The Stance of the Fatimids towards the Crusades - Essay Example

? The Stance of the Fatimids towards the Crusades and The Stance of the Fatimids towards the Crusades The Fatimid Empire that is located in Egypt is a Muslim kingdom that ruled the Middle East before the invasion of the crusaders in the country in 1100. The Fatimid’s were divisive because they lacked organization that led to the lack of their specific stance on the crusades. The crusades were wars that were planned by Christians from Europe to conquer the Fatimid so that they could control the Middle Eastern states such as Syria, Egypt, and Palestine (Robinson, 1996). Jerusalem, which was a Christian group, wanted to end the ruling of the region by the Muslims who had controlled the region for numerous periods. The war against the crusades, which was known as the Jihad, lacked organization and diplomacy because of social, religious, and political differences among the Fatimid Muslims (Hillenbrand, 1999). At times, the Fatimids supported the crusades while at other times they opposed the Christian movement. This essay will analyze the different stances taken by the Fatimid Empire towards the crusades. An analysis of the religious origin and differences among the Fatimids is essential because it will help in understanding the stance of the group towards the crusades. Muslims lived as one religious group when they were ruled by Prophet Mohammed before his death in 632 AD (Carl, 1977). However, when the prophet died, his followers split into two groups on the basis of misunderstandings concerning his successor. The groups were the Shia who believed that the prophet’s successor was Ali, and the Sunni who claimed that the spiritualist had not named anyone to succeed him as the leader. The Shia established the Fatimid Empire by holding onto their belief that Ali was their leader after Mohammed and following the teachings and the rulings of their new spiritualist. The Shia gained fame in the muslim lands of the Middle East when the Ismaili Shiites in the region supported their religious and political beliefs (Brett, 2007). The group built their empire in Tunisia where they had acquired full support then extended to the entire region (Poole, 1968). The rise of the Shia in the Muslim region and the support that they gained from the Ismaili Shiites split their ideologies and those of the Sunni further. The Seljuks who supported the Sunni became open enemies of the Fatimids (Andrea, 2003). The enmity of the groups developed from being only religious into political and social such that they exclaimed their opposition in public. While the enmity of the Fatimid and Seljuks rose, the Fatimid Empire extended its ruling to Egypt from Tunisia. The group founded an empire in Cairo, in Egpyt, a location that made it possible for them to rule in the whole of the Middle Easter region including Syria, Palestine, Baghdad, Arabia, and the highlands of the Mediterranean (Adib-Moghaddam, 2008). The first crusade took place in Egypt in 1096 when Pope Urban 11 urged Christians to conquer Muslims in the region. The Pope urged Christians to abandon their homes and help in the fight against Muslims so that they could recover Jerusalem from this religion. Christians wanted to recover Jerusalem from the Muslims because it is their Promised Land in the bible (Carl, 1977). The land of Jerusalem was fertile and it produced plenty of food that fed the inhabitants of the town while people from other regions of Europe died from hunger and poverty. Having persuaded the Europeans, the first crusade was made of soldiers from France, Italy, Normandy, and Flanders (Poole, 1968). The first crusade was so organized that the Fatimids were incapable of defending themselves from the brutality and massacres of the European soldiers. The Muslims were incapable of defending themselves partly because they lacked organization like the soldiers of the first crusade, and also because they misunderstood the aim of the arrival of Christians in their land. The misunderstanding of the Christians’ arrival arose because the Fatimids and the crusaders had formed an alliance in a treaty that they had signed under the leadership of Al Afdal. Foss argues that the treaty stated that the Fatimids would rule Palestine and Jerusalem from Cairo while the crusaders controlled the Northern Beirut and the Dog River (Andrea, 2003). The Fatimids were comfortable with the declaration of the treaty because it gave them the chance to control Jerusalem, the land of plenty food and water. The Fatimids, therefore, thought that the Christians had arrived in Jerusalem for other missions other than conquering the land. When the war began, that is when the Muslims realized that there was no friendship between them and the Christians who were directed by Pope Urban 11 (Adib-Moghaddam, 2008). However, even after realizing that the crusade was a war to conquer the region from Muslim rulers, the Fatimids found that they lacked numerous soldiers and sufficient tools to fight back. This led to the conquering of Jerusalem by the Christians in 1099 (Carl, 1977). The Fatimids lost the town and numerous of their people were massacred during the war. Hillenbrand (1999) argues that the Fatimids at first failed to respond to the war from the Christian Franks from Europe because they believed that the soldiers from the group belonged to the Byzantine troops. The Fatimids were friends with the neighboring Byzantine troops, hence, there was no reason for them t believe that the Byzantine would fight against them in Jerusalem. When the Fatimids realized that the Franks (Christians) were not from the Byzantine troops, they began fighting and treating them as their enemies. However, by the time they realized this, it was too late, and they were conquered by the Franks from France and Italy. Robinson (1996) argues that the lack of organization of the Fatimids towards opposing the first crusade was due to the fact that the region had lost two critical leaders. Wazir, the father of Al Afdal and Caliph Al Mustansir, had both passed away in 1994 (Richards, 2008). However, Wazir was succeeded by his son Al Afdal while Caliph was taken over by his elder son Nazir, an act that led to the division of the Caliph followers. The followers split because some of them were in favor of the succession of the Caliph by his younger son Al Mustali (Richards, 2008). The split of the Fatimids on the basis of the successor of the Caliph led to the massacre of Al Mustali, the younger son of the late leader. The death of Mustali destabilized the political union of the region. Religion became the second most essential factor in the region after politics. Nazir and Al Afdal embarked on widening their political support rather than uniting the people on the basis of religion. Thus, the crusaders took advantage of the disunity among the Fatimids to conquer Jerusalem, Edessa, and Antioch (Hillenbrand, 1999). Ibid argues that even as the war continued, the leadership of Al Afdal failed to declare war against the Christians because of his religious beliefs. Al Afdal argued that fighting against the Franks would deteriorate their power even it if would increase their prestige in the region (Adib-Moghaddam, 2008). Therefore, the leader preferred maintaining peace with the Christians so that the power of the Fatimids would remain intact in the region. However, despite this argument by Al Afdal, the Damascene Chronicle claimed that the leader was a Sunni Muslim who did not want the Shia to rise into power in any part of the world (Poole, 1968). This is because the Sunni and the Shia were religious enemies who also split in political ideologies. The Chronicler, therefore, argued that Al Afdal supported the Franks in conquering Jerusalem and Antioch among other towns and cities in the region to ensure that the ruling of the Fatimids came to an end in the region (Carl, 1977). The lack of support from the neighboring geographical regions of Egypt where the Fatimids lived also contributed to the confusion and the defeat of the group during the crusades. The Fatimids lived in the most accessible region of the Middle East, and this made them more vulnerable to the Franks than other Muslims. The Abbasids who were considered to be the other most influential Muslims in the region were united, and they lived in Baghdad, a region that was almost inaccessible to the Christians (Hollenbrand, 1999). The organization of the Abbasids on religious basis made them to lose interest in the war in Egypt. When Al Afdal asked for military help from the Abbasids, they declined because they did not value the war. Therefore, the Fatimids lacked support from the neighboring regions even when they had taken a stance against the crusaders, and this led to their defeat. The lack of experience and competence of the Fatimid soldiers also contributed to their defeat even when Al Afdal and his followers rose against Christians. This took place when the crusaders besieged Jerusalem, Antioch, and Addesa. The military soldiers who were in the sea lacked means of coordinating with those who were in the land (Robinson, 1996). The soldiers also lacked sufficient tools and combat techniques that would help them to fight against the trained military from Europe and France. During that time, technology such as air transport had not developed to enable them to import tools from abroad. The fact that the crusades took place in unplanned movements also contributed to the lack of preparation of the Fatimid soldiers. This limited the groups’ capability of winning the war against the crusaders. The position of the Fatimids towards the crusades that were organized by Christians from Europe was unclear during the war. This is because the Fatimid Empire faced destabilization based on religious, social, and political factors. The destabilization of the empire in Egypt and the neighboring regions of the Middle Eastern region led to the conquering of the territory by the Franks. The religious destabilization occurred because of the differences in the beliefs of the Shia, who were the main Fatimids, and the Sunni Muslims. The political disorganization, on the other hand, arose from the fact that two leaders of the group, Al Mustansir, and Wazir, the father of Al Afdal. The death of these rulers had caused destabilization because the region failed to agree on the successor of Al Mustansir. Therefore, the successors of the late leaders concentrated on recovering the political prestige of the region rather than expanding and maintaining the religious empires of the Fatimids. These political and social destabilizations caused the Fatimids to support the crusades in some instances while they opposed them other times. Therefore, the Fatimids did not take any clear stance towards the crusades; their position on this war changed based on their interests. The crusaders conquered the Fatimids because of their lack of political and religious unity, incompetent and unprepared soldiers, lack of sufficient and efficient tools, and the lack of support from the neighboring Abbasids. Bibliography Adib-Moghaddam, A., 2008. A short history of the clash of civilizations. Cambridge Review of International Affairs, 21, 2, 217-234. Andrea, A. J., 2003. Encyclopedia of the crusades. Westport, Conn: Greenwood Press. Brett, M., 2007. The fatimids and the counter crusade 1099-1171. Egypt and Syria in the fatimids. 3, 1, pp. 15-25 Carl, E., 1977. The origin of the idea of the crusade. New jersey: Princeton University Press. Hillenbrand, C., 1999. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Edinburg: Edinburgh University Press. Poole, L., 1968. A History of Egypt. London: Frank Cass and Company Limited. Richards, D.S., 2008. The Chronicle of Ibn-al-Athir for the Crusading Period (al-Kamil fi’l- tarikh, Part one). London: Ashgate Robinson, E.F., 1996. Cambridge Illustrated History, Islamic World. London: Cambridge University Press. Read More