The Crusade of Amadeus VI of Savoy

between history and historiography

1. The myth of the perfect prince

Amadeus VI, also known as the Green Count, is one of the most important figures of the
fourteenth century State of Savoy. In this contribution, I would like to outline the principal themes
concerning one of his most important undertakings: the participation in the crusade of 1366
proclaimed by the Pope Urban V. This is one of the events which historians have used in order to
construct the myth of Amadeus, the great Christian knight1. A myth that involved other medieval
figures of Savoy’s history, such as Amadeus V - supposedly the principal actor in the siege of
Rhodes in 1313 - Amadeus VII the Red Count and Amadeus VIII, the first duke of Savoy who
became antipope with the name of Felix V2. All these characters were connected to a number of
celebrated events in which the dynasty held an international political role.
Apart from promoting important changes in his State, during his lifetime Amadeus VI
(1334-1383) carefully reorganized all the territories - territories which belonged to different
political cultures - subjected to Savoy’s power. At that time the County of Savoy included territories
on both sides of the Alps, and the political system in force in the Savoie porpre (the territory which
includes the capital city of the State, Chambéry), was different from the one in force in the Italian
side (Piedmont), which, as in the rest of Italy, was based on Communes (Turin for example), and
other areas the feudal system was in force3. All the territories subjected to the count’s authority

I would like to thank the friend and colleague Denise Bezzina for the fundamental help she had given to me.
1
Among all the studies about Amedeo VI’s undertaking, I decided to start from the P. DATTA’s study,
Spedizione in Oriente di Amedeo VI conte di Savoia, provata con indediti documenti. Torino 1826, which was the first
historical contribution about the crusade of Amedeo VI. Successively, in order to gain a general outlook on how
historians have interpreted Amedeo’s exoedition I followed the chronology of all the other studies which only took into
consideration the crusade: N. IORGA, Philippe de Mèzièrs 1327-1405. La croisade au XIVe siècle. Paris 1896. 328-
352; F. E. BOLLATI DI SAINT PIERRE, Illustrazioni della spedizione in Oriente di Amedeo VI (il Conte Verde).
Torino 1900; D. MURATORE, Un principe sabaudo alla presa di Gallipoli turca (1366-1367) in Rivista d’Italia XV
(1912). 919-958; F. COGNASSO, Il Conte Verde (1334-1383). Torino 1926. 147-181; E. L. COX, The green count of
Savoy. Amadeus VI and the transalpine Savoy in the fourteenth century. Princeton 1967. 204-239; K. M. SETTON, The
Papacy and the Levant (1204-1571). Vol I: The Thirteenth and Fourteenth centuries, Philadelphia 1976; M. SARACCO,
Il mito del Conte Verde. Amedeo VI nella storiografia e nella cultura tra Ottocento e Novecento in Ricerche e studi
valsusini 41 (2002). 77-92; A. ROLLE, I rischi della storia. L’invenzione degli “Amedei” e dell’impresa di Rodi in
Bollettino Storico Bibliografico Subalpino CII (2004). 285-319.
2
For an overview of the creation of the myth of all the “Amedei”, cf. directly ROLLE, I rischi della storia, pp.
285-319. In order to know more about the figure of Amedeo VIII, cf. G. TABACCO, Amedeo VIII di Savoia nella
tradizione storiografica, in Amédé VIII – Félix V. Première duc de Savoie et Pape (1383-1451). Colloque International
Ripaille-Lausanne, 23-26 octobre 1990. Édited by B. ANDENMATTEN et A. PARAVICINI BAGLIANI. 53-62; D.
CHAUBET, Amédée VIII et historiographie savoyarde des XVe et XVIe siècles, in Amédée VIII – Félix V. 63-70.
3
For a good general overview of the history of the Savoy state, cf. G. CASTELNUOVO, Ufficiali e
gentiluomini. La società politica sabauda nel tardo Medioevo. Milano 1994. 55-88; CASTELNUOVO, Principati
regionali e organizzazione del territorio nelle Alpi occidentali. 81-92; CASTELNUOVO, Lo spazio sabaudo fra nord e
sud delle Alpi: specificità e confronti (X-XV secolo), in Kommunikation und Mobilität m Mittelalter. Begegnung

1
were divided into many small districts called châtellenies, and assembled into bigger districts called
balivats4. These districts were administrated by officers, called châtelaines and balives, who
exercised executive power on behalf of the prince of Savoy. In Piedmont, the count of Savoy
delegated the power to the princes of Savoy-Acaia, who were officially subjected to his authority.
After the war against his cousin James of Acaia, who tried to separate the Piedmontese
territory from the rest of the County, Amadeus VI reorganised the political structure of his land,
namely in 1379 through the promulgation of a series of laws which were enforced in all the
territories of the County5. Apart from his practical and clever administrative policies, Amedeo’s
name has always been connected with the idea of the “perfect prince” and the brave warrior. His
figure has been enriched with all the characteristics proper to chivalry and to the Christian defensor
fidei. Moreover during the Nineteenth century, his name became a real dynastic myth and was
exploited in order to strengthen Savoy’s cultural and political programs.
According to the recent historiography which tackles the construction of the myth of the
Green Count, king Carlo Alberto of Savoy promoted a cultural program – which sprung from
Romanticism – according to which the national origins of European States and their ethnic roots
and traditions were supposedly formed during the Middle Ages. This cultural program, whose aim
was to search for the State’s cultural origins, was used by the monarchy of Savoy legitimise its
authority and power6.
In her seminal study, Monica Saracco examines all the historical works that were written in
order to answer to Carlo Alberto’s cultural and political program, - historical works which adapted
Savoy’s history in order to provide “guidelines that could be used as a model of government for his
present time”7. Even though these histories can be defined as “apologetic” in nature, were
characterised by the attention given to ancient documents - not only to chronicles - and the
documentary editions published by these historians are still useful nowadays. In 18328, the archivist

zwischen dem Süden und der Mitte Europas (11-14 Jahrhundert), edited by S. DE RACHEWILTZ, J. RIEDMANN.
Sigmaringen 1995. 277-289; CASTELNUOVO, Principi e città negli stati sabaudi in Principi e città alla fine del
Medioevo, edited by S. GENSINI, (Atti del convegno del Centro di Studi sulla Civiltà del Tardo Medioevo). San
Miniato (PI) 1996. 77-93.
4
Cf. E. DULLIN, Les châtelains dans les domaines de la Maison de Savoie en deçà des Alpes, Grenoble-
Chambéry 1911; B. DEMOTZ, La géographie administrative médiévale : l’exemple du comté de Savoie. Début XIIIe –
début XVe siècle, in Le Moyen Âge 80 (1974). 261-300; G. CASTELNUOVO, Centre et périphéries: les châtelains en
terre savoyarde (moitié XIVe –moitié XVe siècle), in Savoie et région alpine, (Actes du 116e congrès national des
société savantes), Chambéry-Annecy 1991. 97-108.
5
Cf. Gli statuti di Amedeo VI dell’anno 1379, edited by C. NANI, in Miscellanea di storia italiana, vol. 22
(1884). 249-296.
6
SARACCO, Il mito del Conte Verde. 78. About the mythology of the Middle Ages in the culture of
Romanticism during the Nineteenth century, cf. the relevant study of R. BORDONE, Lo specchio d Shalott.
L’invenzione del Medioevo nella cultura dell’Ottocento. Napoli 1993 and of G. SERGI, L’idea di Medioevo, Roma
2005. To discover more regarding the cultural programs of Savoy’s dynasty during the same period, cf. also G. P.
ROMAGNANI, Storiografia e politica cultural nel Piemonte di Carlo Alberto, Torino 1985.
7
SARACCO, Il mito del Conte Verde. 79.
8
P. DATTA, Storia dei principi di Savoia del ramo degli Acaia. Signori del Piemonte. Torino 1832;

2
Pietro Datta published a history of the Princes of Acaia and in 1836, he published his volume about
the crusade of Amadeus VI. At the beginning of this book, Datta clearly states his aims: he wants to
narrate the glorious expedition led by “one of the most famous progenitors of the House of Savoy”9
and to bring count Amadeus out of the shadows of time. Datta wanted to use all the unpublished
documents that historians had never used10. In the works of these historians, sources hold particular
importance, because they are used to certify events. In the author’s intentions, they ought to be
published, so as their contents could never be contested in the future. At the same time, and for the
same reasons, Luigi Cibrario and Domenico Promis were sent by the young king Carlo Alberto in
all the old provinces of Savoy in Switzerland and France, in order to collect all those unpublished
documents which could be used to write the history of the ancient State of Savoy. In 1834, Luigi
Cibrario published the book Sigilli de’ Principi di Savoia raccolti ed illustrate per ordine di Re
Carlo Alberto. His attention was directed towards the discovery of all the episodes that suggested
the ideal of chivalry, an ideal promoted by Carlo Alberto as the main value and characteristic of the
dynasty. In order to fulfil his aim, the history of the Green Count was particularly useful to him.
According to the medieval chronicles, Amadeus participated in a crusade against the Turks in order
to fight the enemies of Faith and to free the Emperor of Byzantium who had been captured by the
Bulgarians, supposedly allies of the Ottomans. All the histories written between the Nineteenth
century till the half of the Twentieth were constructed around these basic features: honour, Faith
and bravery11.
Monica Saracco shows us the evolutionary process in which the concepts of Glory and
Faith – as intended by Romanticism - became the principal quality of medieval chivalry and how
these concepts were adopted by Savoyard historians create the image of Carlo Alberto as a new
modern knight, cloaked by all the characteristics of religious and heroic ethic of chivalry. As the
Green Count has fight against the Turks, now Carlo Alberto set himself as the liberator of a land
wasted by the Austrian occupation. Thus we can see, how ancient chronicles supported the ideals of
Italian “Risorgimento”. According to her reconstruction, Amadeus VI was chosen as a role model
by these historians because of the way in which he was already described in the chronicles: as a
father figure to his people – a theme directly inherited from medieval thought12 - a great knight and
a perfect administrator. Among all these historians, Luigi Cibrario was the first who started
adapting all these medieval qualities to his contemporaneous context. Despite the apologetic nature

9
DATTA, Spedizione in Oriente. p. 6. “uno de’ più illustri progenitori della Real Casa di Savoia”
10
“Sin’ora nessun autentico documento si è pubblicato, il quale la (the crusade) comprovi; sin’ora non si è
ritrovato scrittor contemporaneo, il quale ne parli” (DATTA, Spedizione in Oriente. p. 7).
11
Monica Saracco says: “l’immagine che ci viene presentata del conte sabaudo è quella del perfetto sovrano:
saggio, valoroso, prudente, giusto, che ama il suo popolo come un padre” (SARACCO, Il mito del Conte Verde. p. 81).
Also Fernando Gabotto, one of the most important historians of the beginning of the Twentieth century, preferred to
focus more on Amadeus VIII than on the Green Count. He held that Amadeus VI was certainly brilliant, brave and
clever, but he was also immoral and corrupt. Cf. F. GABOTTO, La Guerra del conte verde contro i marchesi di Saluzzo
e Monferrato. 14, 15, 42. Cf. also SARACCO. 89.
12
As an important reference, Cf. F. CENGARLE, La signoria di Azzone Visconti tra prassi, retorica e
iconografia (1329-1339). in Tecniche di potere nel tardo medioevo. Regimi comunali e signorie in Italia, edited by M.
VALLERANI. 89-116.

3
of Cibrario’s researches, he shows a critical sense of history when - for example - he criticizes the
attitude of Amadeus of acquiring a series debts in order to accumulate money for his expeditions13.
Amadeus VI continued to be used to emphasizes all the virtues of the dynasty even after the
period of Carlo Alberto and the Risorgimento, and the count became the subject of many poems.
Furthermore, in 1853 a statue was erected in front of the Town Hall of Turin. The monument shows
the count whilst killing a Turk during the siege of Gallipoli. The myth of the Green Count thus
persisted and it was not till the end of the Nineteenth and the beginning of the Twentieth century
that Amadeus’ internal policies started to be criticised14. Apart from this small parenthesis, the
courteous ideal remained, and in some works, namely those by Dino Muratore and Francesco
Cognasso - both influenced by the fascist cultural framework - Amadeus VI has been interpreted as
the first prince who projected the County of Savoy from the Middle Ages to Modernity. During the
1970s, the Green Count became the object of revisionist works, but only towards the end of the
century his figure has become the subject of serious studies, namely by Guido Castelnuovo, Monica
Saracco and Andrea Rolle, who have developed both the problem of the myth and of the historical
reality of the Green Count’s figure.

2. Amadeus’ Eastern expedition

According to official documents on January 1366, Amadeus VI established the regency of

the State during the period in which he would have been ad partes ultramarina in order to fight
against the Saracens, the Turks and other infideles15. Two years before, in the Pope’s palace in
Avignon, Amadeus had taken the cross16. Although Amadeus’ initial intention was the recovery of
the Holy Land, the original aim of his “crusade” was diverted and his army was directed to set free
the Byzantine Emperor from his Bulgarian captivity and in the end only the city of Gallipoli was
conquered by the crusaders.
John V had come to the palace of the Hungarian king in Buda in order to ask for his help to
defend the Empire’s borders from the Turkish advance. When John arrived in Buda, Luis took his
time and informed the Emperor that he couldn’t come. On his way to Constantinople, John was
stopped in Bulgaria by the Tsar Stratimir who was worried about the intentions of the Emperor. The
Savoyard chronicler Jean Servion reports that the Emperor was imprisoned by the Tsar, yet no other
source exists to corroborate this story. Many historians ignored the problem – showing a lack of
interest in the political relationship between these characters - and only wrote about the liberation of

13
SARACCO. 83.
14
For example when he made Philip of Acaia disappeared from the local scene, Edmondo de Amicis accused
him of having committed homicide. Cf. SARACCO, p. 87.
15
Cf. DATTA, Spedizione in Oriente. 243-244: “Quod princeps illuster dominus noster dominus Amedeus
comes Sabaudie intendes et proponensut asseris ad partes ultramarinas cum armis contra Saracenos, Turcos et alios
infedeles” .
16
“Cum in dicto passagio (ad Terram Sanctam et partes infidelium Orientis) vel ante cum tua potentia
transfretare disponas, prout hoc apud Apostolicam Sedem corporaliter iuravisti et recepisti venerabile signum crucis”.
The citation of the Holy See bull is in BOLLATI DI SAINT PIERRE, Illustrazioni della spedizione in Oriente. 344 and
also in DATTA, Spedizione in Oriente. 225 and in SETTON, The Papacy and the Levant. 285.

