FANDOM


|conventional_long_name = Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem}}

Regnum Hierosolimitanum
Roiaume de Jherusalem
Regno di Gerusalemme
Βασίλειον τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων
مملكة بيت المقدس
ממלכת ירושלים
Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem
30px
1099–1291 30px
Flag Coat of arms
Flag Coat of arms
The kingdom of Jerusalem and the other Crusader states in the context of the Near East in 1135.
Capital Jerusalem (1099–1187)
Tyre (1187–1191)
Acre (1191–1229)
Jerusalem (1229–1244)
Acre (1244–1291)
Language(s) Latin, Old French, Italian (also Arabic and Greek)
Religion Roman Catholicism (official), Greek Orthodoxy, Syrian Orthodoxy, Islam, Judaism
Government Monarchy
King
 - 1100–1118 Baldwin I
 - 1118–1131 Baldwin II
 - 1131–1152 Melisende
- with Fulk 1131–1143
 - 1143-1152-1162 Baldwin III
 - 1162–1174 Amalric I
 - 1174–1185 Baldwin IV
Legislature Haute Cour
Historical era High Middle Ages
 - First Crusade 1099
 - Second Crusade 1145
 - Siege of Jerusalem 1187
 - Third Crusade 1189
 - Treaty of Ramla 1191
 - Capture of Acre 1291
This article is about the Christian kingdom. For the history of the city, see History of Jerusalem and Jerusalem in Christianity

The Kingdom of Jerusalem was a Christian kingdom established in the Levant in 1099 after the First Crusade. It lasted nearly two hundred years, from 1099 until 1291 when the last remaining possession, Acre, was destroyed by the Mamluks.

At first the kingdom was little more than a loose collection of towns and cities captured during the crusade. Later kings expanded its size so that at its height in the mid-12th century, the kingdom roughly encompassed the territory of modern-day Israel, Lebanon, and the Palestinian territories. It extended from Lebanon in the north to the Sinai Desert in the south, and into modern Jordan and Syria in the east. There were attempts to expand the kingdom into Fatimid Egypt. Its kings held a certain amount of authority over the other crusader states: Tripoli, Antioch, and Edessa.

Many customs and institutions were imported from the crusaders' original homelands in Western Europe, and there were close familial and political connections with the West throughout the kingdom's existence. As a relatively minor kingdom it often lacked financial and military support from Europe. The kingdom had closer ties to the neighbouring Kingdom of Armenia and the Byzantine Empire, from which it inherited oriental qualities, as well as being influenced by pre-existing Eastern institutions. Socially, the Frankish inhabitants were dominant and the Muslims and eastern Christians were a marginalized lower class.

At first the Muslim world held little concern for the fledgling kingdom, but as the 12th century progressed, the kingdom's Muslim neighbours were united by Nur ad-Din Zangi and Saladin, who vigorously began to recapture lost territory. Jerusalem itself was lost to Saladin in 1187, and by the 13th century the Kingdom was reduced to a few cities along the Mediterranean coast. In this period, the kingdom, sometimes referred to as the "Kingdom of Acre", was ruled by the Lusignan dynasty of the crusader Kingdom of Cyprus, and ties were strengthened with Tripoli, Antioch, and Armenia. The kingdom was soon increasingly dominated by the Italian city-states of Venice and Genoa, as well as the imperial ambitions of the Holy Roman Emperors. The kingdom became little more than a pawn in the politics and warfare of the Ayyubid and Mamluk dynasties in Egypt, as well as the Khwarezmian and Mongol invaders. The Mamluk sultans Baibars and al-Ashraf Khalil eventually reconquered all the remaining crusader strongholds, culminating in the destruction of Acre in 1291.

HistoryEdit

The First Crusade and the foundation of the kingdomEdit

Ana madde: First Crusade

The First Crusade was preached at the Council of Clermont in 1095 by Pope Urban II, with the goal of assisting the Byzantine Empire against the invasions of the Seljuk Turks. The participants soon decided that their main objective was to liberate the Holy Land. The kingdom itself came into being with the arrival of the crusaders in June 1099; a few of the neighbouring towns (Ramla, Lydda, Bethlehem, and others) were taken first, and Jerusalem itself was captured on July 15.[1] There was immediately a dispute among the various leaders as to who would rule the newly-conquered territory, the two most worthy candidates being Godfrey of Bouillon, Duke of Lower Lorraine, and Raymond of St. Gilles, Count of Toulouse. Neither wished to be crowned king in the city where Christ had worn his crown of thorns; Raymond was perhaps attempting to show his piety and hoped that the other nobles would insist upon his election anyway, but Godfrey, the more popular of the two, did no damage to his own piety by accepting a position as secular leader with an unknown or ill-defined title.[2] With the election of Godfrey on July 22, Raymond, incensed, took his army to forage away from the city. The foundation of the kingdom, as well as Godfrey's reputation, was secured with the defeat of the Fatimid Egyptian army under al-Afdal Shahanshah at the Battle of Ascalon one month after the conquest, on August 12. Raymond and Godfrey's continued antagonism prevented the crusaders from taking control of Ascalon itself.[3]

There was still some uncertainty as to the nature of the new kingdom. The papal legate Daimbert of Pisa convinced Godfrey to hand over Jerusalem to him as Latin Patriarch, forming the basis for a theocratic state. According to William of Tyre, Godfrey may have supported Daimbert's efforts, and he agreed to take possession of "one or two other cities and thus enlarge the kingdom" if Daimbert were permitted to rule Jerusalem.[4] During his short reign, Godfrey indeed increased the boundaries of the kingdom, by capturing Jaffa, Haifa, Tiberias, and other cities, and reducing many others to tributary status. He set the foundations for the system of vassalage in the kingdom, including the Principality of Galilee and the County of Jaffa.

The path for a secular state was set during Godfrey's rule, and when Godfrey died of an illness in 1100, his brother Baldwin of Boulogne successfully outmanoeuvered Daimbert and claimed Jerusalem for himself as a secular "king of the Latins of Jerusalem". Daimbert compromised by crowning Baldwin in Bethlehem rather than Jerusalem, but the path for a secular state had been laid.[5] Within this secular framework, a Catholic church hierarchy was established, overtop of the local Eastern Orthodox and Syrian Orthodox authorities, who retained their own hierarchies. Under the Latin Patriarch there were four suffragan archdioceses and numerous dioceses.[6]

ExpansionEdit

During Baldwin's reign the kingdom expanded even further. The numbers of Latin inhabitants increased, as the minor crusade of 1101 brought reinforcements to the kingdom. He repopulated Jerusalem with Franks and native Christians, after his expedition across the Jordan in 1115.[7] With help from the Italian city-states and other adventurers, notably King Sigurd I of Norway, Baldwin captured the port cities of Acre (1104), Beirut (1110), and Sidon (1111), while exerting his suzerainty over the other Crusader states to the north – the County of Edessa (which he had founded), the Principality of Antioch, and, after Tripoli was captured in 1109, the County of Tripoli. He successfully defended against Muslim invasions, from the Fatimids at the numerous battles at Ramla and elsewhere in the southwest of the kingdom, and from Damascus and Mosul at the Battle of al-Sannabra in the northeast in 1113.[8] As Thomas Madden says, Baldwin was "the true founder of the kingdom of Jerusalem", who "had transformed a tenuous arrangement into a solid feudal state. With brilliance and diligence, he established a strong monarchy, conquered the Palestinian coast, reconciled the crusader barons, and built strong frontiers against the kingdom's Muslim neighbours."[9] The kingdom would never overcome its geographic isolation from Europe. For almost its entire history it was confined to the narrow strip of land between the Mediterranean and the Jordan River; land beyond this was subject to constant raiding and warfare. The kingdom's population centres could easily be isolated from each other in the event of a major invasion, which led to the kingdom's downfall in the 1180s.

Baldwin brought with him an Armenian wife, traditionally named Arda (although never named such by contemporaries), whom he had married to gain political support from the Armenian population in Edessa, and whom he quickly set aside when he found that he had no need of Armenian support in Jerusalem. He bigamously married Adelaide del Vasto, regent of Sicily, in 1113, but was convinced to divorce her as well in 1117; Adelaide's son from her first marriage, Roger II of Sicily, never forgave Jerusalem, and for decades withheld much-needed Sicilian naval support.[10]

Baldwin died without heirs in 1118, during a campaign against Egypt, and the kingdom was offered to his brother Eustace III of Boulogne, who had accompanied Baldwin and Godfrey on the crusade, but he was uninterested. Instead the crown passed to Baldwin's relative, probably a cousin, Baldwin of Le Bourg, who had previously succeeded him as Count of Edessa. Baldwin II was an able ruler, and he too successfully defended against Fatimid and Seljuk invasions. Although Antioch was severely weakened after the Battle of Ager Sanguinis in 1119, and Baldwin himself was held captive by the emir of Aleppo from 1122–1124, Baldwin led the crusader states to victory at the Battle of Azaz in 1125. His reign saw the establishment of the first military orders, the Knights Hospitaller and the Knights Templar. The earliest surviving written laws of the kingdom were compiled at the Council of Nablus in 1120, and the first commercial treaty with Venice, the Pactum Warmundi, was written in 1124; the increase of naval and military support from Venice led to capture of Tyre that year. The influence of Jerusalem was further extended over Edessa and Antioch, where Baldwin II acted as regent when their own leaders were killed in battle, although there were regency governments in Jerusalem as well during Baldwin's captivity.[11] Baldwin was married to the Armenian princess Morphia of Melitene, and had four daughters: Hodierna and Alice, who married into the families of the Count of Tripoli and Prince of Antioch; Ioveta, who became an influential abbess; and the eldest, Melisende, who was his heir and succeeded him upon his death in 1131, with her husband Fulk V of Anjou as king-consort. Their son, the future Baldwin III, was named co-heir by his grandfather.[12]

Edessa, Damascus, and the Second CrusadeEdit

Ana madde: Second Crusade

Fulk was an experienced crusader, who had brought military support to the kingdom during a pilgrimage in 1120. He brought Jerusalem into the sphere of the Angevin Empire, as the father of Geoffrey V of Anjou and grandfather of the future Henry II of England. Not everyone appreciated the imposition of a foreigner as king. In 1132 Antioch, Tripoli, and Edessa all asserted their independence and conspired to prevent Fulk from exercising the suzerainty of Jerusalem over them. He defeated Tripoli in battle, and settled the regency in Antioch by arranging a marriage between the countess, Melisende's niece Constance, and his own relative Raymond of Poitiers.[13] Meanwhile, in Jerusalem, the native crusader nobles opposed Fulk's preference for his Angevin retinue. In 1134 Hugh II of Jaffa revolted against Fulk, allying with the Muslim garrison at Ascalon, for which he was convicted of treason in absentia. The Latin Patriarch intervened to settle the dispute, but an assassination attempt was then made on Hugh, for which Fulk was blamed. This scandal allowed Melisende and her supporters to gain control of the government, just as her father had intended.[14] Accordingly, Fulk "became so uxorious that...not even in unimportant cases did he take any measures without her knowledge and assistance."[15]

Fulk was then faced with a new and more dangerous enemy: the Atabeg Zengi of Mosul, who had taken control of Aleppo and had set his sights on Damascus as well; the union of these three states would have been a serious blow to the growing power of Jerusalem. A brief intervention in 1137–1138 by the Byzantine emperor John II Comnenus, who wished to assert imperial suzerainty over all the crusader states, did nothing to stop the threat of Zengi; in 1139 Damascus and Jerusalem recognized the severity of the threat to both states, and an alliance was concluded which halted Zengi's advance. Fulk used this time to construct numerous castles, including Ibelin and Kerak.[16] After the death of both Fulk and Emperor John in separate hunting accidents in 1143, Zengi successfully invaded and conquered Edessa in 1144. Queen Melisende, now regent for her elder son Baldwin III, appointed a new constable, Manasses of Hierges, to head the army after Fulk's death, but Edessa could not be recaptured, despite Zengi's own assassination in 1146.[17] The fall of Edessa shocked Europe, and a Second Crusade arrived in 1148.

After meeting in Acre in June, the crusading kings Louis VII of France and Conrad III of Germany agreed with Melisende, Baldwin III and the major nobles of the kingdom to attack Damascus. Zengi's territory had been divided amongst his sons after his death, and Damascus no longer felt threatened, so an alliance had been made with Zengi's son Nur ad-Din, the emir of Aleppo. Perhaps remembering attacks launched on Jerusalem from Damascus in previous decades, Damascus seemed to be the best target for the crusade, rather than Aleppo or another city to the north which would have allowed for the recapture of Edessa. The subsequent Siege of Damascus was a complete failure; when the city seemed to be on the verge of collapse, the crusader army suddenly moved against another section of the walls, and were driven back. The crusaders retreated within three days. There were rumours of treachery and bribery, and Conrad III felt betrayed by the nobility of Jerusalem. Whatever the reason for the failure, the French and German armies returned home, and a few years later Damascus was firmly under Nur ad-Din's control.[18] With Syria in the east now united, the kingdom's attention was turned towards the much weaker Fatimid Egypt in the west.
Dosya:Manuelcomnenus.jpg

Civil warEdit

The failure of the Second Crusade had dire long-term consequences for the kingdom. The West was hesitant to send large-scale expeditions; for the next few decades, only small armies came, headed by minor European nobles who desired to make a pilgrimage. The Muslim states of Syria were meanwhile gradually united by Nur ad-Din, who defeated the Principality of Antioch at the Battle of Inab in 1149 and gained control of Damascus in 1154. Nur ad-Din was extremely pious and during his rule the concept of jihad came to be interpreted as a kind of counter-crusade against the kingdom, which was an impediment to Muslim unity, both political and spiritual.[19]

In Jerusalem, the crusaders were distracted by a conflict between Melisende and Baldwin III. Melisende continued to rule as regent long after Baldwin came of age. She was supported by, among others, Manasses of Hierges, who essentially governed for her as constable, her son Amalric, whom she set up as Count of Jaffa, Philip of Milly, and the Ibelin family. Baldwin asserted his independence by mediating disputes in Antioch and Tripoli, and gained the support of the Ibelin brothers when they began to oppose Manasses growing power, thanks to his marriage to their widowed mother Helvis of Ramla. In 1153 Baldwin had himself crowned as sole ruler, and a compromise was reached by which the kingdom was divided in two, with Baldwin taking Acre and Tyre in the north and Melisende remaining in control of Jerusalem and the cities of the south. Baldwin was able to replace Manasses with one of his own supporters, Humphrey II of Toron. Baldwin and Melisende knew that this situation was untenable. Baldwin soon invaded his mother's possessions, defeated Manasses, and besieged his mother in the Tower of David in Jerusalem. Melisende surrendered and retired to Nablus, but Baldwin appointed her his regent and chief advisor, and she retained some of her influence, especially in appointing ecclesiastical officials.[20] In 1153, Baldwin launched an offensive against Ascalon, the fortress in the south from which Fatimid Egyptian armies had continually raided Jerusalem since the foundation of the kingdom. The fortress was captured and was added to the County of Jaffa, still in the possession of his brother Amalric.[21]

Byzantine alliance and invasion of EgyptEdit

With the capture of Ascalon the southern border of the kingdom was now secure, and Egypt, which had formerly been a major threat to the kingdom but was now destabilized under the reign of several underaged caliphs, was reduced to a tributary state. Nur ad-Din remained a threat in the east, and Baldwin had to contend with the advances of Byzantine emperor Manuel I Comnenus, who claimed suzerainty over the Principality of Antioch. In order to bolster the defences of the kingdom against the growing strength of the Muslims, Baldwin III made the first direct alliance with the Byzantine Empire, by marrying Theodora Comnena, a niece of emperor Manuel; Manuel married Baldwin's cousin Maria.[22] As crusade historian William of Tyre put it, it was hoped that Manuel would be able "to relieve from his own abundance the distress under which our realm was suffering and to change our poverty into superabundance".[23]

When Baldwin died childless in 1162, a year after his mother Melisende, the kingdom passed to his brother Amalric I, who renewed the alliance negotiated by Baldwin. In 1163 the chaotic situation in Egypt led to a refusal to pay tribute to Jerusalem, and requests were sent to Nur ad-Din for assistance; in response, Amalric invaded, but was turned back when the Egyptians flooded the Nile at Bilbeis. The Egyptian vizier Shawar again requested help from Nur ad-Din, who sent his general Shirkuh, but Shawar quickly turned against him and allied with Amalric. Amalric and Shirkuh both besieged Bilbeis in 1164, but both withdrew due to Nur ad-Din's campaigns against Antioch, where Bohemond III of Antioch and Raymond III of Tripoli were defeated at the Battle of Harim. There seemed every chance that Antioch itself would fall to Nur ad-Din. Emperor Manuel immediately sent a large Byzantine force to the area, and Nur ad-Din retreated. Manuel paid the ransom to release Bohemond from captivity. Neither Amalric nor Nur ad-Din could ignore Egypt. Shirkuh was sent back to Egypt in 1166 and Shawar again allied with Amalric, whom was defeated at the Battle of al-Babein. Despite the defeat both sides withdrew but Shawar remained in control with a crusader garrison in Cairo.[24] Amalric cemented his alliance with Manuel by marrying Manuel's niece Maria Komnene in 1167, and an embassy led by William of Tyre was sent to Constantinople to negotiate a military expedition, but in 1168 Amarlic pillaged Bilbeis without waiting for the naval support promised by Manuel. Amalric accomplished nothing else, but his actions prompted Shawar to switch sides and seek help from Shirkuh. Shawar was promptly assassinated, and when Shirkuh died in 1169, he was succeeded by his nephew Yusuf, better known as Saladin. That year, Manuel sent a large Byzantine fleet of some 300 ships to assist Amalric, and the town of Damietta was placed under siege. Due to a failure of the Crusaders and the Byzantines to cooperate fully a chance to capture Egypt was lost. The Byzantine fleet sailed only with enough provisions for three months. By the time that the crusaders were ready supplies were already running out and the fleet retired. Each side sought to blame the other for failure, but both knew that they depended on each other: the alliance was maintained, and plans for another campaign in Egypt were made, which ultimately were to come to naught.[25]

In the end, Nur ad-Din was victorious and Saladin established himself as Sultan of Egypt. Saladin soon began to assert his independence from Nur ad-Din, and with the death of both Amalric and Nur ad-Din in 1174, he was well-placed to begin exerting control over Nur ad-Din's Syrian possessions as well.[26] With the death of the pro-western Emperor Manuel in 1180, the Kingdom of Jerusalem lost its most powerful ally.

Baldwin IV and the succession crisisEdit

Dosya:Salah ad-Din Jusuf ibn Ajub.jpg

Amalric was succeeded by his young son, Baldwin IV, who was discovered at a very young age to be a leper. The subsequent events have often been interpreted as a struggle between two opposing factions, the "court party", made up of Baldwin's mother, Amalric's first wife Agnes of Courtenay, her immediate family, and recent arrivals from Europe who were inexperienced in the affairs of the kingdom and who were in favour of war with Saladin; and the "noble party", led by Raymond of Tripoli and the lesser nobility of the kingdom, who favoured peaceful co-existence with the Muslims. This is the interpretation offered by William of Tyre, who was firmly placed in the "noble" camp, and his view was taken up by all subsequent historians; in the 20th century, Marshall W. Baldwin[27], Steven Runciman[28], and Hans E. Mayer[29] were influential in perpetuating this interpretation. Peter W. Edbury argued that William, as well as the thirteenth-century authors who continued William's chronicle in French and were allied to Raymond's supporters in the Ibelin family, cannot be considered impartial.[30] Although the events were clearly a dynastic struggle, "the division was not between native barons and newcomers from the West, but between the king's maternal and paternal kin."[31]

Miles of Plancy was briefly bailli or regent during Baldwin IV's minority. Miles was assassinated in October, 1174, and Count Raymond III of Tripoli, Amalric's first cousin, became regent. It is highly probable that Raymond or his supporters engineered the assassination.[32] Baldwin reached his majority in 1176, and despite his illness he no longer had any legal need for a regent. Since Raymond was his nearest relative in the male line, with a strong claim to the throne, there was concern about the extent of his ambitions, although he had no direct heirs of his own. To balance this, the king turned from time to time to his uncle, Joscelin III of Edessa, who was appointed seneschal after he was ransomed in 1176; Joscelin was his closest male relative, but had no claim to the throne himself.[33]

As a leper Baldwin could have no children and could not be expected to rule much longer so the focus of his succession passed to his sister Sibylla and his younger half-sister Isabella. Baldwin and his advisors recognised that it was essential for Sibylla to be married to a Western nobleman in order to access support from Europe in a military crisis; while Raymond was still regent, a marriage was arranged for Sibylla and William of Montferrat, a cousin of Louis VII and of Frederick Barbarossa. It was hoped that by allying with a relative of the emperor, Frederick would come to the kingdom's aid.[34] Jerusalem looked again towards the Byzantine Empire for help, and Emperor Manuel was looking for a way to restore his empire's prestige after his defeat at the Battle of Myriokephalon in 1176; this mission was undertaken by Raynald of Châtillon, who, like Joscelin of Edessa, had recently been released from Muslim captivity.[35] After William of Montferrat arrived in 1176, he fell ill and died in June 1177, leaving Sibylla widowed and pregnant with the future Baldwin V. Raynald was then named regent.[36]

Soon afterwards, Philip of Flanders arrived in Jerusalem on pilgrimage; he was Baldwin IV's cousin, and the king offered him the regency and command of the army, both of which Philip refused, although he objected to the appointment of Raynald as regent. Philip then attempted to intervene in the negotiations for Sibylla's second husband, and suggested one of his own retinue, but the native barons refused his suggestion. In addition, Philip seemed to think he could carve out a territory of his own in Egypt, but he refused to participate with the planned Byzantine-Jerusalem expedition. The expedition was delayed and finally cancelled, and Philip took his army away to the north.[37]

Most of the army of Jerusalem marched north with Philip, Raymond III, and Bohemond III to attack Hama, and Saladin took the opportunity to invade the kingdom. Baldwin proved to be an effective and energetic king as well as being a brilliant military commander: he defeated Saladin at the Battle of Montgisard in September 1177 despite being greatly outnumbered and having to rely on a levee-en-masse. Although Baldwin's presence despite illness was inspirational, the military decisions were made by Raynald.[38]

Hugh III of Burgundy was expected to come to Jerusalem and marry Sibylla, but Hugh was unable to come to the east due to the political unrest in France in 1179–1180 following the death of Louis VII. Meanwhile, Baldwin IV's stepmother Maria, mother of Isabella and stepmother of Sibylla, married Balian of Ibelin. At Easter in 1180, Raymond and his cousin Bohemond III of Antioch attempted to force Sibylla to marry Balian's brother Baldwin of Ibelin. Raymond and Bohemond were King Baldwin's nearest male relatives in the paternal line, and could have claimed the throne if the king died without an heir or a suitable replacement. Before Raymond and Bohemond arrived, Agnes and King Baldwin arranged for Sibylla to be married to a Poitevin newcomer, Guy of Lusignan, whose older brother Amalric of Lusignan was already an established figure at court.[39] Internationally, the Lusignans were useful as vassals of Baldwin and Sibylla's cousin Henry II of England. Baldwin betrothed eight-year-old Isabella to Humphrey IV of Toron, stepson of the powerful Raynald of Châtillon, thereby removing her from the influence of the Ibelin family and her mother.[40]

The dispute between the two factions in the kingdom affected the election of a new Patriarch in 1180. When Patriarch Amalric died on 6 October 1180, the two most obvious choices for his successor were William of Tyre and Heraclius of Caesarea. They were fairly evenly matched in background and education, but politically they were allied with opposite parties, as Heraclius was one of Agnes of Courtenay's supporters. The canons of the Holy Sepulchre asked the king for advice, and Heraclius was chosen through Agnes' influence. There were rumours that Agnes and Heraclius were lovers, but this information comes from the partisan 13th-century continuations of William of Tyre's history, and there is no other evidence to substantiate such a claim.[41]

At the end of 1181, Raynald of Châtillon raided south into Arabia, in the direction of Medina, although he did not make it that far. It was probably around this time that Raynald attacked a Muslim caravan. The kingdom had a truce with Saladin at the time, and Raynald's actions have been seen as an independent act of brigandage; it is possible that he was trying to prevent Saladin from moving his forces north to take control of Aleppo, which would have made strengthened Saladin.[42] In response to this, Saladin attacked the kingdom in 1182, but was defeated. King Baldwin, although quite ill, was still able to command the army in person. Saladin attempted to besiege Beirut from land and sea, and Baldwin raided Damascene territory, but neither side did significant damage. In December 1182, Raynald launched a naval expedition on the Red Sea, which made it as far south as Rabigh. The expedition was defeated and two of Raynald's men were actually taken to Mecca to be executed in public. Like his earlier raids, Raynald's expedition is usually seen as selfish and ultimately fatal for Jerusalem, but it was actually shrewd strategy, meant to damage Saladin's prestige and reputation.[43]

In 1183 a general tax was levied throughout the kingdom, which was unprecedented in Jerusalem and almost all of medieval Europe to that point. It helped pay for larger armies for the next few years. More troops were certainly needed, since Saladin was finally able to gain control of Aleppo, and with peace in the north he could focus on Jerusalem in the south. King Baldwin was so incapacitated by his leprosy that it was necessary to appoint a regent, and Guy of Lusignan was chosen, as he was Baldwin's legal heir and the king was not expected to live. The inexperienced Guy led the Frankish army against Saladin's incursions into the kingdom, but neither side made any real gains, and Guy was criticized by his opponents for not striking against Saladin when he had the chance.[44]

In October 1183 Isabella married Humphrey of Toron at Kerak, during a siege by Saladin, who perhaps hoped to take some valuable prisoners. As King Baldwin, although now blind and crippled, had recovered enough to resume his reign and his command of the army, Guy was removed from the regency and his five-year-old son, King Baldwin's nephew and namesake Baldwin, was crowned as co-king in November. King Baldwin himself then went to relieve the castle, carried on a litter, and attended by his mother. He was reconciled with Raymond of Tripoli and appointed him military commander. The siege was lifted in December and Saladin retreated to Damascus.[45] Saladin attempted another siege in 1184, but Baldwin repelled that attack as well, and Saladin raided Nablus and other towns on the way home.[46]

In October 1184, Guy of Lusignan led an attack on the Bedouin nomads from his base in Ascalon. Unlike Raynald's attacks on caravans, which may have had some military purpose, Guy attacked a group that was usually loyal to Jerusalem and provided intelligence about the movements of Saladin's troops. At the same time, King Baldwin contracted his final illness and Raymond of Tripoli, rather than Guy, was appointed as his regent. His nephew Baldwin was paraded in public, wearing his crown as Baldwin V. Baldwin IV finally succumbed to his leprosy in May 1185.[47]

Meanwhile, the succession crisis had prompted a mission to the west to seek assistance. In 1184, Patriarch Heraclius travelled throughout the courts of Europe, but no help was forthcoming. Heraclius offered the "keys of the Holy Sepulchre, those of the Tower of David and the banner of the Kingdom of Jerusalem", but not the crown itself, to both Philip II of France and Henry II of England; the latter, as a grandson of Fulk, was a first cousin of the royal family of Jerusalem, and had promised to go on crusade after the murder of Thomas Becket. Both kings preferred to remain at home to defend their own territories, rather than act as regent for a child in Jerusalem. The few European knights who did travel to Jerusalem did not even see any combat, since the truce with Saladin had been re-established. William V of Montferrat was one of the few who came to his grandson Baldwin V's aid.[48]

Baldwin V's rule, with Raymond of Tripoli as regent and his great-uncle Joscelin of Edessa as his guardian, was short. He was a sickly child and died in the summer of 1186. Raymond and his supporters went to Nablus, presumably in an attempt to prevent Sibylla from claiming the throne, but Sibylla and her supporters went to Jerusalem, where it was decided that the kingdom should pass to her, on the condition that her marriage to Guy be annulled. She agreed but only if she could choose her own husband, and after being crowned, she immediately crowned Guy with her own hands. Raymond had refused to attend the coronation, and in Nablus he suggested that Isabella and Humphrey should be crowned instead, but Humphrey refused to agree to this plan which would have certainly started a civil war. Humphrey went to Jerusalem and swore allegiance to Guy and Sibylla, as did most of Raymond's other supporters. Raymond himself refused to do so and left for Tripoli; Baldwin of Ibelin also refused, gave up his fiefs, and left for Antioch.[49]

Loss of Jerusalem and the Third CrusadeEdit

Ana madde: Third Crusade
Dosya:Holy sepulchre exterior.jpg
Dosya:Crusader States 1190.svg

Raymond of Tripoli allied with Saladin against Guy and had allowed a Muslim garrison to occupy his fief in Tiberias, probably hoping that Saladin would help him overthrow Guy. Saladin, meanwhile, had pacified his Mesopotamian territories, and was now eager to attack the crusader kingdom; he did not intend to renew the truce when it expired in 1187. Before the truce expired, Raynald of Chatillon, the lord of Oultrejourdain and of Kerak and one of Guy's chief supporters, recognized that Saladin was massing his troops, and attacked Muslim caravans in an attempt to disrupt this. Guy was on the verge of attacking Raymond, but realized that the kingdom would need to be united in the face of the threat from Saladin, and Balian of Ibelin effected a reconciliation between the two during Easter in 1187. Saladin attacked Kerak again in April, and in May, a Muslim raiding party ran into the much smaller embassy on its way to negotiate with Raymond, and defeated it at the Battle of Cresson near Nazareth. Raymond and Guy finally agreed to attack Saladin at Tiberias, but could not agree on a proper plan of attack; Raymond thought a pitched battle should be avoided, but Guy probably remembered the criticism he faced for avoiding battle in 1183, and it was decided to march out against Saladin directly. On July 4, 1187, the army of the kingdom was utterly destroyed at the Battle of Hattin. Raymond of Tripoli, Balian of Ibelin, and Reginald of Sidon escaped, but Raynald was executed by Saladin and Guy was imprisoned in Damascus.[50]

Over the next few months Saladin easily overran the entire Kingdom, save for the port of Tyre, which was ably defended by Conrad of Montferrat, the paternal uncle of Baldwin V, who had coincidentally arrived just in time from Constantinople. The subsequent fall of Jerusalem essentially ended the first Kingdom of Jerusalem. Much of the population, swollen with refugees fleeing Saladin's conquest of the surrounding territory, was allowed to flee to Tyre, Tripoli, or Egypt (whence they were sent back to Europe), but those who could not pay for their freedom were sold into slavery, and those who could were often robbed by Christians and Muslims alike on their way into exile. The capture of the city shocked Europe, resulting in the Third Crusade, which was launched in 1189, led by Richard the Lionheart, Philip Augustus and Frederick Barbarossa, though the last drowned en route.[51]

Guy of Lusignan, who had been refused entry to Tyre by Conrad, began to besiege Acre in 1189. During the lengthy siege, which lasted until 1191, Patriarch Heraclius, Queen Sibylla and her daughters, and many others died of disease. With the death of Sibylla in 1190, Guy now had no legal claim to the kingship, and the succession passed to Isabella. Her mother Maria and the Ibelins (now closely allied to Conrad) argued that Isabella and Humphrey's marriage was illegal, as she had been underage at the time; underlying this was the fact that Humphrey had betrayed his wife's cause in 1186. The marriage was annulled amid some controversy. (The annulment followed the precedents of Amalric I and Agnes, and – though not carried out – Sibylla and Guy – of succession dependent on annulling a politically inconvenient match.) Conrad, who was nearest kinsman to Baldwin V in the male line, and had already proved himself a capable military leader, then married Isabella, but Guy refused to concede the crown.[52]

When Richard arrived in 1191, he and Philip took different sides in the succession dispute. Richard backed Guy, his vassal from Poitou, while Philip supported Conrad, a cousin of his late father Louis VII. After much ill-feeling and ill-health, Philip returned home in 1191, soon after the fall of Acre. Richard defeated Saladin at the Battle of Arsuf in 1191 and the Battle of Jaffa in 1192, recovering most of the coast, but could not recover Jerusalem or any of the inland territory of the kingdom. Conrad was unanimously elected king in April 1192, but was murdered by the Hashshashin only days later. Eight days later, the pregnant Isabella was married to Count Henry II of Champagne, nephew of Richard and Philip, but politically allied to Richard. As compensation, Guy was sold the island of Cyprus, which Richard had captured on the way to Acre, although Guy continued to claim the throne of Jerusalem until his death in 1194.[53]

The crusade came to an end peacefully, with the Treaty of Ramla negotiated in 1192; Saladin allowed pilgrimages to be made to Jerusalem, allowing the crusaders to fulfill their vows, after which they all returned home. The native crusader barons set about rebuilding their kingdom from Acre and the other coastal cities. Shortly after Richard left, Saladin died and his realm fell into civil war.

The Kingdom of AcreEdit

For the next hundred years, the Kingdom of Jerusalem clung to life as a tiny kingdom hugging the Syrian coastline. Its capital was moved to Acre and controlled most of the coastline of present day Israel and southern and central Lebanon, including the strongholds and towns of Jaffa, Arsuf, Caesarea, Tyre, Sidon, and Beirut. At best, it included only a few other significant cities, such as Ascalon and some interior fortresses, as well as suzerainty over Tripoli and Antioch. The new king, Henry of Champagne, died accidentally in 1197, and Isabella married for a fourth time, to Amalric of Lusignan, Guy's brother. Both Isabella and Amalric died in 1205 and again an underage girl, Isabella and Conrad's daughter Maria of Montferrat, became queen of Jerusalem. Isabella's half-brother John of Ibelin, the Old Lord of Beirut governed as regent until 1210 when Maria married an experienced French knight, John of Brienne.[54] Maria died in childbirth in 1212, and John of Brienne continued to rule as regent for their daughter Isabella II.[55]

Dosya:Al-Kamil Muhammad al-Malik and Frederick II Holy Roman Emperor.jpg

Meanwhile, schemes were hatched to reconquer Jerusalem through Egypt. A Fourth Crusade was planned after the failure of the Third, but it resulted in the sack of Constantinople in 1204, and most of the crusaders involved never arrived in the kingdom. John of Brienne took part in the Fifth Crusade against Damietta in 1217, but this crusade was also a failure. John travelled throughout Europe seeking assistance, but found support only from Emperor Frederick II, who then married John and Maria's daughter Isabella II in 1225. Frederick II had reneged on his promise to lead the Fifth Crusade, and after continually delaying his departure for the Holy Land he was excommunicated in 1226. That year, Isabella also died giving birth to their son Conrad IV, who succeeded his mother to the throne although he never appeared in the east. Frederick finally arrived on the Sixth Crusade in 1228, and claimed the regency of the kingdom in the name of his infant son.[56]

The sheer size of Frederick II's army and his stature before the Islamic world was sufficient to regain Jerusalem, Bethlehem, Nazareth, and a number of surrounding castles without a fight: these were recovered by treaty with the Ayyubid Sultan Al-Kamil. However, he also came into conflict with the native nobles of Outremer, especially the regent John of Ibelin, whom Frederick demanded give up not only the regency but also John's own lordship of Beirut. The nobility resented his attempts to impose Imperial authority over their kingdom, which resulted in a number of confrontations both on the mainland and on Cyprus. Frederick, who was still under excommunication, was forced to return home in 1229, but sent an Imperial army in 1231, which occupied Beirut and Tyre. In response, the nobles in Acre organized themselves into a commune. With the help of the Genoese merchants, John attacked Tyre in 1232, and recaptured Beirut, but was defeated at the Battle of Casal Imbert. The Imperial army then reoccupied Tyre.[57]

Frederick remained regent for his son Conrad, and his representative in the east, Richard Filangieri, remained in control of Tyre and Jerusalem, while John of Ibelin and his supporters controlled the government in Acre. By 1242 Conrad was of age to rule alone, but as he never came to the east, Alice of Champagne, daughter of Henry of Champagne and Conrad's closest relative living in the kingdom, was chosen to rule as regent. Later in 1242 the Ibelins and the Italians recaptured Tyre from Filangieri. In 1244 the combined army of Cyprus and Jerusalem was defeated at the Battle of La Forbie, and Jerusalem was lost again to the Ayyubids and their Khwarezmian allies, recently displaced by the Mongols further to the east. The Khwarezmians completely razed Jerusalem, leaving it in ruins and useless to both Christians and Muslims. Alice died in 1246 and was replaced as regent by King Henry I of Cyprus, for whom John and his Ibelin relatives served as bailli in Acre. In 1249 Louis IX of France arrived on the Seventh Crusade, and although he did not interfere with the governance of the kingdom like Frederick II had, he was seen as the leader of the Christians and spent much of his time rebuilding the coastal cities. He accomplished little else except to effect a revolution in Egypt, in which the Ayyubids were overthrown by their Mamluk army in 1250. King Henry died in 1253.[58]

When Conrad died in 1254, his son Conradin inherited the kingdom, but he too never appeared in the east. His closest relative was Hugh II of Cyprus, who was himself a child, and Cyprus and Jerusalem were governed by Hugh II's mother Plaisance of Antioch, with John of Arsuf acting on her behalf as bailli in Acre. In 1256 the War of Saint Sabas erupted between Venetian and Genoese merchants in Acre; John of Arsur supported the Genoese, but his relative John of Jaffa supported the Venetians, who won the war in 1257. John of Arsuf died in 1258, and Plaisance in 1261. As Hugh II was still underage, Cyprus passed to his cousin Hugh of Antioch-Lusignan, whose mother Isabella, Hugh II's aunt, took over the regency in Acre, but she died in 1264. The regency in Acre was then claimed by Hugh of Antioch-Lusignan and his cousin Hugh of Brienne, and Hugh II died in 1267 before he reached the age of majority. Hugh of Antioch-Lusignan won the dispute and succeeded him as Hugh III of Cyprus. When Conradin was executed in Sicily in 1268, there was no other Hohenstaufen heir to succeed him, and Hugh III became king of Jerusalem as well in 1269. Meanwhile, the Ayyubids were essentially wiped out in a war with the Mongols, who captured Damascus in 1260, but later that year the Mongols were defeated by an army from Mamluk Egypt at the Battle of Ain Jalut; this saved Syria, Egypt, and the crusader cities from falling under Mongol control. The Mamluks appreciated crusader neutrality in the conflict, but the Mamluk sultan Baibars took advantage of this and began conquering the remaining crusader cities along the coast, including Jaffa and Antioch in 1268.[59]

Louis IX prepared another crusade in 1270, but it was diverted to Tunis, where Louis died; only a small force led by the future Edward I of England arrived in the east in 1271. Another dispute arose when Maria of Antioch, the granddaughter of Queen Isabella I, claimed to be Conradin's rightful heir, and sold her claim to the kingdom to Charles of Anjou, brother of Louis IX and king of Sicily (and who had executed Conradin). Charles sent Roger of San Severino to make his claim in Acre, while Hugh III retained control of Tyre. Hugh died in 1284 without regaining Acre. He was succeeded by his son John II, who died soon after in 1285, and was succeeded by his brother, Hugh III's other son Henry II. Henry was recognized as king in Acre by everyone except Charles of Anjou's representative, now Odo Poilechien, although he was driven out within a few months. However, the Mamluks captured Tripoli in 1289 and destroyed Acre in 1291, and the remaining Christian cities quickly fell as well.[60]


After Acre fell, the Crusaders moved their headquarters north to cities such as Tortosa, but lost that too, and were forced to relocate their headquarters offshore to Cyprus. Some naval raids and attempts to retake territory were made over the next ten years, but with the loss of the island of Arwad in 1302/1303, the Kingdom of Jerusalem ceased to exist on the mainland. The kings of Cyprus for many decades hatched plans to regain the Holy Land, but without success. For the next seven centuries, up to today, a veritable multitude of European monarchs have used the title of King of Jerusalem. See Kings of Jerusalem.

Life in the early kingdomEdit

Dosya:Jerusalem map.jpg

The Latin population of the kingdom was always small; although a steady stream of settlers and new crusaders continually arrived, most of the original crusaders who fought in the First Crusade simply went home. According to William of Tyre, "barely three hundred knights and two thousand foot soldiers could be found" in the kingdom in 1100 during Godfrey's siege of Arsuf.[61] From the very beginning, the Latins were little more than a colonial frontier exercising rule over the native Muslim, Greek and Syrian population, who were more populous in number. But Jerusalem came to be known as Outremer, the French word for "overseas", and as new generations grew up in the kingdom, they began to think of themselves as natives, rather than immigrants. Although they never gave up their core identity as Western Europeans or Franks, their clothing, diet, and commercialism integrated much Oriental, particularly Byzantine, influence. As the chronicler Fulcher of Chartres wrote around 1124,

"For we who were Occidentals now have been made Orientals. He who was a Roman or Frank has in this land been made into a Galilean or a Palestinean. He who was of Rheims or Chartres has now become a citizen of Tyre or Antioch. We have already forgotten the places of our birth; already these are unknown to many of us or not mentioned any more."[62]

The crusaders and their descendants often learned to speak Greek, Arabic, and other eastern languages, and intermarried with the native Christians (whether Greek, Syrian, or Armenian) and sometimes with converted Muslims.[63] Nonetheless, the Frankish principalities remained a distinctive Occidental colony in the heart of Islam.

Fulcher, a participant in the First Crusade and chaplain of Baldwin I, continued his chronicle up to 1127. Fulcher's chronicle was very popular and was used as a source by other historians in the west, such as Orderic Vitalis and William of Malmesbury. Almost as soon as Jerusalem had been captured, and continuing throughout the 12th century, many pilgrims arrived and left accounts of the new kingdom; among them are the English Saewulf, the Russian Abbot Daniel, the Frank Fretellus, the Byzantine Johannes Phocas, and the Germans John of Würzburg and Theoderich.[64] Aside from these, thereafter there is no eyewitness to events in Jerusalem until William of Tyre, archbishop of Tyre and chancellor of Jerusalem, who began writing around 1167 and died around 1184, although he includes much information about the First Crusade and the intervening years from the death of Fulcher to his own time, drawn mainly from the writings of Albert of Aix and Fulcher himself. From the Muslim perspective, a chief source of information is Usamah ibn Munqidh, a soldier and frequent ambassador from Damascus to Jerusalem and Egypt, whose memoirs, Kitab al i'tibar, include lively accounts of crusader society in the east. Further information can be gathered from travellers such as Benjamin of Tudela and Ibn Jubayr.

Crusader society and demographicsEdit

Dosya:Crusader coin Acre 1230.jpg
Dosya:Crusader coin Acre circa 1230.jpg

The Kingdom at first was virtually bereft of a loyal subject population and had few knights to implement the laws and orders of the realm. With the arrival of Italian trading firms, the creation of the military orders, and immigration by European knights, artisans, and farmers, the affairs of the Kingdom improved and a feudal society developed, similar to but distinct from the society the crusaders knew in Europe. The nature of this society has long been a subject of debate among crusade historians.

In the 19th and early 20th centuries, French scholars, such as E. G. Rey, Gaston Dodu, and René Grousset believed that the crusaders and the native Muslims and Christians lived in a totally integrated society. Ronnie Ellenblum claims this view was influenced by French imperialism and colonialism; if medieval French crusaders could integrate themselves into local society, then certainly modern French colonies in the Levant could thrive.[65] In the mid-20th century, scholars such as Joshua Prawer, R. C. Smail, Meron Benvenisti, and Claude Cahen argued instead that the crusaders lived totally segregated from the native inhabitants, who were thoroughly Arabicized and/or Islamicized and were a constant threat to the foreign crusaders. Prawer argued further that the kingdom was an early attempt at colonization, in which the crusaders were a small ruling class, who were dependent on the native population for survival but made no attempt to integrate with them.[66] For this reason, the rural European society to which the crusaders were accustomed was replaced by a more secure urban society in the pre-existing cities of the Levant.[67]

According to Ellenblum's interpretation the inhabitants of the Kingdom (Latin Christians living alongside native Greek and Syrian Christians, Shia and Sunni Arabs, Sufis, Bedouin, Turks, Druze, Jews, and Samaritans) all had major differences between each other as well as with the crusaders. Relations between eastern Christians and the Latin crusaders were "complex and ambiguous", not simply friendly or hostile. The Turks were the common enemy for everyone, as they were only very recent arrivals in the Levant, and although they had imposed their rule prior to the arrival of the crusaders, it is unlikely that they were thoroughly Islamicized as Prawer and others believed. The eastern Christians, at least, probably felt closer ties to their fellow Christian crusaders than to either Turkic overlords or Muslim Arabs.[68]

Although the crusaders came upon an ancient urban society, Ellenblum argues that they neither completely abandoned their rural European lifestyle, nor was European society completely rural to begin with. Crusader settlement in the Levant resembled the types of colonization and settlement that were already being practised in Europe, a mixture of urban and rural civilization centred around fortresses. The crusaders were neither totally integrated with the native population, nor did they segregate themselves in the cities away from the rural natives, but rather that they settled in both urban and rural areas; specifically, they settled in areas that had traditionally been inhabited by the eastern Christians. Areas that were traditionally Muslim had very little crusader settlement, just as they already had very few native Christian inhabitants.[69]

Into this mixed society the crusaders adapted existing institutions and introduced their own familiar customs from Europe. As in Europe the nobles had their own vassals and were themselves vassals to the king. Agricultural production was regulated by the iqta, a Muslim system of land ownership and payments roughly (though far from exactly) equivalent to the feudal system of Europe, and this system was not heavily disrupted by the crusaders.[70]

As Hans Mayer says, "the Muslim inhabitants of the Latin Kingdom hardly ever appear in the Latin chronicles", so information on their role in society is difficult to find. The crusaders "had a natural tendency to ignore these matters as simply without interest and certainly not worthy of record."[71] Although Muslims, as well as Jews and Eastern Christians, had virtually no rights in the countryside, where they were essentially the property of the crusader lord who owned the land[72], tolerance for other faiths was in general higher than that found elsewhere in the Middle East. Greeks, Syrians, and Jews continued to live as they had before, subject to their own laws and courts, with their former Muslim overlords simply replaced by the crusaders; Muslims now joined them at the lowest level of society. The ra'is, the leader of a Muslim or Syrian community, was a kind of vassal to whatever noble owned his land, but as the crusader nobles were absentee landlords the ra'is and their communities had a high degree of autonomy.[73]

