A History of the Crusades-Vol 2 (39 page)

Antioch was also distinct from Tripoli and
Edessa in its governmental system. Of the Edessene we know little. Such
charters as the Count may have issued are lost. Presumably he had a court of
his vassals like any great feudal lord; but the position of the county on the
very outpost of Christendom prevented any constitutional development. He lived
more like one of the Turkish emirs who surrounded him. The Frankish colonists
were few, and there were few great fiefs. The Count depended largely on
Armenian officials trained in Byzantine methods. Almost perpetual warfare
compelled him to act more autocratically than would have been allowed in a more
tranquil land. The constitution of the County of Tripoli seems to have
resembled that of Jerusalem. The Count had his High Court by whose rulings he
was bound. But his title was hereditary not elective, and his personal domains
were far larger than those of any of his vassals. Except on one or two grave
matters of policy, as when Pons defied the King of Jerusalem, the Count had
little trouble from his barons, who, with the exception of the Genoese lords of
Jebail, were descended from his ancestors’ Toulousain vassals. The chief
officials of the Court had the same titles and functions as those of Jerusalem.
The towns were similarly administered by viscounts.

The Principality
of Antioch

In the principality of Antioch the institutions
superficially resembled those of the kingdom of Jerusalem. There was a High
Court and a Bourgeois Court and the same high officials. Antioch had its own
Assises,
but their general tenour conformed with that of the
Assises
of
Jerusalem. Under the surface there were, however, many differences. The
princely title was hereditary, and the High Court only intervened to appoint a
regent if need be. The Prince from the outset kept in his own hands the chief
towns of the principality and much of its lands and was chary of making grants
of territory except in frontier districts. The money-fief suited him better. It
seems that jurors appointed by the Prince sat in the High Court and his
personal representatives controlled the Bourgeois Courts. For the
administration of the towns and the princely domain, the Prince took over the
Byzantine system with its competent bureaucracy and its careful means for
raising taxes. Antioch, Lattakieh and Jabala had each its Duke, who was in
complete charge of the municipality. He was appointed by the Prince and could
be dismissed at his pleasure; but during his period of office he seems to have
sat in the High Court. The Dukes of Lattakieh and Jabala were often drawn from
the native population. The Duke of Antioch was of noble Frankish birth but was
aided by a viscount who might be a native. Like their cousins in Sicily, the
Princes of Antioch strengthened themselves against the nobility by making use
of native-born officials who were entirely dependent upon the princely favour.
They had found in Antioch an educated local society, Greek, Syrian and Armenian
in origin, surviving from Byzantine times. A further control of the High Court
was secured by appointing jurors, as in the Bourgeois Courts, to sit in it to
decide on purely legal questions. The Princes inherited the Byzantine system of
assessing and collecting taxes; their
Secrete
had its own bureaucracy
and was not dependent for revenue on local courts as in Jerusalem. They
directed policy with little regard to the High Court. They made their own
treaties with foreign powers. The whole organization of the principality was
closer knit and more effective than that of the other Frankish states. Had it
not been for constant wars, for minor or captive princes and the substitution
of a French for a Norman dynasty, Antioch might have developed a government as
efficient as that of Sicily.

Imperial
Suzerainty

The peculiar position of Antioch was further
enhanced by its special relationship with the Byzantine Emperor. According to
Byzantine theory the Emperor was the head of the Christian commonwealth. Though
he never made any attempt to establish suzerainty over the monarchs of the
West, he considered eastern Christendom to be his own sphere. Orthodox
Christians under the Caliphate had been under his protection, and his
obligations to them were recognized by the Moslems. He had no intention of
abdicating his duties because of the Frankish conquest. But there was a
difference between Antioch and Edessa on the one hand and Jerusalem and Tripoli
on the other. The latter two countries had not been part of the Empire since
the seventh century, but the former had been imperial provinces within the
lifetime of Alexius I. Alexius, when he induced the leaders of the First
Crusade to pay him homage, distinguished between former imperial lands, like
Antioch, which were to be restored to him, and further conquests, over which he
only claimed an undefined suzerainty. The Crusaders failed to keep their oaths;
and Alexius was unable to enforce them. Byzantine policy was always realist.
After his victory over Bohemond Alexius modified his demands. By the Treaty of
Devol he allowed the Norman dynasty to rule at Antioch but strictly as a
vassal; and he demanded certain safeguards, such as the installation of a Greek
as Patriarch. This treaty formed the basis of Byzantine claims; but the Franks
ignored it. Frankish public opinion seems to have been that Bohemond had indeed
behaved badly towards the Emperor, but the Emperor had ruined his case by
failing to appear in person. When, however, an Emperor did appear in person,
his rights were recognized. That is to say, to judge from King Fulk’s advice in
1137, his claim to suzerainty was accepted as being juridically sound when he
was in a position to enforce it. If he did not choose to do so, it could be
disregarded. There were a few other occasions when the Emperor was treated as
overlord, as when the Princess Constance applied to Manuel to choose her a
husband. But as his choice was displeasing to her she ignored it. Imperial
suzerainty was thus fitful and lightly borne, but the Princes of Antioch and
their lawyers were uneasy about it; and it remained a potential limitation to
the Prince’s sovereign independence.

