University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
Link to University of Wisconsin Digital Collections
The History Collection

Page View

Baldwin, M. W. (ed.) / The first hundred years
(1969)

XII: The Foundation of the Latin States, 1099-1118,   pp. 368-409 PDF (16.5 MB)


Page 379

Ch. XII THE FOUNDATION OF THE LATIN STATES 379 
J affa and Jerusalem until such time as he could conquer one or two other
cities, Babylon (the Frankish term for Cairo or, more precisely, its suburb
Fustat) being suggested according to William of Tyre.~4 
 We may conclude that Daimbert, confident that he represented official church
views but lacking direct papal authority, on his own initiative took the
position that the crusade had been an ecclesiastical enterprise, that its
conquests were church conquests, and that the patriarch of Jerusalem was
the trustee and ruler for the church of the Holy Sepulcher, in which title
to Jerusalem was vested. He considered that Bohemond and Godfrey were merely
lay vassals and defenders. Bohemond was out of the way in the outer province
of Antioch, and Godfrey might be got out of the way elsewhere, in Cairo,
for example. Such were the ambitious views of Daimbert. In his letter to
the Christians of Germany in April 1100, the patriarch spoke of his difficulties
in defending the Holy Land, and did not even mention Godfrey.'5 But Daimbert's
whole position, at first so favorable, changed rapidly with the homeward
departure of the Pisan fleet after Easter, the death of Godfrey, and the
arrival of Godfrey's brother Baldwin of Edessa in the fall of 1100. 
 Godfrey died July i8, 1100, after falling ill while helping Tancred in the
region east of Tiberias. What this famous but little understood man would
have accomplished, had he lived, no one can say. He faced appalling difficulties
in his one year as advocate, and he faced them with singular courage and
pertinacity. His followers, huddling in the ruins of Jerusalem, were few,
their communications with the outside world precarious, and their morale
at the breaking point. The imperious Daimbert presented a special problem.
He had to be humored because he represented both naval strength and prevailing
ecclesiastical opinion. But Godfrey had enough of both personal ambition
and practical military common sense not to yield actual control of Jerusalem.
Tenacious, shrewd, and tactful, rather than the pious zealot of later legend,
he managed to avoid a break with the patriarch. He 
 14 William of Tyre, IX, i6; letter of Daimbert to Bohemond, quoted by William
(X, ' i.). 
E. Hampel, Untersuchungen über das lateinische Patriarchat von Jerusalem
(Breslau, 1899), 
p. 25, accepts the naming of Babylon (cairo). Babcock and Krey, William of
Tyre, I, 418, 
n. i s, are doubtful. 
 15 Hagenmeyer, Epistulae et chartae, no. XXI, pp. 176—177. Daimbert
seems to have desired, without evidence of papal authority, to make Jerusalem
an ecclesiastical state ruled by the patriarch. Jerusalem does not seem to
have been claimed as a papal fief until 1128, and not afterwards. Cf. M.
W. Baldwin, "The Papacy and the Levant during the Twelfth Century," Bulletin
of the Polish Institute of Arts and Sciences in America, III (i~45), z8 1—283.


Go up to Top of Page