Loved the first video! Richard the Lionheart is a legend! Love your content 🎉🎉🎉🎉❤❤❤❤

how come you didnt state the casualties for both sides ?

Hannibal ?

Great video

@@EA-hs9xp 22:48 pay attention next time

I agree!!

💯

Kings and Generals

I think the operation room gets close

Kings and Generals now is more about the broader situation than the particulars of a battle. The Operation Room has great details, though the voiceover is unexciting.

✝️♥️💯

✝️✝️✝️

It's not 1st time the French knights caused a defect of their own army by not following orders!!! LOL They got luck this time!

@@CCCCCCCCCCCCCCCCC707 Indeed! I think having the army overall under Richard's sole leadership played a crucial role in the victories of the 3rd crusade in its entirety. How many times have we seen throughout history a massively overpowered latin christian army get completely slapped because of pompus proud french nobles bickering over battle strats or "why their knights deserve to charge first"

Ah but, that may well have been the failing. Perhaps a better times charge could have ended Saladin then and there. It may have been a won but, one battle is not a war.

He wasnt so intelligent he abandoned his country for that war...i understand that was also about spain invasion by the muslims but wasnt England war but Rome war

​@@symonmigneault9760 sounds like Muslims born after rapey jihad of Salahuddin are still salty when they hear the name Richard the Lionheart 😂😂😂

​@@symonmigneault9760Richard ruled not only in Great Britain but one half on modern day France. He was an expert at picking excellent ministers to rule England and constantly sent hand written instructions to them. Really studying history with high standards would help you.

I visited a castle in Duernstein, Austria near Kremsfeld vineyard. Supposedly he was jailed there on the way back from the crusades. all I know and heard. the castle is half in ruins.

@@danielb7253 Yes. It was a castle of Leopold of Austria. Richard was kept prisoner there. Leopold then sold Richard to the German Emperor. The castle has great views of the river and lower lands!

Did you fight in world war 2?

@@wdynpn ww2 ended 77 years ago, so he was born afterwards

@@lemon9686 thanks

This is HistoryMarche, not Kings & Generals btw.

Sorry. I guess we aren't all perfect like some. LOL

Frenchmen in armor are as reasonable as elephants

nah. both the muslim world, Hindu world and Chinese had heavily armoured cavalry with both horse and personal armour. it's just that that armour was more flexible with tons of chainmail and leather and silk

@@sabkabaap1758 That doesn't reply to anything that was said.

Frenchmen in armour are a double edged sword, either they are effective like shown here or you get a Nicopolis 🤣

@@SkopjanecMartin In fact the entire army at Arsuf and Richard himself were French.

I think he was also aware of the horse archery “warfare” , that these archers were just good for showering endless arrow rain, that they would never engage as a melee unit

Looking at the tapestry of Hastings I can't help but wonder what a difference stirrups made in the battle for there are none on the English side ? I don't believe that is by chance !

Hum.... are you sure that the Saxons were the ancestors of Richard? Richard was a Plantagenet, so french by both his father and mother (Anjou and Aquitaine). I think that he visited England maybe 1 time in his entire life. Not even sure...

@@TheTyrgiss No. I mean that the great-great-grandfather of Richard the Lionheart was William the Conqueror, the Norman duke who defeated the Anglo-Saxons at Hastings. William won that battle partially due to a disorganised charge by a portion of the English army, which may have occurred because the English army was frustrated by the harassing attacks of the Normans. Because Richard understood how his ancestor had conquered England he was cautious not to make the same mistake that the Anglo-Saxons had.

Norman skirmishes? That was full on infantry fighting.

THEY WERE PROPER HARDCORE MEN UNLIKE THE MODERN DAY GIRLISH BRITISH MEN

832 years? A drop in the bucket, but a long time from here. 👍

I appreciate that

@@HistoryMarche ❤️

War of the Roses I can't promise yet, but Al-Rahman for sure!

@@HistoryMarche Thanks! The man Made the beggining of the Golden age of islam on Iberia basically from nothing!

@@HistoryMarchecan you do war of the diadochi

@@HistoryMarcheCan you do the battle of Adwa is very well documented and I think you’d do it justice.

Well said my friend 👍

If I'm not mistaken they already have started a series with basil

Yes, Basil II series is ongoing. I released 2 parts and will release 4 more parts soon.

