Crusades
Christianity
Overview
Military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were
organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars
of expansion.
Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control
of the Holy Land, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly
Christian territories. The Crusades were seen by many of their
participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between
1095, when the First Crusade was launched by Pope Urban II at the
Council of Clermont, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally
expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to
the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued
for several centuries after 1291, usually as military campaigns intended
to halt or slow the advance of Muslim power or to conquer pagan areas.
The Crusaders initially enjoyed success, founding a Christian state in
Palestine and Syria, but the continued growth of Islamic states
ultimately reversed those gains. By the 14th century the Ottoman Turks
had established themselves in the Balkans and would penetrate deeper
into Europe despite repeated efforts to repulse them. Crusades were also
called against heretics (the Albigensian Crusade, 1209–29) and various
rivals of the popes, and the Fourth Crusade (1202–04) was diverted
against the Byzantine Empire. Crusading declined rapidly during the 16th
century with the advent of the Protestant Reformation and the decline of
papal authority. The Crusades constitute a controversial chapter in the
history of Christianity, and their excesses have been the subject of
centuries of historiography. Historians have also concentrated on the
role the Crusades played in the expansion of medieval Europe and its
institutions, and the notion of “crusading” has been transformed from a
religio-military campaign into a modern metaphor for zealous and
demanding struggles to advance the good (“crusades for”) and to oppose
perceived evil (“crusades against”).
Main
military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were
organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars
of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to
retake control of the Holy Land, to conquer pagan areas, and to
recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of
their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins.
Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the
Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria,
there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to
the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291,
usually as military campaigns intended to halt or slow the advance of
Muslim power or to conquer pagan areas. Crusading declined rapidly
during the 16th century with the advent of the Protestant Reformation
and the decline of papal authority.
Approximately two-thirds of the ancient Christian world had been
conquered by Muslims by the end of the 11th century, including the
important regions of Palestine, Syria, Egypt, and Anatolia. The
Crusades, attempting to check this advance, initially enjoyed success,
founding a Christian state in Palestine and Syria, but the continued
growth of Islamic states ultimately reversed those gains. By the 14th
century the Ottoman Turks had established themselves in the Balkans and
would penetrate deeper into Europe despite repeated efforts to repulse
them.
The Crusades constitute a controversial chapter in the history of
Christianity, and their excesses have been the subject of centuries of
historiography. The Crusades also played an integral role in the
expansion of medieval Europe.
The First Crusade and the establishment of the Latin states »
Background and context
Although still backward when compared with the other civilizations of
the Mediterranean basin, western Europe had become a significant power
by the end of the 11th century. It was composed of several kingdoms
loosely describable as feudal. While endemic private warfare,
brigandage, and problems associated with vassalage and inheritance still
existed, some monarchies were already developing better-integrated
systems of government. At the same time, Europe was feeling the effects
of population growth that had begun toward the end of the 10th century
and would continue well into the 13th century. An economic revival was
also in full swing well before the First Crusade; forestlands were being
cleared, frontiers pushed forward, and markets organized. Moreover,
Italian shipping was beginning to challenge the Muslim predominance in
the Mediterranean. Especially significant for the Crusade was a general
overhaul of the ecclesiastical structure in the 11th century, associated
with the Gregorian Reform movement, which enabled the popes to assume a
more active role in society. In 1095, for example, Urban II was in a
position strong enough to convoke two important ecclesiastical councils,
despite meeting resistance from Henry IV, the German emperor, who
opposed papal reform policies.
Thus it was that in the closing years of the 11th century western
Europe was abounding in energy and confidence. What is more, as is
evident in achievements such as the Norman Conquest of England in 1066,
Europeans possessed the capacity to launch a major military undertaking
at the very time the Seljuq Turks, one of several tribes on the
northeastern frontier of the Muslim world who had embraced Islam in the
11th century, were beginning to move south and west into Iran and beyond
with all the enthusiasm of a new convert.
Beginning to respect the cross of Christ, the armies of the Goths,
the
Huns, and the Vandals protect the Crusaders on their journeys.
The First Crusade and the establishment of the Latin
states » Background and context » The effects of religion
The Crusades were also a development of popular religious life and
feeling in the West. The social effect of religious belief at the time
was complex: religion was moved by tales of signs and wonders, and it
attributed natural disasters to supernatural intervention. At the same
time, laypersons were not indifferent to reform movements, and on
occasion they agitated against clergy whom they regarded as unworthy. A
peace movement also developed, especially in France, under the
leadership of certain bishops but with considerable popular support.
Religious leaders proclaimed the Peace of God and the Truce of God,
designed to halt or at least limit warfare and assaults during certain
days of the week and times of the year and to protect the lives of
clergy, travelers, women, and cattle and others unable to defend
themselves against brigandage. It is particularly interesting to note
that the Council of Clermont, at which Urban II called for the First
Crusade (1095), renewed and generalized the Peace of God.
It may seem paradoxical that a council both promulgated peace and
officially sanctioned war, but the peace movement was designed to
protect those in distress, and a strong element of the Crusade was the
idea of giving aid to fellow Christians in the East. Tied to this idea
was the notion that war to defend Christendom was not only a justifiable
undertaking but a holy work and therefore pleasing to God.
Closely associated with this Western concept of holy war was another
popular religious practice, pilgrimage to a holy shrine.
Eleventh-century Europe abounded in local shrines housing relics of
saints, but three great centres of pilgrimage stood out above the
others: Rome, with the tombs of Saints Peter and Paul; Santiago de
Compostela, in northwestern Spain; and Jerusalem, with the Holy
Sepulchre of Christ’s entombment. Pilgrimage, which had always been
considered an act of devotion, had also come to be regarded as a more
formal expiation for serious sin, even occasionally prescribed as a
penance for the sinner by his confessor.
Yet another element in the popular religious consciousness of the
11th century, one associated with both Crusade and pilgrimage, was the
belief that the end of the world was imminent. Some scholars have
discovered evidence of apocalyptic expectations around the years 1000
and 1033 (the millennium of the birth and Passion of Jesus,
respectively), and others have emphasized the continuance of the idea
throughout the 11th century and beyond. Moreover, in certain late
11th-century portrayals of the end of all things, the “last emperor,”
now popularly identified with the “king of the Franks,” the final
successor of Charlemagne, was to lead the faithful to Jerusalem to await
the Second Coming of Christ. Jerusalem, as the earthly symbol of the
heavenly city, figured prominently in Western consciousness, and, as the
number of pilgrimages to Jerusalem increased in the 11th century, it
became clear that any interruption of access to the city would have
serious repercussions.
