The Bloodiest Day of the Third Crusade – Richard I and Saladin at the Battle of Arsuf

by Charlene Newcomb

Richard I of England

King Richard I and his allies successfully secured the city of Acre in July 1191, and the second phase of the campaign to free Jerusalem from Saladin’s forces began. For years, scholars have debated whether Richard and his crusader army could have taken and held Jerusalem, which had been captured by their enemies in October 1187. One issue most Western scholars agree on was the need for Christian control of towns along the coastline south of Acre to Jaffa and the need for a secure supply route from Jaffa to Jerusalem—over 30 miles—to replenish the army for what was expected to be a drawn-out siege.

On the 22nd day of August, the Lionheart's army marched from Acre. Estimated to be 15,000-20,000 strong, the troops advanced slowly at first, 2 or 3 miles a day.

Marches began well before sunrise. As the men became acclimatized to the heat, they covered 10-13 miles a day, usually halting by midday and often resting a day. Between August 25 - August 30, 36 miles were covered. By September 5th, they'd advanced another 23 miles of the 80 mile trek between Acre and Jaffa.

The Holy Land in 1191-92

Saladin wasted no time: his cavalry harassed the crusader army every step of the way. The Muslim chronicler Baha' al-Din wrote that Saracen drummers and trumpeters played as their troops charged the Franks, a term they used for all European Christians. The Muslims would cry out 'Allah huwa Akbar' and fall on the crusaders in one cavalry charge after another. King Richard was wounded slightly during a skirmish on September 3rd, but he fought all the more fiercely. The author of the Itinerarium writes:

"...the wound was only a touch and actually incited him to attack the enemy as he was greedy to seek revenge for the pain of the wound."

The march was grueling. In the west, armies could live off the land, but the size of Richard’s army, the terrain, and Saladin’s scorched earth policy made this impossible. Miller suggests the typical man-at-arms carried over 30 pounds of food and his weapons. He might wear padded gambesons, hauberks, and chausses in the scorching August and September heat.

In addition to physical challenges, the men had to traverse a 12-mile stretch of the Forest of Arsuf. Rumors spread that the Saracens would set fire to the forest whilst the crusaders passed. Per Ambroise:

The unbelieving black-faced brood,
Had hid themselves in Arsur wood,
Which that day they would set on fire,
Kindling it to a blaze so dire
And fearsome that 'twould burn and roast
Our army.

Much to their relief, the army marched through the forest without incident. The way was narrow and Saladin's troops could not shadow them and had skirted further to the east. The crusaders emerged from the forest near the banks of the River Rochetaillie. Saladin's army was camped on the south side of the river. And there they rested two nights within sight of each other, each watching the other's campfires burn throughout the night.

The Battle of Arsuf, 7 Sept 1191

At sunrise on 7 September, King Richard ordered his men to move out. He had given the troops strict orders not to break rank no matter what the Saracens did. The crusaders' baggage train rumbled along the western flank nearest the sea. The infantry lined the eastern flank armed with shields, crossbows, and lances to ward off attacks and to protect the knights' horses. The knights themselves were divided into five divisions with Templars at the vanguard and Hospitallers in the rear.

Three hours into the march, the Saracens attacked the rearguard in what began the fiercest battle of the Third Crusade. An estimated 25,000 Saracens met the crusader army on a 1-2 mile wide plateau that skirted the Mediterranean Sea. (Other estimates claim the Saracens outnumbered the Crusaders two-to-one.)

Salāh al-Dīn

Saladin's strategy aimed to draw the crusaders out of their tight formation, but Richard knew that with each attack, Saladin's men and their horses would grow weaker. Had Saladin been successful and forced a gap between the crusaders' van- and rearguards, the battle would have played out much differently.

Despite Richard’s orders, the Hospitaller commander Fra' Garnier de Nablus urged the king to order a charge. At one point, the infantry had to march backwards to stave off repeated Saracen attacks. Casualties were mounting. So many horses had succumbed to enemy arrows, de Nablus said they'd not be able to charge when the order did come down. By mid afternoon, Saladin broadened his assaults along the length of the army's eastern flank. Richard still would not bend, but men in the rearguard grew desperate. They broke rank and began the charge. There was no turning back. Trumpets blared the signal and the Templars, Poitevins, French, and Bretons joined the Hospitaller charge. The Anglo-Normans held back to guard the royal standard, and as a second line of attack.

Muslim chronicler Baha' al-Dīn writes:

. . . the sultan [Saladin] was moving between the left wing and the right, urging the men on . . . Several times I encountered him, when he was attended by only two pages with two spare mounts and that was all . . . while the arrows were flying past them both.

The enemy's situation worsened still more . . . They took their lances and gave a shout as one man. The infantry opened gaps for them and they charged in unison along their whole line . . . Our men gave way before them.

Surprised by the all-out assault, Saladin's troops pulled back to avoid being encircled by the crusaders. Regrouping, the Saracens charged a second time. Attack, counter-attack. Geoffrey de Vinsauf writes:

In truth, the Turks were furious in the assault, and greatly distressed our men, whose blood poured forth in a stream beneath their blows . . . For all that, the king, mounted on a bay Cyprian steed, which had not its match, bounded forward in the direction of the mountains, and scattered those he met on all sides ; for the enemy fled from his sword and gave way. . .

By nightfall the fighting ended. Seven thousand Saracens had died. The Christian losses were a tenth of that number. A deadly day.

It was the last full assault Saladin would attempt against Richard and his Crusader army. Saladin had now lost Acre and a significant number of men. His army was tired and demoralized. This was a major victory for the Crusaders. Jerusalem lay within reach.

Sources:
Ambroise. (1976). The crusade of Richard Lion-Heart. (Trans. by M.J. Hubert.) New  York: Octagon.

Bohm, H., ed. (2004). Chronicles of the Crusades: contemporary narratives. London: Kegan Paul.

Evans, Mark L. (2001). "Battle of Arsuf: climatic clash of cross and crescent," in Military History, 18:3.

Ibn al-Athīr, 'Izz al-Din. (2007). The chronicle of ibn al-athīr for the crusading period from al-kāmil fi’l-ta’rīkh. (Trans by Richards, D. S.) Aldershot ; Burlington, VT: Ashgate.

Ibn Shaddād al-Dīn. (2001). The rare and excellent history of Saladin, or, al-Nawādir al-Sultaniyya wa’l-Mahasin al-Yusufiyya. (Trans by Richards, D. S.) Aldershot, Hants, England: Ashgate.

Latham, Andrew. (2015, Aug. 23) Analysis: Had the Crusaders Taken Jerusalem in 1192, Could They Have Held It? Retrieved from http://www.aalatham.com/#!ANALYSIS-Had-the-Crusaders-Taken-Jerusalem-in-1192-Could-They-Have-Held-it/c149s/55d9d2e90cf2083e080d4e55

Miller, David. (2003). Richard the Lionheart: the mighty crusader. London: Weidenfeld & Nicolson.

Nicholson, H. & Stubbs, W., trans. (1997). Chronicle of the third crusade : A translation of the itinerarium peregrinorum et gesta regis ricardi. Aldershot, Hants, England ; Brookfield, Vt.: Ashgate.

Images

Richard I of England by Merry-Joseph Blondel [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Map of the Holy Land, c2014 Dennis Lukowski, commissioned by the author and used with his permission.

"Schlacht von Arsuf" By Eloi Firmin Feron (1802-1876) (de:wiki) [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

Saladin By Domonic Camalleri [Public domain], via Wikimedia Commons.

[this post is an Editors' choice and was originally published on September 6th 2015]
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Charlene Newcomb is the author of the Battle Scars series, 12th century historical fiction filled with war, political intrigue, and a knightly romance of forbidden love set during the reign of Richard the Lionheart. She is currently working on a new medieval tale set during King John’s reign; and in summer 2020 will publish Echoes of the Storm, a sci fi/space opera filled with rebels and traitors and battles and romance in a galaxy far, far away (no, not Star Wars). Sign up for Char’s Newsletter for exclusives, including a free short story, and other special offers. Find her books on Amazon & connect with Char on Facebook, Twitter, or Instagram.

 

Richard the Lionheart's Noble Adversary - Saladin

By Helena Schrader

Richard the Lionheart was a man of war, and he had many adversaries in his lifetime. He fought his father more than once in his early years, with his father against the rebellious lords of the Aquitaine and against the French King even more frequently. He spent the last six years of his life in a bitter struggle against King Philip II. Yet of all his adversaries, few have captured the imagination of chroniclers, novelists or artists as much as the man he fought in the Holy Land - Sultan Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, more commonly known as Saladin.

Saladin has long been viewed as the epitome of “chivalry.” His honesty and sense of honor is often compared favorably to the duplicity and dishonor of Richard's Christian foes such as the Holy Roman Emperor and Philip of France. Indeed, in the 19th century it became common to suggest that, while the crusaders (including Richard!) were treacherous barbarians, Saladin stood out as a paragon of virtue and honor, a shining light of decency and chivalry in an otherwise brutal age. This is the view of Saladin that dictated the highly sympathetic portrayal in Ridley Scott's film “The Kingdom of Heaven.”

The Hollywood Saladin - "The Kingdom of Heaven"

This positive view of Saladin in Western literature is largely attributable to a biography of Saladin published by Stanley Lane-Poole in 1898. This was arguably the first scholarly biography of the 12th century Kurdish leader in the English language, and Lane-Poole made a major contribution to Western scholarship by drawing upon Arab sources for his work. Unfortunately, he did so uncritically, adopting without scruple the purely adulatory descriptions of Saladin penned by the Sultan’s court biographers. Indeed, Lane-Poole is so completely under the spell of his Arab sources that he claims:

“...civilization, magnanimity, toleration, real chivalry, and gentle culture were all on the side of the Saracens.” 

With this statement, Lane-Poole dismisses Richard the Lionheart, the troubadour and paragon of Western chivalry, without so much as a mention.

Yet, as Andrew Ehrenkreutz meticulously documents in his biography of Saladin, far from being the embodiment of "magnanimity, real chivalry and gentle culture," Saladin used deceit, hypocrisy, propaganda, bribery, extortion, murder and, ultimately aggressive war to establish an empire in the Near East. Notably, Saladin spent much more time and many more resources fighting (and killing) fellow Muslims than he did fighting Christians, and that Saladin was responsible for the loss of many more Sunni Muslim lives than Christian ones.

Furthermore, the many instances in which Saladin treated former foes with leniency, often awarding them new lands and titles within his growing empire, demonstrates not so much his “gentleness” and “chivalry” as his cynical opportunism. If fighting men, particularly the commanders of contingents of troops that offered effective armed opposition to Saladin, could be bought with the promises of riches and titles, then why fight? After all, the alternative (killing or enslaving his opponents on capture) would only have increased the tenacity and fervor of his opponents, and Saladin had a hard enough time subduing them as it was. His mild treatment of defectors is not so much a mark of “gentleness” and “chivalry” as of opportunism that was particularly effective against the fragmented and jealous feudal lords in northern Syria.

One of the few contemporary depictions of Saladin from an Arab Manuscript

Against these documented cases of apparent “gentleness” and “chivalry” are a number of equally well documented incidents of ruthlessness, brutality, duplicity and vindictiveness that are incompatible with the image of Saladin as the paragon of chivalry. To name only a few, Saladin played a key role in eliminating the Egyptian vizier Shawar. Then, having won the confidence and trust of the Fatimid Caliph, Saladin worked systematically to undermine his regime and carried out a bloody coup d’etat against the Fatimid elite as soon as the Caliph conveniently died. While it might be argued that this was justified by repeated Fatimid conspiracies against Saladin or by Sunni orthodoxy’s hostility to Shiism, the same cannot be said of the slaughter of the unarmed women and children of the Sudanese guard that the “gentle and chivalrous” Saladin ordered burned alive in their homes. And if that weren’t enough, Saladin ended the rebellion of their men by agreeing to spare their lives if they left Cairo — only to break his word and slaughter them after they had laid down their arms.

