I was wondering if anyone had any comments to make on the article of Acerenza?
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/history/secret-organizations.asp
It's found temporarily under History which is under Study and Culture then Italian History on the homepage--
I wondered what were your reactions to it?

I have researched this kind of stuff for years and at this point I feel that people are more interested in publishing books on the subject than doing actual science.

The first crusade is one of my specialities and I cringe every time I read a new theory on the Templars or even worse the priory of sion.

The priory never existed and the only thing that came close was the Ordre du Sion which existed briefly upon mount Zion in Jerusalem after the first crusade. There were countless "carpet-bagging" type orders that filled the Holy Land after 1099, only to be wiped out, kicked out or taxed out of existence after the defeats of 1188.

I also don't understand why the Ark of the Covenant is called the "Arch of Allience"

Sacred Geometry is pretty interesting but it is not proof in and of itself of anything conspiratorial. Mario Livio wrote a book a few years ago called the golden ration that gives a great overview.

I'll give it another read tomorrow when I have more time and be glad to share my thoughts and perhaps some reasearch that never made it into a book.

I got a chance to read through the articles again and it brings up some questions:

1. It is documented by crusade and templar historians that Hugh de Payen, one of the founders of the Knights Templar was a vassal to Hugh Count of Champagne, who in turn was vassal to Godfrey de Bouillon, Duke of Lower Lorraine (A vassal to Emperor Henry IV).

My question is: What kind of documentation have you found as evidence that Hugh de Payen was actually an Italian named Hugo de Pagani (does that translate to Hugh the Pagan?).

2. You state that the Crusades actual aim was to conquer Constantinople -a plot by Bohemond of Taranto (his brother was Roger of Hauteville) and Urban II. There is no question the Normans fought a brutal war with Byzantium, but was the First Crusade an extension of this?

My questions are: If Bohemond and the Crusaders were trying to conquer the Greek Empire then how was Emperor Alexios II Comnenos able to get Bohemond as well as all the other leaders to swear an oath of fealty to him? Why did the Crusaders bother returning conquered territory in Asia Minor to Byzantium? Why also did Bohemond stop his forces once he conquered the city of Antioch?

3. It is no secret that Ethiopia claims to be the final resting place of the Ark of the Covenant. It has been claimed in the past (see Graham Hancock) that Templars attempted or succeded in retreiving the Ark.

My Questions: Why do you call it the Arch of Alliance? How were the Templars able to penetrate deep into Muslim territory to reach Christian Ethiopia? At what point would the greatly unprotected Crusader States have had the luxry of sending their best shock troops into uncharted territory?

4. Could you also explain how the Priory of Sion enters into all of this? What evidence have you discovered that such an organization ever existed? (not counting Pierre Plantard and his merry pranksters)

Thanks and good luck with your future research
Justin

Justin thanks for your interest and questions.

There is one documentary that has already been made on this. Can you understand it in Italian?

Hugo's parents were from Champagne, and he was born in Forenza in the area of Lucania. They found documentations, I can see if I can get that on a graphic image for you.

The rest I have to check with Gianni ...and then will answer all of your questions!

Dear Justin, here is the anwser to your first question;

1. Even today numerous records still exist which are signed by Hugo. He always signed them in this way; Hugo de Pagano. Never as Hugue de Payen. ( General M. de Albon Cartulair). The latest one is dated 1130.

The official story depicts Hugue de Payen as a Frenchmen from Champagne. But this is only a historical reconstruction made up by French Historians. The last document speaking of the Templar's prigins was from William Patriarch of Tyre writing around 1165: "History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea"
In chapter XII 7: The foundation of the Order of the Knights Templar in Latin-- he wrote;...In the same year certain noblemen of a knightly rank, religious men, devoted to God and fearing him bound themselves to Christ's service in the hands of the Lord Patriarch...Their foremost leaders were the venerable Hugo de Pagano and Gaudifredus de Santo Aldemaro...." It was written in French and later, the Hugue de Payens 'Delez of Troye' was added. From this translation the French historians began looking for a Hugue de Payen around the town of Troye in Champagne, France. The research was involoved still continues today. They have NOT found one document proving the existence of a 'Hugue de Payen.'
As a matter of fact, problems arose because Payen at that epoch didn't exist! Payen is a place 13 kilometers from Troye which didn't exist until 1125. So, the Hugue that historians had individualized as a subordinate of Hugo of Champagne, couldn't have called himself Hugue de Payen. They had only found a name simliar-- Hugue de Payens a name appearing in sparse documents. Even if Hugue had received his feud from the Count of Champagne after 1125, he was already the Grand Master of the Templars,therefor they couldn't have accepted him by any other name then his own. The Hugue de Payen as the French recognize him, has never really been found.
"Hugue" whom they had indiviualized was:
A knight born around 1080, Lord of Montigny Lagresse who possessed lands in the region of Tonnare. He married the daughter of the Montbard family and was the father of Hugo of Champagne. He travelled with Hugo from Champagne on a religious journey to Jerusalem in 1104 and 1114.
(Martin Bauer: Die tempelritter Mythos und Wahrheit;1997) A Hugo of Puiset, in which is dated of the city of Giaffa in the Holy land. (N.H. Mazet, Daggers, part I: The Templars 2001 www.tsj.org (http://www.tsj.org))

The documents found in Lucania are much more precise. With these documents proof of certain presences of the Confraternity were found, already existing in 1117, and whom used the same symbols that the Templars used later on.
The Documents;
"Story of a Pagan Family" written in 1610 by Historian Filiberto Campanile, contains information of a chronicle wished by Queen Giovanna of Naples in 1340. This story says the Pagano family were of Bretone-Norman origin and in 1084, gave huge donations to the Abbott Berengary of Venosa, near Acerenza.

Pagano de Pagani and his wife Emma had two sons; Hugo and Disigio. Hugo in 1117 under Pope Gelasio II, went to Jerusalem with Goffredo of Saint Ademaro and founded the Order of the Templar Knights. Count Pagano had feuds; Nocera,Forenza, and Troia....but the Troia in Lucania not the one in Champagne, France!

There are original documents of these donations found by Mènanger: 'Le Fontations Monastiques de Robert Guiscard' (Editions L'Armattan 1998).
From the research we've done, Hugo's mother Emma was Emma D'Evreux, sister of Giuditta Evreux, wife of Roger I of Sicily and brother to Robert Guiscard. He was a relative of the Houteville family.

A letter was written by Hugo de Pagano to his uncle Amrelli in 1103. Today is belongs to the Amrelli family conserved in a bank. It told of the death of his cousin Alessandro during a battle on a religous journey. According to this letter a Confraternity already existed in 1103.



2. You state that the Crusades actual aim was to conquer Constantinople -a plot by Bohemond of Taranto (his brother was Roger of Hauteville) and Urban II. There is no question the Normans fought a brutal war with Byzantium, but was the First Crusade an extension of this?

My questions are: If Bohemond and the Crusaders were trying to conquer the Greek Empire then how was Emperor Alexios II Comnenos able to get Bohemond as well as all the other leaders to swear an oath of fealty to him? Why did the Crusaders bother returning conquered territory in Asia Minor to Byzantium? Why also did Bohemond stop his forces once he conquered the city of Antioch?

[/quote]The crusade was an expedient idealized by Boemondus in order to conquest Bisanzio-Costantinopole Roman Empire. He had already attempted to conquest it with his father Robert Guiscard in 1082-1085. This is also William of Mamesbury's opinion(an English reporter) during the epoch of Boemondus.

He writes "The Instigator of the first Crusade was Boemundus Houteville the one who convinced Pope Urban II of the conquest(De Gestis Regum Anglorum).
Boemondus was destined by his father to conquesting the Empire of Bisanzio, and for this reson they agreed. The weaker brother Ruggero di Borsa become Duke of Calabria and Puglia.

But he couldn't attack Bisanzio directly for two reasons;
1.Alessio Comneno the emperor was too powerful to make a head-on collision of combat-alone.
2. He would have had the entire reign of Europe against him because he didnt have a valid motive, the conquest was not a literal advantage.
Robert Guiscard had found a motive, that Alessio Comneno, the new Emperor want familiar with the pact made by the previous emperor; Michele VII, Costantine On that occasion, Pope Gregory VII supported the conquesting of Bisanzio!
We've found a document stating thatUrban II becomes elected as Pope in 1088, and Bohemund goes to the Abbey of Cassino to get him and take him to the Abbery of Banzi, fairly close to Acerenza.
Pope Urban II could not remain in Rome because it would have been risky there near Anti-Pope Emperor Enrico IV. So, he followed Bohemund to Banzi where he found numerous Benedictine Norman and Frank Monks like himself.
He was completely safe there and remained for five years. Then returning to Rome he left for France after a few months and along with many others, abandoned his reign and familiy. It is certain that during those five years he spent in Banzi, they organized the Holy War.

