(1137-1192)
[Footnote 13: Copyright, 1894, by Selmar Hess.]
There are two great names in the tangled and somewhat tedious story of
Islam which stand out, deathless, from the crowd of sultans, viziers,
and Moslem conquerors--the names of Haroun al Raschid and Saladin. The
former has become the accepted type of a good and just despot; the
latter is the Bayard of his religion, the knight and captain, king and
magistrate, _sans peur et sans reproche_; whose enemies respected and
trusted him as much as his own people loved him. His conquest of
Jerusalem and overthrow of the Latin kingdom were but episodes, and
from his point of view, not the most important episodes in his thirty
years of war and victory. The History of Egypt, the History of Syria,
the History of the Mohammedan faith, contain more pages filled with
the achievements of Saladin than even the History of the Crusades.
Everyone has read of the battle of Hattin;[14] but of the healing of
the great schism and the restoration of Egypt to orthodoxy--a step
thought to be impossible and of the highest importance to Islam--very
few know anything. Let us endeavor to present the history of this
great man with some attempt to show the true proportions of his
achievements in the eyes of the East, if not the West.
[Footnote 14: In the battle of Tiberias, or Hattin, Saladin
completely overthrew the Christians and conquered their
kingdom.]
Yussuf ibn Ayub--Joseph the son of Job--was by descent a Kurd. His
father was a retainer or follower of the celebrated Nur-ed-Din (Light
of Religion), Sultan of Syria, the prince who, after many years of
humiliation, recovered some of the lost prestige of the Mohammedan
name, wrested many of their outlying strongholds from the Christians,
and prepared the way for his more illustrious successor.
[Illustration: Saladin and Christians. [TN]]
The caliphate was then divided into the Fatimite line, which reigned
at Cairo, and the Abbaside, which reigned at Baghdad. Both branches
had by this time fallen into a mere semblance of authority. The
bitterness of theological differences survived, and though for the
re-establishment of Moslem power, it was absolutely necessary that the
schism should cease, there seemed no likelihood whatever of any
change. The weaker of the two, since the rise of Nur-ed-Din, was
undoubtedly the Egyptian house. The last of the Fatimite caliphs were
mere tools in the hands of rival ministers, and passed their ignoble
lives--_Rois Faineants_--in their luxurious palaces. Syria, which had
been theirs, was lost to them, and occupied partly by Mohammedans of
the rival sect, and partly by the Christians. Their final fall,
however, was caused by internal dissensions and the quarrels of two
candidates for the post of Grand Vizier. Their names were Shawer and
Dargham. The former, unable to contend against his rival, applied for
assistance to Nur-ed-Din, offering for reward a third of the Egyptian
revenues. The expedition which was sent in reply was the first chance
of distinction which young Yussuf had obtained. The army, commanded by
his uncle Shirkoh, easily defeated Dargham and reinstated Shawer. Then
followed the reluctance to keep the terms of the agreement which is so
common in history; and when Shirkoh in return seized the city of
Balbek and held it as security, Shawer sent to Amaury, King of
Jerusalem, for succor. Amaury, the bravest if not the wisest of the
Crusader kings, thinking that here was a chance of striking a double
blow, readily acceded, and joining the Fatimite army forced Shirkoh to
retire. It was, however, only in order to collect new forces. Next
year he was back again. Alexandria was taken by his nephew, and held
for three months against the combined forces of Christians and
Fatimites. At last a peace was agreed upon: both Christians and
Damascenes were to retire, each party to have a share in the revenues
of Egypt. The first part of the contract was faithfully carried out;
the second part neither Syrian nor Christian expected to be obeyed.
And now the same ambition possessed the mind both of Amaury and of
Nur-ed-Din. This was nothing less than the conquest of Egypt. Both
perceived that the Fatimite power was gone. Both realized the fact
that the country could easily be overrun. As for the Christian king,
he had dreams of a splendid and luxurious capital, grander than his
own narrow city set in the midst of the mountains; his knights,
orientals now and fallen from the old western rudeness, looked on with
envy at the luxuries of these weak Mohammedans; it would be a fine
thing to transfer the capital of the Christian kingdom in the East to
Cairo, leaving Jerusalem as a Christian Mecca, a city for the priests.