By the middle of the 11th century, the Seljuq Turks had wrested
political authority from the ʿAbbāsid caliphs of Baghdad. Seljuq policy,
originally directed southward against the Fāṭimids of Egypt, was
increasingly diverted by the pressure of Turkmen raids into Anatolia and
Byzantine Armenia. A Byzantine army was defeated and Emperor Romanus IV
Diogenes was captured at Manzikert in 1071, and Christian Asia Minor was
thereby opened to eventual Turkish occupation. Meanwhile, many Armenians
south of the Caucasus migrated south to join others in the region of the
Taurus Mountains and to form a colony in Cilicia.
Seljuq expansion southward continued, and in 1085 the capture of
Antioch in Syria, one of the patriarchal sees of Christianity, was
another blow to Byzantine prestige. Thus, although the Seljuq empire
never successfully held together as a unit, it appropriated most of Asia
Minor, including Nicaea, from the Byzantine Empire and brought a
resurgent Islam perilously close to Constantinople, the Byzantine
capital. It was this danger that prompted the emperor, Alexius Comnenus,
to seek aid from the West, and by 1095 the West was ready to respond.
The turmoil of these years disrupted normal political life and made
the pilgrimage to Jerusalem difficult and often impossible. Stories of
dangers and molestation reached the West and remained in the popular
mind even after conditions improved. Furthermore, informed authorities
began to realize that the power of the Muslim world now seriously
menaced the West as well as the East. It was this realization that led
to the Crusades.
Alexius’s appeal came at a time when relations between the Eastern
and Western branches of the Christian world were improving. Difficulties
between the two in the middle years of the century had resulted in a de
facto, though not formally proclaimed, schism in 1054, and
ecclesiastical disagreements had been accentuated by Norman occupation
of formerly Byzantine areas in southern Italy. A campaign led by the
Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard against the Greek mainland further
embittered the Byzantines, and it was only after Robert’s death in 1085
that conditions for a renewal of normal relations between East and West
were reasonably favourable. Envoys of Emperor Alexius Comnenus thus
arrived at the Council of Piacenza in 1095 at a propitious moment, and
it seems probable that Pope Urban II viewed military aid as a means
toward restoring ecclesiastical unity.
Fulk-Nerra, Count of Anjou, is haunted by the spirits of those he has
killed.
The First Crusade and the establishment of the Latin
states » Background and context » The Council of Clermont
The Council of Clermont convoked by Urban on November 18, 1095, was
attended largely by bishops of southern France as well as a few
representatives from northern France and elsewhere. Much important
ecclesiastical business was transacted, which resulted in a series of
canons, among them one that renewed the Peace of God and another that
granted a plenary indulgence (the remission of all penance for sin) to
those who undertook to aid Christians in the East. Then in a great
outdoor assembly the pope, a Frenchman, addressed a large crowd.
His exact words will never be known, since the only surviving
accounts of his speech were written years later, but he apparently
stressed the plight of Eastern Christians, the molestation of pilgrims,
and the desecration of the holy places. He urged those who were guilty
of disturbing the peace to turn their warlike energies toward a holy
cause. He emphasized the need for penance along with the acceptance of
suffering and taught that no one should undertake this pilgrimage for
any but the most exalted of motives.
The response was immediate and overwhelming, probably far greater
than Urban had anticipated. Cries of “Deus le volt” (“God wills it”)
were heard everywhere, and it was decided that those who agreed to go
should wear a cross. Moreover, it was not only warrior knights who
responded; a popular element, apparently unexpected and probably not
desired, also came forward.
The era of Clermont witnessed the concurrence of three significant
developments: first, there existed as never before a popular religious
fervour that was not without marked eschatological tendencies in which
the holy city of Jerusalem figured prominently; second, war against the
infidel had come to be regarded as a religious undertaking, a work
pleasing to God; and finally, western Europe now possessed the
ecclesiastical and secular institutional and organizational capacity to
plan such an enterprise and carry it through.
Peter the Hermit’s preaching inspires awe and reverence in the
crowd of
Crusaders.
The First Crusade and the establishment of the Latin
states » Preparations for the Crusade
Following Pope Urban’s speech, preparations began in both East and
West. Emperor Alexius, who had doubtless anticipated the mustering of
some sort of auxiliary force, apparently soon realized that he would
have to provide for and police a much larger influx of warriors. In the
West, as the leaders began to assemble their armies, those who took the
cross sought to raise money, often by selling or mortgaging property,
both for the immediate purchase of equipment and for the long-term needs
of the journey.
As preparations were under way, several less-organized bands of
knights and peasants, commonly known as the “People’s Crusade,” set out
across Europe. The most famous of these, brought together by a
remarkable popular preacher, Peter the Hermit, and his associate Walter
Sansavoir, reached Constantinople after having caused considerable
disorder in Hungary and Bulgaria. Alexius received Peter cordially and
advised him to await the arrival of the main Crusade force. But the rank
and file grew unruly, and on August 6, 1096, they were ferried across
the Bosporus. While Peter was in Constantinople requesting additional
aid, his army was ambushed at Cibotus (called Civetot by the Crusaders)
and all but annihilated by the Turks.
Peter the Hermit’s preaching in Germany inspired other groups of
Crusaders, who also failed to reach Jerusalem. One of these groups was
led by the notorious Count Emicho and was responsible for a series of
massacres of Jews in several Rhenish towns in 1096. Traditionally
recognized as an important turning point in Jewish and Christian
relations in the Middle Ages—in fact, it is often cited as a pivotal
moment in the history of anti-Semitism—these attacks occurred first in
Speyer and then with increasing ferocity in Worms, Mainz, and Cologne.
The Jews of these towns often sought, and sometimes received, the
protection of the bishop or futilely took refuge in local homes and
temples. Forced by the Crusaders to convert or die, many Jews chose
death. There are accounts of Jews’ committing suicide and even killing
their children rather than converting or submitting to execution by the
Crusaders. Though zealotry of this nature is not unique to Christianity,
these massacres did not go unnoticed even by fellow Christians. Indeed,
some contemporary Christian accounts attributed the defeat of the
People’s Crusade to them. After the massacres, the Crusaders moved on to
Hungary, where they were routed by the Hungarian king and suffered heavy
losses. Emicho, who may not have participated in all the pogroms,
escaped and returned home in disgrace.
The main Crusading force, which departed in August 1096 as Urban
directed, consisted of four major contingents. A smaller, fifth force,
led by Hugh of Vermandois, brother of King Philip I of France, left
before the others but was reduced by shipwreck while crossing the
Adriatic from Bari to Dyrrhachium (now Durrës, Albania). Godfrey of
Bouillon, leader of the first large army to depart and duke of Lower
Lorraine since 1087, was the only major prince from the German kingdom
involved in the Crusade, though he and his associates largely spoke
French. Joined by his brothers, Eustace and Baldwin, and a kinsman,
Baldwin of Le Bourcq, Godfrey took the land route and crossed Hungary
without incident. Markets and provisions were supplied in Byzantine
territory, and, except for some pillaging, the army reached
Constantinople without serious problems on December 23, 1096.
A second force was organized by Bohemond, a Norman from southern
Italy. The son of Robert Guiscard, Bohemond was on familiar ground
across the Adriatic, where he had fought with his father and was
understandably feared by the Byzantines. However, he was 40 years old
when he arrived at Constantinople on April 9, 1097, and determined to
come to profitable terms with his former enemy.
The third and largest army was assembled by Raymond of Saint-Gilles,
the count of Toulouse. At age 55, he was the oldest and most prominent
of the princes on the Crusade, and he aspired and perhaps expected to
become the leader of the entire expedition. He was accompanied by
Adhémar, bishop of Le Puy, whom the pope had named as legate for the
Crusade. Raymond led his followers, including a number of noncombatant
pilgrims whom he supported at his own expense, across northern Italy,
around the head of the Adriatic, and then southward into Byzantine
territory. This large body caused considerable trouble in Dalmatia and
clashed with Byzantine troops as it approached the capital, where
Raymond arrived on April 21.
Meanwhile, the fourth army, under Robert of Flanders, had crossed the
Adriatic from Brindisi. Accompanying Robert were his cousin Robert of
Normandy (brother of King William II of England) and Stephen of Blois
(the son-in-law of William the Conqueror). No king took part in the
First Crusade, and the predominantly French-speaking participants came
to be known by the Muslims as Franks.
The presence near Constantinople of massive military forces,
numbering perhaps 4,000 mounted knights and 25,000 infantry, posed a
serious problem for Alexius, and there was occasional disorder. Forced
to consider imperial interests, which, it soon became evident, were
different from the objective of the Crusaders, the emperor required each
Crusade leader to promise under oath to restore to him any conquered
territory that had belonged to the empire before the Turkish invasions
and to swear loyalty to him while the Crusaders remained in his domain.
Since there was never any plan for the Crusade to go beyond the
far-flung borders of the old Roman Empire, this would effectively give
all conquests to the emperor. Only Bohemond willingly took the emperor’s
oath. The others did so under duress, and Raymond swore only a lukewarm
oath to respect the property and person of the emperor. Despite this,
Raymond and Alexius became good friends, and Raymond remained the
strongest defender of the emperor’s rights throughout the Crusade.
At the start of spring, the Crusaders embark on their trek
crying
“Deus volt” (God wills it).
The First Crusade and the establishment of the Latin
states » From Constantinople to Antioch
Late in May 1097 the Crusaders and a contingent of Byzantine
soldiers reached the capital of the Turkish sultanate, Nicaea (now İznik,
Turkey), which surrendered to the Byzantines on June 19. The Crusade
army left Nicaea for Antioch on June 26 and found crossing the arid and
mountainous Anatolia difficult. At Dorylaeum on July 1, 1097, Turks
attacked the advance column of the Crusader army. Despite the heat and a
rain of arrows, the Crusaders held their ground, and, when the rest of
the army drew up, the Turks were routed. A major victory in open warfare
had been achieved by cooperation between the separate Western
contingents and the Greeks.
Further advance across Anatolia was even more arduous, and it was
only after suffering many casualties, especially in the region of the
Taurus Mountains, that the Crusaders arrived near Antioch on October 20.
Meanwhile, Godfrey’s brother Baldwin left the main army to involve
himself in Armenian politics and then became ruler of Edessa. The first
of the Crusader states, the county of Edessa would provide a valuable
buffer against Turkish attacks on Antioch and other Christian
territories.
One of the great cities of the Levant and one of the patriarchal sees
of Christianity, Antioch was surrounded by an enormous circle of walls
studded with more than 400 towers. Despite reinforcements and supplies
from Genoese and English ships and later from the patriarch of
Jerusalem, then in Cyprus, the siege proved long and difficult, and many
died of starvation or disease. Spring brought the threat of
counterattack by a relief force under Kerbogha of Mosul. The situation
seemed so hopeless that some Crusaders deserted and attempted to return
home. Among these was Peter the Hermit, who was caught and returned to
the host, where he was quietly forgiven. Another deserter was the French
knight Stephen of Blois, who was cut off from the main body of the army
by Kerbogha’s forces and judged, not unreasonably, that the Crusaders
were doomed. On his way home Stephen met Alexius, who was marching at
the head of a Byzantine relief force, and convinced him that Antioch’s
cause was hopeless. The emperor’s decision to turn back, however
justified tactically, was a diplomatic blunder; when the Crusaders
learned of the emperor’s move, they felt free from any obligation to
return the city to him.
Bohemond, meanwhile, proposed that the first to enter the city should
have possession of it, provided the emperor did not make an appearance.
The Norman had, in fact, already made contact with a discontented
commander within, who proceeded to admit him over a section of the walls
on June 3, 1098. The other Crusaders followed Bohemond into the dozing
city and quickly captured it. Only the citadel held out.
Thus, Antioch was restored to Christian rule. The victory, however,
was incomplete. Kerbogha arrived with an enormous Turkish army and
completely invested the city, which was already very low on provisions.
Once again the situation seemed hopeless. Disagreements between the
leaders persisted and were accentuated by arguments over the validity of
what had come to be called the Holy Lance, which a Provençal priest
found below the cathedral and insisted was the lance that, according to
the Gospels, had pierced the side of Jesus Christ when he hung on the
cross. Nonetheless, on June 28 the Crusader army moved out of the city.
The Turkish forces were not of high quality and had only tenuous loyalty
to Kerbogha. When they saw the size of the Crusade forces and the
resolve of the men, the Turks began to flee. With the evaporation of
Kerbogha’s army, the citadel finally surrendered to Bohemond, and its
garrison was permitted to leave. Rejoicing was tempered by a devastating
epidemic that took many lives, including that of the legate, Adhémar of
Le Puy, who, as the spiritual leader of the Crusade, had been a wise
counselor and a stabilizing influence whom the leaders could ill afford
to lose.
The Crusade leaders then fell into violent disagreement over the
final disposition of Antioch. Bohemond, who had been responsible for the
capture of the city and then had led its defense, wanted it for himself.
