Kings and Generals now is more about the broader situation than the particulars of a battle. The Operation Room has great details, though the voiceover is unexciting.
Kings and Generals documentaries have been and continue to be my first choice. Spent many hours watching new ones and then rewatching all my favorites from the past. Ancient and medieval military history is my life now. I will be 73 this month and I have been at it since 1956. Your channel has been a godsend for me. I know I have expressed this before but I just can't thank all of you enough. You have made my years truly GOLDEN!!
i never knew how incredibly intelligent richard the lionheart was. So far I have only heard of Salahuddin's greatness. but after learning about this battle, they were indeed two key historical figures in the way of the crusade
He wasnt so intelligent he abandoned his country for that war...i understand that was also about spain invasion by the muslims but wasnt England war but Rome war
@@symonmigneault9760Richard ruled not only in Great Britain but one half on modern day France. He was an expert at picking excellent ministers to rule England and constantly sent hand written instructions to them. Really studying history with high standards would help you.
I visited a castle in Duernstein, Austria near Kremsfeld vineyard. Supposedly he was jailed there on the way back from the crusades. all I know and heard. the castle is half in ruins.
@@danielb7253 Yes. It was a castle of Leopold of Austria. Richard was kept prisoner there. Leopold then sold Richard to the German Emperor. The castle has great views of the river and lower lands!
It’s hard to imagine how the hospitallers must have felt after dealing with the nonstop assaults for that long, and finally after their battle cry of Saint George and charge, seeing the entire Christian column follow suit and win the day. That’s a fireside tale for the ages I think!
@@CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC707 Indeed! I think having the army overall under Richard's sole leadership played a crucial role in the victories of the 3rd crusade in its entirety. How many times have we seen throughout history a massively overpowered latin christian army get completely slapped because of pompus proud french nobles bickering over battle strats or "why their knights deserve to charge first"
Ah but, that may well have been the failing. Perhaps a better times charge could have ended Saladin then and there. It may have been a won but, one battle is not a war.
Watching this on September 7th feels incredible! These events took place exactly 832 years ago this very day :o I assume this was intended, and well done! Whenever I feel stressed I love to watch HistoryMarche. Yout voice is so soothing, and in comparison of what the soldiers of those events went through, I feel lucky to be stressed by such "unimportant" things. Plus I learn interesting stuff.
They almost did it again. "Snatching defeat from the jaws of victory" with a early charge. I am starting to think that "bringing knights" was comparable to "bringing war elephants". Both seem equally likely to either: - win the battle in a devastating charge - loose the battle by ignoring your orders and doing stuff you do not want
nah. both the muslim world, Hindu world and Chinese had heavily armoured cavalry with both horse and personal armour. it's just that that armour was more flexible with tons of chainmail and leather and silk
This battle always makes me think that Richard held his men back because he understood how the Anglo-Saxons lost England to his ancestors at Hastings. In that battle the Anglo-Saxons were under attack by Norman skirmishes and missile attacks. Some of them charged the Normans, who retreated, then regrouped and slaughtered them, eventually leading the Normans to win the battle and the war.
I think he was also aware of the horse archery “warfare” , that these archers were just good for showering endless arrow rain, that they would never engage as a melee unit
Looking at the tapestry of Hastings I can't help but wonder what a difference stirrups made in the battle for there are none on the English side ? I don't believe that is by chance !
Hum.... are you sure that the Saxons were the ancestors of Richard? Richard was a Plantagenet, so french by both his father and mother (Anjou and Aquitaine). I think that he visited England maybe 1 time in his entire life. Not even sure...
@@TheTyrgiss No. I mean that the great-great-grandfather of Richard the Lionheart was William the Conqueror, the Norman duke who defeated the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings. William won that battle partially due to a disorganised charge by a portion of the English army, which may have occurred because the English army was frustrated by the harassing attacks of the Normans. Because Richard understood how his ancestor had conquered England he was cautious not to make the same mistake that the Anglo-Saxons had.
