AHC: A Jewish feudal lord in Spain

There have been several threads about possible Jewish kingdoms in medieval Europe. My aim here is lower - a feudal domain during the classical feudal period (Baron Rothschild doesn't count) with a hereditary Jewish lord, which lasts at least two, and preferably at least three, generations.

Since feudalism is fundamentally a military institution, such a domain would have to occur in a place where there are Jewish soldiers and military commanders, which in medieval Europe pretty much means Spain. I can think of at least one potential candidate: Samuel ha-Nagid, an 11th-century warrior-statesman who commanded the armies of Granada and served as vizier during the 1030s-1050s. (He also wrote Hebrew war poetry in the Arabic style.) It seems to me that the Granadan ruler could easily have granted him some land - possibly around Lucena, which had a Jewish majority at the time - either instead of or in addition to the title of vizier.

Could it have lasted? The Almoravid and Almohad invasions would be a major problem. But assuming that a Jewish domain could survive these, it might be able to find a place in a feudal patchwork where, after all, Muslim lords cheerfully fought other Muslims in the service of Christian kings and vice versa. (Hell, it was even possible for a Christian to fight for the Muslims and still be a hero of the Reconquista.) Sooner or later, one of the Christian or Muslim kingdoms would squash it, but I could imagine it lasting a century or two.

Any other ideas?
 
A big no-no.

Even in the muslim world, Jews couldn't be rulers on non-Jews. Advisors or commanders certaintly (you have exemple of that in both Christian and Muslim world) but as feudality (as the vassalic ties) is based on obedience to Christianism as it was one of the main pillars of Latin society...
 
Last edited:
A big no-no.

Even in the muslim world, Jews couldn't be rulers on non-Jews. Advisors or commanders certaintly (you have exemple of that in both Christian and Muslim world) but as feudality (as the vassalic ties) is based on obedience to Christianism as it was one of the main pillars of Latin society...

That isn't entirely true - Jews in the Muslim world couldn't rule Muslims, but they could sometimes rule Christians. The Ottomans made Joseph Nasi Duke of Naxos - admittedly much later, and in a different country, but there was no religious prohibition against a Jew ruling a non-Muslim duchy.

Some chronicles also indicate that a contingent of Iberian Jews fought with the Moorish armies in 711 and that Jewish commanders were temporarily placed in charge of some conquered Christian cities - this may well be a later embellishment, but if it did happen, it would further support the suitability of Jews to rule Christians (at least in the Muslim scheme of things).

So that leaves two possibilities. The first would be a Jewish fiefdom around Lucena, which was almost entirely Jewish at the time - it was called the "Jews' city" in the eleventh century and even had a Hebrew name. Maybe Samuel ha-Nagid could be called "lord of the Jews" and given Lucena plus some surrounding land on which he could settle Jews and raise Jewish troops. Alternatively, he could fight for one of the northern taifas rather than Granada and receive a conquered Christian county along the marches, which wouldn't have a Jewish population but at least wouldn't cause him to rule over Muslims. Possibly, in either event, a Jewish lord could be seen as less likely to revolt than a Muslim one, because a Jew could never aspire to rule the whole kingdom.

And while the feudalism of the Christian kingdoms certainly had religious elements, that didn't stop them from taking oaths from Muslim vassals. Whatever dodges they used to do that could presumably be adapted for Jews, assuming that there was a Jewish lord to hand who had troops the king needed.

Eventually a Jewish fiefdom would get squashed, yes, but creating one might not be impossible.
 
Technically speaking, wasn't a Muslim ruler using non-Muslims as soldiers supposed to be against the rules too?
 
The only way I can imagine survive more than a few years is making him the ruler of a powerful taifa ( maybe Denia ), near enough of the Christian kingdoms to play balance between the 2 ... but even then is difficult to survive the obviously very charismatic founder ( some sort of Jewish Cid )
 
That isn't entirely true - Jews in the Muslim world couldn't rule Muslims, but they could sometimes rule Christians. The Ottomans made Joseph Nasi Duke of Naxos - admittedly much later, and in a different country, but there was no religious prohibition against a Jew ruling a non-Muslim duchy.
You had. The andalusian pogroms happened mainly because Jews were percieved as having too much power. If you didn't have ONE jewish taifa (I suppose it's that you mean by "duchy")

For Ottomans, well, to say it simply : 1453's Ottoman Empire isn't medieval Spain.

Ottoman Empire had to comply with pre-existing institutions when in Spain, Muslims created the institutions. And theses institutions were REALLY clear about non-Muslims governors or rulers.

So, no, not a Jew could rule on non-Jews in Muslim Spain.