Raymond, however, insisted that it be returned to the emperor. Unable to
come to terms on Antioch, Bohemond and Raymond refused to march to
Jerusalem, which effectively stalled the Crusade. The leaders agreed to
depart only after the rank and file threatened to tear down the walls of
Antioch. On January 13, 1099, the army then set out for Jerusalem under
the leadership of Raymond of Saint-Gilles. As they moved south, Tancred
and Robert of Normandy and, later, Godfrey and Robert of Flanders joined
them. Bohemond, ignoring his previous oaths, remained in Antioch.
The Bulgarians kill many of Walter’s soldiers in retaliation after
his
army steals provisions and pillages their city.
The First Crusade and the establishment of the Latin
states » The siege of Jerusalem
Not far from Beirut, the army entered the territory of the Fāṭimid
caliphs of Cairo, who, as Shīʿite Muslims, were enemies of the Sunnite
Seljuqs and the caliphs of Baghdad. In August 1098 the Fāṭimids had
occupied Jerusalem. The final drive of the First Crusade, therefore, was
against the Fāṭimids of Egypt, not the Seljuqs.
On June 7, 1099, the Christian army—by then considerably reduced to
perhaps 1,200–1,500 cavalry and 12,000 foot soldiers—encamped before
Jerusalem, whose governor was well supplied and confident that he could
withstand a siege until a relief force arrived from Egypt. The
Crusaders, on the other hand, were short of supplies and would be until
six vessels arrived at Jaffa (Yafo) and managed to unload before the
port was blockaded by an Egyptian squadron. On July 8 a strict fast was
ordered, and, with the Muslims scoffing from the walls, the entire army,
preceded by the clergy, marched in solemn procession around the city,
thence to the Mount of Olives, where Peter the Hermit preached with his
former eloquence.
Siege towers were carried up to the walls on July 13–14, and on July
15 Godfrey’s men took a sector of the walls, and others followed on
scaling ladders. When the nearest gate was opened, Tancred and Raymond
entered, and the Muslim governor surrendered to the latter in the Tower
of David. The governor, along with his bodyguard, was escorted out of
the city. Tancred promised protection in the Aqṣā Mosque, but his orders
were disobeyed. Hundreds of men, women, and children, both Muslim and
Jewish, perished in the general slaughter that followed.
The Crusaders, therefore, attained their goal three long years after
they had set out. Against the odds this struggling, fractious, and naive
enterprise had made its way from western Europe to the Middle East and
conquered two of the best-defended cities of the time. From a modern
perspective, the improbability of the First Crusade’s success is
staggering. For medieval men and women, though, the agent of victory was
God himself, who worked miracle after miracle for his faithful knights.
It was this firm belief that would sustain centuries of Crusading.
In the battle against Merseburg, the Crusaders are panic-stricken
when
several ladders collapse under their weight.
The First Crusade and the establishment of the Latin
states » The Crusader states
A successful surprise attack on the Egyptian relief army ensured the
Crusaders’ occupation of Palestine. Having fulfilled their vows of
pilgrimage, most of the Crusaders departed for home, leaving the problem
of governing the conquered territories to the few who remained.
Initially, there was disagreement concerning the nature of the
government to be established, and some held that the holy city should be
ruled under ecclesiastical authority. As an interim measure, Godfrey was
elected to govern and took the modest title of Defender of the Holy
Sepulchre.
In December 1099, in the midst of this confused situation, Bohemond
and Baldwin of Edessa arrived in Jerusalem to fulfill their Crusader
vows. Accompanying Bohemond was Daimbert, the archbishop of Pisa, who
was chosen patriarch and received the homage of both Godfrey and
Baldwin. If Daimbert had ambitions to govern Jerusalem, they were
thwarted when, on Godfrey’s death, his brother Baldwin was summoned back
to Jerusalem, where he assumed the title of king (November 11, 1100).
Thus, there had come into being not a church state but a feudal kingdom
of Jerusalem.
Securing the new Christian territories was now of utmost concern. The
Crusade of 1101, for example, was organized by Pope Paschal II to
reinforce Christian rule in the Holy Land, but it collapsed in Asia
Minor. King Baldwin, however, profited nonetheless from the chronic
rivalries of his Muslim neighbours. He was also able to extend his
control along the coastline with the aid of Italians and in one instance
of a Norwegian squadron that arrived under King Sigurd in 1110. By 1112
Arsuf, Caesarea, Acre, Beirut, and Sidon had been taken, and the entire
coast except for Ascalon and Tyre was in Latin hands.
Meanwhile, castles had been built in Galilee, the frontier pushed
southward, and Crusader states formed in the north. The county of Edessa,
an ill-defined domain extending into the upper Euphrates region with a
population consisting mainly of Armenians and Syrians, had already been
established by Godfrey’s brother Baldwin. When Baldwin left to become
ruler of Jerusalem, he bestowed the county, under his suzerainty, on his
cousin Baldwin of Le Bourcq.
Antioch had not been returned to the emperor, and Bohemond had
consolidated his position there. The city was predominantly Greek in
population, though there were also Syrians and Armenians, and the latent
Greek-Latin friction was intensified when Bohemond replaced the Greek
patriarch with a Latin one. When Bohemond was captured by the Muslims in
1100, his nephew Tancred became regent and expanded the frontiers of the
principality to include the important port of Latakia, taken from the
Byzantines in 1103. Not long after his release in 1103, Bohemond
traveled to Europe, where he succeeded in winning over Pope Paschal II
to the idea of a new Crusade. Whatever the original intention, there
resulted not an expedition against Muslims but an attack on the
Byzantine city of Dyrrhachium. Like its predecessor, the ill-fated
campaign of 1082, the enterprise failed, and in 1108 Bohemond was forced
to take an oath of vassalage to the emperor for Antioch and to return to
Italy, where he died in 1111. Tancred, again in power, ignored his
uncle’s oath, and Antioch and its patriarchate remained a source of
controversy.
A fourth Crusader state was established on the coast in the vicinity
of Tripoli (Arabic Tarābulus) by Raymond of Saint-Gilles, who had been
outmaneuvered in Jerusalem and had returned to Constantinople hoping for
aid from the Byzantine emperor, to whom he had always been loyal. In
1102 he returned to Syria, took Tortosa (Ṭarṭūs), and began the siege of
Tripoli. But he died in 1105, and it remained for his descendants to
finish the task in 1109.
