Seriously what did the Muslims think when they showed up.
We hear about the crusades from the perspective of the Christians but what about the Muslims.
I bet when the Christian knights conquered Jerusalem the Muslims terrified themselves and thought it was divine retribution.
It must have sent shock waves through the Islamic world the whole of Christendom descending on them.
Is there any good lit about the Muslim view of the crusades?
Read Arabian nights. It depicts all christians as cowards who eat and smear feces on their faces as a kind of fashion. I'm not kidding. The muslims were that childish.
it's an exaggerated stereotype somewhat based on reality. the crusaders appeared to the muslims as unwashed, dumb barbarians with little sophistication. you find the trope of "dumb, uncivilized crusader" frequently in the Arabic lit of that time. this didn't apply to native Middle Eastern Christians or Byzantines.
Islamic society at that time had deeper intellectual roots inherited almost entirely from the Greeks and Persians. It fell later on. They knew how to do math, but it didn't stop the superior European men from utterly dominating them in their own lands. Rationality and discursivity are feminine traits at the end of the day. They were no match for European chivalry. Any way, apart from the tiny elite, most of the population of Islamic empires are just absolutely massive slave hordes of morons. And btw, they are fundamentally a "low-trust society" compared to the Europeans. They value cunning over keeping one's word, which is less noble ("stupid"). You can see this in their tactics employed by their slave overlords.
Also worth noting is the fact that the inner elites of certain orders from both sides were in communication with each other, passing on ancient knowledge from the aforementioned ancient civs.
I'm not Christian btw, don't blame the Christards. Islam is gay, and for stinky, loud foreigners who will take everything and then shame you for not giving them more. And then complain about israelites occupying Palestine when they have even less of a right to occupy White lands and collect welfare and prey on innocence.
Europe had a tiny elite too... Pretty much every country had* a tiny elite with the masses being illiterate. Europe was no different then.
No. The European/Germanic aristocracy was quite broad especially before the middle ages. Even in the middle ages, let's say the HRE, it wasn't the same as the slave hordes of the Arabs. Not even in Rome. Europe has a more qualitative aspect, the ME is more quantitative.
No. I have never encountered an academic source or anything that argued that. What was the percentage of the elite? It couldn't have been more than 10%.
You're making a big deal out of something like 5 vs. 10 percent.
>like 5 vs. 10 percent
not him but that's still 1 in 20 as opposed to 1 in 10, quite a big deal
You can share reputable sources. I'm not sure what the proportion of elite caste was back then.
neither am I but the point is that the difference between 5% and 10% is more significant than your comment I replied to said
It's not significant at all.
Only women obsess about being overly competitive like this. 5-10 percent is still a very small segment of the population. Probabilistically, that arrogant homosexual here (
) most likely descends from peasants.
>rationality feminine trait
Have you ever talked to a woman?
People way overstate how ubiquitous greek learning was among muslims. Your average rural strongman or ghazi knew frick all about the greeks and their learning, and even most of the respectable urban middle-class types looked at it with suspicion because of its massive potential for subverting islamic doctrine. Which is why a fusion of greek learning and islam never took for long no matter how many times it was attempted, unlike christianity.
"dumb, unwashed barbarians" was just a literary topos, everyone who wasn't muslim was automatically a dumb, unwashed barbarian. You should take it as seriously as people take christian chroniclers describing pagans as devil worshippers.
>Seriously what did the Muslims think when they showed up.
They thought they pretty cute and resolved to migrate their entire population to Europe in the next millennium to breed their women and replace their native population.
What muslim world? That was Ottoman Empire. And no fricking empire gives in easily, just look at chinese history.
Do you mean the Seljuk empire?
Yes, I mixed it up.
>Is there any good lit about the Muslim view of the crusades?
yeah there's a pretty famous book literally called "the crusades through arab eyes"
One of Saladin's biographers made a history of the region until the end of Saladin's life and he wasn't exactly sophisticated about his hate and disgust. Literally one part he makes the King Baldwin say something then 'fart loudly'. Which is worse than even Xenophon just calling people who disagreed with him stupid
>One of Saladin's biographers
Do you know which one? Like his name?
Ibn al-Athir. Though his work covers a good 200-300 years.
Thanks anon Godbless you
>King Baldwin say something and then fart loudly
And I thought I could not respect the leper-king more
They thought better sick Saladin on these honky dirtbags
It was a mix between disgust for how uncivilized and barbarous they were and admiration for their combat prowess and bravery, at least for the First Crusade. The First Crusade made the Crusaders the "Iron Men," for both their determination and their heavy armor, which gave the Muslims severe problems. The Crusaders won a number of large pitched battles while significantly outnumbered (more than 2:1 at Antioch and Ascalon), and so they got a good reputation for fighting from this. But they were also terribly organized and plagued by infighting and recalcitrance.
Their reputation as great warriors eroded in later years as the Muslims learned to deal with them and they started losing.
>It was a mix between disgust for how uncivilized and barbarous they were and admiration for their combat prowess and bravery, at least for the First Crusade.
Provides absolutely no source
>You need a source for common, surface level knowledge.
IDK, read Zoe Oldenburg's The Crusades, Iron Men and Saints, or Durant's The Age of Faith. The nickname was half complement, half insult. They were variously iron in terms of being inflexible and barbarous, half for being courageous. But it sprouted from their armor.
The Christian primary sources for their part are pretty fawning of the Muslims. A famous anonymous chronical of the Crusade says the Turks would have been "the most noble people in the world had they followed Christ," and gives Jesus the credit for the Crusaders victories prior to Antioch in the passage.
>th-the reason muttslims got BTFO wuz because of armour!
You sound like a brown/mutt 12 year old. European chivalry was the reason Christians dominated so far from home. Superior will, courage, honour, love, respect, etc. A more noble people. Similar traits but bastardized help them conquer the globe later while fighting each other at the same time.
>provides absolutely no source
you don't want a source you absolute fricking Black person. you're not going to go and read the source material and return to that anon's post. you want to feel good about what you just read, and to feel good you're willing to bury your skepticism and curiosity behind a single line that says "Bilbo and Hilbo et. all On The Crusaders (2013)
have a nice day
Dude are you okay?
The source is probably some muttslim cope.
See
Basically the same as today.
>Arab-Andalusian geographer and traveller Ibn Jubayr, who was hostile to the Franks, described the Muslims living under the Christian crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem in the late 12th-century:
> We left Tibnin by a road running past farms where Muslims live who do very well under the Franks-may Allah preserve us from such a temptation! The regulations imposed on them are the handing over of half of the grain crop at the time of harvest and the payment of a poll tax of one dinar and seven qirats, together with a light duty on their fruit trees. The Muslims own their own houses and rule themselves in their own way. This is the way the farms and big villages are organized in Frankish territory. Many Muslims are sorely tempted to settle here when they see the far from comfortable conditions in which their brethren live in the districts under Muslim rule. Unfortunately for the Muslims, they always have reason for complaint about the injustices of their chiefs in the lands governed by their coreligionists, whereas they can have nothing but praise for the conduct of the Franks, whose justice they can always rely on.[104]
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kingdom_of_Jerusalem
Lmao
England should retake the Holy Land and let the Muslims live on it and the israelites can stay there and see what happens since it's their land too.
are all muslims cuckolds?
I like reading contemporary accounts of Norman knights. They make those guys sound like gods.
Such as the Battle of Cerami, where something like a 150 Norman knights caused potentially as many as 35,000 Muslim casualties and sent the Muslim aristocracy into crisis.
When you read accounts of these guys in battle, they sound so dominant that it’s insane. I actually don’t remember the source but there’s another that describes a handful of Norman mercenaries showing up to a battle and the way these soldiers talk about these guys is the way an ODST marine talks about a Spartan.
>150 Norman knights caused potentially as many as 35,000 Muslim casualties
>jonathan_frakes_shiteating_grin.jpg
Religion is dumb as frick but unfortunately a humanist has to work with it bc if you tell the people who believe in it how moronic it is, all that happens is they get upset.
>"I heard a similar case from a bath attendant called Salim from Ma'arra, who worked in one of my fathers bathhouses. This is his tale:
>I earned my living in Ma'arra by opening a bathhouse. One day a Frankish knight came in. They do not follow our custom of wearing a cloth around their waist while they are at the baths, and this fellow put his hand, snatched off my loin-cloth and threw it away. He saw at once that I had just recently shaved my pubic hair.
>'Salim!' he exclaimed! I came toward him and he pointed to that part of me.
>'Salim! You shall certainly do the same for me!' and he lay down flat on his back. His "hair" was as long as his beard. I shaved him, and when he had felt the place with his hand and found it agreeably smooth, he said: 'Salim, you must certainly do the same for my Dama'. In their language Dama means lady, or wife. He sent his valet to fetch his wife, and when they arrived and the valet brought her in, she lay down on her back and he said to me:
>'Do to her what you did to me.' So I shaved her pubic hair, while her husband stood. Then he thanked me and paid me for my services.
Europeans are less concerned with nudity because they're better at overcoming base impulses. Just listen to mooslems talking, they have little self-control or awareness.
>Europeans are less concerned with nudity because they're better at overcoming base impulses.
Effeminate as frick.
>overcoming base impulses is effeminate
You have an extremely degraded and inferior conception of masculinity and know nothing of virtue or power. You think spouting off in public like a child is manly? That's what women and children do. Well, I can't say I'm surprised. You're brown, aren't you? Do you like andrew taint, too? Tiktok, monkeyboy?
Why would you feel bad about wanting to frick a prostitute?
This statement does not connect to the previous statement you posted, homosexual.
If a woman bares her nude flesh to you, it's one of two cases:
>She is your wife
>She is a prostitute
Therefore acting on your impulse to pump her full of cum is a natural one.
You're making me laugh now anon. I hope for your sake this is bait but I know there are people this moronic.
He's just a moronic 3rd worlder, probably not even old enough to post.
Because it is undisciplined and degenerate. Controlled women equals disciplined children. Even muslims understand that, that's why they are so sexually restricted while naturally being a race that before Islam venerated prostitution and abundance of sex. But a SEA brownoid can't understand it since your social structure was always effeminate and submissive without proper warrior culture.
Being in control of your emotion is less feminine than not having emotional control. You must have a gay and moronic conception of masculinity.
>Europeans and bigger, physically stronger, and smarter
>Scrambling cope that because they exercise social discipline this makes them effeminate
xd
>'Salim, you must certainly do the same for my Dama'. In their language Dama means lady, or wife.
That man was probably Portuguese. Where is that story from?
Muslims called all Europeans franks, just as Europeans generally called Muslims Saracens.
Both are gross generalizations
>"DUDE! You've totally gotta shave my wife's pussy! This will be great!"
Lol, did he really?
Tyerman touches on it in God's Wars
I read The Arabs in History by B. Lewis which covered of lot of the changing politics throughout Islamic history, and if his sources are to be trusted then it would seem not all Europeans were viewed as vilely as they did the average crusader.
For instance, many "franks" quickly integrated to the Muslim rule prior to the crusade under their control of those coastal regions. Saladin himself justified trade the Venetians, Genoese, and Pisans for their choice products which they brought to Egypt. It was noted by him as "an advantage to Islam and an insult to Christianity".
Therefore, its not like the crusaders nor their culture merely appeared out of thin air to the shock of the Muslim world.
(Also, they got reconquered Jerusalem before Saladin died)
sorry my bad english
>B. Lewis
I read a book on the First Crusade and the impression I got was that the Crusaders had no idea what was going on and the Muslims had no idea what was going on
They had to fight armies of arabs you know, they didn’t just walk into the cities and burn them.
>They had to fight armies of arabs you know
They fought the Turkmen not Arabs.
>I bet when the Christian knights conquered Jerusalem the Muslims terrified themselves and thought it was divine retribution.
>It must have sent shock waves through the Islamic world the whole of Christendom descending on them.
Actually, they didn't especially care and were more concerned with allying the crusaders and pointing them at other Muslims they didn't like. The Middle East was very ethnically and religiously disintegrated at the time, so the different Muslim sects were much more eager to kill each other than to fight people they knew nothing about. This did not substantially change until Saladin, who raised a ton of noise about "fighting the infidels", then proceeded to systematically fight only fellow Muslims until he controlled basically the entire Middle East. Only then did he turn to Jerusalem.
Read Thomas Asbridge.
Interesting contribution.
the leader of the muslims is the leader of the church is the leader of the israelites
all wars are scripted ritual sacrifice
ALL wars
I've actually suspected as much myself, but merely suspected. The evidence I possess is mostly inferential.
>Muslims
>think
Lol
show nose
During the first crusades Muslims were in the middle of a civil war and thought nothing of the Christian invaders. It's the main reason why the first crusade was such a success, Muslims were too busy infighting. In subsequent crusades the Muslims banded together and Christians had a much more difficult time.
Muslims dindu nuffin they good boys they only fight in self defence.
They got Saladin
It's funny that the greatest Muslim hero (or one of them) is a Kurd, but they still treat Kurds like shit.
Ok but real question, why are Muslims so bad at war
The most pro-Islamic-perspective scholar on the subject (that I know of) was Sir Steven Thomas Runciman (ironic name, considering). His accounts of the Crusades are considered by modern historians to be examples of good historical writing, but bad examples of scholarship - as I understand it, precisely for being too anti-European. He died in Turkey, if I remember correctly.
Runciman wasn't pro-muslim as much as he was just a completely blinkered byzaboo. That he idealized muslims to a degree was but an element of his anti-latin rhetoric. Kind of like when nietzsche or enlightenment philosophers praise muhammad or islam, you aren't supposed to take what they say seriously - they knew about islam about as much as they knew about zen buddhism - but rather read between the lines and understand that they just want to stick it to christianity by praising its primary rival.
>ironic name
Not really? Protestantism has been consistently very islamophilic since the days of Luther. Even in its religious and philosophical character protestantism bears far closer resemblance to islam and judaism than it does to catholicism.
That's precisely why its ironic. He was very sympathetic to Muslims.
Everyone everywhere wants to stick it to Christianity, but he was definitely known for being a Muslim sympathizer.
>Seriously what did the Muslims think when they showed up.
iirc they first thought the crusades began in Spain, then in southern Italy, and finally in Jerusalem. AFAIK they didn't really consider the fall of Jerusalem to be a big deal.