The Crusades I
Reading Amin Maalouf’s book, The Crusades through Arab Eyes (2004 edition) is a real eye-opener. Although I have read of Arab comments on the Crusades as part of general histories of the crusading movement, this well-written book concentrates on the Arab viewpoint. To read it, is a salutatory experience. The heroes of the early crusades such as Bohemund, and Raymond of St Gilles, Count of Toulouse, lose their glamour as fine knights assigned to them in Alfred Duggan’s novels and are shown to be brutal disregarders of the traditions and safety of the inhabitants of the lands they conquered. Massacres abound and if one feels that the Arab evidence is suspect, in many cases the Frankish writers confirm much of the horror. A reversion to cannibalism is found in sources on both sides of the divide. But even the justified criticism of the Crusaders can not take away from the sufferings that many of them experienced in a genuine desire to restore the Holy shrines to Christian control. And Arab generals are also given to massacre but they were more likely to keep their word to spare surrendering opponents. Is the Arab evidence always accurate? Does it suffer from exaggeration? In some cases it must be suspect. For instance, it is claimed that the walls of a town of a population of 100, 000 were taken down stone by stone within a month of its capture. That would have been a logistical triumph and a possible strategic blunder.
Is Maalouf even-handed? Not always; he rightly condemns the massacre of prisoners by Richard I after the fall of Acre (although apologists for the Lionheart do pray in aid the problem of looking after prisoners) but, when the Moslems retake Acre, a century later, he writes simply ’ King Henry and most of the notables hastily sailed off to take refuge in Cyprus. The other Franji were all captured and killed’. The Arabs were certainly not above violence’; of a run of fifteen rulers of Cairo, only one left office alive. The Arabs were amazed at Frankish judicial practices which allowed for trail by battle and ordeal. However, these practice were already losing their popularity in the West. Henry II’s establishment of the Grand Assize gave a blood-free method of settling claims in England and, in the next century, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) settled long-held doubts. It forbade clerical participation in the ordeal which had implied appeals to God to determine guilt or innocence. This meant that the criminal jury system assumed paramouncy.
Maalouf, whilst acknowledging the magnanimity and nobility with which Saladin treated his captives, criticises him for a serious military and political error. But was it? His conquest of the Holy Land was made much easier and less costly by his known willingness to spare surrendering citizens and his insistence on keeping his word. The regrouping of his Frankish opponents in the sea port that he left them was a consequence but the benefits he won may have been worth it. Saladin is to be much admired, although he too could be ruthless; all the Templar and Hospitaller knights captured after his stunning victory at the Horns of Hattin were executed.
One of the most interesting , and unexpected, features of this book is the epilogue which considers the impact of the Crusades on history. Maalouf notes that the fall of Acre in 1291 and the extinction of the Crusader state was a triumph for the Arab world and, in 1453, the Muslims would take Constantinople and be at the gates of Vienna in 1529. But he feels that a contradictory observation has to be made. Perhaps the victory sounded the death knell for Arab civilisation. He puts this down to the Arabs refusal to learn from the Occidentals whereas they drew heavily on their contracts with the Arabs whose great leaders had almost always been no-Arab foreigners such as Kurds and Turks. The Arabs became aliens in their own lands and they failed to build stable institutions. The death of a ruler provoked a civil war. Maalouf draws modern parallels with Nasser dreaming of establishing a united Syria and Egypt and the Arabs’ perception of the 1956 Suez invasion as a new crusade. Even the Turk, who tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II, saw his attack as an act against the commander of the Crusades. For the Arabs the Crusades were a rape which justifies vengeance. Maalouf wrote this in 1983. How much more perceptive is his view in the light of the continued oppression of Palestine, the two Iraq wars and the hostility of the West to Syria and Iran?
Reading Amin Maalouf’s book, The Crusades through Arab Eyes (2004 edition) is a real eye-opener. Although I have read of Arab comments on the Crusades as part of general histories of the crusading movement, this well-written book concentrates on the Arab viewpoint. To read it, is a salutatory experience. The heroes of the early crusades such as Bohemund, and Raymond of St Gilles, Count of Toulouse, lose their glamour as fine knights assigned to them in Alfred Duggan’s novels and are shown to be brutal disregarders of the traditions and safety of the inhabitants of the lands they conquered. Massacres abound and if one feels that the Arab evidence is suspect, in many cases the Frankish writers confirm much of the horror. A reversion to cannibalism is found in sources on both sides of the divide. But even the justified criticism of the Crusaders can not take away from the sufferings that many of them experienced in a genuine desire to restore the Holy shrines to Christian control. And Arab generals are also given to massacre but they were more likely to keep their word to spare surrendering opponents. Is the Arab evidence always accurate? Does it suffer from exaggeration? In some cases it must be suspect. For instance, it is claimed that the walls of a town of a population of 100, 000 were taken down stone by stone within a month of its capture. That would have been a logistical triumph and a possible strategic blunder.
Is Maalouf even-handed? Not always; he rightly condemns the massacre of prisoners by Richard I after the fall of Acre (although apologists for the Lionheart do pray in aid the problem of looking after prisoners) but, when the Moslems retake Acre, a century later, he writes simply ’ King Henry and most of the notables hastily sailed off to take refuge in Cyprus. The other Franji were all captured and killed’. The Arabs were certainly not above violence’; of a run of fifteen rulers of Cairo, only one left office alive. The Arabs were amazed at Frankish judicial practices which allowed for trail by battle and ordeal. However, these practice were already losing their popularity in the West. Henry II’s establishment of the Grand Assize gave a blood-free method of settling claims in England and, in the next century, the Fourth Lateran Council (1215) settled long-held doubts. It forbade clerical participation in the ordeal which had implied appeals to God to determine guilt or innocence. This meant that the criminal jury system assumed paramouncy.
Maalouf, whilst acknowledging the magnanimity and nobility with which Saladin treated his captives, criticises him for a serious military and political error. But was it? His conquest of the Holy Land was made much easier and less costly by his known willingness to spare surrendering citizens and his insistence on keeping his word. The regrouping of his Frankish opponents in the sea port that he left them was a consequence but the benefits he won may have been worth it. Saladin is to be much admired, although he too could be ruthless; all the Templar and Hospitaller knights captured after his stunning victory at the Horns of Hattin were executed.
One of the most interesting , and unexpected, features of this book is the epilogue which considers the impact of the Crusades on history. Maalouf notes that the fall of Acre in 1291 and the extinction of the Crusader state was a triumph for the Arab world and, in 1453, the Muslims would take Constantinople and be at the gates of Vienna in 1529. But he feels that a contradictory observation has to be made. Perhaps the victory sounded the death knell for Arab civilisation. He puts this down to the Arabs refusal to learn from the Occidentals whereas they drew heavily on their contracts with the Arabs whose great leaders had almost always been no-Arab foreigners such as Kurds and Turks. The Arabs became aliens in their own lands and they failed to build stable institutions. The death of a ruler provoked a civil war. Maalouf draws modern parallels with Nasser dreaming of establishing a united Syria and Egypt and the Arabs’ perception of the 1956 Suez invasion as a new crusade. Even the Turk, who tried to assassinate Pope John Paul II, saw his attack as an act against the commander of the Crusades. For the Arabs the Crusades were a rape which justifies vengeance. Maalouf wrote this in 1983. How much more perceptive is his view in the light of the continued oppression of Palestine, the two Iraq wars and the hostility of the West to Syria and Iran?
posted by snarlerson at 3:42 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home