• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Knights Templar Thread

Now, when looking at the crossed-legged effigies of Templar Knights you would be forgiven for thinking that only templars crossed their legs (at least in their effigies).

This is something that has been pushed by the likes of Lomas and Knight.

It is not that simple (as usual)

Any crusading knight was required to conform to the rule of crossed legs. If the knight had been on only one crusade then his legs were crossed at the ankle. If he had been on two crusades, his legs would be crossed at the knee and if he had returned from his third crusade then he would have his legs crossed at the hip.

Although you did not have to be a templar, there was not a great variety of official Military orders that actually joined the crusades and the Templars were the most powerful and the most enthusiastic in the struggle to free the holy land from the heathen. Therefore, it is their effigies that we see.

Teutonic and hospitaller knights and their effigies are rare or non-existant and so we are left with crossed legged templars.

But it was not exclusive to them and was not a "mark of the templar" which is what some studies would have you believe. It only indicated how many crusades you had been on.

See:
 
I never said that the native Americans did not possess the necessary stone masonry skills. I'm well aware of their achievements. My problem with your theory is that there doesn't seem to be any evidence of native Americans adopting the arch & keystone technique. So perhaps native populations were not involved in the building and maintenance of the tower, or it did not suit their traditional aesthetics? But we are digressing from the original subject of the thread. Back to the Templars.
 
I HAVE A NEW WEB SITE.............

I have just used some free web space to make a two page site on the Templars in my town. It is very small but so is my town. Its surprising how much there actually is to be put on such a small site.

I took most of the photgraphs myself (maybe all except two) and have refered to the local history books for help.

A word of warning.....it is young and at present contains a fairly orthodox view of the subject. This will change but I want it to be taken seriously in my town and so I have delayed the submitting of unorthodox material.

Tell us what you all think.

I have never done it before and I have more interest in the subject rather than how to present it online. Any advice would be appreciated though.

If you visit it, you will be given the option to start your own, two page site for free. Fully uploadable pictures and basic easy to use scripting. Its very user friendly and a good way to test the water.
 
While I know very little about them, I've always found myself intrigued by the Templars, and for a while a couple of years ago I kept coming across little references to Templar activity in whatever I was doing - books I was reading which had nothing to do with the Templars, TV programs, song lyrics.

Anyway, this thread has made interesting reading.. I didn't think I lived anywhere near any Templar location (Oxford), but some of the early posts referring to places with Temple in the name made me think. I'm not too far from Cowley, also called Temple Cowley, and just round the corner from me is Templar Square shopping centre, with a flag consisting of a chessboard with a knight on it. I'd never really thought about it before, and have not heard of anything to do with Templars there.

However, a websearch has thrown up a reference to Sandford Preceptory just south of Oxford, apparently one of the largest Templar houses outside London. Unfortunately, I can't find more information than that since the website (http://www.ancientquest.com) seems to have been down all day (at least), and google doesn't seem to have a cache of the page.

(edit)Just found that Temple Cowley is indeed Templar related - apparently taking its name from land given to the Templars by Queen Matilda in 1135, just around the same time that the University was starting.

Steve.
 
Thinking about it, I also visited a Templar tower in Ireland over the summer - a place called Askeaton, on the southern side of the river Shannon. Nice little village with a castle and a friary that a really helpful man from the tourist office showed us round - well worth a visit if anyone is ever in the area (http://www.askeatonbynet.com)! He didn't take us to the Templar tower, but pointed it out when I asked. It's in the grounds of the much newer local church which we then went and visited. It's a square based tower, with octagonal top complete with battlements and a bell tower (which could have been added later when the church was built). It's also got a ruined building attached which could have been an earlier church. There was a tomb behind the tower - the only one there, all the other graves and tombs were on the other (church) side of the tower, there was nothing else on that side apart from rubble and gardening equipment. I thought that a little odd.

There is also the remains of a hellfire club in the castle grounds. Now fenced off with a dog living in it. According to the web page, it was used for meetings of members of the local masonic orders and in use until about the end of the 18th century.
Apparently there was also one female member of the hellfire club, which I'm sure must be fairly unusual - I thought they were normally male only.

Anyway, probably not of great interest, but I thought I'd mention it in this thread...

Steve.
 
The hellfire phenomenon was very much a celebration of male and female unification.

A heck of a lot of sex, in other words.
 
Very much so, but I thought most of the women/girls were merely brought in for the occasion, not full members in their own right.

The guide seemed to make out that it was pretty unusual anyway to have a female member (daughter of the local landowner if I remember correctly).

Maybe she was just very, very busy :)

Steve.
 
I found this site useful in providing info about the history, myths and legends of the Knights Templar.

BTW St Clair, I checked out your website and its very impressive. You live in a lovely location!;)
 
Awww....shucks!

Its only wee so it is!:)

I will be updating it in a few minutes.

Thankyou very much:)
 
Lookeee: This is a section of a ruined complex in my estate. Does anyone have the ability to date this arch? I have other pictures and I can send high quality pics through the email if required.

The land was owned by Templar families and future Grand masters and other important members of grand or mother masonry.

Its great livin' here.................:)
 
I must recommend "The Monks of War"

http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0140195017/

A fascinating book with interesting info not only on the Templars, but also on the Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights and Iberian religiomilitary orders.

Regarding the Templar heads, baphomet and the head of St. John the Baptist - the Knights of St. John venerated an image of the head of St. John which featured a star and crescent (I've read all the moon goddess stuff, but really, the star symbolises Christ/Christendom, and the crescent Islam, the latter being in the ascendant over the former - King John had this as his royal seal).

The old Anglican churchyard at Drumcar, Co. Louth features masonic symbols on some headstones & there's a few ruined Templar preceptories scattered here & there around Ireland.
It seems that the Irish Templars were absorbed quietly into the Knights Hospitaller here. Henry VIII's dissolution of the monasteries here put an end to the whole show! However, enough Hospitaller families (notably the Carrolls and Bellinghams in Louth) remained to re-establish the Order here in 1934.

Great thread St. Clair! Most enjoyable with great links.
 
May I indulge you all then....with this:


Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani
http://www.ordotempli.org/

Militi Templi Scotia
http://www.princehenrymts.org/Militi_Templi_Scotia.html

Mother Lodge of Kilwinning
http://www.mk0.com/

Grand Lodge of free and accepted masons of Scotland
http://www.grandlodgescotland.com/

AMORC Rosicrucian Society
http://www.rosicrucian.org/home.html

Official Rosslyn Chapel Website
http://www.rosslynchapel.org.uk/

Templar Irvine (my own meagre contribution)
http://www.81x.com/WallaceDeBruce/templarirvine

Kilwinning Abbey
http://www.kilwinning.org/abbey/default.htm

http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/08644b.htm

Grand Lodge of England (booo!:cool:)
http://www.grandlodge-england.org/

The Official Home Page Of Laurence Gardner
http://graal.co.uk/

Rennes Le Chateau (a little belter of a site!)
http://translate.google.com/transla...?q=lagastous&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&oe=UTF-8&sa=G

Superb gallery of Templar pictures from britain
http://www.thecyberfarm.com/templars/templarbritain/templarbritainhome.htm
 
Re: Links

Cheers St Clair. That should keep me occupied for a while!

Re: Arch

AFAIK round arches were popular in the Romanesque (8th - 12th centuries) and Norman (11th - 12th centuries). During the late Norman period pointed arches became increasingly popular and heralded the start of the Gothic era - in Britain anyway. If the land belonged to a family who became future Templars, then by this reckoning the archway could be as early as 8th century, tho I doubt it would be still standing. Its more likely to be Norman. Sorry I can't be more specific. ;)
 
Great links St. Clair!

The Ordo Templi gang have ripped off the cross of St. John :rolleyes: (or Maltese cross/cross of Amalfi) for graphic display on their website. Typical (if phony) "Templars", who are in competition, it would seem, with another exclusive social club (who also ripped off our cross) with the same name but different site and e-mail addresses:

http://theknightstemplar.org/Proclamation/proclamation.html

Both appear to be engaged in ginnitry of the highest order, and I reckon very few of them have four quarters of nobility! :rofl:
 
Susan Bulmer said:
AFAIK round arches were popular in the Romanesque (8th - 12th centuries) and Norman (11th - 12th centuries). During the late Norman period pointed arches became increasingly popular and heralded the start of the Gothic era - in Britain anyway. I believe Edinburgh Castle was built in the 7th century - at least that's when Edwin of Northumbria was Overlord of the British kingdoms. If the land belonged to a family who became future Templars, then by this reckoning the archway could be as early as 8th century. Sorry I can't be more specific. ;)
Click to expand...
Listen, cheers for the help anyhoo but.........Norman architechture did not exist in Scotland until after 1066. Across europe Norman Architechture certainly did not exist until a faction of Vikings becme Normans. Dark age (pah!) Scotland was still insisting that it built in wood and mud and did not even re-occupy the roman built structures.

The Templars are not really included in dark age history but some do believe that they have an earlier past. 8th century though, is unlikely.

The arch, therefore, cannot be from 8th century Britain and is certainly not part of the dark ages (pah!) of Scotland.

It has to have been built between the 12th century and the 16th century.

Sorry, if I was not too accepting of your points. I do appreciate the effort from people though and please fill me in if I have mis-understood your theory.

You never know.....you may have access to something that I dont.
 
St Clair, I must have been editing my post while you were quoting it. Doh.
I was a bit doubtful of the date I'd given Edinburgh castle, so I checked. Edwin of Northumbia did fortify the area, but the earliest part of the castle as we know it today is St Margaret's Chapel which was built late 11th century.;)
 
Its OK:) .....and sorry:(

Where have you got your other dates though?

Edinburgh castle rock has been fortified since prehistoric times as are most sudden outcrops across Scotland.

The Templars were founded in the early 1100s and although some have suggested an earlier pedigree, it is unlikely to retreat as far as 1050.

I suppose if you took the grail lineage it could go back to Christ and therefore David but..........:)

Do you have some access to new data or something?:)
 
St.Clair said:
Its OK:) .....and sorry:(

Where have you got your other dates though?

Do you have some access to new data or something?:)
Click to expand...
No, St Clair, I don't have access to any new data.
I was merely theorising that if parts of Edinburgh castle, which has stood the test of time, can be dated to 11th century, then your archway could too - my argument being that qualified stonemasons were around in Scotland at that time. What I was trying to say, and making a bad job of it, was that the people who lived on that land before the Templars were officially formed may well have had an architectural heritage which was absorbed by the Order later on, rather than the Knights Templar suddenly springing up with fully formed traditions. I hope I'm making sense. I have a great and unique talent for displaying my ignorance! :( ;)
 
I understand completely!:)

Yes, the Templars were known for their adaptability and ingeniuity when executing new concepts. They were not afraid of embracing different ideaologies.

Their Norman attachment was a reflection of the previous adaptabiliy of their Viking ancestors and the people that they conquered or reformed.

The speed at which a contingent of Vikings dominated an area of France and became Christians, Crusaders, Master Masons, Kings and grand reformers, is rather unsettling. They suddenly covered Britain with incredible stone fortresses and cathedrals. They conducted enormous census' and mapped all landed families.

Its funny, we all think that we succeded in removing the Vikings but the Vikings went away and came back as the most powerful european culture since the Romans and their feudal boundries are still dominating our land.

The Vikings became Normans within 75 or 100 years!
 
Just to correct one or two misconceptions about the Normans

The Normans built in stone and their subject peoples did not. It used to be said of England 40 years ago and like most sweeping generalisations is not true. Many if not most Norman churches show Saxon foundations and often have Saxon stonework incorporated into them. I find it odd that the Scots with stone building going on in England and Ireland did not also build in stone. I think more work needs to be done here.

The Normans in Britain generally built in wood. It can be argued that the stone fortresses of the Norman period were only slowly constructed with a final impetus being given by the Stephen/Matilda conflict

The "Norman" arch is an adaptation of Byzantine and Islamic arches, remember that there was a Norman coup de etat in Sicily. The finest Norman arches in Britain are probably still Westminster Abbey's - Saxon

The Domesday Book, I take it that is what you mean by census, is not a census it was a record of land holding. It was not a Norman concept, it is prefigured by Saxon Burghal and Tribal Hidages. There was another of these due to be completed and William went along with the idea. The hands that write the various Domesday Books are Saxon, the abstracts from which it was completed are in Saxon hand.

On the Templars. I no longer live in Braintree but the largest Tithe barn in the country stands at Temple Cressing. There are still services held at the "Round Church" near Halstead by the Hospitalers of St John. The Round Church is a Templar foundation.
 
intaglio said:
Just to correct one or two misconceptions about the Normans

The Normans built in stone and their subject peoples did not. It used to be said of England 40 years ago and like most sweeping generalisations is not true. Many if not most Norman churches show Saxon foundations and often have Saxon stonework incorporated into them. I find it odd that the Scots with stone building going on in England and Ireland did not also build in stone. I think more work needs to be done here.
Click to expand...
I love Saxon architecture which can be viewed occasionaly as a door surround or window frame in rock. The Scots did, of course, build in stone during its prehistory but then quickly retreated to the forest and heather to build using wood and mud-bricks a while before the Romans arrived. Its because we are different, Intaglio! Most other countries have needed to build strong stone fortresses to protect their little bodies from "successfull" invasions. Albans did not need such protection. That is, untill......Norman Feudalism and a new breed of politics and monarchy. What has always seemed strange to me is that we did'nt use stone during the dark ages (pah!) even though Scotland is not exactly short of stone.........but England is!

The Normans in Britain generally built in wood. It can be argued that the stone fortresses of the Norman period were only slowly constructed with a final impetus being given by the Stephen/Matilda conflict
Click to expand...
1139 is still early in the Norman epoch. Remember that they are in fact still here. They started building in stone almost instantly, as far as Norman history is concerned. The Normans did not "slowly construct" anything! Most of their original stone castles were started using wood but very quickly became stone. That stone was then used for the next 900 years. Generallly, they built in stone!

The "Norman" arch is an adaptation of Byzantine and Islamic arches, remember that there was a Norman coup de etat in Sicily. The finest Norman arches in Britain are probably still Westminster Abbey's - Saxon
Click to expand...
But not in Scotland though, which is where my arch is!

The Domesday Book, I take it that is what you mean by census, is not a census it was a record of land holding.
Click to expand...
Why was it not a census, though? A census is an official enumeration of Inhabitants with statistics relating to them.
That is exactly what the Domesay book is.

On the Templars. I no longer live in Braintree but the largest Tithe barn in the country stands at Temple Cressing. There are still services held at the "Round Church" near Halstead by the Hospitalers of St John. The Round Church is a Templar foundation.
Click to expand...
Thats cool!:) :D
 
Re Scotland. I said I think more research is needed. Read into that what you will. Regarding fortresses (Why do people get so tied up with these?). Neither the Saxons nor the Irish built these. Saxon Burghs probably had a stone wall but they were primarily towns and from the fact that Edinburgh is so named implies the same, though I do not insist upon it.

Domesday Book, I repeat is NOT a census. It does not attempt to ennumerate the people living in the domain. It catalogues land holdings and some of the inhabitants. Even at its most complete, for Southern England, it is not a faultless list of holdings and omits vast areas of the Southwest. For Northern England, it seems only to catalogue the lands attached in some way to the Crown, some church holdings and makes an attempt to catalogue "waste", the result of the Harrowing of the North.
 
intaglio said:
Regarding fortresses (Why do people get so tied up with these?). Neither the Saxons nor the Irish built these. Saxon Burghs probably had a stone wall but they were primarily towns and from the fact that Edinburgh is so named implies the same, though I do not insist upon it.
Click to expand...
The Irish certainly did build fortified round towers. The word Burgh actually means fortress and all walled towns and cities were fortified.

Fortresses....Why do people get so tied up with these?
Click to expand...
...because it fascinates me.....sorry!

Why was that so disturbing for you?

Domesday Book, I repeat is NOT a census. It does not attempt to ennumerate the people living in the domain. It catalogues land holdings and some of the inhabitants. Even at its most complete, for Southern England, it is not a faultless list of holdings and omits vast areas of the Southwest. For Northern England, it seems only to catalogue the lands attached in some way to the Crown, some church holdings and makes an attempt to catalogue "waste", the result of the Harrowing of the North.
Click to expand...
O.K....call it a survey....its "label" is not what concerns me......

It still does not effect my identification of my arch.
 
The "fortified" round towers of Ireland are all associated with religious foundations. Their purpose is not known. The openings are not designed for defensive purposes, there is no parapit. They may, I stress the word may, have been used for some ritual purpose concerning the hermit ideal of Irish monasticism. They may have been bell towers built high to ensure the sound reached even the outlying cells.

The term used for the Domesday book is important. Calling it a census gives an impression of modernity, of rigid centralisation of power. Looked at as a resources survey on the lines of the Burghal and Tribal Hidages gives a sense of the continuity of power.

Incidently why are you down on timber construction? have you never seen a Stave church?

A link a page regarding Stave churches and a picture is attached
 
intaglio said:
The "fortified" round towers of Ireland are all associated with religious foundations. Their purpose is not known. The openings are not designed for defensive purposes, there is no parapit.
Click to expand...
A parapet is not neccessary in a fortified tower like those found in Ireland. They could be enclosed with ladder drawn inside and the whole thing locked up. Parapets allow soldiers to continue to defend their edifice from attack. They protect them while allowing them to fight from above. Many religeous houses were fortified because of their obvious importance to the surrounding people. Its agreed though, that we dont really know the purpose of the fortifications.

The term used for the Domesday book is important. Calling it a census gives an impression of modernity, of rigid centralisation of power.
Click to expand...
Agreed, but more time should be taken over the detailed history and definition of the content of the Book and less time over what we should call it.

Let me just remind you of this:

I said:
They conducted [an] enormous census and mapped all landed families.
Click to expand...
you said:
The Domesday Book is not a census it was a record of land holding.
Click to expand...
It is clear that we both know what the Domesday book is and we need not try to convince each other further as to what exactly it is.
Incidently why are you down on timber construction?
Click to expand...
I'm not. How did you get that impression?

My family inn still has its original wooden beams from 350-400 years ago. I think the problem may be that the evidence and physical remains from wooden dwellings are rare and certainly not up to the sheer volume of sites that stone dwellings do.

You can tour anywhere in Britain and see mesolithic, Iron age, Roman and Norman stone all over the place. Wooden sites are few and far between. Perhaps that is why I have an uncanny, if not apparently sinfull, fascination with it. Sorry again.

Can we please stop now? This thread has been quite spotless and we really could be talking about things that we dont already know. We both know what the Domesday Book is, so..........:)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top