Hill Museum & Manuscript Library
Malta Study Center Lecture, 2003
The Motivations of the Hospitallers and Templars in their involvement in the Fourth Crusade and its aftermath
Helen J. Nicholson
School of History and Archaeology, Cardiff University
Table of Contents:- Talk
- Images (open in new windows)
- Map of the Peloponnese
- Chlemoutsi Castle High resolution image (477 kb) | Low resolution image (98 kb)
- Outside links (open in new windows)
- ODYSSEUS, the WWW server of the Hellenic Ministry
of Culture (http://www.culture.gr/welcome.html)
- Castle Chlemoutsi (http://www.culture.gr/2/21/212/21206a/e212fa01.html)
- Castle of Lamia (http://www.culture.gr/2/21/211/21114a/e211na06.html.)
- ODYSSEUS, the WWW server of the Hellenic Ministry
of Culture (http://www.culture.gr/welcome.html)
- Appendix: List of known properties of the Military Orders in the former Byzantine Empire, 1204-1310 (at end of file: opens in new window)
How far were the Hospitallers and Templars actually involved in the Fourth Crusade? Apparently, not very much. They are not mentioned in any of the contemporary accounts of the crusade. A few pieces of evidence dating from after the conquest of Constantinople suggest that members of both orders had accompanied the crusaders to the East. However, after the crusade both orders received territory in what is now Greece. Although some of the territories given to the Templars were taken back within a few years, these orders continued to hold territories in the area. The Templars had property in Greece until the dissolution of the order in 1312, while the Hospitallers had territory and interests there until the sixteenth century.[1] The Teutonic Order was also involved in the Peloponnese, but as its history there has been well covered by modern historians I will not consider it in detail here.[2]
In this paper I will not produce any new evidence, or attempt to produce any startling new conclusions. The history of the Fourth Crusade (1202-4) is well known, and the history of the Frankish states in ‘Romania’, former Byzantine territory in the East, has been thoroughly chronicled by modern historians.[3] The purpose of this paper is to draw together the primary sources and the conclusions of modern scholars to produce an overview of Templar and Hospitaller involvement in the Fourth Crusade and, especially, in its aftermath, and to ask what the orders hoped to get out of it. This is particularly important for the history of the Hospitallers, whose involvement in the Peloponnese in the late fourteenth century was significant both for the region and for the order. I will begin by surveying the orders’ role in the crusade, move on to consider what gifts they received after the crusade, and conclude with a consideration of why they became involved in the area.
The Templars and Hospitallers were
military religious orders originally founded to care for pilgrims to the
Christian holy places in the Holy Land. By the late twelfth century both orders
were involved in the organisation of crusades: both had played an important
role in the Third Crusade of 1189-92 and the German Crusade of 1197-8. They
were involved in the process of the preaching of the Fourth Crusade and in the
collection of money for the Crusade in the form of commuted crusading vows, as
well as escorting money and other supplies to the East.[4]
The first information about the presence of brothers of the military religious
orders of the Temple and Hospital among the crusaders comes from after the
crusade, from a letter of Pope Innocent III dated 7 November 1204 to Baldwin of
Flanders, now Latin emperor of Constantinople. Baldwin had sent Innocent a
letter informing him that the crusade had captured the city of Constantinople
(13 April 1204). The carrier of this letter was Brother Barozzi of the Order of
the Temple.[5]
In another letter of around the same date, Pope Innocent complained to the
podestà and people of Genoa that Baldwin had entrusted Brother Barozzi with
gifts for the pope, including a carbuncle worth 1,000 silver marks, a precious
ring and an altar cloth, as well as gifts for the Order of the Temple: two
icons, a relic of the True Cross, many precious stones, two silver cups and
other precious gifts. At the port of Modone on the south east coast of the
Peloponnese (see map), two citizens of Genoa with seven galleys took all these
things from Brother Barozzi. Modone
had been allocated to Venice by the emperor
in summer/autumn 1204. Venice and Genoa were rivals, if not actually at war;
clearlythese raiders regarded the booty as won fairly in battle. Despite
Brother Barozzi’s appeals they refused to return the gifts to him. Pope
Innocent ordered the pirates to hand over their booty to the archbishop of
Genoa, otherwise they would be excommunicated and the city put under interdict.[6]
He also wrote a congratulatory letter on 13 November to the clergy who had
accompanied the crusading army, and the letter was carried by ‘Templars and
other honourable legates.’[7]
The fact that Baldwin had a Templar in his entourage to whom he could entrust his letter to Innocent, plus the fact that the Order of the Temple was to receive a share of the gifts Brother Barozzi carried, suggests that some Templars had accompanied the crusade. Further evidence of this is apparent in a letter from Baldwin’s brother Henry, written on 5 June 1205 to inform the pope of Baldwin’s defeat and capture at Adrianople at the hands of King Joannitza of the Bulgars. He stated that all the Christians dwelling in the East, ‘and especially the venerable brothers of the both the Temple and Hospital who are with us’, asserted that the unification of the eastern and western Church that had come about through the capture of Constantinople would assist the liberation of the Holy Land and the defeat of all pagans – by which he meant non-Christians.[8]
It is possible that these were ‘local’ brothers. The Hospitallers had had a hospice in Constantinople during the twelfth century, governed by a prior, presumably to care for Latin pilgrims taking the overland route to Jerusalem. But the hospice had been sacked in the anti-Latin riots of 1182, and although the Hospitallers still had a church in Constantinople in 1203 it is not clear what had become of the hospice. The Templars also had property in the Byzantine Empire before 1204, again, presumably to care for western European pilgrims on their way to the Holy Land.[9]
It is also possible that these were brothers that had come from the Holy Land to Constantinople to offer moral support to the crusaders for their actions. Yet the most likely explanation is that these were brothers who had accompanied the crusaders. It was normal for Templars and Hospitallers to travel from the West with crusaders on their way to the Holy Land; it was a convenient method for the orders to bring their brothers out to the East. This had occurred during the Second Crusade, and during the Third.[10] Brother Barozzi was from a Venetian family, lords of Santorini and Therasia, and former commander of the Temple in Lombardy; it seems most likely that he had accompanied the crusaders from Venice to the East.[11] But this does not mean that these brothers fought during the capture of Constantinople; there is no mention in the contemporary sources of their having done so. They probably acted like other clerics present and kept out of the fighting. What is clear is that, like other religious orders, they shared in the rewards of the successful crusade.
Few donation charters have survived for the Temple and Hospital from the period directly after the Fourth Crusade. We know some of the territories that they received only because they were taken back or because the orders became involved in disputes; and some because the pope confirmed the donation. So 31 October 1208, for example, Pope Innocent III confirmed to the master and brothers of the Temple overseas Satalia with all that went with it, which had been given to them by Baldwin of Flanders, first Latin emperor of Constantinople.[12] It is not clear which Satalia was intended. The archaeologist Peter Lock noted that it could have been in Euboea (Negroponte), or it could have been the Satalia (Antalya) in what is now south-western Turkey (see map) and formed part of a number of grants of yet unconquered lands that Baldwin had made to various lay persons in line with his territorial ambitions in that area.[13] This practice of granting to the military orders lands that had not yet been conquered was a common one and was already practised in Spain and in the Latin East.[14] However, in these cases the donation charter would normally note that the property in question was still to be conquered, or was in the hands of the enemy, or something along this lines; yet Innocent’s confirmation makes no mention of this. It is therefore unclear what the Templars had actually been given.
Baldwin I’s donation had, obviously, been before his death in June 1205. In March 1205 Baldwin had given the Hospitallers a quarter of the duchy of Neocastro in Anatolia, possibly in the region of Pergamum (Bergama in what is now western Turkey: see map), for pious motives.[15] Again, as this area did not come under the crusaders’ control the gift was never put into effect. It did not state that the order was expected to conquer anything in return, but, again, it may have formed part of the emperor’s expansionist ambitions in Asia Minor.
The next set of donations we know about because they were taken back. In September 1210 Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishops of Athens and Neopatras and the bishop of Daulia about complaints that he had received from the brothers of the Temple that the emperor of Constantinople had taken from them a certain place called Sydoni (historians generally agree that this as Lamia, in eastern Greece)[16] that belonged to them and that had been given to them out of piety (intuitu pietatis) by Guido Pellavicino and Amedée de Pofoy, constable of the late Marquis Boniface of Montferrat (one of the leaders of the Fourth Crusade), and where they had constructed a castle for the defence of the area, pro defensione terrae, ‘not without great labour and expenses’. This is an odd statement as the castle at Lamia had been constructed by the Byzantines and should not have required much labour or expense to make it defensible. (See the pictures at the website of the Hellenic Ministry of Culture, which show the later Turkish fort in the centre of Byzantine fortifications constructed in the twelfth century, but no indication of Frankish fortifications.)
The emperor had given this castle to one of his nobles, who refused to give it back to the Templars.[17] The Templars had also complained to Innocent that Emperor Henry had taken Ravennika, a place near Sydoni, which had been given to them by Marquis Boniface of Montferrat, obviously before his death in September 1207.[18]
The order did not recover these territories. In October 1211 Pope Innocent wrote to Emperor Henry telling him to return the castle of ‘Situm’ above Ravennika to the Templars: this must be a Latinized form of ‘Citó’, which was another name for Lamia. The pope complained that although he had written to Henry often on this matter, and although the emperor should be working to hold on to the empire of ‘Romania’ ‘principally so that you may aid the holy land more commodiously’, the emperor had turned deaf ears to him. As the Templars were never again recorded in this area, we may assume that Henry continued to ignore the order.[19]
Peter Lock has connected the donation and loss of these territories to the Lombard interest in the Latin empire of Constantinople. He argues that as Brother Barozzi, messenger of the Emperor Baldwin I, was former commander of the Temple in Lombardy, he had probably accompanied the crusade in the entourage of Boniface of Montferrat. After the conquest of Constantinople, Boniface had conquered Thessalonica and penetrated into central Greece. The donations of Sydoni and Ravennika, both in east central Greece, were from Boniface and his Lombard allies. In September 1207 Boniface was killed, leaving an infant son, and a group of nobles from northern Italy formed a regency council. These included the Amedée de Pofoy and Guido Pellavicino who gave Sydoni to the Templars. Lock argued that these nobles wanted to make the Montferrat holdings an independent state. In December 1208 the Emperor Henry marched into Thessalonica and asserted imperial authority over the Montferrat lordships. Lock suggested that Henry confiscated these particular Templar territories to assert his authority and to punish the Templars for supporting these Lombard lords who had rebelled against him.[20]
Lock also connects the problems that the Templars experienced from the marchioness of Montferrat with this dispute. Margaret of Hungary, widow of Boniface of Montferrat, had been left as regent on her husband’s death. The day after Innocent wrote regarding Sydoni and Ravennika, he wrote to the archbishops of Neopatras and Larissa and the bishop-elect of ‘Citrensi’ about the trouble that the marchioness had been giving the Templars over the property that her late husband had given them.[21]
The purpose of the original donations to the Templars in central Greece is not clear from these documents. As the Templars had fortified Sydoni/Lamia, possibly they were given the land to help defend Catholic conquests against the Greeks. However, the order was not set up to fight Christians: its vocation was to defend the Holy Land, and its revenues were supposed to go to that purpose. What is more, Innocent III’s letter does not state that the order was supposed to fight the Greeks. It implies that the order had constructed the castle out of necessity, not because the donation was intended for that purpose. Given the constant attacks on the Frankish conquests from the Greeks, fortification was a practical necessity. So far as I know, the Templars did not fortify their other properties in the area.
