Saladin has been famed for his respect and honour, especially in Arab cultures. It is something of a badge of honour, as Saladin has become a cultural hero. We should ask questions about this, though.

In the original sources, both Christian and Muslim, there are different traditions. For example, the relic of the True Cross was an important Christian icon for the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Some Western sources say that the Muslims hacked it to pieces and dragged it around after they captured it at the Battle of Hattīn. This was a big hulk of a thing, covered in gold and gemstones. All of the Christian sources that discuss 1187 lament its capture more than the loss of life of the soldiers. Some of the lamentations describe it as a second crucifixion (but without any of the redemptive qualities associated with the original crucifixion). An Arab source (Ibn Shaddād) mentions that the Georgians tried to purchase the True Cross relic, which calls into question the idea that it was destroyed. However, Saladin is said to have refused this offer.

When Jerusalem was captured, Saladin completely dismantled all of the crusader buildings. There were heaps of buildings throughout the city that they simply tore down because they were Christian. The first Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem had been famous in the region for their vast building programs. This includes the golden cross atop the Dome of the Rock, which the crusaders called the Temple of the Lord. Many historians write that when Saladin’s troops tore down this cross, they erected the Islamic crescent, but this seems to have actually been put there much later. The crescent doesn’t appear in manuscript images until the 15th or 16th century, and crescent moons were a Turkic symbol, so it’s likely an Ottoman thing. Incidentally, some Western sources claim that the Muslims dragged the golden cross around the city and some pissed on it, etc etc. There were about 16,000 Jerusalemites kicked out of the city after paying a ransom, and another 16,000 or so who were enslaved, so such a display would of course have been highly derisive. These numbers come from the original sources. It is suspected that the women were subjected to sexual slavery, but this is not confirmable given the nature of the sources.

Probably the most important source for Saladin’s conquest (‘Imād al-Dīn al-‘Isfahānī) describes how Saladin and his advisors had a debate as to whether or not to destroy the Holy Sepulchre, and that the argument was eventually won by those wishing to preserve it. Hence, this building survived. Most others did not.

There were also plenty of atrocities in Saladin’s conquest. One example is how the troops of Kökböri (one of Saladin’s generals) seem to have raped and murdered defenceless women in a church in Nazareth. ‘Imād al-Dīn waxes lyrical about how beautiful they were. (He was a poet as well as a ‘historian’).

We should of course remember that Saladin is not necessarily responsible for the actions of all of his troops. But both were products of their time.

As for Saladin himself, a tremendous myth developed about his honour in Western sources, particularly in the thirteenth century, and after the Third Crusade. It is important to remember that the fall of 1187 is separated by several years from the Third Crusade (1189-92). There developed a whole cycle of Western romances and epic tales that presented Saladin in a positive light, and it is on this basis that his apparent honourable rivalry with King Richard I of England rests. However, it is probably not a particularly useful mode of interpretation, in my opinion, for the Third Crusade, and certainly not for 1187.

Having said all of this, the conduct of Saladin and his troops was not universally ‘bad’ either. During the conquest of 1187, there are a couple of noteworthy things he did that speak to his honour, as conceived at the time. One is the guaranteeing of life and security to the people of a variety of towns, including Jerusalem itself. ‘Imād al-Dīn says that those freed at Jerusalem went mostly to Tyre. Notably, this city held out from the Muslims, and the Muslim sources generally denounce Saladin for his kindness in letting the Jerusalemites free. So if Saladin is to be lauded for his kindness, we ought also to remember that this wasn’t to his strategic advantage, and that some of his contemporaries would appear to have preferred a massacre.

Other things were arguably less ‘honourable’. For example, he promised King Guy de Lusignan that he would be released from captivity in return for the surrender of Ascalon. Saladin did keep his word, but only released Guy roughly a year or so later, which seems to me somewhat underhanded.

Prior to the Kingdom’s destruction in 1187, it is noteworthy that Saladin generally stuck to his peace treaties with the Kingdom quite closely.

Another thing that we should also remember is that ‘point scoring’ is not a good aim. Atrocities happened in 1187; they also happened, famously, in 1099. To use this time period in the contemporary politics of ‘us vs them’ is a dangerous game. If the past teaches us anything, it is that we all have blood on our hands.

P.S., please be aware that the historicity of the Kingdom of Heaven film is generally terrible!

References:

Secondary sources: Eddé, Saladin Lyons and Jackson, Saladin

Best primary sources: Libellus de expugnatione terrae sanctae per Saladinum (edition by Stevenson; forthcoming critical edition and translation in Crusade Texts in Translation series).

Ernoul, ed. Louis de Mas Latrie, no translation available, original in Old French. This text is related to the Lyon Eracles, which has received an English translation by Edbury in the Crusade Texts in Translation series.

‘Imād al-Dīn, French translation by Massé.

Ibn Shaddād and Ibn al-Athīr both have English translations by Richards in the Crusade Texts in Translation series

Edit: some typos and clarifications