All posts by Patrick Shrier

I own this site see my About me page

The Hattin Campaign and the Triumph of Saladin in 1187

Medieval politics make modern politics look like child’s play.  If any act from medieval times highlights this it is the Hattin Campaign of 1187 in which the entire military might of the Christian Kingdom of Jerusalem was destroyed because the Christians themselves collectively acted stupidly due to internal political factors in the face of an existential external threat.  The final campaign of the Kingdom of Jerusalem is best seen as an object lesson of what happens when you let internal politics direct external actions.

In 1186 Guy de Lusignan became king of Jerusalem through his wife Sibylla after the death of Baldwin V while in his minority.  The coronation was disputed at the time by Raymond III who had been regent under Baldwin V.  This dispute almost led to civil war and it did lead Raymond to leave the capital with his retinue and return to Tripoli.

In April, 1187 Raymond had negotiated a truce with Saladin to allow transit of Muslims below Galillee.  Balian if Ibelin violated the truce, attacked the Muslim force commanded by Al Afdal, and was defeated at the Battle fo Cresson on 1 May 1187.Hattin 1

The violation of the truce led Saladin to declare the Kingdom of Jerusalem essentially outlaw and mount an invasion.  Because the prospect of hanging concentrate a man greatly, the Christians of the kingdom put aside their differences and called out the host of the kingdom to try and defeat Saladin and save the kingdom.

The Christian army massed near the springs of Saffuriya. Meanwhile on July 2nd Saladin initiated of siege of Raymond’s castle (near modern Kinneret) at Lake Tiberias (Sea of Galilee).  The castle garrison surrendered the same day after an offer to pay tribute was rejected.  Raymond’s wife remained holed up in the castle citadel.Hattin 2

When news arrived of the fall of the castle but that the citadel was still holding out a war council was held.  After much arguing it was agreed that the Christian army would move to lift the siege.

They approached Tiberias on July 3rd.  When they spotted Saladin’s army they moved to defensive positions on the Horns of Hattin, a two summited hill without a spring or water source about 4 kilometers from the castle.

Saladin seized the Springs of Tur’an, the only convenient water source for the Christians.  The single biggest mistake the fractious Christians made was to retreat there in the first place.  Saladin used his army, and especially hi horse archers, to pick off individual Christian soldiers who cam off the hill to find water.  Saladin aggravated the lack of water by setting grass fires that choked the Christian army with smoke and eventually the Christian army moved off of the hill and attempted to break Saladin’s line to get to the lake and water.

After the Christians came off the hill Saladin split his cavalry in two to flank the Christian army.  Saladin now had the Christians surrounded.  His archers continually harassed the Christians and they faded away when the knights charged only to start firing again when the knights returned to the Christian lines.  After the second charge Raymond of Tripoli was cut off from the main body and he retreated from the battlefield.  Eventually the remnants of the Christian army was trapped on the Horns where they surrendered to Saladin.  The captured included the Grand Masters of the knights Templar and Hospitaler as well King Guy and many of the Christian nobility.

After the Battle of Hattin the Christian nobility of the Kingdom of Jerusalem was decimated. The Kingdom would never recover although it would be another 100 years before the last vestiges of the Christian Kingdom were ejected from the Holy Land.

Casualties

Hattin 3

 

After the disaster at the Horns of Hattin Saladin marched on Jerusalem and laid siege to it.

The city surrendered on October 2nd and unlike the orgy of rape and pillage when the First Crusade had taken the city in 1099 Saladin allowed the residents of the city to ransom themselves.  The Patriarch of Jerusalem took up a collection which paid the ransom for about 18,000 residents.  Those who could not pay and the soldiers who defended the city were sold into slavery.

The crusader kingdom of Jerusalem was rescued by the Third Crusade, which captured Acre on the coast.  This rump state of coastal cities survived for another hundred years until the final Fall of Acre in 1291 to the Mamluk Baibars.

Book Review Featured Image

Book Review: BOLO! by David Weber

Bolo! by David Weber is kind of an anthology and kind of a series of related novels, I cannot decide which.  Regardless, it is a solid offering from Weber, of Honorverse fame.  The book is 388 pages and consists of 4 chronologically arranged BOLO stories with an annex on the technical characteristics of the evolution of the BOLO.