Bohemund left too with his cousin Tancredi son of Count Marchisio of San Chirico Raparo near Acerenza and his sister Emma.
Bohemund swore fidelity to Emperor Alessio Comneno--this was only to cross over to the reign of Bisanzio--without being noticed.
Tancredi also swore fidelity then conquested Antiochia --never combating with Jerusalem.
He never gave Antiochia to Alessio Comneno though his oath. After his emprisionment in the Holy Land, and upon his returning to south Italy, he married the daughter of the king of France (Constance--ex-wife of Hugue count of Champagne!)
He organizes his army to conquest Bisanzio, an expedition beginning on 1107 and he wasnt able to go through with it being defeated by Emperor Alessio Comneno.
Betrayed by the church of Rome Bohemund never had any other intentions then to conquest Jerusalem.
The conquesting was expedient was to create an occasion for the conquest of Bisanzio and to find alliance. And he had secretly supported the Church of Rome.

It was during that period, when secret organizations were formed in preparation of the Crusade. This may have included the Templars who were known as "The Military of Chirst" during the early periods.

Bohemund had been the most important conductor of the entire First Crusade, much more skillful than Godfrey de Boullion or Raymond de Tolousse. He was a strategy genius....
He was described and even admired by his enemy; Anna Comeno, daughter of the Emperor of Bisanzio. It's not possible that Bohemund was trusted in the Crusades--in his attempt at conquest.

I didn't realize that this theory was as widespread as it is. A little digging on the net shows that it is being discussed.

When reading William of Tyre in English the names always read: Hugh of Payens and Geoffrey of St. Omer. But you are right that in Latin the sentence reads: "Inter quos primi et praecipui fuerunt, viri venerabiles, Hugo de Paganis et Gaufredus de Sancto Aldemaro."

However there are aspects of Templar history that I don't see how they fit in the Italian origins of the Templars.

It seems that the early Templars were predominantly French. Most of the Grand Masters after Hugh de Payen were of French origin and Saint Bernard of Clariveaux, a French Cistercian wrote their Rule. The immediate successors to Hugh, Robert de Craon, Everard de Barres, up to at least Philip of Nablus were French. Unless Templar history has been completely usurped by the French, I don't understand why early Templar recruitment seems more focused in the north as opposed to the south.

It's fun to be discussing this stuff again, I took a break from the heavy medieval research for a while. I eagerly await the next post:)

It is really intriguing! If you remember, in the article I wrote, there are numerous templar paintings in numerous churches all along that area of basilcata........A Templar stone with a list of its members is located there--- They were concentrated there....and no one ever knew!

I know that Berlusconi is a Mason, and he's a client of a friend of mine....I wonder if he knows....I'll ask him if I meet him!

I've talked to a few freemasons about these subjects but they seem to fall into two camps: those who believe in their creation myth (ie hiram and the solomon temple) and others who feel it is more of a symbolic history.

Of course, this is only what I've been told and I'm not a Freemason so you have the whole "what happens behind closed doors" conspiracy stuff to contend with. Everyone that I've talked to about Freemasonry has been really helpful, but I have never talked to anyone really high up in the Order.

My hometown has one of the oldest Freemason lodges in America, it's charter was signed by Paul Revere, but it's a pretty small affair. The Boston Mother Lodge always welcomes researchers to their library - I just never got around to it....yet!


btw: do you know if there are any images of that Templar Stone?
Justin

Justin, I have the documentary and there is a great closeup shot of that stone! How can I show it to you?

If you study the uniforms of the Templars you'd see that they are the same as the Normans. In particular the shield they used was Norman. The Templars made a confraternity in a Norman environment.....Norman of Southern Italy. They were not very well excepted, not by Ruggero II nor by Federico II, because they were seen as an intervention armed by the Pope. For this reason they transformed into other Orders. In France the maxium developments...and in other countries like Spain, Portugal and England
Your from MASS too!

How about that. Yes, I'm from Gloucester, Ma.

What's the name of the documentary? I'll see if I can find it.

As far as the Templar uniforms I guess it really depends upon the time period you are talking about. From what I've read the vision of Templar Knights in their striking white tabards all with similar equipment is sort of a bit of fiction.
Also from the time of Jerusalem's capture in 1099 to the arrest of the Templars in 1307 there were major developments in the European arms and armor.

But in the early years of the crusader states everything was in short supply in Outremer. From the letters sent back to Europe by Godfrey of Bouillon and Kings Baldwin I and II it sounds like they were using whatever equipment they could salvage. As you know over time the Templars didn't seem to lack anything - well except maybe horses.

Some have theorized that the Templar standard of two men astride a horse was merely symbolic of their poverty vows. However there really was a severe shortage of horses throughout the entire crusader states period. The so-called "stables of solomon" under the Temple Mount is a Templar creation, but I've never read if they ever got the chance to fill it.

Have you tried contacting Malcolm Barber? He's the leading authority on the Templars and he has been nice enough to answer my emails in the past.

Justin,
A compliment to you on your questioning by Gianni.
The name of the documentary is this " Nel Nome dei Templari" rete 4 (channel 4 aired March 4 2007)

In fact we need to write to malcolm. You will see in the documetary, (even if you cannot translate the Italian) the frescoes of templars and their outfits---they had specific white dots in threes all over their clothes--it would make sense that the time period would have reflected the moda of the Templars.

To continue from answering all of your past questions..................

---According to a document found by Nicolson, a Benedictine Monk of San Bertino in France--
In 1135, the Templars were Crusaders and after the first Crusade decided to remain in the Holy land. They were noble Normans from the Reign of Jerusalem. This document confirms that the Templars existed before 1118, this is the date the official story recognizes as year of the Order's birth.

Proof found in Lucania confirming the birth of the Order of the Templar Knights:

--In the town of Forenza on the estate of the Pagano counts, the ritual of the Knighthood for the Grand Master of the Order of the Templars is still celebrated today.
---In Castelmezzano a town near Acerenza, a church found was called the "Madonna of Stella del Mattino---"Madonna of the Morning Star." There's a door with the Order's Symbol carved into it.
--In that same church, there is an icon of the Madonna with a phrase inscripted in rock inside of a frame stating; " "Hic Habitabo Quoniam elegia ea, Stella Mattutina AID 1117."
This phrase was taken from Psalms:131 and in the Psalter of Saint Albans; it's the phrase that a Grand Master Templar must recite when receiving his Knighthood. The date is very important: AID 1117 "The Year Incarnationis Domini 1117" introduced from the Templar estate archives. The date of 1117, is what proves the Templars already existed.
All these were found in the area of Acerenza--where the greatest concentration of churches (excavated from rock) and frescoes were created with scenes from the Apocrophy gospel. Many frescoes rappresent images of the Holy Grail--cups that are collecting the blood of Jesus.

This was the rest of the response to your first question,
j

Professor Barber replied to an email of mine over the weekend, I really suggest you contact him - it's hard to get your work taken seriously if you don't at least talk to the experts.

He does not believe that Hugh de Payen was Italian and he states that there is evidence for his existence in France. Here is a bit of what he said:

"I don't know of any evidence which would place him in Italy, although one seventeenth-centruy writer tried to give him a Neapolitan origin. I wrote about this in an article called 'Origins of the Order of the Temple' (reprinted in My Crusaders and Heretics, 1995), but see also M-L Bulst-Thiele, Sacrae Domus Militiae Templi Hierosolymitani Magistri (1974) (short biographies of the Templar masters)."

I am also awaiting a reply from Professor Ted Evergates, the leading authority on Champagne nobility.

I will definetly let you know what he says either on the forum on in a private message.

This 17th century writer wouldnt have been named Ottomano Glinni?

Thanks for writing these people...
He needs to see the documentary...Hugo's name is written on this stone--which was a list of the Templar Order's members, and it was written "Hugo di Pagano" not Huge de Payen

Like any good theory, this one has to be put to the test - so I'm doing my best :D

A note on Templar uniforms:
The white tabards that the Templars became famous for came only after their Rule was made official in 1129. The pure unbleached linen that the fighting knights (and only the fighting knights) wore is indicative of the fact that the Rule of the Poor Knights of Christ and the Temple of Solomon was written based on the Cistercian rule. The Cistercians were the only monsatic order in Western Europe that wore a habit of undyed cloth to symbolise the return to "apolstolic poverty" that the Order was trying to instill -in response to the growing extravagence of the Benedictine Order.

