Salah Al-Din

[NecroCommie]

..was the name of the dude who is the topic of this thread!

I have been going through this arab culture phaze right now, and came across a mention about Salah Al-Din being the inspiring element behind the european chivalric code. Any solid information on this?

It doesn't seem that far fetched considering his extremely well treatment of (at least noble-born) prisoners, even by modern warfare standards. Also he never seemed to truly hate his enemies, letting king Richard use his physicians and other similar gestures of good will.

I was just wondering if anyone had any insight at his personality at large, or about his politics. How large fluctuations one might have had in the political scene of a feudalist Egypt can be wondered, I doubt he would classify as a leftist by modern standards, but what about comparisons to other leaders of his time?

Also, I came across this major douche in internet who claimed "Arabs have no honor". When pointed out Salah Al-Din he would go like: "Who's that? Some kind of war mongering muslim barbarian?" 'facepalm'

[ComradeOm]

I have been going through this arab culture phaze right now, and came across a mention about Salah Al-Din being the inspiring element behind the european chivalric code. Any solid information on this?Hmmm? That Saladin was regarded by the Franks as a man of honour was because he fought them at a time when Western ideals of chivalry were becoming well formed. He benefited from, rather than contributed to, this process

As it was, Saladin was typically regarded as an 'honourable unbeliever' in Europe, a fitting opponent to Richard III. Dante includes him as such in his Divine Comedy


It doesn't seem that far fetched considering his extremely well treatment of (at least noble-born) prisoners, even by modern warfare standardsMost medieval warlords treated their noble-born prisoners well by modern standards. There was a rough mutual respect amongst the aristocracy from both cultures and, more importantly, a captured noble could bring in a healthy ransom


I was just wondering if anyone had any insight at his personality at large, or about his politicsThomas Asbridge's The Crusades is an excellent introduction to, as the name suggests, the Crusades. Atypically for a Western work, it pays more attention to the Muslim side than the old stories of the Crusader states. As you'd expect, Saladin gets a few chapters to himself


How large fluctuations one might have had in the political scene of a feudalist Egypt can be wondered, I doubt he would classify as a leftist by modern standards, but what about comparisons to other leaders of his time?No better or no worse. He was an exceptionally shrewd diplomat - preferring guile to the brutality of, say, a Zengi - but his martial and administrative accomplishments are often over-rated. Unlike, say, Baibars he never forged a unitary state but rather governed over a loose collection of city states. Which is one reason it fell apart so quickly after his death. Personally, I find the accomplishments of Nur al-Din to be more impressive

[freepalestine]

..was the name of the dude who is the topic of this thread!

I have been going through this arab culture phaze right now, and came across a mention about Salah Al-Din being the inspiring element behind the european ....
salah ad-din was a kurd ,not arab; /

[Rafiq]

Europe got many Bourgeois ideas from the Middle East.

But they also got many progressive ones.

[ComradeOm]

salah ad-din was a kurd ,not arab; /Who played a major role in Arab politics in the era in question. One aspect of Middle Eastern history that I've often found fascinating is the way in which Arabs ceased to play a leadership role in their own region from the turn of the millennium onwards. This was a position that would be occupied by various Turkish, Mongol, Mamluk and Kurdish factions. By the time the Franks were ejected from the Holy Land the nominally Arab polities (Cairo, Baghdad, Aleppo, Damascus, etc) were all under non-Arab control. It really wasn't until the mid-20th C that this was reversed


Europe got many Bourgeois ideas from the Middle EastSuch as? Bourgeois ideals arise from bourgeois society. Capitalism has its origins in Europe, not the Middle East

[freepalestine]

Who played a major role in Arab politics in the era in question. One aspect of Middle Eastern history that I've often found fascinating is the way in which Arabs ceased to play a leadership role in their own region from the turn of the millennium onwards. This was a position that would be occupied by various Turkish, Mongol, Mamluk and Kurdish factions. By the time the Franks were ejected from the Holy Land the nominally Arab polities (Cairo, Baghdad, Aleppo, Damascus, etc) were all under non-Arab control. It really wasn't until the mid-20th C that this was reversed
thats rather simplified.not forgetting the fact that much of the places you mentioned the levant(greater syria) hadnt been "arab" for too long at the time of salah ad-din et al

[pastradamus]

If I can forget the fact im a leftist for a second then I quite admired the man. At least he kept his word unlike the crusader lords of his day and sparred the christian populace of jerusalem.

