Differences Of The First Crusades

821 Words 4 Pages
The First Crusade had many parties involved like the Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Byzantine citizens. From these parties, Muslims and Christians had both unfavorable views of each other and antagonistic relationships. The relationship between the Christians and Jews was one of the killer and killed and the Jews reacted with dread, terror, and resentment. The Byzantine emperor considered the Christians family and considered the thought of killing them in battle “fratricide” . During the First Crusade, every different religion involved, such as the Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Byzantines considered other groups their enemy, therefore, all of these people had contradicting perspectives and accounts on the First Crusade especially the victors. …show more content…
Their loss of Constantinople, though, could be blamed on the betrayal of one of the men, Ruzbih. In Fulcher’s account, Ruzbih had a vision and “our Lord appeared to him” and told him to support the Christians. Contrarily, in Ibn Al-Athir’s account, Ruzbih was “bribed with a fortune in money and lands.” I would argue that in this case the Muslim perspective is more likely the one to be true because as shown through the First Crusade, greed is a compelling sin. This helps to show that because of different perspectives, events were thought of and portrayed in varying …show more content…
In his account, he depicts a horrible slaughter of thousands of Jewish lives by the Christian crusaders. Fulcher of Chartres’ account also supports Solomon’s account when he says, “None of them were left alive” as well as, “Neither women nor children were spared” , but he doesn’t seem sorry for their slaughter. In response to the massacre of innocent Jews, Fulcher seems indifferent as he flippantly says, “What shall I say?” Simson also presents the perspective that the Christians were immoral and sinful, and even refers to the Pope as “Satan” . The Christians told the Jews that they would “avenge him” , Jesus, the Christian’s “object of veneration” . But by the Fulcher’s accounts Christians were here to help their fellow Christians, not slaughter Jews for their religion and nowhere in his account does he say that Jews were murdered to avenge Jesus. Neither does Fulcher mention the mass suicide of the Jews, so that the Jews would die in the name of God instead of being killed in the name of a Christian idol. Fulcher’s account leaves many occurrences out according to both Al-Athir’s account and Simson’s account. With Anna Comnena presenting the Byzantine view of the Crusaders and depicting them with great “greed” for both money and land, and “horrible cruelty to the whole population” , it seems that Fulcher’s account has many disparities and his bias is

Related Documents