Some chronicles also indicate that a contingent of Iberian Jews fought with the Moorish armies in 711 and that Jewish commanders were temporarily placed in charge of some conquered Christian cities
Later embelishment. King-size.
In fact, it could even come from anti-semitic chronicles in Late Spain to justify the expulsion of Jews. At least, I found such statements only there.

For historic reality, nope. The lords that were in charge before 711, aka Christians, stand in charge of their own business. Jews obtenained the right to rule themselves that they didn't had before and actually helped the Arabo-Berbers in this task by being really loyal.

But nothing close or far from Jewish governor.

So that leaves two possibilities. The first would be a Jewish fiefdom around Lucena, which was almost entirely Jewish at the time - it was called the "Jews' city" in the eleventh century and even had a Hebrew name.

Fiefdom concept didn't existed in Muslim Spain, aka the mix between land and territorial power and/or fiscal power.
A jew could have land power, but not territorial and not fiscal when it came to not-Jews.

And many spanish cities had jews. Not in majority and always, always with a muslim governor and garrison. You know what? Because Jews weren't allowed to rule other thing than their own communauties.


And while the feudalism of the Christian kingdoms certainly had religious elements, that didn't stop them from taking oaths from Muslim vassals.
Late Spain isn't representative of Caliphal period. 500 years of difference.


Eventually a Jewish fiefdom would get squashed, yes, but creating one might not be impossible.

Let's see...
Feudality not existing in Muslim Spain, not in name and not in concept (feudalism is a western christian thing). You had in Al-Andalus a great separation between land-owners, governors and fiscal "employees" when it was mixed in Europe WITH an hereditary part.
Strict and enforced rules about Christian and Jews unable to rule Muslims

I can see at least 2 issues.
 
Technically speaking, wasn't a Muslim ruler using non-Muslims as soldiers supposed to be against the rules too?

No. Because technically ibn Nagrela was only an advisor and therefore had no real power, only a "tool" of the emir. Of course, it was a social fiction that didn't worked really well (it finished by a slaughter of Grenadian Jews by Muslims) but it's more or less the reason.

A jew acting for himself, as a feudal (as said, mix between land, territorial and fiscal) with a power of its own against Muslims is unthinkable in Muslim Spain.

Even commending Muslims in the battlefield is borderline.
You just have to read the arabs chronicles about the ibn Nagrela (father and son) to see at which point this power was hated by the mass of Arabs/Arabized peoples.
 
You had. The andalusian pogroms happened mainly because Jews were percieved as having too much power. If you didn't have ONE jewish taifa (I suppose it's that you mean by "duchy")

Sorry, by "duchy" I was referring to the Duchy of Naxos in the 1500s, not to anything in Spain.

Later embelishment. King-size.

In fact, it could even come from anti-semitic chronicles in Late Spain to justify the expulsion of Jews. At least, I found such statements only there.

OK, fair enough.

Fiefdom concept didn't existed in Muslim Spain, aka the mix between land and territorial power and/or fiscal power.

What did exist? I've seen many descriptions of the rulers of taifas as having (or being) vassals - is this an inaccurate translation to English? How would a Muslim's relationship to his lord differ from that of a Christian?

You mention also "a great separation between land-owners, governors and fiscal employees." Does this mean that the governors were centrally appointed and had no title to the lands they governed?

What should I read to get a better handle on this?

And many spanish cities had jews. Not in majority and always, always with a muslim governor and garrison.

Lucena seems to have been somewhat more Jewish than other Iberian cities, assuming the accuracy of the sources cited in the linked article.

Late Spain isn't representative of Caliphal period. 500 years of difference.

Christians and Muslims were each other's vassals in El Cid's time, though, weren't they? That was contemporary with ibn Naghrela. I'll accept, based on your statements, that a Jew couldn't have had this kind of power during the Caliphal period - would it have been possible later, when the social order had come more undone? Or if not the eleventh century, then the twelfth - say, if some of the Jews fleeing north from the Almohad invasions were soldiers and took service with a Christian lord?

You just have to read the arabs chronicles about the ibn Nagrela (father and son) to see at which point this power was hated by the mass of Arabs/Arabized peoples.

More the son than the father, no? My impression has been that the son was seen as abusing his power, thus leading to the massacre, while the father was seen as being more humble and having more integrity. But I could be wrong about this as I seem to be about much else.
 
What did exist? I've seen many descriptions of the rulers of taifas as having (or being) vassals - is this an inaccurate translation to English? How would a Muslim's relationship to his lord differ from that of a Christian?

