Which Muslim defeated Christians in the Second Crusade? Was it Saladin
Alp Arslan
Harun al-Rashid
Richard the Lion Heart
Answers
Answer:
Explanation:
Historiography
During the Reformation and Counter-Reformation of the 16th century, historians saw the Crusades through the prism of their own religious beliefs. Protestants saw them as a manifestation of the evils of the Papacy, while Catholics viewed the movement as a force for good. During the Enlightenment, historians tended to view both the Crusades and the entire Middle Ages as the efforts of barbarian cultures driven by fanaticism.By the 19th century, with the dawning of Romanticism, this harsh view of the crusades and its time period was mitigated somewhat.with later 19th-century crusade scholarship focusing on increasing specialization of study and more detailed works on subjects.
Enlightenment scholars in the 18th century and modern historians in the West have expressed moral outrage at the conduct of the crusaders. In the 1950s, Sir Steven Runciman wrote that “High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed … the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God” .In the 20th century, three important works covering the entire history of the crusades have been published, those of Rene Grousset, Runciman and the multi-author work edited by K. M. Stetton.A pluralist view of the crusades has developed in the 20th century
inclusive of all papal-led efforts, whether in the Middle East or in Europe Historian Thomas Madden has made the contrary argument that “[t]he crusade, first and foremost, was a war against Muslims for the defense of the Christian faith…. They began as a result of a Muslim conquest of Christian territories.” Madden says the goal of Pope Urban was that “[t]he Christians of the East must be free from the brutal and humiliating conditions of Muslim rule.”
After the fall of Acre in 1291, European support for the Crusades remained despite criticism by contemporaries such as Roger Bacon who felt the Crusades were ineffective since “those who survive, together with their children, are more and more embittered against the Christian faith.” The historian Norman Davies summarised the case against the crusades as running counter to the Peace and Truce of God that Urban had promoted; instead they reinforced the connection between Western Christendom, feudalism, and militarism. The formation of military religious orders scandalised the Orthodox Christian Byzantine Greeks. Crusaders pillaged the countries they transited on their journey east. Rather than keeping their oath to restore lands to the Byzantines, they often kept the land for themselves.The Peoples’ Crusade instigated the Rhineland massacres and the massacre of thousands of Jews. In the late 19th century this episode was used by Jewish historians to support Zionism. The Fourth Crusade resulted in the sacking of Constantinople, effectively ending the chance of reuniting the Christian church by reconciling the East–West Schism and leading to the weakening and eventual fall of the Byzantine Empire to the Ottomans. Historians of the Enlightenment criticized the misdirection of the crusades. In particular they pointed to the Fourth Crusade which instead of attacking Islam attacked another Christian power—the (Eastern) Roman Empire. David Nicolle says the Fourth Crusade has always been controversial in terms of the “betrayal” of Byzantium. Edward Gibbon in The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire said the crusaders efforts would have been more profitably employed in the improvement of their native country
The Great Seljuk Empire at its largest extent, in 1092
In the Eastern Mediterranean after Muslim forces defeated the Eastern Roman/Byzantines at the Battle of Yarmouk in 636, the control of Palestine passed through the Umayyad Dynasty, the Abbasid Dynasty. and the Fatimids.[35][36][37] Toleration, trade, and political relationships between the Arabs and the Christian states of Europe ebbed and flowed until 1072 when the Fatimids lost control of Palestine to the rapidly expanding Great Seljuk Empire.[38] For example, the Fatimid Caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah ordered the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, only to have his successor allow the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it.[39] The Muslim rulers allowed pilgrimages by Catholics to the holy sites. Resident Christians were considered people of the book and so were tolerated as Dhimmi or “subjugated people” accorded a second-class status, and inter-marriage was not uncommon.[40] Cultures and creeds coexisted as much as competed, but the frontier conditions were not conducive to Latin Catholic pilgrims and merchants.[41] The disruption of pilgrimages by conquering Seljuk Turks prompted support for the Crusades in Western Europe.[42]