5
The military orders
In the first half of the twelfth century two institutions emerged to protect and to care for western pilgrims visiting the Holy Land. These functions soon coupled with the settlers’ need to increase their limited military resources and, when combined with the idea of religiously-directed violence (highlighted by the First Crusade), there evolved orders of warrior-monks known to us as the Templars and the Hospitallers. This new concept proved highly popular and over time other military orders would be founded in Iberia and, later, in the Baltic region. The orders played a prominent role in the defence and extension of the borders of Christianity in both the West and the Levant; through their numerous landholdings they had a high profile across western Europe as well. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote of the Knights Templar c. 1130, ‘I do not know if it is more appropriate to call them monks or knights; perhaps it is better to recognize them as being both, for they lack neither monastic weakness nor military fortitude’ (see Document 7 i). The Templars and Hospitallers came to form the core of the settlers’ army during the twelfth century; they were trained fighters and had sworn to defend the Holy Land against the infidel, but, as Bernard had noted, they were also members of a religious order. They took the monastic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience and lived in communities, yet moved in the outside world to fulfil their duty against the enemies of Christ. The notion of the warrior-monk was a striking innovation, and one that fitted perfectly the needs and aspirations of the medieval knight, the Church and the frontier societies of Latin Christendom.
2. Knights Templar riding out to battle — contemporary image from their chapel at Cressac-sur-Charente, France. Ancient Art & Architecture Collection
The origins and development of the Templars
The Templars were founded in Jerusalem in 1119 by the French nobleman Hugh of Payns and a small association of laymen. According to William of Tyre, their initial purpose was to defend pilgrims in the Holy Land from robbers and lions. The date of the foundation may be significant; an atmosphere of shock ensued after a massacre of 300 pilgrims near the River Jordan at Easter 1119 and the crushing defeat at the Battle of the Field of Blood in June of that same year. By 1120 Hugh and his companions had attracted the interest of a figure of high standing because Count Fulk V of Anjou (later King Fulk of Jerusalem) stayed with them for a year. The group derived its name from the accommodation granted to them in the Temple complex by King Baldwin II of Jerusalem, who, given the settlers’ constant need for trained knights, regarded the idea of a body of men committed to the defence of pilgrims as worthy of support. It was soon decided to change Hugh and his associates’ status from laymen to professed religious and a letter was sent to Abbot Bernard of Clairvaux in France. Bernard provided the Templars with a Rule (a way of life) and worked to secure papal approval for the nascent religious order. In two particular respects the emergence of the Templars reflected trends in contemporary European society. First, the success of the First Crusade meant that the concept of religiously directed violence was generally accepted. Secondly, the first half of the twelfth century saw the foundation and growth of a number of religious orders (typified by the Cistercians), many of which had a sophisticated hierarchy capable of sustaining an international organisation — a structure that was to be essential for the Templars’ development. The Rule of the Templars, based on that of St Augustine (which was more appropriate for a group that moved in the secular world compared to the Benedictine Rule used by Bernard’s Cistericans), included the key monastic precepts of poverty, chastity and obedience, but also contained a substantial amount of practical information on the conduct of knights in battle, the maintenance of discipline, the appropriate levels of equipment and the hierarchy of the order (The Rule of the Templars, tr. Upton-Ward, 1992). The Templars were formally approved by the Church at the Council of Troyes in January 1129 and their numbers increased rapidly. The idea of fighting monks was extremely radical and needed to be justified. Bernard of Clairvaux wrote De laude novae militiae (In Praise of the New Knighthood) (Document 7 i) on the Templars’ behalf, which explained why monks could also be warriors. According to Bernard, this depended — as did all crusading activity — upon the right intention (i.e. the motivation) of the individual. He argued that the Templars were a new sort of knight who fought evil in the world and, through their faith and their efforts, the Holy Land would be preserved in Christian hands. He set out the errors of secular knights — their vanities, their lust for glory and their greed for material possessions — and he contrasted the behaviour of ‘the knights of Christ’, as he called the Templars, to that of knights in the secular world. He concluded that ‘to kill or to be killed for such reasons is senseless’. The Templars, however, were to behave very differently: they lived a communal life of discipline and obedience to their superior; they were focused on their duties to God and not on the shallow distractions of the secular world — it was inner faith and trust in God that gave them extra bravery and commitment in battle. Bernard was aware that the Templars would not have the time for contemplation accorded to other monks, but he suggested that their constant proximity to the holy sites would allow them to reflect on the spiritual aspect of their surroundings. Also, as Barber has suggested, a detailed knowledge of the holy places would allow them to better explain their significance to pilgrims (Barber, 1994: 45-9).
