I've been gone a while, so I thought post something pretty special and it doesn't get much more special than this!

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/10/05/wvatican105.xml

There's a lot of history here that I haven't time to go into, but they were the most powerful NGO that ever existed, after the dissolution of the order, it is said that they moved to Portugal and Scotland. The Portugese side were renamed the 'Order of Christ' and later, according to some, discovered the New World, before Columbus. The Scottish side may or may not have become the Freemasons and at Rosslyn Chapel there are allegedly carvings of corn from America.

http://images.google.co.uk/imgres?imgurl=http://www.rosslyntemplars.org.uk/images/rosslyn_chapel_corn.jpg&imgrefurl=http://www.rosslyntemplars.org.uk/maize.htm&h=513&w=643&sz=227&hl=en&start=1&um=1&tbnid=e-oAvHnYQeRAaM:&tbnh=109&tbnw=137&prev=/images%3Fq%3Drosslyn%2Bchapel%2Bcorn%26svnum%3D10% 26um%3D1%26hl%3Den%26newwindow%3D1%26sa%3DN.

These carvings were made around 40 years [EDIT some sources say 25 and some 6] before the official discovery of the New World by Columbus (an Italian who had lived in Portugal before being sponsored by the Spanish).

Anyway, that can all be taken with a pinch of salt as researching the Templars is impossible. ;) It's been the inspiration for many works of fiction, including the Da Vinci code, and this fiction has pushed out all of the facts. Still damn interesting though.:)

What interested me about this was that at the moment there is a push to expand Bush 'n Blair's (Blair is accused by some of being a freemason) 'New Crusade' into Syria and Iran and this document comes to light that vindicates the last crusaders and reminds people how romantic crusading is! Talk about serendipity.:goodjob:

The Portuguese "Ordem de Cristo" is indeed a renaming of the Templars. And the cross in Portugal's flag is a templar Cross of Malta.

I don't know if this is what you want to discuss here, but it is fairly obvious that Templars were innocent of the wild accusations made against them. Phillipe IV wanted to centralize all power of France in his hands, and the Templars were too powerful to be left alone. Plus he and his right-hand man Marigny always wanted to put their hands in the Templars' considerable fortune. The Templars were probably not very good chrstians, but they were not the Satan-worshiping sodomists portrayed by the french authorities.

Luiz: AFAIK there is a Eratothenesian Armillary sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere) in Portugal's flag. Where is the Maltese cross ??

http://worldworx.tv/portugal/im/portugal-l.gif

Luiz: AFAIK there is a Eratothenesian Armillary sphere (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Armillary_sphere) in Portugal's flag. Where is the Maltese cross ??
Ah, I meant the Royal Portuguese flag.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Flag_Portugal_sea_%281500%29.svg

I don't see how the document proves that they weren't heretics, only that the pope was convinced that they weren't. I must say that their explanation of the apparently blasphemous initiation ceremony sounds pretty feeble to me!

who cares if they were in fact "heretics", the order was destroyed because it had become too wealthy and powerful...

I don't see how the document proves that they weren't heretics, only that the pope was convinced that they weren't. I must say that their explanation of the apparently blasphemous initiation ceremony sounds pretty feeble to me!

Quite so, the accusations could have been false or the 'I'm sorry I had you tortured and killed by mistake' document could be false or a fake. Who knows? All we can say is that the torture did nothing to clear up the situation..... *cough*

Looking at the Templars discovering the New World first theories - they don't seem quite so outlandish to me.

They'd recently been attacked and seriously damaged and so had a reason to look for new lands to settle and exploit.
They were wealthy beyond compare, yet in moral debt to the rulers of the countries that offered them sanctuary. Both of which were on the West of Europe.
They were secretive, probably more so after the 'trials'.

It's not implausible that the first men to the new world would try to keep it and it's riches to themselves for as long as possible. I'd find it amazing if the first guys to visit returned and blabbed about it to everyone.

The Scots did have an empire (of sorts) in the New World eventually and so did the Portugese. The Scottish empire failed, does anyone know what happened to the Portugese empire :lol:

The Scottish colony in Darien cost half of the country's wealth :sad: and it's story is here: http://travel.independent.co.uk/uk/article1174447.ece

I'm not sure if there's a real link to the templars or freemasons though.

They'd recently been attacked and seriously damaged and so had a reason to look for new lands to settle and exploit.
So they decided to sale off into the middle of the ocean and hope a previously undiscovered continent would spring up in front of them before them before they ran out of supplies?

When you put it like that it does sound crazy :) , but these are the templars we're talking about and there's nothing in their history that isn't crazy!

Maybe they thought God would help them or something? After all they were religious (probably) and if their God existed, he owed them a favour or two. They were also marked men so it isn't so hard to believe that they took a leap of faith.

I just found this too (about the Pinzons)
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20071009.wpinzon1009/BNStory/Front/home

The thing with Columbus is that there were three ships and they split up so there was an incentive for each to head back and blab to take credit instead of the others. It doesn't sound like they trusted each other. Maybe the templars were more fraternal, or only took one ship. Or maybe they didn't go at all. :goodjob: :lol:

Just a few facts about the Templars.

1) When you look at the network of their strongholds, you can see they were clearly organized in two bigs concentric networks. One centered on champagne (were the Templars were created), one on ... La Rochelle. Why? Wouldn't it have been more logical to focus on a port on the Mediterranean sea to support the Crusades.

2) The Templars hold a large wealth in silver. More than the outpot of the known silver mines in Europe.

3) When the Templars were destroyed in France, they became the Knights of the Christ in Portugal. For quite a long time, Portuguese ships were allowed to set sail for "abroad" only if they had a member of this order on board.

4) When preparing his expedition, Columbus spent a lot of time studying documents in the library of a monastery, that was a former Templar stronghold.

2) The Templars hold a large wealth in silver. More than the outpot of the known silver mines in Europe.

3) When the Templars were destroyed in France, they became the Knights of the Christ in Portugal. For quite a long time, Portuguese ships were allowed to set sail for "abroad" only if they had a member of this order on board.

4) When preparing his expedition, Columbus spent a lot of time studying documents in the library of a monastery, that was a former Templar stronghold.

reliable sources?

A link in French
http://www.fileane.com/laurie/episodes/global_episode13.htm

and mostly what I recall from a book on the subject I read some time ago.

In French to.

Another funny fact. The Knight Templars had originally a good number of Norman members. IIRC, the Normans made the biggest percentage of the first knights.

And, chance, the Normans have some Vikings in their ancestry. Vikings who discovered America earlier.

Coincidence?

if your interested in knights templar conspiracy theories, read this:

http://www.amazon.fr/Pendule-Foucault-Umberto-Eco/dp/2253059498/ref=sr_1_2/402-6972412-7135322?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1192537198&sr=8-2

Foucault's Pendulum is a great book and contains a lot of very intelligent writing. It's been translated brilliantly from the original Italian into English ;) If you haven't read it you may need a dictionary for the first few pages but it soon speeds up. It's well worth it.

I heard about the New World silver hypothesis before but I've no idea whether it's true or not. There were doubtlessly some secret silver mines in or around Europe too.

Foucault's Pendulum is a great book and contains a lot of very intelligent writing. It's been translated brilliantly from the original Italian into English If you haven't read it you may need a dictionary for the first few pages but it soon speeds up. It's well worth it.


well, i've read it in german and dont know either the original or the english translation...
however i recommended the french version to our french fellow :-)

Why having La Rochelle protected so then?

All Steph's sources for the Templars being the discoverers of the New World (and thus the French being the first to discover the New World) are French. So it's probably just a French attempt at claiming their superiority, again.

/conspiracy theory

:joke:

We don't claim we are superior. We know it.

This threads a fun little read, but I think the idea is fairly prepostorous for a couple reasons....

One of the things that made it possible for Columbus to make his "discovery" in 1492 where the advents in both navigation and shipbuilding technology. Ships from earlier ages just wouldn't cut an open voyage across the Atlantic, other than a fluke here or there. So, it totally strikes me as possible that some Templars could've made it there on a fluke, but it would be a one way journey. And, even if they defied the odds again and made it back, you'd need an armada to get the kind of silver that Steph is alluding to.

I think the most plausible notion is that they had some information or traditions that passed down or were adopted from the Vikings.

@Dutchfire, I realize you're kidding, but its pretty well known that the Vikings had a settlement on the NA continent around ~1100 AD.

If the Vikings could go there and back, if the Basque fishers could go to NewFoundlands and back, why couldn't the Templars go there?

If the Vikings could go there and back, if the Basque fishers could go to NewFoundlands and back, why couldn't the Templars go there?


and when finally the spanish crown reached the new world and official records begin all that silver had allready been taken to europe by the templars and there was none left, right? ;-)

the vikings had very robust ships and took the route via iceland and greenland...
and what about those basque fishermen?

On the opposite, there still were silver in the New World.

More than in Europe.

Basque fishermen were fishing cod in "secret fishing place" that was near Newfoundland

of course it was, but it wasnt ready to take away for any european who came along... or did the guys who traded (just gave?) the silver to the templars didnt want to trade with spain?

I don't think there's much document left explaining what were the relationship between the templars and the people at the time.

May I remind you that when the Inca and Aztec met the Spaniards, they did not fight at first, because they had a prophecy Gods would come, and they thought it was the Spaniards. Could it be because their ancesters met some horse mounted templar knights 200 years before, and it gave this legend?

were there any silver mines in the americas big enough to provide the templars with the amount of silver they are said to have had by the time the spaniards arrived?
and the legend about quetzalcoatl was definately older than 200 years...

Hang on! The English are part-Norman too! Maybe we discovered America!

Well, it's a widely known fact that before creating the order of the Templar knights, some mastermind of the catholic church made a secret pact with Norman leaders, as the Normans showed quite a religious zeal.

Let see the time frame.

Conquest of England : 1066
Conquest of arab controlled Sicily : 1061-1091
Malta = captured in 1091

The Normans were also active in Spain, to weaken the muslims there and relieve pressure on the Western catholic countries.

In the meantime, in Byzantium, Normans were quite active. One of the first Norman mercenaries to serve as a Byzantine general was Hervé in the 1050s. By then however there were already Norman mercenaries serving as far away as Trebizond and Georgia. They were based at Malatya and Edessa, under the Byzantine duke of Antioch, Isaac Comnenus. In the 1060s, one Robert Crispin led the Normans of Edessa against the Turks.

From 1073 to 1074, 8,000 of the 20,000 troops of the Armenian general Philaretus Brachamius were Normans — formerly of Oursel — led by Raimbaud.

And in 1096, during the first Crusade, Bohemand of Taranto and his nephew Tancred were key leaders, of Normans origin.

And later, the first templars were in majority Normans.

All this shows that it was a conspiracy extend on many years, to seize England and be sure it will be later on the crusaders side, then seize Malta, Sicily, to serve as an operating base and increase the control of the catholic on the Mediterranean sea, send advanced Norman elements in disguise of mercenaries to start reconnaissance and fighting in Armenia, and weaken the turks there... All this to strike the final blow, with the first crusade, and take back Jerusalem, and create the Templars knights soon after.

It could indicate a conspiracy - or it could just indicate that the Normans were good at invading places... unless you have any evidence for that "widely known fact"?

I can give you some extract of correspondance between Bernard of Clairvaux, who was the origin of the Templar knights order and the Pope.

But you will have to wait for me to get home, as I have it in a book, and I have no access to it at my office.

I look forward to it!

A few other "coincidences"

1-Remember that although Clovis officially converted to Christianism when he became king of France, the Franks were a Germanic tribe. They probably were not really die-hard christian, but used christianity as a way to endorse their power.

