Arcadia Discussion Zone

Forums dedicated to history's mysteries, Rennes-le-Château and beyond…

Read the Arcadia Forum House Rules

It is currently 19 May 2013 1:01 am

All times are UTC




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 659 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 27  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 1:48 pm 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2009 3:29 am
Posts: 7186
Location: Texas
Image

The Knights Templar had a strong presence in La Rochelle since before the time of Eleanor of Aquitaine, who exempted them from duties and gave them mills in her 1139 Charter.[4] La Rochelle was for the Templars their largest base on the Atlantic Ocean,[5] and where they stationed their main fleet.[6] From La Rochelle, they were able to act as intermediaries in trade between England and the Mediterranean.[5] There is a legend that the Templars used the port of La Rochelle to flee with the fleet of 18 ships which had brought Jacques de Molay from Cyprus to La Rochelle. The fleet would have left laden with knights and treasures just before the issuance of the arrest warrant against the Order in October 1307,[7][8] and the legend continues that the Templars would even have left for America, burying a treasure in Oak Island, Nova Scotia, Canada (a story taken up in the 2004 movie National Treasure starring Nicolas Cage).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rochelle

Bill you have made a great point :)

_________________
Everything is Connected and there are no
coincidences


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 2:11 pm 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2009 3:29 am
Posts: 7186
Location: Texas
Bill
there is a story that Joinville may have tipped off the Templars the night before their arrest
No one knew how bad it was going to get...Capetians were after the treasure and to get rid of his debt


And the headquarters of the Templars was probably Scotland

_________________
Everything is Connected and there are no
coincidences


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 3:14 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 11 Nov 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 2503
Location: traverse city,michigan
lovuian wrote:
Image

The Knights Templar had a strong presence in La Rochelle since before the time of Eleanor of Aquitaine, who exempted them from duties and gave them mills in her 1139 Charter.[4] La Rochelle was for the Templars their largest base on the Atlantic Ocean,[5] and where they stationed their main fleet.[6] From La Rochelle, they were able to act as intermediaries in trade between England and the Mediterranean.[5] There is a legend that the Templars used the port of La Rochelle to flee with the fleet of 18 ships which had brought Jacques de Molay from Cyprus to La Rochelle. The fleet would have left laden with knights and treasures just before the issuance of the arrest warrant against the Order in October 1307,[7][8] and the legend continues that the Templars would even have left for America, burying a treasure in Oak Island, Nova Scotia, Canada (a story taken up in the 2004 movie National Treasure starring Nicolas Cage).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Rochelle

Bill you have made a great point :)



You are correct, Lov, there were 18 vessels. 6 were galleys and 12 shallops, I have the names of 5 of the galleys. If the order did not know of the impending arrests, why wouldn't they all have been arrested, and how could any of the vessels escaped. If Clement was not involved with the arrest why did he issue the arrest order of November 22nd that involved the rest of RCC controlled Europe. Why wouldn't some have escaped to Scotland? Nope too many questions (and I have only mentioned a few). As for the vessels, the order was known to have licensed at least two for english ports many years earlier, as well as selling at least one other, all 3 galleys. If Roger and Tim can prove me wrong then I will accept that, but saying I am wrong does not cut it. That is a beautiful photo of La Rochelle btw, and the entrance towers are in the same location as they were hundreds of years ago, also the NW dock area is in the same location.---Bill

Actually the evidence shows they were tipped off several weeks earlier

_________________
on the trail of the grail


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 5:05 pm 
Offline
High King
User avatar

Joined: 04 Dec 2008 7:15 pm
Posts: 2047
Location: Vienna, Austria
Roger wrote:
There was no "fleet" at La Rochelle, only a few cargo vessels (only 3 that can actually be documented)

Interesting. Roger, do you recall where this is documented? Is it in "Michelet, Procès des Templiers, t. II, Paris, 1851, p. 6-11, Interrogatoire de Guillaume de Lege"?


I wonder who started that "hearsay" about these 18 vessels in La Rochelle .... Charroux? :shock:

BTW.
the Knight Templars' main harbour in Europe anyway wasn't La Rochelle. It was Collioure next to Perpignan, right? :|


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 6:24 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 11 Nov 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 2503
Location: traverse city,michigan
Roger wrote:
Quote:
If Roger and Tim can prove me wrong then I will accept that, but saying I am wrong does not cut it. That is a beautiful photo of La Rochelle btw, and the entrance towers are in the same location as they were hundreds of years ago, also the NW dock area is in the same location


That's not how it works, poopsie... You're making assertions that fly in the face of the facts, so it's on YOU to prove them by citing your sources (and I think I know where you're getting this crap about 18 ships!) and to make your case for this new and exciting discovery of yours.

BTW, you point out yourself that La Rochelle's old harbour is pretty much configured as it was at that time... so think about the nonsense you're promoting.... Perhaps you have insufficient knowledge of these old ships to notice how preposterous your claim really is?

Why don't you let the Templars be in peace... and confine your fantasies to a new imaginary Order? Believe me, your target audience for the book will be very excited and won't mind at all.

Before you get all indignant and weepy, read this: "Michelet, Procès des Templiers, t. II, Paris, 1851, p. 6-11, Interrogatoire de Guillaume de Lege"



Ah, but that is how it works for me Roger, I have formed opinions from what I admit is controversial evidence, but it has led me to some unusual discoveries. Now if someone can prove my opinions wrong, I would have to change my thinking somewhat.

Now you might think this rude, but after you think about it for awhile you will understand what I am saying. You are what I call a professional detractor, but detractors are needed, all kinds of folks are needed to balance this world. Heck, in america we even have democrats.

Oh, and bty, I have read some "Jules Michelet" and also "Malcolm Barber".---Bill

_________________
on the trail of the grail


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 7:21 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 11 Nov 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 2503
Location: traverse city,michigan
Roger wrote:
Quote:
You are what I call a professional detractor


No need to be so sensitive about being confronted with facts.

You are what I call an "historical acid-freak", how's that for balance?

BTW, your "opinions" don't rise to the level of an opinion, since a proper opinion is based on an analysis of facts. You ignore the facts, preferring "controversial sources" (which MOST people simply call fantasies) so your "opinions are merely "feelings"... And suspect "feelings" at that, since they appear to be commercially motivated.

Have a nice day. :roll:


opin-ion 1: a belief stronger than an impression but less strong than positive knowledge

I could not find "historical acid-freak"

I didn't think I was being sensitive, certainly not weepy.---Bill

_________________
on the trail of the grail


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 7:31 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
lovuian wrote:
Bill
there is a story that Joinville may have tipped off the Templars the night before their arrest


Wow, really Lov? Did he text them or tweet them? :lol:

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 7:39 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
wayward wrote:
Actually the evidence shows they were tipped off several weeks earlier


Yeah, I guess if I had several weeks' advance notice that the king's gendarmes were coming to arrest me on trumped-up charges, I'd wait in bed in my pajamas for the knock on the door too. :roll:

What "evidence" are you referring to, Bill?

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 7:43 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
wayward wrote:
If Roger and Tim can prove me wrong then I will accept that, but saying I am wrong does not cut it.


I highly doubt that possibility, Bill, as you've steadily shown yourself to be indifferent to proof or even common sense. So it's really more a matter of persuasion, and no amount of evidence will persuade someone whose mind is made up to automatically reject. it.

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 8:44 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 11 Nov 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 2503
Location: traverse city,michigan
TCP wrote:
wayward wrote:
If Roger and Tim can prove me wrong then I will accept that, but saying I am wrong does not cut it.


I highly doubt that possibility, Bill, as you've steadily shown yourself to be indifferent to proof or even common sense. So it's really more a matter of persuasion, and no amount of evidence will persuade someone whose mind is made up to automatically reject. it.

TCP


please understand Tim, neither you nor Roger has shown me proof of anything, only your own interpretation of the evidence. I don't happen to agree with your interpretation, even if others do.---Bill

_________________
on the trail of the grail


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 15 May 2010 9:44 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 11 Nov 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 2503
Location: traverse city,michigan
Roger wrote:
LOL!

Why don't you suspend your natural recalcitrance towards the facts, for just a wee bit, and see if you can bend your mind around this... Calculate the space required for 6 galleys and 12 chaloupes in that lil harbour... then imagine the commotion if they'd all been there and - pfffftt - gone overnight! Do you honestly think this would've left no documented official trace?

Your problem is that you have no concept of those times. You simply fantasize.


