Rome versus Muslims from the First Crusade

What are the conditions of the battle? Are we talking about who would win a straight-up fight, or is a Roman army ISOT'ed to the gates of Jerusalem and have to fight an entire campaign in hostile territory? Or the other way around?
 

manav95

Banned
Probably the Muslims since they have 1000 years of development. Not to mention that they can deal with Crusaders well. The Romans have discipline, but any good general like Saladin would also discipline his troops well. Ultimately, the Muslims could resort to subterfuge if they couldn't counter the Romans directly.
 
Probably the Muslims since they have 1000 years of development. Not to mention that they can deal with Crusaders well. The Romans have discipline, but any good general like Saladin would also discipline his troops well. Ultimately, the Muslims could resort to subterfuge if they couldn't counter the Romans directly.

How disciplined are the 1st Crusade armies though? Saladin's nearly a century later and some of what I've read describes his tactics and discipline being a result of the failures of the earlier crusades.
 
Pretty much this. Also, there is a big difference between, say, V Alaudae in 12BC, X Fretensis in 68 AD and III Augusta in 125 AD.

If you're positing the Fatimid armies that tried to interfere with the crusaders in Palestine, i think the outcome is clear. On equal numerical terms, it is unlikely they would seek battle. If you are talking about the Seljuks, though, a lot will depend on leadership. That was their prime weakness. Individual leaders walked away if they saw a disadvantage to themselves. No cohesion. An ably led Seljuk force will be a hard proposition even for the best of Roman legions (taking, say, X Fretensis out of the Jewish War). For this encounter, the Romans will have to be lucky. If it's a legion like III Augusta, they don't stand a chance.
 
Top