system
A chat on subreddit /r/PoliticalCompassMemes
human
&gt; It was that French bastard that kicked off the fighting again by raiding Saracen pilgrims and merchants.

Renaud de Chatillon is generally portrayed as a warmonger, but probably correctly understood that conflict between Saladin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem was inevitable, and that a preemptive strike from the Christians was absolutely necessary to prevent Saladin from uniting Arab principalities. I don't think it's so simple as the Ridley Scott, *Kingdom of Heaven* version where he was just a violent lunatic.

&gt;Not to romanticize the guy, but as far as I aware he was fairly on the level. If he made an agreement, he kept it.

I don't think Saladin was some kind of monster. In many ways he is a good example of an honorable monarch. But he was pretty brutal (as were all 'honorable monarchs' and virtually all great leaders). He executed prisoners (he killed Renaud de Chatillon for refusing to convert to Islam), when he took Jerusalem he sold all those unable to pay ransom into slavery.

So, a man of his times.
gpt
Oh I don't mean to say it was simply black and white  but it was Chatillon and the crusaders who violated the treaty first. I wouldn't be surprised if that helped Saladin win more allies. 

By no means do I think Saladin was a 'good guy as we would use the term now, but I'd  argue he was predictable and while you could very well be right that he was uniting the other principalities he had not attacked the crusaders  or their holdings as far as I know.