WI Saladin dies in 1177?

In 25 November 1177 a small Jerusalem army lead by King Baldwin IV launched a surprise attack against a much larger muslim army lead by Saladin in Montgisard near Ramla.
This resulted in a crushing defeat for Saladin and his army which counted 23000 deads and Saladin himself was encircled at one point by Crusaders and he only managed to be saved the last moment after his nephew intervened and by riding a camel and escaped the battle.

WI Saladin was killed that day? Would his death have prevented the eventual loss of Crusader states or they would simply gain time before muslims returned? Could Saladin's successor held muslims united or their state in Syria and Egypt would fall in disarray?
 
Last edited:
In 25 November 1177 a small Jerusalem army lead by King Baldwin IV launched a surprise attack against a much larger muslim army lead by Saladin in Montgisard near Ramla.
This resulted in a crushing defeat for Saladin and his army which counted 23000 deads and Saladin himself was encircled at one point by Crusaders and he only managed to be saved the last moment after his nephew intervened by riding a camel and escaped the battle.

WI Saladin was killed that day? Would his death have prevented the eventual loss of Crusader states or they would simply gain time before muslims returned? Could Saladin's successor held muslims united or their state in Syria and Egypt would fall in disarray?

I think it would be a matter of time - but it would break the union of Syria and Egypt for at least the time being, even if neither place individually was in anarchy for very long.

How long depends on what happens.

The idea of a Frankish army at Ain Jalut is a grim picture for the Kingdom of Jerusalem, though.
 
I think it would be a matter of time - but it would break the union of Syria and Egypt for at least the time being, even if neither place individually was in anarchy for very long.

How long depends on what happens.

The idea of a Frankish army at Ain Jalut is a grim picture for the Kingdom of Jerusalem, though.

With Syria and Egypt drifting apart after Saladin's death would it be possible for Kingdom of Jerusalem or other european kingdoms to exploit the situation and attack them while they are in disarray? Launching a Crusade perhaps?
 
With Syria and Egypt drifting apart after Saladin's death would it be possible for Kingdom of Jerusalem or other european kingdoms to exploit the situation and attack them while they are in disarray? Launching a Crusade perhaps?

I wouldn't say an attack is impossible, but I'm not sure how well it would work with the king already crippled by his leprosy.

As for a crusade - it's certainly possible, whether anyone would come is another story. Too complicated to give a simple answer to.
 
Saladin

I see the Ayoubites re-grouping within a decade or so after Saladin's death. The crusader states still face severe problems such as a shortage of manpower and weak government. Perhaps if Guy of Lusignan never becomes king..
 
Hmm I think this would be a serious setback. Saladin was a pretty average general but he was a brilliant clear-seeing politician. The Ayyubids declined rapidly after Al-Adil's death, so perhaps Al-Adil will take over at a much earlier date.
 
The Crusader states simply didn't have the manpower to fight of the Muslims forever. Eventually, they would take back the Holy Land. Maybe if here was stronger support for the Crusades in Europe, but that's still an unlikely and difficult thing to do. Saladin's death wOuld certainly change things in the short term, but in the long term, little would change for the Crusaders.
 
The Crusader states simply didn't have the manpower to fight of the Muslims forever. Eventually, they would take back the Holy Land. Maybe if here was stronger support for the Crusades in Europe, but that's still an unlikely and difficult thing to do. Saladin's death wOuld certainly change things in the short term, but in the long term, little would change for the Crusaders.

Shouldnt Saladin's death have motivated the Pope to declare another Crusade and invite European Kings and nobles to participate in order to strike a decisive blow to the disorganised muslims?
 
Shouldnt Saladin's death have motivated the Pope to declare another Crusade and invite European Kings and nobles to participate in order to strike a decisive blow to the disorganised muslims?

The problem is that for some reason, the crusades were prompted less by that and more by "Oh crap, the Muslims are winning."

The Pope certainly could, but I don't know if it would get as much of a response.
 
The problem is that for some reason, the crusades were prompted less by that and more by "Oh crap, the Muslims are winning."

The Pope certainly could, but I don't know if it would get as much of a response.

And it's likely that each time there would be less and less support for the idea.
 
And it's likely that each time there would be less and less support for the idea.

The 1101 fiasco and Second Crusade seem to have been seriously enthusiasm killing for struggles based on "There are Muslims there, that means we can go beat them up."

Not completely, but they showed how badly these things could go too well.
 
All of Saladin's sons are too young to rule in 1177, so Saladin's domains will either fall to his brother Al-Adil or is split up among various stakeholders. At this time, it's probably small enough that one man could hold onto it.

However, you likely do not get the greater state Saladin assembled after 1177. There won't be one Muslim state that controls not only Egypt and Damascus, but also significant parts of Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Aleppo or Mosul. All the latter parts will likely remain separate. The Ayyubids also likely lose control of Yemen, and may face revolts elsewhere.

