Leadership Training Evaluation Form - The Citadel: Fill & Download for Free

‘The Most Brilliant Commander’: Ngo Quang TruongBY JAMES H. WILLBANKS10/15/2007 • VIETNAMNgô Quang Trưởng died of cancer on January 22, 2007, in Fairfax, Virginia. Shortly after his death, the Virginia Legislature passed a Joint Resolution “Celebrating the Life of Ngo Quang Truong.” This singular honor for a man who came to this country in 1975 was clearly justified by the sacrifices that Truong made in defense of his South Vietnamese homeland and the exemplary life that he lived both before and after coming to his adopted country.He was considered one of the most honest and capable generals of the South Vietnamese army during the long war in Southeast Asia. The US officers that worked with him generally rated him to be superior to most American commanders. General Bruce Palmer Jr. described him in his book The 25-Year War as a “tough, seasoned, fighting leader” and “probably the best field commander in South Vietnam.” General Creighton Abrams, who commanded American military operations in Vietnam from 1968 to 1972, told subordinates that he thought General Truong was capable of commanding an American division. He was also renowned for his integrity and his uninvolvement in corruption, favoritism or political cronyism, as well as his empathy and solidarity with his soldiers.Truong was born on December 19, 1929, to a well-to-do family in the Mekong Delta province of Kien Hoa. After graduating from My Tho College, he attended the Reserve Officer School in Thu Duc, then received his commission as an infantry officer in the South Vietnamese Army in 1954. Truong went immediately to airborne school and spent the next 12 years in the elite airborne brigade, first assigned as commander of 1st Company, 5th Airborne Battalion.He soon saw action in a 1955 operation to eliminate the Bình Xuyên river pirateswho were vying with President Ngo Dinh Diem’s government for control of Saigon and the surrounding area. For his role in this operation, he was awarded a battlefield promotion to first lieutenant. In 1964, promoted to major and appointed commander of the 5th Airborne Battalion, he led a heliborne assault into the Do Xa Secret Zone in Minh Long district, Quang Ngai province, shattering the base area of the Viet Cong’s B-1 Front Headquarters. Meanwhile, Truong built a reputation as a charismatic leader who led from the front and took care of his soldiers.The 5th Airborne Battalion, still under his command, conducted a helicopter assault in 1965 into the Hac Dich Secret Zone in the area of Ong Trinh Mountain in Phuoc Tuy (Ba Ria) province, the base area of the VC’s 7th Division. After two days of fighting during which his battalion inflicted heavy losses on two enemy regiments, Truong received a battlefield promotion to lieutenant colonel and was also awarded the National Defense Medal, Fourth Class.After the Hac Dich battle, Truong was assigned as chief of staff of the Airborne Brigade and then became chief of staff of the Airborne Division in late 1965. As historian Dale Andradé points out, this non combat position might have stagnated his career, but his reputation for bravery and fairness got him noticed by the top brass in Saigon. General Cao Văn Viên, chief of the South Vietnamese Joint General Staff from 1965 to 1975, later described Truong as “one of the best commanders at every echelon the Airborne Division ever had.”In 1966, when violent civil disorders broke out in central Vietnam, he was appointed acting commander of the 1st Infantry Division in Hue. Although Truong, a Buddhist, was uncomfortable commanding a unit charged with quelling demonstrations by Buddhists protesting military control of the government, he carried out his duties with professionalism, and Saigon made the appointment permanent. With his hands-on leadership, Truong quickly molded the division, which had a poor reputation prior to his arrival, into one of the best units in the South Vietnamese army. Lieutenant General Robert E. Cushman Jr., commander of III Marine Amphibious Force in I Corps Tactical Zone, and his principal subordinate, Lt. Gen. Richard G. Stilwell, commander of XXIV Corps, both felt that because of Truong’s efforts, the ARVN 1st Division was “equal to any American unit.”His American adviser at the time wrote that Truong was “dedicated, humble, imaginative and tactically sound.” And General William Westmoreland, commander of Military Assistance Command, Vietnam, said that Truong "would rate high on any list of capable South Vietnamese leaders … [other U.S. commanders] so admired Truong that they would trust him to command an American division."In 1967 Truong’s units of the 1st Infantry Division attacked and destroyed the Viet Cong infrastructure and a large number of guerrilla forces of the Luong Co–Dong Xuyen–My Xa Front in Huong Tra district, Thua Thien province. After this, he was promoted to brigadier general.During the Tet Offensive of 1968, General Truong commanded the 1st Division during some of the war’s bloodiest fighting in Huế. Two nights before the offensive began, Truong, at his headquarters in the old Imperial capital, sensed something amiss and put his troops on alert. When the night passed uneventfully, he dismissed his advisers but kept his troops ready.The battle began at 0330 hours on January 31, 1968, with two battalions of the North Vietnamese Army’s 6th Regiment attacking the old Imperial capital and the 4th NVA Regiment attacking the U.S. MACV compound in the “New City” south of the Perfume River. General Truong, whose Hac Bao (Black Panther)reaction company had managed to hold the division headquarters compound against the initial assault, immediately ordered his 3rd Regiment, then on an operation north of the city, to come to his relief. The regiment, reinforced by three ARVN airborne battalions, reached his headquarters in the Citadel’s northeast corner on the evening of January 31. The next day, Truong began an attack to retake the entire Citadel and clear the north bank of the river. At his request, U.S. Marines were committed to clear the south bank of the river.Hac Bao Reaction CompanyOn February 4, the 1st Battalion, 1st Marines, reinforced by the 2nd Battalion, 5th Marines, began fighting house-to-house to drive the enemy from the area. By February 9, the south bank had been cleared. When the ARVN 1st Division attack north of the river stalled on February 12, the division was reinforced by two Vietnamese marine battalions. Truong also asked for U.S. assistance, and the U.S. 1st Battalion, 5th Marines, was committed to the fight. Together, the U.S Marines and South Vietnamese soldiers and marines fought house to house to force the enemy out of the area. On March 2, 1968, the battle of Hue was officially at an end. More than 50 percent of the city had been either damaged or destroyed. ARVNand Republic of Vietnam Marine Corps casualties included 384 killed and 1,830 wounded; the U.S. Marines suffered 142 killed and 857 wounded. The U.S. Army suffered 74 killed and 507 wounded in fighting outside the city.As usual, Truong had performed magnificently, directing his troops in a calm but charismatic fashion. Lieutenant General Cushman, who became his close friend after working with him, described Truong’s performance during the battle: “He survived with the enemy all around him. They never took his command post, but they took the rest of the Citadel.”After Tet, Truong was given a special promotion to the rank of major general. In August 1970, he was assigned to command IV Corps headquartered at Can Tho in the Mekong Delta (Military Region 4). In June 1971, he was promoted to lieutenant general.As commander of the ARVN forces in the Mekong Delta, Truong’s strategy was to establish a system of outposts along the Cambodian border to interdict movement of Communist troops and supplies into the area, while his three assigned divisions broke into regimental-sized combined arms task forces and conducted operations to find and destroy enemy forces in their traditional strongholds located throughout the region. The scrupulously honest Truong meanwhile launched a campaign against “ghost” and “ornamental” soldiers, deserters and draft-dodgers in the IV Corps zone. He also increased the capability of the Regional Forcesand Popular Forces in his area, making them an integral part of the defensive plan for the security of the Mekong Delta.On March 30, 1972, the North Vietnamese launched their “Easter Offensive.” The attacking force included 14 infantry divisions and 26 separate regiments, with more than 120,000 troops and about 1,200 tanks and other armored vehicles. The main NVA objectives were Quảng Trị Province in the north, Kon Tum Province in the Central Highlands and An Lộc farther south in Military Region III.The attack began at noon on Good Friday, with heavy artillery strikes on all the firebases in the I Corps area south of the demilitarized zone. The next day, three divisions