Who Is To Blame For The Muslim Reaction By Ibn Al-Athir

The Pope had all of the power and that led to mass amounts of people going to war for the Pope. In document 4 by the Islamic leader, Saladin, he states that his people should try to retake Jerusalem to get back their holy land and to please God. The people are trying to please their gods and to give their homage to their god. That would show a religious view for the Crusades and their brethren. Document 5 by the Jewish chronicler, Solomon bar Samson, shows that there was a religious aspect to the Crusades, mind it be extremism. The crusaders would see a pack of Jews on the way to the Holy Land and they would give the Jews two choices: 1. they could kill them to avenge the death of Jesus Christ or 2. They could incorporate them into their faith and acknowledge the offspring of promiscuity. Document 7, an excerpt from “In Praise of the New Knighthood” by St. Bernard of Clairvaux, tells of the two-fold war that was being fought by the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitallers. It was a normal killing people war, and it was a spiritual war. You are protected by the armor of faith and an armor of steel. Next, I would have liked a document from Pope Nicholas IV about how the Crusades had to stop. That would have filled in the ending to the story of the Crusades.

1. Just in case you guys don’t about the history of why the crusades are happening, it’s all about Jerusalem and the Holy Land, or Palestine, have a complicated history. The Holy Land sits at the intersection of three continents, near the birthplace of some of the world’s oldest civilizations. It also borders the Mediterranean Sea, a major artery of conquest and trade. The region is valued as much for its location as for its religious history. The location itself may have been reason enough for people to settle there. In turn, those people developed civilizations that gave rise to the religions that have spent centuries competing for the sacred soil. The three competing monotheistic faiths-Judaism, Christianity, and Islam-met in Jerusalem. Despite their common roots, the differences among the three religions-and their peoples-often sparked conflict.

    Document B describes the riches that the Franks took from the Saracens after breaking into the city: “The Franks stripped the Dome of the Rock of more than forty silver candelabra . . . and more than twenty gold ones, and a great deal more of booty.” The document also states that Jerusalem had been attacked strategically. The Franks chose to attack multiple parts of the city at once to ensure their victory: “It had scarcely ceased to burn before a messenger arrived to ask for help at and to bring the news that the other side of the city had fallen.” This document was not written with any bias, but I am

According to Dana C. Munro, the first crusades began under the papacy of Pope Urban II. From whom delivered a speech in 1096 at the Council of Clermont that led thousands to take up the cross. It is from that moment on the Popes always felt the crusades were their task and under their inspiration believing that the crusades were God’s work and they were His agents. Let us consider the words of Pope Urban II according to Fulk of Chartres, “I speak to those who are present, I shall proclaim it to the absent, but it is Christ who commands. Moreover, if those who set to thither lose their lives on the journey, by land or sea, or in fighting against the heathen, their sins shall be remitted in that hour; this I grant through the power of God vested in me. ”

The crusades did nothing but leave religious hate. Document 1 states that “They also left a bitter legacy of religious hatred behind them. In the Middle East, both Christians and Muslims committed appalling atrocities in the name of religion. In Europe, crusaders sometimes turned their fury against Jews, massacring entire communities.

Did you know the crusades were primary caused by political / economic gain? The Crusades were a series of eight Christian military journey fought against Muslims for the Holy Lands between the years of 1096 and 1270 C.E. I personally think that The Crusades were primarily caused by political / economic gain but other people might argue that they were primarily caused by religious devotion because people say that it was because of documents. The crusades were primarily caused by political and economic gain, rather than religious devotion because they have desire for more power and more opportunities for trade.

The Crusades left a bad legacy and a cruel remembrance to many people. The Crusades did benefit us today in a few ways, but other than that they were very terrible people. Document 1 states that In the text it states, “They also left a bitter legacy of religious hatred behind them.” This is important because this shows how the Crusades were remembered. They were not remembered in a great, fun, jolly way. Not a whole lot of people liked them and I can completely understand why. Document 4 states that “...the crusaders and Venetians stormed Constantinople, sacked the city, destroying its magnificent library, and grabbed thousands of relics that were later sold in Europe. From destruction, the Byzantine Empire as a political unit never recovered.”_In a different part of document 4, it also says, “....the Fourth Crusade was reunion of Greek and Latin churches, made the split between the Greek and Latin.”This is interesting because

In a perfect world, everything would go exactly the way you wanted. But that’s the problem. There is no such thing as a perfect world, and the Crusades were the exact opposite. Back in medieval times, Christians felt the need to conquer Jerusalem. At the time, Jerusalem was being protected by Muslims.

This is (important/interesting/relevant) The attack of the Byzantine Capital had no responsibility as well as weren’t included for the Crusades. The depressing result as why they attacked the Capital was for the treasures they had in store as the soldiers made themselves fall into the evil of greed.As it represents, the Crusaders in both sides were responsible and were never held accountable for their actions of brutal and insightful murders due to the beliefs and biases those people had for

The crusades between 1095 and 1250 had not only changed the way crusading was carried out, but also the purpose of it. Cynical self – interest, finance and religious passion were key aspects for the popularity of crusading. The main purpose of The Crusades was to recover or defend territories such as The Holy Land. Geographically the Holy Land was in a position of frequent attacks due to Palestine lying along the Mediterranean Sea, thus Muslims having easy access there. The meaning of the word crusade means ‘going to the cross’, therefore this explicitly emphasises that the Crusades sole purpose and popularity would be to restore the Holy Lands from the Muslim Turks, emphasising religious passion. The four Crusades consisted in success, humiliation

His words must have been passed down from someone who had once lived, as he wrote accounts on the first Crusade but did not live through it. He explains that the Christians entered the Holy Land and fought the Muslims inside for several days, most barricaded at the Tower of David. He says “the Franks slaughtered more than 70,000 people, among them a large number of Imams and Muslim scholars” (document B). The Franks (also known as the Christians) had killed men that al-Athir describes as devout men who left their homeland to live secluded and religious lives. The rest of it describes the Christians killing many Muslims and telling of their sufferings throughout the Crusade, and portrayed the Christians as the bad people. One more account was brought up, written by an unknown author at an unknown time. It tells of the Franks entering the city of Jerusalem and that “Men joyfully rushed into the city to pursue and kill the nefarious enemies” (document C). It also tells of how the men were killed, and that nobody was spared. Even the women and children were killed. The document shows the great victory from that day, with no sorrow of anything lost. In the end of the first Crusade, the Christians succeeded in taking back Constantinople. It was a bloody battle, indeed, but this was only the beginning. Through the years, eight more Crusades

He followed the crusading armies to Jerusalem and wrote a history of his experiences and observations. Raymond describes ways that the enemies were gruesomely killed during the battle, “Some of our men (and this was more merciful) cut off the heads of their enemies; others shot them with arrows, so that they fell from the towers.” When the Christian Crusaders attacked the Muslims at Jerusalem, “ It was necessary to pick one's way over the bodies of men and horses. However, “in the Temple of Solomon, men rode in blood up to their knees and bridle reins,” as stated by Raymond d’Aguiliers. In conclusion, Raymond relates the story about how the Pilgrims rejoiced after the battle, “How the pilgrims rejoiced and exulted and sang a new song to the Lord!” (Document A). Ibn al-Athir was an Arab historian who wrote a history of the first three Crusades. Although, he only witnessed the third Crusade. Jerusalem was attacked from the north on July, 15, 1099 by the Franks, who pillaged the area for a week. A group of Muslims barricaded themselves in the Tower of

The first viewpoint believed by many is that the Crusades caused fear and destruction. Documents 4 and 5 especially support this opinion. These sources both explain the demolition caused in Southwest Asia by the Europeans during the Crusades. Document 4, the excerpt from The Crusades Through the Arabs Eyes, describes the torture and murder of Arabs by Franks. One vivid description in the source is, “The Franks arrived at dawn. It was carnage. As Ibn

Solomon is so distraught by this, he believes God himself turned his head and abandoned his chosen people “Himself in a cloud through which their prayers could not pass, and he abhorred their tent, and he removed them out of his sight- all this having been decreed by him to take place” (Readings in Medieval History, Geary, page 407) This text is written through pure emotion it seems like, Solomon blames his own God for the massacre. Solomon exemplifies his idea that the crusaders were in it for their own gain, “The elders of the Jewish community approached their bishop, Ruthard, and bribed him with three hundred zekukim of silver” (Readings in Medieval History, Geary, page 410) He writes for fellow Jews, hoping to incite anger for the wrong done to them, maybe even a sense of vengeance. I can see where Solomon Bar Simson is coming from, he says part of the reason for the massacre was revenge for Christ being crucified by Jews, “Look now, we are going a long way to seek out the profane shrine and to avenge ourselves on the Ishamelites, when here, in our very midst, are the Jews- they whose forefathers murdered and crucified him for no reason” (Readings in Medieval History, Geary, page 407)

The Crusades: A Short History, written by British Historian Jonathan Riley-Smith, offers a broad overview of this part of the medieval era, but he also explores how historians have attempted to explain these events in modern terms. Riley-Smith also makes sure to note all major contributors to the Crusade movement and their personalities. Numerous scholars have wondered whether this was a political or religious mission. This helps to spark the question of why people would leave their homes and their families to risk their lives invading a land that was thousands of miles away for religious reasons. In his book, Riley-Smith makes this era come alive for the modern reader. He does