Yet these famous examples are only the tip of the iceberg. Gordon Reynalds argues:

Throughout the twelfth- and thirteenth-century crusades to the East, numerous women from a variety of social standings had leadership thrust upon them or used the opportunity that power-vacuums provided to lead negotiations, act as mediators between forces or as emissaries on diplomatic missions. … Their continuous presence in inter-crusader mediation … highlights the willingness of the Frankish people, both new arrivals in the East and established settlers, to rely on women for this role.63

Spies

Arab sources reference two cases of highly placed women acting as spies for the Muslims. Ibn al-Athir claims that a certain ‘Lady of Bourzey’ exchanged gifts with Saladin and informed him of many significant developments. It is unclear, however, if this woman is separate from or simply another name for Sybil of Antioch, the bigamous second wife of Bohemond III of Antioch. We know substantially more about this second case.

Bohemond’s legal wife was Theodora Comnena, the sister of Maria Comnena, King Amalric’s queen consort. Bohemond left Theodora as soon as her powerful great uncle, Emperor Manuel I, died in 1180. In her place, he took a woman, Sibyl, of unknown ancestry (possibly the above-named Lady of Bourzey) to ‘wife’. This marriage was immediately condemned as bigamous and vehemently opposed by the Church. When Bohemond refused to separate from Sibyl, he was duly excommunicated. The conflict continued to escalate, with Bohemond openly attacking churchmen and their property and, at one point, laying siege to the patriarch and other leading clerics, when they sought refuge in a fortress. This incident and Bohemond’s intransigence caused some of Antioch’s feudal lords to withdraw their homage from Bohemond. Meanwhile, the patriarch of Antioch placed those loyal to Bohemond under interdict. At this juncture, fearing that the Saracens would take advantage of the situation, the patriarch of Jerusalem tried to mediate, but without success. Bohemond refused to dismiss his concubine, and his support among his vassals crumbled further.

While Tyre attributed Sibyl’s power over Bohemond to witchcraft, the truly remarkable and deplorable fact was that, according to Arab sources, Sibyl was on Saladin’s payroll. In short, this single, well-placed and successful female spy single-handedly reduced the fighting capacity of Antioch in the critical years immediately before the battle of Hattin. If nothing else, through her correspondence, she kept Saladin informed of the disarray in the principality and its vulnerability. Few women in any era can be said to have enjoyed so much power.

* Iveta’s name is also given as Ivetta, Joveta, Jovita, Jowita, Yvette and even Juditta.

Chapter 9

The Economic Position of Women in the Crusader States

In contrast to the political power of women in the Latin East, their economic role has left few traces in the historical record. The problem is not unique to the Latin East. Unlike political and military events, economic developments were rarely described by chroniclers and contemporary historians. The incremental and collective character of economic evolution made it difficult to detect, much less assess, by those experiencing it. As a result, modern economic historians rely heavily upon archaeological evidence, household accounts, land deeds, tax records, wills and sometimes oblique inferences in letters and chronicles to piece together a picture of the economy in any place or period. Such records are rarely systematic or comprehensive, leaving many blanks and questions. Even when economic factors and developments can be inferred, they are usually handled in broad terms without highlighting the role of individuals. Alternatively, data mining of tax records or household accounts, while specific, is generally too narrow to enable generalizations.

Given the dearth of sources pertaining to the economic role of women in the crusader states, this chapter is inevitably circumscribed. It first offers an overview of the economic role of women in contemporary Western Europe. It then highlights some of the factors and features of life in the Levant that might have impacted the economic position of women in the context of the crusader states. Finally, the chapter will highlight the importance of female patronage in the Latin East.

The Role of Women in the Western Mediaeval Economy

As noted above, feudalism inherently granted an economic role to women by making them major landholders. As heiresses, widows or deputies of their husbands, women acted as the overall manager or CEO of the economic activities on their lands. As we have seen, a substantial portion of all fiefs was held by women (as heiresses, dowagers or guardians of underage heirs) at any one time. In addition, the other obligations of noblemen (attending the king, administering justice or taking part in warfare) ensured that the daily management of noble estates fell to wives while their husbands were otherwise preoccupied.

