Land and Landowners in the Greek Territories 79
officially, with the intervention of the authorities, since the land had formally
devolved to the Venetian fisc, and would henceforth be administered for its
own benefit.
The initial treatment of the issue of landownership by the Franks in the
territories that they occupied is even less clear, for here we lack the documen-
tation that the Venetians left us with. Judging from the regime that eventually
prevailed in the two main Frankish dominions, Cyprus and Achaea, the Franks
did not have a unified attitude towards the Byzantine landowners. In compari-
son to Cyprus and Venetian Crete, the Franks in the Peloponnese appeared
much more tolerant and thus Greek landowners were integrated much more
easily into the landowning regime. This was partly because the Franks were
not accompanied by many individuals intent on acquiring land, nor did they
promote settling in the manner that Venice did. Consequently, the new lords
were forced to rely firstly on their few compatriots who had accompanied them
and subsequently on the native landowners. This is also reflected in the much
later Chronicle of the Morea (14th century), at the point where the conquest of
the Peloponnese is described: it is noted that the Byzantine landowners would
retain their own land; the fisc’s land would devolve to the conquerors and the
peasants would continue to live just like they did before.11 This same tactic was
followed by the conquerors of the Peloponnese each time they conquered a
new castle and its territory: Greek property was recognised and the local land-
owners were integrated into the landowning system.12
Upon the conquest of Cyprus, in 1191, Richard the Lionheart attempted to
negotiate with the local landowners, and offered to forego his right of conquest
over the entirety of their estates, if they agreed to cede half of their property
11 “Ὅτι ὅλα τὰ ἀρχοντόπουλα, ὅπου εἴχασιν προνοῖες,/ νὰ ἔχουσιν ὁ κατὰ εἷς, πρὸς τὴν οὐσίαν ὅπου
εἶχεν,/ τὴν ἀνθρωπέαν καὶ τὴν στρατείαν, τόσον νὰ τοῦ ἐνεμείνῃ,/ καὶ τ’ ἂλλο τὸ περσότερον νὰ
μερίζουν οἱ Φράγκοι·/ καὶ οἱ χωριάτες τῶν χωριῶν νὰ στέκουν ὡσάν τοὺς ηὗραν.” Το Χρονικόν του
Μορέως [The Chronicle of Morea], ed. Petros Kalonaros (Athens, 1940), vv. 1644–48. The
passage is translated in Crusaders as Conquerors: The Chronicle of Morea, trans. Harold E.
Lurier (New York, 1964), pp. 116–17: “... that all the lesser archons who had fiefs would
retain, each one of them, the homage and military service consonant with his rank, so
much would remain to him, and the rest, the greater part, the Franks would divide among
themselves and the peasants of the villages would remain as they had found them.”
12 See for example: “ὅτι ποθέν οὐκ ἠμποροῦν νὰ ἔχουσι βοήθειαν,/ ἔπεσαν εἰς συμβίβασιν κ’
ἐδώκασιν τὸ κάστρον,/ μεθ’ ὅρκου γὰρ καὶ συμφωνίες, νὰ ἔχουν τὲς προνοῖες τους,/ καθώς κ’ οἱ
ἕτεροι Ρωμαῖοι τοῦ πριγκιπάτου ὅλου.” Tο Xρονικόν του Mορέως, vv. 2820–2823. Translation in
Crusaders as Conquerors, p. 154: “But, when those who were within saw that they could
not have help [.. .] they capitulated and gave up the castle, but on oath and treaties that
they were to retain their fiefs, even as the rest of the Romans of the whole principality.”