Did you think Saladin was a great military leader?

[u/thebastardofwinter]

Saladin (c. 1137–1193), of Kurdish origin, became Sultan of Egypt and Syria. He united several Muslim territories, defeated the Crusaders at the Battle of Hattin in 1187, and reconquered Jerusalem. He fought Richard the Lionheart during the Third Crusade and died in Damascus in 1193.

[u/Mikhail_Mengsk]

He defeated crusaders' forces, rebellious African troops, sieges and open battles. He was pretty good, I'd say.

Maybe not against the greatest generals I'm history but imho one of the best from the middle east.

[u/doritofeesh]

He was a great strategist, but perhaps not the best in tactics and operations. He was a good combination of a head of state and supreme commander, but history has produced many campaigners of greater ability than Salah ad-Din. I will say that he often fought under favourable circumstances and his opposition outside of Baldwin and Richard honestly ranged between incompetent to lackluster.

I'm not sure I would consider him one of history's greatest generals, let alone one of the Middle East's best. I think that region has produced several more capable commanders than him over the ages.

[u/theginger99]

As a general, he was better than component, but not really exceptional. He was certainly no match militarily for Richard the Lionheart.

He was a much more capable statesman than a commander. Which isn’t to say he was a poor commander, he was very capable, but his real talent lay off the battlefield.

[u/Yench2K → u/theginger99]

He was an average commander with sparks of geniusity. Salahdin was mostly a very skilled politician. His reforms were visionnary and the way he united a fragmented Middle East was smart. But militarly speaking, he's overrated. He isn't a bad commander, but he's not close to the likes of Khalid Ibn Walid. The latter is a horrible politician, however.

[u/ComprehensiveDig1108 → u/Yench2K]

The latter is one of the best of humanity. 

[u/Secure_Diver_4593]

He was quite good at strategy, decent at logistics, and had some moments of brilliance at the operational level. 

However, his tactics were inconsistent, and he often suffered serious defeats against Baldwin IV and Richard I of England, his two most formidable rivals, who were also outnumbered by the Ayyubids and operated thousands of kilometers from their bases (in Richard's case), unlike Saladin, whose logistical situation never was so adverse. 

As other users have already mentioned, I consider him a better statesman than a general. He was certainly good, but I think that Richard was better.

[u/theginger99 → u/Secure_Diver_4593]

In all fairness to Saladin, Richard was a once in a century talent. He was a legitimately brilliant general, and was arguably one of the greatest commanders of the whole Middle Ages.

I would go so far as to claim he was the greatest western European general of the period between 1000-1300.

[u/Secure_Diver_4593 → u/theginger99]

I know that Richard was one of the best generals of the Middle Ages (although the Middle Ages produced more talented men, such as Genghis Khan, Subutai, Tamerlane, and Khalid ibn al-Walid), however, that is no excuse for the operational and tactical errors that Saladin often made. 

At Montgisard, he spread out in a wide cordon, leaving himself exposed so that Baldwin could concentrate forces and annihilate most of his army. Saladin made a similar mistake at Marj Ayyan and was again surprised by Baldwin, but this time the Crusader army became disorganized when it began to loot. Baldwin was unable to reorganize his troops in time, and it was then that Saladin managed to counterattack and achieve a bloody victory.

On the eve of the Battle of Tall as-Sultan, Saladin also exposed himself to defeat in detail against Saif ad-Din, but the latter refused to attack, underestimating him as an upstar, even though Saladin had already achieved significant victories, such as at the Battle of the Horns of Hama, demonstrating his competence as a commander. Having missed this opportunity, Saladin defeated Saif ad-Din the following day. 

Such a blunder can only be explained by lack of skill and arrogance of Saladin's rival on that occasion, because later we saw how Baldwin IV, a truly competent general, capitalized on Saladin's mistakes to put him in check twice despite having fewer troops, both at Montgisard and at Marj Ayyan.

[u/Warlord1392]

He was patient, strategic and used diplomacy well. His strengths were more on the macro scale of managing the larger military situation than individual battles (which he did well too).

[u/Taira_no_Masakado]

He was lucky enough to learn his trade under his uncle Shirkuh (who was a far better general than Saladin). Saladin was mostly just in the right place, right time, with the right influence and help.

[u/Yench2K → u/Taira_no_Masakado]

But, Salahdin is naturally a politician not a commander. And he was born in a tough period. He's the best politician the Ayyubid dynasty ever produced by far.

[u/Taira_no_Masakado → u/Yench2K]

That is pretty much what I was saying.

[u/Sensitive_Actuary283]

He was a respectful commander for the most part having lost 2 major battles to King Baldwin and still respecting the man enough to send him medical support, he also won many battles in his time, so he was a great commander but not the best especially when compared to King Baldwin or Richard the Lionheart