Crusade Era(s) Technology Exchanges?

[Mike Habib]

So, after reading through the thread on the politics, etc. of the crusades (sparked by the recent ARMA article) I began to wonder about the following question:

Did the military forces of 12th-13th century (and later) Europe demonstrate any notable "borrowing" (either by actual trade or mimicry) of arms or armor types from the Eastern Mediterranean?

It seems like after such a protracted period of warfare, technology transfer in both directions would be at least somewhat prevalent, but I am sadly ignorant of good examples of crusade-era (or early post-crusade) tech swapping (be it "traded" or "stolen").

Anyone here have any thoughts, sources, or leads?

Cheers,

--Mike Habib

[s_taillebois]

The crusaders, early on, had been fairly reliant on Byzantine siege engineers and technology. So very likely some of that technology was transfered-and even more so after 1453.
There was some interchange regarding architecture, as applicable to fortifications and etc. The Islamic broken arch, went to Europe (where it was used in both fortifications and churches). And the very effective layout, and building technologies of European style fortifications (ie Krak des Cheveliers) were taken up by the Moslims.
As for individual armaments, probably not as much, as they had reached a rough parity. Additionally, due to the long conflict in Spain, both military traditions had already been in contact for some time. So essentially, these weapons and technologies had already been compensating for each other.
The Byzantines, because of their tendancy to hire enemies of their enemies, or whoever they could buy out...Probably used the military interchange your speaking of, more than any other group. They at one time or another had, the Rus, Saxon axemen, Turkish archers, Genoese crossbowmen and etc fighting under their venue.
Indirectly, some basic technologies did transfer to Europe via the Moslim/Byzantine influence. The stirrup was likely a invention off the steppes, Greek fire (although the Byzantine's tried to keep that a state secret), and very obliquely through the East from China, the crossbow (a very early transfer, prior to the period we're discussing), possibly gunpowder, and paper (not normally a military technology...but try running an army without something like it)

[Mike Habib]

Thanks very much for the reply; very helpful insights. I hadn't thought of the influence of paper on warfare seriously before...that really would make a huge difference, wouldn't it?

Cheers,

--Mike

[s_taillebois]

Yes, it's often weird how these things interelate. The fightbooks this forum studies, were a product of the paper/linen industries of the 1400's, and the press. And books like those eventually made the citizen levee's (such as the Swiss, and English Yeomanry), more effective-one of the factors reducing the power of the armour plated aristocrats.
As far as other cross influences from the crusades, some Med. cultural interplay with the philosophies of the European combatants. Both the Hospitaliers and Templars, had been accused of integrating 'outside ideas', into their rituals intended to indoctrinate new fighters, or keep an esprit de corp. Unlikely to have been Islamic (although they may have respected them as adversaries), but there were varients of Christianity which would have been very different from that in Europe. Such as the Copts, Gnostics, Syrian's and Byzantine. And since the crusaders were in part motivated (and indoctrinated) by semi-secret religious rites-they may have been predisposed (or vulnerable depending on one's perspective) to inclusion of varient beliefs. Later on, whatever these inclusions were, were used against the crusading orders- (and much worse, when the French King tortured order members, they 'admitted' to all manner of heresies)
The crusade era was prone to that type of thing...ranging from the Cathars, to the crusading orders and etc, which did affect their martial culture.
By the 1400's this was much less evident, although allusions seem to remain in the fechtbuchs. Although we may study the fecthbuchs to learn the sword, one thing to carefully remember is that they had a very different social mnemonic. And so what we read, is very likely not what they read. Including the common religious references...
So although we may study the art of the sword, we are "looking through a glass darkly"

[Jeffrey Hull]

Arms and armour borrowed form the East? No.

It was more like the other way around. The Infidel highly desired *Frankish* swords. No one could make a steel sword better than the Western Europeans.

Records of Medieval Sword and Archaoeology of Weapons by Oakeshott, and Sword in Anglo-Saxon England by Davidson generally support this assertion of the high quality of that weaponry. Despite whatever they say at those *other* forums. <img src="/forum/images/icons/wink.gif" alt="" />