The Long Term Factors of The Failure of The Kingdom of Jerusalem

Many historians believe that the Crusader states were destined to failure. Although the Crusaders certainly believed they were there to stay, as demonstrated by the grand castles and fortresses that were built, they faced many immediate problems. They were severely lacking in man power; the First Crusade was always intended to be an armed pilgrimage and so the vast majority of Crusaders returned home after Jerusalem was captured, leaving those who stayed massively outnumbered. Furthermore, as a strip of Crusader land surrounded completely by a sea of Muslim territory and barred from Europe by the Byzantine Empire to the North, the Crusaders were only just holding onto the Holy Land, ‘satellites of the Latin West in a sea of Islam ’. In this essay I will argue that the Kingdom of Jerusalem was not set up for failure. Up until the reign of Baldwin III, the Crusaders proved their ability to survive against the odds, regardless of their precarious geographical situation. I believe that it was the short term factors like the resurgence of Muslim strengths under Zengi, Amalric’s mistakes in Egypt and the souring of relations amongst the crusading leaders that eventually cost the Crusaders the Holy Land that they worked so hard to protect.

The first element I want to consider is the weakness in the Muslim world and how this is one of the key factors allowing the Crusaders to take the Kingdom of Jerusalem. At the time of the First Crusade, the Muslim enemy were not united and this disunity contributed to the strength and stability of early Outremer. The First Crusade was an outstanding military feat for the Franks, however the divisions in the inward-looking Muslim world are an important factor when considering the survival of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. As well as the fighting between the two main religious branches of Islam, the Shia and the Sunni Muslims, the death of the Seljuk emperor Malik in 1092 led to a power vacuum in the East. The Emperor’s four sons and brother fought for the right to succession, splintering the once great empire into fighting factions, each focused on gaining personal power and land, and not worried about external powers. The Empire was too divided to be able to defend against an attack.

The reign of King Baldwin I, the first King of Jerusalem, is seen as successful, especially as a military leader. He is shown to have made many impressive tactical decisions, most notably the strategic choice to capture the important coastal cities of Arsulf, Acre and Caesarea during the First Crusade. These vital ports provided costal access for allies from the West, and also opened up a world of trade possibilities in the East. In addition, Baldwin managed to devise a clever model that kept tighter control over the barons and knights, pre-empting discontented nobility. The later deterioration of this model in the 1180’s was one of the key reasons for the decline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as I will go on to discuss later, but Baldwin I set the standard for the running of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and had his example been followed by his successors, the Kingdom could have thrived.

Baldwin I was one of the most significant figures of the First Crusade. His success military leadership during the Crusade created the foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This is explained through the words of Fulcher of Chartres, chaplain to Baldwin. He wrote: “He was a very skilful fighter and so, although he had few men, they [the Muslims] did not dare to attack him .” Even though this may be the case, Fulcher’s close relationship with Baldwin may have influenced his writing. He also had a motive to attract people to settle in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as the Crusaders were short in numbers. With all evidence considered, Baldwin I led the Crusaders into military victories that ensured the survival of the kingdom of Jerusalem while still preserving the gains made in the First Crusade.

Baldwin I was known for being able to control the ungovernable aristocracy. There were many social changes around the time of Baldwin’s reign; the dukes and barons were at the height of their power and at the same time, knights and lesser nobles were restlessly demanding more power and land. The way he adapted to these changes with the ‘New Feudalism’ shows him to be cunning and intelligent. Baldwin created a new system, based on the feudal model of the West, to replace the hierarchy of the Byzantine Empire that made barons and nobility so hard to control.

However, not all historians view Baldwin I in such an admirable light. Asbridge views the Crusaders under Baldwin’s leadership as: “little more than a loose network of dispersed outposts” . He accredited the Crusaders’ success more to luck than anything else, and it is important to note that although Baldwin I was a strong strategist and demonstrated great political skill, there were many examples of him being a less than exemplary military leader. He captured important areas like ports and coastal towns but failed to bring them together into a united body of Crusader territory, and this caused some problems later down the line, when the Crusader states were too spread out for one ruler to effectively manage them all. I believe there is some merit in this argument; the Crusader States were indeed ‘a loose network’, however focusing their attention on the coasts was what allowed the Crusaders such a strong hold on the Kingdom of Jerusalem, so it is understandable that his main priority would have been to secure the crusader states.

Baldwin managed to consolidate power by being a forceful negotiator. This style of diplomatic negotiation also gained him some vital allies. For example, partnership with Italians, as both leaders were described as ‘able and shrewd mediators’, was very important for the survival of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the connections were maintained for 80 years. In fact, these early connections led to a treaty of alliance being established between Jerusalem and the Venetians in 1123 named the Pactum Warmundi. As a sliver of crusader land in a sea of Muslim territory, the connections the Crusaders made with outside forces proved to be extremely useful short term factors that contributed to the fate of the Kingdom.

Baldwin I left behind a much larger kingdom than the one he inherited, and this is an important factor in judging him that historians such as Asbridge haven’t highlighted enough. One thing that differentiates Baldwin as an especially effective leader was that he had a vision for his kingdom from the very beginning of his rule and his actions all seemed planned and well considered, as if thinking decades into the future. I think that while it was the Crusaders who captured the city of Jerusalem, Baldwin I should get the most credit for consolidating and creating the structure that allowed the Kingdom of Jerusalem to survive. It is when this structure is broken by in-fighting and political divisions that we see the Kingdom struggle to keep outside enemies at bay, and ultimately cannot keep control of the Holy land.

The Crusader state of the Kingdom of Jerusalem survived competently up until the end of Baldwin I’s reign due to a number of reasons, some being the consequence of skilful leadership, some a result of the communication and links to Europe, for example with the Venetians as mentioned earlier. However, conditions would not remain so stable for the Kingdom of Jerusalem during the rest of the Crusader reign. Baldwin I was unable to have children so his cousin, Baldwin II, previously count of Edessa, was crowned King of Jerusalem in 1118. Baldwin II was a Crusade leader whose endorsement and support of military orders founded during his reign, such as the Templars, allowed him to fight back against attacks from the East.

Baldwin II led the Crusaders through a turbulent period. Antioch suffered large territorial losses because of Latin military failure at the battle of the Field of Blood, which was, according to Asbridge, 'a deeply unsettling shock for Latin Christendom ’. After the miraculous success of the First Crusade, the idea of defeat at the hands of Muslim forces was unimaginable for the Crusaders. Furthermore, Baldwin II was captured and held hostage from 1123-24 by the Turks, only supporting Asbridge’s argument that he did very little to strength the Kingdom of Jerusalem during his reign and showing further his relative weakness compared to Baldwin I. However, in the following years he expanded the territory of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and directed attacks against Damascus, aided by the military orders, the Hospitallers and Templars.

As power was being consolidated in the Crusader states, the emergence of several military orders, including the birth of the Templars in 1120, were ‘the nails that held together the Crusader States ’. The need for these military orders was a sign of a critical weakness of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as the lack of work forces had been detrimental to the success of Crusader states. An example of this is the battle of the Field of Blood, where the Franks had found themselves overpowered yet again by Muslim forces and suffered big territorial losses. This was the underlying weakness of the Kingdom that shows itself repeatedly and proves to be a long term weakness that the Crusaders had to battle.

The Templars were an elite fighting force, as well as an impactful body in terms of the religious culture, sanctified by the Pope. They were knights going on a unified pilgrimage to benefit the Christian world, ‘the perfect representation of sanctified violence ’. They were crucial in the engineering of castles and were a much needed force. For example, the castles and forts that the Crusaders have become renowned for were built and maintained by these military orders. However not all historians agree with this analysis of the Templars. Michael Haag draws attention to the failures of the Military order in his work, ‘The Tragedy of the Templars’, where he describes the castles at the Amanus mountain pass, north of Antioch, as ‘three poorly constructed castles’, questioning the capability of the Templars. In fact, it is note-worthy that the most famous Crusader castle, the Krak de Chevalier, was originally a Kurdish castle. It was given to Raymond II, Count of Tripoli, in 1142, and is sometimes wrongly accredited to the Hospitallers, who only helped expand it, but were not responsible for building it themselves.

Similar to monks, they made vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, but combined monasticism with knighthood to become a religious-military order of the kingdom of Jerusalem. St Bernard of Clairvaux, one of the foremost spiritual figures of the twelfth century and an adamant supporter of the Templars, wrote a treatise, “In Praise of the New Knighthood”, praising the Templars and their way of life. This was a big factor that contributed to their immense rise in popularity and cultural impact. The Templars, as well as other military orders like the Hospitallers, were seen as the heart of Outremer, heroes of the Crusades, and playing the leading role in the war for the Holy land. It was this publicity and this image that they cultivated with the help of figures like St Bernard of Clairvaux that brought them rich donations from all across Europe, allowing them to become ‘supranational movements’; as well as protecting the Holy land, they also became involved in European issues and played a leading role in the second Crusade.

The Templars and the Hospitallers brought a wealth of military knowledge as well as much needed military fund. The wealth that they had acquired due to the generous donations of European noblemen was used to build and sustain a network of castles and forts which can be highly accredited for a lot of the Crusaders’ military successes, at this point and later.

After a decade of Crusader occupation in Outremer, the Kingdom of Jerusalem was relatively strong. With the emergence of the Templars and the construction of castles, the crusader states were developing well and even thriving. At this point, the strengths are still more prominent than the weaknesses, and since the Muslim world was disunited and distracted by their own civil strife, the cracks in the Kingdom of Jerusalem were nicely covered up by the incompetence of their enemy. However, the weaknesses of the Kingdom were coming to light.