The Itinerrium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Richard and The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart by Ambroise - Research Paper Example

? The Third Crusade “The Itinerrium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Richard” and “The Crusade of Richard Lion-Heart” by Ambroise are nice chronicles of events that took place during the third crusade. Ambroise gives elaborate events that took place during that error of the crusade under the opposing leadership of the King of England, Richard, and the Muslim leader, Maladine, who are both known figures of the crusade. Ambroise does not just give the chronology of events but he takes keen study of the characters of the mentioned leaders and how their conduct contributed to the outcome of the war. This work is written for scholars who would want to trace the events that took place during the third crusade and the historians who would want to have facts about the same at hand. The paper is also meant to inform the readers of the figures that were behind the crusade and how each of them contributed to the struggle of rescuing and maintaining the ruler-ship of Jerusalem. The genre with which this work is written is kind of a narrative with blends the illustrations and examples that vividly make the reader grasp every element of the author’s thought. The text is elaborate and the evidences given are backed by references from other works thus authenticating it beyond doubts. The text though seems to be biased towards its analysis and projection of the opponent, the Muslim, who is the occupant of Jerusalem. Their leader Saladin is portrayed as a bad person yet to some extent the things that he did were much similar to those that Richard of England did. Richard is defended in the text for his deeds and he is showered with praises all through the text. Firstly, Richard is portrayed as a leader and a warrior who is a schemer with great intelligence. He thinks ahead of time and he takes due consideration of his subject. During the initial stages of the third crusade, he knew and he had a feeling that it was very possible to conquer Jerusalem, but it needed more than that1. In his wisdom, there was a possibility of the win but maintaining the city after the conquest would pose a great challenge for him. This is because the soldiers and the crusaders would have loved to go back home to their people who had missed them. As the King, he had the authority of forcing the soldiers to take guard of the city but instead, his understanding stood open and in that consideration, he laid further strategies of laying the attack without offending his people both at home and in the battlefield. In the effect of this, Richard upon the in-depth analysis and understanding of the situation. He came to the realization that the dual combination of the Saladin’s powerful control of Egypt and Syria permitted him to in effect take control and surround the crusaders. Because of his deep concern for others and the loyalty that he enjoyed, he had the stamina of power and humor of love that made him a powerful man in the crusade. He had the audacity to face danger and even in the farce face of defeat, he lost no hope and with resilience, he often snatches victory from the hand of defeat. This made his people believe in him. It is a natural thing that people would always follow the leader who assures them victory even in the face of confusion. His strategies were clear and even when there was uncertainty in the direction to follow, he promised victory by offering clear formula and methods of war and attacks2. Richard is further portrayed to have human attitude. He is empathetic and never had he wanted to put people to death. This is a thought which is quite paradoxical. When he was faced with conflicting situations, he had no choice but to slay a number of people. At the time, he wanted to make advances to the south, he was faced with a situation. He had two options; to set the war prisoners free or to leave a section of his soldiers in the guard or to kill them. As a rational thinker and a competent soldier, leaving a section of his soldier to take captive the prisoners would weaken his force. Therefore, this option was ruled out. Freeing the prisoners would render the meaning of war and the purpose of the attacks meaningless. This option was also rendered useless. He remained with one option which also conflicted with his thoughts. He decided to put over 3000 prisoners to death. This was a very contradictory image to the sober and human portrayal that he is given. This was an act that was primarily meant to set him free from the feared opponents that he had. This indeed was to his military advantage and it thus enabled him to advance further with the attack and with the stamina of victory. It was not in the thought of the King of England Richard to kill the prisoner; it was as a result of the actions of Saladin. Saladin did not honor the terms of agreement that they had laid. The King of the Muslim had hidden agendas to conquer and dupe Richard. The Itinerarium are endlessly positive in their portrayal of Richard. Richard is described as a very generous leader who minded the welfare of his soldiers in the battle field. He gives them the basic necessities and he feeds them well. The leader also gives them ample time of interaction and experiencing new things of life. His subjects were delighted by the degree of courage that he displayed without feared. It was unexpected like other leaders of mighty superiority as his to be humble and interact with his subjects in harmony and love. This is a leader who has been compared to many warriors of history. He is given a positive projection of might. He is further projected as a man of valour, compared to Alexander the Great. His valour is likened to the charisma of Ronald, his might not in any way less than that of Hector. Indeed he is a person who is in all means mightier than the notable figures of his history. His splendour is greatly admirable thus putting him to the cadre of the great records of history. Ambroise further describe Richard in mighty terms. He says that Richards’s actions have surpassed many warriors and soldiers of history no matter what their glory be. He is portrayed as a man of valor and a person of action. His actions are seen in how he leads his warriors and at how he executes his duties. Richard is very well portrayed as a man of courage and admirable in all characters but the Itinerarium does not of Richard rashness. Richard thought that he was very safe that he forgot that he had enemies all over him. That act of complacence made him nearly to be caught by the Saladin’s soldiers. This was going to be an ambush attack because he was walking alone without guard and security. This was not very wise of him as a commander of a great army with enemies who are also tactful and technical. After this episode immediately, sources close to him and his household also somehow got worried of the recklessness of this great warrior. He assumed most of the time to be safe not knowing that his life was a protection to many and his freedom is freedom to the entire nation. He did not take this seriously that is why he did his things aimlessly. Ambrois in his description also take a mention of this, he noted that men of good counsel ought to put Richard in wits and wisdom to allow him mend his thought and ways lets he drop in the chains of the enemy. The Iltinerarium describes Richard rashness as a negative character though in their description, they pose a criticism to anybody who may hold the same thought that could suggest the same. They say that Richard had a spirit that is not subjects to conquest. He is portrayed as a man who does not sleep and surrender to the negative opposing authority and he knew how to study the time and the situation that is why he had never landed as a victim of negative influence and that nether was he about to be a victim of war. These assessments of Richard seem to be supported by many sources and even people from the opposing side the Muslims. Baha al-Din gives a description of Richard as a man who made the Muslims to lie in the hand of defeat due to the might of Richard. Baha notes and recognizes the courageous, and the energetic nature of Richard. He further appreciates that Richard is a man who was daring in combat and warrior renown by all. Ibn-al-arthur an Arabic historian gives a description of Richard as a courageous man, a man of resilience, persistence, wise in character and generous in giving. This is a list long enough to pour praises to this noble man. In no doubt, he is a man of valor and a leader to be emulated. It is also noted that the King of England’s kingdom was not very much powerful in comparison to the French, but his measure of wealth, good and admirable reputation, valor and greatness superseded all the other Kingdoms. Richard like any other human being was prone to error and sometimes he could do things that contradicted his faith and his word but whenever such instances arouse, he was justified to have taken such actions and measure. For example when he killed the greater number of Muslims, he had no option because he did not want to expose his soldier to more danger of the attack. The outcome of the crusade depended on a number of factors. First the mighty and the strategy of Richard contributed to this victory above everything else. The soldiers of England were optimistic enough and they believed in victory. It is also worth noting that once a people are lead by a mighty person, the courage of that leader has the tendency of precipitating itself to the life of others. Richard undoubtedly had good and clear direction to his people. He left nothing to chance but he was endlessly determined to win the war at all cost. Clarity of things makes other things to get aligned to the set orders. This was the reason of the win by the Christians. Good coordination, motivation of soldiers and respect for them by their leader Richard charged them to go for nothing less than a win. Chroniclers take not of the courage and the keenness of Richard. He studied the structure of the enemy’s territory and their strategy of war. He acted as though he was a person who was of total peace of which he had other laid strategies to ensure that victory was to the Christians. Richard sought collaboration with other nations like the French. He believed in collaboration thereby getting moral support and other necessary assistance from that made victory an item of possibility to him (Richard)3. The Chronicler Ambrose compares the outcome of the war to an analogy of the hand of God. In the Itinerarium, there is also an analogy of the stick of the hand of God which links and reflects the outcome of the victory on the conduct of Richard during the entire period of the third crusade. Saladin according to Ambrois make a note that they won and sometimes lost the battle to Richard not because of the superiority of ARichard but because it took the hand of God to communicate to them their evil and the wrongs that they had