So, yes, Saladin did break his word when it suited his purposes -- as he did to Richard the Lionheart with regard to the surrender of Acre.

Saladin next distinguished himself by waging war against the heir of his feudal overlord Nur al-Din, the eleven-year-old al-Salih -- but only after first swearing humble and abject submission to al-Salih. When the young Sultan’s legal guardians refused to acknowledge Saladin’s bogus claims to be the “true” guardian of the young Sultan, Saladin gave up his pretense of serving the interests of al-Salih, and demanded patents for his position as Sultan of Damascus from the Abbasid caliph of Baghdad. He then spent the better part of the next ten years fighting bitter campaigns against the family of Nur al-Din and their supporters based in Aleppo and Mosul and all across northern Syria.

Which is not to say that Saladin did not fight the Christians too. In fact, Saladin undertook a number of campaigns against the Christians including the invasion of 1177 that ended in Saladin’s complete humiliation at Montgisard, the invasion of 1179 that ended in the routing of the Templars and the capture of nearly 300 Christian knights and nobles on the Litani. The siege of Beirut in the same year, the campaign that ended in the draw at Le Forbelet in 1182, the equally indecisive campaign of 1183, and the sieges of Kerak in 1183 and 1184. This may sound like an impressive track record, but given Saladin’s overwhelming strategic advantages, and the fact that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was led by a youth slowing dying of leprosy, his lack of success suggests either strategic and tactical incompetence or anemic motivation.

Not that Saladin didn’t demonstrate his hatred of the Franks. When in August of 1178, less than a year after Saladin’s scalding defeat at Montgisard, Christian prisoners fell into Saladin’s hands he had them summarily executed, one by one, by members of his retinue. Aside from it being against Sharia law to kill men who had surrendered, it was hardly a demonstration of “chivalry.” Nor was it an isolated incident. When the Christians involved in the Red Sea raids were finally run-to-earth and captured, Saladin again ordered their execution. According to Bernard Hamilton in his excellent work The Leper King and His Heirs, the Christian prisoners were “taken to Mecca where, during the great annual pilgrimage, they were…slaughtered ‘like animals for sacrifice.’” Clearly these men were mercenaries and they had killed Muslim pilgrims and captured Arab shipping so perhaps they were not worthy of mercy, but the same cannot be said of the “unlucky common Christian soldier whom the sultan had slain when he noticed a minor facial scratch his son al-Afdal [by then in his late teens] sustained in the battle of Arsuf.” (Ehrenkreutz, p. 228.)

Last but not least, no discussion of Saladin would be complete without reference to the brutal execution of the Templars and Hospitallers taken captive at the Battle of Hattin. On July 6, these knights and sergeants, bound and helpless, were beheaded in public. Bartlett describes the scene in Downfall of the Crusader Kingdom as follows: “Saladin gave the task…to a group of religious Sufis, holy men largely untrained in the arts of war. Some of them took six or seven attempts to sever the heads of their victims…However justified the death of these men might have been in military terms, the cruelty and indignity of their death did Saladin no credit whatsoever. It was an act of violence, almost barbarism, which Saladin’s apologists have all too frequently glossed over.” (Bartlett, p. 204-205.)

It is important to remember that this massacre preceded — and may indeed have helped instigate — the slaughter of the Muslim hostages at Acre by Richard the Lionheart four years later. If Richard the Lionheart's reputation was sullied by the massacre at Acre, so was Saladin's by the massacre after Hattin. The 12th century was a brutal age, and empires were not built with kindness and "gentle culture" -- not in France, Aquitaine, Egypt or Syria.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Helena Schrader is the currently writing a three part biography of Balian d’Ibelin, who served as Richard the Lionheart’s envoy to Saladin in 1192. Saladin plays a role in all three books in the series, while Balian’s relationship with Richard and their common struggle to recapture Jerusalem 1191-1192 is the subject of the third book in her Balian series, Envoy of Jerusalem. The first two books in the series, Knight of Jerusalem and Defender of Jerusalem, were released in 2014 and 2015 respectively.

You can find out more about them and Crusader Jerusalem at defenderofjerusalem.com and more about all of Helena’s books at helenapschrader.com.