Cross worn on back

[ECOX]

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?

[Sir Matthew]

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.

[Sir Wolf]

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.

[Sir Brian]

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. 

[Sir Edward]

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.

[ECOX]

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?".

[Sir William]

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.

[Sir Gerard de Rodes]

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.

[Sir Edward]

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.

[Sir William]

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! 

[Sir Gerard de Rodes]

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
G.

[Sir William]

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

[Sir Edward]

Not to mention, activity-related impacts on physiology are not inherited genetically, by definition.

[Sir William]

That's the soundest argument right there...and probably the very same one the surgeon tried to make.

[SirNathanQ]

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*