Please enable JavaScript.
Coggle requires JavaScript to display documents.
Booklet 3: Why was there so little Seljuk response to the creation of the…
Booklet 3: Why was there so little Seljuk response to the creation of the Crusader States 1097-1128?
Muslim Disarray
- There was little united military response from Muslims directly after the First Crusade; there had been numerous changes in leadership due to the Seljuk invasion from 1055 into Syria, Palestine and Anatolia
- Regime change was therefore not a new phenomenon; on the eve of the Crusade, the Great Seljuk Empire had been in disarray following the death of Malik Shah in 1092 and the death of the Caliphs of Baghdad and Cairo in 1094, thus the emergence of new tribes from the West only added to the confusion leadership already in existence
Asbridge: 'Near and Middle Eastern Muslims seem to have had only limited understanding of who the First Crusaders were and why they came to the Holy Land. Most imagined that the Latins were actually Byzantine mercenaries, engaged in a short-term military incursion not driven warriors devoted to the conquest and settlement of the Levant. These misconceptions helped to blunt Islam's response to the events of 1097-99'
Political Instability
- The Great Seljuk Empire had fallen apart with the succession crisis, as the sons of Malik Shah, Muhammad and Barkiyarq, fought for the sultanate
- Barkiyarq's control of the Empire weakened and semi-independent warlords were able to emerge in the chaos; the sons of Tutush, Duqaq and Ridwan, fought amongst themselves for their father's land after his death in 1095; Kilij Arslan established himself as independent sultan of Anatolia; Kerbogha became a feared and powerful military leader in Mosul
- Arslan's weak alliance with the Damishmends at Dorylaeum, later that year led to the Damishmends fleeing at the sights of the Crusader reinforcements
- The siege of Antioch saw Duqaq arriving in December 1097, Ridwan in February 1098 and Kerbogha in June 1098; all three were defeated by the Crusader army
- Barkiyarq failed to aid his Syrian atabegs because he was unwilling to leave Baghdad during the First Crusade because he feared a coup by his brother Muhammad
- Political instability allowed the Franks to establish themselves more easily in the East; Asbridge: 'rivalry between the rulers of Damascus and Aleppo continued unabated and in Baghdad, the Seljuk sultan and Abbasid caliph were preoccupied with their own Mesopotamian power struggles'
- 1100: al-Mulk believed that the real threat to his city came from Duqaq of Damascus, rather than the Franks; when he heard that duqaq had planned an ambush on Baldwin he had wine, honey, bread and meat sent to Baldwin as well as gifts of gold and silver
- This enabled Baldwin to avoid the ambush and calmly continue on his way to Jerusalem to be crowned King Baldwin I
- None of the Muslim leaders took advantage of Bohemond being taken prisoner in 1100 which allowed Tancred to take possession of the county in 1102
Military Alliances
- Muslim warlords were so willing to protect their own independent territories that they made alliances with the Crusaders during the Crusade and with the Franks during the expansion of the Crusader States
- The Emir of Shaizar made an agreement with the Crusaders, they promised not to attack and gave them supplies if they stayed away from their lands; Emirs of Hama and Tripoli brought gifts for the Crusaders and promised they would not attack
- Military alliances between Muslims and Franks were often done to the benefit of Muslims; 1102: Ridwan sent a message to Tancred saying that he would satisfy his every whim if Tancred left him in peace; 1108: Ridwan and Tancred agreed to join forces against Jawuli of Mosul for military purposes
- The subsequent battle at Turbessel in 1108 was astonishing in that Frank fought alongside their Muslim enemy against one another
- Financial rewards also enticed the Seljuk leaders to halt their attacks on Frankish territories; Joscelin of Edessa offered the Muslims substantial tribute if they withdrew from the siege of Tall Bashir in 1110
- 1114: Roger of Antioch fought alongside Toghtekin of Damascus to fight off Bursuq, the commander of the Sultan's army from Baghdad
- Whilst these alliances contravened the Christian view of holy war and the aim to destroy the 'infidel', they were practical necessities at the time and the alliances never lasted long; the military alliances suggest that the Franks had inserted themselves into the political and military life of the East
Religious Division
- The sunni and shi'a divide over the true caliph prevented unity between Egypt and Syria, where the Sunni caliph reigned in Baghdad and the shi'a caliph in Cairo
- The shi'a assassin sect that lived in the Nosari Mountains, near Tripoli had killed Malik Shah, leaving political turmoil; the assassins took advantage of the Seljuk civil war to capture several fortresses
- 1098: the Egyptian shi'a Fatimids took Jerusalem from the Seljuks, leaving the defences of the city severely weakened; 1113: Fatimids used Jerusalem as a useful buffer zone against the Seljuks, and the attacks on the State ceased
Elisseeff: 'there was a gradual decline in the religious and moral conscience of the Muslim world'; brought on by the excessive military nature of the Seljuks and their sunni religious extremism, which saw the shi'a Fatimid Muslims as their greatest enemy
- This, she argues, is why there was no initial response to the voices of Muslims who did call for a united reaction against the growth of the Crusader States