Your thoughts on Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb (Saladin) ?

[Jazzbot]

in fact,the first massacre happened in First Crusade,the first blood was not of muslims,but Jews'.and that massacre was not conducted in Asia,it was in Europe.

Rhineland massacres - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

plus,I'd not held such high regards for Saladin,for shown mercy or something.the fact is,Saladin asked for money for every person's free passage from Jerusalem.and it was provided,though Crusaders earned heavy discount by using persuasion.but Saladin too conducted massacre of captured Crusaders and Civilians,and that includes Christian,Jew as well as muslims.

You are right, that Saladin did executed captured crusaders and civilians, but for some reasons behind it. Not like how Jews and Muslims were massacred by Crusaders, they even dragged people out of holy places and butchered them.

And even though Saladin collected money for their safe passage (remember his men escorted them to shores), he still showed mercy and didn't take revenge of 2nd Crusade's massacre. You got to give the man due credit. He captured Jerusalem with no one there to challenge his might, he could have killed every single one regardless of his religion. But instead he let them go safely, and those who stayed in Jerusalem, he let them live their without any harm.

 

[Aepsilons]

You are right, that Saladin did executed captured crusaders and civilians, but for some reasons behind it. Not like how Jews and Muslims were massacred by Crusaders, they even dragged people out of holy places and butchered them.

And even though Saladin collected money for their safe passage (remember his men escorted them to shores), he still showed mercy and didn't take revenge of 2nd Crusade's massacre. You got to give the man due credit. He captured Jerusalem with no one there to challenge his might, he could have killed every single one regardless of his religion. But instead he let them go safely, and those who stayed in Jerusalem, he let them live their without any harm.

Undoubtedly he showed much wisdom and noble character!

 

[KingMamba]

Crusaders even massacred other Christians as seen in their injustices committed on Byzantine citizens , who were Orthodox Christians.

During those times Orthodox preferred Muslim rule over Catholic rule.

 

[Aepsilons]

During those times Orthodox preferred Muslim rule over Catholic rule.

They have learned to live amicably side by side with Muslims. Note the thriving Coptic and orthodox communities in Egypt, Syria, Iraq, Lebanon, Palestine, Israel , Iran, etc.

 

[B+ Dracula]

but that's that.
Then Jerusalem was lost again. Do you know who liberated it the second time? I bet u dont.
And plz spare of of personal attacks if u lack arguments.

You are right....

 

[GR!FF!N]

You are right, that Saladin did executed captured crusaders and civilians, but for some reasons behind it. Not like how Jews and Muslims were massacred by Crusaders, they even dragged people out of holy places and butchered them.

And even though Saladin collected money for their safe passage (remember his men escorted them to shores), he still showed mercy and didn't take revenge of 2nd Crusade's massacre. You got to give the man due credit. He captured Jerusalem with no one there to challenge his might, he could have killed every single one regardless of his religion. But instead he let them go safely, and those who stayed in Jerusalem, he let them live their without any harm.

I know about his character buddy.he didn't kill civilians for revenge.but probably you don't know that he didn't "Win" in the Battle of Jerusalem.he couldn't breakthrough even though he had all the condition in his favor.as the city's food supply started to crumble,Crusaders decided that they should get a safe passage and leave the city.Saladin also tried to get the city without much bloodbath.thus the decision of safe passage.but its true.the mechanical barbaric character Crusaders displayed,Islamic world was nowhere close to it.in fact,Crusades continued several hundred years more and brought more destruction.

 

[genmirajborgza786]

He was a master tactician and is regarded as one of the 100 most imporant military leaders of the history... nough said...



...

wrong he was not a master tactician but a mediocre one, however he was master strategist !
a tactician focusses more on the task @ hand & not the long term objective, & objective is the key word here "objective". its the heart & soul of war , a strategist focuses on objective & a good strategist is the one who achieves his/her objective & Saladin achieved his objective

 

[B+ Dracula]

1. The Crusades were a series of Holy Wars launched by the Christian states of Europe against the Saracens.
2. There were a total of nine crusades.
3. The reason for the crusades was a war between Christians and Muslims which centered around the city of Jerusalem.
4. The first crusade, which lasted from 1095-1099, established the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem.
5. The crusades also gave rise to the important knightly orders, the Knights Templar, the Teutonic Knights and the Hospitaller
6. The effects of the Crusades on Europe of the Middle Ages were an important factor in the history of the progress of civilization.
7. The effects of the Crusades influenced the wealth and power of the Catholic Church, Political matters, commerce, feudalism, intellectual development, social effects, material effects and the effects of the crusades also prompted the famous Voyages of discovery.
8. The Objectives of the crusades was at first to release the Holy Land, in particular Jerusalem, from the Saracens, but in time was extended to seizing Spain from the Moors, the Slavs and Pagans from eastern Europe, and the islands of the Mediterranean.
9. The crusaders came from both the Upper and Lower classes.
10. For a period of two hundred years Europe and Asia were engaged in almost constant warfare.