How is what you just told me a fact? Your opinion is that the harbor would have been very crowded, but think this over, all 18 vessels would never have been there at the same time. I have paintings of very busy ancient harbors, even this one, and I do believe I have a concept of those times. Yes, there is a scenario whereby all of the vessels could have escaped over a period of several weeks without suspicion.---Bill

_________________
on the trail of the grail


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 12:03 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
wayward wrote:
Yes, there is a scenario whereby all of the vessels could have escaped over a period of several weeks without suspicion.---Bill


Now all that's left is for you to offer something tangible by way of evidence that the Templars had several weeks to effect an organized getaway. Something other than mentally running through possible scenarios.

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 12:21 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
wayward wrote:
please understand Tim, neither you nor Roger has shown me proof of anything, only your own interpretation of the evidence. I don't happen to agree with your interpretation, even if others do.---Bill


I beg your pardon, Bill, but it is you who is making the surmisals here on a paucity of actual evidence. You've offered nothing but your opinions, which seem to be grounded in nothing more solid than other opinions put forward by an entire cadre of revisionist genre authors. This has already been done to death.

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 1:05 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
Here are a few citations from Helen Nicholson’s The Knights Templar, A New History, relative to the Templar fleet, with interpolations from other texts as noted.

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/templars.html

"The Templars did have ships to carry personnel, pilgrims and supplies across the Mediterranean between the West and East and back, but if the Hospital after 1312 is any guide they did not have more than four galleys (warships) and few other ships, and if they needed more they hired them. They certainly could not spare ships to indulge in world exploration — in any case, their ships were not sturdy enough to cross an ocean and could not carry enough water for more than a few days. The Order had vast resources in land, but was always very short of liquid capitol, which was needed to invest in fortifications and personnel in the east." [p. 12.] [The Falcon and the Templar Rose are mentioned by name in Malcolm Barber’s The New Knighthood. Piers Paul Read, in The Templars p. 271, claims eighteen galleys, without citation.]

"When the Templars had made their money in the West, they had to get it out to the East. There has been some debate among scholars as to whether any actual transfer of coin took place, but the latest view is that coin was actually carried from the West to the East. This meant that the Templars needed ships to carry their coin, as well as agricultural produce, horses and personnel for the east. They also provided a secure carrying service for pilgrims — safer and cheaper than hiring a commercial carrier. These would have been heavy transport vessels rather than warships. Much of the surviving evidence for Templar shipping comes from the relevant port records or royal records giving permission for the export of produce. At La Rochelle on the west coast of France during the twelfth century the Templars were given several vinyards and produced wine for their own consumption and for export; although the cartulary of their house is lost, the records of the port of La Rochelle show that the Templars were exporting wine by ship. This was not a fleet in any modern sense: again, those would have been transport vessels rather than warships, and the Templars probably hired them as they needed them, rather than buying their own.

"The hierarchial statutes attached to the Templars' Rule, dating from the twelfth century before 1187, refer to the Order’s ships at Acre (Sectin 119), but do not state how many ships the Order owned. After 1312 the Hospital of St. John was mainly involved in sea-based warfare and had an admiral in command of its marine operations, but only had four galleys (warships), with other vessels. It is unlikely that the Templars had any more galleys than the Hospitallers. The ships would have been very small by modern standards, too shallow in draught and sailing too low in the water to be able to withstand the heavy waves and winds of the open Atlantic, and suited for use only in the relatively shallow waters of the continental shelf. What was more, they could not carry enough water to be at sea for long periods." [pp. 191-92.]

"[Pope] Nicholas IV also ordered the Masters of the Temple and Hospital to build up a fleet, and in January 1292 he authorized them to use their ships to assist the Armenians. In 1293 the Templars and Venetians equipped six galleys in Venice to help protect Cyprus against the Muslims: there were four Venetian and two Templar ships. On the basis that this was the maximum number of ships that the Templars could find for this important project, a fleet of two is hardly impressive." [p. 199.]

"The Templar pilgrim fleet was based at Marseilles. In 1233 they were granted the right to dock their ships there and carry pilgrims to the Holy Land, but after protests by local ship owners this was restricted to two ships a year, leaving for Easter and in August. They were allowed to carry 1,500 pilgrims in these, and to keep one ship in the port for their own use." Supplying the Crusader states, Barber. p. 322]

"Their main fleet was at La Rochelle, and it was this fleet, berthed away from the theatre of war, that was part of the maritime network linking the Order in the British Isles with the continent. We know the class and names of at least two of the ships plying between La Rochelle and the south coast. In 1230 Henry III issued a licence to the Templars' ship La Templere from La Rochelle to land, bringing wine and victuals for the brothers. A little later another licence was given to the Master and the brothers of the Temple for the vessel called La Buzzard to come into port. (Calender of Patent Rolls, 1225-1232). The Knights Templar in Britain, Evelyn Lord, p. 120.]