The Templars Rule was written by Saint Bernard of Clairveax - A French Cistercian so I don't see how or why they would be wearing that outfit before their rule was written. Unless of course they were already plans for creating an Order (not unheard of after 1099), which would make sense if Hugh and Saint Bernard knew each other before hand, which makes even more sense if they were both from the same part of France (Bernard from burgandy, Hugh from champagne). Several of their letters to each other still exist.

As far as the crosses, I guess I would have to see more images but you already know that pilgrims carved crosses in every chruch along the way to Jerusalem - and southern Italy was the pilgrim route to the Holy Land. Every pilgrim, whether planning to fight in the Holy Land or not, was said to be "taking the cross" and had one sewn on his clothes. The cross on the Castelmezzano church looks just like the crosses pilgrims have carved all over the Church of the Holy Sepulchure - I don't see how that has to be taken as a Templar cross. Also the image that is possibly dated to 1117 seems like a red herring considering that Psalm 131 is part of several monastic vows of obedience - including the Franciscans and there is no other evidence on the image for a Templar origin. I'm still looking into the town's coat of arms and the fact that Frederick II may have rebuilt their church - why would he keep obvious Templar symbols in his lands? More to the point - why would the Angevin kings of Naples allow for Templarism to remain after 1307?

When it comes to proof in Acerenza, I would like to know just how long the Pagano counts have been doing this - alot of "Templarism" came back into vogue after Freemasonry became widespread. I also would like to know they were able to continue this "investiture" celebration after the Order was suppressed without being excommunicated. I have a feeling that their celebration has more to do with the Freemason creation myth than actual Templar history.

Another thing that cannot escape my mind is the Rennes-le-Chateau phenomenon: These towns are in the poorest section of Italy - what better way to draw tourist dollars than to be connected to the "DaVinci Code" mysteries of Templars and Sacred Geometry. Since Holy Blood, Holy Grail came out the tiny French village of Rennes-le-Chateau has seen hundreds of thousands of tourists each year.

Is the stone complete? That is does is begin with Hugh de Payen and end with Jacques de Molay? If so, the when was the stone carved? If not, then who is the last name on the list?

I don't think Professor Barber would be swayed by a documentary considering he is usually asked to participate in them. But he would probably look at any original documents that you are using for evidence.

So what are your final plans? Are you two going to publish a book?

Justin, hi

If you speak with the professor again, you may want to emphasize that Hugo was Italo--Norman instead of saying he was specifically Italian. He's was like us in that he was Italian like we are American, with Norman origins like we have Italian origins/// Gianni has several documents, and I can sent them directly to Professor Barber if he would like. A book is in the plan

Hi Jacqueline

I'm probably not going to speak to Professer Barber for a while, unless I go and read the books he suggested to me. I'm really not that active in this kind of research anymore.

However I did get a reply from Champagne Nobility expert Theodore Evergates. Here is a little bit of what he wrote:

"The earliest reference to a village at Payns (just north of Troyes in
Champagne) is from 820 (Pedennagium), cited in Alphonse Roserot,
"Dictionnaire historique de la Champagne meridionale," 3:1094. I am not
aware of another mention until the twelfth century."

"There are two local references to Hugh of Payns before 1125: in 1100 he
was present with a number of other barons of the count of Troyes and
listed as "Hugo de Paeanz" ("Cartulaire de l'abbaye de Montieramey," ed.
Charles Lalore, 24), and in 1113 he was listed as "dominus de Peanz" [lord
of Payns] (Archives Departementales de l'Aube [at Troyes], 6 H 38). For
those of us working in the history of this region, those references (and their
contexts with other local lords) are quite strong markers of local
origin. Hugh was probably from a middling knight or lesser baronial
family, perhaps related to Bernard of Clairvaux. It is not unusual that
Hugh is cited only twice: he was probably in the east most of the time,
and he probably had limited means and thus was not a benefactor of
monasteries (and so does not appear in their records)."

"It is true that there is a mention of a "Hugo de Paganus," but I take
that to be a scribe's transcription of an unfamiliar name. Payns was a
very small settlement (perhaps not even a village) on the Seine River and
probably not familiar to most monastic scribes who were writing these
documents in Latin (from hearing the name in spoken French)."

Regarless of these findings, the Professor did mention that he is interested in hearing about what you discover in your research. He also suggested contacting Simonetta Cerrini, a researcher on the early Templars.

A book huh, I hope I can get my copy signed :)

Forum Answers

The inevitable historical documentation that refers to Hugo de Paganis is as follows;

1) The original version of “Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum” by William of Tyre, Book 12 chapter 7; “ Inter quos primi et precipui fuerunt, viri venerabilis, Hugo de Paganis….”

2) Original and signed documents from the Grand Maestro “Hugo de Pagano” (Albon, Cartulair général)

3) A record from May, 2, 1125 (Rorich, “Regesta”) is where Hugo de Pagano signs his signature together with Arnaldus, the Order of Our Lady of Sion.

In no document had the grand maestro Hugo de Pagano signed as Hues de Paenz.
“Orthodox” version (recalled from official historians) of Professor M. Barber and of M-L Blust-Thiele:

1.From the version translated in the “langue d’ Oil” into Latin from the story of William of Tyre: “Hues de Paiens delez de Troie”, one can truly hypothesize the source “delez Troie” and one can guess that the Troie is Troye in Champagne, estate of count Hugo de Champagne.

2.We can also guess that Hugo de Paganis translated into Hues de Paiens, was a man who came from a very small place called Pedennagium 13 km from Troye on the Seine River.

3.The hypotheisis is that the count of Pedennagium, being Hugo de Paeanz appears in two documents:
one from 1100, in a record written in Troye with the count of Bar and the count of Ramerup,
the other from 1113, where he signed as Hugo “dominus de Peanz” along with the count of Champagne. 'This Hugo' was from Montigny bearing possessions located in the area of Tonnerre. He had a wife related to the Montbards and a son by the name of Abbott Teobaldo of Sainte-Colombe of Troye.

4.Another hypothesis (Esquieu:” Les templiers de Cahors”) says that Hugues de Payen was born in the castle of Mahun, adjacent to Annonay in the low valley of Rodano (Ardèche); a record of his birth-- on February 9th, 1070.

How do we prove that we are dealing with the right man?
The story is told that he was seen leaving with Hugo di Champagne for the Holy Land in 1104, then again in 1113, but never returned after that.
More proof; that the Order of the Templars is once again aknowleged in Troye 1129.
The Templars received laws from Saint Bernard, son of a Montbard. Among the first Templars, we can figure that one of them was the uncle of Saint Bernard.

The Orthodox version should be also considered true therefore, which states of the Templar’s origins and Hugo de Pagano:

1st Hypothesis: Hugo de Paganis of William of Tyre is “Hues de Paiens delez Troie” from the Frank translation, or rather Hugo come from a place called Troie.
2nd Hypothesis: Troie is the Troye in Champagne
3rd Hypothesis: Hugo de Paganis is Hues de Payen in French, Hues de Paenz and man of Peanz
4th Hypothesis: Paenz is Pedennagium 13 km from Troye
5th Hypothesis: Hues de Paenz changed his signature when he became the Grand Master of the Templars, signing as Hugo de Pagano

We must consider, like every great theory, that by reducing the various levels of hypothesis,it may be possible to find material proofs more convincing.

No proof has ever been found until now which confirms this theory. The story connecting Hugo of Champagne to Saint Bernard does not possess proof, only a new hypothesis.

The “Apocryphal” on the Norman Knight Hugone de Pagano from Lucania (not recognized by the official story) is in a story written in 1610 by Filiberto Campanile about a noble family of Naples:”L’Armi ovvero insegne de’ nobili” it happens that Hugo de Pagano is the son of Pagano de Pagano and Emma. The family’s origins are from Brittany, who arrive in Lucania in 1014 with the Normans.

