What's new

First Crusade : Discussion

As far I know Reconquesta in Spain is not called Crusade.

I believe he is speaking overall, although the Ummayads had lost control over Iberia years earlier and it had became a separate Muslim entity.

And todays Jews and Muslims are fighting over Jerusalem . Christians not interested anymore ? Why ?

Christians are also in Jerusalem and are also being persecuted by the Zionists.
 
. . . .
these events never happened. all fake history.written for ulterior motive
 
. . .
you have no idea of the stupidity that is being paraded as history. its all one big movie to fool us

Yes let the Illuminati discussions overtake this thread. :rolleyes:

Not everything is a conspiracy.
 
.
Yes let the Illuminati discussions overtake this thread. :rolleyes:

Not everything is a conspiracy.

oh god.. please man.. open your eyes.. the turkish empire was very powerful till ind revolution.
after that the whites took power and rewrote as if they only know to win.

and you guys believe it.
 
.
oh god.. please man.. open your eyes.. the turkish empire was very powerful till ind revolution.
after that the whites took power and rewrote as if they only know to win.

and you guys believe it.

The whites never wrote that they won the crusades. In fact here in the west I was taught that they lost but if they do try to twist it, they say that they benefited because of the things they learned from the East. They never deny they got whooped. I think the biggest farce in Western History was when they say Alexander the Great defeated Porus, that I think is BS but maybe I am just posturing. :meeting:
 
.
The whites never wrote that they won the crusades. In fact here in the west I was taught that they lost but if they do try to twist it, they say that they benefited because of the things they learned from the East. They never deny they got whooped. I think the biggest farce in Western History was when they say Alexander the Great defeated Porus, that I think is BS but maybe I am just posturing. :meeting:

why you think porus wasnt defeated
 
.
why you think porus wasnt defeated

A combination of doubt and pride. I find it hard to believe he could have won when he was knocked out of the battle halfway through. Not to mention the history is recorded through Greek and Latin sources so it is most likely biased. If he had won so decisively as the historians say his forces would not had been so discouraged to move further. Now some say they were tired, but they could have just rested in the "defeated lands of Porus they had just conquered" and continue moving forward along with Porus' support (considering they say Porus had accepted Alexander's sovereignty). In light of this it is more likely the case that he either lost or was forced into a draw with concessions on both sides which halted his advance in light of what awaited him further east.

BTW have you seen the movie Alexander? It has a whole scene based on that battle and in the movie it shows him getting knocked out and basically ends the battle as if they lost but then shows that they won (which in itself is confusing and makes little sense while they try to reenact it).
 
.
oh god.. please man.. open your eyes.. the turkish empire was very powerful till ind revolution.
after that the whites took power and rewrote as if they only know to win.

and you guys believe it.

Then try to read first hand sources, such as Tarih-i Baibars, Ibn Battuta, Marco Polo etc... They would give you insight.

I didnt research the Crusades nor any Middleastern history. But i am quite experienced in Kuman-Tatar, and Anatolian Turkish histories. I never read professors' books. I look for authentic sources from that specific time.

I believe historians like Ibn Athir, and Bar Hebraeus give Good information about Crusades.

The Complete History - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Bar Hebraus' accounts on Crusades

Bar Hebraeus or Gregory Abu'l Faraj, Chronography. The History of the Crusades. Syriac Historical Sources, Syrian History, World History, Medieval Chronicle
 
. .
Siege of Antioch

The Siege of Antioch took place during the First Crusade in 1097 and 1098 after Battle of Dorylaeum (1097). The first siege, by the crusaders against the Muslim-held city, lasted from 21 October 1097 to 2 June 1098. Antioch lay on the crusaders' route to Palestine.

Location of Antioch in present day Turkey


800px-Antiochmap2.PNG


Defender of Antioch:Yaghi-Siyan
Banda_Singh_Bahadur.jpg


Anticipating that Antioch would be attacked the Muslim governor of the city, Yaghi-Siyan, began stockpiling food and sending requests for help. The walls surrounding the city presented a formidable obstacle to its capture, so the leaders of the crusade decided to besiege Antioch.

AntiochRamparts.jpg

Defensive wall of Antioch

Robert II, Count of Flanders, Adhemar of Le Puy, Bohemund of Taranto, Hugh I, Count of Vermandois; Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy; Stephen II, Count of Blois, Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse, Godfrey of Bouillon started the siege. The ensuing nine-month siege has been described as "one of the great sieges of the age".

SiegeofAntioch.jpg

Siege of Antioch

An army under the leadership of Duqaq of Damascas was en route to relieve Antioch. On the morning of 31 December Duqaq marched towards Bohemund and Raymond's army and the two met at the village of Albara.The month ended inauspiciously for both sides: there was an earthquake on 30 December, and the following weeks saw such unseasonably bad rain and cold weather that Duqaq had to return home without further engaging the crusaders. Another rescue team sent by Ridwan of Aleppo was beaten back!


Capture of Antioch


The siege continued, and at the end of May 1098 a Muslim army under the command of Kerbogha of Mosul approached Antioch. This army was much larger than the previous attempts to relieve the siege. The crusaders knew they would have to take the city before Kerbogha arrived if they had any chance of survival. Bohemund secretly established contact with Firouz, an newly converted ex-christian Armenian guard who controlled the Tower of the Two Sisters but had a grudge with Yaghi-Siyan, and bribed him to open the gates. Firouz opened the gates and a massacre followed. The remaining Christians in the city opened the other gates and participated in the massacre themselves, killing as much of the hated Turkish garrison as they could. The crusaders, however, killed some of the Christians along with the Muslims, including Firouz's own brother.
451px-Gustave_dore_crusades_bohemond_alone_mounts_the_rampart_of_antioch.jpg

Bohemond of Taranto alone mounts the wall of Antioch



Antiochie_Godefroi_Robert.jpg

A 14th-century depiction of the crusaders' capture of Antioch




793px-Capture_of_Antioch_by_Bohemond_of_Tarente_in_June_1098.JPG

Capture of Antioch by Bohemond


Yaghi-Siyan fled but was captured by some Syrian Christians outside the city. He was decapitated and his head was brought to Bohemund.



Arab historian Ali ibn al-Athir described the city’s fall.


Yaghi Siyan showed unparalleled courage and wisdom, strength and judgment. If all the Franks who died had survived they would have overrun all the lands of Islam. He protected the families of the Christians in Antioch and would not allow a hair of their head to be touched.

After the siege had been going on for a long time the Franks made a deal with one of the men who were responsible for the towers. He was a cuirass-maker called Ruzbih [or Firuz, or Firouz] whom they bribed with a fortune in money and lands. He worked in the tower that stood over the river-bed, where the river flowed out of the city into the valley. The Franks sealed their pact with the cuirass-maker, God damn him! and made their way to the water-gate. They opened it and entered the city. Another gang of them climbed the tower with ropes. At dawn, when more than 500 of them were in the city and the defenders were worn out after the night watch, they sounded their trumpets … Panic seized Yaghi Siyan and he opened the city gates and fled in terror, with an escort of thirty pages.Yaghi-Siyan fell from his horse in flight; his companions tried to lift him back into the saddle, but they could not get him to sit up, and so left him for dead while they escaped. He was at his last gasp when an Armenian shepherd came past, killed him, cut off his head and took it to the Franks at Antioch.



Second siege


Kerbogha of Mosul began the second siege, against the crusaders who had occupied Antioch.By the time he arrived, around June 5-9, the Crusaders had been in possession of the city since 3 June. They were not able to restock the city before Kerbogha, in turn, was besieging the Crusaders in the city. While the crusaders were marching towards Karbogha, the Fatimid section of the army ( shia from Egypt) deserted the Turkish contingent, as they feared Kerbogha would become too powerful were he able to defeat the Crusaders. Duqaq and many other emirs had already betrayed Kerbogha and were taking their armies back to their own lands, this desertion considerably reduced the numerical advantage the mighty army had over its Christian opponents. Soon the remaining Muslim troops had to retreat. Unified Christian army was so large that Kerbogha had to retreat and returned to Mosul a broken man.

Kerbogha_Antiochie.jpg

Siege by Karbogha
 
.
Back
Top Bottom