“The whole country of the East would have been conquered long ago had it not been for the Templars and the Hospitallers and others who call themselves religious.... But the Templars and the Hospitallers and their associates, who are fattened by ample revenues, are afraid that if the country [Egypt] is subjected to Christian laws, their supremacy will come to an end.”1
These words were put in the mouth of Robert of Artois, brother of Louis IX, by the English chronicler Matthew Paris. Matthew was writing shortly after the end of Louis’ useless and very expensive crusade in 1250. Robert is supposed to have said this in response to the advice of the master of the Templars, William of Sonnac, that they should put off attacking the Saracens at the town of Mansourah in Egypt.2
It’s highly unlikely that Robert actually said these words. Jean de Joinville, who was there, doesn’t mention anything of the kind. But Matthew may have been reflecting popular home front opinions on the wealth of both the Templars and the Hospitallers. Matthew was a monk at the English abbey of St. Albans and his only contact with Templars would have been in their role as competitors for lay donations and tithes.
“Everybody knows” that the Templars were rich.3 They had piles of treasure hidden everywhere. When the order was dissolved, no treasure was found. Therefore, it’s still hidden.
There are a lot of assumptions in the above statements. The Templars did have a reputation for being both greedy and miserly, but was it true? Were they rich? What form did their wealth take? What was their financial situation when the order was dissolved in 1312? What’s the real story of the Templars and money?
Let’s start at the end. On October 13, 1307, the Templars of Baugy, in Calvados, Normandy, were arrested along with the rest of the Templars in France. That same day an inventory was made of their goods. It was done in the presence of the three Templars assigned to Baugy and five officers of the king.4
The commandery owned fourteen milk cows, five heifers, one ox, seven calves more than a year old, two bulls, one calf still nursing, one hundred sheep, ninety-nine pigs, and eight piglets. There was a good horse for the commander and four nags to pull carts. There was also a good supply of grain, the harvest just having been finished and tithes paid two weeks before, half a tun of wine, and a supply of beer “for the boys and the workers.”5
The chapel had the bare minimum of equipment for services: vestments, one chalice, books, and altar linen. The chamber of the commander had some plain silver cups and some wooden ones. He had bed linen and clothes, including a rain cloak. He also had a blue overdress “belonging to the wife of M. Roger de Planes, which was being held for a debt, so said the commander and Bertin du Goisel.”6 The king’s men seemed to think that women’s clothing in the commander’s chamber was suspicious, but there was other clothing belonging to men of the neighborhood so they decided to believe the Templars.
While the Templars in Paris and London may have made major loans to kings, the Templars in the provinces seemed to have functioned as local pawnbrokers.
There was nothing else at the commandery that wouldn’t have been found on any well-run farm in Normandy. The three Templars were the only members of the order living there. There were twenty-six servants, including a chaplain, Guillaume Durendent, who doesn’t seem to have been a Templar priest since he and the other servants reminded the officials that they still expected to be paid.7
All the other inventories of Templar property gave the same results. The prestigious Temple in London had little more than the provincial commandery had. The cellar contained some maple cups, twenty-two silver spoons, some canvas cloths, and four tankards. There were seven horses in the stable, three for farm work. The master had some clothes and bed linen, one gold buckle, and a crossbow without bolts.8
The Templars seem to have lived simply. They had plenty to eat and drink but most of their cash went to pay bills or to the headquarters of the order in Cyprus. Even in Paris there were no great caches of jewels or coins. Most of the valuable property was either held as security for loans the Templars had made or was on deposit as in modern banks.
If the Templars really were terribly rich, then where was all the money?
Before speculating on missing pots of gold and midnight runs through the streets, it would be a good idea to try to find out just how much the Templars had.
WHERE DID THE TEMPLARS’ MONEY COME FROM?
The first gift to the Templars, according to tradition, was the “Temple of Solomon” itself. “As they had neither a church nor a regular place to live, the king allowed them to live temporarily in a part of his palace, which was on the south side of the Temple of the Lord. The canons of the Temple of the Lord gave them the courtyard that they had that was near the palace, under certain conditions, for the saying of the Office.”9
The king was Baldwin II. He was living at the time (around 1120) in the al-Aqsa mosque and may have planned to have the Templars stay only until they could afford a place of their own. It turned out that the king moved first and let the knights have the whole building. 10Of course, the building was falling down and needed the roof repaired among other things, so it wasn’t quite such a generous donation as it might have seemed at first.11
The king and the patriarch of Jerusalem also gave the Templars funds to support themselves, in return for the knights’ promise to protect pilgrims on the road against thieves and highwaymen.12 We don’t know what these funds consisted of since the records have been lost but the most likely gifts would have been something that renewed itself, like rents or tithes.
The first donation recorded in Europe is from a certain William of Marseille. This was made before 1124, when the Grand Master, Hugh de Payns, arrived from Jerusalem to drum up support for the order. William divided the gift of a church in Marseille and all its property between the Knights of the Temple of Solomon, the Church of St. Marie, and the monks of St. Victor.13
A third of a church isn’t a bad start. However, the Templars soon sold their share to the bishop of Fréjus in return for eight sestiers of wheat, to be paid annually.14 That is about as much as a donkey could comfortably carry. It wouldn’t have been enough to make bread for a man to last a week.
It wasn’t until 1127, when Hugh de Payns and his comrades came back to Europe, that the order began to get some serious support.
Hugh went first to Fulk, count of Anjou, who had lived with the Templars for a time when he was on a pilgrimage to Jerusalem and gave them thirty livres a year.15It is said that King Henry I of England met with Hugh and his comrades in Normandy and gave them gold and silver and sent them on with letters of introduction.16 There are no records of Henry’s exact donations, but it is certain that his successor, Stephen, or to be more accurate, Stephen’s wife, Matilda of Boulogne, made one of the first donations of land in England. She gave the Templars a manor and church in the town of Cressyng with all that pertained to it, including woods and fields, ponds and rivers, as well as the toll from mills and also local taxes.17
Lords in Flanders, Champagne, Poitou, and Aragon gave similar donations.
After Hugh de Payns went back to Jerusalem, several Templars, perhaps newly recruited, stayed on to spread the word.18By 1150, the order had lands in France, Aragon, Castille, Flanders, England, Portugal, the various counties of Provence, and Germany.19
An example of typical property is the Templar house in the Rouergue, a fairly remote area near the Pyrenees, which was established in 1140. However the Cistercians and the Hospitallers had arrived there first. Though the Templars established a network of houses, cleared land, and received many gifts, the other orders still had a larger share in most places and there wasn’t always enough to go around. The Cistercians of Sylvane and the Templars and Hospitallers fought over the rights to tithes from local churches for over a hundred years. It came to the point that Templars began to be asked to witness donations made to the monks of Sylvane in the hope that the monks wouldn’t later contest the gifts.20 Perhaps this tendency to dispute the rights of others to receive donations was another case that gave the order a reputation for greed.
Southern France was one of the areas in which the Templars became well established. The land had sent many of its noblemen on the First Crusade and the counts of Toulouse and St. Gilles had relatives among the counts of Tripoli. Actually, most of the important centers of Templar commanderies—Flanders, France, Champagne, Aquitaine, and Provence—were the same areas that produced many of the settlers in the Latin kingdoms.
In most of western Europe, the land the Templars owned was used for farming and livestock. The Templar lay brothers, men who donated their services without becoming monks, did much of the farm work. There were also paid servants and, in Spain, even Moslem slaves to do the work.21 A few of the Templar knights lived at the commanderies, which were usually buildings that had been donated, but many of the houses were run by sergeants. Men of fighting age and ability were immediately sent overseas.
In the British Isles the Templars had farms that produced wheat, oats, rye, and barley. Some of this was for their own use, but some was sold. They also raised sheep and exported wool.22 They had an edge over lay wool sellers in that they were excused from having to pay customs duty. Of course, the Cistercians had the same exceptions and much larger holdings so the Templars could only capture a small share of the market.23
They did make some money by renting out the land they were given to small farmers. In some cases this was in return for a portion of the harvest, but the Templars preferred cash and, especially in good years, it was to the advantage of the farmer to pay a set amount annually.
We have a window into the Temple lands in England from a survey of their property made in 1185. It shows that the Templars owned and rented out many small plots of land. The renters paid in shillings and also in kind. Examples of this are not only ale and “2 capons at Christmas” or “15 eggs at Easter,” but also promises to serve on a local jury, reap half an acre of Templar fields, shoe six Templar horses, or plow either in spring or autumn.24
Some of the commanderies must have raised horses for the knights overseas. Jean de Joinville comments on the horses loaded in the hold of the ship at Marseille for Louis IX’s first crusade.25 There are other accounts of ships bringing horses for the use of the Templars. The warhorses used by European knights were specially bred to handle the weight of men and armor.26However, since most of the horses would have been used by the Templars themselves, breeding them probably didn’t produce much income.
The best income-producers of the time were mills and ovens. Many people gave Templars the rights to water mills, and one of the worst battles between the Hospitallers and Templars in the Latin kingdoms was over water and mill rights.27
Another source of income was the right to hold fairs. These were markets at which everything from local produce to imported luxury goods were sold. Merchants coming to the fairs had to pay for a spot to set up shop as well as a tax on the goods they brought to sell. The Templars could collect these fees as well as selling their own goods at the fairs without having to pay the same fees.
Again, there were complaints that the Templars were abusing this privilege. In around 1260, in the town of Provins, in Champagne, the local tradesmen complained to the count that the Templars were charging fees to merchants bringing wool into town for the fairs. The merchants reminded the count that for a penny a week, they had always been excused from paying what was basically sales tax. As a result of the fees imposed by the Templars, wool sellers were taking their goods elsewhere. “Sir,” they begged the count, “[w]e know truly that if you knew the great damage which you are suffering here from loss of rents, from your ovens, your mills, your fabric manufacturers and your other factories which you have here at Provins, and the great damage which your bourgeois are suffering . . . for God’s sake, help us.”28 Unfortunately, we don’t know how the count, Thibaud, responded to this poignant plea. Nor do we know how much the Templars earned from their extortion.
Another big source of income was from the privileges given to the Templars by the various popes. The first, given by Pope Innocent II, on March 29, 1139, was that the Templars could keep all the booty they captured.29 This was a privilege that the Benedictines and Cistercians hadn’t even thought of. In Spain especially, this was extremely profitable, although the order was often given land by the kings on condition that they conquer it themselves.30Booty also brought in a lot of income in the Holy Land, at least at the beginning. It was because of this that William of Tyre accused Grand Master Bernard of Tremeley of refusing to let anyone but Templars inside the walls of Ascalon when they had broken in. William insisted that Bernard was too greedy to let anyone else have a chance to loot the city.31
The pope also gave the Temple the right to build its own small churches and bury its members and “family” in them. The “family” was a very loose term, meaning the relatives of the brothers but also servants, their relatives, and anyone who had become a lay brother or lay sister of the house through a donation.
One of the worst bones of contention between the order and the local clergy grew out of the privilege given by Pope Celestine II on January 9, 1144. Celestine encouraged people to donate to the Temple by allowing them to ignore one-seventh of any penance a priest had given them. That wasn’t so bad. It didn’t cost anyone anything. The priest could adjust the penance. But then he allowed the Templars to come through villages once a year and open the churches in places that were under interdict. This meant that the Knights of the Temple got the donations that were given at marriages and burials that the local clergy couldn’t perform while the interdict lasted.32 This was literally a godsend for the order.
The biggest donation that the Templars ever received was one-third of a country. They didn’t get to keep it, but they traded it back to their advantage.
In 1134, Alfonso I of Aragon and Navarre, known as “the Battler,” died without direct heirs. Instead of finding some distant cousin to rule after him, he left the whole kingdom of Aragon to be divided between the Templars, the Hospitallers, and the canons of the Holy Sepulcher in Jerusalem.33
Before the celebrations in the commanderies were over, the beneficiaries of the will realized that the nobility of Aragon weren’t going to stand for that. They dragged Alfonso’s brother, Ramiro, out of a monastery, married him off, and crowned him king.34In Navarre, Count García Ramírez took over.
Pope Innocent II tried to get the terms of the will enforced, but it was impractical from the beginning. The Hospital and the canons of the Holy Sepulcher came to terms with the Spanish nobles by 1140. The Templars held out until 1143. Their settlement included castles, a tenth of royal revenues, one thousand solidos every year, a fifth of all lands conquered from the Moors, and exemption from some taxes.35
So the Templars (and the Hospitallers) had a wide variety of sources of income. But was it enough?
WHERE DID THE MONEY GO?
Critics such as Matthew Paris seem to have had the impression that the Templars and Hospitallers had more than enough money to conquer Saracen lands from Cairo to Baghdad. He and others were certain that the Templars spent all their money on a luxurious lifestyle and oriental decadence. Either that or they were misers, hoarding cash that should go to the struggle to regain the Holy Land.