The Count of Edessa admitted imperial
overlordship in 1137; but Edessa was further from the imperial frontier, and
the question was less urgent. Frankish opinion approved of the Countess of
Edessa selling the remaining Edessene lands to the Emperor in 1150; but that
was because they were obviously untenable against the Moslems. Raymond of
Toulouse had been willing to admit the Emperor as suzerain; and his son
Bertrand did homage to Alexius for his future county in 1109. Raymond II
repeated this homage to the Emperor John in 1137. Raymond III, though he
attacked Byzantium in 1151, received help from the Byzantines in 1163, which
may have been a gesture by Manuel to show his overlordship. But it may be that
this homage was limited to Tortosa and its neighbourhood which traditionally
belonged to the territory of Antioch as part of the
theme
of Lattakieh.

With the kingdom of Jerusalem Byzantine
juridical relations were still less precise. Baldwin III paid homage to the
Emperor Manuel at Antioch in 1158; and Amalric visited Constantinople as a
vassal, though as a highly honoured vassal, in 1171. Both Baldwin and Amalric
regarded Byzantine friendship as being essential to their policy and were
therefore ready to make concessions. But it seems that their lawyers never
regarded this vassaldom as more than a temporary expedient.

If the King of Jerusalem had any overlord it
was the Pope. The First Crusade anticipated a theocratic state in Palestine;
and, had Adhemar of Le Puy lived on, some such organization might have been
evolved. It was probably this idea that kept Godfrey from accepting a royal
crown. Adhemar’s successor Daimbert envisaged a state controlled by the
Patriarch of Jerusalem. Baldwin I countered by assuming the crown and by making
use of Daimbert’s enemies within the Church. It was clear that the Papacy would
not approve of an over-powerful Patriarchate in Jerusalem, which might from its
special position and its increasing wealth have set itself up, as Daimbert
hoped, to be an Oriental equal of Rome. It was thus easy for the King to play
off Pope against Patriarch. He was traditionally obliged to pay homage to the
Patriarch at his coronation, but he sought confirmation of his title from the
Papacy. The vassaldom was little more than nominal and no stricter than that
claimed by the Popes over the Spanish kingdoms; but it was useful to the
kingdom, for the Popes felt themselves responsible for keeping up supplies of
men and money for the Holy Land and for giving diplomatic help whenever it was
needed. The Papacy could also be used to put a check on the Patriarchate and to
exercise some control on the Military Orders. But on the other hand the Pope
might support the Military Orders against the King; and he often intervened
when the King attempted to put some curb on the Italian merchant-cities.

Ecclesiastical
Organization

The Church in the kingdom was under the
Patriarch of Jerusalem. After the initial trouble caused by Daimbert’s ambition,
he was in effect a servant of the Crown. He was elected by the Chapter of the
Holy Sepulchre, who nominated two candidates of which the King selected one.
Under the Patriarch were the four archbishops of Tyre, Caesarea, Nazareth and
Rabboth-Moab, and nine bishops, nine mitred abbots and five priors; but certain
other abbeys depended directly on the Papacy, as did the Military Orders. The
Palestinian Church was immensely wealthy in lands and in money-fiefs. The
leading ecclesiastics usually owed sergeant-service rather than
knights-service. The Patriarch and the Chapter of the Holy Sepulchre each owed
five hundred sergeants, the Bishop of Bethlehem two hundred, the Archbishop of
Tyre a hundred and fifty, as did the abbots of Saint Mary Josaphat and Mount
Sion. The Convent of Bethany, founded by Queen Melisende for her sister,
possessed the whole town of Jericho. In addition the Patriarchate and many of
the more celebrated abbeys had been given vast estates all over western Europe,
from which the revenues were sent to Palestine. The Church had its own courts,
to deal with cases concerning heresy and religious discipline, marriage,
including divorce and adultery, and testaments. They followed the usual rules
and procedure of the Canon Law Courts in the West.

