Printable View
I just watched a show on the History channel about the Templar knights. I was wondering what you guys thought happend to their treasure and their order after the prosecution of them in the 1300's.
I wonder if they just went into Switzerland, which one story claims.
I imagine the Papacy confescated much of their wealth. As to what happened to their order? It ended, basically. And no, the Masonic order AREN'T the Knight's Templar. I can't prove it, but contact your local lodge, they may well be willing to talk.. or they'll just tell you to bugger off.
Well, it won't be that simple. I think they survived on under another name, at least for a while. It's highly unlikely that you can just wipe out the order and all traces of it just like that. Like what somebody said in the Da Vinci Code topic, it was no coincidence that not long after condemning the Templars as heretics, the Pope Clement V and King Philip IV, who respectively condemned them and took their wealth, died in the same year.
Organisations this powerful don't just disappear. Think of the Nazis, who remained quite powerful after 1945, apparently pretty much controlling some South American country, but not in name of course. The Neo-Nazis are still here today. Just one destruction doesn't mean they disappear forever. Think of the KKK as well, which have disbanded a few times in history, only to reappear.
Well, in one particular case they just melded into another order. In Portugal, an ecclesiastical court found the Templars not guilty of heresy. King Dinis was a supporter of the Templars because they were so instrumental in helping with the Reconquista, in spite of several threatening letters from the Pope. But without papal support, a religious order can't really exist as such. So, King Dinis made some interesting legal arguments and got the Pope to agree with them.
First, he got the Pope to agree that Templar possessions in Portugal didn't belong to the Templars but to the crown and had just been on loan to the Templars. This prevented the Church from gaining control of the Templar properties, which were extensive. Elsewhere, the church gave most of the properties to the Hospitallers.
Then he got the Pope to agree to a new military religious order in Portugal to be called the Order of Christ. Then he gave the Templar possessions to the Order of Christ. Meanwhile, the Templars sort of just disappeared; and a new order, under the direct auspices of King Dinis appeared with control over all the former Templar properties in Portugal. You can draw your own conclusions; but in my mind it's clear that King Dinis simply created the conditions whereby the Templars in Portugal could continue under a new name. Even the name itself is not all that much different from the original name of the Templars. In Portugal, the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon simply became the Military Order of Christ minus the offending reference to the Temple and Templars. ~;)
A very similar situation occurred in Aragon, with King James II creating the Military Order of Montesa under almost exactly the same conditions as King Dinis did.
Uh - those are ideologies that like making use of already established symbology and names. I'd say that's a little different really. The Templars and the other Orders were pretty much highly organized "states between states" (and the Teutonic Knights had their very concrete Ordensstaat in Baltic for that matter), with internal economies, bureaucracies and all. Heck, they were in some ways rather better organized than most actual states of their time...Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
That's a pretty far cry from loose networks of ideologically motivated cliques that prefer to identify with certain common themes, IMHO.
Can any French patron enlighten me,but am i totally wrong but isnt Knights Templars still an illegal organization in France?:book:
:laugh4: No, they aren’t. They still exist, at least as a name. I knew some people belonging to this organisation/association under the law of 1904 regulating associations.
I don't thing the actual French State is afraid of the actual power of the Templars. Nor Phillip II Le Bel, apparently.:laugh4:
But at first, they didn't all die at Berlin. There were quite a few left who wouldn't have been caught by the allies, who would have been the first Neo-Nazis. Similarly, not all the knights templar were burned at France. There was a whole fleet of them which had left and was never seen again, and thousands scattered throughout Europe. I doubt that they just stopped being the Knights Templar just with that. It's no coincidence that DeMolay's wishes were carried out: Philip IV and Clement V dead before the year ended, and Philip's line ended.
Yes, most of them lived on. In the country where Templars were prosecuted the most, France, only 620 out of 3000 Templars were caught and tried. The rest escaped unharmed.
You guys should really watch the show on the history channel. It's called "The Templar Code". It gives many different possible choices to what the Templars did. One is that they moved to Spain and Portugal and changed the name to "Knights of Christ" or something like that.
An other is that they moved into the alp regions of present day Switzerland.
Others are that they used their tremendous fleet to sail to the holy land, or they could have sailed to northern England. One more could have been that they sailed along the islands of Iceland and Greenland all the way to present day Canada (Nova Scotia). It's said they followed the Viking's route.
The reasons are long and drawn out, but those are the possibilities.
Some sources claim that after their order was outlawed the Templar fleet left France and headed for Scotland and Portugal. Scotland - under Bruce - had been excommunicated as well and the Templars were welcomed. It is said that they even fought at the Battle of Bannockburn in 1314, although there seems to be disagreement between the Knight Templar from France and the Order that was set up in Scotland either under Bruce or James II.
http://www.templarhistory.com/scotland.html
Given that it sounds like most of their economic and adminstrational infrastructure fell apart and was cheerfully appropriated by assorted opportunists (one would imagine monarchs in particular rather liked the idea of getting various castles and the attached fiefs under their control if possible) they would by and large have been left rather high and dry with just whatever connections and liquid assets they could salvage. Although given that the purge cannot have come as a complete surprise that may have been a fair lot.
And, of course, the military power represented by the brother-knights, sergeants and whoever. I'd imagine they wouldn't have needed to look too hard for someone who needed fighting men rather more than stupid questions or Papal and French good graces...
“Philip's line ended”: Not really, he had 3 sons, and THEY ended without heirs. However, with his daughter Jeanne (La Louve de France), his blood line, to speak like the Da Vinci Code, was still alive and that is why we got the 100 Years War. Edward III, King of England was his Grand Son.
“You guys should really watch the show on the history channel”: I do, and I start to have serious doubts about their researches, I have to say.
If you just read a French History Book, you will learn (like I was obliged to do when around 10 and confronted with the horrible dynasty of the Merovingian:
The name comes from Merovee (Merowig, the Great Warrior, apparently), the ancestor.
Clovis CONVERTED to Christianity to reinforce his alliances with the Visigoths (Christian), His wife Clothide, being the niece of the King Godebaud.
Dagobert II, wasn’t assassinated. He died of dysentery, living 2 sons who will start what we know as the Lazy Kings. The last of the Merovingian dynasty is Childeric III.
And none of what we know is even really documented…
In all that, when a member of this dynasty got time to get married with a alleged descendant of Maria Magdalena?
So, how come historians have said that Philip and the Pope managed to recover very little wealth from the Templar commanderies, and that the Templar fleet disappeared?
Concerning the wealth, it is known that Philip (The Broke or The Treacherous) of France owed the Templars an absolute fortune, hence he had a very compelling reason to sneakily stab them in the back. This would explain why he found very little wealth, because they had lent it all to him (and various other concerns). All they had were IOUs.
I understand they also partly as mortgages owned type a good half of the castles at least in southern France. Remember, the Middle Ages weren't really too much of a money economy for the most part; some merchant regions like northern Italy and the Low Countries aside "wealth" equaled "land"... And land was owned ultimately through fortifications. Philip's finances may not have gotten all that better, but he sure as Heck got the Templars off what was technically his turf (although I'd imagine he had to enfeoff most of it to various noblemen as per the feudal practice).
AoM have been watching all the programs on the History Channel this week?
I've seen the one on Opus Dei and another one but I missed the one on the Templars.
If any of you are into historical fantasy fiction, a good author to read who uses the Templars as a backdrop for her stories is Katherine Kurtz. She wrote two books with Deborah Turner Harris called The Temple and the Stone and The Temple and the Crown which use the exact same questions in this thread as the plot. Being fantasy, of course, it incorporates magic and such. The two books take place just prior 1307 and the outlawing of the Templars. They help Bruce ascend the throne of Scotland with all kinds of mystical connections dealing with the Stone of Scone and the Templars, and fight an evil occultist in France who just happens to be William of Nogaret, who in the books and in real history was Philip's chief minister. Good stuff if you like historical fantasy novels.
