‘Did the Events of First Crusade See the Beginning of a Clash of Civilisations Between Christianity and

Islam?’

Henry Weston

N0436208

Dissertation submitted in partial fulfilment of the requirements for a BA (Hons) degree in History, Nottingham Trent University [April 2016].

I certify that this dissertation is all my own work, and that no part of it has previously been submitted for assessment for this or any other degree.

Word Count: 15,560

Contents Page

Contents

Acknowledgements ii

Introduction 1

Chapter 1: Defining a Clash of Civilisations 7

Chapter 2: Clermont to Antioch 13

Chapter 3: Antioch to Jerusalem 35

Conclusion 53

Bibliography 55

i

Acknowledgements

Nicholas Morton

Lucinda Westcott

Nicholas Weston

James Silverman

Tom Williams

ii

Introduction

Thesis

The theory of a Clash of Civilisations was first presented by political scientist Samuel P.

Huntington in a lecture in 1992. This developed into an article in Foreign Affairs, titled

‘The Clash of Civilizations?’ in 1993. Huntington than later expanded his thesis in his

book, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order, in 1996. The

hypothesis focussed on people’s cultural and religious identities as the prime source of

conflict in the post-Cold War era. Huntington argued that as the ideological conflict of

Capitalism and Communism faded with the fall of the Soviet Union, the cultural and

especially religious differences of the different civilisations would now become the

forerunner of conflicts. He focussed specifically on conflicts arising between Christianity

and Islam. In relation to this, he used examples from history to prove that this conflict

between Christianity and Islam had already begun. The crusading period was one of these

examples. So the question, ‘Did the events of First Crusade see the beginning of a Clash of

Civilisations between Christianity and Islam’ derives from his statements.

Huntington’s theory has become popular in both the academic and the general public

spheres, due to the rise of fanaticism in the Middle East which has resulted in 9/11 and

more recently the Islamic State. Both Western and Islamic leaders have referred to the

crusading period, to explain the situation in Middle East at this present time. George Bush

famously referred to the war against terrorism as a ‘crusade.’1 While ISIS, after the deadly

attacks on Paris in 2015, claimed that they had ‘cast terror into the hearts of the

1 Peter Waldman & Hugh Pope, ‘’Crusade’ Reference Reinforces Fears War on Terrorism Is Against Muslims’, The Wall Street Journal, 21 September 2001, online version.

1

crusaders in their very own homeland.’2 These statements have help reinforce the

popular view that Christianity and Islam have been involved in an ever-lasting conflict, or

as Huntington would describe it, a Clash of Civilisations.

The academic field in relation to a Clash of Civilisations during the crusading period is

limited. Historians in general have acknowledge that any debate on the crusading period

is now casted in the shadow of a Clash of Civilisations. Yet, very few have actually taken

Huntington’s theory, and attempted to ask the question of whether a Clash of

Civilisations did take place during the crusading period. This study is an attempt to look at

a one aspect of the crusading period, the First Crusade. The dissertation will apply the key

features of Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations to the events of the First Crusade, in an

effort to answer this key question. Although this study is limited in its scope, it will

hopefully add a new perspective to this limited field, as well as helping dispel the

generalisation and stereotyping of an ongoing conflict between Christianity and Islam.

Historiography

As the academic field in relation to the dissertation question is limited, it is important to

look at the broader spectrum of historiography of the First Crusade. A substantial debate

has focussed on the motives of the crusades which has a direct influence on the area this

study is focussing on.

Traditional arguments have focussed around the material motives of crusaders as the

reason for going on crusade. The enlightenment historians, such as Voltaire, Hume and

Gibbon, identified the crusades as the extreme papal ambition for worldly power, and an

2 Swati Sharma, ‘Islamic State Claims Responsibility for Paris Attacks’, Washington Post, 14 November 2015, online version.

2

example of medieval European fanaticism. In the nineteenth century, the age of

romanticism continued the trend of seeing the crusaders as violent, corrupt and

attempting to attack the sophisticated civilisations of the East. Sir Walter Scott’s The

Talisman (1825) is a prime example of this viewpoint. During the early and mid-twentieth

century the focus continued the trend seen in the previous centuries. This belief was

focussed on the Imperialism of the Europeans empires who had taken control of the

Middle East after Sykes–Picot Agreement in 1916. Heinrich Hagenmeyer was one of the

main historians to argue that the crusaders had been an early form of colonialism.

Towards the more recent studies, Steven Runicman wrote a three-volume, History of the

Crusades (1951-54). The link between both enlightenment historians and Walter Scott is

evident. Runicman’s work is a well written narrative of the events. Yet, he wrote history

as if it was a novel. By doing this, Runicman writes the history of the crusaders, as a

‘good’ vs ‘evil’ scenario. He argued that the crusaders were bloodthirsty barbarians who

looked for salvation through the destruction of cultures of the East. Runicman’s has had a

huge influence on modern perceptions. Non-historical literature and films have taken his

view, in casting the crusaders as the evil attackers of the peaceful Islamic lands. In many

ways, Runicman help create the idea of a Clash of Civilisations, without using the phrase

himself. From an Arab perspective, the same can be said of Amin Maalouf’s book The

Crusaders Through Arab Eyes (1984). Maalouf also comes to the conclusion that the First

Crusade started the conflict between Christianity and Islam. Similar to Runicman,

Maalouf’s work is written in the style of a novel, then an accurate historical piece of work.

Modern historiography has focussed more recently on the religious motivates of the

crusades. Pluralists such as Jonathan Riley-Smith and his students have attacked the

3

notion that the crusades were filled with ruthless barbarians, who thought only of power

and wealth. Riley-Smith used charters in France, to prove that the crusade above all else,

was a pilgrimage. His multitudes of work, has changed the way that historiography of the

crusades has been viewed. Historians, such as Thomas Asbridge have also agreed with

this argument.

Primary Source Material

The First Crusade has a rich pool of primary source material. The majority of source

material is written by Latin chroniclers; of which many were eyewitness accounts. This

study relies heavily on three main chroniclers, who themselves attend the First Crusade:

this been Fulcher of Chartres, Raymond of Aguilers, and the anonymous Gesta

Francorum. There is also a variety of early Latin historians which are used in this study,

Albert of Aachen been the most prominent. These sources give the perspective of the

First Crusade from a Frankish viewpoint. They are narrative driven, which enables

historians to have a good understanding of events. However, as all the sources, barring

the Gesta, are written by clerics, certain details of events are described in Christian

theology. This is both an advantage and a limit. The sources allow historians to have an

understanding of the religious motives and perceptions during the First Crusade. But, in

doing so they also limit details, as they explain in theological terms rather than simple

explaining the events. The clerical writers are not interested in the details of battles, or

other events they feel are irrelevant, in comparison to religious events.

As this study attempts to use multiple perspectives, Greek and Arab sources are also

used. More issues arise from attempting to use these sources. For a Greek interpretation,

the only major translated source is Anna Comnena’s Alexiad. This source is useful as it

4

helps give a better understanding of the Byzantine view of the First Crusade. However,

the source is written after the crusade, and can be argued to have a twisted view,

especially after the events of Antioch. Again its strengths and weakness are directly

linked. The Alexiad is strongly anti-Frankish, the rhetoric against the Southern Normans is

especially firm. Yet, this enables the historians to understand the cultural superiority,

Byzantines felt for their western cousins. Arab sources have been rather neglected by

western historians. Yet, they provide important details, especially when trying to see links

between the same event, but from both sides. The problems with Arab sources is the

restriction of them. For this study, translations are needed into English, as with Latin and

Greek sources. However, Arab primary source material is considerably lower than that of

the Latins. In turn, only a few key sources have been translated into English. In the case of

al-‘Azimi, references from secondary material can only be used, which is less than ideal.

The main Arab chroniclers used are Ibn al-Athir, Ibn al-Qalanisi and al-‘Azimi. Ibn al-

Qalanisi and al-‘Azimi are limited, by their scope of events during the First Crusade. As

they only focus on their respective towns (Damascus and Aleppo). Yet, when used

together they give a strong picture of events in Syria. Ibn al-Athir strengths lie in his

methods of showing the crusades in the overall picture of Islamic history. This allows

historians to gauge the importance of the crusades in relation other events, such as the

Mongols.

Chapters

5

Chapter 1, discusses the concept of Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations. As Huntington

does not give a list of his criteria for when a conflict is a Clash of Civilisations. This chapter

enables the reader to have a good understanding of each part of Huntington’s theory, by

extracting it from his work and presenting it in a clear and concise manner.

Chapter 2, takes the criteria presented by Huntington, and uses it analyse the events of

the first half of the crusade. The first half constitutes journey from Europe in 1096 to the

defeat of Kerbogha at Antioch in 1098.

Chapter 3, continues on from chapter 2. It looks at the events from Antioch in 1098 to the

capture of Jerusalem in 1099. As with chapter 2, it examines the events of the second half

of the First Crusade in relation to a Clash of Civilisations.

6

Chapter One – Defining a Clash of Civilisations

In order to answer the question, ‘Did the events of the First Crusade see the beginning of

a Clash of Civilisations between Christianity and Islam?’, the reader must first understand

the definition of a ‘Clash of Civilizations’ as laid out by Samuel P. Huntington in his book A

Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of a World Order. Though Huntington does not

make a concise evaluation of the criteria that constitute a Clash of Civilisations, we can do

so by extrapolating Huntington’s examples; firstly, exploring what is meant by a

‘civilisation’ itself, before interpreting the factors which constitute a ‘clash’.

While the word ‘civilisation’ is a modern one – devised by eighteenth century French

thinkers as an opposing concept to barbarism3 when wishing to show the difference

between their own society and primitive ones. Huntington’s concept of a civilisation is

summarised as:

‘The highest cultural grouping of people, and the broadest level of cultural identity people have short of that which distinguishes humans from other species. It is defined both by common objective elements, such as language, history, religion, customs, institutions, and by the subjective self-identification of people.’4

In his book, the historian, Fernand Braudel, supports this definition. A civilisation refers to

the highest cultural level – a cultural zone, in which one group of cultural characteristics

dominate, for example language or religion. These groups may also contain sub-groups

(e.g. language and dialects), but the general common characteristics are what make it a

civilisation.5 A civilisation must also be locatable on a map; an essential part of its 3 Fernand Braudel, A History of Civilizations (Penguin: London, 1995), p. 3.4 Samuel P. Huntington, The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order (Free: New York, 2002), p. 43.5 Braudel, Civilizations, p. 12.

7

character is made up by the advantages or constraints dependent on it geographical

features.6 For Huntington the major element of Western Christendom as a civilisation is

the separation of religion and state. While for Islam it is the joint venture of religion and

state, in the form of the Caliph.7

In this context society and civilisation are intertwined: a society’s makeup is determined

by the long history of its civilisation. That is to say culture and society is not to be

differentiate in this interpretation. Its views, its prejudices and its actions are all derived

from its distant past; some of these are almost unconscious (e.g. ancient beliefs, fears

and anxieties).8 This isn’t to say that a civilisation has fixed characteristics. Every

civilisation imports and exports aspects of its culture,9 but a civilisation changes little and

slowly. Similar to Braudel, Huntington argues that civilisations are mortal, but very long-

lived, due to this they can be redefined over time.10 These two aspects allow civilisations

to have similarity. For Christianity and Islam, a prime example of this, is the monotheism

of their religions.

A Civilisation is not based on race or a political entity. Huntington goes to a great length

to differentiate between the roles of civilisation and government. A civilisation does not

maintain order, establish justice, collect taxes, fight wars, or negotiate treaties.11 For both

Huntington and Braudel, the main feature of a civilisation, present and past, is religion;12

religious motives can take over from reasoning.13 This means that patterns of logical

6 Ibid, p. 9.7 Huntington, Clash, p. 210.8 Braudel, Civilizations, p. 22.9 Ibid, p. 14.10 Huntington, Clash, p. 43.11 Ibid, p. 42.12 Ibid, p. 42.13 Braudel, Civilizations, p. 22.

8

reasoning which would be expected from a civilisation can be entirely overlooked by a

religious motive.

It would be simple to assume that a Clash of Civilisations then is simply a communal

conflict, but it is much more than that. A clash is an active attempt by one civilisation to

eradicate another, either by violence or conversion, and must meet certain preconditions

in order to be classed as a clash. Firstly, there must be a consciousness of another

civilisation. Both civilisations involved must have a good understanding of the other’s

features and the main differences between them. If an individual can identify the main

features of their own civilisation, another civilisation and the differences to his own, it

creates an “Us vs. Them” state of mind. When the differences are great there is a

predilection for conflict. These differences may be language, ways of life, warfare. For

Huntington the main difference is again religion, the defining characteristic of civilisation.

These predilections can be seen throughout history between the major religions,

especially between Christianity and Islam. Huntington argues that there have been two

clashes of civilisations relating to Christianity and Islam. The first being the rise of Islam in

the seventh century, when it conquered the Middle East, North Africa, parts of Asia, and

Iberia (modern day Spain and Portugal). The second, and most pertinent to this piece of

work, is the Crusading period.14

Secondly, clashes are often also linked to geographical location. The area where

civilisations clash is normally on the boundary between two different civilisations.15

Huntington names these, ‘Fault Line Wars’. However, Fault Line Wars are more limited in

their objectives, an overall Clash of Civilisations. The aim of Fault Line Wars is to take

14 Huntington, Clash, p. 210.15 Ibid, p. 25

9

control and expel the inhabitants, to kill, or to do both.16 These clashes are normally

extremely violent and involve atrocities such as massacres.17 Conflicts are mostly built up

around an area of highly religious significance to both civilisations, given that is the major

feature of a civilisation. Fault Line Wars differ from other communal wars, which are

normally based between ethnic, religious, racial or linguistic groups. As religion is the

defining characteristic of civilisations, Fault Line Wars are almost always between

different religions.18 Therefore a Clash of Civilisations is always between religions.

Fault Line Wars are not easy to dispel and diplomacy has limited impact.19 As mentioned

earlier, Huntington does not see civilisations as political, nor ideological or economical,

and the usual routes for compromise are therefore impacted. Huntington does admit

that treaties and peace are not impossible, but they are very rare and do not last. Rather

Huntington sees that Fault Line Wars (clashes) often escalate and draw in broader

participants from the civilisation. 20 Therefore, a Clash of Civilisations cannot be motivated

by conventional motives, such as material gains. Nor can the clash be concluded by

diplomatic means, as normally conflicts between states can be.

As these fault line wars intensify ‘identity wars’ emerge and the mind-set of “Us vs.

Them” becomes more apparent. Political leaders expand and deepen their appeals to

ethnic and religious loyalties and a civilisations consciousness strengthens in relation to

other identities.21 Religion, if it was not already, becomes a main focus.

‘In the course of the war, multiple identities fade and the identity most meaningful in relation to the conflict comes to dominate. That identity almost always is

16 Ibid, p. 252.17 Ibid, p. 252.18 Ibid, p. 253.19 Ibid, p. 253.20 Ibid, p. 254.21 Ibid, p. 266.

10

defined by religion. Psychologically, religion provides the most reassuring and supportive justification for struggle against ‘godless’ forces, which are threatening. Practically, its religious or civilizational community is the broadest community to which the local group involved in the conflict can appeal support.’22

Conversely, when it comes to religion, in particular Islam and Christianity, the similarities

between the two can be a cause of conflict as much as the differences. As Huntington

analyses, both religions are monotheistic; therefore, they cannot assimilate other deities

easily, as well as seeing the world in us and them dualistic terms.23 Also, both religions are

universalistic, claiming to both be the one true faith that all humans should follow.24 Due

to this, both are missionary religions and believe that they have a duty to convert non-

believers to that one true faith.25 Again, Huntington does not mention whether a clash

would involve conversion, but from his tone, it would seem plausible that it could do and

will be assume so for the purpose of this study.

From this chapter a universal understanding of civilisation as the highest cultural

distinction has been made. The functions that make a civilisation are for example; its

language, way of life and warfare. The main characteristic of a civilisation in the eyes of

Huntington was religion. A civilisation is based around geographical boundaries. A Clash

of Civilisations is the determination to eradicate another civilisation, which is driven by

religious differences. It cannot be politically, economically, or ideologically driven, such as

other conflicts. The conflicts that result from a Clash of Civilisations are known as Fault

Line Wars. However, these are more limited in their objectives, based on the boundaries

of two civilisations. These conflicts are based on the control of territory, which is highly

22 Ibid, p. 267.23 Ibid, p. 210.24 Ibid, p. 210.25 Ibid, p. 210.

11

symbolic for both civilisations. They are extremely violent resulting in events such as

massacres. Alliances and peace treaties are rare and limited due to the religious nature of

these conflicts. As these conflicts evolve a civilisation’s consciousness strengthens. To

Huntington this is seen between Christianity and Islam, and to him a prime example of

this clash, is the crusading period.

12

Chapter 2 – Clermont to Antioch

Introduction

Chapter 1 has ascertained what constitutes a Clash of Civilisations according to

Huntington and its now possible to analyse the First Crusade through his theory. This will

be done by reviewing events of the first half of the First Crusade, in the criteria of

Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations. Firstly, we will see if an “Us vs. Them” attitude is

present, as well as a desire and attempt to eradicate the other. It will then look at unity

and dual interests of both the crusaders and Turks, for Huntington there must be a

unified religious struggle and no political or economic motives. After this, the chapter will

look directly at the religious motives present, and if established, it will then be possible to

determine whether conversion was part of the crusade. In contrast, the chapter will also

discuss the alliances and treaties found during this period. It will finally discuss if the First

Crusade actually involved more than two civilisations by looking at the participation of

the Jews and the Byzantines. In order to give multiple perspectives of events, both

Christian and Arab primary sources will be discussed. However, for some events, such as

the Peasant’s Crusade, only Latin sources are available. From this, a clear understanding

of whether a Clash of Civilisations was present in the first half of the First Crusade can be

demonstrated.

“Us vs. Them” Mentality and Attempt to Eradicate the Other

The main feature of Samuel P. Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations is that an “Us vs. Them”

mentality is enacted. To accord with Huntington, each civilisation should be attempting to

13

eradicate the other. To achieve this, they must have a good understanding of the other’s

characteristics in relation to theirs.

When looking at primary sources and how they refer to the enemy, this is not case.

Throughout the First Crusade, the ethnicity of the Turks is never fully understood by the

crusaders. In their first major encounter with the Turks, the chroniclers when stating

whom they are fighting against either put them in the context of anti-Christian

commonwealth, such as ‘pagan Persians’, ‘devilish’, ‘demons’, or confuse them with

generic terms such as ‘Arabs, Saracens and other peoples.’26 This is again seen when the

relieving Turkish armies attacked the crusaders at Antioch. The governor of Antioch,

when hearing the crusader army was close to Antioch, sent word for reinforcements. The

leaders of Damascus and Aleppo answered his call, leading separate expeditions up to

Antioch. When the Latin chroniclers talk of these armies, again, like in Asia Minor they

are confused by who they are actually fighting. The Gesta Francorum refers to them as

the ‘many Turks, Arabs, and Saracens that had come together from Jerusalem and

Damascus and Aleppo.’ 27 The description of this biggest relief army under Kerbogha is a

prime example of how the Latin chroniclers saw Islam in the context of an anti-Christian

commonwealth. The chroniclers do have an understanding of the names used such as

‘Sultan’ as their king and ‘Caliph’ as their pope, terming them in western ideology.28

However, as Michael Köhler argues, the less a chronicler knew of Islam the more he used

western cultures to explain Islamic functions.29 The Gesta imagines a letter by Kerbogha

26 Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127, trans. Frances Rita Ryan (W. W. Norton: New York, 1973), p. 84; Anonymous, The Deeds of Franks and Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, trans. Rosalind M. T. Hill (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1962), pp. 18-19.27 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 30.28 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 49; Raymond D’Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Ceperunt Iherusalem, trans. John H. Hill and Laurita L. Hill (American Philosophical Society: Philadelphia, 1968), p. 49.29 Michael A. Köhler, Alliances and Treaties between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East: Cross-Cultural Diplomacy in the Period of the Crusades, trans. P.M. Holt, revised by K. Hirschler (BRILL: Leiden,

14

sent to the Caliph, ‘I swear to you by Mohammed and by all names of our Gods.’ 30 This

statement shows that the crusaders saw Muslims as pagans. Again they have learnt very

basic things, such as the word Mohammed; yet, there is no substance behind it. To refer

to many Gods, keeps in the line with the traditional Christian view that the world is

inhabited by heathens; that for one reason or another have not found the one Christian

God. Both these descriptions of the Turks would again support an argument that the

crusaders did not have a basic understanding of whom they were fighting. This therefore

did not meet one of the key criteria to be a Clash of Civilisations.

The same can be said when looking at military tactics used by the Turks. The victory at

Dorylaeum in Asia Minor was the first experience of Turkish war tactics, which were very

different and unexpected to the crusaders. Fulcher and the Gesta mention the use of the

bow by the Turks, and how ‘all such warfare was unknown’ to them.31 It would seem odd

that an enterprise that had been sent to fight a Clash of Civilisations did not have an

understanding of its tactics. As John France points out, while they were surprised by the

tactics, they would have been told beforehand by the Byzantines of what to expect,

which can be confirmed in the Alexiad.32 From Raymond of Aguilers’ account, of one of

battles that occurred outside Antioch, clearly demonstrated the crusaders developed a

greater understanding of the Turkish military tactics:

‘The Turks have a customary method of fighting, even when outnumbered, of attempting to surround their enemies; so in this encounter they did likewise, but the good judgement of Bohemond forestalled their tricks.’33

2013), p. 32.30 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 52.31 Fulcher of Chartres, Jerusalem, p. 85.32 John France, ‘Warfare in the Mediterranean Region in the Age of the Crusaders, 1095-1291, a Clash of Contrasts’, in Conor Kostick (ed.), The Crusades and the Near East (Routledge: New York, 2011), p. 15; Anna Comnena, The Alexiad, trans. E. R. A. Sewter (Penguin: London, 1969), p. 329.33 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, p. 35.

15

Huntington would interpret this as an example of a civilisation’s consciousness growing

stronger as a clash continues. But, this study would argue that it is more plausible to see

this as an adapting attitude to enemy tactics than a greater movement of civilisation

consciousness.

An astonishing aspect of the accounts of the battles with the Turks; especially at

Dorylaeum, is the positive note from the Latin chroniclers, especially in the Gesta, on the

skills of the Turkish army. Fulcher of Chartres, mentions the Turks as, ‘a valiant race from

the East skilled with the bow,’34 while the Gesta is almost in awe of their fighting skills:

‘They have a saying that they are if common stock with the Franks and themselves, are naturally born to the knights. This is true, and nobody can deny it, that if only they had stood firm in the faith of Christ and holy Christendom…could you find a stronger or braver or more skilful soldiers.’35

To Alan Cutler this shows the tolerance that had arisen among the crusaders, and that

this had occurred, as they had wanted to convert the Turks.36 Cutler is right that a sign of

tolerance can be seen from at least the knights of the crusade. However, his belief that

this was due to a need to convert due to the phrase ‘if only’ is a tenuous link. This

statement is better understood in the context of the chivalric culture of aristocracy of

eleventh and twelfth century, based around the heroics of the knightly classes.37 Chivalry

was based on a mutual respect of warfare. During the eleventh and twelfth century it was

at its pinnacle. Stories such as King Arthur were popular at this time, so these comments

can be linked to the ‘good’ enemy.

34 Fulcher of Chartres, Jerusalem, p. 80.35 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 21.36 Alan Cutler, ‘The First Crusade and the Idea of Conversion’, The Muslim World, 58: 1 (1968), pp. 63-64.37 Richard Barber, The Reign of Chivalry (Boydell: Woodbridge, 2005), p. 45.

16

The crusade was also an attempt by the church to take control of the knightly classes who

were unruly. The chivalric culture was the stark opposite of what the church was trying to

promote with its religious culture and shows that there was a duality of cultures present

among the knightly classes.38 The mixture of chivalric and religious statements of the

chroniclers can confirm this; Fulcher blamed the horrors of the battle on the sin of the

crusaders, while both Fulcher and Raymond believed that the victory was a miracle due

to the direct intervention of God.39 Comments such as these are regular occurrences in

any major event whether bad or good in the First Crusade. It confirms the arguments of

Jonathan Riley-Smith that above all claims the crusade was motivated by religion.40

Dualistic Motives and Unity

During the first half of the crusade, unity is an issue that appears throughout, especially

an issue for the Muslims. For Huntington, a Clash of Civilisations is a unified conflict for

the name of said religion. But when examining the sources closely, two factors that

contradict Huntington’s claim are present.

For the crusaders, it is the duality of interest seen by the knightly classes. Although this is

more present in the second half of the crusade, its roots can be seen early on. Baldwin of

Boulogne and Tancred led separate expeditions into Armenian territory in Cilicia. During

this minor campaign, a quarrel broke out between the two over the Turkish garrisoned

city, Tarsus. According to the Gesta, Tancred and local Christians fought to take control of

the city. Baldwin arrived latter with a superior force, and asked for a friendly agreement

over the city, which was refused by Tancred. The Turkish garrison left in the cover of the

38 Jonathan Riley-Smith, Crusades, Christianity and Islam (Columbia University Press: New York, 2011), p. 20.39 Fulcher of Chartres, Jerusalem, pp. 85-87; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, p. 28.40 Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (University of Pennsylvania Press: Philadelphia, 2009), pp. 91-92.

17

night and the inhabitants offered the city to the lords. Due to Baldwin’s greater force he

took the city.41 Steven Runicman argues that the motives of the crusader nobility were

based on material gains,42 something this event could be seen to show, but modern

historians argue that religion was the main motive, as put forward by Riley-Smith.

Riley-Smith uses the charter accounts from France to argue that going on crusade was a

financial burden. He also attacks the notions of material motives, such as only second

sons, with no inheritance went on crusade.43 Thomas Asbridge agrees with Riley-Smith,

adding that looking at the pilgrimage aspects and that so many left for home after the

capture of Jerusalem, proves that religion was the main motive.44 In this instance we must

assume there was at least a duality of motives around gain and religion, even Riley-Smith

admits that some members did attend the crusade to better themselves.45 This would

mean that political and economic motives are present in at least some of the crusader

lords. To Huntington’s theory this would be unacceptable, as a Clash of Civilisations must

be solely religiously motivated.

When looking at unity from the Muslim side, a fragmented political scene is seen

throughout the Near East. When the crusaders entered Syria, they were met with little

resistance. These reasons are heavily linked to the decades before the arrival of the

crusaders. Firstly, the Seljuk Turks had invaded and conquered the Middle East in the

1040s. The region was inhabited by many different ethnic groups, and many did not like

their Turkish overlords. When the crusaders arrived at Antioch, many local towns and

41 Anonymous, Deeds, pp. 24-25.42 Steven Runicman, A History of the Crusades: Volume One: The First Crusade and the Foundation of Kingdom of Jerusalem (Penguin: London, 1990), p. 114.43 Riley-Smith, First Crusade, pp. 36-39 & p. 47.44 Thomas Asbridge, The Crusaders: The War for the Holy Land (Simon & Schuster: London, 2010), p. 106.45 Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A History (Continuum, London: 2005), p. 30.

18

castles rose up against their Turkish garrisons.46 The ability to do this had arisen by the

political crisis during the 1090s. The Seljuk Empire had been held together by strong

leadership, as it was ruling as a minority. However, the death of Malik-Shah in 1092 saw

various Seljuk claimants to the sultan’s throne, sparking infighting between the different

lords. As the power vacuum was created, it enabled many cities to become

independent.47 As Köhler points out, this is a major reason for the non-existent resistance

the crusaders faced, as well as the defining characterises that enabled cross-cultural

diplomacy.48 This political instability was also inflamed by the ongoing conflict between

the Sunni Seljuks and Shi’ite Fatimids in Egypt. This Sunni Shi’ite divide, is another key

factor as to why the crusaders fitted perfectly into the political landscape of the Near

East.49

It can be argued that the Turks didn’t know the crusaders were coming. However, some

Arab sources comment that the Turks in Syria knew a huge Frankish army was heading

towards them.50 As the crusaders began to siege Antioch in Syria the Turkish overloads

were in the minority, compared to the local Arabs, Christians and Jews. Cities throughout

the Near East had strong autonomous power and many locals took the opportunity to

rebel. Yet, it is noted by the Latin chroniclers that many of the local Christians in Antioch

were helping their Turkish overload. This was either by spying on the Crusaders,

delivering supplies to the Turks, or by hiking up food prices when crusaders were

starving.51

46 Ibn al-Qalanisi, The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, trans. H. A. R. Gibb (Dover Publications: Mineola, 2002), pp. 41-44; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 34-35.47 Niall Christie, Muslims and Crusaders: Christianity’s Wars in the Middle East, 1095-1382, From the Islamic Sources (Taylor & Francis, 2014), pp. 15-17.48 Köhler, Alliances, p. 7.49 Christie, Muslims, pp. 15-17.50 Ibn al-Qalanisi, Damascus, pp. 41-44.51 Fulcher of Chartres, Jerusalem, p. 97; Anonymous, Deeds, p. 29.

19

The Arab sources mention that the Christians were expelled from Antioch.52 However,

this was a wartime procedure and not religiously motivated.53 Contrasting actions by the

local populations in northern Syria was consistent with the mixed response of the Muslim

world to the crusade. Here was evidence that the crusade took part on the boundary of

two separate civilisations. Yet, this is a minimal factor, when comparing the disunity and

dualistic motives shown on both sides. This becomes more evident when looking into the

details of why Kerbogha’s army was defeated.

First it is important to note that Antioch was supplied with three relieving armies from

Syria. However, when looking at the armies’ leadership, especially Kerbogha’s army, it

indicates as shown by the Baldwin and Tancred quarrel, that dualistic motives were seen.

Both Ibn al-Athir and Ibn al-Qalanisi mention the harsh and arrogant leadership skills of

Kerbogha. The army was comprised of many different emirs from around Syria. Yet, some

important emirs, such as Ridwan of Aleppo, had not joined this army. From Ibn al-Athir’s

account of the events, many of the emirs had lost patience with how Kerbogha was

treating them. Therefore, they had decided to abandon him when the battle

commenced.54 Ibn Al-Qalanisi does not mention that the emirs had planned to leave

Kerbogha but when the Franks had broken the Islamic lines, they turned and fled.55 Both

these accounts demonstrate the relieving Muslim army was not a unified Muslim army. It

was also not one of Jihad as shown by the amount of different emirs, who it would seem

had their own interests at heart rather than simply fighting the Frankish intrudes.56

52 Ibn al-Qalanisi, Damascus, pp. 41-44; Ibn al-Athir, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’ rich. Part 1, The Years 491-541/1097-1146: The Coming of the Franks and the Muslim Response, trans. D. S. Richards (Ashgate: Farnham, 2010), p. 14.53 Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1999), p. 68; Amin Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (Saqi Essentials: London, 2006), p. 19.54 Ibn al-Athir, Chronicle, p. 16.55 Ibn al-Qalanisi, Damascus, pp. 44-46.56 Hillenbrand, Perspectives, p. 33.

20

Religion

Religion is the main characteristic of Huntington’s Clash of Civilisations. As discussed

earlier, modern historiography has placed religion as the main motive of the crusaders.

Riley-Smith leads this interpretation of the First Crusade. Throughout the crusade, the

descriptions of visions and God’s direct involvement in the crusade is present. A prime

example of religion, being an important feature of the crusade is the finding of the Holy

Lance in Antioch.

After the crusaders had spent nine months besieging Antioch, they were instantly

besieged themselves by Kerbogha. During this time, the crusaders were exhausted while

suffering from starvation and famine that had led to some desertion. When the crusaders

were at their lowest, there was a vision by Peter Bartholomew, that told him to find the

Holy Lance (the lance that pierced Jesus Christ), which would guarantee the victory of the

crusaders. It is important to note that amongst the main leaders of the crusade, an

element of doubt surrounds the discovery of the Holy Lance. The fact that only Raymond

of Toulouse believed it outright can be seen as one of the causes that divisions began to

rise.57 Yet although many of the leaders doubted this vision and discovery, this had little

bearing on the mass of pilgrims and common crusaders. Although, the motives and views

of the common crusaders is hard to present as medieval historians did not focus on their

views. Also, the majority of them were illiterate so could not record their views. It is clear

that morale was extremely low during the siege, with the army outside and starvation

and famine within the walls. The relic was a much needed boost for many of the common

crusaders who saw the crusade solely as a pilgrimage to Jerusalem. This, as with other

57 Anonymous, Deeds, pp. 59-60; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 51-54; Fulcher of Chartres, Jerusalem, p. 100.

21

miracles before, was proof of God’s will that would bring success to them.58 When they

rode out to fight the Turkish army, many had not eaten or rested properly for months,

the spiritual strength it would take for many to do this cannot be understated. This along

with the features of martyrdom is a strong indication that this was, a religious war, above

anything else.

An important side note to the religious argument during the First Crusade is the nomadic

nature of Seljuk Turks. An example of this, is the remark by the Gesta on the burial of

Turks; ‘they buried cloaks, gold bezants, bows, arrows and other tools the names of

which we do not know.’59 It has traditionally been assumed by historians that the Seljuk

Turks, who originated from the nomadic central Asian Steppes, had assimilated in to

Sunni Islamic culture rapidly. The Seljuk Sultans went to great lengths to portray

themselves as pious Sunni Muslims and so many historians have taken this at face value.60

However, recent historiography has questioned this attitude. D. G. Tor has looked

extensively into the Sultans of the Seljuks. He comes to conclusion that there was a mixed

level affiliation into Islamic culture. Although the majority of Sultans were pious Muslims,

they still continued to keep a strong tradition of nomadic features.61 Yet, there is strong

case that conversion to Islam was a slower process then original believed. Therefore, it is

plausible that the lower classes of the Seljuks had may have not fully converted by the

First Crusade.62 In relation to a Clash of Civilisations, serious questions can be asked if this

was a staunch Muslim country the crusaders with arriving in. The fact that the political 58 Riley-Smith, First Crusade, pp. 92-93.59 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 42.60 Omid Safi, The Politics of Knowledge in Premodern Islam: Negotiating Ideology and Religious Inquiry (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 2006), pp. 1-4.61 D. G. Tor, ‘’Sovereign and Pious’: The Religious Life of the Great Seljuq Sultans’, in Christian Lange & Songul Mecit (eds.), The Seljuqs: Politics, Society and Culture (Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 2011), pp. 41-48.62 Nicholas Morton, ‘The Saljuq Turks’ Conversion to Islam: The Crusading Sources’, Al- Masāq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 27: 2 (2015), p. 118.

22

scene was so fragmented hardened the notion that Christianity and Islam were not

fighting a Clash of Civilisations.

Conversion

In assessing whether attempts to wipe out each other’s civilisation took place, we must

also look at the role of conversion. As discussed in chapter 1, there is vagueness about

whether conversion should be seen as a defining characteristic of a clash. However, as

Huntington mentions the importance of it to Christianity, it should be seen as an attempt

to wipe out the other. There are two incidents were conversion is involved.

The first is during the Peasant’s Crusade in the Rhineland. There is evidence that Jews

were offered the opportunity to covert, and in some instances, baptism or death.63 Yet,

this was not the stance of the church. Alan Cutler’s article on conversion in the First

Crusade, reveals that the attempt to convert the Jews and Muslims, was due to Medieval

Christians seeing them as closely linked.64 While Albert of Aachen states that the Christian

Lord does not demand anyone to convert by force to the Catholic Faith, ‘Since God is a

just judge and commands no one come under the yoke of the Catholic Faith against his

will or under compulsion.’65 This would indicate that forced conversion was not an

agenda of the papacy. When looking at the other examples of religious demands, it would

suggest that conversion as a whole, was not part of the crusading ideology.

The second example is an attempt to convert Kerbogha by Peter the Hermit. This is

discussed by Cutler, who sees this as the pinnacle event for conversion; having already

used the attempts to convert the Jews in the Rhineland, and the positive comments on 63 Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem, trans. Susan Edgington (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 2007), p. 53.64 Cutler, ‘Conversion’, p. 60.65 Albert of Aachen, Historia, p. 59.

23

the Turks, Cutler attempts to show that the crusaders were tolerant in their approach to

their Muslim counterparts.

With the finding of the Holy Lance, a religious enthusiasm had been stirred, which could

only be satisfied by conversion.66 For Cutler this is shown in the reconversion of Firuz;

which was in line with Urban II’s plan for the crusade. Furthermore, Urban II was a

disciple of Gregory VII, from whom he had inherited his crusading and conversion

ideology.67 He especially focuses on Peter the Hermit, who having spent time with the

Byzantines, comes to share their views on conversion, which was positive, according to

Cutler.68 To Cutler, these factors enabled Peter to attempt to convert Kerbogha when he

was sent to try and negotiate a deal. To Cutler, this event proves that the crusaders were

serious about conversion; as will be shown there are serious flaws in his argument.

The Franks had tried on multiple occasions to come to some sort of agreement as at least

one envoy is mentioned by each of the main chroniclers. All sources agreed that Peter the

Hermit and a translator were sent to Kerbogha’s camp. Fulcher mentions that Peter was

sent to offer a contest of champions to decide the outcome of the battle.69 This is in line

with the social structure of knightly warfare in the West. Whereas, Raymond of Aguilers

and Anselm of Ribemont only mentioned that Peter had been sent to Kerbogha. Cutler

has interpreted that the Gesta implies that Peter attempted a conversion.70 Yet, he is

wrong in his thinking, the Gesta does not mention that Peter attempted to convert the

Turkish leader but asked if he wanted to be Christian as he was attacking Christian land. If

not, they may leave, or be defeated in battle.71 66 Cutler, ‘Conversion’, pp. 63-64.67 Cutler, ‘Conversion’, pp. 57-58.68 Cutler, ‘Conversion’, p. 60.69 Cutler, ‘Conversion’, pp. 63-66.70 Cutler, ‘Conversion’, pp. 63-66.71 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 65-66.

24

The Gesta is the only source to mention this conversion according to Cutler who attempts

to dismiss the other three sources, as they do not agree with his theory. Furthermore, the

events that involved leaders would have more substance coming from Raymond of

Aguilers, the chaplain of Count Raymond of Toulouse. The limited knowledge known of

the author of the Gesta points to him being a knight of Southern Norman descent,

meaning he wouldn’t have been able to comment with any reliability on the motives of

the leaders, such as Raymond of Aguilers. Cutler continues, Peter had been sent, as the

leaders feared they might be killed.

The leaders had agreed that they would offer an ultimatum to Kerbogha. He must leave

Antioch or be driven by force, if this failed they would offer a battle of champions. Cutler

continues by stating that Peter in Kerbogha’s camp decided to offer conversion instead.

Kerbogha was so outraged that instead he counter-offered conversion.72 Cutler’s links are

tenuous and have no evidence to back-up his claims. Yvonne Friedman claims a possible

reason Kerbogha may have rejected the terms by the crusaders leaders was because he

felt sending Peter; with his poor clothing, was an insult, yet to the crusader leaders he is a

sign of high esteem, as Peter was an important figure during the crusade. 73 Cutler’s

argument for conversion when closely examined is severely flawed. The fact that

Kerbogha reacted badly to Peter is proof that cultural differences were enough to cause

friction, and, an understanding of the other was still not present.

Alliance and Treaties

72 Cutler, ‘Conversion’, p. 6773 Yvonne Friedman, ‘Peacemaking, Perceptions and Practices in the Medieval Latin East’, in Conor Kostick (ed.), The Crusades and the Near East (Routledge: New York, 2011), p. 239.

25

Huntington makes it very clear that a Clash of Civilisations can have no alliances and

peace treaties. During the first half of the crusade, there were two major events of

diplomacy with Muslim counterparts. These both involved Baldwin of Boulogne who after

crossing Asia Minor with the main body of the crusade, separated into a smaller

contingent, venturing into Armenian territory. During this time, a local Armenian ruler

named Thoros at Edessa asked him for help, who was having trouble with a local Muslim

emir, and in return for his help, adopted Baldwin’s. During this episode, Thoros was

overthrew by his people, placing Baldwin in control.

Baldwin made a deal with the aggressive emir, Balduk of Samosata. This, according to

Albert of Aachen was that Balduk would offer Samosata to Baldwin for 10,000 bezants, as

well as offering himself as a mercenary. Baldwin was reluctant, but on the advice of his

men and the offer of hostages by Balduk, the deal was agreed. 74

Another area near Edessa was also dealt with through diplomatic solutions. The version

given by the Chronicon ad A.C, 1234 pertinenes, states that Balak who was in charge of

the city Sororgia, had surrendered the city to Baldwin after believing the area was

untenable from Frankish and Armenian raids.75 However, Albert of Aachen gives a

different account. Balak had made an alliance with Baldwin after the town had rebelled

against him. The city had hired Turkish mercenaries, but sought a peaceful settlement

when they saw the Frankish advance, giving gifts and agreeing to pay tribute.76 As Köhler

concludes, both these sources come to the same outcome of a peace treaty, including

oaths, which were secured from both the Turks and the Franks.

74 Albert of Aachen, Historia, p. 177.75 This source Chronicon ad A.C, 1234 pertinenes is found in: Köhler, Alliances, pp. 37-38.76 Albert of Aachen, Historia, p. 179.

26

More striking is that a city inhabited by Muslims was willing to surrender with a tribute

demanded. There was no forcible conversion or any sort of religious demands. Although

Fulcher of Chartres or Matthew of Edessa do not comment on the event, its historicity is

sound, as Ekkehard of Aura had heard of it three years later.77 From both sides it is

remarkable as both Christians and Muslims were willing to make deals by peaceful

means. Sororgia was quite willing to accept Baldwin. Huntington is explicit in his criteria

that peace and alliances cannot happen in a Clash of Civilisations. This raises further

doubts that such a clash was prominent in the first half of the First Crusade.

Additional Civilisations to Christianity and Islam

Huntington mentions that a Clash of Civilisations is based solely on two civilisations, with

only further participants coming from the civilisations already involved. When looking at

the Peasant’s Crusade treatment of the Jewish communities in Europe, this criterion is

breached.

In 1096 members of the Crusade started to massacre and destroy Jewish settlements

across the Rhineland. This movement continued throughout Europe, splitting into smaller

groups with Peter the Hermit leading into Asia Minor, getting wiped out by the Turks

after crossing the Bosporus. The other major group caused chaos as it continued through

Hungary. However, the Hungarian king annihilated this group. The primary source

material on this event is limited to two chroniclers, Albert of Aachen and Ekkehard of

Aura. The motives behind this assault on the Jewish people are not clear-cut. It has been

seen a cover, so that they could steal Jewish possessions. A view that is supported by

Albert of Aachen, and a treatment of the race that was not uncommon in Europe at the

77 Köhler, Alliances, pp. 37-38.

27

time. However, Ekkehard of Aura, gave a differing viewpoint, pinpointing religious zeal,

‘They either utterly destroyed the execrable race of the Jews wherever they found them

(being even in this matter zealously devoted to the Christian religion) or forced them into

the bosom of the Church.’78

When assessing whether the attacks on the Jewish people constitute a Clash of

Civilisations, there are two points to consider. Firstly, if we take religion to be the key

motive, then on the surface it would appear that the Peasant’s Crusade meets

Huntington’s criteria for a Clash of Civilisations. There was extreme violence in the form

of massacres and an attempt to wipe out another culture, with a clear understanding of

the differences between the two. One must also remember that the First Crusade was

never intended against Jews. The sermons of Urban II evoked religious zeal, but, there

was no mention of an anti-Jewish sentiment in all five versions of his sermon in Clermont

with clergymen trying to combat violence towards Jews.

The comparison with the Second Crusade shows that the papacy learnt from the mistakes

of the first. In the papal bull, Quantum praedecessores (1145); the clarity of its

instructions was a key aspect of the document to ensure the message was not

misconstrued as it was with the First Crusade.79 Additionally, Bernard of Clairvaux, while

preaching for recruitment, also strictly told his audiences to not harm Jews as it was not

in teaching with God.80 The Jewish people were firmly established in Europe by the

eleventh century. Most likely, they were attacked because they were part of the anti-

Christian commonwealth that were seen as heathens for not being Christian.

78 This quotation by Ekkehard of Aura found in: Andrew Holt, & James Muldoon, Competing Voices from The Crusaders: Fighting Words (Greenwood World Publishing: London, 2008), p. 31.79 Jonathan Phillips, Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers (Yale University Press, 2008), p. 58.80 Phillips, Second Crusade, pp. 86-86.

28

Thomas Asbridge alludes to, Urban II unleashing a ‘Pandora’s box’ of religious

intolerance. Crucially, should anti-Semitic behaviour be seen as a Clash of Civilisations?81

Robert Chazen believes not, given that there was no anti-Jewish objective for the First

Crusade, and most contemporary chroniclers did not comment on the event.82 Albert of

Aachen views these actions in disdain.83 The significance however still remains that

crusaders could determine their own interpretation of the purpose of a crusade and

whom it was against, although not always falling in line with Papal intentions.

