WI:Saladin loses at Hattin

And there's no real military gap, certainly a knight was just as good as the Mamluks. And Muslim success was somewhat inevitable, but not exactly guaranteed because Hattin was not just important in terms of the conquest, it also bought Saladin credibility that he used to overcome Asurf and Acre, both of which he was facing fresher troops who he knew were coming.
 
And there's no real military gap, certainly a knight was just as good as the Mamluks. And Muslim success was somewhat inevitable, but not exactly guaranteed because Hattin was not just important in terms of the conquest, it also bought Saladin credibility that he used to overcome Asurf and Acre, both of which he was facing fresher troops who he knew were coming.

There is a very real military gap. Even if one on one a knight could beat a Mamluk soldier as easily as vice-versa, there are very few knights in the Latin East.
 
There is a very real military gap. Even if one on one a knight could beat a Mamluk soldier as easily as vice-versa, there are very few knights in the Latin East.

Judging from the record, Latin knights were better, man for man, than their counterparts. It is the dearth of knights and the destriers to carry them that hindered the Crusaders, to be sure. I wouldn't say that there were few, but that there weren't enough to absorb serious losses.
 
Judging from the record, Latin knights were better, man for man, than their counterparts. It is the dearth of knights and the destriers to carry them that hindered the Crusaders, to be sure. I wouldn't say that there were few, but that there weren't enough to absorb serious losses.

"Less than two thousand", at the peak of the Latin East - long since past by 1187 - is definitely not enough to even cover the military needs, let alone after losses.
 
Guy de Lusignan is not such a complete loser and does not allow himself to be talked into marchjing accross a virtually waterless desert before getting trapped on a hill with, again, no water the army could access and facing huge odds.

In short, had Guy been in any way competen the Battle of Hattin would never have happened. Any battle that happened would have been close to Jerusalm and would have been fought by a well supplied army of he kingdom of Jerusalem with a strong cjance of victory. That would have bouught te kingdom at least a few more years.
 
Guy de Lusignan is not such a complete loser and does not allow himself to be talked into marchjing accross a virtually waterless desert before getting trapped on a hill with, again, no water the army could access and facing huge odds.

In short, had Guy been in any way competen the Battle of Hattin would never have happened. Any battle that happened would have been close to Jerusalm and would have been fought by a well supplied army of he kingdom of Jerusalem with a strong cjance of victory. That would have bouught te kingdom at least a few more years.

That's a very good point.
 
Very good point. And Saladin could not hold his coalition that long if he has no success. Then again, there would be no more new settlers if they thought that Jerusalem was safe. Guy should have never had listened to his advice.
 
Very good point. And Saladin could not hold his coalition that long if he has no success. Then again, there would be no more new settlers if they thought that Jerusalem was safe. Guy should have never had listened to his advice.

And why are we assuming he has no success?

If Guy doesn't fight at Hattin, Saladin is going to have no trouble taking Tiberias. Then what? How much can he nibble away (or more) at the KoJ?

And as later events OTL show, a few defeats are not going to suddenly shatter Saladin's "coalition".
 
If Guy doesn't fight at Hattin, Saladin is going to have no trouble taking Tiberias. Then what? How much can he nibble away (or more) at the KoJ?

And as later events OTL show, a few defeats are not going to suddenly shatter Saladin's "coalition".
Tiberias was merely a ruse in order force Guy's hand. The main reason why the coalition did not fall apart after Acre and Asurf was because Saladin had conquered Jerusalem. He was looking for a reason to fight.
 
Tiberias was merely a ruse in order force Guy's hand. The main reason why the coalition did not fall apart after Acre and Asurf was because Saladin had conquered Jerusalem. He was looking for a reason to fight.

If it was a ruse, it was also a pretty serious problem. Guy cannot afford to have Saladin gobbling up castles left and right.

I'm not going to say Guy did the right thing, but "do nothing" is not a valid defensive strategy when your defenses are being knocked down.
 
Even with a better strategy, Guy still might have lost. Saladin had a larger, well-situated army and it fought well.

Guy's worst mistake was marching across the desert in the afternoon instead of waiting until the next morning.
 
Hattin

Had Guy waited for Saladin at Acre, it is possible that Saladin would have marched out from Tiberias. Many in Saladin's armies were anxious to engage the Franks, and in that situation the advantage would have gone to the Franks.
 
Top