4
John V and the role of Amadeus in these events. In fact, the count of Savoy came in Bulgarian
territory and laid siege under the walls of Sozopolis, Mesembria and he arrived till Varna, where he
managed to free the Emperor. Once John had came back to Byzantium, Amadeus succeeded to
convince the Emperor to travel to Rome in order to abjure the Christian schism and to recognize the
authority of the Pope. Of course, it wasn’t only the intervention of the count that permitted the Pope
Urban V to obtain the abjuration – which nonetheless remained nominal - but all the historians
stress the powerful position obtained by Amadeus after the liberation of John V Palaeologus. As a
matter of fact, the reunification of the Churches was considered as one of the reasons that led
Amadeus to take part in the crusade.
All the literature about Amadeus exploit concentrates around three main moments: the
starting point of the crusade, the history of the journey from Venice to Gallipoli and the narration of
the battle, and finally the description of the Bulgarian expedition. All these events deal with
important historical questions. Firstly, all the authors begin their narration of the crusade from its
preparation in order to identify Amadeus personal reasons in undertaking such venture. The
description of the journey also allowed the historians to examine all the international relationships
between the count of Savoy and the other principal actors who took part in the unfolding of events:
the Visconti family, Venice and Genoa, the Turks, the Papacy and the Byzantine world. In other
words all the western and eastern European powers.
In reading their description of the Bulgarian undertaking, one is struck by the definition of
Amadeus policies for the conquered territories. In each official chronicle, the crusade ends with the
abjuration of John V Palaeologus. We could define all these works as “second hand chronicles”
and, apart from Kenneth Setton’s seminal study, all the others seem to be more attracted towards an
events-based type of historical account and to more impressionistic particulars. Despite its overall
good quality, Nicolas Iorga’s work also fails to provide much information about the expedition. He
nevertheless tackles the implications of the Papacy’s role in the affair and the definition of
Amadeus undertaking as a “crusade”.
The context in which this literature was produced is very important. For example, Datta -
stimulated by the cultural concept of western supremacy – tends to judge the byzantine position
with regards to the Savoyard exploit, describing the Emperor’s behaviour as weak, ambiguous and
ungrateful. In Datta’s view, even the fourth crusade (1204) was made without any imperialistic
intentions. Influenced by the political programs of the Savoy dynasty, Datta glorifies Amadeus VI.
In the others works - for example, that of Cognasso – particular emphasis is laid on the
characteristics of honour and strength. In Eugene Cox’s book, the narration of the expedition is
enriched with many pages which delineate aspects and details of what the life of a medieval prince
was supposed to be. Influenced by the historical trend of “micro-history”, Cox dedicates numerous
pages to the description of the count’s habits during the idle times spent away from battle in Venice
or after the battles in Bulgaria. Thus, we can read many details about the Green Count’s pastimes
such as his exercises in war games or the exotic goods he had bought during his voyage.
The descriptions of the crusade come principally from the main chronicle of the events given
by Jean Servion around 146017 and from a particular documentary source: Antonio Barbier’s

17
The description of Amadeus of Savoy’s undertaking is in J. SERVION, Chroniques de Savoye. in the
Monumenta Historiae Patrie, III, Scriptores, Turin 1840. 300-321.

5
account of the expenses of the expedition18. Some further information can be deduced from other
sources, such as the Venetian registers of deliberations or the bulls of Urban V. All Nineteenth and
Twentieth century historians rewrote the chronicle of the crusade, adapting the events to their
contemporaneous cultural and social context. Let’s see therefore, how they described the three
principal phases of the crusade that I have outlined and especially the reasons behind the crusade
itself. Almost all the works that concern the Green Count’s expedition agree that the event was a
personal crusade. According to Servion’s chronicle, Amadeus participated in the crusade in order to
expand his power on the international political plane and because he was interested in honour and
glory. Servion’s statement is almost true. Taking Servion’s considerations as a starting point and
basing their arguments on documentary evidence, all of these historians have added further
observations, which stress the economic and social background of the crusade.
For example by crossing-checking the Vatican sources with Servion’s chronicle, these
historians have highlighted the interest of Amadeus in recovering the Byzantines, in order to protect
the Empire from the Turks and to force the Emperor to abjure the schism between Catholic and
Orthodox Church. The deliberations of the Council of Ten and the secret acts of Venice, have
provided the historians with further information about the negotiations around the crusade. The
information gathered tends to highlight Venice’s fear of an alteration in the social and economic
relationships in the Eastern Mediterranean area that the Republic had built with the Emirates of
Egypt and Syria as from 1204. All these elements prove what Servion wrote and show the network
of international relations between the County of Savoy and other powers, such as the Holy See for
example. All of the historians - apart from Datta, who used the Seventeenth century chronicle of
Samuel Guichenon instead of the Chroniques de Savoye, considering the latter too “weak”19 in its
reflections - have followed the structure of Servion’s work.
In the chronicle, Servion described the international political context in order to stress the
emergency in which Christendom found itself after the advance of the Turks in Byzantine territory.
He takes much care in giving all the information necessary to understand the real danger posed by
the Turks who like a wave – “occupe la plus grande partye de Grece” taking many cities,
“chastelaux et terres, et le mist en telle extremite, quil ne ly desmora ce non Constantinoble,
Nycopoly, Andrenopoly et Galipoly” and leaving the Emperor “sy oppresse des infedeles, il se mist
a chival en cheminant vers Bourgarye, pour cuyder avoir secours de son vassal de Bourgarye”20.
Instead of helping the Emperor as a good vassal should, the king of Bulgaria betrayed him and –

18
The account was partially edited by Datta and in its entirety by Bollati. Cf. DATTA, Spedizione and
BOLLATI, Illustrazioni. To know more about the Savoyard’s accounts cf. B. ANDENMATTEN – G.
CASTELNUOVO, Produzione documentaria e conservazione archivistica nel principato sabaudo, XIII-XV secolo, in
Bullettino dell’Istituto Storico Italiano per il Medioevo, 110/1 (2008).
19
In Datta’s opinion, the authority of Servion, named “the ancient chronicler”, is not acceptable because it
cannot be used to certify the events. For him it is better to read other chronicles that - even if written in later date - are
however more honest and rich from the scientific point of view. When referring to Servion’s Chroniques he wrote“la
costui autorità è troppo debole per confermare l’opinione di tutti quanti gli scrittori che vollero seguirlo, come il Botero,
Ludovico della Chiesa, il Vander-Burch e lo stesso Guichenon” (DATTA, Spedizione. 9-10). 284.
20
Both the citations are from SERVION, Chroniques. 300.

6
following a secret agreement with the Turks - took prisoner John Palaeologus. Therefore, Servion
reports the reaction of the king of Hungary, who knew that John V would come to him in order to
ask for help. Reality was in fact different: from a letter of Urban V to Luis of Hungary, we know
that the Emperor was stopped in Bulgaria after he had left Hungary.
The Savoyard chronicler changed the sequences of the events because he wanted to
highlight Amadeus’ importance as an actor in international affairs. The historical fault was used as a
device by Servion in order to show from the beginning the unfolding of events. In his perspective,
introducing the reasons that moved Amadeus far from the County, meant to justify the content of
the expedition and by denigrating the Bulgarian people he intended to condone the consequences of
the crusade. In Servion’s opinion, the Bulgarians were to be assimilated to the Infidel, and thus had
to be punished.
According to Servion’s chronicle, Luis of Hungary sent an horseman to Chambéry in order
to ask directly the count to participate in a military action by land and sea. He is reported to have
said: “sy ne faiz nulle doubte a layde Dieu, que se vous venes nous vaincrons le turc, et sy aurons
lempreur vostre cusin et parant, et aurons le turc, et recoverons la Grece”21. These words are really
important to understand the point of view of the chronicler. He wants to underline Amadeus’
motivations behind his speech and to stress one main element: honour. In fighting against the
Infidel Turks (one aspect that suggests the idea of glory), they could recover the Emperor and
Byzantium itself. Servion tells us that, upon hearing these words, Amadeus was both happy and
unhappy. He was unhappy because he discovered that his cousin the Emperor John had been
captured, but at the same time he was happy because would leave the County to undertake an
important task for the whole of Christianity.
Servion narrates that Amadeus was already set to leave his County to go to Spain in order to
fight there, but after the speech made by Luis’ ambassador, he realized that the crusade against the
Turks would have been more useful to gain benefits and glory. Thus he accepted the king’s
proposal and he started looking for the means necessary to undertake the venture. The question of
gaining honour is also stressed when Servion informs us that all of Amadeus’ brave knights would
participate in the exploit “pour conquere honour et pour lamour du conte”22.
Another problem that is linked to the reasons of the crusade and is the destination of the
expedition. Amadeus wanted to undertake a crusade in the Holy Land and it was only in a
secondary moment that he understood that was impractical. He thus decided to turn to the
“Byzantine-Turkish” project. In Iorga’s opinion, the intentions of the Green Count “avaient été
d’abord d’attaquer Turcs et Sarrasins, de prendre même Jérusalem (…) elles furent changées par la
nouvelle du traité conclu entre le roi Pierre [of Cyprus] et le Soudan. Le comte s’engagea alors
envers le roi d’Hongrie (mai 1366) à aller en Grèce pour délivrer l’empereur de Constantinople, son
parent”23. Iorga is convinced that the aim was the Holy Land and, as already stated, Urban V’s bull
mentions that the Turks were behind the Saracens. The recovery of Jerusalem is for “traditionalist”

21
SERVION, Chroniques. 300.
22
SERVION, Chroniques. 302.
23
IORGA, Philip de Mézières. 335.

7
historians the main characteristic of the crusades, so much so that if an expedition lacks the
intention to conquer Jerusalem, it cannot be referred to as a crusade24. As Christopher Tyerman
said, crusades could be something more complex and “reflect and refracted their surrounding
context”25 and the Holy Land could be only summoned to promote an expedition which was “in the
association of war and penitential pilgrimage”26 to Jerusalem. By way of contrast “pluralist”
historians, hold that a crusade is defined by papal intervention. In the context of Amadeus’ venture,
the myth of recovering Jerusalem still remains in the language of the bulls, even if the objective was
dissimilar. Iorga doesn’t spend too much words on the reasons that lay behind the crusade,
preferring to delve deeper into the explanation of the political background of the expedition to end
with his judgment about the whole exploit. In the end, Iorga almost agrees with interpretation given
by Servion. After Iorga’s work the problem of the origins of the count’s venture became more
articulated.
Francesco Cognasso analyzes the problem from a lay perspective. He doesn’t agree with the
importance of the ancestral expectations bound to the crusade and he suggests, definitely
exaggerating, more practical reasons. According to him, helping John V meant “having secret
intention towards Constantinople. As the cousin and nephew of the Empress Anna of Savoy, he
could claim rights upon the Empire to use in contrast with the rights that John himself could claim
upon the Montferrato area in Piedmont”27. The pope’s proposals to help the Emperor in order to
abjure the schism was interpreted by Cognasso as being far from the principal aim of the count. In
Cognasso’s opinion, Amadeus did not want to go to the Holy Land because “participating in a war
with the sole aim of recovering Christendom was something far from Amadeus’ personality”28. As a
result of these kind of interpretations, the attitude of the count, became for historians, an element
which was used to outline his approach to politics. When writing about the causes of the crusade,
Eugene Cox observed that Amadeus “had not changed his mind about making an expedition to the
East, but he does seem to have been in doubt as to its exact destination”29. At the beginning he
decided to go with the king of Cyprus to Crete to restore the official Venetian power on the island
after the revolt of the feudal lords against the Republic in 1363. His idea, in Cox’s opinion, was to
use Crete as the principal base to “undertake a full-scale invasion of the Holy Land”30. Venice re-

24
For a brief overview of the historiography centered around this debate: J. RILEY-SMITH, The crusading
movement and historians in The Oxford history of the crusades. Oxford, 1999. 1-14
25
C. TYERMAN, The invention of the crusades. London 1998. 2.
26
TYERMAN, The invention. 6
27
COGNASSO, Il Conte Verde. 159 .
28
COGNASSO, Il Conte Verde. 158.
29
COX, The Green Count. 204.
30
COX, The Green Count. 204. The idea of using Crete as a military basis to attack the sides of Africa was
married also by Iorga and Cognasso. Cf. IORGA, Philippe de Mézières. 331; COGNASSO, Il Conte Verde. 157. To
know more about the Revolt of Saint Titus in Crete, cf. S. McKEE, The revolt of Saint Tito in Fourteenth Century
Venetian Crete: a reassessment, in Mediterranean Historical Review 9 (2002), pp. 173-204; SETTON, The Papacy and
the Levant, 249-257.

8
established its authority on the island during the summer of 1364 and the project was discarded. In
accordance with Iorga and Cognasso, Cox believed that Amadeus decided to put aside his initial
intentions only when it was clear that Venice wouldn’t allow an attack on the Emirates of Egypt
and Syria. Cox opines that, this decision was linked to the count’s character: “The Green Count,
however, zealous for the liberation of the Holy Sepulcher or eager to do battle beside the famous
Pierre of Lusignan, was not a man to take unnecessary risks. An expedition to the Balkans must
have seemed less perilous than an invasion of the Holy Land, and the prospects for success
considerably greater (…) Glory required victory, and Amadeus always calculated his chances very
soberly on that score”31.
Basing his arguments on other sources, Cox further develops Cognasso’s ideas, but he
believes in the religious zeal of the Count. More than all the historians of the Green Count’s
crusade, Cox is convinced of the religious motivations behind the expedition. Reacting to
Cognasso’s work, he affirms that Amadeus did not take much care of the practical considerations,
because more than with matters of practicality “Amadeus was committed to a crusade for the
advancement of the True Faith and the reunion of eastern and western Christian churches. To turn
back now would dishonor him”32. Thus Cox embraces Servion’s views and identifies the causes of
the crusade as being centered around religion and the concept of honor. Besides ideological matters,
Cox focuses also on the economic pressures to undertake the expedition. Influenced by the
Barbier’s account and by the historiographical framework - typical of the 1970’s - centered around
the importance of economy in crusade’s history, the author notices all the financial expenses and the
profits of the expedition.
Kenneth Setton’s approach is different. Similarly to other historians, Setton begins by
describing the political background of the crusade, but he doesn’t express any judgment about the
personality of the count, thus his explanation is faithful to the historical and social context. Much
aware of all the aspects of history (especially of Byzantine history) and historiography, Setton
stresses the importance of the sources and their “milieu” of production. Setton does not openly
endorse any theory related to the causes of the crusade; but rather he limits himself to a description
of the events. From this point of view, Setton follows Iorga’s approach when he tries to understand
the connections between the papal policies in eastern Europe and the interests of the other
international powers in undertaking the crusade.
With regards to the destination of the crusade, Setton says: “considering the Mamluk
domination of Syria, Palestine and Egypt, it would be hard to lead an expedition to the Holy Land
without molesting anyone on the Syrian coast, but well before 27 may 1366 Amadeus knew that he
was not going to the Holy Land. He was going to Constantinople to assist his cousin, the Emperor
John V”33. This consideration is important, because it shows an attention to the techniques of
power employed by political actors in the eastern Mediterranean area. He suggests that Amadeus

31
COX, The Green Count. 205-206.
32
COX, The Green Count. 210.
33
SETTON, The papacy and the Levant. 292.

9
had the knowledge of these techniques, and his behaviour was influenced by them. Setton portrays
the count in a different way: not as a character in a novel, but as a political actor.
Similarly to Cox, Setton stresses the importance of the economic problem of funds and
profits. He dedicates numerous pages to the way in which Amadeus finances his expedition. Both
Setton and Cox use the problem of funding and profits as a medium to analyse the political
relationships between the count of Savoy, the Papacy, the Visconti family in Pavia and Milan and
obviously with the Republic of Venice.
Since Venice was the most important economic and political actor in the East34, it was
natural that all those western powers with an ambition to lead an expedition to the Levant had to ask
the Republic for galleys and means. For this reason, all the historians who studied the crusade
dedicate much time to reporting the relationships between the Republic, Byzantium and the Muslim
powers. In the Eastern Mediterranean area, Venice would have never allowed a shift in the balance
of power that it settled with the Emirates of Egypt and Syria during the thirteenth and the first half
of the fourteenth centuries; and especially after the sack of Alexandria in 1365. Iorga and Setton
dealt with problem. Iorga says that “les plaints des Vénitiennes aussi devenaient des plus en plus
fortes: si le commerce de l’Égypte était intercepté encore quelque temps, la ville serait ruinée, et
l’intérêt de la Chrétienté demandait qu’elle fût florissante”35. He also shows the frictions between
the Holy See and the Serenissima and how Amadeus employed his forces to thwart the resistance of
the Republic. He demonstrates how Pope Urban was worried and angry with Venice and its
reluctance to participate in any crusade plan and he called the Serenissima “the Orthodox city”36. At
the end of long “negotiations” between the count of Savoy and Venice, it was established that
Amadeus and the crusaders would respect the privileges of Republic in the eastern Mediterranean
area. Venice also decided to help the count by giving him five empty galleys that would have
transport his army in the Levant.
As stated before, Iorga and Cognasso also have mentioned that Venice tried to turn the
attention of the crusaders to the island of Crete in order to secretly foil the crusade plans and to
make her own interests37. These reflections arise from their analysis of Venetian sources, for
Servion failed to address the matter, preferring to concentrate his attention on the friendship
between Venice and the Green Count. In fact Servion only describes the military preparation of the
fleet38, once all the frictions were settled. Since the works of Datta, Cognasso and Cox are more

34
Cf. M. GALLINA, L’affermarsi di un modello coloniale:Venezia e il Levante fra Due e Trecento. in
Thesaurismata 23 (1993). 14-39; S. BORSARI, Venezia e Bisanzio nel XII secolo. I rapporti economici. Venezia 1988;
F. THIRIET, La Romanie vénitienne au Moyen Age. Le développement et l’exploitation du domaine colonial
vénitienne (XIIIe-XVe siècle). Paris 1959 ; E. ZACHARIADOU, Trade and crusade. Venetian Crete and the Emirates
of Mentesche and Aydin (1300-1414). Venezia 1983; SETTON, The papacy and the Levant; D. JACOBY, Commercial
exchange across the Mediterranean: Byzantium, the Crusader Levant, Egypt and Italy. Aldershot 2005.
35
IORGA, Philippe de Mézières. 329.
36
IORGA, Philippe de Mézières. 338.
37
Cf. IORGA, Philippe de Mézières. 331; COGNASSO, Il Conte Verde. 157. Cognasso says even “it was the
old joke of the Forth crusade” .
38
Cf. SERVION, Chroniques. 302-303.

10
heavily based on Savoyard sources - Servion’s chronicle and above all the Barbier’s account - they
tend describe much more in detail the solemn departure of the crusaders from Venice’s harbor
rather than the political matters which had brought them to the journey.
Setton describes the same behavior of the Republic with regards to the imminent crusade.
The political line followed by Venice was to require further negotiations each time someone asked
for galleys and means to lead an expedition in the Levant. The response of the Serenissima was
always on friendly terms, but the Venetians always specified that could not agree to a blind
crusade39. When Amadeus asked the Venetian government the permission to lease five galleys and
two fuste “he offered”, according to the Venetian chronicler Giangiacomo Caroldo “«once his
expedition to assist the Emperor had been launched, to place all his forces at the service of the
Venetian Signoria». Although neither the Deliberazioni Miste of the Senate nor the Lettere Segrete
of the Collegio confirm this statement, Caroldo knew the documents (…) However Venetian envoys
both in Cairo and Avignon were trying to effect the resumption of trade with Alexandria, the
Republic was taking no chances and politely declined Amadeus’ request. (…) But on 6 April 1366,
Amadeus was obliged to promise in writing that during the expedition to the Holy Land he would
not molest anyone in Syrian waters or allow his men to do so without the consent of the Republic,
and on this condition the Venetians allowed him to lease two galleys”40. As we can see in this long
paragraph, Setton underlines the techniques of power used by the Venetian Signoria. Venice had to
protect itself from the danger of loosing its supremacy in the East, having allowed the departure of a
crusading fleet. Setton has observed that Venetian government had to be approached in a different
manner and Amadeus was careful in negotiations and in devising the strategy to resolve the
problem. He thus vowed not to attack the coasts of Syria and Egypt in exchange for the protection
of the Venetian maritime experiences and the means to undertake the expedition. It was definitely a
clever way of settling a delicate international situation. Venice also asked the count not to enter the
city with all his army, in order to prevent “omnia scandala et brigas que possint occurrere propter
gentes que secum venient que sunt diversarum linguarum et non conformant se ad mores populi
nostri”41. The Green Count and Gian Galeazzo Visconti - his brother in law, who accompanied him
in Venice - once again complied with the Venetian request and entered the city with only 500
persons.
After the departure from Venice on 19 June 1366, Amadeus continued his journey to
Greece. All the historians deal differently with this part of the trip: some narrate the events in detail
while others fail to mention it completely. It is however striking that while Servion dedicated much
effort to delineate all those aspects which pertain to the figure of the prince - his faith, honour and
justice – the other historians only manage to skim over these details. As a matter of fact, during
Amadeus’ journey he exercised three times the role of judge and all the times the sources have
emphasized his wisdom describing him as a father figure.

39
Cf. SETTON, The Papacy and the Levant. 290-294.
40
SETTON, The Papacy and the Levant. 291.
41
ASV (Archive of State of Venice). Lettere Segrete del Collegio (1363-1366), f. 185r. The mention is also in
SETTON, The Papacy and the Levant. 293.

11
 3. The Justice of the prince.

On 19 July 1366 Amadeus VI set anchor in the harbour of Coron, an important fortress
under the Venetian control. Once there, Amadeus immediately encountered a “serious matter”
(Setton): he settled the dispute between Marie of Bourbon – aunt of his wife Bonne - and Angelo
Acciaiuoli, archbishop of Patras. The question of the quarrel centered around Marie’s claims to the
Acaia region, contested by the Angeven-Terentines, who were supported by the archbishop Angelo.
The forces of the archbishop had put under siege the castle of Marie and her son Hugh. An envoy
carrying Hugh’s claims to Amadeus arrived in a fusta: “Monseigneur, la Dispote de Iuns cosine de
la contesse vostre fame vous prie que la vuillez securer, car l’arcevesques de Patras ly a tollue sa
terre, except le chastel de Iungs ou il la tient maintenat assygye”42.
Technically the count’s intervention is an arbitration, but the description of the dispute in the
chronicle is interesting because Amadeus’ role in the dispute is reminescent of the judge’s practical
behavior during the medieval civil process43. Servion divided the narration according to the main
phases of the procedure: the object of the claim, the examination of the witnesses for the
persecution and for the defense, and the sentence. In a civil case the judge’s task was to listen to all
the reasons of the participants and then deliver the sentence. Amadeus, as a good judge, acted in the
same way when settling the quarrel between the archbishop of Patras and Marie of Bourbon: before
delivering the sentence, Amadeus “comme cristien signeur il doubta de meffayere a leglise, et toute
foyes il deslibera de oyr les deux parties ”44. Archbishop Angelo declared that he wanted to defend
the rights of the Church of Patras which had given the land in fief to Marie. Angelo, as the
archbishop of the city, stressed that she failed to respect the ecclesiastical authority and the
privileges of the Church. He emphasized her irresponsibility and almost blasphemous behaviour45.

42
SERVION, Chroniques. 303-304
43
For an overview of the role of the judge in Late Middle Ages, cf. M. MECCARELLI, Arbitrium. Un aspetto
sistematico degli ordinamenti giuridici in età di diritto comune, Milano 1998; M. VALLERANI, La giustizia pubblica
medievale, Bologna 2005. 49-42 ; M. VALLERANI, Il sistema giudiziario del comune di Perugia. Conflitti, reati e
processo nella seconda età del XIII secolo, Perugia 1991. 43-45. An analysis of the practice of justice in Savoy in
Fourteenth Century, is provided by M. MAGNANI, Il funzionamento della giustizia del comune di Torino alla fine del
Trecento. Il sistema probatorio, la pena e la sua negoziazione, in Bollettino Storico Bibliografico Subalpino (2011); M.
MAGNANI, L’amministrazione della giustizia a Torino alla fine del Trecento. Reati, conflitti e risoluzione delle
dispute in un comune principesco. (PHD thesis discussed at the University of Turin on 29 March 2010. Jury: N. Covini,
A. Zorzi and M. Vallerani). For an overview of the history of justice in Late Middle Ages, cf. M. SBRICCOLI, Vidi
communiter observari. L’emergenza di un ordine penale pubblico nelle città italiane del XIII secolo, in Quaderni
fiorentini per la storia del pensiero giuridico moderno 27 (1998). 231-268; J. CHIFFOLEAU, La violence au quotidien.
Avignon au XIVe siècle d’après les registres de la cour temporelle, in Mélanges de l’école française de Rome Moyen
Âge -Temps Modernes 92 II (1980), 325-371; Pratiques sociales et politiques judiciaires dans les villes de l’Occident à
la fin du Moyen Âge, edited by J. CHIFFOLEAU, C. GAUVARD and A. ZORZI (Collection de l’École Française de
Rome) Roma 2007.
44
SERVION, Chroniques. 304.
45
This is the evidence regarding Angelo Acciaiuoli in Servion’s chronicle : “Monsigneur le conte, je say que
vous estes signeur cristien et de bonne foy, et pour ce, je veulx que vous sachez que se que je fays je le faiz pour Dieu et
pour soustenir les droys de leglize. Or est ainsy que ceste dame tient sa terre de leglize, et soubz la dominacion de mon

12
It was for this reason, that they had moved siege to the castle of Iuns. He concluded by asking
Amadeus to defend the rights of the Church of Patras, knowing he was a Christian prince.
After hearing the archbishop, Amadeus asked Marie: “Cosine, que dittes vous?”. She replied
that reality was different, because she received the land in inheritance in her husband’s will and she
argued that she had the right to enjoy the land in usufruct till the end of her life. It was for these
reasons that she refused to give her homage to the archbishop46. Amadeus VI listened carefully the
participant’s arguments and decided to accept Angelo’s thesis. His cousin could enjoy the land in
fief, but she had to recognize the authority of the Church on the land, and to give homage to the
archbishop47.
This is a very important passage in the chronicle because it underlines Amadeus’ wisdom
and experience in the practice of justice. In the source, Justice appears as a symbol and it relates to
the rhetorical construction of the prince, a fair guarantor of peace and equity. This is cultural
construct developed during the fourteenth Century to legitimise the power of the prince. The
features of the prince in Early Modern Europe, are intimately connected with the qualities of grace
and fairness that already belonged to the ideal of the prince in late Middle Ages. In Amadeus’ case,
Servion outlines these elements through the words of Angelo Acciaiuoli, who declares from the
beginning that Amadeus is “seigneur cristien et de bonne foy” and he could only support the rights
of the Church. Defending the Church’s rights is just an anticipation of Amadeus’ excellence in
accomplishing his duties in the crusade. The importance of his duty towards Christianity is full of
meaning, thus from the first pages of his chronicle Servion stresses the aim of the prince to appear
as a defensor fidei subjected only to the Church. Thus his parental ties with Marie of Bourbon was
not sufficient for him to forget his duties.
Exercising justice in name of the Church was for central in Amadeus’ political project and
through it he attempted to show the extent of his power. The Savoyard chronicler was thus very
attentive in the choice of the language of his cultural construction48 and the count’s sentence reflects
this particular political attitude.

