"Question on Seljuk Ghulum troops" Topic

I'm working up a game on the First Crusade, battle of Dorylaeum, and was wondering whether the Seljuk (of Rum) Ghulum cavalry were strictly lancers, or were they also horse archers? Would they have fought in as close order as the Frankish Knights?

Lance and bow. I dare say they closed up to take on Frankish Knights.

The ghulams were lance bow armed heavy cavalry. There were never that many of them, usually a few thousand at most. The bulk of the army would be horse archers, either Seljuk or Turcoman. It is worth remembering that Seljuks were not native to this region, and they were just one tribe in a wider host that had migrated from the Asian steppe and taken over control of lands largely populated by others, so there were usually other 'subject cavalry' around. In this case they would probably be 'Armenian' types.

As slaves in their youth, the Ghilmen were raised to be professional soldiers. As such they were trained in the usage of bow, lance, sword, and mace. They could engage at distance or in close combat equally well. As James points out above, the majority of Seljuk forces in Anatolia were "Turcoman" horse archers. As I understand it, Turcomans were Seljuk tribesman who were still living the nomadic life-style. James also makes a good point about the usage of Local Cavalry levies. Ghilmen would most certainly be trained to fight in close order, but their lances would be used as a "fencing" weapon more than a shock weapon like the western European knight.

Armenians would not likely be employed by Turks against fellow Christians except in the last extremity.

Dorylaeum did not leave the Turks any time for a complete muster, especially after their defeat outside Nicaea. The Turks were all horsed archers. I haven't heard or read of any "subject" troops being there, such as Armenians. I haven't even seen speculation on that one until this thread.

My understanding of troop types is that there was a distinct difference between a Turkish and a Saracen or Fatimid army. The Turks of Anatolia had no "Saracen" or Arabic cavalry, who were almost entirely lancers. Turkish armies centered on Baghdad and Syria did contain many Arabic or Kurdish cavalry, but the great majority of their cavalry were "Turcomen". Fatimid armies had few, and often no, horsed archers, and such as they did have were borrowed from the Turks of Damascus. Later Ayyubid armies had many lancers, but by then many of these also were bow armed. However, they stood to shoot and did not ride like Turcomen horsed archers.

The Crusader chroniclers all say that the Christians were greatly outnumbered at Dorylaeum. But this was perception not reality. Turkish cavalry kept in constant motion and were not averse to making their reserves of horses appear like more numbers of troops. Each warrior likely had half a dozen mounts. The defending Turks were composed of the Seljuks of western Anatolia, and some troops from the Danishmendids and Capadocians from eastern Anatolia. Anatolia had been converted into a "Turkish paradise", in other words, open land for grazing sheep. Virtually all of the interior towns were wasted, like Dorylaeum itself. The population was thin in the extreme and did not provide a large army. If the Turks had six thousand effectives that would be pushing the limits.

The later (very brief) battle outside Heraclea was against a possibly even smaller Turkish army; Kilij Arslan of the Seljuks was not there with the Danishmendid and Capadocian Turks, who were now standing on their own tribal lands….

Bows do not feature in all the depictions of cavalry in Warqa wa Gulshah, but the same character may have a bow in one scene and not in the next.

Anatolian Christians did serve in Seljuk armies, see Rumi 'Firenk' Heavy Cavalryman from Armies and Enemies of the Crusades 1096-1291 by Ian Heath, the illustration based on Two Warriors on a Seljuq Bas Relief, Konya, Turkey, 12th century

Druzhina
Seljuk Illustrations of Costume & Soldiers

But did Turks pit "their" Christians against other Christians? That would be unlikely as it would have been unwise….

Christians fight other Christians quite often…

The Armenian interaction with the Franks was quite complex. The Franks represented an opportunity for the Armenians to re establish independence from both Turks and Byzantines. For the Armenians the Franks were the wrong sort of Christians so the idea of pan Christian unity tends to overstate how things were.

To say that Christians wouldn't be put against Christians is wrong, especially at this early stage of the Crusades. The generally 'Holy War' it was to become was, at this time, largely irrelevant to the Turks, Syrians and Fatimids. The Franks were just another faction in the mix for supremacy in what was, in effect, a huge regional civil war between rival war lords of one ethnic group or another. The whole region was in political melt down. It is largely down to this chaos that the 1st Crusade succeeded at all.

There are cases of Franks and Moslems becoming allied to fight similar forces, so I wouldn't put too much trust in a belief in the 'power of religion' when it came to 'real politic'. Contrary to popular belief, much of the Crusades was a struggle for political power rather than religious hegemony.

As for the Armenians, I used this description to encompass the Orthodox peoples in Anatolia stretching across the region, formerly under Byzantine suzerainty, mainly centred of Antioch and Edessa. They were regarded with antipathy by the Franks who saw them as heretic surrender monkeys – until they proved willing to pay homage to the Franks as overlords (see Baldwin of Edessa). Even then, their religious rights were not respected for several years after the 1st Crusade, and then reservedly. They formed a major part of the Seljuk armies (1097 – 1095) for Damascus.

Actual numbers at Dorylaeum are unknown, as is the composition of the force, except that it comprised (as GWA says) Danishmendids and Capadocians under their own Amirs. That parts of the army came from so far east only adds to the possibility of other cavalry being present. Certainly Kurds were always for hire. I. Heath says Armenians were found in Turkish armies opposed to the 1st Crusade. The possibility of their being 150,000 – 350,000 is plainly wrong, but a tenth of that is not impossible – Turkish armies of 7,000 to 20,000 being typical.

