- Harici Forumu

Diğer Lisanlar => English => York Rite => Konuyu başlatan: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:00:43 öö

Başlık: The Knights Templar (Video)
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:00:43 öö
The Templars - A VERY Brief Synopsis

The theory that Freemasonry originated in the Holy Land during the crusades and was instituted by the Knights Templar was initially advanced by one person!

Chevalier Ramsey was an extraordinary figure of his day (born about 1680). A man with a great literary reputation, he was a tutor to royalty and ostensibly a Freemason although the details of his membership are somewhat obscure. In 1737, Ramsay, identified as 'Grand Orator' (although there was no such position in that Grand Lodge at that time), delivered a discourse before the Grand Lodge of France in which he set forth his theory in explicit terms. Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia says this: "Rejecting all references to the Traveling Architects from Como, to the Stone Masons of Germany, and the Operative Freemasons of England, he had sought a noble and chivalric origin for Freemasonry, which with him was not a confraternity founded on a system of architecture, but solely on the military prowess and religious enthusiasm of knighthood." Other writers, both Masons and non, have continued to attempt to make the same connection through this very day. It is one, however, with no provable basis, save conjecture."

Coil's Masonic Encyclopedia also adds, "This theory of Templar origin which, mythical as it is and wholly unsubstantiated by the authority of history, has exercised a vast influence in the fabrication of advanced Degrees and the invention of Continental Rites."

It should be understood that in the 17th through 19th centuries, proof of antiquity generated credibility. In this climate, it was only natural that Freemasonry - like many, many other organizations of its time - sought to 'create' such links, tenacious as they were. (A common claim of the day was that an organization could be linked to early Egypt, for example, and some went so far as to claim descent from the Garden of Eden!)

It was the mindset of the time and the further back a linkage was established (even if unsubstantiated by actual fact), the better. For this reason, all entities at that time sought connections to Biblical days (or earlier!!!) so as to provide credibility for themselves and their members. This simple fact is often overlooked as anti-Masons today ignore the reality and use the convenient. The claims of antiquity were quite common at the time Freemasonry began - and, in fact, the earliest 'exposures' of Freemasonry and many other organizations sought to discredit such claims as a way of undermining the group itself.

In our current politically-correct climate, the Knights Templar - both of old and new stripe - are sometimes demonized by anti-Masons for several things including (but not limited to):
bullet   the death and destruction they caused in the Crusades (which of course ignores the fact that they fought to keep alive the Christianity which those anti-Masons now enjoy in a free society);
bullet   supposedly occult or pagan rituals (based either on hearsay from other anti-Masons or from anti-Templar material promulgated as the Catholic Church as it sought to bring the Templars 'to heel', fearing that their power and the respect in which they were held by the populace would ultimately bring down the Papacy);
bullet   "confessions" made by Templars, given while being tortured (or the later 'revealed' confessions made public by the Inquisition);
bullet   the complete and total disappearance without a trace of the medieval organization (fueling speculation of conspiracy theories still rampant some 600+ years later and assuming that the organization had a huge membership unlike the reality of barely a couple of hundred!)
bullet   the requirement in the current Knights Templar organization that a member shall defend the Christian faith (which, in a delicious irony is criticized by anti-Masons as wrong since Freemasonry is not a religious organization - although they often portray it as such!)

The true nature of the ancient Knights Templar may never be fully understood and the connection to Freemasonry will likely always remain unsubstantiated. Because of Chevalier Ramsay, however, it is now a part of Masonic heritage.
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:02:19 öö
Who Were The Knights Templar?
By Stephen Dafoe

The answer to the question, who were the Knights Templar is likely to generate a variety of opinions, depending upon who answers the question.

Christian crusaders, anti-Christian demon worshipers and the first and greatest of the monastic warriors who fought during the Crusades are but a few of the many theories related to the Templars.

The purpose of this brief article is to give a more traditional account of the order for the layperson unfamiliar with the order.

Traditional Account

Following the victory of the First Crusade a group of knights, led by Hugues de Payens, offered themselves to the Patriarch of Jerusalem as a military force.

This proposed military force had the mandate of protecting Christian pilgrims who were en route to the Holy Land In the year 1118 AD King Baldwin II granted the Templars quarters on the Temple Mount.

For the first nine years of their existence, the order consisted of nine knights. Speculations of treasure hunting aside, one of the reasons for the limited number of members may have been the reluctance to take Templar vows. Chastity, poverty and obedience were hardly a lifestyle greatly sought after.

In the year 1127 the Cistercian abbot, Bernard of Clairvaux, wrote a rule of order for the Templars that was based on his own Cistercian order's rule of conduct. Additionally, Bernard did a great deal to promote the Templars.

Perhaps Bernard's greatest contribution to the order was a letter that he wrote to Hugues de Payens, entitled De laude novae militae (In praise of the new knighthood.)

This letter swept throughout Christendom with the result being that many men, of noble birth, joined the ranks of the Templar Order. Those who were unable to join often gifted the Templars with land and other valuables.

While it is true that the Templars were not permitted, by their rule, to own much of anything personally, there was no such restriction on the order as a whole. As such the gifts of land were accepted and put to immediate use by the order.

From humble beginnings of poverty in 118, when the order relied on alms from traveling pilgrims, the Order quickly grew to have the backing of the Holy See and the collective European monarchies.

In the process, the order became wealthy. Aside form the gifts showered upon them, they were experts in commerce and free from the taxation and tithes imposed on other orders.

However, in less than two centuries, the Templars would meet their demise perhaps because of their wealth or fear of their seemingly limitless powers. It is generally agreed that Philip IV was envious of the Templar's wealth and sought to secure it for himself.

Regardless of the motivation, the order was taken down at the hands of the Pope and the King of France in 1307.

On October 13, 1307 Philip had the Templars arrested on grounds of heresy; since this was the only charge that would allow the seizing of their money and assets.

