Godfrey of Bouillon lives; Papal Jerusalem?

[QuoProQuid]

Godfrey of Bouillon was a Frankish knight and one of the most prominent leaders of the First Crusade. While all others hesitated, Godfrey besieged Jerusalem and successfully conquered the city. Although he accepted leadership over the newly conquered lands, he refused the title 'King'.


According to the chronicler William of Tyre, Godfrey made an agreement with the Papal Legate to cede the territories of Jerusalem and Jaffa to the Pope. Godfrey's death a few months later outside the city of Acre, however, prevented any deal from coming to fruition. The barons of Jerusalem outmaneuvered the Papal Legate and crowned Godfrey's brother as King. They preferred a secular leader to a religious one any day.


So what if, Godfrey of Bouillon lives several more years and the Jerusalem is transferred to the Pope? What ramifications does this have on future crusades and the Papacy's role in the Levant? How would the land be administered?

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Oh yeah an absentee religious ruler who can barely rule Rome, that'll go well.

 

[Deleted member 43582]

the only way this could work is if the pope moves to Jerusalem making it the center of catholicism. This way he could (maybe) administer it. But only maybe. He also would almost certainly not move to Jerusalem, cause its FUCKING DANGEROUS THERE. Let those dirty Franks fight there for a few years for me and then maybe I will consider moving. But seriously no way he will move and ergo no way he could properly administer it.

 

[Emperor Julian]

Godfrey would be king in all but name, the Pope wouldn't be able to exert any real control.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Godfrey would be king in all but name, the Pope wouldn't be able to exert any real control.

But what about after he dies? Will Godrey's family become something like hereditary Viceroys, Kings in all but name? Or would the Pope send a Legate to administer Jerusalem?

 

[Elfwine]

But what about after he dies? Will Godrey's family become something like hereditary Viceroys, Kings in all but name? Or would the Pope send a Legate to administer Jerusalem?

What's to stop the barons from outmanuevering that Legate?

 

[Thoresby]

Well for starters it will make the financial situation of the Crusader States even worse. If it's a papal territory then feudal dues will be paid to Rome rather than the King in Jerusalem, which means a much higher percentage is going to get spent on pageantry and mistresses and a lot less on defending the realm.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

What's to stop the barons from outmanuevering that Legate?

Exactly part of my point. The only way that the Pope could feasibly govern the Holy Land would be to move to Jerusalem. Even then it would put the papacy in a worse position since in OTL Jerusalem was at war for most of its existence. Then who would rule Rome? A legate? The various Roman nobles? Or perhaps the Holy Roman Empire would finally get Rome. Though I will conside that if the Pope lived in the Holy Land there might be more support for crusades or at the very least more people immigrating to Jerusalem.

 

[Elfwine]

Exactly part of my point. The only way that the Pope could feasibly govern the Holy Land would be to move to Jerusalem. Even then it would put the papacy in a worse position since in OTL Jerusalem was at war for most of its existence. Then who would rule Rome? A legate? The various Roman nobles? Or perhaps the Holy Roman Empire would finally get Rome. Though I will conside that if the Pope lived in the Holy Land there might be more support for crusades or at the very least more people immigrating to Jerusalem.

Can't see why. Moving to the Levant is a huge thing for most people, even if they're free to do so (and serfs having such freedom is finite).

The problem with trying to have Jerusalem populated by Franks is that the Crusades were - in some aspects - an outgrowth of pilgrimage, which is supposed to be "Go there and come back".

So from the perspective of what motivated people to go, staying around isn't really considered.

I'm not saying nothing could influence it, but the Pope deciding to usurp the place of the Patriarch of Jerusalem (which he'd be doing in essence if he moved to Jerusalem) really isn't going to be the kind of shift that would matter. Or the area being administered in the name of the Church, for that matter.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Can't see why. Moving to the Levant is a huge thing for most people, even if they're free to do so (and serfs having such freedom is finite).

The problem with trying to have Jerusalem populated by Franks is that the Crusades were - in some aspects - an outgrowth of pilgrimage, which is supposed to be "Go there and come back".

So from the perspective of what motivated people to go, staying around isn't really considered.

I'm not saying nothing could influence it, but the Pope deciding to usurp the place of the Patriarch of Jerusalem (which he'd be doing in essence if he moved to Jerusalem) really isn't going to be the kind of shift that would matter. Or the area being administered in the name of the Church, for that matter.

True true. In all honesty I can't really see the Pope moving to Jerusalem in the first place, or it really encouraging much immigration but it was a slim possibility so I thought I should mention it.

 

[QuoProQuid]

The Pope cannot move to Jerusalem without significantly undermining his authority and risking a rebellion in Rome. The Roman laypeople weren't content even at the best of times under the Church. While the Pope can claim Jerusalem is part of the Church's Dominium temporale, there would be significant opposition to any permanent movement there.

The concerns over economic independence make me wonder if the rump kingdom might be forced to unite with the northern Crusader states. I cannot see it being able to sustain itself otherwise. Manpower is already at critical levels and removing Jerusalem puts the nation further on the verge of destruction than ever.

Exactly part of my point. The only way that the Pope could feasibly govern the Holy Land would be to move to Jerusalem. Even then it would put the papacy in a worse position since in OTL Jerusalem was at war for most of its existence. Then who would rule Rome? A legate? The various Roman nobles? Or perhaps the Holy Roman Empire would finally get Rome. Though I will conside that if the Pope lived in the Holy Land there might be more support for crusades or at the very least more people immigrating to Jerusalem.

Couldn't the Pope just grant the Patriarch of Jerusalem total control over the cities to serve in his absence. Seems a good solution as any. Dagobert, the current Patriarch, is the one who negotiated the deal to begin with. Godfrey also heavily respects him, if letters from the period are to be believed.

 

[general]

The Pope is not going to move to Jerusalem. Apart from the other reasons given here, the main cause of his authority in the West is that as Bishop of Rome, he is the successor to Peter. That meant a lot under Roman law. If he moves to Jerusalem he is abdicating said position, not to mention usurping another bishop's position ( as already mentioned).

 

[el t]

Papal Jerusalem

You would need some type of Templar or Hospitaler military order to defend Jerusalem. The pope would probably request support or levy a special tax for it. I agree that it would not be very practical for the pope to relocate to Jerusalem.

 

[QuoProQuid]

Bumping this, because the concept is interesting to me.

How different of a ruler is Godfrey of Bouillon likely to be than his brother? What sort of prospects does he have for the future?