Best Muslim Leader during the Crusades?

Salah · Dec 31, 2009

Of all the Muslim sultans, amirs, and warlords who fought to expell the barbaric Franj from the Holy Land, which was most successful or talented?

Kilij Arslan, the Seljuk sultan of Nikaea, who, barely out of his teens, managed to resist the first wave of Crusaders to come at his kingdom in 1097.
Atabeg Zangi, the founder of the Zangid Dynasty of Aleppo, he captured King Fulk of Jerusalem in 1137 and in 1144 he destroyed the Crusader Kingdom of Edessa.
Nur ad-Din, the warlord who managed to unite the fragmented emirates of Syria against the Crusaders.
Shirkuh, Nur ad-Din's general, uncle to Salah ad-Din, he had experience fighting both Crusaders and fellow Muslims, and he managed to destroy the heretical Fatimid Dynasty and add it to Nur ad-Din's empire in 1169
al-Malik an-Nasir Yusuf ibn Ayyub Salah ad-Din; the Kurdish warlord who followed his uncle Shirkuh to Egypt; he reorganized Egypt's army before setting out against the Kingdom of Jerusalem; capturing King Guy d'Lusignan at Hattin on 4 July 1187, he retook Jerusalem and several years later frustrated Richard Coeur d'Leon's attempts to retake it for Christendom
Rukn ad-Din Baibars; this Turkish mamluk officer overthrew the crumbling Ayyubid Dynasty and established the Mamluk Sultanate that would last until 1517; he took Antioch back for Dar al-Islam in 1268
Khalil; a Mamluk sultan, he took Acre, the last fragment of Outremer left, in 1291

Salah · Dec 31, 2009

I see that everyone, is, indeed, voting for my illustrious namesake...

Personally, I thought Baibars was pretty cool, too.

okamido · Dec 31, 2009

I went for Saladin because of his military feats, although without Nur ad-Din setting the stage, he most likely would not have been as accomplished.

Efendi · Dec 31, 2009

Kılıç Aslan was greath, I have to vote for Salahaddin Eyyübi.

In Turkish Sultan is mostly adhered to females, for example to the female relative of Ottoman emperors. Ottman emperors were mostly called Padishah, as for Selçuk leaders, and the earlier leaders It is Hakan or Han.

Shadow Dragon · Dec 31, 2009

I had to vote for Saladin as well. I think he was the best military leader to fight during the Crusades.

Salah · Dec 31, 2009

okamido said:
I went for Saladin because of his military feats, although without Nur ad-Din setting the stage, he most likely would not have been as accomplished.

Sometimes I am tempted to see a parallel in medieval Islamic history and Japanese history - both have a three of great conquerors/unifiers. For Japan, Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa; for Islam, Zangi, Nur ad-Din, and Salah ad-Din. Each of these men built upon the foundation set by his predecessor.

Labienus · Dec 31, 2009

For me it is Baybars. He managed to hold off the Mongols and he created a solid dynasty.

okamido · Dec 31, 2009

Salah ad-Din said:
Sometimes I am tempted to see a parallel in medieval Islamic history and Japanese history - both have a three of great conquerors/unifiers. For Japan, Nobunaga, Hideyoshi, and Tokugawa; for Islam, Zangi, Nur ad-Din, and Salah ad-Din. Each of these men built upon the foundation set by his predecessor.

I can agree with that totally, as when I wrote my earlier statement, I wondered if I was short-changing Zengi. Good call.

plutoboyz · Dec 31, 2009

I admit Salah ad-din was great. but I vote al-Malik al-Zahir Rukn al-Din Baibars al-Bunduqdari‎. He was captured by the Mongols on the Kipchak steppe and sold as a slave, ending up in Syria. then Defeat the Mongol and becoming Sultan.

Satuf · Jan 1, 2010

Saladin: kicked out crusaders.

Baibars: kept Mongols away from Egypt.

I voted for Saladin, of course.

sylla1 · Jan 1, 2010

Satuf said:
Saladin: kicked out crusaders.

Baibars: kept Mongols away from Egypt.

I voted for Saladin, of course.

Baibars, of course; defeating the crusaders and defeating the Mongols (for the first time ever) was simply orders of magnitude away.
In any case, Baibars defeated the former too in at least three campaigns; the Fall of Acre (the definitive "kick-out" for the crusaders) was a direct consequence of those campaigns.

