Background to the Third Crusade (Edexcel A-Level History): Revision Notes
Background to the Third Crusade
The situation in Outremer before 1189
The decades following the Second Crusade saw a steady decline in the fortunes of the crusader states in Outremer. These Christian territories, established after the First Crusade, faced growing pressure from Muslim forces. The situation became critical in the late 1180s, marking a turning point that would eventually require major intervention from Europe's most powerful monarchs.
Outremer (meaning "beyond the sea" in French) was the collective name for the crusader states established in the Eastern Mediterranean after the First Crusade. These territories represented the Christian foothold in the Holy Land.
The disaster at Hattin and the loss of Jerusalem
In 1187, the Battle of Hattin proved catastrophic for the crusader states. This decisive Muslim victory under Saladin's leadership shattered Christian military power in the region. The most significant consequence came swiftly afterwards when Jerusalem itself fell to Saladin's forces. This loss was devastating for Christendom – the Holy City, recaptured during the First Crusade in 1099, was once again under Muslim control after nearly nine decades of Christian rule.
The impact of Hattin cannot be overstated. It represented not just a military defeat, but the collapse of Christian dominance in the Holy Land. The battle destroyed the largest crusader army ever assembled in the East, killing or capturing most of the military elite of the crusader states.
Christian territories by 1189
By 1189, Christian control in Outremer had been dramatically reduced to just three isolated areas:
- The county of Tripoli in the north
- A small pocket of land surrounding the coastal city of Tyre
- The principality of Antioch in the far north
These fragmented territories were fighting for their very survival. The crusader states, which had once stretched from Antioch in the north to the borders of Egypt in the south, were now clinging to existence. King Guy of Jerusalem, despite his royal title, controlled little actual territory. In August 1189, he began the siege of Acre, attempting to recapture this strategically vital port city. However, after two years of effort, he had achieved minimal progress. The crusader forces lacked the strength to overcome the Muslim defenders without substantial reinforcement from Europe.
This desperate situation explains why the Third Crusade became necessary. The crusader states could not recover on their own – they needed the military might of Europe's greatest kings.
The three major leaders of the Third Crusade
In response to the crisis in Outremer, three of Europe's most powerful rulers took up the cross. Each brought different strengths and resources to the crusade, and their leadership would prove crucial to whatever success the expedition achieved.
Emperor Frederick Barbarossa of Germany
Frederick Barbarossa was the eldest and most battle-tested of the three leaders. At 70 years old, he brought invaluable experience to the crusade, having participated in the Second Crusade decades earlier. This prior experience of crusading warfare in the East gave him unique insights that his fellow monarchs lacked.
Frederick commanded an impressive force of approximately 15,000 soldiers, making his army one of the largest crusading forces of the era. His campaign began first, before the armies of Richard and Philip departed. As Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick possessed both the prestige and the resources to mount such a substantial expedition. His age and experience made him a natural senior figure among the crusading leaders.
King Richard I of England
King Richard I, later known as Richard the Lionheart, was notably the wealthiest of the three monarchs. His financial advantage came directly from his father Henry II's successful collection of the Saladin Tithe in England. This wealth enabled Richard to equip and supply his forces far more thoroughly than would otherwise have been possible. With the funds raised through the tithe, Richard could afford superior equipment, adequate provisions, and proper logistical support for his army's journey to the East.
However, Richard's army was smaller in cavalry than Philip's, with approximately 800 mounted men. In medieval warfare, mounted knights formed the elite striking force of any army, so this numerical disadvantage in cavalry was significant. Nevertheless, Richard's financial resources and personal military skill would prove decisive factors in the crusade's campaigns.
King Philip II of France
King Philip II commanded the largest army among the three leaders, with 2,000 mounted men – more than double Richard's cavalry force. This substantial mounted contingent gave Philip considerable military strength on paper. However, he faced a critical disadvantage: lack of adequate funding.
The French collection of the Saladin Tithe had largely failed. France lacked the developed governmental institutions that made tax collection efficient in England. As a result, only a small portion of the intended revenue was actually gathered. Philip even promised never to impose such a tax again, having witnessed the difficulties and opposition it caused. This financial weakness would hamper Philip's ability to sustain his crusading effort over time.
Despite their different resources and circumstances, these three leaders together launched what would be remembered as the last successful crusade of the twelfth century. Their combined forces represented Christendom's major response to the crisis in the Holy Land.
Financing the crusade: the Saladin Tithe
A new approach to funding crusades
The Saladin Tithe represented an important innovation in how crusades were organised and funded. Previously, crusades had relied primarily on the personal wealth of crusaders and donations from those who could not go. The Saladin Tithe introduced a more systematic approach: a general tax imposed across society.
The terms of this tax were formally agreed on 22 January 1188 by King Henry II of England and King Philip II of France. The tithe targeted those who had not taken a crusade vow – in other words, people who were staying at home rather than fighting in the East. These individuals were required to surrender one-tenth (a tithe) of their movables.
Definition of Movables
In medieval taxation, movables meant items of property that were not land or buildings. This typically included:
- Animals (such as livestock)
- Monetary assets (coins and precious metals)
- Supplies (stored grain, tools, household goods)
By focusing on movables rather than land, the tax could be collected relatively quickly and converted into the funds needed to equip and supply crusading armies.
Success in England, failure in France
The collection of the Saladin Tithe revealed stark differences between English and French governmental capabilities. In England, the tax collection proved successful, despite facing heavy opposition from taxpayers. Henry II's innovations in government administration made efficient tax collection possible. England had developed systems of royal officials, record-keeping, and local administration that could identify taxpayers, assess their wealth, and collect the required amounts.
The reforms Henry II had implemented during his reign created a relatively effective bureaucratic state for medieval standards. Royal sheriffs, travelling justices, and written records allowed the Crown to reach into communities across England and enforce the collection of the tithe. Although people resented surrendering a tenth of their movable property, the administrative machinery existed to make them comply.
The Critical Difference
In France, the situation was entirely different. The French kingdom lacked the same level of developed institutions. Without efficient administrative systems, tax collectors could not effectively identify wealth or enforce payment. As a result, only a small fraction of the intended revenue was actually gathered. The failure was so complete that Philip II promised never to impose such a tax again, recognising both its unpopularity and the practical impossibility of collecting it effectively.
This contrast in taxation success had direct military consequences. Richard I arrived in the East with superior equipment and supplies because England's more developed government had successfully funded his expedition. Philip II's financial weaknesses would limit his options and ultimately contribute to his earlier departure from the crusade.
The importance of leadership in medieval warfare
Medieval warfare placed enormous emphasis on individual leaders and their personal qualities. A contemporary source, the Luttrell Psalter produced in fourteenth-century England, illustrates this emphasis through its artistic choices. The manuscript depicts King Richard I knocking Saladin from his horse in single combat – a scene that never actually occurred, as the two leaders never met face to face in battle.
The fact that this fictional scene was chosen for inclusion in an important religious manuscript demonstrates how central leadership personalities were to medieval understanding of warfare. Crusades were seen not just as conflicts between armies or religions, but as contests between great leaders whose individual courage, skill, and character could determine outcomes. This cultural context helps explain why the Third Crusade's history focuses so heavily on the actions and decisions of Frederick, Richard, and Philip. In the medieval worldview, these men's leadership qualities would shape whether the crusade succeeded or failed.
Remember!
Key Takeaways:
-
The Battle of Hattin (1187) and subsequent loss of Jerusalem to Saladin created a crisis that made the Third Crusade necessary
-
By 1189, Christian control in Outremer was reduced to just three areas: Tripoli, Tyre, and Antioch – the crusader states were fighting for survival
-
Three major European rulers led the Third Crusade:
- Emperor Frederick Barbarossa (oldest and most experienced, 15,000 troops)
- King Richard I (wealthiest due to Saladin Tithe, 800 mounted men)
- King Philip II (largest army with 2,000 mounted men, but less funding)
-
The Saladin Tithe (agreed 22 January 1188) was an innovative 10% tax on movables imposed on those who had not taken crusade vows
-
The Saladin Tithe succeeded in England due to Henry II's developed government administration, but largely failed in France due to lack of effective institutions – this gave Richard I a significant financial advantage over Philip II