Hugh of Payns travelled around Europe seeking support for the Templars and this resulted in donations of land and money, as well as a stream of new recruits. Within two years of the Council of Troyes there was a telling indication of the order’s attraction to contemporary laymen in the bequest of King Alfonso I of Aragon. Remarkably, the king gave over his entire kingdom to the Templars, Hospitallers and the Canons of the Holy Sepulchre. Alfonso was childless and his wish to prevent certain rivals from taking over his lands may have played some part in his actions; nevertheless, the king had founded two military fraternities of his own and was a committed participant in the reconquista. The terms of his testament were a way of perpetuating his struggle against Islam and, although its execution would be frustrated by the intervention of local nobles, the Templars secured a series of generous grants by way of compensation.
A trio of privileges issued between 1139 and 1145 reinforced the papacy’s endorsement of the Templars. The order secured the right to elect its own master, the exemption from tithes (taxes) payable to the local church; they were also allowed to collect these revenues from their own lands and keep the profits for themselves. The order was permitted to have its own priests, which created greater independence from the local hierarchy. Further legislation set out inducements to encourage support for the order — in essence this meant that a layman making material provision for the brothers would receive a spiritual reward. For example, Pope Eugenius III decreed ‘whoever . . . assists them and establishes a community for so holy a brotherhood and cedes to them benefits annually, we grant an indulgence of the seventh part of the penance enjoined upon him’. Another attraction for laymen was the prospect of becoming a Templar towards the end of their lives (thus joining a religious community), and then, when they died, to be buried in the cemeteries the papacy allowed the brothers to set up so that their souls would benefit from the association with the order.
As the military and financial strength of the Templars grew they were given custody of a number of castles and landholdings in the Holy Land. The first of these (in the late 1130s) was around the castle of Baghras in Antioch, a strategically crucial region that controlled the Belen Pass, one of the main routes into northern Syria. Other acquisitions followed, including castles at Gaza (1149-50), Safed (before 1168) and Toron (before 1172). In some areas the Templars held larger areas of land which they ruled virtually independently, such as the territories near Baghras and also around Chastel Blanc (Safita), and the port of Tartous (on the frontier between Antioch and Tripoli). Local churchmen resented the Templars’ intrusion on their diocesan authority, but because
the order had the support of Rome little could be done. There were times when the brothers clashed with secular rulers too. The most spectacular example of this was in 1173 when Templar knights killed Assassin envoys who were travelling home under a royal safe-conduct after negotiating some form of rapprochement with King Amalric of Jerusalem. It seems that the Templars disapproved of such dealings with a Muslim power. The king was furious at this injury to his honour and demanded that the perpetrators be given over to him. In theory, papal bulls gave the Templars immunity from secular jurisdiction in such cases and provided that the culprits be judged in Rome. On this occasion, however, Amalric, who was a very powerful monarch, had the ringleader seized and imprisoned. William of Tyre suggested that had the king lived longer (he died in 1174) the matter of the Templars’ independence would have been challenged. In spite of this episode, the Templars’ military power remained undiminished and when King Baldwin IV constructed the castle of Jacob’s Ford in 1178-79 he chose to entrust it to the order. In combination with their contribution to the armies of the Latin East, such responsibilities typified the role of the Templars in the latter half of the twelfth century.