1. He conquests the city of Nocera, Pagano, and Forenza settling in the city of Troia,in Lucania. The document in which Filiberto Campanile refers to, is a one appertaining to Queen Giovanna I D’Angiò, queen of Naples in 1340.
The D’Angiò’s were from the same family of Folco V D’Angiò, King of Jerusalem and affiliated with the Order of the Templar Knights in 1120.
In a similar document, Pagano de Pagani and his wife Emma, made ample donations to the Benedictine Monastery in Venosa, (to the Norman Abbott Berengario) in 1086. The donation has been verified by Menager “Le fondations Monastiques” with documents still existing today (Library of Leo, B5, Fol. 100: “.Ego Paganus, pro salute meae (…) et uxoris meae Emmae…).
Pagano de Pagano, was a Knight of Ruggero Borsa and appears in various documents of donation. His name is the same in signatures made by the first Grand Master of the Templars. He came from the Troia in Lucania.

2.In a letter Hugo de Pagano sent to his uncle Amarelli in Calabria, he spoke of a mission for defence of the pilgrims and death of his cousin Alessandro. The letter is dated 1103. There is a registered copy in the public notary in Naples translated from Latin to Italian dated back to; 1630. Unfortunately, the copy written in Latin has since been lost.
The Lucanian story of Hugo de Pagano is this; Hugo was the son of Pagano de Pagano and Emma, a noble Norman family of Southern Italy, who take off for the crusade with Boemondo D’Altavilla and Tancredi. He had written this letter to his uncle in 1103 speaking of the defending of the pilgrimages. He returned to Italy in 1116, and left once again with Goffredo of Santo Ademaro in 1117. Goffredo of Santo Ademaro had probably arrived in Southern Italy with Eustachio of Boulogne in 1117, who would become king of Jerusalem (Ruciman,”Story of the Crusade”).
In Jerusalem, they became known as a New Order frpm Baldovino II, that there; they welcomed him for these motives:

1.Hugo de Pagano was a relative of the Altavilla, and nephew to Ruggero I and cousin of Ruggero II. After the harsh encounter made from Baldovino I; who had disowned Adelaide mother of Ruggero II, after having taken all of the money, and had wanted to regain support from the powerful King of Sicily; Ruggero II. He transmits it to Hugo de Pagano. His mother Emma was the sister of Giuditta Evreux.

2.Hugo was supported by the Order of our Lady of Sion, orders were principally formed by Benedictine Norman monks who came from southern Italy. This was founded by Goffredo of Buglione (their leader was a bishop who came from Calabria) (Ruciman, “Story of the Crusade”)

3.Goffredo of Santo Ademaro was a liegeman from Eustachio of Boulogne, brother of Goffredo of Buglione and Baldovino I; the legit king of Jerusalem who had given up his throne.

Before the Templars, we can consider that an order called “the Knights of San Giovanni” had existed, founded by the people from Amalfi—in this way, pilgrims could be protected in the Holy Land. It is very probable that Hugo de Pagano was affiliated with this order (Amalfi was a seafaring Republic near Salerno that was conquested by the Normans of Southern Italy).

The preoccupation of Count Hugo of Champagne (from the Crusade), had occurred in “Norman Italy” where they arrived to embark. This explains why Hugo of Champagne knew the “Militia Christi” founded by Roberto Guiscard at the time of Niccolò II and of the assembly of Melfi.
The great presence of French in the Order of the Templars, mustn’t bewilder anyone. Boemondo, prince of Taranto, returned to Italy in 1105, and looked to support the King of France and England, helped by Adele de Blois, wife of Stefano of Blois, the brother of Hugo of Champagne.

Adele organized the marriage of Boemondo and Costanza, the daughter of the King of France and the ex-wife of Hugo of Champagne. Hugo of Champagne found himself in Puglia in the period of 1105, and it’s quite probable that his path had crossed at some point with Boemondo’s.
Hugo de Pagano makes this same journey, after returning to Italy in 1127, first meeting the Pope, and then going to France. This journey is repetitious to the journey made by Boemondo d’Altavilla in 1106.

Ultimately, in the “Apocryphal” version, there are documents without hypothesis. These documents have been kept false by historians, but it wouldn’t be so difficult to prove them actually true.

The proofs; are in the places found shadowing this story (Many places had been completely forgotten: frescoed chapels were only recently found, others were used as stalls for pigs!) and in new documents that had not been studied by historians; due to the unfortunate fact that they’ve been unknown to them.
In the rewritten story (from a point of view by the Normans of southern Italy), the origins of the Crusade are explained (see William of Malmesbury and Ruciman) besides the origins of the Knights Templar.
The Normans of Lucania and Acerenza become the center of this story, considering two things:

1.In Lucania a meeting between the Papacy and the Normans occurs

2.In Lucania there is a conflict between the Normans, the Papacy, the Longobardi, the Saracens and the Greeks. In Lucania, there was a great presence of Hebrews, and above all, in Venosa, near to Acerenza.

If there was an actual place in time where the Crusade could have been organized, it was in this place, the Lucania of Roberto Guiscard and Boemondo of Taranto. The proofs are numerous, and will be documented in a publication that we are preparing.

I hope you let me know when it gets published. Especially is there are documents that haven't been studied yet.

I don't see the connections claimed in the apocryphal version of history. I guess I'm just stubborn since I have read the orthodox version in school, there are just some points that don't fit:

"The Lucanian story of Hugo de Pagano is this; Hugo was the son of Pagano de Pagano and Emma, a noble Norman family of Southern Italy, who take off for the crusade with Boemondo D’Altavilla and Tancredi. He had written this letter to his uncle in 1103 speaking of the defending of the pilgrimages."

The Normans in Southern Italy were closer and numerous so if the early Templars were aligned with the Normans then why go to France to recruit? In the late 10th century nobody messed with the Normans in Southern Italy, why wouldn't they recruit from their power base? Later on this area would not be so Templar friendly but at this time period why wouldn't "norman" templars recruit normans.

"Goffredo of Santo Ademaro had probably arrived in Southern Italy with Eustachio of Boulogne in 1117, who would become king of Jerusalem (Ruciman,”Story of the Crusade”). In Jerusalem, they became known as a New Order frpm Baldovino II."

This might be have been just a misreading of Runciman but Eustache of Bologne, Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin of Bologne were all brothers. Baldwin became King Balwin I in 1100 after the death of Godfrey. In 1117-18 their cousin Baldwin of LeBourg who was ruling the County of Edessa at the time became King Baldwin II.

Also these men were French - Lorrainers, not Normans. Culturally this might be splitting hairs but when it came to the First Crusade these were separate armies: Normans(Bohemond,Tancred), Lorrainers(Godfrey, Baldwin) and Provencals/Burgundians(Raymond of Tolouse).

In fact there were two separate Norman groups during the First Crusade - the Norman French under the command of Count Robert of Flanders and Duke Robert of Normandy. These men, including Stephen of Blois would not take orders from someone of lower birth like Bohemond. Runciman's work is filled with examples of tempers flaring because of who would take orders from whom.

"Goffredo of Santo Ademaro was a liegeman from Eustachio of Boulogne, brother of Goffredo of Buglione and Baldovino I; the legit king of Jerusalem who had given up his throne."

I don't understand this statement - who gave up thier throne? Eustache was never offered a crown, Godfrey declined the title King but ruled as one. When he died his brother Baldwin had no problem taking the crown and title.

"Hugo was supported by the Order of our Lady of Sion, orders were principally formed by Benedictine Norman monks who came from southern Italy."

If Benedictine monks were supporting Hugo and therefore the early Templars then why did Bernard of Clairveaux write their Rule? The Cistercians, especially Saint Bernard were openly opposed to the Benedictine Rule. It sounds like a conflict of interest. Why wouldn't they have a Rule based on Benedictine order?

"Before the Templars, we can consider that an order called “the Knights of San Giovanni” had existed, founded by the people from Amalfi—in this way, pilgrims could be protected in the Holy Land."

The Knights of Saint John (Knights Hospitallers, Knights of Malta) were a hospital organization - they ran hospices for pilgrims and did not become a military order protecting pilgrims until the 1130's.

Make sure you include lots of images in when you publish the book.

The Normans in Southern Italy were closer and numerous so if the early Templars were aligned with the Normans then why go to France to recruit? In the late 10th century nobody messed with the Normans in Southern Italy, why wouldn't they recruit from their power base? Later on this area would not be so Templar friendly but at this time period why wouldn't "norman" templars recruit normans.