[freepalestine]

If I can forget the fact im a leftist for a second then I quite admired the man. At least he kept his word unlike the crusader lords of his day and sparred the christian populace of jerusalem.
and jewish etc

[NecroCommie]

salah ad-din was a kurd ,not arab; /
I know, but he is closely tied to the history if the entire middle east.

[NecroCommie]

Hmmm? That Saladin was regarded by the Franks as a man of honour was because he fought them at a time when Western ideals of chivalry were becoming well formed. He benefited from, rather than contributed to, this process
Thanks. This answered my question quite well. I cannot claim I know the timeline of the chivalric code.



Most medieval warlords treated their noble-born prisoners well by modern standards. There was a rough mutual respect amongst the aristocracy from both cultures and, more importantly, a captured noble could bring in a healthy ransom

This I know, but how did I get the picture that Saladin was still exceptionaly "honourable" even when compared to other nobles of his time?



Thomas Asbridge's The Crusades is an excellent introduction to, as the name suggests, the Crusades. Atypically for a Western work, it pays more attention to the Muslim side than the old stories of the Crusader states. As you'd expect, Saladin gets a few chapters to himself

Now I know my wish for christmas present! :D

[Devrim]

salah ad-din was a kurd ,not arab; / Who played a major role in Arab politics in the era in question. One aspect of Middle Eastern history that I've often found fascinating is the way in which Arabs ceased to play a leadership role in their own region from the turn of the millennium onwards. This was a position that would be occupied by various Turkish, Mongol, Mamluk and Kurdish factions. By the time the Franks were ejected from the Holy Land the nominally Arab polities (Cairo, Baghdad, Aleppo, Damascus, etc) were all under non-Arab control. It really wasn't until the mid-20th C that this was reversed

I don't really think that there was much idea of a 'national Arab consciousness' at all in this period of history. It is a much more recent invention. Even within my memory, I can remember an old man in the boarder zone on being asked what nationality he was, replying that he spoke Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Kurdish, and not really understanding the question. Of course when the Mongols came they were seen as barbarians, but by the time of Turkish dominance the Turks were fully Islamified.

If you compare with European history, there were times when it was quite normal to put a 'foreign' monarch on the throne, and the Hapsburg period in Spanish history is seen as a gold age, not as a period of foreign domination.

Devrim

[NecroCommie]

I don't really think that there was much idea of a 'national Arab consciousness' at all in this period of history. It is a much more recent invention. Even within my memory, I can remember an old man in the boarder zone on being asked what nationality he was, replying that he spoke Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Kurdish, and not really understanding the question. Of course when the Mongols came they were seen as barbarians, but by the time of Turkish dominance the Turks were fully Islamified.

If you compare with European history, there were times when it was quite normal to put a 'foreign' monarch on the throne, and the Hapsburg period in Spanish history is seen as a gold age, not as a period of foreign domination.

Devrim
Well, national identities themselves as political factors are only ~300 years old. It really doesn't help the already questionable validity of nationalism.

[ComradeOm]

thats rather simplifiedOf course its simplified, its a very short internet post. The point remains however that by 1291, which is taking a very arbitrary date, not one of the traditional centres of power in the Arab world (ie, the cities mentioned above plus Mosul) were ruled by Arabs. It'd not a significant point and this is not leading on to something, I merely think that its an interesting observation


not forgetting the fact that much of the places you mentioned the levant(greater syria) hadnt been "arab" for too long at the time of salah ad-din et alThere is a point to be made here, in that Arab rule did not necessarily translate into a solid Arab population, but let's put this in context. By the end of the Rashidun Caliphate in 661, the core lands in question (Arabia, Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Levant) were under Arab rule. This was about two centuries before France emerged as a distinct entity (and a century or so before the Carolingian Renaissance), almost exactly three hundred years before Otto I was crowned Holy Roman Emperor, and similarly three centuries before the emergence of an English kingdom

Now this is not to suggest that all the above events are exactly comparable, but it should be clear that Arab rule in these areas had serious pedigree. By the death of Saladin they had been nominally Arab for almost six centuries - roughly the same length of time that the Ottoman Empire was in existence


