FREE ESSAY ON CRUSADES - SALADIN

CRUSADES - SALADIN

Among the most intriguing and legendary figures of the Crusades is Saladin, or as he is
more commonly referred to in Arabic, Salah ad-Din Yusuf Ibn Ayyub (Righteousness of
Faith, Joseph son of Job).1 Christian and Muslim scholars alike have written volumes of
work praising him as a man of virtuous qualities and heroism; in much of the literature,
Salah ad-Din appears frequently as a conquering hero over his Latin enemies. However,
closer examination of his life reveals him not only to be a conqueror, but also a man who
struggled to create peace and unity among the dispersed Muslim forces under his command.
Historians have often argued that Salah ad-Din pursued this goal with patience and
perseverance, recognizing that achieving this objective was crucial in order to wage a
decisive military campaign against the Christian infidels. His call for a holy war, or
jihad, resonated throughout the Muslim east, uniting Muslim forces in battle in an effort
to reclaim their lost glory through reconquest of stolen lands. Much of the Muslim
achievements throughout the counter-crusades were in large part attributable to Salah
ad-Din's ability to overcome internal and external challenges. His strengths were often
reflected in his exuberant personality, shrewd sense of political judgement, as well as
mastery of military tact and skill. In addition, he was a keenly devout Muslim who
stringently followed the tenants of Islam. Collectively, these elements provided the
basis for his outstanding leadership abilities. This paper examines Salah ad-Din's role
in the Muslim victories throughout the crusading period. In addition, it assesses the
significance of this legendary personage as a relevant figure in the history of the
Crusades. Born in 1137 or 1138 of Kurdish descent Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub spent much
of his childhood in Baalbek. His father Ayyub held the position of governor, first under
Zengi and subsequently under the princes of Damascus. It was not long before Salah ad-Din
followed in his father's footsteps when in 1152, at the age of fourteen, he joined his
uncle Shirkuh at Aleppo in the service of Nur ad-Din, for which he was allotted a fief.2
Four years later, he succeeded his eldest brother Turan-Shah as Nur ad-Din's deputy in
the military governorship of Damascus, but resigned from the post shortly after in
protest against the corruption of the chief accountant. Soon after, he rejoined Nur
ad-Din at Aleppo and later returned to his post in the office of deputy commandant of
Damascus for an unspecified period.3 During his post in the service of Nur ad-Din Arab,
chroniclers maintain that Salah ad-Din was a youth who developed "excellent qualities"
wherein he "to walk in the path of righteousness, to act virtuously and be zealous in
fighting the infidels."4 His interest in religious studies was in part inspired by the
model behaviour of Nur ad-Din. It was not, however, his only source of influence.
Historian Stanley Lane-Poole states, Salah ad-Din received the best education for a
Muslim boy due to his father's honoured position. Salah ad-Din's father was himself
particularly devout in his practice of Islam. It was therefore no surprise that his son
received years of education in the Quran, Arabic grammar, elements of rhetoric poetry and
theology.5 Collectively, these studies formed the standard and foundation of higher
education among the learned men of Salah ad-Din's time which included him. Throughout his
later years, his literary tastes tended to be theological. According to Lane-Poole, Salah
ad-Din "enjoyed hearing holy traditions traced and verified, canon law formulated,
passages in the Quran explained and sound orthodoxy vindicated, inspired him with strange
delight."6 His knowledge and interest in Islamic theology continued to grow and develop,
as did the prestige of his political posts. During his first campaigns in Egypt, Salah
ad-Din played a subordinate, though not insignificant, role under his uncle Shirkuh. At
that time, Salah ad-Din was the acting administrator of Egypt, while Shirkuh held the
vizirate. Nine weeks later, following the death of Shirkuh, Salah ad-Din succeeded him as
the new vizier of Egypt, much to the resentment of Nur ad-Din's Turkish officers. On
March 26, 1169 Salah ad-Din was officially crowned the Sultan of Egypt or "el-malik
an-nasir" in Arabic.7 From this moment on, he "put aside the thought of pleasure and the
love of ease, adopted a Spartan rule and set it as an example to his troops."8 He devoted
