Tax Return For Antioch University: Fill & Download for Free

The Muslim armies were small but fast-moving and highly motivated, while the Roman armies were ponderous and divided. The Muslims also benefited from the leadership of Khalid ibn al-Walid, one of the great generals of history.There was also the factor that the Muslims offered religious freedom and lower taxes, both of which were greatly welcomed by the long-suffering subjects of the oppressive Roman Empire in Egypt and Syria. Once the Romans had been defeated in a particular province, the people there showed no inclination to welcome them back, or to rise up against the armies of Islam — which were seen more as liberators than conquerors.It should also be noted that in 603-628 the Romans had just fought a long and debilitating war against Sassanid Persia. They had successfully repelled a Persian invasion, but the hollow victory left them exhausted and low in manpower when the Arab attacks began.The Middle East in 633, on the eve of the Muslim conquestsBy 633 CE, a year after Muhammad's death, the tribes of the Arabian peninsula were united under the religion of Islam and the leadership of Abu Bakr, who took the title Caliph which means 'Successor' (to Muhammad). In the spring of that year Abu Bakr sent an army of 18,000 men under Khalid ibn al-Walid to invade the Persian Empire. His intentions are unknown: he may have intended merely a raid, or to capture some border territory as a buffer zone. Instead, much to everyone's surprise, Khalid won seven successive victories over the Persian armies, captured several fortified cities, and by December 633 had conquered all of Mesopotamia.Soon after, fighting also broke out against the Roman Empire in the Levant. In early 634 Abu Bakr sent four separate columns of Arab horsemen, each a few thousand strong, into the Syria-Palestine region from the south. Their mission was to raid, gather intelligence, and possibly acquire territory.The Roman Emperor Heraclius received early warning of this raid from allies among the Arabs, and planned a decisive counter-attack. Garrison forces from all over the eastern parts of his empire were gathered together; the total force is stated to have been around 100,000 men. They rendezvoused at a place referred to by contemporary historians as Ajnadayn; its modern location is unknown but is believed to have been in what is now central Israel. Theodore, brother of Emperor Heraclius, commanded the main body of the army.In May 634 Abu Bakr heard about the Roman concentration of force, and ordered Khalid ibn al-Walid to leave his campaign against Persia and bring reinforcements to help in Syria.Khalid's response was a military masterstroke. At the head of 8,000 men he led them across the Syrian desert, including a two-day march without water. Heraclius had believed the desert to be impassible, so he had not defended this sector. Now he had a Muslim army behind him, sitting across his vulnerable supply lines.Khalid’s invasion of SyriaThe Arab forces converged on Bosra (or Busra) in what is now southern Syria, and was then the capital of the Ghassanid kingdom, a Roman client state. One of the smaller Muslim columns, 4,000 strong, tried to capture the city before Khalid arrived (out of pride), but was itself attacked by the larger Roman garrison of 12,000 men. The Muslims were in danger of being surrounded and destroyed when Khalid's forces arrived on the scene and saw the ongoing struggle from about a mile distant. His cavalry hastily charged towards the battle, but when the Romans saw them coming they retreated back behind the city walls. After some more skirmishing the Roman commander surrendered, on generous terms.Using Bosra as his base, Khalid now advanced against the main Roman force at Ajnadayn in July 634. The Muslim army was perhaps 10,000 or 20,000 strong; according to the historical records the Romans had 100,000 men, but it is now believed that this total is grossly exaggerated. Few details of the battle are known, but it was a decisive Muslim victory.The surviving Romans fled back north to Damascus. Theodore, the defeated commander, was recalled to Constantinople by his brother and imprisoned. The Arab forces split up to raid and ravage the countryside, and most of the population took shelter inside the walled cities.After these battles, Khalid recognised the potentially decisive importance of his cavalry when fighting the Romans. He organised a force of 4,000 men as his Mobile Guard (Tulay'a Mutaharikkah in Arabic), to act under his personal command as a rapid reaction force and reserve. He also assembled a number of staff officers and aides attached to the regiment, whose primary responsibility was gathering and collating intelligence from scouts and informants, and keeping Khalid informed of developments.Khalid leading his troops (by Umar Farrukh, 1964)Khalid now moved towards Damascus. The Roman commander of the city sent forces to try and block his advance, while calling to Emperor Heraclius for reinforcements. Khalid was delayed but not halted by the Roman blocking force, and laid siege to Damascus on 20 August 634. The reinforcements heading for the city were intercepted and destroyed 30 km short of it, and three attempts by its garrison to sortie were also defeated. Khalid defeated the Roman attacks despite being outnumbered, by rapidly moving his Mobile Guard from place to place, while his other soldiers fought with great determination despite the odds against them until help could arrive.On 18 September, a traitor within the city contacted Khalid with information of a weak spot in the defences. An elite force of around 100 Muslim soldiers scaled the walls during the night, captured a gate, and opened it to the attackers. Khalid's forces rushed into the city, and the Roman commander immediately offered to surrender.After some internal debate the Muslim commanders accepted the offer, and as they had in Bosra granted Damascus generous terms. In return for a payment of tribute (jizya), the city was spared from the slaughter, plunder and enslavement which was the usual fate of captured cities in the ancient world. Khalid even agreed not to do any harm to the churches and temples