencal knights with Balian of Ibelin managed to get out and return home, which took away all hope of winning the battle.

4.The remaining knights, mostly Templars charged the Arabs three times successfully before being defeated.

My question is was this the result of Saladin's military adeptness or the idiocy of Guy de Lusignan, Gerard de Ridefort, and Reynald?

Saladin attacked Tiberias because he expected Guy to listen to Raymond III and he knew that Raymond was the Lord of that provence, but Reynald advised against fighting Saladin there so he did get Guy to come but not for the reason he intended.

Saladin's plans were seen by Raymond III who at every step gave Guy good advice against letting Saladin chose the battleground, and conditions of fighting.

Gerard and Reynald both mismanaged the kings armies.

Even when Saladin got his perfect conditions when the knights charged they nearly overcame him.

It also should be remembered that Saladin had in the past been decisively defeated by the Leper King, and he did not win any of his battles against Richard the Lionhearted.

Also remember that he allied with the Byzantines against the Turks, and that the Turks like the Third Crusade defeated him in many drawn out battles were Saladin had more soldiers on the field

On the flip side of things Saladin did destroy the Kingdom od Jerusalem, and his army was the victor at Hattin, and the scorched earth policy he used arguably kept the victorius crusaders from marching on Jerusalem again after Arsuf, but on the other hand he is far from the only person to do that, and many politicians did that policy, for example the Prime Minister of Belgium in WW2 had his ressistors destroy as many things useful to the Germans as possible, but he is not ranked with the greatest generals of all time, and neither is De Gaulle who did that with the FFI, or the King of Norweigh who did that with the Norweigen Ressistance.

So my question, since he lost so many other big battle is, was Hattin won by Saladin's generalship or the ineptness of the King of Jerusalem?

 

Good arguament. I look forward to this progressing.

You have to remember that western knights were bloody hard to defeat in hand-to-hand combat, especially when your own troops are lightly armoured and whose weaponry (defensive & offensive) are designed to fight equally lightly armoured foe.

 

To 2nd legion: I think this is a great subject and i take no offence in any of what u wrote. Lets continue this great topic!


I thin in the particular battle of the Horns of Hattin, the victory for the Arabs came in large part due to the mistakes of the crusaders as 2ndlegion points out than the brilliance of Saladin. But i also belive that Saladin had a small part he played in this victory and I would argue that the battle was not won exclusivly by luck or crusaders follies.

Ricky is right in pintiong out that the crusader knights were very dangerous in hand to hand combat due to their great skills and Armor. However, they were not entirely invincible.

These types of situations may be able to defeat les chevaliers des croisades:

1) If the chevaliers charged a deployed formation of Sarrasin spearman in the set formatin of lances defensive mode.
2) A lighting attack by Hashashin assasination squads in harrasing and demorlising the crusaders.
3)A quick ambush by Khawarzem cavalry or nizarite and ghazi infantry on the flanks and rear of the chevaliers.


This points are only to prove that the chevaliers were not completely invincible in hand to hand fighting. That is not to say that they didnt usually come out victorious in hand to hand fighting. The arabs realised this and used the sound tactic of using fast archer cavalrey mamelouks who ran around the chevaliers in circles on light horses and harrasing them with arrows.

 

The essential difference between the crusader army and their enemy was the fact that crusaders, being Europeans, were used to fighting heavily armoured (reducing speed) and heavily armed (counting on close combat). However, the enemy was equipped to fight fast, mobile warfare, focussing on arrows and light armor to facilitate rapid movement.

The European weaponry wouldn't have worked out entirely disastrous if this weren't a desert, however, it was. Armor heated up, veritably cooking the kinghts inside, and wihtout their armour they would have served little purpose, because they preferred shock charges and close combat. The enemy army was perfectly suited for the desert; open plains made archers a good defensive weapon because of open lines of sight, it gave light horse archers every chance to manoeuvre and get anywhere they wanted to to rain down on the slow-moving Europeans with their arrows.

The fact that crusader armies ever won any battle in the Holy Land surprises me to no end.

 

The light arrows of the arabs were not entirely succesful in killing the crussaders with one shot, some of them when fired from extreme range managed only to glance of the armor.

 

Something I feel is very worth mentioning is that Saladin allowed King Guy to go free without any ransom whatsoever because he acknowledged his ineptness, and thought he would do good if for him if released.

On the French Knights (Which is what most of them were) had plenty of weakness.

They moved slowly, had vulnerable horses if they were poor, and everywere they fought (France the Holy Land, Egypt, Spain, Germany, Italy) they consistently ignored terrain and other battle determining things.

They were still powerful and won most of their battles in the Holy Land though, and fortunately for them they were always the targets of Arab Arrows which were not capable of getting through their armor because their horses were sought after prizes.

Saladin did play a role in his victory, but it seems like he had if anything more luck then generalship.

His use of fire to get the Crusader Army hotter then it already was was a great plan, but it is unlikely they would have been cought dying of thirst, and cut of from water had there been a competent commander.

For example Frederick Barbarrossa consistently found water on his march through Turkey, The First Crusade which faced similar odds in similar terrain also managed to keep itself standing, and these were people who had never entered the Holy Land and did not know the way around, the army Saladin defeated was anything but ignorant of what was were, the Provencal knights of Count Raymond certainly knew there way around the area much better then Saladin since it was were many of them lived.

From the strength and morale of the KOJ army, the fact that Saladin's plan was seen through, and from the might of the knights I think it is inconcievable that Saladin would have won had the Crusaders had an intelligent king.

The Leper King defeated Saladin when the odds were even higher in his favor which I think is also worth mentioning.

