Medieval Jerusalem: Feudal Liberties

Introduction to Feudal Kingship in the Crusader States

In my book Missing Monarchy, I argue that from around 700-1300 A.D. (before the return of secular Roman law), a unique form of Monarchy that I describe as feudalistic Kingship existed across most of Europe. Yet, perhaps its most pristine example was found in the Crusader states, particularly in Medieval Jerusalem. This form of Monarchy operated fundamentally differently from the ancient pagan emperors and the later absolutist monarchies, still less the dictatorships that marred the last century and still mar this one.

Disregarding misinformation and falsehoods, the feudal, Catholic kingships of the Middle Ages provided many of history’s longest-lasting libertarian and self-governing societies. The peasants had far greater liberty and self-government than modern democratic citizens. The entire political structure was built upon consent and agreed-upon arrangements rather than coercion, with no professional regulatory state-imposed taxes or other regulations. A summary is given below.

The Structure of Feudal Kingship

During the feudal Middle Ages in Western Europe, kings and lords were powerless to adapt to or change the laws and customs of the people; they were merely protectors of the people’s rules and customs. Unlike modern democracies, they had no professional legislative ability to expand their powers and regulate people continually. The medieval king was a member of his kindred, not a ruler who performed a duty for the people, limited by their customs or laws.

The rulers could not interfere with the rights of the people or manipulate them in any way. The Medieval king held less power than any top government position has held at any other time. Many kings, even among the most powerful realms, were merely symbols of power. The feudal king was often not the most powerful lord in his country—he was one among many, and his lordship only extended to his ancestral lands, whence he derived his income. Whenever a lord or the king went outside of the law or attempted to increase his powers, it was part of the fealty of the way to resist the ruler in every way.

Decentralization vs. Centralization in Feudal Governance

Decentralization, or localism, is based first on the extended family or household; when grouped with other clans, this became a locality creating laws organically for the benefit of all. On the other hand, centralization occurs when forces far from these self-governing localities use their power and influence to impose their ways on smaller localities. In such a situation, the former free individuals lose their self-governance and the option to choose from diverse ways of life, becoming tools used to benefit those in power in distant lands under an increasingly conformist policy.

Feudal kingship was extraordinarily decentralized, with various local customs, bishoprics, earldoms, and autonomous villages outside of the influence of a king. Further, when the king did have influence, he only dealt with the highest level of lords (and even there not all of them, as many were autonomous of the crown or ignored the king), and they, in turn, only dealt with the next level of lords, knights, manor lords and so on. The typical person dealt only with his direct lord, whom he chose and made an argument with.

The Role of Peasants and Local Autonomy

Peasants owed their lords (and various vassals owed theirs) certain obligations, from food production to military service. In return, the lords or kings protected their vassals or peasants, maintained and guarded their laws and customs, and distributed land and gifts to their vassals.

Peasants lived without the interference and regulations we suffer today. Looking at Anglo-Saxon England, we discover many folklands based on kinship groups. Often, these lands were granted by the king to a loyal Thane. In return for protection, these lands had obligations ranging from a percentage of produce to repairing bridges and fortifications, while only the Thane owned military service. The inhabitants were loyal to the Thane but governed by unwritten laws. In these vast territories, families owned and lived autonomously outside the agreed obligations. They owned their production and property with no direct manor lord delegating his land or property to them. Marc Morris wrote “For centuries the rural economy had remained essentially unchanged. Great lords— kings, ealdormen, bishops and abbots—held vast estates, extending dozens or even hundreds of square miles. Within these wide areas, people lived in settlements that were spread out and scattered—isolated hamlets, or clusters consisting of a few adjacent farmsteads. The farmers owed renders of produce to their overlord, or sometimes rent, but beyond that, their existence was essentially free and independent.“

Feudalism in the Holy Land

Feudalism within the Holy Land differed slightly from that in the West. Few people were directly on manors or of serf status. Those who did live on manors, usually on the coastal sugar plantations, worked one day a week, often transporting the lord’s goods. The peasant population was partially made up of free pilgrims who relocated from the West and rented land from their overlords. The lords advertised their customs, land, rates, etc., to bring people in from the West and towns. The large landowning lords usually resided in the towns and parcelled out land to vassals, who generally paid 10% in rent to the overlord in return for the land.

The Limited Power of the King of Jerusalem

Plan of Jerusalem 1200

Ignoring the local Byzantium and Saracen systems, both with centralized and robust monarchies, after the success of the First Crusade Westerners took feudalism and kingship with them to the Holy Land and instituted what Professor John L. La Monte believed to be the ideal feudal state—one that, like the Western realms, had no legislative ability.

The King of Jerusalem had no powers in and of himself. He first needed permission from the Haute Cour (High Court) before attempting to take action. But also, like feudal Europe, the court and king could do nothing in violation of the people’s existing customs; as historians, Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter wrote in Western Europe in the Middle Ages, “The Latin kingdom of Jerusalem was the perfect feudal state, where the king enjoyed no powers except those given to the suzerain by feudal custom.” Scholar Malcolm Barber wrote that within the kingdom there was a complete “absence of any institutional infrastructure,” even operating for a time without coin or currency. Scholar Jonathan Riley-Smith referred to it as a semi-form of anarchy, where “Real authority was no longer being exercised by the king.”

While it appears that over its almost 200 years of existence, the kings of Jerusalem, some historians argue, seem to have passed a few laws (within their royal lands and jurisdiction), its feudal setup and vassal/king relationship made it so that “Constitutional development was stifled.” The King did not gain further powers as the modern legislative states do over time.

The King in Jerusalem depended on his vassals and the Baron’s Court for military aid and law derived from customs. The barons would force decisions on the king against his will and interests, even removing him if he refused to obey. Even the kings’ marriages could be influenced and controlled by their vassals. If vassals believed a war the king waged was unjust or not part of their agreed obligations, they were free not to engage in it. For example, in 1167, the Knight Templars refused to join King Amalric’s invasion of Egypt, believing it was against divine law and their oaths.

Taxation and Governance in Crusader States

The level of taxation seen under Roman, Arab, and Byzantine systems did not appear in the West until industrialization. And any temporary taxes to protect the kingdom required the consent of vassals paying the tax. The lords gained their income generally by taxing sugar, wine, and other trade items, similar to modern tariffs. Usually, vassals were willing to pay more during times of war so the lord could keep men in the field longer. Certain temporary taxes could be instituted, such as during an invasion as the king raised an emergency tax to fulfil his role as protector of the realm. But as soon as the invasion was over, the tax ended. All inhabitants, regardless of religion, had lower taxes than those levied in local Muslim realms.

However, taxes never reached any level near modern times. For example, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was in a hopeless financial situation. In desperation, the king wanted to impose a “heavy tax” of 2% on high earners and 1% on larger landholdings to fulfil his duty as protector of the realm. This “massive” tax was approved, Archbishop William of Tyre writes, “By the common consent of all the nobles, both secular and ecclesiastical, and by the assent of the people of the kingdom of Jerusalem…for the common good of the realm.” When the Crusader States wanted to raise money to invade Egypt, they taxed only those willing to consent to the tax to fund the invasion. Taxes were perhaps more accurately seen as fundraisers for specific purposes, paid by those who backed them.

The Impact of Decentralization on the Crusader States’ Survival

Map of the Crusader States, 1229-1240 CE

Like those of feudal Europe, the kings of Jerusalem controlled only their royal domains, while great baronial fiefs and various principalities were governed autonomously, with their courts and customs.

The sparsely populated, ever-poor, always-threatened Latin realms in the Holy Land had a great excuse to create a robust centralized monarchy. Instead, and despite hostile conditions, the crusader states were extraordinarily decentralized. In many ways, the decentralization of the states led to their fall. For example, there were multiple times when the Kingdom of Jerusalem was about to conquer its main rival in Egypt, yet due to their duty as overlords to help protect the northern realms, kings were pulled away from their interests to assist the northern areas. Uniting all the diverse principalities into one fighting unit rather than them squabbling amongst one another also might have prevented or at least postponed their fall.

While the king of Jerusalem was the “overlord” of the realms in Outremer, the other territories, the Principality of Antioch and the Counties of Tripoli and Edessa, were autonomous, holding their courts and customs. Professor Jonathan Riley-Smith wrote, “In the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the great lordships became palatinates, free from royal control in day-to-day affairs… the kings were powerless to intervene as long as feudal services were not threatened. The lords could also conduct their foreign policy, making peace or war with their Muslim neighbours without reference to the central government.” He continued, “The lords were royal vassals but otherwise exercised full authority in their lordships.”

The rulers of the other realms sometimes paid homage to the king of Jerusalem, but he had no direct control over their vassals or territories. Within these other realms were also many smaller “lordships.” For example, the count of Tripoli only ruled a small strip of land along the coast around the city. Various military orders also governed autonomous castles and areas. Likewise, in the Crusader states, Italian merchants were given a section of the city where they could live by their customs. Muslims swore oaths on the Qur’an, Jews on the Torah, and Christians on the Bible.

Religious Freedom and Local Governance for Non-Christians

Under the rule of the Crusaders, local Muslims were allowed self-governance and to keep their faith, customs, and politics. Muslims had the liberty to choose both their religion and politics, either Christian or Muslim. After capturing Antioch, Crusader lord Bohemund allowed local Muslims who wished to convert to follow a newly baptized Emir, while the others stayed under the laws of the “Saracens.” Scholar Jonathan Riley-Smith wrote, “While Hamilton stresses that Jewish synagogues and rabbinic schools existed in many of their towns, contemporary Muslim sources noted with surprise that mosques were allowed to function in the crusader states (albeit not in Jerusalem itself) and Muslim subjects were even allowed to participate in the haj…Far from being forced to convert, the Muslim villagers were run by a council of elders who in turn appointed a “rayse” to represent the community to the Christian lord, while all spiritual and social matters were regulated by the Imams in the community in accordance with Sharia law!”

The Christian rulers might believe Islam is wrong, endangering the eternal salvation of its adherents, yet still believed Muslims had the right to be judged by their customs. A Muslim pilgrim from Spain to the Holy Land said they “live in great comfort under the Franks… Muslims are masters of their dwellings and govern themselves as they wish. This is the case in all the territory occupied by ‘Franks.’”

They enjoyed full religious rights, including visiting the Dome of the Rock. Hospitals were created to serve Christians, Muslims, and Jews.28 Muslims were allowed private property and were taxed less than they were under Muslim rulers.

Rebellion Against Tyranny in Feudal Jerusalem

On Christmas Day in the town of Bethlehem, Baldwin I of Jerusalem was consecrated with oil and crowned king by the Patriarch. During the ceremony, it was announced “A king is not elevated contrary to law…he who takes up the authority that comes with a golden crown takes up also the honourable duty of delivering justice…he desires to do good who desires to reign. If he does not rule justly, he is not a king.” A king acts according to justice and law. A tyrant is not a king and therefore deserves no fealty, honour, or obedience. He has replaced the law with his own will. Such a perspective stifled innovation (attempts to legislate, to expand the powers of government). Law had to be both old and just. Any new law declared by the king, unless it was just and conformed with the old law, was not binding; it was not law.

Not just the Crusader states but all of feudal Europe held that “rebellion to tyrants is obedience to God” and resisted tyrants across feudal Europe at every turn due to their Christian belief, thus maintaining liberty. Historian Fritz Kern wrote, “Anyone who felt himself prejudiced in his rights by the king, was authorized to take the law into his own hands, and win back the rights which had been denied him.” He explains fealty: Fealty, as distinct from obedience, is reciprocal in character and contains the implicit condition that one party owes it to the other only so long as the other keeps faith. This relationship, as we have seen, must not be designated simply as a contract. The fundamental idea is rather that ruler and ruled alike are bound to the law; the fealty of both parties is in reality fealty to the law; the law is the point where the duties of both of them intersect. If, therefore, the King breaks the law, he automatically forfeits any claim to the obedience of his subjects…a man must resist his King and his judge, if he does wrong, and must hinder him in every way, even if he is his relative or feudal Lord. And he does not thereby break his fealty.

