Franks Lordships In Syria's Diplomatic Landscape - Essay Example

? Franks Lordships in Syria’s Diplomatic landscape in the Early 12th Century FRANKS LORDSHIPS IN SYRIA’S DIPLOMATIC LANDSCAPE Introduction Poems found in the wake of the initial crusade referred to these invaders as Byzantines. Even as, they were dubbed as Faranj, some time later, a term that was utilized to designate Frankish inhabitants from the previous Carolingian Empire the difference between the Byzantines and the Franks was not very clear or clear-cut. They were still referred to interchangeably as Faranj or Byzantines and, sometimes, as the “blond haired, or Banu al-Asafar they were not designated in religious terms. The Syrians in contemporary society to account for the invasion and its nature utilized this affiliation with the Byzantines for the crusades. It was expected to be a short-lived invasion, and this led them to expect that, even with the Franks remaining for a while on their soil, they could develop the same type of symbiotic relationship that they created with Antioch in the 10th century, conquered again by Byzantine, as well as the rest of the northern part of Syria. As long as the crusader’s peculiar aims remained the liberation of Oriental Christians and the Holy Places, and were still unknown to the Muslim population, the Franks’ identification as Byzantines could endure. There was no trace of religious animosity between the native Muslims and the Frank lordships rather; the animosity was of a diplomatic nature. In the early 12th century, in fact, there was little real dialogue between the Frankish lordships and the Muslim natives in Syria. This paper seeks to discuss the degree to which the Frankish Lordships remained outsiders in the Syrian diplomatic landscape, in the early 12th century by looking at events in the early 12th century and their effect on diplomatic relations. Events in the Early 12th Century Animosity for the Muslim population was blunted, to an extent, by the fact that Franks did not make attempts to severe all avenues of peaceful relationships with Islamic principalities’ residents that bordered them. In the early 12th century, there was an intricate interconnection of woven between the Muslims in Syria and the Franks (Kohler, 2010: p76). This persisted at least during the relatively long periods of relative and true calm that were interspersed only by short-lived military activity outbursts. The most famous instances are to be found in Usama Ibn Mungidh’s, a Shayzar knight, memoirs. In detail, he describes the many pleasant encounters between the Frankish Lordships and the Muslims out of the battlefields, especially the templar order members. He betrays a sense of moral superiority and Islamic intellectual as instanced, by a polite refusal of an offer, to take Usama’s son to France for studies by a Frankish knight (Kohler, 2010: p76). However, the fact that this type of offer was developed in the first instance and the fact that Usama was not worried that the son would be converted is a telling item of evidence concerning the relationship texture. The Muslim natives, Usama included, knew the Frankish lordships well, visited major towns run by the crusaders, and entertained them often. Muslims of lower social classes, particularly the artisans and merchants, travelled to Frankish territories often for personal or professional reasons (Kohler, 2010: p79). Many descriptions of Muslims from Frankish towns by the Muslim Arabs who visited them exist. While it is true that the first crusade was, in deed, an atrocious campaign, it was not very different to the usual permanent skirmishes that dominated Syria throughout the 11th century, continuing into the 12th century between the Muslims in Syria. Beyond the human, and quite friendly, relationships, the two groups maintained political alliances for long periods. The political alliance between the Frankish lordships of Antioch and Emirs Shayzar is the most celebrated of these alliances. The entente between the Latin kingdom in Jerusalem and the Atabeks in Damascus was important as well and was predicated upon the zonal division of influence in the Sawad and the Gilead in 1108, as well as in the Biq’a Valley, in Lebanon later in 1110 (Kohler, 2010: p80). Military coalitions of an ad hoc nature between Muslim rulers and Frankish rulers were a regular occurrence with a specific coalition between Muslim Mosul and Frankish Antioch in the year 1107. This was the best indication of integration of the Frankish lordships in the social and political landscape in Syria that did not have any