🚩Go to sponsr.is/cs_historymarche_1123 and use code HISTORYMARCHE to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video. 🚩Battle of Jaffa (1192) was the culmination of the clash of Richard and Saladin, two of the most valiant commanders of their era. The encounter finally brought to an end the Third Crusade and cemented both Richard's and Saladin's reputation in the history books.
its a good thing to have a sponsor you can respect and believe in, as there's a plethora of content creators pushing grift ads and "BetterHelp" insertions that clearly advertise for scams of the same sort. stick to your guns, stick to your best sponsor. curiosity stream is clearly a fantastic, helpful resource for folks like yourself. you're on a run that could unseat K&G someday
@@TheDogGoesWoof69 I waved goodbye to Trump when I saw him at Jerusalem's Wailing Wall, as he confirmed that most of his funding would go to Israel in the end.
This was fantastic. The rivalry between Richard and Saladin was astounding, and made even that much better due to their utmost respect and chivalry towards eachother. Definitely two of the greatest leaders of their generation in all of history!
The French squabbling and abandoning allies?! It’s amazing the difference leaders like Richard and Saladin make. While Saladin is an equally spectacular general, the fact that Richard also battled at the front end like a beast while Saladin’s skill and humanity basically made them like real life Hollywood characters. Their mutual respect was also inspiring.
They were all French either serving the Plantagenet or the Capetian wtf are you saying lmao, Capetians rulers and lords conquered the Etats Latins d'Orients while the Plantagenets didn't, the Plantagenet also tried to steal from the Knight templars in their headquarters in France and their many outpost in England and Jerusalem, no one wanted to help them anymore as they lost all trusts despite that the southern French under Plantagenet were mostly there to defend the holy land, there rulers weren't.
@@iridium8341 Indeed only Français in wars can pull multiple times in a row fights in 1 to 10 outnumbered and win all of them and placing it directly under there authority, France did it the crusades, England, Italy, Germany, Spain basically all of there neighbours lmao😅
@@ommsterlitz1805i believe some french were present in richard's army. But you can't say all plantagenet army was french. Also french were probably most participated in crusades. Hence why turks called crusaders as "frenks". And also stating two of the strongest armies in the world are frenks and turks. Turks get first crusaders well(people's crusade) but shocked by second wave
@@mehmetfatihcetin5932 It's Franks because they are Français people not Frenks, english language took words from Français and usually change the A in a word and replace it to an E same for G that became W like Guillaume le Conquérant became William the Conqueror.
Please continue the Hannibal series! HistoryMarche, you don’t realise that it will be the greatest ancient historical series on the internet. A true masterpiece and beautiful story.
I second this,his hannibal series is better than the history channels woke history.. sorry people in carthage were not black every woke person thinks that black people were native to north africa. Jesus christ he was closest to arabic and greek.. the new netflix series shows cleopatra as being black😂😂 she was greek. history revism is what it is.
@jacobs5697 wait hold on a second, there were definitely Black people in Cartage because it was near the black tribes and also because of trade, but I do understand what you mean, Cartage was definitely not black
@luciusdomitiusaurelianus5334 i was trying to say they were not prodomity black carthaginians were arabs that fled the middle east and founded carthage there may be some black slaves and some black citizens but the city was not filled with black people and hannibal was not black like the history channel showed lmao all of north africans were libyans,greeks and whites at the time especially with the migraitions of italians to north africa when rome owned north africa
@@jacobs5697 Nonsense. North Africans were a mixture of people with different shades of skin. Carthaginians were not Arabs, but Canaanites. You can call them white, but well, most of them wouldn't be considered white in nowadays Europe or North America. When I was travelling in Africa, I met many Lebanese, and I have some Lebanese friends in Europe. Calling them brown is exaggeration, but yes, they are not really white either. There were no Greek colonies in North Africa (apart from Cyreinaica). There is no reason to think there were any Greek people living in Carthaginian territories apart from very few merchants or mercenaries. Also, some of my Greek students were practically brown. In Morocoo, Algieria and Tuinisia, the largest tribes were Imaziɣen (Amazighs, Berbers). I have met many Imaziɣen in Africa and some look more like Arabs, but some are significantly brown. My Amazigh friend in Agadir is practically black. Also note, that the influx of Arabs to North Africa from the 7th century has significantly lightened the skin of the population, especially in Egypt. I also dislike clickbaits with black Cleopatras, but the biggest problem has been whitewashing of history. Most films misrepresent people from Ancient Upper Egypt as European white, even though, the majority was brown or black. Even Jesus is imagined as super white, like he were Italian or French, definitely not Middle-Eastern.
I don't envy Richard having to deal with his stubborn French contingent constantly demanding the opposite of what he wanted to do, else they leave. What a pain.
They were all mostly French men anyways, like Richard who was a Plantagenet, the men in the citadel with Aubrey de Reims, Henry de Champagne reinforcements, the Templars and Hospitallers. Just listen to their names, they are all French. The "stubborn French contingent" were merely Capetian who quarrelled with other French men, the Plantagenet. Also remember the Capetian were the one who conquered the Holy Land and founded the Crusader States alone without the help of the Plantagenet who were trying to steal from the Templars back in Europe and the Levine. This video is like all other HistoryMarche videos or other english speaking history channels bashing French for the sake of it. It's been like that for years now.
@@user-wh8mb7tm2g Yes, indeed. However, there was definitely a rivalry between the nobility in northern/eastern France, under the French king, and the Anglo-Normans under the English kings. There was a factional difference.
@@NefariousKoel The only real and ancient rivalries that existed in france in the high middle ages was between the duchy of aquitaine and the county of toulouse in the south but also between the duchy of normandy and the duchy of anjou in the north (the rivalry ended when both duchies ended in plantagenet hands).Another rivalry was between Normandy and Brittany but the latter wasn't part of france until the early 16th century.
Richard always sounds like such a brave and courageous man. He inspired a people that were outnumbered and on their last legs as far as land and supplies. This episode had me sitting on the edge of my seat the whole time and I got chills for parts of it. Amazing work, I absolutely LOVE these videos.
Something looks fishy and does not sound right. At that time when Muslims were only 1-3% of the whole World population but were ruling the big swath of non-Muslims only by the blessings of the Almighty and all-knowing Creator. Christians were around 20-33% of the whole World. Only it proves that either Muslims were outnumbered or their higher percentage was ready to fight and defend. Peace to my non-Muslim friends.
The three Lions always associated with Richard are actually the coat of arms of Normandy not England , Richard didn't speak English and only spent six months in England and yet he constantly gets voted one of England's best Kings for good reason he was the ultimate warrior King.
Actually, they are the two lions of Normandy, combined with the Lion of Anjou, that were first used by his father Henry II, but Richard's seal is the first one to use them in official documents. Richard was not only King of England, but ruler of half of France as well and his reign is generally seen as successful, due to his military success and passing on of his lands intact to his brother; John, who promptly lost most of them.
That was a terrifically great video, showcasing the military rivalry and duel, between two of the titans of the crusading era. Where in the end, the conflict ended in a draw and negotiated treaty. On the whole Richard was the winner as his struggles, reversed the run of Saladin's military victories and saw to the resurrection of a territorial kingdom of Jerusalem, based along the coastline, that would endure for another 100 years.
Well, in my opinion, the Third Crusade was a failure. It is true that Richard was able to achieve several victories over Saladin, but in the end he did not take Jerusalem, which is the city that they traveled a long way from Europe towards the Levant to take, and with the participation of three of the most powerful countries in Europe, in addition to volunteers from The rest of the countries, it is clear that the Crusader army was larger than the Islamic army. It is not reasonable that an army formed by three European powers in addition to volunteers from neighboring countries did not exceed the army of one Islamic country. Even with Richard’s army, he was unable to achieve the goal of this campaign in addition to the death of Frederick Barbarossa. When he participated in this campaign, as a summary of what I would like to say, the Crusaders took a very small part compared to the great efforts they made.
@@saadallahmonir-dy6fm I see it as a draw overall, but the crusaders getting the better long term gains in the short term. As Saladin's drive to conquer the crusader states is halted and the kingdom of Jerusalem re-established along the coast. Giving itself a breathing space to recover and possibly regain lost territory with new crusades in the future. While the infighting amongst Saladin's successors, would keep them from finishing their fathers work until the mamluks came to power.
