Richard the Lionheart had conquered Cyprus not for his own gain nor for England or his dynasty. Rather, he recognized the strategic importance of Cyprus to the crusader states of the Levant and he had seized an opportunity to secure this vitally important island that controlled the sea lanes and could serve as a base for operations and a source of supplies. The Plantagenet king, therefore, made no attempt to hold on to Cyprus but rather sold it to an institution that appeared most suited and capable of securing Cyprus for the strategic purpose of supporting the established crusader states: the Knights Templar. Ironically, had the Templars managed the situation intelligently, they would have had their own independent base, similar to what the Hospitallers later established on Rhodes and then Malta -- and would have survived Philip IV's attacks and might still be in existence today. But the Templars completely fumbled their opportunity with tragic consequences.
 |
| The Cypriot Coast from the Byzantine Castle of Kantara |
In
the summer of 1191 Richard I of England, cognizant of his inability to
govern Cyprus, made the strategic decision to sell the island to the
Knights Templar. It was a wise decision because he was fully engaged in a
struggle to regain the Holy Land itself and also had a vast empire back
in Europe that would inevitably require his attention sooner or later.
By selling Cyprus to the Knights Templar for 100,000 gold bezants,
Richard not only replenished his war-chest to ensure adequate resources
for the task at hand (the war against Saladin for the Holy Land), he
also ensured that the strategically critical island of Cyprus was in the
hands of Christians fanatically devoted to the cause of securing and
defending Christian control of Holy Land in the long run. It seemed like
a perfect solution.
Professor Malcolm Barber in one of the best books on the Knights Templar ever written (The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple,
Cambridge University Press, 1994), notes that this was an opportunity
for the Order to “establish their own independent state,” something
later achieved by the Teutonic Knights in Prussia and the Hospitallers
on Rhodes/Malta. It goes without saying, that had the Knights Templar
controlled Cyprus from this date onward, they would have concentrated
their treasure and forces there and so have been better positioned to
withstand Philip IV’s attack on them in 1307. Cyprus is an island
encompassing nearly 10,000 square kilometers of mostly fertile land
including extensive forests. It has ample water resources, significant
mineral deposits, notably copper, and a mild Mediterranean climate. It
is located 65 km south of modern Turkey and 95 kilometers from the
Syrian coast. Given its wealth and location, it the Templars had
established themselves here in a sustainable manner the Order might
still exist today.
However,
far from establishing a strong, independent state, the Knights Templar
returned the island to Richard of England less than a year after they
had purchased it. Barber explains their failure with the fact that “the
project proved too ambitious,” (p. 119) while another historian of the
Templars, John Robinson (Dungeon, Fire and Sword: The Knights Templar in the Crusades,
Michael O’Mara Books, 1991) noted that the Templars “totally committed
to an active military campaign [on the mainland], could spare only a few
men….” (p. 187). All sources agree based on common primary sources that
the Templars committed only 14 knights, while George Hill (A History of Cyprus, Volume 2: The Frankish Perid 1192 – 1432,
Cambridge University Press, 1948) adds that the knights were supported
by 29 sergeants and 74 infantry. But the Templars didn’t just give up;
they were driven from the island by a rebellion.
Given the fact that Richard of England had taken the island so rapidly in May 1191 (see Conquest of Cyprus I and II) largely because of widespread support from the population, an uprising against Templar rule was anything but inevitable. Although he’d expropriated for himself half the royal revenues of the island, along with all the personal treasure taken from the self-styled “Emperor” Isaac Comnenus (who
was widely viewed as a “tyrant” if not also a “usurper”), the English
King's regime was not viewed as “oppressive” ― at least not in the very
brief period he spent on the island. This may have been because he had
promised a restoration of the laws as they had been under the Byzantine
Emperor Manuel I Comnenus.
It
is possible that after the euphoria of defeating “the tyrant” had worn
off, the inhabitants of Cyprus began to resent foreign domination. The
population was overwhelmingly Greek Orthodox by faith and had been part
of the Byzantine Empire for since 330 AD, with only sporadic periods of
Muslim rule. An indication of possible popular disaffection is the fact
that, at least according Hill, there was one uprising against Richard’s
administration by a Greek monk, related to the deposed tyrant.
However,
it appears that Richard’s men (and only two knights are ever listed as
being left on the island by him, Richard de Camville and Robert de
Thornham) were able to put this rebellion down very easily, hanging the
pretender, without any losses or apparent bloodshed. This rather
suggests that the pretender had virtually no support. This is hardly
surprising when we consider that Richard’s two knightly administrators
would not have been in a position to institute any widespread changes in the laws and taxes of the island, but rather had been tasked to restore the laws of widely respected Manuel I. Since
Camville and Thornham could hardly have known what these Byzantine laws
entailed, they would have been compelled to depend upon the existing
bureaucracy to collect traditional taxes owed the monarch. In short,
from the point of view of the population of Cyprus, Richard the
Lionheart’s rule was a restoration to the period of good governance that
had preceded the usurpation of power by the tyrant Isaac Comnenus and
there was truly little to rebel against.
 |
| Cypriot Coast - "The Birthplace of Aphrodite" - on a calm day. |
That
was not the case under the Templars. On the contrary, when rebellion
broke out on April 5, 1192 it was apparently supported by such a large
number of people that the most effective fighting force in the Holy
Land, famous for their discipline in attack and retreat and for
overwhelming the best professional soldiers of Islam, took refuge from
the angry mob in their commandery in the city of Nicosia. Furthermore,
an offer to surrender the entire island in exchange for a safe-conduct to a port was rejected by the mob. This strongly indicates that the Templars were not just unwelcome ― they were hated.
