Saladin

[MrT]

After reading the book "God's War A new history of the crusades" by Christopher Tyerman, which I mention because it is a very good and interesting book, I started playing an Ayyubid campaign. It was great but Saladin just didn't feel right. I think the Saladin of the game represents more what westerners later thought of this man than what the muslim world thought of him at the start of the game. He was an excellent politician and ruler but not an extremelt talented battlefield commander. Damascus, Aleppo and Mosul he won through politics and diplomacy not by being a great commander. He lost battles against the christians at Montgisard, Forbelet, Arsuf and Jaffa. He failed to capture Tyre and Antioch partly because of indecision and at the siege of Acre he could have performed better. I am not saying he was bad but at least not much better than average, which I think 5 stars in game represent. I also don't think that he was the "bastion of chivalry" that he is in the game. Sure at some times he acted very unusually chivalrously but that was when it suited his plans. The massacre of the orderlies at Hattin and of the Sudan shows that he was fully capable of acts which would suit a M2TW character with more dread instead. I know this is not a major problem at all and if you guys disagree, which I am sure most will, I can just change it myself but I just wanted to hear your opinion on the matter. His piety value though is probably just right seeing that he definitley wanted to be portrayed as a religious man this being the truth or not.

[Miraj]

You raise some good historical points. Definitely his renown is not being an uber battlefield commander and neither was he a saint by any means. But the reason for those high traits was not to make a historical point, but to make a point that this 'dude' is an Uber general. Just as Balian or King Baldwin has similarly high traits. It's just a representation of game value, more than historical fact.

[Thema'zandaar]

After reading the book "God's War A new history of the crusades" by Christopher Tyerman, which I mention because it is a very good and interesting book, I started playing an Ayyubid campaign. It was great but Saladin just didn't feel right. I think the Saladin of the game represents more what westerners later thought of this man than what the muslim world thought of him at the start of the game. He was an excellent politician and ruler but not an extremelt talented battlefield commander. Damascus, Aleppo and Mosul he won through politics and diplomacy not by being a great commander. He lost battles against the christians at Montgisard, Forbelet, Arsuf and Jaffa. He failed to capture Tyre and Antioch partly because of indecision and at the siege of Acre he could have performed better. I am not saying he was bad but at least not much better than average, which I think 5 stars in game represent. I also don't think that he was the "bastion of chivalry" that he is in the game. Sure at some times he acted very unusually chivalrously but that was when it suited his plans. The massacre of the orderlies at Hattin and of the Sudan shows that he was fully capable of acts which would suit a M2TW character with more dread instead. I know this is not a major problem at all and if you guys disagree, which I am sure most will, I can just change it myself but I just wanted to hear your opinion on the matter. His piety value though is probably just right seeing that he definitley wanted to be portrayed as a religious man this being the truth or not.

This post was supposed to contain a reply but my net's messing up. Will edit later

EDIT: I agree with you on the general part but I don't think its fair for you to call him unchivalrous. Did you know that during the seige of Kerak against Reynald de Chateleon, he commanded his troops not to bombard the quarters of the newleywed Humprey? And he paid for the ransom of many captives after the fall of Jerusalem. Yes, he was capable of dreadful acts but what makes him chivalrous is the fact that he chose not to.

[Tunch Khan]

After reading the book "God's War A new history of the crusades" by Christopher Tyerman, which I mention because it is a very good and interesting book, I started playing an Ayyubid campaign. It was great but Saladin just didn't feel right. I think the Saladin of the game represents more what westerners later thought of this man than what the muslim world thought of him at the start of the game. He was an excellent politician and ruler but not an extremelt talented battlefield commander. Damascus, Aleppo and Mosul he won through politics and diplomacy not by being a great commander. He lost battles against the christians at Montgisard, Forbelet, Arsuf and Jaffa. He failed to capture Tyre and Antioch partly because of indecision and at the siege of Acre he could have performed better. I am not saying he was bad but at least not much better than average, which I think 5 stars in game represent. I also don't think that he was the "bastion of chivalry" that he is in the game. Sure at some times he acted very unusually chivalrously but that was when it suited his plans. The massacre of the orderlies at Hattin and of the Sudan shows that he was fully capable of acts which would suit a M2TW character with more dread instead. I know this is not a major problem at all and if you guys disagree, which I am sure most will, I can just change it myself but I just wanted to hear your opinion on the matter. His piety value though is probably just right seeing that he definitley wanted to be portrayed as a religious man this being the truth or not.

