Siege of Acre, 1189 - 1191 ⚔️ Third Crusade (Part 1) ⚔️ Lionheart vs Saladin
Вставка
- Опубліковано 29 вер 2024
- 🚩 Support HistoryMarche on Patreon and get ad-free early access to our videos for as little as $1: / historymarche
🚩 Big thanks to Srpske for their collaboration on this video: / @srpskebitke
📢 Narrated by David McCallion
📝 Written by Jonathan Woody
🎼 Music:
EpidemicSound.com
Filmstro
🖼 Maps & Graphics
HistoryMarche
Inkarnate
Midjourney
Trebuchet image by: Luc Viatour lucnix.be, licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license: drive.google.c...
Catapult/Mangonel image by: ChrisO licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 Unported license. drive.google.c...
📚 Sources:
The Siege of Acre, 1189-1191: Saladin, Richard the Lionheart, and the Battle That Decided the Third Crusade amz.run/6d1R
The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land amz.run/6d1N
#crusades #history #documentary
PLEASE NOTE: There is a typo error at 31:36 - Philip was not 8 years older than Richard, but ruled 8 years longer than him. Blame Jonathan 😂!
🚩 Support HistoryMarche on Patreon and get ad-free early access to our videos for as little as $1: www.patreon.com/historymarche
Don't worry man, happens to the Best of us. I'm sure the video Will be EPIC!😊
There will be blood Jonathan.. 😤
We want his head!
It is forbidden to draw the sahaba, please edit your previous video
That seemed off when I heard it, bu then I said "Maybe I just learned something new." :)
The numbers of battles that were all but over until the looting of the camp started has to be staggering. you can see this so many times when you look at the battles throughout different time periods and parts of the world.
It's so common, that you would think the leaders would make sure their troops were well fed and disciplined. I don't pretend to know how this would be done, but it would seem so obvious that some means of control would have been devised.
@@williamromine5715 It's very hard to keep an army well fed. Logistics, even in modern times, is still a struggle. So in Middle Ages, especially during a siege where you are yourself besieged it is impossible.
@@williamromine5715 unfortunately, it seems the promise of loot was a main way to get troops to join the campaign. I think that is why it was such a common issue when you hit the enemy camp
Of course, "we can loot later, let's get these guys first" does seem obvious from our modern viewpoint.
@@dougmartin2007 That is a lie. Crusaders went in debt or sold their lands to join the Crusades. No one came back rich, if they came back at all. They went for the cross of Jesus as a repentance for their sins. Just what "loot" do you think was in the Holy Lands in 1059? The people were dirt poor, just as in Europe.
Baldwin became the Count of Edessa during the first crusade. While there are plenty of examples of people selling worldly possessions to fund their participation in the crusades, to say no one profited is an easily debunked lie.
Also, while this video is about one crusade conflict, my comment was about militaries as a whole, as indicated when I said "different time periods and parts of the world."
If you want to lie, you should do a better job, you intellectually devoid, toe eyed cabbage.
So long siege, so cinematic, full of plot twist like an amazing action mvoie.
Very impressice.
Dude, this siege is crazy!
Love these vids, learn so much more about history and it's all well told, attentive and captures your imagination, even though it doesn't need to since it's history! 😂 Well done
this video is officially MY MOST FAVOURITE VIDEO ON HISTORYMARCHE!
absolutely fantastic job👍👍👍
also commonly stated that Urban's death was caused by the news of the fall of Jerusalem, but William of Newburgh assures us that the report of the disaster of Hattin (3-4 July) did not even reach the Holy See till after the election of Gregory VIII, so it is hardly probable that Urban III ever heard of the surrender of the Holy City, which took place on 2 October.
Ännu en mycket intressant video från denna kanal.
1) Toron was not a hill but a castle. 2) Offer of capitulation was often used by sides to stall the fight, especially if the "capitulating" side knew help is on the way. 3) The Acre garrison was executed only after two months of Saladins manoeuvring and stalling. The remaining Latin army under Richard I didn´t have either enough food or enough man to fight both Saladins or Beduin skirmishers and watch 2000 men, though without weapons. Saladin just sacrificed his best men.
Lionheart's actions were just a watered down version of the barbarity of 1st crusade when they slaughtered all the Jerusalem's Muslim & Jewish inhabitants. On the contrast, Saladin allowed the non-native Christians to leave, allowing native Syrian Christians to stay. Ransom was taken only from the rich/rulers and those who could afford from their personal belongings. Those who couldnt afford were often been paid for by Saladin himself.
Christians were allowed to take their belongings with them.
@@muhammadadeel8639 you need to read the arab sources on Saladins bloodthirst. He was a murderous rules who enslaved and killed people left and right and ordered christians tortured to death. The need for arabs today to glorify this kurdish warlord is amusing to me. He was a killer, no humanitarian.
@@thecappeningchannel515 Any famous person would have his critics. The conduct of Saladin in Jerusalem and crusading period is factual and recognized even by his opponents.
The sources you are referring to may be from Fatimid Arabs who were Shia whereas Saladin was Sunni. Hence the Bias. Fatimids were overthrown by their generals and asked Turks (Zengis) for help. Nuruddin Zengi sent help and appointed Saladin as his governor of Egypt under a Puppet Fatimid Caliph. Later Saladin assumed full control through a mixture of diplomacy, governance and military.
Saladin was basically a governor/Administrator and not a General, but he had a good strategic mind and education. He also had extensive religious education and hence his moral ethics and morality which was later seen.
