The Third Crusade seen from different sides

by mohnish (student)

By, Mohnish Mulgi 9X

1) From Source A we can learn that the army of Lord Richard were really rich and wealthy as they had, ‘Bright armour; pennons with their glittering emblazonry, banners, and lances with gleaming points...’ we can also study from the passage that they were equipped and well prepared for a battle against Saladin’s army. We can assume that they were hard working and had many resources such as food and ‘solid timber’ in which they made a ‘standard form of a long beam like the mast of a ship, made of solid timber and set on four wheels,’ in which means they were ready to set off to capture Acre. Source A is useful as it supports the fact that Lord Richard had won the battle against Saladin, however it is not as reliable as he over exaggerated in saying ‘Bright armour, pennons with their glittering emblazonry, banners, laces with gleaming points, shining helmets and coats of mail; an army terrible to the foe.’ We can infer, from the source that he is bias as he said ’an army terrible to the foe,’ meaning he was discouraging the enemy by saying it was terrible against them.

From Source B we can learn that Saladin’s army were weak and couldn’t fight against Lord Richard’s army for they were bound to lose, ‘a vest of thick felt and a coat of mail so dense and strong that our arrows made no impression on them...’ Lord Richard’s army was strong and brave as this is evident in the passage ‘I saw foot soldiers with from one to ten arrows sticking on them,’ meaning Lord Richards’s army was not ready to give up. Source B is reliable as he is written good things as well as bad thing on both sides such as ‘our arrows made no impression on them...’meaning the Christian were tough, making it useful for historians because Baha ad-Din was against the Franks (Christians) however we can consider him being truthful.

Both Sources agree on the fact that Richards’s army was physically strong and powerful, this can be evident in the lexis used such as ‘coat of a mail’ in both eye witness reports, there was also another similarity in both of them which was ‘The enemy had already formed in order of a battle,’ meaning they were fully ready and prepared for a battle. Source A disagrees to Source B ‘In the centre of their army was a cart, on which was fixed a tower as high as a minaret...’we can learn that Richards’s army had an ...

This is a preview of the whole essay

2) A) From Source C we can infer that Lord Richard’s army was wining for the time being as someone ‘returned this answer. “We fought with all our strength and did our best...’ meaning they were going to lose their land. We can suggest that Amboise was trying to tell historian’s that the leader never used to fight in, during that period of time as ‘one of them who is superior to any man we have ever seen they call him Melek Ric (King Richard)...’meaning King Richard’s army had a advantage over them as they had a leader fighting as well as his army. This Source is not reliable as Amboise was in the English army during the Third Crusade, which senses he would know less about his enemy however he has written a lot of things like “are these the deeds of my brave troops, once so boastful?’ when he was not present there at that time, however he was present at the time when he was fighting against the Saracens (Muslims) so we cannot completely trust this source, though this Source can be useful, as he is trying to get word for word on what Saladin said never the less, on the other hand the Source cannot be fully trusted.

From Source D we can infer that Saladin was a selfish man as he never used to listen to his advisor Baha ‘ad-Din for when he said ‘I stood beside him trying to console him; but he would not listen to me...’ meaning he was independent and he wrongly thought he was the best. Saladin was a self-determining man as ‘God alone knows the depth of grief that filled his heart, after this battle,’ meaning he wanted no one to know about his lifestyle and his secrets, before the war and after, also meaning he didn’t change; had his ego in him. Source D was useful as he was a victim there when he tried to ‘console him’ meaning he was interacting as well as being an eye witness and writing an account making it much more reliable.

B) I think that Source D is much more reliable than Source C as Source D interacts as well as an eye witness whereas in Source C he was not present at the time. Finally in Source D he tried to ‘console him’ meaning he was interacting as well as being an eye witness and writing an account making it much more reliable.

3) From Source F we can learn that the Muslims and Saladin hated Lord Richard evidence to show this is 'When news that King Richard was approaching was brought to those who lived in Jerusalem they were struck with terror,' meaning they didnt want to face their enemy. All Muslims left Jerusalem including Saladin; evidence from the source to support this is 'Not a man remained in the city and the Sultan himself...' meaning the people in Jerusalem where ashamed to lose the True Cross and their land. This Source can be reliable as he was a soldier, he would be an eye witness at that time; it can also be useful as it can tell historian that the Saracens hated the Franks.

From Source G we can infer that Saladin was a cruel man as ‘He also decided to pollute all the water near the Holy City by stopping up the springs...’meaning he wanted the Christian to die and regret the fact they had won the holy land however he could not do that. Saladin wanted to stay however he had no choice but to leave as Baha ‘ad-Din wrote ‘He wanted to stay in the city but gave up this idea because of the great danger it might be for the cause of Islam,’ meaning he cared for his land’s citizens even though he was selfish in a way. This Source is useful as it tells Saladin’s personality and what they did before they left Jerusalem. This source can be reliable as Baha’ ad-din was an advisor of Saladin as he would always be with Saladin and what has been doing.

Sources F and G agree to a certain extent because they both suggest the same point, which is when Richard arrived to Jerusalem, Saladin had escaped with all the Saracens, you can see this in: Ambroise ‘Not a man remained in the city and the sultan...,’ Baha’ ad- Din ‘He wanted to stay in the city but gave up this idea because of the great danger it might be for the cause of Islam.’ Source F and G disagree to the fact that Saladin was scared of Richard. All the Christian said Saladin was afraid of Richard as Ambroise wrote ‘he might flee from the face of King Richard,’ meaning Saladin didn’t want to be embarrassed in front of his kingdom. The Muslims said ‘He wanted to stay in the city but gave up this idea because of the great danger it might be for the cause of Islam,’ meaning Saladin wanted his kingdom to be safe.

4) There are many reasons to agree or disagree to the quote “Richard the lion heart was the bravest crusader.”Many Christian agreed to the fact that he was a brave and strong man killing the Muslims; he also fought with his father King Henry II for he had, ‘incarcerated their mother, Eleanor of Aquitaine, after Henry II died Richard went to Fontervraud Abbey Church and when he saw his father’s dead body, he cried out, “Alas! It was I who killed him!”’ On the way to Jerusalem he had captured Acre with one of the princes, ‘Leopold, Duke of Austria, and set up banners on walls of him’ making him look strong, with a captured land. Richard was so brave and strong that he was called Lion-heart; he was very noble and good in some ways, but his fierce, passionate temper did him a great deal of harm.

There were many reasons against Richard being the lion heart such as he watched men die in front of him and never did a thing. ‘Many Muslims were killed when they went on a pilgrimage,’ meaning they hated the Christian even more, making them disagreeing to Richard having the title ‘Lion Heart’.

In conclusion I think Richard should deserve the title ‘Lion Heart’ as he won Jerusalem back and freed his mother from prison.