The Birth of the Crusader States
The Birth of the Crusader States
When Jerusalem was reclaimed by the Crusaders in AD 1102, nobody was quite certain what the successful prosecution of the war really meant. Yes, the Muslims had been driven out. Yes, the region was under Christian rule again. And yes, the Crusaders had a treaty with the Roman Republic stipulating the cessation of Jerusalem and the lands to the south to the Republic. However, whether or not the Crusaders would abide by that treaty, and what would happen to the rest of the territories in the Levant, were both open questions. Some among the Crusaders were wary of trusting the Romans or giving up the Holiest of Cities to them, on the grounds that, while the Roman government had been amicably neutral, it was neutral, none the less. It was left out of such argument that many Roman citizens had joined their war, of their own volition.
The Roman government, led by Zeno's faction, was quite ware of the distrust that the Crusaders had toward their plans for the region, but was relatively unconcerned by the matter. Their envoys to the Crusaders began discussing the cessation of Jerusalem, but only in the vaguest possible terms, with the broadest possible timetable. Their primary goal was to learn about the planned distribution of the land won during the war, and make as many alliances with the leadership of these new states being carved out of the former Turkish lands as possible.
The Roman strategy was to find a Crusader leader who had carved out a piece of territory for themselves, and recognize their newly claimed title, allying the Republic to the new ruler. The terms of the alliance would be as generous as possible. No tribute, no troop obligations, just the promise to respect the Republic's alliances and trade arrangements. The Republic did not even require mutual defense in these arrangements. It was preferred, but such obligations were more of a bargaining chip than anything else. The new ruler not even bound to join any offensive wars that the Republic might engage in. Zeno and his men were not remotely interested in extending Roman governance over the Levant at this point. They were still thoroughly committed to their project of re-centralizing the Republic, and any territorial expansionism would jeopardize that. On the other hand, they did want to keep the region secure for Christians and Romans, both for religious and commercial reasons. They also were very cognizant of the potential danger that the Crusaders posed: a large army of fluctuating political loyalty. A network of alliances in the territory would fit those goals perfectly; the Republic would have the peace they wanted, the trade benefits they wanted, piracy would be wiped out once more, and they would have little actual work to do to ensure such stability.
The first Crusader to take up the offer was Baldwin of Massilia, an Aquitanian noble who styled himself count of Hamah. Another Crusader, Stephen, declared himself count of Homs. Both were recognized as independent rulers, with small territories. Neither man had much in the way of any army of their own, but they had enough followers to secure their respective cities, and that was enough. It did not take the feudal lords that formed the bulwark of the Crusader army long to realize the opportunity presented to them. Rather than gather together and elect a king amongst them to rule over them, tax them and demand levies of them, each petty lord that happened to have a city under their jurisdiction at that moment could be a free and independent ruler, beholden to no other man. All they would have to do is respect Roman merchants (why not? They had no merchants of their own) and not attack Roman allies (why would they?).
Soon, other lords followed Baldwin and Stephen in their alliances with the Romans. The leadership of the Crusade soon learned that the Republic was allied with the counts of Aleppo, Latakia, Tortosa, Kerak, Tiberias, and Safad. That these cities had their own Christian counts, all of a sudden, shocked much of the leadership, particularly those that had allied themselves closely with the causes of William III and Antso III, the de facto leaders of the Crusade. William and Antso had had a general idea of what the post-crusade map would look like, and this was not it. They had decided that there would be two states, one in the north, one in the south, and each man would nominate a ruler. Many were the nobles that were currying favor with the two kings, hoping to rank high in the courts of the new realms (most accepted that the rulers would be close relatives of the monarchs). Now, before the two regions could even be drawn up on paper, their great cities were being lost.
The final blow to their plans came when William's younger brother, Louis, set himself up in Damascus, as that city's count. It had been likely that Louis would have been William's choice for a ruler of his portion of the region, but with Louis taking the Roman deal rather than his brother's, that endeavor vanished before the king's eyes. It might seem odd to think that Louis would rather have a relatively small territory, guaranteed by the Roman Republic, instead of a potentially larger territory, guaranteed by his brother. The word 'potentially' was the key problem. Louis could see that, if he stuck with his brother's plan, he might have suzerainty over much of the southern Levant, on paper, but with the Romans honoring the independence of the surrounding regions, such theoretical authority would amount to nothing but a headache. By taking the Roman offer, Louis was able not only to secure himself a reasonable holding, he also was able to lay claim to a larger territory than he would have likely held if he stuck to the original plan.
William did not take long to accept the situation, and advocated only that his brother's territory should have access to the sea, and that his royal dignity should be respected. The Romans were happy to agree. Therefore, Louis became ruler of the Principality of Damascus, rather than the County of Damascus, and his territory included the port of Beirut. Antso could see that his own plans for a dynastic realm in the region were evaporating, and settled for his own nominee, his cousin Eneko, ruling the Principality of Tripoli, which also included the port of Gibelet (Byblos) and fortess of Baalbek. The only extra stipulation the Republic made was that these two principalities would be bound to mutual defense with the Republic, which both new Princes found perfectly acceptable. The creation of these two states ushered in a mad rush amongst the rest of the Crusaders to win over the Roman envoys to acknowledge their own claims as independent rulers, and, within a matter of weeks, the rest of the Levant was carved up into roughly a dozen more small counties.
Those Crusaders that either did not attempt to claim land, or could not secure it, eventually returned to the west, with the majority of the Crusading army. The Republic even subsidized the cost of their voyages, eager to have the less satisfied knights back in their homelands. A garrison of Roman soldiers solemnly took over the protection of Jerusalem, and other such garrisons were sent to the surrounding territories to the south, over which they were responsible. The creation of the patchwork of Crusader states, primarily by a power that barely lifted a finger to help the Crusade itself, was a diplomatic masterstroke. Each state was relatively helpless on its own - with the possible exceptions of Damascus and Tripoli - but, with all allies of the Roman Republic, and all bound to respect the Republic's other allies, none could even entertain the notion of disrupting the peace of the region, particularly not when the leadership of the Crusade signed on with the plan by accepting the creation of the two Principalities.
It should be noted that this strategy was not exactly novel on the part of the Republic. Indeed, in the centuries before Augustus, such entangling alliances were one of the key vehicles of the growth of Roman power, and the general concept of expanding the reach of the Roman state through diplomatic means had never been abandoned. But it had not been attempted on such a scale since the days of the Macedonian wars, when all of Greece was declared free and independent by the Roman Republic, thirteen centuries prior. The more astute students of Roman history could tell, even at the time, such parallels likely meant that the Republic would be governing the Levant again in the future. But, since the majority of such historians were, themselves, Roman, there was little objection about such eventualities among the Crusaders.
End
When Jerusalem was reclaimed by the Crusaders in AD 1102, nobody was quite certain what the successful prosecution of the war really meant. Yes, the Muslims had been driven out. Yes, the region was under Christian rule again. And yes, the Crusaders had a treaty with the Roman Republic stipulating the cessation of Jerusalem and the lands to the south to the Republic. However, whether or not the Crusaders would abide by that treaty, and what would happen to the rest of the territories in the Levant, were both open questions. Some among the Crusaders were wary of trusting the Romans or giving up the Holiest of Cities to them, on the grounds that, while the Roman government had been amicably neutral, it was neutral, none the less. It was left out of such argument that many Roman citizens had joined their war, of their own volition.
The Roman government, led by Zeno's faction, was quite ware of the distrust that the Crusaders had toward their plans for the region, but was relatively unconcerned by the matter. Their envoys to the Crusaders began discussing the cessation of Jerusalem, but only in the vaguest possible terms, with the broadest possible timetable. Their primary goal was to learn about the planned distribution of the land won during the war, and make as many alliances with the leadership of these new states being carved out of the former Turkish lands as possible.
The Roman strategy was to find a Crusader leader who had carved out a piece of territory for themselves, and recognize their newly claimed title, allying the Republic to the new ruler. The terms of the alliance would be as generous as possible. No tribute, no troop obligations, just the promise to respect the Republic's alliances and trade arrangements. The Republic did not even require mutual defense in these arrangements. It was preferred, but such obligations were more of a bargaining chip than anything else. The new ruler not even bound to join any offensive wars that the Republic might engage in. Zeno and his men were not remotely interested in extending Roman governance over the Levant at this point. They were still thoroughly committed to their project of re-centralizing the Republic, and any territorial expansionism would jeopardize that. On the other hand, they did want to keep the region secure for Christians and Romans, both for religious and commercial reasons. They also were very cognizant of the potential danger that the Crusaders posed: a large army of fluctuating political loyalty. A network of alliances in the territory would fit those goals perfectly; the Republic would have the peace they wanted, the trade benefits they wanted, piracy would be wiped out once more, and they would have little actual work to do to ensure such stability.
