All content on this blog is protected by copyright.
Content used elsewhere without attribution constitutes theft of intellectual property and will be prosecuted.

Monday, November 28, 2022

Crusaders, Pilgrims and Militant Monks

 One of the unique features of the population of the Holy Land in the crusader era was the number of transients. In almost any year, tens of thousands of people who did not intend to remain in the Holy Land were temporarily present. Yet despite the itinerant status, they all contributed to the face of the crusader states. 

The first Franks in the Holy Land were the participants of the First Crusade, and the vast majority of these returned to the West. In the succeeding 200 years, waves of crusaders periodically swept over the Holy Land. The overwhelming majority of these men likewise returned to their homes after the military campaign ended. In addition to the participants in organised military expeditions, individual fighting men made the journey to the Holy Land as ‘armed pilgrims’ for reasons of personal penance, sometimes voluntarily and other times imposed by a confessor. These men joined in ongoing military actions or participated in local operations before returning home when their penance was completed. All of these men can be called ‘Franks’ yet need to be distinguished from the permanent Frankish population of the crusader states because of the transient character of their stay in the Holy Land. While they temporarily swelled the military forces available to the armies of the Frankish states, they retained Western European perspectives and identities.

The same is true of the many unarmed pilgrims who flooded the Holy Land between 1100 and 1291. The numbers of pilgrims who made the long and dangerous journey to the Holy Land in this period are astounding. Just three years after Jerusalem returned to Christian control, more than one thousand pilgrims were killed in a single storm when twenty-three pilgrim ships were wrecked off Jaffa harbor. Yet that was a period when most pilgrims travelled on cargo ships, which could take no more than fifty passengers. Within a few decades, special pilgrim ships with a passenger capacity of 200 were in operation, and by the thirteenth century, the pilgrim ships could take up to 1,500 passengers. The military orders transported 6,000 pilgrims per year from the port of Marseilles alone. Presumably they transported similar numbers from the Italian ports and Sicily, while the bulk of the pilgrim traffic traveled in commercial vessels. The number of religious tourists to the Holy Land easily exceeded fifteen thousand annually.

The pilgrim ships left Western Europe in two waves each year, one in the spring and another in the fall. Although ships generally travelled independently, within a few weeks of one another, hundreds of ships brought thousands of pilgrims to the ports of the Levant, predominantly Acre, but also Haifa, Caesarea and Jaffa. Pilgrims also came overland. They came from every Christian country in the world. There were Ethiopians, Egyptians and North Africans, Armenians and Georgians, Norwegians, Scotsmen, Hungarians, and citizens of the semi-independent Italian city-states and all the component parts of the Holy Roman Empire. Unlike the crusaders, who were by definition fighting men, many pilgrims were women. Some women accompanied their husbands, fathers or brothers; others came solo, many as widows and nuns. Male or female, most pilgrims remained in the east only one season, i.e., about six months; very few stayed more than a year. They contributed considerably to the local economy, yet they were visitors, not residents.

Members of the military orders were the last type of transient resident in the crusader states. The military orders were a new form of religious institution that enabled men to be both monks and knights. While members of these orders were expected to renounce all wealth, attend mass multiple times a day, fast, pray and eat in silence, and for the most part live in controlled communities segregated from the secular world (especially women), members were not required to give up the profession of arms. Rather, these orders were designed to capture the religious zeal of the time and funnel the fervor and energy of fighting men into religious channels. This spirit of militant Christianity gave birth to no fewer than seventeen military orders, eight on the Iberian Peninsula, two in what is now Italy, and two in German-speaking Europe in addition to the orders founded in the Holy Land. The most famous and powerful of the militant orders were the Templars, the Hospitallers, the Teutonic Knights and to a lesser extent the Knights of St. Lazarus, all of which were established in the crusader states.

The individual history of these orders is beyond the scope of this book. The point here is that, although the raison d’ĂȘtre of both the Templars and Hospitallers was to defend of the Holy Land and the Christian pilgrims that visited it, they were not subject to local ecclesiastical or secular authority; neither the King nor the patriarch could command the Templars, Hospitallers, or Teutonic Knights. Furthermore, while these orders maintained a standing presence in the Holy Land and garrisoned key castles, the individual members of these orders were drawn from around the world, and their sojourn in the Holy Land was temporary. The affiliation and loyalty of members of the militant orders were to their respective order, not the crusader states.

The bulk of this entry is an excerpt from Dr. Schrader's comprehensive study of the crusader states.

Dr. Helena P. Schrader is also the author of six books set in the Holy Land in the Era of the Crusades.


           Buy Now!                                                  Buy Now!                                                    Buy Now!

          Buy Now!                                               Buy Now!                                                      Buy Now!



Monday, November 21, 2022

Muslims and Jews in the Crusader States

The fate of the non-Christian natives of the Levant under Frankish rule was by no means as dire as widely presumed -- much less depicted in Hollywood. At no time did the crusader states pursue a policy of genocide. Nor was conversion to Christianity a policy goal of the crusader states. What follows is a short description of the status of Muslims and Jews in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1190 to 1291


Whether Abbasids, Fatimids or Seljuks, the wealthy and educated Muslims who had formed the ruling class during 400 years of Muslim dominance were displaced by the new Frankish rulers. Those Muslim elites who survived the confrontation with the Franks moved to territories still under Muslim control. Left behind were the poor, the poorly educated and the non-political. 

These residents were not only poor and powerless; they were fragmented and divided. Although the Muslims of southern Syria and Palestine were predominantly Sunnis, there was a strong Shia presence in northern Palestine and Transjordan (Tiberias, Nablus and Amman). Shias were also numerous in Tripoli, Sidon and Beirut. Here too, close to the Ismaili stronghold of Alamut in the mountains of Lebanon, were communities of Ismailis. Relations between these different denominations of Islam were neither harmonious nor fraternal. 

One might expect — and indeed the Muslims probably did expect — for the Franks to treat their Muslim subjects similarly to “dhimmis” in Islamic regimes. Certainly, the Muslims in the crusader states were subject to extra taxes. Although not required to wear distinctive clothing, Muslims were prohibited from dressing ‘like Franks’. In addition, severe penalties were placed on sexual contact between Christians and Muslims; whether the man was Muslim or Christian, he faced castration, while the woman, Christian or Muslim, had her nose amputated.   

Overall, the condition of Muslims in the crusader states was noticeably better than that of “dhimmis” in Muslim countries. Unlike Christians and Jews under Muslim rule, there were no prohibitions on Muslims constructing houses of worship, engaging in religious rituals in public or the wearing of religious symbols. Indeed, functioning mosques are recorded in Tyre, Bethlehem and Acre, and in addition Muslims were allowed to pray in churches that had formerly been mosques. Muslims also enjoyed legal protections, as will be discussed under institutions (Chapter 4). There was no discrimination in housing nor prohibitions against riding horses or carrying arms. There was no institutionalised culture of humiliating and demeaning Muslims, although it is likely that individual Christians, mainly those who had suffered under Muslim rule, may have taken pleasure in the reverse of status.   

The cumulative impact of this comparatively mild treatment was a Muslim population that remained remarkably docile throughout the Frankish period. There is not one recorded incident of rebellion or riots after the consolidation of Frankish rule in the 1120s. Even during Saracen invasions of Christian territory, there is no evidence of cooperation and collaboration on the part of Muslim inhabitants with the Saracen invaders, except in Jabala and Latakia, which welcomed Saladin in 1188. Perhaps even more astonishing, archaeological evidence of numerous unfortified farms, manors and rural villages shows the Christian population did not fear Muslims living in their midst.  

Perhaps Ibn Jubayr, a visitor from Muslim Spain in the late twelfth century, accurately assessed the situation of the Muslims in the crusader states when he wrote:

 Their hearts have been seduced, for they observe how unlike them in ease and comfort are their brethren in the Muslim regions under their [Muslim] governors. This is one of the misfortunes afflicting the Muslims. The community bewails the injustice of a landlord of its own faith, and applauds the conduct of its opponent and enemy, the Frankish landlord, and is accustomed to justice from him.[i]

Jews and Samaritans

Although never official policy, the crusades unquestionably fostered antisemitism in Western Europe. Long before the first crusaders reached Jerusalem, Jewish communities in the Rhineland were attacked, and many Jews were massacred mercilessly. All subsequent crusades were likewise accompanied by outbreaks of violence against Jews in Western Europe. It may therefore come as a surprise that Jews in the crusader states suffered no persecution. Instead, the Franks mostly treated Jews the same as they treated Muslims, with rough tolerance. 

In the early years of conquest, Jews were undoubtedly massacred, but not because of a targeted policy. They were killed alongside the Muslims when cities that resisted the crusaders fell to assault. Likewise, when cities agreed to terms, Jews were allowed to withdraw with their portable goods and chattels on the same terms as their Muslim neighbours. This led to a reduction in the number of Jews living in the Frankish territories in the immediate aftermath of conquest. Famously, Jews were prohibited from resettling in the city of Jerusalem.

Yet there is ample evidence that Jews returned to other cities ― or never left at all. Records show large Jewish communities in Tyre and Acre throughout the Frankish era and smaller communities in Ascalon and elsewhere.  Furthermore, there were at least two dozen villages occupied entirely by Jews in Galilee, between Tiberias and Nablus.

Like the Muslims, Jews throughout the crusader states were subject to extra taxes — just as they were forced to pay tribute as ‘dhimmis’ when living under Islamic rule. They were, however, allowed to practise their religion publicly without inhibition and, unlike under Muslim rule, could — and did — build new synagogues, notably in Nablus and near Safed. For the most part, they were also free to govern their own affairs and live in accordance with Jewish laws and customs without interference. There was no ghettoization and not one recorded incident of communal violence against Jews. Thus, while their status was undoubtedly inferior to that of the Christians, the situation of Jews in the crusader states was markedly superior to the condition of Jews across Western Europe and, as with their Orthodox Christian neighbours, better than their status as ‘dhimmis’ in Islamic states.[ii]

 Meanwhile, the First Crusade had sparked a Jewish messianic movement. According to Joshua Prawer, ‘in some communities the Jews sold their property and waited for the Messiah who would bring them to Jerusalem’.[iii] Certainly, the establishment of the crusader states and regular trade and pilgrimage traffic between the Holy Land and Western Europe allowed European Jews to undertake the pilgrimage to Jerusalem and other sacred places in the Holy Land. The pilgrim traffic to the crusader states included a substantial portion of Jews ― and like their Christian counterparts, many of them chose to stay in the Holy Land.  

Jewish immigration to the Holy Land in the Frankish period led to a flourishing of Judaic culture. There were rabbinical courts in both Acre and Tyre (and possibly Tiberias), and Palestine was one of only three centres in the world for Talmudic Study. From the second quarter of the thirteenth century until its fall, Acre became a vibrant Jewish centre, a ‘cross-section of the different communities of the Diaspora. The leading elements were Jews from Spain and from northern and southern France, in addition to eastern Jews, whether Palestinian-born or from neighbouring Moslem, countries’.[iv] 

Last but not least, there was still a sizeable Samaritan population. (Note: Samaritans accept only the first five books of the Old Testament as divinely inspired.) Although many Samaritans had been driven into exile across the Middle East, the centre of Samaritan worship and scholarship was in Nablus, which is where the largest Samaritan population was concentrated in the crusader era. A large number of Torah scrolls produced by Samaritans have survived from the crusader era, providing evidence of a flourishing of activities in this period.

[i] Ibn Jubayr, “The Travels of Ibn Jubayr”, in The Crusades: A Reader, eds. Allen, S.J. and Emilie Amt, (Toronto: University of  Toronto Press, 2014) 105.

[ii] See note 1, Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, 68, 71, 77-80, and 110-113.

[iii] Joshua Prawer, ‘Social Classes in the Crusader States: the ‘Minorities’ in A History of the Crusades Volume 5: The Impact of the Crusade on the Near East, Eds. Harry M. Hazard and Norman P. Zacour (Madison, University of Wisconsin Press, 1985), 97.

[iv] See note 16, Prawer, ‘Social Classes in the Crusader States’, 101.



The bulk of this entry is an excerpt from Dr. Schrader's comprehensive study of the crusader states.

Dr. Helena P. Schrader is also the author of six books set in the Holy Land in the Era of the Crusades.


           Buy Now!                                                  Buy Now!                                                    Buy Now!

          Buy Now!                                               Buy Now!                                                      Buy Now!



Monday, November 14, 2022

The Orthodox Christians in the Crusader States

Orthodox Christians made up the majority of the native population in the crusader states, however, they were not a homogeneous population; the Christians in the Holy Land of the crusader era were extremely diverse. In order to understand the crusader states it is therefore necessary to understand the differences between these groups and how they interacted with the new Latin elites.


The most numerous Christian populations were Melkites, Armenians, Jacobites and Maronites, but there were also smaller communities of Coptics, Georgians, Nestorians and Ethiopians. Furthermore, the distribution of these groups was uneven across the crusader states. Edessa, for example, was essentially an Armenian state with a Jacobite minority. Antioch was mostly Melkite (Arabic-speaking Greek Orthodox) with considerable communities of Armenians and Jacobites. The Christian half of the population in the County of Tripoli and the far northern parts of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (what is now part of Lebanon) were predominantly Maronite. The rest of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, in contrast, was predominantly Melkite. However, it was also home to smaller communities of Greek-speaking Orthodox as well as Armenian, Georgian, Coptic and Ethiopian Christians. 

Differences of doctrine separated all these various Christian denominations from one another and the Latin Church, as the Roman Catholic Church was commonly called in this polyglot environment. Confusingly, linguistic differences did not always conform to doctrinal differences. Thus, Melkites and Greek Orthodox shared the same basic doctrines and viewed the Patriarch of Constantinople as the head of the church, but the former spoke Syriac or Arabic, while the latter retained the use of Greek in the liturgy. Syriac or Arabic was used by Jacobites, Maronites and Coptics, although they differed on doctrine. Serious tensions and frictions existed between the various Orthodox communities dating back to Byzantine rule, when Armenians, Jacobites and Maronites had all been viewed as heretics and persecuted to various degrees by the Greek Orthodox state. 

The assumption that the Latin Church likewise viewed these various other Christian denominations as heretics and sought to suppress them, however, is incorrect. Pope Urban II, in his initial appeal, explicitly described the Eastern Christians as ‘brothers’ and ‘sons of the same Christ’.[i] Furthermore, recent research based on Orthodox sources reveals a surprisingly nuanced and tolerant approach to the various Christian groups on the part of the Latins. The Patriarch of the Jacobite church writing in the twelfth century noted that the Franks ‘never sought a single formula for all the Christian people and languages, but they considered as Christian anyone who worshipped the cross without investigation or examination’.[ii] 

While it is true that all forms of Orthodox Christianity were viewed with various degrees of skepticism by the Roman Catholic theologians, the crusader states were not theocracies run by religious scholars. They were secular states governed by educated but fundamentally hard-nosed, practical, fighting men. From the very start, Frankish knights, sergeants and settlers mingled with the local population, sharing not only markets and taverns, but churches and confessors ― a clear indication that for the average Frank, the common belief in Christ outweighed the theological differences that animated church scholars. Furthermore, with time, the Frankish feudal elite intermarried with the local aristocracy, while farther down the social scale, intermarriage with local Christians came sooner and occurred on a wider scale. The Frankish kings viewed themselves as the protectors of all their subjects, regardless of religious affiliation. 

Undoubtedly, in both secular and ecclesiastical spheres, the apex of society was occupied by Franks, who were, by definition, Latin Christians. In the context of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, this was normal. People of this era unanimously recognised the simple rule: to the victor go the spoils. The Orthodox Christians living in the crusader states did not look at their position through the lens of modern human rights activists or political scientists expecting absolute equality of legal status and opportunity. On the contrary, the native Christians viewed the Franks in comparison to their predecessors. 

Much has been written over the last century about the tolerance of Muslim regimes towards Christians and Jews, the so-called ‘dhimmis’ or non-Muslims sharing the same roots as Islam. Most of what has been written focuses on the theories propounded by Muslim scholars of the golden age and anecdotal evidence of non-Muslims, especially Jews, who rose to positions of privilege and power. In contrast, in her seminal work, ‘The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam: From Jihad to Dhimmitude’, Egyptian scholar Bat Ye’or’s study of the prevailing practice of Muslim regimes over 1,300 years of history based on Arab, Turkish, Armenian, Syriac, Latin and Greek sources demonstrates that the treatment of non-Muslims was based on verse 9:29 and the example of Mohammad’s treatment of Jews and Christians which included the extermination of the entire Jewish population of Medina.  

Conquest in the name of ‘jihad’, furthermore, meant that all non-Muslim inhabitants of newly-conquered territories were legally prisoners of war, who had to ransom their lives, property and freedom through the payment of tribute — in perpetuityunless the ‘captive’ converted to Islam. In the early years of Islamic expansion, the standard treatment of ‘prisoners’ was massacre and enslavement; the numbers of slaves recorded in conquest after conquest are in the tens of thousands, all of whom were deported to reduce the likelihood of revolt. They were replaced either by Muslim settlers or, more often, (Christian) slaves from somewhere else. While slaughter and enslavement were standard practice throughout the world, other powers such as Persia, Byzantium, or the Vikings, did not justify their treatment of conquered people with religious dogma. The factor that made the Arab conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries unique was that the Muslims based their sense of superiority on religion (Quran 3:106) and believed they were ‘fulfilling a religious duty and executing the will of Allah’.[iii] 

Gradually, however, as regions became pacified, ‘the predations … upon the natives, the only taxable labour force, assumed such catastrophic proportions that the revenue of the Umayyad state diminished considerably’.[iv] In consequence of this economic imperative, Islamic jurists developed sophisticated theories on the correct treatment of ‘dhimmis’, which have charmed modern historians. Indeed, there is evidence that some Christian, Jewish and Zoroastrian elites prospered under Muslim rule. On the one hand, the ‘dhimmi’ leaders — often the religious leaders of the respective subject faiths — were responsible for collecting and paying the tribute to the Muslim rulers; some — a sometimes much — of what they gathered found its way into their own pockets. On the other hand, as with the Franks themselves, the Arab and Turkish military elites responsible for conquest needed educated and experienced administrators. Christian and Jewish secretaries, accountants, diplomats, translators, bankers and merchants were too useful to exterminate, so a small class of non-Muslim urban elites enjoyed comparative immunity from the discrimination and oppression of their poor, uneducated and rural co-religionists.  

The prosperity and privileges of the few should not obscure the misery, impoverishment and denigration of the vast majority. There are countless examples from Muslim, Christian and Jewish sources that demonstrate the discrepancy between the fine theories laid out in Islamic legal texts and the reality on the ground. At best, the legal protection offered dhimmis by Islam resembled the ‘protection’ provided to the Jews of Western Europe by the pope. There were equally wide discrepancies between the fate of urban elites and the peasant majority. 

This majority was systematically decimated by massacres, reduced to slavery or — at best — impoverished by taxation (tribute), arbitrary theft, which destroyed their livelihood during Muslim rule. Oppression was so great in some periods and regions that it resulted in mass exodus, leaving entire villages abandoned. ‘The Syro-Palestinian oases cultivated since antiquity, the agricultural and urban centres of the Negev, Jordan, and the Orontes, Tigris and Euphrates valleys … had disappeared and become ghost towns, abandoned to pasturage, where herds of goats and camels grazed amid the ruins’.[v] 

Most Christians and Jews who survived in this oppressive environment had no legal protections because their word was considered worthless in an Islamic court. They were required by Sharia law to live in smaller and more dilapidated homes. They were not allowed to build houses of worship or conduct any religious rite or ceremony in public and were prohibited from wearing symbols of their religion. They were required to wear distinctive clothing and carry proof they had paid their taxes. They were forbidden from riding horses or camels and from bearing arms. The Muslim population was actively encouraged to demonstrate contempt for non-Muslims by shoving them aside or otherwise demeaning them. 

Compared to such humiliations, the difference in the status between Orthodox and Latin Christians in the crusader states was negligible. The two centuries of crusader rule constituted a period of economic and religious revival for the Christians of the Levant. Orthodox monasticism experienced a significant expansion under Frankish rule as old monasteries were restored, and new monasteries were built. The Frankish elite also proved generous patrons to Orthodox parish churches, while the Orthodox clergy enjoyed the same privilege of being exempt from the jurisdiction of secular courts as the Latin clergy. The squabbles over titles and sources of income between the senior clergy of the various Christian denominations tend to obscure the fact that, at the parish level, the Orthodox faithful remained under the care and guidance of Orthodox priests and free from interference, much less pressure, to convert to Latin rites. 

The most lucrative and prestigious ecclesiastical posts did come under the control of the Latin church in the crusader era, but not because of the expulsion of the Orthodox clergy. On the contrary, after capturing Antioch, the authority of the Greek Patriarch over both Latins and Melkites was explicitly recognised by the crusaders. However, many Orthodox prelates had fled Muslim persecution prior to the arrival of the crusaders, and these vacant sees were filled by the crusader leadership with Latin bishops. The only instance of a Melkite bishop being ousted from his post to do with power politics (an attempt by the Greek Emperor to impose his authority), rather than church politics. The bottom line is that ‘more Melkite bishops could be found throughout Palestine after the crusader conquest then had been there in the previous fifty years’.[vi] 

Meanwhile, Frankish rule offered opportunities for Orthodox secular elites. The Franks, particularly in the first decades of the First Kingdom, were far too few in number to control their rapidly expanding territories without the active support of the indigenous population. They needed men capable of collecting taxes, customs duties, market fees and other revenue. They needed men to enforce the laws and administer justice to the local communities. They needed a functioning economy, which meant not disrupting agricultural activities or interfering in existing trade patterns. Christopher MacEvitt, in his excellent work, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance, demonstrates that many Orthodox Christians became wealthy landowners and merchants throughout the crusader states. Armenian lords were major landowners and vassals. Orthodox knights not only fought with the Franks; in some instances, they commanded Frankish knights and, in one case, rose to the prestigious position of Marshal of Jerusalem.  

While individuals might be exceptions, there is evidence of more widespread identification between natives and Franks. For example, native Orthodox Christians were patrons of both the Templars and Hospitallers. Chronicles in Syriac express admiration for the piety and charity of the Franks. Perhaps most poignant, two poems written in the late twelfth century by different Syriac authors lament the fall of the Frankish kingdom, revealing complete identification on the part of the native authors with the Franks, by referring to them as ‘our people’.[vii] 

The greatest evidence of native support for the Franks, however, is the fact that the native (Arabic-, Syriac- and Armenian-speaking) population of Syria and Palestine contributed materially to the defence of the crusader kingdoms. On the one hand, Christians living both inside and outside the crusader states contributed to an effective intelligence network. We know anecdotally of native Christians acting as spies and scouts. At least one modern scholar claims ‘the Frankish field intelligence was better than the Muslim one’.[viii] Exactly what this intelligence network looked like, however, is unclear. 

On the other hand, and of far more importance, was the contribution of native Christians to the military forces of the crusader states. This is especially surprising in light of the fact that, except for the Armenians, centuries of ‘djimmi’ status had completely demilitarised the native population. Yet, in the period of Frankish rule, the native population formed a substantial portion of urban garrisons and contributed to the infantry of the field army. Steve Tibble in his recent study, ‘Crusader Armies’, argues that not only were there very few ‘genuine crusaders’ in the armies that defended Outremer, but that ‘even local Franks were in a minority, marching in units with Armenian-speaking comrades, or with other native [Arabic-speaking] Christian soldiers’.[ix]  

Most significant and startling is the dominance of native Christians in the light cavalry, particularly mounted archers. The latter was an arm of cavalry unknown to the West but militarily essential in the Near East of the crusader period. In his excellent study of Frankish turcopoles, Yuval Harari demonstrates definitively that the term ‘turcopole’ did not refer to Muslim mercenaries, much less to apostate Muslims or the children of ‘mixed marriages’, as is so frequently alleged in popular literature. On the contrary, the turcopoles of the Frankish armies were predominantly Christians — native Christians. Harari also reveals that these troops made up, on average, 50 per cent of the cavalry of the crusader states in any engagement.[x] In short, native Christians were financially able to support the huge expense of training, equipping and maintaining a cavalryman and his mount, i.e., they were affluent and empowered, and they were in large numbers willing to fight — and die — for the crusader states.

[i] Pope Urban II quoted by Baldric of Dol in The Crusades: A Reader, eds. S.J. Allen and Emilie Amt (Toronto: University of Toronto Press, 2003), 37-38.

[ii] Michael the Syrian quoted in Christopher MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance (Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Press, 2008), 25.

[iv] See note 1, Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, 60.

[v] See note 1, Ye’or, The Decline of Eastern Christianity under Islam, 107.

[vi] See note 5, MacEvitt, The Crusades and the Christian World of the East, 112.

[vii] Benjamin Z. Kedar, Franks, Muslims and Oriental Christians in the Latin Levant (Aldershot: Ashgate, 2006), V-212.

[viii] See note 3, Harari, ‘The Military Role of the Frankish Turcopoles: A Reassessment’, 115.

[ix] Steve Tibble, The Crusader Armies (New Haven: Yale University Press, 2018), 98.

[x] For details, see note 3, Harari, 75-116.


The bulk of this entry is an excerpt from Dr. Schrader's comprehensive study of the crusader states.

Dr. Helena P. Schrader is also the author of six books set in the Holy Land in the Era of the Crusades.


           Buy Now!                                                  Buy Now!                                                    Buy Now!

          Buy Now!                                               Buy Now!                                                      Buy Now!