Liberation or Oppression? Native Christians and the Crusades
It is commonplace for people to portray the crusaders not only as
barbarians vis-à-vis their Islamic enemies, but as “oppressors” of the native
Christian populations that lived under crusader rule. These popular views have their roots in books
by scholars such as Runciman, Smail and Prawer, all of whom have argued to
varying degrees that the crusader elites, like colonists, lived segregated
lives from the natives of the Holy Land, and (as Prawer put it) practiced a form
of “apartheid.” Yet, other historians have argued quite the opposite, claiming
those crusaders who settled in Outremer soon “went native” and became “more
oriental than European.” Based on the most recent research and archaeological
evidence, the picture of crusader-native relations is undergoing a revision
again.
Starting with the basics, the “native” population of Outremer that confronted the crusaders on arrival in 1099 was anything but a homogenous mass. First and foremost, it was not ― repeat, not ― predominantly Muslim. Historians are continuing to revise downwards the proportion of the population that had, in fact, converted to Islam during the less than four hundred years of Muslim domination.
Certainly, there were still Jewish communities, concentrated in
Jerusalem, Tyre and Tiberius when the crusaders arrived. In sharp contrast to
Western Europe that saw significant attacks on Jewish communities in
association with the crusades, there was no
systematic persecution of the Jews in the crusader states. On the contrary,
although Jews were prohibited from living in the city Jerusalem, other cities,
particularly Acre and Tyre, hosted large Jewish communities. There were
rabbinical courts in both Acre and Tyre, and Palestine in the crusader period
was one of only three contemporary centers for Talmudic studies. There is also
anecdotal evidence that Jews continued to pursue respected professions such as
medicine, and took part in commercial activities. There is no evidence that
they were required to wear distinctive clothing or live in segregated
communities, although it is almost certain that like the remaining Muslim
population they were subject to additional taxes.
In addition, there was still a large Samaritan population. (Note:
Samaritans believe that only the first five books of the Hebrew bible were divinely inspired.) Although many Samaritans had been driven into exile across
the Middle East, the center of Samaritan worship and scholarship was located in
Nablus, and this was where the largest Samaritan population was concentrated in
the crusader era. The Samaritans appear to have flourished under crusader rule
and a large number of Torah scrolls produced by the Samaritans have survived,
suggesting a flourishing of activities rather than the reverse.
Turning to the Christian population of the crusader states, this was
divided theologically into three main groups: Melkites (more commonly but
confusingly called Greek Orthodox although many of them did not speak Greek),
Jacobites, and Armenians. In addition, there were small pockets of Maronite,
Nestorian, Coptic and Ethiopian Christians resident in the Holy Land. The
Armenian and Jacobite Christians indisputably made up the vast majority of the
population in what was to become the County of Edessa and the Principality of
Antioch. In what was to become the County of Tripoli, on the other hand, Maronite
Christians were more numerous, but it is no longer clear if they made up an
overall majority of the population or not. The Kingdom of Jerusalem appears to
have had the most fragmented population with all of the above Christian and
Jewish communities present, as well as some Muslims.
The situation is complicated by the fact liturgical and linguistic
differences were not conform. While as a rule, Armenian Christians spoke and
heard Mass in Armenian, the same cannot be said for Melkite Christians, who might still speak and hear Mass in
Greek, but were just as likely to speak and worship in Syriac or Arabic. Jacobites, Copts and Nestorians appear to
have spoken and worshiped predominantly in Syriac and Arabic, but this adds to
confusion when dealing with contemporary records since neither the use of
Arabic in documents nor Arab-sounding names necessarily denoted Muslims ― a
factor that has undoubtedly contributed to earlier exaggerations of the size of
the Muslim population under crusader rule.
All these forms of “Orthodox” Christians were viewed with various
degrees of skepticism by the Roman Catholic hierarchy. Theologians were very
concerned about the ― to layman’s eyes ― microscopic differences in doctrinal
interpretation. Some of these Christian sects were considered “heretics,” but
most were viewed merely as “schematics” ― by the Church. That said, the crusader states were not
theocracies run by religious scholars, but secular states run by educated but
fundamentally hard-nosed, practical, fighting men.
The feudal elites of the crusader states might have been pious enough
to take the cross, but that did not make them masters of theological fine points.
They had answered the Pope’s call to “liberate” the native Christians from
Muslim oppression, and the evidence is quite overwhelming that they did exactly
that. Nor did they suddenly start oppressing those Christians themselves. On
the contrary, all local Christians, regardless of liturgical rite, were
immediately freed of the taxes, humiliations, and indignities imposed on them
by Muslim rule.
The rule the crusaders “imposed” on the liberated territories, furthermore,
borrowed far more from the traditions of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantium)
than Western Europe. Recent scholarship demonstrates that, contrary to earlier
assumptions, the crusader states did not introduce any form of serfdom on the
native peasants ― Christian or Muslim.
On the contrary, although agricultural workers were effectively “tied”
to the land, they did not owe any of the other feudal dues. Thus they were not
required to work the lord’s land, did not have to pay to marry, retained
ownership of their homes and moveable goods, and paid sometimes as little as
one quarter of the corps to their lord.
Furthermore,
for members of the native elites, the situation under crusader rule was
full of opportunities for advancement and enrichment. The new
rulers needed the support of local elites in order to govern. The native
elites
had opportunities in a wide range of fields from collecting taxes and
administering rural communities as “scribes” and “ra’is,” to serving as
tax-collectors,
harbor-masters, and accountants in the cities. Christopher MacEvitt in
his
excellent work The Crusades and the
Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance has provided examples of
native Christians being land-owners in their own right, and being wealthy
enough to make charitable bequests of significant value. In addition, he claims to have identified
native Christians serving as knights and, in one case, even as Marshal of
Jerusalem. While earlier historians have assumed that these native Christians
“must have” first converted to Latin Christianity, MacEvitt argues that there
is no evidence of this whatsoever.
On the contrary, MacEvitt notes that there is ample evidence of the
Frankish and native Christian communities intermingling not just in the bazaars
and taverns, but by undertaking the same pilgrimages, by sharing churches, by taking part in the same
processions, and by using each other’s priests as confessors ― a clear
indication that for the average Frank the common belief in Christ outweighed
the theological differences that animated church scholars. Riley-Smith notes
that native Christian clergy enjoyed the privilege of being exempt from the
jurisdiction of secular courts just as much as Latin clergy did. MacEvitt notes
that the reason almost all Greek Orthodox patriarchs were replaced by Latin
patriarchs is that they had already fled
the Holy Land in the face of Muslim persecution before the arrival of the crusades. He notes further that on their arrival in Antioch “the
crusaders enthroned the Greek patriarch...recognizing his authority over
Latins and Melkites alike." (MacEvitt, p. 111.) Adding, “more Melkite
bishops could be found
throughout Palestine after the crusader conquest than had been there in
the
previous fifty years.” (MacEvitt, p. 112). The only instance of a
Melkite
bishop being ousted had to do with power politics (an attempt by the
Greek
Emperor to impose his authority) not church politics.
When we remember that “turcopoles,” native horseman, made up a
significant portion of the feudal army of Jerusalem, we see further evidence of
the fact that native Christians were far from oppressed. The fact that they
were financially in a position to provide mounted troops underlines the fact
that they were affluent and empowered. (Muslim laws prohibited Christians from
riding and owning horses.) Perhaps more important, the fact that that native
Christian communities consistently provided large numbers of these mounted
troops to both offensive and defensive armies led by Frankish kings and
barons shows that native Christians did far more than just intermingle much less "co-exist." The local Christian population came to identify strongly with the crusader states. Far
from longing for a return to Muslim rule ― as so many superficial modern
commentators suggest ― many native Christians of Outremer were willing to fight
and die for the crusader states.