And the Syrian sultan, for his part, would restore the unity of Islam,
would unite Egypt with Syria, and by the strength of that union would
destroy the Christian and recover the Holy Places. These were schemes
worthy of statesman or of soldier. The only question was--how were
they to be realized?
The point which Amaury failed to understand was this. He who moved
first was bound to lose. For he would draw upon himself the other two.
Amaury moved first. We cannot follow the Christian king on his
disastrous attempt. It is sufficient to say that Shirkoh, after a
brief struggle, remained master of the field and of Egypt, and that
the fall of the Latin kingdom, thus rendered possible, was only
delayed until the consolidation of the new power was complete.
Immediately after his final victory Shirkoh died, and was succeeded by
his nephew Yussuf ibn Ayub, now called Salah-ed-Din (Shield of
Religion), el Melek el Mansur (the Victorious King), and Emir el
Jayush (Commander-in-chief of the Forces). The Fatimite caliph, not
yet deposed, made him Grand Vizier. In other words this soldier of
fortune was master of Egypt and of the Fatimite caliphate. More
important still, if the King of Jerusalem understood the importance of
the fact, he acknowledged himself to be the vassal of Nur-ed-Din,
Sultan of Syria.
The first step taken by Saladin, a _coup d'etat_ which restored Egypt
to the orthodox sect, was the substitution of the Abbaside caliph's
name for that of their own prince in the Friday prayers. This was done
without the slightest opposition; contempt for the head of their
religion could not be more effectually shown; Saladin therefore boldly
proclaimed the name of the Baghdad caliph. It was received so quietly,
as the Arab historian says, "that not a brace of goats butted over
it." The last of the Fatimite caliphs died a few days after: it was
one of those deaths, so frequent in history, which occur so exactly at
the moment most convenient. Did Saladin order him to be bowstrung?
Probably. Such an act would be regarded as perfectly legitimate and in
accordance with the rules of the game.
[Illustration: Saladin.]
How the victorious emir, on the death of Nur-ed-Din, succeeded in
making himself master of Syria and succeeding his lord; how he carried
on the war with the Christians unceasingly, would require in the
telling volumes. Many volumes indeed have been devoted to this
history. His two great achievements were the reunion of Islam and the
destruction of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. The latter at least, he
effectually accomplished. Western Europe was incapable of a second
effort so great as that mighty wave of enthusiasm which won back the
Holy Land and covered the plains of Asia Minor with the bones of
Crusaders. Richard Coeur de Lion and Philip Augustus, Frederick II.,
the kings of Cyprus, the Knights of St. John, carried on the long,
interminable struggle, but Jerusalem was lost.
Of the chivalry and honor of Saladin his biographers are never weary.
When, for instance, the Christians took Jerusalem they slaughtered
every soul in the place; their horses were knee-deep in blood. When
Saladin took the city he suffered none to be slain; when there was no
more money for ransom he suffered thousands to go free; to the weeping
widows and fatherless girls he gave purses of money and suffered no
outrage to be done to them. He divided them into three bands and
assigned an escort to each company. And then was seen the strange
spectacle, when the women and children grew fatigued, of the victors
placing them on their horses and walking afoot, or even carrying the
children in their arms. Again, why has no one painted that famous
scene when Richard Coeur de Lion wanted no oaths, but instead gave his
hand to Saladin in token of respect for his enemy and his own loyalty?
Such is the brief history of Saladin, a soldier first, always a
soldier, spending his whole life on the battle-field; the perfect
knight of the Mohammedans, fierce in fight, generous in victory,
faithful to his word, true to his religion, of a larger heart and
nobler soul than Coeur de Lion, the only antagonist who can be named
with him; one of the few out of the countless millions of humanity,
whose name lives and whose memory will never die; his life an example;
his history a monument.
[Signature of the author.]