Order Of Christian Marriage: Engagement And Formation For: Fill & Download for Free

Some claim that most people killed by Muslims are Muslims.This is True. [1][1][1][1]William Braniff, the executive director of START, (a National Consortium for the Study of Terrorism And Responses to Terrorism, which is hosted at the University of Maryland), says his team's data shows the vast majority of terrorist attacks occur in Muslim-majority countries, that the majority of the victims of terrorism are Muslims, and that they are most often killed by other Muslims. Global Terrorism DatabaseIn recent years, seven of the 10 countries that have had the most terrorists attacks have been strong Muslim majority nations. For the rest of the attacks in non-Muslim countries, most have primarily occurred in areas where there are significant Muslim populations.Researchers say that the number of incidents of terrorists targeting Muslims is rising, and though it is true right now that most are killed by other Muslims, part of that ‘rise’ could be due to anti-Islamic, white supremacist ideology which is also on the rise. [2][2][2][2] [3][3][3][3] Many people don’t know this because attacks committed by Muslims get 357% more media coverage than attacks committed by other groups.[4][4][4][4]News audiences may not be aware of the prevalence of anti-Muslim violence. Attacks on Muslims do not always make it into the national news if there aren’t fatalities. Such attacks are often called hate crimes instead of terrorist attacks.And they are hate crimes. Unfortunately that hate isn’t just modern and white. It reaches far back into the history between the two primary Islamic groups.Historically It’s Sunni vs.Everybody ElseAfter the death of Muhammad, there was a dispute among his followers concerning the succession which resulted in the Islamic schism producing the Sunni and the Shiite Muslims. They remain divided by both religious and political differences.The Shia claimed that Ali ibn Abi Talib was the rightful successor to the Prophet Muhammad as leader (imam) of the Muslim community. Then Ali was assassinated in 661 after a five-year caliphate that was marred by civil war. [5][5][5][5]His sons, Hassan and Hussein, were denied what they thought was their legitimate right of accession to the caliphate. Hassan is believed to have been poisoned in 680 by Muawiyah, the first caliph of the Sunni Umayyad dynasty, while Hussein was killed on the battlefield by the Umayyads in 681.This has pretty much been the pattern.[6][6][6][6]Most Muslims are Sunnis. Of the entire Muslim population in the Islamic world, only ten percent are Shia. In countries which have been governed by Sunnis, Shia tend to make up the poorest sections of society. They often see themselves as victims of discrimination and oppression.Sunni extremists frequently denounce Shia as heretics who should be killed.Sufis are a subset of both Sunnis and Shias who have often been singled out for particularly brutal treatment at the hands of the jihadis.Sufism, or tasawwuf, is an Islamic spiritual movement that utilizes prayer, asceticism, music and even dance to achieve a deeper understanding or knowledge of God. One of Sufism’s most recognizable figures is the whirling dervish, whose rapid spinning, along with the repeated invoking of the name of Allah, allows them to attain a state of ecstatic trance.Sufism, often known as Islamic mysticism, focuses on the renunciation of worldly things, purification of the soul and the mystical contemplation of God’s nature. Its modern-day adherents cherish tolerance and pluralism—qualities that unsettle extremists. As a result, it has come under violent attack in recent years. The worst terrorist attack in Egyptian history was aimed at Sufis. [7][7][7][7]Along with the Shia, Islamic fundamentalists and extremists see Sufism as a threat, and its adherents as heretics or apostates.The Islamic State has set itself apart by calling for brutal attacks against Sufis.Unfortunately, most Muslims are killed by other Muslims, and there is no sign of that abating. In fact, all the data indicates it’s getting worse.Are most people killed by Christians Christians or non-Christians?I think what is intended by this part of the question is asking if what is true of Islam is also true of Christianity—are most Christians killed by other Christians?The answer to this one is no. Most Christians are not killed by other Christians.The World Watch List ranks countries based on the degree of pressure and violence directed against Christians and the church.Top 20 countries where it’s most dangerous to be a Christian.In 15 out of the top 20 World Watch List countries, the primary cause of persecution is Islamic oppression.North Korea has been the number one persecutor of Christians for over a decade. North Korea is communist which is traditionally anti-religion of all kinds.For the first time since the start of the World Watch List, India has entered the top 10. Hindu nationalists in India continue to attack Christians with what seems like no