Council of Nablus, 1120

I just came across reference to a meeting known as the Council of Nablus. It established the first written laws for the Kingdom of Jerusalem and involved representatives of the clergy and crusader nobility. It did not really seem to intriguing at first but the actual decrees, or canons, agreed upon really demonstrate subtle concerns of the Latin kingdom. Canons 12-16 essentially outline forms of Latin-Muslim segregation. Canon 16, for instance, prohibits Muslims from wearing European clothing. Inter-group sexual relationships are specifically forbidden, with harsh penalties like castration and nasal mutilation awaiting any transgressors. The rape of Saracen women is punishable by castration so I suppose the otherwise divisive legislation does benefit Muslims to an extent. Overall, though, the canons attempt establish the foundation for a legal system designed primarily to maintain precedents from Western Europe, not to create something new and different. Wikipedia has a pretty decent summary of the canons: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Council_of_Nablus#Signatories

Villeins and Slaves

As I work on my research paper, I have noticed that some historical authors, especially ones from before the mid-twentieth century, tend to define the role of native peoples under crusader rule as being one of "villeins and slaves." Some even state "villains and slaves." At first I thought villein meant something similar to the modern word "villain." I was surprised, however, to learn that a villein was a type of serf, the most numerous type of serf to be exact. Aside from freemen, villeins had the most rights of any serf group. It was only when former serfs began to migrate to the growing urban centers of Europe that the term "villain" received its modern connotation. Also, villeinage had existed centuries before the crusades, indicating that it was not some new system solely designed to oppress the Muslims and other groups living in Palestine. Most of the sources that write the phrase as "villains and slaves" are openly anti-crusader and some are even anti-Christian (http://www.ftarchives.net/foote/crimes/c9.htm). I suppose it just shows how cautious one must be in taking sources' impartiality for granted.