@@thecappeningchannel515 Dude, I am arab and if you referring to any arab resource to support your point of view, then you should know it is false or unfair. Like most of Arab sources glorify Saladin and considered him the hero of Islam and no one care that he is Kurdi but not Arab. Only source attacked Saldin were Shia and that because of Political and sectarian differences, which preceded all these wars against Christians, and even all historians do not rely on any of these sources.
@@muhammadadeel8639 , That's actually not true about the capture of Jerusalem in 1099. The Crusaders actually allowed a great many of the Muslim and Jewish noncombatants to leave unharmed. Specifically, many of them were taken safely to the town of Ascalon. You need to remember that many of the Jews had fought right alongside the Muslim defenders during the siege, and this made them "fair game" by the rules of warfare during that time! This was the rule for Muslims, Christians, Mongols... everyone!
Awesome work a must watch for all interested in Crusader History 😊
Third crusade series! thanks HM!
Incredible documentary, thank you!
Great video as always.
Every time you hear "then they stopped to loot the camp", a sense of foreboding hits
Great informative video. Thanks!!
Imagine being ensieged for 2 years like that. Crazy
Just imagine holy roman emperor reaching acre with his 200K
Slavs, this is our chance to destroy Germany
Thank you for your excellent content.
Great video, but you ought to be carefull about the map of western Europe : Richard the Lionheart was king in England and duke of Normandy, Aquitaine and Britany as well as count of Maine, Anjou and Touraine. But for his dukeship and countship he gave fidelity to the king of the Franks. So it's quite missleading to show the kingdom of England possessing half the territory of the kingdom of the Franks when those county and duchy are in fact part of Phillip 2's possessions (under Richard's rule of course, but nonetheless).
Yes Richard. My namesake..lol great military leader but his crusade impoverished his country and his absence.. had consequences in Britain. His warchest almost bankrupt us.
Love this narrator!
Thank you
Your sources are the same ones I was assigned in my university History class! I was wondering what the source was for the muslim who called the fleet a tangle of thickets? Was that Hosler?
this is a good one thank you for the good job
Yes! New video!
great vid, war is hell, as someone once said
2 Lions in one cage. That was the era that did repeat and will repeat after 1000s years.
Imagine how many Crusader lives and time would’ve been saved if the stubborn crusaders accepted Acre’s surrender? Also if they didn’t loot and continued the advance. Saladin was a master though, took advantage of the Crusaders greed even if he failed to relive the garrison
Great video as always!
This Is what i tought.. also,i wonder if the crusaders from Tire take action against Belfort castle
You know it's about to get serious when he starts listing off all the leaders and their stats
A comment to appease our algorithmic overlords
Thank you!
This was the very best. But History Marche always delivers.
Just one question. Was Al Gowithem a Muslim general??
You mean Admiral Hossam al-din? The Armenian Muslim General
Awesome
Little did they know the greatest military, political genius would come to Acre 600 years later.
0:48 Uhh no. Citizens who were native Christians were allowed to stay if they were able to pay the ransom. Everyone in the city had to pay for their freedom and the majority of them couldn't. Saladin only spared the city and allowed this to happen because Balian d'Ibelin defended the city and told Saladin that if it came down it to, they would kill all their women and children to prevent their rape and murder during a sack, and vowed they would destroy all the Muslim holy sites and fight to the last man. Saladin begrudgingly agreeed to allow everyone to be ransomed but refused to wait until the few nobles in the city could raise the moeny externally to free everyone.
All in all Saladin ended up taking tens of thousands of Christian slaves. Women and young girls, they weren't suitable for physical labor... what possible use could these women and girls have as slaves? sexual slavery of course. I'm sick of hearing the revisionist cult of personality story of Saladin. He was a ruthless conqueror who waged war on Muslims just as much as he did Christians.
Thanks!
Thank you so much for the support! Very kind of you
Why there is no movie about this?
Salah Aldain was a true one last man standing. Facing the barbaric wrath of Crusaders, their lunatic Pops, Kings and mercenary Lords. No wonder why his name still echos. رحم الله الشيخ المجاهد صلاح الدين الأيوبي
The Crusade era produced some of the greatest Muslim generals of all time not just Saladin:
Nur ad-din. Qutuz, Baybars, Imad ad-din Zengi as well as Saladin.
He lost against a 16 year old is known only as mostly failed general who won by numbers only but ok
also.. 'bad neighbour' and 'stone thrower' along with 'cursed tower' ...dam.. a tip of my hat for the old age of empires 2 campaign designers , such sweet little trivia details to get right for a map most kids played with no history interest ,only to perhaps have it sparked by the quirky names of a few things in it ^^
Both are legends. But Saladin even after all the failures of the Third crusade managed to protect Jerusalem. Many think for this reason Saladin won the third crusade but I like to think it was a stalemate even though I personally like Saladin more than Richard. But let's be honest, even if Richard had taken Jerusalem he would have had to leave the entire army of England there to protect it so he would have had to eventually give it up to the muslims again and so he was smart and didn't besiege Jerusalem.
lol then why come for a crusade? Taking the Holy city was the main objective of the crusade
@@dilkhozaimarwat3479 of course, as a holy war for Jerusalem, Saladin won but generally I think it was a stalemate.
@Dilkhozai Marwat No, the main objective of the crusades was the safekeeping of pilgrimmage roads to Jerusalem.
The third crusade was a total success as it allowed exactly that.
Which army of England? You mean his Angevin army?
@@remilenoir1271 you realise thats just a lie ? Right
The piligrams were always given protection
i watched this with both hands on my head
This is more like a war than a siege.
Man it’s been some time since history March video and let’s go that we start with a classic medieval battle.
I’ve been fiending for a new HM video so badly.