I agree with most of your points here, except your doubts on Saladin's chivalrous nature.

I am not quite sure about the Sudan incident, but he was in no position to let the Templars go after hattin. No one in his court/army would have allowed Saladin to pardon them, after how the Templars acted.

Saladin on numerous times vowed to avenge innocent lives cut short by them.

The Templars have made so many agreements with Saladin, and broke them time after time.

[Douchebag]

I agree with most of your points here, except your doubts on Saladin's chivalrous nature.

I am not quite sure about the Sudan incident, but he was in no position to let the Templars go after hattin. No one in his court/army would have allowed Saladin to pardon them, after how the Templars acted.

Saladin on numerous times vowed to avenge innocent lives cut short by them.

The Templars have made so many agreements with Saladin, and broke them time after time.

I thought that was Reynald of Chatillons fault? He said he wasnt part of KoJ, so he could he do whatever the he wants.

[reavertm]

I thought that was Reynald of Chatillons fault? He said he wasnt part of KoJ, so he could he do whatever the he wants.

Yeah, those 'Templars fault' may be too influenced by Kingdom Of Heaven movie, which depicts them as fanatics and hired killers. In fact Raynald wasn't exclusively connected with Templar Order and he was more or less a rebel. Templars themselves weren't that fanatically religious as it's depicted as well - rather professional, well trained and disciplined army. According to these[1] sources they weren't even allowed to charge without orders or even break formation (a'ka "let me kill those infidels first!").

As for Saladin, his tactical battle skills weren't that great (how the hell he could loose the battle of Montgisard and Arsuf), nonetheless political were (easily uniting the Egypt and Syria to name one).

[1] http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCE...S/bennett1.htm

[Ali G]

there is more romanticism for other generals and crusader leaders thant it is for Salahudin. its history and its a fact!

[MrT]

Im sorry Ali G but why should anyone just accept what you are saying? You might be right but how can anyone tell? I mean we don't know how knowledgable you are in this and you don't back your claims up in any way. An reply in sytyle with the one reavertm wrote just above is something that might change peoples opinion but yours just isn't

[Mattress]

After reading the book "God's War A new history of the crusades" by Christopher Tyerman, which I mention because it is a very good and interesting book, I started playing an Ayyubid campaign. It was great but Saladin just didn't feel right. I think the Saladin of the game represents more what westerners later thought of this man than what the muslim world thought of him at the start of the game. He was an excellent politician and ruler but not an extremelt talented battlefield commander. Damascus, Aleppo and Mosul he won through politics and diplomacy not by being a great commander. He lost battles against the christians at Montgisard, Forbelet, Arsuf and Jaffa. He failed to capture Tyre and Antioch partly because of indecision and at the siege of Acre he could have performed better. I am not saying he was bad but at least not much better than average, which I think 5 stars in game represent. I also don't think that he was the "bastion of chivalry" that he is in the game. Sure at some times he acted very unusually chivalrously but that was when it suited his plans. The massacre of the orderlies at Hattin and of the Sudan shows that he was fully capable of acts which would suit a M2TW character with more dread instead. I know this is not a major problem at all and if you guys disagree, which I am sure most will, I can just change it myself but I just wanted to hear your opinion on the matter. His piety value though is probably just right seeing that he definitley wanted to be portrayed as a religious man this being the truth or not.

Ah, I love history. I think they meant to portray the game more in light of fun factor than historical accuracy though. You are free to change saladin's traits tho, via in game play style.

Btw, love the signature.