I believe that Saladin was a better statesman than Richard. Even though he lost numerous battles to Richard he always took note of his own weaknesses and sought to improve them. During the third crusade, he noticed the indiscipline within his rank and file troops and the Ayyubid generals. Slowly but surely, Saladin would start introducing more and more disciplined Mamluk troops. This policy and outstanding statesmanship guaranteed that Islam would win the war long after Saladin and Richard passed.
I mean, I don't think there's any doubt that Salah al-Din was a better statesman. Richard is kinda the guy who mostly left his state for other people to run while he went off to distant lands to fight. He was a solid military commander, but not exactly a great domestic leader and administrator. Honestly, putting their administrative skills aside, it's tricky to pick who is the better commander between them. Perhaps Richard was the better tactician, considering his ability to exert control over his men and adapt on the field. Though, he also had the advantage of heavy knights and men-at-arms. Salah al-Din, on the other hand, might well have been the better strategist, though he had superior numbers and could more easily replace his losses. It's really hard to compare them militarily, even if I could, without doubt, say that one was a better statesman than the other.
@@doritofeeshI feel like it should be mentioned that strategically, Richard was quite literally facing a wall of odds given he was constantly surrounded by hostile land, outnumbered with strained supply lines. It should also be made of note that he was a decent statesmen given his ability to organise logistics for a large force across an entire continent and deal with the political instability within his multi national force that threatened to tear itself apart at every moment and action. Compared to Saladin as the defender fighting on his home turf with a pretty unified force, it's a miracle the third crusade achieved as much as it did
In the battlefield, what matters is military prowess. And in that regard Richard proved, again and again, be a superior military commander the Saladin.
@@Sam-bp2st Managing army logistics isn't really the task of a statesman, so much as it is the task of a military commander. I never denied that Richard was a sound commander, though. It's also questionable how much Richard handled in regards to logistics, considering the Crusaders already had a power base along the coast, even if it was greatly weakened by Salah al-Din's prior conquests. Furthermore, he could rely on the agriculture in Cyprus to ship over supplies to Acre. Cyprus alone should be able to provide for the typical armies being fielded in the Crusade. Lastly, even if we assume he required additional supplies beyond what Cyprus could provide, it is more than likely that the Republic of Genoa had a greater hand in providing it to him than him personally facilitating it through the 2,000 miles or so from Genoa to Acre. I don't remember the English or Franks having any notable navy, and it was more than likely Genoa and Pisa which provided the Crusaders with a fleet. I will give credit for Richard in facilitating his army's supplies as far as Cyprus and the Levant, though. Anyways, yes, he did face great odds. Though, it was largely offset by how heavily armoured and trained his men were, especially the knights and men-at-arms. One thing which often isn't covered with these Medieval European figures is that the knights often had at least 3-4 other armed and mounted retinue which fought alongside them. So, Crusader numbers of these high quality soldiers might have been more than we think. Salah al-Din, for his part, was mostly working with lighter-armed men and his central cavalry corps wasn't quite on par with the European knights. This largely negates the numerical advantage Salah al-Din could bring to bear tactically. Strategically, while the Ayyubid Dynasty could better replace their losses and provision their men, they were still vulnerable along the coasts and rivers. They could poison wells and scorch fields, but fast rushing rivers are not easily polluted before the advent of modern industry, while scorching the more fertile river valleys would be quite costly to the defenders. Richard lacked the vision to make a deep strike into Egypt, following the coast and the Nile to facilitate the movement of his army and their supplies. Doing so would have potentially cut the Muslim's manpower and logistical resources in half.
@@doritofeesh Richard had the vision with regards to striking at Egypt but doing so would further dwindle his forces in the form of the French contingent leaving
You should have also mentioned that during truce Saladin send his Personal Physician along with fresh fruits and ice water to Richard as he was having fever. One of the best moments in History and shows the magnanimous personality of Saladin
It's One of the best video to watch. Richard The Lionheart has my utmost respect. He was different from other english kings. Only if other French allys had vision & would have remained with him... A truly Historic figure.
My mom’s family tree is from Jaffa, it’s a shame they were terrorized and kicked out in 1948, my grandpa told me they had a small shop there that was passed down but of course 1948 happened
From a strategic point, invading Egypt is a sound move. Egypt was Saladin's main base of power, wealth, food and supplies and troops. If Richard could have threatened or even taken it, Saladin would be forced to defend or reconquer it, or risk his domain falling apart. The problem here is that Richard was trying to treat this like a regular war, like the ones he had fought all his life, but unfortunately for him, religious fanaticism cares little for tactical and strategic concepts and concerns.
Yes, it's the classic symbolic objectives versus practical objectives. Even among the top brass it's a lot easier to fire people up with symbolism than practicality. This is where I think Richard, despite his reputation, did not wield too much authority over the Christian army. I think he was basically a "nominal" leader solely based on his effectiveness and popularity among the men - he was an easy choice. If anything, I think Philip II wielded more influence over the Christian camp before his departure from the Holy Land. Richard simply couldn't steer the fanatical French contingents in the right direction, thus yielding to pressure and marching on Jerusalem instead of Egypt. EDIT: And this is why I praised both Richard and Saladin at the end of the video. Because, like Richard, Saladin faced similar issues. His emirs put pressure on him every "5 minutes" about the need to continue/pursue the jihad. So it's a small miracle how Saladin, and Richard, managed to juggle all of the political and military matters, while preventing the wheels coming off the war effort due to pressure from the more fanatical factions in their camps. In many ways these two, Richard and Saladin, had so many similar qualities
@@HistoryMarche Reminds me of the scene in Kingdom of Heaven when that one guy confronts Saladin after he withdrew from Kerak, and Saladin responds with actual tactical facts, finishing with, "How many battles did God win for the Moslems before I came? That is, before God determined I should come?". One of my favorite scenes in the movie.
This video was incredible and the other regarding the 3rd Crusade, as far as I can remember. I am glad I discovered through you another really great military commander, Richard, and found details about another one, Saladin. The writing was good and the conclusion was stelar. It's quite a feast when 2 military commanders of equal value meet on the field of battle. Richard is really an inspiration. Thank you for this video!
Ibn Shaddad wrote a book called Al Nawader al-Sultaniyya, about the biography of Saladin al-Ayyubi. He mentioned land and sea battles, most of which were victories for the Ayyubid Muslims over the Crusaders (of course Christian sources avoid mentioning many of them). Thanks to him, the Crusader presence in the Levant was weakened and Crusaders lost most of its important strongholds and lost 540,000 crusaders only men
'(of course Christian sources avoid mentioning many of them).' well you see how you accuse christian sources of missing out muslim victories? guess what, muslim sources will miss out christian victories, its normal, people didnt want to write about their own people losing, also your 540,000 men death count is hilariously wrong, even with all crusades combined there was never 540,000 of them, so its literally mathematically impossible for 540,000 of them to die
The most f*cked up sources of Crusades is the Muslims sources, from the guy who raised and studied in Syria, most of the things I learned about Crusades and Salahdin were wrong.
I think I can safely call this episode one of your best. Incredible storytelling, incredible script, incredible graphics work. Your entire team did a perfect job on this! Almost makes me regret that Saladin and Richard did not have more battles between them. This could have easily overtaken the Hannibal series in epicness otherwise.
Can't wait for more parts in the next videos such as: Rise of Caesar Augustus #6 Prince Eugene of Savoy #5 Hannibal #20 The Anarchy #4 Basil II, the Bulgar Slayer #4
Like your Third Crusade series, especially Richard I(The Lionheart) my favorite Commander Third Crusade: -Siege of Acre(1189-1191) •Crusader Victory -Battle of Arsuf(1191) •Crusader Victory -Siege of Darum(1192) •Crusader Victory -Battle of Jaffa(1192) •Crusader Victory Despite Richard success, he couldn't take Jerusalem, because, he need more manpower and had to return home because John was usurping him and Philip II, is threatening his land
The lavant always finding it’s self on the world stage just as much then as it is know… things really never change… thank you @historymarche you are a gem my the gods of the algorithm bless you!!
Even without starting the video, I automatically ''Like'' the video knowing very well it's going to be great! Never disappoints... thanks so much for these awesome videos!
We can't even imagine what fantastic warriors knights were, to master so many weapons and fight so hard and long in plate armour is a fitness level we can't imagine today
"They will not fight you all except within fortified cities or from behind walls. Their violence among themselves is severe. You think they are together, but their hearts are diverse. That is because they are a people who do not reason." Surah 14 Al hshr
@@MiddleEast-4EverDo some history research why he wanted negotiations or try to use your ears and rewatch the video again and you will know the only reason he wanted peace talks. I will give you a hint: he was not afraid of Saladin.