According to the 12th-century historian William of Malmesbury, the Muslim Sultans had large, powerful empires because their people “know not how to cast off slavery;” in contrast, western peoples are “bold and fierce.” As a result, the West, said Malmesbury, would not long subjugate itself to political slavery. In complete opposition, Muhammud taught his people to allow their subjugation and to be blindly obedient to Islamic dictators. When a follower asked Muhammud what the people should do if a tyrant steals their rights, He said, “Ye must hear them and obey their orders: it is on them to be just and good, and on you to be obedient and submissive.”

Faith as a Driving Force in the Crusader States

The Crusader states especially stood out in a medieval world of devout Christians. They were founded by devout Catholics willing to endure the genuine and likely chance of death, torture, slavery, and more, and who exerted tremendous effort and laid out vast sums of money to travel halfway across the then-known world to conquer the Holy Land. These Crusading pilgrims willingly travelled a dangerous road, knowing that if they did survive, a sea of enemies would surround them. And to choose to leave behind family, friends, property, wealth, ease, and stability to be a minority for Christ in hostile conditions demonstrates their devotion. They put God above themselves and were dedicated to the Holy Land and the medieval obsession therewith. They might be further from wealth and safety but felt closer to God.

Not only would they be thousands of miles from their homes and from the help that was never guaranteed from the West, but the majority of the population they would rule over was Muslim, the very people they were at war with, had just retaken lands from and were surrounded by. Not to mention reliant upon. The local population would never be on their side; they were isolated by potential enemies outside of their realms with vastly larger armies, and even outnumbered within! Further, they were in a new climatic and agricultural region, needing to learn and rely on the natives while forging trade agreements and diplomatic relations with a region they had just been at war with. Militarily, culturally, economically, politically, and in almost every way, they needed to build from scratch. But why would they place themselves in such a situation? I think it was their faith that made the decision easy, they had to do all they could and sacrifice everything, for God.

Shrines, monasteries, and churches dedicated to Old Testament figures, apostles, Jesus, and historical Biblical events dotted the landscape. Cults, relics, devout pilgrims, and religious settlers from the West seeking to live or die where their saviour did, streamed in from ports and pilgrim trails. Large numbers of hermits, monks, religious orders like the Templars, and pilgrims visited the holy shrines and sites, which gave the realm a religious atmosphere. Monks populated the mountains and remote places of the kingdom. The Popes hand-selected and sent leading bishops and ecclesiastical leaders, and devout lords took the cross to aid their realm.

Their first “king,” Godfrey, refused to take the title of king in the city where the King of Kings suffered and died. Instead, he was the “defender of the Holy Sepulcher.” The First Crusaders asked the Pope to take command of the expedition and rule the Holy Land. Crusader lords acknowledged the armies as God’s, not their own, and that they were vassals of the King of Kings. The faith of their leaders affected even the strategic decisions made by the Crusaders. In many cases, religious symbolism would take precedence over military considerations. For instance, before launching an attack on Jerusalem, the Crusaders marched barefoot around the city, emulating the Israelites marching around Jericho in the Old Testament, led by priests carrying crosses and relics. Their main attack went in at three in the afternoon, the time that Jesus died according to the Gospel of Mark. The First Crusade departed on the Feast of the Assumption of Mary on August 15, 1096.

Before significant events, the army frequently engaged in religious practices such as prayer, confession, and fasting. Consistently, the leaders thanked God when they achieved victory and referred to the crusading army as His, not theirs. They witnessed and reported divine intervention on many occasions. Their response to difficulties, whether it be famine or being surrounded and outnumbered, was to pray and fast.