 Historians have long seen the decision to besiege Damascus rather than Edessa as "an act of inexplicable folly".Noting the tensions between Unur, the "atabeg" of Damascus, and the growing power of the Zangids, many historians have argued that it would have been better for the Crusaders to focus their energy against the Zangids.More recently, historians such as David Nicolle have defended the decision to attack Damascus, arguing that Damascus was the most powerful Muslim state in southern Syria, and that if the Christians held Damascus, they would have been in a better position to resist the rising power of Nur ad-Din.