[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.