Jerusalem, a holy city for the adherents of all three great Abrahamic religions (Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) was conquered by the armies of the First Crusade in 1099 CE. The Muslims failed to halt their advance, as they were themselves disunited and disorganized, but this was soon to change and the Holy City was to be retaken. Saladin (l. 1137-1193 CE), the Sultan of Egypt and Syria, who united the core of the Islamic Empire under his domain prepared to strike back. He utterly vanquished the Crusader field army at the Battle of Hattin, in 1187 CE, and took Jerusalem later that year. Saladin’s triumph was, however, far less violent than that of the medieval knights of the First Crusade (1095-1099 CE), and for this, he has been endlessly romanticized by Muslims and Christians alike.

Prelude

The rise of the Seljuk Turks in the 11th century CE crushed the status quo established in Asia Minor. Most of Anatolia was lost to the steppe warriors who had come to settle in this pastureland from central Asia. In 1071 CE, the hope of restoring Byzantine authority over the region was shattered when a Byzantine army was crushed at the Battle of Manzikert.

Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos (r. 1081-1118 CE) was determined to reverse the setbacks of his predecessors. He appealed the Papacy for assistance, probably seeking a mercenary force subject to his personal control, but the result was beyond his wildest imagination. Pope Urban II (r. 1088-1099 CE) used spiced-up and exaggerated tales (with a bit of accuracy) of the sufferings of their fellow Christians in the Holy Land, and preached a holy war against the “infidels” (Muslims), in return of which he offered complete plenary indulgence (remission of sins).

Stirred by the Pope’s speech and motivated both by religious fervor and practical prospects, noblemen from all corners of Europe vowed to wrest the Holy Land from Muslim hands and embarked with armies on the First Crusade (1095-1099 CE) to the Levant. There they conquered Nicaea in 1097 CE (which was taken over by the Byzantines), Antioch, and Edessa in 1098 CE, and then proceeded to Jerusalem which fell in 1099 CE and was subjected to mass slaughter. The biggest shock to the Muslim world, however, resulted from the desecration of the Al Aqsa mosque, which was later converted to a church: the Temple Church.

Though lacking in strength to fight at that point, the Islamic front was preparing slowly and steadily to reclaim Jerusalem. The Islamic holy war or Jihad, long forgotten, was now revived for use against the Crusaders, and the standard was first raised by the Zengids (1127-1250 CE), a Turkish dynasty based in Mesopotamia and Syria. After the death of the second Zengid ruler, Nur ad-Din (l. 1118-1174 CE), the banner was taken up by his protégé: the Sultan of Egypt, Saladin (l. 1137-1193 CE). By 1187 CE, Saladin had spent over two decades of his life fighting the Crusaders, and it was this fateful year that would bring him the greatest triumph of his career.

Hostilities erupted between the two parties when a crusader knight, Reynald of Chatillon (l. c. 1125-1187 CE), attacked a Muslim trade caravan in defiance of the peace pact of 1185 CE put forward by his side. He imprisoned many, killed others, and when he was reminded of the pact, he mocked the Prophet Muhammad. In retaliation, the wrath of Saladin would engulf all that the Crusaders had achieved so far. On 4 July 1187 CE, the largest-ever Crusader army (although outnumbered by Saladin’s forces) was crushed at the Battle of Hattin and the Holy Land lay undefended.

Taking the Levantine Coast

The pulverizing defeat at Hattin had left most of the Crusader strongholds without enough soldiers to defend them. And since the threat of a Crusader counterattack had vanished, Saladin scattered his forces to take the Levantine coast. The strongholds fell, mostly in an eventless manner; in many cases, local Muslim and Jewish populations rebelled and kicked the Crusader forces out, welcoming the Ayyubid armies to the undefended cities.

Tibnin fell, but it was Tyre that should have been the first target of Saladin; this tactical error returned to haunt him later on in the Third Crusade (1189-1192 CE). Crusaders, from all corners of the Latin Kingdom flocked to Tyre. After a failed attempt to negotiate a surrender of the city, Saladin moved towards Ascalon (the gateway to Egypt), taking Ramla, Ibelin, and Darum en route. Although the defenders were initially defiant, once Saladin besieged the city, they capitulated without a fight. Now, he sought to claim the most prized treasure of all, he knew it by no name other than Quds, the Holy City – Jerusalem.

At the Walls of the Holy City

Saladin wished not to delay taking the holy city lest this opportunity be lost, for he knew that the might of the whole Christendom would soon be set upon him. He met with delegates from the city outside Ascalon and offered generous terms of surrender. The delegates refused to accept this offer as well, stating that they would not surrender the city under any condition. Insulted, the Sultan decided to subject the Christians to the same fate the Muslim and Jewish residents of the city suffered in 1099 CE.

Amidst these troubled times, Balian of Ibelin (l. 1143-1193 CE), a French nobleman, who had escaped the field at Hattin, sought Saladin’s favor and pleaded to be allowed to enter the city so that he could take his wife and children to Tyre. Saladin agreed to Balian’s request under two conditions: first, he would stay in there for only one night, take his family and leave, and second, he would never raise his sword against the Sultan. But once inside the city, the French knight was recognized by the inhabitants and was urged to stay and defend Jerusalem. He wrote to Saladin, explaining his situation and requested safe conduct for his family. Not only did the Sultan comply with his request, but he also entertained his family members as guests and departed them with gifts and an armed escort, to Tyre.

The Ayyubid army, determined to storm and sack the city, marched confidently towards it under the leadership of the Sultan himself. Their flags were visible on the western side of Jerusalem on 20 September. Since Jerusalem was lacking severely on manpower, Balian had to knight several men (and even children), but even then, the citizens stood no chance in a direct assault, their main hope was to hold the walls.

As the siege commenced, the walls and the tower were showered with arrows and pelted with rocks hurled from catapults and mangonels; siege towers were sent forward to take the walls but were pushed back forces that sallied out of the gate. On 25 September, Saladin’s siege force was positioned, ironically, at the spot from where the knights of the First Crusade had attacked the city 88 years ago. Indeed, this was an effective move, a breach was created in the wall just three days later by the Sultan’s miners, and now the city could be assaulted.

The City Surrenders

Unable to defend the city any longer, Balian rode out to address the Sultan directly and offered a bloodless surrender of the city. But another problem had to be sorted; he had vowed to assault the city and could not step back from his word. He accepted surrender under one condition: Crusaders within the city were to be prisoners of war, they could ransom themselves or else be enslaved. The ransom was very generous, even for the standards of that time.

A period of 40 days was given for the residents to arrange for their ransom, but many failed to do so. Saladin’s brother al-Adil, Balian of Ibelin, and many ameers (generals) of the Ayyubid army freed people on their own accord. As for Saladin himself, he announced that all elderly people, who could not afford their freedom were to be set free anyway.

The Sultan was also approached by a group of wailing women, who, upon inquiry, revealed themselves as dames and damsels of knights who had either been killed or held prisoners. They begged for the Sultan’s mercy, and Saladin ordered for their husbands, if they were alive, to be released, and none of these women were enslaved. Saladin’s kindness was later narrated in a praising manner by Balian’s squire.

However, rich people, despite having the necessary resources, refused to pay for the poor. The patriarch, Heraclius did approach the Sultan to request the release of several hundred people but made no payment for anyone else.

Saladin himself entered the city on Friday, 2 October, which also happened to be 27th of Rejeb according to the Islamic calendar, the anniversary of the Prophet’s night journey to the city. This, of course, was intentional; he wished to show the Muslim world that he was following in the footsteps of their ancestors.

The Aftermath

The Al Aqsa mosque was purified, and the Crusader cross was torn down from it. The building was washed and cleaned, adjacent buildings that had encroached over its area were taken down, so were the numerous Crusader artifacts placed within the mosque. Oriental carpets were placed inside, and perfumes were sprinkled over every corner of it. A pulpit, prepared under the orders of Saladin’s patron Nur ad-Din (who had wished to reconquer the holy city himself, but did not live long enough to do so), was placed by the Sultan in the mosque, symbolizing the completion of his master’s dream. After 88 years, the Friday prayer was held in the mosque in congregation.

Christian churches were converted to mosques, although native Christians such as the Eastern Orthodox and Copts were allowed to stay and worship freely within the city in return for the jiziya tax.

The fall of Jerusalem hit Europe like a shockwave. Many scholars, including William, the Archbishop of Tyre (l. 1130-1186 CE), considered Saladin as a form of divine punishment, others thought of him as a scourge. For the Muslims, however, this was the long-awaited success brought to them by their Sultan.

The Crusaders drew their field army from their strongholds, and with most of the Crusader army annihilated, nothing stood in the way of the Muslims. Tyre, the sole bastion of the Cross in the Holy Land, as noted earlier, became the center of resistance. Soon, a fraction of the remainder Crusader army, the ones who were not permitted inside Tyre, laid siege on Acre (1189-1191 CE). This was the stage for the arrival of the armies of the Third Crusade (1189-1192 CE) under Richard I of England (r. 1189-1199 CE) and Philip Augustus of France (r. 1180-1223 CE). Though parts of the Levantine coast were recovered by this expedition, Saladin’s Jerusalem remained untouched.

Megathreads and spaces to hang out:

reminders:

  • 💚 You nerds can join specific comms to see posts about all sorts of topics
  • 💙 Hexbear’s algorithm prioritizes comments over upbears
  • 💜 Sorting by new you nerd
  • 🌈 If you ever want to make your own megathread, you can reserve a spot here nerd
  • 🐶 Join the unofficial Hexbear-adjacent Mastodon instance toots.matapacos.dog

Links To Resources (Aid and Theory):

Aid:

Theory:

  • Anarcho-Bolshevik
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    10
    ·
    2 months ago

    The portrayal of Saracens as quasi‐Jewish killers of Christ enables Christians not only to glorify those who defeat them in battle but also to inspire new military campaigns. The Muslim chronicler Izz al‐Din Ibn al‐Athir provides a vivid example of such rhetoric when recounting what happened after Muslim forces retook Jerusalem in 1187.

    Ibn al‐Athir, perhaps drawing on firsthand knowledge, reports that the city’s patriarch aroused fellow Franks to avenge this loss by making a picture of Jesus that “portrayed Christ (peace be upon him) along with an Arab, depicted as beating him. They put blood on the portrait of Christ and said to the people, ‘This is Christ with Muhammad, the prophet of the Muslims, beating him. [Muhammad] has wounded and slain him.’”

    Ibn al‐Athir inserts the customary Islamic honorific for Jesus, whom Muslims revere as a messenger of God, but provides no further editorial commentary: he trusts that his Muslim audience will recognize the preposterous nature of the allegation that Muhammad killed Christ. Preposterous though it is, this propaganda builds on longstanding Frankish rhetoric associating Muslims with Christ’s persecutors, and it provides powerful religious motivation for Christian warriors to avenge the maltreatment of their God.

    Ibn al‐Athir credits this propaganda with raising “more men and money than there would be any way of counting” toward what academic historians call the Third Crusade; “even the women,” he emphasized, “answered the call in great numbers.” If Ibn al‐Athir is reliable, he provides valuable evidence regarding the broad impact of religious rhetoric designed to appeal to a specific subset of Christian society, namely fighting men.¹²

    (Source.)

    • Frank [he/him, he/him]@hexbear.net
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 months ago

      I’ve always thought that, whether consciously or not, one of the purposes of the Crusades was to send french knights off to die somewhere far away where they would be someone else’s problem. Like a pressure valve for the long standing European custom of bloody minded fratricide.

      • SadArtemis [she/her]@hexbear.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        2 months ago

        That was always my opinion (and the sentiments I’ve seen elsewhere) too. Kinda like the Imjin war, but as a constantly occuring issue (in the MENA, against pagans in western and then eastern Europe, against the Cathars, etc). Because the west Euros certainly couldn’t just exist in peace tbh (but actually)