Saladin vs. Cromwell (Round 2)

[Biscuit]

I am going with Saladin.

[Swampwolf]

Cromwell by a mile. No Muslim has ever faced an opponent of Cromwell's calibur.

[AirborneBob]

Sala Din.....used the assets available to the best of his ability..beat a "technologicaly" better army. United (for whatever good or bad) the area around him against an infidel force.....You may not like the man..gotta respect the Commander!

[Swampwolf]

Saladin lost against inferior foes on numerous occassions (I listed some in round 1), even when he was on the defense in a fortified position. Cromwell also used an inferior force to win by the rule of discipline, holding onto the line even as their comrades were being run down in the back by profane cavaliers.

[Marshal Murat]

Saladin lost against inferior foes on numerous occassions (I listed some in round 1), even when he was on the defense in a fortified position.

But he won the battles that counted.
He lost Arsuf, but who left the Holy Land?
He won at the Horns of Hattin, but who left the Holy Land?

Salah-din sent the Crusaders packing and secured the Middle East. Kurds, Egyptians, Bedouin, Palestinians, Turks. They joined with Salah-din and destroyed the Crusader armies. Salah-din took Crusader castles. He re-captured Jerusalem, Jaffa, and I think Tyre.

Salah-din utilized his Mamluk soldiers, light troops, and heat. He defeated the Crusader armies when the chips were down.

My vote is for Saladin.

[Surrey]

Originally Posted by Tankboy

What would be a good battle would be Saladin vs. Richard I.

Like to see how that turned out.

There was - Richard won despite being out numbered by Saladin 3 :1 and making an opposed naval landing see the Battle of Jaffa.

As others have stated Saladin is seriously overrated. Saladin's victories were due to him having overwhelming numbers.
And on his capture of Jerusalem, the reason there was no massacre of the population was because Jerusalem surrendered. When the Crusaders took Jerusalem in the 1st Crusade there was a massacre because they had to take the city by storm and thus incur significant losses. It was standard practice from the classical period onwards to be lenient to a city that surrendered but massacre the population of any city that resisted - it tended to encourage cities to surrender without a fight.

[Redleg155]

Originally Posted by AirborneBob

Sala Din.....used the assets available to the best of his ability..beat a "technologicaly" better army. United (for whatever good or bad) the area around him against an infidel force.....You may not like the man..gotta respect the Commander!

I completely agree - I have to go with Saladin here - I think that he was a superb commander, given the resources and people under his command... I was going to make another comment, but in order to keep a certain group from protesting a bunch of newspapers... I'd better not!

Case in point!

[Daemon of Decay]

Originally Posted by Shogun 144

However he added a condition, that only those Christians that could pay their ransom would be spared. All those that could pay were shown mercy. Those that could not pay were enslaved.

This was of course a very common tactic is the middle ages, and the Europeans were just as likely to ransom people off.

However, when Saladin captured the city, he spent some of his own money to pay for some of those who couldn't pay themselves. By comparison, the Catholic church in the city payed only for their own priesthood and fled with tons of gold and religious idols.

Not only that, Saladin did not strip the belongings from the people when they left, and guarded their passage all the way back into Christian lands. Only then did those refugees finally loose their belongings, when Christian bandits robbed and attacked them.

Saladin was an example of honor and chivalry in an age where such a man was a rare beast.

For that, he gets my vote.

And he has a great name.

[Cap. Teancum]

28-25 for Saladin. I can't even believe this one is so close. Why in the world are we comparing Cromwell to one of the most genious commanders of all time?
Saladin should have this one won a long time ago and with a huge gap. Are we condemning the terrorist actions on this voting. Come on fellows, honestly why would you vote for Cromwell on this one?

[Half Pint John]

Originally Posted by Cap. Teancum

28-25 for Saladin. I can't even believe this one is so close. Why in the world are we comparing Cromwell to one of the most genious commanders of all time?
Saladin should have this one won a long time ago and with a huge gap. Are we condemning the terrorist actions on this voting. Come on fellows, honestly why would you vote for Cromwell on this one?

Because, because ah because they know little about either one

[Stratego]

Originally Posted by Cap. Teancum

Come on fellows, honestly why would you vote for Cromwell on this one?

I'll be honest ! Because he kicked Simon Bolivar out of the 1st Round ! And I'm determined not to let him win Round 2 against Cromwell !
Saladin is overrated...plain and simple !!! What the hell if Saladin was the epitome of chivalry by not massacring the citizens of Jerusalem...that's beside the point...Florence Nightingale and Mother Teresa aren't on the poll either ! If that is the reason why Saladin should win the next rounds, then I'm a monkey's uncle !!!!



Greets,
Stratego

PS: Besides, Saladin beat his wives...is that the epitome of chivalry ????

[vicfirth311]

Saladin for me, one of the greatest and one of my favorites.

[Pfc TAZ]

I went with Saladin. This looks like it'll be one heck of a fight!

[Wolfe Tone]

Well I'm reading an Osprey book on the Third Crusade right now and have yet to get into the fine detail.

Tactically Cromwell was at his finest but Saladin was a better Operational Commander whose concerns ranged over parts of two continents and a much more varied set of enemies.

So I go with Saladin.

[Swampwolf]

Salah-din utilized his Mamluk soldiers, light troops, and heat. He defeated the Crusader armies when the chips were down.

And Cromwell utilized the common people - not professional soldiers. Cromwell was a commander who could turn the Proletariat into an effective force and no serious army has reverted back to leaving infantry as a secondary arm.

Saladin was an example of honor and chivalry in an age where such a man was a rare beast.

According to who? Walter Scott? Saladin was no more a paragon than Loius of France was or any other king from the time. He was simply smarter than to lose the peace he had negotiated while there were still the strong states of Acre and Rhodes not very far from him. The crusader Army allegedly massacred all of Jerusalem during the first siege because the battle had degenerated to that point. It never makes it into the books how the occupation forces had killed the local church authorities and thrown their bodies over the side, and how they urinated on the Crucifix from atop the wall in order to enrage the crusaders. Also I take the story of 'streets full of blood' with a grain of salt. The streets didn't have rivers of blood during the Warsaw uprising, where we know how many thousands died - but we expect to believe it when Islamic sources claim it? When the Romans killed a fraction of Jerusalem's population a thousand years earlier, they made note of how many bodies there were and what a task the removal of the filth was. No such records exist from the Crusaders that I am aware of. That leaves two alternatives - it is exhaggerated in the Islamic histories (not a very far fetched assumption), or the Crusaders didn't care that they lived among corpses (since the same 'histories' also have them as cannibals).
On the contrary, when Baybars took Acre, we know that those who weren't killed were sold into slavery, even so much that the Hospitallers took note of it from their island base. The whole history of the era is murky and the Saladin cult is rooted in that same gray area.