Task: Question Generation
Input (English): Passage: The true numbers are impossible to estimate, since the Christian sources refer only to knights and give no account of the number of infantry and turcopoles, except that it is evident from the number of the dead and wounded that there must have been more men than the 375 knights. It is also uncertain whether the so-called knights included mounted sergeants or squires, or whether they were true knights. One chronicler gave a strength of 7,000 for the Latin army, while another contemporary estimate of 20,000 was probably a textual corruption of 10,000. Just as uncertain are the numbers of their opponents. An 1181 review listed Saladin's Mamluk forces at 6,976 Ghulams and 1,553 Qaraghulams. However, there would have been additional soldiers available in Syria and elsewhere, while auxiliaries might have accompanied the Mamluks. William of Tyre reported Saladin's strength as 26,000, while an anonymous chronicler estimated 12,000 Turkish and 9,000 Arab troops. Accompanying Baldwin was Raynald of Châtillon, lord of Oultrejordain, who had just been released from captivity in Aleppo in 1176. Raynald was a fierce enemy of Saladin and was King Baldwin's second-in-command. Also with the army were Baldwin of Ibelin, his brother Balian, Reginald of Sidon, and Joscelin III of Edessa. Odo de St Amand, Master of the Knights Templar, came with 84 Templar knights. Another Templar force attempted to meet Baldwin at Ascalon, but they remained besieged at Gaza.
Output (English): Were there more turkish or arab troops?