Skip to main content

What are the number of Muslims involved in the crusades?

The Crusades occurred over a period of about two centuries and there is some debate about which events deserve to be included as part of the Crusades. Due to these factors and the general imprecision of historical records in the Midlde Ages, the precise number of people involved on each side of the various conflicts is disputed.

That said, we do have some approximate numbers; it is believed that somewhere between 1 million and 9 million people died on all sides during the total of all the Crusades. Deaths appear to have been about evenly split between the Christian and Muslim factions, and army sizes also appear to have been comparable. Casualty rates in the Crusades were extraordinarily high (probably due to the religious fanaticism and quasi-genocidal intent motivating them), so as many as 50% to 75% of soldiers deployed died. This means that the total number of soldiers on both sides was somewhere between 1.25 million and 18 million. Thus, the number of Muslim soldiers in particular was probably somewhere between 500,000 and 9 million.

World population at that time was about 300 million, of which probably 50 million in the Middle East; but all soldiers were men (only half of people are), and there were also 10 generations during the Crusades; so somewhere between 0.2% and 4% of all Muslim men alive during the Crusades were soldiers involved in the Crusades. This is comparable to the proportion of men who are part of modern military forces (about 2% of men in the US are in the military, along with a much smaller proportion of women).

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...
Post a Comment
Read more

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.
Post a Comment
Read more