This I know, but how did I get the picture that Saladin was still exceptionaly "honourable" even when compared to other nobles of his time?In a nutshell: by not killing everyone indiscriminately. That he was a major player in a major episode of European history (ie, the Third Crusade) also helped; Nur al-Din had a similar reputation amongst the Levantine Franks but this never reached home to Europe


I don't really think that there was much idea of a 'national Arab consciousness' at all in this period of historyTrue and, as I say above, I don't want to make more of this than necessary. I still think its strange though that, at the highest level, Arabs essentially vanish from history (to ridiculously overstate the case) in the early centuries of the last millennium

It may be that the strength of the Islamic identity made assimilation of foreign conquers easier, but its still startling. The Turk and the Mongols, as conquers leading were essentially Turkic states, are more understandable but the rise to prominence of Kurdish and Mamluk dynasties (if the term can be applied to the latter) is stranger and I can't see an obvious parallel in Europe. The Normans perhaps


If you compare with European history, there were times when it was quite normal to put a 'foreign' monarch on the throne, and the Hapsburg period in Spanish history is seen as a gold age, not as a period of foreign domination.Well here we come to the border of dynastic and national rule. If we look at Habsburg Spain, for example, we see that the King was usually only the pinnacle of the state with most of the ruling being done through a 'native' ministerial bureaucracy headed by the likes of Lerma and Olivares. Even the Mongol invasion of Rus left most of the local princes intact

[RedStarOverChina]

From what I've read, Salah al-Din did contribute to the developement of western ideal of Chivalry. Chivalry "originiated" in Spain during the Moorish invasion which brought in chivalry in its embryonic form.

[Marq]

Interesting and informative post guys, exactly why I joined revleft.

Thanks, Marq

[freepalestine]

I don't really think that there was much idea of a 'national Arab consciousness' at all in this period of history. It is a much more recent invention. Even within my memory, I can remember an old man in the border zone on being asked what nationality he was, replying that he spoke Arabic, Persian, Turkish, and Kurdish, and not really understanding the question...
Devrimyeh,that says alot ,about the modern idea of nation-states ,and the part of the world in question etc



Of course its simplified, its a very short internet post. i wasnt being cynical or criticising


There is a point to be made here, in that Arab rule did not necessarily translate into a solid Arab population, but let's put this in context. By the end of the Rashidun Caliphate in 661, the core lands in question (Arabia, Mesopotamia, Egypt and the Levant) were under Arab rule. This was about two centuries before France emerged as a distinct entity (and a century or so before the Carolingian Renaissance), almost exactly three hundred years before Otto I was crowned Holy Roman Emperor, and similarly three centuries before the emergence of an English kingdom

Now this is not to suggest that all the above events are exactly comparable, but it should be clear that Arab rule in these areas had serious pedigree. By the death of Saladin they had been nominally Arab for almost six centuries - roughly the same length of time that the Ottoman Empire was in existence

a book in english by albert hourani-history of the arab peoples,is one book that tackles the suject.
still what you said in [in bold text]is interesting. the word 'arab people'is often misunderstood-arab isnt a race,and basically the people at that time where mostly arabised in greater syria/cannan,mesoptomia,egypt and the maghreb etc.through language etc.there wasnt a population change just because of rule from arabia peninsula.although in relation to the levant at least,thats pre-salah ad-din,7-8 century with the collapse of byzantine rule etc

[ComradeOm]

a book in english by albert hourani-history of the arab peoples,is one book that tackles the sujectThat any good? I constantly see it in my local bookshop and have been tempted

[Dimentio]

..was the name of the dude who is the topic of this thread!

I have been going through this arab culture phaze right now, and came across a mention about Salah Al-Din being the inspiring element behind the european chivalric code. Any solid information on this?

It doesn't seem that far fetched considering his extremely well treatment of (at least noble-born) prisoners, even by modern warfare standards. Also he never seemed to truly hate his enemies, letting king Richard use his physicians and other similar gestures of good will.

I was just wondering if anyone had any insight at his personality at large, or about his politics. How large fluctuations one might have had in the political scene of a feudalist Egypt can be wondered, I doubt he would classify as a leftist by modern standards, but what about comparisons to other leaders of his time?

Also, I came across this major douche in internet who claimed "Arabs have no honor". When pointed out Salah Al-Din he would go like: "Who's that? Some kind of war mongering muslim barbarian?" 'facepalm'

Actually, the chivalric code was originally from the Parthian and Sassanid Persian empires, which had a feudal structure with knights during the ancient age. Then when the Byzantines started to use heavy cavalry themselves, they adopted some Persian cultural customs, which later on - due to the crusades - were spread to Europe through literature.

Egypt during the Ayyubids wasn't feudal. Islamic states were largely based on centralised states reliant on slavery, but they were also inspired a lot by the Persians.

That Salah-Al-din gave King Richard treatment doesn't say anything at all, it was extremely rare in European and muslim warfare that captured nobles were killed. The ruling class did not hate itself. There was probably some national hatred amongst the rank and file, but hardly amongst the rulers. In one battle in the Low Countries in the 13th century, 20 000 peasants and 8 knights were killed for example.

The reason why Salah-Al-Din's hospitality has been so widely recognised in western Europe was that he was a muslim (or a "saracen"). Humanist scholars in the 13th century wanted to point out how chivalric values existed amongst "pagans" as well, and used Salah-Al-Din as an example. Much like how Jesus in the Bible tells the story about the good Samaritan, to show that "even" Samaritans could be good people.

At the same time, the Islamic world in general was more tolerant against other religions than the christian world, and also in general more technologically and socially advanced. But it was not because of Christianity or Islam, but because of the material factors - the fact that Europe was a tiny Eurasian Peninsula isolated from the major trade routes while the Islamic World literally was controlling the major trade routes of those days.

[pastradamus]

At the same time, the Islamic world in general was more tolerant against other religions than the christian world, and also in general more technologically and socially advanced. But it was not because of Christianity or Islam, but because of the material factors - the fact that Europe was a tiny Eurasian Peninsula isolated from the major trade routes while the Islamic World literally was controlling the major trade routes of those days.

Thats an excellent point. Im forever saying to people that the numerous crusade's commissioned by the papacy had in fact very little to do with religion and it was religion that was used simply as an excuse for war.

The main issue was control of a region in order to gain material wealth (it still is in modern wars). Religion certainly acted as a catalyst and I believe the Crusader Nobles knew that it would.

We see after the crusades ended that European countries started to grow in strength after the crusades ended by considering alternate trade routes to asia culminating in the likes of Columbas and Vasco Da Gama etc. Basically, they couldnt eliminate the Saracens or the Islamic world militarily so they eliminated them economically.

[pastradamus]

If you compare with European history, there were times when it was quite normal to put a 'foreign' monarch on the throne, and the Hapsburg period in Spanish history is seen as a gold age, not as a period of foreign domination.
Devrim

Not to mention the German nobility('Sachsen-Coburg und Gotha', better known to you and I as 'the house of Windsor') currently sitting on the Throne in the UK.

The workers have no nationality and neither do the bourgeoisie.

[Dimentio]

Thats an excellent point. Im forever saying to people that the numerous crusade's commissioned by the papacy had in fact very little to do with religion and it was religion that was used simply as an excuse for war.

The main issue was control of a region in order to gain material wealth (it still is in modern wars). Religion certainly acted as a catalyst and I believe the Crusader Nobles knew that it would.

We see after the crusades ended that European countries started to grow in strength after the crusades ended by considering alternate trade routes to asia culminating in the likes of Columbas and Vasco Da Gama etc. Basically, they couldnt eliminate the Saracens or the Islamic world militarily so they eliminated them economically.

I think you are underestimating the strength of the faith and how people in those days perceived things. That we today generally ascribe materialistic motivations behind actions doesn't mean that it has always been like that. Tens of thousands of people for example volunteered to fight alongside the Republicans in the Spanish Civil War, for no other reason than ideological or anti-fascist motivations.

Most crusaders indebted their castles and their property to be able to afford partaking in a crusade. Most of them did not earn any material benefits from partaking in one.

[Dimentio]

Thats an excellent point. Im forever saying to people that the numerous crusade's commissioned by the papacy had in fact very little to do with religion and it was religion that was used simply as an excuse for war.

The main issue was control of a region in order to gain material wealth (it still is in modern wars). Religion certainly acted as a catalyst and I believe the Crusader Nobles knew that it would.

We see after the crusades ended that European countries started to grow in strength after the crusades ended by considering alternate trade routes to asia culminating in the likes of Columbas and Vasco Da Gama etc. Basically, they couldnt eliminate the Saracens or the Islamic world militarily so they eliminated them economically.