The establishment and protection of the frontier was, for the new
states, a problem conditioned by geography and the politics of Levantine
Islam. From Antioch south, the Crusaders held a narrow strip of
coastland bounded by mountains to the north and by the Jordan Valley in
the south. To the east beyond the Syrian desert lay the Muslim cities of
Aleppo, Ḥamāh, Ḥimṣ, and Damascus. Though the Franks did push southward
to Aylah (or Elim, modern Al-ʿAqabah), all attempts to move eastward
failed, and it was necessary to erect castles at vulnerable points along
the eastern frontier as well as along the coast and inland. Among the
most famous of these were Krak de Montréal, in the Transjordan, and Krak
des Chevaliers, in the county of Tripoli. Meanwhile, the hostility
between Shīʿite Egypt and Sunnite Baghdad continued for some time. The
emirates in between the two powers remained divided in their allegiance,
and those in the north feared the Seljuqs of Iconium.
After Baldwin I’s death in 1118, the throne passed to his cousin
Baldwin of Le Bourcq (Baldwin II), who left Edessa to another cousin,
Joscelin of Courtenay. In 1124 Tyre, the last great city north of
Ascalon still in Muslim hands, was taken with the aid of the Venetians,
who, as was customary, received a section of the city. Baldwin II was
succeeded by Fulk of Anjou, a newcomer recommended by Louis VI of
France. Fulk was married to Baldwin’s daughter Melisende. In 1131
Baldwin and Joscelin both died. They were the last of the first
generation of Crusaders, and with their passing the formative period in
the history of the Crusader states came to an end.
Fulk’s policies ended the pursuit of expansion and resulted in a
stabilization of the frontiers of the Crusader states. This was a wise
course, because his reign coincided with the rise of Zangī, atabeg
(Turkish: “governor”) of Mosul, whose achievements earned him a
reputation as a great champion of the jihad (holy war) against the
Franks. When Zangī moved against Damascus, the Muslims of that city and
the Christians of Jerusalem formed an alliance against their common
enemy, a diplomatic initiative that was common among the
second-generation Franks.
The northern Crusader states, however, were in great danger. The
Byzantines had recovered their influence in Anatolia and were putting
pressure on Armenia and Antioch. Emperor Manuel Comnenus forced Prince
Raymond of Antioch to acknowledge imperial suzerainty. But the greater
danger to both Antioch and Armenia was dramatically brought home by
Zangī’s capture of Edessa in 1144. Attempts at recovery failed, and the
northernmost Crusader state was subsequently overrun.
On the way to the Holy Land, the Crusaders discover the scattered
skeletal remains of the armies of Peter the Hermit and Walter the
Penniless.
The era of
the Second and Third Crusades » The Second Crusade
It had long been apparent that Edessa was vulnerable, but its loss came
as a shock to Eastern and Western Christians. Urgent pleas for aid soon
reached Europe, and in 1145 Pope Eugenius III issued a formal Crusade
bull, Quantum praedecessores (“How Much Our Predecessors”). It was the
first of its kind, with precisely worded provisions designed to protect
Crusaders’ families and property and reflecting contemporary advances in
canon law. The Crusade was preached by St. Bernard of Clairvaux in
France and, with the aid of interpreters, even in Germany. Bernard
revolutionized Crusade ideology, asserting that the Crusade was not
merely an act of charity or a war to secure the holy places but a means
of redemption. In his mercy, Christ offered the warriors of Europe a
blessed avenue of salvation, a means by which they could give up all
they had to follow him.
As in the First Crusade, many simple pilgrims responded. Unlike the
First Crusade, however, the Second Crusade was led by two of Europe’s
greatest rulers, King Louis VII of France and Emperor Conrad III of
Germany. Louis enthusiastically supported the Crusade, but Conrad was
reluctant at first and was won over only by the eloquence of St.
Bernard. The Second Crusade also differed from its predecessor in that
there were three objectives instead of one. While the kings of Germany
and France marched east to restore Edessa, other Crusaders went to Spain
to fight Muslims or to the shores of the Baltic Sea to fight the pagan
Wends.
The situation in the East was also different. Manuel Comnenus, the
Byzantine emperor, was not pleased to discover another Crusade headed
toward Constantinople. The Second Crusade wreaked havoc with his foreign
policy, which included an alliance with Germany, Venice, and the pope
against the Normans. It also complicated the emperor’s peaceful
relationship with the Turkish sultan of Rūm. Manuel made a truce with
the sultan in 1146 to make certain that the Crusade would not cause the
sultan to attack Byzantine lands in Asia. Although sound strategically,
the emperor’s move confirmed for many Western Christians the apostasy of
the Greeks.
Conrad left in May 1147, accompanied by many German nobles, the kings
of Poland and Bohemia, and Frederick of Swabia, his nephew and the
future emperor Frederick I (Frederick Barbarossa). Conrad’s poorly
disciplined troops created tension in Constantinople, where they arrived
in September. Conrad and Manuel, however, remained on good terms, and
both were apprehensive about the moves of King Roger II of Sicily, who
during these same weeks seized Corfu and attacked the Greek mainland.
Conrad, rejecting Manuel’s advice to follow the coastal route around
Asia Minor, moved his main force past Nicaea directly into Anatolia. On
October 25 at Dorylaeum, not far from where the First Crusaders won
their victory, his army, weary and without adequate provisions, was set
upon by the Turks and virtually destroyed. Conrad, with a few survivors,
retreated to Nicaea.
Louis VII, accompanied by his wife, Eleanor of Aquitaine, followed
the land route across Europe and arrived at Constantinople on October 4,
about a month after the Germans. A few of his more hotheaded followers,
on hearing that Manuel had made a truce with the Turks of Iconium and
totally misunderstanding his motives, accused the emperor of treason and
urged the French king to join Roger in attacking the Byzantines. Louis
preferred the opinion of his less-volatile advisers and agreed to
restore any imperial possessions he might capture.
In November the French reached Nicaea, where they learned of Conrad’s
defeat. Louis and Conrad then started along the coastal route, with the
French now in the vanguard, and reached Ephesus. Conrad became seriously
ill and returned to Constantinople to the medical ministrations of
Manuel. After recuperating, he eventually reached Acre by ship in April
1148.
The French passage from Ephesus to Antioch in midwinter was extremely
harrowing. Supplies ran short, and the Byzantines were unjustly blamed.
Manuel defended his cities against the angry Crusaders, which meant that
the French spent more energy fighting Christians than Muslims. Louis
concluded that the Greeks were trying to weaken the Crusade. He also had
lost the bulk of his troops to Turkish attacks by the time he reached
Antioch, which was ruled by Eleanor’s uncle, Prince Raymond. The
Crusade’s original goal of recapturing Edessa was no longer feasible,
because Nūr al-Dīn, the son and successor of Zangī, had massacred the
city’s Christian inhabitants, making it difficult to take and hold
Edessa with the forces available. Raymond urged an attack on Aleppo, Nūr
al-Dīn’s centre of power. But King Louis, who resented Eleanor’s open
espousal of Raymond’s project, left abruptly for Jerusalem and forced
the queen to join him.
