What Was the Extent of Christianization in the Crusader States?

What was the extent of Christianization (or, rather, Catholicization) in Christian Outremer? Did much of the peasantry or even merchant class convert, or did Western Catholicism not really spread beyond the invaders themselves?
 
From what I understand, there was no real change. Jerusalem and the like had always had large Christian groups that the Muslims put up with. The peasants were likewise part-Muslim and part-Christian. There may have been small changes, but nothing enormous.

- BNC
 
Well, you really have to define what you mean: are you referring exclusive to Latin Rite Catholicism, Communion with Rome, or just an increase in Christianity in the region? And are you referring strictly to Outremer, or the Levant in general?

The first saw minimal growth to the best of my knowledge, the second saw growth simply through the Marionites reuniting with Catholicism, and the third must have seen some improvements by the improvement in fortunes for allied Christian states in the region, such as Armenia.

Its worth noting that the Crusading Zeal, so to speak, died off pretty quickly among the Latins who lived in the region, by the second generation, usually. So they were usually content to live and let live.
 
As the posters above said, there wasn't much of a drive towards conversion after the First Crusade.

The Latin rulers usually adopted a religious tolerance policy - remember that at the time various regions of the Near East had significant Christian and Jewish populations (even larger than Muslims, like in the city of Jerusalem itself) - as matters of trade, internal stability and simple cohabitation demanded a more sensible rule towards the conquered peoples. Baldwin I and his successors were fully aware about it, and, even more, they became accultured to the Levantine lifestyle (so much that contemporary sources were appalled by the "orientalization" of Godfrey's heirs).

Despite the modern misconception that the Latins were somewhat "alien" to the socio-religious context of the region, some authors point out that even during the First Crusade they were aware about the distinctions between Sunni and Shia, between Armenians, Syrians, Arabs (usually called "Saracens") and Turks, and so forth. Much likely, the Frankish rule simply "inverted" the traditional jizzya (sp?) domination so far imposed by the Arabs and then the Turks: Muslims, Jews and non-Catholic Christians received the burden of the taxes, while the arriving Latin Christians usually were exempt of it (the Italian merchants, for example, received various privileges, while the Church and aristocratic estates were immune).

In short, the Latin rule made barely a dent in the religious and cultural panorama of the region - specially in Jerusalem and Edessa - excepting perhaps in the coastal cities that received a larger share of "immigration" and foreign interest, mainly from the Italian merchants, and even this had a negligible impact due to the relatively short timespan of the Frankish rule.
 
In short, the Latin rule made barely a dent in the religious and cultural panorama of the region - specially in Jerusalem and Edessa - excepting perhaps in the coastal cities that received a larger share of "immigration" and foreign interest, mainly from the Italian merchants, and even this had a negligible impact due to the relatively short timespan of the Frankish rule.
Uhh, the coastal cities were Catholic for nearly two centuries. That's not enough to completely destroy local minorities, to be sure, but it's still quite long; especially as this was (as you note) the focus for much of the Italian immigration, I'd think cities like Acre were quite a lot more catholic by 1291 than they were in 1099. Of course all I have is 'it seems logical' so... :)
 
Top