Posted on 06/17/2011 6:42:30 AM PDT by marshmallow
ping
Interesting......Thanks for posting.
Interesting up until the point that they start associating revival groups with the original knights. During the 1800s on, many, many groups took on the mantle of Templars, Knights of Malta, etc to give their organizations a connection to history. Just because the groups have the name doesn’t mean they have a direct tie to the original group.
Now they are often seen riding little cars in parades and wearing Fezes with Islamic symbols on them. Evidently modern Templars do not get enough exercise as evidenced by their inclination toward pot-bellied appearance, along with a predilection to loving bad music.
From what I have read, not the same knights at all!
Nice of them to post such a positive review. What I’d like to read is that the Church admits they weren’t guilty of anything other than being good bankers.
In Damascus they foiled the Crusaders as soon as they entered the city - and shut the rest of the Crusaders out. What they expected we will perhaps never know - but the Templars were slaughtered to a man.
When Raymond of Tripoli advised King Guy of Jerusalem to stay at their position of power and good pasture and not attempt to relieve Raymond's castle of Tiberius where his own wife led the defense. Raymond knew that Saladin could not move on to Jerusalem leaving their army intact at his rear - and said he was perfectly willing to ransom his wife and lose his citadel so long as the Kingdom was preserved.
After he left the Templars convinced King Guy that they couldn't see “Christian womanhood in danger” without responding - and that God was on their side, and wouldn't allow “the True Cross” to fall into infidel hands.
In the morning Raymond was quite upset to see the army break camp - and marching through the hot sun - when complaints of the heat got to Guy - he halted the columns in the heat of the Sun - at which point Raymond got down from his horse and lay on the ground crying out “the Kingdom is lost”.
Saladin lit the grass on fire in front of them, and surrounded the army at the “Horns of Hattin”. Raymond of Tripoli and his Knights broke through the encircling forces and rode off.
The rest of the Crusader army was captured, the “True Cross” was captured and never seen by any Christian ever again, and King Guy and the leaders were brought before Saladin.
Saladin handed King Guy a glass of chilled wine - and he drank and handed it to Reynald de Chatillon - Saladin pointed out that King Guy handed the chalice to Reynald - not him - and then drew his sword and beheaded Reynald (who led some pirates to disrupt the haj and planned on sacking Mecca).
King Guy thought he was next - but Saladin said “I am sorry - that was rude - but that man was too much to bear - fear not - ‘A King does not kill a King’.”
The Templars were offered conversion at the point of a sword - with the promise that they would be a prince among the Muslims - but to a man they refused and took the sword.
Impressive in their devotion.
Not so impressive as far as their decision making skills.
Are you confusing them with Shriners?
After being dissolved in the 14th century, the Knights Templar was revived as a movement in Paris in 1804, adopting the title The Grand Priory of the Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani, commonly called Knights Templar International.
—
The article makes no mention of the events of Friday the 13, 1307 when Pope Clement and King Phillip put 14,000 of them in chains. No mention of the tortures and deaths at their hands.
I suggest you read “Born in Blood”
by John J. Robinson http://www.msana.com/jrobinson.asp
It is thought that the Freemasons (one of whose subsidiary organizations is the Shrine) derive from the Templars.
You really don’t want to be even thought to be rich when the King finds he’s broke.
Knights of Malta are descended from the Knights of Rhodes and before that from the Knights of the Hospital.
Started at the same time or slightly before the Knights of the Temple.
The Knights Who Say Ni are considerably older.
Yep, you figured it out. The irony is Clement and Philip did not even get the treasures (if they existed). hee hee hee
Kings sucked then and King want-to-be’s suck now.
“Free Men do not have to ask permission.”
My understanding (and very limited) is that the Shriners broke off from the Masons who they considered too uptight. They wanted a group with more fun.
To my thinking that disassociates them as they wanted their own group away from the traditions of the first. But I may have that understanding distorted. I see them as a new group, not a continuation of the old.
I didn’t mean they were the same as Templars but that contemporary groups use the names of all these old orders even though they have no actual connection.
That is the way I was given to understand their demise. The king was broke and the Knights Templar were wealthy.
Lie and slander The Knights Templar and voila, the king is again wealthy!
Sort of like the current expression, "Follow the money!"
All Shriners are Masons but not all Masons are Shriners.
There are three degrees to Freemasonry up to Master Mason. After that, a brother can choose to join appellate bodies in the York Rite or Scottish Rite. This is like finishing your Doctorate then deciding to study in another, but similar field. There isn’t bad blood at all. All Shriners are active and proud Master Masons.
“I suggest you read “Born in Blood””
You are correct, that is an excellent book!
Thanks, but I'm familiar with the history of The Knights Templar.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.