Talk:Third Crusade

Aftermath

Added two citations to the aftermath page, one for a quote from Baha ad-Din, another from historian Thomas Madden.

CrusadesHistory1100 (talk) 09:57, 10 October, 2011 (UTC)

Results

Once again, restored to the results "Crusader victory in all military engagements" since this is an important aspect of the Third Crusade. Saladin was defeated in all battles against Richard the Lionheart. Remember, the Third Crusade deprived the Muslims of territory and increased Crusader territory specifically because of its Christian victories.

Results

Under the 'Results' heading, someone keeps adding "Muslim victory, Christians halted". This is ridiculous. Saladin didn't win a single military engagement in the Third Crusade. Clearly the Treaty of Ramla was as much a concession on the part of the Muslims as it was the Christians, if not more so, since Crusader victories secured many cities and castles for Outremer. This phrase then, "Muslim victory" should not be included. If anything, it should state "Crusader victory in all military engagements" since this is the historical reality. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.183.52 (talk) 11:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Marshall Hodgson in The Venture of Islam on this Third Crusade

A joint expedition of the Kings of France and England, along with a major German expedition, all supported by the power of the Italian cities, was unable materially to reverse the situation (retake Jerusalem), though it prevented further Muslim successes.

Aquib (talk) 17:10, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Saladin had taken every Crusader occupied city aside from Tyre, Tripoli, and Antioch. After the Third Crusade, the Christians had control of the entire Palestinian coast once more. That's hardly a defeat for Richard and the Crusaders, especially since the Muslims won no military engagements during the Crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.129.111 (talk) 17:52, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

According to the article, Salladin's men took Jaffa in July of 1192, so we can't say "Crusader victory in all engagements."

I don't dispute there were tactical Crusader victories, but the Third Crusade was a strategic loss for the Crusaders, who returned home without having retaken Jerusalem.

I suggest we remove the sentence in question and let the reader decide for themselves.

Aquib (talk) 09:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Saladin's men attacked Jaffa, but Richard quickly relieved the siege, driving Saladin's troops from the city personally with something like sixty knights. The Muslims never had control of the citadel. So no, Jaffa was not a Muslim victory, though it might have been if Richard had not been the genius that he was. It is a historical fact that Saladin won no victories against Richard I of England. How is the Third Crusade a strategic loss when it gained territory and involved no defeats? It was an emotional loss in that it failed to take Jerusalem. But again, territory was gained, including Cyprus. The Muslims themselves considered the whole thing a humiliating defeat. So no, I think we should keep the sentence.

Really, the Third Crusade was incomplete, not a loss. Richard planned to return to the Holy Land to wage a war against Egypt. It's a good thing for the Muslims that he wasn't able to, because based on what we know about his military capabilities, the man probably would've taken Alexandria. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.179.126 (talk) 13:55, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

|

|

_______________
|
V
I found this website [1]. These folks are located in Oxford England, and claim expertise in military history.

One of their titles is The Third Crusade 1191: Richard the Lionheart, Saladin and the Struggle for Jerusalem. The author is David Nicolle, here is his bio: [2]

Here is what Dr. Nicolle says on page 37 Furthermore, winning a battle did not necessarily mean winning a war, and indeed Richard's successes at Arsuf and elsewhere did not bring victory for the Third Crusade. [3]

Aquib (talk) 00:11, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Well authors like John Gillingham and Rodney Stark don't agree. You can find a whole host of historians with all sorts of opinions on the symbolic meaning of the Third Crusade. It all depends on how you define what victory means for the Third Crusade. Are you talking about the emotional aspect of the war? If that's the case, then it was a defeat for both sides, since both sides felt like they were unable to achieve their most important goals. But none of this changes the fact that Saladin was defeated in every military engagement of the Third Crusade and he lost most of the territory he had originally taken from the Kingdom of Jerusalem, aside from the city of Jerusalem itself.

In addition, you have to consider the conquest of Cyprus, an ally to Saladin and a very wealthy region. This was a major blow to the Muslims. My point is that when you put aside theoretical ideas about psychological victory in the Third Crusade, such as "taking Jerusalem", etc, and look at the actual military engagements, the reality is that Richard the Lionheart defeated Saladin in every encounter and deprived him of territory. How is that not a victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.179.126 (talk) 01:33, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Can you please provide an author, book, publisher and page number for a military historian who believe the Crusaders won the Third Crusade? As I did to support my claim they did not win? Aquib (talk) 03:01, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I can, and I might. But I don't need to. Your footnote was not impressive. Do you actually imagine that just because you quoted one author, that means you've discovered that "the Crusaders lost the Third Crusade"? As I already pointed out, this depends on what you mean by "won the Third Crusade". All I am saying is that the Crusaders won every battle and deprived the Muslims of territory in the Third Crusade, while Saladin won no battles and lost territory during the same war. That's why under the "result" heading it should say "Crusader victory in all military engagements". Can we at least agree to that? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.179.126 (talk) 03:27, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The Osprey series is an okay reference (and Nicolle is otherwise an excellent source) although it is sort of designed as a little encyclopedia itself. It's a tertiary source, like Wikipedia (and we on Wikipedia could easily cite the same sources they are using). The real problem here is the infobox. Infoboxes are totally useless. Everyone ends up spending all their time fighting over one line instead of working to improve the article. The circumstances and result of the Third Crusade are far too complicated to be solved by one line of text. Removing the infobox altogether would be the best solution (although I am sure also the least likely one). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:21, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

@Adam thanks for the feedback on Osprey and Nicolle. And I agree with your synopsis of the events. Regarding the infobox itself, I have noticed how infoboxes and categories, things like that, can cause problems.

@76.251.179.126 and Adam, my problem with this line in the infobox, "Crusader victory in all military engagements", is in it's placement atop the infobox. From that perch, it trumpets Crusader victories. The unwary reader might misunderstand this to imply strategic victory rather than tactical victories. It's a question of NPOV. I would be OK with a more balanced formulation, or the removal of references to victory by either side. The salient point, in my estimation, is the item which has settled to the bottom of the list: the Muslims retained control of Jerusalem.

Perhaps if we moved the last item, "Muslims retain control of Jerusalem," to the top of the infobox list, it would help the casual reader absorb the implications of these two apparently contradictory statements more fully.

Aquib (talk) 09:31, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

The real problem here is that Aquib simply doesn't like the results of the Third Crusade. There's no question that the Third Crusade was a humiliating defeat for Saladin and a series of victories for Richard I. Aquib is afraid that someone might view this article and discover this! Notice his fuzzy use of the term "tactical victories" and "strategic victories." The Siege of Acre was a strategic victory in that the Crusaders won Acre. The siege of Jaffa was a similar victory. Both battles decisively deprived the Muslims of territory.

This is from Baha ad-Din, writing about the Treaty of Ramla: "It Was a memorable day, one on which the two sides expressed unimaginiable joy and happiness. But it is well known that the peace did not entirely please the Sultan. In conversation with me he said: 'I am afraid of making peace...As soon as I am gone, the Muslims will be destroyed.'" (Arab Historians of the Crusades, p 233-234.)

It's true, Jerusalem was the emotional fixation of the Third Crusade, but in the end it was just one city. One might even argue that by electing not to attack Jerusalem, Richard was making a brilliant military decision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.179.126 (talk) 12:18, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Alright, but you seem to be as enamoured with Richard as you think Aquib is with Saladin, so that doesn't really help. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:49, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I am entering a PhD program in medieval history this Fall, so my opinion counts for something I'd argue.

OK I am moving "Muslims hold Jerusalem" to the top of the highlights and leaving "Crusader victories" in place for now. I may decide to put a Third Crusade military historian on my reading list, any suggestions Adam? Aquib (talk) 17:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

That's fair, as long as the results box makes it clear that the Muslim control of Jerusalem does not translate into any military victories. If you want to read on this subject further, check out anything by Thomas Madden, Jonathan Riley-Smith, Jonathan Phillips, any of those heavy hitters.

For general further reading, I like Riley-Smith's "The Crusades: A History" (second edition). Madden's "New Concise History of the Crusades" is okay too, but a little sparse (Madden is a specialist on the Fourth Crusade, anyway). Gillingham's translation of Hans Mayer's "The Crusades" is also good, but getting kind of old; Mayer has done other work on the Third Crusade though, so that section of his book is pretty useful. The bits of the large University of Wisconsin History of the Crusades are thorough, but also getting old. Tyerman's "God's War" is very large for a one-volume work, and personally I find it kind of disjointed. He did write another good book called "England and the Crusades", which I haven't read much of, but it would have to talk about the Third Crusade. I haven't read Jonathan Phillips' new history yet, but it is of similar size to "God's War". I don't think there are any secondary works specifically on the Third Crusade, at least not any recent ones, but Peter Edbury is apparently writing one. For primary sources, the Crusade Texts in Translation series by Ashgate has publishes Baha ad-Din, the Itinerarium Regis Ricardi, and Edbury's collection of sources "The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Sources in Translation". Adam Bishop (talk) 19:24, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Thanks and regards Aquib (talk) 20:00, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I propose that we remove the line "Jerusalem remains under Muslim control" from the results section, since the Crusaders did not besiege Jerusalem. Instead let's indicate that Richard declined to lay siege to the city. The 'territorial changes' section makes it clear that Jerusalem remained under Saladin's rule. However, it is worth noting that Muslims agreed to unarmed pilgrims coming into the city, since that is a direct result of the Crusade. It is also important to note that the Crusaders themselves won all military conflicts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.177.216 (talk) 03:07, 7 January 2011 (UTC)

Comments

In the sections Muslim Unification (In an attempt to divert Crusader attention from Egypt, Nur ad-Din...) and Fall of the Latin Kingdom, (The Crusader army, thirsty and demoralized, was destroyed...), I question the designation "Crusader". They weren't Crusaders, they were for the most part the descendents of Crusaders. They were, again for the most part, born and raised in Outremer; they were Franks or Christians, but not really Crusaders.

I've never edited a Wiki entry, and these particular phrases have been in place for a couple years. Also, I am not a scholar and not really sure which substitute would be an improvement. But in the Wikipedia entry "Kingdom of Jerusalem" the term "Franks" is used.

Anyone care to make the change to "Franks" or to suggest something else?

J Baustian 08:04, 8 November 2007 (UTC)J Baustian

---

Again this is full of Errors.

1. Saladin was, to begin with, an agent of the Zengid dynasty of Mosul, not the Seljuks. He himself was a Kurd.

2. more coming.

---

Can someone re-write or add to this article? I don't think there's enough details here to do the 3rd Crusade justice. How and when did Saladin retake Jerusalem from the Crusaders after Richard's Siege? --Phaust

I'm planning on rewriting it eventually, but it might not be for a couple of months. I'm not sure what you mean though...Richard never captured Jerusalem, so Saladin didn't take it back from him. Saladin recaptured Jerusalem in 1187. Adam Bishop 15:29, 23 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Oh you're right, I misread a line. >_< --Phaust

Sorry, I beat you to it. I couldn't let it sit in that dilapidated form. Improve mine in whatever way you see fit. Palpatine 13:36, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Cool, thanks! Adam Bishop 16:15, 3 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Great improvement! Phaust 05:26, 14 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Phillip Augustus

The article makes nearly no mention of Phillip Augustus, who, according to my sources, actually did go to the third Crusade with Richard I, and then left because of quarreling with his brother. See Medieval Europe, a short History, to see what I mean. I will do more research on this subject and then make a formal change (hopefully).

Sorry, forgot to sign, Im new at this. (Polloc81)

He's mentioned as Philip II of France. I included what I know, which is that he did go, and then left. I can't find much of anything noteworthy that can't also be attributed to Richard, but if you do, feel free to add it. Palpatine 06:37, 23 October 2005 (UTC)

hey he is right about it nearly not mentioning phillip augustus! jane xxx

Plague

I am uncertain of my disambiguation of plague: due to the timing (1190) and location (not Europe), I didn't use Black Death - I'm sure this is a correct decision. The question is: is it believed (with some certainty) that it was Bubonic plague or shall we link it to the more generic Pestilence? Could someone more aware of such things please edit if necessary? Thx. John (Jwy) 04:59, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

It wasn't the Black Death, but there was bubonic plague around since at least the 6th century...unfortunately it seems like everytime someone dies of an unknown disease, they are said to have died of "plague." (Or, if it's the 1911 Britannica, "dropsy".) Adam Bishop 05:20, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

