Settlement, Identity, and Memory in the Latin East: An Examination of the Term ‘Crusader States’

Abstract

In a recent article, Christopher MacEvitt posited that historians should eschew the term ‘crusader states’ to describe the four polities formed in the Levant and Syria as a result of the First Crusade (the kingdom of Jerusalem, the principality of Antioch, and the counties of Edessa and Tripoli), arguing that crusading and its remembrance had little influence in the east, and so these states should not be viewed as extensions of the west. This paper seeks to offer a critical response to this by making use of the methodological approaches which have recently traced the emergence, influence and definitions of crusading in the Latin West and have re-situated the movement within broader patterns of elite behaviours and cultural identities. The aim, therefore, is to examine the processes of identity formation among Latin settlers in the east, the active remembrance and memorialisation of the First Crusade, and, most especially, what influence the latter had over the nature of inter-cultural contact. It does so by adopting an interdisciplinary approach, which incorporates textual, literary, vernacular, documentary, material and artistic evidence. It will be argued that, although the term ‘crusader state’ cannot be used in a monolithic sense, it nevertheless remains a crucial medium through which to understand the complex social and cultural history of the Latin polities of Outremer, as well as their impact on the Near East. Examination of this concept not only contributes to modern understanding of these states, it also lends greater depth to historiographical discussions on the nature of the crusading movement as a whole.

Remembering Outremer in the West: The Secunda pars historiae Iherosolimitane and the Crisis of Crusading in Mid-twelfth-century France

“…3 Nevertheless, this upward trend in tracing the reception of crusading has so far focused primarily on individual expeditions, most especially the First Crusade, and as a result there has been much less scholarly discussion regarding the role played by the histories of the four polities 2 (known collectively as the Crusader States, the Latin East, or Outremer) created in the wake of that initial venture-the kingdom of Jerusalem, the principality of Antioch, and the counties of Edessa and Tripoli. 4 That is not to say there has been no interest, but that which has moved beyond a focus on empiricism has largely been limited to considering a select few sources created in the Latin East, in particular those by Fulcher of Chartres, Walter the Chancellor, and William of Tyre, with little consideration of their position within wider processes of interpretation and remembrance. 5 Though it would be misleading to suggest that there is as much potential textual source material for these polities as there is for crusading expeditions, which goes some way to explaining the differing historiographical emphases, there is a need to understand how the stories surrounding the creation and survival of permanent Latin settlements in the Holy Land and Syria were digested by those same European societies who placed such great value in individual crusading campaigns.…”