Page 529

 Ch. XVII THE LATIN STATES UNDER BALDWIN III AND AMALRIC I529 
 By the middle of the twelfth century the Latin states had reached a point
in their development where each could manage its own affairs. There was,
as a consequence, a tendency to disregard such feudal ties as had earlier
bound the three states together. Rare, for example, were the instances when
the counts of Tripoli recognized the suzerainty of Jerusalem. At most, the
king of Jerusalem possessed a superior dignity as primus inter pares. His
intervention in Tripoli or Antioch — as also the intervention of northern
princes in Jerusalem — usually resulted from ties of blood relationship
or followed a formal request for aid from the local curia. Common danger
was the most important element in uniting the forces of the three states.
But even in times of crisis cooperation was disappointingly difficult to
secure. Without a. common policy the Latin states were at best a loose federation.
 The greatest problem confronting the Syrian Latins was military security.
They were a minority in an alien land and the number of troops which the
various baronies and military orders could provide was limited. Native auxiliaries
were occasionally useful but not consistently reliable. Numerical inferiority
was in part offset by certain other factors. To natural barriers of mountain,
river, and desert, the crusaders added formidable fortresses at critical
points along the frontier. In the later years of the twelfth century most
of these were garrisoned by Templars and Hospitallers. Command of the sea
was maintained by the Italians, 
 These sources can be supplemented by a number of other chronicles, letters,
and documents which are cited in the standard secondary reference works.
For the details of narrative history the most important of these are: R.
Grousset, Histoire des croisades et du royaume franc de Jerusalem, vol. II,
Monarchie franque et monarchie musulmane: l'équilibre (Paris, 1935);
R. Röhricht, Geschichte des Konigreichs Jerusalem, 1100—1291 (Innsbruck,
1898); S. Runciman, A History of the Crusades, vol. II: The Kingdom of Jerusalem
(Cambridge, 1952); and W. B. Stevenson, The Crusaders in the East (Cambridge,
1907). Institutional history is covered by J. L. LaMonte, Feudal Monarchy
in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1100—1291 (Cambridge, Mass.: Mediaeval
Academy, 1932). 
 Additional material can be found in C. Cahen, La Syrie du nord a l'ipoque
des croisades et la principauti franque d'Antioche (Paris, 1940); F. Chalandon,
Les Comne'ne: Jean 11 Comnine (1118—1143) et Manuel I Comnine (1143—1180)
(Paris, 1912), and "The Later Comneni," Cambridge Medieval History, IV; Annie
Herzog, Die Frau auf den Fürstenthronen der Kreuzfahrerstaaten (Berlin,
1919); J. L. LaMonte, "The Lords of Sidon in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries,"
Byzantion, XVII ~ 183—211; "The Lords of Caesarea in the Period of
the Crusades," Speculum, XXII (i~~), 145—161; [with Norton Downs] "The
Lords of Bethsan in the Kingdom of Jerusalem and Cyprus," Medievalia et Humanistica,
fasc. VI; S. Lane-Poole, Saladin and the Fall of the Kingdom of Jerusalem
(New York, 1898, new ed., 1926); Jean Richard, Le Comte de Tripoli sous la
dynastie toulousaine (1102—1187) (Paris, 1945), Le Royaume latin de
Jerusalem, Paris, 1953; Leopoldo Usseglio, I Marchesi di Mon ferrato in.
ltalia ed in Oriente, 2 vols., Casale Monferrato, 1926; G. Schiumberger,
Campagnes du roi Amaury ler en Egypte (Paris, 1906), and Renaud de Chatillon
(Paris, 1898); H. F. Tournebize, Histoire politique et religieuse de l'Arminie
(Paris, 1910); and A. A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire, Madison,
1952.