Problems with templar kit -- myArmoury.com

Luka Borscak · Posted: Mon 13 May, 2013 3:57 am Post subject: Problems with templar kit

So, I have decided to equip myself as a Knight Templar and to have a role in my reenactment group of a Templar who survived the battle of Sajo in 1241 against Mongols in Hungary and now fights the Mongols who are on a move from Hungary to Croatia across the frozen Drava river during the winter and loot the area during the spring of 1242. The problem is that I don't know if I should paint my shield black over white or white over black with a red cross on white, I've seen both versions, the second on a fresco in a Templar church in Perugia and the first version painted by Matthew Paris (two knights on one horse, and they have black over white shields). Also I'm not sure how should cape and surcoat look so I'm looking for help with that too. I only know that the red cross should be on the top left side of the surcoat, right? Although that doesn't sound very logical as that part would be covered by a shield in a fight...

Lin Robinson · Posted: Mon 13 May, 2013 8:56 am Post subject:

There are a number of versions of the Templar shield and the banner - the Beausant - from which the shield decoration is taken. The simplest is a black over white version. Others are black over white with the cross. Matthew Paris was not that reliable and, no matter what the source, it is good to remember that artistic license was common in the Middle Ages. My personal feeling is the plain black over white design reflects the simplicity of the Order during their heyday and is preferable. The placement of the cross on the surcoat is another matter entirely. The Primitive Rule of the Order does not say anything about placement of the cross but, and again this is my opnion only, I believe they probably wore it over the left breast on the surcoat and on the robe or mantle, which was worn when they were not at war. The shield and the pennant on the lance, assuming you are carrying one, will be sufficient identification so obscuring the cross with the shield should be not be an issue.

Keep in mind that the Templar Rule changed over the existence of the Order and that in later years it was sometimes ignored by the membership. There were also "confrere knights" who were called upon as needed to fight for the Order and for whom the Rule was relaxed. These were married men in many cases whose vow was conjugal chastity rather than celibacy.

Best wishes on your portrayal of a Templar.

Luka Borscak · Posted: Thu 16 May, 2013 10:17 am Post subject:

Thanks Lin! So most sources say black over white? Is Perugia fresco only proof for white over black with a cross? is there any place online where one could read the Templar rule? Either Latin or French...

Gabriele Becattini · Posted: Fri 17 May, 2013 5:07 am Post subject:

i have seen also a french wall painting with a red cross on White shield,

search on Google for cressac templar fresco

Mart Shearer · Posted: Fri 17 May, 2013 7:15 am Post subject:

I'm not sure the Cressac wall paintings are, with certainty, brothers of the Temple. "Taking the cross" was a literal thing before going on Crusade, with cloth being provided so the cross could be sewn to the clothing.

Not every red cross on white is guaranteed to be a Templar: St. George (and St. Demetrius) were popular military saints and patrons of the Crusades.
http://manuscriptminiatures.com/picture-bible-kb-76-f-5/4491/

Lin Robinson · Posted: Fri 17 May, 2013 8:18 am Post subject:

Luka Borscak · Posted: Tue 21 May, 2013 8:59 am Post subject:

Thanks for the links! When I will think my kit is decent enough, I'll post pics. Happy

Phil D. · Posted: Tue 21 May, 2013 10:16 am Post subject:

"Here is what Burman says:

Armor - Mail coif with helmet. Mail leggings and protection for the feet and shoulders. While not mentioned I think we can assume a mail hauberk. A triangular shield with curved sides.

Weapons - Broad sword, lance, Turkish mace (iron head with spikes), three daggers - one on the belt, one pocket knife and one described as a very short knife with a long blade. This probably refers to the proportions of hilt and blade."

The above description that Lin posted reminds me of a drawing from an osprey book...it even shows the three daggers...

Mart Shearer · Posted: Tue 21 May, 2013 12:19 pm Post subject:

Burman's assertian that the "Turkish" mace was spiked seems dubious to me. Spiked, knobby, and polygonal maces seem to be the norm in Europe before the Crusades, while flanged maces are more common in the Middle East. I suspect the "Tukish" mace was a flanged style. Shawn Caza's web article is an excellent resource.
http://otlichnik.tripod.com/medmace2.html
http://otlichnik.tripod.com/medmace3.html

Lin Robinson · Posted: Tue 21 May, 2013 12:23 pm Post subject:

So it does. I have that Osprey book but did not even look at it while writing my post. But, you are right, all the elements described by Burman are there. I guess the artist and author of the Osprey book either referred to Burman or to the Rule to develop the illustration. The Burman book was out quite a while before the Osprey book.

Lin Robinson · Posted: Tue 21 May, 2013 12:27 pm Post subject:

Luka Borscak · Posted: Fri 24 May, 2013 2:35 pm Post subject:

Is this picture new or old? It looks 13th century to me, but I'm not sure, some details make me cautious about it... And I can't find any info about it...