[The Noble Lord]

He was a complicated personality, like all the leaders of that time had to be.
It is remembered that as the new wazir to Caliph al-Adid, Saladin looked to his own security in a court renowned for its intrigues.
Although he brutally crushed a rebellion by the Fatimid palace "black guards", his religious tolerance and stable government gradually earned him the trust of the Egyptian population.
He did replace the Shi'ite judiciary with orthodox Muslims, but the Shi'ite population was allowed to practice their beliefs without undue persecution. His religious tolerance of Shia Muslims and Christians made him very unpopular with the Nur ed-Din al Zengi.

Of course that he was not perfect when it comes to military and political skills, but he was the Outremer's greatest enemy.


CHEERS

[MrT]

He was a complicated personality, like all the leaders of that time had to be.
It is remembered that as the new wazir to Caliph al-Adid, Saladin looked to his own security in a court renowned for its intrigues.
Although he brutally crushed a rebellion by the Fatimid palace "black guards", his religious tolerance and stable government gradually earned him the trust of the Egyptian population.
He did replace the Shi'ite judiciary with orthodox Muslims, but the Shi'ite population was allowed to practice their beliefs without undue persecution. His religious tolerance of Shia Muslims and Christians made him very unpopular with the Nur ed-Din al Zengi.

This is what I am meaning. He at times acted chivalrously but at others brutally depending what fit his strategy best. The view of him as chivalrous is mostly gotten from members of his entourage after his death and christians promoting him after the third crusade as a noble adversary. Christian writers even went so far when admiring him that they invented that he was knighted by a Frankish knight.

In the middle east however many writers critized him, Ibn al-Athir for example, and in the middle east Nur al Din and Baibars were considered much greater "heroes" in the muslim history.

And thecobra007, sure this is not very important for the overall gaming experience but according to me the more accurate things like family members and such like can be the better the gaming experience and I also thought it would be a interesting thing to discuss here where people know so much.

[The Cobra]

Your aim is good, but why look at something that small which is hardly noticed, the faction heir at the beginning of the game is called Al-Aziz (God), besides who told you that Saladin wasn't chivalrous, the only thing that was written about him in English was by the crusaders, don't expect that they wrote the truth, they are mortal enemies.
Saladin went to Richard to heal him when a Saracen arrow was fired at him by crusaders to wage war, where he went alone unarmed and disguised to help his enemy, now call that unchivalrous.

[Randarkmaan]

It's westerners who have portrayed Saladin as such a chivalrous man. And I doubt the Crusaders wrote in English

The execution of Templars and Hospitalers wasn't only because his army demanded it or because they were the most dreaded enemy he faced or because they were prone to fanatic actions, but because they were impossible to ransom. They weren't supposed to be taken alive, far as I know it was forbidden to ransom a captured Templar and Hospitaler, as by their code they were never supposed to have been taken alive in the first place, though exceptions seem to have been made regarding Grand Masters and the like. Therefore they were worthless prisoners, you either held them indefinately, killed them or released without a ransom paid (because the order wouldn't ransom them and most others probably understood it like this as well), the last one was a big no-no, because then you sat free the most dangerous enemies of Islam without gaining anything by it.

Though in the end, killing them wasn't chivalrous, but it was sort of... expected.

Though he was pretty fair in his rule, I once read that an Arab writer wrote that he reduced tax burdens and often aided the peasants of Egypts in the case of bad harvests or too much flooding from the Nile.

He was also sort of harsh to the black Africans who had served in high prestige positions under the Fatimid caliphate, after many of the black guard regiments revolted most blacks were replaced with Turks and Kurds.

[Miraj]

Very informative Randarkmaan.

Do you have any idea what his general relationship with Egypt's very large Christian Coptic population was at the time?

[Randarkmaan]

I'm not sure actually, though you could consider the fact that it was during his time and his successors rule that Egypt made the transition from a primarily Christian country to a primary muslim one, though this had gone on gradually for over 400 years.

He did however place great emphasis on sunni unity, in his realm equal sponsorship was granted to all sunni schools of law, and both he and his successors opened new schools to further standardize and develop Muslim law.