The Templars were tortured and confessions were given. These confessions included:

    * Trampling and spitting on the cross
    * Homosexuality and Sodomy
    * Worshipping of an idol named Baphomet

Philip was successful in ridding the Templars of their power and wealth and urged all fellow Christian leaders to do the same thing.

On March 19th, 1314 the last Grand Master of the Knights Templar, Jacques de Molay, was burned at the stake.

De Molay is said to have cursed King Philip and Pope Clement as he burned, asking both men to join him in death within a year.

Whether the story is an apocryphal legend or a matter of historical fact depends largely on one's point of view.

However, Pope Clement V died only one month later and Philip IV seven months after that.
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:02:55 öö
Garments Of The Knights Templar

The wardrobe of the Templars is best known as a white mantle emblazoned with the red cross pattee of the crusaders. However, this cross was not part of their original dress and did not become part of the Templars' garments until much later. Pope Eugene III gave the red cross to the order in 1147 or 1148. It was to be worn above every Templar's heart as a symbolic shield.

Their white mantle was said to be a symbol of purity and a reflection of the knight's vow of chastity.

Some popular authors have suggested that the Templars, by their rule of order, were required to wear sheepskin under garments and that were never to be removed. This too, it is said, was a symbol of their vow of chastity.

However, there seems to be nothing in the Templars' Rule of Order to suggest that this is the case. It is more likely that the legend was created by members of the Masonic fraternity. Freemasons wear a white lambskin apron to symbolize purity and have a long-standing tradition of taking liberties with historical fact in their allegories. Unfortunately this allegory and poetic license has a tendency to become accepted fact by many of the fraternity's members.

Garments of the Templar Classes

The bulk of the Templars' military forces consisted of knights and sergeants. Knights wore a white mantle, while sergeants wore either a brown or black mantle.

Short Hair Vs. Long Hair

In a day when a knight's hair flowed long, the Templars wore their hair short, but were forbidden to cut their beards. It is believed that the Templar's Moslem enemies considered facial hair a trait of masculinity. Therefore, the Templar's masculine appearance was said to intimidate their enemies.

But short hair was perhaps required for of a more practical purpose. Long hair would have a tendency to creep out of a helmet and blow into the face when riding during battle.
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:03:26 öö
The Templar Hierarchy
Article © Stephen Dafoe

The original Latin Rule given to the Templars by Bernard of Clairvaux at the Council of Troyes in 1128 AD consisted of only four ranks. This stands to reason as, at this early stage (eleven years after the founding of the order), there were still few members.

It is generally agreed by historians that the order did not accept new recruits during the first nine years of their mission. While many speculative authors contend that the reason for this was the secret excavations the Order was conducting beneath the Temple Mount, author Desmond Seward points to an entirely different reason.

In his book, The Monks of War, Seward claims that the Templars may have had difficulties in finding members.

"A document of 1123 refers to Hugues as Master of the Knights of the Temple but his little band was merely a voluntary Brotherhood; recent research seems to indicate that they [the Templars] were having difficulty in finding recruits and were on the verge of dissolution. Hugues had come [to Bernard of Clairvaux] about another crusade, not to ask for a rule."

The Monks Of War - Desmond Seward - Penguin Books

If this is true then Bernard's support of the Order, brought to light in his In Praise of The New Knighthood may well have not only increased the Order's membership, but saved it from an early end.

Theories aside, the Templar knights did survive to grow to huge numbers, which required a larger hierarchy than the original four divisions.

What follows are some of the ranks that formed the rungs on the Templar ladder:

The Grand Master

The Grand Master was the supreme authority of the Templar Order and answered to none save the pope. Once elected to the office, the Grand Master served for the remainder of his life. In several cases that lifetime was cut short. Several Grand Masters were killed in battle, showing that the position was far more than an administrative one.

While each country had its own Master, the Grand Master was above each of them. In addition to overseeing military operations, the Grand Master was also responsible for the business dealings of the Order.


The Seneschal was the right hand man to the Grand Master and in modern terms would be similar to a vice president of a corporation. The Seneschal also acted as a consigliare or advisor to the Grand Master and looked after a great deal of the administrative duties.

Along with the Grand Master, the Seneschal ruled over eight Templar provincial Masters. These provinces were chiefly Aragon, Apulia, England, France, Hungary, Poitiers, Portugal and Scotland.


The Marshal of the Order was the Templar in charge of war and anything that was related to it. In this sense the Marshal could be viewed as the second most important member of the Order after the Grand Master.

His personal retinue was comprised of two squires, one turcoman, one turcopole and one sergeant. He also had four horses at his command.

Under Marshal

The Under Marshal was in charge of the footmen and the equipment.

Standard Bearer

The Standard Bearer was one of the sergeants and charged with carrying the Order's banner.


The Draper was in charge of the Templar garments and linens and while this may seem like a menial task, the Templar Rule of Order states that after the Master and Marshal, the Draper was superior to all brethren.

The Templar Rule of Order said of the Draper's responsibilities regarding the robe of the order, "and the Draper or the one who is in his place should studiously reflect and take care to have the reward of God in all the above-mentioned things, so that the eyes of the envious and evil-tongued cannot observe that the robes are too long or too short; but he should distribute them so that they fit those who must wear them, according to the size of each one."

The Draper had in his personal retinue two squires, a number of tailors and one brother in charge of the pack animals who would carry supplies. In addition the Draper, like the Marshal, had four horses at his disposal.

Commanders of the Lands: Jerusalem, Antioch and Tripoli

These Templar officers operated much like a Baillie and operated under the Masters. Commanders were responsible for all Templar houses, castles and farms in their jurisdiction.

The personal retinue of the Commanders consisted of two squires, two foot soldiers, one sergeant, one deacon and one Saracen scribe. Like others, the Commander had four horses at his command as well as one palfrey (riding horse).

