My Final Paper.

litreview

Some things have changed since my last post about my research topic. Firstly, I have changed the fundamental question which led to a change in my hypothesis. The new question that I have asked is the following: how has bias in the primary sources caused the people in the time of Kings Saladin and RIchard I to see these two figures and how has this bias caused us as modern readers and historians to see them as well. My hypothesis to answer said question is that the bias has caused the two iconic figures of the Third Crusade to be seen in a near mythical way. These figures have been lauded and idealized to the point where they have become (especially Saladin) close to what Achilles and Hector were in the Homeric epics of Classical Antiquity.

As I narrowed the topic of my research to what it is currently, I have been using the following primary sources: Shaddad’s The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin and de Vinsauf’s Richard of Holy Trinity: Itinerary of Richard I and others to the Holy Land. These are the sources with the bias and using these sources as well as a few other important secondary sources (see annotated bibliography post), I have underscored and highlighted the bias that existed in the portrayals of Saladin and Richard, showing importance and veracity of my revised hypothesis.

My Annotated Bibliography

Final Proposal

I have developed a working title for my paper and have decided that the title of this blog would suit that purpose very well: “A Comparative Analsys of King Saladin and King Richard I.”

So, far, I have been researching primary sources from the Saracen (Muslim point of view) to answer the question I posed: “Who was more successful as a military commander and political figure during the Third Crusades: King Saladin or King Richard I?” Answering the question posed, I posited as my hypothesis that Saladin was by far a better military commander and political figure during the Third Crusade. The main source I am currently (but of course, not exclusively) am concentrating on is called The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin, a primary source biographical document written by Muslim scholars during the lifetime of Saladin (translated by D.S. Richards). I am cognizant of the fact that bias will be an issue in balancing the points of view (the title alone tells one of how Richards’s translation of Saladin’s life is biased). So, I am also currently looking at well-known accounts of the Third Crusade as well as secondary sources by Crusades and Middle Eastern historians: The Book of Contemplation: Islam and Crusades by Usama Bin Munqidh and Joinville and Villehardoin’s Chronicles of the Crusades.

So, far my findings are consistent with my hypothesis. Although Richard was a magnanimous and famous figure during the Third Crusades but Saladin’s actions seem to show that he was a greater military and political figure. More updates will be forthcoming. For now, adieu.

Moe