This Grand-Master was Almeric D’Amboise, grand-prior of France. He was the younger brother of George D’Amboise, archbishop of Rouen, cardinal legate of the Hoiy See, and prime minister to the French monarch. At the time of his nomination Almerio was at the court, where in his position of grand-prior he was an honoured adviser of the king. Indeed, so much were his services appreciated that on his departure to assume the reins of government at Rhodes, Charles presented him with the sword which his ancestor St. Louis had carried at Damietta, together with a piece of the true cross. The nine years during which his sway extended were marked by a series of naval combats, in which the Order reaped much distinction. The death of Djem having freed Bajazet from all necessity to remain on good terms with the fraternity, he at once entered into a treaty with the sultan of Egypt, the object of which was the attack of Rhodes and the annihilation of the naval supremacy of the knights in the Levant. In pursuance of this treaty, he despatched a celebrated Turkish corsair named Kémal, or Camalis, with a powerful fleet to ravage the islands of the religion. This expedition proved a complete failure. Driven successively from Rhodes, Symia, Telos, Nisyrus, and Lango, he at length directed his efforts against Leros, an
studied the remains of the knights in Rhodes, places it at 1505, and his opinion is shared by Biliotti. The argument upon which this change of date is based is as follows:—The tower of St. Paul, in which stands one of the gateways leading into the town of Rhodes from the harbour, was unquestionably built by D’Aubusson, and bears a Latin inscription stating that fact. Over the gateway in this tower is a shield bearing the arms of D’Aubusson, and by its side another with those of Pope Julius II. As this latter is surmounted by the keys and tiara, it is clear that it was not fixed there until after its bearer had become Pope. That event did not take place until the year 1504, and it is argued that some tiie must have elapsed after his elevation to the Papacy before he could have done anything in favour of the Order sufficient to merit the distinction of having his arms coupled with those of D’Aubusson over the gateway of St. Paul. They therefore fix 1505 as the earliest date when D’Aubusson’s death could have taken place. This argument seems very weak when brought against the general agreement of all the older historians in fixing the earlier date. The gate, though undoubtedly built by D’Aubusson, might not have been completed at the time of his death, or the armorial bearings might have been a subsequent insertion. I cannot accept the argument as sufficient by itself to warrant an alteration in the year.