eglise de Patras, dont je suis archevesques ; e comme contre Dieu elle detient les droys de leglise, at a refuse iusques a
maintenat a fayre droit et debvoir a leglise” (SERVION, Chroniques. 304).
46
In Servion’s words, the text of Maria’s evidence was : “Monsigeur, a moy napertient de faire l’homage,
recognoissance ne fyes, car je nen suis que usufruittayre a ma vie, ains appertient aulx heritiers du despot de Romagne,
mon feu mary, aulx quelx doibt retorner apres a mon deceps, la signeurie de Iung” (SERIVION, Chroniques. 304).
47
Amadeus, heard the evidences delivered the sentence of his arbitration: “ils dist a la despote: Dame, vous
aves tort, car leglise ne doibt riens perdre, et qui que tiegne le fyez, il le doibt recognoistre, et pour se vous le voulles
fayrel je vous appointeray, et se non je ayderay a leglise a son bon droit, et seray contrevous ”. The lady accepted the
sentence of the count of Savoy and “sen retourna en son chstel, et gaudist ses terres son vivant” (SERVION,
Chroniques. 304).
48
For an overview on the language of the power in Late Middle Ages, cf. M.VALLERANI, Introduction in
Tecniche di Potere nel Tardo Medioevo edited by M. VALLERANI, Rome 2011, 7-24 and F. CENGARLE, La signoria
di Azzone Visconti. 106-112. Cf. also A. GAMBERINI, La città assediata. Poteri e identità politiche a Reggio in età
viscontea. Roma 2003. 249-271 and N. COVINI, “La balanza drita”. Pratiche di governo, leggi e ordinamenti nel
ducato sforzesco. Milano 2007. Overall, the articles assembled in the volume deal with the construction of power in
Italy during the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries and they represent the best and most up to date studies on the
construction of the State. As a guideline to the most relevant problems about the theme, cf. the volume that collects the
acts of the important international meeting, held in Chicago in 1993: Origini dello Stato. Processi di formazione statale

13
 Amadeus decided to agree with the archbishop without nevertheless forgetting the kinship
ties with Marie. His clever practice of justice was based upon the principle of negotiation and he
settled the dispute between the participants, on the one hand by respecting the authority of the
Church with a solemn act of subordination - the feudal homage to the archbishop – and on the other
hand by maintaining Marie’s political control on the same land. This sentence shows the importance
awarded to Amadeus’ abilities in negotiating with any kind of authority, from the local chatelaines
to the ambassadors of the King of Hungary or with the Doge of Venice himself.
The approach of all the historians that have discussed the subject was undoubtedly events-
based and somewhat apologetic. They preferred give an account of the affair in the form of a
narrative shifting between the preparation for the crusade and the narration of Amadeus’ military
success. This episode was also reported by Guichenon and later by another Savoyard chronicler, but
Datta - who crossed-checked these sources with Barbier’s account – does not believe the event
really occurred, since he notes that the chroniclers only hazily referred to the Despot Hugh and
Marie of Bourbon and furthermore failed to explain who they were. Datta’s skepticism derives also
from the impossibility of a certain geographical identification about the city of Iuns. In the account
Iuns and the Despot Hugh49 are mentioned sparingly, and we have to wait until Cox’s analysis to
understand that Iuns corresponds to “the important fortress of Junke (or Zonclon), now known as
Navarino Bay, a few miles north of Modon”50.
Cox and Setton have nevertheless focused on the arbitration in order to explain the
relationships between Amadeus VI and his kinship ties with the principality of Acaia; in other
words, they both wanted to connect the crusade’s history with the social background of the count.
Cox, for example, shows no interest in the political meaning of the affair, because he reads the
matter from a different perspective: according to him Amadeus induced Marie and Hugh to
renounce all of their rights in favour of the archbishop, who nonetheless leaves “Marie and her son
in peaceful possession of the southern part of the peninsula”51. However, the significance of the
dispute does not rely in the event in itself, but in the use of rhetorical devices to legitimate the
power of the count.
There are two other episodes in the chronicle which are useful to summarise this
interpretation of the count’s behaviour in exercising justice. The first one describes the punishment
of the inhabitants of Calocastre, in Bulgaria and it refers to the count’s ideal of justice in itself. The
second one is a real sentence delivered by Amadeus VI in Constantinople at the end of his
expedition.
During the winter of 1366, Amadeus was in Bulgaria. He had just moved siege to the cities
of Mesembria, Sozopolis and Varna and was waiting for news about the liberation of Emperor John
V. In that period some of his youngest soldiers, decided to lay siege and take the borough of

in Italia fra Medioevo ed età moderna, edited by G. CHITTOLINI, A. MOLHO, P. SCHIERA. Bologna 1994 (italian
ed.).
49
Cf. BOLLATI, Illustrazioni. pp. 293-294; DATTA, Spedizione. pp. 90-91; COX, The Green Count. 213-215.
50
COX, The Green Count. 214.
51
COX, The Green Count. 215.

14
Calocastre. During the night many of them tried to climb the wall to enter the castle, but they were
caught by a sentinel and suddenly attacked by the Bulgarian soldiers and killed. Therefore, the
young crowd that stayed outside the walls - “ashamed and angry” - returned to the count in order to
apologise to their captain. In this occasion, Amadeus disapproved of their behaviour and scolded his
men, nevertheless - much as a good father would have done - he told them: “Compagnons on soule
dire que le ieu darmes et damours, pour une ioye cent doulours. Ne vous esmoyes pas, car a laide
de Dieu, ie vengeraiy voz compagnons qui sont mors”52. Once he had gathered some soldiers, the
count attacked Calocastre which was taken and many inhabitants were killed in order to punish
them for their crime. This episode stresses Amadeus’ idea of “justice of war”. Though he disagreed
with his men, he was aware they were young (a light motif used in the Middle Ages to excuse some
particular violent behaviours and crimes) and they asked for his pardon. He also understood the
reason behind the reckless undertaking and decided to teach them a lesson. In the end, the
inhabitants of Calocastre were also killed and quartered since they too had to be punished in an
exemplary way.
The second episode regards a young knight of the count’s army. The knight in question had
seduced the young daughter of his host in Constantinople. Her parents were furious and distraught
because the reputation of the girl had been compromised, so they denounced the matter to
Amadeus, who in turn sent the knight directly to the Emperor in order to respect John’s authority.
John V “denied to punish the man” and he decided to leave to the count the honour to “set justice”.
Therefore, Amadeus asked the Emperor which was the punishment for the crime and John told him
that they normally have to cut the beard of the guilty. The count was surprised about this kind of
punishment, because – according to him - they would normally have cut the head of the culprit.
Though we know that this was not case, Amadeus - and Servion too - wanted to stress that these
crimes ought to be resolved with a stricter punishment, in order to make the people conscious of the
power of the prince. In the end the beard of the knight was cut outside the Basilica of Saint Sophia
in Constantinople. Servion ended his narration by highlighting the great reputation of the count as a
fair judge: “de la quelle justice lempereur et tous ses subgetz furent sy tres content, qui reputerent le
conte lung des plus vaillians justiciers du monde”53.

4. Was the expedition a crusade?

In all the historical works studied for this contribution, the authors give their interpretation
of Amadeus’ expedition. Usually their judgement is only based on one argument: the result of the
crusade. Formally all of them agree that the expedition in the Levant could be described as a
crusade and only Iorga gives a different reading of the affair. In his opinion, Amadeus’ venture did
not grant lasting results and only Gallipoli was restored in the Emperor’s hands. Therefore the
expedition “wasn’t a crusade: the liberation of John Palaeologus was the principal and almost the
only aim of this expedition, that seems more an escapade”54. Following Iorga’s study, Datta also

52
SERVION, Chroniques. 313.
53
SERVION, Chroniques. p. 315. The episode was only scantily narrated by Cognasso. Cf. COGNASSO. pp.
174-175.
54
IORGA, Philippe de Mézières. 337.

15
distinguishes two phases of the expedition: the first one was the “Eastern adventure”, while the
second – “the Bulgarian adventure” - was only one of its corollary effects55. Francesco Cognasso
agrees with this suggestion, but he undauntedly persists in speaking of “personal interests”56. Steven
Runciman in his fundamental work History of the Crusades, considers the expedition as a real
crusade (because it was directed to fight against the Turks), but he holds that the expedition was in
the end “useless” because Gallipoli was ultimately lost “immediately after Amadeus’ departure”57.
For all the historians, the “unstable” conquest of Gallipoli by the count was the only
effective result of the crusade, though it still remains the only criterion by which the crusade is
judged. Thus Cox continues to classify the expedition as a failure. In Cox’s opinion “the greater part
of the count’s resources had been consumed in securing the Emperor’s release, and except for the
capture of Gallipoli, no action had been taken against the Turks at all”58. Amadeus VI came to
restore an empire (after the Turk’s invasion), and he succeeded only in restoring an Emperor. He
came to battle heathen Turks, but he more often battled Christian Bulgarian, leaving them still less
able to oppose the Turkish advance [...] Yet, despite his meagre accomplishments, there remains an
element of grandeur in the goals and great courage in the effort to realize them”59.
In spite of these considerations, Setton - following the idea of Oskar Halecki – does not
downplay the effects of the crusade. In criticizing Iorga, Setton says that “Although Iorga gives
scant attention to Amadeo’ s expedition, which he regarded «not as a crusade, but as an escapade»,
the taking of Gallipoli was nevertheless (says Halecki) «the first success achieved by the Christians
in their struggle for the defence of Europe, and at the same time the last great Christian victory
[over the Turks] during all the Fourteenth Century”60. On the other hand, when he starts speaking
about the release of John V, Setton himself minimizes the crusade’s significance when he opines
that: “at this point Amadeo’s expedition almost ceased to be a «crusade», and his chief objective
became the rescue of John V from his predicament at Vidin”61.
Thus, all the historians that have studied Amadeus’ 1366 expedition were “traditionalists”:
in that they considered the crusade as something different from a “real” crusade since the expedition
lacked an explicit war against the Muslims. Apart from Iorga, who explicitly affirms that the
expedition is not to be regarded as a crusade, the other historians - from Datta to Setton – also
believe in the same concept, even though they still refer to the expedition as a “crusade”. Setton, in

55
DATTA, Spedizione in Oriente. 8.
56
Cf. COGNASSO, Il Conte Verde. 180-181.
57
S. RUNCIMAN, Storia delle Crociate, II. (Italian translation), Milan 2002 (original date of publication:
1951). 1072.
58
COX, The Green Count. 231.
59
COX, The Green Count. 235.
60
SETTON, The Papacy and the Levant. 300. Cf. also HALECKI, Un Empereur de Byzance à Rome (1355-
1375). Warsaw 1930. 146.
61
SETTON, The Papacy and the Levant. 301.

16
criticizing Iorga’s suggestion, doesn’t oppose proposals for other interpretations and in the end he
admits that after the capture of Gallipoli, the expedition ceased to be a crusade. Yet one must agree
with two main points that have been asserted by these historians: firstly one has to distinguish
between two different phases of the expedition and secondly that the result of the expedition was
indeed ineffective.
According to the “pluralist” school of thought, one has nevertheless to accept the expedition
as a crusade. As a matter of fact, Urban V gave his blessing to the undertaking with a specific bull
and the attempt to free the Emperor has been linked to the idea of the fight against the Infidels.
As we can observe in Servion’s chronicle, the Bulgarians were also considered as enemies
by their contemporaries and were assimilated to the Infidel Turks. When the count was informed by
the Latin patriarch of Constaninople that John V had no intention to abjure the schism, the count
said: “Nort Dieu, suy je venus en ce pays delivre votre empereur de prison, et son people de
servitude des Turcs et Burgariens, en conquerant a la seur de mon corps, et a leffusion de sang de
ma gentilesse moult de cites, villez et chastiaulx qui avoit perdues, les quelles ie luy ay remise, et
maintenant il dist que ne complira pas ce qui ma promis”62. With these words - full of anger -
Servion explains his theory: the expedition had been a crusade because Amadeus had come with the
noble ideal to free the Byzantines, who had fallen under Turkish and Bulgarian control. Those
people were Infidels and betrayers of the real Faith and for this reason they should be thought of as
mortal enemies who had to be eradicated from the borders of the Christian world. Though, Servion
had already spoken about the frustration of his soldiers at the change in the aim of the expedition
after the conquest of Gallipoli63, he nevertheless stresses the importance of the defence of
Christendom. The intention of the count in undertaking another expedition was also stressed by
Servion when he described the end of the war of Chioggia and the peace of Turin in 1381. On that
occasion, Amadeus - as the arbiter of the conflict - asked to Venice and Genoa to stop fighting each
other while Jerusalem was still under Infidel control64. The mere fact that the Count mentions the
idea to renew the expedition to Jerusalem shows that the “traditionalist” approach can nonetheless
be taken into consideration.
The question of the meaning of Amadeus’ expedition in 1366 persists and it is extremely
hard to give an exhaustive interpretation of the matter. While one should avoid an amplification of
the symbolic significance of this crusade, I think that we ought to agree with Christopher Tyerman
when he says that “the crusade meant different things for different people at the same and at
different times. This is not to deny the seriousness of crusading, nor the new range of experiences
associated with it”65. The impression is that by using a clever political language that belongs to the
medieval rhetorical and cultural tradition, Amadeus VI ultimately succeeded in drawing the
attention of the international scene upon his personality.

62
SERVION, Chroniques. 316.
63
Gallipoli was conquered when the Turkish garrison had left the city during the first night of the siege.
Servion writes that all the Savoyard soldiers were unhappy about this fact: “De ces nouvelles tous fuerent mal contains,
car fain avoyent de les conquerre par force” (SERVION, Chroniques. 318).
64
Cf. SERVION, Chroniques. 323.
65
TYERMAN, The invention. 23.

17
MATTEO MAGNANI

18