consequences. In a growing number of countries, nationalism is intensifying into an ultra-nationalism that not only considers law-abiding minority groups to be a threat simply because they exist, but also employs aggression to force minorities to forsake their identity or leave the country.The latest trend is not only to threaten the church leader, but also to threaten or rape his wife, and even his young children. This reflects global trends which increasingly have identified the direct targeting of women and children as part of the dynamics of persecution.In the 2019 World Watch List reporting period, there were shocking details about the persecution experienced by Christian women. In many places, they experience a “double persecution”— one for being a Christian and one for being a woman. Even in the most restricted circumstances, gender-specific persecution is a key means of destroying the minority Christian community. This kind of persecution is difficult to assess because it is complex, violent and hidden—in many cultures where women are specifically targeted, it is difficult if not impossible to report accurate numbers. [8]Radical Islam has spread across sub-Saharan Africa into groups that enslave women and girls as an integral part of their strategy. Since 2017, Islamic militants have gained strength in Egypt, Somalia, Libya (and Yemen on the Arabian Peninsula), where they continue to recruit, and capture pockets of territory.Myanmar and Laos are Buddhist, and Vietnam claims atheism, but state authoritarianism with stricter state control of religious rights and religious oppression is increasing in these countries along with many other parts of the world. This is made possible by the ever-spreading availability of personal digital technology, which governments can increasingly track through facial recognition, electronic chips and so on.There are 150 countries where there is open persecution of Christians today, and almost all of them are either Islamic or communist, although Buddhism has become more militant recently as well.There are also three on this list that qualify as majority Christian countries.Eritrea (#7) is almost half and half, Christian and Muslim. For much of Eritrea’s history, Christians and Muslims have lived in the same country but not in the same regions: the highlands were controlled by Christians and the lowlands by Muslims. Eritrea is a one-party political system that hasn’t had a free election in 26 years. The President is both the executive and the legislative branches of the government. [9]In 2002, the government ordered the closure of all religious groups except for the Orthodox Church of Eritrea, Sunni Islam, the Roman Catholic Church and the Lutheran supported Evangelical Church of Eritrea. Other groups were forced to go underground, and adherents were threatened with severe consequences if caught gathering or worshipping.Mexico (#39) — Both Protestants and Catholic priests face persecution in Mexico.In the past decade over 50 Catholic priests and members of religious orders have been murdered, generally by drug trafficking gangs, because the religious spoke out against violence, or refused to pay protection money, or as a means of creating a climate of fear in order to control their communities. Mexico is the number one country in the world for the murder of Catholic Priests.The persecution of Protestants in Mexico occurs almost entirely among indigenous groups who consider themselves Catholic, but who actually practice a blend of mythologies of the old gods, along with faith in the new, and ancient Mayan traditions.[10]Mexico’s unique form of Catholicism is a blend of rabid religiosity and popular piety, where the sacramental and social commitments of the Christian faith are largely ignored: corrupt politicians, tight-fisted businessmen and cartel kingpins all consider themselves proper modern Mexican Catholics. [11][12]Colombia (#47) is another largely Catholic country that persecutes Protestant Christians. . [13] [14]“Church leaders are being threatened, harassed, extorted and even murdered as a result of the violence perpetrated by guerrillas or other criminal groups. Christians are also ridiculed when they try to participate in public debate, especially concerning gender, marriage and abortion. Natives who convert to Christianity, and missionaries, risk imprisonment, torture and the confiscation of property.”[15]For the greater part of its first thousand years, Christianity has been a non-violent religion that spread peacefully and endured martyrdom rather than fight back. But that record is far from spot free. There are a few marked exceptions—but they are exceptions and were not the norm in the church’s first millennia.Landed warriors who were Christian and countries led by Christians fought each other—as countries do—over land and power and wealth and ego—but the Christian church had no army of its own and practiced no military skills and had no theology to support such a thing.However, after being nearly wiped out by Islam in its first four centuries of life, Christianity learned how to be militant and went crusading in 1097. For the next 500 years, Christians fought both Muslims and ‘heretics’—each other. While some of the “religious” wars are disputed as being caused by the formation of the secular state rather than religion, it is absolutely unarguable that Christians fought each other in those wars. Even if religion was not the primary cause, it was an aspect of the fighting.Then the modern nation states were established, religion and state became separated, politics went its own way, secular government became the primary mover and shaker of war, and Christianity became mostly peaceful again.Christianity has no doctrine comparable to jihad. In order to be violent, a Christian has to find a way to obviate most of the New Testament. Even in order to support just war criteria, (and I do, so I know), a Christian has to rely more on Old Testament theology than new. Christianity does not easily lend itself to supporting violence—even to protect itself.The fact it has happened is an indication that politics, economics, patriotism and other driving factors are often more important than religion in making choices concerning war.In closing let me make it clear that white supremacist ideology is not a Christian ideology. There is no branch of Christianity that will say otherwise. The KKK — even in its heyday in the thirties — was never endorsed by any Christian denomination but was opposed by many. The KKK has a belief system that is built on what’s called “civil religion.” Civil religion is when nationalism becomes a religion. This is what produces militant white supremacists in the US, in Germany, and in England and the many other places around the globe where it is appearing like a cancer.It is not a product ofChristian fundamentalism. Christian fundamentalism wants to be allowed to turn its back on the world, and for the world to respond by leaving it alone to do just that. They want to be set apart and removed from the world. White supremacists want to engage with the world by burning it down.These so-called ‘supremacists’ know nothing about what their free democratic countries really stand for—nor do they understand or practice any kind of Christianity.Muslims are being killed for their beliefs. Christians are being killed for their beliefs.We should all care about that, and do what can be done to protect everyone equally. Religious repression and persecution is a threat to the peace of any country.Footnotes[1] Muslims 'absolutely' the group most victimized by global terrorism, researchers say[1] Muslims 'absolutely' the group most victimized by global terrorism, researchers say[1] Muslims 'absolutely' the group most victimized by global terrorism, researchers say[1] Muslims 'absolutely' the group most victimized by global terrorism, researchers say[2] Record number of anti-Muslim attacks reported in UK last year[2] Record number of anti-Muslim attacks reported in UK last year[2] Record number of anti-Muslim attacks reported in UK last year[2] Record number of anti-Muslim attacks reported in UK last year[3] Record number of anti-Muslim attacks reported in UK last year[3] Record number of anti-Muslim attacks reported in UK last year[3] Record number of anti-Muslim attacks reported in UK last year[3] Record number of anti-Muslim attacks reported in UK last year[4] Muslim terror attacks get 357 percent more media coverage than others: Study[4] Muslim terror attacks get 357 percent more media coverage than others: Study[4] Muslim terror attacks get 357 percent more media coverage than others: Study[4] Muslim terror attacks get 357 percent more media coverage than others: Study[5] Ali - Wikipedia[5] Ali - Wikipedia[5] Ali - Wikipedia[5] Ali - Wikipedia[6] Five Martyrs of Shia Islam - Wikipedia[6] Five Martyrs of Shia Islam - Wikipedia[6] Five Martyrs of Shia Islam - Wikipedia[6] Five Martyrs of Shia Islam - Wikipedia[7] Militants Kill 305 at Sufi Mosque in Egypt’s Deadliest Terrorist Attack[7] Militants Kill 305 at Sufi Mosque in Egypt’s Deadliest Terrorist Attack[7] Militants Kill 305 at Sufi Mosque in Egypt’s Deadliest Terrorist Attack[7] Militants Kill 305 at Sufi Mosque in Egypt’s Deadliest Terrorist Attack[8] https://www.opendoorsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/WWL2019_FullBooklet.pdf[9] Politics of Eritrea - Wikipedia[10] Preservation of Indigenous Spirituality Through Syncretism[11] Mexico's Christians face beatings, forced conversions at hands of hybrid faiths[12] Persecution in Mexico?[13] Why Mexico Is on the Watch List for Persecuted Christians - Open Doors USA[14] Colombia: Pastors facing death threats, assassination attempts by extortionists, kidnappers[15] https://www.opendoorsusa.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/01/WWL2019_FullBooklet.pdf