In Jerusalem, where Conrad had already arrived, many French and
German notables assembled with Queen Melisende, her son Baldwin III, and
the barons of Jerusalem to discuss how best to proceed. Despite the
absence of the northern princes and the losses already suffered by the
Crusaders, it was possible to field an army of nearly 50,000 men, the
largest Crusade army so far assembled. After considerable debate, which
revealed the conflicting purposes of Crusaders and Jerusalem barons, it
was decided to attack Damascus.
How the decision was reached is not known. Damascus was undoubtedly a
tempting prize. Its ruler, Unur, fearful of the expanding power of Nūr
al-Dīn, was the one Muslim ruler most disposed to cooperating with the
Franks. However, Unur was now forced to seek the aid of his former enemy
to thwart them. And Nūr al-Dīn was not slow to move toward Damascus. Not
only was the Crusader campaign poorly conceived, but it was badly
executed. On July 28, after a four-day siege, with Nūr al-Dīn’s forces
nearing the city, it became evident that the Crusader army was
dangerously exposed, and a retreat was ordered. It was a humiliating
failure, attributable largely to the conflicting interests of the
participants.
Conrad decamped for Constantinople, where he agreed to join the
emperor against Roger of Sicily. Louis’s reaction was different. His
resentment against Manuel, whom he blamed for the failure, was so great
that he accepted Roger’s offer of ships to take him home and agreed to a
plan for a new Crusade against Byzantium. Lacking papal support, the
plan came to nothing, but the perception that the Byzantines were part
of the problem rather than the solution became widespread in Europe.
The Second Crusade had been promoted with great zeal and had aroused
high hopes. Its collapse caused deep dismay. Searching for an
explanation, St. Bernard turned to Scripture and preached that the
Crusade failed because of the sinfulness of Europe. Only through the
purification and prayers of Christian men and women would God relent and
bestow victory on his knights once more. This belief became central to
Crusading ideology and an important impetus for movements of lay piety
during the Middle Ages. The Muslims, on the other hand, were enormously
encouraged by the collapse of the Second Crusade because they had
confronted the danger of another major Western expedition and had
triumphed.
The stars, ascending on the horizon in the shape of a
cross and a wreath of thorns,
are thought to be a supernatural sign
from God to the Crusaders.
The era of the Second and Third Crusades » The Crusader
states to 1187
During the 25 years following the Second Crusade, the kingdom of
Jerusalem was governed by two of its ablest rulers, Baldwin III (reigned
1143–62) and Amalric I (1163–74). In 1153 King Baldwin captured Ascalon,
extending the kingdom’s coastline southward, though this would be the
Franks’ last major conquest. Its possession was offset the next year by
the occupation of Damascus by Nūr al-Dīn, one more stage in the
encirclement of the Crusader states by a single Muslim power.
In 1160–61 the possibility that the Fāṭimid caliphate in Egypt,
shaken by palace intrigues and assassinations, might collapse under the
influence of Muslim Syria caused anxiety in Jerusalem. Thus, in 1164,
when Nūr al-Dīn sent his lieutenant Shīrkūh to Egypt accompanied by his
own nephew, Saladin, King Amalric decided to intervene. After some
maneuvering, the armies of both Amalric and Shīrkūh withdrew, as they
were to do again three years later.
Meanwhile, Amalric, realizing the necessity of Byzantine cooperation,
had sent Archbishop William of Tyre as an envoy to Constantinople. In
1168, before the news of the agreement that William of Tyre had arranged
reached Jerusalem, the king, for reasons unknown, set out for Egypt. The
venture failed, and Shīrkūh entered Cairo. On his death (May 23, 1169),
Saladin, then Nūr al-Dīn’s deputy, was left to overcome the remaining
opposition and assume control of Egypt.
When the Byzantine fleet and the army finally arrived in 1169, there
was some delay, and both armies were forced by inadequate provisions and
seasonal rains to retreat once again, each side blaming the other for
the lack of confrontation. In 1171 Saladin obeyed Nūr al-Dīn’s order to
have the prayers in the mosques mention the caliph of Baghdad instead of
the caliph of Cairo, whose health was failing. Thus ended the Fāṭimid
caliphate and the great division in Levantine Islam from which the
Latins had profited.
Ominous developments followed the deaths of both Amalric and Nūr al-Dīn
in 1174. In 1176 the Seljuqs of Iconium defeated the armies of Emperor
Manuel Comnenus at Myriocephalon. It was a shattering blow reminiscent
of Manzikert a century earlier. When Manuel died in 1180, all hope of
effective Byzantine-Latin cooperation vanished. Three years later
Saladin occupied Aleppo, virtually completing the encirclement of the
Latin states. In 1185 he agreed to a truce and left for Egypt.
In Jerusalem Amalric was succeeded by his son Baldwin IV, a
13-year-old boy suffering from leprosy. Despite the young king’s
extraordinary fortitude, his precarious health necessitated continuous
regencies and created a problem of succession until his sister Sibyl
bore a son, the future Baldwin V, to William of Montferrat. Her
subsequent marriage in 1180 to Guy of Lusignan, a newcomer to the East
and brother of Amalric, accentuated existing rivalries between the
barons. A kind of “court party”—centring around the queen mother, Agnes
of Courtenay, her daughter Sibyl, and Agnes’s brother, Joscelin III of
Edessa, and now including the Lusignans—was often opposed by another
group comprising mostly the so-called native barons—old families,
notably the Ibelins, Reginald of Sidon, and Raymond III of Tripoli, who
through his wife was also lord of Tiberias. In addition to these
internal problems, the kingdom was the most isolated ever. Urgent
appeals to the West and the efforts of Pope Alexander III had brought
little response.
Baldwin IV died in March 1185, leaving, according to previous
agreement, Raymond of Tripoli as regent for the child king Baldwin V.
But when Baldwin V died in 1186, the court party outmaneuvered the other
barons and, disregarding succession arrangements that had been formally
drawn up, hastily crowned Sibyl. She in turn crowned her husband, Guy of
Lusignan.
In the midst of near civil war, Reginald of Châtillon, lord of Kerak
and Montréal, broke the truce with the Muslims by attacking a caravan.
Saladin replied by proclaiming jihad against the Latin kingdom. In 1187
he left Egypt, crossed the Jordan south of the Sea of Galilee, and took
up a position close to the river. Near Sepphoris (modern Ẓippori) the
Crusaders mobilized an army of perhaps 20,000 men, which included some
1,200 heavily armed cavalry. In a spot well chosen and adequately
supplied with water and provisions, they waited for Saladin—who, by some
estimates, had about 30,000 men, half of whom were light cavalry—to make
the first move.
