KNIGHTS TEMPLARS HISTORY OF LOOTING AND MURDERS AND LINKS TO TODAY
KNIGHTS TEMPLAR MOST LIKELY HISTORY WITH SOME ALTERNATIVES
SILLY QUESTION: Did the Knights Templar become the Pirates of the Caribbean? AUG 10, 2013
A decade-old book by David Childress “Pirates and the Lost Templar Fleet (2003)” shows the “lost” fleet of the Knights Templars became a roving band of pirates menacing the American coast for several centuries after dropping off some Templars in Scotland. Childress provides a potted history of the Templars in 2003 taken from his 1997 book on Charles G. Addison’s classic “The History of the Knights Templars, the Church, and the Temple (1842).” Childress says nobleman would join the Templars and surrender their castle and property to the Knights, when, in fact, virtually all the noblemen were second or younger sons who GOT ZERO FROM THEIR FATHERS BECAUSE THE FIRST BORN SON GOT EVERYTHING INCLUDING THE CONCUBINES, so these men gave up nothing to join the Templars. Childress is wrong again when he says these younger sons provided property & revenues to purchase weapons, war-horses, armor, and other military supplies. THAT MONEY CAME FROM DONATIONS FROM ALL OVER EUROPE OF GIANT PLOTS OF LAND AND GOLD AND OTHER WEALTH because the Templars were supposedly guarding the Crusaders – Which was a GROSS EXAGGERATION as they did almost no protection of Crusaders except for the BANKING OF CRUSADERS MONEY AND PROVIDING THE EQUIVALENT OF AN AMERICAN EXPRESS CARD SO THEY WOULD NOT BE ROBBED BY HIJACKERS ON THEIR WAY TO JERUSALEM WHERE THEY COULD GET THEIR MONEY BACK MINUS WHATEVER THEY SPENT ON THE TRIP.
FACT: CHILDRESS = Did extensive research, not just at the libraries, but actually travelling to the places of interest in the subject matters and speaking to the people who live there regarding the historical aspects. Do not discount the evidence Childress has provided.
INDENTED NOTE!!!!! “The Knights Templar” by Stephen Howarth” = LIKE THE TEMPLARS, THE TEMPLAR ALLIES Crusading kings (i.e. Richard) would sack Christian cities and mass murder and rob wealth on the way to the crusade and back — Never receiving even a scolding.
It is true that the ranks of the Knights Templar grew rapidly to 20,000+ and other noblemen and Kings who were not members often gave them gifts of money and land. King Steven of England contributed his valuable English manor of Cressing in Essex. He also made arrangements for high-ranking members of the Knights to visit nobles of England and Scotland.
Childress calls this sentence of truth on discovery of America, Speculation stating that “most people have heard speculation that the Vikings sailed their long ships to Greenland and Labrador about a thousand years ago” (p. 13). Apparently he isn’t aware of the archaeology done in Canada since the 1960s, or any of the known facts about Greenland from the medieval period onward. The first archaeological evidence proves the Viking voyaged to the American Continent centuries before Columbus. Historians since 1800s have said Columbus was not the first to cross the Atlantic.
The famous Periplus of Hanno of 6th century BCE travelled the Atlantic along the African coast (who knows how far out into the Atlantic he went) — This statement is hung on the temple of Baal Hammon. But Childress says, “There is an ancient passage detailing their forays into the Atlantic after the end of the Trojan War, circa 1200 BC,” so he was only off by 500 to 600 years.
Childress even says their was a “Jewish” voyage to America
NOTE: Author Scott Wolter believes that Calulus, the imaginary colony of Arizona, was Jewish, and not a Templar creation.
NOTE: In “Man Out of Asia,” Harold Gladwin’s cranky book about academic conspiracies to cover up the real history of America, which is so over-the-top (it’s illustrated with cartoons) that archaeologist Stephen Williams became convinced that Gladwin meant it as a joke.
NOTE: Ed Shroeder in “Treasure Quest magazine” recycled the Childress statement again for an article in the edited volume, “Forbidden Religion” by J. Douglas Kenyon.
Childress accuses the Catholic Church of existing to “establish hegemony, collect as much money as possible and put fear into the hearts of people” (p. 39). He says the Knights Templar secretly opposed the Church’s goals. But evidence exists the Templars uncovered the Cabala and became anti-Christian Satan worshippers and that is why they were terminated as far as the Catholic Church by the pope in 1312. That is when a small portion of the 20,000 Templars boarded “Lost Templar Fleet,” headed to Scotland where they were given refuge. The rest of the 20,000 Templars simply crossed into the ALPS, an area they knew well for a 100 years carrying their massive donated wealth including the 200 tons of gold & silver taken from the Temple Mount over 9 years of excavation, and hid in caves/carens in the Swiss Alps where in 1291 they combined three areas (soon to be Cannons) to form the Nation of Switzerland and continue their MURDEROUS MERCENARY RAIDS AND BANKSTER SCAMS FOR CENTURIES TO COME.
NOTE: Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of “The Temple and the Lodge” is the source of the entire story (so-called evidence) about the “lost fleet,” supposedly based on testimony of Jean de Châlons, a Templar.
Many Templars escaped from the raid on the Templar order conducted on October 13, 1307 in a fleet of galleys launched from New Rochelle rests entirely on the testimony of one man (only reference to the fleet in history), Brother Jean de Châlons, who made the following statement under torture at the papal inquiry into the Templars at Poitiers in June 1308 and was recorded by the papal interrogators: “…the leaders of the Order have fled, and he himself met Brother Gerard de Villiers leading fifty horses, and he heard it said that he had set out to sea with eighteen galleys…” headed for Scotland and we do know the Templars landed in Scotland.
NOTE: Michael Bradley, author believes modern Jews are sexually frustrated Neanderthal hybrids, and also believes that the Templar fleet (18 ships) carried the descendants of Jesus (supposedly Templars) to Scotland to avoid the King Philip of France & the Pope’s wrath and then some Templars adopted the Jolly Roger as their symbol and fell into the service of the Sinclair family! The evidence is gravestones in northern Scotland were marked with a skull and crossbones sed by the Templars and on the pirate flags. So far the earliest documented skull-and-crossbones flag dates back to 1687, so no evidence other than the grave stones in Scotland show the Templars used the skull-and crossbones. It may be a Freemason created legend to directly link the Freemasons to the Templars.
NOTE: Bradley assigned the Jolly Roger to what he calls “Jolly” King Roger of Palermo, a Templar who first flew the flag while raiding and pillaging and fighting the evil forces for Catholicism. The Norman ruler Roger II of Sicily (1095-1154), did fight against the Vatican, the patriarch of Jerusalem who voided his mother’s marriage because her husband, King Baldwin I, was committing bigamy and the pope wanted to declared a crusade against Roger. Roger commanded the best navy fleet in all the Mediterranean and did fight “Vatican vessels.” But Roger was did not like the Templars because they were aligned with the Pope. But in 1150, the Templars received Roger’s support when they had very limited activities in Roger’s lands. In 1187—after Roger’s death the Norman nobility of Sicily started to back the Templars. 1194, the new sovereign, Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI, was crowned king of Sicily, and began to offer royal and imperial recognition to the Templar Order on the island. 1208 onward that the Templars began operating in Sicily and Southern Italy in earnest. From that history we see Roger was an unlikely pirate showing Childress is likely incorrect that Roger’s lands was a “Templar kingdom” (p. 59) using the “Jolly Roger” of Sicily on Templar ships.
FACT: The Masonic Knights Templar of the United States used a skull and crossbones on their insignia. As did Yale University where GHW Bush and GW Bush attended and joined that special group.
SOURCE FOR STUDY: The Knights Templar is “A history of the deeds beyond the sea”. — William of Tyre between 1167 & 1184.
William of Tyre or William II
William of Tyre = Levantine historian (1130-1186) was a chronicler and archbishop of Tyre (1127-1135), he is also known as William II. He was born in 1130 in Jerusalem, most likely to well to do Jewish traders from France, and grew up in Jerusalem at the height of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which had been established in 1099 after the First Crusade. He spent twenty years (1145-1165) studying the liberal arts and canon law in the universities of Europe. In Paris and Bologna, “the two most important intellectual centers of twelfth-century Christendom” he was (university-level) educated at both which had numerous schools for the arts and sciences all separated from the cathedral schools with independent professors who were masters of their field of study. He mingled with students from all over Europe to hear lectures. William studied liberal arts and theology in Paris and Orléans for about ten years, with professors who were students of Thierry of Chartres and Gilbert de la Porrée. He learned Roman history, mathematics, civil & canon law, philosophy, theology became a well-educated European cleric.
William returned to Jerusalem in 1165, and King Amalric made him an ambassador to the Byzantine Empire and also became tutor to the king’s son, the future King Baldwin IV, whom William discovered to be a leper. After Amalric’s death, William became chancellor and archbishop of Tyre, two of the highest offices in the kingdom, and in 1179 William led the eastern delegation to the Third Council of the Lateran. He lost dynastic control to the prestigious Patriarchate of Jerusalem, and William died in obscurity (1186).
NOTE: He is NOT to be confused with his predecessor, William I, the Englishman and former Prior of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre.
NOTE: Also Do not confuse William I with the Templar of Tyre, a medieval historian from the 14th century who wrote about the 13th Century and was author of the third and largest section of the Gestes des Chiprois, a document written by a knight on the island of Cyprus, around the time that the island was the base of operations for the three major military orders, the Knights Templar, the Teutonic Order, and the Knights Hospitaller. He was likely an Arabic-speaking translator, a secretary and confidant of the Templar Master Guillaume de Beaujeu and not a Templar himself. It is a first-hand account of the personal experiences of the author and gives valuable insights into an important period of the Crusades, documenting the years from the early 1230s until about 1314, the final decades of Templars as they lost to Muslim Mamluk Sultanate, in Fall of Acre in 1291 and the Catholic Church dissolution of the Order of the Knights Templar in 1312.
William II’s wrote an accounting of the Lateran Council and a history of the Islamic states from the time of Muhammad, but neither work can be found. But his history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem in Latin with numerous quotations (titles Historia rerum or “History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea” and Historia Ierosolimitana or “History of Jerusalem”) which was translated into French and other languages soon after his death as the only source for the history of twelfth-century Jerusalem written by a native historian. Most researchers take William’s statements at face value, but he was involved in the kingdom’s political disputes resulting in detectable biases in his account. He is still considered the greatest chronicler of the crusades, and one of the best authors of the Middle Ages.
The 1099 Kingdom of Jerusalem in the Near East was surrounded. In 1165, to the southwest is the Fatimid Caliphate of Cairo. To the east is the Emirate of Damascus, and to the west is the Mediterranean Sea. To the north are the County of Tripoli, Principality of Antioch, County of Edessa, Principality of Armenian Cilicia, the Byzantine Empire, and the Sultanate of Rum.
Jerusalem was at the third of four Christian territories to be established by the crusaders, following the County of Edessa and the Principality of Antioch, and followed by the County of Tripoli. Jerusalem’s first three rulers, Godfrey of Bouillon (1099–1100), his brother Baldwin I (1100–1118), and their cousin Baldwin II (1118–1131), expanded and secured the kingdom’s borders, which encompassed roughly the same territory as modern-day Israel, Palestine, and Lebanon. During the kingdom’s early decades, the population swelled with crusader pilgrims visiting the holiest sites of Christendom. Merchants from the Mediterranean city-states of Italy and France were eager to exploit the rich trade markets of the east.
As noted earlier William’s family probably were Jewish traders from area now in either France or Italy, and was very familiar with both countries and his parents were likely Jewish merchants who had settled in the kingdom and were “apparently well-to-do”. It is doubtful his parents participated in the First Crusade, but came after things settled down. William had at least one brother, Ralph, who was one of the city’s non-noble merchant leaders. Nothing more is known about his family, except that his mother died before 1165.
William was likely educated in Jerusalem, at the cathedral school in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre where the school-master, John the Pisan, taught William to read and write, and first introduced him to Latin and he also knew French and Italian from his parents. He may have learned Greek, Persian, and Arabic, since his parents were traders and traveled and negotiated in these areas.
The highest religious and political offices in Jerusalem were usually held by Europeans and William was one of the few natives with a European education, so he quickly rose through the ranks, and became canon of the cathedral at Acre. In 1167 he was appointed archdeacon of the cathedral of Tyre by Frederick de la Roche, archbishop of Tyre, with the support of King Amalric, who had come to power in 1164 and had made it his goal to conquer Egypt, as Egypt had been invaded by King Baldwin I fifty years earlier, and the weak Fatimid Caliphate was forced to pay yearly tribute to Jerusalem.
Amalric wanted Egypt to expand Jerusalem to the wast as it had been already expanded eastward. In 1153 the last Muslim outpost in Palestine, fell to the crusaders. But Amalric was confronted by armies of others who also wanted to acquire Egypt.
1167 Amalric married Maria Comnena, grand-niece of Byzantine emperor Manuel I Comnenus, and in 1168 the king sent William to finalize a treaty for a joint Byzantine-crusader campaign against Egypt. The expedition, Amalric’s fourth, was the first with support from the Byzantine navy. Amalric, however, did not wait for the fleet to arrive. He managed to capture Damietta, but within a few years he was expelled from Egypt by an opposing army of General Saladin, who would later become Jerusalem’s greatest threat.
1169 William was moving up the ranks of the kingdom and visited Rome, to gain support from Archbishop Frederick. On his return from Rome in 1170 he likely was ordered by King Amalric to write a history of the kingdom and also to become the tutor of Amalric’s son and heir, Baldwin IV. He seems to have aggrandize Baldwin to please the king. But he found that Baldwin had leprosy, which was confirmed as Baldwin grew older.
1174 Amalric died and Baldwin IV succeeded him as king. 1174 on General Saladin spent the rest of the decade consolidating his hold on both Egypt and possessions in Syria, which allowed him to completely encircle Jerusalem. In the following years Baldwin’s mother and her “court party” who wanted war with General Saladin. The other party was the “noble party” led by Raymond III of Tripoli and the native nobility of the kingdom, who favored peaceful co-existence with the Muslims wrote William, but William was naturally allied with Raymond, for his advancement in political and religious offices, but “the division was not between native barons and newcomers from the West, but between the king’s maternal and paternal kin.”
1175 After an assassinating in October 1174, Raymond III appointed William II, chancellor of Jerusalem + Archdeacon of Nazareth + Archbishop of Tyre. All took very little time for William as the scribes and officials in the chancery drafted documents and it may not have even been necessary for him to be present to sign them. His focus was his duties as archbishop.
1179 William was one of the delegates from Jerusalem to try to convince Pope Alexander III of the need for a new crusade. But that was rejected. But William was sent by Alexander as an ambassador to Emperor Manuel on a mission to the Principality of Antioch most likely to discuss the Byzantine alliance with Jerusalem. Due to pressure from Rome and Jerusalem, Manuel was forced to give up his attempts to restore a Greek patriarch. So William was gone from Jerusalem for two years and returned in 1180 to a crisis in Jerusalem.
King Baldwin reached the age limit and was removed and Raymond III had been removed from the regency, but since Baldwin, as a leper, could have no children there was no one to lead. At Easter in 1180, the two factions were divided. The dispute affected William, since he had been appointed chancellor by Raymond and may have fallen out of favor after Raymond was removed. The two obvious choices for King were William and Heraclius of Caesarea, both fairly evenly matched in background and education, but politically they were allied with opposite parties, and the Baldwin under influence chose Heraclius. William himself says almost nothing about the selection. So William remained archbishop of Tyre and chancellor of the kingdom, but the details of his life at this time are obscure.
1183 either Heraclius excommunicated William or he may have been poisoned when he appealed to the Pope. But William II basically disappeared from the record for a time, but William remained in the kingdom and continued to until 1184 when Saladin surrounded Jerusalem and an internally political divide occurred. William wrote, “the only subjects that present themselves are the disasters of a sorrowing country and its manifold misfortunes, themes which can serve only to draw forth lamentations and tears.”
1186 William was in failing health and likely died in September.
1187 William’s foresight about the misfortunes of his country was proven correct as Saladin defeated King Guy at the Battle of Hattin and went on to capture Jerusalem and almost every other city of the kingdom, except the seat of William’s archdiocese, Tyre. News of the fall of Jerusalem shocked Europe and plans were made to send assistance.
1188 Henry II of England and Philip II of France agreed to go on crusade: “Thereupon the king of the English first took the sign of the cross…of the crusade in the western part of Europe.”
FACT: William II seems to have hardly mentioned the Knights Templar at all. In fact, William was biased against the Knights Templar, whom he believed to be arrogant and disrespectful of both secular and ecclesiastical hierarchies, as they were not required to pay tithes and were legally accountable only to the Pope. He did actually describe the actual foundation of the Templar order and was more favorable towards them in their early days, but resented the power and influence they held in his own time. He even accused the Templars of hindering the Siege of Ascalon in 1153 and poorly defending a cave-fortress in 1165, for which twelve Templars were hanged by King Amalric. He said they sabotaged the invasion of Egypt in 1168-69; and murdering ambassadors in 1173.
William’s great work is a Latin was from 1170 to 1184 and includes twenty-three books. The first book begins with the conquest of Syria by Umar in the seventh century, but otherwise the work deals with the advent of the First Crusade and the subsequent political history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. William had access to the records of the First Crusade, as well as other documents located in the kingdom’s archives.
Godfrey of Bouillon, the first ruler of crusader Jerusalem, was also depicted as the leader of the crusade from the beginning, and William attributed to him legendary strength and virtue, reflecting the almost mythological status that Godfrey and the other first crusaders held for the inhabitants of Jerusalem in the late twelfth century.
William said King Amalric did not respect the rights of the church, but was a good military commander even though he could not stop the increasing threat from the neighboring Muslim states. William wrote Amalric had “breasts like those of a woman hanging down to his waist” and was shocked when the king questioned the resurrection of the dead.
William said Baldwin was nothing but heroic in the face of his debilitating leprosy, and he led military campaigns against Saladin even while still underaged (even though Baldwin was not actually in charge). William’s history seems to be a literary defense, for the kingdom and Baldwin’s rule.
1170s-1180s Western Europeans were reluctant to support the kingdom, due to distance and pressures at home in Europe but also because leprosy was usually considered divine punishment.
William was surprisingly favorable to the Byzantine Empire and visited their court as an official ambassador and probably knew more about Byzantine affairs than any other Latin chronicler. He did not approve of attempts to bring the crusader Principality of Antioch under Byzantine control. Emperor Manuel, whom William met during his visits to Constantinople, showed he admired him personally, but recognized that the Empire was powerless to help Jerusalem against the Muslim forces. William was especially disappointed in the failure of the joint campaign against Egypt in 1169. He writes about the massacre of the Latins in Constantinople and the chaos that followed.
William having lived among Muslims in the east, was rarely dismissive of Islam, but called them part of a heretical sect of Christianity and followed the teachings of a false prophet. He often praised the Muslim leaders of his own day, even as he lamented their power over the Christian kingdom, and even Saladin William said was honorable and pious.
There are only ten known manuscripts that contain the Latin chronicle, all of which come from France and England, so William’s work may not have been very widely read in its original form. In England, the Historia was outrageously expanded in Latin in 1220.
1549 The Latin text of William II was printed for the first time in Basel, Switzerland in 1549 and again in 1611 & 1844 & 1855.
1943 in time for the SWISS NAZI WW II it was translated into English as “A History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea,” although the translation is sometimes incomplete or inexact.
1223 It was particularly well-circulated and had many anonymous additions made to it in the 13th century and “at least fifty-nine manuscripts or fragments of manuscripts” contain the Old French translation. The French version was so widespread that the Renaissance author Francesco Pipino translated it back into Latin, unaware that a Latin original already existed.
Bernard Hamilton says William “is justly considered one of the finest historians of the Middle Ages”. “William’s achievements in assembling and evaluating sources, and in writing in excellent and original Latin a critical and judicious narrative, make him an outstanding historian, superior by medieval, and not inferior by modern, standards of scholarship.”
Most of original & historical documents related to the Knights Templar are archived at the: Bibliotheque de l’Arsenal Paris but hard to find for English speakers.