from the North Vietnamese B-5 Front struck the string of ARVN firebases just south of the DMZ, which were manned by the green ARVN 3rd Division. The South Vietnamese troops, outnumbered 3-to-1, fell back as the North Viet­namese pushed south. As firebase after firebase fell to the 40,000 NVA, Quảng Trị Combat Base was threatened and ultimately evacuated in the face of the attack. In the bitter fighting, the ARVN 3rd Division was shattered and ceased to exist as a viable fighting force.On May 1, 1972, Communist troops captured Quảng Trị, the first provincial capital to fall during their offensive. This gave the North Vietnamese control of the surrounding province, and they continued the attack to the south.Realizing the dire circumstances, President Nguyen Van Thieu relieved I Corps commander Lt. Gen. Hoàng Xuân Lãm, who had been unable to stop the North Vietnamese advance, and ordered General Truong to assume command of I Corps. Truong left his IV Corps headquarters at Can Tho and arrived in Danang on May 3. Historian Lewis Sorley later wrote that the effects of the change in command were “electric.” Truong’s arrival helped calm the situation, and his mere presence gave new hope to the South Vietnamese forces in I Corps.General Truong quickly took command, broadcasting an order that all military deserters who did not return to their units within 24 hours would be shot on sight. He went on television and promised that he would hold Hue and turn back the Communists. He put together a hand-picked staff and then moved his headquarters to Hue, which was beset by panic in the face of the continued North Vietnamese onslaught. Stabilizing the situation, he devised a comprehensive defense in depth to halt the NVA advance. At the same time, he initiated a program to refit and retrain the South Vietnamese units that had been so badly battered in the retreat from Quang Tri. Using new equipment provided by the United States, he put these units back together and gave them an accelerated training program.Hue 1972By mid-May, the Hue defenses had been solidified, the situation had stabilized and the refurbished units were ready. Truong launched a counteroffensive with three divisions to retake lost ground, with the help of U.S. firepower, including strikes by B-52 Stratofortress bombers; close air support by Air Force, Navy and Marine Corps fighter-bombers; Army attack helicopters; and naval gunfire provided by the Seventh Fleet. It was a deliberate and slow process, but Truong’s forces routed six NVA divisions to retake Quang Tri on September 16.Many of the firebases along the DMZ were recaptured, and by the end of October the situation in I Corps had stabilized. With the recapture of Quảng Trị and the ARVN steadfastness at Kontum and An Lộc, the heart went out of the North Vietnamese offensive. Truong had completely turned the disastrous situation around in I Corps by the sheer force of his personal leadership.Sadly it was not to be so again three years later. In 1975, Truong faced his greatest challenge. The ARVN defenses in the Central Highlands collapsed in the face of a new North Vietnamese offensive. President Thieu ordered Truong to defend Hue to the death, and the general set about to strengthen the city’s defenses, preparing to make a stand there. However, a week long debate with Thieu and his senior military staff followed, highlighted by accusations, conflicting orders and impossible suggestions. During these discussions, Truong was told to abandon Hue, even though he was certain that it was still defensible. As he prepared to execute his latest order, it was countermanded at the last minute and he was ordered to hold Hue at all costs. As one observer told a Time magazine correspondent: “It was like a yo-yo. First, Thieu gave the order to pull back and defend Da Nang. Then he countermanded it and ordered that Hue be held. Then he changed his mind again and told the troops to withdraw.”Confusion reigned. Truong did not receive his new orders well, but he tried to follow them the best he could. Nevertheless, the withdrawal from Hue became a disaster that rivaled the one in the Central Highlands in scope. Under shelling by heavy artillery, Truong’s forces fell apart. Because of the conflicting orders, lack of preparation and collapse of morale, the evacuation turned into a fiasco. Poor leadership in many units, the disintegration of unit integrity and concern over family members quickly led to panic and total chaos.The situation in Da Nang was just as bad. As the city was shelled by artillery from two North Vietnamese divisions, Truong tried to direct an evacuation by sea. But pandemonium ensued, as panicked civilians and soldiers alike tried to escape to the south by any means possible. Da Nang fell to the Communists on March 30. In the process of abandoning a city of 3 million people, four regular divisions disintegrated, including the ARVN’s most elite: the 1st Division and the Marine Division.Truong, who had desperately wanted to hold the line at Hue, was put in an untenable position by Thieu’s orders and counter orders. As Da Nang fell, he and his corps staff swam through the surf to the rescuing fleet of South Vietnamese boats. Truong was devastated by the loss of his forces, particularly his beloved ARVN 1st Division. Upon arriving in Saigon, he was reportedly hospitalized for a nervous breakdown. A U.S. Army officer who had worked closely with Truong heard what happened, tracked him down and arranged for his family to leave on an American ship as Saigon fell to the Communists.The general’s family was split up for some time: His wife and older son made it to Fort Chaffee, Arkansas; his daughters and middle son fled with a State Department employee to Seattle; and his youngest son, a 4-year-old who spoke no English, was at Camp Pendleton, Calif., for several weeks before his identity was established.After reuniting, Truong and his family moved to Falls Church, Va. Once settled there, he wrote several historical studies on the Vietnam War for the U.S. Army Center of Military History, including "Easter Offensive of 1972" (1979), "RVNAF and US Operational Cooperation and Coordination" (1980) and "Territorial Forces" (1981). In 1983, the same year that he became a U.S. citizen, he moved to Springfield, Va. He worked as a computer analyst for the Association of American Railroads for about a decade until he retired in 1994.Despite the outcome of the war in I Corps and the subsequent fall of South Vietnam, Truong’s reputation survived intact. General Norman Schwarzkopf, who commanded US forces during the Gulf War against Iraq in 1991, served as Truong 's adviser in the 1960s when he was deployed to South Vietnam as a major during a campaign at Ia Drang. Schwarzkopf called General Truong “the most brilliant tactical commander I have ever known” in his 1992 autobiography. “Simply by visualizing the terrain and drawing on his experience fighting the enemy for fifteen years,” he wrote, “Truong showed an uncanny ability to predict what they were going to do.”Maj Gen Ngo Quang Truong and Lt Col Norman SchwarzkopfSchwarzkopf added: “He did not look like my idea of a military genius: only five feet seven, in his midforties, very skinny, with hunched shoulders and a head that seemed too big for his body," Schwarzkopf wrote. "His face was pinched and intense, not at all handsome, and there was always a cigarette hanging from his lips. Yet he was revered by his officers and troops -- and feared by those North Vietnamese commanders who knew of his ability."Unlike some South Vietnamese generals who had grown rich as they ascended the ranks, Truong was impeccably honest and, according to a close friend, led a “spartan and ascetic” life. Lieutenant General Cushman recalled that the general didn’t own a suit, and that his wife kept pigs behind his modest quarters in the military compound in Can Tho. As Cushman further described Truong, “He was imaginative and always looked for ways to improve his troops’ living conditions and family life.”Maj Gen NQT and wifeA humble man, Truong was an unselfish individual devoted to his profession. He was fiercely loyal to his subordinates, and was known for taking care of his soldiers, often flying through heavy fire to stand with them in the rain and mud during enemy attacks. He treated everyone the same and did not play favorites. There is a story that he refused to respond to a request to give his nephew a noncombat assignment, only to have the nephew later die in battle.By all accounts, General Truong was an outstanding officer who deserved the remarkable reputation that he enjoyed among both South Vietnamese soldiers and American military officers. Ngo Quang Truong dedicated his life to his nation, and in the end, as General Palmer said, he “deserved a better fate” than watching it go down in defeat. May this warrior who always did his duty rest in peace.Survivors include his wife, Nguyen Kim-Dung of Springfield; three sons, Nguyen Xuan Thanh of Slidell, La., Ngo Quang Tri of Clifton and Ngo Tri Thien of Las Vegas; two daughters, Huynh Mai Trinh of Fairfax City and Ngo Tram-Tiara of Rockville; 12 grandchildren; and two great-grandchildren.Funeral of Lt Gen Ngo Quang Truong in 2007.Indochina Monographs Easter Offensive by Lt. Gen Ngo Quang TruongNgô Quang Trưởng - WikipediaLibGuides at USA: Gov Docs: Vietnam War, 1961-1975: Vietnamese Military-North & SouthEvolution of the US Advisory Effort in Vietnam: Lessons LearnedSouth Vietnam, Laos, and Cambodia Official History VolumesNgô Quang Trưởng | WikiwandWashington Post Ngo Quang Truong Jan 25, 2007RVNAF and Us Operational Cooperation and Coordination (U.S. Army Center for Military History Indochina Monograph Series) Ngo Quan TruongThe US Advisor by General Cao Van Vien, Lt. Gen. Ngo Quang TruongThis monograph forms part of the Indochina Monograph series written by senior military personnel from the former Army of the Republic of Vietnam who served against the northern communist invasion.“The United States advisory mission in South Vietnam encompassed many fields of endeavor and affected almost every level of the Republic of Vietnam Armed Forces. It was a demanding exercise of professional duties and a unique human experience for the American adviser who had not only to struggle with problems of environment and culture differences and face the complexities and hazards of the war, but also devote his time and energy to supplement our Vietnamese experience with US Army professionalism. The total effort by US advisers contributed directly and immeasurably to the development and modernization of the Vietnamese Armed Forces.To the Vietnamese officers and men who benefited from his expertise and experience, the US adviser was both a mentor and a Samaritan. Regardless of his level of assignment or branch of service, he could be subsumed by a common trait: a sincere desire to help and devotion to those he advised. Whatever his approach to advisory duties, he always performed with dedication and competence. For nearly two decades, these qualities were the hallmark of the US adviser in South Vietnam.To analyze and evaluate the United States advisory experience in its entirety is not an easy task. It cannot be accomplished thoroughly and effectively by a single author since there were several types of advisers representing different areas of specialty but all dedicated to a common goal. Therefore, each member of the Control Group for the Indochina Refugee Authored Monograph Program has made a significant contribution as we presented the Vietnamese point of view.”-Author’s preface.Professor James H. Willbanks is the chairman of the Military History Department at the U.S. Army’s Command and General Staff College. He earned a Silver Star as a U.S. adviser at the Battle of An Loc. For further reading, see: A Better War, by Lewis Sorley; and Abandoning Vietnam, by James H. Willbanks.Vietnam WarU.S. Marines in Operation Allen Brook (Vietnam War)Vietnam War FactsDates 1954-1973Location South Vietnam, North Vietnam, Cambodia and LaosResult North Vietnamese victorTroop StrengthSouth Vietnam: 850,00United States: 540,000South Korea: 50,000Others: 80,000 plusCasualtiesSouth Vietnam: 200,000 – 400,000 civilians dead, 170,000-220,000 military dead, and over 1 million woundedUnited States: 58,200 dead and 300,000 woundedNorth Vietnam: 50,000 plus civilian dead, 400,000-1 million military dead, and over 500,000 wounded

Realm of History | The Future Lies In The PastBattle of Cannae: 10 Things You Should KnowPOSTED BY: DATTATREYA MANDAL JUNE 7, 2016To put things into perspective, the Battle of Cannae (216 BC), contested between the ancient Mediterranean powerhouses of Rome and Carthage, is usually considered as a particularly bloody episode – which had (possibly) resulted in the highest loss of human life in a single day in any battle recorded in history. In terms of sheer numbers, the baleful day probably accounted for over 40,000 Roman deaths (the figure is put at 55,000 by Livy, and 70,000 by Polybius), which equated to about 80 percent of the Roman army fielded in the battle!On a comparative note, the worst day in the history of the British Army usually pertains to the first day of the Battle of the Somme in 1916, where they lost around 20,000 men. But the male population of Rome in 216 BC is estimated to be around 400,000 (thus the Battle of Cannae possibly took away around 1/10th – 1/20th of Roman male population, considering there were also allied Italic casualties), while Britain had a population of around 41,608,791 (41 million) at the beginning of 1901, with half of them expected to be males.I) Leadership Over Different Nationalities –Alexander was known for his self-assurance, Hannibal for his personality. As referenced in the book Hannibal by Nic Fields, Livy attests to the latter’s leadership skills by mentioning how Hannibal managed to not only control his mercenary army (which had been described as ‘a hotch-potch of the riff-raff of all nationalities’) but went on to win victories over the Roman forces for fifteen straight years – and that too within the confines of Italy. The irony in this case related to how the same folks who fought for money and plunder, grouped together to forego such things in favor of innumerable hardships for their chosen leader. This certainly speaks highly of the potent charisma demonstrated by Hannibal all throughout these rigorous years spent in a foreign land.However, beyond just charisma, there must have been a more intrinsic sensitive side to his ‘management skills’. Literary pieces of evidence point out how Hannibal slept alongside the ordinary soldiers out in the cold open; he even went hungry along with his soldiers when the supplies ran low. But more importantly, the soldiers (despite their different origins) placed their utmost trust on their Carthaginian commander when it came to actual battles. Simply put, they acknowledged and followed the directives of their general – mostly without question, due to their collective belief in the prodigal generalship of Hannibal2) ‘Unity’ in Diversity –While Hannibal’s leadership played a major role in reinforcing the psyche of the varied nationalities under his command, due credit shouldn’t be snatched away from his supporting officer corps. They played their crucial role in galvanizing a truly multinational force comprising both mercenaries and regular troops with their different backgrounds, societies and even fighting styles.To that end, since we are talking about the nationalities, the ‘Carthaginian’ army that crossed over from the Alps, mostly consisted of African (including Liby-Phoenicians and Numidians), Iberian (including the Balearic islanders) and Celtic soldiers – with their vastly variant cultures being integrated into a nigh professional force that regularly triumphed over the more homogeneous Romans.And intriguingly enough, Hannibal and his officers didn’t force any scope of uniformity on their ‘rag-tag’ army. On the contrary, the commanders expected each of the cultural domains to bring their own set of ‘native’ skills and expertise on the battlefield – thus resulting in the ultimate ‘counter’ armythat could thrive in most tactical scenarios.3) The ‘Pilum Fodder’Illustration by Angus McBride.In the earlier entry, we mentioned how the majority of Hannibal’s army was derived from North Africa, Iberia and Cisalpine Gaul (northern part of Italy inhabited by Celts since the 13th century BC). Among them, the latter was considered somewhat inferior, at least when it came to the scope of Cannae.As a result, the Celts formed the bulk of the infantry that held the middle formations, and thus bore the brunt of the Roman juggernaut of maniples. Hannibal clearly knew that this Carthaginian position would incur a greater number of casualties, given the Roman penchant for advancing straight-on to the main enemy lines after discharging their deadly ‘pila‘ (javelins). But still the general took the gamble, and centrally positioned his expendable ‘pilum fodder’ Celts – an audacious tactical ploy that we will discuss later in the article.Now the question arises – why was Hannibal’s evaluation of (most) Celtic soldiers seemingly so harsh? Well, part of it possibly had to do with the erratic political affiliations of many Celtic tribes in Cisalpine Gaul, many of whom proved to be unreliable during the course of the Second Punic War. As for the warfare side of affairs, while the well-armored Celtic cavalry forces (mostly derived from their nobles and retainers) were crucial to the success of some Carthaginian engagements in Italy, many of their Gaulish infantrymen counterparts were generally considered as an undisciplined bunch that favored individual bravery over group-based tactics.These Celtic men were often armed with long slashing swords and protected by only oval, leather-covered shields; while few even went to battle entirely naked. Furthermore, we should also take note of how Hannibal’s initial army consisted of only the African and Spanish troops, while the Celts were recruited ‘later’ on the way to the Alps and beyond. So there might have been a strategic scenario in Cannae where Hannibal wanted to preserve his ‘core’ army of Spaniards and Africans (for future battles), while the rank-swelling yet ill-equipped Celts were given the task of directly facing their long-known adversaries – the Romans.4) The ‘Slinging’ Advantage of Hannibal –Beyond the conventional infantry forces of Hannibal, it was the light infantry that stood out in most of the encounters of the Second Punic War in Italy. In fact, Hannibal had deeply studied the Roman tendency of fielding organized ranks of maniples comprising what can be technically termed as heavy infantrymen, circa late 3rd century BC. As a result, the Roman battlefield tactic was spectacularly simple – as it often entailed countering the enemy forces (who were mostly disordered) with sheer discipline and rotation of manpower on the field itself.Hannibal formulated a plan against these seemingly invulnerable formation-based armies by inducting highly trained light troops into the ‘rag-tag’ Carthaginian army, especially from Spain and Africa. One example would pertain to the incorporation of Balearic slingers who were known for their expertise in accuracy over various ranges (which encompassed the use of three different types of slings!). In fact, their effectiveness was so aptly demonstrated against the Romans that even conventional archers were eschewed in favor of these lightly armed mercenaries.5) The Superior Cavalry Fielded by Carthaginians –Numidian light horsemen armed with javelins.And since we brought up the scope of effectiveness, very few units showcased their on-field efficacy against the tightly packed Romans as the Numidian riders armed with only javelins. Espousing daredevilry on horseback, they probably rode without reins – using just a rope around the horse’s neck and a small stick to give it commands. In many cases (like at the Battle of Trebbia), Hannibal utilized their nigh-perfected mobility and zig-zag maneuvering ability to draw the attention (and ire) of the Romans. Such skirmishing tactics, often mixed with vocal insults, in turn, forced the roused Roman to give battle even when they were under-prepared.The light cavalrymen were accompanied by the ‘heavy’ variety of the aforementioned Celtic horsemen. Usually derived from their nobles and retainers, many of these cavalrymen were richly attired in expensive mail and helmets – and thus fulfilled the role of the pseudo-shock mounted troops (a task that was paramount in the Battle of Cannae).Hannibal also fielded Spanish cavalry forces, who were mounted atop stout horses, but was armed in a similar fashion to their infantry counterparts – with short falcata swords and smaller spears. They mainly served as medium cavalry useful for sustaining the initial charges, while also being flexible enough for pursuing retreating enemy forces.6) The Opposing Roman army at Cannae –Starting from left – Hastati, Velites, Triarii and Principes.The greatest strength of the Roman army had always been its adaptability and sense of evolution. So by the time of the first Samnite War (in around 343 BC), the Roman army seemed to have endorsed newer formations that were more flexible in nature, as opposed to their initial hoplite-based tactics. This change in battlefield stratagem was probably in response to the Samnite armies – and as a result, the maniple formations came into existence (instead of the earlier rigid phalanx).In that regard, the very term manipulus means ‘a handful’, and thus its early standard pertained to a pole with a handful of hay placed around it. According to most literary pieces of evidence, the Roman army was now divided up into three separate battle-lines, with the first line comprising the young (and somewhat lightly armored) hastati in ten maniples (each of 120 men); the second line comprising the hardened principes in ten maniples; and the third and last line consisting of the veteran triarii in ten maniples – who probably still fought as heavy hoplites (but their maniples only had 60 men).Additionally, the battle-lines were possibly screened by the light-armed velites, who mostly belonged to the poorer class of Roman civilians, and were also flanked by the equites – cavalrymen who came from higher economic backgrounds. Thus a single legion combined 30 such maniples (of three classes of infantrymen), along with velites and equites, thus roughly equating to around 5,000 men.Unfortunately, for the Romans, the equites were not up to the mark of their Carthaginian counterparts; and usually comprised a smaller percentage of the army when compared to other ancient powers. Furthermore, in an odd turn of events, a 10,000 strong force of triarii didn’t take part in the Battle of Cannae, since these men were chosen to guard the strategic Roman camp at one end of the battle zone by the River Aufidius (Ofanto).As for the scope of conscription, The citizen militia (or soldiers) of Republican Rome were levied and then assembled in the Capitol on the day that was proclaimed by the Consuls in their edictum. This process was known as dilectus, and interestingly the men volunteers were arranged in terms of their similar heights and age. This brought orderliness in terms of physical appearance, while similar equipment (if not uniform) made the organized soldiers look even more ‘homogeneous’.The Roman army recruits also had to swear an oath of obedience, which was known as sacramentum dicere. This symbolically bound them with the Roman state, their commander, and more importantly to their fellow comrades-in-arms. In terms of historical tradition, this oath was only formalized before the commencement of the Battle of Cannae, to uphold the faltering morale of the Hannibal-afflicted Roman army. According to Livy, the oath went somewhat like this – “Never to leave the ranks because of fear or to run away, but only to retrieve or grab a weapon, to kill an enemy or to rescue a comrade.”7) Cannae Chosen For Provocation –In the opening paragraph, we mentioned how the burgeoning Roman realm suffered one of its greatest military disasters at the Battle of Cannae. However, objectively beyond just baleful numbers, the encounter in itself was a set-piece triumph for Hannibal, with the general’s strategy even dictating the very choice of the battle itself (as referenced in Cannae 216 BC: Hannibal Smashes Rome’s Army By Mark Healy).Cannae and its ruined citadel had long been used as a food magazine by the Romans with provisions for grain oil and other crucial items. Hannibal knew about this supply scope and willfully made his army march towards Cannae (in June, 216 BC) for over 120 km from their original winter quarters at Gerunium.Interestingly enough, the camp of the Carthaginian army was just set above verdant agricultural fields with ripening crops – which could provide easy foraging to the snugly quartered troops. In other words, the chosen location and its advantages surely drummed up the morale of these soldiers, while strengthening their resolve and dedication for their commander.However, at the same time, there was a more cunning side to Hannibal’s choice of Cannae – (possibly) unbeknownst to his army. That is because Rome was still dependent on the grain cultivated in native Italy (while seeking alternative corn supplies from Sicily), especially from the region of Apulia where Cannae was located. Simply put, the choice of Cannae was an intentional ploy to provoke the Romans to give direct battle – as opposed to the Fabian strategy of delaying. This once again alludes to Hannibal’s confidence and craftiness when it came to military affairs and logistics.8) The Convex-Crescent –Choosing the battle was not enough for the great Carthaginian general; Hannibal proceeded on to array his entire army* (of 35,000 – 40,000 infantrymen and around 10,000 cavalry) into ‘tailored’ formations that were dedicated to countering the superb infantry quality and numerical advantage of Romans, who had probably fielded somewhere between 50,000 – 63,000 infantrymen* (along with around 6,400 cavalry – combining both the Romans and allied forces).Now it should be noted that among these 35,000 infantrymen under Hannibal’s command at Cannae, the ‘crack’ experienced soldiers from Africa and Iberia – who had originally crossed the Alps, only numbered around 14,000 men. Thus the remaining bulk of the infantry comprised the Celts and other assorted lightly-armed troops. As for Carthaginian cavalry forces, the seasoned Spaniards and Numidians formed the majority of 6,000 horsemen, while the remaining 4,000 were formed by the ‘elite’ Celtic cavalry derived from their nobles and retainers.Now one of the first counter-measures of Hannibal at the Battle of Cannae was to put his ‘heavy’ cavalry forces (of Celts and Spaniards) on the left flank, to directly oppose (and clear out) the Roman cavalry under consul Lucius Aemilius Paullus. On the right flank, the Numidians were deployed and expected to carry out their unorthodox style of luring in the Roman-allied cavalry forces and then dispatching them with well-timed javelin throws.But the biggest surprise came from the infantry formations of Hannibal. Instead of opting for the traditionally strong center, the Carthaginian general deliberately arrayed his most ‘expendable’ Celtic soldiers along the middle portion, and they were complemented by alternate companies of Spanish and Celtic soldiers in the successive flanks.Finally, the two ‘hidden’ wings of the infantry were filled by the heavy African troops (Liby-Phoenicians) who were possibly attired in ‘Roman’ style, with armors that were stripped off the dead Roman soldiers in the previous encounters. As for their tactics, some historians have talked about how these crack troops adopted the phalanx formation – though we are still not sure of their exact maneuvers.After arranging his entire line, Hannibal commanded his central body of troops to slightly move forward while keeping their links with their successive flanks. As a result, a convex-crescent of formations emerged from the Carthaginian side (showcased in the image above), with the two wings thinning out and covering the heavy African troops.9) The Tactical Trap –By the time the massed Roman columns (which were kept deeper, thus reducing their width) reached the Carthaginian lines, Hannibal’s heavy cavalry forces on the left flank (headed by Hasdrubal) had already pushed back the main Roman cavalry force commanded by their consul. As a matter of fact, Aemilius Paullus was himself injured by a sling-shot and thus had to dismount – thus dealing a crippling blow to the morale of the proximate Roman soldiers.This allowed a gap to emerge on this side, and Hasdrubal took advantage of the retreating enemy to push through the momentary disconnect between the Roman cavalry and infantry lines on the left. He expertly traversed the ‘gap’ and wheeled around his fresh cavalry forces to meet the Roman infantry lines at their unguarded rear positions.On the other flank (right), the Numidians were successful in disrupting the Roman allied cavalry forces under the other consul Gaius Terentius Varro. They did so by their idiosyncratic fighting methods of zig-zag maneuvering and false retreats. Finally, a fresh detachment of heavy cavalry from the left joined their Numidian comrades, and together they successfully chased away the panicked Roman allied cavalrymen off the field.However, in spite of the reversals of their cavalry forces, the main Roman infantry lines maintained their cohesion and pushed forth the ‘weak’ Carthaginian center with aplomb. The previously convex-crescent had now bulged ‘ backward’ into a concave with the disciplined Roman legions making short work of their mostly Celtic adversaries.But therein laid the audacious tactical trap sprung by Hannibal. That is because as the Romans pushed further in, they were met with alternate companies of Celtic and Spanish forces – soldiers who operated in distinct styles of warfare, with the boisterous Celts using their long slashing swords and the deft Spaniards using their short stabbing swords. This alluded to a confusing set of tactics to counter for the legions since they had to continually adapt to the ‘changing’ nature of the enemy – thus limiting their progression while exacerbating their fatigue levels.Finally, when the concave had ‘bulged’ sufficiently, Hannibal commanded his crack African troops from the hidden wings to join in the fray; and these (possible) phalanxes plunged deep into the tattering Roman flanks. The ‘coup de grace’ was then dealt by the Hasdrubal’s wheeling cavalry – as they struck the rear lines of the Roman infantry, thus completely surrounding the enemy inside a rough circle.By this time the Romans were so pressed for space that many of them didn’t even have room for swinging their swords. The end result of the Battle of Cannae, according to Livy, amounted to around 50,000 Roman deaths (though modern estimates put down this figure to around 40,000) and 20,000 prisoners, while the Carthaginians suffered only 8,000 casualties.10) The Paradox of Cannae –Interestingly enough, it was the Battle of Cannae that was ultimately responsible for Hannibal’s unceremonious call back to Carthage (in 203 BC) after 15 years of remaining undefeated on Italian soil. In the post years of the Cannae incident, the Roman leadership came to a realization that they couldn’t counter Hannibal’s genius in conventional warfare.As a result, they reverted to the defensive Fabian strategy (named after Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus) which basically entailed a guerrilla-warfare type scenario with internal lines of communications. In other words, the Romans rigorously avoided open-field battles, while resorting to hit-and-run and harassing tactics that afflicted the stretched Carthaginian lines and patrols who were regularly dispatched for foraging.This predicament was further exacerbated when Hannibal had to provide garrisons for the newly defected cities in the south of Italy. This took away much of his precious manpower that had already deteriorated due to previous battles, skirmishes, and attrition. Moreover, since much of Hannibal’s army was composed of mercenaries of different nationalities – they were neither suited to siege warfare or garrison duty, and thus many of them started to desert en masse.So slowly but surely, the once grand expeditionary force that made its way to Italy via the Alps, was now only a shadow of itself. By 203 BC, even chances of arriving reinforcements from Carthage or Iberia went slim, with both of his brothers being soundly defeated. And ultimately, Hannibal himself had to answer the desperate call from his own Barcid war party, which was one of the two major political factions of Carthage. Consequently, the general and some of his trusted mercenaries finally decided to set sail for Africa. And thus ended the epoch of Hannibal in Italy – paradoxically brought on by his incredible victory at the Battle of Cannae.Honorable Mention – Gisgo’s Fear and Hannibal’s RetortIn the previous entries, we talked about the massive number of casualties suffered by the Romans at the Battle of Cannae. This automatically suggests the huge number of troops actually fielded by both the armies – with estimations of around 70,000 Romans and 45,000 Hannibal-commanded soldiers taking part in the encounter (though some modern conjectures tend to lower these figures).Given such an enormous scale of the impending battle and the size of the approaching Roman army, many of the Carthaginian officers were clearly anxious about their numerical inferiority. One such officer named Gisgo even went ahead and voiced his uneasiness to Hannibal at the sight of the Romans (who were moving forward in tighter formations with greater manipular depths than usual).And this is where Hannibal’s greatest strength was revealed, and it pertained to his character. Instead of punishing or even rebuking Gisgo for such a demoralizing comment – especially before a battle, the general turned to the officer and perkily commented – ‘There is one more thing you have not noticed.’ When Gisgo asked, ‘What is that sir?’; Hannibal replied, ‘In all that great number of men opposite there is not a single one whose name is Gisgo.’ The nearby batch of officers wholeheartedly laughed with Hannibal’s retort – and the ‘infectious smiles’ were carried forth by even the rank-and-file soldiers, thus calming their nerves.Note* – The numbers mentioned in the article shouldn’t be considered as exactly accurate figures, but rather as estimated figures – compiled from both ancient sources and modern hypotheses.Book References: Cannae 216 BC: Hannibal Smashes Rome’s Army (By Mark Healy) / Hannibal (by Nic Fields) / The Punic Wars (By Brian Caven) / Cannae: Hannibal’s Greatest Victory (By Adrian Goldsworthy)Online Sources: Ancient Encyclopedia / UNRV / Roman-Empire.net / Livy’s Account (GCSE Modern World History)Realm of History | The Future Lies In The Past

By the end of the 11th century, Western Europe had emerged as a significant power in its own right, though it still lagged behind other Mediterranean civilizations, such as that of the Byzantine Empire (formerly the eastern half of the Roman Empire) and the Islamic Empire of the Middle East and North Africa.However, Byzantium had lost considerable territory to the invading Seljuk Turks. After years of chaos and civil war, the general Alexius Comnenus seized the Byzantine throne in 1081 and consolidated control over the remaining empire as Emperor Alexius I.In 1095, Alexius sent envoys to Pope Urban II asking for mercenary troops from the West to help confront the Turkish threat. Though relations between Christians in the East and West had long been fractious, Alexius’s request came at a time when the situation was improving.In November 1095, at the Council of Clermont in southern France, the Pope called on Western Christians to take up arms to aid the Byzantines and recapture the Holy Land from Muslim control. This marked the beginning of the Crusades.Pope Urban’s plea was met with a tremendous response, both among the military elite as well as ordinary citizens. Those who joined the armed pilgrimage wore a cross as a symbol of the Church.The Crusades set the stage for several religious knightly military orders, including the Knights Templar, the Teutonic Knights, and the Hospitallers. These groups defended the Holy Land and protected pilgrims traveling to and from the region.Did you know? In a popular movement known as the Children's Crusade (1212), a motley crew including children, adolescents, women, the elderly and the poor marched all the way from the Rhineland to Italy behind a young man named Nicholas, who said he had received divine instruction to march toward the Holy Land.First Crusade (1096-99)Four armies of Crusaders were formed from troops of different Western European regions, led by Raymond of Saint-Gilles, Godfrey of Bouillon, Hugh of Vermandois and Bohemond of Taranto (with his nephew Tancred). These groups departed for Byzantium in August 1096.A less organized band of knights and commoners known as the “People’s Crusade” set off before the others under the command of a popular preacher known as Peter the Hermit.Ignoring Alexius’ advice to wait for the rest of the Crusaders, Peter’s army crossed the Bosporus in early August. In the first major clash between the Crusaders and Muslims, Turkish forces crushed the invading Europeans at Cibotus.Another group of Crusaders, led by the notorious Count Emicho, carried out a series of massacres of Jews in various towns in the Rhineland in 1096, drawing widespread outrage and causing a major crisis in Jewish-Christian relations.When the four main armies of Crusaders arrived in Constantinople, Alexius insisted that their leaders swear an oath of loyalty to him and recognize his authority over any land regained from the Turks, as well as any other territory they might conquer. All but Bohemond resisted taking the oath.In May 1097, the Crusaders and their Byzantine allies attacked Nicea (now Iznik, Turkey), the Seljuk capital in Anatolia. The city surrendered in late June.The Fall of JerusalemDespite deteriorating relations between the Crusaders and Byzantine leaders, the combined force continued its march through Anatolia, capturing the great Syrian city of Antioch in June 1098.After various internal struggles over control of Antioch, the Crusaders began their march toward Jerusalem, then occupied by Egyptian Fatimids (who as Shi’ite Muslims were enemies of the Sunni Seljuks).Encamping before Jerusalem in June 1099, the Christians forced the besieged city’s governor to surrender by mid-July.Despite Tancred’s promise of protection, the Crusaders slaughtered hundreds of men, women, and children in their victorious entrance into Jerusalem.Second Crusade (1147-49)Having achieved their goal in an unexpectedly short period of time after the First Crusade, many of the Crusaders departed for home. To govern the conquered territory, those who remained established four large western settlements, or Crusader states, in Jerusalem, Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli.Guarded by formidable castles, the Crusader states retained the upper hand in the region until around 1130, when Muslim forces began gaining ground in their own holy war (or jihad) against the Christians, whom they called “Franks.”In 1144, the Seljuk general Zangi, governor of Mosul, captured Edessa, leading to the loss of the northernmost Crusader state.News of Edessa’s fall stunned Europe and caused Christian authorities in the West to call for another Crusade. Led by two great rulers, King Louis VII of France and King Conrad III of Germany, the Second Crusade began in 1147.That October, the Turks annihilated Conrad’s forces at Dorylaeum, the site of a great Christian victory during the First Crusade.After Louis and Conrad managed to assemble their armies at Jerusalem, they decided to attack the Syrian stronghold of Damascus with an army of some 50,000 (the largest Crusader force yet).Damascus’ ruler was forced to call on Nur al-Din, Zangi’s successor in Mosul, for aid. The combined Muslim forces dealt a humiliating defeat to the Crusaders, decisively ending the Second Crusade.Nur al-Din added Damascus to his expanding empire in 1154.Third Crusade (1187-92)After numerous attempts by the Crusaders of Jerusalem to capture Egypt, Nur al-Din’s forces (led by the general Shirkuh and his nephew, Saladin) seized Cairo in 1169 and forced the Crusader army to evacuate.Upon Shirkuh’s subsequent death, Saladin assumed control and began a campaign of conquests that accelerated after Nur al-Din’s death in 1174.In 1187, Saladin began a major campaign against the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. His troops virtually destroyed the Christian army at the battle of Hattin, taking back the important city along with a large amount of territory.Outrage over these defeats inspired the Third Crusade, led by rulers such as the aging Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (who was drowned at Anatolia before his entire army reached Syria), King Philip II of France, and King Richard I of England (known as Richard the Lionheart).In September 1191, Richard’s forces defeated those of Saladin in the battle of Arsuf, which would be the only true battle of the Third Crusade.From the recaptured city of Jaffa, Richard reestablished Christian control over some of the region and approached Jerusalem, though he refused to lay siege to the city.In September 1192, Richard and Saladin signed a peace treaty that reestablished the Kingdom of Jerusalem (though without the city of Jerusalem) and ended the Third Crusade.Fourth Crusade: The Fall of ConstantinopleThough Pope Innocent III called for a new Crusade in 1198, power struggles within and between Europe and Byzantium drove the Crusaders to divert their mission in order to topple the reigning Byzantine emperor, Alexius III, in favor of his nephew, who became Alexius IV in mid-1203.The new emperor’s attempts to submit the Byzantine church to Rome was met with stiff resistance, and Alexius IV was strangled after a palace coup in early 1204.In response, the Crusaders declared war on Constantinople, and the Fourth Crusade ended with the devastating Fall of Constantinople, marked by a bloody conquest, looting and near-destruction of the magnificent Byzantine capital later that year.Final Crusades (1208-1271)Throughout the remainder of the 13th century, a variety of Crusades aimed not so much to topple Muslim forces in the Holy Land but to combat any and all of those seen as enemies of the Christian faith.The Albigensian Crusade (1208-29) aimed to root out the heretical Cathari or Albigensian sect of Christianity in France, while the Baltic Crusades (1211-25) sought to subdue pagans in Transylvania.A so-called Children’s Crusade took place in 1212 when thousands of young children vowed to march to Jerusalem. Although it was called the Children’s Crusade, most historians don’t regard it as an actual crusade, and many experts question whether the group was really comprised of children. The movement never reached the Holy Land.In the Fifth Crusade, put in motion by Pope Innocent III before his death in 1216, the Crusaders attacked Egypt from both land and sea but were forced to surrender to Muslim defenders led by Saladin’s nephew, Al-Malik al-Kamil, in 1221.In 1229, in what became known as the Sixth Crusade, Emperor Frederick II achieved the peaceful transfer of Jerusalem to Crusader control through negotiation with al-Kamil. The peace treaty expired a decade later, and Muslims easily regained control of Jerusalem.From 1248 to 1254, Louis IX of France organized a crusade against Egypt. This battle, known as the Seventh Crusade, was a failure for Louis.The MamluksAs the Crusaders struggled, a new dynasty, known as the Mamluks, descended from former slaves of the Islamic Empire, took power in Egypt. In 1260, Mamluk forces in Palestine managed to halt the advance of the Mongols, an invading force led by Genghis Khan and his descendants, which had emerged as a potential ally for the Christians in the region.Under the ruthless Sultan Baybars, the Mamluks demolished Antioch in 1268. In response, Louis organized the Eighth Crusade in 1270. The initial goal was to aid the remaining Crusader states in Syria, but the mission was redirected to Tunis, where Louis died.Edward I of England took on another expedition in 1271. This battle, which is often grouped with the Eighth Crusade but is sometimes referred to as the Ninth Crusade, accomplished very little and was considered the last significant crusade to the Holy Land.The Crusades EndIn 1291, one of the only remaining Crusader cities, Acre, fell to the Muslim