Suchergebnisse

The sea was most important to the Templars for the transport of men and goods. Brothers and supplies had to be dispatched to the East, but the administration of the Order also necessitated numerous voyages, while Templars were further used as envoys by popes and rulers. Goods were sent not only to the Holy Land, and the Order did engage in some trading by sea. Templars used both merchant ships and their own vessels, and the latter carried pilgrims and merchants as well as brothers. The Order's experience led kings and princes to employ Templars at times in matters relating to maritime transport. The Templar's involvement in maritime warfare was limited and occurred mainly in the eastern Mediterranean against Christian as well as Muslim opponents. Only occasional references survive about Templars' fighting at sea in the West. Templar ships appear to have been crewed mainly by non-Templars, but little is known about the numbers and specifications of the Order's ships, and it is not clear whether the Templars were active in the construction of vessels. ; The sea was most important to the Templars for the transport of men and goods. Brothers and supplies had to be dispatched to the East, but the administration of the Order also necessitated numerous voyages, while Templars were further used as envoys by popes and rulers. Goods were sent not only to the Holy Land, and the Order did engage in some trading by sea. Templars used both merchant ships and their own vessels, and the latter carried pilgrims and merchants as well as brothers. The Order's experience led kings and princes to employ Templars at times in matters relating to maritime transport. The Templar's involvement in maritime warfare was limited and occurred mainly in the eastern Mediterranean against Christian as well as Muslim opponents. Only occasional references survive about Templars' fighting at sea in the West. Templar ships appear to have been crewed mainly by non-Templars, but little is known about the numbers and specifications of the Order's ships, and it is not clear whether the Templars were active in the construction of vessels.

The sea was most important to the Templars for the transport of men and goods. Brothers and supplies had to be dispatched to the East, but the administration of the Order also necessitated numerous voyages, while Templars were further used as envoys by popes and rulers. Goods were sent not only to the Holy Land, and the Order did engage in some trading by sea. Templars used both merchant ships and their own vessels, and the latter carried pilgrims and merchants as well as brothers. The Order's experience led kings and princes to employ Templars at times in matters relating to maritime transport. The Templar's involvement in maritime warfare was limited and occurred mainly in the eastern Mediterranean against Christian as well as Muslim opponents. Only occasional references survive about Templars' fighting at sea in the West. Templar ships appear to have been crewed mainly by non-Templars, but little is known about the numbers and specifications of the Order's ships, and it is not clear whether the Templars were active in the construction of vessels. ; The sea was most important to the Templars for the transport of men and goods. Brothers and supplies had to be dispatched to the East, but the administration of the Order also necessitated numerous voyages, while Templars were further used as envoys by popes and rulers. Goods were sent not only to the Holy Land, and the Order did engage in some trading by sea. Templars used both merchant ships and their own vessels, and the latter carried pilgrims and merchants as well as brothers. The Order's experience led kings and princes to employ Templars at times in matters relating to maritime transport. The Templar's involvement in maritime warfare was limited and occurred mainly in the eastern Mediterranean against Christian as well as Muslim opponents. Only occasional references survive about Templars' fighting at sea in the West. Templar ships appear to have been crewed mainly by non-Templars, but little is known about the numbers and specifications of the Order's ships, and it is not clear whether the Templars were active in the construction of vessels.

By the later thirteenth century Templar provincial chapters in the West were being held annually, usually in the spring or early summer. In the French province they were always convened in Paris, but in some other provinces meetings took place in various convents. Those who attended were mostly heads of convents, and it seems that those present usually totalled some forty to fifty brothers: in many provinces the majority were sergeants. Provincial masters normally presided, but occasionally the grand master or visitor had charge. Heads of convents were expected to pay their responsions at the chapter and present a statement about the condition of their houses. There seems, however, to have been no general review of appointments. Moreover, the chapter also acted as a chapter of faults. Yet any current business could also be raised at a meeting, although little is known about the process of decision-making. Provincial chapters appear to have lasted for only a few days, whereas at other Times in the year provincial masters tended to seek counsel from smaller groups of commanders.

By the later thirteenth century Templar provincial chapters in the West were being held annually, usually in the spring or early summer. In the French province they were always convened in Paris, but in some other provinces meetings took place in various convents. Those who attended were mostly heads of convents, and it seems that those present usually totalled some forty to fifty brothers: in many provinces the majority were sergeants. Provincial masters normally presided, but occasionally the grand master or visitor had charge. Heads of convents were expected to pay their responsions at the chapter and present a statement about the condition of their houses. There seems, however, to have been no general review of appointments. Moreover, the chapter also acted as a chapter of faults. Yet any current business could also be raised at a meeting, although little is known about the process of decision-making. Provincial chapters appear to have lasted for only a few days, whereas at other Times in the year provincial masters tended to seek counsel from smaller groups of commanders.

Although opposition to masters was voiced in several military orders in the thirteenth century, the criticism expressed in the Hospital in 1295 was unusual in that an attempt was made to alter the order's structure of government. It was claimed that masters had not observed the rule and customs of the order, and the Hospital was therefore to be placed under the control of seven diffinitors, of whom the master was to be one, and who were to hold office for life: they were to constitute a self-perpetuating oligarchy. Their proposed powers were to be noticeably greater than those of diffinitors of other religious orders, as the latter usually exercised authority only during provincial or general chapters. Support for the scheme quickly waned, however, and it was not implemented; nor was any attempt made later to revive it. Its failure reflects the widespread acceptance of a strong monarchical form of government, and can be compared with the failure of measures taken in various countries during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries to restrict the independence of secular rulers when these were pursuing policies which were unpopular or unsuccessful.

Although opposition to masters was voiced in several military orders in the thirteenth century, the criticism expressed in the Hospital in 1295 was unusual in that an attempt was made to alter the order's structure of government. It was claimed that masters had not observed the rule and customs of the order, and the Hospital was therefore to be placed under the control of seven diffinitors, of whom the master was to be one, and who were to hold office for life: they were to constitute a self-perpetuating oligarchy. Their proposed powers were to be noticeably greater than those of diffinitors of other religious orders, as the latter usually exercised authority only during provincial or general chapters. Support for the scheme quickly waned, however, and it was not implemented; nor was any attempt made later to revive it. Its failure reflects the widespread acceptance of a strong monarchical form of government, and can be compared with the failure of measures taken in various countries during the late thirteenth and early fourteenth centuries to restrict the independence of secular rulers when these were pursuing policies which were unpopular or unsuccessful.

Military orders sought not only to prevent disputes with similar foundations by agreeing regulations on subjects such as transfers between orders but also to establish long-term procedures for the settlement by arbitration of disputes, particularly about property rights. These usually provided for the naming of a certain number of arbiters drawn from the orders themselves.Yet in practice these arrangements for arbitration were commonly ignored, and ad hoc measures were usually taken to bring altercations to an end: decisions were often entrusted to external arbiters or to the pope. There were several possible reasons for this neglect of agreed procedures, including ignorance on the part of officials. Provisions for the avoidance or settlement of disputes were just one aspect of the networks which were created, either formally or informally, between military orders and which also provided for co-operation in war and mutual aid and defence against aggressors. ; Military orders sought not only to prevent disputes with similar foundations by agreeing regulations on subjects such as transfers between orders but also to establish long-term procedures for the settlement by arbitration of disputes, particularly about property rights. These usually provided for the naming of a certain number of arbiters drawn from the orders themselves.Yet in practice these arrangements for arbitration were commonly ignored, and ad hoc measures were usually taken to bring altercations to an end: decisions were often entrusted to external arbiters or to the pope. There were several possible reasons for this neglect of agreed procedures, including ignorance on the part of officials. Provisions for the avoidance or settlement of disputes were just one aspect of the networks which were created, either formally or informally, between military orders and which also provided for co-operation in war and mutual aid and defence against aggressors.

Military orders sought not only to prevent disputes with similar foundations by agreeing regulations on subjects such as transfers between orders but also to establish long-term procedures for the settlement by arbitration of disputes, particularly about property rights. These usually provided for the naming of a certain number of arbiters drawn from the orders themselves.Yet in practice these arrangements for arbitration were commonly ignored, and ad hoc measures were usually taken to bring altercations to an end: decisions were often entrusted to external arbiters or to the pope. There were several possible reasons for this neglect of agreed procedures, including ignorance on the part of officials. Provisions for the avoidance or settlement of disputes were just one aspect of the networks which were created, either formally or informally, between military orders and which also provided for co-operation in war and mutual aid and defence against aggressors. ; Military orders sought not only to prevent disputes with similar foundations by agreeing regulations on subjects such as transfers between orders but also to establish long-term procedures for the settlement by arbitration of disputes, particularly about property rights. These usually provided for the naming of a certain number of arbiters drawn from the orders themselves.Yet in practice these arrangements for arbitration were commonly ignored, and ad hoc measures were usually taken to bring altercations to an end: decisions were often entrusted to external arbiters or to the pope. There were several possible reasons for this neglect of agreed procedures, including ignorance on the part of officials. Provisions for the avoidance or settlement of disputes were just one aspect of the networks which were created, either formally or informally, between military orders and which also provided for co-operation in war and mutual aid and defence against aggressors.