Tag: money

Posted on

Alexander the Great and The Business of War – Part 2

“As Persepolis had exceeded all other cities in prosperity, so in the same measure it now exceeded all others in misery.”

Miseries along with poverty, for the people were raped of their land and their self. However, with such great turmoil came lasting hope that those affected would be redeemed. If Alexander felt that unity was close, the inhabitants of the Iranian plateau would not forget the sacking of Persepolis, among other distasteful actions before and after.

Famous Alexander Mosaic, showing Battle of Issus. Alexander is depicted mounted, on the left

Famous Alexander Mosaic, showing Battle of Issus. Alexander is depicted mounted, on the left (Public Domain)

[Read Part I]

However, many accounts of Alexander’s sacking and destruction of Persepolis may be exaggerated. Still, then again, much of it could very well be true, as this was a war of revenge to some extent due to the Persians supposedly burning down Greek temples during the Greco-Persian War.

Sacrifices to the Gods and Cultural Unity

I only say ‘supposedly’ because the Persians respected other cultures’ religions. Xerxes himself, during the Greco-Persian War, was accompanied not only by the Magi but also by Greek diviners and specialists. Xerxes even sacrificed a thousand bulls at Ilion to the goddess Athena, and speaking of Athena, he ordered the Greek exiles to make a sacrifice to Athena at the Acropolis. However, this could have been due to Xerxes making alms to his gods and theirs as a sign of respect and sorrow for the burning of the Acropolis—but this still does not answer whether the burning did or did not happen.

A map showing the Greek world at the time of the invasion

A map showing the Greek world at the time of the invasion (CC BY-SA 3.0)

This is just a small showing of Xerxes’ respect towards other cultural beliefs. But it should not go unnoticed, for it provides a glimpse into Greece’s events during the war. The Persian invasion did leave death, destruction, and looting, which is obvious in all nations in war. Still, one has to be careful in suggesting that Xerxes intended to take direct aim at holy temples with the few sources provided without considering the nature of the Persian respect toward other gods, as demonstrated by Xerxes. On the other hand, we have Alexander, who invaded under the pretense of a just cause or just war to avenge the Greeks for Persian wrongs. However, if you intend to invade and conquer, to bring about social harmony through cultural unity, burning down the Persian house is not a great start towards promoting peace.

Persepolis. Limestone. Reign of Xerxes, 486-465 BC

Persepolis. Limestone. Reign of Xerxes, 486-465 BC (CC BY-SA 2.0)

This harmony never materialized, not even during the Seleucid Empire, which controlled most of the former lands of the Persian Empire. Even with many Greek colonists settling in the former lands of the once mighty Achaemenid Empire, they never truly penetrated or influenced the indigenous peoples of the Iranian plateau with their Hellenistic culture. In time, the Greek settlements looked like mere islands spread out too far from one another to make a true cultural impact in the regions they settled. Many of the tribal societies in Iran and further to the east held on to their traditional ways and looked at the Greeks settling in their areas as unwanted guests or, in the modern sense, illegal aliens.

This demonstrates that Alexander the Great’s grand strategy of united racial harmony through Hellenism was not even in the best interest of his successor to his eastern lands, Seleucus, or with the Greeks settling within the eastern lands. Because of this alienation imposed upon the indigenous people on the Iranian plateau, rebellion would soon rise out of this and attack the very masters who preached harmony.

Alexander the Not-So-Great?

The notion of Alexander being Μέγας “Great” is indeed a mistake written by those who romanticized the idea later on, which in turn created an argument based on Western ethnocentrism that continues. If there is anything great that can be said about Alexander, it surely was not his foreign or domestic policy but rather his ability to innovate on the battlefield, which was a marvel. However, a question remains: why did you invade Persia?

Herma of Alexander (Roman copy of a 330 BC statue by Lysippus). According to Diodorus, the Alexander sculptures by Lysippus were the most faithful to his true appearance.

Herma of Alexander (Roman copy of a 330 BC statue by Lysippus). According to Diodorus, the Alexander sculptures by Lysippus were the most faithful to his true appearance. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

A Lucrative Adventure

So why did Alexander invade the Persian Empire? You are right if you said it was revenge against the Persians. But there is another reason— and that was money. Alexander invaded Persia not only to get some payback but also because he needed the money. Persia had vast wealth that could whet his appetite and pay for the armies and debts.

Entry of Alexander into Babylon

Entry of Alexander into Babylon (Public Domain)

The looting began once he was on the move. At Babylon, the amount Alexander confiscated is unknown. But given that it was Babylon, one can assume the amount plundered was great. When he took Susa, he acquired 50,000 talents; Persepolis 120,000; Pasargadae 6,000; Ecbatana 26,000. 202,000 talents (excluding Babylonia) of gold and silver from these cities alone were now in his hands. From the amount of money taken, Alexander handed out bonuses to his men totaling 12,000 talents, with another 2,000 going to Thessalain soldiers. Moreover, many of Alexander’s men, including Alexander himself, likely came across gold and silver coins that the Persians had looted from the Greek treasuries during the Greco-Persian Wars. Understand that the amount of money mentioned only pertains to the area of western Iran and a portion of Mesopotamia. Moreover, considering the wealth his soldiers looted during the campaign, many lost coins would have been everywhere. When considering the reminder of his conquests, Alexander may have looted 400,000 talents before he died.

Estimates:

250,000 Talents – looted from Persia

400,000 Talents – total loot during Alexander’s career

A rough valuation of the Talents plundered in dollars:

Persia – $7,000,000,000,000, or $7 trillion

Grand total, including Persia – $11 trillion

When considering the amount taken by his men, the number only increases.

Head of helmeted Athena right. Obverse of a gold stater minted in Babylon during the reign of Philip III or Philip IV of Macedon.

Head of helmeted Athena right. Obverse of a gold stater minted in Babylon during the reign of Philip III or Philip IV of Macedon. (CC BY 2.5)

The Truth Comes Out

The Roman historian Arrian tells us that Alexander set out to conquer Persia as revenge for past wrongs. Alexander addresses this in his letter to Darius: “Your ancestors came into Macedonia and the rest of Greece and treated us ill, without any previous injury from us. I, having been appointed commander and chief of the Greek, and wishing to take revenge on the Persians, crossed over into Asia, hostilities being begun by you.” But was it all about revenge, or was there something more to it— is it possible that Alexander needed money?

Most books discussing Alexander’s invasion of Persia tell of revenge as the motivator due to the Greco-Persian Wars of the past. But it is rather odd that Alexander suddenly decides to mount his horse and lead his army into the lands of Persia, even though the war has been over for more than one hundred years.

However, Arrian provides another passage. Alexander gave a speech at Opis 324 BCE when his men mutinied for a second time, the first being at Hyphasis River a few years back. Arrian explains why Alexander declared war on Persia: “I inherited from my father a few gold and silver cups, and less than 60 talents in the treasury; Philip had debts amounting to 500 talents, and I raised a loan of a further 800.”

[Top] Gold vessels, Achaemenid; 5th century BC (CC BY 2.0) [Bottom] and with twelve-petaled rosettes - Achaemenid gold, Persepolis, 550-330 BC

[Top] Gold vessels, Achaemenid; 5th century BC (CC BY 2.0) [Bottom] and with twelve-petaled rosettes – Achaemenid gold, Persepolis, 550-330 BC (Public Domain)

Alexander’s father, Philip, had already set his eyes on Persia and was preparing an invasion force but was assassinated before he could accomplish his objective. With his death, Alexander was left with a semi-professional army. They were a paid fighting force paid directly by the king himself.

For Alexander to pay for this army if he wished to keep it, he had to disband a portion to save money, which was unacceptable, or go on the march to save his kingdom. It seemed he had little choice but to save his kingdom and pay the bills by conquering and confiscating Persia besides other lands.

Death of a Man, Death of an Era

It seems reasonable to assume that Alexander used Persia to pay for the troops his father left behind. One might think this would be ludicrous, but why would it? Alexander was given a well-trained and organized fighting force. His youth may have also played a part, as history has often been written by young people willing to take on a challenge or great risk since the life expectancy during this period was short. Because of this, Alexander felt that Persia was a grand prize if he could take it. Once he took the Persian Empire, the cold, hard reality soon set in, and the new problem was dealing with two cultures.

Alexander the Great and physician Philip of Acarnania.

Alexander the Great and physician Philip of Acarnania. (Public Domain)

How unified were the two cultures after the fall of Persia? In a sense, it makes relatively no sense to say “two cultures.” However, for clarity, we shall keep it as two cultures. It was one culture (Hellenism) versus a smorgasbord of various Oriental cultures.

Those living on the Iranian Plateau did seem to be, for the most part, followers of the Zoroastrian religion, but religion does not indicate ethnic or tribal affiliations and allegiances. Instead, the various tribes that dotted the landscape had many different customs and practices that came with diverse languages. This division of cultures was, in and of itself, a huge obstacle for the Greco-Macedonians. Hellenism would take root and thrive much more in Western Asia, whereas, in the East, it had little effect. It was present but not always noticeable. This does not mean that Hellenism in Iran was not present, nor hadn’t an effect on the local population, but rather that it was established, yet minuscule, like the military force assigned to protect the vital trade arteries of the eastern empire.

The unity quickly ended with Alexander’s death. It looked hypocritical of Alexander to promote unity in life when, on death, his men asked, “To whom do you leave the kingdom?” and he replied: “To the strongest.” This would not be the case, however. Seleucus and those who ruled after could never establish a loyal political base of influential proportions, nor were they capable of centralizing the entire empire effectively, at least not in the east. Furthermore, they never truly penetrated or influenced the indigenous peoples on the Iranian plateau with their Hellenistic culture.

Dr. Richard Frye says, “The Seleucids controlled the main trade routes in Iran but little else.” This may indicate that Alexander controlled not much more after proclaiming the land as his and moving on.

Alexander’s dream became a reality that ultimately overtook him in death. Before Alexander died, he was approached concerning who the successor would be. Alexander replied, “To the best man; for I foresee that a great combat of my friends will be my funeral games.” His statement that his empire went to the “best man” suggests that even if he had no confidence in his men, why not? Alexander saw himself as a god; What mortal among them could be his equal? He knew that none of his men could do what he did, so he foresaw conflict.

The empire Alexander left was too complex to be governed by one man. Had he lived to be very old, his empire may have stayed intact, but this is conjecture. He took on the customs of those he conquered to show love and appreciation for all things Eastern, but in reality, it was just a political maneuver. Once Alexander died, his Macedonian men divorced their Iranian wives; Cassander, the son of Antipater the general, who supported both Philip and Alexander, murdered Alexander’s widow Roxanna and son Alexander around 310 BCE; and all of the Iranian satraps were removed from power. The Macedonians wanted only revenge and nothing to do with Eastern, for it was barbaric. However, this did not help, for even the Macedonians fought amongst themselves over the glory and riches Alexander provided as they did at Persepolis in 330 BCE.

Top Image: Detail of the Alexander Sarcophagus located in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. (CC BY-SA 2.5) Gold coins (Public Domain), Deriv.

By Cam Rea

References

Arrian. Anabasis. Translated by Aubrey De Seliucount. England: Penguin Classics, 1958.

Bourne, Randolph. War and the Intellectuals: Collected Essays, 1915-1919. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Curtis, John, Nigel Tallis, and Béatrice André-Salvini. Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Diodorus.

Farrokh, Kaveh. Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2007.

Larson, Jennifer. Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide. New York: 2007, Routledge.

Plutarch. Moralia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962.

—. The Parallel Lives: The Life of Alexander. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

Stoneman, Richard. Alexander the Great. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2004.

Tarn, William. Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.

Ulvog, Jim. “Guess on the Value of All Loot Taken by Alexander the Great.” July 15, 2016. Accessed January 3, 2017. https://attestationupdate.com/2016/07/15/guess-on-the-value-of-all-loot-taken-by-alexander-the-great/.

Yarshater, Ehsan. “Iranian National History.” In The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 (1): The Selecuid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, by Ehsan Yarshater, 359-477. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Posted on

Alexander the Great and The Business of War – Part 1

Alexander the Great has gained immortality in his strong presence in our minds and history books. Known for his great military genius and diplomatic skills, he conquered most of the world of his time and brought on a new era of the Hellenistic World. But who was Alexander, the man?

The intention of this article is not to go into the history of Alexander’s invasion and conquest of the Near East but rather to look at the man himself. In doing so, we will understand why Alexander invaded and dispel some of the myths about Alexander’s intentions, helping us understand why the Greco-Macedonian Empire broke apart a little over a hundred years after his death. Nearly all traces of his once glorious empire had been tossed into the ash heap of history.

A bust of Alexander the Great

A bust of Alexander the Great (CC BY-ND 2.0)

The War Business

The army that King Philip II of Macedon left to his son Alexander was semi-professional and a paid fighting force. For Alexander to pay for this army, either he had to disband a portion of it to save money, risking much in doing so, or he had to go on the march to save his kingdom. Alexander chooses to save his kingdom at another empire’s expense. Alexander needed to pay the bills and would do so by looting Persia.

He proved what Randolph Bourne once stated; “War is the health of the state.” Alexander was the state, and war was his business. Therefore, revenge was the excuse to avoid personal monetary debt. Besides Alexander’s dilemma of possibly going into debt within a matter of weeks, he also had a rather large personal ego to contend with.

Upbringing and Education

Alexander’s ego is said to have been rather massive. His mother had huge expectations for him, leading him to believe he would conquer Persia. If you think about it, the only huge deed at the time to prove one’s destiny was to conquer Persia, for it was the biggest challenge in the known world, at least in the Greco-Macedonian sense. Besides being hounded about his destiny, he also was a competitor from birth, as he would try to outdo his father in combat, being more aggressive in battle and showing absolute courage in the face of danger just to win Papa’s approval. Alexander worried that nothing would be left to achieve beyond the successes of his father, Philip.

Bust of Philip II of Macedon, a 1st-century Roman-era copy of a Greek original.

Bust of Philip II of Macedon, a 1st-century Roman-era copy of a Greek original. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Besides his home life, Alexander was enthralled by the epic poems of Homer and his detailed journeys into war and individual heroism.  These themes fueled the young Alexander’s imagination as he grew, along with the help of his tutor, Aristotle. The works of Homer instilled the romantic rebels of the Greek legends, such as Achilles or even Hercules—who Alexander modeled himself and who he claimed to be descended from—while Aristotle provided the reasoning in Alexander’s curriculum. Alexander’s father, Philip, taught him war.

Aristotle tutoring Alexander.

Aristotle tutoring Alexander. (Public Domain)

However, once Philip was dead, Alexander set off on his journey, and the rest is history. What set Alexander East was debt, but had his ego not been so bold and his character not so bold for risk-taking, history would have been very different. Like Achilles, Alexander died before accomplishing his dream or destiny, but the outcome was necessary. Achilles died at Troy before he could see it fall, but his name lived on, while Alexander died before he could conquer the entire world, but his name is forever etched into mankind’s memory.

Triumphant Achilles dragging Hector's lifeless body in front of the Gates of Troy.

Triumphant Achilles dragging Hector’s lifeless body in front of the Gates of Troy. (Public Domain)

Alexander has indeed left a memorable account that has survived through the ages. However, many do not consider his actions and the consequences that would afflict the Near Eastern region after his death. Therefore, it is important to examine his views about those he conquered.

Upheaval in the Orient

This battle for supremacy over the Orient started when a young Alexander first stepped foot on Persian soil. The readings Aristotle assigned him as a youth were now real, and the adventure ahead was unknown. Alexander could only rely on the readings and the philosophers who would later travel with him. As Alexander moved forward with his ambitions, his achievements rocked those in the Orient and those back home, let alone his own men and officer staff, particularly the future Diadochi or “successors.”

Alexander’s dream was to unite East and West. Still, even this notion of a united East and West is in dispute due to his prayer that insisted on harmony “between Macedonians and Persians.” In reality, this prayer was nothing more than a shadow in that it favored the Macedonians and Greeks over the Persians. Alexander must have understood that when you burn down the house you conquered, there will be little room for unity and trust.

The Persian palace he set on fire, though General Parmenion urged him to save it, arguing, among other things, that it was not seemly to destroy what was now his property and that the Asians would not thus be induced to join him if he seemed determined not to hold fast the sovereignty of Asia, but merely to pass through it in triumph. Alexander, on the contrary, replied that he proposed to punish the Persians in recompense for what they had done in their invasion of Greece, for their wrecking of Athens, their burning of the temples, and for all the other cruel things they had done to the Greeks; for these, he said, he took vengeance.

Ruins of the Palace of Artaxerxes I, Persepolis.

Ruins of the Palace of Artaxerxes I, Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 4.0)

Interestingly, some felt that Alexander did not do as Aristotle taught him (even though the burning of Persian property would seem to fit what Aristotle would want against the barbarians). It seems that this action may have been a little too much, for Plutarch states:

Alexander did not follow Aristotle’s advice to treat the Greeks as if he were their leader and other peoples as if he were their master, to regard the Greeks as friends and kindred, but to conduct himself toward other peoples as though they were plants or animals.

The Great Double Staircase at Persepolis.

The Great Double Staircase at Persepolis. (CC BY 2.0)

Alexander did treat others as Aristotle advised; he just kept it concealed by promising the illusion of unity between east and west— like when the Macedonians were said to have taken Persian wives, but one will see that there is not a trace mentioned of Persian nobles being offered the women of Macedonia for marriage.

When one takes another look at Alexander’s empire after his death, his name is scattered all about the Iranian landscape, as is the Hellenistic culture he brought with him. All things Persian remained in the countryside, unseen and out of mind, while Hellenism took root in the urban centers of civilization. The historian Ehsan Yarshater makes the distinction between the genuine Iranian aspects, which are later mixed in with the romantic, when he states:

“According to genuine Iranian tradition, Alexander destroyed the integrity of the Iranian empire by undermining the authority of its kings and dividing the land among feudatory lords. Further, he ruined fire temples, killed Zoroastrian priests and destroyed their manuscripts, transferring Persian science and philosophy to Rum (Greece). On the other hand, the legendary tale of Alexander, written by pseudo-Callisthenes sometime before the 4th century, was translated into Middle Persian during the 6th century, and its content, with some modifications, was later adopted by the body of Iranian historical traditions. In the Iranian form of the romance, Alexander becomes a son of Dara I and a half brother of his adversary, Dara II.”

Alexander the Accursed and the Sacking of Persepolis

Alexander’s conquest of Persia and the sources that speak against him have labeled him, according to Zoroastrian sources, as gojastak or “the accursed.” These mention Alexander as “the great destroyer” due to the murdering of Magi priests.  It’s written that he “killed the magi … many teachers, lawyers, Herbats, Mobads.” In addition, much of the literature in Persia was burnt during the conquest, including the sacred Avesta text. Alexander’s men burned copies of the original Avesta texts kept at Dez-Nepesi,  the ‘Castle of Inscriptions’ or ‘Fortress of Archives’. From then on, Zoroastrian priests would memorize the text and pass on the information through oral tradition until the Parthian king Vologases I had them written down again.

Ruins of the Tachara, Persepolis.

Ruins of the Tachara, Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

If destroying literature was not enough, Alexander also looted the treasury. Thousands of pack animals were utilized to remove 2500 tons of gold at Persepolis! A staggering amount. Alexander would take part of the treasury to fund the war while depositing the rest in Susa. Adding insult to injury, Diodorus Siculus mentions that Alexander also allowed his:

“Soldiers to plunder, all but the palaces. It was the richest city under the sun and the private houses had been furnished with every sort of wealth over the years. The Macedonians raced into it slaughtering all the men whom they met and plundering the residences; many of the houses belonged to the common people and were abundantly supplied with furniture and wearing apparel of every kind. Here much silver was carried off and no little gold, and many rich dresses gay with sea purple or with gold embroidery became the prize of the victors. The enormous palaces, famed throughout the whole civilized world, fell victim to insult and utter destruction.”

Alexander’s men were getting rich quickly at the expense of the locals. Still, even that was not enough, for many of Alexander’s men turned on one another and began to kill each other in the name of profit due to one fellow soldier having more than the other. Moreover, the Persian males whom the soldiers encountered were murdered, and the women were taken to be made slaves.

Bull capital at Persepolis.

Bull capital at Persepolis. (CC BY 2.0)

The sacking of Persepolis went beyond greed and momentarily resembled a landscape of unbridled nihilism. Alexander had effectively taken Persepolis, a city that he “described it to the Macedonians as the most hateful of the cities of Asia,” and rendered it useless after all was looted of its former glory. This was not the official end of Persepolis, but as a city of importance, its light quickly dimmed. However, Alexander gave the city one last “hoorah,” when he held a great funeral party at the people’s expense. “As Persepolis had exceeded all other cities in prosperity, so in the same measure it now exceeded all others in misery;” Miseries along with poverty, for the people were raped of their land and their self. However, with such great turmoil comes lasting hope that those affected will be redeemed. If Alexander felt that unity was close, the inhabitants of the Iranian plateau would not forget the sacking of Persepolis, among other distasteful actions before and after.

Gate of All Nations, Persepolis.

Gate of All Nations, Persepolis. (CC BY-SA 3.0)

Top Image: Detail of the Alexander Sarcophagus located in the Istanbul Archaeology Museum. Here Alexander fights the Persians at the Battle of Issus. (CC BY-SA 2.5)

By Cam Rea

References

Arrian. Anabasis. Translated by Aubrey De Seliucount. England: Penguin Classics, 1958.

Bourne, Randolph. War and the Intellectuals: Collected Essays, 1915-1919. New York: Harper & Row, 1964.

Curtis, John, Nigel Tallis, and Béatrice André-Salvini. Forgotten Empire: The World of Ancient Persia. Berkeley: University of California Press, 2005. Diodorus.

Diodorus Siculus 70. 1-3.

Farrokh, Kaveh. Shadows in the Desert: Ancient Persia at War. Oxford: Osprey Publishing, 2007.

Larson, Jennifer. Ancient Greek Cults: A Guide. New York: 2007, Routledge.

Plutarch. Moralia. Translated by Frank Cole Babbitt. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Harvard University Press, 1962.

—. The Parallel Lives: The Life of Alexander. Cambridge, Massachusetts: Loeb Classical Library edition, 1919.

Stoneman, Richard. Alexander the Great. 2nd ed. London: Routledge, 2004.

Tarn, William. Alexander the Great. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1951.

Ulvog, Jim. “Guess on the Value of All Loot Taken by Alexander the Great.” July 15, 2016. Accessed January 3, 2017. https://attestationupdate.com/2016/07/15/guess-on-the-value-of-all-loot-taken-by-alexander-the-great/.

Yarshater, Ehsan. “Iranian National History.” In The Cambridge History of Iran, Vol. 3 (1): The Selecuid, Parthian and Sasanian Periods, by Ehsan Yarshater, 359-477. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 1983.

Posted on

Roger de Flor and His Catalan Company

 

 

Roger de Flor was a swashbuckling military adventurer and condottiere (mercenary) leader of the Catalan Company. He was born in the city of Brindisi, Italy, which at the time of his birth was a part of the Kingdom of Sicily. He was the youngest son of Richard von Blum (Blum in German means flower), a German falconer who served Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor and an Italian mother was the daughter of an honorable and wealthy man (possibly a patrician) from Brindisi. Roger also had an older brother by the name of Jacob.
Not long after Roger’s birth, the Kingdom of Sicily was embroiled in a war between Charles of Anjou, the youngest son of King Louis VIII of France, and King Conradin (Conrad) of Sicily in late summer of 1268. It was during this war that Roger’s father, Richard, joined to aid in the defense of Sicily. According to the Ramon Muntaner Chronicle, Richard was “a man expert in arms and wished to fight in the battle.” On 23 August 1268, the supporters of Conradin and the army of Charles of Anjou meet at Scurcola Marsicana province of L’Aquila, present-day Italy, in what is known as the Battle of Tagliacozzo. Conradin’s forces consisted of Italian, Spanish, Roman, Arab and German troops, while Charles forces were primarily consisted of French and Italian troops. Conradin’s forces initially had the upper hand during the battle. However, the overconfidence of his men got the best of them, for they soon became preoccupied with plunder. Charles took advantage of the situation and defeated the forces of Conradin to become the new king of Sicily. It was during this battle that Roger, who was not even a year old and Jacob, who was only four, would lose their father during the battle. With Sicily now under his control, Charles took it upon himself to enjoy the spoils of war:

And King Charles, when he had seized the Kingdom, took for himself everything belonging to all who had been in the battle, and what had belonged to the family of the Emperor or of King Manfred. There remained no more to those boys than what their mother had brought as her marriage portion, for, of the rest, they were disinherited.

Whatever Richard had accumulated for his children, was now in the hands of the king.
To suggest that Roger grew up poor would be a stretch, since his grandfather was a patrician. Because of this, it is safe to assume that Roger and his older brother partook in their grandfather’s business and learned a great deal in finance since lived in a port city dealing in trade.  And, at that time, the ships of commercial houses touched at Brindisi, and those of Apulia, who wished to take pilgrims and provisions from the Kingdom, came there to spend the winter. The commercial houses all had, and have still, great establishments at Brindisi and in an Apulia and in all the Kingdom. And so the ships which winter there begin to load up in the spring to go to Acre, and take pilgrims and oil and wine and all kinds of grain of wheat. And, assuredly, it is the best fitted out place for the passage beyond sea of any belonging to Christians, and in the most abundant and fertile land, and it is very near Rome; and it has the best harbour of the world, so that there are houses right down to the sea.

And, at that time, the ships of commercial houses touched at Brindisi, and those of Apulia, who wished to take pilgrims and provisions from the Kingdom, came there to spend the winter. The commercial houses all had, and have still, great establishments at Brindisi and in an Apulia and in all the Kingdom. And so the ships which winter there begin to load up in the spring to go to Acre, and take pilgrims and oil and wine and all kinds of grain of wheat. And, assuredly, it is the best fitted out place for the passage beyond sea of any belonging to Christians, and in the most abundant and fertile land, and it is very near Rome; and it has the best harbour of the world, so that there are houses right down to the sea.

Given the location and job occupation of his mother’s family, Roger would have been familiar with ships and may have gone on a few voyages himself with his grandfather. Reason for this, is that Roger was caught to playing on a ship in port when he was eight. This moment would change Roger’s life forever.

A notable of the Templars, a brother sergeant, called Frey Vassayll. And whilst he was having the ship repaired, the boy Roger ran about the ship and the rigging as lightly as if he were a monkey, and all day he was with the sailors, because the house of his mother was near to where the ship was taking in ballast. And the notable, Frey Vassayll, took a liking to the boy Roger.

Vassayll took to liking the boy “and he asked his mother for him and said that, if she gave him up to him, he would do all in his power to get him a good post with the Templars. And the mother, as he seemed to her a man of importance, gave the boy up to him willingly, and he received him.” However, this seems unlikely. While it is possible that Roger’s mother handed him over to Vassayll, it seems plausible that a deal had been struck a long time ago given the families occupation in business. Roger’s mother could provide little and giving him over to those who could offer her son a much better education was far more lucrative. Roger turned out to be a quick learner:

And the boy turned out the most expert boy at sea; he performed marvels of climbing and of all things. When he was fifteen he was considered one of the best mariners of the world, and when he was twenty he was an accomplished mariner in theory and in practice, so that the worthy Frey Vassayll let him do entirely as he liked with the ship. And the Master of the Templars, seeing him so zealous and expert, gave him the mantle and made him brother sergeant and a short time after he had been made a brother, the Templars bought a great ship from the Genoese, the greatest that had been built at that time, and it was called the Falcon, and they gave it to this Frey Roger de Flor. And in this ship he sailed a long time, showing great knowledge and great valour. He found himself at Acre in this ship and the Templars did so well with this ship that they liked none so well as this one. This Frey Roger was the most generous man ever born; he can only be compared to the young King. And all he gained he divided and gave to the principal Templars and to many friends he knew how to make.

In 1291, Roger was 24 years old when the city of Acre had come under siege by the Mamluk Sultan Al-Ashraf Khalil. Seeing that the city could not be saved, Roger rescued and “brought away ladies and damsels and great treasure and many important people.” Once away from the city he brought the people to the city of Montpelgrin. Roger would soon meet with the Master Templar who was pleased. However, there were those who were jealous, and made accusations that Roger was holding onto more treasure hidden away in Acre from the Templar order. To make matters worse, his supposed crimes were brought forth to the pope where he was denounced as a thief and apostate. Soon after Roger was expelled and fled to Genoa away from the Templar order. Once in Genoa, Roger would barrow money from friends, particularly Ticino Doria, and used those funds to purchase a new ship from which his career in piracy would soon flourish.

Piracy

Roger would take his ship and crew in search of work. His first stop was at Catania to meet the Duke where he offered his services, but the Duke knew of Roger the accusations against him and decided not to hire him. Roger sailed south to Messina where he offered his services to King Fadrique (Frederick III, king of Sicily). King Fadrique liked what he heard and made Roger a member of his house and allowed his men to rest eight days before setting off. After the eight day, it was time to go to work. Roger and crew made their way to the city of Apulia, Italy, which at the time was under the Kingdom of Naples. The area would have been a lucrative trading hub. The first ship Roger took was one owned by King Charles. What makes this capture interesting is that the ship was heading to the Duke in Catania, the very same man who turned down his services. After the ship had been captured, Roger gave his men their share and the rest was brought back loaded with many valuables to King Fadrique. As for the captured ship, Roger “manned it with some of his company, and those of the ship he put in the galley, and sent the ship, which was three-decked and loaded with grain and other provisions, to Syracuse.”
Roger’s piracy would have a great impact on the moral of King Fadrique’s troops. Roger made so much money that he was able to pay the soldiers at Syracuse, Agosta, Lentini, among many other places a sum of six months pay. Many soldiers took the coin while many others took victuals. Because of this, Roger was able not only to revive the men’s purses but also their spirits that made them better soldiers. This would not end, as Roger would continue to seize ships, particularly the rich laden ships of King Charles from which he would pay his men and the wages of the King’s men for six months or more considering the amount o wealth flowing into the King Fadrique’s coffers:

And he came to Messina and sent to the Lord King, who was going about Sicily, a thousand onzas in fine carlinos, and paid also, for six months, the soldiers who were with count de Squilace, and at Calana and La Mota and at the castle of Santa Agata and at Pentedatilo and Amandolea and Gerace; namely in money and in victuals.

Which makes one wonder — who was really the king, Roger or Fadrique?
Besides crewing ships to search for loot, he also began to hire and equip land forces, for “he bought full fifty mounts, all of good quality, and mounted Catalan and Aragonese squires which he received in his company, and he took five Catalan and Aragonese knights into his house.” Afterwards, Roger brought to the king at Piazza and to “Don Blasco and En G. Galceran and En Berenguer de Entenza” a thousand or more in coin. While there is no questioning that Roger’s great gift, like the many gifts given, were political, for he knew that he needed more than just the king as his ally and like any generous gift, it went over well. Roger now had acquired not only the security of the king but the nobles as well. The gifts kept on coming in as Roger showered everyone he came across with wealth:

There was no rich hom or knight who did not accept his presents and, in all the castles to which he came, he paid the soldiers for six months. So did he strengthen the Lord King and refresh his followers that one of them was worth as much as two had been before. And the Lord King, seeing his worth, made him vice-admiral of Sicily and a member of his council, and gave him the castles of Tripi and Alicata and the revenues of Malta.

Roger’s new promotion to vice-admiral and given the castles was a tremendous gift that needed to be repaid in his mind. Roger decided to double up his efforts and made his way to Messina where he would equip five galleys “and proceeded to scour all the Principality and the Roman shore, and the strand of Pisa and Genoa and of Provence and of Catalonia and Spain and Barbary. And all he found, belonging to friend or foe, in coin or valuable goods, which he could put on board the galleys, he took.” Roger made sure that any wealth taken from his friends would be repaid once the war was over. Roger also went out of his way sparing the lives and ships of his enemies. When Roger returned to Sicily with gold and grain, “all the soldiers, horse and foot, were awaiting him as the Jews do the Messiah.” Roger’s plundering along the Italian coasts would soon end, as King Fadrique made peace with Charles II. King Fadrique was able to keep Sicily, thus ending the war between Aragonese kings of Aragon and the French kings of Naples over the control of Sicily on 31 August 1302 in what became known as the Peace of Caltabellotta. Because of this, Roger and his men were out of job. With no money flowing to Roger’s coffers, the king unwillingly and understandably had no use for the mercenaries. Therefore, Roger sought employment elsewhere and found it in Byzantium.

The Grand Company (or Catalan Company)

Roger had a few dilemmas after the Peace of Caltabellotta. The first being that his men were soon to if not already ran out of money. However this was the least of his worries at the moment. His biggest concern was the peace. While peace cuts the flow of money it also allows those who had issue with Roger to take up arms against him, even though one would think that all sins were forgiven after the war. One can assume this only applies to those who are nobles and their men. Because of this, Roger felt that if he were to stay in Sicily, the king would possible hand him over to King Charles, the Duke, or perhaps the Master of the Templars who would turn him over to the Pope. Therefore, Roger decided to head east.
Roger decided to contact Emperor Andronicus II of Byzantium and offer his services against the threat of the Ottoman Turks led by Osman I who was at this time pushing slowly pushing westward gobbling up the Byzantine lands of Anatolia (Turkey). Roger decides to show his intentions by sending a small force in his discussion with King Fadrique:

I shall send two knights with an armed galley to the Emperor of Constantinople, and shall let him know that I am ready to go to him with as great a company of horse and foot, all Catalans and Aragonese, as he wishes, and that he should give us pay and all necessaries; that I know he greatly needs these succours, for the Turks have taken from him land of the extent of thirty journeys; and he could not do as much with any people as with Catalans and Aragonese, and especially with those who have carried on this war against King Charles.

Afterwards, King Fadrique said to Roger, “you know more in these matters than We do; nevertheless, it seems to Us that your idea is good, and so ordain what you please, We shall be well satisfied with what you ordain.” Roger soon after kissed the King’s hand and left. The next day Roger sent a galley with troops led by two knights with a message that outlined his intentions. Roger especially desired to obtain the niece of Emperor Andronicus II as his wife “and also that he be made Grand Duke of the Empire; and again, that the Emperor give pay for four months to all those he would bring, at the rate of four onzas a month to each armed horseman and one onza a month to each man afoot. And that he keep them at this pay all the time they wished to remain, and that they find the pay at Monemvasia.” Roger was playing it smart. He knew, like many adventures seeking glory that the Byzantine Empire was vastly rich in land and titles, and would be offered to those especially involved in martial affairs, such as mercenaries. Roger went so far to not only ensure his place among the elites through marriage and title, which Andronicus II granted him both along with paying his men. After all had been agreed to, Roger began his journey towards Constantinople with a large following:

when they had embarked, there were, between galleys and lenys and ships and terides, thirty-six sails; and there were one thousand five hundred horsemen, according as it was written down, fitted out with everything except horses. And there were full four thousand almugavars and full a thousand men afoot without the galley-slaves and seamen who belonged to the shipping. And all these were Catalans and Aragonese and the greater part brought their wives or their.mistresses and their children. And so they took leave of the Lord King and departed from Messina at a suitable hour with great cheer and content.

Once Grand Duke Roger and his men entered Constanople a fight soon broke out between his troops and the Genoese in which three thousand Genoese were killed. Reason for this quarrel is understandable from a trade point of view as they saw Roger muscling in on their business, which in turn caused a bit of rift among the elite in the Byzantine royal circle.
After the debacle with the Genoese, the Emperor soon after transported Roger and his Catalonians to Anatolia to lift the siege of Philadelphia by attacking the Turks. Roger and his Hispano-Byzantine troops were able to free the city. With such great success, the people of Constantinople found favor in the use of western mercenaries and felt that the Turkish menace was gone forever, how wrong they were. But the events soon after made many believe that the Turks were going to be pushed back as Roger and his troops continued to have many victories. However, these victories came with costs. On one hand, Roger had been extorting the people through Asia Minor along with arbitrary cruelties commented by his men. This in turn did not go over well with the Emperor for the cities, towns, and villages brought back within the Byzantine fold were now citizens and any abuse caused by Roger and his troops would not be forgotten thus causing a strain in relations between the Emperor and his own people. In other words, many of the atrocities committed by Roger were bad for public relations throughout the empire. Furthermore, the Emperor saw through Roger and notice that his new Grand Duke sought to established a principality of his own. This would not have been an issue had not Roger strained the relations between the people of Asia Minor and the Emperor, for if the Emperor were to grant Roger a dominion of his own, it might incite rebellion.
Therefore, the Emperor called Roger back:
But the Grand Duke was greatly displeased at having to abandon, at that time, the Kingdom of Anatolia which he had conquered completely and delivered out of its troubles and out of the hands of the Turks. And after he had received the message and the pressing entreaties of the Emperor, he assembled a council and told all the Company the message he had received, and that he begged them to advise him as to what he should do. And finally, they gave him the advice that, by all means, he should go and succour the Emperor in his need and then, in the spring, they would return to Anatolia.

Once back in Constantinople, the Emperor gave Roger a new title and mission thus allowing the situation simmer down in Asia Minor. Once back in Constantinople, the Emperor bestowed the title of Caesar to Roger, which had never been granted to a foreigner. Reason for this title was to curtail Roger’s obviously over ambitions prospects by granting Roger additional powers. Roger’s new mission was to take care of business by taking the fortress of on the straits of Gallipoli from which he would march and take the entire peninsula of Gallipoli. After this had been accomplished, the Emperor sought to give Roger a new mission in Asia Minor. However, before Roger left for new adventures, the Emperor’s eldest son named Michael IX, who happened to be the co-emperor of the empire, invited Roger to a festival. Once Roger and his small band arrived to celebrate, the slaughter began:

And so, by his journeys, he came to the city of Adrianople, and the son of the Emperor, Skyr Miqueli, issued forth to meet him and received him with great honours; and this the wicked man did in order to see with what company he was coming. And when he had entered Adrianople, the son of the Emperor stayed with him, amidst great joy and Muntaner cheer which the Caesar made for him, and Skyr Miqueli made the same for him. And when he had stayed with him six days, on the seventh, Skyr Miqueli made the same for him. And when he had stayed with him six days, on the seventh, Skyr Miqueli summoned Gircon to Adrianople, the chief of the Alans, and Melech, chief of the Turcopoles, so that they were altogether nine thousand horsemen. And on that day he invited the Caesar to a banquet. And when they had eaten, this Gircon, chief of the Alans, entered the palace in which Skyr Miqueli and his wife and the Caesar were; and they drew their swords and massacred the Caesar and all who were with him shortly after Michael had Roger and his men killed.

Roger, the great mercenary was now dead but his company was not. Soon after Catalan Company received word, that Roger was dead they went on a rampage throughout Macedonia and Thrace plundering the landscape. Even though Roger was dead, the Catalan Company did not fold and stayed in the service of the Byzantine Empire. Overall, the life of Roger de Flor was not so bad in some aspects, not so bad for an eight year old boy to becoming a Templar, to being banished into a life surviving as an outlaw, who sought employment wherever there is a need, Roger de Flor was indeed the Caesar of Mercenaries.
References:

Setton, Kenneth M. A History of the Crusades: Volume III — The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. Harry W. Hazard, editor. University of Wisconsin Press: Madison, 1975.

Muntaner, Ramon. The chronicle of Muntaner

Vasiliev, A. A. History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453. Madison, Wis: University of Wisconsin Press, 1952.

Waley, Daniel Philip, and Peter Denley. Later Medieval Europe, 1250-1520. Harlow, England: Longman, 2001.

The Master’s Hand and the Secular Arm: Property and Discipline in the Hospital of St. John in the Fourteenth Century”, Mark Dupuy, Crusaders, Condottieri, and Cannon: Medieval Warfare in Societies Around the Mediterranean, ed. Donald Joseph Kagay, L. J. Andrew Villalon, (Brill, 2003)