While the Templars had started off well and were at times considered the model of Christian knighthood, it wasn't long before resentment of their privileges, of their being rich as kings, and criticism of some of their actions in war began to surface. For example, at the siege of Damascus in 1148, the Templars as well as the Hospitallers were accused of accepting bribes to convince Conrad III of Germany to abandon the effort. There was other criticism of their actions as well. Following the disastrous battle at the Horns of Hattin and the subsequent fall of Jerusalem, which some blamed on the Templars; they were left with almost no discernible military purpose in the Holy Land. Other critics also questioned their morals. The chronicler William of Tyre was often critical of the order and in one instance accused them of ransoming Nasr-al-Din, the sultan's son, for six thousand gold florins. When the Grand Master Odo de St Amand died in 1179, William called him a wicked man, haughty and arrogant, in whose nostrils dwelt the spirit of a fury, one who neither feared God nor revered man and that he was mourned by no one. When the Templars took up banking and lending the criticism only increased. Both Walter Map and John of Salisbury accused the Templars of avarice. Matthew Paris sometimes praised them while at other times was severely critical of the Templars. The loss of the last foothold in Syria, Tortosa in 1302, was yet another failure that left them vulnerable to their critics. As the obvious surprise and shock of their arrests in 1307 indicate, nobody thought the Order was flawed to the point it needed disbanding.