Indeed. They learned to integrate and deploy mounted archers in their armies.Yuval Harari has provided documentation to show that this arm made up on average 50% of the mounted strength of the armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.There was no tradition of mounted archers in Western Europe due to: 1) the cost of raising and maintaining horses of sufficient strength, agility, and intelligence to be suitable for mounted combat and 2) to the broken and wooded terrain that did not favor this kind of troops.The limited numbers of horses suitable for combat were bred to carry knights in full armor, i.e. for strength more than speed. The weapons of the knights, furthermore, were the lance and the sword, and the ethos of chivalry was one of individual "prowess" in close combat, man-to-man. Archery, by nature a long-distance weapon, was the province of mercenaries (who were proficient with cross-bows) and, later, the "yeoman" class that became the backbone of later English armies with their unique longbows. But that was still in the future. In the age of the crusades, "archery" in Europe was viewed primarily as a defensive weapon, useful first and foremost in siege warfare.In the Middle East, in contrast, the open steppe was ideal both for the breeding, rearing and the deployment of light cavalry. The Crusaders came in contact with the superb horse-archers of the Turks almost as soon as they crossed into Asia. Turkish mounted archers had by the First Crusade already conquered most of central Asia. They were a formidable enemy and the Franks who settled in Outremer and faced the Turkish archers in every engagement learned to respect them. They also rapidly recognized the advantages that this kind of warrior offered in the environment that they now inhabited.The fighting box was a tactical formation that protected the heavy cavalry and enabled it to save its strength for a massed charged. (For details see: Frankish Military Innovations: The Fighting Box) It was invaluable during a fighting retreat. It was highly effective in a set-piece battle. But it was worthless for other kinds of military operations.The Franks recognized that they needed light cavalry capable of conducting reconnaissance, carrying out hit-and-run raids, and providing a protective screen for their “fighting box.” While the first two of these functions were handled by knights in the West, this option was not available in the crusader states because of the nature of the terrain and the enemy. The heavy horses of the Franks, bred to carry fully armored knights, could not — one on one — escape the faster, lighter horses of the Turks. Heavy cavalry deployed on reconnaissance, therefore, was more likely to be ambushed and eliminated than get back with the intelligence needed by the main army.Light cavalry could also be used for hit-and-run raids against enemy camps or territory. Again, only the faster, native horses carrying lightly armored riders armed with bows were suitable for this kind of task. Light cavalry was also essential for communication as fleet messengers who at least had a chance of out-running any enemy were necessary to bring messages from one army unit to another or between a castle and a field army.The Franks not only recognized the need for light cavalry, they were remarkably rapid in developing it. Already by 1109, there are references in the primary sources to these troops. From that point forward, they played an increasingly important role in the fighting tactics and military successes of the Frankish armies of Outremer, in some cases operating independently, and in other cases in support of the infantry and heavy cavalry. Like the “fighting box,” they contributed substantially to the ability of the Frankish kingdoms to survive for two hundred years despite being dramatically outnumbered by their opponents.That is a remarkable achievement. Mastering horsemanship to the point where a man could survive in mounted combat took years -- literally. The 13th-century scholar Philip de Novare noted: "he will never ride well who did not learn it when young."[1] Mastering archery even from solid ground took equally as long. Becoming an effectively mounted archer took years and years of very hard, concentrated training. It did not happen overnight. It required having the time (i.e. leisure) to train and the money for horses -- one of the most expensive commodities in the Middle Ages. In short, poor people did not become mounted archers -- unless they were the slaves of rich people such as the Mamluks of the Saracens. This was not the tradition in the Crusader kingdoms that never employed slave soldiers in any capacity.So who were the mounted archers of the Crusader kingdoms and where did they come from?Frankish mounted archers are misleadingly but consistently referred to as “Turcopoles” in the primary sources of the period. Despite the name, which was borrowed from the Byzantines, the term “Turcopole” in the context of the crusader states refers not to an ethnic group but simply to “mounted archers” — of diverse ethnic character.The “Turcopoles” were not Muslim converts much less Muslim troops, as Yuval Harari demonstrates in his lengthy essay on the topic. [2] Harari notes:"Though the scale of Muslim