[acjohnson55]

It's one of the things that made the First Crusade so remarkable. Once the Crusaders were in way over their heads, it paradoxically made them far more committed than the warlords they were fighting against. The invaders were nowhere near hospitable lands, fighting for their lives.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

Sorry to nitpick, but I wouldn't call the caliphs, sultans, emirs and kings of the muslim world of the 1090's "warlords". Even the Seljuks had essentially ceased being nomads by that time and had settled down.

[acjohnson55]

From the Wikipedia article on the Seljuks:

"Alp Arslan authorized his Turkmen generals to carve their own principalities out of formerly Byzantine Anatolia, as atabegs loyal to him. Within two years the Turkmens had established control as far as the Aegean Sea under numerous beghliks (modern Turkish beyliks): the Saltukids in Northeastern Anatolia, the Shah-Armens and the Mengujekids in Eastern Anatolia, Artuqids in Southeastern Anatolia, Danishmendis in Central Anatolia, Rum Seljuks (Beghlik of Suleyman, which later moved to Central Anatolia) in Western Anatolia, and the Beylik of Tzachas of Smyrna in İzmir (Smyrna)."

I'm def not an expert, but this seems to match my understanding that at least in the recently lost Byzantine lands in Anatolia and northern Syria, it was more of a warlord situation than conquering through a centralized state. To be fair, this is pretty similar to pre-Manzikert Byzantine Anatolia or the Western Europe the crusaders hailed from. My point is that as the Crusaders conquered their way through the Near East, they weren't facing a single Islamic empire, but different local rulers, who weren't always coordinating.

[YeGoblynQueenne]

In that case it depends on what you consider a "warlord". Kilij Arslan, the son of Alp Arslan (their second name means "lion"), commanded the Sultanate of Rum in Anatolia and was the first muslim ruler of the Middle East to confront the Crusaders. The Sultanate took up quite a large area of Asia Minor and included many major cities:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sultanate_of_Rum#/media/File:S...

The muslim world was certainly fragmented into small kingdoms, more like city states, that constantly fought each other and that for a long time could not find common cause enough to present a united front against the Crusaders - and sometimes even sided with them to fight each other. But I think of them as kingdoms rather than tribes, so I don't think of their rulers as "warlords" but as, well, kings. And sultans, emirs, caliphs, etc. Then of course there was Egypt, that was generally a centralised state (and that also fought the Crusaders with a little more focus than the rulers of Syria and Anatolia).

My source for all this is "Les Croisades Vues par les Arabes" by Amin Maalouf (French title: The Crusades through Arab eyes). So I may well be missing a wider context.

[isr]

I've read the English translation of that book. Quite simply, the best history of those wars (which could be called the real First World War, if anyone thought to name it as such), period. Hands down.

Strongly recommended!

[acjohnson55]

Good points! I'll put that book on my reading list.

[crazy_horse]

It helps when you have guys that are so convinced that they have found the lance that pierced the side of Christ that they are willing to walk through fire to prove it.