SECRETS OF KNIGHTS TEMPLAR

The Hidden History of the World's Most Powerful Order
S.J. HODGE


CONTENTS

The Origins of the Order
Holy War
The Temple of Solomon
The Guardians
Sacred Defence
Shifting Sands
The Descent
The Myths
An Enigma of History
LIST OF GRAND MASTERS
TIMELINE



THE ORIGINS OF THE ORDER

A 14th-century manuscript showing the unrest and violence between the Seljuk
Turks and Christians in Jerusalem just before the First Crusade.
From the time the Knights Templar formed as an order of military monks
early in the 12th century, stories began proliferating about them. Legends
and tales varied from positive to negative and from ambiguous to
unequivocal.
To most outsiders, they were valiant defenders of Christianity throughout the
crusading years, admired for their resolve and bravery. To others, their
extraordinary success in banking, building, farming and other secular areas was
questionable alongside their religious beliefs and austere lifestyles. The shock
felt by almost everyone when they were accused of dubious crimes by Philip IV
of France in 1307, however, sent tremors of indignation and horror throughout
Europe. What's more, the Pope - who was supposed to protect them - facilitated
their demise. To be destroyed in the end not by their Muslim adversaries, but by
their fellow Christians, shook society to its foundations, and the story has


(erratically) continued to arouse interest for the 700 years that have followed.
This interest has become greater than ever in recent years, with countless
sensational claims about the Templars emerging, many of which have captured
the collective imagination. What is it about this Brotherhood that arouses such
interest? Can any of the theories be substantiated? Why have so many of these
ideas only come to light relatively recently, and how many mysteries can be
resolved now - with greater methods of authenticating evidence and the benefit
of hindsight? This book sets out to discuss many of the theories that have been
put forth about the Knights Templar, from such elusive notions as what secrets
they possessed or what their alleged secret rituals were, to more concrete areas,
such as their buildings, constructed using forgotten knowledge of sacred
geometry, or their development of banking that has since become the model for
banking practice everywhere.


Fighting brothers
Established in Jerusalem in the 12th century, the Knights Templar were
European Christians who chose to live as warrior-monks - a type of brotherhood
that had never been seen before. Formed after the First Crusade with just a few
men, their aim was to protect Christian pilgrims in the Holy Land and to defend
the territory conquered by the Crusaders. Traditionally, knights came from noble
families but, like most monks, the Templars were recruited from all echelons of
society. Not all joined as knights, and the majority came from ordinary
backgrounds - many were craftsmen, farmers, masons or cooks, for example -
and as such were not educated; few left personally written records about their
daily lives. Many could read and write in their own languages but, apart from
religious material, book-learning was discouraged as the objectives of the Order
focused on other things. Official records were kept nonetheless, but after the
Templars' dissolution in 1312, these were stored in Cyprus by the Knights
Hospitaller in their headquarters. In 1571, during the Ottoman-Venetian war,
Cyprus fell to the Ottoman Turks who destroyed many Hospitaller documents,
along with the Templar records. With their archives destroyed and no
contemporary chronicler mentioning their existence, it fell to later generations to
piece together their history.
Mysteries, myths and realities
It was not until the 18th century, with the formation of a new society called
Freemasons, that the Knights Templar were considered earnestly once more.
Since then, they have been researched and written about profusely. Sensational
books, such as Dan Brown's novel The Da Vinci Code, and The Holy Blood and
the Holy Grail by Michael Baigent, Richard Leigh and Henry Lincoln, plus
ensuing films, documentaries and further books advanced their popularity
enormously. Speculation about their lives, and enigmas surrounding their
existence, have never been so intense, and many of the stories about them have
become so tightly interwoven into European history that it is extremely difficult
to separate the myths from the realities. The broad range of opinions, theories
and suppositions about them have meant that, over time, they have been
variously lauded and criticized, romanticized and undermined, elevated and
denounced.
They are now connected with a wide range of disparate mysteries, linked
variously with the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant and other sacred
artefacts; the worship of ancient gods; the practice of strange initiation rites;
secret travel; clandestine treasure; and esoteric knowledge about the life of
Christ. They have also been linked with the untimely death of a king, a Pope's
perfidy, and even with putting a curse on the French royal family. When they


started out, they were seen as devout and courageous Christian saviours. Their
rigorous, monastic way of life coupled with physical warfare troubled some, but
aroused pride and respect in others. They began humbly, rose with incredible
alacrity, as financiers, builders, disciplined and efficient fighters - and more. Yet
with just two centuries of known existence, their dramatic rise and violent
downfall left a fertile base for speculation, generating many misconceptions and
intrigues. With such a dearth of documentation, many of the stories can still not
be verified, but with evidence continuing to be uncovered by reputable
historians, false leads and questionable claims can be assessed, separated from
the hype, and pieced together rationally.
One massive breakthrough came in 2007, when the Vatican published a copy
of a parchment written in August 1308 that shed new light on the Pope's
involvement in the Order's downfall, and his belief in their innocence - despite
his actions that seemed to prove the contrary. Discovered in the Vatican Secret
Archives in September 2001 by Italian palaeographer Barbara Frale, the Chinon
Parchment was written by three cardinals and proves irrefutably that the Knights
Templar were not deemed heretics by the Pope and so should never have been
persecuted.
This book tells the Templar story and considers the various enigmas, intrigues
and conjecture that surround them, attempting to clarify some assumptions and
beliefs and to reassess both the facts and the falsehoods behind the legendary
Brotherhood.


This fresco shows the Battle of Lepanto in October 1571. Although the
Ottomans destroyed a great deal on the island of Cyprus, including the Templars'
and Hospitallers' records, ultimately, the Christians were the victors and it
became known as the great victory of the Christians over the Turks. The artist of
this work was the Greek Antonio Vassilacchi (1556-1629), who was active
mainly in Venice. This was painted nearly 30 years after the event, in 1600.


HOLY WAR

Even after the Islamic armies had taken Jerusalem from the Byzantines, it
remained the most sacred destination for all Christian pilgrims. This miniature
from Speculum Historiale by Vincent of Beauvais (1190-1264) depicts a battle
between the Byzantine and Islamic armies in the seventh century.
Although many books have been written about the Knights Templar,
scholars and archaeologists are frequently uncovering new evidence about
them, calling into question many previously accepted theories. This book,
while not a chronological history of the Order, is an up-to-date account of
many of the events and mysteries that surrounded the legendary soldiers of
Christ.
The Order of the Knights Templar originated after the First Crusade and thrived
over the entire crusading period. The Crusades were a series of wars fought
between Christian Europe (Christendom) and the Muslim Empire (Islam). They
were established because of the political and spiritual issues in society at the
time, emerging from the feudal mentality of those Europeans living in the


Middle Ages, and of religious fanaticism, and they lasted from the end of the
11th to the late 13th centuries. At the close of the 11th century, the First Crusade
was launched by Christians against increasing Muslim incursion into Christianruled lands, and also to regain control of the Middle Eastern Holy Land from the
Muslims. Over the following 200 years, more crusades were fought and the
issues and outcomes became more complex. So complex in fact that there are
differing views among historians about exactly how many crusades there were.
Some maintain that there were eight, while others claim that there were only
four, and still others contend that there were five, or even six. This is partly
because many insist that only a pope can call a crusade and so those started by
others are not officially crusades, although their purpose was the same.
Since the seventh century, Muslim armies emerging originally from Arabia
had frequently attacked traditionally Christian territories, including parts of
Europe, North Africa and the Middle East in efforts to take the land. Quickly and
violently, the Arabs captured large tracts of land and stopped the lucrative trade
that had been thriving around the Mediterranean. The speed of the Arab
conquests and the losses suffered by Christians meant that something had to be
done to prevent the whole of Christendom being annihilated. Although not used
until the 13th century, the word 'crusades' described the attempts by Christians
to fight back and regain control of the lands they had previously occupied, as
well as the holiest sites in the Middle East, locations described in the Bible - in
particular, the city of Jerusalem.


Pilgrimage
Despite the difficulties of travel, since the second half of the fourth century the
tradition of pilgrimage had been well established by the Christian Church. Acts
of pilgrimage, where the faithful travelled to holy places to receive forgiveness
for their sins or cures for ill-health, had become an integral part of Christian life.
Popular shrines included the tomb of Thomas Becket at Canterbury Cathedral in
England; the site of St Paul's execution in Rome; the Abbey of Vézelay in
Burgundy, which housed the relics of Mary Magdalene; Santiago de Compostela
in northwestern Spain, where the apostle and martyr St James the Great's bones
were kept, and Jerusalem, the most hallowed site of all. Even after it had been
taken from the Byzantine emperors by Islamic armies in the seventh century,
Jerusalem remained the most sacred destination for Christian pilgrims.
Considering the expense, the dangers and the unknowns of a pilgrim's
journey, it is a wonder that any pilgrimages were actually undertaken. To travel
to Palestine from Europe was expensive and hazardous, even before the Muslims
began attacking Christian countries. The least dangerous route was by sea, but
even here, there was always the risk of piracy or shipwreck. Overland was
riskier as it entailed crossing parts of the Byzantine Empire and Islamic Syria.
Nevertheless, these perils seemed simply to add to the allure of the pilgrimage
and the sense of achievement for those who reached their destinations. Hardships
enhanced the notion of penance, which all assisted the salvation of the pilgrims'
souls. The Church encouraged pilgrimages, presenting them as the culmination
of a faithful life and a reliable way to receive forgiveness of sins - or to escape
divine punishment.
The Middle Ages
The term 'Middle Ages' corresponds to the same period as the Latin
word 'medieval'. Neither expression was used until the 19th century,
when a general interest grew in the era they describe. Although not
exactly defined, this period is usually considered to have started with
the fall of the Roman Empire, which began in 410 CE, and to have
ended with the early 15th century at the start of the Renaissance
period, or even in 1453, when Turkish forces captured Constantinople.
The end of the Middle Ages is generally described as the start of the
Modern Era. This was a time of strong religious belief and fanaticism,
which was inflamed by a lack of understanding and communication,
and which led to mistrust and brutality. During the period, society
changed and developed, with new kingdoms forming in Western
Europe. In the seventh century, North Africa and the Middle East,


which had once been part of the Roman Empire, were conquered by
Arabs and became Islamic. At this time, the Byzantine or Eastern
Roman Empire, remained largely independent of Muslim influence.


Islamic control and conquest
Although the Islamic armies were strong and powerful, single-mindedly
sweeping through great swathes of land and overthrowing the inhabitants, all
was not peaceful within. Since the death of Muhammad in 632 CE, a major split
had occurred between two Islamic sects. The schism between Sunni and Shi'a
Muslims initially arose from a disagreement over who should succeed
Muhammad on his unexpected death. The Sunni Muslims felt his close
companion (and father-in-law) Abu Bakr should become the first Caliph
(successor), while Shi'ites believed that his son-in-law and cousin Ali was the
rightful heir. Both candidates had compelling credentials: Abu Bakr had been a
trusted political and personal adviser to Muhammad, while Ali was the first
(male) convert to Islam and was renowned for his unwavering faith. Although
Abu Bakr was appointed the first administrative leader by the Islamic
community elders, eventually Ali also held the position - but by this time, the
rift was firmly in place.


A 17th-century Islamic miniature, depicting Muhammad and his trusted adviser
and father-in-law Abu Bakr, who became the first administrative leader after
Muhammad's death.
Abu Bakr reigned over the Rashidun Caliphate from 632 to 634. During that
time he arranged for the first written version of the Holy Qur'an (the 'Word of
God' in Arabic) to be made. Before Muhammad's life, the Bedouin tribes of
Arabia were nomadic people, living in fierce competition with each other to
survive. That legacy continued to a certain extent, and from 634 to 641 another
of Muhammad's successors, the Caliph Umar, began a military campaign
invading several Byzantine-inhabited lands, including Syria, Persia, Palestine
and Jerusalem. After they took control, in general, Muslims continued to allow
Christian and Jewish pilgrimages to Jerusalem. But the conquests carried on.
Caliph Uthman, Umar's successor, who reigned from 644 to 656, captured
Cyprus and attacked Constantinople, setting fire to the Byzantine fleet. The
subsequent Umayyad dynasty centred on Damascus and spread Islam as far as
Afghanistan in the east and North Africa in the west. In the eighth century, Arab
armies began attacking Roman Catholic countries as well and soon overthrew
important Christian cities across the Iberian Peninsula. Next, the Arab armies
crossed the Pyrenees to France, where they attacked places such as Bordeaux,
Carcassonne and Tours. However, in 732 they were decisively beaten back by
Charles Martel, the grandfather of Charlemagne. Within a century, nonetheless,
the Arab armies were assailing parts of Italy, and even drove the Pope from
Rome. But for all their aggression, the Umayyads and the later Abbasid dynasty
allowed the vanquished who remained living in their cities to practise their
chosen religions and to continue their pilgrimages - as long as they paid the
Muslim rulers an extra tax.


A 13th-century Arab manuscript of a Muslim warrior on a camel.
Gradually, Islamic society and culture was becoming remote from the
nomadic lifestyles of its ancestors and, after the middle of the tenth century, most
Muslims had settled and were no longer keen to fight, even though the Arab
government needed to maintain fighting in order to keep control and to continue
their forbidding stance over any Christians who tried to fight back. So the
government began to rely on foreign immigrants to fight for them. These were
mainly Turkish tribes who were newly converted to Islam and extremely
aggressive and hostile towards non-Muslims. The leading tribe, the Seljuk Turks,
were nomadic, warlike buccaneers and, within a short time, a Turkish Sultan of
the Seljuks seized power from the Arab Caliph. By 1065, they took control of
Jerusalem and they showed no tolerance to others who were not Sunni Muslims
like them. They slaughtered Christian, Jews and pagans, and they destroyed
churches, synagogues and other places of worship. In 1071, they massacred the
huge Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert (now part of Turkey), captured
the Byzantine Emperor Romanus Diogenes and took Nicaea, one of the most
important cities of the Byzantine Empire.
Twenty-four years later in 1095, while in Piacenza, Italy, Pope Urban II (r.
1088-99) received a delegation of ambassadors bearing a letter from the current
Byzantine Emperor, Alexius I Comnenus, appealing to the Latin (Catholic)
Christians to join forces with them, the Eastern (Orthodox) Christians, to fight


back against the Seljuk Turks. The Byzantine Empire had lost most of Anatolia
to the Seljuk Turks and Alexius needed military assistance from the West to
regain his lands. Although Eastern and Western Christians were divided, in the
letter, Alexius described the atrocities suffered by all Christians in Jerusalem at
the Turks' hands, explaining that it was no longer safe for any pilgrims to go
there. Also promising greater unity between the Church of Constantinople and
the Church of Rome, Alexius aroused Urban II's sympathies. Keen to end the
divide between the Eastern and Latin Churches and even more eager to save
Jerusalem from the devastation being created there by the Turks, in November of
that year, the Pope called a Council meeting in Clermont, France.


Call to arms
After nine days of discussion about other matters, on 27 November 1095,
French-born Pope Urban II led the Council of Clermont's clerical delegates to an
open field, where he had invited the entire population of the city. He sat on his
throne in the open air and addressed the huge crowd. Charismatic, good-looking
and eloquent, he described the situation across Europe and in the Holy Land, the
problems facing the Byzantine Empire and ultimately all of Christendom, and he
urged those listening to take up arms to fight 'the infidel' alongside their brothers
in the Eastern Orthodox Church for the liberation of the holy places. Although
the notion of fighting was sinful for Christians, in the fourth century Bishop
Augustine of Hippo had written that, with a worthy and honourable purpose and
with peace as the aim, violence could be justified.
Believing at this stage that they would only be supporting the Byzantines,
Urban spoke of the honour of chivalry and knighthood, reminding everyone that
this was what Christendom was once famous for. All who participated in this
holy war and turned their weapons on the enemies of Christ, he informed his
captivated audience, would receive absolution for their sins. And while they
were away fighting, he guaranteed that they, their families and their goods would
be protected. Although no contemporary chronicler documented this at the time,
it is said that this rousing speech was followed with thunderous, enthusiastic
cries from the audience of: 'God wills it!' Red cloth crosses were distributed to
those who promised to join the campaign and later, after taking their solemn
vows, individuals sewed the [red] crosses on the left shoulders of their surcoats
as a symbol of their commitment and to indicate their entitlement to certain
privileges and exemptions, which the Pope had promised to any who joined the
'Holy War'. This was the origination of the concept of 'Taking the Cross'. The
word 'crusade' developed from 'crux', the Latin word for cross.
After Clermont, Urban travelled around France, continuing to preach and urge
the faithful to take the cross. Surprised by how earnestly the poor flocked to join
up rather than the class of knights he had hoped to attract, Urban made some
stipulations. The elderly and the infirm were not allowed to join, and married
men had to ask their wives for permission to go. Wives were also invited to
accompany their husbands if they chose. Only healthy, unmarried young men
were permitted to become 'Knights of Christ' without any of these extra
considerations. The Pope invited other Catholic countries to join, including
England and Spain, but various issues precluded their wholehearted support.
England, for instance, was still struggling for unity after the Norman Conquest
of 1066, and the Spanish were fighting the Muslim armies in their own country.
In the end, France gained the most recruits and automatically became the leaders


of the Crusade, although their king, Philip I, could not accompany them as he
had been excommunicated over his bigamous marriage.

Pope Urban II (c.1035-99) at the Council of Clermont from Sébastien
Mamerot's c.1490 lavishly illuminated manuscript Les Passages d'Outremer
(Journeys to Outremer).
The Byzantine and Roman Churches
Since early Christian times, differences had emerged within the
Church. The Byzantine Empire (or Byzantium) was established as the
centre of the Roman Empire by Emperor Constantine when he
converted to Christianity in 312 CE. He settled there and called the
capital city New Rome, but it became known as Constantinople after
him. It was later the capital of the Eastern Roman Empire for over a
thousand years. Meanwhile, the Latin (or Roman Catholic) Church
continued developing in the Western Roman Empire. Geographically,
the Byzantine Empire included Asia Minor, the Middle East and North


Africa, while the Latin Church encompassed Western Europe and
northern and western areas of the Mediterranean. The Byzantine
Empire was predominantly Greek-speaking, whereas Latin was the
principal language of the Catholic Church. The Byzantine Emperor
controlled the Eastern Orthodox Church's affairs and appointed its
highest official, the Patriarch, while Roman Catholics regarded the
Pope as their greatest authority. Unlike priests in Western Europe, the
Byzantine clergy retained their right to marry. Byzantine art focused
on the divinity and mysteriousness of Christ, while Roman Catholic art
emphasized the humanity of Jesus and the Holy Family. Both sides
prayed to images of Christ, the Virgin Mary and the saints, but in the
eighth century, the Byzantine Emperor prohibited the veneration of
icons, saying it violated God's commandment against worshipping
'graven images'. The ban triggered fierce battles within the Empire
and, from the West, the Pope excommunicated the Emperor. Although
a later Empress eventually restored the use of icons, the conflict left
great resentment in Byzantium against the Pope. In their church
services, the Byzantines used leavened bread as a symbol of the Risen
Lord while Latin Christians used unleavened bread as this was eaten
by Jesus at the Last Supper as it was Passover. In 1054, further
disagreements led to the Pope and the Patriarch excommunicating each
other. This became known as the East-West Schism, or the Great
Schism, and it divided the two Churches permanently.

Augustine of Hippo by Fra Filippo Lippi (c.1406-69). A Latin philosopher and
theologian, Augustine is often declared to be one of the greatest Christian
thinkers. While he insisted that Christians should be pacifists, he also argued that


it was acceptable to fight in order to restore and maintain peace.
The Pope's speech
Like many events of that period, there were no accounts written at the time of
Pope Urban's call to arms in Clermont in November 1095. Fulcher de Chartres,
Baldric de Dol, Robert the Monk and Gilbert de Nogent were four contemporary
writers who wrote accounts of the First Crusade, but they only include excerpts
of the speech in order to enhance the drama of their narratives of the Crusade
itself, which are all written years after the event and which differ from each
other, so are probably subjective. The closest evidence we have of the original
words is believed by most scholars on the subject to have been written in a letter
by the Pope himself one month after the speech, at Christmas time in 1095, to
those signing up for the Crusade:
Your brotherhood, we believe, has long since learned from many accounts
that a barbaric fury has deplorably afflicted and laid waste the churches of
God in the regions of the Orient. More than this, blasphemous to say, it has
even grasped in intolerable servitude its churches and the Holy City of
Christ, glorified by His passion and resurrection. Grieving with pious
concern at this calamity, we visited the regions of Gaul and devoted
ourselves largely to urging the princes of the land and their subjects to free
the churches of the East.
Eleventh-century public relations
The Pope's call to arms was cleverly played to appeal to the
sensibilities of devout Roman Catholics across Europe. While he knew
that Emperor Alexius was appealing for military assistance against the
Seljuk Turks in Asia Minor, Urban purposely channelled the idea to
suit his needs. The Latin Church had wanted to secure Jerusalem, with
its sacred sites, for a long time. Likewise, Emperor Alexius had
intentionally dwelt on the plight of pilgrims in Jerusalem for his own
ends as he knew that this was the best way to ensure Western
Christians' support.
The People's Crusade
Among the crowd listening to the Pope at Clermont had been a zealous monk in
his forties, nicknamed Peter the Hermit, also known as Peter d'Amiens. Filthy,
barefoot and wearing a long, coarse robe tied at the waist with a rope, Peter
preached - to anyone who would listen - of the need to rescue sacred Christian
sites in the Holy Land from the Muslims. His passionate appeal attracted a huge
number of mainly poor followers, reportedly between 15,000 and 100,000 men,


women and children, mainly from France and Germany. Rather than one
organized march, the First Crusade evolved as a series of expeditions to the Holy
Land, and Peter's enthusiastic followers set off earlier than Urban II's planned
date of mid-August 1096. Having withstood floods, plague and famine at home,
these impoverished, largely illiterate people believed that the Crusade would
give them the chance to start new lives as well as securing them an assured
passage to heaven. With few weapons, little experience of fighting, and no
discipline, their ragged march became known as 'The People's Crusade'. Peter
and his assistant Walter Sans-Avoir (Walter the Penniless) led them overland
through Germany and Hungary to Constantinople. On the way the rabble
contingent among them began pillaging for food and attacking local inhabitants,
and were soon counter-attacked by stronger local armies. Undaunted, the
straggling marchers began discharging their religiously fuelled passions by
calling the Jewish inhabitants of various other districts they passed through
'murderers of Christ', offering them the choice of conversion to Christianity or
death. By the time they reached the Rhine, one of Europe's major trade routes
and an area that had been populated heavily by Jews for centuries, the mob was
completely out of control. They began looting and sacking houses and
synagogues and massacring entire Jewish communities. Approximately 8,000
Jews died. To be rid of the Crusaders, the horrified Alexius organized their
speedy passage across the River Bosphorus. As they reached Asia Minor, they
came face-to-face with the Seljuk Turks who completely overpowered and
massacred nearly all of them. The People's Crusade was over.


Peter the Hermit leading 'The People's Crusade' from Les Passages d'Outremer.
This illustration shows the first, unofficial Crusaders, about to be massacred by
the Seljuk Turks in a surprise attack.


The First Crusade
Meanwhile, the main contingent of the Crusade was travelling to Constantinople.
Of the thousands who went, only about a quarter were nobles or knights. The
rest consisted of poor men, women and children, plus their donkeys, carts and
dogs. Most had never before left their towns and villages. Alexius was appalled
by the arrival of this unruly and undisciplined mass, many of whom appeared to
be nothing more than ruffians, and who camped outside his capital city's walls
through the winter of 1096-7. They were not the small, well-armed force of
Christian knights he had envisaged when he had asked the Pope for help, and
many began pillaging around Constantinople. Concerned that they could not be
controlled and that most were only there to reach Jerusalem on a kind of
glorified pilgrimage, he made their leaders swear an oath that they would
'restore to the Empire whatever towns, countries or forts they took which had
formerly belonged to it'. Eventually the Crusader leaders agreed to the oath and
they marched on to the ancient city of Nicaea (within present-day Iznik in
Turkey), which had been captured by the Seljuk Turks in 1071. Strongly
defended by walls and a lake, it was difficult to surmount, but the Christian
armies laid siege and within five weeks, Nicaea was regained. Several other
battles followed as the Crusaders marched towards the city of Antioch (presentday Antakya in southern Turkey, near the border with Syria). Previously a
Byzantine stronghold and famous for never having fallen except by treachery,
the city walls of Antioch were almost impenetrable.
Arriving at the city on 20 October 1097, the Crusaders blockaded the main
city gates of Antioch, imprisoning the inhabitants and preventing relief forces
from getting through. After three months, by January 1098, their own supplies
were gravely diminished, many were dying of starvation and others were
deserting. Nevertheless, the weakened and much reduced Crusaders managed to
gain entry to the city, but they were immediately trapped inside by an external
relief-force of 75,000 Seljuk Turks who had just arrived from Mosul (in
contemporary Iraq). Meanwhile, some distance away, the Byzantine army was
marching towards Antioch to help the crusading Latin army, when several
deserters reached them and reported that the Crusaders had all starved to death
outside the city. Believing therefore that the situation was hopeless, the
Byzantines returned to Constantinople, leaving the Latin army trapped inside
Antioch.
Leaders of the First Crusade
Although they had to organize and discipline many inexperienced
Crusaders, the leaders of the First Crusade included some of the most


eminent members of European knighthood. Count Raymond de
Toulouse headed a band of volunteers from Provence. Godfrey de
Bouillon and his brother Baldwin commanded a force of French and
German men. Hugh de Vermandois, the younger brother of King Philip
I of France; William the Conqueror's eldest son, Robert of Normandy;
Count Robert II of Flanders; Bohemond, Prince of Taranto, and his
nephew Tancred; and Stephen II, the Count of Blois, all led troops into
battle, with varying degrees of courage and ingenuity.

An illumination by the Fauvel Master in 1337, showing the capture of a
Muslim city by Christian crusaders led by Godfrey of Bouillon in the First
Crusade, from The History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem by William of
Tyre.


The Miracle of the Lance
Finding themselves outnumbered, weakened and ensnared, it seemed that the
First Crusade had ended before it had really started. Then, on 10 June 1098, a
peasant called Peter Bartholomew was admitted to the presence of papal legate
Bishop Adhemar, and Raymond de Toulouse, the most important noble of the
Crusade. Before the Crusaders had set off, the Pope had named Bishop Adhemar
as his representative and the spiritual leader of the expedition. The idea of the
red cloth cross worn on the shoulder had come directly from Adhemar's
example. In the presence of these two august men, imprisoned within the city of
Antioch, Peter Bartholomew described his recurrent visions. He claimed that
Christ and St Andrew had come to him and told him that the lance that had
pierced the side of Christ on the Cross was buried beneath the high altar in St
Peter's Cathedral in Antioch. The Holy Lance, also known as the Holy Spear, the
Spear of Christ or the Spear of Longinus (after the Roman soldier who wielded
it), is mentioned in the Bible, but only in the Gospel of John. It was used to make
sure that Jesus was dead: 'one of the soldiers pierced his side with a spear, and at
once blood and water came out' (John 19:34).
Bishop Adhemar was sceptical, as he had seen what had been claimed to be
part of the Holy Lance in Constantinople, but Raymond was intrigued and when
the story spread among the Crusaders a ripple of hope emerged that had
previously seemed unimaginable. The next day, Stephen of Valence, a monk
accompanying the Crusade also sought an audience with Adhemar and
Raymond. He too reported a vision, this time where Christ and the Virgin Mary
had promised to help the demoralized troops. Adhemar remained suspicious, but
when on 14 June, a meteor was seen to fall into the Turkish camp, it was deemed
a positive omen by the Crusaders, and Bishop Adhemar gave permission for
digging to start in the cathedral. The following day, inside St Peter's Cathedral in
Antioch, Raymond de Toulouse, the historian Raymond d'Aguilers, William,
Bishop of Orange, Peter Bartholomew and a few others began to dig beneath the
paved floor under the altar. Nothing was found until Peter jumped into the pit
and unearthed a relic of a spear point which he proclaimed was the Holy Lance.
When told, Bishop Adhemar continued to believe the object to be a fake and
Bartholomew to be a fraud, but Raymond de Toulouse and the others present
took this as a divine sign that the Crusaders had God on their side. It is
impossible to verify now what really happened. The trusted historian on the dig,
Raymond d'Aguilers, reported that he had seen the iron in the ground before
Peter Bartholomew exposed it, contesting that Peter had put it there as several
sceptics believed. Whatever the object was or how it was found, the excitement


in the city was intense as word of the discovery spread. Peter then reported
another vision in which St Andrew instructed the Crusader army to fast for five
days (although they were already starving), after which they would be
victorious. There was great rejoicing among the Crusaders and they duly fasted.
On 28 June, they broke out of Antioch led by their best soldier, the Norman
warrior Bohemond, Prince of Taranto, with the Holy Lance carried by Raymond
d'Aguilers at the front. Although desperately weak from hunger, they were in an
exalted mood and some cried out that they could see celestial cavalrymen on
white horses riding to help them, bearing white banners and led by St George.
They should have been no match for the far larger and better-equipped Turkish
and Arab force, but a great deal of in-fighting had occurred with the Turks and
Arabs, leaving their morale as low as the Christians' was high, and they broke
quickly under the unexpected Crusader attack. Antioch was once more in
Christian hands; but rather than return it to the Byzantines who had deserted
them, Bohemond remained there as Prince of Antioch, while the rest of the
Crusaders marched on to Jerusalem.
Raymond de Toulouse kept the lance for a time, but rumours of it being a
hoax grew as people realized that other Holy Lances were in existence. In the
sixth century, a pilgrim, Antoninus of Piacenza had related that in the Basilica of
Mount Zion he saw 'the crown of thorns with which Our Lord was crowned and
the lance with which He was struck in the side'. After Jerusalem was captured
by Persian forces during the following century, according to contemporary
writings, a piece of the Holy Lance was taken to Constantinople and placed in
the church of Hagia Sophia, and later moved to the Church of the Virgin of the
Pharos. Much later, it was sold to Louis IX of France who enshrined it with the
Crown of Thorns, but the relics both disappeared during the 18th-century French
Revolution. The larger portion of the lance was mentioned as being in the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem around 670, but there is no further
mention of it being there. This could be the portion of the lance that was
sometimes attributed to being in the Templars' keeping, but there is no clear
explanation of how they found it when so many others had not in the centuries
between its disappearance and their arrival in Jerusalem.


After Bohemond's success at Antioch, he was celebrated as a hero and was given
the hand of Constance, daughter of King Philip I of France and ex-wife of Hugh
of Champagne. This is a 15th-century Flemish illumination of their wedding in
1105.
Still, with these objects and about three others that were claimed to be the
Holy Lance, several people grew sceptical and Peter Bartholomew became the
butt of various accusations. So, in April 1099, he requested an ordeal by fire in
an attempt to prove his credibility. On Good Friday 1099, he walked through a
narrow passage between two huge piles of blazing wood, wearing only a tunic
and carrying the Holy Lance. Although horrendously burned, he claimed to be
uninjured because Christ had appeared to him in the fire. Twelve days later, he
died in agony and this particular Holy Lance lost its allure. For a while, it was
kept in Constantinople and at St Peter's in Rome. Later, it was linked with the
Templars, but by then there were at least four other objects scattered throughout
Christendom being labelled 'the Holy Lance' and, as it was never seen in the
Templars' possession nor found after their end, the idea was soon forgotten.


The Kingdom of Jerusalem
It is believed that 30,000 Crusaders had started out from Europe in August 1096,
but fewer than 12,000 were left in June 1099 when they arrived within sight of
the Holy City. As they approached, the Muslim governor of Jerusalem closed all
exits and entries to the city and poisoned all the wells outside the city walls. A
network of underground fresh water systems would keep the inhabitants inside
alive, and the city was well stocked with provisions. The outside walls and
defences were virtually impregnable. Coupled with their severely reduced troops
and limited provisions, it seemed unlikely that the Crusaders would be
successful in their ultimate goal of recapturing Jerusalem. An initial attempt at
attack failed, but within a week fresh supplies arrived by sea to the port of Jaffa
that had been abandoned by the Muslims. In the following days, the Crusaders
built two large siege towers, erecting them after dark and moving them close to
the city walls. A desperate and prolonged attack was launched from both sides
and, on the morning of 15 July, a large faction of the Crusader army commanded
by Godfrey de Bouillon captured an inner rampart of the northern wall. The
Crusaders poured into Jerusalem and, in a frenzied and unplanned wave of
violence and brutality, slaughtered everyone in sight.
The unrestrained and vicious massacre by the Crusaders was not what Urban
II had asked them to do in November 1095, and it went against all the values of
Christianity. The Pope had wanted them to liberate the Holy Land from the
Muslims, not to massacre the inhabitants of Jerusalem. His original call for a
return to chivalry had largely been ignored, but it was unlikely that he ever knew
of the atrocities, as he died two weeks after the fall of Jerusalem before the news
reached Rome.
Despite churchmen in pulpits across Europe condemning the news when they
heard it, the Crusaders in the Holy Land believed they had achieved victory. In
actual fact, the religious and political conflicts between the Sunnis and the
Shi'ites had given the Crusaders greater opportunities for success than they
would otherwise have had. Two days after their capture of Jerusalem, the
Crusader leaders met to choose someone to take command of the Holy City.
Although not everyone agreed, it was decided to turn it into a kingdom with a
monarch chosen from among them to remain there and rule. The ideal choice
would have been Bishop Adhemar, but he had died the year before at Antioch.
So the new crown was offered to Raymond de Toulouse, the eldest, wealthiest
and probably the most chivalrous of the Crusaders. But Raymond did not want to
rule in the city where Jesus had suffered. So the crown was offered to Godfrey
de Bouillon who had been another powerful leader and was somewhat jealous of
Raymond. Godfrey accepted the position, but declared he would not wear a royal


crown in the city where Jesus had worn a crown of thorns. Rather than the title
of King of Jerusalem, he accepted the name Defender of the Holy Sepulchre
(Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri) and he used the Al-Aqsa mosque as his palace,
believing that it stood on the site of the illustrious scriptural Temple of Solomon
(the Templum Salomonis). The Muslim shrine, the Dome of the Rock, adjacent to
the Al-Aqsa mosque, which probably is on the site of Solomon's original temple,
was given iron railings and a cross and identified as the Templum Domini, or the
Lord's Temple. The Crusaders also installed an archbishop from Pisa named
Daimbert as a Catholic Patriarch, to oversee the Latin Christians who would live
in Jerusalem or travel to the Holy Land on pilgrimages. Various other prelates
also moved in. Their main goal achieved, most of the Crusaders returned to
Europe, taking with them tales of horror, danger, adventure, hardship and
ultimate victory.

An image of the Holy Sepulchre from a 15th-century Greek manuscript known
as The Oracle of Leo the Wise. The Holy Sepulchre is venerated as Golgotha, the
site of Christ's crucifixion and resurrection, as well as where a part of the Holy


Lance was believed to be at one time.


Outremer
During the first few years of the 12th century, four different states were
established in the territories now controlled by Christians: the County of Edessa,
the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli and the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
In Europe, these states became known collectively as 'Outremer' which was
French for overseas ('outre-mer'). In 1100, Godfrey de Bouillon died and his
brother, Baldwin de Boulogne, succeeded as King Baldwin I of Jerusalem, being
less reluctant than his brother to take a royal title.
Nevertheless, the name he adopted mattered far less than the overriding
problem that had rapidly become apparent in Outremer, which was that there
was insufficient protection for the thousands of Christian pilgrims travelling
there. The towns were made fairly secure, but travellers beyond the walls were
vulnerable to bandits and other assailants. As soon as Jerusalem was in Christian
hands once more, an upsurge of pilgrims travelled there from Europe and, with
no one to defend them as they journeyed to and from the holy sites, many were
attacked and murdered outside the city walls. In 1102, a pilgrim known as
Saewulf of Canterbury recorded how pilgrims were often set upon as they
travelled on the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem. Specifically targeted by Bedouin
nomads, Turks and Egyptians, such small groups of pilgrims were often killed
for the money they sewed into their clothing, and their bodies were left to rot
where they were killed. This would have incensed the Christian world, not just
because pilgrims were being callously robbed and murdered, but because they
were also being denied Christian burials.


Hugh de Champagne
One traveller to the Holy Land at that time was Hugh, the Count of Champagne
(c.1074-1125), the third and youngest son of Theobald de Blois. Wealthy,
powerful and pious, Hugh was known for most of his life as Hugh de Troyes,
after the land he inherited from an elder brother who died at an early age.
Although interested in the First Crusade, he had not joined it, possibly as he had
recently married Constance, the daughter of Philip I of France, so remained at
home with his new wife and took care of his considerable lands and property.
With his wife's dowry and an inheritance from his mother and deceased brother,
Hugh seemed to have everything going for him. But his marriage broke down
and in 1103, after an attempted assassination from which he narrowly escaped,
he spent months being nursed to health by the nuns at the Convent of Avenay.
Once recovered, he made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land to give thanks for his
life, and while he was gone, his marriage to Constance was annulled on the
grounds of consanguinity and failure to produce an heir. In 1107, he returned to
Champagne and married another noblewoman, Elizabeth de Varais.
Yet Hugh soon tried to have this second marriage annulled as well. In 1114,
when he had returned once more to the Holy Land, Elizabeth went to the Bishop
of Chartres and implored him to prevent her husband from rejecting her. As a
result, Hugh received a letter from the bishop, remonstrating with him for
leaving his wife in order to join 'La Milice du Christ' (the Knights of Christ).
This was the original name given to the Knights Templar and the name that they
were called by Bernard of Clairvaux (1090-1153), but at the time of the bishop's
letter, as far as can be ascertained, the Order was not officially formed. This
letter seems to have had little effect on Hugh, however. He didn't return from the
Holy Land until the end of 1115 and, about two years later, Elizabeth gave birth
to a son, whom Hugh immediately denounced as illegitimate. His reasons for
this are not confirmed, but they seem to have been valid as the illegitimacy was
not disputed at the time (although the boy, Eudes, tried unsuccessfully to claim
legitimacy later in life). The official reason that has been recorded, which Hugh
insisted upon, was that he was sterile. Whatever it was, Elizabeth and the child
were cast aside.
When he had returned to the Holy Land in 1114, Hugh had taken a retinue of
knights with him. Before he left, he declared to all that he would be 'taking up
the gospel knighthood' once there. It is not clear what he meant by this; he may
have been implying that he intended to travel to the Holy Land as the Crusaders
had done, or he may have planned to protect the sacred Christian sites once
there. The conundrum deepens. Hugh stayed in the Holy Land for nearly two
years and when he returned to France, he left one of his vassals, Hugh de Payns


(c.1070-1136) behind. This was a most unusual course of action. While Hugh de
Champagne was back in France, Hugh de Payns was helping to form an order of
military monks in Jerusalem. It is possible that Hugh de Champagne returned to
France specifically to organize funding for the order in Jerusalem and had left
his vassal with instructions about organizing the group of men. With his multiple
trips to the Holy Land and later events, it seems likely that Hugh de Champagne
was involved in some way. Eventually in 1125, he handed over his land in
Champagne to his nephew, Theobald, renounced his worldly wealth and returned
to the Holy Land to join the Order of the Knights Templar soon after its official
formation. He was probably the only member of the nobility to join at the start of
the Order. Even more unusual: to become a Templar, Hugh, the Count of
Champagne, had to swear allegiance to his former vassal Hugh de Payns.


Hugh de Payns
Also often called Hugues de Payens, despite his significance in the establishment
of the Knights Templar, there is little substantiated about him, apart from his
being Hugh de Champagne's former vassal. As far as we know, there is no
contemporary biography in existence and so information about him is extremely
fragmented. The most detailed accounts come from Archbishop William of Tyre
(c.1130-86), who recorded his information over 60 years after the First Crusade,
but even these notes are not comprehensive. Born at the family chateau on the
banks of the River Seine in the Champagne region, Hugh de Payns (c.1070-
1136) is often documented by later chroniclers as being a cousin of Hugh de
Champagne and Bernard of Clairvaux, two of the most powerful men in Europe
at the time. He is also believed to be related to two other powerful men and
leaders of the First Crusade: Raymond de Toulouse and Godfrey de Bouillon.
Several documents state that Hugh de Payns was married to Elizabeth de
Chappes or, some later chroniclers assert, to a Catherine St Clair. There is little
evidence about Catherine St Clair, however, and it seems far more likely that he
was married to Elizabeth de Chappes between 1108 and 1111. He has also been
attributed with having either one child or three, whose names have been
recorded as Guibuin, Isabelle and Theobald. Theobald is known to have existed
as he became abbot at the monastery of La Colombe in 1139, but nothing is
recorded about the other two children. There is no written documentation of
Hugh leaving his family, nor of what happened to them after he had left France
for the Holy Land. In those days, it was not unusual for married people to take
holy orders, but first they had to obtain permission from their spouses, and often
the spouses would also enter a convent or a monastery at the same time. This
might have happened with Hugh and his wife, but with so few records, it is
equally probable that she died, that the child or children were taken in either by
wealthy relatives or into the Church, and then Hugh was free to travel with a
clear conscience.


Another battle scene from the lavishly illustrated manuscript that depicted the
Crusades from 1096 to 1291, Les Passages d'Outremer (Journeys to Outremer).
It is also probable that, before his marriage, he went on the First Crusade
under the leadership of one of his relatives, either Raymond de Toulouse or
Godfrey de Bouillon. By his actions and behaviour, it can be deduced that Hugh
de Payns was a devout and earnest man, inspired by his noble relatives and
determined to do what he could to defend the holiest sites in Christendom. He
was also poorly educated and lacked intellectual acuity. He was doubtlessly a
good fighter and reliable, but it seems that he was also a bit dull and deliberate.
With his simplicity of mind, staunch faith and understanding of fighting, he was
an ideal choice to lead the first group of Templars. It could also be that he was
chosen to help uncover valuable secrets without really understanding their
worth.


A Templar knight ready for battle, from a stained-glass window in the Church of
St Andrew, Temple Grafton, Warwickshire, 1875.


The start of the Order
In 1118, Baldwin I died suddenly and was succeeded as King of Jerusalem by his
cousin Baldwin of Le Bourg, who became known as Baldwin II. The Patriarch
Daimbert also died that year and was succeeded by Warmund of Picardy.
Perhaps while he was in Jerusalem during 1114 and 1115, Hugh de Champagne
had devised with Baldwin I or Daimbert the plan to form a band of knights
specifically to protect pilgrims, or perhaps the king or Patriarch had asked Hugh
to leave his retinue of knights in the Holy Land for that purpose. Alternatively, it
could be that the idea was contrived between the king and Patriarch and Hugh de
Champagne several years before, perhaps when Hugh first travelled to Jerusalem
in 1104. Or it is possible that when he travelled there ten years after his first
visit, in 1114, it was with the distinct intent of organizing a protective body of
knights in Outremer, and that could have been what he meant when he declared
that he was 'taking up the gospel knighthood'. Most accounts record that the
Templars did not form until 1118, but the letter to Hugh de Champagne from the
Bishop of Chartres that referred to the 'Milice du Christ' was sent in 1114. So the
concept at least was possibly being discussed at that time. Alternatively, the
Bishop of Chartres may have been referring to a small, unofficial group of
Christians already in Outremer who were attempting to protect the holy sites
independently. The popular account written later by William of Tyre is that the
formation of the Order was solely the idea of Hugh de Payns, which seems
unlikely. According to William, Payns approached King Baldwin II and
Warmund independently in the year of their accessions with his notion of
forming a permanent and reputable brotherhood of men to protect Christians and
Christian sites in the Holy Land.
The truth might never be known. Most of the information comes from William
of Tyre's History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which he wrote in Latin between
1165 and 1184. The work is sometimes given the title 'History of Deeds Done
Beyond the Sea' (Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum) or 'History
of Jerusalem' (Historia Ierosolimitana), or simply the 'Historia'. It was translated
into French soon after William's death at the end of the 12th century, and then
into several other languages. Because it is the only account of Jerusalem in the
12th century written by someone living there, historians have often assumed that
it is impartial and objective, but it has recently been realized that William was
particularly involved in the kingdom's politics and so some of his information is
in all likelihood somewhat biased. Nonetheless, his work is important in that it
gives contemporary views on the Crusades and other related events, even though
his account of the formation of the Knights Templar was written between 45 and
65 years after he records that it happened. In his account, he asserts that the first


Templars were a group of 'noble knights' who took the three monastic vows of
chastity, poverty and obedience in 1118 and, at the same time, pledged to protect
Christians and sacred sites in Jerusalem, by force if necessary. He recorded that
the Order began when Hugh de Payns and a small group of men, including
Godfrey de St Omer and André de Montbard, were accepted by the new King
and Patriarch of Jerusalem to form a community of religious knights in the Holy
Land:
In this same year [1118] certain noble men of knightly rank, religious men,
devoted to God and fearing him, bound themselves to Christ's service in the
hands of the Lord Patriarch. They promised to live in perpetuity as regular
canons, without possessions, under vows of chastity and obedience. Their
foremost leaders were the venerable Hugh de Payns and Godfrey de St
Omer. Since they had no church nor any fixed abode, the king gave them
for a time a dwelling place in the south wing of the palace, near the Lord's
Temple. The canons of the Lord's Temple gave them, under certain
conditions, a square near the palace which the canons possessed. This the
knights used as a drill field. The Lord King and his noblemen and also the
Lord Patriarch and the prelates of the church gave them benefices from
their domains, some for a limited time and some in perpetuity. These were
to provide the knights with food and clothing. Their primary duty, one
which was enjoined upon them by the Lord Patriarch and the other bishops
for the remission of sins, was that of protecting the roads and routes against
the attacks of robbers and brigands. This they did especially in order to
safeguard pilgrims.
WILLIAM OF TYRE, THE HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM
At the end of 1119, the nine men of the group were officially given permission to
form the confraternity that would be called 'The Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Jesus
Christ'. They were also given quarters in the building that King Baldwin II had
used as a palace, the Al-Aqsa mosque. As the Christians believed it to be on the
site of the original Temple of Solomon, their name became extended to: 'The
Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Jesus Christ and the Temple of Solomon'. After being
lengthened, their title was frequently abbreviated to the far simpler Templar
Knights or Knights Templar.
There are writers other than William of Tyre who relate a slightly different
story. A scribe from the abbey of St Bertin, known only as Simon, recorded in
about 1135-7 that the first Templars were Crusaders who remained in the Holy
Land after 1099. Evidence for this is not forthcoming and, given that so many
pilgrims lost their lives in the early years after the First Crusade, this is either not
the case or those original Templars were not particularly conscientious. An


English monk, Orderic Vitalis (1075-c.1142), based at the monastery of St
Evroul in Normandy, who wrote a contemporary chronicle of 11th-and 12thcentury Normandy and England, wrote in the 1120s of the Templars, declaring
that they were 'admirable knights' who devoted their lives to the physical and
spiritual service of God and who 'face martyrdom daily'. Although he does not
describe their formation, his writing affirms that they were in operation by the
1120s. Whatever the actual timing, or whose idea it originally was, the start of
the Order remains shrouded in mystery because there is no definitive
contemporary account of its beginnings.
It is not apparent why the start of the Brotherhood is so obscure, nor why
(according to William of Tyre) only nine men were originally recruited, nor even
why that number remained the same or nearly the same for several years, despite
the desperate need for far more men to undertake such an important and onerous
task as defending the Holy Land. If nothing else, the relative safety of larger
numbers of knights on the treacherous roads outside Jerusalem would have been
crucial. Some later accounts state that the Templar numbers remained restricted
because their existence was so austere, while others assert that it was because the
few men had been specifically selected for a secret purpose. Others insist that
there were more than nine men within a short time, but the nine original men
were briefed to undertake a slightly different role. Some historians have gone so
far as to say that the nine is purely symbolic, that there were far more early
members, but that nine was used as it is a circular number: it can be divided by
three to make three, and no matter how many times it is multiplied together, the
resulting number will always be divisible by three. It might even have been
simply a round number made up by William of Tyre for tidiness in his account of
the early days of the Order.


Bernard of Clairvaux
Born on the outskirts of Dijon in Burgundy to a family of lower nobility, Bernard
de Fontaines-les-Dijon (1090-1153) became a Cistercian monk after the death of
his beloved mother. At that time, the Cistercian Order was a small, new religious
community that had been established in Citeaux Abbey near Dijon in 1098,
expressly to restore the ascetic Rule of St Benedict, which many felt had become
rather lax. A thoughtful and intelligent young man, Bernard was so impressed
with the Cistercians that he convinced four of his brothers, an uncle and 26 other
young men to join the Order with him. (In the 11th and 12th centuries, entering
the Church was a common career for at least one son or daughter of a good
family, but it is a measure of Bernard's powers of persuasion that he convinced
so many to join with him, including a married brother.)

A 1455 French illustration of Jerusalem, from the manuscript Avis Directif pour
faire le Passage d'Outremer (Information for Making the Journey to Outremer),
written in 1332 by Brocart l'Allemand.
In 1115, after just three years of being a Cistercian monk, Bernard was asked


to found a new abbey in a remote valley known as the Val d'Absinthe, not far
from Troyes. The tract of land had been given to the Cistercians by Hugh de
Champagne. Bernard took 12 other monks with him and named the new
monastery Clair Vallée, or 'Valley of Light'. The name evolved into 'Clairvaux'.
From his first days of being an abbot, Bernard imposed stringent discipline on
himself and his order. His health began to suffer and his monks objected so,
reluctantly, he softened his approach - but only slightly. Even with such a severe
regime, Clairvaux flourished and expanded rapidly. Word spread about Bernard's
persuasive and eloquent homilies and writings, and as the Cistercian Order grew,
so did his broader influence and responsibilities. He became the most
authoritative and respected monk of his time. A man of many contradictions, he
clearly displayed some extraordinary qualities as he was canonized little more
than 20 years after his death. Devout, pious and articulate, he was also
charismatic, physically attractive and volatile. While he spoke about the love of
God, he also urged Christians to fight and kill Muslims. He wrote of the
importance of humility and modesty, and he was asked to advise the popes of his
time, so he wielded great power. Pope Eugenius III (r. 1145-53) once
complained to him in a letter: 'They say that it is you who are Pope and not I.'
Bernard claimed to prefer a life of solitude, yet he was almost constantly
surrounded by many who asked for his advice or his permission, and his gentle
spirituality seemed at odds with his involvement in the often intense politics of
the Church. Through his influence, the Cistercian Order became so popular that
over his life he founded 163 new monasteries across Europe. Each was built on
his command as a plain, geometric structure, devoid of towers, painting,
sculpture or other adornments. Several of these were paid for by Hugh de
Champagne and in 1125, just before Hugh left to join the Templars in the Holy
Land, Bernard wrote to him, saying how sorry he was that the Count was going
to travel so far away to devote himself to God and that, even though it was
undoubtedly the will of the Lord, he would still miss his friend who had been so
generous to the Cistercians.
Bernard had close relationships with other reforming orders of his day, such as
the Carthusians, but he had particularly close links with the Knights Templar. A
friend of the Count of Champagne, he was allegedly distant cousins with Hugh
de Payns and the nephew of another of the original Templars, André de
Montbard. Two others in that first group of nine, known only as Rossal and
Gondemar, had been Cistercians under him. For them to transfer their
allegiances from the Cistercians to the Templars, Bernard had to give his
authorization. Apart from the Count of Champagne, all the original Templars
came from the same background as Bernard, that is, of the lower nobility, and


they all grew up in the Champagne region of France.
A devoutly religious man such as Bernard and many of his contemporaries
would not have been as shocked at the idea of fighting monks as might be
imagined. Since the fifth century when Augustine of Hippo had described the
four conditions that could lead to a 'just war' by Christians, and even more
recently since the First Crusade, the idea of religious men fighting to protect
other Christians had become popular. In recent decades in Europe, several
groups of lower nobles had banded together and provided themselves with their
own (expensive) military equipment, including chain-mail, armour, helmet,
shield, sword, lance and a horse (also with armour). These groups of selfappointed knights came together with the aim of protecting churches and
monasteries against criminals in their own countries. Several of these groups
joined the First Crusade together. Most of these confraternities did not have
official recognition, although they usually sought the blessing of a priest before
they set off. This could have been Hugh de Champagne's arrangement when he
travelled to the Holy Land with his group of knights in 1114.
Bernard and the banishment of art

St Bernard of Clairvaux and the Cistercian monks taking possession of the
Abbey of Clairvaux, this illustration was created by Paul Lacroix (1806-84)
for a book, Military and Religious Life in the Middle Ages, published


c.1880.
At the time that Bernard joined the Cistercians, monks at Cîteaux
Abbey had developed the most advanced style of manuscript
illumination in France. Bernard believed that superfluous
ornamentation distracted from religious life and insisted that cistercian
architecture was plain and utilitarian, and imagery limited. He was
vehemently opposed to any superfluous adornment and his angry
letters condemning figurative art and decoration resulted in painting
and embellishment being banned altogether in 1154, the year of his
death. This is an excerpt from one of his furious writings on the
subject:
... what profit is there in those ridiculous monsters, in that marvellous
and deformed comeliness, that comely deformity? To what purpose are
those unclean apes, those fierce lions, those monstrous centaurs, those
half men, those striped tigers, those fighting knights, those hunters
winding their horns? ... In short, so many and so marvellous are the
varieties of divers shapes on every hand, that we are more tempted to
read in the marble than in our books, and to spend the whole day in
wondering at these things rather than in meditating the law of God. For
God's sake, if men are not ashamed of these follies, why at least do
they not shrink from the expense?
Under Bernard's instruction, cistercian architecture was extremely
simple, logical and balanced, with no excess ornamentation.