Love your content man! Specially when it comes to english kings! Consider covering the wars of the roses! or please do a video of Abd Al-Rahman conquest of Iberia!
Your videos are above and beyond. As someone who loves history AND played the hell out of Age of Empires (lol) I am obsessed with everything you post. Thank you for these!
HistoryMarche is doing a splendid job! Their videos are an invaluable source of historical knowledge, and I want to sincerely thank them for their tireless efforts. Their passion for history shines through in every video, making learning about history not only informative but also engaging and entertaining. Thank you to the entire HistoryMarche team for everything you do to educate and inspire history enthusiasts worldwide! Your dedication is truly commendable.
Another informative and wonderful historical coverage episode about 3rd Crusades at 1191 AD...this thrilled and full of accurate details excited me... allot thanks ( History Marche) channel for sharing...(History Marche ) Channel always introduces wonderful historical coverage videos
I love the videos! Richard the Lionheart and Saladin are truly legendary! Do you think you will ever do a series on the Roman Emperor Basil II? I want to see the great Battle of Kleidion in this style.
Such a well done discription of the battle of Arsuf. The video is so vivid and informational about the terrain and geography of the area of movement and battle.
So in the first clash of the military titans that are Richard the lionheart and Saladin, its 1-0 to Richard. Mainly due to Richard instituting a strict disciplined defensive strategy to draw the enemy close, negating their hit and run tactics, while his defensive line worn them down, before unleashing a decisive charge, even if it when off early due to the hospitalers being unable to hold on any longer and richard launching rest of the knights to ensure that they were supported and not cut off.
@@malekiththeeternityking5433 Indeed and dealing with Richard as military threat and enemy was so exhausting and tiring for Saladin, he died lest than year after the signing of the treaty of jaffa in 1193.
Not really "negating" their hit and run tactics, Because Saladin's horse archers were killing a lot of Richards horses to a point where one of Richards men even grew worried that they wouldn't be able to charge because of most horses getting killed, On top of that, the only reason the knights were able to catch Saladins troops in a charge was because the latter had dismounted too close to the crusader lines into closely packed formations and grown comfortable / If Saladins skirmishers had remained cautious and ready, this could've turned into a feigned retreat with devastating losses for the Crusaders this battle was a close call and could've gone very wrong for Richard
@@aburoach9268 Being forced to dismount and having to get in close to fire at your enemies, due to the iron discipline, deadly crossbow fire and shield wall of the enemy and unable to pull off usual tactics, no matter how many horses you kill. Is indeed negating the Muslim's hit and run tactics as Richard's army was schooled against falling for it and Saladin knew it and why his heavy cavalry were close up behind his dismounted archers, ready to exploit a gap in shield war. Meant that when Richard launched all out charge, entire Muslim army was in range to get smash up and rocked back by the mail fist of a heavy cavalry to rout them decisively.
@@wedgeantillies66 "forced to dismount" They were not forced, they just got comfortable and settled for more accurate close shots, but they didn't need to, the long range arrow volleys were killing many of the knights horses and no, that's not negating their effect, that's serious damage because if all or most Horses get killed, then the ultimate weapon of the Crusaders get taken out, their heavy cavalry (because they have no horses to charge) and without offensive capabilties or the ability to counter charge, Saladins elite mameluke cavalry can take their sweet time charging Richards army from multiple sides while weakening them with arrows and slowly curshing that army with each charge As for those crossbowmen, they were only effective against the earlier skirmishes where Saladins horse archers tried to get close in smaller numbers, But on the final attack against the Crusader rear, the crossbowmen simply got overwhelmed 1 crossbow men can't hold off 5 horse archers especially with his slow rate of shot, he'll simply get pinned down by arrows and wounded without being able to effectively return fire / That's what happened when Saladins concentrated all his effort on Richards rear guard But Not being ready to pull a feigned retreat is what cost Saladins this potential victory / His skirmishers simply got too comfotable and dismounted to close while in a closely packed formation That way they cannot flee quickly and it was unnecessary because they were indeed inflicting serious damage
"There the king, the fierce, the extraordinary king, cut down the Turks in every direction, and none could escape the force of his arm, for wherever he turned, brandishing his sword, he carved a wide path for himself: and as he advanced and gave repeated strokes with his sword, cutting them down like a reaper with his sickle, the rest, warned by the sight of the dying, gave him more ample space, for the corpses of the dead Turks which lay on the face of the earth extended over half a mile. - Itinerarium Regis Ricardi by Richard de Templo "Dear Lord, I pray Thee to suffer me not to see Thy Holy City, since I cannot deliver it from the hands of Thine enemies. -- Richard the Lionheart's prayer in 1191 when he saw Jerusalem after Arsuf
He dropped a new one many months ago but hasn’t dropped a follow up yet, trust me I’ve been waiting on the same for YEARS. Many of us have. It’s how I found this channel along with many others, we even watched the Hannibal episodes in my class at school
@@sultanmomenofzenata177 No, Richard had to leave because his little brother and the king of France Phillip the 2nd were usurping his throne in England, which controlled half of France too. It’s recorded by Saladins own scribes that most Muslims in his army lost a great deal of respect and trust in Kim after he let Richard kill the prisoners in Acre and losing every battle to Richard, in reality Richard towers Saladin and would actually fight while leading his armies personally. ✝🦁❤
@@sultanmomenofzenata177 Saladin also got rolled over by a sickly 16 yr old King Baldwin, and every battle against Richard. Saladin crumbled when he faced actual competent leaders of the West. Like I said, no comparison, Richard towers over Saladin.
@@Vntihero it doesn't matter what Richard had to do or hadn't he still was not able to take Jerusalem in this battle wasn't able to destroy Saladin army which is the goal of a battle , and wow a new lie 🤥 were is your resources for Saladin " losing a huge deal of respect " ?? , Every soldier in his army knew that they were facing the military power of Europe
@@sultanmomenofzenata177 Abi Bakr even said so himself….. he couldn’t destroy him because Saladin ran away lol…. ‘’Military power of Europe’’ Saladin lost at Jaffa to less than 1K men of Richards army, and less than 30 Knights!!! Check the sources on this, it comes from your OWN scholars and Saladins own SCRIBE! Muslims were terrified of Richard and his under 1K men, even though Saladin outnumbered him by many thousands…. They wouldn’t attack Richard under Saladins orders, seeing this demoralized army, Richard and his 20 mounted Knights charged the Muslim army, then Richards foot soldiers followed. Again Saladin was embarrassed, because he and his troops lost many battles before Jaffa . This is all confirmed by SALADINS scribe, you can google it.
Saladin ultimately won. Richard offered one of his own young prettiest blonde sister to Saladin to broker a peace. Saladin rejected his sister but accepted peace in exchanges Richard would never be allowed to enter Jerusalem
@@reichstrikesback Richard was forced to leave and never to return. He is to give up Jerusalem to Saladin. Saladin accomplished his goal. Richard didn’t
@@Beyonder1987 Saladin lost pretty much every battle he had against Richard. Also the crusaders regained control of Acre and Jaffa which were key port cities. So how did he win?
Its important to note that these 2 armies, while opposed and fighting for their respective ideologies, had deep respect for each other. Richard and Saladin even continued to send each other gifts even after their fighting had ended and Richard headed back toward England. Richard was also grieved upon hearing of Saladin's death.
Great video like always, but unfortunately was not mentioned at beginning, why King Richard had to order the execution of the hostages from Acre, the Sultan Salah ah Din had delayed deliberately to pay the ransom, in order to delay King Richard's start of campaign, also the Sultan executed his Christian hostages as answer.
King Richard the Lionheart was like no other, at arsuf alone, among the thousands of dead saracens they found like 32 emirs. Richard always fought and cut down enemies at the very thick of his battles/sieges. The saracens came to a point that they would panic and retreat at the very sight of Richard's standard approaching.
@@cumar9875 not quite. the crusades weren't just fought in the holyland they ended with the victory over the ottomans at by the knights of st john, spanish, italians and Maltese militia at the great siege of Malta 1565 aka the final battle of the crusades and the astonishing end of the reconquista with the fall of Granada 1492 in Spain.
The premature death of Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa was nothing short of a tragedy. If Barbarossa had lived, what Turkish arrow, what Arab spear and what eastern riches would have resisted the force of 100,000 crusaders led by Richard Lionheart and Frederick Barbarossa?
Great video, HistoryMarche! Although, one precision is that the name of the Grand Master of the Templar Order is pronounced differently. His name is Robert de Sablé (the e has an accent on it), so it should actually pronounced as "Sabley" in english. Besides, great history content! Keep it up! Cheers.
@@PiotrDzialak French is my mother tongue. I've searched on the subject. If you do search on Robert de Sablé, you'll notice the accent on the E: "É". This means that you don't pronounce an "E" sound, but an "A" ou "ey" sound. Sometimes, some of the specific intricacies of French could get lost in translation (like É, È ou Ç). I was actually confused a little bit during the video.
@@clarencecorbeil1061 My French is a bit rusty, but I had used to speak it very well when I lived in France. Don't you pronounce "Sablé", like you would pronounce "blé"? French "é" is phonetically written as "/e/", while French "ai" is "/ɛ/". I think History Marche prononuces it too much like /ɛ/, because /e/ doesn't exist in his mother tongue. Is it some weird exception, or do we simply differ in they way we describe the same pronounciation? Because, in "blé", there is definitely no sound of "y".
Saladin is undoubtedly an amazing commander and deserves respect - the internet community goes over the top though, even seen him described as an “undefeated commander” which is just not true. Two major battles against Richard and the crusaders won both. That being said his intelligence mercy and grace really were remarkable for the time period.
Saladin was a great general but we don't remember him for his campaign but rather leadership. His action to prevent massacre after the siege of Jerusalem delayed further crusades and helped him stabilise his empire. And gave his such a respectable status. That mercy is even great for today's standards The American invasion of Iraq resulted in the death of over 2 million civilians even today we can see innocents being killed in Russia - Ukraine war.
It was the way of the world prior to Napoleon. People like to look down their nose at the ancients, but they whoop us in things like subsidiary, class cooperation, and working class rights.
Ironically Churchill (~kind of "the British King" during WW2) wanted to go to the beaches on D-Day and apparently it was the actual King who persuaded him not to! He was never a man afraid of being near gunfire.
In any case, apart some Anglo-Saxons foot soldiers in Richard's army, the crusader forces were mainly Frankish, or Old French speakers. They just didn't all have the same feudal allegiance, or regional feeling.
Crusader army at Arsuf: Hospitallers (French), Templars (French), Normans (French), Poitevins (French), Angevins (French), Aquitains (French) and French from the crown of France Commanders: Richard Coeur de Lion, Garnier de Nablus, Guy de Lusignan, Hugues de Bourgogne, Robert de Sablé, Jacques d'Avesnes, Henri de Champagne. All French. Do you feel clever after writing your comment? Moreover, the rearguard was under considerable pressure from the Muslims and held firm for hours. Had they not charged, they may have been defeated, we will never know. What we do know is that the charge was considerably successful and smashed Saladin's army.
The Crusader knights were all French or at least French-speaking from Anjou, Normandy, Poitou and England in Richard's army, and Francilians, Picards, Burgundians or Flemings in the Capetian Army.
@@ADZ01982 I didn't say they weren't, just the Bulk of the Crusaders since the First Crusade was from Duchies and Counties in the Kingdom of the Franks.
It is funny how people accept this as fact without question yet demand verifiable proof that Jesus both existed and rose from the grave. 11 of the 12 apostles were martyred, defending the truth about Jesus. Being skinned alive, torn apart in a rack, or crucified upside down was not enough for one of them to renounce the truth about Jesus. Can we say the same for first-hand testimony regarding Cesar, who walked the Earth before Jesus’ resurrection?
Little Known Fact: The Crusaders had a corps of people whose job it was just to do laundry for all the soldiers and camp followers. Which in turn helped keep diseases down.
HistoryMarche I can’t wait for your next video episodes next week such as: Prince Eugune of Savoy (Part 5) The Anarchy (Part 4) Basil II, the Bulgar Slayer (Part 3) Third Crusade (Part 3) Hannibal (Part 20) Rise of Caesar Augustus (Part 6) All these episode was awesome to watch ❤❤❤.
@@qutuzm7753 Hannibal lost the Second Punic War, yet he’s still regarded as one of the best military geniuses of history. Napoleon also lost the Wars of the 6th and 7th Coalitions, yet still regarded as one of the best military geniuses in history. That notion is simply incorrect.
@LuisBrito-ly1ko Hannible,Napoleon (destroyed) army's, perfect Tactics/plans even when they lost the war you can actually admire what they did genius is truly a word to describe them. you can't say this about Richard nothing amazing about what he did even the numbers are so fake from the Muslim Sources yes the Muslim were the larger army around 40k not 25k and Richard's army around 30k troops not 11k. King of England Richard sold Scotland and other lands and raised taxes just to master 11k troops. Give me a break. Frederick barbarossa's army was around 100k and King of England after selling and raising money he can only master 11k troops, I think because he didn't take Jerusalem and went back without destroying the Muslim army they had to lie about the numbers. In the end, he actually didn't do anything major to call him genius. But I was wrong. A genius can lose war, but Richard is not one of them.
I'm not quite sure that Richard was a genius. He had a sound strategy in sticking to the coastline to prevent Salah al-Din from cutting his lines of communication and proved very capable tactically. Though, history has shown us the strong performance of European mounted knights and men-at-arms, so how much of his ability in battle is him and how much is due to the quality of his troops is questionable. He might well be a better tactician than Salah al-Din, but the latter was better at operational manoeuvres and strategy, in my humble opinion. He understood that Richard was a difficult foe to defeat tactically, and post-Arsuf, resorted to largely conducting scorched earth to deny grain and forage to the Crusaders, preventing a push further inland towards Jerusalem. Richard knew that he could not risk marching away from the coast as a result, and his gains were strictly limited there. All in all, the Third Crusade might have ended in peace negotiations being drawn, but that sort of stalemate very well favoured Salah al-Din and the Ayyubids, who maintained most of the gains they had acquired prior to Richard's arrival. These are the limitations Richard possessed due to his purely tactical nature. In contrast, with commanders such as Caesar and Hannibal, who were masters of operational warfare (including not just manoeuvres, but logistical aspects) as well as tactics, one sees them waging campaigns even when deep in enemy territory, with their opponents, Vercingetorix and Fabius, utilizing scorched earth and cutting their lines of communication. Vercingetorix's case is most similar to Salah al-Din, in fact. Both may have had superior numbers on their sides, but the quality of their army overall was not the equal of their adversary's. Both utilized manoeuvre and scorched earth, preferring to cut the enemy from their lines of communication and weaken them by privation. They had to resort to this way of fighting because of their own respective disadvantages on the tactical level. The difference is that Caesar might have been closer to a genius, while I would say that Richard was just a highly competent commander.
One thing that really stood out to me about this battle was it showed just why medieval European knights were so terrifying. Exhausted from holding the line for hours under constant arrow bombardment and launching an uncoordinated charge against relatively fresh lighter enemy cavalry with superior numbers, and the Crusader knights still smashed Saladin's forces and forced a full retreat. The medieval European knight was considered the pinnacle of warfare in the Middle Ages for a bloody good reason.
Not sure intact would be the right word. 25k -7k is 18k.HOWEVER the Ayubid army could easily replace those losses by next campaigning season. Their manpower supply bases were close by. While the Crusaders were not.