The word "pestis" was used for various infectious diseases. The diseases in the camp at Acre seem to have been malaria, typhoid, dysentery and scurvy. The main problem was dead bodies (human and animal) contaminating the water sources. Silverwhistle 18:38, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Heyy am new at this i'm not very good at history currently failing it :( so i decided to see what you lot are saying so i can learn stuff :) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.220.51.172 (talk) 18:27, 13 July 2010 (UTC)

Sources

Was appalled to see Reston's sensationalist Warriors of God and Williams's atrocious Complete Idiot's Guide to the Crusades referenced as sources. I have replaced them with some more useful texts, including translations of primary sources. I plan to do more on this page. Silverwhistle 10:34, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Much appreciated, but please be aware that we are not all so fortunate as to have immediate or cheap access to primary source material. I figured that at least citing some kind of source would be better than citing none at all. --Palpatine 06:59, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Have you tried http://gallica.bnf.fr/ ? You can download the whole of the Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, and a lot of the Rolls Series for free! A brilliantly useful resource. Silverwhistle 09:58, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Except that it is all PDF, the interface is in French, and you can't search within the texts :) Adam Bishop 15:14, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Since when was an interface being in French a problem for a Crusades historian? ;-D

It's a great site, when the server isn't playing up... :-( Silverwhistle 17:00, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Gasp! Appalled! -Augustulus

Entire Muslim World

Removed this sentence .Nur ud Din got control of entire Muslim World,fro m Syria to Egypt.Whoever wrote thatMuslim world was bigger than these two countries in first twenty years of Islam and here some one has chosen to mark only Egypt and Syria as entire Muslim World.... --61.5.136.6 06:26, 10 June 2006 (UTC)Naeem

Citation needed - Saladin's ghost

I've replaced the parenthetical comment below with a {{fact}} tag:

Richard returned to England in 1194 and died of an arrow wound in 1199 at the age of 42.

Shortly after Richard's departure, Saladin died, leaving behind only one piece of gold and forty-seven pieces of silver; he had given the rest away to his poor subjects. (saladin died in 1193, 6 years before richard so this is conflicting)

John (Jwy) 14:11, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I suspect: 1) RIchard LEFT for England in 1193, arriving 1194. 2) Saladin died in 1193 and 3) departure is NOT intended to mean Richard's departure from this world, but from the Middle East. But I'll leave to a more informed editor to handle. John (Jwy) 14:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, Saladin died shortly after Richard returned home, so there is no conflict there. It's true that Saladin gave away lots of money but I don't know off-hand where those specific numbers come from. Adam Bishop 16:30, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I've removed the tag by specifying the date. If its important that it was after Richard left, we need to be a bit more crafty in how we word things. John (Jwy) 18:36, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Its not really favorable to replace recorded historical facts with personal suspicious. The story of Saladin's give away of his money was just a tradition made by many other faithful Moslem leaders as a sign of faith and was recorded by many historians. Hawazen 08:09, Sun, Aug 6, 2006 (UTC)

comment on rule of hospitality

(Apologies for not following protocol. I'm still getting used to Wiki...) Where the heck did you get this piece of trivia --->

 --->   "Guy took a drink but was forbidden to pass the goblet to Raynald, because the Muslim rule of hospitality states that one who receives food or drink is under the protection of the host."

I've never read a "Muslim Rule of hospitality" or any other nonsense as this.

This part really needs some additional research and rewording. Woof!

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.158.84.211 (talk • contribs) 07:45, 16 November 2006(UTC)

The trivia about the muslim hospitality is correct, refusing him the goblet showed that he was not under saladins protection, and was therefore to be punished.

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.154.172.211 (talk • contribs) 20:27, 22 March 2007(UTC)

Joan

In the section on Richard and Philip's departure, it mentions that the ship carrying Richard's sister, Joan, was lost. However, in Regicide and Negotiations, it talks about negotiations to marry Joan to Alad-il. I myself do not know which one is correct, but I'm fairly certain Alad-il wouldn't have wanted to marry a drowned corpse at the bottom of the Mediterranean. --Ω 22:01, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

The ship was wrecked, Joanna of Sicily survived. Follow the links to her page. She died in childbirth some years later. Silverwhistle 18:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Assassin's Creed

The first game in the Assassin’s Creed franchise is set in 1191 AD, when the Third Crusade was tearing the Holy Land apart. Shrouded in secrecy and feared for their ruthlessness, the Assassins intend to stop the hostilities by suppressing both sides of the conflict. Players, assuming the role of the main character Altair, will have the power to throw their immediate environment into chaos and to shape events during this pivotal moment in history.

[4] [5] [6]

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.68.194.241 (talk • contribs) 20:51, 4 April 2007(UTC)

Is this in any way relevant to the subject? Swanny18 (talk) 13:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The Death of Frederick

"However, on June 10, 1190, Frederick was thrown from his horse in the crossing of the Saleph River and drowned."

Actually there is some degree of source discrepancy over this one. According to Tyerman the exact cause of his death has been blamed on many different things although that River was certainly always involved.

Minor detail I know but the event had a high impact so I reckon we should get it right! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.70.35.136 (talk) 21:33, 15 April 2007 (UTC).

55 vs. 1000?

"In July 1192, Saladin suddenly attacked and captured Jaffa with thousands of men, but the city was re-captured by Richard and a much smaller force of 55 men on July 31." Sounds dubious. I remember hearing something about quarreling between Muslim leaders causing the defeat. Details, anyone? Citations? Top.Squark 11:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

4th Crusade

Was the call for the 4th Crusade 6 years later or 12 years later? The article says both... Cambion 14:20, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Innocent III called for a new one when he became pope in 1198, everyone ignored him until 1199, no one bothered to organize anything until 1200, and they didn't actually leave until 1201. Adam Bishop 18:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Infobox1

I can understand the logic of having the Byzantines on the opposite side, but they definitely weren't a Muslim army! How can we represent this more accurately? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:19, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Agreed; how's that? Swanny18 (talk) 15:56, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

This was all to pot again; I don't remember leaving it in a mess, but... Anyway, I've fixed it again. Swanny18 (talk) 12:11, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

SOLDİER NUMBER

there were more than 5000 soldier they were coming with an army number 500 000.Lion heart Richard have 250 000 soldiers like Frederic Barbarossa.I dont know Frenchs.It couldn't be 100 000 or 10 000 there were so much crusaders.Write the truths. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.86.125 (talk) 17:53, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Victory?

When the infobox was put in the the result recorded was simply Treaty of Ramla. Since 28 September it’s been "Decisive Muslim victory", "Minor Muslim victory", "Minor Christian victory"; what’s next? I’ve restored it to not mentioning victory at all; if both sides think they won, it’s a pretty safe bet neither did. Both sides came away with something; neither side got all they wanted. So a link to the treaty seems the most neutral way to record this. Swanny18 (talk) 09:02, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

The way it looks now seems fine to me. The Crusaders did gain some territory, but their biggest victim was the Eastern Roman Empire, which permanently lost Cyprus as a result. The territories that Richard regained are ones that Saladin wasn't especially concerned with; Jerusalem was the prize and he held it. And the concessions to pilgrims visiting the Holy Places are something I am certain Saladin would have granted at any time in exchange for an end to the war. He was much more interested in defeating his Islamic enemies before Reynald of Chatillon called him out. Jsc1973 (talk) 15:35, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

"The territories that Richard regained are ones that Saladin wasn't especially concerned with"

Laughable. Acre and Tyre were huge losses. Aside from Alexandria, Acre was the wealthiest port in the Eastern Mediterranean, and Islam's loss of this key city caused tremendous suffering in the Muslim world. Jerusalem was a poor, economically unimportant city. It has emotional importance to both sides. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.177.88.11 (talk) 04:56, 28 September 2014 (UTC)

Principals?

Perhaps we should have something the Crusader's ideology? Consider for example: "In 1190, Kings Richard I and Philip of France jointly issued an edict regulating gambling with games of chance by members of the Christian crusading armies. No person under the rank of knight was permitted to play any game for money; knights and clergymen could play for stakes lower than 20 shillings per day and night; the monarchs could, naturally, play for whatever stakes they chose, but their attendants were restricted to stakes of 20 shillings. If any exceeded this sum, they were to be whipped, naked, through the ranks of the troops for three whole days." See Ben Schott, Schott’s Mischellany Calendar 2009 (New York: Workman Publishing, 2008), November 18. Sincerely, --A Nobody^{My talk} 20:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

A calendar is not a source. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:19, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

It is sourceable to John Gillingham's Richard I. Not quite sure what its proper place is in the article. In the context given by Gillingham, it seems that gambling was a particular problem because Crusaders enjoyed immunity from debts contracted, and were trying to extend this to not paying their gambling debts. So I'm not sure the regulation actually reflects moral opposition to gambling per se so much as an attempt to head off a particular discipline problem. Choess (talk) 23:28, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Infobox2

I’ve removed the listing for "Izz ad-Din Mas'ud I" and "Mujahideen" from the infobox; Mujahideen links to the modern-day group, and there is nothing on the Izz ad-Din Mas'ud page that indicates he was involved in the Third Crusade. Does anyone have a source /any more information about it? Swanny18 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Infobox3

I’ve removed the listing for "Izz ad-Din Mas'ud I" and "Mujahideen" from the infobox; Mujahideen links to the modern-day group, and there is nothing on the Izz ad-Din Mas'ud page or this one that indicates he was involved in the Third Crusade. Does anyone have a source /any more information about it? Swanny18 (talk) 14:14, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Arms of Sicily

The arms of Sicily are wrong, since the depicted ones didn't came into use until the 13th century. We should use the arms of the Hauteville family: the Normand dinasty that was ruling in the Kingdom of Sicily at the time. But I don't know how they are (or even if they exist). Perhaps the arms of the Duchy of Normandy () should be used?--RR (talk) 22:40, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Navigational questions

I find it hard to believe that "Raynald of Châtillon expanded his piracy to the Yellow Sea". The Yellow Sea is in the Pacific, south of Korea. Unless there is a closer Yellow Sea which I do not know. It is also difficult to admit that "Baldwin of Exeter, the Archbishop of Canterbury made a tour through Canada." PO73 (talk) 20:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that was vandalism, missed because of the bot edit immediately after it. Thanks. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:45, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

Richard and Saladin

Shouldn't it be mentioned in the article that Richard and Saladin NEVER met each other face to face, they both used messengers to negotiate treatys etc. but they both had mutual respect for each other. I know in one instance Saladin got word that Richard had lost his horse and Saladin sent one to him and I think Richard returned the favor later. The C of E (talk) 16:04, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Done, The C of E; see "Siege of Acre" section. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Belligerents

Belligerents don't all make sense.....why would the Byzantine empire and the kingdom of sicily be fighting on the side of the muslims? One of the main reasons for the 1st crusade was the call for help FROM THE BYZANTINE EMPIRE IN RESPONSE TO BEING THREATENED BY MUSLIM ATTACKERS! Please edit the belligerents section accordingly, as this is an exceedingly foolish and critical error!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.201.86.43 (talk) 17:07, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

The Byzantine emperor made a truce with Saladin, so they didn't help; the circumstance are different from the First Crusade, this is almost a hundred years later. Cyprus was also captured from the Empire along the way, although I wouldn't say they are an enemy belligerent exactly. Sicily isn't, they just weren't particularly helpful. This is just another reason why infoboxes are useless. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

This isn't "an exceedingly foolish and critical error" at all, it's explained in the text.

Isaac Angelus opposed Frederic Barbarossa and made a treaty with Saladin (here); and Tancred and Isaac Commenus opposed Richard (here).

Try reading, before complaining!!! Swanny18 (talk) 17:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

There were a number of Crusades where a Christian power cast its lot with the Muslims, believing that an Islamic victory better served its interest than a victory for the Crusaders. The Eastern Roman Empire had very real reasons for supporting whatever Islamic potentate held power, as the Fourth Crusade later demonstrated plainly. Jsc1973 (talk) 17:06, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

I think we should help clarify it in the section by saying they were either in alliance or remove the labels altogether. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:38, 23 July 2013 (UTC)

The village of Bov in North West Bulgaria was founded by crusaders led by a French knight named Le Boeff. He was refused passage through the region by the Byzantine Emperor, so his army settled in the region. There was clearly a lot of animosity between the Byzantines and the Crusaders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Pignut (talk • contribs) 02:40, 30 March 2017 (UTC)

Prester John

Something should be added about the effects of the Prester John myth on the third crusade —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.243.37 (talk) 20:06, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

I think you have the Third and Ninth Crusades confused. Some crusaders of 1271-72 believed that the Mongols were connected to the tale of Prester John because they had once been led by a Nestorian Christian general named Kitbuqa, although Kitbuqa was killed at Ain Jalut in 1260. The Mongols did collaborate with the Crusaders, but weren't able to coordinate their attacks. There were many Prester John tales during the Crusades, but Richard the Lionheart was not expecting help from an Asian army of Christians, even if the Pope's agents were telling such tales back home. Jsc1973 (talk) 16:07, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

(Soldier numbers, again)

(moved comment to correct place in sequence. Swanny18 (talk) 23:07, 4 December 2012 (UTC))
Concerning number of soldier numbers for Richard, What im confused about is the 8,000 number that is assaigned to this, he had 17,000 soldiers/sailors now thats not to say they were all combatants, but i feel this number is wrong. it explains in numerous texts that 8,000 was his royal household force, after messina he sailed to the holy land 17,000 strong — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.30.50.177 (talk) 00:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Siege of Acre (1189–91)

I've made a small edit to that part of this page. Maymichael2 (talk) 18:12, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

Coat of Arms

I made a change to the Duchy of Normandy. Maymichael2 (talk) 04:14, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

Infobox4

The infobox for this article has become intrusive. It takes up a huge space on the page and includes minor character commanders, minor sub-sections of states, obscure military orders who probably never had more than a few dozen members in the Holy Land. It has become quite ridiculous and is detrimental to the article. Urselius (talk) 08:01, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree - looks pretty but not much use if you want a quick reference. Alansplodge (talk) 13:18, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

is it just me

or this article reads as if the Christians won the 3rd crusade? Naqdi (talk) 18:20, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Yep, the Third Crusade was largely successful. Acre, Crusader victory; Arsuf, Crusader victory; Jaffa, Crusader victory, the Ayyubids did not win one battle during the Crusade. The Crusader States looked like they were close to being destroyed after Hattin, but after the Third Crusade they lasted another century. Jerusalem was not regained, but Saladin had to agree to allowing Christian pilgrims access once again. Urselius (talk) 18:47, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I lost hope with wikipedia to be honest... Naqdi (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Everything I mentioned is factual, I take it that you lose hope with facts that do not coincide with your desires or viewpoint. Welcome, my dear sir, to reality. It may sting at first, but you get used to it with time. Urselius (talk) 20:35, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Hello

I have gone through the edit history of this article and noticed that user:Urselius really messed with it and changed it from its true form to a much biased form that really has no sense of truth, i request that it be fixed and restored to its original state as this is just wrong, Thanks. Naqdi (talk) 19:18, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I am a professional researcher and have been trained to be entirely factual and without bias in what I write and I take grave offence myself at your groundless accusations. Urselius (talk) 20:11, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Unless you detail what you are talking about, there is really no way for anyone to respond. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:31, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Well, if only you go through the revision history. Anyway i will tell you what i mean

in short it used to view it from both points but now its biased towards the christian end and is making the Muslims look as if they don't know which end of the sword to grab. Yes the crusaders did win some battles and Muslims won even more but this current version is very upsetting and as a Muslim i take offense to it as it has no sense of truth. I request that it be restored to an older revision, thanks Naqdi (talk) 19:43, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I created the article on Saladin's greatest lieutenant, Gökböri. Have a look at it, I wrote the whole thing, and come back to me again if you think that I am biased against Muslims. Urselius (talk) 19:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You still provide no detail as to what you consider incorrect or which older version you wish to restore. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 19:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I would say this version with some updating Naqdi (talk) 19:55, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

You are talking about reverting literally hundreds of edits, and you still are not detailing what you think is incorrect. It would be more productive to propose changes to the current version. But again, more detail about what you consider incorrect is necessary. We cannot read your mind. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 20:02, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

The version you suggest is entirely unsuitable as it omits any mention of the two Crusader advances on Jerusalem - rather important events in a Crusade aimed at the recapture of the aforementioned city. Urselius (talk) 20:15, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

I have better things to do than argue with wikipedians, i just noticed a biased article on a wiki that is supposed to be about truth. Have a good day. Naqdi (talk) 20:48, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Truth is mutable, fact less so. If you find factual inaccuracies please draw attention to them. ديك يوم جيد Urselius (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

Flag and coat-of-arms icons in infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The use of flag icons on Wikipedia derives from their use in articles on more modern topics. They are not at all useful for articles concerned with the Early to High Middle Ages. This is because national flags just did not exist at the time, and projecting either the symbols of royal families or later national flags backwards in time is not factually acceptable. Regarding coats-of-arms the same rationale applies. In the late 12th century heraldry was in its infancy and did not become codified much before 1250. The use of designs applied to flags and shields by nobles and knights were demonstrably largely at the whim of the individual. This is best illustrated by the arch-crusader Richard the Lionheart, his two great seals, produced about a decade apart, have different designs - the first: a lion rampant, or possibly two lions rampant opposed - the second: three lions passant guardant. We have no indication of the colours of either blazon. Urselius (talk) 11:05, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

I concur. I will also add that at the small size they hardly serve as identification. Another problem is that most people reading here have not the slightest clue what the coats of arms are supposed to represent - the chances of your average reader identifying a commander from the coat of arms is very slim. The average reader is not going to look at File:Austria coat of arms simple.svg and go "Oh, Austria!" They do not serve any identification purpose whatsoever. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:32, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

From a practical point of view, that an article without pictures is confusing, because I have to read it again and again to find some of the information I require, it's time consuming. The form " Albert II" is better for orientation than longer "Albert II of Brandenburg" which takes two lines and requires more time to read and search. In addition, some information turned out to be inaccurate and there were errors and it was not possible to notice it in time (Antioch as vassal of Jerusalem, which he never was, Cilician Armenia as kingdom, even though it was a principality at the time etc). Still, I think there is no reason to discuss this, because many articles use coats of arms or flags and there is no reason to grant an exception nor due to the coat of arms of England. Another article mentions three lions rampart in Richard's great seal. These were used further, so it's irrelevant to the hypothesis whether the previous coats of arms were more important. -- Dragovit 10:48, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

No, 'Albert II of Brandenburg' is far better - it contains more specific information, we do not require readers to search through links in order to identify someone. Urselius (talk) 13:30, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

It's "far better" just for you maybe, but we're now talking about the usual wiki style and most other articles use a flags or emblems that are in the size that was in the settings (all flags have a uniform size of 22px on the whole wiki, so it isn't appropriate to solve their size here) and the form "of Brandenburg" isn't commonly used because it's not the real name of a person, but only the name of some localion (states, but sometimes also cities and castles) that only makes the name too long. Your explanation cite "more specific information and readers searching through links" is your own and unique, which means that has nothing to do with the ordinary look of articles. I'm not explicitly against it, but it's a way how to reduce size of the infobox, because you also mentioned here enlargement of the infobox as a defect, so that was my compromise how to solve it. Unfortunately, you point out several shortcomings at once and they cannot be solved if they contradict each other. Unfortunately you have several conflicting requests at once, probably intentionally to avoid editing. - Dragovit 18:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The concept may not be known in England, but it WAS known in the Holy Roman Empire, as per the Codex Manesse, the Psalms of Munich, the Bear Skin of Austria and many many more I could name. Are you telling me that you've studied these?

Talk 06:50, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

We're not saying it wasn't beginning, we're saying it isn't fully developed and not yet set into a system. You can't say there is a coat of arms for Richard and/or England because he used several during his lifetime. And a number of the nobles didn't use them in this period at all. And that doesn't begin to address the issue that claiming it's a way to "identify participants" is wrong because the average reader has no idea what the little blobs of color mean so they can't possibly use them to identify anything.Ealdgyth - Talk 12:10, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Further - see File:Holy Roman Empire Arms-single head.svg where it describes the file as "Coat of arms of the Holy Roman Emperor and/or the king of Germany as used in the 13th century (Hohenstaufen emperors)." And File:Argent a chief gules.svg says "# Henri II d'Avaugour (1205 † 1281), comte de Penthièvre, comte de Goëllo, comte d'Avaugour, comte de Lamballe et comte de Tréguier, comte de Guingamp. (Bretagne)" And File:Coat of Arms of Prince Bohémond VI of Antioch.png is for Bohemond VI of Antioch who was born circa 1237! And I can't see that File:Seljuqs Eagle.svg is really closely tied to the Sultanate of Rum (hint - it's not used on the wikipedia page as an identifying symbol of the sultanate...) Ealdgyth - Talk 12:29, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the average user has access or not. I'm a native German speaker with a far greater range of information, that's why I'm defending the information I have.

If you want to get rid of the English coat of arms, do so. But nobody has any rights towards any other.

Talk 05:42, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

You are not engaging with the arguments against the inclusion of all of these images. Particularising to individual images, or asserting bogus rights to certain images does not constitute a cogent argument. An entirely separate reason to not include these images is that they increase the size of the infobox to ridiculous proportions, relative to the text of the article. Urselius (talk) 11:52, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

The argument about image size and increase the size of the infobox is irrelevant because image size can be easily modified. 15px is the usual size, but can be reduced to 12px or even 10px, which is roughly the size of the text and images are still clear, the infobox doesn't notice it in any way. -- Dragovit 10:40, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Another concern is that there is no sourcing linking these images to the territories in the Third Crusade. Most of the image pages on Commons have no source giving any time frame for usage of the coats of arms - so they are basically unsourced additions. Ealdgyth - Talk 12:31, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Obviously, only you have this concern and it's totally absurd, because the sources you require are in the articles about coats of arms where they are used, so you are looking for sources in the wrong place. If you question the accuracy of these coats of arms, you must refer to the articles directly that are related to the coats of arms, not the articles about crusades. -- Dragovit 10:37, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

Do 12th century emblems provide any useful function? A twentieth century article displaying the flag of the USA would add a recognisable visual emblem, that would be known to the vast majority of readers. Adding the arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, I would submit, adds no level of recognition for the vast majority of readers. If this is the case, why use it? Also you are ignoring the fact that most emblems shown are anachronistic, they either were not used at the time, or their form was mutable and had not settled into one form. A case in point, arguably the most prominent leader of the Third Crusade was Richard I of England. We know that his grandfather Geoffrey of Anjou was depicted once with a shield bearing a blue lion rampant on a white field. Richard's first great seal shows him bearing a shield with a rampant lion. Because only half the shield is shown, we do not know if his blazon was one lion rampant or two lions rampant facing each other. On his second great seal, dating to after the Crusade, his shield shows three lions couchant. We have absolutely no contemporary evidence for the colours used in either of his devices. Added to this, although Western European heraldry later became codified, the same was not true for Byzantium, or any of the Muslim regions. They never developed a codified system of heraldry, and ALL attributed devices were either personal whims or retrospective. Do you really want to inflict emblems with no contemporary evidence for their use on to a credulous readership, who probably would assume that they are factual? Urselius (talk) 13:27, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

The 12th century emblems probably have the same function as 20th century flags, insignias and logos of organizations elsewhere – to present and identify the some entity such as the state, otherwise it is just a vague text, in some cases, if the names are similar, they may be easily interchangeable, it also indicates the importance of states and their statehood before other entities such as various groups, movements, etc. If you question purpose of the flags and emblems, then you question the whole basic wiki style, because this also applies to every flag, emblem and basically all wikimedia files, none is an exact copy, they are all reproductions of an graphic designer and with the 12th century emblems it isn't different, it serves to identify and highlight it to make it clear. It doesn't matter that the coat of arms isn't an exact copy if it corresponds to a blason (heraldic description). If you know the rules of heraldry, you know that following the blason means the validity of the coat of arms and their exact look or shades of colors aren't critical. I've already written it here: if England didn't have a final valid coat of arms in this period and it isn't possible to use the final version with three lions, that isn't reason for applied same way to all states and disrupt the usual wiki style. It's also pointless for military orders to be without crosses that were their insignia that distinguished them from others. Erasing all of them (so much content) seems like vandalism to me, I spent quite a bit of time with that and if it's not enough for you that I creating different versions, then you probably don't want to compromise. I prefer to decide which emblem to use and which to omit, so do you agree that I can use emblems without English? Other emblems you haven't questioned. Byzantine one isn't heraldic, but it's made of coins which are also considered a symbol of statehood, so it can also be used to present and identify, as you know, Chi Rho (labarum) was often used in articles for the same reason, but it doesn't belong to this period. - Dragovit 18:41, 18 March 2021 (UTC)

There is a general problem with people considering that infobox spaces in Wikipedia have to be filled, just because they are there; whether filling them in is appropriate or not. I have just removed map co-ordinates for a Medieval battle whose exact location is unknown! We are not in the realms of using a heraldic charge description to produce a more or less accurate blazon here, that is just a disingenuous digression. We are looking at whether an example of heraldry or a symbolic device is appropriate for the period. I would assert that Western European heraldry was in its unformed infancy at this time and largely down to personal whim and uncodified, that Eastern European heraldry was even more unformed and that Byzantine and Muslim heraldry and symbolism never became codified at all. If you can find good quality proof that a symbol was in use in the late 12th century, then using this would be appropriate, mere back-projection from later sources is inappropriate for use here, as it is anachronistic. BTW a labarum, believed to have been that of Constantine the Great was preserved in the imperial treasury at Constantinople and is described as extant in the 9th century. A miniature labarum was part of the imperial regalia, often shown being held by emperors in conjunction with an orb. Urselius (talk) 09:00, 19 March 2021 (UTC)

Your answer is too theoretical and doesn't answer my questions. Therefore, your consideration of whether or not to use in heraldry this period doesn't apply to the Third Crusade, but to the entire Wikipedia. It is not appropriate to write these considerations here, because this isn't the good place to solve them. I see no reason not to use heraldry in this article when the coats of arms are in other articles about the same period. The article without flags or emblems seems to be unfinished. The question of whether heraldry is appropriate for this period is out of place, in the article about heraldry is written: "Although certain designs that are now considered heraldic were evidently in use during the eleventh century, most accounts and depictions of shields up to the beginning of the twelfth century contain little or no evidence of their heraldic character..." because this article is about the end of the twelfth century, so these considerations about the appropriateness of heraldry are out of place here. So let's decide which specific coats of arms to use and which to omit. If the coat of arms of England is inaccurate, we can use heraldry without it, but you didn't answer either. And finally, the Byzantine labarum does not automatically mean Chi Rho symbol, do not confuse these two words, but is described as a ceremonial banner, and the period depictions of it have different appearances. − Dragovit 15:11, 22 March 2021 (UTC)

Your arguments are specious. Either a symbol is appropriate for a person or political entity in the period in question, or it is not. If a symbol can be shown to have been used by it being mentioned a contemporary descriptive written source or depicted in pictorial source, then it would be appropriate to use here, not otherwise. This is a simple enough concept. Urselius (talk) 08:55, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

It seems specious to me that you are continuously blocking the editing of an article based on a discussion that has been going on since 2016 without any clear result or consensus, even though you claim that the discussion is still ongoing, the result is still uncertain and ambiguous after five years. Even the rules of MOS:INFOBOXFLAG say nothing about the fact that the use of flags in every infobox is not allowed everywhere, but it says that infoboxes about military conflicts and international competitions have an exception, which is understandable right here, because there are a lot of belligerents with a lot of commanders. Also the argument about the beginning of the Age of heraldry was also refuted, this isn't a period of time when heraldry was in "infancy", you're probably confusing the periods. So there is nothing to block the use of flags or heraldry. Then it's not just about symbols, but also that I can't ascribe a paragraph and correct the obvious mistakes that are there. It feels like a violation of my rights and my freedom. You cannot succeed without convincing arguments and disregard for the rules. Dragovit (talk) 11:26, 25 March 2021 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Infobox5

Objectively speaking, how military victories are supposed to result in a truce? Victories lead to gains, concessions, surrenders or whatever, not "truces"... Bertdrunk (talk) 00:33, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Many wars end in truces, the victor is the side gaining the most advantage from the truce. In the case of the Third Crusade, the Crusaders won every major engagement - the siege of Acre and the battles of Arsuf and Jaffa - and the Ayyubids were consistently defeated. At the start of the crusade the Kingdom of Jerusalem was reduced to one city, at the end the kingdom had recovered all of the coastal area of Palestine and some inland areas as well. It was again a viable state, which was to last a further century. In the treaty Saladin recognised this new territorial status quo and granted access to Jerusalem to Christian pilgrims. The crusaders demolished the fortifications of the town of Ascalon and handed it back to Saladin. The truce was one-sided, most of the concessions were made by Saladin. Urselius (talk) 09:08, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to say that my friend, but you should really go to a dictionary and see what truce means. I asked how the war could have ended in a truce and you tell me a number of different reasons that describe why it didn't. Best regards, Bertdrunk (talk) 15:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

You seem somewhat fixated on dictionary definitions, whilst ignoring historical realities. Whether a truce or treaty, the agreement reached at Jaffa is universally acknowledged as bringing a definite end to the Third Crusade. As the agreement involved far greater concessions by Saladin than by the crusaders the result was a crusader victory. Urselius (talk) 19:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Third Crusade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718171218/http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/283/2/Norman_and_AngloNorman.pdf to http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/283/2/Norman_and_AngloNorman.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110711171258/http://www.historyavenue.com/third_crusade_1.html to http://www.historyavenue.com/third_crusade_1.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 05:09, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

84.67.71.25 (talk) 10:23, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

MILMOS#INFOBOX

The current infobox is far too cluttered and does not follow MILMOS#INFOBOX.

"Used for all conflicts and combat operations, such as battles, campaigns, and wars. The "result" parameter has often been a source of contention. Particular attention should be given to the advice therein. The infobox does not have the scope to reflect nuances, and should be restricted to "X victory" or "See aftermath" (or similar) where the result was inconclusive or does not otherwise fit with these restrictions. In particular, terms like "Pyrrhic victory" or "decisive victory" are inappropriate for outcomes. It may also be appropriate to omit the "result"."

I believe going towards a See outcome section would be the best for this page. Similar to the Third Anglo-Afghan War page. @Urselius Noorullah (talk) 16:06, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

However, your replacement had some deficiencies, it removed a reference to Crusader gains in inland Galilee, the acquisition of Cyprus and downplayed the Crusader gains in Palestine in general, as the coast of Palestine was its most economically productive region. The Third Crusade gave the Crusader states another century of existence, not a trivial time period. The Crusade also allowed the Principality of Antioch and County of Tripoli to regain territory and reestablish their stability. Urselius (talk) 19:48, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

"it removed a reference to Crusader gains in inland Galilee, the acquisition of Cyprus and downplayed the Crusader gains in Palestine in general" I wasn't downplaying anything, sources said that the Muslims held the entirety of Palestine. To quote what one of the sources said: "The Holy war had lasted five years. Before the decisive victory at Hittin in July, 1187, not an inch of Palestine west of the Jordan was in Muslim hands. After the peace of Ramla in September, 1192, the whole land was Muslim territory except a narrow strip of coast from Tyre to Jaffa." Again, I added only what is stated in the sources on the agreed Treaty of Jaffa/Ramla, and they make no mention of Galilee or Cyprus (Cyprus was not under Muslim rule either, and it was instead captured from the Byzantines).

"The Third Crusade gave the Crusader States another century of existance, not a trivial time period". I'm sorry but I fail to see how this is relevant to what is being brought up? In my edit I put this; "it facilitated the continuation of the Crusader states that were on the brink of collapse."

"The Crusade also allowed the Principality of Antioch and County of Tripoli to regain territory and reestablish their stability." There is nothing that I have seen relevant to the Third Crusade that says anything about Antioch or Tripoli obtaining lands. @Urselius Noorullah (talk) 20:26, 25 October 2023 (UTC)

You seem to be looking at the results of the Crusade from a very narrow viewpoint, circumscribed merely to Palestine and merely the effects of the Crusade and Treaty of Jaffa on the Ayyubid Sultanate. The capture of Cyprus was a direct result of the Crusade, the Crusade is the subject of the article, and not 'How the 3rd Crusade Affected Muslim Palestine'. Cyprus in Frankish hands provided vital local support for the Crusader States, in some cases the rulers of Cyprus and the Kingdom of Jerusalem were the same person (in personal union). The retaking of land in inland Galilee was supported by very specific sources, that one particular source ignores this facet is a reflection on the limitations of that source, not that the event did not take place - a sin of omission. The Crusade also definitively halted Saladin's career of conquest, no small achievement. The vast majority of the Levantine coastline reverted to Frankish control, including a large proportion of the most fertile land of Syria/Palestine and a very significant part of its mercantile and trading wealth. That some land was regained by the Crusade is probably less important than that the Crusade prevented the loss of all of Outremer. Urselius (talk) 08:17, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

"You seem to be looking at the results of the Crusade from a very narrow viewpoint, circumscribed merely to Palestine and merely the effects of the Crusade and Treaty of Jaffa on the Ayyubid Sultanate." You were the one that brought up Palestine. The outcome section is meant to reflect the outcome of the war.

You were the one to limit the outcome to what happened in Palestine. The outcome of the Crusade is not limited to the stipulations of the Treaty of Jaffa, it includes other factors. The treaty ended the Crusade, but it was certainly not the only outcome of it.

the Crusade is the subject of the article, and not 'How the 3rd Crusade Affected Muslim Palestine'. Well again, you brought Palestine up, I just sourced what it said from a quote about the entirety of Palestine being under Muslim control, including "the whole land" except from a narrow strip of coast from Tyre to Jaffa.

This is what I object to in your wording. It is not a balanced assessment. The 'entirety of Palestine' cannot be true, if it does not include most of its coastal zone - if you are quoting an author, then the author is at fault, because he has no concept of logic. The 'entirety' of anything is the whole of it. You can say 'most of', you can say 'virtually all the inland parts', but you most definitely cannot say 'the entirety'.

Cyprus in Frankish hands provided vital local support for the Crusader States, in some cases the rulers of Cyprus and the Kingdom of Jerusalem were the same person (in personal union). Can you elaborate how this is relevant towards the outcome section?

It is an outcome of the Crusade, that is its relevance. Before the Crusade Cyprus was a seceding Byzantine province, in rebellion, after the Crusade, it was an independent Frankish kingdom. It was a relatively rich island that the Muslim powers could not directly attack (due to Italian maritime power), and therefore provided a source of support for the mainland Crusader states that was much closer than western Europe. Many nobles of the Kingdom of Jerusalem held lands in Cyprus, so Cyprus directly economically supported the kingdom. It was pivotal to the continued survival of the Crusader states. It was a HUGELY IMPORTANT outcome of the Crusade. It HAS to be mentioned in any treatment of the outcome of the Crusade.

The retaking of land in inland Galilee was supported by very specific sources, that one particular source ignores this facet is a reflection on the limitations of that source, not that the event did not take place Then it can be added, there is no dispute against it.

Good.

The Crusade also definitively halted Saladin's career of conquest, no small achievement. The vast majority of the Levantine coastline reverted to Frankish control, including a large proportion of the most fertile land of Syria/Palestine and a very significant part of its mercantile and trading wealth. That some land was regained by the Crusade is probably less important than that the Crusade prevented the loss of all of Outremer. It didn't halt Saladin's career of conquest, Saladin himself died very shortly after the treaty of Ramla. Instead, sources seem to actually state that Saladin was in a very powerful position even post-Third Crusade. To quote Stanley Lane-Poole: "Saladin, on the other hand, came out of the war unshaken." If you wish to read the full quote here: [7] But this is not a debacle about the small majority of the Levantine, this is what scholarly historians have to say about it. And most scholarly historians differ the outcome of the Third Crusade as either a successful expedition, an expedition that failed in its cause, or one that was hardly justified given the extreme cost. @Urselius Noorullah (talk) 20:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

You say, "And most scholarly historians differ the outcome of the Third Crusade", if so, why do you only seem to take on viewpoint into account? At the very least you give Poole rather too much prominence. If scholarly opinions differ, then the differing viewpoints need to be covered in any encyclopaedic treatment.

Also it seems that Bohemond III of Antioch actually acknowledged himself under the suzerainty of Saladin after the Third Crusade. See here: [8] (page 215) Noorullah (talk) 20:58, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

That is according to Ibn Al-Athir, but Frankish chroniclers do not appear to mention it, though a treaty was certainly signed. In 1190 Bohemond became the vassal of Frederick VI Duke of Swabia, heir apparent of the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa, and he had previously been a vassal of the Byzantine Emperor, Manuel I Komnenos. Either Bohemond's professions of vassalage were fleeting, meaningless gestures, or Al-Athir was not entirely accurate and whatever occurred at the meeting of Saladin and Bohemond, it did not amount to vassal status for Bohemond. Urselius (talk) 11:57, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I see.

Referring to you saying I gave Poole prominence; I was not giving weight or prominence to what he said, I just quoted what he said about the Ayyubids post Third Crusade.

Cyprus can also be added. We can also say "most of" referring to Muslim control in Palestine. Noorullah (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2023 (UTC)

I suggest that you make your edits, moderating the 'entire' claim, and I add material on the importance of the capture of Cyprus and the relative stability of the remaining part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem until the conquests of Baibars in the 12060s. Urselius (talk) 13:15, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Alright, sure. Noorullah (talk) 19:12, 29 October 2023 (UTC)