Wealthier noblemen, of course, hired professional estate and household officials (almoners, chancellors, treasurers, comptrollers, stewards, marshals, constables, bailiffs and clerks, etc.), who were almost invariably men. The poorest (male) landowners were more personally involved in the daily oversight of agricultural production. Yet, the time-consuming and demanding nature of agriculture and agricultural processing (particularly preserving and storing) in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries made it nearly impossible for one individual to oversee all aspects of the process effectively. A lord’s first and primary partner in direct management or in managing the managers was his lady. That role is largely invisible to us now simply because it was viewed as natural or self-evident, which meant it did not warrant mention. We find it reflected, however, in the plethora of household accounts and inventories in which wives and widows are the recipients or auditors and in tax records. In an age where agriculture was still the dominant sector of the economy, aristocratic women were directly involved in managing the largest share of the national economy.

In addition to overseeing the running of the feudal estates, women also almost invariably ran the lord’s personal household. The only significant exception to this was the case of the greatest magnates, who maintained several households – one for themselves, one for their ladies and maybe one or more for their children. For most feudal lords, however, there was one household, and the lady of the fief ran it.

Mediaeval households were large and complex. They encompassed not only the family but servants, retainers and dependents as well. They served as the headquarters of all the lord’s activities. A nobleman was seriously disadvantaged in politics and war if his household was not in order. He depended on men, horses and supplies being where he wanted them when he wanted them. He expected revenues to be delivered when demanded and payments to be made to his retainers and dependents when due. A nobleman also depended on his household for the care and education of his children and the spiritual wellbeing of the living and dead members of his affinity. In short, the lifestyle of nobles in the High Middle Ages revolved around the aristocratic household, and noblemen depended first and foremost on their wives to keep the household running smoothly. The activities of a noblewoman running a complex household resembled the management of a small business rather than the lifestyle of a modern housewife served by utilities and devices rather than people.

Middle-class women played a similar role in their husband’s businesses. The role of wealthy merchant wives resembled that of noblewomen, with various subordinate officials, large staffs and managerial responsibilities. The farther down the economic scale one went, the more hands-on the wife’s role became. The poorest men had neither servants nor apprentices, only their wives and children as helpers. Significantly, at a man’s death, his widow could inherit his business in its entirety, and she was entitled to take up her husband’s seat in his guild.

Manuscript illustrations are wonderfully revealing. There are images, for example, of a banker handing out loans while his wife collects them. An ‘alewife’ is pictured filling barrels with liquid under the direction of her husband. Another illustration shows a wife holding a helmet steady on a forge while her husband, the smith, smites it. Women are also shown aiding their husbands in butcher and cobbler shops, selling vegetables and so on.

Of course, many images are ambiguous. When workshops are depicted with multiple adults working together, the women may just as easily be apprentices or employees as wives. As noted earlier, women could and did learn a variety of trades in the era of the crusades and worked as apprentices, journeymen or masters of their trade throughout their lives. Some women established and ran independent businesses. Once qualified in a trade, women took part in the administration of the respective profession, both as guild members and on industrial tribunals that investigated allegations of fraud, malpractice and the like.

Women in the era of the crusades were free to engage in a wide variety of trades. Indeed, some trades such as brewing in England, baking in France and silk-making almost everywhere, were dominated by women. Women in the Middle Ages engaged in many service jobs we still associate with women today, such as hairdressing, laundering, waiting on tables (barmaids), cleaning, cooking, child-rearing and prostitution. Like today, women were frequently shopkeepers, selling everything from fruit and vegetables (not very lucrative) to spices and books (high-margin businesses). Yet they are also listed as providing services we don’t generally associate with women, such as barbers, carters and farriers.

Furthermore, women were not confined to the service sector. Women also engaged in industry. Tax rolls reveal women confectioners, candle makers, cobblers, and buckle makers. Women are listed in town records as ironmongers and net makers, bookbinders and haberdashers, glove makers and butchers. They could also be musicians, copiers, illuminators and painters. More surprising to modern readers, women appear in mediaeval documents as coppersmiths, goldsmiths, locksmiths and armourers.