conversion and desertion was relatively extensive...it is doubtful whether the Franks in general, and the military orders in particular, would have agreed to rely on troops of Muslim origin." [3]Furthermore, had they been apostate Muslims they would have been the object of outrage and horror in the entire Islamic world, something that would have been reflected in Muslim sources -- but is not. On the contrary, not only are they referred to neutrally there are numerous instances of prisoner exchanges involving Turcopoles. Had the Turcopoles been apostate Muslims that would have been impossible, since Sharia law prescribes execution for anyone who abjures Islam. There is not one instance where Turcopoles are singled out for verbal or physical abuse in the Muslim sources -- most of which were written by religious scholars with an acute sense of religious duty and understanding of Sharia law.Nor were the Turcopoles the children of mixed marriages. Harari notes that in all his research he failed to find a single documented case of a "half-caste Turcople."[4] The numbers also speak against this thesis. The number of Turcopoles at the Battle of Hattin alone, for example, was 4,000 according to the Brevis Historia. Based on numbers at 16 different engagements and other references, Harari concludes that the Turcopoles made up on average 50% of the mounted force fielded by the Franks.[5] Furthermore, both the Templars and Hospitallers had Turcopoles integrated into their organizations and their Rule carefully accounts for them.The most reasonable explanation of who the Turcopoles were is that they were primarily native (Orthodox) Christians. The principal objection to this conclusion is that four hundred years of Muslim oppression during which the Christian population had been prohibited from riding horses and carrying arms eliminated any military traditions and capacity. Certainly -- in the first generation. Which, incidentally, explains why the Turcopoles referred to in the early battles did not do particularly well.Two to three generations later, however, the situation was obviously different. Furthermore, the argument of "no military tradition" does not apply to the Armenians, who were a significant minority in the crusader kingdoms. There are also documented cases of native Christians becoming knights.[6] Indeed, there are instances of native Christians having command authority over Franks. [7] If they could become knights (i.e. heavy cavalrymen), there is no reason why they could not have become light cavalrymen.Last but not least, the value of light cavalry in the context of Outremer increased if the Frankish light cavalry would pass for Turkish cavalry and blend in with a native population that consisted primarily of Orthodox Christians with a large Muslim minority. These characteristics and a fluent/native command of Arabic was essential for Turcopoles to conduct intelligence and reconnaissance effectively -- as they demonstrably did on numerous occasions. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the excellence intelligence enjoyed by the Kingdom Jerusalem enabled the Franks to muster their armies in time to confront invading Muslim forces again and again. Indeed, Michael Ehrlich in his reassessment of the Battle of Montgisard in 1177, underlines how superior Frankish reconnaissance and intelligence was in this Christian victory -- a victory that is often treated as "a miracle" or simply "good luck." [8]The Turcopoles of Outremer deserve far more attention and credit than they have been given by historians and novelists to date![1] Novare quoted in Joshua Prawer, "Social Classes in the Latin KIngdom," A History of the Crusades Volume Five: The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East," editors Norman Zacour and Harry Hazard (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1985) 125.[2] Yuval Harari, “The Military role of the Frankish Turcopoles: A Reassessment,” Mediterranean Historical Review, 12:1, 75-116.[3] Harari, 105.[4] Harari, 102.[5] Harari, 75-86.[6] Christopher MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rought Tolerance (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Univ. Press, 2008), 153-156.[7] Harari, 104.[8] Michael Ehrlich, "Saint Cather's Day Miracle - the Battle of Montgisard," Journal of Medieval Military History, Vol. XI, 95-106.Turcopoles feature in nearly all my novels set in the crusader states, particularly Knight of Jerusalem and Rebels against Tyranny.

