bronstein - the hospitallers and the holy land; financing the latin east, 1187–1274 (2005)

7/16/2019 Bronstein - The Hospitallers and the Holy Land; Financing the Latin East, 1187–1274 (2005)

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/bronstein-the-hospitallers-and-the-holy-land-financing-the-latin-east-11871274-5634f8a4a8d0b 1/207



The Hospitallers and

the Holy Land

FINANCING THE LATIN EAST1187–1274

The Order of the Hospital of St John was among the most creative andimportant institutions of the Middle Ages, its history provoking muchdebate and controversy. However, there has been very little study of the wayin which it operated as an organisation contributing to the survival of theChristian settlement in the East, a gap which this book addresses. It focuseson the impact of the various crises in the East upon the Order, looking athow it reacted to events, the contributions that western priories played in therehabilitation of the East, and the various efforts made to restore itseconomic and military strength. In particular, the author shows the key roleplayed by the papacy, both in the Order's recovery, and in determining thefate of the crusader states. Overall, it offers a whole new perspective on theconnections between East and West.

JUDITH BRONSTEIN gained her Ph.D. from the University of Cambridge



The Hospitallers and

the Holy Land

FINANCING THE LATIN EAST1187–1274

Judith Bronstein

THE BOYDELL PRESS



© Judith Bronstein 2005

All Rights Reserved. Except as permitted under current legislationno part of this work may be photocopied, stored in a retrieval system,

published, performed in public, adapted, broadcast,transmitted, recorded or reproduced in any form or by any means,

without the prior permission of the copyright owner

The right of Judith Bronstein to be identified asthe author of this work has been asserted in accordance with

sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988

First published 2005The Boydell Press, Woodbridge

ISBN 1 84383 131 7

The Boydell Press is an imprint of Boydell & Brewer Ltd

PO Box 9, Woodbridge, Suffolk IP12 3DF, UKand of Boydell & Brewer Inc.668 Mt. Hope Avenue, Rochester, NY 14620, USA

website: www.boydellandbrewer.com

A CIP catalogue record for this book is availablefrom the British Library

Library of Congress Cataloging-in-Publication Data

Bronstein, Judith, 1964-

The Hospitallers and the Holy Land : financing the Latin East, 1187–1274 / Judith Bronstein.p. cm.

Summary: “A new appraisal of the Order of the Hospitallers, showing how theywere responsible for the survival of the Christian settlement in the East” – Provided by publisher.

Includes bibliographical references and index.ISBN 1–84383–131–7 (hardcover : alk. paper)1. Hospitalers. 2. Church history – 12th century. 3. Church history –

13th century. I. Title.BX2825.B76 2005271'.7912’09022--dc22 2005002720

This publication is printed on acid-free paper

Printed in Great Britain bySt Edmundsbury Press Ltd, Bury St. Edmunds, Suffolk



Contents

Acknowledgements vii

Abbreviations ix

Maps x

Introduction 1

1 The Hospitallers in the Holy Land, 1187–1274 11

Financial activities of the Hospitallers in the Latin East 47

2 The Order in the West and Crises in the Latin East: The French Priories 64

1188–1200: the aftermath of Hattin 64

1200–1250: years of investment and expansion 66

Reaction to the expansion: the re-organization of the Order 77in the 1210s and 1220s

1240–1274: years of change 81

1262–1274: a time of financial and political crisis 92

The f inances of the priories in Sicily, England and the Iberian 97peninsula, 1262–1274

3 The Popes, the Hospitallers and Crises in the Holy Land 103

4 Members of the Order Serving in the Latin East and in the French 133Priories

Conclusion 140

Appendix: List of Members of the Order Serving in the Latin East 146and in the French Priories, 1187–1274

Bibliography 167

Index 183



To the memory of my fathe r Reuben Bronstein



Acknowledgements

This book is partly based on my Ph.D. thesis submitted in 2000 at the University of Cambridge. The basic dissertation, however, has been much changed following additional research, re-evaluation and further reflection. The book could not havebeen written without the assistance of many scholars and friends to whom I am

deeply indebted. My warmest thanks are due to my former supervisor, JonathanRiley-Smith. His erudition, his open-mindedness, his enthusiasm, his dedicationand confidence in his students made working with him a fantastic experience and anenormous privilege. I cannot thank him enough for the encouragement, supportand advice he gave, and is still giving, me.

I am also greatly indebted to Sophia Menache. Her inspirational teaching firstdrew me to the Middle Ages as an undergraduate student, and since then she hasgiven me continuous support and invaluable advice and help, for which I amextremely grateful.

I am happy to take this opportunity to express my gratitude and debt to

Malcolm Barber, Luis García-Guijarro Ramos, Anthony Luttrell and Miri Rubinfor their assistance and continual advice. I am also grateful to Carlos BarqueroGoñi, Jochen Burgtorf, Alan Forey, Anne-Marie Legras, Edna and Eliezer Stern, aswell as to my Ph.D. examiners, David Abulafia and Bernard Hamilton, for theirsuggestions, criticism and help at various stages of this work. It is also a great plea-sure to thank Damien Carraz, Ruthy Gertwagen and Jenny Horowitz, who readdraft versions of several chapters, always kindly and patiently answered innumer-able questions and queries, and offered me many constructive suggestions at the laststages of the preparation of this book. For their kind and helpful guidance at the

final stages of the work, I would also like to thank Caroline Palmer and the staff atBoydell & Brewer.I owe a great debt to the following for their friendship and support: Thomas

Biskup, Laura Cameron, Mark Clarke, Itzik Hen, Diana and Peter Lipton, MarwanNader, Elizabeth O’Beirne-Ranelagh, Greg O’Malley, Iben Schmidt, ShoshiSquires, Shula Wieder and very special thanks to Nora Berend, Lizzie Dougherty,Nick Duncan and Idit Nathan.

I take this oportunity to thank those who provided me with generous financialsupport, namely the Cambridge Overseas Trust, Emmanuel College, the Ian KartenCharitable Fund, the Lightfoot Fund, and the ORS. I am also grateful to theCouncil for High Education – Israel, and the University of Haifa, for electing mefor a Postdoctoral Fellowship.

I would like to conclude these acknowledgements by thanking the people towhom I owe my greatest debt, my parents. Without their unfailing support, their



kindness, and their intellectual encouragement this book would not have become areality. It is a cause of great sadness to me that my father has not lived to see it. Although a physician, he was an enthusiastic historian, and it is to him, with love,that I dedicate this book.

viii ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS



Abbreviations

AD du Rhône Inventaire sommaire des Archives Départementales du Rhône, Archives Écclésiastiques, série H , ed. M.C. Faure, Lyons, 1945, vol. III.

AD du Rhône (antérieures)

Inventaire sommaire des Archives Départementales du Rhône antérieures à 1790, Archives Écclésiastiques , série H , Lyons, 1932, vol. II.

AD HauteGaronne

Toulouse, Archives départementales de la Haute-Garonne. ArchivesÉcclésiastiques, série H. Charters of the Hospitallers and theTemplars.

AOL Archives de l’Orient Latin, ed. P.E.D. Riant, 2 vols., Paris, 1881, 1884.‘ATS’ ‘Annales de Terre Sainte’, in AOL , vol. II, pp. 427–61.

BEFAR Bibliothèque des Écoles Françaises d’Athènes et de Rome , 2 series.

Cart. Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint Jean de Jérusalem,1100–1310 , ed. J. Delaville Le Roulx, 4 vols., Paris, 1894–1906.

Cart. Avignon Cartulaire et chartes de la commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean de Jérusalemd’Avignon au temps de la Commune (1170–1250), ed. C.-F. Hollard, Paris,2001.

Cart. Bruxelles Cartulaire de l’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Bruxelles, actes des XII–XIII siècles , ed.P. Bonenfant, Brussels, 1953.

Cart. Éterpigny Paris, Bibliothèque Nationale, nouv. acq. lat. 927.Cart. Fieffes Paris, Archives Nationales, S5059.

Paris, Archives Nationales, S5533.

Cart. St. Gilles Cartulaire du Prieuré de Saint Gilles de l’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Jérusalem(1129–1210), ed. D. Le Blevec and A. Venturini, Paris, 1997.Cart. St. Paul

les Romans ‘Chartularium domus Hospitalis Hierosolymitani Sancti Pauli propeRomanis’, Cartulaires des Hospitaliers et Templiers en Dauphiné (Bulletind’Histoire et d’Archéologie du Diocèse de Valence, Collection de Cartulaires

Dauphinois), ed. U. Chevalier, Romans, 1875Cart. Saulce

sur YonneCartulaire de la commanderie de Saulce sur Yonne, Paris, ArchivesNationales, S5235.

Cart. Trinquetaille Cartulaire de Trinquetaille , ed. P.A. Amarguier, Gap, 1972.Cart. Velay Cartulaire des Hospitaliers du Velay, ed. A. Chassaing, Paris, 1888.

‘Eracles’ ‘L’Estoire d’Eracles empereur et le conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer’,RHC Oc., vols. I, II.Foedera Foedera, conventiones, litterae, et cuiuscunque generis acta publica inter reges

Angliae et alios quosvis imperatores, reges, pontifices vel communitates,1101–1654 , ed. T. Rymer; new edn. A. Clarke et al., 4 vols., London,1816–69.

GCN Gallia christiana novissima , eds. J.H. Albanès and U. Chevalier, 7 vols.,Montbéliard and Valence, 1895–1920.

Ibn al-Furat Ayyubids, Mamlukes and Crusaders. Selections from the Tarikh al-Duwal wa’l Muluk of Ibn al-Furat, ed. and trans. M.C. and U. Lyon, with historical

introduction and notes by J. Riley-Smith, Cambridge, 1971.Marseille-56H Marseille, Archives départementales des Bouches du Rhône, 56H.Charters of the Hospitallers and the Templars.

MGH Legum Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Legum, ed. G.H. Pertz et al., 5 vols.,Hanover, 1835–89.



MGH SS Monumenta Germaniae Historica: Scriptores , ed. G.H. Pertz et al., 32 vols.,Hanover, 1826–1934.

PC The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in England, Part 2: Prima Camera, Essex , ed. M. Gervers, Oxford, 1996.

PL Patrologia cursus completus, series Latina , ed. J.P. Migne, 217 vols., Paris,1841–1864.

Potthast Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, ed. A. Potthast, 2 vols., Berlin, 1873–75.RCAR I Registri della cancelleria angioina ricostruiti , ed. R. Filangieri di Candida

et al., 28 vols. so far, Naples, 1950– .Reg. Alexandre IV Les Registres d’Alexandre IV , ed. C. Bourel de la Roncière, A. Coulon and

J. de Loye ( BEFAR ), 3 vols., Paris, 1902, 1917, 1953 (tables, 1959).Reg. Clément IV Les Registres de Clément IV , ed. É. Jordan ( BEFAR ), Paris, 1893.Reg. Grégoire IX Les Registres de Grégoire IX , ed. L. Auvray ( BEFAR ), 3 vols., Paris,

1896–1908.Reg. Grégoire X Les Registres de Grégoire X , ed. J. Guiraud ( BEFAR ), 3 vols. including

tables, Paris, 1892, 1906, 1908.

Reg. Honorius III Regesta Honorii papae III , ed. P. Pressutti, Rome, 2 vols., 1888–95.Reg. Innocent IV Les Registres d’Innocent IV , ed. É. Berger, 4 vols., Paris, 1884–1921.Reg. Urbain IV Les Registres d’Urbain IV , ed. M.J. Guiraud ( BEFAR ), 4 vols. including

tables, Paris, 1901, 1929, 1958.RHC Arm. Recueil des historiens des croisades. Documents Arméniens , 2 vols., Paris, 1869,

1906.RHC Lois. Recueil des historiens des croisades. Lois , 2 vols., Paris, 1841–43.RHC Oc. Recueil des historiens des croisades. Historiens occidentaux , 5 vols., Paris,

1844–1895.RHC Or. Recueil des historiens des croisades. Historiens orientaux , 5 vols., Paris,

1872–1906.RHGF Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France , ed. M. Bouquet et al.,24 vols., Paris, 1737–1904.

RRH Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani, 1097–1291, ed. R. Röhricht, Innsbruck,1893; Additamentum, Innsbruck, 1904.

SC The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in England, Secunda Camera, Essex , ed. M. Gervers, Oxford, 1982.

Thes. novus Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, ed. U. Durand and E. Martène, 5 vols.,Paris, 1717 (repr. Farnborough, 1968).

TRHS Transactions of the Royal Historical Society.

Vat. Reg. Archivio Segreto Vaticano, Regesta Honorii III.WT Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. R.B.C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis, 63–63A, Turnhout, 1986, 2 vols.

x ABBREVIATIONS



Map 1. The Latin East, 1187–1250, showing places mentioned in the text.



Map 2. The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the County of Tripoli in 1274,showing places mentioned in the text.



M a p 3 . H o s p i t a l l e r p r i o r i e s i n E u r o p e , 1 2 6 1 – 1 2 9 1 .



Map 4. Hospitaller priories in France up to 1274, showing places mentionedin the text.



M a p 5 . H o s p i t a l l e r C o m

m a n d e r i e s i n P r o v e n c e a t t h e e n d o f t h e t h i r t e e n t h c e n t u r y , s h o w i n g p l a c e s

m e n t i o n e d i n t h e t e x t .



Introduction

Introduction

THE MILITARY ORDERS of the Hospital and the Temple are considered themost original products of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem. These institutions, themain aim of which was defined in terms of fighting for the Holy Land and caring for the poor and pilgrims, were responsible for the survival of the Latin settlementin the East until the final fall of the kingdom of Jerusalem in 1291. The Hospital-

lers’ standing at the forefront of the defence of Palestine and Syria exposed them togreat expense in maintaining their castles and manpower even in normal times; butnatural disasters and the defeat of the Order’s forces on the battlefield had devas-tating effects. This book examines the Order’s function as a medieval internationalorganization, looking at the strategies employed by the Hospitallers throughout thethirteenth century to provide the brothers in the East with the necessary resourcesand manpower to fulfil their tasks. The history of the Hospitallers in the Latin Eastand France from 1187 to 1274 is described, especially their responses, as membersof an international Order of the Church, to crises in the East.

The scope of the study is the period between the battle of Hattin in 1187 and the

Second Council of Lyons in 1274. The choice of this period requires some clarifica-tion. Even before 1187 the Order had suffered setbacks in the East, for example,falling heavily into debt and undergoing an internal crisis owing to the assistancegiven to King Amalric in his failed campaign to Egypt in 1168.1 But the defeat atHattin was a turning point because it necessitated a complete rehabilitation of theOrder’s military forces and finances on an unprecedented scale. Likewise at the endof our period, after almost a century in which the Order had made enormous effortsto reconstruct its defensive array and economic resources in the Latin East, ten yearsof unceasing Mamluk incursions had, by 1274, created a situation not unlike that

just after Hattin. The Latin settlement was reduced to several cities along the coast.The Hospitallers had lost most of their castles and lands, and were entirelydependent on supplies from Europe. In addition, 1274 marks the beginning of anew era in crusading history because of the adoption of new crusading strategiesand financial approaches resolved at the Second Council of Lyons that year.2

A succession of military defeats and natural disasters powerfully affected the situ-ation of the Hospitallers in the East throughout the thirteenth century. Many lettersof appeal show their increasing reliance on the shipment of supplies and manpowerfrom the West. These letters, however, give very little information about their

1 J. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus, c.1050–1310 , London, 1967, pp.61–63.

2 N. Housley, The Later Crusades: From Lyons to Alcazar 1274–1580 , Oxford, 1992, p. 5; S. Schein,Fideles Crucis: The Papacy, the West and the Recovery of the Holy Land , Oxford, 1991, pp. 11–12.



specific needs and none about their use of manpower. To gain a better under-standing of the way crises affected the Hospitallers in the East, hence to understandtheir needs, I have made detailed use of the Order’s sources. The Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint Jean de Jérusalem is the largest collection of documentsavailable for the study of the Hospitallers in its eastern and western provinces. 3 It

contains charters of donations, records of financial transactions, and also papalbulls, correspondence addressed to or issued by the Order, records of its chapters,and decrees. But the Cartulaire is not comprehensive, and for the history of theOrder in the East I have also made use of documents relating to local institutionsconnected with the Order in the East, using as a guide the Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani . Although the Regesta is now slightly out of date, it is still the maincalendar of charters, letters, and papal bulls, issued in or sent to the Holy Landbetween 1097 and 1291.4 Moreover, many references to the Hospitallers, and theMilitary Orders in general, are made in contemporary Christian and Arab chroni-cles. The relationship of the Order with the papacy is mainly illumined by materialin the papal registers and also by records of Church councils.

The sources concerning the European priories are extremely valuable. TheHospitallers were able to meet enormous demands for money and manpower at atime of a continuous deterioration of the military and economic situation of theLatin settlement because their wealth was based in Europe. But only scattered infor-mation is available as to the supplies sent to the East. No inventories or shipmentlists are known to exist for the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Although the rule of the Order demanded that written accounts should be sent from Europe, togetherwith the supplies and money, these records have not survived.5 Any surviving mate-

rial for the Hospitallers in Europe is in the cartularies of local commanderies, whichdeal only with local issues, such as charters of donation, purchases, leases, or alien-ation of property. They do not contain any references to the connections of thesehouses to the Order’s headquarters in the East. Nevertheless, the response of Euro-pean priories to crises in the East can be assessed indirectly from their economicactivities; the Order’s needs in the East should have been reflected in its economicpolicy in the West. Selling or renting out property, for example, could mean that thebrothers in Europe were trying to liquidate their assets to supply the East with readycash.

In this study of the Order’s economic activities in Europe, based on an evalua-tion of their investments and expenditures, the ‘French’ priories of France,St. Gilles, and Auvergne are of special interest.

The terms ‘French’ or ‘France’ are used for convenience; medieval boundarieswere so variable that the Order’s provincial division in Europe rather than thegeographical limits of kingdoms sets the scene. The boundaries of these three‘French’ priories were therefore not confined to the boundaries of the medieval

2 THE HOSPITALLERS AND THE HOLY LAND

3 Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint Jean de Jérusalem,1100–1310 , ed. J. Delaville Le

Roulx, 4 vols., Paris, 1894–1906.4 Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani , ed. R. Röhricht, 2 vols., Innsbruck, 1893. Additamentum,

Innsbruck, 1904.5 On the accounts that were required together with the supplies from Europe see Riley-Smith,

The Knights of St. John, pp. 308–12.



kingdom of France. St. Gilles, for example, was responsible for territory, such asProvence, which could be regarded as ‘French-speaking’, in so far as the Langued’oc is considered a French language, but for most of our period was part of thewestern empire.

There were two main reasons for focusing on the economic activities of the

French priories. They were the biggest and wealthiest in Europe, and although theirregisters are lost, the rich collections of sources that have survived for their subjectcommanderies, namely unpublished and published cartularies, yield an overallpicture of their financial situation and their ability to support the convent in theEast. For commanderies of the priory of France we have the cartularies of Hospital-lers’ houses in Brussels, Fieffes and Éterpigny.6 For houses of the priory of Auvergne(but until c.1220–40 under the control of the priory of St. Gilles) there is thecartulary of the Hospitallers in Velay, and also charters related to the Order in therich collection of documents from the county of Forez.7 A wealth of material hassurvived for commanderies under the control of the priory of St. Gilles. It includesbundles of charters related to the Hospitallers in Lyons, Marseilles and Toulousefound respectively in the Archives départementales du Rhône, des Bouches duRhône, and de la Haute-Garonne.8 There are also printed Hospitaller cartulariesfrom St. Paul les Romans, Avignon, Trinquetaille, and St. Gilles.9

It is always questionable to what extent one can rely on medieval sources. Theabsence of evidence of investments by the Order’s commanderies in specific periodsor geographical areas does not necessarily signify a change in their economic policy.The cartularies may be fragmentary or material has perhaps been lost. This diffi-culty can be overcome by studying cartularies from other houses nearby, most prob-

ably exposed to similar political and economic circumstances. Here, in addition toHospitaller sources, there is material of other religious and lay institutions inFrance. Templar cartularies, for example, those from Saulce-sur-Yonne, Bellenglise,and Provins, provide evidence for the economic activities of an institution withsimilar aims to those of the Hospitallers.10 Hospitaller cartularies and diplomaticdocuments from other possible European areas of supply to the East, namely theIberian peninsula, England, and the kingdom of Sicily, while beyond the scope of this book, are also of value.

INTRODUCTION 3

6 Cart. Bruxelles ; Cart. Fieffes; Cart. Éterpigny.7 Cart. Velay; Chartes du Forez antérieures au XIV siècle , ed. G. Guichard, 23 vols., Mâcon, 1933–78.8 Cartulaire de l’ordre des Hospitaliers: Lyons, Archives départementales du Rhône 48H (for this

archive I have also studied printed inventories, here referred to as AD du Rhône and AD du Rhône,antérieures ); Marseilles, Archives départementales des Bouches-du-Rhône 56H. Charters of theHospitallers and the Templars: Toulouse, Archives départementales de la Haute-Garonne,archives écclésiastiques – série H.

9 ‘Chartularium domus Hospitalis Hierosolymitani Sancti Pauli prope Romanis’, Cartulaires des Hospitaliers et Templiers en Dauphiné ( Bulletin d’Histoire et d’Archéologie du Diocèse de Valence, Collection de Cartulaires Dauphinois ), ed. U. Chevalier, Romans, 1875; Cart. Avignon; Cart. Trinquetaille ; Cart. St.Gilles . Although this was titled the cartulary of the priory of St. Gilles, it is actually the cartulary

of the commandery, for the city and its surroundings. The confusion arises because St. Gilleswas the site of both a priory and commandery.

10 Cart. Saulce sur Yonne, Paris, Archives Nationales, S5235. Histoire et cartulaire des Templiers de Provins , ed. V. Carrière, Paris, 1919. The Cartulary of Bellenglise is included in the Hospitallercartulary of Fieffes (S5533), fols. 259–80.



Although the establishment, ideology, and activities of the Hospitallers aredescribed in many secondary works, hardly any research has been done on the func-tion of the Hospitallers as an international Order and the response of their housesin Europe to the Order’s needs in the East. Two important books on the Order’sgeneral history appeared at the beginning of the last century. In 1904 J. Delaville Le

Roulx published a history of the Hospitallers in the Holy Land and Cyprus.11 It isarranged chronologically by mastership and provides valuable information on thehistory of the Order and its internal organization. Delaville Le Roulx made use forthe first time of the large collection of material from the Order’s cartulary, which hehimself had edited, as well as contemporary chronicles. However, his is a narrativedescription, without much analysis. He did not consider the relationship betweenthe convent in the East and the Hospitaller houses in Europe, but dealt with these astwo separate issues. The approach of H. Prutz in his history of the Military Orders,published in 1908, was more thematic.12 He studied the Order’s establishment anddevelopment in different geographical areas. He also described their financial activi-ties, their involvement in political events, and their relations with the papacy. Hemade more comprehensive use than Delaville Le Roulx of primary sources,including, for example, material from the papal registers. Yet despite being highlyinformative, his book is little more than a very detailed description of the sourcesand, as is the case with Delaville Le Roulx’s history, it lacks analysis. J. Riley-Smith’sthorough and analytical work on the history of the Hospitallers in Jerusalem andCyprus from 1050 to 1310, published in 1967, for the first time places the study of the Military Orders in the general context of the history of the crusade move-ment.13 It considers the Order an institution which developed and operated within

the crusader states and was influenced by them. Riley-Smith studied the structureof the Order and its development as an international Order of the Church, andwithin this discussion he dealt with the relationship of the convent in the Holy Landwith the houses in Europe. His emphasis, however, was on the function of theOrder in the East rather than the European priories; questions that my work seeks toexamine, relating to the response by these priories to the Hospitallers’ needs in theEast, were considered only briefly.

Although an impressive amount has been written on the Military Orders sincethe publication of Riley-Smith’s book, I refer here only to those works which have

some direct connection with my field of study. In 1992 A. Forey wrote a generalhistory of all Military Orders from the twelfth to the fourteenth centuries. It refersto the Orders’ international deployment, yet the topics covered are broad and givenbrief attention, as is often necessarily the case with general works of this sort. In hisbook The Templars in the Corona of Aragón Forey has an important chapter on the rela-tions between the Templars’ headquarters in the East and its houses in the Crown of Aragon.14 Also on the Templars, M. Barber’s The New Knighthood , published in 1994,is a comprehensive history of the Order from its foundation to its annulment. It


11 J. Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte et à Chypre , Paris, 1904.12 H. Prutz, Die geistlichen Ritterorden , Berlin, 1908.13 Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John.14 A. Forey, The Military Orders, from the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries , London, 1992 and his

The Templars in the Corona de Aragón, London, 1973.



contains valuable information on the deployment of the resources of the Order’sEuropean priories and their supply of resources and manpower to the Latin East. 15

Besides Forey, who dealt with a number of Orders in different crusading theaters,the works mentioned above focus mainly on the history of the Orders in the Eastand include some references to their European houses and the supplies sent from

them to the Levant. A few important articles have been written on this subject:Barber wrote a general article on the ways the Templars established a supportnetwork in Europe for the supply of their brothers in the East.16 Using theremaining Angevin archives J. Pryor wrote on the shipments of supplies from Sicilyfollowing the conquest of the island by Charles of Anjou in the 1260s. He has alsowritten articles on the supply of horses from Europe to the Holy Land.17 Still, thelack of specific evidence on the dispatch of resources and manpower from theOrders’ European houses may be the reason why these topics, which are crucial foran understanding of the survival of the Christian settlements and the MilitaryOrders in the East in the thirteenth century, have not been more thoroughly studied.

Prosopographical analysis of the members of the Orders might help to clarifyhow brothers were mobilized. A. Forey’s The Templars in the Corona of Aragón includesa list of officials serving in Aragon, and his article ‘Recruitment to the MilitaryOrders’ concerns issues of places of recruitment and service. But this article isbased on the records of the process of the Templars, so it refers to the very late thir-teenth and fourteenth centuries.18 The works of Delaville Le Roulx, Riley-Smith,and Barber give descriptions of members of the Orders, but they concentrate onmasters or high officers. Jochen Burgtof’s doctoral dissertation makes a significantcontribution to the study of these high off icers of the central convent.19 Barber’s

discussion of the mobilization of the Templars in his article ‘Supplying the CrusadeStates’ is also based on the Templar process, and centres on the last decades of theOrder’s existence.20 The rich body of material concerning the Hospitallers both inthe Latin East and Europe allowed me to engage in prosopographical research onthe members of the Order. I drew up lists of names of brothers serving in the LatinEast and in the priories of France, St. Gilles, and Auvergne in the course of thethirteenth century, with which I was able to examine questions of place of originand service. Although the sources provide only scattered information as to the lossesthe Order sustained in the East, I could assess the consequences of defeat on the

INTRODUCTION 5

15 M. Barber, The New Knighthood , Cambridge, 1994.16 M. Barber, ‘Supplying the Crusader State: The Role of the Templars’, The Horns of Hattin, ed.

B.Z. Kedar, Jerusalem and London, 1992, pp. 314–26.17 J. Pryor, ‘In Subsidium Terrae Sanctae : Exports of Foodstuffs and War Materials from the Kingdom

of Sicily to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1265–1284’, Asian and African Studies , 22 (1988), pp.127–44, and ‘Transportation of Horses by Sea during the Era of the Crusades: Eighth Centuryto 1285 A.D.’, Mariner’s Mirror , 68 (1982), pp. 10–27, 103–25.

18 Forey, The Templars in the Corona de Aragón, and ‘Recruitment to the Military Orders, Twelfth to

mid-Fourteenth Centuries’, Viator , 17 (1986), pp. 139–71.19 J. Burgtorf, ‘Führungsstrukturen und Funktionsträger in der Zentrale der Templer und

Johanniter von den Anfängen bis zum frühen 14. Jahrhundert’ (Ph.D. thesis, Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, 2001).

20 Barber, ‘Supplying the Crusader State’, pp. 314–26.



battlefield and to follow the mobilization of manpower from Europe to the East bytracking the brothers’ careers.

While general studies on the Military Orders tend to concentrate on their historyin the East, studies of Hospitallers’ houses in Europe are mostly limited to theirregions of study and have few if any references to the Holy Land. The two major

works on the Hospitallers in France are those by E. Mannier on the priory of France, published in 1872, and by J. Raybaud on the priory of St. Gilles, publishedin 1904.21 Mannier’s is a well documented, descriptive account of the establishmentand development of the priory and the Order’s commanderies in northern France,which does not, however, go beyond the year 1200. Although Raybaud did study thehistory of the priory of St. Gilles throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries,his work is in many cases inaccurate and lacks documentation. Regional studies onspecific houses published in the last twenty years by French historians such as D. LeBlévec and P. Santoni make very good use of the archives to describe the establish-ment and development of Hospitaller houses in southern France.22 A bookpublished in 1999 by D. Selwood on the history of the Hospitallers and theTemplars in the same area analyses the ways their houses functioned as religiousinstitutions within the societies in which they were established. Although it dealswith the obligations of the Orders’ houses to supply the East, it refers only briefly tothe influence which political and economic changes had on these houses and theway it affected their financial situation.23 This has been recently examined byD. Carraz, who in his doctoral dissertation made an important contribution to thestudy of the Templars in Provence.24 And yet, no study published so far on theHospitaller houses in Europe in the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, including

excellent works such as Gervers’s introductions to the Essex cartularies, has thor-oughly considered the implications of political and economic changes for the abilityof these houses to respond to the needs of the convent in the Holy Land. 25

The Hospital of St. John was founded in the eleventh century by merchants from Amalfi as a charitable institution to care for the sick and the poor who arrived in Jerusalem. The instability of the kingdom of Jerusalem, the foundation of theOrder of the Templars,26 and the acknowledgement of warfare as a valid expressionof Christian charity no doubt contributed to turning the Hospitallers into a Military

Order. Besides their hospital work they came to play an important role in thedefence of the crusader states.27 In 1154 the Hospital became an exempt Order of


21 E. Mannier, Les commanderies du prieuré de France , Paris, 1872; J. Raybaud, Histoire des grands prieurs et du prieuré de Saint Gilles , Nîmes, 1904.

22 See Bibliography for details.23 D. Selwood, Knights of the Cloister: Templars and Hospitallers in Central-Southern Occitania,

c.1100–c.1300 , Woodbridge, 1999.24 D. Carraz, ‘Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales: L’ordre du Temple dans la

basse vallée du Rhône (1124–1312)’ (Ph.D. dissertation, Université Lyon 2, 2003; forthcoming

in Presses Universitaires de Lyon).25 See Gervers’ introductions to PC and SC .26 For the history of the Templars see M. Barber, The New Knighthood .27 Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem, pp. 32–84. For the Order’s origins and earliest

history see also A. Luttrell, ‘The Earliest Hospitallers’, Montjoie: Studies in Crusade History in



the Church, directly subject to the authority of the pope.28 Extensive donations inEurope had also made it an international Order, which had created a network of support for its activities in the Latin East. The Order’s houses were required to sendresponsiones , annual payment of one third of the produce of their lands or specifiedgoods, to the headquarters in Jerusalem and later in Acre.29 By the later twelfth

century the Hospitallers were an economic and military power in the Latin East.Their income from Europe, and the fact that they held extensive tracts of land, villages, as well as urban properties, made their Order one of the richest institutionsin the East. This wealth permitted them to play an essential role in the defence of the Holy Land. They owned at least twenty-five castles in the twelfth century andseven in the thirteenth century, which not only protected the Latin settlement fromexternal attacks but were instruments of conquest and colonization.30 John of Würzburg, a German pilgrim who visited the Holy Land around 1160, commentedthat in addition to the money spent for the sick and the poor, the Order spared noexpense supplying its castles with skilled military men to protect the Christian landsfrom the Muslims.31

To support their activities in the East the Order developed a distinctive system of government,32 under the leadership of the master, who had powers of generaladministration, exercised supreme command on military campaigns, oversaw thefinances, and convened and presided over the general chapter. He was assisted by anumber of high officers. The grand commander was the second most importantofficer, who administered the Order in the master’s absence and was responsible forthe property in the East. The treasurer was responsible for the administration of finances. The marshal was in charge of the military forces and had under his

command all brothers-at-arms, sergeants-at-arms and military officers. The drapierwas in charge of the clothing store, but his importance during the course of the thir-teenth century increased considerably, and he appears to have been responsible forthe crucial and complicated task of supplying the Order’s forces during military

INTRODUCTION 7

Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer , ed. B.Z. Kedar, J. Riley-Smith and R. Hiestand, Aldershot, 1997,pp. 37–55.

28 Cart . no. 226.29 Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 40, 45, 50–51, 341–71.30 For the history of the Hospitallers up to 1187 and their possessions in the East see Riley-Smith,

The Knights of St. John, pp. 32–84, 477–507; The Atlas of the Crusades , ed. J. Riley-Smith, London,1990, pp. 53, 107. For the different functions of the Crusaders’ castles see R.C. Smail, ‘TheCrusaders’ Castles of the Twelfth Century’, Cambridge Historical Journal , 10 (1950), pp. 133–49;R. Ellenblum, ‘Three Generations of Frankish Castle-Building in the Latin Kingdom of Jeru-salem’, Autour de la Prèmiere Croisade, Actes du Colloque de la Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 juin 1995), ed. M. Balard, Paris, 1996, pp. 517–29; for themilitary deployment of the Hospitallers in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem see also Maps 1and 2 above.

31 Peregrinationes tres: Saewulf, John of Würzburg, Theodericus , ed. R.B.C. Huygens, CorpusChristianorum Continuatio Medievalis, 139, Turnhout, 1994, pp. 28, 131–35.

32 The following description of the Order’s structure and international organization is based on.Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , pp. 281–404; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 227–373, and his article ‘The Origins of the Commandery in the Temple and theHospital’, La Commanderie, institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval , ed. A. Luttrell andL. Pressouyre, Paris, 2002, pp. 9–18.



campaigns. The hospitaller stood at the head of the hospital. From the beginning of the thirteenth century the turcopolier commanded the mercenaries. The high offi-cers formed part of the convent, the headquarters of the Order, first in Jerusalemand, after 1192, in Acre.

The master’s authority was not unlimited. His power was counterbalanced by the

general chapter, an assembly summoned by him, which met only irregularly, andconsisted of all the brothers from the central convent, all brothers-at-arms serving inthe Holy Land, and the officers serving in Europe. This was the Order’s mostimportant governing body. It legislated through statutes and regulations and advisedthe master on political and economic policies. It elected the master, and with hisadvice also elected all capitular bailiffs serving in the East and Europe. Still,although the master and the general chapter were the supreme authorities andimportant decisions were reserved to them, the Order developed a system by whichthe master’s authority was decentralized to provincial administrative units, whichenjoyed a great degree of independence.

The most basic unit in the Order’s provincial administration was thecommandery. In a town it might be a hospice or a conventual house which includeda chapel and some buildings. It could also be a small village and its dependent landsor just a group of lands conveniently close. The reasons for the establishment of acommandery varied, but it was usually the result of an original donation followed byfurther expansion of the Hospitallers in the district. Some commanderies, such as Avignon, developed into rich and important administrative centres, which hadsmaller houses attached to them. At the head of a commandery stood thecommander (also named preceptor, prior, or master; to prevent confusion,

throughout the book the term ‘commander’ is used for Hospitallers and ‘preceptor’for Templars). The commander was responsible for a group of brothers who mainlyconsisted of the prior of the church, a hospitaller and an almoner, as well asservants, skilled workers, and laymen attached to the house as confratres or donats. Allthe brothers fulfilled administrative functions. They ran the commandery’s estates,collected taxes or rents, dealt with merchants, or brought agricultural products tothe markets. Their economic activities were almost independent, because theymanaged their own budget and decided on financial transactions such as thepurchase or alienation of property. Only from 1262 were they required to keep

registers of their financial activities. Their main obligation was to pay the provincialpriory (or castellany) the responsiones and additional taxes. A number of commanderies geographically close together formed a priory. This

was the most important administrative unit in Europe, responsible for collecting andtransmitting the responsiones to the East and for ensuring the prudent management of the Order’s estates. The priories’ size and wealth varied, but they usually encom-passed extensive geographical areas. By the middle of the thirteenth century theHospitallers had established the priories of St. Gilles, France, Auvergne, Messina,Barletta, Capua, Lombardy, Venice, Rome, Pisa, Amposta, Navarre, Castile andLeón, Portugal, England, Ireland, Germany, Bohemia, Hungary, and Morea.Because of his enormous importance in the Order’s administration each prior wasappointed by the master and the general chapter and was answerable to them. Hewas required, if summoned, to travel to the East or to appear before the chapter andreport there on the situation of his priory. As the master’s representative he had full




power to intervene in legal disputes with lay and ecclesiastical lords and to imposediscipline within his priory. He appointed the commanders and had visitation rightsin their houses. In his administrative tasks he was assisted by a provincial chapter,which he had the right to summon once a year. This chapter was attended by hisconventual brothers and all the commanders of the priory. It was to this that the

commanders were to bring the responsiones . In theory the master and the generalchapter could have exercised greater authority over the priors; but the irregularityof the meetings of the general chapter, the distance from the headquarters in theHoly Land, and the immense power and wealth placed in their hands meant thatthe priors enjoyed great freedom of action. There was a risk that their policieswould oppose the interests of the master and the brothers in the East or might haveadverse consequences for the economic future of the whole Order. This did indeedhappen. To prevent it, the masters usually appointed to the post of prior experi-enced brothers, who had in the past held high off ice in the East and were aware of the Order’s needs there.

Another way of overseeing the priories was by creating grand commanderies,larger administrative units, which conjoined temporarily more than one priory. Thegrand commanders were ad hoc officers, appointed by the master, who had completeauthority over the priors. The grand commander of Outremer, for example,oversaw the priories of France, Belgium, and the north of Spain. However, atdifferent times he also had authority over other priories in the Iberian peninsula, aswell as the priories of England and Ireland. Because of his overall authority and hispower of supervision over a vast geographical area, the grand commander theoreti-cally could have centralized the Order’s activities in the West, by assembling a

convened chapter of several priories, to implement, if necessary, changes ineconomic and political policies. None of the grand commanders who served in thethirteenth century did so.

Equivalent in rank to the prior were the commander and the castellan in theEast. Their administrative units were usually based in cities and castles from wherethe commanders or castellans managed their estates. Because of their geographicalcloseness to the convent it was not necessary to maintain a commandery-priorystructure similar to the one that operated in Europe. Commanders and castellans inthe East were capitular bailiffs appointed by the master and the general chapter.

They were required to supply responsiones to the convent. The products of thesehouses and their income from rents and trade were an important component in theOrder’s budget and were essential for the day-to-day support of its activities in theEast. Not surprisingly, therefore, the master or some of his conventual officers wereoften involved in the f inancial transactions of these houses. Still, the commanderiesin the East, like all Hospitaller houses in Europe, had their own independentbudgets and took independent financial decisions.

An example of this is the commanders of the ships, who were directly subject tothe convent in the Holy Land; they probably remained f inancially dependent on iteven though they also operated in Europe.33 Their activities and the Order’s inter-

INTRODUCTION 9

33 Although the Order’s statutes have very few references to the commanders of the ships, the stat-utes of 1268 specify that except for capitular bailiffs, who were on their way to attend a general



national financial operations are illustrated by loans taken out in Marseilles to rein-force their fleet on the eve of the first crusade of Louis IX of France. In April 1248William Odet, commander of the Hospitaller ship La Comtesse , borrowed 500 livres of Marseilles from merchants from Siena to repair and equip his vessel. The secu-rity on the loan was the ship itself and a promise not to sail until the money was

reimbursed. Similar loans were taken the same year by the commanders of theHospitaller ships Le Faucon and La Griffone . The loans were taken by the commandersof the ships, who were subject to the master in Acre. The prior of St. Gilles, whowas responsible for the Hospitaller’s house in Marseilles, was apparently notinvolved in these transactions and his representatives only appear as witnesses tosome of these agreements. Moreover, the fact that these loans were taken at thesame time that the priory of St. Gilles had ready cash to invest to extend its propertysuggests a clear division of the Order’s finances and a departmental organization of its resources.34

The first of this book’s four chapters deals with the impact of crises, caused bydefeat on the battlefield and natural disasters, on the Hospitallers in the East. Itfocuses on their efforts to restore the Order’s economic power and military forces,for which supplies and manpower were needed from their houses in Europe. InChapter 2 the response of the Hospitallers in France to the Order’s needs in theEast is set out, covering economic activities, mainly their attitude to land and prop-erty. The economic activities of some other priories are described to provide a morecomprehensive picture of the Hospitallers’ international deployment. Relationsbetween the Hospitallers and the Holy See are the subject of Chapter 3, where the

role of the papacy in the Order’s rehabilitation in the East is elucidated. Chapter 4sets out the results of the prosopographical research conducted on the members of the Order serving in both the Latin East and its French priories from 1187 to 1274.


chapter, all other brothers on the ship would be under the authority of the commander of the

ship, who was appointed by the master. See Cart., no. 3317.34 Cart., nos. 2466 bis, 2467 bis, 2481 bis. See also Documents inédits sur le commerce de Marseille au

Moyen-Âge , ed. L. Blancard, vol. I, Marseilles, 1884, nos. 344–45, and J. Piquet, Des Banquiers au Moyen Âge. Les Templiers. Étude de leurs opérations financières , Paris, 1939, pp. 243–44. On the invest-ments of the priory of St. Gilles see Chapter 2 below, pp. 82–83.



THE HOSPITALLERS IN THE HOLY LAND

1

The Hospitallers in the Holy Land, 1187–1274

THE HISTORY OF the Latin Kingdom from 1187 to 1274 is marked by a succes-

sion of calamities, which had a strong impact on the situation of the Order in theEast. The battle of Hattin, on 4 July 1187, led to the contraction of the Latin settle-ment. After 1188 all that remained of the kingdom of Jerusalem was the city of Tyre, although the Third Crusade was to re-conquer the coast from Tyre to Jaffa,including the important city of Acre. The city of Tripoli, the Hospitaller fortress of Crac des Chevaliers, and the Templar castle of Tortosa were almost all thatremained of the county of Tripoli. All the important port towns south of Tripoli,including Gibelet, Beirut, and Sidon, were lost. In the principality of Antioch, onlythe Hospitaller castle of Margat and the city of Antioch remained, with the landaround it and along the coast.1 The collapse of the Latin settlement gravely

damaged the economic basis of the Hospitallers in the Holy Land and their militarydisposition. In the years following Hattin the Order lost most of its castles,fortresses, and lands. Although there is no indication of the number of brotherskilled during and after this battle, prosopographic research indicates that the Ordermay have suffered heavy losses. It will be shown elsewhere that after the battle theOrder’s leadership disappeared and was replaced by new men, some from the East,who were promoted to higher ranks, and some transferred from Europe.2

With the fall of Jerusalem on 2 October the Hospitallers lost their headquarters,which were then re-established in Tyre, the only surviving city of the kingdom of

Jerusalem. Those Hospitallers who survived regrouped there under the leadershipof Borrell, the grand commander of Jerusalem, and from October 1187 under thatof Armengaud of Asp, prior of St. Gilles, who was charged with the temporaryadministration of the Order.3 The presence of some of the Order’s most senior

1 On the battle of Hattin and Saladin’s campaigns of 1187–88 see J. Prawer, A History of the LatinKingdom of Jerusalem, 2 vols., Jerusalem, 1963 (in Hebrew), vol. I, pp. 526–61, and Riley-Smith,The Knights of St. John, pp. 85–89. On the Third Crusade see J. Richard, The Crusades,c.1071–c.1291, trans. J. Birrell, Cambridge, 1999, pp. 216–37.

2 See Chapter 4 below, p. 138.3 The Hospitallers sheltering in Tyre seem to have been preparing to f lee farther north by sea to

Lattakia, fearing perhaps that Tyre would suffer Acre’s fate. See ‘Magni presbyteri annalesRechespergenses’, MGH SS , XVII, pp. 508–9. Armengaud of Asp was castellan of Ampostafrom1180 until 1183. From 1184 he held both the castellany of Amposta and the priory of St.



European officers in the East, a year after the battle, attests to the rapid response of the Order, on an institutional level, to the catastrophe of Hattin. In October 1188, Archambaud, grand commander of Italy, Arlabaud, prior of Germany, and Martin,prior of Hungary and Bohemia, were in Tyre. Together with Armengaud, thetemporary master, Borrell, the grand commander, and Lambert, the Order’s

marshal, they confirmed the rule of the monastery of Sigena, in Aragon.4 Thisdocument indicates that together with shipments of supplies and manpower, seniorofficers hurried out to the East to replace the leadership that had disappeared. Theyformed a chapter, or a temporary governing body, which must have helped Armengaud, himself a temporary master, to administer and reorganize the Orderafter a year of terrible losses.

It appears from the sources that this temporary leadership was replaced by apermanent one after the re-conquest of Acre in July 1191. Garnier of Nablus waselected master in late 1189 and went with King Richard I to the East. He, togetherwith William of Villiers, commander or grand commander of Acre, and Robert, theOrder’s treasurer, witnessed, a deed issued in Acre in February 1192.5 The presenceof the master, his deputy, and the treasurer attests to the presence of the convent – the Order’s seat of government – in the city, that is, the establishment of theOrder’s headquarters in Acre.6

This newly created convent had the extremely complex task of rehabilitating andexpanding the Order’s devastated military power and economy in the Levant. Thisprocess consisted of enlarging the Hospitallers’ property in Acre to meet theirgrowing needs following the establishment of their headquarters in the city. It alsomeant pursuing a policy of intensive investment in the Latin East. To accomplish

these aims they had to redeploy their international resources; this required struc-tural changes within the Order.

Most of the resources sent from Europe in the years after Hattin were undoubt-edly used to build the Order’s headquarters in Acre. Since 1110 the Hospitallers


Gilles. With the loss of the master Roger of Moulins at the battle of Sephoria (1 May 1187), Armengaud, who was the senior officer in the West, was charged with temporary administra-tion of the Order. His presence in Tyre could intimate the presence of the Order’s headquar-ters in this city. For the presence of Borrell and Armengaud in Tyre see RRH , nos. 659, 665–67,675, 677–78. For a very detailed account of Armengaud’s place of origin and career see A.Luttrell, ‘Ermengol de Aspa and Sigena’, Hospitaller Women in the Middle Ages , ed. A. Luttrell andH. Nicholson, Aldershot, forthcoming. On Sigena see L. García-Guijarro Ramos, ‘The

Aragonese Hospitaller Monastery of Sigena: its Early Stages, 1188–ca.1210’, ibid. I amextremely grateful to Dr. Luttrell and Dr. Guijarro Ramos for allowing me to read their articlesbefore publication.

4 Cart., no. 860; RRH , no. 677. For Martin, called here ‘prepositi’ as prior of Hungary andBohemia at this time, see also J. Delaville Le Roulx, Les archives, la bibliothèque et le trésor de l’ordre de Saint Jean de Jérusalem à Malte , Paris, 1883, p. 221.

5 Cart., no. 919. William of Villiers is mentioned here as ‘Guillelmus de Meleriis, domus Acconensis bajulus’. For Garnier of Nablus see also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp.

107–8. On the conventual bailiffs see Introduction above, pp. 7–8.6 For additional evidence of the presence of the master in Acre after 1192 see, e.g., RRH , nos.

699, 706. For the fact that the headquarters of the Military Orders were established in Acreafter 1192 see also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 247, and Barber, The New Knighthood ,p. 118.



had owned property in Acre and a commandery in the northern part of the city.7

From Saladin’s advisor, Imâd ad-Dîn al-Işfahâni, we learn that the Order’scompound was not destroyed during the Muslim occupation of the city. It wasconverted into a theological college,8 where the Hospitallers chose to establish theirheadquarters after the city was recovered; since, with the loss of Jerusalem, Acre

became the de facto capital of the kingdom of Jerusalem.9 The Order’s headquarterswere the nerve centre of a large international organization. This was the base of themaster and of some of the Order’s conventual bailiffs, and the centre of activity of the Order’s administrative departments. And it was to Acre that the Order’s housesworldwide were required to send responsiones , an annual payment of one third of theproduce of their lands and specified goods. Their old commandery in the city wastoo small for these new functions. As evidence of this, in January 1193 the provin-cial chapter in the East, to which the master Geoffrey of Donjon summoned allSyrian castellans and commanders, was held in the castle of Margat and not in Acre; so was the general chapter summoned by the master Alfonso of Portugal in1204. The general chapter was the Order’s most important governing body towhich all the brothers from the central convent, all brothers-at-arms serving in theHoly Land, and the officers serving in Europe were called. Its buildings in Acreprobably did not have the capacity for such a large number of people.10 The neces-sary extension and improvement of the Order’s headquarters were feasible owing tosignificant donations given to the Hospitallers in the years following the re-conquestof Acre. In 1192 Guy of Lusignan gave them a stretch of land to the north of theirconventual buildings. Guy’s interest was to enlist the Order’s assistance in the reha-bilitation of Acre, but also to gain their political support for his claim to the throne

of Jerusalem, considering the good relations existing between King Richard and thenewly appointed master of the Hospitallers, Garnier of Nablus, who had sailed withhim from England.11 To satisfy Hospitallers’ growing needs on account of the estab-

THE HOSPITALLERS IN THE HOLY LAND 13

7 Cart., nos. 20, 471, 663. For a detailed description of the Hospitallers’ expansion in Acre in thetwelfth and thirteenth centuries see D. Jacoby, ‘Les communes italiens et les ordres militaires à

Acre: aspects juridiques, territoriaux et militaires (1104–1187, 1191–1291)’, Trade, Commodities and Shipping in the Medieval Mediterranean, Aldershot, 1997, essay no. VI, pp. 200–204;Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 247–49 and his article ‘Guy of Lusignan, the Hospital-lers and the Gates of Acre’, Dei gesta per Francos. Etudes sur les croisades dédiées à Jean Richard , ed.M. Balard, B.Z. Kedar, and J. Riley-Smith, Aldershot, 2001, pp. 111–15.

8 Imâd ad-Dîn al-Işfahâni, Conquête de la Syrie et de la Palestine par Saladin , trans. H. Massé, Paris,1972, p. 84.

9 For the growing political and economic importance of Acre from the 1180s see J. Riley-Smith,The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277 , London, 1973, p. 64, and D. Jacoby,‘L’évolution urbaine et la fonction méditerranéenne d’Acre à l’époque des croisades’, Trade,Commodities and Shipping in the Medieval Mediterranean, essay no. V, pp. 98–106.

10 Cart., nos. 941, 1193. On the general chapter see Introduction above, p. 8. By the end of the.thirteenth century a tradition had been established by which the master Alfonso of Portugallost the Order’s magistracy because he summoned the chapter outside the kingdom of Jeru-salem. This must have been only a pretext, because Garin of Montaigu summoned a general

chapter in Tarsus in 1225 without suffering similar consequences. On this tradition seeRiley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 120. For Garin’s chapter see Chapter 2 below, p. 79.

11 For Guy’s donation see Cart., no. 917. The view that Guy sought the Order’s political supportwas expressed by Prof. Riley-Smith in a paper delivered in Cambridge in December 1998. Onthe struggle for the throne of Jerusalem between Guy of Lusignan and Conrad of Monferrat



lishment of their headquarters in the city, Henry of Champagne granted them awall and a gate in 1193 and 1194. These donations enlarged the Order’s compoundnext to the north wall of the city and allowed them to enlarge and improve theirbuildings.12 Although no written evidence has been found of this building activity,archaeological excavations conducted in the last few years have revealed its magni-

tude; the Order had extensively expanded the size of their old compound by adding large warehouses, new conventual buildings, as well as an advanced sewagesystem.13

The Order’s activities in Acre were facilitated by additional donations. In 1200they received a cemetery from the bishop of Acre. A year later they expanded theirproperty in the city through a donation of four shops, given by a Genoese whoentered the Order as a confrater.14 These grants notwithstanding, charters given to,or by, the Order indicate, perhaps as one would expect, that its economic activitiesin the Latin East between 1187 and 1200 were very limited. There are only twopurchases of land and property,15 and very few donations.16 But donations given tothe Hospitallers after Hattin, of parts of the walls and towers of some of the mostimportant cities in the Latin East, in the hope that they would rebuild andre-strengthen them, show that the Order was still regarded as a potentially wealthypower. Apart from the significant donations granted to them in Acre, they receivedtwo towers in Jaffa in 1194 and a gate in the walls of Tripoli in 1196. 17

The economic resources that enabled the Hospitallers to assist in the defence of the Latin East lay in their estates in Europe, and they made great efforts to informthe West about the critical situation in the East.18 They sent a great many letters totheir houses in Europe. Their message aimed to set the Order’s international orga-

nization in motion so as to ensure the prompt mobilization of manpower, supplies,foodstuffs, and money to the East. Immediately after the battle of Hattin, in August


see J. Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277 , London, 1973, pp.112–20, and ‘The Crusading Heritage of Guy and Aimery of Lusignan’, Cyprus and the Crusades ,ed. N. Coureas and J. Riley-Smith, Nicosia, 1995, pp. 40–41. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 112 for the relations between Richard and Garnier of Nablus.

12 Cart., nos. 938, 972. For a discussion on the exact location of these donations and their signifi-cance.for the Order’s expansion in Acre see Riley-Smith, ‘Guy of Lusignan, the Hospitallersand the Gates of Acre’, pp. 111–15.

13 Eliezer Stern, ‘The Center of the Order of Hospitalers in Acre’, Qadmoniot , 33 (2000), pp. 4–12(in Hebrew); D. Pringle, ‘The Archaeology of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Reviewof Work 1947–97’, Journal of Medieval History, 23 (1997), pp. 393–94.

14 Cart., nos. 1113, 1145.15 Cart., nos. 906, 1038. For Garnier of Nablus see also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John,

pp. 107–8.16 For donations see Cart., nos. 891, 917, 966, 1097, 1113, 1145, 1146. This last grant from 1201

indicates that the Hospitallers were involved in the redemption of Christian prisoners. See alsoY. Friedman, Encounter between Enemies: Captivity and Ransom in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,Leiden, 2002, pp. 200–11.

17 Cart., nos. 954, 990.18 The Order’s efforts were part of intensive correspondence sent by the survivors of Hattin to

Europe. Patriarch Eraclius writes in a letter to Pope Urban III in September 1187 that manyletters and envoys were sent to all the princes in the West urging them to succour the Holy Landwithout delay. This letter was published by B.Z. Kedar, ‘Ein Hilferuf aus Jerusalem vonSeptember 1187’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters , 38 (1982), pp. 120–22.



1187, the officers of the Order in the East notified Archambaud, the grandcommander of Italy, of the defeat. Their letter gave an alarming description of thesituation. It stated that the number of Muslims besieging Tyre, Jerusalem, and Gazawas so large that these cities and their Christian populations would soon be extinctunless help arrived from the West.19 One may ask why such an urgent letter was sent

to Italy, whose priories and commanderies were not the richest and had not beensignificant centres of recruitment in the twelfth century.20 But the grandcommander of Italy, who was responsible for these priories, was the Hospitallerofficer closest to the papal curia.21 It is not surprising that such an important polit-ical and diplomatic post was held by Archambaud, who in 1185 had been the grandcommander of the Hospital in Jerusalem, the second most important officer afterthe master,22 and consequently a man who could judge the critical situation in theHoly Land. In November 1188 Armengaud of Asp, as temporary master in theEast, informed Duke Leopold V of Austria, an enthusiastic crusader who was totake part in the Third Crusade,23 about the fall of the Order’s most importantcastles.24 Four years later, in April 1193, the new master Geoffrey of Donjon sent ageneral letter to the priories of the Hospital in Europe through William of Villiers,grand commander of Outremer. William of Villiers had been commander of Acre,which probably meant grand commander of the Order, in 1192, after the reoccupa-tion of the city.25 He, like Archambaud, would have been well aware of the difficul-ties and needs of the Order in the East. In his letter Geoffrey reported the death of Saladin and wrote that although there was discord among Saladin’s heirsreconquering the land lost to the Muslims would not be easy; the situation in theEast was so difficult that there had been an exodus of people from the Christian

lands.26 One of the difficulties implied by Geoffrey was most likely the shortage of food caused by Saladin’s incursions and the devastation of the land. Moreover,lands remaining in Christian hands were also in difficult conditions. Sempad,constable of Armenia, described in his chronicle a severe famine in Antioch in1192–93. As sufficient amounts of food could not be found locally, there was anurgent need to ferry it in from abroad.27


19 ‘Magni presbyteri annales Rechespergenses’, MGH SS , XVII, pp. 508–09.20 On the priories of Italy see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 355–56.21 This task was fulfilled by the prior of Rome, but only from 1215. See Riley-Smith, The Knights

ofSt. John, pp. 356, 369. On the prior of Rome and his relationship with the grand commanderof Italy, see J. Delaville Le Roulx, ‘Liste des grands prieurs de Rome de l’Ordre de l’Hôpital deS. Jean de Jérusalem’, Mélanges de Rossi, supplement aux Mélanges d’archéologie et d’histoire publíés par l’École Française de Rome , 22 (1892), pp. 263–64.

22 On the commander or grand commander of the Hospital see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 304–305. In 1185 Archambaud administered the Order during the absence of themaster Roger of Moulins, who was in Europe, Cart., no. 754.

23 H. Mayer, The Crusades , trans. J. Gillingham, Oxford, 1986, pp. 140–48.24 Cart., no. 863.25 Cart., no. 919; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 366. On William of Villiers see Burgtorf,

‘Führungsstrukturen und Funktionsträger in der Zentrale der Templer und Johanniter von den

Anfängen bis zum frühen 14. Jahrhundert’, pp. 768–69. I am grateful to Dr. Burgtorf forsending me his findings regarding William of Villiers. On William’s future career see alsobelow, Chapter 2 (p. 78) and Appendix.

26 ‘manet fere penitus habitatoribus destituta’, Cart., no. 945.27 La Chronique attribuée au Connétable Smbat , ed. G. Dédéyan, Paris, 1980, p. 67. In a letter sent in



A letter sent at the beginning of 1201 by Geoffrey to the prior of England givesus an indication of the urgency of these appeals and the kind of resources that hadbeen requested from the priories in the West. Geoffrey starts by describing the stateof affairs in the East. Al-Adil, Saladin’s brother, had managed to impose his powerover Egypt and Syria.28 He was only prevented from attacking the Holy Land by a

severe drought in Egypt, which had caused famine and resulted in migration fromEgypt to the Holy Land. Nevertheless, the Muslim forces were immense, while thesmall number of Christians and their state of poverty prevented them fromdefending themselves. The master had sent two delegations to England to ask forhelp, but the first had been lost at sea and the second had been forced to return toTripoli, fearing a similar fate. He urged the prior to persuade the king of England,and whomever else he could, to support the Order in the East, which was in a crit-ical state: war had devastated the Order’s estates in Sicily, on the supplies of which itwas dependent, and also prevented the acquisition and transportation from there of corn, wine, meat, cheese, and other items needed for the houses and castles of theOrder. Geoffrey emphasized that enormous expenses were incurred by the Hospital-lers in the East, who were at risk of running into heavy debts if immediate help werenot sent from their European houses. He concludes his letter by asking the prior formoney to be sent on the Easter passage.29

Geoffrey’s letter is important evidence of the ways the Hospitallers deployedtheir international resources, and also of the difficulties faced by headquarters indoing so. Independent of the Order’s situation in the East, war, political conditions,or, as we have seen in other letters, natural disasters could prevent the shipment of supplies from the Order’s houses worldwide. This crucial assistance could also be

delayed by problems of communication. Transmission of information from the Eastand the shipment of aid from Europe were generally restricted to the sailing seasons,between late March and late October. Not always did the many envoys and letters of appeal reach their targets. They might encounter many difficulties on the way, ashappened to Geoffrey’s two delegations. But even if the sailing was uneventful, itwould take more than two months to reach Europe.30 By the time the letters orenvoys arrived and the Order’s priories worked out a response to these appeals and


1192, Pope Celestine III entreats the Venetians to assist in the shipment of foodstuffs to theLatin East. See Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit besonderer Beziehung auf Byzanz und die Levante , ed. G.L. Tafel and G.M. Thomas, Vienna, 1856–57, vol. I,no. 75.

28 On al-Adil see Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp. 98–100;Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 89–90.

29 Cart., no. 1131. From 1199 to 1203 papal forces fought in Sicily against Markward of Anweiler,the imperial representative in central Italy, who claimed the regency of Sicily after Henry VI’sdeath. See D. Abulafia, Frederick II: a Medieval Emperor , London, 2nd ed. 1992, pp. 94–102.

30 An average passage took more than two months to reach Europe and between four and sixweeks to sail to the East. See J. Pryor, Geography, Technology and War: Studies in the Maritime History

of the Mediterranean, 649–1571, Cambridge, 1988, pp. 3–4. For problems of communicationbetween East and West and the delay in information transmission see S. Menache, ‘TheCommunication Challenge of the Early Crusades, 1099–1187’, Autour de la Première Croisade. Actes du Colloque de la Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 juin1995), ed. M. Balard, Paris, 1996, pp. 294–314.



mobilized their resources, the situation in the East could deteriorate gravely, as wasthe case in 1202.

In May 1202, a year after Geoffrey wrote his letter, the situation in the HolyLand became desperate. A great earthquake devastated fortifications and manyhouses and buildings in the main Christian cities of Acre, Tyre, and Tripoli. Castles

that had remained in Christian hands after Hattin, primarily the Hospitallers’fortresses of Crac des Chevaliers in the county of Tripoli and the castle of Margatin the principality of Antioch, were badly damaged. The Christian populationsuffered heavy casualties. A plague, which broke out after the earthquake and wasaggravated by a severe shortage of food, killed one third of the survivors.31 Thepriories in the West must have been asked to send substantial amounts of money tothe Holy Land apart from their annual responsiones , as a few years later extensiverepairs were undertaken in the castles of Crac des Chevaliers and Margat. At Cracdes Chevaliers a new enceinte was built, encircling the earlier outer wall, and theinner castle was repaired.32 Margat was fortified with a double wall and additionaltowers.33 In 1212 the pilgrim Wilbrand of Oldenburg described Margat as a largeand strong castle defended by a double wall and many towers. It was supplied by itsdependent lands with 500 cartloads of wheat a year, which fed 1,000 people intimes of peace. Although he could not visit Crac, he wrote that it was defended by2,000 warriors.34

The building activity in which the Hospitallers were involved at the beginning of the thirteenth century was remarkable. They built new headquarters in Acre,restored and rebuilt their castles of Crac des Chevaliers and Margat, and from 1210they fortified Selefkie, on the western border of Cilician Armenia. The town of

Selefkie and the castles of Goumardias (Camardias) and Norpert (CastellumNovum) were granted to them in April 1210 by King Leon II of Armenia, whointended the Hospitallers to defend the western frontier of his kingdom against theSeljuks. The reasons for granting Selefkie to the Hospitallers, according to a lettersent by Leon II to Innocent III, were clearly military. He needed their help todefend the kingdom against an ‘infinite number of the Pagans’.35 To arouse their


31 The earthquake of 1202 was described in two letters sent by the master of the Hospital to King Sancho VII of Navarre, and by the master of the Temple to the abbot of Cîteaux. They werepublished by H. Mayer, ‘Two Unpublished Letters on the Syrian Earthquake of 1202’,Kreuzzügeund lateinischer Osten, London, 1983, essay no. X, pp. 295–310. The letter to King Sancho was also published in El gran priorado de Navarra de la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén, ed. S.A.Garcìa Larrageta, Pamplona, 1957, vol. II, no. 85, where it was wrongly dated to c.1196.

32 P. Deschamps, Les châteaux des croisés en Terre Sainte , Paris, 1934, vol. I (Le Crac des Chevaliers ),pp. 279–83.

33 Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 194.34 Although Willbrand was impressed by the Order’s fortifications, he also gave a very grim

description of the situation of the kingdom of Jerusalem. He found many of its cities, such as Arsur, Jaffa, and Ramla, destroyed and desolated. Willbrand of Oldenburg, ‘Itinerarium Terrae

Sanctae’, Peregrinatores medii aevi quatuor , ed. J.C.M. Laurent, Leipzig, 1864, pp. 169–70, 183–85.35 Cart., nos. 1344, 1350–51; C. Cahen, La Syrie du Nord à l’époque des croisades et la principauté franque

d’Antioche (Institut français de Damas. Bibliothèque orientale, I), Paris, 1940, pp. 614–15;Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 132; A. Luttrell, ‘The Hospitallers’ Interventions inCilician Armenia: 1291–1375’, The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia , ed. T.S.R. Boase, Edinburgh and



interest in this area, the Hospitallers were also promised territory which was still inTurkish hands. In August 1210 Leon confirmed the donation made by RaymondRoupen of rights over the town of Karama (Laranda), to the north of Selefkie. Thisdonation was given together with rights to conduct in Karama an independentpolicy with the Muslims, which would have to be honoured by the rulers of

Armenia.36 Although the grant of Selefkie did not include this right, which wouldhave made the Hospitallers independent rulers in all the western marches of Armenia, they seem to have attributed great importance to these new acquisitions.Their strategic location and possible revenues, as well as potential income fromother donations given to them by the Armenian rulers, would have made these landsa very valuable asset.37 The Hospitallers set out to strengthen Selefkie, as its fortifi-cations, carried out by Alexius Comnenus around 1099, seem not to have been suit-able to withstand Seljuk attacks.38 Although no written evidence has been found ontheir building activity, archaeological evidence led scholars to conclude that during the time it was in their hands, between 1210 and 1226, the Hospitallers rebuilt thecastle completely.39 Selefkie became an important castellany and the Order’sadministrative centre in Cilician Armenia. The commandery over Selefkie seems tohave become a springboard for a future career in the Order. Aimery of Pax, the firstcastellan of Selefkie, was an experienced brother, who had previously beencommander in the castellany of Amposta and castellan of Margat. After being castellan of Selefkie he was appointed grand commander of Outremer. Ferrand of Barras, who was castellan of Selefkie in 1214, was subsequently appointed to a widerange of high offices in the East and in Europe: he was the marshal of the Order in Acre, prior of St. Gilles, and grand commander of Outremer.40 The Hospitallers

seem to have met Leon’s expectations of defending his western border. In 1216,only six years after receiving the castle, they withstood a Seljuk attack on Selefkie.41

Although we have no evidence for the cost, the building activity accomplished bythe Hospitallers in the East, from the beginning of the thirteenth century, must have


London, 1978, p. 119. On internal political reasons for granting Selefkie to the Hospitallers seeK. Molin, Unknown Crusader Castles , Hambledon and London, 2001, pp. 170–71, 179–80.

36 Cart., no. 1349. For similar donations in Tripoli and Antioch see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 55–57.

37 For the economic importance of these donations see below, pp. 48–51.38 The Alexiad of the Princess Anna Comnena , trans. E.A.A. Dawes, London, 1967, pp. 294–95. For

building activity in Asia Minor at the time of Alexius I Comnenus see also C. Foss, ‘TheDefenses of Asia Minor against the Turks’, Cities, Fortresses and Villages of Byzantine Asia Minor ,

Aldershot, 1996, essay no. V, pp. 157–59.39 Edwards, for example, based this assumption on the fact that many architectonic features in the

castle of Selefkie, such as broad windows in the towers or large undercrofts, are atypical of Armenian castle architecture, and very similar to the masonry of Crac des Chevaliers and otherHospitaller castles. A different opinion is expressed by Kennedy, who claims that Armeniantraditions of building, such as round towers, influenced Frankish military architecture in thethirteenth century. See R.W. Edwards, The Fortifications of Cilician Armenia , Washington, 1987,pp. 31–32, 224–29; H. Kennedy, Crusaders’ Castles , Cambridge, 1994, pp. 114–15 and Molin,

Unknown Crusader Castles , p. 179.40 On Aimery of Pax and Ferrand of Barras see Appendix below. See also Delaville Le Roulx, Les

Hospitaliers , p. 141, and Ri ley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 370.41 Constable Sempad, ‘Chronique du Royaume de la Petite Arménie par le connétable Sempad’,

RHC Arm., vol. I, p. 645.



incurred enormous expense. The hunger for cash led to an intensified propagandacampaign, with many letters and embassies being sent to the papal curia and thecourts of Europe.42 In two letters sent by Geoffrey of Donjon to King Sancho VIIof Navarre, the master implored the king for help because of the chaotic situation inthe Holy Land, caused by both an earthquake and the Muslim threat. The king

must have responded to these appeals because in a third letter the master praisedhim for his help and urged him to continue to protect the Order.43 In September1207 the German ruler Philip of Swabia wrote to the churchmen and nobles of theempire that he had imposed a special tax ad conservationem Terrae Sanctae . He explainedthat envoys from the patriarch of Jerusalem and the masters of the Hospitallers andthe Templars had come to his court. They had laid bare the distress of the HolyLand tam viva voce quam scripto, saying that unless help was sent urgently to the Eastfrom all over the Christian world it would be impossible to re-conquer the land fromthe Muslims.44 In September 1222 King Philip II of France bequeathed 2,000marks to the Hospitallers and the Templars, together with a further sum of 150,000marks, so that the Military Orders and the king of Jerusalem could maintain 300additional knights for the period of three years.45

The Hospitallers’ need for cash may also have been aggravated by their desire torestore their economic power in the Holy Land and to recover agricultural land. Itwill be shown below that from the beginning of the thirteenth century they acquiredland and property by purchases and as securities for loans throughout the territorystill remaining in Christian hands. Many of the places that the Order acquiredduring this period had sugar-cane plantations, which may suggest that the Hospital-lers were involved in its industrial production.46 The sugar industry, like any other

form of farming in the Latin East, was affected by the shrinking of Christian terri-tory, by natural disasters such as earthquakes, plagues and drought, and by Muslimraids.

Despite the Hospitallers’ great efforts to exploit their lands, the shortages of foodwere causes of continual anxiety for the Christian population and the MilitaryOrders in the East.47 The region became still less able to provide sufficient provi-sions with the arrival of new crusaders. On the eve of the Fifth Crusade, in theautumn of 1217, the inhabitants of Acre, fearing they would not be able to feed thearriving crusaders, encouraged them to return home. Some sources report that

many indeed did so, and even claim that as many as sixty-six ships sailed back toEurope.48 Although this number seems exaggerated, it shows the logistical problemsfaced by the Latin settlers. This was emphasized in a letter sent at the same time by


42 For letters sent to the curia see, for example, Die Register Innocenz’ III , ed. O. Hageneder,W. Maleczek and A. Strnad, Rome and Vienna, 1979, vol. II, nos. 180, 258, and Chapter 3below, p. 107.

43 Mayer, ‘Two Unpublished Letters on the Syrian Earthquake of 1202’, pp. 306–08; El gran priorado de Navarra , vol. II, nos. 85, 86, 87.

44 ‘Philippi curia Quedlinburgensis’, MGH Legum, II, pp. 213–14.45 Layettes du Trésor des Chartes , ed. J.B.A.T. Teulet, Paris, 1863, vol. I, nos. 1546–47.46 For these investments and the Order’s involvement in the sugar industry see below, pp. 52–54.47 See above, note 27. For the exploitation of Hospitallers’ lands and property in the Latin East

see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 423–50.48 ‘Annales Ceccanenses’, MGH SS , XIX, p. 302.



William of Chartres, the master of the Temple, to Pope Honorius III. He wrote thatthe crop harvested was far less than had been expected. In response Honorius urgedcrusaders leaving for the Holy Land to take their own provisions and horses.49

During the siege of Damietta in 1218 the crusaders, including the masters of theMilitary Orders, often complained to the West about the lack of provisions and

money. The Military Orders, each maintaining 2,000 men and 700 knights at thesiege, must have incurred enormous expenses.50 Marshall believes that many of the2,500 crossbowmen who fought in this crusade as mercenaries must have beenemployed by the Military Orders, which also spent huge amounts on providing warmachines for the campaign.51 In a letter addressed to the pope the Christian leadersin Damietta complained about their expenses in supplying war machines, ships, andother military equipment.52 In another letter sent in 1221 by the master of theTemplars to the bishop of Elne after the capture of Damietta, he wrote that theexpenses of the Order were so great that without help they would not be able tocontinue the crusade.53 Although the evidence for the number of casualties sufferedby the Hospitallers in this campaign is imprecise, they paid a heavy price in humanlives: in a letter to Honorius III, James of Vitry wrote that the Hospitallers and theTemplars had lost 200 brother-knights during the siege of Damietta. After theconquest of the city the Christians raided the coastal town of Burlus. Although theytook a great quantity of booty, the Hospitallers suffered more casualties, including their marshal Aymar of Layron.54

The treaty with Egypt, agreed by Frederick II in February 1229, brought ten years of peace to the kingdom of Jerusalem, although the kingdom was divided bythe civil war between the Emperor’s representatives and many of the Frankish

nobles.55 In the 1230s the freedom of the Latin settlement from any obviousexternal threat might have been the reason for a decrease in the number of letters of appeal. During this period, both the Hospitallers and the Templars conducted onlylimited military expeditions, chevauchées , in the north, mostly to enforce tribute.56


49 Vat. Reg., 9, ann. 2, epist. 739, fol. 177.50 Cart., no. 1633.51 C. Marshall, Warfare in the Latin East, 1192–1291, Cambridge, 1992, p. 58.52 Reg. Honorius III , no. 1634.53 Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora , ed. H.R. Luard, Rolls Series 57, London, 1875, vol. III, pp.

64–65.54 Lettres de Jacques de Vitry, 1160/1170–1240 , ed. R.B.C. Huygens, Leiden, 1960, p. 121, n. 5. For

the losses in Burlus see ‘Gesta crucigerorum Rhenanorum’, Quinti belli sacri scriptores minores , ed.R. Röhricht, Geneva, 1879, pp. 51–52, and ‘Gesta obsidionis Damiate’, ibid., p. 102. For Aymarof Layron see also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 315. For Templar losses see M.L.Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae Domus Militiae Templi Hierosolymitani Magistri: Untersuchungen zur Geschichte des Templerordens 1118/9–1314 , Göttingen, 1974, pp. 171–78.

55 For the civil war see Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, pp. 198–207; Prawer, A History of the LatinKingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp. 243–44. I have briefly dealt with the participation of the Mili-tary Orders during this conf lict in Chapter 3 below, pp. 112–13.

56 Deschamps, Châteaux des croisés , vol. I (Le Crac des Chevaliers ), pp. 125–32; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 136–40; Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 137–38; B. Major, ‘Al-Malik

Al-Mujahid, Ruler of Homs, and the Hospitallers (The Evidence in the Chronicle of IbnWasil)’, The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, ed.Z. Hunyadi and J. Laszlovszky, Budapest, 2001, pp. 63–67.



Still, the letters of appeal that were sent to the West describe the unstable situationof the Latin settlers and the Order in the East. In a letter from Guerin, the masterof the Hospital, to Ralph of Neville, bishop of Chichester, he writes that the smallnumber of Christians inhabiting the Holy Land were exposed to peril and ruinowing to the war between the imperialists and the barons and the Muslims’ desire to

weaken the Christians in every possible way, for instance, by disturbing thecommerce of the Holy Land.57 He urged the bishop to protect and support theHospitallers and their property in his diocese. Ralph of Neville was also the chan-cellor and close adviser of Henry III, Guerin presumably saw in him a goodpromoter of the Order as the Neville family was involved in the crusading move-ment: Hugh of Neville, Ralph’s uncle and protector, had gone on crusade with King Richard I in 1190, and Hugh’s grandson, John, was to accompany Richard of Cornwall on his crusade of 1240–42.58

The precarious situation of the Latin East regarding manpower is demonstratedby the western response to the losses in the siege of Darbsak in 1237, where theTemplars lost 100 out of 120 knights and 300 crossbowmen.59 This defeat generatedan immediate mobilization of both the Templars and the Hospitallers in Europe. After the news reached England, Thierry, the Hospitaller prior there, together withhis brothers and lay associates, designated a large amount of money to assist theHoly Land, and thirty brothers left for the East from Clerkenwell, the Hospitallers’headquarters just outside London. The Hospital does not seem to have beeninvolved at Darbsak,60 but its reaction shows how the Orders cooperated in times of crisis, given their mutual commitment to defend the Holy Land. Letters about thedefeat at Darbsak were probably sent to the West because King Henry III of

England granted the Templars 500 marks as part of the money needed to ransomtheir prisoners.61 Several papal letters were sent after the defeat to Christian leadersin the East, including the masters of the Military Orders, to promote the cause of prisoners.62

After Frederick’s treaty with Egypt expired in 1239, the Latin settlement wasdivided over the strategic policy to be adopted. The Templars and most of thenobles supported an agreement made in 1240 by Theobald IV, count of Cham-pagne and king of Navarre, with Sultan Ismail, ruler of Damascus, against Egypt.


57 The date given to this letter is the magistracy of Guerin: 1 May 1231 – May 1236. Cart., no.1982 bis. On the disturbance of trade it says, ‘victualia nobis venalia subtrahendo’. Irwin main-tains that from the 1230s there was a shift of Near Eastern trade routes, and therefore in thecommercial activities of the Latins in the Levant, caused by the advance of the Mongol armies.See R. Irwin, ‘The Supply of Money and the Direction of Trade in Thirteenth Century Syria’,Coinage in the Latin East: The Fourth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and Monetary History, ed. P.W.Edbury and D.M. Metcalf (British Archaeological Reports, series 77), Oxford, 1980, p. 73.

58 Dictionary of National Biography, ed. S. Lee and L. Stephen, London, 1895–1900, vol. XL,pp. 270–71.

59 The castle of Darbsak was located in Cilicia-Armenia. For the castle and the Templars’ defeatsee Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 120, 232.

60 Matthew Paris, vol. III, pp. 404–05; Abu’l Fida, ‘Annales’, RHC Or., vol. I, p. 112. WhileMatthew Paris said that it was a Templar attack, Abu’l Fida speaks about the Franks .

61 S. Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade, 1216–1307 , Oxford, 1988, p. 28; Barber, The New Knight-hood , p. 367, no. 18.

62 Cart., no. 2179; Reg. Grégoire IX , no. 3991.



The Hospitallers sided with Richard of Cornwall, who, in February 1241, renewedFrederick’s treaty with Egypt. In 1243, however, a new treaty with Damascus invali-dated Richard’s agreement.63 These treaties allowed the Latins to enlarge the fron-tiers of the kingdom of Jerusalem. According to the treaties with Damascus, theyregained Beaufort and the hinterland of Sidon, most of Galilee, including Tiberias

and Safad, and the lands west of the Jordan, except for Hebron, Nablus, andBethsan.64 By the terms of Richard’s treaty, Jerusalem and the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem remained Christian, and the Latins regained the area from Jaffa to Ascalon, where Richard rebuilt the castle, and Bethgibelin.65 Bethgibelin hadbelonged to the Hospitallers since 1136, and Ascalon was given to them in 1243.66

Although there is no evidence of re-population of Bethgibelin, they did repair Ascalon’s fortif ications in 1244.67 With the refortification of castles and fortresses,the Latins, and the Military Orders in particular, hoped to re-establish their rule inthese districts and to secure these new borders. Owing to its strategic importance,the Templars began to rebuild Safad almost immediately after the treaty withDamascus was concluded. A sum of 1,100,000 Saracen besants, over and above theTemplars’ income from Safad’s dependent lands, were needed for the cost of thefirst two years of building, and thereafter 40,000 besants annually. In addition,substantial funds were needed for the purchase of barley and grain, horses andarms, and the payment of mercenaries and employees, as Safad held 1,700 men intimes of peace and 2,200 in times of war.68 Prutz estimated that the total annualincome of the Templars in the 1250s was about three million besants, which meansthat one third of their annual income was spent on this castle.69 The description of the cost of the refortification of Safad suggests the enormous expenses required

from the Military Orders to maintain their positions in the East. These expensesalso meant that a greater burden was placed on their priories overseas. In 1243 theTemplar master, Armand of Perigord, asked Robert of Sandford, preceptor of theTemplars in England, to help towards the building of a new castle north of theTemplar castle of Toron of the Knights, near the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem,


63 These events have been thoroughly studied by modern historians. See Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp. 243–252, and Riley-Smith, Feudal Nobility, pp. 207–13.

64 Matthew Paris, vol. IV, pp. 64–65; on the crusade of Theobald IV see Mayer, The Crusades ,pp. 256–58. For the terms of the treaty of 1243 see Matthew Paris, vol. IV, pp. 288–91.

65 Matthew Paris, vol. IV, pp. 142–44; Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II,pp. 271–73.

66 Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 52, 133. See also below, pp. 29–30.67 Cart., nos. 2301, 2320. As we shall see below, the Hospitallers re-fortif ied Ascalon and received

compensation for it. For an archaeological survey of Bethgibelin see A. Kloner and M. Cohen,‘The Crusader Fortress of Beth Guvrin’, Qadmoniot , 119 (2000), pp. 32–39 (in Hebrew). For

Ascalon see D. Pringle, Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: An Archaeological Gazet-teer , Cambridge, 1997, p. 21.

68 R.B.C. Huygens, ‘Un nouveau texte du traité “De constructione castri Saphet” ’, Studi Medievali ,

ser. 3, 6 (1965), p. 384; Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 164–66.69 H. Prutz, ‘Die finanziellen Operationen der Hospitaller’, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-

historischen Klasse der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 1906, p. 29. The huge scaleof these expenses can be appreciated by comparison with the money-fief of one knight, around300–500 besants a year. Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, p. 10.



hoping that by making this effort ‘it would be easier to keep and defend the land forever’.70

These territorial gains were soon lost. In response to the violation of the treaty,the sultan of Egypt renewed an alliance with the Khorezmians. A letter sent by theChristian leaders in the East, including the masters of the Military Orders, to Pope

Innocent IV, describes how in July 1244 the Khorezmians sacked Jerusalem, killing most of the population, including William of Senlis, grand commander of theHospital. Throughout the kingdom there were too few knights and pilgrims, andthese were scattered and occupied in defending its castles, and therefore unable tosave Jerusalem. The letter ended by urging the pope to succour the Holy Land andto exhort kings and princes to do the same.71 A letter sent in 1244 by William of Châteauneuf, master of the Hospitallers, to a certain knight called Brito inMarseilles, revealed that there was then a severe shortage of food. He explained thatdue to the lamentable state of the Holy Land there was a lack of corn, which wastoo expensive, and he asked Brito to use his influence with the municipality of Marseilles to get permission to buy corn and export it to the East.72

On 17 October 1244 the Khorezmians and the Egyptians crushed the Franco-Damascene forces in the battle of La Forbie (Harbiyah) near Gaza. The defeat of La Forbie has been compared to Hattin.73 The armies of the kingdom, in particularthose of the Military Orders, were destroyed. Two hundred Hospitaller knights werekilled, and William of Châteauneuf was captured, together with thirty brothers.74

Considering that the total number of brothers-at-arms in the kingdom of Jerusalemwas probably about 300 men,75 this constituted the almost complete annihilation of the Hospital’s conventual manpower, and necessitated the immediate mobilization

of men from their European provinces.76 Following the battle the Khorezmiansraided the kingdom without interference, and between 1244 and 1247 great territo-rial losses were sustained, including Tiberias, Mt. Thabor, and Ascalon.77 Immedi-ately after the battle, letters and envoys were sent to the West, again describing the


70 Matthew Paris, vol. IV, pp. 288–91 (for Toron see p. 290).71 Chronica de Mailros , ed. J. Stevenson, Edinburgh, 1835, pp. 156–63.72 Cart., no. 2322. This letter follows a previous agreement of 1233 with the municipality of

Marseilles, which limited the number of Hospitallers’ ships that were allowed to sail from thisport. See, Cart., no. 2067 and Chapter 2 below, pp. 74–75.

73 Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, p. 300.74 Letters sent to the West immediately after the battle reported that the much larger number of

325 knights were killed. See, for example, a letter sent by the patriarch of Jerusalem to theChristian world in the aftermath of La Forbie, in Salimbene de Adam, ‘Cronica’, MGH SS ,XXXII, p. 177. However, Riley-Smith, after comparing the different sources, estimates that theHospitallers lost about 200 knights at La Forbie. See Ibn al-Furat, p. 173, n. 2 to page 5.

75 Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 124, 327.76 See Chapter 4 below, pp. 138–39.77 See the letter from the Christian leaders in the East to the prelates in the kingdoms of France

and England immediately after the defeat, Matthew Paris, vol. IV, pp. 337–44, and one sent byWilliam of Châteauneuf to M. de Merlay (dated after 1250 because William was in an Egyp-

tian prison until then). Matthew Paris, vol. IV, pp. 307–11. Although Prawer gives a descriptionof the territorial losses suffered by the Latins between 1244 and 1247, the evidence in thesources is not so conclusive. See Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp.300–2. John of Joinville, for example, who gave a very confused description of the battle andthe losses suffered by the Christians, wrote that the Khorezmians took Tiberias, and destroyed



critical situation of the Latin settlement and begging for help. Robert, patriarch of Jerusalem, one of the few survivors of the battle of La Forbie, notif ied the Christianworld about the loss of Jerusalem and the terrible casualties there.78 In November1244, less than a month after the battle, Bishop Waleran of Beirut and Arnulf, aDominican brother, were sent to the West carrying letters from the Christian leaders

in the East to the prelates of France and England. Their mission was so urgent thatthey set out for Europe in November, exposing themselves to great danger by sailing out of season. Their journey took six months and they reached Venice only in May1245. The letters, which were read out at the Council of Lyons and later sent to thecourts of Louis IX of France and Henry III of England, describe the fall of Jeru-salem, the sacrilege committed against the Holy places, and the defeat of La Forbie.They emphasize the urgent need for manpower and weapons, for which the survivors of La Forbie had already sent letters and envoys to the king of Cyprus and theprince of Antioch, without receiving any response. They implored the prelates, asfaithful vassals of Christ, to give consilium and auxilium to the Holy Land and to sendsupplies on the next March passage.79

Apart from joint appeals, the Hospitallers apparently made great efforts totransmit the news to Europe independently. From a letter of 1244–45, quoted in theChronicle of Melrose, we learn that another letter, carrying the terrible news aboutLa Forbie and ‘written not in ink but in blood’, reached a Hospitaller prior, prob-ably Andrew Poliner, prior of France, who brought it to Louis IX.80 Andrew Polinerwas also sent by the master William of Chateauneuf to seek help from Theobald of Navarre-Champagne.81 This could be explained by the great interest that Theobaldhad shown in the Holy Land,82 but it might also have been part of a general

approach to European leaders. Andrew’s high position in the Order and his knowl-edge and experience in the affairs of the Holy Land, as grand commander in Acrein 1235,83 would have made him the best candidate for this task.

The restoration of Hospitaller manpower after La Forbie must have beenextremely rapid as it made possible the Order’s participation in the Egyptiancrusade of Louis IX, only four years later. Although I have not found clear evidenceon the number of Hospitallers who took part in this crusade, they, the Templars,and the Latin settlers supplied 700 knights all together. These helped the French


the surroundings of Atlit, Acre, Safad, and Jaffa. See John of Joinville, Vie de Saint Louis , ed. J. Monfrin, Paris, 1995, chs. 528–29.

78 Salimbene de Adam, ‘Cronica’, p. 177.79 These letters do not mention the Hospitallers among the Christian leaders, probably because of

the loss of their master. See Matthew Paris, vol. IV, pp. 337–45, 431. In the Annales of Burtonthere is a similar letter addressed by the patriarch of Jerusalem to the pope. It is not clear,however, whether it was brought by Waleran or by a previous envoy. ‘Annales Monasterii deBurton 1004–1263’, ed. H.R. Luard, Annales Monastici , vol. I, Rolls Series 36, London, 1864, pp.257–63. Lloyd believes that this is an earlier letter brought to the curia by two Franciscanbrothers. See Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade , p. 30, n. 92. For sailing seasons and problemsof communication between East and West see above, p. 16.

80 Chronica de Mailros , p. 163.81 El gran priorado de Navarra , vol. II, no. 304. The date given to this letter falls in the magistracy of

William of Châteauneuf, 1243–1258.82 See Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 176–77.83 For Andrew as grand commander of the Order in Acre see Cart., no. 2126.



army take Damietta on 6 June 1249.84 Part of the Hospitaller forces were left toguard the city, while, in November 1249, their main contingent, led by John of Ronay the lieutenant master,85 advanced with Louis’ army towards Cairo.86 It seemsthat at least some of their forces took part in the attack on al-Mansurah on 8February, as Matthew Paris counted one Hospitaller among the survivors of this

attack. According to Joinville, it was John of Ronay who told the king of the deathof his brother the Count of Artois in the battle.87 The Templars lost 280 men atal-Mansurah. Although it is not clear how many in the Templars’ force werebrothers,88 the number is important as it gives an indication of the size of the forcesthe Military Orders were expected to supply for these campaigns. As Riley-Smithpoints out, it is not surprising that the Military Orders were reluctant to initiate anew crusade, and advised Louis IX to negotiate a peace with Aleppo or Egypt.89

The disastrous attack on al-Mansurah was followed by an Egyptian onslaught on11 February, in which William of Sonnac, the master of the Templars, and John of Ronay lost their lives. The slaughter of members of the Military Orders continuedduring the retreat of the Christian forces to Damietta. Apparently the Hospitaller’sdrapier and all the remaining brothers were killed, except for five who were takeninto captivity.90 These casualties must have been a disaster for institutions whichonly five years before had lost most of their conventual forces in the Holy Land.Louis’ crusade reveals the relentless pressure on them and underlines their need toundertake huge and complex efforts to restore their forces and rebuild their defencesin the Holy Land, while at the same time supplying resources and manpower for anycampaign.

Despite the disastrous results of St. Louis’ crusade, the seizure of power by the

Mamluks in Egypt in May 1250 and their conflict with the Ayyubids in Damascusseem to have given the Latin settlement a ray of hope. In a letter sent by InnocentIV to King Henry III of England, the pope urges the king to succour the Franks, aswar between the Mamluks and the Ayyubids had made possible the recovery of theHoly Land.91 After his return to Acre William of Châteauneuf sent two letters to


84 John of Beaumont, ‘Lettre à Geoffroi de la Chapelle sur la prise de Damiette’, AOL , vol. I,pp. 389–90.

85 John of Ronay acted as head of the Order after William of Châteauneuf was captured in thebattle of La Forbie. See Cart., no. 2353, where he is called ‘vices magistri gerentis’.

86 Matthew Paris, vol. VI, p. 192.87 Matthew Paris, vol. V, p. 154; John of Joinville, ch. 244.88 Riley-Smith estimates that the Templars’ losses included brothers as well as mercenaries. See

Ibn al-Furat, p. 183, n. 6 to page 22.89 Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 182. For the letters sent by the masters of the Military

Orders to Louis IX see Odo of Châteauroux, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum, ed.L. d’Achèry and L.F.J. de la Barre, Paris, 1723, vol. III, p. 625.

90 Matthew Paris , vol. VI, pp. 196–97; Hospitaller forces, however, had been left in Damietta andmust have returned to Acre with Louis and the remnants of the army. On the capture of Louis

and the truce with Egypt see Richard, The Crusades , pp. 343–50.91 ‘Annales Monasterii de Burton’, pp. 293–95. Another letter on this matter was sent in 1251 by

the patriarch of Jerusalem to the queen of France: see ‘Annales Monasterii de Burton’, p. 296.On the Mamluk-Ayyubid conflict see Matthew Paris, vol. V, p. 257; Prawer, A History of the LatinKingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp. 327–34.



Walter of St. Martin, probably a Dominican preaching the cross in England.92 Theydescribed the release of the king, William himself, and other Christians fromEgyptian imprisonment. They also gave an account of the conflict between Egypt,Damascus, and Aleppo, emphasizing that with European support the Latins wouldbe able to stop the enemy and reverse the course of events in the Holy Land. Walter

had been in the East and was close to the Hospitallers. As the only reason for thisintensive correspondence with him seems to have been his personal interest in theOrder, Lloyd believes that these letters must be only a small part of a rich corre-spondence dispatched by the Order after 1250.93

The Egyptian-Syrian conflict gave Louis the relative peace needed to restore thekingdom’s defences. From 1250 until his return to France in April 1254 the king,encouraged by the Military Orders, re-fortified the main Christian cities of Acre,Caesarea, Jaffa, and Sidon.94 On April 1252 he agreed to a fifteen years’ truce withEgypt, according to which Christian captives would be released and a Franco-Egyptian attack would be launched against Damascus. Joseph of Chauncy, theHospitaller treasurer in Acre, however, did not have much faith in the agreement. InMay 1252 he wrote to Walter of St. Martin that although a truce had been agreedwith Egypt, the situation of the Latin settlement had never been so critical. TheEgyptian army, which was supposed to join the Christians in Gaza, had neverappeared and Gaza had been taken by the Ayyubids. At the same time Turcomanshad raided the principality of Antioch and the surroundings of Crac and Tripoli,where the Christians had suffered grave losses in manpower and property.95 The validity of the Franco-Egyptian truce was in fact nullif ied because of the treatybetween Egypt and Damascus signed in April 1253, after which the Christians were

subjected to raids into the heart of their territory. Ayyubid forces retreating fromGaza pillaged the surroundings of Acre, destroying the mills of the Military Ordersat Doc and Recordane, although the mills must have been rebuilt quickly as theOrders contended for their rights over them until 1262.96 From Acre the Ayyubidsmoved north, raiding the city of Sidon and killing more than 2,000 men.97 Theinability of the small Christian settlement to withstand either the Mamluks or the Ayyubids after the return of Louis IX to France was expressed in a letter sent by itsleaders to King Henry III of England, who had taken the cross in March 1250. Twomendicant brothers were also sent to his court to explain the severe situation and to


92 For Walter of St. Martin see Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade , p. 27, n. 83; C. Maier, Preaching the Crusades: The Mendicant Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century, Cambridge, 1994, p. 31.

93 For the Hospitallers’ letters see Cart., nos. 2540–41, and Matthew Paris, vol. VI, pp. 203–05;Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade , p. 27 and Appendix I; C. Humphrey-Smith, Hugh Revel, Master of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem,1258–77 , Guildford, 1994, p. 61.

94 On the refortification of Acre see ‘Eracles’, p. 438. For Caesarea, John of Joinville, ch. 470;Matthew Paris, vol. V, pp. 257, 306–07. On Jaffa and Sidon see John of Joinville, chs. 561–63,588, 615–16. See also Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp. 328–38.

According to Marshall, Louis spent about 95,000 livres on the refortification of these cities. See

Marshall, Warfare in the Latin East , p. 70.95 Matthew Paris, vol. VI, pp. 205–07; Cart., no. 2605. On the Franco-Egyptian truce see Richard,

The Crusades , p. 352.96 ‘Eracles’, pp. 440–41; Cart., no. 3045.97 John of Joinville, ch. 552.



implore Henry for help. These efforts, however, must also have been part of ageneral appeal to leaders in the West. The letter specified that the Christians in theEast put their hopes in Henry’s relief, and that of ‘other princes of the world’. 98

In March 1256 the Latins signed a ten-year truce with both Egypt and Damascusand were temporarily relieved of external threats.99 By then, however, Acre was

torn by civil war, the war of St. Sabas. In a conflict which started over commercialrivalries, the Venetians, supported by the Templars and the Teutonic knights, foughtthe Genoese and the Hospitallers.100 The situation in the Holy Land was desperate.Impoverished and exhausted the Latins had to face the growing danger from the riseof the Mamluks in the south and the advance of the Mongols in the north-east. TheMongols’ advance constituted a serious military threat, but it also had adverseeconomic consequences. It caused the decline of Acre and other Frankish coastalcities as centres of trade, and the shifting of trade routes to the northern Mediterra-nean coast and central Asia. The commercial base in the Latin East was also weak-ened by the civil war and, as Riley-Smith has pointed out, the increased militaryexpenses coincided with a reduction in the profits from commerce.101 Thesechanges may have affected the Order, which had probably profited from its involve-ment in local trade and may also have taken part in the international trade. 102

Scarce evidence makes it difficult to estimate to what extent the relentless mili-tary burden and the economic crisis affected the Hospitallers in the Holy Land.Some indication may be derived from a general letter sent by Alexander IV to allprelates in 1255 regarding the Templars. It details the serious repercussions of successive military and political events on the Order; during the previous fifteen years the Templars had lost most of their men, resources, and horses in battles

against the infidel. Their properties and incomes in Sicily had been confiscated by


98 ‘ad vestram regiam majestatem, in qua inter caeteros mundi principes post Deum nos etcaeteri Christiani cismarini spem habemus, recurrimus, ut ad refugium et asylum,supplicantes ut . . . addictae terrae necessitates multiplices relevandas.’ ‘Annales Monasterii deBurton’, pp. 368–69. Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade , p. 30.

99 In 1255 a truce, which was signed with Damascus, acknowledged the borders of the kingdomfrom the river of Arsur to the surroundings of Beirut. See ‘Eracles’, p. 442; ‘Continuation deGuillaume de Tyr de 1229 à 1261, dite du manuscrit de Rothelin’, RHC Oc., vol. II, p. 630.Matthew Paris (vol. V, p. 522) mentions a truce with Egypt signed the same year, without,however, giving specific details. This agreement had to be renewed a year later, following aChristian raid on Egyptian territory between Ascalon and Gaza. See Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , pp. 198–99; Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II,pp. 341–42.

100 On the war of St. Sabas see Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, pp. 215–17; Richard, The Crusades ,pp. 386–93. On the economic consequences of the war see Edbury, John of Ibelin, pp. 61–62,and D. Jacoby, ‘New Venetian Evidence on Crusader Acre’, The Experience of Crusading, Volume Two: Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. P.W. Edbury and J. Phillips, Cambridge, 2003, pp.240–56. On the role of the Military Orders in the war see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John,pp. 184–86. On the Orders’ casualties in this war see Matthew Paris, who claimed that theTemplars suffered great losses in an attack on the Hospitallers’ quarters in Acre in 1259.

Bulst-Thiele argues, however, that there is no evidence to support this claim. See MatthewParis, vol. V, pp. 745–46, and Bulst-Thiele, p. 233, n. 7.

101 J. Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A Short History, London and New Haven, 1987, pp. 200–03, andThe Feudal Nobility, p. 29; Irwin, ‘Supply of Money and Direction of Trade’, pp. 73–84.

102 The Hospitallers most probably traded local products, such as sugar. See below, pp. 52–54.



Frederick II and additional goods had been lost in Louis IX’s crusade to Egypt. TheTemplars continuously strove to restore their resources and manpower for thedefence of the Holy Land, for which they incurred great expenses and they wereheavily in debt. The pope urged the prelates to encourage the faithful to help theOrder pay its debts and, like his predecessor Innocent IV, he granted them the right

to transfer to the Order money collected from the redemption of crusading vows forthe relief of the Holy Land.103 This privilege was granted in the same year to theHospitallers. Fearing that they would not be able to pay their debts, as these ‘badtimes’ had reduced their income, Alexander allowed them to receive up to 2,000silver marks. In 1258, for the same reason, Hospitale vestrum importabili prematur sarcina debitorum, he ordered the bishop of Fermo in Italy to transfer to them up to 2,000silver marks from monies collected through the redemption of crusading vowsimposed as a result of the crime of usury and through legacies for the relief of theHoly Land.104 Other evidence of the financial difficulties faced by the Hospitallersis the donation of the nunnery of St. Lazarus of Bethany, which at their request thepope granted in 1256. Although the Hospitallers claimed that the nunnery wasalmost destroyed by the Muslims, this was an important gift. The nunnery, whichafter Hattin had moved from Jerusalem to Acre, held property in the dioceses of Tyre, Tripoli, Tortosa, Valenia, and Gibelet. Alexander explained that it was givento the Hospitallers with all its assets, rights and privileges in order to enlarge theirincome because, according to the brothers, their property was not sufficient to coverthe immense expenses incurred in the defence of the Holy Land.105

Significantly, however, although this evidence suggests that the Hospitallers weresuffering financial difficulties, it will be shown below that from 1250 to 1263 they

were involved in an intensive policy of investments to expand their patrimony in theLatin East. The deterioration of the military and economic situation of the LatinEast from the second half of the thirteenth century led lay and ecclesiastical lords toalienate property to the Military Orders.106 The grant of the abbey of Mt. Thaborby Pope Alexander IV in April 1255 was perhaps the most significant of these trans-actions. The abbey had been conquered by the Muslims in 1247 and was returnedto the Latins as part of the truce with Damascus in 1255. It was granted, with all itsproperties, lands, and rights, to the Hospitallers at their request. In their letter to the


103 Malteser Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte der Tempelherren und der Johanniter , ed. H. Prutz,Munich, 1883, pp. 60–61, no. 260. This privilege was first given to the Templars and theHospitallers by Pope Innocent IV: see Cart., no. 2462; Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 231–32.

104 ‘Cum, sicut accepimus, Hospitale vestrum importabili prematur sarcina debitorum, a qua perproprios redditus et proventus, propter malitiam temporis nimium diminutos et vixsufficientes voragini usurarum exonerari non potest . . .’ Cart., nos. 2772, 2906.

105 Cart., nos. 2781, 2925, 2927, 2929. The nunnery of Bethany was originally located to the eastof Jerusalem. After Hattin its community, like other religious communities serving in Jeru-salem, was.transferred to Acre. As we shall see, the donation of Bethany to the Hospitallerswas revoked by Pope Urban IV in September 1261. On Bethany see B. Hamilton, The LatinChurch in the Crusader States: The Secular Church , London, 1980, pp. 299–300. On the annulment

of the donation in 1261 see chapter 3 below, p. 120, and Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John,pp. 401–03.

106 On the policy of investments of the Hospitallers in the East from 1250 to 1263 see below,pp. 56–60. See also below, pp. 35, 59–60 on the situation of the lordships of Sidon and Arsur,bought by the Templars and the Hospitallers in the early 1260s.



pope the brothers explained that the monks were unable to repair the abbey, whichhad been destroyed by the Muslims. Owing to its religious and strategic importanceit was given to the Hospitallers on condition that they defend it and provide for themonks. The Hospitallers were to fortify the place within ten years and garrison itwith forty knights, a very significant number considering that at the same time they

promised to garrison Crac de Chevaliers, their major castle, with sixty knights.107The monastery of Mt. Thabor had owned land and property in Jerusalem andTransjordan, but also in cities that were still in Christian hands such as Acre,Tripoli, and Antioch. Its most important possessions were in Galilee, between Naza-reth and the Sea of Galilee, which was part of the hinterland of Acre and consti-tuted a large proportion of the very scarce agricultural land that remained underChristian rule. The Hospitallers may well have intended to convert it into an impor-tant administrative centre. In June 1255 Joscelin of Tornell, the vice-master, whowas to be castellan of Mt. Thabor in 1259, took corporal possession of its casaliaand appointed various rais , Muslims responsible for the administration of the villages.108 In a letter sent a year later, in May 1256, the monks wrote to the popethat the Hospitallers had garrisoned the abbey with a number of armed knights andhad also garrisoned some of the casalia.109 It seems that together with the changesto their military disposition, the Hospitallers were also re-fortifying their castles.Under the castellany of Nicholas Lorgne a new barbican was built at Crac after1254.110

Not all the Order’s acquisitions in this period promised to be profitable. In 1256the Hospitallers reached an agreement with John of Ibelin, count of Jaffa, over thereimbursement of expenses incurred in the fortification of Ascalon, ten years

before. This agreement concluded a long dispute over that lordship. The donationof the town to the Hospitallers by Frederick II in 1243 seems to have been chal-lenged by the count of Jaffa. In 1246 Innocent IV instructed the bishop of Nicosiato compensate the Order for its expenses should the town be given to anotherlord.111 It is significant that although Ascalon was lost to Egypt in 1247, the Hospi-


107 Cart., nos. 2726–27. Some historians believe that these numbers were exaggerated. Unfortu-nately, there i s no evidence on the number of knights that were in fact appointed inMt.Thabor and Crac. See Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 415, n. 3.

108 Cart., no. 2747. The casalia mentioned in this charter were: Jubeil, Casta, Cafarsset, Sarona,Demie, Sisara, Loubieh, Arbel, and Egdis. For their location see above, Map 2. On the impor-tance of Mt. Thabor and the responsibilities of the rais , see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John,pp. 415, 424–25, 427. Theresa Vann has shown the Order’s great efforts to seek papal confir-mation for every charter issued before 1255 that defined Mt. Thabor’s properties andincomes. Some of these charters were ‘vidimus’ – Hospitallers’ notarized copies of earlycharters supposedly given to the monks of Mt. Thabor. See T.M. Vann, ‘Hospitaller RecordKeeping and Archival Practices’, The Military Orders, Volume 2: Welfare and Warfare , ed.H. Nicholson, Aldershot, 1998, pp. 280–84.

109 Cart., no. 2811.110 D.J. Cathcart King, ‘The Taking of Le Krak des Chevaliers in 1271’, Antiquity, 23 (1943),

p. 87.111 ‘si ad alterius dominium illud transire contigerit.’ Cart., nos. 2301, 2320, 2394. A thorough

account of these events is given by Edbury, John of Ibelin, pp. 81–84, and his ‘John of Ibelin’sTitle to the County of Jaffa and Ascalon’, Kingdoms of the Crusades: From Jerusalem to Cyprus ,

Aldershot, 1999, essay no. VII, pp. 125–27. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp.132–33; Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , pp. 208–09.



tallers still claimed ownership, and in 1252 they asked both the pope and thewestern emperor to reconfirm their rights. As Edbury points out, the Order’s opti-mism as to the possibility of recovering Ascalon may have been the result of thedisunity of the Muslim world and Louis IX’s negotiations with the Mamluks.112 Afinal agreement was reached only in 1256 and 1257. By then the Hospitallers seem

to have given way, as John of Jaffa agreed to compensate them for their expensesdefending the town with 650 carrucates of land as well as fourteen casalia in thelordship of Ascalon, but only when Ascalon was re-conquered by the Christians.113

It has been suggested that the Order was willing to give up its rights because it mayhave accepted that its claim to Ascalon was weak, or it did not consider it worth-while to resume its defence should the city be recovered.114 The Hospitallers mightnot have believed that they could recapture the city at all. Considering the Mongoladvance into the region plans, if any, for the recovery of Ascalon may have beenabandoned. It is significant that in March 1257 the pope ordered the patriarch of Jerusalem to transfer money designated to rebuild the walls of Jerusalem and Ascalon to other cities and castles, emphasizing that he did not expect these towns tobe recovered whereas the Mongol danger was imminent.115

Letters sent by the Latin settlers to Europe in 1256 expressed their fear of animminent Mongol attack.116 In October 1256 Guy of Basainville, the Templarpreceptor, wrote to the archbishop of Arles that the Mongols had devastated muchof the Muslims’ territory.117 Letters from the Templars and James Pantaleon, papallegate and patriarch of Jerusalem, were also dispatched to Rome. In response Alex-ander IV granted the Latin church, in February 1257, 2,000 marks collected in thewestern empire from the redemption of crusading vows. The money was to alleviate

the expenses the church and the settlers would incur defending the Holy Land fromthe Mongols’ approach.118 The news about the Mongols’ advance had also reachedEngland. Matthew Paris wrote that in 1257 Hulagu, the Mongol ruler of Iran, haddefeated the Persian Assassins at Alamut and had sent an ultimatum to Acre


112 On the loss of Ascalon see Matthew Paris, vol. IV, p. 342. On the Hospitallers’ appeals forreconfirmation see Cart., nos. 2587, 2590; Edbury, John of Ibelin, p. 83.

113 Cart., nos. 2810, 2816–17, 2845, 2853. This is not the first time the Hospitallers were givenproperties and lands outside Christian control in order to ensure their commitment in areaswhich had great strategic importance. The most significant of these were donations given inthe 1140s by Raymond of Tripoli. They were also given property in the territory of Ascalonbefore the city was conquered by Baldwin III in 1153. See Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John,pp. 55–57, 66–68, and The First Crusaders, 1095–1131, Cambridge, 1997, pp. 178–80; Cart.,nos. 71–73. On the conquest of Ascalon in 1153 see WT , XVII, 21, 27–28.

114 Edbury, John of Ibelin, pp. 82–84.115 ‘quia vero de recuperatione civitatum et locorum eorumdem [Jerusalem and Ascalon] non

speratur ad presens . . . et de Tartarorum incursu non modicum, sicut asseritur, periculumimmineat Terre Sancte’ Reg. Alexandre IV , no. 1939.

116 The Latins’ failure to seek a treaty with the Mongols against the Mamluks has been seen bysome historians as the cause of their final fall. Letters sent by the Latins to the West in the late1250s and beginning of the 1260s, however, indicate their real concern over the Mongols’

advance, without showing similar fear of the Mamluks. See P. Jackson, ‘The crisis in the HolyLand in 1260’, English Historical Review , 95 (1980), pp. 481–513.

117 RRH , no. 1251.118 Reg. Alexandre IV , no. 1726; ‘Richeri Gesta Senoniensis Ecclesiae’, MGH SS , XXV, pp. 325–26.

See also Chapter 4 below, pp. 119–20.



demanding surrender, which was rejected by the Military Orders and the Latinsettlers. It was probably the master of the Order of St. Thomas of Acre whopersonally brought this news to St. Albans.119

Fears of Mongol invasion was probably the catalyst for an agreement reached inOctober 1258 between the Military Orders. After years of general dissension and

civil war the masters of the Hospitallers, the Templars, and the Teutonic knightspromised to keep the peace among themselves, to help each other in fighting theheathen, and to lay down rules by which disputes over property and litigation in theLatin East would be settled. To resolve their disputes over property the Hospitallersand the Templars agreed in 1262 to a general exchange. Each of the Orders securedsole ownership around some of their major holdings. The Templars renounced alltheir rights and property in the areas of Margat and Valenia, which were the Hospi-tallers’ areas of inf luence, as well in Cafarsset, north-east of Mt. Thabor. They alsorenounced all their rights in Cabor, which as we shall see below must have beenimportant for the Hospitallers’ sugar industry. The Hospitallers mainly renouncedall their rights and property in the lordship of Sidon and the castle of Beaufort,which had been purchased by the Templars two years earlier.120

In February 1258 Hulagu’s army sacked Baghdad, and at the beginning of 1260it moved into Syria. The apprehension of the Latin settlers is revealed in manyletters sent to the West imploring for help. In a general appeal to the faithful of 1March 1260 Thomas Agni, papal legate and bishop of Bethlehem, wrote that theMongols had devastated Aleppo and many of the Ayyubid principalities in thenorth. Terrified by their ruthless advance, the ruler of Damascus and many of hispeople had f led to Egypt; Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli had preferred to

conclude an alliance with the invaders. Only the cities of Acre and Tyre and thecastles of the Military Orders could protect the Franks in the south from theimpending attack. The kingdom was in a state of readiness: trenches had been dug and instruments of war prepared, but the settlers needed urgent help, for which theyput all their hope in God and the faithful overseas.121 Only one day after Thomaswrote this letter Damascus surrendered to Hulagu and in the weeks that followed theMongols raided Muslim territory on the south and south-eastern frontiers of thekingdom of Jerusalem, including Nablus, Bethgibelin, Hebron, and Karak and thecastles of Ascalon and Banyas.122 The old political order in the Levant was

collapsing under the weight of the Mongol attack. On 22 April an urgent letter wassent by the Christian leaders in the East, including the master of the Hospital, toCharles, count of Anjou and Provence. They described their fear that, afterdestroying Aleppo and Damascus, annihilating the Muslim forces, plundering andlooting everywhere, the Mongols would advance towards Jerusalem and ‘wouldinundate our borders like the Flood’. They implored Charles for help as they lacked


119 Matthew Paris, vol. V, pp. 654–55; Jackson, p. 489.120 Cart., nos. 2902, 3026, 3028–29; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 447–49; Barber, The

New Knighthood , p. 168. For the purchase of Sidon and Beaufort see also below, p. 59. On Caborsee below, p. 59.

121 ‘Menkonis Chronicon’, MGH SS , XXIII, pp. 547–49; RRH , no. 1288. On the Antioch-Mongol alliance see Mayer, The Crusades , pp. 275–76.

122 Jackson, pp. 490–91.



the necessary weapons, men, provisions, and money needed to face such an enor-mous threat. They believed, or wanted Charles to believe, that ‘with the help of God and those who call themselves Christians, it will be possible to recover Jeru-salem and all the kingdom, as many Muslims are already dead and the Mongols willretreat if they encounter resistance from the Christians’.123 Jackson suggests that this

passage hints at a more optimistic view of the events by the Franks, who saw in thecollapse of the Ayyubids an opportunity to recover the Holy Land.124 This is,however, the only letter I have encountered in which such hope was expressed. Therich correspondence sent from the East shows that fear of the Mongols was over-whelming. Except for the Antioch-Mongol alliance, the Latins’ only attempt to gainany political or military profit was Julian of Sidon’s plundering raid into the terri-tory of Marj-Ayun, now under Mongol control, in August 1260. Even then, the raidwas not a result of an overall strategy planned by the kingdom’s leadership but of Julian’s own financial needs. In retaliation the Mongols sacked Sidon, destroyed thecity walls, and took 300 prisoners.125 Repeated raids had probably made anyattempt to cultivate the land impossible. Ibn al-Furat describes how rising pricescaused the Christians in Syria to import foodstuff from other Frankish territories.126

In a letter of March 1260 Thomas Bérard, master of the Templars, wrote to Amadeus of Morestellum, the preceptor of England, that unless the Order receivedimmediate assistance it would not be able to defend the Holy Land, and Christianityin the East would succumb to the Mongols. The letter gives us an indication of thegreat economic and financial difficulties faced by the Military Orders at this time.Thomas wrote that only the cities of Acre and Tyre and the castles of the MilitaryOrders were capable of resisting the Mongols’ attack. He listed the castles as two

owned by the Templars in the kingdom of Jerusalem (Atlit and Safad) and one thatbelonged to the Teutonic knights (Montfort); three Templar fortresses in the princi-pality of Antioch (probably Baghras, La Roche de Roussel, and Port Bonnel, whichfell to Baybars in 1268) and two in Tripoli (probably Tortosa and Chastel Blanc);and in Antioch-Tripoli two belonging to the Hospitallers (Crac and Margat). Themaster emphasized that because of the critical situation the Order had spent fourtimes more than usual on their fortification. Mercenaries had also become moreexpensive due to high mortality, and the Order lacked the money to employ orsupply them. Unless help arrived from the West, the Templars would have to raise

money by selling a great part of their goods and properties overseas. Although theyhad previously borrowed money from the Italian merchants, this was no longer anoption, as the Genoese and other merchants had left Acre, probably as a result of the war of St. Sabas and the decline of trade. Thomas therefore instructed thepreceptor to obtain from Henry III a significant loan of 10,000 silver marks.

It is clear from this letter that the other Military Orders were facing similar


123 ‘Lettre à Charles d’Anjou sur les affaires de Terre Sainte’, ed. C.V. Langlois, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes , 78 (1917), pp. 487–90.

124 Jackson, pp. 503–6.125 Gestes des Chiprois , ed. G. Raynaud, Geneva, 1887, p. 752; R. Grousset, Histoire des Croisades et du

Royaume Franc de Jérusalem, Paris, 1935, vol. III, pp. 594–97; Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility,p. 30; Barber, The New Knighthood , p. 156.

126 Ibn al-Furat, p. 43.



difficulties. Thomas Bérard wrote that in a joint effort to appeal to the West aTemplar brother was sent to Spain, a Hospitaller to France, and a Teutonic knightto Germany, carrying with them letters from the papal legate, their masters, and theChristian community in the East.127 Although there is no evidence of additionalletters from the Hospitallers to their priories in Europe, the Templar correspon-

dence that has survived indicates the ways news was disseminated. In June 1260Thomas Bérard’s letter reached the visitor of the Templars in the West, the off icerwho was in overall charge of their preceptories in France, England, and Germany.Instructing him to promote the affairs of the Holy Land in France, it was thenforwarded to the preceptor of Aquitaine, and messengers brought it to the papalcuria.128 Letters addressed to the English preceptor and the king arrived in Englandon 16 June. They were carried by a Templar brother, who covered the distancebetween Acre and London in only thirteen weeks, after delivering similar letters tomany magnates on the continent and to Christian rulers along the north-easternMediterranean coast. These stressed that the Mongols had devastated the kingdomup to the outskirts of Acre, and threatened to overthrow that city in forty days. Theyalso announced that many Templars and Hospitallers had already been killed andthat the Franks were powerless to resist. Unless urgent aid was sent, not only they butthe entire world would soon be annihilated.129 These letters seem to be exaggerated,as there is no specific evidence that the Military Orders suffered losses following theMongols’ advance. Nevertheless, the apprehension of the Latin settlers was genuine.The sacking of Sidon caused great anxiety in Acre, where the Franks were preparing the city for an imminent siege, cutting down trees from the orchards around it andremoving the tombstones and stones from buildings to strengthen the city’s fortifica-

tions.130

The Mongol attack never materialized. Political instability, caused by the deathof Hulagu’s brother, the great Khan Möngke, forced him to return to Iran with thebulk of his army. The Mongol contingent left in Syria was defeated by the Mamluksunder Kutuz, the sultan of Egypt, at the battle of Ain Jalut on 3 September 1260.This decisive battle stopped the Mongols’ expansion in the region. In three monthsBaybars, who usurped the Egyptian throne in January 1261, secured Mamluk suzer-ainty over Damascus and established an empire which included Egypt, Syria, andnorthern Iraq. For the first time since Saladin one ruler had managed to unify the


127 On the selling of Templars’ property the text is as follows: ‘oportebit nos in laesionem etscandalum domus nostrae non modicum, ex toto supersedere defensioni Terrae Sanctae, autalias alienare debonis et eleemosynis domus nostrae in partibus transmarinis in non modicaquantitate’. On the loan from Henry III: ‘Praeterea cum magna precum instantia supplicamusdomino regi Angliae, et etiam reginae ut ipsum regem rogaret, quod ad relevandam domusnostrae inopiam de decem milibus marcarum argenti nomine mutui deberet misericorditersubvenire.’ See ‘Annales Monasterii de Burton’, pp. 491–95. On castles that were still inChristian hands by the 1270s see Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 160–61; Riley-Smith, Atlas of the Crusades , pp. 114–15, and see above, Map 2.

128 RRH , no. 1303; Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 156–57. On the visitor see Barber, The New

Knighthood , p. 245.129 Flores Historiarum, ed. H.R. Luard, Roll Series 95, London, 1890, vol. III, pp. 451–52; RRH ,

no. 290; Barber, The New Knighthood , p. 157.130 Marino Sanudo the Elder, ‘Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis (1321)’, Gesta Dei per Francos , ed.

J. Bongars, Hanover, 1611, vol. II, p. 221; ‘ATS’, p. 449B.



Muslim states in the Near East, and this constituted a real threat to the survival of the Christian settlement in the East.131 The Mamluk offensive, however, did notbegin until 1263. Baybars was at first busy establishing his rule and restoring hisline of defence in Syria and Palestine. He ordered the refortification of Shaizar innorthern Syria and of Baalbek in the south. He rebuilt Damascus, which had been

partially destroyed by the Mongols, and the castle of Subeibe on the main road fromDamascus to Tyre. In northern Transjordan he refortified Bostra and Ajlun, andsecured the south by replacing the Ayyubid ruler of the castles of Kerak andShaubak (Montreal) with his own representative.132 By establishing his rule inTransjordan he completed the encirclement of the kingdom of Jerusalem. Fromthese castles Baybars, who, owing to the unification of the Muslim states in the NearEast, disposed of great resources and manpower, launched systematic attacks intothe Frankish lands. His military achievements would help to put an end to thecrusader states.

By 1261, however, the Franks saw in the results of Ain Jalut an opportunity togain political and economic profit from the devastation of Muslim Syria. InFebruary a significant army of 900 knights, 1,500 turcopoles, and 3,000 foot soldierslaunched an attack to the north of the Sea of Galilee, where they were heavilydefeated by Turcomans. Most of the army were killed and many were captured. Among them were John of Ibelin, lord of Beirut, John of Gibelet, marshal of thekingdom, and the Templar Matthew Sauvage, commander of the land of Jerusalem.Only the Templar Marshal Stephen of Sissey managed to escape. We may noteparticularly that while the sources report that the bulk of the Templars’ army, gath-ered from their convent in Acre and the castles of Atlit, Safad and Beaufort, partici-

pated in this attack, there is no mention of a Hospitaller contingent. Theexplanation for this lies in the precise location of the attack. According to the Gestes des Chiprois the Franks attacked the surroundings of Tiberias. Ibn al-Furat, however,places it more precisely in the Jawlan, north-east of Safad. The attack must there-fore have been a Templar initiative, and it was launched in what they probablyconsidered their own area of influence.133 The defeat exacted a heavy price inhuman lives, but also in money. The Franks were required to pay an enormousransom of 20,000 besants, on which account John of Beirut was forced to sell CasalImbert and the fort of Toron Aghmid, in the neighborhood of Beirut, to the

Teutonic knights.134

As we shall see below, the Mongol and Mamluk incursions resulted in further


131 On the battle of Ain Jalut and its consequences see Richard, The Crusades , pp. 414–17; Mayer,The Crusades , pp. 270–71; Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp. 419–23.Marshall asserts that until Baybars’ accession the Muslim states did not constitute a real threat.See Marshall, Warfare in the Latin East , p. 260.

132 Ibn-'Abd-al-Zahir, Life of Baybars , ed. and trans. S.F. Sadeque, Dacca, 1956, pp. 117–18. Seealso R. Röhricht, ‘Études sur les derniers temps du Royaume de Jérusalem’, AOL , vol. II,p. 369, and Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp. 426–27.

133 Gestes des Chiprois , p. 163; Abu-Shama, ‘Le Livre des Deux Jardins’, RHC Or., vol. V, p. 204;‘Eracles’, p. 445; Ibn al-Furat, pp. 47, 49. Riley-Smith gives a thorough description of thebattle, mentioning the temporary deposition of Stephen of Sissey, who was blamed for thedefeat. See Ibn al-Furat, pp. 195–96, n. 1 to page 49.

134 Mayer, The Crusades , pp. 278–79.



alienation of property to the Military Orders in the 1260s. The Hospitallers leasedthe castle of Arsur in 1262 and started its refortification a year later. They seem,however, to have signed an individual treaty with Baybars sometime before 1263, inwhich the sultan forbade the raiding of Hospitallers’ territories, and they promisednot to rebuild Arsur’ fortifications. According to Ibn 'Abd al-Zahir, Baybars’ secre-

tary and biographer, the sultan accused the Hospitallers of breaking the terms of the agreement by building a rabad in the city. Al-Zahir reports that Hugh Revel, in amessage sent to Matthew Sauvage, by then the preceptor of the Templars in Cyprus, justif ies the building for fear of Muslim and Mongol raids.135

The refortification of Arsur and the Military Orders’ refusal of an exchange of prisoners with the Mamluks provided Baybars with an excuse to launch his firstcampaign into the kingdom of Jerusalem, which was aimed at southern Galilee. InFebruary 1263 he took Nazareth and Mt. Thabor. The taking of the abbey isimportant as it gives us a better understanding of the Hospitallers’ deploymentthere. We have seen that the Order took over the defence of Mt. Thabor and prom-ised to fortify and garrison it with forty knights. Significantly, however, the sourcesthat mention the conquest of the monastery do not refer to a Mamluk siege or toany resistance made by the brothers. And although there is hardly any reference tothe fall of the abbey in Christian sources, it is noteworthy that Arab sources, such asIbn ’Abd al-Zahir or Ibn al-Furat, who in other cases describe sieges at length andthe number of prisoners taken from Christian cities and castles, only report its fallwithout adding any details.136 That the Mamluks encountered no obstacles maycorroborate Prawer’s argument that the Hospitallers had not fortified the place, and


135 For these events and the alleged Templar letter see Ibn 'Abd al-Zahir, p. 168, and Ibn al-Furat,p. 54. For the lease of Arsur and alienation of additional property to the Military Orders inthe 1260s see below, pp. 59–60. For the building activities of the Hospitallers in Arsur seeS. Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1291, Oxford, 1989,p. 184; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 133–34. In his commentaries on Ibn al-Furat (p.198, n. 2 to page 54) Riley-Smith maintains that the Hospitallers must have rebuilt the outerwalls of Arsur as its citadel was refortified in 1241. This assumption is corroborated byarchaeological excavations in Arsur. They have revealed monumental city-walls which, fromtheir architectonic features, have been identified with the Order’s building activity. See I. Roll,H. Yohanan et al., ‘Appollonia-Arsuf during the Crusader Period in Light of New Discoveries’,Qadmoniot , 33 (2000), pp. 23–24 (in Hebrew). For the meaning of Rabad (from the Arabic Ribat )see A. El’ad, ‘The Coastal Cities of Eretz-Israel in the Arab Period (640–1099) on the Basis of

Arab Sources’, Cathedra , 8 (1978), pp. 172–73 (in Hebrew).136 Christian narrative sources such as ‘ATS’, ‘Eracles’ or the Gestes de Chiprois make no mention of

the conquest of Nazareth and Mt. Thabor. Reference to it is to be found in a letter sent in August 1263 by Pope Urban IV to King Louis IX, which mentions the destruction of thecathedral in Nazareth and the church of Transfiguration on Mt. Thabor. See Reg. Urbain IV ,no. 344. For the description of these events in Muslim sources see Ibn ’Abd al-Zahir, p. 171;Ibn al-Furat, pp. 56–57, and pp. 88–96 for a very detailed account of the siege of Safad. Therefusal to release the prisoners could be explained by the great importance to the Hospitallersof slave labour. See L. García-Guijarro Ramos, ‘Estructuracíon interna y trabajo en lasórdenes militares del Temple y del Hospital (siglos XII y XIII)’, El Trabajo a través de la historia ,ed. S. Castillo, Madrid, 1996, pp. 135–42. On the Orders’ attitudes to the conversion of Muslims see also A. Forey, ‘The Military Orders and the Conversion of Muslims in theTwelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, Journal of Medieval History, 28 (2002), pp. 1–22; B.Z. Kedar,Crusade and Mission: European Approaches towards the Muslims , Princeton, 1984, pp. 146–48.



perhaps never intended to; but although the evidence is scanty we do know that theOrder had garrisoned Mt. Thabor and some of its casalia, and it is possible, asRiley-Smith has pointed out, that the monastery was evacuated before Baybars’approach.137

The Mamluks’ campaign in Galilee must have dealt a massive blow to the

Order’s agricultural revenues and incomes there. Many of its casalia, which hadbeen leased only a few years before from the archbishop of Nazareth, were undoubt-edly lost or devastated. Before the attack on Nazareth the Mamluk army campedbetween Naym and Mt. Thabor, on the lands of several of the Order’s estates. 138

Following their attacks on Nazareth and Mt. Thabor the Mamluks advancedtowards Acre. On their way they raided Cabor, a fortified settlement to which theHospitallers had obtained full rights through their agreement with the Templars in1262. Other of the Order’s casalia that were in this area such as Casal Robert,Romene, Cafreezeir and Capharmanda were also probably raided.139 Althoughmany of the Order’s lands and properties were devastated, Baybars did not intendto take possession of the area. Below we shall see evidence that some of the estates,such as Casal Robert, still remained in Christian hands, and that the Hospitallersmade great efforts to keep them under cultivation.140

After devastating the kingdom’s agricultural lands in Galilee the Mamluks raidedthe plains of Acre in April 1263. This was the first of many attacks Baybarslaunched against the city and its surroundings. According to Ibn 'Abd al-Zahir thepurpose of this attack was reconnaissance and the raiding party was only tenhorsemen; but this was the vanguard of the main army, which the author of ‘L’Estoire de Eracles’ estimates at 30,000 men. The attack caused great damage to

the agricultural hinterland of Acre. The Mamluks took many cattle and a numberof horses. The gardens and orchards around the city were burnt down, along withthe towers and walls built for their defence. Baybars gave orders for the destructionof the fortified mill of Doc, which belonged to the Templars. Many of its defenderswere killed and four brothers-at-arms and about thirty foot soldiers werecaptured.141 Baybars’ attack cost the lives of twenty-six Christians and emptied the


137 Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, p. 440. Riley-Smith in Ibn al-Furat,p. 199, n. 1 to page 56. On the absence of evidence of building work undertaken at Mt.Thabor after it was given to the Hospitallers see M. Benvenisti, The Crusaders in the Holy Land ,

Jerusalem, 1970, pp. 361–62; D. Pringle, The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: ACorpus , vol. II, Cambridge, 1998, p. 68.

138 Reg. Urbain IV , no. 344. On Hospitallers’ casalia within this area see below, pp. 56–57, andabove, Map 2.

139 Reg. Urbain IV , no. 344. On Hospitallers casalia on the way between Mt. Thabor, Cabor, and Acre see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, map no. 3, and above, Map 2.

140 There is no evidence that Baybars attempted at this stage to reorganize the area. It was notdivided up among Baybars’ amirs, as were Caesarea and Arsur after their conquest. See Ibnal-Furat, pp. 80–82; Al-Maqrizi, Histoire des sultans Mamlouks de l’Égypte , trans. M. Quatremère,Paris, 1837, vol. I (second part), p. 13. On the Order’s efforts to keep the casalia in Galilee

under cultivation see below, p. 60.141 Ibn 'Abd al-Zahir, pp. 173–75; Ibn al-Furat, pp. 57–59; ‘Eracles’, p. 450; Reg. Urbain IV , no.

344. Ellenblum believes that the mill was only partly destroyed as it still operated after the fallof Acre in 1291. See R. Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,Cambridge, 1998, p. 209. Doc, however, was probably no longer fortified, as both Christian



city’s food reserves. Shortage of food was one of the Franks’ biggest preoccupations. As the crops were destroyed they asked, at the end of the year, for a truce whichwould allow them to sow their fields. A large quantity of seed was taken to plantnew crops in the raided lands, but apparently also to put wasteland under cultiva-tion.142

Concern over shortages of food and supplies in the Holy Land is emphasized ina letter sent in August 1263 by Pope Urban IV to Louis IX describing the depreda-tion caused by Baybars’ advance. The pope informed the king about the destructionof the churches in Nazareth, Mt. Thabor, and Cabor, and the Mamluks’ raid on theplains of Acre, emphasizing that its inhabitants were suffering from a dearth of foodand even starvation after the gardens and crops which supplied the city had beendestroyed. Hasty appeals for help had been sent by the leaders of the Latin settle-ment, including Hugh Revel, the Hospitaller master, to the papal curia. Urbantransmitted this news to all the rulers in the West, in particular to Louis IX,imploring them to help the Holy Land.143 Baybars’ incursions into Galilee and hisadvance towards Acre seem to have caused confusion, and they made the Latinsrealize how threatening was the Mamluk military force. In a joint appeal sent on4 April 1263 to King Henry III of England, the leaders in the East, including themasters of the Military Orders, wrote that at first the devastation of the Muslimstates following the Mongols’ incursions and then Ain Jalut had given them hope of recovering the Holy Land. This hope was, however, dashed by the Mamluks, whoafter breaking their truce with them, raided the kingdom up to the gates of Acre.They begged the king for help as they lacked the resources and manpower needed toface the Mamluk threat. On 5 April 1263 another letter was sent to Henry III by

Thomas Bérard, master of the Templars. He mentioned the stream of letters of appeal already sent to the king, stressing that his help and that of the king of Francewas now their only hope.144

Each new Mamluk attack severely aggravated the situation of the Latin settlers,as it destroyed their defences and economy. Baybars’ next offensive was aimed atdestroying the settlement along the Palestinian coast. On 5 March 1265 he tookCaesarea and destroyed the greater part of its fortifications. In the following daysthe Mamluks raided the neighborhood of the Templar castle of Atlit and occupiedthe town of Haifa, whose inhabitants, like those of Caesarea, were evacuated to

Acre by sea. The Mamluks aimed their next attack, on 21 March, at Hospitaller Arsur. The Order, which had leased the town only three years earlier, had improvedits fortifications, garrisoned it, and stocked it with a large quantity of provisions.


and Arab sources stress Baybars’ systematic demolition of its tower. Both Doc and Recordanaformed part of the Christian territory according to the 1283 treaty with Qualawun. See P.M.Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260–1290), Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1995, p. 79, andD. Barag, ‘A New Source Concerning the Ultimate Borders of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusa-lem’, Israel Exploration Journal , 29 (1979), p. 202.

142 For the number of Christians killed in Baybars’ attack on Acre see Gestes des Chiprois , p. 168,

which specifies that many knights and sergeants were killed. The truce is mentioned by Ibnal-Furat, p. 66. See Riley-Smith’s comment as to the possibility that the Franks also wanted tosow.wastelands: Ibn al-Furat, p. 204, n. 1 to page 66.

143 Reg. Urbain IV , no. 344.144 Diplomatic Documents , ed. P. Chaplais, London, 1964, vol. I, nos. 385–86.



The money needed for its fortification and garrison was probably transferred fromfunding originally earmarked to maintain Mt. Thabor.145 At Arsur the Mamluksencountered fierce opposition. The siege lasted more than forty days, until thetown’s capitulation on 29 April. The Hospitallers suffered enormous casualties. Thenumber of prisoners taken by Baybars was estimated at about 1,000, among whom

were between 80 and 90 Hospitaller brother-knights. Baybars also found a largeamount of wheat, oats, animals, and money.146

With the conquest of Caesarea and Arsur the kingdom lost two of its majorstrongholds and also a significant part of the fertile coastal plain which was essentialfor the provisioning of the remaining Frankish population. All the Hospitallers’holdings in the area, which they had acquired with so much effort and money, werelost. Turris Salinarum, for example, a small fortification on the road from Caesareato Haifa, was demolished by a Mamluk contingent that raided Atlit.147 So probablywas the fortified casal of Chatillon (La Meserae), next to Turris Salinarum. Cachobefore it fell to the Mamluks was a fortified Frankish settlement where the Hospital-lers leased some lands in 1248 from the abbey of St. Mary of the Latins in Jeru-salem.148 The Mamluks rebuilt it and transformed into an important administrativecentre. Baybars reorganized the district, and many of the Order’s casalia, such asTurcarme, Kalansue, Montdidier, and Turriclee (Tour Rouge), were included in theterritories divided up among his amirs.149 But not only did the Hospitallers lose all


145 For the fortification of Arsur and the events of 1263 see above, p. 35, and below, pp. 59–60.146 ‘ATS’, p. 452A; ‘Eracles’ (p. 450) writes that among the 1,000 captives were Hospitaller

brother-knights, lay brothers, and sergeants. ‘ATS’ (p. 452B) estimates the number of Hospital-lers killed and taken prisoner at 410, and the ‘Chronica minor auctore minoritaErphordiensis’, MGH SS , XXIV, p. 204 puts the figure at 180. These numbers, however, seeman exaggeration considering that the total number of brother-knights serving in the HolyLand at the time was probably no greater than 300. On this point see also Riley-Smith, in Ibnal-Furat, p. 207, n. 1 to page 77. Unfortunately none of the sources give exact details of thespoils taken from the town, which might have given us some indication of the resourcesneeded by the Order to maintain fortified sites of this size. For reference to the booty see‘Chronica minor auctore minorita Erphordiensis’, p. 204; Abu Shama, p.205; Al-Maqrizi,Histoire des sultans Mamlouks de l’Égypte , vol. I (second part), p. 10; Ibn al-Furat, p. 77.

147 For a detailed description of these attacks see Ibn al-Furat, pp. 68–72. For a very short refer-ence to the conquest of Caesarea in Christian sources see ‘ATS’, pp. 451B, 452A. For TurrisSalinarum and this raid see Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships , pp. 150–51; Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, p. 453, n. 34.

148 Cart., no. 2482. For Cacho (or Qaqun) see D. Pringle, The Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar): Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the Crusaders and Mamluks (AD 1099–1516), British School of

Archaeology in Jerusalem, Monographs Series I, London, 1986, pp. 58–71, and Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships , pp. 141–43.

149 On its re-fortif ication by the Mamluks see Ibn al-Furat, p. 101, and Riley-Smith’s commentaryon p. 218, n. 1 to page 101. On the new administrative division of the lordships of Caesareaand Arsur under the Mamluks see Ibn al-Furat, pp. 80, 82, and Riley-Smith’s commentary onp. 208, n. 1 to page 82. Also al-Maqrizi, Histoire des sultans Mamlouks de l’Ég ypte , vol. I (secondpart), pp. 13, 40. It seems that following the treaty with Qalawun of June 1283 some of the

Order’s lands in the area of Caesarea were returned to them. Barag points to the singularity of the 1283 treaty, which acknowledged more Frankish villages than that of 1272. He explainsthat many abandoned places must have been re-populated between 1272 and 1283 by Chris-tian refugees from Galilee and the lands south of Atlit. This, however, could not explain theconcession of land in the area of Caesarea, which had been Mamluk since 1265 and could not



their property in the former lordships of Caesarea and Arsur – and any prospect of income from them; in some cases they were forced to continue paying rents forcasalia which were no longer in their hands. They had to renew their lease of Montdidier and Turriclee in October 1267. According to terms of the originalagreement it was to be renewed every twenty-five years and the Order had to pay an

annual rent of 800 Saracen besants to the abbot of St. Mary as long as Tyre and Acre were in Christian hands.150

The conquests of Caesarea and Arsur broke the territorial integrity of theChristian holdings in the coastal plain. To the south of Acre the Franks held thenow isolated castle of Atlit and the city of Jaffa, which since La Forbie had been thesouthern frontier of the kingdom. It fell to Baybars in March 1268.151 Hugh Revelsent the disastrous news of these losses to Pope Clement IV, who forwarded them tothe mendicants preaching the cross in France, as well as to James I of Aragon,Theobald of Champagne-Navarre, Alphonse of Poitiers, and the dukes of Saxonyand Bavaria.152 As always in times of great need, the Hospitallers made huge effortsadvertising their concerns in Europe.153 In a general letter addressed to all bishops,William II of Agen, the patriarch of Jerusalem, beseeched them to allow Hospitallerbrothers sent from the East to preach and raise alms in accordance with Pope Inno-cent II’s bull Quam amabilis Deo.154 Knowing the political situation in Europe, theLatins must have doubted that aid could be expected from there. The poem Ira et Dolor , written by a Templar knight serving in the Holy Land, shows the rage anddespair among the Franks that precisely when they were suffering these terriblelosses the papacy was deeply involved in promoting and launching a crusade tosouthern Italy, diverting crusaders and money originally destined for the Holy

Land.155 He wrote that although the Latin settlement was doomed it could notexpect any help from the pope or the princes in the West as they were busy fighting in Italy. The Latins had been abandoned not only by pope and princes but also byGod:


have been re-settled by the Franks. See Barag, ‘A New Source Concerning the UltimateBorders’, pp. 198–200 and passim.

150 Cart., nos. 2482, 2491, 3283. Pringle explains that Turriclee probably fell after 1265, along with many other castles in the coastal plain, and, according to archaeological evidence, it wasmethodically destroyed by the Mamluks. See Pringle, The Red Tower , pp. 86, 128.

151 On the fall of Jaffa see ‘ATS’, p. 453B; Ibn al-Furat, pp. 106–08.152 Annales Ecclesiastici , ed. C. Baronius, A. Pagi, O. Raynaldus and A. Theiner, Bar-le-Duc and

Paris, 1864–85, vol. XXII (1257–1285), pp. 158–60 (ann. 1265, S 38, 40); Documentos de Clemente IV (1265–1268) referentes a España , ed. S. Dominguez Sanchez, León, 1996, nos. 66,171, 192. See also Chapter 3 below, p. 125.

153 See, for example, the intensive correspondence and the envoys sent to Europe after Hattin andLa Forbie; see above, pp. 14–17, 23–24.

154 Cart., no. 3002. This letter was dated by Delaville Le Roulx to 1262–1267, the period when

William served as patriarch of Jerusalem. In Quam amabilis Deo Innocent II had asked bishopsto encourage the faithful to give donations to the Order and promised to absolve the donorsfrom the seventh part of their yearly penance. See Cart., no. 130.

155 On Charles of Anjou’s crusade to Sicily and the diversion of crusader resources from the HolyLand to southern Italy see Chapter 2 below, pp. 92–96.



Neither the cross nor the law could protect us against the Turks, as it is clear to allthat God strengthens them against us . . . He is a fool he who wishes to fightagainst the Turks, since Jesus Christ does not contest them any more. They (theTurks) have vanquished. They will vanquish, they know they could destroy us anyday, because God, who used to watch over us, is asleep while Muhammad shineswith power and causes Baybars to shine.156

After devastating the Christian holdings along the coast Baybars completed theoccupation of Galilee in two campaigns in 1266 and 1268. His main attack in 1266was aimed at the major Templar castle of Safad, which owing to its strategic impor-tance and strength Ibn al-Furat would later describe as an ‘obstruction in the throatof Syria and a blockage in the chest of Islam’.157 It took Baybars more than sixweeks to take the castle, which was well supplied and garrisoned with at least 400men, including Templar knights and sergeants, turcopoles, and crossbowmen. Afterits conquest, on 23 July, the Mamluks rebuilt it and transformed it into an important

administrative centre. They took full possession of the area, which like the lordshipsof Caesarea and Arsur was apportioned among Baybars’ amirs. With the conquestsof Chastel Neuf and Toron on 15 August and the Templar castle of Beaufort two years later, in April 1268, Mamluk dominance over eastern Galilee was assured.158

Baybars’ incursions were efficient, coordinated military offensives.Concurrently with their siege of Safad the Mamluks raided the surroundings of

Crac des Chevaliers, Tripoli, Sidon, Tyre, Monfort, Atlit and Acre.159 The purposeof these raids, as Marshall has pointed out, was to isolate a site and prevent assis-tance reaching it.160 The raids were also intended to devastate the remaining Chris-tian territories. The attack on Crac had ravaged its dependent lands, from which theMuslims took into captivity 700 men and 1,000 women and children.161 In theattack of 1266 on the plain of Acre the Mamluks raided the Hospitaller village of Manueth, from which, according to Ibn al-Furat, the ‘Muslims took spoil uponspoil, so much that no one could be found to buy the cattle and buffaloes’. It alsoseems that 200 horses were killed in this raid, when the Mamluks burned down theOrder’s stables.162 The surroundings of Acre were again raided the following


156 Choix des poésies des troubadours , ed. F. Raynouard, Paris, 1819, vol. IV, p. 131. Lloyd believes thatthe 1263 letter sent by the leaders in the East to Henry III was the last communal letter sent tothe king, probably because the Latins had lost hope of getting any help in view of the politicalsituation in England. See Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade , pp. 30–31.

157 Ibn al-Furat, p. 89.158 On the siege of Safad see Gestes des Chiprois , pp. 179–80, and Ibn al-Furat, pp. 88–96. On the

reorganization of its dependent lands by the Mamluks, and the conquest of Chastel Neuf andToron see Gestes des Chiprois , pp. 96–97. On Safad’s garrison under Templar rule see Barber,The New Knighthood , p. 166. On the fall of Beaufort see ‘ATS’, p. 453B; Ibn al-Furat, p. 110. TheTemplars must have built additional fortifications in the southern side of the castle in the1260s. See Ibn al-Furat, p. 110, and Barber, The New Knighthood , p. 168.

159 Ibn al-Furat wrote that the attack ‘covered all the territory of the Franks, from the confines of Tripoli to the vicinity of Arsur’: see pp. 86–88.

160 Marshall, Warfare in the Latin East , p. 203.161 Abu Shama, p. 205.162 Ibn al-Furat, p. 87; ‘Eracles’, pp. 454–55, and Amadi, Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi , ed.

R. de Mas Latrie (Collection de documents inédits sur l’histoire de France), Paris, 1891, vol. I,p. 209, who mentions the loss of the horses.



summer. Over four days Baybars devastated the city’s agricultural hinterland,destroying orchards, vineyards, buildings, and wells and burning the crops. In thisattack the Hospitallers’ fortified mill of Recordane was destroyed.163 The mill musthave been rebuilt almost immediately because in the treaty the Franks signed withBaybars in 1267, in which they agreed to hold Recordane as a condominium – joint

ownership – the place was referred to as: ‘the new mill, recognized as having beenset up by the Order of the Hospital’.164 The frequency and devastation of theMamluk attacks ruined the crops, but also prevented the Franks from working theirfields. Manueth, like other villages populated by Christians, was probably evacuatedbefore Baybars’ incursions. Ellenblum believes that because the casal’s lands werelaid waste the Order was willing in 1270 to let the Teutonic knights sow them for aperiod of one year. Although the plain of Acre was raided in 1263, 1265, 1266,1267, and 1269, Manueth must have recovered as in 1278 the Hospitallers boughtland near it.165 Below we shall see that the brothers made great efforts to bring wasteland under cultivation and repair the damage caused by the Mamluks; theypaid close attention to preserving the sugar industry. These, however, were fruitlessefforts. Baybars’ incursions made any attempt to work the land almost impossible.166

The distress of the Franks following these enormous losses of territory and theirdifficulties in provisioning and garrisoning their remaining towns and castles wasexpressed in many new letters of appeal sent to Europe. In May 1267 the Christianleaders in the East wrote to Theobald of Champagne about the devastation of theplains of Acre and the loss of Safad.167 A letter sent in July 1267 by William of Agen, the patriarch of Jerusalem, to Aimery of la Roche, the Templar preceptor inFrance, gives us valuable information regarding some of the expenses incurred by

the Franks defending the Latin settlement. William asked Amaury to arrangethrough the Order’s treasury in Paris for the money needed for the payment of crossbowmen. Sixty livres Tournois would have to be paid to each of fifty Frenchknights, who had gone to the East in 1265 with the count of Nevers and other lords,to keep them in Acre. The letter also mentioned a loan negotiated by the MilitaryOrders in 1265, according to which 4,000 livres tournois were taken by Louis IX’srepresentative in Acre to pay the wages of soldiers of the French regiment whodefended the city. William also asked Amaury to forward the distressing news fromthe Holy Land to the pope.168 Clement IV then relayed it to his prelates. In a letter

to the papal legates in Sicily and England he wrote about the fall of Caesarea,


163 Ibn al-Furat, p. 103. Al-Aini claims that the losses the Franks suffered in this raid were theequivalent of 15,000 dinars. See Al-Aini, ‘The Collar of Pearls’, extr. trans., in RHC Or.,

vol. II, p. 225.164 Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, p. 32, and D. Pringle, Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of

Jerusalem: An Archaeological Gazetteer , Cambridge, 1997, p. 64. According to Ellenblum bothRecordane and Doc functioned until the fall of the kingdom in 1291. Ellenblum, Frankish Rural

Settlement , pp. 208–09.165 Cart., nos. 3400, 3679. Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement , pp. 203–04.166 See below, pp. 60–62.167 Thes. novus , vol. I, cols. 1013–14; RRH , no. 1348.168 RRH , no. 1347. Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 159, 266–67.



Arsur, and Safad, emphasizing the great casualties suffered by the Hospitallers andthe Templars in these attacks.169

In May 1268 the Mamluks took the city of Antioch, and consequently the entireprincipality, except for Margat and Lattakia, was lost. The fall of Antioch and theMamluks’ incursion into Cilician Armenia, where they took the Teutonic castle of

Adamodana and the castle of Canamella, caused the Templars to abandon theircastles of Gaston (Baghras), Roche Roussel, and Port Bonnel in the Amanus moun-tains north of Antioch. A year later the Christians seem to have lost f ive additionalcastles after an earthquake shook Armenia.170 The desperate situation of theFrankish settlement by the summer of 1268 is best illustrated in a letter sent in Juneby the Hospitaller master Hugh Revel to Ferrand of Barras, prior of St. Gilles. Hewrites about the loss of the cities of Jaffa, Caesarea, Arsur, and Antioch and thecastles of Beaufort, Gaston, and Safad, which were able to hold out for no morethan sixteen days although the Templars had praised Safad so much. Only Acre, Atlit, Tyre, and Sidon remained in Christian hands. The Hospitallers wereburdened with enormous expenses to maintain their 300 brothers in the Holy Land;at one time they even had to provide victuals for more than 10,000 men. Theseexpenses increased with every new Mamluk incursion. After the loss of Antioch theChristians’ northern frontier was pushed back towards the castles of Crac, Margat,and Belda, which became the only defensive line for the cities along the Syriancoast. However, these castles would not be able to hold out for long with theircurrent resources. The Hospitallers in the East were completely dependent onsupplies from overseas. Hugh wrote that the kingdom of Jerusalem had producednothing for eight years and was suffering from shortages of food and provisions. Yet

the supplies from Cilician Armenia, on which the Order depended, had ceasedbecause of a plague and fear of Muslim raids. Supplies from Europe had alsodiminished. From Spain the Hospitallers had received only a few horses. War haddevastated the Order’s estates in Sicily and Tuscany. Civil war had also reduced theresponsiones from England, which used to be a major contributor. Hugh pleaded withthe prior of St. Gilles to send aid to the East, emphasizing that these enormousexpenses had plunged his Order deeply in debt. To cover them, a great part of theHospitallers’ property overseas would have to be sold.171


169 Annales Ecclesiastici , vol. XXII (1257–85), pp. 185–86 (ann. 1266, S 41, 42). On the French regi-ment in Acre see C. Marshall, ‘The French Regiment in the Latin East, 1254–91’, Journal of Medieval History, vol. 15 (1989), pp. 301–07.

170 Both ‘Eracles’ and the Gestes des Chiprois estimate the number of Christians taken prisoner afterthe fall of the city at the enormous figure of 17,000 people. ‘Eracles’, pp. 456–57; Gestes des Chiprois , pp. 190–91. After comparing the different sources Röhricht concluded that a lower,but not less significant, number of 8,000 people went into captivity. Röhricht, ‘Études sur lesderniers temps’, p. 392. For the description in Arab sources of the fall of Antioch and theabandoning of the Templar castles see al-Maqrizi, Histoire des sultans Mamlouks de l’Égypte , p. 53,and Ibn al-Furat, pp. 118–27, who claims that the Templars abandoned Gaston without anyresistance, leaving behind all its provisions. In Hugh Revel’s letter to the prior of St. Gilles in1268, however, he specifies that the Templars burned down the castle after they realized thatthey would not be able to defend it. See Cart., no. 3308 (vol. IV). For the Mamluks’ incursionsinto Cilician Armenia and the loss of the castles see Ibn al-Furat, p. 99. For the earthquake see

Amadi, p. 209.171 Cart., no. 3308 (vol. IV). The text referring to their debts and the need to sell property abroad



Faced with this situation the Hospitallers sought a truce with Baybars. Individualtreaties had already been signed by the lords of Beirut and Tyre and by theTemplars near Sidon. In May 1268 Baybars signed a ten-year truce with the newking of Jerusalem, Hugh of Antioch-Lusignan. By its terms the Mamluks recognizedthe rights of the Christians only over the city and district of Acre, Haifa and three

dependent villages, the castle of Monfort and ten villages, and Atlit and five villages.The remaining land would be shared between Franks and Muslims.172 In 1266 theHospitallers of Margat had signed a truce with Baybars according to which theyagreed to renounce the tributes they received from Muslim cities. This was a signifi-cant loss of income as Hamah and Homs had each owed them 4,000 pieces of golda year, Abu-Qubais 800 pieces, and the Assassins another 1,200 pieces of gold, aswell as payments in wheat and barley. A year later, following the devastation of 1267, the Hospitallers requested the ratification of the truce to include both Margatand Crac. They renounced the tributes owed them by the Assassins, Hamah,Shaizar, Afamiyah, and Abu-Quabis as well as an income of 500 dinars theyreceived from the territory of Aintab.173 The truces signed with Baybars show thedespair of the Latins and their need for a period of respite. None of these trucesheld for more than a year. Baybars raided Acre in 1269, and a year later devastatedthe surroundings of Margat and of Crac des Chevaliers. The Muslim troops usedthe crops that supplied this castle as pasture for their horses.174 Riley-Smith hasshown the reliance of Crac, the Hospitallers’ most powerful castle, on the supplies itreceived from its dependent lands: because of their expenses supplying and garri-soning the castle the Hospitallers had been exempted in 1255 by Alexander IV fromthe payment of tithes and first fruits on these lands.175 The ruin of Crac’s crops and

its isolation from the Latin enclave along the coast had probably severely weakenedits defensive capacity. The Mamluks’ final attack on Crac and the remaining crusader castles in the county of Tripoli was delayed for a year, as Baybars awaitedthe outcome of Louis IX’s second crusade; with the arrival of news of the failure of the invasion of Tunis and the withdrawal of the crusading army to Sicily the offen-sive was immediately renewed. In February 1271 the Templar castle of ChastelBlanc, which Ibn al-Furat reports was the key to Tripoli, surrendered and 700 menwere taken prisoner. On 3 March Baybars laid siege to Crac des Chevaliers. Foralmost a month he used combined forces from Hamah, Sahyun, and the Assassins,


reads as follows: ‘quam tanta debita contraximus ratione pressurarum, et de die in diem aliacontrahere cogimur quod, pro quietatione et solutione eorum, in quibuslibet provinciistransmarinis magnam partem possessionum nostre domus vendere oportebit’. See alsoChapter 2 below, pp. 91, 99–100 on the financial difficulties faced by their priories in Europeat that time.

172 Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, p. 472; Röhricht, ‘Études sur lesderniers temps’, pp. 388, 393–95.

173 Al-Maqrizi, Histoire des sultans Mamlouks de l’Égypte , vol. I (second part), pp. 32, 42; Ibn al-Furat,pp. 98, 104. For the full text of the treaty of 1267 see Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, pp. 32–41.For a thorough discussion on the tributary policy pursued by the Hospitallers in northern

Syria see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 138–41.174 Al-Maqrizi, Histoire des sultans Mamlouks de l’Égypte , vol. I (second part), p. 78; Ibn al-Furat,

pp. 139–40.175 On the reliance of Crac on its dependent lands see Riley-Smith’s commentary in Ibn al-Furat,

p. 236, n. 5 to page 139, and Cart., no. 2727 for Alexander’s exemption.



as well as mangonels and miners to destroy the castle’s defences, and the Hospital-lers capitulated on 30 March.176

With the fall of Crac the Hospitallers had lost all their important castles in theLatin East except for Margat.177 Considering the Mamluks’ superiority inmanpower and that no immediate help could be expected from Europe after the

failure of Louis IX’s crusade to Tunis, the Hospitallers were forced to renew thetruce with Baybars in order to protect Margat. Its terms were humiliating. They hadto surrender their castle of Belda and its territory to the north of Margat and topromise not to build additional fortifications in Margat itself. They were forced torenounce all tributes from Muslim lands and to share with the Mamluks theirincome from Margat’s dependent lands. Their only acts of resistance before theywithdrew were the destruction of the towers of Belda and the village of Corveis,next to Margat.178

It is unfortunate that none of the accounts which describe the conquest of Cracgive us detailed information on the number of casualties suffered, as was the casewith the fall of Arsur. In 1255 the Hospitallers had committed themselves to garri-soning Crac with sixty knights, and it seems reasonable to believe that their numbermay have increased with the loss of other Hospitaller castles and fortresses following Baybars’ incursions. Part of the garrison of Crac must have been saved, as one of the terms of its capitulation was that the lives of its defenders would be spared andthey would be given safe conduct to Tripoli. Some, however, were killed during thesiege, and there is evidence that many were massacred when the Mamluks stormedinto the castle’s outer ward.179 The Hospitallers may have suffered heavy casualtiesnot only after the fall of their main castles but also following raids and the conquest

of town and villages that they helped to defend. With the loss of Antioch, forexample, Hospitaller brother knights who garrisoned the citadel were taken pris-oner.180 Even a relatively small number of brothers killed or taken prisoners in theseattacks would have had a great impact on the Order’s defensive capacity in the LatinEast. During the siege of Tripoli in April 1289 the Hospitallers lost forty


176 On St. Louis’ crusade to Tunis see J. Richard, Saint Louis: Crusader King of France , ed.S. Lloyd.and trans. J. Birrell, Cambridge, 1992, pp. 314–29; Riley-Smith, The Crusades ,pp. 173–76. For the conquest of Chastel Blanc see Ibn al-Furat, p. 143. Chastel Blanc, strategi-cally situated to the south-east of Tortosa, was one of the Templars’ most important castles.See Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 81–82. On the conquest of Crac see Ibn al-Furat,pp. 144–46; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 192–93; Cathcart King, ‘The Taking of Le Krak des Chevaliers’, pp. 83–92.

177 Margat finally fell in 1285. A short description of its siege can be found in Abu’l Fida, The Memories of a Syrian Prince. Abu’l Fid , Sultan on Ham h (672–732/1273–1331), trans. P.M. Holt,Wiesbaden, 1983, p. 12.

178 For the full text of the treaty see Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, pp. 48–57. On these events seealso Ibn al-Furat, pp. 146–47 and Al-Aini, ‘The Collar of Pearls’, pp. 238–39. Marshallconsiders the Mamluks’ superiority in manpower and resources.the key to their overwhelming success. Marshall, Warfare in the Latin East , pp. 247–48.

179 On the garrison of Crac see above, pp. 17, 29. On its conquest by Baybars see Ibn al-Furat,p. 145.

180 Ibn al-Furat mentions that after the city was conquered the garrison was taken into captivity.Ibn al-Furat, p. 126. In his commentary Riley-Smith suggests that these were probably Hospi-tallers. See Ibn al-Furat, p. 230, n. 1 to page 126.



brother-knights as well as a large number of horses and arms, at a cost estimated at1,500 silver marks. These losses were so severe that the master John of Villiersordered each priory to send men, horses, and money with the next Augustpassage.181

It is however noteworthy that although Baybars’ incursions were similar to those

of Saladin following Hattin, in the sense that they destroyed the economic base andthe military disposition of the Hospitallers in the Holy Land, the Order did notsuffer the same number of casualties. The Christian army and that of the Hospital-lers very rarely met the Mamluks in open field, and what battles there were neverreached the dimensions of Hattin. In response to Baybars’ premeditated offensives,aimed at fragmenting the Latin states, the Franks, lacking resources, manpower andsignificant support from Europe, conducted only limited military expeditions. Theirmain aim was seemingly booty. In the winter of 1264, after the Mamluks had devas-tated the Galilee, a combined force of Hospitallers and Templars attacked Legio (orLajjun), which had been lost to the Mamluks in 1263. Joshua Prawer tried to findmilitary reasons for this attack, beyond plunder. As Legio had no strategic impor-tance he suggested that they intended to take Petit Gerin (Zarin), located along theimportant road that connected Acre to Transjordan. If that was the aim, it wasnever accomplished. Although the Christian force did not encounter any threats ontheir way they did not go beyond Legio, where they took 300 prisoners and manyanimals.182 On their return to Acre the Military Orders together with the army of the kingdom raided the neighbourhood of Bethsan. They devastated the area,burned the fields and took much spoil.183

Only the reinforcement of the Franks with a new crusader army could have led

to more meaningful military expeditions, powerful enough to change the situationof the Latin settlement. The crusade of King James I of Aragon, however, which setout in September 1269, returned to Europe soon after setting sail because of badweather. Louis IX’s crusade was aimed first at North Africa and collapsed beforeTunis soon after the crusading army had landed.184 The forces that did arrive in Acre from overseas were not signif icant enough to make any difference to the situa-tion. In 1265 and 1266 fifty French knights, led by Odo, count of Nevers, and morethan 150 knights and provisions brought by Hugh of Antioch-Lusignan, by thenregent of Cyprus, arrived. In October 1266 these forces, together with the Military

Orders and the French contingent in Acre, launched an attack towards Tiberias.Prawer has argued that instead of attacking Tiberias, which had been lost almosttwenty years earlier and was too far from the Latin settlements on the coast to bedefended even if it was recovered, the Christians, who had gathered a significantarmy, should have attempted to recover the castle of Safad, which had been lost in


181 Cart., no. 4050.182 The Military Orders did not encounter significant resistance during this raid. The ‘Annales de

Terre Sainte’ report that they lost only two men. There was no apparent reason for them not tocontinue to Petit Gerin, if that was the intention. See ‘ATS’, p. 451. See Prawer, A History of the

Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, p. 447, n. 22, and p. 430 on the strategic importance of PetitGerin. For the identification of Legio as old Megiddo see Röhricht, ‘Études sur les dernierstemps’, p. 376, n. 41.

183 ‘ATS’, p. 451.184 Riley-Smith, The Crusades , pp. 173–76.



the same year and had great strategic importance. This, however, could have been a very costly enterprise. Baybars had heavily garrisoned Safad with new forces, andany attempt to re-take it could have resulted in the annihilation of the remaining Christian army in the Holy Land. The fact that there is no evidence that theTemplars pressed for the recovery of their castle perhaps demonstrates their reluc-

tance to put their forces in real danger and their doubts about their ability to keepcastles of that size with their resources and manpower in the East. The attack of 1266 was most probably for the purpose of plunder, but on its way back fromTiberias to Acre the vanguard, which was loaded with booty, was ambushed atCareblier (Tell el Charruba) in the plain of Acre by the Mamluk garrison of Safad.Five hundred knights were killed, among them forty-five Hospitaller brother-knightsincluding Stephen of Messy, the grand commander in Acre.185

The Orders’ reluctance to join battle is understandable considering their inferiornumbers, the casualties they had suffered when they engaged the Mamluks on thebattlefield, and the insufficiency of the crusading contingents arriving in theEast.186 The failed campaign of Lord Edward to Cacho in the spring of 1271, theonly attempt made by settlers and crusader forces to regain control of territory, illus-trates this point.187 Cacho was the most important Mamluk fortification on thecoastal plain, and its reconquest could have given the Christians a foothold on thecoastline and better protection and provision for Atlit, their only remaining isolatedcastle in the kingdom of Jerusalem.188 The Christians gathered a large army,combining Edward’s troops, which had been reinforced with newly arrived troopsfrom England, with the armies of the kingdom and the Military Orders, Cypriotforces brought by King Hugh III, as well as pilgrims and mercenaries.189 Still their

inferiority was manifest. Although the Mamluk commander of Cacho abandonedthe castle and left it without defences on hearing of the Christian advance, the


185 On the French knights arriving in Acre see ‘Eracles’, p. 454, and Marshall, ‘The FrenchRegiment’, p. 305. On the contingents brought by Hugh see P.W. Edbury, The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191–1374 , Cambridge, 1991, p. 89. On the attack see Gestes des Chiprois ,pp. 181–82; ‘Eracles’, p. 455; Marino Sanudo, ‘Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis’, p. 222.Prawer believed the Christian army to be as large as 1,500 knights. Marshall finds that theonly evidence of its size suggests 1,100 knights. Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jeru-salem, vol. II, p. 463; Marshall, Warfare in the Latin East , pp. 192–93. For Baybars’ efforts to

garrison Safad see Ibn al-Furat, p. 96, who maintains that the garri son cost the sultan a signifi-cant sum. In the two years after its conquest Safad was re-fortified and became the capital of aMamluk province. See Benvenisti, The Crusaders in the Holy Land , p. 204. The Hospitallers’ casu-alties are specified in ‘ATS’, p. 452A. It is interesting that no information has survivedregarding the career of Stephen of Messy. He appears for the first time in 1264 as the grandcommander of Acre. See RRH , no. 1334; Cart., nos. 3105, 3207, and Appendix below.

186 Crusading armies arrived in Acre in 1269, led by the Infantes of Aragon, and in 1271 led byLord Edward of England. They were insufficient to challenge Mamluk supremacy. Edwardbrought 200.knights and 600 infantry, while Baybars’ army was estimated to be 40,000 men.See Marshall, Warfare in the Latin East , pp. 71–73. On the crusade of the Infantes of Aragon seeGestes des Chiprois , pp. 182–83 (which wrongly date these events to 1267) and ‘Eracles’, pp.457–58.

187 On Lord Edward’s crusade see Riley-Smith, The Crusades , p. 176, and M. Prestwich, Edward I ,New Haven and London, 1988, p. 68.

188 For the importance of re-taking Cacho see also Pringle, The Red Tower , p. 60, and Marshall,Warfare in the Latin East , pp. 206–7.

189 ‘Eracles’, p. 461.



Christians were forced to return to Acre after Baybars launched a massive offensiveat them. The only achievement of this coordinated Christian offensive was booty.190

In May 1272, after Edward’s military campaign had failed to improve their situa-tion, the Franks signed yet again a ten-year truce with Baybars.191 They wereconfined now to a narrow strip along the Palestine-Syria coast, which, after the fall

of their main castles, was extremely vulnerable.192To recapitulate: from 1187 to 1274 the Hospitallers in the East suffered a succes-

sion of adversities. The battles of Hattin and La Forbie resulted in the almostcomplete annihilation of their conventual manpower. To restore their forces theyneeded an immediate mobilization of manpower from Europe, as well as money forthe employment of mercenaries both to take part in campaigns and to garrison theircastles. Money was also needed to restore their economy and military defences afterHattin and the earthquake of 1202. The establishment and expansion of theirheadquarters in Acre and the refortification of Crac des Chevaliers, Margat, andSelefkie must have been costly enterprises. Especially from the middle of thethirteenth century we have seen that the Military Orders found it ever more difficultto find the money needed. The Hospitallers assumed increased responsibility for thedefence of the kingdom. Their castles, such as Crac, were constantly improved, andthey took upon themselves the defence and refortification of new sites, such as Ascalon and Mt. Thabor. These two, however, were lost only a few years after theywere granted, and all their castles, except for Margat, would be lost to the Mamluks.One may argue that the losses of castles could have actually eased the Hospitallers’financial burden. However, together with the castles they lost a large proportion of their estates, and consequently their income from rents and agricultural products

diminished. It is difficult to establish from the surviving material the balancebetween the decrease of expenditure and of income, or to learn from this theirfinancial situation. It will be shown below that they ascribed great importance totheir local economy. Despite the continuous devastation of their lands, financialcrises, and their many complaints to the West about the lack of resources andmoney, they conducted throughout the thirteenth century an intensive policy of investment, aimed to re-strengthen their economy and expand their patrimony.

Financial Activities of the Hospitallers in the Latin East

We have seen in this chapter the Hospitallers’ commitment to the Holy Land andtheir determination to rebuild their economy and their military disposition despitetheir successive adversities. So far it has been understood that the money needed to


190 Al-Aini, ‘The Collar of Pearls’, p. 246; Marino Sanudo, ‘Liber Secretorum Fidelium Crucis’,p. 224; Gestes des Chiprois , pp. 200–01; ‘Eracles’, p. 461. The Christian sources estimate thenumber of animals taken as booty at the huge number of 5,000.

191 There is no detailed information on this truce. Barag believes that its terms may have been

similar.to those of the 1268 treaty, but without Montfort and its dependent lands as these werealready been lost. Barag, ‘A New Source Concerning the Ultimate Borders’, pp. 214–15.

192 On the fall of Montfort, the castle of the Teutonic knights located to the north-east of Acre,and of the castle of Gibelacar in the summer of 1271, see ‘ATS’, p. 455B; Gestes des Chiprois ,pp. 199–200; ‘Eracles’, p. 460.



acquire castles, lands, and properties, and to re-strengthen their fortifications, camemainly from their estates in Europe. Very little, if any, attention has been given totheir income in the East; yet from their involvement in certain forms of agriculturalproduction, such as the sugar-cane industry, they seem to have been involved ineconomic activities that generated independent sources of income.

To restore their economy after Hattin, the Hospitallers bought property from, orgave loans to, impoverished nobility in return for pledged land. In the region of Acre, they bought two manors in May 1210 for 9,000 besants.193 In 1212 theypurchased from the king, John of Brienne, the casal of Manueth near Acre for 2,000marks of silver. This was a fortified Frankish settlement where sugar-cane, wheat,and barley were grown. The Order was to expand its property in Manueth in 1231by acquiring a fief contiguous to it for 1,600 besants.194 In November 1212 Aymarof Layron, lord of Caesarea, and his wife Juliana pledged their houses in Acre andTyre, as well as the casal of Turcarme (in the lordship of Caesarea), in return for aloan of 2,000 besants and an amount of corn. The lord of Caesarea also pledged, a year later, in October 1213, the casalia of Cafarlet, Samarita, and Bobulorum(Bubalcrum) as surety for a debt to the Hospitallers of 1,000 besants; the debt had tobe repaid from the revenues of the casalia.195 The civil war, which divided thekingdom of Jerusalem in the 1230s, allowed the Hospitallers to further expand theirpatrimony. In 1232, John, lord of Caesarea, who needed money to support theIbelin cause, sold them the Casal of Cafarlet for the significant sum of 16,000Saracen besants. Tibble explains the sharp increase in the casal’s value by the likeli-hood that Cafarlet was fortified, following the raid on the lordship of Caesarea bytroops from Damascus in 1227.196 To find the money needed to fight the imperial

forces in Cyprus, John of Ibelin sold Casal Arames to the Templars in 1232 for15,000 Saracen besants, and property in Acre to the Hospitallers.197

To compensate for the loss of agricultural land and many cities and ports along the Palestinian-Syrian coastline after Hattin, the Hospitallers seem to haveexpanded their estates in the northern territories, which were less affected, or notaffected at all, by Saladin’s incursions. From the beginning of the thirteenth centurythey showed a growing interest in the fertile lands of Cilician Armenia, whichproduced cereals, cotton, wine, wood and sugar-cane.198 With the donation of


193 Cart., no. 1346.194 Cart., nos. 1383, 1996. For Manueth see Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement , pp. 154–55,

198–204.195 Cart., nos. 1400, 1414.196 ‘Eracles’, pp. 398–99. Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships , p. 145 and p. 128 on the fact that John

was a keen supporter of the Ibelins. On the raid on the lordship of Caesarea, see Prawer, AHistory of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp. 172–73.

197 Cart., nos. 2015–16. Edbury, John of Ibelin, pp. 64–65. For additional acquisitions of land andproperty by the Hospitallers in this period, see Cart., nos. 1993, 1996, 2126, 2212.

198 On the growing importance of Cilician Armenia after Hattin see S. Der Nersessian, ‘TheKingdom of Cilician Armenia’, Études Byzantines et Arméniennes , Louvain, 1973, vol. I, p. 340.

On agricultural products from Cilician Armenia see W. Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant au Moyen Âge , trans. F. Reynaud, Leipzig, 1885–86 (repr. Leipzig, 1959), vol. I, pp. 368–69;R. Blanchard, ‘Asie Occidentale’, Géographie Universelle , ed. L. Gallois and P. Vidal de laBlanche, Paris, 1929, vol. VIII, pp. 77–78; J. Lefort, ‘The Rural Economy, Seventh–TwelfthCenturies’, The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, vol. I,



Selefkie and the castles of Goumardias (Camardias) and Norpert (CastellumNovum), located to the north of Selefkie, on the banks of the river Saleph, they tookpossession of significant tracts of land at the western frontier of Cilician Armenia.199 The Hospitallers fortified Selefkie almost immediately after it wasgranted to them and turned it into an important castellany.200 They must have been

aware of the economic advantages of this town. Under Byzantine control, Selefkie,and other ports located along the southern and western coast of Asia Minor, had animportant role in the commercial exchanges between Egypt and the ByzantineEmpire, a role which had become more significant with the establishment of theLatin states.201 Local commodities were traded in these ports and they served asentrepots for vessels plying the main routes from the West, or from the ByzantineEmpire, to the Holy Land and Egypt.202 During the twelfth century Selefkie was aprosperous town that attracted Jews and other immigrants.203 Potentially, at least,the income from Selefkie and its surrounding estates was significant. The Hospital-lers, who were given juridical rights over the town, may well have benefited from itscommercial activity.204 They could also have traded in products from thesurrounding estates. Josafa Barbaro, an Italian who travelled in this region in thefifteenth century, described the hilly area between Corycus and Selefkie as rich inwheat, cotton, and cattle. Modern historians point to Selefkie as one of the mostimportant districts in Cilician Armenia for the production of cotton.205 It is impos-


ed. A.E. Laiou, Washington, D.C., 2002, pp. 248–52. Among the items listed in Pegolotti’sPratica della mercatura that were traded in Armenia are pepper, ginger, sugar and cotton. But it

is impossible to determine from his list which were local Armenian products and which wereimported. See F.B. Pegolotti, La pratica della mercatura , ed. A. Evans, Cambridge (Mass.), 1936,pp. 59–63.

199 See above, pp. 17–18. On the location of Camardias and Castellum Novum see T.S.R. Boase,‘Gazetteer’, in The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia , pp. 158, 175.

200 On the fortification of Selefkie by the Hospitallers see above, p. 18.201 For a short description of Selefkie and its history see Boase, ‘Gazetteer’, pp. 180–81. On the

importance of Selefkie and its surrounding territory in Roman and Byzantine times see The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, Oxford, 1991, p. 1866; W.M. Ramsay, The Historical Geography of Asia Minor , London, 1890, p. 58; A. Vasiliev, History of the Byzantine Empire,324–1453, Oxford, 1952, p. 351; S. Runciman, ‘Byzantine Trade and Industry’, The Cambridge Economic History, vol. II (2nd ed.), ed. M. Postan et al., Cambridge, 1966, p. 139.

202 A. Avramea, ‘Land and Sea Communications, Fourth–Fifteenth Centuries’, The Economic History of Byzantium: From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, vol. I, ed. A.E. Laiou, Wash-ington, D.C., 2002, pp. 83–84; Der Nersessian, ‘The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia’, p. 345;Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant , vol. I, pp. 366–68; D. Jacoby, ‘What do we Learn aboutByzantine Asia Minor from the Documents of the Cairo Genizah?’ Byzantium, Latin Romania and the Mediterranean, Aldershot, 2001, essay no. I, pp. 83–91; Pryor, Geography, Technology and War , pp. 94–97.

203 Jacoby, ‘What do we Learn?’, pp. 92–95. Jacoby’s article is mainly based on a letter sent by a Jewish physician who had settled in Selefkie at the beginning of the twelfth century. The letterwas found in the Cairo Genizah and published by S.D. Goitein, ‘A Letter from Seleucia(Cilicia), dated 21 July 1137’, Speculum, 39 (1964), pp. 298–303. See also idem, A Mediterranean

Society: The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Genizah ,Berkeley and London, 1967 (repr. 1999), vol. I, pp. 58, 214.

204 Selefkie, Goumardias (Camardias), and Norpert (Castellum Novum), were given ‘cum omni jure per terram et per mare’. See Cart., no. 1344.

205 Travels to Tana and Persia by Josafa Barbaro and Ambrogio Contarini , ed. Lord Stanley of Alderley,



sible, owing to the lack of evidence, to assess the Order’s income from this region.Moreover, despite their investment in its refortification, and the town’s potentialeconomic advantages, the Hospitallers surprisingly relinquished Selefkie onlysixteen years after it was granted them.206 It is unclear from the sources whether theyabandoned or sold the castle,207 and the reasons for relinquishing Selefkie could

have been, as Molin has suggested, financial.208 Its agricultural production andcommercial activities were possibly disrupted by border wars between Armenia andByzantium and by the Seljuk threat. If this were the case, Selefkie had perhapsceased to be such a valuable asset for the Hospitallers.

Referring to Selefkie, Edwards states that a grant to a Military Order was oftenintended to be temporary, as a short-term political and military alliance.209 Thebrothers might have been willing to undertake the fortification and defence of anexposed frontier castle in return for a political and military alliance with Leon IIand Raymond Roupen, and after their deaths with Constantine. These alliancesgenerated more profitable acquisitions in less exposed areas in Cilician Armenia,and, as we shall see below, also in Antioch. To strengthen these political alliances,but also to expand their patrimony, the Hospitallers invested large sums in Cilician Armenia in the form of loans. In 1214 they lent Leon II 30,000 Saracen besantswhich the King needed for his daughter’s dowry. As a guarantee for the loan, hegranted the Order the lordship of Vaner, in the territory of Melon, as well as theland of Giguerius and the port-town of Calamella.210 These were valuable acquisi-tions. The lordship of Vaner and the land of Giguerius, in the vicinity of Misis(Mamistra) and Til Hamdoun, were rich in wheat and cotton.211 With these acquisi-tions the Hospitallers expanded their holdings in the region, where they had held


trans. W. Thomas, London, 1873, pp. 44–45; Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant , vol. II,p. 612; M. Mazzaoui, The Italian Cotton Industry in the Later Middle Ages, 1100–1600 , Cambridge,1981, p. 39. Cotton was one of the main agricultural products purchased by Italian merchantsin Cilicia. See C. Otten-Froux, ‘Les relations économiques entre Chypre et le Royaume

Arménien de Cilicia d’après les actes notariés (1270–1320)’, L’Arménie et Byzance. Histoire et culture , Paris, 1996, pp. 170–71. Beaufort, who, at the beginning of the nineteenth centuryconducted a survey of the area for the British navy, describes the strong currents of the riverSaleph (Calycadnus), which flows below the town of Selefkie. On its banks he saw a richpasture for large herds of cattle. See F. Beaufort, Karamania or a Brief Description of the South Coast of Asia Minor and of the Remains of Antiquity, London, 1817, pp. 223–29.

206 See above, pp. 17–18.207 Constable Sempad, ‘Chronique’, p. 648. Bar-Hebraeus, The Chronography of Gregory Abu’l-Faraj,

1225–1286 , ed. E.A. Wallis Budge, Amsterdam, 1976 (1st ed., Oxford, 1932), vol. I, pp.389–90. Bar-Hebraeus states that the castle was sold; unfortunately, he does not specify howmuch Constantine paid for it. This would have been crucial information for us about the costof castles of that size.

208 Molin, Unknown Crusader Castles , p. 182.209 Edwards, The Fortifications of Cilician Armenia , pp. 46–50.210 Cart., nos. 1426–1427.211 For the location of these lands see Boase, ‘Gazetteer’, p. 185; Edwards, The Fortifications of

Cilician Armenia , p. 28; Molin, Unknown Crusader Castles , p. 180. On agricultural products fromthe Cilician plain, in particular the area of Mamistra and the banks of the Pyramus, see Abu'lFida, Géographie d’Aboulféda , trans. S. Guyard, vol. II, Paris, 1883, pp. 27–29; Beaufort,Karamania , p. 25; Cahen, La Syrie du Nord , p. 473; Blanchard, ‘Asie Occidentale’, p. 78; Heyd,Histoire du commerce du Levant , vol. I, pp. 368–69.



property since 1149.212 Farther east, in the Gulf of Alexandretta, the Hospitallersreceived Calamella (Canamela), another important acquisition. The humid lands of the Gulf of Alexandretta were optimal for growing sugar-cane.213 Calamella wasalso a port for the export of pine timber from the Amanus, and it was granted to theHospitallers together with the right to trade in timber and other goods.214 It is not

clear from the sources whether the Hospitallers held Calamella throughout thethirteenth century. Ibn al-Furat refers to it as a Templar castle, which was raided byBaybars’ troops in the 1260s. Ibn al-Furat may have confused the Orders; yetCalamella, like with many other valuable assets in the Levant which had beendisputed with the Templars, might have changed hands or the Orders might havecame to some sort of agreement over it.215

The Hospitallers agricultural products from Cilician Armenia were shipped totheir headquarters in Acre as part of the responsiones , and the surpluses were prob-ably traded in Misis or the f lourishing port of Ayas.216 These products were not onlyan important factor in their economy, they also became indispensable for thesurvival of the brothers in the Holy Land. According to Ibn al-Furat, this depend-ence forced Hugh Revel in 1266 to sue for peace with the Atabek, the commanderin chief of the Mamluk army, in order to ensure the supplies from Cilician Armeniaand Tripoli. This request was denied, and that same year Calamella was sacked andthe rich lands on the coast of Alexandretta were raided.217 The Mamluk incursions,as explained by Hugh Revel in his letter of 1268, had indeed stopped the crucialsupply of provisions from Cilician Armenia to Acre.218

The shrinkage of the kingdom of Jerusalem after Hattin must have also increased


212 Cart., no. 183; Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , pp. 139–40.213 E.G. Rey, ‘Les périples des côtes de Syrie et de la Petite Arménie’, ‘ATS’, vol. II, pp. 332–33.

Archaeological excavations conducted in Turkish ‘Kinet’, which the archaeologists suggest ismedieval Calamella, revealed evidence of town industries of ironwork, woven goods andpottery. See S. Redford, S. Ikram et al., ‘Excavations at Medieval Kinet, Turkey: A PreliminaryReport’, Ancient Near Eastern Studies , 38 (2001), pp. 58–139.

214 Cart., no. 1427. Deschamps, Châteaux des croisés , vol. III (La défense du comté de Tripoli ), p. 70. Atthe beginning of the nineteenth century Beaufort (Karamania , p. 277) described this region ascovered with extensive forest, which produced timber of large dimensions. Before the FirstCrusade Cilicia was the main supplier of timber to Egypt; afterwards the Italians had a majorrole in this trade, in spite of repeated prohibitions on trading in war materials with theMuslims. I would like to thank Professor Jacoby, who provided me with information regarding the export of wood from Calamella to Egypt. See also his article, ‘The Supply of War Mate-rials to Egypt in the Crusader Period’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 25 (2001),pp. 119–21.

215 Ibn al-Furat, p. 99; Molin, Unknown Crusader Castles , p. 188; Riley-Smith’s commentary in Ibnal-Furat, p. 217, n. 5. Although Calamella must have changed hands I have not foundevidence of a dispute over it between the Orders.

216 Although Ayas suffered Mamluk invasions, it was an important port and an active commercialcentre when visited by Marco Polo in 1271. After the fall of Acre it became one of the mainports on the Eastern Mediterranean coast. See Der Nersessian, ‘The Kingdom of Cilician

Armenia’, p. 348; J. Richard, ‘The Eastern Mediterranean and its Relations with its Hinter-

land (11th–15th Centuries)’, Les relations entre l’Orient et l’Occident au Moyen Age , London, 1977,essay no. I, p. 18; Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant , vol. II, pp. 73–92. For the export of warmaterials from Ayas to Egypt see Jacoby, ‘The Supply of War Materials to Egypt’, pp. 121–24.

217 Ibn al-Furat, pp. 87, 99.218 See above, p. 42.



the Order’s dependence on supplies sent from its estates around Crac des Chevaliersand Margat, which had not fallen into Saladin’s hands. The establishment of theHospitallers in these areas was accomplished mostly in the twelfth century.219 In thethirteenth century there was very little room for expansion, and the lack of availableland led to a growing number of disputes with the Templars and other ecclesiastical

authorities over properties and rights.220 The Hospitallers made few acquisitions inthese regions at the beginning of the century. In 1204, with the payment of 2,100Saracen besants to the constable of Tripoli, they guaranteed their ownership of thefortress of Tuban. Two years later Aimery of Pax, castellan of Margat, bought landsnear his castle. The aim of these acquisitions was not purely military. The fortressof Tuban, which formed part of a complex of strongholds defending the easternmarches of Crac des Chevaliers, was located in the fertile valley of La Boquée.From it, as from other lands the Hospitallers owned in the region, they couldprovide supplies to the castle of Crac.221 As it has been shown elsewhere, this reli-ance on victuals from nearby lands became crucial once the Mamluk incursionsisolated Crac from the main Christian towns along the coast.222

Castles of the size of Crac and Margat, which were inhabited by thousands,demanded vast quantities of foodstuffs, grown on adjacent lands or bought in localmarkets. But apart from growing food for daily consumption, the Hospitallers werealso involved in the industrial production of specific goods. The lands of CasalRobert in the Galilee were planted mostly with olive trees. In their lands in Mt.Pèlerin, in the county of Tripoli, they seem also to have grown olive trees, and vineyards.223 Sugar-cane was cultivated on many of the Order’s estates, which maysuggest its involvement in the industrial production of sugar to sell on local markets,

or even to export to Europe. This would have been a very profitable enterprise. Assugar-cane needs hot weather and a large quantity of water, and is tolerant of awide range of soil types, the Latin East became the major producer of sugar forEurope.224 The Hospitallers were producing their own sugar by the second half of


219 On the Order’s expansion in the areas of the castles of Crac and Margat in the twelfth centurysee Deschamps, Châteaux des croisés , vol. I (Le Crac des Chevaliers ), pp. 116–33; vol. III (La Défense du comté de Tripoli ), pp. 264–72.

220 Cart., nos. 2296 (exchange of casalia with the Templars in the areas of Crac and the Templars’Chateau Blanc), 2388 (agreement with the archbishop of Mamistra over tithes).

221 Cart., nos. 1198, 1232; Deschamps, Châteaux des croisés , vol. I (Le Crac des Chevaliers ), pp. 107–9.222 See above, p. 43.223 Cart., nos. 2693, 2148; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 434–35.224 See James of Vitry, ‘Historia orientalis seu Hierosolymitana’, Gesta Dei per Francos , ed.

J. Bongars, Hanover, 1611, vol. I, p. 1075. For modern works on the sugar industry in the Eastsee Heyd, Histoire du commerce du Levant , vol. II, pp. 680–93; N. Deerr, The History of Sugar ,London, 1949, vol. I, pp. 74–97; Benvenisti, The Crusaders in the Holy Land , pp. 253–57;E. Ashtor, ‘Levantine Sugar Industry in the Later Middle Ages, an Example of TechnologicalDecline’, Israel Oriental Studies , 7 (1971), pp. 227–29; Riley-Smith, Feudal Nobility, pp. 49–50;B. Porëe, ‘Les moulins et fabriques à sucre de Palestine et de Chypre: Histoire, géographie et

technologie d’une production croisée et médiévale’, Cyprus and the Crusades , ed. N. Coureas and J. Riley-Smith, Nicosia, 1995, pp. 377–465; A. Peled, ‘Sugar: a Local Industry in the Kingdomof Jerusalem’, Knights of the Holy Land: The Kingdom of Jerusalem, ed. S. Rozenberg, Jerusalem,1999, pp. 217–21. For a study on the expansion of sugar production from the Near East toSpain and Sicily and from there to the Atlantic Islands, see D. Abulafia, ‘La produzione dello



the twelfth century. In 1182 their houses in Mt. Pèlerin and Tiberias were requiredto send sugar to Jerusalem as their responsiones ; the sugar was used for making medi-cines and syrup for the sick.225

The interest of the Order in this industry may have increased at the beginning of the thirteenth century, when Acre became a centre of international trade and a

major exporter of sugar to Europe. Casal Bobulorum, which the Order received assurety for a debt in 1213, had sugar plantations, as attested to by an agreementmade in 1166 between the lord of Caesarea and the canons of the Holy Sepulchre.It specified that the stream running into the casal would also be used for the produc-tion of sugar (canamellae ).226 The Hospitallers’ disputes with ecclesiastical authoritiesand with the Templars intimate that they were trying to industrialize their produc-tion of sugar. A sugar factory had existed since 1168 in Casal Manueth, which theHospitallers bought in 1212. In 1238, agreements with the bishop of Acre overtithes taken from the casal had to be revised because the Order had created newplantations of sugar-cane.227 One of the prolonged disputes between the Hospital-lers and the Templars was over the waters of the Flum d’Acre (Nahaman River),which were vital for agricultural purposes and for the operation of the mills at Docand Recordane. Agreements were signed between the Orders in 1201, 1235, and1262, preventing diversion of the riverbed by the cutting of canals to carry water tooperate the Templars’ mills and irrigate the Hospitallers’ sugar-cane plantations. Itis interesting that the two early agreements and the papal letters do not mention thesugar plantations, which may suggest a decision by the Hospitallers after 1235 toconcentrate on sugar production in this area.228

The Order probably also had sugar-cane plantations in the fertile plains of Tyre.

A charter of confirmation from 1260, issued to the Order by Lord John of Tyre,which specifies its property in the lordship, mentions that some of the casalia werelocated next to John’s Hortus de la Baquerie, where sugar-cane and vines wereplanted. Considering that they were granted water rights in the area and ownedmills, one may assume that the Hospitallers had their own plantations.229 As we saw


zucchero nei domini della Corona d’Aragona’, Medioevo Mezzogiorno Mediterraneo. Studi in onore di Mario del Treppo, ed. G. Rossetti and G. Vitolo (Europa Mediterranea, quaderni 13), vol. II,Naples, 2000, pp. 105–19.

225 Cart., no. 627. A donation given in 1116 by Raymond of St. Gilles to the monastery of St. Mary of the Latins mentioned sugar plantations on Mt. Pèlerin. See J. Richard, ‘Lechartrier de Sainte Marie-Latine et l’établissement de Raymond de Saint-Gilles àMont-Pèlerin’, Mélanges Louis Halphen, Paris, 1951, p. 612.

226 Cart., no. 1414; RRH , no. 425.227 Cart., nos. 1911, 2200. For sugar industry in Manueth see Pringle, Secular Buildings in the Crusader

Kingdom of Jerusalem, pp. 13, 69, and R. Frankel, ‘Topographical Notes on the Territory of Acrein the Crusader Period’, Israel Exploration Journal , 38 (1988), p. 260. For the archaeological find-ings in Manueth see Edna Stern, ‘The Excavations at Lower Horvat Manot: A MedievalSugar Production’, Atiqot 42 (2001), pp. 277–308 (in Hebrew). For additional evidence of sugar-cane plantations in the vicinity of Acre see RRH , no. 344. In 1179, King Baldwin IV

donated to the Order an annual rent of sugar to be taken from plantations near Acre. SeeRRH , no. 582.

228 Cart., nos. 1144, 2107, 2117, 2120, 3032, 3045; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 446–47and Feudal Nobility, p. 52; Ellenblum, Frankish Rural Settlement , pp. 207–08.

229 RRH , no. 1286. To the west of Tyre, along the seashore, was one of the most important plan-



above, the Hospitallers at Mt. Pèlerin, in the county of Tripoli, were to providesugar to the convent in Jerusalem. Throughout the thirteenth century they madegreat efforts to expand their plantations in the area, with the acquisition of severalcasalia in the fertile plain of Tripoli.230

Recent archaeological excavations in the Hospitallers’ headquarters in Acre have

revealed extensive warehouses, which contained remains of sugar, potterycontainers, and many tools for its refining process. These findings predate 1291 andare a further indication of the active involvement of the Order in this industry, andpossibly also in the export of sugar.231 They carried this concern to Cyprus, where itbecame an important export. Although evidence for its production on the estate of the Order in Kolossi is only found in the fourteenth century, Luttrell believes it mayhave been produced there earlier.232

The Order’s local products, such as sugar, were intended to supply its men and toprovide for the sick and the poor, but their surpluses must have been traded. Intheory, at least, the Hospitallers had a privileged position in their transactionsbecause papal bulls exempted them from paying secular taxes on their products.Riley-Smith has pointed out, however, that these privileges were not generallyapplied and they were at times granted at the initiative of secular lords.233 Rights forfree passage of the Order’s personnel and goods through the gate of Tripoli werebestowed as early as 1126 by Count Pons, who also gave the Hospitallers the right totrade freely in the town’s market.234 These concessions were expanded in 1144 byRaymond of Tripoli, who granted the Hospitallers and their men an exemptionfrom taxes on whatever they bought and sold in all his lands.235 The Order had alsoenjoyed these privileges in the principality of Antioch. From Bohemond III’s confir-

mation of the acquisition of Margat, which includes a description of the privilegesgiven to the Order by the prince, it seems that the Order enjoyed this right not onlyin all the prince’s lands but also in his ports. He states that he has exempted theHospitallers from paying customary or curial taxes for their goods, when entering orleaving, selling or buying, throughout his lands and all his dominions, on land andsea.236 In 1212 Guy, lord of Gibelet (Jubail/Byblos), joined the Order as a confrater ,


tations of sugar-cane in the region, which belonged to the Venetians. See Urkunden zur älterenHandels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig , vol. II, no. 299 (p. 368).

230 See below, pp. 57–58, 61.231 For this information I am grateful to Edna and Eliezer Stern from the Israel Antiquities

Authority. For these findings of sugar and sugar-related items see also Eliezer Stern, ‘Old Akko, the Fortress’, Hadashot Arkheologiyot , 110 (1999), p. 17, and ‘The Hospitallers’ Compoundin Acre’, p. 8 (both articles are in Hebrew).

232 A. Luttrell, ‘The Sugar Industry and its Importance for the Economy of Cyprus during theFrankish Period’, The Development of the Cypriot Economy, from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day,ed. V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, Nicosia, 1996, pp. 166–67. For the production of sugar in Kolossi and in general in the Hospitallers’ houses in Cyprus see also P.W. Edbury,‘The Medieval Kingdom of Cyprus’, Medieval History, 2 (1992), p. 89, and The Kingdom of Cyprus , pp. 77–78.

233 For the papal privileges see Cart., nos. 964, 2017; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John,pp. 451–55.

234 Cart., no. 79.235 Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 453.236 ‘concedo etiam eis libertatem de propriis rebus suis per totam terram meam, et per totum



and gave the Hospitallers the rights to sell and buy merchandise throughout hislands, free of taxes. He also granted them exemption from customary taxes levied inthe market and in any other place in the town of Gibelet, as well as the right of freepassage from its port to the Order’s vessels.237 Similar grants were given to theOrder in the kingdom of Cyprus, which became one of the main suppliers of foods

to the Latin settlers in the Holy Land. The confirmation by King Hugh I, issued in1210, of the Hospitallers’ properties and rights in Cyprus specifies their right to buyand sell their own products without paying any tolls. Their vessels, carrying theOrder’s own products, were given permission to enter and leave Hugh’s ports freely.It seems from this charter that the exemption from taxes was valid as long as theOrder was trading in, and carrying, its own goods; any other form of transactionwas taxable.238 The Hospitallers must have sent shipments of food commodities,mainly sugar, grain, and wine, from their lands around Paphos and Kolossi to theirheadquarters in Acre. The deteriorating situation of the kingdom of Jerusalem,from the second half of the thirteenth century, intensified their dependence onthese shipments.239 This is attested by a letter sent in March 1282 by the Hospitaller Joseph of Chauncy to Edward I of England, which informs the king about thepitiful situation of the Holy Land. The shortage of food, caused by a drought andthe Mamluk incursions, was aggravated by the fact that Cyprus and Cilician Armenia were suffering from the same conditions.240

By the beginning of the thirteenth century, therefore, the Hospitallers weretrading their products on the local markets of Antioch, Tripoli, and Cyprus, as wellas exporting them in their own vessels. They were in an advantageous position,


posse meum terra et mari, intrando et exeundo, vendendo et emendo, sine aliquaconsuetudine et omni curie exactione’, Cart., no. 783. For earlier grants of free passage in theprincipality of Antioch see Cart., nos. 183, 311; RRH , no. 428. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 453.

237 ‘libertatem emendi et vendendi quicquid voluerint in tota terra Biblii et omni dominationemea, ita quod in civitate Biblii intus vel extra, et in omnibus suis pertinentiis per mare et perterram, in portu, in funda vel in al iquo loco . . . Verum cum fratres Hospitalis pro suis negotiis

vassellum aliquod conduxerint exeundo vel redeundo, nichil juris vel consuetudinis michi velmeis heredibus, aut successoribus, aut alicui hominum reddant vel tribuant aliquo modo’,Cart., no. 1372. Riley-Smith explains this donation as the strong support given by the Hospital-lers to the lord of Gibelet in his dispute with the prince of Antioch. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 162.

238 ‘Dono etiam tibi et predicte domui libertatem per universum regnum meum in Cypro emendiet vendendi proprias res domus Hospitalis per terram et per mare, sine alicujus drictureexhibitione. Dono etiam tibi et predicte domui libertatem intrandi et exeundi cum omnibus

vassellis propiis domus Hospitalis, que portabunt proprias res domus Hospitalis, sine alicujusdricture exhibitione . . .’, Cart., no. 1354.

239 For Cyprus’s agricultural resources see J. Richard, ‘Une economie coloniale? Chypre et sesressources agricoles au Moyen Âge’, Croisés, missionnaires et voyageurs. Les perspectives orientales dumonde latin médiéval , London, 1983, essay no. VIII, pp. 348–49. For the Order’s estates inCyprus and their agricultural production see also N. Coureas, ‘The Role of the Templars andthe Hospitallers in the Movement of Commodities Involving Cyprus, 1291–1312’, The Experi-

ence of Crusading, Volume Two: Defending the Crusader Kingdom, ed. P.W. Edbury and J. Phillips,Cambridge, 2003, pp. 267–68; P.W. Edbury, ‘The Franco-Cypriot Landowning Class and itsExploitation of the Agrarian Resources of the Island of Cyprus’, Kingdoms of the Crusades: From Jerusalem to Cyprus , Aldershot, 1999, essay no. XIX, pp. 5–6.

240 Cart., no. 3782.



which benefited them and made these activities even more rewarding. Considering that a percentage of the Order’s products worldwide was to be sent to its headquar-ters, one would expect to find the Hospitallers possessing similar privileges in thekingdom of Jerusalem. But royal confirmations of properties and rights given to theOrder in the course of the twelfth century do not mention exemption from tolls on

merchandise and trade, or free anchorage in the kingdom’s ports.241 The Hospital-lers apparently enjoyed at least some of these rights. A charter of privilege issued byKing Henry in October 1194, giving the Teutonic knights the right to buy clothing and provisions for their own use free of taxes, specifies that this privilege is similarto the one enjoyed by the Hospitallers and the Templars.242 In 1195, King Henry IIexempted from tolls the Order’s goods passing through one of the gates of Acre.243

The Hospitallers were seemingly not granted the right to own a market in Acre, andtheir transactions may have been conducted in the King’s markets, where some of their merchandise, such as sugar, was probably traded at a high profit.244 Althoughthey were exempted from taxes when purchasing provisions, it is not clear whetherthey paid taxes for their sales. It is also impossible to conclude whether they paidtaxes for merchandise exported in their own vessels.245 More evidence has to cometo light before we try to reach clear-cut conclusions on these matters; papal privi-leges of freedom from tolls and taxes might have applied in the kingdom of Jeru-salem. Moreover, taking into consideration the vital role of the port of Acre insupplying the Hospitallers in the Holy Land, and considering their aggressiveeconomic policy, they may well have enjoyed a more privileged position than theavailable sources reveal. The Hospitallers must have striven to attain a privilegedposition, which would have allowed them to profit from the flourishing economy of

Acre in the first half of the thirteenth century.The expansion of the Order in the East came to a halt after the defeat at La

Forbie and the heavy expenses incurred during Louis IX’s crusade to Egypt. Still,the Hospitallers were determined not only to restore their military forces, but also torebuild and expand their economy. The period from 1250 to 1263 is marked by asignificant expansion of Hospitaller property in the Holy Land. This was mainlypossible because financial difficulties obliged secular and ecclesiastical lords toalienate large tracts of land and property to the Military Orders.246 This was thereason for two major grants to the Order at this time: the abbey of Mt. Thabor and

the nunnery of St. Lazarus of Bethany.247

The acquisition of Mt. Thabor was part of a policy of expansion in the Galilee.In August 1254 the Hospitallers purchased Casal Robert, to the north of Mt.


241 Cart., nos. 77, 84, 225.242 Tabulae Ordinis Theutonici , ed. E. Strehlke, Berlin, 1864, no. 60.243 Cart., no. 972.244 The ‘assises de la cour de bourgeois’ listed sugar as one of the items for which duties were paid

in the city markets. ‘Livre des Assises de la Cour des Bourgeois’, RHC, Lois , vol. II, no. 262,pp. 173–78.

245 For a detailed discussion of the commercial exemption in Acre see Riley-Smith, Feudal Nobility,pp. 62–98.

246 On the financial situation of the Latin Church from the middle of the thirteenth century seeHamilton, pp. 282–309.

247 On the grants of Mt. Thabor and Bethany see above, pp. 28–29.



Thabor, from Julian, lord of Sidon, for 24,000 Saracen besants. The casal, whichseems to have been planted with olive trees, was probably sold because of the acutefinancial crisis suffered by the lord of Sidon following the raids on his lordship in1249 and 1253. The Hospitallers’ rights over Casal Robert were disputed by thearchbishop of Nazareth. To obtain full right over it, they agreed, in January 1263, to

pay him 4,000 Saracen besants of Acre weight, and promised to give him an annualrent of 400. This rent was to be paid as long as the casal was in Christian hands,which must have been for at least another few years, as the agreement was annulledonly in 1271.248 They further expanded their property in Galilee with the renting of the casalia of Rome, Romene, Cana Galilee, and Cafreezeir from the archbishop of Nazareth in July 1255. The casalia were leased for the ten-year duration of a trucewith the Muslims. The Order agreed to pay 1,300 Saracen besants in the first year,1,800 besants in the second, and 2,300 besants thereafter. In October 1259, owing to the deterioration of the military situation this agreement was revised in theOrder’s favour. The archbishop, who was unable to maintain and defend the casaliabecause of Muslim raids and daily disagreements with the Muslim peasants, nowleased the casalia for 2,000 besants a year. This rent was to be paid even in time of war, as long as 170 carrucates of land were cultivated. If the Order was not able tocultivate more than 100 carrucates, or if the ground could not be fully sown withcorn, barley, and beans, the produce would be divided. These casalia must havebeen included in an agreement made later that month with the archbishop, in whichhe leased to the Hospitallers nineteen casalia in the archdiocese for 14,000 Saracenbesants a year. Both sides concluded that if the revenues from these casalia in thefirst year did not reach the expected sum the Order would pay the archbishop half

the rent. This is an important clause, considering that very little informationsurvives regarding the Order’s income in the Holy Land in the thirteenth century.From the rent they were willing to pay we can estimate their expected income.249 Italso shows the measures adopted by the Order and other landholders in the East tocope with the continuous state of war, changes of borders, and the possible loss of territory. An additional example appears in an agreement made between the Hospi-tallers and the abbey of St. Mary of the Latins in August 1248. The Order leasedfrom the abbey the casalia of Montdidier and Turriclee (Turris Rubea), betweenCaesarea and Jaffa, as well as the abbey’s rights over the casal of Cacho, for a rent of

800 Saracen besants. After considering the possibility that the casalia would be lostto the Muslims, the Hospitallers agreed, in that case, to pay the rent as long as thecities of Acre and Tyre remained in Christian hands.250

The archbishop of Nazareth was not the only ecclesiastical lord facing financialdifficulties. In January 1257, the bishop of Tripoli borrowed 1,900 livres tournois from the Hospitallers in order to travel to Europe. Also, in Tripoli they expandedtheir sugar-cane plantations with the purchase in 1259 of the casal of Bethorafig


248 Cart., nos. 3050–51. According to Tibble, Casal Robert was a semi-fortified settlement: see

Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships , p. 72. For the annulment of the agreement see Cart., no. 3414.249 Cart., nos. 2748, 2934, 2936. There is also very little knowledge of the capital value of lord -

ships and their annual rent. See Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, pp. 31–32.250 Cart., no. 2482. This agreement was renewed following the loss of these casalia to the

Mamluks in 1265. See above, p. 39.



and fifteen pariliatae (or pareillées ) – a specif ic term which defined sugar-cane planta-tions, for which they paid Hugh of Gibelet 5,000 besants of Tripoli.251 This sale,however, was apparently concluded only in 1264. The agreement clearly indicatesthat Hugh had been forced to alienate his property because he was heavily in debt.It is interesting that in the charter of 1264 the Order agreed to pay for the same

transaction the much larger sum of 12,000 Saracen besants. Although the reason forthis increase is not specified, it may have been connected to the importance of thesugar industry in the area, where the Hospitallers bought another fifteen pareillées from Raymond of Gibelet. The increase in the price could be explained by thepossibility that the plantations in Bethorafig and its adjacent lands, located in anarea still not affected by Mamluk incursions, had been developed and cultivatedfrom 1259, the year the Hospitallers showed interest in the lands, to 1264, the yearwhen the transaction was concluded.252 From the lord of Sidon they bought, in June1257 or 1258, the casalia of La Maroenie, Haanouf, and Daraya in the vicinity of the city of Sidon for 5,000 Saracen besants. In the same year they also secured theirright to make future acquisitions in his lordship for 1,000 Saracen besants.253

With the acquisition of Mt. Thabor, the Hospitallers received shops and housesin the city of Acre, and throughout this period they made a great effort to expandand improve their property in the city and its surroundings. In 1252 they wereallowed to build new gates at each end of their street.254 In May 1255 John, the lordof Caesarea, granted the Order all he had in Acre in a street called Rabat: land,houses, a mill and an oven, in return for prayers and an annual rent of 600 besants a year, to be paid to his sister-in-law, Isabel of Adelon.255 In 1257 the Order agreed topay the bishop of Acre an annual rent of forty Saracen besants for a house in the

city next to its own property.256 The Hospitallers also made great efforts to expandtheir holdings of agricultural land in the surroundings of the city, and in August1255 they bought from the lord of Arsur two tracts of land in the plain of Acre for2,000 besants of Acre.257 To the south of Acre, in the fertile land watered by theriver Nahaman, they received in 1253 casal Damor, as security on a loan of 12,000Saracen besants made to the lord of Caesarea. They also bought additional lands inthe same area, located north of their mill at Recordane.258 To the east of Recordane


251

Cart., no. 2915.252 Cart., no. 3106 is a French summary of the 1264 agreement. This agreement, together withthe purchase of sugar plantations from Raymond of Gibelet (dated to c.1220–1253), isincluded in a 1274 agreement between the Hospitallers and the lord of Gibelet over theselands. See J. Richard, ‘Le comté de Tripoli dans les chartes du fonds des Porcellet’, Bibliothèque de l’École des Chartes , 130 (1972), pp. 377–82 and pp. 360–66. These last pages include Richard’scommentaries on the historical background of these agreements, their importance for thefurther development of the sugar industry, and the meaning of the term pareillées .

253 Cart., nos. 2688, 2852, 2856; Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships , pp. 169–75.254 Cart., no. 2612.255 Cart., no. 2732.256 Cart., no. 2865.257 Cart., no. 2753.258 On the acquisition of lands in the area see RRH , nos. 1212, 1227. On casal Damor see Cart.,

no. 2661 and Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships , p. 131. See also Frankel, ‘Topographical Notes onthe Territory of Acre’, p. 261, who gives a detailed description of the Order’s expansion in thearea to the south of Acre.



the Hospitallers obtained full rights over Casal Cabor following their agreementwith the Templars dating from 1262. This emphasizes the involvement of theHospitallers in the production of sugar in the region. As early as the tenth centuryCabor had been famous for its sugar-cane plantations, and its sugar mill operatedduring the central Middle Ages.259

By 1250 Caesarea was one of the few lordships that still remained in secularhands.260 However, owing to the financial difficulties faced by its lord, the Hospital-lers were able to extend their property considerably. Besides Damor, which, as wehave just seen, was pledged to the Hospitallers in 1253, they bought casal Chatillon(La Meserae) from the lord of Caesarea in April 1255 for 500 besants. They prob-ably negotiated such a small sum because it was a fortified place that John could nolonger maintain. Tibble estimates that 74.3% of the lordship of Caesarea was in thehands of the Templars and the Hospitallers by 1264.261

The Mongol incursions adversely affected the landlords’ economic situation inthe Holy Land and resulted in further alienation of property to the Military Ordersin the early 1260s. The lords of Sidon and Arsur, who until then were able to retaincontrol of extensive portions of their lands, were forced to sell their entire lordships.Tibble suggests that it was the economic strength of these lordships, and the possi-bility to buy them en bloc , that made them so attractive to the Military Orders.262

Julian of Sidon, who was unable to repair the damage done to the city by theMongol raid, sold the entire lordship of Sidon and Beaufort to the Templars in1260. The money needed for this transaction had to be collected from all theirpreceptories. Brother Roger, preceptor of San Gimignano in Tuscany, acknowl-edged in June 1261 that he had taken a loan of ten livres to raise the money that his

house, like all the other preceptories, had been ordered to send to Acre for thepurchase of Sidon.263 A year later Balian of Ibelin leased the lordship of Arsur tothe Hospitallers for an annual rent of 4,000 besants. Although the lordship was nowon the kingdom’s border, the Order may have expected to gain some profit from it.Riley-Smith has estimated that the total revenues from Arsur must have been doublethe rent, about 8,000 besants. From this the Hospitallers had to hand out more than2,000 to their vassals and supply them with a large quantity of provisions.264 Theywere probably able to cover this rent from their existing assets in the East. But they


259 Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, p. 441, n. 7; Porëe, ‘Les moulins etfabriques à sucre’, pp. 411–12. See Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 449. On the agree-ment with the Templars see above, p. 31.

260 On the attempts made by the lords of Caesarea and Jaffa to retain their lordships seeRiley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, pp. 28–32.

261 Cart., no. 2725; Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships , pp. 132, 151.262 Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships , pp. 167–85.263 Tibble suggests that Sidon may have been leased to the Templars, not sold. From the fact that

each one of the Order’s houses was ordered to send at least 10 livres , which must haveamounted to a significant sum of money, I tend to agree with Barber that it was probably apurchase. See Tibble, Monarchy and Lordships , pp. 173–74; Barber, The New Knighthood ,pp. 243–44, 364, no. 65. On the loan see RRH , no. 1303a; Röhricht, ‘Études sur les dernierstemps’, pp. 333–34.

264 Cart., nos. 2972, 2985; Riley-Smith, Feudal Nobility, p. 32, and The Knights of St. John,pp. 133–34, 455–56.



must have needed additional money for the re-fortification of the outer wall of Arsur, on which they started early in 1263.265

The intensive investment of the Hospitallers in the 1250s and at the beginning of the 1260s is surprising, considering that a major theme of their letters and papalbulls was that they were suffering financial difficulties, for which loans were taken

and property was sold in Europe. These investments perhaps suggest that they werenot as badly off as they would have liked the West to believe. Indeed, one of themain difficulties in studying their correspondence is to identify, among their manycomplaints, their real needs. We have seen that throughout the thirteenth centurythey, and the Latin settlers in general, had embarked on a huge propagandacampaign to promote their cause, emphasizing the distress they laboured under; yetthey were undoubtedly beset by huge costs. They were able to meet them by putting more pressure on their priories overseas, which, faced by these increasing demandsand economic changes in Europe, were forced to alienate property, as we will see inthe next chapter. At the same time, they had also adopted what look like desperatemeasures in the East. For the first time they appropriated the money collected fromthe redemption of crusading vows in the kingdom of Jerusalem, money which thepatriarch of Jerusalem, as papal legate, had the right to collect. To get this moneythey even risked excommunication, which was imposed by ecclesiastical authoritiesin the East, probably in 1255 and 1258.266 It can hardly be a coincidence that theseevents occurred at about the same time that the civil war and the decline of Acre asa centre of international trade were having severe repercussions on the economy of the Latin East. The Hospitallers’ income from trading in some of their products,such as sugar, must have been affected.

From 1263 on, the intensity and devastation of the Mamluk incursions destroyedthe Order’s economy in the East. It had lost not only most of its castles and urbanproperties but also the major part of its agricultural lands. Frequent raids ruined thecrops and prevented the Franks from working their fields. Nevertheless, the Hospi-tallers made remarkable attempts to keep their lands under cultivation.267 Many of the Order’s estates in the Galilee were raided during Baybars’ incursion of February1263. These casalia, which, after the destruction of Mt. Thabor, could still havebeen protected by the Templar castle of Safad, were probably still under cultivation.In February 1265 the Hospitallers settled a dispute with Eschiva, princess of

Galilee, over the ownership of the casalia of Lubie, Seiera, Quepsene, Arbel,Demie, Beitegon, Harousse, and Hordie, which lay to the east of Casal Robert,between the casal and the Sea of Galilee. It was agreed that in return for 200carrucates of land the Hospitallers would hand these casalia over to the princess.268

Although details regarding the Hospitallers’ income from these casalia mighthave provided us with important information as to their economic situation in the1260s and 1270s, it is impossible to estimate it, as the casalia were not leased orpurchased, but were given together with the monastery of Mt. Thabor. We have no


265 For Arsur’s refortification see above, pp. 35, 59–60.266 For these events see Chapter 3 below, pp. 120–21.267 See also above, pp. 35–44.268 Cart., no. 3116. Unfortunately, the charter did not specify the location of the land given to the

Hospitallers.



evidence on whether the estate was self-supporting or generated an income. Beforethe Mamluk offensives started, investments in the Galilee might have been profit-able. We saw that in the 1250s the Hospitallers leased nineteen casalia there for anannual rent of 14,000 Saracen besants. If the land was used either to yield producefor sale or was sub-let, they would probably have expected a return of double or

more.269 This income was bound to have been heavily affected by the Mamluk raidsinto the region. The Order’s determination to keep the land under cultivation musthave been reinforced by the necessity to provide for the brothers and the remaining Latin settlement in Palestine.

As part of these efforts, the Hospitallers seemed to have paid close attention topreserving the sugar industry, which was very important for their economy, andwhich must have been heavily affected by Baybars’ incursions. The plain of Tripoli,which Ibn al-Furat writes ‘produced sugar cane in quantity’, was raided in 1266 andagain in 1268. In the first attack the Mamluks devastated the sugar industry to thenorth of the city of Tripoli. They took the fortress of Albe, where they found a largequantity of copper and sugar. The Templar castle of Arcas (Villejargon), where theOrder enjoyed considerable revenues from sugar-cane plantations and cultivatedfields, was destroyed. So was Hospitaller Coliath, a small fortress which the Ordermust have rebuilt in 1212–1266.270 Nevertheless, despite the frequency of theMamluk incursions, the Franks continued developing and exploiting the area untilthe fall of Tripoli in 1289. To the north of the city, in the bay of Arcas next toColiath, the Hospitallers reached an agreement in 1274 with the lord of Gibeletregarding their right to use the water of the river Barid to irrigate their fields. In thefertile plain to the south of the city of Tripoli, the lord of Gibelet re-confirmed in

1274 the sales of casal Bethorafig and thirty pareillées of sugar-cane, which the Orderhad bought from his ancestors. These lands were still under cultivation and were thecause of disputes with the local church. According to Jean Richard, they must havebeen part of the fifty pieces of land in the fertile plain of Tripoli for which theOrder had obtained exemption from tithes in 1277.271

Their resolve to maintain profitable crops, but also their probably increasing need for agricultural products at a time of continuous contraction of Christianterritory and the devastation of Christian f ields, is illustrated by an exchange of property made with the lord of Tyre in July 1269. The Hospitallers gave Philip of

Monfort a gate in the city of Tyre in return for Casal Maron. This seems to havebeen a venture transaction, considering that after the fall of the castles of Beaufort,Chastel Neuf, and Toron this casal, which lay to the east of the city, was frontier-land, and completely exposed to possible Mamluk attacks. Nevertheless, there isevidence that other Hospitaller casalia located in this area were still undercultivation. In January 1271 John of Montfort, Philip’s son, confirmed the Order’s


269 See above, p. 57.270 Ibn al-Furat, pp. 85–86. On Coliath and the fact that by this time Arcas was a Templar castle

see Riley-Smith’s commentaries in Ibn al-Furat, p. 211, nn. 5–6. On Coliath see alsoRiley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 136, n. 1. Deschamps, Châteaux des croisés (vol. III, p. 312)describes Coliath as a small fortress, with a mediocre defence capability.

271 On the Order’s sugar-cane plantation in Tripoli see above, pp. 57–58, 61. Richard, ‘Le comtéde Tripoli dans les chartes du fonds des Porcellet’, p. 361, n. 1.



property in the area of Tyre, which included the casalia of Tor del’Opital, Migedel,Theyre, Tortiafa, and Maron, as well as gardens, mills, vineyards, and probablysugar-cane plantations next to Hortus de la Baquerie. John also gave the Orderwater rights so it could irrigate these fields.272 The cultivation of these lands waspossible because they must have been protected under the terms of the agreement

signed in May 1267 between Baybars and the lord of Tyre, according to which theMamluks recognized the Christian possession of Tyre and of ninety-nine casalia.Nevertheless, this truce, like many of the treaties the Christians signed withBaybars, did not hold, and the surroundings of Tyre were raided once again in May1269. In spite of their great efforts to keep and expand their agricultural lands inthis lordship, the Hospitallers lost part of their holdings in the following years. CasalMaron, for example, became a Frankish-Mamluk condominium under the terms of the 1283 truce signed with sultan Qalawun, Baybars’ successor.273

Riley-Smith mentions Naria, in the principality of Antioch, as another exampleof the efforts made by the Order to bring wasteland under cultivation. The gastina of Naria, which was leased from the bishop of Hebron in March 1265 for an annualrent of seventy Saracen besants, had been re-populated by the Order and turnedinto a casal.274 This was another fruitless effort, as in May 1268 the Mamluks tookthe city of Antioch, and consequently the entire principality.275

Regardless of successive adversities, throughout the thirteenth century theHospitallers strove vigorously to restore and improve their economy in the LatinEast. This, however, was destroyed in ten years of unceasing Mamluk incursions.The Hospitallers lost all their castles except for Margat, and the major part of theiragricultural lands, with a consequent loss of income from money rents and agricul-

tural products. All their efforts to rehabilitate these lands, which I believe weremainly centred on the restoration of their sugar industry, were frustrated with eachnew Mamluk incursion. The Order’s treasury in Acre must have been empty bythen, as it was deprived of local sources of income. The Hospitallers in the East,who were now almost completely dependent on supplies from Europe, would havebeen expected to adopt urgent measures to cope with this situation. We have seentheir intensive correspondence and their efforts to preach their cause in Europe.They may have wanted to implement institutional changes through the chaptersgeneral, which from 1262 to 1270 were convened almost every year.276 It is note-


272 Cart., nos. 3346, 3393, 3408–09. For the location of these casalia see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 485, map 4, and above, Map 2.

273 Although Ibn al-Furat (p. 103) and al-Maqrizi (Histoire des sultans Mamlouks de l’Égypte , p. 42)record that the 1267 truce included Tyre and ‘its territory, comprising ninety nine villages, tolast for a period of ten years’, they do not, unfortunately, mention their names or their loca-tions. This agreement was renewed in 1271 after the fall of Crac, in which Baybars recognizedonly fifteen Christian villages. See al-Maqrizi, p. 88, and Röhricht, ‘Études sur les dernierstemps’, p. 403. On the raid of 1269 see Ibn al-Furat, pp. 133–34. On the treaty of 1283 andthe fact that Maron was a condominium see Holt, Early Mamluk Diplomacy, pp. 69–91 (on

Maron see p. 75), and Barag, ‘A New Source Concerning the Ultimate Borders’, passim.274 Cart., no. 3120. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 434–35.275 See above, p. 42.276 The chapter general was convened in 1262, 1263, 1264, 1265, 1268, 1270. See Cart., nos.

3039, 3075, 3104, 3180, 3317, 3396.



worthy, however, that only the resolutions of the general chapter of 1262 hint at theadoption of a long-term economic policy. This chapter, assembled at a time of rela-tive peace in the Latin East, when the Hospitallers were probably still enjoying inde-pendent sources of income, legislated to prevent the alienation of the Order’sproperty in Europe.277 It is most surprising that the following chapters general,

summoned at a time of great danger, dealt mainly with technical issues, such asdiscipline or clothing, although not all the records relating to these chapters mayhave survived. On the other hand, it may be possible to learn more about the Hospi-tallers’ reactions to the situation in the East by looking at the deployment of theireconomic resources in Europe. This is the subject of the next chapter.


277 See Chapter 2 below, p. 91.



THE ORDER IN THE WEST AND CRISES IN THE LATIN EAST

2

The Order in the West and Crises in the Latin East:The French Priories

THE HOUSES IN FRANCE were the biggest and richest the Hospitallers had inEurope. St. Gilles was the first priory to be constituted, at the beginning of thetwelfth century. By the middle of the century it controlled a vast area extending from Aragon and Catalonia in the south to the low countries in the north. It seemsalso to have administered the Order’s estates in England. St. Gilles’ intensive expan-sion made it necessary to divide the priory into smaller administrative units. Although it would remain the most important priory in the Order’s provincial struc-ture, the Hospitallers created new priories in the Iberian peninsula, England, Italyand eastern Europe in the second half of the twelfth century. In the area that today

is northern France and Belgium, they established in 1179 the priory of France.1

During the first half of the thirteenth century they erected a third priory in France,that of Auvergne, which was responsible for the area of the Massif Central.2 Thischapter studies the economic activities of the priories of St. Gilles, France, and Auvergne, from 1187 to 1274, giving an indication of the Order’s reaction to crisesin the Latin East.

1188–1200: The Aftermath of Hattin

A significant change in the attitude of French priories to land and property afterHattin suggests that they were aware of the critical situation in the Holy Land andconsequently tried to raise money and goods to be sent eastwards. The most signifi-cant change was a drastic decrease in the number of investments made by the Orderin the years 1188–1190. Most of the charters relating to the priories of St. Gillesand France after Hattin concerned donations of privileges, lands and goods.3 Very

1 For a description of the establishment of the Order’s priories in Europe see Delaville Le Roulx,Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , pp. 358–402, and Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 353–60.

2 For the establishment of the priory of Auvergne see below, p. 80.3 For privileges: Cart., nos. 843, 884, 909, 1000 (for donations of privileges before Hattin see, for

example, Cart., nos. 484, 507, 525). For lands and goods: Cart., nos. 888, 905, 909, 953 (for



few investments in land and property were made by the priories at this time. In the years just noted the commander of St. Gilles made only three purchases – half ameadow, a plot of land, and a vineyard – for the very small sums of 60 and 26 sous Raymondins ; whereas between 1190 and 1192 the same commandery made eightpurchases of land, property, and rights for more than 11,000 sous .4 Delaville Le

Roulx’s cartulary, which has no evidence of purchases made by the Hospitallers inFrance between 1188 and 1190, includes three examples of purchases madebetween 1190 and 1200.5 Although material may have been lost, evidence hassurvived for other periods and significantly the absence of evidence of investmentsby the priories coincides with the years immediately after Hattin. Apparently, inresponse to the urgent appeals from the brothers in the East or at their own initia-tive, the French priories temporarily halted their investments. They may have beenmore interested in transferring surplus cash to the East than in expanding theirestates. The priors also appear to have been interested in rents. Two mills donated tothe Order in 1188 were transferred by Arnald of Spina, prior of France, to privatehands in return for an annual rent. Auger, prior of France, exempted fifteen serfs,given to the Order in 1194, from the talia in return for an annual rent.6 Towards theend of the century the Order received lands in Mainbeiville, which the master of Normandy exchanged for an annual rent from the donor.7 One may argue that suchtransfers of possessions were a common activity among institutions that ownedextensive properties, but the priories of France engaged in this policy more intently just after Hattin.8 Also following Hattin they were involved in the acquisition of grain, which they were not in the period between 1175 and 1187. In 1192 the priorof St. Gilles bought the tasca , a share of the crop, on land owned by the viscount of

Provence.9 At least part of this may have been destined for the Holy Land. TheTemplars had also to adopt urgent measures. Having exhausted their resourcesdefending the Latin East from Saladin’s incursions, they were forced to sell propertyin Europe to cover their expenses.10

To reorganize the Hospitallers’ resources in Europe, and to ensure that theeconomic policies pursued by their provinces matched the needs of the Order in theEast, the master created, by April 1193, a new grand commandery of Outremer,which assumed control of the priories of St. Gilles and France and the castellany of Amposta.11 This was an important reintroduction of the grand commandery of

THE ORDER IN THE WEST AND CRISES IN THE LATIN EAST 65

donations of property and money before Hattin see, for example, Cart., nos. 505, 512, 617, 758,773).

4 Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 68, 211, 275 and 81, 128–29, 131, 154, 169, 189, 271, for purchases made.between 1190 and 1192.

5 Cart., nos. 904, 937, 971.6 Cart., nos. 841–42; Cart., no. 965. On the talia and serfs buying their freedom from it in the

twelfth but mainly thirteenth century see G. Duby, Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West , trans. C. Postan, London, 1968, pp. 242–52.

7 Cart., no. 1101.8 There is only one transfer of land from the Order to private hands between 1175 and 1187.

See. Cart., no. 528.9 Cart., no. 926.10 See Chapter 3 below, p. 105.11 Because the grand commandery of Outremer was established only ad hoc the geographical

areas under its control varied. On the grand commandery see Introduction above, p. 9.



Outremer, first used in 1164.12 The grand commanders were ad hoc officers,appointed by the master, and had complete authority over the priors. The grandcommander could therefore centralize the Order’s activities in the areas under hiscontrol, and, if necessary, implement changes in economic policies. Not surprisinglythe master, Geoffrey of Donjon, appointed brother William of Villiers to the

Outremer post. William had been the grand commander of the Order in Acre in1192, and had personal knowledge of the difficulties faced by the Order in the Eastat the time.13

1200–1250: Years of Investment and Expansion

At the beginning of the thirteenth century a change is evident in the economicpolicy of the French priories towards land and property. Instead of raising moneyand goods, some of the priors were investing heavily in order to enlarge their patri-mony. This activity is most noticeable in areas like Champagne, which was enjoying an economic boom. The interest of the Hospitallers in the fairs of Champagne wasalready evident in 1190, when they urged Marie, mother of Count Henry II of Champagne, to grant them property in Bar-sur-Aube.14 Their interest in this towncould be explained by the existence of a Hospitaller house in it and by the fact thatone of the fairs of Champagne was held there.15 A cemetery in the town may alsohave provided them with significant income as those who chose to be buried theremight bequeath burial gifts to the Order.16 At the beginning of the thirteenth

century the priors of France, Isembard and William of Villiers, were heavilyinvolved in the purchase of property in the region of Provins, another importantcity which held one of the fairs of Champagne. In 1203 Isembard bought propertyand lands in Châteaubleau, Carrois, and Countençon, to the north-west of Provins,from the Cluniac priory of Charité-sur-Loire for the significant sum of 2,100 livres parisis .17 In 1209 William of Villiers bought from the same priory its temporalia at


12 Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , p. 414.13 On William of Villiers see Chapter 1 above, p. 15, below, p. 78, and Appendix below.14 Cart., no. 888.15 On the Order’s house in Bar-sur-Aube see H. d’Arbois de Jubainville, Histoire de Bar-sur-Aube sous

les Comtes de Champagne, 1077–1284 , Paris, 1859, pp. 86–87. On the fair of Bar-sur-Aube seeH. d’Arbois de Jubainville, Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne , vol. III, Paris, 1861,pp. 229–33; M. Bur, La formation du comté de Champagne, v.950–v.1150 , Nancy, 1977, pp. 293, 298,301.

16 The burial of laymen in the Order’s cemeteries was constantly challenged by the clergy becauseit deprived it of a traditional and important source of income. See D. Carraz, ‘Les ordresmilitaires et la ville (XII – début du XIV siècle): L’exemple des commanderies urbaines de labasse vallée du Rhône’, Annales du Midi , 114 (2002), pp. 287–89; D. Selwood, Knights of the Cloister: Templars and Hospitallers in Central-Southern Occitania, c.1100–c.1300 , Woodbridge, 1999,

pp. 90–97. Martin Aurell has analysed the ways whereby the popularity of crusader ideologyled to associations with the Hospital and to the preference for burial in their cemeteries in‘Nécropoles et donats: Les comtes de la maison de Barcelone et l’Hôpital (XII–XIII siècles)’,Provence historique , 45 (1995), pp. 7–23.

17 Cart., no. 1177.



the villages of Croix-en-Brie, St. Just, Courmery, Closfontaine, Sceau, Praaz,Merrevilles, and Bruyères, also located north-west of Provins. He also purchased thechemin chaussé , the old Roman road between Meaux and Sens. This was a very largeinvestment, for which the Order promised to cover a debt of 11,000 livres thatCharité-sur-Loire owed a Jew, 6,000 of which had been repaid as a result of this

purchase. Charité-sur-Loire was apparently undergoing an economic crisis. TheCluniac priory, like other church institutions in this period, was apparently heavilyin debt, although its cartulary does not indicate this clearly. In 1209 it sold all itsproperty in Laingneville to the Templars for the enormous sum of 10,000 livres . In1213 the monks were accused by Innocent III of corruption and misconduct.18

These investments demonstrate the interest of the Hospitallers in rents. In 1200they also bought tithes in Pailly and Plessis, along the road between Provins andSens. In 1227 they expanded their income in this area with the purchase of landand property, together with seigneurial rights, in Fleurigny.19 In 1236 the Hospital-lers in Croix-en-Brie were granted forty-four acres of forest land in Montenois andValpoutre next to a forest that was already in their hands. This kind of donation wasprobably more important to them by 1225, when land clearing in the Ile-de-Francewas interrupted, and the need was increasing to keep the forest as an essential sourceof raw material for energy, building, and food.20 It is interesting that although theHospitallers were clearly trying to establish themselves in the area of Provins and toprofit from its economic activity, no evidence exists of the donation or purchase of property and rights within this city or in relation to its fairs, in which the Templarsheld a wide range of privileges and extensive property.21 This may imply, as we shallsee below, that the Orders had different objectives in their economic deployment in

France. Although a decrease is observed in the number of Hospitaller acts for the north

of France, from 1230 onwards, and a noticeable difference in the wealth of source-material relating to the two Orders, which makes it difficult to reach clearconclusions, it seems that the Hospitallers were more interested in expanding theirestates in southern France. Still, Fossier has suggested that the relatively smallnumber of Hospitaller houses in the north of France could be explained by thecharitable role of the Order and its inclination to establish houses at the point of embarkation of pilgrims. He has also maintains that the Mediterranean basin was

an important centre of recruitment. This suggestion requires some comparison


18 Cart., nos. 1330–32. For the location of the villages and the chemin chaussé see J. Mesqui andM. Veissière, ‘Un ville de foires en milieu rural’, Histoire de Provins et sa région, ed. M. Veissière,Toulouse, 1988, pp. 92–111, and Mannier, Les commanderies , p. 227. On the economic situationof Charité-sur-Loire see Cartulaire du prieuré de La Charité-sur-Loire (Nièvre), ed. R. de Lespinasse,Nevers and Paris, 1887; J. Richard, Les ducs de Bourgogne et la formation du Duché , Paris, 1954, p.247; M. Glad, ‘Quelques notes sur la commanderie de Laingneville’, Bulletin et Mémoires de la Société Archéologique et Historique de Clermont-de-l’Oise , 1924, p. 15; Potthast, no. 4680.

19 Cart., nos. 1106, 1851.20 Mannier, Les commanderies , pp. 226–27; G. Fourquin, Les campagnes de la région Parisienne à la fin du

Moyen Âge , Paris, 1964, p. 75.21 Histoire et cartulaire des Templiers de Provins , pp. LXIX–LXXXVIII; Barber, The New Knighthood ,

pp. 262–64.



between the number of brothers serving in the north and south of France, which thelack of sources for the north makes difficult.22 Nevertheless, although the evidence isfragmentary and scattered, an examination of the brothers serving in the East in theperiod after Hattin (1188–1216, before the Fifth Crusade) does indeed suggest thatmore French-speaking brothers came from areas under the control of the priory of

St. Gilles. Twelve brothers originated from Auvergne, Provence, Languedoc, andBurgundy, while eight came from the Domena and Champagne.23 It is noteworthythat although Duke Philip of Alsace led a Flemish army in the Third Crusade,hardly any brothers in the East seem to have come from these areas.24 And althoughcommanderies such as Éterpigny and Fieffes had been established by the secondhalf of the twelfth century their expansion, compared with the Order’s activity inChampagne or the Templars’ investments in Picardy, was meagre.25 One of themost expensive acquisitions of the Hospitallers of Fieffes, in the county of Ponthieuin Picardy, was the purchase in 1224 of eighty acres of land, for which they paid330 livres parisis . In comparison, the neighbouring Templar preceptory of Bellenglise bought lands for 1,000 livres parisis in 1233.26 The Hospitallercommandery in Brussels was established only in 1198, following the donation to theOrder of the hospital of the Holy Spirit by Henry I, Duke of Brabant, on his returnfrom the Third Crusade. Many donations of lands, property, and rent contributedsignificantly to its enlargment. The brothers, however, made few purchases during the first half of the thirteenth century.27


22 Fossier calculated that the number of acts regarding the Hospitallers in the north of France

(based, however, only on the Cart. ) drops from 63 for 1191–1220 to 35 for 1221–1250, while thenumber of Templar acts (based on the Cartulaire des Templiers de Provins ) grows from 38 to 80. Healso gives a thorough description of the sources and their complexity: R. Fossier, ‘LesHospitaliers et les Templiers au nord de la Seine et en Bourgogne, XII–XIV siècles’, Les Ordres Militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement en Europe occidentale, XII–XIII siècles , Flaran 6 (1984), pp. 13–16.

23 Brothers from areas under the control of the priory of St. Gilles: Sanche of Auvergne, Williamof Tiniers, from Auvergne (Cart., 1085, 1462); Bertrand of Avignon and Bertrand of Comps,from Provence (Cart., nos. 1032, 1462); Bertrand and Raymond of Pignan, Hugh of Mamoleneand Peter of Campignolles, from Languedoc and the Midi (Cart., nos. 941, 1462, 1426–27);Hamo and Ralland of Burgundy, Robert of Lain and William of Beaune, from Burgundy(Cart., nos. 972, 1085, 900; RRH , no. 844). From areas under the control of the priory of France: Ralph of Loudun, Stephen of Corbeil, Adhemar of Layron, Fulk of Warviller andHugh of Rheims, from the Domena (Cart., nos. 972, 900, 1462; RRH , no. 792a); Roger of Champagne and William of Marolh, from Champagne (Cart., nos. 1085, 972).

24 Philip died during the siege of Acre. See Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol.II, pp. 40–41; Riley-Smith, The Crusades , p. 110; Riley-Smith, Atlas of the Crusades , pp. 82–83;Fossier, ‘Les Hospitaliers et les Templiers au nord de la Seine et en Bourgogne’, pp. 15–16.

25 The commandery of Éterpigny was established in 1177 through the donation of that village tothe Order by the count of Flanders (Cart., no. 505), although donations to the Hospitallercommunity were made as early as 1134. See Chartes de coutume en Picardie (XI–XIII siècle), ed.R. Fossier (Collection de Documents inédits sur l’histoire de France, 10), Paris, 1974, no. 5. Anumber of donations in the second half of the twelfth century contributed to the establishmentof the house of Fieffes: see Mannier, Les commanderies , p. 637.

26 Cart. Fieffes (S5059), fol. 1. The cartulary of Bellenglise is also included in the Hospitallercartulary of Fieffes (S5533). For the purchase mentioned above see fol. 294.

27 Cart. Bruxelles , pp. XIII–XIV, donations of lands and property (for example: nos. 21–22, 39–40,42), rents (11, 24, 26, 33, 43–44), rights (5), purchases of land and property (27, 31, 56, 61, 69,77), rents and tithes (15, 76).



Population growth and the increasing demand for agricultural products causedlay lords to seek the partnership of religious orders in the process of forest clearanceand the settlement of new land. This allowed the Hospitallers to enlarge their prop-erty and income. Their most intensive plan of colonisation was pursued in thesouth-west of France, where, as early as the first half of the twelfth century, they had

established more than forty sauvetés , or new villages, in the Comminges, on the leftbank of the river Garonne, between Muret and St. Gaudens.28 Their desire toenlarge their patrimony and to create a coherent estate also involved, although to amuch smaller extent, the establishment of new villages in other parts of France. In1172 the lords of Conchy-sur-Canche and Beauvoir-sur-Authie, together with theHospitallers of Villers in Picardy, established a new village next to thatcommandery.29 In 1208 the Order went into partnership with countess Blanche of Champagne to create the village of Esnouveaux, not far from Chaumont andBar-sur-Aube.30 The Order’s extensive property in the duchy of Burgundy madepossible other partnerships for the creation of the new villages of Thury in 1198and Escoutot and Essertenne in 1200.31 In 1235 the Hospitallers of Bellecroixagreed to give half their income from the new village of Nuits to Duke Hugh IV of Burgundy after he promised to defend it.32 The Hospitallers of Beaune, wishing toexploit the economic potential of this region, were allowed by Duchess Alice of Burgundy in 1218 to keep a market in Villedieu in the vicinity of Essertenne. 33

Richard believes that some of the products that were brought to these markets, forexample Burgundian cloths, may have been sent to the Holy Land.34 An importantpiece of evidence for the transportation of goods to the East is a charter given by Jean of Braine, count of Mâcon, to the Order in 1234. He exempted from tolls

Hospitaller products and merchandise transported through Mâcon and Riottiersand destined for the Holy Land.35

The expansion of Hospitaller property in the county of Forez is another indica-tion of the extensive local investments made at this time in order to consolidate and


28 P. Ourliac, Les sauvetés du Comminges: Étude et documents sur les villages fondés par les Hospitaliers dans la région des côteaux commingeois , Toulouse, 1947, pp. 24–5, 34. A very thorough description of Hospitaller involvement in land clearing and settlement in the south-west of France is given byC. Higounet, ‘Hospitaliers et Templiers: Peuplement et exploitation rurale dans le sud-ouest dela France au Moyen Âge’, Les Ordres Militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement en Europe occidentale, XII–XIII siècles , Flaran 6 (1984), pp. 61–78. See also A. Lewis, ‘Patterns of Economic Develop-ment in Southern France, 1050–1271 A.D.’, Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 3 (1980),pp. 66–67. The Hospitallers were also involved, although to a much lesser degree, in thecreation of new villages in the north of France. See M. Miguet, Templiers et Hospitaliers en Normandie , Paris, 1995, pp. 37–42.

29 R. Fossier, La terre et les hommes en Picardie jusqu’à la fin du XIII s. , Paris, 1968, vol. I, p. 350.30 Cart., no. 1286. The village of Esnouveaux was donated to the Order by the count of Clefmont

in 1187, Cart., no. 826. For the location of Esnouveaux see J. Richard, ‘Les Templiers etHospitaliers en Bourgogne et en Champagne méridionale (XII–XIII siècles)’, Die GeistlichenRitterorden Europas , ed. J. Fleckenstein and M. Hellman, Sigmaringen, 1980, p. 237.

31 Cart., no. 1111; Richard, ‘Les Templiers et Hospitaliers en Bourgogne et en Champagne

méridionale’, pp. 236–67.32 Cart., no. 2101; Richard, Les Ducs de Bourgogne , pp. 251–52.33 Cart., no. 1635.34 Richard, ‘Les Templiers et Hospitaliers en Bourgogne et en Champagne méridionale’, p. 237.35 ‘res ille ad Terre Sancte subsidium specialiter deputate mittebantur’, Cart., no. 2080.



concentrate the Hospitallers’ possessions. They held property and rights in thatcounty from the middle of the twelfth century.36 Towards the end of the century thepolitical and economic instability of the county allowed them to enlarge their patri-mony. Several landowners, who were in debt, entered the Order as corrodists,handing over most of their property. In return the Order was to cover their debts

and buy their pledged lands.37 These acquisitions were the basis for the establish-ment of the commandery in the city of Montbrison. The chapel and cemetery notonly served the needs of the brothers, but also those of many merchants andpilgrims who travelled the roads of the Massif Central.38 The interest of the Hospi-tallers in this area, which was rich in crops and f locks,39 was probably reinforced bythe economic recovery and demographic growth of Forez from 1210 onwards. Although the Order’s economic activity did not involve large investments as in thearea of Provins, it expanded its patrimony through the persistent purchase of smalltracts of land, annual rents, and tithes. In 1213 the Hospitallers of Chazelles boughtpart of the forest of Fay, thereby enlarging their property around the village of Faywhich had been donated to the Order by the count of Forez in about 1180.40 Fromthe beginning of the thirteenth century the Hospitallers were involved in manytransactions, acquiring land and property in and around the city of Montbrison.41

In 1215 Armald, master of the Hospital of Montbrison, settled a dispute regarding their right to revenues in the meat market of Montbrison, which had been given tothe Order in the 1180s and was renewed by the count of Nevers in 1237.42 Consid-ering the prosperity of the market of Montbrison and that Forez was a major centrefor cattle raising,43 this must have been an important privilege. An agreementbetween the Hospitallers in Verrières (south-west of Montbrison) and the lord of

Bussy in 1238 also indicates the importance of cattle raising. The Hospitallersexchanged annual rents of money and goods in return for the exclusive right of pasturage on his lands.44 Likewise in 1220 the Hospitallers were given annual rentsof money, wood, and oats in Conols, Ecotay, and Vidrieu, to the south-west of Montbrison, in return for 100 sous and the promise to accept the donor’s son into


36 Cart., nos. 575, 600, 843.37 Chartes du Forez , vols. 1–2, p. 14. A corrody was a commitment of the Order to maintain a

person for life, with fixed allowances of food and clothing in exchange for property or services.See Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 245; for a more general discussion on this term seealso C. de Miramon, Les “donnés” au Moyen Âge. Une forme de vie religieuse laïque v.1180–v.1500 ,Paris, 1999, pp. 333–34. For the political and economic situation of Forez see E. Fournial, Les villes et l’économie d’échange en Forez aux XIII et XIV siècles , Paris, 1967, pp. 12–14, 41–47.

38 Fournial, Les villes , p. 37. For the importance of the Massif Central for the connection betweenthe north and south of France see R.H. Bautier, ‘Recherches sur les routes de l’Europemédiévale’, Bulletin philologique et historique du comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques , I (1960), pp.107–130.

39 Fournial, Les villes , pp. 37, 41–47.40 Cart., nos. 1405, 575. Although many places in Forez were named Fay, I assumed the proximity

of the village and forest from the fact that the commandery of Chazelles was involved in both

transactions.41 Chartes du Forez , vols. 1–2, pp. 27, 40, 52; vols. 9–10, p. 924. Cart., nos. 1453, 1599, 2157.42 Cart., nos. 1430, 2178. Chartes du Forez , vols. 9–10, p. 921.43 Fournial, Les villes , pp. 41–47, 191.44 Chartes du Forez , vol. 5, p. 322.



the Order. In 1239 the Hospitallers received from the lord of St. Bonnet the castleof Le Bois on condition that the Order provided for his nephew, Bernard, until hetook the cross.45

By the beginning of the thirteenth century the Order was also engaged in aconsistent policy of expansion in Provence. Most of the charters in the cartularies

of St. Gilles and Trinquetaille from 1190 to 1210 record acquisitions of property,land, and rights in the areas of St. Gilles, Arles, Trinquetaille, Argence, and, farthersouth, Crau and the Camargue,46 important areas for the production of wheat andwine and especially for the pasturage of large herds of cattle and sheep.47 TheHospitallers benefited from the changes in the economy of Provence in thethirteenth century. The need for cash for investments in the growing cities andindustries led the ruling families to sell the Hospitallers extensive tracts of land.Some of the Order’s more important acquisitions i llustrate the degree of its expan-sion in this region.48 In 1202 the Hospitallers bought part of the Etang deScamandre, in the Petit Camargue, for 70,000 sous Raymondins .49 In the Camarguethey acquired in 1194 part of the lordship of Saliers and Auricet for 3,000 sous Raymondins and another 1,000 sous Melgoriens . In 1209 they extended their propertyin Gimeaux, along the road from Trinquetaille and the region of the Camargue, for8,500 sous more.50 Numerous small purchases of lands, meadows, manors, and vine-


45 ‘recepissent in socium et fratrem corporaliter et spiritualiter Guibertum, filium Alberti Anthonii’, Cart., no. 1665. For the purchase of annual rents in the city of Montbrison see Chartes du Forez , vols. 1–2, p. 27. For Bernard see Chartes du Forez , vol. 5, p. 616: ‘quousque crucemsusceperit’.

46 For these purchases see references below.47 For the economic importance of these areas see V.L. Bourrilly and R. Busquet, La Provence au Moyen Âge (1112–1481), Marseilles, 1924, pp. 421–23; Histoire de la Provence , ed. E. Baratier andV.L. Bourrilly, Toulouse, 1969, pp. 143.

48 D. Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de St. Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon et en comtat Venaissin au XIIIsiècle’, Des Hospitaliers de Saint Jean de Jérusalem de Chypre et de Rhodes hier aux chevaliers de Malte aujourd’hui , Paris, 1985, pp. 27–29. The material that has survived for the Order in Provence isso vast that a description of its economic activity, similar to the one conducted for Forez, wouldlead away from the current subject. Closely detailed descriptions of the economic activity of the priory of St. Gilles can be found in P. Santoni, ‘Les deux premiers siècles du prieuré deSaint Gilles de l’ordre de l’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Jérusalem’, Des Hospitaliers de Saint Jean de

Jérusalem de Chypre et de Rhodes hier aux chevaliers de Malte aujourd’hui , Paris, 1985, pp. 114–83;N. Coulet, ‘Les ordres militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement dans le sud-est de la France auMoyen Âge’, Les Ordres Militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement en Europe occidentale, XII–XIII siècles ,Flaran 6 (1984), pp. 37–60; Cart. St. Gilles , pp. IV–IX; Selwood, Knights of the Cloister , pp. 15–19.For Trinquetaille see also Cart. Trinquetaille , pp. VII–VIII; L. Verdon, ‘La seigneurie foncière desHospitalliers d’Arles d’après le cartulaire de Trinquetaille: Les ressources de l’acapte’, Provence historique , 49 (1999), pp. 501–10. For a comprehensive analysis of the Templars’ activities in theregion see D. Carraz, ‘Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales. L’ordre du Templedans la basse vallée du Rhône (1124–1312)’, Ph.D. dissertation, Université Lyon 2, 2003 (forth-coming in Presses Universitaires de Lyon). I am extremely grateful to Dr. Carraz for sending mechapters of his dissertation and many of his articles.

49 Cart. St. Gilles , no. 1 and nos. 2–7 for additional purchases in the region.50 Cart. St. Gilles , no. 81; Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 52. 223, 241. The Hospitallers were not the only

religious order that aimed to expand and consolidate its property in the Camargue. Carraz hasshown that the Templars also expended large sums on land acquisition in the region. Most of these acquisitions were made in the first quarter of the thirteenth century. Carraz, ‘Ordresmilitaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales’, pp. 276–79.



yards were made in Argence, where the Hospitallers also tried to consolidate theirproperty by buying seigneurial rights.51

Animal husbandry was in the thirteenth century their most important economicactivity in Provence. They profited from the increasing demand by the growing population of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries for meat products. Like the

Cistercians and other members of religious orders in the south of France, theyacquired large amounts of pastureland and were granted free passage and grazing rights.52 Their expansion was apparently so aggressive that by the 1220s thecommune of Arles banned the Order’s f locks from grazing on the communalmeadows at Crau.53

Further evidence for the significant enlargement of Hospitaller property inProvence from the end of the twelfth century is the establishment of newcommanderies: St. Pierre de Campublic in the Camargue and La Fosse in the PetitCamargue.54 To the north of St. Gilles the Hospitallers had established by 1200 theimportant commandery of Avignon.55 To the east they expanded their patrimony inSt. Michel de Puimoisson with very heavy investments. In 1231 Bertrand of Comps,prior of St. Gilles, bought from Raymond Berenger IV, count of Provence andForcalquier, the rights and property that the count owned in the castle for 11,000sous Raymondins .56 In Manosque, also to the east of St. Gilles, along the banks of the


51 Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 109, 154, 169, 190, 196, 212, 251, 259, 260.52

Santoni, ‘Les deux premiers siècles’, pp. 140–44. For the Hospitallers’ pastoralism see Coulet,‘Les ordres militaires’, pp. 43–44, and T. Sclafert, Cultures en Haute-Provence, déboisements et pâturages au Moyen Âge , Paris, 1959, pp. 19–24. For Cistercians see C. Hoffman Berman, ‘Medieval Agri-culture, the Southern French Countryside, and the Early Cistercians’, Transactions of the AmericanPhilosophical Society, 76 (1986), pp. 94–117. On free passage and grazing rights granted to theHospitallers see Cart., nos. 884, 1169, 1253, 1327; Cart. Avignon, no. ch. 45; Cart. St. Gilles , no. 38;Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 206; Marseille–56H 4627; Recueil des Actes des Comtes de Provence appartenant à la maison de Barcelone , ed. F. Benoit, Paris, 1925, vol. I, no. 50.

53 Coulet, ‘Les ordres militaires’, p. 43: E. Engelmann, Zur Städtischen Volksbewegung in Südfrankreich: Kommunefreiheit und Gesellschaft. Arles 1200–1250 , Berlin, 1959, pp. 127, 128, n. 230; Carraz, ‘Lesordres militaires et la ville’, p. 290.

54 The first mention of a commander of St. Pierre de Campublic in the Cartulary of St. Gilles isfrom 1198 and a commander of La Fosse from 1202. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 57, 38. On the estab-lishment of the Templars and Hospitallers in St. Pierre de Campublic and on the importanceof the region for the production of wine and wheat see B. Beaucage, ‘Difficultés économiqueset réaction seigneuriale au terroir de Beaucaire: La commanderie des Hospitaliers deSaint-Pierre de Campublic aux XIV et XV siècles’, Canadian Journal of History/Annales Canadiennes d’Histoire 25 (1990), pp. 1–4. It is not possible, in most cases, to deduce from thesources the exact date on which a commandery was established, as the first charters issued by,or to, the commandery are usually lost. On this problem and on the establishment of commanderies of the Military Orders in urban centres in Provence see Carraz, ‘Les ordresmilitaires et la ville’, pp. 278–79. On rural commanderies see also Selwood, Knights of the Cloister ,pp. 55–57.

55 For comprehensive research on the commandery of Avignon see Cart. Avignon, pp. 12–18; D. LeBlévec, ‘L’ Hôpital de St. Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon et en comtat Venaissin au XIII siècle’,pp. 17–61.

56 Cart., no. 2006; J. Raybaud, Histoire des grands prieurs et du prieuré de Saint Gilles , Nîmes, 1904,p. 141.



river Durance, the Order invested in lands, meadows, and rights.57 Because of itslocation in the Durance Valley and along the road between Aix and Sisteron,Manosque became an important trading centre and the Hospitallers must haveprofited from the trade in their rich crops and animal products in the city market.58

To the north of Manosque, along the Durance, they were granted by Tiburge of

Orange the lordships of Tallard, Lardiers, and La Saulce in 1215.59 These lands inthe Lure mountains were probably used by the Order for the summer pasture of itsherds. Further north the Hospitallers held the commanderies of St. Martin de Gapand St. Paul les Romans, near Grenoble. By the 1220s they had enlarged andconsolidated their property at St. Paul, with numerous small acquisitions of lands,meadows, and property. This widespread base of lands and meadows allowed,mainly from the fourteenth century, the summer transhumance of the Order’sflocks from Provence to the rich pastures in the Alps. An intensive economy of animal husbandry was also pursued by the Hospitallers in the Lozère mountainsand the Vivarais to the north-west of Avignon.60

Part of the Hospitallers’ agricultural production in these areas supplied theirown houses, and part was probably traded on local markets, as in Burgundy andChampagne. The Hospitallers were granted free passage in the county of Provenceand the right to buy and sell their own products without paying any tolls. Theycould have transported their merchandise along the roads of Provence, or on thewaters of the Petit Rhône, the Rhône, and the Durance. These rivers were used totransport merchandise and men to embarkation points to the East.61 TheHospitallers were granted rights and exemption from tolls at local as well as interna-tional ports. They enjoyed free passage at the river-port of Avignon from 1191 and

at the ports of Mataron and Rognonas on the Durance. Adalasie Mataron wasforced to sell her rights in this port in 1224 to the Hospitallers so that she could


57 F. Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, de Rhodes et de Malte à Manosque ,Gap, 1981, pp. 37–39, 144–47.

58 For the importance of Manosque and the fact that the Hospitallers’ production in this area wasmainly crops and husbandry see Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean , p. 156, andSclafert, Cultures en Haute-Provence , p. 21.

59 Raybaud, Histoire des grands prieurs , p. 120.60 On transhumance in general and Hospitallers in particular see Sclafert, Cultures en

Haute-Provence , p. 3, and Coulet, ‘Les ordres militaires’, pp. 43–44. On the Hospitallers’ invest-ments in St. Paul les Romans see Cart. St. Paul les Romans . Most of. the acts included in thiscartulary are acquisitions of property by donations and purchases. For the Hospitallers in theLozère see E. Servière, ‘Commanderie de Gap-Français, ordre des Hospitaliers de St. Jean de

Jérusalem’, Revue du Gévaudan de Causses et des Cévennes (Bulletin de la Société des Lettres, Sciences et Arts de La Lozère), 10 (1964), pp. 41–72; D. Le Blévec, ‘Les Hospitaliers de St. Jean de Jérusalem enBas-Vivarais: La commanderie de Trignan, XII–XIII siècles’, Religion et société en Ardèche et dans l’ancien pays de Vivarais, Actes du 2 colloque, Privas 23–24 mars 1985 , pp. 18–35.

61 Cart. St. Gilles , no. 346. In July 1295 the Hospitallers of St. Gilles bought a church, a garden andadditional properties in Tarascon, on the bank of the Rhône, on the way between Avignon and

St. Gilles. The charter clearly specifies that this new commandery was to serve as a resting place for brothers from Germany, France, England and the Auvergne en route to the HolyLand. See Cart., no. 4284. On the involvement of the Military Orders in trade in the south of France see also Selwood, Knights of the Cloister , pp. 182–83. For Hospitallers’ trade in localmarkets in Burgundy and Champagne see above, p. 69.



afford the cost of her son’s education.62 In 1210 Sacristane, a member of the

Porcelet family, one of the most prominent families in Arles, donated to the Order

her right to the fourth part of the incomes of the port of Arles.63 This donation

might have generated a significant income because Arles was enjoying an economic

boom by the end of the twelfth century and was an important centre for local

trade.64 International trade was increasingly conducted from St. Gilles, whichbecame the most active commercial port on the Rhône.65 In 1209 Hugh I, viscount

of Marseilles, granted the Order free passage in the ports of St. Gilles and

Trinquetaille.66

The port of Marseilles was the most important embarkation point for the East in

the region. In 1178 Hospitaller merchandise coming to the port was exempted from

taxes. In 1216 Hugh I of Baux, viscount of Marseilles and confrater of the

commandery of Trinquetaille from 1192, allowed the Hospitallers to build their

own vessels in the town’s dockyard and to keep ships in its port. These vessels could

sail to and from Spain, the Latin East, and any other destination causa defendende Christianitatis . They were allowed to carry pilgrims, merchants with their money, and

anything they wanted free of any taxes.67 The same privilege was granted by Hugh


62 Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de St. Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon et en comtat Venaissin au XIII siècle’,

p. 20; Marseilles-56H.1281, fols. 72, 20–22; Cart. Avignon, no. 16. For transport of the Orders’

goods on the rivers see also Carraz, ‘Les ordres militaires et la ville’, p. 285, and Ordres militaires,croisades et sociétés méridionales , pp. 339–45, in which Carraz shows that the Military Orders were

not only exempted from tolls, but in some instances were granted the right to collect these tolls

for themselves.63

Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 216. On the Porcelet family see L. Stouff, ‘La commune d’Arles au XIIIsiècle, à propos d’un livre récent’, Provence historique , 11 (1961), p. 300, and for the family branch

in Tripoli see Richard, ‘Le comté de Tripoli dans les chartes du fonds des Porcellet’, pp.

348–58. With the impoverishment of the house of Porcelet, in the course of the thirteenth

century, many of its assets and seigniorial rights were purchased by the Templars and the

Hospitallers. See Carraz, Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales , pp. 339–45. On the

impoverishment of the nobility of Provence see also below, pp. 84–85.64 For the importance of the port of Arles see Stouff, ‘La commune d’Arles’, pp. 294, 97; Bourrilly

and Busquet, La Provence au Moyen Âge , p. 440.65 For the importance of the port of St. Gilles, see Histoire de la Provence , p. 143.66 Cart., no. 1327. In the thirteenth century the Templars also transported wine from the port of

La Rochelle to England, and English wool to the continent, on hired or on their own ships.

Some of their ships also carried merchandise for third parties. See J.-C. Bonnin, ‘Les Templiers

et la mer: l’exemple de La Rochelle’, La Commanderie, institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval , ed. A. Luttrell and L. Pressouyre, Paris, 2002, pp. 307–15; E. Lord, The Knights Templar in Britain, London, 2002, pp. 118–21; H. Nicholson, ‘The Military Orders and the Kings of

England in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, From Clermont to Jerusalem: The Crusades and Crusader Societies, 1095–1500 , ed. A. Murray, Turnhout, 1998, pp. 211–15. Nicholson also refers

on these pages to naval services supplied by the Templars to the kings of England. On the fleets

of the Military Orders, particularly on the eve of the fall of Acre, see also M.-L. Favreau-Lilie,

‘The Military Orders and the Escape of the Christian Population from the Holy Land in 1291’,

Journal of Medieval History, 19 (1993), pp. 205–13.67 Cart., nos. 542, 1464. For Hugh’s affiliation charter to the commandery of Trinquetaille see

Cart., no. 930, and Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 6. For the importance of the port of Marseilles for theshipment of provisions to the East see also Barber, ‘Supplying the Crusader State’, pp. 322–23;

Carraz, ‘Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales’, pp. 339–45; Selwood, Knights of the Cloister , pp. 189–94. Other evidence of the Hospitallers’ building their own ships can be

found in a letter sent by Honorius III to the bishop of Arles in December 1216, in which the



to the Templars and was confirmed in December that year by Frederick II.68 Lackof evidence makes it difficult to get a clear picture of the transport of food fromFrance to the Holy Land. But the absence of references to the Hospitallers’employing vessels from Marseilles or the Italian cities for the transportation of menand provisions to the East suggests that their fleet was already significant at the

beginning of the thirteenth century; otherwise the hiring of vessels would havegenerated documentation.Their ships, however, sailed mainly from Sicily, which was the main region of

supply for the Holy Land. In 1197, for example, Empress Constance I granted theHospitallers the right to export goods tax-free in order to support the Holy Landand to meet the needs of their houses.69 In his letter of 1201 the master Geoffrey of Donjon specified that they were expecting supplies of foodstuffs from Sicily.70 Theconfiscation of the Order’s estates in Sicily by Frederick II at the end of the 1220s,however, must have increased the demand for shipments from Marseilles, leading toa conflict with the authorities, because the Hospitallers’ concessions in the port wererestricted in 1233. They were allowed to keep an unrestricted number of vessels fortheir own use, but only two vessels a year, one in each passage, were allowed to carrypilgrims and merchants.71

The economic expansion of the Hospitallers, as this dispute with the communeof Marseilles exemplifies, could have been influenced by local economic or by polit-ical circumstances. There is little evidence of the Order’s involvement in the Albigensian Crusade, one of the most important political events in the south of France in the thirteenth century. Research has shown that the Hospitallers did nottake an active role in this crusade and were not directly affected by it.72 Their

connection with it is mainly expressed in the form of donations and economic trans-actions. Crusading was an act of devotion and it was only natural that crusaderswould seek spiritual help from monastic institutions, in particular those associatedwith Jerusalem and the Holy Land. Guy of Tremeloy, who was about to fight in the


pope orders the bishop to prevent churchmen and laymen from taxing wood belonging to theOrder and designated for building ships. See Cart., nos. 1518–19, and Chapter 3 below, p. 110.

68 Acta imperii inedita, saeculi XIII , ed. E. Winkelmann, Innsbruck, 1880, vol. I, no. 139.69 Acta imperii inedita, saeculi XIII , vol. I, no. 71. For the importance of Sicily as supplier of food to

the Latin Kingdom see D. Abulafia, The Two Italies , Cambridge, 1977, p. 77. For the depend-ence of the Christian settlement in the East on supplies from Sicily in the later period, from1265 on, see Pryor, ‘In Subsidium Terrae Sanctae ’, pp. 127–144. See also below, pp. 97–98.

70 See Chapter 1 above, p. 16.71 Cart., no. 2067. For the confiscation of Hospitaller property in Sicily by Frederick II see

Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 164.72 The purpose of this paragraph is to consider the effects the Albigensian Crusade had on the

financial situation of the Order’s houses in the south of France. For the involvement of theMilitary Orders in this crusade see E. Delaruelle, ‘Templiers et Hospitaliers en Languedocpendant la Croisade des Albigeois’, Cahiers de Fanjeaux , 4 (1969), pp. 322–27; Du Bourg,pp. IX–XI. For more recent works: Aurel, ‘Nécropoles et donats’, pp. 20–21; D. Carraz,

‘L’anticléricalisme en France méridionale (milieu XII – début XIV siècle)’, Cahiers de Fanjeaux 38(2002), pp. 384–85, 390–91, and his ‘Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales’, pp.608–14; A. Demurger, Chevaliers du Christ. Les ordres religieux-militaires au Moyen Âge (XI–XVI siècles) ,Paris, 2002, pp. 293–94, and his Vie et mort de l’ordre du Temple, 1118–1314 , Paris, 1989, pp.253–54; Selwood, Knights of the Cloister , pp. 43–47.



Albigensian Crusade in 1226, gave the Order a house in Semon (Burgundy) oncondition that the brothers prayed for his soul.73 Donations by crusaders were notthe only way the Hospitallers benefited economically from the Albigensian Crusade.They were not actively involved in this crusade and did not assist Simon of Monfort, yet they maintained their connections with the counts of Toulouse; a

Hospitaller was sent by Raymond VI to Rome to intervene on his behalf in thepapal curia. In 1218, although excommunicated, Raymond was accepted by theHospital in Toulouse as confrater . The Order’s privileges, which included free passageand grazing rights in the count’s domain, were renewed by Raymond’s son in 1222.The Order’s behaviour seems to be the result of long-term relations with the countsof Toulouse and other local interests in this area.74 The strong connections betweenthe local nobility and the Hospitallers, as in the case of the counts of Toulouse,meant that some patrons of Hospitaller houses in the Midi and Languedoc in thetwelfth century were suspected of heresy in the following century. This was the caseof the lords of Laurac, who were involved in the establishment of the house of Pexiora in the 1170s.75 In their case, and in that of other lords in the area, donationsto the Order could have been regarded as a means of repentance and reconcilia-tion.76 The grant of the castle of Manciet by William Raymond of Montcada, viscount of Béarn, in 1224 illustrates this point. William inherited the viscounty of Béarn from his brother Gaston, who sided with Peter II of Aragon against Simon of Montfort and the Albigensian Crusade. William had already been forced to take thecross to the Holy Land, as penance for the murder of Berenger of Vilademuls, arch-bishop of Tarragona, following a dispute over property in 1194. But he supportedthe Aragonese cause and helped Count Nuño-Sanches of Roussillon to defend the

castle of Lourdes against the attacks of Simon of Monfort in 1216 and onlyproposed to set out for the Holy Land in 1224. Owing to illness, however, heremitted his vows and granted the castle of Manciet to the Hospitallers and theTemplars in February of that year.77


73 Cart., no. 1830.74 For the affiliation charter of Raymond VI and the confirmation of the Order’s property by

Raymond VII see Cart., nos. 1617, 1759. For relations between the Order and the counts of Toulouse see Carraz, ‘Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales’, pp. 151–56. For itsrelation with the local aristocracy see Carraz, ‘L’anticléricalisme en France méridionale’, p.385. Malcolm Barber maintains that although Raymond VI expressed his desire to be buried asa Hospitaller his burial in their house in Toulouse was not allowed. M. Barber, The Cathars: Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages , Harlow, 2000, pp. 50, 114.

75 For the establishment of Pexiora (Carcassone, Aude) see Higounet, ‘Hospitaliers et Templiers’,p. 64. For the lords of Laurac see Delaurelle, ‘Templiers et Hospitaliers en Languedoc’, p. 329.

76 For Raymond VI’s affiliation charter and the confirmation of the Order’s property byRaymond VII see Cart., nos. 1617, 1759. At the same time the Cistercians, who were preaching the crusade, were granted gifts and privileges by Simon of Montfort, the leader of the

Albigensian Crusade, but also by his opponent Raymond of Toulouse; they also profited fromthe acquisition of the property of a number of condemned heretics. See Hoffman Berman,‘Medieval Agriculture’, p. 124.

77 For the donation of Manciet see Cart., no. 1781, and Du Bourg, pp. 353–55. For Gaston andWilliam of Montcada see J. Miret y Sans, ‘La casa de Montcada en el vizcondado de Béarn’, Bolletín de la Real Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona , 1 (1901), pp. 186–99, 239; P. Tucoo-Chala,La vicomté de Béarn et le problème de sa souveraineté , Bordeaux, 1961, pp. 52–54; J. Shideler, A Medieval Catalan Family: The Montcadas, 1000–1230 , Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983, pp. 133–34, 139–47.



Whereas Hattin seems to have temporarily halted the economic growth of theFrench priories, these conducted an forceful policy of expansion from the beginning of the thirteenth century; investing in land and property and taking part in local andperhaps international trade. Their f inancial activities coincided with a boom in theFrench economy, but they do not seem to have been connected with the needs of the

Order in the East. Indeed, their economic activities give a f irst impression that theyderived from an independent policy opposed to, or at least separate from, thegeneral policy of the Order dictated from Acre. I hope to demonstrate that the situ-ation was more complex than that.

Reaction to the Expansion: The Re-organization of the Order in the 1210s and 1220s

Much of the Hospitallers’ income in France was never destined for the Holy Land.Most of the brothers served in French priories and commanderies, which had alsoto provide for their associates and servants as well as helping the poor andpilgrims.78 It is nevertheless surprising that the extensive investments made by theHospitallers in France were made at a time of acute crisis in the Latin kingdom.One might have expected that the demands for resources to rebuild the Order’spower in the East after Hattin and the earthquake of 1202 and to provide additionalsupplies of money and manpower for the Egyptian campaign would have resulted inthe liquidation of property rather than in long-term investments.

The priors of France who conducted the expensive transactions with

Charité-sur-Loire in 1203 and 1209 were Isembard and William of Villiers. Bothwere experienced officers. Isembard had been prior of France since 1201. If thetransactions in Provins had been against the interests of the Order in general, onewould have expected his career to suffer. Apparently it did not, as he was appointedgrand commander in Acre in 1207 and 1219. Back in Europe he was the grandcommander of Outremer in 1211 and 1222 and he is recorded as prior of France inMarch 1212.79 The case of William of Villiers, who carried out a much moreexpensive transaction, was different. He had been commander or grand


Carraz has found additional examples of sympathizers with the count of Toulouse who had joined local commanderies of the Military Orders, even though these ‘new recruits’ were alsosuspected of open anticlericalism. The appeal of the Military Orders was precisely their inde-pendence from the bishops and the local clergy. Still, this independence also meant the Orders’submission to papal authority. As Carraz rightly pointed out, these contradictions emphasizethe complex situation in which the Orders found themselves. They had to act in accordancewith papal policy and at the same time protect their local interests. See Carraz,‘L’anticléricalisme en France méridionale’, pp. 385–86. For this possible conflict between localand international interests see also J. Sarnowsky, ‘Regional Problems in the History of theMendicants and Military Orders’, Mendicants, Military Orders, and Regionalism in Medieval Europe ,ed. J. Sarnowsky, Aldershot, 1999, pp. 1–19.

78 See Chapter 4 below for an analysis of places of recruitment and service. On this subject seealso Forey, The Military Orders , p. 124; Barber, ‘Supplying the Crusader States’, pp. 319–20.

79 Cart., nos. 1145, 1167; 1250, 1276, 1656; 1360, 1758; 1382. It is however possible that differentIsembards held these offices. Delaville Le Roulx (see index of Cart.,) asserts that it is the sameman.



commander in Acre in 1192, grand commander of Outremer in 1193, and prior of England in 1199 before becoming prior of France in 1207–1209.80 After his trans-action with Charité-sur-Loire, however, he no longer appears in any documents,and although one cannot be certain, it appears that his career had come to an end.He might have died; it is more likely, however, that he was replaced as one of many

changes in the Order’s leadership in Europe, a process which took place in thefollowing years. For example, Isembard, who succeeded William as prior of France,was replaced by a brother called Geoffrey in August 1212.81 Further evidence of thisre-shuff le is the replacement of the prior of St. Gilles, Bermond of Luzancion. Lastrecorded as prior of St. Gilles in February 1212, he next appears, without title, in April 1214 as a witness in Tarsus to two charters.82 His summons to the East mayhave resulted in his dismissal. In the summer of 1215 he was replaced as prior of St.Gilles by Martin of Andos. Other important priors were replaced at about the sametime. Martin of Andos was replaced as castellan of Amposta by Raymond of Ayscle.Robert the Treasurer, prior of England, was replaced by Henry of Arundel.83

Martin of Andos is an example of how difficult and confusing it is to study thechanges in the Order’s leadership from the surviving material. Raybaud, whostudied the history of the priory of St. Gilles throughout the twelfth and thirteenthcenturies, maintains that in October 1215, only a month after Martin was firstmentioned in this office, he was replaced as prior of St. Gilles by a brother calledSeignoret, and these two brothers were sent by the grand commander of Outremerto represent the Order at the Fourth Lateran Council.84 Raybaud, however, doesnot mention his sources, and in the very rich material which survives for the prioryof St. Gilles for the beginning of the thirteenth century no evidence is found of

Seignoret as prior in 1215–16, although there was a vice-prior by that name inSeptember 1216.85 Moreover, although representatives of the Military Orders weresummoned to the Lateran Council, the surviving records do not provide anynames.86 To add to the confusion, in February 1216 the prior of St. Gilles and thecommander of Montpellier were both named as Martin of Andos. Delaville LeRoulx believes that the two posts were held by two different people of the samename.87 Because of the inconsistency and gaps in the sources one cannot argue with


80 Cart., nos. 919, 945, 1056, 1243, 1330–32. For William’s carrer see also Chapter 1 above, note24.

81 Cart., no. 1397. There seems to be a gap of three years from the priory of William to that of Isembard, and this office was perhaps vacant. The priory would have been then administered.by Isembard in his capacity as grand commander of Outremer.

82 For Bermond of Luzancion as prior of St. Gilles see Cart., no. 1377; Cart. Avignon, p. 14 and no.75. For his presence in Tarsus see Cart., nos. 1426–27. On relations between the Hospitallersand King Leo II of Armenia see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 152–60.

83 Cart., nos. 1656, 1475, 1426–27, 1446, 1484. For Robert the Treasurer see SC , no. 510. ForHenry of Arundel see Cart., nos. 1469, 1444 bis .

84 Raybaud, Histoire des grands prieurs , pp. 121–23. Note that Raybaud’s work is not always accurateand lacks documentation.

85 For Seignoret as vice-prior see Cart., no. 1480. A brother named Seignoret is mentioned as priorof St. Gilles, but only on 5 September 1203. See Cart. St. Gilles , no. 2.

86 For the summoning of the Hospitallers to the Fourth Lateran Council see Sacrorum conciliorumnova et amplissima collectio, ed. J.D. Mansi et al., vol. XXII, col. 1079.

87 Martin of Andos appeared as prior of St. Gilles in Cart., no. 1459, and Cart. Avignon, no. ch. 26.



certainly that changes in leadership necessarily involved a change in policy. It isindeed possible that some of these brothers had died, or being old had beenreplaced. Significantly, however, all the replacements occurred at about the sametime. Bermond of Luzancion, for example, had been demoted from prior of St.Gilles to commander of Manosque in 1217; he was commander of Avignon from

1220 to 1230.88 There could have been an intentional change of leadership inEurope, leading to the demotion of the prior of St. Gilles. Additional changes seem to have been introduced at a general chapter convened

in 1225. Evidence of this event is found in a letter from the master Garin of Montaigu to the Hospitallers of Corbeil that year. Garin confirmed the placing of thirteen priests in the church of Corbeil according to an agreement reached withQueen Ingeborg of France the year before, as well as the acceptance of Darun, acitizen of Lyons, apparently as a donat by the house of Tigery (subject to Corbeil).The master concluded his letter by ordering the Hospitallers at Corbeil to send alltheir surplus money to the Holy Land. These decrees had been written in Tarsus,‘with the common assent and the council of our brothers and our general chap-ter’.89 Other evidence for the need of the Hospitallers in the East for cash at thistime can be found in a letter sent by Walter Mauclerc, bishop of Carlisle, to King Henry III of England. He mentions that the Hospitaller prior and the Templarpreceptor in England were sent to Germany to conduct negotiations with theSaxons. He emphasizes that they should not be delayed in Germany later thanEaster ‘as they ought to celebrate their chapters, and their brothers should carrywith them money to the Holy Land’.90

The discovery of the general chapter of 1225 is important, not only for an

understanding of the internal organization of the Order but also for its legislativedevelopment. Because of the lack of evidence some historians had argued that nogeneral chapter was assembled for almost sixty years, from 1206 to 1262; theOrder’s legislation stagnated, to be renewed only by the master Hugh Revel. Myfindings confirm Anthony Luttrell’s assumption, based on the preamble to the 1262statutes, that many of those statutes are the result of legislation passed in earliergeneral chapters.91 Although we lack any additional information about the general


He. appeared as commander of Montpellier in Cart., no. 1460. In his index to the Cart.,Delaville Le Roulx catalogues them separately.

88 Marseilles-56H 1281, fols. 29, 75, 106, 108, 110; Cart. Avignon, pp. 14, 233, 235, and nos. 75, 24,29, 31, 57, 61, 62, 65–66, 77, 85, 87, 89, ch. 27, 29–41; Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de St. Jean de

Jérusalem à Avignon et en comtat Venaissin au XIII siècle’, passim; Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean, p. 199.

89 ‘de communi assensu et consilio fratrum nostrorum et capituli nostri generalis’, Cart . no. 1817.For the agreement with Ingeborg see Cart., no. 1785.

90 ‘cum oporteat eos capitula sua celebrare et pecuniam in Terram Sanctam cum fratribus suistransmittere’, Diplomatic Documents , vol. I, no. 160. The capitula which Walter Mauclerc referredto were probably the provincial chapters of the Templars and the Hospitallers in England,where the money was collected and from there sent to the East. On the provincial chapters seeIntroduction above, p. 9.

91 Humphrey-Smith, Hugh Revel , p. 44; A. Luttrell, ‘The Hospitallers’ Early Written Records’, The Crusades and their Sources: Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. J. France and W.G. Zajac,

Aldershot, 1998, p. 151, and his article ‘The Hospitallers’ Early Statutes’, Revue Mabillon, 75(2003), p. 17.



chapter of 1225, it may have been summoned to confirm institutional changeswithin the Order. It followed a visit by the master Garin of Montaigu to Europe ona fund-raising campaign after the failure of the Fifth Crusade. He met Frederick IIin Palermo in 1224, who in response to requests from the master allowed free ship-ments of supplies to the brothers in the East.92 Garin of Montaigu was then in

England together with John of Brienne, king of Jerusalem, asking for help for theHoly Land and visiting the Order’s commanderies. Later he visited the houses of Bordeaux, Paris, and Orange.93 His visit to the French houses may have beenconnected with the establishment of a third priory in France, the priory of Auvergne, which took over control of the Massif Central from the priory of St.Gilles.94

The re-disposition of the Order’s leadership in Europe and the calling of thegeneral chapter intimate a conflict of interest between the master and the conventin the Holy Land and its European houses, perhaps over a policy of retrenchmentthat was required in order to face economic crisis in the East. There is, however, noevidence that the replacement of leadership or the visit by the master to Europechanged the economic policy of the French priories. Long-term investments in landand property were still being made. No changes had been instituted by the grandcommanders of Outremer, ad hoc officers appointed by the master to be in overallcharge in Europe, to suggest they disapproved of the policies being pursued.95

Indeed, Aimery of Pax, grand commander of Outremer from 1215 to 1216, hadbeen involved in one of the most important and expensive acquisitions inManosque.96 It is therefore unlikely that the investment policies of the French prio-ries ran counter to the wishes of the central convent in the East or that there was a

constitutional crisis. It may be that the revenues of the French priories from dona-tions, seigneurial rights, and tithes, as well as the exploitation of their property, werelarge enough to allow both the expansion of the Order in France and the support of its houses in the Holy Land. The reorganization of the Order’s administration inFrance may have been a necessary change implemented to cope with its rapidexpansion there and could have been one of the reasons for the changes inpersonnel and perhaps the creation of a new priory.

All priories owed responsiones and it may be indicative that the English priory wasrenting out property at the beginning of the thirteenth century.97 It is difficult,


92 ‘nihilominus etiam res ipsius hospitalis, que ultra mare ad opus ipsius hospitalis et fratrum eiusmittuntur, sine contradictione et molestia deportari de cetero permittentes’, Acta imperii inedita ,

vol. I, no. 268.93 Matthew Paris, vol. III, p. 82; Cart., nos. 1786, 1789, 1790.94 The specific date for the establishment of the priory of Auvergne is unknown. See Delaville Le

Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , p. 371; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 354–55.95 For the grand commander of Outremer see Introduction above, p. 9.96 He bought all that the lord of Serviéres had in the city for 2,000 oboles of gold. Cart., no. 1450;

Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean, p. 37. None of the four grand commanders of Outremer serving from 1193 to 1247 was involved in selling or renting out property. ForWilliam of Villiers (1193): Cart., no. 945; Garcia of Lisa (1198–99): Cart., nos. 1022, 1026,1056, 1057, and Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 263, 273; Aimery of Pax (1215–1216): Cart., nos. 1450,1444, 1484, 1459, 1460, 1464. Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean , p. 199;Isembard (1211, 1222): Cart., nos. 1360, 1758.

97 Cart., nos. 1153, 1217, 1233, 1452.



however, to establish whether the money raised by the Hospitallers in Englandthrough leasing was a response to appeals from the East or part of their regularproperty-leasing policy, which had always been their prime source of profit.98

Although the Hospitallers in the Iberian peninsula owed responsiones and were onlytemporarily exempted from them in the 1270s,99 their ability to supply them and to

react to crises in the East greatly depended on their involvement in the Reconquista .They were probably able to send supplies from the kingdom of Navarre, which wasnot deeply involved in the defence of frontier land,100 but documents relating to theHospitallers in Castile and León evince no change in the Order’s economic activityin these kingdoms after 1188.101 One may wonder whether the castellany of Amposta, which was involved in the defence of the reconquered lands of Aragonand the development of their economic and social life, would have been in a posi-tion to send significant contributions to the East.102

1240–1274: Years of Change

The French priories were the richest and biggest Hospitaller provinces in Europe,and they apparently began to feel the strain in 1247–48, the years following LaForbie and leading to St. Louis’ crusade. As was the case after Hattin, the numberof investments significantly decreased after 1247.103 This may well be explained bya lack of sources, as some of the most important French cartularies that survivecover mainly the first quarter of the thirteenth century.104 However, other evidence


98 See, for example, Chapter 1 above, p. 16, for appeals to the prior of England at the beginning of. the thirteenth century. For the economic activity of the English priory see SC , pp.LXXV–LXXX. See also below, p. 99

99 See below, p. 100.100 The priory of Navarre also conducted extensive economic activities which included the

transfer of property to private hands in return for annual rents. See El gran priorado de Navarra , vol. II, e.g. nos. 68, 74, 88. For a discussion on the participation of the priory of Navarre inthe Reconquista see ibid., vol. I, p. 77; J. Goñi Gaztambide, ‘Recensiones’, Hispania Sacra , 9(1956), pp. 461–64. For a general discussion on the Hospitallers and the Reconquista see

A. Forey, ‘The Military Orders and the Spanish Reconquest in the Twelfth and ThirteenthCenturies’, Military Orders and the Crusades , Aldershot, 1994, essay no. V, pp. 197–234. A recentstudy has been published on the Hospitallers in Spain by C. Barquero Goñi, Los caballeros Hospitalarios en España durante la Edad Media (siglos XII–XV), Burgos, 2003.

101 Libros de privilegios de la orden de San Juan de Jerusalén en Castilla y León , ed. C. de Ayala Martínez,Madrid, 1995, pp. 344–417.

102 For the Hospitallers in Aragon, see M.L. Ledesma Rubio, ‘Notas sobre la actividad militar delos Hospitalarios’, Principe de Viana , 25 (1964), pp. 51–56; M. Bonet Donato, La Orden del Hospital en la Corona de Aragón: Poder y gobierno en la Castellanía de Amposta (S. XII–XV), Madrid,1994, pp. 30–51. See also below, pp. 99–101.

103 I found a relatively small number of investments for this period: Cart. Velay, no. 53;Cart.Bruxelles , nos. 63, 69, 76; Marseilles 56H 1281, fol. 107; Cart. Avignon, p. 28 and nos. ch. 56,60–61.

104 For example, the Cart. St. Gilles and Cart. Trinquetaille . See also D. Le Blévec and A. Venturini,‘Cartulaires des Ordres militaires, XII–XIII siècles (Provence Occidentale, Basse Valle duRhône)’, Les Cartulaires. Actes de la table ronde, organisée par l’École Nationale des Chartes et le G.D.R.121 du C.N.R.S., ed. O. Guyotjeannin, L. Morelle and M. Parisse, Paris, 1993, pp. 451–65;



exists of an economic crisis. In a letter issued in May 1247 Innocent IV emphasizedthe urgent need of the Military Orders for supplies from Europe. Forbidding theprelates to demand from the houses and churches of the Hospitallers and theTemplars in the West the money required from the Church to support the Holy See,he explains that owing to the miserable situation into which the Orders had fallen

they expected immediate supplies from their houses and churches overseas.105 Theneed for cash must also have been the reason for granting the Hospital moneycollected from the redemption of crusading vows,106 and it may also have resulted inthe disposal of property by the French houses. In February 1248 Andrew Polin,prior of France, admitted that the Order still owed the canons of St. Marcel of Parismoney for the purchase of a house in the city. In June that year he sold a manor inBeaujeu for 1,000 livres tournois . This transaction was made to cover the needs of thepriory and was approved by the French chapter. In February 1250 the new prior of France, Philip of Egly, confirmed a sale of land by a brother called Simon,commander of the houses of Paris and Senlis. He also confirmed a transfer of landby the house of Éterpigny in return for an annual rent.107 The only significantacquisition by the priory of France during this period was of property in Bofles andNeus, for 180 livres parisis , made by the commandery of Fieffes in October 1244. A year later the commandery of Éterpigny bought property in the region for 20 livres parisis . Recall, however, that compared with the purchases by the priors of France atthe beginning of the century, and considering the rise in inf lation, 200 livres was nota large sum.108

The financial situation of the priory of France apparently differed from that of St. Gilles and of Auvergne, both of which seem to have continued their investments

until the 1250s. In 1241 and 1244–45, the commandery of St. Paul les Romansmade small acquisitions of lands and rents for about 80 livres viennois .109 In the Midi,the commandery of Devesset (in the priory of Auvergne) bought the village of Chaumargeais as well as lands in the area for 5,000 sous of Puy in 1246.110 A yearlater the Hospitallers in Avignon bought lands and property in the parish of St.Geniès for 1,900 sous Raymondins .111 In his Histoire des grands prieurs et du prieuré de Saint Gilles , Raybaud mentions, unfortunately without referring to his sources, a numberof acquisitions by the prior of lordships, rights, and tracts of forest between 1247and 1250. In January 1249 Alasatie, lady of Rognes (Provence), entered the Order


D. Carraz, ‘Templiers et Hospitaliers en France méridionale (XII–XIII siècles). À propos d’unouvrage rècent’, Provence historique , 50 (2000), pp. 216–17.

105 Cart., no. 2441. For the exemption of the Military Orders from the taxation imposed by Inno-cent IV see Chapter 3 below, pp. 116–17.

106 See Chapter 3 below, p. 117.107 Cart., nos. 2464, 2474, 2515, 2523.108 Cart. Fieffes (S5533), fol. 190; Cart. Éterpigny, fol. 59. Fossier points out a significant increase

in the price of land in Picardy from 1225. Fossier, La terre et les hommes en Picardie , vol. II, pp.577–79. As will be shown below, the area also suffered acute inflation in the prices of agricul-tural products. See below, p. 84 and note 121.

109 AD du Rhône , pp. 97–98.110 AD du Rhône (antérieur), p. 167. According to Chassaing (editor of Cart. Velay ), p. II, this is one of

the oldest acts of the priory of Auvergne.111 Cart. Avignon, no. ch. 56; Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de St. Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon et en comtat

Venaissin au XIII siècle’, p. 27.



as a consoror . She bequeathed to the priory of St. Gilles the lordships of Rognes,Lapalud, Pelafol, Meireste, St. Maurice, Trigance, and Lamartre, from which shewould keep the revenues for life. The surplus incomes of the commandery of Comps, after deduction of the money needed to support the commandery and forpayment of the responsiones , were given to her by Ferrand of Barras as a life annuity.

To consolidate this new acquisition he also gave her 30,000 sous to re-acquireTrigance, which she had transferred to another person.112 These investmentssuggest that as a whole the f inancial state of the priory of St. Gilles must have beenmore stable, although the state of individual commanderies within the priory mayhave differed and some of them were disposing of and renting out property. In 1248the commandery of Valentine, in the Toulouse area, sold to the Cistercian abbey of Notre Dame de Léoncel lands for 8 livres viennois . This transaction was conductedunder instructions from the prior of St. Gilles, and the brothers emphasized thatthey made this sale because of the needs of their house.113

The failure of St. Louis’ crusade and the aggravation of conditions in the Latinsettlement in the second half of the thirteenth century must have increased the reli-ance of the Hospitallers in the East on supplies from Europe. The gap in thesources, however, makes it extremely difficult to build up a consistent picture of thereaction of the French priories to these demands. From 1250 onwards there is asharp decline in the number of acts relating to the Hospitallers. As was emphasizedabove, this could be explained by the fact that only a few of the Order’s surviving cartularies cover the years after 1240. However, even cartularies that include mate-rial for later years show a drastic decline in the number of charters. For the periodbetween 1250 and 1260 the Order’s general cartulary includes only two acquisitions

of property and two donations in France. In November 1250 the Hospitallers of Pech-Vilauges (county of Toulouse) bought a farm for 1,200 sous of Cahors and in July 1253 the prior of France leased lands in the region of Gaudiempré (county of Artois) for an annual rent of 24 sous .114 Although Delaville Le Roulx’s cartulary isincomplete and could therefore be misleading, other sources give similar indica-tions. The cartulary of Fieffes includes, for the same period, only one acquisition of an annual rent of oats, while the cartulary of Éterpigny records only onepurchase.115 Sources other than the commanderies’ cartularies indicate that someinvestments were still being made after 1250, although to a much smaller degree.

The Inventaire sommaire des Archives départementales du Rhône allows us to follow theeconomic activity of the commandery of St. Paul les Romans, although its cartularyends in 1225. We have seen that this commandery bought property in the late1240s. Additional purchases of lands and rents were made in 1252, 1256, and 1262.But the most expensive of these acquisitions was worth not more than 100 livres viennois .116 I have tried to compensate for the lack of primary sources after 1250 with


112 Raybaud, Histoire des grands prieurs , pp. 157–59.113 ‘alienationem predictorum fecimus ob utilitate et necessitatem domus nostre’, Cartulaire de

l’abbaye Notre Dame de Léoncel , ed. U. Chevalier, Montélimar, 1869, no. 157. For additional salessee Cart., nos. 2481, 2489.

114 Cart., nos. 2544, 2648. For donations see nos. 2690, 2965.115 Cart. Fieffes (S5533), fols. 174v–175; Cart. Éterpigny, fol. 59.116 AD du Rhône , pp. 97–98. These investments seem relatively small as against the economic



references to the Order’s economic activities in secondary works, although eventhorough studies, such as Le Blévec’s article on Avignon, do not cover the years after1250. The only significant reference I have found was the purchase in 1258 of seig-neurial rights in the village of Notre Dame de Romiguier, for which the commanderof Manosque paid the abbot of St. Victor de Marseilles 16,000 sous Raymondins .117

A decline in the number of acts is a feature of the charter collections of otherMilitary Orders, and the reasons for it can be found in both Europe and the HolyLand. After 1250 fewer donations were made to the Orders. This decline, asNicholson has explained, was caused by a number of factors, among them thedisenchantment with crusades to the Holy Land following the final loss of Jerusalemand the disaster of St. Louis’ crusade, and, at the same time, a growing popularityof crusades on European soil.118 Le Blévec has identified a decline in the number of donations made to the Hospitaller commandery of Trignan in the Midi from the1250s, which he has also explained in terms of the unpopularity of crusading to theHoly Land.119 Yet one of the most interesting aspects of charters of donation to theHospitallers throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, long after the Order’smilitarization, is that they were granted for support of the poor and the hospital.The Hospitaller defence of the Holy Land was hardly mentioned. As Nicholson haspointed out, evidence of a decline in the popularity of crusading to the Holy Landwould be found in changes to family traditions of endowments. Noble familiesstopped or reduced their traditional patronage of Military Orders. This alsoaffected the lords’ vassals, who were consequently less willing to grant donations tothe Orders. The Hospitallers’ rights and wealth also came under severe criticismand were often challenged by lay lords.120

The willingness, and also the ability, of donors to support the Orders must alsohave been affected by economic factors. The second half of the thirteenth centurywas a time of acute inflation. The cessation of forest clearance at a time of contin-uous demographic growth, together with problems related to imports and interna-tional trade, caused a sharp rise in the prices of wheat and wine, as well as animalsand their products.121 This unstable economic situation seems to have affected


activity of this commandery at the beginning of the century. As we have seen, thiscommandery had consolidated its property with a large number of acquisitions and donationsby the 1220s.

117 Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean, pp. 49–50. Le Blévec gives a very thoroughchronological description of the development of the commandery of Avignon and itsdependent houses. Yet, except for mentioning that the Hospitallers disputed their seigneurialrights in Orange, he does not cover the years beyond 1250. Note however that neither does herefer to it as a period of crisis. See Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de St. Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon eten comtat Venaissin au XIII siècle’, pp. 36–37 (for their disputes over Orange) and passim.

118 H. Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders, 1128–1291 ,Leicester, 1993, pp. 65–68.

119 Le Blévec, ‘Les Hospitaliers de Saint Jean de Jérusalem en Bas-Vivarais’, p. 22.120 Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights , pp. 66–67. For criticism see pp. 69–79. For

the fact that the Order’s rights and property were challenged by secular lords see below, p. 90.121 The rise in wheat prices, for example, was felt mainly in the north. In Lille there had been

inflation of 300% from 1187–1246 and imports of grain from England to the ports of Flanders were not able to meet demand. See G. Sivery, L’économie du Royaume de France au siècle de



regions which were vital for the supply of responsiones to the East. The impoverish-ment of the nobility of Provence meant that donations to the Templar commanderyof Ruou (in the Argens valley, Provence) had almost stopped by 1253. Sigal sees acorrelation between the decline in the number of donations and the ability of thiscommandery to expand; before the second half of the thirteenth century it had

consolidated its estates with donations, acquisitions, and exchange of property.122Note that lack of investments does not always mean that the commanderies facedfinancial difficulties. In Languedoc, the commanderies of Puysubran and Caignacreached the peak of their expansion and consolidation of property by the 1240s. Afterwards, claims Berthe, the expansion of the Order in this area ceased, notbecause of financial difficulties but because of scarcity of available lands and areasin which to expand in a period of continuous demographic growth.123

The effect of economic changes on the Military Orders may be seen if onecompares two Templar cartularies from the Domena , the preceptory cartulary of Saulce-sur-Yonne, near Sens, and that of Bellenglise (Belle-Eglise), near Amiens.Out of 117 acts dated 1250–60 found in the cartulary of Saulce-sur-Yonne,seventy-one are acquisitions of lands and property, mainly vineyards, valuedbetween 60 sous tournois and 482 livres .124 There is no evidence for acquisitions in thecartulary of Bellenglise for the same period.125 It is, of course, difficult to assess theeconomic policy of individual commanderies from the surviving material, and thereasons for the discrepancy in the cartularies could be random; Bellenglise wasprobably a much smaller house (Fossier calls it ‘une modeste maison’).126 It may,however, be possible to explain the investments of Saulce-sur-Yonne, at a time when


Saint Louis , Lille, 1984, pp. 59–133; R. Fossier, Le Moyen Âge. Le Temps des Crises,1250–1520 ,Paris, 1983, pp. 24–27.

122 P. Sigal, ‘Une seigneurie ecclésiastique en Provence orientale au Moyen Âge: La commanderiede Ruou’, Provence historique , 15 (1965), pp. 129–33. Duby (Rural Economy, pp. 234–35) states thatalthough some religious establishments were in debt and suffered from financial difficulties,their ability to expand their possessions still more was closely connected with the donationsthey received. Sivery (L’économie du Royaume de France , pp. 213–14) argues that the second half of the thirteenth century is marked by an economic crisis in Marseilles, aggravated by the loss of markets in the East. Michaud, who placed these events in the last quarter of the century, foundthat this economic crisis led to a change in the patterns of endowments to religious orders.The large donations of lands, which were a common feature in the twelfth century, werereplaced by more modest monetary donations. See F. Michaud, Un signe des temps. Accroissement des crises familiales autour du patrimoine à Marseille à la fin du XIIIe siècle , Toronto, 1994, pp. 40–54.See also Demurger, Vie et mort , pp. 225–26. However, different economic conditions prevailedin different regions in Provence. According to Stouff the development of the Camargue hadceased by 1240 while the most intensive period of clearing and settlement in the Crau wasbetween 1260 and 1340. See L. Stouff, Arles à la fin du Moyen Âge , Aix en Provence, 1986, vol. I,p. 93. Carraz found that although the Templars in Provence faced financial difficulties andsuffered from the decline of the traditional nobility, they also looked for new business partners:the bourgeoisie and the Jews. See Carraz, ‘Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétésméridionales’, pp. 339–45.

123 M. Berthe, ‘Deux commanderies Hospitalières du Lauragais, Puysubran et Caignac

(XII–XIV siècle)’, Les Ordres Militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement en Europe occidentale, XII–XIII siècles , Flaran 6 (1984), p. 210.

124 Cart. Saulce sur Yonne, fols. 22–70.125 Cart. Fieffes (S5533), fols. 259–80.126 Fossier, ‘Les Hospitaliers et les Templiers au nord de la Seine’, p. 19.



other houses stopped expanding, by the fact that in the 1250s Paris and theIle-de-France enjoyed an economic boom. Donations to monastic orders in thisregion were still being made, and the Templars in Paris were perhaps investing largeamounts of ready cash that were deposited with them.127 Nevertheless, if this wasthe case, and the Templars were still able to invest in the Ile-de-France because it

was a prosperous area, one cannot explain the lack of evidence for Hospitallerinvestments in the same region. The very few acts that I have found for this regionall relate to arbitration by the Parliament of Paris regarding the Order’s rights andprivileges.128

At the same time as additional sources of income in terms of donations ceased,the Hospitallers, as great landlords, must also have been affected by the economicsituation. The only way of keeping rents profitable, for example, would have been toadjust them to the rate of inf lation.129 These financial difficulties had to be faced ata time of increasing demands from the East, and they resulted in the alienation of property rather than the readjustment of rents. Innocent IV allowed the Templarsin 1253 to sell property worth up to 2,000 silver marks to cover their debts. For thesame reason both Orders were granted money collected from the redemption of crusading vows. Papal and Templar letters indicate that in order to maintain theirfortifications and forces in the Holy Land the brothers would have to be forced tosell property and goods in Europe.130 At a time of inf lation this would mean furtherlosses, as indicated in a letter of May 1257 in which Pope Alexander IV instructedthe head of the religious community at St. Etienne de Beaune, in the diocese of Autun, to revoke alienations of property made by the Hospitaller priory of France.This letter was sent in response to an appeal to the pope, in which the Hospitallers

explained that they and their predecessors had had to relinquish, or rent for life orfor long periods, to laymen and clerics, lands, meadows, vineyards, and other prop-erty and sources of income at great loss. The pope asked the prior to declare thesetransactions illegal as they violated the Order’s resolution of 1206, which forbadethe alienation of property without permission from Hospitaller officials and thecentral government.131 According to Reynaud, a similar letter was sent in 1251 by


127 The importance of Paris and the Ile de France as a centre of trade and royal administrationincreased at a time when traditional centres of trade, such as the fairs of Champagne, weredeclining. See Sivery, L’économie du Royaume de France , pp. 256–60. On donations to monasticinstitutions in this area see Fourquin, Les campagnes de la région Parisienne , p. 141. Lack of evidence makes it difficult to establish whether the Templars had indeed invested the moneywhich had been deposited with them. See Forey, The Military Orders , p. 117.

128 Cart., nos. 2876, 2900. For appeals of the Military Orders to the Parliament of Paris see also J.-M. Carbasse, ‘Les commanderies: aspects juridiques et institutionnels’, La Commanderie, insti-tution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval , ed. A. Luttrell and L. Pressouyre, Paris, 2002, pp.21–25.

129 Forey, The Military Orders , p. 124.130 See Chapter 1 above, p. 33, and Chapter 3 below, pp. 105, 117.131 Cart., no. 2872. See also Chapter 3 below, p. 120. Decree no. 12 of the statutes of Margat,

from 1206 (Cart., no. 1193) forbade alienations of property that had not been approved by thegeneral chapter. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 346–47. Alienations of Church property that had not been authorized by the relevant superior was a violation of Canon Law and could be annulled. See Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique , ed. R. Naz, vol. I, cols.403–415; vol. VII, cols. 377–80.



Pope Innocent IV to the bishop of Sisteron, instructing him to revoke alienations of property made by the Hospitaller commandery of Manosque. The letter was issuedin response to a Hospitaller appeal following disputes over property, most probablyover the churches of St. Etienne de Orques and St. Pierre.132 After 1250 both theHospitallers and the Templars appealed several times to the pope for the annulment

of their transactions. In April 1265 Clement IV asked the abbot of Saint-Guilhem-le-Désert, in the diocese of Lodève, to revoke alienations of prop-erty made by the Templars in Provence.133 Referring to a similar letter sent byClement IV to the Templars a year later, Mannier described the brothers’ acts as‘injustes et bien condamnables’. He claimed that knowing that the Order’s statutesforbade alienation of property, the Templars rented out fallow land and took it backby means of papal letters of this kind, after the land had been improved by thetenants. In fact the Order’s contemporaries criticized its aggressive economic policy.Barber has stressed their resentment and their belief that the Templars’ deep finan-cial involvement had caused their estrangement from their original religious ideals.This may have been a reason for a decline in the number of donations given to theOrder after the 1240s, which may have aggravated the Order’s situation.134 Carraz,who conducted a detailed study on the economy of the Templar houses in Provence,also considers the papal annulments of the Order’s transaction a symptom of theireconomic diff iculties.135

It is most surprising that although the papal letters indicate that the Hospitallerswere disposing of property there is hardly any evidence of it in their sources. Apartial explanation of this is the fact that if they sold the property the deed wouldmost probably have been kept by the buyer.136 This was not the case with rents. And

although they should have kept some record I was able to locate only one charternoting that they rented out property. In June 1253 the commanders of Chazellesand St. Bonnet les Places leased to the bishop of Lyons lands in Ponas for an annualrent of 18 livres viennois .137 The lack of rent contracts could be significant at a timewhen in order to fix the value of rents to the rate of inflation landlords tried tochange their long-term contracts into fermages or fermages à temps : tenancies in whichthe land was worked for short periods (several years) and the rent was in kind.138 Yetgiven the fragmentary material it is diff icult to conclude that the lack of new leasesand contracts means that the Hospitaller commanderies in France did not adapt to

the changing economic circumstances. In a detailed study on the financial situation


132 Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean, p. 49; Cart., no. 2570.133 Malteser Urkunden, no. 322.134 Unfortunately Mannier did not give a reference to this letter. See Mannier, Les commanderies ,

p. XV. M. Barber, ‘The Social Context of the Templars’, TRHS , 5th series, 34 (1984),pp. 43–46.

135 Carraz, ‘Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales’, pp. 736–37.136 I was able to f ind only one example in which the Hospitallers sold property. In May 1265 the

commander of Toulouse, under orders from Ferrand of Barras, prior of St. Gilles, sold the

Order’s lands and properties in Maurens. See Raybaud, Histoire des grands prieurs , pp. 174–75.137 Cart., no. 2645.138 Sivery (L’économie du Royaume de France , pp. 130–31) claims that the fermage à temps was the

greatest innovation of commercialized agriculture in the thirteenth century. See also Duby,Rural Economy and Country Life , pp. 257–58.



of the commandery of St. Pierre de Campublic in the fourteenth century BenoîtBeaucage found that by 1334 money rents given to this commandery had beenreplaced with fixed rents in kinds. The increasing inf lation of the thirteenth centuryand the continuous devaluation of money made this change necessary.139

There is evidence, however, that in areas which enjoyed the most prosperous

economy the Hospitallers continued their policy of expansion. In the county of Forez, where the economic crisis was felt only in the 1280s, the commander of Montbrison made a number of purchases of rents.140 Many of these were frommembers of the knightly class, who, in return for loans, converted their alods intofiefs held by the Order (reprise en fief ).141 In 1261 Bernard of Chambun, commanderof St. Bonnet les Places, lent Hugh Arnard 80 livres viennois , for which Hugh pledgedhis vineyards in Le Puy de Vindrieu.142 The Hospitallers took advantage of Hugh’sfinancial situation, for he seems to have been heavily in debt. In July 1259 he surren-dered to Bernard of Chambun his gardens and a tilery in Courzieu to be held as afief. Five years later he relinquished to Bernard all his property there. The Hospital-lers had a great interest in this area. Courzieu, not far from the commandery, wason the main highway, the old ‘Aquitaine Road’, which connected Lyons with the cityof Feurs and from there with Clermont. A number of hospitals and other charitableinstitutions existed in this area in the fourteenth century. In January 1260 Hugh alsogave the Hospitallers property next to their commandery of Chazelles.143 Thiscommandery was also able to enlarge its tenure in the 1250s with a number of


139 Beaucage, ‘Difficultés économiques et réaction seigneuriale au terroir de Beaucaire’, pp. 8–9.

Beaucage’s detailed analysis of this commandery is based on records of papal inquestsconducted in all of the Order’s priories in the course of the fourteenth and fifteenth centuries.On these inquests see also B. Beaucage, ‘Une énigme des hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de

Jérusalem: le déficit des commanderies du moyen Rhône, au prieuré de Provence en 1338’,Provence historique , 30 (1980), pp. 137–62; G. Duby, The Chivalrous Society, trans. C. Postan,London, 1977, pp. 186–215; A.-M. Legras, L’enquête pontificale de 1373 sur l’Ordre des Hospitalliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, Paris, 1987. Although these inquests provide valuable information onthe Hospitallers’ economic activities in the fourteenth century, their use for the study of thefinancial situation of their houses in the thirteenth century is most problematic. After 1312 theextent of Hospitallers’ lands and properties greatly changed following the transfer of theTemplars’ possessions to them (on the transfer see Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 304–08).

140 After studying the Chartes du Forez , Fournial concludes that the expansion of religious housescontinued in the county until the 1280s. After that date their economic development ceased, asForez suffered from overpopulation and famine. See Fournial, Les villes , pp. 265–66, 288–89,and Fossier, Le Moyen Âge , p. 25. On the investments of Montbrison see AD du Rhône (antérieures),p. 302; Chartes du Forez , vol. 4, p. 470, vol. 5, p. 624.

141 On his graph of sales of property by the nobility of Forez between 1250 and 1300, based onthe Chartes du Forez , Fournial (Les villes , graph no. 3, p. 717) shows that the value of their salesaround 1255 was as high as it was towards the end of the century, which he considers a timeof economic crisis. It is interesting that he does not refer to this problem in the text.

142 Bernard of Chambun also acquired small rents of grains and money in 1263. AD du Rhône (antérieures), p. 158.

143 For the transactions with Hugh Arnard see AD du Rhône (antérieures), p. 158. For the importance

of the area of Courzieu see Fournial, Les villes , pp. 147–48. On reprise en fief see S. Reynolds,Fiefs and Vassals: The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted , Oxford, 1994, pp. 48–49, 148, and M. Bloch,The Feudal Society, trans. L. Manyon, London and New York, 1989, p. 173. Reprise en fief was ausual measure adopted by indebted alod-holders, in different parts of France, in order toacquire cash. See Richard, Les Ducs de Bourgogne , pp. 312–14.



reprises en fief , for which it gave in return from 6 to 20 livres viennois .144 The expansionof the Hospitallers in Forez continued into the 1260s and 1270s. In April 1267Robert of Montrognon, prior of Auvergne, and Giraud of Navis, commander of Chazelles, bought the rights of a quarter of a quarry, lands, vineyards, meadows,rents, and hunting rights in St. Genis Terre Noire and St. Martin la Plaine for 300

livres viennois .145 In September 1274 the prior of Auvergne bought annual rents of 19sous viennois as well as rents of wheat which Margaret, lady of St. Arit, had inSoleymieux (near Montbrison) for 64 livres tournois .146 A number of purchases of rights over rents were also made by the Hospitallers in Lozère. In October 1250 theybought the rights to annual rents of wheat, oats, and a small sum of money for 33livres . Five years later the same commandery received a man’s property, whichincluded sheep, cheeses, and a number of huts, for which they paid 40 livres . In 1256they paid 50 livres for an annual rent of wheat, oats, and a small sum of money.147

In the Languedoc the Hospitaller house of La Bastide-Pradines (near Rodez),bought for 30 sous tournois the rents and incomes which Arnal Amorel received froma farm called Camp Souteyran. This is an interesting transaction which may indi-cate the desire of the Order’s commanderies to consolidate their property andsources of income, or perhaps resume possession of their property, as the rents mayhave become unprofitable. The farm had been leased by the Order in 1233 inreturn for 6 livres Melgoriens and a percentage of the produce. The charter specifiedthat the Order had rented the farm out because for the last thirty years the land hadbeen left fallow and had not produced anything. By the 1250s, however, the houseof La Bastide-Pradines had grown and preferred perhaps to cultivate the landdirectly, instead of leasing it out for cash.148 Also in Languedoc the Hospitallers

went into partnership with Alphonse of Poitiers in 1255 in the establishment of anew rural village, a bastide , in St. Sulpice-de-Lézat (Muret, Haute Garonne). Thispartnership, however, encountered some difficulties and the agreement was revisedin 1270. In return for Alphonse of Poitiers’ recognition of their joint ownershipover the bastide , William of Villaret, vice-prior of St. Gilles, agreed to pay the counta deposit of 1,200 livres in advance of the 3,600 livres which the Order owed thecount for this bastide and for additional acquisitions in the county of Toulouse.149

The Order must have had a great interest in developing and extending its assets inLanguedoc, which in the late thirteenth century was an important grazing area for


144 AD du Rhône (antérieures), p. 150.145 AD du Rhône (antérieures), p. 166. On additional acquisitions made by the commander of

Chazelles in the late 1260s and early 1270s see ibid., pp. 147, 150, 151–52, 158.146 Chartes du Forez , vol. 5, p. 661.147 Servière, ‘Commanderie de Gap-Français’, pp. 47, 49.148 A. Soutou, ‘Trois chartes occitanes du XIII siècle concernant les Hospitaliers de La

Bastide-Pradines (Aveyron)’, Annales du Midi , 79 (1967), pp. 122–32, 153–56. According toLewis (pp. 76–79) the economy of the Midi and Languedoc developed until the 1270s.

149 Layettes du Trésor des Chartes , vol. III, no. 4176; Toulouse, Archives départementales de laHaute-Garonne, H216; Cart., no. 3394. On the. bastide of Saint-Sulpice-de-Lézat see

Higounet, ‘Hospitaliers et Templiers’, p. 65. Alphonse’s willingness to resolve this dispute in1270 and to agree to the Hospitallers’ down payment may have been connected with thecount’s pressing need to raise the necessary money to finance his participation in the coming crusade. On Alphonse of Poitiers’ preparation for the Eighth Crusade see Richard, Saint Louis ,pp. 306–7.



horses earmarked for the East. In 1297 Pope Boniface VIII granted the Order thehospital of Aubrac, in the diocese of Rodez, which had the much needed forage. Heemphasized the need to help the Order in southern France to care for its horses, aswar in Spain prevented their export from there.150 The Order could have shippedthese horses from the port of Marseilles, where it enjoyed free passage of two vessels

a year, and also from the port of Montpellier, from where, in 1273, their vesselswere granted free passage by James I of Aragon.151

And yet the most common acts relating to the Order in the second half of thethirteenth century are the settlement of disputes over property and rights and theexchange of property. Some of these exchanges were an attempt by thecommanderies to consolidate and organize their estates; some were the resolution of disputes arising from the desire of secular lords to regain property that had beendonated to the Order and to restrict its privileges.152 Most of the Order’s acts fromthe Ile-de-France were of this nature.153 A number of agreements between thecounts of Forez and the prior of Auvergne also indicate conflicts over Hospitallerrights in the county.154 At the beginning of the 1260s the commander of Le Puyconcluded an agreement with Margaret of Auvergne, lady of Montlaur and St.Privat, regarding the rights of justice over Mas de Varenne, Poux, and Fonts.155 InNovember 1269 John of Cheury, vice-prior of France, agreed to put an end to along dispute with the count of Artois over the rights of justice that the commanderyof Fieffes enjoyed in Nues and Villers.156 St. Gilles’ estate was also increasingly chal-lenged from the second half of the thirteenth century. William of Villaret, theOrder’s drapier and vice-master, was appointed vice-prior of St. Gilles in October1269. Immediately on his arrival he was obliged to reach an agreement with Aimar

of Poitiers, lord of Valentois, according to which all that the priory had acquired inthis lordship in the last forty years would be held in fief. The Order also promised togive Aimar military service of sixty men in case of war.157 The Order’s rights werealso challenged in the lordship of Orange, which the Hospitallers had shared withthe princes of Orange since 1215. After a long dispute of almost fifteen years, theHospitallers had to agree in 1272 to hold their share as a fief from the princes.158


150 Cart., no. 4334.151 For free shipment from the port of Marseilles see above, pp. 74–75. For James’s grant see Cart.,

no. 3491.152 From the second half of the thirteenth century secular rulers tried to restrict Church institu-

tions acquiring lands and property. See Barber, The New Knighthood , p. 297; Forey, The MilitaryOrders , p. 121; Richard, Les Ducs de Bourgogne , pp. 377–79; Fourquin, Les campagnes de la régionParisienne , p. 141, n. 162; S. Raban, Mortmain Legislation and the English Church, 1279–1500 ,Cambridge, 1982, pp. 12–29.

153 See above, p. 86.154 AD du Rhône (antérieures), p. 153; Chartes du Forez , vol. 5, p. 646 (Cart., no. 3249)155 Cart. Velay, no. 56.156 Cart. Fieffes (S5059), fol. 7.157 Cart., no. 3384; Raybaud, Histoire des grands prieurs , p. 181. On William of Villaret see

Appendix below, and Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 206–07.158 Cart., no. 3460. On this agreement and the Order’s possession of Orange see Le Blévec,

‘L’Hopital de St. Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon et en comtat Venaissin au XIII siècle’, pp. 32,34–35. For additional disputes over the Order’s seigneurial rights see Cart., nos. 3404 (3467),3416.



We have seen that some investments were made by the French commanderiesbetween 1250 and 1260, but in general they seem to have alienated property inorder to provide the East with funds, and also to match their revenues with theincreasing cost of living at a time when donations to them were diminishing. Thedisposal of property in Europe was a threat to the future ability of these houses to

send responsiones to the East. The decrees of the Order’s general chapter inSeptember 1262 illuminate this point. The chapter claimed that the commandersoverseas alienated property for which they received a large down payment and lowrents; at a time of acute inflation such cash would lose its value very quickly. Thechapter decreed that the Order’s property should not be leased. Only in cases inwhich it would not be profitable or it was not possible to keep the property would itbe leased for the largest rent obtainable. Commanders should not ask for more thana one-year entry fine ( gersum ). Strong measures were also taken to control the priorsoverseas, who were ordered to keep a record of all their lands, vineyards, andmeadows. It was stated that every commandery should have a copy of the part of the register that was relevant to them.159 The 1262 decrees seem to have resulted inthe compilation of a number of cartularies, for example, the Maplestead cartulary,which according to Gervers was compiled by 1270 and contains the deeds of theHospitallers’ administrative centres in Essex.160

Changes in the Order’s leadership in France could be indicative of changes in itseconomic policy. There was a difference in the dispositions of the leadership of thepriories of France and St. Gilles, which may have resulted from the latter’s economybeing more stable, as this work has shown. It is important to note, however, that asthe material regarding the priories’ economic activities is fragmentary, so is infor-

mation regarding their officers. Philip of Egly appears for the first time in theOrder’s sources in February 1250 already as the prior of France. There is no furtherinformation about his term of office, but in April 1256 he appears again as a simplebrother in Acre (there is no evidence for the presence of other European priors in Acre at the same time, which could imply a general chapter).161 He was replaced asprior of France by William Pijons, who had been commander of Cyprus in 1248.William is recorded as prior of France for the first time in 1253, which means thatPhilip’s term of office was very short. William must have held this post for several years as he appears as prior of France in 1256 and 1257.162 In December 1260

Philip reappeared as prior of France, a post which he apparently kept until March1264.163 No replacements took place in the priory of St. Gilles. Ferrand of Barraswas prior and also grand commander of Outremer from 1246 to 1268. He waseventually replaced by William of Villaret, not because of mismanagement but oldage.164 No changes of leadership seem to have taken place in some of the


159 Cart., no. 3039, clauses 15, 16, 23, 25.160 M. Gervers, The Hospitaller Cartulary of the British Library (Cotton MS Nero E VI), Toronto, 1981,

pp. 84, 87, 166–67.161 Cart., nos. 2514, 2523, 2810.162 Cart., nos. 2482, 2648, 2881; Cart. Éterpigny, fols. 35–36, 107–08.163 Cart., nos. 2969, 2991, 3008, 3031, 3036, 3076–77; Cart. Éterpigny, fols. 88–90; Delaville Le

Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte et à Chypre , p. 417.164 Cart., nos. 2419, 2481, 2570, 2604, 2645, 2923, 2965, 2986, 3035, 3301, 3308. See also

Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 280–82. For William see Cart., no. 3416.



commanderies subject to St. Gilles either. Berenger Monge, commander of Manosque, served in this post from 1249 for a record period of almost 40 years. Hewas also the vice-prior of St. Gilles in 1263 and 1266.165

1262–1274: A Time of Financial and Political Crisis

It is unfortunate that so little evidence survives for the career of Philip of Egly. Thisbrother had a leading role in events that took place in the 1260s, which determinedthe economic fate of the French priory and its ability to support the Order in theEast. As stated above, Philip was in the Holy Land in 1256. Although there is noevidence as to the office he held at that time or his relation with the master HughRevel, it is significant that following his reappointment as prior of France in 1260the number of Hospitaller investments in that kingdom rose considerably. Althoughevidence for a larger number of recorded deeds may well have been the result of changes in the Order’s archival policy following the decrees of 1262, it could alsohint to new economic measures taken by Philip that would match the policy dictatedby the master and the general chapter. The cartulary of Éterpigny, which does notrecord any purchases for 1250–60, has six purchases of lands and seigneurial rightsfor 1260–67. The most important purchase was in September 1262. The Hospital-lers bought 101 acres, next to the commandery, for 700 livres parisis .166 In June that year Philip, with the approval of the provincial chapter of the priory of France,acquired a manor in Éterpigny for which he promised to give an annual rent of 100

sous parisis .167 Similarly, between 1260 and 1274 the Hospitallers in Brussels doubledthe number of their acquisitions compared with the previous years, mainly byreceiving lands and rights in return for annual rents.168 The economic activity of theFrench priory ceased, however, in the second half of the 1260s, a change undoubt-edly linked with Philip’s involvement in Charles of Anjou’s crusade against theHohenstaufen in southern Italy.

As a result of his victory over Manfred in the battle of Benevento, in February1266, Charles, count of Anjou, Maine and Provence, conquered the kingdom of Sicily, which he held as a papal fief.169 Three months later Clement IV asked the


165 Cart., nos. 2570, 2885; Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean, pp. 52, 199.166 Cart. Éterpigny, fols. 119–25. For additional purchases see Cart. Éterpigny, fols. 41–45, 82–83,

69–70, 72–73.167 Cart. Éterpigny, fols. 88–90; Cart., no. 3031.168 Cart. Bruxelles , nos. 113, 116, 121, 124, 137, 140. Some of these transactions were reprise en fief ,

for which the money given by the Order to the alod-holders is not specified. See, for example,nos. 141, 142, 145.

169 The kingdom of Sicily, also generally referred to by the Italian term Regno, encompassed theisland of Sicily and the south of Italy, up to the frontier of the Papal State (except forBenevento, a papal enclave). On this and on Charles of Anjou and his policy in southern Italy

see D. Abulafia, The Western Mediterranean Kingdoms, 1200–1500: The Struggle for Dominion,London and New York, 1997, pp. 57–66, and his article ‘The Kingdom of Sicily under theHohenstaufen and Angevins’, The New Cambridge Medieval History, vol. V, ed. D. Abulafia,Cambridge, 1995, pp. 497–521; J. Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou: Power, Kingship and State-Making in Thirteenth-Century Europe , London and New York, 1998, pp. 3–8, 55–76; N. Housley, The



master Hugh Revel to put Philip of Egly in overall charge of the Hospitaller housesin the Regno. Although there is no specific evidence that Philip was the prior of France at this time, Delaville Le Roulx believes that he held the priory for some timeafter 1264. In his letter to the master Clement asked for brother Philip commorantemin Francia . But he addressed Aimery of la Roche in the same way, and the latter was

the Templar preceptor in France until 1271. It seems reasonable to conclude thatCharles asked for both the Hospitaller and Templar priors of France. The papalpetition, with which the master complied, was made following a specific requestfrom Charles of Anjou, who asked that Aimery should also be sent to the Regno.Charles’s request was compelling. The Hospitaller and Templar priors in Francewere among the most important officers in their Orders and leading figures in theeconomic and political life of the kingdom of France. The French monarchy hadstrong links with them and at times even intervened in their appointment: Aimeryhad become preceptor in France in the 1260s following a petition from Louis IX.170

Charles must have had connections with these priors through his lands in Anjou andMaine, and sought their assistance in southern Italy. Considering the good relationsthe Hospitallers maintained with Frederick II’s heirs, he perhaps also wanted toensure the Order’s loyalty.171 This was indeed tested during the rebellion of Conradin’s supporters in Sicily, which preceded the battle of Tagliacozzo.172 In anunprecedented move Clement IV called on the Hospitallers in the Regno, in October1267, to take up arms against Conradin’s supporters.173 Philip did not fail him. Heexhausted the Order’s resources in the region fighting for the Angevin cause, and, asa result, the Hospitaller houses in Sicily were devastated by Charles’s opponents.These events were of grave consequences for the Hospitallers in the Latin East. At a

time of great need, all shipments of supplies from the Regno had stopped.174


Italian Crusades: The Papal-Angevin Alliance and the Crusades against Christian Lay Powers, 1254–1343,Oxford, 1982, pp. 15–34.

170 Cart., no. 3221; Reg. Clément IV , no. 418. On Philip of Egly see Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitalliers en Terre Sainte , pp. 369, 417, n. 3. The Templars, however, did not comply withClement’s request. See A. Forey, ‘The Military Orders and the Holy War against Christians inthe Thirteenth Century’, Military Orders and the Crusades , Aldershot, 1994, essay no. VII, p. 21;Barber, The New Knighthood , p. 274. Note that in the 1270s the Templars had supportedCharles’s political ambitions in the Mediterranean in the belief that he was the only hope forthe survival of the crusader states. See Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 169–70.

171 The Hospitallers’ property in Sicily was confirmed by Conrad and Manfred in 1253, 1258,and 1259. See Cart., nos. 2638, 2893, 2910.

172 On the Sicilian rebellion and the battle of Tagliacozzo see Abulafia, The Western MediterraneanKingdoms , pp. 60–61, and Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou, pp. 168–70.

173 Cart., no. 3279; Thes. novus , vol. II, col. 532. According to Forey, Clement IV was the only popewho had urged the Military Orders to participate in a political crusade in southern Italy. Inthe offensives against Aragon in the 1280s the papacy avoided involving the Templars andHospitallers, although they were asked to make monetary contributions. See Forey, ‘TheMilitary Orders and the Holy War against Christians in the Thirteenth Century’, pp. 11–12;Carraz, ‘Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales’, pp. 635–37.

174 Cart., no. 3308 (vol. IV). According to this letter of Hugh Revel the Hospitallers in the Eastreceived no help from their Italian houses. Just as supplies from the Regno stopped arriving,their houses in Tuscany were raided and despoiled. Although the master did not specify thereasons for these attacks, their houses may have been assailed in the course of the struggleagainst Manfred’s supporters in Tuscany. On this struggle see Abulafia, The Western Mediterra -



Philip of Egly may have used not only the Order’s resources in southern Italy, butalso money drawn from his former priory. Only two months after Clement hadurged the Hospitallers in the Regno to take up arms, he ordered Philip to pay thedebts he incurred while serving as prior of France. He explained that the vice-priorand the brothers of the priory complained to the curia that they owed heavy debts

and that the priory’s property was pledged to merchants because of loans taken outby Philip. These debts were also mentioned in a letter sent in June 1268 to Ferrandof Barras, prior of St. Gilles. The master wrote that the debts incurred by Philiphad exhausted the economic resources of the French priory and prevented thetransfer from there of responsiones to the East.175 Nicholson believes that these loansmay have been taken to support Charles’s campaign to Sicily.176 Considering Philip’s loyalty to the Angevin cause this could be a possible explanation. Yet noclear-cut conclusion on this matter can be reached. The reasons for negotiating these loans are not specified in the sources. They could also have been the result of the priory’s investments in the early 1260s, and Delaville Le Roulx asserts that thechaotic situation of the priory of France was the result of Philip’s poor administra-tion. Delaville Le Roulx, however, did not analyse Philip’s economic policy, and hebases his argument only on the letter sent by Hugh Revel to the prior of St. Gilles.Riley-Smith argues that this faulty administration was due to the priory’s involve-ment in political conflicts.177 If this was the case, it is surprising that Clement, whohad a great interest in the Order’s involvement in southern Italy, and even levied atenth from Hospitaller houses in France in order to support Charles’s campaigns,178

considered these debts Philip’s private affair and not the priory’s. The same attitudewas adopted by Hugh Revel, who after explaining to Ferrand of Barras about the

financial situation of the priory of France, wrote that Philip had promised to coverhis debts but had not yet done so. The master also severely criticized the Hospital-lers’ involvement in the political events in Italy, which, he wrote, was the result of Philip’s own will ( pro suo libito voluntatis ), and which frustrated any hope for receiving supplies from there.179

One must remember, however, that Philip’s appointment in Sicily followed apapal petition and was made with the master’s approval. Hugh’s ambivalencetowards the Order’s involvement in Sicily seems to reflect the complex situation themaster found himself in. He had to comply with papal requests and to manoeuvre

in international politics in a way that would not affect the economic security of theOrder in the East at a time when the situation there was catastrophic.180 Philip’sappointment in Sicily, therefore, seems to have been a compromise. He was giventhe administration of the Order’s houses in the kingdom of Sicily, only ad hoc , as


nean Kingdoms , p. 60; Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou, pp. 83–84; J.K. Hyde, Society and Politics in Medieval Italy: The Evolution of the Civil Life, 1000–1350 , London, 1973, pp. 126–27.

175 Cart., nos. 3285, 3308 (vol. IV).176 Nicholson, The Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights , pp. 31–33.177 Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , pp. 221, 369; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St.

John, pp. 354 and 345, n. 3.178 Housley, The Italian Crusades , pp. 175, 216–17. On the tenth see below, p. 96.179 Cart., no. 3308 (vol. IV). Hugh referred to the debts as ‘debitorum que frater Philipus predictus

contraxerat in eodem, que non solvit, licet solvere promisisset’.180 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 35–42.



during the years he spent in southern Italy he was not replaced as prior of France bya new officer. Until he was appointed to the latter post in 1272, John of Chevry wasthe acting head of this province only in his capacity as vice-prior.181 Forey is right inarguing that Hugh’s criticism exemplifies the difficulties faced by the master andconvent in the East in controlling their officers in Europe, who at times pursued

independent policies.182 Hugh may not have realized the extent of Philip’s commit-ment to Charles of Anjou’s interests in southern Italy, which not only incurred enor-mous cost and prevented the shipment of supplies to the East, but could also have jeopardized the Order’s relations with the remaining Hohenstaufen. It is importantto emphasize that from 1234 the Hospitallers had supported the Hohenstaufenpolicy in the Latin East and had even criticized papal policy, which could have putat risk future help from the emperor to the Holy Land.183 Not surprisingly, there-fore, in November 1268, two years after Philip had been given command of theHospitaller houses in southern Italy, the master and convent in the Holy Landwanted to depose him. Many letters of complaint, written by the master and thebrothers, arrived at the curia. These complaints were, however, ignored by Clement,who in November 1268 extended Philip’s term of office until Easter 1269. Thepope was not willing to antagonize Charles, who claimed that the prior’s presence inSicily was necessary.184 Philip seems indeed to have been not only the count’s keensupporter but also a close adviser. He appears in the list of witnesses, alongsideCharles’s key officers in the Regno, in an agreement signed in July 1267 betweenCharles of Anjou and the exiled Latin emperor Baldwin II.185

Hugh Revel’s letter of 1268 to Ferrand of Barras reveals the chaotic situation inthe Holy Land. Following Baybars’ conquests, all that remained in Christian hands

were the city of Jaffa, the castle of Atlit, and the coast from Acre to Beirut. Hardlyany agricultural land remained, and the kingdom of Jerusalem was completelydependent on supplies from overseas.186 Clearly, the Hospitallers would not havebeen willing to put their resources in Europe at risk in order to support Charles’scause. We have already seen the rage of the Latin settlers with regard to papal policyin the poem Ira et dolor , written at this time by a Templar knight serving in the HolyLand. It expresses fierce criticism of the diversion to Italy of resources andmanpower destined for the Holy Land:

The pope has given pardons to French and Provencals, who helped him againstthe Germans . . . those who want could leave the crusade (to the Holy Land) forwar in Lombardy. Our legates are selling God and his pardon for money.187


181 Cart., nos. 3221, 3285, 3454. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 354.182 Forey, ‘The Military Orders and the Holy War’, p. 21.183 On the Order’s support for Hohenstaufen policy in the East and its criticism of papal policy

see Chapter 3 below, pp. 112–14, 115–16.184 Cart., no. 3321; Thes. novus , vol. II, col. 633.185 RCAR , vol. I, reg. 3, no. 5. This charter is Charles’s promise to assist Baldwin II to recover the.

Latin Empire, as agreed in the treaty of Viterbo. On the treaty see Abulafia, The Western Medi-terranean Kingdoms , pp. 63–64, and Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou, pp. 93–4.

186 See Chapter 1 above, p. 42.187 On Ira et Dolor see Chapter 1 above, pp. 39–40.



The prior of St. Gilles and the officers in charge of the priory of France refusedto pay the tenth levied for Charles’s campaigns. Although the Hospitallers were atfirst exempted from this tax, owing to Charles’s strong pressure on the papacy, theyand other exempt Orders were eventually forced to pay it.188 In March 1266Ferrand of Barras met Clement probably in order to convince him to exempt his

priory from the tenth. The pope did not comply but asked Simon of Brie, the papallegate, to relax the sentences imposed upon the brothers and their churches.189 TheHospitallers had still not paid the tenth by 1270.190 This shows their resistance toany attempt to undermine their privileges but could also hint at their fragileeconomic situation at a time when, faced with inf lation and decrease of income inFrance, they had to respond to increasing demands from the East.

Hugh Revel’s letter to Ferrand of Barras specified that the priory of France washeavily in debt and unable to send any help to the East. Although there is no specificevidence, the priory of St. Gilles seems not to have been in a much better situationby the late 1260s. Hardly any evidence exists of investments made by the priory atthis time. We saw above that most of its deeds were resolutions of disputes following attempts by secular lords to encroach on the priory’s property and rights.191 Para-doxically, Ferrand of Barras, who was asked to give financial support to Charles’scampaigns, had to protect his priory’s rights in Provence from the count’s ambitiouspolicy. After obtaining Provence through his marriage to Beatrix, daughter andheiress of the count, Charles united the cities of Arles, Marseilles, Avignon, andNice under his rule, and claimed the lordship of Manosque from the Hospitallers.192

The brothers owned extensive property in the area and probably could not affordnot to come to terms with the count. In July 1262, after a long debate, they agreed to

swear homage to Charles for their property in Provence and Forcalquier and to givehim military service of ten knights and 100 foot soldiers, a service from which theyhad been exempted by previous rulers. In return the count exempted the Orderfrom all tolls in his lands.193 The relations of the priors of St. Gilles with Charles of Anjou highlight once again the complex policy the Order had to pursue in order toprotect its property and rights. Although they clashed with him over privileges, theHospitallers, like other religious institutions, were suspected of supporting thecount’s efforts to eradicate independent consulates in the largest towns of Provence,fearing that these would violate their rights. As a result the commandery of


188 For Hospitaller exemption from the tenth see Cart., nos. 3122, 3259. For its enforcement seeCart., no. 3318. For a thorough discussion on the taxation levied on exempt Orders to supportCharles’s campaigns in Italy see Housley, The Italian Crusades , pp. 214–19.

189 On the meeting between Ferrand and Clement see Cart., nos. 3215, 3216; Thes. novus , vol. II,cols. 297–98. Housley, The Italian Crusades , p. 217; Raybaud, Histoire des grands prieurs ,pp. 175–77. On Ferrand of Barras see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 281–82.

190 RCAR , vol. I, reg. 5, no. 302; vol. II, reg. 8, no. 555; vol. III, reg. 13, no. 624.191 See above, pp. 86, 90.192 On Charles’s expansion in Provence see P. Guiral and P. Amargier, Histoire de Marseille , Paris,

1983, pp. 86–88; N. Coulet and L. Stouff, ‘Le village de Provence au Bas Moyen Âge’, Cahiers

du Centre d’Études des Sociétés Méditerranéennes, Nouvelle Série , vol. II, 1987, p. 34. For the. Hospital-lers’ lordship of Manosque see Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean, pp. 36–39 and passim.

193 Cart., no. 3035. For Hospitaller homage to Charles see also P. Poindron, ‘L’expansion du comtéde Provence vers le nord sous les premiers Angevins’, Provence historique , 18 (1968), p. 217.



Trinquetaille was raided by Charles’s opponents in January 1249.194 This aggressionhas been explained by Damien Carraz in the context of growing economic difficul-ties, as well as strong anticlerical feelings, the repercussion of the Albigensiancrusade and the establishment in Provence of the new Angevine dynasty. As aresult, the hostility and even violence against the Military Orders was not limited to

Arles but was a common feature of other urban communities in Provence, whichwere jealouse to preserve their economic position and political rights.195 The rising challenge to its rights and income from the second half of the thirteenth centurymust have aggravated the economic situation of the priory of St. Gilles. In March1274 Pope Gregory X ordered the bishop of Riez to revoke alienations of propertymade by the Hospitallers in Provence.196

Lack of investment and the alienation of property could mean that by this timethe priory of St. Gilles, like the priory of France, was facing financial difficulties.Inflation and economic crisis at home, increasing demands from the headquartersin the East following unceasing Mongol and Mamluk invasions, and also, from thelate 1260s, the diversion of resources to support political struggles in Europe, seemto have made the 1262 legislation practically inapplicable. Short of cash, both prio-ries continued alienating property and taking loans.

The Finances of the Priories in Sicily, England and the Iberian Peninsula, 1262–1274

Although the Hospitallers’ priories in France were the biggest in Europe, and there-

fore the most important suppliers of money and manpower to the East, the head-quarters relied on others as well. It is beyond the scope of this research to study theOrder’s economic activities in other regions of Europe in detail. Still, for thepurpose of comparison I shall briefly deal with a number of issues regarding thefinancial situation of the Order’s priories in the kingdom of Sicily, England, and theIberian peninsula in the 1260s. That situation may have influenced the ability of these houses to react to the events in the Holy Land.197

Although the Hospitallers’ involvement in the political events in the Regno causeda financial crisis in their houses in Italy, Sicily, and probably France, Charles

rewarded their loyalty by granting a large number of privileges in the kingdom of Sicily. Pryor has calculated that the major part of the thirty-three charters of privi-


194 GCN , vol. III, Arles, no. 1132. See also L.-H. Labande, Avignon au XIII siècle. L’évèque ZoenTencarari et les Avignonnais , Paris, 1908 (repr. Paris, 1975), p. 133; Dunbabin, Charles I of Anjou,pp. 42–43, 46–47.

195 Carraz, ‘L’anticléricalisme en France méridionale’, pp. 386–93, and his ‘Les ordres militaireset la ville’, pp. 290–92. See also above (p. 72) for the restrictions imposed by several urbancommunities in Provence on the Order’s rights and economic activities.

196 Cart., nos. 3534–35.197 This comparative section is based mainly on secondary sources. Although I carried out orig-

inal research, it was by no means extensive, given that each region could in itself be the subjectof a book. Some of the conclusions may well be modified by new research. Nonetheless, theseconsiderations are worth including, in order to see to what extent the case of the French prio-ries is unusual or conforms to a pattern.



leges given to the Military Orders in 1269–84, which were in the Angevin archives,were given to the Hospitallers.198 Some were granted in order to protect andstrengthen their houses. For example, in September 1269, following a request from James of Taxi, prior of Messina, Charles ordered his officers to protect the brothersand their property. In June 1272 he granted the priory free pasturage for its flocks

on his lands in Sicily.199 The most important of these privileges was the right to shipsupplies from the Regno to Acre; these were greatly needed for the provision of theOrder’s houses in the Holy Land. In July 1269 Charles allowed Peter of Avignon,200

prior of Barletta, to ship from the ports of Apulia to Acre 2,000 salme of wheat,1,000 salme of barley, and 100 salme of legumes, produced by the Hospitaller housesin the region.201 A year later the brothers were allowed to export 300 salme of wheatand 200 salme of barley from Barletta as well as sixteen horses and mules, wheat, andbarley from the port of Brindisi.202 As Pryor has pointed out, the Hospitallers andthe Templars ran a regular cargo service from southern Italy to the Holy Land. In June 1271 their ships were exempted from providing the crown with crossbowmen, aduty imposed on all vessels sailing from the ports of the Regno.203 However, theHospitallers’ export licenses were at times refused by the portulani , theharbourmasters in the Regno, and had to be renewed and enforced following thebrothers’ complaints.204 In August 1272 Charles ordered his officers in the ports of Apulia to allow free shipment of 1,000 salme of wheat, 1,000 salme of barley, 100salme of legumes, seven war horses and seven mules to be sent by the priory of Barletta to Acre.205 In his article on the transportation of horses during the crusadesPryor gives several other examples of royal licenses given by Charles to the Hospi-tallers to export horses and mules from southern Italy to the Holy Land.206

Considering the importance of Hospitaller houses in the Regno for provisioning the Holy Land it is not surprising that the removal of Philip of Egly from office inthe spring of 1269 resulted in changes to the Order’s leadership there. Peter of Avignon, who had served in the 1250s as commander of Tripoli, was appointedprior of Barletta.207 James of Taxi, who was a simple brother in Acre in 1266,


198 Pryor, ‘In Subsidium Terrae Sanctae ’, pp. 133–34.199 Cart., nos. 3347–48, 3457. Additional rights included, for example, the right to transport salt

from the Order’s saltpans in Manfredonia for the use of their houses in Apulia: see RCAR , vol. I, reg. 6, nos. 428–29; Cart., nos. 3366–67.

200 Although in the text Peter’s toponym is ‘Neocastrum’, Delaville Le Roulx believes this to be amistake and that it refers to Peter of Avignon. See Cart., no. 3360, n. 1.

201 Cart., no. 3360; RCAR , vol. I, reg. 6, nos. 402, 410. According to Pryor the salma of grain inNaples in the Angevin period was about 442.5 litres or 320 kilograms. Pryor, ‘In SubsidiumTerrae Sanctae ’, p. 129, n. 3. For similar privileges granted by Charles to the Templars seeBarber, The New Knighthood , pp. 239–40.

202 RCAR , vol. III, reg. 13, no. 474.203 Cart., no. 3423.204 Cart., nos. 3362, 3415, 3462; RCAR , vol. III, reg. 13, no. 715, vol. VII, regs. 25, 30, nos. 44,

104. Pryor, ‘In Subsidium Terrae Sanctae ’, p. 134.205 Cart., no. 3466; RCAR , vol. VIII, reg. 37, nos. 564–65.206 Pryor, ‘Transportation of Horses by Sea during the Era of the Crusades’, p. 110. For the

importance of horses for the Latin settlement and the Military Orders in the East seeRiley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 318–20; Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 236–38.

207 Cart., nos. 2670, 3045, 3357, 3360, 3363.



became prior of Messina. He, like Philip before him, became a close adviser toCharles of Anjou, who often refers to him as ‘our beloved counsellor’. James,however, apparently did not always perform this task willingly, perhaps because itforced him at times to leave his priory. In 1271 Charles asked Hugh Revel to orderthe prior to serve him wherever he needed him.208 In September 1272 Charles sent

James to demand from the Tunisian ruler the tribute he was forced to pay following Louis IX’s second crusade and to take care of the war machines left there after thecrusading army had returned to Sicily. A year later, in March 1273, James wassummoned by Charles to discuss the situation of the Holy Land. By the 1270s,particularly after Charles acquired the crown of Jerusalem in 1277, the commandof Hospitaller houses in the Regno must have become prestigious and was probablyconsidered a springboard for a future career in the Order. After serving ascommander of Messina, James of Taxi replaced Peter of Avignon as prior of Barletta in 1278. In 1286 he was the grand commander of Acre and acting lieutenant on behalf of the master, John of Villiers.209

Although the Order’s houses in southern Italy and Sicily had been affected byCharles’s campaign and the civil war there, by the 1260s these seem to have been theonly ones in Europe from which the headquarters in Acre could expect significantshipments of supplies. Economic and political changes had affected the supply of responsiones not only from France but also from the Spanish kingdoms and England.Hugh Revel’s letter of 1268 stressed that the civil war in England between Henry IIIand the barons, fought between 1263 and 1265, also diminished the Englishresponsiones , on which the Hospitallers in the East were heavily dependent.210 Thereis indeed evidence that the English commanderies laboured under financial difficul-

ties and that to counter them they chose, like the French priories, to alienate prop-erty and take loans. In October 1256 Alexander IV forbade the alienation of Hospitaller property done without the approval of the prior of England.211 InMarch 1262 Urban IV wrote to the Hospitallers in England that letters carrying thepriory’s seal, which had arrived at the curia, showed that they owed several sums tocreditors. Although he recognized the need of this priory to pay its debts, he stressedthat none of the Order’s property should be sold for this purpose.212

In his letter to Ferrand of Barras, Hugh Revel also complained that the suppliesexpected from Spain had diminished and that the Order had received only a few

horses from there.213

As very little evidence survives it is extremely difficult to assess


208 RCAR , vol. VII, reg. 31, no. 142. Charles wrote to Hugh: ‘karissimus amicus noster, ad precesnostras mandaverit rel. fr. Iacobo de Taxi, Priori Hospitalis eiusdem in Messana, ut adrequisitionem nostram moretur ubi Nos voluerimus’.

209 On James of Taxi see Cart., nos. 3213, 3348, 3358, 3498; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John,366. On the Tunisian crusade see Richard, Saint Louis , pp. 314–29.

210 Cart., no. 3308 (vol. IV). The Hospitallers’ establishment and expansion in England has beendescribed by Gervers, who in his excellent studies of the Order in Essex has shown that itsmost intensive expansion was in the 1230s and 1240s. See Gervers, SC , pp. XLV–VI,LXXV–LXXX; PC , pp. LXXXII. On royal patronage to the Hospitallers see Nicholson, ‘The

Military Orders and the Kings of England’, pp. 203–18. On responsiones from England see alsoabove, pp. 80–81.

211 Cart., nos. 2834–35.212 Cart., no. 3016.213 See Chapter 1 above, p. 42.



the extent of help sent from the Iberian peninsula to the East.214 The right of freedeparture of two vessels a year granted in 1262 by James I to the Hospitallers in Aragon is one of the few pieces of evidence of the passage of Hospitallers’ shipsfrom Spanish ports to the East.215 It is doubtful, however, whether the Order’shouses in Aragon were able to send significant help to Acre. In the early 1270s they

faced a financial crisis and were heavily in debt. In an unprecedented move theywere exempted in February 1273 by the master from sending responsiones and wereallowed to use this money to repay their debts.216 In May 1274 Gregory X issued infavour of the Hospitallers in Catalonia and Aragon the bull Ad Audientiam nostram,which annulled alienations of property done by the brothers without the properapproval.217 The financial diff iculties faced by the Hospitallers in the Iberian penin-sula seem to have been similar to those of the priories in France and were shared byother Orders. In his work on the Templars in the crown of Aragon Forey points outthat by the mid-thirteenth century there was a decline in the number of donationsgiven to the Military Orders in north-eastern Spain and a decrease in the numberof investments made by the Templars. These brothers, who had to answer toincreasing demands from the East and from the Aragonese kings alike, were in greatfinancial difficulties and were forced to take loans and alienate property.218

Military involvement in Spain could also have affected the economic situation of these houses and their ability to assist their headquarters in the East. The Hospital-lers built and maintained castles, which defended the Christian kingdoms fromMuslim attacks,219 and were actively involved in the Reconquista . They took part inthe Aragonese conquests of Valencia in 1238 and Murcia in 1266. To a much lesserdegree, the Hospitallers in the kingdoms of Castile and León participated in

Ferdinand III’s campaigns to Andalucía.220 In February 1248 the king promised to


214 For the twelfth and thirteenth centuries there is only scattered information on the relationsbetween headquarters and the Order’s priories in the Iberian peninsula and on the suppliessent from there to the East. See Barquero Goñi, Los caballeros Hospitalarios en España , pp. 126,175. On responsiones from the Spanish kingdoms see also above, p. 81. In a very general and atsome points inaccurate article García Larragueta claims that there is no evidence until the endof the thirteenth century of a regular passage of Hospitallers’ ships from Aragon to the East.He bases his argument, however, only on James I’s grant of free passage from Montpellierfrom 1273. The dearth of evidence makes it impossible to argue this point. See S. GarcíaLarragueta, ‘Relaciones comerciales entre Aragón y el Hospital de Acre’, VII Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragón (Barcelona), 2 (1962), p. 514.

215 For the 1262 permission see Forey, The Templars in the Corona de Aragón, p. 326. See alsopp. 324–25 for examples of permissions given to the Templars to export goods to the East. Onthe eve of the fall of Acre the Templar master begged King Alfonso III to allow the Order thefree shipment of foodstuff, horses, and arms to the East. See Acta Aragonensia , ed. H. Finke,Berlin, 1922 (reprint Berlin, 1966), vol. III, no. 5.

216 Cart., no. 3492. I found no other evidence of exemption from responsiones in the period coveredin this research.

217 Cart., no. 3539.218 M.L. Ledesma Rubio, Templarios y Hospitalarios en el Reino de Aragón (Siglos XII–XIV), Zaragoza,

1982, pp. 163–64; Forey, The Templars in the Corona de Aragón, pp. 60–61, 308–47. On p. 319Forey mentions a significant number of Templar houses that by 1277 were unable, because of poverty, to pay their responsiones to the provincial chapter.

219 See, for example, Cart., nos. 963, 1162, 1228, 2014.220 For the participation of the Hospitallers in James I’s campaigns see The Book of Deeds of James I



give the Order an annual rent of 3,800 Marveies once he had conquered the city of Seville. The charter specif ied that the money was given ‘for the services you gave meduring the siege of Seville’.221 It is noteworthy that 1247 and 1248, the years whenthe Hospitallers were involved in Ferdinand’s campaigns, were also the years whenthe Order was mobilizing its forces in Europe, following La Forbie and in prepara-

tion for the crusade of St. Louis.222 The participation of the Hospitallers in theReconquista , even if it was not significant, could have affected the capability of theirIberian houses to assist the convent in the Holy Land.223 Hospitaller resources wereused to support military campaigns in the peninsula, but also to help supply Iberiancrusades overseas. In 1268 Gonzalo Pérez de Pereira, grand commander of the fivekingdoms of Spain, offered the Order’s resources in Spain to assist James of Aragon’s crusade to the East.224 Although we do not know the kind of aid theHospitallers had in fact supplied, the castellan of Amposta, Hugh of Forcalquier,was part of James’s entourage and sailed with him.225 Spanish monarchs were notalways willing, however, to support crusades outside the peninsula, which woulddivert resources from the Reconquista . Royal decrees which prevented fund-raising forcrusades to the Holy Land might have affected the ability of Hospitallers’ houses inSpain to help the Order in Acre. In July 1265, following a request from GonzaloPérez de Pereira, King Alfonso X of Castile agreed to exempt the Hospitallers fromthe prohibition against preaching the cross in his kingdom.226


of Aragon. A Translation of the Medieval Catalan ‘Llibres dels Fets’ , trans. H. Buffery and D. Smith, Aldershot, 2003, pp. 205, 312, 319; C. Barquero Goñi, ‘El carácter militar de la orden de San

Juan en Castilla y León (siglos XII–XIV)’, Revista de Historia Militar , 73 (1992), p. 56–59. For ahistoriographic study of the Hospitallers’ participation in the reconquista see Barquero Goñi,Los caballeros Hospitalarios en España , pp. 155–67.

221 ‘por el servicio que me fezistes en la hueste de Sevilla, quando la tenia cercada’. See Libro de privilegios de la orden de San Juan de Jerusalén en Castilla y León, no. 301. See also M.A. LaderoQuesada and M. Gonzáles Jiménez, ‘La Orden Militar de San Juan en Andalucía’, ArchivoHispalense , 180 (1976), pp. 129–39.

222 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 24–25, and Chapter 4 below, pp. 138–39.223 Except for high dignitaries I have found very little evidence of brothers of Iberian origin

serving in the Holy Land. See Appendix, below, and J. Bronstein, ‘La organizacióninternacional de la Orden del Hospital. Algunas reflexiones sobre la contribución de losprioratos ibéricos a la Orden en Tierra Santa’, in Órdenes Militares en la Edad Media. II. Alcazar de San Juan (Ciudad Real) (forthcoming).

224 The Book of Deeds of James I , pp. 335–36. On the grand commander of the five kingdoms of Spain (‘El gran comendador de los Cinco Reinos de España’) see Barquero Goñi, Los caballeros Hospitalarios en España , pp. 133–35.

225 The Book of Deeds of James I , p. 340. As the king never reached the Holy Land, it is doubtfulwhether any significant help arrived at this time from Spain to the convent in Acre. The f inan-cial burden on the Aragonese treasury in launching this crusade must have been significant.

Although the armies that fought in Egypt in the first crusade of Louis IX were much larger, Jordan estimates that Louis spent at least 500,000 livres tournois on the army alone; this wastwice the average annual income of the French monarchy. See W. Jordan, Louis IX and the Chal-lenge of the Crusades: A Study of Rulership, Princeton, 1979, pp. 70, 78–79.

226 Alfonso’s permission reads as follow: ‘E nos, por su ruego e porque entendiemos que era razone derecho, e es a servicio de Dios e de los pobres de Ultramar, tenemos por bien e mandamos eotorgamos que ande la peticion del Hospital de Sant Johan por todos nuestros regnos parasienpre, e que arcobispo, ni obispo, ni abad, ni prelado, ni otro ninguna no gela embargue porrazon de la cruzada ni por otra cosa ninguna’. Libro de privilegios de la orden de San Juan de Jerusalén



Research on the response of the Hospitallers in the Iberian peninsula to theneeds of the Order in the East is of particular interest because the Christian king-doms in the peninsula, like the Christian settlements in the Latin East, conducted acontinuous war against Islam. The participation of the Hospitallers in theReconquista , the economic activities and the financial situation of the Spanish houses,

and royal decrees, which at times prohibited fund-raising for the Holy Land, couldtherefore have prevented the supplies of responsiones from the Spanish kingdoms.Further research into the economic activities of the Hospitallers in the Iberianpeninsula, similar to that which I have conducted for the French priories, couldclarify whether their houses reacted to the events in the East. It is important to notethat although an impressive amount of work has been published on the Hospitallersin the Iberian peninsula,227 these works, as we have seen already in the case of theFrench priories, are mostly ‘insular’. They do not consider the implications of theeconomic policy pursued by local priories and commanderies, and in the case of Spain, military involvement elsewhere than in the Levant, for the internationaldeployment of the Order’s resources and manpower.

The aggravation of conditions in the Latin settlement in the second half of the thir-teenth century increased the reliance of the Hospitallers in the East on suppliesfrom Europe. Changing economic and political circumstances, however, had deeplyaffected the financial situation of the European houses which, faced with increasing demands from the Levant, were forced to take loans and alienate their property. Onthe eve of the second Council of Lyons, in 1274, the Hospitallers were apparentlysuffering a general economic crisis.


en Castilla y León, no. 342 (no. 372 – Sancho IV’s renewal of this privilege); C. Barquero Goñi,‘Los Hospitalarios y la monarquia Castellano-Leonesa (siglos XII–XIII)’, Centro de estudios e investigación ‘San Isidoro’ (CECEL), Archivo Histórico Diocesano, León, 1995, p. 101; C. de AyalaMartínez, ‘Alfonso X y la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén’, Estudios de Historia Medieval.Homenaje a Luis Suarez , ed. V. Alvarez Palenzuela, M. Ladero Quesada and J. Valdeón Baruque,Valladolid, 1991, pp. 41–42. Note also that due to the difficult economic situation of thekingdom, Alfonso imposed significant restrictions on trade and exports. See J.F. O’Callaghan,‘Paths of Ruin: the Economic and Financial Policies of Alfonso the Learned’, The Worlds of Alfonso the Learned and James the Conqueror: Intellect and Forces in the Middle Ages , ed. R. Burns,Princeton, 1985, pp. 47–52. On the effect of the Reconquista on the Spanish Church seeRiley-Smith, The Crusades , pp. 165–66.

227 For bibliographical surveys see M.A. Ladero Quesada, ‘La investigación sobre ÓrdenesMilitares en la Edad Media hispánica durante los últimos decenios: Corona de Castilla y

León’, Las Órdenes Militares en la Península Ibérica. Volumen I. Edad Media , ed. R. Izquierdo Benitoand F. Ruiz Gómez, Cuenca, 2000, pp. 9–31; C. de Ayala Martínez et al., ‘Las ÓrdenesMilitares en la Edad Media peninsular. Historiografia 1976–1992’, Medievalismo. Boletín de la Sociedad Española de Estudios Medievales , 2 (1992), pp. 119–69, 3 (1993), pp. 142–44; D. Lomax,Las Órdenes Militares en la Península Ibérica durante la Edad Media , Salamanca, 1976, pp. 9–110.



POPES, HOSPITALLERS, AND CRISES IN THE HOLY LAND

3

The Popes, the Hospitallers, and Crisesin the Holy Land

THE PAPACY played an important role in the rehabilitation of the Hospitalfollowing crises in the Latin East. To help the Order fulfil its double role of defending the Holy Land and caring for the poor and pilgrims the papacy granted ita wide range of privileges.1 The critical situation in the East had led to a change of attitude to the Hospital’s militarization, which had begun in the 1120s and hadintensified by the 1160s.2 At first the papacy showed concern with the Order’sincreasing participation in military activities. The failed campaign of King Amalricto Egypt in 1168 resulted in the resignation of the master Gilbert d’Assailly, and aninternal crisis between a party of brothers who pressed for a more intensive involve-

ment in military affairs and those who wanted to preserve the Order as a hospitallerinstitution.3 Pope Alexander III (1159–81) supported the latter party. Between 1168and 1170, probably after he had learnt of the results of the Egyptian campaign, thepope called on the Hospitallers to return to their original aims of providing for thepoor, asserting that military activity was against their customs.4 This call was reiter-

1 At the time of the battle of Hattin the Hospital was an exempt Order of the Church. Its privi-leged position, which had been established in the course of the twelfth century, has beenthoroughly studied by Prutz, Die geistlichen Ritterorden , pp. 142–94; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 375–89; L. García-Guijarro Ramos, Papado, cruzadas y órdenes militares, siglos XI–XIII ,Madrid, 1995, pp. 124–32.

2 Historians disagree about the date and the process by which the Hospitallers became a MilitaryOrder. As this discussion is beyond the limits of this book it is sufficient to claim here that bythe 1160s the Order combined both charitable and military activities. For this discussion seeRiley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 52–54; R. Hiestand, ‘Die Anfänge der Johanniter’, Die geistlichen Ritterorden, ed. J. Fleckenstein and M. Hellmann, Sigmaringen, 1980, pp. 64–78; A.Forey, ‘The Militarisation of the Hospital of St. John’, Military Orders and the Crusades , Aldershot,1994, essay no. IX, pp. 75–89; L. García-Guijarro Ramos, ‘La militarización de la Orden delHospital: líneas para un debate’, Ordens Militares: guerra, religião, poder e cultura – Actas do III Encontro sobre Ordens Militares , ed. I.C. Ferreira Fernandes, Palmela, 1999, vol. II, pp. 293–302.

3 The main source for the 1168 campaign is William of Tyre, who, however, was critical of the

Order’s role. He did not object to its military activities, but to the fact that the campaign brokethe peace between the two kingdoms. See WT , XIX, 17 and XX, 5; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 71–73, and ‘Peace Never Established: The Case of the Kingdom of Jerusalem’,TRHS , 5th series, 28 (1978), pp. 87–103.

4 Cart., no. 391 ter .



ated in 1178–80, when he ordered the master Roger of Moulins to abstain fromtaking part in military activities unless the standard of the holy cross was carried bythe Christian army for the defence of the kingdom of Jerusalem or the siege of Muslim cities. In that case, however, the cost of arming the Order’s forces must notaffect the resources directed to the care of the poor.5

The papacy, however, could not ignore the increasing importance of the Hospi-tallers for the defence of the Holy Land. Alexander’s successor, Lucius III(1181–85), exempted them in 1182–83 from the tax levied to help subsidize thefortification of castles and villages; he justified this privilege on the grounds thattheir property was devoted to the defence of the Holy Land as well as to charitableactivity.6 Lucius met the Hospitaller master Roger of Moulins in Verona in 1184.Roger, who formed part of an embassy that had gone to the West to promote a newcrusade,7 undoubtedly put pressure on the pope to support the Order’s militaryactivities in the East. Lucius responded to these appeals by calling for a new crusadeand by granting the Hospitaller brothers and their associates a general indulgencesimilar to that given to the faithful who went to assist the Holy Land.8 The outcomeof Hattin brought about full recognition of the Hospitallers’ military functions andan extension of the papal protection of the Templars to include them as well.Letters demonstrated the popes’ awareness of the distressing situation in which theHospitallers found themselves and a better understanding of the urgent need to helprestoring their forces in the East.9 These concerns were also expressed in a greatnumber of bulls issued by the papal chancery following frequent complaints by theOrder. Their purpose was to protect the Order’s rights and privileges from theabuses of secular and ecclesiastical lords.10

Notwithstanding this supportive attitude, problems of communication preventedprompt reaction by the popes to events in the East.11 In the critical years 1187–1188the Hospitallers had to rely on their own resources, which they deployed from


5 Cart., no. 527, and Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 76.6 Cart., no. 628.7 For a thorough discussion on this embassy and its purposes see J. Phillips, Defenders of the Holy

Land: Relations between the Latin East and the West, 1119–1187 , Oxford, 1996, pp. 251–66.8 ‘Quanto ad conservationem terre Hierosolimitane, tam operibus pietatis, que incessabiliter

exercetis, quam etiam in laboribus aliis, quos eundo et redeundo suscipitis, majora nosciminigravamina sustinere, tanto dignius est ut nobis sint quodam modo propria que in remissionempeccatorum aliis Dei fidelibus generaliter sunt indulta. Ea propter, dilecti in Domino filii,labores et pericula vestra benignius intuentes, vobis et familie vestre , ea qua fungimur auctoritate,concedimus ut illius indulgentie generalis, qua ceteris fidelibus pro subventione illius terreprovidimus, speciali participatione gaudentes, sicut estis laborum participes, ita etiam sitis inipsius indulgentie perceptione consortes . . .’, Cart., no. 712.

9 For the reaction of the papacy to the disaster of Hattin see I.S. Robinson, The Papacy1073–1198: Continuity and Innovation, Cambridge, 1990, pp. 364–66.

10 Rudolf Hiestand has pointed out that papal bulls were usually granted as a response to theOrders’ requests rather than on the pope’s own initiative. R. Hiestand, ‘Some Reflections onthe Impact of the Papacy on the Crusader States and the Military Orders in the Twelfth and

Thirteenth Century’, The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval LatinChristianity, ed. Z. Hunyadi and J. Laszlovszky, Budapest, 2001, pp. 12, 15–16.

11 For slow papal reaction see also Hiestand, ‘Some Reflections on the Impact of the Papacy’,pp. 6–7. For problems of communication between East and West and the delay in informationtransmission see also Chapter 1 above, pp. 16–17.



Europe.12 Ten months after Hattin, Clement III (1187–91) wrote to the prelatesurging them to encourage the faithful to grant donations to the Order since it hadrecently suffered severely ‘for the defence of the Christian faith’.13 On 7 March1189 he warned the prelates not to make false accusations in the curia regarding theseizure of parochial churches that the Order claimed to own. The papacy, he wrote,

would support the Hospital, which was fighting continuously for the defence of Christendom; its brothers were not afraid of facing extreme dangers.14 In December1189 Clement urged the bishops in Aragon to defend the Hospitallers in theirdioceses and to encourage the faithful to give them donations.15 A similar letter wassent to the prelates in the Iberian Peninsula with the same request for the Templars,as that Order had exhausted its resources in the East in the fight against the Infidels.Moreover, in light of these losses, in a general letter to the nobles of Christendom in January 1190 the pope ordered them not to prevent the Templars from selling theirproperty in order to raise resources. As we have seen in previous chapters, liquida-tion of property was to become one of the measures adopted by the Military Ordersin the course of the thirteenth century to raise cash for the East.16

Celestine III (1191–98) continued Clement III’s policy. He told the Hospitallersnot to abuse papal privileges regarding the opening of churches under interdict.17

Yet he emphasized, when renewing Si discrimina , which ordered the prelates to stopbothering, accusing, and taxing them, that if the prelates were to consider thecontinual efforts of the Hospital in defending Christendom and caring for the sickthey would put an end to these nuisances. They would, moreover, severely punishothers charged with the same crimes.18 This letter is similar to one already issued byUrban III (1185–87) to the Templars in August 1186–87, in which the pope

renewed several papal privileges, among them Si discrimina .19 It is further evidencethat after Hattin the papacy came to regard the Hospitallers as another MilitaryOrder, who were being granted similar privileges to the Templars. In May 1193Celestine ordered the prelates in Provence in their preaching to move the believersto grant donations to the Templars; the Order had exhausted its resources avenging the insult done to Christ in the East. A similar letter, issued the same day, the popecalled on the barons and prelates of Provence to help the Hospitaller priory of St. Gilles, which was about to incur heavy debts owing to the supplies that it wouldhave to send to the Holy Land.20 The letter being addressed to the priory of St.

POPES, HOSPITALLERS, AND CRISES IN THE HOLY LAND 105

12 On the institutonal deployment of the Order after Hattin see above, Chapter 1, p. 12, Chapter2, pp. 65–66, and below, Chapter 4, p. 138.

13 ‘pro defensione fidei christiane’, Cart., no. 851. In March 1189 Clement ordered the prelates toexhort the faithful to help the Templars, who, he wrote, lost 230 brother-knights at the battle of Hattin. See Papsturkunden in Spanien vorarbeiten zur Hispania Pontifica , vol. I, Katalanien, ed. P. Kehr,Berlin, 1926, no. 235.

14 Cart., no. 872.15 Cart., no. 882.16 Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter , ed. R. Hiestand, Vorarbeiten zum Oriens Pontificius,

Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen 77, Göttingen, 1972, nos. 199,

217. See also above, Chapter 1, pp. 33, 42, and Chapter 2, p. 91.17 Cart., no. 961.18 Cart., no. 982.19 Papsturkunden für Templer , no. 198.20 Papsturkunden für Templer , nos. 230–31.



Gilles, and not to any other of the Order’s provinces, we may assume that it was aresponse to a specific request. Probably it was intended to help the priory cope withexpenses it must have already incurred and to raise the cash it would be required tosend to the East. It demonstrates the Hospitallers’ use of papal authority to helpthem in this situation.

Like his predecessor, Innocent III (1198–1216) was a strong supporter of theOrder. The importance that he attributed to the Hospitallers’ military and chari-table activities is revealed in many letters he issued to defend their privileges andpromote them because of their needs in the Holy Land. In Religiosos viros fratres of 1199 he forbade the prelates to impose any taxes on Hospitaller property meant forthe use of the brothers and their men. In Cum dilecti filii fratres , issued the same year,he ordered the prelates to defend them and to protect their right to bury confratresand keep their own churches, as ‘the Hospitallers devoted themselves to help the sickand the poor and defend Christianity across the sea’.21 However, fully committed toreform the Church, Innocent did not hesitate to criticize the Order’s misconductand abuse of papal privileges.22 In 1198 he accused it of appointing lay and unedu-cated men as alms collectors, as well as appointing unfit priests. These offencesscandalized the Church and the faithful, and he ordered the archbishop of Lyons todo everything in his power, including excommunication, to prevent them. In 1199,because of his interest in securing internal peace in the Holy Land, Innocentordered the Templars and the Hospitallers to bring to an end their dispute over landnear Margat. It was ruinous to Christianity and the Orders themselves and, so thepope argued, assisted the enemies of the Christian faith.23

Because of his strong desire to promote a new crusade, Innocent did perhaps

more than any other pope to integrate the Orders into the crusade machinery. InPost miserabilem of 1198 he established that crusade preachers would be assisted byTemplar and Hospitaller brothers. He wrote to the archbishop of York that theprior of Thurgarton, who was about to preach the cross in England, should beassisted by one Templar and one Hospitaller.24 Committees comprising oneTemplar, one Hospitaller, and laymen who had taken the cross were to decide onthe distribution of funds donated by the faithful in their parish churches among crusaders who could not afford the many expenses of the journey. These crusadershad to commit themselves to fight in the Holy Land for at least one year. They


21 Cart., no. 1060. For additional letters confirming Hospitallers’ privileges in relation to the needsof the Order in the Holy Land see nos. 1013, 1015, 1029, 1081, 1084, 1129.

22 On Innocent’s policy to reform the Church, and his commitment to the vita apostolica seeC. Morris, The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 , Oxford, 1989, pp. 433–38;B. Bolton, ‘Serpent in the Dust: Sparrow on the Housetop: Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy Land inthe Circle of Pope Innocent III’, The Holy Land, Holy Lands, and Christian History, ed. R.N.Swanson, Woodbridge, 2000, pp. 162–65. On the implementation of this policy in the LatinChurch see B. Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church , London, 1980,pp. 215–16; Hiestand, ‘Some Reflections on the Impact of the Papacy’, pp. 13–14.

23 Cart., nos. 1050, 1069. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 460.24 Die Register Innocenz’ III , ed. O. Hageneder and A. Haidacher, Grasse, Cologne and Vienne,

1964, vol. I, no. 336; The Letters of Pope Innocent III Concerning England and Wales (1198–1216). ACalendar with an Appendix of Texts , ed. C.R. and M. Cheney, Oxford, 1967, no. 38. See also C.R.Cheney, Pope Innocent III and England , Stuttgart, 1976, p. 240.



would be allowed to return to Europe only after they had obtained a letter from theking, the patriarch of Jerusalem, or the masters of the Temple and the Hospitalconfirming that they had fulfilled their vows.25 The Orders had also to sendfrequent reports to Rome about the situation in the Holy Land. Innocent used themon different occasions as agents in the transmission of funds to the East. In a letter

of 1208 to the prelates and the masters of the Hospitallers and the Templars heexplained that legates and letters had been sent to different provinces to exhort thefaithful to give donations for the Holy Land. The money was to be sent to the offi-cers of the Orders in the East, who would decide how to distribute it.26 The mastersof the Military Orders were also to be in charge of the distribution of corn, whichInnocent, out of concern over the lack of food, ordered to be shipped to the HolyLand.27

Innocent was the first pope to impose income taxes on the Church to help theHoly Land and to finance a crusade. He ordered the clergy in December 1199 topay a fortieth of their revenues from one year. The decretal Ad liberandam, issued inDecember 1215 by the Fourth Lateran Council, ordered churchmen to pay a twen-tieth of their revenues for three years to support the Fifth Crusade. There is noevidence, however, as to whether the Military Orders were required to pay theselevies, although no decree referred to the imposition of taxes on the Hospitallers orthe Templars. In the tax of 1199 Innocent decreed that a special injunction in thismatter would be sent to the Cistercians, the Premonstratensians, and some otherexempt orders.28 In Ad liberandam he exempted from the tax those who had taken thecross, and ‘some religious who have earned the exemption owing to their merit’.29

None of these decrees, however, referred to the imposition of the taxes on the

Hospitallers or the Templars. Papal taxation resulted in strong opposition from theChurch, which is well documented. That sources related to the pope or the Ordersdid not refer to this issue at all seems to indicate that they were not taxed. In the1260s, for example, when papal taxation was eventually imposed, the Hospitallersrefused to pay.30 Although the Hospitallers and the Templars were almost certainlynot asked to contribute money for Innocent’s crusade, provincial masters of theTemplars and the Hospitallers were recruited by the pope as tax collectors.31

Honorius III (1216–27) quoted several letters addressed to him from Damietta in


25 Innocent III, ‘Opera Omnia’, PL , CCXIV, col. 831; Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig , vol. I, no. 81.

26 Cart., nos. 1306, 1328, 1436; ‘Mittitur eis pecunia’, PL , CCXVI, cols. 37–38; Die Register Innocenz’ III , ed. O. Hageneder, W. Maleczek and A. Strnad, Rome and Vienne, 1979, vol. II,no. 258. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 146; Barber, The New Knighthood , p. 275.

27 Die Register Innocenz’ III , vol. II, no. 180.28 Innocent III, ‘Opera Omnia’, PL , CCLXX, col. 830; Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta , ed.

J. Alberigo et al., Bologna, 1973 (3rd ed.), pp. 268–69. On Church taxation see W.E. Lunt,Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 , Cambridge (Mass.), 1939, vol. I, pp.240–312. Pages 240–44 refer to Innocent III. On Ad liberandam see also J.M. Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213–1221, Philadelphia, 1986, pp. 43–47; Riley-Smith, The Crusades , pp. 144–45, and

Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 441–42.29 Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta , p. 269.30 See below, p. 126, and Chapter 2 above, p. 96.31 On the opposition of the Church to these taxes see Lunt, pp. 243–46. On the members of the

Military Orders as tax collectors see Cart., no. 1437, and Potthast, no. 5255.



1218 in further correspondence with ecclesiastical leaders in the West and withcrusaders waiting in Europe to be transported to the East. In August or September1218, for example, he issued a letter to the prelates of France. This quoted anotherletter he had received from the crusaders in Egypt describing the situation of theChristian army. It stressed the enormous expenses required for the crusade, urging

the supply of warriors and money.32 Immediately after his election Honorius set outto implement Innocent’s crusading policy. By bringing the state of the Christianforces in the East to the attention of the Western world Honorius hoped to bring about the quick departure of the crusaders and to encourage the raising of newdonations for the cause.33 His support for the crusader movement was extended tothe Hospitallers. In December 1216 he issued a new bull, Ad aripiendam, which calledon the faithful to succour the Holy Land and to give donations to the Hospitallers,who ‘do not desist from their efforts to reconquer and defend the Holy Land’.34

Indeed, during the papacy of Honorius III the Hospitallers were involved in theFifth Crusade, as well as in military activities in the Holy Land. They took part in anattack on Mt. Thabor in 1217, during which many Templars and Hospitallers werewounded, and they helped with the refortification of Caesarea at the beginning of 1218.35 To ‘those brothers and servants of the Order who defend and serve the HolyLand and lead a life of real penitence’ Honorius granted, in February 1217, acrusader indulgence.36 The charter clearly specifies that this privilege was grantedfollowing requests made by the Order; it could be significant that these were prob-ably made on the eve of the Fifth Crusade. In December 1216, a year before hegranted this crusader indulgence, Honorius III forbade Hospitallers from taking vows outside the Order without the approval of the master.37 Crusade preparations

may have given rise to expectations of obtaining plenary indulgences by membersof the Order fighting in the East, who asked the pope for this privilege. 38


32 It seems as if several letters were sent by the crusaders to the pope during the siege of Damietta.In a letter of 13 August 1218 to the Christian army in Egypt Honorius wrote that he hadreceived ‘literis vestris et nunciis’ describing the diff iculties of the crusaders. See Vat. Reg., 10,ann. 3, epist. 39, fol. 10. For additional letters see also Vat Reg., 9, ann. 2, epist. 739, fol. 177;10, ann. 3, epist. 38, fol. 9, and RHGF , vol. XIX, p. 668, the last being the letter sent to theFrench prelates.

33 Powell, Anatomy of a Crusade , pp. 110–12.34 Cart., nos. 1505, 1554.35 For the Order’s activities in the East and their participation in the Fifth Crusade see chapter 1

above, p. 20, and Oliver of Paderborn, Historia Damiatina , ed. H. Hoogeweg, Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart , 202, Tübingen, 1894, ch. 5.

36 ‘vestris piis postulationibus inclinati, auctoritate vobis presentium indulgemus ut fratres et servientes domus vestre, in defensione ac servitio Terre Sancte fideliter in vera penitentia commorantes,illam peccatorum suorum veniam consequantur que crucesignatis a sede apostolica est indulta’,Cart., no. 1550. Honorius issued a great number of crusader indulgences and some were relatedto the Military Orders. In 1221 he promised this indulgence to those who would help defendCalatrava and other castles in the Iberian peninsula, Bullarium Ordinis Militiae de Calatrava , ed. I.J.Ortega y Cotes, Madrid, 1761 (reprint Barcelona, 1981), nos. XI, XIV, pp. 55, 57. For

Honorius’s indulgences see also J.F. O’Callaghan, Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain, Phila-delphia, 2003, pp. 97–98.

37 Cart., no. 1503.38 For a discussion on the granting of crusader indulgences to members of the Hospital see Forey,

‘Recruitment to the Military Orders’, p. 168; A. Luttrell, ‘Templari e Ospitalieri in Italia’, The



Although letters written specifically by the Hospitallers at this time have not as yet been found, papal letters indicate that the Order, like other institutions in theEast, suffered a lack of provisions and money and was very dependent on the help itreceived from Europe.39 During this period it seems to have expended great effortson preaching in Europe, for which it received strong support from Honorius. In Inter

cetera , of January 1217, the pope called on the faithful to help the Hospitallers, whocommited themselves and all their resources to the service of Jesus Christ,performing charitable work and in particular defending the Christian faith. He wenton to emphasize their double function in the East: ‘whenever they or their envoyscome to you to ask for donations in order to bring succour to the Holy Land andsustain the poor, you should contribute gladly’.40 The following month he issuedanother new bull, Non sine gravi , forbidding the prelates to disturb the Hospitallersand their confratres or prevent the testamentary bequests of property reaching them.He again urged the prelates to allow them or their nuncii to preach in their churchesonce a year, explaining that donations for the poor and the Holy Land had fallenconsiderably.41 The repeated renewal of these bulls,42 as well as Querelam gravemrecepimus , which granted the Order the right to preach in parochial churches and wasrenewed at least ten times during Honorius’s pontificate,43 demonstrate the contin-uous efforts made by the Order to promote its cause in Europe and the continuouspapal support of the Order. But also the resistance of the local clergy.

Honorius, pleading the needs of the Hospitallers in the East, opposed attemptsby the faithful and the prelates to disturb or defame them.44 In November 1218 hesent a general letter to bishops throughout the West ordering them to disregardrumours and accusations that were being disseminated about the Hospitallers and

the Templars, apparently implying the misuse and waste of donations. The popeexplained that these charges had been investigated by Pelagius, the papal legate. Hehad written to Honorius that without the Hospitallers and the Templars, who hadincurred enormous expenses supplying knights and men, the Christian army inDamietta would not have survived. The pope therefore urged the bishops to preachthe Orders’ innocence every Sunday and festival day.45 Considering the apprecia-tion that contemporary writers such as Oliver, the scholastic of Cologne and laterbishop of Paderborn, showed for the actions of the Hospitallers, and in particular


Hospitallers of Rhodes and their Mediterranean World , Aldershot, 1992, essay no. I, pp. 2–3; ‘GliOspitalieri e l’eredità dei Templari: 1305–1378’, ibid., essay no. III, p. 68.

39 For letters of appeal sent by the Christian leaders in the East on the eve and in the course of theFifth Crusade see Chapter 1 above, p. 20.

40 ‘cum iidem vel nuncii eorum ad vos venerint eleemosynas petituri pro succursu Terre Sancte ac sustentatione pauperum, grata subsidia conferatis’, Cart., no. 1536.

41 Cart., no. 1543.42 Ad aripiendam was renewed five times by Honorius: see Cart., nos. 1554, 1565, 1626, 1661, 1735;

Inter cetera que and Non sine gravi were renewed twice: see Cart., nos. 1561, 1808; 1560, 1772.43 Until 1221 this bull was renewed every few months: see Cart., nos. 1488, 1490, 1497, 1562,

1631, 1634, 1643, 1653, 1690, 1720.44 For example, Cart., nos. 1532, 1551, 1572, 1648.45 Cart., no. 1633. The surviving letter was sent to the Sicilian Church, but it seems to have been a

general appeal throughout Christendom. According to the register of Honorius III this letterwas sent to many others (‘in eundem modum scriptum est multis al iis’). See Reg. Honorius III , no.1699.



the Templars, in the campaign to Damietta,46 one explanation for this letter may bethe traditional hostility of the clergy to the privileges of the Orders, at a time whenthey were being asked to pay a three-year tax of one-twentieth of all their revenues.The fact that the brothers of the Military Orders functioned as tax collectors musthave contributed to this hostility.47

Honorius was also concerned with the shipment of supplies to the brothers in theEast. We have seen elsewhere that by now the Hospitallers had their own vessels,which from 1216 they were allowed to build and keep, free of taxes, at the port of Marseilles.48 Following a request from the grand commander of Outremer, prob-ably Aimery of Pax, Honorius ordered the bishop of Arles in December of that yearto prevent churchmen and laymen from taxing wood belonging to the Order andearmarked for building ships, as well as goods intended for the East. 49

Papal policy seems to have changed during the pontificate of Gregory IX(1227–41). Although it is difficult to build up a consistent picture of the Hospital-lers’ relations with the Holy See, the Order’s needs were apparently overshadowedby major political events in Europe and the Holy Land, particularly the conflictbetween Gregory and Frederick II and the civil war in the kingdom of Jerusalem.Gregory seemingly originally intended to continue his predecessor’s policy on thekingdom of Jerusalem and the Hospitallers. Like Honorius, he engaged in propa-gating information about conditions in the Holy Land to muster assistance. In 1227he forwarded to ‘all the faithful’ a letter he had received from the Christian leadersin the East. It dealt with the return of many crusaders to Europe after hearing aboutthe delay in Frederick’s arrival in the East, and the employment of the remaining crusaders in fortifying Caesarea and Jaffa. The Christian leaders pleaded that help

be sent to the Holy Land in order to bring the negotium to a successful end.50 Early inthe 1230s, fearing the increasing power of the Khorezmian Turks they wrote moreletters to the pope. In an appeal to all the prelates he included one of these,describing the Khorezmians’ threat to the Holy Land and urging the princes of theChurch to encourage the faithful to help the Holy Land.51

At this stage, the continuation of the holy war in the Latin East was closely asso-ciated in the pope’s mind with the Hospitallers. In June 1227 he issued Quanto majora ,which allowed the Order to build new churches ‘in those places, which, with celes-tial help, you will be able to free from Muslims’ hands’.52 In December 1228 he

prohibited the prelates from abusing their right of procuration in the houses of theOrder. This bull was issued out of consideration of the heavy expenses incurred by


46 Oliver of Paderborn, for example, chs. 11, 21, 27, 71, 74–5.47 See above, p. 107.48 See Chapter 2 above, pp. 74–75.49 Cart., nos. 1518–19.50 Matthew Paris, vol. III, pp. 127–30. The events described in this letter date to September–

October 1227. See Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp. 165–67.51 After naming the Christian leaders, including the masters of the Military Orders and Frederick

II, Gregory wrote ‘suis nobis litteris intimarunt’, see MGH, Epistolae Saeculi XIII e Regestis Pontificum Romanorum, ed. C. Rodenberg, MGH Epistolae , 3 vols., Berlin, 1893–94, vol. I, no. 433.

52 Cart., no. 1867.



the Hospitallers in the defence of Christianity in the East, for which a great numberof men and horses were required.53

In December 1229, in response to persistent requests from the Order, Gregorygranted the same indulgence as that given to crusaders who vowed to served theOrder in the East, to fight the Saracens, and to live as real penitents. This grant was

not given specifically to Hospitaller brothers but to all who ‘vowed to serve andfight’. This major privilege may well have allowed the Hospitallers to reward withplenary indulgences secular knights, the milites ad terminum, who served with them forfixed terms.54 The date of this privilege could be significant. In February 1229Frederick II signed a ten-year truce with Egypt, which was not recognized by thepope and most of the Frankish leaders, including the patriarch of Jerusalem and themasters of the Military Orders.55 According to a letter sent by Patriarch Gerold tothe pope, the patriarch and the Templars alike were hiring mercenaries to defendthe kingdom, fearing that the peace would not hold after the emperor had left.Gerold wrote that Frederick regarded this as a breach of his authority, claiming thatmercenaries could not be employed for war without his approval. Gerold added thatin a speech Frederick delivered in Acre before he left the Holy Land he forbade anycrusaders, of any nationality, to remain behind.56 Prawer argues that Gerold haddistorted Frederick’s reaction.57 Nevertheless, even if the patriarch exaggerated thefacts it makes sense that the Christian settlers would have liked to prevent crusadersfrom returning home by offering generous rewards. The Hospitallers were at thetime involved in aggressive military campaigns against the Assassins and a numberof Muslim cities in the north, which were not included in Frederick’s treaty withEgypt.58 They would perhaps have tried to attract knights to serve with them tempo-

rarily by promising extraordinary privileges, such as a plenary indulgence, for whichthey must have received full support from the pope.

From the 1230s, however, a change is apparent in Gregory’s attitude to theHospitallers, or at least a disregard for their needs. In his ongoing correspondencewith Frederick concerning the confiscation of the Order’s property in Sicily the


53 Cart., no. 1931.54 The privilege was given to those ‘qui se domus vestre servitio devoverunt’, Cart. no. 1950. Milites

ad terminum vowed to serve not only with the Military Orders but with other religious institutionsin the East. See Riley-Smith, The First Crusaders , pp. 158–60; G. Ligato, ‘Fra OrdiniCavallereschi e crociata: “milites ad terminum” e “confraternitates” armate’, ‘Militia Christi’ e Crociata nei secoli XI–XIII. Atti della undecima Settimana internazionale di studio Mendola, 28 agosto – 1 settembre 1989, Milano, 1992, pp. 645–97. A similar indulgence to the one given to the Hospi-tallers was given by Gregory in 1240 to those who fought under the standard of Calatrava. See Bullarium Ordinis Militiae de Calatrava , no. XXII, p. 73. In the 1240s, granting of plenary indul-gences became a main way of recruiting assistance for the Teutonic knights fighting in Prussia.See Prutz, Die geistlichen Ritterorden , p. 82; Riley-Smith, The Crusades , pp. 163–64.

55 Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, pp. 186–91; Richard, The Crusades ,pp. 312–18.

56 Matthew Paris, vol. III, pp. 179–84. See also Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, p. 170, andHamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States , pp. 258–59.

57 Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, vol. II, p. 197.58 On military campaigns fought by the Hospitallers at the time see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St.

John, pp. 137–38.



pope does emphasize its essential role in the Holy Land and the importance of itsproperty ‘for the safeguarding and support of the Land’;59 otherwise there is littleevidence of his concern. In 1235, in response to the Hospital’s appeals, he allowedthe brothers to defend themselves against those who harmed the Order. Theoffences he mentioned were calumpnia and rapina , but he made no reference to the

Order’s needs in the Holy Land.60 A description of its state and needs is notincluded in his correspondence with the prelates about its rights and privileges.Whereas Honorius III was actively involved in its promotion, there is no evidence of Gregory IX appealing to the faithful to help the Order. Papal bulls allowing Hospi-tallers to preach in parish churches were seldom renewed by Gregory, although it isdifficult to establish if such papal documents existed but have not survived or werenot registered.61 The Hospitallers apparently appealed to the pope to renew thisright less often than they did before Gregory’s pontificate62 – surprising, considering their dependence on the West. Research has found an increase in the number of gifts given to the Hospitallers in the 1230s. This has been explained as changes inthe Order’s popularity or the result of an alms-collecting drive by the Hospital tocompensate for their loss of revenue in Sicily, following the confiscations by Fred-erick II.63 Although this seems to be a logical explanation, Hospitaller preaching should have generated the traditional opposition of the local churches, which wouldhave found its expression in papal letters. If such preaching generated oppositionafter Hattin, one would expect even more opposition in the 1230s, a period of rela-tive peace in the Latin East. The increase in the number of donations does notseem, therefore, to have been the result of a fund-raising campaign carried out bythe Order.

It may be possible to explain Gregory’s changing attitude towards the Hospital-lers by his preoccupation with his confrontation with the emperor and the politicalunrest in the Holy Land.64 Gregory sought a political solution to the civil war in theHoly Land that would reflect his political interests in Europe. Following FrederickII’s first excommunication in June 1228, the Military Orders were forbidden to haveany contact with him and they were strictly forbidden to give him any assistanceduring his crusade. They were loyal to the papacy during most of Frederick’s stay inthe East. However, before he departed for Sicily in May 1229, the Hospitallers,probably wishing to maintain their neutrality, lodged him in their house in Acre


59 MGH, Epistolae saeculi XIII , vol. I, no. 428; see also Cart., nos. 1973, 1975, 1976, 1982, 1991.60 Cart., no. 2105.61 Ad aripiendam was renewed only once: see Cart., no. 1927; Querelam gravem recepimus was. renewed

twice: see Cart., nos. 2045, 2228. Other bulls dealing with Hospitallers’ preaching were notrenewed during the papacy of Gregory IX. Maier specified, however, that, on average, onlyone in five papal letters was registered. See Maier, Preaching the Crusades , p. 7. A study of unpub-lished French Hospitaller cartularies, among them a cartulary in Lyons which contains a list of papal bulls, has not revealed new material. See Cartulaire de l’ordre des Hospitaliers en Lyon,

Archives départementales du Rhône, H(48) 022.62 For the fact that papal bulls were usually granted as a response to the Orders’ requests rather

than on the pope’s own initiative see Hiestand, ‘Some Reflections on the Impact of thePapacy’, p. 15.

63 Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights , p. 59.64 On the crusade of Frederick II and the civil war see Prawer, A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jeru-

salem, vol. II, pp. 164–242; Riley-Smith, The Feudal Nobility, pp. 198–213.



despite his being excommunicated. During the civil war between the baronage andthe emperor’s representative that tore the kingdom of Jerusalem apart after hisdeparture, both Orders remained neutral, trying to mediate between the factions.65

Yet after the treaty of St. Germano in July 1230 Gregory instructed them to coop-erate with Frederick’s representative in the Holy Land.66 In February 1231 he

forbade the Templars to f ight the imperial bailiff or break the peace Frederick hadsigned with Egypt, a treaty that Gregory had strongly opposed only two yearsbefore.67 In July 1232 the patriarch of Jerusalem and representatives of the mastersof the Hospital and the Templars were summoned to the papal curia to report onthe situation in the Holy Land and to advise on ways to end the political struggle.Reports were also sent to Frederick.68 A letter from Gregory to his legate in the HolyLand referred to a peace treaty signed between the Hospitallers and the emperor in1234. The pope instructed his legate to ensure that the treaty be honoured by thebarons and the burgesses of the kingdom, but the letter contained no additionaldetails.69 However, the Hospitallers’ relations with Frederick and his representativesin the Holy Land seem to have improved, at a time of deteriorating relationsbetween empire and papacy; there is evidence of the Order’s cooperation with Fred-erick even after his second excommunication in 1239. It is noteworthy that althoughthe Hospitallers would in future years criticize the papal political struggle in Europe,which diverted crusaders and resources away from the Holy Land,70 this was theonly time they adopted a policy that could have been interpreted as ‘anti-papal’.Riley-Smith explains their behaviour by the fact that they supported the emperor’sclaim to the kingdom of Jerusalem and his alliance with Egypt.71

The Hospitallers’ ambivalence towards papal policy and their only partial

compliance with Gregory’s orders may have influenced his attitude to them andmay explain any differences in the papal attitude to them and the Templars, whoseanti-Hohenstaufen policy and loyalty to the pope remained strong.72 Although it isdifficult to find bulls issued in the 1230s promoting the Hospitallers, bulls wereissued in favour of the Templars which deal with the protection of the Templars’privileges and their needs in the Holy Land. Following repeated complaints from theTemplar master and brothers in Languedoc, the pope wrote in June 1236 to thebishop of Elne to prevent him from taking riding horses and mules which had been


65 Relations between Frederick and the Hospitallers have been discussed thoroughly byRiley-Smith (The Knights of St. John, pp. 165–75). On Frederick’s relations with the Templars seeBarber, The New Knighthood , pp. 133–37; H. Cleve, ‘Kaiser Friedrich II und die Ritterorden’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des Mittelalters , 49 (1993), pp. 53–62.

66 Cart., nos. 2025–26; Reg. Grégoire IX , no. 2704.67 MGH, Epistolae saeculi XIII , vol. I, no. 427. In June 1229 Gregory wrote to the archbishop of

Milan that he had instructed the patriarch of Jerusalem and the masters of the Military Ordersnot to honour the treaty signed between Frederick and the sultan of Egypt. See Cart., no. 1942.

68 MGH, Epistolae saeculi XIII , vol. I, nos. 468–69, 474; Cart., nos. 2022, 2024, 2025; Reg. Grégoire IX ,no. 835.

69 Cart., no. 2088.70 See below, pp. 115–16.71 On the Order’s support of Hohenstaufen policy in the East see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St.

John, pp. 172–87.72 On the Templars’ relations with Frederick II and Gregory IX see Barber, The New Knighthood ,

pp. 132–37.



bequeathed to the Order, as they were needed for the defence of the Holy Land.73

In October 1237 he granted the Order 1,000 livres tournois , taken from 3,000 livres collected from the redemption of crusade vows in France and deposited with theTemplars.74 In a letter sent to the Templar houses in Spain in January 1239, dealing with episcopal procurations, the pope wrote that the Order should be praised

because it did not spare men and goods for the assistance of the Holy Land. Headded that the Order’s ‘great necessities are always in front of his eyes’.75 A Templarwas responsible for the collection of money required by the pope from religiousinstitutions, including the Military Orders, to conduct his war against Frederick inEurope.76

The interest of Gregory IX in securing the internal stability of the Latin settle-ments could explain the letters of reproof sent by him to both Orders during thisperiod. In 1235 the pope ordered the Templars and the Hospitallers, under threatof excommunication, to cease quarrelling over the mills of Doc and Recordanenear Acre, a dispute which, according to the pope, generated great criticism againstthem in the Christian world.77 In April 1236 he ordered the archbishop of Tyre tostop the Hospitallers and the Templars from cooperating with the Assassins, theirtributaries, against Bohemond V of Antioch, emphasizing the severe offence causedby the Orders. Although committed to protect Christendom they were cooperating with its enemies for money.78 In March 1238 Gregory wrote to the Templars that hehad heard that they had failed to protect pilgrims visiting the Holy Sepulchre frombeing ambushed by the Muslims on their way from Caesarea to Jaffa. He orderedthem to secure the region with a greater number of armed men. The pope had alsogiven Walter, count of Brienne and Jaffa, the right to take two sous tournois from each

pilgrim for the expenses needed to secure this route.79 Gregory’s strongest criticismof the Orders was expressed in a letter sent to the Hospitallers the same month. Heaccused them of keeping harlots in their houses and receiving thieves, heretics, andmurderers of pilgrims into their Order; some of the brothers were even suspected of heresy. The pope further claimed that individual brothers were holding privateproperty and that the Hospitallers had reduced the alms given to the poor and


73 Reg. Grégoire IX , no. 3174.74 Reg. Grégoire IX , no. 3923.75 ‘cujus necessitatem maximam ipse papa eis scribit se cotidie ante mentis oculos habere’, Reg.

Grégoire IX , no. 4722.76 In December 1228 Gregory imposed a tenth on the clergy to subsidize the struggle against

Frederick. It seems, however, that the Military Orders were exempted. See Reg. Grégoire IX , no.251, and Lunt, pp. 247–49. The Templars and the Hospitallers, l ike other religious institutions,were nevertheless asked to make him loans. See Cart., nos. 2130, 2261; Potthast, no. 10968; Reg.Grégoire IX , nos. 2862, 5888, 5889, 5914.

77 Cart., no. 2120. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 450. According to Nicholson(Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights , pp. 58–60) and Delaville Le Roulx (Les Hospitaliers enTerre Sainte , p. 166) there was no decline in the number of donations given to the Order in thisperiod, which indicates that the criticism was not widespread.

78 Cart., no. 2149; Reg. Grégoire IX , no. 3294. On the connections between the Hospitallers and the. Assassins against the princes of Antioch see Riley-Smith, The Crusades , pp. 158–59, 162–64.

79 Reg. Grégoire IX , no. 4129. For this letter and for the Templars’ role in the protection of pilgrimssee also A. Forey, ‘The Charitable Activities of the Templars’, Viator , 34 (2003), p. 125; Barber,The New Knighthood , pp. 87–90.



changed the wills of dying men for their own profit. He accused them of cooper-ating with John Ducas Vatatzes, the Byzantine emperor in exile, against whomGregory launched a crusade that same year.80 As in the case of the Assassins, thiswas not the first time that Gregory accused the Order of maintaining links with theenemies of the Church and giving shelter to criminals. In March 1238 he instructed

the archbishop of Jerusalem to prevent the Hospitallers from abusing the right of sheltering criminals in their houses.81 Although the connection of the Order withthe emperor affected its relations with the papacy, Gregory’s criticism may also havebeen motivated by a genuine call for reform within the Order. As cardinal Ugolinoof Ostia, Gregory had been the first cardinal protector of the Franciscans as well asbeing a personal friend of Francis of Assisi. He had helped compile the FranciscanRule and perhaps saw in it a basis for the correction and reform of other religiousorders, including the Hospitallers.82

Gregory’s successor, Innocent IV (1243–54), had a much more positive relation-ship with the Hospitallers. His response to the events in the East and his attitude tothem, however, should also be seen in the context of the escalation of his conflictwith Frederick II. In July 1244 he was forced to flee from Rome to Lyons. There herenewed the crusade against the emperor, after excommunicating and deposing himat the Council of Lyons in July 1245.83 The Hospitallers and the Templars weremade responsible for the security of Innocent and the Council,84 but the unstablesituation of the papacy might explain the pope’s slow response to the defeat of theChristians at La Forbie and the failure of St. Louis’ crusade and the diversion of resources away from the Holy Land. A letter was sent in 1250 by the off icers of theHospital in Acre to an anonymous addressee and their brothers in France before the

return of the remainder of the Christian army from Egypt to Acre. It gives a some-times confused account of the events, which they had learned from three Templarswho had managed to return to Acre and stressed the role and the losses of the


80 Cart., no. 2186. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 122, 397; A. Forey, ‘MilitaryOrders and Secular Warfare in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century’, Viator. Medieval and Renais-sance Studies , 24 (1993), pp. 95–96. By 1234 John Vatatzes had regained most of the lands heldby the Latin Emperor in Asia Minor and threatened Constantinople. This prompted an imme-diate reaction from the papacy, which organized a crusade against him. See B. Weiler,‘Gregory IX, Frederick II, and the Liberation of the Holy Land, 1230–9’, The Holy Land, HolyLands, and Christian History, ed. R.N. Swanson, Woodbridge, 2000, pp. 199–200; Riley-Smith,The Crusades , pp. 183–85; for relations between John Vatatzes and Frederick II see E.Kantorowicz, Frederick the Second, 1194–1250 , London, 1931, pp. 464, 660; for the relationshipbetween pope and emperor in the 1230s see Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 544–46.

81 Cart., no. 2185.82 For the view that from the pontificates of Honorius III and Gregory IX the reform of the

Church was closely connected with the Franciscans see J.M. Powell, ‘The Papacy and the EarlyFranciscans’, Franciscan Studies , 36 (1976), pp. 248–62. On the Franciscans and on Francis of

Assisi’s relationship with Gregory IX, as cardinal and later as pope, see Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 452–62; Maier, Preaching the Crusades , pp. 20–22, 26–29; J. Moorman, A History of the Franciscan Order: From its Origins to the Year 1517 , Oxford, 1968, pp. 46–47. Note, however, that

Nicholson (Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights , pp. 34–55), who thoroughly studied theimage of the Military Orders in the thirteenth century, found hardly any evidence of criticismof them by the Franciscans at this time.

83 Morris, The Papal Monarchy, pp. 566–68.84 Sacrorum conciliorum nova , vol. XXIII, col. 612.



Hospitallers. They mentioned rumours, which even the Muslims agreed with, thatthese disastrous times were caused by the superbia of the pope and by his great hatredof Frederick. Innocent’s anger prevented them from getting help from the emperor,although ‘our hope and all we breathe are put on Frederick’. Matthew Paris classi-fied this as a Templar letter. There is, however, clear evidence that it is Hospitaller.

It points out, for example, that ‘all our conventual brothers were killed except for the vice-master John of Bonay’, meaning John of Ronay (grand commander and vice-master of the Hospital from 1245).85 In their accusations the Hospitallers wereprobably referring to the fact that the pope had forbidden all Christians in the East,including the Military Orders, to have relations with Frederick.86 Matthew Pariswrote that Innocent’s policy in Europe, and his intention to commute the vows of Henry III and Lord Edmund to fight the Hohenstaufen in Sicily, filled the Latinsettlers, including the Hospitallers and the Templars, with fear about their futureand with hatred towards the papacy’s deceitful policy.87 Although Matthew wasbiased and is not always a reliable source, the desperate situation in the Holy Landmust have indeed aroused resentment against Innocent.88

During the first years of his pontificate, contemporary with La Forbie and thedeterioration of the settlers’ situation, Innocent mainly dealt with the renewal of oldbulls relating to the abuse of Hospitallers’ rights.89 Unlike Clement III andCelestine III after Hattin, or Honorius III during the campaign to Egypt, he did notissue general appeals to the prelates and the faithful to succour the Order, which wasfacing a critical situation in the East,90 but he was aware of its financial difficulties.In July 1245, almost a year after the battle of La Forbie, he exempted it from the taximposed on the Church at the Council of Lyons, designed to succour the Latin

Empire and the Holy Land. The pope stressed the heavy expenses incurred by theHospitallers in supplying the Holy Land with provisions and manpower.91 This wasnot the first time the Military Orders were exempted from papal-taxation. Subse-quently (April 1248) Innocent issued Attendentes quod, ex constitutione , exempting themfrom the tax designated to assist the Latin Empire, and Ex tenore vestre petitionis (July


85 As the beginning of this letter is missing it is difficult to establish who were the addressees. Itends by specifying that ‘Hanc epistolam, sed in aliquibus abbreviatam, transmisimus fratribusin Francia commorantibus, sed pleniorem vobis eam duximus transmittendam.’ See MatthewParis, vol. VI, p. 197. For John’s career see Chapter 1 above, p. 25, and Appendix below.

86 Cart., no. 2471. See also M. Purcell, Papal Crusading Policy: The Chief Instruments of Papal Policy and Crusade to the Holy Land from the Final Loss of Jerusalem to the Fall of Acre (1244–1291), Leiden, 1975,p. 76.

87 Matthew Paris, vol. V, pp. 457–58. Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade , pp. 222.88 Matthew resented any form of papal interference in England and regarded the commutation of

crusading vows and papal taxation as devices to raise money for the Holy See and the Englishcrown. See R. Vaughan, Matthew Paris , Cambridge, 1958, pp. 140–41, and E. Siberry, Criticismof Crusading, 1095–1274 , Oxford, 1985, pp. 135–40. On the importance, however, of Matthew’sChronica Majora for the study of attitudes prevailing in Christendom towards the Military Orderssee S. Menache, ‘Rewriting the History of the Templars According to Matthew Paris’, Cultural

Convergences in the Crusader Period , ed. M. Goodich, S. Menache and S. Schein, New York, 1995,pp. 185–215.

89 Cart., nos. 2304, 2305, 2306, 2307, etc.90 See above, pp. 104–5, 109.91 Cart., no. 2378. On the tax decrees of the Council of Lyons see Lunt, p. 250.



1249), granting them exemption from taxation designated for the Holy Land.92

Because of the perilous situation of the Latin settlements and the great efforts madeby the Hospitallers in repairing and defending Ascalon, located in fronteria paganorum,Innocent ordered the archbishop of Nicosia in December 1246 to secure the reim-bursement of the Order should the town be lost. The issue of compensation was

raised again in 1252, after the fall of Ascalon in October 1247. 93The pope understood the dependence of the Order on the supplies from Europe.

In July 1245 he renewed Querelam gravem recepimus , which granted the Order the rightto preach in parish churches.94 Moreover, in May 1247, despite his own financialproblems, the pope forbade the prelates to demand from the houses and churches of the Hospitallers and the Templars in the West the taxation imposed on the Churchat large to support the Holy See.95 Innocent’s financial support for the Order, whichhe said ‘did not spare money and lives fighting the infidels’,96 is revealed in a letterof December 1247. In it he ordered Odo of Châteauroux, the papal legate, totransfer to the Hospitallers the money collected from the redemption of the crusade vows of people living on their properties in France.97 The financial state of theOrder must have been poor after the failure of the crusade of Louis IX to Egypt,because in March 1251 the pope renewed and expanded this grant. This allowedthe Hospitallers to take the revenues from the redemption of crusade vows collectedfrom all their properties throughout the world.98 In this respect it is interesting tonote the extensive support he gave to the Templars, who were faithful allies in hisanti-Hohenstaufen policy in the Holy Land. Even after Frederick’s second excom-munication and Innocent’s specific orders to the leaders in the East, including Johnof Ronay, the Hospitaller vice-master, to desist from associating with Frederick’s

representatives and to do all in their power to expel them from the Holy Land, theHospitallers still had connections with the emperor.99 The Templars’ loyalty seemsto have been generously rewarded. The Order, which was heavily in debt because of its involvement in Louis IX’s crusade and the need to raise money for the king’sransom, was granted in 1253 the income from the redemption of crusade vows fromevery country, except Germany, up to a sum of 10,000 marks. It was allowed to sellproperty in Provence, England, and Aquitaine to cover its debts.100 That same year


92 Cart., nos. 2467, 2505.93 Cart., nos. 2394, 2587. See also Chapter 1 above, p. 29.94 Cart., no. 2373. This bull was renewed again in August 1246, Cart., no. 2418.95 Cart., no. 2441. Innocent’s exemptions from taxation for the East and the Holy See were

repeatedly renewed during his papacy. Cart., nos. 2401, 2409, 2506, 2531, 2551, 2603. Although they were exempted from these taxes the Hospitallers and the Templars wereinstructed to give financial support to Innocent’s legates. Cart., no. 2497; Reg. Innocent IV ,no. 4706; Potthast, no. 13289.

96 Cart., no. 2532.97 Cart., no. 2462.98 Cart., no. 2555.99 Cart., no. 2470–71; Historia diplomatica Friderici secundi , ed. J.L.A. Huillard-Bréholles, Paris,

1852–61, vol. VI, pp. 624–25; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 174–75, 182.100 Reg. Innocent IV , nos. 6256, 6237. For the relationship between Innocent IV and the Templars

see A. Spicciani, ‘Papa Innocenzo IV e i Templari’, I Templari: Mito e Storia. Atti del ConvegnoInternazionale di Studi alla Magione Templare di Poggibonsi, Siena, 29–31 Maggio 1987 , ed.G. Minnucci and F. Sardi, Siena, 1989, pp. 41–65; Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 231–32.



Innocent urged the prelates to help the Order, which had suffered heavy losses in thecontinuing war against the Muslims.101

A feature of Innocent’s papacy was the diversif ication of crusading. BesidesLouis IX’s crusade to Egypt, crusades were fought against pagans along the Balticshore, against the Mongols in Hungary, against the Muslims in Spain, and against

Frederick II in Italy and Germany.102 Innocent expected the Hospitallers to dispersetheir forces and resources in order to fight Muslims and pagans in differentcrusading theatres. As this could have weakened their effort to rehabilitate theOrder in the East they were not always willing to comply. In June 1247 the Hospital-lers agreed to supply Bela IV of Hungary with military forces in case the kingdomwas invaded by pagans or Mongols. The king, fearing a Mongol invasion, had prob-ably asked the pope to ensure the Order’s support. A year later, in June 1248, Inno-cent exhorted the Hospitallers in this kingdom to defend it against the Mongols. Hepromised that those members of the familia of the Order who took the cross wouldbe granted a crusade indulgence similar to the one granted to crusaders to the HolyLand.103 In March 1250, following a complaint from James I, he urged the Hospital-lers and the Templars to fight alongside the king’s forces in the Aragonesereconquest.104

Diversification was a common feature of thirteenth-century crusading. In 1255 Alexander IV (1254–61), Innocent’s successor, ordered the mendicants to preachthe cross in France at the same time as a crusade against Manfred was being preached in Italy and England, for which crusading vows destined for the HolyLand were commuted. Alexander spent the first years of his papacy in abortivenegotiations with Henry III to transfer the Sicilian crown to his son Edmund of

Lancaster.105 Although many letters of appeal were sent by the Latin settlers to theWest between 1254, when Louis IX returned to France, and 1260, when a Mongol


101 Catálogo de la documentacíon Navarra de la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén en el Archivo Historico Nacional,siglos XII–XIX , ed. C. Gutierrez del Arroyo, Pamplona, 1992, vol. I, nos. 163, 172.

102 Riley-Smith, The Crusades , pp. 157–73, and Purcell, Papal Crusading Policy, pp. 66–80.103 ‘Praeceptorem et fratres Hospitalis Hierosolymitani in Hungaria rogat et hortatur ut ad

gentem Tartarorum saevissimam conterendam . . . familiae eorum ac omnibus aliis qui assumptacruce in Hungariam contra Tartaros processerint illam indulgentiam elargitur quaetranseuntibus in subsidium Terrae Sanctae in generali concilio concessa est’, Reg. Innocent IV ,no. 4000; Cart., nos. 2445, 2477. The Mongol invasion of Hungary occurred in 1241–1242. In1247 and 1248 the kingdom was not under attack, but the king, fearing the Mongols’ return,kept seeking military support. See N. Berend, At the Gate of Christendom: Jews, Muslims and ‘Pagans’ in Medieval Hungary, c.1000–c.1300 , Cambridge, 2001, pp. 163–65; D. Morgan, The Mongols , Oxford, 1986, pp. 138–41.

104 Cart., no. 2517. Ledesma Rubio, Templarios y Hospitalarios en el Reino de Aragón, p. 55. On theeffect of the participation of the Order’s houses in the Iberian peninsula Reconquista on theirability to support the Order in the East see Chapter 2 above, pp. 81, 99–101.

105 On Alexander’s pontificate see ‘Alexander IV’, Dictionnaire de théologie Catholique , ed.H. Hemmer, vol. I, col. 721; Purcell, Papal Crusading Policy, pp. 80–81; Housley, The Italian

Crusades , pp. 16–17, 72. On crusade preaching during Innocent IV’s and Alexander IV’spontificates, see Maier, Preaching the Crusades , pp. 71–79. On Alexander’s negotiations withHenry III of England see Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade , pp. 11, 91–92, 224. On commu-tation of crusading vows in order to fight in Sicily see, for example, Foedera , vol. II, pp. 319–20,322.



invasion was imminent, the struggle in Sicily seems to have taken priority over theaffairs in the East.106

Alexander’s main concern was to defend the Order’s privileges and patrimony,which were increasingly challenged by lay and ecclesiastical lords, who wished torestrict its rights and regain ownership over property.107 Cum dilecti filii fratres

Hierosolymitani , and Non absque dolore , which ordered the prelates to honour anddefend the privileges and donations given to the Hospitallers, were repeatedlyrenewed during his pontificate. Paci et quieti , which ordered the prelates to excommu-nicate churchmen and laymen who harmed the Order’s property and men, wasrenewed several times.108 Alexander’s new bulls also show his concern about theseaggressions. In January 1255 he issued Justis petentium desideriis , which reconfirmed itsownership of properties donated by the faithful and of property that it conqueredfrom the Muslims.109 Moreover, in September 1256 he exempted the Order fromany form of secular jurisdiction, taxation, and public works.110 Out of considerationfor the Hospitallers’ services to ‘the poor and the sick of Christ and also the contin-uous support they provide the Holy Land, not without great efforts and expenses’,he ordered the prelates in August 1255 to obey papal bulls regarding them. A yearlater he instructed the bishops to cancel excommunications and other ecclesiasticalsanctions that had been imposed on the Order and its men and that were contraryto papal privileges.111 A possible confrontation between papal legates and the Hospi-tallers was over papal taxation. Alexander protected their immunity, and in Licet sicut lecta , issued in February 1256, he exempted the Hospitallers from taxes imposed bythe Holy See in which they were not specifically mentioned.112 In October 1256 heprevented the prelates from demanding new levies from the Order.113

By exempting it from papal taxation Alexander wished to preserve the Order’sprivileges, and also to assist it at a time of financial crisis. We have already seen hisattempts to prevent the alienation of property made by some of its commanderies


106 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 31–33, and P.J. Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land,1095–1270 , Cambridge (Mass.), 1991, pp. 186–87.

107 See Chapter 2 above, pp. 86, 90.108 Cart., nos. 2718, 2741, 2767, 2903, 2911; 2712, 2728, 2766, 2768, 2895; 2827, 2891, 2954.109 Cart., no. 2708.110 Cart., nos. 2828, 2849.111 Cart., nos. 2764, 2837. For additional decrees regularizing the Order’s relations with the

papacy and the local church see, for example, Cart., nos. 2702, 2711, 2821, 2978, 2981. Papalbulls such as Quam amabilis Deo , which called on the clergy to preach in favour of the Order, orInter cetera , which urged the faithful to help it, were not renewed during Alexander’s pontificate.For the renewal of Querelam gravem recepimus , which allowed the Hospitallers to preach in parishchurches, see Cart., nos. 2724, 2758, 2855, 2905.

112 Cart., no. 2800. The Military Orders, as will be shown below (p. 124), were not exempted frompapal taxation during the pontificates of Urban IV and Clement IV. See also Chapter 2 above,p. 96. On papal taxation of the Church see Siberry, Criticism of Crusading , pp. 126–49; Housley,The Italian Crusades , pp. 174–75; Morris, The Papal Monarchy, p. 558.

113 Cart., no. 2838. Unfortunately Delaville Le Roulx included only a summary of this bull in the

Cartulaire . The same privilege was, however, granted to the Templars in March 1257. Alexander emphasized that it was granted because: ‘ante oculos mentis nostre habemuscotidie necessitatem maximam Terre Sancte. Non enim possumus nec debemus casus ipsiusmiserabile oblivisci, et ideo ad devotionis vestre fervorem, cum pro subventione terre predictenec personis vestris parcatis.’ See Reg. Alexandre IV , no. 1814.



and priories, which, faced with increasing demands from the East and political andeconomic changes in Europe, were being forced to sell property. In October 1256 heforbade the alienation of property in England, which had been carried out withoutthe prior’s approval. In May 1257 he ordered the head of the religious communityat St. Etienne de Beaune to revoke alienation of property effected by the priory of

France.114 Some of the Order’s houses in Europe seem to have been heavily in debt,and in June 1257 the pope forbade the bishop of Orvieto from demanding moneyfrom the Hospitallers. He stressed that ‘the brothers run into heavy debts due to thenecessities they assigned to maintain the poor and support the Holy Land’.115 Outof consideration for their financial difficulties Alexander granted them 4,000 markscollected from the redemption of crusading vows.116

Wishing to enlarge the Order’s income but also to protect religious institutions inthe Holy Land, which owing to the frequency of the Muslims’ raids would haveotherwise fallen into ruin, Alexander acceded in April 1255 to the Hospitallers’request to grant them the abbey of Mt. Thabor. This was a major donation which,besides the abbey itself, included rights over large estates. Considering the expensesincurred by the Hospitallers in the Holy Land he gave them in February 1256 thenunnery of St. Lazarus of Bethany.117 In March 1255 the pope intervened in theirfavour in a dispute with the bishop of Tortosa, who claimed the tithes from thediocese of Rafania, where the Hospitallers held estates adjacent to the castle of Crac de Chevaliers. Alexander exempted them from payment of tithes and firstfruits for the castle and its adjacent lands. This exemption was granted to relieve theHospitallers of the expenses they incurred defending Crac, which the Orderintended to garrison with sixty knights. Alexander emphasized his duty to support

the Hospitallers, who faced great danger in the defence of Christendom.118

Concessions given to the Hospitallers in the East were, however, stronglyopposed by the Latin church, as they threatened to diminish its income. JamesPantaleon, the new patriarch of Jerusalem, challenged the grant of the nunnery of Bethany, as he claimed it was traditionally dependent upon Jerusalem. This claimstarted a lengthy dispute with the Hospitallers, which ended in September 1261,when James, now the newly appointed Urban IV, revoked the donation.119 Beforehe arrived in the East to take up the patriarchate120 James complained to the popethat the Military Orders, exploiting his absence, had taken the money collected

from the redemption of crusading vows in the kingdom of Jerusalem. The Military


114 Cart., nos. 2834–35, 2872. On the economic situation of the Order in the 1250s and the alien-ation of its property see Chapter 2 above, pp. 86ff.

115 ‘eorumdem fratrum gravamen indebitum sustinere, utpote quorum bona sustentationipauperum et Terre Sancte subsidio sunt specialiter deputata’, Cart., no. 2878.

116 See Chapter 1 above, p. 28.117 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 28, 56.118 Cart., no. 2727. For a thorough discussion of the Order’s dispute with the bishop of Tortosa

see Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 418–19, and Hamilton, The Latin Church in the

Crusader States , pp. 285–86.119 Cart., no. 2993. For the patriarchate of James Pantaleon see Hamilton, The Latin Church in the

Crusader States , pp. 267–70, and Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 401–3.120 James was appointed in April 1255 but went to Acre only in June 1256. See Hamilton, The

Latin Church in the Crusader States , pp. 267–68.



Orders must have regarded this money as an important source of income, and theirattempts to collect it seem to have resulted in a bitter conflict with the Latin churchand their excommunication. In a letter of December 1255 Alexander promised thepatriarch that the collection of the money in the kingdom of Jerusalem by theOrders would not damage his income. He also made sure to remind James that they

were immune from excommunication. It is not clear from this letter whether thepope limited or even cancelled the Orders’ right to collect the money,121 because in January 1256 he granted the Templars the right to collect this levy in Germany, theonly place where they had not been allowed to collect it till then. The right wasgranted in response to their request and in order to compensate them for their lossof income on account of the patriarch’s right, as papal legate, to the moneycollected from the redemption of crusading vows in the Holy Land.122 There is noevidence that this right to compensation was granted to the Hospitallers, a circum-stance that probably added to the already strained relations between them and thelocal Church. In February 1256 Alexander had to emphasize once again the Orders’immunity. However, as he was keen to secure James’s success in his new post, heordered the Hospitallers and the Templars to obey the new patriarch and to respecthis position as papal legate.123 This appeal does not seem to have been very effectiveas regards the Hospitallers. While this was the last time Alexander issued a decreeforbidding the excommunication of the Templars, he had to renew it for the Hospi-tallers in September 1258: this time they may have been excommunicated by Jameshimself after he went to Acre in June 1256.124 The 1258 bull was the last renewal of the decree forbidding the Order’s excommunication during Alexander’s pontificate. Although the patriarch left for Rome in 1259 to challenge the donation of Bethany,

among other things,125 the Latin church and the Military Orders, alarmed by theMongols’ advance, were perhaps inclined to settle their differences. This threat hadinduced the Orders to reach an agreement between themselves in October 1258.126

With the Mongols’ advance a stream of letters of appeal were sent by the Latinsettlers and huge propaganda efforts were made by the Military Orders to promotethe Holy Land and pool resources in the West.127 Maier has pointed out that inresponse to the Mongol threat Alexander ordered the secular clergy to preach thecross in 1260 and enormous efforts were made to recruit crusaders and to assemble


121 Cart., no. 2775; Reg. Alexandre IV , nos. 971, 956. Although the Hospitallers seem to have consid-ered this an important source of income, there is no additional information on this matter andwe do not know the sums involved. Redemption of crusading vows is a subject thoroughlystudied by scholars; however, little attention has been paid to the collection of this money inthe kingdom of Jerusalem. See, for example, J.M. Brundage, Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader , Madison, 1969, pp. 68–69, 71–72, 77, and Maier, Preaching the Crusades , pp. 135–60.

122 Reg. Alexandre IV , no. 1085. For the collection of crusading vows in Germany see also MGH Epistolae saeculi XIII , vol. I, no. 450.

123 Cart., no. 2787; Reg. Alexandre IV , no. 1161.124 Cart., nos. 2797, 2806, 2901.125 ‘ATS’, p. 449B. According to Hamilton (The Latin Church in the Crusader States , pp. 269–70) the

main reason for James’s trip to Rome was to complain about the appointment of Thomas Agni of Lentino as legate a latere to Acre with authority that outranked his own.

126 See Chapter 1 above, p. 31.127 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 31–33.



supplies for the Holy Land.128 In a letter sent the same year to the bishop of Marseilles and to the mendicant friars, Alexander described the alarming situationof the Latin settlements. The pope had had news from his legate and received manyletters and envoys sent by the leaders in the East, including the masters of the Mili-tary Orders. He instructed the bishops and the friars to preach the cross, urging the

faithful to succour the Holy Land and to send there on the next passage the moneycollected from the redemption of crusade vows. This money was to enable the Latinsettlers to hire crossbowmen.129 The lack of money to employ or supply mercenarieswas indeed stressed as one of their main difficulties in the appeals sent from theEast.130

The pontificate of Urban IV (1261–64), Alexander’s successor, ref lects Urban’sstrained relations with the Order during his patriarchate. As noted, he had jour-neyed from the East in 1259 to complain in the papal curia about the donation of the nunnery of Bethany. In September 1261, a month after his election, he revokedthis grant, claiming that the Order had obtained it dishonestly, by exaggerating thestate of the nunnery and the dangers it faced from the Muslims. In 1263 hecancelled Alexander’s decision regarding the tithes from the diocese of Rafania by joining this diocese to that of Tortosa and by invalidating, in the following year, anyclaim the Hospitallers might have over these tithes.131

Urban’s hostility and even distrust of the Hospitallers appears still more striking when compared with his attitude to the Templars. Representatives of the Templarmaster Thomas Bérard were sent in June 1261 to the curia to raise several issuessuch as the Mongol threat, aid to Constantinople, and the situation in Sicily. 132

Following Urban’s election the Templars assumed an important place in his admin-

istration. A Templar brother was his marshal and another his chamberlain. Thelatter replaced in this office brother Bonvicino, a Templar who had been the cham-berlain of Alexander IV and had a prominent role in the struggle against theHohenstaufen in central Italy.133 To strengthen his position in that region Urbanalso appointed Templars as castellans of his castles. Bernard of Gallercetum was thecastellan of Cesis and Raymond was the castellan of Proculi, both in the diocese of Spoleto. In the diocese of Anagni a Templar was the castellan of Rocca deTrebis.134 The Templars were responsible throughout Europe for the collection of levies for the Latin kingdom and the Holy See. In June 1263, for example, Urban

ordered the bishop of Burgos to transfer 100 marks destined for the pope to theTemplar house in Montpellier.135 The Order’s cooperation with the papacy was


128 Maier, Preaching the Crusades , pp. 84–85.129 GCN , Marseille, vol. II, no. 288.130 See Chapter 1 above, p. 32.131 Cart., nos. 2993, 3093; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 403, 418–19; Hamilton, The

Latin Church in the Crusader States , p. 285. For Urban’s election in August 1261 see E. Jordan, Les origines de la domination Angevine en Italie , Paris, 1909, pp. 291–92.

132 RRH , no. 1303. Barber, The New Knighthood , p. 157.133 Reg. Urbain IV , no. 2276. Bonvicino had been the papal chamberlain for about thirty years; he

also served under Gregory IX and Innocent IV. See F. Bramato, Storia dell’ordine dei Templari inItalia , Rome, 1991, vol. I, pp. 164–65, and Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 251, 276.

134 Reg. Urbain IV , nos. 59C, 329, 126C. See also Bramato, Storia dell’ordine dei Templari in Italia , vol. I, pp. 117–18, 165.

135 Reg. Urbain IV , no. 156C.



rewarded. In June 1262 Urban not only confirmed its property in Provence, butowing to the frequent attacks on it he appointed two churchmen to protect it for five years.136 The pope emphasized the Templars’ loyalty and reaffirmed his commit-ment to protect them when renewing Religiosos viros fratres , which ordered the bishopsto excommunicate members of their communities who disturbed or taxed them.137

Urban’s firm connection with the Order is also reflected in his intervention in itsinternal affairs. The decision by the master Thomas Bérard in 1262 to depose themarshal Stephen of Sissey and send him to Rome after the defeat in the Jawlan mayhave been an acceptable exercise of papal jurisdiction as a last resort.138 A year laterUrban asked Thomas Bérard to appoint Amaury de la Roche as preceptor inFrance, following a request from Louis IX.139

In comparison with Urban’s close connections with the Templars his support forthe Hospitallers seems low-key. He issued a number of bulls which were meant toprotect the Order and its property. Cum a nobis petitur , which confirmed its privileges,was renewed several times during his pontificate.140 So was Devotionis vestre precibus ,which granted the Order the right to claim any property its members would haveinherited had they remained in the secular world.141 Urban was aware of the finan-cial difficulties faced by the Order. We have seen that in March 1262 he preventedthe Hospitallers in England from alienating their property to pay debts.142 His mostimportant decree regarding them was linked to their fund-raising, which encoun-tered f ierce opposition in the West. In October 1261 the pope ordered the bishopsto excommunicate not only clerics and laymen who molested the Order, damagedits property, and disturbed its alms collection, but also those who assisted theoffenders.143

This last bull must have been connected with Urban’s attempts, in the first yearsof his pontificate, to promote throughout Europe a new crusade to the HolyLand.144 The local clergy and all exempt Orders, including the Templars and theHospitallers, were repeatedly requested to give procurations, in supplies and money,


136 Reg. Urbain IV , nos. 2954–55. These ‘advocates’ were appointed as ‘conservatoremprivilegiorum et bonorum militia Templi in Provincia’.

137 Urban wrote to the brothers that this privilege was granted to them ‘pro religione et honestatesua, tanto propensius a malignorum incursibus protegere volumus’, but also, ‘tueri quantopuriorem devotionem circa nos et Romanam ecclesiam habere noscuntur’. Reg. Urbain IV ,no. 2957.

138 Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 187–88. For the battle in the Jawlan see Chapter 1 above, p. 34.Historians differ as to the reasons for Stephen’s deposition. Bramato (Storia dell’ordine dei Templari in Italia , p. 125) suggests that it was because of Urban’s hostility to the Templars fromthe time he was patriarch of Jerusalem. We have seen, however, the close cooperation betweenthe pope and the Order. Melville believes that Sissey strongly opposed Urban’s campaign toSicily and the commutation of resources from the Holy Land. Considering that Sissey wasappointed in 1271 as preceptor of Apulia and had strong connections with Charles of Anjou,this does not make sense. M. Melville, La vie des Templiers , Paris, 1951, p. 230.

139 Reg. Urbain IV , nos. 765, 771, 2865. The Templars acceded to the request and Amaury servedas preceptor of France between 1265 and 1271. See Barber, The New Knighthood , p. 274.

140 Cart., nos. 3014, 3025; Reg. Urbain IV , no. 2892.141 Cart., nos. 3017, 3019, 3024, 3074.142 See Chapter 2 above, p. 99.143 Cart., no. 2996.144 Maier, Preaching the Crusades , p. 80, and Jordan, Les origines de la domination Angevine en Italie , pp.



to preachers of the cross and tax collectors.145 In June 1264 the pope called on thepatriarch of Jerusalem and the masters of the Military Orders to assist him in thepreparations for this crusade.146 As former patriarch of Jerusalem, he understoodthat one of the key elements for the success of any campaign was the political unityof the kingdom. The same month he urged the leaders in the East to reach peaceful

settlements of their disagreements and he forbade them to sign individual treatieswith the Muslims.147 In response to urgent correspondence sent from the Eastdescribing the depredations that accompanied Baybars’ advance of 1263, Urbanimplored the leaders of the West to help the Holy Land. He also wrote to the Latinsettlers that in response to their appeals a hundredth was being levied on theChurch and a crusade was being preached in Europe. This money and the manycrusaders who had taken the cross would soon be sent to the Holy Land.148

The crusade, however, never materialized. That same year Urban concludednegotiations to transfer the Sicilian crown to Charles of Anjou and a crusade waspreached against Manfred in France, parts of the empire, and north and centralItaly.149 Purcell has called this ‘a period of almost total orientation of crusading policy towards victory over the Hohenstaufen claimants’.150 To achieve this goalUrban, and his successor Clement IV, diverted money and manpower destined forthe Holy Land to support Charles’s campaign in Italy. Simon of Brie, the papallegate in France and Urban’s representative in the negotiations with Charles, wasallowed to suspend the crusade to the East for one year, to commute vows, and touse money destined for the Holy Land to Italy. In May 1264 a three-year tenth tosupport Charles’s campaign was imposed on the Church, from which exemptOrders were not excluded. This was probably the first time papal taxation was

imposed on the Hospitallers and the Templars.151

The struggle against the Hohenstaufen reached its peak during the pontificate of Clement IV (1265–68). The pope’s involvement in military campaigns in Italyagainst Manfred and Conradin and his reliance on Charles of Anjou provide thebasis for an understanding of Clement’s attitude to the Holy Land, hence his rela-tions with the Hospitallers.

Only a month after Clement’s election in February 1265 news of the fall of Caesarea and Arsur reached the curia. The pope sent several letters to the East,showing his concern and promising that every effort had been made to promote a


373, 386–87. In 1263 a five-year hundredth was levied from the Church in order to help theHoly Land. See Housley, The Italian Crusades , p. 72.

145 Cart., nos. 3007, 3009, 3057, 3060, 3078; Reg. Urbain IV , e.g. nos. 395–96, 459C–60C.146 Cart., no. 3097.147 Cart., no. 3099. For individual treaties signed with Baybars in 1263 see Chapter 1 above, p. 35.148 Cart., no. 3098. For the full text see Reg. Urbain IV , no. 867.149 Abulafia, Frederick II , pp. 415–16, and The Western Mediterranean Kingdoms , pp. 57–58; Jordan, Les

origines de la domination Angevine en Italie , pp. 494–95; Housley, The Italian Crusades , pp. 18, 72–73;Riley-Smith, The Crusades , p. 168; S. Runciman, The Sicilian Vespers: A History of the MediterraneanWorld in the Later Thirteenth Century, Cambridge, 1958, pp. 64–95.

150 Purcell, Papal Crusading Policy, p. 113.151 Simon was, however, to implement these powers only with a special mandate from the pope.

See Housley, The Italian Crusades , pp. 174–75, 83, 98; Jordan, Les origines de la domination Angevine en Italie , p. 494. On the tenth for Charles’s campaign and the exempt Orders see Reg. Urbain IV ,no. 804; Housley, The Italian Crusades , pp. 214–15; Chapter 2 above, p. 96.



crusade in Europe.152 In August he issued a new bull calling for the preaching of the

cross in France, Germany, and Scandinavia.153 In the spring of 1265 he informed

Louis IX of Baybars’ advance and asked him to hasten the collection of the

hundredth in his kingdom in favour of the Holy Land. The pope also forwarded the

news from the East to other Western leaders and to the mendicants preaching the

cross.154 Yet for all these efforts to promote a crusade and disseminate the news fromthe Holy Land, Clement gave priority to the crusade against Manfred in Italy in the

spring of 1265. In March he instructed Simon of Brie, papal legate to France, to

commute crusading vows from the Holy Land to Sicily.155 By the time of the battle

of Benevento in February 1266 Clement justified this priority by stressing the threat

that Manfred constituted to the existence of the Church in Rome, and the strategic

importance of Sicily for a future crusade to the Holy Land. Charles’s success, he

wrote, would facilitate the shipment of supplies to the Latin East.156 Clement’s reac-

tion to the news of the fall of the castle of Safad was to promise that urgent help

would be sent to the East as soon as the affair in Sicily was settled.157 The fury of the

Latin settlers at the diversion of resources and manpower to Sicily is expressed in

the poem Ira et Dolor .158 Indeed, only after the struggle against Manfred was

concluded could the Franks expect any significant help. The pope sent letters and

envoys to the courts of Europe; they described the critical situation of the Christians

in the East and begged for help.159 In October 1266 Clement wrote to his legate in

England about the loss of the castle of Safad and ordered him to supply the money

needed to hire crossbowmen.160 In March 1267 Louis IX took the cross, and a

month later Clement ordered the commutation of crusading vows from Sicily in

favour of the Holy Land. He also ordered that a crusade for the East be preached

throughout Europe and papal taxation be collected to support this expedition.161

The events in Italy had also strongly influenced Clement’s relationship with the

Hospitallers, although he had a far more positive attitude to them than his prede-

cessor. During his pontificate he issued and renewed many bulls meant to protect

the Order and its property from ecclesiastical and secular lords.162 In February and


152 Cart., nos. 3128, 3172; Reg. Clément IV , nos. 824, 1792.153 Maier, Preaching the Crusades , p. 80.154 Reg. Clément IV , no. 825.155 Reg. Clément IV , no. 216. On the commutation of crusading vows to Sicily see also Housley, The

Italian Crusades , pp. 98–99, and Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land , pp. 190–93.156 Cart., no. 3206; Reg. Clément IV , no. 838. For a thorough discussion of the papal justification of

the Italian crusades see Housley, The Italian Crusades , pp. 63–70.157 Cart., nos. 3229, 3230; Reg. Clément IV , no. 1110; Annales Ecclesiastici , vol. XXII (1257–85), p. 186

(ann. 1266, S 45).158 For Ira et Dolor see above, Chapter 1, pp. 39–40, and Chapter 2, pp. 95–96.159 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 39, 41–42.160 Reg. Clément IV , nos. 1145–46; Cart., no. 3232. On Clement’s support see also Marshall, Warfare

in the Latin East , pp. 83–84.161 On the second crusade of St. Louis see Richard, Saint Louis , pp. 293–329; Riley-Smith, The

Crusades , pp. 173–76. On the commutation of vows in favour of the Holy Land and the prepa-rations for this expedition see Reg. Clément IV , no. 496; Cole, The Preaching of the Crusades to the

Holy Land , pp. 193–94; Purcell, Papal Crusading Policy, p. 114.162 The bulls are many: see, for example, Cart., nos. 3141, 3156–57, 3163, 3181, 3211, 3233,

3244–45.



May 1265 he renewed the Hospitallers’ right to receive revenues collected from theredemption of crusading vows.163 In Clement’s correspondence the Order’s activi-ties are clearly identified with the crusades and the defence of the Holy Land. In29 May he called on the prelates to urge the faithful to give donations to the Hospi-tallers. ‘Through them’, he wrote, ‘God frees the Eastern Church from the impurity

of the pagans and fights the enemies of Christ.’164 Still, for all the pope’s concernover the Order’s financial situation, he had inherited an empty treasury and was inurgent need of large sums of money to finance the military campaigns in Italy. 165

Under these circumstances, and under strong pressure from Charles of Anjou,Clement continued Urban’s policy of collecting the three-year tenth from exemptOrders, including the Hospitallers and the Templars. On 19 March 1265, inresponse to complaints from the Orders, he did instruct Simon of Brie to exemptthem temporarily from this tax until the matter could be examined. But that samemonth, fearing Charles’s reaction to this exemption, he ordered the collection of thetax despite previous privileges given to the Orders.166 The Hospitallers refused topay the tenth, and Housley believes that Ferrand of Barras, prior of St. Gilles, metClement in March 1266 to persuade him to rescind his decision. Although the popedid not comply he asked Simon to alleviate the sanctions.167 It is noteworthy that thepope met Ferrand and heard out his complaints, not because of the Order’s chari-table work or its role defending the Holy Land but because of the prior’s devotion tothe pope and the Church in Rome as well as his personal friendship withClement.168 But one should also note that the Military Orders did not receive anyconcessions from the tax because of their crucial role in the East.

The priority given to the struggle against the Hohenstaufen over the needs of the

Hospitallers in the Holy Land was manifested in financial demands, and also inClement’s unprecedented request that the Order help fight Conradin’s supporters inSicily. This had serious implications for the supply of money and resources to theHospitallers in the Holy Land from their houses in the kingdom of Sicily and prob-ably also in France. Attempts made by the master to change the Order’s leadershipin Sicily were thwarted by Clement.169 The claim that the Hohenstaufen and their


163 Cart., nos. 3118, 3143.164 Cart., no. 3153; Reg. Clément IV , no. 1659. ‘per quos Deus Orientalem ecclesiam a paganorum.

spurcicia liberat, et Christiani nominis inimicos expugnat’. This letter is in fact the renewal of Quam amabilis Deo . The donors were reminded that they would be absolved of a seventh part of their yearly penance (see also Cart., no. 130).

165 On the financial situation of the papacy during Charles’s campaigns see Housley, The ItalianCrusades , pp. 222–31.

166 Cart., no. 3122; Reg. Clément IV , nos. 1436, 1451.167 See Chapter 2 above, p. 96.168 ‘devotione sincera quam ad nos et Romanam gerit ecclesiam, et amicitia speciali quam olim

ad personam nostram habuit’, Thes. novus , vol. II, no. 252. It is not possible, owing to the lackof evidence, to determine the nature of the friendship between these two men. The phrase‘special friendship’ could have been just a writing formula. Still, Clement showed specialconcern for Ferrand when he absolved the prior from fulfilling his obligation to visit theconvent in the East. This is an unusual example of papal intervention in such matters and itwas done out of consideration for Ferrand’s advanced years. See Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 280–81, and Hospitallers: The History of the Order of St. John, London, 1999, p. 61.

169 See Chapter 2 above, pp. 92–95.



supporters were no different from the Muslims was Clement’s justification fordemanding that the Hospitallers fight fellow-Christians, which was against theircustoms;170 an esgart had considered the possibility that individual brothers may beinvolved in this sort of fighting and had ruled that ‘no brother should fight a Chris-tian’.171 To assuage complaints from the Hospitallers in the East and to gain their

loyalty Clement gave them exceptional concessions. On 23 May 1267 he grantedthem the right to collect revenues from redemption of crusading vows in thedioceses of Salzburg and Magdeburg up to the sum of 3,000 marks. This was thefirst time the Hospitallers were allowed to collect this money in the Western empireout of consideration for the brothers’ great needs.172

The fighting of the Hospitallers against the rebels in Sicily helped break theHohenstaufen supporters and contributed to Conradin’s final defeat at the battle of Tagliacozzo in August 1268.173 However, while Clement’s policy in Italy ended insuccess it had adverse consequences for the situation of the Christian settlements inthe East. By the time of his death in 1269 the Franks, who lacked resources andmanpower, had lost most of their major castles and were restricted to a number of cities along the coast.174 Any hopes for a quick relief of the Holy Land were shat-tered by the failure of St. Louis’ crusade in Tunis in 1271. The remaining crusading forces which arrived at Acre were insuff icient to provide any significant help.175 Insuch a vital period the papacy, which after the death of Louis IX in Tunis in 1271was the only power in Europe capable of promoting and organizing urgent aid, was vacant for almost three years.176

With the election of Tedaldo Visconti, archdeacon of Liège, as Pope Gregory Xin September 1271, the Holy Land was once again at the centre of papal policy.

Gregory, who was in the Holy Land at the time of his election, was chosen becauseof his eager support for the Latin settlements and his knowledge of their needs.Following his election he sent small contingents to reinforce the military forces inthe East and summoned the Second Council of Lyons, which was to discuss a newcrusade.177

The Military Orders were an important element in Gregory’s crusade machineryand the pope was anxious to defend their rights and privileges. In Sub religionis habitu ,issued in July 1272, he ordered ecclesiastical authorities in Aix and Forcalquier toprotect the properties and rights of the priory of St. Gilles from the many abuses

they were exposed to, and instructed them to use Church sanctions against the


170 Cart., no. 3279.171 ‘nul frere ne bate nul Crestien’, Cart., no. 2213, usance no. 55.172 Cart., no. 3261.173 See Chapter 2 above, p. 93.174 On the complete reliance of the Latin settlements on supplies from Europe in the late 1260s

see Chapter 1 above, p. 42.175 On Louis IX’s crusade to Tunis see Riley-Smith, The Crusades , pp. 173–76. On the insuffi-

ciency of the remaining crusading forces that arrived at Acre see Chapter 1 above, pp. 45–47.176 P. Throop, Criticism of the Crusades: A Study of Public Opinion and Crusade Propaganda , Amsterdam,

1940, p. 13.177 Throop, Criticism of the Crusades , pp. 13–17, 274; Housley, The Later Crusades , pp. 10–12; Schein,

Fideles Crucis , pp. 20–22.



offenders.178 The bull was renewed in 1274 to protect the Order’s property in Acreand sent to the bishop of Lydda.179 The brothers’ frequent complaints to the curiaabout the abuse of their privileges and possessions led to the renewal of Solet annuere sedes , a papal confirmation of their rights and privileges, seven times during Gregory’s pontificate, more times than any other bull.180 The pope was, however,

rigorous when the Hospitallers, again exploiting the vacancy of the see of Jerusalem, took the money collected from the redemption of crusading vows in thekingdom of Jerusalem. With the appointment of the papal legate, Thomas of Lentino, as the new patriarch, the pope ordered in March 1272 that this money becollected by him.181

Aware of the need to reinforce the kingdom’s defences, one of Gregory’s firstactions after his election was to supply it immediately with warriors and money, forwhich he sought urgent help from European leaders and also from the MilitaryOrders. On 4 March 1272 he sent his legate, the archbishop of Corinth, to PhilipIII of France to ask for money needed to supply the East with knights and ships.182

That same date a letter was issued to the visitor of the Templars and the prior of theHospitallers in France, in which the pope explained the archbishop’s mission. Hestressed the critical situation of the Holy Land and asked them to supply the enor-mous sum of 25,000 marks in case the king did not provide the money quicklyenough. Although the pope reassured them that this sum would probably not benecessary, he instructed them to borrow the money and give their property as suretyfor the loan.183 As this issue was not mentioned again, it seems that the loan nevermaterialized, perhaps because Philip did send money and manpower to the HolyLand in late 1272 and in 1273.184 Yet although the Orders were not actually asked

to supply this money and, therefore, their f inancial situation was not affected by it,Gregory’s request is important. It shows his perception, shared by his contempo-


178 Cart., nos. 3458, 3532.179 Cart., no. 3545. According to Riley-Smith (The Knights of St. John, pp. 409–10) this bull hints at

a conflict the Hospitallers in Acre had over property at that time, for which there is no otherevidence. The bishop of Lydda resided in Acre as Lydda had been conquered by Baybars in1268. See Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States , pp. 273–74.

180 Cart., nos. 3448, 3450, 3537, 3538, 3552, 3564; Reg. Grégoire X , no. 991.181 Reg. Grégoire X , no. 27. The see of Jerusalem was vacant for two years, from 1270 to 1272. On

this and the appointment of Thomas of Lentino, the former bishop of Bethlehem, as patri-arch of Jerusalem, see Hamilton, The Latin Church in the Crusader States , pp. 274–76.

182 Reg. Grégoire X , no. 343.183 The pope’s request reads as follows: ‘consurgentes mutuum usque ad quantitatem viginti

quinque millium marcharum argenti, per quod in militibus et galeis promptus possit haberisuccursus ad Terram eandem sine tarditatis dispendio destinandus, communiter contraherecuretis, et, si opportunum fuerit, domos militie Templi et Hospitalis Hierosolimitani vobiscomissas, propter hoc creditoribus obligare’. Reg. Grégoire X , no. 348; Cart., no. 3440. The ideaof using Church property as security for loans was probably not alien to Gregory. His prede-cessor, Clement IV, had pledged many of the churches in Rome to f ind the money needed tosupport Charles’s army. See Housley, The Italian Crusade , pp. 223–24.

184 ‘Eracles’ (p. 463) wrote that in April 1273 Philip sent to the Holy Land a small army of twenty-five knights and 100 crossbowmen. He also sent money. In May 1273 Hugh Revel, theHospitaller master, asked the count of Flanders for urgent help as the money sent by the king of France had been spent. See RRH , no. 1387. See also Throop, Criticism of the Crusades ,pp. 229, 273–74; Schein, Fideles Crucis , p. 19.



raries, of the Orders as rich institutions, capable, because of their huge patrimony,of raising significant amounts of money to help the Holy Land. One should notice,however, that the pope’s attitude in this matter was not consistent and his requestwas unusual. Gregory, as we shall see below, showed great concern over the Order’sfinancial situation.

The gap between the contemporary perception of the Orders as rich institutionswith unlimited resources and manpower and their real financial situation andability to defend the Holy Land became obvious at the Council of Lyons. They senttwo of their most experienced brothers to the Council, the newly appointedTemplar master, William of Beaujeu, and the Hospitaller brother William of Corceles, a former marshal who had served in the East for more than thirty years.185

Their task was to defend the Orders from the traditional attacks by the bishopsagainst their rights and privileges and, more importantly, to discuss ways of assisting the Holy Land.186 They showed little enthusiasm for proposals to launch a majorexpedition, knowing that with their limited resources in the East they would not beable to hold the land after the crusaders returned to Europe. They supported theidea of sending small contingents, comprising what was soon to be called a passagium particulare , to reinforce the Levant with permanent troops,187 and advised careful


185 Before he became master William of Beaujeu had been the Templar preceptor in Tripoli, andfrom 1273 preceptor in southern Italy and Sicily. He was in Europe at the time the Councilwas summoned. See Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 169–71. Both Throop (Criticism of the Crusades , p. 227) and Schein (Fideles Crucis , p. 37) believe that Hugh Revel, the Hospitaller

master, was present at Lyons, but while the Order’s sources give no indication of it, they dogive clear evidence of the presence of William of Corceles. In January 1274 Charles of Anjourecommended William and other delegates from the Holy Land, who were on their way toLyons, to his officers in Italy. James I mentioned in his chronicle that a Joan d’Escarcella wasasked to speak at the Council. Although James believed him to be a Templar, the brother wasmost probably William of Corceles. Joan was asked to speak because he was an experiencedbrother who had served in the Order for ‘sixty years’. After the Council was adjournedGregory asked William of Corceles, according to the letter ‘a Hospitaller brother, who was inFrance in order to deal with matters concerned with the crusade’, to wait for instructions fromSimon of Brie. A document from 1305 also mentions William of Corceles as the Order’s dele-gate at Lyons. See Cart., nos. 3528, 3553, 4680; The Book of Deeds of James I of Aragon,pp. 362–64. For William of Corceles as Joan d’Escarcella (Johan Carcella) see alsoRiley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 143, 285. By 1274 William must have been an old man.He first appeared in documents related to the Order in the East as a simple brother in 1240.He was promoted to marshal after La Forbie, and until 1274 served continuously in the East.See Appendix below.

186 The Franciscan friar Gilbert of Tournai accused the Order of superbia and cupiditas and criti-cized its exemptions. The Orders had anticipated this criticism, and its delegates at theCouncil were instructed to emphasize the importance of their privileges and their freedomfrom authority of the bishops. See Gilbert of Tournai, ‘Collectio de scandalis ecclesiae’, ed.

A. Stroick, Archivum Franciscanum historicum, vol. 24 (1931), pp. 56–57, and ‘La défense duTemple devant le concile de Lyon en 1274’, ed. P. Amargier, in 1274: Année charnière: mutations et continuités , Colloques internationaux du Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris,

1977, pp. 495–97. For reference to criticism of the Orders in modern studies see Nicholson,Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights , pp. 12, 43; Ri ley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 388.

187 Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 202–04. For the support by the Military Orders of the passagium particulare and the growing popularity of this idea by the time of the Council of Lyons see Housley, The Later Crusades , pp. 12–13, 206, and Schein, Fideles Crucis , pp. 18–19.



consideration of matters such as war machines, food, and manpower before anyexpedition set out. Their caution was seen by many of the Council’s participants asreluctance to commit themselves to f ight in the East and to make, for this purpose,full use of their extensive resources in Europe.188 Richard of Mepham, Dean of Lincoln and one of the Council’s participants, wrote that it was a well known fact,

attested by most kings and princes, that through proper use of their large possessionsthe Military Orders would have sufficient resources to defend the Holy Land.189

This criticism had already been expressed in the 1240s by Matthew Paris, who, likeRichard, saw a link between the continuous appeals for help from the MilitaryOrders in the East and the heavy papal taxation imposed on the English Church.Matthew accused both Orders of keeping the Holy Land in a state of war so thatthey could receive further donations from the faithful. He claimed that as theTemplars had 9,000 manors throughout Christendom and the Hospitallers 19,000,they could supply their needs by sending one knight, fully equipped, from each of these manors to the East.190 This criticism led to a proposal, discussed for the firsttime at the Council of Lyons, for the union of the Orders, which it was expectedwould result in a better use of their resources and put an end to their rivalry. Thisplan was dropped because of strong opposition from the Iberian kings, who wishedto maintain the independence of the Spanish Military Orders of Calatrava,Santiago, and Alcantara. However, with the increasing hostility towards the Ordersafter the fall of the Latin kingdom, plans for their amalgamation were stronglybacked by crusader theoreticians and the papacy. In 1291 Pope Nicholas IV orderedthe archbishops throughout Christendom to discuss the amalgamation of theOrders at every provincial council. This question was seriously discussed before the

suppression of the Templars at the beginning of the fourteenth century.191

The Orders’ defence during the Council of Lyons was to stress the catastrophicsituation in the Latin kingdom and their continued commitment to caring forpilgrims and the poor and to fight the Muslims, in spite of their limited resources inthe East and the lack of arms, horses, and men.192 Although there is no evidence forthe part played by the Hospitaller delegate during the Council, the Templarresponse to the accusations of inadequate use of their wealth reflects the situation inwhich by the 1270s both Orders found themselves. They described their financial


188 The Book of Deeds of James I of Aragon, p. 364; Throop, Criticism of the Crusades , pp. 228–32.189 Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, 871–1313, ed. F.M. Powicke

et al., Oxford, 1964, vol. II, p. 815. See also Nicholson, Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights ,pp. 28–29, 132.

190 Matthew Paris, vol. IV, p. 291. Menache, ‘Rewriting the History of the Templars’, pp. 200–4;Barber, The New Knighthood , pp. 142, 144, 361, n. 106. It is interesting in this matter to see thehostility not only of the Order’s contemporaries but also of modern historians. Throop (Criti-cism of the Crusades , p. 238) writes that the ‘greedy Templars and Hospitallers’ asked for theexemptions because their income was dedicated to the Holy War.

191 For the proposal of the amalgamation of the Orders during the Council of Lyons see Cart.,no. 4680. For a thorough discussion of this subject by modern historians see Barber, The New

Knighthood , pp. 282–83; A. Forey, ‘The Military Orders in the Crusading Proposals of theLate-Thirteenth and Early-Fourteenth Centuries’, Military Orders and the Crusades , Aldershot,1994, essay no. VIII, pp. 317–45; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 202–04.

192 The Book of Deeds of James I of Aragon, p. 364; ‘La défense du Temple devant le concile de Lyonen 1274’, pp. 496, 500.



difficulties, emphasizing that although they held property in Europe their incomethere had been drastically reduced because of economic difficulties and wars, whichhad been fought in every kingdom except England and France. The Orders wereheavily in debt and their annual income was barely sufficient to repay their loans.193

Unfortunately, there is no evidence as to Gregory’s opinion of the amalgamation

plan, but he does not seem to have shared his contemporaries’ hostility to theOrders. As part of his plan to implement reform in the Church, however, he wascritical of their morality. In October 1274 he prevented the Hospitallers fromaccepting rebellious and apostate brothers.194 But he had only praise for their activi-ties in the East, and far from criticizing their wealth and misuse of resources, he wasin fact concerned about their financial situation. The loan to him of 1272, whichnever materialized, was his only demand from them for financial assistance. Thisrequest could perhaps be explained by his urgent desire to help the Holy Land at thetime of his election. Gregory had close relations with the prior of St. Gilles, Williamof Villaret, whom he appointed in 1274 as temporal administrator of theComtat-Venaissin. Among other things it was William’s task to collect for the popethe revenues from this important region and to report on this to the curia.195 At hismeetings with the pope, William probably complained about the financial situationof his priory, which was being forced to liquidate some of its assets in return forcash. In response Gregory issued in March that year Ad audientiam nostram, whichrevoked alienations of property made by the Hospitallers in Provence. The samebull was issued in the following month for the brothers in Catalonia and Aragon. 196

In September 1274 he took the Order under his protection and confirmed its privi-leges and properties. To promote its fund-raising the pope renewed the decree by

which donors would be absolved of a seventh part of their yearly penance.197 InOctober he exempted the Order from the six-year tenth imposed on the Church atthe Council of Lyons to support a crusade to the East. The pope wrote to thebrothers that he granted this exemption because ‘for the protection of the Christianfaith, you devote yourselves to the perpetual obedience of our religion, with fervourof Christian love you expose your lives and possessions bravely and skilfully againstthe attacks of the infidels’.198

The popes had indeed an important role to play in the rehabilitation of theHospitallers following crises in the Latin East. In the wake of Hattin they fully

recognized the Order’s military function and gave it additional support. They calledon the faithful to help it, they supported Hospitaller preaching, and they wereresponsible for the dissemination of information regarding the state of the Latin


193 ‘La défense du Temple devant le concile de Lyon en 1274’, p. 499. Amargier explains that1273–76 were peaceful years both in France and England.

194 Cart., no. 3554; Reg. Grégoire X , no. 1057.195 Cart., no. 3536. On William of Villaret see also Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre

Sainte , pp. 251–53; Raybaud, Histoire des grands prieurs , pp. 189–90; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 206–07.

196 See Chapter 2 above, p. 100.197 Cart., no. 3547.198 ‘pro Christiane fidei tutela, cui perpetuum religionis nostre obsequium dedicastis, in fervore

caritatis intrepide ac prudenter exponitis contra infidelium impetus res et vitam’. Cart., no.3555; Reg. Grégoire X , nos. 1056, 1069.



settlements and the situation of the Military Orders in the East. But relationsbetween the Holy See and the Hospital were affected by political events in Europe,particularly the struggle between the pope and the Western emperor. Gregory IXexpected the Hospitallers in the East to be his political allies. They, however, werewilling to risk their relations with the Holy See in pursuing a policy they deemed

best suited their own interests and those of the Latin settlements in the East. There-fore, despite the deteriorating relations between the pope and the emperor, theysided with Frederick’s policy in the Holy Land: they supported his claim to thecrown of Jerusalem and his treaty with Egypt. They paid a heavy price for theirdisloyalty; Gregory IX and his successor Innocent IV were indifferent to their needsin the Holy Land and even hostile when they suspected that they sympathized withthe emperor. The priorities of the papacy in Europe, moreover, could lead to thediversion of crusades and resources away from the Holy Land. This reached its peakduring the pontificate of Clement IV, when he involved some of the Order’s mostimportant provinces in Europe in the fight against the Hohenstaufen in Sicily. Onlywhen the struggle in Europe subsided could Gregory X focus all his attention on theLatin settlements and the Hospitallers in the East. By then, however, the situation of the Holy Land was dire.




MEMBERS SERVING IN THE LATIN EAST AND IN FRENCH PRIORIES

4

Members of the Order Serving in the Latin Eastand in the French Priories

THE PREVIOUS CHAPTERS have shown that besides a constant transfer of money and provisions, the Hospitallers in the East required a continual supply of manpower. Comparing lists of members of the Order serving in the Latin East withthose in the French priories between 1187 and 1274 could help to clarify the broth-ers’ places of recruitment and service, as well as the mobilization of forces for theLatin East.1

Such a comparison shows that most brothers serving in French houses were localsand were never sent to the East.2 They usually served close to their places of origin:Gaucher of Amiens (Somme) was a simple brother in the house of Corbeil.3

Stephen of Gravesons (Bouche-du-Rhône) and Hugh of Albenaz (Aubenaz, Ardèche) were members of the commandery of Trinquetaille in the early thirteenthcentury.4 Geoffrey of Albaron (Bouches-du-Rhône) and Pons of Avignon weresimple brothers in St. Gilles in 1190s.5 I have found only a few cases of brothers incommanderies and priories far from their places of origin: John of Monzon(Huesca, Aragon), for example, was a simple brother in St. Gilles in 1207. He mayhave arrived at the priory around 1205, when Ximen of Labata, formercommander of Huesca, held both the priory of St. Gilles and the castellany of Amposta.6

Like the simple brothers, the commanders usually also served close to their placesof origin. Bertrand of Mornans (Drôme) was commander of Valence in the 1230sand 1240s.7 Bertrand of Pierrelatte (Drôme) was commander of Alais in 1239.

1 For further discussion of these i ssues see J. Bronstein, ‘The Mobilization of Hospitallers’Manpower from Europe to the Latin East in the Thirteenth Century’, International Mobility in the Military Orders , ed. J. Burgtorf and H. Nicholson (University of Wales Press, forthcoming).

2 These lists of brothers are included in the Appendix below.3 Cart., no. 842. Forey has found that a large proportion of the Templar brothers found in the

records of the Order’s trials joined houses close to their places of origin, and were therefore

known to those receiving them. See ‘Recruitment to the Military Orders’, pp. 141–42.4 Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 247 (Stephen of Gravesons), 65, 214, 240, 251 (Hugh).5 Cart. St. Gilles , no. 115 (Geoffrey); nos. 128, 120, 129, 131, 87, 293 (Pons).6 For John of Monzon and Ximen de Labata see also Appendix below.7 Cart., nos. 2218, 2489.



Amand of Cabanes (Aveyron) headed the commandery of Toulouse in 1218.Fulcher of Bonas (Gers) was the commander of Manosque in 1232–35. 8 Michael of La Seiye (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence) was the commander of Trinquetaille in 1216.9

It is important however to bear in mind that commanders were not elected by themembers of their commanderies but appointed by provincial priors. By replacing

them, for example, with more experienced brothers who had already served in otherhouses, the priors could implement policy changes or ensure a more efficientadministration. For instance, Arnald of Campagnoles (Gard, Languedoc) was incharge of the Order’s houses in the lands of Béziers and Agde in 1190 and wasmade commander of Trinquetaille in 1198.10 Although we do not know the place of origin of Peter Helie, he too had served in several commanderies. He was thecommander of Gap-Frances in the Midi in the late 1170s and of St. Gilles in1198–1201.11 Like him, commanders were usually transferred and promoted withinthe confines of their own priories. Among brothers identified by their places of origin, Stephen of Broc (Maine-et-Loire), commander of St. Gilles in February1216, is one of the few examples of a commander who came from a district underthe control of the priory of France, but who served in a commandery in the prioryof St. Gilles.12 Another example is G. of Ormes, from Normandy, who was theprior of St. Gilles in 1229.13 I could find no examples of French commanders trans-ferred to the East, probably because commanders were administrators, perhaps withlittle or no experience in the arts of war, which was essential for a command in theLatin East.

Heads of important commanderies were natural candidates for the post of prior.They had served for prolonged periods in local commanderies, were familiar with

the area, knew the economic and political situation, and probably had personal linkswith local magnates. Bermond of Luzancion (Midi Pyrenees) was the commanderof Trinquetaille from 1207 until at least 1209, before becoming prior of St. Gilles inFebruary 1212.14 Raymond of Aiguille (Haute Loire) was the commander of St.Gilles in the 1190s and was promoted to prior of St. Gilles in 1200.15 John of Chevry was the vice-prior of France from 1269 before he replaced Philip of Egly asprior in 1272.16 An interesting, but also frustrating, result of this research is theabsence of evidence of the previous posts of a number of these priors. Bertrand of


8 Cart., nos. 2218, 1617, 2030, 2092, 2099.9 Cart., nos. 1460, 1464.10 Cart., nos. 893, 1011; Cart. Trinquetaille , passim.11 Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 41, 71, 87, 90, 94, 123, 126, 312; Cart., no. 556.12 Cart., nos. 1460, 1464.13 The sources give only the first letter of his name. See Cart., no. 1934.14 Bermond was probably prior of St. Gilles from February 1212. In April 1214 he witnessed two

charters issued in Tarsus. He was apparently removed from office, as in May 1217 he wascommander of Manosque and in 1220–1230 commander of Avignon. See also Chapter 2above, pp. 78–79, and Cart., no. 1258; Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 209, 219; Cart. St. Gilles , nos.349–50; Cart., nos. 1320, 1375, 1426–27; Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean de

Jérusalem, p. 199: Marseilles 56H 1281, fols. 29, 68, 75, 106–07, 110.15 Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 61, 98, 108, 114, 134, 143, 269, 342; Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 94, 190; Cart.,

no. 1163.16 Cart., nos. 3364, 3374, 3425, 3453, 3468, 3475, 3484; Cart. Fieffes (S5059), fol. 7; Cart.

Éterpigny, fols. 27–28.



Milhau (Midi Pyrenees), prior of St. Gilles in 1190–92,17 Peter of Faucon(Vaucluse), prior of St. Gilles in 1209,18 Philip of Egly, prior of France in the 1250s,and Robert of Montgronon, prior of Auvergne between 1261–1273, first appearalready holding these off ices.19 Since there is no mention of them in eastern docu-ments, it is not clear whether they served in the East. If they did, they would have

been only simple brothers. This lack of evidence can be partly explained by gaps inthe sources, yet the fact that some provincial priors may have never been to the Eastis significant. The international deployment of the Order could function success-fully only if the policies pursued by the priors in Europe coincided with those of themaster and the convent in the Holy Land. To achieve this the Hospitallers tended toappoint to key offices, such as priors in Europe, brothers who had previously heldposts in the East. These would have personal knowledge of the Order’s needs there,and they may have been involved in determining its policies together with themaster. Leading figures in the Order throughout the thirteenth century served bothin the Holy Land and in Europe.20 William of Villiers, who had been grandcommander of the Order in 1192, was the grand commander of Outremer in 1193,prior of England in 1199, and prior of France in 1207.21 William Pijons was thecommander of Cyprus in 1248 and the prior of France from 1253 until 1257.22 If Ferrand of Barras referred to in the sources is one individual, and not an uncle ornephew with the same name, he is an extraordinary example of a brother who helda wide range of high posts in Europe and the Holy Land. He was a simple brotherin the priory of St. Gilles in 1180, castellan of Selefkie in April 1214, and marshalof the Order in Acre in 1221. He was appointed prior of St. Gilles in 1246 andserved in this post until at least 1253. In 1259 he was appointed grand commander

of Outremer, a post he held until at least June 1262. In February and June 1268 heappears again in the Order’s documents as prior of St. Gilles. He was by then veryold, for which reason Pope Clement IV requested the master Hugh Revel to exempthim from travelling to the East to attend a general chapter.23

Because of their skills and experience many capitular bailiffs, like Ferrand,usually held a range of key positions in the Order’s administration. This was thecase not only with the French priories but also with heads of other important prio-ries and castellanies in Europe. The above-mentioned Ximen of Labata (or Lavata,Navarre) was the commander of Huesca in Aragon in 1198–1200. He was

MEMBERS SERVING IN THE LATIN EAST AND IN FRENCH PRIORIES 135

17 Cart., nos. 926, 930, 937; Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 89, 169.18 Cart., no. 1317; Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 223; Recueil des Actes des Comtes de Provence appartenant à la

maison de Barcelone , ed. F. Benoit, Paris, 1925, vol. I, no. 3.19 On Philip see Chapter 2 above, pp. 91–95. On Robert of Montrognon see Cart., nos. 2974,

3043, 3249, 3373; Cart. Velay, no. 57; AD du Rhône (antérieures), p. 158.20 Note, however, as Jochen Burgtorf has shown, that the careers of high dignitaries in the

Hospital and the Temple did not always follow a clear-cut pattern. See his ‘Leadership andStructures in the Orders of the Hospital and the Temple (Twelfth and Early FourteenthCentury): Select Aspects’, The Crusades and the Military Orders: Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, ed. Z. Hunyadi and J. Laszlovszky, Budapest, 2001, pp. 383–86.

21 Cart., nos. 919, 945, 1056, 1243, 1283. For William see also Chapters 1 and 2 above, pp. 15, 66,78. On the grand commander of Outremer see Introduction above, p. 9.

22 Cart., nos. 2482, 2648, 2811; Cart. Éterpigny, fols. 35–36, 107–108.23 Cart., nos. 578, 1426–27, 1718, 2419, 2481, 2570, 2604, 2645, 2923, 2965, 2986, 3035, 3301,

3308 (vol. IV). See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 280–81.



appointed castellan of Amposta in 1201 and was grand commander of Spain from1205 to 1210. In 1205 he held both the castellany of Amposta and the priory of St.Gilles.24 Garcia of Lisa was probably a simple brother in Huesca in the early 1180s.In 1186 he was castellan of Amposta, a post he seems to have held for more than ten years. Next he was grand commander of Outremer, from 1196 until at least 1199.25

Aimery of Pax, who had been a commander at the Castellany of Amposta in 1200,held a number of posts in the East before he returned to Europe. He was castellanof Margat in 1206 and Selefkie in 1210. In 1215 he was back in Europe in the pres-tigious post of grand commander of Outremer.26

Although there were no specif ic requirements of magistral candidates, they wereprobably expected to have held priories in Europe and, most importantly,commanderies and castellanies in the East. Two examples could illustrate this point.Garnier of Nablus, a member of the Frankish family of Milly, which held the lord-ships of Nablus and Oultrejourdain, had a distinguished career before being electedmaster in late 1189 or 1190. He had been castellan of Bethgibelin from 1173 to1176. He was then appointed grand commander of the Order, a post he held until1184 or 1185, when he became prior of England. Before being elected master heheld both the priory of England and France.27 On the other hand, Hugh Revel,considered one of the most remarkable masters of the thirteenth century, never helda high post in Europe. But he did have two of the most important offices in the Eastbefore being elected master in 1258: he was castellan of Crac de Chevaliers in 1243and grand commander of the Order from 1253 to 1258. 28

No specific information has survived on the processes of recruitment or selection

and training of forces destined for the East.29 Still, by tracking down the membersof the Order and following their careers one can gain an idea of the mobilization of the Order’s forces to the East.

The Hospitallers in the East needed brothers-in-arms, sergeants, and brothers-in-service, who were recruited in local commanderies and priories in Europe. The listof brothers serving in the Latin East hardly correlates with the list of those serving


24 Cart., nos. 989, 1014, 1112, 1150, 1165, 1220, 1228, 1319, 1321, 1356, 1357. At the same timea Simon of Lavata appeared in the Order’s documents as prior of Lombardy and Venice(August 1198). I do not believe this is the same man. In 1198 Ximen was only the head of alocal commandery, not important enough in the Order’s hierarchy to hold a priory. Cart., no.1026.

25 Cart., nos. 588, 597–98, 820, 822, 835, 925, 1022, 1026, 1056–57; Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 263, 273.Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , p. 414.

26 Cart., nos. 1114, 1232, 1349, 1355, 1444, 1450, 1459–60, 1464, 1484.27 Cart., nos. 443, 469, 755, 868–70, 917, 919. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 107–08;

Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , pp. 105–06, 408–09, 416, 432.28 Cart., nos. 2296, 2662–63, 2693, 2714, 2732–33, 2801, 2810. From Cart., no. 2888 and passim he

was the master. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 186–87.29 Basing his research mainly on the records of the Trial of the Templars, Forey has important

findings on recruitment in the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries. He also deals withthe instruction of new recruits, mainly in religion. See A. Forey, ‘Recruitment to the MilitaryOrders, Twelfth to mid-Fourteenth Centuries’, Viator , 17 (1986), pp. 142–62; ‘Novitiate andInstruction in the Military Orders in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Centuries’, Military Orders and the Crusades , Aldershot, 1994, essay no. III, passim.



in commanderies and priories in France. Simple brothers who appear from theoutset in the East are not previously mentioned in documents relating to the Orderin Europe. Considering the gaps in the sources, these findings suggest that manybrothers who were meant for the Holy Land served for very short periods, or not atall, in European houses, before being shipped to the East. If the Peter of Mirmanda

who appears in the sources is the same man, he is an exception to a brother serving in the East whose affiliation charter to his local commandery in Europe hassurvived. Peter joined the commandery of Alleyras (part of Le Puy en Velay) in1163. He was a married man and his charter of affiliation includes, besides a dona-tion of all his rights over property in Gourlong as an entry gift, the consent of hiswife Willielma and his sons Odo and Stephen. We do not know how long he servedin Alleyras or in any other commandery in Europe, but twenty years after he hadentered the Order he witnessed, as a simple brother, a deed issued in Acre in 1184and a year later he witnessed a deed issued in Jerusalem. As we shall see below, hemust have been one of the survivers of Hattin, and in 1193 he was promoted tocastellan of Crac, a post he held for at least six years. In 1202 he became grandcommander of the Order.30 The rich information that survives for Peter’s career isan exception. Chassaing, who edited the cartulary of the Hospitallers in Le Puy enVelay, refers to a number of brothers who came from Auvergnais families andserved in the East. Among them are very prominent figures such as Garin of Montaigu, master between 1207 and 1227. Garin does not appear in lists of witnesses in any of the French sources; if he served in his country of origin heapparently did not hold any important post there. He appears for the first time indeeds issued by the Order as a simple brother in Acre in 1204. He must had served

there for a while because only three years later, in May 1207, he was appointedmarshal, and in October that year he became master.31 Yet, the information we haveon Peter is extraordinary. For many brothers no information has survived or is onlyfragmentary.

A continuous f low of manpower from the Order’s houses in Europe was neces-sary for maintaining regular forces in the East, supplying troops for crusades andmilitary campaigns, and replacing losses on the battlefield. The Hospitallers partici-pated in all the important military operations in the Latin East. The Hospitallersand the Templars each deployed 2,000 men and 700 knights during the siege of

Damietta in 1218. It is not clear how many brother-knights were among theseforces, but the fewer these were, the heavier the expenses became owing to the costof mercenaries.32 In fact, the Order seems to have kept only a restricted number of


30 For his aff iliation charter see Cart. Velay, n. 16. On the fact that married men needed their wives’consent to join the Order see Forey, The Military Orders , p. 137.

31 Cart. Velay, pp. LX–LXII. For Garin see Cart., nos. 1197–98, 1262, 1272, 1344, 1350 and passim.One should consider Chassaing’s list very cautiously. Carried away by ‘local patriotism’, he

refers to other brothers, such as William of Châteauneuf, as Auvergnais, while there is noevidence that they actually originated there. On William’s origin see Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , p. 190.

32 On the Orders’ participation in the Fifth Crusade and for an assessment of the number of mercenaries employed by them see Chapter 1 above, p. 20.



brother-knights in the East, and when they suffered heavy losses they had to be

promptly replaced.33

The two most severe instances of losses of manpower were the battles of Hattin

in 1187 and La Forbie in 1244. The sources do not provide specific figures for the

number of Hospitaller brothers killed during the battle of Hattin, and afterwards as

their castles fell.34 However, their numbers can be assessed, and the Order’s mobili-zation of manpower from Europe for the East reconstructed, by tracing its

members’ careers. Twenty-five brothers who served in the Latin East before Hattin

have been identified by the toponyms they used. Some were simple brothers; others

were castellans and commanders, which means that one might expect to find them

later on in higher off ices. Still, only few of these brothers appear again in the East

after Hattin: Borrell, the grand commander of the Order was in Tyre by October

1187.35 Anselm of Lucca, who had been a simple brother in Syria in 1180, was in

Acre in 1195 and was treasurer of the Order in 1201.36 Geoffrey of Donjon, who

had been another simple brother in Syria in 1185, was master in 1193.37 Peter of

Mirmanda, who had been a simple brother in Acre in 1184, was castellan of Crac in

1193 and grand commander of the Order in 1202.38 Apart from these brothers, for

whom we have evidence of their service in the East before Hattin, a new group

appears for the first time in documents relating to the Order in the East in the years

following the battle. Some were simple brothers, for example, Bertrand of Pignan,

Raymond Pierre, Robert of Capennum, and Hamo of Burgundy.39 Others appear

from the outset as officers, for example, Geoffrey le Rat, commander of Antioch in

1198, castellan of Crac in 1204, and master in 1206.40 William of Villiers was

commander of Acre in 1192, grand commander of Outremer in 1193, prior of

England in 1199, and prior of France in 1207.41 Ralph of Loudun was commanderof Tyre in January 1195.42 This research shows that the Order suffered heavy casu-

alties during and after the battle of Hattin and that its leadership was decimated.

Brothers were then quickly promoted and mobilized from the Order’s European

houses to restore its shattered forces.

The same methodology applied in the case of Hattin allows us to follow the

Hospitallers’ response to the casualties they suffered on 17 October 1244 at La

Forbie, where they lost 200 brother-knights.43 Here the Hospital’s conventual forces

were almost annihilated, and massive mobilization in its European provinces

followed. Matthew Paris describes how, after news of the disaster spread, the king of France, the Templars, and the Hospitallers quickly sent novice knights ( milites


33 See Chapter 1 above, p. 21 for the mobilization of the Templars and Hospitallers in Europe

after the Templar defeat in Darbsak in 1237.34 On the implications of the defeat of Hattin see Chapter 1 above, p. 11.35 See Chapter 1 above, pp. 11–12.36 Cart., nos. 579, 972, 1031, 1145.37 Cart., nos. 754, 938 (first reference to Geoffrey as master).38 Cart., nos. 663, 754, 941, 1031, 1085, 1096, 1156.

39 Cart., nos. 941, 972.40 Cart., nos. 1031, 1085, 1096, 1198, 1231.41 For William’s career see above, note 21.42 Cart., no. 972.43 On the implications of the defeat of La Forbie see Chapter 1 above, pp. 23–24.



neophitos ), together with an armed force and a large treasure, to console and helpthose living in the Holy Land, and to counter the daily attacks of the Khorezmiansand other infidels.44 Twenty-two brothers who served in the East before La Forbie(1235–1244) have been identified by the toponyms they used. Although some werecastellans and commanders, only a very few of them, as was the case with Hattin,

appear again. Examples are John of Ronay, who was the commander of Tripoli in1241 and lieutenant master in 1245, and William of Corceles, a simple brother in Acre in 1240 and marshal in 1248. Other important off icers such as William of Fores, castellan of Margat in 1241, and Arnald of Montbrun, marshal in 1232 andcastellan of Crac in 1241, whom one would expect to find later on in other posts,disappeared.45 On the other hand, a new group is found for the first time in theEast. Some of them were simple brothers, which may indicate that they were newrecruits. Adam of Herouville (from Calvados or Val-d’Oise) was a simple brother in Acre in 1248. So were Bernard of Rome, Hugh of Lorail, and Peter of Aleage.46

Some of these were promoted later. Aimery of la Roche (from Drôme or Rhône)was a simple brother in Acre in August 1248 and became castellan of Crac in1254.47 Joscelin of Tornell, who was probably young, appearing for the f irst time asa simple brother in Acre in August 1248, was promoted to castellan of Mt. Thaborin 1254 and marshal in 1262. Other brothers appear from the outset as officers,such as the commanders of Tyre, Tripoli, Antioch, and Cyprus, and the castellan of Margat. Martin Sanche was probably also a simple brother before La Forbie,because there is no record of his name prior to his appearance in the sources ascommander of Tripoli in February 1248. In August that year he was the drapier of the Order.48

To conclude, although most of the brothers served in local commanderies in Europeand were never sent to the East, the Hospitallers must also have had a reservoir of brother-knights in the West which permitted prompt mobilization from there afterdefeats in the East. Their ability to redeploy their forces must have enhanced the value of the Hospitallers and the Templars for the crusading armies.


44 Matthew Paris, vol. IV, p. 416.45 For John of Ronay, Cart., nos. 2289, 2353, 2471, 2482, 2483; William of Corcelles, Cart., nos.

2245, 2482, and Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 143; William of Fores, Cart., no. 2280; Arnald of Montbrun, Cart., nos. 2034, 2067, 2245, 2280.

46 Cart., no. 2482.47 Cart., nos. 2482, 2670, 2693.48 Cart., nos. 2482, 2934, 3045. Richard, ‘Le comté de Tripoli’, p. 373, no. 4. Cart., no. 2482 has a

list of witnesses which contains the names of all these officers. Unfortunately many of them are just first names, without toponyms, which makes them unidentifiable.



CONCLUSION

Conclusion

THIS BOOK has examined the reaction of the Hospitallers, as an internationalorder of the Church, to crises in the Latin East. These crises included defeat on thebattlefield, the loss of castles and towns, and natural disasters; they could be sosevere as to impel the Order to change its policies or re-deploy its internationalresources.

The defeat of the Christians at the battle of Hattin resulted in the almostcomplete devastation of the Hospitallers’ military disposition and economy in theLevant. They lost most of their castles, agricultural lands, and urban properties. Although appeals were sent to the West after the battle asking for help, one of themain difficulties in attempting to identify the Hospitallers’ needs is that most of theletters were general in nature and did not include specific requests. Most of theseletters emphasized, however, the huge casualties suffered by the Christians at Hattinand the superior size of the Muslim forces indicating that one of the Order’s mainneeds was manpower. The huge mobilisation from its European provinces reflects

the heavy losses suffered in the East. The defeat also prompted changes in theOrder’s leadership in the East and in Europe. Immediately after Hattin the Hospi-tallers formed a temporary governing body in Tyre, composed of surviving conventual officers and of European off icers rapidly dispatched to the East toreplace those killed. This temporary leadership was replaced by a permanent onefollowing the establishment of the Order’s headquarters in Acre after the city wasrecovered in July 1191.

Although after Hattin manpower was the first priority, a significant change in theapproach of the Order’s priories and commanderies in France to lands and property

suggests that they also supplied money and provisions. I have shown that the needsof the Order in the East led to a change in its economic policy in the West, as illus-trated by the changes in the economic activities of the Order’s commanderies andpriories in France. Compared with the period before Hattin these French housesmade very few investments in land and property, and engaged largely in renting outproperty. They were more concerned with transferring cash to the East than inexpanding their estates.

The impact of Hattin was overwhelming. Not only did it result in a redeploy-ment of the Order’s military forces and affect its economy in the East and inEurope, but it also led to further institutional changes. To ensure that the activitiesof the provinces in Europe met the brothers’ needs in the Levant, the master rein-troduced the grand commandery of Outremer in 1193. At its head he placedWilliam of Villiers, a brother who until this appointment had been the grandcommander of the Order in Acre, the master’s second in command. Other experi-



enced officers who had served in key positions in the Order’s administration in theEast, and had therefore personal knowledge of its needs, were also sent to Europe.

Hattin was also the catalyst for the final recognition of the Hospital as a MilitaryOrder. In their effort to rehabilitate their economy and military power after thebattle the Hospitallers sought the assistance of European leaders and the papacy. In

recognition of its military functions and its charitable activity, papal bulls wereissued to protect the Order and to reinforce it with a wide range of privileges. Awareof the Order’s critical situation in the East the papacy encouraged the faithful tohelp it, supported Hospitaller preaching, and was responsible for the propagation of information regarding the state of the Latin settlements and the situation of theMilitary Orders in the East. Innocent III and his successor Honorius III, whopromoted and organized a crusade to the East, were aware of the needs of theOrder, which they integrated with their crusade machinery: that was to report to thecuria about the situation in the East, assist crusader preaching, and advise on thedistribution of funding to crusaders and the settlers. Furthermore, the Hospitallersand the Templars were also responsible for the collection of papal taxation imposedon the Church from which, however, it appears they were exempted because of their devotion to the defence of the Christians in the East.

The Hospitallers played an important part in all the crusades that were sent tothe Near East during the thirteenth century. This, however, required more men,together with money for the employment of mercenaries, the building of warmachines, and the general maintenance of their forces. Because of the expenses theOrder incurred during the Fifth Crusade Honorius III supported its fund-raising campaign in Europe. Large amounts of money were also necessary for the repair of

their main castles and buildings after the earthquake of 1202. Cash was also neededto rebuild their economy in the Levant. This rehabilitation consisted of buying andleasing properties and large tracts of land in Palestine and Syria. This search fornew lands and agricultural products spread throughout the eastern Mediterraneancoast, to include Cilician Armenia as well as Cyprus. One of the most importantfeatures of the Hospitallers’ presence in the Latin East during the thirteenth centurywas their determination to rebuild their economy and to restore their military dispo-sition despite successive adversities.

One would have expected that in order to supply the brothers in the East with the

necessary cash the Hospitallers in France would maintain the policy of economicretrenchment they seem to have adopted after Hattin. Yet one of the most inter-esting results of this research is the finding of a conspicuous change in the policy of the French priories and commanderies on land and property from the beginning of the thirteenth century. They became involved in an intensive policy of investmentaimed at expanding their patrimony. This policy is most evident in areas whichenjoyed an economic boom, such as Champagne, Forez and Provence. This activitymight be interpreted as suiting the commanderies’ local economic interests. One of the aims of my work, however, has been to take the discussion away from the locallevel and to consider the implications which the economic policies pursued by prio-ries and commanderies in Europe had on the Order’s resources and manpower as awhole. Studying the financial approach of these commanderies can help us tounderstand their ability to support the convent in the East.

The prosperity of the French commanderies at the beginning of the thirteenth

CONCLUSION 141



century allowed money and supplies to be shipped to the Holy Land. The Hospital-lers had by then their own fleet and built vessels in important ports of embarkation,such as Marseilles. The importance of this port increased in the 1220s and 1230swith Frederick II’s confiscation of the Order’s properties in Sicily, the main regionsupplying the Holy Land. Yet although there is evidence that the expansion of the

Hospitallers’ commanderies in France still permitted the shipment of supplies to theEast, it is surprising that they were investing intensively at a time when the conventin the East was in need of significant amounts of cash. As was the case after Hattin,shortage of cash in the East should have resulted in the liquidation of property inEurope rather than long-term investments, but this was not the case. I thought atfirst that the activities pursued by the French priories were opposed to the interestsof the master and the brothers in the East. The new disposition of the Order’s lead-ership in Europe and the assembly of the general chapter, which I have identified astaking place in 1225, and which may have resulted in the creation of a new priory,seemed to point in that direction. The master could assemble priors from all theprovinces to discuss and evaluate the Order’s policies and, if it was deemed neces-sary he could demand that the priors make changes in policy, as we have seen wasthe case at the general chapter of 1262. But if the economic policies of the Frenchpriories at the beginning of the thirteenth century had been opposed to the generalpolicy dictated by the master in the Holy Land, we should have seen changes in theeconomic policy of these houses in the wake of the general chapter. The opposite isthe case. No changes seem to have been implemented. Large investments were stillbeing made after the reshuffling of the Order’s leadership in Europe and even afterthe appointment of a new grand commander of Outremer. This seems to indicate

that the economic policy of the French priories was after all in accord with that of the master and the convent in the Holy Land.

It is noteworthy that the intensive investments of the Hospitallers in Francecoincided with heavy investments in land and property made by the brothers in theEast. All this activity may be seen as an expression of the Order’s general policy of expansion in the first half of the thirteenth century. The revenues of the Frenchpriories were perhaps large enough to allow it to both expand in France and supportits headquarters, but the strength of the Hospitallers’ economy in the Latin Eastmay also have been underestimated: they had independent sources of income there.

By the beginning of the thirteenth century Acre had become a major trading centre,and the kingdom of Jerusalem was enjoying economic prosperity. The Latin Eastwas the major exporter of sugar to Europe. As this work has shown, the Hospitallersowned sugar-cane plantations along the Palestinian and Syrian coasts and madeenormous efforts throughout the thirteenth century to enlarge them and keep themunder cultivation. Although we need more evidence we may assume, from theHospitallers’ intense involvement in industrial sugar production, that they tradedthe commodity on local or international markets, perhaps with high profits.

The defeat of the Christians at La Forbie in 1244 was another massive blow tothe Hospitallers’ military deployment in the Holy Land. They lost territory,including the castle of Ascalon, which they had refortified only that year, and theyendured a severe shortage of food because of Khorezmian raids. Although theirterritorial losses were not as severe as after Hattin, their casualties were immense.The prosopographical research that I have conducted concerning the brothers




serving in the Holy Land during this period has shown that their conventualmanpower was almost completely annihilated, and that most of their commandersand castellans must have been killed. These losses were rapidly replaced by brotherssent from Europe, who took part just four years later in the Egyptian crusade of St. Louis. The Order’s rapid mobilization of manpower after La Forbie and its

participation in this crusade emphasizes its commitment to a continuous recruit-ment of brothers and their dispatch to the East along with money for their mainte-nance and for the employment of mercenaries.

In their efforts to restore their forces after La Forbie and the failed crusade toEgypt the Hospitallers in the East appealed for help to the pope and their Europeanpriories. However, they encountered obstacles in both cases. The political strugglebetween the Holy See and the Western emperor affected the popes’ relations withthe Hospitallers. During the pontificate of Gregory IX the Hospitallers supportedFrederick II, critical of the policies conducted by the pope in the Holy Land. Theprice they paid for their disobedience was heavy. Gregory seems to have withdrawnhis support from the Hospitallers, to whom he had issued at the beginning of hispontificate a large number of grants, including extraordinary privileges such asplenary indulgences to those knights who had fought with them in the Holy Land.His anger at the Order’s behaviour is apparent from his letters and from the strong support he gave to the Templars, his loyal allies in the struggle against Frederick andhis representatives in the East.

The political struggle in Europe had grave implications for the situation of theLatin settlement. Although the papacy was aware of the difficulties faced by theOrder in the East and granted it money collected from the redemption of crusading

vows in the West, the struggle in Europe between the pope and the Western emperorhad priority over the needs of the Christians in the East. The popes divertedresources and crusaders away from the Holy Land to other theatres, and preventedthe Latins from making connections with their political opponents, from whom theLatins could have obtained much needed help. Innocent IV’s policy against Fred-erick II hindered any possibility of future assistance.

At the same time that papal support waned the Hospitaller houses in France wereexperiencing financial strain. Evidence of this is a sharp decline in the number of acts in their cartularies. It is true that only very few of the surviving cartularies cover

the years after 1250, but even those with material for later years show a drasticdecline in the number of charters. This decline was not typical only of the Hospital-lers. It was shared by other Military Orders and could be attributed mainly toeconomic changes in Europe. From the second half of the thirteenth century, acuteinflation severely affected regions essential for the supply of responsiones to the East.The houses in these regions were under enormous pressure: they had to match theirrevenues with the rising cost of living at a time when their incomes from donationswere diminishing because of the impoverishment of the local nobility. They alsohad to respond to increasing demands from the East.

From 1250 to 1263, however, the Hospitallers expanded their patrimony in theHoly Land. Lay and ecclesiastical lords, who were in debt and no longer able tokeep their lands, sold or leased castles and land, mainly in the Galilee and along thecoast; likewise their urban properties. It is noteworthy that the Hospitallers weremaking these investments at about the same time as their income in the East seems

CONCLUSION 143



to have been affected by the Mongol invasion, the civil war, and the decline of Acreas a centre of international trade. The Order’s determination to expand its positionsin the East required cash, which was also much needed to maintain its fortificationsand to engage mercenaries, with a Mongol invasion imminent. Many letters of appeal from the Order’s leadership to the West refer to the need for cash. This need

was also the cause of the Hospitallers’ clash with the ecclesiastical authorities in theHoly Land over the money collected from the redemption of crusading vows in thekingdom of Jerusalem; which resulted in their excommunication.

To meet these expenditures in the East more pressure was put on their priories inEurope. Faced with these increasing demands from headquarters and financial diffi-culties at home, the French priories were forced to borrow money and alienate theirproperty. This was an international crisis. Other provinces, such as the priories inthe Iberian peninsula and England, which was an important area of supplies to theEast, seem to have faced similar difficulties. Their reaction was like that of theFrench priories; they liquidated property or pledged it as security for loans.

The disposal of property was a threat to the future ability of these houses to sendresponsiones to the East, and both the papacy and the master had taken steps to stopsuch alienations. From 1250 on the papacy ordered the local clergy world-wide, inan increasing number of letters, to revoke alienation of property made byHospitallers’ priories and commanderies. In 1262 the master Hugh Revel conveneda general chapter, which in an attempt to settle this crisis adopted a long-termeconomic policy. Pointing out that transactions made by the Hospitallers’ houses inEurope had resulted in losses, the chapter forbade the alienation of their property.The legislation of 1262 is very important because it is one of the few surviving

records of decrees legislated by the chapter regarding international issues. Ourpossession of evidence of a definite policy also allows us to examine the applica-bility of institutional decisions taken by the master and the chapter in the HolyLand. It is particularly interesting to examine their ability to implement changes inpolicy in the 1260s and the 1270s when the situation of the Order in the East and itsfinancial situation in Europe were deteriorating rapidly: by 1271 the Latin settlers’situation was like that after Hattin. The Mamluks in ceaseless incursions took all thecastles that defended the kingdom of Jerusalem, and the Latins were besieged in afew towns along the coast. Although the Hospitallers lost all their castles except for

Margat and with them all their dependent lands, they made huge efforts to expandtheir lands and keep them under cultivation. And yet, Baybars’ incursions wereaimed not only at conquering Christian territory but also at exhausting the Latinsby raiding and devastating their lands. This, as Hugh Revel’s letter reveals, madeany attempt to work the lands almost impossible; from the late 1260s the Hospital-lers were almost completely dependent on supplies from Europe.

This work has shown, however, that at a time when help was most needed someof the Order’s most important priories in Europe were unable to supply the East.From the pontificate of Urban IV, moreover, the crusade against the Hohenstaufenwas given clear priority over the needs of the Christians in the Holy Land.Crusaders and resources were diverted to support Charles of Anjou’s campaigns insouthern Italy. The papacy also involved the Hospitallers in this struggle. The Mili-tary Orders were required, for the first time, to pay the taxation imposed on theChurch to finance Charles’s crusade. Clement IV intervened in the appointment of




Philip of Egly, prior of France, as the officer in charge of the Order’s houses in theRegno and incited the Hospitallers to take up arms against Charles’s opponents inSicily. For this cause Philip exhausted the Order’s resources in the Regno and mostprobably in the priory of France. His involvement in this political struggle exempli-fies the difficulties faced by headquarters in controlling the activities of the priors

overseas. These officers were leading figures in Europe and managed enormousresources and manpower. Because of the nature of the Order, which gave themgreat freedom of action, there was always a danger that they would pursue policiesopposed to the interests of the Hospitallers in the East, with, moreover, severeimplications for the priories’ ability to provide responsiones . It was the task of themaster to ensure that these European priories did not function as independent iden-tities, but as part of an international organization, whose main commitment was tothe Holy Land. To achieve this aim was sometimes impossible because events ininternational politics, as Philip’s case has shown, were beyond his control. Attemptsmade by Hugh Revel to remove Philip of Egly from office were thwarted byClement IV, who, because of pressure put on him by Charles of Anjou, also ignoredthe Order’s appeals for exemption from papal taxation.

In these circumstances the decree of 1262, which had tried to prevent the alien-ation of the Order’s property, became impossible to enforce. Faced with financialdifficulties, increasing demands from the headquarters in the East, and demands formoney to finance Charles’s campaigns, the priories in Europe continued to liquidatetheir property and take up loans.

By the time of the Second Council of Lyons the Hospitallers were suffering aneconomic crisis and needed urgent help. Many of the council’s participants failed,

however, to understand these needs. They perceived the Order as a rich institution,capable, if it only wished, of drawing large resources from its European priories tohelp the Latin East. They saw the Hospitallers’ appeals for help as no more thanexpression of the aggressive economic policy pursued by the brothers. This criticismwas made not only by the Order’s contemporaries but also by modern historians. Ithad been claimed that the Military Orders exploited the catastrophes in the East topromote their own interests, which were not always similar to those of the Christiansettlers in the East, and that the Orders conducted there independent and jealouspolicies.1 It is true that the Military Orders made huge propaganda efforts to

promote themselves in Europe and that they had been involved in disputes that hadadversely affected the situation of the Christians in the East. Yet far from being uninterested in the fate of the Latin settlements, this book has shown that they weredetermined to maintain the Christian presence in the East and, mainly from the1250s, they were the only elements still capable of defending it. To fulfil these tasks,however, they needed large amounts of money and resources, which they foundmore and more difficult to provide.

CONCLUSION 145

1 Lloyd, English Society and the Crusade , p. 26; Throop, Criticism of the Crusades , p. 238.



Appendix

Members of the Order Serving in the Latin East and inthe French Priories from 1187 to 1274

From studying the Order’s sources I was able to draw up a list of brothers serving inthe Latin East and the French priories for the period 1187–1274. However,although these findings are crucial for an understanding of the ways the Ordermade use of its human resources, these lists, due to gaps in the sources, are notcomprehensive. They only include those brothers whose names I encountered in thedocuments and for whom we have clear identification. This means that brotherswhose first name only survived are not included.1

I have divided these findings according to the brothers’ places of service andhave therefore compiled four lists: brothers serving in the Latin East; and in thepriories of France, St. Gilles, and Auvergne. I have argued above that most of thebrothers did not serve in the East but in commanderies and priories in Europe.2 It is

worth mentioning that the discrepancy in the number of brothers serving indifferent priories in France is not necessarily the result of a specific policy of recruit-ment conducted by the Order at the time, but reflects the number of sources whichhave survived.

An attempt has been made to trace the brothers’ places of origin according totheir toponyms. If found, the place is given next to their names (for ‘French’brothers according to the departmental division of modern France). Then theirposition in the Order is stated, and their appointments in chronological order. Thesources quoted follow the sequence of the brothers’ posts.

For brothers who held very high positions, for example masters, and who appearmany times in the documents, I have given their first and last appearance in that

1 I have included, however, brothers for whom only their first name remained, followed by acognomen. Some cognomina, as Jochen Burgtorf has suggested, could be indicative of thebrothers’ functions in the Order (de Palacio, de Capella , thesaurarios, pincerna , and de Domibus weretitles of officials at headquarters: the master’s chamberlain, chaplain, cupbearer, and thebrother responsible for the administration of the Order’s real estate in and around Acre). See J. Burgtorf, ‘Wind Beneath the Wings: Subordinate Headquarters Officials in the Hospital andthe Temple from the Twelfth and Early Fourteenth Centuries’, The Military Orders , vol. 2, Welfare

and Warfare , ed. H. Nicholson, Aldershot, 1998, 217–24. Although the study of cognomina felloutside the scope of my research, future study of other cognomina (such as Pellifex, Candelarius ,or Mercaderius ) could reveal other functions of the brothers or their profession before entering the Order.




post. As has been stated elsewhere, many brothers appear for the first time alreadyholding an office; there is no evidence of their previous appointments.3

Brothers for whom there is specific evidence that they served both in the Eastand in Europe are identified by an asterisk (*) next to their names.

The list contains brothers who served between 1187 and 1274. Survivors of

Hattin and its aftermath in the East are identified by the abbreviation ‘Hatt.’Dates are given in the form month/year, so 2/1216 is February 1216.

Brothers Serving in the Latin East

Adam of Herouville: Probably French, from Calvados or Val-d’Oise. Simplebrother in Acre in 8/1248. Cart. no. 2482.

Aimery of Pax*: Commander of Amposta in 4/1200, castellan of Margat in 1206,castellan of Selef kie in 8–9/1210, grand commander of Outremer in8/1215–3/1216. Cart., nos. 1114, 1232, 1349, 1355, 1444, 1450, 1459, 1460,1464, 1484.

Aimery of la Roche: Simple brother in Acre in 8/1248 and castellan of Crac3,9/1254. Cart., nos. 2482, 2670, 2693.

Albert Almano: Simple brother in Acre in 10/1267. Cart., no. 3283. Albert le Romain: Marshal of the Order in 7/1204. Cart., no. 1197. Albert Roiraid: Commander of Selefkie in 8,9/1210. Cart., nos. 1349, 1355. Alfonso of Portugal*: Master. Probably the son of King Alfonso I of Portugal.

There is no evidence for his previous career. He seems to have been electedmaster while in France in 1203. Served as master in the Holy Land from 1204 to1206. Cart., nos. 1167, 1232; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 119–20.

Andrew Polin (Poliner, Polm)*: Grand commander of the Order in 11/1235, priorof France probably from 1239 to 1248. Cart., no. 2126; RRH , no. 1063 (for Andrew as grand commander in Acre); Cart., nos. 2219, 2231, 2240, 2271, 2275,2295, 2338, 2356, 2413, 2398, 2425, 2458, 2444, 2457, 2464, 2468, 2474; El

gran priorado de Navarra , vol. II, no. 304 (prior of France). A brother named AndréPolin appears as a witness, without title, in a document issued in Tripoli in

11/1241, Cart., no. 2280; RRH , no. 1102. Anselm of Lucca (Hatt.): Tuscany. Simple brother in Acre in 1/1180, 1/1195,8/1198. The Order’s treasurer in 1201. Cart., nos. 579, 972, 1031, 1145–46.

Armengaud of Asp*: Temporary Master. Castellan of Amposta from 1180 until1183. From 1184 he held both the castellany of Amposta and the priory of St.Gilles. Charged with the temporary administration of the Order after the loss of the master Roger of Moulins at the battle of Sephoria (1 May 1187). See Cart.,nos. 586–88, 592, 597, 601, 619, 677, 765, 781, 818, 820, 822, 829, 835, 860,863, 871, 901; RRH , nos. 665–66, 676; Cart. St. Gilles , p. XIX; Luttrell,‘Ermengol de Aspa and Sigena’ (Aldershot, forthcoming); Riley-Smith, The

Knights of St. John, pp. 106–07. See also Chapter 1 above, pp. 11–12.

LIST OF MEMBERS OF THE ORDER 147




Arnald of Arene: Probably from Orange (Vaucluse). Prior of the church of Crac in

8/1247. Cart., no. 2456, and Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 431.

Arnald of Montbrun: Probably from Montbrun-les-Bains, Drôme. Simple brother

in Acre in 10/1232, marshal in 10/1233, without title in Acre in 1240 and

castellan of Crac in 11/1241. Cart., nos. 2034, 2067, 2245, 2280.

Aymar of Layron: Marshal in 2/1216 or 1217. Was captured and probably killed inthe attack on Burlus in 1220, during the Fifth Crusade. Cart., no. 1462;

Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 315. See also Chapter 1 above, p. 20.

Beatrice (daughter of Joscelin III of Edessa. Wife of Otto, count of Hinneberg):

Consoror , 10/1208. Cart., no. 1313.

Bernard Corbel: Infirmarian in Acre in 8/1248. Cart., no. 2482.

Bernard of Fabrègue: Aveyron. Simple brother in Acre in 8/1219. Cart., no. 1656.

Bernard of Rome: Simple brother in Acre in 8/1248. Cart., no. 2482.

Bertrand of Avignon: Commander of Tripoli in 8/1198.Cart., no. 1031.

Betrand of Avignon: Simple brother in Tripoli in 1204. Cart., no. 1198.

Bertrand of Comps*: Var. Master. Simple brother in the East in 2/1216–17. Cart.,

no. 1462. Prior of St. Gilles from 1231 until at least 1234. First appearance as

prior Cart., no. 2006, last no. 2079. Master from 9/1236. Cart., nos. 2150, 2224.

See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 174–75.

Bertrand of Pignan: Simple brother in the Holy Land in 1/1193. Cart., no. 941.

Bertrand of Rochebaron: Simple brother in Acre in 3/1266. Cart., no. 3213.

Bertrand of Thessy: Master. There is no information to his place of origin or

previous career. Master from 1228 to 1231. Cart., nos. 1959, 1990; Riley-Smith,

The Knights of St. John, pp. 164–65.

Bohemond III of Antioch: Confrater . 9/1193. Cart., no. 948.Boniface of Calamandracen: Grand commander of the Order from 11/1266 to

6/1271. Cart., nos. 3236, 3292, 3422.

Borrell (Hatt.): Commander of Jerusalem (grand commander of the Order) in

2/1186, 7,10/1187, 5,10/1188 (in Tyre). Cart., nos. 783, 860; RRH , nos. 649,

659, 665, 675, 677.

Durand of Soreis: commander of the Hospital in Acre in 11/1235. He appeared

again without a title in 4/1239. Cart., nos. 2126, 2224.

Ferrand of Barras*: Simple brother in the priory of St. Gilles in 1180. Castellan of

Selefkie in 4/1214. Marshal in 1221. Prior of St. Gilles in 1246, 7/1248,7/1251, 5/1252, 6/1253. Grand commander of Outremer in 7/1259, 11/1260,

5/1261, 6/1262. Prior of St. Gilles again in 2,6/1268.Cart., nos. 578, 1426–27,

1718, 2419, 2481, 2570, 2604, 2645, 2923, 2965, 2986, 3035, 3301, 3308 (vol.

IV). See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 280–81.

Fulcher Bremond: Simple brother in Acre in 7/1204 and 12/1207.Cart., nos. 1197,

1276.

Fulcher of Warviller: Somme. Simple brother in Antioch in 8/1203. RRH . no.

792a.

Garcia of Rospide: Simple brother in Acre in 6,7/1255. Cart., no. 2747.

Garcia Semens: Simple brother in Acre in 12/1262. Cart., no. 3045.

Garin of Montaigu: From an Auvergnais family. Master. Simple brother in Acre in

1204. Marshal of the Order in 1206. Master from 1207 to 1227. Cart., nos.

148 APPENDIX



1197–98, 1262. First appearance as master no. 1272, last 1861. See alsoRiley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 155–56.

Garnier of Nablus*: Member of the Frankish family of Milly, lords of Nablus andOultrejourdain. Master. Castellan of Bethgibelin from 1173 until 1176. Grandcommander of the Order from 1176 to 1184 or 1185. Prior of England and

grand prior of France from 1189 to late 1189, the year he was elected to masterand served until 1190. See Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , pp.409, 415, 426, 432, and Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 107–8.

Gars Asmaldi: Treasurer of the commandery of Antioch in 10/1209. Cart., no.1336.

Gautier of Braholget: Simple brother in the seige of Acre in 10/1190. Cart., no.900.

Geoffrey of Andabila: Simple brother in Tyre in 10/1188. Cart., no. 860.Geoffrey of Auvergne: Simple brother in Acre in 3/1266. Cart., no. 3213.Geoffrey of Belmont: Simple brother in Antioch in 8/1203. RRH , no. 792a.Geoffrey of Donjon (Hatt.): Master. Simple brother in Acre in 4/1185. May have

been treasurer and grand commander of the Order before he became master in1193. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 117.

Geoffrey of Reillanne: Alpes-de-Haute-Provence. Vice-marshal of the Order in4/1256, but appeared again in the Order’s documents in 10/1259 without title.Cart., nos. 2810, 2934–35.

Geoffrey le Rat: Master. Commander of Antioch from 8/1198 to at least 9/1199.Castellan of Crac in 12/1204. Master from 1206. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St.

John, pp. 155–56.

George of Laodicea: Confrater. 11/1250. Cart., no. 2545.Gerard of Domus: Brother in Acre in 2/1255 and 4/1260. Cart., nos. 2714, 2949.Gilles Gerald: Garin of Montaigu’s delegate to the papal curia in 5/1221. Cart., no.

1725.Girent Dedolue: Simple brother in Tripoli in 5/1205. Cart., no. 1262.Guerin: Master. There is no evidence for his place of origin or previous career.

Master from 1231 to 1236. First appearance Cart., no. 1983, last 2141. See alsoRiley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 165.

Guizard (Guitard) of Lentinum: Marshal of the Order in 10/1259. Cart., no. 2934.

Hamo of Burgundy: Simple brother in Acre in 1/1195. Cart., no. 972.Helias of La Tour: Simple brother, probably in Selefkie in 6/1210 and 4/1214.Cart., nos. 1349, 1427.

Henry of Arena: Simple brother in Antioch in 8/1203. RRH , no. 792a.Henry of Furstenberg*: Grand commander of the Order in 10/1259 and in

12/1262. Grand commander of Germany in 1263 (present in Acre at that time).Cart., nos. 2935–36, 3045, 3047.

Hugh Revel: Probably a Dauphinois. Master. Castellan of Crac in 5/1243. Grandcommander of Acre from 1253 at least until 1256. Master from 1258 until 1276.Cart., no. 2296. First appearance as grand commander no. 2662, last no. 2810.First appearance as master no. 2888, last 3621. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights

of St. John, p. 186.Hugh of Durban: Simple brother in Acre in 3/1266. Cart., no. 3213.




Hugh of Lardarolium: Simple brother, probably in Acre, in 10/1267. Cart., no.3283.

Hugh of Lorail: Simple brother in Acre in 8/1248. Cart., no. 2482.Hugh of Masmolène: Gap. Simple brother. Witnessed two charters given in Tarsus

in 4/1214. Cart., nos. 1426–27.

Hugh of Reims: Marne. Simple brother in Antioch in 8/1203. RRH , no. 792a.Hugh of Ruillieu: Simple brother in Acre in 3/1266. Cart., no. 3213.Hugh of Vendac: Simple brother in the Holy Land in 8/1265. Cart., no. 3120.Humbert ‘le blunde’: Simple brother. Witnessed two charters given in Tarsus in

4/1214. Cart., nos. 1426–27.Isembard*: Prior of France in 4/1201, 1203, 4/1212. Cart., nos. 1145, 1167, 1382.

Grand commander of the Order in Acre in 2/1207 or 1208 and 1219. Cart., nos.1250, 1276, 1656. Grand commander of Outremer in 2/1211 and in 10/1222.Cart., nos. 1360, 1758. Appears without title in two charters given in Tarsus in4/1214. Cart., nos. 1426–27. It is possible that different Isembards held theseoffices. Delaville Le Roulx, however, identified them as the same man. See indexof Delaville Le Roulx cartulary. See also Chapter 2 above, pp. 66, 77.

John of Bubie: Castellan of Crac in 8/1248. Castellan of Margat in 3,9/1254. Cart.,nos. 2482, 2670, 2693.

John of Lunel: Hérault. Simple brother in Acre in 3/1266. Cart., no. 3213. John of Malengh: Master esquire of the Order in 8/1248. Also mentioned without

title in 5,12/1255. Cart., nos. 2482, 2714, 2732. John of Montgrison: Simple brother in Tripoli in 11/1241. Cart., no. 2280. John of Ronay: Commander of Tripoli in 11/1241. Grand commander of the

Order and vice-prior from at least 3/1245 until 11/2/1249 when he was killedduring the retreat from al-Mansurah. Cart., nos. 2280, 2353, 2471, 2482–83. Forthe circumstances of his death see Chapter 1 above, p. 25.

John of Vileloup: Simple brother in Acre in 3/1266. Cart., no. 3213. John l’Alemann, Lord of Caesarea: Confrater. 6/1255. Cart., no. 2738. Joscelin of Tornell: Le Tournel, Lozère. Simple brother in Acre in 8/1248, 3/1254,

6,7/1255. Castellan of Mt. Thabor in 10/1259. Marshal of the Order in12/1262. Cart., nos. 2482, 2670, 2747, 2934–36, 3045.

Joseph of Chauncy*: Probably English. Treasurer of the Order from 1248 until

1271. Prior of England from 1273. First appearance as treasurer Cart., no. 2482,last 3439. As prior no. 3518. See also Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, p. 312.Marin Mazuc: Genoese. Confrater. 4/1201. Cart., no. 1145.Martin Dandres: Simple brother in Acre or Tripoli in 2/1216–17. Cart., no. 1462.Martin Goceauve: Appears as ‘preceptor’ in the provincial chapter of January 1193

but without title in 1/1195. Cart., nos. 941, 972.Martin of Chiambri: Commander of Cyprus in 9/1254. Cart., no. 2693.Martin Sanche: Commander of Tripoli in 2/1248 (Richard, ‘Le comté de Tripoli’,

p. 373). Drapier of the Order in Acre in 8/1248. Cart., no. 2482.Nicholas Lorgne: Master. He may had been Castellan of Margat c.1250 and later

Castellan of Crac. Marshal in the second half of 1260 and in 10/1273. Grandcommander of Acre in 1271. Commander of Tripoli from 5/1275 and masterfrom 1278 to 1283. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 189–90.

Nicholas of Valdieu: Simple brother in Jaffa in 12/1252. Cart., no. 2634.

150 APPENDIX



Odo of Armenia: Simple brother in Acre in 1240. Cart., no. 2245.Odo of Pins: Drapier of the Order in 10/1273. Cart., no. 3519.Otthon, count of Hinneberg: Confrater (married to Beatrice, daugther of Joscelin III

of Edesa). 10/1208. Cart., no. 1313 (charter issued in Acre).Peter Arez: Simple brother in Armenia in 4/1214. Cart., no. 1426.

Peter Bega: Simple brother in Acre in 5/1255. Cart., no. 2732.Peter Chavanele: Simple brother in Tripoli in 2/1248. Richard, ‘Le comté deTripoli’, p. 373.

Peter Galus: Simple brother in Antioch in 10/1209. Cart., no. 1336.Peter of Aleage: Simple brother in Acre in 8/1248. Cart., no. 2482.Peter of Ate: Simple brother in the siege of Acre in 10/1190. Cart., no. 900.Peter of Biaune: Marshal of the Order. Died in 6/1254. ‘ATS’, p. 446.Peter of Campignolles: Simple brother in Acre in 7/1204. Cart., no. 1197.Peter of Escurai: Castellan of Margat in 8/1198, 6/1199, 9/1199. Cart., nos. 1031,

1085, 1096.Peter of Garamont: Garin of Montaigu’s delegate to the papal curia in 5/1221.

Cart., no. 1725.Peter of Hayem: Hospitalier of the Order c.1263 to 1269. Cart., no. 3047.Peter of Mirmanda (Hatt.)*: For place of origin, personal background and his

career in the Order see Chapter 4 above, p. 138. Joined the commandery of Alleyras (part of Puy en Velay) in 1163. Simple brother in Acre in 1184 and in Jerusalem in 4/1185. Castellan of Crac in 1/1193, 8/1198, 6/1199. Grandcommander of the Order in Acre in 1202. Cart. Velay, n. 16. Cart., nos. 663, 754,941, 1031, 1085,1096, 1156; RRH , no. 787b.

Peter of Oltremon: Simple brother in Acre in 3/1266. Cart., no. 3213.Peter of Sardines: Turcopolier of the Order in 8/1248. Cart., no. 2482.Peter of Vieille Bride: Master. Probably originated from Auvergne. Simple brother

in Tripoli or Acre in 2/1216–17. Grand commander in 6/1237, 12/1238 and4/1239. Master from 1240. Died on 17/9/1243. Riley-Smith, The Knights of St.

John, pp. 174–80.Peter of Vieille Bride: Probably from Auvergne. Simple brother in Acre in 12/1253.

Cart., no. 2662.Peter ‘Parvus’: Simple brother in Acre 8/1219. Cart., no. 1656.

Philip of Egly*: Prior of France in 1,2/1250. Cart., no. 2514. In Acre, without title,in 1256. Cart., no. 2810. Prior of France for the second time in 12/1260, 6/1261,2/1262. Cart., nos. 2523, 2969, 2991, 3008, 3031, 3036, 3076–77; Cart.Éterpigny, fols. 88–90. In overall charge of the Hospitaller houses in thekingdom of Sicily from 5/1266 to Easter 1269. Cart., nos. 3221, 3279, 3285;Thes. novus , vol. II, col. 633; RCAR , vol. I, reg. 3, no. 5. See Chapter 2 above,pp. 91–95.

Pons Bérenger: Simple brother in Tripoli in 12/1204. Cart., no. 1198.Pons Boschant: Drapier of the Order in 5/1221 and 10/1222. Cart., nos. 1718,

1760.Pons of Madières: Turcopolier of the Order in 10/1271. Cart., no. 3433.Rainald (Renaud) of Domus: Simple brother in Acre in 11/1235. Cart., no. 2126.Rainald of Nanteuil: Commander of Tripoli from c.1266 to 1269. Cart., nos. 3213,

3047. Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , p. 433.




Rainald of Ponz: Simple brother in Antioch in 8/1203. RRH , no. 792a.Rainer Aleman: Simple brother in Acre in 10/1233. RRH , no. 1046.Ralland of Burgundy: Simple brother in Tripoli in 6,9/1199. Cart., nos. 1085, 1096.Ralph of Loudun: Commander of Tyre in 1/1195. Cart., no. 972.Raymond Motet: Simple brother in Acre in 4/1239. Cart., no. 2224.

Raymond Pierre: Simple brother. Present at the provincial chapter in Margat, January 1193. Cart., no. 941.Raymond Portevin: Chaplain of the master Garin of Montaigu in 2/1216–17.

Cart., no. 1462.Raymond of Mandagum: Vice-castellan of Margat in 11/1234. Cart., no. 2094.Raymond of Pignans: Var. Castellan of Crac in 2/1216–17, 1218. Cart., nos. 1462,

1602.Raymond of Périgord: Commander of Tripoli in 12/1204. Cart., no. 1198.Raymond of Stella: Simple brother. Witnessed a charter given in Tarsus in 4/1214.

Cart., no. 1427.Robert ‘Anglicus’ (the English): Commander of Acre in 1/1195. Cart., no. 972.Robert of Capennum: Simple brother in Antioch in 1/1193. Cart., no. 941.Robert of Corson: Commander of Tripoli in 8/1236. Cart., no. 2148.Robert of Lain: Yonne. Simple brother in the siege of Acre in 10/1190. Cart., no.

900.Robert of Vela: Simple brother in the Holy Land in 10/1259. Cart., no. 2936.Robert of Vignes: Hospitalier of the Order in 11/1235. Cart., no. 2126.Rodrigue Perez: Marshal of the Order in 8/1271. Cart., no. 3429.Roger of Champagne: Simple brother in Tripoli in 6,9/1199. Cart., nos. 1085,

1096.Roger of Spain: Simple brother in Acre in 10/1233. Cart., no. 2067.Roger of Vere*: Drapier of the Order in 12/1262. Prior of England 6/1269,

4/1270, 8,11/1272. Cart., nos. 3045, 3047, 3339, 3388, 3465, 3480.Sanche of Auvergne: Simple brother in Tripoli in 6,9/1199. Cart., nos. 1085, 1096.Seguin of Montréal: Simple brother in Acre in 3/1265. Cart., no. 3120.Simon of Beco: Simple brother in Acre in 1/1263. Cart., no. 3051. (Probably also in

Famagusta in 6/1268. Cart., no. 3311.)Simon of Brolietum: Simple brother probably in Acre in 10/1267. Cart., no. 3283.

Simon of Kalansue: Simple brother in Acre in 2/1207. Cart., nos. 1250, 1276.Simon of Villejus: Drapier of the Order in 1/1260. Cart., no. 2943.Stephen of Bracum: Grand commander of the Order in 10/1273. Cart., no. 3519.Stephen of Corbeil: Essone. Simple brother in the siege of Acre in 10/1190. Cart.,

no. 900.Stephen of Maleville: Aveyron. Simple brother in Acre in 10/1222. Cart., no. 1760.Stephen of Messy: Grand commander of the Order in 8,9/1264, 2/1266. Died in a

Mamluk ambush in Careblier in the plains of Acre in 5/6/1266. RRH , no. 1334;Cart., nos. 3105, 3207; ‘ATS’, p. 452A.

Stephen of Porticum: Simple brother in Antioch in 8/1203. RRH , no. 792a.Thomas Lorraine: Simple brother in Acre in 11/1235. Cart., no. 2126.Wichard of Kalsberg: Confrater in Acre in 2/1214. Cart., no. 1424.William Borel: Marshal of the Order in 1/1193. Cart., no. 941.

152 APPENDIX



William Chan: Simple brother in Tripoli or Crac des Chevaliers in 5/1243. Cart.,no. 2296.

William le Rat: Simple brother in Acre in 11/1235. Cart., no. 2126.William Lombard: Simple brother in Acre in 1/1193. Grand commander of the

Order in 1201. Cart., nos. 941, 1145–46.

William Marin: Simple brother in Tripoli in 2/1248. Probably also in 3/1259 or1260. Cart. no. 2914; Richard, ‘Le comté de Tripoli’, p. 373.William Niger: Simple brother in Tripoli in 12/1204. Cart. no. 1198.William of Antioch: Simple brother in Acre in 4/1239. Cart., no. 2224.William of Beaune: Côte d’or. Commander of Cyprus in 9/1210. RRH , no. 844.William of Cervera: Lerida, Aragon. Simple brother in Margat in 11/1234. Cart.,

no. 2094.William of Châteauneuf: Master. French, but according to Delaville Le Roulx, it is

impossible to determine from which region. Simple brother in Acre in 10/1233.Marshal of the Order in 1/1241. Master from 1243 to 1258. Delaville Le Roulx,Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , p. 190 and passim; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John,pp. 180–81, 186.

William of Cherum: Simple brother in Acre in 3/1266. Cart., no. 3213.William of Corceles: According to the Cart. Velay he was from the Auvergne. Simple

brother in Acre in 1240. Marshal of the Order in 8/1248. From 1256 to 1271 heappeared in many charters issued in the Holy Land without title. Riley-Smithbelieves he must have been an Ancient living in the convent. In 1274 he was theOrder’s delegate to the Second Council of Lyons. Cart. Velay, p. II; Cart., nos.2245, 2482, 2810, 2934–35, 3045, 3120, 3283, 3422, 3433, 4680. Riley-Smith,

The Knights of St. John, pp. 143, 285. See also Chapter 3 above, p. 129.William of Domus: Brother in Acre in 8/1219. Cart., no. 1656.William of Forel: Commander of Cyprus in 6,10/1237. Cart., nos. 2163, 2174.William of Fores (Forez?): Castellan of Margat in 11/1241. Cart., no. 2280.William of Lormier: Simple brother in Acre in 12/1261. Cart. no. 3001.William of Marolh: Perhaps from Marolles-les-Bailly, Aube. Marshal of the Order

1/1195, 10/1206. Cart., no. 972; RRH , no. 816.William of Montaigu: Seine-et-Marne or Vendée. Drapier of the Order in

10/1233. Cart., no. 2067.

William of Morent: Simple brother in Tripoli in 6,9/1199. Cart., nos. 1085, 1096.William of Moret: Seine-et-Marne. Commander of Tyre in 8/1248. Cart., no. 2482.William of Santeble: Simple brother. Witnessed a charter given in Tarsus in

4/1214. Cart., no. 1427.William of Senlis: Oise. Grand commander of the Order in 1240. Killed in Jeru-

salem in a battle against the Khorezmians in 11/7/1244. Cart., no. 2245;Matthew Paris, vol. IV, pp. 307–11; Chronica de Mailros , p. 163. See also Chapter 1above, p. 23.

William of Tinières*: According to the Cart. Velay he belong to the house of Tinières, one of the most important families in Auvergne. Commander of Tripoli in 2/1216. Grand commander of the Order in 9/1231. Prior of Francein 11/1232. Cart. Velay, p. II; Cart., nos. 1462, 1996, 2036.

William of Villaret*: Master. Drapier and vice-prior of St. Gilles in c.1269 until1271, when he became prior. Administrator for Pope Gregory X of the papal




lands of the Comtat Venaissin. Master from 1296 until 1304. See Delaville LeRoulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , pp. 251–66; Riley-Smith, The Knights of St.

John, pp. 206–09, 298–301.William of Villiers*: Grand commander of the Order in Acre in 2/1192. Grand

commander of Outremer in 4/1193. Prior of England from 1199. Prior of

France in 1207–1209. Cart., nos. 919, 945, 1056, 1243, 1330–32. See also above,Chapter 1, p. 15, and Chapter 2, pp. 66, 78.William of Valence: Commander of the ships in 4/1234. Cart., no. 2079.William Pijons*: Commander of Cyprus in 8/1248. Prior of France in 7/1253,

3/1256, 7/1257. Cart., nos. 2482, 2648, 2811; Cart. Éterpigny, fols. 35–36,107–08.

William Scarran: Simple brother in Acre in 8/1219. Cart., no. 1656.

Brothers Serving in the Priories of France, St. Gilles and Auvergne,and Commanderies under their Control

Priory of France

Adam of Abbeville: Somme. Simple brother in Frasnoy (Flandres) in 2/1203. Cart.,no. 1172.

Adam of Chailly: Perhaps from Chailly-en-Bière, Seine et Marne. Simple brother inParis in 1189. Cart., no. 868.

Andrew Polin*: Grand commander of the Order in 11/1235, prior of France

probably from 1239 to 1248. Cart., no. 2126 (for Andrew as commander in Acre).First mentioned as prior of France in Cart., no. 2219, last appearance no. 2474.

Arnald of Spina: Prior of France in 1188. Cart., no. 842.Bernard of Lucet: Lucé, Eure-et-Loire. Simple brother in Haute Avesnes (Pas de

Calais) in 1190. Cart., no. 890.Fulcher of Thévalles: Mayenne. Simple brother in the priory of France in 11/1232.

Cart., no. 2036.Garnier of Nablus*: Member of the Frankish family of Milly, lords of Nablus and

Oultrejourdain. Master. Castellan of Bethgibelin from 1173 until 1176. Grand

commander of the Order from 1176 to 1184 or 1185. Prior of England andPrior of France from 1189 to late 1189, the year he was elected to master andserved until 1190. See Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , pp. 409,415, 426, 432, and Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 107–8.

Gaucher of Amiens: Somme. Simple brother in Corbeil in 1188. Cart., no. 842.Gaucher of Corbeil: Essonne. Commander of the Hospitallers in the area of

Cambrai in 4/1201. Cart., no. 1141.Geoffrey: Prior of France 8/1212, 6,11/1216. Cart., nos. 1397, 1475, 1481.Geoffrey of Babylone: Simple brother in Haute Avesnes (Pas de Calais) in 1213.

Cart., no. 1406.Gerald of Paris: Simple brother in Corbeil and Paris in 1179, 1188, 1189. Cart., nos.552, 842, 868.

Guèrin: Prior of France in 5/1225, 5,11,12/1227, 1228, 6/1229. Cart., nos.1812–13, 1889–90, 1900, 1903, 1905, 1941; RRH , no. 981.

154 APPENDIX



Guitard of La Motte: Perhaps Gard. Simple brother in the priory of France in11/1232. Cart., no. 2036.

H.....: Prior of France in 11/1230. Cart., no. 1970.Henry of Pesunis: Oise. Simple brother in the priory of France in 11/1232. Cart.,

no. 2036.

Hugh of Chaudenay: From Haute-Marne or Saône-et-Loire. Simple brother inNormiers (Côte d’or) in 1196. Cart., no. 983.Imbert of Luquiers: Prior of France in 1219 and 1220. Cart., nos. 1637, 1664.Isembard*: Prior of France in 4/1201, 1203, 4/1212. Cart., nos. 1145, 1167,

1382. Grand commander of the Order in Acre in 2/1207 or 1208 and 1219.Cart., nos. 1250, 1276, 1656. Grand commander of Outremer in 2/1211and in 10/1222. Cart., nos. 1360, 1758. Appears without title in two chartersgiven in Tarsus in 4/1214. Cart., nos. 1426–27. It i s possible that differentIsembards held these offices. Delaville Le Roulx, however, identified them as thesame man. See index of Delaville Le Roulx cartulary. See also Chapter 2 above,pp. 66, 67.

John of Chevry: Vice-prior of France in 6,8,11,12/1269, 6/1271. Prior of

France in 6,8,10,11/1272. Cart., nos. 3364, 3374, 3425, 3453, 3468, 3475,3484; Cart. Fieffes (S5059), fol. 7; Cart. Éterpigny, fols. 27–28.

John of Fresnoy: Aube or Nord. Simple brother in Haute Avesnes in 1190. Cart., no.890.

John of Montgrossin: Prior of France in 4/1235, 5/1237. Cart., nos. 2106, 2159;Cart. Fieffes (S5533), fol. 152.

Peter of Puy: Simple brother in the priory of France in 6/1261. Cart., no. 2991.

Peter of Vitry: Simple brother in Corbeil in 1188. Cart., no. 842.Peter Pielos: Commander of Haute Avesnes (Pas de Calais) in 1213. Cart., no. 1406.Philip of Egly*: Prior of France in 1,2/1250, Cart., no. 2514. In Acre, without

title, in 1256. Cart., no. 2810. Prior of France for the second time in 12/1260,6/1261, 2/1262. Cart., nos. 2523, 2969, 2991, 3008, 3031, 3036, 3076–77; Cart.Éterpigny, fols. 88–90. In overall charge of the Hospitaller houses in thekingdom of Sicily from 5/1266 to Easter 1269. Cart., nos. 3221, 3279, 3285;Thes. novus , vol. II, col. 633; RCAR , vol. I, reg. 3, no. 5. See also Delaville LeRoulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte et à Chypre , p. 417. See Chapter 2 above, pp.

91–95.Reiner of Esnouveaux: Haute-Marne. Simple brother in the priory of France inc.1190–1196. Cart., no. 883.

Renaud of Etamps: Oise. Simple brother in the priory of France in 11/1232. Cart.,no. 2036.

Robert of Conchy: Simple brother in the priory of France in 9/1231. Cart., no.1994.

Simon of Abbeville: Prior of France in 1199 and 1201. Cart., nos. 1057, 1133.Simon of Paris: Simple brother in the priory of France in 11/1232. Cart., no. 2036.Vital of Fonteney: Simple brother in Corbeil in 1188. Cart., no. 842.Wiiliam of Donjon: Oise (son of the lady of Breteuil). Simple brother in Senlis in

6/1221. Cart., no. 1727.William of Haute Avesne: Pas-de-Calais. Commander of Haute Avesne in 1190.

Cart., no. 889.




William of Roussemeau: Yonne. Chaplain in the priory of France in 6/1261. Cart.,no. 2991.

William of Tinières*: According to the Cart. Velay he belonged to the house of Tinières, one of the most important families in Auvergne. Commander of Tripoli in 2/1216. Grand commander of the Order in 9/1231. Prior of

France in 11/1232. Cart. Velay, p. II; Cart., nos. 1462, 1996, 2036.William of Villiers*: Grand commander of the Order in Acre in 2/1192. Grandcommander of Outremer in 4/1193. Prior of England from 1199. Prior of

France in 1207–1209. Cart., nos. 919, 945, 1056, 1243, 1330–32. See alsoabove, Chapter 1, p. 15, and Chapter 2, pp. 66, 78.

William Pijons*: Commander of Cyprus in 8/1248. Prior of France in 7/1253,3/1256, 7/1257. Cart., nos. 2482, 2648, 2811; Cart. Éterpigny, fols. 35–36,107–08.

Priory of St. Gilles

Aimery of Toulouse: Simple brother in Trinquetaille and Avignon in 5/1191,3/1198, 3/1200, 6/1203. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 88, 41; Cart. Avignon, no. 70, ch. 11;Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 247–48.

Aimery Sartre: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 3/1194. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 81. Albert of Port Aiguierra: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 4/1201. Cart.

Trinquetaille , no. 174. Amand of Cabanes: Averyon. Commander of Toulouse in 7/1218. Cart., no. 1617. Armengaud of Asp*: Temporary Master. Castellan of Amposta from 1180 until

1183. From 1184 he held both the castellany of Amposta and the priory of St. Gilles. Charged with the temporary administration of the Order after the lossof the master Roger of Moulins at the battle of Sephoria (1 May 1187). See Cart.,nos. 586–88, 592, 597, 601, 619, 677, 765, 781, 818, 820, 822, 829, 835, 860,863, 871, 901; RRH , nos. 665–66, 676; Cart. St. Gilles , p. XIX; Luttrell,‘Ermengol de Aspa and Sigena’ (Aldershot, forthcoming); Riley-Smith, The

Knights of St. John, pp. 106–07. See also Chapter 1 above, pp. 11–12. Arnald Apis: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 8/1186, 3/1187, 6/1197. Cart. St. Gilles ,

nos. 314, 318, 121.

Arnald of Bozzais: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1201. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 94. Arnald of Campagnoles: Gard. Commander of the Order’s houses in Béziers and Agde (Hérault) in 5/1190. Commander of Trinquetaille in 4/1196, 1/1197,1/1198, 8/1203, 8,9/1204, 8,9/1209, 3,5,6,9,11,12/1210. Cart. Trinquetaille , nos.51, 123, 236, 217, 224, 222–24, 226, 205, 220, 210–11, 213, 216, 305; Cart. St.

Gilles , nos. 98, 269; Cart. Avignon, no. 70; Cart., no. 1011. Arnald of Miserata: Commander of St. Gilles in 2/1231, 6,9/1232, 4/1234. Prior

of St. Gilles from 1234 to 1236. Cart., nos. 2066, 2018, 2030, 2079; Cart.

Avignon, p. 233, no. 91. Arnald of Podium: Commander of St. Gilles in 11/1201. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 89. Arnald of Podium Forigario: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 11/1186. Cart. St. Gilles ,

no. 303. Arnald of St. Thomas: St. Thomas of Trinquetaille. Simple brother in St. Gilles in

10/1195. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 118–19.

156 APPENDIX



Berenger Monge: Commander of Manosque and Aix in 7/1251, 10/1257, 5/1273,4/1278, 7/1283, 8/1286, 7/1288, 12/1292, 8/1293. Cart., nos. 2570, 2885,3508, 3657, 3838–39, 3939–40, 4008, 4204, 4228. Reynaud, La commanderie de

l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, p. 52.Bermond of Luzancion: Midi Pyrenees. Prior of St. Gilles. Commander of

Trinquetaille in 3/1207, 9/1207 or 1208, 11/1208, 1/1209. Prior of St. Gillesin 2/1212 and probably 4/1214 when he witnessed two charters written inTarsus. Commander of Manosque in 5/1217. Commander of Avignon from1220 to 1230. Cart., no. 1258; Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 209, 219; Cart. St. Gilles , nos.349–50; Cart., nos. 1320, 1375, 1426–27; Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de

Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, p. 199; Marseilles 56H 1281, fols. 29, 68, 75, 106–7, 110;Cart. Avignon, pp. 233, 235, and nos. 75, 24, 29, 31, 57, 61, 62, 65–66, 77, 85, 87,89, chs. 27, 29–41; Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de St. Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon eten comtat Venaissin au XIII siècle’, passim. See also Chapter 2 above, pp. 78–79.

Bernard Cabot: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 8/1272. Cart., no. 3467.Bernard Causoinus: Priest in St. Gilles in 8,12/1195, 6/1197. Cart. St. Gilles ,

nos.127, 113, 121.Bernard Coc(c)us: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 3/1187, 1/1194, 1,10/1195,

11/1201. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 318, 130, 282, 118–19, 88.Bernard Honorat: Simple brother in Manosque in 12/1235. Cart., no. 2099.Bernard of Calvison: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1,3/1194. Cart. St. Gilles , nos.

60, 81, 130.Bernard of Campagne: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 7/1209, 12/1210. Cart. St.

Gilles , nos. 358, 376.

Bernard of Marcellanum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1209. Cart. St. Gilles ,no. 349.

Bernard of Porcianum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 12/1210. Cart. St. Gilles ,no. 376.

Bernard of Spinaso (Spinason): Commander of Cavaillon (Vaucluse) in 11/1243,11/1246. Marseilles 56H 1281, fols. 91–92; Cart. Avignon, no. 74, ch. 54.

Bertrand Blanc: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 1/1197. Cart. Trinquetaille ,no. 123.

Bertrand Berengarius: Donat in the commandery of Avignon in 1223–24. Cart.

Avignon, chs. 29–31.Bertrand Braverius: Simple brother in St. Gilles from c.1192 to c.1198, Cart. St.

Gilles , nos. 93, 310 (perhaps brother in Trinquetaille ), 74, 115, 123, 124, 127,130, 282.

Bertrand of Barras: Prior of St. Gilles in 1,6–7/1239, 8/1241, 1/1242. Cart.,nos. 2218, 2230, 2235, 2278, 2284. According to Riley-Smith (The Knights of

St. John, p. 281) Bertrand may have been a relative of Ferrand of Barras, hissuccessor as prior of St. Gilles.

Bertrand of Barbetane: Bouches-du-Rhône. Simple brother – witnessed chartersissued in Montpellier in 4/1187, in Avignon in 10/1187, 9–11/1188 and inTrinquetaille in 3,6/1194, 4/1195. Cart. Avignon, chs. 5–6; Cart. St. Gilles , nos.320, 81; Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 162, 52.

Bertrand of Bonils: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 7/1209. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 358.Bertrand of Caderousse: Vaucluse. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1199.




Commander of Alès (Gard) in 1203. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 312; Cart. Avignon, suppl.2.

Bertrand of Cavairacum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 2/1194. Cart. St. Gilles , no.74.

Bertrand of Gigondas: Vaucluse. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5/1203. Cart. St.

Gilles , no. 3.Bertrand of Laia: Ail, Alpes Maritime. Commander of Omergues (Alpes-de-Haute-Provence) in 4/1234. Cart., no. 2076.

Bertrand of Mercurol: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5/1191, 1/1195. Cart. St.

Gilles , nos. 88, 282.Bertrand of Milhau: Aveyron. Prior of St. Gilles in 11/1190, 5/1191, 7,8/1192,

1193–95. Cart. St. Gilles , p. XIX and nos. 169, 89; Cart., nos. 926, 930, 937; Cart.

Avignon, no. 67.Bertrand of Monteux (Montiliis): Vaucluse. Simple brother in Avignon in

1202–1203, 1208–1210, 1213, 1216. Commander of St. Cécile in 1203. Cart.

Avignon, nos. 23, 37, 46, 63, 75, 80–82, chs. 16, 17, 20–23, 25–26, suppl. 2(comm. of St. Cécile).

Bertrand of Mornans: Drôme. Commander of Valence in 3/1239, 10/1248. Cart.,nos. 2218, 2489.

Bertrand of Olivella: Prior of St. Gilles in 2/1207. Commander of St. Gilles in3/1207 (there is no evidence to explain this change of post. By 3/1207 St. Gilleshad a new prior – Peter of Montfaucon). Cart., nos. 1253, 1255; Recueil des Actes

des comtes de Provence , nos. 50–51; Cart., no. 1258; Cart. St. Gilles , p. XIX.Bertrand of Petra: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1195. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 282.

Bertrand of Pierrelatte: Drôme. Commander of Alais (Gard) in 1/1239. Cart., no.2218.

Bertrand of St. Paul: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 4/1195. Cart. Trinquetaille ,no. 52.

Bertrand of Vilamurs (Villemus, Alpes-de-Haute-Provence): Commander of Avignon in 9/1216. Cart. Avignon, p. 235 and ch. 26.

Bertrand Pelliserius: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 10/1200. Cart. Trinquetaille ,no. 240.

Bertrand Rainaut: Commander of St. Gilles in 5–12/1204. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 86,

44, 51, 4, 321.Bertrand St. Iustus: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1209. Cart. St. Gilles , nos.349–50.

Bertrand Sartre: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 3/1199, 4/1201. Cart.

Trinquetaille , nos. 65, 174.Dodo of Bozagis: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 6/1200. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 71.Durand of La Fosse: Gard. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 8/1184, 12/1188,

7/1190, 5/1191. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 67–68, 43, 88.Emmanuel: Prior of St. Gilles in 7/1221. Cart., no. 1736; Cart. Avignon, Inv. I, 14

(1225).Ermengald of Guilher: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 6/1262. Cart., no. 3035.Ferrand of Barras*: Prior of St. Gilles. Grand commander of Outremer.

Simple brother in the priory of St. Gilles in 1180. Castellan of Selefkie in4/1214. Marshal in 1221. Prior of St. Gilles in 1246, 7/1248, 7/1251, 5/1252,

158 APPENDIX



6/1253. Grand commander of Outremer in 7/1259, 11/1260, 5/1261, 6/1262.

Prior of St. Gilles again in 2,6/1268. Cart., nos. 578, 1426–27, 1718, 2419, 2481,

2570, 2604, 2645, 2923, 2965, 2986, 3035, 3301, 3308 (vol. IV). See also

Riley-Smith, The Knights of St. John, pp. 280–81.

Fulcher of Bonas: Gers. Commander of Manosque in 9/1232, 11/1234, 2/1235.

Cart., nos. 2030, 2092, 2099.Fulcher of Thoart: Commander of Alais (Gard) in 3/1271, 5,7/1273. Cart., nos.

3416, 3508, 3512.

Fulcher of Tornel (also appeared in the sources as Raymond): Commander of

Avignon in 1240–47. Marseilles 56H 1281, fols. 7, 11, 13, 91–92, 103; Cart.

Avignon, p. 235 and nos. 2–10, 12, 15–16, 18, 64, 74, 84, 86, chs. 46–49, 52–57,

inv. I, 23; Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de St. Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon et en comtat

Venaissin au XIII siècle’, p. 61.

G. of Ormes: Eure. Prior of St. Gilles in 1229. Cart., no. 1934.

Geoffrey of Albaron: Bouches-du-Rhône. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5/1194.

Cart. St. Gilles , no. 115.

Geoffrey of Moissac: Tarn-et-Garonne. Simple brother in Manosque in 7/1251.

Cart., no. 2570.

Gerald Amic: Commander of Orange in 4/1240, 5/1247, commander of Orange

and Avignon in 7/1248. Cart., nos. 2250, 2442; Cart. Avignon, ch. 58.

Gerald Bella Cara (Bona Cara): Simple brother in St. Gilles in 12/1192. Cart. St.

Gilles , nos. 110, 129, 131.

Gerald Brun: Commander of Avignon in 1208, 1210, 1213–1215. Marseilles

56H 1281, fols. 100–1, 102–3; Cart. Avignon, p. 235 and nos. 37, 63, 75, 80, 81,

chs. 20, 22, 23, 25, 26 (9/1216 – ‘ancien précepteur’), inv. I, 13; Le Blévec,‘L’Hôpital de St. Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon et en comtat Venaissin au XIII

siècle’, p. 61.

Gerald of Bellecroix: Saone et Loire. Commander of Beaune (Côte d’or)

c.1239–1248. Cart., no. 2969.

Gerald of Cavaillon: Vaucluse. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5/1194. Cart. St.

Gilles , no. 45.

Gerald of Rotmans (or Romans): Drapier of the priory of St. Gilles in 11/1186,

11/1187, 1,8–10/1195, 9/1196, 4/1197.Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 303, 306, 282, 61,

127, 99, 118, 269. He appeared, however, without title in several other chartersissued by the priory in 10/1186, 3/1187, 6/1196, 6/1197. Cart. St. Gilles , nos.

274, 318, 143, 82.

Gerald of Villedieu: Vaucluse. Chaplain in Avignon in 2/1202. Cart. Avignon, ch. 14.

Guy of Chavellus: Part of Ferrand of Barras entourage when he served as grand

commander of Outremer in 11/1260. Cart., no. 2965.

Hugh of Aia: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1199. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 312.

Hugh of Arlenco: Commander of Arles in 2/1213. Cart. Avignon, nos. 75, 82.

Hugh of Ascros: Alpes Maritimes. Simple brother in Manosque in 2/1235. Cart.,

no. 2099.

Hugh of Albenas: Ardèche. Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 3/1199, 10/1200,

3/1204, 6/1205. Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 65, 240, 214, 251.

Hugh I of Baux: Viscount of Marseilles and lord of Baux. Confrater of the house of

Trinquetaille in 8/1192. Cart., no. 930.




Hugh of Mamoléne: Gard. Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 3,10/1200, 1201.Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 41, 240, 94, 174. A brother by that name appeared aswitness to two charters written in Tarsus in 1214. Perhaps Hugh accompaniedthe prior of St. Gilles to Tarsus. Cart., nos. 1426–27.

Hugh of Solillaris: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 11,12/1210. Cart. Trinquetaille ,

nos. 305, 216.Hugh of Villadeus: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5/1203 and 9/1204. Cart. St.

Gilles , nos. 3, 25.Hugh Spina: Chaplain of Peter of Faucon, prior of St. Gilles. 1207. Cart. Avignon,

ch. 18.Isnard of Flayosc: Commander of Puimoisson in 5/1273. Cart., no. 3508.Isnard of Oraison: Alpes-de-Haute-Provence. Simple brother in Manosque in

2/1235. Cart., no. 2099.Isnard of Puimichel: Alpes-de-Haute-Provence. Simple brother in St. Gilles in

6/1210. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 374.Isnard of St. Michel: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 9/1204. Cart. St. Gilles , nos.

136–37. Jacob of Bourg: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 10/1192. Commander of

Trinquetaille in 5,6/1194, 4/1195. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 69, 91, 45; Cart.

Trinquetaille , nos. 52, 165. John Candelerius: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 7/1190. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 43. John Franc (Francon): Commander of St. Gilles in 4/1189–1/1995, 10/1196. Cart.,

nos. 897, 937; Cart. St. Gilles , p. XXI and nos. 243, 348, 371, 271, 154, 160, 169,89, 100, 78, 62, 128, 189, 69, 81, 120, 60, 45, 55, 282; Cart. Avignon, no. 51; Cart.

Trinquetaille , no. 180. John Mercaderius: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 3/1191/92. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 78. John of Die: Drôme. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 8/1272. Cart., no. 3467. John of Genève: Commander of St. Paul les Romans in 1245. AD du Rhône ,

pp. 97–98. John of Monts: Commander of Beaune in 12/1260. Cart., no. 2969. John of Monzon: Huesca. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 2/1207. Cart., no. 1253. John of Pont: Commander of Manosque in 10/1243. Cart., no. 2428. John of Tarascon: Bouches-du-Rhône. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 7/1209. Cart.

St. Gilles , no. 358. John Pellifex: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 9/1191. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 100. John Sellerius: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 4/1190. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 371. John Thesaurario: Brother in St. Gilles in 11/1190. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 154. Jordan of Aiguebelle (Aquabella): Simple brother in Avignon in 11/1199. Cart.

Avignon, chs. 11–12; Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon’,pp. 55–57.

Jordan of St. André: Commander of Agenais, Quercy and Lomagne (Lot etGaronne), in 2/1244. Cart., no. 2315.

Laurence of St. Cécile: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 5/1210. Cart. Trinquetaille ,no. 220.

Martin of Andos: Prior of St. Gilles. Castellan of Amposta in 2/1207, 1/1209,9/1210, 11/1211. Prior of St. Gilles in 9/1215, 2/1216. Cart., nos. 1256, 1321,1356, 1369, 1446, 1459. Cart. Avignon, ch. 26 (9/1216).

160 APPENDIX



Martin of Andos: Commander of Montpellier in 2/1216. Cart., no. 1460.Martin Rufus: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1199. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 312.Michael Navaro: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in c.9/1208. Cart. Trinquetaille , no.

291.Michael of La Sieye: Alpes-de-Haute-Provence. Commander of Trinquetaille in

2,3/1216. Cart., nos. 1460, 1464.Michael of Zaragossa: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 3,4/1204. Cart.

Trinquetaille , nos. 214, 303.Ougier: Prior of St. Gilles. In 9–11/1188, 3/1189, 3,4/1190. (If the same man,

also grand prior of France in 10/1190, 1191, 8/1194, 5/1195, 8/1198, 7/1202.)Cart., nos. 721, 888; 900, 904, 965, 973, 1031, 1164; Cart. St. Gilles , p. XIX andnos. 259, 371; Cart. Avignon, ch. 6–7.

Peter Arnaldus: Commander of Valence in 5/1273. Cart., no. 3508.Peter Barravus: Chaplain of Garcia of Lisa (Grand commander of Outremer), in

10/1198. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 273.Peter Boissetas: Priest in St. Gilles in 12/1210. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 376.Peter Helie: Commander of Gap Frances in the the Midi in the late 1170s.

Commander of St. Gilles in 12/1198, 1,10/1199, 1,6/1200, 1201. Cart. St. Gilles ,nos. 41, 71, 87, 90, 94, 123, 126, 312; Cart., no. 556; Cart. Avignon, no. 50, ch. 11;Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon’, pp. 55–57.

Peter Mercorinus: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 9/1204. Cart. St. Gilles , nos.136–37.

Peter of Alms: Cleric in St. Gilles in 6/1210. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 374.Peter of Bellecroix: Saône et Loire. Simple brother in Burgundy in c.1200. Cart., no.

1104.Peter of Belles: Commander of Marseilles in 5/1273. Cart., no. 3508.Peter of Belvézin: Commander of St. Gilles in 10/1270, 8/1272. Commander of

Trinquetaille in 5/1273. Cart., nos. 3404, 3467, 3508.Peter of Biscum: Commander of Poucharrament (Haute-Garonne) in 8/1254. Cart.,

no. 2690.Peter of Cairanne: Commander of Toulouse in 1246. Raybaud, Histoire des grands

prieurs , p. 156.Peter of Châteauneuf: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 12/1198, 1/1201. Perhaps

commander of Manosque in 2/1212. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 123, 87; Reynaud, La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, p. 199.

Peter of Châteauroux: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1195. Cart. St. Gilles , no.282.

Peter Stephen of Cavallon (Cavaillon): Vaucluse. Simple brother in Trinquetaille in3/1199 or 1200. Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 65.

Peter of Corilum: Simple brother in Marseilles in 1190. Cart., no. 888.Peter of Frameto: Chaplain of Bertrand of Milhau, prior of St. Gilles. 1191. Cart.

Avignon, no. 67.Peter of Goza: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 7/1209. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 358.Peter of La Mota: Gard. Commander of St. Jean de Viviers (Ardèche) in 5/1273.

Cart., no. 3508.Peter of Lap: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 7/1209. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 358.




Peter of Melgorio (Melguer, Mauguio): Hérault. Simple brother in Avignon in9/1191, 5/1194. Cart. Avignon, nos. 67, 51, ch. 5–8.

Peter of Montfaucon (Faucon, Falcone): Prior of St. Gilles in 3/1207–1210.Cart., nos. 1258, 1327; Cart. St. Gilles , p. XIX and no. 339; Cart. Avignon, ch. 18;Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 223; Recueil des Actes des Comtes de Provence , no. 3.

Peter of Naisa: Commander of Aix in 6/1192. Cart., no. 926.Peter Raymond of Remeianum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 9/1190. Cart. St.

Gilles , no. 271.Peter of Roquita: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1199. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 312.Peter of St. Étienne-les-Orgues (‘dels Olegues’): Alpes-de-Haute-Provence. Simple

brother in Trinquetaille 1192, 6/1194, 4/1195. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 91; Cart.

Trinquetaille , no. 162, 52.Peter of St. Laurencio: envoy of the commander of Avignon in 7/1248.

Commander of Avignon in 2,5/1249, 11/1250. Cart. Avignon, p. 235 and chs. 58,59–61, inv. I. 22.

Peter of Vidinobrium: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 9,10,11/1186, 6/1188,9/1190, 5/1191. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 347, 274, 313, 275, 271, 88.

Peter Pellicia: Simple brother in St. Gilles in c.1190–c.1204. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 1,25, 44, 51, 55, 61, 68–69, 74, 78, 82–84, 86–87, 94, 99, 108–9, 114, 128, 130,134, 136, 143, 154, 160, 269, 293, 296; Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 247.

Peter Porterius: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5/1194. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 115.Petrus Raimundus: Commander of St. Gilles in 6,9/1188, 3/1189, 1190. Cart. St.

Gilles , p. XXI and nos. 275, 347, 259, 211; Cart. Avignon, ch. 7.Pons of Avignon: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 9,12/1192, 12/1198, 1/1201,

10/1202. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 128, 120, 129, 131, 87, 293.Pons of Baion: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 4/1195, 10/1200, 4/1201,

4/1203, 3/1204. Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 52, 240, 174, 300, 214.Pons of Bonnevaux: Gard. Cleric in St. Gilles in 7/1185, 1/1201. Cart. St. Gilles ,

nos. 307, 87.Pons of Buglum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 10/1270. Cart., no. 3404.Pons of Caxanicis: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 4,7/1194. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 115,

124.Pons of Cuer: Var. Commander of Orange in 1/1270. Commander of Beaulie in

5/1273. Cart., nos. 3384, 3508.Pons of Esparron: Commander of Trievès (Drôme) in 6/1269. Cart., no. 3340.Pons of Furni: Gard. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 3,5/1185, 11/1186, 11/1190.

Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 154, 160, 284, 307, 303, 318.Pons of Linac: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 11/1201. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 89.Pons of Lucdunum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1192. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 91, 96.Pons of Marguerita: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 8/1180, 7,10/1185, 3,11/1186,

11/1187. Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 6/1194. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 106,307, 35–36, 303, 306; Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 162.

Pons of Marginis: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 3/1194, 8/1195. Cart. St. Gilles ,nos. 60, 81, 127.

Pons of Mornacium: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 12/1198. Cart. St. Gilles , no.123.

Pons of Oveillanum: Aude. Commander of St. Cécile (part of the commandery of

162 APPENDIX



Avignon) and Orange in 1215. Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Jérusalem

à Avignon’, p. 61.

Pons of Valencia: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 9,12/1192. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 128,

120.

Raimbaud of Reillanne: Basse Alpes. Simple brother in Manosque in 2/1235. Cart.,

no. 2099.Ralph of Cadarache: Commander of Manosque in 1248. Reynaud, la

Commanderie de l’Hôpital, p. 167.

Ralph of Roca: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1195. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 282.

Raymond Male Nutritus: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 7/1193. Cart. St. Gilles , no.

135.

Raymond of Aiguille: Haut-Loire. Commander and vice-prior of St. Gilles in

1,5,9/1196, 2,3,4,6/1197.Cart. St. Gilles , p. XXI and nos. 143, 260, 122, 61, 114,

142, 108, 125, 268–69, 82, 98, 121. Prior of St. Gilles in 11/1199, 1200,

3,6/1201, 5,6/1202.Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 342, 134; Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 190, 94;

Cart., no. 1163; Cart. Avignon, nos. 70, 50, 52, 76, chs. 11–12, suppl. 1; Le Blévec,

‘L’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon’, pp. 55–57.

Raymond of Alinnanum: Prior of the church of St. Gilles from 10/1186 to

12/1210. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 313, 306, 318, 275, 347, 68, 78, 348, 128, 110, 120,

74, 115, 111–12, 99, 127, 56, 113, 143, 61, 108, 269, 121, 82–83, 123, 71, 87,

89, 79, 7, 2, 376.

Raymond of Caican: Commander of Chamier (part of St. Paul tres Chateux,

Drôme) in 5/1273. Cart., no. 3508.

Raymond Stephen of Cannetum: Gard. Cleric in St. Gilles in 3/1187, 5/1192,

7/1209, 6/1210. Cart., no. 829; Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 96, 358, 374.Raymond of Cetum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 11/1201. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 89.

Raymond of Ciry: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5/1273. Cart., no. 3508.

Raymond of Furni: Gard. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5/1192, 6/1194,

2,9/1195, 1/1201, 5/1202.Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 96, 55, 113, 56, 87, 79.

Raymond of Grasse: Alpes Maritimes. Commander of Orange in 7/1272,

5,7/1273. Cart., nos. 3460, 3508, 3512.

Raymond of Linac: Chaplain to the prior of the church of St. Gilles in 1/1186,

9/1203. Cart., nos. 781, 1179.

Raymond of Lunel: Hérault. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5,9/1204. Cart. St.Gilles , nos. 44, 51, 86, 136–37.

Raymond of Malencia: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 11/1190. Cart. St. Gilles , nos.

154, 160.

Raymond of Mondragone: Commander of Crest (Drôme) in 5/1273. Cart., no.

3508.

Raymond of Montpezat: Commander of St. Gilles in 9,10/1202. Cart. St. Gilles ,

nos. 295, 293.

Raymond of Monts: Indre et Loire. Commander of Orange in 4/1230. Cart., no.

1956.

Raymond of Ortum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 12/1192, 8/1195, 1/1201,

5/1202, 3/1203, 5/1204. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 110, 127, 87, 79, 109, 86.

Raymond of Pont: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1201. Commander of St. Gilles

in 1,7/1209. Cart. St. Gilles , p. XXII and nos. 87, 349–50, 358, 364.




Raymond of Rocolas: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 3/1194. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 81.

Raymond of Saignon: Vaucluse. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1201, 9/1203.

Cart. St. Gilles , no. 2; Cart., no. 1179.

Raymond of Sérignan: Vaucluse. Simple brother in the priory of St. Gilles in

3/1216. Cart., no. 1467.

Raymond of Toulouse: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5/1203.Cart. St. Gilles , no. 3.Richard of Petra: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1201. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 87,

195.

Rostang of La Fosse: Gard. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1/1194, 8/1195.Cart. St.

Gilles , nos. 130, 127.

Rostang of Reillanne: Alpes-de-Haute-Provence. Simple brother in Manosque in

7/1251. Cart., no. 2570.

Sanche of Lombes: Simple brother in St. Gilles in c.1194–1200. Le Blévec,

‘L’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon’, pp. 55–57.

Sanche of Lombers: Vice-prior of St. Gilles in 1/1196. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 143 (most

probably the same man as previous).

Seignoret: Prior of St. Gilles in 9/1203. Cart., no. 1179; Cart. St. Gilles , no. 2.

Stephen of Broc: Commander of St. Gilles in 9/1214, 2,3/1216. Cart., nos. 1460,

1464; Cart. Avignon, no. 80.

Stephen of Cavaillon: Vaucluse. Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 5/1210. Cart.

Trinquetaille , no. 220.

Stephen of Garons: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1186, 11/1190, 5/1194.Cart. St.

Gilles , nos. 249, 154, 160, 115.

Stephen of Gravesons: Bouches du Rhône. Simple brother in Trinquetaille in

2/1203. Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 247.Stephen of Nemausum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 9/1204. Cart. St. Gilles , nos.

136–37.

Stephen of Ortum: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 6/1210. Cart. Trinquetaille , no.

210.

Stephen of Vaquerius: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1202. Cart. St. Gilles , nos.

83–84, 38.

Stephen Sabaterius (Zabaterius): Simple brother in St. Gilles in 12/1198, 11/1205.

Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 123, 247.

U.: Prior of St. Gilles in 1224. Cart., no. 1790.William Ferrum: Simple brother in Avignon in 5/1215, 12/1220, 9/1223. Cart.

Avignon nos. 24, 28, ch. 25, 29.

William of Albornum: Simple brother in St. Gilles from 5/1179 to 5/1204.Cart. St.

Gilles , nos. 3, 44, 51, 71, 87, 94, 110, 115, 123, 127, 143, 189, 269, 271, 277, 289,

347.

William of Alestum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1191. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 100. Le

Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon’, pp. 55–57.

William of Barjols: Simple brother in Manosque in 7/1251. Cart., no. 2570.

William of Barras: Commander of Pernes (Vaucluse) in 1278. Le Blévec, ‘L’Hôpital

de Saint Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon’, pp. 55–57.

William of Beorgetum: Commander of St. Gilles in 2/1241. Cart., no. 2268.

William of Bornum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 1192. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 91.

William of Boscum: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 10/1270. Cart., no. 3404.

164 APPENDIX



William of Bretsac: Simple brother probably in the priory of St. Gilles in 3/1216.Cart., no. 1467.

William of Codaleto: Simple brother in Avignon in 1232. Cart. Avignon, nos. 25, 49,chs. 42, 43.

William of Garda (La Garde): Procurator in the commandery of Avignon in 1192.

Cart. Avignon, no. 78, ch. 8.William of Grignam: Drôme. Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 9/1186, 4/1195.Cart. St. Gilles , no. 216; Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 52.

William of Le Fosse: Gard. Simple brother in St. Gilles in 7/1185, 9/1190. Cart. St.

Gilles , nos. 307, 271.William of Mannas: Commander of Pernes (Vaucluse) in 7/1204 and Drapier of

Trinquetaille in 9/1207. Cart. St. Gilles , no. 4; Cart. Trinquetaille , no. 209.William of Marseilles: Cleric in Trinquetaille in 5,6,9/1210. Cart. Trinquetaille , nos.

220, 209, 211.William of Nemauso (Nemse): Nîmes, Gard. Commander of Avignon in 8,9/1207,

2/1209. Cart. Avignon, chs. 18, 19, 21.William of Mauguio: Hérault. Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 4/1205. Cart.

Trinquetaille , no. 303.William of Pons: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 8/1272. Cart., no. 3467.William of Remolinis: Simple brother in St. Gilles in 9/1204. Cart. St. Gilles , nos.

136–37.William of Rodor (or Rodos?): Cleric in the priory of St. Gilles in 2/1241. Cart., no.

2268.William of Roquette: Perhaps Roquette sur Var, Alpes Maritimes. Simple brother

probably in Narbonne in 9/1274. Cart., no. 3546.William of Serras: Simple brother in Trinquetaille in 6/1194, 3/1199, 1/1201.

Cart. Trinquetaille , nos. 162, 65, 193.William of Taulinnann: Simple brother in the commandery of St. Gilles in

12/1194, 10/1195, 6/1197. Drapier of this house in 12/1198 and 1202.Vice-commander in 5/1202. Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 113, 118–19, 121, 123, 84, 79, 7;Cart. Avignon, nos. 38, 50, 52, 56, chs. 11–13 (in all these without title).

William of Villaret*: Master. Drapier of the Order from 1266 to 1270. Vice-priorof St. Gilles in 1269 until 1271, when he became Prior of St. Gilles. Adminis-

trator for Pope Gregory X of the papal lands of the Comtat Venaissin. Masterfrom 1296 until 1304. See Delaville Le Roulx, Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte ,pp. 251–66.

William of Viviers: Cleric in the priory of St. Gilles in 3/1216. Cart., no. 1467.William Sabaterius (Zabaterius): Simple brother in St. Gilles in 5,9/1204, 7/1205.

Cart. St. Gilles , nos. 51, 136–37, 358.William Scriptor: Commander of Montpellier in 2/1213. Cart. Avignon, no. 75.Ximen of Labata: Navarre. Prior of St. Gilles. Commander of Huesca in

Aragon in 2/1198, 2/1200. Castellan of Amposta in 8,9/1201. Grandcommander of Spain in 6, /1205, 11/1208, 1/1209, 9/1210. In 12/1205 heheld both the castellany of Amposta and the priory of St. Gilles. Cart., nos. 989,1014, 1112, 1150, 1165, 1220, 1228, 1319, 1321, 1356, 1357.




Priory of Auvergne

Berald of St. Privat: Commander of Puy en Velay in 11/1263. Cart. Velay, no. 56.Bernard of Chambun: Commander of Chazelles in 6/1253, 9/1256. Commander

of St. Bonnet les Places (member of Chazelles) in 7/1259. Commander of bothhouses in 12/1263 and 5/1264. Cart., no. 2645: AD du Rhône (antérieur), pp. 150,

158.Bertrand of Espinassa: Commander of Montchamp in 7/1273. Cart. Velay, no. 64.Estorgne Revell: Commander of St. Bonnet les Places in 1/1249. AD du Rhône

(antérieur), p. 158.Gerald Esquint: Commander of Puy en Velay c.1188. Cart. Velay, no. 49.Gerald of Charentena: Commander of Chazelles in 10/1273. AD du Rhône

(antérieur), p. 153.Gerald of Chasaletum: Simple brother probably in Puy en Velay in 7/1273. Cart.

Velay, p. 64.

Giraud of Navis: Commander of Chazelles in 4/1267, 7/1269. AD du Rhône (antérieur), pp. 152, 166–67.

Manfred of Châteauneuf: Commander of Puy en Velay in 7/1273. Cart. Velay, no.64.

Nicholas of Clermont: Chaplain of the prior of Auvergne in 7/1273. Cart. Velay, no.64; Cart. no. 3512.

Peter of Cenevil: Commander of Puy en Velay in 1248. Cart. Velay, no. 54.Peter of Mirmanda (Hatt.)*: For place of origin, personal background and his

career in the Order see Chapter 4 above, p. 138. Joined the commandery of Alleyras (part of Puy en Velay) in 1163. Simple brother in Acre in 1184 and in Jerusalem in 4/1185. Castellan of Crac in 1/1193, 8/1198, 6/1199. Grandcommander of the Order in Acre in 1202. Cart. Velay, n. 16. Cart. nos. 663, 754,941, 1031, 1085, 1096, 1156; RRH , no. 787b.

Pons of Melgueil: Hérault. Commander of Puy en Velay in 8/1215. Cart. Velay, no.50.

Raynaud of Lapte: Commander of Devesset (Ardèche) in 11/1246. Cart. Velay, no.53.

Robert of Montrognon: Prior of Auvergne in 1/1261, 12/1262, 3/1267,12/1269, 10/1272, 2,7/1273. Cart., nos. 2974, 3043, 3249, 3373, 3476,

3487–88, 3512; AD du Rhône (antérieur), pp. 153, 166–67.William of Noalhac: Commander of Belveyre in 8/1258. AD du Rhône (antérieur), p.

19.

Grand commander of Outremer (who has not been mentioned above)

Garcia of Lisa: Simple brother in Huesca in 1181 or 1182. Castellan of Amposta in11,12/1186, 10/1187. Grand commander of Outremer in 1196, 6/1198 and

7/1199. Cart., nos. 588, 597–98, 820, 822, 835, 925, 1022, 1026, 1056–57. Cart.St. Gilles , nos. 263, 273; Cart. Avignon, no. 76 and suppl. 1. Delaville Le Roulx, Les

Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte , p. 414.

166 APPENDIX



Bibliography

Manuscript Sources

Lyons: Archives départementales du Rhône

48H: Cartulaire de l’ordre des Hospitaliers.

Marseilles: Archives départementales des Bouches-du-Rhône

56H: Charters of the Hospitallers and the Templars.

Paris: Archives Nationales

Cart. Fieffes, S5059, S5533.Cartulaire de la commanderie de Saulce sur Yonne, S5235.

Bibliothèque NationaleCart. Éterpigny, nouv. acq. lat. 927.

Toulouse: Archives départementales de la Haute-Garonne

Archives écclesiastiques – série H: Charters of the Hospitallers and the Templars.

Vatican City:Vat. Reg. 9–13: Regesta Honorii III.

Printed Sources

Abu’l Fida, Géographie , trans. M. Reinaud and S. Guyard, 2 vols., Paris, 1848–1883. ———. ‘Annales’, RHC Or. vol. I. ———. The Memories of a Syrian Prince. Abu’l Fid , Sultan on Ham h (672–732/1273–1331),

trans. P.M.Holt, Wiesbaden, 1983. Abu Shama, ‘Le Livre des Deux Jardins’, RHC Or , vols. IV, V. Acta Aragonensia , ed. H. Finke, 3 vols., Berlin, 1922 (reprint Berlin, 1966). Acta imperii inedita, saeculi XIII , ed. E. Winkelmann, 2 vols., Innsbruck, 1880, 1885. Al-Aini, ‘The Collar of Pearls’, extr. trans., in RHC Or , vol. II.

Al-Maqrizi, Histoire des sultans Mamlouks de l’Égypte , trans. M.Quatremère, 2 vols., Paris,1837, 1842.The Alexiad of the princess Anna Comnena , trans. E.A.A. Dawes, London, 1967.

Amadi, Chroniques d’Amadi et de Strambaldi , ed. R. de Mas Latrie (Collection de documentsinédits sur l’histoire de France), vol. I, Paris, 1891.



‘Annales Ceccanenses’, MGH SS , XIX, pp. 274–302.‘Annales de Terre Sainte’, ed. G. Raynaud and R. Röhricht, AOL , vol. II.

Annales Ecclesiastici , ed. C. Baronius, A. Pagi, O. Raynaldus and A. Theiner, 37 vols.,Bar-le-Duc and Paris, 1864–85.

‘Annales Monasterii de Burton 1004–1263’, ed. H.R. Luard, Annales Monastici , vol. I,Rolls Series 36, London, 1864.

Beaufort, F. Karamania or a Brief Description of the South Coast of Asia Minor and of the Remains of Antiquity, London, 1817.

Bullarium Ordinis Militiae de Calatrava , ed. I.J. Ortega y Cotes, Madrid, 1761 (reprint Barce-lona, 1981).

Burchard of Mount Sion, ‘Descriptio Terrae Sanctae’, Peregrinatores Medii Aevi Quator , ed. J.C.M. Laurent, Leipzig, 1864.

Cartulaire de l’abbaye Notre Dame de Léoncel , ed. U. Chevalier, Montélimar, 1869.Cartulaire de l’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Bruxelles, actes des XII–XIII siècles , ed. P. Bonenfant,

Brussels, 1953.Cartulaire de Trinquetaille , ed. P.A. Amarguier, Gap, 1972.

Cartulaire des Hospitaliers du Velay, ed. A. Chassaing, Paris, 1888.Cartulaire du Prieuré de La Charité-sur-Loire (Nièvre), ed. R. de Lespinasse, Nevers and Paris,

1887.Cartulaire du Prieuré de Saint Gilles de l’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Jérusalem (1129–1210), ed.

D. Le Blevec and A. Venturini, Paris, 1997.Cartulaire et chartes de la commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem d’Avignon au temps de

la Commune (1170–1250), ed. C.-F. Hollard, Paris, 2001.Cartulaire général de l’Ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint Jean de Jérusalem, 1100–1310 , ed.

J. Delaville Le Roulx, 4 vols., Paris, 1894–1906.The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in England, Secunda Camera: Essex , ed.

M. Gervers, Oxford, 1982.The Cartulary of the Knights of St. John of Jerusalem in England, Part 2, Prima Camera, Essex , ed.M. Gervers, Oxford, 1996.

Catálogo de la documentacíon Navarra de la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén en el Archivo Historico Nacional, siglos XII–XIX , ed. C. Gutierrez del Arroyo, 2 vols., Pamplona, 1992.

Chartes de coutume en Picardie (XI–XIII siècle), ed. R. Fossier (Collection de documents inéditssur l’histoire de France, vol. 10), Paris, 1974. .

Chartes du Forez antérieures au XIV siècle , ed. G. Guichard, 23 vols., Mâcon, 1933–78.‘Chartularium domus Hospitalis Hierosolymitani Sancti Pauli prope Romanis’,

Cartulaires des Hospitaliers et Templiers en Dauphiné (Bulletin d’Histoire et d’Archéologie du

Diocèse de Valence, Collection de Cartulaires Dauphinois), ed. U. Chevalier, Romans, 1875.Choix des poésies des troubadours , ed. F. Raynouard, 6 vols., Paris, 1816–21.Chronica de Mailros , ed. J. Stevenson, Edinburgh, 1835.‘Chronica minor auctore minorita Erphordiensis’, MGH SS , XXIV.Conciliorum oecumenicorum decreta , ed. J. Alberigo et al., Bologna, 1973 (3rd edition).Constable Sempad, ‘Chronique du Royaume de la Petite Arménie par le connétable

Sempad’, RHC Arm, vol. I. ———. La Chronique Attribuée au Connétable Smbat , ed. G. Dédéyan, Paris, 1980.‘Continuation de Guillaume de Tyr de 1229 à 1261, dite du manuscrit de Rothelin’,

RHC Oc ., vol. II.Councils and Synods with Other Documents Relating to the English Church, 871–1313, ed. F.M.

Powicke, D. Whitelock et al., 2 vols. in 4, Oxford, 1964–81. Diplomatic Documents , ed. P. Chaplais, 2 vols., London, 1964. Documentos de Clemente IV (1265–1268) referentes a España , ed. S. Domínguez Sánchez,

León, 1996.

168 BIBLIOGRAPHY: PRINTED SOURCES



Documents inédits sur le commerce de Marseille au Moyen-Âge , ed. L. Blancard, 2 vols., Marseille,1884–85.

Epistolae Saeculi XIII e Regestis Pontificum Romanorum, ed. C. Rodenberg, MGH Epistolae ,3 vols., Berlin, 1893–94.

‘L’Estoire d’Eracles empereur et le conqueste de la Terre d’Outremer’, RHC Oc., vols. I,II.

Flores Historiarum, ed. H.R. Luard, vols. II, III, Rolls Series 95, London, 1890.Foedera, conventiones, literae, et cuiuscunque generis acta publica inter reges Angliae et alios quosvis

imperatores, reges, pontifices, principes, vel communitates, 1101–1654 , ed. T. Rymer (1739–45);new ed. A. Clarke et al., 4 vols., London, 1816–69.

Gallia christiana novissima , ed. J.H. Albanès and U. Chevalier, 7 vols., Montbéliard andValence, 1895–1920.

‘Gesta crucigerorum Rhenanorum’, Quinti belli sacri scriptores minores , ed. R. Röhricht,Geneva, 1879, pp. 27–57.

‘Gesta obsidionis Damiate’, Quinti belli sacri scriptores minores , ed. R. Röhricht, Geneva,1879, pp. 71–115.

Gestes des Chiprois , ed. G. Raynaud, Geneva, 1887.Gilbert of Tournai, ‘Collectio de scandalis ecclesiae’, ed. A. Stroick, Archivum

Franciscanum historicum, 24 (1931), pp. 32–62.El gran priorado de Navarra de la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén, ed. S.A. Garcìa Larrageta,

2 vols., Pamplona, 1957.Histoire et cartulaire des Templiers de Provins , ed. V. Carrière, Paris, 1919.Historia diplomatica Friderici secundi , ed. J.L.A. Huillard-Bréholles, 6 vols., Paris,1852–61.Ibn-’Abd-al-Zahir, Life of Baybars , ed. and trans. S.F. Sadeque, Dacca, 1956.Ibn al-Furat, Ayyubids, Mamlukes and Crusaders. Selections from the Tarikh al-Duwal wa’l-Muluk

of Ibn al-Furat , ed. and trans. M.C and U. Lyon, with historical introduction and notes

by J. Riley-Smith, Cambridge, 1971, vol. 2.Imâd ad-Dîn al-Işfahâni, Conquête de la Syrie et de la Palestine par Saladin, trans. H. Massé,Paris, 1972.

Inventaire sommaire des Archives Départementales du Rhône, Archives Écclésiastiques, série H , ed.M.C. Faure, Lyons, 1945, vol. III.

Inventaire sommaire des Archives Départementales du Rhône antérieures à 1790, Archives écclésiastiques,série H , Lyons, 1932, vol. II.

Innocent III, ‘Opera Omnia’, PL , CCXIV–CCXVII. ———. Die Register Innocenz’ III , ed. O. Hageneder and A. Haidacher et al., 7 vols.,

Grasse, Cologne, Rome and Vienne, 1964–97.

———. The Letters of Pope Innocent III concerning England and Wales (1198–1216). A calendar with an appendix of texts , ed. C.R. and M. Cheney, Oxford, 1967. James I, The Book of Deeds of James I of Aragon. A Translation of the Medieval Catalan ‘Llibres

dels Fets’ , trans. H. Buffery and D. Smith, Aldershot, 2003. James of Vitry, ‘Historia orientalis seu Hierosolymitana’, Gesta Dei per Francos , ed.

J. Bongars, Hanover, 1611, vol. I. Lettres de Jacques de Vitry, 1160/1170–1240 , ed.R.B.C. Huygens, Leiden, 1960.

John of Beaumont, ‘Lettre à Geoffroi de la Chapelle sur la prise de Damiette’, AOL , vol. I, pp. 389–90.

John of Joinville, Vie de Saint Louis , ed. J. Monfrin, Paris, 1995. ———. ‘La défense du Temple devant le concile de Lyon en 1274’, ed. P. Amargier, in

1274: Année charnière: mutations et continuités. Colloques internationaux du CentreNational de la Recherche Scientifique, Paris, 1977, pp. 495–51.

Layettes du Trésor des Chartes , ed. J.B.A.T. Teulet, 3 vols., Paris, 1863–75.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: PRINTED SOURCES 169



‘Lettre à Charles d’Anjou sur les affaires de Terre Sainte’, ed. C.V. Langlois, Bibliothèque de l’école des Chartes , 78 (1917), pp. 487–90.

Libros de privilegios de la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén en Castilla y León, ed. C. de AyalaMartínez, Madrid, 1995.

‘Livre des Assises de la Cour des Bourgeois’, RHC, Lois , tom. II.‘Magni presbyteri annales Rechespergenses’, MGH SS , XVII, pp. 439–534.

Malteser Urkunden und Regesten zur Geschichte der Tempelherren und der Johanniter , ed. H. Prutz,Munich, 1883.

Marino Sanudo the Elder, ‘Liber secretorum fidelium crucis (1321)’, Gesta Dei per Francos ,ed. J. Bongars, Hanover, 1611, vol. II.

Matthew Paris, Chronica Maiora , ed. H.R. Luard, vols. IV–VI, Rolls Series 57, London,1877, 1880, 1882.

‘Menkonis Chronicon’, MGH SS , XXIII, pp. 547–49.‘Mittitur eis pecunia’, PL , CCXVI, cols. 37–38.Odo of Châteauroux, Spicilegium sive collectio veterum aliquot scriptorum, eds. L. d’Achèry and

L.F.J. de la Barre, Paris, 1723, vol. III.

Oliver of Paderborn, Historia Damiatina , ed. H. Hoogeweg, Bibliothek des literarischen Vereins in Stuttgart , 202. Tübingen, 1894.

Papsturkunden für Templer und Johanniter , ed. R. Hiestand, Vorarbeiten zum OriensPontificius, vols. I–II, Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften in Göttingen, 77, 135,Göttingen, 1972, 1984.

Papsturkunden in Spanien vorarbeiten zur Hispania Pontifica , 2 vols., ed. P. Kehr, Berlin,1926–28.

Pegolotti, F.B. La pratica della mercatura , ed. A. Evans, Cambridge (Mass.), 1936.Peregrinationes tres: Saewulf, John of Würzburg, Theodericus , ed. R.B.C.Huygens, Corpus

Christianorum Continuatio Medievalis, 139, Turnhout, 1994.

‘Philippi curia Quedlinburgensis’, MGH Legum, II, p. 213.Recueil des Actes des Comtes de Provence appartenant à la maison de Barcelone , ed. F. Benoit, 2 vols.,Paris, 1925.

Recueil des historiens des croisades Documents Arméniens , 2 vols., Paris 1869, 1906.Historiens occidentaux , 5 vols., Paris, 1844–1895.Historiens orientaux , 5 vols., Paris, 1872–1906.Lois. Les Assises de Jérusalem, 2 vols., Paris, 1841–43.

Recueil des Historiens des Gaules et de la France , ed. M. Bouquet et al., 24 vols., Paris,1737–1904.

Regesta Honorii papae III , ed. P. Pressutti, Rome, 2 vols., 1888–95.Regesta Pontificum Romanorum, ed. A. Potthast, 2 vols., Berlin, 1873–75.Regesta Regni Hierosolymitani , ed. R. Röhricht, 2 vols., Innsbruck, 1893.

Additamentum, Innsbruck, 1904.Les Registres d’Alexandre IV , ed. C. Bourel de la Roncière, A. Coulon and J. de.Loye ( BEFAR ), 3 vols., Paris, 1902, 1917, 1953 (tables, 1959).Les Registres de Clément IV , ed. É. Jordan ( BEFAR ), Paris, 1893.Les Registres de Grégoire IX , ed. L. Auvray ( BEFAR ), 3 vols., Paris, 1896–1908.Les Registres de Grégoire X , ed. J. Guiraud ( BEFAR ), 3 vols. including tables, Paris, 1892,

1906, 1908.Les Registres d’Innocent IV , ed. É. Berger, 4 vols., Paris, 1884–1921.Les Registres d’Urbain IV , ed. M.J. Guiraud ( BEFAR ), 4 vols. inc. tables, Paris, 1901, 1929,

1958.I Registri della cancelleria angioina ricostruiti , ed. R. Filangieri di Candida et al , 28 vols. so far,

Naples, 1950– .

170 BIBLIOGRAPHY: PRINTED SOURCES



‘Richeri Gesta Senoniensis Ecclesiae’, MGH SS , XXV, pp. 249–345.Sacrorum conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio, ed. J.D. Mansi et al., 55 vols., Florence,

Venice, Paris, Arnhem, Leipzig, 1759–1962.Salimbene de Adam, ‘Cronica’, MGH SS , XXXII.Tabulae Ordinis Theutonici , ed. E. Strehlke, Berlin, 1864.Thesaurus novus anecdotorum, ed. U. Durand and E. Martène, 5 vols., Paris, 1717 (repr.

Farnborough, 1968).Travels to Tana and Persia by Josafa Barbaro and Ambrogio Contarini , ed. Lord Stanley of

Alderley, trans. W. Thomas London, 1873.Urkunden zur älteren Handels- und Staatsgeschichte der Republik Venedig mit besonderer Beziehung auf

Byzanz und die Levante , 3 vols., ed. G.L. Tafel and G.M. Thomas, Vienna, 1856–57.Willbrand of Oldenburg, ‘Itinerarium Terrae Sanctae’, Peregrinatores medii aevi quatuor , ed.

J.C.M. Laurent, Leipzig, 1864.Willelmi Tyrensis Archiepiscopi Chronicon, ed. R.B.C. Huygens, Corpus Christianorum Continuatio

Medievalis, 63–63A, 2 vols., Turnhout, 1986.

Secondary Works

Abulafia, D. The Two Italies , Cambridge, 1977. ———. Frederick II. A Medieval Emperor , London, 2nd ed. 1992. ———. The Western Mediterranean Kingdoms, 1200–1500: The Struggle for Dominion, London

and New York, 1997. ———. ‘The Kingdom of Sicily under the Hohenstaufen and Angevins’, The New

Cambridge Medieval History, vol. V, ed. D. Abulafia, Cambridge, 1995, pp. 497–521. ———. ‘La produzione dello zucchero nei domini della Corona d’Aragona’, Medioevo

Mezzogiorno Mediterraneo, Studi in onore di Mario Del Treppo, ed. G. Rossetti and G. Vitolo(Europa Mediterranea, quaderni 13), vol. II, Naples, 2000, pp. 105–19.

Arbois de Jubainville, H de. Histoire de Bar-sur-Aube sous les Comtes de Champagne,1077–1284 , Paris, 1859.

———. Histoire des ducs et des comtes de Champagne , 6 vols., Paris, 1859–66. Ashtor, E. ‘Levantine Sugar Industry in the Later Middle Ages, an Example of Techno-

logical Decline’, Israel Oriental Studies , 7 (1971), pp. 227–76. Atlas historique. Provence, Comtat Venaissin, Principauté de Monaco, Principauté d’Orange, Comté de

Nice , ed. E. Baratier, G. Duby and E. Hildesheimer, Paris, 1969. Aurell, M. ‘Nécropoles et donats: Les comtes de la maison de Barcelone et l’Hôpital

(XII–XIII siècles)’, Provence historique , 45 (1995), pp. 7–23. Avramea, A. ‘Land and Sea Communications, Fourth-Fifteenth Centuries’, The Economic History of Byzantium. From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, vol. I, ed. A.E. Laiou,Washington, D.C, 2002, pp. 57–90.

Ayala Martínez, C. de. ‘Alfonso X y la Orden de San Juan de Jerusalén’, Estudios de Historia Medieval. Homenaje a Luis Suarez , ed. V. Alvarez Palenzuela, M. Ladero Quesadaand J. Valdeón Baruque, Valladolid, 1991, pp. 29–50.

——— et al., ‘Las Órdenes Militares en la Edad Media peninsular. Historiografia1976–1992’, Medievalismo. Boletín de la Sociedad Española de Estudios Medievales , 2 (1992),pp. 119–69, 3 (1993), pp. 142–44.

Barag, D. ‘A New Source Concerning the Ultimate Borders of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem’, Israel Exploration Journal , 29 (1979), pp. 197–217.Barber, M. ‘The Social Context of the Templars’, TRHS , 5th series, 34 (1984),

pp. 27–46. ———. The New Knighthood. A History of the Order of the Temple , Cambridge, 1994.

BIBLIOGRAPHY: SECONDARY WORKS 171



———. ‘Supplying the Crusader States: The Role of the Templars’, The Horns of Hattin,ed. B.Z.Kedar, Jerusalem and London, 1992, pp. 314–26.

———. The Cathars. Dualist Heretics in Languedoc in the High Middle Ages , Harlow, 2000.Barquero Goñi, C. ‘El carácter militar de la orden de San Juan en Castilla y León (siglos

XII–XIV)’, Revista de Historia Militar , 73 (1992), pp. 53–80. ———. ‘Los Hospitalarios y la monarquia Castellano-Leonesa (siglos XII–XIII)’, Centro

de estudios e investigación ‘San Isidoro’ (CECEL), Archivo Histórico Diocesano, León, 1995,pp. 53–119.

———. ‘La Orden de San Juan en Castilla y León durante la edad media (siglosXII–XV)’, La Orden Militar de San Juan en la Península Ibérica durante la Edad Media. Actas del congreso internacional celebrado en Alcázar de San Juan los dias 23, 24 y 25 de octubre de 2000 , ed. R. Izquierdo Benito, J. Molero García and F. Ruiz Gómez, Alcázar de San

Juan, 2002, pp. 99–120. ———. Los caballeros Hospitalarios en España durante la Edad Media (siglos XII–XV), Burgos,

2003.Bautier, R.H. ‘Recherches sur les routes de l’Europe médiévale’, Bulletin philologique et

historique du comité des travaux historiques et scientifiques , 1 (1960), pp. 99–143.Beaucage, B. ‘Une énigme des hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem: le déficit des

commanderies du moyen Rhône, au prieuré de Provence en 1338’, Provence historique 30 (1980), pp. 137–62.

———. ‘Difficultés économiques et réaction seigneuriale au terroir de Beaucaire: Lacommanderie des Hospitaliers de Saint-Pierre de Campublic aux XIV et XV siècles’,Canadian Journal of History/Annales Canadiennes d’Histoire 25 (1990), pp. 1–20.

Benvenisti, M. The Crusaders in the Holy Land , Jerusalem, 1970.Berend, N. At the Gate of Christendom. Jews, Muslims and ‘Pagans’ in Medieval Hungary,

c.1000–c.1300 , Cambridge, 2001.

Berthe, M. ‘Deux commanderies Hospitalières du Lauragais, Puysubran et Caignac(XII–XIV siècle)’, Les Ordres Militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement en Europe occidentale, XII–XIII siècles , Flaran 6 (1984), pp. 207–13.

Blanchard, R. ‘Asie Occidentale’, Géographie Universelle , ed. L. Gallois and P. Vidal de laBlanche, Paris, 1929, vol. VIII.

Bloch, M. Feudal Society, trans. L.A. Manyon, London and New York, 1989.Boas, A.J. Crusader Archeology. The Material Culture of the Latin East , London, 1999.Boase, T.S.R. ‘Gazetteer’, The Cilician Kingdom of Armenia , ed. T.S.R. Boase, Edinburgh

and London, 1978, pp. 145–85.Bolton, B. ‘Serpent in the Dust: Sparrow on the Housetop: Attitudes to Jerusalem and the Holy

Land in the Circle of Pope Innocent III’, The Holy Land, Holy Lands, and ChristianHistory, ed. R.N. Swanson, Woodbridge, 2000, pp. 154–80.Bonet Donato, M. La Orden del Hospital en la Corona de Aragón: Poder y gobierno en la Castellanía

de Amposta (S. XII–XV), Madrid, 1994.Bonnin, J.–C. ‘Les Templiers et la mer: l’exemple de La Rochelle’, La Commanderie, institu-

tion des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval , ed. A. Luttrell and L. Pressouyre, Paris,2002, pp. 307–15.

Bourrilly, V.L and Busquet, R. La Provence au Moyen Âge , Marseille, 1924.Bramato, F. Storia dell’ordine dei Templari in Italia , 2 vols., Rome, 1991–94.Bronstein, J. ‘La organización internacional de la Orden del Hospital. Algunas reflexiones

sobre la contribución de los prioratos ibéricos a la Orden en Tierra Santa’, in Órdenes Militares en la Edad Media. II. Alcazar de San Juan (Ciudad Real, forthcoming).

———. ‘The Mobilization of Hospitallers’ Manpower from Europe to the Latin East inthe Thirteenth Century’, International Mobility in the Military Orders , ed. J. Burgtorf andH. Nicholson (University of Wales Press, forthcoming).

172 BIBLIOGRAPHY: SECONDARY WORKS



Brundage, J.M. Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader , Madison, 1969.Bulst-Thiele, M.L. Sacrae Domus Militiae Templi Hierosolymitani Magistri: Untersuchungen zur

Geschichte des Templerordens 1118/9–1314 , Göttingen, 1974.Bur, M. La formation du comté de Champagne, v.950–v.1150 , Nancy, 1977.Burgtorf, J. ‘Wind beneath the Wings: Subordinate Headquarters Officials in the

Hospital and the Temple from the Twelfth and Early Fourteenth Centuries’, The Mili-tary Orders. Vol. 2. Welfare and Warfare , ed. H. Nicholson, Aldershot, 1998, pp. 217–24.

———. ‘Leadership and Structures in the Orders of the Hospital and the Temple(Twelfth and early Fourteenth Century). Select Aspects’, The Crusades and the MilitaryOrders. Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, ed. Z. Hunyadi and

J. Laszlovszky, Budapest, 2001, pp. 379–94.Cahen, C. La Syrie du Nord à l’époque des croisades et la principauté franque d’Antioche (Institut

français de Damas. Bibliothèque orientale, I), Paris, 1940.Carbasse, J.-M. ‘Les commanderies: aspects juridiques et institutionnels’, La Commanderie,

institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval , ed. A. Luttrell and L. Pressouyre,Paris, 2002, pp. 19–27.

Carraz, D. ‘Templiers et Hospitaliers en France méridionale (XII–XIII siècles). À proposd’un ouvrage rècent’, Provence historique , 50 (2000), pp. 207–37.

———. ‘Les ordres militaires et la ville (XII – début du XIV siècle): L’exemple descommanderies urbaines de la basse vallée du Rhône’, Annales du Midi , 114 (2002),pp. 275–92.

———. ‘L’anticléricalisme en France méridionale (milieu XII – début XIV siècle)’,Cahiers de Fanjeaux 38 (2002), pp. 375–404.

Cathcart King, D.J. ‘The Taking of Le Krak des Chevaliers in 1271’, Antiquity, 23 (1943),pp. 83–92.

Chapoutot-Remadi, M. ‘L’Agriculture dans l’Empire Mamluk au moyen âge d’après

al-Nuwayrî’, Les Cahiers de Tunisie , 22 (1974), pp. 23–45.Cheney, C.R. Pope Innocent III and England , Stuttgart, 1976.Cleve, H. ‘Kaiser Friedrich II und die Ritterorden’, Deutsches Archiv für Erforschung des

Mittelalters , 49 (1993), pp. 39–73.Cole, P.J. The Preaching of the Crusades to the Holy Land, 1095–1270 , Cambridge (Mass.),

1991.Coulet, N. ‘Les ordres militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement dans le sud-est de la

France au Moyen Âge’, Flaran: Les Ordres Militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement en Europe occidentale, XII–XIII siècles , 6 (1984), pp. 37–60.

——— and Stouff, L. ‘Le village de Provence au Bas Moyen Âge’, Cahiers du Centre

d’Études des Sociétés Méditerranéennes , Nouvelle Série, 2 (1987), pp. 32–65.Coureas, N. The Latin Church in Cyprus, 1195–1312, Aldershot, 1997. ———. ‘The Role of the Templars and the Hospitallers in the Movement of Commodi-

ties involving Cyprus, 1291–1312’, The Experience of Crusading. Volume Two: Defending the Crusader Kingdom, ed. P.W. Edbury and J. Phillips, Cambridge, 2003, pp. 257–74.

Deerr, N. The History of Sugar , 2 vols., London, 1949.Delaruelle, E. ‘Templiers et Hospitaliers en Languedoc pendant la Croisade des

Albigeois’, Cahiers de Fanjeaux , vol. 4 (1969), pp. 322–27.Delaville Le Roulx, J. ‘Liste des grands prieurs de Rome de l’Ordre de l’Hôpital de

S. Jean de Jérusalem’, Mélanges de Rossi, supplement aux Mélanges d’archéolgie et d’histoire publiés par l’École Française de Rome , vol. XII, 1892, pp. 263–69.

———. Les Hospitaliers en Terre Sainte et à Chypre , Paris, 1904.Demurger, A. Vie et mort de l’ordre du Temple, 1118–1314 , Paris, 1989.

———. Chevaliers du Christ. Les ordres religieux-militaires au Moyen Âge (XI–XVI siècles), Paris,2002.




Der Nersessian, S. ‘The Kingdom of Cilician Armenia’, Études Byzantines et Arméniennes ,Louvain, 1973, vol. I, pp. 329–52.

Deschamps, P. Les châteaux des croisés en Terre Sainte , 3 vols., Paris, 1934–1973. Dictionary of National Biography, ed. S. Lee and L. Stephen, 63 vols., London, 1895–1900. Dictionnaire de Droit Canonique , ed. R. Naz, 7 vols., Paris, 1935–65. Dictionnaire de théologie Catholique , ed. E. Mangenot, A. Vacant et al., 15 vols., Paris,

1915–50.Duby, G. Rural Economy and Country Life in the Medieval West , trans. C. Postan, London,

1968. ———. The Chivalrous Society, trans. C. Postan, London, 1977.Dunbabin, J. Charles I of Anjou. Power, Kingship and State-Making in Thirteenth-Century Europe ,

London and New York, 1998.Edbury, P.W. The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191–1374 , Cambridge, 1991.

———. ‘The Medieval Kingdom of Cyprus’, Medieval History, 2 (1992), pp. 86–91. ———. John of Ibelin and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Woodbridge, 1997. ———. ‘John of Ibelin’s Title to the County of Jaffa and Ascalon’, Kingdoms of the .

———. Crusades. From Jerusalem to Cyprus , Aldershot, 1999, essay number VII, pp.115–33.

———. ‘The Franco-Cypriot Landowning Class and its Exploitation of the AgrarianResources of the Island of Cyprus’, Kingdoms of the Crusades. From Jerusalem to Cyprus ,

Aldershot, 1999, essay number XIX, pp. 1–7.Edwards, R.W., The Fortifications of Armenian Cilicia , Washington, 1987.El’ad, A. ‘The Coastal Cities of Eretz-Israel in the Arab Period (640–1099) on the Basis

of Arab Sources’, Cathedra , 8 (1978), pp. 155–78 (in Hebrew).Ellenblum, R. ‘Three Generations of Frankish Castle-Building in the Latin Kingdom of

Jerusalem’, Autour de la Première Croisade, Actes du Colloque de la Society for the Study of the

Crusades and the Latin East (Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 juin 1995), ed. M. Balard, Paris,1996, pp. 517–529. ———. Frankish Rural Settlement in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, Cambridge, 1998.Engelmann, E. Zur Städtischen Volksbewegung in Südfrankreich: Kommunefreiheit und Gesellschaft:

Arles 1200–1250 , Berlin, 1959.Favreau-Lilie, M.-L. ‘The Military Orders and the Escape of the Christian Population

from the Holy Land in 1291’, Journal of Medieval History, 19 (1993), pp. 201–27.Forey, A. The Templars in the Corona de Aragón, London, 1973.

———. ‘Recruitment to the Military Orders, Twelfth to mid-Fourteenth Centuries’,Viator , 17 (1986), pp. 139–71.

———. The Military Orders, from the Twelfth to the Early Fourteenth Centuries , London, 1992. ———. ‘Military Orders and Secular Warfare in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century’,Viator. Medieval and Renaissance Studies , 24 (1993), pp. 79–100.

———. ‘The Military Orders and the Holy War against Christians in the ThirteenthCentury’, Military Orders and the Crusades , Aldershot, 1994, essay number II, pp. 1–14.

———. ‘The Military Orders and the Spanish Reconquest in the Twelfth andThirteenth Centuries’, Military Orders and the Crusades , Aldershot, 1994, essay numberV, pp. 197–234.

———. ‘The Military Orders in the Crusading Proposals of the Late-Thirteenth andEarly-Fourteenth Centuries’, Military Orders and the Crusades , Aldershot, 1994, essaynumber VIII, pp. 317–45.

———. ‘The Militarisation of the Hospital of St. John’, Military Orders and the Crusades , Aldershot, 1994, essay number IX, pp. 75–89.

———. ‘Novitiate and Instruction in the Military Orders in the Twelfth and Thirteenth




Centuries’, Military Orders and the Crusades , Aldershot, 1994, essay number III, pp.1–17.

———. ‘The Military Orders and the Conversion of Muslims in the Twelfth and Thir-teenth Centuries’, Journal of Medieval History, 28 (2002), pp. 1–22.

———. ‘The Charitable Activities of the Templars’, Viator, 34 (2003), pp. 109–41.Foss, C. ‘The Defenses of Asia Minor Against the Turks’, Cities, Fortresses and Villages of

Byzantine Asia Minor , Aldershot, 1996, essay number V, pp. 145–205.Fossier, R. La terre et les hommes en Picardie jusqu’à la fin du XIII s., 2 vols., Paris, 1968.

———. Le Moyen Âge. Le Temps des Crises, 1250–1520 , Paris, 1983. ———. ‘Les Hospitaliers et les Templiers au nord de la Seine et en Bourgogne,

XII–XIV siècles’, Flaran: Les Ordres Militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement en Europe occidentale, XII–XIII siècles , 6 (1984), pp. 13–33.

Fournial, E. Les villes et l’économie d’échange en Forez aux XIII et XIV siècles , Paris, 1967.Fourquin, G. Les campagnes de la région Parisienne à la fin du Moyen Âge , Paris, 1964.Frankel, R. ‘Topographical Notes on the Territory of Acre in the Crusader Period’, Israel

Exploration Journal , 38 (1988), pp. 249–72.

Friedman, Y. Encounter between Enemies. Captivity and Ransom in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem,Leiden, 2002.

García-Guijarro Ramos, L. Papado, cruzadas y órdenes militares, siglos XI–XIII , Madrid, 1995. ———. ‘Estructuracíon interna y trabajo en las órdenes militares del Temple y del

Hospital (siglos XII y XIII)’, El Trabajo a través de la historia , ed. S. Castillo, Madrid,1996, pp. 135–42.

———. ‘La militarización de la Orden del Hospital: líneas para un debate’, Ordens Militares: guerra, religião, poder e cultura – Actas do III Encontro sobre Ordens Militares , ed. I.C.Ferreira Fernandes, Palmela, 1999, vol. II, pp. 293–302.

———. ‘The Aragonese Hospitaller monastery of Sigena. Its early stages,

1188–ca.1210’, Hospitaller Women in the Middle Ages , ed. A. Luttrell and H. Nicholson, Aldershot (forthcoming).García Larragueta, S. ‘Relaciones comerciales entre Aragón y el Hospital de Acre’, VII

Congreso de Historia de la Corona de Aragón (Barcelona), 2 (1962), pp. 507–515.Gervers, M. The Hospitaller Cartulary of the British Library (Cotton MS Nero E VI), Toronto,

1981.Glad, M. ‘Quelques notes sur la commanderie de Laingneville’, Bulletin et Mémoires de la

Société Archéologique et Historique de Clermont-de-l’Oise , 1924, pp. 15–29.Goitein, S.D. ‘A Letter from Seleucia (Cilicia), dated 21 July 1137’, Speculum, 39 (1964),

pp. 298–303.

———. A Mediterranean Society. The Jewish Communities of the Arab World as Portrayed in the Documents of the Cairo Geniza , 5 vols., Berkeley and London, 1967 (repr.1999).Goñi Gaztambide, J. ‘Recensiones’, Hispania Sacra , 9 (1956), pp. 461–464.Grousset, R. Histoire des Croisades et du Royaume Franc de Jérusalem, 3 vols., Paris, 1934–36.Guiral, P. and Amargier, P. Histoire de Marseille , Paris, 1983.Hamilton, B. The Latin Church in the Crusader States: The Secular Church , London, 1980.Heyd, W. Histoire du commerce du Levant au Moyen Âge , trans. F. Reynaud, 2 vols., Leipzig,

1885–86 (repr. Leipzig, 1959).Hiestand, R. ‘Die Anfänge der Johanniter’, Die geistlichen Ritterorden, ed. J. Fleckenstein

and M. Hellmann, Sigmaringen, 1980, pp. 64–78. ———. ‘Some Reflections on the Impact of the Papacy on the Crusader States and the

Military Orders in the Twelfth and Thirteenth Century’, The Crusades and the MilitaryOrders. Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, ed. Z. Hunyadi and

J. Laszlovszky, Budapest, 2001, pp. 3–20.Higounet, C. ‘Hospitaliers et Templiers: Peuplement et exploitation rurale dans le




sud-ouest de la France au Moyen Âge’, Flaran: Les Ordres Militaires, la vie rurale et le peuplement en Europe occidentale, XII–XIII siècles , 6 (1984), pp. 61–78.

Histoire de la Provence , ed. E. Baratier and V.L. Bourrilly, Toulouse, 1969.Hoffman Berman, C. ‘Medieval Agriculture, the Southern French Countryside, and the

Early Cistercians’, Transactions of the American Philosophical Society, 76 (1986), pp. 1–179.Holt, P.M. Early Mamluk Diplomacy (1260–1290), Leiden, New York and Cologne, 1995.Housley, N. The Italian Crusades. The Papal-Angevin Alliance and the Crusades Against Christian

Lay Powers, 1254–1343, Oxford, 1982. ———. The Later Crusades: From Lyons to Alcazar, 1274–1580 , Oxford, 1992.Humphrey-Smith, C. Hugh Revel, Master of the Hospital of St. John of Jerusalem, 1258–1277 ,

Guildford, 1994.Huygens, R.B.C. ‘Un nouveau texte du traité “De constructione castri Saphet” ’, Studi

Medievali , ser. 3, 6 (1965), pp. 355–387.Hyde, J.K. Society and Politics in Medieval Italy. The Evolution of the Civil Life, 1000–1350 ,

London, 1973.Irwin, R. ‘The Supply of Money and the Direction of Trade in Thirteenth Century

Syria’, Coinage in the Latin East, The Fourth Oxford Symposium on Coinage and MonetaryHistory, ed. P.W. Edbury and D.M. Metcalf (British Archaeological Reports, series 77),Oxford, 1980, pp. 73–104.

Jackson, P. ‘The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260’, The English Historical Review , 95 (1980),pp. 481–513.

Jacoby, D. ‘L’évolution urbaine et la fonction méditerranéenne d’Acre à l’époque descroisades’, Trade, Commodities and Shipping in the Medieval Mediterranean, Aldershot, 1997,essay no. V, pp. 95–109.

———. ‘Les communes italiens et les ordres militaires à Acre: aspects juridiques,territoriaux et militaires (1104–1187, 1191–1291)’, Trade, Commodities and Shipping in the

Medieval Mediterranean, Aldershot, 1997, essay no. VI, pp. 193–214. ———. ‘What do we Learn about Byzantine Asia Minor from the Documents of theCairo Genizah?’ Byzantium, Latin Romania and the Mediterranean, Aldershot, 2001, essaynumber I, pp. 83–95.

———. ‘The Supply of War Materials to Egypt in the Crusader Period’, Jerusalem Studies in Arabic and Islam, 25 (2001), pp. 102–32.

———. ‘New Venetian Evidence on Crusader Acre’, The Experience of Crusading. Volume Two. Defining the Crusader Kingdom, ed. P.W. Edbury and J. Phillips, Cambridge, 2003,pp. 240–56.

Jordan, E. Les origines de la domination Angevine en Italie , Paris, 1909.

Jordan, W. Louis IX and the Challenge of the Crusade: A Study of Rulership, Princeton, 1979.Kantorowicz, E. Frederick the Second, 1194–1250 , trans. E.O. Lorimer, London, 1931.Kedar, B.Z. ‘Ein Hilferuf aus Jerusalem vom September 1187’, Deutsches Archiv für

Erforschung des Mittelalters , 38 (1982), pp. 112–22. ———. Crusade and Mission. European Approaches Towards the Muslims , Princeton, 1984.Kennedy, H. Crusaders Castles , Cambridge, 1994.Kesten, A. The Old City of Acre, Re-Examination Report 1993, Acre, 1993.Kloner, A. and Cohen, M. ‘The Crusader Fortress at Beth Guvrin’, Qadmoniot , 33 (2000),

pp. 32–39 (in Hebrew).Labande, L.–H. Avignon au XIII siècle. L’évèque Zoen Tencarari et les Avignonnais , Paris, 1908

(repr. Paris, 1975).Ladero Quesada, M.A. ‘La investigación sobre Órdenes Militares en la Edad Media

hispánica durante los últimos decenios: Corona de Castilla y León’, Las Órdenes Militares en la Península Ibérica. Volumen I. Edad Media , ed. R. Izquierdo Benito and F.Ruiz Gómez, Cuenca, 2000, pp. 9–31.




——— and Gonzáles Jiménez, M. ‘La Orden Militar de San Juan en Andalucía’, ArchivoHispalense , 180 (1976), pp. 129–39.

Le Blévec, D. ‘L’Hôpital de Saint Jean de Jérusalem à Avignon et en comtat Venaissin auXIII siècle’, Des Hospitaliers de Saint Jean de Jérusalem de Chypre et de Rhodes hier aux cheva-liers de Malte aujourd’hui , Paris, 1985, pp. 17–61.

———. ‘Les Hospitaliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem en Bas-Vivarais: la commanderiede Trignan, XII–XIII siècles’, Religion et société en Ardèche et dans l’ancien pays de Vivarais,actes du 2 colloque, Privas, 23–24 Mars 1985 , pp. 18–35.

——— and Venturini, A. ‘Cartulaires des ordres militaires, XII–XIII siècles (ProvenceOccidentale, Basse vallée du Rhône)’, Les Cartulaires. Actes de la table ronde, organisée par l’École Nationale des Chartes et le G.D.R 121 du C.N.R.S., ed. O. Guyotjeannin, L. Morelleand M. Parisse, Paris, 1993, pp. 451–65.

Ledesma Rubio, M.L. ‘Nota sobre la actividad militar de los Hospitalarios’, Principe de Viana , 25 (1964), pp. 51–56.

———. Templarios y Hospitalarios en el Reino de Aragón (Siglos XII–XIV), Zaragoza, 1982.Legras, A.-M. L’enquête pontificale de 1373 sur l’ordre des Hospitalliers de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem,

vol. I, Paris, 1987.Lefort, J. ‘The Rural Economy, Seventh–Twelfth Centuries’, The Economic History of

Byzantium. From the Seventh through the Fifteenth Century, vol. II, ed. A.E. Laiou, Wash-ington, D.C., 2002, pp. 231–310.

Lewis, A. ‘Patterns of Economic Development in Southern France, 1050–1271 A.D.’,Studies in Medieval and Renaissance History, 3 (1980), pp. 57–83.

Ligato, G. ‘Fra Ordini Cavallereschi e crociata: “milites ad terminum” e“confraternitates” armate’, ‘Militia Christi’ e Crociata nei secoli XI–XIII. Atti della undecima Settimana internazionale di studio Mendola, 28 agosto – 1 settembre 1989, Milano, 1992,pp. 645–97.

Lloyd, S. English Society and the Crusade, 1216–1307 , Oxford, 1988.Lomax, D. Las Órdenes Militares en la Península Ibérica durante la Edad Media , Salamanca,1976.

———. La Reconquista , trans. A. Moya, Barcelona, 1984.Lord, E. The Knights Templar in Britain, London, 2002.Lunt, W.E. Financial Relations of the Papacy with England to 1327 , 2 vols., Cambridge (Mass.),

1939, 1962.Luttrell, A. ‘The Hospitallers’ Interventions in Cilician Armenia: 1291–1375’, The

Cilician Kingdom of Armenia , ed. T.S.R. Boase, Edinburgh and London, 1978,pp. 118–144.

———. ‘Templari e Ospitalieri in Italia’, The Hospitallers of Rhodes and their MediterraneanWorld , Aldershot, 1992, essay number I, pp. 1–11. ———. ‘Gli Ospitalieri e l’eredità dei Templari: 1305–1378’, The Hospitallers of Rhodes

and their Mediterranean World , Aldershot, 1992, essay number III, pp. 67–86. ———. ‘The Sugar Industry and its Importance for the Economy of Cyprus during the

Frankish Period’, The Development of the Cypriot Economy, from the Prehistoric Period to the Present Day, ed. V. Karageorghis and D. Michaelides, Nicosia, 1996, pp. 165–73.

———. ‘The Earliest Hospitallers’, Montjoie. Studies in Crusade History in Honour of Hans Eberhard Mayer , ed. B.Z. Kedar, R. Hiestand and J. Riley-Smith, Aldershot, 1997,pp. 37–55.

———. ‘The Hospitallers’ Early Written Records’, The Crusades and their Sources. Essays Presented to Bernard Hamilton, ed. J. France and W.G. Zajac, Aldershot, 1998,pp. 135–51.

———. ‘The Hospitallers’ Early Statutes’, Revue Mabillon, 75 (2003), pp. 9–22.




———. ‘Ermengol de Aspa and Sigena’, Hospitaller Women in the Middle Ages , ed. A. Luttrell and H. Nicholson, Aldershot (forthcoming).

Maier, C. Preaching the Crusades: The Mendicants Friars and the Cross in the Thirteenth Century,Cambridge, 1994.

Major, B. ‘Al-Malik Al-Mujahid, Ruler of Homs, and the Hospitallers (The Evidence inthe Chronicle of Ibn Wasil)’, The Crusades and the Military Orders. Expanding the Frontiers of Medieval Latin Christianity, ed. Z. Hunyadi and J. Laszlovszky, Budapest, 2001,pp. 61–75.

Mannier, E. Les commanderies du prieuré de France , Paris, 1872.Marshall, C. ‘The French Regiment in the Latin East, 1254–91’, Journal of Medieval

History, 15 (1989), pp. 301–07. ———. Warfare in the Latin East, 1192–1291, Cambridge, 1992.Mayer, H. ‘Two Unpublished Letters on the Syrian Earthquake of 1202’, Kreuzzüge und

lateinischer Osten, London, 1983, essay number X, pp. 295–310. ———. The Crusades , trans. J. Gillingham, Oxford, 1986.Mazzaoui, M. The Italian Cotton Industry in the Later Middle Ages, 1100–1600 , Cambridge,

1981.Melville, M. La vie des Templiers , Paris, 1951.Menache, S. ‘Rewriting the History of the Templars According to Matthew Paris’,

Cultural Convergences in the Crusader Period , ed. M. Goodich, S. Menache, and S. Schein,New York, 1995, pp. 186–215.

———. ‘The Communication Challenge of the Early Crusades, 1099–1187’, Autour de la Première Croisade, Actes du Colloque de la Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East (Clermont-Ferrand, 22–25 juin 1995), ed. M. Balard, Paris, 1996, pp. 294–314.

Mesqui, J. and Veissière, M. ‘Un ville de foires en milieu rural’, Histoire de Provins et sa région, ed. M. Veissière, Toulouse, 1988, pp. 81–105.

Michaud, F. Un signe des temps. Accroissement des crises familiales autour du patrimoine à Marseille à la fin du XIIIe siècle , Toronto, 1994.Miguet, M. Templiers et Hospitaliers en Normandie , Paris, 1995.Miramon, C. de. Les “donnés” au Moyen Âge. Une forme de vie religieuse laïque v.1180–v.1500 ,

Paris, 1999.Miret y Sans, J. ‘La casa de Montcada en el vizcondado de Béarn’, Bolletín de la Real

Academia de Buenas Letras de Barcelona , vol. I (1901), pp. 186–99, 239–45.Molin, K. Unknown Crusader Castles , Hambledon and London, 2001.Moorman, J. A History of the Franciscan Order. From its Origins to the Year 1517 , Oxford, 1968.Morgan, D. The Mongols , Oxford, 1986.

Morris, C. The Papal Monarchy: The Western Church from 1050 to 1250 , Oxford, 1989.Nicholson, H. Templars, Hospitallers and Teutonic Knights: Images of the Military Orders,1128–1291, Leicester, 1993.

———. ‘The Military Orders and the Kings of England in the Twelfth and ThirteenthCenturies’, From Clermont to Jerusalem. The Crusades and Crusader Societies , 1095–1500 , ed.

A. Murray, Turnhout, 1998, pp. 203–18. ———. Love, War and the Grail , Leiden, 2001.O’Callaghan, J.F. ‘Paths of Ruin: the Economic and Financial Policies of Alfonso the

Learned’, The Worlds of Alfonso the Learned and James the Conqueror. Intellect and Forces in the Middle Ages , ed. R. Burns, Princeton, 1985, pp. 41–67.

———. Reconquest and Crusade in Medieval Spain, Philadelphia, 2003.Otten-Froux, C. ‘Les relations économiques entre Chypre et le Royaume Arménien de

Cilicia d’après les actes notariés (1270–1320)’, L’Arménie et Byzance. Histoire et culture ,Paris, 1996, pp. 157–79.




Ourliac, P. Les sauvetés du Comminges. Étude et documents sur les villages fondés par les Hospitaliers dans la région des côteaux commingeois , Toulouse, 1947.

The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, ed. A.P. Kazhdan, Oxford, 1991.Peled, A. ‘Sugar; a Local Industry in the Kingdom of Jerusalem’, Knights of the Holy Land.

The Kingdom of Jerusalem, ed. S. Rozenberg, Jerusalem, 1999, pp. 217–221 (in Hebrew).Phillips, J. Defenders of the Holy Land. Relations between the Latin East and the West, 1119–1187 ,

Oxford, 1996.Piquet, J. Des Banquiers au Moyen Âge. Les Templiers. Étude de leurs opérations financières , Paris,

1939.Poindron, P. ‘L’expansion du comté de Provence vers le nord sous les premiers Angevins’,

Provence historique , 18 (1968), pp. 201–245.Porëe, B. ‘Les moulins et fabriques à sucre de Palestine et de Chypre: Histoire,

géographie et technologie d’une production croisée et médiévale’, Cyprus and the Crusades , ed. N. Coureas and J. Riley-Smith, Nicosia, 1995, pp. 377–465.

Powell, J.M. ‘The Papacy and the Early Franciscans’, Franciscan Studies , 36 (1976),pp. 248–62.

———. Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213–1221, Philadelphia, 1986.Prawer, J. A History of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 2 vols., Jerusalem, 1963 (in Hebrew).Prestwich, M. Edward I , New Haven and London, 1988.Pringle, D. The Red Tower (al-Burj al-Ahmar): Settlement in the Plain of Sharon at the Time of the

Crusaders and Mamluks (AD 1099–1516), British School of Archaeology in Jerusalem,Monographs Series I, London, 1986.

———. Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. An Archaeological Gazetteer ,Cambridge, 1997.

———. ‘The Archaeology of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem: A Review of Work1947–97’, Journal of Medieval History, 23 (1997), pp. 389–408.

———. The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem. A Corpus , 2 vols., Cambridge,1993, 1998. ———. ‘Templar Castles between Jaffa and Jerusalem’, The Military Orders. Vol. 2. Welfare

and Warfare , ed. H. Nicholson, Aldershot, 1998, pp. 89–109.Prutz, H. ‘Die finanziellen Operationen der Hospitallers’, Sitzungsberichte der philosophisch-

historischen Klasse der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Munich, 1906, pp. 3–47. ———. Die geistlichen Ritterorden, Berlin, 1908.Pryor, J. ‘Transportation of Horses by Sea During the Era of the Crusades: Eighth

Century to 1285 A.D.’, Mariner’s Mirror , 68 (1982), pp. 10–27, 103–25. ———. ‘In Subsidium Terrae Sanctae’ : Exports of Foodstuffs and War Materials from the

Kingdom of Sicily to the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1265–1284’, Asian and African Studies ,22 (1988), pp. 127–44. ———. Geography, Technology and War. Studies in the Maritime History of the Mediterranean,

649–1571, Cambridge, 1988.Purcell, M. Papal Crusading Policy: the Chief Instruments of Papal Crusading Policy and Crusade to

the Holy Land from the Final Loss of Jerusalem to the Fall of Acre (1244–1291), Leiden, 1975.Raban, S. Mortmain Legislation and the English Church, 1279–1500 , Cambridge, 1982.Ramsay, W.M. The Historical Geography of Asia Minor , London, 1890.Raybaud, J. Histoire des grands prieurs et du prieuré de Saint Gilles , Nîmes, 1904.Redford, S., Ikram, S.T. et al., ‘Excavations at Medieval Kinet, Turkey: A Preliminary

Report’, Ancient Near Eastern Studies , 38 (2001), pp. 58–139.Rey, E.G. ‘Les périples des côtes de Syrie et de la Petite Arménie’, ATS , vol. II,

pp. 329–53.Reynaud, F. La commanderie de l’Hôpital de Saint-Jean de Jérusalem, de Rhodes et de Malte à

Manosque , Gap, 1981.




Reynolds, S. Fiefs and Vassals. The Medieval Evidence Reinterpreted , Oxford, 1994.Richard, J. ‘Le chartrier de Sainte-Marie-Latine et l’établissement de Raymond de

Saint-Gilles à Mont-Pèlerin’, Mélanges Louis Halphen, Paris, 1951, pp. 605–12. ———. Les ducs de Bourgogne et la formation du Duché , Paris, 1954. ———. ‘Le comté de Tripoli dans les chartes du fonds des Porcellet’, Bibliothèque de l’École

des Chartes , 130 (1972), pp. 339–82. ———. ‘The Eastern Mediterranean and its Relations with its Interland (11th –15th

Centuries)’, Les relations entre l’Orient et l’Occident au Moyen Âge , London, 1977, essaynumber I, pp. 1–39.

———. ‘Les Templiers et Hospitaliers en Bourgogne et en Champagne méridionale(XII–XIII siècles)’, Die Geistlichen Ritterorden Europas , ed. J. Fleckenstein andM. Hellman, Sigmaringen, 1980, pp. 231–42.

———. ‘Une economie coloniale? Chypre et ses ressources agricoles au Moyen Âge’,Croisés, missionnaires et voyageurs. Les perspectives orientales du monde latin médiéval , London,1983, essay number VIII, pp. 331–52.

———. Saint Louis. Crusader King of France , ed. S. Lloyd and trans. J. Birrell, Cambridge,

1992. ———. The Crusades. c.1071–c.1291, trans. J. Birrell, Cambridge, 1999.Riley-Smith, J. The Knights of St. John in Jerusalem and Cyprus, c.1050–1310 , London, 1967.

———. The Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174–1277 , London, 1973. ———. ‘Peace Never Established: The Case of the Kingdom of Jerusalem’, TRHS , 5th

series, 28 (1978), pp. 87–103. ———. The Crusades: A Short History, London and New Haven, 1987. ———. The Atlas of the Crusades , ed. J. Riley-Smith, London, 1990. ———. ‘The Crusading Heritage of Guy and Aimery of Lusignan’, Cyprus and the

Crusades , ed. N. Coureas and J. Riley-Smith, Nicosia, 1995, pp. 32–45.

———. The First Crusaders, 1095–1131, Cambridge, 1997. ———. Hospitallers. The History of the Order of St. John, London, 1999. ———. ‘Guy of Lusignan, the Hospitallers and the Gates of Acre’, Dei gesta per Francos.

Etudes sur les croisades dédiées à Jean Richard , ed. M. Balard, B.Z. Kedar and J. Riley-Smith, Aldershot, 2001, pp. 111–17.

———. ‘The Origins of the Commandery in the Temple and the Hospital’, La Commanderie, institution des ordres militaires dans l’Occident médiéval , ed. A. Luttrell andL. Pressouyre, Paris, 2002, pp. 9–18.

Robinson, I.S. The Papacy 1073–1198. Continuity and Innovation, Cambridge, 1990.Röhricht, R. ‘Études sur les derniers temps du Royaume de Jérusalem’, AOL , vol. II,

pp. 365–409.Roll, I., Yohanan, H. et al., ‘Appollonia-Arsuf during the Crusader Period in Light of New Discoveries’, Qadmoniot , 33 (2000), pp. 19–31 (in Hebrew).

Runciman, S. The Sicilian Vespers. A History of the Mediterranean World in the Later Thirteenth Century, Cambridge, 1958.

———. ‘Byzantine Trade and Industry’, The Cambridge Economic History, vol. II (2nd ed.),ed. M. Postan et al., Cambridge, 1966, pp. 132–67.

Santoni, P. ‘Les deux premiers siècles du prieuré de Saint Gilles de l’ordre de l’Hôpital deSaint Jean de Jérusalem’, Des Hospitaliers de Saint Jean de Jérusalem de Chypre et de Rhodes hier aux chevaliers de Malte aujourd’hui , Paris, 1985, pp. 114–183.

Sarnowsky, J. ‘Regional Problems in the History of the Mendicants and MilitaryOrders’, Mendicants, Military Orders, and Regionalism in Medieval Europe , ed. J. Sarnowsky,

Aldershot, 1999, pp. 1–19.Schein, S. Fideles Crucis. The Papacy, the West, and the Recovery of the Holy Land, 1274–1314 ,

Oxford, 1991.




Sclafert, T. Cultures en Haute-Provence, déboisements et pâturages au Moyen Âge , Paris, 1959.Selwood, D. Knights of the Cloister. Templars and Hospitallers in Central-Southern Occitania,

c.1100–c.1300 , Woodbridge, 1999.Serviere, E. ‘Commanderie de Gap-Français, ordre des Hospitaliers de Saint Jean de

Jérusalem’, Revue du Gévaudan de Causses et des Cevennes (Bulletin de la société des lettres,sciences et arts de La Lozère), 10 (1964), pp. 41–72.

Shideler, J. A Medieval Catalan Noble Family. The Montcadas, 1000–1230 , Berkeley and Los Angeles, 1983.

Siberry, E. Criticism of Crusading: 1095–1274 , Oxford, 1985.Sigal, P.A. ‘Une seigneurie ecclésiastique en Provence orientale au Moyen Âge: La

commanderie de Ruou’, Provence historique , 15 (1965), pp. 126–45.Sivery, G. L’économie du Royaume de France au siècle de Saint Louis , Lille, 1984.Smail, R.C. ‘The Crusaders’ Castles of the Twelfth Century’, The Cambridge Historical

Journal , 10 (1950), pp. 133–49.Soutou, A. ‘Trois chartes occitanes du XIII siècle concernant les Hospitaliers de La

Bastide-Pradines (Aveyron)’, Annales du Midi , 79 (1967), pp. 121–72.

Spicciani, A. ‘Papa Innocenzo IV e i Templari’, I Templari: Mito e Storia. Atti del ConvegnoInternazionale di Studi alla Magione Templare di Poggibonsi, Siena, 29–31 Maggio 1987 , ed.G. Minnucci and F. Sardi, Siena, 1989, pp. 41–65.

Stern, Edna. ‘The Excavations at Lower Horvat Manot: A Medieval Sugar ProductionSite’, Atiqot , 42 (2001), 277–308 (in Hebrew).

Stern, Eliezer. ‘Old Akko, the Fortress’, Hadashot Arkheologiyot , 110 (1999), pp. 16–17 (inHebrew).

———. ‘The Center of the Order of Hospitalers in Acre’, Qadmoniot , 33 (2000),pp. 4–12 (in Hebrew).

Stouff, L. ‘La commune d’Arles au XIII siècle, à propos d’un livre récent’, Provence

historique , 11 (1961), pp. 293–316. ———. Arles à la fin du Moyen Âge , 2 vols., Aix-en-Provence, 1986.Tibble, S. Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099–1291, Oxford,

1989.Throop, P. Criticism of the Crusades: A Study of Public Opinion and Crusade Propaganda ,

Amsterdam, 1940.Toubert, P. ‘Les déviations de la Croisade au milieu du XIII siècle: Alexander IV contre

Manfred’, Etudes sur l’Italie médiévale (IXe–XIVe s.), London, 1976, essay no. XI,pp. 391–99.

Tucoo-Chala, P. La vicomté de B éarn et le problème de sa souveraineté , Bordeaux, 1961.

Vann, T.M. ‘Hospitaller Record Keeping and Archival Practices’, The Military Orders.Vol. 2. Welfare and Warfare , ed. H. Nicholson, Aldershot, 1998, pp. 275–85.Vasiliev, A. History of the Byzantine Empire, 324–1453, Oxford, 1952.Vaughan, R. Matthew Paris , Cambridge, 1958.Verdon, L. ‘La seigneurie foncière des Hospitalliers d’Arles d’après le cartulaire de

Trinquetaille: les ressources de l’acapte’, Provence historique , 49 (1999), pp. 501–10.Weiler, B. ‘Gregory IX, Frederick II, and the Liberation of the Holy Land, 1230–9’, The

Holy Land, Holy Lands, and Christian History, ed. R.N. Swanson, Woodbridge, 2000,pp. 192–206.




Unpublished Dissertations

Burgtorf, J. ‘Führungsstrukturen und Funktionsträger in der Zentrale der Templer und Johanniter von den Anfängen bis zum frühen 14. Jahrhundert’ (Ph.D. thesis,Heinrich-Heine-Universität Düsseldorf, 2001).

Carraz, D. ‘Ordres militaires, croisades et sociétés méridionales. L’ordre du Temple dansla basse vallée du Rhône (1124–1312)’ (Ph.D. thesis, Université Lyon 2, 2003; forth-coming in Presses Universitaires de Lyon).

Stern, E.J. ‘The Sugar Industry in Palestine during the Crusader, Ayubid and MamlukPeriods in Light of Archeological finds’ (M.A. thesis, Hebrew University of Jeru-salem, 1999; in Hebrew).

182 BIBLIOGRAPHY: UNPUBLISHED DISSERTATIONS



Index

Cast(s). Castellan(s)Casty. castellanyCom(s). commander(s)H. HospitallerLE. Latin East

MO. Military OrdersPr(s). prior(s)Pry. prioryT. Templar

Acre, 11, 12, 17, 19, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31,32, 33, 34, 36, 37, 39, 40–41, 42, 43, 45,46, 47, 51, 53, 57, 59, 91, 95, 98, 100, 111,115, 121, 127, 137, 138, 139, 142, 144. H.headquarters and property, 7, 8, 12–14, 17,40–41, 47, 48, 51, 54, 58–59, 62, 77, 99,112–13, 128, 140; H. rights in, 55–56; H.coms. of, 15, 24, 46, 66, 77–78, 99, 135,138, 140, 147, 148, 149, 150, 151, 152,153, 154

Ad aripiendam, 108, 109 n. 42, 112 n. 61 Ad audientiam nostram, 100, 131 Ad liberandam, 107 Adalasie Materon, 73–74 Adam of Herouville, H. brother, 139, 147 Aimery of la Roche, H. cast. of Crac, 41, 139 Aimery of Pax, H. Grand com. of Outremer,

18, 80 n. 96, 110, 136, 147 Aimery of la Roche, T. preceptor in France, 93 Ain Jalut, battle of, 33, 34, 37 Aix, 73; H. coms. of, 157, 162 Alasatie, lady of Rognes, H. consoror , 82–83 Aleppo, 25, 26, 31

Alexander III, pope, 103 Alexander IV, pope, 27, 28, 30, 43, 86, 99,

118–22 Alexandretta, Gulf of, 51 Alfonso of Portugal, H. master, 13, 147 Alfonso X, king of Castile, 101 Alice, duchess of Burgundy, 69 Alienation, of H. property, 2, 42, 63, 77,

86–87, 91, 97, 99, 100, 105, 119–20, 131,144, 145. See also Ad audientiam nostram

Alphonse, count of Poitiers, 39, 89

Amadeus of Morestellum, T. preceptor of England, 32 Amalric I, king of Jerusalem, 1, 103 Amand of Cabanes, H. com. of Toulouse, 134,

156

Amposta, H. casty. and casts. of, 8, 11 n.3, 65,78, 81, 133, 136, 147, 160, 165, 166. Andrew Polin, H. prior of France, 82, 147 Animal husbandry, see under cattle, horses,

sheep, pasturage, grazing Anselm of Lucca, H. treasurer, 138 Antioch, principality, 11, 15, 17, 24, 26, 31,

32, 42; city, 29, 42, 62; H. coms.of, 138,139, 149

Apulia, 98 Aragon, 4, 5, 64, 81, 100, 105, 118, 131, 133,

135, 153, 165. See also Amposta, James I ,Peter II

Arcas, 61 Archambaud, H. Grand com. of Italy, 12, 15 Argence, 71, 72 Arles, 30, 71, 72, 74, 96; H. com. of, 159 Arlabaud, H. pr. of Germany, 12 Armand of Périgord, T. master, 22 Armengaud of Asp, H. temporary master,

11–12, 11 n. 3, 15, 147, 156 Arnald, H. com. of Montbrison, 70 Arnald of Campagnoles, H. com. of

Trinquetaille, 134, 156 Arnald of Montbrun, H. cast. of Crac, 139,

148 Arnald of Spina, H. pr. of France, 65, 154 Arsur, 17 n. 34, 35, 37–38, 40, 42, 44, 59–60,

124 Ascalon, 22, 23, 29–30, 31, 47, 117, 142 Assassins, 30, 43–44, 111, 114, 115 Atlit (Château Pèlerin), 32, 34, 37, 38, 39, 40,

42, 43, 46, 95 Attendentes quod, ex constitutione , 116

Aubrac, 90 Auger, H. pr. of France, 65 Auricet, 71 Auvergne, 68; H. pry. and prs. of, 2, 3, 5, 8, 64,

80, 82, 89, 90, 135, 166



Avignon, city, 73, 96; H. cartulary of, 3: H.comy. and coms. of, 8, 72 n. 55, 79, 82, 84,134 n. 14, 157, 158, 159, 162; H. rights in,73

Ayas, 51 Aymar of Layron, H. marshal, 20, 148

Baalbek, 34Baghras, 32, 42Balian of Ibelin, lord of Arsur, 59Banyas, 31Bar-sur-Aube, 66, 69Barid, river, 61 Bastide see ColonizationBaybars, sultan of Egypt, 32, 33–34, 35–41,

43–47, 51, 60–62, 95, 124, 125, 144Beaufort, 22, 31, 34, 40, 42, 59, 61Beaune, 69, H. com. of, 159, 160Beirut, 11, 95Bela IV, king of Hungary, 118Belda, 42, 44Bellecroix, 69Bellenglise, T. preceptory of, 68, 85Berenger Monge, H. com. of Manosque, 92,

157Bermond of Luzancion, H. pr. of St. Gilles,

78–9, 134, 157Bernard of Chambun, H. com. of St. Bonnet

les Places, 88, 166

Bernard of Rome, H., 139, 148Bertrand of Comps, H. pr. of St. Gilles, 72,

148Bertrand of Milhau, H. pr. of St. Gilles ,

134–35, 158Bertrand of Mornans, H. com. of Valence,

133, 158Bertrand of Pierrelatte, H. com. of Alais, 133,

158Bertrand of Pignan, H., 138, 148Bethany, St. Lazarus of, nunnery, 28, 56, 120,

121, 122Bethgibelin, 22, 31; casty. and casts, 136, 149Bethorafig, 57–58, 61Bethsan, 22, 45Blanche, countess of Champagne, 69Bobulorum, 48, 53Bohemond III, prince of Antioch, 54, 148Bohemond V, prince of Antioch, 114Bohemond VI, prince of Antioch-Tripoli, 31Boniface VIII, pope, 90Bordeaux, 80

Borrell, H. Grand com., 11–12, 138, 148Brindisi, 98Brussels, 68, 92Bruyères, 67Burgundy, 68, 69, 73, 76

Cabor, 31, 36, 37, 59Cacho, 38, 46, 57Caesarea, 26, 37–38, 39, 40, 41, 42, 57, 59,

108Cafarlet, 48Cafarsset, 31

Caignac, 85Calamella (Canamella), 50–51Camargue, Petit Camargue, 71–72, 85 n. 122Careblier (Tell el Charruba), 46Castile and León, 81, 100–101Cattle, 36, 40, 49, 70, 71. See also pasturageCelestine III, pope, 15 n. 27, 105–6, 116Cemetery , 14, 66, 70Champagne, 66, 68, 73, 141Chapters, General, 8, 13, 62, 135, (1225)

79–80, 142, (1262) 62, 91, 144provincial, 9, 13, 79 n. 90, 82, 92

Charité-sur-Loire, Cluniac pry., 66, 78Charles I, count of Anjou and Provence, 5,

31–2, 92–99, 124–27, 144–5Chastel Blanc, 32, 43Chastel Neuf, 40, 61Chatillon (La Meserae), 38, 59Chaumont, 69Chazelles, 70, 87, 88, 166Cilician Armenia, 17–8, 42, 48–51, 55, 141Clement III, pope, 105, 116Clement IV, pope, 39, 41, 87, 92–3, 124–27,

132, 144–45Clerkenwell, H. pry., 21. See also EnglandClermont, 88Coliath, 61Colonization 69, 89Comminges, 69Communication, letters and envoys, 2, 14–16,

19, 20, 21, 23–24, 25–27, 30–33, 37, 39,41, 42, 60, 86, 109, 110, 121, 124, 128n.184, 140, 143, 144, 145Problems of communication, 16–17,

104–105Dissemination of information regarding

the LE., 27–28, 37, 41, 107–108, 109,110, 111, 113, 122, 124–25, 130–32. See

also individual popesComps, 83Conradin, king of Jerusalem, 93, 124, 126–7Constance I of Sicily, Roman Empress, 75Corbeil, 79, 133Corrody, 70Corycus, 49

Cotton, 48, 49, 50Courzieu, 88Crac des Chevaliers, 11, 17, 26, 29 32, 40, 42,

43–44, 47, 52, 120; casts. of, 136, 138, 139,147, 149, 150, 152

184 INDEX



Crau, 71–2, 85 n. 122Criticism of MO., 106, 109, 110, 114–15, 120,

130, 145. See also individual popes, SecondCouncil of Lyons

Croix-en-Brie, 67Crossbowmen, 21, 98, 122, 125, 128 n. 184

Crusades, Albigensian, 75–76, 97; Frederick II,111–13; Fifth, 19–20, 68, 80, 107–8, 137,141, 148; Italian, 39, 92–93, 118, 124–27,144–45; James of Aragon, 45, 101; LordEdward, 46–47; Richard of Cornwall, 21;St. Louis (Egypt), 10, 24–25, 28, 56, 81, 83,84, 115, 117, 118, 143, (Tunis) 43, 44, 45,99, 127; Third, 11, 12, 15, 68. See also

Second Council of LyonsIndulgences, given to H. and associates,

104, 108, 111, 118, 143Preaching, 26, 39, 101, 76 n. 76, 117, 118,

121, 122, 124, 125; H. assisting preachers, 106. See also Mendicants, H.preaching

Taxation of the Church and MO. forcrusades, 82, 96, 107, 110, 116–17,123–24, 126 ; MO. as tax collectors110, 114

Vow, 107; commutation of , 116, 118, 124,125; redemption of, 28, 30, 60, 76, 82,86, 114, 117, 120–21, 126, 127, 128,143, 144

Cum a nobis petitur , 123Cum dilecti filii fratres , 106Cum dilecti filii fratres Hierosolymitani , 119Cyprus, 24, 48, 54, 55, 91; H. coms. of, 135,

139, 150, 153, 154

Damascus, 21–22, 25–7, 28, 31, 33, 34Damietta, 20, 25, 107–8, 109–10Damor, 58, 59Darbsak, siege of T. castle of, 21Daraya, 58

Debts, 58, 67, 70, 88, 117, 143. See alsofinancial difficulties

Devesset, 82 Devotionis vestre precibus , 123Disputes over property and rights, 29–30, 31,

51, 52, 53, 57, 60, 61, 70, 75, 87, 90, 96,106, 114, 120

Doc, 26, 36, 53, 114Donat, 79Durance, river, 73

Edmund of Lancaster, 116, 118Edward I, king of England, 46, 55Egypt, 1, 16, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24–25, 26, 31,

33–4, 49, 56, 101 n. 225, 103, 107–8, 113,115, 116, 117, 132, 143

England, 13, 21, 24, 26, 30, 32, 33, 41, 46, 55,78, 79, 80, 106, 117, 118, 125, 131; H. pr y.and prs., 8, 16, 42, 64, 79, 80–1, 99, 120,123, 135, 136, 138, 144, 149, 150, 152,154. See also Clerkenwell

Eschiva, princess of Galilee, 60

Escoutot, 69Esnouveaux, 69Essertenne,69Establishment and early history of H., 6–7Etang de Scamandre, 71Éterpigny, 68, 82, 83, 92; H. cartulary of, 3Ex tenore vestre petitionis , 116

Fay, 70Ferdinand III, king of Castile and León ,

100–1Fermages, see under rentsFerrand of Barras, H. Grand com. of

Outremer, 18, 42, 83, 91, 94, 95, 96, 99,126, 135, 148

Feurs, 88Fieffes, 68, 82, 83, 90; H. cartulary of, 3Financial difficulties, H., 16, 27, 28, 32, 42, 60,

85, 86, 94, 95, 97, 99, 100, 105, 106, 116,120, 123, 131, 143, 144, 145. See also

alienation of property, Second Council of Lyons

Food, dependence on supplies of, 14, 15, 42,

52; Import to LE. of, 23, 32, 55, 75, 93,100 n. 215; Shortage of, 15, 16, 17, 19, 23,37, 42, 55, 88 n. 140, 107, 142

Forey, 4–5, 100Forez, 69–70, 88–90France, H. pry. and prs., 2–3, 5, 8, 64, 67–8,

77–8, 82, 86, 90–97, 134, 135, 136, 138,146, 154, 155, 156; Kingdom of, 24, 26,33, 37, 39, 41, 65–6, 75–6, 80, 93, 96, 97,114, 138, 140

Franciscan order see under Mendicants

Frederick II, emperor of Germany and Sicily,20, 28, 29, 75, 80, 93, 110–13, 118, 142,143

Fulcher of Bonas, H. com. of Manosque, 134,159

G. of Ormes, H. pr. of St. Gilles, 134, 159Galilee, 22, 29, 35–36, 40, 45, 52, 56–7, 60–1Garcia of Lisa, H. Grand com. of Outremer,

136, 166Garin of Montaigu, H. master, 13 n. 10,

79–80, 137, 148–49Garnier of Nablus, H. master, 12, 13, 136, 149Garonne, river, 69Gaucher of Amiens, H. brother, 133Gaza, 15, 23, 26

INDEX 185



Genoa, Genoese, 14, 27, 32Geoffrey, H. pr. of France, 78Geoffrey le Rat, H. master, 138, 149Geoffrey of Albaron, H., 133, 159Geoffrey of Donjon, H. master, 13, 15, 16–17,

19, 66, 75, 138, 149

Gerold, patriarch of Jerusalem, 111Gibelet, 11, 28, 54–55, 61Giguerius, 50Gilbert d’Assailly, H. master, 103Gimeaux, 71Gonzalo Pérez de Pereira, H. Grand com. of

the five kingdoms of Spain, 101Goumardias (Camardias), 17, 49Grains, 22, 38, 48, 55, 65, 89, see also wheatGrand commander, 7, 11, 12, 15, 23, 24, 46,

66, 77–8, 116, 135, 137, 138, 147, 148,150, 151, 152, 153, 154

Grand commandery of Outremer, 9, 15, 18,65–6, 77–8, 80, 91, 99, 110, 135, 136, 147,148, 150, 155, 166

Grand commander of Italy, 12, 15Grazing rights see pasturageGregory IX, pope, 110–15, 132, 143; as

Cardinal Ugolino of Ostia, 115Gregory X, pope, 97, 100, 127–32Grenoble, 73Guerin, H. master, 21Giraud of Navis, H. com of Chazelles, 89, 166

Guy, lord of Gibelet, confrater , 54–5Guy of Basainville, T. preceptor, 30Guy of Lusignan, king of Jerusalem, 13

Haanouf, 58Haifa, 37, 38, 43Hamah, 43Hamo of Burgundy, H., 138, 149Hattin, battle of, 1, 11–5, 17, 23, 28, 45, 47,

48, 51, 64–5, 68, 77, 81, 104–5, 112, 116,131, 137, 138, 140–1, 142, 144

Hebron, 22, 31Henry of Champagne, lord of Jerusalem, 14Henry of Arundel, H. pr. of England, 78Henry II, king of Jerusalem, 56Henry III, king of England, 21, 24, 25–26, 32,

37, 40 n.156, 79, 99, 116, 118Henry I, Duke of Brabant, 68Hohenstaufen see under Frederick II, Conradin,

Manfred, Italian Crusade, individual popesHoms, 43Honorius III, pope, 20, 107–10, 112, 116

Horses, 5, 20, 22, 27, 36, 40, 42, 43, 45, 90,98, 99, 111, 113, 130Hugh I, king of Cyprus, 55Hugh III of Antioch-Lusignan, king of

Jerusalem and Cyprus, 43, 45, 46

Hugh I of Baux, viscount of Marseilles, H.confrater , 74, 159

Hugh IV, duke of Burgundy, 69Hugh of Albenaz (Aubenaz), H., 133, 159Hugh of Forcalquier, H. cast. of Amposta, 101Hugh of Lorail, H. brother, 139, 150

Hugh Revel, H. master, 35, 37, 39, 42, 51, 79,92–7, 99, 128 n. 184, 129 n. 185, 135, 136,144, 145, 149

Ibn 'Abd al-Zahir, Baybars’s secretary andbiographer, 35

Ibn al-Furat, Egyptian chronicle, 32, 34, 35,40, 43, 51, 61

Ile-de-France, 67, 86, 90Imâd ad-Dîn al-Işfahâni, Saladin’s advisor and

secretary, 13Inflation, 32, 82, 84, 86, 87, 91, 96, 97Ingeborg, queen of France, 79Innocent II, pope, 39Innocent III, pope, 17, 67, 106–7, 108, 141Innocent IV, pope, 23, 25, 28, 29, 82, 86, 87,

115–18, 132, 143Inter cetera , 109Ira et Dolor , 39–40, 95, 125Isembard, H. pr. of France, 66, 77–8, 155

Jaffa, 11, 14, 22, 26, 39, 42, 57, 95, 110, 114 James I, king of Aragón, 39, 45, 90, 100–1,

118 James of Taxi, H. pr. of Messina, 98–99 James of Vitry, bishop of Acre, 20 Jean of Braine, count of Mâcon, 69 Jerusalem, city of, 6, 7, 8, 11, 13, 15, 22, 23,

24, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32, 53, 54, 75, 84, 137 Jews, 49, 67 John Ducas Vatatzes, Byzantine emperor in

exile, 115 John, lord of Joinville, chronicler, 23 n.77, 25 John of Brienne, king of Jerusalem, 48, 80

John of Chevry, H. pr. of France, 90, 95, 134,155.

John of Gibelet, marshal of the kingdom of Jerusalem, 34

John of Ibelin, count of Jaffa, 29–30 John of Ibelin, lord of Beirut, 34 John of Montfort, lord of Tyre, 53, 61–62 John of Monzon, H., 133, 160 John of Ronay, H. lieutenant master, 25, 116,

139, 150 John of Villiers, H. master, 45, 99

John of Würzburg, German pilgrim, 7 Josafa Barbaro, Italian traveller, 49 Joscelin of Tornell, H. vice-master, 29, 139,

150 Joseph of Chauncy, H. treasurer, 26, 55, 150

186 INDEX



Julian, lord of Sidon, 32, 57, 59 Justis petentium desideriis , 119

Kalansue, 38Kerak, 31Karama (Laranda), 18

Khorezmians, 23–4, 110, 139Kolossi, 54, 55

La Bastide-Pradines, 89La Forbie (Harbiyah), battle of, 23–4, 39, 47,

56, 81, 101, 115, 116, 138–39, 142–43La Maroenie, 58La Roche de Roussel, 32La Saulce, 73Lambert, H. marshal, 12Land clearing, 67, 69, 84Languedoc, 68, 76, 85, 89, 113Lardiers, 73Lateran Council, Fourth, 78, 107Lattakia, 11 n. 3, 42Legislation of the H., 2, 8, 79, 86 n. 131, 91,

127, 144Legio (Lajjun), 45Leon II, king of Armenia, 17–18, 50Leopold V, duke of Austria, 15Licet sicut lecta , 119Louis IX, king of France, 24–25, 26, 28, 30,

37, 41, 43, 44, 45, 56, 99, 101 n. 225, 117,

118, 123, 125, 127, 143Lozère, mountains, 73Lucius III, pope, 104Lyons, 3, 79, 88Lyons, Councils of, (1245) 24, 115–16; (1274)

1, 102, 127, 129–31, 145, 153

Mainbeiville, 65Mamluks, 1, 25, 30, 33ff, 51, 58, 60, 61–62,

97, 144Manfred, king of Sicily, 92, 93 n. 174, 118,

124, 125Manosque, 73 n. 58, 79, 80, 84, 87, 92, 96,

134, 157, 159, 160, 163Manpower, H., 5, 11, 14, 21, 23, 24, 25, 46,

47, 68, 77, 95, 97, 102, 124, 125, 129,133–39, 141, 142–43, 145. See also appendix

Manciet, 76Mansurah, battle of, 25Manueth, 40, 41, 48, 53Maplestead, H. cartulary of, 91Margat, casty. of, 11, 13, 17, 18, 31, 32, 42, 43,

44, 47, 52, 54, 62, 106; Casts. 18, 136, 139,144, 147, 150, 151, 152, 153; Statutes of Margat, 86 n. 131

Markets, 52, 55, 66, 67, 73, 86 n. 127, 142; H.rights in, 54, 55–56, 69, 70

Maron, 61–62Marseilles, 3, 10, 23, 74–75, 85 n. 122, 90, 96,

110, 142Martin, H. pr. of Hungary and Bohemia, 12Martin of Andos, H. pr. of St. Gilles, 78, 160Martin Sanche, H. drapier, 139, 150

Massif Central, 80, 64, 70Mataron , 73Matthew Paris, chronicler, 25, 30, 116, 130,

138Meaux, 67Mendicants, 39, 115, 118, 122, 125, 129 n. 186Mercenaries, 20, 22, 32, 46, 47, 111, 122, 137,

141, 143, 144Michael of La Seiye, H. com. of Trinquetaille,

134, 161Militarization of H., 84, 103 Milites ad terminum, 111Mills, 26, 36, 41, 53, 58, 59, 62, 65, 114Misis (Mamistra), 50, 51Money, fund-raising campaigns, 112, 123, 131,

141; loans, 10, 32, 57, 59, 128, 144; needfor, 2, 14, 16, 17, 20, 32, 45, 47, 109, 126,141, 142, 143; supplies to the LE., 2, 21,41, 64, 77, 79, 107, 122, 124, 125, 126,128, 140

Mongols, 27, 30–34, 37, 118, 121Montbrison, 70, 71, 88, 89Montdidier, 38–39, 57

Montfort, 40, 43Montpellier, 90, 100 n. 214. H. com. of, 78Mt. Pèlerin, 52, 53, 54Mt. Thabor, 23, 28–29, 35, 36, 37, 38, 47,

56–57, 58, 60, 108, 120; H. casts. of, 29,139, 150

Murcia, 100Muret, 69, 89

Nablus, 22, 31Nahaman, River (Flum d’Acre), 53

Naria, 62Natural disasters, 1, 19, 140; Drought, 16, 19,

55; Earthquake, 17, 19, 42, 47, 77, 141;Plague, 17, 19, 42

Nazareth , 29, 35, 36, 37Nicholas IV, Pope, 130Nicholas Lorgne, H. cast. of Crac des

Chevaliers, 29, 150 Non absque dolore , 119 Non sine gravi , 109Norpert (Castellum Novum), 17, 49

Notre Dame de Léoncel, Cistercian abbey, 83

Odo of Châteauroux, papal legate, 117Olive trees, 52, 57

INDEX 187



Oliver of Paderborn, preacher and chronicler,109–110

Orange, 73, 80, 90

Paci et quieti , 119Palermo, 80

Papacy, see individual popesPaphos, 55Pareillées , 58, 61Paris, 41, 80, 82, 86 passagium particulare , 129Pasturage, 43, 49 n. 205, 70, 71, 72, 76, 90,

98Pelagius, papal legate, 109Peter II, king of Aragon, 76Peter of Aleage, H. brother, 139, 151Peter of Avignon, H. pr. of Barletta, 98, 99Peter of Faucon (Montfaucon), H. pr. of St.

Gilles,135, 162Peter Helie, H. com. of St. Gilles, 134, 161Peter of Mirmanda, H. Grand com., 137–38,

151Petit Gerin, 45Pexiora, 76Philip, duke of Alsace, 68Philip, duke of Swabia, king of Germany, 19Philip II, king of France, 19Philip of Egly, H. pr. of France, 82, 91–95,

98–99, 135, 155

Philip of Monfort, lord of Tyre, 61Picardy, 68, 69Pilgrims, 23, 46, 67, 70, 74, 75, 77, 103, 114,

130Pons, Count of Tripoli, 54Pons of Avignon, H., 133, 162Port Bonnel, 32Post miserabilem, 106Preaching, H., 39, 62, 101, 109, 112, 117, 131,

141. See also, Querelam gravem recepimus

Provence, 68, 71–73, 85, 87, 96–97, 105, 117,

123, 131, 141Provins, 67, 70Puysubran, 85

Querelam gravem recepimus , 109, 117. See also

preaching, H.Quanto majora , 110

Rafania, 120, 122Rais , 29Ralph of Loudun, H. com. of Tyre, 138

Ralph of Neville, bishop of Chichester, 21Raymond, lord of Gibelet, 58Raymond II, count of Tripoli, 54Raymond VI of St. Gilles, count of Toulouse,

76

Raymond VII of St. Gilles, count of Toulouse,76

Raymond Berenger IV, count of Provence andForcalquier, 72

Raymond of Aiguille, H. pr. of St. Gilles, 134,163

Raymond of Ayscle, H. cast. of Amposta, 78Raymond Pierre, H., 138, 152Raymond Roupen, prince of Antioch, 18, 50Recordane, 26, 41, 53, 58, 114Religiosos viros fratres , 106, 123Rents, 39, 47, 57, 58, 59, 61, 62, 65, 67, 68,

70, 82, 83, 86, 87, 88, 89, 91, 92, 101, 140Resources, diversion from the LE., 39–40, 95,

97, 101, 113, 115–16, 124, 125, 132, 143,144

Responsiones , 7, 8, 9, 10, 13, 17, 42, 51, 53, 80,81, 83, 85, 91, 94, 99, 100, 102, 143, 144,145

Richard I, King of England, 12, 13, 21Richard, earl of Cornwall, 21, 22Richard of Mepham, dean of Lincoln, 130Rights in ports, H., 54–56, 73–75, 90, 98Robert, H. casal, 36, 52, 56–57, 60Robert, H. treasurer, 12, 78Robert, patriarch of Jerusalem, 24Robert of Capennum, H., 138, 152Robert of Montrognon, H. pr. of Auvergne,

89, 135, 166

Robert of Sandford, T. preceptor in England,22

Robert the Treasurer, H. pr. of England, 78Roger of Moulins, H. master, 11 n. 3Rognonas, 73

Safad, 22, 32, 34, 40, 41, 42, 46, 60, 125St. Bonnet les Places, 87, 88; H. com. of. 166St. Gaudens, 69St. Gilles, H. pry. and prs., 2, 3, 5, 6, 8, 11, 64,

65, 68, 72, 78, 79, 80, 83, 89, 90, 91, 92,

94, 96, 97, 105–06, 126, 127, 131, 133,134, 135, 136, 156–65; H. cartulary of, 3,71

St. Gilles, port-town of, 72, 74St. Martin de Gap , 73St. Mary of the Latins, abbey, 38, 57St. Michel de Puimoisson, 72; H. com. of, 160St. Paul les Romans, 73, 82, 83; H. com. of,

160St. Pierre de Campublic, 72, 88St. Sabas, war of, 27, 32

St. Sulpice-de-Lézat, 89St. Victor de Marseilles, Benedictine abbey, 84Saladin, Salñh-ad-D † n YÃsuf, sultan of Egypt

and Syria, 13, 15, 16, 45, 48, 52, 65Samarita, 48

188 INDEX



Sancho VII, king of Navarre, 17 n. 31, 19

Saleph, river, 49

Saliers, 71

Saulce-sur-Yonne, cartulary of T. preceptory

of, 3, 85

Sauvetés , see colonization

Sea of Galilee, 34, 60Selefkie, 17–18, 49–50; H. casts. of , 135, 136,

147, 148, 158

Seljuks, 17, 18, 50

Sempad, Constable of Armenia, 15

Senlis, 82

Sens, 67, 85

Seville, 101

Shaizar, 34

Shaubak, 34

Sheep, 70, 71, 72, 73, 89, 98

Shipping, H., 10, 55, 56, 74–75, 90, 98, 100,

110, 142

Sicily, 3, 5, 27–28, 41, 43, 92–95, 116, 119,

125–27, 132. H. property and rights in, 16,

42, 75, 93, 97–99, 111–12, 142, 145

Simon of Monfort, earl of Leicester, 76

Simon of Brie, papal legate in France, 96, 124,

125, 126

Sigena, H. nunnery, 12

Sisteron, 73, 87

Solet annuere sedes , 128

Spain, 3, 8, 9, 33, 42, 74, 90, 99–102, 114,

118, 135–36, 144. See also Amposta, Aragon, Castile-Leon, Navarre

Stephen of Broc, H. com. of St. Gilles, 134

Stephen of Gravesons, H., 133, 164

Stephen of Messy, H. Grand com., 46, 152

Stephen of Sissey, T. marshal, 34, 123

Sub religionis habitu, 127

Subeibe, 34

Sugar, 19, 31, 41, 48, 51, 55, 56, 57–58, 59,

61–62, 142

System of government of H., 7–10

Tagliacozzo, battle of, 93, 127

Tallard, 73

Tarsus, 13 n. 10, 78, 79, 134 n. 14, 157. See also

general chapter of 1225

Templars, order of Knights Templar,

Agreements with MO., 31, 36, 59

Alienation of property, 87, 100, 105, 117

Excommunication of, 121

Financial difficulties, 27–28, 65, 82, 85,

86–87, 100, 105, 122

Investments, 48, 59, 67, 68, 85–86Involvement in crusade machinery, 106–07,

122, 141

Losses and mobilization of manpower, 20,

21, 24–25, 36, 138–39

Participation in military campaigns, 20,

24–25, 34, 45–46, 108, 137–38

Political involvement, 21, 27, 43, 93, 111,

113–114, 143

Relations with papacy, 105, 113–14,

117–18, 122–23

Rights in markets and ports, 56, 74Supression, 130

See also individual officers, castles, Ira et

dolor , Sicily, individual popes, Second

Council of Lyons

Teutonic Knights, order of, 27, 31, 32, 33, 34,

41, 42, 56, 111 n. 54

Theobald IV, count of Champagne and king

of Navarre, 21, 24, 39, 41

Thierry, H. pr. in England, 21

Thomas Agni of Lentino, patriarch of

Jerusalem, 31, 121 n. 125, 128

Thomas Bérard, T. master, 32–33, 37, 122–23

Thury, 69

Tiberias, 22, 23, 34, 46, 53

Tiburge of Orange, 73

Til Hamdoun, 50

Tortosa, 11, 28, 32

Toulouse, city, 76, 83. county, 76, 83, 89; H.

com. of, 134, 156, 161

Trignan, 84

Trinquetaille, 71, 74, 97; H. comy. and coms.

of, 156, 157, 161; H. cartulary of, 3

Tripoli, city of, 11, 14, 17, 26, 29, 40, 43, 44–5,54, 61; county of, 11, 28, 32, 43, 51, 52, 54,

55, 57–8, 61; H. comy. and coms. of, 98,

139, 148, 150, 151, 152

Tuban, 52

Tunis, 44, 45, 99

Turcarme, 48

Turcopoles, 8, 34, 40

Turriclee, 38, 39, 57

Turris Salinarum, 38

Tyre, 11, 12, 15, 17, 28, 31, 32, 34, 39, 40, 42,

43, 48, 53, 57, 61–2; H. comy. and coms.of, 138, 139, 152, 153

Urban III, pope, 105–6

Urban IV, pope, as James Pantaleon, patriarch

of Jerusalem, 30, 120–21; as pope 37, 99,

120, 122–24, 144

Valencia, 100

Valenia, 28, 31

Valentine, 83

Vaner, lordship of, 50Venice, Venitians, 27

Verona, 104

Verrières, 70

Villers, 69

INDEX 189



Vineyards, 41, 52, 62, 65, 71–2, 85, 86, 88, 89,

91

Vivarais, 73

Walter, count of Brienne and Jaffa, 114

Walter Mauclerc, bishop of Carlisle, 79

Walter of St. Martin, Dominican, 26Wheat, 17, 38, 43, 48, 49, 50, 71, 72 n. 54, 84,

89, 98. See also grains

Wilbrand of Oldenburg, pilgrim, 17

William II of Agen, patriarch of Jerusalem, 39,

41

William Odet, com. of H. ship La Comtesse , 10

William of Beaujeu, T. master, 129

William of Chartres, T. master, 20

William of Châteauneuf, H. master, 23, 24,

25–26, 153

William of Corceles, H. marshal, 129, 139,

153

William of Fores, H. cast. of Margat, 139, 153

William Pijons, H. pr. of France, 91, 135, 156

William of Senlis, H. Grand com., 23, 153

William of Sonnac, T. master, 25

William of Villaret, H. master, 89, 90, 91, 131,153–54

William of Villiers, H. Grand com., 12, 15,

66–67, 77–78, 135, 138, 140, 154, 156

William Raymond of Montcada, viscount of

Béarn, 76

Wine, see vinyards

Wood, 48, 51 n. 214, 70, 110

Ximen of Labata, H. pr. of St. Gilles and cast.

of Amposta, 135–36, 165

190 INDEX

bronstein - the hospitallers and the holy land; financing the latin east, 1187–1274 (2005)

Documents

latin east11871274the

ukand of boydell brewer

church history

western priories

french priories

various crises

history provoking muchdebate

years of change