Treatment of Muslims in the Crusader States.
- Thread starter Zajir
- Start date
IIRC it tended to be "distinctly second-class citizens" but no active repression or anything. Of course, this would vary with the time or the place; I expect immediately after arrival and during the actual periods of crusade it would be worse.
Extremely variable. Newcomer crusaders could always be very unpleasant, but if you didn't run across those, you could live reasonabnly safely and pleasantly in some places. The Kingdom of Jerusalem frex had a qadi system for its Muslim population and allowed them to settle permanently and own land in some places (though not in Jerusalem and IIRC the port cities). There were still limitations at the best of times, but generally it was very similar to the ways they were treated in Sicily and Spain, or the way Christians were treated in the Muslim world.
Interestingly, it seems to have been far more common for Franks to learn Arabic than for Arab Muslims to learn any European language.
Interestingly, it seems to have been far more common for Franks to learn Arabic than for Arab Muslims to learn any European language.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't that because Europeans were always a minority? One that held political power, yes, but the vast majority of the population was still Arab.
What were Christian populations like immediately before the Crusades? As in, how many Coptic Christians, Syrian Orthodox, etc. in Palestine and the other Crusader States?
Actually, given the occasional massacres and the sizaeable influx of settlers, I'd be willing to bet that a lot of the KoJ's subjects were Christian - probably not most, but certainly in places a majority.
As to the pre-1099 Christians: I don't think there were a terrible lot of them, and in any event the Crusaders treated them basically the same as the Moslems and Jews. They "didn't count".
An interesting source on this question is Usamah ibn Munqidh's autobiography. He was a diplomat and historian living in the 12th century, often staying in Crusader-controlled Jerusalem on business from the emir of Damscus. He had a high degree of interaction with Crusaders and counted a number of them as friends.
I read Prof. Zoe Oldenburg's book on the Crusades many years ago, but I seem to recall her mentioning that one of the complaints of later-arrived crusaders was that the original crusaders had "gone native", that is, adopted Middle Eastern lifestyles and customs. I doubt they would have been able to do this if they had wiped out all the Middle-Easterners. Someone had to show them how to do it.
Besides, we would be attributing fashionable modern concepts, such as rascism, to people who were feudalists in outlook. I don't suppose they cared about religion and race among the serfs overmuch, so long as the land got tilled and the feu duties paid.
Besides, we would be attributing fashionable modern concepts, such as rascism, to people who were feudalists in outlook. I don't suppose they cared about religion and race among the serfs overmuch, so long as the land got tilled and the feu duties paid.
The technical capacities of the 11th century weren't up to full-scakle ethnic genocide, but the Franks were not as insignificant a population as was assuzmed for a long time. The bigger issue, though, was local Christian populations. Under the law in much of Outremer, they were in the middle of the pecking order. Latin Catholics were top of the heap, followed by established Eastern Churches, followed by smaller sects, followed by Muslims, Jews and everybody the rulers couldn't place properly. This lergal distinction did not refer to lamnguage, but to theology - Orthodox Greek and Syriac congregations could become Catholic without switching to the Latin rite. I don't think the current full communion that Rome has with some Middle Eastern churches goes back that far, but I could be wrong.
Socially, things were again different, and we don't really understand how much. There was a sizeable Latin rural population along with the urban Latins, and they preobably were very much a 'gentry'. Nonetheless, the tenure of major non-Latin Christian and in some places Muslim landholders was secure (some cities, on the other hand, forbade non-Christians from owning property, foremost among them Jerusalem). A lot seems to have depended on what a person did and who he attached to rather than what he believed in terms of 'real' status. Many settlers went 'native' to the degree of keeping an arabophone, Middle Eastern household and befriending upper-class Muslims. This was not uncommon, BTW - the Siculo-Normans did exactly the same thing, and there's good reason for it as a single look at the Harpestraeng MS recipe collection versus al-Baghdadi's cookbook will tell you. A wealthy Muslim landholder, merchant or artisan with Christian gentlemen friends was not likely to suffer much discrimination, and it is likely that even some legal restrictions (such as no bearing arms) were relaxed in practice. But as I said this area very much work in progress. I ordered 'Crusader Archeology', maybe it'll tell me a bit more.
Ibn Munqidh was already pointed out, another good read on the subject is Richard Fletcher (medieval interreligious relations are his area of study and he writes very well). The general impression I get is that Outremer followed the Mediterranean tradition in faith relations - clear social hierarchies and occasional nasty moves to 'show who's boss' interspersing phases of relaxed tolerance and no desire to punish the other for being other. Being a Muslim in Edessa or Antioch was probably no better or worse than being a Christian in Seville or Kairouan, or a Jew anywhere.
Something I forgot to mention earlier. About the habits and customs of crusaders. Even as I write this, if you were to walk along Constitution Street in Seville, you would see a large poster, being a photograph of a group of crusaders, waving their swords and shields, exuberantly and drunkenly or both, and apparently doing the hokey-cokey. Closer inspection of the poster reveals these are extras from Ridley Scott's film Kingdom of Heaven.
Now I do not know whether crusaders regularly did the hokey-cokey or not. But a person with as close attention to detail as Sir Ridley has must have done some research on the point. So it's quite possible crusaders did do the hokey-cokey. The question is, where did they get it from? The modern lyrics were written by that medieval scholar Noel Coward, but where did the dance come from? I think it was probably Turkish in origin.
BTW, for Americans and other nationalities who don't know what the hokey-cokey is, it's an English ceremonial dance performed at weddings and barmitzvahs and the like, usually late in the evenings when everyone's drunk. You line up with arms around your neighbour's shoulders (bit like a ZorbatheGreek type dance, astonishing how these things cross cultural boundaries) and then roar out the lyrics "You put your left leg in" (step forward with left leg) similar with right leg, kick both legs up in the air a bit, then howl the chorus "Ooooh, the hokey-cokey" whilst raising both arms in the air. The dance goes on until someone muddles up putting in their right leg with their left leg, trips over, and brings everyone down in a heap. It's a serious dance and Diaghelev once orchestrated it as a bit of light relief in the middle of Rite of Spring.
Now I do not know whether crusaders regularly did the hokey-cokey or not. But a person with as close attention to detail as Sir Ridley has must have done some research on the point. So it's quite possible crusaders did do the hokey-cokey. The question is, where did they get it from? The modern lyrics were written by that medieval scholar Noel Coward, but where did the dance come from? I think it was probably Turkish in origin.
BTW, for Americans and other nationalities who don't know what the hokey-cokey is, it's an English ceremonial dance performed at weddings and barmitzvahs and the like, usually late in the evenings when everyone's drunk. You line up with arms around your neighbour's shoulders (bit like a ZorbatheGreek type dance, astonishing how these things cross cultural boundaries) and then roar out the lyrics "You put your left leg in" (step forward with left leg) similar with right leg, kick both legs up in the air a bit, then howl the chorus "Ooooh, the hokey-cokey" whilst raising both arms in the air. The dance goes on until someone muddles up putting in their right leg with their left leg, trips over, and brings everyone down in a heap. It's a serious dance and Diaghelev once orchestrated it as a bit of light relief in the middle of Rite of Spring.
Leo Caesius
Banned
At the beginning of the last century, Palestine was perhaps 10% Christian, and emigration to the West had already begun. I'd imagine that it was somewhat larger 800 years prior.
Officially none of them do, or at least none of them are recognized by Rome as having full communion back then. Some Maronites claim that their relationship with Rome dates to the Crusades, but the Catholic Church itself only officially recognized this relationship during the Fifth Lateran Council, in 1516 (if you compare the Catholic Encyclopaedia's entry on Maronites with that of Wikipedia, the Catholic entry thoroughly demolishes most of the arguments given in the Wikipedia article with ruthless efficiency, noting among other things that Pius II considered the Maronites to be heretics only fifty years before Lateran V. This is despite the fact that there's a difference of almost a century between the two articles).
Are there any full timelines involving (not necessarily featuring) the Crusader States around? The ones that come to mind are the Prince of Peace and Empty America.
I had expected you would have the Hokey-Pokey, but not that you would mispell (sic) it.
@OP: I have nothing to contribute.
I'm sure in England it's the hokey-cokey. This because there's an alternative version of the lyrics which goes "You get your razor out/You cut it fine/You roll yourself a tenner/And you snort yourself a line."
I don't know about the USA, could well be the hokey-pokey. I'm going there next week so will ask. And I'm just back from Spain and all this international travel is getting me down. What is it about airports?
You spend more time hanging about than you do on many flights, queueing for baggage check and customs and security and no less than 3 sets of people who each want to see your passport and boarding pass, god alone knows why they want to see them 3 times.
And that's before you fly. When you get there you have to work out how to get where you want to go and end up paying the national debt to some slimy, filthy, dishonest, cheating crook of a cabdriver.
Where was I, oh yes, the crusades. As I often say, you can't look at it from a contemporary viewpoint. You have to consider the mindset of the second and third wave of crusaders. A French knight, say, will have to make his way across France and Switzerland and probably a couple of Italian states to Venice, then to Cyprus or Constantinople or both.
And all the way he will have to keep taking off his shoes and emptying his pockets for security machines, get robbed blind by tradesmen and hoteliers, and every farting little state he goes through will want him to cough up airport taxes or whatever.
Then he has to puke his way through sea voyages and very slow ones at that. And he gets to the Holy Land and there he finds the original wave of crusaders, who are supposed to be resolutely guarding the Holy Places.
There they are, sprawled out on silk cushions, smoking hash, being attended to by a harem of young ladies. If they languidly say to the French knight, "Had a rough trip, then?" the Frenchman is likely to want to kill someone. Kill lots of someones. I know I do.
Its noteworthy that when the whole thing collapsed, western europeans gave up on this islamic idea of pilgrimage to Holy Places. They took up the idea of pilgrimaging/crusading to the South of France. Climate's good and you can get an express bus from Nice airport to anywhere you want in the area, for only 4 euros.
I don't know about the USA, could well be the hokey-pokey. I'm going there next week so will ask. And I'm just back from Spain and all this international travel is getting me down. What is it about airports?
You spend more time hanging about than you do on many flights, queueing for baggage check and customs and security and no less than 3 sets of people who each want to see your passport and boarding pass, god alone knows why they want to see them 3 times.
And that's before you fly. When you get there you have to work out how to get where you want to go and end up paying the national debt to some slimy, filthy, dishonest, cheating crook of a cabdriver.
Where was I, oh yes, the crusades. As I often say, you can't look at it from a contemporary viewpoint. You have to consider the mindset of the second and third wave of crusaders. A French knight, say, will have to make his way across France and Switzerland and probably a couple of Italian states to Venice, then to Cyprus or Constantinople or both.
And all the way he will have to keep taking off his shoes and emptying his pockets for security machines, get robbed blind by tradesmen and hoteliers, and every farting little state he goes through will want him to cough up airport taxes or whatever.
Then he has to puke his way through sea voyages and very slow ones at that. And he gets to the Holy Land and there he finds the original wave of crusaders, who are supposed to be resolutely guarding the Holy Places.
There they are, sprawled out on silk cushions, smoking hash, being attended to by a harem of young ladies. If they languidly say to the French knight, "Had a rough trip, then?" the Frenchman is likely to want to kill someone. Kill lots of someones. I know I do.
Its noteworthy that when the whole thing collapsed, western europeans gave up on this islamic idea of pilgrimage to Holy Places. They took up the idea of pilgrimaging/crusading to the South of France. Climate's good and you can get an express bus from Nice airport to anywhere you want in the area, for only 4 euros.