The armies of the crusader states did indeed differ significantly from the armies in operation in Europe in the same period. This is because without adaptation to their environment, they would not have survived. The crusader states were surrounded by hostile states, whose leaders increasingly called for jihad to push the “interlopers” back into the sea. Yet despite the vast numerical superiority of their enemies, the enclaves of Christian control were able to survive for nearly 200 years. Indeed, from 1100 to 1180 and again from 1197–1244, the armies of the Franks were predominantly on the offensive. This was largely due to two military innovations adopted by the Franks very soon after their arrival in the Holy Land: the "fighting box" and mounted archers.To appreciate the magnitude of the innovations made by the Franks, one must first call to mind that the era of the crusades (the 12th and 13th centuries) was characterized in Western Europe by feudal armies composed of large numbers of poorly equipped amateur infantry (feudal levees), small numbers of mercenaries armed predominantly with cross-bows, pikes, and swords, and even smaller numbers of professional cavalry: knights. Although the later had excellent weapons, armor, and training, they were very expensive to train and equip. These armies were extremely expensive to maintain and were therefore used only rarely and sporadically, while the bulk of fighting consisted of raids designed to destroy the economic base of the enemy by burning crops and orchards and destroying economic assets such as mills, bridges, etc.Furthermore, because of the topography and fragmented nature of feudal holdings, confrontations tended to be very localized. Likewise, feudalism fostered affinities that were local, based on personal fealty to one’s overlord rather than national armies. While the amateur infantry received little to no training and was prone to panic and flight, the professional knights “made a cult of bravery…[that] promoted a highly individualistic ethos of war….”[1] The result was a style of warfare dominated by sieges of key castles supported by attacks on the surrounding economic base. Any direct combat tended to be small-scale, hand-to-hand clashes between contingents of knights in which individual valor, and personal rivalries or animosities played an important role.When the First Crusade crossed into Asia, however, the Europeans were suddenly confronted with a completely new form of warfare. The Turks, who had established their dominance across the Middle East, were a nomadic people who had triumphed in an open and arid landscape by deploying large hordes of light cavalry armed with bows. The preferred tactic of the Turks was to surround their enemies and then kill them slowly and surely from a distance, without engaging in close combat. Their small, agile horses were fleet and if they were attacked, they fled, waited for their pursuers to tire, and then attacked again.The heavily armored knights of Europe astonished the Turks by their ability to withstand volley after volley of arrows unharmed, yet the European knights could not win a battle unless they could force the Turks to engage in hand-to-hand combat, where the heavier weapons and greater strength of the Frankish knights and horses could prove decisive. A massed charge of Frankish knights proved decisive in battle after battle — but a poorly-timed or poorly-executed charge almost always resulted in disaster for the Franks. Furthermore, the Turks soon recognized that while the fully armored knights were almost invulnerable, their unarmored horses were their Achilles heel. A knight without a horse was not only worthless, he was cold meat. So the Turks rapidly learned to concentrate their arrows on the horses and to try to provoke the knights into charging after them individually or in small, harmless groups that could be lured away from their comrades and ambushed as soon as their horses tired.To counter these tactics, the Franks adopted the “fighting box” and mounted archers.Fighting BoxThis formation placed the most vulnerable components of an army (baggage train, sick and wounded) in the center, surrounded by mounted knights, who were in turn surrounded by infantry with shields. The infantry protected the horses of the knights — until the commander decided it was time to risk a charge. Then the infantry would open and the heavy cavalry would charge the enemy. These fighting boxes could defend stationary positions — or move as a square across long distances. In a retreat the Franks would take the dead along, giving the enemy the impression that there were no casualties at all. When holding firm positions, fighting strength could be maintained by rotating the front-line units.The most important feature of this tactic is that it required first and foremost discipline — from all participants. Marching and fighting simultaneously are not easy. To be effective, the fighting box had to work as a single unit. It was necessary to prevent gaps from opening up between the ranks yet to keep moving without tiring the infantry. It was important for the infantry to keep their shields locked together — more like a Spartan phalanx than anything vaguely familiar from medieval Europe.The most famous campaign in which this formation was used to excellent effect was the march from Acre to Jaffa during the Third Crusade. Yet while Richard the Lionheart proved a master in deploying this formation and added support from his fleet, he was not the inventor of this tactic. The Franks of Outremer had used it for nearly 100 years before