login

Author Topic: FAO Raz Templars  (Read 18222 times)

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #15 on: April 11, 2008, 04:32:24 AM »
On the Brothers' Dress

17. We command that all the brothers' habits should always be of one colour, that is white or black or brown. And we grant to all knight brothers in winter and in summer if possible, white cloaks; and no-one who does not belong to the aforementioned Knights of Christ is allowed to have a white cloak, so that those who have abandoned the life of darkness will recognise each other as being reconciled to their creator by the sign of the white habits: which signifies purity and complete chastity. Chastity is certitude of heart and healthiness of body. For if any brother does not take the vow of chastity he cannot come to eternal rest nor see God, by the promise of the apostle who said: Pacem sectamini cum omnibus et castimoniam sine qua nemo Deum videbit. That is to say: 'Strive to bring peace to all, keep chaste, without which no-one can see God.'

18. But these robes should be without any finery and without any show of pride. And so we ordain that no brother will have a piece of fur on his clothes, nor anything else which belongs to the usages of the body, not even a blanket unless it is of lamb's wool or sheep's wool. We command all to have the same, so that each can dress and undress, and put on and take off his boots easily. And the Draper or the one who is in his place should studiously reflect and take care to have the reward of God in all the above-mentioned things, so that the eyes of the envious and evil-tongued cannot observe that the robes are too long or too short; but he should distribute them so that they fit those who must wear them, according to the size of each one.

19. And if any brother out of a feeling of pride or arrogance wishes to have as his due a better and finer habit, let him be given the worst. And those who receive new robes must immediately return the old ones, to be given to the squires and sergeants and often to the poor, according to what seems good to the one who holds that office.

On Shirts

20. Among the other things, we mercifully rule that, because of the great intensity of the heat which exists in the East, from Easter to All Saints, through compassion and in no way as a right, a linen shirt shalt be given to any brother who wishes to wear it.


--- Primitive Rule of the Templars, Council of Troyes, 1129

Agent Griff

  • Guest
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #16 on: April 11, 2008, 07:41:30 AM »
Thanks a lot, I saw the link after posting and felt like a complete moron. Anyway, thanks for clearing that up. I can now feel just as outraged as the rest of you whenever someone asks why the Templars aren't wearing white cloaks with freakishly big red crosses on them.

I am also enlightened about the many soldiers wearing black surcoats that I saw in any videos made with the mod. I kept seeing soldiers in black cloaks in each movie, and wondered who they were and what they represented. I now know that they are either Knights Templar or Hospitallers (since they also wore black, right?).

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #17 on: April 11, 2008, 08:30:29 AM »
Yeah, both Templars and Hospitallers wore black surcoats - the Hospitallers almost exclusively, the Templars either that or white.  Of course, neither one of them had a monopoly on black or white cloth ... random other people also wore either black or white surcoats, for whatever reason.

Sir Reinald

  • Guest
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #18 on: April 16, 2008, 07:17:03 PM »
Alright, a minor correction.  The banner for the Templars wasn't called the "Bauceans flag" it's called the "beaucent."



The red cross on solid white background was a French Crusader's Cross.  It was certainly a common enough symbol floating around at the time (along with its counterparts, a white cross on red for England and white on black for "Holy Roman Empire" Germany).  Art of the period indicates that such crests were extremely common, both in their simple forms and superimposed on various other personal crests.  It was, however, NOT a pattern used by the order of the Templars... their colors were black over white, and their tabbards either white, black, or brown, later adopting a small red cross added to the upper left (but certainly not the huge, imposing, flashy crosses on all sides used by the French crusader knights).

An easy mistake to make, if your study of history has been a little patchy... but it is unfortunate that it is a mistake so often repeated.


Where did you get the idea that a red cross on solid white was a "French Crusader's Cross?"  As far as I know, there wasn't a standard cross or color for French crusaders.  Your comment on a symbol for each country is also incredibly wrong.  Each kingdom was divided into different fiefs, and each lord had their own coat of arms.  A knight from Germany who owns a fief called, let's say Kaltburg, wouldn't wear a surcoat with a white cross over black just because he was part of the Holy Roman Empire.  He would wear his own colors on his surcoat so he could be distinguished from others on the field of battle.   Although the cross of Saint George was used by some Englishmen, mostly during the 100 Year War, knights didn't wear it and it sure as hell wasn't universal among the citizenry. 