In the early Middle Ages, women could also be medical practitioners. All midwives were women, of course, and women provided most of the care for women patients at hospitals, hospices and infirmaries. Women could also be barbers (who performed medical procedures such as bloodletting), apothecaries, surgeons and physicians. A female doctor, for example, accompanied King Louis IX on crusade in the mid-thirteenth century. Women learned these trades in the traditional way by apprenticing with someone already practicing the profession. It wasn’t until the fourteenth century that universities imposed the exclusive right to certify physicians while excluding women from universities.

Unique Economic Characteristics of the Latin East

Two factors in the Latin East may have significantly modified the above-generalised image of women in the economy. First, the fact that men were frequently called up to join military expeditions would have given women greater responsibility and opportunities for ‘minding the store’ while their men were absent. While the time spent campaigning should not be exaggerated, the fact that a man was liable for military service may have encouraged women to take a more active interest in their husband’s business simply to ensure they could manage when he was called to the feudal host or engaged in garrison duties.

Second and more intriguing is the fact that the economy of Outremer was strong in fields in which women were particularly active, if not dominant. The most obvious example is silk making. The spinning and weaving of silk are described in many mediaeval sources as the preserve of women, and silk making was a major industry in Outremer. Records suggest that as many as 4,000 silk weavers worked in the County of Tripoli alone. Other centres of silk production in the Latin East were Tyre, Gaza and Ascalon. Tyre was famed for its white silk, while Beirut is known to have exported silk in significant quantities, silk that was presumably produced in the city or nearby.

One of the most luxurious textiles of the Middle Ages was a cloth known as siqlatin, or as we would say today, ‘Latin Silk’. The name was probably derived from the fact that this textile was produced in the Latin East by or for Franks. It consists of silk interwoven with threads of pure gold. In addition, Cyprus became famous for patterned silk cloth and silk brocade. These products were so valuable they commanded the highest prices in the West and were treasured and preserved. As a result, we can still see examples of this work in the Vatican and other museums with artifacts from the royal courts of mediaeval Europe. All of this suggests that women were in control of one of the Levant’s most lucrative economic sectors during the crusader era.

Although only silk making is consistently described as the preserve of women, women were undoubtedly active in other kinds of textile production. While both sexes appeared to have engaged in weaving, spinning was the typical work of ladies, even in a domestic context. In Outremer, textile production was a major and diverse industry. In addition to siqlatin, the crusader states produced pure silk, cotton, linen, felt and wool cloth. Fragments of material made from goat and camel hair have been found. Intriguingly, the Latin East appears to have experimented with hybrid fabrics in which the warp was formed by one kind of yarn and the weft another, including combinations of silk woven with wool, linen and cotton.

Another lucrative export of the crusader states was icons. We know that large workshops for the mass production of icons were established, particularly in Acre. These produced images of popular saints such as St George and the Virgin for sale to the religious tourists, who came to the Holy Land by the tens of thousands every year. Some icons were left half-finished, to allow purchasers to commission personal touches. Others were undertaken only on commission and were unique. While the latter may be deemed works of art, the former were mass-produced souvenirs.

Women were probably engaged in producing these valuable export products. There are many manuscript illustrations of women painting what appear to be icons, and the sedentary and detailed nature of the work made it well adapted to the employment of women. It was work that women could do in their homes, and they could be paid by the piece.

Similarly, the crusader states engaged in the mass production of books. Again, these could be commissioned works with elaborate illuminations in precious metals or simple devotional works devoid of all illustrations for the low end of the market. Books without illustrations were affordable objects among the middle class and literate portions of the working class. Collections of psalms, hagiographies, the gospels and even complete bibles were popular among pilgrims. Such books served devotional needs and provided a souvenir of the trip to the Holy Land. The number of women engaged in producing these books is unknown, but it would be foolish to presume they were insignificant. Nuns had copied books from the earliest days of the monastic movement. They established the precedent of women being good at copying and provided a role model for secular female copyists. If women were particularly well represented in this industrial sector, they were engaged in one of the most lucrative economic activities in the Latin East.