The treatment of the Jews twice breaches the criteria for Clash of Civilisations. Firstly, the

confusion of whom the crusaders were fighting when in East. Understanding of another

civilisation is clearly not shown, as Judaism was not the targeted society. Secondly, the

inclusion of Jews would mean that this Clash includes more than two civilisations, which

Huntington clearly argues cannot happen.

The same issue of multiple civilisations is seen when looking at the relationship between

Byzantines and Western Christendom, as Huntington includes them in the same

civilisation. There was major disunity between them, which would also go against

Huntington’s criteria, since the Western Roman Empire had collapsed with the sack of

Rome by Alaric in 410. The Byzantines had taken the mantel as the leading culture of the

Christians. However, there was disunity amongst the Byzantines and crusaders, led by

historical conflict between the Southern Normans and Greeks over the Norman invasion

two decades before.84 The Gesta constantly refers to the ‘evil’ Greek emperor throughout

its earlier passages, while Alexiad is bitter to the Normans, attacking Bohemond.85 The 81 Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict Between Christianity and Islam (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2005), pp. 84-85.82 Robert Chazan, European Jewry and the First Crusade (University of California Press, 1987), pp. 38-39.83 Albert of Aachen, Historia, p. 51.84 Jonathan Harris, Byzantium and the Crusades (Bloomsbury Academic: London, 2014), p. 62.85 Anonymous, Deeds, pp. 5-13; Comnena, Alexiad, pp. 326-328.

29

crusaders were harassed throughout the Greek territory as Anna Comnena states, ‘He

feared the incursions of these people, for he had already experienced the savage fury of

their attack, their fickleness of mind, and their readiness to approach anything with

violence.’86

Köhler states that the Byzantine Court had no understanding of the mentality of the

crusaders, and before they arrived, the Byzantines made numerous treaties and alliances

with their Turkish counterparts in Asia Minor.87 As each separate contingent arrived in

Greek territory, the Emperor Alexius I attempted to extract an oath from the leaders that

any land taken back from the Seljuk Turks, which had formerly been Byzantine territory,

was to be given back. Though the leaders eventually gave oath, it caused many issues,

and in some cases, led to open conflict with the Imperial Army itself. Jonathan Harris

argues, the Byzantines dealings with the crusaders were nothing new. They had always

dealt with outsiders with an air of superiority that was integral to their society. Ironically,

the only outsiders they didn’t do this too were their Muslim neighbours who were often

as wealthy and culturally advanced like the Byzantines.88

Both the crusade leader’s and the Byzantines felt themselves superior. The Christians as

the army was for Christ and aimed to free Jerusalem, while the Byzantines felt their

interests should be secured first as that was the crusades original intention.89 Using

Huntington, the differences of language and way of life are marginal to that of religion.

From this evidence, it is clear the crusaders and Byzantines did not believe themselves to

be cultural same, let fighting united against Islam. Instead, to the Byzantines, the

86 This quotation by Anna Comnena found in: August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-Witnesses and Participants (Evolution Publishing: 2012), p. 69.87 Köhler, Alliances, p. 23.88 Harris, Byzantium, p. 65.89 Harris, Byzantium, pp. 65-66.

30

crusaders were an uncontrollable mob that was more a hindrance than help. To the

crusaders, the Byzantines were a wealthy fickle nation that followed an alien Christianity.

The major example of where crusader and Byzantine interests conflict during the first half

of crusade is the siege of Nicaea in Asia Minor (1097). The city surrendered to the

Byzantine Emperor after a substantial siege from the crusaders. All three main Latin

chroniclers comment on this surrender by the Turkish garrison with disdain. Although all

differ slightly on the details of the surrender, the fact that the crusading army was not

allowed to plunder the city lead to more anti-Greek sentiments.90 This was also the first

instance that a Turkish force was allowed to surrender and leave under safe-conduct,

demonstrating the Byzantines had no issues conducting treaties with the Turks as they

had done before. Latin Chroniclers do not mention this detail with any outrage, and some

do not mention it, all while the Byzantines continued to employ Turks as mercenaries.91

These mercenaries harassed the crusaders during their journey to Constantinople,

according to Raymond of Aguilers.92 This indicates that the Byzantines were happy to deal

with the Turkish ‘Muslims’ in most social norms in complete contradiction with

Huntington’s clash.

Conclusion

From the evidence it is possible to come to a conclusion whether a Clash of Civilisations

did occur during the first half of the First Crusade. From the standpoint of an “Us vs.

Them” consensus and an attempt to wipe out the other, this was clearly not enacted.

Primary sources show the crusaders did not have an understanding of whom they were

90 Fulcher of Chartres, Jerusalem, p. 82; Anonymous, Deeds, p. 17; Raymond D’Aguilers, Historia, pp. 25-27.91 Harris, Byzantium, p. 46.92 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 16-19.

31

fighting. In contrast, in terms of military skill, the Latin chroniclers are praiseworthy of

their counterparts. During the crusade, the knightly classes were influenced by chivalric

culture, contradicted by their religion. Furthermore, if the crusaders were fighting a Clash

of Civilisations, then according to Huntington’s theory, they must have an understanding

of the others differences. This is evidently not the case. Instead the Latin sources refer to

their Muslim counterparts in the context of an anti-Christian commonwealth, leading to

the factor of whether unity was seen in both sides. For Muslims, this was not the case.

The political situation was locked, as it was before the crusade with separate autonomous

Arab lords acting selfishly before religious motives. Therefore, when the crusaders

arrived, they entered a fragmented Islamic world. However, the unity of the crusaders is

not clear-cut either. The quarrel between Tancred and Baldwin showed that at least some

crusader lords had dualistic motives while crusading. Huntington stated a Clash of

Civilisations must be religiously motivated, nothing more. Evidence indicates this was not

the case, not to say that the crusade for the majority was not religiously motivated. The

finding of the Holy Lance, as well as the visions, and pilgrimage proved many were

religiously motivated, as Riley-Smith would argue. The context of a Clash of Civilisations

does not immediately point to a clash occurring. As seen with the understanding of the

other’s differences, there is no clear indication that they knew who and what culture they

were really fighting. In addition, alliances and peace treaties were seen with Baldwin in

Edessa, which would be another breach of the criteria of a Clash, likewise when looking at

the treatment of Jews and the Byzantine western relationship. It would suggest that the

First Crusade was not based on two civilisations, but four or five, if chivalry is seen as a

culture on its own. The cultural differences between Western Christendom and

Byzantium, which Huntington would seek to class as irrelevant in contrast to the religious

32

differences, were big enough issues to cause major rifts. These reasons cast major doubts

over whether a Clash of Civilisations did take place during the First Crusade, but, it is

certain that a clash was not present during the first half of it.

33

Chapter 3 – Antioch to Jerusalem

Introduction

To establish whether a Clash of Civilisations did take place, this chapter will focus on

whether a consciousness of other civilisations was prominent amongst the crusaders

after the defeat of Kerbogha at Antioch. If there was an “Us vs. Them” mentality, and

whether an attempt was made by one civilisation to wipe out the other, it will also

inspect whether extreme violence occurred and if peace or alliances were made between

the crusaders and their Islamic counterparts. Close attention will also be paid to whether

the events could be seen as political, ideological or economical driven, which would, for

Huntington, exclude the events from being seen as a Clash of Civilisations.

Primacy sources from both the Latin and Arab sides give multiple perspectives on the

events. As previously discussed, the Latin primary sources continue to refer to their

enemies in generic terms of ethnicity, such as ‘Turks’, ‘Arabs’ and ‘Saracens’. They are

often referenced as ‘pagans’ and there is no distinction between their religions, as they

are simply seen as the anti-commonwealth of Christianity.

Divisions in The Crusading Army

Huntington is explicit in his argument that a Clash of Civilisations is a unified religious

movement. It’s naïve to believe divisions would not arise during the crusade. However,

the motives behind the divisions at Antioch open up the question of political and

economic motives, which would be unacceptable to Huntington.

34

After the defeat of Kerbogha, the army was fatigued and the crusade leaders agreed that

they would wait before continuing their march south. During this time, divisions within

the leadership began to emerge, mainly involving Count Raymond. The main dispute was

over the ownership of Antioch, leading to the crusade being delayed. This was further

compounded by the death of papal legate, Adhemar of Le Puy, who had previously

managed to control leadership differences. Bohemond believed the city was now

rightfully his, as he conquered it. Count Raymond argued that every leader, bar himself,

had taken an oath to Alexius to return the city to him. Many sided with Bohemond,

especially after they discovered Alexius had turned around a relief army when told of

their dire situation by Stephen of Blois. This disagreement was based on the material

motives of both Bohemond and Count Raymond. It’s agreed that Bohemond, out of all

the crusade leaders, was looking to create a lordship for himself.93 The same can be said

for Count Raymond, especially when looking at his actions in Tripoli. The disunity of the

army and the dualistic nature of some of the leaders, looking for materialistic gains,

would suggest the crusade was not solely religiously motivated.

Alan Murray’s article on the effects of national identity and conflict in the First Crusade

raise some points which contextualise why internal conflict began. Eleventh century

national identity was not as it is today. Firstly, dukes and lords could challenge kings,

although a king was anointed and thus seen as legitimate leader. No kings took part in

the crusade, so there was opportunity for contention between the leadership for power.

Secondly, the First Crusade was unique in that it saw the broadest response in social and

geographical terms, with many linguistic contingents. Although Latin was used mainly for

admin, church and law, the majority of medieval people only knew local language.

93 Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A History (Continuum, London: 2005), p. 30.

35

Murray observes modern historians have assumed language was not an issue in the First

Crusade,94 and many sources refer to all crusaders as Franks, which makes it hard to draw

a clear conclusion on whether language was an issue. Fulcher of Charters comments on

how many different languages went on Crusade, and that many could not talk to each

other.95 During disputes, it was natural for individuals to rally around a leader of their

shared language.96 Ralph of Caen reports the dispute between Bohemond and Count

Raymond stemmed outside the walls of Antioch when foraging parties had been set out

in linguistic groups which violently clashed.97 As with the Byzantines, the fact that

linguistic groups could cause violent internal conflict works against Huntington’s

argument that other cultural issues are irrelevant compared to religion and questions

whether this could be seen as a Clash of Civilisations.

Extreme Violence (Massacres)

Huntington discusses that Clash of Civilisations are always events of extreme violence.

When looking at the crusades, two major massacres occurred; the first at Ma’arrat an-

Nu’man and the second after the capture of Jerusalem 1099. Both events are found in the

majority of the chroniclers, Latin and Arab. Traditional interpretations of these events,

especially Ma’arrat an-Nu’man, have believed that this began the start of the conflict of

hatred between Christianity and Islam, events which the Islamic poets and chroniclers

would not let fade into memories.98 Amin Maalouf argues that this event caused, ‘A

94 Alan V. Murray, ‘National Identity, Language and Conflict in the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1096 – 1192’, in Conor Kostick (ed.), The Crusades and the Near East (Routledge: New York, 2011), pp. 111-115.95 Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127, trans. Frances Rita Ryan (W. W. Norton: New York, 1973), p. 88.96 Murray, ‘National Identity’, pp. 117-118.97 Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi of Ralph of Caen: A History of Normans on the First Crusade, trans. Bernard S. Bachrach and David S. Bachrach (Ashgate: Aldershot, 2005), p. 117.98 Amin Maalouf, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (Saqi Essentials: London, 2006), pp. 39-40.

36

chasm between the Arabs and the Franj (Franks) that would not be bridged for

centuries.’99 As the massacre of Ma’arrat an-Nu’man was undoubtedly an atrocity, it

would be easy to assume one criteria for a Clash of Civilisations was met. However, when

looking closely at sources, it’s not so clear cut. Latin sources refer to the slaughter of the

city, but not for religious reasons, rather crusaders looked to plunder as they were

starving.100 The most disturbing element of Ma’arrat an-Nu’man, in Latin texts, was the

cannibalism of the crusaders, eating the dead bodies of the population.101 This

significantly horrifying aspect of the massacre was not mention by Arab sources, with Ibn

al-Athir commenting on the massacre but in no great detail.102 Ibn al-Qalanisi reports that

Franks offered terms on multiple occasions, stating that if the city surrendered and

accepted Frankish suzerainty, occupants would be spared,103 although this is not verified

by other sources.

The other major massacre happened after the capture of Jerusalem in 1099. In Latin

sources, the language is far more vivid than that of Ma’arrat an-Nu’man. The Gesta tells

of, ‘Such a massacre that our men were wading up to their ankles in blood.’104 This

expressive detail is also shown by Raymond of Aguilers, ‘The Temple of Solomon and the

portico crusaders rode in blood to the knees and bridles of their horses. In my opinion

99 Maalouf, Crusades, pp. 39-40.100 Raymond D’Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Ceperunt Iherusalem, trans. John H. Hill and Laurita L. Hill (American Philosophical Society: Philadelphia, 1968), pp. 76-79; The Deeds of Franks and Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, trans. Rosalind M. T. Hill (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1962), pp. 79-80.101 Anonymous, Deeds, pp. 79-80; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 81.102 Ibn al-Athir, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’ rich. Part 1, The Years 491-541/1097-1146: The Coming of the Franks and the Muslim Response, trans. D. S. Richards (Ashgate: Farnham, 2010), p. 18.103 Ibn al-Qalanisi, The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, trans. H. A. R. Gibb (Dover Publications: Mineola, 2002), pp. 46-49.104 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 91.

37

this was poetic justice that the Temple of Solomon should receive the blood of pagans

who blasphemed God for many years.’105

Similar reports are found in the Arab sources, which comment the slaughter horrors,

though numbers of those killed may have been exaggerated106 As in Ma’arrat an-Nu’man,

this massacre is one of the worse actions performed by the Franks during the crusade.

For Steven Runicman, this massacre was the start of the conflict between Christianity and

Islam,107 just as Ma’arrat an-Nu’man had been for Maalouf. All sources, both Latin and

Arabic, refer to some key points about the massacre. Firstly, the mind-set of the Franks

must be put in context. They had just reached their goal of Jerusalem, defying the odds

and overcoming several low periods. For them, the massacre could have been a huge

emotional release. Secondly, in terms of a Clash of Civilisations between Christendom and

Islam, not only Muslims were killed, but also Jews.108 Also an Egyptian garrison that

managed to hold the Tower of David were allowed to leave in safe-conduct from the

city.109

It is clear that extreme violence was committed from the examples. However, there is

evidence to suggest that the massacres were not, in the case of Ma’arrat an-Nu’man,

religiously motivate, or in Jerusalem’s case, aimed solely at Muslims. It’s important to

view these massacres within the context of their era and not with modern perceptions.

During the medieval period, massacres or extreme violence were part of warfare.110 While

Murray agrees with this, he argues because the massacre lasted over three days, only the

105 Raymond D’Aguilers, Historia, pp. 127-128.106 Ibn al-Qalanisi, Damascus, pp. 46-49; Ibn al-Athir, Chronicle, p. 21.107 Steven Runicman, A History of the Crusades: Volume One: The First Crusade and the Foundation of Kingdom of Jerusalem (Penguin: London, 1990), p. 286-287.108 Ibn al-Qalanisi, Damascus, pp. 46-49.109 Raymond D’Aguilers, Historia, pp. 127-128; Anonymous, Deeds, p. 92; Ibn al-Athir, Chronicle, p. 21.110 John France, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade (Cambridge University Press: Cambridge. 1994), pp. 355– 56.

38

first day could be argued to be part of everyday warfare and the following days a

necessary military action to secure Jerusalem, similar to the way the Arabs expelled

Christians from Antioch. The biblical references found in the Latin sources were a way of

justifying the massacre.111

It would seem that these massacres don’t constitute as Clash of Civilisations. Both

massacres were some of the worst acts of the First Crusade, yet, when looking in the

context of the medieval period, they were not out of place. The fact neither can be

argued to be religiously aimed at Muslims casts serious doubts that they were a

consequence of a Clash of Civilisations.

Religious Demands

Crusaders allowing Egyptians safe passage from the Tower of David opens up the

question of religious demands during second half of the crusade and whether there was a

will to convert Muslims. This would therefore eradicate the Muslim faith; which

Huntington argues would underpins the Islamic civilisation.

There are four main events where conversion took place; firstly after the defeat of

Kerbogha, both Firuz and the leader of Arab force in the citadel freely converted to

Christianity.112 This conversion was not demanded by the crusaders. As the Gesta reports,

members of the garrison in the citadel that didn’t want to convert, were allowed safe

passage to leave.113 Secondly, a similar series of events took place with the garrison in

Jerusalem. By comparison, the third and fourth event, a fortress near Antioch and the

111 Alan V. Murray, ‘The Demographics of Urban Space in Crusade Period Jerusalem (1099– 1187)’, in Albrecht Classen (ed.), Urban Space in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern Age (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2009), pp. 209-214.112 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 71.113 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 71.

39

demand on the Emir of Tripoli, did according to certain sources, demand the Muslims

conversion. At this fortress, the Gesta comments Muslims were killed after they refused

Christ; however these events cannot be verified, and it would seem at odds with the fact

the leading knight involved, Raymond Pilet, was a retainer of the Count Raymond,114 and

Raymond of Aguilers does not even mention it. Fourthly, Count Raymond demanded the

Emir of Tripoli to convert before any deals could be made. As will be discussed later, this

request could actually be seen as a cover for Raymond’s wishes to create a lordship

rather than for religious reasoning.

Alliances and Peace Treaties

Huntington is clear in that alliances and peace treaties cannot happen during a Clash of

Civilisations. As previously shown, a small number of treaties between the crusaders and

Muslims did occur. This feature is far more prominent during the second half of the

crusade.

Co-operation between the crusaders and their enemies was first seen after Antioch’s

capture. In September 1098, a call for help came from the governor of Azaz, who rebelled

against Ridwan of Aleppo. The governor had asked the crusade leaders for peace and

support through a Syrian Christian. Godfrey initially hesitated as the messenger was Turk;

however, the governor sent another envoy with his son hostage as a show of trust.115

Godfrey and Baldwin lifted the area. After victory, the governor swore a promise of

allegiance (not vassalage) renewing the alliance between the Franks and Turks. Köhler

114 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 73.115 Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem, trans. Susan Edgington (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 2007), pp. 345-349; Raymond D’Aguilers, Historia Francorum, pp. 68-70; This source by Ibn al-‘Azimi found in: Michael A. Köhler, Alliances and Treaties between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East: Cross-Cultural Diplomacy in the Period of the Crusades trans. P.M. Holt, revised by K. Hirschler (BRILL: Leiden, 2013), p. 38.

40

marks - the other contingents of the Crusade army did not initially come to the governor’s

aid and only sent help sometime after. This could be explained by Raymond of Aguilers

extract which refers to Azaz having been promised to the crusaders in return for support,

and Count Raymond would only help once religious arguments were in play.116 However,

Raymond of Aguilers report makes no mention of Azaz actually being handed over or of

any form of conversion. Albert of Aachen also does not note any such offer having been

made, rather one of a legal relationship between Godfrey and the governor.117 Albert

notes this was a military alliance as equal partners, but not equal social standing, for the

inferior party provided hostages, according to Roman law.118 Therefore, Godfrey was

establishing suzerainty of Azaz.

The events at Azaz open serious flaws in Huntington’s theory, which only become more

prominent in other dealings with local Arab rulers. As mentioned, no sign of religious

demands were recorded in the sources of both the Latin and Ibn al-‘Azimi chronicles. The

fact Muslims would ask for help from Christians against other Muslims, and that Godfrey

would then help Turks against other Turks, breaches the Clash of Civilisations criteria as

Huntington believes there must be a unified religious struggle. He also does not accept

that alliances and peace can occur if a clash is present. The fact religion was not involved

indicates that other motives, such as political or economic factors were at play, again

breaching the criteria for a clash. Köhler argues, one reason the other crusade lords may

not have wished to help was self-interest and not wishing Godfrey to create a territorial

lordship relatively near to Antioch. He continues on when comparing the actions seen in

116 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 66-69.117 Albert of Aachen, Historia, pp. 351-353.118 Köhler, Alliances, pp. 39-40.

41

Edessa that the Northern French Lords (Godfrey and Baldwin) were pragmatic in their

approach to co-operation with Muslim counterparts, when it seemed profitable.119

When comparing this event to the other events of co-operation between the Crusader

Lords a pattern seems to emerge. After the massacre of Ma’arrat an-Nu’man, crusaders

continued to march to Jerusalem. This journey south was marred by different encounters,

of which the majority were concluded with diplomatic outcomes, evidenced by the

interactions between the rulers of Shaizar, Homs and Tripoli. All offered payments, gifts

and the ability to trade in their territories to the crusaders. Both Shaizar and Homs’ peace

offerings were accepted without any religious demands.120 Maalouf argues Arab rulers

only made deals with the Franks after the massacre of Ma’arrat an-Nu’man out of fear. 121

Yet, as mentioned, the Arab chroniclers limited details of the massacre would argue

against such a backlash. From this evidence, Köhler’s argument that Arab lords were

continuing the policy of neutrality seen during the Seljuk invasion decades earlier seems

to be more plausible.122 Whatever the reasons behind the alliances, the fact that there

were lasting contradicts Huntington’s criteria for a clash. He admits that alliances and

treaties can happen, observing they are rare and short-lived, which evidence suggests

was not the case during this period of the First Crusade. As mentioned above, peace

agreements were reached at nearly all the cities that were passed along the road to

Jerusalem. While it’s credible to suggest Huntington would see the crusades as the some

of the most violent periods of this clash between Christianity and Islam, evidence

suggests there was a mixture of peace and violence during this time, countering

Huntington’s argument that such a clash occurred further.

119 Köhler, Alliances, pp. 39-40.120 Anonymous, Deeds, pp. 81-84; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 83-87.121 Maalouf, Crusades, pp. 39-40.122 Köhler, Alliances, p. 56.

42

Another angle to this is added when looking at the relationship with Tripoli. As one of the

major cities, Tripoli had sent envoys and gifts as well as offering to come to terms with

the crusaders. Yet, Count Raymond decided to siege a city nearby called Arqa. There is

little valid evidence to suggest Raymond’s motive in doing so was religious. As was

explored earlier in this chapter when looking at Raymond’s differences with Bohemond

and the hesitation to help Godfrey at Azaz, it would seem plausible that Count Raymond

had also wanted to establish a lordship in the Holy Land. In Raymond of Aguilers report,

Count Raymond’s men had travelled to Tripoli and were so impressed by the wealth that

they had persuaded him to siege Arqa instead as ‘the king of Tripoli would then give them

plenty of gold and silver’ to leave his city. 123 However, the anonymous Gesta mentions a

different reason, that Count Raymond refused a treaty until the emir of Tripoli was

christened.124 This is at odds with the general approach of diplomacy that the crusaders

had taken with other cities and Arab rulers. So what made Tripoli different? An

explanation would be that similarly to Antioch and Ma’arrat an-Nu’man, the common

crusaders who were religiously motivated to reach Jerusalem needed to be given a

legitimate reason as to why they were being made to besiege a town far from it. Köhler

argues Count Raymond’s lack of interest to agree a treaty and continual choice to

continue the siege, against the wishes of majority of the crusaders, would suggest he saw

Tripoli as a place to create his lordship.125 This theory is further compounded by his

previous actions, the fact that during this siege he was taking other local towns and

fortresses, and he planned to await Alexius who would come to take leadership of the

army.126

123 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, p. 87.124 Anonymous, Deeds, p. 83.125 Köhler, Alliances, p. 43.126 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, p. 105.

43

When comparing all sources, it can be said the Frankish Lords took a pragmatic approach

to diplomacy when it benefitted their self-interests or helped them to further their final

goal of reaching Jerusalem. Neither explanation fits with Huntington’s clash criteria. First,

if the Frankish lords were willing to benefit themselves, this would be seen as a political

and economic motive. Second, if they were just willing to make deals to reach Jerusalem

rather than fight, then an “Us vs. Them” mentality and attempt to wipe out the other was

not enacted.

Frankish-Fatimid Relationship

The prime example of co-operation between Christianity and Islam was the relationship

between the crusaders and Fatimids. This is commented on by a host of the Latin and

Arab chroniclers and furthers understanding to cross-cultural diplomacy during the First

Crusade. This relationship is incredibly important when trying to understand if a Clash of

Civilisations did occur, as the depth of negotiations clearly demonstrates the pragmatic

approach of the both the Crusade leaders and Arab rulers when attempting to profit from

the situation they found themselves in.

References to this special relationship first appear during the initial siege of the Antioch.

Three main sources report an envoy from the ‘Babylon King’ and of talks that were aimed

at establishing peace and friendship with the Franks.127 There is general agreement from

historians that the Fatimids and Franks had engaged in diplomacy, but Köhler is the main

historian to have looked into this unique relationship. 128 The envoy had witness the 127 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 39-41; These sources by Stephen of Blois and Anselm of Ribemont found in: S. J. Allen & Emilie Amt, The Crusades: A Reader (University of Toronto Press: Toronto, 2014), p. 65 & 68.128 Amin Maalouf, The Crusades, p. 44; Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh University Press: Edinburgh, 1999), p. 44; Steven Runicman, History, p. 229; Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict Between Christianity and Islam (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2005), p. 114.

44

defeat of a Turkish army under Ridwan and to conceal the religious differences they

praised Christ for the victory and emphasised the friendliness of the Fatimid regime to

both native and Frankish pilgrims.129 An envoy with Frankish ambassadors set off for

Egypt in March 1098, which would indicate, a treaty was in negotiations. Yet, it took them

more than a year to return due to the changing environments, in which the crusaders had

defeated Kerbogha and the Fatimids had taken Jerusalem. After this, the Fatimids still

kept a friendly tone and sent gifts, but would no longer willing to accept the surrender of

Jerusalem, instead offering unarmed pilgrims to enter Jerusalem. In retaliation, the

crusaders threatened to march to Egypt.130 However, it did not come to that as the

crusaders took Jerusalem and defeated the relieving Egyptian army at Ascalon.

The traditional interpretation is that the political leader of the Fatimids, al-Afdal, saw the

crusading army as acting on behalf of the Byzantines in ending Turkish rule in Syria.

Bringing about the traditional northern Byzantine territories and the Fatimid lands in the

south. The crusaders however wanted Jerusalem for themselves, which ruined this

arrangement. Dr Maher Y. Abu-Munshar points to Caroline Hillenbrand’s quote of Ibn

al-‘Azimi, which indicated that the Byzantine emperor had sent a letter to the ‘Muslims’

informing them of the Franks.131 He argues that the ‘Muslims’ referred to in, were the

Fatimids, and that they had good relations with the Byzantines, so actively sought an

alliance to protect their lands and gain an advantage over their Sunni Seljuk rivals. But, as

the Fatimids learnt of the crusaders real intention of capturing Jerusalem, the alliance

broke up.132 Hadia Dajani-Shakeel has questioned the traditional view, arguing al-Afdal

129 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 39-41; This source by Ibn al-‘Azimi found in: Köhler, Alliances, p. 44; Albert of Aachen, Historia, p. 231.130 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 89-90.131 This source by Ibn al-‘Azimi found in: Hillenbrand, Perspectives, p. 150.132 Dr Maher Y. Abu-Munshar, ‘Fatimids, Crusaders and the Fall of Islamic Jerusalem: Foes or Allies?’, Al- Masāq (2010), 22: 1, p. 55.

45

was a shrewd leader who already had some diplomatic and commercial contact with the

Sicily and Genoa,133 therefore having a general understanding of the ethnic differences

between Franks and the Byzantines.

Köhler takes a different approach, using Raymond of Aguilers report on the returning

envoy as his main evidence. From this report, it’s clear that aims of creating a common

military alliance against the Turks was discussed. The Franks offered military aid in return

for Jerusalem, and would give back any land that had been under Fatimid rule before the

arrival of the Seljuk Turks. Any extra land taken in joint ventures would be spilt equally.

According to Raymond of Aguilers, who was likely to have been present at negotiations,

some of the Turks in Syria had been willing to accept Fatimid sovereignty and the Fatimid

caliph in a counter move.134 This seems credible, as Ridwan had asked for help from the

Fatimids against Damascus a year before. Al-Afdal did not respond to this Seljuk offer,

which shows the seriousness of these negotiations. A reason why this alliance did not

come to fruition was due to letters from Alexius to the Egyptians, telling them the

weakness of the crusader army and his hatred for them. These letters were found in the

Egyptian camp at Ascalon. The reliability of these reports is not in doubt, as not only was

Raymond an eyewitness, but as the chaplain of Count Raymond, the documents could

have been under his control. 135

It has been established that the Fatimids had a general understanding of the ethnic

differences between the Franks and Byzantines. Yet Köhler believes the Fatimids still

regarded the crusade as a Byzantine undertaking. The reason for this belief was that

133 Hadia Dajani-Shakeel, ‘Diplomatic Relations Between Muslim and Frankish’, in Maya Shatzmiller (ed.), Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria (BRILL, 1993), p. 194.134 Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 89-90.135 Köhler, Alliances, pp. 46-47; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 89-90.

46

Byzantine troops were around them in Antioch, the crusaders were being supplied by the

Byzantines, and Alexius had undertaken a military venture himself in Asia Minor. It could

also be plausible that the crusader envoy was attached to a Byzantine one, and that

Alexius had told al-Afdal that they would fight the common enemy. For Köhler this

association would have made the crusaders serious treaty partners.136

The Egyptians took control of Jerusalem after offering very generous terms to the

commanders.137 Ibn al-Athir and Albert of Aachen both believe this was possible due to

taking advantage of the weakness of the Turkish position.138 Yet, Köhler believes this is

not a substantial argument, as it does not fit in with previous existing political framework

of the Fatimids. He points out in the last fifteen years, the Fatimids aimed to control the

coastal zone, win the recognition of Fatimid Caliphate in Syria and the expand into

southern Syria with Damascus rather than Jerusalem being their goal. The reason for this

was that Damascus is far more valuable economically and politically than Jerusalem was

religiously. It also would have been far easier to take Jerusalem after the capture of

Damascus, as it would have been isolated. The army used to take Jerusalem would have

been strong enough to conquer Damascus which had been severely weakened by the

losses to the Franks in northern Syria. So, why did al-Afdal take Jerusalem? He knew that

it would put him at odds with crusading army. Furthermore, why was no substantial

defence put up against the Franks?139

Köhler concludes the Egyptians were seriously considering the offer reported by

Raymond of Aguilers, as the capture of Jerusalem would seem to confirm the

136 Köhler, Alliances, p. 47.137Ibn al-Qalanisi, Damascus, pp. 44-46; Ibn al-Athir, Chronicle, p. 21; Raymond of Aguilers, Historia, pp. 89-90; Albert of Aachen, Historia, p. 443-445.138 Ibn al-Athir, The Chronicle, p. 21; Albert of Aachen, Historia, p.445.139 Köhler, Alliances, pp. 48-49.

47

conversations between the two parties. The Egyptians had attacked Jerusalem’s Turkish

lords, who were the crusaders enemies, and, by taking control of Jerusalem, they were

able to buy concessions for the support of the crusaders for their plans of revenge against

the Turks. It cannot be said how far al-Afdal would have gone in surrendering the city, but

it was certain that he was willing to offer special legal status or freedom for Christian

pilgrims. Since al-Afdal believed the crusade to be a Byzantine undertaking, he had no

issue with establishment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem as a new political force in

Palestine. It’s clear the crusaders ultimate goal was Jerusalem and not the surrounding

areas, which may have been a reason al-Afdal was hesitant. The crusaders had no clear

idea what to do once they controlled Jerusalem, as can be seen by the way they

advanced rapidly, and many left after its capture.140

R. J. Lilie casts doubts on Köhler’s arguments on the credibility of Raymond of Aguilers

account. He places it in the anti-Greek bias which is seen throughout his chronicle. He

also argues no other source confirms his report and his report is illogical. Byzantium had

no reason to incite Egypt against the crusaders and the Egyptians had no reason to agree

to proposal set by Raymond. Why would al-Afdal feel the need to bring the letters to

Ascalon.141 Köhler believes that these arguments are unconvincing. He argues that this

showed how profitable the crusaders offer to the Egyptians was. Al-Afdal’s capture of

Jerusalem could only be understood through the Frankish offers. Raymond was in a

position for these claims to be true, and the fact that other Latin sources did not

comment on it, demonstrates it was not rested on pure speculation, otherwise others

would have commented on the claim. Arab sources also comment on the fact that Alexius

140 Köhler, Alliances, pp. 50-51.141 R. J. Lilie, Byzanz und die Kreuzfahrerstaaten. Studien zur Politik des byzantinischen Reichesgegenuber den Staaten der Kreuzfahrer in Syrien und Palästina bis zum viertenKreuzzug (1096–1204), (Munchen, 1981), pp. 51-52, as cited in Köhler, Alliances.

48

attempted to conspire on different occasions against the crusaders.142 Alexius had lost

control of the crusade from July 1098. Thereafter, he was concerned of the Franks

creating autonomous lordships, proven by his actions at Antioch. Al-Afdal may have

brought the letters as he hadn’t given up on diplomacy yet.

This relationship between the Fatimids and the crusaders is the strongest argument

against a Clash of Civilisations. The fact that many sources, both Latin and Arab, have

similar details when discussing the relationship is proof of its existence. This is backed by

a majority of crusader historians who have indicated this evidence to be reliable. If

Köhler’s is to be believed, then it would prove that both Frankish and Arab lords were

willing to cast their differences aside if it benefitted themselves. Thereby, an attempt to

eradicate the other was not present. Finally, it proves that the crusaders were entering

into a fragmented political landscape that it fitted into perfectly, despite been a different

civilisation.

Conclusion

The arguments presented in this chapter make it possible to come to a verdict on

whether a Clash of Civilisations did occur during the second half of the First Crusade. The

divisions in Antioch, are the first factors that highlight that the crusade, contained

dualistic motives. It also brought to surface the linguistic issues, argued by Murray, which

as he discussed could have a been an early cause for such divisions. Similar to the

Byzantines, these issues meant that the crusade was not a unified expedition. Huntington

142 This source by Ibn al-Athir found in: Köhler, Alliances, p. 52.

49

is clear that in a Clash of Civilisations, extreme violence is seen in the forms of massacres.

From afar, the massacres in Ma’arrat an-Nu’man and Jerusalem, would seem to indicate

that this feature of a clash was present. However, as shown with close analysis of the

sources, these violent acts, were not religious motivated. As John France points out,

massacres were a normal aspect of warfare during the medieval period. The combination

of these two details means that these massacres were not a result of a clash. Religious

demands in this period were not existent. The only conversions which can be proved

were voluntary, which proves that conversion was not part of the crusading agenda.

However, alliances and treaties, was the prime example that a clash did not exist. The

multiple treaties with local Arab lords, showed that both Franks and Muslims were willing

to make deals if it benefitted their self-interests. These treaties are also evidence that an

“Us vs. Them” mentality was not enacted, nor was their attempt to wipe out the other.

This argument is furthered by the Frankish-Fatimid relationship. As Köhler has

successfully argued, the evidence that at least some type of military alliance was even

been discussed, let only seriously been considered, is the strongest argument against

Huntington’s theory. This relationship contradicts nearly all of Huntington’s criteria of a

Clash of Civilisations. In doing so, it is proof that a Clash of Civilisations did not occur

during the second half of the crusade.

50

Conclusion

This dissertation has argued that the events of the First Crusade did not see the beginning

of Clash of Civilisations between Christianity and Islam. The first chapter enabled the

reader to have an understanding of what a civilisation was and what the criteria of a

Clash of Civilisations entailed. It highlighted key characteristics such as: an “Us vs. Them”

mentality, the need to understand the others differences, the attempt to eradicate the

other and forms of extreme violence. It also emphasised that it could not be politically,

51

economically or ideologically driven. Nor could it have alliances or treaties. The major

characteristic of a civilisation was religion, and so the criteria of a Clash of Civilisations

was centred around religion. This enabled the study to place the criteria of a Clash of

Civilisations in the context of the First Crusade.

In chapter 2, the first half of the crusade was debated. It came to the judgement that a

clash was not presence from the beginning of the crusade in Europe to the defeat of

Kerbogha at Antioch. The main features of Huntington’s thesis were not enacted. This

was proved by the close analysis of Latin, Arab and Greek sources. The understanding of

the others differences was not found in sources or actions of the crusaders and its

Muslim counterparts. This in turn meant that “Us vs. Them” mind-set was not present,

nor was there an attempt to wipe out the other. Instead it found that the crusaders were

motivated by dualistic motives of religion and gain. The dualistic motives of the crusaders

meant that the crusaders were driven, in part, by economic and political motives. Which

in turn enabled alliances and peace treaties to take place with Muslims. The resounding

message was that the Franks had fitted into the fragmented political landscape of the

Near East perfectly.

In Chapter 3, a similar approach was taken as was seen in chapter 2. The same conclusion

that a Clash of Civilisations didn’t take place was also reached. It found that the crusade

was not enacted as a unified Christian army, as previously believed. Religious demands

such as conversion were not a part of crusading ideology. Alliances and treaties were a

regular occurrence during the crusade. The strongest factor to why a clash was not

present was the Frankish-Fatimid relationship. This relationship epitomised the entire

crusade as a whole. It contradicted all the traits that Huntington argued constituted a

52

clash. While at the same time, it also breached every factor Huntington stated would not

constitute a Clash of Civilisations. This relationship reaffirmed that the crusade was not

an epic conflict between Christianity and Islam.

The First Crusade was not, as proven throughout this dissertation a Clash of Civilisations.

This study has tackled the Huntington’s theory head on, and should help fill a gap in

recent historiography which has been missing. Just as important, this study will hopefully

go some way to breaking up the modern perceptions found in the public today, that

Christianity and Islam has been and will continue to be an everlasting conflict.

Bibliography

Primary Sources

Albert of Aachen, Historia Ierosolimitana: History of the Journey to Jerusalem, trans.

Susan Edgington (Clarendon Press: Oxford, 2007).

53

Anonymous, The Deeds of Franks and Other Pilgrims to Jerusalem, trans. Rosalind M. T.

Hill (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 1962).

Anselm of Ribemont found in: S. J. Allen & Emilie Amt, The Crusades: A Reader (University

of Toronto Press: Toronto, 2014).

Chronicon ad A.C, 1234 pertinenes is found in: Michael A. Köhler, Alliances and Treaties

between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East: Cross-Cultural Diplomacy in the

Period of the Crusades trans. P.M. Holt, revised by K. Hirschler (BRILL: Leiden, 2013).

Comnena, Anna found in: August C. Krey, The First Crusade: The Accounts of Eye-

Witnesses and Participants (Evolution Publishing: 2012).

Comnena, Anna The Alexiad, trans. E. R. A. Sewter (Penguin: London, 1969).

Ekkehard of Aura found in: Andrew Holt, & James Muldoon, Competing Voices from The

Crusaders: Fighting Words (Greenwood World Publishing: London, 2008).

Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, 1095-1127, trans. Frances

Rita Ryan (W. W. Norton: New York, 1973).

Ibn al-‘Azimi found in: Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh

University Press: Edinburgh, 1999).

Ibn al-‘Azimi found in: Michael A. Köhler, Alliances and Treaties between Frankish and

Muslim Rulers in the Middle East: Cross-Cultural Diplomacy in the Period of the Crusades

trans. P.M. Holt, revised by K. Hirschler (BRILL: Leiden, 2013).

Ibn al-Athir found in: Köhler, Michael A. Köhler, Alliances and Treaties between Frankish

and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East: Cross-Cultural Diplomacy in the Period of the

Crusades trans. P.M. Holt, revised by K. Hirschler (BRILL: Leiden, 2013).

54

Ibn al-Athir, The Chronicle of Ibn al-Athir for the Crusading Period from al-Kamil fi’l-Ta’

rich. Part 1, The Years 491-541/1097-1146: The Coming of the Franks and the Muslim

Response, trans. D. S. Richards (Ashgate: Farnham, 2010).

Ibn al-Qalanisi, The Damascus Chronicle of the Crusades, trans. H. A. R. Gibb (Dover

Publications: Mineola, 2002).

Ralph of Caen, Gesta Tancredi of Ralph of Caen: A History of Normans on the First

Crusade, trans. Bernard S. Bachrach and David S. Bachrach (Ashgate: Aldershot, 2005).

Raymond D’Aguilers, Historia Francorum Qui Ceperunt Iherusalem, trans. John H. Hill and

Laurita L. Hill (American Philosophical Society: Philadelphia, 1968).

Stephen of Blois found in: S. J. Allen & Emilie Amt, The Crusades: A Reader (University of

Toronto Press: Toronto, 2014).

The Wall Street Journal

Washington Post

Secondary Sources

Abu-Munshar, Dr Maher Y., ‘Fatimids, Crusaders and the Fall of Islamic Jerusalem: Foes or

Allies?’, Al- Masāq (2010), 22: 1, pp. 45-56.

Asbridge, Thomas, The Crusaders: The War for the Holy Land (Simon & Schuster: London,

2010).

55

Asbridge, Thomas, The First Crusade: A New History: The Roots of Conflict Between

Christianity and Islam (Oxford University Press: Oxford, 2005).

Barber, Richard, The Reign of Chivalry (Boydell: Woodbridge, 2005).

Braudel, Fernand, A History of Civilizations (Penguin: London, 1995).

Chazan, Robert, European Jewry and the First Crusade (University of California Press,

1987).

Christie, Niall, Muslims and Crusaders: Christianity’s Wars in the Middle East, 1095-1382,

From the Islamic Sources (Taylor & Francis, 2014).

Cutler, Alan, ‘The First Crusade and the Idea of Conversion’, The Muslim World, 58: 1

(1968), pp. 57-71.

Dajani-Shakeel, Hadia, ‘Diplomatic Relations Between Muslim and Frankish’, in Maya

Shatzmiller (ed.), Crusaders and Muslims in Twelfth-Century Syria (BRILL, 1993), pp. 190-

215.

France, John, ‘Warfare in the Mediterranean Region in the Age of the Crusaders, 1095-

1291, a Clash of Contrasts’, in Conor Kostick (ed.), The Crusades and the Near East

(Routledge: New York, 2011), pp. 9-26.

France, John, Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade (Cambridge

University Press: Cambridge. 1994).

Friedman, Yvonne, ‘Peacemaking, Perceptions and Practices in the Medieval Latin East’, in

Conor Kostick (ed.), The Crusades and the Near East (Routledge: New York, 2011), pp. 27-

54.

56

Harris, Jonathan, Byzantium and the Crusades (Bloomsbury Academic: London, 2014).

Hillenbrand, Carole, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives (Edinburgh University Press:

Edinburgh, 1999).

Huntington, Samuel P., The Clash of Civilizations and the Remaking of the World Order

(Free: New York, 2002).

Köhler, Michael A., Alliances and Treaties between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the

Middle East: Cross-Cultural Diplomacy in the Period of the Crusades, trans. P.M. Holt,

revised by K. Hirschler (BRILL: Leiden, 2013).

Lilie, R. J., Byzanz und die Kreuzfahrerstaaten. Studien zur Politik des byzantinischen

Reiches gegenuber den Staaten der Kreuzfahrer in Syrien und Palästina bis zum vierten

Kreuzzug (1096–1204), (Munchen, 1981), as cited in Michael A. Köhler, Alliances and

Treaties between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East: Cross-Cultural

Diplomacy in the Period of the Crusades, trans. P.M. Holt, revised by K. Hirschler (BRILL:

Leiden, 2013).

Maalouf, Amin, The Crusades Through Arab Eyes (Saqi Essentials: London, 2006).

Morton, Nicholas, ‘The Saljuq Turks’ Conversion to Islam: The Crusading Sources’, Al-

Masāq: Journal of the Medieval Mediterranean, 27: 2 (2015), pp. 109-118.

Murray, Alan V., ‘National Identity, Language and Conflict in the Crusades to the Holy

Land, 1096 – 1192’, in Conor Kostick (ed.), The Crusades and the Near East (Routledge:

New York, 2011), pp. 107-130.

57

Murray, Alan V., ‘The Demographics of Urban Space in Crusade Period Jerusalem (1099–

1187)’, in Albrecht Classen (ed.), Urban Space in the Middle Ages and the Early Modern

Age (Walter de Gruyter, Berlin, 2009), pp. 205-224.

Phillips, Jonathan, Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers (Yale University Press, 2008).

Riley-Smith, Jonathan, Crusades, Christianity and Islam (Columbia University Press: New

York, 2011).

Riley-Smith, Jonathan, The Crusades: A History (Continuum, London: 2005).

Runicman, Steven, A History of the Crusades: Volume One: The First Crusade and the

Foundation of Kingdom of Jerusalem (Penguin: London, 1990).

Safi, Omid, The Politics of Knowledge in Premodern Islam: Negotiating Ideology and

Religious Inquiry (University of North Carolina Press: Chapel Hill, 2006).

Tor, D. G., ‘’Sovereign and Pious’: The Religious Life of the Great Seljuq Sultans’, in

Christian Lange & Songul Mecit (eds.), The Seljuqs: Politics, Society and Culture (Edinburgh

University Press: Edinburgh, 2011), pp. 39-62.

58