Publication 1187: Fill & Download for Free

This is a question no historian can truly answer because it requires understanding the emotions and motives a man long since dead. A psychiatrist might be better able to explain Richard’s behavior. The best I can do is speculate.First, however, I would like to stress that Richard’s relationship with his father was far more complex than simply that of an impatient and rebellious son. From 1173 to 1183, Richard and his father fought almost continuously together – against the French King, against the rebellious lords of Aquitaine, against Richard’s brothers. They were allied again 1184 – 1187.I hypothesize that the bitterness of the final break (that led indeed to Richard hounding his father to his grave) was a function of the intensity of Richard’s earlier love for his father. When his father dragged his feet or seemed reluctant to publicly recognize him as the heir to England, Richard felt betrayed by the father he had come to love deeply. It was this sense of betrayal that turned love into hatred.Richard and Henry are buried side-by-side at Fontevrault Abbey.

Let me quote a first-hand account by a traveler writing in 1212 about one of the many places he visited:[The hall] has a delicate marble pavement, simulating water agitated by a light breeze, so that whoever walks on it images himself to be wading, although his footprints leave no impression on the surface of the sand represented there. The walls of the house are covered all over with marble panels, which by the subtlety of their workmanship imitate various curtains. Its vault is painted so particularly the color of the sky, that there the clouds appear to scurry, there the Zephyr to blow, and there the sun to define the year and months, the days and weeks, and the hours and seconds by its movement in the zodiac...In the middle of the hall, at the central spot, is a pool lined with variegated marble, in which the marble is put together from panels of different colours, which do not jar when a thumb is drawn across them. They represent innumerable varieties of flowers, which, when the eyes of beholders strive to separate them out, mock them and disperse. In the centre is a dragon, which seems about to devour the animals depicted there, emits a jet of crystalline water, pouring it forth in such abundant quantity that in hot weather, dissolving on high, it may humidify and cool the air, which is let in through fair rows of windows on every side. The same water, resonating throughout the pool and being received into the slenderest of channels, lulls to sleep by agreeable murmurings its lords who sit nearby. [Source: “Wildebrand of Oldenburg: Journey in the Holy Land (1211–1212)” translated by Denis Pringle in Crusades Texts in Translation: Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land 1187–1291, Routledge, 2012, 65–66; Wildebrand was a canon of Hildesheim]Filthy? I don’t think so.Note the tiny drains for the water from the fountain. Drains of that sort — ceramic for the most part — existed for waste water as well — from latrines, kitchens and stables. The same pumps and tanks that filled the fountain could be used to flush out toilets. Hot and cold running water was not unknown even in the north of England (truly the back of beyond and nowhere near as civilized as the South of France, Italy, Greece and the Holy Land). Public baths were popular from the 12th century onwards. Soap was a major export from Cyprus — what made it a luxury was that it was scented with sweet fragrances unlike the soap made domestically all across Europe.For more on medieval hygiene see any of my earlier answers such as:Helena Schrader's answer to How clean were medieval people?Helena Schrader's answer to What was plumbing in Medieval Europe like?Helena Schrader's answer to Were nobles hygienic during the middle ages?

First, just to be clear about the historical context: The Third Crusade enabled the Christians to re-establish control over most of the coast of the Levant, reducing significantly the territory in the Holy Land under Muslim control compared to the situation following the disastrous Battle of Hattin in 1187. To be sure, Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth and the Galilee remained in Muslim hands even after the Third Crusade, but the Kingdom of Jerusalem was restored as a viable entity that survived another 100 years.Saladin died less than a year after the end of the Third Crusade.Saladin and his heirs did allow Christians to live peacefully within the Muslim controlled parts of the Holy Land. They also allowed Christian pilgrims to visit Christian shrines within their territory.However, Christians were second class citizens with significant restrictions on lifestyle (e.g. they could not bear arms, could not ride horses, while women found themselves in an environment where they could no longer move in public spaces without severe harassment and risks). In addition, Christians were again subject to additional taxation. They also faced non-official violence as had characterized the treatment of Christians both before and after the crusades. Attacks on churches and monasteries were — and tragically are — still frequent occurrences in Islamic countries, even those governed by liberal leaders such as al-Sisi in Egypt. On the whole, it is not a pleasant fate to be a “dhimmi,” albeit under the Ayyubids (Saladin and his successors) it was undoubtedly less unpleasant than under the Mamlukes and Ottomans.