Saladin's game of thrones

This is a somewhat curious work, penned by history professor Andrew Ehrenkreutz already in 1972. Its purpose is to denigrate Saladin, the Muslim ruler who retook Jerusalem in 1187 from the crusaders, and who is often romanticized even in the West (probably being the only Muslim ever to achieve that particular distinction).

I don't think Ehrenkreutz succeeds very well, but I suppose that depends on your starting presuppositions. If you think Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub (the sultan's real name) was some kind of Christ-like figure, or at least substantially better than the next 12th century guy, you might be in for some disenchantment. In reality, Saladin was frequently just as ruthless, exploitative or opportunistic as his opponents. But, somehow, that is the problem with this narrative!

Why should we hate Saladin in particular, if the crusaders engaged in slave-raiding, if the Christian powers often attacked each other, if the Catholic Kingdom of Jerusalem allied itself with the Shia Muslim Fatimids and Assassins, if crusader Raymund of Tripoli allied himself with Saladin (!), while various Sunni Muslim factions were at each other's throats? Italian merchants traded with Saladin's realm all through the crusades, furnishing him with much-needed iron (to make weapons) and wood (to build war ships). This treachery to the Christian cause was (perhaps) slightly balanced by the treason of the Muslim Almohad rulers of North Africa, who took their revenge on Saladin's predatory incursions on their territory by letting crusader ships use their ports! So, once again, why should Saladin be seen as particularly rouge? Ironically, he emerges from this book as a remarkably talented politician, brave military commander and competent administrator. In a sense, he comes across like a typical European Renaissance ruler: cultured, ruthless and yet sort-of-loved by his subjects due to excellent propaganda.

Ehrenkreutz is at pains to portray Saladin's war against the crusader states as a failure. While he did capture Jerusalem and hence scored a major propaganda victory, he failed to take Tyre and lost control of Acre, and hence couldn't stop the Third Crusade from re-establishing Latin control of the Levantine coast. While most historians, with the benefit of hindsight, regard Saladin's conquest of Jerusalem as the beginning of the end of the crusader states, Ehrenkreutz makes the (perhaps more salient) proposition that the *crusaders* should be seen as the victors, since their remaining territories were used as bridgeheads to harass the Muslims for another century. For a while, the Christians (led by Frederick II) even retook Jerusalem!

Ehrenkreutz charges that Saladin was more interested in the territorial aggrandizement of his own realm at the expense of other Muslims, than in fighting the Christians. But this is surely a strange criticism, since Muslim in-fighting was inevitable due to the "feudal", splintered character of the Islamic polities. It could equally well be argued that Saladin's fight against the crusaders made empire-building at the expense of lesser Muslim rulers necessary in order to unite the faithful (and use their resources for the jihad).

"Saladin" is often referenced in works critical of Islam, such as Ibn Warraq's "Sir Walter Scott's Crusades and Other Fantasies". Although I don't support the sultan (his "heretical" Muslim opponents seem more interesting!), I must say that Warraq is cherry-picking and overlooks the context given by Ehrenkreutz himself. For instance, Ehrenkreutz points out that the Fatimids of Egypt, who once headed a splendid civilization, had degenerated by the 12th century, mismanaged the Egyptian economy, lacked popular support and spent most of their time on bizarre court intrigues. I took a souvenir, a pretty head (in a silver container, to boot). It might have been bad for "our guys" (the crusaders) that the Fatimid conspiracy against Saladin failed, but the conspirators which he crucified were hardly enlightened angels bustling over with liberal democratic values!

In sum, "Saladin" is a interesting work and might serve as an antidote to the overly romanticized pictures of the Ayyubid ruler, but I don't think it will enrage his Sunni Muslim or Kurdish admirers enough to start a new culture war on campus...