No Saladin

okay, maybe a slightly more conservative question is an order then.

It would seem to me that even without saladin's considerable skills applied to the problem, that the kingdom of Jeruselem will still fall, but without a charismatic and skilled leader might Richard I and a Barbarossa that does not drown ignominiously be able to achieve their goals?

yes? no? maybe?
 
Well, the Kingdom of Jerusalem might last slightly longer but its still going to get captured by Muslims eventually. It was always an enclave surrounded by hostile enemies.

What's interesting is how the history of the Middle East would look without the Ayyubid Dynasty Saladin created (and its better known successor state, the Egyptian Mameluks).
 
well, I was hoping for an easy crusader wank, but mongoloid palestine is interesting too.

although, a thought just occured to me, might the two faiths form a temporary alliance in order to fight the foreign invaders, or is that just too sensational.
 

Burakius

Banned
I think the Turks would eventually capture the city. There wouldn't change much. Because the Middle-East would still be Turk-controlled.
 
Isaac Ignelus made a deal with Saladin to impede Barbarossa's transit. With no Saladin you get no deal, but you probably don't get Hattin, fall of Jerusalem, 3rd crusade either.
 
I think the Mamelukes would rise even without Saladin, and after the defeat of the Mongols, the Mamelukes would go after the Crusader States. Some isolated last enclaves may exist until the Turks come around and mop it up, but nothing after that.
 
well, I was hoping for an easy crusader wank, but mongoloid palestine is interesting too.

although, a thought just occured to me, might the two faiths form a temporary alliance in order to fight the foreign invaders, or is that just too sensational.

The Franks were on decent terms with the Mongols IOTL, and I don't see why the absence of Saladin is going to change that.
 
Top