Main > The Round Table
Cross worn on back
Frater de Beaumanoir:
--- Quote from: Sir Wolf on 2011-08-11, 00:36:23 ---what year was this put into place?
--- End quote ---
It looks to be around 1163: The Retrais et Etablissements de Temple consisting of some 675 additional articles was added to the Rule, covering – the conventual life, defining the hierarchical status, regulating the chapters, election of the Grand Master, determining the penance and punishments for violations of the Rule and Statutes and admission to the Order. Pope Alexander III (1158-81) issued a Bull recognising the amended Rule and declaring the Templars a Sovereign Authority.
Sir William:
--- Quote from: James Anderson III on 2011-08-12, 04:54:17 ---Early samurai had a similar concept. They had a 5-piece body armor. Front, both sides, and the two small sides in the rear (about 1/3 each). But nothing in the center rear to cover the spine area. There was a separate, unattached plate that could be inserted there, called a "se ita" - japanese for "coward's plate" - and it was a sign of cowardice to wear one, as it meant you intended to turn your back on the enemy (and run) if necessary. Of course, if they're running from orcs, it would get interesting... :D
--- End quote ---
Figures...he would've had to have gotten it from somewhere, right? ;)
--- Quote from: Frater de Beaumanoir on 2011-08-11, 00:11:57 ---Please find my reference in J.M.Upton-Ward's The Rule of the Templars: statute 141 on page 54- The surcoats of Sergeant Brothers should be completely black, with a red cross on the front and back.
--- End quote ---
--- Quote from: James Anderson III ---That sounds very similar to the hospitalers. For a time, sergeants wore black with a white cross, while other members wore red with a white cross. That was only from 1259-1279, per Pope Innocent IV. However, that was the 'standard' dictated, but variance from the standard is certainly possible. Absence of evidence not meaning evidence of absence, as Oakeshott said.
In regards to wearing the cross on the back while returning from crusades to face Jerusalem, I've never heard of that. From a logical standpoint, if the cross were to face TO Jerusalem, and they were crusading FROM Jerusalem, they would be wearing it backwards while GOING on the crusade, and wearing it forwards while RETURNING. Based just on that, I'd have to disagree with what the jouster said, unless everyone walked backwards to and from.
--- End quote ---
Sir James, I believe that would need to be predicated on the assumption that there was only the one cross on the front of the surcoat; Frater mentions an entry to the Templar Rule that notes the use of crosses on front and back of the serjeant...but what about the knight? I don't have the book so I can't look it up.
I had a thought- that the idea of the 'cross facing Jerusalem' is similar to the Muslims who all pray facing Mecca- could be that that was the intent.
Frater de Beaumanoir:
I've been through several of my books (I haven't stopped looking), and so far the only references to cross locations besides that of the Templar Rule, are Spanish sources during the Reconquista (that predate Urban's 1095 speech) that talk about the cross being placed on the right shoulder.
For those coming back there's mention of the wearing of scallop shells (especially in Spanish pilgrimages) and the wearing of palm fronds found near the river Jordan.
Frater de Beaumanoir:
A History of the Crusades, Vol. III: The Kingdom of Acre and the Later Crusades by Mr Steven Runciman has the following statement in it:
On the breast of their tunics the crusaders wore a cross of blood-red cloth. Those who returned from the crusade wore the cross on their backs.
I haven't found this anywhere else.....yet. It's interesting to note that with all the privilidges accorded to someone that went on crusade to the Holy Land (safe keeping of his possessions, no legal proceedings against one's person until their return, etc) that they would place a very visual symbol of their recent efforts on the hardest spot for one to be easily recognized upon their return from theater. When traveling home, most likely by foot (even after sailing home to a nearby port, as they would have already surrendered any personal wealth they had carried), one would see the returning pilgrims front and not the rear of his coat.
With the additional of an air of mystique about them, due to their distant travels, I would think it would have served them better on their front, to ward off miscreants, or open the donating hearts of those who couldn't make the pilgrimage/crusade.
They too probably had their share of "stolen valor" episodes with some donning the Cross, who'd never made the trip, but sought to gain the fame and privilidges of returning Crusaders.
Again in resources covering the Reconquista, the crosses were placed upon the right shoulder. It should be noted that the privilidges and remissions given by Urban II in 1095, had already been done so by him to Crusaders fighting Moors on the Iberian peninsula years earlier. By 1095 the Papal authorities seemed to have perfected their approach to "recruiting".
Sir Edward:
Interesting, so there's at least one source that mentions it then. I'd still find it more solid if multiple sources mentioned it. But that's a great start. Fantastic!
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version