2- The fist pope who spoke of crusade was Sylvester II (circa 1000), the Pope who create the "truce of God" to limit fighting. This Pope was the former Benedictine monk Gerbert.

3- The benedictine order was extreamly active in Frankish kingdom, but more in Aquitaine, Catalunya, Burgundy... As if they didn't really trust the Frankish kings.

4- In 913, Charles III, king of France, gave Normandy to Rollon. The Normans became christian, and apparently with a lot more faith than the franks did.

5- In 1042, Normans occupy the Pouilles (southern Italy). In 1042, Ribert Guisguard de Hauteville, a norman, become duke of Pouilles and Calabre. In 1060, he conqueres Messine. In 1082, he throw Byzance out of Italy (Durazzo Battle). In 1085, he captures Syracuse. Malta in 1090. Pope Gregory VII, former benedictine monk Hildebrand, helped as much as he could the Normans to capture Southern Italy.
In the meantime, benedictine monk Lanfranc, advisor of William the conqueror, is supposed to have been instrumental in convincing William to conquer England in 1066.

6- In 1096, Benedictine Pope Urban II called the first Crusade

You're leaving out Mary Magdalene, the Jesuits, and the Nazis! They must have been in on it! We need to examine Leonardo's notebooks for the details.

What's the evidence that the Franks weren't sincerely Christian? I also don't know of any evidence that the Benedictines didn't trust the Frankish kings; on the contrary, their dominance in early medieval monasticism was partly due to Charlemagne's support of the order in the interests of standardising the monasteries.

I don't really see what the Benedictines are supposed to have to do with all of this. Are you suggesting that the Benedictines formed some kind of secret alliance with the Normans, in which they helped the Normans to conquer key parts of Europe, with an eye to establishing the Templars some centuries down the line? I'm not convinced... for example, Gregory VII had perfectly reasonable motives for allying with the Normans in the 1080s: Henry IV of Germany had invaded northern Italy, locked Gregory up, and installed a pope of his own. I'm sure we can understand why Gregory might have wanted to encourage Robert Guiscard, the ruler of southern Italy, to invade the northern part at that precise moment, without having to imagine elaborate conspiracies.

Also, I must point out that the frequency with which Benedictines pop up is marginally less impressive if you bear in mind that, between the early ninth and the late eleventh centuries, the Benedictine order was pretty much the only monastic order in western Europe. So all monks, and indeed most educated people, were Benedictines. Which means that there is very little significance in the fact that various popes and other prominent ecclesiastical figures were members of this order.

I'm just back from Aikido and to tired to look in my book this evening. I'll answer tomorrow everning

if i searched for a minute or two i could find a book that proves that the pyramids were built by aliens, all myths about giants talk in fact about robots and everytime you see a disc in cave/ancient paintings it obviously is a space ship, since a sphere is the perfect form for spaceships...
(gotta love erik von daniken ;-) )

We don't claim we are superior. We know it.

To quote Obi Wan Kenobi: "Only in your mind, my very young padawan."

Even though I'm younger, unless you're under 20. But I'm guessing not, as you look older than that (not meant in a demeaning way, you still look quite youthful).

Anyway, I still think the destruction of the Templars was financially and politically based. Though the leader of the Templars was quite prophetic, saying the French King and the Pope would "meet him in a tribunal before God within a year" (I forget the exact quote). Low and behold, both were dead within or around a year.

Though I don't know if that is fact or not, but I do recall they said it on the History Channel.

Even though I'm younger, unless you're under 20. But I'm guessing not, as you look older than that (not meant in a demeaning way, you still look quite youthful).

What is preventing you to look at the profile to discover I'm 33?
Lakc of curiosity? Lazyness?


Anyway, I still think the destruction of the Templars was financially and politically based.
Of course it was.

Small update here:

http://news.independent.co.uk/europe/article3098887.ece

I'd like to buy that book, but 6,000 euros is a bit rich for me.