was muslim disunity greater in 1099 than 1071? Flashcards
what evidence is there that muslim disunity did not change from 1071 to 1099?
- Religious schism did not change;
- The Fatimids were still expansionistic and aggressive and were determined to consolidate their control of Palestine
- The nature of Turkish rule did not change
- Some disintegration of unity among the Seljuk Turks but only just starting in 1070s and far less significant than by the 1090s
how did the muslim religious schism maintain relevance from 1071-99?
- Ideological and political enmity between Fatimids and Seljuks was deeply entrenched
- The Seljuk Turks as converts to Sunni Islam spent 1063-92 fighting their religious enemies (still happening in 1099)
who were the Seljuk Turks’ religious enemies?
- largely the Shia Fatimids whom they regarded as heretical; did not primarily pursue Byzantium or Christian kingdoms of Caucasus
give an example of Seljuk / Fatimid disunity/violence 1071-99
- Seljuks captured Jerusalem from the Fatimids in 1071 but in 1098 the Fatimids regained the city.
- Fatimids had also captured Tyre from the Turks in 1097.
who did the Fatimids seek to overthrow in this period?
sought to overthrow the Abbasid caliphate that the Seljuk Turks had sworn to protect.
why did the Fatimids seek to overthrow the Abbasid Caliphate 1071-99?
to consolidate their control of Palestine
what was the nature of Turkish rule 1071-99?
Seljuks reliant on nomadic kinsmen for military support; Muslim populations (mostly Arab) of the cities of the Levant were not happy under Turkish rule
why were the Muslim populations (mostly Arab) of the cities of the Levant not happy under Turkish rule?
- Urban population often needed these nomads for military protection but they found their ways irksome and disruptive
- Cities and countryside of Syria and Palestine had already suffered much at the hands of the Turcomans (nomadic Turks); populations resented harassment and tribute paid to roving bands of Turcomans.
what relationship did the Seljuk Turks have with Near East cities in the period 1071-99?
Turkish nomads lived in an uneasy relationship with Near East cities; chiefs mulcted cities for taxes and assumed some of the trappings of settled rulers
what evidence is there that the nature of muslim disunity did change 1071-99?
- There had been many significant deaths 1092-94 which contributed to a lack of Muslim leadership
- Divisions between the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia became much worse during the 1080s-90s than earlier.
- Collapse of the Seljuk Empire in Syria (Tutush I died in 1095) meant that Turkish rulers were unwilling to work together
- During the First Crusade
what were the significant deaths 1092-94 which contributed to a lack of Muslim leadership ?
- 1092: Nizam al-Mulk, vizier and de facto ruler of the Seljuk Empire for over 30 years, murdered.
- 1092: Malik Shah, Seljuk Sultan, died in suspicious circumstances after a successful 20-year rule - followed by his wife and grandson
- 1094: al- Muqtadi, Abbasid Sunni caliph, died
- 1094: al-Mustansir, Fatimid caliph, died after ruling for 58 years
- 1094: Badr al-Jamali, vizier of Fatimid Egypt, died
- 1094-97: Musta’li and Nizar fought to succeed to Fatimid caliphate. Nizar’s followers continued to be an internal problem for years to come.
how did Divisions between the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia become worse during the 1080s-90s than earlier?
- Some became mercenaries of the Byzantines e.g. Sulayman (Sultan of Rum)
- Others established rival territories, especially after Suleiman’s death e.g. Caka in Smyrna (c.1088) and the Danishmends.
- Turks in Anatolia were divided and at war; Kilij Arslan, Sultan of Rum, was attacking the rival Danishmends (May 1097) at the time of the Nicaea attack by the First Crusade
what was the impact of the Collapse of the Seljuk Empire in Syria in 1095?
Turkish rulers were unwilling to work together
give an example of Turkish rulers who were unwilling to work together after the collapse of the seljuk empire in syria in 1095
- Ridwan of Aleppo and Duqaq of Damascus unwilling to co-ordinate to defeat the crusaders at Antioch and attacked separately as they both wanted the city
- Disunity and division within Kerbogha’s large force at Antioch led to its defeat when he attacked the crusaders after they had captured the city
- Many Seljuk leaders were willing to pay tribute to crusaders
which Seljuk leaders were willing to pay tribute to crusaders?
- 14 January 1099: Sultan ibn Munqidh, emir of Shaizar, offered provisions and food for men and horses, as well as guides to Jerusalem.
- February 1099: the emir of Homs, Janah ad-Dawla (had fought bravely at the siege of Antioch) offered horses to Raymond.
- Ruler of Tripoli, Jalal al-Mulk, sent rich gifts and invited the Franks to send an embassy to his city.
what event exemplifies muslim disunity during the first crusade?
The Muslim convert, Firouz, allowed the crusaders to enter Antioch (June 1098)
