Ancient and ArchaeologyΒ permalink
Knights Templar
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Saturday, 14th April 2007
in 1118 ad, in jerusalem, 'Hugh of the pagans' a burgundian knight, founded the order of the knights templar, a christian version of the saracen 'hashisim' or assassins. they set up a 'protection racket'in the holy lands and in europe, and soon became very rich. the papacy refused to recognise them, until they managed to infiltrate the system, and gained a charter of freedom from papal claims from pope innocent II. they were known as honest independant bankers and moneylenders through the c13., even the moslems trusted them.
they were too rich and powerful, and in the early c14, a coalition of the church and the french king phillipIV mounted a smear campaign and then military action to take back their assets. they were suppressed with great cruelty, establishing the forms of papal torture that were afterwards used in the inquisition.
medieval mafia, or honest independants who got too powerful for their own good? -
Message 2
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 15th April 2007
Hmmm... "infiltrate the system" makes Hugh de Payen's gaining of the powerful support of Bernard of Clairvaux sound rather underhand, don't you think?
Anyhow, ultimately, I believe, it was the Templar's wealth more than their power which brought them down. Philip IV 'the Fair' (*spit*) was bankrupt and in debt to the Order - do in debt that he had had to give them the French Crown Jewels as a surety. He already had a reputation as a 'heresy basher', so manipulating the weak Pope Clement V into bringing the Order to trial was not too difficult. The Order itself was already in a weakened position because unlike the Hospitallers, who had their their naval war, the Teutonic Knights, who had the Baltic Crusade, and the Iberian Orders, who had the Reconquista, the Templars had been unable to find a major role after the fall of Acre in 1291 and the end of any realistc hope of regaining the Holy Lands. Furthermore, as a side effect of this they still had a massive income but without the massive outlay spent of crusading.
Of course there was corruption in the ranks, as there would be in any international corporation, but they were fulfilling a useful role and the money was ploughed back into 'The Cause' (just look at the 'Retrais' in the Rule of the Temple to get an idea of how much must have been spent on equipping a single knight). By and large they were some of the most level-headed Crusaders in the Levant. They exercised a policy of tolerance to Muslims who were not a threat (even opening up their HQs in Jerusalem and Acre to allow Muslims a place of worship).
They were far from perfect (the structure of the Order meant that a poor Grand Master could be disastrous - note how Grand Master Gerard de Ridefort's personal vendetta against Raymond of Toulous brought down the Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1187). There were incidents of corruption, malpractice and fanaticism. However, as Crusader Monks go, they generally seem to have been a pretty decent bunch. -
Message 3
Posted by arnaldalmaric (U1756653) on Sunday, 15th April 2007
Anglo-Norman
Why not?
Hmmmh, so where did the Templars wealth go?
In reply to message#1.
Gerda,
So, the Templars were independant, yet still under the rule of the Pope? You'll have to square that circle with regard to their imprisonment and disbanding for me.
In short Templars: "Mafia" or "honest", neither.
AA. -
Message 4
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Sunday, 15th April 2007
Sun, 15 Apr 2007 19:35 GMT, in reply to Anglo-Norman in message 2
thanks a.n.- interesting.
was phil. iv 'pretty' fair or 'evenhanded' fair? both sound suspicious as a moniker.
there were (and still are) lots of the usual 'baby eating', 'satanic rites' type rumours about the templars which makes me think they were the good guys.
did they have any connection with the masons? (scuse my ignorance, i dont even know when that lot got started!)
too rich for their own good- like the church in england before our hal had 'em. you got to watch out for these bankrupt kings!
an army with no war- always a problem. shades of 1984, needing a war to use up exess revenue... -
Message 5
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Monday, 16th April 2007
Gerda,
Fair as in good-looking; the actual French is "le Bel" (the Beautiful), but the effigy on his tomb gives him a rather squashed face with a big nose; obviously different standards of beauty in those days (I mean, no-one would ever FLATTER a king, would they? )
There is no evidence to support the claims of the Templars "supremely abominable crimes" (the French trial's rather lovely phrase) of blasphemy and heresy - we know the third of these S.A.C.s, sodomy, did happen on occasion because the Rule of the Temple tells us so (it provides actual case studies to aid their Chapters in dealing with rule-breakers). Interestingly it was the only charge which none of the Templars were prepared to admit to having participated in themselves, even under torture.