Fatimids are a completely different kettle of fish. They are not Turks.

Ah, I did not recall Ian Heath asserting that Armenians were fielded by the Turks against the 1st Crusade. I wonder what his source is?

I wasn't referring to "Holy War", or hegemony of any sort. But the unwisdom of pitting the same religious group against an unknown quantity. Surely the rumors of the Franks coming to wage "holy war" against Islam put all local Christians under suspicion.

Later alliances between Christian and Muslim sects were not the same thing as asserting that Armenian cavalry were fielded at Dorylaeum or Heraclea. That would require commanding Christian subjects to fight Christian invaders. Would a Turk risk having subjected Christians in his army under those circumstances?…

Hi GWA,

I'm not saying that Armenians were definately in his army, but given the drag on resources to deal with the invading Franks…..

From my understanding, after the fall of Nicaea (not all of Anatolia was wasted – there were settled peoples there) Kilij Arslan sought to deal with the Franks once and for all. That is probably why he sought help from 'princes' so far away. If this was the case, and if his army was huge – which isn't an impossibility considering the booty and slaves that might be expected following a victory, and which is probably why the allies came in the first place – then I can't see why his army wouldn't have 'uncle Tom Cobley and all' in it.

Seljuk armies were basically feudal and all vassals might well be expected to serve in such a huge venture. It is certainly possible, probable even, that the army, if it was huge, was not all Turkish.

Seljuks don't seem to have been bothered who they served or who served them. Neither, from my understanding did the Amenians. That the Armenians later saw the Franks as a means to throw off Seljuk overlordship doesn't mean they would not have backed the status quo before the Franks had proved their metal. From my understanding the Armenians were not badly treated by the Turks before the arrival of the Franks – though the grass is always greener, as they say; and everybody loves a winner.

I find your assessment of the possibilities reasonable. But I am still not going to include "Armenians" in the Muslim army at Doryleaum in any future replay of the battle.

My introduction to the battle of Doryleaum was Alfred Leo Duggan's superb historical fiction narrative in "Knight with Armour". He certainly described the Turkish army as huge!

Later estimates (which I accept) keep the total size of Kilij Arslan's army between six and eight thousand effectives, which is plenty of "firepower" to annihilate Bohemond's entire force if the Turks ever attempt to close in and start shooting with as many horsearchers at a time as possible.

If there were any Armenians in the Turkish army, they were kept well to the rear and were probably the first to flee when they saw Bishop Adhemar leading the second column up for the rear attack….

I've just been checking up in Nicolle's book. He says that the Sultanate of Rum rarely recruited unconverted local Christians until the arrival of the Mongols, when they recruited everybody! – though this was not hard and fast because he also says they recruited a huge number of Armenians to fight the Danishmendids in the 1127 [memory for date].

So you are probably right to leave them out of early battles in Rum.

As per usual, for every book there is a different opinion and I gave up plumbing for the right of them ages ago. I think, in most cases, because the history is so patchy, you can toss a coin and, within reason, go with that – I doubt they could hang you for it.

BTW, GWA. You obviously know what you are talking about, so will you have a look at my book list and tell me if I'm missing any gems (link below).

link

You have a few gems in that list yourself.

Runciman's "The Fall of Constantinople" is as accessible as his "A History of the Crusades." (and while you're on a Runciman kick, read "The Sicilian Vespers", a very bizarre story, about a huge conspiracy that actually worked)

Osprey's, "God's Warriors, Crusaders, Saracens and the Battle for Jerusalem," by David Nicolle and Helen Nicholson, is about the 1187 campaigns.

I like Alfred Leo Duggan's book on the crusades: "The Story of the Crusades 1097–1291", it is a non fiction treatment in his wonderful prose style.

Edward Gibbon's treatment of the Crusading years in his "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire" is fun additional reading.

"The Monks of War", Desmond Seward, is an excellent and concise history of the Military Orders.

"Deus lo Volt! A Chronicle of the Crusades", by Evan S. Connell, is a fictitious treatment of the whole "two hundred years", purporting to be a more extensive chronicle by Jean de Joinville. I liked it. It's a vivid and terrific overview of the whole venture in Outremer.

These spring to mind while I am hundreds of miles from home (visiting the extended family in Cali).

You don't show the biographers, Villehardouin and de Joinville, in your list, or Anna Comnena's history. All three are essential reading. But the list of original sources does not stop there, it only gets started. I have only gotten started! And I will never finish, alack and alas….

Hi GWA,

Runciman is my go to for 'detail all in one book' even though it's 3 Vols, so I'll definitely look for the other two. The only problem I have with Runciman is the way he bounces around – it took me half an hour, a few weeks ago, to find out how long Baldwin of Edessa spent in the DH after Harran – his 'History' needs a better index!

I found the The Alexiad (library borrow) pretty heavy going so I only ever delve into it when I'm looking for something – it's available on line.

I have Villehardouin and de Joinville but I've forgotten to put it on the book list. I've also got to add People of the First Crusade by M. Foss. I'll go and do that now. [edit] Blimey, and The Crusades Through Arab Eyes by Maalouf – deary me.

Thank you for Connell suggestion, someone else told me about that recently. A holiday book I think!

Best Regards,

James