all his energies henceforth to one great objective-to found a Muslim empire strong enough
to drive the infidels out of the land. "When God gave me the land of Egypt," he said, "I
was sure that he meant Palestine for me also."9 Whether it was a natural selfish ambition
that hastened his zeal or not, the result was the same: henceforward his career was one
long championship of Islam. He had pledged himself to Holy War. Many preliminary
conquests were necessary and many years were to intervene before he could address himself
to this main task. The next five years were spent consolidating his position as the
Sultan of Egypt. One of the many internal struggles he was forced to contend with was the
revolt which broke out among the Egyptian officers. The army consisted of several
regiments of white cavalrymen and approximately 30 000 Sudanese infantry.10 Salah ad-Din
immediately began building up his own army at the expense of the Egyptian officers and
when a revolt broke out among the Sudanese, he had already prepared himself with regular
troops of his own in order to decimate them and drive them out of Cairo into upper
Egypt.11 The white troops co-operated under the direction of their new vizier.12 In 1169,
the region of Damietta was attacked by an army of Crusaders and Greeks.13 Using his own
prudence and the aid of his father and brothers, he was successful in vanquishing the
attackers.14 By 1171, following the death of the Fatimid caliph, and under the orders of
his overlord Nur ad-Din, Salah ad-Din restored the Abbasid caliphate in Egypt. Despite
this gesture of committed loyalty to his uncle and many others like it, the good
relations which had existed up to this point between the two grew strained.15 Nur ad-Din
began to view his nephew's rising prestige with displeasure, realizing that his
subordinate was becoming a rival power.16 According to historian Sir Hamilton Gibb,
author of the article "The Rise of Saladin", some suspicions on the part of Nur ad-Din
may have been aroused by Saladin's failure to assist his suzerain during the expedition
to Krak de Montreal (ash-Shaubak) in October 1171, despite his reasons for his
withdrawl.17 More notably, Gibb maintains that more than likely the greatest cause of the
strain lay in the divergence of their political views with regard to the strategic
importance of Egypt.18 Any worries Salah ad-Din may have had concerning this troubled
relationship quickly disappeared upon the death of his suzerain on May 15, 1173.19 It was
not long however, before his old worries were replaced with new concerns, primarily of a
military nature. Not only did Salah ad-Din make it his duty to build a new army strong
enough to hold Egypt in all contingencies, but he made it his mission as the "true heir"
of Nur ad-Din to re-establish his empire, starting with the occupation of Damascus.20 He
attained this with virtually no opposition on October 28, 1174. The occupation of
subsequent strategic regions did not prove to be as easy a task despite his appeals to
the local amirs for the unification of Muslim power, " In the interests of Islam and its
people we put first and foremost whatever will combine their forces and unite them in one
purpose; in the interests of the house of atabeg we put first and foremost whatever will
safeguard its root and its branch. Loyalty can only be the consequence of loyalty. We are
in one valley and those who think ill of us are in another."21 Many of them did not
always view Salah ad-Din's professed aim with similar intentions. Yet, as Gibb astutely
noted, the extent to which Salah ad-Din's personal motives were mingled with his genuine
devotion to the cause and ideals of Islam is a question which may never be answered.22
During this time, however selfless his motives may have been, the only effective means by
which his objective could be realized was by concentrating power into his own hands, and
only delegating, to persons whose loyalty was unquestionable.23 In December of 1174, he
appointed his brother Tughtigin as governor of Damascus, while he himself pressed
northwards with a small force to occupy Homs and Hamah.24 In addition, he demanded that
Aleppo should also concede its borders to him as the rightful guardian of Nur ad-Din's
son as-Salih.25 As a result, many amirs concluded that Salah ad-Din sought nothing but
the aggrandizement of his own house at the expense of the house of Zengi.26 On two
separate occasions, there were assassination attempts local adversaries, both of which
