Talk:Vassals of the Kingdom of Jerusalem

...what purpose can be served by listing rulers for these fiefs who never actually ruled. Many of these tiny states had been destroyed by 1189 and none of them lasted beyond 1291. Names that appear here for the late 1200s and any of the 1300s are merely mostly useless blueblood parasites pretending to hold entirely useless titles. Actual ending dates for these fiefs ought to be provided and mere claimants should either be eliminated or noted as the nonentities they were. I can provide this info in most cases. ...Rod Walker, Encinicas CA, 10 July 2004 catu11us@pacbell.net

Well, "rulers" is probably not the best choice of words for these people anyway (and that heading clutters up the table of contents). I thought it was interesting to include claimants from the 13th century and after, to show that someone, somewhere, still thought these non-existent fiefs were important enough to claim at all (just like the King of Spain still claims to be king of Jerusalem). I guess the titular lords could be marked more clearly, so any info you have would be helpful. Adam Bishop 15:02, 11 Jul 2004 (UTC)

That information is notable enough to be published here. It is interesting to some people, and Wikipedia has resources to keep it available - if editors first bother to write it. Marrtel 11:14, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I notice the French Wikipedia has separate articles for many of these entities, and I was wondering if it would be a good idea to split them up here as well. Personally, I liked having it all on one page at first, it seems to give a better idea of the situation which only lasted 200 years anyway. But on the other hand, we have a general article on the Crusader states, and separate articles for the four major Syrian/Palestinian ones; then we also have separate articles for the Greek ones which were even more dependent on each other. Plus we have a separate Oultrejordain article already. A lot of what is here could be kept here, but the lists and histories of the individual entities could become separate articles. Anyone else have any thoughts about this? Adam Bishop 03:03, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I'd thought of that myself; we have quite a number of people linking here for various lordships, actually. Granted, some of the articles might be kinda stubby, but c'est la vie. (I'm also planning to go through "Regni Regesta Hierosolymi" at some point to see if there's anyone to add to the lists.) Choess 03:35, 2005 Jun 17 (UTC)

Well we can definitely make John of Ibelin's four major lordships into articles...and of course Ibelin also exists separately, along with Oultrejordain. Fr: has separate articles for the Ibelin family and the castle, though, although I like it the way it is here (similar to Lusignan and Comnenus, for example). Anyway, good luck with the RRH - lots of people have combed through it already to make the lists we have here, which is good, because it's pretty confusing sometimes. Adam Bishop 04:56, 17 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Alright, I moved Galilee, Oultrejordain, Jaffa, and Sidon to their own articles. Any vassals of their own are listed on the appropriate page, although we can give them articles too (Ibelin and Toron already exist separately, and some others already have a paragraph of info, like Ramla). Does this look good so far? Adam Bishop 22:56, 20 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Looks great! I did my usual dashification and a few minor fixes. Choess 04:44, 2005 Jun 21 (UTC)

The long article probably began to exceed the Wiki recommended kByte limit. However, it was nice in the sense that it gave ALL the lordships. As these are quite obscure from today's viewpoint and it helps if one does not need to pick the info all around in a chaos of articles. And anyway, all those were related in a way or another. Now it is quite difficult to make the bigger picture, as well as difficult to guess where a specific lordship is (usually people do not know under which a sub-fief was). I would not require a total reversal, but I think it would be useful to list ALL lordships in this article. I am making an example somewhere here. 62.78.106.207 08:05, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Yeah, that is a problem now...I was thinking we could revert all the information I moved, except for the lists of lords, then people would still have information about the territories and could go to the other pages for more extensive information and a list of rulers. How about that? Adam Bishop 16:47, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Okay, I restored what was there before, sort of...there are little blurbs like before, but a bit shorter, and the lists of rulers for the major places are gone, because there are now pointers to the main articles where more information can be found. Better? Adam Bishop 06:40, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

We could also however keep this article from growing to exceed the kByte recommendation. By keeping the text in bare bones in cases where the fief is treated more fully in another article. We apparently should also think about making a separate article for those "other seigneuries", Adelon etc, but that unfortunately would be difficult to title. 217.140.193.123 21:38, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Tripoli, Antioch and Edessa are generally treated as independent of the Kingdom, and have had their own articles for some time before this reorganization. The detailed information on them at the bottom of this article should be removed and spread out among those articles. --Choess 21:59, 2005 Jun 22 (UTC)

Dear Choess, you have not grasped the idea here now. The idea, despite of the existence of larger articles, is to give a big picture of the feudal lordships which were dependent on Kingdom of Jerusalem.

Which is accomplished by the introductory material at the beginning of the article, which I have expanded to make clear that their connection was more tenuous than that of the King's vassals in the Kingdom proper. Your insistence on recapitulating their history and extraneous details like the ethnicity of the Crusaders settling there only obscures that point.