the Third Crusade. Indeed, the armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem had used it, again and again, something that testifies to the remarkable discipline of these armies — and, incidentally, contributed to greater respect for infantry and the burghers that comprised it. When that discipline broke down due to poor leadership, however, the result was utter obliteration — as at the Battle of Hattin.Mounted ArchersThe other -- far too often overlooked -- innovation was the introduction of mounted archers. Yuval Harari has provided documentation to show that this arm made up on average 50% of the mounted strength of the armies of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.There was no tradition of mounted archers in Western Europe due to: 1) the cost of raising and maintaining horses of sufficient strength, agility, and intelligence to be suitable for mounted combat and 2) to the broken and wooded terrain that did not favor this kind of troops. The limited numbers of horses suitable for combat were bred to carry knights in full armor, i.e. for strength more than speed. The weapons of the knights, furthermore, were the lance and the sword, and the ethos of chivalry was one of individual "prowess" in close combat, man-to-man. Archery, by nature a long-distance weapon, was the province of mercenaries (who were proficient with cross-bows) and, later, the "yeoman" class that became the backbone of later English armies with their unique longbows. But that was still in the future. In the age of the crusades, "archery" in Europe was viewed primarily as a defensive weapon, useful first and foremost in siege warfare.In the Middle East, in contrast, the open steppe was ideal both for the breeding, rearing and the deployment of light cavalry. The Crusaders came in contact with the superb horse-archers of the Turks almost as soon as they crossed into Asia. Turkish mounted archers had by the First Crusade already conquered most of central Asia. They were a formidable enemy and the Franks who settled in Outremer and faced the Turkish archers in every engagement learned to respect them. They also rapidly recognized the advantages that this kind of warrior offered in the environment that they now inhabited.While the fighting box as a tactical formation protected the heavy cavalry and enabled it to be effectively deployed in advance or retreat in a major battle, it was worthless for other kinds of military operations. The Franks recognized that they needed light cavalry capable of conducting reconnaissance, carrying out hit-and-run raids, and providing a protective screen for their “fighting box.” While the first two of these functions were handled by knights in the West, this option was not available in the crusader states because of the nature of the terrain and the enemy. The heavy horses of the Franks, bred to carry fully armored knights, could not — one on one — escape the faster, lighter horses of the Turks. Heavy cavalry deployed on reconnaissance, therefore, was more likely to be ambushed and eliminated than get back with the intelligence needed by the main army.Light cavalry could also be used for hit-and-run raids against enemy camps or territory. Again, only the faster, native horses carrying lightly armored riders armed with bows were suitable for this kind of task. Light cavalry was also essential for communication as fleet messengers who at least had a chance of out-running any enemy were necessary to bring messages from one army unit to another or between a castle and a field army.The Franks not only recognized the need for light cavalry, they were remarkably rapid in developing it. Already by 1109, there are references in the primary sources to these troops. From that point forward, they played an increasingly important role in the fighting tactics and military successes of the Frankish armies of Outremer, in some cases operating independently, and in other cases in support of the infantry and heavy cavalry. Like the “fighting box,” they contributed substantially to the ability of the Frankish kingdoms to survive for two hundred years despite being dramatically outnumbered by their opponents.That is a remarkable achievement. Mastering horsemanship to the point where a man could survive in mounted combat took years -- literally. The 13th-century scholar Philip de Novare noted: "he will never ride well who did not learn it when young."