Kingdom of Jerusalem.

WI: The kingdom of Jersualem had been established as a theocracy, set up and controlled specifically by the Papacy, rather than a ruling dynasty. Perhaps there might be independent lordships, but the city of Jerusalem itself is ruled directly through papal representatives. Could it have lasted longer?
 
WI: The kingdom of Jersualem had been established as a theocracy, set up and controlled specifically by the Papacy, rather than a ruling dynasty. Perhaps there might be independent lordships, but the city of Jerusalem itself is ruled directly through papal representatives. Could it have lasted longer?

If Jerusalem is governed by the church directly, this should avoid civil war/war between the crusader states. On hte other side, intrigues will flourish.

If the pope funnels his considerable richess into Jerusalem, that should help it lasting longer. But given medieval papacy, the most likely outcome is that either a counter-pope emerges in the east or the Roman pope suddenly rethinks the whole thing and stops the money flow - ion which case Jerusalem is doomed.

Finally, the pope controling Jerusalem probably implies the loss of the Holy Roman Emperor as a supportive factor for Jerusalem.
 
Actually Godfrey de Bouillon wanted to do that... After the capture of Jerusalem he planned to invade Egypt and keep it as his own demesne while Jerusalem would have been donated to the Papacy...
 
Jerusalem under the personal administration of the Pope would be pretty interesting to envision in an alternate time-line. Would he move his residence from Rome to Jerusalem and rule it himself or send a papal representative to rule it for him? I see the latter as bringing problems that should be avoided from the get go while the former would benefit the Papacy as well as Christian control of the city for the long run. If he goes to live in Jerusalem, I could imagine the outflow of immigration from Europe onto the Levant that would occur. Perhaps Jerusalem ends up becoming a mostly Christian city with perhaps marginal Jewish and Muslim minorities.
 
Jerusalem under the personal administration of the Pope would be pretty interesting to envision in an alternate time-line. Would he move his residence from Rome to Jerusalem and rule it himself or send a papal representative to rule it for him? I see the latter as bringing problems that should be avoided from the get go while the former would benefit the Papacy as well as Christian control of the city for the long run. If he goes to live in Jerusalem, I could imagine the outflow of immigration from Europe onto the Levant that would occur. Perhaps Jerusalem ends up becoming a mostly Christian city with perhaps marginal Jewish and Muslim minorities.

There's no way that the Popes would live in, or possibly even visit, Jerusalem. Popes did not tend to approve of placing themselves in danger, they viewed themselves as too important to be risked even slightly. They wouldn't even consider going there while the area wasn't 100% pacified and controlled.

One thing I would suggest about this TL is you might see a significant muscle-drain (like a brain-drain only...well, for knights) of knights and nobles not being so interested in travelling on Crusade as there wouldn't be any land to divvy up, what with the Pope keeping it all in Church hands. Could weaken the Crusaders at crucial times, but then the potential for universal European crusader armies does rise with the Pope having full control of the Levant coast.
 
There's no way that the Popes would live in, or possibly even visit, Jerusalem. Popes did not tend to approve of placing themselves in danger, they viewed themselves as too important to be risked even slightly. They wouldn't even consider going there while the area wasn't 100% pacified and controlled.

One thing I would suggest about this TL is you might see a significant muscle-drain (like a brain-drain only...well, for knights) of knights and nobles not being so interested in travelling on Crusade as there wouldn't be any land to divvy up, what with the Pope keeping it all in Church hands. Could weaken the Crusaders at crucial times, but then the potential for universal European crusader armies does rise with the Pope having full control of the Levant coast.

Yet wouldn't the Pope put himself at risk at having a counter-Pope or an ambitious papal representative stationed in Jerusalem seize it for himself. He would have the advantage of claiming to be Christ's true vicar on Earth ruling the Holy City in His name instead of the Pope in Rome. As for the drain of manpower, I wouldn't think so since there is land elsewhere to take in Egypt and Syria.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
There's no way that the Popes would live in, or possibly even visit, Jerusalem. Popes did not tend to approve of placing themselves in danger, they viewed themselves as too important to be risked even slightly. They wouldn't even consider going there while the area wasn't 100% pacified and controlled.

One thing I would suggest about this TL is you might see a significant muscle-drain (like a brain-drain only...well, for knights) of knights and nobles not being so interested in travelling on Crusade as there wouldn't be any land to divvy up, what with the Pope keeping it all in Church hands. Could weaken the Crusaders at crucial times, but then the potential for universal European crusader armies does rise with the Pope having full control of the Levant coast.

A important aspect was that clerical fiefs often had a common nobility in them, whom had their own personal properties. Just because the the Church own the kingdom, doesn't mean that they own all property in the area. In many way it was superior when it was the church instead of a royal family which own a area, because it gave a potential for the knightly family to strengthen their families by letting second son enter the priesthood, and get high position in the church or even become Prince-Bishop themself (a significant amount of the German Prince-Bishops was of knightly rather than princely origin).

I imagine that if the church control Jerusalem, it will be put under a Prince-Bishop (in this case rather a Prince-Patriach or King-Patriach) rather than being adminstrated by the Papal States directly*.

The effect on the Church are going to be enormous, the Patriach of Jerusalem are going to be second in prestige only to the Pope himself. Beside while not the best or richest territorium of the Church, the kingdom of Jerusalem are rich and placed at important trade routes. If it survive** it's going to be a significant player in the Church. Of course its biggest weakness are that it's placed in enemy territorium, so it be more interested in keeping the Musselmen out than increasing its power in the internal hierachy.

*Avignon could be adminstrated by the Pope directly, but it was a minor territorium in a safe area, Jerusalem aren't.

**Quite possible if Egypt are conquered by the crusaders too.
 

elkarlo

Banned
Maybe f they set up an order like the Templers or something to be in charge it could work. But the Papacy was not a good temporal ruler, they had plenty of trouble all the time it seems.
 
Maybe f they set up an order like the Templers or something to be in charge it could work. But the Papacy was not a good temporal ruler, they had plenty of trouble all the time it seems.

Basically the same situation with the Teutonic Knights ruling over Prussia, am I right? That would be so sweet to have a Christian military order, nominally subservient to the Pope rule the Levantine lands corresponding to the borders of the OTL Kingdom of Jerusalem minus the actual city which would be administrated by a papal legate. That would be sweet.
 
Yet wouldn't the Pope put himself at risk at having a counter-Pope or an ambitious papal representative stationed in Jerusalem seize it for himself. He would have the advantage of claiming to be Christ's true vicar on Earth ruling the Holy City in His name instead of the Pope in Rome. As for the drain of manpower, I wouldn't think so since there is land elsewhere to take in Egypt and Syria.

Anti-Popes didn't spring up willy-nilly like rebellions in a game of Medieval: Total War, and the Crusades didn't happen in the 20th Century. Simply being based in Jerusalem wouldn't give someone the legitimacy to claim to be the true Pope. You're thinking in modern day ideals. Anyone sent by the Pope to rule Jerusalem and then suddenly claiming the right to rule all Christendom would be laughed out of court by every King in Europe. Nowhere in the Bible does it state that Jerusalem is the centre of Christianity. As a matter of fact, the Crusader state of Jerusalem had a Patriarch of Jerusalem, but at no point did this Patriarch claim to be superior to the Pope, it's just a ludicrous assertion. To do so, apart from anything else, totally defies the Church principle of submission to the Pope - to separate oneself from the Pope's power, even for a second before declaring yourself Pope, is a precedent which unspokenly says that the Pope's power can be subverted if you believe it just, and that's just totally out of the question. The only time Anti-Popes arose in Christian history (ignoring the idiotic ones in the last couple of decades RL) were in times of turmoil, when there was a very controversial election and ambitious Bishops took their opportunity to call for a re-election which conveniently got them elected. Never was there an assertion that Rome wasn't Holy enough for the Popes. For that matter, aside from being the Pope's home since the 1st century, there was nothing really Holy about Rome anyway in the way that Santiago de Compostela or such was Holy, yet it never caused problems.

At very worst, what you would see is the Patriarchs of Jerusalem becoming so prestigious that they almost automatically win every Papal election - becoming an heir to the Pope, like the title King of Germany was the heir's title to the Holy Roman Empire. But it's frankly anachronistic to think that any Patriarch based in Jerusalem would start declaring himself the REAL head of the Church. It just defies all of Catholicism's doctrine of Papal supremacy, and instantly destroys the position that it is trying to subvert.

On the other issue, of a muscle-drain instead going to Syria or Egypt...perhaps, but what makes you think that a Papal Jerusalem would become so successful as to enable a Christian conquest of Egypt? That would take a total fluke victory in my opinion.
 
Falastur is right I think, except about Total War. I know more about that game than most people and rebellions spring due to parameter that you can change (frequeny). I think it's far more likely that if it is ruled by the Pope, the Pope will send the person he wants to succeed him there to rule.

Hmm, how could it happen what if the Papal Legate Adhemar of Le Puy that was the acknowledged spiritual leader of the Crusade survives? He died at Antioch but if he survives and instead more of the noble leaders die so the Adhemar holds the political leadership.... He was trying to organize a council after Antioch when he died. If he lives it's possible the survivors choose Adhemar to rule with them as a council holding lands around the kingdom as their own feifs.

I love Crusade PoDs. Maybe I like it even more than the Crusader Queens one I've been kicking around.

So call it "Prince Adhemar of Jerusalem"!
 
Falastur is right I think, except about Total War. I know more about that game than most people and rebellions spring due to parameter that you can change (frequeny). I think it's far more likely that if it is ruled by the Pope, the Pope will send the person he wants to succeed him there to rule.

Hmm, how could it happen what if the Papal Legate Adhemar of Le Puy that was the acknowledged spiritual leader of the Crusade survives? He died at Antioch but if he survives and instead more of the noble leaders die so the Adhemar holds the political leadership.... He was trying to organize a council after Antioch when he died. If he lives it's possible the survivors choose Adhemar to rule with them as a council holding lands around the kingdom as their own feifs.

I love Crusade PoDs. Maybe I like it even more than the Crusader Queens one I've been kicking around.

So call it "Prince Adhemar of Jerusalem"!

I like the title Protector of the Holy Sepulcher
 
Yeah, probably just have Adhemar not die and Godfrey not be so damn...chivalrous in the siege of Jerusalem and have the council decide an archbishopric is the way to go.
 
Dont forget that Naples was a papal fief also but its clergymen never obtain tremendous power nor influence over the Papacy... If Godfrey de Bouillon lives longer and conquers Egypt establishing a Kingdom thus donating Jerusalem to the Pope i guess that Papacy could establish a Kingdom in the holy lands with the King being a vassal of the Pope... And of course there would be objections from the Byzantine Emperor who would show up and claim the lands for himself... If not Alexius I then it would be his successor John II who in OTL wanted to go in a pilgrimage in Jerusalem with his armt but eventually didnt go after much begging and protests of King Fulc of Jerusalem...
 
I could see the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem reigning over a theocracy, particularly if Adhemar of Le Puy doesn't die at Antioch.

The incentive for the Franks to take either Damascus and/or Egypt would be much increased. The Fatamids out of Cairo were stronger initially... if Adhemar lives, I can see the Byzantines regaining Antioch with Bohemund going onto Aleppo, and Godfrey/Baldwin going onto Egypt.
 
I could see the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem reigning over a theocracy, particularly if Adhemar of Le Puy doesn't die at Antioch.

The incentive for the Franks to take either Damascus and/or Egypt would be much increased. The Fatamids out of Cairo were stronger initially... if Adhemar lives, I can see the Byzantines regaining Antioch with Bohemund going onto Aleppo, and Godfrey/Baldwin going onto Egypt.

If the Latin church controls ALL of the ancient Patriarchates (Rome, Antioch, Jerusalem and Alexandria, IIRC), with only the 'johny-come-lately' patriarchate of Constantinople in Orthodox hands, that will change church politics HUGELY. The Pope could convene new OEcumenical councils (that could actually be called that), to impose the 'filioque clause' and the supremacy of the Pope. That would be a really major step towards sidelining/absorbing the Orthodox Church....
 
Though wouldn't Latin control of the Patriarchate of Alexandria would alienate the Coptic Christians in Egypt?

Almost certainly. Unlike the Greeks, the Copts were most definitely Heretical and the Franks would find likely find themselves fiercely resented. Baldwin was pretty pragmatic, though, and may have tried to forge some sort of understanding/compromise, but getting the Copts into orthodoxy (or Rome to concede such) will be difficult, at best.

Another problem will be the titular Greek Patriarchs.

After Adhemar's death, it would get very dicey in Jerusalem, too. They need to encourage more colonization and get more knights and infantry from the west through. Not sure if Byzantium holding Antioch makes that easier or harder since they're spread even more thin and still tangled up with Armenian/Norman/Turkish agendas and likely warfare.
 
Top