Final answer:
The absence of a battle between Saladin's Muslim army and King Baldwin's Christian army when they met can be attributed to factors such as strategic political decisions, chivalry, and specific truces like the one between Richard the Lionheart and Saladin.
Step-by-step explanation:
When Saladin's Muslim army met King Baldwin's Christian army outside of Kerak, they did not engage in battle due to a combination of political concerns, priorities for the protection of holy places, and instances of mutual respect and chivalry that sometimes occurred during the Crusades.
Despite the conflicts, figures like Saladin were known for their chivalrous behavior, paralleling the European ideal of chivalry, and there were moments when direct combat was avoided for various strategic or humanitarian reasons.
Furthermore, during times of truce or negotiation, such as the treaty negotiated between Richard the Lionheart and Saladin, direct hostilities were deliberately halted to maintain the agreement.
The reason why Saladin's Muslim army and King Baldwin's Christian army did not fight when they met outside of Kerak is because they agreed to a truce known as the Treaty of Ramla. This treaty allowed the Christians to retain control of the coastal cities while Muslims controlled the interior regions.
Both sides recognized the difficulties of continuing the conflict and reached a compromise to avoid further bloodshed. This truce marked a shift in the Crusades, as subsequent battles focused more on diplomacy and negotiation rather than outright warfare.