In regards to Christians, I have little doubt that his emphasis on Jihad against the Franks must have put some pressure on Christians in his realm, be it intentional or not, and likely many small-minded Muslims probably harassed Christians, either by word or deed, seeing as how under his rule united Muslim opposition to the Franks, who were Christians, first took place. Earlier, Muslim rulers had been as willing to fight and ally with the Crusaders as with each other, I think this new antagonism must have put some pressure on the Christians.
However this is just speculation by me and is not to be taken as an absolute truth.

[Thema'zandaar]

In regards to Christians, I have little doubt that his emphasis on Jihad against the Franks must have put some pressure on Christians in his realm, be it intentional or not, and likely many small-minded Muslims probably harassed Christians, either by word or deed, seeing as how under his rule united Muslim opposition to the Franks, who were Christians, first took place. Earlier, Muslim rulers had been as willing to fight and ally with the Crusaders as with each other, I think this new antagonism must have put some pressure on the Christians.
However this is just speculation by me and is not to be taken as an absolute truth.

Depends what Christians you are talking about. Coptic, Jacobite and Orthodox Christians had fewer rights under the Crusaders than under Muslim rule, so many of them welcomed Salahuddin.

The northern triangular section of the city, which extended between St. Stephen's Gate and the Gate of Jehoshafat and which was known in medieval times as the Juiverie, enclosed the quarters of the native Christians. Often referred to in medieval chronicles as 'Syrians," they formed the most underprivileged community in Jerusalem under Latin rule and were despised by their Latin neighbours. Medieval Latin pilgrims placed them at the bottom of the demographic scale next to Muslims, or "Saracens."

Salahuddin had several christian followers and servants. In fact, Salahuddin negotiated with Balian indirectly through Joseph Batit, an Orthodox clergyman. Also, according to Runciman, Joseph Batit was even able to secure a promise from the Orthodox christian community within Jerusalem that they would open the gates of the city to Saladin. Before this could happen though, terms were reached. This is yet another indication of Salahuddin's chivalry - he had a card up his sleeve yet he chose to negotiate terms.

[Miraj]

Educated Speculation nonetheless. Makes sense to me. I doubt he'd be anywhere near as close to the tolerance and erm.. "multiculturalism" that the Fatimids generally practiced. And you're right, the re-sunnification and 'muslimification' of Egypt took full effect under him and especailly under the Mamluks whose raison d'etre of being being in power in the eyes of the common Muslim must have been their commitment to spreading and uniting the Muslim faith.

It goes to show that despite romantic notions of Saladin, nothing is as clear cut as it might appear.

[Ahiga]

A question for you history knowledgeable folks:

What was the demographics, in rough estimates, of native Christian populations in Palestine, Syria, or Egypt? Today Egypt and Syria are roughly 10% Christian, and I heard of a Eastern Christian majority in Egypt and Syria at this time. Do you guys know anything on what the basic population was like in those regions?

Also, is there any idea of what a Native Christian from those regions would have dressed or fought like?

[Randarkmaan]

Depends what Christians you are talking about. Coptic, Jacobite and Orthodox Christians had fewer rights under the Crusaders than under Muslim rule, so many of them welcomed Salahuddin.

I'm not saying Saladin restricted the rights of Christians, I'm saying that his policies towards the Crusaders, what with the jihad and this new Christian-Muslim antagonism, probably made many Christians feel pressured, in the end leading many to be more careful about expressing their religion or and many converting.

Regarding Christian populations, in Egypt the Christians ceased being a majority in the end of the 12th century or the beginning of the 13th century, so I would say between 60 and 40% for Coptic Christians in that period. In Syria they were not the majority, but was a stable and very large large minority, so I'd guess about 30-40% on them.

I don't know much about dress, but it may have been pretty similar, except they might have worn different headwear (Muslims were always supposed to wear hats that allowed their heads to touch the ground, Christians didn't have to abide by this, so they could wear wide-brimmed hats and the like), and I'm not really sure but I think the dhimmi system regulated what colours the different groups were supposed to wear (though that may have been just the Ottoman millet system).