within the city. The Roman garrison was given a three-day truce to leave the city -- though this did not end well for them, as once the three days were over the faster-moving Arab armies pursued them and defeated them in an open battle, capturing much plunder.According to legend, among the treasures captured in this battle was the daughter of Emperor Heraclius, who was the widow of the now-dead Roman commander. Khalid offered her as a wife to the traitor whose information had allowed him to capture Damascus, but he refused. Instead, then, Khalid returned the daughter safely to her father under a flag of truce.Roman Damascus (or what’s left of it)Meanwhile, Abu Bakr had died and been replaced as Caliph by Umar. One of Umar's first moves was to remove Khalid from command of the army in Syria, being wary of his growing popularity and reputation. He appointed Abu Ubaidah ibn al-Jarrah in his place. However, Khalid was honourable and loyal, and agreed to serve under Abu Ubaidah's command; equally, Abu Ubaidah recognised Khalid's talents and relied on his advice.The capture of Damascus gave the Muslims control of central Syria ('Syria' being the name used in Roman times for the whole region, not merely the modern country of that name). Abu Ubaidah decided he needed to destroy the remaining Roman forces to the south, in Palestine, before turning his attention to the main enemy concentration to the north.A large Roman force had taken shelter after their defeat at Ajnadayn at the city of Pella (known as Fahl in Arabic) in the Jordan valley. On 23 January 635 the Muslim army defeated the Romans at the Battle of Fahl, and then went on to capture the city.Abu Ubaidah and Khalid now headed north again, aiming to capture Emesa (now Homs, in Syria). They ran headfirst into a Roman army sent south from Antioch to recapture Damascus, since Emperor Heraclius had heard that the Muslims had left that city lightly guarded. Abu Ubaidah defeated the main Roman force while Khalid hastily led his Mobile Guard back to Damascus to defeat the Roman advance guard which had already slipped past them.The city of Emesa now offered a year's truce. Abu Ubaidah accepted the offer, using the time gained to reinforce Muslim control of southern and central Syria-Palestine. However, at Antioch the Romans were also gathering a large army to launch a counter-attack. Emperor Heraclius came there in person. He also negotiated an alliance with Emperor Yezdigerd III of Persia to fight their common enemy.Emesa (by Louis-François Cassas, c. 1785)In December Heraclius sent reinforcements to garrison Emesa, thus breaking the truce. He advised his commander that the Arab armies could not stand cold winter weather: "Fight them on every cold day so that none of them is left by the spring".Abu Ubaidah responded more rapidly than expected, despite the cold. With Khalid's Mobile Guard in the lead he defeated the Roman forces around Emesa and laid siege to the city. The Muslims lacked siege engines, so could only blockade the city. The siege lasted until March 636, when the Romans, running low on food, attempted a sally. They overwhelmed the Muslim force blockading the Rastan gate; but once again Khalid led his personal cavalry to the rescue and drove back the Roman attack.Khalid now proposed a plan under which the Muslim army would pretend to lift the siege and retreat southwards. Abu Ubaidah agreed, and when they fell back, the Roman commander fell into the trap and pursued them with his own cavalry. At the right moment the Arab rearguard stopped its retreat and turned to fight, then Khalid sprang his ambush from the flanks. The pursuing Roman force was surrounded and annihilated. Emesa surrendered soon after, and was granted similar terms to those given to Damascus.Meanwhile the Roman army in Antioch continued to grow, perhaps reaching as many as 200,000 men, but its morale was low and money for wages was running short. Theodore Trithyrius, the Imperial treasurer, was in nominal command of the army; its field commander was an Armenian general named Vahan. The Roman army was a multinational force including Armenians, Arabs, Slavs, Franks and Georgians.In May 636 Heraclius began his offensive. His Christian Arab troops would launch a probing attack on the main Muslim force at Emesa to pin it in place, while two more armies launched flanking attacks on it from east and west. Meanwhile, the Slavic troops were sent down the Mediterranean coast, aiming to reach Beirut then swing inland to capture Damascus and cut the Muslim lines of communication. Vahan and his Armenian troops remained back as a strategic reserve.The Muslims learned of the Roman plan from captured prisoners, and Khalid advised Abu Ubaidah to retreat from his exposed position at Emesa and concentrate his forces further south. The Muslim army set up camp near the River Yarmouk (or Yarmuk), which flows into the River Jordan just south of the Sea of Galilee. They encamped on a flat plain above the river which offered scope for the Arab cavalry to manoeuvre, but which was protected by steep ravines and rugged terrain from being outflanked.The Roman army under Vahan pursued, and by August all five of its corps had arrived in front of the Muslim camp at Yarmouk. Vahan drew up his troops in a line that stretched for 13 km north to south, facing the Muslim forces to the east of them.The Yarmouk campaignContemporary chronicles say that the Muslim army at Yarmouk was vastly outnumbered, by around ten to one. Modern historians believe that the size of the Roman army has been exaggerated, and perhaps the Muslims were "only" outnumbered by about four to one. There were perhaps 30,000 Muslims to 120,000 Romans, though these figures are subject to much debate.Vahan was under orders to avoid open battle unless absolutely necessary, so he spent several weeks attempting, fruitlessly, to negotiate with Abu Ubaidah. All he achieved was to overstretch the capacity of the surrounding countryside to support such a large army, and he was soon running low on supplies. Jealousy and rivalry between the various Roman sub-commanders also weakened their army: in the coming fighting, they would often fail to coordinate their attacks or