Forums

Posted: 11-03-2005 11:47 Post subject: Templars and the Shroud of Turin

There's an interesting paragraph at the end of the "New Date for Shroud" article in FT 195:

Posted: 11-03-2005 13:51 Post subject:

I must admit that when I read that line, I laughed out loud. Jaques was no saint - so miraculously reconstituting his flesh and hair was a bit tricky. And last time I looked, the image on the Shroud looks remarkably intact ... not like a giant jelly baby with smoked and barbecued gobbits of flesh and lard sticking to it.

Posted: 11-03-2005 13:57 Post subject:

Posted: 12-03-2005 04:09 Post subject: Re: Templars and the Shroud of Turin

Last edited by Sifaka317 on 13-03-2005 09:25; edited 1 time in total

Posted: 13-03-2005 09:21 Post subject:

Interesting correspondence in this months' FT (April, no.195) letters page... Focussing on whether the early Templars really were in Jerusalem to protect pilgrims, or as archaeologists...I found Dr DG Hessayon's suggestion interesting - contrary to the view (as previously argued by Mike Powell - FT 192) that the original 9 Knights Templar would actually have comprised a group of up to 200 warriors - Dr Hessayon suggests that according to the Templars' own Rule, they would have had 3 horses and only one squire per Knight. Therefore a much smaller fighting force and therefore less able to defend pilgrims? (But there is still little or no hard evidence AFAIK for Templar excavations/archaeological discoveries).

What does everyone think? Any medievalists out there, who could settle this argument as to the numbers of fighting men accompanying a knight?

Posted: 13-03-2005 13:17 Post subject:

I imagine any questing knight would have a substantial reunite of squires/men-at-arms and other hangers on (chefs, wagonmasters etc...) From Europe to the Holy Land is a bloody long way and I wouldn't like to make it alone if I could afford not to.

I'm interested by this 'By their own rule.' business, does he state where this rule is from and back it up?

Posted: 13-03-2005 15:14 Post subject:

Posted: 13-03-2005 17:38 Post subject:

I am still very sceptical. Until I see evidence quoted from an original manuscript or historical study and not some latter-day 'lets play Templars' website I will still have doubts.

Posted: 13-03-2005 20:33 Post subject:

Posted: 14-03-2005 12:47 Post subject:

Re-reading Barber's The Trial of the Templars at the mo. Closest thing to primary sources I am likely to get to I reckon.

The thing that fascinates me in all this is that the head worshiping evidence seems to have been less widespread than some "revisionists" and "popular" historians would later have us believe.

I think that the issue of the papal apology, and the growing recognition of certain claimed descendants such as the SMOTJ (having received NGO status last year) means that in two years time on the anniversary of the arrests, 13/10/2007, there will probably be some public statement or coming out.

If the papal apology comes before then, and lets face it JP2 can't be too far from popping his proverbials, it is likely to be a significant date.

LD

Posted: 14-03-2005 22:12 Post subject:

Posted: 14-03-2005 22:28 Post subject:

Posted: 16-03-2005 16:49 Post subject: Re: Templars and the Shroud of Turin

Posted: 16-03-2005 21:53 Post subject:

Apparently the tortures they underwent were horrendous, and yes, some did steadfastly maintain their innocence, there was a case of one knight carrying in some part of his body that had been removed ( I'll get the book from my mothers house ) it could be the broken bones of his fingers? I personally have never believed them guilty of anything more than being extremely wealthy and King Philip of France being broke, in debt to them, and greedy. Of course I'm only getting this from books too, but it sounds the most logical reason to me. I've never romanticed them, and I too have read that they ' aquired ' the Shroud, probably during the sack of Constantinople, and that the ' idol ' head they were accused of venerating, was what showed of the Shroud when it was folded up. All speculation, but interesting to me.