Katherine Kurtz also edited three books short story fiction dealing with the Templars Tales of the Knights, On Crusade, More Tales of the Knights Templar and Crusade of Fire.
His three sons died within 14 years. Coincidence that it ends not long after De Molay said it would? I doubt it.
Who knows if Dagobert was assassinated or not? If he was, it would be natural for the courts to decide not to release the information to the general public, as it would show bad security and show that assassination of monarchs was possible. History would probably be rewritten, as to not show the lax security that was there.
If you read a book, Philip and Clement weren't assassinated either, but if you think about it, what are the chances of a leader of an order that was destroyed by the two of them cursing them to die within the year, and then that actually happening without Templar interference?
First, current "Neo-Nazis" are just dumb bigots who don't really possess much intelligence. I don't think the Argentinians are responsible for that.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tiberius
The Nazis didn't die off, by the way, though of course many members of the NSDAP were killed in the war, some key leaders persecuted at Nuremburg, and the rest would simply "convert" back into being German citizens. Indeed, if anything, many military leaders of the Wehrmacht would find themselves becoming advisors of the Bundeswehr (spelling). Even the legendary Erich von Manstein was one, being senior advisor around the new German military under NATO, though arguably he was not much of a Nazi.
Those who escaped to Argentina didn't do much damage there, either. I don't think Evita was a Nazi.
Also, humans are naturally self-preserving creatures--at least, as they see fit, which of course, considering our average sense, means we often do harm to each other and ourselves too. If the Templar is being hunted by the most powerful monarch in Europe and the most powerful man in Europe, the Pope. Who's gonna side with them? Most would probably act like vultures and take away their stuff. Not to mention many Templars that would probably just converted back into being mercenaries, nobles, whatever. History has shown countless times that, when the old regime falls, not all falls with it, and instead many of the "old" would be in with the new victors. How is that so implausible for the Templars?
Surely, there must be some Templars that remained loyal, and some sympathizers. But how long do you think they last as an organization? The best probable thing that happened to them was probably similar to the Saxons after Hastings, who went to become the Emperor's Varangian Guards, or something like that. These are knights, after all, and they can fight.
And the thing about Philip and Clement is laughable. No coincidence, what? So two guys in dirty, cruel, unhygienic (even to kings) Europe died and one other guy wanted them dead, so it's that one other guy's fault? Philip had a crapload of enemies so anyone could pull the blade, not to mention we don't even think somebody at all pulled the blade.
For that matter, I don't think royal assasinations were something people "covered up". The fact that the usual method of going about them was actually pretty much the same as the Assasins used - ie. one fanatic with a knife or similar usually in a fairly public place where the monarch could be approached relatively easily - pretty much out of necessity as it was unlikely for the killer to get away with it may have something to do with that.
Not that there'd have been much reason for such secrecy either. The next in line and his (or, in some cases, her) supporters would just swear bloody vengeance and divine punishement for such atrocious deed and probably actually make an effort to also realize, even if they were the culprits...
I made some little reading and stumbled upon a one pretty ironic detail.When the Templars were hunted by Papacy and King of France,The King of Portugal didnt share their wiews.He protected the Templars and in 1319 made a compromise with papacy that changed the Name of Knight Templars in Portugal to The Order of Christ. The order of Christ then was one of the key figures on Portugals naval expeditions and also gave the explorer ships their Red Crosses(Originally The Templar Cross).For example Henry the Navigator was the grandmaster of this order and Vasco da Gama was a member.
I think also one other thing is very ironic considering The Order of Christ.In 1789 the Portuguese Order lost its religious character, being secularised by Queen Mary. The Papal Order became the Supreme Order of Christ, the highest of the five Pontifical Orders now in existence. Membership is reserved for Christian heads of state.
So basicly the remnants of the once hunted Order of Knights Templar became the highest ranking supreme Order of Chivalry awarded by the Pope.And it is that still today. That is what i would call a full circle.
Here is a link with some info on the portuguese order of Christ:
http://www.thornr.demon.co.uk/kchrist/overview.html
And the Supreme order of Christ which is the highest ranking Chivalric order in Catholic Church today:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_o...t_%28papacy%29
Huh. What goes around, comes around as they say.
“Philip had a crapload of enemies”. No more than the usual number for a Medieval King who wanted to unite (under his enlighten reign) a country: his enemies
- at the borders, but that more or less resolved due to the wedding of his Daughter with Edward, King of England, his own marriage with Jeanne of Navarre-Champagne, daughter of Henri the 1st, King of Navarre and Count of Champagne, who was the heir of her father, the purchase of the County of Chartres, the linking of Lyon within the Kingdom, and after 2 defeats, the final victory of Mons en Pevele against the Flanders and the reward of Lille, Douai and Bethune.
- his own Grand Feodaux and his own brother (he set-up a Parliament against his High Nobility),
- the Papacy (eh yes, Phillip was under the threat to be excommunicated so he took the offensive and tried to arrest the previous Pope –Boniface VIII- and trial him for Heresy) and the Church (imposing a tax on the Church Lands), then oblige the Popes to live in Avignon.
Largely enough for some to want to kill him but…
Philip IV Le Bel (also known as the King of Iron) was the first French King searching for the absolute Power, and he destroy without any hesitation all those who could be a threat. He saw the Templar as a potential army within his kingdom for the Pope, and the fact he owned them a lot of money didn’t improve their situation.
However, was the Templar so powerful? Philip burned 50 of them, but no army was sent against the Ost of France. A lot of people were quite happy to see the French King doing the dirty job, I suppose.
Last week, I saw a 2-hour documentary on Discovery Channel with Tony Robinson. In it, the Da Vinci-code and all it's contents were scrutinized and proven false. Now I don't say one can believe everything the show on television (seeing there are as many programmes which present the exact opposite), but tho me it became pretty clear that the so-called Priory of Sion and it's connections with the Merovingians and the Templars were nothing more than an elaborate hoax, made up in the 1950's.
As for not all Templars having been hunted down, that's rather unsurprising. 13th century France (or any other nation, for that matter), was nowhere near efficient enough to round up all the members of such a huge organisation.
After the French Revolution and the succeeding Napoleonic Period, practically all preceding laws in French-controlled Europe (including, of course, France itself) were abolished. All legal systems were completely re-invented. And as the French probably didn't have a reason anymore to forbid the Templars, I cannot see how such a law could possibly exist.Quote:
Originally Posted by Kagemusha
(Not very long ago, this was amusingly proven when the inhabitants of a Dutch village argued they wouldn't have to pay taxes on beer because their lord had granted them freedom of said taxes back in 1504. There was much rejoicing, until a lawyer pointed out that all laws from before 1815 were automatically invalid...)
I don't think that show with Tony Robinson was as conclusive as you think, Brutus. I watched it and what I got out of it was basically they went through the list of controversial statements of "fact" in the book and then set about asking Christian scholars and various people on the street to refute them. The only "fact" actually disproven is the one about the modern Priory of Sion, which is acknowledged as a hoax. But when it comes down to things like Mary being married to Jesus, the show relied upon Church officials basically saying "no, the Bible doesn't say that and the Bible is the definitive source" or things to that effect. In the case of Mary coming to southern France, they interviewed people there who agreed with the legend, but when asked if they thought Mary brought Jesus' offspring with her, it was all "no that would be heresy" and similar things. Frankly, interviewing the man on the street for his opinion does not constitute proving something wrong; nor does interviewing Church officials who conveniently seem to forget that their own church once held similar views, in the writings of Hippolytus and Origen. The arguments on the Da Vinci Code side are no less unsupported than the people who think "because God said so in the Bible" makes a decent statement of fact. :smile:
:2thumbsup: I agree completely Aenlic, I was just happy to see a documentary in which the Da Vinci Code wasn't defended for a change. And as for proving the Priory of Sion false: most of the theories seem to stand or fall with that. Of course one cannot be conclusive (at least not in this way) if Mary Magdalen had children with Jesus, but this way there doesn't seem to be any real 'proof' that she did. Same for all the weird theories surrounding the Merovingians, the Templars, Leonardo da Vinci and the Sinclairs, methinks.
Agreed. The whole modern Priory of Sion thing was a cleverly concocted fiction begun in the 1960's by Plantard and de Cherisey and de Sede. They got Lincoln, Baigent and Leigh to buy into it and off the story went. As hoaxes go, I'd put it right up there above even Piltdown Man; because there are still people that believe in the Priory!Quote:
Originally Posted by Brutus
The other stuff, which sadly got tied up in with the Priory will remain a mystery.
The Templars certainly did excavate under the Temple of Solomon. Their origins as 9 knights sworn to supposedly protect pilgrims in the holy land seems a little dubious. There is no evidence that they did any such thing; and 9 knights hardly seems sufficient for the task. And yet, they went from that to the largest and richest organization in the world in a relatively short span of time.
The Merovingians are just plain mysterious. A group of rulers who are said to refuse to have their long hair cut like Sampson and some of their symbolism is odd; but those times are mysterious for just about everything. They are called the Dark Ages for more than one reason!
I find it likely that Jesus was married to Mary. If he was a rabbi, then he would have been required to marry. The Gospels say he stated that the laws of the fathers must be followed, meaning Jewish law. The marriage at Cana seems to indicate the ceremony performed by a married couple in which newlyweds serve the guests. It was Jewish custom at the time. But the two people serving are Jesus and Mary. Odd, unless looked at as if they were the ones who were married. The early Church didn't seem to have a problem with the concept, at least as far as the Christian writers Hippolytus and Origen were concerned. Both are considered great fathers of the early Roman Church; and both wrote that the Song of Solomon was a prophecy of the marriage of Jesus and Mary. It wasn't until the Church began to suppress women in leadership roles as part of the fight against heresies such as Arianism and Manicheaism that Mary began to be villified as a prostitute and fallen sinner; reaching official status as such with the homilies of Pope Gregory the Great.
Sauniere certainly found something. And the practice of selling masses doesn't even come close to accounting for the vast sums of money he spent. The church he built in Rennes-le-Chateau is one of the oddest churches in the West. There are heretical images all over it, including an inscription over the door which is not exactly the thing one expects to find on a church. It is said he died penniless, but there are credible reports that when the France changed its currency to stamp out black marketeering some years after his death, Sauniere's supposed mistress and confidant Marie Denardaud was seen burning suitcases full of money in her garden. The currency was worthless unless exchanged at a bank; and that would have required answering questions about where such large sums had originated.
The Sinclairs and Rosslyn Chapel is another mystery. The place is just plain wall to wall symbolism, which might simply be explained by the Freemasons. and yet, that's rather early in the history of the Freemasons for all that symbology. It's as if they sprang fully mysterious out of nothing, replete with all their symbology intact.
Another mystery I came across recently is on the tiny island of Bornholm in the Baltic. It has lot of medieval churches on it. The odd thing about four of these churches is that they're built in the round Templar style between 1150 and 1200. At the time, as far as I know, only the Templars built in that style. And yet, there is no record of the Templars going that far north, or any surviving record of who, exactly, built those churches on Bornholm. Interesting stuff.
It's just a shame that the hoax of the Priory of Sion allows people to easily dismiss all the other interesting little mysteries. It gives the true believers an easy out on everything else.