No Kingdom of Jerusalem but extension of European kingdom

OK, this quite a vague idea so I'm sure people will be able to point out flaws. :eek: But anyway.....

WI after first crusade KoJ isn't established as independant power but is rather subordinate to some (i.e. French or even papal) kingdom? Let's say there is no one who could really become king.

Or, stretching things some more second crusade works and as condition for help, or keeping force there, KoJ become french vasal. OK, the church structure remains as OTL due to special conditions.

If "KoJ" is a vasal how would this affect population and military? I'm thinking positive, since liege would be more willing to defend it and boost its strenth by additional settlers and troops as they would be ore invested in actually keeping it.

I'm not going to touch effects down the road since a lot depends on how things work out right away.

So, experts on crusades and that period, your thoughts?
 
Okay, let's say that its a vassal of the king of France (because of the number of French crusaders OTL).

Where is the King getting troops to send it? OTL Louis IX maintained a certain number of knights at his expense in the Holy Land - but that wasn't cheap, and wasn't very many. But I doubt short of something like that - which would take a very strong interest in (using it as the Roman name for the area) Palestine - or mercenaries (much the same problem), that there would be much impact militarily. As for settlers . . . I find that even less likely than an influx of soldiers. The King of France is going to want peasants staying in France, not going somewhere else.

Meanwhile, Palestine has feudal obligations to the King of France, which are either going to be ignored (which is hardly a good way to encourage the king to care about your concerns, even if he's too far away to make punishment practical), or which are going to draw men and/or money (scutage) away from Jerusalem.

Meanwhile, without even the mixed royal authority present to keep an eye on things OTL, there's nothing but individual fiefs, which may or may not care to come to the defense of their neighbors, which may well quarrel with their neighbors even more fiercely than OTL.

I'm at a loss to name one good thing (from the standpoint of Jerusalem in Frankish hands) about this, honestly. It's an interesting idea, and I'm not saying a timeline where this happens would be a bad timeline, but it doesn't benefit it in any way I can think of.

I'm sure others will have things to say, so listen to them and for Clio's sake don't take me as the authoritative expert. This is just what comes to mind for one student of the period.
 
Okay, let's say that its a vassal of the king of France (because of the number of French crusaders OTL).

The number of French is why I was thinking along the lines of french vasal.

Where is the King getting troops to send it? OTL Louis IX maintained a certain number of knights at his expense in the Holy Land - but that wasn't cheap, and wasn't very many. But I doubt short of something like that - which would take a very strong interest in (using it as the Roman name for the area) Palestine - or mercenaries (much the same problem), that there would be much impact militarily. As for settlers . . . I find that even less likely than an influx of soldiers. The King of France is going to want peasants staying in France, not going somewhere else.

Meanwhile, Palestine has feudal obligations to the King of France, which are either going to be ignored (which is hardly a good way to encourage the king to care about your concerns, even if he's too far away to make punishment practical), or which are going to draw men and/or money (scutage) away from Jerusalem.

Wouldn't money earned by "KoJ" (let's call it Duchy of Jerusalem for sake of the argument) be used to support their troops? granted, that money will come later.

Meanwhile, without even the mixed royal authority present to keep an eye on things OTL, there's nothing but individual fiefs, which may or may not care to come to the defense of their neighbors, which may well quarrel with their neighbors even more fiercely than OTL.

But WI Duke of Jerusalem is someone close to the king? not heir but second son or something? Though that would increase his power and being far away would allow him to do pretty much as he pleased.

I'm at a loss to name one good thing (from the standpoint of Jerusalem in Frankish hands) about this, honestly. It's an interesting idea, and I'm not saying a timeline where this happens would be a bad timeline, but it doesn't benefit it in any way I can think of.

I'm sure others will have things to say, so listen to them and for Clio's sake don't take me as the authoritative expert. This is just what comes to mind for one student of the period.

Well, it's just an idea I had after reading some stuff about crusades. and I'm no expert on the field so I'm just tossing out the idea and let experts have their say.;)
 
To add: WI Jerusalem becomes part of Papal states under papal rule but ran by Bishop of Jerusalem? Service to it is granted some priviledges, though not full crusading ones. Maybe some sort of military orders are established sooner or as military force right away and there is greater emphasis on temporary service. Maybe as penance? There could be Europe wide church tax or collection for the support of this bishophoric? So "taking the cross" is pledge to sent troops to Jerusalem for certain time or as response to threats.

This could deal with problems of local noble(s) running amok and answering to nobody. Though I suspect secular rulers might be less inclined to prop it up if they don't see much in return and would only streghten Papacy, specially when things deteriorate (e.g. with HRE)
 
Wouldn't money earned by "KoJ" (let's call it Duchy of Jerusalem for sake of the argument) be used to support their troops? granted, that money will come later.

Okay, DoJ instead of Palestine, works for me.

Possibly, but that requires that they be able to pay the bill - and some way of making them foot it, which is possibly tricky with feudal law and what the king does and does have authority over - you'd have to ask LSCatillina to get a clear answer on how that might work (or not), I'm not familiar enough.

