Crusades

The crusading movement emerged at the end of the eleventh century, when Pope Urban II raised an army to help the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I (1081-1118) against the Turks, who were conquering Asia Minor. Crusaders received indulgence*, protection, and even exemptions from taxes. Armies left in 1096, and the first crusaders unexpectedly created new states, first the county of Edessa, then the principality of Antioch, and in 1099 they conquered Jerusalem, which became the centre of a kingdom. These crusader states expanded, especially by capturing seaports. In 1109 the county of Tripoli was established, and the rulers of Edessa and Tripoli became vassals of the king of Jerusalem. The crusader states reached their greatest extent in the mid-twelfth century, but still consisted of a relatively narrow coastal strip. Over time, crusading became more organized. A maritime, rather than an overland, route to the East developed. Rulers became involved in leading crusades. In 1199 the first direct taxation of the Church (a fortieth) was introduced, which became a regular way to finance the crusades. Organized preaching recruited crusaders, and non-combatants (including women and even the dying) were encouraged to redeem crusade vows for payment from 1213 onwards.

Yet most crusaders returned home; there was very little population transfer from Europe to the East. At their most extensive, crusader states are estimated to have contained 250,000 Europeans (mainly Franks). The majority of the population were natives: Muslims, a variety of eastern Christians, and Jews. Many of the administrative traditions of the Romans and Byzantines had been incorporated into the Muslim system, and were in turn, enriched by Muslim innovations, integrated into the crusader states. The new rulers continued to levy the same taxes that the Muslims had collected, and used sophisticated accounting practices. In general, instruments of government and the bureaucratic system were adopted, while European practices, such as land and money fiefs in exchange for military service, were also introduced. The king of Jerusalem had some authority in the entire Latin East, shown, for example, in his role as arbiter in disputes between the other Frankish rulers and his leadership in defensive wars. His riches also distinguished him: he held vast lands and taxed trade, and could give money fiefs to vassals and hire mercenaries. The high court (parlement) debated political matters and extraordinary taxation. Historians once saw the kingdom of Jerusalem as a strong monarchy in the first half of the twelfth century, but the more recent consensus is that political fragmentation was present from the beginning. Although great lords were royal vassals, they exercised full authority in their principalities, constituting a ‘confederation of lordships’.8 The nobility of the crusader states differed from each other: for example, in Edessa it was primarily Armenian, in Jerusalem northern French. By the second half of the twelfth century it was difficult for newcomers, with a few exceptions, to rise into the nobility; about ten families held the twenty-four most important lordships. They also had rights to mint coins, legislate, and control the ports. Many lesser lords held money fiefs. Military service could not be commuted for payment. During the thirteenth century nobles relied on laws (which were remembered, as either laws had not been written down or written texts had been lost when Jerusalem fell to the Muslims once more in 1187) to strengthen their own power against that of the king; many nobles were skilled lawyers.

The recruitment of warriors to the Latin East caused a constant problem. This was partially alleviated by an innovation: military orders. The Knights Templar, a religious community founded in 1118-19, led this transformation. Within a few years of its foundation, the order’s members combined taking monastic vows with fighting against the Muslims. In 1129 the Templar rule was drawn up. The Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, founded in the second half of the eleventh century, was reorganized along the same lines, and other military orders were established. They became important in providing permanently committed fighters and garrisoning castles built for defence. Orders established in the Latin East eventually moved into Europe; and new orders were founded there, most importantly in Iberia.

Warfare was not the only concern the settlers had in the Latin East. Agricultural life continued. The native inhabitants of the villages could not leave their land, and paid dues based on traditional Islamic ones. Very little land belonged directly to the lord (as demesne) on which peasants owed labour services. A headman and a council of

J. Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History (London, 1987), 69.

Elders oversaw the functioning of villages. Franks also lived in some villages and manor houses. In the twelfth century, planned villages were established. Free peasants who came from Europe received privileges, including personal freedom, the right to alienate land, and to give a fixed percentage of produce to the local lord. These communities also had their own system of justice. Most Europeans lived in towns; the majority were burgesses. Burgess privilege—personal freedom, paying rent and no servile dues, having their own courts and law—was extended to attract settlers, including craftsmen, contrary to practices in most of Europe. Ports developed into major international commercial centres, used by Italian and other merchants (see Chapter 2).

The number of Catholics was small, even including converts from local Eastern Christian communities. At first Greek Orthodox clerics were recognized, although, in cases of vacancy or areas with no Christian hierarchy, Catholic bishops were installed. From the early twelfth century on, Latins aggressively intruded into offices, and a Latin hierarchy increasingly replaced the Greek Orthodox one. Rulers and laymen retained a large measure of control over the Church well into the twelfth century. Adherents of different faiths were distinguished in law. At the top were Catholic Franks, then Eastern Christians, and at the bottom Muslims and Jews. Only the testimony of Catholics was fully valid in court. Nonetheless, after initial massacres of local non-Christians, because of the need for manpower and trade, peaceful interaction grew. Non-Christians were allowed to practise their own faith; they also continued to participate in trade and the production of goods. Sources provide examples of friendship with Muslims and intermarriage with Eastern Christians. Art also shows the mingling of Frankish and Eastern Christian: from the second generation (ii3os), strong Byzantine influence transformed art; Greek and Latin inscriptions were used. Existing urban architectural styles were also adopted.

Debate about the nature of society in the crusader states continues. According to the traditional model, the crusader settlements, often called a ‘colonial’ society, were characterized by a complete separation between Franks and locals. Yet there was no political direction from or economic exploitation for the benefit of the homeland, as in other colonial societies; on the contrary, these states were economically dependent on the homeland. The term ‘religious colonization’ has also been used. Another view posits the multi-ethnic character of the new society. This emphasizes the orientalization of the Franks, the merging of Muslim, Eastern Christian, and Latin Christian elements, pointing especially to accounts of friendships and intermarriage between Franks and locals (including Muslims), and the adoption of Muslim customs by the Franks. A third, most recent, analysis maintains that these states consisted of a ‘Franco-Syrian’ society that did not include Muslims. Based on settlement by Frankish immigrants— rather than on ‘crusader settlement’—that concentrated in the areas inhabited by local Christians, it was agricultural in character. The population was increasingly locally born, consisting of farmers who raised families and did not see war as a priority; and the Franks interacted only with Eastern Christians (although the latter did not have the same legal status), not Muslims.

Spiritual benefits, a new legitimacy conferred on warriors through the exercise of warfare, the conquest of new areas, leading to landholding and even rulership for some, all combined to attract crusaders, while trading advantages for the Venetians, Genoese, and Pisans ensured that their fleets were deployed for transport and the capturing of seaports. This attraction, however, was not constant, as attested by the ebb and flow of response to crusading calls. From the mid-twelfth century, Muslim counter-attack became effective, and the concept of jihad* (holy war) developed in relation to Jerusalem. After Edessa had been recaptured by Muslims in 1144, the Second Crusade was called, but proved to be a failure. Saladin, who became the ruler of Egypt and parts of Syria in the late twelfth century, was victorious at Hattin in 1187. He conquered Jerusalem and many other lands from the crusaders. Yet Western rule over part of the territory was prolonged: the Third Crusade, led by the German Emperor Frederick Barbarossa, Kings Philip Augustus of France and Richard I of England, conquered Acre (1191) and Jaffa. The city of Jerusalem did not return to Christian control again, except for a brief period as a result of the negotiations between Frederick II and Sultan Al-Kamil of Egypt in 1229; it fell in 1244 to a Central Asian army in the service of Egypt. In the thirteenth century crusaders attempted to proceed through the conquest of Egypt to regain lost lands. In 1218-21 and 1248-50, they mounted large-scale attacks, but ultimately failed in both cases. The second time, Louis IX of France, the leader of the crusade, was taken captive. Sultan Baibars of Egypt started to capture crusader fortresses in 1265. Western reinforcements failed to arrive or were ineffective; among them was the disastrous attempt led by Louis IX of France, ending in the king’s death at Tunis in 1270. Muslim reconquest continued until 1291, when the last crusader strongholds fell, and Latin control came to an end. The crusades thus demonstrated an expansionist drive, but did not result in a lasting contribution to the expansion of Latin Christendom in the East.

Latin states were also established elsewhere in the eastern Mediterranean, in regions where the majority population consisted of Eastern Christians. Expansion and conquest there were inextricably linked to the growth of Italian trade. Richard I of England conquered Cyprus in 1191; he gave lordship over the island to Guy of Lusignan in 1192, whose heir established a kingdom that lasted for almost 300 years. The Lusignan ruler became a vassal of the German emperor Henry VI in 1195, an overlordship that lasted until 1247, when the kingdom came directly under the Holy See. The native population was Greek; as settlers from the Latin states arrived, the Latin Church was established. Royal power was strong: no fortified places could be held by lay nobles. Cyprus exported agricultural produce, and Italian, especially Genoese merchants, used it as a stop-off point in international trade. Westerners settled in Cilician Armenia as well, and transformed some of its institutions and laws. Frankish Greece emerged as a result of the Fourth Crusade. Participants responded to an invitation from Alexius Angelus to intervene in Byzantine politics and restore him to the throne. Although they succeeded, relations quickly deteriorated between Alexius IV and the crusaders, and the latter finally subjugated the empire. After the conquest of Constantinople (1204), Count Baldwin IX of Flanders was elected to rule one-quarter of the territory, creating the Latin Empire of Constantinople, while the rest was divided between the Venetians and other crusaders. Historians have argued over who was responsible for ‘corrupting’ the crusade; rather, the events demonstrated the flexibility of crusading as a military venture. The Franks adopted the Byzantine tax system and officials, but introduced a hierarchical social structure reflected in the law. Latin settlers arrived, were granted fiefs, and a Frenchspeaking court was established. Latin bishops replaced Orthodox ones. The Greek inhabitants were unfree, except the great lords. Greek nobles began to be incorporated into the elite by the second half of the thirteenth century. The Venetians centralized their government and bureaucracy, which directly depended on Venice. Byzantine power did not disappear, with rival rulers established in some areas, most notably Epiros in the Balkans and Nicaea in Asia Minor. From the latter base, Emperor Michael Palaeologus reconquered Constantinople in 1261, and only the principality of Achaea, the duchies of Athens and Naxos, and several islands remained under Latin occupation.

Crusading spread to different areas: during the twelfth century Iberia and the Baltic were important theatres of crusading warfare. For example, in 1147 English, Scottish, Norman, and Flemish participants of the Second Crusade en route to the East helped capture Lisbon in the fight against Muslims. In the same year, a German and Danish crusade against the Wends was part of the fight against pagans. Crusades in both areas continued during the thirteenth century, contributing to the expansion of Latin Christendom. Christian legitimation for these crusades centred around the notion of retaking land (just as the ‘Holy Land’ was deemed to be Christ’s heritage, the Iberian war was a ‘reconquest’, and Livonia was the ‘Virgin Mary’s land’); of facilitating missions and the spread of the faith against pagans who resisted or hindered others from converting; or of defending Christian converts persecuted by pagan neighbours (in northern Europe). Crusades were often indistinguishable from other forms of warfare in these territories; the same expansionist warfare was sometimes called a crusade and at other times not. Finally, the crusade could be a useful tool, used independently of some of its founding elements such as pilgrimage, against heretics and political enemies of the papacy. Crusades were subsequently also called against non-Christians who attacked Europe: the Mongols in the midthirteenth century, seen as monsters, or even inhabitants of Hell, and the Ottomans from the fourteenth century onwards.

Some historians see only expeditions to the ‘Holy Land’ as true crusades, while others, basing their arguments on such criteria as a papal declaration, privileges given to warriors, and the taking of crusade vows, see crusades to all areas as equal. There was clearly no uniformity in contemporary attitudes. Sometimes popes, such as Innocent III in 1213 or Honorius III in 1219, promoted crusades to Jerusalem at the expense of other areas. For example, they gave lesser indulgences to crusaders headed for Iberia than to those bound for Jerusalem; they prohibited the commutation of crusading vows Promising a journey to Jerusalem into one for fighting in other areas, or restricted European crusades to locals or those unable to travel to the ‘Holy Land’. At other times popes expressly equated the merits of, and indulgence for, undertaking crusades to different areas. Urban II ordered Catalans not to go to Jerusalem but to stay and fight the Muslims in Iberia. One can find criticism of crusades directed to areas other than the Levant, but also of crusades to the Levant, deemed in the thirteenth century by many as much less important for the well-being of Christendom than European territories threatened by pagans or Mongols. Neither did popular understanding of the crusades always mesh with the papal message. Groups who were judged unfavourably by ecclesiastics yet were not intended to become the targets for violence, the Jews and Byzantines, became targets of crusaders.