Frankish Armies of Outremer

For the nearly ninety years between the founding of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Christian army at Hattin in July 1187, the Kingdom of Jerusalem fielded armies for both defensive and offensive warfare that were surprisingly effective. Yet like that of their opponents, their composition was far more complex than is commonly understood. In addition to the feudal contingents and mercenaries common at this time, they also included “armed pilgrims,” contingents of militant monks (i.e. Knights Templar and Hospitaller) and types of fighting men completely unknown in the West: Sergeants and Turcopoles. Also exceptional in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the "arriere ban" that enabled the King to keep his army in the field up to one year in contrast to the 40 days feudal service of his contemporaries in the West. 

Below is a short description of the key components of the Army of Jerusalem in the 12^th Century.

Barons and Knights

As in the West, the backbone of the Army of Jerusalem was the feudal host composed of the “knights” which the “tenants-in-chief” of the king owed in exchange for their fiefs. Tenants-in-chief might be secular lords (barons) or ecclesiastical lords (bishops and independent abbots).  

The baronies of Outremer could be very substantial or almost insignificant. Jonathan Riley-Smith in his Atlas of the Crusades, for example, lists the baronies of Sidon, Galilee, and Jaffa/Ascalon as all owing 100 knights, while according to the incomplete records of John d’Ibelin, the Bishops of Nazareth and Lydda owed 6 and 10 knights respectively.  (John d’Ibelin, Count of Jaffa and Ascalon, was writing in the mid-13^th century but attempting to catalogue military service owed to the King of Jerusalem at the time of his grandfather Balian d’Ibelin.)

It is important to remember that the term “knight” does not refer to a single man but rather to a fighting-unit consisting of a knight and his warhorse (destrier), one or more mounted squires, a riding horse (palfrey) and one more pack-horses.  Knights were expected to be armed and armored, which means that throughout the 12^th century they would be expected to provide their own chainmail hauberk, coif and mittens, and chainmail chausses for their legs. In addition, they would need a helmet, a sword, dagger and optionally a mace or axe. Lances, on the other hand, were relatively cheap, “throw away” weapons that the lord would provide or could be purchased as needed.

However, the fighting power that a baron brought to the battlefield generally exceeded the minimum set by feudal obligations. Barons would have been supported by younger brothers and adult sons, if they had them, and by “household knights,” i.e. men without land holdings of their own who served the baron (i.e. were “retained”) in exchange for an annual salary (that would include payments in-kind such as meals, cloaks, and in some cases horses). Peter Edbury’s analysis of the John d’Ibelin’s catalogue suggests that the ratio of “retained” knights to “vassals” (knights who owed their service by right of holding land from the lord) ranged anywhere from 1:2 to 3:2, making it clear that the knights fielded in the feudal army due to feudal obligation made up maybe no more than half of the total host!

So far, all is as it would have been in the West, including the large number of “household” or mercenary knights. However, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was unique in that activities and income sources not usually associated with feudal service were also often subject to military service obligations. Thus, for example, Baldwin d’Ibelin owed four knights service to the crown in exchange for the right to rent out grazing land to the Bedouins.  More common, income from customs duties, tariffs and other royal sources of income could be “enfeoffed” on a nobleman/knight in exchange for feudal service.  In the prosperous coastal towns of Outremer, there were many such “money-fiefs” with a military obligation.

While great lords, like Baldwin d’Ibelin, might hold multiple fiefs, they could only personally fulfill the obligation for one knight, which meant that a lord enjoying the income of a fief — whether from grazing Bedouins or customs duties — had to spend some of his income to hire as many trained and fully equipped “knights” (think fighting unit) as he owed. These knights would be drawn from the younger sons and brothers of fellow barons or from landless armed pilgrims, willing to stay in the Holy Land, but would like his landed knights be viewed as “vassals.”

Armed Pilgrims

The Holy Land, unlike the West, benefited from the fact that at any one time — and particularly during the “pilgrim season” between roughly April and October — there would be tens of thousands of pilgrims in the kingdom, a portion of whom would have been knights capable of rendering military service in an emergency. Sometimes barons brought small private armies of retainers and volunteers with them to the crusader states explicitly for the purpose of fighting in defense of the Holy Land. A good example of this is Philip Count of Flanders, who arrived at Acre in 1177 at the head of what Bernard Hamilton describes as “a sizeable army.” His army even included the English Earls of Essex and Meath. More common were individual knights and lords who came to the Holy Land as genuine pilgrims, only to be sucked into the fighting by military necessity. One such example is Hugh VIII de Lusignan, Count of the March, who came in 1165 and ended up dying in a Saracen prison. Another example is William Marshal, who came in 1184 to fulfill a crusader vow taken by his liege, Henry the Young King. It is impossible to know how many “armed pilgrims” — and not just knights! — took part in musters and engagements between the forces of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and its enemies at any time.

Fighting Monks

Another anomaly of the armies of Outremer were, of course, the large contingents of fighting monks — most famously Templars and Hospitallers, but also Knights of St. Lazarus and later Teutonic Knights as well. The major “militant” orders of the 12^th Century were founded in Jerusalem with the explicit mandate to protect the Holy Land and Christian residents in and pilgrims to it. While the Templars started with just nine knights and the Hospitallers did not officially have “brother knights” until the 13^th century, contemporary descriptions suggest that both orders fielded hundreds of knights by the end of the 12^th century. David Nicolle in his book on the Battle of Hattin suggests that by 1180 the Templars had 300 knights deployed in the Holy Land and the Hospitallers 500 knights, but many of these knights would have been scattered about the country garrisoning castles. Undisputed, is the fact that 230 Templars and Hospitallers survived the Battle of Hattin to be executed on Saladin’s orders on July 6, 1187. Given the intense, two-day long nature of the Battle of Hattin, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that both militant orders, known for their fanaticism and willingness to die, had suffered significant casualties before the battle ended. It is likely, therefore, that close to 500 Hospitallers and Templars were in the field with royal army and this seems a good “ball-park” figure for the kind of resources the militant orders could contribute to the army of Outremer in the latter part of the 12^th century generally.

Infantry

It is often forgotten in modern depictions of medieval warfare that the knights were the smallest contingent of medieval armies. The infantry made up the bulk of any feudal force and, far from being superfluous, the infantry was vitally important to success. But whereas in the West the infantry in the 12^th century was largely composed of peasant levees (plus mercenaries), in the crusader states the infantry consisted of free “burghers” (citizens) -- plus mercenaries, of course.

Mercenaries

If prostitution is the oldest profession on earth, than mercenaries must belong to the second oldest profession. Mercenaries are recorded in ancient Greece and only my own ignorance prevents me from asserting with confidence that they were known in ancient Egypt as well. Certainly in the Middle Ages mercenaries were a vital component of warfare precisely because feudal levies in the West were only obligated to serve for 40 days at a stretch, but most kings and nobles needed fighting men who could serve whenever and for as long as needed.  Furthermore, certain military skills such as firing cross-bows, or building and manning siege engines, required a great deal of expertise and practice, making them unsuited to amateur armies composed of farmers. Mercenaries were everywhere on medieval battlefields. They were found in Outremer as well and, given the resources of the kingdom, were probably more prevalent there than in the West. But we have no clear numbers. 

Citizen Soldiers -- Sergeants

A far more interesting and unusual feature of the armies in the crusader states were the “sergeants.” Because the “peasants” of Outremer were largely Arabic speaking Muslims,  the Kings of Jerusalem were not inclined to rely upon these men to fight their battles. On the other hand, as much as one-fifth of the population (ca 140,000 inhabitants) were Latin Christian settlers. All settlers were freemen and whether they settled in the cities as merchants and tradesmen or in agricultural settlements on royal and ecclesiastical domains, they were classed as “burghers” — not serfs or peasants. These freemen who had voluntarily immigrated to the crusader states were subject to military service, and when they served they were classed as “sergeants.”

The term “sergeant” in the context of Outremer appears to be a term similar to “man-at-arms” during the Hundred Years War. In short, it implies the financial means to outfit oneself with some form of body armor (most commonly padded linen “aketons,” or quilted “gambesons,” in rare-cases leather, or even chainmail) and a helmet of some kind (usually on open-faced “kettle” helm or later a crevelliere), and some kind of infantry weapon such as a spear, short sword, ax or sling.  

With half the settlers living in cities, it is not surprising that sergeants bore the brunt of the burden of providing garrisons for the cities, but according to John d’Ibelin’s records sergeants from the rural settlements in the royal domain and ecclesiastical fiefs were required to muster with the royal army.  We also know that both the Templars and Hospitallers maintained significant forces of “sergeants,” and these were — notably — mounted fighting men. Although not as well equipped as the knights, they were nevertheless entitled to two horses and one squire! It is not clear, however, whether the “sergeants” of the king and the ecclesiastical lords were also mounted.

Turcopoles

Perhaps the most exotic component of the armies of Outremer were the so-called “Turcopoles.” There are frequent references to these troops in contemporary records and they clearly played a significant role in the armed forces of the crusader states, but there is no unambiguous definition of who and what they were. They were clearly “native” troops, but the idea that they were mostly converted Muslims is off the mark.  At least half if not more of the population in the crusader states were non-Latin Christians, and it is from this segment of society that “native” troops were predominantly drawn.  The Armenians, for example, had a strong history of independent states and military prowess, and Armenians dominated the population of Edessa and made up a significant portion of the population in the Principality of Antioch and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, having their own quarter there and their own cathedral in the Holy City itself. Syrian Christians were by this time largely Arabic/Syriac speakers and would have looked like “Arabs” and “Turks” to visitors from the West, but as Christians they were reliable troops. There were also Greek, Coptic, Maronite and Ethiopian Christians resident in the crusader states, all of whom were, as freemen, subject to military service. As Christians native to the region they were some of the most willing fighting men, but their fighting traditions and weapons were more "eastern" than "western." The wealthier, native, fighting men could afford horses and formed the "light cavalry" of the feudal force, whether with lances or bows is not clear, possibly some of both.

Arriere Ban

Last but not least, the Kings of Jerusalem had the right to issue the “arriere ban” which obligated every free man to come to the defense of the kingdom. This was in effect an early form of the “levee en masse” of the French Revolution. Significantly, the King of Jerusalem could command the service of his vassals for a full year, not just 40 days as in the West, but such service was intended for the defense of the realm.  If the king took his army outside the borders on an offensive expedition, he was required to pay for the services of his subjects.

Dr. Helena P. Schrader holds a PhD in History.

She is the Chief Editor of the Real Crusades History Blog.

She is an award-winning novelist and author of numerous books both fiction and non-fiction. Her three-part biography of Balian d'Ibelin won a total of 14 literary accolades. Her most recent release is a novel about the founding of the crusader Kingdom of Cyprus. You can find out more at: http://crusaderkingdoms.com

Feudal warfare in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was an unavoidable feature of a nobleman's life as described in my award-winning three-part biography of Balian Baron of Ibelin.

 Buy now!                                       Buy now!                                         Buy now!

The Army of Jerusalem

For the nearly ninety years between the founding of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the defeat of the Christian army at Hattin in July 1187, the Kingdom of Jerusalem fielded troops for both defensive and offensive warfare that were surprisingly effective. Yet like that of their opponents, their composition was far more complex than is commonly understood. In addition to the feudal contingents and mercenaries common at this time, they also included “armed pilgrims,” contingents of militant monks (i.e. Knights Templar and Hospitaller) and types of fighting men completely unknown in the West: Sergeants and Turcopoles. Also exceptional in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the "arriere ban" that enabled the King to keep his army in the field up to one year in contrast to the 40 days feudal service of his contemporaries in the West. 

Below is a short description of the key components of the Army of Jerusalem in the 12^th Century.

Barons and Knights

As in the West, the backbone of the Army of Jerusalem was the feudal host composed of the “knights” which the “tenants-in-chief” of the king owed in exchange for their fiefs. Tenants-in-chief might be secular lords (barons) or ecclesiastical lords (bishops and independent abbots).  

The baronies of Outremer could be very substantial or almost insignificant. Jonathan Riley-Smith in his Atlas of the Crusades, for example, lists the baronies of Sidon, Galilee, and Jaffa/Ascalon as all owing 100 knights, while according to the incomplete records of John d’Ibelin, the Bishops of Nazareth and Lydda owed 6 and 10 knights respectively.  (John d’Ibelin, Count of Jaffa and Ascalon, was writing in the mid-13^th century but attempting to catalogue military service owed to the King of Jerusalem at the time of his grandfather Balian d’Ibelin.)

It is important to remember that the term “knight” does not refer to a single man but rather to a fighting-unit consisting of a knight and his warhorse (destrier), one or more mounted squires, a riding horse (palfrey) and one more pack-horses.  Knights were expected to be armed and armored, which means that throughout the 12^th century they would be expected to provide their own chainmail hauberk, coif and mittens, and chainmail chausses for their legs. In addition, they would need a helmet, a sword, dagger and optionally a mace or axe. Lances, on the other hand, were relatively cheap, “throw away” weapons that the lord would provide or could be purchased as needed.

However, the fighting power that a baron brought to the battlefield generally exceeded the minimum set by feudal obligations. Barons would have been supported by younger brothers and adult sons, if they had them, and by “household knights,” i.e. men without land holdings of their own who served the baron (i.e. were “retained”) in exchange for an annual salary (that would include payments in-kind such as meals, cloaks, and in some cases horses). Peter Edbury’s analysis of the John d’Ibelin’s catalogue suggests that the ratio of “retained” knights to “vassals” (knights who owed their service by right of holding land from the lord) ranged anywhere from 1:2 to 3:2, making it clear that the knights fielded in the feudal army due to feudal obligation made up maybe no more than half of the total host!

So far, all is as it would have been in the West, including the large number of “household” or mercenary knights. However, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was unique in that activities and income sources not usually associated with feudal service were also often subject to military service obligations. Thus, for example, Baldwin d’Ibelin owed four knights service to the crown in exchange for the right to rent out grazing land to the Bedouins.  More common, income from customs duties, tariffs and other royal sources of income could be “enfeoffed” on a nobleman/knight in exchange for feudal service.  In the prosperous coastal towns of Outremer, there were many such “money-fiefs” with a military obligation.

While great lords, like Baldwin d’Ibelin, might hold multiple fiefs, they could only personally fulfill the obligation for one knight, which meant that a lord enjoying the income of a fief — whether from grazing Bedouins or customs duties — had to spend some of his income to hire as many trained and fully equipped “knights” (think fighting unit) as he owed. These knights would be drawn from the younger sons and brothers of fellow barons or from landless armed pilgrims, willing to stay in the Holy Land, but would like his landed knights be viewed as “vassals.”

Armed Pilgrims

The Holy Land, unlike the West, benefited from the fact that at any one time — and particularly during the “pilgrim season” between roughly April and October — there would be tens of thousands of pilgrims in the kingdom, a portion of whom would have been knights capable of rendering military service in an emergency. Sometimes barons brought small private armies of retainers and volunteers with them to the crusader states explicitly for the purpose of fighting in defense of the Holy Land. A good example of this is Philip Count of Flanders, who arrived at Acre in 1177 at the head of what Bernard Hamilton describes as “a sizeable army.” His army even included the English Earls of Essex and Meath. More common were individual knights and lords who came to the Holy Land as genuine pilgrims, only to be sucked into the fighting by military necessity. One such example is Hugh VIII de Lusignan, Count of the March, who came in 1165 and ended up dying in a Saracen prison. Another example is William Marshal, who came in 1184 to fulfill a crusader vow taken by his liege, Henry the Young King. It is impossible to know how many “armed pilgrims” — and not just knights! — took part in musters and engagements between the forces of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and its enemies at any time.

Fighting Monks

Another anomaly of the armies of Outremer were, of course, the large contingents of fighting monks — most famously Templars and Hospitallers, but also Knights of St. Lazarus and later Teutonic Knights as well. The major “militant” orders of the 12^th Century were founded in Jerusalem with the explicit mandate to protect the Holy Land and Christian residents in and pilgrims to it. While the Templars started with just nine knights and the Hospitallers did not officially have “brother knights” until the 13^th century, contemporary descriptions suggest that both orders fielded hundreds of knights by the end of the 12^th century. David Nicolle in his book on the Battle of Hattin suggests that by 1180 the Templars had 300 knights deployed in the Holy Land and the Hospitallers 500 knights, but many of these knights would have been scattered about the country garrisoning castles. Undisputed, is the fact that 230 Templars and Hospitallers survived the Battle of Hattin to be executed on Saladin’s orders on July 6, 1187. Given the intense, two-day long nature of the Battle of Hattin, it seems reasonable to hypothesize that both militant orders, known for their fanaticism and willingness to die, had suffered significant casualties before the battle ended. It is likely, therefore, that close to 500 Hospitallers and Templars were in the field with royal army and this seems a good “ball-park” figure for the kind of resources the militant orders could contribute to the army of Outremer in the latter part of the 12^th century generally.

Infantry

It is often forgotten in modern depictions of medieval warfare that the knights were the smallest contingent of medieval armies. The infantry made up the bulk of any feudal force and, far from being superfluous, the infantry was vitally important to success. But whereas in the West the infantry in the 12^th century was largely composed of peasant levees (plus mercenaries), in the crusader states the infantry consisted of free “burghers” (citizens) -- plus mercenaries, of course.

Mercenaries

If prostitution is the oldest profession on earth, than mercenaries must belong to the second oldest profession. Mercenaries are recorded in ancient Greece and only my own ignorance prevents me from asserting with confidence that they were known in ancient Egypt as well. Certainly in the Middle Ages mercenaries were a vital component of warfare precisely because feudal levies in the West were only obligated to serve for 40 days at a stretch, but most kings and nobles needed fighting men who could serve whenever and for as long as needed.  Furthermore, certain military skills such as firing cross-bows, or building and manning siege engines, required a great deal of expertise and practice, making them unsuited to amateur armies composed of farmers. Mercenaries were everywhere on medieval battlefields. They were found in Outremer as well and, given the resources of the kingdom, were probably more prevalent there than in the West. But we have no clear numbers. 

Citizen Soldiers -- Sergeants

A far more interesting and unusual feature of the armies in the crusader states were the “sergeants.” Because the “peasants” of Outremer were largely Arabic speaking Muslims,  the Kings of Jerusalem were not inclined to rely upon these men to fight their battles. On the other hand, as much as one-fifth of the population (ca 140,000 inhabitants) were Latin Christian settlers. All settlers were freemen and whether they settled in the cities as merchants and tradesmen or in agricultural settlements on royal and ecclesiastical domains, they were classed as “burghers” — not serfs or peasants. These freemen who had voluntarily immigrated to the crusader states were subject to military service, and when they served they were classed as “sergeants.”

The term “sergeant” in the context of Outremer appears to be a term similar to “man-at-arms” during the Hundred Years War. In short, it implies the financial means to outfit oneself with some form of body armor (most commonly padded linen “aketons,” or quilted “gambesons,” in rare-cases leather, or even chainmail) and a helmet of some kind (usually on open-faced “kettle” helm or later a crevelliere), and some kind of infantry weapon such as a spear, short sword, ax or sling.  

With half the settlers living in cities, it is not surprising that sergeants bore the brunt of the burden of providing garrisons for the cities, but according to John d’Ibelin’s records sergeants from the rural settlements in the royal domain and ecclesiastical fiefs were required to muster with the royal army.  We also know that both the Templars and Hospitallers maintained significant forces of “sergeants,” and these were — notably — mounted fighting men. Although not as well equipped as the knights, they were nevertheless entitled to two horses and one squire! It is not clear, however, whether the “sergeants” of the king and the ecclesiastical lords were also mounted.

Turcopoles

Perhaps the most exotic component of the armies of Outremer were the so-called “Turcopoles.” There are frequent references to these troops in contemporary records and they clearly played a significant role in the armed forces of the crusader states, but there is no unambiguous definition of who and what they were. They were clearly “native” troops, but the idea that they were mostly converted Muslims is off the mark.  Roughly half the population in the crusader states were non-Latin Christians, and it is from this segment of society that “native” troops were predominantly drawn.  The Armenians, for example, had a strong history of independent states and military prowess, and Armenians made up a significant portion of the population in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, having their own quarter there and their own cathedral. Syrian Christians were by this time Arabic speakers and would have looked like “Arabs” and “Turks” to visitors from the West, but as Christians they were reliable troops. There were also Greek, Coptic, Maronite and Ethiopian Christians resident in the crusader states, all of whom were, as freemen, subject to military service. As Christians native to the region they were some of the most willing fighting men. They, after all, had memories or personal experience with the taxes, insults and oppression of Turkish rule, which had triggered the First Crusade.

Arriere Ban

Last but not least, the Kings of Jerusalem had the right to issue the “arriere ban” which obligated every free man to come to the defense of the kingdom. This was in effect an early form of the “levee en masse” of the French Revolution. Significantly, the King of Jerusalem could command the service of his vassals for a full year, not just 40 days as in the West, but such service was intended for the defense of the realm.  If the king took his army outside the borders on an offensive expedition, he was required to pay for the services of his subjects.

Feudal warfare in the Kingdom of Jerusalem was an unavoidable feature of a nobleman's life as described in my three-part biography of Balian Baron of Ibelin.

 Buy now!                                       Buy now!                                   Buy now (paperback)
                                                                                                                or Kindle!

The “Other Christians”: Orthodox Christianity in the Crusader Kingdoms

In my last entry I argued that, on the whole, Muslims were not worse off under the crusaders, so why should the Christians, that the crusaders had come to deliver from oppression, have fared worse?

Mosaics in the Church of the Nativity commissioned by Baldwin III and clearly showing Byzantine workmanship

Again, let’s go back to basics. The First Crusade was as response to a plea by the Byzantine Emperor — or, if one follows the medieval Chronicler William of Tyre, an appeal made Peter the Hermit from Amiens who had personally visited Jerusalem.  Either way, the appeal to Western Christendom was that Christians (please note: Orthodox Christians) were being oppressed in the very city where Christ had been crucified. Rodney Stark provides an excellent catalogue of various atrocities committed against Christians in the years leading up to the First Crusade (Stark, pp 78-98).  The atrocities included the complete destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulcher along with some 30,000 other churches that were either pillaged or burned.  Aside from these periodic acts of violence that left Christians in a permanent state of insecurity, the Muslim regimes (even the more tolerant and benign rulers) persistently punished conversion to Christianity with death, prohibited the establishment/construction of new churches, prohibited the saying of Christian service and prayers out-loud — even in one’s home, prohibited Christians from bearing arms and even riding horse and — most important if one is an adherent of Machiavelli — taxed Christians at a significantly higher rate than Muslims.

Ruined Byzantine Church in Ascalon

For Orthodox Christians to be “worse off” under the crusader regimes, they would have had to suffer greater indignities than those listed above. They did not. They were freed of the extra tax, allowed to own horses, bear arms, build their own churches and monasteries — and they did! — and they practiced their religion openly and without fear. Not once during crusader rule were Orthodox Christians subject to massacres or the plundering of their homes by the ruling Franks.  I have yet to see even one concrete example of one way in which the Orthodox Christians in Outremer were “better off” under the Muslims.

Jotischky notes that “Greek and Syrian Orthodox, Armenian, Georgian, Coptic and Ehtiopian monasteries all flourished under Frankish rule.” (Jotischky, p. 126.) According to Hamilton “...other eastern-rite Churches were granted virtual autonomy by the Franks under their respective religious leaders…and were not made subject to the Catholic hierarchy.” (Hamilton, p. 50.) The only point of friction between Frank and other Christians resulted from the fact that the crusaders viewed the Greek Orthodox Church as part of the Catholic Church. While this was clearly advantageous for ordinary Greek Orthodox citizens, who then enjoyed all the same privileges as the ruling elite, it was a problem for the Greek Orthodox clergy because it effectively put them under the rule of the Pope -- something they did not accept.  Furthermore, if the two churches were one, there could only be one bishop per see, and naturally the Pope preferred to appoint Latin churchmen to such positions.

There was, therefore, considerable outrage among the Greek Orthodox hierarchy against the “loss” of episcopal sees, income, privilege and power, but as Jotischky points out: “…the replacement of Greeks with Latins probably made little difference to many parochial clergy in the patriarchate of Jerusalem, because the Orthodox bishops had tended to be Greeks appointed from Constantinople, whereas the Orthodox clergy and laity were Arabic-speaking.” Furthermore, the Franks allowed the Orthodox priests to minister to their flocks just as they had done before the First Crusade. Orthodox services continued as before using leavened bread, and Orthodox priests could marry as before.

The fact that a Jacobite (Syrian) Christian on Saladin’s staff (Joseph Batit) sought to convince the Syrian Christians in Jerusalem to surrender the city to Saladin during the siege of September 1187 does not prove that relations between the Franks/Latins and the Jacobites/Syrians were — as some would suggest — consistently bad. All it shows is that by September 30, 1187, after ten days of siege and the collapse of a portion of the wall, nerves in the Christian camp were (understandably) cracking. Yes, some Syrian Christians undoubtedly did, at that point, want to save their lives (and those of their wives and children) making them willing to negotiate with Saladin. The same day the leader of the Latin Christians, Balian d’Ibelin, did the same thing. Across the Kingdom of Jerusalem, citizens made the same decision out of sheer necessity, not because they had for a hundred years been unhappy living under the crusaders or because they had forgotten the oppression they has suffered under the Muslims in the past.

Scene from the film "The Kingdom of Heaven"
in which Balin d'Ibelin negotiates the surrender of Jerusalem to Saladin

On the contrary, not only were Orthodox Christians significantly better off under the crusader states than they had been before, they were active and often ardent supporters of the crusader states.  A significant portion of the Armies of Outremer were composed of native Christians who fought as “Turcopoles” — light cavalry (clearly a great privilege compared to being prohibited from bearing arms or riding horses under Muslim rulers). We also know that senior Orthodox clergy supported the Third Crusade, which they would not have done if they had thought their co-religionists were better off under Saladin.

The crusader states were states with a predominantly Christian population in which practitioners of the various Christian traditions lived harmoniously side-by-side without oppressing their Muslim or Jewish neighbors. In short, the crusader states were an early example — not of intolerance and bigotry as so often portrayed — but of tolerance and “multi-culturalism.”

In my three part biography of Balian d'Ibelin I endeavor to portray the relations between the various Christians in the Kingdom of Jerusalem accurately.

 Buy now!                                       Buy now!                                   Buy now (paperback)
                                                                                                                or Kindle!

Learn more about crusader society at: Balian d'Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Crusader Society: An Overview and Introduction

The Crusader States established by the First Crusade in 1099 were distinctly different from the feudal societies from which the founders of these states stemmed. To be sure, leaders of the First Crusade sought to recreate familiar structures and customs, but they had to adapt these to the unusual circumstances in which they found themselves. The result was a hybrid-society composed of diverse elements, many of which were found nowhere else in the medieval world. Below is a brief overview of the most unique features.

An Elected Kingship

Much to the bafflement and frustration of the Byzantines and Saracens, the First Crusade had no single — much less autocratic — ruler. It was led by a handful of noblemen with a variety of feudal ranks from the Prince of Taranto and the Dukes of Lorraine and Normandy to the Counts of Blois and Toulouse. None of these leaders, although they brought varying numbers of their own vassals with them, owed fealty to any one of them. Furthermore, their standing was influence by their wealth (Toulouse was the wealthiest of them although only a count) and above all their military capabilities.  

As a result, after the liberation of Jerusalem there was no obvious leader to make king of the newly won territory. (Being feudal lords, these men felt it was imperative to place Jerusalem in the care of a king, capable of defending and nurturing the precious prize of their pilgrimage.) Without a hereditary leader, the decision of who should be made king of Jerusalem had to be made collectively and by common consent by the remaining leaders of the crusade. This set a precedent that was to be followed through the first century of the existence of the crusader states. (For more details see: The Elected Kingship.)

Appointed Barons

If the king was elected, the barons were appointed. Since there were no longer any hereditary Christian lords over the constituent territories of the kingdom any more than there was a Christian king. The newly elected Latin King of Jerusalem was at liberty to reward his followers and supporters with territory at his disposal. During the first half century of the Kingdom’s existence, when it steadily expanded through conquest, the king was well supplied with new lordships to bestow on loyal retainers or other men who distinguished themselves in fighting for the Kingdom.  Furthermore, many of these men had no families, having come to the Holy Land as armed pilgrims, and when they died it was often without heirs. As a result, their lordships frequently reverted to the crown, and could be granted to another deserving man at the king’s pleasure. Many of the lordships changed hands multiple times in the first decades of the 12^th century in consequence.

With time, however, the men who remained in the Holy Land took wives, bore children and established dynasties of their own. By 1131, fiefs had become hereditary and inalienable, except when the lord was found guilty of treason by the High Court. The evolution of hereditary lordships/barons eroded the king’s ability to reward favorites, and probably contributed to Amalric I’s ambitions in Egypt; conquering Egypt would have put a lot of territory at his disposal for appointing new barons, whose loyalty he could more readily command.

High Status and Power of Women

As mentioned above, due to the almost continuous fighting and the many exotic diseases for which the Westerners had no immunity, mortality rates among knights and barons in the crusader kingdoms were exceptionally high. While many men died without any heir, even more died without a male heir. The small size of the Latin elite combined with the natural desire of families to retain their lands led to the early recognition of female inheritance. By 1131, laws guaranteed the right of daughters to inherit, and primogeniture of eldest daughter in the absence of a son was recognized. Perhaps not coincidentally, in the same year the kingdom itself passed to a woman, Melisende, who reigned as Queen in her own right, albeit with a consort.  Significantly, she remained queen after her husband’s death, and ruled jointly with her son until tensions between them led to conflict and her early retirement from politics. Nevertheless a precedent was established, which trickled down from the queen to the nobility and the urban classes. Women in the crusader kingdoms enjoyed exceptional freedom and power. (From more details see: Women in the Crusader Kingdoms.)

Native Populations — The Conquered and the Liberated

The Turkish and Arab elites that had controlled the wealth of the territories conquered by the crusaders were either killed or fled as the Franks established themselves in the Holy Land. They left behind a population of peasants, craftsmen and traders.  This population consisted of a varying mix of Orthodox Christians — Greeks, Maronite, Syrian/Jacobite, Coptic — as well as Samaritans, Jews and Muslims. The exact mix varied from place to place, with Greek and Jacobite Christians more prevalent in the Principality of Antioch, Armenians more common in the County of Edessa, Maronites in the County of Tripoli, and Coptics and Samaritans mostly found in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Significantly, probably no more than 50% of the population was Muslim, and these were predominantly natives of the region who had converted to Islam over the centuries, often more for the economic and social advantages than out of dep conviction. At no time did the situation of the Franks resemble an “occupation” such as we know it from, say, the Nazi occupation of France or the Soviet occupation of Poland, in which the Franks were viewed as oppressors of a unified native population. From the point of view of the native population, the Franks were just another in a long series of over-lords stretching back far before the Romans.

From the crusader point of view, however, the value and loyalty of these different populations varied greatly. The Muslims were viewed with mistrust and were not entrusted with bearing arms. They were mostly peasants, and so they remained; they were tied to the land they worked (as they had been under their Turkish, Arab, Greek and Roman masters before), but they were never subject to forced conversion. Furthermore, they were allowed to retain their own customs and courts for family, religious and internal disputes. Jews and Samaritans, on the other hand, were more likely to be city dwellers with urban occupations and hence less-likely to be serfs.  Nevertheless, they were also allowed to continue living according to their own laws and traditions beyond being subject to an additional tax — just as under the Muslims. While not viewed with as much suspicion as the Muslims, they were certainly not trusted with arms.

The Greeks and Syrian Christians were on the whole loyal to the new regime. They benefited from no longer being subject to special taxes as under the Arabs and Turks, and viewed Frankish rule as an improvement — contrary to popular misconceptions. (Read more under “The Other Christians.”) While these natives contributed economically to the growth and prosperity of the crusader states, they were not notable for their skill at arms. In contrast, the Maronites and Armenians were not only Christians loyal to the crusader-elites that they recognized as liberators, they also proved to be good fighting men. These were the populations that provided the bulk of the so-called “Turcopoles,”which were not, as so often described, mercenaries or converts from Islam. Altogether, the Orthodox Christians made up a fundamentally loyal lower and middle-class component in crusader society, but nevertheless remained fundamentally “alien” because of the language barrier. While these elements of the population were Christian in faith, they had become predominantly Arabic speakers and had adopted many of the customs of social customs and fashions of their conquerors over the previous centuries.

Settlers — The Frankish Upper Middle Class

The magnitude of Western settlement in the Holy Land is often overlooked or under-estimated. Modern demographic modelling suggests that as many as 140,000 Latin (Western) Christians settled in the Kingdom of Jerusalem between the First Crusade and the fall of Jerusalem to Saladin in 1187.  Since the estimated total population of the Kingdom was just 600,000, Latin settlers made up more than 20% of the total population.

Significantly, none of these settlers were serfs. The bulk of settlers were tradesmen and craftsmen, the kind of men who enjoyed free status even in the West and were part of the increasingly independent and prosperous Middle Class across Europe. Notably, however, even if they settled in rural villages and pursued agriculture as a profession — as archaeology demonstrates many did! — they remained free men. Here they were small land-holders, feudal tenants to the Church or the baronial “tenants-in-chief.” Whether urban or rural, they were comparatively prosperous, independent and self-confident elements that identified very strongly with the Latin leadership in the Holy Land, both secular and sacred. Fulcher of Chartres famously wrote of these men:

The Italian and Frenchman of yesterday have…become men of Galilee and Palestine… The immigrant is one with the inhabitants…. [B]y the grace of God, he who was poor attains riches [in Outremer]. He who had no more than a few deniers finds himself in possession of a fortune. He who owned not so much as one village finds himself, by God’s grace, the lord of a city.

These were impassioned supporters of the regime because without it they lost their new-found status, wealth and identity.

As such they made up the essential and highly effective infantry backbone of crusader armies. The crusader kingdoms were acutely dependent upon well-equipped, experienced infantry to serve as garrisons in cities and castles and provide the infantry shield essential for medieval cavalry.  It was the settlers of lower birth and rank that provided the bulk of both, supported by the less well-equipped Turcopoles. They shared not only the Latin faith, but far more important spoke (through Latin) a common tongue — and as free men they were positioned to make enough money to outfit themselves with leather or linen armor and quality infantry weapons. Their position was so important and so unique that a new term evolved to describe them: sergeants.

Militant Orders — Children of the Crusades

The need to defend the crusader states produced another new and unique category of fighting men as well: fighting monks. The concept of fighting monks was alien to early Christian theology and all the militant orders (Templars, Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights etc.) post-date the First Crusade, although the Hospitallers had their roots in monks who provided medical assistance to the sick in Jerusalem before the liberation of Jerusalem in 1099. 

The main militant orders, the Templars and Hospitallers, had a mandate to protect Christians in the Holy Land, and were conspicuously absent from crusades against heretics or even other heathens. Although both the Templars and Hospitallers eventually acquired vast estates across Europe, their mission remained the defense of Christians and Christian territory against non-believers. By the mid-12^th century, the military resources of the Templars and Hospitallers were substantial. In the 13^th Century, their military resources far outstripped the secular forces of the much diminished crusader states. The role of the militant orders grew commensurately with the comparative strength and soon they assumed control of many border territories and castles originally held and garrisoned by Frankish barons. Fundamental to understanding the role of these non-secular fighting forces is that the militant orders were at no time subject to the secular authorities. The King of Jerusalem could not command them. He always had to negotiate with their leaders for support, and they could and often did act independently and at times pursued contrary policies to the king and to each other.

Trade and Tourism — the Unique Economic Formula of the Crusader Kingdoms

Last but not least, the economy of the crusader kingdoms was significantly more urbanized than Europe in this period. This had not been the case prior to the establishment of the crusader states. Under Arab and Turkish rule, the coastal cities of the Levant languished in comparative obscurity. The commercial, religious and administrative centers of the Abbasid and Fatimid Caliphates were Baghdad and Cairo respectively. The great cities of the Muslim world included Alexandria and Damietta, Damascus, Aleppo and Mosul. Jerusalem was a backwater. Caesarea had been all but abandoned. Jaffa and Acre were secondary ports.

The re-establishment of Christian rule in the Holy Land, however, opened the entire region to a flood of Christian pilgrims. Tens of thousands travelled each year to the Holy Land from all across Christendom from as far away as Norway and Ethiopia. This massive “tourist” industry required supportive infrastructure such as inns and taverns, souvenir shops and guides. The pilgrims brought wealth into the economy — and returned home with tales of the many wonderful things they had seen from silk and sugar to ivory, incense, perfumes, soap and glass.

Demand for the products of the Middle East grew with the pilgrim streams. Many of the products were produced directly in the crusader states — sugar was an important export, for example, and to a lesser extent, olive oil, and citrus fruits were also exported. But the crusader states also produced quality glassware, ceramics, illuminated manuscripts, soap, perfumes, and a variety of fine textiles. Many other goods came from farther away and were exported to the West through the ports of the crusader kingdoms — silk from China, weapons from Damascus, ivory from India, incense from Ethiopia.  It was the crusader’s ties to the West that fed that trade, and as the economies of Western Europe expanded in the 13^th century, the demand for the “luxuries” from the East expanded as well. In consequence, the proportion of the population living in cities and from non-agricultural activities grew steadily, a tendency intensified but the loss of more than half the territory of the crusader states in the aftermath of the defeat at the Battle of Hattin.

By the second half of the 13^th century, services and manufacturing played a much more significant role than agriculture in the economy of the crusader states. This growing urbanization, combined with a strong and prosperous middle-class in multi-cultural and multi-lingual society made the crusader states significantly more “modern” that contemporary societies in East or West.

In my three part biography of Balian d'Ibelin I endeavor to portray the crusader society as accurately as possible.

 Buy now!                                       Buy now!                                   Buy now (paperback)
                                                                                                                or Kindle!

Learn more about the Kingdom of Jerusalem at: Balian d'Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.