All in all, women were active participants in the rural and urban economies. While sparsely represented in some trades, they would have dominated others. They thereby contributed materially to the overall creation of wealth at the individual, family, community and national levels in a region infamous for its wealth. Even assuming that women earned less than their male colleagues, they could make and accumulate independent wealth by acquiring skills and qualifications. With that capability, independence and empowerment came automatically

Women as Patrons of the Arts and Church

Finally, women had an economic role as patrons of the arts and the Church. While the most famous female patrons were the great feudal lords such as the queens, princesses, countesses and baronesses, wealthy women of the merchant class also made donations according to their means.

Queen Melisende set the gold standard for such activities. As noted, she endowed the entire convent of St Lazarus and oversaw its construction. She commissioned a psalter with a jewel-studded ivory cover and exquisite illuminations, which is viewed to this day as one of the greatest masterpieces of mediaeval artistry. Melisende is also credited by Jaroslav Folda, the leading historian of crusader art, with contributing to the renovation of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. As the daughter of a Frankish lord and an Armenian lady, she was uniquely suited to fostering a unique hybrid art and architectural style incorporating elements from early Christian, Byzantine, Syrian, Armenian, Italian and other traditions. Maria Comnena followed in her footsteps by overseeing the restoration of the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem. Appropriately for a church built under the eye of a Byzantine princess, this magnificent architectural monument reveals many Byzantine stylistic elements and workmanship. The patronage of queens had an impact not only on artistic style but also on the economy. Major building projects, for example, employed hundreds of masons, carpenters, sculptors, mosaic workers, smiths, glaziers and more.

Far more common, however, were women of more modest means who commissioned works of art for their homes or churches. Women commissioned many tomb effigies, especially for husbands or children who pre-deceased them. Folda notes that one of the surprising characteristics of crusader art is the depiction of women as supplicants on icons, ‘an important indication that women were involved as patrons’.64 He also notes that amazons are depicted more frequently in manuscripts produced in the Latin East than elsewhere. This, he suggests, is either an indication of female patronage or of the more prominent role women played in the defence of the Latin East. That role is the subject of the next chapter.

Chapter 10

In Defence of the Holy Land: The Women of Outremer in Times of War

Although the crusader states were at peace for many more years than they were at war, they were created by the sword and would end by the sword. Eight major armed expeditions that we call crusades punctuated the history of the crusader states, and various smaller armed pilgrimages brought armies from the West, usually in response to Muslim incursions and attacks.

Yet these expeditions from the West represent only one aspect of the armed conflict that characterised the Middle East in this era. War came in many other forms as well. The founders of the crusader states fought back five major attempts to expel them in the first ten years following the capture of Jerusalem. In the same period, they took the offensive, capturing Haifa, Arsuf, Caesarea, Tortosa, Jubail, Acre, Tripoli, Beirut and Sidon. Shortly afterwards, a bloody struggle for control of Edessa began that ended in the complete expulsion of the Franks. Yet in the same period, the Franks took control of Tyre and Ascalon and laid siege to Aleppo and Damascus. All these military campaigns took place without any aid from the West.

Likewise, in the 1160s, the Franks undertook no less than five invasions of Egypt, usually in alliance with one or another Muslim faction and sometimes supported by the Byzantines, but all without Western crusaders. While these campaigns constituted offensive action on the part of the Franks against the Saracens, in the following decade, the roles were reversed. Saladin led six invasions of Frankish territory between 1177 and 1188; all were met exclusively by local military forces.

It took the Third Crusade to re-establish a viable crusader state on the coast of the Levant after Saladin’s victory at the Battle of Hattin, but in the period following that crusade, most Frankish territorial gains were made by treaty rather than warfare. Nevertheless, Saracen raids into Frankish territory continued sporadically, such as the sack of Caesarea and Limassol in 1220 and 1221, respectively. Then, starting in 1261, the Mamluks kept up near-continuous military pressure on the crusader states, taking one city after another until they captured the last Frankish stronghold, the city of Acre, in 1291, thereby ending the Frankish presence in the Levant.

Contemporary accounts of crusades and warfare in the crusader states frequently refer to women. This was not because women warriors were commonplace but rather because circumstances in the Holy Land repeatedly resulted in situations requiring the response of every Christian, male and female. In short, women took part in the defence of the Holy Land largely in response to emergencies.

Furthermore, women are conspicuously absent from Christian accounts of mounted raids and invasions, i.e., mobile operations. Mobile operations were conducted in the crusader states by mounted troops of two kinds: knights (heavy cavalry) and turcopoles (light cavalry). Knights were expected to fight on horseback with lance and sword, while turcopoles were mounted archers who had to use a bow and arrow while controlling their horses with their legs only. No man or woman could obtain proficiency in these skills without years of intensive training. Such training was both time-consuming and expensive and could not be carried out without the approval and complicity of various actors. In contrast to mobile warfare, however, women were prominent in all forms and nearly all aspects of static warfare – that is, siege warfare – both in offensive and defensive situations.

This chapter explores the role of women in the Holy Land during armed conflict with the Saracens. It looks at the various activities women undertook during military engagements, including combat, support and command functions. Because a woman’s social status was decisive in determining how they participated in warfare, the chapter looks first at the bulk of women fighters (the commoners) and then at the role of aristocratic women. First, however, it is useful to consider contemporary attitudes and how they influenced the sources.

Contemporary Perceptions of Women Warriors

The leading female historian of the crusades, Helen Nicholson, notes that contemporary European and Muslim cultures viewed warfare as a male preserve and rejected female warriors in principle as unnatural. It is precisely because female fighters were anathema to the Muslims that Muslim chroniclers delighted in depicting Christian women who violated ‘natural laws’. Several Muslim accounts, for example, describe finding the corpses of women dressed fully in armour among the Christian dead. Yet, such voyeuristic accounts, Nicholson stresses, were intended to demonstrate the dishonourable and barbaric character of Christians. She writes: ‘Muslims … gladly depict Christians as allowing their women to fight, as this would show that they were a barbarous, degenerate people’.65 She further claims that Baha al-Din, a notoriously unreliable and melodramatic Muslim source, ‘mentioned women fighting and the presence of women in the Christian forces to underline the perverted fanaticism of the Christians’.66

Christian sources, on the other hand, while sharing the view that the natural place of women was in non-combat roles, accepted and admired those extraordinary women who, in exceptional circumstances, took up arms and fought ‘manfully’. Indeed, Christian chroniclers on the whole saw the martial qualities of Frankish women as remarkable – and admirable – because physically, women were viewed as the weaker sex. Nicholson points out that in contemporary literature (texts not intended to depict historical reality but purely fictional and even fantastical), women don armour and take up arms almost invariably to ‘show the failings of the male characters’.67 In the context of Outremer, however, the salient point was that women who fought were seen as defending Christendom and the Holy Land and their ‘unwomanly’ actions were considered minor miracles in which the holiness of their cause endowed the weak with unusual strength. While fighting for Christ made their ‘manly’ actions admirable, it did not make them ‘natural’ or ‘normal’. Women taking an active part in warfare remained the exception rather than the norm.

In her study of women on crusade, Sabine Geldsetzer makes another important point. Muslim accounts of finding women dressed in armour and helmets like men, even if taken at face value, do not prove that the women were engaged in combat. Women are known to have donned armour merely to protect themselves while traveling in insecure territory or when bringing water, ammunition or food to men defending the walls of a city under siege or while on watch. While wearing armour was mostly for protection, it also served to deceive the enemy. Women standing watch on a wall would have signalled a vulnerability to the enemy. By wearing men’s clothing, especially armour, women made the defending forces seem stronger than they were and therefore helped discourage attacks.

Women at War: Commoners

Based on the Christian accounts, it is fair to say women played an active role in warfare only in emergencies and that the military role of women in the crusading era was primarily supportive and auxiliary. Indeed, most references to women are incidental to the overall narrative depicting military events. Nevertheless, the historical record provides explicit references to women engaging in the following support activities that contributed to the fighting capacity of the Christian armies: