Posted on 07/24/2016 11:19:58 AM PDT by marshmallow
When we look back on the Third Crusade (1189-1192) it is all but impossible not to be struck by how close King Richard and the Christian host came to decisively defeating Saladin and re-taking Jerusalem. Twice during the campaign—in January 1192 and again in July 1192—the crusaders advanced to within a dozen or so miles of the Holy City, only to withdraw without making a serious effort to besiege it. In this brief essay, I will attempt to explain the strategic decision to abandon the first advance on Jerusalem in 1191/2.
From Acre to Bayt Nuba
During the summer and autumn of 1191, the crusaders enjoyed a series of operational successes that appeared to set the stage for a decisive thrust toward Jerusalem. First, in early July they had taken the port city of Acre—despite concerted efforts on the part of Saladin to break the Christian siege and relieve the garrison—thus not only securing a strategically and politically important city, but also shattering the myth of Saladin’s invincibility. Under King Richard’s leadership (Philip of France having departed the Holy Land shortly after the fall of Acre) they had then marched south along the coast, besting Saladin once again at the battle of Arsuf (September 7), and taking Jaffa (September 10), the port that offered the best jumping-off point for an advance on Jerusalem. From there, the crusaders had begun moving cautiously inland, taking Casal des Plains and Casal Moyen (October 31), the nearest of the fortifications that had been built to protect the road to Jerusalem. As these had been destroyed by Saladin as a delaying tactic, and the crusaders had been forced to spend the following two weeks rebuilding them.
Once these fortifications were restored, Richard had advanced once again, this time taking Ramla (17 November) and forcing Saladin to......
(Excerpt) Read more at crisismagazine.com ...
A lot of what ifs...
Napoleon had plans to take Istanbul (Constantinople)
Same with Russians until the French and British went to battle in the Crimean War...
Because he preferred Arab boys to English maidens?
And Saladin knew that so long as Richard was negotiating anything at all, he was safe. He was buying time and Richard was paying for it. this seems a common failing of civilized Westerners. Negotiate until the enemy prevails on the battlefield. Then try to negotiate some more.
Pro-Muslim liberal Revisionists say that Christian King Richard was homosexual to cover up their own Sodomy. Islam, however, has been Sodomite from its very inception. Which is why liberals and Muslims always defend each other.
Yep...Hudna
Yet the strange irony is that the Muslims will kill the homosexual. Very strange religion.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.