ModernChivalry.org
Main => The Round Table => Topic started by: ECOX on 2011-08-09, 03:20:47
-
I had a Gentleman tell me that crusaders always wore their crosses facing toward Jerusalem. IE; worn on their back when returning home. I haven't found any reference to this. The man that told was a Knight in a jousting troupe. I didn't ask a lot of questions figuring I would just Google it. Has anyone here heard of this?
-
That would be a new bit of info to me. Maybe Sir Nathan might know something about this, he seems to be our resident Crusade expert.
-
ya i have never heard this at all either. doesnt mean its not true but also doesnt mean it true either. kinda sounds like one of those rumor things. ;)
-
Or some Templar was in a rush to don his armor one morning and put his surcoat on backwards and explained away his fashion faux pas by stating he wanted his cross to always face Jerusalem. ;)
Sort of like the other fashion faux pas rumor of wearing one’s pants halfway down their buttocks trying to look cool in reality it was a fashion statement started in prison by the prison “bitches” as a form of advertisement. :P
-
I haven't heard it either, but that doesn't necessarily mean anything. I still find all sorts of little tid-bits whenever I read something new.
Sometimes a little "factoid" might be fictitious, but represented as fact in a single book, and then it becomes a rumor with a life of its own. Or, it could be just a little-known fact.
Not all of the jousters are real historians, so I wouldn't take it as fact until some documentation can be found.
Now I'm curious. No idea where to find out about it though.
-
Thanks guys. I have not found reference to it in the limited searches I have done. So I will have to dismiss it for now as rumor and file it away. Sir Brian I like your explanation, and when I see a young lad sagging I have to say to myself.."do you know just what statement you are making?".
-
Everything I've read only mentions the crosses worn over the heart when knights first took the cross for the First Crusade...it was normally sewn/attached to an existing surcoat; as far as Templars go...I have not read anything to suggest other than what is commonly known.
-
Everything I've read only mentions the crosses worn over the heart when knights first took the cross for the First Crusade...it was normally sewn/attached to an existing surcoat; as far as Templars go...I have not read anything to suggest other than what is commonly known.
I agree, over the heart seems to be the general consensus. I think the jousting chap has got some facts mixed up. ???
G.
-
At least he wasn't saying that the spurs were really for kicking people, and should be angled outward. Coming from a jouster, or any equestrian in general, that would be really bad. :)
-
Orcs have no armor on their back sides, did you know that? With the exception of the head. It is because they are not supposed to run, but if they prove craven and DO run, they are largely unprotected. There's a factoid for ya! ;)
-
I had to bite my lip, once, when I overheard a re-enactor telling a MOP that if they knew anyone with a haunched back that they must have had archers as ancestors. The MOP turned out to be a surgeon and no matter how much he argued about how he "thought" human anatomy worked, the re-enactor swore it to be true. I had to walk away in the end it was far too embarrassing :o :o :o :o
G.
-
That was hilarious...how is being hunchbacked attributed to an archer? Given the amount of strength needed to draw it, I think they'd be anything but hunchbacked, which could only limit their motion. Where'd that guy get his info from? LOL
-
Not to mention, activity-related impacts on physiology are not inherited genetically, by definition. :)
-
That's the soundest argument right there...and probably the very same one the surgeon tried to make.
-
Thank you for the generous compliment Sir Mathew! :)
And I concur with what the rest of my brethren here, there is nothing I have seen or read that would evidence this. With crosses being a quite prominent symbol in Heraldry in general, I think this would cause some serious confusion.
And then with the Baltic crusades, The crusades of Europe, and the reconquista, there would be no bloody way to know if your cross is facing Jerusalem at all!
And at the reenactor, is he attempting to ruin our credibility? *Forehead slap*
-
The Primitive Rule of the Templars does state that Sergeants would wear crosses on front and back. This is probably because alot of them would be working with locally hired Turcopoles and clothing would likely mirror that of local enemies, it would be easier for a mounted Brother to recognise a dismounted ally (Seargeants and some Turcopoles fought on foot) in the midst of a Theological scrum in the Outremer.
Also, since many a Church Bishop, priest, and or vision recipient liked to tie biblical events to their actions, isit not hard to believe thata cross on the back would symbolize that of Christ carrying the cross as well......just a thought. ;D
-
Well my reading does nothing to mention it worn ONLY on the back, I think for Identification purposes, foot soldiers might bear a cross on their back in addition to one in front.
-
That is interesting, Frater...do you have any links to those references?
-
The Primitive Rule of the Templars does state that Sergeants would wear crosses on front and back.
That makes sense. You'd want your foot soldiers to be identifiable.
But I think the initial statement was that the knights wore their surcoats backward on the way back from crusade.
BTW, great avatar image. "Infidel inside"... lol :)
-
I still wouldn't have heard anything about it, I would be interested in seeing evidence of that though
-
I didn't find any references to it when I did a quick google search...might've worded it wrong, though.
-
That is interesting, Frater...do you have any links to those references?
Ser William,
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.
-
what year was this put into place?
-
BTW, great avatar image. "Infidel inside"... lol :)
My thanks.
-
Orcs have no armor on their back sides, did you know that? With the exception of the head. It is because they are not supposed to run, but if they prove craven and DO run, they are largely unprotected. There's a factoid for ya! ;)
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
That is interesting, Frater...do you have any links to those references?
Ser William,
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.
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.
-
what year was this put into place?
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.
-
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
Figures...he would've had to have gotten it from somewhere, right? ;)
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.
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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".
-
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!
-
Well in fact the Idea of what a crusade was wasn't anywhere close to being settled in 1095. The Vatican had at the time gotten around with the ideas of just war, and various benefits to those who fought in the reconquista, but not a full blown crusade.
In period they were known as armed pilgrimages, and not crusades.
The real establishment of what in fact the spiritual benefit even was (a blessing, a penance, an indulgence, ect) weren't really laid out until Pope Innocent lll really delved headfirst into the Idea. In fact the earliest uses and meaning of the term Crusade simply as a drive to create a state centered upon he city of Jerusalem.
And Just Wondering, is the source period? If so, had he personally been on Crusade, or was he simply writing a form of Documentary? If not, credentials and further examination of material. I am interested in this, but I would like to see to the sources credibility first.
-
I was talking about "recruiting" techniques, not what the main event was to be titled. ;D
-
Huzzah Frater !!! I am humbled by just how little I know. The more I read on here, the thirstier I get to learn more.
-
Brother ECOX, Greetings an Pax vobiscum. Good to see the colors you've declared! ;)
-
But still, the Papacy wasn't really in any sense recruiting. Often those leading the crusade did so without actually thinking themselves under any kind (besides spiritual) or subservience to the Vatican.
-
Maybe "recruiting" is too ambiguous a term, maybe more like; where to focus the efforts of the armed Faithful in support of long term objectives and in an intrest to up hold the focus of the Peace/Truce of God (spiritual sanctions in order to limit the violence of armed Christians and restless Chivalry against the common man and churchmen of the time).
:P ;)
-
Tecumque amice Frater. I have always been drawn to The Templar cross with out knowing much about it. I find now that my kit has some much needed improvements. :)
-
with all the knowledge here now i'm sure you will have a 100% awesome kit in no time.
-
Lol, much simpler! ;D
I just didn't like the sound of recruitment, too many inaccurate connotations could be drawn by the unknowing.
Yes, we need more military order kits! Stick with it, you'll have it in no time. :)
-
I had a Gentleman tell me that crusaders always wore their crosses facing toward Jerusalem. IE; worn on their back when returning home. I haven't found any reference to this. The man that told was a Knight in a jousting troupe. I didn't ask a lot of questions figuring I would just Google it. Has anyone here heard of this?
Irrelevant seeing most Order knights/crusaders wearing tunics, surcoats had their crosses beared also upon their riding capes so ..... I wouldn't give that supposed practice or myth much on merit but who knows. Ritualistic practices were not commonly shared in writing outside of those who engaged in them. But it is interesting none the less.
-
Well in fact the Idea of what a crusade was wasn't anywhere close to being settled in 1095. The Vatican had at the time gotten around with the ideas of just war, and various benefits to those who fought in the reconquista, but not a full blown crusade.
In period they were known as armed pilgrimages, and not crusades.
The real establishment of what in fact the spiritual benefit even was (a blessing, a penance, an indulgence, ect) weren't really laid out until Pope Innocent lll really delved headfirst into the Idea. In fact the earliest uses and meaning of the term Crusade simply as a drive to create a state centered upon he city of Jerusalem.
And Just Wondering, is the source period? If so, had he personally been on Crusade, or was he simply writing a form of Documentary? If not, credentials and further examination of material. I am interested in this, but I would like to see to the sources credibility first.
Pope Urban II would have had a great future in marketing. ::)