What do you think?
Rate this book
Richard The Lionheart: The Mighty Crusader
New in paper
In a biography as compelling and controversial as its subject, Richard I of England, comes bursting to vivid life. Richard's personality was as imposing as his legend, and his far-ranging adventures make fascinating reading. Travel with Richard through a lifetime dedicated to chivalric warfare, from his campaigns in France to his fearsome battles with the Muslim hero Saladin for control of the Holy Land. A commander who led from the front, Richard the Lionheart devised tactically brilliant military operations that are among the finest examples of the early use of combined arms--and are discussed in detail here. An extensive collection of maps, diagrams, and illustrations, as well as a special section featuring Richard in his own words, enhance the story of his dramatic life.
In a biography as compelling and controversial as its subject, Richard I of England, comes bursting to vivid life. Richard's personality was as imposing as his legend, and his far-ranging adventures make fascinating reading. Travel with Richard through a lifetime dedicated to chivalric warfare, from his campaigns in France to his fearsome battles with the Muslim hero Saladin for control of the Holy Land. A commander who led from the front, Richard the Lionheart devised tactically brilliant military operations that are among the finest examples of the early use of combined arms--and are discussed in detail here. An extensive collection of maps, diagrams, and illustrations, as well as a special section featuring Richard in his own words, enhance the story of his dramatic life.
205 pages, Paperback
First published May 8, 2003
About the author
David Miller
76 books7 followersLibrarian Note: There is more than one author in the GoodReads database with this name. See this thread for more information.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews
September 8, 2022
This book provides a compelling and quick-moving linear timeline of Richard the Lionheart's operations in the Holy Land during the Third Crusade. It provides a general overview of who was where, the when and the why. And also how. As in HOW the hell did Richard manage to command a multinational multilingual army of over 40 000 Christians while 3000 miles from his home in the north of France? (This is one reason why Richard has a poor reputation in England. He was King, but he only spent 6 months of his life in England. When he wasn't crusading, he lived in what is now Northern France.)
Tasked with recapturing Jerusalem from Islamic control under Emperor Saladin, Richard launched 300 ships and embarked on a three-year campaign that resulted in his army recapturing almost the entire coastal strip (Jaffa, Acre, Tyre, etc), though it did not achieve its ultimate objective.
This book's central argument is this: Although Richard failed to recapture Jerusalem, the Third Crusade was still a success. It was far more successful than any other Crusade and it resulted in a more favourable terms for Christians than any other Crusade, and he captured more territory than any other crusading european monarch.
This book also demonstrates just how brave a warrior Richard was, constantly putting himself in harm's way and escaping by the ski of his teeth. The Saracens (Saladin's army) tried in vain to wound or capture Richard and never succeeded, even though Richard could always be found where the fighting was the fiercest, swinging his blood-axe and lopping off heads and arms with his gleaming sword. It's impressive.
It's also impressive how down-to-earth he was. Whenever something needed to be built (a battring ram, a watchtower, etc), the King of England would throw himself into the task to work amongst his highest ranking knights and his lowest ranking soldiers. His men LOVED him for this.
Most impressive is the careful logistical planning that went into the operation. Richard undertook many different preperatory journeys before each battle, conducting what we would now call "risk assessments." Richard calculated how much food and water his army needed by calculating the number of men and horses. He ensured that his men, while often exhausted and overheated in the pounding desert sun, never went without food or water. He even had a laundry service for his soldiers so they could wear clean clothes. I don't know for sure, but I think Richard's convoy during the Third Crusade contained the world's first travelling laundromat.
Because Saladin employed a scorched earth policy, razing cities to the ground before Richard could get there and poisoning all the wells, Richard could not trust local sources for water. And foraging parties didn't work either because Saracen soldiers surrounded the Crusaders, constantly watching for foragig parties to peel off, then attacking them.
Therefore Richard had to ensure that caravans carrying food and barrels of water followed the main army at all times, guarded by heavily armed escort knights. He carried a copy of Vegetius' De Re Militari, an ancient military manual that warns that dehydration and starvation are more likely to kill soldiers during long campaigns than actual enemy arrows or swords.
Jack Youngblood once wrote that "good luck is a residue of preparation." So maybe the reason Richard escaped almost certain death so many times, is because his preparations were more extensive and far-reaching than any other monarch of the time. It was necessary to put this much priority on planning. It was no easy task to send an army into a desert region to fight. Richard had to ensure that at least ONE port city remained in Christian hands during his entire time in the Holy Land, lest his supply convoy get cut off and he and his men starve to death. So even as he forged ahead, he had toleave men behind to guard and hold the territories he kept taking. So while he kept enlarging the Crusader/Christian footprint in the Holy Land, he was also spreading his army thinner and thinner.
That Richard was able to operate continously in the Holy Land for almost three years, winning seiges and battles in which he was hopelessly outnumbered, constantly rallyig his troops with his poetic aphorisms, and conducting some of the very first Naval landings, putting soldiers ashore using his boats (a tactic that is familar to many people now...D-Day is the most famous amphibious landing in the history of warfare...but in Richard's time such landings had never been done before). That Richard was successful at these landings is a feat of incredible magnitude. No army had ever travelled that far from their homeland nor had any army ever stayed in the field for as long as Richard the Lionheart's Crusaders. The Crusaders were held together by faith and zeal but also a deep love for their leader.
*SPOILER BUT NOT REALLY BECAUSE IT'S A WELL-KNOWN HISTORICAL FACT...
that Richard failed in his ultimate objective, which was to recapture Jerusalem and put it in Christian hands, he was able to secure safe passage for all Christian pilgrims coming to and from Jerusalem in a truce he signed with Saladin shortly before heading back to England in October 1192. While some view Richard as a failure, it was actually a prudent move. His army's numbers had been depleted to the point that they probably COULD have taken Jerusalem, but they wouldn't have been able to hold it. The reason for this is that once the Crusaders saw that they had taken Jerusalem, many of them would have believed their task complete and left the Holy Land ASAP. This would have left Jerusalem badly exposed, and completely vulnerable to a counterattack by Saladin's superior numbers.
The messages Saladin and Richard sent to each other shortly before the truce are unique in the annals of history. The two men had grown to grudgingly respect each other, and they said so in their letters. For his part, Saladin said "there is no King I would rather lose my Dominions to than you...assuming I would ever have to lose my Dominions at all." Richard praised Saladin for his much-vaunted patience and his prowess as a military commander. Both were incredible commanders, capable of "reading" battles, which is the art of knowing when to retreat, when toattack, and when to hunker down. Richard had the edge over Saladin in terms of adaptation on-the-fly. He often found himself in dangerous situations, escaping only by coming up with a daring plan and executing so fast that he and his flowing mane of red hair were long gone by the time the Saracens understood what had happened.
This book contains a decent amount of social history but, ultimately, it's a military history book. I'm not pro-war and I don't like gore (that rhymes!), but wars from 1000 years ago are sufficiently distant for me to read about them and not feel AS bad as when I read about WWII or Vietnam. This is not to say the Crusades were a good thing. I do not believe they were. I suppose I can just accept that it was primarily religious fervor that guided the Crusades, with the secondary aim of gaining territories for Christendom and the tertiary aim of chasing Islam out of the region, further East, as well as back toward Egypt.
I recommend this book for ANYONE interested in Richard the Lionheart's legacy, which is taking a lot of flak in the 21st Century (and understandably so). But it's unfair to judge a person by the standards of an era an entire millennium after they lived. Richard was an incredible war tactician, a patient and brutal strategist, a cunning and devious planner. Despite the fact that he was at war for virtually his entire adult life, Richard was undefeated in the battlefield at the time of his death. THAT is impressive.
Tasked with recapturing Jerusalem from Islamic control under Emperor Saladin, Richard launched 300 ships and embarked on a three-year campaign that resulted in his army recapturing almost the entire coastal strip (Jaffa, Acre, Tyre, etc), though it did not achieve its ultimate objective.
This book's central argument is this: Although Richard failed to recapture Jerusalem, the Third Crusade was still a success. It was far more successful than any other Crusade and it resulted in a more favourable terms for Christians than any other Crusade, and he captured more territory than any other crusading european monarch.
This book also demonstrates just how brave a warrior Richard was, constantly putting himself in harm's way and escaping by the ski of his teeth. The Saracens (Saladin's army) tried in vain to wound or capture Richard and never succeeded, even though Richard could always be found where the fighting was the fiercest, swinging his blood-axe and lopping off heads and arms with his gleaming sword. It's impressive.
It's also impressive how down-to-earth he was. Whenever something needed to be built (a battring ram, a watchtower, etc), the King of England would throw himself into the task to work amongst his highest ranking knights and his lowest ranking soldiers. His men LOVED him for this.
Most impressive is the careful logistical planning that went into the operation. Richard undertook many different preperatory journeys before each battle, conducting what we would now call "risk assessments." Richard calculated how much food and water his army needed by calculating the number of men and horses. He ensured that his men, while often exhausted and overheated in the pounding desert sun, never went without food or water. He even had a laundry service for his soldiers so they could wear clean clothes. I don't know for sure, but I think Richard's convoy during the Third Crusade contained the world's first travelling laundromat.
Because Saladin employed a scorched earth policy, razing cities to the ground before Richard could get there and poisoning all the wells, Richard could not trust local sources for water. And foraging parties didn't work either because Saracen soldiers surrounded the Crusaders, constantly watching for foragig parties to peel off, then attacking them.
Therefore Richard had to ensure that caravans carrying food and barrels of water followed the main army at all times, guarded by heavily armed escort knights. He carried a copy of Vegetius' De Re Militari, an ancient military manual that warns that dehydration and starvation are more likely to kill soldiers during long campaigns than actual enemy arrows or swords.
Jack Youngblood once wrote that "good luck is a residue of preparation." So maybe the reason Richard escaped almost certain death so many times, is because his preparations were more extensive and far-reaching than any other monarch of the time. It was necessary to put this much priority on planning. It was no easy task to send an army into a desert region to fight. Richard had to ensure that at least ONE port city remained in Christian hands during his entire time in the Holy Land, lest his supply convoy get cut off and he and his men starve to death. So even as he forged ahead, he had toleave men behind to guard and hold the territories he kept taking. So while he kept enlarging the Crusader/Christian footprint in the Holy Land, he was also spreading his army thinner and thinner.
That Richard was able to operate continously in the Holy Land for almost three years, winning seiges and battles in which he was hopelessly outnumbered, constantly rallyig his troops with his poetic aphorisms, and conducting some of the very first Naval landings, putting soldiers ashore using his boats (a tactic that is familar to many people now...D-Day is the most famous amphibious landing in the history of warfare...but in Richard's time such landings had never been done before). That Richard was successful at these landings is a feat of incredible magnitude. No army had ever travelled that far from their homeland nor had any army ever stayed in the field for as long as Richard the Lionheart's Crusaders. The Crusaders were held together by faith and zeal but also a deep love for their leader.
*SPOILER BUT NOT REALLY BECAUSE IT'S A WELL-KNOWN HISTORICAL FACT...
that Richard failed in his ultimate objective, which was to recapture Jerusalem and put it in Christian hands, he was able to secure safe passage for all Christian pilgrims coming to and from Jerusalem in a truce he signed with Saladin shortly before heading back to England in October 1192. While some view Richard as a failure, it was actually a prudent move. His army's numbers had been depleted to the point that they probably COULD have taken Jerusalem, but they wouldn't have been able to hold it. The reason for this is that once the Crusaders saw that they had taken Jerusalem, many of them would have believed their task complete and left the Holy Land ASAP. This would have left Jerusalem badly exposed, and completely vulnerable to a counterattack by Saladin's superior numbers.
The messages Saladin and Richard sent to each other shortly before the truce are unique in the annals of history. The two men had grown to grudgingly respect each other, and they said so in their letters. For his part, Saladin said "there is no King I would rather lose my Dominions to than you...assuming I would ever have to lose my Dominions at all." Richard praised Saladin for his much-vaunted patience and his prowess as a military commander. Both were incredible commanders, capable of "reading" battles, which is the art of knowing when to retreat, when toattack, and when to hunker down. Richard had the edge over Saladin in terms of adaptation on-the-fly. He often found himself in dangerous situations, escaping only by coming up with a daring plan and executing so fast that he and his flowing mane of red hair were long gone by the time the Saracens understood what had happened.
This book contains a decent amount of social history but, ultimately, it's a military history book. I'm not pro-war and I don't like gore (that rhymes!), but wars from 1000 years ago are sufficiently distant for me to read about them and not feel AS bad as when I read about WWII or Vietnam. This is not to say the Crusades were a good thing. I do not believe they were. I suppose I can just accept that it was primarily religious fervor that guided the Crusades, with the secondary aim of gaining territories for Christendom and the tertiary aim of chasing Islam out of the region, further East, as well as back toward Egypt.
I recommend this book for ANYONE interested in Richard the Lionheart's legacy, which is taking a lot of flak in the 21st Century (and understandably so). But it's unfair to judge a person by the standards of an era an entire millennium after they lived. Richard was an incredible war tactician, a patient and brutal strategist, a cunning and devious planner. Despite the fact that he was at war for virtually his entire adult life, Richard was undefeated in the battlefield at the time of his death. THAT is impressive.
December 22, 2014
This is a military man’s assessment of the military capabilities of Richard I of England. It does not attempt to analyze his capabilities as a politician or monarch, much less a son or husband, as the excellent forward by Major General Julian Thompson warns. As such it delivers very well indeed.
Miller, a retired British officer, first provides the context of Richard’s campaign in the Holy Land, and then a chronological account of it. Finally, the book looks at Richard's achievements by topic (combined operations, logistics, command). Perhaps because I was familiar with the sequence of events, I found the analysis in the last three chapters most useful.
While not a biography in the sense of providing the life story of its subject or insight into what made Richard Plantagenet who he was and what he did, it is a very useful supplement to other biographies. I highly recommend this book to anyone seriously interested in Richard, the period, or military history generally. It is particularly valuable because it highlights just how sophisticated and complex the crusades were and debunks notions of all medieval armies being little more than rabble and egotistical knights errant. After reading this book, my respect for military leadership in the middle ages increased significantly, and I look forward to applying many of the things I learned to my novel on Balian d’Ibelin.
Miller, a retired British officer, first provides the context of Richard’s campaign in the Holy Land, and then a chronological account of it. Finally, the book looks at Richard's achievements by topic (combined operations, logistics, command). Perhaps because I was familiar with the sequence of events, I found the analysis in the last three chapters most useful.
While not a biography in the sense of providing the life story of its subject or insight into what made Richard Plantagenet who he was and what he did, it is a very useful supplement to other biographies. I highly recommend this book to anyone seriously interested in Richard, the period, or military history generally. It is particularly valuable because it highlights just how sophisticated and complex the crusades were and debunks notions of all medieval armies being little more than rabble and egotistical knights errant. After reading this book, my respect for military leadership in the middle ages increased significantly, and I look forward to applying many of the things I learned to my novel on Balian d’Ibelin.
Read
March 31, 2024When considering the historical image of Richard I, what stands out most is his role as a military commander. While this aspect of his monarchy was hardly unique to Richard, as it was one played by both his predecessors and many of his contemporaries, it was one that enjoyed an particular prominence thanks to his participation in the Third Crusade. Until then the major kings of Europe had not led personally these high-profile military expeditions, and Richard’s conduct of this one ensured that he did not just garner the attention of the Christian world, but that he seized its imagination as well.
For the rest of my review, click on the link:
https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2024/...
For the rest of my review, click on the link:
https://www.bestbritishbios.com/2024/...
March 15, 2020
Remarks:Miller's book reads like a collection of appendices you might find at the end of a chronicle about Richard's role overseas, and I literally couldn't get enough of it.
I actually never realized how detailed the primary sources were about the march to Jaffa. It read like a daily log and it makes the history of it feel so visceral; details about the rations of foodstuffs and the transportation of horses for example were particularly interesting. Miller even goes so far as to compare the probable rations of Richard's army to rations distributed to British soldiers throughout other wars in history. This was literally one of those books that I wish was longer, but obviously Miller only had so many sources to elaborate on.
I want to end this on a quote straight from the mouth of the commander-in-chief, rivaling that of Shakespeare's Hal:
"Brave men should either conquer nobly, or gloriously die. Martyrdom is a boon which we should receive with willing mind: but before we die, let us whilst still alive do what may avenge our deaths, giving thanks to God that it has been our lot to die martyrs."
Thank god for contemporary chroniclers or all this would be lost to us.
I actually never realized how detailed the primary sources were about the march to Jaffa. It read like a daily log and it makes the history of it feel so visceral; details about the rations of foodstuffs and the transportation of horses for example were particularly interesting. Miller even goes so far as to compare the probable rations of Richard's army to rations distributed to British soldiers throughout other wars in history. This was literally one of those books that I wish was longer, but obviously Miller only had so many sources to elaborate on.
I want to end this on a quote straight from the mouth of the commander-in-chief, rivaling that of Shakespeare's Hal:
"Brave men should either conquer nobly, or gloriously die. Martyrdom is a boon which we should receive with willing mind: but before we die, let us whilst still alive do what may avenge our deaths, giving thanks to God that it has been our lot to die martyrs."
Thank god for contemporary chroniclers or all this would be lost to us.
September 26, 2020
Not what I expected or needed. I thought it would be a short bio of Richard III. Turned out to only focus on the Third Crusade. Which is certainly an important part of Richard's like.
As far as the subject matter, there are some very interesting discussions. Richard's tug-of-war with the French in his army was extremely interesting. As was the description of his march to Jaffa. Richard seems to have a real gift for the strategic side of war, especially on a mobile basis. And I knew nothing about Jaffa before reading this book. Further, any discussion of how the multinational Crusader army decided to do things is fascinating - they essentially had juries made up of the various factions to decide the entire army's next moves. Crusader armies might be more interesting than I thought.
At the same time, Miller doesn't really present an unbiased assessment of Richard either. He makes some great points to be sure, but at a certain point he should have analyzed a bit more why Richard was unwilling to just stay until he could at least march on Jerusalem. I also felt like Miller just really wanted to talk about how irritating the French were to Richard without discussing his role in exacerbating some of those tensions.
Either way, only ok.
As far as the subject matter, there are some very interesting discussions. Richard's tug-of-war with the French in his army was extremely interesting. As was the description of his march to Jaffa. Richard seems to have a real gift for the strategic side of war, especially on a mobile basis. And I knew nothing about Jaffa before reading this book. Further, any discussion of how the multinational Crusader army decided to do things is fascinating - they essentially had juries made up of the various factions to decide the entire army's next moves. Crusader armies might be more interesting than I thought.
At the same time, Miller doesn't really present an unbiased assessment of Richard either. He makes some great points to be sure, but at a certain point he should have analyzed a bit more why Richard was unwilling to just stay until he could at least march on Jerusalem. I also felt like Miller just really wanted to talk about how irritating the French were to Richard without discussing his role in exacerbating some of those tensions.
Either way, only ok.
March 29, 2020
Like book
January 14, 2011
Richard was Count of Anjou and Duke of Normandy and Aquitain
Third Crusade---1095-1464 series of expeditions that lasted nearly four centuries. This was England's first Maritime adventure. 200 ships. 80 capacity
Richard was there from 1190-1192. Main purpose was to take Jerusalem from Saladin. Never did it.
Arabs were called Saracens (means someone who comes from the east). Also called Mussulmen, Turks or Infidils
Saladin was a Kurd, born in what is today, Iraq, in 1138. Made Egypt his center and took Danascus, Aleppo and Mosul. Invasion of Kingdom of Jerusalem began 1187
Battle of Hattin--in the Galilee Saladin ordered the execution of every captured Knight Templar. Fragment of Holy Cross captured
Acre-today is Akkpo. 30 miles south of Tyre Seige from 1189-1191.Richard ordered the execution of 3000 prisoners. He could not feed them
Templars and Hospitallers were military knights. They developed a fierce rivalry Cavalry was made up of knights and aristocracy
Franks-- Middle Eastern countries called all Western Europeans Franks
Pope Urban II Proposed the First Crusade in 1096. Three groups set out. First to arrive was Godfrey of Bouillon who became first ruler of Jerusalem followed by his brother Baldwin in 1100. Jerusalem was taken in 1099 and 40,000 men women and children were murdered by the crusaders
Byzantine Emperor at the time was Alexius I Comnenus. New states were set up: Antioch, Edessa and Tripoli
Zanggi took Edessa in 1144 and the second crusade then started with Louis VII and Eleanor
Turcopoles--people who had one European parent and the other from the local population
Baldwin IV (died of leperosy) couldn't have children so his sister Sibylla married William of Montferrat..he died and she married Guy Lusignan (silly)her husband became Baldwin's successer
Cyprus--ruled by Asserians from 800-550BC when Egypt took it followed by Persia in 525 and Alexander 333-323, then Egypt until Rome took it in 58BC and Byzantium in 330 AD-1191 when Issac a despot, lost to Richard. Issac asked not to be put in iron chains so Richard had silver ones made!!!!
1191 Richard and Berengaria were married in the Chapel of St George in Cyprus. Richard sold Cyprus to the Templars.
Far more crusaders died from sickness than from battle
Leopold of Austria kidnapped Richard on his return to England
Apollonia-Arsuf, today the city of Herzliya, (9 miles north of Jaffa) is where St George slew the dragon
Richard always rode at the point of Maximum threat. Hospitllars and Templars took turns at front and rear guard
Richard issued the erliest known naval disciplinary codes: Punishment for killing was to be tied to the corpse and either thrown into the sea or buried in a common grave. Fist cut off for drawing or using a knife.Dipped in the sea 3 times for striking a blow.Shorn, tarred and feathered and left at the next landfall for theft.
Crusades--lots of dissention, confusion and discord. Rivalry and internal feuding.French and English split up.
Henry of Champagne was nephew to both the king of France and Richard. Married Isabella, Sibylla's half sister, after Conrad was murdered and was named King of Jerusalem. Lived in Tyre.
Richard and Saladin formed a three year truce where Christian pilgims could freely go to the Holy Sepulchre (1192). Richard gave up attempt to take Jerusalem as he was too far from provisions at the sea, Saladin applied "scorched earth" policy, poisoned wells (main reason for not going ahead with the second advancement on Jerusalem) and surrounded Richard's troups so closely that they could not forage. and so many horses died they were eating horse flesh and fighting over it
Richard knighted Saphadin's son. A unique honour for a Muslim.
Hashishiyyin--Islamic military (1090-1256) order who carried out murders (mostly Muslims) under the influence of drugs. Very powerful. Assination comes from this word.This group held a castle south of Antioch, in the mountains (castle of Kahf). Sinan ibn Salman ibn Mohammad (1162-1192) was known to the crusaders as "The Old Man of the Mountains" (killed for money)
Mohammad died 632. Split into Sunnis who believed elected Caliphs of Bagdad were rightful successers and Shias, who said descendents of the prophet's daughter, Fatima, should be in authority. Ismailis split off from Shias. They formed the Fatimid caliphate but were toppled by Saladin, a Sunni.
Destrier--expensive well bred horse available only to nobility
Courser--cavalry horse available to most knights
Palfry--not fast but comfortable to ride
Rouncey-pack horse.
Each knight had 3 horses and each needed 12 gallons of water a day.
Followers in the army consisted of 9 others to every one knight (priests, blacksmiths, cartdrivers, laundry women)
Outremers--the descendents of Christians who had settled in the Holy land after the first and second crusade.
Army consumed 67 tons of solids every day.
Third Crusade---1095-1464 series of expeditions that lasted nearly four centuries. This was England's first Maritime adventure. 200 ships. 80 capacity
Richard was there from 1190-1192. Main purpose was to take Jerusalem from Saladin. Never did it.
Arabs were called Saracens (means someone who comes from the east). Also called Mussulmen, Turks or Infidils
Saladin was a Kurd, born in what is today, Iraq, in 1138. Made Egypt his center and took Danascus, Aleppo and Mosul. Invasion of Kingdom of Jerusalem began 1187
Battle of Hattin--in the Galilee Saladin ordered the execution of every captured Knight Templar. Fragment of Holy Cross captured
Acre-today is Akkpo. 30 miles south of Tyre Seige from 1189-1191.Richard ordered the execution of 3000 prisoners. He could not feed them
Templars and Hospitallers were military knights. They developed a fierce rivalry Cavalry was made up of knights and aristocracy
Franks-- Middle Eastern countries called all Western Europeans Franks
Pope Urban II Proposed the First Crusade in 1096. Three groups set out. First to arrive was Godfrey of Bouillon who became first ruler of Jerusalem followed by his brother Baldwin in 1100. Jerusalem was taken in 1099 and 40,000 men women and children were murdered by the crusaders
Byzantine Emperor at the time was Alexius I Comnenus. New states were set up: Antioch, Edessa and Tripoli
Zanggi took Edessa in 1144 and the second crusade then started with Louis VII and Eleanor
Turcopoles--people who had one European parent and the other from the local population
Baldwin IV (died of leperosy) couldn't have children so his sister Sibylla married William of Montferrat..he died and she married Guy Lusignan (silly)her husband became Baldwin's successer
Cyprus--ruled by Asserians from 800-550BC when Egypt took it followed by Persia in 525 and Alexander 333-323, then Egypt until Rome took it in 58BC and Byzantium in 330 AD-1191 when Issac a despot, lost to Richard. Issac asked not to be put in iron chains so Richard had silver ones made!!!!
1191 Richard and Berengaria were married in the Chapel of St George in Cyprus. Richard sold Cyprus to the Templars.
Far more crusaders died from sickness than from battle
Leopold of Austria kidnapped Richard on his return to England
Apollonia-Arsuf, today the city of Herzliya, (9 miles north of Jaffa) is where St George slew the dragon
Richard always rode at the point of Maximum threat. Hospitllars and Templars took turns at front and rear guard
Richard issued the erliest known naval disciplinary codes: Punishment for killing was to be tied to the corpse and either thrown into the sea or buried in a common grave. Fist cut off for drawing or using a knife.Dipped in the sea 3 times for striking a blow.Shorn, tarred and feathered and left at the next landfall for theft.
Crusades--lots of dissention, confusion and discord. Rivalry and internal feuding.French and English split up.
Henry of Champagne was nephew to both the king of France and Richard. Married Isabella, Sibylla's half sister, after Conrad was murdered and was named King of Jerusalem. Lived in Tyre.
Richard and Saladin formed a three year truce where Christian pilgims could freely go to the Holy Sepulchre (1192). Richard gave up attempt to take Jerusalem as he was too far from provisions at the sea, Saladin applied "scorched earth" policy, poisoned wells (main reason for not going ahead with the second advancement on Jerusalem) and surrounded Richard's troups so closely that they could not forage. and so many horses died they were eating horse flesh and fighting over it
Richard knighted Saphadin's son. A unique honour for a Muslim.
Hashishiyyin--Islamic military (1090-1256) order who carried out murders (mostly Muslims) under the influence of drugs. Very powerful. Assination comes from this word.This group held a castle south of Antioch, in the mountains (castle of Kahf). Sinan ibn Salman ibn Mohammad (1162-1192) was known to the crusaders as "The Old Man of the Mountains" (killed for money)
Mohammad died 632. Split into Sunnis who believed elected Caliphs of Bagdad were rightful successers and Shias, who said descendents of the prophet's daughter, Fatima, should be in authority. Ismailis split off from Shias. They formed the Fatimid caliphate but were toppled by Saladin, a Sunni.
Destrier--expensive well bred horse available only to nobility
Courser--cavalry horse available to most knights
Palfry--not fast but comfortable to ride
Rouncey-pack horse.
Each knight had 3 horses and each needed 12 gallons of water a day.
Followers in the army consisted of 9 others to every one knight (priests, blacksmiths, cartdrivers, laundry women)
Outremers--the descendents of Christians who had settled in the Holy land after the first and second crusade.
Army consumed 67 tons of solids every day.
January 29, 2025
It focuses on the life of Richard the Lionheart and brilliance of his military tactics. The Third Crusade is the main focus obviously but the author threw in other lesser known battles of the Lionheart as well. My favorite section was surprisingly the Conquest of Cyprus. It never gets talked about despite showing Richard's quick thinking and intelligence in battle.
Overall I loved this book it really does the Crusader King justice.
5/5
Overall I loved this book it really does the Crusader King justice.
5/5
December 9, 2010
Just finished this. Two thumbs way up!
Displaying 1 - 9 of 9 reviews