RICHARD COEUR DE LION, SECOND PLANTAGENET KING]
[OTHER NAME] RICHARD THE LION HEART
KING OF ENGLAND AND GREAT GREAT GRANDSON OF
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR [RICHARD’S PATERNAL
GRANDMOTHER, EMPRESS MAUD, WAS THE PATERNAL GRANDDAUGHTER OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR
SEE
RICHARD’S FATHER, KING HENRY II
KING HENRY II’S MOTHER, EMPRESS MAUD [MATHILDA], THE
LAWFUL SUCCESSOR OF HER FATHER, KING HENRY I,
ALTHOUGH HER THRONE HAD BEEN USURPED BY HER
FIRST COUSIN, STEPHEN OF BLOIS, WHICH LED TO A BITTER
CIVIL WAR
KING HENRY I, FATHER OF EMPRESS MAUD AND YOUNGEST SON
OF WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR’
HENRY I LET THE BARONS SWEAR AN OATH OF LOYALTY TO
HIS DAUGHTER AND SUCCESSOR, EMPRESS MAUD
HOWEVER MANY BARONS BROKE THAT OATH AND HENRY I’S
NEPHEW [SON OF HIS SISTER ADELA OF NORMANDY] USURPED
THE THRONE
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR, FATHER OF KING HENRY I
AS THE DUKE OF NORMANDY, DUKE WILLIAM CONQUERED ENGLAND IN
1066, DEFEATING THE LAST ANGLO SAXON KING, KING HARALD [OR KING HAROLD II, HAROLD GODWINSON],
AT THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS
WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR WAS THE GREAT GREAT GRANDFATHER OF
RICHARD COEUR THE LION [RICHARD LIONHEART], WHO WENT
ON CRUSADE AND IS THE SUBJECT OF THIS ARTICLE
KING HARALD [OR HAROLD II], THE LAST ANGLO SAXON
KING OF ENGLAND, DEFEATED BY WILLIAM THE CONQUEROR IN THE BATTLE OF HASTINGS IN 1066
THE CRUSADES HAD NOTHING TO
DO WITH THE VALUES OF CHRISTIANITY!/AN EXAMPLE:
MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH
40i And the king will say to them in reply, ‘Amen, I say to you, whatever you did for one of these least brothers of mine, you did for me.’
NEW TESTIMONYMATTHEW 25: 40
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/
NEW TESTIMONYMATTHEW 25: 40
https://bible.usccb.org/bible/
READERS!
In contrary with commonly accepted views in the Western world
[although there IS a change of opinion nowadays], the Crusades in
the Middle Ages were not some heroic and noble religious cause
[although many participants probably really though they were],
but bloody warsof conquest for land, greed and wealth.
I hope in the future to write more about this!
But for now Readers, my Facebook comment on the page of
”Real Crusaders History”, because I strongly object the euphemistic
way they described the massacre of Ayyadieh on the orders of
the Norman English King [”Norman”, because he was the
great great grandson of William the Conqueror and as the second Plantagenet
king, he was still strongly ”French Norman” oriented] [1]
By blaming Richard’s adversary Sultan Saladin [who in reality defended the Holy Land, Palestine, against the Crusader invaders!] [2] for the Ayyadieh Massacre
”Real Crusaders History” is ”blaming the victim” here.
The organizer and commander king Richard is off the hook, and Sultan
Saladin, whose men were victims of the slaughter, gets the blame.
That is a travesty of the real history, so I commented that on their page:
And in my comment you canb see a glimpse of the way I see the Crusades:
Perhaps I write more about it.
But for now:
READ AND ENJOY
First [A], you readabout the slaughter of ASyyadieh
Then [B] you read the comment of Real Crusades History
And last, but not least [C] Astrid Essed’s Comment on
Real Crusades History
ENJOY!
ASTRID ESSED
NOTE 1
WIKIPEDIA
ANGEVIN KINGS OF ENGLAND
NOTE 2
WIKIPEDIA
SALADIN
A
WIKIPEDIA
MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH
B
”REAL CRUSADES HISTORY” ON FACEBOOK
THEIR COMMENT ON THE ROLE OF KING RICHARD
COEUR DE LION [RICHARD I, BETTER KNOWN AS
RICHARD LIONHEART] IN THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH [PAY ATTENTION:
RICHARD LIONHEART HIMSELF ORDERED THAT MASSACRE!]
REAL CRUSADES HISTORY ON FACEBOOK
COMMENT
Bericht van Real Crusades History
Why did Richard the Lionheart execute the Saracen garrison of Acre?
After the fall of Acre to the Christians, Richard the Lionheart dispatched envoys to Saladin, asking that the surrender terms of Acre be fulfilled. Saladin asked that he be allowed to deliver the payments and prisoners in installments. Richard agreed to this at once. Both sides agreed to a schedule of payments in which Saladin would deliver the ransom gradually, while both sides would exchange their prisoners. However, as each deadline came and went, a pattern began to emerge – Saladin refused to keep his end of the bargain. At each assigned date, Saladin offered excuses as to why he couldn’t deliver a payment, or release prisoners. Richard agreed to extend the deadlines, but it became clear that the Sultan was toying with the crusader king, and trying to undermine his authority. Above all, Saladin wanted to keep Richard bogged down in Acre, endlessly negotiating over these prisoners, while the Christian army disintegrated. Even Saladin’s own chroniclers admit this. Whereas Richard, famously, was obsessed with the well being of his own men, on this occasion, Saladin was perfectly content to gamble with the lives of his most valiant soldiers – the men who’d defended Acre. These men provided the Sultan with a means of stalling his enemy, and that mattered more to Saladin than obtaining their freedom.
Richard quickly recognized Saladin’s game. He knew that the Sultan was toying with him, and trying to both break the momentum of the crusade as well as make Richard appear ineffective. After one more broken deadline and litany of excuses from the Sultan’s envoys, Richard marched his prisoners out before Saladin’s encampment and executed them in full view of the Muslim army. In effect, Richard had called Saladin’s bluff, and the results would prove disastrous for the Sultan. Many emirs and leading men in the Muslim forces were enraged that Saladin had failed to ransom the brave defenders of Acre, and this would create loyalty problems for the Sultan that would persist throughout the crusade. In addition, Saladin would from then on find it very difficult to convince his men to garrison castles and cities, since they all now feared the fate of Acre’s garrison.
Ultimately, Richard had given Saladin ample opportunity to secure the lives of his men. This was far more than could be said of Saladin, who had ruthlessly executed Templars and Hospitallers taken prisoner after the battle of Hattin. By repeatedly reneging on the terms of the agreement, Saladin intentionally placed Richard in a very difficult situation. Richard had no ability to permanently house these prisoners, nor could he allow the Sultan’s flagrant violations of the terms to go unanswered. It was a hard, bloody decision made in the midst of a hard and bloody war, and ultimately, Saladin himself should be criticized for abandoning the courageous Acre garrison to such a cruel fate. Compared to Richard, who often risked his own life leading rescue missions when his own men were captured, we can only wonder at Saladin’s calloused and ungrateful attitude toward his bravest soldiers. Saladin tried to use the massacre as a propaganda win, executing many Christian prisoners of his own in dramatic public spectacles, but ultimately considerable numbers of his own followers continued to blame him for the needless deaths of their comrades. Saladin would never overcome this bitterness that now infected his ranks.
END
C
ASTRID ESSED’S COMMENT ON THE REACTION OF ”REAL CRUSADES
HISTORY”
Astrid Essed
NO EXCUSE FOR THE MASSACRE AT AYYADIEH BY RICHARD COEUR DE LION NOT SALADIN IS TO BE BLAMED HERE, BUT THE ONE, WHO EXECUTED THE PRISONERS, RICHARD THE LION HEART THE CRUSADERS WERE INVADERS AND OCCUPIERS
What ”Real Crusaders History says, is unacceptable, since he excuses Richard the Lionheart for this barbaric deed and lays the blame on Saladin, who did not commit this! Admitting, that Medieval Warfare was a sordid affair, not only during the Crusades, but also in Europe [in a war between Lords or Kings, pillaging of villages and raping and killing innocent civilian villagers was standard], that is no excuse whatsoever for any crime of war, whether done by the Lords [or Kings] in Europe, in the Holy Land by the Crusaders or the Saracens. WRONG IS WRONG This to begin with: Then: It’s true that Saladin was responsible for the delay in the agreement between him and Richard about the exchange of the prisoners. It even may be said [there ”Real Crusaders History” ‘has a point] that Saladin brought thus the lives of the priosners in danger. BUT IT WAS RICHARD’S CHOICE TO MASSACRE THEM OR NOT AND THE BLAME FOR THIS IS SOLELY TO BE LAID IN RICHARD! And it was irresponsible too: Because as a retaliation [which I also condemn] Saladin killed the ”Christian” prisoners, which Richard could have expected. SALADIN’S BEHAVIOUR CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1099 CONQUEST OF JERUSALEM, 1187 Of course Real Crusaders History is right, that Saladin could be cruel too. By executing the Christian prisoners after Richards’s massacre. By executing the Knights Templar after the Battle of Hattin. But let’s not forget the big difference at the conquest [reconquest] of Jerusalem When the”Christian” leaders [” because it is the opposite of real christian behaviour] conquered Jerusalem in 1099, the killed NEARLY ALL PEOPLE, MUSLIM, CHRISTIAN AND JEWS. When Saladin reconquered Jerusalem, he spared the whole population! WHO IS CIVILIZED HERE AND WHO THE BARBARIAN? THE CRUSADES WERE NOT A JUST FIGHT, BUT WARS OF CONQUEST AND CRUSADERS WERE INTRUDERS, AGGRESSORS AND OCCUPIERS! And let’s say this plain: The Crusaders had nothing to seek in the Holy Land, but for pilgrimage. Were they the inhabitants there? NO They came from England, France, the Holy Roman Empire, Spain, Italy, etc Far from the Holy Land. To say you have a mission to recover Jerusalem in the hands of Christianity is just nonsense, since not only they forgot, that Christendom originated in Palestine and was later spread to Europe, but also the fact, that Palestine belonged to the inhabitants, who lived THERE, Greek christians, Jews, who had remained there after the diaspora, Arabs, Turks, etc. The Holy Land was NOT the land of European knights, nobles and kings. They could come on a pilgrimage, but not established as rulers! True, the Muslims conquered the Holy Land at the cost of the Byzantine Empire and the only one, who had a certain claim, politically, was the Byzantine Emperor, who appealed to Europe [Pope Urbanus II] to help recover his lands [especially Anatolia] conquered by the Seljuq Turks. So helping him was legitimate, but although the Crusaders [First Crusade 1095-1099] promiised the Byzantine Emperor to recover his lands for him, BROKE THEIR PROMISE, HOLDING THE CONQUERED LANDS FOR THEMSELVES AND ESTABLISHED CRUSADER STATES! https://www.youtube.
Astrid Essed
The Netherlands
SEE ALSO FROM ASTRID ESSED
AND
END
.png)
