Saladin vs. Cromwell (Round 2) - Page 5 - Armchair General and HistoryNet >> The Best Forums in History

General Staff · #61 15 Jul 07, 17:03

Quote:

Originally Posted by Desert King

Well said...Alas, I must side with Salahuddin.

LoL- He says and then puts the boot (or Saracen slipper) in. Where are the Welsh when you really need them? The Cromwell family rode in on Henry Tudor's Welsh coat-tails... We just need 11 of you or my Forum Family to vote and we'll move him on to the next round...

***panther3485*** · #62 16 Jul 07, 11:03

After playing 'Age of Kings', I'm now a keen Saladin convert!

Desert King · #63 16 Jul 07, 19:15

Quote:

Originally Posted by General Staff

LoL- He says and then puts the boot (or Saracen slipper) in. Where are the Welsh when you really need them? The Cromwell family rode in on Henry Tudor's Welsh coat-tails... We just need 11 of you or my Forum Family to vote and we'll move him on to the next round...

Tis sad indeed. I wish they hadnt been paired together. I owe you one.

Redleg155 · #64 16 Jul 07, 22:59

Quote:

Originally Posted by Swampwolf

Exactly. Edward 1 threw them out of England but he could even beat Saladin I think.

Swampwolf -

I think you and I share a brain... everytime I want to type a response, I just scroll down a little and see that you're already answered it... however - I don't think Eddie could've beaten the Ayyubid Sultan...

For the record - I did vote for Saladin - Although in almost everything I've ever read, he's depicted as a fraile, short man that was more interested in Sunni Orthodoxy than brushing up on his military tactics... Kind of makes you wonder if he was a good field commander - or just inherited his uncle's military might...?

Swampwolf · #65 16 Jul 07, 23:41

Saladin's military innovation shouldn't be ignored, as it defined Islamic warfare for the next several hundred years. His elite guards of Turkish stock were more professional and more capable of beating the sporty Crusaders than the local levies had been. I'm sure the details of his army often escape the memories of his modern Islamic admirers, but it certainly had its impact on history.

Cromwell's innovation was simply much more decisive and has really developed into the modern army: His doctrine was a disciplined, ideologically driven, proletarian army. It wasn't the first of any of those things (armies of the 30 years war were disciplined and ideological, but were heavily mercenary), but it was the first since the Ancient times to combine them all into one.

piero1971 · #66 17 Jul 07, 08:25

Saladin.

smart, efficient, master of logistics, could switch between brutality and compassion depending of the foe, master in psychology, leader of men from different backgrounds.

what a great kurdish General he could have made in the Byzantine Army had that empire not been beaten by the Sassanids and later by the Arabs...

Protestant · #67 17 Jul 07, 09:50

Saladin didn't defeat the second crusade. Both the french and the austrians went home after minor arguments with the lionheart. Richard in fact defeated saladin in one of the only pitched battles of the second crusade. Yet it would be hard to take Jerrusilam with only the english army and a few german knights. Cromwell is a far better choice his armies defeated a enemy in a better position. He also developed I think new calvary tactics that were used until the 20th century. His soldiers advantige was that he insisted on them carrying a large pistol which allowed them to blow the royal cavaliers up at a distance. Another advantige was that the men in his new model army were mostly well behaved who didn't engage in any of the typical army behavior once they captured a town. All and all cromwell is a better general. Saladin was however far more tollerant then cromwell and thus should be commended for that.