This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity articles
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles
This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
My understanding is there is plenty of controversy and disagreement about the role of the Templars, but this article presents a very one-sided view, with a lot of subjective adjectives. Some witnesses are said to be "incontrovertible", while popes and kings are dismissed. Language should reflect verifiable sources, not the opinions of editors. Avt tor (talk) 14:32, 4 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]
The modern continuation of the Order today claims legitimate historical direct lineal descendency from the original Order through the historic "Charter on Johannes Marcus Larmenius," also called the "Charter of Transmission," from whence certain modern-day branches of the Supreme Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem extend. The current lineal descendent Grand Master is the Count Dom Fernando Campello Pinto Pereira de Sousa FONTES of Porto, Portugal.
The original Name Title of the Order is the "Order of Poor Fellow-Soldiers of Christ and the Temple of Solomon," or in the original Latin, "Ordo Pauperum Commilitum Christi et Templi Solomonis". The Great Preceptory of the North American branch of the Knight Templar Order is headquartered at Dallas, Texas, USA, and may be found at KnightTemplar.org. This branch of the Order is a legitimately-tied family branch member of the original Order under Count FONTES as Grand Master, the original Ordo Supremus Militaris Templi Hierosolymitani, which was separated in schism in the 1980s and again in 1995 by a group of American and British military officers.
As of the last count in late 2005, there are approximately 14 historically-legitimate Grand Priories of the Order in Europe, North America, and Australia formulated into the International Association of Knights Templar.
I'm tracking down references of Christopher Columbus's association with the Templar-derived organization, "Order of Christ". It's verified that he married Felipa Perestrello Moniz , a Portuguese noblewoman who was the daughter of a Portuguese explorer, Bartolomeu Perestrelo, and that as a part of the dowry, Columbus received all of his father-in-law's charts of the Atlantic ocean. I've also found one source that claims that Bartholemew was a local Master of the Order of Christ, but I haven't found a solid reference yet that confirms that... Then again, Columbus's ships are frequently portrayed as having the Templar (or Order of Christ) cross on their sails. If we could verify the link though (or confirm that there's no link), it would be a good addition to the article. Has anyone else done any research on this particular subject? --Elonka21:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It is a well known fact of Portuguese History that Columbus offered his services to King John II of Portugal, who first procrastinated and then declined the offer, before Columbus took the offer to the Spanish Queen Isabella I of Castile. The thing is: John II already knew there was land to the West, but had no reason to let that be known outside a close circle. 1) The Viking colony of Greenland, where Vinland existence was a well known fact, had a Vatican representative there. Portugal was at the time a major European power with excellent relations with the Papacy. 2) The Portuguese explorer João Vaz Corte-Real visited Northern Canada (where a stone slab exists) and also Greenland. 3) During the negotiations of the Treaty of Tordesillas, King John II deliberately asked the separating line to be moved West, in the process including land of the Americas, importantly Eastern Brazil. Columbus was right for the wrong reasons and the Portuguese already knew it, but had no need of his services. The Columbus sails adornment you refer to, is the cross of the Order of Christ, present in Portuguese ships of the time. Though wild speculation about the Knights Templar sometimes say that they may have sailed to the Americas, citing the Aztec myth of a bearded god, and the location of La Rochelle harbor, not too convenient to service England nor Portugal (and therefore good to service BOTH), as evidence... that's blatant hogwash. Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 22:47, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
More than that , In portugal the Order name was simply renamed from Order of Templars to Order of Christ. In time the naval assets of the order became the portuguese navy and thus the entire portuguese military is a sucessor of (among others) the Knight templars. The infante D. Henrique was in fact the Grand Master of the order in his time. One must take note that in 1319/1320 the portuguese took possession of the religious military orders ex-castillian Sant'James, and the assets of the Templars in portuguese territories were passed down to the portuguese state thus joining the portuguese order of Avis. Up to 1789 the tree religious orders were still considered as religious armies. In 1834 the anti-catholic regime secularized the orders and confiscated their assets and turned the titles into orders of merit (medals and such). The grand master of the order of christ is since 1910 (end of monarchy in portugal) the president of the portuguese republic.
