Most popular literature about the crusader states alleges that the Latin rulers were “less tolerant” of
religious diversity than their Muslim predecessors. It is hard to trace the
origins of this myth – other than in an excess of political correctness in
today’s world.
It is true that in the four
centuries of Muslim rule in the Holy Land preceeding the crusades some Muslim rulers were content to live-and-let-live, but -- as my last entry stressed -- there were
also periods of extreme repression.
Furthermore, at all times Christians (and other non-Muslims) were taxed
extra and treated as second-class citizens, certainly they had no right to
positions of power and influence.
This is the standard against
which the Christian leaders should be judged. If used it is quickly clear
that the Christians were not more oppressive than their Muslims predecessors. To be sure Muslims and Jews were subject to special
taxes -- as had been the case under Muslim rulers for non-Muslims. As under the Muslims, all people were allowed to practice their own religion. However, under the Muslims the penalty for trying to preach or convert a Muslim to
Christianity was death – as it is to this day in many Muslim countries. (A woman was only recently condemned to death in Sudan, for example, for claiming to be a Christian and marrying a Christian man.) I have
never read or heard about a similar law punishing the preaching of Islam with
death in the crusader kingdoms.
It is true that the crusaders
took the Holy Land by force – as had their Muslim predecessors. It is also true that while the Muslims
allowed Christians to live in Jerusalem, the crusaders prohibited Muslims from living
there. Nevertheless, they did not
tear down the Dome of the Rock or destroy the Al Aqsa Mosque, as the Caliph
al-Hakim had leveled the Church of the Holy Sepulcher. The crusaders simply converted these
buildings to Christian or secular purposes.
Islam's most sacred shrine in Jerusalem, the Dome of the Rock, was not destroyed;
it was converted into a Church instead.
It is also true that Latin clergy
was given control of the most sacred places and put into the positions of
greatest ecclesiastical power, such as the patriarchies in Jerusalem and
Antioch. Whether the Abbaids, the Fatamids, or the Seljuks were in control,
however, they too put their own men into positions of power; Sunnis do not
tolerate Shiia religious leaders in their mosques and madrassas and vice versa.
Conquerors always take the best spoils for themselves.
The fact that hardly any city
resisted Saladin’s conquest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem after the Battle of
Hattin is often taken as evidence that he non-Latin population in the kingdom preferred Muslim rule. This is hardly a sustainable argument since the reality was
that the kingdom was simply not defensible after the losses sustained at
Hattin. Under the circumstances, the
civilian population was eager to avoid the destruction and retribution that the
rules of war designated for cities that resisted and were taken by storm. The civilian population preferred to trust to
Saladin’s reputation for clemency. The
situation might have looked very different if the notoriously brutal Zengi had
been mopping up – or Baibars or one of the other equally merciless Mamluke sultans had been the opponent in 1187.
Rather, those who assert the
“preference” of the subject peoples of the crusader states for Muslim over
Latin rule ought to ask why there were no revolts against the Latin leaders? Why
was there no “Intifada” against the Christian kings? How could the tiny Latin Christian elite rule
for nearly two hundred years, if their subjects were secret allies of their
enemies? Why weren’t Christian towns betrayed to the Muslims each time a Muslim
army appeared – and not just after the devastation of Hattin but during Saladin's invasions in 1177, 1179, 1181, 1182, and 1183.
It is safe to say the loyalty of
the various non-Latin elements in the crusader states varied across regions and
time. Initially, the Armenians appear to
have been very enthusiastic about crusader rule after decades under the
Turks. Later, they became disillusioned,
at least in Eddessa, probably due to misrule and greed on the part of the Latin
rulers. In Antioch, the Armenians appear to have been considerably more loyal.
Yet in both states, the continued presence of an independent Armenian kingdom
undoubtedly undermined loyalty to the Latin elite by keeping alive hopes of
reincorporation in a greater Armenian state.
In the County of Tripoli and the
Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Armenians played a much less significant role and the
other religious groups were fragmented, so that no one group was in a position
to seriously challenge Latin leadership.
Furthermore, a Muslim traveler from Spain lamented the passivity of the
Muslims under Christian rule. In his
religious zeal, he may have forgotten or discounted the fact that even the
majority of Muslims in the Holy Land were not ethnically Arab or Turkish. They viewed the Latin rulers as just one more
alien invasion in a millennia long history of such invasions. They had indeed become passive, accepting and
accommodating of each change of regime. Furthermore, there was a significant
amount of intermarriage between males from Western Europe and females native to
the Holy Land. This tended to reinforce
tolerance on the part of both rulers and ruled.
Last but not least, the prominent
role played by sergeants in the armies of the Holy Land suggests that the
crusader states commanded considerable loyalty among the native, middle-class
population. Some historians speculate
that sergeants were drawn from the large population of “half-breed” youth, who
– they postulate – did not qualify for knighthood because of native blood. The
theory is not convincing, because knighthood could be bestowed on anyone, even
full-blooded Arabs, Turks or Kurds. A more logical explanation is that the
conditions of fighting in the Holy Land, particularly the fact that the Turks
could muster armies with tens of thousands of light horse, made it necessary to
have more mounted fighting men than the knightly class could support. The development of light cavalry on the
Christian side was a response to the overwhelming number of cavalry on the
Muslim side.
Because horses were expensive, however,
these sergeants had to be recruited from among the social classes with
comparatively high incomes, albeit not rich enough to afford the armor, arms
and training of knights. The fact that secular leaders of the crusader kingdoms and the militant orders could recruit
such men in such numbers (there was an almost two to one ratio of sergeants to
knights at most of the Templar and Hospitaller castles) makes it very clear
that the “middle classes” in the crusader states -- whether half-breeds or
non-Latin Christians –- stood firmly behind the Christian regime.
That hardly seems reasonable if the Christian
rulers were as “intolerant” as many modern books portray them.
"Indeed, as far as I know, there is no evidence that Muslims, or other non-Latin subjects, were subject to special taxes as was the case under Muslim rulers for non-Muslims."
ReplyDeleteLOL.
"Muslims and Jews were required to pay a religious poll tax..." Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King and His Heirs, p. 49
"In this case, the writings of Ibn Jubayr do refer explicitly to the head tax on Muslim inhabitants of the Crusader lands ..." Paul L. Sidelko, Muslim Taxation Under the Crusader Rule
"In return for the payment of a poll tax, the Mudejars—most of whom converted to Islam after the Arab invasion of Spain in the 8th century—were a protected minority, allowed to retain their own religion, language, and customs. With leaders assigned by the local Christian princes, they formed separate communities and quarters in larger towns, where they were subject to their own Muslim laws." -- Encyclopedia Britannica, Mudejar
Polly Esther (whoever you are really) it is so sweet of you to go through my entire blog (even back to four year old entries) looking for typos and misspellings. I really appreciate someone taking so much time with my works. I never expected anyone to show such intense interest and I'm extremely flattered.
DeleteI particularly thank you for this comment because, of course, you are absolutely correct. I started this blog back in 2014 not because I was a complete expert in the topic, but because as I did research for my books I was learning lots of interesting things that I wanted to share. As the original entry noted, I did not know at that time about the extra taxes, but I have since learned and it is reflected in later entries. Thanks to your wonderful support, I have now revised this entry as well to read:
"...it is quickly clear that the Christians were not more oppressive than their Muslim predecessors. Muslims and Jews were subject to special taxes -- as had been the case under Muslim rulers for non-Muslims. As under the Muslims, all people were allowed to practice their own religion. However, under the Muslims the penalty for trying to preach or convert a Muslim to Christianity was death – as it is to this day in many Muslim countries. (A woman was only recently condemned to death in Sudan, for example, for claiming to be a Christian and marrying a Christian man.) I have never read or heard about a similar law punishing the preaching of Islam with death in the crusader kingdoms."
I'm sure that still won't entirely meet with your approval, given your admiration for the Muslims and their misogynous rule, but ultimately this is my blog not yours.
I do hope that you will one day write your own blog (perhaps under your real name?) so that other people can have the pleasure of providing feedback in the same generous spirit that you have shown. Again, thank you so very much!
How in the world did you ever make it through graduate school?
ReplyDeleteMagna cum laude! And that's not "graduate school" that's a PHD from the University of Hamburg. What are your qualifications and in what field?
Delete