![]() were “retained”) in exchange for an annual salary (that would include payments in-kind such as meals, cloaks, and in some cases horses). men without land holdings of their own who served the baron (i.e. Barons would have been supported by younger brothers and adult sons, if they had them, and by “household knights,” i.e. ![]() However, the fighting power that a baron brought to the battlefield generally exceeded the minimum set by feudal obligations. Lances, on the other hand, were relatively cheap, “throw away” weapons that the lord would provide or could be purchased as needed. In addition, they would need a helmet, a sword, dagger and optionally a mace or axe. Knights were expected to be armed and armored, which means that throughout the 12th century they would be expected to provide their own chainmail hauberk, coif and mittens, and chainmail chausses for their legs. It is important to remember, however, that the term “knight” does not refer to a single man but rather to a fighting-unit consisting of a knight and his warhorse (destrier), one or more mounted squires, a riding horse (palfrey) and one more pack-horses. The elite and the most effective fighting component of the armies of Jerusalem was composed of these barons and the knights that they brought with them. ![]() The thirteenth century Count of Jaffa, John d'Ibelin, compiled a comprehensive (but incomplete) list of feudal obligations that notes that the great baronies of Sidon, Galilee, and Jaffa/Ascalon, for example, owed 100 knights, while the Lord of Caymont and Bishop of Lydda owed only 6 knights. The feudal obligations they incurred depended on the wealth and size of their respective fief and varied substantially. These tenants-in-chief could be either secular or ecclesiastical lords, the former with the additional obligation to appear in person. The barons were "tenants-in-chief" of the king, who held their fiefs in exchange for committing to bring fixed numbers of knights and/or sergeants to the feudal army on demand. īelow I take a closer look at the the component parts of the armies of Jerusalem in 12th Century.Īs in the West, the command in the feudal army of Jerusalem was in the hands of the king, his officer and the feudal elite: the barons. After the first couple of decades, the majority of the Franks were mixed-race local settlers.and in many crusader armies even these local Franks were in a minority, marching in units with Armenian-speaking comrades, or with other native Christian soldiers. The 'crusader' armies of the Middle East in the twelfth century often had relatively few genuine crusaders in them. Bad tempered camels and donkeys were in the baggage train, handled by increasingly frustrated Syrians shouting abuse at them in local dialect. ![]() Bedouin scouts would be bringing back news of he enemy troop movements, reporting in Arabic. The lower-level commands being issued in Arabic and what we now call medieval French.Turbans would have been worn to keep the heat of the sun off the helmets. The voices talking and shouting perhaps Armenian or Syriac. In his recent study "The Crusader Armies" Steve Tibble claims that the armies of the crusader states would have been completely "unrecognizable" to the modern eye expecting hoards of fanatical, white Western Europeans wearing red crosses on their surcoats. They represented not only an adaptation of Western military traditions to the conditions in the Near East, but reflected the diversity of the population from which the armies were drawn. The armies of Outremer differed substantially from contemporary Western and Muslim armies. ![]()
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |