Land and Landowners in the Greek Territories 109
Angevins was maintained even after 1386 by the Venetians, who also intro-
duced the Assizes of Romania to the island in the 15th century.52
Conclusions
As is evident from the above examination, landownership presents certain
similarities in all Latin dominions of Greece, both Venetian and Frankish, dur-
ing the 13th and 14th centuries; it also presents a number of particularities that
can be traced to the past of each territory as well as the political traditions
that the new Latin lords brought with them. The terminology employed in
relation to landownership is in all cases identical to the feudal terminology
of western Europe, yet none of the regimes that developed was identical to
that system, which in any case had begun its decline. In the Frankish domin-
ions the landowning regime and the lines along which it operated were more
closely related to traditional feudal practices; in the Venetian lands, by con-
trast, the relationship was more superficial. Nevertheless, the link between
European feudal practices and the Latin dominions of Greece can be found in
the Assizes of Romania. Even this collection of rules rooted in the feudal law of
western Europe was adjusted to local conditions and particularly to Byzantine
traditions, wherever it was implemented. During the 14th century, the Assizes
of Romania gained currency primarily in the Frankish territories (but also in
the Venetian colonies, apart from Crete) and regulated many of the matters
regarding the relations of feudatories with the state, with the peasants and
with each other.
The Latin rulers treated the matter of landownership very seriously in all
their conquered lands, for it immediately concerned the upper social strata
who were expected to support the new regimes. One of the most immediate
problems that the Latin rulers had to face was that of the native Greek land-
owners and their property. All of them eventually opted to compromise, fear-
ing that otherwise they might well have to pit their weak armies against united
opposition. In every case, however, the conquerors took it as a given that
Byzantine state-owned land, regardless of its present occupier, would pass into
the possession of the ruler or the metropolitan authorities and then be distrib-
uted to those who took part in the conquest. Under similar reasoning much
of the Greek Church’s land was transferred to the Latin Church. In all cases,
Byzantine landowners managed (with various degrees of difficulty) to retain
their private lands, with very few losses. In Crete this was achieved gradually
52 Jacoby, La féodalité, pp. 258–70; Asdracha and Asdrachas, “Στη φεουδαλική Κέρκυρα,” p. 77.