Mamluks. Many historians believe this defeat marked the end of the Crusader States and the Crusades themselves.Though the Church organized minor Crusades with limited goals after 1291—mainly military campaigns aimed at pushing Muslims from conquered territory, or conquering pagan regions—support for such efforts diminished in the 16th century, with the rise of the Reformation and the corresponding decline of papal authority.Effects of the CrusadesWhile the Crusades ultimately resulted in defeat for Europeans and a Muslim victory, many argue that they successfully extended the reach of Christianity and Western civilization. The Roman Catholic Church experienced an increase in wealth, and the power of the Pope was elevated after the Crusades ended.Trade and transportation also improved throughout Europe as a result of the Crusades. The wars created a constant demand for supplies and transportation, which resulted in ship-building and the manufacturing of various supplies.After the Crusades, there was a heightened interest in travel and learning throughout Europe, which some historians believe may have paved the way for the Renaissance.Among followers of Islam, however, the Crusaders were regarded as immoral, bloody and savage. The ruthless and widespread massacre of Muslims, Jews and other non-Christians resulted in bitter resentment that persisted for many years. Even today, some Muslims derisively refer to the West’s involvement in the Middle East as a “crusade.”There’s no question that the years of bloody conflict brought by the Crusades had an impact on Middle East and Western European nations for many years, and still influence political and cultural views and opinions held today.Sources:Timeline for the Crusades and Christian Holy War to c.1350: United States Naval Academy.The Crusades: A Complete History: History Today.HISTORY | Watch Full Episodes of Your Favorite ShowsKNIGHTFALLVIEW SHOWTHE MILITARY ORDERS OF THE CRUSADESKnights TemplarMedieval HistoryTHE CRUSADES: NEW WAVE ARMIESThe First Crusade took its inspiration from a passionate speech on a cold winter’s day outside Clermont cathedral in France on the 27th November 1095. Pope Urban II (1035 – 99) a religious and patriotic Frenchman addressed the largely illiterate crowd enthused by Urban’s promise of spiritual rewards in heaven. Just a year before, the Byzantine emperor Alexius I had petitioned Urban for help in his wars against the Seljuk Turks. The Seljuks had begun to invade parts of the Christian empire and disrupted pilgrimage routes to the Holy Land.Urban’s call for a crusade fired up not just trained and experienced knights but also lay people to believe they had a duty before God to liberate fellow Christians in the East from the brutal subjugation of the Turks.Hundreds of preachers then went across Europe spreading the message. In return for taking up arms on the crusade, the Church offered plenary indulgences (reductions in afterlife punishment for their sins). However, for many, the reason for taking the cross to the East was for glory and wealth and very little to do with rewards in the afterlife. Over a hundred thousand men and women were persuaded to leave the safety of their homes for a journey into the unknown.THE PEOPLE’S CRUSADEIn the second half of 1096 religious fervour spurred Europe’s men, women and whole families to set out for the East. This ramshackle group of mostly agricultural labourers was part of a second crusading movement, distinct from the foot soldiers and knights of nobility that the likes of Greek emperor Alexius Comnenus (1081- 1118) was expecting and hoping to conquer the Turk enemy threatening the Christian city of Constantinople.IN WHAT HISTORIANS HAVE DESCRIBED AS THE FIRST HOLOCAUST, THE PEOPLE’S CRUSADE ATTACKED JEWISH COMMUNITIES IN FRANCE AND GERMANYThe People’s movement, a huge gathering of around forty thousand, including knights and non-combatants from all social classes soon moved outside the Pope’s control as local preachers such as Peter the Hermit inspired its members with an apocalyptic vision of victory. However, their progress through Asia Minor’s stifling hot middle-eastern lands was to prove as violent and inhumanely merciless as they meted out the kind of savage butchery associated more infamously with the feudal armies of Europe and the Knights Templar. What the People’s movement lacked in weapons, armoury and military skill it made up with primal ferocity, as its unruly mob spared few from violent attacks as it took to pillaging villages like feral rats outside the city in search of supplies and food.Perhaps more shockingly in what historians have described as the First Holocaust, the People’s Crusade attacked Jewish communities in France and Germany, months before its official crusade and march on Constantinople. Its barbaric effects on the Jewish communities resulted in some Jewish citizens killing their own children and committing suicide, rather than witness them being brutalised by the invading crusaders. Finally, travelling thousands of miles on foot and after having carried out brutal sackings of towns in the name of Christ, the People’s mob was eventually ambushed by the Seljuk Turks in western Anatolia and mostly massacred or enslaved.THE NEW ORDERSTo continue to defend the conquests in the Holy Land, several military orders were created. The most powerful was the Knights Templar, founded in 1119. After receiving papal endorsement, they rapidly rose in power, peaking at around twenty thousand members. They were also exempted from local laws, so did not have to pay taxes. Perhaps not so well known in popular culture as the feudal army of Crusaders were the Hospitallers and Teutonic Orders.In the case of the Hospitallers, the order actually existed before the commencement of the First Crusade and was initially created as a charitable organization with its purpose focused on providing care for the sick and to aid pilgrims travelling through the Holy Land. As a result of the three Orders’ increasing military, political and economic power the Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights became the essential bedrocks of the Latin East. They were granted papal support, as well as attracting charitable donations from the nobles of Christian Europe which allowed the monastic and military trio to acquire large swathes of land in the West.KNIGHTS HOSPITALLERThe Knights Hospitaller (Sovereign Military Order of Malta & Order of St John) also known as the Knights of St John, had been founded as an order to care for the sick and poor. But at some time before 1150, they assumed military duties as well, giving rise to a change from an image of religious brothers caring for the sick to the more muscular mantle of ‘warrior monks’.Like the Templar Knights, the Hospitaller Knights had their headquarters in Jerusalem. The former wore white cloaks with red crosses while the Hospitallers (Knights of St John) wore black cloaks with white crosses. They were full-time professional soldiers, trained to obey orders, unlike lay Knights who were amateurs, often unruly and difficult to discipline. Between the Knights Templar and the Hospitallers, the orders made up around 600 Knights.KNIGHTS OF CHRISTThe typical Hospitaller Knight or ‘warrior monk’ was a young physically fit man and usually, but not always, from noble birth. Although the Hospitaller Order recruited soldiers from the regions of Bohemia and Hungary, the majority hailed from France and England. Social and class divisions existed within the ranks as many of the ordinary brethren making up the Order tended to be composed of men from East European countries such as Hungary and Bosnia, while recruits from France and Italy held leadership positions.RECRUITINGThere are numerous reasons why free men would join the Hospitallers and it wasn’t always for the spoils of war, as was often the case with the Templars. Many recruits to the Hospitaller cause were illiterate and came from impoverished backgrounds seeing the Order as a means to provide support and sustenance. Others such as nobles may have joined with hopes of career opportunities and achieving greater status. More sinister and something reflecting today’s culture of radicalisation, were the misguided recruits who sought to become ‘martyrs’, believing they had a spiritual duty to fight ‘infidels’ which would reward them in the afterlife.THIS HEINOUS AND MISERABLE TRADE IN HUMANS WASN’T LIMITED TO ENEMY SOLDIERS BUT ALSO INCLUDED MASS ABDUCTIONS OF WOMENIn many ways, young men joining the likes of the Hospitallers in the middle-ages has parallels to that of males joining the military today. Be it for personal reasons such as broken relationships and marriages, bereavement or simply to escape their present-day lives in the hope for something better in life. Motivations were equally varied and complex in the middle ages. The most unique reason being back in the 11th century and rarely now, was to join a military order as a means of