Scribd
Upload
21 views2 pages

The Battle of Arsuf HIS 222

The battle of Arsuf

Uploaded by

asharpes21
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
21 views2 pages

The Battle of Arsuf HIS 222

The battle of Arsuf

Uploaded by

asharpes21
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.
Available Formats
Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd
You are on page 1/ 2

The Battle of Arsuf, 1191, did not prove the superiority of a particular tactic or weapons

system. The victory, or lack thereof, was due to pure circumstance and not skillful execution.

There were stark differences in the styles of battle between Richard I and Saladin, their

approaches and other factors determined the battle’s outcome, and the disparities between

Richard’s victory at Arsuf and the reasons for the disparities will be explained.

Military strategy for both Crusaders and Muslim warriors was almost non-existent.

Crusaders’ strategy was largely individual battles that showcased a knight’s skill and dedication. 1

Knights were armored with mail coats, pants, hoods, and metal helmets. The knights typically

created a formation of fifty to sixty knights in front, two or three rows in depth to create a

breakthrough in the enemy’s front. Medieval infantry marched in tight formations, armed with

pikes, spears, maces, and axes. Richard I utilized heavily armored knights to directly break

enemy lines, with the support of a powerful cavalry. Saladin relied on the quickness and

flexibility of its mounted archers. Their weapons consisted of bows, shields, lances, swords, and

clubs. Utilizing mounted archers allowed them to fight without dismounting or stopping. The

Muslim warriors' style of battle prevented them from being surrounded and enabled them to

strike the main body of their enemies. Battles were victorious largely due to their mobility,

surprise, and quick retreat.

While military “tactics” were not prominent during Medieval times, Richard I’s victory in

Arsuf was due to his delivery of tactics and heavy cavalry. The placement of infantry soldiers

allowed him to protect the flanks of cavalry soldiers. The terrain limited the flexible and more

maneuverable capabilities of Saladin’s army. Richard I’s aggressive and head-on tactics and

heavily armed cavalry prevented Saladin from performing his hit-and-run tactics.

1
Archer, Christon I., John R. Ferris, Holger H. Herwig, and Timothy H. E. Travers. World History of Warfare, 2008.
Richard I may have won the battle, but he did not win the war to take over Jerusalem,

which was his ultimate goal. The rough terrain prevented Richard I from maintaining adequate

supplies. There was also a lack of cohesion between the Crusaders, which weakened their unity

and provided an opportunity for a truce. Saladin’s wisdom, diplomacy, and an ununited Crusader

army allowed a truce to be formed. Jerusalem stayed under Muslim control while allowing

Christians access to the Holy City.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy