hmm - slightly harsh on that analysis I thought.
Saladin only came to power because of the crusades. I don't think its stretching to say that he would be another nameless clan chief if the crusades hadn't happened.
Also, due to trade, I don't think Gunpowder could have remained a secret for much longer. It was never fully incorporated into European combat until the 15th century anyway - after Marco Polo's return from China, so there may have been a slight delay. But not enough to cause that much disruption.
I agree about the Byzantine Empire though - that was created as a result of the crusades outcomes.
Personally, I'd like to think that there would not be as much recrimination & conflict between Islam & the western world without the crusades. There had been clashes before (notably in Spain) but that was a clash of countries and kings and between 2 isolated kingdoms.
The mass invasion of the Middle East by 4 or 5 countries (the first "coalition of the willing?"
) sparked a bloody occupation which sours relationships to this day and also (arguably) created the militant interpretation of the Koran. It could be argued that had the reverse happened and we had indeed been invaded & occupied for a century or two, a few of the *smite the unbeliever* phrases within the bible could have created a zeal amongst Catholics matched by todays suicide 'matyrs'
I think the crusades however weakened the church's power in the long run. The deaths (and more importantly, expense!) as a result of them - especially considering 'we' lost and in losing created an Islamic 'super-state' caused a lot of the kingdoms not to be as subordinate to the church and (and arguably!) ultimately caused the splitting off of the Church by Henry VIII - as I couldn't see that happening under the power the church held a few hundred years earlier.
all-in-all the great fun with alternate history is that you can saw what you like as long as it's plausible!