Other donations are known because they also were later disputed. In October 1210, Innocent wrote to the Latin bishops of Daulia and ‘Zaratoriensis’[22] and to the bishop-elect of ‘Nazoriensis’ (??Kastoria??) that Ravanno, lord of Negroponte (Euboea, now Évvoia), had taken away from the Templars certain possessions that James, the late lord of Avesnes, had given them. Again, the nobleman Ni. of St Amero, of the diocese of Thebes, was troubling the Templars over lands given to them in alms by Rolandino and his brother Albertino.[23] We hear no more about these territories, so we do not know whether the Templars recovered them.
Probably because of these sorts of problems, the Templars were anxious to obtain papal support for other donations that they had been given in ‘Romania’, and in late September 1210 Pope Innocent confirmed a string of donations (see map): the church of St Lucy called Fota in Greek outside the city of Thebes and the house of Philokalia at Thessalonica, given to them by Benedict, cardinal-priest of St Susanna, when he was papal legate in Romania, in order to help the Holy Land (ad terrae santae subventionem).[24] Rolandino and Albertino, now given their surname ‘of Canossa’, with Hugh de Colongi, had given the land ‘of Rupe’ and John son of Nicholas de Vianet and his brothers and sisters with their possessions. ‘Rupe’ was a fortress near Sykamino, near Oropos on the Attic coast (see map).[25] The nobleman Ravanno, the late James of Avesnes and Gubert had given the Templars the house of Lagnan and the casal of Oizparis on Negroponte, and some tenements.[26] The late archbishop of Thebes had given the Templars a pleasure garden at Thebes when he was archbishop-elect, a donation that Lock dates to August 1206.[27] In the Peloponnese, they had received three casals, or villages: the nobleman William de Resi had given them a casal called Pasalan and Hugh de Besançon had given them a casal called Paliopolin (Palaiopolis?), both donations confirmed by their lord, Geoffrey de Villehardouin.[28] Finally, William de Champlitte had given them a casal called Laffustan or Luffestan.[29]
So far, these donations were mostly of the sort of property that the order would have received in the West: villages, from which income could be generated through agriculture, a serf, some tenements, and a church. The purpose of the garden is less clear; perhaps it would be used to grow fruit? The order had also been given a church at Thebes. In addition, it received the religious house of Gérokomion (near Patras) and an abbey called Provata, both of which donations were disputed by the archbishop of Patras. In the case of Gérokomion, the Templars eventually proved their case.[30] The only property that definitely had a military aspect was the castle that the Templars built or rebuilt at Sydoni/Lamia. Here, we might argue, the construction of the castle was simply common sense in disputed territory.
Some further information is available about the properties given to the military orders in the Peloponnese, otherwise known as Achaia or, by the crusaders, the Morea. The French and Greek ‘Chronicles of the Morea’ state that in 1209, when the Morea had been conquered by the Franks, the Order of St John was given four knights’ fees, the Temple was given four and it was to raise a banner (that is, it was expected to give military service) and the Teutonic Order was given four to hold in the territory of ‘Kalamata’ in Messenia in the south-western Peloponnese. Other religious also received similar grants. The bishops, the Church and the Temple and Hospital were not obliged to furnish garrison duty, but they were obliged to act in all ways like secular vassals, giving military aid and taking part in raids and in battles, whenever the lord had need and the need of the country required.[31] All the versions of the chronicle, in Italian, French, Greek and Aragonese, were written over a century after these events, but the French and Greek versions substantially agree and historians reckon that they are reliable on this point.[32]
The Greek version of the ‘Chronicle
of the Morea’ recounts that Geoffrey I de Villehardouin, prince of Achaia or
the Morea (1209-28), having given the Church one third of his conquest, asked
the bishops, priests and religious orders to supply him with military aid in
order to complete his conquest of the Morea. They refused, claiming that they
held their land directly from the pope and owed no service to the prince. Geoffrey’s
response was to seize all the Church’s lands, and for three years he used their
revenues to build a castle on the west coast of the Morea, the castle of
Chlemoutsi or Clermont (see map,
picture, and see also
the website at
the Hellenic Ministry of Culture).
After three years he sent messengers to the pope to negotiate, pointing out
that if the Morea were not defended against the Greeks, the Latin Church risked
losing all its property there. The pope agreed. Geoffrey reached a settlement
with the archbishop of Patras, the bishops, the commander of the Temple and the
commander of the Hospital in the Morea, whereby the prelates and religious
orders agreed to give military service like other lay vassals, except for
castle guard, and their lands were returned to them.[33]
In 1258 when William de Villehardouin, prince of Achaia, set out to attack Guy
de la Roche, lord of Athens, he summoned the bannerets, knights, bishops,
Templars and Hospitallers and all the burgesses to take part in the expedition.[34]
Otherwise, however, the Templars and Hospitallers were not recorded playing any
military role in the Morea, while the Teutonic Order was only envisaged
possibly defending Chlemoutsi castle ‘if it is necessary’.[35]
In fact we do not know which territories the military orders received as a result of this policy of giving all the religious orders ‘four fiefs’. Antoine Bon pointed out that the Hospitallers held Picotin near Palaiopolis in the western Morea in the early fourteenth century and implied that this might have been one of their fiefs; alternatively, it may have belonged to the Templars and have passed to the Hospitallers after the dissolution of the Templars in 1312. The three villages whose donation the Templars had confirmed by Pope Innocent III might have been included in their four fiefs, while the Teutonic Order had land near Kalamata.[36] Marjan Tumler established that the Teutonic Order had a commandery at Mostenizza and at Modone (see map). The order was given the Hospital of St James of Andravida by Geoffrey II de Villehardouin, but the pope opposed the donation, and it was later given to the Templars.[37]
The account in the Greek Chronicle of the Morea suggests why the military religious orders were given land in ‘Romania’ and why some of it was subsequently taken back by the secular lords. The donations were a thank-offering to God for the success of the Frankish conquest. As the military orders were responsible for defending the Holy Land, and as the crusade had originally set out to help the Holy Land and, it was argued, had helped the Holy Land by conquering Constantinople, then it was reasonable to give at least part of that thank-offering to the military orders. The military orders regarded the donations as having been given in alms and being held from the pope, not from the local secular lord. (Note how the Templars sought papal confirmation of the gifts they had received.) They did not regard themselves as being bound to perform military service in return for their land. As the Greeks fought back and the Frankish secular lords needed warriors, this situation was not acceptable to the Frankish secular lords. So they confiscated the military orders’ lands, and those of other religious houses and the bishops, as Geoffrey I de Villehardouin did. In the case of Geoffrey I, an agreement was finally reached whereby the orders would perform limited military service. It must be emphasized that this was secular warfare, not holy war; it was not part of the military orders’ vocation, but the normal military service expected from military landowners. In other areas, as in Negroponte and Sydoni/Lamia, no agreement was reached and the orders did not recover their territory.
So far it appears that the military religious orders of the Temple and Hospital came into Romania as passive recipients of donations. But not all the records involve the military religious orders as victims. A number of documents refer to them as aggressors, trying to claim lands or rights that were not theirs.
In March 1208, Pope Innocent III wrote to the archbishop of Verissa and the bishop of Selymbria regarding complaints he had heard from the provost and deacon of St George of Constantinople that the brothers of the Hospital of Jerusalem, the lord of Lamro and some other men of Constantinople had taken revenues, chattels and immoveable property from the Hospital of St George of Constantinople.[38] At the same time he wrote to the Dean, cantor and treasurer of Hagia Sophia in Constantinople about a case that Master W., a clerk, had brought against the Brothers of the Knighthood of the Temple in Constantinople over the church of St Yomenia.[39] The biggest legal dispute, however, was over the church of Gardiki in Thessaly.
We do not have complete information about what property the Hospital held in central Greece. Clearly it had some property, as in October 1208 the archbishop of Thebes was complaining to the pope that the Hospitallers in his province had been telling the lords of Thebes and the people that they should pay less tithes and first-fruits to the Church of Thebes, which was putting the Church at Thebes into severe financial difficulties.[40] In July 1210 Pope Innocent wrote to the archbishop of Neopatras, the prior of St Demetrius of Thessaloniki and the procurator of the diocese of Domoko that Bishop Bartholomew of Gardiki had made a tearful complaint (lacrymabilem quaestionem) that the brothers of the Hospital of St John at Phitalea (not identified) had taken his diocese and castle and were not prepared to return them. The pope’s choice of judges-delegate indicates that this was the Gardiki in Thessaly (see map), rather than the Gardiki in Messenia in the south-western Peloponnese or Gardiki castle in south Corfu.[41] The bishop had obtained letters from the pope instructing the Hospitallers to return the properties, but they had not done so. Neither had they allowed him to have any of the produce from the lands. They had thrown out the bishop’s envoy who carried the pope’s letters, threatening to kill him, declaring that no episcopal mandate would make them surrender. They were also holding an abbey in Armiro (or Velestino), which the pope had decided should be given to the bishop, and they were constructing their own house in it. The exiled bishop, without any means of supporting himself, had been reduced to beggary. The pope had delegated the case to the archbishops of Athens and Thebes and the bishop of Thermopylae, who had decided in favour of the bishop of Gardiki and, when the Hospitallers refused to surrender, they had excommunicated them, but to no avail. So the pope ordered these additional prelates to enforce his order.[42]
Later in the month Innocent wrote again regarding the plight of the bishop of Gardiki. He urged Emperor Henry to protect him so far as he could.[43] Late in August he wrote to the archbishop of Neopatras, the prior and the procurator again. The Hospitallers had been excommunicated for refusing to comply with the decision of the pope’s judges-delegate. The Hospitallers argued that the bishop had made an agreement with them, and asked the pope to confirm it. The bishop did not deny that there had been an agreement, but he stated that it had brought enormous damage on the church of Gardiki and was made without the consent of the chapter. We are not told what the agreement was, but the pope nullified it and again instructed that his judges-delegate resolve the quarrel.[44] This letter may have in fact replaced the letter of July, as ‘vacat’ is written in the margin of the register next to the July letter.[45]
Our next information on events at Gardiki date from late May 1212. The pope wrote to the archbishops of Thessaloniki and Philippi and the bishop of ‘Sithonensis’ (Citó/Lamia?). After summarising events so far as his last letter, he explained that the Hospitallers, ‘turning to the craftiness of their usual fraud’ (ad consuetae fraudis astutias se vertentes), played for time, while ignoring the sentence of excommunication and continuing to celebrate divine office.
The arbitrators appointed by the pope had decided that the bishop should receive one third of the castle and should have free entrance and exit. The Hospitallers should fortify it and guard it at their own expense, allowing the bishop use of the water cisterns. The church of the castle and its territory were adjudged to the bishop, as was the house of Armiro or Velestino, two mills and some incomes, and the bishop’s expenses were to be reimbursed.
But the Hospitallers had been furious at the decision. They tried to kill one of the arbitrators, and threatened the other with imprisonment. They had set up a deadly ambush for the bishop of Gardiki as he was going up to the place at Pentecost in pursuit of justice, but the bishop had found out about this and avoided it. The judges-delegate had at last gone up to Gardiki in person and put the bishop into possession of his rights, but the Hospitallers not only refused to hand the property over but took other possessions of the church of Gardiki by violence, bringing an armed mob against the judges-delegate and inciting both the Latin and Greek people to kill them. A month later they appealed to the pope, but did not appear when summoned. The bishop, overwhelmed by all the expense and damage and at the end of his resources (iam non possit ulterius), humbly begged the pope to end the case.
The pope instructed his addressees to put the bishop into possession of his property, force the Hospitallers to pay the 200 marks fine and force everyone to avoid the Hospitallers as excommunicants. He also wrote to Geoffrey I of Villehardouin, asking him to maintain and protect the bishop of Gardiki in possession of his property; to Count Berthold of Katzenellenbogen, lord of Velestino, and to Emperor Henry of Constantinople.[46] It might appear odd that Geoffrey of Villehardouin was asked to support a settlement in an area that lay outside the Morea, but as central Greece was under heavy pressure from the Greek despot of Epiros in early 1212 – Larissa was conquered in June 1212[47] – possibly he was the most powerful Latin ruler left in the immediate area, and therefore the best person to support it.
On 11 December 1212 at Velestino the final peace agreement was made between Bishop Bartholomew of Gardiki and Brother Stephen, Commander of the house of the Hospital of Phitalea and the other houses of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem in Romania and his brothers. The pope, emperor and barons of Romania were asked to approve it. The pope approved the settlement on 27 September 1213.[48]
Exactly what was happening at Gardiki is difficult to ascertain, but it appears that the Hospitallers and the bishop had come to an agreement whereby the bishop surrendered his castle and territory to the Hospitallers in return for some of the produce of the land, but that his chapter had not approved the agreement. The obvious reason for surrendering his castle to the Hospitallers was for them to defend it for him; and the arbitrators appear to have regarded this as reasonable, as they allowed the Hospitallers to keep the castle. In any case, having once obtained possession of the castle and other territories, the Hospitallers were determined to hold on to them. This was reasonable in that the order had considerable commitments in the East at this time: like the Templars, it was involved in a succession dispute in Cilician Armenia and the principality of Antioch; and it also had commitments in Spain.[49] It therefore needed any resources that it could obtain. However, in holding Gardiki castle, in a frontier zone, the order was arguably adding to its military responsibilities. Perhaps the order regarded the possession of Gardiki as essential to defend its territories in the area. Regrettably it is impossible to be certain about this, as we do not know exactly what territory the Hospitallers held.
So, what is it possible to deduce about the Templars’ and Hospitallers’ motivations for involvement in the Fourth Crusade and its aftermath? According to Emperor Henry, they hoped that the capture of Constantinople would assist the recovery of the Holy Land. They received gifts of land, tenements and churches from the Frankish conquerors of Greece, given ‘out of piety’ or ‘to help the Holy Land’. There is some indication that they were expected to give military service in return; in the Morea or Peloponnese they initially refused to do so and were forced into giving it. The Templars fortified or took over a castle at Sydoni/Lamia and the Hospitallers took over the castle at Gardiki, both on the eastern side of Greece in southern Thessaly. It may have been the donors’ intention that the orders would play a military role against the Greeks in these two places, but there is no specific evidence for this. In fact in 1237 the Templars complained to Pope Gregory IX that their property in Constantinople and in overseas parts was in danger of being destroyed by the Greeks because they were not permitted to meet force with force (cum quia non erat fratribus licitum eorum malitiam viribus cohibere) which suggests that they were not originally established in these areas to fight the Greeks.[50]
It is clear, however, that the orders were very anxious to hold on to any property they gained in the area. The Templars went to great lengths to obtain papal confirmation for lands granted to them, and the Hospitallers fought determinedly to hold on to Gardiki. It seems unlikely that the orders would obtain much income from this war-torn area, but given their recent losses in the Holy Land they would be very unwilling to let property go that could provide any contribution to their needs. So I would surmise that the orders’ main motivation for involvement in this area was to obtain land and income that could be used to support their war in the East. That said, local connections, such as those deduced by Peter Lock between the Templar Brother Barozzi and the Lombard nobles in central Greece, could draw an order into an area for local reasons rather than for the benefit of the order as a whole. Again, the orders may have been anxious to set up support networks for pilgrims travelling to the East via Greece: in 1309 the Hospitallers were given a hospice at Corinth,[51] while in the thirteenth century the Teutonic Order, and later the Templars, held a hospital in Andravida in the western Morea, and the Teutonic Order seems to have maintained a pilgrim hospice in Modone.[52] All in all, the involvement of the military orders in the Fourth Crusade and its aftermath illustrates the many different roles and activities of the military orders, and the different expectations that their patrons held of them.
NOTES