Were they? What did they spend their money on?
First of all, the Knights Templar did not live like ordinary monks. Each knight brother had to have three horses and tack and one squire, a ration of barley for the horse, and armor, as well as regular clothing. He needed his own napkin and washcloth.36He also had a cook pot and bowl to measure the barley, drinking cups, two flasks, a bowl and spoon made of horn, and a tent, among other things.37
The sergeants got most of the same things as the knights, except for the tent and cook pot. They were allowed one horse each.
The average cost of a warhorse during the twelfth and thirteenth centuries was thirty-six livres.38 That’s more than the value of a good-sized manor. There are many stories about poor knights who sold or mortgaged their patrimony for a good horse. Most Templar knights brought at least one horse with them when they entered, but horses were just as often casualties of war as men and both were costly to replace.
The Templars also hired Turcopoles to fight with them. These men were Christian Syrians or sons of Greeks and Turks. They were trained as mounted archers in the Eastern style. Some of them were brothers of the order but most were paid mercenaries. The Templars had a master in charge of them, called a Turcopolier, who also was commander of the sergeant brothers in times of combat.39
Added to these, there was the cost of shipping men and equipment from West to East. By the middle of the thirteenth century, the Templars had some ships of their own, but they were costly to maintain, even if they took on paying passengers.
Also, not all of those donations came without strings.
For example, in April 1145, two women of Arles, Maria and Sclarmandia, and, oh yes, their husbands and all their children, sold property to the Templars. They were very specific about the money they would receive as a “gift” in return: 250 sous of Melgueil in new money and 150 sous in small change.40
Generally, the charters aren’t as up front about sales as this one was. Most people wanted it to appear that they were giving property or rights for the good of their souls. For instance, in 1142, a man named Arnaud gave the Templars “willingly, of my own accord all that I have or should have in the town of Burcafols.”41 He adds that he does this “for the love of God and the remission of my sins and those of my family and to receive life everlasting, Amen.”42 It’s only in the final sentences that it’s mentioned that the Templars are giving him fourteen livres morebetani and ten sous and a carton of wheat of the measure of Toulouse.43
Many times the price of the property being “donated” is called a “charity.” In 1152, Bernard Modul received forty sous from the Temple as charity for some land his brother had given the Templars of Douzens. Apparently Bernard also had a claim to the land. In return, Bernard released his claim.44
Reading through the surviving charters, it appears that a large part of the “donations” to the Templars were actually sales.
Also, the Templars accepted what were called “corrodians.” This system was something like the retirement homes that take a large fee up front and promise to house and feed the residents until they die. An early example of a Templar corrody comes from 1129. Pierre Bernard and his wife gave themselves and their property to the Temple. In exchange for this, the Templars promised to feed and clothe them for the rest of their lives. Pierre and his wife weren’t that old at the time, for they put in a clause about the care of their children, “if we have children.” 45 That meant that, while the Templars did get everything the donors owned, they might well be supporting the family for two generations.
In some cases the corrodies also included a set amount of money to be paid by the Templars every year along with “a tallow candle nightly, firewood as needed, and a groom assigned by the preceptor to serve them.”46
The Rule of the Templars implies that there are times when they expected to run short of ready money. “When the time after Easter comes for the great expenses that the houses have to pay from the harvests, and the commanders tell the Master that they don’t have enough meat, the Master may go to the brothers and ask their advice. And if the brothers agree to give up meat on Tuesday, then they may do without. But when the wheat is harvested, then the meat should be restored.”47Although the Templars tried to get rents in money, most of the time they seem to have been land rich and cash poor.
BANKERS TO THE KINGS
Outside of their military activity, the Templars are best remembered as financiers, holding the treasuries of England and France in their commanderies, making loans to all the best families of Europe, and transferring large amounts of funds from one end of the continent to the other.
The Templars seem to have gotten into the banking business almost by accident. It started with King Louis VII of France. On his expedition to Jerusalem in 1148, he ran short of money and borrowed from the Templars. He had to write home to his regent, the abbot Suger, telling him to pay the Templars in Paris “thirty thousand sous in the money of Poitou.”48Fortunately, Suger came through with the cash.
When Louis came home, he placed the royal treasury, what was left of it, in the safekeeping of the Templars in Paris.49 He made a Templar, Theirry Galeran, royal treasurer.50Galeran had been in Louis’ service for many years and had gone on the crusade with him.
From that time, the French royal treasury was generally in the care of the Templars. Under Louis’ son Philip Augustus, the treasurer of the Temple took in and counted the money the king received, under the watchful eyes of six of the burgesses of Paris and a M. Adam.51 The Templar brothers Giles and Hugh seem to have filled the same office under Saint Louis.52 Right up through the early years of King Philip the Fair, the Templars not only held the treasure for the king, but also kept an account of creditors and debtors and the amounts owed.53
However, the Temple in Paris was never more than a holding place for cash. The treasurer of the Templars was not normally a royal official. He did not have any part in financial planning nor did he audit accounts. The Temple took money in, stored it, and paid it out.54Most of the time the Templars were more like warehouse guards than bankers.
Statements were sent to the kings (and other clients) three times a year, at Candlemas (February 2), Ascension (forty days after Easter; the date changed), and All Saints’ Day (November 1). There are only a few fragments of these statements for the French kings. From one fragment we learn, however, that, in 1202/03 the provosts of Paris deposited 18,000 livres in the care of Brother Haimard at the Temple. The bailiffs deposited 37,000 livres with Brother Haimard and a further 5,000 livres with Brother Guérin.55In 1292 at Candlemas, the treasury took in 72,517 livres, 19 sols, and 7 denarii. Expenses were 125,000 livres, 1 sol, and 0 denarii. At Ascension, it took in 121,806 livres, 18 sols, and 3 denarii and paid out 111,073 livres, 9 sols, and 3 denarii.56
If it was good enough for the king of France, it was good enough for the nobility, too. Louis IX’s brother Alphonse of Poitiers had all his revenues sent directly to the Temple in Paris.57Alphonse even sent unrefined silver to the Temple from his mines in Orzals through the commander in Rouergue.58
The Templars even obliged by carrying depositors’ funds for them while on crusade. When Louis IX went on his first crusade and was unfortunate enough to be captured, Jean de Joinville broke into the money boxes belonging to some of the noblemen (over the protest of the Templar guarding them).59
There is some record of kings in other countries using the Temple as a safe place to keep their cash. In 1203, King Emeric of Hungary received a quantity of silver from Archbishop Urane and deposited it with the Templars.60
The Templars must have had some sort of holding fee for this, but they couldn’t and didn’t charge interest on loans and they also didn’t lend money left in their keeping.
It isn’t clear how much of the Templar income came from banking. They kept money for people at their commanderies and moved it from one side of the sea to the other. They made loans, especially to royalty. But kings are notoriously slow to repay. It seems that most of the money kept in Paris and London belonged to depositors. When Hubert de Burgh, the justiciar of King Henry III of England, fell from power, Henry tried to appropriate the money that Hubert had deposited at the Temple. The master refused to turn it over without Hubert’s permission.61 Hubert was “convinced” to give it.
There are several other cases where depositors’ money was stolen by the kings or nobleman. In 1263, Prince Edward went to the New Temple and “broke open a number of chests and carried off a large sum of money belonging to others.”62
Banking may have been more high profile than lucrative, and the dangers involved in transporting valuables were high. There is no indication that the Templars ever had mounds of cash and treasure for their own use, especially not in the London and Paris houses.
The Templars did not invent modern-style banking. For centuries Jews had been arranging among themselves to deposit funds at one place and pick them up at another. Most monasteries accepted goods for safekeeping and also loaned money at interest, despite prohibitions on usury.63 The Italian city-states, particularly Venice, Genoa, and Pisa, had a trading empire that including banking. The Templars were simply one group among many.
The difference is that the Templars were trusted by royalty, particularly the kings of France and England, to handle their business affairs. The Temple commanderies in both London and Paris served as the royal treasuries. This meant that the treasure stored there belonged to the king. It could be retrieved at any time. The Templars took a fee for guarding it but they didn’t dare use it to invest in other loans or enterprises.
Sometimes the Templars themselves needed to transmit funds. In 1304, Walter de la More, Templar master of England, needed to travel to see the Grand Master. He paid a sum to a group of Florentine bankers, the Mari, who had an office in London. Walter was supposed to retrieve it at the Mari bank in Paris but the Paris officers of the company had skipped town.64No reason is given as to why Walter hadn’t handled the matter through the Temple, but it’s possible that he wasn’t sure there would be enough cash in the Paris commandery to take care of his needs.
The Templars did indeed have a lot of property in western Europe, but they usually didn’t receive rent for it in money, but in produce. Part of their earnings went to feed the poor and themselves. Also, one-third of everything that was taken in went to the East to maintain the fighting force.
FOR years some people have been assuming that somehow in 1307 all the commanderies in France got wind of the impending arrests and either hid or removed everything of value. Then they all just went to bed and waited for the king’s men to come for them. I find this hard to believe. First of all, it implies an amazing lack of self-preservation among the knights. But mostly, it seems very unlikely that all the bustle of collecting and sending away valuables could have been accomplished without someone noticing. The streets of Paris were narrow and crowded. Carts big enough to carry tons of treasure couldn’t have made it through. Also, there were city gates that were shut every evening and guarded. If anyone had tried to get out with a large amount of goods, they would have been stopped and the boxes searched. If the Templars had tried to get away by the Seine River, they still would have had to cross town to do it.
The entire city would have heard them.
Finally, the supposed treasure not only has never been found but it has never even been described. All these things together make me think that nothing left Paris from the Temple before the arrests.
The treasure of the Templars, if there was any, wouldn’t have been in London or Paris in any case, but in Cyprus in the Templar headquarters. On the day of their arrest in Cyprus, an inventory was taken of Templar goods. At Nicosia, along with a lot of crossbows and foodstuffs were 120,000 white bezants (coins made of a mix of silver and some gold). That seems like a lot to me but legends begin early, and a near contemporary chronicler insists that “no one knew where in the world they hid the rest, nor has anyone been able to find out.”65
Matthew Paris, Chronicles, ed. and tr. Richard Vaughan (Gloucester: Sutton, 1894) p. 241.
Please see The Templars and the Saint for more on this episode. For William, see Grand Masters 1191-1292/93.
Please see How to Tell if You Are Reading Pseudohistory.
Georges Lizerand, Le Dossier de l’Affaire des Templiers (Paris, 1923) p. 47.
Ibid., p. 50, “cervoise pour les garsons et pour les ouvriers.”
Ibid., “qui est a la fame mons. Roger de Planes et est en gages, si comme le cammandoour et Bertin deu Couisel disoient.”
Ibid., p. 52.
Evelyn Lord, The Knights Templar in Britain (London, 2002) pp. 27-30. I find it very responsible of the master not to keep a loaded crossbow in the house.
William of Tyre, Chronique, ed. R. B. C Huygens (Turnholt, 1986) 12, 7, p. 553. “Quibus quoniam neque eccesia erat neque certum habebant domicilium, rex in palatio suo, quod secus Templum Domini ad australem habet partem eis ad tempus concessit hibiaculum, canonici vero Templi Domini plateam, quam circa predictum habebant platinum, ad opus officiarum certis quibusdam conditionibus concesserunt.”
This often happens. Baldwin moved into what was called the “Tower of David.” Since he had four daughters, he may have been looking for a place with more bathrooms.
Adrian J. Boas, Jerusalem in the Time of the Crusades: Society, Landscape and Art in the Holy City Under Frankish Rule (London: Routledge, 2001) p. 79. Boas quotes the chronicler, Fulcher of Chartres. “Because of our lack of resources we were not able even to maintain this building in the condition in which we found it. For this reason it is mostly destroyed.”
William of Tyre, 12, 7, p. 554.
Marquis d’Albon, Cartulaire de l’Ordre du Temple (Paris, 1912) p. 2.
Please see chapter 11, Fulk of Anjou.
Thomas W. Parker, The Knights Templars in England (University of Arizona Press, 1983) p. 15.
D’Albon no. 124, p. 87.
Please see chapter 8, Go Forth and Multiply.
D’Albon listed every charter he could find from 1119 through 1150. The compilation is 500 pages.
Paul Orliac, La Cartulaire de La Selve, La Terre, Les Hommes at le Pouvior en Rouergue au XIIe Siècle (Paris, 1985) p. 76.
Alan Forey, The Templars in the Corona of Aragon.
Parker, pp. 52-53.
Ibid., p. 56.
Malcolm Barber and Keith Bate, The Templars: Selected Sources Translated and Annotated (Manchester University Press, 2002) pp. 184-90.
Jean de Joinville, Histoire de Saint Louis tr. M. Natalis de Wailly (Paris, 1865) p. 57.