The reason they recruited the new Templars in France as opposed to Norman Italy, is the same reason for which Boemondo went to France in 1105; he was looking for support.
The existing struggles between the Norman families and the Altavilla to dominate south Italy wasn’t possible—an easy recruitment for the Knights.
Ruggero II, in 1127, was hostile in the first Crusade, so it was easier to act in France. The alliance with France, Normandie and England born when Urban II was protected for 5 years by the Normans in southern Italy.
He resided for a long while at the Benedictine Abbey in Banzi, near Acerenza.
During these 5 years he was at work organizing the Crusade. The manner is simple: the creation of “marriage” alliances. From an easy research, you’ll discover that almost every French and Norman count who left for the Crusade, was interrelated with the Altavilla (ex. Raimondo Saint Gilles marries one of the daughters of Ruggero I, the count of Clermont marries the daughter of Ruggero I, Ruggero Borsa marries Alaina, daughter of Robert the Frison etc,.)

This was the mission of the monks of southern Italy who founded Orval in 1070. Besides you need to remember, that the Normans who have conquested southern Italy, have conserved tight relations with their places of origin for a long time.
Among them, there were many knights who originated from Flanders, Britain, and from other Frank Counts.
If you read the Orthodox story, no one really understands what Urban II did during the 5 years before his return to Rome, and his going to……Clermont to proclaim the Crusade. And no one understands well enough how it’s possible to mobilize riches and knights in just a few months—within departure for the Holy Land.

Was it because almost everyone was interrelated with the Altavillas?
Why does the Pope go to Clermont (A family that had possessions in Lucania, where they had founded a town called Chiaromonte?). In this case, many of the analysis’s made by historians are not so convincing.



This might be have been just a misreading of Runciman but Eustache of Bologne, Godfrey of Bouillon and Baldwin of Bologne were all brothers. Baldwin became King Balwin I in 1100 after the death of Godfrey. In 1117-18 their cousin Baldwin of LeBourg who was ruling the County of Edessa at the time became King Baldwin II.

The crown was momentarily offered to Stephen Eustache of Bologne who was the legit heir.
Eustache arrived with an army in south Italy, waiting to embark for Jerusalem. But while he was waiting in Puglia, the news arrived that his cousin Baldwin le Bourge became King Baldwin II—King of Jerusalem. Since Eustache wasn’t interested in the crown of Jerusalem, he leaves to follow his knights and returns in Boulogne (Ruciman: Book 1, II Part, Chap. I° “King Baldwin II”). Among these knights Goffredo di Santo Aldemaro was probably present. In Puglia, the meeting of Hugo de Pagani and Goffredo di Santo Aldemaro takes place.


Also these men were French - Lorrainers, not Normans. Culturally this might be splitting hairs but when it came to the First Crusade these were separate armies: Normans(Bohemond,Tancred), Lorrainers(Godfrey, Baldwin) and Provencals/Burgundians(Raymond of Tolouse).

In fact there were two separate Norman groups during the First Crusade - the Norman French under the command of Count Robert of Flanders and Duke Robert of Normandy. These men, including Stephen of Blois would not take orders from someone of lower birth like Bohemond. Runciman's work is filled with examples of tempers flaring because of who would take orders from whom.


On one occasion, the Crusade’s army reunites, on the orders of Boemondo: for the coquetting of Antiochia. A letter exists sent by Pope Urban II, a letter turned over by Boemondo and signed by every count in the crusade, where he asked the Pope to allow him to take direct command of the Crusade. In this letter, Boemondo simply signs “EGO BOAMOUNDUS”, while all the others qualify him with their noble titles. This indicates the intimate knowledge of Boemondo with the Pope. Boemondo was a strategy genius: it is sufficient to read the story written by Anna Comnena, the daughter of Emperor Bisanzio. Anna, enemy to Boemondo, described him as a conductor of a superior level compare to the others, and only describes him (there wasn’t one description of Goffredo di Buglione, Raimondo of Tolosa etc,)

I don't understand this statement - who gave up thier throne? Eustache was never offered a crown, Godfrey declined the title King but ruled as one. When he died his brother Baldwin had no problem taking the crown and title.

Stephen Eustache gives up being King of Jerusalem after the death of Baldwin I, in favor to his cousin Baldwin le Bourge: this is written in every official story of the Crusade. (see Ruciman, Book 1, II Part, Chap. I° “King Baldwin II”; see also “History of Heracles) .


If Benedictine monks were supporting Hugo and therefore the early Templars then why did Bernard of Clairveaux write their Rule? The Cistercians, especially Saint Bernard were openly opposed to the Benedictine Rule. It sounds like a conflict of interest. Why wouldn't they have a Rule based on Benedictine order?



The Cistercians are a derivation of the Benedictines. The rule of the Cistercians is only an application more severe than the rule of San Benedictine. Saint Bernard is a Malachia institutor, an Irish monk who followed the rules of San Colomba. Saint Bernard was not opposed to the rules of Saint Benedict, but opposed to the way in which the Benedictines followed him. The Benedictine monks, who followed the Crusade, were principally Franks and Normans who originated from Saint Evroul sur L’Oche, who went to Italy with Robert of Grantmesnil, a cathedral builder. They came from a very strict school where the rules were implicated with the most rigour.
The Cistercians, born as a new Monastic Order, they were closer to the Benedictine Monks of St. Evoult than to the Benedictines of Cluny.
Benedictines were.The new Order of the Templars needed a prestigious acknowledgement and one of the Templars was the uncle of Saint Bernardo. This is how much has emerged from the story. The relations of Hugue de Peanz with Saint Bernard are only hypothesis. To write San Bernardo was Hugo Pagani says, not Hugue Peanz says.

The Knights of Saint John (Knights Hospitallers, Knights of Malta) were a hospital organization - they ran hospices for pilgrims and did not become a military order protecting pilgrims until the 1130's.

It’s true: the Knights of San Giovanni become an unrecognized Knighthood Order only in 1130, but as the hospital organization for the pilgrims already existed from 1023, founded by Amalfian traders and serviced by Benedictine Monks. It’s difficult although to think that during the First Crusade that this order wasn’t defended and suddenly the monks became knights in 1130. It’s clear that they were already Monk knights and became known only in 1130 (and still exist). The monk knights were an existing reality who existed for a long time in south Italy. A great part of these monks were Normans and were called “Normans in Monk suits”

The information’s are so opposite from a convincing Apocryphal Story to the Official one. This story is unpublished, and much more consistent than the official one. Naturally, we’ll look to explain everything in the publication: we are aware that every official historian is against us!

Well it looks like your story has some logical tie-ins and without getting back to the history books I'm pretty much out of information. However I do believe there are subtle aspects to these events that could be explained by the more "orthodox" view of history. But as the two of you know there are some serious gaps in what was happening in the late 10th century, especially in the preparations for the First Crusade.

One part that I have always had a problem with is after the capture of Jerusalem and the knights deciding to vote for a ruler. It seems that the title of King of Jerusalem was not hereditary early on and both Godfrey and Baldwin I were elected. Also when Baldwin died without an heir they did offer it to Eustace, briefly. But from what I remember reading it sounded like the knights took another vote to have Baldwin LeBourg become King. Of course it seem pretty obvious that after this the title became hereditary - or at least available to the hightest bidder.

This also brings into question the idea of Theocracy - Papal legate Adhemar or LePuy and later Daimbert Archbishop of Pisa (who later made himself Patriarch) both seemed to have the idea that there shouldn't be a secular ruler in Jerusalem and were setting up the new territory as a "papal state". Did the knights go against the popes plan or was there supposed to be a king all along?

The intermarriage of the Hautvilles and the rest of European nobility is interesting, but I always assumed it was Urban II's plan to incorporate his new defenders of Catholicism into the families that were not so loyal, were on the wrong side of the Investiture Controvery, or worse they were loyal Antipope Clement III.

I always saw this as similar to how the Dark Age popes used the Franks (such as Clovis) as their tools to wipe out the Arian heresy. Gregory VII and Urban II used the Normans in their stuggle with the Holy Roman Emperors during the Investiture Controvery and to "re-catholicize" the former Greek and Muslim south of Italy.

-one more thing on the marriages: If I remember correctly, Urban's successor annulled Baldwin I's marriage to Adelaide on the grounds that his first wive was still alive.

One thing on the Abbey at Orval: I have talked to some of the brothers in the past and the current Trappist Cistercian abbey has no connection with the all-to-brief house that was set up by the Calabrian monks. Brother Lode van Ecke, a Cistercian historian and Orval brother stated to me in 2003 that their records only start when the monks took over the abandoned property.

I don't think you are alone in the belief that the first crusade was an "inside job". It does seem uncanny that they were prepared to march so soon, but even Malcom Barber admits that the events at Claremont were "stage-managed".