Commanders of knights, houses and farms (Casals)

These Templars fell under the Commanders of Lands and were responsible for the day to day operations of the various estates under their care. Generally speaking, they were knights, but if no knight resided in the region, the position could go to a sergeant.

If the Commander was a knight he was permitted four horses, but if a sergeant he was allowed only two.

Provincial Masters

Provincial Masters, who governed the western districts, were similar to the Commanders of Lands, but seem to have largely been responsible for managing revenue and recruiting new men to the Order.

Knights and Sergeants

The bulk of the Templar's military might was comprised of knights and sergeants. Although both classes of Templars were as likely to die in battle, the knight had a higher ranking within the Order.

Knights had to be men of noble birth and wore the white mantle that is the most familiar garment of the Order. Each knight was permitted one squire and three horses.

Sergeants did not have to be of noble birth and to show their lower rank, sergeants wore a black or brown mantle. They were given one horse and had no squires under their command.
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:06:05 öö
Organizational Structure
Of The Knights Templar
This Article © 2001 by Salvatore T. Bruno

This article will summarize the detailed analysis presented in my book, Templar Organization: the Management of Warrior Monasticism. I will describe the hierarchy of the one of the most remarkable institutions of the medieval world; The Order of the Poor Knights of Christ of the Temple of Solomon in Jerusalem, (the Templars). This singular group was founded on the completely unique innovation of combining the triple monastic vows of chastity, poverty, and obedience, with the military vocation of knighthood. This concept was revolutionary (and not wholly embraced by the clergy of the day). Drawing from the best of both worlds, these men created a complex, highly disciplined crusader war machine that was altogether unique among its contemporary rivals. The effectiveness of this group impressed the most experienced and successful military leaders of the day. The monastic context allowed the Templars to achieve a very high degree of discipline and uniformity more commonly associated with modern military organizations. A study of their highly evolved organizational structure reveals a great deal about how they were able to achieve their successes.

Order Bruno's Book

This analysis is primarily based on the French Rule (OF Rule) as translated into English by J. M. Upton-Ward. This amazing set of military regulations describes the responsibilities of the Order's members in wartime and in peace. It evolved from the original "Primitive Rule" created by the Council of Troyes in 1129 over the entire 180-year history of the Order until its suppression by King Philip the Fair in the early 1300s.

It is important to view the Templars within the context of their secular contemporaries. Although the Templars were profoundly innovative in the vision of their founding, the basic organizational building blocks were a product of their secular environment. Members were well indoctrinated in the outside world before joining. The Rule clearly states that children were not to be admitted to the Order. Knights were to be raised and trained in the secular world at least until they had reached adulthood before being admitted into the Templars. Thus, the influence of the norms, social structure, and standard military tactics of medieval Europe was pervasive. With that in mind, let us start this analysis with a brief sketch of how that secular world operated. I'll also discuss how the Templars contrasted with the secular world in subtle, but important ways.

The Central focus of military tactics in the medieval world was the heavy cavalry charge of a group of mounted knights. This was supported by the mounted sergeants (ignoble mounted soldiers) and prepared for by the infantry. Although Philippe Contamine's research tells us that a typical army contained four to nine times as many infantrymen as mounted warriors, the medieval military mind was almost exclusively centered on the Knight, as its most devastating weapon.

The secular Knight is, therefore, the fundamental element of interest for our discussion. The "Knight" was not an individual in this context. He was the central figure of a tactical and logistic unit. To avoid confusion, I refer to this concept as a "Lance". A basic Lance was comprised as follows:

A Knight with a destrier (war horse). He rode a mule, palfrey, roncin, or such traveling mount to and from engagements. This kept his "main battle tank" fresh and ready for action.

A lightly armed squire to care for the destrier and equipment, typically riding a mule. … One or two pack animals.

Wealthy knights might double or triple this entourage. Altogether, we have between two and five people and three to ten mounts per Lance. The romantic image of a lone errant knight is strictly a literary invention. A lone knight was generally a miserable figure, down on his luck, and extraordinarily vulnerable.

Ten to twenty knights formed a banner. Ten to twenty Banners would form a Squadron. Five to ten squadrons formed a "battle", assuming that many troops were present. The battles were generally arranged in five groups; The Van, Left and Right Wings, the Center or Main Battle, and the Rear Guard. The size, distribution and character of these forces varied greatly. They were organized around the feudal lords who were called up or under hire. The detailed deployment of the forces while on campaign was a daily affair, arranged on an ad hoc basis. Not surprising, the equipment and logistical support (such as it was) was anything, but uniform. Managing the force and maintaining discipline must have been a Herculean task.

The Templars employed the same basic structure used by the secular armies, but did it with Prussian efficiency. A fundamental difference between the Templars and their secular counterparts was the submission of free will. This important characteristic of modern armies was not present in secular medieval forces. Secular knights tended to be very independent. They were responsible for their own gear, squires and upkeep, and were brought together on campaign only for a short time each year. Controlling them was difficult, at best. By contrast, Templars possessed a high degree of discipline and conformity. The concept of the monastic vow of obedience is that a monk should obey the instructions of his abbot as if he were obeying the Lord. The Rule further instructs that Brother Knights should obey the orders of the commanders set over them. The effect of the culture of obedience was that Templars were noted for maintaining formation and order under the most difficult situations.

Like all real armies in the field, the Templars often found themselves with other than ideal force levels. Unlike their secular counterparts, however, their structure and basic building block units remained relatively consistent. The Rule precisely specifies the equipment, mounts and personal staff of every member, from the Master right down to Brother Sergeants. It even provides for modifications when horses or squires are in shortage or abundance. The Rule also leads us to believe that Banners and Squadrons were standardized in composition. With all of the equipment and mounts belonging to the order and not the individual Knights (who took the vow of poverty), the Templars developed a centralized system for the supply and efficient distribution of these resources.

The Templars utilized the basic military model of the secular world from which they originated. Their ability to achieve discipline and uniformity, however, set them apart. As I will discuss below, the Templars were also available around the clock and all year round. This was also a very important distinction between them and their secular counterparts.

As stated above, the basic military unit of both the secular and Templar worlds was the Knight. Feudal socioeconomic structure was organized to support this military building block. The fundamental economic unit was the "knight's fee" or "basic fief". This was usually an agricultural entity consisting of around 60 to 120 acres held by as few as one or as many as eight villain families. Several of these together would support a knightly household consisting of a married knight, his children and a few servants.

This was a tenuous existence. War, bad crops, or other misfortune could bounce these families right out of the knightly class in the blink of an eye. Such noble families appeared and disappeared on a regular basis throughout the middle ages. Never the less, these were the lucky middle class of knighthood. Most knights never achieved their own household and spent their lives attached to the hotel of another important lord.

These fundamental knightly units were gathered together by wealthier lords into Knight Bannerettes. Several Bannerettes might be joined together as a County under the lordship of a Count. In regions continually threatened by invasion, counties often gathered together under a Marquis. From there, we work our way to up to Dukes, Princes, or Kings. The simplistic and theoretical view of this system was an orderly pyramid. The King was at the top. All land belonged to him and he farmed it out in exchange for annual military service. In reality, this completely nationalistic view was generally held by no one except the King.

A more accurate model would be to think of feudalism as a system of rights and obligations. It is a "relativistic" set of relationships that should be viewed from the instantaneous perspective of the individual of interest. He looked downward to the rights he held from his vassals and upward to the obligations he owed to his lords. He rarely perceived this chain traveling beyond the next layer. Kings would occasionally try to extract personal oaths of fealty from everyone. This weak attempt at nationalism was rarely effective.

By the thirteenth century, the standard service obligation was only forty days per year. If this was not bad enough, several exclusions, clauses and limitations also existed. For example, it might only be "20 days south of the Alps", or zero days beyond a certain district. The knight was also compensated if his horse were killed. Although this was not a cash based economy, it became increasingly necessary to pay not only the specialist mercenary troops, but also one's own vassals just to keep them in the field for a reasonable length of time. For any major campaign, it was usually necessary for the lord to borrow heavily and mortgage his estates in order to raise the necessary cash. We must bear in mind that a system of regular taxation did not exist. Revenues were "opportunistic". Great Lords seldom achieved the numbers during a muster to which they thought themselves entitled. Looking back on this system from modern times, it is amazing that large scale wars ever happened at all!

The difference in the economic support system and administrative command structure available to secular leaders and that employed by the Templars is stark. While both were agrarian at their foundation, the Templars had a cohesive chain of command from the top to the bottom. The Order's organization achieved the advantages of nationalism without the existence of a physical country. Under the Papal Bull Omne Datum Optimum, the Templars held gifted estates all over Europe but owed no taxes or fealty to anyone, but the Pope. The Master was the Great Ruler of a virtual state.

Income was consistent, regular, and supplemented by shipping, banking, and other industries. No "active duty" time limitations existed for Templar military personnel. They were signed up for life. The Templar force was available for field duty year round. The highly disciplined Templar troops were powered by a vast and efficient resource system. Free from the plague of complex feudal obligations and limitations, the Templar command structure was stable, consistent and efficient. These attributes made them a powerful war machine, especially in comparison to their secular contemporaries.

The operation and management of such a unique group also required innovation in its basic internal organization. The Templars had a dual organizational structure with the Master at the Head. Beginning with the Seneschal and flowing down through the Commanders of the Lands, a complex system of administration existed for the raising of revenue, maintaining of castles, and support of the Brothers when not on campaign. A similar hierarchy existed in Europe under the eight Western or Provincial Templar Masters. The main job of the European administrative branch, which included the majority of the Order's members, was to create the resources necessary for the Order to pursue its primary role: Defense and conquest of the Holy Land from the Saracens.

The Order's structure altered while on campaign. It formed a second branch that was led by the Marshal. He acted as Commander in Chief of the brothers under arms, reporting directly to the Master (Rule 103). The Brother Knights and Sergeants were transferred from the command of the Houses to the Marshalcy while on campaign. The Marshalcy also controlled the horses, weapons, and other directly military equipment (Rule 102). This structure is actually somewhat simpler:

This duality can be somewhat challenging for the casual student. It is also further confusing in that the same individuals moved between the two branches, occupying different roles. The Commander of the Land of Jerusalem is a good example. His peacetime role was to be the Chief Administrative Officer in the kingdom of Jerusalem and the Treasurer of the Order. In this capacity, he reported through the Seneschal. This job was much like that of a modern regional COO and overall CFO combined. In wartime, however, he would become a simple Squadron Commander under the authority of the Marshal (Rule 103). Thus, one might say he had "two bosses", a common complaint of personnel in modern matrix organizations.

It is fascinating to realize that the duality of the Templar organizational structure bears a striking similarity to modern organizational theory. Some of the most sophisticated principles employed in private business and military organizations can be found in the system described above. There are three basic types of organizations, which are generally recognized; Functional, Projectized, and Matrix. Functional and projectized organizations are the most common. In a functional model, organizational units are identified by basic functional definitions. Which to say; the kind of work performed. Personnel are grouped in these units and authority and responsibility flow within these divisions. In a projectized model, organizational units are formed around products or projects. Personnel are not divided along functional lines until further down the organizational tree, if at all. The matrix structure is a less common model in which the previous two are blended together. Personnel are grouped into major divisions according to function, but are then "farmed out" to support projects. This is the most complex of the three types.

A modern executive, drafting a matrix organization for a group like the Templars, would create something like this:

Viola! This is the actual organizational structure that was used with the minor exception that the post of Treasurer was combined with that of the Commander of the Land of Jerusalem (Rule 111). This was no doubt due to the physical proximity of the Commander to both the Order's headquarters and the capital city of the Holy Land. The ultimate "product" of the Templars was the making of war on the enemies of the Christian States. The Marshal was in charge of this "product". The three lands and eight Provincial Masters were the functional groups charged with raising revenue and the literal "care and feeding" of the Brothers when not on campaign.

This is an extraordinarily sophisticated structure for a medieval institution. Remember that the Matrix Model has only recently gained wide spread popularity in our own time. It is clearly the most complex of the choices available. It is also much more difficult to execute successfully, requiring many more choices to be made. The Templars seem to have adopted this model very early in their history. Their environment would have encouraged this from the start. Their mission was fighting in Outremer, but their resources were scattered throughout the Western Europe and the Near East. This created the need for a matrix structure. The monastic nature of the Order enabled its application. As a church organization, a unifying coherency of authority was implicit. Without a coherent chain of command, a matrix organization would rapidly fracture. Thus, we see the happy convergence of need with ability.

Even quick reviews of the Order's accomplishments tell us that there is something extraordinary about this group:

    * Over 170 years of successful military service in the Holy Land
    * The Only (along with the Hospitallers) major standing army in the Frankish East
    * Garrison and construction of many of the most important Christian fortifications
    * Vast property holdings all over Europe
    * A sophisticated, international banking system
    * Interests in most Mediterranean and European industries

The analysis discussed above has shown that the Templar organizational structure was highly tuned to their complex and widely dispersed interests. Indeed, when we examine it against the standards of modern organizational theory, we find a sophisticated matrix structure, executed so well as to put many modern corporations to shame. What is more remarkable, however, is that this was achieved during the Middle Ages, when socioeconomic institutions were relatively primitive. Without breaking important interfaces to the secular world, the Templars evolved this very modern structure from a purely feudal origin.

The vision of Founder Hugh de Payens, a monastic military order, was the underlying moral compass. It guided the application of the Templars' unique tools and abilities. The effectiveness of the secular socioeconomic system was greatly hampered by the fragmentation of authority, the absence of even a rudimentary chain of command, and the acute lack of a consistent cash flow. Hugh's original vision overcame these shortfalls. He and his successors carried the Templars though more than a century and a half of unparalleled success. Their accomplishments are truly remarkable.

About the Author: Salvatore (Tory) T. Bruno

Mr. Bruno is an executive at Lockheed Martin Corporation. He is currently the Vice President of Engineering for Lockheed Martin¹s Missiles and Space Organization in Sunnyvale California. In this capacity, he is responsible for nearly 4000 engineers and scientists. He was also the Chief Engineer for one of the most successful major weapon systems in history; the U. S. Navy¹s Fleet Ballistic Missile. He participates in several strategic study groups, examining the technical approaches and acquisition strategies required to carry various programs into the next century. Previously, Mr. Bruno has served as the Program Manager for several important rocket and missile programs. These ranged in size from a few million, to several hundreds of millions of dollars per year. He has received numerous professional and academic awards and is a respected member of the aerospace community.
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:06:39 öö
The Council of Troyes
Article © Alan Butler and Templar History Magazine

We have only scant and sometimes contradictory accounts as to the actual 'founding' of the Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon. The evidence put forward by Guillaume de Tyre, a later commentator, suggests that it was in the year 1118 that Hughes de Payen, a member of the lesser nobility from Champagne, presented himself, with a number of companions, before the throne of Baudoin II of Jerusalem. After 1118 comes the mysterious period, about which we know so little. What were the embryonic Knights Templar doing in Jerusalem? Were they really intent on keeping the roads clear for pilgrims and if so, why were there only about a dozen of them? Is it possible that they had some other raison d'être, such as digging below the Temple Mount? This is speculation and represents possible intrigue covered in other articles and it is fair to say that the first genuine date we have for the Templar Order is that of 1128, at which time the Templars officially came into existence.

Order Butler's Book

It is suggested that at some period prior to 1128, Hughes de Payen wrote to Bernard, later St. Bernard of Clairvaux, by this time the leading light in the Cistercian Order and a force to be reckoned with in the Catholic Church. Hughes is supposed to have asked St. Bernard if he would consider sponsoring the embryonic Order and perhaps create a 'Rule' for what would be essentially an institution of Holy Knights. It is extremely unlikely that St. Bernard would have needed to be approached officially by Hughes, who was almost certainly known to the little man from Dijon and may indeed have been a kinsman. A much more likely scenario is that the shadowy group of Champagne based nobles who were almost certainly responsible for the formation of the Cistercian Order some years previously, had mooted the idea of the Templars at least as early as 1118. It is suggested that documents found in Seborga in northern Italy virtually prove that St. Bernard at least had a direct hand in forming the Templars.

The story goes that St. Bernard had been responsible for creating a monastery in Seborga, as early as 1113. The same documents are supposed to suggest that Bernard went to this monastery in 1117, in order to release two monks from their vows. These men were Hughes de Payen and Bernard's own uncle, Andre de Montbard, two of the founders of the Templars. I view these suggestions with more than a little skepticism, mainly born of the fact that Bernard did not enter the monastic life himself until 1113 - so it hardly seems likely that he would be simultaneously creating a new monastery in northern Italy. I intend to research these claims much more fully and hope to report my findings, if any, in a subsequent issue.

However, there is no doubt that, in one way or another, Bernard of Clairvaux, the shining star of monasticism, was prevailed upon to take the embryonic Templar Order under his wing, to regularize it and to seek an official recognition by the Pope. In preparation for the event, Bernard penned a long document entitled 'In Praise of the New Knighthood'. This was a sort of open letter that justified the existence of a group of monks whose only real existence was to fight and kill others - something that flew directly in the face of all monastic endeavors. It is a mark of respect to Bernard that he not only managed to convince many of his fellow monks that this was an excellent idea, but also the pope.

Bernard's championing of the Templars was not without opposition. Cardinal Harmeric, a man close to the Pope Honarius II, wrote to Bernard saying "It is not fitting that noisy and troublesome frogs should come out of their marshes to trouble the Holy See and the cardinals." With customary humor, Bernard defused the critics by a show of humility, virtually demanding that the cardinal 'order' him to stay out of papal affairs. By so doing he made the cardinal look rather stupid and, on the way, gained the attention of the pope. Beneath the humility, there was a barbed threat. Bernard was close kin to the ruling house of Champagne - a powerful elite with which the pope would not wish to provoke an argument.

As in all matters to do with the creation of the Templars, there are more questions than answers, but it is a fact that the pope convened a council in Troyes, the capital city of Champagne, in the year 1128. The purpose of this Council was to settle disputes regarding the Bishops of Paris and to deal with other Church matters relevant at the time. Bernard high jacked the Council, using it for his own purposes. How was he able to do this? Almost certainly it was quite easy, since the Council was being held in the heartland of Champagne, only a few miles from Bernard's own flourishing abbey of Clairvaux. The pope simply could not avoid listening to what Bernard had to say without directly insulting the Count of Champagne.

Bernard had been busy converting the rule of St. Benedict, already adapted for the Cistercians themselves, to a form that would fit the Templar Order. By the time the Pope sat down to convene the Council of Troyes, he was faced with a fête accompli. He simply could not risk offending the rulers of Champagne, who were also blood tied to the kings of Jerusalem. In addition, the apparent intention of the Templar Order probably impressed the Pope, since this armed group of knights, which would certainly grow exponentially, as the Cistercians had done, would be responsible 'only' to the pope. With an eye for the future and living in dangerous times, Honorius II might have considered the formation of what amounted to his own private army no bad thing.

As Bernard of Clairvaux was to do on many occasions during his life, he had 'stitched up' the papacy, ensuring that the Templars would not simply exist, but that they would be headed by factions drawn directly from Champagne and from his own family. The rest, as they say, is history. When Honorius II died in 1130, against all the odds, Bernard managed to have Gregorio Papereschi, a man with a dubious claim at best, elected as Pope Innocent II. This Pope, and his successors, was deep in debt to Bernard, who left no stone unturned to have more and more papal declarations made to consolidate and promote the Templar Order.

However, the Council of Troyes of 1128 was the turning point of early Templar fortunes and could be considered amongst St. Bernard of Clairvaux's greatest victories.

About the author - Alan Butler

Alan Butler is a writer living in Yorkshire, England. He is a former editor of Templar History Magazine and has written numerous books on the knights Templar and megalithic mysteries. His latest book is entitled, The Virgin and the Pentacle.
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:07:48 öö
Templar Punishment
Article © Stephen Dafoe

In any monastic institution the must, of necessity, be found a set of rules by which to govern the order. The Templars were no exception to this concept and in 1128, Bernard of Clairvaux assisted in drawing up the Templar Rule.

The purpose of this article is not to show every detail of the Templar Rule, but rather to examine some of the punishments that members could expect, should they violate the rule.

Upon being charged with a violation, the Commander would call the brethren to hear the charges against an offender. When the accused brother confessed his fault he was then asked to leave the room. At this time the Commander would seek the advice of the brethren as to what penance to apply.

If his infraction was small or if he was found to be innocent, no penance would be given. However, if he were in violation of a major infraction of the rule then the General Chapter would later conduct a trial.

Below is a list of some of the consequences a brother of the order could face as a result of violating the Templar Rule of order:

Expulsion From The Order

This was the highest punishment a Templar knight could face. Upon expulsion from the order, he had an obligation to join the Cistercians, which always had a close relationship with the Templars. It was hoped that by joining this non-warrior monastic order the expelled Templar would save his soul.

Below are the infractions to cause such expulsion.

    * Murdering a Christian

    * Divulging the Chapter's meetings

    * Committing acts of sodomy

    * Committing an act of heresy or denouncing the Christian faith

    * Conspiring or making false charges against a brother

    * Leaving the Temple house for more than two days without permission

    * Fleeing the enemy during battle while the Beauseant was flying or without permission of the Marshal

Losing Your Coat (Rank)

Losing the coat of the order was a penance of shame. Taken from the guilty brother were his coat, weapons and horse. This penance befell any that committed the following infractions:

    * Fought with another brother

    * Lost or murdered a slave

    * Killed a pack animal or lost their horse due to their own neglect

    * Told untruths about themselves

    * Injured any Christian person out of anger

    * Had sex with a woman

    * Threatened to join the Saracens

    * Leaving the Commandery at night in anger

    * Throwing their Templar coat to the ground in anger

    * Loaned any Temple assets without permission of the order

It is important to note that all of the above crimes could be forgiven. If a brother repented with sincerity of his actions, and providing the brethren agreed, he would be restored with his coat and weapons.
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:08:49 öö
The Templar Beauséant
Article © Stephen Dafoe

The banner of the Knights Templar was called the Beauséant and, like many pieces of medieval history, its true etymology may have been lost somewhere along the way. An anonymous pilgrim who visited Jerusalem between the twelfth and thirteenth century had the following to say of the Templars, their banner and the Order's battle techniques:

" The Templars are most excellent soldiers. They wear white mantles with a red cross, and when they go to war a standard of two colors called balzaus is borne before them. They go in silence. Their first attack is the most terrible. In going, they are the first. In returning - the last. They await the orders of their Master. When they think fit to make war and the trumpet has sounded, they sing in chorus the Psalm of David, "Not unto us, O Lord" kneeling on the blood and necks of the enemy, unless they have forced the troops of the enemy to retire altogether, or utterly broken them to pieces. Should any of them for any reason turn his back to the enemy, or come forth alive [from a defeat], or bear arms against the Christians, he is severely punished; the white mantle with the red cross, which is the sign of his knighthood, is taken away with ignominy, he is cast from the society of brethren, and eats his food on the floor without a napkin for the space of one year. If the dogs molest him, he does not dare to drive them away. But at the end of the year, if the Master and brethren think his penance to have been sufficient, they restore him the belt of his former knighthood. These Templars live under a strict religious rule, obeying humbly, having no private property, eating sparingly, dressing meanly, and dwelling in tents."