Aditionally one should take notice that the portuguese military till this day continues to use the old cross of the templars as it's simbol due preciselly to being a spinnof from the order.
Back to Columbus , the story goes around (lot's of sources of information on this subject available) that when columbus presented it's case to the portuguese kingdom he had allegedly doctored his numbers to protect himself and the portuguese having access to the real and correct numbers , and aditionally having NO INTERESST in the american lands (one must notice that the portuguese kingdom NEVER took interest in the americas, large scale brasilian colonisation only exists due to the union of the crowns period) and the real interest was in the round african route precisely because there was previous information available (secret but available to informed soures in the european naval/geobraphy area of knowledge) that the direct route was nonexistant. Sotavento (talk) 23:12, 28 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]
This seems a bit off - the Hospitallers exceeded the Templars in having 19,000 estates, while the Templars had only about 9,000 at their height - but those were estates, not houses. The estates donated did not necessarily have a templar house in them: in The New Knighthood, Barber has a map with the number of houses, and there are definitely not 9,000 dots on it! I don't have the book anymore, could anyone else find out that figure, from Barber or another source? DonaNobisPacem06:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I moved the following text to the Temple Mount article:
In 1867, a team from the Royal Engineers, led by Lieutenant Charles Warren (later the London police commissioner of Jack the Ripper fame) and financed by the Palestine Exploration Fund (P.E.F.), discovered a series of tunnels beneath Jerusalem and the Temple Mount, some of which were directly underneath the Templar headquarters. Various small artifacts were found which indicated that Templars had used some of the tunnels, though it is unclear who exactly first dug them. Some of the ruins which Warren discovered came from centuries earlier, and other tunnels which his team discovered had evidently been used for a water system, as they led to a series of cisterns.[1], [2][3][4]. --74.57.204.13816:27, 13 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
MIstake at parograph "the fall"
Where it sais "the Babylonian Captivity" it should say the "Shism of the west" or "western Schism". Is that an authors mistake? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.245.148 (talk • contribs) 16:14, February 22, 2007
There's no mention of what the order was up to between the 1180's and the 1300's. No sources, or an omission that could be corrected? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.209.245.148 (talk • contribs) 16:15, February 22, 2007
Agreed, that area of the article could use substantial expansion. For sources, check the list on the main Knights Templar article. I'd highly recommend the Barber books for the most thorough set of data, or Sean Martin's book for a quick overview. There's also the complete text of a 19th century book which can be read online: Addison's book. Feel free to use these (or anything else you can find) to expand the wiki-info! :) --Elonka17:57, 22 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Poor choice of words regarding Bernard of Clairvaux
As written, the section on Bernard's patronage would be read by the all too typical despisers of Christianity as an indication that Bernard was 1) a murderous fanatic who believed in forced conversions and murdering non-Christians simply for being unbelievers, and 2) a corrupt churchman engaged in simony, nepotism, and influence peddling.
The statement that Bernard "believed in "killing in the name of Christ" should be changed to something like, he "was no pacifist, and believed then - as virtually all Christian denominations do today - that it was right and just to kill in the defense of the innocent, and to protect Christians and Christianity from violent attack by non-Christians."
Also, the statement - “It was a remarkable confirmation of power, which may have been brought about by the Order's patron, Bernard of Clairvaux, who had helped Pope Innocent in his own rise.” - is mere speculation and gives the wrong impression of Bernard as some sort of politico, when he was not … he was just an overly-zealous monk who wanted nothing more than to pray all day, every day his life… and consequently, the vicariously-holy folk of the Middle Ages wouldn’t leave him alone.
