Message:

<p>[QUOTE=&quot;GinoLR, post: 25178928, member: 128351&quot;]I don&#039;t think we should consider the turban as a typical Arab, Turkish or, generally speaking, Muslim headgear. And Antioch was probably not a Muslim city when the Crusaders took it.</p><p><br /></p><p>Antioch is the city in which the followers of Jesus the Nazarene were called &quot;Christian&quot; for the first time, in the 1st c. Three centuries later the vast majority of its population was Christian, and Antioch remained a Christian city until 637, when it was taken by the Arabs. Under the Umayyad caliphs Islam was just the religion of the army, the civilians remained Christians and paid a special tax to the Muslim government, the &quot;jiziya&quot;. Conversions to Islam started more seriously under the Abbassid caliphs, mainly because Islam had been turned into an imperial law, the &quot;shariya&quot;. Nevertheless most of the Antiochenes remained Christians under Muslim rule. </p><p><br /></p><p>In 969 the city was retaken by the Byzantines and remained in the Byzantine Empire for more than a century. It was re-taken by the Seljukids in 1084 only, and was a Turkish stronghold for just 14 years : in 1098 it was taken again by the Crusaders. </p><p><br /></p><p>At that time it was governed by a Turkish lord, Yağısıyan, who was a Muslim like all other Turkish soldiers under his command, but the civilian population, compelled to defend the city too, was mostly Christian. The Crusaders took the city thanks to an Armenian called Firuz who was guarding a tower and let the Cusaders in. In Antioch they found churches but there is no word of a huge mosque. There was a modest mosque outside the city, the Crusaders called it &quot;<i>la Mahomerie</i>&quot;. </p><p><br /></p><p>The Byzantine emperor Alexis considered Antioch as his legitimate property, that had been occupied by the Turks 14 years ago and was now back in the Empire. The Crusaders could not just ignore this claim, the Emperor being an vital ally and a great regional power. This is why Tancred seems to have formally pledged allegiance to the emperor Alexis, who in turn let him govern Antioch. Tancred had typically Byzantine coins minted, e.g. these <i>folles</i>, with Greek legends, and his effigy in a Byzantine style : monetarily speaking, Antioch was under Tancred a Byzantine city. The most important aspect of his portrait is that he is not wearing a crown of any kind and does not claim any title, he is just Tancred. The other Crusaders had a completely different monetary policy, using base silver deniers brought from France and Italy.&nbsp; &nbsp; [/QUOTE]</p><p><br /></p>

Your name or email address:

Do you already have an account?

• No, create an account now.
• Yes, my password is:
• Forgot your password?

Stay logged in