Rebel - KGC
Platinum Member
8)
What REALLY happened to the wealth of Knights Templar
- Thread starter xXx
- Start date
8)
Philvis
Sr. Member
I think with certainty, the only thing anyone can do is speculate currently. The most conclusive information available is that the Templar fleet disappeared from La Rochelle in 1307. Where they went and what they had on them is anyone's guess for now until more documentation is brought to light. I personally do not think their wealth was already "loaned" out as one poster suggested because the motives for King Philip would not have been there. He needed cold hard cash, not bank notes. My gut feeling says that if there was a vast fortune, it was not taken to Rosylnn Chapel. That is just too easy. This order lived on secrecy, codes, etc. for 200 years. Roslynn is just too easy of a hiding spot in my opinion...but then again, sometimes it is the obvious places that people never look. I cannot speculate on how much of a fortune was spirited away, but I do think something was. I think more information will come to light accidentally in the coming years as archival finds are stumbled upon.
Rebel - KGC
Platinum Member
DUNNO... MAYBE, Tarot Cards of that "periord of time" has "clues"... MAYBE, used as "chits", or something... DUNNO. 
Salvor6
Silver Member
- Joined
- Feb 5, 2005
- Messages
- 3,759
- Reaction score
- 2,178
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- Port Richey, Florida
- Detector(s) used
- Aquapulse, J.W. Fisher Proton 3, Pulse Star II, Detector Pro Headhunter, AK-47
- Primary Interest:
- Shipwrecks
I believe when the Knights Templar fleet left New Rochelle they sailed to Oak Island and buried their wealth in the money pit. The fleet was then lost on the high seas during a storm.
Dear group;
What happened to the *treasure* of The Catholic military Order known as The Poor-Fellow Soldiers of Christ? Nothing happened to it, because it most likely never existed in the first place, my friends. Many seem to think that in order to become a Templar, all one needed was to volunteer and then after the initiation, the volunteer was issued a horse, arms and armor, then dispatched to the Holy Land to cheerfully slay heathens for Church and King.
Nothing could be further from the truth, my friends. First a Templar needed to be self-sustaining, that is to say, the initiate brought with him his arms, armor and mounts, and quite frequently, his squire(s). Also, and this is much more important, the initiate brought with him the financial support of his family which was always nobility. In this regard, the actual Templar knights were few and far in between, and taking this into consideration, one might assume the Templar structure to have bene comprised of few knights, with a rather large support staff.
This is in fact the truth. The percentile of Templar knights to Templar non-knights was approximately 1 to 10 during the height of the hostilities in the Near East and if one were to take into consideration those Templar knights who were non-combatants, this number rose to around 15 to 1 or even higher. The actual total number number of Templars who were belligerents in the Near East at the height of the Crusades was around 10%, with the remaining 90% of Her knights being posted in European lands in non-combat roles.
The tales of exhorbinant numbers of Templar knights falling during offensive and defensive struggles in the Holy Land is very misleading. Whilst it's entirely factual that large numbers of Templars did perish, it's not true that these Templars were in fact KNIGHTS. The ones who were slain were almost always Templar sergeants, who were poorly trained and very poorly armed and equipped. In other words, they were the bulk of the Templar military, the foot soldiers of Christ.
These poor victims came from the multitudes of the impoverished families of Europe, and they themselves had very little to offer the Order except their lives. Often times they would arrive with naught more than the clothes on their backs and they would present themselves to a Templar stronghold, announce their intentions to the local Dominus, be immediately initiated then rushed to the Near East to meet the Templar foe. If they did not perish during the perilous journey, they would then find themselves standing before the Dominus of whichever Near Eastern fortress they were posted to, and time and situation not withstanding, they possibly would recieve a rudimentary form of combat training.
Their military training consisted of basic combat formations, identification and memorization of the various battlefield banners, conduct and individual movements on the battlefield, how to erect and maintain fortifications, how to properly care for mounts, arms and equipment, how to dress and care for injuries,and most importantly, how they were to conduct themselves in battle. This training could last anywhere from a few days to several months, with the bulk of the recruits recieving intensified instruction lasting several weeks. This modified training helped to prolong their miserable lives, yet in the end, virtually all of them perished at the hands of their enemies.
Also, the sergeants were expected to maintain a rigid spiritual demeanor at all times in accordance with their Rule, however, as the Templar sergeants performed the bulk of the menial labor, this spiritually was often watered down substantially, so that the sargeants might complete their daily many daily labors. Of course, their labors were overseen by a Templar knight, in much the same manner that a officer oversees his troops in todays' militaries. It was this knight who also, by virtue of being noble born and thus a leader, also undertook the greater part of the sergeants daily devotions, which freed the sergeants to perform their daily menial tasks.
Because of the valiant efforts of these sergeants, the Templars were to gain vast territories and control a substantial wealth in a relatively short span of time. As the Order grew, so did it's need for an ever larger support structure. This unique structure included a disproportionately number of clerical staff (secular, for the most part) as well as administrators.
Also, as the wealth of the Templars grew, they also grew into a position to hire large numbers of mercenaries who were never permitted to wear the Templar white, and as such, they could only wear black or brown garments. This wanton and indiscrimate hiring of paid soldiers also served to heighten tensions between the Templars and the other religious military Orders of the day, especially the Hospitallers and the Teutonic Knights, whose colors the mercenaires often donned, thus adding to the confusion of these Orders on the battlefield.
And so, as the Order's power and wealth grew, so also grew corruption and single mindedness of purpose. Wealth and power are historically the twin breeding grounds for corruption and secular goals, and so the Order eventually changed It's priorities from being protectors in the Holy Lands into being consumed with European politics and power broking and this is where all the troubles began. Oddly enough, the Templars were formed entirely of Frankish (French) knights and until the demise of the Order, all of the Order's leaders were of French noble birth, although they almost never the nobility which was in line to recieve title or inheiritence.
It was the twin effects of the Templars' rise to power and their part in the loss of the Holy Land which caused the Holy See to closely examine the future role of Her military Orders and it had long been propsed that all of the 20 odd military Orders in existance be combined into one Order. This must have caused quite a bit of discussion among the leadership of the military Orders, and as such, there exists written evidence of a sort of underlying preamble to this possible course of action. In other words, various Orders were more closely aligning themselves with their allied Orders in the event that such a rumor would one day become a fact.
The sole hold out among the larger Orders seems to have been the Templars, and from the written evidence, they seemed to have been considering a movement to the more secular form rather than remaining a purely religious one. That the Templars had little or no desire to share their portion of wealth and power with the other religious Orders must have caused no small amount of consternation in the Vatican as well as in sovereign nations where the Templars had holdings. Also, bearing in mind that virtually all Templar knights and administrators were of noble birth would have made the change from a religious Order into a secular Order much easier.
The Vaticans' proposed blending of Her military Orders may have caused King Phillip the Fair of France to have become highly suspicious of the Templars, due to the fact that virtually all of the top ranking Templar leaders were of Frankish noble blood, and as such, their becoming a purely secular Order would have meant that the Templars would have inherited many large French estates through it's nobly born members.These holding would have also passed down to future generations through the right of inheritance, which meant an ever expanding independent military and political presence in France.
Had Phillips' sole intentions been to ease his financial debt load to the Templars, then the mere explusion of the Templars from France, and the seizure of all their holdings, would have been sufficent, however Phillip was not content with this sort of action. He therefore had the Templar leaders arrested, tried as heretics, then it's key leaders, who were all French noblemen by birth, burned at the stake.
It seems that Phillip not only wanted to break the political power of the Templars in France, but also send out a message to others who could possibly have had designs on meddling in French royal affairs. Taking into consideration the various other military Orders which also had holdings in France, such as the Hospitallers of St. John and others,all of who had wealth in one degree or other, the very fact that King phillip never so much as uttered a harsh word to any of them belies the fact that Phillip was not only in debt to the Templars, but in fear of them as well.
To conclude, it would seem that there were no great sums of money in the Templar treasuries which would have led to their horrendous demise, rather, Phillip the Fair seemed to have set out to make examples of the Order. Today, far too many people associate wealth with power, whereas in the Middle Ages, the two were distinctly different entities. A very powerful king may have been poor as a pauper, yet with many welathy and powerful vassals that same king would have wielded the power of might, and this was a far more effective tool during the late Medieval period than mere purchasing power.
One could not purchase anything to turn one's blood blue during the Middle Ages. Only by birth, title, marriage and inheritance could one become a member of the noble society, and once a member, that person played a key role in the politics of their own little corner of the world in Western Europe. The membership was for life and it passed from father to son and it was a very real matter for consideration. Anyone who could have possibly become a turbulent factor in this feudal system was dealt with rapidly,severely, and permanently.
This particular hypothesis makes more sense regarding Phillips' actions than the mere seizure of the Templars supposed wealth ,and it is along these lines of logical thought that one should concentrate their efforts, whilst not attempting to decipher any so-called *key lines* or other such nonsense which has become popular with all manner of self proclaimed *experts*.
Your friend;
LAMAR
What happened to the *treasure* of The Catholic military Order known as The Poor-Fellow Soldiers of Christ? Nothing happened to it, because it most likely never existed in the first place, my friends. Many seem to think that in order to become a Templar, all one needed was to volunteer and then after the initiation, the volunteer was issued a horse, arms and armor, then dispatched to the Holy Land to cheerfully slay heathens for Church and King.
Nothing could be further from the truth, my friends. First a Templar needed to be self-sustaining, that is to say, the initiate brought with him his arms, armor and mounts, and quite frequently, his squire(s). Also, and this is much more important, the initiate brought with him the financial support of his family which was always nobility. In this regard, the actual Templar knights were few and far in between, and taking this into consideration, one might assume the Templar structure to have bene comprised of few knights, with a rather large support staff.
This is in fact the truth. The percentile of Templar knights to Templar non-knights was approximately 1 to 10 during the height of the hostilities in the Near East and if one were to take into consideration those Templar knights who were non-combatants, this number rose to around 15 to 1 or even higher. The actual total number number of Templars who were belligerents in the Near East at the height of the Crusades was around 10%, with the remaining 90% of Her knights being posted in European lands in non-combat roles.
The tales of exhorbinant numbers of Templar knights falling during offensive and defensive struggles in the Holy Land is very misleading. Whilst it's entirely factual that large numbers of Templars did perish, it's not true that these Templars were in fact KNIGHTS. The ones who were slain were almost always Templar sergeants, who were poorly trained and very poorly armed and equipped. In other words, they were the bulk of the Templar military, the foot soldiers of Christ.
These poor victims came from the multitudes of the impoverished families of Europe, and they themselves had very little to offer the Order except their lives. Often times they would arrive with naught more than the clothes on their backs and they would present themselves to a Templar stronghold, announce their intentions to the local Dominus, be immediately initiated then rushed to the Near East to meet the Templar foe. If they did not perish during the perilous journey, they would then find themselves standing before the Dominus of whichever Near Eastern fortress they were posted to, and time and situation not withstanding, they possibly would recieve a rudimentary form of combat training.
Their military training consisted of basic combat formations, identification and memorization of the various battlefield banners, conduct and individual movements on the battlefield, how to erect and maintain fortifications, how to properly care for mounts, arms and equipment, how to dress and care for injuries,and most importantly, how they were to conduct themselves in battle. This training could last anywhere from a few days to several months, with the bulk of the recruits recieving intensified instruction lasting several weeks. This modified training helped to prolong their miserable lives, yet in the end, virtually all of them perished at the hands of their enemies.
Also, the sergeants were expected to maintain a rigid spiritual demeanor at all times in accordance with their Rule, however, as the Templar sergeants performed the bulk of the menial labor, this spiritually was often watered down substantially, so that the sargeants might complete their daily many daily labors. Of course, their labors were overseen by a Templar knight, in much the same manner that a officer oversees his troops in todays' militaries. It was this knight who also, by virtue of being noble born and thus a leader, also undertook the greater part of the sergeants daily devotions, which freed the sergeants to perform their daily menial tasks.
Because of the valiant efforts of these sergeants, the Templars were to gain vast territories and control a substantial wealth in a relatively short span of time. As the Order grew, so did it's need for an ever larger support structure. This unique structure included a disproportionately number of clerical staff (secular, for the most part) as well as administrators.
Also, as the wealth of the Templars grew, they also grew into a position to hire large numbers of mercenaries who were never permitted to wear the Templar white, and as such, they could only wear black or brown garments. This wanton and indiscrimate hiring of paid soldiers also served to heighten tensions between the Templars and the other religious military Orders of the day, especially the Hospitallers and the Teutonic Knights, whose colors the mercenaires often donned, thus adding to the confusion of these Orders on the battlefield.
And so, as the Order's power and wealth grew, so also grew corruption and single mindedness of purpose. Wealth and power are historically the twin breeding grounds for corruption and secular goals, and so the Order eventually changed It's priorities from being protectors in the Holy Lands into being consumed with European politics and power broking and this is where all the troubles began. Oddly enough, the Templars were formed entirely of Frankish (French) knights and until the demise of the Order, all of the Order's leaders were of French noble birth, although they almost never the nobility which was in line to recieve title or inheiritence.
It was the twin effects of the Templars' rise to power and their part in the loss of the Holy Land which caused the Holy See to closely examine the future role of Her military Orders and it had long been propsed that all of the 20 odd military Orders in existance be combined into one Order. This must have caused quite a bit of discussion among the leadership of the military Orders, and as such, there exists written evidence of a sort of underlying preamble to this possible course of action. In other words, various Orders were more closely aligning themselves with their allied Orders in the event that such a rumor would one day become a fact.
The sole hold out among the larger Orders seems to have been the Templars, and from the written evidence, they seemed to have been considering a movement to the more secular form rather than remaining a purely religious one. That the Templars had little or no desire to share their portion of wealth and power with the other religious Orders must have caused no small amount of consternation in the Vatican as well as in sovereign nations where the Templars had holdings. Also, bearing in mind that virtually all Templar knights and administrators were of noble birth would have made the change from a religious Order into a secular Order much easier.
The Vaticans' proposed blending of Her military Orders may have caused King Phillip the Fair of France to have become highly suspicious of the Templars, due to the fact that virtually all of the top ranking Templar leaders were of Frankish noble blood, and as such, their becoming a purely secular Order would have meant that the Templars would have inherited many large French estates through it's nobly born members.These holding would have also passed down to future generations through the right of inheritance, which meant an ever expanding independent military and political presence in France.
Had Phillips' sole intentions been to ease his financial debt load to the Templars, then the mere explusion of the Templars from France, and the seizure of all their holdings, would have been sufficent, however Phillip was not content with this sort of action. He therefore had the Templar leaders arrested, tried as heretics, then it's key leaders, who were all French noblemen by birth, burned at the stake.
It seems that Phillip not only wanted to break the political power of the Templars in France, but also send out a message to others who could possibly have had designs on meddling in French royal affairs. Taking into consideration the various other military Orders which also had holdings in France, such as the Hospitallers of St. John and others,all of who had wealth in one degree or other, the very fact that King phillip never so much as uttered a harsh word to any of them belies the fact that Phillip was not only in debt to the Templars, but in fear of them as well.
To conclude, it would seem that there were no great sums of money in the Templar treasuries which would have led to their horrendous demise, rather, Phillip the Fair seemed to have set out to make examples of the Order. Today, far too many people associate wealth with power, whereas in the Middle Ages, the two were distinctly different entities. A very powerful king may have been poor as a pauper, yet with many welathy and powerful vassals that same king would have wielded the power of might, and this was a far more effective tool during the late Medieval period than mere purchasing power.
One could not purchase anything to turn one's blood blue during the Middle Ages. Only by birth, title, marriage and inheritance could one become a member of the noble society, and once a member, that person played a key role in the politics of their own little corner of the world in Western Europe. The membership was for life and it passed from father to son and it was a very real matter for consideration. Anyone who could have possibly become a turbulent factor in this feudal system was dealt with rapidly,severely, and permanently.
This particular hypothesis makes more sense regarding Phillips' actions than the mere seizure of the Templars supposed wealth ,and it is along these lines of logical thought that one should concentrate their efforts, whilst not attempting to decipher any so-called *key lines* or other such nonsense which has become popular with all manner of self proclaimed *experts*.
Your friend;
LAMAR
cactusjumper
Gold Member
Lamar,
Nice post. Very informative.
Here is a site that some might find of interest, as it pertains to this subject:
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/kt1.htm
Take care,
Joe
Nice post. Very informative.
Here is a site that some might find of interest, as it pertains to this subject:
http://www.electricscotland.com/history/kt1.htm
Take care,
Joe
Dear cactusjumper;
Thank you kindly for the compliment my friend. I also followed and read the link which you've provided and I would very much like to warn you against taking faith in the article contained within. That it's contents were based entirely on heresay and the worst form of popular psuedo-historical facts is quite evident throughout. First, there were not nine knights which started the Templars, there were only two, Hugues de Payens and his relative, Godfry de Saint-Omer. Both of these knights were from Frankish nobility and neither one of them had so much as a drop of Scottish blood coursing through their veins.
Next, Saladin was not a Shiite Muslim, he was a Kurdish Muslim. Also, it is unknown how many actual Templar and Hospitaller knights were executed in the aftermath of the battle of Hattin, as many of the Crusaders, in a show of solidarity, claimed to be either a Templar or a Hospitaller and were thus executed alongside the actually Templars and Hospitallers. Next, the fabric *muslin* was named as such because it was first woven in Mosul, Persia (present day Iran). The article states that the Templars imported this fabric to Europe when they did no such thing! Muslin fabrics were first introduced in France in the late 17th century.
And on and on. The entire piece is fraught with the worst sorts of errors and one is hard pressed to find an actual historical fact throughout it's contents. Over and over, I see articles such as the one provided in the link as being factual history when in truth they are almost entirely made up.
Your friend;
LAMAR
Thank you kindly for the compliment my friend. I also followed and read the link which you've provided and I would very much like to warn you against taking faith in the article contained within. That it's contents were based entirely on heresay and the worst form of popular psuedo-historical facts is quite evident throughout. First, there were not nine knights which started the Templars, there were only two, Hugues de Payens and his relative, Godfry de Saint-Omer. Both of these knights were from Frankish nobility and neither one of them had so much as a drop of Scottish blood coursing through their veins.
Next, Saladin was not a Shiite Muslim, he was a Kurdish Muslim. Also, it is unknown how many actual Templar and Hospitaller knights were executed in the aftermath of the battle of Hattin, as many of the Crusaders, in a show of solidarity, claimed to be either a Templar or a Hospitaller and were thus executed alongside the actually Templars and Hospitallers. Next, the fabric *muslin* was named as such because it was first woven in Mosul, Persia (present day Iran). The article states that the Templars imported this fabric to Europe when they did no such thing! Muslin fabrics were first introduced in France in the late 17th century.
And on and on. The entire piece is fraught with the worst sorts of errors and one is hard pressed to find an actual historical fact throughout it's contents. Over and over, I see articles such as the one provided in the link as being factual history when in truth they are almost entirely made up.
Your friend;
LAMAR
cactusjumper
Gold Member
Lamar,
As I said, "some might find it interesting". Muslin was really the first clue about it's overall accuracy.
I find it interesting that such sites are unable to get their "historical" facts straight. Nothing will bite you in the arse faster than history.
Take care,
Joe
As I said, "some might find it interesting". Muslin was really the first clue about it's overall accuracy.
I find it interesting that such sites are unable to get their "historical" facts straight. Nothing will bite you in the arse faster than history.
Take care,
Joe
allen_idaho
Hero Member
Is it just me or are Knight's Templar treasure seekers akin to the whole UFO set? K Ray Z.
On a more serious note, does anyone remember that a Knights Templar tomb was found in southern France last April? That's 2008 for the mathematically challenged.
And why are you, the crazed masses, suffering under the delusion that there is some sort of conspiracy here? I just don't see it. I'll probably regret saying this but where is the proof?
Show me proof that there was a plan to ferry away all of this gold and silver into one secret location. Show me proof that it's location would be passed down from generation to generation or hidden as clues into architecture.
On a more serious note, does anyone remember that a Knights Templar tomb was found in southern France last April? That's 2008 for the mathematically challenged.
And why are you, the crazed masses, suffering under the delusion that there is some sort of conspiracy here? I just don't see it. I'll probably regret saying this but where is the proof?
Show me proof that there was a plan to ferry away all of this gold and silver into one secret location. Show me proof that it's location would be passed down from generation to generation or hidden as clues into architecture.
Rebel - KGC
Platinum Member
Proof? What kind? "Pics", Dear group;
After researching the article on the supposed *history* of the Knights Templar further, I discovered that virtually all parts of that article originally came from a book written by the psuedo-historical author, David Hatcher Childress. The article states that the Jolly Roger pirate flag was first used by famed Templar and king of Sicily, Roger II, who was often at odds with the Church and this is why the flag is now called the Jolly ROGER.
While it's true that Roger II was very often considered *persona non gratis* by the Vatican, due to his repeated attempts to organize the various Norman realms in Italy under one rule, it is completely false that Roger II was a Templar, famed or otherwise. Upon the death of Pope Honorius in 1130, there existed two major Papal claimants, Anacletus II, who is considered to be an anti-Pope, and Innocent II, who was the rightful Papal claimant. Roger II supported Anacletus II claim to the Vatican chair and none other than the famous St. Bernard of Clairvaux fully supported Pope Innocent II.
For those members who do not already know, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was a famous supporter of the Knights Templar Order and wrote the original Rule for the order. He also lobbied for acceptance of the Order by the Vatican as is clearly stated in his letters on behalf of the Order which he presented to the Council of Troyes in 1129. And so, with the assistance of St. Bernard the Templars were formally recognized and endorsed by the Roman Catholic church.
Also, if there were any truth to the fictional account that King ROger II was a Templar knight, that would have also meant that ALL of his royal holdings would be in fact belonged to the Templars, which included Italy and Sicily. That the mother of King Roger II, Adelaide de Vasto married Baldwin I of Jerusalem in 1117 can no way be construed that Roger II was a Templar or that he played an active role in the Crusades.
In fact, the very first time that the pirate flag, the Jolly Roger, is mentioned in literature is in 1723, in Charles Johnson's book, A General History of the Pyrates. It seems that in two different instances, pirates were using a flag which they called the Jolly Roger. Bartholomew Roberts and Francis Sprigg both called their flags the Jolly Roger, although both flags were completely different from each other and neither used the skull and crossbones motif.
Your friend;
LAMAR
After researching the article on the supposed *history* of the Knights Templar further, I discovered that virtually all parts of that article originally came from a book written by the psuedo-historical author, David Hatcher Childress. The article states that the Jolly Roger pirate flag was first used by famed Templar and king of Sicily, Roger II, who was often at odds with the Church and this is why the flag is now called the Jolly ROGER.
While it's true that Roger II was very often considered *persona non gratis* by the Vatican, due to his repeated attempts to organize the various Norman realms in Italy under one rule, it is completely false that Roger II was a Templar, famed or otherwise. Upon the death of Pope Honorius in 1130, there existed two major Papal claimants, Anacletus II, who is considered to be an anti-Pope, and Innocent II, who was the rightful Papal claimant. Roger II supported Anacletus II claim to the Vatican chair and none other than the famous St. Bernard of Clairvaux fully supported Pope Innocent II.
For those members who do not already know, St. Bernard of Clairvaux was a famous supporter of the Knights Templar Order and wrote the original Rule for the order. He also lobbied for acceptance of the Order by the Vatican as is clearly stated in his letters on behalf of the Order which he presented to the Council of Troyes in 1129. And so, with the assistance of St. Bernard the Templars were formally recognized and endorsed by the Roman Catholic church.
Also, if there were any truth to the fictional account that King ROger II was a Templar knight, that would have also meant that ALL of his royal holdings would be in fact belonged to the Templars, which included Italy and Sicily. That the mother of King Roger II, Adelaide de Vasto married Baldwin I of Jerusalem in 1117 can no way be construed that Roger II was a Templar or that he played an active role in the Crusades.
In fact, the very first time that the pirate flag, the Jolly Roger, is mentioned in literature is in 1723, in Charles Johnson's book, A General History of the Pyrates. It seems that in two different instances, pirates were using a flag which they called the Jolly Roger. Bartholomew Roberts and Francis Sprigg both called their flags the Jolly Roger, although both flags were completely different from each other and neither used the skull and crossbones motif.
Your friend;
LAMAR
Dear allen_idaho;
You asked what became of the psuedo-historical documentary film, Bloodline. It seems to have been discounted as a fraudulent psuedo-documentary and as such, it was roundly disregarded by accredited historians. The very first clue that the documentary is a not-so-elaborate fake is in the movie trailer where the alledged Templar's tomb is shown as being covered in a white cloth-like material with a red Latin cross prominently displayed on it. This caused me to chuckle, as the Templars never used a Latin Cross as their symbol and it's blatantly obvious that Bruce Burgess, or someone on his staff, saw the move, Kingdom of Heaven and they copied the Latin Cross motif directly from that film.
Since their inception, the Knights Templar have always used an 8 pointed Cross, which signifies the eight Beatitudes, as is written in their Rule by St. Bernard. People such as Bruce Burgess, if they sincerely wished to pull off a good scam, would be best served if they were to hire some actual historians insted of relying on movies such as the Kingdom of Heaven and Soldier of God in which to draw their historical *facts*.
Your friend;
LAMAR
You asked what became of the psuedo-historical documentary film, Bloodline. It seems to have been discounted as a fraudulent psuedo-documentary and as such, it was roundly disregarded by accredited historians. The very first clue that the documentary is a not-so-elaborate fake is in the movie trailer where the alledged Templar's tomb is shown as being covered in a white cloth-like material with a red Latin cross prominently displayed on it. This caused me to chuckle, as the Templars never used a Latin Cross as their symbol and it's blatantly obvious that Bruce Burgess, or someone on his staff, saw the move, Kingdom of Heaven and they copied the Latin Cross motif directly from that film.
Since their inception, the Knights Templar have always used an 8 pointed Cross, which signifies the eight Beatitudes, as is written in their Rule by St. Bernard. People such as Bruce Burgess, if they sincerely wished to pull off a good scam, would be best served if they were to hire some actual historians insted of relying on movies such as the Kingdom of Heaven and Soldier of God in which to draw their historical *facts*.
Your friend;
LAMAR
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 7,841
- Reaction score
- 9,871
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- DAKOTA TERRITORY
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
HOLA mi amigo Lamar (and everyone),
Lamar you have researched the history of the Templars sufficiently that I would like to ask you a question concerning them. Do you think that any Templars knew of America, and-or traveled there? It has come up in another thread, and the Templars are not my 'area' so I would appreciate your view. Thank you in advance,
your friend,
Oroblanco
Lamar you have researched the history of the Templars sufficiently that I would like to ask you a question concerning them. Do you think that any Templars knew of America, and-or traveled there? It has come up in another thread, and the Templars are not my 'area' so I would appreciate your view. Thank you in advance,
your friend,
Oroblanco
*disclaimer* The statement which follows is based solely upon conjecture of past historical events and there exists very little historical documentation to support the preceeding statement.
Dear oroblanco;
No my friend, I do not feel the Templars knew of the Americas nor had they visited the Americas. My reasons for feeling this way are numerous and I would like to touch upon the primary ones at this time.
First, the Templars had a highly defined purpose, that being to protect Christians and Christendom from the infidel and to protect Christian lands from an infidel invasion. Exploration for the sake of exploration simply did not fit into their plans and as such, they did not feel compelled to explore the distant horizons.
That the Templars were formed and ultimately dissolved, during the Middle Ages lends weight to this line of thought. During this time, the vast majority of the peoples of Europe simply did not have the time, resources or the motivation for pursuits such as exploration, not when there existed so many other dangers just beyond their individual borders. It was not until the Renaissance period that Western Europeans entertained the notion of seeking out distant shores.
The sole exception to this general rule would seem to be the Norse. They had all of the phyiscal AND emotional tools at their disposal to discover and explore lands such as the Americas. Historically, we know that various Norse tribes were prolific explorers and traders, based upon written evidence from a wide variety of sources. We know that the Norse went as far East as India and perhaps further, as far North as Russia and as far South as the middle of Africa.
We also know they did not travel extensively for the purpose of conquest, as there exists no great coordindated campaigns against any peoples by the Norse, with the exception of the British Isles and Ireland. That the Norse raided and invaded Britain with impunity gives rise to the classical view that the Norse, with their horned helmets and great axes, were nothing more than bloodthirsty barbarians bent upon bloodlust and savagery.
The Norse were in fact a higly developed and complex society that interacted surprisingly well with the rest of humanity most of the time. That they were isolated from their fellow Europeans due the harshness and geographical location of their home lands only strengthens the theory that the Norse remained a certain air of fierce independence while the rest of Europe struggled upon the weight of the feudal yoke.
As historians, both academians and field researchers uncover more about these mysterious people, a trend seems to unfold. We know the Norse highly prolific traders, but now we know that they traded as a way to support themselves and they explored mostly out of curiousity instead of entertaining any real hope of profit.
That fact that the Norse steadily travelled further away from their home shores can be easily plotted and a set of colored pencils with a map and in doing so it becomes evident that the Norse were constantly pushing the envelope of discovery. Because of this pecular fancy the Norse were looked upon with disdain and distrust by the more settled peoples of Europes in very much the same manner as they viewed the Gypsies.
That the Norsemen *probably* set foot upon the American continent before Christopher Columbus is becoming more widely accepted in certain accedited academic circles, because as more history is being uncovered, the more there is to learn about the Norsemen as explorers, traders, discoverers, wanders, settlers and raiders. Evidence is slowly being uncovered both in the Old and New Worlds which lends credence that the Norse were possibly North Americas' first Europeans.
Your friend;
LAMAR
Dear oroblanco;
No my friend, I do not feel the Templars knew of the Americas nor had they visited the Americas. My reasons for feeling this way are numerous and I would like to touch upon the primary ones at this time.
First, the Templars had a highly defined purpose, that being to protect Christians and Christendom from the infidel and to protect Christian lands from an infidel invasion. Exploration for the sake of exploration simply did not fit into their plans and as such, they did not feel compelled to explore the distant horizons.
That the Templars were formed and ultimately dissolved, during the Middle Ages lends weight to this line of thought. During this time, the vast majority of the peoples of Europe simply did not have the time, resources or the motivation for pursuits such as exploration, not when there existed so many other dangers just beyond their individual borders. It was not until the Renaissance period that Western Europeans entertained the notion of seeking out distant shores.
The sole exception to this general rule would seem to be the Norse. They had all of the phyiscal AND emotional tools at their disposal to discover and explore lands such as the Americas. Historically, we know that various Norse tribes were prolific explorers and traders, based upon written evidence from a wide variety of sources. We know that the Norse went as far East as India and perhaps further, as far North as Russia and as far South as the middle of Africa.
We also know they did not travel extensively for the purpose of conquest, as there exists no great coordindated campaigns against any peoples by the Norse, with the exception of the British Isles and Ireland. That the Norse raided and invaded Britain with impunity gives rise to the classical view that the Norse, with their horned helmets and great axes, were nothing more than bloodthirsty barbarians bent upon bloodlust and savagery.
The Norse were in fact a higly developed and complex society that interacted surprisingly well with the rest of humanity most of the time. That they were isolated from their fellow Europeans due the harshness and geographical location of their home lands only strengthens the theory that the Norse remained a certain air of fierce independence while the rest of Europe struggled upon the weight of the feudal yoke.
As historians, both academians and field researchers uncover more about these mysterious people, a trend seems to unfold. We know the Norse highly prolific traders, but now we know that they traded as a way to support themselves and they explored mostly out of curiousity instead of entertaining any real hope of profit.
That fact that the Norse steadily travelled further away from their home shores can be easily plotted and a set of colored pencils with a map and in doing so it becomes evident that the Norse were constantly pushing the envelope of discovery. Because of this pecular fancy the Norse were looked upon with disdain and distrust by the more settled peoples of Europes in very much the same manner as they viewed the Gypsies.
That the Norsemen *probably* set foot upon the American continent before Christopher Columbus is becoming more widely accepted in certain accedited academic circles, because as more history is being uncovered, the more there is to learn about the Norsemen as explorers, traders, discoverers, wanders, settlers and raiders. Evidence is slowly being uncovered both in the Old and New Worlds which lends credence that the Norse were possibly North Americas' first Europeans.
Your friend;
LAMAR
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 7,841
- Reaction score
- 9,871
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- DAKOTA TERRITORY
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
Thank you for your reply Lamar, I hope you have a great day!
your friend,
Oroblanco
your friend,
Oroblanco
Dear OroBlanco;
It was my pleasure, my friend. I am honestly intrigued by the exploits of the Norse and as such I am always *tuned in* to any archeological news pertaining to this fascinating, yet little known race of early Europeans. If someone were to someday discover that the Norse actually managed to explore Asia through the back door, that is reach Asia from the Americas, it wouldn't surprise me very much at all. They loved to travel.
The reason why I've included the Norse in my replies is to blaze the trail for the theory that perhaps it was not the Templars who set foot on the Americas, rather it were bands of roaming Norsemen who were mistaken by modern researchers as being Templars.
The lines of coincidence seems to agree with this hypothesis as well. Both were from European stock and thus both shared the same basic features and traits, both shared the same technologies, especially in the realm of weapons and armor and the Norse were traveling and exploring extensively about the same time the Templars were at the height of power and immediately following their expulsion from the church.
Curiously enough, while the Norse seemed to prefer oral history to written history, they seemed to love carving graffiti everywhere, such as "Olaf was here oin13 Oct 1031 Have a nice day!" and other carvings of this nature. Some of their grafitti may be seen today all over the known world, including Mesopotamia, Iran, Iraq, Russia, India even in Greece and Rome!
Your friend;
LAMAR
It was my pleasure, my friend. I am honestly intrigued by the exploits of the Norse and as such I am always *tuned in* to any archeological news pertaining to this fascinating, yet little known race of early Europeans. If someone were to someday discover that the Norse actually managed to explore Asia through the back door, that is reach Asia from the Americas, it wouldn't surprise me very much at all. They loved to travel.
The reason why I've included the Norse in my replies is to blaze the trail for the theory that perhaps it was not the Templars who set foot on the Americas, rather it were bands of roaming Norsemen who were mistaken by modern researchers as being Templars.
The lines of coincidence seems to agree with this hypothesis as well. Both were from European stock and thus both shared the same basic features and traits, both shared the same technologies, especially in the realm of weapons and armor and the Norse were traveling and exploring extensively about the same time the Templars were at the height of power and immediately following their expulsion from the church.
Curiously enough, while the Norse seemed to prefer oral history to written history, they seemed to love carving graffiti everywhere, such as "Olaf was here oin13 Oct 1031 Have a nice day!" and other carvings of this nature. Some of their grafitti may be seen today all over the known world, including Mesopotamia, Iran, Iraq, Russia, India even in Greece and Rome!
Your friend;
LAMAR
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 7,841
- Reaction score
- 9,871
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- DAKOTA TERRITORY
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
Greetings Lamar,
What do you think about the possibility of Templar-Norse contact, resulting in some geographic knowledge being exchanged? (Referring to Henry Sinclair, whom I am not even sure was Templar connected, and the legend of his crossing to America; coincidentally this supposedly occurred just about the time when the Pope dispatched a bishop to "Vinland". ) Do you think there could be any connections?
Most people are not aware that the Norse had largely become Christian in this time period, so finding of an ancient Cross in America could easily be Norse and not Templar.
Thank you in advance, and I hope you have a great day.
your friend,
Oroblanco
What do you think about the possibility of Templar-Norse contact, resulting in some geographic knowledge being exchanged? (Referring to Henry Sinclair, whom I am not even sure was Templar connected, and the legend of his crossing to America; coincidentally this supposedly occurred just about the time when the Pope dispatched a bishop to "Vinland". ) Do you think there could be any connections?
Most people are not aware that the Norse had largely become Christian in this time period, so finding of an ancient Cross in America could easily be Norse and not Templar.
Thank you in advance, and I hope you have a great day.
your friend,
Oroblanco
Dear Oroblanco;
Yes, my friend, it's entirely true that the Norse countries were virtually all Christianized by the late 12th century. This fact is evidenced by the Latin abbrevations found on many of the surviving Norse runic carvings. Henry Sinclair was absolutely NOT a Templar, as the Order had ceased to exist some 30 years before he was born, therefore he could NOT have possibly been a member of a non-existent Order, my friend.
Also, I am fairly certain that later Norse explorers knew of a huge uncharted land mass between the shores of Western Europe and the Easternmost shores of Asia, however what is not so certain is their actual penetration into the Americas, and the impact they may have made, if any, upon the natives by their interactions.
Now, there may have been some possible interaction between Norse mercenaries in the Holy Lands and the Templars, as the Norse were known as fierce warriors far and wide, however it's a very long stretch of the imagination to assume that the Templars may have acted upon this information and explored the Americas, my friend.
First, before one can make any such wild assertions that the Templars explored the Americas, one must look at who the Templars were. First and foremost, the Templars were monks and then they were warriors. They could have easily put down their arms, but they could not put down their vows. Yhe vows of a Templar were poverty, chastity and obedience. It's these last two vows which we need to take a long hard look at, my friend.
The vow of chastity remains important to us because it states that the Templar monks had no direct living descendents. In other words, the Order perished with it's members. It's a sad fact of life, but it is still a fact. There were Templars who could take up the cross for a limited amount of time, the most common being from 3 to 5 years, however they had to remain chaste during their service within the Order and they had to have their wife's permission, and once their contractual vow was completed they were no longer Templars.
Next, is the vow of OBEDIENCE. This vow becomes VERY important because it virtually guarantees that a Templar knight could not make a major decision on his own, such as wishing to explore uncharted lands far to the West, without the express approval and an ORDER to do so from their superiors. The Templars were very good at taking orders and this is why we are having this discussion today. If the Templars did not take orders well then they would have never fought so fiercely as they did during the Crusades, my friend.
Now, we must take a closer look at the Templars MOTIVES. What motivated a man to foresake home and property and almost certainly, his life? It was his passion for God, Jesus Christ and the pursuit of glory and honor which propelled him thus. There was no hope of monetary gains as the vow of chastity prevented that. There was also no hope of a rise in station as Templars were forbidden to enage in politics.