If you are not familiar with the super tanks known as BOLOs from the books of Keith Laumer this is a good introductory book that will make you want to go read more from Laumer, the guy that invented the concept.  Weber does a solid job of telling these stories as he does a solid job of telling any stories he puts his fingers to keyboard for.  I just think Laumer does a better job of telling BOLO stories.

This is not a bad book, but it is not a great one.  Weber excels when he is in the Honorverse but his stories outside that comfort zone seem to lack a little something.  The best books by Weber that do not include Honor Harrington are the Starfire books he wrote with Steve White.

This is a good book that is sure to entertain but it leaves this fan of David Weber wanting something undefinable that is just not there.  Perhaps it the nature of the anthology and the shorter stories that don’t have as much space for character development.  This is still worth reading though.

In Flanders Fields

Given that 100 years ago men were fighting and dying in the opening months of what they would come to call the Great War and we call WWI, I decided to post one of the most famous and memorable poems to come out of that war.  This poem is one of the reasons that the VFW sells Poppies today in their fundraisers.  It really is true that the fields of Flanders are covered with Poppies in spring and summer.  Every time I visit Flanders the poppies serve as a reminder of the slaughter that took place there.

In Flanders Fields
By John McRae

In Flanders fields the poppies blow
Between the crosses, row on row,
That mark our place; and in the sky
The larks, still bravely singing, fly
Scarce heard amid the guns below.

We are the Dead. Short days ago
We lived, felt dawn, saw sunset glow,
Loved and were loved, and now we lie
In Flanders fields.

Take up our quarrel with the foe:
To you from failing hands we throw
The torch; be yours to hold it high.
If ye break faith with us who die
We shall not sleep, though poppies grow
In Flanders fields.

Some backstory on the Poem and Remembrance Poppies can be found on the In Flanders Fields page of GreatWar.co.uk

Moral Relativism and War

If you are of liberal political leanings you will probably not like this piece as I am going to proceed to attempt to demolish several sacred cows of contemporary liberal thought.  I unreservedly admit that I am politically conservative and further admit that I am not trying to be unbiased in his piece.  I am essentially venting my spleen at the half-truths and outright lies I so often find in books that purport to be histories but that are in reality only thinly disguised attacks on historical actors.  I find it typically liberal that such attacks are often made on those that cannot defend themselves, such as historical figures long dead.  I personally find the practice repulsive and try very hard to avoid doing the same thing in my own historical writing.  Then again, if you are liberal and don’t like it, I do not particularly care either.

I am currently reading House of War: The Pentagon and the Disastrous Rise of American Power by James Carroll.  The level of moral relativism within this book is unreal.  I figured it would be a leftist take on the Pentagon because there is a blurb of praise on the back cover from Howard Zinn, the ultimate leftist historian.  What I did not count on was the sheer level of Western hatred disguised as objectivity that I would find within the cover.  That being said, this is not a review of this book in particular but an examination of leftist historiography, particularly when it comes to military history, in General.

I have read many leftist histories over the years from Isabel Hull and Iris Chang to Thomas Fleming, Paul Fussell, Dave Grossman, and Howard Zinn.  One thing they all have in common from my perspective is a formless hatred of all things Western and a lack of a solid grasp on reality.  They don’t write history, so much as polemics designed to convince the reader that they know the big T truth and if you disagree with them then you are part of the problem. In short,  Leftist history is activist history.  It is the type of history that would have you believe that the best thing that could have ever happened to the world is if the population of Europe had been destroyed during the Black Death, if not even earlier, say perhaps before the Dorics moved into Greece during the second millennium B.C.

If you read leftist history everything not Western is great and everything that has the touch of the West on it is evil incarnate from the Greek settlement of southern Europe to the European colonization of the Americas and just about everything in between and since.  They would have you believe that Westerners deliberately introduced disease to the New World to decimate and subjugate the natives to deliberately keeping the peoples of Africa down since de-colonialization to economically exploit them some more.  That everything having to do with the Christian church is evil incarnate while Atheism is cool and Muslims are peaceful little sheepherders.  Every group out there with a grievance against the West is justified in not only having it but in doing whatever they can to attack the West and they are willing participants as they seek to undermine Western culture itself from the inside.