proved unsuccessful. These occurrences do, however, illustrate the extent to which he was
forced to contend with political rivalries and internal strife. Salah ad-Din proved to be
a shrewd politician by creating various forms of alliances with his amirs, many of whom
were of similar Kurdish descent.27 Undoubtably, his relations with them were strengthened
by a common bond of race and the broad role in affairs which he gave them. In other
areas, he availed himself of marriage alliances, thereby creating both familial bonds and
constituting an open recognition of the amirs' high status. Historian Stephen Humphrey
wrote extensively about the structure of politics during the reign of Salah ad-Din and
argued that it was not merely a one sided relationship. He contends that Salah ad-Din's
amirs were linked to him by very clear bonds of political dependence. This political
dependence proceeded in the first instance from his personal qualities and political
skill. Salah ad-Din's extravagant generosity to those around him, though undoubtably
irresponsible, was also a widely used and much esteemed political device for ensuring the
loyalty of questionable supporters.28 This practice even received Quranic sanction under
the name "ta'lif al-qulub"--the winning-over of hearts.29 His oftenoted reluctance to
examine the activities of his provincial governors and administrators too closely was
likewise more the product of calculation than of carelessness.30 When he did learn of
some malfeasance, he punished the guilty official only in certain circumstances.31 An
account retold by Imad ad-Din illustrates this point : "...at the beginning of my journey
with him [Saladin] to Egypt in 572 [1176], an accounting was demanded of his term in
office. The audit of his books indicated a deficit of 70 000 dinars. [The Sultan] neither
sought nor mentioned [this sum], and caused himto think that he knew nothing of it,
although the sahib al-diwan did not deny it...Nor was [the sultan] pleased to dismiss
him, but put him in charge of diwan al-jaysh."32Corruption and misadministration were
prevalent throughout the political system, but by down-playing these weaknesses, Salah
ad-Din could retain the services-and reinforce the sense of gratitude-of a presumably
valued official.33 His generosity and forbearance were attractive qualities; they were
also of great political utility. Salah ad-Din 's qualities were important not only in
dealing with individual cases, but also in handling his amirs as a body. According to
Humphrey, each group was granted reasonable shares of the iqta's and governorships and
each of their chiefs were equally heard by the sultan, with no one group gaining greater
favour over another.34 Humphrey adds that for the political benefits of such a policy
were immense: his treatment of individuals meant that he had to face only a few cases of
personal discontent and even if some disgruntled amir had tried to mount a conspiracy
against him, he would have found no faction at hand to support him.35 It was, of course,
much to Salah ad-Din's advantage that he was the only political leader in the region who
had both the personality and political insight to establish such a relationship with his
amirs. Sa'd al-Din Gumushtigin began his brief career as dictator of Aleppo by
imprisoning a number of amirs and alienating several others who should have been among
the most loyal supporters of the Zengid house.36 Similarly, when Izz al-Din Mas'ud of
Mosul and his chief advisor Mujahid al-Din Kiymaz occupied the region in 577/1182, they
favoured their own Mosul amirs over the Aleppan Nuriyya, with subsequent discontent and
at least one important defection to Salah ad-Din.37 In the face of such treatment, Salah
ad-Din's generosity and equitableness were bound to seem more attractive than the duty of
loyalty to the house of Zengi.38 The political bond which Salah ad-Din's created was a
strong and effective one, but by itself did not suffice. Salah ad-Din's amirs were
ambitious men, after all, and like professional soliders in a position to choose their
ruler, they would serve the man who assured them the richest rewards.39 Had he been the
ruler of a small passive state-it is doubtful that he could have sustained the services
of most of his amirs. The kingdom, however, was quite different. From the outset, it was
clearly the most vigorous and dynamic power in the Nile Valley and Fertile Crescent.40
For a man of ambition by far the greatest prospects lay with Salah ad-Din. Participation
