alternatehistory.com

Saladin's role in more or less removing catholic forces from the holy land is often very much hyped up. He is seen by many as the saviour of the Islamic world from Christian invaders.

Now I don't believe in the idea that a great man alone is enough to shape history so drastically. What I'm wondering is how big of an effect on his success did his vast territory in Egypt have on his campaigns against the Christians (huge I imagine)?

Would it just effect resources or was there more to it?
Even if he did, would he be able to inspire so many people without making his immense conquests?

From what I have heard, Salah-ad-din's dedication to the reconquest of Jerusalem came from him miraculously surviving a terrible disease which created a desire to repay God. Is this true, because if it is, I feel like such different circumstances might butterfly it away.

Most importantly though, would some other charismatic leader be likely to lead the war with the crusader states in his place if Salah-ad-din was not powerful, popular, or motivates (or alive) enough to do so?

Of course, I assume that the crusader states would still collapse since their administration & ability to cooperate, both among themselves and with other Christians, which was crucial to their survival, was more than subpar & still would be.

As I was writing this, I realized how simple the answer to the main question is. However, the bolded bit is still up for discussion & I probably missed something glaringly obvious anyway (also I spent too long writing this to just delete it all).
Top