 

So you believe that the crusades were lost entirey by luck and the ineptness of some of the crusaders?

 

Well, there is the big fact that once the various Islamic factions united, the Crusader states had no chance of staying long. They only held on to the coast for a while because their naval technology was better.
Basically, the Crusader states had not the resources to stay. Any every time they reached some amicable arrangement with their neighbours, a new group of Crusaders would come from Europe and carve a great bloody path through that.

Crusader armies could win battles - foot archers inheritantly have a greater range & accuracy than horse archers. The light Muslim Infantry cannot stand up to the heavy Christian infantry. So you use the tactics used by Richard I.

However, the Crusader states lacked the manpower to continually fight battles - and if they lost, of course...
Culturally, when Western knights start losing, they have their heroic last stand. Even if they decided not too, they are slowr than their enemy anyway. The Muslim armies tended to see no problem in the sensible course of backing off when they were being slaughtered.
A defeat for the Christians was almost always crushing. A defeat for the Muslims was usually a temporary setback.

 

Saladin had some part in his victory but based on even Baha Ad Din who was Saladin's secretary and friend Raymond III saw right through the trap and warned the king only for the king to listen to Rideford and Reynald, so I don't think it was entirely but I do think it would be accurate to say mostly.

From the accounts of the battle from both sides put together it is inconcievable that the battle of Hattin would have been a defeat had the crusader high command not been so inept.

Also remember as regent the first thing Raymond III did was sign a peace treaty with Saladin, which would have been in place 1187 had Reynald not violated it.

Saladin's uniting the Arab States was his great accomplishment, and it is possible that had someone like Raymond III or Balian of Ibelin been in command it would have been fighting off the inevetable, but Hattin would not have been the final battle, and if it even happened would have been an early crusader victory in a series of battles.

However on the flip side the Assassins hated Saladin, and it would have been easy for the Knights Templar or someone to have hired a band of them to kill him, afterall they did kill Conrad de Montferrat.

To his credit Saladin was great at staying alive, and thus winning in the long run by being there the way Sun Zu said to do, and beat Richard the Lionheart despite losing the battles.

 

Just how does Sun Tzu say a general should be there? I'm afraid I don't have the Art of War at hand right now (it's at a friend's) so i can't look it up at the moment.

 

That is what Sun Zu said to do, but Richard the Lionheart had everything else it seems.

However had the Horns of Hattin not happened it is unlikely that would have worked because the crusader state was on it's third generation.

 

It is true that most of the reasons why the Hons of Hattin was a major victory for the arabs was not because of Saldins generalshhip. It is also true that the ineptniss of some of the crusader leadership made this disaster happen. However, some of the credit must be given to the most basic fighter in the muslims armies who dared to charge the crusaders in hand to hand combat, thereby slaying and being slayed. As for the Hashashins, it is true that they hated Saladin but they hated the crusaders even more.

 

They did hate the crusaders more, but they were intelligent, and knew that a Middle East united against them would mean their own destruction.

I do agree that the courage of the muslim soldiers had a large part to play in the victory at Hattin, it really did take courage to charge a better equipted force which was so large, so credity were it is due. Even though the Turkish Historians liked to insult them the Arab Soldiers were very brave in battle.

 

On the subject of arrows...

The bows used by the Muslim horse archers was not especially powerful. yes, they were composite bows, which give far greater power relative to size, but you have to bear in mind that there is a maximum practical size that any bow used on horseback can be. In addition, the fact that most forces fought by Islamic armies were relatively lightly armoured meant that heavier & more powerful bows were not really considered a pressing need.

There are many reports, from both Crusader and Islamic sources, of Christian soldiers wandering around quite uninjured with a dozen or so arrows sticking out of them. This was largely due to the 'jack' - a thick padded cotton or felt jacket, constructed in much the same way as plywood. It could give the wearer a high degree of protection against arrows (though not obviously from close-range, or the longbow or the more powerful crossbows) and even turn a tolerably determined blow from a sword. Although in this case the trauma from the hit would still cause injury.

Western warhorses were scorned by the Islamic soldiers, and rightly. The knightly Destrier (I always spell it wrong) was a fickle beast, that needed a great deal of care & attention, not to mention large quantities of water and grain (yes, they were fed on grain, not grass) to keep it up to full potential. And this was after they had had Arab horses bred into them (thanks to the Moors in Spain).
Arab stallions were much hardier, faster, and generally far more suited to the desert. Destriers were purpose-reared for carrying a knight in full armour & fighting at close quarters. The 'Arabs' wanted horses that could gallop around at high speed for a long while, while the rider fired off his arrows.

 

Ah, the arabian horse!!!
I personally own an arabian horse and i can tell you that Saif(sword in arabic) is one darned good horse!

I participated in many competitions with him and hes got alot of prizes. I encourage everyone who has not ridden an arabian horse to do it the first oppurtinity you get

 

Neat I'm a skilled foilest fencer.

Together we would be a good knight

Seriously though the Arab soldiers didn't want the horses for themselves, it was in order to sell them and get a high price for the horses, which protected the french knights by keeping the horses from being targetted.

I was reading about the fate of the Templars, and they had a pretty sad end being attacked by the power mongoring King Philip of France, and betrayed by Pope Clement V.

Back on topic although the Arab Sodliers had a lot of courage and heroism for going to war, I think that you shouldn't give them too much credit for winning the battle because that implies the Crusader's Army had less courage, but the armies of both sides fought with heroism.

 

All men motivated by faith are courageous in battle!

I never implied that the crusaders were less brave than their arab counterparts.