There are two
popular misconceptions about the demography of the crusader kingdoms prevalent today:
1. That the crusaders were a tiny Christian elite
ruling over predominantly Muslim populations.
2. That, although there were “other Christians”
living in the crusader states, these other Christians had been “better off” under
the Muslims and were not particularly loyal.
It is time we
stopped perpetuating these myths. Today I will address the first, and in my next entry I will address the second issue.
Going back to the
basics, we should not, in an excess of political correctness, forget that
Christ was born in Bethlehem in what was to become the Kingdom of Jerusalem, that
he lived and worked in Nazareth (in the Kingdom of Jerusalem), and that he was
crucified in Jerusalem. Christ did not a dream about going to heaven from
Jerusalem; his death in the city is historical fact.
In short, Jesus, son of Joseph, actually lived, worked, preached and converted many to his new religion during his own lifetime in what came to be called the “Holy Land” and was later the heart of the crusader kingdoms. Furthermore, St. Paul established the first Christian community in Antioch in roughly 50 AD. In short, the territories conquered by the crusaders encompassed the very oldest Christian territory on earth. There were Christians in these lands for almost 600 years before Mohammed was even born.
In short, Jesus, son of Joseph, actually lived, worked, preached and converted many to his new religion during his own lifetime in what came to be called the “Holy Land” and was later the heart of the crusader kingdoms. Furthermore, St. Paul established the first Christian community in Antioch in roughly 50 AD. In short, the territories conquered by the crusaders encompassed the very oldest Christian territory on earth. There were Christians in these lands for almost 600 years before Mohammed was even born.
Furthermore, the territories that later formed the crusader states, the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, had all been part of the Roman Empire and officially Christianized in the 4th century AD. From being a minority religion, Christianity became the state and majority religion in 325 under the reign of Emperor Constantine, who rebuilt Jerusalem between 325 and 330.
The territories
that later became the crusader kingdoms remained
Christian until they were conquered by Muslim invaders almost exactly 300 years
later. Although Muslim rule was not broken for another three hundred years (in the case
of Antioch) and four hundred twenty years in the case of Tripoli and Jerusalem, “Muslim” rule was not a block of continuous lordship but, rather, three
distinct epochs. The Arab-dominated, Sunni elite which had conquered
Syria and Palestine in the 7th century was defeated and driven out
of the Levant in the tenth century by the Shiia Fatimid dynasty, which had
taken control of Egypt in 905. At the same time, the Byzantine Empire struck
back and reconquered Antioch. Then in 1040 the Seljuk Turks, recent converts to
Islam, started expanding eastward, and reached Jerusalem, driving out the
Fatimids.
Even more important, the fact that the
territory had been conquered and was ruled by Muslim elites, is not the same
thing as mass conversion of the population. There are to this day significant
Christian and Jewish populations in countries such as Egypt and Syria that have
been continuously Muslim for 1400 years. Professor Rodney Stark notes: “It was
a very long time before the conquered areas were truly Muslim in anything but
name. The reality was that very small Muslim elites long ruled over non-Muslim
(mostly Christian) populations in the conquered areas.” (God’s Battalions, Harper Collin, 2009, p. 29.) Andrew Jotischky
sites research that “argues for a much more even proportion of
indigenous Christians to Muslims than most historians have previously allowed —
perhaps even a 1:1 ratio.” (Crusading and
the Crusader States, Pearson Longman, 2004, p. 132)
In short, the
crusaders conquered territories in which roughly half the population was still Christian. They then opened these
territories to settlers from the West — and the settlers came. Bernard Hamilton estimates that as many as
140,000 “Franks” (i.e. Western Christians following the Latin rites) had
immigrated to the Kingdom of Jerusalem by the second half of the 12th
century (The Leper King, Cambridge
University Press, 2000, p. 47). According to Professor Hamilton, the total
population of the Kingdom was roughly 600,000 at this time. Thus, Christians
(230,000 native Orthodox Christians plus 140,000 Latin Christian settlers)
would have made up roughly 60% of the population of the crusader states.
Even if the
Muslim population was a minority — not the overwhelming majority so often
assumed in popular literature and film — it was still a sizable minority and
would have posed a serious threat to fragile crusader rule if that population
had been rebellious. Far from being rebellious, Muslim visitors such as Ibn
Jubair, who visited the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1183 from Grenada, noted that
the Muslim serfs he saw in Galilee “seemed more prosperous and content than
those living under Islamic rule outside the Kingdom of Jerusalem.” (Jotischky,
p. 129) This was because, as Hamilton
puts it, “once their rule had been established the Franks proved remarkably
tolerant in their treatment of non-Christian subjects.” He notes that “the
Franks allowed complete religious freedom to all their subjects.” (Hamilton, p.
49.)
While Hamilton stresses that Jewish synagogues and rabbinic schools existed in many of their towns, contemporary Muslim sources noted with surprise that mosques were allowed to function in the crusader states (albeit not in Jerusalem itself) and Muslim subjects were even allowed to participate in the haj. This was because, as Jotischky notes, “the First Crusade was a war of liberation and conquest; it was not a war for the extermination or conversion of Muslims.” Far from being forced to convert, the Muslim villagers were run by a council of elders who in turn appointed a “rayse” to represent the community to the Christian lord, while all spiritual and social matters were regulated by the imams in the community in accordance with Sharia law! (Jonathan Riley-Smith, Atlas of the Crusades, Swanston Publishing Ltd, 1191, p. 16 among others.)
While Hamilton stresses that Jewish synagogues and rabbinic schools existed in many of their towns, contemporary Muslim sources noted with surprise that mosques were allowed to function in the crusader states (albeit not in Jerusalem itself) and Muslim subjects were even allowed to participate in the haj. This was because, as Jotischky notes, “the First Crusade was a war of liberation and conquest; it was not a war for the extermination or conversion of Muslims.” Far from being forced to convert, the Muslim villagers were run by a council of elders who in turn appointed a “rayse” to represent the community to the Christian lord, while all spiritual and social matters were regulated by the imams in the community in accordance with Sharia law! (Jonathan Riley-Smith, Atlas of the Crusades, Swanston Publishing Ltd, 1191, p. 16 among others.)
In my three part biography of Balian d'Ibelin I endeavor to portray the relations between Christians and Muslims in the Kingdom of Jerusalem accurately.
I like the point you make in the proselytizing work of Jesus and Paul. It might also be noted that Peter is known to have traveled to Babylon to preach, and possibly died there.
ReplyDeleteSo, as you say, the "dominant religions" of the area where Christian and "Pagan," long before Islam manifested. The conquering of a territory by a Muslim "lord" would hardly have resulted in the immediate conversion of the Christian population.
Looking forward to your next segment on this!
Hi, Cyprus is mis-spelled at the top of the blog. Glad to see you are defending the Crusades. There was never a dark age in Europe, only an age of defending civilization against the fascism of Islam, the Vikings, the Magyars and surviving diseases and plagues. Dark ages do not have the money or the logistical skills to send men 2500 miles to recover what was once Christian land.
ReplyDeleteThanks for catching that typo! I'll correct immediately.
ReplyDeleteNice narrative. I like your referencing and how your developed your ideas. Given the rubbish taught in History departments these days, this is well reasoned and something of a surprise. Thank you for your courage.
ReplyDelete