@@HistoryMarche Nice!

@@HistoryMarcheCould you make one with Yazid I

​@@AnasZahrI believe he has already aswell, wow, this guys on a role

Maybe because it's your only victory on horseback

Also superior training

@@CodyseusRex i will say Arabs were superior warriors but not in formation management. The crusaders were well organised.

​@@rakibislam9071They were only superior in the Aloha Snackbar chant and committing war crimes.

​@@cbbees1468Be gone troll, you openly support apartheid and xenophobia. The only thing you're superior in is not being relevant.

They always coward 😅

Hi😅

@@papazataklaattiranimam Cheers :)

Richard was undefeated against Saladin, which lead to favorable terms for the Crusaders which no one expected after their defeat of Jerusalem

@@malekiththeeternityking5433 Indeed and dealing with Richard as military threat and enemy was so exhausting and tiring for Saladin, he died lest than year after the signing of the treaty of jaffa in 1193.

Not really "negating" their hit and run tactics, Because Saladin's horse archers were killing a lot of Richards horses to a point where one of Richards men even grew worried that they wouldn't be able to charge because of most horses getting killed, On top of that, the only reason the knights were able to catch Saladins troops in a charge was because the latter had dismounted too close to the crusader lines into closely packed formations and grown comfortable / If Saladins skirmishers had remained cautious and ready, this could've turned into a feigned retreat with devastating losses for the Crusaders this battle was a close call and could've gone very wrong for Richard

@@aburoach9268There was nothing close about the battle. One army maintained better discipline and preparedness than the other - and the results reflect that. It is a fact that Saladin’s army was forced from the field with a single onslaught from Richard’s knights. There’s no way you can deny that. It also may have been an oversight that horse archers had dismounted so close to Crusader lines, but it was a deadly blunder. Richard did not allow such mistakes, and he maintained awareness of the pressure building on his rear. What could have been a critical blunder for the Christian army was made into a greater opportunity. Richard was ready to charge when order broke down. Saladin wasn’t. Tactically, I don’t see how Saladin expected to win this battle by killing horses.

@@aburoach9268 Being forced to dismount and having to get in close to fire at your enemies, due to the iron discipline, deadly crossbow fire and shield wall of the enemy and unable to pull off usual tactics, no matter how many horses you kill. Is indeed negating the Muslim's hit and run tactics as Richard's army was schooled against falling for it and Saladin knew it and why his heavy cavalry were close up behind his dismounted archers, ready to exploit a gap in shield war. Meant that when Richard launched all out charge, entire Muslim army was in range to get smash up and rocked back by the mail fist of a heavy cavalry to rout them decisively.

@@haraldsigurdsson1232 It does lol

In any case, apart some Anglo-Saxons foot soldiers in Richard's army, the crusader forces were mainly Frankish, or Old French speakers. They just didn't all have the same feudal allegiance, or regional feeling.

Crusader army at Arsuf: Hospitallers (French), Templars (French), Normans (French), Poitevins (French), Angevins (French), Aquitains (French) and French from the crown of France Commanders: Richard Coeur de Lion, Garnier de Nablus, Guy de Lusignan, Hugues de Bourgogne, Robert de Sablé, Jacques d'Avesnes, Henri de Champagne. All French. Do you feel clever after writing your comment? Moreover, the rearguard was under considerable pressure from the Muslims and held firm for hours. Had they not charged, they may have been defeated, we will never know. What we do know is that the charge was considerably successful and smashed Saladin's army.

@@thibaultsardet7399 The Anglo Saxons and Normans had larger intermarried at this point so most of the “English” Calvary would also have been English.

@@lahire4943 Normans and Aquitains didn’t see themselves as french and Richard was king of England. Also why are you so angry he made a joke comment.

@@Yellow-kp9gs The Normans were people from Normandy, a land ruled by Richard the Lion Heart. There were no Anglo-Saxons in Normandy.

AND TURKS MASSACRED ALL CHRİSTİANS TAKE OVER.

PUHAHA YOU NEVER FORGET GUERİLLA TACTİCS MİDDLE EAST NOT EUROPE TURKİSH ARROW KİLLED MANY CRUSADERS.

Alhamdulillah 😂

Maybe he should learn how to swim

Barbarossa didn't have 100k, but together they would surely retake jerusalem and then egypt to secure it.