The territories of Antioch, Tripoli and Edessa,
were ecclesiastically under the Patriarch of Antioch. The delineation of the
Patriarch’s spheres had given rise to difficulties; for traditionally Tyre was
included in the Patriarchate of Antioch, though it formed by conquest part of
the kingdom of Jerusalem. Paschal II ruled that Tyre, with its dependent
bishoprics of Acre, Sidon and Beirut, should be transferred to Jerusalem. This
was done, as it corresponded to political realities. But the attempts of the Patriarchs
of Jerusalem to obtain jurisdiction over the three Tripolitan bishoprics of
Tripoli, Tortosa and Jabala failed, in spite of fitful support from the Papacy.
Raymond of Toulouse seems to have hoped for an autonomous Church in his future
county; but his successors admitted the ecclesiastical suzerainty of Antioch.
It weighed lightly on them; for they appointed their bishops without
interference.

Like his brother of Jerusalem the Patriarch of
Antioch was elected by the Chapter but in fact appointed by the secular ruler,
who could also secure his deposition. We know that certain Princes paid homage
to the Patriarch at their coronation; but it was probably only under
exceptional circumstances. Under the Patriarch were the Archbishops of Albara,
Tarsus and Mamistra, as well as Edessa. The archbishopric of Turbessel was set
up later, with the official title of Hierapolis (Menbij). The number of
bishoprics varied according to political circumstances. There were nine Latin
abbeys and two priories. The chief monastic establishments were those of Saint
Paul and Saint George, where the Benedictines seem to have displaced Greek
monks, and Saint Symeon, where the two rites existed side by side. The
Antiochene Church was not quite so wealthy as that of Jerusalem; indeed, many
Palestinian establishments owned estates in the principality.

The Military
Orders

Long before the end of the twelfth century the
secular Church in the Frankish states was completely overshadowed by the
Military Orders. Since their establishment they had grown steadily in numbers
and in wealth, and by 1187 they were the chief landowners in Outremer. Gifts
and purchase continually increased their estates. Many Palestinian nobles
joined their ranks; and recruits came in steadily from the West. They answered
an emotional need of the time, when there were many men anxious to take up the
religious life but wishful still to be active and to do battle for the Faith.
And they answered a political need. There was a perpetual shortage of soldiers
in Outremer. The feudal organization depended too much on the accidents of
family life in the noble houses to provide a replacement for the men that died
in battle or of sickness. Visiting Crusaders would fight well for a season or
two, but then they returned home. The Military Orders produced a constant
supply of devoted professional soldiers who cost the King nothing and who were
rich enough besides to build and maintain castles on a scale that few secular
lords could undertake. Without their assistance the Crusader-states would have
perished far sooner. Of their actual numbers we have only incidental evidence.
The Hospitallers sent five hundred knights with a proportionate number of other
ranks on the Egyptian campaign of 1158; and the Templar knights taking part in
the campaign of 1187 numbered about three hundred. In each case these probably
represented knights from the kingdom of Jerusalem alone; and a certain number
would have been kept back for garrison duties. Of the two Orders the
Hospitallers were probably the larger and the richer; but they were still
busily concerned with charitable activities. Their hostel in Jerusalem could
house a thousand pilgrims; and they maintained a hospital for the needy sick
there that survived the Saracen reconquest. They distributed alms daily amongst
the poor with a generosity that astounded visitors. Both they and the Templars
policed the pilgrim-routes, taking particular care of the sacred bathing-places
in the Jordan. The Templars also distributed alms, but less lavishly than the
Hospitallers. Their attention was given more exclusively to military affairs.
They were famed for their courage in attack and regarded themselves as being
dedicated to offensive warfare. They devoted themselves also to banking and
soon made themselves the financial agents for visiting Crusaders; and they were
later to win unpopularity by the suspicion of strange esoteric rites; but as
yet they were universally esteemed for their bravery and chivalry.