support each other.Meanwhile, Abu Ubaidah put Khalid in field command of the whole army, recognising that his talents would be needed.The battlefield at YarmoukOn 15 August 636, fighting broke out between the two rival armies which had been camped opposite each other for several weeks. At first this was limited to several single combats between champions of each side, but Vahan then sent forward a small proportion of his infantry regiments as well to test the strength and determination of the Muslim troops. The fighting was inconclusive.The following day, however, Vahan planned a full-scale attack to take place at dawn. This would replicate in minature the strategic envelopment he had originally planned for the campaign: a frontal attack to pin the enemy in place while his two flank corps moved around the sides in a decisive encircling movement. The Roman attack met fierce resistance, but its numerical superiority gradually told. Eventually the Arab southern flank broke, and the men retreated back to their camp.At this point, however, there was a famous incident. The Muslim women who accompanied the army as wives and camp followers were outraged by the apparent cowardice of the men fleeing from battle. Picking up tentpoles and singing battle hymns, they charged at the men, beating and insulting them, and ordering them to go back and fight. The soldiers quickly decided that a vast Roman army was far less terrifying than a bunch of sharp-tongued women with improvised clubs who were insulting their manhood. They returned to the battle, and were able to turn the tide.This recovery, along with Khalid leading his Mobile Guard from one crisis point on the battlefield to another, was able to defeat the Roman attack. They broke off fighting at nightfall, demoralised by their failure.The third day, 17 August,. saw another Roman attack, this one aimed at a single point in the Muslim line in an attempt to break through. Once again the Muslim defenders held fast despite the overwhelming odds against them while Khalid's cavalry harrassed the attackers' flanks in a series of mobile attacks, and forced them to fall back. However, their losses were mounting.On 18 August Vahan decided to keep up the pressure, sensing the enemy were close to defeat. Once again the Romans attacked on the southern part of the battlefield and made progress, but were forced to fall back again as Khalid sent forces to threaten their flanks.After four days of attacks Vahan had thus failed to defeat the Muslim army. His troops had suffered serious casualties and were becoming both demoralised and disorganised. He therefore offered the Muslims a truce. Khalid sensed victory was near and declined the offer. Even so, there was little fighting that day as both armies rested.Schematic of the battlefield. Romans are blue, Muslims are pink.That night, Khalid sent 500 horsemen around the rear of the Roman army to capture the bridge over the ravine behind them. He meanwhile grouped together most of his remaining cavalry into a massed force 8,000 strong.The following morning, 20 August 636, Khalid's cavalry, supported by infantry, attacked the northern flank of the Roman force. Hit from two directions at once, the resistance of the Roman troops there collapsed. Vahan attempted to counter that by ordering his own cavalry to concentrate into a mass of manoeuvre similar to the Muslim one, but he was too late. While the Roman horsemen were still trying to assemble and form up, Khalid wheeled his own cavalry around and charged into them from behind. The Roman cavalry was routed, and fled from the battlefield.Without cavalry support, the Roman infantry was now left exposed. Attacked from in front by the Muslim infantry and from behind by their cavalry, they too quickly broke and ran. Soon the entire Roman army was fleeing......Only to discover that their main route of escape off the battlefield was blocked by the troops Khalid had sent there the previous night. Some of the Romans jumped into the ravines, or were pushed in the crush to their deaths. Others were cut down from behind as they fled, or trampled in the rout. Some managed to escape anyway: but it is estimated that around half of the entire Roman army died that day -- defeated by a force only a quarter of their size.The Battle of Yarmouk, little-known in the West, was thus one of the most decisive battles in the history of the world. Emperor Heraclius saw his defeat as the judgement of God on his sins, and abandoned any further attempt to defend Syria-Palestine from the Muslims. He no longer had the troops or money to do so even had he attempted it.Following the battle, the Muslim forces recaptured Damascus, then set about consolidating their control over the region. Although the main Roman army had abandoned the former province, several fortified cities still held out.They laid siege to Jerusalem in November 636, and in April 637 the city capitulated. Patriarch Sophronius refused to surrender to anyone except Caliph Umar in person, who accordingly travelled there to receive his submission. As usual, the Muslims agreed to respect the lives and property of the citizens in return for payment of jizyah, and guaranteed freedom of worship for both Christians and Jews in Jerusalem.Further north, Aleppo was captured in early October 637 and Antioch, the most important city in the region, on 30 October 637. For the next few years there would be fighting in northern Mesopotamia, southern Anatolia and Armenia, but the Muslim armies had reached the limits of their expansion for the time being. As yet they lacked the manpower or resources to push into the harsh mountain terrain of the region.The same was not true further south.Amr ibn al-'As had been one of the commanders of the four Arab raiding forces originally sent into the Levant by Abu Bakr back in 634. He served with distinction at the victories of Ajnadayn in 634 and Yarmouk in 636. In 639, he obtained the permission of Caliph Umar to invade Egypt. (According to legend Umar then regretted this decision as too rash, and sent a messenger after Amr to call him back; but through subterfuge Amr managed to avoid listening to the message until after he had already crossed the Egyptian border.)Marching through the Sinai Desert with a tiny force of under 4,000 men, Amr reached el Arish on 12 December 639. He pressed on into the Delta, capturing the city of Pelusium after a two-month siege in February 640, then Belbeis in March.He then advanced on the Babylon Fortress. This fortification had originally been built by the Persians during the reign of Cambyses, and was named after the more famous city in Mesopotamia. It was located at a vital strategic location, where the River Nile flows into the Delta, and the Romans had expanded it into their main military base in Egypt. Amr laid siege to it in May 640, but it was too well defended.The Roman fortress of Babylon in EgyptCaliph Umar sent reinforcements over the summer, and by June Amr's army was increased to some 12-15,000. Part of this force laid siege to the city of Heliopolis north of Babylon Fortress, when the Muslims received news that a Roman army of some 20,000 soldiers was advancing towards them.The slowness of the Roman military response to the Arab invasion, as they only assembled a large defence force seven months after the Muslims arrived in Egypt, cannot now be explained. Some ascribe it to either treachery or incompetence.Amr assembled his forces and laid a trap for the Romans. While one detachment delayed the advancing army, Muslim cavalry moved through the nearby hills and attacked the Romans from behind. When they attempted to flee, yet another detachment cut off their retreat. The Roman army was shattered and destroyed; few of its soldiers survived.The Muslim invasion of EgyptThe Battle of Heliopolis on 6 July 640 thus left Egypt defenceless, just as Yarmouk four years earlier left Syria defenceless. More decisive than even the battle was the reaction of the Egyptian population.Many of the native Egyptians regarded the Arabs as liberating them from their hated Greek overlords. Furthermore, the majority religion in Egypt was the Miaphysite branch of Christianity, which since 451 had been regarded as a heresy by the orthodox hierarchy in Constantinople. While the Roman government had been unable to eliminate Miaphysitism in Egypt, they subjected the country to periodic waves of harsh religious persecution and repression. The Muslims, on the other hand, saw no reason to distinguish between different flavours of Christian.This led to the ironic fact that Egyptian Christians were treated more favourably by the Muslim invaders than they had been by the Christian Romans.On 22 December 640 Cyrus, the Patriarch of Alexandria and head of the Coptic church, signed a treaty with Amr ibn al-'As. He conceded the sovereignty of Egypt to the Muslims and agreed to pay tribute to them. When Emperor Heraclius heard of this he was furious, denouncing Cyrus as a traitor. He ordered the Roman forces in Egypt under General Theodorus to ignore the treaty and drive out the Muslims.In February 641 Amr began marching on Alexandria, the largest city in Egypt still in Roman hands. Theodorus, the Roman commander, anticipated this move and deployed various troop detachments to fight a delaying action. Amr was slowed and not stopped, and he laid siege to Alexandria in March.Although Alexandria had only a small garrison it was still a huge and very heavily defended city, and its status as a major port allowed food and reinforcements to be shipped in. It would be a long siege.However, Heraclius died in February 641, leaving as his successors two sons -- one of whom died of tuberculosis in May after just three months in power, and the other was overthrown by a rebellion in October. He had his nose cut off before being sent into exile in Rhodes, where he conveniently died of mysterious causes soon afterwards. These internal upheavals meant that the Roman Empire had little time or resources to spare attention to troubles down in Egypt.It took six months of blockade until the defenders of Alexandria, demoralised by the idea that they had been abandoned by their government, gave up the fight. The city fell to the Muslims in September 641. An official treaty of surrender was signed on 8 November: under its terms the Roman troops would be allowed to leave Egypt, the population would pay a tribute, and both Jews and Christians of all kinds would be allowed freedom of worship.The Pharos of Alexandria was still in use when the Muslims arrived (it was wrecked by an earthquake in 956)The later Roman Empire had four major cities, centres of power, culture and religion, all dominating the Mediterranean region: Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria. The Empire had already lost control of Rome after the failure of Justinian's reconquests. Now, in less than a decade, it had lost two more: Antioch in 637 and Alexandria in 641. Only Constantinople was left. Instead of a universal empire dominating the Mediterranean region, now only a minor Balkan and Anatolian rump with a few outposts elsewhere survived.Rome had fallen to a handful of small, mobile and well-led armies with a fervent belief in their cause, outmanoeuvring the vast but clumsy Roman armies who didn't really want to be fighting them at all.

This question has been asked many times before.Here is the summary of my much longer answer posted elsewhere:In summary, the first attack was by the Muslims against the heartland and birthplace of Christianity, Jerusalem, in 638. The attacks against Christian territory and people continued for more than four hundred years, before the first crusade was launched. Furthermore, throughout the four hundred years between the fall of Jerusalem in 638 and the First Crusade in 1095, Christendom had been fighting perpetually -- and often desperately -- for its very survival. The First Crusade was not a "late" response to the fall of Jerusalem, but rather the first successful attempt to retake the city of Christ's passion that had never, for a single day, been forgotten by Christendom.For the full text of my previous answer giving the exact dates of the various campaigns see: Helena Schrader's answer to Who attacked first to start the Crusades? Christians or Muslims?EDIT: Due to Mr. Crawley’s comment (that I am “completely false”) I provide the detailed facts supporting my