Pearson Edexcel · A-Level · History
Course version: 9HI0 · Version from Sept 2015
Muslim political and religious divisions: the split between the Sunni…
Full specification wording
The changing Muslim response to the crusades, 1095–1192: Muslim political and religious divisions: the split between the Sunni Seljuk Turks and the Shi’ah Fatimids of Egypt; the significance of Kilij Arslan’s defeats at Nicaea and Dorylaeum 1097; the defeat of Kerbogha’s forces at Antioch 1098; the fall of Jerusalem 1099.
Muslim responses to the First Crusade were shaped by political and religious divisions.
Checked against the Pearson Edexcel 9HI0 specification (opens in a new tab) on .
- Point 1 of 3
- 4 key terms
Study notes
From the checked teaching notes for this specification point.
The idea
Muslim responses to the First Crusade were shaped by political and religious divisions. The Sunni Seljuk Turks and the Shi’ah Fatimids of Egypt were rivals, so no united front opposed the crusaders. Kilij Arslan’s defeats at Nicaea and Dorylaeum in 1097 removed Seljuk control in western Anatolia and opened the route south. At Antioch in 1098, Kerbogha’s relief force was defeated, ending a major attempt to destroy the crusader army. The fall of Jerusalem in 1099 showed the weakness of local Muslim defence and the absence of coordinated resistance. These events explain why the crusaders succeeded and why later Muslim leaders sought unity.
What earns the marks
- Explains the Sunni–Shi’ah split between the Seljuk Turks and the Fatimids as a barrier to united resistance.
- Assesses the significance of Kilij Arslan’s defeats at Nicaea and Dorylaeum in 1097 for crusader progress.
- Analyses the defeat of Kerbogha’s forces at Antioch in 1098 as a turning point in the First Crusade.
- Evaluates the fall of Jerusalem in 1099 as evidence of fragmented Muslim political and military response.
Common mistakes and how to put them right
Treating ‘the Muslims’ as a single political actor.
Put it right by distinguishing Seljuk, Fatimid and local Syrian interests.
Assuming Kilij Arslan’s defeats ended all Anatolian resistance.
Put it right by noting continued Turkish opposition.
Describing Kerbogha’s defeat as inevitable.
Put it right by explaining the role of crusader sorties and Kerbogha’s coalition problems.
Exam tips
- Use the Sunni–Shi’ah split to explain why no single Muslim army faced the First Crusade.
- Link each defeat to a specific consequence for crusader movement or survival.
- Refer to dates precisely to show chronological understanding of the changing Muslim response.
Try the lesson
The start of the The changing Muslim response to the crusades, 1095–1192: Muslim political and religious divisions: the split between the Sunni Seljuk Turks and the Shi’ah Fatimids of Egypt; the significance of Kilij Arslan’s defeats at Nicaea and Dorylaeum 1097; the defeat of Kerbogha’s forces at Antioch 1098; the fall of Jerusalem 1099. lesson, made from checked teaching notes for this specification point.
Have a go first
Which Muslim power in Egypt was Shi’ah and therefore opposed to the Sunni Seljuk Turks during the period of the First Crusade?
Listen
Muslim responses to the First Crusade were shaped by political and religious divisions. The Sunni Seljuk Turks and the Shi’ah Fatimids of Egypt were rivals, so no united front opposed the crusaders. Kilij Arslan’s defeats at Nicaea and Dorylaeum in 1097 removed Seljuk control in western Anatolia and opened the route south. At Antioch in 1098, Kerbogha’s relief force was defeated, ending a major attempt to destroy the crusader army. The fall of Jerusalem in 1099 showed the weakness of local Muslim defence and the absence of coordinated resistance. These events explain why the crusaders succeeded and why later Muslim leaders sought unity. A strong answer earns marks for these points. Explains the Sunni–Shi’ah split between the Seljuk Turks and the Fatimids as a barrier to united resistance. Assesses the significance of Kilij Arslan’s defeats at Nicaea and Dorylaeum in 1097 for crusader progress. Analyses the defeat of Kerbogha’s forces at Antioch in 1098 as a turning point in the First Crusade. Evaluates the fall of Jerusalem in 1099 as evidence of fragmented Muslim political and military response. A common slip: Treating ‘the Muslims’ as a single political actor. Instead, distinguishing Seljuk, Fatimid and local Syrian interests. Exam tip: Use the Sunni–Shi’ah split to explain why no single Muslim army faced the First Crusade.
Put the events in order
Put these events in the order they happened, earliest first.
- 1. Kilij Arslan's defeats at Nicaea and Dorylaeum
- 2. The fall of Jerusalem
- 3. Defeat of Kerbogha's forces at Antioch
Key words
Say what each word means before you turn the card.
Sunni–Shi’ah rivalry
Try answering aloud or in your head before turning the card.
Seljuk–Fatimid competition
Try answering aloud or in your head before turning the card.
Fragmented military response
Try answering aloud or in your head before turning the card.
Crusader success and Muslim disunity
Try answering aloud or in your head before turning the card.
See every definition
- Sunni–Shi’ah rivalry
- The split between the Sunni Seljuk Turks and the Shi’ah Fatimids of Egypt, who were rivals, so no united front opposed the crusaders.
- Seljuk–Fatimid competition
- Rivalry between the Sunni Seljuk Turks and the Shi’ah Fatimids of Egypt, which meant no united front opposed the crusaders.
- Fragmented military response
- The absence of coordinated resistance, shown by the fall of Jerusalem in 1099 and the weakness of local Muslim defence.
- Crusader success and Muslim disunity
- Political and religious divisions shaped Muslim responses to the First Crusade, explaining why the crusaders succeeded and why later Muslim leaders sought unity.
There is more to this lesson
The full lesson goes on to check your understanding and help you earn the marks. Create a free account to carry on, with your progress saved.
A week of Premium from your first lesson · Then the free plan continues · No card, no charge
Test your understanding of The changing Muslim response to the crusades, 1095–1192: Muslim political and religious divisions: the split between the Sunni Seljuk Turks and the Shi’ah Fatimids of Egypt; the significance of Kilij Arslan’s defeats at Nicaea and Dorylaeum 1097; the defeat of Kerbogha’s forces at Antioch 1098; the fall of Jerusalem 1099.
Active recall beats re-reading. Take an instant quiz now to test what you’ve learned and lock it into long-term memory.
A week of Premium from your first lesson · Then the free plan continues · No card, no charge