Postby s_taillebois » Sat Nov 25, 2006 6:22 am
It would seem the aforementioned researchers couldn't have had enough samples to make a overall conclusion. Especially for extant swords from the crusade era.
And anyway, it's not an equivalant situation, to say, when the conquistadors invaded Mexico. The Islamic cultures, and the Europeans had been in substantial trading and raiding context for centuries prior to the crusades. Especially through Spain. So technologies would have flowed both directions. For example, European fortification building technology went south, and Moslim horse breeding traditions went north.
If the Moslim's had a specific weapons advantage over the Franks, it wasn't likely swords. As these would have been different in form, but similar in manufacture. It would have been in such as the horses used, for the tactics of horse archery. Moslim limitations would have been in siege, fortification technologies. Initially, they lacked these, and had to get it from contact with the Chinese, Persians, and later the Franks.
The biggest weakness for the Franks, would have been numbers and politics. Because they could only marry local Christians such as the Syrian's, Byzantines and etc (which seemingly wasn't common), the population of Outremer remained fairly small. After the initial crusade fervor, most who went did not stay to add to the population. Politics, they were constantly squabbling internally...so were the Moslim's. But the Franks never quite had a leader like Saladin, who could really unify these fanctions (to a point, and via a religious aspect). Later, Baybers unified by force and fear, those who disapproved of his rule, weren't around long. Richard being the heir of the Henry and Elanor, certainly couldn't achieve this end. That family couldn't even avoid civil war with itself. The various Baldwin's and such, their power was more premised locally in Jerusalem...they had little authority over their remoter aristocracy.
Steven Taillebois