hint of antagonistic religiosity. However, this idyllic integration was not to endure. The Muslim natives soon discovered that the Frankish lordships had no intention of ever leaving, had no Byzantine affiliations, and were mainly motivated by, what was to them, novel and disturbing ideologies and visions (Shagrir & Keda, 2007: p73). Their awareness of the latter, particularly their crusade mentality, tipped the balance in favor of increased diplomatic isolation among the Muslim natives towards the Frankish lordships. For some time, it could still be hoped that their would be a long term modus Vivendi towards the Byzantine variety of invaders, although this perspective diminished if they were motivated by the ideologies that the natives had begun to discover in the early 12th century with regards to the Frankish presence. Their discovery was more as a result of subsequent events and less to do with the first crusade (Shagrir & Keda, 2007: p74). One, perhaps, could minimize the impact of profane acts that were carried out between 1097 and 1100 during the invasion and dismiss them as ephemeral phenomena, just as the invasion was considered to be. Acts of sacrilege went on in the following years and through these actions; rather than ideology discussions with Frankish lordships, did the Muslim natives learn about the crusade phenomenon and its specificity (Shagrir & Keda, 2007: p75). These acts of sacrilege including; burning of mosques or converting them to churches, such as the switching of a minaret for a cross on Aleppo’s main mosque, as well as on top of citadels, and the improper treatment of Muslim native pilgrims on their way to Mecca. Because of this, religious sensibilities among the Muslim natives were shaken and scandalized. This led to the rebirth of the jihadist movement that was taken over by the rulers to be further strengthened by Saladin and Nur al-Din in the latter parts of the 12th century (Shagrir & Keda, 2007: p75). Diplomatic Relations in the Early 12th Century While the first crusade was generated, preceded by, and followed by outbursts of enthusiasm from the Christian Franks and others, among the Muslim natives, one encountered minimal religious animosity towards the crusading invaders and little or no corresponding resurgence of religion (Riley-Smith, 2009: p51). Hatred, anguish, and panic, while being created by the forceful entry into Syria in the late 11th and early 12th centuries, lacked a Muslim dimension. This can be explained by the fact, in part that those in Syria saw these crusades as being an extension of military campaigns by Byzantine aimed at recapturing Northern Syria in the 10th and 11th centuries. This campaign lacked religious characteristics and was a war of states, rather than a war between religions. This perception was made plausible by the reason that the crusaders entered Syria through Constantinople, as well as the fact that the Franks had been familiar in the past in the Middle East, particularly as Byzantine Empire mercenaries (Riley-Smith, 2009: p51). As can be gleaned from the activities in the 12th century, better knowledge of others is not necessarily a beginning of sympathy; rather, it may breed contempt. It is not that the Muslim natives of this time were not aware of the crusade movement’s institutional aspect. Especially as the Pope’s role in its proclamation; indulgence that was promised to those who took part, recapturing Jerusalem as the main goal, and propaganda spread by monks and priests in Europe, as well as contributions made to maintain morale in the Syrian battles all pointed to this (Riley-Smith, 2009: p52). However, all this is presented not to understand better the enemy but to create a religious zeal among the Muslim natives such as that which had been instilled in the crusaders. Therefore, Muslim leaders in Syria invoke the role of the Pope in many letters in this period asking for help in isolating the crusaders and the Frankish lordships in particular. Some of this isolation, coupled with jihad would even present them as being imbued with perseverance and zeal in their actions unlike the Muslim natives who were dodging military duty and were full of lassitude (Riley-Smith, 2009: p52). The Muslim natives in Syria believed that Western Christianity was acting in solidarity with the Latin East while the Maghreb had refused to aid their Eastern Muslim counterparts against the Franks. The context here is that of war and antagonism. The Muslims needed to learn more concerning the enemy for the sake of military intelligence and so as to emulate the qualities of