War by Other Means: Diplomacy of the Third Crusade – Part I: Testing the Limits

The German military philosopher, Carl von Clausewitz, famously described war as “the continuation of politics by other means” and as “an act of force to compel the enemy to do our will.” Diplomacy on the other hand is the attempt to obtain political objectives without the use of force. War and diplomacy, however, are intimately related because every military leader seeks to obtain his objectives (both military and political) with the minimum casualties. A diplomatic victory that delivers an important military objective bloodlessly ― whether it’s as small as a bridge or as big as a kingdom ― is always preferred over a bloody battle or all out war.

Thus, both methods of obtaining political objectives (war and diplomacy) are as old as history itself. The crusades ― despite often being characterized as acts of mindless barbarism ― were no exception. In addition to the battles familiar to most students of the crusades, there were frequent, complex and often highly successful diplomatic maneuvers as well. 

The Third Crusade was the first (but not the last) of the crusades that ended with a truce, and as such was concluded diplomatically rather than militarily. It is therefore an interesting case-study in diplomacy at the interface between Christendom and the Dar al-Islam. It is particularly interesting because the principle actors, Richard the Lionheart and Salah ad-Din, are more famous as men of war than men of peace. In two entries I wish to examine the diplomacy of the Third Crusade. Today’s entry looks at diplomacy in the first six months of the crusade; a period in which both sides were probing the other more than seeking agreement.

The political objectives of the Third Crusade were crystal clear: the restoration of Christian rule over the Holy Land. The later was defined roughly as the land in which Christ had lived and died, most especially the site of his execution, burial and resurrection: Jerusalem. All the crusaders that embarked upon the Third Crusade understood this as their goal ― and Saladin knew it. His political objective was quite simply to defend the status quo: Muslim control over the territory coveted by the crusaders.

The Christian forces making up the Third Crusade first encountered the forces of Salah ad-Din at Acre. The choice of venue was not strategic and had not been chosen by any of the commanders. Rather, it was imposed on both parties by Guy de Lusignan’s questionable decision to lay siege to Acre two years earlier (See Siege of Acre). (One can’t help but speculate what Richard the Lionheart’s choice venue for an assault would have been if the siege of Acre had not already been in place; I suspect Jaffa or Ascalon.)

After nearly two years of stalemate, the arrival of the fleets commissioned and commanded by the powerful European kings Philip II of France and Richard I of England immediately tipped the scales at the siege of Acre in favor of the crusaders. I say the fleets and not the armies because it was ultimately the airtight blockade of the city of Acre that forced the Egyptian garrison of Acre to seek terms. 

So the first diplomatic move in the Third Crusade was made by the Saracens (the garrison of Acre) seeking very generous terms of surrender. The newly arrived crusaders, still fresh and cocky, rejected the terms. Instead, they continued their assaults and finally forced the garrison, which was now quite desperate, to surrender on less favorable terms. The terms included the return of the relic captured at the Battle of Hattin and believed to be a piece of the cross on which Christ was crucified (True Cross), a large payment in gold (200,000 gold pieces) and the liberation of a large number of Christian captives, most probably a number equal to the number of hostages. Two-thousand five hundred hostages (by some accounts more, but a number equal to the captives to be released) from the garrison were surrendered to the crusaders as surety for the fulfillment of the terms of the treaty. In short, the first round of diplomatic maneuvering went to the Christians.

Salah ad-Din, however, had either not been involved in the negotiations at all, or only at the last moment, when the desperate garrison begged him to sanction the terms they had already obtained. He was almost certainly not pleased with the terms, which may well have placed him in an awkward position. Salah ad-Din’s problem was that he: 1) may not have had the True Cross in his possession (Islam considers reverence for objects idolatry and had little reason to keep the Christian relic intact), 2) may have been short of ready cash, and 3) would have needed to buy back the captive Christians from the men who had captured them or purchased them since. In short, Salah ad-Din may have had difficulty fulfilling the terms of the agreement. Equally or possibly even more important, Salah ad-Din had every reason to drag out the fulfillment of the agreement. The campaign season in the Holy Land lasts only through the summer and ends when the rains start in November or December. It was already July when Acre surrendered. The longer Salah ad-Din dragged out the negotiations, the less time the crusaders would have to make an assault somewhere else.

Salah ad-Din as portrayed by a artist in the West

Salah ad-Din chose to play for time, missing at least two deadlines for the delivery of the True Cross, the captives and the gold. This inaction on the part of Salah ad-Din now put Richard of England in the awkward position of having to respond. The campaign season was ticking away, his troops were getting fractious, the Saracens hostages were consuming food and required guards. Most important of all: Salah ad-Din appeared to be mocking and belittling him. Aside from the fact that Salah ad-Din appeared to have made a fool of him in the eyes of many of his own followers, Richard had to wonder what Salah ad-Din would think of him if he meekly accepted the excuses and delays. The military objective, the surrender of Acre to the crusaders, had already been achieved. What was now at stake were only secondary, not to say marginal objectives: money, the symbolic True Cross, and captives, who were not Richard's own men but natives of Outremer, men that Richard at this time may have more-or-less looked down on.

Since Salah ad-Din had not fulfilled the terms of the agreement, Richard was completely within his rights to execute the hostages according to the customs of war at this time. His decision to do so, however, had little to do with what was his “right,” and more to do with what impact he thought his action would have. The execution of the hostages was of negligible military value; 2,500 men were a drop in the bucket of what Salah ad-Din could conscript or recruit. The execution of the hostages served, rather, the diplomatic objective of increasing Salah ad-Din’s respect for Richard as a negotiating partner. The diplomatic message was: this English king is not to be trifled with. Whether we like it or not, Richard got his message across.

Significantly, it was Richard that made the next diplomatic move. Shortly after the crusading army had left Acre and before the battle of Arsuf, Richard sought a meeting with Salah ad-Din. His apparent objective at this time appears to have been no more than meeting him face-to-face so he could take the measure of him. Richard, remember, had up to now fought men he knew well ― his father, his brothers, his vassals, his would-be brother-in-law Philip of France. Salah ad-Din was known to him only from hear-say and it is understandable that he wanted to meet. 

Richard I's Tomb at Fontevrault

Salah ad-Din rebuffed him. He said kings only met after an agreement has been hammered out. (The same is true today: treaties are negotiated at the working-level, and only signed ― when ready ― at summits.) Richard lost this round.

After the Battle of Arsuf, Richard made a renewed attempt to open diplomatic channels and Salah ad-Din agreed to let his brother al-Adil meet with Richard. Richard opened the negotiations with a demand that Salah ad-Din turn over all territories that had ever belonged to the Kingdom of Jerusalem (i.e. even territory lost decades earlier) and, furthermore, do homage to the restored Christian King of Jerusalem for Egypt. The fact that al-Adil mildly characterized these demands as “excessive” but indicated willingness to continue talking is highly significant. 

At the same time that Saladin was negotiating with Richard, he was also negotiating with Conrad de Montferrat. Conrad’s initial proposal was that the Sultan recognize him as Count of Tyre and in addition restore Sidon and Beirut, with their surrounding territory, to him in exchange for Montferrat recognizing the Sultan’s right to everything south of Tyre (i.e. from Acre to Ascalon and including the heartland of the former Kingdom of Jerusalem ― Nazareth, Galilee and Jerusalem.) While on the surface this offer was a hundred times better than Richard's, Salah ad-Din called Conrad’s bluff by pointing out that he could not give away what he did not control. This diplomatic exchange is significant because it exposed Conrad the Montferrat’s greed and weakness. Thereafter, the Sultan knew that his only serious opponent was Richard the Lionheart and he focused his attention on driving Richard out of the Holy Land. 

But “driving him out” did not have to be by military means and so he pursed the diplomatic contacts established by Richard. What followed were a series of meetings, the exact number and date of which we can no longer reconstruct, between Richard and/or his representatives and al-Adil as Salah ad-Din’s ambassador. At one of these, al-Adil put forward the preposterous idea that he marry Richard's sister, Joanna Plantagenet, Dowager Queen of Sicily. (See A Curious Proposal) Both sides, however, treated the proposal as a joke. By the end of November it was clear that the negotiations with Richard were going nowhere and had yielded nothing concrete. The diplomatic back-and-forth broke down and was replaced by a renewed military offensive directed at Jerusalem.

Yet the diplomatic contacts established in 1191 were not unimportant. They laid the groundwork for successful negotiations the following year. If nothing else, they enabled Richard and al-Adil to establish a degree of trust and rapport that had been singularly lacking at the start of the summer, when Richard had felt he had to execute thousands of prisoners to demonstrate his resolve. While the exchange of gifts should not be exaggerated into “friendship,” they were nevertheless an indication of a degree of “normalization” of relations that kept the door to a diplomatic solution open.

Balian d’Ibelin was directly involved in much of the diplomatic maneuvering, serving in one instance as Conrad de Montferrat’s envoy. The diplomatic game is a major plot factor in “Envoy of Jerusalem.”

Buy now in paperback or kindle!

Reflections on Richard the Lionheart

The Statue of Richard the Lionheart in front of the Houses of Parliament, London

Over the years, I have provided short biographies of the historical characters who figure prominently in my Jerusalem trilogy. One character, however, I have avoided up to now: Richard the Lionheart.

Richard I Plantagenet, King of England, is -- even after more than 800  years -- somewhat intimidating. He is one of those historical figures, who is more legendary than historical. He has been rendered in art in a variety of forms and he generally comes out “larger than life.” Legends of his courage circulated even in his lifetime and after his death became more exaggerated. Richard was seen as the (at least spiritual) descendant of Alexander the Great, Charlemagne, and King Arthur.  He was remembered in medieval romances as the incarnation of chivalry, the perfect royal-knight, as Jean Flori documents extensively in his biography of Richard. (Richard the Lionheart, Jean Flori, Praeger Publishers, 2006.) Richard the Lionheart’s popularity even in popular culture goes back at least to the time of the first Robin Hood legends – whenever that was!

Hollywood's Version: Here Sean Connery as King Richard, Kevin Costner as Robin Hood

He was, however, as a historical figure, highly controversial even in his own lifetime. He was seen by the Church as excessively proud, greedy and sexual (more on this later). Contemporary clerical chroniclers saw his death as “divine justice” for his sins, and they compared his reign unfavorably with that of his father. Richard was disliked by the German Emperor and hated by the French King. He was called “the devil” by his own brother John (not the best person to be calling names, but be that as it may….) On the other hand, there can be little doubt he was adored not only by his  hard-headed, practical and highly political mother, but also by his troops. Despite the best efforts of his brother John and the King of France, he retained the loyalty of most of his vassals and subjects as well.

Early historians tended to place Richard in the “great” category, but during the Enlightenment, when the crusades were detested as “irrational,” Richard’s reputation among historians started to fade. The famous historian David Hume described Richard as violent, irrational, and excessively passionate. William Stubbs, an important 19^th century historian, considered him a “bad ruler.” Sir Stephen Runciman, the most influential historian of the crusades in the early 20^th century, called Richard “a bad son, a bad husband and a bad king”.

To this day historians and informed laymen tend to fall into “pro” or “con” camps. It seems as if people can’t be neutral about Richard.  The main sources of contemporary contention are: 1) whether Richard was a “good” or a “bad” king of England; 2) whether Richard was homosexual or not; and 3) whether Richard was a stupid, bloodthirsty brute or an intelligent and judicious nobleman and commander. 

Richard the Lionheart's Tomb at Fontevrault Abbey

In researching Richard Plantagenet for his role in Envoy of Jerusalem, I came to the following personal understanding of this complex and controversial king:

First and foremost, Richard was a product of his age, birth and upbringing. Born a prince to two of the most ambitious, politically savvy, proud and passionate people of the 12^th century, Richard had little chance of being humble, meek, dispassionate, indecisive, or easy-going. None of his brothers exhibited particular restraint, humility or benevolence toward their enemies either.  Known even in their own time as “the devil’s brood,” the Plantagenets fought their father and they fought each other as well as their liege lord Philip II and any and every rebellious vassal for what they perceived as their “rights” – their titles, their territory, their castles, their lands. 

The Tomb of Richard's Parents, Eleanor of Aquitaine and Henry II

Richard was, furthermore, only 13 when he was first invested with authority as Duke of Aquitaine. While children in the Middle Ages undoubtedly grew up faster than children do today, that is still a very young age to be raised to such high status. It is hard to imagine that the dignity, power and importance of this title did not go to his head.