committed. To them, lose and victory was a direct punishment and reward from God. To the losers, God rendered his punishment and the Muslims took this as the meaning of their loss. On the other hand, Christians believed that they were fighting for the right cause: a cause that was meant to deliver the Holy Land from the hands of the unbelievers: the Muslims. Chroniclers are keen in their description of the outcome of the third Crusade, they not various traits of Richard as a man who was keen in his dealings and perhaps he was for the overall good of the majority. He delighted in the win and he never took pride in the loss. His treatment of the opponent led to an amicable compromise of the outcome of the war. He was rationally led and he took the wise advice of the elders4. He projected the ultimate goals not as lose or a win but as an endeavor that at the moment would do good the majority. The crusade saw thousands of people perishing to death. There were mighty killings of Christians by the Muslim community and also on the other hand Muslim prisoners died in the hands of Richard king of England just in the attempt to take control of the city of Jerusalem5. This was portrayed as a negative thing being that both the parties that were involved in the fight and the struggle were religious groups which should in effect handle human life with caution just from the very principle that life is sacred. There were treacherous killings by Saladin of innocent men contrary to the reason of the war just to take control of Egypt. Saladin: a man who came to power by killing and assassinating the opponents came to the crusade war not with a mind of only conquering Jerusalem but he also came much armed to kill the Christians and sweep them completely from Jerusalem. During the war, Christians suffered the cruelty of Saladin. He had many Christians murdered in cold blood, Christians were slaughtered under his command, they were bruised and wounded because of the merciless and vengeful Saladin. Most of the prominent Christians who had great influence in the war and those who stood to defend Christian faith were not also spared. They suffered the immense inhuman act and wrath of Saladin. Some of them were beheaded, and others taken to captivity with cruel punishments and they were ultimately slain to death mercilessly. Saladin is reported to have been boastful enough. He boasted in front of some Christians who later noted that could be God’s wrath had befallen the Christian community who were resentful enough to allow Muslims to occupy the holy land6. One of them noted that just like any earthly father would grad a filthy stick and uses it to punish his son and thereafter the father does not through the child to the dust bin but the stick. In the like manner they knew that because of their transgression, God was using this evil leader to punish them that ultimately, they were sure that their heavenly father would deliver them. There is a lot of pretence that were noted during the period of this historic crusade. Richard was an emissary of peace. He sought peace with Saladin and he signed truce with him, a truce that allowed their communication to be of peace and acceptance. However this appeared to be a contradiction of Saladin character. The paradox still unfolds when Saladin accepts the bishop from England who was sent by Richard. Saladin further shows this Bishop much kindness and in effect he joins his men to further this act of goodness7. The filthiness of Saladin blankets all this attempts to show goodness and kindness after all the inhuman acts that he showed to the enemy. Richard, a man of peace who is not hungry for power seeks peace in all manners that is why he endlessly seeks to ensure that peace be the result of his endeavors. Richard abode by the signed treaty between his opponent Saladin and him. But to the contrary, Saladin did not immediately made the truce to be effective, he vengefully had the pain of the loss of his people and he went behind the scene to ensure that Christian heads were chopped off. Richard did not take this act personally to launch further attacks because in his thought and consideration, he did not want to pay a wrong with a wrong. Instead, he wanted to share Christian love with the Muslim, which is why he categorically chose to send an ambassador of peace: the bishop to Saladin. References Asbridge, Thomas S., and Susan Edgington. 1999. Walter the Chancellor's The Antiochene wars: a translation and commentary. Aldershot: Ashgate. Geoffrey de Vinsauf, Geoffrey, Louis, and Jean Joinville. 1850. Itinerary of Richard I. and others, to the holy land. [England]: [F. & H. Cox (Bros.)]. Housley, Norman, and Malcolm Barber. 2007. Knighthoods of Christ: essays on the history of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, presented to Malcolm Barber. Aldershot, England: Ashgate. Hunyadi, Zsolt, and Jo?zsef Laszlovszky. 2001. The crusades and the military orders: expanding the frontiers of medieval Latin christianity. Budapest: Central European University, Department of Medieval Studies. Hunyadi, Zsolt, and Jo?zsef Laszlovszky. 2001. The crusades and the military orders: expanding the frontiers of medieval Latin christianity. Budapest: Central European University, Department of Medieval Studies. Nicolle, David. 2006. The Third Crusade 1191: Richard the Lionheart, Saladin and the struggle for Jerusalem. Oxford [u.a.]: Osprey. Riley-Smith, Jonathan Simon Christopher. 1997. The Oxford illustrated history of the Crusades. Oxford: Oxford University Press. Read More