It is as if liberals truly believe that contemporary morals have a place in describing the actions of people in the past who ascribed to a wholly different moral code and that they are unable to make the distinction that while they personally find an action immoral, at the time it was made, the action may have been considered fully justified.  That is not moral relativism; that is reality.  Today we don’t think exposing unwanted children to die on a mountainside is morally justified but the ancient Spartans did and it is stupid in the extreme to condemn ancient practice on the basis of contemporary morality.

Let’s take just a few examples from popular Western history that have gained the currency of Truth in leftist circles.

1. Western Genocide against Indians – This one is so laughable I don’t even understand how the idea got so much currency.  Leftists would have us believe that Westerners deliberately introduced diseases such as smallpox into the New World during colonization to kill off the inhabitants and clam the land for themselves.  Of course that presuppose that 15 Century Spanish, Portuguese, and English explorers understand how diseases were transmitted.  That the Germ Theory of Disease did not gain wide scientific currency until the mid to late 19th century is conveniently ignored.  The most common invective hurled is that of the US Cavalry giving out smallpox covered blankets during the Indian Wars.  This claim was given credence by the now discredited Ward Churchill and has been pretty well destroyed by Thomas Brown in the Journal, Plagiary.Despite the subsequent disgrace of Churchill’s corpus of work the myth continues that the US Army deliberately triggered an epidemic of smallpox among native Americans to “get them out of the way.”  That claim is made elsewhere about Indians throughout the Americas.
While epidemics did occur, as Jared Diamond so persuasively argues in Guns, Germs, and Steel, it did not take deliberation for European diseases to decimate native populations.  All it took was one sick European infecting unknowing natives.  Widespread epidemics and subsequent population loss did occur in the Americas after the arrival of Europeans, that was the natural result of American populations being exposed to diseases for which they had absolutely no resistance, because heretofore these disease did not occur in the Americas.
The narrative that Europeans deliberately killed off huge populations of Indians suits the left though, so they will keep it alive and it is easy to do because so many people take the claim at face value and never bother to research it for themselves.

2. The sanctity of civilians in wartime – There is a persistent assertion among both leftist historians and the media that throughout history the lives, property, and persons of civilians has been sacrosanct in war and the large scale killing of non-combatants is a new phenomenon.  Nothing could be further from the truth, the difference in modern times is that it is easier for a few men to kill lots of civilians, not that civilians have never been a legitimate target. You will not hear a liberal admit that anytime soon though.
You will never hear a liberal acknowledge the Mongol policy of massacring entire cities that refused to surrender.  That the rule in medieval Europe was that a city that had to be taken by force was sacked for 72 hours, that for hundreds of years Muslim slave traders preyed on European shipping in the Mediterranean, or that the ancient Goths and others who preyed on the edges of the Roman Empire routinely slaughtered entire villages as a way of solidifying their control of areas by spreading terror.  There has never been an absolute prohibition on killing civilians in warfare and what protections civilians have had, especially in modern times, comes out of the Western, specifically, Roman and Christian traditions.

3. Dropping the Atomic Bomb on Japan – The dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki at the end of World War II is a topic that has come in for considerable debate.  I have even read people that claim America should apologize and perhaps pay reparations for the bombing.  I am flabbergasted by this.  I simply cannot understand how America should in any way apologize for ending the war that Japan started or the manner in which they did so.  This argument even goes back and claims that Japan was goaded into war by American policy.  That is the “West is at fault argument” taken to its absurd extreme.  What is even more ironic and silly is that many of the folks who make this claim condemn America and then turn around and condemn Japanese wartime conduct out the other side of their mouth.  These people would have you believe that America is in the wrong for civilian deaths at Saipan and Okinawa during the war and that any place with civilians nearby was not a legitimate target.
I hate to disappoint people, but people die in wars, sometimes the dead are even civilians.  Civilians are not normally targeted but they are legitimate targets as civilians are the lifeblood of any society and nothing can convince a people that they have lost than seeing that their military cannot defend them.  Targeting civilians is a legitimate act of warfare.  Unsavory yes, but still legitimate.  The arrow, bullet, or bomb that can always miss a civilian has not been invented and probably never will be.  It would be imprudent in the extreme for a military force to hamstring itself out of fear of causing a single civilian death.  If they do that they might as well surrender because the military is then of no use to the society that sponsors it and it is to the sponsoring society that the military must answer, not that of the enemy.

 Rant over.  Feel free to comment, I am more than happy to debate on this.  (the usual comment rules apply)

1. Brown Thomas. Did the U.S. Army Distribute Smallpox Blankets to Indians? Fabrication and Falsification in Ward Churchill’s Genocide RhetoricPlagiary:  CrossDisciplinary Studies in Plagiarism, Fabrication, and Falsification. Vol 1, 2006 pp. 100‐129

 

Book Review Featured Image

Book Review: Counterinsurgency: Exposing the Myths of the New Way of War by Douglas Porch

The new 2014 US Army Chief of Staff Professional Reading List (PRL) was recently released and I was relieved in the extreme to see that there was only one novel on the list, Once an Eagle by Anton Myrer.  The list is different than earlier lists because it is organized topically instead of by position as earlier lists were.  I have read many of the books on the list already and decided to read the ones I have not and post my thoughts on the books on the list.  This review is the second in that series.

After reading Counterinsurgency: Exposing the Myths of the New Way of War by Douglas Porch I am actually surprised this book made the list.  Mainly because Porch spares no sacred cows in his skewering of Western counterinsurgency doctrine over the past century or so.  This is essentially a study of counterinsurgency doctrine from 1870 forward and an attempt to determine said doctrines effectiveness.

The book itself is 346 pages of text with 53 pages of notes, a 17 page bibliography, and an index.  It is divided into 11 chapters, 10 of which are topical and the eleventh is the conclusion.

To start with, Porch’s disdain for the modern school of COIN thought is apparent throughout as he mentions it’s proponents as COIN-dinistas.  Most of the book is a look at modern insurgencies and the way they have been combated starting with the Peninsular War in the early 19th century.  The constant narrative thread is that COIN is and has been a failure in whatever guise it has been tried.  The only sure way of suppressing an insurgency is through the swift application of violence and maintaining a military presence.  “Hearts and Minds” is a failure because you cannot induce people to be something they do not want to be and any appearance of success is illusory because as soon as the threat of force and repression is removed people will revert back to what they were before the threat existed.

I must admit that I tend to agree with Porch’s assessment and my reading of history says the same thing. The only thing that allows a foreign or domestic power seen as illegitimate to stay in power is repression.  It was true 200 years ago, it was true 2,000 years ago, and it is true today.  WItness the continuing failure of US efforts in Iraq and Afghanistan today and compare that to Roman efforts to control Judaea in ancient times.  Repression, usually bloody repression at that, is the only surefire method of controlling insurgency.  Repression only works because eventually you either kill all the insurgents or cow those that remain into submission.

That method of warmaking is anathema to the modern West and so Porch is undoubtedly correct that Western powers are doomed to continue to fail in their attempts at counterinsurgency.  The question is not how to win against an insurgency (they are essentially unwinnable), but why the West gets involved in them at all?

Porch’s book is a sad record of COIN failure and an analysis of why that is so.  He freely admits he does not have an answer for how Western forces can fight and win an insurgency and stay within modern notions of warfare.  The two are probably incompatible.

Counterinsurgency: Exposing the Myths of the New Way of War is a thought provoking and damning study of COIN doctrine both historical and modern.  I would compare this to Max Boot’s The Savage Wars Of Peace: Small Wars And The Rise Of American Power.  Boot thinks that there is a winning combination, Porch does not.

I can see why this book is on the CSA’s list and it fully deserves to be there.  If you are interested in a nuanced and realistic discussion of how and why COIN doctrine is a prescription for failure and what has worked historically then this is it.  I highly recommend this outstanding book for taking an uncompromising and realistic look  at the failure of COIN both today and in the past.