HAHAHAHAH what you think only middle eastern people have tactics?@@CIABACKWARDYAKUZA

Saladin won the war and thats what matters in ruling , justice and tolerance Saladin is far far ahead no comparison at all

@@sultanmomenofzenata177 No, Richard had to leave because his little brother and the king of France Phillip the 2nd were usurping his throne in England, which controlled half of France too. It’s recorded by Saladins own scribes that most Muslims in his army lost a great deal of respect and trust in Kim after he let Richard kill the prisoners in Acre and losing every battle to Richard, in reality Richard towers Saladin and would actually fight while leading his armies personally. ✝🦁❤

@@sultanmomenofzenata177 Saladin also got rolled over by a sickly 16 yr old King Baldwin, and every battle against Richard. Saladin crumbled when he faced actual competent leaders of the West. Like I said, no comparison, Richard towers over Saladin.

@@VntiHero it doesn't matter what Richard had to do or hadn't he still was not able to take Jerusalem in this battle wasn't able to destroy Saladin army which is the goal of a battle , and wow a new lie 🤥 were is your resources for Saladin " losing a huge deal of respect " ?? , Every soldier in his army knew that they were facing the military power of Europe

@@sultanmomenofzenata177 Abi Bakr even said so himself….. he couldn’t destroy him because Saladin ran away lol…. ‘’Military power of Europe’’ Saladin lost at Jaffa to less than 1K men of Richards army, and less than 30 Knights!!! Check the sources on this, it comes from your OWN scholars and Saladins own SCRIBE! Muslims were terrified of Richard and his under 1K men, even though Saladin outnumbered him by many thousands…. They wouldn’t attack Richard under Saladins orders, seeing this demoralized army, Richard and his 20 mounted Knights charged the Muslim army, then Richards foot soldiers followed. Again Saladin was embarrassed, because he and his troops lost many battles before Jaffa . This is all confirmed by SALADINS scribe, you can google it.

The Crusader knights were all French or at least French-speaking from Anjou, Normandy, Poitou and England in Richard's army, and Francilians, Picards, Burgundians or Flemings in the Capetian Army.

​@@thibaultsardet7399Germanic peoples played a large part of the Crusaders mainly the 3 and 4th crusades

@@ADZ01982 I didn't say they weren't, just the Bulk of the Crusaders since the First Crusade was from Duchies and Counties in the Kingdom of the Franks.

He was actually russian spy

The crusaders were ended forever soon after

​@@cumar9875 not quite. the crusades weren't just fought in the holyland they ended with the victory over the ottomans at by the knights of st john, spanish, italians and Maltese militia at the great siege of Malta 1565 aka the final battle of the crusades and the astonishing end of the reconquista with the fall of Granada 1492 in Spain.

@@stefanvella9807 I meant they were ended from the Muslim world looser

​@@cumar9875one could argue the Crusades are still going on in the form of culture clash between the West and Muslim world.

A genius doesn't lose a war I think he was a great leader to his army.

@@qutuzm7753 Hannibal lost the Second Punic War, yet he’s still regarded as one of the best military geniuses of history. Napoleon also lost the Wars of the 6th and 7th Coalitions, yet still regarded as one of the best military geniuses in history. That notion is simply incorrect.

@@qutuzm7753 Not to mention that it wasn’t even a defeat, but a stalemate.

@LuisBrito-ly1ko Hannible,Napoleon (destroyed) army's, perfect Tactics/plans even when they lost the war you can actually admire what they did genius is truly a word to describe them. you can't say this about Richard nothing amazing about what he did even the numbers are so fake from the Muslim Sources yes the Muslim were the larger army around 40k not 25k and Richard's army around 30k troops not 11k. King of England Richard sold Scotland and other lands and raised taxes just to master 11k troops. Give me a break. Frederick barbarossa's army was around 100k and King of England after selling and raising money he can only master 11k troops, I think because he didn't take Jerusalem and went back without destroying the Muslim army they had to lie about the numbers. In the end, he actually didn't do anything major to call him genius. But I was wrong. A genius can lose war, but Richard is not one of them.

