Many historians believe that the Crusader states were doomed to failure. While the Crusaders certainly believed they were here to stay, as demonstrated by the large castles and fortresses that were built, they faced many immediate problems. They were severely lacking in manpower; the First Crusade was always intended as an armed pilgrimage and so the vast majority of crusaders returned home after the capture of Jerusalem, leaving those who remained massively outnumbered. Furthermore, being a strip of Crusader land completely surrounded by a sea of ​​Muslim territory and barred from Europe to the north by the Byzantine Empire, the Crusaders had just seized 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 doomed to failure. Until the reign of Baldwin III, the crusaders demonstrated their ability to survive against all odds, despite their precarious geographical situation. I believe it was short term factors such as the resurgence of Muslim forces under Zengi, Amalric's mistakes in Egypt, and the souring of relations between the Crusader leaders that ultimately cost the Crusaders the Holy Land they had worked so hard to protect. plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an Original Essay The first element I want to consider is the weakness of the Muslim world and how this is one of the key factors allowing the Crusaders to take over the Kingdom of Jerusalem. At the time of the First Crusade, the Muslim enemies were not united, and this disunity contributed to the strength and stability of the early Outremer. The First Crusade was an exceptional military feat for the Franks, yet the divisions in the inward-looking Muslim world are an important factor when considering the survival of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In addition to the struggle between the two main religious branches of Islam, the Shia and 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 of succession, splintering the once great empire into feuding factions, each focused on acquiring personal power and land, and unconcerned with outside powers. The Empire was too divided to defend itself from attack. The reign of King Baldwin I, the first king of Jerusalem, is considered a success, 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 coastal access to the West's allies and also opened up a world of trade possibilities in the East. Furthermore, Baldwin managed to devise a clever model that maintained tighter control over the barons and knights, pre-empting the disgruntled nobility. The subsequent deterioration of this model around 1180 was a major reason for the decline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as I will discuss later, but Baldwin I set the standard for the management of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and had his Following the example of his successors , the Kingdom could have prospered. Baldwin I was one of the most significant figures of the First Crusade. His success in military leadership during the Crusade created the foundation of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The words of Fulcrum of Chartres, Baldwin's chaplain, explain this. He wrote: “He was a very skilled fighter and therefore, although he had few men, they [the Muslims] did not dare attack him.” While this may be the case, Fulcher's close relationship with Baldwinit may have influenced his writing. He also had a motive to attract people to settle in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, since the crusaders were few. Considering all the evidence, Baldwin I led the crusaders in victories that ensured the survival of the kingdom of Jerusalem while preserving the gains made in the First Crusade. Baldwin I was known to be able to control the ungovernable aristocracy. There were many social changes during Baldwin's reign; the dukes and barons were at the height of their power and at the same time knights and lesser nobles were incessantly demanding more power and lands. The way he has adapted to these changes with the “New Feudalism” proves 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 the barons and nobility so difficult to control. However, not all historians see Baldwin I in such an admirable light. Asbridge sees the crusaders under Baldwin's leadership as: "little more than a vague network of dispersed outposts". He attributed 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 skills, there were many examples of him as a less than exemplary military leader. He conquered important areas such as ports and coastal cities, but failed to unite them into a single body of Crusader territory, and this caused some problems later, when the Crusader states were too large for one ruler to manage them all effectively. 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 protect the Crusader States. Baldwin was able to consolidate power by being a forceful negotiator. This style of diplomatic negotiation also gained him some vital allies. For example, the partnership with the Italians, as both leaders were described as "skillful and shrewd mediators", was very important for the survival of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the ties were maintained for 80 years. Indeed, these early connections led to the conclusion of a treaty of alliance between Jerusalem and the Venetians in 1123 called Pactum Warmundi. As a sliver of Crusader land in a sea of ​​Muslim territory, the connections the Crusaders established with outside forces proved to be extremely useful short-term factors that contributed to the Kingdom's fate. Baldwin I left behind a much larger kingdom than he inherited, and this is an important factor in judging him that historians such as Asbridge have not highlighted enough. One thing that differentiates Baldwin as a particularly effective leader is that he had a vision for his kingdom from the beginning of his reign and all of his actions seemed planned and well thought out, as if thinking decades into the future. I think that while it was the Crusaders who conquered 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 internal strife and political divisions that we see the Kingdom struggle to keep external enemies at bay and, ultimately, fail to maintain control of the Holy Land. The crusader state of the Kingdom of Jerusalem competently survived until the end of the reign of Baldwin I for a number of reasons, some due to skillful leadership, others the result of communication and ties with Europe, for example with the Venetians as mentioned before. However, the conditions would not be.