summary.Jerusalem fell to invading Muslim forces in 638 AD. It was conquered by force of arms, not by gentle persuasion and enlightened preaching (as some modern commentators suggest) after a year long siege. It would be 1099 AD or 461 years before it was returned to Christian hands. That over four hundred year gap between the Muslim conquest and the Christian liberation has led many to argue that 1) Christianity didn't really care all that much about Jerusalem, 2) after so much time it has become a Muslim city, and so 3) the First Crusade was not defensive or liberating but rather offensive and aggressive. It is, therefore, worthwhile to look at that "461 year gap" and see what happened between the Muslim conquest and the Christian re-conquest of Jerusalem.For the next three hundred years, Islam continued to expand -- by the sword. Indeed, within the next fifteen years alone Syria, Persia, Anatolia, Egypt and Libya fell. These losses crippled the economy of the Eastern Roman Empire, and in 655 the Byzantine navy was also effectively destroyed in a major engagement that left Constantinople incapable of providing support to the far-flung outposts of the Eastern Empire.The following year, however, the Shia-Sunni split led to the first civil war within the Dar al-Islam (the House of Islam) lasting from 656-661. At roughly the same time, Arab invaders encountered serious resistance from the Berbers in North Africa.By 678, however, the forces of Islam were again so powerful that they launched an assault on Constantinople itself. The Byzantines fought off the assault with the aid of their massive walls and the use of a new weapon which became known as "Greek fire" - a napalm-based substance that was delivered in pottery vessels that broke on impact resulting in fires that could not be extinguished by water. The attacking Arabs suffered such severe losses that they agreed to a thirty year truce in the wake of defeat. Constantinople was temporarily saved, but the Eastern Roman Empire was in no position to defend its remaining Mediterranean territories, much less undertake an offensive to regain what had been lost. In 698, the mighty (Christian) city of Carthage fell to the advancing Muslim forces and by 700 Islam was ready to turn its violent tactics of "conversion" on Western Europe.Attacks on Sicily and Sardinia are recorded as early as 704 and Corsica fell in 713. More important, of course, the invasion of the Iberian peninsula began in 711. By 720 the Muslims had forced the Christian defenders into the mountains of the northwest and, dismissing them as a no longer viable fighting force, crossed the Pyrenees to start subjecting the land of the Franks.In 732, outside of Tours, a Frankish army decisively defeated the invading Muslims in a desperate defensive battle. The Franks furthermore continued fighting the invaders, finally driving them back across the Pyrenees a generation later in 769. By 795 Charlemange had taken his forces over the Pyranees to assist the Spanish Christians in regaining their territories as well. The Reconquista had begun. In short, in the 8th century Western Christians joined Eastern Christians in opposing the brutal invasions conducted against them in the name of Islam.Meanwhile, Constantinople was still fighting for its very survival. In 717 a new Muslim force by land and sea appeared outside of Constantinople and a year-long siege ensued. After a desperate fight, the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire fought off the besiegers, but it remained mired in a struggle for survival. There could be no thought of freeing something as distant as Jerusalem when Anatolia was constantly raided and plundered. It was not until 740 that the Byzantine victory at Acroinon provided the Eastern Roman Empire with a degree of security in the Anatolian heartland.The Byzantine victory at Acroinon notably coincided with a general decline in the power and strength of the Umayyad dynasty, which was also beset with problems on its eastern frontiers. This allowed the Eastern Roman Empire to at last start a "reconquista" of its own. In 746, Constantinople regained control of Syria and Armenia, but already by 781 the Byzantines were again on the defensive. For the next half century, the Byzantine Empire was locked in yet another bitter struggle in Anatolia.Meanwhile Arab rule of the conquered Christian territories from Syria to Spain was characterized by brutality, oppression and humiliation for their majority Christian subjects. (See The Myth of the Andalusian Paradise.) The small Arab elite ruled initially over populations that were overwhelmingly Christian. Due to the burdensome taxes, humiliations and oppression, however, more and more people chose to abandon their faith for the sake of economic gain. Yet conversion is a far slower process than invasion and occupation. To this day, even after 1,400 years of Muslim rule, there are significant Christian minorities in Syria, Lebanon, and Egypt. Historians estimate that after four hundred years of occupation the inhabitants of formerly Christian territories were still roughly half Christian.The plight of the oppressed Christians population (whether majority or large minority) remained, therefore a motivation for the recovery of lost territory and by the mid-9th century, the Eastern Roman Empire had recovered sufficient strength to launch a sustained "reconquista." In 853 Constantinople sent a fleet to attack Damietta in the Nile Delta. Thereafter, despite some setbacks, the Byzantines continued to regain lost territory right through the middle of the next century. In 943 they liberated Mesopotamia with its overwhelmingly Christian Armenian population. In 961 they recovered Crete and in 965 Cyprus. In 969 Antioch was at last freed from Muslim rule and Aleppo offered tribute to Constantinople to avoid a similar fate.The recovery of Jerusalem now seemed possible, and Constantinople was determined to regain this most sacred of all Christian cities. A series of campaigns were launched that systematically recovered the coast of the Levant including Beirut, Sidon, Tiberias and Nazareth. Acre and even Caesarea were returned to the Eastern Empire, but Jerusalem remained