A knight who went on Crusade would wear a surcoat with their coat of arms, or even just their colors on it.  They might have sewn a cross over their heart as I did read or hear on a documentary that each crusader was given a cloth cross. (Although I doubt that all of them were given a cross.)

On the subject of white, black, red, and dark brown surcoats, dark brown/black and white for the Templars and red black/dark brown for the Hospitallers.  Sergeants of the Templars wore a black/dark brown surcoat with a red cross on it and knights wore white with a red cross on it.  Hospitaller sergeants and knights didn't initially wear different surcoats.  They wore black/dark brown with a white cross before the year 1259.  That year knight-brothers were allowed to wear a red surcoat, however, only during times of war.  This was reversed in 1278, when both sergeants and knights were allowed to wear the red surcoat during times of war.

Keep in mind, however, that both wore black cappae during times of peace.  The surcoat was only allowed during times of war and in battle.
« Last Edit: April 16, 2008, 07:26:54 PM by Sir Reinald »

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #19 on: April 16, 2008, 09:05:15 PM »
I said it was a French Crusaders cross, because it was being used by the French monarchy at the time.  Troops working directly for the French crown, who did not have a coat of arms of their own, used that color of surcoat.  Likewise the English one was the coat of arms used by several British monarchs at the time, in one variation or another (Richard I used the white cross on red background, usually with a British lion center).  The black and white was a pattern used by a number of Holy Roman Emperors of the time, again in one variation or another.  And while they were not necessarily uniform, knights whose loyalty was to one of these monarchies would very commonly adapt their personal coat of arms to reflect the pattern commonly used by their lord.  This was particularly common among non-nobility knighted in response to accomplishments, who did not have a family coat of arms and so would need to adopt one (and the Crusades produced quite a few such individuals... either because there were opportunities to distinguish oneself, or just because they got a field promotion because all the noble-born knights got killed).

So while it was not a national uniform, it was a symbol of loyalty to a particular monarchy ... and as such, a recurring theme among the coats of arms used by their knights.  Nobody just sat down and assigned colors to particular countries ... it just so happened that monarchs of England, France, and the H.R.E. (Germany) were all using various colors of cross patterns at the time.  Their choice of cross patterns was probably done deliberately as a symbol of support for the Crusades - hence the term "Crusader's Cross" being applied to those coats of arms.  The same basic cross pattern (large cross in center) also appears on the various Kingdom of Jerusalem coats of arms, and those of some - but not all -  of their various secondary entities (notably Ibelin and Tripoli).  And while the exact pattern changed depending on who was in charge at the time, they tended to keep the basic look.

But thanks for making that note ... just because a particular pattern was a recurring theme in the coat of arms of knights from a particular location and loyalty, nobody should confuse it for a national or official uniform.  Heraldry didn't work that way.  It was, at its very base, highly individual in nature... and never really "standard" of anything.  Even those who adopted the basic pattern of their superiors tended to individualize it in some way. 

The "French Crusader's Cross" was just a common and popular coat of arms pattern for anybody from France going on the Crusades, or wishing to show support for them ... and was never standardized in any single form that I know of.  The English "St George's Cross" would be somewhat standardized in the 100 years war, but even then was never a "uniform" of anything... but the lack of standardization certainly didn't reduce its popularity much.  That was just the way heraldry worked.

I sometimes forget that not everybody realizes this ... and so tend to over-generalize.  Sorry if I gave anybody the wrong idea.

------------

I've seen the name of that Templar flag written Baucean, Bauceans, Beaucent, and any of several other variations.  They are probably just the various spellings of different languages.  (I'm pretty sure "Beaucent" is French spelling, as the final "t" is more or less silent in French pronunciation... and therefore not being present in the English variation.)

-----------

And yeah, technically a "surcoat" is worn over armor, as opposed to civilian clothing. 

The 1259 changes are a little after our mod, unless somebody stays in the game for a LONG time.  There are no plans to model the red, as far as I know.

And I think the page I quoted from the Primitive Rule of the Templars included the part about only knight-brothers being allowed to wear white cloaks.

But yes, those just mentioned are the basic Templar/Hospitaller uniforms currently in the mod.  (The one that is NOT there are the white robes with the huge, awful-looking red crosses all over them... which I was trying to shoot down before anybody actually thought there was any history behind that.)  Either solid colors, or with the smallish cross to the left side.

They were not my models - Raz had them done properly before I got involved in the mod.


Sir Reinald

  • Guest
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #20 on: May 14, 2008, 06:08:07 PM »
French Crusaders cross because it was used by the French Monarchy?  Um... no, the French monarchy at the time was the Capetian Dynasty who used arguably the most commonly known French symbol of monarchy, the blue field strewn with lilies.  Also, nobles created their own coats of arms.  Meaning a father and son may very well have very different coats of arms.  So if a son had a completely different coat of arms from his family, why would he make his close to or even using the same colors as that of his king, one who he would probably never meet or even see?

No, it wasn't a uniform and it wasn't a symbol of loyalty to a monarchy.  Say I'm a French noble during the Hundred Years War.  I have a coat of arms with quite a bit of red.  I'm loyal to the French crown.  The English, ruled by the House of Plantagenet, started the war with the famous three lions on a red field and later changed it to that coat of arms quartered with that of France.  The French, now ruled by the Capetians, still used the blue field with lilies.  Now, just because the English have blue and red and the French blue, doesn't mean that I, a loyal French noble, will change my coat of arms to blue just because the hated English have red in their coat of arms.

The only cross that I can find that is actually called the crusader's cross is the type that was used by the Kingdom of Jerusalem, the large cross with four smaller crosses.  As far as I know, no one went on Crusade and said to themselves "well, my coat of arms doesn't have a cross on it, so I guess I'll change it just so it can."  A coat of arms was used to distinguish who you were on the battlefield.  I seriously doubt Raymond IV of Toulouse, just as an example, changed his coat of arms when he went on the First Crusade.

I never said that the changes should be in the mod.  I added that to clarify what the orders wore.  I know they are not your models and I know that Raz did them.  Where do you think he got the info on a lot of the things in the mod?  Myself, Jacques, and Aqtai from Taleworlds provided him with a lot of the info he needed for the mod.

Agent Griff

  • Guest
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #21 on: May 15, 2008, 12:11:19 AM »
I fear for Ron's safety. Being very near a disaster zone and seeing that he hasn't posted at all for almost two days, I find that to be concerning.

Let's hope these are empty concerns, however. 

Regarding his statements, I too have seen that he sometimes supports an awkward notion for too long, like in the case of the Knights of Saint John (later of Rhodes and Malta) whom he repeatedly called the Knights of Saint Jude. Now, I'm not very knowledgeable in the Crusades, but I've never heard of a French crusader cross either. The golden fleur de lys on a blue background was the symbol for the French crown as far as I know.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #22 on: May 15, 2008, 01:49:07 AM »
I fear for Ron's safety. Being very near a disaster zone and seeing that he hasn't posted at all for almost two days, I find that to be concerning.

Let's hope these are empty concerns, however. 

Regarding his statements, I too have seen that he sometimes supports an awkward notion for too long, like in the case of the Knights of Saint John (later of Rhodes and Malta) whom he repeatedly called the Knights of Saint Jude. Now, I'm not very knowledgeable in the Crusades, but I've never heard of a French crusader cross either. The golden fleur de lys on a blue background was the symbol for the French crown as far as I know.

I'm OK ... and I posted some stuff over on the OnR thread.  We got soundly shaken, here in the Xi'an area, but not a total disaster like it was down near Chengdu.  Just a good scare.  (But they REALLY got hurt down near Chengdu.)

I have been known to make various errors in posts.  Especially ones I don't check carefully.  (Order of St. Jude was a side-order of the Hospitallers that primarily built hospitals for lepers.  I just transposed the names in my head a couple of times because I was not checking what I was doing.  Difference between a forum post and a doctoral dissertation.)

Yes, the Fleur-de-Lis was used on many banners and coats of arms associated with the French monarchy.

Many patterns in heraldry were not "official" anything, but they were popular for various reasons.  A modern analogy would be how flags are designed.  For example, the U.S. flag from the end of the American Revolution until present (minor changes noted) was a relatively unique design ... it was "American".  The Texas Revolution chose basically the same pattern, red and white stripes, white star on blue.  The Confederacy during the Civil War, again, same basic design and color pattern (although re-arranged to make it more distinctive).  Same way countries where politics is dominated by a communist party generally use solid red backgrounds, with a few smallish details (usually in white or gold).  Nobody told them that they should go with that kind of pattern - they did it because it seemed normal to them, because the symbolism meant something to them.

