"How far were the Military Orders responsible for the..." Topic

… results of the Third Crusade?

"Although failing in its ultimate aim to recapture Jerusalem the Third Crusade still met with several successes. With Cyprus, Acre, and Tyre under Christian control there existed `a series of genuine bridgeheads` with the potential to greatly benefit future Crusades.[1] Furthermore, when one also considers the death of Saladin shortly after the expedition, it is likely that the Third Crusade made a tremendous contribution to the immediate survival of the Crusader States.[2] In order to assess how responsible the Military Orders were for the results of the Third Crusade this article will be structured by the analysis of three key areas in which they played a part; the siege of Acre, the march to Jaffa and their other military contributions, and their role as councillors to King Richard I of England.

This article will further argue that despite facing criticism in the West for convincing Richard to abandon the campaign to capture Jerusalem, this was perhaps the strongest contribution made by the Military Orders to the Crusade; without their advice it is probable that thousands of men would have perished in a lost cause.[3] What they should be criticised for, however, is their martial conduct, a factor which placed the crusading army in jeopardy at the battle of Arsuf. Furthermore, whereas historians have traditionally seen the Military Orders as vital to the results of the Crusade, this article will argue that although undeniably contributing to the Crusade's success, historians have placed too much emphasis on the strengths of the crusaders as a whole and not the weaknesses of Saladin…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

It's too easy to see Saladin's decisions as "mistakes" with the generous advantage of hindsight and centuries of distance. Historians grasp at any chance, even a manufactured one, to write the same old story in a new vein.

Saladin no doubt did all that he could to keep his army together as long as possible. He had been rotating troops back home for years. All of them were weary of the warfare. Everyone on both sides were weary of it. The momentum was bleeding out of the "holy war" on all sides. Richard reacted to it and Saladin accepted the inevitable: that there was no longer enough support for him to continue renewing sieges after Richard was gone. "Disbanding" an army is also written as a decision that was probably taken out of Saladin's hands. His troops were dragging their feet, even abandoning/deserting.

As for the Military Orders' influence or lack of it, that remains arguable for the next one hundred years. They prolonged the inevitable. But they also provoked it….

He obviously missed my work on the more likely play of events at Arsuf, as well as my paper on the Battle of Acre