The Kingdom of Jerusalem, founded after the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 during the First Crusade, tried to reproduce the political schemes of the European countries of its time. However, the monarchy that was established was especially conditioned by the nobility and the Church, giving rise to a State model in which the powers were very opposed.
The capital, for its part, had to face social problems such as the lack of a stable population, ethnic and religious rivalries, sudden waves of pilgrims… Although in Europe these factors would not have been excessively worrying, here they reached the rank of dramatic.
European nobles tried to impose a feudal system like the one they knew in the new kingdom. Thus, the conquered land was divided into various lordships, in which Muslims were the main peasant workforce. They were joined by a few newly arrived Christians, as well as resettled populations of Armenians and Greeks and some Jews. The members of this diverse group became vassals of the nobles, who in turn were vassals of the king of Jerusalem.
However, the crusaders quickly realized that European feudalism could not be mechanically implemented in the new state. Land suitable for agriculture was scarce and the arid climate prevented high production in many areas. In fact, the economic life of the region had always revolved around cities and commercial exchanges. Therefore, unlike in Europe, almost all of the nobility lived in Jerusalem, close to the court, as well as the high hierarchies of the Church and military orders.
This fact conditioned the king’s actions and contributed to making the atmosphere even conspiratorial. The institution that reflected the power of the nobility was the High Court of Jerusalem, in which the bishops were also present. The High Court confirmed the succession of the new monarchs and the necessary regencies.
Created at the beginning of the 12th century, it was presided over by the king, but he could not manage it as he pleased. It was impossible for him to govern if he did not have support within him, so he was forced to make agreements at all times.
In reality, this body merely reflected the great autonomy enjoyed by the nobility in the Holy Land, greater than that enjoyed in Europe. The nobles and military orders owned enormous and effective castles, unparalleled in the West, due to the fact that they were built with explicitly defensive criteria. They were fortresses that were difficult to conquer not only by the Saracens, but also by the forces of the king himself and other nobles.
Often the nobility acted independently of the sovereign, breaking, for example, the foreign policy designed by him. A dramatic example is the attack that Renaud de Châtillon launched from his castles on the Jordan River against the pilgrims on their way to Mecca, which aroused the wrath of Saladin. The offensive, contrary to the wishes of Baldwin IV, sparked wars that ultimately ended the Crusader presence in the region.
The Church also tried to maintain its autonomy from royalty, thanks to the political and economic support that came directly from Rome. However, the patriarch of Jerusalem, the highest religious authority of the kingdom, frequently made pacts with the monarchy. In this case, the kings had an ace up their sleeve: the protection they could provide to the Eastern Christians and Greeks to counteract the Catholic weight.
Finally, equally problematic were the relations of the monarchs with the orders of chivalry. They had their own armies. There was no other option but to agree and give in with them, trying to channel their aggressiveness towards the Muslims, even if it was sometimes counterproductive from a political point of view.
All the internal tensions that bled the kingdom throughout its existence were transferred to the High Court. As a result of the conflicts, the functioning of the institution was sometimes completely paralyzed, leaving decision-making suspended and contributing to the decline of the kingdom.
The main problem of the state was its depopulation, something especially serious in the case of a kingdom that wanted to establish itself as the center of Christianity. The capital, furthermore, had been devastated after its conquest. Without residents there was no economic activity that would attract more inhabitants.
Given the difficulty in convincing European peasants to leave their fertile lands to cultivate other poorer ones surrounded by enemies, it was decided to keep the local population (mostly Muslim) in the countryside and efforts were concentrated in the cities.
Pilgrims were an important asset, but most travelers returned home after fulfilling their spiritual objective. This eventual nature contained the formation of a stable population and a standing army.
It was not easy to attract nobles either. The crusaders who arrived over the following decades, with their indiscipline, were often more of a harm than a help.
The military orders were quite the opposite: they provided logistical support (surveillance of routes, aid to pilgrims, demand for regular supplies from Europe…) and a large and elite military force with the will to remain. However, with the exception of a few leaders, most of its members lived in castles far from the capital.
The solution to repopulate Jerusalem materialized through several measures. The first was to invite to Jerusalem all the Armenian, Syrian and Orthodox Christians who lived scattered throughout the Crusader domains. They were given a house and advantages to settle in, facilitating their dedication to a trade or craft. The marriage of European pilgrims with local women was also encouraged.
Italian merchants were another source of inhabitants. They were given neighborhoods in different cities and were responsible for carrying the weight of commercial traffic between Europe, Byzantium and the Holy Land. In fact, trade quickly became the pillar of the economy of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the other crusader states. Silk, spices, sugar, fine crafts, precious stones… began to flow towards Europe, bringing benefits to both merchants and the kingdom’s coffers. By the middle of the 12th century the city had recovered the 30,000 inhabitants it had in the Islamic period.
With the profits, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was able to hire mercenaries when it was short of troops and reinforce its network of castles and defenses. The permanent state of war required a much greater investment in this field than could be needed in Europe. In fact, during its heyday in the middle of the 12th century, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was the one that collected the most taxes and, therefore, the most prosperous in Christendom.
The revision of militant Christian history changed the approach to the crusades. Since the 19th century, it became clear that after the conquest of the Holy Land there were also interests that had nothing to do with Christianity, interests for which massacres, rapes and other crimes were committed in the name of Christ. Romanticism recovered the taste and fascination for the oriental, and thus there was a progressive vindication of the Muslim cause.
Over the past few decades, this self-critical approach has continued to predominate and has even been carried over to cinema. However, although it reflects reality better than the apologetic vision of the crusades, it has fallen into other types of clichés. Thus, a myth has been coined around Saladin and other Arab knights that presents them as cultured and refined, capable of fighting with the pen and sword, respectful with ladies, noble in combat… In front of them emerge the Christian fanatics, the fierce members of the military orders, the crude, dirty, ugly and arrogant crusaders, of which the Templars would surely be the most abhorrent.
Of course, the testimonies of the time corroborate that fanaticism and tolerance, cruelty and compassion, massacres, betrayals, bravery and dedication coexisted on both sides. The Muslim or Christian gentleman used to be capable of both composing a beautiful poem and praying fervently and cutting off heads without flinching or appealing to divine will. As history demonstrates, neither manners nor sensitivity necessarily relegate wild behavior.
This text is part of an article published in number 533 of the magazine Historia y Vida. Do you have something to contribute? Write to us at redaccionhyv@historiayvida.com.
