Arcadia Discussion Zone

So speak up RS
set us straight

I'm interested
You don't believe there was a Templar base or port at La Rochelle?

I merely stated: I was not surprised that TCP became a little fractious
: I have read all the posts

Nothing about disagreeing, nothing about whether La Rochelle was or was not a staging point
for the Templar fleet.

Jeeez, I'd love to get you two in a court of law.

Now leave me alone, I'm busy.

Thanks Rs
I just wanted to know what you thought

I will leave you alone

I wouldn't dare.

btw. I expected it to happen ages ago.

I would like to see some of this "direct evidence", for de Molay having landed at Marseille after being summoned by Clement. All I ever heard from you or Roger is "it would have been too dangerous to go around the Iberian".
If there are port documents or other items relating to this at Marseille, why don't you point them out?

I'm sorry than Tim, I guess you will have to waste time on me.[/quote]

Yeah, I guess so. But I suppose it's not really time wasted so long as somebody besides myself sees the flaws in your logic.

TCP

Oh Eggi...

You've never witnessed me losing my patience!

TCP

I never said there were any documents proving Molay's point of debarkation, whether at Marseilles or La Rochelle. It is YOU who is taking advantage of that lacuna to weave your own tale, which is typical of the way pseudohistorians work (i.e. lack of direct evidence means you can make stuff up to fill in the gaps). Not to worry, Bill, there will always be a market for your brand of rife speculation posing as proven fact, you'll never be quite alone in that regard.

TCP

OK then, let me step back a bit. I do not have proof of any kind that de Molay landed in La Rochelle. From what I have read, and have posted most of that here, I, myself, me, believe he did, IMHO. I would like to prove it, and maybe someday I will come across that elusive hard evidence.---Bill

Well, it's about time! Thank you for your honesty.

TCP

Actually, if I indicated anything else it was not my intention. There is a great difference between "evidence" and "proof". Proof would require "conclusive evidence" or as I called it above "hard evidence".---Bill

An interesting fyi on 13th century sailing around the Iberian.

In April of 1216 Raymond VI former "Count of Toulouse", and his son Raymond VII arrived at Marseilles after escaping to England in 1213.

King John of England was under excommunication from the Pope but in 1213
He was brought back into the arms of the Church

King John's penny


notice the triangle


Innocent disavowed both Reginald and John de Gray, and instead appointed his own candidate, Stephen Langton. John refused Innocent's request that he consent to Langton's appointment, but the pope consecrated Langton anyway in June 1207.[162]

John was incensed about what he perceived as an abrogation of his customary right as monarch to influence the election.[162] He complained both about the choice of Langton as an individual, as John felt he was overly influenced by the Capetian court in Paris, and about the process as a whole.[163] He barred Langton from entering England and seized the lands of the archbishopric and other papal possessions.[163] Innocent set a commission in place to try to convince John to change his mind, but to no avail. Innocent then placed an interdict on England in March 1208, prohibiting clergy from conducting religious services, with the exception of baptisms for the young, and confessions and absolutions for the dying.[164]
A photograph of a tall stone castle keep; most of the towers are square, but one is circular.
Rochester Castle, one of the many properties owned by the disputed archbishopric of Canterbury, and an important fortification in the final years of John's reign

John treated the interdict as "the equivalent of a papal declaration of war".[165] He responded by attempting to punish Innocent personally and to drive a wedge between those English clergy that might support him and those allying themselves firmly with the authorities in Rome.[165] John seized the lands of those clergy unwilling to conduct services, as well as those estates linked to Innocent himself; he arrested the illicit concubines that many clerics kept during the period, only releasing them after the payment of fines; he seized the lands of members of the church who had fled England, and he promised protection for those clergy willing to remain loyal to him.[165] In many cases, individual institutions were able to negotiate terms for managing their own properties and keeping the produce of their estates.[166] By 1209 the situation showed no signs of resolution, and Innocent threatened to excommunicate John if he did not acquiesce to Langton's appointment.[167] When this threat failed, Innocent excommunicated the king in November 1209.[167] Although theoretically a significant blow to John's legitimacy, this did not appear to greatly worry the king.[167] Two of John’s close allies, Emperor Otto and Count Raymond VI of Toulouse, had already suffered the same punishment themselves, and the significance of excommunication had been somewhat devalued.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John,_King_of_England

That time you could sail down to Lyon on the Saone, then do a 2 days horse back ride and after this jump on a boat on the Rhone which will bring you down to Marseille. Crossing France on rivers. From the Atlantic Ocean to the Mediterrenean Sea without passing Gibraltar.

Yeah! I had thought about that Egi, but then I asked myself, why would he go to Marseille anyhow, as his goal would seem to have been Toulouse. Then I asked myself another question, why would he have gone to Marseille either way? I guess what I am saying is that you are probably right Egi.

Perhaps because Toulouse is nowhere near a port?

TCP

Of course it isn't Tim, I'm sorry did you think I said it was? What I had meant was, why go all the way to Marseille on the Rhone, when one could disembark at many other locations closer to Toulouse. Or if sailing around, why go all the way to Marseille when one could stop at Bordeaux?

Why Marseille? Maybe Raymond didn't want to go straight home where eventually his enemies might have waited for him to come along? Maybe a stop over to talk to befriended families from the Provence? There are lots of reasons why one wouldn't go straight home after escaping from imprisonment. Even seeing a certain lady.

Of course we know Raymond had returned to kick his enemies out of Toulouse. Marseille could have been far enough away from the action to allow him to regroup his forces. There is also the possibility that the historical account is wrong and Raymond VII didn't land in Marseille at all. Yeah, and it could have been a lady, perhaps even his wife.

Well...putting aside any specific Raymond considerations, there was a navigable river between Toulouse and Bordeaux and even a helpful tidal bore that could be ridden in either direction...

Just for consideration Caelum, I wonder how far a tidal bore could be expected to travel up the Garonne.---Bill

From what I can gather, surfers are still riding it 15-20 miles east of Bordeaux (75-80 miles from the Atlantic), so it's a strong one, but my main point was that the river was navigable from Toulouse to the Atlantic even back "in the day" before the canals were built - Toulouse was in effect a port.

[quote="wayward"]
excerpt from "Circa 1492, Art: in the age of exploration"

"this maritime traffic had taken a major step forward at the end of the thirteenth century, when the ships plying the route had begun regulary to sail around the Iberian Peninsula and to unload their goods at the ports of Flanders, rather than ending their voyage in southern France and consigning their cargoes to overland trnsport to their final destination. ... it is clear that the new practice of sailing around the Iberian Peninsula to Flanders did not significantly change the art of navigation, which remained coastal".


I thought that with the ongoing discussion on the Argyll connection thread, I would bring up this report again. Tim, you had said it would be foolhardy to sail around the Iberian in 1307, and yet that is what is implied here. Is this report, in your understanding of sailing correct, or do you believe they are wrong? In other words would it have made sense for Jacques de Molay, with 10, 12, or maybe a few more vessels to have sailed around the Iberian when he had been summoned to Poitiers by Clement? Remember, according to historians he was carrying 150,000 gold florins, a great amount of silver and 60 knights, with horses squires and gear. IMHO, he had the 60 knights because he had a tremendous amount of treasure, and traveling between the moorish coast of spain and the equally moorish coast of South Africa.

I believe what I said was that the sea route would have been longer and more treacherous than going over land from Marseilles. I'll add here that I don't think 60 knights, their squires and their mounts would have been of much use on a sea voyage. A thinking person might be more apt to consider such equipment better suited for traversing on terra firma.

TCP

hmmm, a thinking person eh. Ok, I think a knight would be able to fight on land or sea, the other stuff just came with. Maybe it was Roger that mentioned the other.