Not really. The crusades were rather a consequence of European strength than a cause for it. The first crusade was really the consequence of the Cluny reform movement within Roman Catholicism.

The High Medieval Age (about 1100-1350) was a period of European strength and high culture, an age of cathedrals, irrigation and the first signs of a market economy emerging in western Europe. The period immediately succeeding that period was a period of increased weakness, with for example the collapses of Byzantium and Hungary, Turkish advances into the Balkans, plague epidemics, more and more destructive wars, climate change and religious fundamentalist movements creating turmoil. The reason that Europeans started to try to find the sea route to India was because of weakness and desperation, not because of strength.

[ComradeOm]

Actually, the chivalric code was originally from the Parthian and Sassanid Persian empires, which had a feudal structure with knights during the ancient age. Then when the Byzantines started to use heavy cavalry themselves, they adopted some Persian cultural customs, which later on - due to the crusades - were spread to Europe through literatureHmmmm? The Cataphracts were not knights in the European sense and did not occupy a social position similar to that of the European knight

The origins of chivalric ideals lie, as the term itself suggests, in the development of the European mounted warrior. That is, the transition from simply mounted horsemen, through to castellans, and eventually the medieval knight. Chivalry, like other religious/political adornments, was simply a way of legitimising the emergence of this new ruling class. This was one of the means by which the knightly class, once considered little better than brigands, reshaped perceptions of itself and justified it's privileged position in society. Trying to trace the exact language used back to the Moors or Persians, as if such ideas travelled in a convenient geographical arc, is IMO a waste of time


The crusades were rather a consequence of European strength than a cause for itThis is where dialectics comes into it's own. The Crusades were neither a consequence nor a cause of European strength; rather they both at the same time. Most obviously of course, they were both a product of the Georgian Reforms, and a means by which these could be further forwarded

[Thirsty Crow]

This is where dialectics comes into it's own. The Crusades were neither a consequence nor a cause of European strength; rather they both at the same time. Most obviously of course, they were both a product of the Georgian Reforms, and a means by which these could be further forwarded
Could you elaborate further on this point, please?

inb4 Rosa :D

[Dimentio]

Hmmmm? The Cataphracts were not knights in the European sense and did not occupy a social position similar to that of the European knight


Like in Western Europe, the Byzantine Empire turned towards feudalism, though less completely. By the 11th and 12th centuries, it was a feudal structure, though more centralised and wealthier than it's rivals to the west.

In Western Europe, feudalism did not emerge before the 9th and 10th centuries, and was a result of the straining silver imports which led to the kings starting to pay their cavalrymen with land instead of silver.

[ComradeOm]

Could you elaborate further on this point, please?

inb4 Rosa :DSimple really, Aristotelian causality is often of very limited use when discussing history. The idea that X caused Y or that A was a result of B is not much help when discussing complex processes that took place over centuries. A purely linear interpretation of history is deeply flawed. Herein lie the advantages of a simple dialectal (note: not 'dialectal materialism' or other abstract theories) approach that treats two, or more, forces as continually impacting on each other and propelling each other forward

To give an example: The Crusades are often portrayed as either a product of the Gregorian Reforms that sought to centralise the Church's authority and reach, or a cause for the increasing Papal interest in exercising temporal/secular power. The reality is that they were both. Over the course of four or five centuries the search for increased Church authority (on the part of the Papacy) and the more popular and diffuse 'Crusading spirit', if we can call it that, continually interacted with and reinforced each other*. They are two distinct strands that have to be considered side-by-side and not as a matter of cause and effect

*To be simplistic of course. There were at least half a dozen major factors at play here


Like in Western Europe, the Byzantine Empire turned towards feudalism, though less completely. By the 11th and 12th centuries, it was a feudal structure, though more centralised and wealthier than it's rivals to the west.I wouldn't call the Byzantines feudal, but yes. Still, this is at least two to three centuries after we see the first stirrings of a chivalric code in the Carolingian Empire. Modern historians tend to place far more emphasis on the continuity between this and later medieval practices, thus giving credit to the Franks, than previously popular notions of everything simply being imported from the Moors or Greeks

So no, I'd be more inclined to trace the genesis of Western European chivalric conduct to Western Europe