The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem and Israel: An Historical Comparison

Author(s): William L. Ochsenwald

Source: Middle East Journal, Vol. 30, No. 2 (Spring, 1976), pp. 221-226
Published by: Middle East Institute
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/4325487
Accessed: 08-04-2017 07:44 UTC

JSTOR is a not-for-profit service that helps scholars, researchers, and students discover, use, and build upon a wide range of content in a trusted
digital archive. We use information technology and tools to increase productivity and facilitate new forms of scholarship. For more information about
JSTOR, please contact support@jstor.org.

Your use of the JSTOR archive indicates your acceptance of the Terms & Conditions of Use, available at
http://about.jstor.org/terms

Middle East Institute is collaborating with JSTOR to digitize, preserve and extend access to Middle East
Journal

This content downloaded from 41.176.248.151 on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:44:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BOOK REVIEWS

The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem and Israel:

An Historical Comparison

William L. Ochsenwald

In most lengthy discussions of the Palestine
problem from the Arab point of view compari-
sons between the Crusades and the contemporary
problems of the Middle East are likely to be
found.' A feeling emerges from these compari-
sons that the Crusading spirit and Zionism, the
medieval Christian states along the Mediter-
ranean coast and Israel, $alah al-Din ibn
Ayyub and Jamal 'Abd al-Nasir are somehow
similar. However, surprisingly little has been done
to clarify these comparisons and to examine the
similarities and differences of the political history historical comparison in general should not be
of the Crusades and the Palestine problem in de-
tail.2 The chief cause of this near silence is the
rejection of propagandistic argumentation based ontremes.
specious or dubious parallelisms which mark so
many comparative historical studies, especially
when they deal with controversial topics. The re-
currence of the comparison in general dis-
cussion suggests that, irrespective of theoretical
considerations, it deserves serious study, if only
to provide data to disprove the legitimacy of
the comparison. At the same time, the implica-
tions of parallelism, i.e. because two societies
share similarities their fate will be identical,
should be firmly opposed. This analysis implies
historical knowledge and a rigor of analysis
which is not yet attainable. The operation of
constant factors independent of the unique cir-
cumstances of any given moment, similar reac-
tions to similar situations, and the role of
dismissed, however, because of the excesses of
those who push historical comparison to ex-
Recently several studies of the Crusades have
been written or translated for the first time into
English. They are organized in such a way as
to invite limited and potentially useful com-
parisons. Scholars employing traditional political

1. An example is Abdullah Schleifer, The Fall of Jerusalem (New York: Monthly Review Press, 1972),
pp. 3-4, 28.
2. To my knowledge the only attempt to do so in English is the perceptive article of Charles Issawi, "Crusade
and Current Crises in the Near East," International Affairs 33, no. 3 (July 1957): 269-279; Uri Avner
Israel Without Zionists (New York: Macmillan, 1968), Chapter 5 "Crusaders and Zionists," 68-77; and
the highly useful summary of contemporary Arab historians' views of the Crusades in Emanuel Sivan, "Moder
Arab Historiography of the Crusades," Asian and African Studies 8, no. 2 (1972): 109-149. Some discussion of th
topic may be found in Muhammad Rafiq al-Tamiml, al-Iuruib alSalibiyyah (Jerusalem: Matba'ah al-Liwa, 1945)
A WILLIAM L. OCHSENWALD is in the Department of History at Virginia Polytechnic Institute & State Uni-
versity at Blacksburg. He wishes to thank Mr. Donald Hattier, Mr. Rudi Lindner and Dr. William W. Haddad
for their comments on this essay.

221

This content downloaded from 41.176.248.151 on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:44:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
222 THE MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL

narrative style,3 sophisticated institutional his- treatment of those outside the ruling elite,
tory,4 and social scientific analysis5 have pro- recruitment and immigration policies, institu-
duced works dealing with the most important of tional adaptation, social heterogeneity and the
the Crusader states, the Kingdom of Jerusalem. sense of external danger.
Although there are no direct comparisons in these In the late 1090s, when the Crusaders were
works and their authors might resent such com- invading Palestine, they found disunited, highly
parisons being made, they do provide a factual fragmented Muslim states opposing them. It was
basis for discussing the similarities and differ- chiefly by means of dynastic union of the Syrian
ences between Palestine in the 11th-13th cen- cities and Egypt under Salah al-Din8 and his
turies and Palestine in the 20th century. family and successors that eventual victory was
achieved by the Muslims over the Crusaders. The
The Similarities
union of Egypt and Syria under the leadership
The similarities between the Crusader King- of President Nasir from 1958 to 1961 seemed
dom of Jerusalem and modern Israel are clearest
likely to play the same role but the secession
in relatively unchanging areas such as geography, of Syria disrupted the union, leaving the idea of
population and religious values.6 Palestine, with political union still a possibility. Before the
Sinai, is still the link between Asia and Africa.earlier process of union was completed, some
While poor in natural resources, it is a barrier Muslim states entered into agreements with the
or bridge to international commerce going from Crusaders because they feared the Crusader King-
the Indian Ocean basin to the Mediterranean- dom less than the ambitions of their Muslim
Atlantic and from North Africa to the Near neighbors. Religion may have played a r6le
East. In both periods Egypt, united by the Nile,
analogous to present day nationalism as an in-
has had a far larger population than that of tegrating ideology for the Crusaders and the
Palestine. As a result Egypt has been potentially
Muslim city states but religious values were
more powerful than its neighbor. The religious not always paramount. Claims of papal suzerainty
importance of Palestine, and especially Jeru- were successfully opposed by the Kings of
salem,7 for the three monotheistic faiths of Jerusalem. Dynastic considerations and the mili-
Islam, Christianity and Judaism has remained tary balance of power were at least as important
though all three have since faced growing as religion in determining alliance patterns.
secularism. In addition to the areas of geog- In the 20th century the Arab states have been
raphy, population and religious values there areas disunited as the Muslim city states were.
a number of similarities in social questions Informal agreements may have been reached be-
and attitudes which change more rapidly: foreigntween some Arab states and Israel. Neither re-
alliances, religion as an integrating ideology, ligion nor Arab nationalism has yet been able

3. Hans E. Mayer, The Crusades, trans. by John Gillingham (London: Oxford University Press, 1972).
4. Joshua Prawer, The Crusaders' Kingdom: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages (New York: Praeger, 197
Also see his magisterial Histoire du royaume latin de Jirusalem, 2 vols. (Paris: Centre National de la
Recherche Scientifique, 1969-1971). For a strongly critical opinion of Prawer's work see the review by Sh
Na'aman in New Outlook 16, no. 6 (July-August, 1973): 65-77.
5. Aharon Ben-Ami, Social Change in a Hostile Environment. The Crusaders' Kingdom of Jerusalem (Prin
Princeton University Press, 1969). Ben Ami's work combines sociology and history; his historical data ar
drawn from secondary sources.
6. Issawi, "Crusades," pp. 269-271.
7. Prawer, Crusaders' Kingdom, pp. 39-40 and Mayer, Crusades, p. 150 emphasize that Jerusalem was the capital
of the Kingdom despite its smallness and awkward location. Between 1948 and 1967 Israeli insistence upon r
garding Jerusalem as the capital showed a similar use of religious symbolism and political expediency.
8. The most recent biography of Salah al-Din suggests, however, that his own personal contribution to th
victory over the Crusaders has been exaggerated. A fruitful critical debate on the r6le of Salah al-Din may
provoked by the volume of Andrew S. Ehrenkreutz, Saladin (Albany: State University of New York Press, 19
and especially pp. 233-238. For a more favorable view of Salah al-Din see Mayer, Crusades, pp. 123ff.

This content downloaded from 41.176.248.151 on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:44:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BOOK REVIEWS 223

to overcome the political and other rivalries that
divide the Arab states and their leaders.
In the treatment of those outside the ruling
religious-ethnic group the histories of the Cru-
sader Kingdom of Jerusalem and that of modern
Israel present similarities and contrasts. The
chief difference is that Israel has at least
theoretically been willing to grant equality among
its citizens while the Crusaders rejected Mus-
lims, Jews and most Eastern Christians as their
equals. Israel has Arabs voting for and sitting
in the Knesset, though their political power
may be negligible. However, the Palestinian
Arabs of the areas occupied in 1967 have not
been granted these rights. Western Crusaders
created an apartheid system which featured
nearly total separation of the ruling elite from
the Palestinians. There was a lack of cultural
receptivity and originality.9
A non-Frank could not enter the ranks of the
Crusaders. Even in local administration, where
rulers come closest to the ruled, there was
little contact between the ruling elite and the
peasants.10 This had the effect of permitting
the various non-Crusader communities to manage
and preserve their own institutions more or less
intact despite foreign control." Unfortunately
for the Crusaders, however, they thereby denied
of property that had been taken in the Muslim
themselves access to a large internal source of
manpower. By refusing to make allies of the
Oriental Christian communities the Crusaders,
always short of soldiers, weakened themselves
when they were under threat from the numerically
land of Palestine that had been promised Abraham
greater Muslim states around them. Since Israel
has been unable or unwilling to allow most
Muslims and Christians to take an active part
in its army, the Israeli military manpower po-
tential is limited in the same way as the Cru-
saders' was. However, the limitation is of less
importance in the case of Israel because the non-
Jewish citizens of Israel are a much smaller part Crusaders were Europeans and were not from a
of its population than were the non-Western persecuted minority.
Christians of the total population of the Crusader
Kingdom.
Institutional adaptation resulted in the creation
both of the Crusader military orders such as
the Templars and Hospitallers and the military
kibbutzim in Israel. The orders were composed
of soldier-monks owing complete obedience to
their superiors and dedicated to holy war as
well as other religious goals. They came to play
a major role in the response to the continual
military tension under which the Crusader states
operated."2 On the other hand, the frontier
kibbutz soldier-farmers are predominantly
secular and socialist although they fulfill nearly
the same military role as the knights of the
military orders.
If the analysis turns to the population of Israel
there are a number of similarities with the
Crusader Kingdom. With the passing of time
most Crusaders came to be born in Palestine.
Also, in both cases waves of settlers, warriors
and temporary visitors came to Palestine for a
variety of reasons. Among these was the desire
to establish or support a state in Palestine which
had been opposed by a majority of those living
in Palestine. Some of the Crusaders felt that they
were returning to the land as the rightful heirs
conquest of Palestine over four hundred years
before. In this return they believed they were
carrying out a divinely approved mission. 13
Zionists believed that they were taking back the
by God. Tourists and pilgrims have been a major
source of economic and psychological backing
for the Crusader Kingdom and Israel. Two major
differences in manpower recruitment have re-
sulted from the horrors of Nazi barbarism di-
rected against the Jews of Europe and the
immigration of Oriental Jews into Israel. The

9. Prawer, Crusaders'Kingdom, pp. 521-524, 528-529; Mayer, Crusades, pp. 180-181.

10. Prawer, Crusaders' Kingdom, p. 139. Mayer, Crusades, p. 176 points out that peasants living in
villages were also segregated by religion: ". . . each village being exclusively settled either by Syrians or by
Muslims or by Franks," i.e. native Christians, Muslims and Catholics.
11. Prawer, Crusaders' Kingdom, pp. 140, 151- 153, 230-232; Ben-Ami, Social Change, pp. 62, 132.
12. Ben-Ami, Social Change, pp. 185- 186; Mayer, Crusades, pp. 82-83, Avneri, Israel, p. 72.
13. Prawer, Crusaders' Kingdom, p. 475.

This content downloaded from 41.176.248.151 on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:44:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
224 THE MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL

Soon after settlement and conquest the Cru-
saders began, to their own surprise, to consider
themselves residents of the East. 14 They re-
mained, however, a heterogeneous society. Even
churches were organized according to the point
of origin of the worshippers.15 Another division
among the Crusaders was based on the length
of residence. Those Crusaders who had lived
for a number of years in Palestine and the
generations born there behaved differently than
the Crusaders fresh from Europe. 16 Both the
behavior and identity of the sabras born in
Israel differ somewhat from Israelis born outside
of Palestine. Adaptation to the new physical
and social environment did not, however, affect
the basic beliefs and institutions of the Cru-
saders. Contacts between the Crusaders and Mus-
lims and Jews were infrequent and superficial.17
There was a lack of communication and knowl-
edge, combined with misinterpretation of those
contacts that did occur, similar to that of the
more recent history of Palestine. Israeli society is
also divided along linguistic and geographical lines.
A sense of danger from outside the state helped
both the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem and
Israel to retain internal agreement despite many
social, economic, cultural and internal political
differences. The ruling 6lite of the Crusader
Kingdom was only loosely bound together by
feudal structure and intermarriage among the
leading families when compared to the national
loyalties and modern institutional networks
which link Israeli politicians. As a result, the
cohesive force of perceived external danger
has been comparatively less important for Israel
than was the case with the Crusader Kingdom of
Jerusalem.
The Differences
While the similarities between the Crusader
Kingdom of Jerusalem and Israel are many and
striking, the differences are more numerous and
even more dramatic. The most important dif-
ference is that the nature of intra- and inter-
societal behavior has changed markedly since the
medieval period. Israel is a modern national
state with a centralized political and military
structure existing in a bipolar world. Even if
it is assumed that the two states are similar and
their similarities would lead to similar destinies,
the tempo of expectations and the speed of po-
litical action have increased.
International behavior has been decisively
altered by the growth of interdependence among
nations. Since the great civilizations of the
world came into touch with each other in
the early modern period of Europe it has become
increasingly difficult for changes in one area to
leave the rest of the world unaltered. The Cru-
saders did not form long lasting alliances with
major powers18 other than the Papacy but in-
stead depended on occasional massive assistance
in the form of new Crusades and informal
economic-military relations with Italian city
states. To date Israel has maintained an un-
official but single minded alliance with the
United States. The major European and non-
European powers are involved in the current
struggle over Palestine. But the Crusader King-
dom functioned diplomatically without any
equivalent of a United Nations representing all
the world; diplomacy in the pre-modern period
was slow and frequently haphazard. International
economic interdependence, as in such commodi-
ties as oil, introduces another ingredient ab-
sent in the earlier period. The medieval spice
trade passing through Egypt'9 was a comparative
luxury for Europe; oil is now a necessity for
the world. Potentially, the introduction of atomic
weapons possessed by the Middle Eastern states
themselves could present a qualitative difference
in the nature and risks of war compared to

14. Prawer, Crusaders' Kingdom, p. xi, Mayer, Crusades, p. 85, and Ben-Ami, Social Chang
quote Fulcher of Chartres, "For we who were Occidentals have now been made Orientals."
15. Prawer, Crusaders' Kingdom, p. 191.
16. Issawi, "Crusades," p. 273; Mayer, Crusades, p. 113; al-Tamiml, al-Hurkb, p. 264.
17. Ben-Ami, Social Change, pp. 122-124. Muslim accounts of contacts with Crusaders m
Francesco Gabrieli, Arab Historians of the Crusades, trans. by E. J. Costello (Berkeley: Universit
Press, 1969).
18. Ben-Ami, Social Change, p. 46.
19. Issawi, "Crusades," pp. 277-279.

This content downloaded from 41.176.248.151 on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:44:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
 BOOK REVIEWS 225

those existing for the Crusaders and their
opponents.
International involvement in 20th century
Palestine centered around the role of Great
Britain. The British were unsure of themselves,
indecisive in their goals for the mandate, and
occasionally affected by pangs of conscience.
Partially thanks to and partially despite the
Christian British, ZionistJews created the frame-
work of a state inside Palestine in preparation for
independence. The Crusaders had no such limita-
tions. They felt they conquered with divine
support and therefore need not worry about any
justice due the Palestinians. The Crusaders'
conquest was followed, not preceded, by the
building of political institutions nearly free
of any obligation to international authority.20 Un-
mercial communities. Israeli homogeneity is
like most colonies the Crusader states were
politically independent of Europe from their
beginning.2'
In 1948 when the English left Palestine many
Arabs went away from the country to neighboringpolitical integration and nation building in Israel,23
Arab states or Arab-controlled sections of Pal-
estine. Apparently a similar process took place
at the Crusader conquest and thereafter,22 but
there seems to be little evidence available
concerning the numbers and destinations of the
Muslims who left Palestine. Nor do we have much
information concerning their activities, if any,
opposing the Crusaders from their new locations.
Some contemporary Palestinians have organized
into guerrilla groups and have attempted to
destroy Israel by actions both inside and out-
side its frontiers.
Nationalism is perhaps the most distinctive
political aspect of the modern world. Most pre-
modern politics derived from religious and dy-
nastic bases of legitimacy. Many modern states
are founded on the theory of ethnic nationalism.
Inside the nation government is supposedly
based on the will of the sovereign people, not
that of a dynastic or religious ruler. The Cru-
sader states, including the Kingdom of Jeru-
salem, were based on the legitimacy of conquest
and divine will, dynastic government, and feudal
relations between the King and his lords. Israel
claims to base its legitimacy on the will of its
citizens. Its government is a representative
democracy. There is only one Israel with one
strongly centralized government and one pre-
dominant language. There were several Crusader
states, each with a relatively weak central ad-
ministration. Israel does not have large, econom-
ically influential, and socially segregated groups
of resident foreigners such as the Crusader
Kingdom had in the Italian city state com-
lessened, however, by the Palestinian Arabs it
rules and internal differences between Oriental
and Western Jews.
The armed forces, which play a vital role in
were disruptive in the Crusader Kingdom. The
nobles who led the army were ultimately success-
ful in their long struggle against the powers of
the throne. In this way they weakened the mili-
tary force and unity of the Kingdom.24 The
military-religious orders were nearly inde-
pendent of royal authority, though they had less
influence in the Kingdom of Jerusalem than in
the other Crusader states. The Israeli army is
under the direct control of the state. It en-
courages national unity through language training
and preserving a common military-historical
heritage. The sense of equality caused by con-
scription in the Israeli army was not present
in the Crusader hosts; instead, the Crusader
army was based on feudal hierarchical concepts
of inequality. Because of the central role of
the army participation in it was crucial to

