Crusaders and Saracen Fighting Strategies

Originally posted by Darius of Parsa I stll have a problem understanding your argument. I think you have a hard time believing that the crusaders had more casualties among their ranks. But it is proven, and therefore should be taken into thought.

In light of what the primary sources tells us it is justified to claim the crusaders had more casualties, and I don't have a hard time believing this at all. The crusaders did have more casualties judging by the primary sources, which is all we have and what we must base our conclusions on, but we cannot use them to extract objective fact (as said before, casualty rates in medieval sources are notoriously difficult to handle), something which we do not operate with in the historical science. In any case I only meant to spread some awareness of historical method and the source critical difficulties involved, using this battle as an example if you will, so don't get too stuck on it.