furness said:
Hello Lamar,
Sorry for the delay in replying, yes i agree about the clothing when i mentioned the colour blue for French Knights and yellow for the Italian Knights i was referring to the cross not the surcoat,
one of the problems is we can read a great deal in history books and statements written in them, but rarely have a reference as to where the original letter is that the writer quotes,
in this i refer to the mention that most people thought the earth was flat, at that time yes many did, even during Columbus's voyage in his report to his sponsors after returning he mentions that he had to quell rebelion among his crew because many were fearfull of sailing off the edge and believed the earth was flat, this is quoted in many history books even today, and even after the American astronauts had shown pictures of the earth the flat earth society, (that still existed) believed the pictures were doctored and it was a conspiracy, it ws;nt until quite a few trips had been made that they finally admitted the truth to themselves and disbanded, and we are talking about citizens hundreds of years ago who had no education, other than gossip
I'm still not convinced that the shields were not painted until i see something other than that which you mention, as it is extremely ambiguous, i have read an order that knights were requested not to paint there shields with their own emblems and not part of the code of dress,
this could be construed that shields were painted,
also sorry, whilst the paint you mention was not as colour fast as modern synthetics, it changed very little in it's ingredients since it's invention and is recorded as being used by both the Egyptian and Chinese 2,000 yrs ago, paint was basically the same when the KT were formed up until the 1960's, I'm talking now of the stuff you would buy for painting windows and doors or any wooden object, linseed oil as a binder, and white lead,
the only changes were to the coloured pigments used, apart from the new colours we have today, some of which did not appear until after about 1600, but even in the period we are talking about most colours were available as earth or vegetable pigments,
white lead is also quite weather proof, but not totally, prolonged rain or sunshine, dry or wet conditions affected the timber,
a wooden shield without paint would not last very long, in any climate, and wood will and does move with the moisture content changing,
shields were made from narrow pieces of timber and probably glued together with hide and hoof glue, a layer of linen then being glued to the face, exactly the same glue as we still use today,
even using oil to protect the wood if it is not painted does not work as the glue will take up the oil and soften and fail,
regarding the belief about the position of the cross being in the centre whereas it is as you stated on the left, that is probably down to Richard the Lion heart,
as king of England he used the English cross (yes i do know what my national flag looks like) on the centre of his surcoat, and confusion has reigned ever since, despite the papal bul saying where it should go, he was the king and not subject to that order, or if he was as king and equal to the pope he ignored it,
as King his status was considered at least as high as the pope, the archbishop who was the popes representative was his councillor regarding ecclesiastical matters, but still subject to the king,
regards
furness
Dear furness;
despite the papal bul saying where it should go, he was the king and not subject to that order, or if he was as king and equal to the pope he ignored it,
And that is what started the Anglican Church, my friend. As Roman Catholics, we are all subject to the authority of the Pope in all things spiritual. Even the monarchy is subject to the same authority, because even though a person may have been an emperor, that person was still a Roman Catholic and therefore still subjected to the higher ecclesiastical authority of the Papacy.
Continuing forward, the Primitive Rule forbade devices on shields and lances. We must always bear in mind that the Roman Catholic Military Orders of the day were stripped-down, leaned out forces. The individual Templar or Hospitaller was often extremely poverty stricken and as such, none could afford any finery of any type. The Rule also forbade any adornments on saddles or bits. It even went as far as forbidding shoes with pointed toes or laces.
We also also keep in mind that virtually all renditions of the Templars depict them dressed head to toe in white. This simply was not how it was. The habits were generally brown or black in color, and always the same color, with a white cloak. Also, only those Templars which had professed a perpetual vow of chastity were permitted to have cowls on their capes. All other Templar knights wore the cloak sans cowl. Also, something else which is rarely depicted in modern artwork regarding the Templars is the fact that the white cloak was only removed when bathing. It was worn about the knight at all other times. It was a raincoat, a sunshield, a tent, a sleeping bag and a shroud, all rolled into one item of clothing.
Templars were not permitted to wear surcoats, therefore the white cloak became their one item of clothing which identified them as being Templars. Again, please note that the red cross was never worn on the back of the cloak. It was only displayed on the left side of the cloak at the the breast. It was also anywhere for 4" to 8" in height and width, most likely depending on the availability of red cloth.
The Templars, along with the rest of the Roman Catholic Military Orders of the day, were deadly serious men with a deadly serious purpose. They spent their existence as Military monks either praying training or fighting the infidel. As such, they had no time for the pomp and splendor of the courtly ways of the day. Virtually every aspect of their lives was strictly regulated and because of this, knights of the Monastic Military Orders shunned contact with secular knights and their secular ways.
And of course, this led to another sore point between the Roman Catholic Military Orders and the secular nobility in the Holy Lands. Almost from the outset, the Roman Catholic Military Orders in the Holy Lands embarked on one long, extended recruitment drive for new members, equipment and financial support. Virtually all the Orders were desparately short of trained knights with their armor and equipment and therefore they were intent on recruiting as many secular knights as they possibly could. The situation deteriorated to such a point that before long secular noblemen were forbidding the knights and squires under their charge from having any contact with any member of any Military Order. When a European noblemen arrived in the Holy Lands with 40 highly trained, armed, armored, equipped and financially supported knights, only to see half of them joining a Military Order, the situation required immediate attention.
If you still reside in the UK, I would highly suggest visiting as many Templar and Hospitaller churches as possible, my friend. From the construction of these structures you will soon gain an understanding of the severe austerity of the Roman Catholic Military Orders. Functionality was key and everything else was scorned. They did not believe in stained glass, intricately carved facades, elaborate designs or anything else that was not puritan in purpose. All of the artwork to the existing structures of the Roman Catholic Military Orders was added at later dates.
The fact remains that there exists VERY little written accounts of the Military Orders during the Crusades, my friend. If I cannot attribute a quote back to a reliable source, I then consider it to be unfounded as factual. Even reliable source documents can be subjected to intentional misinterpretations. A good example of this would be a recently discovered document, the Chinon Parhment. Once discovered, the media immediately cried "Templars were INNOCENT of all charges!" This cannot be further from the truth than it already is. In the document, the accused knights admitted their heresies and blasphemies to a Papal Commission and they were then forgiven their sins by the same Commission. They admitted their guilt and they also refuted certain charges, thus the Papal Commission took the accused upon their word of honor and only forgave the sins which the knights admitted to having committed. The Commission did NOT pass judgement on those heresies and blasphemies that the knights did not admit to, as the Commission was not charged to try the accused knights. And that is the gist of it, my friend. What no one remembers is that Papal Commissions did NOT have ANY secular authority whatsoever, and the sins which the knights had committed were ALSO CRIMES against the secular governments of the day. And so, they still had to pay for their crimes, even though the sins which attached to those crimes were forgiven.
Your friend;
LAMAR
TYPICAL lamar! In a TIZZY! Stuck in yer "box" TAINTED by the UNHOLY Church of ROME... SELECTIVE readings; SELECTIVE history; SCRIPTED "reality". YOU are STUCK! OTHERS have FREE WILL, to do their own RESEARCH & INVESTIGATION. 
I was ALSO 12th degree ROSICRUCIAN in my younger days, and have done LOTS of R & I
FLAT EARTH SOCIETY to "upping" the TEMPLAR Treasure... INDEED! 