@@MiddleEast-4EverThis guy is literally finding something in the video to proved that richard cant beat Saladin while we all know that the battle between the 2 of them richard showed more bravery while saladin keeps retreating in the battle and lost a large a mount of casualties while richard lost only 2 man
Another wonderful video and incredible historical coverage video about Crusades ✝️ and Muslim ☪️ fought against each other in 1192 ..video clearly explained events ...thank you respectful 🙏 ( history Marche) channel for sharing this magnificent video
One of your best videos, telling about one of the most fascinating points in history. Two great characters whose qualities you've conveyed well. It is indeed admirable how, in this time period, they both acted exclusively through the military and diplomacy, and with chivalry, even with the stakes being as high.
is it possible that the french wanted to push so hard towards jerusalem in order to keep richard busy so that philip could continue in peace back in europe
They were truely capable and worthy leaders. Men that inspired those following them. Nowadays our leaders seem more like the enemies of their own people.
Muslims literally sandwiched between constant crusades and relentless mongol hordes! How they not only survived but bounced back on the offensive ousting both Crusaders and Mongols is something truly remarkable lol
By the time of Hulegu's invasion, the Crusades were largely over, and there was only one pretty unsuccessful cooperation between the Crusaders and Mongols that didn't go anywhere.
@IStevenSeagal The Armenians didn't have their own country at the time, Georgia was a minor regional power that frequently allied with the Byzantines, and are mostly being in conflict with the Sultanate of Rum. Makuria never posed any threat to anywhere except Egypt, and the height of their power was back during the 10th century(I have no idea what you mean by real life Wakandans, it's not like they have some magical super materials or anything.). While they did grind down the Crusaders, the Mongol Ilkhanate assimilated into the Muslim and later fell apart due to dynastic reasons.
ye your historical dates are mixed up, as someone else pointed out the crusades and mongol invasions happened at different times, they were never sandwiched between them, also 'surviving' the crusades isnt an achievement the crusades were armies from thousands of miles away always massively outnumbered yet managed to kick their arse countless times, the muslim states had a massive population and controlled egypt
A refreshingly even-handed approach to the history of the 3rd Crusade, a series of conflicts that are often discussed & presented--but almost always with some degree of agenda to glorify one side and denigrate or belittle the opposing side 👍🏻
@@HistoryMarche Ghassan Massoud did a fantastic job portraying Saladin. "A king does not kill a king. Were you not close enough to a great king to learn by his example?"
It would be great to see more Chinese or Spanish battles. We are quite familiar with Europe, but not very much with those such as Spanish conquest of Aztec😊
I know I'll get some flak for this, but I have never thought of Saladin as a brilliant military commander. Political, perhaps, but he rarely succeeded in battle against the Crusaders unless they were making massive mistakes. Hattin was not brilliant strategy - it was Crusader arrogance and stupidity that caused the annihilation of their army. Saladin enjoyed numerous advantages against the Crusaders - knowledge of the area, limitless reinforcements that could walk to the area, and the simple fact that his "homeland" was under threat. In-fighting in the Crusader ranks, as well as their desire to go home, made them a far less effective force than they could have been. On the face of it, he should have been far more successful than he was, considering the overall situation. And, let's not forget that Frederick died on the way to the Holy Land. I think his 200,000-strong army would have made mincemeat of any Saracen force.
Yeah keep crying about the multiple failures of the whole crusades at the end Palestine And it's main capital city Al-Quds (Jerusalem) stayed with Muslim and Arab hands until 1947/1948
Salahuddin is the embodiment of Sun Tzu's maxim "when you're weak, give the illusion of strength." I wonder what would have happened had the Ayyubids stopped the priest from warning Richard that the citadel was safe and Richard thought Jaffa lost.
Except they were all "French"... whether in the Phillipe or Richard's armies. The Bulk of the Crusaders, Templars or Hospitalliers were from Duchies and Counties from France since the First Crusade, from Europe as in the Levant. Only the Narrator, like most videos on UA-cam, tells the story from a contemporary point of view, using the terms "French" or "English" anachronistically, as if they were nations as today, without ever taking into account that it was the feudal era. Comparable to Game of Throne, it was Houses or Dynasties that clashed, not countries. He should rather say "The Capetian/Francilian army" or "The Plantagenêt/Angevin army", or simply the Frankish army to include everyone.
@RobM00 What, the "Angevin Empire" ? It's quite the opposite... Since 1066, it was Kings and Nobles from the medieval French-speaking world who have succeeded one another at the head of England, not the other way around (House of Normandy, Blois or Anjou). The Anglo-Saxons kings were no more. If the Plantagenets had so many territories in France, it was because they were originally from these territories. Whether by birth or by marriage. Richard's father was from Le Mans, and his mother was from Aquitaine, herself being associated with the House of Poitiers.
It was actually France that started the 100 Years War with moves on Gascony. Until then the King of England had been on the fence about pressing his claim to the crown of France into actual war. France had always hated Normandy and Aquitaine being under the King of England, despite still being part of France. She already had Normandy back thanks to backstabbing Philippe. French love to cry they were the victim but they not only started the war but sowed the seed for it round about the time of this Crusade.
Thank you for putting and saying the correct name of the land. You are the best War History youtube channel of all time. Palestine, now and forever, and for everyone.
@@corpchannel2523 he won some engagements others he drawed and other he lost ascalonc and he achieved NOTHING. Saladin defend the holy lnd using tactics and strategy. He defeated richards goal and that a fact. Richard achieved nothing he didn’t even expand the crusader states 😂 just one or 2 castles that’s all then he ran away😂
the impression I get from Saladin's war against Richard is that he was a good general, but not a great one. Might be just bad luck for Saladin, having to face one of the best and most famous general of medieval europe
I think you forgot how he didn't killed all christian after conquering Jerusalem while christian killed all the Muslims.....Saladin despite losing these battle's but never gave his enemy a chance to go into offensive....if Richard take the City he definitely killed Muslims but Saladin stopped him....as forever both were Great!
@@Hammy7325 I'm talking about his commanding and tactical habilities in battle, not of his moral character, which to be fair, he was much more honorable and respect worthy than most and certainly deserves credit for his humility and decency
It might just be me, but I don't consider either commanders to be great. Theirs was a contest between a good tactician and a good strategist. Though, neither can be considered to be particularly brilliant. What Richard had going for him was the ability to control his impetuous band of warriors with his personal charisma and adapt well on the field, but I don't consider his tactics anything out of the ordinary aside from driving home the charge of heavily armoured knights and men-at-arms. Salah al-Din, on the other hand, was cautious and reckless in equal measures, fighting some battles which were otherwise unnecessary. Though, perhaps his subordinates do share blame on some occasions, such as Arsuf, where they closed in to fight the Crusaders on their terms rather than keeping at range to harass them. What I think he lacks in charisma and adaptability on the field compared to Richard, though, he made up for in his abilities of manoeuvre and attritional warfare, which when he carried out properly, led to victories such as Hattin and, in the end, a technical strategic victory for the Muslims. Personally, I'm more inclined towards Salah al-Din (mainly because I consider operations and strategy to be more important than tactics). Richard's decision not to take the war to Egypt, as we can see, was the wrong decision. Had he stuck to the coasts and the rivers, using the Crusader navy to supply his men without straying too far inland, he could have seriously damaged Salah al-Din's power and authority by threatening his lines of communications and strategic bases. He did not have this foresight, whereas a truly great commander like Alexandros did when fighting the Achaemenid Persians (even when Memnon used the same style of attrition warfare as Salah al-Din and the Persians had naval supremacy). Salah al-Din, for all of his losses at Acre, Arsuf, and Jaffa, was able to keep most of his gains he made before the arrival of Richard and protecting Christian pilgrimage was no real sacrifice on his end. Richard, nor the Crusaders as a whole, could afford to risk an inland venture, even to Jerusalem, which was only 40 miles from Jaffa (what could easily be considered an 8 day march, considering the average speed of most armies during the past which I have studied). For, if they did so, their water sources would be poisoned, while depots, farmsteads, and pastures would be scorched, and Crusader communications preyed on by the swift Muslim light cavalry. Credit to Richard, though, for mostly sticking to the coast rather than risking an inland venture. He isn't a poor commander strategically, as I said. He's just not particularly great. By keeping close to his vital lines of communications at Acre and Jaffa, he was able to always supply his men by the fertile coasts and from the Crusader navy. HistoryMarche mentioned Cyprus being in Crusader hands, and that also ties in, as it works as an operational base which Salah al-Din could not easily assail, and could help to facilitate the shipment of supplies to Acre and Jaffa, mentioned above. In the end, we see here how the outcome of a war so far back still relies on principles which are core to our understanding of postmodern warfare. Logistics is king. So, even with all of the tactical defeats he suffered, the strategic resources he possessed and the logistical situation on both sides meant that Salah al-Din came out with a more fruitful peace, which favoured the Muslims.
very cool hehe Chapter: Regarding Intercourse With Captives Abu Sa’id Al Khudri said “The Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah (ﷺ) were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands. Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani) Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 2155
Hard to say on the one hand the Levant was thinly populated compared to egypt and modern day syria and turkey. So most troops are coming from those regions. Saladin always has a terrible time convincing his allies to fight for a land far from home, but if Egypt is under attack, the Egyptian people are more willing to help and his supply lines are shorter? But then can he convince "Syrians" and "Turkish" (geography not ethnic) to die for Egypt? How does that effect army composition. Im inclined to say it would be beneficial? Egypt probably has more people than syria/turkey. On top of that Saladin himself is "from" syria and turkey so hes got a good chance at keeping some of them around in egypt. What does that mean for actual battle? God knows. Then how would the crusaders and the copts interact, would they give them the same support as the Greek Orthodox in the Levant? Then comes the fact that Egypt is an actual naval power unlike the Levant. Egypt is also drier and desserty than the Levant. Which plays well for Saladin. Im not sure how well the templars do true desert warfare, but I suspect the mamluks outclass them their, and their heavy state of the art christian army becomes a severe issue? But then again, Saladin is always toeing the line on being assassinated so maybe if Richard just goes for a quick reaving of egyptian countryside (the nile) morale would tank so low that saladin would be deposed/killed
Considering Saladin knew the terrain, could resupply and reinforce his army quicker controlling the surrounding territory, Richard is a far better general. Who would win in one on one combat out of Saladin and Richard? Saladin didn't have the balls because he knew Richard would cut him down with ease
@@qutuzm7753 bro, at the siege of Acre... Saladin was raging at Richard for declining a war face to face😂😂😂 and look how these kids barking at Saladin who literally conquered Jerusalem from 2nd Crusade and defended Jerusalem from 3rd.... Holy land is still ours
That is incorrectly, Saladin unified all Muslim world the only person to do that for 100s of years, and difference was that he was facing amour and better equipped army. also Richard could not even take Jerusalem main aim of crusade
Damn, Richards courage and devotian are really inspiring. But also Saladins wisdom and generosity is quite jaw-dropping. I wish people would stop fighting because of their differences în their beliefs, at the end of th3 day, we are all humans, and we all want pretty much the same thing. A happy and productive life, regardless of which God you look u0 to
Most of the casualties in a medieval battle came during one side routing and fleeing from the field, so it's not THAT unbelievable, but still a bit suspect I agree.
@@KaiHung-wv3ul around 4-5k soldiers from christians, 8-10k muslim soldiers. 3k vs 6k clashing at jaffa on open field. Arrows, lances and swords clashing and charging straight to the enemy lines. It just can't be 2 dead from christians, no matter how skilled fighter you are, and how big shield you have, on crowd you gonna die, if not you, your comrade next to you will. I believe in 700 dead from muslims. 400 died on withdrawal. If they would say 1k wounded and 300 dead i would believe. Whole day or half a day you are fighting, definitely you will die. Chronicles just liers like ceasar saying killed 40k gauls in one battle.
I want to correct your use of “mamluk” word. The Mamluk word means “slave” in Arabic and the slave soldiers in Saladin’ army were only Turks and Circassians. There are no Kurdish Mamluks in Islam history and Kurds have always been free born man with their own rule and territories through Islamic history. Mostly the Turkic people were brought and bought from Central Asia slave markets or offered service to Persian, Arab and Kurdish empires as slave soldiers, and there are also Caucasians mainly Circassians were the Mamluks. So the empire (Mamluks) emerged after the fall of Ayyubid dynasty are those Turkic slave soldiers who indeed stabbed Ayyubids in the back as soon as they gained power In army. Later on Turkish slaves lost control to another slave group (Circassians) in Mameluk sultanate. But over all the Mamluks as state were continuation of Ayyubid dynasty till destroyed after Ottoman - Kurdish (Idrisi Bitlisi) treaty in 1500s and local Kurds in Sham (Syria) and Egypt worked with Ottomans where Kurds were still ruling most Syria (Aleppo, Homs, Raqqa etc). Today there are millions of Kurdish descent Arabic speaking people live in Jordan, Sudan, Egypt and Syria.
🚩Go to sponsr.is/cs_historymarche_1123 and use code HISTORYMARCHE to save 25% off today. Thanks to Curiosity Stream for sponsoring today’s video.
🚩Battle of Jaffa (1192) was the culmination of the clash of Richard and Saladin, two of the most valiant commanders of their era. The encounter finally brought to an end the Third Crusade and cemented both Richard's and Saladin's reputation in the history books.
You're amazing man! LOVE your content 🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤
its a good thing to have a sponsor you can respect and believe in, as there's a plethora of content creators pushing grift ads and "BetterHelp" insertions that clearly advertise for scams of the same sort.
stick to your guns, stick to your best sponsor. curiosity stream is clearly a fantastic, helpful resource for folks like yourself.
you're on a run that could unseat K&G someday
@@TheDogGoesWoof69 I waved goodbye to Trump when I saw him at Jerusalem's Wailing Wall, as he confirmed that most of his funding would go to Israel in the end.
Hi.
This video was well worth the watch. Great job.
This was fantastic. The rivalry between Richard and Saladin was astounding, and made even that much better due to their utmost respect and chivalry towards eachother. Definitely two of the greatest leaders of their generation in all of history!
Baldwin IV?
@@flugen1153nga
Great story why he was called the lion heart
The hypocrisy of him fighting for “God and Jesus” yet he was a flaming homosexual. What would his “God” think of that I wonder?😂
But Jesus and Allah are gay gods, didn't you know that?
The French squabbling and abandoning allies?! It’s amazing the difference leaders like Richard and Saladin make. While Saladin is an equally spectacular general, the fact that Richard also battled at the front end like a beast while Saladin’s skill and humanity basically made them like real life Hollywood characters. Their mutual respect was also inspiring.
They were all French either serving the Plantagenet or the Capetian wtf are you saying lmao, Capetians rulers and lords conquered the Etats Latins d'Orients while the Plantagenets didn't, the Plantagenet also tried to steal from the Knight templars in their headquarters in France and their many outpost in England and Jerusalem, no one wanted to help them anymore as they lost all trusts despite that the southern French under Plantagenet were mostly there to defend the holy land, there rulers weren't.
@@iridium8341 Indeed only Français in wars can pull multiple times in a row fights in 1 to 10 outnumbered and win all of them and placing it directly under there authority, France did it the crusades, England, Italy, Germany, Spain basically all of there neighbours lmao😅
@@ommsterlitz1805i believe some french were present in richard's army. But you can't say all plantagenet army was french. Also french were probably most participated in crusades. Hence why turks called crusaders as "frenks". And also stating two of the strongest armies in the world are frenks and turks. Turks get first crusaders well(people's crusade) but shocked by second wave
@@mehmetfatihcetin5932 It's Franks because they are Français people not Frenks, english language took words from Français and usually change the A in a word and replace it to an E same for G that became W like Guillaume le Conquérant became William the Conqueror.
@@ommsterlitz1805 i meant islamic or turkish chronicles in middle ages mentions crusaders as frenks
Please continue the Hannibal series!
HistoryMarche, you don’t realise that it will be the greatest ancient historical series on the internet. A true masterpiece and beautiful story.
I second this,his hannibal series is better than the history channels woke history.. sorry people in carthage were not black every woke person thinks that black people were native to north africa. Jesus christ he was closest to arabic and greek.. the new netflix series shows cleopatra as being black😂😂 she was greek. history revism is what it is.
@jacobs5697 wait hold on a second, there were definitely Black people in Cartage because it was near the black tribes and also because of trade, but I do understand what you mean, Cartage was definitely not black
@luciusdomitiusaurelianus5334 i was trying to say they were not prodomity black carthaginians were arabs that fled the middle east and founded carthage there may be some black slaves and some black citizens but the city was not filled with black people and hannibal was not black like the history channel showed lmao all of north africans were libyans,greeks and whites at the time especially with the migraitions of italians to north africa when rome owned north africa
@@jacobs5697 Nonsense. North Africans were a mixture of people with different shades of skin.
Carthaginians were not Arabs, but Canaanites. You can call them white, but well, most of them wouldn't be considered white in nowadays Europe or North America. When I was travelling in Africa, I met many Lebanese, and I have some Lebanese friends in Europe. Calling them brown is exaggeration, but yes, they are not really white either.
There were no Greek colonies in North Africa (apart from Cyreinaica). There is no reason to think there were any Greek people living in Carthaginian territories apart from very few merchants or mercenaries. Also, some of my Greek students were practically brown.
In Morocoo, Algieria and Tuinisia, the largest tribes were Imaziɣen (Amazighs, Berbers). I have met many Imaziɣen in Africa and some look more like Arabs, but some are significantly brown. My Amazigh friend in Agadir is practically black.
Also note, that the influx of Arabs to North Africa from the 7th century has significantly lightened the skin of the population, especially in Egypt.
I also dislike clickbaits with black Cleopatras, but the biggest problem has been whitewashing of history. Most films misrepresent people from Ancient Upper Egypt as European white, even though, the majority was brown or black. Even Jesus is imagined as super white, like he were Italian or French, definitely not Middle-Eastern.
@@jacobs5697 what are you even talking about? you people are so obnoxious
The Respect they had for each other was legendary despite facing off in battle
I don't envy Richard having to deal with his stubborn French contingent constantly demanding the opposite of what he wanted to do, else they leave. What a pain.
They were all mostly French men anyways, like Richard who was a Plantagenet, the men in the citadel with Aubrey de Reims, Henry de Champagne reinforcements, the Templars and Hospitallers. Just listen to their names, they are all French. The "stubborn French contingent" were merely Capetian who quarrelled with other French men, the Plantagenet. Also remember the Capetian were the one who conquered the Holy Land and founded the Crusader States alone without the help of the Plantagenet who were trying to steal from the Templars back in Europe and the Levine.
This video is like all other HistoryMarche videos or other english speaking history channels bashing French for the sake of it. It's been like that for years now.
Richard Cœur de Lion was french
@@user-wh8mb7tm2g Yes, indeed. However, there was definitely a rivalry between the nobility in northern/eastern France, under the French king, and the Anglo-Normans under the English kings. There was a factional difference.
@@NefariousKoel The only real and ancient rivalries that existed in france in the high middle ages was between the duchy of aquitaine and the county of toulouse in the south but also between the duchy of normandy and the duchy of anjou in the north (the rivalry ended when both duchies ended in plantagenet hands).Another rivalry was between Normandy and Brittany but the latter wasn't part of france until the early 16th century.
@@robert-surcouf Don't forget the Burgundians.
Well made graphics, great storytelling, just astonishing! Full support to this project from🇬🇪
Much appreciated!
Richard always sounds like such a brave and courageous man. He inspired a people that were outnumbered and on their last legs as far as land and supplies. This episode had me sitting on the edge of my seat the whole time and I got chills for parts of it. Amazing work, I absolutely LOVE these videos.
Something looks fishy and does not sound right. At that time when Muslims were only 1-3% of the whole World population but were ruling the big swath of non-Muslims only by the blessings of the Almighty and all-knowing Creator. Christians were around 20-33% of the whole World. Only it proves that either Muslims were outnumbered or their higher percentage was ready to fight and defend. Peace to my non-Muslim friends.
Thanks!
Thanks again! So kind of you.
The three Lions always associated with Richard are actually the coat of arms of Normandy not England , Richard didn't speak English and only spent six months in England and yet he constantly gets voted one of England's best Kings for good reason he was the ultimate warrior King.
Actually, they are the two lions of Normandy, combined with the Lion of Anjou, that were first used by his father Henry II, but Richard's seal is the first one to use them in official documents. Richard was not only King of England, but ruler of half of France as well and his reign is generally seen as successful, due to his military success and passing on of his lands intact to his brother; John, who promptly lost most of them.
Exactly! He was an extremely capable King in all aspects. My favorite English King.
@@johnharris7756 Agreed
He was as great as Alexander himself.
@@thetrollslayer3716Alexander captured Gaza and Egypt 🇪🇬.
For the Algorithm!
For God, St. George and the algorithm!
Blessed you oh algorithm, our lord and saviour
UA-cam Wills it
The algorithm wills it!
He censors
he protects
he entertains
he is the algorithm .
That was a terrifically great video, showcasing the military rivalry and duel, between two of the titans of the crusading era. Where in the end, the conflict ended in a draw and negotiated treaty. On the whole Richard was the winner as his struggles, reversed the run of Saladin's military victories and saw to the resurrection of a territorial kingdom of Jerusalem, based along the coastline, that would endure for another 100 years.
Crusades were a dud.
Well, in my opinion, the Third Crusade was a failure. It is true that Richard was able to achieve several victories over Saladin, but in the end he did not take Jerusalem, which is the city that they traveled a long way from Europe towards the Levant to take, and with the participation of three of the most powerful countries in Europe, in addition to volunteers from The rest of the countries, it is clear that the Crusader army was larger than the Islamic army. It is not reasonable that an army formed by three European powers in addition to volunteers from neighboring countries did not exceed the army of one Islamic country. Even with Richard’s army, he was unable to achieve the goal of this campaign in addition to the death of Frederick Barbarossa. When he participated in this campaign, as a summary of what I would like to say, the Crusaders took a very small part compared to the great efforts they made.
@@saadallahmonir-dy6fm I see it as a draw overall, but the crusaders getting the better long term gains in the short term.
As Saladin's drive to conquer the crusader states is halted and the kingdom of Jerusalem re-established along the coast. Giving itself a breathing space to recover and possibly regain lost territory with new crusades in the future. While the infighting amongst Saladin's successors, would keep them from finishing their fathers work until the mamluks came to power.
I believe that Saladin was a better statesman than Richard. Even though he lost numerous battles to Richard he always took note of his own weaknesses and sought to improve them. During the third crusade, he noticed the indiscipline within his rank and file troops and the Ayyubid generals. Slowly but surely, Saladin would start introducing more and more disciplined Mamluk troops. This policy and outstanding statesmanship guaranteed that Islam would win the war long after Saladin and Richard passed.
I mean, I don't think there's any doubt that Salah al-Din was a better statesman. Richard is kinda the guy who mostly left his state for other people to run while he went off to distant lands to fight. He was a solid military commander, but not exactly a great domestic leader and administrator. Honestly, putting their administrative skills aside, it's tricky to pick who is the better commander between them. Perhaps Richard was the better tactician, considering his ability to exert control over his men and adapt on the field. Though, he also had the advantage of heavy knights and men-at-arms. Salah al-Din, on the other hand, might well have been the better strategist, though he had superior numbers and could more easily replace his losses. It's really hard to compare them militarily, even if I could, without doubt, say that one was a better statesman than the other.
@@doritofeeshI feel like it should be mentioned that strategically, Richard was quite literally facing a wall of odds given he was constantly surrounded by hostile land, outnumbered with strained supply lines. It should also be made of note that he was a decent statesmen given his ability to organise logistics for a large force across an entire continent and deal with the political instability within his multi national force that threatened to tear itself apart at every moment and action. Compared to Saladin as the defender fighting on his home turf with a pretty unified force, it's a miracle the third crusade achieved as much as it did
In the battlefield, what matters is military prowess. And in that regard Richard proved, again and again, be a superior military commander the Saladin.
@@Sam-bp2st Managing army logistics isn't really the task of a statesman, so much as it is the task of a military commander. I never denied that Richard was a sound commander, though. It's also questionable how much Richard handled in regards to logistics, considering the Crusaders already had a power base along the coast, even if it was greatly weakened by Salah al-Din's prior conquests. Furthermore, he could rely on the agriculture in Cyprus to ship over supplies to Acre. Cyprus alone should be able to provide for the typical armies being fielded in the Crusade.
Lastly, even if we assume he required additional supplies beyond what Cyprus could provide, it is more than likely that the Republic of Genoa had a greater hand in providing it to him than him personally facilitating it through the 2,000 miles or so from Genoa to Acre. I don't remember the English or Franks having any notable navy, and it was more than likely Genoa and Pisa which provided the Crusaders with a fleet. I will give credit for Richard in facilitating his army's supplies as far as Cyprus and the Levant, though.
Anyways, yes, he did face great odds. Though, it was largely offset by how heavily armoured and trained his men were, especially the knights and men-at-arms. One thing which often isn't covered with these Medieval European figures is that the knights often had at least 3-4 other armed and mounted retinue which fought alongside them. So, Crusader numbers of these high quality soldiers might have been more than we think. Salah al-Din, for his part, was mostly working with lighter-armed men and his central cavalry corps wasn't quite on par with the European knights.