I suggest the key paragraphs be edited as follows:
The Order's efforts were helped substantially by the patronage of Bernard of Clairvaux, the leading churchman of the time, and a nephew of one of the original nine knights. The Order at its outset had been subject to strong criticism, especially of the concept that members of a religious order could also carry swords. In response to these critics, the powerful Bernard of Clairvaux wrote a multi-page treatise entitled De Laude Novae Militae ("In Praise of the New Knighthood"), championing their mission, in which Bernard defended ancient Christian theories of just war, including “taking up the sword” to defend the innocent and the Church from violent attack, and legitimised the concept of the Templars, who became effectively the first "warrior monks" of the Christendom.[1] In 1135, Bernard wrote in De Laude Novae Militae:
[A Templar Knight] is truly a fearless knight, and secure on every side, for his soul is protected by the armor of faith, just as his body is protected by the armor of steel. He is thus doubly-armed, and need fear neither demons nor men.[2]
Donations to the Order were considerable. The King of Aragón, in Spain, left large tracts of land to the order upon his death in the 1130s. Also, as with all monastic orders, new members of the Templars were required to take a vow of poverty, giving all of their goods to the monastic brotherhood. This could include land, horses and any other items of material wealth, including labor from serfs, and any interest in any businesses.
In 1139, even more power was conferred upon the Order by Pope Innocent II, who issued the papal bull, Omne Datum Optimum. It stated that the Knights Templar could pass freely through any border, owed no taxes, and were subject to no one's authority except that of the Pope. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Stormarm (talk • contribs) 11:36, 22 April 2007 (UTC).[reply]
I have strong concerns about the sources and accuracy of this "Templar/Mongol alliance". Accordingly, I have removed the section from the article, and am copying it here:
Jacques de Molay."The conquest of Jerusalem by Jacques de Molay in 1299", by Claude Jacquand, Versailles, Musée National Chateau et Trianons.
From around 1298, the Knights Templar and their leader Jacques de Molay strongly advocated, and entered into, a collaboration with the Mongols and fought against the Mamluks.[1] The plan was to coordinate actions between the Christianmilitary orders, the King of Cyprus, the aristocracy of Cyprus and Little Armenia and the Mongols of the khanate of Ilkhan (Persia). In 1298 or 1299, Jacques de Molay halted a Mamluk invasion with military force in Armenia following the loss of Roche-Guillaume in the Belen pass,[2] the last Templar stronghold in Cilicia, to the Mamluks.
The Mongol khan of Persia, Ghâzân, allied with the Armenian, the Templiers and the Hospitaliers, defeated the Mamluks in the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar in December 1299. They took Jerusalem by surprise that same year,[3][4] but Ghazan had to leave with his troops because of another conflict in his rear. Jacques Molay, left alone in Jerusalem tried to rebuild the fortifications which had been dismantled by the Mamluks, but he ultimately had to leave the city in 1300 to avoid a disaster, waiting in vain for reinforcements from Europe. Abundant news circulated in Europe that the Mongols had finally conquered the Holy Land and Jerusalem in 1300, and handed it over to the Christians. [5]
In 1300, Jacques de Molay made his order commit raids along the Egyptian and Syrian coasts to weaken the enemy's supply lines as well as to harass them, and in November that year he joined the occupation of the tiny fortress island of Ruad (today called Arwad) which faced the Syrian town of Tortosa. The intent was to establish a bridgehead in accordance with the Mongol alliance, but the Mongols failed to appear in 1300. The same happened in 1301 and 1302.
In 1301Ghazan sent an embassy to the Pope, and in 1303 to Edward I, in the person of Buscarello de Ghizolfi, reinterating Hulagu's promise that they would give Jerusalem to the Franks in exchange for help against the Mamluks.[6]
In September 1302 the Templars were driven out of Ruad by the attacking Mamluk forces from Egypt, and many were massacred when trapped on the island. The island of Ruad was lost, and Molay returned to Chypre with the remainder of the Order in 1303. They made a raid on Tortose in 1303.[7] When Ghâzân died in 1304 dreams of a rapid reconquest of the Holy Land were destroyed.