20. William R. Polk, David M. Stamler, and Edmund Asfour, Backdrop to Tragedy: The Struggle for Pal
(Boston: Beacon Press, 1957), p. 25. Polk is the source of the observations concerning the contrast betwe
British-Arab-Zionist relationship and the Crusaders. This volume, now over 15 years old, still contains th
thoughtful general essay on the history of 20th century Palestine.
21. Prawer, Crusaders' Kingdom, p. 481.
22. Prawer, Crusaders' Kingdom, p. 83; Mayer, Crusades, pp. 177- 178.
23. Leonard J. Fein, Politics in Israel (Boston: Little, Brown and Company, 1967), p. 205.
24. Ben-Ami,Social Change, pp. 160ff; Mayer, Crusades, pp. 155-157. Prawer, Crusaders'Kingdom, pp. 105
218-269; al-Tamimi, al-Hurfib, pp. 63, 72, and 264 discusses the internal military weaknesses
Crusader Kingdom.

This content downloaded from 41.176.248.151 on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:44:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms
226 THE MIDDLE EAST JOURNAL

creating consensus on the issues basic to both
societies.
Nationalism assumes majority rule. Although
the Jews of Palestine before 1948 were not a
majority, they became one in Israel. The Cru-
saders remained a religious, ethnic and political
minority in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. There
were few Europeans who worked on the land
as farmers; most Crusaders lived in towns and
cities.25 The act of Crusading freed a serf or
slave of his obligations to live on the land and
farm. Few men were eager to resume a menial
agricultural position if it could be avoided.
Zionist ideology, on the other hand, emphasized
the establishment of agricultural labor as a
precondition to success in Palestine.
Conclusion
Those making the historical analogy between the
Crusades in the Ilth-13th centuries and 20th
century Palestine problems, such as President
Nasir,26 have generally used the comparison in historical evidence. With the publication and
order to encourage hope for eventual Arab victory
translation of new studies on the Crusader King-
as well as to counsel patience in the short run.
It has been only 25 years since the division of
Palestine. Who, they ask, could have foreseen
in 1124, 25 years after the conquest of Jeru-
salem by the Crusaders, that eventually Palestine
would be liberated from European control? This
point of view, though comforting to those who
espouse it,27 depends on the unstated and
doubtful assumption that because something hap-
pened in the past it will happen in the future,
even though only one case of past behavior
is used as evidence for the generalization. The
changes in the nature of international behavior
and the characteristics of states have created a
situation so different from the medieval period
that comparisons are perhaps invalid for these
if for no other reasons. On the other hand, the
obvious similarities of two small, militarily suc-
cessful, Europe-oriented states occupying nearly
the same land area separated by nearly 700 years
will presumably continue to invite comparison.
Whether or not the comparisons are valid they
should be based on careful study of the available
dom of Jerusalem this becomes a more feasible
though still highly debatable task.

25. Prawer, Crusaders' Kingdom, pp. 505-507; al-Tamimi, al-Huriub, p. 73; however, Mayer, Crusades, pp.
151- 153, emphasizes that there were several substantial settlements in the countryside.
26. Maxime Rodinson, Israel and the Arabs (Harmondsworth, England: Penguin Books, 1968), p. 162.
27. It would, however, presumably be small consolation to a Palestinian to see too exact a congruence, for
this would involve a wait of more than 150 years until the reoccupation of Palestine could take place.

This content downloaded from 41.176.248.151 on Sat, 08 Apr 2017 07:44:54 UTC
All use subject to http://about.jstor.org/terms