So it would appear, from Nicholson's research findings, that the Templar fleet based out of La Rochelle was comprised of a small number of commercial vessels engaged in wine trade with England and the Continent.

(And as for your dismissive tone about the rotten Cahorsin wine, Mr. Roger, I'll have you know that my umpteenth-great-grandfather Arnaud Duèze made a killing trading it to the Hanse in Bruges and in London, so nyeh :evil: )

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 3:12 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 11 Nov 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 2503
Location: traverse city,michigan
Roger wrote:
Quote:
Yes, there is a scenario whereby all of the vessels could have escaped over a period of several weeks without suspicion


I'm quite sure you have a whopper of a scenario! And I can also see that the fact that it's unsupported by the facts and documentation don't bother you one iota!

You're a real piece of work, Billy-Boob Wayward! Next, your book will contain a foreword telling us "it's written as fiction, but it's all twue, yeth indeedy it is! I know because angels came and revealed all to me, because I'm Jacques de Molay's only direct secret descendant"

I suppose readers can join the sect for a modest fee, and an additional $6.99 will get 'em a nice enamel lapel-pin.... for $12.99, perhaps a cute decoder ring?

I shan't be bothering you with facts any more, Billy-Boob Wayward, whatever your questions may be, we know you already know the answer you want, and the only answer you'll accept. :P :P


There you go again Roger, belittling me and calling me names, very adult, this proves to me that you must have all the answers. You have called me an idiot, an imbecile, stupid, Billy-Boob Wayward, and others. I am very happy to have discussed this subject with someone as intelligent as yourself. Its all twue(what is that word btw). I do not recall saying angels came and revealed all to me. You shan't be bothering me with facts anymore- As I have said,You have not given me a fact yet, I believe you have just broke my heart.---Bill

_________________
on the trail of the grail


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 3:21 am 
Offline
High King

Joined: 11 Nov 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 2503
Location: traverse city,michigan
TCP wrote:
Here are a few citations from Helen Nicholson’s The Knights Templar, A New History, relative to the Templar fleet, with interpolations from other texts as noted.

http://freemasonry.bcy.ca/anti-masonry/templars.html

"The Templars did have ships to carry personnel, pilgrims and supplies across the Mediterranean between the West and East and back, but if the Hospital after 1312 is any guide they did not have more than four galleys (warships) and few other ships, and if they needed more they hired them. They certainly could not spare ships to indulge in world exploration — in any case, their ships were not sturdy enough to cross an ocean and could not carry enough water for more than a few days. The Order had vast resources in land, but was always very short of liquid capitol, which was needed to invest in fortifications and personnel in the east." [p. 12.] [The Falcon and the Templar Rose are mentioned by name in Malcolm Barber’s The New Knighthood. Piers Paul Read, in The Templars p. 271, claims eighteen galleys, without citation.]

"When the Templars had made their money in the West, they had to get it out to the East. There has been some debate among scholars as to whether any actual transfer of coin took place, but the latest view is that coin was actually carried from the West to the East. This meant that the Templars needed ships to carry their coin, as well as agricultural produce, horses and personnel for the east. They also provided a secure carrying service for pilgrims — safer and cheaper than hiring a commercial carrier. These would have been heavy transport vessels rather than warships. Much of the surviving evidence for Templar shipping comes from the relevant port records or royal records giving permission for the export of produce. At La Rochelle on the west coast of France during the twelfth century the Templars were given several vinyards and produced wine for their own consumption and for export; although the cartulary of their house is lost, the records of the port of La Rochelle show that the Templars were exporting wine by ship. This was not a fleet in any modern sense: again, those would have been transport vessels rather than warships, and the Templars probably hired them as they needed them, rather than buying their own.

"The hierarchial statutes attached to the Templars' Rule, dating from the twelfth century before 1187, refer to the Order’s ships at Acre (Sectin 119), but do not state how many ships the Order owned. After 1312 the Hospital of St. John was mainly involved in sea-based warfare and had an admiral in command of its marine operations, but only had four galleys (warships), with other vessels. It is unlikely that the Templars had any more galleys than the Hospitallers. The ships would have been very small by modern standards, too shallow in draught and sailing too low in the water to be able to withstand the heavy waves and winds of the open Atlantic, and suited for use only in the relatively shallow waters of the continental shelf. What was more, they could not carry enough water to be at sea for long periods." [pp. 191-92.]

