Who was Greater? Saladin or Richard the Lionhearted??

 EDIT: Actually didnt Saladin execute some Templars after Hattin?

 Hardly the act of a totally civilised man to execute prisoners, if executing prisoners is the biggest negative you can lay against Richard thus making him a barbarian, what does it make Saladin for executing his prisoners?

 EDIT: I don't want to try and justify executing prisoners, but Richard had a similar dilemma to Henry V after Agincourt, he had a load of prisoners that would be a nightmare to guard and may at some point attempt to overpower their guards. Richard wasnt genuinely interested in ransoming them, returning 2700 men to the enemy isnt a great idea, on those grounds Richard justifies having them executed. The psychological aspect to executing them was probably also on Richards mind, a tactic employed often by the Mongols.

 You cant deny for a second that during the middle ages what we today percieve as the behaviour of a barbarian was commonplace, commited by both Muslims and Christians. Sacking cities was commonplace, the traditional rape and pillaging commonplace, starving cities into surrender as many civilian inhabitants perished was commonplace, the list goes on.

  Are you going to contest that? was Richard the first ever man to execute prisoners? clearly not so why on earth is he so overly criticised? it just seems every fanboy of Saladin is desperate to paint Richard as bad a man as possible for no good reason. There is nothing that makes Richard anymore barbaric or *uncivilised* than countless other monarchs, Christian and Muslim. The biggest flaw I can place against Richard is he was a bad King for England.

 I don't think Saladin was a necessarily bad man, just not as wonderful as he is made out to be, I don't really see retaking Jerusalem as being that amazing. The only thing that amazes me is that it took as long as it did to retake Jerusalem if i'm honest, to be fair to Saladin he crushed the Crusaders at Hattin. Great victory, but should it really have taken the Muslims the best part of 100 years to get their act together long enough to crush this little kingdom next door to them that should never have been created in the first place?

 I don't think Richard was incredible or perfect, I have never once denied his very obvious faults, I simply object to the fact he is so hated and criticised like he his the most evil man the world has ever seen.

 

Edited by Heraclius

 I offered practical reasons that would of appealed to Richard at the time, taking away the burden of guarding that many prisoners, psychological impact on the enemy and avoiding having them reentering the enemy ranks and fighting him another day. Thats not justification, merely understanding the reasons why he would of chose to do what he did, I didnt say I liked it.

 At Agincourt Henry had a small army, yet he had 1000 prisoners, the difficulty of guarding them and preventing their escape or an attempt to overpower their guards was to great. Ransom would take time, he would in the meantime have to feed and guard 1000 frenchmen at the expense of his own men and their safety, that many prisoners is bound to hold you up after all.

 I've read before somewhere that Henry executed the prisoners mid-battle, when he saw apart of his line faltering and the only men available to plug the gap were the guards of the prisoners, executing them was then the only way to take away the danger. Though i've also read he executed them afterwards, either way the problems and issues are the same. I wonder which version is true though.

 I'm not especially nationalistic, I just think Richard is treated far to harshly, that is all. I would also find it hard to be nationalistic about a frenchman .

Edited by Heraclius

The issue of prisoners being executed was a little different from Agincourt, IIRC. I think what happened was that after the capture of Acre both Kings held prisoners. Richard thought he had an understanding whereby Saladin was to release certain prisoners immediately, however, Saladin refused to release them immediately. Richard became enraged (one of his worst faults) and executed all the Muslim prisoners. When Saladin heard this, he executed the Crusader prisoners in retaliation.

Whether Saladin was playing for time and Richard saw through this is unclear. Saladin may have genuinely been interested in negotiation and Richard overreacted, Richard often let his haughtiness and anger get the better of him. Or Richard may have seen Saladin buying himself time in the Levantine heat, bringing up his reinforcements and watching as some of the ill-disciplined Crusaders went home. The whole motivation behind the executions seem unclear.

 I understand that Agincourt isnt identical to the situation Richard found himself in, I only said it was similar, certainly in regard to having a large number of prisoners. Does anybody know how many prisoners Saladin had anyway? 

 Richard didnt react to the situation well, executing prisoners is bound to make you look bad, but Saladin wasnt beyond executing prisoners either (as repeatedly pointed out), even before Richard arrived in the holyland, the Templars after Hattin. I really dont see how Richard can be so criticised for executing prisoners when Saladin did it also yet escapes criticism almost entirely.

 I think to much emphasis has been placed on Saladins pros and Richards cons, it isnt fair to focus almost entirely on one side of a historical figure, it offers a distorted and entirely inaccurate view.

 I have the same view about many other (Non english ) historical figures, Byzantine Emperor Basil II is a great example, everybody remembers him for blinding thousands of Bulgars, but I argue that he should surely be remembered more for his immense accomplishments than 1 solitary act.

 I think that it is fair that the positive and negative of a mans character is balanced appropriately.

Edited by Heraclius

 Heraclius,why you still argue in this,as I said before I don't consider Richard as  completly Villain.

Saladin executed the prisoners as a react for what Richard done,you can't blame him for what he did.