Same with heraldry.  A lot of French knights used a large red cross pattern, often on white, dividing their coat of arms.  Many used the Fleur-de-Lis, in various colors but often on blue background.  Some used both.  Some used something completely unique.  While the Crusades were at their high point, cross patterns were extremely popular among anybody designing a new coat of arms (especially since the whole rallying cry of the crusades was a bunch of stuff about the "Banner of the Cross").  Same way the English used a lot of red - usually with white or gold details, the most popular being crosses and various lion designs.  That does not make it official in any way, but it does make it common.  It was created in a way that people looking at it would probably see it and think "he's probably from (France/England/etc.)".

The whole point at the beginning of that string of thoughts was, I was saying that huge red crosses plastered all over the surcoat were not a Templar insignia.  They were used by a number of French Crusaders (among others), and on banners associated with Crusader parties leaving France, which got them into some of the art of the period, which could in turn be the source of the myth that the Templars were walking billboards ... but there is little to suggest that those guys were Templars.  They werre just some guys who used a coat of arms with a huge red cross, because such was popular. 

It was a passing comment that the red cross on white was a French pattern, like saying that red and white stripes and white stars on blue background is an "American" flag pattern (because virtually everybody who has used those design elements together on a flag has been from somewhere in North America).  It's not exclusive, but it is the kind of thing most people would recognize.

They didn't have a copyright on it ... it just comes out that way.

Sir Reinald

  • Guest
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #23 on: May 16, 2008, 05:52:56 PM »
The Order of Saint Jude? Never heard of them.  In your previous posts I've noticed that you said that the Order of Saint Jude took care of lepers.  As I said I've never heard of this order, but there was the Order of Saint Lazarus that took care of lepers.  I'd like to see some info on this order.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #24 on: May 16, 2008, 07:00:47 PM »
Dammit ... I tried to look up where I was reading about them, but there are several modern groups using that name now, as well as some Fransiscan orders that were not what I was looking for, and I can't find what I was reading earlier.  If I find it again, I'll post it later.  Anyway, they were a minor group, one of many minor groups that were unlikely to make a place for themselves in too many history books.  I don't even know how I ended up reading that material ... I was looking up something else, and got side-tracked reading about a bunch of utterly insignificant minor groups that I had never heard of before either.  (They all had stupid names like something about "St. Maurice"... what kind of name is "Maurice"?)

And yeah, Order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem was a relatively large group founded directly by the Hospitallers... a lot of people have heard of them.  They might be big enough news to need a place in this mod, or at least a mention somewhere.  (They have actually re-formed that order recently, but I'm not sure what their exact intent was.)

Sir Reinald

  • Guest
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #25 on: May 16, 2008, 10:48:06 PM »
I don't believe that the Order of Saint Lazarus was founded by Hospitallers, if that is what you meant by capitalizing it.  I'm pretty sure they were just formed from hospitallers (holy men that ran hospitals) that ran a hospital for lepers. 

Quote
The military order of St. Lazarus of Jerusalem originated in a leper hospital founded in the twelfth century by the crusaders of the Latin Kingdom. Without doubt there had been before this date leper hospitals in the East, of which the Knights of St. Lazarus claimed to be the continuation, in order to have the appearance of remote antiquity and to pass as the oldest of all orders. But this pretension is apocryphal. These Eastern leper hospitals followed the Rule of St. Basil, while that of Jerusalem adopted the hospital Rule of St. Augustine in use in the West. The Order of St. Lazarus was indeed purely an order of hospitallers from the beginning, as was that of St. John, but without encroaching on the field of the latter. Because of its special aim, it had quite a different organization. The inmates of St. John were merely visitors, and changed constantly; the lepers of St. Lazarus on the contrary were condemned to perpetual seclusion.
- Catholic Encyclopedia.

And what do you mean "what kind of name is 'Maurice'"? It means dark-skinned, and Saint Maurice was a Roman Christian soldier who was killed because he and his unit refused to harm Christians that they were ordered to harass.  What you said is rather immature.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #26 on: May 16, 2008, 11:52:40 PM »
Yeah, I've heard the story on St. Maurice.  Not sure if there was any truth to it, but it's a fine tale.  (Like to think things like that might be true ... makes me feel better about humans ... but I can't really prove it either way.)

At least some sources indicate (or at least seriously suggest) that some if not most of the first group forming the Order of Saint Lazarus of Jerusalem (12th century) were current or former members of the Hospitallers.  I can't, again, prove that one way or the other ... I've never seen a complete name list of everyone involved in that order ... but it seems a likely enough story.  If so, it would make sense that they form their own order, just because they didn't want lepers or people who worked with them (and so were at risk of spreading such) mixed into other orders.  It would also explain how they ended up running a hospital in the first place, if it was a former Hospitaller facility and they just formed their own group to run it (again, to prevent spreading leprosy into hospitals that were dealing with less communicable disorders).  So that's a "some sources" story, but it seems a likely one.

But my point that there were a huge number of smallish groups who all named themselves for whoever they could find in a list of approved saints ... and now nobody can remember who exactly they were or what they did ... is still pretty much valid.  It's not a very good commentary on the ability of humans - even humans who are trying their best to help - to get organized.

Thyreus

  • Guest
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #27 on: May 30, 2008, 10:44:48 PM »
On the Brothers' Dress

17. We command that all the brothers' habits should always be of one colour, that is white or black or brown. And we grant to all knight brothers in winter and in summer if possible, white cloaks; and no-one who does not belong to the aforementioned Knights of Christ is allowed to have a white cloak, so that those who have abandoned the life of darkness will recognise each other as being reconciled to their creator by the sign of the white habits: which signifies purity and complete chastity. Chastity is certitude of heart and healthiness of body. For if any brother does not take the vow of chastity he cannot come to eternal rest nor see God, by the promise of the apostle who said: Pacem sectamini cum omnibus et castimoniam sine qua nemo Deum videbit. That is to say: 'Strive to bring peace to all, keep chaste, without which no-one can see God.'

18. But these robes should be without any finery and without any show of pride. And so we ordain that no brother will have a piece of fur on his clothes, nor anything else which belongs to the usages of the body, not even a blanket unless it is of lamb's wool or sheep's wool. We command all to have the same, so that each can dress and undress, and put on and take off his boots easily. And the Draper or the one who is in his place should studiously reflect and take care to have the reward of God in all the above-mentioned things, so that the eyes of the envious and evil-tongued cannot observe that the robes are too long or too short; but he should distribute them so that they fit those who must wear them, according to the size of each one.

19. And if any brother out of a feeling of pride or arrogance wishes to have as his due a better and finer habit, let him be given the worst. And those who receive new robes must immediately return the old ones, to be given to the squires and sergeants and often to the poor, according to what seems good to the one who holds that office.

On Shirts

20. Among the other things, we mercifully rule that, because of the great intensity of the heat which exists in the East, from Easter to All Saints, through compassion and in no way as a right, a linen shirt shalt be given to any brother who wishes to wear it.


--- Primitive Rule of the Templars, Council of Troyes, 1129


I'm no expert, but this rule was made before they were granted the red cross by Pope Eugenius III, which is probably why it doesn't mention anything about the red cross at all.

The cloak the man to the left in this picture wears seems to be pretty common in pictures:


To me it seems you can apply a bit of artistic license when it comes to exactly where and how big the cross is. All sources have in common that they mention a cloak though, so I don't see why there's no cloak in.

Offline Ron Losey

  • Master
  • *****
  • Posts: 4418
    • View Profile
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #28 on: May 31, 2008, 01:18:32 AM »
The models currently in the mod generally do have the small single red cross on the left (at least some of them), and some of the horse barding shows the cross pattern as well (as in that illustration).

Just what they DO NOT have are the huge crosses on all sides like some kind of a walking billboard.

----------------------

As for heavy cloaks, however, well ... it's hard to make them move right in M&B.  It's generally better for the graphics if the clothing sticks to the closer-fitting tabbards and habits.

Thyreus

  • Guest
Re: FAO Raz Templars
« Reply #29 on: May 31, 2008, 07:42:43 AM »
Ah, well that sounds like a fair compromise to me.