R. H. C. Davis, The Medieval Warhorse (London, 1989) pp. 65-97. Page 62 also has a neat illustration of how the horses were boarded on the ships.
Helen Nicholson, The Knights Templar (London, 2001) p. 183.
Nicholson, p. 191. One interesting thing about this is that the wool the merchants were selling was still on the sheep. They were being charged for selling wool futures.
Omne Datum Optimum, in d’Albon, p. 376. “Ea etiam que de eorum spoiliis ceperitis, fidenter in usus vestros convertatis, et, ne de his, contra velle vestrum, portionem alicui dare cogamini, prohibemus.”
Alan Forey, The Templars in the Corona of Aragon (Oxford University Press, 1973) p. 25ff.
William of Tyre, 17, 27, pp. 797-99.
Milites Templi, in Rudolf Heistand, Papsturkunden für Templar und Johanniter (Göttingen, 1972) p. 215, “si forte locus ipse indterdictus sit, . . . in anno aperiantur ecclesie et et exclusis excommunicates divina official celebrentur.”
Forey, p. 17.
Joseph F. O’Callaghan, A History of Medieval Spain (Cornell University Press, 1975) pp. 233 and 258. Ramiro did his duty, had a daughter to inherit, and returned to the monastery.
Forey. p. 22.
Contrary to popular opinion, people in the Middle Ages did wash.
Laurent Dailliez, Régle et Statuts de l’Ordre du Temple (Paris, 1972) p. 143, rule no. 140.
Charles Gladitz, Horse Breeding in the Medieval World (Dublin: Four Courts Press, 1997) p. 158.
Dailliez, p. 152, rules no. 169 and 170.
D’Albon, p. 227, no. 352, “ccl solidos Melgoriensis nove monete et cl solidos de numis.”
Cartulaire des Templiers de Douzens ed. Pierre Gérard and Élisabeth Magnou (Bibliothéque Nationale, 1965) p. 114, no. 121.
Douzens, p. 115, no. 121.
Ibid., p. 51, no. 41.
Ibid., p. 269, no. 11.
Parker, p. 23.
Dailliez, p. 130, rule no. 96.
Sugerii Abbatis S. Dionysii, Opera, Episotolae LVII and LVIII, columns 1377-1378. “Debet autem eis reddere triginta milia solidorum Pictaviensis monetae, de quisbus licet mihi bonum responsum dederit.”
Achille Luchaire, Institutions Françaises (Paris, 1892) p. 588.
Sugerii, column 1402, in a letter from the Archbishop of Sens. “Vidimus enim fratrem Geleranum, qui custodiet Parisiu domum Templi, redeuntem a dominus rege.”
Ferdinand Lot and Robert Fawtier, Histoire des Institutions Franaise au Moyen Age: Tome II—Institutions Royale (Paris, 1958) p. 188
Luchaire, p. 589.
Bryce Lyon and A. E. Verhulst, Medieval Finance (Brown University Press, 1967) p. 41.
John W. Baldwin, The Government of Philip Augustus: Foundations of French Royal Power in the Middle Ages (California University Press, 1986) p. 166.
Lot and Fawtier, p. 191. Until everything was put on the decimal system, the l, s, and d became the shorthand for “pounds, shillings and pence” in England, just in case you ever wondered.
Boutaric, Louis IX et Alphonse de Poitiers (Brionne, 1879) pp. 181-312. There is no indication that the Templars were financial advisers. They simply took in the money and kept accounts.
Boutaric, pp. 208-10. The records don’t say who refined the silver.
Jean de Joinville, “Life of St. Louis,” in Chronicles of the Crusades tr. M.R.B. Shaw (Penguin, 1963) p. 259.
Thomas of Spalato, ExThomae Historia Pontificum Salonitanorum et Spalatinorum in Monumenta Germania Historia Scriptores ed. G. H. Pertz. Vol. 29, p. 577.
Parker, p. 60. From his prison cell, Hubert gave the required permission. What a good sport!
Ibid., p. 61.
Bernard of Clairvaux.
Demurger, p. 121.
Amaldi, quoted in Alain Demurger, Jacques de Malay: Le crepuscule des templiers (Biographie—Payot, Paris, 2002) p. 319, note 27. “Il resto havevano nascoso cosi secramente che alcun del mondo non ha possuto saver niente di quello.” Demurger adds, “Courage treasure seekers! It’s to Cyprus one must go!”