I would like to know your thoughts on the Council of Piacenza which took place months before Claremont and where it seems the crusade was originally
organized to help restore Greek lands lost to the turks (this was during the all too brief time when the two chruches were trying to reconcile). Well that's what the told the greek ambassadors at least...

What are your thoughts on the demise of Bohemond? The guy was arguably the scariest man coming out of Europe (he was named after a legendary giant). And yet after his defeat by Emperor Alexius II Comnenus he was a broken man that never attempted to return to the East. It seems that if the early tempars and Bohemond were both recuiting at the same time and same place and had a similar agenda why didn't the Templars help Bohemond?

Well that's about all I have left in the tank - maybe there are some other researchers out there who would like to chime in?

Justin, first, thank you from all of us for being so passionate, and taking the time to care what we have written, for your interest, and persistance--also for your badgering!

We have realized new things through your questions, and through our searching as to succeed in answering them.
Again thank you for your effort!

I have added the answer to your number two question on page one---- its alot of work to translate them, and relay them, have patience please!

We've enjoyed your many insights!

And hope that more interested researchers will find us too!

I'm glad my questions are helping your research. I know from my own experiences that sometimes we get too "close" to our theories and it takes a fresh set of eyes to get back on track.

I've read the answers to my questions on Bohemond on page 1. They seem in line with what I remember reading, but there are aspects of these events that should be noted.

Bohemond was certainly a shrewd leader and could have used his oath of fealty out of convenience to cross in the Byzantine lands. Tancred was against this idea and I don't remember he ever ended up swearing an oath, even after Bohemond's defeat by Alexius. However the Crusaders, before the seige of Antioch did give back recently lost territories to the Greeks. If I remember correctly it was after Bohemond took Antioch for himself that things got messy (again) with Emperor Alexius as well as with another enemy, Count Raymond ot Tolouse.

Out of all the Crusade leaders Count Raymond was the only one not to swear fealty. Well, actually he did give a lesser oath, privately to the Emperor after the other leaders had crossed the Bosphorus. Also, I'm not sure of this but I think Bohemond's nephew Tancred did participate in the capture of Jerusalem.

I have always wanted to visit Bohemond's tomb in Puglia, he is one of my favorite historical bad asses :cool:.

Justin, thank you for your genuine interest. Your perfectly constructed questions had forced me to critically review certain aspects of the story that we are in the process of constructing. I hope that one day you would come to visit Lucania—a great and fascinating land, abandoned in the course of time from the “official story.” To understand the difficulty of this research, the opinions of the official story is “Ironic” in its concern.
Very often, we are subjected to ridicule by skeptics, whom are the majority of the people. Only a television director had believed us after having evaluated the proofs found, and after having visited these towns many times. Nevertheless, we have obtained astonishing and concrete results.

Here’s a quick list:
1. The geometry of the cathedral of Acerenza does not contain the usual geometry based on the golden section proportions-- simply applicated to a sacred building. Instead, it has to do with a geometrical rule; the one which developed the entire cathedral in each of its every dimension. It’s a rule that describes the theorem of the sacred geometry. We have analyzed many churches in all of Europe, and we have never found anything even remotely equivalent. The Acerenza cathedral is of an Anglo-Norman style and has been studied by important historians and architects, many of which were French. And still, no one had ever been aware of this geometry, why? The answer is a simple one; we have arrived to developing an “Apocryphal research” the story that we had written you-- is evidence that we are on the right track.
2. Yet in Acerenza, we’ve were at a level in which to be capable in interpretating symbols for the first time-- of which no one had ever noticed. No one has ever been aware of the existence of the Celtic knots, and they couldn’t just be simple decorations, but again, nobody had realized the symbolic meanings contained on these bas relief’s sitting on the portal of the church. The woman is astonishing—the one picking grapes and being pecked in her vagina by a peacock at the same time –it has to do with an evident referment to Mary Magdalene; Jesus’ wife. It’s a fact that this is the only symbolic representation existing in 1080, which transmitted this message. Why hadn’t anyone interpretated this until the 21st century?
3. We had tracked down numerous rupreste chapels with amazing frescoes, many inspired by apocryphal angels. One of these chapels was found on the top of a mountain called “Monk Forte” outside the paths of the pilgrims and armies. We have come upon this in an interesting way—studying a geographic map, some triangulations are generated starting from Castel Del Monte, (a mysterious castle built by Frederick II) at the peak of a similar triangulation (I am a civil engineer). I had found the sanctuary of Monteforte. The hypothesis that I have been trying to verify was the existence of a Norman Knight Monk Order who came before the Templars, According to this apocryphal hypothesis, this order had created a web of sanctuararies (a vista) one after the other needed for surveillance of the territory—This plan continued for the positioning of these sanctuaries and was based on the sacred geometry. I have never heard anything spoken about Monteforte. To get to this place it’s necessary to proceed on foot—along a path in the middle of an oak forest. In the sanctuary there's a fresco from 1100, with a Templar cross on it. From Monteforte you can see CastleMezzano., the place that (even today) held a town symbol that is clearly a Templar symbol. It’s just another conformation for our historical reconstruction.
4. CastelMezzano is an extraordinary place. It is not located any where near a pilgrim route or one used by crusaders. Because it’s found on top of a mountain, almost inaccessible. The church was called “Church of the Thorn” and was dedicated to the Madonna of the Morning star. These names are reoccurring in Templar locations in France. On the antique entrance of the church, there’s a templar cross (an 8 point) inscripted in a circle. It had been created with masterful skill and could not have been sculptured by a pilgrim: it had been approved by the church and created by a professional stonecutter. The thorn church conserves the painting of this Madonna of the morning star with a phrase inscripted;” Hic Habitabo Quoiam Elegia” which was taken from Psalms:131 and written in the exact manner as the one of Psalter of Saint Albans. This is the same phrase that a Grand Master Templar must recite when he is given his position.
5. The symbol of Castelmezzano has always represented two knights: the sigil of the Templar. The tradition say s that it was Boemondo who gave that symbol to this place, in memory of the two twin brothers whom once departed for the crusade and never returned. Unfortunately proof of documentations does not exist to prove this story. But you know that the symbol of Castelmezzano existed at least from 1200 and has never changed. It’s the only place the world this as a symbol from 1200, the sigil of the Templar Knights. It has resisted all this persecutions of the Templars over time. The coincidences are numerous to be able to be casual. Why hadn’t anyone sunk deeper into the story of this place?
6. Several documents found in Lucania permit the tracking of a coherent story with the opinion of William of Malmesbury; it was Boemondo who pushed Pope Urban II into the crusade. The ideas of the crusade were anticipated by Gregory VII in a letter written by Robert Guiscard, calling the Normans of southern Italy “Christ’s military”. Urban II to avoid that Boemondo started a war to his brother Ruggero the Hunchback; he promised that it would have created the perfect occasion to conquest Bisanzio. This was the goal for the first Crusade: to create an opportunity for Boemondo and to profit from the situation by way of the Roman Catholic Church.
This design was developed by Arnaldo bishop of Acerenza. Marriage alliances were made with the Frank counts. The concentration of the Noman crusader forces in the south came from chiaromente (estate of Clermont) when Boemondo departed, Arnaldo was present and blessed the Troops. This ambient easily explains everything that had happened, and that the Orthodox story isn’t able to explain in a convincing way.

Justin, Boemondo was extraordinary character, a true Viking like his father Robert Guiscard, His nephew Tancredi was an optimum knight who had lived the fame destined to Boemondo as prince of Antiocha. Boemondo was betrayed by his ambitions and by the diplomacy of the Roman church. He went to Jerusalem with Daiamberto for Christmas when it was already conquested. Tancredi participated in the capturing of Jerusalem and was the first to be added to the wall. If you go to Lucania you can visit forgotten places in History. You can visit San Chirico Raparo, the town from where Tancredi departed: from Acerenza, Castelmezzano, and Forenza –where Hugo de Payens departed and the tomb of Roberto Guiscard.
In an unfinished abbey on the cuff of Venosa: a magical place if you’ll notice, you can still hear the silence of the hills, the terrorizing screams of Robert and Boemondo as they were thrown into battle. I believe there isn't a more adapted place in which to have conserved the tomb of Guiscard:
a magnificent unfinished and forgotten abbey ….the symbol of the story of these two knights…..

Gianni

Hello Gianni, It is nice to finally speak to you. I wish the two of you luck in your research, however I feel you have an uphill climb. It is fairly obvious that I hold more to the orthodox view of the history you are researching, but it was not always like that for me. I once was very much in line with your thinking on such subjects and I spent most of my college years studying both the crusades as well as the Ethiopian church and their claim to hold the Ark of the Covenant. After several years and hundreds of dollars in books I have found that most of these researchers have their own agenda, which is not to discover the truth but more often just to sell their story. By no means do I feel you are among them, but I have become skeptical of these theories. I am glad you are using my criticism constructively and I hope it steers your research in the right direction.

As I have told Jacqueline, I am not actively researching this time period anymore and so most of my post are done from memory - please forgive me if if I'm not 100% accurate. Here are some comments regarding your post.

1.I have only read one book on the Golden section/sacred geometry - by Mario Livio, so I am not qualified to prove or refute anything on the subject. However the very little I was able to look up on Acerenza's cathedral state that the structure is based upon a Greek Cross design - not unusual especially in former Byzantine lands. The Greek Cross, is similar but not exact to the Cross Patee the Templars would later use as one of their symbols. I also seem to recall seeing a webpage that claims the cathedral was designed in imitation of Cluny - the abbey of Pope Urban II. What I would be interested in is just what part of the structure is original and what has been added later on to give a unique design.

2. The Celtic knot decoration could just be decoration and makes sense to me considering the former homelands of the Normans. Normandy and Brittany still had many vestiges of the celtic past, especially after the arrival of Normans in England. Also the Viking tradition of raiding the Irish and Celtic monasteries for centuries ensures that once the Normans became Christians they would be heavily influenced by this style of artwork. The first generation of Normans in Italy were still cultually linked to the North and as time passed the architecure became more under the Byzantine and Islamic influences.

I'm not sure, but I believe I first read about the peacock symbolism in the work of Margaret Starbird - who I find to be a bad researcher who relies on feeling instead of fact. The only symbolism I recall for the peacock in christianity dates from the classical times and represents the resurrection.

3. Please explain what you mean by "apocryphal angels". Also I don't see the connection to this proto-templar order of Norman monks and the Castel del Monte, which is at least a century younger than the time period you are working with. Also Frederick II was no friend of the Templars, so why would his mysterious castle be included in this plan? In my opinion this has less to do with sacred geometry and more on the pragmatic need to have fortresses/watchpoints with good "lines of sight". Remember that in this time the land was contested by Normans, Byzanties and Muslim raiders - even monasteries and abbeys needed to be on high ground.

4. On the Castelmezzano cross: Templar crosses were not 8-sided.
However an 8 point Latin cross was often worn by crusaders and pilgrims- it does not mean that it was carved by a pilgrim. This is the origin of the term "Taking the Cross"

The so-called Templar Cross is a Cross Patee - an equal armed "greek cross" with slighly flared ends. The 8-pointed cross is the Maltese cross of the Knights Hospitaller, which as you already know was originally the cross of the Republic of Amalfi, and a powerful Maritime power in the years before the crusades. Modern Templar organizations have corrupted the symbols and now you can see artwork of Templar knights with the wrong cross on their tabards.

The coat of arms for Castelmezzano looks like the original Templar seal, but it is not exact. The town's seal on their webpage has two knights wearing full plate armor - not used until the late 14th century. Also the knights are wielding what look like swords, the templar seal shows the knights wielding lances - and makes more sense when you fight from a horse.

The town's symbol must have changed since 1200 since knights did not wear full plate armor in 1200 - do you have any charters or documents from that period with this symbol? I would need solid proof, otherwise it looks like the invention of modern (18-19th century) Templars or Freemasons.

Also I feel that Frederick II would never allow this - an obvious symbol of Papal authority in his lands would be wiped off the face of the earth.

A note on the town name: My Italian is bad but does the name translate into: Castle of the procurer? If that is the case it sounds like the location originated as a supply station. - this is just speculation on my part.

6. I feel the concept of the "Milites Christi" was Gregory VII's need for protection from the Holy Roman Emperor. The investiture controversy was still a major issue and if not for Norman intervention Henry IV would have had his own man as pope. Urban II was sure not to make the same mistake with the Normans, and allowed the Norman territories to appoint their own bishops -he needed their protection.

I also think you should look into the Council of Piacenza which predated Claremont and was attended by ambassadors of the Greeks. Bohemond probably did have ambitions to conquer Byzantium, but it does not mean Urban had the same goal - he was attempting to reconcile the East and Western Chruches at this time. Urban (through Papal Legate Ademar of LePuy) also threatened excommunication to anyone who fought their fellow christians, the Greeks. There were skirmishes, but most were caused by foraging parties looking for supplies.

Of course, Bohemond was barely tame - a vicious guard dog that nobody could truly control. Urban and Bohemond may have been on the same team, but I do not think they had the same agenda.

I don't know how much more I can contribute but I will comment as long as I have information. I do feel that your research should look into Islamic and Byzantine influences - especially with your theories on sacred geometry since these two civilizations were the inheritors of classical knowledge. I feel that the "hidden knowledge" crusaders picked up in the Holy Land was not located under the temple mount but was the rediscovery of the lost knowledge of antiquity via the Arab scholars who continued the traditions of geometry, astronomy, navigation and architecture.

Gianni, if I can ever get back to Italy I will certainly contact you. We might disagree on things, but I can tell that we share a love of this time period and our Southern heritage (my family is from Sicily).

Justin

Hello Justin, thanks again for your attention!
I was studying middle age Historyfor long time , to help me better understand the documents that I had found in the place where I was born: Acerenza. Many of these documents came from my Family. My far origin is from Cornwall and Ireland: It is a Gaelic family. I found a black hole in this history and this is the reason why I begun my research. I wish to give back its History to Acerenza; this is my goal,. There are no fantasies here, only a history based over documents, symbols, frescos, sanctuaries, caves, woods: every stone here seems to have something to tell, something of a forgotten past. Because this is a forgotten place. I'll try to answer to your questions, but only when you will visit the places and see the documents, will you believe and understand all this. The same thing happened to one of the producers of the documentary:-- a specialist in History.
In any case, I'll try to answer. To back me up there are; documents, places and symbols that are there.


1.However the very little I was able to look up on Acerenza's cathedral state that the structure is based upon a Greek Cross design - not unusual especially in former Byzantine lands. The Greek Cross, is similar but not exact to the Cross Patee the Templars would later use as one of their symbols. I also seem to recall seeing a webpage that claims the cathedral was designed in imitation of Cluny - the abbey of Pope Urban II. What I would be interested in is just what part of the structure is original and what has been added later on to give a unique design.The Cathedral of Acerenza preserve the original plan built by Arnaldus in 1080. It never changed since that time, except for the towers: the original plan had two towers. In our geometrical research we found that the towers have to be two. Ancient documents preserved in the cathedral, confirm that the towers were two: one destroyed because of an Earthquake in 1500 and never rebuilt again. The original plan is an anglo-Norman church similar to some other in Normandy. The question is that this cathedral is older than most parts of the other cathedrals in Normandy. I don’t agree that it follows the plan of Cluny.
Concerning the sacred geometry, it is my specialization. I know the history of this knowledge, and I know very well the book of Mario Livio. The plan of Acerenza shows a geometrical rule based over the sacred geometry, without any doubt. The characteristic of this plan is the “deambulatorium”. In Italy only three churches exist with this plan, all of them are in Southern Italy.


2. The Celtic knot decoration could just be decoration and makes sense to me considering the former homelands of the Normans. Normandy and Brittany still had many vestiges of the celtic past, especially after the arrival of Normans in England. Also the Viking tradition of raiding the Irish and Celtic monasteries for centuries ensures that once the Normans became Christians they would be heavily influenced by this style of artwork. The first generation of Normans in Italy were still cultually linked to the North and as time passed the architecure became more under the Byzantine and Islamic influences.The Celtic Knot of Acerenza is different: it is a not symmetrical chain of Celtic Knots. It is very difficult to do. It is a code: I’m sure about it. In this Cathedral everything is a symbol. The influence was from Ireland, the same place from where Cannion and Arnaldus (and my family) came from.


The only symbolism I recall for the peacock in christianity dates from the classical times and represents the resurrection.
You can find many peacocks in many medieval churches in Italy. It was the symbol of the resurrection. The question is that everywhere the peacock pecks the grape directly. In Acerenza it pecks the genitals of a woman harvesting grapes


3. Please explain what you mean by "apocryphal angels". Also I don't see the connection to this proto-templar order of Norman monks and the Castel del Monte, which is at least a century younger than the time period you are working with. Also Frederick II was no friend of the Templars, so why would his mysterious castle be included in this plan? In my opinion this has less to do with sacred geometry and more on the pragmatic need to have fortresses/watchpoints with good "lines of sight". Remember that in this time the land was contested by Normans, Byzanties and Muslim raiders - even monasteries and abbeys needed to be on high ground
The chapels have beautiful frescos inspired to apocryphal gospels. One of these is inspired to the Gospel of Juda.There isn’t any connection between Castel del Monte and the proto-Templars. The reason why I was searching a geographic triangulation starting from Castel del Monte, is because Fredrick II had a deep esoteric knowledge, he drew this castle’s plan that is full of esoteric symbols, and in my opinion he choose the place in a relation with some holy places. The results shows that it was true.


4. On the Castelmezzano cross: Templar crosses were not 8-sided.
However an 8 point Latin cross was often worn by crusaders and pilgrims- it does not mean that it was carved by a pilgrim. This is the origin of the term "Taking the Cross"

The so-called Templar Cross is a Cross Patee - an equal armed "greek cross" with slighly flared ends. The 8-pointed cross is the Maltese cross of the Knights Hospitaller, which as you already know was originally the cross of the Republic of Amalfi, and a powerful Maritime power in the years before the crusades. Modern Templar organizations have corrupted the symbols and now you can see artwork of Templar knights with the wrong cross on their tabards.We found red crosses 8-pointed in many Templar “Grancie and Sanctuaries” in Lucania. It was the original templar cross. Here, exist many ancient frescos that show it's: too old to be “corrupted” by modern templars or masons. Don’t forget that we are searching in a place that witnessed the birth of the crusaders, a place still uncorrupted and authentic.


The coat of arms for Castelmezzano looks like the original Templar seal, but it is not exact. The town's seal on their webpage has two knights wearing full plate armor - not used until the late 14th century. Also the knights are wielding what look like swords, the templar seal shows the knights wielding lances - and makes more sense when you fight from a horse.

The town's symbol must have changed since 1200 since knights did not wear full plate armor in 1200 - do you have any charters or documents from that period with this symbol? I would need solid proof, otherwise it looks like the invention of modern (18-19th century) Templars or Freemasons.

From authentic documents we know that it was the symbol of Castelmezzano (Castro Medianum) since 1200 at least: no doubts: two knights on the same horse. The modern symbol is quite different from the original, because it was drawn again as the style of 1700. Original documents from 1200 tell about this symbol.


Also I feel that Frederick II would never allow this - an obvious symbol of Papal authority in his lands would be wiped off the face of the earth.
A note on the town name: My Italian is bad but does the name translate into: Castle of the procurer? If that is the case it sounds like the location originated as a supply station. - this is just speculation on my part.

6. I feel the concept of the "Milites Christi" was Gregory VII's need for protection from the Holy Roman Emperor. The investiture controversy was still a major issue and if not for Norman intervention Henry IV would have had his own man as pope. Urban II was sure not to make the same mistake with the Normans, and allowed the Norman territories to appoint their own bishops -he needed their protection.



In 1089 there was a Council in Melfi, the city of the Normans beside Acerenza. We have documents that show that Urban II was talking around the Holy War and the Holy Convenience already in Melfi! More, I know also why Urban II choose Piacenza and Who was organizing this Council…..forgotten documents as I told you .


Bohemond probably did have ambitions to conquer Byzantium, but it does not mean Urban had the same goal - he was attempting to reconcile the East and Western Chruches at this time. Urban (through Papal Legate Ademar of LePuy) also threatened excommunication to anyone who fought their fellow christians, the Greeks. There were skirmishes, but most were caused by foraging parties looking for supplies.It doesn’t seem to be in accordance with the mission of Dainberto of Pisa. The first goal was Jerusalem of course, then Bysantium using Bohemundus. It was the true purpose of Urban II, from the documents that I have

Of course, Bohemond was barely tame - a vicious guard dog that nobody could truly control. Urban and Bohemond may have been on the same team, but I do not think they had the same agenda.Bohemundus was in accord with the Pope. His Father, Robert Guiscard promised him a kingdom, according with Gregorius VII. Urban II followed his plan.

I do feel that your research should look into Islamic and Byzantine influences - especially with your theories on sacred geometry since these two civilizations were the inheritors of classical knowledge. I feel that the "hidden knowledge" crusaders picked up in the Holy Land was not located under the temple mount but was the rediscovery of the lost knowledge of antiquity via the Arab scholars who continued the traditions of geometry, astronomy, navigation and architecture.This knowledge was known in Sicily during the kingdom of Roger I and Roger II. Don’t forget that Pythagoras and Archimedes were living in Southern Italy: the true place from where this knowledge was coming.

Hi Gianni,

Thank you for answering the questions I posed. At this point I figure I would have to see the evidence to sway me.

Considering that you actually possess the proof to your argument, I think you should try to get your work published in a scholarly journal, besides your book.

I also suggest that you find a way to translate your documentary into english since you will have a larger audience. Or at least find a way to get it onto youtube.

Feel free to keep the forum posted on updates and discoveries and good luck.

Justin

I see this topic is wroten only by two forum members. Well, I understand as sacred geometry is difficult science familiary only to someone.

In several years, since 1995 I made a lot of analzyes, mostly for Slovenia and towns there.

So international sacred geometrical postitons show me that Israel is located on some holly world area as it have support from Mecca and Vatican. But formula is much deeper and it is going all way to Tokyo. I believe by the time they will be in danger.

Andres

ANdres, why do you say they will be in danger?

ANdres, why do you say they will be in danger?

It is simple to say and difficult to calculate. Out from some point in Vatican, some point in Mecca and some point in Istanbul I got formula and it is show direct to west Sudan. There can be Darfur or border of it. So point there is negative it is going back east over Mecca, over some mountain in Iran. (I believe there is something inside this mountain.) So coordinate is going much longer over China up to point near border of S and N Korea. If you remember in autumn 2006 there was been crise. So well. same coordinate is stoping around 200 km from Japanese beach. So if something will going wrong Tokyo will be out of map because coordiante will continue to run over Japan.

Andres

An important researcher by the name of Simonetta Cerrini, who is one of the most significant Italian Templar scholars stimata by Malcom Barber, has published a recent book in France titled "The Revolution of the Templars." This book has collections of documents from all over the world reguarding the beginnings of the Templars. She says before she was convinced that the first Gran Master Templar Hugues de Piens came from Champange France, as Malcom Barber says. Now Simonetta Cerrini is not sure anymore because there is not significant proof of this. Other historical versions, like the Italian one, are equally valid, but there is a need to deepen research. In her book, she doesn't only use the name "Hugues de Piens" like all the other historians today, but uses also the name HUGO DE PAGANIS! This is vital because it's becoming officially known that the valid research performed on Hugo de Paganis coming from LUCANIA is correct, and that he is French is not an assured fact.
__________________________________________________ _____________
la ricercatrice Italiana Simonetta Cerrini, la più importante studiosa italiana di Templari stimata da Malcom Barber, ha pubblicato di recente in Francia un libro che si intitola "La revolution des Templiers". In questo libro ha raccolto in tutto il mondo i documenti che riguardano l'inizio della storia dei Templari. Lei dice che prima era convinta che il primo Gran Maestro dei Templari Hugues de Paiens proveniva dalla Champagne in Francia, come dice Malcom Barber. Ora Simonetta Cerrini non è più sicura di questo perchè le prove non sono sufficienti. Le altre versioni storiche, come quella Italiana, sono ugualmente valide, percui bisogna approfondire la ricerca. Nel suo libro non usa più solo il nome di Hugues de Paiens, come fanno tutti gli storici oggi, ma usa anche il nome di Hugo de Paganis! Questo è importantissimo perchè viene riconoscita ufficialmente la validità della ricerca fatta su Hugo de Paganis proveniente dalla Lucania e che quella Francese non è sicura!!!

Hi Gianni,
I was reading the last reply on your article about Acerenza and the the sacres geometry. And I became curious what Andres meant by his research and that there would be a danger to search for the answers or so? I already told you about the city of Ljubljana in Slovenia what is almost totaly built by the ideas of the Goldene Schnitt or sacred geometry. The famous Slovene architect Joze Plecnik(mind the accents) who lives from 1872 untill 1957, built with the ideas of the sacred geometry. He was also a very religious catholic and it's surprising to see that Antoni Gaudi had the same ideas, however that didn't know each other.
Is it somehow connected to more cities in the world?
Greetings from Ali from Holland