in Salah ad-Din's success entailed the development of opportunities and newly secured
interests in land and political power enjoyed by the amirs. To a large extent argues
Humphrey, Salah ad-Din's success was the surest guarantee of the amirs' loyalty.41 The
system of loyalties created by Salah ad-Din thus rested equally on successful expansion
and on his perceptiveness in dealing both with individuals and the disparate groups among
his amirs. Expansion bound the amirs to his cause because it promised material rewards,
and this bond grew all the more effective as Salah ad-Din became the only ruler in the
region able to offer such inducements on a grand scale.42 But with the inevitable
rivalries and disappointed hopes which accompany rapid imperial expansion, or in the face
of frustration and defect, a material tie of this kind was subject to quick
dissolution.43 It was the cement of personal trust and mutual obligation which could (at
least in part) sustain the commitment of his amirs under such circumstances.44 Salah
ad-Din's military efforts proved just as challenging, if not more so against these
political obstacles. As noted previously, Salah ad-Din's demands for Aleppo proved
unrelenting. After a second attempt, he posted his forces around the region, leaving
Gumushtigin no alternative but to accept his terms. This left Aleppo in the hands of
as-Salih with the condition that the two armies combine operations against the Franks.45
A series of skirmishes against the Christian forces followed with only modest successe
and no decisive victory could be achieved with only the forces of Damascus and those
which could be spared from the defense of Egypt.46 The forces of Aleppo, Mosul and
Mespotamia were required to assist him in his reconquest of Palestine.47 With the
opposition of Aleppo tactically resolved, Salah ad-Din directed his attention on the
potential hostility of the Zengids of Mosul and the very likely possibility that their
troops could still effectively neutralize his ultimate objective.48 For him, the
conclusion was inescapable: since he could not concentrate the forces of Syria and Egypt
against the crusaders so long as he was endangered by potential rear attacks from Mosul,
their forces, too, had to be brought under his control and turned into auxillaries in the
jihad.49 If the Holy War was to be successful, it had be waged with all Muslim forces
united. In his dispatches to the caliphate in Baghdad following the capture of Amida,
Salah ad-Din made a moral appeal for the rights to Mosul arguing that, "This alone stood
in the way of the union of Islam and the recovery of Jerusalem. Let the commander of the
faithful compare the conduct of his clients and judge which of them most faithfully
served the cause of Islam."50 Salah ad-Din's insistence on the inclusion of Mesopotamia
and Mosul in his dominions was because, " this little Jazira [i.e. Mesopotamia] is the
lever which will set in motion the great Jazira [i.e. the whole Arab east]; it is the
point of division and center of resistance, and once it is set in its place in the chain
of alliances, the whole armed might of Islam will be coordinated to engage the forces of
unbelief."51 After a period of tension and conflict, a peaceful settlement was reached
and a grand coalition was at last formed with the goal of reconquering Palestine. Salah
ad-Din's armies, though organized along the same lines as those of Nur ad-Din, differed
in one important respect. The proportion of Kurds in his regiments was much greater and
the mamluk element less prominent.52 Their common loyalty to him kept in check the
rivalries that might otherwise have resulted in conflicts between them, and in his
selection of fiefholders and lesser governors, he seems to have kept the balance fairly
evenly.53 Saladin also had to contend with his amirs' discontent, especially after
longer, discouraging campaigns. Although this never degenerated into open mutiny, he
could not ignore its possibility. But by and large, his authority among his amirs was
such that he could manage campaigns of many months' duration for years on end without
provoking serious dissension. To all of Muslim forces, argues Gibb, he gave his complete
confidence and expected of them equal loyalty in return.54 Finally reuniting his forces,
Salah ad-Din marched his goal, the recapture of Jerusalem. After a seige of less than a
fortnight, the city surrendered on October 2, 1187. This, along with his other impressive
victories which reduced the holdings of the crusaders in Syria to three cities ( Tyre,