Satuf · Jan 1, 2010

sylla1 said:
Baibars, of course; defeating the crusaders and defeating the Mongols (for the first time ever) was simply orders of magnitude away.
In any case, Baibars defeated the former too in at least three campaigns; the Fall of Acre (the definitive "kick-out" for the crusaders) was a direct consequence of those campaigns.

I can understand why they wanted to control Jerusalem, but never understood why they wanted to control/conquer Egypt.

Efendi · Jan 1, 2010

Satuf said:
I can understand why they wanted to control Jerusalem, but never understood why they wanted to control/conquer Egypt.

Egypt was a rich country.

sylla1 · Jan 1, 2010

Satuf said:
I can understand why they wanted to control Jerusalem, but never understood why they wanted to control/conquer Egypt.

As so many other rulers of Egypt, Baibars and his Mamluks ruled over Palestine; so yes, by definition the crusaders wanted to conquer Egyptian ("Holy") land.
Aside from that, at least two Crusades (V & VIII) directly attacked the Nile Delta.

Sargon of Akkad · Jan 1, 2010

Efendi said:
Egypt was a rich country.

It also had a large population to draw new recruits from.

Efendi · Jan 1, 2010

Sargon of Akkad said:
It also had a large population to draw new recruits from.

Yes that another reason to add more to it.

Shadow Dragon · Jan 2, 2010

Satuf said:
I can understand why they wanted to control Jerusalem, but never understood why they wanted to control/conquer Egypt.

They needed Egypt to act as farmland for the Crusader States, just like it did for the Eastern Roman Empire. Also Egypt's navy was one of the biggest obstacles in the way of the Crusades. Getting rid of Egypt would allow the European Crusaders to control the water routes to Jerusalem. Also, in the end, the Crusaders had to conquer at least a few of the enemy nations around Jerusalem, to simply give it a fighting chance not to simply be overwhelmed by enemies.

Bismarck · Jan 2, 2010

I always thought that Nur-ad Din laid the groundwork for Saladin's success, and that he overcame the greater obstacles to achieve this. Sure, Saladin gets all the glory for conquering Jerusalem, but it was Nur-ad Din's work over the previous 20 years that really laid the foundation for this.

Baibars deserves some credit for beating the Mongols, but his victories over the Crusader states should be tempered somewhat by the fact that the Crusader states were on their last legs by this time anyway.

Salah · Jan 2, 2010

Bismarck said:
I always thought that Nur-ad Din laid the groundwork for Saladin's success, and that he overcame the greater obstacles to achieve this. Sure, Saladin gets all the glory for conquering Jerusalem, but it was Nur-ad Din's work over the previous 20 years that really laid the foundation for this.

Baibars deserves some credit for beating the Mongols, but his victories over the Crusader states should be tempered somewhat by the fact that the Crusader states were on their last legs by this time anyway.

Finally, somebody besides my glorious namesake gets a vote

I agree with your evaluation of both Nur ad-Din and Baibars; honestly, I am tempted to see Baibars as being the greatest leader/warrior, period, on this list. But like you said, by the mid 13th Century, there were much bigger fish to fry than the Crusaders, who effectively held only Acre and Antioch. But Baibars fried them well...

sylla1 · Jan 2, 2010

Bismarck said:
Baibars deserves some credit for beating the Mongols, but his victories over the Crusader states should be tempered somewhat by the fact that the Crusader states were on their last legs by this time anyway.

That's exact; however, the risk posed by the Mongols was exponentially (many orders of magnitude) above the crusaders, even at their best time.

The Mongols had already conquered the biggest continuous Empire from all History, annihilated tens of millions of people all across Eurasia and remained absolutely undefeated for more than a generation; so effectively defeating and stopping them might well deserve far far more than just "some credit", at least in my book.

In fact, if Baibars didn't eradicate the crusaders sooner, the Mongol factor was undoubtedly the main explanation for that.

Search

Search

Best Muslim Leader during the Crusades?

Greatest Muslim Leader during the Crusades?

Kilij Arslan

Atabeg Zangi

Nur ad-Din

Skirkuh

Salah ad-Din (vote for me!!!!)

Baibars

Khalil

Salah

Salah

okamido

Efendi

Shadow Dragon

Salah

Labienus

okamido

plutoboyz

Satuf

sylla1

Satuf

Efendi

sylla1

Sargon of Akkad

Efendi

Shadow Dragon

Bismarck

Salah

sylla1

More History Discussions

Recent History Discussions

Trending History Discussions