 I agree with you there are many Inaccurate views especially about Saladin and Richard,some people consider Saladin as an angel they don't have any information about him except he retook the holycity they glorify him too much,and give him a rank he didn't deserve it,vice versa for Richard they consider him athe most evil,and not fit to be a king and so on.

I think Basil II is good example.

Again and again and again my friend I don't think he is the most evil ever.

They both had stirling qualities. Both were brave, Saladin in a more calculating way, Richard impetuously so. Saladin was more diplomatic and a better administrator. Both were very chivalrous. But although Saladin was more successful in the long run, I cannot help noticing that Richard won every single battle he fought against him.

Mameluke

Dampier is correct.  If Richard and Saladin had equal resources available to them Saladin would not have stood a chance.  Saladin barely survived his encounters with Richard even though he (Saladin) had greater resources at his disposal.  I think we can clearly see that Richard was great and Saladin pathetic.

Originally posted by R_AK47 Dampier is correct.  If Richard and Saladin had equal resources available to them Saladin would not have stood a chance.  Saladin barely survived his encounters with Richard even though he (Saladin) had greater resources at his disposal.  I think we can clearly see that Richard was great and Saladin pathetic.

They didn't start out with equal resources originally. Saladin was the nephew of a general, he basically was born into the world as a Kurd with very little to his name. Richard was born the son of one of the greatest Kings in Europe. Saladin worked his way up, first he took over administering Egypt, then defied his Syrian lord, then united both Egypt and Syria, then formed the Islamic states into a cohesive, well administered whole to knock out the Christian Kingdom. Richard mistreated and robbed his subjects, neglected his domain and pooled all his resources into a campaign in Palestine that had nothing to do with his own people's well being. Richard achieved some victories in Palestine and retook only a couple of cities, Saladin weathered the storm but ultimately his career had ensured the Holy Land would return to Islamic control. Richard returned home after bunkrupting his Kingdom and leaving his people impoverished, dying after only 10 years as King. His reign was disastrous and the prosperous and powerful Kingdom he inherited from his father was a withered shadow of its former glory. It was so weakened by Richard, that it soon lost virtually all its land in France and even went through the torture of a French invasion.

Saladin came from humbler beginnings than Richard and his career overall was vastly more successful in every field. Richard's claim to fame stems from a couple of years of personal heroics in Palestine, he was otherwise a total failure overall. When you make silly generalisations like "Richard=great, Saladin=pathetic" maybe you should study a bit more history before commenting instead of blindly following your pro-Crusader, pro-Christian, anti-anythingIslamic way of thinking. Failing to study the facts and making biased and sweeping generalisations makes a person look silly after a while.

P.S. No need to resurrect our vices and virtues of Richard I, Heraclius. We have already agreed we admire different leadership traits. The critique was just for the benefit of you-know-who.


Edited by Constantine XI

Originally posted by azimuth eh !! he won and kicked richard's ass, thats whats counts, he (richard) lost at the end , and Saladin won at the end. the crusaders in general Lost, althought they made a record by keeping Jerusalem for about 100 years, we'll see if the Jews with their "state" will break that recored.

Actually, Saladin's ass was the one that got kicked.  Saladin lost every battle he fought against Richard.  Richard didn't lose the war.  It's true he did not recover Jerusalem.  However, he recovered a large portion of the Kingdom of Jerusalem/Acre.  He captured what would become the kingdom's capital city, Acre.

Regarding Richard's and Saladin's resources, if you look at number of troops each leader had at his disposal, you will notice that Saladin greatly outnumbered Richard in every battle they fought, but he was constantly defeated by Richard anyways.

Regarding Israel, they will be there much longer than the crusaders, as they will be there forever.

Originally posted by azimuth and Richard came to the "holyland" to get jerusalem back, did he achive this plan? NO? then he lost and the agreement he made was nothing becuse it was already allowed to christans to enter Jerusalems when it was under islamic rules before the christan took it. in general your beloved crusads were Losers. about Israel its FYI this earth wont stay forever, which means Israel wont be there forever. also they are getting smaller and people around them is getting stronger( not much but stronger than before)  by time, i think the US and EU wont be the strongest part of the world more than they did. its a matter of time maybe not in our life time but for sure nothing stays as it is and no strong stays strong and no weak stays weak. anyway we've been off topic slightly by discussing israel here, if you are intersted make a new thread about it.

 I never once said I loved the crusades, the crusaders achieved what they sought out to do and took the holyland for Christianity, the subsequent decline of the Crusader states had as much to do with the west not following up its success sufficiently and division between the crusading efforts and their leaders than anything else.

 Richards main objectives were to stabilise the remainder of the crusader states, with the hope that Jerusalem would then become a realistic target for capture. He was repeatedly victorious in battle in the holyland, I really don't see what more could be asked of him, its not like he had infinite resources at hand, besides he had a kingdom in Europe to worry about and the realities of the situation were beyond his power.

 Youve gone on about Israel more than anybody else, what on earth modern Israel has to do with this topic i'll never know, we arent discussing modern Israel but 2 men who played key roles in the crusades nearly 750 years before Israel as we know it even existed.

 I have to say I find your attitude towards Israel and non-Muslim nations in general rather disturbing and out of place in this topic, furthermore a little less bias goes a long way.