The Complete History

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
  (Redirected from The Complete History (book))
Jump to: navigation, search

The Complete History - (Arabic: الكامل في التاريخ), al-Kamil fi'l Tarikh, is a classic Islamic history book written by Ali ibn al-Athir.[1] Composed in ca. 1231, it is one of the most important Islamic historical works.

The Rus[edit]

Ibn Athir's depiction of the Rūs is not primarily ethnological, and not dealing with particular customs or detailed geography. Rather, he accounts for the military significance of the Rūs as a people who raided the Caspian region and, importantly, who served the Byzantine Empire as mercenaries. Several references to the Rūs in the Kāmil are connected with Byzantine military operations. The strategic significance of the Varangians was recognized by the Arabs as early as the time of al-Muqaddasī (ca. 945–1000), who had described the Rūs as "two kinds of Byzantines" (jinsān min ar-Rūmī).

The first reference in the Kāmil to the Rūs are two entries for the year 943 referring to a raid of the Rūs in the Caucasus. The second entry concerns Rūs participation in the battle of Manzikert of 1071.

The Crusades[edit]

A large portion of the history deals with the era of the Crusades; this portion has been translated by D. S. Richards in three volumes, dealing with the arrival of the crusaders up to the time of Imad ad-Din Zengi, Nur ad-Din, and Saladin. In fact, ibn al-Athir's portrayal of the advent of the Crusades is especially informative of the Muslim perspective of the beginning of the Crusades.

In discussing the advent of the Crusades, ibn al-Athir characterizes the causes of the Crusades as an issue of political intrigue and historical continuity. In terms of historical continuity, ibn al-Athir seems to characterize the advent of the Crusades as merely a single event that is part of the long pattern of Frankish conquest. Ibn al-Athir attributes the origin to 1085-86, when the Franks first invaded Islamic lands in Andalusia. He then connects the Crusades with events in 1091, when the Crusaders conquered Sicily.[2]

At the same time, ibn al-Athir seems to attribute the immediate origins to the advent of the Crusade to three sources of political intrigue: Roger I, the Fatimids, and the Byzantine Emperor. First, ibn al-Athir writes of how the crusading armies under Baldwin—a compounding of various "Baldwins" of Flanders and Jerusalem—were manipulated by Roger I into invading Syria and toward Jerusalem.[2] Ibn al-Athir provides the interesting account in which Roger I was said to have "raised one leg and farted loudly" to dismiss the comments of his companions regarding Baldwin's requests to use Sicily as the intermediate station before advancing to conquer Africa.[3] It is unlikely that Roger I acted in such a crass manner, but this is likely a manner of creative editorializing by ibn al-Athir, as it was not uncommon for Muslim writers to intentionally describe their enemies with "contemptuous crudity."[2] In the narrative account, ibn al-Athir describes Roger's political calculus in redirecting the Frankish armies under Baldwin to head toward Syria and Jerusalem instead of North Africa through Sicily in order to preserve his "annual profit from the harvest," thus demonstrating Roger's political acumen as well as one source of political intrigue that motivated the Crusades to begin at Antioch.[3] In this case, it is unsurprising that ibn al-Athir characterizes the beginning of the Crusades to have occurred with the siege of Antioch in 1097, as the Crusades were simply part of a long historical pattern of Frankish conquests and not conceptualized as a distinct event, as contemporary European chroniclers—such as Fulcher of Chartres—tended to do.[4] In addition, ibn al-Athir refers to Roger's concern with maintaining friendly relations with Muslim rulers in Africa as another reason why he redirected the Frankish armies to Syria.[3]

The second source of political intrigue that ibn al-Athir claimed to have shaped the beginnings of the First Crusade was the Shiite Fatimid Dynasty in Egypt. While ibn al-Athir claims that it is merely "another story," he suggests fairly clearly that the Fatimids had a role in instigating the Franks to invade Syria because they were threatened by the expansion of Seljuk power and wanted to use the Franks to protect Fatimid Egypt from a Seljuk invasion. Interestingly, ibn al-Athir seems to suggest that the Fatimids were not "Muslims," demonstrating how Seljuk Sunni Muslims viewed the "heretic[al]" practices of the non-Sunni Fatimids.[3]

A third source of political intrigue to which ibn al-Athir attributes influence over the development of the origins of the Crusade is the Byzantine Emperor. Ibn al-Athir describes how the Byzantine Emperor had coerced the Franks to agree to conquer Antioch for him in exchange for permission to pass through Byzantine lands to the Levant.[5] Ibn al-Athir describes how the Byzantine Emperor's "real intention was to incite [the Crusaders] to attack the Muslims, for he was convinced that the Turks, whose invincible control over Asia Minor he had observed, would exterminate every one of them."[5] Again, ibn al-Athir attributes the advent of the First Crusade as a product of the Frankish armies being manipulated by political actors to do their bidding.

In terms of the beginning of the First Crusade, ibn al-Athir describes the siege of Antioch in July 1097 as the starting point. Within his description, ibn al-Athir discusses how the ruler of Antioch, Yaghi Siyan, expelled the Christians inhabitants of Antioch for fear of internal insurrection.[5] Interestingly, ibn al-Athir writes of the expulsion as an act of "protection", in which Yaghi Siyan was trying to protect the families of the Christians in Antioch, despite the obvious situation that he was holding these families hostage in an attempt to dissuade Antioch Christians from joining the Crusading armies.[5] Moreover, ibn al-Athir attributes the fall of Antioch to treachery by an Antioch cuirass-maker who let in the Crusaders through the water gate, and to Yaghi Siyan escaping in panic.[6] Even so, ibn al-Athir's accounts were still fairly partial, as he seems to suggest that Yaghi Siyan's escape was out of panic, instead of cowardice; he describes Yaghi Siyan to have suffered from great grief and repentance after his flight.[6] Furthermore, ibn al-Athir describes further acts of Frankish deviousness, in that they had sent messages to the rulers of Aleppo and Damascus "to say that they had no interest in any cities but those that had once belonged to Byzantium" in an attempt to "dissuade these rulers from" coming "to the help of Antioch."[7]

Further on, ibn al-Athir describes the failed Muslim siege of Antioch that ended in defeat. Interestingly, one event that ibn al-Athir describes during this failed siege was the finding of the Holy Lance by Peter Bartholomew, but framed in the context of Peter Bartholomew having buried a lance in a certain spot prior to such "discovery."[8] This seems to be fairly reflective of the more rationalistic Muslim culture at the time during the Crusades, compared to a more non-rational Latin Christian culture.[8] Regarding the siege, ibn al-Athir attributes the failure to Qawam ad-Daula Kerbuqa, who led the Muslim charge and failed for treating the Muslims "with such contempt and scorn" and prevented the Muslims from killing the Franks when given the opportunity.[8] Ibn al-Athir's description of the siege ended in the overwhelming victory of Frankish armies against the Muslims.[9] This was but the first step to the conquest of Jerusalem by the Crusaders in 1099.[10]

The Seljuks[edit]

D. S. Richards also translated a large portion of the text dealing with the history of the Seljuk Turks.

See also[edit]

Notes[edit]

  1. ^ al-Athir 2008
  2. ^ a b c Gabrieli 1969, p. 3
  3. ^ a b c d Gabrieli 1969, p. 4
  4. ^ Peters 1971, p. 24-31
  5. ^ a b c d Gabrieli 1969, p. 5
  6. ^ a b Gabrieli 1969, p. 6
  7. ^ Gabrieli 1969, p. 7
  8. ^ a b c Gabrieli 1969, p. 8
  9. ^ Gabrieli 1969, p. 8-9
  10. ^ Gabrieli 1969, p. 11

References[edit]