The Battle Of King Richard: Philip Or Saladin

Richard would not have been remembered as a courageous crusader if there were no Philip or Saladin. Saladin took the Holy City from Christian rule giving Richard a formidable opponent and opportunity to demonstrate his abilities as crusader. Richard proved his military might by winning countless battles, but this alone did not make Richard a celebrated historic figure. Richard and Philip set out on the crusade together as allies, and their cooperation and contribution to the crusade is how the two men are measured as crusaders. Historians used the data to make compelling arguments for both men as decent or inadequate leaders, but despite their best efforts, they all tell the same basic story: Richard did the majority of the fighting, Philip abandoned the crusade, and lastly, but most importantly, Philip betrayed Richard and coerced his imprisonment. …show more content…
During the battles of the crusade Richard took charge and carried the majority of the responsibly. Later, Philip abandoned his promise to the Pope, his kingdom, and Richard by departing early from the Crusade. Philip also made a promise to watch over Richard’s lands, which he did not keep. Lastly, after multiple years of fighting, King Richard was betrayed and imprisoned by the coercion of his ally Philip. Despite historian’s attempts to look at different perspectives, the history of the Third Crusade is shaped Richard’s ability to fight and by Philip’s actions against him. Philip gave Richard an opportunity to fight the crusade alone and appear more heroic, and then reinforced his heroism by betraying and creating a more symphony towards him. Richard’s reputation could not be so romanticized without Philip’s betrayal, as Philip’s betrayal destroyed his reputation catapulted Richard’s valor in