Final answer:
During the capture of Jerusalem in the First Crusade, crusaders massacred the Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. The Second Crusade failed to take Jerusalem, and the Third ended with a negotiation. Saladin's conduct during his recapturing of Jerusalem was more chivalrous, lacking the slaughters of the First Crusade.
Step-by-step explanation:
When comparing the takeover of Jerusalem during the Second Crusade to how Saladin regained the city, it is important to note that there is an evident disparity in the conduct of the crusaders versus the Muslim forces. The First Crusade, which actually resulted in the capture of Jerusalem in 1099, was characterized by a horrific massacre of Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. After the First Crusade, the crusaders established four Crusader States, with Jerusalem as their capital. This was the only crusade that accomplished its objective of taking Jerusalem.
In contrast, the Second Crusade (1147-1149) ultimately failed, with the crusader armies being defeated before reaching the Holy Land. The Third Crusade, led by Richard the Lionheart among others, aimed to recapture Jerusalem but ended with a negotiation where the city remained under Muslim control, although Christian pilgrims were allowed to freely visit. Saladin's takeover of Jerusalem in 1187 was marked by a decided absence of the slaughter that had marred the First Crusade's capture of the city, highlighting a different, more chivalrous approach to warfare.