^"L’ordre du Temple et son dernier grand maître, Jacques de Molay, ont été les artisans de l’alliance avec les Mongols de Perse contre les Mamelouks en 1299-1303, afin de reprendre pied en Terre sainte." Alain Demurger, Master of Conference at Université Paris-I, author of « Chevaliers du Christ. Les ordres religieux militaires au Moyen Age » (Seuil, 2002), « Jacques de Molay. Le crépuscule des Templiers » (Payot, 2002) « Les Templiers. Une chevalerie chrétienne au Moyen Age » (Seuil), in an interview with Le PointSource
^Malcolm C. Barber, The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple (Cambridge University Press) 1995:79.
^"Ainsi, Jacques de Molay reprend Jérusalem en 1298 (qu'il conservera jusque en 1300)", Centre de Développement en Art et Culture Médiévale, Les Croisades, Hervé Husson et Fabian Müllers
^Doubts have been raised whether the conquest of Jerusalem actually happened: "Gesta Dei per Mongolos 1300. The Genesis of a Non-Event" Sylvia Schein,
The English Historical Review, Vol. 94, No. 373 (Oct., 1979), p. 805, Source
^Les Croisades.
Hervé Husson et Fabian Müllers, Centre de Développement en Art et Culture Médiévale, Source
In reading through my own sources, I have found no evidence of such a major Mongol/Templar alliance. There were definitely hopes of an alliance, and the rumors flew thick and fast about the intent of the Mongols. But there's very little solid and reliable information. I have absolutely nothing which confirms statements such as that the Mongols took Jerusalem with Templar help, or that De Molay was "left alone" in Jerusalem (!). It is my opinion that this is simply pseudohistory and should be discarded. Because of the amount of misinformation that is presented about the Templars, we should be very cautious about what we include in the Wikipedia article. As for the painting of the "Taking of Jerusalem", I've never heard of that painting before, but my guess is that it's a fanciful "What might have happened" scenario, rather than documentation of an actual event. If anyone has more info on it, please bring it forward? --Elonka20:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
More sources welcome. The painting titled "Jacques de Molay captures Jerusalem in 1299" was made circa 1830, and is located in the Museum of Versailles: here. PHG20:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Another of the reasons that I sincerely doubt the event occurred, is that if Jacques de Molay really had been involved in a conquest of Jerusalem in 1299, it would have revitalized the entire European support for the Crusades. Capturing Jerusalem was the "raison d'etre" for the military orders. If such an event had occurred, it would be well-documented. We wouldn't be having to piece things together based on a painting that was commissioned 500 years after the supposed event. It's not like this would have been an obscure battle that might have been ignored in the greater scheme of things. ;) --Elonka23:09, 6 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Elonka. Of course you may be right. But it happens that many many French sites do claim that Molay held Jerusalem briefly in 1299-1300. I am just wondering where the truth is, and whether there are strong references either for or against this claim. For example was Molay undoubtedly away from the East during the period? My understanding is that he only returned to Europe in 1306. Incidentally, there is a passage in Le Templier de Tyr, explaining that Molay was a general of the Mongols and was left in Damas etc... etc... I do not know if this refers to the actual Molay or not, or if this may be the origin of the 1299 claims:
"Ghazan, when he had vanquishes the Sarazins returned in his country, and left in Damas one of his admirals, named Molay, and with him 10,000 Tatars and 4 generals". "Cacan quant il eut desconfit les Sarazins se retorna en son pais et laissa a Domas .i. sien amiraill en son leuc quy ot a nom Molay qui ot o luy .xm. Tatars et .iiii. amiraus". Chapter 611 [5]
And as a matter of fact, news that the Mongols took Jerusalem and remitted it is to the Christians did circulate extensively in 1300 Europe, but this did not generate a new Crusade Source.
In 1300, 300 Knights of the Templars and Hospitallers gathered in Ruad for a combined action with the Mongols (Le Templier de Tyr). That was a big action for the Knights at that time, and I supposed Molay, a strong advocate of the collaboration with the Mongols, was commanding them (but we would need a reference for that). PHG05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
This paragraph (the next to last) contains a contradiction:
The dominant view is that Philip, who seized the treasury and broke up the monastic banking system, was jealous of the Templars' wealth and power, frustrated by his debt to them, and sought to control their financial resources for himself, by bringing blatantly false charges against them at the Tours assembly in 1308; it is also likely that, under the influence of his advisors, he actually believed many of the false charges to be true. However, it is widely accepted that Philip had clearly made up the accusations and did not believe any of the Templars to have been party to such activities. In fact, he had invited Jacques de Molay to be a pall-bearer at the funeral of the King's sister on the very day before the arrests.[11]
The end of the first sentence suggests he did believe the accusations - the next sentence suggests he didn't. I will try to find other sources so I can correct it, but in the meantime ... does anyone know? 132.244.246.2508:19, 15 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Guess what folks - all references to the Chinon Parchment are a FALSE ALARM. Why? Simply because everything concerning it rests upon AN INTERPRETATION of the Latin Text by Dr Barbara Frale who re-discovered the document - and what she wrote in Journal of Medieval Studies (edited by Malcolm Barber) was not a description but an interpretation - and not all Templar scholars agree with Frale's interpretation of the text - rather, they see the Chinon Parchment as being just another primary source document on the Templars that contains absolutely nothing new. Time will reveal all when a succession of Templar scholars will weigh-in with all the published facts in response to Frale's misinterpretations. There is more than one Chinon Parchment; there are important primary source documents relating to the Trial of the Templars in Oxford that complement what is contained in the Chinon Document discovered by Barbara Frale. Forget about the Chinon Document being "unique" because it is no such thing. Of course the Vatican is promoting Frale because in so doing it is producing publicity for the forthcoming volume that will contain the Vatican Archives on the Templars.Wfgh6604:52, 22 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Armenian campaigns (1298-1299) and 1300 naval operations
Given that this is a general overview of the entire history of the Knights Templar, and that we do not discuss in detail any of the other campaigns they participated in... I do not think we need to spend so much time discussing these two. We certainly don't need to get into details on the "Frankish-Mongol Alliance" on this page. I am going to attempt to summarize the information into one or two short paragraphs. Blueboar (talk) 13:54, 20 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]
"Some scholars believe that some of the Templars fled into the Swiss Alps, as there are records of Swiss villagers around that time suddenly becoming very skilled military tacticians. An attack was led by Leopold I of Austria, who was attempting to take control of the St. Gotthard Pass with a force of 5,000 knights. His force was ambushed and destroyed by a group of about 1,500 Swiss peasants. Up until that point, the Swiss really had no military experience, but after that battle, the Swiss became renowned as seasoned fighters. Some folk tales from the period describe how there were "armed white knights" who came to help them in their battles."
Contrast the length taken by... what else can I call it... popular rumor, In Switzerland, with extensive migration to Scotland, Finland, Portugal, Spain. Everyone wants a piece of the Knights Templar, it seems.
Deep Atlantic Blue (talk) 23:07, 24 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]
This sounds very much like the equally bogus belief that the Templars trained and equipped Bruce's army prior to Bannockburn, which is hogwash. The Templars were never what could be called "skilled military tacticians". Their major tactic was the headlong mounted charge with couched lances, which was successful...maybe 50% of the time.