the Franks that they found better than their own (Nelson, 2010: p65). However, they were always certain that even if the Franks did resemble them, they were morally inferior, misguided, and could not be expected to accept conversion through disputation of the Islamic viewpoint. It is in this context that we can explain why there was very little in the way of true dispute between the Muslim natives and Frankish lordships, especially because of the disdain, which was mutual; they held for each other. In deed, there was no reason for the Muslim natives to argue with people that they had referred to as the damned and as being children of hell. Muslim writings of the early 12th century in Syria are rather one sided that boil down to a reiteration of the time, i.e. discord between the Muslim natives and the franks, notably the divinity of Jesus Christ and the whole issue of the Holy Trinity (Dajani-Shakeel, 1993: p193). There is very little evidence of conflict, although there is little evidence of cordial diplomatic relations. These writings consist of refutation of Christian arguments that were “erroneous” using Koranic verses that were integrated with chronicles, poems, and epistolary anthologies that dealt, mostly, with the crusades. The most commonly quoted of the Koranic verses were 169-170 of Chapter IV that dealt with the messiah, son of Mary, was just but a messenger of Allah and that his word was conveyed to his mother Mary, as well as a spirit from him. It was thus important to believe only in Allah and his messengers (Dajani-Shakeel, 1993: p193). Based on these verses, it is clear that the Muslim natives spoke of the Frankish lordships on an accusatory note, such as they lied to us through representation of their Lord in a fashion such as this. Contrarily, they lied through mockery as if how these Franks could hope to attain succor from their divinity that they admit had been killed and still expect that he could save them from what he had suffered. However, these arguments were only designated to be consumed by the Muslim natives and not to engage the franks in a debate. There is only one theological tract that can be thought of as anti-Frankish and anti-Christian that was written during this period in refutation of their “polytheism” and was written by Muhammad Ibn Abd al - Rahma n al- Katib. Actual face to face disputes between the Muslim natives and the Frankish lordships were very rare, and almost all seem to be from the early rule of Saladin, which were held in private audience with Frankish lordships (MacEvitt, 2008: p82). Members of the Muslim leaders’ entourage to accentuate the crusade’s religious nature spread rumors of these discourses. Therefore, the Muslim native leaders discussed issues with Frankish lordships, such as the Frankish lord of Beaufort when they laid siege to his castle. When, for example, the Frankish ambassador Conrad de Montferrat arrived at a Muslim military camp so as to negotiate an armistice, the Sultan lectured him in detail with regards to Islam’s merits and gave him the chance to convert (MacEvitt, 2008: p83). However, these examples are exceptions. Most of the discourse between the Muslim natives and the Franks had to do with the Franks’ misguided notions and were directed at their camp or even hurled at them in a spirit brimming with animosity. Conclusion The absence of any real dialogue between the Muslim natives and Frankish lordships was impressive; especially considering that there was continued disputes with Oriental Christians, which were held in public sometimes throughout the 12th century. The warfare climate that dominated relationships between Muslims and Franks was not conducive to any meaningful dialogue with the notion of superiority by the Franks also as much to blame as the same feelings harbored by Muslim natives. Indeed, at theological level, this diplomatic disconnect led to a lack of idea exchange. References Kohler, M., 2010. Alliances and treaties between Frankish and Muslim rulers in the Near East. London : I. B. Tauris. Nelson, J., 2010. The Frankish world. London: Hambledon. Dajani-Shakeel, H., 1993. Diplomatic Relations between Muslim and Frankish rulers 1097-1153 AD. In M. Shatzmiller, Crusaders and Muslims in twelfth-century Syria (pp. 190-199). Leiden : Brill. MacEvitt, C., 2008. The crusades and the Christian world of the east : rough tolerance. Philadelphia : Univ. of Pennsylvania Press. Riley-Smith, J., 2009. The crusades : a history. London : Continuum. Shagrir, I. & Keda, B., 2007. Studies in Crusades and medieval culture. Aldershot : Ashgate. Read More