Tripoli and Antioch with a few outlying fortresses) in such a short span of time, has led
Muslim and Christian scholars alike to view him as a great and successful general. Salah
ad-Din possessed military virtues of high order; but his victories were due to his moral
qualities which have little to do with strategic gifts.55 He was a man inspired by an
intense and unwavering ideal, the achievement of which necessarily involved him in a long
series of military activities. Until 1186, these activities were directed toward imposing
his will upon the prevailing feudal military system and shaping it into the instrument
which his purpose required.56 These, however, were not Salah ad-Din's only strengths; his
ability to ignite the mass fervour of jihad was crucial in itself-since no leader, not
even Nur ad-Din, had been capable of organizing such a powerful effort. It has often been
argued that it was Nur ad-Din who laid the political and physical groundwork for Salah
ad-Din who went on to command more defensive and emotional support for the holy war than
any previous ruler.57 Under Salah ad-Din, the growth of Muslim strength, unity and vigor
for jihad developed and found its fullest expression. Ibn Shaddad, one of Salah ad-Din's
greatest eulogizers, concluded that for Salah ad-Din it was not an issue of building up
his own power for selfish reasons, but to command sufficient strength to fight the "
accursed" Franks.58 Salah ad-Din himself is said to have argued that, " a man does not
serve Allah unless he is occupied with the maintenance of the jihad with extraordinary
effort and application."59 Historian Gibb further adds that for Salah ad-Din, if the war
to which he had vowed himself against the crusaders was to be a real jihad, a true Holy
War, it was imperative to conduct it with scrupulous observance of the revealed law of
Islam.60 A government which sought to serve the cause of God in battle must not only be a
lawful government, duly authorized by supreme represention of the divine law, but must
serve God with equal zeal in its administration and in its treatment of its subjects.61
Salah ad-Din possessed all the religious virtues of orthodoxy: piety, obedience to the
law, hadith and the Quran; and respect for learned men; as well as knowledge of the
tradition and law of jihad and activation of that knowledge.62 He could and often did
call upon military strength (once consolidated) when he wished, in comparison with the
number of amirs and governors whom Nur ad-Din had employed in similar roles.63 Ibn
Shaddad recalls several cases of many volunteers and martyrs who responded willingly to
the calls of jihad by their suzerain. In 1189, the troops were full of fervour at
Acre-this was a day on which one could sell one's life for the great reward of paradise
and Gibb recounts many references to men who donated their services to Salah ad-Din and
others who died as martyrs for Allah in battle.64 Other instances are cited, whereby
Salah ad-Din himself exhorted his men before a battle, or during a critical point in the
fight, encouraging them to exert themselves in Allah's service (fi sabil Allah or in the
way of Allah).65 As a powerful leader of his time,using the element of holy war to
instigate military activity, Salah ad-Din was able to command the loyalty and ideals of a
group of men bound by a similar principle of faith-Islam. Salah ad-Din achieved what no
Muslim commander, for centuries before him ever attempted: he ruled for three years
without any relatively major disruptions and still fulfilled his ultimate goals. Had he
been no more than a military leader, he could not have attained it; his feudal troops
would have fallen apart and been overun by the Franks. It was, however, the collaboration
of his true greatness and inner strength which helped produce such a victorious outcome.
He was faced with no easy task--waging a double conflict: the external struggle with the
crusaders and the internal struggle with fissiparous tendencies and instability of the
feudal armies. Military genius was but one element in the combination of qualities he
possessed which enabled him to fight crusaders successfully. The military campaign was a
long and difficult one, consisting of military reversals and disaster; his generals were
openly critical, his troops at times mutinous. It was through his sheer strength of
character, the undying passion of faith within him and his example of steadfast endurance
that he inspired the obstinate resistance which ultimately defeated the Christian
infidels.