Inferiority of middle eastern militaries in the ancient world?

[|Sith|DarthRoach]

Can you show some examples of huge defeats with huge numerical superiority?

Marathon, Plataea, Mycale, Salamis, the invasion of Scythia, the invasion of Nubia, Issus, Gaugamela, Cunaxa... And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

[Kagemusha]

Marathon, Plataea, Mycale, Salamis, the invasion of Scythia, the invasion of Nubia, Issus, Gaugamela, Cunaxa... And those are just the ones off the top of my head.

All ancient.Please give us some Medieval ones.

[Lazy O]

His question was regarding ancients specifically

[Prince Cobra]

All ancient.Please give us some Medieval ones.

How about the Battle of Montgisard. In addition, in the 3rd Crusade Lionheart was also outnumbered. It's also a matter of tacitcs. The advantage of the knights was in their armour but these were also less and more expensive. The feuds in the Western Europe also played a role in creating people whose only profession is war. On the other hand, the territory of the Kingdom Of Jerusalem was densely populated and allowed faster mobilisation of that force. It is all about terrain, I think. In the Horns of Hattin that worked against the Crusades.

It's not really about inferiority, it's more about battle tactics and also, very important factor was the internal loyalty of the troops as well the ability of the general to organize his troops.

[Kagemusha]

Here is a quote from the original post:

The same goes on in the medieval era - no matter how many men the Saracens brought, these were mown down by the crusaders and Byzantines.

Is there some inherent technological inferiority in the region compared to the west?

I im more or less with Prince Cobra on this one,but not entirely. To me the success of early crusades was more about the fractured nature of the region rather some inheritent weakness of the population. Once the political power was unified.The chancess of any successful Crusades diminished and the Middle Easterns were even able to be first to stop the Mongol Invasions.I am not dismissing the fighting capability of specially European knights in any capacity as life long training in matters martial, no doubt created one of the finest fighters of the time.

Nevertheless. Turko-Persian Seljuk Empire dealt a grippling defeat to Byzantines at Manzikert 1071 and as far as i understand they were outnumbered against Byzantines. Numbers suggested that Byzantines had 40 000-70 000 men, while Seljuks 20 000- 30 000. So the Seljuks were outnumbered 2:1.When the armies of 1st Crusade arrived at the area.There was no more a Seljuk Empire, but a dozen small Sultanates fighting each other.

When we look at the Battle´s of the 1st Crusade. At the 1st battle fo Dorylaeum,1097. 40 000 to 50 000 crusaders defeated between 6000 -8000 soldiers of Sultanate of Rum, with similar casualties to both sides.Some sources suggest that the actual casualties of Crusaders were larger then the forces of Rum.
Next we have maybe the brightest Crusader victory, with similar odds with Seljuks at Manzikert, Battle of Ascalon. About 10 000 crusaders against 20 000 troops of Egyptian Fatimid Caliphate. In this battle it can be said that in this first major open battle between the Fatimids and Crusaders.Fatimids under estimated their enemies to a large extent, were caught off guard and were soundly beaten by the Cusaders suffering heavy casualties.

Next, Crusade of 1101. The Crusaders were defeated and shattered in three battles by Sultanate of Rum and their allies.One at Mersivan and twice at Heraclea. I dont have exact figures for these battles, but i doubt the military capacity of Sultanate of Rum had exponentially increased in 4 years after their defeat at Dorylaeum.

2nd Crusade. 2nd Battle of Dolyraeum. 20 000 strong German Crusader army crushed by Seljuks.2000 survivors on the Crusader side.

I have left out the sieges and concentrated on open battles, so far as it can be clearly pointed out that during any of the sieges of early crusades.The attacking Crusaders were not outnumbered by the besieged forces.

I have no more time currently, but i think the early Crusades already show that the numerical superiority was not continuosly at the side of the Muslims. More like other way around.

[Beskar]

I have to admit, some of these posts have been very interesting, I haven't researched much of the "Arabic Side" so even having these tibbles of information on the subject have been illuminating for me.

As a side note, Cyrus is someone I have always been interested in exploring as a character, he seems to be the "Solomon" of the era. Anyone recommend any good resource articles on him outside of wikipedia? (I have already been there)

[johnhughthom]

Herodotus is a good read for the history of Cyrus, a great read in general actually. I have a decent book on all 3 Persian Empires, it's called The Persians An Introduction by Maria Brosius and it's a good read for a someone with a general idea of the period. I don't think you'd get it anywhere for less than £20 or so though. If you are genuinely interested pm me and I could post it to you. So long as you send it back. You should be able to pick up Herodotus anywhere for buttons.

[Hax]

I read "The Legacy of Persia" which goes into a lot more than just Cyrus and the rise of the Achaemenids.

As of this thread, it's inanity is starting to annoy me. I think the OP might have trouble realising that Middle-Easterners can be halfway competent at certain things. The general feel of this thread is very Eurocentric and the fact that the OP's concept of the Orient (to use antiquated terminology) is not being fulfilled makes me wonder whether he was interested in getting another view on the matter, or just wanted to re-affirm his own Eurocentrism.