Who do you think is a better leader Saladin or Richard the Lionheart

Question: Who do you think is a better leader Saladin or Richard the Lionheart
Best Answer - Chosen by Asker:

Saladin loved his people and he loved his homeland!.
He proposed the truce with Richard, in hopes of returning his people to more productive lives!.
Saladin was a great leader, who understood the needs of his country and it's people!.

Richard never did understand that!. He hated England and he hated the English people; he thought they were crude, had no manners and he detested the English language, often referring to it as vulgar!.
He preferred to live in France, go on Crusade or find some battle to fight in, rather than accepting the role of a responsible king!.
Read his bio; you'll be surprised at how seldom Richard was in England!.
Richard was a spoiled brat, grandson of William the Conqueror!. He tried to usurp the throne from his father and was almost killed because of it, by Sir William Le Mareschal (the Marshal)!. William's devotion to the king and queen prevented him from thrusting the sword thru Richards cold heart; he killed Richard's horse instead!.
As for John Lackland (he was the youngest son and wasn't even suppose to inherit any land, much less the crown), he couldn't have cared less about the financial shambles England was left in, after Richard's death!. After living in the shadows of his brothers, he wanted the power and did his fair share of bleeding the county dry, in order to live in the lap of luxury!.
And, that was the only reason John signed the Magna Carta!.
Due to Sir William the Marshal's love of and loyalty to England, he convinced John that it was in John's best interest to sign the document or lose his throne!.
also, read the bio of Sir William Marshal!. He was a great man and an intregal part of England's history, during Medievil times!.

Saladin was old and tired of the fighting, but he was still willing to fight to the death, if need be!.
He was also very cunning!.
He gambled that Richard wasn't quite as willing to die, as he was, and he was right!.Www@QuestionHome@Com

Good Daddy is a perfect example of an ill-informed and misguided answer!. Daddy speaks often about how Richard did nothing for his people, forgetting the whole time that Richard was first a Frenchmen, and it was for his French holdings that he fought for so long!. Most of his life, besides the few short years spent on crusade, were spent in service to his French territories!. If he shortchanged England, its merely because England was not his priority, and not even the most important of his holdings!.

On the battlefield and off no one commanded more respect that Richard!. Saladin was a formidable leader to be sure, but by the time of the 3rd crusade, Saladin's power had begun to wane!. He was aging and old divisions in his empire had begun to creep up again!. It became harder and harder, especially after the battle of Hattin, for Saladin to command the respect he deserved!. Whereas before he could demand homage based on his goal of driving out the Christians from Palestine, after Hattin the crusader threat was largely neutralized, meaning fewer of his lieutenants saw it necessary to be terribly loyal!.

Richard, on the other hand, commanded respect!. When he arrived in the Holy Land the crusaders were deeply divided into several elements (French, Genoese, Venetian, German, Templar, Hospitaller, etc), in addition the many factions were dividing between competitors vying for the crown of Jerusalem!. While Richard did not entirely resolve these divisions, he was able to cut through them with his imposing presence, and force the crusaders to act as a cohesive unit and make great strides against Saladin!. More than once he came so close to Jerusalem that Saladin worried all would be lost!.

Even when you take these two together, however, you must realize that better than both of them was Frederick of Barbarossa!. Barbarossa, the Holy Roman Emperor, was the most powerful and most feared potentate of all of Europe, and his army of 100,000 men was the largest cruader force ever put in the field!. If he had lived to reach the Holy Land he would have squashed Saladin by pure numbers!. Www@QuestionHome@Com

Saladin is A LOT BETTER than Richard the Lionheart

Besides the fact that Saladin was the last victor,

Richard the Lionheart almost abandoned his country, England!.

He mighty be a great warrior, but definitely not a good king

All he seeked for was his personal glory, therefore he did

absolutely nothing for his people!. He is somewhat responsible

for failure of John(his brother who became a king after Richard's death)

because John had to overtax people to recover financial statue

that Richard totally ruined by raging meaningless wars everywhere

--------------------------------------!.!.!.
On the other hand

Saladin was a politician, and war was not the purpose but a mean to achieve his goal!.
(For Richard, all he wanted was bloody, glorious battles)

He united Muslim people by removing hate and distrust among them

He built a powerful, rich, very developed state
--------------------------------------!.!.!.
So the answer is simple

Richard, a king who did not give a DAM-N about his own country

Saladin, a ruler who resurrected once dead country and brought peace and wealth to his people

------------------------------------

who is better!? I think the answer is very obvious hereWww@QuestionHome@Com

No doubt Richard the Lionheart was a better leader!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.!.

Richard fought against Saladin when his armies were outnumbered nearly everytime this 2 battled since the shipments from Europe to the Crusading Warriors took a lot to time to reach them!.Www@QuestionHome@Com