@@The_ZeroLine we could start a 12-step program to help us cope. Hi, my name is vapormissile & I have a problem of not enough cool history videos. 😊 positive waves
they never stopped making videos
Carthago Del....
Hannibal is here!
Thank you
This video is a masterpiece.. the narration and the animations was spot on.. keep up the good work
28:00 King Frederick died crossing Armenia? Something must be wrong
how many kings and army from different kingdoms and in europe were sent just to defeat salahudin🔥
numbers in the end tell everything also Saladin was pretty much only real threat
Although the Crusaders took Acre, the Third Crusade was ultimately a failure as the objective was to take Jerusalem. One of Saladin's greatest mistakes was releasing King Guy. The man literally broke his promise instantly.
It's not because it's not a total success that it's not a success. The third crusade was a success.
Saladin might have been banking on it. Guy de Lusignan never seemed like a very bright lad to me. Better to have him in charge than a more competent general.
@@nigelbarker8726
King Guy was likely released so that he could be an opposition to Conrad of Montferrat, who Saladin was likely more wary of.
@@lahire4943
King Richard likely seen it that way though. He even refused to perform pilgrimage in Jerusalem when the Ayyubids sealed the truce.
@@lahire4943 nobody said it had to be a total success, it's just that the main objective wasn't fulfilled
Salah Ad din was really smart. Even though errors at start he knew the tactics to destroy the crusaders.
He fights three armies
In those times christian leaders were over confident arrogant idiots.. so not a very big achievement
Wasn't it salah al-din yusuf ibn ayyub? With yusuf being his actual given name on birth while ibn ayyub meaning son of ayyub.
Yes
He lost all major battles
One Muslim country was able to stop whole Europe at that time but now that's totally different
@hsjshdnjsjsm2830 😂😂 nahh
I tell this story every semester to my students! One of the most dramatic events during the 3rd crusade. Still not as crazy as the 4th when they just sacked Constantinople!
Nothing like 4th crusade
I love history and am absolutely passionate about military commanders, tacticians, battles..etc I wish I could make a living out of it like you :)
Instead I chose a depressing accounting job..
My favorite crusade was when the vikings(scandinavians) showed up. Ultra chads pulled up in dragon ships and was like name the place you most want to capture and consider it done. I want that movie!
The crusaders rarely failed to cover themselves in shame. Rarely showing the wise mercy or humility to accept surrenders and not slaughter innocent civilians. It’s hard not to root against them.
@@SolidAvenger1290 dont mean to be that idiot but I don’t think an ancient city like Constantinople can be compared to New York….. and America never really has been religious considering that right after 9/11 they waged an illegal war with no religious goal whatsoever. Whereas the Byzantine had always been seen as a pillar of Christianity Orthodoxy in the East. Big difference.
Sultan Salahuddin ayyubi fought bravely every time against all odds. he was alone while European were United against him, he won, lost, won didn't gave up, and finally managed to secure jerusalem it was finally muslim victory....☪️
Saladin is Richards son 😂😂
He ran like a coward FACT
Great first video part of Richard vs Saladin, the struggle of 2 giants! You cannot ask for more from this video quality and narration!
So tru.
Richard and Saladin are giants?
@@ezpz9340 are u stupid OFC NOT!
Imagine how different history could've been had Barbarossa not drowned on the river.
Lol, it would have been the same, jerujalem is muslim people, muslims land, even in modern era with 5 times superior technology than the muslims, british may had took jerujalem, and they had to insert jews to this land, but will fall eventually to the palastanians at the end of a century.
@@rafsan1578 Jerusalem belongs to nobody but its inhabitants , that means Jews , Christians and Muslims.
Imagine how different history could've been had Saladin not spared guy of lusinon in the first place
@@michaelberg7825 Salah-Uddin, made guy de lusinian promise that they will never rise sword against the muslims, still he and all the christian captives who made this promise to salah-uddin, when went back to christian force, they joined them to fight muslims completely breaking their promise. Salah- uddin also knew that this will happen, but he still did it to see if crusaders really have that so called french chivalry or not. Cause muslims at that time used to keep their promise.
If salah-uddin did kill the captives of battle of hittin, richard the (so called) lion hearted couldnt have recieve that extra 10,000 remaining crusaders in his army, and battle of acra may have lenthened so much.
@@rafsan1578 nah we have here the Religious clown. Hi there buddy. Did you already brush your teeth?
"Snatched defeat from the jaws of victory counter":
1 - looted camp
2 - rejected surrender (before reinforcements)
3 - rejected surrender again (Siege Towers)
4 - looted camp. Again.
Crusaders are just trash, overrated and exaggerated
@@Ghazi682 cant wait for your battle of arsuf reaction thats coming around the corner 👀😂
@@zetos4440 Talk about the time Mamlukes captured the french king and paraded him through the streets of cairo on a donkey!
Its funny you only mention 1st and 3rd crusades nothing more.
@@agentopaque3776 Well, yeah. In theory all these crusades had a very low probability of victory since they were perpetually outnumbered and undersupplied in a foreign land. The Third crusade has however showed splendid military ingenuity and let's be frank, Europe went on to conquer the world while Arabs got subjugated by Ottomans never to be militarily noteworthy again.
@@agentopaque3776 except when you kinda forget an amphibious invasion so far of your logistic at the mercy of fate and weather won't help you. Mamluk only could win when they avoid direct battle. France would fix this mistake when they invade Egypt to "educate" them in the XIX century with Napoleon arriving but again only losing to the intervention of GB and sickness strike his army.
And what happened at the end? Only one city? Whole europe against Salaheddin and only one city?
It is happening today, the whole West and the j’s against the Palestinians and Gaza
The end jews took their land back and have a great nation called Israel, abdul
All of those generals and knights for 1 man 😂😂😂
Fighting a war thousands of kilometers away from home without internet communication, everything by horse, ship, and letters.
The Crusaders were a very optimistic and ridiculous idea. It's even a wonder they had some successes...
LoL😂
Yeah After King Baldwin died.
What an incredible story! All the back-and-forth, pouring reinforcements and resources into the siege, HistoryMarche makes you feel almost like you were there. Perhaps it also helps that I saw Kingdom of Heaven, and can imagine what all this must've looked like.
And he should have been much more honest than that movie especially in the details of the aftermath of Balian's surrender of Jerusalem.
the movie where Legolas was nerfed
My favorite part at the siege of Acre was when Richard was sick, but ordered his men to put him on a stretcher with a crossbow so he could still be part of the action.
richard also perished from a wound struck by arrow used by a person using a crossbow
Islam and Arabs have some really interesting Leaders like Salah Al Din and Khalid ibn Waleed and Al- Qaqa and Amr ibn Alas🗡⚔🗡⚔
Nur ad-din also, someone who is largely ignored and yet is at least his equal.
In reality; Saladin's tolerant stance and chivalry come in contrast to the atrocities committed by the Crusaders when they conquered Jerusalem in the year 1099 AD, where the Crusaders set out in the streets of the city and in the mosques, killing all who came across them, men, women, and children. These Crusaders killed thousands of innocent Muslims for no fault of their own. He mentions Historian William of Tyre said that when the Crusaders entered Jerusalem, Jerusalem witnessed a terrible massacre until the country became a vast pool of Muslim blood.
The fact Saladin almost fought all those crusaders alone man he had some good tactics even tho he lost many times but still under his rule he was the power.
Home advantage.
Tbh if there was Richard the Lionheart, the crusade would have failed.
@@mrfreeman2911 yes.
Richard saved crusaders. But still its a massive thing to hold them down for so long. But i think they could have done something else to defeat those crusaders or apply naval blockade
@@mrfreeman2911True. Even though Saladin got defeated in nearly all major battles, he still put up a very good fight. His Archer tactics were innovative but his arrows couldn’t get past the armor of Richard’s army. Richard had alot of respect for saladin. Still the crusade was a muslim victory, the objective was to take Jerusalem, but that failed.
@@mythicalumut6174 Well tbh these things don't happen in a vacuum.
The other crusader leaders were failures.
Also Richard had to go home to fight the traitor French, who abandoned the Crusades earlier.
LOTS happened, ie poitics.
@@mrfreeman2911 yeah true. He was a good commander but not a very good leader tbh.
Salahuddin the great leader.... Mashaallah tabarakkallah.
0:34 Kingdom of heaven ,movie vibes all over... Balian surrendering Jerusalem.... " I am not those men... i am Ṣalāḥ ud-Dīn...Ṣalāḥ ud-Dīn !"
Yeah. But that movie falsifies history. 😂 Saladin was a shit murderer who tortured and enslaved christians. The sources all agree on arab and christian sides of his many murderous actions. He basically ethnically cleansed Jerusalem.
Ye expect salauddin wasn't losing man more than his army, it's completely the opposite salauddin was the underdog but in that movie it showed that salauddin would've lost the army without surrender. I guess they can't show the main character losing.
And it wasn't the christians who seized the city either.
The lion heart vs Saladin, can't wait HM.
Not much of a rivalry. Richard has beaten Saladin in every battle. Acre, Arsuf and finally Jaffa. They were equal strategists, but Richard was a vastly better tactician and field commander.
@@terro3842 It was strategist vs tactician. Both equally matched. Salahuddin was betrayed by many Muslim rulers who did not help and left him to fight alone.
He defeated Richard with character and chivalry, so much that Richard took him for an honourable friend who was much better than his own brother that declared himself king.
@@blackpanthar906 Okay, champ. Tell me again how you defeat a person or win a war "with a character and chivalry". Nonsense. I used to believe it was exactly that - strategist vs tactician, until I actually bothered to read the primary sources about crusades. Richard had many strategic feats matching and surpassing Saladin:
- He maintained a very delicate balance of power in the Crusades kingdoms, but nominating a problematic, but well connected Conrad of Monferrat as King of Jerusalem and assassinating him immediately after (that's how he avoided being left alone by other Christian rulers)
- His execution of the Acre garrison, while at face value a cruel bloodshed was a direct response to Saladin's stalling the ransom negotiation to wait for winter, also realizing that logistically it wasn't feasible to maintain them
- False peace talks initiated with Saladin's brother before crossing the Arsuf forest to be able to forage and blaze the dangerous route that otherwise could be an ambush
And plenty more. Third Crusade is listed as a Crusader military victory and strategically inconclusive, but Crusaders retrieved entire Outremer coast from Tyre to Jaffa, restored the Crusader States and took new possessions in Galilee, also establishing Kingdom of Cyprus and forced unequal treaty of Jaffa on Saladin. Crusaders only gained - they didn't just gain Jerusalem, which would have been a crushing victory.
What a brutal and prolonged campaign. The Muslim world leaders are clearly sick of Saladins monopoly over power at this point and wouldn’t reinforce the relief party. Similarly, Crusaders are annoyed at each other within their own ranks. Both sides without a real goal. Only the Ayyubids really had an idea to wipe all crusader influence from the region but still didn’t know how. Whereas Crusaders don’t have a unified objective altogether
Good points. Just a couple of years into the 10 year truce both Richard and Saladin are dead and new players are on the table. The barons crusade takes Jerusalem again and the arabs whimper at the thought of another crusade after the sixth. Eventually mongols and turks enter the fray and changes everything.
