27 April
Despite truce, Qalawun attacks and captures Tripoli.
1290
10 November
Death of Sultan Qalawun, succeeded by his son al-Ashraf Khalil.
1291
6 April
Mamluk siege of Acre begins;
18 May
Acre falls;
June
Sidon falls to Mamluks;
31 July
Beirut surrenders to the Mamluks;
3 and 14 August
Templars withdraw from their last holdings in the Levant, Tartus and Athlit (Castle Pilgrim).
1307
13 October
Philip II of France arrests Templars on false charges.
1314
Templars dissolved by papal order.
Part I
A History of the Women of Outremer
Chapter 1
Women in the Era of the Crusades
Women in Western Europe
Women in the crusades era enjoyed a status and level of empowerment almost unprecedented in Western Europe up to this time. This is best illustrated by a brief review of women’s status in earlier eras.
The Ancient World
In most of Ancient Greece, with the exception of Sparta, and throughout most of Roman history, women were seen as inherently inferior to men in both mind and body. Aristotle famously asserted that women were ‘infantile males’ constitutionally incapable of developing the ability to reason and, therefore, ‘permanent children’ in need of constant ‘protection’ and guidance. Although Aristotle’s views did not go unchallenged, they reflected predominant attitudes and the legal reality of women’s status, and much of ancient Greek society reflected these views. Inevitably, something viewed as inferior was less valued than their allegedly superior male companions. A casual remark purporting to state the obvious during an Athenian lawsuit illustrates this. Namely: ‘Everybody raises a son even if he is poor, but exposes [i.e., kills] a daughter even if he is rich’.2
Free Athenian women (i.e., the wives and daughters of citizens, as opposed to slaves or foreigners) were, from birth onwards, fed less and given inferior food than their brothers, denied exercise and fresh air, excluded from education and intellectual life, and incapable of inheriting anything more valuable than a bushel of wheat. At the first sign of puberty, their father gave them away in marriage to a man, usually twice or three times their age, often an utter stranger. They were often dead by the age of 40, exhausted by giving birth to infants, who (if female) were frequently murdered by their husbands immediately after birth because they were a burden to raise.3
Although Roman women enjoyed far greater freedom of movement and took a more active part in the social and commercial life of Rome and its colonies, women did not legally exist under Roman law. From birth, they were viewed not only as inferior but also as dispensable. A Roman father had the right to kill a daughter at birth but not a son. That this right was exercised rather than merely theoretical is suggested by records that chillingly demonstrate that few Roman men chose to raise more than one daughter. The others, like their Athenian sisters, were slaughtered at birth. All Roman women, therefore, lived only by the ‘grace’ of their father – and were expected to be eternally grateful for being allowed to exist at all.
Furthermore, Roman women, like slaves, could not contest anything before a court of law. Legally, they had no status and required a male guardian in every phase of their life. As children, they were controlled by their fathers (or his closest male relative if he were dead). As wives, they were subjects to their husbands, and as widows, they were controlled and represented by their sons or grandsons. Notably, since a woman’s sole value to society was defined by her ability to produce children, a post-menstrual woman was of no worth whatsoever. The fate of widows was desperate unless they had sons and grandsons who honoured them.
In Greece and Rome, marriage was a contract between families in which fathers gave their daughters to the man of their choice without any legal or moral obligation to consult, much less consider, the wishes of their daughter. While men often acted on their own initiative seeking to obtain the girl they wanted from her father, such an option was unthinkable for a young girl or woman. The best she could hope for was that the man she favoured would approach her male guardian. Likewise, men – but not women – could divorce an unwanted spouse without cause. They simply sent the woman back to her father and returned the dowry with her. In these circumstances, divorce disproportionately benefitted men and caused untold misery to women. Men (but not women) could discard partners who had grown old, fat, less attractive or failed to produce children. Indeed, they could discard wives simply because a new marriage would bring commercial or political benefits or a larger dowry. The fate of most repudiated wives, on the other hand, was (and still is in many societies) dismal. Many discarded wives were reviled by their parents and brothers because they were blamed for their ‘failed’ marriage and seen as an unwanted and extra burden. A rejected wife rarely found a new husband, so she was anathema in a society that viewed childbearing as a woman’s only purpose. Finally, while only one wife was recognised as the legal partner to produce citizens, men enjoyed multiple sexual partners without approbation; fidelity to one’s spouse was viewed as a virtue in women only.
The Impact of Christianity
The teachings of Christ upended Greco-Roman gender norms with a series of radical doctrines concerning a woman’s place in marriage, society and the universe. First, Christ categorically condemned divorce for both men and women. Christianity’s insistence on marriage as a life bond dramatically increased women’s status and financial security. If a man could not simply toss a woman out and get a new wife, he had no choice but to try to come to terms with the wife he had. His wife was elevated from an interchangeable sexual, commercial and political object to a lifetime partner. While wealthy and powerful men in Christian kingdoms throughout the Middle Ages still found ways to set aside unwanted wives, the Church’s stance made it more difficult, time-consuming and expensive. The system wasn’t perfect, but it was notably better than what had prevailed before.
