Ibn Battuta’s article about Constantinople is neutral because he just gives the facts and his personal opinion doesn’t leak in. He says “the city is enormous…separated by a river…” and it’s all factual descriptions there is no long winded extravagant description that would even cause someone to think it was biased, it’s basic cold hard facts, a city is located here and these people live there. However I still wouldn’t trust it. Battuta’s writes it honestly, but his version off gigantic, or filthy can be different from what what I think it is so the picture in my mine could be totally different than what it really is.
Benjamin of Tudela’s article is a very positive view on Constantinople. He says “…the land is very rich in cloths…” and he proceeds to list off bread, meat and wine. He thinks Constantinople is great. He thinks its the second best empire compared to the Islamic empire. He admires how they are very religious and how very commercial the ports are as well. He says that all the sovereignty and wealth goes to Constantinople which is a very positive view because it implies that Constantinople is the best and has everything. I most definitely would not trust this because Benjamin is totally biased. He praises every single thing Constantinople does and he essentially puts the city on a pedestal giving it a very good image, when in reality it could be a bad city to me and he just liked the different appeals and glorified those and forgot the nitty gritty.
Liudprand of Cremona has a very negative view on Constantinople. He went through a lot of insults when first entering the city he was “admitted on foot” into the city because he was told that he wasn’t worthy to ride those horses even though he was ambassador. He seems like a very religious person and he is also outraged when the emperor walks through the street barefoot and people throw things on the ground before him and is flanked by people wearing robes too big for them implying they’re skinny and they have nothing to eat compared the emperor. Liudprand is repulsed by the moral so and behavior of the emperor. The king was also very easily angered and insulted Liudprand’s emperor which caused Liudprand to view Constantinople in a bad light. I wouldn’t trust this article because Liudprand obviously had a bad time. He could’ve over exaggerated certain parts and on talked about the bad parts and the good parts. He could be forcing people to think Constantinople is bad and he could only be talking about a small even and it may not have even the emperor, he could’ve probably just exaggerated everything.