The end of the Knights Templar

It was a sad end indeed for such a crusader elite. However, there was serious doubt about their piety, and whether or not they were in fact heretics still hasn't been decided yet. Personally I believe they were just being accused of that so that King Philip could get rid of them and confiscate their rich lands...

On the other hand, odds at another crusade were quite small so an order of Knights for the defence of the Temple was a bit obsolete. This of course wouldn't justify their being locked away and executed, but their time had most defenitely come in one way or another.

Ricky, this is your specialty, please hack away everything I said, would you?

 

My favorite of them was the Grand Master who fought at Acre. I forgot his name but when he was forced to retreat to the inner walls, and a section of it collapsed he single handedly defended it, untill he was killed and with his last breath he said "Forgive me my lords I can do no more for I am dead".

The thing about the charges is they were based on them not believing in Jessus and turning into muslims both of which are very untrue, the only accusation that really might be true is the sodomy and secrecy accusations. With the former it should be remembered that the Templars punished brothers for going gay, which was normal in all male orders, even the dominicans had some people in it's ranks go gay. As for secrecy that was permitted by the charter given to them in the original charter. The rest were all untrue, and King Edward openly asked Philip and Clement for proof to use in the trials of the english templars, but got none.

It is true the Knights Templar was no longer needed, which is why Pope Clement V could have declared that openly, and allowed the Templars honorable retirement, when Tiberius felt that he no longer needed Legions in Italy (Apart from his Preatorian Guard) he simply gave the extra legions an honorable discharge.

I think Dante had it right, betraying people extremely loyal to you, who have never done anything against you, and burning them at the stake was a horrible crime, think of lets say destroyers becoming obsolete, so Bush kills all of the sailors who worked on destroyers after accusing them of the worst things, and after they served their country and him so nobly.

There is a lot more evidence for the Knights Templar then against them, which was reflected when the Templars in England were all acquited.

The Templars were certainly no saints, and one of their Grand Masters Gerard de Rideford helped greatly to cause the kingdoms defeat, but they were not devils either, they did do some interfaith diologue, and that was despite being fanatics.

Regardless of did the order have all the piety it claimed the stand of that Master at Acre was pretty impressive, especially his last breath.

 

Ah, the Knights Templar...

2ndLegion has pretty much answered it. Other crimes they were accused of were urinating on the cross, and other such 'defiling' acts.
The Grand Master was tortured into confessing, and *could* have then recieved a pardon, but he retracted his confession afterwards. He did this in the full knowledge that this would add purjury to his crimes (in the eyes of his accusers), and he would then definately be burnt. And so he was.
If the Templars were so venial, why would he retract his statement at such risk?

Yes Roel, the theory that the King of France simply wanted their money (vast amounts, as donations to religious orders were huge - everybody wanted a safe pilgrimage) holds an awful lot of water...

:cry: