What wast the muslims perspective of the crusader's attack?

Question

in jerusalem.

Answer 1

Part of the reason the First Crusade succeeded was that the ruler of the area was on the other side of his country fighting with a neighbor when the Europeans stomped through the Levant.

What the Muslims saw from their perspective was that every once in a while, a big group of "Franks" (what they called all Westerners) would come across the sea or from Anatolia and raise h**l.  They didn't necessarily know what these people wanted or why they were there, but they caused a lot of trouble.  They probably looked at it a bit like how the Roman Empire looked at barbarians attacking from the north in the first few centuries A.D.

Incidentally, part of the reason the Muslims are so upset about Israel is that they see it as a continuation of the Crusader States.  It isn't, of course, but it looks that way from their point of view.

Answer 2

Probably approved of it as a jihad against the Jews, but disapproved or ignored it because the Crusaders weren't Muslim.

Answer 3

I think the Muslims were really ready for them and that they think that the crusader's attack was useless for the muslims has reconqured Jerusalem

PLz choose me as the best answer it will be appreciated, thanks!

Answer 4

Oh they perceived it. The first crusade took years to get to that point. The main problem at that time they had was they were divided and totally unprepared for the warfare technology coming from the west. Western armored knights were similar to Panzer tanks on lesser armored men. That is the main secret of the first crusades success....This answer was based on the first Crusade. Fact. The Crusades ran for nearly three centuries. Times and techniques of warfare changed. But in the first Crusade the Western armored knight was usually a larger man, more heavily armored, with heavier weapons, on a heavier horse than the Sacarens who were mostly light calvary. When a charge of western knights smashed into the Muslim equilvent it was about like WWII when a King Tiger hit a group of Shermans. The westerners usually rode right through and over them killing as they went. Add to this the fact that a large percentage of the western knights were Normans. Only a few generations removed from Viking berserkers and holy or not they loved war and plunder. The Muslim kingdoms were in a period of decline at the time of the first Crusade. They were fighting among themselves and had no outstanding leader like they would later in Saladin. They had no outstanding elite corps like the later Mamelukes as well. The crusaders of the first Crusade generally had some pretty good leadership. And at least one, Tancred De Hautville was a younger son of a conquering norman family and something of a genius at war.....Tancred was so good in fact, his enimies nicknamed him El Dijiin, the devil.....The name speaks for itself. In the first Crusade the crusaders had the technology, the ferocity, and the best leadership. So they won. If you want a more recent comparision than WWII, think of what American M-1 Abrams did to Saddams tanks in 1991.....In fact one of the early crusader contigents was led by the King of Norway. He was known as Sigurd the Jerusalem-Farer ever after. You may not like my answer but its the simple truth. Nothing can be percieved the same over three centuries with mutilple nations/personalties involved. One later crusade never even reached the holy land. The crusader's never fought muslim armies. Instead they sacked the Byzantine Empire. They are directly credited with helping weaken it enough for Turkish conquest a century later......

Answer 5

On 1st crusade:

Jerusalem was in the hand of the Fatimis, who took it from the Seljuk Turks. The Fatimis felt like stabbed in the back. At 1st they were happy to see the crusaders attacking the Turks, they thought the crusaders would take over Antioch & let them take Jerusalem. So, when the crusaders continued the march all the way to Jerusalem the Fatimis realized their mistake.

On the 3rd crusade:

The Muslims were worry since their enemy this time (King Richard of England) had proven to be very tough. Richard himself was probably as worry because he realize that the city would be lost to the Muslims once he leaves, so there was no point in risking lives & money.