The examination of historical documents is very important to history and society in our current age. We must look at the past and learn how various events changed the course of certain events, changing what possibly could have occurred instead. By learning from these documents we can notes patterns that develop and apply them to our current era to move in a better direction then, perhaps we were headed.
This paper will examine the Document "An Arab View of the Crusades" written by Ibn Al-Athir, a Muslim historian in the 13th century. The document follows the Muslim's perspective of the "Frank" invasion of Antioch in the early Crusades. The author's own religion and location can affect the bias of the paper in many ways. The fact that the author is Muslim could make an anti-European stance compared to its Euro counter parts historical accounts. This leads to two different views of the same conflict, if was viewed beside a European historian's work.
This document, having been written by a Muslim historian, would have looked at its audience to be the literate Muslims, most likely being the royalty and richer classes in the 12th century. This, for the most part, would mean that the author could use more complicated language and not have to simplify it for his audience. The audience that he chose to write for, of course, would also want to side with the Muslim view of the battle cited in the document. As such the author has most likely written the leader Yaghi Siyan of Antioch in a more positive, heroic light.
The document, though subtle in nature, advocates the unity of the Muslim princes, and the unity of the Muslim nations on whole. The document, near the end of it talks about, "The discord between the Muslim princes...that enabled the Franks to overrun the country" (2). This statement further proves that the author, by writing this document, that he is pleading to the upper classes, including the princes, to unite under the Muslim faith to avoid further invasions due to civil unrest.
The most important part of examining this document is its importance to history in general and what it can tell us about history. This document is important because it shows us two possible reasons that the Crusades chose to move into the Syrian lands, rather than moving to Africa, which was their original intent. The small subtle changes that redirected the course of their invasions and what possible outcomes that could have resulted instead of the failures that resulted instead, are very integral in how we look at the Crusades on whole.
What also is important is that faith was not as important to all rulers as much as the economics of their country. This is noted when Rodger the Frank, who had previously conquered Sicily heard that his kinsmen Baldwin planned on using his bases in his invasion of Africa. While Rodger's advisors thought this was great for the Christian faith, spreading it across those Muslim states in Africa. When his advisors commended Baldwin's decisions,
At this Rodger raised one leg and farted loudly, and swore that it was of more use than their advice. "Why?" "Because if this army comes here it will need quantities of provisions and fleets of ships to transport it to Africa, as well as reinforcements from my own troops ...This will cost me my annual profit from the harvest. (1)
Under fear of these losses to his own profits, he instead directed his Kin mate to attack Jerusalem for honour instead (1). This resulted in the initial attacks on Antioch and the movement into Muslim territory.
So what does this tell us about history? This document shows us that one of the key reasons that the Crusades were doomed to fail, was the fear of economic strain of an ally. As such they did not invade Africa focusing on Syria's lands instead. I can also tell us that faith was not perhaps the primary force as the Church would have us believe, or maybe the faith was only good to the Christian leaders if there served to be some kind of economic benefit.
The final question is how this could possibly be useful to historians in these times? Of course there are the obvious facts and information it gives in regards to the actual events that took place, but it does more than that. It teaches us that exterior motivations can lead to betrayals, as with the cuirass maker who allowed the Franks into Antioch and subsequently led to the Franks' victory in that siege (2). It also taught that unity was required for strength. The division of the Muslim princes is one of the main reasons cited near the end of the document by the author as to why the Crusades were able to continue so far into the Syrian territory.
This paper can also show the links of blood between kin during the Crusades were not as strong as one would have thought. It shows historians that the Crusades were not a unified effort by the Franks, but rather an isolated group trying to obtain more land. Historians can finally learn that corruption existed at all levels and the corruption of one cuirass maker led to the sacking of an entire city.