Certainly, Richard identified with Aquitaine far more powerfully and emotionally than he ever did with England or Normandy. He spent almost no time in England as a child, and not until the death of his elder brother Henry the Young in 1183 did he expect to become King of England.  Even then, his father kept him guessing about whether he would be recognized as heir or not. It was literally not until his father died in 1189 that Richard had a bond with England. By then he was 32 years old and had already taken the cross. In short, his mind was focused elsewhere. So, no, he neither spent much time in nor cared particularly about England. But that does not necessarily make him a “bad” king. Indeed, it was not until the 18^th century that the English “disowned” him. Throughout the Middle Ages, Richard was revered as one of England’s greatest kings, as a king who made England proud because his glorious reputation reflected well upon his kingdom and subjects.

Another thing I learned was that Richard’s relationship with his father was far more complex than that of an impatient and rebellious son. From 1173 to 1183, Richard and his father fought almost continuously together – against the French King, against the rebellious lords of Aquitaine, against Richard’s brothers. They were allied again 1184 – 1187. I hypothesize that the bitterness of the final break (that led indeed to Richard hounding his father to his grave) was a function of the intensity of Richard’s earlier love for his father. Richard felt betrayed by a man he had come to love, and it was this sense of betrayal that turned love into hatred.

That Richard loved his mother deeply is unquestionable. He had been with her at her court in Poitiers from the ages of nine to thirteen. As Duke of Aquitaine he identified with her and her heritage. He surrendered the Aquitaine to her and her alone, trusting her not to give it to one of his brothers. His very first act as king was to order her release from detention. He sought her advice when he was with her and entrusted her with royal authority during his absence. Arguably there was no other human being that he trusted as much as he trusted his mother, and rightly so. She, more than anyone, held his kingdom together in the face of rebellions and secured his release from German captivity.

But Richard was anything but a “mama’s boy.” He was strong, athletic, and comradely. He won the affection of his troops because he could swear, fight and whore as hard as they did. Indeed, the Church was highly critical of his sexual excesses. It has become popular to impute homosexuality to Richard, but there is no evidence that he was suspected of this in his own time. Certainly, he had mistresses and at least one illegitimate son, so if he was also a practicing homosexual he was bi-sexual. We will probably never know what his sexual preferences were and, frankly, I don’t much care.

What did strike me as exceptional, however, was his willingness to do manual labor. This was anything but self-evident in a medieval nobleman, much less a king. Yet the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi claims that Richard helped rebuild the defenses of Ascalon “with his own hands,” and describes his example inspiring everyone to work together to hand the stones up to the wall (Book 5, Chapter 6). The willingness to do menial labor reveals just how sure Richard felt in his own skin. He was so sure of his own innate nobility that he had no need of royal symbols or ceremony. It was perhaps this trait that enabled him to endure captivity at the hands of the Holy Roman Emperor. 

I was also impressed with Richard’s financial savvy. His ability and willingness to invent new means of raising revenues when preparing for the crusade would not have disgraced an investment banker in the 1980s! His astute sale of the Island of Cyprus to the (rich and financially liquid) Knights Templar, thereby refilling his own coffers while securing the military objective of ensuring Latin control of this strategically vital island was a stroke of genius. His re-sale of the island to Guy de Lusignan was almost equally shrewd, again giving him resources while also easing a delicate political issue: what to do with a deposed king, who has been your client?


Almost equally impressive was his diplomatic skills and his intelligence. Richard was put in front of a kangaroo court stacked against him by Emperor Henry VI -- and talked his way into a complete acquittal! That is a remarkable achievement. He also diplomatically out-maneuvered Philip II of France, drawing one important supporter after another out of his rivals camp.  


Finally, I was won over by Richard’s leadership style. Richard was a brilliant strategist – who also led from the front. He risked his own life, but was very cautious with the lives of his soldiers. He understood logistics as well as strategy, and he won his battles with a combination of careful planning and sheer audacity. As one of my readers put it, in the end, I just had to love Richard.


Richard the Lionheart is a central figure in Envoy of Jerusalem, and I have attempted to do justice to him in my portrayal of him there. Buy now in paperback or kindle!