Also, a limit was taken into effect in the first years of the Kingdom that when a nobleman was away from his fief for one year and one day, he lost all rights for those lands.Īlthough nominally also a lord over Edessa, Antioch and Tripoli, the local overlords had as much power there as the king had in Jerusalem. For this, the king gave the barons rights to tax the locals in different areas and ways of life. The Oriental limit of 40 days was removed for better campaigns. However, the lower vassals were obliged to discuss everything with their own vassals as well so the entire business of the Kingdom was greatly disrupted.įor the lands the noblemen got from the kings, they had to serve in the army (in full armor and horseback) for an unlimited time. However, during the later years, the King was also set back – he was forbidden to take away any fiefs without the allowance of the High Court and most decisions were to be discussed in it. The noblemen who carved constantly for more power were, however, terribly set back in 1163 when Amauri I of Jerusalem declared himself the rightful sovereign over all domains of the Kingdom of Jerusalem – the King became the direct lord over all vassals of the kingdom. Also, some of the dukes had deals with the Muslims for profiting when their neighbours were warring against the same persons. Due to these same grudges, the Second Crusade failed pathetically. Many noblemen hated each other for some grudges of no actual importance and the politics of the states were extremely complicated (when the last fort of the County of Edessa was sieged, it got no relief from other states). Due to this ’infighting’, unified leadership to which all would agree was hard to achieve. This sometimes occurred, but was later reversed. Just as in the Orient, the nobleman wanted more lands, more people to govern, more rights and the king wanted to centralize the power. He controlled some lands, was called upon if needed in wartime, and he had supreme authority in his domain. The main person of importance in any Crusader state was the nobleman. The County of Tripoli had smaller differences compared to Jerusalem in the composition of the rulers. Also, since the founders of the County of Antioch were mostly from Italy and Sicily, the power of the duke was inherited, but in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the king may have been elected. Antioch had reminders of the Byzantine life (it had belonged to the Arabs for only 15 years). This was so for the Kingdom of Jerusalem Antioch, however, remained more deeply in the Muslim system though still on the basic level.įurther, the different Crusader states differed from each other as the Oriental states differed from one another. The Muslim officials that remained in office were mostly lower court persons (the raissa with civilian arguements). The locals (except Frankish knights) were seldom called for duty in war. Yet, the Crusaders used the opportunity and put large taxes on the populace. The Crusaders or Franks abolished these systems and replaced them with their own feudal ones – the local Arab system remained on a very basic level. Also, the larger lords were given permission to tax the people besides the tax for the land itself. These lands were mostly inherited from father to son. The Arabs had a system which gave lands in exchange for service in war. The Outremer had large cities, which were mostly absent in Europe. The situation in Outremer, however, was not fitting for the feudal system despite the fact that the Muslim states used a system relatively similar.Īs already mentioned, the system used in the Kingdom of Jerusalem (and in the Counties of Edessa, Triplo and Antioch) was similar to the French feudal system, although it had been adapted to the needs. The weakness of the Crusader States in Outremer came mostly from their build up – the same feudal system that was used in France and Germany.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |