preview

Who Were The Barbarians Dbq

Decent Essays

Who were the “real” barbarians during the Crusades? The statement, “for the Europeans to call the Muslims barbaric is ironic, for it was the Europeans who were the true barbarians”, is valid. This is shown through how the Europeans were unjustified in inciting the First Crusade, how the Muslims were civilized, and how the Europeans were the true barbarians. Some people may believe that Pope Urban II was justified to persecute the Muslims, but upon further analysis this view is clearly misinformed. In fact it was the Europeans who were unjustified to incite the First Crusade against the Muslims, which led to much bloodshed. Some who believe that the Muslims caused the First Crusade may justify themselves by stating Robert the Monk’s version …show more content…

The account told by a Muslim historian, Ibn al-Athir about the various stages of the First Crusade, specifically when the Franks seized Antioch. The historian accounts about a the Muslim leader named Yaghi Siyan, “protected the families of the Christians in Antioch and would not allow a hair of their [Christians] heads to be touched” (Document E). This quote shows how even with the Christians attacking the Muslims, Yaghi Siyan, a Muslim leader, acted out of the best interest of all his people, not just the Muslims. He made the logical choice and left all the Christian men outside the walls, because he was unsure of how the Franks were going to react. However, he did promise the Christian men that Antioch was still their home. He also promised to protect their families inside the wall and assured that no harm would come to them. This quote also shows that this city was civilized enough that Christians and Muslims could harmoniously live together in it. Even though this historian who gave this account was a Muslim, which may cause bias, he is a historian who is known for being extremely factual. At this time, there started to become Christian uprisings against Islam, beginning with the reconquest of Spain and the Norman invasion of Sicily. Shortly after were the fall of Antioch and Jerusalem and the establishment of Christian kingdoms in the Holy Land. The second account is a Muslim …show more content…

This is shown through a Western European’s version of the siege of Jerusalem during the First Crusade. This is written account by Fulcher of Chartres, a religiously trained man who travelled with the Crusaders. He recounts them, “forthwith they [Europeans] joyfully rushed into the city to pursue and kill the nefarious enemies, as their comrades were already doing… you would have seen our [Europeans] feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain [Muslims and Jews]… None of them [Muslims] left alive; neither women nor children were spared [killed everyone]” (Document G). This is during the siege of Jerusalem during the First Crusade. The Crusaders had used ladders to get over the walls and massacre all of Jerusalem, until no one was left. What this account is basically saying is that the Europeans came into the city and killed everyone inside, including women and children. They killed so many people that their ankles were covered in blood. The document states that the person is religiously trained, which can be fairly assumed that means he is Christian. He was also traveling with the Crusaders, therefore under their protection. He is reliable to a certain extent, because they did kill many people, but probably not enough to slain their ankles red. This is an account of the Sack of Constantinople, told by a Byzantine living in Constantinople at the time. As the account goes, “in the alleys, in the streets, in the

Get Access