"Best Crusades Period of Battles, Sieges, and Raids?" Topic

The recent poll on which Crusade people like best has got me reinterested in the period(s), but I don't know as much as I should, or would like about them.

So, which Crusade offers the best mix of numerous, large battles, sieges, raids, and interesting tactical dilemmas to the wargamer?

Also, to go along with that, which forces would be pitted against one another in battle, on both sides, e.g. French, Germans, English, Italian, Spanish, against which, e.g. Syrians, Egyptians, etc., etc.?

Or, would you see a mixing of the nationalities/tribes of the above during the various periods?

Finally, which are your favorite forces for the Crusaders and their opposition, e.g. Teutonic Knights, Hospitaliers, ordinary Crusaders, Mamluks, Ayubbids, Seljuks, etc., and why?

I like the Battle of Arsuf. Two classic figures, Richard and Saladin lead their armies. You have Crusaders of various nations, Templars and Hospitaliers on one side and a well formed Arab army with heavy cavalry, dismounted horse archers, and various light skirmishers on the other. Translates nicely to the table top.

Perhaps it's my contrarian nature but I've always been fascinated by the neglected Northern Crusades, which is what I am doing. Perhaps it was the vivid impression left from watching the film Alexander Neveski when I was small, those terrible Tuetonic knights enshrouded in white and the battle on the ice. I also had some sympathy with the last Pagans of Europe. I cannot offer you great battles or classic sieges but there are raids a plenty in mid-winter with a cast of Crusaders, Pagans, Poles, Danes, Swedes, Russians, Mongols and Germanic Hanseatic States.

What percentage of Arab cavalry should have protective barding on them?

Just some, most, 50%, etc.?

I suspect that may vary by the time period, but I've got no clue on where to even start.

I think the 1st Crusade is hard to beat.
So many combatants, Byzantines, Fatamids, Seljuks, Turcomens etc.

link

I thought about doing the Third Crusade because of the Lion Heart – Saladin thing, and because the Military Orders have been established.

I bought a few books and started reading about the Crusades. It soon became apparent that although the Third Crusade has the romance and is a great sub period to set fictional encounters it is rather limited in scope historically. The Second Crusade was a catastrophic joke from beginning to end, so that was out as a main sub period for consideration.

It started to dawn on me that the First Crusade might be the best option. There are several pitched battles and sieges and plenty of historic characters that catch the eye. Then, after further reading, it became obvious that troops from the First Crusade can be used all the way up to and including the Second Crusade – especially if one or two units of extra knights with more complete armour (the new comers) are bought for the Second Crusade. That opened up avenues for a First Crusade collection to be used for the Early Kingdom of Jerusalem sub-period, so you get loads more battles and sieges.

I don't have a preference for the forces within my chosen sub period as all of the troops have their ups and downs in different circumstances, especially as everyone seemingly went to war with everyone – one battle even has two opposing 'Crusader' armies each with an allied 'Saracen' army!

It also looks good

Yeah 1st Crusade has the most historical action.

Mako have a poke around here for army lists it'll give you an idea of the proportions of different troops.

link

Broadly speaking Seljuks have loads of horse archers that the Crusaders find difficult to handle. Fatimids have lots of infantry and less well armoured cavalry than the Crusader knights.

Ayubids have a mixture. The rule of thumb is the closer you get to Egypt the less horse archers there are.

I'd go for two or three units of Moslem barded cavaly for Ayubids and two for the others.

I play this period using James's (Olicana) subperb Ager Sanguinis rules. Never a dull game!

First Crusade and early period (up till c. 1118), the Muslim powers are all rivals to each other. This makes the puny Frankish incursion into the Levant feasible. Some or rather many of those battles involve ridiculously small crusader armies. The Muslim armies are never small, and some appear to have been very large in fact.

The First Crusade diminishes in size/strength steadily as it approaches Jerusalem. After Jerusalem falls and Ascalon is fought, most of the crusaders depart for home, leaving King Baldwin with less than five hundred horsemen and somewhat over a thousand infantry! Late arrivals from Europe bolster this core army with several times its size, and having these reinforcements arrive randomly is always fun to put into a campaign.

Horse armor on either side was a rarity. I'd say c. 10% maximum.

The Second Crusade was a disaster. But it was formidable in size. If it had not been misdirected it could have taken Damascus. But misdirection sent it there in the first place, which was stupid, because the kingdom of Jerusalem had an alliance with Damascus prior being conned into attacking it. So you could play out the 2nd Crusade with random chance possibly altering history, and not attacking Damascus; or, if that doesn't play out, then not moving the crusaders' camp to the waterless side of the city!? Etc….

Thanks for all the replies.

I'll have to check them out a bit more.

First Crusade does sound interesting though, especially given all the other factions to fight against one another.

I recall reading in DBA that the Seljuks are a tough army to beat, so that's why I know about them.

I've got most of what I need for a 1275 Crusader force in 15mm, for DBA, so will probably put that together first, and then a reasonable opponent for them. After that, will check out the other periods as well.

The Northern Crusades do look interesting as well, especially since I love the look of the Teutonic Knights. Perhaps they can serve double duty, both in the Middle East, and the far north.

I'd add to the clamour in favour of the First Crusade in terms of offering the most in terms of action and diversity

I was about to suggest First Crusade, but I see everyone and their court jester already did :)

John France's Victory in the East is a good book about the First Crusade, BTW.