Rich was a great general who knew how to fight a war But he forgot he was fighting a holy war He one the battle but lost the war He was never able to take Jerusalem
He doing successful enough.. Despite most of the crusaders left the outremer, salahaddin didn't retake their coastal strip of cities and respect the treaties.. All win...
This was really bad leadership by Saladin. It should have been just a harassment attack on the Crusader army. At some point he should have called his troops back. They were a mostly-infantry army, stretched on a plain and disorganized, while the Crusader heavy cavalry was just waiting to attack. What else did Saladin think was going to happen? This was a poorly-coordinated skirmished that ended-up resulting in a lot of unnecessary losses for him.
Would be interesting to know in detail how the archers on the opposite sides fared against each other. Whose arrows penetrated the armour better? Who had more accuracy? Who inflicted more casualties? I assume that the crusaders being stationary and in defensive positions with shields were somewhat better off than the muslim riders galloping up and down.
Saladin was a relatively mediocre general losing numerous battles such as Acre, Arsuf, Belvoir, Tyre, Kerak out of which the defeats at Jaffa & Montgisard are particularly embarassing ones
Yeah but his greatest feat was his management of the sultanate he toppled the Fatimids and united the various Muslim states at his time and secured the road to pilgrimage
@@Buurba_Jolof He is right, you know and correct assessment doesn't make him a little man. Saladin was akin to Pompey the Great, he was a shrewd politician, a master of logistics, merely a decent strategist, but really a mediocre commander in the field. Contemporaries said of Pompey he managed to win in the field because he simply managed to manipulate forces during his campaigns in such way to meet enemy always with overwhelming numbers. Saladin lost the siege of Acre, the battle of Arsuf and the battle of Jaffa to Richard personally and his Kurdish court historian has written that Saladin after Jaffa was terrified of Richard and genuinely thought prolonged conflict would lead to the loss of Jerusalem. Anyway Saladin, as another person has written is remembered for toppling the Fatimids and if he hasn't been there, at the time Crusaders would be free to claim all land until Egypt and Arabian peninsula so he's rightly remembered as the shield of muslimhood.
Before coming to judgement on any of the figures in this video remember these events happened over 800 years ago. Fortunately values have changed but that's as a result of the lessons we've learned over the years and how we're raised today. Culture and by extension morals are forever changing and we're fortunate to live in an era where we recognize certain evils and try to be better.
Saladdin was just lucky that Richard is facing a threat of rebellion in the Angevin Empire, thus forcing Richard to go home despite decisively winning the battle of Arsuf and Jaffa. Not to mention that Saladdin is way past his prime, considering that he would later die almost a year later after Richard left.
@@JorjMusk Of course no. As a matter of fact, the peace treaty agreed between Saladdin and Richard is the best possible outcome that Richard could ever hope for, considering their manpower, supplies, and Richard wanting to go home in order to deal with the threat of possible rebellion.
@@LuisBrito-ly1ko it's well known that a lot of crusaders were driven by wealth many nobles for examples were second sons or bastareds that had no righ for inheritance that's why they were looking to carve kingdoms or principalities also at some point crusaders found out that in order to secure the holy land they needed to secure the regions around thats why many times attacked Egypt and even Tunisia .
@@sultanmomenofzenata177 We’re talking about the Third Crusade specifically. And the objective of the Third Crusade was the reconquest of the Holy Land, and thus the reestablishment of the Crusader States, that was conquered by Saladin. Nowhere in the proclamation of the Pope is stated that they had to conquer Saladin’s Empire or the Middle East in its entirety. Nor Richard ever expressed the idea to conquer the whole Ayyubid Empire. The greediness of the lower nobility or the soldiery isn’t a proof of anything, that’s just the undisciplined nature of most crusader armies.
I doubt Islam was evil The real guys who killed with no mercy were Christians and I'm a Christian so it's not like I'm hating on them They refused surrender appeal by muslims asking to spare their lifes
Ah yes, the Third Crusade, the most based Crusade of them all, I sure do hope that the 4th Crusade won’t cause any massive fuck ups and create a massive rift with the Byzantines
