Printable View
Today being the anniversary of this famous battle, I was wondering what thoughts people have about it.
Was it as decisive as is often portrayed? Whose fault was it that the crusaders lost, if anyone's? Was there definite treachery involved? Or should all the credit go to Saladin for his plan and tactics?
Could the situation of the Latin Kingdoms after Hattin have been retrieved or was the aftermath inevitable?
All thoughts welcomed. :book:
Hattin is probably one of my favourite battles in history. I have deep respect for Salah-al-Din. He was a very good commander, and a very nice person. He respected everyone's beliefs, and made Cairo a big and beautiful city.
His destroyal of the Crusaders army at Hattin in 1187 was a big blow to the Latin Kingdoms. The Feudal Fellas(as I like to call them) were never prepared for a big war with the Muslims. :book:
It's ironic in view of current events that Saladin, although a believer, was no fanatical Muslim, but a cultured, practical and generous man for his times. Whereas the Christian forces at Hattin were led by extreme fanatics, such as the Grand Master of the Knights Templar who forced his disastrous strategy of moving to Tiberias in the full heat of the day on the army.
"God is with us, we cannot lose. Praise be to the Lord!"
Muppet.
The Horns of Hattin, was it decisive? Most certainly, as it ultimately led to the loss of Jerusalem and most of the crusader gains up until that time. As far as treachery goes, I would say not. I think that Guy de Lusignan simply underestimated Sala Al Din, while seriously failing to plan for his march to relieve Tiberius logisticly. I mean marching over 20,000 soldiers through the desert in JUly without having sufficient water supplies to get them there was foolish. It was as much the fault of Guy as it was the superiority of Sala Al Din. His genius lay in the way he knew his crusader enemies, and engaging them with tactics that suited his army's capabilities. I am very much reminded of a bullfight when I study this battle. The crusader army, like an exausted, wounded, but still proud bull, charges with all its fury to get at the more mobile Muslim forces. Like a matador, the Muslim army deftly maneuvers about swiftly to avoid the bulls charge, while all the time wounding him with his missles. Finally the bull stands his ground and accepts his sad fate. I don't think that a more complete victory could have been devised. Afterwards, there where simply not enough sodiers left to put up effective resistance. Bailin of Ibelin's defense of Jerusalem, while heroic, was the last gasp of a dying animal. It would take Richard Cour de Lion to make it right, and even he was only just able to secure the rights of christians to make pilgramige to the Holy Land. He did manage to not make the same mistakes of the King of Jerusalem during his campaign. He gained the respect of Sala Al Din in the process.Quote:
Originally Posted by matteus the inbred
The main problems for the Crusader army was that it was in the hands of a follish and impetous youth. Guy of Lusignan was only brought to the throne due to his looks and his charm which was infectious on sybella and her foolish and dimwitted mother Agnes. The Movie Kingdom of Heaven portrayal of Guy and Sybella is wrong and way off the mark.
Raymond of Tripoli and the Ibelin brothers forwarned Guy not to travel and fight Saladin's army even though the forces were equal around 20,000 men each, any numbers over that is simply daft especially in the case of the the Latin states as most of their manpower came from the large coastal cities and the drips and drabs of Crusader contingents coming through ports such as St Symeon in the north and the larger cities of the south. The large cities of antioch, Tripoli and Jerusalem could raise between 300-400 heavy horse and around 3-4,000 infantry men.
The main causes of the disaster of Hattin was due to two men, one the infamous Reynald De Chatillon and the other being Gerard de Ridefort master of the Temple. Their influence over Guy to bring battle to Saladin brought the Crusader army to destruction. Raymond had warned Guy to stay around Sephoria and let the Muslim army to come to them but wiser council did not prevail.
If Conrad of Monferrat had not arrived in late September at Tyre it would have fell along with most of their other coastal strongholds of Palestine. Although the battle was crippling to the Crusader States the loss of Jerusalem did see the third Crusade with more reinforcements and the capture of arce, a vital city and port which could be reinforced by sea with Pisan or Genoese help but that of course also came for a ransom like price with streets and rich quarters all being ceded to the wily Italian martime states.
Yes Saladin was a great leader who was a caring and respected individual but his ruthlessness in his rise in his early years often seems to be forgetten when discussing his character. After Saladin's death however there was a power struggle and more civil wars as his empire was ran by his personality and character. The problem with Medieval Islam was its lack of permanent institutions and when a leader died if not replaced by a capable monarch things began to crumple, which was what happened under his sons. This allowed the Latin Kingdoms respite and time to rebuild but never would they be able to challenge Islam in a major pitch battle in the east as man power and the feudal elements began to diminish.
