Templar Organizational Structure
© 2001 by Salvatore T. Bruno
As stated above, the basic military unit of both the secular and Templar worlds was the Knight. Feudal socioeconomic structure was organized to support this military building block. The fundamental economic unit was the "knight's fee" or "basic fief". This was usually an agricultural entity consisting of around 60 to 120 acres held by as few as one or as many as eight villain families. Several of these together would support a knightly household consisting of a married knight, his children and a few servants.
This was a tenuous existence. War, bad crops, or other misfortune could bounce these families right out of the knightly class in the blink of an eye. Such noble families appeared and disappeared on a regular basis throughout the middle ages. Never the less, these were the lucky middle class of knighthood. Most knights never achieved their own household and spent their lives attached to the hotel of another important lord.
These fundamental knightly units were gathered together by wealthier lords into Knight Bannerettes. Several Bannerettes might be joined together as a County under the lordship of a Count. In regions continually threatened by invasion, counties often gathered together under a Marquis. From there, we work our way to up to Dukes, Princes, or Kings. The simplistic and theoretical view of this system was an orderly pyramid. The King was at the top. All land belonged to him and he farmed it out in exchange for annual military service. In reality, this completely nationalistic view was generally held by no one except the King.
A more accurate model would be to think of feudalism as a system of rights and obligations. It is a "relativistic" set of relationships that should be viewed from the instantaneous perspective of the individual of interest. He looked downward to the rights he held from his vassals and upward to the obligations he owed to his lords. He rarely perceived this chain traveling beyond the next layer. Kings would occasionally try to extract personal oaths of fealty from everyone. This weak attempt at nationalism was rarely effective.
By the thirteenth century, the standard service obligation was only forty days per year. If this was not bad enough, several exclusions, clauses and limitations also existed. For example, it might only be "20 days south of the Alps", or zero days beyond a certain district. The knight was also compensated if his horse were killed. Although this was not a cash based economy, it became increasingly necessary to pay not only the specialist mercenary troops, but also one's own vassals just to keep them in the field for a reasonable length of time. For any major campaign, it was usually necessary for the lord to borrow heavily and mortgage his estates in order to raise the necessary cash. We must bear in mind that a system of regular taxation did not exist. Revenues were "opportunistic". Great Lords seldom achieved the numbers during a muster to which they thought themselves entitled. Looking back on this system from modern times, it is amazing that large scale wars ever happened at all!
The difference in the economic support system and administrative command structure available to secular leaders and that employed by the Templars is stark. While both were agrarian at their foundation, the Templars had a cohesive chain of command from the top to the bottom. The Order's organization achieved the advantages of nationalism without the existence of a physical country. Under the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum, the Templars held gifted estates all over Europe but owed no taxes or fealty to anyone, but the Pope. The Master was the Great Ruler of a virtual state.
Income was consistent, regular, and supplemented by shipping, banking, and other industries. No "active duty" time limitations existed for Templar military personnel. They were signed up for life. The Templar force was available for field duty year round. The highly disciplined Templar troops were powered by a vast and efficient resource system. Free from the plague of complex feudal obligations and limitations, the Templar command structure was stable, consistent and efficient. These attributes made them a powerful war machine, especially in comparison to their secular contemporaries.
The operation and management of such a unique group also required innovation in its basic internal organization. The Templars had a dual organizational structure with the Master at the Head. Beginning with the Seneschal and flowing down through the Commanders of the Lands, a complex system of administration existed for the raising of revenue, maintaining of castles, and support of the Brothers when not on campaign. A similar hierarchy existed in Europe under the eight Western or Provincial Templar Masters. The main job of the European administrative branch, which included the majority of the Order's members, was to create the resources necessary for the Order to pursue its primary role: Defense and conquest of the Holy Land from the Saracens.
The Order's structure altered while on campaign. It formed a second branch that was led by the Marshal. He acted as Commander in Chief of the brothers under arms, reporting directly to the Master (Rule 103). The Brother Knights and Sergeants were transferred from the command of the Houses to the Marshalcy while on campaign. The Marshalcy also controlled the horses, weapons, and other directly military equipment (Rule 102). This structure is actually somewhat simpler:
This duality can be somewhat challenging for the casual student. It is also further confusing in that the same individuals moved between the two branches, occupying different roles. The Commander of the Land of Jerusalem is a good example. His peacetime role was to be the Chief Administrative Officer in the kingdom of Jerusalem and the Treasurer of the Order. In this capacity, he reported through the Seneschal. This job was much like that of a modern regional COO and overall CFO combined. In wartime, however, he would become a simple Squadron Commander under the authority of the Marshal (Rule 103). Thus, one might say he had "two bosses", a common complaint of personnel in modern matrix organizations.
It is fascinating to realize that the duality of the Templar organizational structure bears a striking similarity to modern organizational theory. Some of the most sophisticated principles employed in private business and military organizations can be found in the system described above. There are three basic types of organizations, which are generally recognized; Functional, Projectized, and Matrix. Functional and projectized organizations are the most common. In a functional model, organizational units are identified by basic functional definitions. Which to say; the kind of work performed. Personnel are grouped in these units and authority and responsibility flow within these divisions. In a projectized model, organizational units are formed around products or projects. Personnel are not divided along functional lines until further down the organizational tree, if at all. The matrix structure is a less common model in which the previous two are blended together. Personnel are grouped into major divisions according to function, but are then "farmed out" to support projects. This is the most complex of the three types.
A modern executive, drafting a matrix organization for a group like the Templars, would create something like this:
More Templar History