In the cities, Muslims and Eastern Christians were free, although no Muslims were permitted to live in Jerusalem itself. They were second-class citizens and played no part in politics or law, and owed no military service to the crown, although in some cities they may have been the majority of the population. Likewise, citizens of the Italian city-states owed nothing as they lived in autonomous quarters in the port cities.[74]

There were an unknown number of Muslim slaves living in the Kingdom. There was a very large slave market in Acre which functioned throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Although Christians, both Western and Eastern, were by law prohibited from being sold into slavery, the native Christians were often indistinguishable from the Muslim population and the Italian merchants were sometimes accused of selling them along with Muslim slaves.[75] Slavery was less common than ransom, especially for prisoners of war; the large numbers of prisoners taken during raids and battles every year ensured that ransom money flowed freely between the Christian and Muslim states.[76] Escape for prisoners and slaves was probably not difficult, as the inhabitants of the countryside were majority Muslim, and fugitive slaves were always a problem. The only legal means of manumission was conversion to (Catholic) Christianity. No Christian, whether Western or Eastern, was permitted by law to be sold into slavery.[77]

The nomadic Bedouin tribes were considered to be the property of the king and under his protection. They could be sold or alienated just like any other property, and later in the 12th century they were often under the protection of a lesser noble or one of the military orders.[78]

PopulationEdit

It is impossible to give an accurate estimate of the population of the kingdom. Josiah Russell calculates that all of Syria had about 2.3 million people at the time of the crusades, with perhaps eleven thousand villages; most of these, of course, were outside of crusader rule even at the greatest extent of all four crusader states.[79] It has been estimated by scholars such as Joshua Prawer and Meron Benvenisti that there were at most 120,000 Franks and 100,000 Muslims living in the cities, with another 250,000 Muslim and Eastern Christian peasants in the countryside. The crusaders accounted for 15–25% of the total population.[80] Benjamin Z. Kedar estimates that there were between three hundred thousand and three hundred and sixty thousand non-Franks in the Kingdom, two hundred and fifty thousand of whom were villagers in the countryside, and "one may assume that Muslims were in the majority in some, possibly most parts of the kingdom of Jerusalem…"[81] As Ronnie Ellenblum points out, there simply is not enough existing evidence to accurately count the population and any estimate is inherently unreliable.[82] Contemporary chronicler William of Tyre recorded the census of 1183, which was intended to determine the number of men available to defend against an invasion, and to determine the amount of tax money that could be obtained from the inhabitants, Muslim or Christian. If the population was actually counted, William did not record the number.[83] In the 13th century, John of Ibelin drew up a list of fiefs and the number of knights owed by each, but this gives no indication of the non-noble, non-Latin population.

EconomyEdit

Dosya:Crusader coins of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.jpg

The urban composition of the area, combined with the presence of the Italian merchants, led to the development of an economy that was much more commercial than it was agricultural. Palestine had always been a crossroads for trade; now, this trade extended to Europe as well. European goods, such as the woolen textiles of northern Europe, made their way to the Middle East and Asia, while Asian goods were transported back to Europe. Jerusalem was especially involved in the silk, cotton and spice trade; other items that first appeared in Europe through trade with crusader Jerusalem included oranges and sugar, the latter of which chronicler William of Tyre called "very necessary for the use and health of mankind." In the countryside, wheat, barley, legumes, olives, grapes, and dates were grown. The Italian city-states made enormous profits from this trade, thanks to commercial treaties like the Pactum Warmundi, and it influenced their Renaissance in later centuries.

Jerusalem collected money through tribute payments, first from the coastal cities which had not yet been captured, and later from other neighbouring states such as Damascus and Egypt, which the crusaders could not conquer directly. After Baldwin I extended his rule over Oultrejordain, Jerusalem gained revenue from the taxation of Muslim caravans passing from Syria to Egypt or Arabia. The money economy of Jerusalem meant that their manpower problem could be partially solved by paying for mercenaries, an uncommon occurrence in medieval Europe. Mercenaries could be fellow European crusaders, or, perhaps more often, Muslim soldiers, including the famous Turcopoles.

EducationEdit

Jerusalem was the center of education in the kingdom. There was a school in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, where the basic skills of reading and writing Latin were taught[84]; the relative wealth of the merchant class meant that their children could be educated there along with the children of nobles – it is likely that William of Tyre was a classmate of future king Baldwin III. Higher education had to be undertaken at one of the universities in Europe[85]; the development of a university was impossible in the culture of crusader Jerusalem, where warfare was far more important than philosophy or theology. Nonetheless, the nobility and general Frankish population were noted for the high literacy: lawyers and clerks were in abundance, and the study of law, history, and other academic subjects was a beloved pastime of the royal family and the nobility.[86] Jerusalem had an extensive library not only of ancient and medieval Latin works but of Arabic literature, much of which was apparently captured from Usamah ibn Munqidh and his entourage after a shipwreck in 1154.[87] The Holy Sepulchre contained the kingdom's scriptorium and the city had a chancery where royal charters and other documents were produced. Aside from Latin, the standard written language of medieval Europe, the populace of crusader Jerusalem communicated in vernacular forms of French and Italian; Greek, Armenian, and even Arabic were used by Frankish settlers.

Art and architectureEdit

Dosya:KrakDesChevaliers.jpg

In Jerusalem itself the greatest architectural endeavour was the expansion of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in western Gothic style. This expansion consolidated all the separate shrines on the site into one building, and was completed by 1149. Outside of Jerusalem, castles and fortresses were the major focus of construction: Kerak and Montreal in Oultrejordain and Ibelin near Jaffa are among the numerous examples of crusader castles.

Crusader art was a mix of Western, Byzantine, and Islamic styles. The major cities featured baths, interior plumbing, and other advanced hygienic tools which were lacking in most other cities and towns throughout the world. The foremost example of crusader art are perhaps the Melisende Psalter, an illuminated manuscript commissioned between 1135 and 1143 and now located in the British Library, and the sculpted Nazareth Capitals. Paintings and mosaics were popular forms of art in the kingdom, but many of these were destroyed by the Mamluks in the 13th century; only the most durable fortresses survived the reconquest.

Government and legal systemEdit

Dosya:Tower of david jerusalem.jpg

Immediately after the First Crusade, land was distributed to loyal vassals of Godfrey, forming numerous feudal lordships within the kingdom. This was continued by Godfrey's successors. The number and importance of the lordships varied throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, and many cities were part of the royal domain. The king was assisted by a number of officers of state. The king and the royal court were normally located in Jerusalem, but due to the prohibition on Muslim inhabitants, the capital was small and underpopulated. The king just as often held court at Acre, Nablus, Tyre, or wherever else he happened to be. In Jerusalem, the royal family lived firstly on the Temple Mount, before the foundation of the Knights Templar, and later in the palace complex surrounding the Tower of David; there was another palace complex in Acre.

Because the nobles tended to live in Jerusalem rather than on estates in the countryside, they had a larger influence on the king than they would have had in Europe. The nobles, along with the bishops, formed the haute cour (high court), which was responsible for confirming the election of a new king (or a regent if necessary), collecting taxes, minting coins, allotting money to the king, and raising armies. The haute cour was the only judicial body for the nobles of the kingdom, hearing criminal cases such as murder, rape, and treason, and simpler feudal disputes such as recovery of slaves, sales and purchases of fiefs, and default of service. Punishments included forfeiture of land and exile, or in extreme cases death. The first laws of the kingdom were, according to tradition, established during Godfrey of Bouillon's short reign, but were more probably established by Baldwin II at the Council of Nablus in 1120. Benjamin Z. Kedar argued that the canons of the Council of Nablus were in force in the 12th century but had fallen out of use by the thirteenth. Marwan Nader questions this and suggests that the canons may not have applied to the whole kingdom at all times.[88] The most extensive collection of laws, together known as Assizes of Jerusalem, were written in the mid-13th century, although many of them are purported to be twelfth-century in origin.[89]

There were other, lesser courts for non-nobles and non-Latins; the Cour des Bourgeois provided justice for non-noble Latins, dealing with minor criminal offences such as assault and theft, and provided rules for disputes between non-Latins, who had fewer legal rights. Special courts such as the Cour de la Fond (for commercial disputes in the markets) and the Cour de la Mer (an admiralty court) existed in the coastal cities. The extent to which native Islamic and Eastern Christian courts continued to function is unknown, but the ra'is probably exercised some legal authority on a local level. The Cour des Syriens judged non-criminal matters among the native Christians (the "Syrians"). For criminal matters non-Latins were to be tried in the Cour des Bourgeois (or even the Haute Cour if the crime was sufficiently severe).[90]

The Italian communes were granted almost complete autonomy from the very early days of the Kingdom, thanks to their military and naval support in the years following the First Crusade. This autonomy included the right to administer their own justice, although the kinds of cases that fell under their jurisdiction varied at different times.[91]

The king was recognised as head of the Haute Cour, although he was legally only primus inter pares.

Arms of the Kingdom of JerusalemEdit

The coat of arms of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which has gone through several different varieties of a cross Or (gold) on an argent (silver) field, is a famous violation of or exception to the rule of tincture in heraldry, which prohibits the placement of metal on metal.

It is one of the earliest known coats of arms. The main cross is a cross potent (called a Jerusalem cross for its use here)[92], whereas the smaller crosses are Greek crosses, one of the many Byzantine influences on the kingdom.

See alsoEdit

ReferencesEdit

  1. The First Crusade is extensively documented in primary and secondary sources. See for example Thomas Asbridge, The First Crusade: A New History (Oxford: 2004), which takes in the most recent scholarship; Christopher Tyerman, God's War: A New History of the Crusades (Penguin: 2006), which deals extensively with the Crusade and takes in the most recent academic research; Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (Pennsylvania: 1991); and Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades: Volume 1, The First Crusade and the Foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge: 1953), somewhat out of date but still a very lively and readable account.
  2. A single letter written to Pope Paschal II gives Godfrey's title as Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri ("Defender of the Holy Sepulchre"), but it is not clear whether this was his actual title; similar phrases were used by the later kings. Godfrey is called rex ("king") by Robert the Monk, and princeps ("prince") by other crusade chroniclers, but he seems to have referred to himself as nothing more than dux ("duke"), his title at home in Lower Lorraine. See Jonathan Riley-Smith, "The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon", Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 52 (1979), 83–86, and Alan V. Murray, "The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon as Ruler of Jerusalem", Collegium Medievale 3 (1990), 163–78.
  3. Asbridge, pg. 326.
  4. William of Tyre, A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, trans. E.A. Babcock and A.C. Krey, Columbia University Press, 1943, vol. 1, bk. 9, ch. 16, pg. 404.
  5. Tyerman, pp. 201–202.
  6. Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, 2nd ed., trans. John Gillingham (Oxford: 1988), pp. 171–76.
  7. William of Tyre, vol. 1, bk. 11, ch. 27, pp. 507–508.
  8. Thomas Madden, The New Concise History of the Crusades (Rowman and Littlefield, 2005), pp. 40–43.
  9. Madden, pg. 43.
  10. Mayer, pp. 71–72.
  11. Mayer, pp. 72–77.
  12. Tyerman, pp. 207–208.
  13. Mayer, pp. 83–85.
  14. Mayer, pp. 83–84.
  15. William of Tyre, vol. II, bk. 14, ch. 18, pg. 76.
  16. Mayer, pp. 86–88.
  17. Mayer, pg. 92.
  18. Jonathan Phillips, The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom (Yale University Press, 2007), pp. 216–227.
  19. Tyerman, pp. 344–345.
  20. Mayer, 108–111.
  21. Mayer, pg. 112
  22. Madden, pp. 64–65.
  23. William of Tyre, vol. II, bk. 18 ch. 16, pg. 265.
  24. Tyerman, pp. 347–348; Mayer, pg. 118–119.
  25. Mayer, pp. 119–120.
  26. Tyerman, pg. 350.
  27. Marshall W. Baldwin, "The Decline and Fall of Jerusalem, 1174–1189", in A History of the Crusades (gen. ed. Kenneth M. Setton), vol. 1: The First Hundred Years (ed. Marshall W. Baldwin, University of Wisconsin Press, 1969), pg. 592ff.
  28. Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. 2: The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Frankish East (Cambridge University Press, 1952), pg. 404.
  29. Hans E. Mayer, The Crusades (trans. John Gillingham, 1972; 2nd ed., Oxford University Press, 1988), pp. 127–128.
  30. Peter W. Edbury, "Propaganda and faction in the Kingdom of Jerusalem: the background to Hattin", in Crusaders and Moslems in Twelfth-Century Syria (ed. Maya Shatzmiller, Leiden: Brill, 1993), pg. 174.
  31. Hamilton pg. 158.
  32. Hamilton, pg. 93.
  33. Hamilton, pp. 105–106.
  34. Hamilton, pg. 101.
  35. Hamilton, pg. 115.
  36. Hamilton, pg. 118.
  37. Hamilton, pp. 122–130.
  38. Hamilton, pp. 132–136.
  39. Hamilton, pp. 150–158.
  40. Hamilton, pg. 161.
  41. Hamilton, pp. 162–163; Edbury and Rowe, "William of Tyre and the Patriarchal election of 1180", The English Historical Review 93 (1978), repr. Kingdoms of the Crusaders: From Jerusalem to Cyprus (Aldershot: Ashgate, Variorum Collected Series Studies, 1999), pp. 23–25.
  42. Hamilton, pp. 170–171.
  43. Hamilton, pp. 174–183.
  44. Hamilton, pp. 186–192.
  45. Hamilton, pp. 192–196.
  46. Hamilton, pp. 202–203.
  47. Hamilton, pp. 204–210.
  48. Hamilton, pp. 212-216.
  49. Hamilton, pp. 216-223.
  50. Hamilton, pp. 223-231.
  51. Peter W. Edbury, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374 (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1991), pp. 4-5.
  52. Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, pp. 25-26.
  53. Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, pp. 26-29.
  54. Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, pp. 40-41.
  55. Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, p. 48.
  56. Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, pp. 55-56.
  57. Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, pp. 57-64.
  58. Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, pp. 81-84.
  59. Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, pp. 85-90.
  60. Edbury, Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, pp. 92-99.
  61. William of Tyre, vol. 1, bk. 9, ch. 19, pg. 408.
  62. Fulcher of Chartres, A History of the Expedition to Jerusalem, trans. Frances Rita Ryan, University of Tennessee Press, 1969, bk. III, ch. XXXVII.3. pg. 271 (available online).
  63. Fulcher, bk. III, ch. XXXVII.4, pg. 271.
  64. Many chronicles of individual pilgrims are collected together in the Palestine Pilgrims' Text Society (London, 1884–); "Recueil de voyages et mémoires", published by the Société de Géographie (Paris, 1824–66); "Recueil de voyages et de documents pour servir à la géographie" (Paris, 1890–).
  65. Ronnie Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Cambridge University Press, 1998), pp. 3–4, 10–11.
  66. Joshua Prawer, The Crusaders' Kingdom: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages (Praeger, 1972), pg. 60; pp. 469–470; and throughout.
  67. Ellenblum, pp. 5–9.
  68. Ellenblum, pp. 26–28.
  69. Ellenblum, pp. 36–37.
  70. Prawer, Crusader Institutions, pp. 197, 205.
  71. Hans Mayer, "Latins, Muslims, and Greeks in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem", History 63 (1978), pg. 175; reprinted in Probleme des lateinischen Königreichs Jerusalem (Variorum, 1983).
  72. Mayer calls them "chattels of the state"; ibid., pg. 177
  73. Prawer, Crusader Institutions, pg. 207; Jonathan Riley-Smith, "Some lesser officials in Latin Syria" (English Historical Review, vol. 87, no. 342 (Jan., 1972)), pp. 1–15.
  74. Prawer, Crusader Institutions, pg. 202.
  75. Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, pp. 62–63.
  76. Yvonne Friedman, Encounter between Enemies: Captivity and Ransom in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Brill, 2002, throughout.
  77. Prawer, Crusader Institutions, pg. 209.
  78. Prawer, Crusader Institutions, pg. 214.
  79. Josiah C. Russell, "Population of the Crusader States", in Setton, ed. Crusades, vol. 5, pg. 108.
  80. Benjamin Z. Kedar, "The Subjected Muslims of the Frankish Levant", in Muslims Under Latin Rule, 1100–1300, ed. James M. Powell, Princeton University Press, 1990, pg. 148; reprinted in The Crusades: The Essential Readings, ed. Thomas F. Madden, Blackwell, 2002, pg. 244. Kedar quotes his numbers from Joshua Prawer, Histoire du royaume latin de Jérusalem, tr. G. Nahon, Paris, 1969, vol. 1, pp. 498, 568–72.
  81. Ibid., pg. 148–149.
  82. Ellenblum, pg. 31.
  83. William of Tyre, vol. 2, bk. 22, ch. 23, pp. 486–488.
  84. Hans E. Mayer, "Guillaume de Tyr à l'école", in Kings and Lords in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem (Variorum, 1994), pg. V.264; originally published in Mémoires de l'Académie des sciences, arts et belles-lettres de Dijon 117 (1985–86).
  85. Note the famous example of William of Tyre, Willemi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. R. B. C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum, Continuatio Medievalis, vol. 38 (Turnhout: Brepols, 1986), bk. 19, ch. 12, pp. 879–881. This chapter was discovered after the publication of Babcock and Krey's translation and is not included in the English edition.
  86. For example, King Baldwin III "was fairly well educated", and "particularly enjoyed listening to the reading of history..." (William of Tyre, vol. 2, bk. 16, ch. 2, pg. 138.) King Amalric I "was fairly well educated, although much less so than his brother" Baldwin III; he "was well skilled in the customary law by which the kingdom was governed", and "listened eagerly to history and preferred it to all other kinds of reading." (William of Tyre, vol. 2, bk. 19, ch. 2, pg. 296.)
  87. William of Tyre, introduction by Babcock and Krey, pg. 16.
  88. Benjamin Z. Kedar, On the origins of the earliest laws of Frankish Jerusalem: The canons of the Council of Nablus, 1120 ([[Speculum (journal)|]] 74, 1999), pp. 330–331; Marwan Nader, Burgesses and Burgess Law in the Latin Kingdoms of Jerusalem and Cyprus (1099–1325) (Ashgate: 2006), pg. 45.
  89. Nader, pp. 28–30.
  90. Nader, pp. 158–170
  91. Nader, pp. 170–77.
  92. House of Names. Symbolism: Cross Potent. Accessed 22 July 2009.

