The origins of Saladin
I love the Arabic influence (possibly invented?) in this troubadour song by Jaufre Rudel.
For many people, Saladin is known only as the head of the Arab forces battling the Richard the Lionheart and the Crusaders during the Third Crusade. Perhaps you saw Kingdom of Heaven, and Ghassan Massoud’s masterful performance as the chivalrous and determined Saladin at the Battle of Hattin and the retaking of Jerusalem? But at the time of Kingdom of Heaven, Saladin is….50—twenty years older than Richard the Lionheart. He’s been around for a long time. Where did he come from? How did he become who we know him as?
Before we get started, let’s get his name right. Saladin’s true name was Ṣalāḥ ad-Dīn Yūsuf ibn Ayyūb ibn Shadi. Which translates thus:
Righteousness (Ṣalāḥ) of the faith (ad-Dīn) Joseph (Yūsuf) son of Job (ibn Ayyūb) son of Shadi (ibn Shadi).
Crusader writers would corrupt his name to Saladin, and it stuck. And it’s short, so we’re gonna go with it.
There is a tendency to view the crusades as a Christian assault on a unified, monolithic Arabic world that was just ‘minding their own business,’ but the reality is more complicated. To really understand Saladin, we need to go back to the world into which he was born.
The Sunni / Shia split
For those of us, myself included, with only a passing familiarity with the history of Islam, it’s worth understanding the state of Islam in the late 12th century. Muhammad founded Islam in 610, and by the 12th century a major schism had developed in the Islamic world, between the Sunni and Shia. Apologies for any mistakes or over-simplications here, but as I read the history: the Shia believe that Islam should be governed by the descendants of Muhammad, in particular his son-in-law Ali. Shia is derived from shi’atu Ali, Arabic for “partisans of Ali,”1 and Shia believe that governance of Islam flows more-or-less genetically from Muhammad’s descendants. The Sunnis, on the other hand, followers of the sunna, or “way” (in Arabic), of Muhammad, are more oriented to the teachings or traditions of Muhammad himself, rather than believing in a leadership class descended from Muhammad.
The phrase Sunni is also said to be derived from the phrase “Ahl al-Sunnah”, or “People of the Tradition”2, and Sunnis do not believe (again, in my reading) in the inheritability of governance of Islam. During Richard's time, as now, the vast majority (85-90%) of Muslims identify as Sunni, rather than Shia. There are many shared beliefs and practices, yet leading up to Saladin's era the two sects were in regular and often violent conflict.
When Muhammad died in 632, Ali became Caliph (ruler) of what we know as the Middle East until his assassination in 661 by Abdur Rahman Muljam al Sarimi. The struggle for control of Islam afterwards led to the schism, and it was strong and often violent. While the parallels are by no means exact, a comparison to the Catholic/Protestant split that occurred 300 years later may give a sense of it. Catholics take guidance from the Pope and the priesthood, whereas Martin Luther and the resulting Protestant denominations believe God can be approached directly through scripture without requiring an intermediary, in the form of the Catholic Church (again with apologies for over-simplification).
The Sunni/Shia schism was reflected in the governance of the Islamic states. At the time of Saladin’s birth in 1137, Egypt and the African / southern Islamic states were governed by Shia rulers. Egypt in particular was ruled by the Fatamid Caliphate; the rulers traced their lineage to Fatima, Muhammad’s daughter, and the wife of Ali.
The northern Islamic states, then called “Syria” (not precisely the same as today’s Syria) were ruled by Sunni leaders—although this region’s control was highly fragmented. The First Crusade had taken Jerusalem and established the Crusader states around 1100, and they and it were wedged between the Sunni / Shia divide.
[An aside: The Crusaders often collaborated with Muslim forces, and they often lived in peace together, which many people do not know. When Imad al-Din Zengi (“Zengi”) attacked Damascus, he was repulsed by a local force of Muslims augmented by Crusaders. Later, in 1144 Zengi took the strategic city of Edessa, prompting the Second Crusade (in which Eleanor of Aquitaine came to the Holy Land). During the Crusader invasions of Egypt in the 1160s, the Crusaders partnered with renegade Egyptian forces. Saladin himself negotiated with Conrad of Montferrat to join his battle against Richard, although it never happened.]
The rise of Zengi and Nur al-Din, and the birth of Saladin
Around 1130, the Turkish warlord Zengi began conquering “Syrian” cities and integrating them into a kingdom. He attempted to take Baghdad, but failed, and escaped with the assistance of one Najm ad-Din Ayyūb, who was the guardian of the citadel of Tikrit. Ayyūb’s masters were not pleased. He was a Kurd, as it happens, not Turkish or Persian or Arabic, so he was a minority in Tikrit. In 1137, Ayyūb’s brother Shirkuh killed a scribe in a dispute, and Shirkuh, Ayyūb, and their families were exiled from Tikrit.
Now, Zengi was not a nice guy. He crucified any soldier who got in front of his horse, he had a history of massacres, castrations, and killed anybody he happened not to like. But he took care of Ayyūb, bringing he, his family, and Shirkuh to Mosul. Ayyūb’s wife was pregnant at the time, and the histories say that she gave birth on the day Ayyūb was driven from Tikrit.
Their son was Saladin.
Saladin is often referred to or thought of as Arabic, but this is true only conceptually; he was Kurdish, and a minority and an exile where he was born.
Ayyūb would eventually (1146) be appointed Governor of Damascus, taking a young Saladin with him. Damascus would come under the control of Zengi’s son Nur al-Din, and Ayyūb and Shirkuh would enter Nur al-Din’s service. Nur al-Din then controlled all the northern section of the Islamic middle east. Where Zengi was a nasty warlord, Nur al-Din was more of an ascetic King. Saladin at the time was 14, and to prove his loyalty, Ayyūb sent Saladin to Nur al-Din and into his service; not quite a hostage, but definitely sent to make a point. Zengi would eventually be assassinated by one of his slaves, a European (a “Frank”) according to tradition.
In comparison, at age 14, Richard was invested as Duke of Aquitaine. As with Richard, relatively little is known of Saladin’s childhood. Virtually nothing is known of Saladin’s mother, as was not uncommon for the era, although her name is sometimes given as Sit Khatun. As a result, the influence of Saladin’s upbringing on his personality must be largely inferred.
Of the process of education, Saladin wrote: “children are brought up in the way in which their elders were brought up”, and the influence on Islamic society of this traditional approach cannot be overemphasized. Despite the fragmentation of its sects, Islam was a great assimilative force not least because the Quran was at the heart of its education. Admittedly, al-Wahrani pictured the educated man as being able to answer questions on Euclid, the Almagest, arithmetic and law, but this was an academic ideal and most obviously it was study of the Koran and “the sciences of religion” that linked the young Saladin to his contemporaries.3
He was bookish and religious. He had the Koran read to him frequently, and prayed the requisite five times per day, always with others present. Reportedly later in life he learned the entirety of the Hamāsa of Abu Tammān by heart. The Hamāsa is a famous compendium of Arabic poetry. I’ve read a bit of it in translation, here is one of my favorites. It is not hard to imagine Saladin reciting this to himself in his tent on campaign.
The sword is truer than the book,
Its edge splits seriousness from sport.
Bright swords, not black on pages,
Bring clarity and remove all doubt.
Knowledge comes from the flames
Of flashing lances between two forces.4
But he was not entirely bookish; he led troops into battle as he grew older, and similarly to Richard loved horses; Saladin was an avid polo player.
Saladin goes to Egypt
While Nur al-Din unified the north as a Sunni kingdom, Egypt remained Shia—Egypt whose wealth and food production dwarfed the remainder of the Islamic middle east. Not for nothing did Richard explore the possibility of an Egyptian invasion, before heading for Jerusalem. Egypt was ruled by a Caliph, a religious descendant of Ali, but day-to-day governance was delegated to a Vizier.
After a failed Crusader invasion of Egypt in the 1160s, Nur al-Din tasked Shirkuh with taking Egypt in 1163, sending Saladin, a bookish lad of 25, along with him. They would more-or-less conquer Egypt and re-install the deposed Arab Vizier Shawar into rule in 1164. Shawar would then turn on Shirkuh, eventually allying himself with Amalric, the King of Jerusalem, and Shirkuh would respond with aggression, in the process giving Saladin his first command, that of an eastern province.
Saladin becomes Vizier of Egypt
The battle for Egypt took years; Shawar died in 1169 and Shirkuh took his place as Vizier to the Fatamid caliphate. Some claim Shawar was assassinated by Saladin, with assistance from insiders upset that Shawar had promised a third of Egypt’s revenue to Nur al-Din for his support5. Shirkuh died three months later, from over-eating no less, and on March 26, 1169, Saladin took his place as Vizier; the court thought he was unwarlike, easy to control, and thus no threat to the Caliphate (“there is no one weaker or younger than Yūsuf”). As with King Henry II and Ireland, be wary who you ask for help or give power to. Saladin was 32 and in charge of the largest, wealthiest nation in the Islamic world, and he reported not to his patron Nur al-Din, but to the Caliph of the Fatamid dynasty, al-ʿĀḍid li-Dīn Allāh. Contemporary reports at the time said Saladin now “repented of wine-drinking and turned from frivolity,” to “assume the dress of religion.”6
In seven years, Saladin went from tag-along to middle-management to CEO. As anyone knows who has been in senior management knows, when you rise like that, the knives come out, and one had better be ruthless to survive. Has he also sensed that Allah has something in mind for him?
Rumors of conflict with Nur al-Din began to circulate not long after Saladin became Vizier. It was said that Nur al-Din was envious, and resented Saladin’s independence, not asking for permission or guidance from Nur al-Din. Saladin did ask for his family to be sent to Egypt and Nur al-Din did so, so apparently things were still civil.
Shortly after Saladin was named Vizier, the black African soldiers of the Fatamid caliph revolted; he put down the revolt ruthlessly, resulting in the deaths of virtually all the 50,000 strong rebel army. Within two years, Saladin took control of the bureaucracy by appointing loyalists to all major positions, the call to prayer was changed from Shia to Sunni, al-ʿĀḍid would be dead, the remaining family members in house arrest, and Saladin in complete control. He would politely attend al-ʿĀḍid’s funeral, but simultaneously put his army in the streets as a show of force.
The transformation from Kurdish baby refugee to King was nearly complete. From then until 1174, Saladin consolidated his power and participated in various attacks against the Crusaders, and from time to time, other Muslims. His father came to Egypt in 1170 and died in 1173. He had gathered his family around him, richly rewarded them, and spent lavishly to install loyal administrators throughout Egypt. There would be periodic rebellions or intrigues, and Saladin did not hesitate to ruthlessly suppress them and execute those he thought responsible. In addition to this ruthlessness, other things would characterize his leadership. Much like Richard, he picked great administrators and rewarded them liberally. Many of them were his family. He kept little money for himself, but spent to assure his success. He would be nearly penniless when he died, even as he was the ruler of all Islam. Again, as did Richard, he also took great care to manage his reputation. He had two key historian / propagandists, Bahā’ al-Dīn (Saladin’s ‘judge of the army’ and one of Saladin’s key advisors) and 'Imād al-Dīn (Saladin’s secretary), who wrote flattering histories and poems celebrating his rule and extolling his virtues. Indeed, the romantic view of Saladin as a bookish man only reluctantly engaged in governance must surely be attributed to his propagandists, as we shall see in his conquest of the rest of the Middle East.
Saladin would develop a not-undeserved reputation in the West for chivalrous behavior, and there are many episodes to support that. But he was also capable of being entirely ruthless, beheading war prisoners, crucifying Shia opposition members from time to time, and having no qualms about waging battle against fellow Muslims in order to rule.
“Never let a crisis go to waste”
The crisis came in the form of the death of Nur al-Din in 1174. Saladin is 35. When Nur al-Din died, power was given to his eleven-year-old son as-Salih. As a child-ruler, he was unlikely to maintain his hold on such a position, and his guardians begin to control him. He could easily have been deposed by other Muslim leaders, or the Crusaders, and no doubt Saladin sensed both the problem and the opportunity.
Saladin had just finished re-aligning Egypt from Shia to Sunni and there were constant rumblings of dissent. He could not openly attack the son of his former patron, and publicly declared himself subservient to as-Salih. Privately, he was maneuvering, and he began his quiet conquest of Syria.
For many years, wise minds had recognized that so long as Shia Egypt and Sunni Syria were separate and in conflict, the Crusaders could not be displaced from their newfound kingdom. Whether this was Saladin’s intent is unclear, but it became the case.
Entering Damascus peacefully at the request of the governor, he maintained the guise of a loyal subject. But in 1175 he began battling the other leaders, first at Hama, then Homs, then at the Battle of the Horns of Hama. By 1182 he had taken Aleppo, and by 1184 controlled all of Mesopotamia, Syria and Egypt, and been proclaimed Sultan of Egypt and Syria, after many battles against other Muslim forces. He was 47.
During this time, the order which would become known as the Assassins would try (and fail) to assassinate Saladin twice. That is a story worth its own blog post at some point, as this order gave us the English word ‘assassin’. There continued to be questions around Saladin’s legitimacy. He first assuaged this by marrying the widow of Nur al-Din, Ismat at-Din, in 1176.
Then he turned his attention to the Crusaders. If one faces internal enemies, one looks for external enemies to rally the troops. He became the counter-crusader. “I will purify the earth of these two filthy races”, he reportedly said of the Templars and the Hospitallers.
...The precarious nature of his position appears constantly. The jihad was a means of legitimating his authority as also was his marriage to 'Ismat al-Din Khitain. As the [...] widow of Nur al-Din, she provided him with a [...] personal link with the rulers who preceded him. Ironically, at the time of this marriage in 1176, al-Salih Ismi'il, her son by Nur al-Din, still reigned in Aleppo, and was the figurehead of Zangid resistance to Saladin's usurpation. [...] 'the question of whether Saladin was, or had become, primarily a war-band leader or whether he should be thought of as a territorial ruler.' His situation was not unlike that of the Norman and early Angevin monarchs, ruling two distinct territories with a 'peripatetic administrative nucleus.' His relation to the administration is summarized (pp. 366-7) as 'an inherited bureaucracy within whose framework operated a system of patronage with Saladin at its head. It was patronage, rather than formal administration, that appears to have occupied his own time'. 7
…Saladin was laying claim not only to Aleppo, but to any other town whose troops could be shown to be needed for the Holy War. This could not be accepted either by 'Izz al-Din in Mosul or by Zangi in Aleppo and Saladin's sincerity in turning his back on the Franks to fight his fellow-Muslims was bound to be called in question.8
We can thus see Saladin’s battles with the Crusaders as a religiously inspired duty to Allah, or we can see it as the tactics of a man in charge of a fragile, newly unified empire. And likely some combination of the two; there is no reason to doubt the sincerity of Saladin’s religious devotion and desire for Sunni dominance, but it is equally clear he was a ruthless, ambitious, tactically inspired politician and warrior. As with Richard, he likely saw no contradiction in his own personal rise and the service to which God called him.
And not unlike Richard, Saladin would go to war with the Franks with a fragile collection of semi-loyal, semi-committed, not-entirely-under-his-control forces. He had to lead by persuasion as much as by command, and during the Third Crusade, both he and Richard would have moments when all was nearly lost when their coalitions failed.
https://www.cfr.org/sunni-shia-divide/#!/
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-middle-east-16047709
Saladin, Dr. Abdul Rahman Azzam
I have lost the source of this particular translation, and some of the translation is my edit of that translation. A more literal translation can be found here: Badawi, M. M. “The Function of Rhetoric in Medieval Arabic Poetry: Abu Tammam’s ‘Ode on Amorium.’” Journal of Arabic Literature 9 (1978): 43–56, which reads: The sword is more truthful in tidings than books: in its edge lies the boundary between earnestness and sport: In the text (i.e. broadside) of bright swords, not of black pages is to be found the removal of doubt and uncertainties. And knowledge comes from the flames of lances flashing between two armies (literally two fivefold armies), not from the seven luminaries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin#CITEREFLyonsJackson1982
Saladin: The Politics of the Holy War, Lyons & Jackson.
Saladin and His Admirers: A Biographical Reassessment, P. M. Holt, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 46, No. 2
Saladin and His Admirers: A Biographical Reassessment, P. M. Holt, Bulletin of the School of Oriental and African Studies, University of London, Vol. 46, No. 2