"The Templars had as yet neither distinctive habit nor rule. Hugues de Payens journeyed to the West to seek the approbation of the Church and to obtain recruits. At the Council of Troyes (1128), at which he assisted and at which St. Bernard was the leading spirit, the Knights Templars adopted the Rule of St. Benedict, as recently reformed by the Cistercians. They accepted not only the three perpetual vows, besides the crusader's vow, but also the austere rules concerning the chapel, the refectory, and the dormitory. They also adopted the white habit of the Cistercians, adding to it a red cross."[1]— Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.187.0.182 (talk) 23:05, 2 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]
At this point no pre-1150 details (some of which exist on the general Knights Templar page) are even mentioned; the first section reads like a lede-cum-summary/overview rather than anything chronological or explanatory. 24.17.224.81 (talk) 17:49, 25 May 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Heresy is a term which applies strictly to the "written word of the Church" otherwise known as "the Dogma". The other accusations, spitting on the cross, etc., although vile accusations, are not strictly "heresy", but blasphemy, therefore I added to the heading. Did not delete anyone's text. Mugginsx (talk) 16:11, 27 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Bernard de Clairvaux was the organizer and their original intention was Biblical archeology
Bernard de Clairvaux was behind organizing the original nine knights for the purpose of finding proof of contested Jesus' history and other Judeo-Christian knowledge. Only nine men certainly could not provide adequate protection to Christians on a pilgrimmage to the Holy Land. That was their "stated mission", but not their real mission. Bernard and the others were well instructed in Gnostic knowledge and they were aware of the 'historical Jesus'. They knew they could excavate the Temple Mount and possibly find great treasures and scrolls with great information. Without having found this treasure in the nine years they were in Jerusalem, they would never have been treated like they were by the Pope afterward. The question now is, what did they find through their archeological excavations? Some Freemasons throughout history have been prevy to these secrets.
64.136.26.235 (talk) 15:19, 14 August 2010 (UTC)Brad Watson, Miami, FL[reply]
Unfortunately, WP functions on verifiability, and without a source, that material is not admissible. Your claim, by the way, is also highly hypothetical, and proof of it would exist in some of the Templar documents that are coming to light from the Vatican. Even if it's "top secret", there's still a record someplace. Moreover, because it comes out so often and is readily debunked, who exactly are the "some Freemasons" who were privy to the secrets of the Knights Templar? If we know/claim that there were secrets passed from Templars to Freemasons, we should know to whom they were passed because there were very few in the early days. MSJapan (talk) 21:22, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
IIRC, Hiram Key is "Freemasons = Cult of Venus," but I did only read the book once. The funny thing is, this particular theory requires a scientific approach to the Bible (in other words, Bible scholarship) that simply was not possible at the time. MSJapan (talk) 05:51, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The French king was deeply in debt to the Templars and may have thought that by suppressing the order he could squash his own debts and gain the money that the Templars were supposed to have stached in their banking houses.
When he eventually did gain access to the banking houses he must have been horrified to find that all he gained was the first modern banking credit system and that their wasn't any gold. As he still hadn't got any money It must have been with a combination of of fury and rage why he so thoroughly persecuted the order.
Other more enlightened monarchs must have realised that the credit system of the Templars could still be used and some members were left comparatively unscathed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.154 (talk) 12:52, 9 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since "Outremer" is used more than once, I tried to supply an explanation of what it means in today's geography. I avoided "Near East" and "Middle East" since the area might be west of the reader. I did not use "The Levant" as I am not sure the average 20-year-old native English speaker would know where that was. "Eastern Mediterranean" gives a nice geographic anchor to the area covered by "Outremer". 71.234.215.133 (talk) 17:43, 15 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]
What about Robert de Sheffield ancestor of de Sheffield family? Who says to be one of the first member of the Templars
I have just modified one external link on History of the Knights Templar. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
According to the historician Jean Richard (historian), the banking activity of the Knights Templar and of the Hospitalier Order started in the 12th century with regard to the pilgrims directed from the Western countries to the Holy Land. It was also one of the first popular use of the promissory note, at least in the Western countries (source: [6] ). Their use spreaded in the Italian cities during the 11th century and then with the Crusades. The role of Tuscany cities was overvalued in respect of the one taken by the Knight Templars. Philosopher81sp (talk) 12:50, 13 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]