SourcesEdit

Primary sourcesEdit

Secondary sourcesEdit

  • Bernard Hamilton, The Leper King & His Heirs. Cambridge, 2000.
  • Carole Hillenbrand, The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Routledge, 2000.
  • P.M. Holt, The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517. Longman, 1989.
  • Benjamin Z. Kedar, Hans Eberhard Mayer & R. C. Smail, ed., Outremer: Studies in the history of the Crusading Kingdom of Jerusalem presented to Joshua Prawer. Yad Izhak Ben-Zvi Institute, 1982.
  • John L. La Monte, Feudal Monarchy in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100–1291. Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1932.
  • Hans E. Mayer, The Crusades. Oxford University Press, 1965 (trans. John Gillingham, 1972).
  • Joshua Prawer, The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. London, 1972.
  • Joshua Prawer, Crusader Institutions. Oxford University Press, 1980.
  • Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277. The Macmillan Press, 1973.
  • Jonathan Riley-Smith, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. University of Pennsylvania, 1991.
  • Jonathan Riley-Smith, ed., The Oxford History of the Crusades. Oxford, 2002.
  • Steven Runciman, A History of the Crusades. Cambridge University Press, 1951–54.
  • Kenneth Setton, ed., A History of the Crusades. Madison, 1969–1989 (available online).
  • Steven Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1291. Clarendon Press, 1989.
  • Jerusalem, Latin Kingdom of (1099–1291) – Article in the Catholic Encyclopedia



ar:مملكة بيت المقدس az:Qüds krallığı be:Іерусалімскае каралеўства br:Rouantelezh Jeruzalem bg:Йерусалимско кралство ca:Regne de Jerusalem cs:Jeruzalémské království cy:Teyrnas Jeriwsalem da:Kongeriget Jerusalem de:Königreich Jerusalem el:Βασίλειο της Ιερουσαλήμ es:Reino de Jerusalén eo:Jerusalema reĝlando fr:Royaume de Jérusalem gl:Reino de Xerusalén ko:예루살렘 왕국 hr:Jeruzalemsko Kraljevstvo id:Kerajaan Yerusalem it:Regno di Gerusalemme he:ממלכת ירושלים ka:იერუსალიმის სამეფო la:Regnum Hierosolymitanum lt:Jeruzalės karalystė hu:Jeruzsálemi Királyság mk:Ерусалимско кралство arz:مملكة بيت المقدس nl:Koninkrijk Jeruzalem ja:エルサレム王国 no:Kongeriket Jerusalem nn:Kongedømet Jerusalem nds:Königriek Jerusalem pl:Królestwo Jerozolimskie pt:Reino de Jerusalém ro:Regatul Ierusalimului ru:Иерусалимское королевство sk:Jeruzalemské kráľovstvo sl:Jeruzalemsko kraljestvo sr:Краљевина Јерусалим fi:Jerusalemin kuningaskunta sv:Kungariket Jerusalem th:ราชอาณาจักรเยรูซาเลม tr:Kudüs Krallığı uk:Єрусалимське королівство wa:Rweyåme di Djeruzalem zh:耶路撒冷王國



All Empires history community sitesinde Turcopoles ve gagauzEdit

  • Who were they? (Tribes or clans)
  • were did they live? (countries)
  • wich monarchies did they serve or were they just mercinaries?
  • When did they serve?(time)
  • were there any other Turcopolis other than the gagauz

any info is welcome


Turcopole
If you mean Turcopoles, they were light cavalry/skirmishing force which is AFAIK mentioned both in service of Christian and Muslim armies during Crusading era in the Near East. Their origin was probably mixed

I rather be a nomadic barbarian than a sedentary savage

I thought Turcopoles strictly refered to Turks who fought for christians & mostly were christian themselfs

While undoubtly, at least initially, the largest ethnic component was Turkic, often they became inhabitants of some non-Turkic land and eventually got assimilated.

Turcopoles-a good article covering the issue (and a very good blog, mainly on ottoman history).


Turcopoles first mention and recruitment took place in the Byzantine army of 12th century (Komnenean era ) as Turkopouloi.

They were actually light skirmishing fighters of mixed parentage (Greek-Turkish) and mostly christians.

In fact their name means sons of Turks in Greek (ending -opoulos/-oi like in many modern greek surnames-also medieval ones (etc .Fragopoulos ,officer of Constantine Paleologos )

Such units of mixed origin in the byzantine army were also the Gasmouloi .These had mixed Greek/Latin(=western European(mainly French/Italian)) parentage.
They served as marines or servants in the navy.


When the Crusaders arrived in Holy Land they also employed turcopoles regardless of their religion (the Muslim ones, when captured, were imediately executed as traitors).

'There's still much controversy about their offensive equipment, some saying that they were light horse archers, some saying that they used javelins instead. The Teutonic order also had "turcopolen ", although by this time the name reflected more their equipment and tactics than their origin (just like the French Zouaves , at first of Algerian origin, later made exclusively of metropolitan French - the Algerians were recruited as "'Turks "! - or the American Zouaves who were Anglo-Saxons ).




In my research I have found the Turkopoles were not the same as the Byzantine Turkopouloui . Nor did the Turkopoles have any relations to the Turkoman .

I use to think Turkopoles came from a specific ethnic group and were muslims. This is not the case. Turkopoles came from many different areas, the Levant , Byzantium , Anatolia , and Europe . This is supported by an incident that happened during the 3rd crusade .

2 Turkopoles and a Bedouin were sent to reconnoiter a caravan. The 3 were approached by those guarding/escorting the caravan. Sources state only the Bedouin was to do the talking and the other two were to remain silent. Had the Turkopoles spoke they would have been compromised. What wasn't clear was whether or not the turkopoles spoke Arabic or not. It does state they were dressed in Arab fashion. It is clear however, that some Turkopoles did speak Arabic or Turkish. During a siege (I forget which one, a Templar castle) the Mamlukes encouraged the Turkopoles to give up their loyalty to the Franks. Many did so and climbed over the walls. To prevent any further "desertions" the Templars enforced strict disciplinary actions against the Turkopoles.

The role of the Turkopoles within the Latin armiesEdit

The role of the Turkopoles within the Latin armies was relegated to scouting, raiding, ambushes, skirmishing in small engagements, and during large battles they were used (as lightly armed shock cavalry) to augment the knights during the charge. They did not deploy in front of the army and fight in the Turkoman fashion.

Echelon and TurkopolesEdit

In many different sources the charge of the Frankish cavalry is described as "echelon". Due to the lack of numbers there is no way the knights could have charged in echelon. However, if they are backed up by sergeants and Turkopoles then the echelon is possible.

It does appear the bow was the primary weapon of the Turkopoles and they did carry a sword & shield. Usamah ibn Munqidh describes them as the archers of the Franks.

What he didn't state was weather or not they were equivelent to the Turkomen.

In a paper written by Yuval Harai (The Military Role of the Frankish Turkopoles; A Reassessment), they found the Turkopoles could make up as much as 50% of the mounted forces in the Frankish army. Turkopoles were an important aspect of the Frankish army. The article can be obtained through BYU. That's a very relevant info you posted here.

Can you tell me exactly what does BYU means? I would like to read that article first hand...

Brigham Young University. Located in Provo, Utah, U.S.

Mavi boncukEdit

The Marshal of the Order was the Templar in charge of war and anything that was related to it. In this sense the Marshal could be viewed as the second most important member of the Order after the Grand Master. His personal retinue was comprised of two squires, one turcoman, one turcopole and one sergeant. He also had four horses at his command.Turcoman one can guess, but, who was the turcopole?

During the Crusades, turcopoles', turcoples, or turcopoliers (Greek: "sons of Turks") were mounted archers.

The crusaders first came across Turcopoles in the Byzantine army during the First Crusade. They were children of mixed Greek and Turkish parentage, and were at least nominally Christian although they may have been practising Muslims. Some Turcopole units accompanied the First Crusade and then seem to have formed the first Turcopole units in the crusader states.

In the crusader states they were not necessarily Turks or mixed-race soldiers, but many probably were recruited from Christianized Seljuqs , or perhaps from the Eastern Orthodox Christians under crusader rule. In the Holy Land , Turcopoles were more lightly-armoured than knights and were armed with lances and bows to help combat the more mobile Muslim forces. They served as light cavalry: skirmishers, scouts, and mounted archers, and sometimes rode as a second line in a charge, to back up the knights and sergeants. They had lighter, faster horses than the knights or sergeants, and they wore much lighter armour, usually only a quilted aketon and a conical steel helmet. There were Turcopoles in the secular armies but they were also often found in the ranks of the military orders, where they were more likely to be mounted Frankish sergeants. In the military orders, however, they were of a lower status than the sergeants, and were subject to various restrictions, including eating at a separate table from the mounted soldiers.

The Mamluks considered Turcopoles to be traitors and apostates: their policy was to kill all those whom they captured. The Turcopoles who survived the Fall of Acre followed the military orders out of the Holy Land and were established on Cyprus with the Knights Templar and Rhodes and Malta with the Knights Hospitaller. The Teutonic Order also called its own native light cavalry the "Turkopolen".

[1] Crusader States : Former territories on the Palestine coast taken by the Christian army during the first of the Crusades. The states were established as the kingdom of Jerusalem (1099 – 1187), the principality of Antioch (1098 – 1268), the county of Edessa (1098 – 1144), and the county of Tripoli (1109 – 1289). Threats to the states led the pope to call for future crusades.

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.