But WI Duke of Jerusalem is someone close to the king? not heir but second son or something? Though that would increase his power and being far away would allow him to do pretty much as he pleased.

Royal powers are different (and higher) than ducal powers, though.

Well, it's just an idea I had after reading some stuff about crusades. and I'm no expert on the field so I'm just tossing out the idea and let experts have their say.;)

It's worth looking at, whether it would be practical doesn't make it a bad idea to explore.
 
Okay, DoJ instead of Palestine, works for me.

Possibly, but that requires that they be able to pay the bill - and some way of making them foot it, which is possibly tricky with feudal law and what the king does and does have authority over - you'd have to ask LSCatillina to get a clear answer on how that might work (or not), I'm not familiar enough.


Hmmmmm, maybe special status of DoJ would allow for it?

Royal powers are different (and higher) than ducal powers, though.

Yes, I was trying to get liege to have tighter control over DoJ. So it's ruled by someone king (thinks he) can trust so it's not used as some sort of power base to challenge him or basically run it as independant state because of distance.
 
If "KoJ" is a vasal how would this affect population and military? I'm thinking positive, since liege would be more willing to defend it and boost its strenth by additional settlers and troops as they would be more invested in actually keeping it.

I think that the impact would be negative.

Once Jerusalem becomes an appanage of one medieval kingdom, it will no longer attract volunteers from the others to the degree it did in OTL. Nor is it likely to gain significantly in added security: all of the European kingdoms faced threats closer to home, and the distant and peripheral province in Jerusalem is likely to be low in priority. That's more or less how it went in the next century when the kingdom of Jerusalem shared a king (Frederick II then Conrad IV) with the Holy Roman Empire and Sicily.

You can't ask too much of France in the early 1100s anyway; most of the country wasn't directly held by its kings, and they had limited power over their major vassals for most of the century.
 
I think that the impact would be negative.

Once Jerusalem becomes an appanage of one medieval kingdom, it will no longer attract volunteers from the others to the degree it did in OTL. Nor is it likely to gain significantly in added security: all of the European kingdoms faced threats closer to home, and the distant and peripheral province in Jerusalem is likely to be low in priority. That's more or less how it went in the next century when the kingdom of Jerusalem shared a king (Frederick II then Conrad IV) with the Holy Roman Empire and Sicily.

You can't ask too much of France in the early 1100s anyway; most of the country wasn't directly held by its kings, and they had limited power over their major vassals for most of the century.

what is it becomes part of Papal states?
 
what is it becomes part of Papal states?

Not as much of a problem with attracting volunteers from all Christendom, but the kingdom won't get the advantages of a vassal relationship that you suggested in your first post. Not only were the Papal States fairly small, local rulers had effective control over much of the area.

It's probably going to look a lot like OTL - the popes wanted to help, but if major forces were needed, they preached a crusade rather than try to do the job themselves.

You might be able to get a more interesting outcome, however, if you combine the association of the Papal States and Jerusalem with some changes to the Papal States themselves -- maybe make them a major naval power like other Italian states such as Sicily, Genoa and Venice (all of which could be expected to resist any such attempt).
 

RousseauX

Donor
Wouldn't money earned by "KoJ" (let's call it Duchy of Jerusalem for sake of the argument) be used to support their troops? granted, that money will come later.
Feudalism doesn't quite work like this, Feudal vassals raise and equip their own troops and are then theoretically responsible for providing them to the liege. This is oppose to providing money to their liege to equip their own troops.


But WI Duke of Jerusalem is someone close to the king? not heir but second son or something? Though that would increase his power and being far away would allow him to do pretty much as he pleased.
The problem is that this works for maybe one generation, but -his- sons probably won't be on good term (or even know) your direct heir. So basically afterwards there isn't much to keep him under control.

See the Dutchy of Burgundy, originally granted to a younger son of the king of France and later turned into one of the French crown's deadliest enemies. Or the Duchies of Lancaster and York in England, originally granted to third and fourth son of Edward III, and later the two branches of the family fought each other to extinction.
 
Last edited:
Another option is the Kingdom of Sicily-Roger II was the son of the one-time queen of Jerusalem, Adelaide, who ended up callously abandoned by her husband, Baldwin I, after he had spent her dowry. So, not only does Roger have a chip on his shoulder, he also has a decent claim to the inheritance, should Baldwin die childless. Whether or not this will be accepted by the crusaders is another story.

A Sicilian ruled Jerusalem might not fair that badly-Sicily was one of the most centralized, best-run, and wealthiest states of the time, and had a fair amount of manpower to boot. They also had extensive contacts and experience fighting in the Eastern Med. Mind you, it would probably keep Sicily out of North Africa, but given how badly those adventures went in the end, that might be for the best.
 
A Sicilian ruled Jerusalem might not fair that badly-Sicily was one of the most centralized, best-run, and wealthiest states of the time, and had a fair amount of manpower to boot. They also had extensive contacts and experience fighting in the Eastern Med. Mind you, it would probably keep Sicily out of North Africa, but given how badly those adventures went in the end, that might be for the best.

But is a Sicilian ruled Jerusalem going to spend any more time, manpower, or money on Jerusalem than any other foreign kingdom?
 
Top