This largely negates the numerical advantage Salah al-Din could bring to bear tactically. Strategically, while the Ayyubid Dynasty could better replace their losses and provision their men, they were still vulnerable along the coasts and rivers. They could poison wells and scorch fields, but fast rushing rivers are not easily polluted before the advent of modern industry, while scorching the more fertile river valleys would be quite costly to the defenders. Richard lacked the vision to make a deep strike into Egypt, following the coast and the Nile to facilitate the movement of his army and their supplies. Doing so would have potentially cut the Muslim's manpower and logistical resources in half.
@@doritofeesh Richard had the vision with regards to striking at Egypt but doing so would further dwindle his forces in the form of the French contingent leaving
Can you please finish the Hannibal Series Thank you.
Well there are like 13 years to cover, he only coveted the events of 218, 217,216,215
And the war ends in 202
@@luciusdomitiusaurelianus5334 17 years...
I love this channel so much. I can’t wait to see what you post next. Your medieval videos are my favorite!
You should have also mentioned that during truce Saladin send his Personal Physician along with fresh fruits and ice water to Richard as he was having fever. One of the best moments in History and shows the magnanimous personality of Saladin
If I were Richard, I would not eat the fruits in fear of poisoning
@@lastyhopper2792 They had food tasters.
@@spookrockcity Yeah. But I'd still afraid of the kind of poison that has delayed effect.
@@lastyhopper2792 thats why you are not a leader
@@rafsanstudent3792 YEA SAYS ABOUT UR FAITH.. UR FAITH TELLS THAT U CAN LIE TO KAFIRS.. KEEP SHUT.. OO UR NAME SAYS IT ALL..
It's One of the best video to watch. Richard The Lionheart has my utmost respect. He was different from other english kings. Only if other French allys had vision & would have remained with him... A truly Historic figure.
This is incredible man! Thanks for this! Richard the Lionheart is legendary 🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤
Congratulations on being in love with other men you two thanks 😊 for letting everyone know
@matimus100 someone is upset that so called invincible Saladin lost the lionheart 😊😊😊 multiple times
My mom’s family tree is from Jaffa, it’s a shame they were terrorized and kicked out in 1948, my grandpa told me they had a small shop there that was passed down but of course 1948 happened
What happened in 48
@@craiglittle1437 The Nakba, native Palestinians were kicked out of their lands by European Jews.
From a strategic point, invading Egypt is a sound move. Egypt was Saladin's main base of power, wealth, food and supplies and troops. If Richard could have threatened or even taken it, Saladin would be forced to defend or reconquer it, or risk his domain falling apart. The problem here is that Richard was trying to treat this like a regular war, like the ones he had fought all his life, but unfortunately for him, religious fanaticism cares little for tactical and strategic concepts and concerns.
Yes, it's the classic symbolic objectives versus practical objectives. Even among the top brass it's a lot easier to fire people up with symbolism than practicality. This is where I think Richard, despite his reputation, did not wield too much authority over the Christian army. I think he was basically a "nominal" leader solely based on his effectiveness and popularity among the men - he was an easy choice. If anything, I think Philip II wielded more influence over the Christian camp before his departure from the Holy Land. Richard simply couldn't steer the fanatical French contingents in the right direction, thus yielding to pressure and marching on Jerusalem instead of Egypt.
EDIT: And this is why I praised both Richard and Saladin at the end of the video. Because, like Richard, Saladin faced similar issues. His emirs put pressure on him every "5 minutes" about the need to continue/pursue the jihad. So it's a small miracle how Saladin, and Richard, managed to juggle all of the political and military matters, while preventing the wheels coming off the war effort due to pressure from the more fanatical factions in their camps. In many ways these two, Richard and Saladin, had so many similar qualities
@@HistoryMarche Reminds me of the scene in Kingdom of Heaven when that one guy confronts Saladin after he withdrew from Kerak, and Saladin responds with actual tactical facts, finishing with, "How many battles did God win for the Moslems before I came? That is, before God determined I should come?". One of my favorite scenes in the movie.
@@Isildun9 they won a ton of victories before Saladin showed up though
This video was incredible and the other regarding the 3rd Crusade, as far as I can remember. I am glad I discovered through you another really great military commander, Richard, and found details about another one, Saladin.
The writing was good and the conclusion was stelar.
It's quite a feast when 2 military commanders of equal value meet on the field of battle. Richard is really an inspiration.
Thank you for this video!
Magnificent video! Not only covering the entire logistics and tactics, but also the souls of both sides.
Ibn Shaddad wrote a book called Al Nawader al-Sultaniyya, about the biography of Saladin al-Ayyubi. He mentioned land and sea battles, most of which were victories for the Ayyubid Muslims over the Crusaders (of course Christian sources avoid mentioning many of them). Thanks to him, the Crusader presence in the Levant was weakened and Crusaders lost most of its important strongholds and lost 540,000 crusaders only men
thanks to him the crusaders stayed for longer, he was a warlord seeking power for himself and his dynasty
'(of course Christian sources avoid mentioning many of them).' well you see how you accuse christian sources of missing out muslim victories? guess what, muslim sources will miss out christian victories, its normal, people didnt want to write about their own people losing, also your 540,000 men death count is hilariously wrong, even with all crusades combined there was never 540,000 of them, so its literally mathematically impossible for 540,000 of them to die
The most f*cked up sources of Crusades is the Muslims sources, from the guy who raised and studied in Syria, most of the things I learned about Crusades and Salahdin were wrong.
Incredible documentary, thank you!
I think I can safely call this episode one of your best. Incredible storytelling, incredible script, incredible graphics work. Your entire team did a perfect job on this!
Almost makes me regret that Saladin and Richard did not have more battles between them. This could have easily overtaken the Hannibal series in epicness otherwise.
Your channel is a blessing! Keep up the good work, you deserve it all!
Can't wait for more parts in the next videos such as:
Rise of Caesar Augustus #6
Prince Eugene of Savoy #5
Hannibal #20
The Anarchy #4
Basil II, the Bulgar Slayer #4
Another amazing video as always HM!
This is absolutely comprehensive and way clearer than we had from our professors in history class.
Yet another banger dropped keep em coming
Thanks!
Thanks so much for supporting my work. Very kind of you.
Like your Third Crusade series, especially Richard I(The Lionheart) my favorite Commander
Third Crusade:
-Siege of Acre(1189-1191)
•Crusader Victory
-Battle of Arsuf(1191)
•Crusader Victory
-Siege of Darum(1192)
•Crusader Victory
-Battle of Jaffa(1192)
•Crusader Victory
Despite Richard success, he couldn't take Jerusalem, because, he need more manpower and had to return home because John was usurping him and Philip II, is threatening his land
Such an awesome video as usual 😊
The lavant always finding it’s self on the world stage just as much then as it is know… things really never change… thank you @historymarche you are a gem my the gods of the algorithm bless you!!
As always fantastic work
Thanks history march
Richard the Lionheart, such an appropriate name for a brave and courageous leader!
Even without starting the video, I automatically ''Like'' the video knowing very well it's going to be great! Never disappoints... thanks so much for these awesome videos!
Wow, thanks!
We can't even imagine what fantastic warriors knights were, to master so many weapons and fight so hard and long in plate armour is a fitness level we can't imagine today
That was great, thanks! More crusader stuff please!
History Marche always delivers. Fantastico!
I’ve been waiting for you to make this video.
Great video, very interesting summing up at the end.
Lionheart is a damn beast!
"They will not fight you all except within fortified cities or from behind walls. Their violence among themselves is severe. You think they are together, but their hearts are diverse. That is because they are a people who do not reason." Surah 14 Al hshr
Richard wasn't a great king but he was a certified badass
And yet he begged Salahedin for negotiations all the time 😅
@@MiddleEast-4EverDo some history research why he wanted negotiations or try to use your ears and rewatch the video again and you will know the only reason he wanted peace talks. I will give you a hint: he was not afraid of Saladin.
@@afterall6418 None said he was afraid. Why do you think so? Was he really? Chicken
@@thetrollslayer3716muzzy nerd
@@MiddleEast-4EverThis guy is literally finding something in the video to proved that richard cant beat Saladin while we all know that the battle between the 2 of them richard showed more bravery while saladin keeps retreating in the battle and lost a large a mount of casualties while richard lost only 2 man
Literally my favorite channel. Also for the algorithm!!! Get famous my man!!
Richard fought so admirably, meanwhile, Frederick Barbarosa fell in a river and drowned, and his 100,000 men went home 🙄
great video ! thank you all ! I love history !
Another wonderful video and incredible historical coverage video about Crusades ✝️ and Muslim ☪️ fought against each other in 1192 ..video clearly explained events ...thank you respectful 🙏 ( history Marche) channel for sharing this magnificent video
One of your best videos, telling about one of the most fascinating points in history. Two great characters whose qualities you've conveyed well. It is indeed admirable how, in this time period, they both acted exclusively through the military and diplomacy, and with chivalry, even with the stakes being as high.
is it possible that the french wanted to push so hard towards jerusalem in order to keep richard busy so that philip could continue in peace back in europe
Surprisingly this comment section is civilized, I was expecting a crusade and a jihad to take place here
This is what happens when there are no Hindus 😂 ✝️❤️☪️
Sadly I think you have to wait for a couple of days...
@@Edinsaonensisstill waiting
Crusader logisticians: "We will overstretch our supply lines if we head to Jerusalem."
Roman logisticians: "Pathetic."
Fantastic video as always!
They were truely capable and worthy leaders. Men that inspired those following them. Nowadays our leaders seem more like the enemies of their own people.
What are you on about. Saladin tortured pows to death. Took sex slaves by the thousands. Dreamt of taking Jihad to Italy.
King Richard III's pep talk to his men is great stuff, I'd do well to keep it mind in my own trials and tribulations.
Dude literally was just thinking that
Crazy how much blood has been spilled in the Levant since the dawn of time.
Incredible documentary hope to see these kind of videos more.... Thank u for making this video ❤
Excellent work.
Thank you so much 😀
HistoryMarche putting them bangers out lately... I see, I see...
Great video keep it up you're doing amazing things 😁👍
Thank you for this very interesting and educational video. So fun to watch!
Muslims literally sandwiched between constant crusades and relentless mongol hordes!
How they not only survived but bounced back on the offensive ousting both Crusaders and Mongols is something truly remarkable lol
By the time of Hulegu's invasion, the Crusades were largely over, and there was only one pretty unsuccessful cooperation between the Crusaders and Mongols that didn't go anywhere.
@IStevenSeagal The Armenians didn't have their own country at the time, Georgia was a minor regional power that frequently allied with the Byzantines, and are mostly being in conflict with the Sultanate of Rum. Makuria never posed any threat to anywhere except Egypt, and the height of their power was back during the 10th century(I have no idea what you mean by real life Wakandans, it's not like they have some magical super materials or anything.).
While they did grind down the Crusaders, the Mongol Ilkhanate assimilated into the Muslim and later fell apart due to dynastic reasons.
@@KaiHung-wv3ulthe Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia did exist
@@corpchannel2523 Ah yes, forgot about that, I meant an Armenia kingdom in historical or modern day Armenia.
ye your historical dates are mixed up, as someone else pointed out the crusades and mongol invasions happened at different times, they were never sandwiched between them, also 'surviving' the crusades isnt an achievement the crusades were armies from thousands of miles away always massively outnumbered yet managed to kick their arse countless times, the muslim states had a massive population and controlled egypt
What a story. This was perfect. Congrats.
Wow Richard is what a man 🤜💪
Amazing as always!
A refreshingly even-handed approach to the history of the 3rd Crusade, a series of conflicts that are often discussed & presented--but almost always with some degree of agenda to glorify one side and denigrate or belittle the opposing side 👍🏻
"What is Jerusalem worth?"
"Nothing."
"..."
"... Everything."
Best line in the movie, along "I am not those men..." Freaking love the movie.
@@HistoryMarche Ghassan Massoud did a fantastic job portraying Saladin. "A king does not kill a king. Were you not close enough to a great king to learn by his example?"
This is the 3rd Crusade in 1191-1192. 831 years after, it seems that the 5th crusade has begun. Deus Vult brothers. Stay strong. We shall prevail.
It would be great to see more Chinese or Spanish battles. We are quite familiar with Europe, but not very much with those such as Spanish conquest of Aztec😊
this isn't Europe
Best Crusader video ever
I know I'll get some flak for this, but I have never thought of Saladin as a brilliant military commander. Political, perhaps, but he rarely succeeded in battle against the Crusaders unless they were making massive mistakes. Hattin was not brilliant strategy - it was Crusader arrogance and stupidity that caused the annihilation of their army.
Saladin enjoyed numerous advantages against the Crusaders - knowledge of the area, limitless reinforcements that could walk to the area, and the simple fact that his "homeland" was under threat.
In-fighting in the Crusader ranks, as well as their desire to go home, made them a far less effective force than they could have been.
On the face of it, he should have been far more successful than he was, considering the overall situation.
And, let's not forget that Frederick died on the way to the Holy Land. I think his 200,000-strong army would have made mincemeat of any Saracen force.
Yeah keep crying about the multiple failures of the whole crusades at the end Palestine And it's main capital city Al-Quds (Jerusalem) stayed with Muslim and Arab hands until 1947/1948
Salahuddin is the embodiment of Sun Tzu's maxim "when you're weak, give the illusion of strength."
I wonder what would have happened had the Ayyubids stopped the priest from warning Richard that the citadel was safe and Richard thought Jaffa lost.
Damn this episode is so great! What a guy was this Richard the Lionheart! And what a man was Saladin! May peace be upon them.
I love this episode. History Marche is simply the history channel for all.
...and for the algorithm, 🙏🙏🙏
You love really easy we noticed
Why is it, without fail, French knights that always fucked everything up? No wonder these guys got occupied for so long.
Except they were all "French"... whether in the Phillipe or Richard's armies. The Bulk of the Crusaders, Templars or Hospitalliers were from Duchies and Counties from France since the First Crusade, from Europe as in the Levant.
Only the Narrator, like most videos on UA-cam, tells the story from a contemporary point of view, using the terms "French" or "English" anachronistically, as if they were nations as today, without ever taking into account that it was the feudal era. Comparable to Game of Throne, it was Houses or Dynasties that clashed, not countries.
He should rather say "The Capetian/Francilian army" or "The Plantagenêt/Angevin army", or simply the Frankish army to include everyone.
"No wonder these guys got occupied for so long"
What are you talking about ?
@RobM00 What, the "Angevin Empire" ? It's quite the opposite...
Since 1066, it was Kings and Nobles from the medieval French-speaking world who have succeeded one another at the head of England, not the other way around (House of Normandy, Blois or Anjou). The Anglo-Saxons kings were no more.
If the Plantagenets had so many territories in France, it was because they were originally from these territories. Whether by birth or by marriage. Richard's father was from Le Mans, and his mother was from Aquitaine, herself being associated with the House of Poitiers.
It was actually France that started the 100 Years War with moves on Gascony. Until then the King of England had been on the fence about pressing his claim to the crown of France into actual war.
France had always hated Normandy and Aquitaine being under the King of England, despite still being part of France. She already had Normandy back thanks to backstabbing Philippe.
French love to cry they were the victim but they not only started the war but sowed the seed for it round about the time of this Crusade.
Because charging with heavy knights was a legit tactic, it won many battles. But it also lost a handful, and those, ofcourse, are the ones we remember
Great episode
Thank you for putting and saying the correct name of the land. You are the best War History youtube channel of all time. Palestine, now and forever, and for everyone.
Great battle report. May the algorithm be pleased.
Saladin defended the holy land and another crusade has been defeated!
Richard won the Third Crusade
@@corpchannel2523 nope Richard LOST. SALADIN WON . Didn’t you see the outcome haha
@@corpchannel2523 he won some engagements others he drawed and other he lost ascalonc and he achieved NOTHING. Saladin defend the holy lnd using tactics and strategy. He defeated richards goal and that a fact. Richard achieved nothing he didn’t even expand the crusader states 😂 just one or 2 castles that’s all then he ran away😂
@@aminesen keep coping
@FallOfMarathaempireBritishcolo keep coping
Great presentation, I hadn't known many of these details.
For the algorithm great video
HistoryMarche never misses
the impression I get from Saladin's war against Richard is that he was a good general, but not a great one. Might be just bad luck for Saladin, having to face one of the best and most famous general of medieval europe
I think you forgot how he didn't killed all christian after conquering Jerusalem while christian killed all the Muslims.....Saladin despite losing these battle's but never gave his enemy a chance to go into offensive....if Richard take the City he definitely killed Muslims but Saladin stopped him....as forever both were Great!
@@Hammy7325 I'm talking about his commanding and tactical habilities in battle, not of his moral character, which to be fair, he was much more honorable and respect worthy than most and certainly deserves credit for his humility and decency
Well I think the main problem for him was the too well equipped soldiers of Richard's army
It might just be me, but I don't consider either commanders to be great. Theirs was a contest between a good tactician and a good strategist. Though, neither can be considered to be particularly brilliant. What Richard had going for him was the ability to control his impetuous band of warriors with his personal charisma and adapt well on the field, but I don't consider his tactics anything out of the ordinary aside from driving home the charge of heavily armoured knights and men-at-arms.
Salah al-Din, on the other hand, was cautious and reckless in equal measures, fighting some battles which were otherwise unnecessary. Though, perhaps his subordinates do share blame on some occasions, such as Arsuf, where they closed in to fight the Crusaders on their terms rather than keeping at range to harass them. What I think he lacks in charisma and adaptability on the field compared to Richard, though, he made up for in his abilities of manoeuvre and attritional warfare, which when he carried out properly, led to victories such as Hattin and, in the end, a technical strategic victory for the Muslims.
Personally, I'm more inclined towards Salah al-Din (mainly because I consider operations and strategy to be more important than tactics). Richard's decision not to take the war to Egypt, as we can see, was the wrong decision. Had he stuck to the coasts and the rivers, using the Crusader navy to supply his men without straying too far inland, he could have seriously damaged Salah al-Din's power and authority by threatening his lines of communications and strategic bases. He did not have this foresight, whereas a truly great commander like Alexandros did when fighting the Achaemenid Persians (even when Memnon used the same style of attrition warfare as Salah al-Din and the Persians had naval supremacy).
Salah al-Din, for all of his losses at Acre, Arsuf, and Jaffa, was able to keep most of his gains he made before the arrival of Richard and protecting Christian pilgrimage was no real sacrifice on his end. Richard, nor the Crusaders as a whole, could afford to risk an inland venture, even to Jerusalem, which was only 40 miles from Jaffa (what could easily be considered an 8 day march, considering the average speed of most armies during the past which I have studied). For, if they did so, their water sources would be poisoned, while depots, farmsteads, and pastures would be scorched, and Crusader communications preyed on by the swift Muslim light cavalry.
Credit to Richard, though, for mostly sticking to the coast rather than risking an inland venture. He isn't a poor commander strategically, as I said. He's just not particularly great. By keeping close to his vital lines of communications at Acre and Jaffa, he was able to always supply his men by the fertile coasts and from the Crusader navy. HistoryMarche mentioned Cyprus being in Crusader hands, and that also ties in, as it works as an operational base which Salah al-Din could not easily assail, and could help to facilitate the shipment of supplies to Acre and Jaffa, mentioned above.
In the end, we see here how the outcome of a war so far back still relies on principles which are core to our understanding of postmodern warfare. Logistics is king. So, even with all of the tactical defeats he suffered, the strategic resources he possessed and the logistical situation on both sides meant that Salah al-Din came out with a more fruitful peace, which favoured the Muslims.
very cool hehe
Chapter: Regarding Intercourse With Captives
Abu Sa’id Al Khudri said “The Apostle of Allaah(ﷺ) sent a military expedition to Awtas on the occasion of the battle of Hunain. They met their enemy and fought with them. They defeated them and took them captives. Some of the Companions of Apostle of Allaah (ﷺ) were reluctant to have relations with the female captives because of their pagan husbands.
Grade: Sahih (Al-Albani)
Reference : Sunan Abi Dawud 2155
Fabulous work as always!!
I wonder how history would have played out had Richard been able to convince his allies to invade Egypt?
Hard to say
on the one hand the Levant was thinly populated compared to egypt and modern day syria and turkey. So most troops are coming from those regions. Saladin always has a terrible time convincing his allies to fight for a land far from home, but if Egypt is under attack, the Egyptian people are more willing to help and his supply lines are shorter? But then can he convince "Syrians" and "Turkish" (geography not ethnic) to die for Egypt?
How does that effect army composition. Im inclined to say it would be beneficial? Egypt probably has more people than syria/turkey. On top of that Saladin himself is "from" syria and turkey so hes got a good chance at keeping some of them around in egypt. What does that mean for actual battle? God knows.
Then how would the crusaders and the copts interact, would they give them the same support as the Greek Orthodox in the Levant?
Then comes the fact that Egypt is an actual naval power unlike the Levant. Egypt is also drier and desserty than the Levant. Which plays well for Saladin. Im not sure how well the templars do true desert warfare, but I suspect the mamluks outclass them their, and their heavy state of the art christian army becomes a severe issue?
But then again, Saladin is always toeing the line on being assassinated so maybe if Richard just goes for a quick reaving of egyptian countryside (the nile) morale would tank so low that saladin would be deposed/killed
Amazing video, thanks!
Richard was such a badass
Amazing content!
Considering Saladin knew the terrain, could resupply and reinforce his army quicker controlling the surrounding territory, Richard is a far better general. Who would win in one on one combat out of Saladin and Richard? Saladin didn't have the balls because he knew Richard would cut him down with ease
"Saladin didn't have balls"
Ask your lionheart why he never attacked Jerusalem?
Yes, very brave behind all this armour and his knights it was like a tank in that age.
@@qutuzm7753 bro, at the siege of Acre... Saladin was raging at Richard for declining a war face to face😂😂😂 and look how these kids barking at Saladin who literally conquered Jerusalem from 2nd Crusade and defended Jerusalem from 3rd....
Holy land is still ours
@@syedharis1906holy land belongs to Jews
That is incorrectly, Saladin unified all Muslim world the only person to do that for 100s of years, and difference was that he was facing amour and better equipped army. also Richard could not even take Jerusalem main aim of crusade
Great vid, respect to Richard and Saladin
Damn, Richards courage and devotian are really inspiring. But also Saladins wisdom and generosity is quite jaw-dropping. I wish people would stop fighting because of their differences în their beliefs, at the end of th3 day, we are all humans, and we all want pretty much the same thing. A happy and productive life, regardless of which God you look u0 to
I liked Lionheart and his courage. In fact, I am very happy with the effort you are making. Thanks
Awesome topic and video
Imagine the victories if not for the French nobility
You'll get me with Curiosity Stream sooner rather than later 😂
700 dead from muslim side and 2 from christians in a huge battle? Is It a joke? How Is that possible...
Most of the casualties in a medieval battle came during one side routing and fleeing from the field, so it's not THAT unbelievable, but still a bit suspect I agree.
@@KaiHung-wv3ul around 4-5k soldiers from christians, 8-10k muslim soldiers. 3k vs 6k clashing at jaffa on open field. Arrows, lances and swords clashing and charging straight to the enemy lines. It just can't be 2 dead from christians, no matter how skilled fighter you are, and how big shield you have, on crowd you gonna die, if not you, your comrade next to you will. I believe in 700 dead from muslims. 400 died on withdrawal. If they would say 1k wounded and 300 dead i would believe. Whole day or half a day you are fighting, definitely you will die. Chronicles just liers like ceasar saying killed 40k gauls in one battle.
@@Dovahkinoagree, Christian forces might have suffered around hundreds or thousands
It´s not. But in medieval times they always made up some numbers to boost their agenda
I want to correct your use of “mamluk” word. The Mamluk word means “slave” in Arabic and the slave soldiers in Saladin’ army were only Turks and Circassians. There are no Kurdish Mamluks in Islam history and Kurds have always been free born man with their own rule and territories through Islamic history. Mostly the Turkic people were brought and bought from Central Asia slave markets or offered service to Persian, Arab and Kurdish empires as slave soldiers, and there are also Caucasians mainly Circassians were the Mamluks. So the empire (Mamluks) emerged after the fall of Ayyubid dynasty are those Turkic slave soldiers who indeed stabbed Ayyubids in the back as soon as they gained power In army. Later on Turkish slaves lost control to another slave group (Circassians) in Mameluk sultanate. But over all the Mamluks as state were continuation of Ayyubid dynasty till destroyed after Ottoman - Kurdish (Idrisi Bitlisi) treaty in 1500s and local Kurds in Sham (Syria) and Egypt worked with Ottomans where Kurds were still ruling most Syria (Aleppo, Homs, Raqqa etc). Today there are millions of Kurdish descent Arabic speaking people live in Jordan, Sudan, Egypt and Syria.
Great work ❤
What is Jerusalem worth? Nothing ... everything ....