showing penance and being absolved of perceived sins. For others, it may have simply been the sense of adventure in foreign lands that appealed.HOSPITALLER DISCIPLINEBecause of the relatively small number of trained fighting soldiers in the Hospitaller Order, compared to the non-combatants, leaving the order was not an option. Although some knights did buy their way of their positions. This was a highly disciplined order, buffeted by religious and mythical ideals and often driven by fanaticism.Renowned for their uncompromising ideals their physical bravery, often matched with ferocious brutality was emphasised by their satanic looking apparel consisting of a heavy shirt of mail (hauberk) together with impenetrable looking protective extensions for the arms, hands and head and covered by a black cloak bearing a white cross insignia. The Hospitallers’ visual look was designed to be as psychologically terrifying as their actual legendary fighting tactics and strategies would prove on the battlefield.TEUTONIC KNIGHTSThe Order was founded in the Third Crusade (1189-1192) when German crusaders set up a field hospital outside Acre in Israel around 1190. Pope Innocent III confirmed their status as a new knightly order in 1199 after which the order embraced an increased military role.With its headquarters in Austria, the Order of Brothers of the German house of Saint Mary became known as the Teutonic Knights. Originally they were called the Order of the Knights of the Hospital of Saint Mary of the Teutons in Jerusalem. Like the Knights Templar, the German orientated Order, made up of voluntary and mercenary soldiers, was formed to aid, escort and protect Christian pilgrims to the Baltics and Holy Land.At the same time as the Hospitaller Order, the Teutonic Knights set up their primary base in Rhodes' citadel, as well as locating to Marienburg in Prussia, but they made their military mark largely in north-eastern Europe.AIMS & ARMOURIt became customary for the Teutonic Knights to wear a white mantle with a black cross as their insignia along with apparel which included fearful looking wings and bull horns in their helmets, making them appear menacing to the enemy. As part of its military and monastic goals, the Teutonic Order had a papal licence to wage perpetual war against the pagans and used this licence to launch annual crusades against Lithuania. These expeditions were very popular with the nobility of Northern Europe allowing knights who enjoyed fighting to lay waste large parts of Lithuania in the name of Christ.MILITARY PECKING ORDERSThe Teutonic Knights displayed an uncharacteristically democratic system for electing members as part of its hierarchal structure. The election of the Hochmeister (High Master) took a democratic route unique for medieval times, which would begin with the nomination of a brother-knight as the elected leader. He would then proceed to elect his companion and then these two knights would elect a third member. The process would continue so on until 13 knights were picked for the electoral college, who were finally responsible for electing the Grand Master. Full members of the Order were also accompanied by half-brothers Halb-bruders, who wore grey mantles instead of white and often employed as heavy infantry. Due to not taking monastic vows the half brothers, who mainly carried out agricultural tasks, were allowed to marry and enjoy conjugal rights.COMMERCE & MERITOCRACYCapitalising their revenues from trade was one area of expertise of the Teutonic Order as they developed such a secure international system of financial administration, that they effectively became the bankers of Europe. They produced the first use of a cheque that allowed monies to be deposited in the West with a credit note that could be cashed in the Holy Land.One major difference between the Teutonic Knights and their contemporaries was the fact that a sizeable percentage of knights came from ‘peasant’ backgrounds as opposed to the Templars and Hospitallers’ recruitment of soldiers from the nobility. This was largely to do with medieval German society at the time and its policy of ‘ministerial’ a unique social strata where people were raised from serfdom and placed in positions of power within the country. But despite the Teutonic Knights’ penchant for commercial endeavours, the Order’s laws, intrinsically linked to ideals of communal ‘poverty’, meant that brothers were not allowed to keep personal items and clothes, nor even keep individual chests to store private possessions.SLAUGHTER & SLAVERYBrutal measures carried out by the Teutonic Knights on the battlefield such as killing wounded soldiers and slaughtering a fleeing enemy were not necessarily due to unbridled sadism but more about ensuring a favourable outcome during battle. However, the Teutonic Knights recognised currency in slavery and the capturing of enemy soldiers became an important source of booty. This heinous and miserable trade in humans wasn’t limited to enemy soldiers but also included mass abductions of women and children from their homelands to be used as forced labour.THE DECLINE OF THE CRUSADESThe Teutonic Order’s rule in Prussia came to an end in 1525, when the grand master Albert, first duke of Prussia, under Protestant influence, dissolved the order there and accepted its territory as a secular duchy for himself under Polish ‘Suzerainty’ – the right of a country to partly own another.With Papal authority declining in Central and northern Europe and the expansion of Protestantism due to the Reformation, the continuation of Crusades defending Christian pilgrims and the existence of the Orders themselves became less relevant.Despite a changing world of political alliances between once-warring countries, the Crusades continued to be fought against the Muslims of North Africa, such as in 1390 when an international crusade was launched against Mahdia in Tunisia, a notorious centre of piracy.REVIVAL & RESURGENCEThe Templars were dissolved as an order in 1312, but other Military Orders survived the Middle Ages. The Hospitallers established new headquarters, first on Cyprus and then Rhodes and later Malta, while the Teutonic Order carved out its own independent state in the Baltic. Yet despite all this re-evaluation of the Orders, no crusade ever reclaimed the Holy City again.To date, the Teutonic Order still has its headquarters in Vienna although since 1923 it has been an Order of priests. Likewise the Hospitaller traditions of charity and helping the sick are maintained through the St John Ambulance service. The five Orders of St John now dedicate themselves to carrying out the original Hospitaller functions of the order.In researching this piece, the author referred to The Byzantine World War a new book by Nick Holmes .Written by:RICHARD BEVANRichard Bevan is an MA Screenwriter/playwright and freelance writer specialising in history and crime investigation writing. He is currently contributing to History UK channel. Represented by MMB Creative agency.THE KNIGHTS TEMPLAR: 1139 – 1244Knights TemplarOver the next century or so, the Knights Templar grew in numbers, military strength, wealth, power, privilege and fame. They established bases throughout Europe and their duties grew from the protection of pious men coming to the Holy Land to defending the Crusader states of Jerusalem, Antioch and Edessa. They fought skilfully and bravely in the Crusades, they built castles and monasteries, they garrisoned strategically important towns and they devised an ingenious form of banking we take for granted today.Since so many pilgrims were being attacked for what they were carrying, the Templars created a system whereby the travellers could place their assets under management while they were away, presumably for protection and presumably for a fee. The Templars also created a system of credit where the travellers could deposit their wealth – cash, jewels and other treasures – with a local preceptory and they’d receive a letter of credit stating the value of what they left and when they got to the Holy Land, they could ‘withdraw’ funds to an equal value.The Templars established a staggering portfolio of wealth, land, status and responsibility through donations from individuals and states. The ruling elite of Spain, France and England gave the order lordships, estates, castles and tracts of land throughout western Europe. They became bankers and accountants to nations and kings and they had the military power to transport bullion and treasures to and from the Holy Land.The Knights Templar were bankers to Europe’s royalty and rich beyond belief; they were a virtually unstoppable fighting force the likes of which the world had never before seen; they understood the intricacies and complexities of medieval geopolitics; they were devoutly religious; they owned vast amounts of land and property all over the western world. They were seemingly unstoppable. So what could possibly go wrong?Sky HistoryHistory is alive