Talk:Battle of Dorylaeum (1097)

The size of the Seljuk army
"Following their successful siege of Nicaea in 1097, the crusaders split into two columns to aid foraging. The vanguard under Bohemond was attacked at Bozüyük. Sultan Kilij Arslan led 7,000-8,000 Seljuk mounted archers in an ambush, throwing the crusaders into confusion." Matthew Bennett, The Hutchinson Dictionary of Ancient & Medieval Warfare, Helicon Publishing Ltd, 1998. p. 103 Lysandros 15:45, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

"[...]The result was a gap of about 5 kilometres between the vanguard, consisting of the armies of Bohemond, Robert of Normandy and Stephen of Blois about 20,000 strong, and the main force of about 30,000. They were aware of that Kilij Arslan was about: he had returned to the fray after the defeat of Nicaea, whith an army of 6,000-7,000 mounted man, including his new allies, the Danishmend Turks." John France, The Crusades And The Expansion Of Catholic Christendom, 1000-1714, Routledge, 2005. p. 73 Lysandros 21:33, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Is the above ambush referring to the entire army? I am not sure it supports the smaller figure of 7,000-8,000 representing the entire Turkish force.98.249.4.71 (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Battlebox / Crusader strength
The crusaders won this battle with the arrival of the second crusader army, but only Bohemund's force is mentioned in the battlebox. Why..? Lysandros 19:48, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Fixed. Lysandros (talk) 05:22, 26 November 2008 (UTC)

Definitely NOT completely fixed, gentlemen, ladies and variations thereupon (unless my wits are gone, which, well, always possible). 2nd crusader host? Still missing! We have Adhemar, possibly with Raymond's help leading, burning the camp, with a third host (interesting stuff) but no mention whatsoever of Godefroi de Bouillon's arrival en media res, and immensely famous knightly cavalry charge and (allegedly) terrifying and decisive victory against Arslan, the fear of which gave them so much free rein in further crossing Anatolia...with Arslan keeping plenty of distance. It always struck me as just a touch mythic, but I've never seen an account without it, good history or bad, and it's even on the page for the 1st Crusade itself, with Raymond only given a -possible- secondary role in relieving the Normans. So have historiographers completely reversed themselves on this one? What's the deal, please? This was what made Godefroi almost first among equals, of the great nobles, and gave him fame and the edge on being named king ('defender'--he wouldn't take the title, right) of Outremer [I'm aware his role in the siege of that city played its part as well]--or so historians, to my knowledge, have been assuming for 900 years. So. What's our source for writing this up without Godefroi providing decisive relief and victory?Randall Adhemar (talk) 21:08, 28 August 2015 (UTC)

Dismounted
How did knights get horses shot out from under them when they're on foot? AThousandYoung (talk) 06:34, 5 May 2008 (UTC)

There were mounted knights with the army, not all were on foot. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.249.4.71 (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Another capture
Hello fellow wikipediaans, I am an amateur historian on the Dutch-wikipedia site and I was wondering if there is an article coming in the near future about the Taking of Tartous'?. This happend after the battle of Dorylaeum (1097) and before the Siege of Antioch (1097), I have read two too three books where this came too mention (includes Thomas Madden). At the Tartous mountains a companie of about 4000 soldiers under leading of Tancred of Tarento and Baldwin of Boulogne seprate from the main army to look for supplies and did go south where they intered Tartous, where they came accros Contantin I of Armenia and made a treaty. If there where any fights i dont really know, but I think it's material for an article. (excuus me for my bad english writing) greetings 84.83.12.46 18:50, 18 juni 2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.83.12.46 (talk)

Neutral Point of View
I'm not a historian so I won't discuss about the facts and numbers in this article. But, the way the battle is explained seems a little sided to me. As in "cutting down noncombatants". It's nothing outrageous but I can see it is littered through the text and the Crusader side is favored.I don't want to make changes without knowing the subject in detail so I would encourage someone with history knowledge to review the article. --bnr0ck — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.170.135.225 (talk) 04:51, 8 May 2015 (UTC)

Citations needed
Would be useful to specify which sources support each event / claim described in the article. IHateClocks (talk) 21:03, 17 January 2022 (UTC)