We know that these men dedicated to God gave up their lives by the thousands. They were indeed, men of honor. Therefore how can one conclude that a man, who lived with death at his elbow daily, could have been inclined to FLEE for his life with the disbandment of his Order? A man of honor would have stood his ground in the face of his enemy. That same man would have obeyed his superiors without question or thought.
This is why the conspiracy theories crumble into dust when faced with the harsh reality of the facts. The Templars were DEDICATED and DEVOTED to something far more important to them than worldy riches or hiding a deep, dark secret. They had a ecclestial mission and they fully intended to complete that mission without even considering death, much less being frightened by it.
Am I to believe that the same men who faced Saladin's armies on the field of battle would hide the truth, when one of their Rules was to always speak the truth, even if it led to their deaths? These men truly believed their vows, my friend. They must have, from reading the surviving accounts of their exploits. Therefore, by closely examing the men who were the Templars we can arrive at the logical conclusion that the conspiracies attributed to these fanatical followers of Christ were incapable of doing any of the things which the conspiracy theorists attribute to them.
Your friend;
LAMAR
P.S. In case you did not already know, there exists written documentation that Henry and William Sinclair spoke out against the Templars during their 1309 trial, therefore it would seem HIGHLY unlikely that a member of their family would become a Templar.
Yes, my friend, it's entirely true that the Norse countries were virtually all Christianized by the late 12th century. This fact is evidenced by the Latin abbrevations found on many of the surviving Norse runic carvings. Henry Sinclair was absolutely NOT a Templar, as the Order had ceased to exist some 30 years before he was born, therefore he could NOT have possibly been a member of a non-existent Order, my friend.
Also, I am fairly certain that later Norse explorers knew of a huge uncharted land mass between the shores of Western Europe and the Easternmost shores of Asia, however what is not so certain is their actual penetration into the Americas, and the impact they may have made, if any, upon the natives by their interactions.
Now, there may have been some possible interaction between Norse mercenaries in the Holy Lands and the Templars, as the Norse were known as fierce warriors far and wide, however it's a very long stretch of the imagination to assume that the Templars may have acted upon this information and explored the Americas, my friend.
First, before one can make any such wild assertions that the Templars explored the Americas, one must look at who the Templars were. First and foremost, the Templars were monks and then they were warriors. They could have easily put down their arms, but they could not put down their vows. Yhe vows of a Templar were poverty, chastity and obedience. It's these last two vows which we need to take a long hard look at, my friend.
The vow of chastity remains important to us because it states that the Templar monks had no direct living descendents. In other words, the Order perished with it's members. It's a sad fact of life, but it is still a fact. There were Templars who could take up the cross for a limited amount of time, the most common being from 3 to 5 years, however they had to remain chaste during their service within the Order and they had to have their wife's permission, and once their contractual vow was completed they were no longer Templars.
Next, is the vow of OBEDIENCE. This vow becomes VERY important because it virtually guarantees that a Templar knight could not make a major decision on his own, such as wishing to explore uncharted lands far to the West, without the express approval and an ORDER to do so from their superiors. The Templars were very good at taking orders and this is why we are having this discussion today. If the Templars did not take orders well then they would have never fought so fiercely as they did during the Crusades, my friend.
Now, we must take a closer look at the Templars MOTIVES. What motivated a man to foresake home and property and almost certainly, his life? It was his passion for God, Jesus Christ and the pursuit of glory and honor which propelled him thus. There was no hope of monetary gains as the vow of chastity prevented that. There was also no hope of a rise in station as Templars were forbidden to enage in politics.
We know that these men dedicated to God gave up their lives by the thousands. They were indeed, men of honor. Therefore how can one conclude that a man, who lived with death at his elbow daily, could have been inclined to FLEE for his life with the disbandment of his Order? A man of honor would have stood his ground in the face of his enemy. That same man would have obeyed his superiors without question or thought.
This is why the conspiracy theories crumble into dust when faced with the harsh reality of the facts. The Templars were DEDICATED and DEVOTED to something far more important to them than worldy riches or hiding a deep, dark secret. They had a ecclestial mission and they fully intended to complete that mission without even considering death, much less being frightened by it.
Am I to believe that the same men who faced Saladin's armies on the field of battle would hide the truth, when one of their Rules was to always speak the truth, even if it led to their deaths? These men truly believed their vows, my friend. They must have, from reading the surviving accounts of their exploits. Therefore, by closely examing the men who were the Templars we can arrive at the logical conclusion that the conspiracies attributed to these fanatical followers of Christ were incapable of doing any of the things which the conspiracy theorists attribute to them.
Your friend;
LAMAR
P.S. In case you did not already know, there exists written documentation that Henry and William Sinclair spoke out against the Templars during their 1309 trial, therefore it would seem HIGHLY unlikely that a member of their family would become a Templar.
Oroblanco
Gold Member
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2005
- Messages
- 7,841
- Reaction score
- 9,871
- Golden Thread
- 0
- Location
- DAKOTA TERRITORY
- Detector(s) used
- Tesoro Lobo Supertraq, (95%) Garrett Scorpion (5%)
Thank you Lamar for your reply, very informative! I don't wish to give the impression that I personally believe in the "Templars in America" theories, the subject came up in another thread here and I wanted to get your input. Thank you again, I hope you have a great day!
your friend,
Oroblanco
your friend,
Oroblanco
Top Member Reactions
-
2842 -
1705 -
1574 -
1572 -
1061 -
985 -
968 -
940 -
930 -
836 -
795 -
736 -
636 -
624 -
577
