To what extent does this source show how determined the crusaders were to recapture Jerusalem ?
Chronologie : To what extent does this source show how determined the crusaders were to recapture Jerusalem ?. Recherche parmi 300 000+ dissertationsPar Clément R • 14 Septembre 2021 • Chronologie • 1 335 Mots (6 Pages) • 517 Vues
This source is about describing the actions the crusaders did during the first crusade
from their point of view.
This text was written by Raymond d’Aguilers, who was himself a crusader, during the
recapture of Jerusalem in 1099. It is an extract from Historia francorum qui ceprint
Jerusalem.
The author describes the way the crusaders tortured and killed the Muslims, whom
he calls his “enemies”, in order to recapture Jerusalem. The way he describes these
atrocities is very distant and emotionless. When he writes “piles of heads, hands and
feet were to be seen in the streets”, or “some of our men [...] cut off the heads of
their enemies”, we can feel that he has no regrets about anything he or the other
crusaders did during this historical event. He even claims that this slaughter was
“just and splendid”.
The key issue of this document is : To what extent does this source show how
determined the crusaders were to recapture Jerusalem ?
Source 2 : The Franks Conquer Jerusalem
This source deals with describing the process of the recapture of Jerusalem by the
crusaders from the Muslim’s perspective.
This text is taken from The Perfect History. It was written by the Muslim Ibn Al-Athir
in 1099, during the first crusade.
The author starts by mentioning the crusaders’ vain attempt to besiege Acre, which
caused them to move on to Jerusalem for a more-than-six-week-long siege. While
the south side of the city fought hard to resist, burning towers and crusaders, the
north part was taken on the morning of Friday, July the 15th, 1099. Then the author
describes how the Franks took over the area. A band of Muslims resisted and were
granted their lives when they surrendered. These Muslims then went to Ascalon. The
author tells us how refugees from Syria reached Baghdad, telling the Caliph’s
ministers the sad story of the hardships endured by the inhabitants of Jerusalem.
Finally, the author says that the discord between the Mislim princes was what
permitted the Franks to overrun the country.
The key issue of this document is : How does the author justify the fact that the
crusaders were able to recapture Jerusalem ?
2- What did the crusaders do when they entered Jerusalem ?
When they entered Jerusalem, the crusaders slaughtered the Muslims, killing men
and imprisoning women and children. They pillaged the area for a week. They also
profaned sacred religious places. For example, they filled the temple of Solomon
with the blood of the Muslims they killed, to a point where men “rode in blood up to
their knees”. In the Masjid al-Aqsa, a mosque near the summit of the city, they
massacred more than 70 000 people, including a large number of Imams and Muslim
scolars, who were religion-devoted Muslims.
3- Which sentence in doc.1 shows that the author was a crusader ?
The sentence “it was a just and splendid judgement of God that this place should be
filled with the blood of the unbelievers, since it had suffered so long from their
blasphemies” shows that the author was a crusader. Indeed, he uses the words
“unbelievers” and “blasphemies” to refer to the Muslims and their religion. That
means he does not approve of the Islam and he thinks the Holy Land belongs to the
Christians, namely the crusaders, of which he is part of. Moreover, the fact that he
refers to the slaughter of the Muslims by the crusaders as a “splendid judgement of
God” proves that he is not a Muslim. If he was a Muslim, he would obviously not talk
about the loss of so many of his people in this emotionless and cruel way, and he
would not say that it was a judgement from his God.
4- How does the author judge the attitude of the crusaders ? Justify
your answer.
In the first text, Raymond d’Aguilers talks about the crusaders’ attitude in a laudatory
way, showing us that he thinks it is remarkable. He mentions that it was a judgement
of God, which in his sense justifies everything they did. Because he himself is a
crusader, he thinks that what they did was the right thing to do.
In the second text, Ibn Al-Athir shows that he finds the crusaders’ behavior horrible
because they slaughtered his people. We can see that through the use of words like
“pillaged”, “killed”, “taken prisoner” or “slaughtered”. We can tell that he is
broken-hearted by what they did. However, when he describes that a group of
Muslims barricaded themselves and that the crusaders granted their lives in
exchange for their surrender, the author says “the Franks honoured their word”. With
this sentence he shows us that despite the atrocities the crusaders committed, some
of them were still trustworthy in the deals they made, and he acknowledges that
these particular Franks who honoured their deal were human enough to let these
Muslims live, saving them in a way. This contrasts with the descriptions he made of
the heartless way they slaughtered other Muslims.
5- Compare the two sources. Make a table showing the common
...