Timeline for How did Richard I sail through the strait of Gibraltar?
Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0
7 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| May 3, 2014 at 22:26 | comment | added | Comintern | "If captured, the Algarvan river-ports along the Atlantic Bay of Cadiz would allow the Crusaders a direct approach to the Atlantic side of Gibraltar and, in conjunction with the Anglo/Italian-held Tortosaas an exit, and with Sicilian suppression of the Barbary coast from the direction of Tunisia, taking Atlantic Silves would allow the Crusaders direct transit not only through the Straits but through the very heart of the Almohad Empire." | |
| May 3, 2014 at 18:39 | history | edited | Louis Rhys | CC BY-SA 3.0 |
misspelling, straight -> strait
|
| May 3, 2014 at 18:38 | comment | added | Louis Rhys | Interesting! I knew it was never as simple as backward Arabs :) Regarding the conquest of Silves, I'm not familiar about the naval tactics or sailing in general, but how did that help the sailing of the Strait of Gibraltar? Looking at the map, looks like the Northern Iberia were already at Christian hands anyway, so what were the big difference between Lisbon and Silves? | |
| May 1, 2014 at 23:53 | comment | added | Comintern | @Peter - Muslim states weren't as united by the idea of religious conquest as the crusaders. I've always seen the expansion into Andalusia as much more "secular invasion" from the Almohad standpoint. The Almohads were actively engaged with the "European crusaders" trying to retake the Iberian, so that would be the prime focus. If they knew Richard's destination it would have certainly been the lesser of 2 evils - enemy of my enemy, etc. Saladin threatened them from the east, so why not let them weaken each other? They really weren't in a position to do anything but look out for themselves. | |
| May 1, 2014 at 14:47 | comment | added | Peter | Thank you. A very nicely composed and referenced answer. I'm just curious who the Almohads would have seen as the lesser of two evils. I conjectured in the answer that they would have preferred Saladin as the lesser of two evils (since he was at least Muslim) but perhaps that only emphasized their difference, and the Christians were seen as a more alien and barbaric force, and therefore somehow less objectionable. | |
| May 1, 2014 at 14:24 | vote | accept | Peter | ||
| May 1, 2014 at 5:42 | history | answered | Comintern | CC BY-SA 3.0 |