The Crusades Through Arab Eyes

The impact of the crusades were more negative because they had bad reasons and because they fought nine times in the 13 centuries and many Christians were fighting against Jews. After the Christians and Jews fought the crusades still attacked each other.It also made lasting war between two religions.

Document _6___ states that the fourth crusade was wasteful and destructive event.The result only further dividing the christian world. And arriving in constantinople the venetians who had been hired to transport the crusaders and the knights agreed to attack the byzantine capital instead. The city was savagely taken as long as may people's lives. This is important because we know now that the fourth crusade was a heart breaking and harsh full event.Document _7___ states that maintaining the kingdom was very difficult. To begin their numbers were small. The crusaders were very dependent on the western europe for supplies and soldiers. To make it worse the crusading knights often abused and committed atrocities against eastern orthodox christians, jews, and muslims in the area they were passing. This is important because the crusades often abused and committed atrocities against other people.This leads to a negative impact

The selection from Usama Ibn Munqidh’s Kitab al-l’tibar otherwise know in English as the Book of Contemplation is a book in which Usama provides a series of short vignettes as a testimony to his experiences in the medieval Middle East and the Crusades. Through his writings the reader is able to get a Muslim account of the Crusades. It is largely a personal account so many details are left out and much background knowledge is assumed. It also is not the most unbiased source as supported by Usama’s frequent utterence that “Allah render them [The crusading Christians] helpless” (Ibn Munqidh 197) Usama also makes no attempt at analysis or understanding and just writes exactly what he observed without asking questions or delving deeper into

Theses two things are negative outcomes of the Crusades, which is a big reason to as why they came out so negatively. As you can see, these two are a part of the Crusades being so negative. Losing what you came for and dying is a big deal to be negative about, as a result, the Crusades had came out mainly negative.

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

The Crusades were a bloody war that the church deemed holy and necessary for salvation of the knights soul. The Crusades are a highly controversial and very dark stain on the Catholic church and Hierarchies past. The war was brought to the church from there Roman allies who they had tense dealings with. The where seeking aid in the fight against the muslim turks. The church decreed there act holy and justified. The people who were under the churches thumb had no objections to the slaughter that their beloved God had suposably justified.

Although a topic of my past history classes has been the Crusades, I only come out of them with a vague understanding of the situation. So, I sought out to gain a greater understanding through the vision of the question, "Was the first crusade a success, and if so, what made it a success?" Using The Crusades: A Reader, specifically the writings and documents from pages 33-79, I will make a decision based on specific occurrences and their ultimate goal (CITE SOURCE WITH FULL CITATION).I plan on picking out important aspects of the first crusade and determine whether or not they contributed to the success or failure of it. Also, I will try to uncover the motivations and the organization that led to the execution of the plan to recapture the Holy Land. In short, the first crusade interests me the most because there were crusades afterward, signifying it must have been found successful in some understanding.

he subject of the crusades is still a very controversial topic that spans across various time periods and has religious, social, and political implications. The first crusade started off as a widespread pilgrimage that ended as a military expedition resulting in the recapture of Jerusalem in 1099. The crusades initiated from a call from help from Alexius for the protection of Constantinople and the recovery of Anatolia. For centuries textbooks have repeated with routine regularity, that the immediate cause, of the Crusades was the Turkish conquest of the Near East, which apparently was a very real threat to Christendom, that had to be countered by military action. With this in mind, the primary purpose of this essay is to identify the various reasons that contributed to the start of the first crusade, while disproving the fact that the first Crusade was a response to a military threat. In discovering the true cause of the first crusades it is necessary to examine it from all aspects from the start to the finish.

Maalouf states that he researched for two years learning about the crusades. His information has come from authors and people who have experienced first hand and have also studied the crusades themselves. Maalouf seems to have a good mix of primary sources such as; al-Harawi and Usamah Ibn Munqidh, and secondary sources such as; Historie des croisades et du royaume franc de Jerusalem and La Palestine des croises, just to name a few.

Accordingly, Memoirs of the Fourth Crusade has been reviewed vigorously over the past century and central among these reviews is a genuine acceptance of Villehardouin s authenticity and accountability with respect to his

The Crusades were one of the most prominent events in Western European history; they were not discrete and unimportant pilgrimages, but a continuous stream of marching Western armies (Crusaders) into the Muslim world, terminating in the creation and eventually the fall of the Islamic Kingdoms. The Crusades were a Holy War of Roman Christianity against Islam, but was it really a “holy war” or was it Western Europe fighting for more land and power? Through Pope Urban II and the Roman Catholic Church’s actions, their proposed motivations seem unclear, and even unchristian. Prior to the Crusades, Urban encouraged that Western Europe fight for their religion but throughout the crusades the real motivations shone though; the Crusaders were power

The Crusades hold a place in the canon of Western history as valiant wars against the infidel in the East, motivated by an unparalleled pious zeal. Whilst revisions to this history have considered more mundane and ordinary motives, such as a want for land or an attempt to reinforce the Peace of God movement, there is something to be said of the religious motivations of the crusaders. The words ‘conquest’ and ‘conversion’ seem ideologically charged – with conquest being what is done by temporal rulers to physical land and people, and conversion being what is done to the spiritual self, by someone who does not have anything material to gain from the action. However, it can be argued that these lines can be blurred; I wish to present the case of conquest being religiously charged, and the idea that any subsequent conversion is of little importance. By examining the geographical targets of various crusaders, I will conclude that they were more interested in conquest than conversion: but this was not necessarily for earthly reasons alone.

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

In The middle of the Eleventh Century The tranquillity of the eastern Mediterranean seemed assured for many years to come, but little did the people know what was ahead . This, thus embark us on a journey back into the First Crusade. In this paper I will be discussing the events that lead up to the first in a long line of crusades. I will also be mentioning the lives of some of the crusaders through letters that they wrote. The crusades were a time of confusion for most people, yet today we look back at them as a turning point.

The modern book source which proves the most useful in discussing the causes and consequences of the First Crusade is Crusades: The Illustrated History, by Thomas Madden. Madden is an extremely reliable source, as he is considered to be an authority on the Crusades, with a BA, MA, and PhD in history.