There have been various claims that the Freemasons were founded by the Templars, and there is at least one Masonic group calling themselves Knights Templar around today. However, there is no historic connection. Craft Guilds of Masons ('Operative Masonry') - basically a sort of primitive trade union - didn't emerge until the second half the the 14th century, but Freemasonry as understood today ('Speculative Masonry') didn't appear until the mid-17th century, in Scotland. This is one source of the 'Templar-Mason' myth - Scotland was one jurisdiction where the Order escaped persecution; however, they also did in Germany and Portugal; in Spain there were trials, but all Templars were aquitted, and in England Edward II delayed as long as he could, until the French Inquisition sent two of its own officers to begin the investigation in England. After a short-lived show of bending to papal will (during which all of about two Templars were put to the torture) the investigation was closed down of the Inquisitors sent packing. -
Message 6
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Monday, 16th April 2007
Mon, 16 Apr 2007 17:15 GMT, in reply to Anglo-Norman in message 5
we know the third of these S.A.C.s, sodomy, did happen on occasion because the Rule of the Temple tells us so (it provides actual case studies to aid their Chapters in dealing with rule-breakers). Interestingly it was the only charge which none of the Templars were prepared to admit to having participated in themselves, even under torture.Β
well they would, wouldnt they? the religeons of the book have always been down on that area of sexuality.
so the templars were one of several 'fighters guilds', comparable with the trade guilds? that makes sense, and another reason for the feudal aristocracy and the church to come down on them. -
Message 7
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 18th April 2007
well they would, wouldnt they? the religeons of the book have always been down on that area of sexuality.Β
Yet they were prepared to admit to spitting on and trampling the cross and worshipping an idol in the form of a head, the 'Baphomet'- possibly a corruption of Mahomet ie Muhammed; because of their close diplomatic links with the Saracens and the Nizari (proper name for the Assassins) some suspected the Templars of having been 'corrupted' by Islam. -
Message 8
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Wednesday, 18th April 2007
Wed, 18 Apr 2007 14:53 GMT, in reply to Anglo-Norman in message 7
'corrupted' by Islam.Β
sounds good to me...
from what little i know of the crusades the moslems were more honourable in war and trade than the christians.
i dont know, poor pope, only just managed to stamp out those pesky gnostics and another lot of 'alternative' christians pop up. no rest for the pious... -
Message 9
Posted by TattooedThug (U7867377) on Wednesday, 18th April 2007
moslems were more honourable in war and trade than the christians.Β
I've heard this too, bloomin Saladin, the cheek, actually keeping his word!! Crazy. And treating POW's well, what was he thinking, Richard the Lion Heart would be spinning in his grave! -
Message 10
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Thursday, 19th April 2007
And treating POW's well, what was he thinkingΒ
I'm not sure that the 200 or so Templar and Hospitaller prisoners Saladin had beheaded after the Battle of Hattin in 1187 felt particularly well treated. Well, I say beheaded - given that Saladin gave the job to a bunch of of exited Sufi mystics who, as you might expect, were not the greatest swordsmen, 'hacked to death' would be a more appropriate phrase.
As for Beybars... promising liberty to to population of a castle if they surrendered, and then beheading the men and selling the women and children into slavery when castle /had/ surrendered doesn't strike me as being particularly honourable.
It's a mistake to romanticise the Crusades - the two sides were as bad and as good as each other. -
Message 11
Posted by TattooedThug (U7867377) on Thursday, 19th April 2007
True, and the women and children who were caught out at Acre too by King Richard...
All as bad as each other, true. Must be the sun or something driving people mad over there. -
Message 12
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Sunday, 29th April 2007
Hi Anglo-Norman,
I read your post some time ago but I have jusr this momment been able to post. I am somewhat surprised as to the post made by several on the Knights Templar. The ones that sticks out most to me were regarding their sexual habits, and the ones indicating a view that they were more mercenary THAN samaritian gaining much of their wealth by selling their military services.
As for their sexual practice, my research offered:
In practice the knights were generally "chaste" only as far as women of their own class were concerned (others were fair game), impoverished (in that the true wealth lay with their organization, and the church, not always with individual members), and obedient (mostly when it furthered their goals). They were initially formed by King Baldwin II of Jerusalem in the spring of 1118 A.D. and started out with only nine members (all of whom were French). A short time later they were backed by the Roman Papacy, and derived much of their strength and influence from the church.
Would you agree that the historical accounts are very conflicting? -
Message 13
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Sunday, 29th April 2007
Hi Arnald,
Good question about where did the Templars riches go, but doesn't history tell the tell? Isn't it true that throughout history the accurser, conqueror or the captor takes the spoils? When the Templars fled to exile don't you think they had to leave most of their riches behind at which time those holdings became property of shall we call it the "State". -
Message 14
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Sunday, 29th April 2007
Hey board,
Just think out LOUD here. Where there all these rumors, accursations & comdemnations before the order became wealthy bringing about envy of the titled but poor of coin aristocrats? Then just add the enlightment they derived from
their LATER contact with Islam, Judaism, and the accumulated knowledge then existing in the East (which was the most scientifically and medicinally advanced at that time), they adopted different styles of dress, mannerisms, philosophy, theology, and a great appreciation for the value of math and science. These last two they employed in their military endeavours in sailing, seige warfare, and construction techniques, allowing them to build some of the most advanced fortifications, and perhaps one of the largest shipping fleets of that era. Their knowledge of masonry, medicine, celestial bodies, mapping, and nautical tools was extensive, and increased the efficacy of their all of their endeavours, military, merchantile, or otherwise. JUST MORE TO ENVY RIGHT? So unfortunately for the Templars, they created more enemies. The Catholic Church did not like the infusion of Eastern philosopy and religious elements into the Templar religious beliefs, while numerous national sovereigns came to resent the Templars as they had often borrowed heavily from them and incurred great debt. As a result, as time went on they were more and more often subject to suspician and hostility both from the Papacy, and sovereign powers. The clergy began to believe (rightfully) or not, that the Templars were beginning to worships pagan beliefs and were performing such "anti-biblical" acts as idol worship, homosexuality, and magic/witchcraft to name but a few. It was also from the Templar's however, that the legends of the Grail Knights, King Arthur, Relics of the True Cross, and the Shroud of Turin all encompassed to varying degrees. This makes one want to examine the yoke that has been hung on the neck of these historical fingers and their fall from grace ( deserved or undeserved ). -
Message 15
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 29th April 2007
Re: Message 12
Yes, LoreLovinLady, they are - but you have to bear in mind that they are often written from two very different perspectives. Many chroniclers had a church background (simply because churchmen were the most literate class) - they may laud the Templars for their work fighting for the Christian cause, but often they were jealous of the power the Order had. William of Tyre is one of the most important contemporary chroniclers of the Crusades, but had a deeply hostile attitude to the Order, as did Walter Mapp, an English civil servant, churchman and chronicler.
Take the example of when a group of Templars ambushed and murdered an Assassin diplomat; William attributes it to the Order's greed - supposedly they feared that if negotiations with the King of Jerusalem were successfully completed, the Templars would lose the tribute the Assassins paid to them. However, the Templar Grand Master had the culprit arrested and was due to send him to Rome for punishment when the King turned up and hanged him (a blatant violation of the Order's privilages, but that's another story). This suggests that the perpetrator was acting without orders - indeed, contrary to orders.
I'm very dubious about claims that the Templars were breaking their vows of chastity on a regular basis; their rules regarding this were amongst the strictist around (they weren't even supposed to be in the same building as a woman giving birth, or kiss a female member of their own family!). Sounds like scurrilous gossip from their opponents, to me.
The original intention of Hugh de Payens and his associates was to take holy orders as Canons of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem, but there was a severe shortage of soldiers - most who took part in the First Crusade, having fulfilled their vow, had cleared off home after Jerusalem was captured. Baldwin persuaded Hugh and his friends to stay on as a 'police force' protecting pilgrims and suppressing banditry. They took basic vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and were given quarters in the 'Temple of Solomon' - actually the Al-Aqsa Mosque. They attracted the attention of Bernard, Abbot of Clairvaux (later St Bernard), a leading churchman, firebrand and advocate of Crusading. With his support (which partly came in the form of a book, 'In Praise of the New Knighthood', Hugh pleaded the Order's case at the Council of Troyes in 1129 (by this time the Order was already growing - IIRC, there were 20 proto-Templars at the Council), and was given Papal approval and status as a religious order, making them officially part of the Church. A Rule was drawn up, based on that of the Cistercians (Bernard's Order), and a few years later the Pope issued the Bull 'Omne Datum Optimum', giving them various privilages including full exemption from all Earthly authority save that of - you've guessed it! - the Pope. Hugh then went on an international recruiting drive and hundreds flocked to the Order's standard, as recorded in the Anglo-Saxon Chronicle. Here endeth a brief history of the origins of the Templars
The Templars were not mercenary; they had a range of sources of income (land, donations, shipping, sugar plantations, cloth factories, banking...) but they didn't sell their services. In terms of obedience, they were expected to be obedient to the Pope and their own internal command structure; certainly they fell out with various army leaders (Kings, mainly) but it was usually for sound military reasons.
As for what happened to their wealth - much of their land, and most of their houses were gifted to the Knights Hospitaller (in England, France and other places), the Iberian Orders (in Spain and Portugal) and the Teutonic Knights (in the Holy Roman Empire). -
Message 16
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
Hi Anglo-Norman
Sorry its taken so long to respond. Its the time/diff. Most times I can read other post but can not post my self. First let me say I really do tend to AGREE with you on your comment that rumors about the sexual practices of the Templars were just that, RUMORS. However how can you not see that they were much more than displaced holy men without a cause who "just happened" to have SUPERB FIGHTING SKILLS who always seemed to befriend clans and exiled royality who "JUST HAPPENED" to be in the middle of a rebellion or war? Come on now Anglo? If WE are to believe that** how do you explain their role or assistance to the cause of Robert the Bruce & the highlanders? Do you NOT THINK the Templars were REWARDED / PAID for their skills? -
Message 17
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
Hi Tatooedthug,
That's quite a name (smile). I couldn't help noticing that you felt some of the historical turn of events related to the Christians, moslems, and our topic "The knights Templars" would make Richard the Lion Heart spin in his grave. Do explain? -
Message 18
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
HELP BOARD,
DOES ANYONE KNOW THE "REAL" DESCRIPTION of the EMBELM on the pennons, banners, shields of the Templars? Did this embelm change after the holy wars? Were they forced to change it when they became exiled from church and state? -
Message 19
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
'Beauseant' - a black square over a white square. Heraldically, "Per fess sable and argent" (although formal heraldry was very much in its infancy in those days). 'Beauseant' is the medieval nickname for a piebald horse, possibly derived from the Old French for 'beautiful sight' (probably used in a tongue-in-cheek manner); the name transferred to 'the piebald banner' easily enough, it seems. 'Beauseant' was also the Templars' battle cry. Only one beauseant standard was permitted to be carried unfurled in battle, because it was used as a rally point if the squadrons were broken, and more than one would have caused confusion. However, a second knight was designated to carry a spare furled around the end of his lance in case the official standard bearer was killed. The rest of the Templars would have carried a white pennon with a red cross (knights) or black with a red cross (sergeants). In all cases the cross was a cross pattΓ©e, i.e. with arms of equal length and with flared ends.
Some contemporary images show the colours of the beauseant reversed (white over black) with a black cross pattΓ©e in the white half. There is no certainty over the reason for this, but it may have been a symbol associated with the Grand Master or other senior officers. The Arms of the Order was a shield 'party per fess sable and argent a cross gules' (divided horizontally, black on top, white below, the whole overlaid with a plain red cross).
No they didn't change their symbol after they were 'exiled' (betrayed) by the Church, because the Order was dissolved. That was it. The end. No more Templars, whatever Dan Brown might think.
However how can you not see that they were much more than displaced holy men without a cause who "just happened" to have SUPERB FIGHTING SKILLS who always seemed to befriend clans and exiled royality who "JUST HAPPENED" to be in the middle of a rebellion or war? Come on now Anglo? If WE are to believe that** how do you explain their role or assistance to the cause of Robert the Bruce & the highlanders? Do you NOT THINK the Templars were REWARDED / PAID for their skills?Β
I'm not sure where "always" comes into it. The only example I can think of is their alleged support for Robert the Bruce, and that is almost certainly a myth. IF they did fight for him, it would probably have been more out of gratitude for refusing to take part in the persecution than for pay, but then so did Edward II, more or less. Robert only really did it because he had better things to do with his time (like fight the English!). At least Edward seems to have had a genuine regard for the Order. The Order were given grants of land, but that was more like donating to charity on a grand scale than reward for services rendered. The Order had massive land holdings, and they were highly successful bankers and traders; they didn't need paying. -
Message 20
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
Sat, 05 May 2007 20:15 GMT, in reply to Anglo-Norman in message 19
great posts a.n. keep em coming, im out of my depth now to post but v.interested readin.
hia lorelovinlady -
Message 21
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
Hello Gerda,
So glad to see your post! I am getting some good info on the Templars. I really do think they got a RAW DEAL. Looks like Anglo-Norman agrees. There's just one thing, and you may call it the cynic in me ~ If they were as samaritian as my opposing debate club members tried to paint them why did they amass so much wealth~~ they would have done their deeds for free. -
Message 22
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Saturday, 5th May 2007
Sat, 05 May 2007 22:34 GMT, in reply to LoreLovinLady in message 21
yes, i like the idea that they were a (very) sucessful 'fighters guild'.
and the early church was always down on any 'variation' from their version of christianity (well, they still are!) and i'm interested in any group who bucked the trend.
-
Message 23
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 6th May 2007
I cannot see how any of the crusaders had any great fighting capacity, most seemed to be maurading hordes of fanatics who could win against unprotected cities (muslim or christian alike). Usually in front of an organised army the would be be rather uneffective. That is not to say that you could not find capable armies among the Franks or Burgundians or English as they were getting increasingly experienced in waging war away from home, but then the true nature of the crusader was the pillaging that made them hated among muslims and christians alike. The whole crusading affair was actually a minor annnoyance for muslims (who had huge troubles against the raiding mongols and turks) but it was catastrophic for Eastern Romans who were of course the ones that raised this whole circus of fanatics as a means to employ a cheaper army to replace part of their own expensive one, which backhammered on them in the most painful way.
In any sense I cannot see any exceptional fighting value on armies of fanatics that usually fought more like pirates and less than armies. Templars (like other orders) should however be remembered more for their banking activities and it is not false to say they established the modern banking system of western Europe. Thanks to them you could move your gold from England to Italy and from there to Spain without having to carry it each time with you, something which kickstarted the international commerce in western Europe and placed them on the road to developement. For that fact the Templars were selling themselves very dearly and in times it was said that it was them that ruled England or France and not the king (in the same sense that bankers whom you usually do not hear rule more or less modern governments in many states around the world). Due to that, it was bound to have numerous friends and numerous ennemies and that is what happened in the end, ennemies prevailed and kings (yes that greedy French who wanted their gold) and popes hunted them down.
As for the accusations of satanism, orgies and sch I am quite certain that in such secret orders things like these happened but not universally; as it is usuall, within secret orders but of large magnitude you have various more secret suborders and I find it very normal that in the current of anti-papal feeling during the middle ages many of them would have fallen to satanism (not a religion but more a reaction to pope, i.e. do the opposite of what he says). As long as for their chastity, I think their hordes would be illiterate to some 80-90% (and I put more than the average for western Europe at that time) thus I can imagine that a large number of them would not.... count muslim women in this "chastity" strange thingie. -
Message 24
Posted by unknowable (U4375190) on Sunday, 6th May 2007
my family are descendants of christian rosenkreutz...all of the men on my father's side are marked by the rose...
hey, gerda...any thoughts on my eva mystery?
kind of calls to mind that bible passage...mark 5:9... -
Message 25
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 6th May 2007
Crusading armies, like any medieval army, were general a lot more professional than they tend to be given credit more; the Papacy discouraged any but trained soldiers to go on crusade as it was well aware of what happened when a bunch of ill-disciplined, untrained fanatics attempted to go on campaign thanks to Peter the Hermit's 'People's Crusade'. After the fall of Jerusalem much of the fighting over the next couple of centuries was not so much a religious war as a national war, as the Kingdom of Jerusalem and its satellite states fought for survival. The fact that fragments of the Kingdom did survive into the early 14th century is testament to their armies' skill. Western and Eastern armies fought using very different tactics; Muslim forces preferred to stand off and use archers and hit-and-run tactics (as at Hattin in 1187), whilst the Christian forces' preferred close quarters action; when they could bring a Muslim army to close quarters they were formidable (Arsuf, 1199, for example, the key battle in the campaign which shattered Saladin's power). The crusaders proved adaptable by introducing Turcopoles - native light cavalry - into their armies to counteract the Muslim horse-archers.
The Templars were hardly a secret society. They played things closer to their chest than other orders, but then as a professional fighting force they had more to keep secret - their Rule contained military instructions, after all. They employed a strict chain of command with no room for deviation, and there really is absolutely no proof, other than the highly dubious (to put is mildly) confessions of the French trial that they were anything other than orthodox Catholics.
I fail to see how literacy and libido are connected. Each new member of the Order was instructed in the basic precepts of the Rule by two experienced brothers during their reception. Literacy in the Middle Ages did not mean an inability to read and write, it meant an iniability to read and write IN LATIN, and there is no reason to suppose that, like most knights, Knights of the Temple weren't given a basic education in the written word. Whilst I will grant you that most of the Sergeants may not have had that education, the Rule could be easily spread by word of mouth. The Rule was in French, not Latin, and they were even allowed sections of the Bible in the vernacular. I don't understand why the idea that the Templars maintained their vow of chastity is so hard to accept. -
Message 26
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 6th May 2007
Message 21:
LoreLovinLady,
If they were as samaritian as my opposing debate club members tried to paint them why did they amass so much wealth~~ they would have done their deeds for free.Β
Warfare is not cheap. They needed a massive income because they had a massive outlay. A single knight required shirts, hose, brais (underwear), cappa (black hooded gown), habit (a big cloak, white with a red cross for Knights Templar), belt and pouch, cloth cap, shoes, knife for eating. Then there was their hugely expensive war equipment: full hauberk (mail coat), mail leg armour, mail overshoes, helmet, padded cap, aketon (padded jacket), shield, sword, lance, dagger, axe, mace, surcoat. The lance would have to be replaced just about after every battle, and shields would have to be repaired and replaced regularly. Each knight needed three horses - a pack horse to carry his equipment, a war horse for battle, and an ordinary riding horse. Sergeants were similarly equipped. This isn't cheap second hand stuff - this is the latest equipment.
Then there were tents, supplies both for campaign and on an ordinary day-to-day basis; preceptories (monasteries), farms, castles, ships to be built... The list is endless. They were also reportedly one of the biggest almsgivers to the poor. When the crusades in the Holy Lands were over, the Templars found themselves with a big income and a dramatically reduced outlay. They diverted their resources into new military endeavors, but for various reasons these all proved abortive, and it was then - in the last 15 to 20 years of the Order's existence - that their wealth really began to mount up. -
Message 27
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Sunday, 6th May 2007
Hello Anglo-Norman,
Thanks for the info on the Templar's emblem and how it was used. Amazing how some traditions of war continue from century to century (never letting the flag touch the ground during the battle or having the back up flag/banner carrier in case the other falls).
I had to tell U! I associate with a very talented young artist that (FOR EGO'S SAKE ) was actually able to sketch what we believe must resemble the emblem from your description alone. Of course we will compare it to that of a reference book when we can find one with clear enough likeness.
Regarding your views on Templar involvement with The Bruce:
"The only example I can think of is their alleged support for Robert the Bruce, and that is almost certainly a myth. IF they did fight for him, it would probably have been more out of gratitude for refusing to take part in the persecution than for pay, but then so did Edward II, more or less. Robert only really did it because he had better things to do with his time (like fight the English!)".
Allow me to be my sweet, but cynical self. I could certainly believe that they felt gratitude to Robert the Bruce for not following orders to persecute them. Afterall wasn't Robert known for following his own mind and convictions? On the other hand IF the Templars were already exiled, in a refuge safe from persecution, hidden from those who would capture, imprison, and kill them; WHAT besides the offer of self gain / pay? would have brought them out to fight with The Bruce? If this is a myth it is riddled strongly with historical facts wouldn't U agree? -
Message 28
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Sunday, 6th May 2007
As far as is known, basically, the command from Rome arrived for Robert to arrest the Templars, Robert decided he had better things to do with his time that implement said instructions, and nothing happened. The Templars in Scotland were not in hiding or under any sort of protection, but the Church needed the co-operation of the monarch to carry out the arrests because sending papal troops into another sovereign state would have caused one almighty stink. There was no point in pursuing the matter, because those states which did co-operate provided enough 'evidence' to damn the Templars and provoke the dissolution of the Order.
When the Order was banned its members went their seperate ways - some into other military Orders (the Portuguese Templars seem to have been recruited more or less wholesale into a new military order, the Knights of Christ, which emerged at the time of the end of the Templars), some joined ordinary religious Orders, most faded from history. Bear in mind that the Knights Templar were just that - they didn't recieve the title 'knight' on entering the Order, they had to hold a secular knighthood (they could join the Order without one, but then they would carry the title of Sergeant). So it is probable that many Knights of the Temple simply returned to a life of secular knighthood; consequently it is possible (note POSSIBLE, there is no evidence) that some former Templars fought under Robert the Bruce, but as private individuals owing military service to their King, not as Templars or even mercenaries.
Re: the beauseant, it's a pity we can't attach files on these boards because I'd like to see what your artist friend made of it. Incidentally, since we're talking about symbols of the Templars, their double seal showed two knights riding one horse on one side (symbolising poverty) and the dome of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (the 'Temple of Solomon' used as their headquarters from 1118 to 1187) on the other. -
Message 29
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Sunday, 6th May 2007
Hi E_Nikolaos
I haven't seen U since the Viking thread. Very interesting comments / theory U present. However U are at this time, the only one who seems to feel the Templar were not as skilled fighters as they were reputed to be. As U can see most of the post have indicated that beliefs are still up in the air about their sexual practice, the motives behind their alliances ( for purse & power or for love & protection of their fellow man ). However I can't recall any doubts about their bravery or FIGHTING TECHNIQUES. What I have read are accouts of just the opposite. From the first Crusade to their last involvements in the Crusades, & through out the time of their forced exile their valor and military strategies were imfamous. Even just protecting traveling pilgrims was a highly thought out campaign to them. Also in my researh I noted it was recorded that on some of their campaigns their foes were overwhelmed by their battlefield tackles they fled in fear before the battle was done. What has fostered your present view? -
Message 30
Posted by Gerda (U7592975) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
Tue, 08 May 2007 14:07 GMT, in reply to Anglo-Norman in message 28
talking about symbols of the Templars, their double seal showed two knights riding one horse on one side (symbolising poverty) and the dome of the Al-Aqsa Mosque in Jerusalem (the 'Temple of Solomon' used as their headquarters from 1118 to 1187) on the other.Β
interesting.
do you think maybe they were trying to be an 'intermediary' between the christians and the moslems, pointing out the similarities between the religeons (with themselves in the middle) , or was this showing their alliegence with the 'poor claires'style of christianity, or, was it just counter propoganda as they got too rich for their own good? -
Message 31
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
The full title of the Order was 'The Poor Fellow Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon' (Paupaures Comilitones Christi Templique Salomonici) and the seal appears very early in their history, so it was just related to one of the founding principals of the Order.
The Al-Aqsa Mosque (that's the one with the black/dark grey dome near the more famous gold Dome of the Rock mosque was built on the site of the Temple of Solomon, and was in fact commonly referred to by that name, so the seal doesn't seem to do anything more than highlight the two aspects of the Order's name. -
Message 32
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
Hi all,
I admit that Anglo-Norman marks a point when he points to me that crusaders (among which the order of Templars) held their enclaves in Palestine for about two centuries - among others it certainly must had to do also with their military capabilities and why not, I should look the issue differenly, indeed medieval armies from western Europe where not just a bunch of longskirt wearing barbarians running here and there and it is true that most crusaders where already professional soldiers in their countries hardened through the numerous feudal wars that occured at the time in western Europe (afterall the message from Pope was clear: make no war here, go make war elsewhere!).
But then, far from individual capabilities (brave and well trained men existed in many countries frmo Asia to Europe), and without belittling Crusader's achievements, I still cannot understand how crusaders held superiority over muslim armies. The fact that they preferred the "tough battle" and muslims the "hit and run" tactics shows no special bravery, the ones were usually armoured knights the others were Turkic tribes fighting the usual steppe way: horse and bow and it is well expected that an archer will not sit and play in close quarters with an armoured knight. The fact that it took muslims many years to answer back (and their first answer was not conclusive) was the fact that Arabs in those times had already went through the influx of Turkic and Mongol tribes, they had no large standing armies and that the new muslim military leaders, i.e. the Seljuk Turks (initially used as cheaper armies by Bagdad Sultans that wanted to play Byzantine style) were not organised enough to answer such a threat thus initially presented no great opposition. On the other hand, the Seljuks of Eastern and central Minor Asia were soon found in fragmented states fighting as many wars against the Eastern Romans and crusaders as with each other. Eastern Romans who organised it all showed more interest in making huge profit out of the whole situation (and that is why in the end it backlashed against them). All that rather messy situation of course had benefited the crusaders and that explains their positive results. Had crusaders met with mroe professional armies such as earlier Arab or in a hypothetic war against the Imperial army (but with no treason!) I dot think that type of army would achieve practically anything more than fight with passion and lose. Armies in western Europe became of course more professional after the 4th crusade and their increased income meant they could afford better equipment, thus the bulk of what is known as medieval armoury is actually of the late middle ages.
On the question of how much it costed, well crusading armies were relatively cheap in comparison to their structure since they were based on semi-slave work and on half-price logistics (provided by italians and initially by Eastern Romans). As for their armoury, certainly not all crusaders were so well equiped as described above or as shown in films. When the most rich state of those times, that was the Eastern Empire refused to pay so much for the army and hence, its combined arms phalanxs had often men in the back rows with less equipment than what was specified in the military manuals given to trainees in war academies I cannot see how donations from Europe (considerably poorer before the crusades) could fully furnish say an army of 30,000 crusaders with all the above parafernalia. On the other hand, it is true that many aristocrat crusaders had sold parts of their property to participate in the holy wars (something like an investment!) but then using my logic I cannot expect those aristocrats and leaders of the orders of crusaders (among them the Templars) to be so stupid to make their focal point the provision of the last little crusader with his own private flashy mail skirt! Their main focal point was to make money of course and that is what they successfully managed to do. -
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
Then there are several pieces of the puzzle missing and first of all the context that nowadays both muslims and christians (catholics and orthodox for different reasons each) seem to forget: Crusades was by no means an initiative of western Europe, nor of catholics nor of Pope.
It was a cunning idea of the Eastern Romans (i.e. the Greek orthodox) to employ cheaper armies. Eastern Romans were famed on their reluctance to pay a lot for their own armies (hence they kept their empire with surprisingly small standing armies, numbers that even the most marginal tribe could present in any random battle) - the 1st main reason was that the fighting style of the Eastern Roman army was an expensive one (but generally was very effective for that reason), the 2nd and "most main" reason was that there was a whole political system (i.e. the orthodox church) behind that minded the empowerment of military people that were a permanent risk to the establishment (hence the rumours that... "virgin mary protects us! and the love of Emperors for "loyal mercenaries" like Varangians for example!). Now in 11th century after the death of Basilius (a king clearly on the side of the army) and due to the objection of much of the aristocrats, land owners and clerics there followed a period of complete demilitarisation of the Empire which permitted the entry of Seljuks in the eastern front (actually they enterred by losing the battle of Mazikert but taking hostage the emperor - the usual Byzantine treason planned back in the City). Now, the idea of the following dynasty of Emperors (Comnenii) was seemingly a brilliant one: why have aristocrats and clerics shouting? Why pay millions for armies that could eventually be used against you? Pay then more of those faithful varrangians, well they had become overly expensive though always effective. Well, then organise a crusade! Eastern Romans in comparison, of course (!), to what circulated around them in east and west were not particularly fanatical about religion and when they seemed to become there was always an overulling political reason behind as religion followed politics and not the opposite (e.g. iconoclasm had clear political motives behind). Hence, for them a holy war meant nothing much. On the other hand, they coped some 4 centuries without the holy lands and seemed not to miss them much. But then as they saw it, calling crusaders from the west meant that they could throw in the eastern border against the Seljuks and Arabs a bunch of barbarians, half of them thirsty for a place in paradise and the other half thirsty for gold and that is what they well did - the focal point was to keep the muslims occupied and not to get Palestine back and give it to the... monks! Hence, the supreme leader of the crusades had been the Emperor. Every crusader had its superiors that reached up to their kings and their kings were subordinates to the one and only Emperor in the name of whom they were supposed to conquer the holy lands. At least for the first three Crusades, that was the idea in theory, no matter if very soon crusaders opted to follow their own way - clearly when you fight and win you are not expected to give it to someone who is not even willing to send some army even for a one-off show!