The Council of Nablus
An order of monks with a distinct purpose beyond simple devotion to God had
already been set up in Jerusalem before the Order of the Knights Templar was
formed. The Knights Hospitaller, or the Order of the Knights of Saint John the
Hospitaller, had been officially established by the Pope in 1113 as a religious
order specifically to help sick pilgrims in a new infirmary near the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre. The Hospitallers were later called to help protect pilgrims in a
more soldierly way, but the Knights Templar was the first specifically military
order to be founded by the Catholic Church. In 1120, the Templars received
official Church recognition at the Council of Nablus - although this was Church
recognition only in Outremer and not in all of Christendom.
The Council of Nablus was an oddity by Western standards. It was a religious
council but it included as many lay people as ecclesiastical. This was probably
because it was in the Holy Land where the population remained small. The
Council was held in Jerusalem to establish the first written laws for the kingdom
after the Crusade. Convened by Patriarch Warmund and King Baldwin II, it
established 25 rules to deal with both religious and secular affairs. Sixty years
later, William of Tyre wrote about it, including why it convened and its official
recognition of the Templars, but he did not record any of the canons, as there
was a deliberate effort to make Christian-ruled Outremer appear faultless.
Nevertheless, the Council of Nablus gives us a date for the Templars' acceptance
as respected representatives of the Church in the Holy Land, with this - not
particularly specific - canon: 'If a cleric takes up arms in the cause of defence,
he is not held to be guilty.'


King Baldwin II of Jerusalem
After taking part in the First Crusade under the leadership of his cousin, Godfrey
de Bouillon, Baldwin of Le Bourg remained in the Holy Land. In 1118, he shot
to power as King of Jerusalem, mainly just because he was there. The son of
Hugh I, Count of Rethel and his wife Melisende, Baldwin had two younger
brothers, Gervaise and Manasses, and two sisters, Matilda and Hodierna. In
1101, before he became king, Baldwin married Princess Morphia, the daughter
of the Armenian prince Gabriel of Melitene. By all accounts, Baldwin was brave
and amenable, and he made great efforts to assimilate with the people he now
lived among; unlike his more arrogant predecessors. He was also more forwardthinking than many of his contemporaries. When he and Morphia had only
daughters and no sons, he saw no reason why his eldest daughter should not
inherit his lands and named her his successor. He also inherited numerous
problems. After the massacre in Jerusalem at the end of the First Crusade, the
city was underpopulated. Pilgrims were visiting, but few Christians chose to live
there permanently. Baldwin set about encouraging any Christians, Syrians,
Greeks or Armenians to settle and trade there. He also intended to address the
issue of the attacks on pilgrims beyond the city walls. At the time of his
accession, pilgrims were the only people bringing money into Jerusalem, so it
was important that they still came to the Holy City. One year after he became
King of Jerusalem, however, the ruler of Antioch was killed in battle. As the
Count of Antioch's heir was only 11 years old, Baldwin assumed responsibility
until the boy was old enough. So whether it was his idea, the idea of Hugh de
Champagne, or as William of Tyre states, the idea of Hugh de Payns, Baldwin
was delighted to pass on one of his heavy responsibilities to the new order of
religious knights.


This illuminated manuscript written by William of Tyre recalls Baldwin II of
Jerusalem's death in 1131. The second count of Edessa and the third king of
Jerusalem, Baldwin was highly respected by all, and described by William as 'a
devout and God-fearing man, notable for his loyalty and for his great experience
in military matters'. Here, the citizens of Edessa pay their respects at Baldwin
II's funeral.


Two sacred sites
On Christmas Day 1119, Hugh de Payns, Godfrey de St Omer, André de
Montbard, Payen de Montdidier, Archambaud de St Agnan, Geoffrey Bisol, the
two former Cistercians recorded simply as Rossal and Gondemar, and one other,
who many believe was Hugh, the Count of Champagne, knelt before King
Baldwin II and the Patriarch Warmund and made their vows of poverty, chastity
and obedience in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. This church
had been rebuilt at great expense in 1048 by the Byzantine Emperor Constantine
IX and his Patriarch Nicephorus, despite Jerusalem being in the hands of the
Muslims at the time. The rebuilding was only allowed after some intense
negotiations between the Byzantines and the Arabs. In order for it to go ahead,
among other things, the Byzantines had agreed to opening a mosque in
Constantinople and to the release of 5,000 Muslim prisoners.
The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was of particular religious importance to
Christians. Constructed over two sites, it is revered by all Christians as being on
Golgotha, the Hill of Calvary, where, according to the New Testament, Jesus was
crucified and where he was subsequently buried and rose again. The church had
originally been built by the first Christian Roman Emperor Constantine in about
326. The location was extremely important for pilgrims and it was one of Pope
Urban II's greatest concerns when he called for the First Crusade, as the Seljuk
Turks were destroying all churches in lands they overran. It was one of the
jewels of Jerusalem that the Christians wanted to preserve. Every Crusader
prayed at the Holy Sepulchre before returning to Europe, and significantly, the
first Templars swore their monastic vows there. It is possible too that, after the
first Crusade, the earliest Templars remained based in the Holy Sepulchre as
guardians of the building. Godfrey de Bouillon, when accepting the position of
first ruler, had taken the name 'Defender of the Holy Sepulchre' rather than
'King of Jerusalem'. William of Tyre wrote about further renovations that were
made to the Holy Sepulchre in the mid-12th century, soon after the Templars'
formal acceptance at the Council of Nablus.


THE TEMPLE OF SOLOMON

An icon of King Solomon, part of a 1497 painting from Dormition Church, St
Cyril's Monastery of Belozersk, Russia. Solomon was revered for maintaining
peace between the newly reunited kingdoms of Israel and Judah.
Some of the most enduring legends surrounding the Knights Templar
revolve around the location of their first headquarters, believed by many at
the time to be the Temple of Solomon. From the time they moved into the
Al-Aqsa mosque, stories began emerging about their activities inside the
building.
After making their vows, the nine knights returned to the quarters they had been
given in the mosque that had been renamed the Templum Salomonis under
Christian occupation. This was as sacred to Christians as the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre, because it was assumed that it stood on the site of Solomon's original
Temple. It was of course the Al-Aqsa mosque, which had been built soon after
674, possibly on the site of a Byzantine church. It was also adjacent to the Dome
of the Rock, which was most probably built on the actual site of Solomon's


Temple. The entire area is known as 'Temple Mount', a huge platform on a hill,
and the lodgings given to the Templars were large enough to contain them and to
stable their horses in a vast underground space. Once they were installed,
Baldwin II, his nobles, and Warmund and his priests gave the Templars a small
income so that they could buy basic food, clothing and feed for their horses. For
the first few years of their existence, they were completely reliant on the
benevolence of others.
One of the most enduring legends surrounding the Knights Templar revolves
around the location of these first headquarters: the Temple of Solomon. From the
time they moved into the Al-Aqsa mosque, stories began emerging about their
activities inside the building. It is reported that the Templars were taciturn,
which fuelled speculation about their clandestine activities, but they were
probably no different to other religious orders, and they were undoubtedly busy
setting up their organization and aiming for papal approval. As monks, they
would almost certainly have been advised to refrain from mingling with the
outside world, so this was nothing unusual. The fact that the site of the Temple
of Solomon is so important in Jewish, Christian and Muslim beliefs added to
people's fascination about what they might be doing there. They clearly
considered their base to be of great significance, which is why they incorporated
Solomon's name into their own, as unlike their vows of poverty, chastity and
obedience, Solomon was rich, had many wives and was an unconventional ruler.
As one of the most contested religious locations in the world, Temple Mount
has a remarkably busy and varied history. In Jewish and Christian belief, it was
where God gathered earth to create Adam; where Cain, Abel and Noah offered
sacrifices to God; where Jacob slept when he dreamt of angels; where Abraham
almost sacrificed his son Isaac and where King David set up an altar to God. In
Christian teaching, it was the place from which Jesus chased off moneychangers, while Muslims believe it was from there that the Prophet Muhammad
ascended on his Night Journey to heaven.
During their occupation, the Templars spent a great deal of time excavating
beneath Temple Mount, and it is widely alleged that they found something of
great significance there. While not conclusive, ideas about what this could have
been range from lost religious texts to holy relics, variously claimed to have
been: the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, a fragment of the Holy Lance or
Holy Spear, the 'True Cross', secret information relating to lost building skills,
and even legacies about Jesus. The hypotheses about what this could have been
are fuelled by the many mystical stories that have emerged about Solomon
himself.
Mystic, wise man, architect, king


The legendary lost temple built by King Solomon and from which the Templars
derived their full name was the first permanent temple in the history of the Jews.
Before it was built, the nomadic Jews worshipped in tents and tabernacles, which
they carried with them as they travelled. Then King David, the second king of
the Jews (after Saul) made Jerusalem the nation's capital and determined to build
a permanent house for God where everyone could pray. David had unified Israel
and built up the military, the treasury and national pride. He conquered all
surrounding enemies and established an extremely powerful empire. But because
he had fought and killed so many in battle, God would not allow him to build the
temple. In the First Book of Chronicles, David reports:
But the word of the Lord came to me, saying, 'You have shed much blood
and have waged great wars; you shall not build a house to my name,
because you have shed so much blood in my sight on the earth.
1 CHRONICLES 22:8
Because of the foundations that David had laid down, his son and successor,
Solomon, never had to fight a war, so God permitted him to follow his father's
instructions. In approximately 957 BCE, using the site David had selected,
Solomon built the Temple. Originally built to house the Ark of the Covenant
which contained the stone tablets of the Ten Commandments given by Moses to
the Jews, the Temple of Solomon has always been especially revered by the
Jewish people. Although it no longer remains, the legendary building has
captured the collective imagination probably more than any other structure in the
world.
But Solomon is a problem for historians. Apart from the Bible, the Qur'an and
the Talmud (Jewish law, ethics, customs, philosophy and history), there is almost
no mention of him or proof that he even existed. For centuries it was thought that
he lived during the Iron Age. Yet archaeologists have not been able to find
evidence of his life from that period and, crucially, nothing of his impressive
building projects relating to that time. If, however, he lived during the Bronze
Age, then substantiation could be more forthcoming as the remains of
Phoenician-style architecture have been found in areas associated with his life.
Several historians have worked out that he probably did exist and that his dates
were c.961-922 BCE. There are so many legends about him that the stories have
become intertwined and it is difficult to unravel authenticity from falsehood. For
instance, the 17th-century textbook of magic The Goetia: The Lesser Key of
Solomon, which developed from medieval books about magic, suggests that
Solomon was alive during the 10th century BCE, or the late Bronze Age.
Although the author of The Goetia is anonymous, the text asserts that it was
originally written by King Solomon, although this has been proved to be untrue.


The book is essentially a manual that claims to give instructions for summoning
72 different spirits in particular, the spirits that Solomon is said to have evoked
and confined in his bronze vessel. Respected figures such as Sir Isaac Newton
(1643-1727) believed wholly in the notion of Solomon being a magician. What
this means now is clearly not what it has meant to those living in past eras.
Certain legends describe him as having a flying carpet that could travel so fast
that it could get from Damascus to Medina within a day. Clearly some of these
concepts are not to be taken literally, but it is possible that Solomon understood
various things that many others of his time did not. According to the Talmud,
Solomon understood the mysteries of the Qabbalah. He was also believed to be
an alchemist and to understand the power of the spirit world. It was said that he
could control demons and spirits. A Roman-Jewish historian, Titus Flavius
Josephus (37-c.100 CE) wrote, in his Eighth Book of the Antiquities of the Jews
(c.94) of the magical works ascribed to Solomon, for example:
Now so great was the prudence and wisdom which God granted Solomon
that he surpassed the ancients, and even the Egyptians ... He composed a
thousand and five books of odes and songs, and three thousand books of
parables and similitudes, for he spoke a parable about every kind of tree
from the hyssop to the cedar ... There was no form of nature with which he
was not acquainted or which he passed over without examining, but he
studied them all philosophically and revealed the most complete knowledge
of their several properties. And God granted him knowledge of the art used
against demons for the benefit and healing of men ...
Solomon (pronounced Suleiman in the Qur'an) is legendary for several things,
but most of all for his great wisdom. In both the Jewish Talmud and the Muslim
Qur'an, he is an important prophet. Over his 40-year reign, he built on and
consolidated his father's achievements: expanding trade and political contacts,
weakening tribal affiliations, building a powerful army and fleet, and engaging
in an extensive building programme, which included, predominantly, his palace
and Temple. Because he was such a powerful figure, the Egyptian Pharaoh gave
Solomon his daughter as a bride (one of his many foreign wives, but clearly an
important one).
Solomon is the hero of many tales, most of them based on his great wisdom
and sound judgements, but some refer more specifically to his mystical powers.
According to Manly P. Hall in his encyclopaedia of 1928, The Secret Teachings
of All Ages, the name Solomon means 'Light, Glory and Truth'. Hall writes that
medieval alchemists were convinced that Solomon understood 'the secret
processes of Hermes by means of which is was possible to multiply metals'. This
could be one of the factors that gave him the reputation of possessing great


wisdom. In the Bible, after becoming King of Israel and Judah, Solomon has a
dream in which God asks him if there is anything he desires. Instead of saying
wealth, a powerful army or long life, as many rulers would have done, Solomon
asked for wisdom. This pleased God who immediately granted his request, and
to show his approval, also bestowed riches upon him. The Bible relates that
Solomon's wisdom was so great that people came from distant nations to hear
his advice. The Queen of Sheba was possibly the most famous of these. It is
recorded that she travelled with a train of attendants, carrying much wealth, from
southwestern Arabia, to test this great wisdom.

The Judgement of Solomon, Peter Paul Rubens, c.1617, relays the story of
Solomon's sagacity when two prostitutes both claimed motherhood of one child.
Solomon ordered the child to be cut in two so that the women could share it.
When one woman gave up her half to save the child's life, the real mother was
revealed.
As well as possessing wisdom, the Bible says that Solomon composed 3,000
proverbs and 1,005 songs. In the Qur'an, Suleiman is described as being in
communion with nature and also with the spirit world. He commands the spirits
or jinn (spirits of Arabian folklore) to build his temple. Both Jewish and Islamic
histories record him as being a unique figure, possessing extraordinary powers
and a personality that demonstrates fortitude and charisma. In several
Qabbalistic legends he is portrayed as being both magical and mystical. For
instance, the Seal of Solomon, a device he allegedly wore on a signet ring, is
said to have come to him from heaven. Consisting of two overlapping triangles,


one pointing up, the other pointing down, inside two concentric circles with the
words 'the most great God' inscribed within, the seal has been credited with
various qualities. The ring itself was purportedly made of brass and iron: the
brass part enabled him to call upon good spirits, while the iron part allowed him
to evoke bad spirits. This legend was especially developed by Arabic writers,
who wrote that he also received four jewels from four different angels, and that
he set them in his ring which enabled him to control the four elements of earth,
wind, fire and water. In Islamic legends, the six-pointed star that these two
triangles made was used to symbolize Suleiman's God-given powers, but once
the Jews began using it as the Star of David, Muslims reverted to the fivepointed star.
Solomon's genie
A Thousand and One Nights is a collection of ancient stories and folk
tales written in Arabic, and often called The Arabian Nights after the
first English translation in 1706. Collected over centuries by various
writers and scholars, the tales can be traced back to ancient and
medieval Arabic, Persian, Indian, Egyptian and Mesopotamian
traditions. In one of the stories, a genie - or jinn - had angered King
Solomon who had punished him by shutting him in a bottle and then
throwing it into the sea. As the bottle was closed with Solomon's seal,
the genie could never free himself. Five centuries later, a poor
fisherman found the bottle in his net and noticed the mark of King
Solomon. He opened the bottle easily and the genie emerged, furious
at having been trapped inside for so long. On seeing the fisherman, he
angrily declared that he had made up his mind to kill whoever released
him. Thinking quickly, the fisherman said he could not believe that
such a large genie could fit into so small a bottle, to which the genie
replied: 'I'll show you!' As he disappeared back into the bottle, the
fisherman quickly replaced the top and threw it back into the sea.


A late 19th-century illustration of the story of the fisherman and the genie,
from A Thousand and One Nights.


Temple of Kings
Until David's reign, the Jews had been nomadic people, with no tradition of
building for permanence. Taking into account that Biblical numbers are often
symbolic, the Book of Kings and the Second Book of Chronicles records that
Solomon employed an immense amount of labour over the seven and a half
years it took to build the Temple. This included 30,000 Israelites divided into
groups of 10,000 working in shifts, cutting wood in Lebanon, then transporting
and building with it. He employed 80,000 more to quarry stone, and a further
70,000 to carry the stone to the site and construct the Temple. There were 3,300
supervisors overseeing the work. The completed building was described as a
rectangular stone structure of three storeys, divided into three sections: the
portico, the main sanctuary and the inner sanctuary, and measuring 60 cubits
long, 20 cubits wide and 30 cubits high. Although these measurements are no
longer precisely understood, it is believed that this translates to approximately 30
metres (99 feet) long, 10 metres (33 feet) wide and 15 metres (49 feet) high.
Further rooms were built around the outside walls of the Temple. Despite the
simple structure, it was decorated inside and out with lavish opulence. The inner
sanctuary, which was known as the Holy of Holies, housed the Ark of the
Covenant. It was panelled with cedar of Lebanon, overlaid with gold and
encrusted with jewels. It also contained two huge cherubim made of olive-wood,
signifying the zodiac, each with outspread wings of 10 cubits span
(approximately 5 metres or 16 feet), which touched the walls on either side and
met in the centre of the room. A veil of blue, purple and crimson swathed the
room, denoting the meeting of heaven and earth. On the altar was a golden
candlestick with seven holders, corresponding to the sun, the moon and the five
major planets. Only the High Priest could enter the Holy of Holies, and even
then only on certain days of the year.


This relief from the palace of King Sargon II in Khorsabad (now Dur Sharrukin,
Iraq) shows boats transporting cedar wood, as Solomon's workers did from
Lebanon to Jerusalem.
In the porch were two huge pillars, made of copper, brass or bronze that were
named Boaz (meaning 'strength') and Jachin (meaning 'God establishes'). Their
capitals were decorated with carved pomegranates (symbolizing the Jewish
people, fruitfulness and hope), and lilies (the eternity of heaven). It is believed
that the pillars were made and placed to mark the sun's furthest risings at the
solstices, and through their proportions, positions and ornamentation, they
represented the spiritual, material and cosmic worlds. An even more astonishing
feature is described in 1 Kings 7, and 2 Chronicles 4, as a large basin filled with
a molten bronze (or brass) sea, and in the Qur'an as a 'fountain of molten brass'
made specifically for the priests' ablutions:
Then he made the cast sea; it was round, ten cubits from brim to brim, and
five cubits high. A line of thirty cubits would encircle it completely. Under
its brim were panels all round it, each of ten cubits, surrounding the sea;
there were two rows of panels, cast when it was cast. It stood on twelve
oxen, three facing north, three facing west, three facing south, and three
facing east; the sea was set on them. The hindquarters of each were towards


the inside. Its thickness was a hand-breadth; its brim was made like the
brim of a cup, like the flower of a lily; it held two thousand baths.
1 KINGS 7:23-6

Illustration of the Temple of Solomon from the Historia Scholastica, c.1100-80,
featuring numerous sacred symbols, including the seven-branched gold
candelabra, the menorah; an olive branch, symbolising the fresh oil that was
burned daily in the temple lamps; the shofar, a ram's horn, blown during certain
services; and the Torah, or written Jewish law.


Made in c.1075, this fresco of King Solomon is in the church of Sant'Angelo in
Formis in Capua, Italy. The detailed patterning on his clothing indicates his
significance, as Solomon remains an important figure in Judaism, Christianity
and Islam.
Most of these spectacular features were produced by methods that were
advanced for the time, including smelting, a practice closely associated with
alchemy in the ancient mind, while the dyes used in the veil and other Temple
fabrics were exceptionally rare. The Temple also allegedly contained thousands
of ornately carved columns and pilasters made of pure white Parian marble,
quarried on the Greek island of Paros. It was a wonder when it was built, and the
impact of its magnificence did not seem to diminish over the centuries it stood.
In another unique and advanced feat, every component of the entire Temple was
pre-prepared before being transported to Jerusalem. Whether made of stone,
wood or metal, every element was cut, shaped, constructed and numbered, and
then taken to Temple Mount, where it was fitted into its correct place by means
of wooden mauls. There was no loud hammering or sawing on the site as this


incredible house of God was constructed. 'The house was built with stone
finished at the quarry, so that neither hammer nor axe nor any tool of iron was
heard in the temple while it was being built' (1 Kings 6:7).
Magical dye
The dyes used on the veil in the Temple were red, blue and purple. The
red was extracted from the blood of beetles and the blue and purple
dyes were extracted from sea snails. This dye is believed to have
originally been produced by the ancient Phoenicians (the Phoenicians
were a race who lived at the eastern end of the Mediterranean and who
became an important society between 900 and 700 BCE). The red, blue
and purple dyes were highly valued and Tyrian purple in particular was
prized as it did not fade but grew more intense over time, even if
exposed to sunlight. Extracted from the glands of particular sea snails
that are found in the eastern Mediterranean, it was extremely costly to
produce. This meant that few 'ordinary' people had seen such colours
on fabrics, so when they were used in Solomon's Temple they were
talked about with wonder, as if they were substances acquired by
magic or from God.


Hiram Abiff
According to Masonic legend, as there were no architects in Judea, Solomon
employed a man called Hiram Abiff from Tyre as his chief architect. Yet the
name Hiram Abiff is not found in the Scriptures. In Freemasonry, however, in
the section of the master mason's ritual called The Legend of the Third Degree,
three central characters are connected with the building of Solomon's Temple.
They are: King Solomon, King Hiram of Tyre, and Hiram Abiff. King Solomon
and King Hiram of Tyre are mentioned many times in the Old Testament. As
Egypt had lessened in importance, Tyre, an ancient city on the Mediterranean
coast of Lebanon, had gained strength and independence. It had increased its
trading fleet and established commercial colonies in Sicily and North Africa. In
exchange for wheat and oil, King Hiram provided Solomon with cedar wood and
craftsmen to panel the interior and exterior of his Temple with wood and gold.
Perhaps he also provided Hiram Abiff. With no clear mention of him in the
Bible, the closest references seem to be in the Second Book of Chronicles and
the First Book of Kings:
I have dispatched Huram-Abi, a skilled artisan endowed with
understanding, the son of one of the Danite women, his father a Tyrian. He
is trained to work in gold, silver, bronze, iron, stone and wood, and in
purple, blue and crimson fabrics and fine linen, and to do all sorts of
engraving and execute any design that may be assigned him, with your
artisans.
2 CHRONICLES 2:13-14
Hiram is also introduced in the First Book of Kings:
Now King Solomon invited and received Hiram from Tyre. He was the son
of a widow of the tribe of Naphtali, whose father, a man of Tyre, had been
an artisan in bronze; he was full of skill, intelligence and knowledge in
working bronze. He came to King Solomon, and did all his work.
1 KINGS 7:13-14
Huram (in the Second Book of Chronicles) is a variant of Hiram and it can be
seen how, through various translations, Freemasonry could have ended up with
the name Hiram Abi-ff, also sometimes spelled Abif or even Chiram Abiff. The
two passages above describe Huram-Abi or Hiram as an exceptionally
accomplished workman and artisan. Someone of his ability would not usually be
an architect as well, but it would be possible. He may have been one of the 3,300
supervisors on Solomon's Temple, or he may possibly have indeed been the
chief architect. Although magnificently ornamented, the dimensions and layout
of the building were not complex, so it might be that this one extremely


proficient worker oversaw the architecture as well as the decoration. There was a
far greater tradition of building in Tyre than in Jerusalem and there were many
similarities between the Temple of Melqart in Tyre and Solomon's Temple in
Jerusalem. It seems that Melqart's Temple was possibly used as a prototype for
Solomon's Temple and it is feasible that Hiram of Tyre could have worked
substantially on the Temple of Melqart before working in Jerusalem for
Solomon.
Yet scholars continue to debate the existence and importance of Hiram of
Tyre. The main issue is not whether he existed, but whether he worked alone as
master architect of the project, or whether he was simply one of several artisans.
In his Discourse of 1737, Andrew Michael Ramsay (1686-1743), one of the first
Freemasons, declared that Solomon recorded magical knowledge in a secret
book which was later laid in the foundations of the Second Temple. In Masonic
legend, three men kidnapped Hiram Abiff and threatened him with death if he
did not disclose the secrets he held about the building of Solomon's Temple.
When Hiram refused to reveal his knowledge, his assailants murdered him. If
they existed, were these the secrets contained in Solomon's book? How did
Solomon know Hiram's secrets? Was the book explaining these secrets found by
the Templars in the foundations under Temple Mount? Or did they discover the
secrets in some other way?
As far as we know, Hiram Abiff's secrets have never been revealed. And
Solomon's book, if it existed, has never come to light. But from descriptions of
Solomon's Temple, the secrets could have been lost methods of construction,
order and ratio that originated from ancient Greek (Pythagorean) and ancient
Jewish (Qabbalistic) systems of numbers and letters, as well as from various
philosophies of other ancient peoples, including the Egyptians, Chaldeans and
Brahmins. There were certainly multifaceted, mythical and mystical traditions
built into the fabric of the Temple. As with most legends, many subsequent
layers, theories and speculations have made uncovering the truth extremely
difficult. Hiram Abiff might be significant or he might not. If the account of his
attack and murder is true, the secrets he would not reveal might have been the
smelting techniques used for the brass fountain, dyes and dyeing techniques, or
other advanced methods of production that most masons knew nothing of.
Comparisons with Hiram's story and the Egyptian god Osiris can be drawn and
links have been made connecting this legend with Jacques de Molay, the last
Templar Grand Master, who died maintaining his innocence and refusing to
divulge the Order's secrets. Then again, the story of Hiram Abiff could be an
allegory; an illustration of the power of secrecy and of honouring a commitment.


An impression of Solomon's palace and Temple, made in Italy in the 20th
century, by an unknown artist.


The Temple site
The Temple was only one of the major buildings that Solomon constructed on
Temple Mount. Adjacent to it, over 13 years, he built a magnificent palace made
predominantly of cedar of Lebanon. As well as his dwelling, the palace served as
an armoury and treasury. He also built a judgement hall and a palace for the
daughter of the Egyptian Pharaoh, one of the most important of his 700 wives.
Nearly four centuries after Solomon had built the Temple, however, King
Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon destroyed it, in August 586 BCE. A Second Temple
was started in 520 BCE and later vastly enlarged by Herod (c.74-4 BCE), while he
ruled the Jews on behalf of the Roman Empire. The location of this Second
Temple was identified by those who ordered its construction, and by many since,
as the site of the original Temple of Solomon. This Second Temple was
destroyed during the First Jewish Revolt against the Romans, which broke out in
66 CE. When the Roman Emperor Titus finally crushed the insurrection four
years later, the Second Temple was accidentally destroyed by fire. Over 600
years later, in 691 CE, the Sunni Umayyad Caliph Abd al-Malik ordered a shrine
to be built on the site, to honour Muhammad's Night Journey to heaven. The
shrine was called Qubbat Al-Sakhra, or the Dome of the Rock, while the AlAqsa mosque, which meant 'The Furthest Mosque' as it marked the furthest
point from the place where Muhammad ascended to Paradise, was built next to it
by 715. The site is the third holiest place in Sunni Islam. After two earthquakes
destroyed the original Al-Aqsa mosque, in 1035 the Fatimid Caliph Ali az-Zahir
built another, which was the one used by the Templars and which still stands
today. Unlike the Dome of the Rock, which reflects the Byzantine architecture of
the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, the Al-Aqsa features many characteristics of
Islamic architecture, including elaborate enamel-work decoration. The dome of
the mosque was originally made of ribbed lead sheeting that glinted silver in the
sun. (The lead from 691 remained, but by 1965 it had deteriorated, so it was
replaced with a gold-coloured aluminium bronze alloy covering. After this
rusted, in 1993, the covering of the roof was replaced with gold.)
In 1869, a year after the American author Mark Twain (1835-1910) had
travelled to Jerusalem, he published a compilation of letters he had written called
The Innocents Abroad. He believed that the mosque was made from the pieces
left over from the First and Second Temples:
Everywhere about the Mosque of Omar are portions of pillars, curiously
wrought altars, and fragments of elegantly carved marble - precious
remains of Solomon's Temple. These have been dug from all depths in the
soil and rubbish of Mount Moriah, and the Muslims have always shown a
disposition to preserve them with the utmost care.


At the end of the 11th century, 770 years before these observations, when the
Crusaders conquered Jerusalem, they aimed to restore all the places featured in
the Bible as holy sites. Along with the Holy Sepulchre, Temple Mount was the
most important as the spot upon which the First and Second Temples were built.
To demonstrate its importance to them, relatively early in their existence, an
illustration of Solomon's Temple was featured on the back of Templar Grand
Masters' official seals.

The official Knights Templar seal, showing Solomon's Temple on the back.


Templar tunnels
Baldwin II was the first Crusader king to live in the Al-Aqsa mosque on Temple
Mount, but because he had to spend so much time in Antioch, he neglected it.
When the Templars moved in, little had been done to modernize it or simply to
make it habitable. So after they had been assigned an area within it, they began
restoring the building, constructing quarters suitable for their purpose. Over the
70 or so years of their occupation, they expanded the site, adding an apse,
cloisters, a church, offices and living accommodation, as well as vaulted annexes
to the east and west. They used the extensive vaults beneath the building as
stabling for their horses and, although the Muslim dynasty of the Fatimids had
cleared out these underground chambers when they occupied Jerusalem during
the 10th and 11th centuries, the Templars undertook further investigations even
deeper within the foundations.
Although the early existence of the Order is vague and William of Tyre
recorded that there were only nine knights for some considerable time, in
approximately 1170, a Jewish traveller, Benjamin of Tudela (1130-73), recorded
that 300 knights lived in the Temple of Solomon 'who issue therefrom everyday
for military exercise'. Almost two decades later, the Muslim chronicler Imad adDin (1125-1201) wrote that after Saladin conquered Jerusalem in 1187, he
ordered every trace of Templar building on Temple Mount to be removed.
In 1867, a team of British Royal Engineers, led by a Captain Wilson and
Lieutenant Warren, investigated beneath the Al Aqsa mosque. They found a
vertical shaft through solid rock, approximately 25 metres (80 feet) deep,
reaching down to a system of tunnels that radiated out under the Dome of the
Rock. In the tunnels, the investigators found various indications of Templar
occupation, including the remains of a lance, part of a Templar sword, a spur and
a small Templar cross. This discovery inspires more questions than it answers.
As they built the tunnels so precisely, did the Templars have a purpose, or know
what they were looking for? Were they given their quarters in the Al-Aqsa
mosque with the express purpose of digging beneath it? Was the Order
established purely for this, rather than their well-publicized undertaking of
protecting pilgrims? For what other function could the tunnels have been built?
And if they were seeking something, did they find it?
Archaeological investigations on Temple Mount
Over the last couple of centuries, although there have been some
archaeological excavations at Temple Mount, most have been stopped
or prevented. The expedition undertaken by the British Royal
Engineers in 1867 was sponsored by Queen Victoria, and although it


was restricted because of the religious sensitivities about the location,
the men cleared the site of the extensive filth, rubbish and debris that
had accumulated over the years. They exposed ancient walls and
several architectural surprises, but no mystical secrets. Since 1967,
when Israel took over control of the Old City, some archaeological
excavations have been organized by Israel and the Waqf, the Muslim
authority in charge of the Al-Aqsa mosque. But there have been few of
these and they have almost always been stopped early as they have
sparked angry demonstrations by those who feel that the holiness of
the site means that it should not be tampered with.


Relics
During the Middle Ages, relics became particularly important aspects of
Christian worship. The physical remains of a holy person, their belongings or
other objects closely linked to their lives were believed to have spiritual powers
and were revered as a direct spiritual link or accession to God. Stimulated by the
Christian belief in the afterlife and the resurrection, in the immortality of the
soul, and in the role of saints interceding for humans in heaven, this worship of
relics generated fierce controversies within the Church. Such worship gave rise
to various feasts, shrines and pilgrimages. Buying, selling and even stealing
bodies or parts of bodies became common. Relics were rarely verified as this
would be almost impossible at that time, but it meant that there were often
multiple versions of one object, such as several Holy Lances, for instance. Even
worse, the stealing of relics from churches became a problem as monasteries and
cathedrals sought to obtain the most highly prized objects. The most prestigious
relics were those associated with Christ and the Virgin Mary, but because they
had both ascended to heaven, this posed a problem as there were no human
remains to claim. So the most valued relics soon included such things as the
baby teeth of Jesus, a phial of his blood, the nails or wood from the Cross, the
Virgin's milk or remnants of her veil. Considered priceless, all relics were
usually stored and displayed in highly crafted reliquaries that were invariably
covered in gold, silver, enamel and semi-precious stones. Devout Christians
could see and worship some of these relics for a fee, while others were sold by
merchants to private individuals, usually at extortionate prices. Religious
communities came to rely on the income they generated through charging the
faithful to visit their relics. Meanwhile, 'relic merchants' often travelled along
pilgrims' routes, preying on those who were keen to do all they could to save
their souls and charging them for the honour of praying in front of the relics they
carried. Charlatans began robbing graves for human bones to sell as the relics of
saints, and 'relics' brought back from the Crusades were especially revered.
Although the veneration of relics was not directly called for by God or explicitly
practised in the Bible, certain biblical passages were interpreted as indications
that this was part of Christian belief, such as:
As a man was being buried, a marauding band was seen and the man was
thrown into the grave of Elisha; as soon as the man touched the bones of
Elisha, he came to life and stood on his feet.
2 KINGS 13:21
Then suddenly a woman who had been suffering from haemorrhages for
twelve years came up behind him and touched the fringe of his cloak, for


she said to herself, 'If I only touch his cloak, I will be made well.' Jesus
turned, and seeing her he said, 'Take heart, daughter; your faith has made
you well.' And instantly the woman was made well.
MATTHEW 9:20-22
God did extraordinary miracles through Paul, so that when the
handkerchiefs or aprons that had touched his skin were brought to the sick,
their diseases left them, and the evil spirits came out of them.
ACTS 19:11-12
In the early 12th century, it is highly likely that King Baldwin II, Patriarch
Warmund, Hugh de Champagne and Bernard of Clairvaux would all have been
interested in obtaining relics from Jerusalem and any of them may have briefed
the Templars to search in the holiest sites for the most sacred relics they could
find. It may be that well-educated men such as these had heard of possible
locations or where certain relics or secrets could be found. So the Templars
could have been specifically searching for lost religious texts, objects or bones,
or targeting certain objects, following requests or orders from others.
Priceless rubble
A news story reported by various sources, including The Israel
National News, tells of rubble from Temple Mount that is being
investigated by archaeologists. Starting in November 1999, the Islamic
Waqf conducted a construction project on Temple Mount, removing
vast amounts of rubble, which they dumped in the Kidron Valley.
Since 2004, Israeli archaeologists have been working on the rubble,
sifting through it painstakingly to ascertain more about the history of
Temple Mount. The many artefacts they have found there have
included such things as: coins from the Jewish revolt against the
Romans that resulted in the destruction of the Second Temple; pottery
and a figurine from the period of the First Temple; ceramic oil lamps
from the Second Temple period and a Crusader arrowhead. These, and
the many other items that have been found so far, are beginning to
establish a clearer picture about the history of the site, but they also
tellingly demonstrate that there were many artefacts from all
significant historical periods present when the Templars were living
there.


The Dome of the Rock on Temple Mount in Jerusalem.


The Ark of the Covenant
One of the most legendary objects in history, the Ark of the Covenant has
inspired perhaps more conjecture than any other biblical artefact. As soon as he
had established the city's safety for his people, King David took the Ark to
Jerusalem. A wooden box overlaid with pure gold, large enough to contain the
stone tablets inscribed with the Ten Commandments, the Ark had been passed
down to him for safekeeping and was believed by many to have supernatural
powers. Accounts abounded of it bringing victory in battle, bestowing blessings
on the worthy, and sending plagues to enemies, although it was not usually seen
as a kind of magical talisman, more as a revered - and somewhat feared - object
that physically embodied God's communion with Moses when he was leading
the Israelites to their own land. As it represented this agreement made directly
with God, the Ark of the Covenant is one of the most important objects in the
Bible, yet its ultimate fate is unknown. For nearly four centuries, following the
building of Solomon's Temple, it is believed to have remained untouched in its
inner sanctuary, even though it was worth a fortune with its covering of gold,
and later kings of Israel experienced many troubled times and crises. It is not
mentioned during the pillage and destruction of the Temple by the Babylonians
in 587 BCE, but it is often assumed to have been destroyed at that time. The last
time it is referred to in the Bible is in 2 Chronicles 35:1-4:
Josiah kept a passover to the Lord in Jerusalem; they slaughtered the
passover lamb on the fourteenth day of the first month. He appointed the
priests to their offices and encouraged them in the service of the house of
the Lord. He said to the Levites who taught all Israel and who were holy to
the Lord, 'Put the holy ark in the house that Solomon son of David, King of
Israel, built; you need no longer carry it on your shoulders. Now serve the
Lord your God and his people Israel. Make preparations by your ancestral
houses by your divisions, following the written directions of King David of
Israel and the written directions of his son Solomon.
Forty years after this, King Nebuchadnezzar of Babylon captured Jerusalem and
raided the Temple. He returned within ten years, took what was left in the
Temple and then burnt the entire city. This prompts numerous questions. What
happened to the Ark of the Covenant? Was it still there when Nebuchadnezzar
came, or had it been removed previously by the Jews? If not, did
Nebuchadnezzar take it, or even burn it? An account in the Second Book of
Maccabees states that the prophet Jeremiah hid it in a cave before
Nebuchadnezzar arrived, but Maccabees is only recognized as part of the
authentic Bible by Roman Catholics and Eastern Orthodox Christians, and not


by Protestants or Jews. Yet the Maccabees story is not the only mention of this
occurrence. The Mishnah, part of the Talmud, ancient Jewish oral traditions that
descended from Moses and were written down by rabbis in about 220 CE (often
called the 'Oral Torah'), gives details about many of the Biblical people and
places, from 536 BCE to the first century CE. The Mishnah does not claim to give
new messages or laws but, rather, it presents further information about existing
traditions. Like the Maccabees account, it mentions that Jeremiah hid the Ark of
the Covenant before the Babylonian attack. There is another more tangible
reason that makes it unlikely that the Babylonians took the Ark, alongside the
many other objects they took from the Temple - they wrote detailed lists of what
they took, but made no mention of the Ark. According to some sources, King
Josiah, one of the final kings of the First Temple period, learned of the imminent
invasion of the Babylonians and hid the Ark. One account states that he dug a
hole under the place they used for storing wood on Temple Mount and buried it
there. Yet another account states that Solomon anticipated the eventual
destruction of the Temple, and so had an underground chamber prepared in the
rock directly below his Temple, and it was there that Josiah eventually hid the
Ark.


From the workshop of Giovanni di Benedetto (1385-90), this illustration depicts
the Holy Ark of the Covenant being carried to Jerusalem, followed by King
David playing the stringed psaltery.
In 1952, an archaeologist found a copper scroll in a cave near Khirbet,
Qumran on the shores of the Dead Sea. Accepted as one of the Dead Sea Scrolls,
the Copper Scroll differs from the other scrolls which are written on parchment
or papyrus. Between 1947 and 1956, thousands of fragments of biblical and
early Jewish documents were discovered in 11 caves near Khirbet, and these
proved to be extremely important in helping our understanding of the Bible and
in illuminating the cultural and religious background that gave rise to both
Judaism and Christianity. The Copper Scroll is written in Hebrew on copper
mixed with a little tin and, unlike the other scrolls which are extra biblical
documents, it features a list of locations at which various invaluable treasures are
buried or hidden. Dating from c.50-100 CE, the list is an inventory of items that
were taken from Solomon's Temple before its destruction - valuables that have
not been seen or accounted for since. Among other things, the Copper Scroll


claims that the 'Tabernacle of the Lord' was hidden in a desolate valley - 40
stones deep under a hill on its east side. Through this, it is speculated that the
Jewish sect who wrote the Dead Sea Scrolls may have buried the Ark in the
Jordanian desert before they were overpowered, or placed it in a carved-out
secret chamber '40 stones' under Temple Mount.

From the fourth century CE and made of white limestone, this carving is believed
to depict the Ark of the Covenant, from the Synagogue of Capernaum, Galilee,
Israel.
Contemporary biblical archaeologist and architect Dr Leen Ritmeyer (1945- )
spent 22 years in Jerusalem studying the site of Temple Mount. Through his
examinations and available historical resources of the site, he reconstructed the
original Temple of Solomon and the Second Temple, plus later additions and
expansions. But the Supreme Muslim Council was unwilling to allow further
archaeological excavations, so Ritmeyer's proposals about any secrets the site
may hold cannot be substantiated. His research, however, confirmed the
traditional view that the ancient Jewish Temple once stood in the same place as
the Dome of the Rock. Using further historical data supplemented by modern
photographs, Dr Ritmeyer also believes that he has identified the exact location
of the Ark inside the Temple and its size. Based on his measurement of the
Biblical cubit, he suggests that the Ark was exactly 132 × 78.7 centimetres (52 ×
31 inches). While scholars and archaeologists do not all agree, all acknowledge
that Ritmeyer's suggestions are plausible, and most agree that the Ark was never
placed in the Second Temple. It may have been destroyed or taken away and
hidden before the Temple was sacked, or it could remain hidden under the
ground beneath Temple Mount even now, or somewhere else close by. There is
the possibility that it was found by others long after the Jews had possessed it
but, if so, what they did with it and where it is now remains a mystery. Ritmeyer
believes that it is possibly still buried deep within Temple Mount, in the secret


chamber that was built either by King Solomon or by King Josiah. The Mishneh
Torah, 14 books of Jewish religious law, compiled between 1170 and 1180, was
written by one of the most important rabbis in history, Rabbi Moshe ben
Maimon, or Maimonides (1135-1204). It states that the prophet Jeremiah gave
instructions to King Josiah that it was imperative for him to remove the Ark of
the Covenant from the Holy of Holies in the Temple of Solomon. As Josiah
reigned over Jerusalem from 641 to 609 BCE, this was over 20 years before the
Babylonians overran the city. The chamber forming the Holy of Holies is
purported to be carved out of bedrock with a similarly carved tunnel to reach it.
This is not the tunnel found by the team of engineers in 1867, so, with this in
mind, in 2009 further investigation was undertaken by several of Israel's leading
rabbis. For 18 months, they excavated, but said that they needed a further 18
months of digging to get close to what they were seeking. Unfortunately, owing
to religious and political pressure from the Arab world, the Israeli government
discontinued their activities and they did not find what they were looking for.
These are not the only theories about the whereabouts of the Ark, however.
One belief focuses on western Africa and follows an Ethiopian legend that
claims that the Queen of Sheba had a child by King Solomon. The boy was
called Menelik, which means 'the son of the wiseman'. When he was 20 years
old, Menelik travelled to Jerusalem to study at his father's court. But Solomon's
priests were jealous of him and insisted he leave. While Solomon accepted this,
he also ordered that all first-born sons of other elders in his court should
accompany Menelik. As they left Israel, Azarius, the eldest son of the High
Priest, stole the Ark of the Covenant. Once they reached Ethiopia, Menelik
founded the 'Second Jerusalem' and today, the ancient church of St Mary of
Zion is said to house the Ark, which is traditionally brought out every January
for a celebration known as Timkat. Other theories maintain that in accordance
with the information on the Copper Scroll, along with other temple treasures, the
Ark is hidden in a cave near the Dead Sea, believed to be on either the River
Jordan's East or West Banks. In recent decades, numerous caves in this region
have been excavated, including some which contained the Dead Sea Scrolls, but
although many other artefacts were also recovered, no evidence of the Ark was
found.


The church of Germigny-des-Prés, Loiret, France, built in 806. The central apse
features this shimmering mosaic of two cherubim above the Ark of the
Covenant.
Apart from there being no physical or archaeological evidence that the
Templars found the Ark of the Covenant, as devout Christians, they would have
known of the biblical stories that recounted how dangerous the Ark was. The
Bible tells that any unauthorized touching of the Ark of the Covenant resulted in
death, as a story in the Second Book of Samuel verifies:
When they came to the threshing-floor of Nacon, Uzzah reached out his
hand to the ark of God and took hold of it, for the oxen shook it. The anger
of the Lord was kindled against Uzzah; and God struck him there because
he reached out his hand to the ark; and he died there beside the ark of God.
2 SAMUEL 6:6-7
In the Book of Joshua, the story is told about priests carrying the Ark to the
River Jordan, whereupon the river separated, opening a pathway for the
Israelites following the priests to pass through:


When the people set out from their tents to cross over the Jordan, the priests
bearing the ark of the covenant were in front. Now the Jordan overflows all
its banks throughout the time of harvest. So when those who bore the ark
had come to the Jordan, and the feet of the priests bearing the ark were
dipped in the edge of the water, the waters flowing from above stood still,
rising up in a single heap far off at Adam, the city that is beside Zarethan,
while those flowing towards the sea of the Arabah, the Dead Sea, were
wholly cut off. Then the people crossed over opposite Jericho. While all
Israel were crossing over on dry ground, the priests who bore the ark of the
covenant of the Lord stood on dry ground in the middle of the Jordan, until
the entire nation finished crossing over the Jordan.
JOSHUA 3:14-17
Later in the Book of Joshua, the Ark of the Covenant is carried by seven priests
in a seven-day procession around the walls of Jericho, while they sound the
trumpets of seven rams' horns. On the seventh day, the massive city walls
collapse. The Ark also killed two sons of Moses, just because they looked at it. It
was considered by Jews to be so dangerous to look upon that it was always
carefully wrapped up in a veil, animal skins and a blue cloth.

A 19th-century painting by Benjamin West, of the Biblical story of Joshua
crossing the River Jordan with the Israelites and the Ark of the Covenant. '...
The Israelite officers went through the camp, giving these instructions to the
people: "When you see the Levitical priests carrying the Ark of the Covenant of
the Lord your God, move out from your positions and follow them."'
A 20th-century writer (see Chapter 7, The French Revolution) claims that the
original nine members of the Templar Order discovered the Ark of the Covenant


early in their formation while digging under Temple Mount - and the evidence
of this can be seen on a pillar in Chartres Cathedral in France. Known as the
Portal of the Initiates, the pillar features a carving of the Ark of the Covenant
being loaded on to a wheeled cart, to be transported somewhere. Several
historians have suggested that the Templars had connections with Chartres and
the later, 20th-century speculation builds on that, claiming that the carving
depicts the Templars moving the Ark of the Covenant. The theory is that they
found the Ark in Jerusalem, but anticipating the Templar arrests in the early 14th
century, they moved their secret, sacred possession to France. There is more on
this theory in Chapter 7, but most historians maintain that the carving simply
portrays the Ark being transported, either by Moses when it was first made to
house the Ten Commandments, or by King David or King Solomon, before it
was placed securely in the Temple.
Similar, affiliated legends about the Templars and their excavations have been
put forward by various writers but - without real evidence - they remain
unverifiable. These include the idea that while digging, the Templars found some
biblical documentation, which has been variously described as scriptural scrolls,
details of sacred geometry or information regarding long-forgotten wisdom that
was understood by the ancient Jewish and Egyptian elders. It would appear by
their tunnels that the Templars had a preconceived plan or had been told where
to dig, but in the mid-20th century, an international team investigated the Dead
Sea Scrolls, and searched every site listed in the Copper Scrolls. The team did
not discover anything relating to the Temple of Solomon or any biblical
artefacts, but they found further evidence of Templar presence in the 12th
century. This has given rise to further speculation that the Templars were looking
for certain things and that they knew where to look. However, at thistime,
nothing further can be ascertained as there still remains a lack of any actual
proof that they found anything.
The Dome of the Rock
The Dome of the Rock has been refurbished many times since its
initial completion in 691 CE, and while living there, the Templars
studied many of the materials, proportions and building methods that
were used in its construction. Much of this was used in Templar
churches across Europe. The Dome of the Rock was built around 'the
Foundation Stone', or the most sacred site in Jewish tradition, as it is
believed to be the location of the Holy of Holies in Solomon's Temple.
The Muslim builders of the shrine of the Dome of the Rock echoed the
measurements and design of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. The


diameter of the dome is 20.2 metres (661/4 feet) and its height is 20.5
metres (671/4 feet), while the diameter of the dome of the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre is 20.9 metres (681/2 feet) and its height is 21.5 metres
(701/2 feet).

A section of the bronze doors of the baptistery in Florence, made by
Lorenzo Ghiberti between 1425 and 1452. Dubbed 'The Gates of Paradise,'
this part of the door depicts the story of The Fall of Jericho. Joshua is on a
chariot, preceded by Israelites carrying the Ark of the Covenant.


