Ben Traffas
As one would expect from a history written from the losing side, al-Athir’s account has none of the triumphant tone reflected in the letter written by Stephen of Blois. Contrarily, the theme that seems to show up repeatedly is that of the inadequacy of the conquered Muslims. Though he does not shrink from elaborating on questionable tactics from the Franks, and the impressive body count they created, al-Athir’s focus seems to be upon the failure of the Muslim people to overcome their own internal issues.
Yaghi Siyan, the ruler of Antioch is portrayed as an extremely honorable man who resisted the invaders quite competently, but Antioch’s downfall is shown to have come to a member of the guards’ giving in to the Franks’ promises of material wealth. In addition to this, another excellent example of this comes when he discusses the battle after the Franks had taken the city. While al-Athir speaks of a “man of low cunning” among the Franks who was able to convince them that God was on their side and their victory was assured, he seems to blame the defeat largely upon the Muslim commander, Kerbuqa. More specifically, how he took the loyalty and dedication of his men for granted and proceeded to mistreat them and behave very arrogantly. This caused needless division among his army and al-Athir points to this when discussing causes for the Franks’ ultimate dominant victory.
A similar theme is emphasized when recounting the Muslim defeat at Ma’arrat. The ultimate cause of the Franks’ triumph was a group of Muslims becoming frightened and abandoning their posts along the wall, inspiring others to do the same. The Franks capitalized on this to scale the wall and take the city. After the brutal fall of Jerusalem, al-Athir asserts that “It was the discord between Muslim princes that allowed the Franks to overrun the country.” This theme is also reflected in the poem at the end of the reading, which speaks of the Muslims as fearful, blind and only desiring of the blessings of luxury. The poet seems to share al-Athir’s attitude towards the conquered Muslims, viewing them as people who had lost their way, and valued themselves, wealth and other virtues over their people and their faith.
As one would expect from a history written from the losing side, al-Athir’s account has none of the triumphant tone reflected in the letter written by Stephen of Blois. Contrarily, the theme that seems to show up repeatedly is that of the inadequacy of the conquered Muslims. Though he does not shrink from elaborating on questionable tactics from the Franks, and the impressive body count they created, al-Athir’s focus seems to be upon the failure of the Muslim people to overcome their own internal issues.
Yaghi Siyan, the ruler of Antioch is portrayed as an extremely honorable man who resisted the invaders quite competently, but Antioch’s downfall is shown to have come to a member of the guards’ giving in to the Franks’ promises of material wealth. In addition to this, another excellent example of this comes when he discusses the battle after the Franks had taken the city. While al-Athir speaks of a “man of low cunning” among the Franks who was able to convince them that God was on their side and their victory was assured, he seems to blame the defeat largely upon the Muslim commander, Kerbuqa. More specifically, how he took the loyalty and dedication of his men for granted and proceeded to mistreat them and behave very arrogantly. This caused needless division among his army and al-Athir points to this when discussing causes for the Franks’ ultimate dominant victory.
A similar theme is emphasized when recounting the Muslim defeat at Ma’arrat. The ultimate cause of the Franks’ triumph was a group of Muslims becoming frightened and abandoning their posts along the wall, inspiring others to do the same. The Franks capitalized on this to scale the wall and take the city. After the brutal fall of Jerusalem, al-Athir asserts that “It was the discord between Muslim princes that allowed the Franks to overrun the country.” This theme is also reflected in the poem at the end of the reading, which speaks of the Muslims as fearful, blind and only desiring of the blessings of luxury. The poet seems to share al-Athir’s attitude towards the conquered Muslims, viewing them as people who had lost their way, and valued themselves, wealth and other virtues over their people and their faith.