I was wondering if anyone had any comments to make on the article of Acerenza?
http://www.lifeinitaly.com/history/s...anizations.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)

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.