Travel to the West
In 1127, Hugh de Payns, accompanied by a few knights who have been named
as Godfrey de St Omer, Payen de Montdidier, Robert de Craon and André de
Montbard, travelled to the West from Jerusalem. Sent by King Baldwin, they
were on a mission to recruit new members to the Templar Order and to elicit
donations. This was two years after Bernard of Clairvaux had written to Hugh de
Champagne when he left France to join the Templars, and nine years after
Bernard had allowed his monks Rossal and Gondemar to leave the Cistercian
Order and join the Knights Templar in the Holy Land. In 1126, before Hugh de
Payns left Jerusalem, King Baldwin had written to Bernard of Clairvaux,
explaining that the Templars were seeking papal approval and some financial
support for their mission in the East. Bernard, who was probably in
communication with Baldwin and Hugh de Champagne, had anticipated the
king. In a letter to the Pope in 1125, Bernard had complained that the proposal
by a fellow Cistercian abbot, to lead a mission of Cistercians to the East, would
be a waste of time and money. What was needed, he wrote, is a 'mission of
fighting knights, not singing and wailing monks'.
As soon as Hugh de Payns arrived in France in the autumn of 1127, donations
of silver and armour and grants of land were given to him for the Templar Order.
Theobald, Hugh de Champagne's heir, started the donations by giving them land
at Barbonne-Fayel, 50 kilometres (31 miles) northwest of Troyes. Other wealthy
landowners and church leaders were soon forthcoming with further donations,
recording in charters their reasons for donating. For instance, a knight, Baldwin
Brochet d'Hénin-Liétard, who is believed to have fought alongside some of the
Templars in the First Crusade, gave all his property at Planque in Flanders to the
Order, because 'the knights of the Temple of Jerusalem abound in the heights of
charity and the grace of laudable renown'. In the summer of 1128, Hugh de
Payns was welcomed with great honour in England by King Henry I, who gave
them gold and silver. At the end of his reign, he also gave them land in Holborn,
London, where the first Templar church was built. Also in England, Matilda of
Boulogne gave the Templars a valuable manor in Essex, which became Temple
Cressing. Matilda was married to Stephen of Blois, a grandson of William I of
England who, among other things, deserted the Crusader army before Antioch,
giving rise to the belief by Emperor Alexius that the rest of the Crusaders had
perished. Stephen ruled England from 1135 to 1154. Hugh de Payns was given
several more tracts of land around England, especially in Lincolnshire and
Yorkshire, before he moved on to Scotland and received further donations there.
King David of Scotland gave the Templars the lands of Ballantrodoch that


became their Scottish headquarters. It is believed that Hugh de Payns also
travelled to Rome where he requested an audience with Pope Honorius II (r.
1124-30) who, as could be expected, was particularly sensitive to the situation in
the Holy Land and keen for pilgrims to travel there safely. Back in France, Hugh
de Payns solicited even more donations as he and his fellow Templars travelled
to Troyes to meet Bernard of Clairvaux. Apart from André de Montbard, who
was Bernard's [younger] uncle, none of the Templars had yet met the clever and
charismatic Bernard of Clairvaux.

In this 1840 painting by François-Marius Granet, the Knights Templar are being
officially recognized at the 1129 Council of Troyes.


The Council of Troyes
On 13 January 1129, a Church Council convened in the town of Troyes, the
capital city of the Champagne region. Troyes was close to Hugh de Payns'
birthplace and the Council was originally organized to declare 'the Peace and
Truce of God'. This was a contemporary movement of the Catholic Church to
attempt to limit the violent in-fighting within feudal societies. It was an
organized effort to control civilians through spiritual sanctions rather than by
force. The Council was also assembled to settle disputes regarding the Bishops
of Paris and to deal with other Church matters of the time, but it was seen by
those with interests in the Knights Templar as a way of being heard. Although
the Pope convened it, he did not attend, but several of the most eminent
churchmen did. These included the papal legate, Matthew, Cardinal-bishop of
Albano; ten bishops and two archbishops, Renaud of Rheims and Henry of Sens;
and several Cistercians, including Bernard of Clairvaux.
The Champagne region
The birthplace of the First Crusade, the Cistercian Order and the
Templars, during the medieval period, Champagne in the northeast of
France, was an important trading area. From the tenth century it was
ruled by the self-made Counts of Champagne who created a powerful
principality. Popes and kings respected and responded to the rulers of
the region and several of these rulers became even more powerful than
the French monarchs. The cities of Troyes, Rheims and Épernay
became particularly important commercial centres. The area achieved
its greatest strength under Hugh de Champagne's successor, Theobald
IV the Great (who was Count of Champagne from 1125 to 1152).


Portrait of Theobald I, who was Count of Champagne as Theobald IV and
also King of Navarre, nicknamed posthumously 'the Troubadour'
(Chansonnier). He was also famous during his life as a brave Crusader, and
the first Frenchman to rule Navarre.
Once the essential Council business had been dealt with, Hugh de Payns and
Bernard of Clairvaux used the forum as a vehicle to gain acceptance for the
Templars as an official order, to be recognized by the entire Latin Church and
not just those living in or visiting the Holy Land. Hugh was first to address the
Council. He spoke about how he started the Order and its mission. Not everyone
was favourably inclined towards the notion of holy men taking up arms, as many
did not understand the logistics of it and felt the contradiction of faith and
fighting to be too great. Hugh's impassioned tale helped to persuade many of
those present that it would be the most reasonable and reliable method of
defence in the Holy Land. Who else could look after pilgrims but men of the
cloth and who else could defend them, but noble knights? As well as the church
officials present, the Council included Theobald, Count of Champagne, William,
Count of Nevers, and another nobleman, André de Baudemant, who were there
specifically to give the clergy a trustworthy understanding of active, combative
life. Then Bernard of Clairvaux spoke, championing the Templars' unique
situation and their circumstances. Speaking passionately and articulately, he


explained why it was imperative that the Church gave the Order its full support.
Without them, Jerusalem might as well be in the hands of the infidel, he
declared, as no one could visit the holy places. Look how many innocent
Christians had been murdered on their way to pray at the holiest of shrines; was
it not time, now that Jerusalem was back in the hands of the Christians, that this
barbarity and bloodshed was stopped? Eventually, the Council agreed and gave
the Templars its full backing.
Until that time, the Templars had worn simple tunics as ordinary knights, and
one of the first things Hugh requested was an official habit with a Rule to follow
to make them comparable to other monks and mark them as an official
confraternity. After much discussion, the Council granted them permission to
wear white habits like the Cistercians (white signified purity) and they were
given a monastic Rule to follow in line with several other religious orders. The
Rule was decided upon mainly by Bernard of Clairvaux, who took into
consideration their fighting activities and other specific physical needs as
soldiers. So it was with immediate effect that at the Council of Troyes in 1129,
the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Jesus Christ and the Temple of Solomon were
officially endorsed.


THE GUARDIANS

Two early donations given to the Templars were a farmhouse and castle in
Carcassonne, in the Languedoc region of France.
Within a short time of the Council of Troyes, the Knights Templar were
viewed generally as being exceptionally dependable and doing a job that
many thought was too difficult to undertake. They quickly established a
reputation for being brave and honest and deserving of the support of good
Christians everywhere.
Even before their trip to the West, the Templars had started to receive donations
from Europe to assist them in their onerous task in the Holy Land. The first
donors were mainly French nobles who either had connections with the First
Crusade or who believed that, by being generous to such a cause, their souls
would be saved. Donations began coming in more frequently after the Council of
Troyes and these varied from small items such as a sword or a saddle, or larger
gifts, such as tracts of land, an annual gratuity or a horse.
When Hugh de Payns returned to Jerusalem after the Council of Troyes, he
left some Templars in Europe with the specific task of fundraising and attracting
new recruits. One of these men, Hugh Rigaud, avidly canvassed for donations
around France and Spain from 1128 to 1136. He and another Templar, Raymond
Bernard, were extremely successful at this task, attracting numerous generous
donations which included land, vineyards, gold, armour and servants, as well as
some more unusual items, such as rounds of cheese, a pair of old breeches and a
well-worn cloak. Although they were not guarding the Holy Land, these men
remained a vital part of the Templar Order, as they travelled across Europe,


enlisting new members and encouraging their fellow Christians to generously
support their cause. It was an essential task, both at the beginning when the
Order had nothing, and later when they had a great deal of property that needed
maintaining and enterprises that needed advancing. Some of the donations they
attracted were quite astonishing. One of the earliest was a church on the Côte
d'Azur, given to them in the early 1120s, although perhaps because of the cost of
its upkeep, the Templars gave it back in 1124. In 1128, a married couple from
Toulouse, Peter and Borella Bernard, gave themselves and everything they
owned to the Order, with a promise that their children would be given the
opportunity to become Knights Templar when they grew up. In 1132, an
exceptionally powerful family from the Languedoc region, the Trencavels, gave
the Templars a small farmhouse in Carcassonne and the services of a man, Pons
of Gascon, as well as his entire family. The following year, Bernard de Canet
and Aymeric de Barbaira gave the castle of Douzens in the Carcassonne region
to the Templars. Aymeric and his brother William Xabert also pledged
themselves to the Order. In 1129, a married couple gave the Templars a house, a
farm and further land in the suburb of Troyes-Preize to the southeast of Paris.
Other substantial endowments and privileges were granted from nobles, kings
and princes in various countries across western Europe. For instance, in 1120,
the wealthy and powerful Count Fulk d'Anjou had visited the Knights Templar
in Jerusalem and given them an annual revenue of 30 pounds of silver, which
was an extremely substantial sum in those days. In an effort to elicit Templar
support for their battles against the Moors, the rulers of Aragon, Navarre and
Castile were particularly generous. Although fighting the Moors in Spain was
never part of the Templars' brief, the Spanish gifts were so generous that they
considered it, although without making any promises. In March 1128, Raymond
Bernard was given the castle of Soure and surrounding lands by Queen Teresa of
Portugal, the daughter of Alfonso of Castile. She openly gave this in exchange
for a promise from the Templars that they would help the Spanish and
Portuguese to win back territory from the Moors.


Pope Honorius II, who endorsed the acceptance of the Templars at the Council
of Troyes.


Early expansion
During these first years, as fast as gifts were being bestowed upon them, new
recruits mainly from France, Spain, England, Italy and Germany were
volunteering to join the Templars. The endorsement of the Order by the Council
of Troyes and the consequent confirmation of this by Pope Honorius II had
initiated their sudden rise in prestige and appeal. The original nine men who had
started the Order of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Jesus Christ and the Temple of
Solomon were men of good birth who had abandoned their lands and their
families in order to defend the most sacred places of the Bible, and this romantic
concept added to the status of joining their ranks. Some joined for just a
temporary period, such as Raymond Berenguer IV, the Count of Barcelona, and a
group of his vassals, who served for a year. According to Orderic Vitalis, a
chronicler of 11th-and 12th-century Normandy and England, Fulk d'Anjou
travelled to the Holy Land in 1119 or 1120 and also joined the Templars for a
year. He returned to Europe towards the end of 1121, but continued to subsidize
the Knights Templar annually, generously maintaining two knights in the Holy
Land for a year each. By joining the Order for just a short period, these men of
noble birth could experience the discipline of being part of a monastic
brotherhood, feel they had helped the Christian cause and still return to their old
lives afterwards and retain their own wealth.
In spite of their harsh regime that to a great extent mirrored Bernard of
Clairvaux's Cistercian Order, official Church recognition and royal connections
made the Knights Templar particularly respectable and esteemed by the nobility,
monarchs and ordinary people alike. From the start, they retained close
connections with the King of Jerusalem - far closer than they did with the
Patriarch - and this set a precedent. Throughout their existence, Templars
encouraged and extended a similar closeness with other kings and nobles across
Europe. This particularly helped their cause as many who donated did so in order
to ingratiate themselves with monarchs or other powerful leaders.


The marriage of Queen Mélisende of Jerusalem (1109-60) and Fulk V of Anjou
(1092-1143), who insisted on ruling in his own right alongside his wife.
Fulk d'Anjou
In 1127, the mission undertaken by Hugh de Payns to the West was partly a
diplomatic assignment on behalf of King Baldwin II of Jerusalem. Along with
their immediate issues of establishing the Order with the Pope and raising
money, Hugh was directed to persuade Fulk, the Count of Anjou, to accept a
proposition. Baldwin had no sons, so had named his eldest daughter Melisende
as his successor to rule Jerusalem after him. Baldwin wanted Fulk to return to
Jerusalem and marry her. In agreeing to his proposition, Fulk would be
Melisende's consort when she ruled Jerusalem.
Fulk V of Anjou was born in Angers in western France between 1089 and
1092, the son of Fulk IV of Anjou and Bertrade de Montfort (who later
bigamously married King Philip I of France, which was why he could not go on
the First Crusade). On his father's death in 1109, Fulk became the Count and the
following year he married Erembourg, the Countess of Maine. They had two
sons and two daughters, but Erembourg died in 1126 when their youngest child
was 13. In April 1128, Fulk entertained Hugh de Payns at Le Mans. The idea of
marrying the beautiful, half-Armenian Mélisende was not abhorrent to him, but
he did not want to be consort to a queen; he wanted to rule alongside her as king
in his own right. Baldwin did not need long to consider Fulk's demands.
Jerusalem needed a strong ruler and Fulk was wealthy, intelligent and brave. He


would help Melisende in the difficult task of ruling Jerusalem. In February 1129,
Fulk gave Anjou to his 16-year-old son Geoffrey and left France for Jerusalem
with Hugh de Payns. In Jerusalem that June, he married Melisende. Meanwhile,
Baldwin had married his second daughter, Alice, to the new count of Antioch,
Bohemond II, and his third daughter, Hodierna, to the Count of Tripoli. The
youngest daughter, Yveta, chose to take holy vows, and Mélisende had the
convent of Bethany built for her sister. As Abbess of Bethany, Yveta wielded
great power in the Church and at the Court of Jerusalem. By the time Fulk died
in a hunting accident in 1143, he and Mélisende had two sons: Baldwin, who
would carry on the line in Jerusalem, and Almaric. Baldwin II had died in 1131,
the year before his second grandson was born, leaving the Holy Land in the
hands of his offspring.
Geoffrey d'Anjou
The powerful royal line of Plantagenet kings who ruled England from
1154 to 1485 descended from Fulk and Erembourg's elder son,
Geoffrey d'Anjou. Although Geoffrey and his predecessors were
known as the Angevins (from Anjou), when he became founder of the
line, his heraldic device of a sprig of yellow broom known in Latin as
planta genista became the family emblem and name. Geoffrey and the
Angevins were French but Geoffrey's wife, Matilda, was Henry I of
England's daughter, and so granddaughter of William the Conqueror.
In 1154, Geoffrey and Matilda's son, William the Conqueror's greatgrandson, took the throne as Henry II, and began the rule of the
Plantagenet dynasty.


The Templar Rule
In the early days of the Knights Templar before the Council of Troyes, they
pledged their vows of 'poverty, chastity and obedience'. For this, they gave up
worldly goods, wore simple tunics and ate what food they were given or could
afford with their small allowance from the king and Patriarch of Jerusalem. They
did not womanize, or fraternize unnecessarily with anyone outside their
community, and they strictly adhered to the wishes of their Grand Master (of
whom Hugh de Payns was the first), who took his lead mainly from King
Baldwin II and to a slightly lesser degree, Warmund the Patriarch.
However, once they were accepted as an authentic monastic order at the
Council of Troyes, Bernard of Clairvaux worked out a number of suitable
regulations by which they should live, known as the Rule. Basing this on his
own Cistercian Rule, with some additions and slight changes to accommodate
the fighting element of the Order, Bernard drew up 73 clauses for the Templar
Rule. It decreed that, on joining the Order, every Templar gave up all worldly
goods and renounced his will. They were required to be prepared to fight in
defence of Christians and sacred Christian sites, and to be prepared to die for this
cause if necessary. In relinquishing their wills and worldly goods, they could
either give it all to their heirs and descendants, or to the Order (which many did).
Married men could only join the Templars as sergeants and their property was
then bequeathed to the Order rather than to their wives upon death. Knights were
to wear white habits as a symbol of their mental purity and physical chastity, but
for the many other Templars who joined as squires, chaplains, sergeants,
farmers, servants or temporary members, brown or black habits were regulation.
No fur or other finery was permitted to be worn by any of them, not even to
decorate their horses' bridles. There was one concession; because of the heat in
the Holy Land, and later in their dwellings in other Mediterranean countries,
they were allowed to wear light linen shirts from Easter to All Saints' Day on 1
November. The Rule, while strict, also gave them some strange concessions. If
they were washing their hair, for instance, when the bell rang to call them to
prayer, they were allowed to be late. They were to remain frugal in all things.
Although at first their poverty precluded this, as the Order grew, each knight was
permitted to have three horses and one squire to take care of them. The Rule
often seemed a little illogical, but every order originated from a considered
reason and careful thought. For instance, no Templar was allowed any form of
lock to secure anything personal, to prevent any secretiveness; they were not
allowed to sleep in total darkness - some form of light always had to be
illuminated so there could be absolutely no clandestine behaviour at any time.


Falconry and hunting, two of the secular knights' main pastimes, were also
prohibited.
The Rule was not just about discipline; it was also a guide, giving instructions
on a wide range of considerations, such as how to admit and treat novices to the
confraternity, what kind of conversation was suitable (or unsuitable) between
them, with too much discourse being discouraged. Templar brothers were
required to cut their hair, keeping it short with the usual monk's tonsure, but they
were not allowed to shave their beards - which was unusual. Conventional
religious orders were forbidden to have facial hair, so the insistence on beards
singled them out. While this was different, many of the clauses in their Rule
were the same as for other religious brotherhoods, such as eating in silence, not
losing one's temper, attending regular daily religious services, and eating meat
only on three days of the week. Templars were requested to limit their speaking
and conversation and to behave 'decently and humbly, without laughter'. The
Rule was so controlling that they were even told how to cut cheese and under
what circumstances they would be allowed to leave a meal table early (only in
the event of a nosebleed). They went to bed at midnight and rose again at 4 a.m.
Although they were forbidden any private possessions, collectively the Order
was allowed land, property and servants. The care of their horses was of
fundamental importance and the Rule gave strict instructions about this. All
members of the Order were responsible for the horses - and the weapons, and
although they had servants and squires to do this, knights had to oversee the
tending of their horses and the cleaning of their equipment at least twice every
day. Horses and other animals kept by the Templars were also allocated
according to the Rule. Knights had strong, powerful warhorses; turcopoles
(locally recruited mounted archers) had lighter, faster horses; men at arms and
other working Templars who were not knights had access to palfreys (well-bred
riding horses), mules, donkeys, camels and packhorses.


From The Story of Godfrey of Bouillon, 1499, showing the Knights Templar
before Jerusalem.
Overall, discipline was enforced by the Grand Master, or once there were
many different chapters in various countries, the second in command, who was
known as the Master, was in charge. The Rule set out appropriate punishments
for all kinds of misdemeanours, from penances to expulsion, but also other,
somewhat crueller penalties were enforced for certain offences. These included
beatings, being put in irons or being made to eat off the floor. Rules of discipline
differed for knights and other members of the Order. For instance, if a knight lost
his weapons in battle, he had to remain and fight on, while in similar
circumstances, a sergeant or servant was allowed to retreat. The Rule was
written in Latin, but as most Templars, particularly early on in their history,
could not read Latin, it was soon translated into French. This in itself showed up
ambiguities and discrepancies in the Rule and gradually, new clauses were
added. Eventually, the number of clauses increased to several hundred.


Detail of a 19th-century painting of a Templar ordination ceremony, by FrançoisMarius Granet. From early on in the Order's existence, it seems that the
initiation rites were excessively ceremonious to denote the Templars' high status.
In Praise of the New Knighthood
After Pope Honorius II died in 1130, a conflict arose between the supporters of
the new Pope, Innocent II (r. 1130-43), and his enemies who declared his
election to be illegitimate. At the forefront of his defence was Bernard of
Clairvaux who was highly instrumental in gaining greater support for Innocent
and assisted in eventually securing his position. In gratitude, at the Council of
Pisa in 1135, Pope Innocent II ratified the Rule of the Templar Order. Yet despite
the Templars' growing consequence, there were many who still opposed them.
Critics, who included theologians, wrote impassioned essays against the idea of
military monks, declaring that it was irreconcilable for men of religion to fight.
According to Christian beliefs, monks should be prepared to die rather than take
up arms, even in self-defence.
To defend the Templars against these critics, Bernard, who understood the
dangers of the situation in the Holy Land and recognized that fighting but honest
and trustworthy men were needed there, wrote a long document entitled 'In
Praise of the New Knighthood' (Liber ad milites Templi: De laude novae
militiae). It took him two years to pen the open letter that justified the existence
of a group of monks whose only real purpose was to fight and kill, contrary to
other, traditionally gentle monastic endeavours. In his usual articulate and
persuasive manner, Bernard passionately compared the devout and godly


Templars with secular knights who, he declared, fought only for greed, vanity
and self-aggrandizement. He declared that this new knighthood humbly served
God and he outlined the virtues of a holy war, explaining that a religious order of
knights was necessary to take up both spiritual and physical swords in the Holy
Land. He proclaimed that if any of the Templars were to die in battle for Christ,
their deaths would be especially glorious, while ordinary knights who fought for
secular causes were in danger of damnation:
The knight of Christ, I say, may strike with confidence and die yet more
confidently, for he serves Christ when he strikes, and serves himself when
he falls. Neither does he bear the sword in vain, for he is God's minister, for
the punishment of evil-doers and for the praise of the good. If he kills an
evil-doer, he is not a man killer, but, if I may so put it, a killer of evil. He is
evidently the avenger of Christ towards evil-doers and he is rightly
considered a defender of Christians. Should he be killed himself, we know
that he has not perished, but has come safely into port. When he inflicts
death it is to Christ's profit, and when he suffers death, it is for his own gain
... I do not mean to say that the pagans are to be slaughtered when there is
any other way to prevent them from harassing and persecuting the faithful.
BERNARD OF CLAIRVAUX, 'IN PRAISE OF THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD', c.1135
With this essay, Bernard may have succeeded in his purpose, but he also irritated
several people. Many were angered that so saintly a monk should be openly
encouraging fighting and killing. After his death, another Cistercian, Walter Map
(c.1140-1208/10), wrote equally vehemently against him and the Templars.
Although not as influential by any means as Bernard of Clairvaux, Walter Map
planted one particularly negative thought about the Templars being proud or
arrogant and greedy - and this stuck. It was a small thing at the time, and Map's
words were not published, but this perception of the Templars adhered to them
for the rest of their existence.
Friend or foe?
As soon as the Templars were established in Jerusalem, they began their policing
duties along pilgrims' routes. Naturally this did not mean that they immediately
began fighting with any non-pilgrims they met beyond the walls of Jerusalem,
but they set up a rota for patrolling the vulnerable areas around the city. They
also worked on other methods of peacekeeping. As each perceived the other as
evil, it was initially inconceivable to any Christians or Muslims that friendships
should occur between them, and considering the Templars' task was to overcome
any marauding infidels, it would have seemed incongruous to most that they
could ever communicate civilly with each other. But the Templars pursued a
cautious policy, aiming for peaceful control of the menace beyond Jerusalem's


walls. Accepting that most of the attackers were intractable and violent, the
Templars approached some of the Arab leaders with a view to establishing
treaties. The plan was to persuade Muslim rulers to restrain their own
miscreants. This would make the Templars' job far simpler. By even speaking
civilly to the Arabs, the Templars were breaking new grounds in diplomacy. For
some considerable time, this proved a fairly successful solution to the problems.
The first treaty made between the Christians and the Muslims was with the
leader of the Assassins, a fanatical Shi'ite sect that formed in approximately
1091 in fierce opposition to the Sunni Seljuk authority. The name Assassin
possibly derived from the word Asasiyun, which essentially means the
foundation of the faith. Also known as the Hashshashin, Assassins were
generally young men with great physical strength and endurance. Necessarily
intelligent and well-educated, they worked by gaining knowledge about their
enemies' culture, native language and personalities. Trained to disguise
themselves, to steal into enemy territory and to murder stealthily rather than
openly in battle, they were shrewd, furtive and cunning. This is the origin of the
word assassin. Although they were the Christians' adversaries, in sharing their
common hatred of the Seljuks, the Assassins were not as averse to dealing with
the Templars as many other Muslim forces were. However, it was not the
Templars themselves but the King of Jerusalem who first approached the
Assassins with the offer of a treaty. After this, the Templars made several more
military alliances with surrounding Muslim rulers, learned the language and
about the culture of Islam, and so strengthened their guard in the Holy Land.
More than mere treaties, however, some Templars and Muslims even became
friends with each other. For instance, Usama ibn Munqidh (1095-1188), a poet,
author, warrior and diplomat from northern Syria, recorded that he had become
friendly with several Christian knights and even stayed with the Templars 'who
were my friends' in Jerusalem. The Templars allowed him to pray in a chapel
they had built in the Al-Aqsa mosque.


A portrait of Gregorio Papareschi, Pope Innocent II from 1130 to 1143, by
Giuseppe Franchi (1731-1806).
While it seemed a rational approach in the Holy Land, this behaviour was
viewed by those living in Europe as going against all that the Christians had
fought for. Other monastic orders and ordinary Muslims and Christians who
were based elsewhere would neither have understood nor condoned what they
would have perceived as duplicitous behaviour. When word spread back to
Europe of the Templars' secret dealings with the infidel, many suspicions were
roused about their motives and their true faith and loyalties. This notion
subsequently fuelled several conspiracy theories about the Knights Templar.
Meanwhile, the situation in Outremer remained fraught with difficulties, and
although minorities befriended each other and a few treaties were made, there
was little trust between the various factions. William of Tyre refers to the
Templars in Tripoli taking payment from the Assassins, and the Assassins
negotiating with the King of Jerusalem for another form of alliance in order to
stop the payments. Nearly a century later, another chronicler, Jean de Joinville


(c.1224-1317), recorded that the Assassins were making regular payments to
both the Knights Templar and the Knights Hospitaller as reparations for
murdering members of the Christian orders. In 1197, Henry II de Champagne,
ruler of Jerusalem from 1192 to 1197, sought an alliance with the Assassin
leader, which was immediately reported to Christians in Europe and caused
outrage. Although diplomatic relations were necessary where these religious
people lived in close proximity to each other, most writers were wary of relating
too much about them for fear of provoking anger in Europe.
The relationships between the Templars and the Muslim and Jewish
communities in the Holy Land were more complex than Christians living beyond
Outremer would understand. Despite his pressure on them to fight the infidel,
Bernard of Clairvaux always insisted on tolerance, and even on the benevolent
treatment of Jews. He only wanted Jerusalem and other important Christian sites
to be under Christian control, but beyond that, he told the Templars to try to
tolerate other religions. When the Templars acquired more land and property in
the Holy Land, in several cases they became landlords to many Jews living there
and were allegedly friendly and respectful.


Depiction of Mary with Child and Saints from 1486 by Filippino Lippi (1457-
1504). The inclusion of John the Baptist with Bernard of Clairvaux and two
other saints is a demonstration of Bernard's importance in the Church.


Privileges and growth
In 1139, in an unprecedented show of approval, largely due to his indebtedness
to Bernard of Clairvaux, Pope Innocent II granted the Templars numerous
privileges in a papal bull. Among other things, he made them responsible only to
the Holy See, which was an enormous privilege. It gave them strong papal
protection and local or any other clergy had no command over them, which was
unprecedented. No one but the Pope could excommunicate them, or give them
any form of penance. This annoyed many who did not have such advantage and
it irritated some bishops and priests who had no authority over the Templars as
they had over other orders. The privileges continued. Templars were absolved
from feudal duties, entitled to keep any spoils of war, allowed to collect tithes, to
build their own churches, to bury their own dead and to try and execute
criminals. They were given the right to choose their own Grand Masters and
Masters, and Templar properties and revenues were free from taxation to the
Crown or the Church. All these concessions were almost unique and certainly
singled the Templars out as a particularly favoured order. In 1144, Pope
Celestine II (r. 1143-44) declared another bull that became called Milites Templi
(Knights of the Temple) and caused even greater resentment within the clergy.
Pope Celestine urged Christians everywhere to donate as much as they could to
the Templar Order. If annual donations were made to the Templars, he declared,
any penance subsequently given to the donor for any sins would be reduced by
one-seventh. This was galling for almost all other orders and local churches, as it
encouraged the faithful to donate to the Templars all the time rather than to their
local churches.
This, however, was not the biggest insult to other members of the Church.
Milites Templi also decreed that when any Templars entered a town, city, village
or castle to collect contributions, even if the place was under interdict, the
churches should be opened 'in a friendly manner in honour of the Temple and in
respect for these knights, and divine offices should be celebrated' (Milites
Templi, 9 January 1144). Interdict was one of the few - and the strongest -
methods the Church could use to enforce the obedience of its followers. It was
the only way of punishing rulers and their parishioners for grave sins and it was
generally effective. If a location was under interdict, usually due to the ruler's
wrongdoing, then no one could attend Mass, receive communion or go to
confession. In the medieval period, this was particularly frightening to Godfearing Christians. By the Milites Templi insisting that, for any period in which
Templars were present, that interdict would be lifted and everyone could rush
into church and receive all the sacraments needed for the salvation of their souls,
then the interdict would lose its power and it would not matter too much if it was


re-imposed once the Templars had left. This took the gravity out of the interdict
and also meant that grateful worshippers would be as generous as they could to
the Templars, and any money they might have given to their local church would
no longer be forthcoming.
The Splayed Cross
It is believed that the splayed cross, also known as the cross pattée or
crux gemmata, had been worn by members of the ancient tribe of
Benjamin, one of the biblical tribes of Israel. It was later used in early
Christian art and made popular in Christianity after Empress Helena
claimed to have found the True Cross in the early fourth century, when
she had a piece of the True Cross placed in an elaborate, cross-shaped
reliquary with splayed ends. When the Templars adopted it, they did
not use it consistently, nor did the design remain the same. In general,
the lines making up the Templar cross are of equal length, unlike the
more common Christian crucifix symbol that has a longer vertical line.
It is believed that the Templars adopted the equal-length cross with
splayed ends after seeing it in churches of the Coptic faith, an Eastern
Orthodox branch of Christianity founded in Egypt. The splayed cross
was not their exclusive symbol, although they have become known for
it in recent centuries, and they did not all wear it as an official emblem.
Among others, the Knights Hospitaller and the Teutonic Knights also
wore other forms of the splayed cross, as did St George.


The rite of sepulture
In 1146, according to William of Tyre, Pope Eugenius III granted the Order the
right to wear the splayed red cross on their tunics, symbolizing their willingness
to suffer martyrdom in the defence of the Holy Land. It was a great honour as it
marked them out once again as being specially selected. Sixteen years later, Pope
Alexander III (r. 1159-81) issued another papal bull confirming and endorsing
all the grants and concessions that previous popes had bestowed upon them.
With such advantages, it facilitated their rapid expansion. Almost inevitably, the
Templars were criticized for taking advantage of their favours, but they would
have been criticized equally had they not done so. Although other religious
orders were also given privileges, it seemed that the Templars were being given
more than their fair share. Eventually, there were few areas left where they did
not receive special advantages. In 1162, Alexander III even gave them the 'rite
of sepulture', which meant they could administer last rites and actually bury
their own dead.
We ... concede to you the power of constructing oratories in the places
bestowed upon the sacred house of the Temple, where you and your
retainers and servants may dwell; so that both ye and they may be able to
assist at the divine offices, and receive there the rite of sepulture; for it
would be unbecoming and very dangerous to the souls of the religious
brethren, if they were to be mixed up with a crowd of secular persons, and
be brought into the company of women on the occasion of their going to
church.
EXCERPT FROM POPE ALEXANDER III's PAPAL BULL, 7 JANUARY 1162


A 17th-century portrait of Guido Ghefucci da Castello, Pope Celestine II from
1143 to 1144. A controversial pope, he particularly favoured the Templars,
causing huge rancour within the clergy.
In giving last rites and burying their own dead, once again the Knights Templar
subverted the power and authority of local clergy. It was a bonus for the
Templars but it exacerbated rancour elsewhere. Presumably reflecting the fact
that both brotherhoods were based in the Holy Land and had specific functions
to fulfil, the Hospitallers received similar grants and privileges. At the Third
Lateran Council held in 1179, Pope Alexander received several complaints from
priests and bishops that the Templars and the Hospitallers were abusing their
privileges and undermining the authority of local clergy:
Now we have learnt from the strongly worded complaints of our brethren
and fellow bishops that the Templars and Hospitallers ... exceeding the
privileges granted them by the apostolic see have often disregarded
episcopal authority, causing scandal to the people of God and grave danger
to souls.


EXCERPT FROM THE THIRD LATERAN COUNCIL, II79

A fresco by Luca Spinelli (1332-1410), showing Alexander III entering Rome
with the Germanic Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa (1122-90).
The Council decreed that the Templars and Hospitallers were to amend their
behaviour or they would find themselves under interdict. In 1207, Pope Innocent
III (r. 1198-1216) wrote to the Knights Templar, complaining that they had
grown proud and were misusing their prestigious position. He wrote that
virtually anyone with money in their pockets was permitted to join the Order,
including those who had been refused access to the Church, even wrongdoers. It
seems that in their eagerness to raise as much money as possible, some Templars
were perceived to be greedy and not always honest.


Commercial activities
With so many donations and new members pledging their worldly goods to the
Templars, their expansion was rapid and, from the start, they ran the Order like a
business. By the early 1140s, they had acquired enough new members, land and
money to be able to initiate and uphold military operations in both the Holy
Land and the Iberian Peninsula, as they conceded to Spanish and Portuguese
rulers that they would help to fight the Moors in exchange for valuable land and
castles. They were also given properties in other parts of Europe. So while their
main priority was always the protection of Jerusalem, their farms, vineyards,
mills, mines, barns, houses, chapels, castles and preceptories (known as
commanderies in French) all over Europe meant that they could open chapters in
various countries. By 1150, they owned areas stretching from the Holy Land to
Tuscany, from Spain to Portugal, from Provence to Occitan (now known as
Languedoc/Roussillon), from Normandy to England and Scotland, and from
Denmark to the Orkney Islands. A huge amount of personnel was needed to
maintain this vast amount of property and land, in the form of servants, farriers,
labourers, blacksmiths, carpenters, farmhands, armourers and herdsmen, and,
without any prior experience, the Templars quickly became an efficient and
extremely well-organized enterprise. This maximized their capital, which in turn
increased their efficiency and strength.
From the middle of the 12th century to the beginning of the 13th, increasing
international trade and social stabilization occurred throughout Europe, as the
feudal system changed and agriculturalists, bankers and merchants gained wealth
and status. A network of roads was being built across Europe, and although their
vow of poverty meant that they owned nothing personally, the Knights Templar
played an active part in the creation of this new, business-led society. They had
started to generate substantial income through trade, farming, industry and
shipping. Their farms, fields and vineyards yielded grain, wool, fruit, vegetables,
wine and olives. They received rents and tithes from numerous properties in the
form of land and buildings; they rented these to workers and farmers and for
regular markets and fairs that were common at the time, and they mined coal and
metal ores. They were also involved with smelting metal, which was used in tool
and armament production. As they expanded, they necessarily used commercial
shipping companies, but by the early 13th century they began building up a fleet
of their own, another undertaking that they developed carefully and
conscientiously, taking advice from experts. With so many members now of all
different nationalities, they could research the best practice for any of their
enterprises in each country. In a relatively short time they owned a large fleet of
well-made ships, with bases in Italy, France, Spain and the Holy Land. Templar


ships carried travellers, including pilgrims, merchants and troops, as well as
provisions and supplies, horses and many commercial consignments including
wine, olive oil, wheat, wool, cloth, armaments and various other foodstuffs
across Europe and possibly even further afield. Much of this was for their own
use, but even more was for their commercial enterprises. Among other ports,
they based their ships in England at Bristol, Dover, Portsmouth and Rye, in
France at La Rochelle and Marseilles, in Italy at Bari and Brindisi, and in
Outremer at Acre, Caesarea, Sidon, Tortosa and Tripoli. For many years, their
main port was Acre, a walled city built on a promontory with a double harbour.
It was very important for the Christians who lived in and around Jerusalem, but
after Saladin took Jerusalem in 1191, it became even more so; and the Templars
moved their headquarters there.

Late 13th-century fresco of Pope Innocent III, who complained to the Templars
that they were too proud and arrogant for holy men.
Within 50 years of their foundation, the Knights Templar had become a strong
and prosperous commercial force, while they still continued to maintain their


primary role of defending pilgrims in the Holy Land. Within 100 years of their
humble beginnings, they had developed into the medieval equivalent of an
international corporation, with interests in almost every form of commercial
enterprise of the time.
Medieval markets and fairs
As a consequence of the rapidly growing economy across Europe,
markets and fairs became extremely popular, providing an opportunity
for people to buy and sell goods. Markets took place on the same day
each week or month. Traders paid tolls to the landowners where they
set up their stalls. The same happened at annual fairs, which were held
in practically every town. Usually beginning on the day of a religious
festival, they attracted visitors from all over the country or further. As
well as staple goods, they also offered luxurious produce, including
silks, oils, perfumes, jewellery and spices from distant locations. Fairs
also attracted entertainers such as jugglers, acrobats and fortune tellers,
all of whom had to pay the landowners for their sites. Fairs were the
result of new trading links and they expanded as new roads were built.
They became important events on the calendars of local towns and
villages, as popular and thriving social events and meeting places, and
the Templars made good profits by renting their land for the purpose.

A view of the Port of Acre, used extensively by the Templars. It lay in the bay of
Haifa and was protected on one side against the open sea by the city and by a
strong dyke wall on the other two sides.


Banking
Traditionally, monasteries had provided safe deposit facilities for holding
important documents and valuable belongings, but once the Templars had a large
number of properties across various countries, they were in a unique position to
do this and more. As they gained resources and achieved successes in their
various ventures, they also invented new ways to manage their finances and to
help others do so too. They began forming an institution that many regard as the
origin of modern banking. Pilgrims were targets for bandits mainly for the gold
and silver coins they carried, so, from about 1150, the Templars introduced
arrangements for looking after the pilgrims' money. This in effect was the
introduction of bank accounts (although some bankers already existed in Italy,
they looked after papal funds and other extremely wealthy patrons, not the
finances of ordinary people). With so many preceptories throughout Europe and
the Holy Land, the Templars were well placed to start a system of safety deposit
boxes, whereby pilgrims could deposit their cash in one preceptory and receive
coded receipts - or credit notes - to redeem their money for a modest fee at any
other preceptory. These were, essentially, the first traveller's cheques. Largely
due to their meticulous banking transaction record-keeping, the money was
reimbursed with few problems and they quickly developed the reputation of
being dependable and safe. In general, it was far safer to deposit money with
Templar bankers than to keep it almost anywhere else. The Templar bankers kept
scrupulous accounts, enabling them to run an effective, reliable and accountable
concern, where they were able to trace and keep watch over transactions with
ease and remain completely transparent and trustworthy. As money could be
handed in at one Templar preceptory and cashed at another, whether in the same
country or abroad, it was exceptionally convenient, and the Templars soon
offered many further financial services as well. These included current accounts;
safe deposits for documents, money, gold, jewellery and other precious items;
loans, credit and pensions; and they acted as tax collectors and receivers.
Although initially they had started providing banking facilities just for pilgrims,
within a short time, they had gained a broad range of customers. The Templar
banking system grew rapidly, and later, their Paris preceptory became their main
financial centre. As their wealth increased, the Templars also began lending
money to European rulers - which augmented their own importance and
perceived trustworthiness. For instance, in 1147 King Louis VII of France
(1120-80) borrowed a large amount of money from them and repaid them with
tracts of land in Paris (where they subsequently built their Paris preceptory). At
the time of the Magna Carta in 1215, King John of England gave them his
Crown jewels for safekeeping and borrowed money from them; and, as soon as it


was built, the Paris Temple came to be used as a stronghold for monarchs'
important jewels and money. The Templar bankers soon became involved in
large and complex transactions that were usually only undertaken by merchants
and bankers in Italy.
This fast-growing early system of international banking that soon became
indispensable, arose mainly through several unique advantages held by the
Templars. Firstly, their reputation as pure, determined, honest and restrained
religious brothers seemed to be unshakeable. Secondly, their preceptories were
as impregnable as forts, and as knights who were protecting the innocent in the
Holy Land, they offered unparalleled security and protection, both when money
was locked away safely and if it was being moved around for customer
convenience. Thirdly, they used codes on their traveller's cheques, based on
Latin, so if any thief stole them, they would be exposed as soon as they tried to
cash the cheque. Finally, the Templars were extremely parsimonious themselves
as this was part of their Rule - and the financial burdens of the organization were
huge. But this was open to certain corruptness, as some took advantage of the
rights bestowed on them by popes and sold the right for ordinary people to be
buried in Templar cemeteries.
But the banking system had a great and positive effect. Individuals felt
confident leaving their money with Templar bankers, pilgrims in particular felt
safer and when they no longer carried large bags of money on pilgrimages, they
became less tempting to assailants. Consequently, over time, not only did
pilgrimages become safer, but the Templars also became highly respected
international financiers. In this way, they also helped to change the Church's
attitude towards money lending, which contributed to the rise of capitalism.


Paris and London preceptories
Based on the round plan that followed the Byzantine design of the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre with Arabic features styled on the Dome of the Rock, Temple
Church in London was moved from its original location to its current site near
Fleet Street when the Templars needed more space. The necessary enlargement
was primarily because of the success of their banking activities, so by 1160 they
began building a church closer to the River Thames along with various other
buildings and facilities around it, including military training grounds and an
impregnable preceptory. The church was consecrated by Heraclius, the Patriach
of Jerusalem, on 10 February 1185, probably in the presence of King Henry II of
England. At the time, the round church would have been colourfully decorated;
even the gargoyles were painted in bright colours. The Templars' Paris
preceptory was built in a similar way to the London buildings, with a church,
training grounds and living accommodation built adjacently. The Parisian
structure was completed by 1147 and was a large complex, fortified like a castle
with strong crenellated perimeter walls, towers and vast vaults, built on land the
Knights Templar were given by Louis VII in what is now known as the Marais
district. The Paris Temple became the headquarters of Europe's finances. Today,
only the London church remains and nothing is left of either the London or Paris
preceptories.


The white slave trade
Before the Templars were established, one major fear of pilgrims travelling to
Jerusalem was of being kidnapped and taken as slaves. While slavery did not
occur in most of Europe, in parts of the Mediterranean and the East, the trade
was rife. Coupled with their devout Christian beliefs ('love thy neighbour as
thyself') it might seem incongruous that the Templars could be involved with the
slave trade themselves, but while in the Holy Land, both the Templars and the
Hospitallers often used slaves to help them build their preceptories and castles. It
is even thought by some scholars that they used slaves to row their galleys and
shipped others to places such as Sicily and Aragon, where they needed more
workers. Although unverified, this is plausible, as it was an easy method of
gaining free labour. The slave trade had existed for centuries among many
different nationalities and was not suppressed either by the perpetrators or by the
Crusaders. As it was such a huge concern, those who lived in Outremer seem to
have overlooked the horrors and realities of the business.
By the time the Templars had achieved success, wealth and power during the
13th century, the white slave trade was a long-established and thriving business.
Slaves were taken as spoils of war, or plucked from poor areas across Europe.
This could occur in any country, but it happened particularly in Turkey, Greece
and what later became Russia. In some countries where slavery was common, if
not kidnapped, the poor and destitute often even sold their own family members
as slaves. Slave traders made plenty of money by shipping men, women and
children from their native countries to distant shores to be attached to wealthy
households, work as prostitutes or be converted to Islam and trained to fight in
Muslim armies. Without the indignation that later arose over this trade, it was
not stopped, even though it was not condoned. Only one major uprising occurred
and that was by the slaves themselves. In Egypt in the 1240s, slaves who had
been converted to Islam rose up and killed their masters. They became the
Mamluk rulers in Egypt and Syria. Mamluk slaves had become a powerful caste
in some Muslim societies before their uprising, and they later fought and
overcame the Crusaders at the end of the 13th century. They were an unusual
caste of slaves who were expensive to purchase originally and had never been
allowed to carry weapons or perform certain tasks. In some places, Mamluks
held a social status above freeborn Muslims.


An illustration from The Great Italian Navigators, by Tumiati and Fanciulli,
1931, depicting a group of Knights Templar sailing to the great trading port of
Venice.


Life in the Order
Unlike other orders, Templar knights generally did not practise self-denial
through fasting or abstaining from certain foods (although they were only
allowed meat three times a week and never on Fridays), nor did they punish
themselves with hair shirts or beatings for example. As their number was made
up predominantly of knights, the Rule accepted that they needed to be strong and
healthy and one of their main duties was to be ready to fight at any time. This
was another reason why some Templars joined for short periods - the training
and discipline was good for the body, while being in a religious environment and
partaking in regular prayers was good for the soul. This kind of retreat became
quite popular and both parties gained, as all the temporary Templars were
expected to donate heavily for the privilege of joining the Order for a short time.
Some married men joined briefly, but they did not undergo monastic training
and, although their wives did not accompany them, as the Rule insisted on
chastity, to prevent any bad influence, their sleeping quarters were kept separate
from the permanent, celibate Templars. The Rule's insistence on chastity was so
strict that Templars were not even permitted to kiss their female relatives. Yet
although the Templar knights did not fast or abstain, the ordinary monks in the
Order did. Generally, for most of their existence, the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of
Jesus Christ were recognized by outsiders as being particularly devout and
abstemious, true followers of Christ who adhered to the asceticism of the
Cistercians.
Every item of clothing and equipment, even down to the cloth used, was
specified for each member of the Order. Fabrics used for their habits were of
poor-quality linen; only slightly better-quality fabric was used for knights' habits
than for the other Templars. Unusually for the standards of the time, every
Templar was given changes of undergarments and outer-garments. This was
because hygiene was important - even though they had to ask the Commander of
their chapter for permission to have a bath. Too many baths were forbidden as
this was believed to weaken the health and strength. While secular knights wore
hose to show off their shapely calves, fashionably pointed shoes and short tunics,
the Templars were not allowed to wear hose of any kind, nor pointed shoes, and
their habits were longer than the popular short tunics worn by other knights -
short enough to allow manoeuvrability, but not so short as to be immodest. Their
clothes were checked regularly to make sure that everything was neat and clean;
it was against the Rule to be unkempt or slovenly. For cold weather, they were
each allowed a feather-lined cloak. Each knight was given a hauberk or chainmail tunic, a chain-mail vest and leggings, a linen shirt, a helmet, a cassock and
a surplice, and they had the use of a spear, a lance, a shield and a mace. Weapons


had to be plain and not embellished, unless they were received as donations -
but even then, only certain gifts were permitted to be used on the battlefield.
Every Templar had a towel, a straw mattress, a sheet and blanket or a quilt
stuffed with wool.
Each day, two meals were served and Templars were expected to attend seven
services, although most of these were shorter prayer meetings, such as matins,
prime, compline or vespers and not full-length Masses. In contrast with other
orders, new Templars had a short probationary period, although there was no
regular or official period of trial and training - recruits tended to be accepted
into the Order at the discretion of the Master or Grand Master. Every new
member was required to meet certain simple requirements: he should be of
legitimate birth, free of debt, fit to fight, and unmarried. The initiation ceremony
was undertaken in secrecy, and this caused a great deal of speculation outside the
Order, leaving the Templars open to all kinds of accusations. It is believed that
the ceremony usually occurred among few other members. Behind closed doors,
in the presence of the Master, the postulant simply knelt with his hand on a
Bible, declaring his obeisance to God, the Virgin Mary and the Templar Rule,
but this has never been completely established, and it became a huge element in
their later persecution. Often, the only training or period of instruction that new
recruits received was a recitation of the Templar Rule. Brothers who could read
were given a copy to read and in case anyone forgot, over many meals, the Rule
would be read out as the monks ate in relative silence. It was a strict way of life,
but whoever he was, whatever role he performed within the Order and from
wherever he had come, once a man had joined the Knights Templar, solidarity,
support and discipline were paramount. It was a cohesive, efficient and
innovative confraternity, with everyone working towards its collective aims.
Witnesses of battles claimed that of all the fighting forces, the Templars were
always the most disciplined, brave and orderly in the face of danger and chaos.
They were the first into battle and the last to retreat. Their courage, resolve and
comradeship became legendary. As the Templar Rule declared:
No one must leave his position without the permission of the commander,
not even if he is wounded; and if he finds himself unable to request leave,
he must send a comrade to do it for him. And if by chance it should happen
that the Christians are defeated - God save us! - no brother must leave the
field of battle as long as the banner of the Temple is still flying, and anyone
in violation will be expelled forever from the order.
For all their activities the Templars needed a huge workforce. Following the
Council of Troyes, and almost unrelentingly for many years after, recruits joined
in droves, partly due to religious fervour, partly because of the passion so many


felt about reclaiming and defending the holy sites, and later perhaps because
they wanted to be part of a successful and exciting international organization.
While many young men of good family pledged themselves to be Templar
knights, many more were needed to perform all kinds of jobs and help keep the
vast concern running smoothly and efficiently. Men of all ages and abilities from
across Europe joined, and everyone's strengths were used to advantage. Unlike
many religious orders of the period, however, the Knights Templar did not
recruit children or young boys. They considered them to be too immature to be
able to participate in the fighting and so could not be of any real assistance.
Young boys were also seen to be unsure of their own minds and the Templars did
not want to expend time and money on a boy's education, only to be abandoned
when he grew up and decided that he did not want to spend his future as a
Templar. So young, healthy men were encouraged to join to train for combat and
older men were also welcomed, as they added considerable benefits in the forms
of experience, dedication and solemnity. Widowers who could leave their
worldly goods to their heirs - or to the Order - and join with no attachments
were often encouraged to do so. In the first few years of the Knights Templar,
only knights were allowed to be fully committed brothers of the Order, while
sergeants and servants were employed by the Templars, but not permitted to
become brothers. After some years, however, this changed and sergeants were
authorized to take their monastic vows alongside the knights, assuming the full
responsibilities of the Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Jesus Christ, even though they did
not fight. For the rest of their existence, Templar brothers were divided into four
main categories:
knights, who fought, mainly as cavalry;
sergeants, who came from a lower social class than knights and were
usually equipped as light cavalry;
chaplains, who were ordained priests and addressed the spiritual needs of
the Order;
farmers, who managed the Templars' property.
Then, of course, as they grew, many more Templars took up new positions to
manage their vast financial infrastructure and others managed their building
work and maintenance of land and property, while still others oversaw the
production, upkeep, management and use of their fleet. After the early days, for
most of their existence, there were approximately 300 knights and 1,000
sergeants based in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and when Jerusalem was lost, this
main contingent moved to their new headquarters in Acre and then Cyprus. In
Europe, chapters were considerably smaller, although a fairly large number was


based in the Iberian Peninsula, and from the time the huge preceptory was built
in Paris, a large number of men lived and worked there.

Built by the Knights Templar and consecrated in 1185 by the Patriarch of
Jerusalem, Temple Church in London is in two parts: the Round Church and the
Chancel. The Round Church was designed to model itself on the circular Church
of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem.


Diverse recruitment
As the Templars had so many diverse undertakings that did not apply to other
monastic brotherhoods, new recruits were enlisted from all backgrounds and
nationalities, even though from the start, the majority were French. Templars
needed to be strong, committed, healthy and full of stamina. Piety was a bonus,
but not as important as strength and energy. Thoughtful maturity was preferable
to the impetuousness of youth, honesty was more favoured than cleverness, and
dependability was more valued than zealousness.
If the concept of dealing with the enemy through political agreements and
even friendship was incomprehensible to outsiders, then the idea of recruiting
non-Christians or those from small, alternative Christian sects into a Catholic
religious order was equally difficult to understand. Nonetheless, in their need for
so many members, it soon became logical or even necessary for the Templars to
look beyond their immediate circle and to recruit where they could. Languedoc
in southwestern France had for many years developed as a fertile region, noted
for its rich and abundant produce, its wealthy, powerful families, and its mix of
religions. The name, Languedoc, evolves from 'the language of Oc' or 'Occitan',
a name that was also used for the area. Many Templars were located in the
region, and they built churches, forts, castles and villages there. They owned the
villages of Théziers and La Couvertoirade and a farm at Orgnes du Rhône, for
example, and they were given the church Saint-Martin-de-Tréveils near Ponteils,
as well as a farm at Caissargues.


The word fair comes from the Latin word 'feria' which translated as holy day. So
the 'fair' was originally a day when people gathered for worship. Soon, the
Church recognized the moneymaking opportunities and began actively to
sponsor fairs on feast days. Here a bishop is blessing the annual market that was
held for two weeks in June outside Saint Denis in Paris. Commerce and religion
had become closely entwined.
Although the idea was not accepted by the Catholic Church, living alongside
each other under the protection of the leading families in the region were Roman
Catholics, members of small Christian sects and nonconformists. These included
Arians, Waldensians and Cathars.
Arianism evolved from closer consideration of the Holy Trinity: God the
Father, God the Son and God the Holy Spirit. Arians were concerned that, since
Jesus, the Son of God, was created by God the Father, he had not always existed,
which made him subordinate to God the Father - whereas orthodox Christians
believe that the three divine persons of the Holy Trinity are equal. The
Waldensians were another small Christian sect, also called Vaudoise. Following
a merchant from Lyons, France, named Peter Waldo, the Waldensians began
their movement in Lyons in the late 1170s and gradually migrated to the
Languedoc region. The Waldensian movement proposed a return to the vows of
poverty and the preaching of the Gospel, as Jesus and his apostles had


advocated. Originally a reform movement within the Catholic Church, the
Waldensian sect was declared heretical by 1215, after it disputed the sole
authority of ordained priests to preach and interpret the Gospels. Catharism was
another Christian religious movement that flourished from the 11th to 13th
centuries. The Cathars' beliefs are thought to have evolved originally from
Eastern Europe and the Byzantine Empire, although they are believed to have
emerged first of all as a sect in Bosnia before settling predominantly in southern
France and Spain. Catharism soon became a large and well-organized concern
and, once again, most settled in the Languedoc region, where the rulers were
tolerant of them and their beliefs. Although they believed in many of the same
things as Christians, Cathars had their own clergy and they did not accept that
one God was the creator of all. They reasoned that if he was, he would not allow
so much suffering, illness and death in the world.


Two gods and two worlds
Cathars believed that there were actually two gods and two worlds parallel to
each other. They believed that Jesus Christ was not really part of this world as he
had never been an actual human and that his life and resurrection from death
were all simulated somehow. They believed that the angry and judgemental God
of the Old Testament was the 'bad' God and that Jesus had been sent by the
'good' God as his messenger. They also believed that the only way to salvation
was to follow Christ's teachings. Like the Waldensians, they also disputed the
authority of priests, but they believed that no human could perform God's work.
Cathars openly voiced their criticisms of the corruption they saw in the Catholic
Church. Similar to the Cathars were the Gnostics who also had a fairly large
presence in the Languedoc region. Like the Cathars, Gnostics believed in
dualism and declared that they knew the secret of salvation. This contradicted
Christian teaching, and was viewed as heretical by the Church, but the Templars
owed much of their expansion to the wealthy and noble families of the
Languedoc region, and several of their greatest supporters came from these
religious sects, so although they were part of the Church, they were not averse to
recruiting members of their Order from within these small groups, as well as the
usual orthodox Christians. As they worked and built up their Brotherhood with
all its many varied pursuits, the notion of recruiting widely seemed logical to
them, if not to other Christians who heard rumours of these recruitments. The
men they recruited from the sects were often intelligent, well-positioned and able
to assist in the efficient running of various Templar interests. Some were able to
take on important responsibilities in their farming, manufacture, business or
shipping ventures. Some helped with the care of horses or armaments, or in the
banking sector. Some became courageous soldiers, while others were put to use
as squires. Whoever the Templars recruited, once they were in the Order, it
seems that their qualities were made the best of. All adhered to the Rule and
through outstanding levels of organization the entire, vast scope of the
Brotherhood functioned like a well-oiled machine.
Further legends tell of the Templars recruiting from groups of people living in
the Holy Land, including some from the religious group known as the Essenes,
who lived communal, austere existences abstaining from worldly pleasures -
perfect for the monastic existence. Inevitably perhaps, the Templars are also
believed to have recruited some Assassins from the East, but none of these
unusual recruitments are verified. If they did recruit from their Muslim
neighbours, they seem to have chosen judiciously, as the Order was more
successful than any other during the main years of its existence, in terms of
efficiency and accomplishment. But of course, at a time when religion was such


an important aspect of life, it must have seemed exceedingly suspect that men of
the Church were closely fraternizing with heretics. Accusations that the
Templars were secretly Cathars, or even Muslims, were generated, but most of
these ideas were quashed, largely because of the effectiveness of the Order.
While the Templars were doing such a good job in Outremer and beyond, few
wanted to question them. Additionally, glowing reports came from nonpermanent members and, ultimately, all Templars had to answer to the Grand
Masters, who were nearly all highly devout and honest men.

Peyrepertuse, meaning 'pierced rock' is a ruined Cathar castle in the Languedoc
region of France. Built in the 11th century, the main part of the castle overlooks
the sea and resembles the prow of a ship. It was surrendered by the Cathars in
May 1217.


Grand Masters
Although the entire enterprise of the Knights Templar was kept running
smoothly by an organized network of efficient men across the various
headquarters, in absolute charge, answerable only to the Pope and making the
ultimate decisions, were the Grand Masters. Grand Masters were elected by the
Templars themselves and assumed a similar role to abbots in other religious
orders. Both abbots and Grand Masters were perceived as representatives of
Christ within their confraternities, and in the same way as an abbot, the Grand
Master was expected to observe humility and compassion, following Christ's
example. Nevertheless, Grand Masters did not work completely alone. As with
every other aspect of the Order, the roles within were organized for efficiency.
Grand Masters had a hierarchy of men beneath them to call upon. Although there
was only ever one Grand Master, living in the main headquarters (Jerusalem
until 1191, Acre until 1291, and after that on the island of Cyprus), next in line
were the Masters, who lived in the Templar headquarters or chapters in other
countries. Each Master was in charge of his chapter, but he still reported
ultimately to the Grand Master at the main Templar headquarters, and the Grand
Master could delegate work and decisions to any of his Masters. Succeeding the
Masters were the Grand Commanders or Seneschals, who as with all Templars,
were ultimately accountable to the Grand Master, but they also had to obey the
Master. Grand Commanders lived in chapter houses and worked for the Masters.
They administered all the lands belonging to their chapter and, in war, managed
the army's movements and provisions.
By the time the Templars had risen in prominence in the eyes of all
Christendom, most Grand Masters were treated as the equivalent of royalty.
Overseeing and endorsing the Templar Rule, overseeing and managing all
Templar activities, including military operations, industrial and agricultural
enterprises and all else, to be a Grand Master was a vast undertaking. Most
Grand Masters held their position for life, but a few abdicated, usually to join
other monastic orders. For instance, the third Grand Master, Everard des Barres
(1113-74), left the Templars in 1151 and joined the Cistercians at Clairvaux. In
view of their elevated status, despite being a 'Poor Knight of Christ', Grand
Masters were also entitled to a large entourage that could consist of four horses,
one chaplain, one clerk with three horses, one sergeant with two horses, one
gentleman valet with one horse, one farrier, one Saracen scribe, one turcopole,
one cook, two foot soldiers and two knights as companions.
At the beginning of the Order when they were living on the beneficence of the
king and Patriarch of Jerusalem, Hugh de Payns did not have any of these
privileges. After he died in 1136, the Templars in Jerusalem gathered to elect a


new Grand Master. Robert de Craon, the preferred candidate of Fulk d'Anjou,
was chosen. Craon was acknowledged as an intelligent man and an exceptionally
astute administrator, which was what was needed from the leader of such a
growing concern. Within a short time, Craon proved himself by obtaining the
extra privileges from Pope Innocent II in Omne Datum Optimum, the papal bull
of 1139. From the start of the Order until its end, there were 23 Grand Masters.
Some of their histories are not known, while others are more accessible. Odo de
St Amand, for instance, was the eighth Grand Master, at the end of the 12th
century, who came from Limousin in France. As a headstrong leader, he was
both praised and resented. Fiercely loyal to his men, he took part in several
military expeditions and achieved many victories. At the Battle of Montgisard,
his knights routed the stronger Muslim force.
Grand Masters often travelled to Europe, visiting regional preceptories and
European rulers in efforts to generate larger donations and assistance for the
Order. The Grand Master was assisted by an elected council from members of
the Order. A brother, known as the Visitor, regularly toured all regional
preceptories to make sure that standards were being maintained and to take any
requests or complaints back to the Grand Master and the council.
The House of Toulouse
One of the most powerful, influential and tolerant dynasties of the
medieval period was the family of St-Gilles who became known as the
Counts of Toulouse, Dukes of Narbonne and Marquises of Provence.
Through marriage, they were related to other leading families of
Europe and they owned a vast area of land in the Languedoc region. In
medieval times, St-Gilles was a major commercial centre and the
fourth most important pilgrimage site in Europe. An important
member of the family was Raymond of Toulouse, a highly revered
leader of the First Crusade, who founded a new dynasty as Count of
Tripoli in the Holy Land. Unlike the leaders of the Catholic Church,
the Counts of Toulouse were all religiously tolerant, refusing to
discriminate against Jews, Cathars or other religious dissenters living
in their region. Under their control, women enjoyed more freedom
than in most parts of the world at the time, and learning and literacy
flourished. Languedoc was in a thriving position geographically.
Merchants crossed it regularly and new cities sprang up around the
new roads. Yet, although they gained the respect of the people, the
Counts of Toulouse attracted the condemnation of the Roman Catholic
Church for their religious tolerance, which eventually resulted in a


religious war, the fall of the House of Toulouse and the extinction of
their line.


SACRED DEFENCE

A black Madonna and Child, from the Church of Saint Pierre, the Pyrenees town
of Prades. These Madonnas were especially venerated and were often the object
of pilgrimage from the 11th to 15th centuries. Yet little is known of their origins
or the relevance of their colour.
Templar property in western Europe was divided into provinces and
organized by groups of officials, which changed over the course of the
Order's history. Their northern European provinces were added to by 1143,
with a province covering 'Provence and parts of Spain', and by 1220, they
had their first province in Germany.
Once the Templars had established chapters and preceptories all over Europe as
well as in Outremer, they continued in their main objective of protecting
pilgrims. No longer limited to the Holy Land, they soon patrolled nearly all the
major international shrines. Although Jerusalem was the most notorious, other
routes and sites were also extremely vulnerable and accessible to assailants.
These included established routes such as the Via Francigena, which passed from


Canterbury in England to France, then through Switzerland and Italy to Rome, or
the Camino de Santiago ('Way of St James'), which was one of the most
important pilgrimage routes of the time to Santiago de Compostela in
northwestern Spain. The Templars also guarded many actual shrines including
those at the Cathedral of St James of Compostela, Canterbury and Chartres
Cathedrals, Mont St Michel and Rocamadour in France, as well as several other
sites where black madonnas were worshipped. Templar protection was so
thorough that for the first time in years, pilgrims, merchants and other travellers
felt comparatively safe along the major routes of Europe, and travelling and
trade increased vastly as a result. The Templars were succeeding in the role they
had been given beyond all original expectation.


Black madonnas
In medieval Europe, the worship of material objects, from relics to artwork, was
an important aspect of the Christian faith. Any objects relating to saints were
envisaged as having supernatural powers and almost anything relating to Christ
or the Virgin was believed to have particularly miraculous attributes. The
Templar Order was officially dedicated to three things: the protection of
pilgrims, the Virgin Mary and all of Christendom. The Virgin Mary was their
patroness and protector, and novices were told that 'we were established in
honour of Our Lady'. So images of the Madonna were particularly significant
for them. From approximately the 11th to the 15th centuries, largely because of
reports of miracles emanating from them, the black madonna became a
phenomenon of general Catholic devotion.
In many shrines and churches, particularly in areas with Templar, Cistercian
or Cathar connections, numerous images of the Virgin Mary had dark rather than
white skin. These statues and paintings were not created to appear ethnically
black, as they often are in African countries. They were either created
intentionally to appear European but with dark skin or they were simply
conventional portrayals of the Virgin that had darkened over time for various
reasons. Many darkenings were caused by a reaction of the pigment with the air.
Some darkened from constant candle soot and incense smoke, and others appear
dark simply because they are painted on dark wood, such as ebony, which
showed through the paint. Generally found in Roman Catholic rather than
Eastern Orthodox environments, the paintings nonetheless resemble Byzantine
icons in their stylization, while the painted wood or stone statues are usually
standing or sitting on a throne, which also reflects the Byzantine style. It is
estimated that there are about 500 black madonnas in existence, mainly in
churches or shrines in France, Spain, Italy, Germany and Switzerland, with a few
beyond Europe.
As devout Christians it was quite acceptable for the Templars to revere black
madonnas as well as the paler versions, but after their downfall, they were
accused of 'wrongly' venerating these images. With no surviving texts to explain
whether these blackened madonnas were made deliberately or by accident,
analysis of their purpose remains ambiguous. This was a time of ignorance and
superstition. If some of the icons were darkened deliberately, there are at least
two theories that have been put forth by scholars about their purpose. One is that
they were made to illustrate a text from Solomon's biblical 'Song of Songs': 'I
am black but beautiful' (negra sum sed formosa). Bernard of Clairvaux wrote
many essays on this aspect of the Bible and he was also known to visit several
shrines to black madonnas. There is a black madonna in Chartres Cathedral and


in the medieval period it was one of the most revered of all the black madonnas
in France. In 1150, Bernard of Clairvaux was asked to lead a new Crusade from
Chartres Cathedral and, although this never happened, he remained vaguely
associated with Chartres. Many claim that the Templars helped to construct the
cathedral, and some have speculated that the genre of the black madonna
developed from the Templars' links with the Cathars. Another theory is that
black madonnas developed from images of ancient earth-goddesses, many of
whom were portrayed as black, such as Artemis, the ancient Greek goddess of
the hunt; Ceres, the Roman goddess of agricultural fertility; or Isis, the ancient
Egyptian goddess who represented the ideal mother and wife as well as being the
patron of nature and magic, whose son Horus was born on 25 December.
Despite the horror expressed in the 14th century about the notion of
worshipping images of pagan gods, however, this was not unheard-of. When
Emperor Constantine converted to Christianity, to help his people understand the
new faith they were to follow, much of the art and customs of his empire were
simply transferred. This was not seen as sacrilegious; images and customs were
always simply a way of helping the faithful to focus; the images were never
intended to be substitutes for the real thing. So, for instance, early images of
Jesus were almost identical to those that had been created of Apollo, the most
important Roman god, who was created as a continuation of the image of the
Greek god Zeus. In this way, ordinary people could understand that this was an
important figure to whom they should pray. Images of the Virgin Mary and her
child were also based on previously recognized pagan gods, simply to help the
illiterate to continue worshipping in their national religion with as little
confusion or disruption as possible. Many early Christian works of art are
deliberate amalgamations of pagan and Christian symbolism for this reason.


An ancient Egyptian statuette of Isis and her son Horus, 330-30 BCE. In
common with black madonnas, Isis was perceived as the ideal mother and wife.


The Reconquista
From early in the 1140s, through their massive increase in revenue, men and
land, particularly across the Iberian Peninsula, the Templars were firmly
established, with thousands of properties reaching through Europe and Outremer.
As well as protecting pilgrims, they were trying to regain the entire Iberian
Peninsula for Christianity. The Reconquista was a protracted period of fighting
with the specific aim of recapturing land in the Iberian Peninsula from the
Muslim invaders of the region, known as the Moors, who had originally invaded
and conquered lands there in the ninth century. Since then, the Moors had
become established and spread. After the First Crusade, the Pope acknowledged
that the fight against the Muslims in Andalusia was a legitimate crusade and he
granted those who fought in the Reconquista the same redemptions as had been
given to the First Crusaders. The Reconquista lasted many years, and by the
mid-12th century the Templars became involved, by which time the strength and
unity of the Moors was beginning to break down and, after their success in the
First Crusade, the Christian fighters were feeling confident and aggressive. The
Templars fought in a series of wars with their legendary determination, and by
the mid-i3th century, most of Spain was back in Christian hands.


Further fighting orders
From small beginnings, the idea of warrior-monks protecting Christians became
more valued and in demand, as the 12th century progressed. Gradually, more
armed brotherhoods were formed with similar aims to the Knights Templar,
particularly in the Iberian Peninsula where the fight between the Christians and
the Moors was perpetual. So the first three of these new orders were Spanish: the
Knights of Santiago, the Knights of Alcántara and the Knights of Calatrava.
While the Knights of Calatrava were founded to protect pilgrims on their
journeys to and from the shrine of Santiago de Compostela, the Knights of
Santiago and the Knights of Alcántara were established specifically to fight the
Moors. Like the Templars, they aligned themselves with established monastic
orders. The Order of Santiago was founded in 1175 and followed the Rule of St
Augustine. The Orders of Calatrava and Alcántara followed the stricter Rule of
the Benedictines. The Order of Calatrava received papal approval in 1164, and
the Order of Alcántara, which was confusingly also called the Knights of St
Julian, was founded in 1166 although not sanctioned by Pope Alexander III until
1177. Later orders based on the same concept included the Order of Montesa,
established in the Kingdom of Aragon in 1317, the Order of Christ, founded in
Portugal in 1319, and the Teutonic Knights, founded at the end of the 12th
century. The Teutonic Knights were officially called the Order of Brothers of the
German House of St Mary in Jerusalem. Modelled on the Knights Hospitaller
and the Knights Templar, the Teutonic Knights were formed to establish
hospitals and to aid German Christians on their pilgrimages to the Holy Land.
Initially Catholic, this small but effective order later became Protestant.


Detail of an illustration from a 13th-century manuscript of a battle between
Christians and Moors, during the Reconquista of Spain.
King Alfonso's will
King Alfonso I (1073/4-1134), known as 'the Battler' or 'the Warrior', ruled
Aragon and Navarre from 1104 for 30 years. As a second son he succeeded his
brother and after marrying Urraca, Queen of Castile and León, he began using
the title Emperor of Spain. Known for his prowess in battle, he set up his own
military order at Monreal del Campo, which was not successful, and he spent
most of his reign at war with the Moors in his own country. His marriage was
dissolved in 1114 and he remained childless. In a move that he did not explain to
anyone, in October 1131, three years before his death at the Siege of Bayonne,
he wrote his will, leaving his kingdom divided equally to three religious orders:
the Knights Templar, the Knights Hospitaller and the Order of the Holy
Sepulchre. The Order of the Holy Sepulchre had been initiated directly after the
First Crusade by Godfrey de Bouillon when he became the first ruler of the
Kingdom of Jerusalem in 1099. Like the Knights Hospitaller, it was not a
military order until some years later.


Therefore, after my death I leave as heir and successor to me the Sepulchre
of the Lord which is in Jerusalem and those who observe and guard and
serve God there, and to the Hospital of the poor which is of Jerusalem, and
to the Temple of Solomon with the Knights who keep vigil there to defend
the name of Christendom. To these three I concede my whole kingdom.
Also the lordships which I have in the whole of the lands in my kingdom,
both over clerics as well as over laity, bishops, abbots, canons, monks,
magistrates, knights, burgesses, peasants and merchants, men and women,
the small and the great, rich and poor, also Jews and Saracens, with such
laws as my father and I have had hitherto and ought to have.
ALFONSO I THE BATTLER, OCTOBER 1131
However, when Alfonso died in 1134, his will was deliberately overlooked by
his successors and none of the beneficiaries could enforce it. Ten years later,
after prolonged negotiations, the new ruler of Aragon, Raymond Berenguer IV
(c.1113-62) begrudgingly gave the Templars six castles, exemptions from
certain taxes, a fifth of all the land captured from the Moors, a fifth of all they
plundered during campaigns against the Moors, an income of 100 sous a year, a
tenth of all royal revenues, and assistance in constructing the castles and
fortresses they built as defence against the Moors. Until that point, the Templars
had not been involved in the Reconquista and they remained reluctant to be
involved in the struggle against the infidel on a second front, but this situation
propelled them into it. From then on, they took a major role in the conflict.
Disciplined, brave and united, they were an asset to the cause and Raymond was
delighted. He continued to favour them and, in 1153, he gave them the castle of
Miravet in Aragon, but his successors did not adhere to the agreement and
demanded more assistance from the Templars. Annoyed at this treatment, the
Templars reconsidered their position, and decided to focus once more on
defending the Holy Land as their most important mission.


Living in the Holy Land
Life for Europeans dwelling in the Holy Land was very different from that in the
West. Numerous Christians had remained there before the Muslims took it and
even more remained after the First Crusade. The heat, the flies, the scarcity of
water and reduced availability of food were challenging. Maintaining good
hygiene was difficult and mortality rates were high, particularly among the
vulnerable young and elderly. Church leaders frequently appealed for more
Christians to emigrate there, but Eastern Orthodox Christians always
outnumbered the Roman Catholics. Apart from that, Islamic culture had
developed rapidly while European culture had slowed over the last few
centuries, and it was apparent to many Europeans living in the East, how far
certain Islamic dynasties had developed in art, architecture, science and
medicine. While many Europeans had been exposed to aspects of Islamic culture
for centuries through developments in the Iberian Peninsula and Sicily, it was not
until others had settled in the Holy Land after the First Crusade that they began
truly absorbing new ideas in these disciplines. By travelling abroad, ideas and
learning were shared and discovered, heralding the development of the
Renaissance in later years.


Continuing conflicts
While Hugh de Payns was Grand Master, the Emir of Aleppo and Mosul, Imad
ed-Din Zengi (c.1085-1146), a Seljuk Turk, began making efforts to take
Damascus by force, but was frequently countered by its governor Unur, who
allied with the Franks against him. Even more than fighting the Christians, Zengi
was intent on defeating the Shi'ites of Egypt and Damascus. In 1139, three years
after the death of Hugh de Payns, Zengi successfully attacked and conquered the
town of Baalbek in Lebanon. According to Ibn al-'Adim (1192-1262), a
biographer and historian from Aleppo, Zengi did not keep his word to protect his
captives there. Zengi 'had sworn to the people of the citadel with strong oaths
and on the Qur'an and divorcing (his wives). When they came down from the
citadel he betrayed them, flayed its governor and hanged the rest.'
In 1140, King Fulk organized an alliance between Jerusalem and Mu'in adDin Unur, the newly appointed ruler of Damascus. So when Zengi attacked
Damascus, the united forces of King Fulk, Prince Raymond of Antioch and
Mu'in ad-Din Unur overpowered him. But in 1143, Fulk was killed in a hunting
accident and his successor was his 13-year-old son. Raymond and Mu'in ad-Din
Unur were no match for the determined Zengi and, in 1144, he attacked Edessa
in Mesopotamia. By digging tunnels beneath the city after he had lured away its
governor, he brought down its fortifications. His army massacred all the male
citizens of Damascus and sold all the women into slavery. Within two years,
however, when Zengi was in a drunken sleep, his own eunuch stabbed him to
death. He was succeeded by his two sons, Saif ad-Din Ghazi and Nur ad-Din
(1118-74), who divided their father's kingdom between them. Nur ad-Din
governed Aleppo, while Saif ad-Din Ghazi ruled Mosul. Particularly fanatical,
Nur ad-Din employed Kurdish tribesmen and Mamluk slaves (who had a
reputation for cruelty) to swell his army. Nur ad-Din was determined to eliminate
the Christians in the Holy Land and to gain overall power there. With this
ruthless determination, within weeks of his father's death, Nur ad-Din seized
several castles in the north of Syria and prevented Count Joscelin de Courtenay
of Edessa from winning the city back.


A map of the Iberian Peninsula in the 14th and 15th centuries.
In order to strengthen the Muslim front against their common enemies from
the West, like the Christians before him, Nur ad-Din sought to make alliances
with his Shi'ite neighbours. In 1147, he signed a treaty with Mu'in ad-Din Unur
and also married his daughter, to be sure that Unur did not side again with the
Christians. Together, Mu'in ad-Din and Nur ad-Din besieged the cities of Bosra
and Salkhad. Their alliance was not comfortable, however, as Mu'in ad-Din was
never sure of Nur ad-Din's motives and he was also concerned about offending
his former Christian allies who had helped him to defend Damascus against Nur
ad-Din's father. Meanwhile, Nur ad-Din turned towards Antioch, seizing cities
and towns along the way.


The Second Crusade
Furthest east of all the Crusader lands, and far from aid, Edessa had always been
a Christian city, and the news of its loss and the massacre horrified Christians
everywhere. King Louis VII of France immediately declared he would take the
cross, and Pope Eugenius III issued a bull calling all Christians to march
together to fight the infidel in another Crusade. King Louis VII was the first to
sign up. A hot-tempered, volatile young man, his reign (1137-80) was
dominated by feudal struggles (particularly with the House of Anjou), and saw
the start of years of conflict between France and England. It also witnessed the
beginnings of the building of the Cathedral of Notre-Dame and the founding of
the University in Paris. Meanwhile, Pope Eugenius hoped to be as appealing as
Urban II had been in 1095, but he did not have the same personal magnetism.
Originally one of Bernard of Clairvaux's Cistercian monks, he began
enthusiastically, travelling around France and calling all to arms, but when he
realized he was not having the desired effect, he asked his more charismatic
former Abbot, Bernard, to step in. This was the sort of issue that Bernard of
Clairvaux thrived on. On Easter Day in 1146, King Louis, accompanied by his
court and many ordinary people from miles around crowded into the church of
Mary Magdalene at Vézelay in the Burgundy region of France, to listen to Abbot
Bernard of Clairvaux. His charm and powers of persuasion were as strong as
ever and, as with Pope Urban half a century before, almost everyone in the huge
crowd listening vowed to join the next Crusade. Led by Queen Eleanor of
Aquitaine, even the women declared they would go on the Crusade as well.


Taken from a history of France in illuminated manuscripts, the Grandes
Chroniques de France, made between the 13th and 15th centuries, the marriage
of Eleanor of Aquitaine and Louis VII of France is depicted on the left, and on
the right their embarkation for the Second Crusade 1147-9.
As preparations began, Bernard rushed to enlist Conrad III of Germany
(1093-1152) to the cause. Yet, unlike Emperor Alexius in the First Crusade,
Conrad had not asked for the West's help and he was suspicious of the motives
of his French neighbours. Although agreeing to join with his army, he was not
enthusiastic. In a measure of their increased status, rather than calling the
Templars to a meeting, King Louis and Pope Eugenius travelled to visit them to
ask for their help in the cause. Nine years before, Louis had given the Templars a
house in a swamp area north of Paris. By 1146, they had drained the swamp and
many were living there while a programme of building was being carried out
around them. In response to the request by the king and the Pope, Everard des
Barres, the Master in Paris, assembled 150 of his finest knights and their
sergeants. It was at that time that Eugenius gave the Order permission to wear
the splayed red cross as a sign of 'the red blood of the martyr'.
Meanwhile, the German army led by Conrad had proceeded before the rest of
the Crusaders and, in October 1147, they were on a direct route across Asia


Minor, close to the border of Seljuk Turk territory. In spite of its vast size, when
set upon by the more experienced Turks, the German army was heavily defeated.
Those who survived, including Conrad himself, retreated to travel with the
predominantly French Crusaders who were taking a safer coastal route. But on
reaching Ephesus on the west coast of Asia Minor, Conrad was taken ill and
returned to Constantinople with his remaining forces. The French, however,
were experiencing their own difficulties. As they followed on after the huge
German army, the townspeople and villagers they passed had grown weary of the
demands of hungry marchers, and they retracted their generosity. This in turn
angered the Crusaders, who plundered the land they travelled through. Everard
des Barres stepped in to take control, artfully smoothing the explosive situation,
and he put Templar knights at the front and rear of the marchers, to keep the
disorderly army in some form of disciplined shape.
But it was a motley crowd that marched on. The many women who had
followed Queen Eleanor's lead had also taken their maids and often their
children and other servants, so numerous families, pedlars, pilgrims and other
stragglers accompanied the soldiers. As the months passed, many of the
marchers became ill and weak from weariness, the cold and lack of food. In
January 1148, when they reached the Cadmus Mountains (today part of western
Turkey), it was decided that the stronger members of the army would go on
ahead. They would set up camp on the far side of the mountain, leaving the sick
and tired to follow on more slowly. With the Seljuk Turks following closely on
their heels, these slower marchers were in an extremely vulnerable situation. On
the steep, rocky slopes of the mountain, they and their horses lost their footings
as the Seljuks nimbly galloped past, firing arrows rapidly as they did so. When
the Crusaders eventually all met up again, most of the slower group had been
annihilated. Horrified and remorseful, King Louis asked Everard des Barres to
take complete control of the army. He wasted no time in dividing the vast army
into smaller units, placing a Templar in charge of each unit, and he made the
members of these units swear to obey their Templar leaders without questioning.
In this way, the Crusaders reached the city of Attalia (now Antalya) on the
Mediterranean coast of Turkey in relative safety, where they waited for the
Byzantine ships that they had been promised would take them to the Holy Land.
But when the fleet arrived, it was far too small to take them all, so only Louis,
Eleanor, their nobles and a small contingent of the army set sail, leaving the
others to cross the hostile Seljuk lands on foot. The majority were either killed or
died of exhaustion or hunger on the way.


From The History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem by William of Tyre, c.1250, this
illumination shows the entry of Louis VII into Constantinople with Emperor
Conrad III during the Second Crusade, 1147-9.
By the time Louis arrived at Antioch early in March 1148, he had run out of
money. He abandoned his original plan of retaking Edessa and instead marched
on to Jerusalem where he visited the holy shrines as a pilgrim rather than as a
conquering soldier. He sent Everard des Barres to Acre to raise money from
Templar resources there to pay for the cost of the journey so far, which resulted
in him owing the Templars the equivalent of about half his annual income. The
remaining Crusader army, which consisted of a number of French and German
survivors (along with Conrad who had recovered and arrived by sea from
Constantinople), was not completely depleted, so between them they considered
making an assault on Aleppo, but soon abandoned the idea in favour of attacking
Damascus instead. It was an ambitious and ill-considered plan.
In June 1148, a Council was called in Acre, attended by Louis of France,
Conrad of Germany, the 17-year-old King of Jerusalem Baldwin III, Raymond of
Antioch, Everard des Barres and a large number of Templars, Hospitallers and
other knights from the area. Raymond of Antioch wanted to attack Aleppo and
recapture Edessa, others wanted to attack Egypt, but that was not deemed
possible as the city of Ascalon in between was still ruled by the powerful
Fatimid dynasty. So the discussion focused on Damascus. Because it had been


one of the Muslim powers that had allied with the Christians previously, the
Crusaders perceived that it might be an easier target. An ancient and wealthy
city, Damascus was famously conquered by Alexander the Great in the fourth
century BCE. It was in a particularly strategic position, northeast of Jerusalem,
Nazareth and Acre, and southwest of Tripoli. After a long meeting, the
Crusaders decided that Damascus would be their target. The following month,
they marched to Damascus and, in preparation for a siege, set up camp in a
location that was naturally supplied with fresh flowing water and orchards that
gave shade and fruit. However, they had not noticed that the trees in the orchards
also served as cover for the Damascene army, who repeatedly attacked them as
they camped. Apart from that, however, the siege was beginning to move in their
favour, but Louis and Conrad decided to relocate their troops on open ground.
Their new camp lacked water and shade and was close to a section of the city
walls that was of a greater height than in their former camp. Within a short time,
these elements defeated them; the Crusaders were dying of thirst and exposure,
and the walls were too high to surmount. Forced to retreat without a fight, the
Crusaders' efforts had been a total failure. Humiliatingly, the Crusaders had
gained nothing and the Second Crusade was recognized by all as a fiasco. Six
years later in 1154, Nur ad-Din took control of Damascus without a fight,
strengthening the power of Muslims in Outremer once more.


An illuminated manuscript from The History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.
Inside the letter C is an illustration of Conrad III, King of Germany, and King
Louis VII of France besieging Damascus in 1148.

The Siege of Ascalon by King Baldwin III of Jerusalem, from an illuminated
manuscript by Sébastien Mamerot, Les Passages d'Outremer (Journeys to
Outremer).


The Siege of Ascalon
During the winter of 1149-50, the young King Baldwin III of Jerusalem asked
the Templars to take control of Gaza, a city on a strip of land surrounded by
Egypt, Ascalon and the Mediterranean Sea, 78 kilometres (48 miles) southwest
of Jerusalem. Baldwin had rebuilt the ruined city of Gaza and intended that the
Knights Templar would defend it against continual raids by the Fatimids, who
had kept control of Ascalon, a small patch of territory ten miles to the north of
Gaza, after the First Crusade. Ascalon was an important base for the Muslims
and they had used it for centuries. From there, they attacked pilgrims as they
travelled from Jaffa and Nazareth to Jerusalem.
After the Second Crusade, Conrad III of Germany had attempted to besiege
the fortress in Ascalon, but as he had no support from anyone else, he was forced
to withdraw. It was not until Baldwin III had rebuilt the city of Gaza, and invited
the Templars in to defend it, that he, too, decided to make an assault on Ascalon.
At the end of January 1153, the entire army of Jerusalem, with Patriarch Fulcher
holding the relic of the True Cross aloft, plus the Templars, Hospitallers and a
number of powerful barons, marched towards Ascalon with as many siege
towers as they could gather. Situated on the Mediterranean coast, the port of
Ascalon was shaped like a basin, protected by the sea on one side and strong,
curved man-made walls on the other. The Crusader siege was therefore
undertaken both by land and by sea, with the fleet commanded by Gerard
Grenier, Lord of Sidon, who strangely often raided both Muslims and Christians
at sea. Sidon was one of the Crusader states, having been captured in 1110. In
the 13th century, one of Gerard's descendants sold the land to the Knights
Templar, but it was later destroyed by the Mongols. The Mongols, sometimes
called the Tartars, were pagans from central Asia who began as nomads, divided
into tribes and brutally attacked and conquered several civilizations.
On its way to Ascalon, the Crusader force was also augmented by a large
group of pilgrims who were on their way to Jerusalem at the time. Siege towers
were constructed and for five months many clashes between the two sides left
things at stalemate. Ascalon was virtually impenetrable and behind its massive
walls and gates were twice as many defenders as there were besiegers outside.
Within the walls, the inhabitants had food supplies that would potentially last for
years. In May, the powerful Egyptian fleet arrived to resupply the city, and while
it was there it destroyed Gerard of Sidon's far smaller fleet. Then in August, a
group from within Ascalon tried to burn down one of the Crusader siege towers.
The wind blew the fire back against the walls of Ascalon causing a large section
to collapse. Written over 25 years later, William of Tyre's account described
Templar knights rushing through the opening in the wall without King Baldwin's


knowledge. The Templar Grand Master, Bernard de Tremelay, stopped others
from following, but subsequently he and about 40 of his Templar knights were
killed by the larger Egyptian force within. Their bodies were displayed on the
ramparts and their heads sent to the caliph in Cairo. This has not been verified,
however, and other accounts do not mention it. William of Tyre disliked the
Knights Templar, so his report has to be treated with caution, but it is known that
Bernard de Tremelay was killed during the fighting.
By August, eight months after they first set out, the Crusaders were exhausted
and it was suggested that they abandon the siege, but King Baldwin was
convinced that they were on the verge of victory. Three days later they made
another assault and another breach was made in a different part of the wall.
Bitter fighting ensued but eventually the city fell to the Crusaders. By the end of
August 1153, the fortress was officially surrendered. The Muslim inhabitants
were allowed to leave in peace and most fled back to Egypt. Ascalon was turned
into a diocese directly under the Patriarch of Jerusalem and the city was added to
the County of Jaffa, which was ruled by Baldwin's brother Almaric. The city's
mosque was reconsecrated as a church. The fall of Ascalon contributed to the
downfall of the Fatimid dynasty in Egypt; in 1162, Amalric succeeded his
brother as King of Jerusalem and, throughout the 1160s, he led numerous
expeditions from Ascalon into Egypt, but he never succeeded in his aim of
bringing Egypt under his control.


Building for defence
When the disasters of the Second Crusade were reported in the West, the
reaction was one of shock and outrage, closely followed by anger over the cost.
It was apparent that a more robust and permanent defence of the Holy Land was
needed. Knights of the military orders already established there would have to
become more secure, better equipped and more prepared to fight and attack on
many levels to form a greater defence where it was most needed.
In the 1130s, the Templars had been made responsible for guarding the region
between Cilician Armenia, a principality that was formed by refugees escaping
invasions of Armenia by the Seljuk Turks from the 11th to 14th centuries, and
the Principality of Antioch. Since then, they had also been building or
reinforcing castles across Europe and Outremer. Being an international
organization, the Templars could draw on the building practices and best
techniques employed by the many nations they were involved with. In particular,
they learned quickly from both their friends and adversaries in Outremer and
created massive structures that were able to withstand heavy bombardment or
siege. The ability of the Templars to learn and apply what they saw around them
was one of their major attributes. Templar castles served as protective fortresses
as well as living quarters and administrative centres. After the Second Crusade,
castle building took on an even greater importance and urgency. More were built
strategically across the Crusader states and enhanced by the latest military
advances. The Crusader states made up a long narrow strip of the Principality of
Antioch, the County of Tripoli and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, with the
Mediterranean coast on one side and mountain ranges on the other. Beyond the
mountains, the cities of Aleppo, Homs, Hama and Damascus were controlled by
Muslim rulers. So the earliest Templar castles were built during the 1130s in the
mountains to guard the passes for Christian travellers.


The first Templar castles
Built in the Amanus Mountains, northwest of Aleppo, the first Templar castle
was probably Baghras Castle, also known as Gaston Castle. It was originally
constructed by the Byzantines during the tenth century but the Templars took it
over in about 1131. Built on a rocky peak with steep slopes running away from it
on either side, it overlooked the road to Antioch and the south approach to the
Belen Pass (also known as the Syrian Gates), through the Amanus Mountains.
Other castles soon followed Baghras, including Trapesac (or Darbsak) Castle,
which guarded the north approach to the Belen Pass. Then there were Banyas,
Calamella, Roche Roussel and Tortosa Castles, all built or in Templar possession
by the mid-12th century.
Situated to the south of Antioch, Tortosa had become part of the County of
Tripoli after it was conquered by Raymond of Toulouse in 1099. It was an
important town, used as a landing point for pilgrims and also a busy port serving
mainly Genoese and Venetian ships. In 1152, Nur ad-Din captured Tortosa, but
within months it was regained by the Christians and immediately assigned to
Templar protection. They built a large fortress there and raised impregnable
walls around the whole town. In the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the Templars were
given the castle of Latrūn, also called Toron des Chevaliers. After the Second
Crusade, the Templars were given the fortress of Gaza. This had been built by
King Baldwin III on the main north-south coastal road. The Templars used it as
a base for raids against the Muslim-held city of Ascalon and for protecting the
southern side of the Kingdom of Jerusalem against Egypt. In the 1160s, they
were given the castle of Safed in Galilee, but less than 30 years later, after a
bitter siege, it was taken by Saladin. In 1240, through a treaty made with the
Muslims, the Templars regained Safed Castle, but in 1266 it finally fell to
Baibars (1223-77), a Mamluk slave who became Sultan of Egypt and whose
reign marked the start of an age of Mamluk dominance in the Eastern
Mediterranean.


The ruins of the castle of Ponferrada in León, Spain, built by the Knights
Templar in the 12th century on the pilgrim route, the Way of St James, to
Santiago de Compostela. In 1178, Ferdinand II of León donated the city to the
Templars for protecting the pilgrims on their journeys. The name Ponferrada
derives from a nearby iron pilgrim bridge built at the end of the 11th century.
During the castle-building programme, in 1217, the Templars began erecting
Atlit or Athlit Castle, also known as the Pilgrims' Castle, south of Haifa.
Building of this castle lasted until 1221. Even before it was completed, Atlit
became one of the major Crusader fortresses, where up to 4,000 troops could
live (and did during a siege in 1220). There were three freshwater wells within
its enclosure, and with a protected harbour on one side, the castle served both as
a port and as a guard over the pilgrimage road from Acre to Jerusalem.
Additionally, as the castle dominated the coastal route and surrounding
countryside, the Templars could draw revenue on it from tolls and rents, which
helped to pay for its upkeep and their equipment and food.


Castle building in Outremer
During the 11th century, Norman masons built massive stone castles in Europe,
replacing former earth and timber defences. Many Normans were involved in
both the First and Second Crusades and several remained in the Holy Land to
build castles there for the Templars. Because the land in Outremer was so
inconsistent, castle design was necessarily varied and often experimental.
Building techniques and styles often borrowed from surrounding influences,
such as the Byzantine use of small bricks, or Armenian, Byzantine, European or
Islamic methods of cutting and shaping stones. Variations in mixtures of cement
and mortar also reflected different cultural influences and an understanding of
requirements in warm climates. Castle building in the Holy Land developed
more rapidly than in the West. For example, the first concentric castles were
built in Outremer in the late 1160s, over a century before they appeared in
Europe. After the Second Crusade, towers became larger and more closely
spaced and castle walls became thicker. The originally Islamic concept of the
talus (an additional sloping front on a castle) along the lower parts of walls and
towers was adopted. The number of embrasures for archery or observation was
increased and various forms of projecting machicolation appeared, to allow
arrows to be shot out or missiles to be dropped on to enemies below. These also
followed Byzantine and Islamic fortification styles.

La Couvertoirade; the remains of a village with a castle situated in the valley of
River Dourbie near Lodève in France. It was originally a stopping place for
pilgrims on the road to Santiago de Compostela and was given to the Knights
Templar in 1185 so that they could protect the pilgrims on their way to that


shrine.


Safety and practicality
By the 1180s, there were approximately 600 Templar knights in Jerusalem,
Tripoli and Antioch, and approximately 1,000 sergeants, and these were
involved in every battle fought in the area. All their castles were under a
Commander in charge of supplies and the sergeants who guarded the gates. The
Templar Order was the only organization capable of building these great castles
at the time and they were all solid and robust, whether they were vast
strongholds or small simple lookout towers. As well as drawing on ideas from
local Byzantine and Islamic styles and methods, the Templars also hired expert
masons from Europe to assist in their castle-building programme. Pilgrims often
worked as labourers in return for their protection. From the second half of the
12th century, most Templar castles were concentrated in the northern part of the
Principality of Antioch and in the south of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, where
they were used primarily to guard pilgrim routes. Portraying an image of
strength and impregnability, they were predominantly used as bases from where
Templars could ensure that passing pilgrims had enough food, tents and mules.
As they spread across Europe, the Templars built castles in other locations as
well, mainly in the Iberian Peninsula. But their building programme
concentrated more on barns, preceptories and churches. Templar church and
domestic architecture features some of the finest of their craftsmanship, and
throughout Europe they built approximately 9,000 preceptories, comprising
farms, barns, strongholds and other practical buildings. Totally different from
either their castles or their churches, Templar barns are usually timber framed
and functional. Theodorich, a German monk who went on pilgrimage to the
Holy Land in 1172, wrote about the Templar buildings he saw in Jerusalem:
... on the other side of the palace, that is on the west, the Templars have
built a new house, whose height, length and breadth, and all its cellars and
refectories, staircase and roof, are far beyond the custom of this land.
Indeed its roof is so high that, if I were to mention how high it is, those who
listen would hardly believe me. There indeed they have constructed a new
palace, just as on the other side they have the old one. There too they have
founded on the edge of the outer court a new church of magnificent size and
workmanship.
For these holy men, their churches and other places of worship were possibly the
most essential aspects of the Templars' daily existence. Large castles were built
to contain a chapel, refectory, halls, stables, dormitories and other chambers and
storerooms that could be used to store enough provisions in the event of lengthy
sieges. If the castles were not large enough for a separate chapel, the Templars
used part of the inner baileys as their chapels. Further churches were built by


them across Europe and Outremer, as this was one of the unique privileges
granted to them by Pope Innocent II in 1139 - other religious orders were not
allowed to build their own churches. As a result, within the first century of their
existence, the Templars had built approximately 150 churches and cathedrals.
These churches reflect the Order's collective, humble devotion to their religion.
In the Holy Land in particular, they seem to have felt their religious
responsibilities keenly.


Gothic architecture
Within a few years of the Templars' formation, a new style of church
architecture appeared in Western Europe. Becoming known later as Gothic, the
first examples were built in France in around 1140 and the style flourished
during the crusading period. Characterized by large towers and spires that soared
high into the sky, Gothic churches were physical examples of an improved
knowledge of engineering and a reverence for God. It has been speculated that
the Templars were involved in the invention of the Gothic style of architecture.
The basis for this theory included the fact that the development of the style
began in Europe just after the Order was established at the Council of Troyes and
it became more widespread when the Templars were becoming extremely
successful, and expanding in many different directions, including becoming
proficient in building for several different purposes. Another reason for the
theory is that many elements of the style seem to emerge from Byzantine and
Islamic traditions, which would not have been familiar to established European
architects and masons, but were accessible to the Templars in the East. Yet there
are other facts that counteract these claims, including: if they invented it, why
did the Templars not create Gothic style churches for themselves?
The overall appearance of Gothic architecture was unique and served to
glorify both the Catholic faith and, it is claimed, the French royal family - the
Capetian dynasty. Gothic architecture was tall, light and airy, with high vaulted
ceilings in web-like designs that balanced on soaring stone pillars. The
Byzantine and Islamic methods that feature in Gothic churches in turn developed
from earlier Egyptian techniques, such as making use of solid walls and pillars
rather than hollowing them out as had been done previously. In this way, they
could support greater weights. Other Eastern methods included precision cutting
of stone, so that everything slotted together and exactly matched other stone
blocks. These were just two of the new building innovations that enabled the
new churches to be far larger than previously built European churches. Soon the
use of buttresses and flying buttresses allowed the stonework to be supported
from the outside, so huge, heavy glass windows could be fitted into the solid
walls, and this made Gothic churches vast, high-ceilinged places, that filled with
sparkling jewel colours as the daylight shone through the stained-glass windows.
Gothic architects were creating the loftiest interior spaces the world had ever
seen, while outside, spires soared high into the sky as if reaching up to heaven
and God. The technical innovations of the style enabled buildings to be
constructed on a skeleton framework, which enormously increased architects'
flexibility.


Gothic architecture in the abbey on Mont Saint-Michel in Normandy, which was
built over five centuries. The style became widespread at the time of the
Templars' expansion, and many aspects seemed to derive from eastern traditions,
but their involvement was not apparent.
The key features of Gothic architecture that also reflected Eastern building
practice included the pointed arch that originated in the Byzantine and Sassanid
(Persian) Empires and subsequently became a distinctive feature of Islamic
architecture. Another was rib vaulting that originally appeared in ancient Egypt
as barrel vaulting, then in ancient Rome as two barrel vaults intersected at right
angles to form groin vaults, which were also used in Byzantine and Islamic
buildings. Gothic builders modified the concept into the rib vault, which was a
skeleton of pointed arches, or ribs, on which masonry was laid. Buttresses used
in Gothic architecture were also previously used in Byzantine, Sassanid and
Islamic architecture, and window tracery also appeared originally in Byzantine
buildings. But the notion that the Knights Templar were the instigators of the
Gothic style seems improbable when considered in the context of their structure.


Bernard of Clairvaux, who was so important in their formation, advocated
greater simplicity and the eradication of embellishment and expense in art and
architecture. Gothic architecture was far too ornate and decorative for his tastes
and the Templars adhered strongly to Bernard's other beliefs, so it would have
been singular for them to have contradicted him in this area. Many of the
characteristics of Gothic architecture had been used in the architecture of the
Romanesque period, which began in Europe long before the Order of the
Knights Templar was formed. Certain elements, such as pointed arches and large
stained-glass windows, did not appear in Romanesque churches, however, but
pointed arches and ribbed vaults did appear in Durham Cathedral in England,
which was begun in 1093, before the foundation of the Knights Templar, or even
the First Crusade.
Another common assumption that denies any Templar link is that Gothic
architecture was invented by Abbot Suger (c.1081-1151) of Saint-Denis. An
influential French cleric, chronicler and statesman who believed that art
enhanced religious experience, Abbot Suger started an enlargement programme
of the Abbey-Church of Saint-Denis in Paris in about 1140. A highly literate
man, he was close to kings Louis VI and Louis VII of France, served as regent
for Louis VII during the Second Crusade and lived at the court of Pope Calixtus
II (r. 1119-24) for a year. After being made abbot of Saint-Denis in 1122, Suger
soon instigated its rebuilding. Since the seventh century, Saint-Denis had been
the royal abbey of France where kings were both educated and buried. When
Abbot Suger's new basilica was consecrated in 1144, the innovations in the
architecture astonished and inspired many others.


A 12th-century stained-glass window in the Basilica of Saint-Denis, which had
been a place of pilgrimage since the 10th century. Abbot Suger, a powerful
political figure, had the basilica rebuilt according to new architectural techniques
at that time, and this is said to be the first Gothic building and the prototype for
all other Gothic cathedrals and abbeys across much of Europe. The brilliantly
coloured stained glass windows depict Christian stories. Here, it shows St
Maurice urging the officers of the legion to suffer martyrdom with him and
below, refusing to sacrifice to Pagan gods.
Following Suger's belief that beauty and art honoured God, the design of
Saint-Denis resembled the opulence of Byzantine churches. He wrote two
accounts about it: Liber de rebus in administratione sua gestis ('The book on
what was done under his administration') and Libellus alter de consecratione
ecclesiae sancti Dionysii ('The other little book on the consecration of the
Church of Saint-Denis'). In the books, Suger gave details about the construction
of the church and its symbolism. He explained that, by 1133, he had collected
artists and craftsmen 'from all lands', including a group of Arabic glass-makers.


Coloured glass was originally produced by the ancient Egyptians and the
Romans. The tradition continued in the East where it was produced mainly for
use in mosques; for example, by the 12th-century, the Fatimid dynasty in
particular had been using stained glass in their mosques for over a hundred
years. Fatimid scholars and mystics used coloured glass in geometric patterns to
assist their meditation. Some stained glass had been used in the windows of
European churches and monasteries from the seventh century, but these had been
small. It was not until the engineering of Gothic architecture made it possible to
incorporate large windows in churches, that stained glass became a meticulous
and expressive art form. It is credible therefore that the first stained-glass
window makers of the Gothic period in Europe learned their skills from Islamic
glass-makers. Further contemporary independent reports about Saint-Denis
explain that Suger was involved with many ideas behind the architectural
designs, but there is no evidence that he was active on the technical side, so it
remains uncertain just how much he actually influenced the development of the
style. That he was an active participant in the building of Saint-Denis is clear; he
wrote about losing sleep over many aspects of the work and how he even
sourced some raw materials himself. As abbot, he probably had the final say
about whether or not designs were acceptable, and he must have been receptive
to and encouraging of new ideas and innovative styles, materials and methods,
but it is unlikely that the actual plans and methods were of his making or even of
his instigation. He was not trained in either architecture or engineering and,
although he clearly appreciated the final outcome, the church was built to
exacting standards that required the expertise of skilled, trained architectural
engineers and masons.
After 1144, Saint-Denis became the model for other churches and cathedrals
across France, England, the Low Countries, Germany, Spain, northern Italy and
Sicily, but no Templar churches followed the Gothic style, and although both
Bernard of Clairvaux and the Templars have been linked with the rise of Gothic
architecture, there is no definitive proof of this. While Templar builders were
extremely sophisticated and remained aware and knowledgeable of current
architectural fashions and developments, they continued to follow Bernard of
Clairvaux's preference for simplicity without unnecessary adornment. There was
no standard form of Templar church. From the time they were given permission
to build their own churches in 1139, they built many types, including
rectangular, cruciform, octagonal, polygonal and round. Many recalled the shape
of either the Dome of the Rock or the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. As Bernard
of Clairvaux advocated, Templars sought functionality and quality rather than
beauty, and their churches remained modest in comparison with the massive


Gothic cathedrals and abbeys being constructed across parts of Europe during
the same period. Although strong and harmonious in style, there is nothing
particularly unusual for the period about any Templar building. As their wealth
and influence grew, however, so Bernard of Clairvaux's instructions for 'simple
architecture' began to be forgotten, and later Templar buildings, particularly the
churches, became a little more ornate. But, although all their buildings were
constructed with great precision using the latest technology and methods, none
featured any of the design elements that were later called Gothic. So if they had
any involvement in the building of the great cathedrals, it remains indistinct and
difficult to establish.
Although they acquired many previously constructed buildings, the Templars
always enhanced or rebuilt for their own purposes. Their preceptories, for
example, were like miniature towns, complete with chapels, armouries,
refectories, training grounds, barns, dormitories and offices. Some were fortified,
some were fitted and equipped ready to host guests and pilgrims, and all were
built for practicality within their particular country. The Templars employed
expert builders from outside the Order, including local stone masons and
architects, as well as masons from within the Order, who were known as 'Mason
brothers'. Apart from priests, the Mason brothers were the only other members
of the Templar Order allowed to wear leather gloves. Section 325 in the Rule
stated that: 'No brother should wear leather gloves, except the Chaplain brother
... the Mason brothers may wear them sometimes, and it is permitted them
because of the great suffering they endure and so that they do not easily injure
their hands; but they should not wear them when they are not working.' Mason
brothers were not Templar monks, but it appears from this statement that the
Templars did not simply hire outside workers for their construction work, as has
been suggested by many, but used trained artisans and craftsmen as part of their
organization.


Sacred geometry
Little has been documented about Templar Mason brothers, but this was not
unusual. Medieval masons in general were secretive, which has stimulated the
beliefs that many of them practised 'sacred geometry'. The notion of sacred
geometry in architecture arises from the perfect proportions and ratios and
geometric shapes found in some ancient religious buildings. These have been
recognized in buildings constructed by various different cultures. As certain
proportions and ratios have been used in Byzantine, Gothic and some Templar
churches, these have been claimed by many to have been constructed on the
principles of sacred geometry, although this has not been substantiated. The
Templars learned much about building from the Byzantine and Islamic
architecture they were familiar with in the East, and both Byzantine and Islamic
buildings standing at that time were constructed with complex and balanced
proportions. The principles of sacred geometry are believed by some to have
been handed down from ancient builders, including the architects of Solomon's
Temple. Some claim that after the fall of Jerusalem in 70 CE, the knowledge of
sacred geometry was lost until the Templars rediscovered it when they excavated
beneath Temple Mount in around 1127. It was soon after this time that Gothic
architecture developed, which has inspired some to make links with these
concepts. Others suggest that many of the advanced developments and
proportions of Western architecture evolved from European builders learning
from their previous counterparts in the East.
Various undeciphered symbols have been found carved on the walls of some
Templar buildings and these have given rise to the theory that they are also
linked with the ancient understanding of geometry and proportion. The
pentagram is a particular symbol that has given rise to speculation that the
Templars had secret links with Islamic masons, who also used pentagrams in
their architecture, but pentagrams have been used by many diverse cultures for
different reasons. Some geometric symbols have been found on the walls of a
tower in Chinon Castle where 60 Templars were imprisoned in 1308. The
symbols include stars, grids and hand shapes with hearts on them. Similar
carvings have been found at Domme in France where further Templars were
imprisoned at the same time. Although still not understood fully, it has been
conjectured that these are connected with sacred geometry, or they could simply
be a code used by the Templars. Some have speculated that the symbols are
linked with Templar knowledge and admiration of Islamic and Byzantine
architecture, but again, nothing has been proved. As the Templars learned much
from their Islamic neighbours about medicine, mathematics, architecture and
literature, this is plausible, but - apart from the pentagram - the Templar


symbols and symbols found in other culture's buildings do not correspond.
Fundamentally, the term 'sacred geometry' encompasses certain religious,
philosophical and spiritual beliefs that have been used by various cultures in
their religious architecture. It is described as geometric shapes and ratios used in
the planning and construction of churches, temples, mosques, monuments, altars,
tabernacles and consecrated outside spaces, which have derived from the
philosophies and mathematical theories of the ancient Greeks, mainly
Pythagoras (c.575-c.495 BCE), Plato (424/3-348/7 BCE) and Euclid (325-265
BCE). Pythagoras, a philosopher, mathematician, mystic and scientist, explained
the inherent sacredness of numbers and how geometry is intrinsic to the design
of the Universe. Plato, a philosopher, mathematician, writer and founder of the
Academy in Athens, began the first institution of higher learning in the Western
world. Along with his mentor Socrates and his student Aristotle, Plato helped to
lay the foundations of Western philosophy and science. Euclid, a mathematician,
became known as the 'father of geometry', as he was responsible for assembling
almost all the world's knowledge of geometry in one book. His work, together
with the work of Pythagoras, forms the basis of sacred geometry. They worked
out that the entire universe is shaped according to set geometric values that can
be seen throughout the natural world. Simple examples of sacred geometric
shapes include circles, triangles, squares, pentagons and pentagrams, while
three-dimensional examples include the sphere and the five Platonic solids: the
tetrahedron, hexahedron (cube), octahedron, dodecahedron and icosahedron.
Euclid discovered the ratios of 'Pi', a formula for dividing circles, while
Pythagoras and Plato determined the Golden Ratio or Mean, the balance between
excess and deficiency using symmetry, proportion and harmony. The architecture
-and art - of many ancient cultures involves the repetition of numerical
relationships and the use of shapes, placement and proportion that clearly derive
from the theories of these ancient Greeks. Sacred geometry was accepted by
many ancient scholars and the term prisca sapientia (sacred wisdom), became
quite commonly used during the 15th to 17th centuries to describe this accepted
but elusive theory.
Preceptories
In addition to castles and churches, the Templars' vast building
programme included preceptories, mills, bridges, city walls,
agricultural structures and other buildings related to their commercial
enterprises. The preceptories were the hub of the organization, usually
where all administration was undertaken. Rather like an amalgamation
of monastery, farm, village and offices, most preceptories contained a


smithy, breweries, bakehouses, stables, a kiln, an orchard, a vegetable
garden, fields and livestock, as well as a strong chest that held their
legal records including charters of donation. Within each preceptory
were cells for the Templar monks and servants as well as for monks
from other orders who could stay there in isolation for short periods of
prayer and contemplation.
As sacred geometry is complex and multifaceted, it cannot be seen in one
single form or design, but emerged in different cultures, interpreted through
different design styles. For instance, the spirals on the Ionic capitals of ancient
Greek temples follow the perfectly balanced order of sacred geometry, while the
spires of much Gothic architecture also follow the theories. The notion of
creating surroundings that enhance prayer and spirituality was not well known
during the medieval period, but became important to the Neo-Platonic Society of
the Renaissance period and flowered in the art and architecture of that time. The
fact that the harmonious proportions and geometric shapes and ratios can be seen
in many Templar and other Christian buildings of medieval Europe inspired a
great deal of conjecture about where they learned this. It is clear that they had a
more complex relationship with various groups in the East than was originally
thought and that they employed indigenous builders and craftsmen, but whether
they learned about sacred geometry from Islamic or Byzantine builders has not
been established. The most popular suggestion returns to the notion that they
learned about it when excavating under Temple Mount. It has also been observed
that cathedrals, churches and abbeys produced by the Cistercian Order were built
on measurements based on 12 squares of equal length by 8 squares of equal
length, which corresponds to the Golden Ratio. Bernard of Clairvaux was
involved with much of the Cistercians' building programme during the 12th
century and, of course, he was particularly involved with the Templars. In 1134,
it is said that he was also involved in the building of the north tower of Chartres
Cathedral. It was a soaring, impressive structure that is believed by many to be
based on the pivotal dimensions of sacred geometry. Bernard once described
God as 'length, width, height and depth', and it has been conjectured that his
belief in the godliness of number and proportion in design came directly from
the influence of the Knights Templar. Without concrete evidence, however,
speculation and investigations continue.
The pentagram
Since ancient times, the pentagram has been used as a symbol by
various cultures and endowed with various meanings. Its earliest


known use was on Mesopotamian potsherds from around 3500 BCE.
Later, it was used by the Hebrews to symbolize the Pentateuch, or the
first five books of the Bible: Genesis, Exodus, Leviticus, Numbers and
Deuteronomy. The Hebrew pentagram is believed to have changed at
some point to the hexagram, becoming the Seal of Solomon or the Star
of David. The shape was important to the ancient Greek followers of
Pythagoras, who used it as a symbol of recognition among themselves.
The ancient Greeks called it the pent-alpha, as it appears to have been
formed from five letter 'A's. Early Christians attributed the pentagram
to the Five Wounds of Christ, and Emperor Constantine used it in his
seal and amulet. Any evil associations with the symbol came after the
time of the Inquisition; before that, the pentagram had often been used
as a protection against demons. Perhaps most significantly, it is
believed that the shape was used as the seal of the City of Jerusalem,
which makes it possible that the Templars adopted the pentagram as
one of their key symbols to make a visible link with their early
connections with Jerusalem and the Temple of Solomon.

A 13th-century pentagram here carved in stone was used as a funerary
relief.


One of the soaring towers of Chartres Cathedral in France. Chartres is
considered by many to be one of the finest examples of the French High Gothic
style. Constructed in the main between 1193 and 1250, it became a milestone in
the development of Western architecture with its pointed arches, rib and panel
vaults and flying buttresses. Additionally, Chartres has many stained-glass
windows and sculptures. It is often said, but has never been verified, that the
Knights Templar were involved in the building of Chartres.


The Albigensian Crusade
In the midst of all these developments, the Cathars continued to thrive and
because the Templars are believed to have employed some of them in their
building programme, when the Church turned directly against the sect, rumours
about the Templars' real leanings began circulating in several quarters.
Although never openly tolerated by the Catholic Church, at first the Cathars
were largely ignored by the authorities, although they were always viewed with
suspicion since their ideas were controversial. The main differences in their
beliefs and those of Christian teaching were that God was not all-powerful as
there were two: one good and one evil, in constant watch over humanity. They
believed that the evil god was responsible for the world itself, while the good
god was in heaven, waiting for souls to return. In effect, these beliefs gave the
devil a more prominent role. Catharism is believed to have originated in Bosnia
in the mid-tenth century, but many adherents had travelled and settled in the
Languedoc region of France by the early 12th century. They became known as
Albigensians, probably because the 1176 Church Council was held near Albi. It
was there that the Catholic Church declared the Cathar doctrine to be heretical.
Unlike most religious sects, the Cathars, or Albigensians, were extremely
organized, and as their numbers increased, they established priests and bishops,
collected funds, distributed them to the poor and lived off the land, making them
effectively a greater threat to Christianity than many other, less organized fringe
factions. They did not recognize the authority of either the French king or the
Catholic Church, but they were protected by the powerful Counts of Toulouse
who refused to persecute them. For many years, they were disregarded by
Church authorities, but almost as soon as he became Pope in 1198, Innocent III
resolved to deal with the Cathars. Initially, he sent Catholic priests and friars to
try to persuade them to convert to Christianity, but after great concerted efforts,
the priests were categorically unsuccessful. While trying to convert the Cathars,
however, the priests discovered more about their beliefs and behaviour: they
were chaste and honest, but they did not believe in the intercession of priests. To
the Church, this was heresy and the Pope determined to take decisive action. But
he needed the assistance of the rulers of the Languedoc region, and the powerful
Count Raymond VI de Toulouse refused to support the Church against the
Cathars. The Pope was furious. The papal legate Pierre de Castelnau was
appointed by the Pope to suppress the Cathars, but in 1208, while in Languedoc,
he was assassinated - this was believed to have been by some of Raymond's
friends. Pope Innocent immediately excommunicated Raymond and placed an
interdict on his lands. This made things extremely difficult for Raymond, so
eventually he apologized and complied with the Pope's wishes.


Meanwhile, despite their obligatory loyalty to the Pope, the Templars strove to
maintain neutrality. They remained reluctant to take up arms against their
neighbours in France, as some of their patrons were known Cathar supporters
and it is probable that some Cathars worked for them. But by 1209, Innocent
prepared to instigate a military campaign to completely wipe out Catharism in
Languedoc. He promised any knight who fought against them the same spiritual
rewards that had been promised to the Crusaders in the Holy Land, and he
promised to give the lands of Cathar 'heretics' to any French nobleman who took
up arms against them.

A 13th-century miniature showing the Albigensian Crusade - the persecution
and annihilation of the Cathars - in the Languedoc region of France.
Over the next few years, swelling Catholic armies marched through the
Languedoc region, storming the dwellings of the Cathars, slaughtering them
indiscriminately, even massacring those sheltering in churches. Any captured
Cathars were burned. Innocent III died in July 1216 but the crusade continued,
and for over 20 years the Cathars were oppressed and fought. From 1233, the
Inquisition was called in to crush what remained of Catharism. Their final


destruction came in 1244 at the fortress of Montségur on top of a high hill in the
eastern Pyrenees. Over 200 Cathars held out for nearly two years against assaults
and sieges by the 10,000 troops besieging them below, but in March 1244 they
finally surrendered. Approximately 220 men, women and children who refused
to renounce their faith were bound together and set alight on a huge pyre that
had been prepared for them. During the Albigensian Crusade, methods were
developed by the Church that were later taken up and refined by the Inquisition.


SHIFTING SANDS

A c.1180 print of a rare contemporary portrait of Saladin, who became the first
Sultan of Egypt and Syria and the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty.
Throughout their history, the Knights Templar remained a paradox to
many. Devout monks who were also fighting soldiers; individually poor yet
collectively wealthy; Christians who befriended many Cathars, Jews and
Muslims. Yet despite these contradictions, their courage and gallantry made
them extremely popular and successful - for a while anyway.
Approximately a century before the Albigensian Crusade, when Bernard of
Clairvaux spoke and wrote 'In Praise of the New Knighthood', he aimed to
convey the originality of the idea. The knights of the Templar Order, as opposed
to other Templar brothers, were necessarily brave, disciplined and, as Bernard
explained, determined to devote all their 'energies to the struggle on both fronts,
against flesh and blood and against the evil spirits in the air'. It was a completely
new concept. The duty of a knight was to kill his enemies and fight in the name
of his lord. The duty of a Christian was to love his neighbour as himself, and to


turn the other cheek when confronted with aggression. The Order of the Knights
Templar was somehow an amalgamation of the two conflicting concepts. In
defending the Templars, Bernard condemned the behaviour of secular knights,
proclaiming that Templar knights fought for the glory of God and not
themselves. To further the cause of the Church, he promoted the Order as an
option for secular knights to join and so redeem themselves in the eyes of God.
He saw this 'new knighthood' as a solution to the prevalent sins of pride, vanity
and desire for personal glory among ordinary knights, as well as a method of
solving the problems of defence against the infidel in the Holy Land. Although
no actual chivalric code was written, Bernard's Rule gave the Templars
instructions to govern their behaviour both on and off the battlefield.
So, the Knights Templar were contradictory in many ways. As soldiers as well
as monks, they could not renounce the world as most monks did. The work they
undertook required them to have relationships with many from the outside
world, from the king and Patriarch of Jerusalem to the many pilgrims they
defended, from the knights and nobles of other armies and countries to the many
Muslims with whom they came into contact. Fasting and penance, usually an
important aspect of monastic brotherhoods, were forbidden for the knights of the
Order as they had a duty to maintain their strength and energy, to be permanently
prepared for battle, so any practice that weakened them was discouraged.
Similarly, most monks were encouraged to study, but this aspect of the religious
life was largely disregarded for the Templars. Few Templars were well educated,
although as most of the knights came from fairly aristocratic backgrounds, the
rudiments of education had been attended to as they grew up. When drawing up
their Rule, Bernard considered and included the most honourable aspects of lay
knights' behaviour, and the most dishonourable, which he ensured would be
avoided by the Templars. Medieval knights were obligated to a 'chivalric code'
or unwritten law of behaviour. Bernard's personal chivalric code was governed
by his strong Christian morality, and this also became part of the Templar Rule.
There were four main knightly virtues that all knights were supposed to adhere
to, and these were Christian values that were shared by the Knights Templar.
They were: physical strength, courage with honour, loyalty to fellow knights,
and the spirit of sacrifice.
First used at the end of the 13th century, the word 'chivalry' arose from the
French word chevalier meaning horseman. The accepted chivalric code at that
time developed among lay knights as basically a moral system, or code of
behaviour. It comprised a duty to: fight for the welfare of all; protect those who
could not protect themselves, such as widows, children and the elderly or infirm;
obey those in authority; guard the honour of fellow knights; persevere to the end


in any enterprise once started, and never turn one's back on a foe. All knights
were expected to be strong, disciplined, loyal, generous and honest. The
Templars aimed to meet these ideals, but they also had a duty to put God and the
Church before all. In the second half of the 12th century, an anonymous pilgrim
observed:
The Templars are most excellent soldiers. They wear white mantles with a
red cross and when they go to war a standard of two colours called a
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'
... These Templars live under a strict religious rule, obeying humbly,
having no private property, eating sparingly, dressing meanly and dwelling
in tents.
In his treaty 'In Praise of the New Knighthood', Bernard set out to describe the
new type of knighthood that - unlike secular knights, who fought inspired by
pride, anger, greed or yearning for glory or power - was inspired by honourable
motives and a wish to defend the holiest sites on earth as well as their fellow
Christians, and a genuine wish to overcome evil:
This is, I say, a new kind of knighthood and one unknown to the ages gone
by. It ceaselessly wages a twofold war both against flesh and blood and
against a spiritual army of evil in the heavens ... He is truly a fearless
knight and secure on every side, for his soul is protected by the armour of
faith just as his body is protected by armour of steel. He is thus doubly
armed and need fear neither demons nor men ... Gladly and faithfully he
stands for Christ.
BERNARD OF CLAIRYAUX, 'IN PRAISE OF THE NEW KNIGHTHOOD', C.1135
Secular knights traditionally underwent a special ceremony before they were
invested and this involved them laying their swords on an altar, which showed
that they were God's knights, but Bernard's vision for the Knights Templar went
even further. Although this concept of knightly culture was often contradictory
(and the Templars' role at first had seemed especially so), it became particularly
popular during the period in which the Templars were gaining their
respectability.


Saladin
Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub (1137/8-93), better known as Saladin, was the
son of a Kurdish Muslim who worked for Nur ad-Din as a soldier and politician.
Allegedly, in 1132, his father saved the life of Nur ad-Din's father Zengi, by
helping him across the River Tigris when he had been defeated in a battle against
the Caliph of Baghdad. From these humble beginnings, Saladin eventually
became the first Sultan of Egypt and Syria, who plotted the Islamic reconquest
of the Holy Land and the expulsion of the Christians there. A legendary hero of
folk tales among Muslims and Christians alike, Saladin founded the Ayyubid
dynasty and, leading his Muslim forces in the Holy Land, he became renowned
for his courage, chivalry and magnanimity. A devout, courteous and merciful
man, Christian chroniclers related stories of his benevolence and humanity. He
was an astute and able ruler who could also be ruthless when he believed it to be
politic. Although he had many Christian friends, he believed they were all
damned. Described as small in stature with a round face, black hair and dark
eyes, he was literate, cultured and skilled in combat. As well as Christian
enemies, he also had many jealous Muslim rivals who made alliances with the
Christians in efforts to arrest his rise to power. Saladin began his ascent by ruling
Egypt on behalf of Nur ad-Din as vizier. In 1170, he invaded Jerusalem and took
the city of Eilat, severing Christian-ruled Jerusalem's connection with the Red
Sea. In 1174, when Nur ad-Din died, he declared himself sultan in Egypt, and
rushed to seize Damascus. Egypt's enormous wealth enabled him to build a vast
empire that included Damascus and Aleppo, and stretched from Cyrenaica in
present-day Libya to the River Tigris in present-day Iraq. His power and
determination earned him the support of several other influential Muslims,
including the Caliph of Baghdad and the Sultan of Anatolia.


A French illumination, of the future Baldwin IV as a boy showing William of
Tyre his sores. It illustrates how William of Tyre recognized Baldwin's leprosy
from an early age.


Amalric I and Baldwin IV
King Baldwin III, the eldest son of Melisende and Fulk of Jerusalem who had
become king while still a child, died childless and was succeeded by his younger
brother Amalric. Amalric I was King of Jerusalem from 1163 to 1174 and the
father of three future rulers of Jerusalem: Sibylla, Baldwin IV and Isabella I. In
1157, Amalric had married Agnes de Courtenay, the daughter of Joscelin II of
Edessa. The marriage had been accepted until Baldwin III died childless, then
Patriarch Fulcher and others objected to Agnes de Courtenay on grounds of
consanguinity, as the two shared a great-great-grandfather. Although Agnes and
Amalric had three children: Sibylla, Baldwin and Alix (who died in childhood),
opposition to Agnes increased and many refused to endorse Amalric as king
unless his marriage to Agnes was annulled. Eventually Amalric agreed and
ascended the throne without a wife, although Agnes continued to hold the title
Countess of Jaffa and Ascalon, and received a pension. She soon married the
man to whom she had been engaged before her marriage with Amalric. The
Church ruled that Amalric and Agnes's children were legitimate and preserved
their place in the order of succession.
Amalric established himself as a good ruler, alternately attacking or creating
treaties with Muslim neighbours in efforts to keep the peace. In 1167, he married
Maria Comnena, a descendant of the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Comnenus.
They had a daughter Isabella, and another stillborn daughter. Over the next few
years, Jerusalem continued to be threatened by Nur ad-Din, and then by Saladin
and also by the Assassins. It is not clear why, but when Amalric was first on the
throne, a band of Templars murdered the emissary of the Assassins. When
Amalric, who was trying to keep the peace, demanded that the leader of the
Templar band be surrendered to him for punishment, the Templar Grand Master,
Odo de St Amand, refused. Instead, the Grand Master took the Templar in
question and imprisoned him at Tyre. What happened to the prisoner after that
remains a mystery, but relations between Amalric and the Templars became
ambivalent. Two years later, when Nur ad-Din died in 1174, Amalric besieged
Banias between Lebanon and Syria, but after giving up the siege he fell ill from
dysentery. He reached Jerusalem but died a few weeks later, within a few months
of Nur ad-Din. Baldwin succeeded his father and immediately brought his
mother, Agnes de Courtenay, back to court.
Baldwin IV of Jerusalem (1161-85) was educated by the historian William of
Tyre, later Archbishop of Tyre and Chancellor of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It
was William who recognized the symptoms of leprosy in the child, before he
was crowned at the age of 13. A year into his reign, Baldwin's father's cousin,
Raymond III of Tripoli, acting as regent for Baldwin, aimed to make a treaty


with Saladin. Raymond was supported by the noble families established in
Jerusalem and by the Knights Hospitaller, but opposed by the Templars and
others in the Holy Land, such as Reynald de Châtillon (1125-87), who were
eager to fight for more land rather than make compromising treaties. Raymond's
regency ended on the second anniversary of Baldwin's coronation, when he was
15 years old. Noting the disunity within the Christian camp, according to
William of Tyre, Saladin led a force of 26,000 men across the Sinai Desert
towards the Templar fortress at Gaza. The Templars gathered to counter-attack,
but Saladin and his army continued past them and laid siege to Ascalon, which
the Christians had controlled since 1153. Young Baldwin IV raised an army to
defend it, leaving Jerusalem unprotected. Saladin immediately left a minor force
to restrain Baldwin at Ascalon and marched on to Jerusalem. Realizing his
mistake, again according to William of Tyre, Baldwin summoned the Knights
Templar from Gaza and broke out of Ascalon. In November 1177, Baldwin,
Reynald de Châtillon, the Templars and a secular army of about 2,000 men fell
upon Saladin's huge army as they were crossing a ravine at Montgisard, near to
the Jaffa-Jerusalem road. Taken completely by surprise, Saladin's force was
overwhelmingly defeated, with 90 per cent killed. Saladin narrowly escaped and
fled back to Egypt.

A watercolour on parchment, c.1460, from William of Tyre's 'Historia,'
illustrating the death of Amalric I of Jerusalem and the Coronation of Baldwin
IV.


United under Islam
Undaunted nevertheless, Saladin continued to work to unite the Islamic states
surrounding the Holy Land, and gradually managed to encircle the Kingdom of
Jerusalem with Muslim-held territories. Persuaded by the Templars to reinforce
the route to Damascus, King Baldwin IV began building the castle of Chastellet,
80 kilometres (50 miles) north of Jerusalem on the River Jordan at Jacob's Ford;
the place where Jacob had wrestled with an angel, described in the Old
Testament Book of Genesis. The building of Chastellet Castle was overseen by
the Templar Grand Master, Odo de St Amand. The castle's location and
impregnability induced Saladin to offer Baldwin considerable amounts of money
to have it demolished, but no amount of money could convince Baldwin to
destroy it. The more Saladin offered, the more determined Baldwin was to keep
it, as it was clearly a big threat to the Muslims. In the summer of 1179, before it
was finished, Saladin attacked the castle. Baldwin, Raymond III of Tripoli, the
Knights Templar led by Odo de St Amand, and the Knights Hospitallers led by
Roger des Moulins counter-attacked. A fierce fight ensued and the Muslims
suffered heavy losses, but as usual, Saladin would not submit. He regrouped and
decimated the Christian forces. Baldwin escaped with the relic of the True Cross,
but Odo de St Amand was captured and died in captivity the following year. A
few weeks later, Saladin returned and laid siege to Chastellet Castle. Within six
days he had overwhelmed the castle's defences by sapping, a traditional method
of assaulting castles. Saladin's men built tunnels beneath the ten-metre-high
walls, filling them with wood and then setting the timber alight. At the time,
there were 1,500 knights, architects and builders inside the castle; 700 were
killed and the other 800, overpowered by smoke, were taken captive. The next
year, Baldwin and Saladin signed an uneasy two-year truce. In recounting the
battle, William of Tyre, whose brother was killed in the conflict, blamed Odo de
St Amand for his arrogance and impetuosity. Naturally, William of Tyre was
exceptionally biased because of the loss of his brother, but as he was the only
chronicler of the events, our knowledge and understanding of them are
incomplete.


The Battle of Montgisard, 25 November 1177, painted by Charles-Philippe,
c.1842. This dramatic and dynamic work shows the blind king, Baldwin IV,
being carried on a litter into battle. The Crusaders are vastly outnumbered, but
show no fear as they approach the massive Muslim army.


Saladin gains ground
A year after the truce between Baldwin and Saladin, in 1181, Reynald de
Châtillon attacked some rich Muslim caravans as they travelled to Mecca and
Medina. Reynald had served in the Second Crusade and remained in the Holy
Land after its defeat. He ruled as Prince of Antioch from 1153 to 1160 and
through his second marriage became Lord of Oultrejourdain, an eastern
extension of the Latin kingdom in the Holy Land. Saladin complained to
Baldwin about Reynald's attack and demanded recompense for his breaking of
the treaty. Baldwin complained to Reynald about his behaviour, but Reynald
refused to make amends. Early in 1182 before the truce was over, he launched a
fleet of ships into the Red Sea where they raided Egyptian and Arabian ports,
including Mecca and Medina. Saladin's brother gathered a force and drove them
back. In May 1182, at the end of the peace agreement, Saladin rode out with an
army from Cairo ready to fight the Christians. Because of his leprosy, Baldwin
was now almost blind and had to be carried into battle on a litter. Accompanied
by Heraclius, the new Patriarch of Jerusalem, and the relic of the True Cross, the
Christians fought as hard as the Muslims and the result of the battle was
inconclusive, with both sides claiming victory. The following summer, Saladin
captured Aleppo, gaining control of the whole of Syria, essentially enclosing the
Latin kingdoms with powerful Muslim territories.
With Outremer surrounded, Roger des Moulins, Heraclius and the new
Templar Grand Master, Arnold of Torroja, travelled to Europe to muster support.
In London, Heraclius consecrated the Templars' new church. The Templars had
recently benefited from a tragedy in England. In 1170, four of King Henry II's
knights had murdered the Archbishop of Canterbury, Thomas Becket, in his
cathedral. Their punishment was that each knight was to serve 14 years with the
Templars in the Holy Land, and King Henry, who had incited them to Becket's
murder, promised to provide the Templars with enough money to pay for 200
knights for a year. When Henry had died in 1172, he left 20,000 marks towards a
crusade: 5,000 for the Templars; 5,000 for the Hospitallers; 5,000 to share
between them and 5,000 for miscellaneous religious houses, lepers and hermits
in Outremer. Apart from this, few others in Europe felt compelled to help the
situation in the Holy Land at this time. The expense and failure of the Second
Crusade was still fresh in everyone's minds and the travellers could muster little
else in the way of donations. When Arnold of Torroja died in Verona in 1184, a
new Grand Master, Gerard de Ridefort, was elected in Jerusalem. By then, the
brave young King Baldwin IV was close to death through his debilitating
disease.


A 12th-century illustration of a Templar knight galloping forward with a lance in
battle. This is in the Templar Chapel in Cressac-Saint-Genis, France.


Dissension in Jerusalem
In March 1185, Baldwin IV died and was buried in the Church of the Holy
Sepulchre. His named successor, his eight-year-old nephew Baldwin V, also died
the following year, leaving a power struggle for the throne of Jerusalem.
Raymond III of Tripoli was the chosen regent until a suitable king could be
found, but Sibylla, Baldwin IV's sister, claimed the throne for herself and her
husband, Guy de Lusignan. Backed by Reynald de Châtillon, Gerard de Ridefort
and the Knights Templar, and Patriarch Heraclius, Sibylla and Guy were
crowned in August 1186. The Knights Hospitaller and their leader Roger des
Moulins, however, supported Raymond of Tripoli, who, angry to be robbed of
his regency, had withdrawn to his northern territories. Raymond was also Prince
of Galilee and Tiberias through his wife Eschiva. Distancing himself from the
court of Jerusalem, he made an independent truce with Saladin and allowed a
Muslim army to cross his territory, which aroused anxiety in Jerusalem that
Raymond was about to ally himself with Saladin against them.

Guy de Lusignan (c.1150-94) began as a knight and became king of the


Crusader state of Jerusalem. He was also king of Cyprus from 1192 to 1194. His
reign in Jerusalem culminated in the calamitous Battle of Hattin in July 1187,
where he was captured by Saladin.
Throughout the winter of 1185-6, Gerard de Ridefort implored King Guy to
march on Raymond and take Tripoli, to force Raymond to reconsider his
loyalties. However, after considering this, by the spring of 1186, Guy and Sibylla
were keen to make peace with Raymond instead of attacking him, so Gerard of
Ridefort, Roger des Moulins and a group of other carefully chosen men went to
negotiate with Raymond. At the same time, by coincidence, Saladin's son alAfdal, took some of his men to Tripoli. Upon hearing that Muslims were
gathering there, Gerard de Ridefort immediately summoned as many of his
Templars as he could and Roger des Moulins did the same with the Hospitallers.
On 1 May, an army made up of about 90 knights from the two orders, another 40
local knights, 300 foot soldiers and the 2 Grand Masters arrived at the Springs of
Cresson, north of Nazareth. Below them, a huge army of Muslims had gathered.
Greatly outnumbered, Roger des Moulins and the Templar marshal James de
Mailly urged Gerard de Ridefort to retreat; but he refused, taunting James de
Mailly for being a coward. In the ensuing battle, both James de Mailly and
Roger des Moulins were killed alongside almost every Christian knight. Of those
who had entered the field, only four Christians survived, one of whom was
Gerard de Ridefort.
The massacre at Cresson was a disaster undoubtedly brought on by Gerard's
arrogance and impetuosity. The one good thing that emerged from it was the
unification of the Christian factions, as Raymond of Tripoli and Sibylla and Guy
were reconciled. When Saladin learned that Raymond had made peace with King
Guy, he amassed a huge force and attacked Raymond's city of Tiberias. In
response, Guy similarly summoned every Latin soldier in the Holy Land. King
Henry II's money was used to pay for weapons and mercenaries and, by the end
of June 1187, the medium-sized Christian army was ready.


The Battle of Hattin
On 1 July, Saladin crossed the River Jordan near Lake Tiberias with 30,000 foot
soldiers and 12,000 cavalry. He sent half his force up into the hills and took half
to the shore of Lake Tiberias. While he was laying siege to Tiberias, the
Christian army were settling into a good defensive position elsewhere. Their
army included a large number of Templars and Hospitallers, Raymond of Tripoli,
Reynald de Châtillon, many other nobles, and the Bishop of Acre who carried
the True Cross. They all agreed to wait, believing that Saladin could not hold his
huge army together in the hot and arid landscape and that it would soon break up
without input from them. While they were waiting, on 2 July, a message arrived
from Raymond's wife Eschiva, explaining that she was holding out against
Saladin's army inside the mighty fortress of Tiberias, with a unit of loyal
knights, but the situation was desperate. Frantic talks ensued in the Crusader
encampment at the springs of Sepphoris, and many wanted to march to Tiberias
immediately and attack the Muslim army, but despite knowing of the danger to
his wife, Raymond advised the king not to. He said:
None of you is so fiercely attached, save to Christianity, as I am to the city.
None of you is so desirous, as I am to succour or aid Tiberias. We and the
king, however, should not move away from water, food and other
necessities to lead such a multitude of men to death from solitude, hunger,
thirst and scorching heat ... Stay therefore, at this midway point, close to
food and water ... Then ... we and our horses will be fresh; we will be
aided and protected by the Lord's cross. Thus we will fight mightily against
an unbelieving people who will be wearied by thirst and who will have no
place to refresh themselves ... the enemies of Christ ... will be taken
captive or else killed by sword, by lance or by thirst.
That night, several men, including Gerard de Ridefort, went to King Guy
complaining that Raymond was not to be trusted as he had already sided with
Saladin, and that they should not abandon Tiberias. The following day, they left
their sheltered camp at Sepphoris and marched across the barren hills in the
searing heat to attack the Muslims at Tiberias and rescue Eschiva and the knights
with her. Tiberias was nine miles away and there was no reliable water source on
the journey.
Saladin's vast army meanwhile had settled in Hattin, a well-watered village
that descended towards Lake Tiberias. The entire surrounding area is called the
Horns of Hattin for the two rocky peaks that rise over the brush-covered slopes
behind Tiberias. By the evening of 3 July, the Christian army reached a plateau
above Hattin. Exhausted, they stopped there and set up camp. The place had
been known to have a spring, but that had dried up and the only stream was


blocked. Beneath the Christian camp, Saladin's army set fire to the brush on the
hillside. Hot, thirsty and choking from smoke that came from the burning scrub,
the Christian troops spent a difficult night. Many could not sleep for need of
water and some were so desperate that they left their camp and went to the
nearby stream to quench their thirsts, only to be captured and beheaded by
Saladin's men. By morning, Saladin's army had completely enclosed the
Crusaders' camp. A chronicler of the event claimed, 'not a cat could have slipped
through the net'. Outnumbered by ten to one as dawn approached, the parched
and weak Crusaders nevertheless charged into the battle, but they were defeated
within six hours.

In the 13th century, the Dominican friar, Vincent of Beauvais (c.1190-c.1264)
wrote the Speculum Historiale, a history of the world. This is an illustration from
it, showing the loss of the True Cross at the Battle of Hattin.
The Crusader leaders who were still alive were rounded up and taken to
Saladin's camp. This included King Guy, Gerard de Ridefort and Reynald de
Châtillon. The common soldiers were sold into slavery. Saladin demanded that
all the Templars were executed without mercy except for their Grand Master,
Gerard de Ridefort, who was to be spared. Individually the Templars and
Hospitallers were forced to their knees while Muslim soldiers beheaded them.
Chroniclers claim that every Templar met his death in silence and with humility.
The True Cross, which was always carried by the Christians into battle, was


either lost or taken by Saladin. In line with his reputation, Saladin treated King
Guy mercifully, while he personally executed Reynald for his past offences.
Gerard de Ridefort is believed to have traded his freedom for the Templar castle
at Gaza. Once released, he joined Guy in an effort to regain the city of Acre,
which had been taken by Saladin, but he was killed at the Siege of Acre in 1189.
Following his victory at Hattin, Saladin had quickly captured Acre, Nablus,
Jaffa, Toron, Sidon, Beirut and Ascalon. After a short siege, by October of 1187,
even Jerusalem was surrendered to him.
The news of the taking of Jerusalem spread alarm throughout western
Christendom. Another Crusade was called for and on Pope Gregory VII's
request, once more, thousands vowed to take the cross. Even the three greatest
rulers of Europe - King Philip Augustus of France, King Richard I of England
and the Holy Roman Emperor, Frederick Barbarossa - vowed to travel to the
Holy Land and re-establish Christian supremacy there. Taking charge of three
large armies, the three powerful rulers set out in 1189, less than two years after
the calamitous Battle of Hattin.
Gerard de Ridefort
Believed to be of Flemish descent, unlike previous and later Grand
Masters, Gerard de Ridefort, who headed the Order from 1185 to 1189,
did not speak Arabic, nor was he a negotiator or diplomat. It is not
certain when he arrived in the Holy Land, but by the late 1170s he was
recorded as being in the service of King Baldwin IV. By 1179, he held
the rank of Marshal of the Kingdom. It seems that Raymond III of
Tripoli had promised to give him the hand of an heiress, but instead,
Raymond married the lady in question to Plivain, the nephew of a
wealthy merchant from Pisa who paid him 10,000 bezants for her,
which was the lady's weight in gold. Furious, Ridefort's consequent
hatred of Raymond of Tripoli influenced nearly all his major decisions.
Once he knew he could not marry the heiress, he took vows as a
Templar. By June 1183, he held the rank of Seneschal, and on the
death of Arnold of Torroja in Verona, he was elected Grand Master.
Opposing Raymond's claim to the throne of Jerusalem, Ridefort ended
up putting the Templars in mortal danger. Arrogant, angry, impatient
and impetuous, his grudge against Raymond of Tripoli had a disastrous
impact on his decisions until, ultimately, the Templars suffered their
most humiliating defeat at the Battle of Hattin.


Richard the Lionheart
Obscured by legend as much as Saladin, Richard Coeur de Lion, or Richard the
Lionheart (1157-99), was described as being tall and good-looking, with redgold hair. His mother, the notorious Eleanor of Aquitaine, had been Queen of
France when first married to Louis VII, and became Queen of England on
marrying Henry II. Through his father, the King of England, Richard was a
descendant of William the Conqueror and his great-grandfather was Fulk
d'Anjou, later King Fulk of Jerusalem. As the third son of Eleanor and Henry,
Richard did not expect to become king and spent little time in England. He never
learned to speak English, although he spoke, read and wrote in French and
understood Latin. But, unexpectedly, both his elder brothers died, and in July
1189, he became King of England at the age of 32.
The year before he ascended the throne, Richard had pledged to go on the
Third Crusade. As soon as he was crowned, as King Richard I, he began raising
money. He started by persecuting and robbing Jews, then he imposed a high tax
on all his subjects, which became known as the 'Saladin tithe'. Next, he sold
practically everything he had, including earldoms, lordships, sheriffdoms,
castles, royal land and even whole towns. When he was asked about some of his
questionable money-raising methods, he declared that he 'would sell the city of
London if he could find a purchaser'. On his way to the eastern Mediterranean,
Richard decided to form an alliance with Sancho VI, the King of Navarre, and
became engaged to his daughter Berengaria. This instantly angered King Philip
II of France, Richard's stepbrother. Ever since they were children, Richard had
been engaged to Philip's half-sister Alys and in view of this, Alys had been
brought up at the English court since her childhood, but Richard refused to
marry her as he said she had been the mistress of his father, Henry II. In
September 1190, Richard and Philip met in Sicily and after some tense and angry
negotiations, they finally reached an agreement, which included the end of
Richard's betrothal to Alys. The following spring, Eleanor of Aquitaine brought
Berengaria to Cyprus, where she and Richard were married. Although Richard
had by then conquered Cyprus, he sold it to the Templars, who later sold it to
Guy de Lusignan.


The Third Crusade
Under the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick, the German Crusaders had been the
first to start off on their journey to the Holy Land. While the English and French
armies travelled by sea, the German army was too large, so the entire force
travelled overland. On reaching Asia Minor they were beaten back by marauding
Turks as their predecessors had been on the Second Crusade. Emperor Frederick,
known as Barbarossa or Kaiser Rotbart for his flame-red beard, was 67 years old
and apparently still formidable, but on 10 June 1190, he drowned when crossing
a swollen river. Chaos ensued and most of his demoralized army returned home.
Only a small fraction of the original force, led by his son Frederick VI of
Swabia, reached Acre.
Richard and Philip arrived at Acre in 1191 and added their forces to the
Christian armies already there, besieging the city that Saladin had taken four
years previously. After months of combat, with Richard fighting even while
seriously ill, the city finally fell to the Crusaders. Richard made some bad
decisions at that time which damaged his chivalrous reputation and caused him
problems later. As soon as Acre fell, the Crusaders raised their standards as was
the tradition at the end of a battle. Leopold V of Austria, who had been fighting
for longer than either Richard or Philip, raised his standards along with the other
Crusaders, but Richard immediately had them torn down. He was concerned that
Leopold would take some of the booty he had agreed to share equally with
Philip. Furious, Leopold returned to Austria with his troops. Philip also left the
Holy Land almost immediately. His health had suffered and he had fallen out
with Richard once again, this time over land in Cyprus.


From a woodcut by Gustave Doré in 1877, coloured at a later date, this shows
his dramatic vision of the 1191 Battle of Arsuf.
After capturing Acre, Richard fought several further battles against Saladin
over the next three years. The Templars' new Grand Master, Robert de Sablé,
was Richard's good friend and their personalities complemented each other.
Robert de Sablé was cautious and thoughtful, while Richard was intrepid and
daring. In 1191, Richard and the Templars moved south, defeating Saladin's
forces at the Battle of Arsuf in early September. Yet, although they worked well
together as a fighting force and Richard continued to display great courage,
strength and gallantry, the Crusaders failed to reclaim Jerusalem.


Encaustic tiles from 1250-60 in Chertsey Abbey, Surrey, England, showing, on
the left, Richard the Lionheart (1157-99), king of England from 1189, and on the
right, Salah ad-Din Yusuf ibn Ayyub, (1137-93) known in the west as Saladin.
The images imply that the two men met during the Third Crusade of 1191, but in
fact they never met either on or off the battlefield.
However, with Acre now in Christian hands, many Crusaders returned to
Europe. It was not as holy as Jerusalem, but it was more important strategically
and it became the political and economic centre of the Christian territory in the
Holy Land. Many Christians believed that with this stronghold, they would soon
win Jerusalem back. Richard remained in the Holy Land as the leader of the
forces there and established his headquarters at Jaffa. As the winter of 1191
approached, active campaigning was abandoned and, instead, the Crusaders
occupied and refortified Ascalon. By the spring of 1192, Richard began to
receive worrying news about his brother John's activities in England and the
support he was receiving from Philip of France. It became evident that Richard
would have to return to England soon. Realizing that he and the Crusaders could
not conquer Jerusalem, he began to plan a retreat and, that summer, he travelled
to the remaining Christian-ruled regions to discuss their options. Almost
immediately, Saladin laid siege to Jaffa. The small force that had been left there
fought desperately against the Muslim army, but it was huge and eventually
stormed the walls of the garrison. Hearing the news, Richard hastily gathered a
small army and hurried back south. Arriving by sea, he discovered that the city
was almost lost, so he leapt into the water and waded ashore, leading his small
force of 54 knights, a few hundred infantry and 2,000 crossbowmen. Stunned by
the sudden onslaught, Saladin's men panicked, believing them to be a just a
small part of a much larger relief force, and they fled, leaving their prisoners to


take up arms and chase them. As he always did, within three days, Saladin
attacked again. He had reorganized his troops and mounted a fresh attack, but
Richard and the Templars overpowered them. Muslim losses were even heavier
than at the first encounter and, under Richard's orders, all Muslim prisoners were
executed. It was the last major engagement of the Third Crusade.
Saladin and Richard
Legend has it that when Richard's horse was felled beneath him during
the Battle of Jaffa, Saladin saw him fighting on foot. Impressed by
Richard's courage, Saladin ordered two stallions from his own stables
to be dispatched as a replacement for his enemy. Yet although Richard
requested to meet Saladin on numerous occasions, Saladin always
refused, declaring: 'Kings meet together only after the conclusion of
an accord, for it is unthinkable for them to wage war once they know
one another and have broken bread together. In any event, I do not
understand your language, and you are ignorant of mine, and we
therefore need a translator in whom we both have confidence. Let this
man, then, act as a messenger between us. When we arrive at an
understanding, we will meet, and friendship will prevail between us.'


An illustration from an illuminated manuscript created by the 15th-century
calligrapher David Aubert, showing the defeat of Saladin and his troops by the
Crusaders at the Siege of Acre.


The truce
Soon after the Battle of Jaffa, on 2 September 1192, Saladin and Richard
negotiated a three-year truce. Richard left for England, but on his journey, he
was shipwrecked and had to travel through Austria. Although he and his
companions disguised themselves as pilgrims or, it is said by some, as Knights
Templar, Richard was recognized and captured by Leopold's men. He spent the
next 18 months in custody, first with Leopold and then with the Holy Roman
Emperor, Henry VI. Although the practice was forbidden among monarchs,
Henry VI demanded a vast ransom for Richard. His brother John who was ruling
England had no desire for Richard's return, so despite being over 70 years old,
his mother Eleanor raised the money and travelled to Germany with it to secure
Richard's release.
The Third Crusade, which had lasted for three years from 1189 to 1192,
became known as the Kings' Crusade. Although successful in some ways, it did
not achieve its ultimate goal - the reconquest of Jerusalem. The consequence of
it all was that Richard agreed to demolish Ascalon and Saladin agreed to
recognize Christian territories along the coast. Christians and Muslims were to
be allowed to cross each other's regions and Christian pilgrims were to be
allowed to visit Jerusalem and other holy sites under Muslim rule freely and
safely. Richard never returned to the Holy Land and Saladin died the following
year, in March 1193.


The seal of Richard I of England resembles the seal of the Knights Templar, as
they were in close affinity, only the king's seal shows him jousting while the
Templars' seal shows their poverty in the sharing of a horse.


The Templar seal was an image of two knights on one horse to illustrate the
monks' personal poverty. The Greek and Latin characters, Sigillum Militum
Xpisti, followed by a cross means 'the Seal of the Soldiers of Christ'.


The loss of Jerusalem
The Battle of Hattin was a devastating setback for the Templars. The huge
number of losses they had sustained had not only seriously impaired their
organization, but it had been highly costly as well. They had lost many valuable
men, as well as expensive equipment and armour. They fought in every battle
against Saladin, and although he showed clemency to many of his captives, he
inflicted terrible revenge on any Templars or Hospitallers he took. Arabic
sources testify to the Templars' outstanding technical skill, battle prowess and
pride, as well as the fear they inspired in their opponents, and this infuriated
Saladin. During every crusading expedition in the Holy Land, the Templars took
the front or rear guard, they fought to the last in every battle and they covered all
retreats. Years of training had made them the greatest force in the Holy Land, but
with so many outstanding soldiers now killed, the entire organization was
debilitated.
The continued survival of the Templar Order depended on its honour. The
greater the respect it commanded, the larger the donations it received. So after
Hattin, when general confidence in the Templars' invincibility was shaken,
wealthy benefactors reconsidered where they would put their money and
potential recruits thought hard about whether or not to join the Brotherhood. For
approximately 70 years, the Templars' purpose had been the defence of the Holy
Land. With the fall of Jerusalem, they had failed in that essential aim - and they
had lost their headquarters on Temple Mount. Gerard de Ridefort had been the
first questionable Grand Master, elected more for his combative prowess than for
his honesty and integrity. His occasional underhand tactics and frequent futile
decisions had led many courageous Templars to their deaths. Although he was
valiant and decisive, contrary to all previous Grand Masters with their
transparent reputations, he was also arrogant and reckless - more like a secular
knight than a religious one. Reynald de Châtillon was another character who had
created extra problems with his vengeful pride that should have had no part in a
Christian struggle. And conflicts between factions over who should rule
Jerusalem had also contributed to the difficulties and disharmony that ultimately
resulted in the Christian losses. But no one person was ultimately to blame.
Circumstances, timing and personalities all played their part and the result was
that less than a century after its conquest by the Christians, Jerusalem was back
under Muslim rule. The relic of the True Cross, the most sacred Christian object
that had been held aloft before every Crusader battle, was lost forever, and the
Knights of the Temple of Solomon had to leave their headquarters on the most
holy of sites, Temple Mount. They moved their headquarters to Acre, along with
the seat of the Kingdom of Jerusalem.


However, all was not entirely lost. Richard the Lionheart's courage and
Saladin and Robert de Sablé's wisdom and diplomacy had enabled the honour of
the Templars to be rebuilt. Following Sablé's prudence, for nearly 14 years after
his death in 1193, the Templars avoided further conflict with the Muslims.
Instead, trade began flourishing between the Christians and the Muslims and
new recruits began enlisting to be Knights Templar once more. In the reduced
Christian states of Outremer, the Templars and the Hospitallers began buying
property cheaply that had been left by Europeans who, in the aftermath of the
Third Crusade, had returned to the West. So by the turn of the 13th century, the
two orders had become the major landowners in the Christian regions of
Palestine. They were regaining money, land, recruits and respectability.


The Hospitallers
The Order of the Knights of Saint John the Hospitaller was founded as a
charitable group to help sick pilgrims in the Holy Land. The military aspect of
their organization only began later as an additional element in their service to
Christianity, although they continued with their traditional objectives of
hospitality, often stressing that this was their main duty. By the late 12th century,
the Templars and the Hospitallers were frequently used together in battles and
were sent on the same diplomatic missions. Ordinary people could not always
tell the two orders apart, although in general the Templars were largely French
and the Hospitallers Italian and Spanish - the Hospitallers had strong
associations with merchants from Amalfi in Italy. Comprising of Benedictine
monks and nuns who cared for female pilgrims, the Hospitallers' habits were
also different from the Templars, being black with white crosses.
Along with infirmaries and hospices, the Hospitallers were also given castles
and fortresses. In 1142, for instance, Raymond II of Tripoli gave them the Krak
des Chevaliers in Syria which remained in their possession until it fell in 1271.
While in their ownership, it was known as Crac de l'Ospital, and was not called
the Krak des Chevaliers (Fortress of the Knights) until the 19th century, long
after the knights had left. They began rebuilding the castle as soon as it was in
their possession, completing it by 1170, after which an earthquake damaged it.
They controlled several castles along the border of the County of Tripoli, but the
Krak des Chevaliers was one of the most important as it functioned as a hospital,
a centre of administration and a military base.
Although there was sometimes tension between them, generally the Templars
and the Hospitallers supported each other on and off the battlefield. Benefactors
often shared their donations equally between them. The main disagreements that
occurred between them were to do with who should inherit the crown of
Jerusalem, if there were various potential heirs. Both orders were subject to
criticism from the outside world, the difference being that when things became
uncomfortable, the Hospitallers would lie low in their hospices and infirmaries,
while the Templars had to carry on in the outside world, visibly policing pilgrim
routes and running their businesses. Although the Hospitallers, like the
Templars, also built castles as well as several round churches in the image of the
Church of the Holy Sepulchre, and they lent money, they never became as rich
as the Templars and they did not attract such high-profile investors. In 1307,
when King Philip IV of France began persecuting the Templars, he harassed the
Hospitallers equally, but when they slipped out of his grasp he did not bother to
pursue them further. When Jacques de Molay was originally summoned to meet
with Pope Clement V and the King of France, the Hospitallers' Grand Master,


Fulk de Villaret, was summoned too, but he avoided the meeting. His excuse was
that 'he was stopped in his way at Rhodes by the Saracens'. Had King Philip
determined to catch the Hospitallers, he would have done so, but they avoided
vilification because the king did not covet what they had as much as he yearned
for the Templars' possessions. The Hospitallers therefore continued as an order
for centuries after the demise of the Templars, even gaining most of the
Templars' property after their suppression.

Built by Arabs in the first half of the 11th century, the Krak des Chevaliers
('Fortress of the Knights') fell into Crusader hands in 1099. It became the
headquarters of the Knights Hospitaller in 1144 and they expanded it into the
largest Crusader fortress in the Holy Land. The castle remained in their hands
until 1271. King Edward I of England based all his Welsh castles on its design.
Meanwhile, in the Holy Land after the Third Crusade, the situation was
volatile once more. Although Richard the Lionheart had defeated Saladin at the
Battle of Arsuf in 1191 and the Battle of Jaffa in 1192 and so recovered most of
the coast for the Latin kingdom, he had not recovered Jerusalem or any of the
other inland territories. Some historians have suggested that this was a deliberate
move by Richard as he recognized that Jerusalem was a strategic liability
because it was isolated from the sea. The Third Crusade had ended peacefully,
however, with the Treaty of Ramla negotiated in 1192. Saladin allowed
pilgrimages to be made to Jerusalem, and once the Crusaders had prayed at the
holy sites, most of them returned home. Those remaining in the Holy Land set


about rebuilding their kingdom from Acre.


The Fourth Crusade
With pilgrims still being allowed to visit the Holy City and the Templars
rebuilding, retraining and recovering their strength, another Crusade was not
seen as a priority by Europeans. In 1198, Pope Innocent III appealed for a Fourth
Crusade, but there was little enthusiasm for it. Then, at the end of November in
1199, a zealous preacher, Fulk of Neuilly, arrived at the Castle of Ecry-surAisne, where Count Theobald III of Champagne was hosting a jousting
tournament. Launching into an impassioned speech, Fulk inspired all present
with dreams of reconquering Jerusalem for Christendom.
Envoys were sent to Venice, Genoa and other city-states to discuss a contract
for transport to Egypt and, in March 1201, negotiations were opened with
Venice. The Venetians agreed to transport 33,500 Crusaders, but would require a
year of shipbuilding and training of their sailors to man the ships. These
activities would severely restrict the city's usually brisk commercial activities,
but a suitable payment was agreed so the Venetian shipbuilders began work. The
Crusading army was expected to comprise 4,500 knights (with horses), 9,000
squires and 20,000 foot soldiers.
As in previous Crusades, the bulk of those who pledged to take the cross
originated from France. Some came from the Holy Roman Empire, and now
many also came from Venice. The Crusade was to be ready to sail in the summer
of 1202 for the Ayyubid capital of Cairo. Since Saladin's death, his sons had
quarrelled over his territorial legacy, so his empire had fallen apart, and rival
factions ruled in Cairo and Damascus. As there was no cohesive agreement that
all the Crusaders would sail from Venice, many chose to sail from other ports,
such as Flanders, Marseilles and Genoa, so by 1201 when the troops assembled
at Venice, there were far fewer than had been anticipated. The Venetians had
prepared 50 war galleys and 450 other boats as agreed - enough for three times
the assembled army. The Crusaders gathered there did not have the 85,000 silver
marks that had been agreed between them, so the Venetians refused to let them
sail. By pooling their resources, the Crusaders managed to amass 51,000 silver
marks, but this left them penniless and the strain on the Venetian economy was
enormous. Not only had they kept their side of the bargain, halting their own
trading enterprise for many months, but they also had to send 30,000 men out of
their population of approximately 80,000 to man the fleet, which stretched their
resources even further.


This richly illustrated manuscript from La Conquête de Constantinople by
Geoffrey de Villehardouin, c.1330, shows Fulk of Neuilly preaching the Fourth
Crusade to some seated men in the top 'S', while the lower border shows
Crusaders arriving at Constantinople.
The leader of Venice, the Doge, and his ministers considered what to do. The
amount they had received from the Crusaders was not enough to cover their
costs, but to prevent the Crusade going ahead would be counter-productive.
Twenty years previously, in 1182, the Venetian merchant population had been
expelled from Byzantium. So the Venetians proposed that the Crusaders could
pay their debts by attacking the port of Zara on the eastern coast of the Adriatic.
Zara was a Christian city, but it was also a naval and commercial rival to Venice
and although most Christians including the Pope were against this, the Crusaders
went ahead and besieged and captured the unsuspecting port of Zara. Next, the
Venetians persuaded them to attack Constantinople. The possession of this great
capital would greatly increase Venetian trade and influence, and many Crusaders
saw it as an opportunity to gain wealth and power. So against all the Crusaders


stood for, in 1204, they continued in their digression from the Holy Land and
attacked Constantinople, a Christian city which for centuries had formed the
chief defence between Europe and the Muslims.
Contrary to all Church teachings, the Crusaders burned and slaughtered,
destroying or pillaging precious artefacts, including monuments, statues,
paintings and manuscripts. They divided the lands between themselves and the
Venetians and they crowned Baldwin, the Count of Flanders, Emperor of the
East. But it did not last. The Byzantine inhabitants who remained there would
not acknowledge the invaders and the new empire only survived just over 50
years until 1261, when the Byzantines reconquered their own city. The
consequence, however, was that Constantinople had lost its power. Two
centuries later it fell to the Turks. The greed and lust for power of the Crusaders
and the Venetians had given the Turks a path into Europe.

A 14th-century Italian miniature showing Venetian shipbuilders building a ship.
During the medieval period, Venice became wealthy through its control of trade
between Europe and the Levant. From the start of the Crusades, Venice was
involved, as Crusaders paid for Venetian ships to assist them. In 1123, they were
granted virtual autonomy in the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It is possible that
Venetian shipbuilders helped the Templars build their fleet.


The Fifth Crusade
While many knights were conquering Constantinople, others were suppressing
the Cathars in France. The Templars were not active in either of these
ignominious battles, but in 1217, the Pope launched the Fifth Crusade and
involved the Templars from the start. In Paris, the Templar treasurer was put in
charge of donations for the cause, while various European leaders came forward
to join, including King Andrew of Hungary, Leopold, Duke of Austria, and John
of Brienne, the King of Jerusalem. Templars, Hospitallers and the new German
order of Teutonic Knights also gathered but, with no main leader, a papal legate
was put in charge: Cardinal Pelagius, a pious man with no military experience.
Nevertheless, with their prowess and courage, the Templars played a significant
role. In 1219, the Crusaders besieged the port of Damietta, which controlled the
eastern mouth of the River Nile. The Egyptian sultan, Saladin's nephew alKamil, was so distressed by the idea of losing Damietta that he offered to trade it
for Jerusalem, but Cardinal Pelagius insisted that Jerusalem could not be held
now without Christian control of the surrounding lands, so the Crusaders
rejected the offer and continued besieging Damietta. In 1221, before they had
completely secured Damietta, Pelagius ordered them to march on to Egypt, but
as they approached, al-Kamil's forces opened the gates of the irrigation canals,
causing the Nile to flood and trapping the Crusaders. Although the Templars
valiantly covered the Crusaders' retreat, Pelagius had no alternative but to give
up Damietta after all, not in return for Jerusalem, but to save the Crusaders'
lives. The Fifth Crusade was abandoned and the military orders returned to Acre.


The Sixth Crusade
Seven years after the Fifth Crusade, a Sixth Crusade was launched. Frederick II,
the Holy Roman Emperor, had sent German troops to the Fifth Crusade, but had
not accompanied them himself. Feeling guilty that he had not been there,
Frederick declared he would lead a new Crusade to win back Jerusalem, paid
entirely with Holy Roman Empire funds. His links with the Holy Land arose
from his marriage in 1225 to Yolande of Jerusalem (also known as Isabella),
daughter of John of Brienne and Maria of Montferrat. Two years later, after
Gregory IX became Pope, Frederick and his army set sail from Brindisi in Italy,
for Acre. On the journey, the entire army suffered a severe epidemic and
Frederick was compelled to return to Italy. The Pope, who feared Frederick's
power and saw this as another ploy to avoid direct confrontation,
excommunicated him for breaking his Crusader vow. After unsuccessfully trying
to negotiate with the Pope, in 1228, in spite of his excommunication, Frederick
amassed another army and set sail for the Holy Land once more. But as soon as
he arrived, he realized that his small army would be no match for the powerful
Ayyubid force. With the hope of regaining Jerusalem through diplomacy, he
communicated with the sultan al-Kamil and pretended to have a far larger army.
His strategy worked. Busy crushing a rebellion in Syria, al-Kamil surrendered
Jerusalem, Nazareth and other smaller towns in exchange for a ten-year truce. In
March 1229, Frederick entered Jerusalem.


This is a detail from a 15th-century copy of a 13th-century manuscript, Le Miroir
Historial by Vincent de Beauvais. Crusaders are disembarking at Damietta,
while more ships follow and other knights march on towards the fortress ahead.
There are several amusing details, including some of the knights stumbling
under helmets that cover their eyes, one knight attempting to pick up something
he has dropped from his horse, and a serious-looking churchman.
Although intending to join Frederick and his troops, the Templars had
remained a day's march behind the German army so they would not have to
fraternize with an excommunicant. The Templars, Hospitallers and the Patriarch
of Jerusalem were not as pleased about regaining Jerusalem as those in Europe
were. The issue raised at the Fifth Crusade ten years earlier still stood: that
Jerusalem was indefensible without Christian control of the surrounding lands.
The city's formidable walls had been torn down during the Fifth Crusade and
part of the agreement with al-Kamil was that neither the Templars nor the
Hospitallers could rebuild or refortify their castles in any surrounding areas.
Another stipulation was that Temple Mount was to remain Muslim. The


Templars would be forbidden to return to their former headquarters. It was a
hollow victory and the Pope condemned the treaty, saying this was not what the
Christians wanted. Frederick had recovered Jerusalem without the Pope's, the
nobles' or the military orders' recommendations or advice. The Patriarch of
Jerusalem placed an interdict on the city, forbidding church ceremonies while
Frederick was there, and the Templars and the Hospitallers kept away. So
Frederick crowned himself, naming himself the King of Jerusalem and 'God's
Vicar on Earth'. He spoke to those Christians living in the Holy Land,
complaining about the Patriarch and the Templars and Hospitallers, but no one
was impressed. In the end, Frederick's men were ordered to close the gates of
Jerusalem, shutting out those he considered to be his enemies, which included
the Templars. He also plotted to have the Templar Grand Master, Pedro de
Montaigu, captured, but he was too well protected by the Order. Within two
days, Frederick left Jerusalem, allegedly fearing that the Templars were plotting
to murder him.

The seal of Frederick II (1194-1250), Holy Roman Emperor 1215-50. The
inscription in the centre of the seal refers to his campaign of 1228 when he won
back the Holy Land and crowned himself King of Jerusalem.
Pilgrims' Castle
In 1217, during the Fifth Crusade, the Templars began building Atlit Castle (see
Castle building in Outremer) on a promontory on the Palestinian coast, south of
Haifa. As well as Atlit, the castle became known variously as Athlit Castle,
Château Pèlerin, the Castle of Jesus or Pilgrims' Castle. The Templars built it
with the help of the Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights and many pilgrims, to replace
their small watchtower called Le Destroit, 'the Pass'. During its construction,


they discovered three fresh water wells and a stash of ancient coins, which they
put towards the cost of the building. In 1219, Duke Leopold VI of Austria and
Earl Ranulf of Chester made further generous donations of money towards it. It
became one of the major Crusader fortresses and could support up to 4,000
troops in siege conditions. With its own port, polygonal church and defensive
walls that were protected by a moat, the castle was a marvel of its time and
impossible to be mined or sapped by enemies. In a gesture of his hatred of the
Templars, before he left the Holy Land Frederick II tried to besiege them in
Pilgrims' Castle, but failed.
Somehow, the Templars had become involved in a personal conflict between
the Holy Roman Emperor and the Pope. The hostilities that continued between
Frederick and Gregory overflowed into the military order that was duty-bound to
the Pope. On his return to Europe, as soon as Frederick reached Sicily, he seized
property belonging to the Templars, released their Muslim slaves and imprisoned
the Templars living there instead.


Muslim dissonance
Meanwhile, Jerusalem remained exposed and vulnerable, and by the time the
ten-year truce expired in 1239, al-Kamil was dead and his younger son, as-Salih
Ayyub, was in power. As-Salih, also known as al-Malik al-Salih, ruled the
Ayyubids of Egypt from 1240 to 1249. In 1221, he had been taken hostage by
Frederick's army in retaliation for the capture of John of Brienne by al-Kamil, as
a pawn for the return of Damietta. In 1234, al-Kamil had sent as-Salih to
Damascus, removing him from the succession in Egypt after suspecting him of
conspiracy with the Mamluks, but as-Salih immediately allied with the
Khwarezmian Turks against his uncle as-Salih Ismail, ruler of Damascus. The
Khwarezmians began as vassals of the Seljuk Turks at the end of the 11th
century and later became rulers themselves. In 1238, al-Kamil died and was
succeeded by al-Salih's elder brother, but within two years, al-Salih had taken
control of Egypt. In 1244, the Khwarezmians sacked Jerusalem, and later that
year al-Salih and the Khwarezmians defeated another of al-Salih's uncles in
Syria, who had allied with the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem at the Battle of
La Forbie. In 1245, al-Salih captured Damascus, and was awarded the title of
Sultan by the Caliph in Baghdad. The next year the forces of the Ayyubids
defeated the Khwarezmians, who no longer recognized al-Salih as their lord.


The Seventh Crusade
In 1249, while al-Salih was away fighting his uncle in Syria, Louis IX of France
invaded Egypt on what became known as the Seventh Crusade, and occupied
Damietta. Al-Salih quickly returned, but died after his leg was amputated. While
his heir, al-Muazzam Turanshah, was far away, the Mamluks gained power in
Egypt. The Mamluk dynasty became known as the Bahriyya or the Salihiyya.
The appointment of the new Templar Grand Master, Armand de Périgord
(1178-c.1247) in about 1231, was believed by many to have been manoeuvred
by Frederick II as a way of weakening the Templars. In 1232, Armand de
Périgord organized various attacks on Muslim-ruled regions in Outremer, but
each failed and therefore diminished the Templars' effectiveness. In one
expedition in 1236, the Templars were massacred and, in 1244, when al-Salih
and the Khwarezmians captured Jerusalem, the Templars, Hospitallers and
Teutonic Knights allied with the Sultan of Damascus and his army. They
confronted al-Salih and his Khwarezmian allies at the Battle of La Forbie, a
small village northeast of Gaza. Initially successful, the Crusaders gradually lost
momentum as the Khwarezmians attacked their rear and flanks. Although the
Templars fought as tenaciously as ever, the allied forces were routed. Over 5,000
Crusaders died and 800 were taken prisoner. From the military orders, only 33
Templars, 27 Hospitallers and three Teutonic Knights survived. It is not clear
whether Armand de Périgord was killed during the battle or whether he was
captured and survived until 1247. The Battle of La Forbie marked a decisive end
to Christian power in the Holy Land, even though the Khwarezmians were
defeated just two years later in 1246. Never again were Christians a strong
presence in Outremer, and Crusades and crusading lost all popularity and force.
The Thousand Man
In the 1240s, al-Salih had bought a slave, a Turk called Qalawun, for
1,000 dinars. Qalawun later rose to the position of Sultan and was
always known as al-Alfi, or 'the Thousand Man', reflecting his
purchase price. Although he barely spoke Arabic, he rose in power and
influence as a Mamluk and became an emir under Sultan Baibars,
whose son was married to Qalawun's daughter. In power, Qalawun
founded a dynasty that lasted a hundred years.


An elaborate 14th-century illuminated manuscript from The History of St Louis
(St Louis was the name many called Louis IX after his death), showing the
Capture of Damietta.
In achieving success in the Holy Land without papal involvement, Frederick II
had set a precedent and marked a decline in papal authority across Europe and
Outremer. Although they never regained their momentum, further crusades were
launched by kings rather than popes. The fall of Jerusalem once again, this time
to al-Salih and the Khwarezmians, was no longer considered a crucial event to
European Christians, and despite several calls to arms from the Pope, there was
little enthusiasm for another Crusade. Most European rulers had their own local
struggles and turmoils to contend with and the only sovereign interested in
beginning another Crusade was Louis IX of France. In 1245, he declared his
intent to take the cross. In the aftermath of the Albigensian Crusade, France was
in a stronger position, with Provence now under Parisian control and Poitou
ruled by Louis IX's brother, Alphonse de Poitiers. Alphonse and another brother,
Charles I of Anjou, joined Louis on the Crusade. In 1248, Louis sailed from


France with his large army of 36 ships, first to Cyprus, where they spent the
winter, and then to Damietta, which they took easily from the Egyptians. Not
realizing that the Nile flooded each year, however, the Crusading force found
itself trapped at Damietta for six months. That was the first of many setbacks
and over the next year, following a succession of mistakes, Louis was taken
captive at the Battle of Fariskur, where his army was vanquished by the
Egyptians. During his captivity, Louis fell ill with dysentery but was cured by an
Arab physician. He was then ransomed for 800,000 bezants and the surrender of
Damietta. After this humiliating and expensive defeat, Louis was set free and
travelled to Acre, one of few remaining Crusader possessions in Syria. Louis
made an alliance with the Mamluks, who at the time were rivals of the Sultan of
Damascus, and from his new base in Acre he organized the rebuilding of the
other Crusader cities, particularly Jaffa and Saida. In 1254, his money ran out,
and at the same time he was recalled to France where his mother and regent,
Blanche of Castile, had recently died. Before leaving, at the expense of the
French crown, he established a standing French garrison at Acre. His Crusade
was a failure, but he was lauded in Europe. In 1270, Louis attempted another
Crusade, though that too ended in failure.


Later Crusades
The Eighth Crusade was also launched by Louis IX and is sometimes counted as
part of the Seventh. The Ninth Crusade is also sometimes counted as part of the
Eighth. Disturbed by events in Syria where the Mamluk Sultan Baibars of Egypt
had captured Nazareth, Haifa, Toron and Arsuf, by 1265 Hugh III of Cyprus, the
nominal King of Jerusalem, landed in Acre and two years later, even though he
had little support, Louis called for a new Crusade. His brother, Charles of Anjou,
convinced him to attack Tunis first, to give them a strong base from which to
attack Egypt. As King of Sicily, Charles had his own interests in this part of the
Mediterranean. In 1270, Louis landed on the African coast in the sweltering
summer heat. Poor drinking water infected much of the army with dysentery, and
Louis too contracted it and died. Charles proclaimed Louis' 25-year-old son,
Philip III, the new king, but because of his lack of experience, Charles became
the actual leader of the Crusade. Through further illness among the Crusaders,
the siege of Tunis was abandoned and, on hearing of the death of Louis, Sultan
Baibars cancelled his plan to send Egyptian troops to Tunis to fight him. Charles
meanwhile allied himself with Prince Edward of England, who had arrived in
Acre.
All this time, the Templars and Hospitallers maintained their headquarters in
Acre. Relations with some Muslim factions were cautiously cordial, while others
were not. By 1276, the situation had become so perilous that the King of
Jerusalem, Henry II, moved away from Palestine altogether and settled on the
island of Cyprus. The situation worsened. In 1278, the Syrian port of Latakia
fell. In 1289, Tripoli was lost. It was a desperate state of affairs, but the West had
lost interest. In the end, 25 Venetian galleys and 5 galleys from King James II of
Aragon arrived in Acre, carrying the new Crusader army: a crowd of illdisciplined men with no regular pay. On arrival, they began fighting the locals
and indiscriminately pillaging from both Muslims and Christians. In 1290, the
Mamluks led by Sultan Qalawun marched on Acre, but he died in November
before launching the attack. He was succeeded by his son, al-Ashraf Khalil, who
sent a message to William de Beaujeu, the Grand Master of the Templars, telling
of his intentions to attack Acre and urging him not to send messengers or gifts.
Ignoring the request, a delegation from Acre led by Sir Philip Mainebeuf arrived
in Cairo with gifts trying to appeal to Khalil and convince him not to attack
Acre. The sultan did not agree to the request, but assembled the Islamic forces of
Egypt and Syria. Four armies from Damascus, Hama, Tripoli and Al-Kark
marched to Acre to join him.


The Siege of Acre
From Acre, the various Christian forces asked for help from Europe, but nothing
significant was forthcoming. A small group of knights were sent by Edward I of
England, and Henry II of Cyprus also paid for the fortification of Acre's walls
and sent a force led by his brother Amalric. In April 1291, Khalil's forces
surrounded Acre as far as they could, and besieged the city. Despite the continual
arrival of reinforcements from Cyprus to Acre by sea, the Christians lost
confidence in the face of Khalil's massive army. On 15 April, under moonlight,
the Templars launched a sudden attack against the military unit from Hama, but
their horses' legs became entangled in the ropes of the Muslims' tents and were
caught. Many were killed. Another attack under cover of darkness by the
Hospitallers also ended badly. On 5 May, Henry II of Cyprus arrived with further
forces but still the Muslim armies out-manoeuvred them. Eventually, the
Christians sent messengers to Khalil, who asked them if they were surrendering
Acre to him, but they replied that the city could not be relinquished so easily and
that they only came to supplicate for mercy for the innocent inhabitants and to
make a truce. Khalil promised the messengers that he would spare the life of
everyone if they peacefully gave him Acre, but the messengers rejected the offer.
Some days later, Khalil gave his order to launch a full-scale attack on Acre,
accompanied by the sound of trumpets and drums. That night, Henry of Cyprus
escaped with his knights and 3,000 soldiers. By morning the attack resumed.
Against such vast numbers, all valiant efforts made by the Hospitallers and the
Templars to defend the city were futile. William de Beaujeu and the Hospitaller
marshal, Matthew de Clermont, were killed.


An illustration from a 15th-century French manuscript, The Book of St Louis,
showing King Louis IX of France and Marguerite of Provence leaving for the
Eighth Crusade on 12 August 1248. The baptism is of a Jew in the presence of
Louis, demonstrating what a marvellous king he was to turn infidels into
Christians. The image at bottom left shows them arriving at Carthage and the
one on the right shows the death of Louis at Tunis in 1270 from dysentery.
By nightfall on Friday, 18 May 1291, after a six-week siege, Acre was taken
by al-Ashraf Khalil and his army. Only the huge headquarters of the Templars
which stood on the west side of the city remained under Templar control. The
following week, Khalil negotiated with Peter de Severy, the Marshal of the
Templars, responsible for the military side of the Order's activities. They agreed
that the Templars and anyone else taking refuge inside the fortress would be
granted a free passage to Cyprus. But when Khalil's men went to the castle to
supervise the evacuation, the Templars attacked and massacred them. Under
cover of darkness, Theobald Gaudin, at that time the Templar Grand Commander
or Grand Preceptor, took a few of the knights and the Templar fortune, sneaked


out of the castle and sailed to Sidon in Lebanon, where a Templar fortress still
stood. Within two months, Theobald had continued on to the relative safety of
Cyprus. Meanwhile, Peter de Severy went to Khalil to negotiate anew, but in
retaliation for the massacre of his men by the Templars, he and his entourage
were arrested and executed. From their fortress, the Templars continued to hold
firm until Khalil's men mined the castle and within ten days it collapsed, killing
nearly everyone inside, including all the Templars and about half of Khalil's
men. That was the final breakthrough for the Muslims. Chaining his Crusader
captives by their feet, Khalil travelled to Damascus and paraded through the
streets in celebration. The Crusader standards were carried upside-down as a
sign of their defeat. Khalil continued the same victory parade through Cairo.

The fight for Acre was protracted and merciless. When the Christians finally lost
it to the Muslims in 1291, they lost their last vestige of authority and control in
the Holy Land.
The fall of Acre in 1291 definitively ended the Crusades and any form of
Christian power in the Holy Land. In Europe, many questioned why they had
lost so much to the Muslims. Few blamed any laxity within the Church, and
Pope Nicholas IV, keen to deflect any criticism, announced in various synods
that discord between the Templars and the Hospitallers had been a main
contributing factor to the disaster. He proposed therefore that the two orders
should be merged. The idea of converging the two orders had been discussed at


the Council of Lyon nearly 20 years previously in 1274, but nothing had been
done and the proposal was now endorsed at the Church Council. In addition, it
was proposed that a new Crusade should be organized and paid for out of
Templar and Hospitaller contributions, but when Pope Nicholas died in 1292, the
idea was forgotten. The Templars and the Hospitallers had vehemently disagreed
with the proposed amalgamation of their two orders. The Hospitallers had never
abandoned their original function of caring for the sick and the Templars'
primary role was to protect pilgrims and fight against the infidel. Although their
reputations had declined over the losses in the Holy Land, they were still
powerful individually and vital to any future Crusade.
The Latin kingdom moved to the island of Cyprus, with the Templars and the
Hospitallers both setting up new headquarters there. In 1192, they had bought
Cyprus from Richard the Lionheart. He charged them 100,000 Saracen bezants
for it and they made an initial payment of 40,000 bezants, aiming to raise the rest
of the money by taxing the Cypriot people. This was so unpopular with the
inhabitants that a plot was hatched to murder the small force of Templars
stationed there. On hearing of this, the Order gave the island to Guy de Lusignan
(who had lost his right to be King of Jerusalem on the death of his wife Queen
Sibylla in 1190). While Guy's descendants ruled Cyprus, the Templars and the
Hospitallers built castles there and a small group of each Order maintained a
presence to protect the de Lusignan kings. So when the Christians were banished
from the Holy Land, the Templars were not as badly off as those civilians who
had escaped with their lives but little else. Most ordinary Christians fled with
only what they were wearing and had to fall upon the charity of their fellow
Christians in Europe. The Templars simply joined their brothers in Cyprus and
made plans for rebuilding their future.
However, this was not as straightforward as might be supposed. Although they
had castles on Cyprus, the entire rationale of the Order had changed. They had
been formed in the East with the singular purpose of protecting pilgrims as they
travelled to the holy shrines and of defending the holy sites against the infidel.
Though there were also important sites of Christian pilgrimage in the West, none
were as significant as those in the Holy Land and the Templars found themselves
being needed, not to fight and defend, but to farm and make money to sustain the
Order. With few battles to be fought, they used Cyprus mainly as a base for their
financial and commercial endeavours and, in July 1296, Pope Boniface VIII
issued a papal bull, granting them a tax-free status on exports and imports to and
from Cyprus. They held this privilege virtually everywhere else, but this
affirmed their continued standing in the eyes of the Church.


The Fall of Ruad
In 1293, Jacques de Molay was elected Grand Master of the Knights Templar.
Having spent 30 years serving the Order as a knight in Outremer, his ambition
was to lead a new Crusade and win back the Holy Land for Christendom. One of
the first things he did was to travel across Europe to raise support for the
Templars and for another Crusade. Along with the Pope, Charles II of Naples
and Edward I of England also pledged their support and helped the Order to
rebuild their forces after their terrible recent losses. De Molay had reasons to
believe that his plan would be successful. In the Holy Land there were already
several uprisings against the brutal and oppressive Mamluk rule and a Christian
Crusade would benefit from such disunity. Food and ships were amassed, and a
surge of fresh hope swept across Europe in 1300 in anticipation of the
forthcoming campaign. As the year was also the 1300th anniversary of the birth
of Christ, Pope Boniface announced it to be a jubilee year, promising salvation
and redemption to all who visited St Peter's Basilica in Rome.
To continue the celebration of the Christian faith, that summer the Templars,
Hospitallers, Teutonic Knights and Henry, the King of Cyprus, sailed to the
small island of Ruad (also known as Arwad) in Syria, and launched a series of
attacks on it. In 1291, the Templars had lost Atlit Castle, and since then, the
Mamluks had been consistently destroying any remaining Crusader ports and
fortresses. The Crusaders decided that the Syrian port of Tortosa was the best
location to establish another stronghold, with a view to attacking the Mamluks
and recapturing territory in the Holy Land. They planned to coordinate an
offensive with the Mongols, with whom they had been negotiating and who
fiercely hated the Mamluks. By landing on Ruad, they were just three kilometres
(two miles) from Tortosa, but although the Crusaders reached there at the
appointed time and began their raid on Tortosa, the Mongols did not arrive, and
the Crusaders were forced to retreat back to Cyprus. They left a small garrison
on Ruad and, from the end of 1301, under the command of the Templar marshal
Barthélemy de Quincy, 120 Templar knights, 500 archers and 400 servants were
established in the newly strengthened fortress.
In 1302, the Mamluks sent a fleet of 16 ships from Egypt to Tripoli from
where they besieged Ruad. After weeks of hardship and nearstarvation, the
Templars were forced to emerge and fight. Barthélemy de Quincy was killed, all
the bowmen and Syrian Christians were executed, and the surviving Templars
were taken as prisoners to Cairo, where they died of starvation anyway. Ruad
had been the last Crusader foothold in the Holy Land. Though they had their
headquarters in Cyprus and maintained various enterprises, the Templar Order
now had no clear purpose or influence, although it still had enormous financial


power.

This is a coloured engraving of 1805, showing the castle of Ruad or Arwad, off
the coast of Tortosa.


THE DESCENT

King Edward I of England (1239-1307) with priests and members of his court.
In 1263, Edward ransacked the treasury of the London Temple to aid his fight
against the Baron's Revolt. Eight years later, in an unrelated event, his life was
saved by Thomas Bérard, the master of the Knights Templar. Edward had been
attacked by an assassin with a poisoned knife and Bérard sent drugs to cure him.
Founded to defend the Holy Land and protect pilgrims there, after the final,
crushing loss of Ruad, the Knights Templar were left without a purpose. Yet
Pope Boniface appeared undaunted, and continued his assertion of Papal
dominance as if nothing had happened to challenge the authority of the
Catholic Church.
More than any other pope, Boniface VIII made lofty claims about papal
supremacy. In his Bull of 1302 he pushed the concept of papal power to an
unparalleled extreme in proclaiming that 'it is absolutely necessary for salvation
that every human creature be subject to the Roman pontiff'. This belief and his
constant intervention in worldly matters led to many bitter quarrels between


himself and various European powers, including the Holy Roman Emperor
Albert I of Habsburg, the Roman Colonna family, King Philip IV of France, and
even the writer Dante Alighieri, who wrote his essay De Monarchia to challenge
Boniface's claims of papal domination. His disagreements with Philip IV of
France arose out of their common, incompatible ambitions about increasing their
individual power.
During his reign, Philip hired lawyers instead of the clergy for all his legal
administration. Since the Fall of Rome, legal issues had been dealt with by the
clergy, but the legal profession was redeveloping by the mid-13th century and
Philip was one of the first monarchs to depend on secular lawyers rather than
having the monastic orders deal with his legal matters. He also taxed the French
clergy to finance ongoing wars against the English. To counteract this, in a bull
of February 1296, Clericis laicos, Boniface forbade secular taxation of the clergy
without prior papal approval. Philip retaliated by stopping the export of gold,
silver, precious stones and even food from France to the Papal States, effectively
obstructing an important source of Church income. Philip also banished papal
agents from France. Angrily, Boniface declared that 'God has set popes over
kings and kingdoms'. But although the resentment continued, in September
1296, Boniface almost capitulated, by sanctioning voluntary contributions from
the clergy for the defence of the state, and he gave the king the right to determine
when that would be necessary. So Philip revoked his ruling about exports and
accepted Boniface as mediator in one of his many disputes with Edward I of
England. In his negotiations, Boniface settled most of the issues in Philip's
favour.
However, in 1301, the feud between the Pope and the French king escalated
once more, and Boniface sent Bishop Bernard Saisset to protest against Philip's
opposition to Church influence in political affairs. Instead of tactfully easing the
situation, however, Bernard Saisset's outspoken comments against the king
resulted in Philip arresting him and charging him with high treason. Boniface
ordered the king to free his bishop and, in February 1302, he issued a new bull,
Ausculta fili, that pointed out the king's offences against the Church and State
and invited him to do penance and change his behaviour. In response, King
Philip had the bull ceremoniously burned in Paris before himself and a large
crowd. That November, Boniface issued another bull, Unam Sanctam, that
claimed papal supremacy and stated that kings were subordinate to the Pope. In
response, William de Nogaret (1260-1313), Philip's chief minister, publicly
denounced Boniface as a heretical criminal. While Boniface prepared to
excommunicate both the king and Nogaret, on 12 March 1303, a royal assembly
was held in the Louvre at which Nogaret read a long series of accusations


against the Pope, and demanded that a general Council be called to try him. By
September of that year, Nogaret had gathered a large force of men and marched
to Anagni in Italy, Boniface's birthplace, where he demanded the Pope's
resignation. Boniface declared that he would 'sooner die' than resign from the
papacy. Although he was protected by a few Templars and Hospitallers,
Nogaret's large band of men overpowered and captured him. Some of the band
called for his murder, but instead they beat him up and then released him. The
shock and humiliation left him a broken man, and the following month in Rome,
he died.


Philip IV of France
Philip IV (1268-1314) was nicknamed 'Le Bel' or the Fair because he was tall,
blond and handsome. At the age of 16, he had married his childhood sweetheart,
Joan I of Navarre, and the following year, 1285, when he was just 17 years old,
he became King of France. Through his marriage, he had the additional titles of
Philip I, King of Navarre and Count of Champagne. From the start of his reign,
however, his arrogance and inflexibility gained him several other nicknames and
enemies. Bernard Saisset, who described him as 'more handsome than any man
in the world', also said of him: 'He is neither man nor beast. He is a statue.' As a
sign of his extreme piety, Philip wore a hair shirt beneath his finery and his
piousness earned him the description from Giles of Rome as 'more than man,
wholly divine'.
As a consequence of the wars his predecessors had fought against the English
and the Albigensians, the land he ruled was larger than it had been for previous
French monarchs. His ambition was to lead a Crusade, to gain glory and to found
a French empire in the eastern Mediterranean, while he aimed to establish his
brother Charles as ruler of the Byzantine Empire. Yet this determination to
follow his father and grandfather's examples and strengthen the power and
standing of the French monarchy resulted in many unpopular policies. Given his
intention to lead a Crusade and continual conflicts with the English and their
allies in Flanders, as well as financial problems inherited from his father's war
against Aragon and his own personal extravagances, he was constantly desperate
for money. One of his most unpopular methods of raising money was to devalue
the French currency, and by 1306 it was reduced to a third of the value it had
been when he came to the throne in 1285. In consequence, rioting broke out in
Paris, forcing Philip to briefly seek refuge in the headquarters of the Knights
Templar: the Paris Temple that was also their centre of finance. In another of his
efforts to acquire revenue, Philip imposed taxes on the French clergy of one half
of their annual income. The ensuing disquiet among the clergy prompted Pope
Boniface to issue his bull forbidding the transference of any church property to
the French Crown without his permission. It provoked the prolonged quarrel
between the king and the Pope and led to Philip sending William de Nogaret to
put Boniface under house arrest, which ultimately resulted in the Pope's death.
Clearly a man who bore a grudge, for years afterwards, Philip pursued legal
action to have Boniface posthumously condemned.


Pope Boniface VIII, proclaiming the jubilee in 1300; a fragment from a fresco
painted in 1300 by Giotto di Bondone (1266-1337).


Pope Clement V
The new Pope immediately following Boniface, Benedict XI, died within a year.
After pressure from Philip IV, the next Pope was a Frenchman. Raymond
Bertrand de Got (c.1264-1314) came to the papal throne as Clement V in 1305
and never set foot in Rome or even Italy. For the first four years of his
pontificate, he moved between Lyons and Poitiers and, in 1309, he set up court
in Avignon in Provence. Early in 1306, he annulled Boniface's Unam Sanctam
bull that had threatened Philip's political plans. Clement's great ambition was a
new Crusade, but for this to work, he required the collaboration and leadership
of the French king. He succeeded in persuading Philip to take the cross in
December 1305; he negotiated peace between Philip and Edward I, and he gave
10 per cent of the Church's income in France to Philip's exchequer to help fund
the Crusade. In his plans for this Crusade, Philip was determined to merge the
Templars and the Hospitallers to create a larger, more unified force.
In view of this plan, in May 1307, Clement met with the Templar and
Hospitaller Grand Masters at his court in France. The Grand Master of the
Hospitallers, Fulk de Villaret, favoured the idea of the two orders remaining
separate but thought that first they should send a modest expedition containing
members of both orders to the East to conquer small areas, preparing the ground
for a large Crusade to follow. After the loss of Ruad, Jacques de Molay opposed
the idea of small-scale attacks, so he disagreed with Villaret's plan. He wanted to
call upon the European rulers to unite and raise a vast army between them who
could then be transported on ships from Venice and Genoa to Cyprus and from
there on to Palestine. His argument against the unification of the two orders was
that the competition between them was stimulating; when one followed one
tactic, the other tried something else. Any successes within one order were
swiftly challenged by the other. But partly because Philip and the Pope were
considering a Mongol alliance for the proposed Crusade and neither Grand
Master had suggested this, both men's ideas were ignored by the Pope and his
ministers. Jacques de Molay's suggestions were dismissed as being particularly
unrealistic in the circumstances. The time of European monarchs leading large
allied armies to the Holy Land had passed and the Templar Order was not big
enough to do it alone. It is ironic that the Templars were one of the few groups
who throughout the decades had retained the original focus of the Crusades, but
they had simply not been large enough on their own to win. Now, once again,
they were left without a direct function.


A 14th-century illuminated manuscript showing Philip 'the Fair' of France. This
is a Council meeting held by the king in Paris concerning his conflict with Pope
Boniface VIII over the taxing of the clergy and on the besieging of Lille in 1297.


The arrests
After the meeting, Jacques de Molay travelled to Paris where, on Thursday, 12
October 1307, he was one of the main mourners in the funeral cortège of Philip
IV's sister, Catherine de Courtenay. The following morning, on Friday, 13
October 1307, a group of the king's men led by William de Nogaret marched to
the Paris Temple and arrested him. Across France, it is believed that
approximately 15,000 Templars were arrested simultaneously. The order for the
arrests had been circulated secretly a month before, and there is much debate as
to whether or not the Templars were taken completely by surprise or whether
they had known about what was coming and had taken measures to protect
themselves. Whatever had been happening, among the arrests were many
middle-aged and elderly men who worked for the Order as farmers, servants,
artisans, ploughmen or sergeants. Unarmed, confused and living in unfortified
properties, they put up little resistance. Made in the name of the Inquisition, the
arrests followed the pattern established by Philip in 1291 when he attacked the
Lombards, Italian bankers who were living in France, and again in 1306, when
he arrested Jewish merchants also resident in France. The pattern was arrest,
expulsion from the country, and then seizure of the exiles' possessions.
Although the news of the Templar arrests was greeted with shock by the
public, through their banking provision many had borrowed from them and were
in debt to the Order, so few men of influence hastened to their defence. Because
it was so unpleasant and instigated by the king, many simply ignored what was
happening. Certain nobles were already aggravated by the Templars. Their
ancestors had given away land to the Order, but it was seen to have failed by not
maintaining a Christian presence in the Holy Land, and so many of these nobles
felt that the donations had been accepted under false pretences and many
believed that, with the Templars out of the way, they could reclaim their
property. The clergy, meanwhile, had long resented the special privileges
enjoyed by the Templar Order, so little sympathy was elicited from that quarter.
In any case, nobody took it too seriously. The Templars were under papal
protection and they belonged to a holy and religious confraternity that had been
established for nearly two centuries.


Reprisals
The year before the arrests, when Philip's currency devaluation had triggered
riots and he had sought safety in the Paris Temple, he was made aware of the
vast amount of wealth the Templar Order had amassed and was guarding for
others. As soon as he left the Temple, he showed no restraint. As with Pope
Boniface, William de Nogaret took charge of the attack on the Templars.
Unscrupulous and merciless, little is known of Nogaret's background, but it is
said that his grandparents and parents, citizens of Toulouse, had been condemned
as heretics during the Albigensian Crusade. He had studied law, gaining a
doctorate and a professorship, and he prospered under Philip IV's patronage. In
1299, he was made a knight and, in September 1307, the king made him Keeper
of the Seal. From his study of Roman law, he adhered to the belief of the
absolute supremacy of the monarch, and as a zealous royal supporter, he seemed
to thrive on cruelty and the persecution of others. He was the first to bring up the
notion of a link between the Templars and the Cathars, just as he was the first to
proclaim that Pope Boniface was a heretic. His excommunication by Boniface in
1303 was not revoked until 1311 by Clement V. Yet he continued to act in the
name of the king, and he found many enemies of the Templars to testify against
them, including men who had been expelled from the Order who were prepared
to give evidence against their former fellows, and he drew up the full list of
accusations against the Templars a short time later. As with the Lombards and
the Jews, all Templar property was confiscated on arrest. But unlike the
Lombards and the Jews, the Templars were neither foreigners nor infidels: they
were members of a Holy Order and subject to the Pope. Philip declared that the
warrants for the arrests were recommended by the Pope, but that was not true.
Clement had not been consulted and he wrote angrily to the king in October
1307:
You, our dear son ... have in our absence, violated every rule and laid hands
on the persons and properties of the Templars. You have also imprisoned
them and what pains us even more, you have not treated them with due
leniency ... and have added to the discomfort of imprisonment yet another
affliction. You have laid hands on persons and property that are under the
direct protection of the Roman Church ... Your actions and rightly so are
seen as an act of contempt against us and the Roman Church.
Without stating whether or not he believed the knights were guilty of the
charges, Clement was merely complaining at the king's wrongful conduct and
appropriation of papal powers. He asked Philip to hand over the Templars,
together with all their possessions, for questioning to two of his cardinals,
Bérenger Frédol and Etienne de Suisy, but Philip ignored him. In his letter to the


king, the words 'yet another affliction' allude to the torture that was imposed on
many of the Templars as soon as they were arrested. Torture had been authorized
approximately 50 years previously by Pope Innocent IV, to be used in the name
of the Inquisition.

An 18th-century engraving of King Philip IV of France, who ascended the
throne at the age of 17. Called the Fair (Philippe le Bel), through his marriage to
Joan I of Navarre, he was also Philip I, King of Navarre and Count of
Champagne, from 1284 to 1305.


Torture
In 1252, Pope Innocent IV issued a papal bull, Ad exstirpanda, that permitted
torture as a method of extracting confessions. Torture was meant to be performed
only once on any suspect, but it was commonly repeated and simply classed as a
continuation of the first session. Torturers were not supposed to spill blood or to
break bones, but because of the brutality of the methods, they nearly always did.
Forms of torture included sleep deprivation, the rack and water-boarding, as well
as hanging by the wrists with weights suspended from the ankles (the strappado),
being chained to a wall for days, or bent backwards over a wooden beam with
the arms bound beneath it, or even having fat rubbed on the soles of the feet
before a flame was put to them. It is known that at least the rack, the strappado
and the burning of the soles of the feet were used on many of the arrested
Templars. One, Bernard de Vado, was tortured so badly with the burning feet
method that his blackened bones fell out of his heels. He later showed these
bones to the authorities when he revoked his confession.
The harshness of the Templars' treatment was a deliberate attempt to break
them as quickly as possible. The Grand Inquisitor of France was also Philip's
own confessor, William Imbert de Paris. His task, set by the king, was to
suppress the Templars completely and, at the same time, to lessen the Pope's
standing. Despite Inquisition 'rules', it is said that at least 36 Templars died
under William Imbert's investigation. The Templars who had been arrested in
France were mainly simple men, not tough, experienced knights, and with no
battle or endurance training, they quickly buckled under torture and harsh
treatment. Aside from torture, while imprisoned, they were fed on bread and
water, kept in dark, cold and damp conditions and, to unnerve them even more,
Inquisitors often burst in during the night and beat them, or moved them roughly
to different cells.
The Inquisition
The medieval Inquisition was a series of interrogations led by the
Catholic Church to suppress heresy. It was started by Pope Gregory IX
in southern France and northern Italy in 1231 with campaigns to
overthrow the Cathars and Waldensians, although Pope Gregory did
not approve the use of torture as a tool of investigation or for penance.
Earlier, in 1184, Pope Lucius III had issued the papal bull Ad
abolendam, which has been called the 'founding charter of the
Inquisition', as it commanded bishops to take an active role in
identifying and prosecuting heresy in their own districts, but torture
was not part of the procedure. Members of the Inquisition were


employed from some members of the clergy, but predominantly from
different religious brotherhoods and primarily from the Dominican and
Franciscan orders who had a history of fighting heresy. Trained
specifically for the job, Inquisitors kept detailed records of their
Inquisitions. 'Confessing fully' was one of the expressions they used
that they said gave an individual the best chance of being dealt a lesser
punishment. But full confessions always implicated others, including
the accused's close relatives and friends. Inquisitors amassed evidence
from anyone they could, even criminals, excommunicants and
convicted heretics, and a suspect could be left in prison for years
before trial while new information was sought. If it was believed that
the prisoner had not confessed sufficiently, he or she could be returned
to prison as often as the Inquisitors deemed necessary. Punishments
could be as ordinary as a penance, such as prayer or pilgrimage, or it
could be the confiscation of property, exile or long-term imprisonment.
The ultimate punishment could be burning at the stake. As holy men,
Inquisitors were forbidden to put their prisoners to death, so secular
executioners were hired to conduct the task, although - contrary to
popular belief - Inquisitors preferred to save souls rather than to admit
defeat and have a person put to death.

A torture scene, created around 1475; the prisoner is being stretched and water
poured on his face. The medieval Inquisition began as a means to eliminate


heresy and had no one authority, so 'rules' were never implemented and after
1252, torture became a widespread method of extracting confessions.


The charges
Since the Albigensian Crusade nearly 80 years before, a charge of heresy meant
that even protected orders such as the Templars could be charged by the
Inquisitor in France. The king's lawyers gathered information about the ways in
which the Templars lived, read their Rule closely and questioned ex-Templars or
those who had worked with them, and then they selected and adapted elements
so they could be seen as transgressions against the Church. In October 1307,
before a large crowd in Paris, William de Nogaret declared the Templars' guilt.
Across France, Franciscan monks, under the aegis of the Inquisition, spread the
information through sermons in churches. The declarations presented the king as
a defender of the faith and a protector of his people over the enemies of the
Church. Encouraging a sense of unity, the scandalous allegations helped citizens
forget the king's unpopular policies, such as the debasing of their money and the
crippling taxes he imposed on the wealthy.
Beyond France, however, many were convinced that Philip's motives were
primarily to seize the Templars' wealth for himself. In the wake of the Templar
arrests, in Italy, the poet Dante Aligheri (c.1265-1321) wrote Purgatorio, the
second book of The Divine Comedy, attacking the king's actions by calling him a
second Pilate (as in Pontius Pilate, the Roman ruler who condemned Jesus to
death). The charges made against the Templars at the time of their arrests
shocked almost everyone who heard about them. They included:
During the reception ceremony, new brothers were required to deny Christ,
God, the Virgin or the Saints on the command of those receiving them.
The brothers committed various sacrilegious acts, either on the Cross or on
an image of Christ.
The receptors practised obscene kisses on new entrants: on the mouth, navel
or buttocks.
Priests of the Order did not consecrate the host and the brothers did not
believe in the sacraments.
The brothers practised idol worship of a head or a cat.
The brothers encouraged and permitted the practice of sodomy.
The Grand Master or other officials absolved fellow Templars of their sins.
The Templars held their reception ceremonies and chapter meetings in
secret and at night.
The Templars abused their duties of charity and hospitality and used illegal
means to acquire property and increase their wealth.


The trials
On 19 October 1307, the trials of the Templars began in Paris. On 25 and 26
October, Jacques de Molay was called to testify and, like most of the other
accused Templars, he confessed quite quickly. Immediately, the king sent
transcripts of the confessions to the Pope as evidence of their guilt. Suspecting
foul play and still cross at the king's actions, Clement sent two cardinals to Paris
to take the Templars and their possessions into papal custody. But Philip and his
ministers refused to see the cardinals and they were refused access to the
Templars, so they returned to Poitiers empty-handed. Caught between the king
and the Templars (and those of the papal court who were outraged at the king's
conduct), on 22 November 1307, Clement issued the bull Pastoralis
praeeminentiae. It told all European rulers to imprison any members of the
Knights Templar in their countries and to hold their possessions for the Church.
Clement was showing the king that every other European power was acting on
behalf of the Church and so Philip should do likewise. Next, ignoring the
previous incident with his two cardinals, Clement sent them once again to Paris.
This time, Philip was aware that if he continued to avoid the Pope's wishes, he
might instantly be excommunicated and the whole of France could be put under
an interdict. So, at the end of December 1307, the Pope's two cardinals were
allowed to meet with Jacques de Molay and other high-ranking Templars. In the
cardinals' presence, all the Templars gathered denied their confessions and
showed their wounds from torture. Clement suspended the Inquisition and in
reaction, the king's men tried to muster public support for the reopening of the
investigations by distributing pamphlets to the public describing Templar
depravity. William de Nogaret began attacking the Pope with an onslaught of
libel, slander, physical intimidation and threats against his family. At length, in
the early summer of 1308, Philip went to Poitiers to meet the Pope. Neither men
were in comfortable positions. The king was going against the Church, but as the
Templars had confessed, the Pope had to tread carefully. The Third Lateran
Council of 1179 had stated that 'Heretics and all who defend and receive them
shall be excommunicated'. The king and his lawyers pointed out that if the Pope
tried to defend those who had declared themselves to be guilty, his position and
possibly even his life would be at risk, as few would tolerate a heretical Pope.


Templar interrogation
Eventually it was agreed that Philip would release more Templars to be
investigated by the Church. At the end of June 1308, 72 members of the Order
selected by the king were brought from the prisons in Paris to the Pope's
cardinals in Poitiers. Chained together and under military escort, the Templars
were interrogated for five days by the Pope's cardinals. The Pope had wanted to
know, in particular, details of their Rule that had been written originally by
Bernard of Clairvaux and added to over the years. The Templars as an order had
continued to adhere rigidly to their Rule; it was necessarily extremely strict and
demanding, but not every ritual or formality that they observed was written into
it. Over the years it seemed, extra procedures had been developed verbally. For
instance, to ascertain whether or not a new recruit would be sufficiently loyal, a
test to challenge his courage and commitment was set. This test and the initiation
rite were open to interpretation, so misunderstandings and confusion often
occurred. It was established, however, that even though they were not authorized
parts of the Rule, they had been performed for years.


Pope Clement V, born Raymond Bertrand de Got, was Pope for nine years from
1305 to his death in 1314. He is remembered for his involvement in the
suppression of the Knights Templar, and for moving the Curia from Rome to
Avignon; the period became known as the Avignon Papacy.
It was known that if they were captured in battle by Muslims, Christians were
often forced to spit on the Cross, to deny Christ and to do various other things
that violated their beliefs and humiliated them. The Templars' initiation test
focused on this possibility: if caught by Muslim soldiers, could they endure such
atrocities and still remain true to the Order and to Christianity? The tests and rite
had probably developed after stories were related by Templars who had managed
to escape from Muslim prisons and had become a means of challenging the
potential of a future Templar's character and determination.
The result of the investigation at Poitiers was that the Templars asked for
forgiveness and the Pope granted them absolution. This is one of the many grey
areas of their trials. Had they been completely innocent, they would not have
asked for forgiveness and Clement would have acquitted them completely. Had
they been guilty, even had they asked for his forgiveness, the Pope would not
have granted it. The Pope decided that they were not heretics, but in denying
Christ, albeit to strengthen their Christian resolve, they needed to repent. Sparse
notes of the Poitiers questioning have been discovered relatively recently, along
with the Chinon Parchment.


The Chinon Parchment
In September 2001, an Italian palaeographer, Dr Barbara Frale, discovered a
document that had been lost in the Vatican Secret Archives. It constitutes
evidence that, in August 1308, Pope Clement V secretly absolved Jacques de
Molay and the entire Templar Order from all charges brought against them by
the Medieval Inquisition. The document is dated 17-20 August 1308 and was
written in the castle of Chinon in France by three of the Pope's cardinals who
questioned five senior Templars there. The cardinals included two who had been
involved already - Bérenger Frédol, cardinal of St Nerus and Archelius, and
Etienne de Suisy, cardinal of St Cyriac in Therminis - as well as another,
Landolfo Brancacci, cardinal of St Angel. According to the documents written at
Chinon, the Pope instructed the cardinals to conduct the investigation of the
accused Knights Templar away from royal officials, in order to ascertain the
truth. The cardinals interviewed the Templars individually. First they questioned
Raimbaud de Caron, the Master of Cyprus, then Geoffrey de Charney, the
Master of Normandy, then Geoffrey de Gonneville, the Master of Aquitaine and
Poitou, then Hugh de Pairaud, who was the second highest-ranking Templar as
the Visitor of the Temple in France and Poitou, and the Deputy Grand Master.
Finally, the cardinals interviewed Jacques de Molay, the Grand Master himself.
The Chinon Parchment begins:
We ... declare through this official statement ... that since our most holy
father and lord Clement ... after receiving ... clamorous reports from the
illustrious king of France and prelates, dukes, counts, barons and other
subjects of the said kingdom ... had initiated an inquiry into matters
concerning the brothers and the Rule of the said Order, because of which it
suffered public infamy, the very same lord Pope wishing and intending to
know the pure, complete and uncompromised truth from the leaders of the
said Order ... that we might ... examine the truth by questioning the
grandmaster and the ... preceptors - one by one and individually, having
summoned ... trustworthy witnesses.


Replicas of the three seals used by the Templars' inquisitors, lying on the official
transcript of their trial that describes their offences, including heresy, idolatry,
homosexuality, secret initiation rituals, corruption and fraud.
According to the document, all the cardinals' questioning was held in the
presence of at least eight other churchmen who acted as official witnesses. The
parchment details the appearances of the accused, the charges made against them
and some of the interrogations and torture they endured through the Inquisition.
The report repeats similar findings to those previously mentioned by the 72
Templars at Poitiers. When the cardinals reported back to the Pope, he accepted
the Templars' testimonies: that the accusations of blasphemy and sodomy were
misinterpretations of the rituals they had developed to help prepare them for
some of the difficulties they might face in the Holy Land. The denial of Christ,
spitting on the Cross and even kissing other men's backsides were all probable
attempts to become resistant to humiliations and to learn to face any difficulties
that they might be subjected to. In asking the Pope's pardon, the Chinon
Parchment states:
... the mercy of pardons for these acts to Brother Jacques de Molay, the
Grandmaster of the said Order, who in the form and manner described
above had denounced in our presence the described and any other heresy,
and swore in person on the Lord's Holy Gospel, and humbly asked for the
mercy of pardon, restoring him to unity with the Church and reinstating him


to communion of the faithful and sacraments of the Church.
Three copies of the Chinon Parchment were made, all sealed and signed by the
interrogators, the accused and the witnesses. The document is proof that in 1308,
the Pope determined to save the Templars from the king's threats. However, as
he did not make the details of his absolution public, the king continued to
persecute the Templars and to appropriate their belongings.
Templar relics
It was said that Jacques de Molay and Geoffrey de Charney were so
calm when they went to their deaths that they 'brought from all who
saw them much admiration and surprise for the constancy of their
death and final denial'. Later, under cover of darkness, friars of the
Augustinian monastery nearby and other people collected the charred
bones of the dead Templars as relics of saints.

Illuminated manuscript of c.1410, representing the execution of Jacques de
Molay. The king is looking down from above, but this was artistic licence
as it is doubtful whether he was present when Jacques de Molay and
Geoffrey de Charney were burned at the stake.


Suppression
The Chinon Parchment was never made public. By May 1310, nearly 600
accused Templars decided to try to save themselves and denied their earlier
confessions. The king immediately put his lawyers to work and 54 Templars
were suddenly found guilty of being relapsed heretics. 'Relapsed heretics' were
those who had been previously accused of unorthodox opinions or actions who
returned to their previous beliefs after recanting. According to Inquisition rules,
relapsed heretics might return to their previous unorthodox ideas and corrupt
others, so they were to be burnt at the stake. Philip's lawyers argued that by
confessing and then denying those confessions, the Templars were relapsed
heretics. Yet even after the 54 men had been put to their deaths, the Templars
who remained in French prisons continued to proclaim their innocence. By that
time, with the Pope's absolution still not made public, general opinion of the
Templars had plummeted. Many church officials, nobles, lawyers and other
members of the public believed that there must be some truth in the accusations
or they would have been released by now, so it was time the Pope used his
powers and either saved them or abolished the Order entirely.
Still the Pope did not speak out. Then, bowing to pressure from the king, in
October 1311, he called the 15th Ecumenical Council of the Roman Catholic
Church in Vienne, chiefly to discuss the withdrawal of papal support for the
Knights Templar. The majority of the 300 members of the commission, which
included cardinals, bishops and archbishops, were opposed to the abolition of the
Order, believing that there was insufficient evidence to condemn them under the
order of heresy, but the king was pressing. On the second day of the Council, he
appeared in person and finally imposed his will on Clement. In the presence of
Philip and his three sons, the Pope's bull, Vox in Excelso, dated 22 March 1312,
was read. It said that, although he had no sufficient reasons for a formal
condemnation of the Order, because of the King of France's hatred of them, the
scandalous nature of their trial, and the probable dilapidation of their property in
every Christian land, he suppressed it by virtue of his sovereign power, but not
by any definitive sentence. In another bull of 2 May 1312, he granted all the
Templars' property to the Hospitallers. However, Philip managed to become the
chief legatee of its great wealth in France. Straight after the Council meeting, he
wrote to the Pope stating that he reserved the rights of the monarch to share in
the Templars' property, and he made the Hospitallers pay him so much, in theory
to cover his costs in bringing the Templars to trial, that they were left worse off
than before.


An illumination of the burial of Philip 'Le Bel' who died suddenly after falling
from his horse, just months after Jacques de Molay purportedly declared his
curse.
Nearly two years later, on 18 March 1314, the most important Templars in
custody, Jacques de Molay, Hugh de Pairaud, Geoffrey de Gonneville and
Geoffrey de Charney, were served their sentences. (Raimbaud de Caron had died
earlier in prison.) As self-confessed heretics they were to be condemned to
imprisonment for the rest of their lives. Hugh de Pairaud and Geoffrey de
Gonneville did not speak, but after all the torture, trials and tribulations they had
suffered, Jacques de Molay and Geoffrey de Charney loudly protested. They
proclaimed the falsity of the accusations and confessions, the honesty and piety
of every man in the Order and the wrongs that had been heaped upon them.
When he heard of this, the king was furious. That same evening, the two old men
were taken to a small island on the River Seine, the Île de la Cité (then called Île
des Javiaux or Île aux Juifs), where they were tied to a stake and burned to death
in front of Notre Dame.


The Templar curse
From the moment of their deaths, rumours of a Templar curse began to circulate.
Although not verified, it was said that from his execution pyre, Jacques de
Molay cursed King Philip IV of France and his descendants, declaring also that
he would meet the king and Pope Clement in front of God before the year was
out. A little over a month later, on 20 April 1314, Clement died of the long,
painful, but unidentified illness he had suffered from for some time, and on 29
November that same year, King Philip died when he fell from a horse while
hunting. The large sums of money he had taken from the Templars were
swallowed up in the French exchequer, and within 14 years, the 300-year-old
Capetian dynasty, the oldest European royal house, from which he had
descended, died out.
It is not known how much Templar treasure Philip took while the brothers
were imprisoned, but that and the amount he took after their suppression
resolved his bankruptcy problems. Beyond France across Christendom, opinion
held that the King of France had simply been after the Order's wealth and that
they were not guilty. Philip was the instigator and driving force behind their
downfall, but there had been additional factors. Many were jealous of the
Templars' power, success and solidarity. Others had much to gain from the
Order's termination. At least one person is documented as having deliberately
spread malicious stories about them before they were arrested. In 1305, Esquin
de Floyran had been expelled from the Order, and soon after he went to King
James of Aragon to impart some shocking information about the Templars'
secret, heretical activities, which James dismissed as nonsense. So Floyran took
his tales to King Philip in France, where he met with a far more receptive
audience. Philip sent spies to watch the Templars and they reported back that
Floyran's stories were true. It is still not clear who these spies were and how they
infiltrated such a close brotherhood. Most of the stories seem implausible and it
appears that Floyran bore the Order a grudge, but some activities can be
explained, such as the Templars' alleged initiation rites. Nearly all the Templars
denied practising sodomy or ever witnessing it. Hugh de Pairaud was the only
Templar mentioned in the Chinon Parchment who said that he had seen the head
of an idol and that during his initiation, he had been told 'to abstain from
partnership with women and, if he was unable to restrain his lust, to join himself
with brothers of the Order'.


From a 19th-century painting of Edward II (1284-1327), who was also called
Edward of Caernarfon, and was King of England from 1307 until he was
deposed by his wife Isabella (daughter of Philip IV of France) in January 1327.


Beyond France
While torture and suppression were occurring inside France, elsewhere the
Templars were treated with far more respect. Initially, news of the arrests was
received with disbelief, chiefly thought to be ill-founded rumours. Then rulers
began receiving letters from Philip or his lawyers, telling of the accusations and
asking that any Templars living in those countries be arrested at once. Still
reluctant to act, however, when the Pope issued his bull in November 1307,
Pastoralis praeeminentiae, avoidance of the issue was no longer possible.
Monarchs across Europe ordered Templars living in their lands to be taken into
custody. In many cases this simply meant that they were put under house arrest
in their own preceptories, and as no Templar outside France was tortured, no
confessions of heresy emerged. The King of France sent Inquisitors to some
countries but they were largely ineffectual. In England, for instance, the
Inquisitors asked the Archbishop of Canterbury if they could take the Templars
to Ponthieu which was one of King Edward II's French assets, but as it was
essentially part of France, it was also a place where torture could be used.
Edward II refused and subsequently no confessions of the worship of false idols
or strange heads were forthcoming. Kissing was admitted to, but that was only at
the initiation ceremony, which was customary with several orders. When a new
knight was accepted as a Templar, the Master placed the white mantle with its
red cross over the shoulders of the candidate and, after reciting psalms and
prayers, the Master and the Chaplain kissed the new entrant on the mouth. The
Templars explained that the kissing was a sign of their total obedience to the
Order and it was not the only order to do this.
In all, the dissolution of the Knights Templar was achieved with little
bloodshed outside of France. In some places there had been no arrests. In others,
Templars' lands were taken into royal custody. In Cyprus, owing to the
Templars' support of Amaury de Lusignan over King Henry II, the king
destroyed their headquarters in 1310. As well as the 56 Templars who were
burned at the stake, many died in prison. Many survivors joined other religious
institutions, but even more were unaccounted for. Contemporary opinions of the
Order varied; but whether the view was for or against them, feelings remained
strong. Over the following centuries, opinions softened and stories, poems and
operas romanticized their memory (see The French Revolution). Speculation as
to where they went, what they did and whether or not any of the accusations
were true have continued, escalating, changing or diminishing in the public's
consciousness. Some ideas have gained greater popularity than others, such as
the Holy Grail, the Ark of the Covenant, the True Cross and the Shroud of Turin.
Others that emerged later, experienced a surge of popularity, such as the 19th-


century story about a mysterious event during the Battle of Bannockburn.


THE MYTHS

Altarpiece of the Dominicans: Noli Me Tangere, c.1470-80, tempera on panel,
from the workshop of Martin Schongauer (c.1440-91), Musée d'Unterlinden,
Colmar, France. This illustrates the account in the Gospel of St John when Mary
Magdalene encounters the risen Christ after his Crucifixion and he says to her:
'Don't touch me!'
Beliefs that they were involved in everything from the Cathar heresy to
Masonic conspiracies, mysteries connected with the Bible, including the
Shroud of Christ and Mary Magdalene, and other notions including hidden
treasure and arcane knowledge, have continued to evolve about the Knights
Templar since their demise.
Perhaps because they lasted for many more years, or perhaps because they did
not have such a chivalrous reputation, the Hospitallers never acquired the same
mysterious and romantic aura as the Knights Templar. Legends that began while
they existed and continue to this day surrounded a number of astonishing beliefs
and secret rituals that the Templars were supposed to have lived by, and various


extraordinary objects that they were supposed to have owned. When they fought
back against accusations in the early 14th-century, instead of the stories
diminishing, they kept being added to and, in the end, the Order faced 127
allegations: accusations of heretical behaviour and strange possessions. These
charges were almost identical to those that had been made previously by King
Philip IV of France against Jews, Pope Boniface, and the Italian bankers known
collectively as the Lombards.


Mary Magdalene
One of the tentative charges the Templars faced was that they worshipped Mary
Magdalene. As this was a weak accusation, it did not last long and soon
disappeared off their list of complaints. That they venerated Mary Magdalene
was well known, and usual among devout Christians - particularly among
religious confraternities. Mary Magdalene was a female follower of Jesus and
one of his close friends; some say she was his wife, although the Church does
not. She was present at Christ's crucifixion, helped to prepare his body for burial
and it was she who discovered his empty tomb two days after they had buried
him. As with many biblical stories, parts of her story are ambiguous, or they are
interpreted differently by different denominations. Nonetheless, she remains
honoured as one of the most important Christian saints, and most Catholics,
including the Templars, revered her as a sinner whom Jesus redeemed, as a
fundamental aspect of Christianity. The Templar Rule stated that Mary
Magdalene should be venerated as well as other saints, but particularly on her
feast day. This was 22 July and the Templars openly and legitimately recognized
that day in their calendar, as did many other Catholics by saying special prayers
to her, while across Europe, fairs were held in her honour. The fact that many
chapels, churches and colleges were named after her proves her significance
across Christendom. The Second Crusade was deliberately launched from
Vézelay, as the great abbey church there was believed to contain Mary
Magdalene's bones, which would supposedly bring good fortune to the
Crusaders. The relics had been verified as belonging to Mary Magdalene in a
papal document of 1058, but after some years, interest in them waned. How the
bones reached France was explained in a myth contained in Jacobus de
Voragine's Golden Legend. According to the myth, after the death of Jesus, Mary
Magdalene was exiled and sailed to Provence to preach and pray. She then lived
out her life as a hermit, clothed only in her long hair and eating manna from
heaven.
Initially, when veneration of Mary Magdalene was brought up as a possible
accusation against the Templars, it was probable that King Philip believed he
could trick the Templars into admitting they worshipped goddesses. But, either
when this was vehemently denied, or when more shocking charges were thought
up, the notion of worshipping Mary Magdalene in the wrong way was
abandoned. It was not until the 20th century that Mary Magdalene was brought
up in connection with the Templars in a sensational story. It took two bestselling
books to rekindle the interest in an area that had been forgotten about over 600
years before.


A 14th-century illumination of Chrétien de Troyes' story that first mentioned the
'Grail', which was a golden dish. This shows, left: Perceval receiving a sword
from the king; right: The Procession of the Grail.
The idea of Mary Magdalene being the wife of Jesus was suggested from one
main consideration. In traditional Jewish life, women's freedom was severely
limited, so it seems highly unlikely that Mary Magdalene could associate freely
with Jesus and his male apostles without a chaperone, unless she was married to
one of them. Most women were restricted to the home under their father or
husband's authority. They could not go out in public alone, nor could they speak
to strangers or even to a man they knew without having a chaperone. Outside the
home, all women had to be veiled. But Jesus is known to have questioned many
of the old Jewish customs, and he overturned many of them. Openly refusing to
follow conventions established by the three main Jewish religious groups of the
day - the Essenes, the Pharisees and the Sadducees - he made a point of treating
women and men as equals. There are many examples of his innovative approach
in the New Testament, including his teaching of women, his discussions with
them, his curing of one woman's menstrual problems and his remedy for a
Jewish woman with a 'Satanic spirit', whom he called 'daughter of Abraham',
implying that she was equal to male Jews whom he called 'sons of Abraham'.
He accepted women in his closest circle of friends, including Mary Magdalene,
'the other Mary', Joanna, Susanna and 'many others', and more women than
men were present at his crucifixion. He also had particular concerns for widows
and he challenged the established Jewish laws of divorce, from being heavily in
favour of men, to being more equal for all.
Another reason it has been suggested that Jesus was married is because he was
a rabbi and rabbis are expected to marry. But there were groups of celibate Jews
and movements within the religion (including the Essenes) where marriage was
not compulsory or even expected. However, as Jesus did not say anything about
either celibacy or marriage, the notion remains open to speculation and cannot


be proved. Even in the apocryphal gospel of Philip, where Jesus refers to Mary
Magdalene as his 'companion', that may just be what he means. The word
'koinonos' is Coptic, and translates as friend or comrade, nothing more. Contrary
to claims, it does not mean spouse (although there is no reason why a spouse
cannot also be a companion). This is a topic that will continue to intrigue and
fascinate until it can be substantiated one way or another.
The True Cross and the Holy Grail
The secrecy that surrounded the Knights Templar and the speed with which they
were disbanded has given rise to many of the legends about them. The
conjecture that they found something under Temple Mount lies at the centre of
most of these legends and theories, even though - or perhaps especially because
- there is no physical or documentary evidence. The piece of the True Cross that
the Templars carried into every battle and lost at the Battle of Hattin was almost
certainly a piece of wood discovered in the fourth century by Helena, the mother
of Emperor Constantine, later revered as St Helena. Across the world, numerous
pieces of timber have been claimed to be further pieces of the True Cross, but
nothing has been established and the piece that was lost by the Crusaders in 1187
was never recovered. With its assumed holy connections, it was believed to have
mystical powers and, like no other relic, it raised the morale of the Crusaders. Its
loss caused Christians across Europe the utmost grief.
Other legends associated with the Templars include mysteries about the Holy
Grail, which has also been linked with the legends of King Arthur. First
appearing in Perceval, le Conte du Graal (Perceval, the Story of the Grail), a
work of fiction written between 1181 and 1190 by the poet-composer Chrétien
de Troyes (d. 1190), the 'golden grail' or golden serving dish was nothing to do
with either Jesus or with the Templars. But as Chrétien's story gained in
popularity, the idea of the Grail captured the collective imagination and it soon
became affiliated with such things as the chalice from which Jesus drank at the
Last Supper and then later 'Sangreal' or a holy bloodline. Chrétien wrote the
story for his patron, Philip the Count of Flanders, at the end of the 12th century.
Believed by most to be unfinished, the story tells of the golden dish being
carried by a beautiful damsel called Blanchefleur. Perceval, a young knight,
watches the procession with the damsel and the shining dish enter a ghostly
castle, owned by an injured king, but the next morning everyone, including the
castle, has vanished. Perceval cannot believe it until he meets an old woman,
who tells him that the castle is magic but suggests that if he had asked the
meaning of the Grail and who it serves, he would have healed the king and his
afflicted castle and it would not have disappeared. The old woman then sets
King Arthur's knights on a quest to find out what the Grail means. The story


digresses to the adventures of Sir Gawain, another knight, before returning to
Perceval, and there it breaks off, as Chrétien died before finishing it.


The Grail legends
At the beginning of the 13th century, Wolfram von Eschenbach (c.1170-c.1220),
a German knight and poet, wrote the epic poem Parzival, based on Chrétien's
story. Parzival continues the romance of King Arthur and the search for the
Grail, and Eschenbach hints at a knightly brotherhood, the Tempeleisen, as being
the guardians of the Grail. This was the point at which the Knights Templar
became linked with the story of the Grail. In Eschenbach's version, the Grail was
a stone, which gave rise to some theories that it was the philosopher's stone: a
legendary substance said to be capable of turning base metals into gold or silver.
Soon, it was conjectured that King Solomon had something to do with this stone
and then later the Templars were described as being linked to it. The idea that
they could have found the stone where King Solomon left it under Temple
Mount for 2,000 years became popular and it was conjectured by some that this
was how they attained their vast wealth. The Grail was also sometimes described
as an elixir of life, used for rejuvenation and possibly even for achieving
immortality.
Another poet, Robert de Boron (late 12th-early 13th centuries), first wrote
about the Grail as being a sacred vessel. He was also the first to call it 'Holy'.
His poem, Le Romain de l'Histoire dou Graal, ou Joseph d'Arimathe, described
Perceval and Arthur once again, but it also included Joseph of Arimathea in
connection with the Grail. De Boron described the vessel as a chalice that Joseph
of Arimathea took from the Last Supper and used to catch the last drops of blood
from Jesus as he died on the cross. Robert de Boron claimed that Joseph of
Arimathea's descendants took the Grail to the vaus d'Avaron, or the valley of
Avaron, which later poets called Avalon and later still was identified as
Glastonbury in the southwest of England, where it was given to King Arthur. In
later medieval French stories, the idea became linked with the act of
transubstantiation in the Mass - in Holy Communion, the wafer and the wine are
served in chalices. Further confusion arose much later over a pun on a word.
Sangréal is an alternative name for the 'Holy Grail'. In old French, san graal or
san gréal means 'Holy Grail', while sang réal means 'royal blood'. This seems
likely to be merely a pun that has been exploited in conspiracy theories.
Many of the stories about the Grail contradicted each other; although most of
them focused on King Arthur rather than the Templars, over the centuries
theories about what the Grail is, who it belongs to and where it might be hidden
have been rife. One theory is that it is hidden inside a pillar in the Rosslyn
Chapel in Scotland.
Like the True Cross, there are various ancient chalices kept in sacred places
that at different times have been claimed to be the Holy Grail. One, in the St


Mary of Valencia Cathedral in Spain, is said to have been left there by St
Lawrence in the third century. Other stories claim that the Grail is buried deep in
the spring at Glastonbury Tor in England; that it was buried beneath Montségur
Castle by the Cathars before their final demise in the Albigensian Crusade; that
it was hidden by the Templars in Oak Island in Nova Scotia's 'Money Pit' (see
The Money Pit), or that they hid it somewhere in northern Spain. This last theory
has been given further credence by the fact that several 12th-century church
paintings in the area feature the Virgin Mary holding a dish from which rays of
light radiate.
The popularity of the concept of the Holy Grail that had emerged with
Eschenbach's Parzival in the 13th century waned during the 16th century and
was not revived until the 19th century, when writers including Sir Walter Scott
and Alfred Lord Tennyson and artists such as Dante Gabriel Rossetti began
featuring it in their work. In 1882, Richard Wagner's opera Parsifal gave a new
impetus to the story. Yet despite such fascination by so many over the centuries
about the Holy Grail and the different guises it has assumed, there has never
been any solid evidence that it ever existed or that the Templars had it in their
possession. Chrétien's story appeared at a time when religious relics were
particularly venerated, when chivalry and romance were fashionable and when
the Knights Templar were at their peak, renowned for their valour, energy,
strength and trustworthiness. There is no physical evidence to support the claim
that the Holy Grail was part of secret treasure excavated by the Templars under
Temple Mount. The Holy Grail was not mentioned for 11 centuries after Christ's
death, then it appeared in a work of fiction. It rose in popularity at a time when
holy relics were of great importance, and by the 14th century there were about
20 Holy Grails in different locations around Europe. Not one has ever been
substantiated and links with the Templars remain as elusive and ambiguous as
the story did when it was first mentioned by a 12th-century troubadour.
Rosslyn Chapel
The story attached to the Apprentice Pillar in the Rosslyn Chapel is
that it was carved by a gifted apprentice while his master had gone to
Rome for inspiration. When the master returned and found the pillar
magnificently carved and completed, he flew into a fit of jealous rage
and killed the apprentice by hitting him on the head with a mallet.
There is a cleft on the pillar that is linked to the story as it is said that
this was where the master mason's mallet struck after hitting his
apprentice. The story is a Masonic legend. Before 1700 and the
development of Freemasonry, the pillar was called the Prince's Pillar


and there were no stories of apprentices or murders in the chapel. No
one knows for sure whether the pillar is hollow or solid and no one
knows whether or not the Knights Templar had anything to do with the
Rosslyn Chapel. As it was founded over 130 years after the Order's
demise, it seems unlikely, but outside there is a grave slab carved with
the name 'William de St Cler', which has a symbol next to it of a
splayed cross, the design used by the Templars. In 1546, Mary of
Guise, the mother of Mary, Queen of Scots, wrote to Lord William
Sinclair of Rosslyn, referring to 'a great secret within Rosslyn'. The
'great secret' has never been discovered and there is no particular
reason why this should be a secret connected to the Knights Templar.
However, among the many symbols carved in the chapel, some say
that one appears to be the Templar seal. But the carving does not show
two men on a horse as in the Templar seal. Instead, one man is clearly
walking behind the horse. Additionally, there are over 100 'green men'
in the Chapel: carved faces with foliage growing from them. They are
said to represent fertility, growth and the months of the year, and to
depict the abundance of nature. They resemble several similar carvings
in a number of 11th-century churches built by the Templars in
Jerusalem, but they also resemble many more similar, carved faces in
Christian churches built across Europe by numerous other parties and
not just the Templars. None of these notions were mentioned before
the formation of Freemasonry in the early 18th century. Some still
suggest that the Holy Grail is buried somewhere in the Rosslyn
Chapel, but the Rosslyn Chapel Trust forbids any disruptive searching
in a sanctified place where so many are buried. As the Holy Grail is
one of the most sought-after relics in the world, the Rosslyn Chapel
Trust would gain a fortune if it was found there, so if there was the
slightest chance that it was there, it is likely that the Trust would have
looked for it.


The Apprentice Pillar in Rosslyn Chapel in Midlothian, Scotland. Designed
by William Sinclair, a descendant of Norman knights, the chapel's
construction took 40 years and contains many symbols that seem to link
with the Templars.


The Shroud of Turin
In the Cathedral of St John the Baptist in Turin in Italy is an old linen cloth
known as the Shroud of Turin. The cloth measures 4.4 × 1.1 metres (14⅓ × 31/2
feet) and imprinted on it is the faint image of a man with a beard who appears to
have been traumatized, possibly crucified. The mysterious fabric has long been
venerated as the burial shroud of Christ, but despite chemical analysis and
carbon-dating, no one can verify its exalted claims. The most common
consensus after carbon-dating is that it was made between the 11th and 14th
centuries, although other claims suggest that it possibly dates from an earlier
time. At one point, it was thought that brownish-red marks on the cloth were
paint, and the image was possibly even created by Leonardo da Vinci (1452-
1519). Then it was thought that the image was produced by a medieval chemical
process. Both those ideas have now been discarded and the origins of the shroud
and its image continue to be the subject of debate. The cloth is the property of
the Vatican, which refuses to declare it to be the burial shroud of Christ.


The Shroud of Turin. For many years, this linen cloth that appears to bear the
image of a man who had suffered physical trauma has been studied and debated
by experts. Commonly claimed to be the shroud that covered Christ's crucified
body, experiments have so far been inconclusive. The shroud was initially linked
with the Knights Templar after their demise in 1357.
The fabric's links with the Knights Templar came with its first known public
appearance in 1357, when it was apparently produced by the widow of the
Templar knight Geoffrey de Charney, who had been burned at the stake with
Jacques de Molay in 1314. It has been suggested that the Templars were given
the cloth as a gift or simply for safekeeping in 1204 after the sack of
Constantinople, which makes the 1988 carbon-dating of 1260 to 1390 incorrect.
If the Templars were holding the cloth for someone else, that would explain why
they did not display it or make it known that they had it. However, they kept
detailed records of all their transactions and donations - and there is no written
record of the shroud being in their keeping at any point. A letter was written,
however, by Theodore Ducas Angelus, the ruler of the kingdom of Salonika
from 1223/4 to 1230, to Pope Innocent III after the Fourth Crusade. The letter
stated that part of the Crusaders' loot was the linen in which Jesus was wrapped
after his death and before his resurrection and it had been taken to Athens.
Another theory has been purported: that the cloth was not used by Jesus, but by
either Jacques de Molay or Geoffrey de Charney after they had been tortured but
before they were burned at the stake.
There might also be a visual connection. In 1185, a large tract of land was
donated to the Templars in Somerset, England. They built a village there called
Templecombe. It became a popular village and a number of Templars were
living there during the 14th century when the Order was suppressed. In 1951,
during the demolition of an outhouse in the village, a curious panel painting was
discovered hidden in the roof of the building. Carbon-dated to the year 1280, the
painting is of the head of a bearded man. The image has been variously
described as representing Jesus or the head of St John the Baptist, or a copy of
the Shroud of Turin. There are several assumptions to be made here. If it was an
image of Jesus, it is curious that it was hidden. Images of Jesus are frequently
found in Roman Catholic establishments and it is usual among the religious to
use these images as a prompt or focus when praying. Even if the painting was
commissioned by the Templars, the mystery remains, why did they then hide it?
If it represents the Turin Shroud, is this evidence that the shroud was in their
possession as has been claimed? So far, no questions can be answered
satisfactorily. The Shroud of Turin remains a mystery and so does the
Templecombe painting. It is possible that the Templars believed the painting had


magical or mystical powers. Perhaps the painting itself was the head they were
accused of worshipping.
Another element to the mystery is the story of the 'Mandylion'. In the Eastern
Orthodox Church, an image known as the Mandylion is a holy relic consisting of
a rectangle of cloth imprinted with the face of Jesus. According to the legend,
during Christ's lifetime, King Abgar of Edessa wrote to Jesus, asking him if he
would cure him of an illness. Jesus replied declining the invitation, but
promising a future visit by one of his apostles. According to accounts from
centuries later, the apostle Thaddeus is said to have been sent to Edessa by Jesus
and he duly cured the king. Some time after, it was said that Thaddeus carried
with him the image of Jesus on a cloth and left it in Edessa, and it was reported
that a portrait of Christ had a miraculous effect during the fight of Edessa against
the Persians in 544 CE. In the tenth century the image was moved to
Constantinople, but it was taken during the Sack of Constantinople in 1204. The
object claimed to be the Mandylion is now kept in the Pope's private chapel in
the Vatican and is rarely seen by the public.
The origins of the Mandylion are obscure. Some say it was painted, others say
that the image formed when Jesus dried his wet head on a piece of cloth. There
is scholarly disagreement about whether the cloth is the original or a copy - as
well as what exactly it is. Some believe that the painting found in Templecombe
is a copy of the Mandylion and that it may have been left in the Order's
possession for a while. The head they were accused of worshipping was
described in some accounts as a 'plaque' and in others as an 'idol'. The word
plaque suggests a flat, rather than a three-dimensional object, so perhaps it was
simply the Templecombe painting.


The painting of a man's head, found in a building in Templecombe, Somerset,
England in 1951, has been carbon-dated to the year 1280. Hidden in an old
Templar building, the mystery about the work has grown as much for whom it
represents as why it was hidden.


The head
Possibly one of the strangest accusations levelled at the Knights Templar in 1307
was that they worshipped a head. Some - but not all - were accused of owning a
head that they worshipped in place of God. Like so many Templar mysteries,
where the idea originated and whose head it was has become obscure and
confused. In different reports, the head was described variously as the embalmed
head of Jesus, of St John the Baptist or of Hugh de Payns; some said it had
magical powers and that it could answer questions, provide the Templars with
wealth and destroy their enemies. It was also occasionally described as the head
of a cat and it was sometimes linked with the idea of a pagan deity with the
name Baphomet, but even this is ambiguous. In some accounts, Baphomet was
made of gold and silver, in others it was a real embalmed head with long hair
and a beard. Some described it as having three faces, four legs, horns or even
that it was the Devil's head. It has since been suggested that the name developed
from the Arabic word 'Muhammad', which also appeared as Mahomet and
Mahmoud in c.1205. Others believe that Baphomet is a corruption of Mahomet
(the medieval European pronunciation of Muhammad). Both of these notions
were used in the accusations to imply that the Templars were secretly Muslims,
even though Muslims do not worship idols. Raymond d'Aguilers, the chronicler
of the First Crusade who followed Count Raymond IV of Toulouse to Jerusalem,
calls mosques 'Bafumarias', which could be connected. Around 1265, a poem
written by a French troubadour widely believed to have been a Templar, who
lived in the Holy Land, mentioned the name 'Bafometz':
Then it is really foolish to fight the Turks, not that Jesus Christ no longer
opposes them. They have vanquished the Franks and Tartars and Armenians
and Persians, and they continue to do so. And daily they impose new
defeats on us, for God, who used to watch on our behalf, is now asleep, and
Bafometz puts forth his power to support the Sultan.
RICAUT BONOMEL, c.1265
Still, there has never been a conclusive definition of the word, and even under
torture most Templars denied any knowledge of owning or worshipping any
head at all. In total, only nine Templars did admit to owning some form of head,
but this was under torture and none of their stories correspond to each other.
Beyond France, where Templars were not tortured, no one even mentioned a
head. In 1307, under torture, Guillaume de Arbley, who was the preceptor of the
Templar house at Soissy in the diocese of Meaux, testified that he had seen the
'bearded head' twice, which he claimed was gilded and made of silver and wood.
Three years later, he claimed that the gilded head placed on Templar altars was a
representation of 11,000 virgins.


Etienne de Troyes is described as having been a serving brother from the
diocese of Meaux who left the Order because he was molested by another
Templar. Before he could leave, his mother had to pay for his release. He is said
to have testified that the Templars were told to worship and do homage to a
head. Raoul de Gizy, a serving brother who was preceptor of the houses of
Lagny-le-Sec and Sommereux, claimed to have seen a mysterious head in seven
Templar houses, where it was held aloft by Hugh de Pairaud, the Templar
Visitor; Raoul de Gizy described the head as being 'demonic' and that the
Templars had to prostrate themselves before it. Pierre d'Arbley attested to an
object with two faces and four legs. Another Templar mentioned a skull, but
religious buildings of the period frequently had skulls in them and this would not
have been unusual, as skulls were used as symbols of mortality. The Templars
did own several silver-gilt heads as reliquaries, but so did other orders and
churches. The trials in Paris produced little evidence of this idol worship and
nothing consistent. The name Baphomet was not mentioned in the trials, did not
appear in the official list of accusations against them, and there is no mention of
Baphomet either in the Templar Rule or in any other Templar document. It
seems likely that their interrogators simply wanted to land a charge of idolatry
and so heresy on the Templars and to imply that they were colluding with the
Muslims in the Holy Land, or that they were Devil-worshippers, but nothing was
ever substantiated, especially outside France where the Templars were not
tortured.


Scottish legends
During the late 13th and early 14th centuries, England under Edward I was at
war with Scotland. In June 1314 his son, Edward II, engaged the Scots at the
Battle of Bannockburn. According to the legend that was written in 1843, the
Scots were losing until a group of reinforcements appeared and changed the
direction of the battle in favour of the Scottish king, Robert the Bruce. It was
said that these reinforcements were the Knights Templar, emerging after their
suppression, to support King Robert. Yet no contemporary or near contemporary
accounts of the battle mention the Knights Templar. The vanquished English did
not mention them, which they would probably have done had they seen members
of a recently deposed order fighting as one force. The excommunicated King
Robert the Bruce was desperate to please the Pope and the King of France, so
would not have wanted to associate with the Templars. In addition, two members
of the Knights Templar had fought for Edward I at the Battle of Falkirk in 1297
and Edward II had protected them against the French Inquisitors, so it is unlikely
that in such a short time they would take up arms against him. In any case, it is
often said that the story of the Templars at Bannockburn was never meant to be
taken as factual history, but was written for Freemasons' ceremonies in the 18th
century along with several others. But there had been a Templar presence in
Scotland since King David I granted them lands at Ballantrodoch in 1128. It is
possible that a few Templars managed to escape arrest in France and fled to
Scotland, or that after their suppression, Templars in Scotland were released
from imprisonment and established themselves there, but how they could earn a
living when existing as a brotherhood but not sanctioned as a religious fraternity
would have been a major problem and any gold that they may have secreted
from their preceptories would have aroused suspicion.
The Templars in Spain and Portugal
King James II of Aragon always believed in the Templars, but when the Pope
suppressed them, he had to act. Having no intention of giving their property
away to others, however, he simply renamed the Brotherhood the Order of
Montesa, honouring them with a duty to defend the country. The Order of
Montesa remained an essential part of Spain for 175 years until Ferdinand of
Aragon and Isabella of Castile drove the last Muslims from the country.
Similarly in Portugal, support of the Templars remained unimpaired. In 1319,
King Diniz asked Pope John XXII's permission to reform the Templars as the
Order of Christ, or the Knights of Christ. The Pope approved. It is unclear,
however, whether many original Templars continued in the new order, or
whether it was a completely new formation that simply followed much of the
Templars' Rule. After a further four years, King Diniz was sanctioned by the


Pope to give the new order Templar possessions, including their former
headquarters at Tomar.

The Battle of Bannockburn, in Stirling County, Scotland on 24 June 1314, when
King Robert the Bruce defeated the English king Edward II. This illustration is
taken from the 14th-century Holkham Picture Bible.


A Spanish painting of the 15th century, depicting Our Lady of Grace and the
Masters of the Order of Montesa. The Masters' white mantles with the red cross
is the same habit as worn by the Templars.
Grand Masters of the Order of Christ included various important individuals
including Prince Henry the Navigator, the third son of King Joäo of Portugal.
Under Prince Henry's direction, the Order became involved in voyages of
discovery around the coast of Africa. Henry's main aim was to explore beyond
Cape Bojador, south of the Canary Islands, and to this end, he and the Knights of
Christ went on many productive expeditions. The Order of Christ established
and defended numerous trading posts with the Templars' splayed red cross
emblazoned on their fleet's sails. It is alleged that, in 1492, the Order of Christ
also provided the navigators for the voyage of Christopher Columbus. They
almost definitely accompanied Vasco da Gama on his discovery of the sea route
around Africa to India in 1497, as he was a member of the Order. Ships and
shipping were an important element in a rather extended 'modern' conspiracy
theory involving the Templars.


Tomar Castle
The castle at Tomar was renamed the Convento de Cristo (Convent of
the Order of Christ) once it was given to the Knights of Christ. It was
originally built in 1160 by Gualdim Pais, the provincial Grand Master
of the Templars, with round corner turrets, which were more difficult
to build but easier to defend in battle. It contains a large round church,
which from the outside is a 16-sided polygonal structure with
buttresses, round windows and a bell-tower. Inside, the round church
has a central, octagonal structure that echoes both the Church of the
Holy Sepulchre and the Dome of the Rock in Jerusalem.

The ribbed vaulting and sanctuary of The Convent of the Order of Christ, in
Tomar, Portugal, originally a Templar stronghold, built in 1160. After the
Templar Order was dissolved, the Portuguese branch was turned into the
Knights of the Order of Christ, supporting Portugal's maritime discoveries
of the 15th century.


Discoverers of the New World
The Knights Templar had a large fleet of ships which they used for combat, for
trading and for transporting pilgrims and goods. The ships were based in various
ports around Europe, including La Rochelle, Bristol, Marseilles and, before their
losses, in Acre in the Holy Land. After the Templar arrests in 1307 there is no
further mention of these ships. Nonetheless, stories that Templar survivors may
have sailed to the New World were circulated at the same time as the
Bannockburn story. It was claimed that just before the Templars were arrested in
France, news slipped out about what was happening, and some brothers hastily
gathered their most valuable treasures that were kept in the Paris Temple and
secretly loaded them on to wagon trains which they carried overland to the port
of La Rochelle. There, the hoard was loaded on to Templar ships, which sailed
away and were never seen again. One theory is that they travelled to Scotland.
Another theory adds that, although the Templars stayed in Scotland with their
treasure, decades later their descendants sailed to Canada and America. A third
theory claims that they sailed straight to Canada and America from France, even
though Christopher Columbus is usually considered to be the first European to
discover 'the New World' in 1492. However, the Templar ships that supposedly
sailed away from La Rochelle laden with treasure were never made for long
ocean voyages; they were not robust enough and could not carry enough water to
have journeyed across the Atlantic Ocean.


Painted in 1460 purportedly by the Portuguese court painter, Nuno Gonçalves,
this is a detail from an altar thought to be showing Henry the Navigator who was
responsible for the Order of Christ's voyages of discovery toward the end of the
15th century.
The second theory about the Templars' descendants voyaging to the New
World suggests that the Templars sailed with Henry Sinclair, the first Earl of
Orkney (c.1345-c.1400), a descendant of a Templar called Henri de Saint-Clair
who allegedly fought with Godfrey de Bouillon in the First Crusade. These
Templar ships were apparently captained by the Venetian brothers Nicolò and
Antonio Zeno, and it is claimed that they reached Nova Scotia in 1389. Over 160
years later, the Zenos' maps and letters were published. Although these seem to
show that they did reach the coast of America and Canada, in the documents no
mention is made of anyone called Sinclair. It was not until 1780 that another
writer identified 'Zichmni' from the Zeno documents, who was described as
being in charge of the voyage, as Henry Sinclair. The entire story is now
generally considered by most specialists on the subject to be a fabrication, based
on misinterpreted facts and false claims. The published Zeno documents are
regarded as a hoax, as they have been proved to have been copied from the
descriptions made by Columbus about his observations, with a few slight
adjustments. The accompanying map has been shown to have been copied from


a chart made in 1539. Most contradictory of all, it has been proved that Nicolò
Zeno was in prison in Italy from 1396 to 1401: the time he was said to have been
sailing across the Atlantic. Furthermore, no contemporary source mentions
Henry Sinclair's voyages. Another reason - not verified - why the Templars may
not have joined forces with the Sinclair family is that, allegedly, Henry Sinclair
and his brother William testified against the Order in 1309. If this is true, then it
is highly unlikely that the Sinclairs had any amicable connections with the
Templars after this date.
All three theories have been linked to the Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland. As well
as containing the Apprentice Pillar (see Rosslyn Chapel), where the treasure may
have been hidden, the Rosslyn Chapel is richly decorated with carvings. In the
late 20th century, two of the carvings were identified by Christopher Knight and
Robert Lomas in their book The Hiram Key as ears of corn or maize and an aloe:
plants that the authors explained were native to parts of America and which, by
1446 or 1456, the time of Rosslyn's construction, had never been seen by a
European. Three facts dispel this myth. One, the carvings were made some time
after the Rosslyn Chapel was built; it is not clear when exactly, but they are not
part of the fabric of the building. Two, the carvings do not definitively represent
maize or an aloe. They could be any one of several other plant species. Three,
the succulent aloe is native to Africa and not to the east coast of North America
where it is claimed the Templars travelled to, and there are no cornfields in the
areas they were said to have visited.
Among other historians on the subject, Dr Louise Yeoman, who specializes in
Scottish history, dismisses the Sinclair-Knights Templar connection, saying that
it was invented by 18th-century fiction writers, and also dismisses any Templar
connection with Rosslyn Chapel, saying that it was built by William Sinclair
(grandson of Henry Sinclair) so that Mass could be said for the souls of his
family. Also, the carvings in the Rosslyn Chapel that appear to resemble Templar
icons, (even though they are clearly different), were made at an unknown date,
almost certainly later than the date of its construction in the mid-15th century
(see Rosslyn Chapel). The claim that the layout of the chapel replicates
Solomon's Temple has been analysed by Mark Oxbrow and Ian Robertson in
their book, Rosslyn and the Grail, and concludes that it 'bears no more
resemblance to Solomon's or Herod's Temple than a house brick does to a
paperback book'. Instead, Oxbrow and Robertson reflect that the Chapel closely
resembles the East Quire of Glasgow Cathedral, which was added to the 12thcentury stone church in the 13th century, and state that this resemblance was first
mentioned as early as 1877 in the Proceedings of the Society of Antiquaries
written by Andrew Kemp.


The disappearing fleet
The port of La Rochelle on the Atlantic coast in France is approximately 483
kilometres (300 miles) from Paris. The harbour lies in a natural bay, is relatively
easy to defend and was said to have been developed by the Templars early in
their history. Although it was not the most straightforward port from which to
sail to either Outremer or England, it nonetheless became a bustling centre for
the Templar fleet and the town became an important Templar Province with a
rapidly increasing population.
There has been a great deal of deliberation over Templar treasure: what it was,
whether it existed and, if it did exist, where it ended up. Although King Philip IV
took a lot of the Templars' money during their persecution, many have wondered
if he took all their treasure and, if not, what happened to it? The contents of the
treasure is a mystery, thought by some to be large hoards of gold and jewels, and
by others as comprising more esoteric objects, such as the Holy Grail, Ark of the
Covenant or other venerated items, such as the head of Christ or St John the
Baptist, or even important religious documents, such as gospels that were
omitted from the Bible or mystical knowledge about life, the universe or detailed
explanations of sacred geometry, but as nothing has been found, nothing can be
proved.
During the Templar trials, Jean de Chalon, a member of the Order from
Nemours, testified that Gerard de Villiers, the Preceptor of the Paris Temple, had
fled the country with 50 horses and 18 ships from the port of La Rochelle.
However, there is no record of such a large number of ships - or indeed any
Templar ship - leaving from La Rochelle or any other French port at that time.
At the time of their arrests, the king's men would have been especially vigilant
in watching the ports. Chalon did not specify when Villiers left, however, so the
fleet could have left some time before the arrests. To remain inconspicuous, the
ships would have had to have sailed separately as a large fleet would have
alerted the king's officials. If the ships did leave like this, that is earlier and
separately, then it indicates that the Templars knew in advance about their
forthcoming arrests, which were meant to have been a secret. This is all
undocumented so it remains speculative, but the Templar ships did disappear
mysteriously. There is no record of them being taken by anyone; not the
Hospitallers, nor King Philip. They had ships before they were suppressed in
1307, but none after their dissolution in 1312. Adding to the confusion, they only
ever had a small number of large ships and not the 18 galleys that Chalon
described. They had numerous small ships, that they used to take goods, money
and pilgrims back and forth across the Mediterranean, but fewer than five
galleys that would have been able to carry hoards of treasure.


One suggestion that the Templars possessed something of value and took it
away to a secret hiding place before their suppression was made by the French
author, journalist and editor, Louis Charpentier (b. 1905) in a book published in
France in 1966 called Les Mystères de la Cathédrale de Chartres (The Mysteries
of Chartres Cathedral). Charpentier drew attention to the carved image on the
pillar in the north porch of Chartres (see Chapter 2) that illustrates the Ark of the
Covenant in transit on a wheeled cart. Charpentier reintroduced and popularized
the theory that the Templars found something under Temple Mount and that this
was possibly the Ark of the Covenant, but there is still no physical or
documentary evidence to support the supposition. The carving might be an
interpretation by a freemason working on Chartres Cathedral of what he
perceived to be the method used by Moses to transport the Ark of the Covenant,
but it could also represent several other things. In reality, the Ark would have
been carried on poles on men's shoulders, but as Charpentier implies, it might be
a depiction of either the Templars finding the Ark and moving it from Jerusalem
to France when Chartres was built, or it could be showing them moving it from
France to Scotland at another time. Another possible interpretation of the image
could be a 12th-century prediction of the Order's later persecution and capture,
created as a warning and to show what to do in such a situation. Beneath the
carving is a Latin inscription that states Hic Amititur Archa Cederis, which
means 'Through the Ark thou shall work'. This has had various interpretations,
from a suggestion that it is a direct message from the Knights Templar, to a
simple call to all worshippers to adhere to the Ten Commandments.
As the town of Chartres was in the domain of the Counts of Champagne for a
time and also probably the birthplace of the 13th-century Templar Grand Master
William de Chartres, it is often claimed that the Templars helped to build
Chartres Cathedral. But again, there is no authoritative evidence of this and most
of the theories of their involvement appear to be inspired more by the hope of a
mystery than by any substantial proof. Most historians believe that the carving
illustrates the Ark being smuggled into Egypt during the reign of King Manasseh
in approximately 687 to 642 BCE, as described in the Second Book of Chronicles.


The Money Pit
Another legend about the Templars reaching the New World that may or may not
be linked with those stories mentioned above, is the notion that they landed at
Nova Scotia at the end of the 14th century. Associated with the question over
what happened to their treasure, this legend begins at the end of the 18th century.
With no records about it, Templar treasure has persistently been contemplated
and many suppositions and theories have been proposed. It is reputed to have
contained massive amounts of gold and silver bullion, the crown jewels of
European royal families, sacred artefacts and priceless documents, but none of
this has ever been verified.

A view of Chartres Cathedral and its soaring Gothic spires. Chartres is
considered by many to be one of the finest examples of the French High Gothic
style, and the skills and techniques used in its construction were enormously
advanced for the time. Conjecture that the Templars were involved in the
building of this cathedral has never been verified.
In 1795, three young men were on the shores of the tree-covered Oak Island in
Nova Scotia, Canada. After noticing some ship's tackle hanging from a tree and,
below it, a large depression in the soil, the three began digging at the spot. They
soon reached a layer of flagstones about three metres (ten feet) below and as
they dug further, they discovered layers of oak logs at about every three metres
(ten feet). At approximately nine metres (thirty feet) down, without special
equipment, they could dig no further, so they abandoned the excavation, but
public interest was aroused. Several years later, a company was formed to


investigate the site. Successive oak platforms continued as they dug, until at 27
metres (90 feet), a stone inscribed with a simple code explained that treasure
would be found just 'forty feet [twelve metres] below'. However, the deep hole
that had been dug suddenly filled with sea water, preventing any further
excavation. Currently, after over two centuries, a huge amount of money has
been spent on the pit as treasure hunters desperately try to get to the bottom of it.
First, a series of flood tunnels were dug, then pumps, drills, dams and various
kinds of machinery were all used to try to uncover the mystery and reach what
many believe could be Templar treasure. This so-called 'Money Pit' became
associated with the Templars because not far away several old gravestones were
found marked with Templar crosses. The Money Pit has so far cost treasure
hunters millions of dollars and five lives, but it has still not given up its secrets.
Practically nothing - and nothing of value - has ever been found there. Various
other theories have been suggested as to what might be buried there - if
anything, as it could be an elaborate trick - but the debate continues. The
flooding of the site with sea water has been proved to be a natural phenomenon
and not a clever man-made prank, but even this could have been planned on
purpose, since the flooding happens when the pit reaches a certain depth.
Whether it is a complicated hoax or whether something of substance is actually
buried there, whoever placed the cut logs had substantial knowledge of
engineering and went to a great amount of trouble.

A Renaissance relief by Nanni di Bando showing stonemasons, architects and
carpenters, c.1414/17.


Freemasonry
After the Order's downfall, it is believed that many ex-Templars joined other
orders and groups, not simply those in Spain and Portugal that were reformed
after their demise. But with no consistent records, the issue became confused
when some associations such as the Freemasons adopted Templar symbols and
traditions.
Many Freemasons have alleged that they descend directly from the Knights
Templar, often relaying the legend that after their suppression, some Templars
fled to Scotland and found refuge with a lodge of Scottish stonemasons. In the
story, the ex-Templars taught the stonemasons the virtues of chivalry and
obedience, using the builders' tools as metaphors, and eventually they began
rebuilding a new version of the original order, including members from the
stonemasons they had been teaching. This order allegedly existed in secret from
around 1550 until the formation of the United Grand Lodge of England in 1717.
Another story that relates to Freemasonry begins in the late medieval period,
when there were two kinds of masons: stonemasons who built walls and
foundations of buildings with rough, hard stone, and masons who created fine
carved façades on softer stone. These latter masons were known as freestone
masons, which became abbreviated to freemasons. As freelance workers, the
freemasons travelled around Europe and stayed in lodges when working away
from home. It is said that, as both Christians and masons, they were particularly
interested in the Old Testament's Second Book of Chronicles that gave details
about King Solomon, his worker Hiram and the building of the Temple,
particularly its detailed proportions and the huge bronze pillars known as Jachin
and Boaz and the 'sea of bronze' (see Chapter 2). Information in the Bible about
Hiram is sparse, but it is made clear that he was extremely skilled and, as such,
he fascinated the freemasons. Gradually over many years, legends formed
around Hiram Abiff as the freemasons called him. From these legends,
freemasons acquired certain rituals and traditions, and individual groups began
forming to support each other, rather like guilds. Aware that they needed to raise
their standing in society to gain greater respect, the freemasons began inviting
influential people to serve as their patrons, and by the turn of the 18th century,
these prestigious patrons known as 'speculative masons' outnumbered the
'operative masons' or freemasons themselves.


An early Freemasonry ceremony in the 18th century, at the start of the
organization. The Freemasons created their own ceremonial rituals, many of
which have become confused with authentic history about the Knights Templar.
In 1717, four London 'Lodges' - the name the freemasons gave their
individual groups - merged to create the United Grand Lodge of England, with a
gentleman - not a mason - elected to serve as their Grand Master. The idea
spread across Europe and within 15 years, Masonic Lodges had been established
in the Netherlands, France and Germany. A culture of secrecy developed around
them, giving rise to many stories and mysteries about them. One of the first
stories came in 1760 from a Freemason in Germany called George Frederick
Johnson, who was possibly French, but who claimed to be Scottish. Declaring
that he knew the secrets of the Knights Templar, Johnson insisted that in the 12th
century while living on Temple Mount, the Templars had acquired treasure that
had belonged to the Jewish Essenes. This treasure was handed down to each
Templar Grand Master until Jacques de Molay, who in Johnson's story is called
Hiram. On the night before he was burned at the stake, Jacques de Molay (or
Hiram) ordered a group of Templars to enter the Paris Temple to take the
Templar treasure and escape with it. According to Johnson, this was the point at
which 18 Templar galleys were filled with their treasure and sailed from La
Rochelle to Scotland, where the Templars renamed themselves Freemasons.
Several facts make this story improbable. On the evening before his death,
neither Jacques de Molay nor the authorities knew that he was going to be
burned at the stake the following day. At that time in 1314, it was possible but
not likely that there were some free Templars in France, but by then the Order
had been dissolved for two years, and most French ex-Templars were probably
either still lingering in prisons or had escaped abroad. It was too dangerous to


remain in France. There may have been a few who were waiting to help Jacques
de Molay to escape, however. The main difficulty would have been that from the
moment of the arrests in 1307, the Paris Temple was heavily guarded by the
king's men, and so it would have been virtually impossible to enter.
With no record of any groups called Freemasons until the 18th century and the
notion of the Templars changing from a holy order of knights to a non-religious
organization, Johnson's story seems improbable, but he initiated an idea that
Freemasonry descended directly from the Knights Templar. Freemasonry was
never a religious order and, contrary to the Knights Templar, it originally had an
anti-Catholic bias, prompting Pope Clement XII to condemn it in a papal bull of
1738. With its many rituals, secret passwords and signs, however, it was always
going to be the subject of a wide variety of criticism and conspiracy theories. As
well as connections with the Templars, Freemasonry has been linked to Jack the
Ripper, Zionism, witchcraft and Devil worship, but there is no evidence about
any of it. Most Masonic legends were openly made up as allegories. Robert L. D.
Cooper, Freemason and curator at the Grand Lodge of Scotland Museum and
Library in Edinburgh, wrote in 2006:
None of the traditional histories of any of the branches of Freemasonry are,
or were, intended to be taken literally. Our forebears in all the Masonic
Orders manufactured suitable 'pasts' for allegorical purposes. They did so
with romantic notions at heart but understood that these histories
manufactured by, and for, themselves were not literal truths.
ROBERT L. D. COOPER, THE ROSSLYN HOAX?


Switzerland
That some Templars escaped to Switzerland is another theory that has been
purported by a number of scholars. In their book of 1998, The Warriors and
Bankers, a History of the Knights Templar, 1307 to the Present, Alan Butler and
Stephen Dafoe conclude that the Templars helped to form Switzerland at the
beginning of the 14th century, when they were first being persecuted in France.
This theory discounts the ships sailing away to Scotland or Canada and America,
but explains that contrary to that notion, the Templars put on ordinary clothes,
shaved off their beards and separated their treasure into small, manageable
amounts, then escaped overland to the mountains of Switzerland. Not widely
accepted by academics, the theory is nonetheless worthy of consideration.
Many have commented on the similarity between the Templar flag of the
splayed red cross on a white background and the Swiss national flag of a plain
white cross on a red ground. They have common roots, but it is unlikely that the
Swiss flag developed from the Templars'. The design of a white cross on a red
field is believed to have originated in the war banners of Emperor Constantine
after 312 CE when he converted to Christianity. It was used to symbolize the
Emperor's role as protector of Christianity. In the 14th century, a loose
confederation of the small cantons or states was formed, and in 1339, in the
Battle of Laupen the confederacy fought against the Austrian Habsburgs. To
contrast with the red St George's cross of the Habsburgs, every Swiss fighter
wore a white linen cross stitched on to his chest, sleeve and thigh. Meanwhile, in
Portugal, the Order of Christ, which derived from the Templars, began using a
splayed white cross on a red background as their banner as soon as they formed
in 1319. The white cross on red was not introduced as an actual flag in
Switzerland until the Napoleonic period at the turn of the 19th century and not
introduced as an official national flag until 1889.
The hypothesis that many Templars escaped to Switzerland arose mainly
because the Swiss, like the Templars, became renowned for their astute banking
practices, their prowess on the battlefield and their religious tolerance. As
Switzerland is adjacent to France, it would have been relatively easy for fleeing
Templars to reach from various regions across France. Additionally, the
mountains had many potential hiding places for individuals or small groups of
men. The theory that the Templars were forewarned of their arrests in France in
1307 makes sense of the conjecture that they sent several of their brethren over
the mountains with their treasure in advance, rather than to ports and ships where
they would have been seen and reported or caught by officials. No such reports
or arrests were made. Although early Swiss history is extremely indistinct, the
founding of the first largely independent and democratic Swiss states - or


cantons - at the end of the 13th and beginning of the 14th centuries, roughly
corresponds with the beginnings of the Templars' persecution in France. Some
unsubstantiated tales of knights dressed in white appearing and helping the
locals to gain their independence against foreign domination are legendary, but
none of it was officially documented. During the medieval period, Switzerland
as a region belonged to the Holy Roman Empire. As the Habsburg dynasty
became stronger and sought to gain even greater power, the disparate mountain
communities tried to defend their independence. Until then these communities
had been free from any authority other than the Emperor. Battles ensued and the
earliest cantons of the 14th century were joined by forces from the city-states of
Lucerne, Zürich and Berne, as well as allegedly by the mysterious knights who
helped them to defeat the Habsburg armies and retain their autonomy.

A woodcut from 1550 of the town of Sion in Switzerland, showing its many
buildings, city walls and castles that resemble Templar buildings and were
erected fairly rapidly, soon after the Templars' suppression.
Before the cantons were formed, the area was made up of several separate
fiefdoms, but once established, each canton became an independent sovereign
state with its own borders, army and currency. The individual cantons eventually
allied into the country we know as Switzerland. As conflicts with the Habsburgs
ended, banking and farming became the predominant industries in Switzerland,
and while these industries were developing, several towns were built. One,


named Sion after the French word Zion for Holy Land, was built high in the
Alps. Alongside the domestic buildings were two large castles that closely
resemble Templar fortresses in Outremer. Concurrently, Swiss banking began,
with many of the methods invented by the Templars, such as international
transfers, current accounts, safe-deposit boxes, pensions and strict
confidentiality. These similarities have led some to believe that many Templars
lived in and built towns like Sion, and that banking in Switzerland was started by
the Templars. Yet with the strict Swiss laws of preserving secrecy and little
reliable documentation from the period, the link with the Order is another theory
that remains difficult to prove either way.


Skulls and bones
A Masonic legend tells of three Templars searching the site of Jacques de
Molay's death on the night of his execution in March 1314 and finding only his
skull and femurs. The three Templars purportedly took the bones and created the
first flag bearing the skull and crossbones symbol. This is usually accepted by
many historians to be purposely fabricated to form a Masonic legend and was
never meant to be taken literally. Most significantly, it is highly unlikely that
there were any free Templars in Paris on the night of the deaths of Jacques de
Molay and Geoffrey de Charney.
Although it is not understood exactly when the symbol first came into use, the
skull and crossbones has been found on medieval tombs in various European
countries, used as a sign of death, such as during one of the epidemics of the
Black Death in 1348. It was also used later by pirates as a warning to others. The
Templars did use the skull as a symbol on several of their later gravestones,
including some in Scotland, but this was long before their persecution and the
burning of Jacques de Molay so the story of the Templars finding his bones in
his funeral pyre does not fit. Skulls and bones were long used as symbols in
Europe as the ultimate 'memento mori' or 'vanitas': reminders of death and
mortality, that life is transient and that death puts an end to all worldly
achievements, contrasting with the everlasting nature of faith. The symbol also
links with Christianity, as the place of Christ's crucifixion was called 'Golgotha',
which translates as 'the Place of the Skull'. The 'green man', an architectural
decoration often found in churches and other buildings, which also appears in
the Rosslyn Chapel and at Temple Church, has sometimes been described as
representing a skull, with the crossed vegetation behind his head as the bones,
but it is more often seen as a symbol of rebirth, representing fertility, growth and
the abundance of nature.


Cat worship
When the Templars were imprisoned from 1307, the notion of skulls was mixed
up with the accusation that they worshipped a head (see Chapter 7).
Occasionally said to be a skull or a demon, the head was also sometimes said to
be the head of a cat. Without any definitive evidence, several legends and tales
have become intertwined and confused. The idea that the head was not human
was another aspect of confusion around this issue. A cat was the most common
creature mentioned in relation to the Templars. During the medieval period,
many were suspicious of cats and people who owned them. Many innocent
women were accused of witchcraft because their pet cats were perceived to be
their 'familiars': demons or spirits from European folklore needed to assist
witches in performing spells and curses. Familiars were believed to appear in
various forms, often as animals, such as toads, owls or mice for instance, but
most frequently as cats. Disparately, in ancient Egyptian mythology, Sekhmet
was a warrior-goddess, depicted as a cat or lioness, and Bast was another
Egyptian goddess bearing the head of a cat. If it could be proved that the
Templars worshipped a cat, whether this was perceived as a familiar or a pagan
idol, the Pope would have instantly excommunicated the entire Order. So
ultimately, it was almost irrelevant whether the cat head was a familiar or an
ancient Egyptian goddess. Either way, if the confession that they worshipped a
cat could be extracted from them, there would subsequently be a straightforward
charge of heresy. However, this never happened. Although they may have owned
cats to inhibit the numbers of mice and rats in their farms, preceptories, mills and
castles, there was not a shred of evidence of any form of cat worship. It was an
elusive accusation that the Inquisitors failed to make much of. At the time, as it
was not uncommon for any religious house to own relics and the Templars may
have possessed the supposed bones or teeth of saints, but pagan or Satanic
worship was never established at the Templar trials.
One thing that the Templars never worshipped was the goat-headed, winged
demon that is featured on Tarot cards. This strange image was drawn in the 19th
century by Eliphas Lévi (1810-75), a French magician and author on the occult,
who originally studied to enter the Roman Catholic priesthood but fell in love
and so was never ordained. His first treatise on magic appeared in 1855, called
Dogme et Rituel de la Haute Magie (Dogma and Ritual of High Magic). In the
work, he depicted the goat-headed demon that he called Baphomet: an imaginary
pagan deity that he revived from the 11th or 12th century as a figure of occultism
and Satanism. As discussed on page 187, Baphomet had first appeared, probably
as a corruption of the word 'Mahomet' or 'Muhammad,' and was mentioned in
the Templar charges, but not pursued as a serious accusation. Even though Lévi


implied that the image had Templar origins, the goat image was his own
invention.

One of the carved 'green men' on the walls of Rosslyn Chapel in Scotland.
These faces are thought to represent fertility, growth and nature - although some
believe they are associated with the skull and crossbones.
A cat's head may have entered the mix of accusations against the Templars
because many of their churches featured carved heads as decoration. Often
appearing in the spandrels, between the arches or by the doors, the heads were
created by freestone masons, sometimes for their symbolic connotations,
sometimes as a signature (the heads were occasionally portraits of the masons
who made them) and sometimes purely for decorative purposes. Some of these
heads are grotesque, with fearsome, ugly faces (presumably a warning to those
praying below of what to expect in Hell and not the masons' portraits); some
represent monarchs; some are ordinary or even grimacing faces; and others
represent lions or other feline-type creatures - probably there for protection as a
residuary of pagan superstitions. There was nothing unusual about having heads
like these in Gothic churches across Europe and Outremer, but King Philip had
an ulterior motive, and anything remotely suspicious was focused upon and used
against the Templars.
Bornholm Island, Denmark
One place where the Templars were not documented as being was Scandinavia.
Yet there is an island in Denmark that is often discussed in conjunction with
them and their possible hidden treasure. Situated approximately 40 kilometres
(25 miles) southeast of the southern tip of Sweden, the Danish island of
Bornholm forms an area of approximately 600 square kilometres (230 square
miles). In medieval times, it was known as Burgunderland or Burgunderholm, as
it is believed to have been home to the Burgundinians, who came from a


previously Germanic tribe called the Burgundes that inhabited Scandinavia.
After migrating south, they settled predominantly on the island of Bornholm
and, between 1050 and 1150, they converted to Christianity.

One of the four round churches on Bornholm Island, Denmark, this is the St.
Olaf Church of Ølsker. Although the construction of each church is complex and
based on advanced architectural knowledge, there is no evidence to link them
with the Templars.
Out of 15 churches on Bornholm Island, four are round. Built in the 12th
century, some historians believe they were put there for both religious and
defence purposes (island inhabitants were frequently attacked by pirates).
Although conical now, originally the roofs of the churches were flat, possibly so
that they could be defended from any angle, while the current cone-shaped roofs
were added several centuries later. Yet the small scale of these churches makes it
difficult to see how they were used as defence; there is not much room inside to
contain a large force of fighting men. During the time they were built, there were
fortresses on the island that would have been far more effective as places of
refuge, although the round churches could nonetheless have been used as
lookout posts.
There are no other round churches in Scandinavia and the mystery of why
they were built on Bornholm Island at that time has been the subject of much
speculation. At least two authors theorize that they were built by the Knights
Templar. In their book of 1992, The Templars' Secret Island, Erling Haagensen
and Henry Lincoln present evidence that connects the four round churches of


Bornholm Island with the Knights Templar. These churches, of Østerlars, Nylars,
Ølsker and Nyker, according to Haagensen and Lincoln, are complex structures
that incorporate the equilateral six-sided shape which forms the star of David
and is based on the theories of sacred geometry that also appear in buildings
constructed during earlier periods in the Holy Land.
In 2010, Haagensen carried out two investigations of the churches using
electronic equipment. The investigations discovered a deep underground
structure beneath the Østerlars church that mirrors a similar chasm under the
church of Rennes-le-Château in France. Although this cellar had been long
forgotten, nothing has been found in it, so its original function has not been
ascertained. The upper windows in the Østerlars church are positioned to align
with the sunrises of the winter and summer solstices, as it is claimed also
featured in the ancient Temple of Solomon. With their complex structures, the
churches must have been built by knowledgeable architects, not local builders,
but this still does not establish that they were built by the Templars. Even before
the Order had been founded, round churches had been built on the model of the
Holy Sepulchre and they became particularly common after the First Crusade.
Most military orders built them. According to Haagensen and Lincoln, historical
evidence reveals a plan made between the Danish Archbishop Eskil of Lund - a
friend of Bernard of Clairvaux - and the Templar Grand Master Bertrand de
Blanchefort. From 1161 to 1167, Eskil stayed at Bernard's monastery Clairvaux,
approximately nine years after Bernard had died, and made plans with Bertrand
de Blanchefort. In this plan, the Knights Templar were to be responsible for
supplying the Christian fleet on the Baltic Crusades. The Baltic Crusades were a
series of campaigns fought during the 13th century that aimed to conquer and
convert the pagan tribes of northeastern Europe around the Baltic Sea. Bernard
of Clairvaux had supported these wars, despite their lack of a pilgrimage
element, and other military orders were involved, but there is no historical
evidence that the Templars took part, nor of any Templar activity or settlement in
Denmark at any time. Documentation exists that the Teutonic Knights took a
prominent role in the Baltic Crusades, but there is nothing to indicate that the
Knights Templar did. If the churches on Bornholm were built by any of the
religious-military orders, it would more likely have been the Hospitallers or the
Teutonic Knights than the Templars, as they had documented connections in
Scandinavia.
Haagensen and Lincoln suggest that the Templars might have used the
churches on Bornholm as a hiding place for the secret treasure that they had
found under Temple Mount early in their existence. Bornholm Island was
remote, unknown and unlikely to be disturbed, but with no apparent connection


with the Order or any reliable documentation or proof to support the claims, no
further investigations have been undertaken of the location or the churches.
Rennes-le-Château, France
The treasure that the Templars allegedly possessed has been debated countless
times by people with varying interests in the subject. Connections and
suppositions have been made with and about several locations across Europe and
beyond. Without any tangible confirmation, these locations are variously
described as being the hiding place for this treasure either from relatively early
on in the Order's existence, or from the time of their suppression. Nearly all
these claims have been made since the 20th century. One location associated
with several legends concerning Templar treasure and other mysterious notions
is Rennes-le-Château, a tiny village in southwestern France that was once
populated by the Cathars and still bears visible scars from the Albigensian
Crusade. During the 1950s and 1960s, the entire area around Rennes-le-Château
became the focus of sensational claims involving Blanche of Castile, the
Merovingians, the Knights Templar, the Cathars and the treasures of the Temple
of Solomon. From the 1970s, the claims extended to include the Priory of Sion,
the Holy Grail, sacred geometry, Christ's remains and notions that Mary
Magdalene settled in the south of France after Jesus had been crucified.
Rennes-le-Château began as a prehistoric encampment, but by 1050, it was
controlled by the Counts of Toulouse, who allowed Cathars to live peacefully in
the area. Even after their persecution and annihilation, Rennes-le-Château
returned to being a quiet, remote village until the middle of the 20th century.
Then, in the 1950s, a local hotel owner spread a rumour that a priest, Abbé
Bérenger Saunière (1852-1917), had found some valuable documents there in
the 19th century - and everything changed. From 1887 to 1897, Father Saunière
had renovated the local church of St Mary Magdalene and then had further
buildings constructed in the area: the Villa Bethania and the Tour Magdala. In
1946, seven years before she died, Saunière's former housekeeper and secretary,
Marie Dénarnaud (1868-1953), sold Father Saunière's estate to Noël Corbu
(1912-68), an entrepreneur who had recently moved to the area with his wife.
Along with the buildings constructed by Saunière, Corbu obtained the priest's
papers. Corbu transformed the Villa Bethania into a hotel and opened a
restaurant beneath a belvedere that connects the Tour Magdala to an orangery.
He told his guests that Father Saunière had discovered something extremely
valuable nearby. The hotel was soon inundated with bookings.
In January 1956, the local newspaper, La Dépêche du Midi, featured an
interview with Corbu, who said that Father Saunière had discovered 28,500,000
gold pieces that had been hidden at Rennes-le-Château by Blanche of Castile in


1250. Corbu claimed that this had been amassed by Blanche, widow of King
Louis VIII of France, to pay the ransom for her son Louis IX who had been
captured by Muslims while on the Seventh Crusade. Blanche, however, became
ill and died before she could send the money to the Holy Land. (In the end,
Louis raised his own money for his release.) According to Corbu, the stash of
money had been left in its hiding place for over six centuries, until Father
Saunière discovered it. Corbu also claimed that in 1892, Saunière had discovered
'parchments' while renovating the local church, which were 'written in a mixture
of French and Latin, which at first glance could be discerned to be passages from
the Gospels'.
Saunière had begun renovating the church in 1887, and was still doing so in
1892, so this is not completely inconceivable, but none of these 'parchments'
have been seen by anyone else, so there is no proof that they ever existed. Corbu
also claimed that Saunière had only found one part of Blanche's treasure, and
that before she died, Marie Dénarnaud had said: 'Pray do not worry yourself,
Monsieur Corbu. You shall have more money than you will be able to spend!'
However, even though Corbu was joined by others in the hunt for this treasure,
nothing was ever found. In July 1965, the local council was compelled to
introduce a by-law prohibiting further excavations in the village.
Holy blood, holy Grail
Corbu's account of Father Saunière's discovery of the documents was later
quoted in Gérard de Sède's book L'Or de Rennes (The Gold of Rennes), or The
Strange Life of Bérenger Saunière, Priest of Rennes-le-Château, published in
1968, but the information in the book was later discovered to be fictitious,
invented by de Sède and another author Pierre Plantard. The claim in the book
was that Saunière found parchments proving that the line of the Merovingian
king, Dagobert II, who was assassinated in 679, did not die with him as had
previously been thought. Instead, Dagobert's son had escaped the family's
enemies and had taken refuge at Rennes-le-Château. The genealogical
documents that de Sède declared Saunière had found led to an imaginary secret
organization, the Priory of Sion, and Pierre Plantard claimed to be descended
from Dagobert II. The book was later proved to be a complete fabrication.
Documents the authors said verified it all were proved to be hoaxes, the Priory
of Sion never existed and Pierre Plantard did not descend from the Merovingian
kings. Yet, after scriptwriter Henry Lincoln read the book, he used the story as
the basis for three television documentaries and a bestselling book The Holy
Blood and the Holy Grail, which he wrote in conjunction with Michael Baigent
and Richard Leigh in 1982. The book was later used as source material for the
bestselling 2003 novel by Dan Brown, The Da Vinci Code.


A 13th-century illumination showing King Louis IX of France and his mother
Blanche of Castile, whom Corbu claimed had accumulated an incredible amount
of money for her son's ransom, but had left it hidden in Rennes-le-Château when
she died.
According to the authors of The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail, the
documents that Saunière supposedly found in the late 19th century had been
hidden by one of his predecessors, the Abbé Bigou, who had been chaplain to
the Blanquefort family, descendants of one of the early Templar Grand Masters.
The Blanquefort family had given Bigou a great secret to hide, a secret which
had been passed down by their Templar predecessor. This was the first link of
Rennes-le-Château with the Templars, but the notion was never developed and
nothing pertaining to it was found. Whatever it was that the Blanquefort family
were supposed to have had was never explained and although several
suggestions were made, nothing was ever proved or established.
The church of St Mary Magdalene at Rennes-le-Château has been rebuilt
several times over its history. The earliest church on the site was probably built


in the eighth century, and another built on the same spot in the tenth or eleventh
century. When Father Saunière renovated it at the end of the 19th century, he
added some unusual statuary and sculpture, including a red demon being crushed
under the font and an inscription that has been pondered over extensively. Above
the front doors, the Latin words read 'Terribilis est locus iste', which translates
as 'This is a place of awe'. On the arches over the two front doors, the dedication
continues 'hic domus Dei est et porta coeli', meaning 'this is God's house, the
gate of heaven'. Many claims have been made about the phrases, suggesting that
they had deeper meanings than appeared superficially, but the same inscriptions
featured in other churches and they were not particularly unusual, being
extracted from a range of Christian sources including medieval chants, songs,
old Bible annotations and more. It is probable that Saunière selected the phrases
for no greater reason than they were traditional and he liked them.
Saunière's secret money
One of the biggest mysteries, and the main issue that has provoked such
extravagant speculation about Rennes-le-Château, is that Saunière's receipts and
account books, which were handed down to Corbu, reveal that the renovation to
the church, the presbytery and the cemetery cost 11,605 francs. This was a huge
amount of money and far more than Saunière's monthly wages. It is not clear
how a local priest could have paid for it. After the church remodelling, Saunière
also paid for the two other buildings to be constructed in the village: the Villa
Bethania and the Tour Magdala. Resembling a small medieval tower, the Tour
Magdala, named after Mary Magdalene like the church close by, overlooks
surrounding villages, and Saunière used it as his library. He said that he had the
Villa Bethania built as a retirement home for priests, although it was never used
as such. Between 1898 and 1905, the buildings and land cost Saunière 26,417
francs.
Visitors to his home attest that he also owned valuable books and furniture
that were not documented in his accounts; neither did he include any travel or
personal expenses. But, although the sensational theories claim that he had found
great treasure, he died in poverty, and his housekeeper and secretary Marie
Dénarnaud was also destitute, suggesting that this elusive great treasure never
existed. It is far more probable that Father Saunière committed simony or Mass
trafficking. This meant that he charged the faithful to say Mass for them. Father
Saunière was certainly not the only priest of the time to do this. Requesting a
Mass was accepted by many to be costly and they were often said by priests
without anyone even being present. It is known that Saunière also spent a great
deal on postage, as he wrote to his parishioners in alphabetical order, offering to
say Masses for them in return for a fee. It appears he was extremely good at this


form of marketing. Priests were allowed to say no more than three Masses a day,
but from his records, it can be seen that Saunière was asked to say thousands of
Masses, far more than he could ever actually conduct, for which he received
hundreds of thousands of francs.

The Tour Magdala in Rennes-le-Château, France. Built as a library c.1900 for
Abbé Bérenger Saunière, it is a bold example of his eccentric and decadent
tastes.
In January 1909, the Bishop of Carcassonne transferred Saunière to the village
of Coustouge. This was usual practice within the Catholic Church - priests only
stayed in one place for a short time, until the Bishop moved them elsewhere -
but Saunière refused to go and continued as an unofficial priest of Rennes-leChâteau. In 1910, he built a conservatory adjacent to the Villa Bethania as a
private chapel, where he continued to celebrate Mass as he could no longer use
the church. That same year, he was summoned to appear before an ecclesiastical
trial to face charges of simony or Mass trafficking. He was found guilty and
suspended from the priesthood. When asked to account for his expenditure, he
reported that he had received 82,800 francs in gifts between 1885 and 1905 from
several benefactors, most of whom were anonymous. Allegedly, he was also
having an affair with a wealthy woman, and the seven collection boxes in his
church gained a steady income, but with no records of these either, the precise


amounts are unknown. As a priest, he earned 900 francs a year. As well as
charging for Masses, in another enterprising move, he had postcards made of the
village, which he sold to visitors. He never recorded the proceeds from these
sales, and his hobby of restoring old furniture and selling it was also omitted
from his records. When asked to produce his account books, he refused to attend
his trial. After he had been dismissed from the Church, he died in poverty -
hardly the ending of a life of a man who had found secret, priceless treasure.
After his death in 1917, Marie Dénarnaud remained living in the presbytery but
she ran into debt and tried several times - unsuccessfully - to sell the Villa
Bethania. It was not until Noël Corbu bought the property in 1946 that her debts
were settled. When Corbu and his wife turned it into the Hotel de la Tour, it was
the first time the Villa Bethania had been occupied.
Another suggested mystery about Rennes-le-Château and the Knights Templar
is that the buildings are based on the same construction methods and ratios as
numerous churches and other buildings erected by the Order. Those who claim
this allege that Saunière's buildings were deliberately placed according to a
geometric pattern that is echoed elsewhere, particularly in the Holy Land. These
are broad claims that have not been corroborated. Additionally, similarities
appear in many other buildings across Europe, constructed by various orders,
both military and purely religious.
Friday the 13th
Much of the furore attached to the Templars was intended to inflame the
widespread superstitious fears of the time. Not all issues relating to their trials,
however, had achieved the desired effect then. Some superstitions emerged
centuries later. One of these is the idea of Friday the 13th being unlucky. On
Friday the 13th of October, 1307, the Templars were arrested in France. King
Philip had written the order for the arrests a month earlier and the operation was
meant to be kept in strict secrecy. On the appointed day, it is believed that
simultaneously hundreds of the king's men opened copies of his written order
and then went to every Templar property in France to arrest all ordained
Templars. About 15,000 Templars were arrested, with an average age of 41. As
the average life expectancy for men at that time was under 50, it is not really
surprising that many of them died while in prison over the next few years. But it
was not until relatively recently that the date and day upon which they were
arrested has been considered specifically unlucky.
Although historically the number 13 was considered by some to be ill-omened
and Friday was occasionally associated with misfortune, the amalgamation of
the two traditions did not occur until relatively recently. The number 13 was
considered unlucky as there were allegedly 13 people at the Last Supper, with


Judas, the betrayer of Jesus, supposedly being the 13th guest to sit down. There
are 13 witches in a coven, and in Norse mythology a dinner party of the gods
was ruined by the 13th guest called Loki, who caused the world to be plunged
into darkness. Thirteen was also perceived as one too many: there were 12
apostles, there are 12 hours in a day, 12 months in a year and 12 zodiac signs.
Friday being ill-fated was more obscure. Jesus was crucified on a Friday
(although that went on to be called Good Friday as he rose again two days later).
The next known reference to the idea is probably a line in Chaucer's Canterbury
Tales, written in the late 14th century: '... and on a Friday fell all this
misfortune'. The idea of the day being associated with bad luck, however, did
not become established until about three centuries later, when it obscurely
became accepted by some Christians that certain things should not be undertaken
on a Friday - travel, marriage or a new job for instance. One of the most
enduring but enigmatic sailing superstitions is that it is unlucky to begin a
voyage on a Friday, but the origins of this superstition remain obscure. However,
while Friday has always been held to be unlucky by some, others - such as many
who live in the Scottish Hebrides - consider it to be lucky and the day on which
seeds should be sown.
The association of Friday with 13 first occurred in the late 19th century, but
was virtually ignored until the early 20th century. It is believed to have first been
mentioned in the 1869 biography of Gioachino Rossini by Henry Sutherland
Edwards: '... he regarded Fridays as an unlucky day and thirteen as an unlucky
number, it is remarkable that on Friday 13th of November, he died.' In 1907,
Thomas W. Lawson published his dark novel, Friday the Thirteenth, and from
that point the belief was seized upon and magnified. Among certain
communities, the superstition spread and gained strength and at some point
during the 20th century, someone connected it with the day of the Templar
arrests. This has been further exaggerated by various books, documentaries and
films about them.


The French Revolution
Often referred to, but unproven, a legend connects the French Revolution with
the Knights Templar. In 1789, the French working class overthrew their
autocratic monarchy. At the moment Louis XVI was guillotined, the legend
claims that a French Freemason shouted from the crowd: 'Jacques de Molay,
thou art avenged!' This story was mentioned in The Illuminatus Trilogy by
Robert Shea and Robert Anton Wilson, first published in 1975, but there is no
documented confirmation of the occurrence and it is unlikely that many
revolutionaries would have understood the implication so it seems tenuous.
Ironically, within a decade of the alleged incident, Napoleon Bonaparte had
replaced the revolutionary idealism of the French working class with his own
imperialism and, in 1808, he ordered the demolition of the Paris Temple.

An early 19th-century painting by the French artist Fleury François Richard,
depicting Jacques de Molay, the 23rd and last Grand Master of the Knights
Templar. De Molay led the Order from 1292 until Pope Clement V dissolved it
in 1307. Through his ignominious downfall and execution, he has become the
best-known of all the Templars, and the focus of countless legends.


AN ENIGMA OF HISTORY

A late 14th-century illustration on vellum from the Treatise of the Vices, by
Cocharelli of Genoa, showing the destruction of the Templars and the death of
King Philip IV in 1314.
Speculation has filled the void that remains in the absence of solid evidence
about the Templars' activities after the deaths of Jacques de Molay and Geoffrey
de Charney. Suggestions that many escaped to start new lives or secretly
continued the Order are appealing. It is known that some ex-Templars did join
other orders, including the Knights Hospitallers and the Cistercians, and
probably the Order of Montesa and the Knights of Christ, which was what King
Philip and Pope Clement intended them to do. Some went out into the secular
world, possibly taking employment on estates, some returned to their families, or
they lived on the charity of others. As with most of the legends surrounding the
Templars, some of the conjecture about the fate of individuals seems logical,
while other suggestions appear to be rather implausible and fabricated for an
audience hungry for mysteries and conspiracy theories.


Sent to their deaths
As soon as the Templars were arrested in France, their interrogation and torture
began, while outside the prisons their lands and property were taken into royal
custody. Many died in prison, and their families were never told, while those that
were burned at the stake during the trials were taken quietly for fear of arousing
the anger of Templar supporters or of creating martyrs. The 54 Templars who
were burned at the stake on 11 May 1310 for being relapsed heretics were
probably chosen out of those who had been the most vocal in retracting their
earlier confessions.
A month before the Templars were despatched in this way, the king had
organized a commission of lawyers to question some of them. In April 1310,
three Templars had stood before the commission and professed the innocence of
the entire Order. One of these was Peter of Bologna; a trained lawyer who had
previously been a Templar representative to the papal court in Rome. His
arguments were far more eloquent than most other Templars or even of the
king's counsellors, and he declared that 'the proceedings against the Order had
been rapid, unlooked-for, hostile and unjust, altogether without justice, but
containing complete injury, most grave violence and intolerable error, for no
attempt had been made to keep to proper procedures'. Continuing his
impassioned rhetoric, he concluded that all documentation that had been
gathered on the case should be brought forward and that the ban on any
witnesses conferring should be lifted, and he requested that all charges against
the Order should be dropped. The royal counsellors could not argue with him,
but the following month, Philippe de Marigny, the Archbishop of Sens, took
over the trial from the original commission, and two days later, the 54 Templars
were sent to their deaths. Soon after, when the commission asked to see Peter of
Bologna again, they were told that he had retracted all he had said to them,
returned to his earlier confession of guilt, broken out of jail and fled. He was
never seen or heard of again.
It is highly unlikely that Peter of Bologna left prison either of his own free
will or alive, and although those who remained imprisoned continued to
proclaim their innocence, without an articulate and informed advocate, their
downfall progressed. Many died under torture or afterwards as a result of its
effects; some were probably murdered by their jailers, and others were left to die
of starvation while incarcerated. Stripped of their habits, cast into dank dungeons
and chained to the walls, the simple and often ageing men were easily broken
and were no match for the formidable Inquisition. In other European countries,
however, few Templars suffered as they did in France. In England, for instance,
most were never arrested. After the Order had been dissolved, the King and


other English authorities perceived them to be free from guilt and so at liberty to
find themselves new places in society. Evidence of their movements in England
shows that a large number joined the Hospitallers, some joined the Cistercians
and a few left religious life altogether.

An illumination of 1350 depicting the 54 Templars being burned on a funeral
pyre in 1310, accused of being relapsed heretics.


Monastic vows
Yet although the Order was dissolved, the Church did not release the men from
their monastic vows. It was ordered that if any were caught who had gone out
into the world as laymen, or if they had married, the Church had to punish them.
They were expected to simply move into other monasteries and not to draw
attention to themselves. They were also meant to be granted a small pension, but
this rarely seems to have been paid. In England, King Edward and the
Archbishop of Canterbury asked the Hospitallers if they could help the deposed
Templars, 'for the love of God and for charity'. With money scarce for the
Hospitallers too - fewer donations were forthcoming once the Holy Land was
lost and given the general feeling that these military orders were not as pure as
they should have been - it is not clear whether the Hospitallers did manage to
help the displaced Templars much at all.
Yet this notion of adherence to their monastic orders was not enforced
everywhere. Many simply wanted to forget the Templars, and after the death of
Philip and Clement, it seems that many were forgotten and left to fend for
themselves. A few who were embittered by their treatment and lack of support
from the community turned to petty crime, while some emerged in unexpected
places. One, it was recorded, became the Ambassador for the Sultan of Tunis and
another became a woodcarver for another sultan after being freed from that
sultan's prison. Many other Templars were left languishing in Muslim jails,
while even more were completely unaccounted for, such as those in countries
where the arrests, accusations and trials were virtually ignored.


The lost parchment
Since the discovery of the Chinon Parchment, much of the conjecture about the
Templar persecution and trials has been cleared up. Contemporary opinion
beyond France was closer to the truth than a great deal of the speculation since.
Dante and various European monarchs were clear about what was happening:
that the greedy and dishonest King Philip of France, in order to gain the
Templars' wealth, deliberately twisted and elaborated upon stories about the
rituals and beliefs of a religious-military order that, until then, had been devoted
to the defence of Christendom. Fearing his own destruction, the Pope withheld
his opinion about the Order's innocence, but he died before redressing his
dishonesty and cowardice. Long after his death, when the papal court was
returned to Rome from Avignon in 1376, the Chinon Parchment was misplaced,
and it remained lost until 2001. None of Clement's cardinals had felt powerful
enough against the king's men to defend the Templars, especially as the Pope
was keeping quiet about his absolution of them. If any of them had considered
speaking up in defence of the Order, they only had to remember the fate of the
Templars, or to think of William de Nogaret's behaviour towards Pope Boniface
VIII.


Witchcraft and folklore
Yet some of the theories about the Templars continue. Some authors have
rewritten history to make the stories more sensational and some continue to
perpetuate theories that have been disproved. A few of the ideas are more
conceivable. The Knights Templar for many have become mythical, mysterious
men who had secret powers, secret knowledge and secret possessions. Although
most were simple, ordinary, honest and hard-working men, from all classes and
all walks of life, something about their lives and demise appeals to the romantic
notions inherent in us all, and many of the stories about them have become
established almost as firmly as folklore.
Soon after their dissolution, the Templars continued to appear in works of
fiction and pseudo-historical works, and as their history became forgotten and
newer generations were not sure what their role had been, authors began
inventing increasingly implausible tales about them. The accusation that they
used magic appeared in the 16th century at a time when magic and witchcraft
were particularly feared. At the end of the medieval period, in 1487, one of the
first printed books was published by the papal Inquisition. Malleus Maleficarum
(meaning 'Hammer of the Witches' in Latin) was a treatise on the persecution of
witches. It developed from the irrational fear of many Christians, since the
failure of the Crusades, that Christendom was being overtaken by demons.
Forty-four years after the publication of Malleus Maleficarum, in 1531, a casual
comment in another book, De Occulta Philosophia, provoked public paranoia
and linked the Knights Templar with the notion of witchcraft and magic. The
author of De Occulta was Heinrich Cornelius Agrippa von Nettesheim (1486-
1535), a German magician, theologian, astrologer and alchemist. He said he
wrote his book 'to distinguish between the good and holy science of magic and
the scandalous and impious practices of black magic, and to restore the former's
good name'. In the book, he wrote of 'the detestable heresy of the Templars; and
similar things are known about witches and their senile craziness'. Suddenly, the
Knights Templar were brought to public attention and associated with witchcraft.
Once again, they were being aligned with ignoble, distasteful practices. Because
De Occulta Philosophia became extremely widely read, the concept that the
Templars were disreputable became incorporated into European legend.


The verdict
But the Templars were not magicians, alchemists or occultists. Although they
kept themselves separate from worldly life, this was not for secret,
dishonourable reasons. It was normal for religious orders to remain isolated from
mainstream society because of their adherence to prayer and worship, and not
because they were part of a secret sect that they had built up under the protective
cloak of Christianity. The Knights Templar were not superhuman; they were
simply practical men living in an unforgiving world. As an organization, they
understood the fundamentals of life better than most during their time. It is
unlikely that they possessed secret wisdom or sacred objects, but it is more
plausible that they simply worked hard, with the determination to do their best.
They made the most of their qualities. They were extremely well organized and
had a strong faith; they believed in their role and they aimed to fulfil their
objectives in the Holy Land and for Christendom. As the Order expanded and
European society's constitution and attitudes altered, so did the behaviour of the
Templars, but in general they remained true to their original purpose, and for the
200 years of their existence, there was rarely a criticism of their behaviour or a
question about their morality. They were simply courageous monk-knights, who,
although fighting and killing was really opposed to the teachings of Jesus,
believed in the salvation of souls. They were also human and flawed.
As the Order expanded, it naturally became more complex. The allegations
that the Templars denied Christ and spat on the Cross have been claimed by
historians as the way in which they prepared themselves for what they may have
been made to do if captured by the Muslims in the Holy Land. Being trained to
renounce their beliefs superficially is in line with several other cultures'
procedures of that time, including the Assassins, with whom the Templars were
in contact. While this is feasible, it remains ambiguous - possible, but not
proven.
After the fall of Acre in 1291, the Church needed a scapegoat for the loss of
the Holy Land and King Philip IV needed money. In light of these facts, many
historians have accused Jacques de Molay of being naïve - and of course he was.
But for the role he had undertaken and was committed to - of fighting the infidel
in Outremer - he was perfectly suited. Originally from a background of lower
nobility, he was neither a clever nor academic man and had spent 30 years
defending the Holy Land, not dealing with the politics of the Church and court.
Prior to his arrest, he had been trying to garner enthusiasm for a new Crusade in
which he was convinced that he and the Templars would regain Jerusalem. The
reason he had been in Paris and not at the Templar headquarters in Cyprus, when
he was arrested in 1307, was because he had been summoned by Pope Clement


and he believed it was to discuss the forthcoming Crusade.


List of Grand Masters
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
9.
10.
11.
12.
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
20.
21.
22.
23.

Dates of the reigns of Grand Masters
Hugh de Payns 1118-36
Robert de Craon 1137-49
Everard des Barres 1149-52
Bernard de Tremelay 1152-3
André de Montbard 1153-6
Bertrand de Blanchefort 1156-69
Philip of Milly of Nablus 1169-71
Odo de St Amand 1171-9
Arnold of Torroja 1180-4
Gerard de Ridefort 1185-9
Robert de Sablé 1191-3
Gilbert Erail 1194-1200
Philippe de Plessis 1201-9
William de Chartres 1210-19
Pedro de Montaigu 1219-32
Armand de Périgord 1232-44
Richard de Bures 1244-7
William de Sonnac 1247-50
Renaud de Vichiers 1250-6
Thomas Bérard 1256-73
William de Beaujeu 1273-91
Theobald Gaudin 1291-3
Jacques de Molay 1293-1314


Theories and legends
In the absence of further evidence, we cannot prove that the Templars owned a
long-lost Biblical artefact, an ancient document or even a potentially explosive
secret, although their architects had a thorough understanding of proportion and
balance and some of their buildings may contain specific geometric ratios.
However, the only actual relic that they are documented as having possessed was
what was believed to be a piece of the True Cross which they carried into their
battles, before it was lost at the Battle of Hattin. The True Cross was believed to
be a portion of the piece of wood discovered by St Helena in the fourth century.
None of the other relics or items claimed to have been found by them can be
substantiated. Yet the myths continue to be perpetrated.
When Jerusalem was lost, the Order became almost redundant; it was coming
to the end of its use. Their image as brave and indomitable protectors of the Holy
Land had become tarnished and their popularity was waning. Despite being
against their wishes, they may have been forced to amalgamate with the
Hospitallers, so the legendary Knights Templar would have, in effect, faded
away. They had been a product of the era in which they lived, and by the time
Philip the Fair ordered their arrests, society was changing. Chivalry was no
longer of paramount importance and military monks were soon to be surplus to
requirements as professional armies were enlisted and trained for armed combat.
Most of the theories and legends about the Templars have arisen because of
their shocking, sudden and ignominious end, ironically at the hands of fellow
Christians rather than their Muslim enemies. Even at the time, most people
believed that they were innocent. We know now that the Pope did, and even
King Philip must have, or he surely would not have been considering uniting
them with the Hospitallers. Perhaps predictably, their isolation from society
contributed to their lack of worldliness, which meant they did not foresee their
demise. Ultimately, Jacques de Molay, the simple, honest and brave soldiermonk who had no arguments to save himself or his Order, encapsulated the truth
when he spoke to the waiting crowd just before he was burned at the stake:
I have suffered myself through the pain of torture and the fear of death, to
give utterances to falsehoods in admitting the disgusting charges laid
against the Order, which has nobly served the cause of Christianity. I
declare, and I must declare, that the Order is innocent. Its purity and
saintliness are beyond question. I disdain to seek wretched and disgraceful
existence by grafting another lie upon the original falsehood.


Timeline
David conquers Jerusalem and brings the Ark of the Covenant to the
city
c.958- Building of Solomon's Temple in Jerusalem
951
c.993
BCE

BCE

586

Destruction of Solomon's Temple

BCE

c.516

Building of the Second Temple begins

BCE

c.444

Alexander the Great conquers Jerusalem

BCE

20

Construction of Herod's Temple

BCE-64
CE

c.33 CE Jesus is crucified in Jerusalem
70 CE The Siege of Jerusalem: the Romans destroy the Second Temple
324-5 Emperor Constantine reunites the empire. Christian immigration to the
city begins
326
Constantine's mother Helena visits Jerusalem and orders the destruction
of Hadrian's temple to Venus which had been built on Calvary. She
allegedly discovers the True Cross
335
First Church of the Holy Sepulchre built on Calvary
620
Muhammad's Night Journey to heaven
629
Byzantine Emperor Heraclius retakes Jerusalem and returns the True
Cross to the city
632
Death of Muhammad
750
Umayyad dynasty overthrown by the Abbasid dynasty
813
Caliph Al-Ma'mun visits Jerusalem and undertakes extensive
renovations to the Dome of the Rock
969
Fatimids invade Egypt and found Cairo
1056 Muslims forbid Christian pilgrims to enter Jerusalem
1064 Hundreds of unarmed Christian pilgrims are murdered by Muslims near
Jerusalem
1071- Seljuk Turks occupy Asia Minor, Syria and Palestine
80


The Byzantine Emperor appeals to the Pope for help
At the Council of Clermont Pope Urban II preaches the First Crusade
The first Crusaders capture Jerusalem and slaughter most of the city's
Muslim and Jewish inhabitants. The Dome of the Rock is converted
into a church
1104 The Al-Aqsa mosque becomes the Royal Palace of the Kingdom of
Jerusalem
1113 The foundation of the Knights Hospitaller
1119 The founding of the Poor Knights of the Temple of Solomon by Hugh
de Payns and Godfrey de St Omer, with quarters within the Al-Aqsa
mosque
1127 Hugh de Payns meets Bernard of Clairvaux
1129 Council of Troyes, establishment of the Templars' Latin Rule
1139 The papal bull Omne Datum Optimum establishes the Templars as an
independent and permanent order within the Catholic Church,
answerable only to the Pope
1144 The papal bull Milites Templi
1145 The papal bull Militia Dei
1140s The Templars build the Paris Temple, which becomes the head of their
international financial empire
1148-9 The Second Crusade
1149- Gaza is granted to the Templars
50
c.1165- William of Tyre writes History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, also
84
called History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea (Historia rerum in
partibus transmarinis gestarum)
1169 Saladin becomes vizier of Egypt
1174 Nur ad-Din dies; Saladin takes over Damascus
1181- Chrétien de Troyes writes his romance, Perceval, le Conte du Graal
90
1185 Temple Church in London is consecrated by Patriarch Heraclius of
Jerusalem
1187 The Battle of Hattin; Saladin captures Jerusalem from the Crusaders.
The Dome of the Rock is converted to an Islamic centre of worship
again
1074
1095
1099


1189- Third Crusade under Richard the Lionheart fails to recapture Jerusalem,
92
but ends with the Treaty of Ramla in which Saladin agrees that
Christian pilgrims can worship in Jerusalem
1191 The Templars establish new headquarters at Acre
1191-2 The Templars occupy and briefly hold Cyprus
1202-4 The Fourth Crusade is diverted to the Byzantine capital of
Constantinople
1208 The Albigensian Crusade is launched against the Cathars
1217 The Fifth Crusade
1217- The Templars build Atlit or Athlit Castle, also known as the Pilgrims'
21
Castle
1228-9 The Sixth Crusade; a ten-year treaty is signed between Frederick II, the
Holy Roman Emperor, and the Ayyubid Sultan al-Kamil, allowing
Christians freedom to live in the unfortified city of Jerusalem
1244 Fall of the Cathars' castle at Montségur; loss of Jerusalem; Battle of La
Forbie
1249- The Seventh Crusade, led by Louis IX of France - the Templars fight
54
with him and hundreds are killed
1285 Philip IV is crowned King of France
1291 Fall of Acre to the Mamluks; the Templars leave Tortosa and Atlit
Castles
1297 King Louis IX is canonized by Pope Boniface VIII
1302 Loss of Ruad and massacre of the Templar garrison
1303 Attack on Pope Boniface VIII by William de Nogaret, adviser to Philip
the Fair; Boniface dies
1306 King Philip expels all Jews from France and seizes their property
1307 Mass arrest of the Templars in France
1308 Jacques de Molay and the Templars are secretly absolved by Pope
Clement V
1310 Fifty-four Templars are burnt at the stake as 'relapsed heretics' near
Paris
1312 Clement V produces two papal bulls: Vox in excelsio, which dissolves
the Order of the Knights Templar, and Ad providam, which transfers
their property to the Knights Hospitallers
1314 In March, Jacques de Molay and Geoffrey de Charney are burned at the