Ibn Al-Athir Chronicle

Ibn al-Athir provided accounts of many tribes, nomadic and otherwise, in the Middle East from 1193 CE to 1231 CE in the third part of his translated chronicle. In these accounts he provides both his perceptions of these various groups as well as the perceptions of those that came in contact with them, many of whom he credits as sources. The four major groups were the Khwarazm Shahs, Mongols – also called Tatars, Byzantines – also called the Byzantine Romans and Byzantine Greeks, and the Crusaders – also called the Franks and Georgians. Upon understanding these viewpoints, an image can be made about 12th and 13th century Levantine Society. Khwarazam Shahs seem to develop throughout the Chronicle. In their first mentioning in 1193 CE, they …show more content…
Ibn al-Athir goes as far as to say they were finally getting what they deserved for the years of war they had caused (111). Still, he claims that they never truly changed their behavior (116), despite the fact that kingdoms were beginning to go behind the Khwarazm Shah’s back for personal gains (118). This was something that was unheard of, at least via this chronicle, before 1200 CE. However, there is a slight shift in their fighting abilities, but not Ibn al-Athir’s view of them, around 1207-1208 in Herat where he begins to describe their battles at long lasting and violent, quoting a vizier calling them treacherous and expressing their hesitation for fear the Khwarazm Shah would kill everyone (131). However- and once again, come 1214-1215 CE Ibn al-Athir recounts an acquaintance’s recollection that the Khwarazm Shah was in hiding over the Tatars (Mongols) who were even more notorious (162). Time and again, despite recounting horrors performed by the Khwarazm Shah, it is explained that they sought vengeance and truth. Just two examples are that in 1215 CE they refuse to cooperate with Qutlugh Takin for lying about loyalties (167) and in 1217 CE they, once again, took Rayy in redemption for the death of Ighlamish (171). The Mongols were extremely feared, a massive army under Chingus Khan (206). Though the Khwarazm Shah attacked them first without knowing this …show more content…
The Franks were actively working to get a foothold in Egypt twenty years later (196) and come 1221 Ibn al-Athir described them as “the other enemy” next to the Mongols (215). His main concern, along with the Muslim community, was that the Franks planned to not only take their lands, beginning with Egypt, but to erase their religion and, therefore, their culture and government structure (230). Ultimately, several princes banded together to eradicate the Franks from Egypt (278); however, the Crusaders had many other theaters where they were spreading their regime. The Franks and the Armenians had a back and forth in which the Franks were eager to invade their lands but it was ultimately fruitless (280). In Constantinople, they violently clashed with the Greeks, burning down a large portion of the city without gaining control of it due to no support from the locals (75-77). Shortly after Constantinople, in 1204 CE, the Franks attacked Syria and accomplished nothing but killing more Muslims (79) and another defeat of the Franks in Syria occurred in 1230 CE (311). The event that could most logically account for Ibn al-Athir’s considering of the Crusaders to be comparable to the Mongols can be their taking of Jerusalem in 1229 (293). Ultimately, he saw the actions of those that