"[Pope] Nicholas IV also ordered the Masters of the Temple and Hospital to build up a fleet, and in January 1292 he authorized them to use their ships to assist the Armenians. In 1293 the Templars and Venetians equipped six galleys in Venice to help protect Cyprus against the Muslims: there were four Venetian and two Templar ships. On the basis that this was the maximum number of ships that the Templars could find for this important project, a fleet of two is hardly impressive." [p. 199.]

"The Templar pilgrim fleet was based at Marseilles. In 1233 they were granted the right to dock their ships there and carry pilgrims to the Holy Land, but after protests by local ship owners this was restricted to two ships a year, leaving for Easter and in August. They were allowed to carry 1,500 pilgrims in these, and to keep one ship in the port for their own use." Supplying the Crusader states, Barber. p. 322]

"Their main fleet was at La Rochelle, and it was this fleet, berthed away from the theatre of war, that was part of the maritime network linking the Order in the British Isles with the continent. We know the class and names of at least two of the ships plying between La Rochelle and the south coast. In 1230 Henry III issued a licence to the Templars' ship La Templere from La Rochelle to land, bringing wine and victuals for the brothers. A little later another licence was given to the Master and the brothers of the Temple for the vessel called La Buzzard to come into port. (Calender of Patent Rolls, 1225-1232). The Knights Templar in Britain, Evelyn Lord, p. 120.]

So it would appear, from Nicholson's research findings, that the Templar fleet based out of La Rochelle was comprised of a small number of commercial vessels engaged in wine trade with England and the Continent.

(And as for your dismissive tone about the rotten Cahorsin wine, Mr. Roger, I'll have you know that my umpteenth-great-grandfather Arnaud Duèze made a killing trading it to the Hanse in Bruges and in London, so nyeh :evil: )

TCP



Tim. I have read Helen Niclolson, and I do not agree with her, although she does make several good points, but the two ships you mention, the La Buzzard and the La Templere were gone by the 14th century, and as for not carrying enough supplies (food and water), look for a moment at what the Vikings plied the North Atlantic with several hundred years earlier.No Tim I do not think you give men enough credit.---Bill

_________________
on the trail of the grail


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 3:32 am 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2009 3:29 am
Posts: 7186
Location: Texas
Quote:
Wow, really Lov? Did he text them or tweet them? :lol:

TCP


ROFL that was cute TCP

You have to see the movie Robin Hood TCP with Russell Crowe

they used Carrying pigeons to deliver the messages

:lol: :lol: :lol:
Bill is right
he is bringing another opinion to the table
wiki supports his theory....

Roger your getting hung up on the Templars.... ok Crusader Knights is that better
and actually I like that better myself ...but it was the TEMPLARS that were arrested by France and tried by the Vatican
that is a FACT ....and there was a POLITICAL reason why they were arrested

France's debt for one
Vatican's fear and greed

Scotland would be a great place to have as their headquarters

and the legends of the Knights fleeing to Nova Scotia to the MicMaq's
it explains the Minnesota Runestone

and more

_________________
Everything is Connected and there are no
coincidences


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 5:26 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
wayward wrote:
Tim. I have read Helen Niclolson, and I do not agree with her, although she does make several good points, but the two ships you mention, the La Buzzard and the La Templere were gone by the 14th century, and as for not carrying enough supplies (food and water), look for a moment at what the Vikings plied the North Atlantic with several hundred years earlier.No Tim I do not think you give men enough credit.---Bill


No, of course you don't agree with Nicholson. Why would you? Historians of her caliber are dreamkillers for the would-be pseudohistorical revisionist. I'm sure you also believe that the Vikings took to open waters, didn't see land for weeks or months at a time, and carried full provisions for long oceanic voyages. Have you ever seen a Viking ship? Heck, you're convinced that neolithic hunter-gatherers crossed the Atlantic ice sheet from France to N. America on foot! Or did they have wings and fly?

On the matter of the two ships being gone by the 14th century, let me run the citation by you again:

In 1230 Henry III issued a licence to the Templars' ship La Templere from La Rochelle to land, bringing wine and victuals for the brothers. A little later another licence was given to the Master and the brothers of the Temple for the vessel called La Buzzard to come into port. (Calender of Patent Rolls, 1225-1232).

See the dates of the Patent Rolls this information was taken from? 1225-1232. I realize those are 13th century references, not 14th. :lol:

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 5:32 am 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
lovuian wrote:
Bill is right
he is bringing another opinion to the table
wiki supports his theory....


:lol: :lol: :lol:

That was STUNNING, Lov!

Roger, lay off Bill - Wiki supports his theory. Case closed. :lol: :lol: :lol:

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 2:18 pm 
Offline
Emperor
User avatar

Joined: 13 Jan 2009 3:29 am
Posts: 7186
Location: Texas
:lol: :lol: :lol: TCP
heaven preserve us
the case is not closed
I enjoy listening to Roger and your arguments




The case is open and full of fun and mystery

There is information that supports Bill's theory(Wiki is one)
I feel there is a bit of academic snobbery going on
Who judges what academic information is worthy here?

You and Roger?

:lol: :lol: :lol: a bit biased


It is up to the reader to make up their mind if the story is plausible
The reader will decide

_________________
Everything is Connected and there are no
coincidences


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 4:50 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
lovuian wrote:
:lol: :lol: :lol: TCP
heaven preserve us
the case is not closed
I enjoy listening to Roger and your arguments




The case is open and full of fun and mystery

There is information that supports Bill's theory(Wiki is one)
I feel there is a bit of academic snobbery going on
Who judges what academic information is worthy here?

You and Roger?

:lol: :lol: :lol: a bit biased


It is up to the reader to make up their mind if the story is plausible
The reader will decide


"Fun and mystery" - that says it all. Although for some I'd add "profit."

If you think that people who have an actual grounding in the study of history are going to sit idly by while those who seek "fun" and the pseudo-historians who line their pockets by feeding their fantasies run roughshod over it, think again. I don't do what I do to try to persuade people like you, Roscoe, Dipity, Bill, etc. to consider all the factors that come into play, you're all too far gone for that. Hopefully others who read your "offerings" and might be persuaded by them will take a moment to stop and weigh all sides.

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 5:54 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 15 May 2008 7:42 pm
Posts: 4107
Location: NEWCASTLE on the Tyne
TCP wrote:
lovuian wrote:
:lol: :lol: :lol: TCP
heaven preserve us
the case is not closed
I enjoy listening to Roger and your arguments




The case is open and full of fun and mystery

There is information that supports Bill's theory(Wiki is one)
I feel there is a bit of academic snobbery going on
Who judges what academic information is worthy here?

You and Roger?

:lol: :lol: :lol: a bit biased


It is up to the reader to make up their mind if the story is plausible
The reader will decide


"Fun and mystery" - that says it all. Although for some I'd add "profit."

If you think that people who have an actual grounding in the study of history are going to sit idly by while those who seek "fun" and the pseudo-historians who line their pockets by feeding their fantasies run roughshod over it, think again. I don't do what I do to try to persuade people like you, Roscoe, Dipity, Bill, etc. to consider all the factors that come into play, you're all too far gone for that. Hopefully others who read your "offerings" and might be persuaded by them will take a moment to stop and weigh all sides.

TCP


very well put Tim.....but its like flogging a dead horse :D


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 6:06 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
tingra wrote:
very well put Tim.....but its like flogging a dead horse :D


I know, but it has to be clearly stated before they all start claiming victimization.

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 6:52 pm 
Offline
High King

Joined: 11 Nov 2009 4:34 pm
Posts: 2503
Location: traverse city,michigan
TCP wrote:
tingra wrote:
very well put Tim.....but its like flogging a dead horse :D


I know, but it has to be clearly stated before they all start claiming victimization.

TCP



Tim, you can say what you want, you have that right, but also so do I. I believe you have entered this with blinders on. As others have said you push your facts as the only possible explanations. I have not said anything which other historians have not said. You have the historians you listen to and I have the ones I listen to. I have used information that I have to help me choose what I wish to believe on these subjects. As for being victimized I don't feel that way, but you and Roger do have a way of attempting to intimidate. I have noticed that when you cannot force your opinion on somebody, you both begin to make fun of them. Do you think that is the correct way to win an argument? Many historians believe there were 18 vessels based at La Rochelle. These vessels had the whole atlantic seaboard to ply their trade, and there is no reason to think many of them would be in port at the same time. The US 2nd fleet is based at Norfolk, that does not mean they are all there at any one time. I believe (and I didn't come up with this on my own) that the Templars learned of the impending arrests two weeks before they happened, and actually they probably had an inkling prior to that. De Molay had no idea what was in store, except the men of the order in France would be arrested on the 13th of October. Him and other members (brothers) would have made plans to get as many of their assets to safety as soon as possible. Vessels were sent out on what would have seemed like normal trading operations never to return. Many would have fled to Scotland as well as some other safe havens. I believe some of these Knights traveled to Nova Scotia from Scotland, an area they had learned of from the Vikings years earlier, and with them they carried the Holy Graal. This object is now hidden in Nova Scotia, not at Oak Island btw. Of the 148 men of the order arrested in Paris only 15 were Knights, and in the rest of France less then that. Where did the other Knights go, or is that all there were in France? I have never said this is the only possible scenario, but it is the one I believe. I have come to this forum to listen to other views and use what I learn to help form these opinions, but because of you and Roger there is only one opinion allowed. I for one will not be intimidated, but I do not wish to carry on in this way as it is not my style. Your best bet would be to talk to Andrew and get me banned, as I will not quit this forum any other way. I have not called you any names nor slured you in any way and I do not intend to. I have told you before I respect your knowledge of these subjects, it is far greater then my own, certainly in the area of RLC. If you do attempt to get me banned, you should explain I believe things that are not allowed.---Bill

_________________
on the trail of the grail


Last edited by wayward on 16 May 2010 7:08 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: Templars at La Rochelle
PostPosted: 16 May 2010 7:06 pm 
Offline
Queen Bee
User avatar

Joined: 31 May 2008 12:53 am
Posts: 8912
Location: Los Angeles
wayward wrote:
TCP wrote:
tingra wrote:
very well put Tim.....but its like flogging a dead horse :D


I know, but it has to be clearly stated before they all start claiming victimization.

TCP



Tim, you can say what you want, you have that right, but also so do I. I believe you have entered this with blinders on. As others have said you push your facts as the only possible explanations. I have not said anything which other historians have not said. You have the historians you listen to and I have the ones I listen to. I have used information that I have to help me choose what I wish to believe on these subjects. As for being victimized I don't feel that way, but you and Roger do have a way of attempting to intimidate. I have noticed that when you cannot force your opinion on somebody, you both begin to make fun of them. Do you think that is the correct way to win an argument? Many historians believe there were 18 vessels based at La Rochelle. These vessels had the whole atlantic seaboard to ply their trade, and there is no reason to think many of them would be in port at the same time. The US 2nd fleet is based at Norfolk, that does not mean they are all there at any one time. I believe (and I didn't come up with this on my own) that the Templars learned of the impending arrests two weeks before they happened, and actually they probably had an inkling prior to that. De Molay had no idea what was in store, except the men of the order in France would be arrested on the 13th of October. Him and other members (brothers) would have made plans to get as many of their assets to safety as soon as possible. Vessels were sent out on what would have seemed like normal trading operations never to return. Many would have fled to Scotland as well as some other safe havens. I believe some of these Knights traveled to Nova Scotia, an area they had learned of from the Vikings years earlier. Of the 148 men of the order arrested in Paris only 15 were Knights, and in the rest of France less then that. Where did the other Knights go, or is that all there were in France? I have never said this is the only possible scenario, but it is the one I believe. I have come to this forum to listen to other views and use what I learn to help form these opinions, but because of you and Roger there is only one opinion allowed. I for one will not be intimidated, but I do not wish to carry on in this way as it is not my style. Your best bet would be to talk to Andrew and get me banned, as I will not quit this forum any other way. I have not called you any names nor slured you in any way and I do not intend to. I have told you before I respect your knowledge of these subjects, it is far greater then my own, certainly in the area of RLC. If you do attempt to get me banned, you should explain I believe things that are not allowed.---Bill


The victim card has been played. It didn't take long. :roll:

What is all this garbage about getting you banned? I've never asked Andrew to ban anyone, nor would I (well, maybe one person, but he was banned a long time ago, I never had to ask for it). Running to the Moderator or to Andrew is a loser's tactic, and that's not me. I'm sorry you feel threatened by anyone who doesn't find your opinions fascinating, but it goes with the territory. Constant repetition without benefit of sources or evidence doesn't benefit you either, it just adds to the tedium.

TCP


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 659 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 27  Next

All times are UTC


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
cron
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group