Thus, your suggestion will be overruled. Besides, they cannot be treated as independent, contrary to imaginings, as they were feudally dependent on the kingdom, as you hopefully can see from the information written. 217.140.193.123 22:09, 22 Jun 2005 (UTC)

The material I've extracted from the encyclopedia clearly shows that they were not obligated to render military service to the Kingdom, the most important point of the feudal relationship. Choess 00:38, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

And Antioch and Edessa were at times vassals of the Byzantines, no? john k 03:04, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, the remnants of Edessa were sold to the Byzantines just before being overrun; at least one of the Princes of Antioch swore fealty to Byzantium, and I think it was also a fief of Armenia (!) during some of the reign of Leo II. Choess 03:57, 2005 Jun 23 (UTC)

Dear Choess, if you bother to read the arguments above, between Adam and me, you hopefully would see the purpose. Which you have now destroyed. The idea is to show the big picture here in ONE article. Adam has made here a version of those fiefs which ALSO are now as independent articles of four major seigneuries - those fiefs all here as sub-title level. To give the bigger picture, all fiefs which were under Jerusalem, also the Northern ones are needed here as sub-title level. You have now destroyed that work. And, please do not make excuses by drawing some line between which were more, which less dependent on Jerusalem, as you do not seem to grasp that northern ones had feudal obligations under Jerusalem. All such distinctions you have tried to make, are so fine distinctions that they seem as arbitrary. Why, for example, the Lords of Gibelet, valvassores of the Hierosolymite king, should be kept away from this article where there however are their relatives of Ibelin, with whom they even shared the surname in 13th century??? All in all, it would be desitrable that you would not destroy work of others, however you feel regarding the northern vassals. 217.140.193.123 21:33, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well it's fine to mention them here, since, say, it's 1119, and Baldwin II is king, regent of two of the northern states, and has a personal vassal ruling the third, then yeah, they are pretty much vassals of Jerusalem in the sense that Galilee is. But that's not going to be the case at other times despite whatever the king wants to believe. You don't see Antioch owing any feudal service in 1187, do you? I didn't split Galilee, Jaffa, etc into separate articles to give them equal status with Tripoli and the others, and if you think that was the reason, maybe we should put them back here...Adam Bishop 22:15, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

One excellent reason to split Galilee, Jaffa etc as separate fuller articles is to avoid this page growing too heavy.

Of course various fiefs, particularly those northern ones, had fluctuating relationship with its feudal obligations. However, such is not a good reason to remove Oultrejordain from here, though Raynald Chatillon took the position of total independence. The Antioch is self-evident: in 1150's (or when?) it was forced to subjugate to Byzantium, which left very little room for the king (though I believe the king had some remnants of rights even after that). As these four northern ones were vassals of Jerusalem at least for some significant number of years, they should be equally listed here. It is the task of the text to inform about their peculiarities, such should not be done by relegating them into different format here. I am somewhat interested in whether there ever was any vassal relation of Cyprus towards Jerusalem, though I admit that probably not. Re separate articles, I am in favor of separate ones. Some fiefs more should get their own articles. As soon as enough text is available, not want to create unnecessary stubs. As Jaffa was sometimes as independent an entity as Tripoli, why not treat them relatively equally? The feudal relationship should be taken seriously. It was not only the concrete ruling as regent, but the more or less respected vassalage. We do not remove Toulouse or Normandy from the kingdom of France, though they sometimes were at war against the king of France (if such extreme disrespect to vassalage does not lead to removal, why then the fact that vassal and king lived in relative harmony for some periods). As far as I understand, one of the biggest reasons of distinction was that Tripoli etc were not part of Haute Cour. Or does someone know contrary? 217.140.193.123 22:54, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Well, no, that's the thing, the counts of Tripoli and Edessa and the princes of Antioch didn't participate in the Haute Cour because they weren't really vassals of Jerusalem (unless of course they also held land there, like Raymond III). They had their own courts...but of course so did Galilee, Jaffa, and even smaller places. Cyprus had its own machinery of government that was based on Jerusalem, but definitely wasn't subject to it (if anything, Jerusalem was subject to Cyprus). Toulouse is a good parallel, by the way - theoretically it was part of France since Carolingian times, but until the 13th century it was certainly a completely separate entity. Adam Bishop 23:26, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Medieval courts and vassalage were more idiosyncratic than you seem to grasp. I would say almost an anarchic or chaotic organization. For example, Duke of Normandy apparently did not subjugate under Parlement de Paris, though Parlement de Paris was the royal parlement, or in a sense the court. P de P had jurisdiction over royal domain even if such was located far away.

We probably should say that different vassals of J had sometimes different line under royal jurisdiction. K of J apparently judged some things re Antioch etc (e.g mediated in their mutual quarrels), but not the Haute Cour. Haute Cour apparently was the parliament for that portion of the kingdom which therefore became known as kingdom proper. (idea of this should be put into Haute Cour article...) Haute cour was, as usual in medieval machinery, combination of legislative and judicial powers. The original idea of "representation - obligation" was the basis here. All lords and lands who were subject to HC, were entitled to be represented there. See the origins of consent to taxation.

I think we should not say "they were not really vassals of Jerusalem" since they were but by a different arrangement than the lords sugbjugated also to the Haute Cour and having rights to sit there. 217.140.193.123 00:03, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

I am somewhat interested in whether there ever was any vassal relation of Cyprus towards Jerusalem, though I admit that probably not.

When it was founded as Crusader state, Cyprus actually was only a "LORDSHIP" - it became kingdom only when Henry VI of HRE gave it that title, against vassalage. It was lordship which belonged to former K of J (king-consort), having just before belonged to Templars, an institution within the Kingdom of J. Now, it is not impossible that Cyprus owed some feudal obligation to Jerusalem at that point. Though its obligations may rather been to Rich Lionheart, my favorite gay.

We should never say that Jerusalem was subject to Cyprus, since apparently many of the C kings regarded their J title more valuable one of these two.

If quibbling or theoretizing, in 14th century, K of J was king of Cyprus (J being more prestigious royal title), and nobles of J lived in Cyprus, holding significant possessions (Cyprus actually had no native nobles, all were imports from J). The situation had reduced (or merged) into one where Cyprus was under titleholders of J and on the other hand Jerusalem had no longer its own machinery. 217.140.193.123 00:15, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Were the Kings of Jerusalem beneath in feudal rank to the Holy Roman Emperor, or the Latin Emperor of Constantinople? IP Address 22:13, 13 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Beneath in what sense? In the sense that any king would be "lower" than any emperor, sure...but the only emperor the Kingdom regularly dealt with was the Byzantine Emperor. In the sense of prestige, the King of Jerusalem definitely had a lower status than the Byzantine Emperor, as well as the King of France, and England, and the Holy Roman Emperor. In the sense of actual vassalage, then the King was a vassal of no one, even if the Byzantine Emperor liked to think of him as one. It is also worth noting that Frederick II tried to impose his authority over the crusader states not as Holy Roman Emperor, but as heir to the title of king through his wife. I don't know about the Latin Emperor though. (I suspect John Kenney, Stbalbach, or Choess would be better suited than me to answer this question.) Adam Bishop 02:18, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

I suspect they may have these answers as well, but thanks for your efforts. IP Address 04:46, 15 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Kingdom of Cyprus was a HRE creation, owed thus vassal's allegiance to that emperor. Jerusalem was, I think (not totally certain), under Pope (I remember that have read something about such), but vassals of pope were not vry dependent either in theory or in ptractice - you know, England, Aragon and Hungary were theoretically papal fiefs... Marrtel 11:17, 16 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Cyprus wasn't created by the HRE, it was originally a Lusignan lordship and was mostly joined with the remnant of Jerusalem. But when Jerusalem was ruled, at least in name, by the Holy Roman Emperor, Cyprus remained a separate kingdom. Jerusalem would have been a papal fief if Daimbert of Pisa had gotten his way, but it was never technically one like England was. Adam Bishop 01:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Actually, I think the Cypriote kingship was formally a creation of Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor; see for instance [1], "in 1197, [Amalric] was crowned first king of Cyprus by the imperial chancellor in Nicosia." Henry also approved of the elevation of Cilician Armenia to a kingdom, although that didn't actually take place until after his death (Leo II of Armenia was crowned by a papal legate). Any such vassalage was, of course, completely nominal, and I think some papal proclamation during the struggle with Frederick II repudiated it completely. Choess 03:28, 17 May 2006 (UTC)Reply

Lordship yes, seigneurie no. See Adrian Boas, "Montfort: history, early research and recent studies of the principal fortress of the Teutonic order in the Latin East", Brill 2017 (series: Medieval Mediterranean (Book 107), ISBN 9789004250468): the Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, upon buying the estate, did NOT become a baron of the Kingdom of Jerusalem precisely because the estate lacked the privileges of a seigneury. Based on thorough study of the legal papers from the Teutonic Order's archive. Arminden (talk) 09:44, 25 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

I made an SVG based on Conder's map and added it to the article. It sacrifices some detail, but is legible even in thumbnail size. It can be the basis for locator maps for each individual vassal, to be used in those articles. The map currently is a direct copy of Conder's, but should be modified to fit the information in the article (assuming it's properly sourced). IYY (talk) 20:25, 5 March 2020 (UTC)Reply