So at this point, while the general Crusader strategic situation hasn't improved from what it was historically, it also hasn't deteriorated. The Muslim powers around them remain divided and unlikely to move in to destroy it utterly like what Saladin did before the Third Crusade arrived.

Which means the Crusader states are still intact with some depth (controlling not only a fortified Jerusalem, but also the fortress beyond the Jordan which offered some protection and cut off Muslim Syria from Muslim Egypt).

With Saladin dead, what are the chances the Muslims can mount a successful attack anytime in the next hundred years to push them to the coasts? Probably not much. With another hundred years of consolidating control and bringing in more settlers, the internal Crusader society will be stronger. They add up after a while. Which means - if we keep the Mongol events intact - that when the Mongols reach the Middle East, you have a much better Chrisitan position. Which means either the Crusader states are destroyed by the Mongols, or they cooperate like the Armenians did to survive, and the Mongols invade Egypt.

Eventually when the Mongol domains collapse, you have a much improved position for the Crusader states, and an opportunity for them to seize enough land to cement their position (let's say Damascus and Aleppo which creates a strong position where the only threats can come from the north (Anatolian Turks) or south (Egypt). Combined with other significant Christian powers in Anatolia (Byzantines, Armenians, and Georgians), we are looking at a viable state that can last a long time.

Is this the most likely outcome? Maybe not. But it's at least a possibility, even a strong one. Of course, there is always the potential for another Saladin figure to come along in the next hundred years - but such decisive figures usually don't repeat so soon, or that the Mongols simply destroy the Crusaders. But if they do hold out, you have another 200 years or so of Crusader control over Palestine and much of Syria with much weaker and divided Muslim states. You have a Byzantine Emprire that never suffered through the 1204 Crusade, and likely decent powers with Armenia and Georgia to keep the Turks off their back. That's not a bad position to be in, and much better than what the 1300s and 1400s were like for the Christian states IOTL.
 
All of Saladin's sons are too young to rule in 1177, so Saladin's domains will either fall to his brother Al-Adil or is split up among various stakeholders. At this time, it's probably small enough that one man could hold onto it.

However, you likely do not get the greater state Saladin assembled after 1177. There won't be one Muslim state that controls not only Egypt and Damascus, but also significant parts of Anatolia, Mesopotamia, Aleppo or Mosul. All the latter parts will likely remain separate. The Ayyubids also likely lose control of Yemen, and may face revolts elsewhere.

So at this point, while the general Crusader strategic situation hasn't improved from what it was historically, it also hasn't deteriorated. The Muslim powers around them remain divided and unlikely to move in to destroy it utterly like what Saladin did before the Third Crusade arrived.

Which means the Crusader states are still intact with some depth (controlling not only a fortified Jerusalem, but also the fortress beyond the Jordan which offered some protection and cut off Muslim Syria from Muslim Egypt).

With Saladin dead, what are the chances the Muslims can mount a successful attack anytime in the next hundred years to push them to the coasts? Probably not much. With another hundred years of consolidating control and bringing in more settlers, the internal Crusader society will be stronger. They add up after a while. Which means - if we keep the Mongol events intact - that when the Mongols reach the Middle East, you have a much better Chrisitan position. Which means either the Crusader states are destroyed by the Mongols, or they cooperate like the Armenians did to survive, and the Mongols invade Egypt.

Eventually when the Mongol domains collapse, you have a much improved position for the Crusader states, and an opportunity for them to seize enough land to cement their position (let's say Damascus and Aleppo which creates a strong position where the only threats can come from the north (Anatolian Turks) or south (Egypt). Combined with other significant Christian powers in Anatolia (Byzantines, Armenians, and Georgians), we are looking at a viable state that can last a long time.

Is this the most likely outcome? Maybe not. But it's at least a possibility, even a strong one. Of course, there is always the potential for another Saladin figure to come along in the next hundred years - but such decisive figures usually don't repeat so soon, or that the Mongols simply destroy the Crusaders. But if they do hold out, you have another 200 years or so of Crusader control over Palestine and much of Syria with much weaker and divided Muslim states. You have a Byzantine Emprire that never suffered through the 1204 Crusade, and likely decent powers with Armenia and Georgia to keep the Turks off their back. That's not a bad position to be in, and much better than what the 1300s and 1400s were like for the Christian states IOTL.

In such a case Byzantine Empire acquires a valuable ally in his southern borders capable of providing help against Turks and other invaders in Anatolia.
However i wonder... If Crusaders decide to cooperate with the Mongols what would stop them from turning the Khan against Byzantine Empire thus leaving Egypt to be conquered by Crusaders?
 
In such a case Byzantine Empire acquires a valuable ally in his southern borders capable of providing help against Turks and other invaders in Anatolia.
However i wonder... If Crusaders decide to cooperate with the Mongols what would stop them from turning the Khan against Byzantine Empire thus leaving Egypt to be conquered by Crusaders?

The fact the Khan holds the upper hand in the alliance, mostly.
 
Top