Yet there is no doubt the Crusades contributed greatly to changes in Europe. The effort of raising armies and providing supplies for Crusaders stimulated the economy; trade benefited, as well, especially once the Crusader States were established. Interaction between the East and West affected European culture in areas of art and architecture, literature and education. And Urban's vision of directing the energies of warring knights outward succeeded in reducing war within Europe. Having a common foe and common objective, even for those who didn't participate in the Crusade, fostered a view of Christendom as a united entity.

 

[Charon 2]

Ah yes Saladin. He was ethnically a Muslim Kurd and one of the most important rulers for the Islamic world world

 

[Jazzbot]

I know about his character buddy.he didn't kill civilians for revenge.but probably you don't know that he didn't "Win" in the Battle of Jerusalem.he couldn't breakthrough even though he had all the condition in his favor.as the city's food supply started to crumble,Crusaders decided that they should get a safe passage and leave the city.Saladin also tried to get the city without much bloodbath.thus the decision of safe passage.but its true.the mechanical barbaric character Crusaders displayed,Islamic world was nowhere close to it.in fact,Crusades continued several hundred years more and brought more destruction.

That my friend in military terms is called well earned victory. He bargained with defenders of Jerusalem when they were the weakest, and he won the bargaining.

 

[A.P. Richelieu]

You are probably posting the crap here at PDF just because Salahdin spared your ancestors from retaliatory massacre in reply of the massacre Jews & Christians did against Muslims in Jerusalem. Had he not shown mercy, who know what would be the strength of jews today.




- He liberated the Jerusalem which was his mission, and he was successful in it.
- Richard the lion heart, couldn't retake it despite trying his arse out. Saladin retained control of Jerusalem till his death, so he was successful in that too.
- Yes Crusades continued after death of Salahdin, but that's that.

Richard didn't try. Once he had an overview of the situation, he came to the conclusion
that even if he could seize Jerusalem, he could not hold it. With "mission completed",
a lot of the Crusaders would return home.

 

[GR!FF!N]

Richard didn't try. Once he had an overview of the situation, he came to the conclusion
that even if he could seize Jerusalem, he could not hold it. With "mission completed",
a lot of the Crusaders would return home.

Richard actually came very close to win Jerusalem twice.but in both cases,faction fight among the leaders stopped mounting battle against the city.but even if they won it,Saladin would take it after they leave,as Richard couldn't live rest of his life guarding Jerusalem.

 

[MastanKhan]

Nihonjin1051,

Boy---I tell you---there is a lot more to that innocent looking picture of the man in you avatar

 

[Jazzbot]

Richard didn't try. Once he had an overview of the situation, he came to the conclusion
that even if he could seize Jerusalem, he could not hold it. With "mission completed",
a lot of the Crusaders would return home.

That's debatable, considering the number of wars Richard fought against Saladin to reclaim Jerusalem. Saying that he didn't try is a bit too much.

 

[The SC]

As already pointed out by Austerlitz, he was a mediocare battle field general as can be seen from Arsuf, but an extremely intelligent man who for example at Hattin drew his enemies patiently into the trap before cutting of their water supplies and eventually slaughtering them. His treatment of Non Muslims is well known since when he captured Jerusalem, unlike the Crusaders who slaughtered every Jew and Muslim in the city, he gave safe passage to all Christians to the coastal forts like Acre and Tripoli that were still held by the Crusaders. It has to be said that though that although Salahuddin was a remarkable figure in himself, he often overshadows his uncle Shirkuh and former liege Nuredin Zengi, who played an instrumental role in uniting the Muslims of the Levant from Aleppo to Cairo and thus surrounding the Crusaders states on all sides except the sea. It was this base that Salahuddin inherited from the aforementioned men that subsequently gave him the men and resources to gradually push out the Crusaders.

Your first sentence is contradicted by your second sentence! That is a bit strange...
When you study his military skills in detail, you'll know how good he was in tactics as well as in strategy, maybe his goodness seems a bit idiotic, but that is what the prophet Mohammad (SAS) teached and did in battle., so instead of idiotic, I'll rather call it most humane warfare behavior, and it is more than a prelude to the Muslim behavior in times of peace.

What i was amazed at finding out was that Salahuddin was not Arab, but of Kurdish origin?

Are Kurdish people original inhabitants of the Middle East, or are they Eurasian migrants that settled in the Middle East?

He was born in Tekrit, the same birthplace of Saddam Hussein, so he must have been an Arab as his name points to, but he might have had some Kurdish lineage, since Kurds are still present to that area up till now. Most probably a mix.