By Prahlad Bharj [Edited by Isabelle Grime and Seren Caglar] The “crusading era” refers to the years 1095-1204, based around the four Crusades from the Latin West across the Byzantine Empire and into the Near East. Armies of the Church waged a holy war with the goal of taking back Jerusalem, then following their victory in 1099, the Crusades revolved around maintaining the land they took during that initial Crusade. As a result of the newly founded Outremer, people from the West emigrated to the East, including the soldiers who had fought in the war, as well as women and children too, in the hope of a new life.[1] As a result, Christians were now living in Muslim lands, leading to shifts in how these two opposing cultures would live together, be it in harmony or with one faction gaining power over the other. Throughout the Crusading era, the way the Franks viewed their Muslim counterparts ultimately relied on what part of Outremer they resided in, as the view the Franks had of the Muslims varied between each state, with some having harsher views toward the Muslim natives than others. The time period was also important, as there was harsher animosity between the two groups during the immediate years following the first Crusade, but as time passed, it lessened, and Franks and Muslims were able to get onto friendlier terms. Ultimately, the Franks and Muslims either lived in a state of assimilation or segregation.
The segregation between Christians and Muslims can be seen early on in this period, specifically with the success of the First Crusade and the establishment of the city of Jerusalem under Frankish rule, led by Godfrey I (1099-1100), followed by his brother, Baldwin I (1100 – 1119).[2] The disparity could be seen from the siege of Jerusalem itself, where many Latin soldiers slaughtered the inhabitants of the Kingdom, even innocents such as the elderly, women or children.[3] The utter hatred for Muslims was seemingly so strong, that they would even kill people who were under protection by other western princes such as Tancred, who had given some Muslims his banner to show they were under his care.[4]After the siege, there were laws set in place to show who was in command. The Franks established a hierarchal system within the city, with Christians from the West on the top, followed by Byzantine and Armenian Christians, then lastly were the Muslims and the Jews.[5] This came with many bylaws, such as Christians and Muslims being unable to marry unless the Muslim converted to Christianity.[6] This clearly shows that the Franks had a poor view of the Muslims, and treated them like second class citizens, branding them as the “infidel” who didn’t deserve the city they once had.[7] This is explained by Thomas Asbridge, who writes “the Latins ruled over these native subjects as an elite, heavily outnumbered minority”[8]. This highlights that the Frankish settlers had a form of a superiority complex, seeing themselves as having the true claim to Jerusalem, and that their Muslim neighbours were unjust and inferior to them, which is why they ruled over them so harshly; they truly believed the Holy City was theirs and theirs alone. This idea of a Frankish superiority complex is further seen in an additional law passed by Baldwin I, which was the punishment for sex between Muslims and Christians- men were castrated and women had their nose cut off.[9]
This demonstrates how Franks in Jerusalem viewed the Muslims, as it implies that the very nature of being intimate with someone not of Frankish descent essentially tainted them, and ruined them forever in the eyes of the Crusaders. Furthermore, this law was passed by the King of Jerusalem himself, which demonstrates how far reaching this idea of Muslim inferiority was within society at the time, going to the very top of the societal hierarchy. Ultimately, it makes sense that the Franks held this view during the twenty years following the first Crusade, mainly because they had been repeatedly told how the Islamic forces were their enemies, whom they must smite and recover the Holy Land from. This whole belief was the driving force of the Crusade and explains why they treated them so harshly after winning the war for the Holy Land, especially within Jerusalem. As time went on, however, that view shifted as the two forces lived together for longer and thus had to come to new terms and agreements. Although this shows how the Christian’s in Jerusalem viewed their Muslim neighbours, it doesn’t necessarily reflect all of Outremer and its Crusader states, rather just one specific quadrant of it. Outside of Jerusalem and the early twelfth century, the Frankish view of their Islamic counterparts shifted.
Ideas of assimilation between Franks and Muslims were noted throughout the settlement period of the Crusader states, and it differed depending on the region as to how the two factions were able to coalesce. The main reason for assimilation happening at all was the lack of man power that the Franks had after the first Crusade.[10] As mentioned earlier, they were a minority, and this worsened in 1099 as many soldiers returned home after conquering Jerusalem, meaning that the Franks were essentially forced into working with the Islamic natives due to the fact that if they did not, then they could very easily be overthrown and lose their newly gained land. This is further explained by Jonathan Riley-Smith when he writes: “although a steady flow of westerners came to settle, it was obvious that the Franks lacked sufficient manpower to rebuild and defend urban communities. In consequence their approach to the local population changed”[11]. This shows that the passage of time and need for manpower brought about newfound assimilation in the Crusader states, as the Franks realised that if they were going to live and remain in Outremer, they would have to treat the Islamic inhabitants properly. This idea was displayed early in 1108 by Tancred of Antioch. He established trade routes and numerous truces to quell fighting and to establish friendly terms with the Muslims.[12] In addition, throughout the twelfth century, there were numerous treaties and correspondence between the Muslims and the Christians such as the non-aggression pact between the Genoese and the Muslim leaders of the Balearic Islands.[13] This shows that the Franks grew to view their Muslim neighbours as a necessary evil, as they were forced to trade with them, and ratify treaties with them, in order to preserve their own wellbeing and survival. It does show, however, the change in the Franks’ view of the Muslims; as time progressed, they were forced to live together and not massacre them as they had during the first Crusade.
Assimilation also occurred between ordinary peasants, not just on a diplomatic scale. Throughout the time period, as many fights went on between the two factions – there was still a strong sense of community between Islamic and Christian peasants who occupied the lands of Outremer. This was seen in numerous examples, as Smith further notes: “for example, Usamah ibn Munqidh, a contemporary Muslim commentator, was friendly with a group of Templars who protected him from harassment by an over-zealous westerner”[14]. This example demonstrates both assimilation from a peasant perspective alongside assimilation occurring from the passage of time. The former is shown through the fact that the Usamah was friends with the Templars – who were a military order centred around protecting Outremer for the Franks. The idea of a Muslim being on good terms with them seems counterintuitive, yet it happened, nonetheless. In addition, this event occurred in the mid-twelfth century, a while after the first Crusade – which further demonstrates how far Islamic/Frankish relations had gone, as now the Frankish order of the Templars were protecting a Muslim man from another Frankish Westerner. This shows that not only does this order respect the Islamic faith, but is also willing to protect it, demonstrating how far the two factions had gone to be able to co-exist. Assimilation was also demonstrated through the primary source of Ibn Jubayr, who was a Muslim traveller during the 1180s.[15] Within his chronicles, he notes the ways of life of the Islamic and Frankish people with many examples of peaceful co-existence. In his travels to the city of Palermo, he says: “the Christian women of this city follow the fashion of Muslim women, are fluent of speech, wrap their cloaks about them, and are veiled”.[16] This shows that the Frankish inhabitants no longer seemed to operate with their superiority façade from the early 1100s. It seemed they were following the Islamic way of life, wearing similar clothes and even speaking the same language as them instead of their own native European ones.
This demonstrates a strong sense of assimilation between the two, as the Muslims were no longer seen as second-class citizens by the 1180s in parts of Outremer, but instead it seemed there was a sense of equality, at least in Palermo. Ibn Jubayr further notes his experiences in Tyre that: “they are kinder to the Muslim stranger” and “the state of Muslims in this city are easier and more peaceful”[17]. The state of assimilation did differ from city to city, as Jubayr’s work implies that Muslim life in Tyre was still worse than their Christian counterparts, as even though the Franks were kinder to them, and their lives more peaceful, this does not mean that they were viewed as equal. Jubayr’s work is limited in the sense that he himself was Muslim, with strong ties and respect toward Saladin, an Islamic leader seen as the defender of the faith at the time. This means he would be unlikely to represent his people as anything other than friendly and amicable. He also refers to Outremer as “Muslim Lands”, showcasing his own bias and presenting the Muslims in a far more positive light, which is not a fully reliable portrayal of Islamic/Frankish relations.[18] He was also likely to not represent the Franks accurately as he had a strong dislike for them, seen when he says “May God […] soon relieve us of their company”, thus diminishing the validity of his work.[19] In addition, people knew him as a famous traveller, and thus may have treated him differently when he was there, not giving an accurate account as to what life was really like. Overall, the idea of assimilation largely depended on the area, as different cities and ports within Outremer had different positions towards the Muslims, with some cities like Palermo having a largely equal society and then with other cities, like Jerusalem, had Franks treating Islamic natives as unwanted citizens, who were not permitted on their land.
To conclude, the Franks in Outremer changed their view of their Muslim neighbours during the Crusading era depending on the time and region. Initially there was segregation, and the idea that Islamic people were second class citizens, but as time went on that view changed as they were forced to assimilate into each other’s culture for their own survival. While cities like Jerusalem still remained relatively against Islamic people, different cities like Tyre or Palermo became more accepting of them. Notes
Notes
[1] Johnathan Riley-Smith, The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades (New York: Oxford University Press, 1995), p. 83. [2] Kelley L. Ross, (2020) “Kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus, Counts of Edessa, Princes of Antioch, Counts of Tripoli, Kings of Thessalonica, Dukes of Athens, Princes of Achaea, and the Grand Masters of the Military Monastic Orders”, The Periphery of Francia: Outremer <http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#jerusalem> [accessed 24th November, 2019]. [3] Thomas Asbridge, The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land (Australia: Harper Collins Publishers, 2010), pp.1-29. [4] Asbridge, Crusades, p. 16. [5] Asbridge, Crusades, p. 31. [6] Asbridge, Crusades, p. 22. [7] Asbridge, Crusades, p. 31. [8] Asbridge, Crusades, p. 19. [9] Asbridge, Crusades, p. 22. [10] Riley-Smith, Crusades, p. 130. [11] Riley-Smith, Crusades, p. 130. [12] Riley-Smith, Crusades, p. 131. [13] David R. Blanks and Michael Frassetto, Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe (New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999), p. 148. [14] Riley-Smith, Crusades, p. 131. [15] Salah Zaimeche, (2002) “The Travels of Ibn Jubair”, Muslim Heritage <https://muslimheritage.com/the-travels-of-ibn-jubair/> [Accessed 24 November 2019]. [16] R. J. C. Broadhurst (trans.), Ibn Jubayr, The Travels of Ibn Jubayr, (London: Bloomsbury, 1952), p. 348. [17] Ibn Jubayr, Travels, p. 319. [18] Ibn Jubayr, Travels, p. 32. [19] Ibn Jubayr, Travels, p. 32.
Bibliography:
Primary Sources
Broadhurst, R. J. C. (trans.) Jubayr, Ibn. The Travels of Ibn Jubayr. London: Bloomsbury, 1952
Secondary Sources
Asbridge, Thomas. The Crusades: The Authoritative History of the War for the Holy Land. Australia, Harper Collins Publishers, 2010
Blanks, David R. and Frassetto, Michael. Western Views of Islam in Medieval and Early Modern Europe. New York: St. Martin’s Press, 1999
Hillenbrand, Carole. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Edinburgh: Edinburgh University Press, 1999
Kenney, P. D. The Crusades 1095-1204. United Kingdom: Independently Published, 2017
Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades. Oxford: Oxford University Press, 1995
Ross, Kelley L. (2020) “Kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus, Counts of Edessa, Princes of Antioch, Counts of Tripoli, Kings of Thessalonica, Dukes of Athens, Princes of Achaea, and the Grand Masters of the Military Monastic Orders”. The Periphery of Francia: Outremer. <http://www.friesian.com/outremer.htm#jerusalem> [Accessed 24 November, 2019]
Zaimeche, Salah. (2002) “The Travels of Ibn Jubair”. Muslim Heritage. <https://muslimheritage.com/the-travels-of-ibn-jubair/> [Accessed 24 November 2019]
Comments