Power and Failure in the Crusader Kingdoms 1099-1187
The nobility, control of territory and a not so happy ending
BY TALIA BEGA
Bloodshed, fuel, hatred, and defeat can be the terms used to describe the Crusades as one of the longest campaigns in the holy land. But what are the Crusades? One can define it in many ways but one chronicler known as Jean de Joinville defines it as the beneficial sacrifice to bring back what was lost before and to expand the Christian kingdom. Many consider the crusades as a waste of time, others as a great success compared to what was fought before, but it all comes down to the card table: is it for control or simply politics? The Middle Ages were full of campaigns between the French and the English. Additionally campaigns can be seen in the later years of the Byzantine Empire against the Holy Roman Empire for control over the east. In 1054 many would recall what is known as the Great Schism that broke off the Catholic and Orthodox Church. But why bring it up? Mistakes happen on such campaigns, especially when considering the Byzantines losing much of their control. The crusades? They will come to their advantage, but under what circumstances?
To form a kingdom, there must be some kind of lineage—ranging from support from the church to a strong line of nobility—as it requires a structure to hold everything in place. One chronicler, William of Tyre, who wrote his Chronicles covering the Kingdom of Jerusalem from 1140 to 1199, describes the nobility and their efforts to understand everything that came into play. Yet, there was a gap in the bridge when it came to knowing what would emerge from control. Many pieces come together, but a strong nation needs support—a kind of support that holds everything together in case of rebellion. The Kingdom of Jerusalem was not just a kingdom, but a realm built to protect those within it, including against those who might threaten the throne.
First crusade
In 1095, Pope Urban II preached a message that would change the course of history—an event now known as the Crusades—at a conference called the Council of Clermont. From this moment, leading clergy and nobility spent days preaching and debating what was best for the Christian world (Charters, 1099). Over the next 200 years, across no fewer than nine crusades, preaching became a major responsibility—but would everyone join? The Council of Clermont, held in the Duchy of Aquitaine in late November 1095, addressed a range of issues, from new church reforms to a call for assistance from Alexios I, the Byzantine emperor at the time (Charters, 1099). What was soon planned became one of the largest campaigns of the era, with support from many realms. The first group to depart was known as the People’s Crusade, led by a priest named Peter the Hermit. However, this campaign struggled from the start due to a lack of food and supplies. Upon reaching the Byzantine capital of Constantinople, they were surrounded by Hungarians, leading to a series of tragic events known as the Rhineland Massacre, in which thousands of Jews were killed.
The journey from Western Europe to the Holy Land was long and many faced challenges. In later years, figures like Frederick Barbarossa faced significant obstacles—such as his attack by Turkish forces in 1189 during the Third Crusade (Loud, 2025). For many, the journey lasted weeks or even a year and required all available necessities and resources.
Towards the end of 1096, a large force of European nobles arrived to assist in the Holy Land, effectively pushing aside the People’s Crusade. These nobles came from across Europe, though not all were able to participate—especially in England, where Henry I was occupied with his own affairs. It is said that around 100,000 men joined the effort (Charters, 1099), including some of the most well-known leaders, such as Godfrey of Bouillon, the first ruler of Jerusalem, and Robert Curthose, the brother of Henry I. Men came from all directions, but how did they manage to stay united in a time filled with decisions and power struggles? Everyone had a shared goal: to return the Holy Land to Christian control, a mission rooted in faith since the birth of Christ. It was almost as if they were part of a lineup, like in a sports game, all moving in the same direction toward success—but would it happen? It wasn’t just a plan; many came from similar families and brought with them strategies of support and control, hoping to inspire a sense of unity and purpose.
Detail of a medieval miniature of the Siege of Antioch from Les Passages d'Outremer (Public Domain)
In late 1096, many crusaders arrived to pay homage to Alexios I, promising to restore what had been lost to his empire—though they would not join him directly. Was this truly a crusade for the Christians, or for the Byzantines? Miscommunication would later arise, particularly in Antioch, but for the moment, everything seemed to be going according to plan. Some of the most significant victories following the Great Schism included the Siege of Nicaea in 1097 and the Battle of Dorylaeum that same year—both crucial wins against Muslim forces, expanding Christian-held territory. However, tensions soon emerged. Disputes between Tancred and Bohemond of Taranto, as well as with Godfrey of Bouillon, arose over attacks in the region, unaware of complications involving the Armenians and Thoros, the ruler of Armenia at the time (Charters, 1099). These tensions would eventually lead to a plot against Thoros. This opened the way for Baldwin of Boulogne—future king of Jerusalem—to invade Edessa, facing resistance, particularly from Byzantine forces. After the year-long Siege of Antioch, another major victory, the crusaders advanced toward Jerusalem to lay siege and establish control, marking the beginning of what would become the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
But how do you elect a king when there is no hereditary line or clear plan? On July 22, a council was held at the Church of the Holy Sepulchre to decide the future of governance. Godfrey was chosen as leader—not as king, but as the Holy Advocate of the Church. He would pass away in 1100.
Beginning of an end
At the time of his death, there was no heir to the throne, and the Latin Patriarch of Jerusalem offered it to Bohemond of Antioch, but it was ultimately passed down to Baldwin. How did Bohemond come to control Antioch? During the siege, Bohemond claimed the city for himself, which caused further issues over control and angered the Byzantines even more. It wasn’t just Antioch—various nobles were pursuing lands that had once belonged to the Byzantines, leading to a long and widespread conflict, especially focused on Antioch.
The next 40 years would be filled with problem after problem following the formation of a new realm in the medieval world. In 1101, a shorter crusade was launched to rescue Bohemond of Taranto after he was captured in Antioch, but it ended in a major defeat for the crusaders. This was just one of many setbacks, with Muslim forces posing threats from all sides. At the time of Baldwin’s accession (1060–1118), he was already facing hostility due to Tancred’s support over Antioch, which was a major warning sign—especially with battles erupting in Ramla and across the kingdom. Baldwin needed support from all sides. Even the church became a source of tension when Dagobert of Pisa sought control (Charters, 1099). This was just one of many internal issues that led to damage and calls for more crusades. Most of the crusaders had returned home, leaving the remaining nobles to govern their new territories. Many factors came into play, and even small decisions had major consequences—something Baldwin I had to navigate, especially with rising opposition among the nobility.
Things could have gone better in many ways, but within the Crusader Kingdom, not everyone could offer help immediately, leading to panic and rushed decisions. Charters noted that Baldwin didn’t care much for politics and focused on topics that weren’t considered urgent at the time. Many future kings would agree on expanding Jerusalem, but this ambition would come at the cost of many lives.Conflict with Tancred would soon escalate, but he was forced to comply once the Norwegian Crusade began. Baldwin sought widespread support to move into Sidon in the late 1110s, as well as Beirut, aiming to gain control of the territory. In the years that followed, battle after battle would rage in pursuit of expanding the Crusader Kingdom
Conflict between Husband and Wife
Fulk of Anjou (1089–1143) would soon claim the throne after marrying Melisende (1109–1161), the daughter of Baldwin II. Fulk came from the powerful House of Anjou, with lineage connected to Philip I. From the moment he arrived in the Holy Land, he was offered Melisende’s hand in marriage. He was crowned king in September 1131, but issues soon arose that impacted the future—especially his decision to exclude Melisende from politics. This caused tension between them, as Fulk began making decisions independently. Melisende’s sister, Alice of Antioch, became angered and attempted to regain control of her territory. The couple became divided, with factions forming in support of each side. Hugh II of Jaffa supported Melisende’s position, but after a few years, peace was restored, allowing political actions to resume (Tyre, 1187). Fulk’s reign was marked by major campaigns and attacks from Syria, the Byzantines, and Damascus. Just one year before the Second Crusade, Fulk died in 1143, leaving the throne to his son. In 1148, one of the biggest challenges emerged from the High Court, which struggled with internal communication. A meeting known as the Council of Acre was held, but it proved difficult due to widespread disagreements. Eventually, a decision was made to invade Damascus—a move that ended in embarrassment. The Second Crusade could have gone better in many ways, and although it had support from the nobility, small missteps made a big difference. Baldwin III had to deal with the aftermath, especially with his mother still controlling much of the kingdom.
Miniature of the Siege of Damascus, Jean Colombe ( 1430-1495) French from Sébastien Mamerot's book Passanges d’outremer 1474 (Public Domain)
Baldwin IV (1161–1185), known as the Leper King, lived during a time of intense drama as his illness worsened—he had leprosy from a young age. His reign was shaped by multiple regents, including Miles of Plancy and Raymond III of Tripoli, who held significant influence. Baldwin was physically limited and couldn’t do much, but many still supported his leadership. Despite his condition, he remained courageous and continued to rule. Meanwhile, his sister Sybilla, the heir, caused division among the nobility due to her marriage to Guy of Lusignan. Many nobles opposed the union and preferred her half-sister Isabella as heir. Although Baldwin couldn’t take much action, his determination as a leader remained strong. Behind the scenes, Raymond and other nobles plotted against Sybilla’s marriage, even proposing Hugh III of Burgundy as an alternative—but the coup failed. Sybilla became a pawn in a political struggle, surrounded by angry nobles.
In 1183, a major event unfolded: the Siege of Kerak, involving Humphrey IV of Toron and Isabella. Outside the fortress, Saladin launched one of the bloodiest sieges in history. He expected victory, but reinforcements arrived, forcing him to retreat. Four years later, however, a greater disaster struck. Toward the end of Baldwin’s reign, the question of succession became urgent. Baldwin disliked Guy and felt ignored, leading to widespread unrest and massacre. The kingdom was divided between Sybilla and Isabella, and papal approval was needed—eventually granted to Sybilla. The nobles agreed that if she divorced Guy, stability could return, but that plan failed. Sybilla was expected to choose another king, but instead kept Guy, causing further disruption. In 1187, one of the greatest shocks in history occurred: the fall of Jerusalem. A failed alliance with Raymond contributed to the loss, triggering the call for the Third Crusade. Jerusalem would never be fully recovered again.
Why did the nobility have such a strong impact on the kingdom? If these issues hadn’t occurred, would the Second Crusade and the fall of Jerusalem have happened? Some argue that, as a new realm, people were still learning—but it wasn’t just about learning. The underlying concerns and rivalries led to constant problems. Jerusalem was divided into fiefs, each seeking growth. Unlike France and England, which had stronger central control and could suppress rebellion quickly, the Kingdom of Jerusalem suffered from fractured relationships and poor decisions, ultimately leading to its downfall.
Interested to know more? Some suggested reading by the author:
A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea by Emily Atwater Babcock
House of Lilies: The Dynasty That Made Medieval France by Justine Firnhaber-Baker
Two Houses, Two Kingdoms: A History of France and England, 1100–1300 by Catherine Hanley
Crusaders: An Epic History of the Wars for the Holy Lands by Dan Jones
Frederick Barbarossa by G. A. Loud
Letters Concerning the Second Crusade by G. A. Loud
Une Chronique des Croisades: Les Passages d’Outremer by Sébastien Mamerot, Jean Colombe, Thierry Delcourt, Danielle Quéruel, and Fabrice Masanès
The First Crusade: The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres and Other Source Materials by Edward Peters
The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople by Jonathan Phillips
Warriors of God: Richard the Lionheart and Saladin in the Third Crusade by James Reston