When it comes to how they fought, you have to realize that often in the Middle East the local peasant and urban population featured very little into the local military machines, however in the urban militias of Syria Muslims, Christians and Jews alike were members protecting their cities, seeing as how their equipment often depended on their personal wealth and the wealth of their city, their would be both similarities and differences. These militias mostly fought behind their walls and made much use of war machines (especially the Aleppo garrison who were often used by local lords to besiege cities as well) and incendiary devices (see my siege engines and pyrotechnics thread ). Also the tribal auxiliaries of Syria known as al-Ashir (sometimes they were bedouin or they were semi-nomadic peasants or herders or something, they were described as the best auxilaries fielded by the Mamluks, and could often be very well equipped as some were wealthy) often fought for different rulers, Osprey portrays them wearing light armour, helmets, turbans and using straight swords, shields and composite bows, they were both Christian and Muslim, so you could probably work in some clothing differences in the unit here (if you plan to include it). In Egypt most of the navy was still manned by Copts under Saladin, and many Copts, though Maghrebis were preferred as better (they look cool in the Osprey picture, would be nice with a new skin for some version, could make the Copts the lower tier marines and the Maghrebis more elite), fought as marines armed with crossbows. I also know that the Maronites of Lebanon fought for the Crusaders, they wore white tunics and robes and wide-brimmed hats and used composite bows (according to Osprey). You could also factor in that Armenian mercenaries were widely used by the Muslim states, they were famous as infantry archers, and as javelin-armed light cavalry, in close combat these Armenians seem to have used double-sided battle-axes, if you include the Zengids or another Syrian dynasty, they would be the perfect candidate for such Armenian troops, both Christian and Muslim, Saladin had disbanded the old Fatimid corps of Armenians after they revolted.

[The Noble Lord]

Hi,


I agree that when it comes to Saladin he was a "split personality " but you had to be one in those times. Everyone was out to get you so you had to defend yourself. It is recorded however by the contemporary historians at the time that Saladin's reputation was exalted even among his Christian enemies. His generosity towards the Frankish population and his chivalrous gestures overrode the cold-blooded massacres he ordered after the battle of Harim in 1178, after the coastal attacks of Reginald of Chatillon in 1183, and in fighting subsequent to the battle of Hattin.

It is also remembered that Reginald of Chatillon broke the truce in 1187 by attacking and plundering a caravan coming from Mecca and refusing to return the spoils. So when Saladin finally retaliated it was a full-blown war.
Even after the battle of Hattin, the Saladin treated Guy of Lusignan as a king and spared the Frankish prisoners. And finally when he attacked Jerusalem in 1187, he made a deal and did not subject the holy city to the hideous carnage that Crusaders subjected it when they captured it in 1099.

Saladin's personal secretary Baha ad-Din wrote in Sultanly Anecdotes that his master ordered that Christians must pay the ransom and leave. large number of them did just that, the tax was ten dinar for each man, five for a women, and two for a boy or a girl. The Grand masters of the Hospitalers and the Templars paid for the poor and destitute. So when Grand patriarch gathered up all the content of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher, the gold-plating and gold and silver artifacts one of his generals suggested that they shouldn't let the Christians leave with the riches Saladin replied: "If we interpret treaty to their disadvantage they will accuse us of breaking the faith and of being ignorant of the true essence of the thing, I prefer to make them unable to accuse the Believers of breaking their word, but will tell the others of the benefits we have bestowed upon them".

And so it was done. Those Christians that wanted to leave left, those that wanted to stay stayed. They were paying the special tax, but nobody bothered them. It is recorded in Christian sources of Genca Francorum et Aliorum Hierosolymitanorum that Saladin's capture of Jerusalem in 1187 was to the certain degree "humane" for that period. Saladin and his brother even paid ransom for many poor Christians themselves, and 10 to 20 thousands were set free by the Saladin without any payment whatsoever. many Christians who choose to stay in the city were allowed to do so.

So when it comes to Saladin, he was definitely no angel. But he was very humane and chivalrous for that age. Its not only "romanticism" that portrays him that way, its the fact of history.


CHEERS