just out of reach. As the tenth century came to a close, the Byzantines lost momentum and their attempt to regain their lost territories faltered.What followed was the worst phase yet for subject Christians in Palestine. The new and powerful Shia Fatamid Caliphate pushed back their Sunni rivals and took control of Palestine, including Jerusalem. The Caliph al-Hakim, who ruled from 996-1021, persecuted Christians and Jews and destroyed what was left of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher.In the West, however, the setbacks had started sooner. In 827 the Muslim conquest of Sicily commenced and although it would take until 902 to complete it would eventually be successful. Meanwhile, in 837 a Muslim army had landed on the Italian mainland, ironically at the request of the Duke of Naples who wanted help in his squabbles with his local enemies. Throughout the rest of the century, the various Italian cities remained divided among themselves and all too ready to accept Muslim assistance, which in turn opened the doorway to Muslim mercenaries sacking, pillaging and pirating from bases in Italy. In 846 Rome itself was attacked by a Muslim raiding force and the basilica of St. Peter was looted but not destroyed.When three years later a larger Muslim fleet set out to attack Rome again, however, it was met by a combined Christian fleet that defeated it. What followed, however, was not peace but rather a long struggle for control of the Italian mainland. Indeed, the Muslims succeeded in establishing a base for raiding on the coast of Provence at La Garde-Freinet in about 888. While neither the raids from Italy or the base in Provence were comparable to the great Muslim conquests of the 7th century, they posed a menace to travel and trade and kept Western Christendom on the defense.This did not end until 915 when an alliance of Roman and Byzantine forces drove the last Muslim strongholds off the Italian mainland. For a time, however, the Muslims continued to raid the Italian coastal cities. In 934/35 Genoa was sacked, its male population massacred and the women and children carried off into slavery. Pisa beat off attacks in 1004, 1011, and 1012. Four years later, Salerno came under siege and was only rescued by a band of Normans -- notably on an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem.It was only now, at the start of the 11th century, that the tide began to turn in favor of the Christians in the West. The Italian city states were gaining sufficient wealth to finance stronger defenses. In 1034, the Pisans launched an attack on Muslim North Africa. A generation later the Pisans again raided Muslim territory, this time Palermo in 1062 and 1063. Finally, in 1087, a combined force raised from Pisa, Genoa, Rome and Amalfi struck at the main base for many Muslim pirate attacks on Italian ships and cities: Mahdia in what is now Tunisia. The expedition was so successful that it enabled the victors to free prisoners, obtain huge reparations payments, and gain trading privileges. Most important, after the raid on Mahdia, Muslim attacks on Italy ceased almost entirely.But just as the Western Christians were gaining strength again, the Eastern Roman Empire underwent a new crisis. The Seljuk Turks had converted to Islam and with the passion of the newly converted and the skills of nomadic warriors they set about establishing their domination over Syria and then turned on Armenia, Cilicia, and the Levant, driving the Byzantines out, before striking at Anatolia. The Byzantine Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes assembled his forces and rushed to the defense of this vital heartland -- only to be decisively defeated on August 26, 1071 at the Battle of Manzikert. Shortly afterwards the embattled Byzantines started sending appeals for help to the apparently now stronger West. That aid would, a quarter century later, materialize in the form of what we have come to call the First Crusade.Furthermore, since Mr. Crawley — who despite repeated requests refused (or cannot) name a single source except wikipedia — insists I know nothing and have it all wrong, I provide below a list of selected (not comprehensive) sources on which I have built my opinion.PRIMARY SOURCESChronicle of the Third Crusade: A Translation of the Itinerarium Peregrinorum et Gesta Regis Ricardi. Crusade Texts in Translation. Translated by Helen Nicholson, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1997.---. The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade: Crusade Texts in Translation. Translated by Peter W. Edbury, Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1998.Baha al-Din ibn Shaddad. The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin. Translated by D.S. Richards, Ashgate Publishing Ltd. 2002.Gabrieli, Francesco. Arab Historians of the Crusades. University of California Press, 1969.Letters from the East: Crusaders, Pilgrims and Settlers in the 12th and 13th Centuries: Crusade Texts in Translation. Translated by Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate. Ashgate Publishing, 2013.Novare, Philip de. The Wars of Frederick II Against the Ibelins in Syria and Cyprus. Translated by John La Monte, Morningside Heights Columbia University Press, 1936.Pilgrimage to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, 1187 - 1291. Crusades Texts in Translation. Translated by Denys Pringle. Ashgate, 2012.Tyre, William Archbishop of. A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea. Morningside Heights Columbia University Press, 1943.SECONDARY SOURCES (Especially recommended sources are marked with a *)Allen, S.J. and Emilie Amt. The Crusades: A Reader. University of Toronto Press, 2014.Andrea, Alfred J & Andrew Holt, editors. Seven Myths of the Crusades. Hackett Publishing Co. , 2015.Barber, Malcolm. The Crusader States. Yale University Press, 2012.*---. The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple, Cambridge University Press, 1994.*Barber, Richard. The Knight and Chivalry. Boydell Press, 1970Bartlett, W. B.. Downfall of the Crusader Kingdom. The History Press Ltd, 2010.Brand, Charles M.. Byzantium Confronts the West. ACLS Humanities E-Book, 2012.*Boas, Andrian J.. Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East. Routledge, 1999.* ---. Domestic Settings: Sources on Domestic Architecture and Day-to-Day Activities in the Crusader States. Brill, 2010.Conder, Claude Reignier. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem 1099 to 1291 AD. Committee of the Palestine Exploration Fund, 1897.*Edbury, Peter W. John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Boydell Press, 1997.*---. The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191 – 1374. Cambridge University Press, 1991.---. The Lusignan Kingdom of Cyprus and Its Muslim Neighors. Bank of Cyprus Foundation, 1993.--- and John Gordon Rowe. William of Tyre: Historian of the Latin East. Cambridge University Press, 1988.Edge, David and John Miles Paddock. Arms and Armour of the Medieval Knight. Saturn Books, 1996.Edington, Susan B. and Helen Nicholson, editors. Deeds Done Beyond the Sea: Essays on William of Tyre, Cyprus and the Military Orders Presented to Peter Edbury. Routledge, 2014.Ellenblum, Ronnie. Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge University Press, 1998.Folda, Jaroslave. Crusader Art: The Art of the Crusaders in the Holy Land, 1099-1291. Ashgate Publishing, 2008.*France, John. Hattin. Oxford University Press, 2015.Ehrenkreutz, Andrew S.. Saladin. State University of New York Press, 1972.Galatariotou, Catia. The Making of a Saint: The Life, Times and Sanctification of Neophytos the Recluse. Cambridge University Press, 1991.Gillingham, John. Richard I. Yale University Press, 1999.Hamilton, Bernard. The Leper King and His Heirs: Baldwin IV and the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. Cambridge University Press, 2000.---. “Women in the Crusader States: The Queens of Jerusalem 1100 – 90.” Medieval Women, edited by Derek Baker, Basil Blackwell, 1978.Hazard, Harry W., editor. A History of the Crusades, Vol. IV: The Art and Architecture of the Crusader States. Univ. of Wisconsin Press, 1977.Herzog, Annie. Die Frau auf den Fuerstenthronen der Kreuzfahrerstaaten. Emil Ebering, 1919.Hill, George. A History of Cyprus, Vol. 2: The Frankish Period. Cambridge University Press, 1948.Hopkins, Andrea. Knights: The Complete Story of the Age of Chivalry: From Historical Fact to Tales of Romance and Poetry. Collins and Brown Ltd, 1990.Jacoby, David, editor. Medieval Trade in the Eastern Mediterranean and Beyond. Routledge, 2018.---. Studies on the Crusader States and on Venetian Expansion. Routledge, 2018.Jotischky, Andrew. Crusading and the Crusader States. Pearson Longman, 2004.La Monte, John L.. Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100 to 1291. Medieval Academy of America, 1932.*MacEvitt, Christopher. The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance. University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008.Marshall, Christopher. Warfare in the Latin East 1192 - 1291. Cambridge University Press, 1992.Mayer, Hans Eberhard, Kings and Lords in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Ashgate Publishing Ltd., 1994.---. Probleme des lateinischen Koenigreichs Jerusalem. Variorum Reprints, 1983.Milger, Peter. Die Kreuzzuege: Krieg im Namen Gottes. Bertelsmann, 1988.*Miller, David,.Richard the Lionheart: The Mighty Crusader. Phoenix, 2013.Miller, Timothy S. and John W. Nesbitt. Walking Corpses: Leprosy in Byzantium and the Medieval West. Cornell University Press, 2014.*Mitchell, Piers D.. Medicine in the Crusades: Warfare, Wounds and the Medieval Surgeon. Cambridge University Press, 2004.#Morgan, M.R.. The Chronicle of Ernoul and the Continuations of William of Tyre. Oxford Historical Monographs, Oxford University Press, 1973.Morton, Nicholas. The Teutonic Knights in the Holy Land, 1190-1291. Boydell, 2009Mount, Toni. Medieval Medicine. Amberley, 2015.Nicholson, The Knights Templar: A New History. Sutton Publishing, 2001.Nicolle, David. Hattin 1187: Saladin’s Greatest Victory. Osprey Military Campaign Series, 1993.Perry, Guy. John of Brienne: King of Jerusalem, Emperor of Constantinople, c. 1175-1237. Cambridge University Press, 2013.Pringle, Denys. Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: An Archaeological Gazetteer. Cambridge University Press, 1997.Robinson, John J., Dungeon. Fire and Sword: The Knights Templar in the Crusades. Michael O’Mara Books, 1991.Roehricht, Reinhold. Die Geschichte des Koenigreichs Jerusalem (1100-1291). Cambridge University Press, 2004.Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Crusades: A History. Bloomsbury Academic, 2014.--. The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174-1277. Macmillan, 1973.--. Hospitallers: The History of the Order of St. John. Hambledon Press, 1999.*Riley-Smith, Jonathan, editor. The Atlas of the Crusades. Facts on File, 1991.Runciman, Sir Steven. The Families of Outremer: The Feudal Nobility of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291, The Athlone Press, 1960.*Stark, Rodney. God’s Battalions: The Case for the Crusades. HarperCollins, 2010.Tyerman, Christopher. How to Plan a Crusade: Reason and Religious War in the Middle Ages. Allen Lane, 2015.Zacour, Norman P. and Harry W. Hazard, A History of the Crusades Volume Five: The Impact of the Crusades on the Near East. Wisconsin University Press, 1985.

Professor Christopher MacEvitt has published an excellent scholarly work on the reaction to the crusades on the part of native Christians — who made up at least 50% of the population in the Levant at the time of the first crusade. His book, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance. (Univ. of Pennsylvania Press, 2008) is based on Syriac, Armenian, Greek and Arabic sources. I highly recommend it to those of you seriously interested in the topic. For those who only want a short answer, keep reading. Note, the answer below is based in part on MacEvitt, but also draws on the findings of other academic works. (For a more complete list of my sources see: Sources and Recommended ReadingFirst, the population of the Holy Land was predominantly Christian (with Jewish minorities) at the time of the Muslim conquest in the first half of the 7th century AD. Recent research (particularly that of Prof. Ellenblum of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem) has demonstrated that Christians continued to make up the overwhelming majority of the population particularly in rural regions, and that where there were concentrations of Muslims they were predominantly immigrants — not converts. In short, the native population remained overwhelmingly Christian/Jewish. (Below the ruins of the Orthodox Church of St. Mary at Ascalon, predating the Christian period.)Second, the Jewish and Christian population of Syria and Palestine were subjected to extra taxes and other restrictions and humiliations under Muslim (Arab, Egyptian and Turkish) rule. They were the subject of repeated harassment and occasional massacres during the four hundred years of Arab rule. Yes, sometimes more enlightened Muslim leaders treated the Christian population with greater tolerance, but this was not a consistent nor continuous policy. There are many instances of persecution and slaughter — all well-recorded in the Islamic sources. It was in part the miserable plight of the native Christians living in the Holy Land under the yoke of alien Turkish elites who employed hired mercenaries from Asia Minor to enforce their rule that led Urban II to call for the First Crusade.Third, after the First Crusade three Christian states (the Principality of Antioch, the County of Edessa, and the Kingdom of Jerusalem) were established in the Levant that 1) lifted the taxes and other inhibitions imposed by former Muslim leaders on the native Christians 2) allowed these native Christians to live largely in accordance with their own laws and customs, receiving justice in courts speaking their own language (whatever that was) and 3) NONE of these Christians was required to convert to Latin Christianity. Neither Jews nor Muslims were required to convert either and likewise continued to live largely in accordance with Talmudic and Sharia Law, they were, however, subject to extra taxes just as Christians (and Jews) had been under the Muslims. (For more on Muslims and Jews in the Crusader States see: Muslims in the Crusader States and Jews respectively.Turning to the native (i.e. Arabic, Syriac and Armenian-speaking) Christian population of the Levant:It is important to remember that the native population was divided theologically into three main groups: Melkites (more commonly but confusingly called Greek Orthodox although many of them did not speak Greek), Jacobites, and Armenians. In addition, there were small pockets of Maronite, Nestorian, Coptic and Ethiopian Christians resident in the Holy Land.All these forms of Orthodox Christians were viewed with various degrees of skepticism by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Theologians were very concerned about the ― to layman’s eyes ― microscopic differences in doctrinal interpretation. Some of these Christian sects were considered “heretics,” but most were viewed merely as “schismatics” ― by the Catholic Church. That said, it is critical to an understanding of crusader rule in the Holy Land to remember that the crusader states were not theocracies run by religious scholars, but secular states run by educated but fundamentally hard-nosed, practical, fighting men.The feudal elites of the crusader states might have been pious enough to take the cross, but that did not make them masters of theology. They had answered the Pope’s call to “liberate” the native Christians from Muslim oppression, and the evidence is quite overwhelming that they did exactly that. Nor did they suddenly start oppressing those Christians themselves. On the contrary, all local Christians, regardless of liturgical rite, were immediately freed of the taxes, humiliations, and indignities imposed on them by Muslim rule. Indeed, the new elites fostered the construction of churches and monasteries — for the Orthodox as well as the Latin Churches. The new elites were also perfectly willing to use Orthodox confessors and otherwise treated Orthodox elites with respect.For members of the native elites, the situation under crusader rule was full of opportunities for advancement and enrichment. The new rulers needed the support of local elites in order to govern. The native elites had opportunities in a wide range of fields from collecting taxes and administering rural communities as “scribes” and “ra’is,” to serving as tax-collectors, harbor-masters, and accountants in the cities. Native Christians were land-owners in their own right, and often wealthy enough to make charitable bequests of significant value.Last but not least, the native (Arab, Syriac and Armenian-speaking) population of Syria and Palestine contributed significantly to the defense of the crusader kingdoms. They contributed to the garrisons of the towns and probably (evidence is scarcer here) some of the infantry of the field army. However, their most significant and startling contribution were mounted archers, an arm of the cavalry unknown to the West but vitally important in the military environment in the Near East of the crusader period.Yuval Harari in his excellent study of Frankish Turcopoles demonstrates definitively that the term “Turcopole” did NOT refer to Muslim mercenaries much less to apostate Muslims or the children of “mixed marriages.” On the contrary, the Turopoles of the Frankish armies were Christians. Harari also demonstrates that these troops made up on average 50% of the cavalry of the crusader states in any engagement.This is important for two reasons. First, it shows that many native Christians were financially in a position to provide mounted troops, i.e. they were affluent and empowered. (Muslim laws prohibited Christians from riding and owning horses.) Perhaps more important, the fact that native Christian communities consistently provided large numbers of these mounted troops to both offensive and defensive armies led by the Frankish kings and barons shows that far the Native and Franks did more than just intermingle or co-exist; it shows that much of the local Christian population came to identify with the crusader states. Far from longing for a return to Muslim rule ― as some commentators suggest ― many native Christians of Outremer were willing to fight and die for the crusader states.