On July 2 Saladin blocked the main road to Tiberias and sent a small
force to attack the town, hoping that Count Raymond’s wife’s presence
there would lure the Crusaders into the open. It was Raymond, however,
who initially persuaded the king not to fall into the trap. But, late
that night, others, accusing the count of treason, prevailed upon the
king to change his mind. This fateful decision would lead to the
destruction of the Crusader army. On July 3 the Crusaders undertook an
exhausting day’s march, spent a terrible night without water, and were
surrounded and constantly harassed. The following day they faced
Saladin’s forces at the Horns of Ḥaṭṭin and fought throughout the day,
with smoke from grass fires set by the enemy pouring into their faces.
When the infantry broke ranks, the essential coordination with the
cavalry was shattered, and the Crusaders’ fate was sealed. By the time
Saladin’s final charge ended the battle, most of the knights had been
slain or captured. Only Raymond of Tripoli, Reginald of Sidon, Balian of
Ibelin, and a few others escaped.
The king’s life was spared, but Saladin killed Reginald of Châtillon
and ordered the execution of some 200 Templars and Hospitallers (religio-military
orders discussed below). Other captive knights were treated honourably,
and most were later ransomed. Less fortunate were the foot soldiers,
most of whom were sold into slavery. Virtually the entire military force
of the kingdom of Jerusalem had been destroyed. To make matters worse,
Saladin captured the relic of the True Cross, which he sent to Damascus,
where it was paraded through the streets upside down.
Saladin quickly followed up his victory in the Battle of Ḥaṭṭin by
taking Tiberias and moving toward the coast to seize Acre (ʿAkko). By
September 1187 he and his lieutenants had occupied most of the major
strongholds in the kingdom and all the ports south of Tripoli Jubayl and
Botron (Al-Batrūn) in the county of Tripoli and Tyre in the kingdom. On
October 2 Jerusalem, then defended by only a handful of men under the
command of Balian of Ibelin, capitulated to Saladin, who agreed to allow
the inhabitants to leave once they had paid a ransom. Though Saladin’s
offer included the poor, several thousand apparently were not redeemed
and probably were sold into slavery. In Jerusalem, as in most of the
cities captured, those who stayed were Syrian or Greek Christians.
Somewhat later Saladin permitted a number of Jews to settle in the city.
Meanwhile, Saladin continued his conquests in the north, and by 1189
all of the kingdom was in his hands except Belvoir (modern Kokhov ha-Yarden)
and Tyre. The county of Tripoli and the principality of Antioch were
each reduced to the capital city and a few outposts. The majority of the
100-year-old Latin establishment in the Levant had been lost.
The Crusaders admire the innumerable riches and luxuries sent
to Bohemond from the East.
The era of the Second and Third Crusades » The
institutions of the First Kingdom
The four principalities established by the Crusaders—three after the
loss of Edessa in 1144—were loosely connected, and the king of
Jerusalem’s limited suzerainty over Antioch and Tripoli became largely
nominal after mid century. Each state was organized into a pattern of
lordships by the ruling Christian minority. The institutions of the
kingdom of Jerusalem are best known, partly because its history figures
more prominently in both Arab and Christian chronicles but especially
because its documents were better preserved. In the 13th century the
famous legal compilation the Assises de Jérusalem (Assizes of Jerusalem)
was prepared in the kingdom. Though this collection reflects a later
situation, certain sections and many individual enactments can be traced
back to the 12th century, the period known as the First Kingdom.
In the first half of the 12th century, the kingdom presented the
appearance of a typical European monarchy, with lordships owing military
service and subject to fiscal exactions. There were, however, important
differences, not only in the large subject population of diverse ethnic
origins but also with respect to the governing minority. No great
families with extensive domains emerged in the early years, and the
typical noble did not, as in Europe, live in a rural castle or manor
house. Although castles existed, they were garrisoned by knights and,
increasingly as the century advanced, by the religio-military orders.
Most barons in the kingdom lived in the fortified towns. The kings,
moreover, possessed a considerable domain and retained extensive
judicial rights, which made the monarchy a relatively strong institution
in early Jerusalem.
Toward the middle of the century, this situation changed. Partly as a
consequence of increased immigration from the West, the baronial class
grew, and a relatively small group of magnates with large domains
emerged. As individuals, they were less disposed to brook royal
interference, and as a class and in the court of barons (Haute Cour, or
High Court), they were capable of presenting a formidable challenge to
royal authority. The last of the kings of Jerusalem to exercise
effective power was Amalric I in the 12th century. In the final years of
the First Kingdom, baronial influence was increasingly evident and
dissension among the barons, as a consequence, more serious.
The few surviving soldiers of Peter’s army apprise
Godfrey and his
Crusaders about the massacre by the Saracens.
The era of the Second and Third Crusades » The
institutions of the First Kingdom » The military orders
Another serious obstacle to the king’s jurisdiction, which did not
exist in the same form in the West, was the extensive authority of the
two religio-military orders. The Knights of the Hospital of St. John, or
Hospitallers, was founded in the 11th century by the merchants of Amalfi
to provide hospital care for pilgrims. The order never abandoned its
original purpose, and, in fact, as its superb collection of documents
reveals, the order’s philanthropic activities expanded. But during the
12th century, in response to the military needs of the kingdom, the
Hospitallers also became an order of knights, as did the Templars, the
Poor Knights of Christ and of the Temple of Solomon, so named because of
their headquarters in the former temple of Solomon. The Templars
originated as a monastic-military organization dedicated to protecting
pilgrims on the way to Jerusalem, and their rule, composed by St.
Bernard of Clairvaux, was officially sanctioned by the Council of Troyes
(1128). Although the Templars and Hospitallers took monastic vows, their
principal function was soldiering.
The orders grew rapidly and acquired castles at strategic points in
the kingdom and in the northern states. They maintained permanent
garrisons in these castles and supplemented the otherwise inadequate
forces of the barons and king. Moreover, because they were soon
established in Europe as well, they became international organizations.
Virtually independent, sanctioned and constantly supported by the
papacy, and exempt from local ecclesiastical jurisdiction, they aroused
the jealousy of the clergy and constituted a serious challenge to royal
authority.
The Crusaders introduced into the conquered lands a Latin
ecclesiastical organization and hierarchy. The Greek patriarch of
Antioch was removed, and all subsequent incumbents were Latin except in
one brief period before 1170, when imperial pressure brought about the
installation of a Greek. The Orthodox patriarch in Jerusalem left before
the conquest and died soon after. All his successors were Latin.
