The Battle of Jaffa

So I was reading about the Battle of Jaffa, and I can't for the life of me work out how Richard defeated Saladin.

Saladin was a fantastic general, and I would not even think about pitting 2000 crossbowmen against 7000 cavalry.  It's madness. And with only 50-odd cavalry of his own (aside from the 80 or so trapped in the citadel of Jaffa) it just seems...so unlikely.

So how  the blazes did Richard win? 

I watched the BBC "Heroes and Villains" one on him, and they suggest it was by Richard's "sheer physical presence" that he made the Muslims think he was invincible and rout.

This seems...unlikely to me, as they were probably chosen by Saladin to come with him because they would have been good, experienced troops.

What are your thoughts?

The infantry held their nerve and remained disciplined - which is generally how infantry managed to beat cavalry in the medieval period. Richard could restrain them for only so long, before they lost their discipline and charged at the Saracens. But by that stage the Saracens had taken such losses and endured such demoralisation that the Crusader charge proved to be effective in winning the battle.

The Crusader force apparently had both crossbowmen and longbowmen at the battle. The Saracens are said to have hurled darts at the Crusaders, which typically bounced harmlessly off the heavy armor. By holding their position, repulsing charge after charge of the Saracen cavalry, and steadily inflicting losses on the Saracens with their superior ranged units, the Crusaders eventually carried the day. It took no small amount of discipline, professionalism and sheer nerve - not to mention some very inspirational leadership on Richard's part.


Edited by Constantine XI - 24-May-2008 at 11:55

Hello to you all

Originally posted by rider Well, the thing is that if you take down nearly 2000 of the front row of incoming cavalry, the rest of them (or a large part) will stumble with their horses and fall as well - the domino effect.

While that is a very good point that I had not considered, surely an experienced general like Saladin would know that?

You could avoid it by splitting the cavalry into two and then "strafing" the crossbowmen at an angle, so it's not the front line that goes down as one, and then you have the added advantage of hitting them from both flanks - which one to defend with your 54 knights and their lances?

I would have thought just sheer press and weight of numbers would carry them through...I mean, honestly, 7000 cavalry vs less than 3000 infantry and less than 100 cavalry, especially in the medieval period, should have just overrun them completely. 

I wouldn't have engaged in a battle with those odds!

If I was a cavalryman of the attacking force, and if I survived the first volley of bolts I would turn and run away, before they reload and shot another 2000 bolts on me

Even in those days, wen the crossbow span was not all that powerfull (at least if compared with the late Medieval steel-bow crossbow), it was a formidable weapon, capable of easily shooting down an horseman.

Gorm, yes I agree with your view. A fully armoured knight was basically encumbered with his armour. Depending upon the ambiant temperature a knight in full exertion could easily overheat to the point of fainting and one would guess he had to keep open a way out of the battle to recoup. As you mentioned if he was always surrounded by his group of attendants they could cover his retreat and tend to his refreshment, etc. While I have no direct information, it would seem that he literally had to have attendants to get both dressed and undressed. And if later intreptations are correct he had to be literally lifted onto the saddle of his horse, if he was mounted, or posssibly he could enter and dismount from his chariot without aid.

regards,

Well Gorm, it seems we may well have to agree to disagree! That is, unless you have some sources that support your view(s)!

What do think about the armour needed for a mounted knights horse? I contend that the horse would have to be armoured also! An unarmoured horse with a knight on it, would then be mostly a means of locomotion to the best place on the battle field to dis-mount and fall into battle on their feet! The same could be said about chariots, in my opinion! Actually in my opinion also, the chariot was usually only a wagon, and not a two wheeled fighting platform!
The two wheeled chariots of chariot racing fame, were merely that, I.e. race cars! In a battle field situation they were merely transport vehhicles designed to get the knight to the best point to fight other knights, without winding him!

Your views are most welcome and expected! After all we are not using sources, merely our own educated opinions!

Regards,

Fromer member "Constantine XI" wrote a long time ago;
"The Crusader force apparently had both crossbowmen and longbowmen at the battle. The Saracens are said to have hurled darts at the Crusaders, which typically bounced harmlessly off the heavy armor. By holding their position, repulsing charge after charge of the Saracen cavalry, and steadily inflicting losses on the Saracens with their superior ranged units, the Crusaders eventually carried the day. It took no small amount of discipline, professionalism and sheer nerve - not to mention some very inspirational leadership on Richard's part."

I would like all of you to peruse your history files, or make a current search, and tell me, in good confidence just what were "darts", as exhibited in numerous accouts of past battles?

What did they look like? What kind of weapon fired them? Why were they used for so long in battle? etc., etc.?

Regards,

Oh! Re, your site mentioned above! Yes, I have examined it a long time ago! And, for whatever it is worth, it is a good piece of work!

However,it does not come to the part whereby firearms, make this kind of armour obsolete! If early firearms actually were accused of firing "darts" then all things are changed!

I seem to know, that in a lot of past accounts (historical ones) that the "cross-bow" was assumed to have fired either short arrows, or "bolts!", and just how would one discern whether or not "darts" do not meet the definition of "short arrows?",or "bullets" not meet the definition of "bolts?"

Edited by opuslola - 13-Apr-2010 at 13:51

Dear Gorm, while it seems appropriate, and maybe it is, since Bulls in the predecessor process to the actual fight, are supposedly the short lances thrown into the Bull to both antagonize it, and slowly bledd it, are sometimes called "darts", and since the shield of a knight was sometimes called a "target!", then perhaps you are correct?

But, to me, and to you, it seems, the heavy armour worn by knights would seem to easily repell small lances or javelins! But, perhaps not? Since in some so called "original" accounts, some knights were literaly covered with "darts!", but most of them only inflicted a small wound!

The meaning of "dart", in one since is the same as "quick", as in the words "to dart in and out", etc.

Here is one definition of "dart";

http://ardictionary.com/Dart

Now I know the game called "darts" is currently a competition of small hand thrown metal tipped and arrow veined that are thrown by hand at a "target!" But, just how old is this game?

For the "History of Darts", I will only refer you to;

http://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4ADBR_enUS315US315&q=the+game+of+darts+history

Where, you will find out that it only goes back to the "middle ages!"

However, in the Bible, it seems to me, that "darts" or something very similar was also used then! The sources of that information are now not either available to my poor memory nor can I now take the time to look them or it, up? But, nevertheless I will stand by my words!

It is not inconceivable that a "sling" could not also sling or throw a missile much like our modern hand dart! But, were they?

It seems in my past research, I could not find any exact definition of "dart" in any of the sources to which I had access!

Perhaps some of you might well find one, and explain it to me?

Until then, I will have to assume that a "dart" as we read it in our so called "ancient accounts", could really mostly describe early examples of rifles or hand-guns!

As a source or an anti-source, just how many "cross-bolt" "bolts" have been discovered and presented as the reminants of past battles? And, without feathered backs, just how many could also have been propelled by gunpowder? (the feathers would long ago have fallen off, etc.)

But, I am somewhat weird?

Regards,

Regards

Edited by opuslola - 27-Apr-2010 at 14:37