Siege of Acre, 1189 - 1191 ⚔️ Third Crusade (Part 1) ⚔️ Lionheart vs Saladin 

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." :)

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.

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.

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!

28:00 King Frederick died crossing Armenia? Something must be wrong

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

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.

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.

So tru.

Richard and Saladin are giants?

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

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

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.

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

= 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.

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.

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😢

Thank you so much for the support. Very kind of you

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

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?

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. 🙂

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.

glory can only be had on the side of the righteous

@Sigma you think *you* can decide which side is righteous? The irony in that you blame anyone else for being arrogant is staggering haha. Peasant.

@@lachmeneger then the glory is with Saladin

@@borabayulug4248 he is on the same side as the garrison of acre lol

@@lachmeneger yes it is already. This is one of the conflicts within the war. Although Acre Castle fell, Saladin managed to protect Jerusalem from the crusaders. He also allowed the garrison, which had surrendered when Saladin conquered Jerusalem, to go free. Richard kills those in Acre Castle. Glory isn't just about winning, it's about winning with dignity.

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.

It wasn't a video game. Those were real men fighting for the Christian lands overrun by Saracens.

@@thomaswayneward yes yes i mean they were real warrior monarchs who fought for their religions.

​@@thomaswayneward it is muslim lands with muslims people You theives 😂😂😂😂

@@thomaswaynewardchristian lands? How dumb can you be?

@@thomaswayneward: What’s your definition of a “christian land”?

Raiding was a complete neccessity in a time without proper logistics for the armies.

​@@thecappeningchannel515Pushing your advantage while the opponent is on the verge of routing takes precedence over raiding for provisions. Ill-informed or defensive comment

@@HQPak warfare in the holy land was a very patient affair. Hattin and La Forbie shows what happened when a perceived advantage was pursued. The saracen default strategy was to feign retreat to make the enemy pursue and then defeat them in detail.

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

Saladin is Richards son 😂😂

He ran like a coward FACT

It is happening today, the whole West and the j’s against the Palestinians and Gaza

Just to fail in the end

You are talking about brainwashed and illiterate soliders fighting for nonsense.

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

Nothing truthfull about Saladin having a peaceful takeover of Jerusalem. Read the arab sources if you will. It was near genocidal. Everyone who could not ransom themselves were sold as slaves.

😂😂

@@mohammedsaysrashid3587 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.

@@mohammedsaysrashid3587 the sources are arab. Laugh all you want. Its Saladins own chroniclers you are ridiculing.

​@@thecappeningchannel515 Jesus: The least European liar

numbers in the end tell everything also Saladin was pretty much only real threat

richard also perished from a wound struck by arrow used by a person using a crossbow

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.

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