@@thecappeningchannel515 : The “Baron’s Crusade” was a flash in the pan, made possible only by the temporary split of Egypt and Syria into separate Ayyubid kingdoms (incidentally, the same weakness that had allowed the First Crusade to succeed). Nevertheless, the Muslims overcame this division, and as Egypt and Syria were once again reunified under the Egyptian branch of the Ayyubids, the die was cast, and the days of the lunatic Outremer misadventure were numbered.
Even the rise of the Mongols couldn’t stop this, despite the resources of the Muslims being split by the need to keep the Mongols at bay. And, as Ayyubids gave way to the Mamlukes, one death blow after another was struck against the Latin Crusaders, culminating in the epic siege of Akkah in 1291, and the final collapse of Outremer. The Latin Crusading endeavor in the Levant was extinguished, and no amount of desperate squealing nor howls of anguish in Europe could bring it back.
Yeees! A series showcasing one of the greatest rivarlies in history (Richard and saladin)!
Thanks for this man! Love your channel so much!😊😊
Baldwin vs salahdin best 🔥🔥
@@addamsays8087 real ones know SubhanAllah
@@Kiwi-cm6xu baldwin too was tight with saladin but richard and saladin were way closer to each other, because richard and saladin both knew they were in one way on same boat (reffering to how many times both got betrayed by their OWN in third crusade lol) Richard even sent his condolences after saladins death because in a way, richard knew he was just like him. Betrayed by his own and still fighting for his own lol
@@bruhmcchaddeus413 I didnt know that wow I defo gotta look up their bromance, "two abrahamic bros chilling in the desert 2 feet apart because their not gay"
@@Kiwi-cm6xu lol yes chilling in desert while getting backstabbed continuously, richard had to fight philipp and saladin had to fight malmulks off whole time. All that while fightingg each otherr 😂😂 they should have just formed an alliance and killl traitors off first
In Great battle of Hatin the crusaders who were 63,000 warriors were badly defeated ..and according to all muslim chronicals Muslims killed 30,000 of them and captured another 30,000 (including 4,000 Al Dawiya (knights of templar) who were executed by the order of the Sultan)
Ibn Al Athir said (Whoever sees the number of Crusaders who were killed in Hitin will say that none of them escaped.. and whoever sees their captives will say that none of them was killed)
1 guy against entire Europe
Richard the Lionheart went undefeated in the holy land. Handing Saladin defeat after defeat leading his men into battle himself. A true warrior king! His massacre of the defenders was…brutal. But it’s interesting to not that the defenders were relived at one point by Saladin. So they were not wholly the same elite garrison that defended the city for the duration of the siege.
My name sake.
@@richardmcgonigle1160we appreciate your victory on that battle😂
@@erickoavenada969 my namesake. 😆
His massacre of the defenders was justified since they did the same to the Christians
This is your version of the story, but the version of the region's historians is different. They were hit-and-run battles and equal. Richard gave up his ambition and settled for a treaty that cannot be convincing to a party that wins and crushes the adversary as you claim. Richard managed to return to his country as a victor and it was one of the terms of the agreement to preserve the blood of both sides. 🙂
"We, however, place the love of God and His honour above our own and above the acquisition of many regions"
- King Richard I: The Lionheart
"I warn you against shedding blood, indulging in it and making a habit of it, for blood never sleeps...God will not allow a single stone to be rebuilt as long as the war lasts. As for the cross, its ownership is a high card in our hands and it cannot be surrendered except in exchange for something of priceless benefit to all Islam."
- Saladin, Sultan of Syria & Egypt
= 2 megalomaniac brainwashers / brainwashing victims send thousands of boy-men into a meat grinder in the name of mAaAhGiiiikk. Too bad, none of them told anybody what the g0d was. I wonder why.
at least, the muslims (in THIS case) were defending their land. That's something.
Christians who could afford extravagant ransom were allowed to leave. Most however were thrown into a brutal slavery.
Yep so disappointed that HM not mentioning that detail.
I can not imagine how hard and difficult on the muslim side on Saladin side, they lack of support from Muslim while european support coming continually from sea.
Just look at All the European need coalition against for THE GREAT SALLAUDIN
@@alikernash3288 All the European coalition would conquer entire Arabian lands to the china
@@oneshortgamer2540stooooopppppp 😂😂 Europe on modern days depends on nato(foot down by USA ) 😂😂😂 look all the different kings they needed to go against one man
@@christianortiz2536 First have any proof of that NATO statement? also crusaders Kings had small coalitions so it's fair to compare multiple Kings to one but you are looking for 1v1 Baldwin 4 could take him with not much problem
But Allah willing was with him, Storms,illnesses,the accidentally death of the 200K army commander after that strong believe and faith
3:92 Those crusaders are always ALWAYS breaking there vow's.
Bastards!!
Salah Addin was very bad in dealing with these monsters.
If only Fredrick Barbarossa and Richard forces had met history of middle east could have been different Richard is a Strong leader and Warrior but Fredrick Barbarossa experience and tactical skill is clearly not to be underestimated after all he already defeated several muslim armies with his son even when they are ambushed they managed to win a victory which is hard to do to a muslim army at that time.
He cannot defeat a river, so....
Very true.
Templars building siege engines and masonry structures angles etc experts at seige and defence.
Mamluks though were feared....
Ibn Kathir ''Salah ad-Din remained on Acre, a patient mujahid fighting infidels for 37 months thirty-seven months, and a total of 50,000 fifty thousand Franks were killed.'' Al Bidaya wa Al Nihaya years 587 AH
If Saladin had eliminated 50k Crusaders he would have overcome the camp and freed the city. How on earth could they beat Saladin in the open twice(Jaffa and Arsuf). if in the siege they couldn't with 50k more men? source is wrong
@@Ragnarok__ Most of Christian casualties at Acre happened before Richard arrived. As we know that he was an exceptional master tactician which enabled his future battlefield victories against Saladin even with fewer numbers.
