Crusader States coalescing.

I'm reading Runciman's history of the Crusades and have noticed how the Crusader states leaders are chopping and changing roles, responsibilities and loyalties.

Would it be possible for out of these constant changes the Kingdom, Principality and 2 Counties to merge into a smaller number of larger states? IIRC at one stage the ruler of Antioch was regent for Edessa, perhaps this could become permanent. Or perhaps Antioch could absorb a large chunk of Edessa during the fighting which extinguished that County. I don't know, just thowing it out there.

BTW I am only up to 1110 so lets not say what happened in the 1200s, I'm talking about when these states were at their largest.
 
Runciman is good, no doubt about it, but read Tyerman as well. I really enjoyed his work, it's a good update. From what I understand the basis lay in the divisions of the First Crusade. The various powers were founded for various reasons and their founders were not inclined to work with the others to make a single crusader state.

Earlier I suggested that if Adhemar survived things would have been better politically for them since they all respected him. From what I understand technically the King of Jerusalem WAS the overlord of Antioch.
 
Runciman is good, no doubt about it, but read Tyerman as well. I really enjoyed his work, it's a good update. From what I understand the basis lay in the divisions of the First Crusade. The various powers were founded for various reasons and their founders were not inclined to work with the others to make a single crusader state.

Earlier I suggested that if Adhemar survived things would have been better politically for them since they all respected him. From what I understand technically the King of Jerusalem WAS the overlord of Antioch.

Yes, I was going to say that - its all feudal, much like how France was at the time. What you would need to see is a strong king in Jerusalem, with a firm heir, who would do a Philip Augustus to the barons

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
IIUC the Latin states were more or less independent of each other. All paid 'homage' to Jerusalem's king and he settled legal disputes and the like but the 2 counties and principality didn't contribute taxes, armies and owed service. What I was thinking was if for example Edessa became directly a part of Antioch, or perhaps a fief granted by the Prince, rather than an independent County. The same applies to Tripoli, perhaps becoming part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
 
IIUC the Latin states were more or less independent. All paid 'homage' to Jerusalem's king and he settled legal disputes and the like but the counties and principalities didn't contribute taxes and armies. What I was thinking was if for example Edessa became directly a part of Antioch, or perhaps a fief granted by the Prince, rather than an independent County. The same applies to Tripoli, perhaps becoming part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Weren't they pretty much bound to send their armies in time of war? Um, my train of thought just walked out the door...

Bemused Rearguards
Grey Wolf
 
I don't think so, but don't quote me since I'm still exploring this area. IIUC Antioch's early leaders hated Raymond of Tolouse and Godfrey and certainly didn't help setting up Jerusalem and Tripoli, and this start up trend continued.
 
I've proposed earlier on the topic if Arda, the Armenian wife of Balwin I, dies around 1112, then his other marriage with Adelaide del Vasto won't be annuelled, and so Count Roger II of Sicily would inherit the crown of Jeruselam. Sicily's navy and troops could be significant to the Crusader states longevity.
 
I was going by Hattin where all the states pooled their armies in a common cause, and of course all lost disastrously together.

I think the pattern of feudal holdings was complex, since individuals could hold more than one, and could rise above their feudal importance to hold others as vassals for a while.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I think there's a big difference between the Principality of Gallilee and County of Jaffa which were direct vassals of Jerusalem and Principality of Antioch and County of Tripoli which were founded by the leaders of the 1st Crusade.
 
I think there's a big difference between the Principality of Gallilee and County of Jaffa which were direct vassals of Jerusalem and Principality of Antioch and County of Tripoli which were founded by the leaders of the 1st Crusade.

True, but both Antioch and Tripoli were present at Hattin

What my crazy mixed up sentence was trying to say was that some of the vassalage overlapped, but I'm not sure why I thought this was relevant!

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I'm thinking that even if they were fully under the control of a single king they still lacked strategic depth. Charles Oman said that strategically their best bet would have been to capture Damascus which would have provided depth and severed the route between Syria and Egypt, the union of which led to Hattin.
 
I'm thinking that even if they were fully under the control of a single king they still lacked strategic depth. Charles Oman said that strategically their best bet would have been to capture Damascus which would have provided depth and severed the route between Syria and Egypt, the union of which led to Hattin.
I have to respectfully disagree with Oman, at least after the fall of Edessa.
 
It was Edessa that got me thinking along this line in the first place. I think when Baldwin first went to Jerusalem his regent (another Baldwin) was placed under the regency of the principality of Antioch for a while. Since Edessa was way out there and vulnerable would making it directly part of Anticoh allow it to survive due to the greater aggregate strength? This would be better than having it part of 'distant' Jerusalem.
 
Top