The New Knighthood - Malcolm Barber - Canto Publications pg 179

Other etymological suggestions include piebald, which is perhaps closer to the mark. Piebald means spotted or two color as in a piebald horse or cat. This certainly fits the description of the Beauséant, for it consisted of a black square above a white one.

The late author John J. Robinson claimed that the term Beauséant was Medieval French for "beautiful." But to a group of knights who were not at all like the vain secular knights of the day, image certainly cannot be the entire interpretation. Robinson also claimed it was a battle cry:

"The word beau is now generally conceived to mean beautiful, but it means much more than that. In medieval French it meant a lofty state, for which translators have offered such terms as "noble," "glorious," and even "magnificent" As a battle cry then, "Beau Seant" was a charge to "Be noble" or "Be Glorious."

From the book Born In Blood by John J. Robinson - M Evans and Company

Symbolically, the black section is said to have depicted the sins of the secular world that the Templar knights had chosen to leave, while the second section was white - depicting the purity that the order offered them - a sort of transformation from darkness to light.

Despite many depictions of the banner in later day paintings, the battle standard was not such that it drooped down on its pole. Rather, the banner was held in place top and bottom by two poles so that it did not require a breeze to be seen by the Templars and their enemies.

So important was the view of the flying Beauséant that, before a battle, the Marshal would select ten Templars to protect him and the banner. If the Marshal was killed during fighting, the Commander of Knights would take the banner so that it may fly above the battle for all to see.

This created somewhat of a catch twenty -two situation, for as long as the Beauséant flew the Templars must fight on and as long as the Templars fought on, the Beauséant must fly.

The main purpose of the banner seems to have been as a rallying point for the Templars. One of the Order's tactics during battle was the heavy horse charge. This often caused the Templars to be separated from one another. As such, the flying Beauséant would allow them to easily regroup in order to continue the attack.
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:18:57 öö
Saladin - Salah al-Din Yusuf bin Ayub

Salah al-Din Yusuf bin Ayub or Saladin as he is popularly known was born in 1138 C.E. and was of Kurdish descent. The meaning of his Arabic name is "righteousness of the faith" As a child Saladin was a scholar who studied the Koran as well as poetry and his scholarly ways would continue through his life even when the thoughts of Holy War -"Jihad" consumed his focus.

At the young age of fourteen, he entered into the service of his uncle Nur ed-Din another great and respected Arab warrior. Another mentor of the young Saladin was the Saracen chief Zenghi who in 1144 overthrew the city of Edessa, an outpost of Western world for many years prior because of its proximity to Antioch. Saladin learned his military lessons well and soon began to stand out among Nur ed-Din's forces. In several campaigns between the years of 1164 and 1169 C.E. he had made a lasting impression on his peers.

In 1169 Saladin served with another uncle named Shirkuh as second to the commander in chief of the Syrian army. Shirkuh died only two months after Saladin received his new position. Despite his humble position and due to the fact that he held little regard for the Fatimid ruler of Cairo, Saladin turned Egypt into an Ayyubid powerhouse. He used many Kurds in important positions in his army and in no time he had improved the Egyptian economy and trained an army ready to take on the Frankish Crusaders.

In just two years Saladin suppressed the rulers for which he had little regard and thus united Egypt with the Abbasid Caliphate. When Nur ed-Din died in 1174, Saladin began his expansion of territories. In just twelve years he had Damascus, Syria, Alleppo, Mawsil and Iraq. After a three-month battle he captured Jerusalem in 1187 at the Battle of Hattin.

In February of 1193 Saladin rode out to meet some pilgrims returning from Mecca. That evening he became bed ridden due to pain and fever and in a number of days fell into a coma from which he never returned. Saladin died March 3rd 1193 at the age of 55.

According to The French Writer Rene Grousse:

"It is equally true that his generosity, his piety, devoid of fanaticism, that flower of liberality and courtesy which had been the model of our old chroniclers, won him no less popularity in Frankish Syria than in the lands of Islam"

Renee Grousse
The Epic of the Crusades
Orion Press 1970
Translated from the French by Noel Lindsay
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:20:17 öö
Chronology Of The Kings Of Jerusalem

The following is a list of the Kings of Jerusalem during the Templar era (1118 - 1314). It is important to note that although Godfroi de Boullion is listed here, he did not accept the title of King, rather he took the title of Defender of the Holy Sepulcher.

   1099 - 1100    Godfroi de Boullion

   1100 - 1118    Baldwin I

   1118 - 1131    Baldwin II

   1131 - 1143    Fulk

   1143 - 1162    Baldwin III

   1162 - 1174    Amalric I

   1174 - 1185    Baldwin IV

   1185 - 1186    Baldwin V

   1186 - 1190    Guy

   1192 - 1197    Henry

   1198 - 1205    Amalric II

   1210 - 1225    John of Brienne

   1225 - 1228    Frederick II

   1228 - 1254    Conrad

   1254 - 1268    Conradin

   1268 - 1284    Hugh III

   1284 - 1285    John I

   1285 - 1291    Henry II

Chronology Of The Kings Of England

The following is a list of kings of England during the Templar era (1118 - 1314).

   1087 - 1100    William II

   1100 - 1135     Henry I

   1135 - 1154    Stephen

   1154 - 1189     Henry II

   1189 - 1199    Richard I

   A noted companion of the Templars

   1199 - 1216     John

   1216 - 1272    Henry III

   1272 - 1307    Edward I

   1307 - 1327    Edward II

Chronology Of The Kings Of France

The following is a list of the kings of France during the Templar era (1118 - 1314). Of special note is Philip IV, who is infamous in the annals of Templar history.

   1060 - 1108    Philip I

   1108 - 1137     Louis VI

   1137 - 1180    Louis VII

   1180 - 1223    Philip II

   1223 - 1226     LouisVIII

   1226 - 1270    Louis IX

   1270 - 1285    Philip III

   1285 - 1314    Philip IV

Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Eylül 27, 2006, 09:22:23 öö
Jacques De Molay 1244 - 1314

In the two centuries of their formal existence the Knights Templar served under 23 Grand Masters. It is Jacques de Molay however, whom is best known with the possible exception of the orders founder, Hughes de Payens.

It is generally considered that Jacques de Molay was born in the year 1244 in an area called Vitrey, Department of Haute Saone, France. Little is known of his childhood, but what is known is that in 1265 at the age of twenty-one, he joined the Knights Templar. As in Freemasonry today, twenty-one years of age was the youngest a candidate for admission into that Order of knighthood could be.

Like many that sought out the order of the Temple, De Molay joined seeking the thrill of battle with the infidel. In his later years he reflected on how he and his fellow knights silently grumbled about then Grand Master William of Beaujeu and his pacific attitude towards the Mamlukes who at that time occupied the Holy Land. It seemed that the young Templars were not found of King Edward's truce with the enemy, for it did little to add their blood to the Templar's swords.

De Molay rose through the ranks quite quickly and spent a great deal of time in Britain. He was first appointed the position of Visitor General and latterly to the post of Grand Preceptor of all England.

On the death of the 22nd Grand Master, Theobald Gaudin, De Molay was installed as the head of the Order. Almost immediately he moved from England to the island of Cyprus, which the Knights Templar had owned at one point.

In the reign of Grand Master Robert de Sable, the Templars bought the island for the sum of 100,000 Saracen Bezants from Richard I for which they put a down payment of 40,000 bezants. Unfortunately they left a small garrison there who tried to overtax the populace which ultimately led to a revolt which caused the Templars to quickly turn the island back over to King Richard. Richard did not want the Island and sold it to Guy of Lusignan. After the fall of Acre in 1291, the island became an important base for the order.

It would be on the island of Cyprus that De Molay would remain until Philip IV and Clement V summoned him to France in the autumn of 1307.

The story of the orders downfall is too well know to readers of this Web Site to recount in detail, but what may not be known is that prior to the arrest, Phillip le Belle made Jacques de Molay Godfather of his son. The day before the arrest De Molay also acted as Pallbearer at the funeral of Le Belles sister in law. Perhaps the king didn't want the order to suspect his motives or perhaps he was simply adhering to the old adage, "keeps your friends close and your enemies closer."

After the arrest on the morning of October 13th 1307 De Molay spent the next seven years in prison during which time he and his Templar knights were dealt tortures that were unbearable. The inquisitors would go to any means to extract the confessions that would damn the order in the eyes of the people and the Catholic Church.

Although de Molay confessed to denying Christ and trampling on the Holy Cross, he steadfastly denounced the accusations that the initiation ritual consisted of homosexual practices.

On March 18th, 1314 De Molay was led out before the people to publicly confess his and the order's sins. He recanted his earlier confessions and said the only crime he was guilty of was lying about his Brethren to relieve his own tortures. He was then taken to an island on the Siene and burned along with Geoffrey de Charney the Preceptor of Normandy.

There are many accounts of De Molay's dying words, but the 19th century historian, Charles Addison; perhaps one of the foremost Templar scholars records them as follows:

"To say that which is untrue is a crime both in the sight of God and man. Not one of us has betrayed his God or his country. I do confess my guilt, which consists in having, to my shame and dishonor, suffered myself, through the pain of torture and the fear of death, to give utterance to falsehoods imputing scandalous sins and iniquities to an illustrious Order, which hath nobly served the cause of Christianity. I disdain to seek a wretched and disgraceful existence by engrafting another lie upon the original falsehood."

Charles Addison
Knights Templars

Many latter day writers have claimed that De Molay in his dying breath summoned both the King of France and Pope Clement to meet him in a tribunal before God within the year. True to the claim both men did indeed die within that time.

Whether a statement made by the Last Grand Master or an apocryphal account of Divine justice served, it will forever remain part of the Mythos surrounding Grand Master Jacques de Molay.
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar
Gönderen: MASON - Kasım 09, 2006, 03:06:57 öö
Roots and Bodies of The Knights Templar

Başlık: Ynt: The Knights Templar (Video)
Gönderen: Itzhak - Haziran 01, 2007, 02:27:43 öö
I have nothing to declare.Thats video best.....:D
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar (Video)
Gönderen: SublimePrince - Haziran 01, 2007, 02:37:51 öö
I have nothing to declare.Thats video best.....:D
Begendinizmi Sn. Itzhak :) Hoslandiginiz konular bunlar.
Başlık: Ynt: The Knights Templar (Video)
Gönderen: Itzhak - Haziran 01, 2007, 02:46:39 öö
Sure.Where do I buy ticket ? lol :D
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar (Video)
Gönderen: SublimePrince - Haziran 01, 2007, 02:53:07 öö
Get in line :)
Başlık: Ynt: The Knights Templar (Video)
Gönderen: Itzhak - Haziran 01, 2007, 07:19:56 ös
Here is my ticket.;)
Başlık: Re: The Knights Templar (Video)
Gönderen: Asi - Haziran 01, 2007, 08:15:51 ös
Ne bileti bu anlamadim ben?
Başlık: Ynt: The Knights Templar (Video)
Gönderen: MASON - Haziran 02, 2007, 04:11:05 öö
Dear Members,

I think you all have seen my warning about writing in english in this Entire Category of Masonry - English. I know all of you can speak english, then please do so and respect others languages. Everybody will appreatiate your understanding and cooperation.