How much of a blow to the Islamic world were the crusades? Did it contribute to the fall of the Islamic world?
I've read they were basically a minor threat that was dwarfed by the Mongols as well as being just as bad or worse. Is this western revisionism or was it really a big deal to them?
>>357110
It was considered a minor threat as you said. In fact up until recent history the crusades were described by muslim scholars as being minor invasions that were only somewhat successful because the muslims were engaged elsewhere and as soon as they were no longer engaged this tiny invasion force was swept asunder.
>>357110
Very minor event over there. In fact the major Islamic players in those conflicts are practically unknown in the native history. They're only known in Europe.
The first crusade was the only one that had any impact on the region, and all it did was inconvenience the Turkish military, beat a little coalition of Muslim lords whose troops didn't want to fight anyway, and make a few insignificant cities in the Levant change hands for a while.
>>357110
>How much of a blow to the Islamic world were the crusades? Did it contribute to the fall of the Islamic world?
Not that big. Mongols pretty much did that all by themselves.
However i would say that the Kingdom of Jerusalem is very fascinating. I honestly think it could had been something great if given time and if Saladin hadnt happened.
>>357110
The other two anons have already said it, but it's pretty easy to see that they were a minor nuisance when you consider that literally only the first and I think one other (out of 11 or 12 I think) actually took Jerusalem.
>>357187
Actually the sixth managed to take Jerusalem through diplomacy.
>>357110
Not enormous but I think the lasting effects are under estimated. While the Mongols really crushed the culture of learning and improvement that was coming out of Baghdad, the Crusades generated xenophobia among the Turks/Mamluks, which contributed to the lack of the flow of ideas between Europe and the Middle East later
>>357110
The first crusade took everyone by surprise, but it didn't have any long term consequences.
The rest were really minor threats. The holy land had long stopped having any value.
And of course, all that was overshadowed when Mongols decided persian pussy tasted good raw.
>>357110
The Fourth Crusade was probably seen as downright entertaining.
>>357110
The Islamic World is and was a big place, so it wasn't a comparatively large blow. But it did do a lot to specific regions of the Islamic world and, if one extended this to the Norman, Italian, and Iberian campaigns in the Mediterranean as a whole, probably everything west of Damascus.
To the Arabs of the time, the Crusades were a handful of campaigns of a much larger war of expansion from Europe, one which targeted more than holy sites in Syria.
They contributed, among other attacks, to the social and economic downfall of the Islamic world. However, in its place they helped contribute to the rise of a far more militant and less tolerant one.
>>357209
Actually i know a muslim who actually read about the crusades, wanted to see it from a european perspective. Told me that the 4th Crusade made him downright depressed.
Granted back then it was most likely a mixture of wtf and laughing their asses off.
>>357209
Not to the Muslims they killed in Constantinople.
>>357209
Nah, the Arab sources mostly didn't care to even mention it outside of 'the Franks took Constantinople.'
Ibn Al-Athir wrote a few paragraphs though:
https://ballandalus.wordpress.com/2014/04/21/ibn-al-athir-d-1233-on-the-conquest-of-constantinople-in-1204/