@@Ragnarok__ Ibn Kathir who said that
@@muhammadadeel8639 50k franks? "The franks" ? Maybe an army of Christian soldiers but franks..nah cause that'd make the largest frankish army ever, they rarely muster more than 15 thousands
@@dukeedgar2660 Muslims historically have referred to all Europeans other than Romans (Byzantine) as Franks. So all Crusaders were called as Franks
It's impressive how Saladin could hold and fight against all of Europe at one time. He is a legend
Not quite all of Europe, just one country.
@@Cancoillotteman every king or high rank nobles bring their top elite knights with them (5-10) small lord bring 2/3k , see how much holy roman empire come with...200k , because most the European king come from sea they bring only the much their ship hold
@@moonshadowsong It is impossible for Frederick to have crossed the Hellespont with 200,000. It was more like 40k maybe even 20k. A few years before he invaded Italy with just 1k. this was probably Saladin's propaganda to get reinforcements from other kingdoms so that he wouldn't spend so many resources on this.
I love how muslims try to frame it as "all of europe" to downplay any crusade succes or failure, while in fact most of the time the crusaders were outnumbered, I think both sides should stop hanging on bias and look at the history for what it actually was.
..what u think caliphates were? Lol all arabs, west europe u reffering to were all of gothic descendants then why wont they be together ? And crusaders 8/10 times had less army than their rivals (not only muslims but every rival) till end
Imagine Barbarossa and his 200k men arrived in the holy land, the middle east would certainly be a different place today. Has to be one of the top 10 what ifs of history.
Jesus: I killed him
Yes, perhaps the Crusaders would have won the war if Barbarossa arrived, but their victory would not change anything. The Middle East will remain as it is. If Saladin loses, then the Abbasid caliph will declare jihad, and the Iraqis, in addition to the tribes of the Arabian Peninsula, will participate in the battle as well. More new blood in the war and the fighting continues
@@Abu_Nasser_Al-Ghamdi الحشاشيين قتله باربارسا و السلاجه الروم قتلتو بقيت جيش الألماني العملاق
my god how many times crusaders get reinforcements!
Imagine if the Barbarossa joined the battle with 200k troops.
It's hard leading a huge army through Anatolia without danshinind and seljuks wiping you
@@SirLexenkar Frederick defeated Seljuk army and captured capital of Seljuks, Konya with almost no casualties. Then, he drowned while swimming in the river and his army dispersed after his death.
There was no 200 k men the logistics for that was not there plus how you get 200k to only 5k men joining
@@Asterix958 Even though he defeated the Seljuk army, Barbarossa's army was largely battered by the hit-and-run attacks of the Turkmen overlords
@@Asterix958 still Persians and Abbasid we're a dominant force waiting for crusaders
Allah bless you Salah eldain the hero and the man of glory
Both Allah and Salahadin were humiliated by Richard at all battles
The crusading camp must have been a Babylonian confusion of tongues. At least the nobility and clergy could default to Latin but coordinating such an army is respectable nonetheless.
Most probably could speak french or greek though.
During this siege a rivarly between the duke of austria Leopold Babenberg and Richard the Lionheart began wich would later became important when Richard tries to go home ...
Damn the greek fire weapon is powerful
I am not sure rivalry is the best description though.
@@nirfz yeah Richard just acted like an ashole to him personaly and kill his cousin
@@niccolorichter1488 Less reckless Viking
I cant imagine being so arrogant and prideful that you deny the enemy surrender NOT ONCE but TWICE and proceed to siege a city for 2 years because you were too stupid to accept their surrender...
Alot of the diplomatic nuances are lost to history. Might not have been as stupid as you think.
@@thecappeningchannel515 idk man a enemy surrender without a fight sounds like a good deal... Would've saved them 2 yrs almost
when you are raised as an elite dude on the top of the social food chain, and you grow up hearing stories of GLORY, that can inspire a lot of bad decisions, yes.
(also, see all the fuggd up battles where leaders chose the "glorious" attack instead of starving the enemy)
@@istvansipos9940 guess I just grew up watching wayyyy too much war strategy and history along with playing strategy games my whole life... Its not practical lol and im cheap... Soldiers cost MONEY! you tell me I can save funds by accepting surrender? LETS GO! haha
@@rafaelc8800 ??? what?
the leader could have accepted the surrender. he chose not to. It was silly. That was my only point here. I don't understand all your incoherent rant about all the other stuff here. Is that even English?
"Its not practical lol and im cheap"
I hate this battle...
It is so long, bitter, cold and rough...that even hear its story makes me feel tired !
My ALLAH have mercy on all Muslim heroes of Acre, who stood their ground for more than 2 years, against all odds !
and the allah will do that with magic, obviously.
King Leonidas and his son:
-- Daaaddy, does the allah exist?
-- No, son. Not YET.
@@istvansipos9940 Allah helps you when you're righteous and just. Allah granted Muslims victory later over all crusaders... Just when Muslims reached thoses conditions.
@@mousben6427
so far, you've made CLAIMS. Let me illustrate my point. Loki is a trickster god. He is in full control of everything. And, since he is a trickster, he fooled a bunch of people into all kinds of flase religi0ns. Now he simply enjoys the show.
My claim cannot be tested, cannot be falsified. I did not clarify Loki's magical methods, so this all has 0 explanatory power. It is a written source we both read here. As written as any "holy" b00k.
And with this illustration in place, let me ask you:
what is the allah?
how do you know what the allah is?
saladin the great warior
Not only warrior but also a great administrator and scholar.
butcher, slaver, child raypist
SULTAN SALAHUDDIN vs whole world😨🔥💪
"Christians native to the city were permitted to stay, while the rest were escorted out. A testament to Saladin peaceful take over."
You kinda left out the part where Saladin forced those Christians to pay for safe passage to leave, and those that couldn't pay were forced into slavery.
Yeah, that gives a bit more context to Richard killing those muslim prisoners
@Mogambo , the Spiteful Who skipped it? HistoryMarche literally stated how Richard I massacred the remaining garrison when Saladin refused to pay for their ransom and return the piece of the True Cross 36:20. And the Crusader capture of Jerusalem was in the First Crusade, it's not even being covered in this video, so why even bring it up? I believe history needs to be told in its entirety, ALL OF IT. Not just the parts we want to hear. And one of the great myths (or lies) about the Crusades that keeps getting brought up, either in films or documentaries, is that Saladin was this great benevolent and merciful leader who let all the Christians leave Jerusalem free of charge. When that is completely historically inaccurate. He gave them the choice to pay a ransom for safe passage out, and if they couldn't he made them slaves. That may not make him a butcher, but it's a far cry from the great merciful saint modern audiences tend to want to view him as.
Saladin’s conduct was revolutionary for the time period, conquering armies usually razed, raped, enslaved, slaughtered and pillaged the city, and then called it theirs, just look at the first crusade
When the city surrendered, most of his army urged him to kill all of them, like they did at Hattin, but Saladin, not only didn’t, but ALLOWED the people to buy their own freedom at less than usual price, even then some couldn’t so it is said that Saladin himself fetched his own treasure chest and dropped it for the freedom of many
In the end, only about 5% of the christians were enslaved for not having the funds
@@remixfrost arab sources describe all christian women in Jerusalem stripped and raped in Jerusalem. Read their sources. 😂
Jerusalem capitulated to his forces on Friday, 2 October 1187, after a siege. When the siege had started, Saladin was unwilling to promise terms of quarter to the Frankish inhabitants of Jerusalem. Balian of Ibelin threatened to kill every Muslim hostage, estimated at 5,000, and to destroy Islam's holy shrines of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque if such quarter were not provided. Saladin consulted his council and the terms were accepted. The agreement was read out through the streets of Jerusalem so that everyone might within forty days provide for himself and pay to Saladin the agreed tribute for his freedom. An unusually low ransom was to be paid for each Frank in the city, whether man, woman, or child. Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem organised and contributed to a collection that paid the ransoms for about 18,000 of the poorer citizens, leaving another 15,000 to be enslaved. Most of the foot soldiers were sold into slavery. Upon the capture of Jerusalem, Saladin summoned the Jews and permitted them to resettle in the city. In particular, the residents of Ashkelon, a large Jewish settlement, responded to his request. The subject ordered the churches repurposed as horse stables and the church towers destroyed.
@@remixfrost There's nothing revolutionary about abiding by the terms of the surrender that you negotiated.
I've been replaying Stronghold Crusader, my childhood game, and Saladin was always my favourite. Glad to listen to these historical battles with him.
Hahaha us mannn,istg I still have that game on my pc.
same here
same bro
The game ruined my 10 th exam i still remember i had exam on the morning and i was playing the game till morning 2.0 clock
it was 12 years ago anyway😢
Guy of Lusignan single handedly ruining whole Crusade efforts:
Great Video,Looks like Saladin won the Heart of many People, thats interesting.
And The Lionhard was a beast on the Battlefield,but Saladin won his Heart Too...
I Think The Church ordered too capture Richard after he leave the holy Land...
How so? The Pope was literally outraged to discover the capture of a King who had dedicated himself to the cause, especially as it was at the hands of other Christians. No wonder he ended up excommunicating Leopold.
@@TorquemadaBouillon somthing like a no go too capture a King even a Knight comming back from the Holy Lands.
i think the Church want him too stay in the holy lands.Leopold had not the might too keep him in prison only with the agreement from thr church...
@@hamesimires9478 it would make much more sense if Philip was the one who was imprisoned, as he was the one who "abandoned" his mission and still went to Rome to complain to the Pope about Richard, who was the major leader to make any difference in the Crusade, since Barbarossa died while still in Anatolia. Leopold had as much personal disagreements with Richard as he wasn't that "weak" at all, so he didn't actually need the support from the Church to arrest Richard.
I feel like the Crusaders put the most effort into this - they travelled significant distances to relocate infantry and transport materials and still had the ability to fight/build. THe logistics must have been insane.
Just to fail in the end
You are talking about brainwashed and illiterate soliders fighting for nonsense.
This just gave me a whole new definition to:
-never give up.
-opportunity knocks on the door only once.
Also, release part 2, please and thank you.
The defenders fought bravely and stood their ground honourably. It took all the greatest kings and armies of Europe to take this small city after almost 2 years of siege and countless attempts. In my opinion, this defending garrison was the strongest on the planet at the time. One thing that surprises me however is why didn't Saladin constantly Bombard the crusader camp with catapults? This would've surely damaged the besiegers severely.
Acre was one of if not the most easily defended cities of its time..Its outer walls and bulwarks were insane. Not to mind the attackers were fighting on 3 fronts while lacking men and resources. I agree though, it took heart to defend it..even if they did try surrender 3 times
@ironsentinel5847 this siege will make a legendary show
Palestinians.. look at Gaza, doing it again
Great episode with accurate and detailed historical events waiting for the rest of the campaign
It was a pleasure as always to write this script for you! I had fun writing it! 😄
Are you really Jonathan? How can we confirm it's you?
Jerusalem capitulated to his forces on Friday, 2 October 1187, after a siege. When the siege had started, Saladin was unwilling to promise terms of quarter to the Frankish inhabitants of Jerusalem. Balian of Ibelin threatened to kill every Muslim hostage, estimated at 5,000, and to destroy Islam's holy shrines of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque if such quarter were not provided. Saladin consulted his council and the terms were accepted. The agreement was read out through the streets of Jerusalem so that everyone might within forty days provide for himself and pay to Saladin the agreed tribute for his freedom. An unusually low ransom was to be paid for each Frank in the city, whether man, woman, or child. Patriarch Heraclius of Jerusalem organised and contributed to a collection that paid the ransoms for about 18,000 of the poorer citizens, leaving another 15,000 to be enslaved. Most of the foot soldiers were sold into slavery. Upon the capture of Jerusalem, Saladin summoned the Jews and permitted them to resettle in the city. In particular, the residents of Ashkelon, a large Jewish settlement, responded to his request. The subject ordered the churches repurposed as horse stables and the church towers destroyed.
For Jonathan to call this a peaceful takeover tells me he is a Saladin fanboy full of shit. 😂
@@thecappeningchannel515: What’s your criteria for a “peaceful takeover”? The Crusaders massacred everyone inside Jerusalem when they conquered it in 1099, keeping only a few residents alive, whom they used as slaves to bury the corpses of the dead, and then massacred these survivors later. When they did this, the Christians were acting according to biblical injunctions found in the books of Deuteronomy and Joshua, as well as the old Roman law that dictated that a city under siege could only negotiate terms of surrender before the first bartering ram struck the first blow against the walls, after which no quarter would be given (a law that neither Latin nor Byzantine rulers ever abrogated).
Sultan Salahuddin extended terms to the surrendering Latin Crusaders _after_ his troops had already breached the walls of the city, even though he was fully within his rights under the Crusaders’ own laws to massacre every last Latin Crusader and their entire families. Yet he did not do so.
By the Crusader’s own standards therefore, Sultan Salahuddin was far more humane and averse to bloodletting compared to the Crusaders themselves. Not to mention of course, that even enslaved persons under Islamic law didn’t lose their personhood, and had rights under the law, including the right to petition courts and the right to practice their religions. No such rights were extended to slaves under Christian regimes, slaves being unpersoned chattels whose very lives their owners could end at will, with no penalty whatsoever.
@@thecappeningchannel515cry all you want but xristians have been losers, winning occasionally by treachery and deceit. This happens only when you worship false god. Xristians will continue to deteriorate till they accept the supremacy of Allah.
Akka'da savaşıp sonuna kadar mücadele eden müslüman kardeşlerimi kutluyorum mekanları cennet olsun
Ameen
Amin
if Saladin had built his wonder in record time, he would of won after 200 years
and with enough patience, his fellas could have destroyed castles with swords.
Please do parts 2 and 3 fast. But no one has done anything after the 3rd crusade. There are amazing sieges and battles . Plz cover the whole crusades !!!
I've lost count of how many of these historical fights have been lost because the dominant force got distracted by looting.
Humans be humans
Crusaders have won the siege of Acre in the end
@@terro3842 they didn't win by war or pride lol 😂..
The defenders surrendered due to lack of foods and we're outnumber heavily
@@affan3095 I don’t think you understand how siege warfare works like. Crusaders defeated the relief army not letting it lift the siege, city defenders did not want to meet them in open field and finally surrendered only after bombardment destroyed the city walls and French knights busted through the outer wall
I love listening to these videos on long drives, you can really catch on to some funny patterns
Video: "The soldiers chased the fleeing enemy to their camp"
Me, driving: "The soldiers then stop chasing and proceed to loot the camp"
Video: "Instead of continuing the momentum, the soldiers fell to looting and pillaging the camp"
Me: "nailed it"
I know there were big reasons why the looting starts, but it's always amazing how fast control stops when it does
Can you please make a video on the Egyptian Ottoman wars that happened in the 1800s
such as the Battle of Nezib?
Amazing video guys!!The best by far!!Please do the 2nd part as soon as possible!!
Very detailled but in one point i can not agree. These, around 3000, people who were massacred by Richard "Lionheart" were mostly not part of the armed garrison, as you said. Most of them were civilians, women and children. Dont know why you say that the 2.700 executed, belonged to the garrison???
لأن باقي حمات مدينه تبقو بس 2700 بس و كان يريد أن يساومه صلاح دين بتعوين ضخم فرفض صلاح دين و قام بقتلهم قلب اسد ، لو كان مدنيين كان عدد أكبر بكثير، و اصلا تم قتلهم وقت دخول جيشهم المدينه 😧
Massacred? It was war idiot, if saladin himself respected richard till the END then who you to say richard was massacrer lol
Saladin sacrificed them by tricking Richard. He sent Saladin the message he needed to hear.
@@thecappeningchannel515 seems like you want to defend the killing of innocent women and children. next time make some research before answering:) this massacres were very common under all crusaders. not just muslims also many christians especially orthodox. the crusaders had no honor and no faith at all. this is just , taken from ancient propaganda writings, the supposed virtues of the crusaders
were non existent. my grandpa was a great historian regularly invited by Unesco in earlier years
@@AbasinZamirSafi dude. Saladin was a mass murderer.
Richard killed his men when Saladin refused to pay for their release. It was a devastating blow to the morale of the Arabs and Kurds and Richard beat Saladin at Arsuf and Jaffa easily after that.