Only through treaties and the occassional useful ally, say in the face of the Mongols but even that was often wasted especially when the Ill khanate attempted to ally itself with outremer to destroy the Mamluks in the late 13th century. But this chance was wasted as the crumpiling latin cities will and bravery seemed to vanish. Sadly, the only real flash of the old spirit and battlefield prowess was at the end with the siege of Acre, a last brave stand against overwhelming forces which was doomed to fail from the outset but will always be remembered.
i as well. one word to describe most of that: chivalrousQuote:
Originally Posted by edyzmedieval
how true. if perhaps they took thought before (a word saying a fanatic phrase or whatever) they may have instead advise Guy to stay in Jerusalem. but i wonder, what would have happened if Guy stayed.. any thoughts?Quote:
Originally Posted by Red Peasant
The battle of Hattin was truly very decisive, because by destroying the field army of the crusader states Saladin could go on to take most of the fortresses and cities occupied by the crusaders without too much hassle. However he did make one pretty hurty mistake during the battle by not managing to stop Balian of Ibelin and much of the rearguard plus others to escape the field, this allowed them to man and prepare garrisons in important cites, like Tyre(which Saladin did not manage to reclaim).
When Guy left the oasis of La Safouri he was roughly 20k away from Tiberas, with the heat and the armor that his men were carrying, the march alone would have been exhausting, it was made even worse by the fact that he chose to leave during the hottest part of the day.
To make the situation worse Guy, set up camp for the night at the village of Maskana, while at the same time, Raymond of Tripoli was advancing towards Hattin. Guy should have continued to support Raymond and advance towards Hattin where water was available. Guy's men were probably tired (if not extremely exhausted)but it makes no sense to set up camp in village where your men cannot get an adequate supply of water, especially when an adequate supply (Hattin) is available only a few kilometers away.
The army left the road to Tiberias on Raymond's advice to seek water nearby since they had only made it half-way, due to harrassment by the Saracens which had slowed their progress, and therefore wouldn't get to Tiberias before the end of the day. There was a well near Hattin, but when they got there it was dry. At this point, the rear guard was forced to halt by continuous attacks, and asked Guy for assistance from the main body. One source I read said that Guy asked Raymond's advice and he said, 'There is nothing for it. I cannot now offer any advice other than to try to make camp and to pitch your tent on the top of this hill.' Whether it was Raymond's advice or not, they probably had to stop or else sacrifice the rear guard.Quote:
Originally Posted by mercian billman
While I think you guys have said all to the reasons for the failure of the Crusaders (I think it was their own fault than Saladin's genius that spelled their doom), I will comment that the Crusader tactics were not at faulty when engaged.
They used what they had, and to the effect they could. They marched in a box, with crossbowmen on the outside, infantry supporting them against enemy cavalry and finally the knights and mounted sergeants in the middle able to quickly respond to danger or charge out should the need be.
This formation held, and while there were losses among the horses, it wasn't as bad as sometime portrayed. If it was then I wonder how a significant force of knights managed to batter their way through.
Had the battle, or rather the campaign taken place in the more 'wet' interior, I doubt that Saladin would have won, he could have, he was after all a very good commander, but his strengths lay not in tactics but in strategy, diplomacy (persionality) and not the least in the understanding of his enemies' psyche. And that last point makes me wonder if there would even have been a battle, if not at Hattin...
But if the fall had not come at Hattin, it would just have come later. The Outremer was an untenable position, too few in population, too many lords vying for power and too many people coming from Europe, and messing up any unstable peace in their religious fervour.
Anyway had Guy heeded Raymond's advice, who wanted to stay where the army was gathered (don't remember what it was called) and let Saladin take Tiberius, there would most likely not have been a similar battle, Saladin would probably have taken Tiberius and his troops would have raided the countryside, what would not have happened is Saladin attacking the Crusaders entrenched on a defendible spot of their choosing(There were about 25 000 of them, and that's alot!). Had the Crusaders done this all the time they would maybe have existed longer but slowly they would have been depleted of their territories and it would have ended the same way it did in history, though probably a little later. In the end the tactics used by the Crusaders were far too defensive to enlarge the kingdom and in the end they weren't sufficient to ensure the survival of the Crusader States, their best hope would have been peace with the Muslims as many native-born Europeans in the Holy Land desired.
On a different note, have any of you read the Crusades trilogy by Jan Guillou (a Swedish authour)? If you ask me it's one of the most exciting and most interesting historical novels ever done on the Crusades.
The Crusader Kingdoms only lasted as long as they did because the economic, political and military muscle of the Orders, born out of organizational principles and economic bases quite different from the standard feudal setup, allowed the gaping holes in their defences to be filled with crusades, mercenaries and Order fighting men. And the fact all the nearby Muslim states were busy playing Warring States, Middle East Edition and finding the "Franks" occasionally useful blunt instruments in their disputes for a while. Sectarian issues, such as the way the Assasins almost regularly destabilized Sunni states into succession disputes by murdering their rulers, also contributed to the general disorder which enabled the Franks to hang onto their coastal domains as long as they did.
About a Templar returning home to Sweden right? Have heard my parents talk about it, no praise it, but haven't heard or read anything else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Randarkmaan
Seen it in bookstores. Haven't read though. Too busy with Englund and Braudel.
Well you should try reading it, though I have heard rumours that the English version is not exactly well translated, so that could ruin something.
It's not that bad reading Norwegian translations of Swedish books, since they are generally well translated because the two languages are pretty similar.
The first book is in Sweden (it is pretty good), the second one is partly in Sweden and partly in the Holy land (This one is excellent), the third one is about that Templar returning home (Which is also very good but not as good as the second).Quote:
About a Templar returning home to Sweden right