Talk:Vassals of the Kingdom of Jerusalem

message: Runciman's History of the Crusades has good stuff on this, although it's frequently unfortunately unclear on the issue of dates.  I'll add material when I get the chance. john 07:09, 8 May 2004 (UTC)

message: ...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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  I'm not sure... 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Cyprus 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: Actually, I think the Cypriote kingship was formally a creation of Henry VI, Holy Roman Emperor; see for instance , "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)
thread_title:  [[Latin Empire]] of [[Constantinople]] 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Lordship of Joscelin was NOT a seigneury 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Map