To what extent does this source show how determined the crusaders were to recapture Jerusalem ?

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

...