Assess the reasons for the relative success of the Third Crusade
Between 1189 and 1192 Richard I demonstrated superb generalship which allowed him to prove
successful militarily and strengthened his reputation. The success can be described as relative as in
spite of a Jerusalem not falling, a 3-year truce as established to allow the west access to the Kingdom
of Jerusalem, showing that even though the scale of the task was huge, they came pretty close.
Whilst it is true that Richard played a significant role in leading the crusaders to success during the
Third Crusade, complete accomplishment was not seen and thus, Christian disunity, whether
problematic not, or Saladin’s leadership, whether triumphant or lacking, should be taken into account
too.
Richard’s leadership evidenced as successful from the onset; his ruthless economic planning of selling
vast amounts of property along with the ‘Saladin Tithe’ being imposed was important as this enabled
him to travel by ship, allowing Richard to eliminate poor and unarmed pilgrims. This meant his
crusading army would be a disciplined fighting force from the start. Even during the crusade, the King
introduced harsh penalties for misconduct. This skilled force was seen to be most effective in the
march to Jaffa due to Richard’s organisation and leadership meaning that discipline held despite the
constant harassment and heat. Keeping a fleet to his western side this was a good idea militarily due
to the easy access to supplies, an escape route and the possibility to rotate troops. Even more
notably, on the landward side facing Saladin’s harassment were the Templars and Hospitallers, the
most experienced of fighters. Guy of Lusignans successful siege of Acre was a good location since it
was a port and a financial hub of Jerusalem, and similarly, capturing Jaffa was a good decision due to
it being the nearest port to Jerusalem and it was a base for an attack on Ascalon which enabled an
attack Saladin’s lines of communication with Egypt and therefore forced Saladin to negotiate. This was
something unconventional and showed Richard recognising that in order to capture Jerusalem they
needed to recapture everything on its way and thus, Richards relieve of Jaffa should not be dismissed
when assessing success. Richard’s willingness to be in constant negotiating with Saladin, seeing what
he could achieve without force, was essential is forming the Treaty of Jaffa, which was negotiated by
the relieving of Jaffa and working with Afdal. This highlights the Richards success to an even larger
degree as it meant that in spite of Jerusalem being under Saladin’s control and Ascalon’s fortifications
destroyed, Palestine was partitioned, and the Franks retained Acre, Jaffa and the coastal strip. More
prominently, the Treaty gave pilgrims access to the Holy Sepulchre, the key spiritual element which
drew the west to Jerusalem in the beginning. It is important to note that Richard took into
consideration the thoughts of those who lived there, learning that Jerusalem did not bear financial
importance was instead sought after due to its religious importance. Thus, this element of the treaty
showed that there was still a significant amount of success as the best possible terms were secured,
enabling the Latin settlements to have a viable future. The idea of Richard being able to adjust his
thinking in light of the developing context is emphasised by his success at Arsuf when two of his men
decided to charge, compelling Richard to commit and force Saladin withdraw despite being
outnumbered 2-1. However, the first expedition to Jerusalem saw slow progress to Beit Nuba due to
tactical pressure from Saladin and this led to Richard’s withdrawal, diminishing his reputation as a
strong leader, although, the decision to withdraw can portray him as decisive, a trait of a successful
leader. Moreover, realising that his army was being degraded and that Jerusalem would not be held
for long if it was capture, rather than being blinding by the religious value of Jerusalem, can show
Richard to have made an intelligible decision. Certainly one can argue that this allowed the best
possible outcome but nevertheless, failure to manage the factional divisions within the crusader army
and to commit to one strategic goal led to his marginalisation at Jeruslaem in June 1192 and his
passivity leading up to second advance cost him the active leadership of the crusade; Henry of
Between 1189 and 1192 Richard I demonstrated superb generalship which allowed him to prove
successful militarily and strengthened his reputation. The success can be described as relative as in
spite of a Jerusalem not falling, a 3-year truce as established to allow the west access to the Kingdom
of Jerusalem, showing that even though the scale of the task was huge, they came pretty close.
Whilst it is true that Richard played a significant role in leading the crusaders to success during the
Third Crusade, complete accomplishment was not seen and thus, Christian disunity, whether
problematic not, or Saladin’s leadership, whether triumphant or lacking, should be taken into account
too.
Richard’s leadership evidenced as successful from the onset; his ruthless economic planning of selling
vast amounts of property along with the ‘Saladin Tithe’ being imposed was important as this enabled
him to travel by ship, allowing Richard to eliminate poor and unarmed pilgrims. This meant his
crusading army would be a disciplined fighting force from the start. Even during the crusade, the King
introduced harsh penalties for misconduct. This skilled force was seen to be most effective in the
march to Jaffa due to Richard’s organisation and leadership meaning that discipline held despite the
constant harassment and heat. Keeping a fleet to his western side this was a good idea militarily due
to the easy access to supplies, an escape route and the possibility to rotate troops. Even more
notably, on the landward side facing Saladin’s harassment were the Templars and Hospitallers, the
most experienced of fighters. Guy of Lusignans successful siege of Acre was a good location since it
was a port and a financial hub of Jerusalem, and similarly, capturing Jaffa was a good decision due to
it being the nearest port to Jerusalem and it was a base for an attack on Ascalon which enabled an
attack Saladin’s lines of communication with Egypt and therefore forced Saladin to negotiate. This was
something unconventional and showed Richard recognising that in order to capture Jerusalem they
needed to recapture everything on its way and thus, Richards relieve of Jaffa should not be dismissed
when assessing success. Richard’s willingness to be in constant negotiating with Saladin, seeing what
he could achieve without force, was essential is forming the Treaty of Jaffa, which was negotiated by
the relieving of Jaffa and working with Afdal. This highlights the Richards success to an even larger
degree as it meant that in spite of Jerusalem being under Saladin’s control and Ascalon’s fortifications
destroyed, Palestine was partitioned, and the Franks retained Acre, Jaffa and the coastal strip. More
prominently, the Treaty gave pilgrims access to the Holy Sepulchre, the key spiritual element which
drew the west to Jerusalem in the beginning. It is important to note that Richard took into
consideration the thoughts of those who lived there, learning that Jerusalem did not bear financial
importance was instead sought after due to its religious importance. Thus, this element of the treaty
showed that there was still a significant amount of success as the best possible terms were secured,
enabling the Latin settlements to have a viable future. The idea of Richard being able to adjust his
thinking in light of the developing context is emphasised by his success at Arsuf when two of his men
decided to charge, compelling Richard to commit and force Saladin withdraw despite being
outnumbered 2-1. However, the first expedition to Jerusalem saw slow progress to Beit Nuba due to
tactical pressure from Saladin and this led to Richard’s withdrawal, diminishing his reputation as a
strong leader, although, the decision to withdraw can portray him as decisive, a trait of a successful
leader. Moreover, realising that his army was being degraded and that Jerusalem would not be held
for long if it was capture, rather than being blinding by the religious value of Jerusalem, can show
Richard to have made an intelligible decision. Certainly one can argue that this allowed the best
possible outcome but nevertheless, failure to manage the factional divisions within the crusader army
and to commit to one strategic goal led to his marginalisation at Jeruslaem in June 1192 and his
passivity leading up to second advance cost him the active leadership of the crusade; Henry of
