In March 1199, Richard was in Limousin suppressing a revolt by Viscount Aimar V of Limoges. Although it was Lent, he "devastated the Viscount's land with fire and sword". While his own forces were practically unarmed by comparison, he successfully besieged the tiny, yet well-defended castle of Châlus-Chabrol. Some chroniclers claimed that this was because a local peasant had uncovered a treasure trove of Roman gold.
Since the passage heavily implies that this siege had little to no real strategic value for Richard, would he also be remembered as one who fought in a less-than-honorable manner while laying siege?
This example is NO.