Benjamin of Tudela

I don't think Benjamin of Tudela is biased toward either city, but I don't think that his view point can be taken seriously, because, I think that he looked only at the life of the wealthy/upper class when writing these descriptions and overlooked the lives of the majority, who were most likely not as prosperous. He went to both cities during a period of decline, but there is no evidence of decline in his description. In Constantinople, he described the enormous size of the city, its prosperity in trade, its magnificent churches such as the Hagia Sophia, and the wealth of the emperor. Similarly in Baghdad, he describes the magnificent palace of the caliph in which there are great riches, as well as the caliph's kindness and benevolence. He claims that the caliph built a hospital for the sick and poor on the banks of the Euphrates, as well as a mental institute called the Dar-al-Maristan where they kept charge of demented/insane people. Finally, he describes the enormous size of the city, being twenty miles in circumference. In both descriptions, he does not look into the lives of the poor or the general population, but focuses mostly on the wealthy merchants and rulers, and how prosperous they are. I believe that Benjamin of Tudela is is unbiased in terms of both cities as a whole, but I think his description only sheds light on the lives of the wealthy minority in each city and ignores the poorer majority. Therefore, I do not think that his description can be trusted completely.