[2] Mastering archery even from solid ground took equally as long. Becoming an effectively mounted archer took years and years of very hard, concentrated training. It did not happen overnight. It required having the time (i.e. leisure) to train and the money for horses -- one of the most expensive commodities in the Middle Ages. In short, poor people did not become mounted archers -- unless they were the slaves of rich people such as the Mamluks of the Saracens. This was not the tradition in the Crusader kingdoms that never employed slave soldiers in any capacity.So who were the mounted archers of the Crusader kingdoms and where did they come from?Frankish mounted archers are misleadingly but consistently referred to as “Turcopoles” in the primary sources of the period. Despite the name, which was borrowed from the Byzantines, the term “Turcopole” in the context of the crusader states refers not to an ethnic group but simply to “mounted archers” — of diverse ethnic character.The “Turcopoles” were not Muslim converts much less Muslim troops, as Yuval Harari demonstrates in his lengthy essay on the topic. Harari notes:"Though the scale of Muslim conversion and desertion was relatively extensive...it is doubtful whether the Franks in general, and the military orders in particular, would have agreed to rely on troops of Muslim origin." [3]Furthermore, had they been apostate Muslims they would have been the object of outrage and horror in the entire Islamic world, something that would have been reflected in Muslim sources -- but is not. On the contrary, not only are they referred to neutrally there are numerous instances of prisoner exchanges involving Turcopoles. Had the Turcopoles been apostate Muslims that would have been impossible, since Sharia law prescribes execution for anyone who abjures Islam. There is not one instance where Turcopoles are singled out for verbal or physical abuse in the Muslim sources -- most of which were written by religious scholars with an acute sense of religious duty and understanding of Sharia law.Nor were the Turcopoles the children of mixed marriages. Harari notes that in all his research he failed to find a single documented case of a "half-caste Turcople."[4] The numbers also speak against this thesis. The number of Turcopoles at the Battle of Hattin alone, for example, was 4,000 according to the Brevis Historia. Based on numbers at 16 different engagements and other references, Harari concludes that the Turcopoles made up on average 50% of the mounted force fielded by the Franks.[5] Furthermore, both the Templars and Hospitallers had Turcopoles integrated into their organizations and their Rule carefully accounts for them.The most reasonable explanation of who the Turcopoles were is that they were primarily native (Orthodox) Christians. The principal objection to this conclusion is that four hundred years of Muslim oppression during which the Christian population had been prohibited from riding horses and carrying arms eliminated any military traditions and capacity. Certainly -- in the first generation. Which, incidentally, explains why the Turcopoles referred to in the early battles did not do particularly well.Two to three generations later, however, the situation was obviously different. Furthermore, the argument of "no military tradition" does not apply to the Armenians, who were a significant minority in the crusader kingdoms. There are also documented cases of native Christians becoming knights.[6] Indeed, there are instances of native Christians having command authority over Franks.[7] If they could become knights (i.e. heavy cavalrymen), there is no reason why they could not have become light cavalrymen.Last but not least, the value of light cavalry in the context of Outremer increased if the Frankish light cavalry would pass for Turkish cavalry and blend in with a native population that consisted primarily of Orthodox Christians with a large Muslim minority. These characteristics and a fluent/native command of Arabic was essential for Turcopoles to conduct intelligence and reconnaissance effectively -- as they demonstrably did on numerous occasions. As I have pointed out elsewhere, the excellent intelligence enjoyed by the Kingdom Jerusalem enabled the Franks to muster their armies in time to confront invading Muslim forces again and again. Indeed, Michael Ehrlich in his reassessment of the Battle of Montgisard in 1177, underlines how superior Frankish reconnaissance and intelligence was in this Christian victory -- a victory that is often treated as "a miracle" or simply "good luck." [8]The Turcopoles of Outremer deserve far more attention and credit than they have been given by historians and novelists to date![1]France, John, “Warfare in the Mediterranean Region in the Age of the Crusades, 1095–1291: A Clash of Contrasts,” The Crusades and the Near East: Cultural Histories, ed. Conor Kostick (London: Routledge, 2011, 9–26) 11.[2] Novare quoted in Joshua Prawer, "Social Classes in the Latin KIngdom," A History of the Crusades Volume Five: The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East," editors Norman Zacour and Harry Hazard (Madison: Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1985) 125.[3] Yuval Harari, “The Military role of the Frankish Turcopoles: A Reassessment,” Mediterranean Historical Review, 12:1, 105.[4] Harari, 102.[5] Harari, 75-86.[6] Christopher MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rought Tolerance (Philadelphia: Pennsylvania Univ. Press, 2008), 153-156.[7] Harari, 104.[8] Michael Ehrlich, "Saint Cather's Day Miracle - the Battle of Montgisard," Journal of Medieval Military History, Vol. XI, 95-106.