King Amalric was not the only critic of the Templars during the twelfth century, however. John of Salisbury, one of the great intellectuals of the age, felt that knightly and clerical functions were incompatible and that the Templars’ privileges encouraged pride and avarice. Likewise, William of Tyre, while recognising the central importance of the order in defending the Holy Land, sometimes saw their actions as self-interested, most famously at Ascalon in 1153 when a group of Templars breached the walls ahead of the main army and allegedly refused to let the other Franks join them because they wanted all the booty for themselves. As a result, the knights became trapped in the town and were massacred — a just reward for their greed. William probably influenced the Anglo-Norman cynic Walter Map whose vituperative criticism of the Templars stemmed from his (and William’s) antagonism towards the financial and jurisdictional exemptions granted to religious orders by the papacy. More significantly perhaps, the monk, Issac of L’Etoile, expressed concern as to what those of another faith might think of the Christian Church encouraging violence rather than gentleness, and feared that any military activity carried a danger of leading the participants towards evil. While these voices show that the concept and development of the Templars was not universally welcomed, the level of support that the order enjoyed indicates that, for the majority, the idea of warrior-monks defending Christ’s patrimony was a positive development.
The origins and development of the Hospitallers
The other leading military order of the time was the Order of the Hospital of St John of Jerusalem, known to us as the Hospitallers. Like the Templars they were warrior-monks sworn to defend the Holy Land, but there were important differences between the two institutions. Most notable of these, as indicated by their name, was the Hospitallers’ medical function, which would remain a prominent part in their activities throughout the order’s history; indeed, today’s St John’s Ambulance Brigade is a descendant of that legacy.
The origins of the Hospital pre-dated the First Crusade and derived from a hospice run by Amalfitans (Italian traders) who had established themselves in Jerusalem around the mid-eleventh century. The group followed a quasi-religious communal life in caring for sick pilgrims and were based in a building adjacent to the Holy Sepulchre, but after the Latin conquest the Amalfitan interest was replaced by French influence. Godfrey of Bouillon was an early supporter and with the increased flow of western pilgrims coming to the holy city many responded to the Hospital’s charitable role by giving donations of property in the Levant or the West. Daughter hospices were founded in Europe, often serving pilgrim traffic, and entire settlements came under Hospitaller authority too. Southern France (1100) and Sicily (1101) saw early expansion, followed by Spain (1108), Italy (before 1113) and England (1128), with Germany following in the latter half of the twelfth century. One noteworthy episode was the creation, through deforestation, of a community of forty villages in the southern French county of Commignes c. 1099 1120. The European estates paid a proportion of their revenue — usually one-third — to sustain the Hospital in the Holy Land and their properties were often manned by knights who had retired from active service in the Levant. The western estates were organised into commanderies that typically consisted of a village, a church, a hospital and farm lands. Commanderies were grouped into provincial units known as priories that included those of England, Catalunya, Lombardy, Champagne and St Gilles (southern France). The officers were answerable to a General Chapter (a meeting of the leading men of the order from all over Christendom), held in the Holy Land, that oversaw the running and development of the order: such a structure was vital to sustain the workings of an international institution. The scale of endowments, donations and exemptions from ecclesiastical taxation meant that the Hospitallers held substantial resources across the West, although, as we shall see, this was essential because the expenses of warfare and medical provision required enormous support.
In its early years the Hospital was associated with the church of St Mary of the Latins in Jerusalem, but in 1113 it became an independent order. Pope Paschal II issued the bull Pie postulatio voluntatis which brought the group under papal protection, confirmed its possessions, recognised the brethren as fratres and professi and, crucially, allowed them the freedom to elect their own master. This point marked the foundation of the Hospital as an international order although there were disputes with the patriarch of Jerusalem and other religious institutions in the Levant (including the Templars) and it was not until 1154 that further papal privileges ensured exemption from the jurisdiction of local church authorities.
The Rule of the Hospital dates from the mastership of Raymond of Puy (1120 58/60) and, like that of the Templars, was based upon Augustinian principles. It set out a series of regulations for a communal life covering the structure and administration of the order, the vows of the brethren, matters of discipline, the organisation of the Hospital itself and the care of the sick and poor. The brothers took vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and there were also lay brethren, although, as we shall see, there was no direct mention of military personnel at this stage.
The Hospital in Jerusalem and medical care
The primary function of the Hospital of St John in Jerusalem was the care of poor and sick pilgrims and several descriptions of this great institution survive. According to the German pilgrim Theoderic, who visited in 1169, the number of beds available was around 1,000. At times of crisis, however, the brothers would give up their own beds and the Hospital could cater for many more; we know that after the Battle of Montgisard in 1177 Hospitaller field services transported 750 of the wounded back to the main hospital in Jerusalem. In normal conditions, however, the report of a visiting cleric in the 1180s relates that there were eleven wards for men, although the number for women is unknown (see Document 7 ii). The sexes were separated, even to the extent of having distinct kitchens for the male and female wards and female staff to care for the women. The writer noted that all sick were admitted, except lepers, regardless of origin, sex or status. This means that, in theory, Jews and Muslims could be helped although, given a lack of corroborative evidence and the emphasis on prayers and processions to fortify the inmates, such cases must have been very limited in number.
There were only four resident physicians in the hospital — a much lower patient/physician ratio than in contemporary Islamic and Byzantine institutions, yet far greater than anything in the West — who made two ward rounds a day and were supported by thirteen attendants on each ward. The doctors checked the patients’ pulse and urine and dispensed electuaries (syrups) and other medicines. The main method of treatment was through diet and our sources provide much detail on which foods were considered appropriate — in accordance with medical belief of the time — to balance the body’s humours and temperament. Meat was to be served three times a week,
but certain foods, such as eels, cheese, lentils and cabbage, were considered bad for one’s well-being. Blood-letting, lapidary (the wearing of stones: for example, a dry stone would counter an excess of moisture in the patient) and the use of herbal remedies were also common. There was a maternity ward and the Hospitallers took care of abandoned infants and arranged that they would be given to nurses who received 12 talents per annum to care for the child and were required to bring it to the hospital for regular inspections.
The cost of operating the hospital in Jerusalem must have been enormous and there is evidence that certain priories were directed to provide specific quantities of materials to keep it running; for example, the estates at Mont Pelerin and Tiberias were each to send two hundredweights of sugar a year for the making of medicines. It seems that the role of surgery was very limited and the primary task of the hospital was to provide a caring environment for weary and undernourished pilgrims, and to give them the opportunity to recover their strength and to continue their journeys.
The Hospitallers and military activity
Alongside this pastoral function the Hospitallers became increasingly involved in military affairs. The exact timing of this and the reasons that lay behind such activity are not entirely clear. Some have suggested that it was in response to the rise of the Templars, others interpret a military element as a natural extension of the Hospitallers’ care for the poor and pilgrims. In 1136 King Fulk gave the order the castle of Bethgibelin, and although mercenaries probably formed the bulk of the garrison, the Hospitallers exercised ultimate authority over these men. By 1144 the order was seen as having sufficient strength to take on a substantial estate in northern Tripoli, which included the important castle of Krak des Chevaliers, and in 1148 we first find an individual explicitly described as ‘a knight and a brother of the Hospital’. All this information points to a gradual process of militarisation and indicates that concern for the sick remained the order’s main concern. In the 1160s, however, there was a change in approach and the level of militarisation accelerated rapidly. Before this time the Hospitallers owned seven castles and helped in the defence of two others, but in the 1160s they agreed to assist in the defence of Sidon, acquired control over eleven or twelve additional castles and gained theoretical rights over a further six. Master Gilbert d’Assailly’s (1163-72) enthusiasm for involvement in military matters almost brought the order to financial min and provoked serious controversy. In late 1168, contrary to the advice of most of the nobles of Jerusalem and the Templars, Gilbert encouraged King Amalric to break a treaty with the Muslims and to invade Egypt. Gilbert promised to provide the king with 500 knights and 500 Turcopoles, while in return, if Egypt was conquered, he would gain the town of Bilbais, a share of the campaign spoils and the promise of considerable financial advantages. The attack failed, however, and the Hospitallers faced widespread criticism for their greed and accrued a debt of 100,000 bezants. The cost of assembling the forces promised to Amalric and the aggressive policies of Gilbert’s mastership plunged the order into crisis. William of Tyre wrote that Gilbert had exhausted all the treasures of the Hospital, borrowed more money and spent that too. Gilbert resigned the mastership and he seems to have suffered a nervous breakdown because he retreated into a cave for a time. Chaos followed; there was a disputed leadership and, more significantly, there was a serious debate concerning the future direction of the order. Pope Alexander III became involved and between 1168 and 1180 he issued a series of instructions reminding the brothers that their first duty was to care for the poor and that arms-bearing should only take place in certain prescribed situations, usually in times of crisis.
The Crusades 1095-1197 Page 9