Now, and there is the interesting thing, a fact that is not known to you (and it was not known to me also!) is that the Eastern Empire was by no means in any difficult position after the establishment of Seljuks in the eastern and central Anatolia. In fact they had already managed to divide them in several sultanates falling into civil wars, then throwing crusaders in the east had taken from the burden of having to deal with the bulk of the muslims and had left them more concentrated in what they excelled: make money by controlling the trade routes. The Empire chopped in the east and central Minor Asia was actually much more rich than 1 century previously when it stood militarily robust from South Italy and Danube to Syria. So much was their anxiety to get lands back that the Comnenii even tried a campaign to Egypt (cos there was more money to get).
In fact the whole affair had to do with the control of trade routes. It had nothing to do with the control of religious routes, religion was used as a propaganda in the same sense that the industrialised societies used in their first phase nationalism and in their second phase internationalism alike to make profit! That was the time when the Arabs had already established, had ended their large scale wars against Eastern Romans and had created well established trade routes from East Asia to Europe and were bringing new products (spices and sugar for example) that were changing the world; the merchants next to them were of course the Eastern Romans (that on the top of that held still for 5 centuries the silk monopoly in the whole area, probably for other products and certainly for products bought from Arabs).
The whole idea was who would control the bulk of that commerce. Both Eastern Romans and Arab chaliphates actually tried to do what actually modern construction companies do: construct bridges and towers by wearing suit and tie, i.e. by organising the projects and then paying subcontractors to do the real field job. Of course the field companies soon get experience and themselves in turn raise a level and become antagonists and employ subcontractors and so on. The history repeats. History says that both Eastern Romans and Arab chaliphates reached a financial peak using that strategy but soon could not simply defend that complex structure of theirs without the blue collar men. The fact though that the bulk of crusaders were the blue collar men in those times is not any proof that they were necessarily the most experts on the battlefield. -
Message 34
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
I would argue that the cornerstone of the Saracen forces were ghulams, heavily armoured soldier-slaves from Egypt who acted as heavy horse archers; they were typically armoured with full mail, or even Byzantine-style lamellar armour.
-
Message 35
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 8th May 2007
In medieval warfare you are more knowledgeable Anglo-Norman, I mainly focused on the geopolitical game behind the whole story. As individual fighting capacity crusaders were hardened soldiers, what I mainly doubted was their capacity as armies to perform in more complex ways. You mentioned earlier an example (e.g. hiring local cavalry to face the dangers of archers) - but then were my mind goes is that crusaders (their leadership) rather quickly "caught" the rules of the game and focused more on being diplomatic and on how to make business (hence their unexpected affiliation with their muslim equivalents, the Hasssasins etc.). Back on their military capabilities, having a second thought, crusaders had also to face the problem of recruitment, their base was far away and was catered by intermediates (italians, eastern romans etc.) - they had a difficulty recruiting locally as christian populations in the area had a negative opinion to the extend of preferring to live with muslims rather than with catholics. Having such a handicap meant that crusaders could not embark on further adventures or develop their armies to the next level and thus they presented these ups and downs.
-
Message 36
Posted by Anglo-Norman (U1965016) on Wednesday, 9th May 2007
I think one of the biggest flaws which faced the Crusaders was their leadership. All to often the commanders of the armies let personal and political differences get in the way of business. Even the Military Orders were not entirely innocent of this. The disastrous behaviour of Gerard de Ridefort, Grand Master of the Templars at the time of the Hattin Campaign in 1187, is often put down to religious fanaticism on his part, but in fact in reality it seems to have been all born of a personal vendetta against Count Raymond of Toulouse. Basically, before de Ridefort joined the Templars, Count Raymond had promised the first available estate in his territories in the Holy Lands. However, when the lord of one of these manors died, Raymond essentially sold the wife of the deceased lord - together with the estate - to a merchant (Italian, IIRC), thus ruining de Ridefort's prospects. He never forgot this, and from then on tried to undermine Raymond at every opportunity - which included persuading Guy de Lusignan not to follow Raymond's sound advice about not picking a fight with Saladin.
-
Message 37
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Saturday, 19th May 2007
Regarding post 28
Re: the beauseant, it's a pity we can't attach files on these boards because I'd like to see what your artist friend made of it.
Hello Anglo-Norman,
I too wish U could have seen what he was able to produce from your words of description. He did a great job! He has often done such feats of talent. I wanted to thank U. U were very helpful to me. I will be following to see what threads U and some of the members are posting hoping I can contribute on the topic. -
Message 38
Posted by LoreLovinLady (U7300583) on Saturday, 19th May 2007
Thanks Board,
The post each of U made helped to give me the added info I needed to create that measure of reasonable doubt and to provoke enough thought to shake up those shall we say the more "rigid" members two book clubs. Thanks again for all factual input and opinions.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.