Under Latin jurisdiction were the entire Latin population, as well as
those natives who remained Orthodox—Greeks in Antioch and Greeks or
Syrians (Melchites) in Jerusalem. Beyond that jurisdiction were a larger
number of Monophysites (Jacobites or Armenians) and some few Nestorians,
all adherents of doctrines that had deviated from the decisions of
5th-century ecumenical councils. A number of Maronites of the Lebanon
region accepted the Latin obedience late in the 12th century. After some
initial confusion, the native hierarchies were able to resume their
functions.
As in the West, the church had its own courts and possessed large
properties. But each ecclesiastical domain was required to furnish
soldiers, and there were considerable charitable foundations. The
hierarchy of the Latin states was an integral part of the church of the
West. Papal legates regularly visited the East, and bishops from the
Crusader states attended the third Lateran Council in 1179. Western
monastic orders also appeared in the Crusader states.
In addition to the nobles and their families who had settled in the
kingdom, a substantially larger number of persons were classified as
bourgeois. A small number had arrived with the First Crusade; however,
most were later immigrants from Europe, representing nearly every
nationality but predominantly from rural southern France. In the East
they became town dwellers, though a few were
agriculturalists—proprietors of small estates, rarely themselves tillers
of the soil, inhabiting the more modest towns. It appears some
immigrants, perhaps poor pilgrims who remained, failed to obtain a
reasonably settled status and could not afford the relatively small
ransom offered by Saladin in 1187.
The townspeople of the First Kingdom did not, like their counterparts
in Europe, aspire to political autonomy. There were no communal
movements in the 12th century. The bourgeois were, therefore, subject to
a king or seigneur. Some did military service as sergeants—i.e., mounted
auxiliaries or foot soldiers. The bourgeois were recognized as a class
in the more than 30 “courts of the bourgeois” according to procedures
laid down in the Assises de la Cour des Bourgeois (Assizes of the Court
of the Bourgeois), which, unlike other parts of the Assizes of
Jerusalem, reflect the traditions of Roman law in southern France.
The Italians had acquired exceptional privileges in the ports because
they supplied the indispensable naval aid and shipping essential to
regular contact with Europe. These privileges usually included a quarter
that they maintained as a virtually independent enclave. Its status was
guaranteed by treaty between the kingdom and the “mother” city (Venice,
Genoa, Pisa, etc.).
European settlers in the Crusader states, however, were only a small
minority of the population. If the early Crusaders were ruthless, their
successors, except for occasional outbursts during campaigns, were
remarkably tolerant and flexible in dealing with the diverse sectors of
the local population. Muslim town dwellers who had not fled were
captured and put to menial tasks. Some, it is true, appeared in Italian
slave marts, but royal and ecclesiastical ordinances at least restricted
slave owners’ actions. Baptism brought with it immediate freedom.
Few Muslims were slaves. Most of those who remained were peasants who
for centuries had been a large part of the rural population and who were
permitted to retain their holdings, subject to fiscal impositions not
unlike those of the European serf and usually identical to those
originally levied by their former proprietors on all non-Muslims. Muslim
nomads, or Bedouin, who from time immemorial had moved their herds with
the changing seasons, were granted their traditional rights of pasturage
by the king.
Most mosques were appropriated during the conquest, but some were
restored, and no attempt was made to restrict Muslim religious
observance. Occasionally a mihrab (prayer niche) was retained for Muslim
worshipers in a church that had formerly been a mosque. The tolerance of
the Franks, noted by Arab visitors, often surprised and disturbed
newcomers from the West.
Through motivational speeches, the priests give the
Crusaders spiritual
support and encouragement.
The era of the Second and Third Crusades » The
institutions of the First Kingdom » Legal practices
Native Christians were governed according to the Assizes of the
Court of the Bourgeois. Each national group retained its institutions.
The Syrians, for example, maintained a court overseen by the rais (raʾīs),
a chieftain of importance under the Frankish regime. An important
element in the kingdom’s army, the corps of Turcopoles, made up of
lightly armed cavalry units, was composed largely of native Christians,
including, apparently, converts from Islam. The principle of personality
of law applied to all: the Jew took oath on the Torah, the Samaritan on
the Pentateuch, the Muslim on the Qurʾān, and the Christian on the
Gospels.
The Jewish community of Palestine, which had declined in the 11th
century, was drastically reduced by the First Crusade. As the Latin
kingdom settled into a routine of government, however, the situation
improved. Indeed, there is reason to believe that the later, more stable
regime made possible a not-inconsiderable Jewish immigration—not, it
seems, as in earlier times, from the neighbouring lands of the Middle
East but from Europe.
Thus, by the 1170s the Crusader states of Outremer, as the area of
Latin settlement came to be called, had developed well-established
governments. With allowance made for regional differences (e.g., Antioch
in its early years under the Norman dynasty was somewhat more
centralized), the institutions of the northern states resembled those of
Jerusalem. The governing class of Franks was no longer made up of
foreign conquerors but comprised local residents who had learned to
adjust to a new environment and were concerned with administration. A
few—such as Reginald of Sidon and William of Tyre, the archbishop and
chancellor, respectively—were fluent in Arabic. Many others knew enough
of the language to deal with the local inhabitants. Franks adopted
native dress, ate native food, employed native physicians, and married
Syrian, Armenian, or converted Muslim women.
But the Franks of Outremer, though they sometimes acquired a love of
luxury and comfort, did not lose the will or ability to confront danger;
nor did they “go native.” In fundamentals, they were Latin Christians
who adhered to the traditions of their French forebears. The Assizes
were in French, and other documents were drawn up in Latin. William of
Tyre, born in the East but educated in Europe, wrote a celebrated
Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum (History of Deeds Done
Beyond the Sea) in the Latin style of the 12th century.
Artists and architects were influenced by Byzantine and Arab
craftsmen, but Oriental motifs were usually limited to details, such as
doorway carvings. A psalter for Queen Melisende in the 12th century, for
example, shows certain Byzantine characteristics, and the artist may
have lived in Constantinople, but the manuscript is in the then current
tradition of French art. Castles followed Byzantine models and were
often built on the old foundations, though Western ideas were also
incorporated. New churches were built or additions made to existing
structures, as, for example, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, in the
Romanesque style of the homeland.
All in all, the Franks of the First Kingdom developed a distinctive
culture and achieved a sense of identity. Until baronial dissensions
weakened the monarchy in later years, the Latin kingdom showed
remarkable vitality and ingenuity. It was one of the more sophisticated
governmental achievements of the Middle Ages.