Clearly, something had changed. So what exactly had they done?
Barber
suggests the Templars “alienat[ed] the population with their heavy
taxation and arbitrary rule.” (p.119). Robinson is more colorful (as
usual) saying: “Their arrogance in taking whatever they wanted, and
their insulting treatment of the local barons and people had generated
increasing animosity….” (p. 191.) Hill argues that the Templars imposed
fresh dues on the markets, in addition to the existing taxes, in order
to pay the balance of the 100,000 bezants still owed to Richard of
England. But people have a tendency to find ways to evade taxes,
especially when the tax-collectors are in cahoots with the taxpayers as
would have been the case here, given the small size of the Templar
garrison and the continued need to rely on the existing bureaucracy.
Turning to one of the most credible primary sources, one based in part on the contemporary chronicle by a resident in Outremer, The Old French Continuation of William of Tyre, (Peter Edbury’s translation published by Ashgate as The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade),
we find a far more graphic and compelling reason for a revolt. Namely:
“[The Templars] thought they could govern the people of the island in
the same way they treated the rural population in the land of Jerusalem.
They thought they could ill-treat, beat and misuse them….” In short,
the Templars attempted to impose new taxes not traditional to the period
of Manuel I (and so representing a breach of Richard’s promise), and
more important treated the Greek Orthodox population (and one suspects
their priests) as if they were Muslim peasants.
What
happened next has unfortunately become very distorted in some modern
accounts. While sober accounts like that of Barber refer only to a
“desperate charge” to free the Templars trapped in Nicosia, Robinson
adds that they engaged in a “fierce attack on the local population.”
Hill, an otherwise serious historian, indulges in a dramatic account,
claiming:
On
Easter Sunday morning, therefore, having heard mass, they sallied
forth, completely surprising the Greeks, who had never suspected so
small a force of so audacious an enterprise. The Latins slew the Greeks
indiscriminately like sheep; the mounted Templars rode through the town
spitting on their lances everyone they could reach; the streets ran with
blood….The Templars rode through the land, sacking the villages and
spreading desolation, for the population of both cities and villages
fled to the mountains. (Hill, p. 37)
Really?
With 14 knights and 29 sergeants? Against a population that had
successfully hemmed them into their commandery in the first place? And
then, despite this complete and utter victory they gave the island up?
Obviously not. This is sheer hyperbole, and significantly Hill does not
provide a single source for his dramatic and exaggerated account. It
appears more a device to set up the island as ripe for the arrival of
Guy de Lusignan.
Turning instead to The French Continuation of William of Tyre we
find an account that without whitewashing or minimizing the violence of
the Templars nevertheless keeps things in perspective. Namely:
When
Brother Reynald Bochard who was their commander and the brothers
realized that the Greeks would have no mercy, they commended themselves
to God and were confessed and absolved. Then they armed themselves and
went out against the Greeks and fought them. God by His providence gave
the victory to the Templars, and many Greeks were killed or taken. They
immediately came to Acre and explained what had happened to the master
and convent. They took counsel among themselves and agreed that they
could no longer hold island as their property, but…would return it to
King Richard in exchange for the security that they had given him. (Edbury, Peter. Crusades Texts in Translation: The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade. Ashgate, 1998. p. 112)
This
account makes clear that the Templar sortie was a hard-fought battle
(not a slaughter of “sheep”), and while the Templars managed to cut
their way out at considerable cost to the Greeks, they headed straight
for the coast to take ship for Acre and wash their hands of the entire
island! The Templars did not leave behind a “desolated” and depopulated
island, with the inhabitants cowering in the mountains. They left behind
an island in the hands of the local elites. This is a very significant
point and one to keep in mind when examining the establishment of
Frankish rule on Cyprus under the Lusignans.
However,
there is also an element of tragedy in this short episode in the
history of the Knights Templar. Had they handled the situation in Cyprus
better, the Knights Templar would not have been vulnerable to King
Philip IV's machinations just over a century later. Although Templars
might have been arrested and properties confiscated in France, the
Order itself would have survived -- just as the Hospitallers did from
their independent bases of Rhodes and then Malta -- to decay at its own
pace. The nonsensical conspiracy stories and allegations of heresy etc.
would never have taken root, and, who knows, perhaps the Templars would
have proved a stronger bastion against the Ottomans.
Sources:
Barber, Malcolm. The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple.University of Cambridge Press, 1994.
Edbury, Peter. Crusades Texts in Translation: The Conquest of Jerusalem and the Third Crusade. Ashgate, 1998.
Hill, George. A History of Cyprus: Volume 2: The Frankish Period 1192-1432. Cambridge University Press. 1948.
Robinson, John J.. Dungeon, Fire and Sword: The Knights Templar in the Crusades. Michael O'Mara Books, 1994.
Cyprus is the setting of Dr. Schrader's most recent release: The Emperor Strikes Back
No comments:
Post a Comment