The first Crusader to take up the offer was Baldwin of Massilia, an Aquitanian noble who styled himself count of Hamah. Another Crusader, Stephen, declared himself count of Homs. Both were recognized as independent rulers, with small territories. Neither man had much in the way of any army of their own, but they had enough followers to secure their respective cities, and that was enough. It did not take the feudal lords that formed the bulwark of the Crusader army long to realize the opportunity presented to them. Rather than gather together and elect a king amongst them to rule over them, tax them and demand levies of them, each petty lord that happened to have a city under their jurisdiction at that moment could be a free and independent ruler, beholden to no other man. All they would have to do is respect Roman merchants (why not? They had no merchants of their own) and not attack Roman allies (why would they?).
Soon, other lords followed Baldwin and Stephen in their alliances with the Romans. The leadership of the Crusade soon learned that the Republic was allied with the counts of Aleppo, Latakia, Tortosa, Kerak, Tiberias, and Safad. That these cities had their own Christian counts, all of a sudden, shocked much of the leadership, particularly those that had allied themselves closely with the causes of William III and Antso III, the de facto leaders of the Crusade. William and Antso had had a general idea of what the post-crusade map would look like, and this was not it. They had decided that there would be two states, one in the north, one in the south, and each man would nominate a ruler. Many were the nobles that were currying favor with the two kings, hoping to rank high in the courts of the new realms (most accepted that the rulers would be close relatives of the monarchs). Now, before the two regions could even be drawn up on paper, their great cities were being lost.
The final blow to their plans came when William's younger brother, Louis, set himself up in Damascus, as that city's count. It had been likely that Louis would have been William's choice for a ruler of his portion of the region, but with Louis taking the Roman deal rather than his brother's, that endeavor vanished before the king's eyes. It might seem odd to think that Louis would rather have a relatively small territory, guaranteed by the Roman Republic, instead of a potentially larger territory, guaranteed by his brother. The word 'potentially' was the key problem. Louis could see that, if he stuck with his brother's plan, he might have suzerainty over much of the southern Levant, on paper, but with the Romans honoring the independence of the surrounding regions, such theoretical authority would amount to nothing but a headache. By taking the Roman offer, Louis was able not only to secure himself a reasonable holding, he also was able to lay claim to a larger territory than he would have likely held if he stuck to the original plan.
William did not take long to accept the situation, and advocated only that his brother's territory should have access to the sea, and that his royal dignity should be respected. The Romans were happy to agree. Therefore, Louis became ruler of the Principality of Damascus, rather than the County of Damascus, and his territory included the port of Beirut. Antso could see that his own plans for a dynastic realm in the region were evaporating, and settled for his own nominee, his cousin Eneko, ruling the Principality of Tripoli, which also included the port of Gibelet (Byblos) and fortess of Baalbek. The only extra stipulation the Republic made was that these two principalities would be bound to mutual defense with the Republic, which both new Princes found perfectly acceptable. The creation of these two states ushered in a mad rush amongst the rest of the Crusaders to win over the Roman envoys to acknowledge their own claims as independent rulers, and, within a matter of weeks, the rest of the Levant was carved up into roughly a dozen more small counties.
Those Crusaders that either did not attempt to claim land, or could not secure it, eventually returned to the west, with the majority of the Crusading army. The Republic even subsidized the cost of their voyages, eager to have the less satisfied knights back in their homelands. A garrison of Roman soldiers solemnly took over the protection of Jerusalem, and other such garrisons were sent to the surrounding territories to the south, over which they were responsible. The creation of the patchwork of Crusader states, primarily by a power that barely lifted a finger to help the Crusade itself, was a diplomatic masterstroke. Each state was relatively helpless on its own - with the possible exceptions of Damascus and Tripoli - but, with all allies of the Roman Republic, and all bound to respect the Republic's other allies, none could even entertain the notion of disrupting the peace of the region, particularly not when the leadership of the Crusade signed on with the plan by accepting the creation of the two Principalities.
It should be noted that this strategy was not exactly novel on the part of the Republic. Indeed, in the centuries before Augustus, such entangling alliances were one of the key vehicles of the growth of Roman power, and the general concept of expanding the reach of the Roman state through diplomatic means had never been abandoned. But it had not been attempted on such a scale since the days of the Macedonian wars, when all of Greece was declared free and independent by the Roman Republic, thirteen centuries prior. The more astute students of Roman history could tell, even at the time, such parallels likely meant that the Republic would be governing the Levant again in the future. But, since the majority of such historians were, themselves, Roman, there was little objection about such eventualities among the Crusaders.
End