I'm not quite sure that Richard was a genius. He had a sound strategy in sticking to the coastline to prevent Salah al-Din from cutting his lines of communication and proved very capable tactically. Though, history has shown us the strong performance of European mounted knights and men-at-arms, so how much of his ability in battle is him and how much is due to the quality of his troops is questionable. He might well be a better tactician than Salah al-Din, but the latter was better at operational manoeuvres and strategy, in my humble opinion. He understood that Richard was a difficult foe to defeat tactically, and post-Arsuf, resorted to largely conducting scorched earth to deny grain and forage to the Crusaders, preventing a push further inland towards Jerusalem. Richard knew that he could not risk marching away from the coast as a result, and his gains were strictly limited there. All in all, the Third Crusade might have ended in peace negotiations being drawn, but that sort of stalemate very well favoured Salah al-Din and the Ayyubids, who maintained most of the gains they had acquired prior to Richard's arrival. These are the limitations Richard possessed due to his purely tactical nature. In contrast, with commanders such as Caesar and Hannibal, who were masters of operational warfare (including not just manoeuvres, but logistical aspects) as well as tactics, one sees them waging campaigns even when deep in enemy territory, with their opponents, Vercingetorix and Fabius, utilizing scorched earth and cutting their lines of communication. Vercingetorix's case is most similar to Salah al-Din, in fact. Both may have had superior numbers on their sides, but the quality of their army overall was not the equal of their adversary's. Both utilized manoeuvre and scorched earth, preferring to cut the enemy from their lines of communication and weaken them by privation. They had to resort to this way of fighting because of their own respective disadvantages on the tactical level. The difference is that Caesar might have been closer to a genius, while I would say that Richard was just a highly competent commander.

This is the French name. HistoryMarche's pronounciation was not perfect, but much closer to the French pronounciation than what you propose.

@@PiotrDzialak French is my mother tongue. I've searched on the subject. If you do search on Robert de Sablé, you'll notice the accent on the E: "É". This means that you don't pronounce an "E" sound, but an "A" ou "ey" sound. Sometimes, some of the specific intricacies of French could get lost in translation (like É, È ou Ç). I was actually confused a little bit during the video.

@@clarencecorbeil1061 My French is a bit rusty, but I had used to speak it very well when I lived in France. Don't you pronounce "Sablé", like you would pronounce "blé"? French "é" is phonetically written as "/e/", while French "ai" is "/ɛ/". I think History Marche prononuces it too much like /ɛ/, because /e/ doesn't exist in his mother tongue. Is it some weird exception, or do we simply differ in they way we describe the same pronounciation? Because, in "blé", there is definitely no sound of "y".

Saladin was a great general but we don't remember him for his campaign but rather leadership. His action to prevent massacre after the siege of Jerusalem delayed further crusades and helped him stabilise his empire. And gave his such a respectable status. That mercy is even great for today's standards The American invasion of Iraq resulted in the death of over 2 million civilians even today we can see innocents being killed in Russia - Ukraine war.

​@@sartajparveen2001joke?

​@@sartajparveen2001It's hilarious how Israel defeats your type even when severely outnumbered. 🇮🇱

@@cbbees1468 Bro just woke up today And said he wants to be a cancer

​@@cbbees1468It's hilarious how your Jewish people have lost the vast majority of every war in your history including multiple wars against his people in the Middle East. Now you win 3 wars in a small window of history where your country is militarily stronger due to foreign aid in defence and economic partnerships and you're jumping up and down. Calm down son, you historically are terrible fighters.

It was the way of the world prior to Napoleon. People like to look down their nose at the ancients, but they whoop us in things like subsidiary, class cooperation, and working class rights.

Ironically Churchill (~kind of "the British King" during WW2) wanted to go to the beaches on D-Day and apparently it was the actual King who persuaded him not to! He was never a man afraid of being near gunfire.

Can you imagine Joe out front? No

Didn't have to, but chose to.

here yes but deferentially not in real life

Third crusade was a Crusader victory

@@PhoenixPhenom777 3 CRUSADE WAR AND MUSLİM TAKE OVER MASSACRED ALL CRUSADERS.

It’s not that “he wasn’t able”… he prioritized the home front since John and King Philip were plotting against him, so he left after Jaffa.

@@PhoenixPhenom777 It’s fairer to say that it was a stalemate. The whole Holy Land wasn’t conquered but Saladin couldn’t drive them back either.

He doing successful enough.. Despite most of the crusaders left the outremer, salahaddin didn't retake their coastal strip of cities and respect the treaties.. All win...

He dropped a new one many months ago but hasn’t dropped a follow up yet, trust me I’ve been waiting on the same for YEARS. Many of us have. It’s how I found this channel along with many others, we even watched the Hannibal episodes in my class at school

Simple, their infantry just didn't have the same resolve as the knights.. The knights are better fighters and the Muslim historian record this as well

Isn't it obvious they wanted tempestuous soldiers to break formation and destroy them piecemeal with mounted archers.

Shows how impressive this crusade was opperating so far from home

They were medieval tanks they destroy anything in thier way its Easy for them to destroy any bit army like in this video

Yeah but his greatest feat was his management of the sultanate he toppled the Fatimids and united the various Muslim states at his time and secured the road to pilgrimage

"Saladin was a relatively mediocre general" Go back read history little Man

@@Buurba_Jolof He is right, you know and correct assessment doesn't make him a little man. Saladin was akin to Pompey the Great, he was a shrewd politician, a master of logistics, merely a decent strategist, but really a mediocre commander in the field. Contemporaries said of Pompey he managed to win in the field because he simply managed to manipulate forces during his campaigns in such way to meet enemy always with overwhelming numbers. Saladin lost the siege of Acre, the battle of Arsuf and the battle of Jaffa to Richard personally and his Kurdish court historian has written that Saladin after Jaffa was terrified of Richard and genuinely thought prolonged conflict would lead to the loss of Jerusalem. Anyway Saladin, as another person has written is remembered for toppling the Fatimids and if he hasn't been there, at the time Crusaders would be free to claim all land until Egypt and Arabian peninsula so he's rightly remembered as the shield of muslimhood.

cry more

Crusader victories in the Levant: Nicaea, Dorylaeum, Antioche, Ma'arra, Jerusalem, Ascalon, Tripoli, 1st Ramla, 3rd Ramla, Artah, Beirut, Sidon, Sarmin, Hab, Jaffa, Tyre, Yibneh, Azaz, Marj al-Saffar, siege of Shaizar, Ephesus, Meander Valley, Aintab, siege of Ascalon, Butaiha, al-Buqaia, Montgisard, Belvoir Castle, al-Fule, siege of Tyre, Acre, Philomelion, Iconium, Arsuf, Jaffa, 2nd Damietta, 3rd Damietta, Mansurah...

@@lahire4943 Yeah

@@joihnbrown1889 cry harder tower crasher

I think the 4th crusade is the most interesting, "plot twist" wise

Looks who’s mad because Saladin got embarrassed by a real king 😂

Oh no the Arab is malding

@@theresecoco1887 do you want bone little dog??

@@rpilo5560 Oh nooo he's crying 😭😭

@@theresecoco1887 Go and bark away, little dog🐕

Repent to Allah who created jesus

@@Taqwa.hanif.Moumin Keep your fake god to yourself, cube worshipper

An English King of French descent 🏴󠁧󠁢󠁥󠁮󠁧󠁿🇫🇷

He was a norman. His grandfather was the duke of Normandy who took over England. So his family was originally Vikings who raided european coasts.

​​​@@odenat3701Richard's mother was French, and his father was French. The Normans are 95% of French origin. 10-15,000 Scandinavians settled in Normandy, out of a population which included 200-300,000 natives.

His own biographers also tracked his Anglo Saxon heritage and increasingly his anglo-Norman nobility began to see themselves differently from their continental Norman brothers- also the “European” part of English DNA is largely similar to the Northern France/Belgium so Norman seems the best description friend-especially given French disunity in this period. Also much of the “negative” attention Richard gets, particularly when it comes to his reign over England is ridiculous- he celebrated English saints, tracked his Anglo Saxon heritage (at this it was generations removed but still) and made England extremely stable and peaceful through good administration and diplomatic relations with Scotland and wales. So yeah he was actually a great king.

Not just Richard, most of his men, knights or commanders came from Duchies and Counties in France (Anjou, Poitou, Normandy, Brittany, Aquitaine, Gascony, etc...). Just like most Templars and Hospitallers too. Or came from England, but were also Norman French speaking despite everything, apart from the Anglo-Saxon foot soldiers. This is the mistake that many people make in claiming a national identity for each army, at a time when the national concept simply did not exist. They were Feudal armies, they only all had an allegiance to the Plantagenet House, and not to the Capetian House.