WI: Saladin doesn't unite Egypt and Syria

RavenMM

Banned
IOTL, Saladin was declared sultan of Egypt after waging war against it in Syria's name. Nur ad-Din, leader of Syria wanted more controle over Egypt, but Saladin stalled. Understandably this lead to conflict between the two and they raised their armies to battle it out. Some days before the big battle, Nur ad-Din died and Saladin used the ensuring chaos to make himself ruler of both Egypt and Syria. Now he had the strength to retake Jerusalem and more.
Let's say Nur ad-Din lives a little longer and faces Saladin in Battle. There is no clear winner, but Saladin etablishes himself as independent sultan of Egypt. Nur ad-Din lives long enough to prepare his son for his position and the countries are not united. What happens next? Are the crusader states safe for a longer time? Will the eastern roman empire reestablish itself against weaker muslim invaders? What happens in europe, with a living Barbarossa and no ransom for Richard Lionheart?
 
Are the crusader states safe for a longer time?
Clearly yes : they are ITTL in a still really hard position, but their survival was tied to the fact they served as buffer zone between Egypt and Syria, and that everyone was quite pleased by that.

Of course, they're still suffering from several issues, whom least aren't lack of military backing and divisions, and an ambitious muslim ruler could see in them a fitting target, but they have indeed better chances.

Will the eastern roman empire reestablish itself against weaker muslim invaders?
Well, Manuel Commenos was one of the rare byzantine emperors to have a really good reputation amongst Latins (admittedly he had an open if firm diplomacy with them), so if you manage to preserve Manuel policy (aka de facto clientelisation of Latin States, but without important pressure) it could lead indeed to a byzantine limited extension.

You would need your PoD to butterfly Andronic and the slaughters of Latins in Constantinople though.

What happens in europe, with a living Barbarossa and no ransom for Richard Lionheart?

A living Barbarossa could have interesting outcomes, but it would face the same issues than his successors : italian troubles, tensions in Germany. Admittedly, he could avoid an alliance with Plantagenet if he survives at the date of Philip August wars against them, as he had less ties with them than his successors.

No ransom for Richard however, would be relativly unconsequential : while important, it was equivalent to one year of the crown revenues, so it wouldn't be that much gained.
Furthermore, Richard was a yahoo, more a duke of Aquitaine than an actual king as they existed at this time (While deeply incompetent, even John Lackland percieved the changes in feudal world and tried to impose royal authority).
The ransom did admittedly an important political symbolism, showing that Richard considered England as little less than a till for his campaigns and mistakes.
 
Top