Benjamin of Tudela's Credibility based on Baghdad and Constantinople

Based on the readings by Benjamin of Tudela on Constantinople and Baghdad, he can be considered as a biased writer. In his account of Baghdad, he only explains the Abbasid caliph and his palace in detail while his description of Constantinople includes almost all aspects of the city. His favoritism towards this specific part of Baghdad especially the caliph is clearly evident through the lengthy explanation of this leader's power, wealth, generosity, and righteousness. However, he fails to provide any significant details about other life such as the citizens. He also does not include much about the economy of Baghdad, especially in comparison to Constantinople. His description of this city incorporated how merchants constantly came there and the large amount of tribute brought to Constantinople. His depiction of this capital, while it may be less enthusiastic than his account on the caliph and Baghdad, still serves as a better objective viewpoint since includes almost all facets of the city. Due to his like of the Abbasid caliph as indicated by his repetition of how great and kind this man is, Benjamin seems to favor Baghdad more. Also, the writing on Constantinople compared its wealth to nothing like it in the whole world. However, this makes him appear unqualified because of his inability to know that this city's prosperity is better than all others on earth. In describing Baghdad, he includes that the city was like no other in all of Mesopotamia. By limiting the region of comparison, he makes himself more accurate in his account but, it again shows his favoritism towards Baghdad since he decided to refine his comparison when explaining this capital. The clear enjoyment he received from visiting here is easily portrayed in his writing, which leads to the proposition that it is not valid or it is far-fetched. His increased use of the word "great" in the Baghdad depiction as well as the fact that he found a way to incorporate Baghdad in the Constantinople description but not vice versa shows his clear liking for only one city. He even states that Baghdad was great while he was still describing Constantinople. As a result, his bias or personal feelings in portraying Baghdad, even if it was only this capital, causes him to lose some credibility in his other accounts of cities.