Vassals is or a bad translation or a really bad misconception.
The vassalic link imply 3 things (feudalism being a sub-genre of vassalage) :
-Lands as salary of a service
-Aknowledgment of the higher authority as the real possessor of the land (even when the land was originally yours, but you gave it in exchange of protection)
-Use of this system not only bilateral but multipolar with the creation of sub-vassalic ties. In other words, possible alienation of land to create its own vassals.

For Muslim Spain, the institutional base is more a bix between tribal and "imperial" features.

1)The fiscal and territorial power were two different things, and considered as functions, not a benefit.

2)The land-based power didn't came from the sovereign, but from the land-owner itself, or more exactly his enlarged family.

3)You didn't had a real alienation of land from the ruler.

You mention also "a great separation between land-owners, governors and fiscal employees." Does this mean that the governors were centrally appointed and had no title to the lands they governed?
More or less that. Of course, some tended to try to pass it to their sons, and some managed to do that. That said, it wasn't normal.

Let's take the exemple of Banu Qasi that were the most...Latins of Andalusian nobility -for good reasons-.

They never managed to keep the control of towns and governorate because the Caliphe could appoint at his will. Except the open revolt, no real way to counter that.

In the same time, even if it wasn't compulsatory, the hereditary principle was the norm in Carolingia.

What should I read to get a better handle on this?
I don't know if it's translated in english but anything from Evariste Lévi-Provencal (Spain in the X century is a good resume).

I've other titles in mind, buy pretty sure not translated in english.

The Judeica Encylopedia is really interesting, and free.

Lucena seems to have been somewhat more Jewish than other Iberian cities, assuming the accuracy of the sources cited in the linked article.

I've trouble to see how it could be contradictory with what I said : Jews had the right to rule themselves, but not Muslims. Apparently in the text, it's said the Muslims stand outside the jewish town.

Apparently so, Lucena wasn't let to itself but was surrounded by Arabized settlement.

You had a relativly comparable equivalent in Christianity with the town of Lunèl.

Christians and Muslims were each other's vassals in El Cid's time, though, weren't they?
Well, you had statement of vassality indeed...But it's more complicated, as Muslims always concieved parias as tribute when Christian considered it as acknowledgement of vassalization.

That was contemporary with ibn Naghrela. I'll accept, based on your statements, that a Jew couldn't have had this kind of power during the Caliphal period - would it have been possible later, when the social order had come more undone?
No. The Jews were almost only an urban communauty, and couldn't expand their power outside a town without being in opposition with arabized land-owners (whatever Arabs, Berbers or Mozarabs).

In fact, if some Jews tried to take the power from one town they de facto ruled in great part, it would be the end of such liberty.

Usually, the Jews negociated with the Muslim ruler, as Lucena did during the 1st Taifa era, when the Zirids of Grenada tried to increase the taxes dues by the inhabitants.

Or if not the eleventh century, then the twelfth - say, if some of the Jews fleeing north from the Almohad invasions were soldiers and took service with a Christian lord?
Many did, critically with the Almohad invasion to join forces, military
speaking. But as in Muslim world, it's almost unconcievable, because religion wasn't about individual tought : it was about the communauty.

One of another communauty couldn't rule above it. You had among the occitano-catalan lords the use of Jewish advisors and the relative breaking of juderias (jewish quarters) and it was actually one of the things mentioned as cause of the Crusade against the Cathars.

More the son than the father, no? My impression has been that the son was seen as abusing his power, thus leading to the massacre, while the father was seen as being more humble and having more integrity. But I could be wrong about this as I seem to be about much else.

Well, the point is that what is said against the son is so stereotypical that it's suspect. You had already the same critics against the father, and the fact the son didn't beneficied of the same support probably helped the reaction.

But indeed, the father knew that its fate was about a really hard-manageable social fiction. So he increased the "humble" part, the "I'm only a tool", whe the son didn't, probably less habile to hide his actual influence.
 
What if a Jewish leader seized control of Lucena and took opportunities presented by civil war/disarray/confusion to establish himself as an independent player in the Iberian game of thrones?
 
What if a Jewish leader seized control of Lucena and took opportunities presented by civil war/disarray/confusion to establish himself as an independent player in the Iberian game of thrones?

It would have been really frowned upon by the jewish communauty. They had a large freedom because they didn't used it for rejecting Islamic authority, and such a move would call an answer that would be even more quicker that the wali/emir/Caliphe wannabe would see there a perfect occasion of diversion.

"Okay, I'm maybe unskilled, tyrannical and greedy, but JEWS JUST REBELLED!"

Even in the worst times of Al-Andalus, Lucena remained loyal to Muslims authorities, and the more radical thing they did was to join the Almohads when it was clear they were winning.
 
Top