Crusades in Christian, Jewish, and Muslim Accounts Essay

Introduction

The Crusades were a series of religious wars, waged over the territories of modern Syria, Palestine, and Israel. The primary goal of the Crusades was the city of Jerusalem. It was known as the Holy Land to the crusaders and the pilgrims. This conflict lasted for many years, as the European kings struggled to keep their hold of the Holy Land, and the Muslim leaders sought to drive them back to the sea. The historians were able to learn of the Crusades from various primary sources, from all sides of the conflict. Since the historical documents represent their writer’s view of the conflict, through the prism of personal prejudices, religion, and available sources, the opinion on the Crusades varies from one source to another. The purpose of this paper is to analyze the four different historical accounts of the event.

Fulcher of Chartres

The first source was written by Fulcher of Chartres, who was a priest to Baldwin the First. The source is an excerpt from his book called “The First Book Concerning the Deeds of the Franks, Pilgrims to Jerusalem”.¹ It recorded the deeds of the Frank leaders and their armies during the Crusades. The purpose of the book was likely to relate the events of the Crusades to the Church, or the nobility. The source is considered relatively accurate, as the author was a witness to the described events. However, the document contains some bias. Fulcher of Chartres

viewed certain events from a religious perspective. Such is the story of a Turk who had received a vision from the Lord, during the siege of Antioch, which forced him to open the gates.² The source gives excellent descriptions of the situation in Europe during the Crusades when the constant feuds were very common. It suggested that the Crusades were an attempt to quell the feuds, by redirecting the violence at an external foe.³

Solomon Bar Simson

A member of the Jewish community in Mainz wrote this source.⁴ Little else is known about the author. It records the tragedies, which had befallen the Jewish enclaves during the Crusades, and their treatment at the hands of the Christian armies. The document itself was likely meant to serve as a commemoration of the victims of the massacres, rather than a historical document. It is not very accurate in terms of dates and numbers of the victims, as the author was not a professional historian. It contains very vivid descriptions of tragedies that happened in Mainz, Worms and Speyer.⁵ It is hard to judge the accuracy of the described events, as

most of the text is dedicated to bloodshed. From the document, we could learn about a practice of ritual suicide, which allegedly took place the enclaves. Instead of picking up arms, the Jews killed each other en-masse, in order to avoid forceful baptism.⁶

Ibn Al-Athir

The third source was written by Ibn Al-Athir, and it is a historical manual dedicated to the history of the Muslim world, meant for the eyes of the scholars. Ibn Al-Athir, in his work, focuses on the Muslim part in the Crusades. The bias is present, albeit less so when compared to the other sources. The events are relayed in a relatively dry language. Dates, facts, and numbers are provided, in addition to analysis of the events. Ibn Al-Athir was never present during the first Crusades and wrote mostly from Mosul.⁷ This means that he had to make assumptions in order to fill the gaps in his history. The numbers of the casualties are likely wrong and stacked to be in favor of the Islamic armies. From his work, we could learn about the reasons why the initial invasion of the Holy Land was successful. The author clearly shows a lack of unity between the Muslim people. The end of the document features a poem, which calls upon the Muslims to join the battle and drive the invaders from their lands.⁸

Anna Comnena

Anna Comnena – the daughter of the Byzantine Emperor Alexius, wrote the last source. It is called “The Alexiad”, and largely serves as a glorified version of her father’s rule.⁹ It was likely made as a tribute to him, with no particular reader in mind, rather than a dedicated historical source. It described the passing of the Christian armies through the Byzantine Empire, on their way to the Holy Land. The source contains a lot of bias and contempt towards the Crusaders, who are disdainfully called “The Kelts” on several occasions, and towards the Muslims, who are described as sinners who had drowned themselves in vice and wine.¹⁰ The author denied them any virtues aside from those, which could be interpreted perversely. From this source, we could learn about the attitude the Byzantines held towards the rest of the world. To them, the nations outside their border are either barbarians or sinners.

Conclusion

As evidenced by the analysis, when working with historical sources, a reader must be aware of the prejudices and biases, which may have been a factor in an author’s perception of the Crusades. It is natural for ancient authors to paint their side as just while demonizing the enemy. Considering these factors is obligatory during the evaluation of any historical event.

Work Cited

¹ Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) 394

² Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) 402

³ Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) 397

⁴ Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) 406

⁵ Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) 406

⁶ Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) 408

⁷ Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) 413

⁸ Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) 417

⁹ Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) 418

¹⁰ Patrick J. Geary, Readings in Medieval History (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2010) 419