Talk:Knights Templar/Archive 5

message: I've been continuing to investigate the "shape of the cross" issue, and there still appears to be no one specific shape for the Templars' cross. Every source that I've checked, refers to it simply as a red cross. Reliable video documentaries tend to use a variety of cross shapes. Granted, some of what they're using is for newly-created costumes.  But they also show crusader art from the Templar era, and even in those, a variety of cross styles are used, ranging from angular to rounded to the standard Christian symbol with the long vertical bar.  The most common usage that I've seen is this one: 
Heraldric sources vary.  I've found none that specifically refer to a "pattee" cross in reference to the Templars, though there is reference to a "Crusaders Cross" pattern, as is seen on this image of Godfrey of Bouillon 
Here's a lithograph of the last Grand Master, Jacques de Molay: 
See also this image from the cover of Histoires des Templiers.  
I've checked LK's source of Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum, William of Tyre and "Introduction to Heraldry", W H St.John Hope, but was unable to find any reference to a Templar Cross Pattee in either of them.  LK, perhaps you could provide page numbers?  The "Historia Rerum" is available online, at the thelatinlibrary.com.  Please provide a link to your exact source?  According to mine, at section 12.7 (as was quoted by Barber), in "CAPUT VII. Ordo militiae Templi Hierosolymis instituitur" the mention is, "Postmodum vero, tempore domini Eugenii papae, ut dicitur, cruces de panno rubeo, ut inter caeteros essent notabiliores, mantellis suis coeperunt assuere, tam equites quam eorum fratres inferiores, qui dicuntur servientes," which I translate as meaning "crosses of red cloth."
In summary, the Knights Templar were known to use a variety of different cross shapes, and I still believe that it would be incorrect to label them as strictly using the cross pattee. --Elonka 19:44, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The image of Godfrey shows what is known as the Patriarch cross, sometimes also known as one of the Caravaca designs. It is often confused in heraldry as croix treflee and the croix recroisetee. I don't know which version of Hope's book you're reading, but is has a very clear description of the pattee. It's obvious that you have some hang up with not wishing to acknowledge the cross pattee, but I still believe that to just write 'red cross' is incorrect as most people's interpretation of a cross is the Latin cross or St George's cross with equidistant arms. The pictures on this article show that this was not the case, hence the possible confusion to anyone (who doesn't know the subject in detail) who visits for information. Perhaps it might be better to write 'White robe with a red cross (of a pattee design)' There! are we all happy now? or would you like me to quote the OED's definition of robe v mantle??? :-)   Lord Knowle 20:45, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would balk at deducing from artworks of known subjects, even if period, as although likely, I would be unsure that the artist was either aware of blazon or represented the design precisely. I think the inclusion does hang on a reliable cite in this instance.--Alf melmac 20:50, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Sorry, which reliable cite are you referring to? There's no reference to the pattee in William of Tyre, and in Hope's "Introduction to Heraldry", the only reference to Templars in the index is to page 35, which again says nothing about a cross pattee. --Elonka 20:59, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, sorry to you for not making it clear, as yet there has not been a reliable cite for it being specifically pattee, the request for verification has been made, I hope it is possible to find one, as that will please all sides.--Alf melmac 21:12, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'm not sure of the veracity but middleages.org.uk gives "1146 The Knights Templar order adopted the 'cross pattee' - a splayed red cross as their emblem".--Alf melmac 21:23, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you Alf. Correct, 1146 is the commonly accepted date. My original correction to the article was simply that the red cross should be defined in more exact heraldic terms. As you no doubt know, 'splayed' is not such a term and therefore the proper heraldic description was added. However, one esteemed American expert on the Knights Templar took exception on me trying to get the article a little more accurate and went off on one to the point that has left me seriously wondering!! Anyway, her personal attacks on me aside, you will notice that I have ammended the little summary box with a suitable phrase that, I hope, is acceptable to all, based on the Templar Cross image that she has insisted appears in the article - she can't have it both ways, surely??? I am happy to concede that a visitor without knowledge of heraldic terms may not know what a cross pattee is, therefore by putting it in this new sub-bracketed format adds further information that they may look up under another Wiki entry, if they so wish. Now, can we all possibly go back from DEFCON level 1 and get on in getting this article to A Grade... or are there more libellous insinuations about my degrees forthcoming.  Lord Knowle 21:36, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am certain that the listing at middle-ages-org.uk is incorrect -- an assumption made by the creators of the website, that has no verifiable source.  I can point to multiple books that make no mention of the cross pattee, and list it simply as "red cross." There are actually very few documents which remain from that era, and most of what is known about the Templars comes from three historians:  William of Tyre (d. 1186), Michael the Syrian (d. 1199) and Walter Map (died c. 1208).  The most extensive documents come from William of Tyre (all of this information is from Barber's book, The New Knighthood, page 6). The insistence that the Templars only used the "Cross Pattee" seems to be a modern invention, and I think we should absolutely avoid listing it as the "only form" of the Templar cross.  Now, one way we could potentially compromise on this, is to say that the Templars adopted a red cross, and that there were various versions of it used, including the Cross Pattee.  I could live with that. --Elonka 21:39, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

text: I note in KNIGHTS TEMPLAR INTERNATIONAL NEWSLETTER O.S.M.T.H. Issue 4: October 2004, which is available as a .doc on the web here that they now have "unification of regalia" - see the section on Regalia and which gives "France has now completed the implementation of OSMTH international decisions regarding the unification of regalia, and the Cross pattee is now the only cross worn on the capes and the only one handed to newly invested knights." so at least their current practice can be cited.--Alf melmac 21:48, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  For the modern order of Templars sure, but this article is about the medieval order.  It's a common public confusion.  The OSMTH is a modern order, founded in 1804, based on the traditions of the medieval order.  I'm fine with listing the Cross Pattee at the OSMTH webpage, but we shouldn't enforce that symbol on the medieval order, because it's incorrect. --Elonka 21:53, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Now I'm really confused... earlier above you stated - the Templars adopted a red cross, and that there were various versions of it used, including the Cross Pattee.  Now you're saying that we shouldn't mention the cross pattee [quote] because it's incorrect. ???!!!??!?! Does not compute in my book. Lord Knowle 22:22, 18 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  What I am saying is that in every reliable source that I have checked, the description of the medieval Templar cross is "red cross", not "cross pattee."  The Templars used a variety of different cross styles, some of which were "cross pattee" style, but many of which used other shapes. I am opposed to including language in the Wikipedia article which tries to state that the "cross pattee" was the official medieval Templar cross, because it wasn't.  It was just one style of cross which was used among many, from the mid-1100s to the mid-1300s. I believe that where the confusion comes in, is that in the 1700s and 1800s, some modern Templar organizations were founded, which tried to copy some traditions from the medieval order.  Some of these modern orders have claimed the "cross pattee" as their official symbol, which is fine.  But let's not confuse the symbols of the modern orders, with the symbols of the medieval order.  The medieval version just used a "red cross", in various forms. This particular Knights Templar Wikipedia article is strictly about the medieval version of the order.  There are other articles which deal with the modern orders, such as Sovereign Military Order of the Temple of Jerusalem and Knights Templar (Freemasonry).  So this article, about the medieval order, should just use the term "cross", rather than trying to force a heraldric definition of "cross pattee" on the medieval order, when no such definition ever existed. --Elonka 06:10, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I strongly agree with Elonka based on the solid case she has presented. --Loremaster 22:14, 19 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cross shape

message: Discussion about the article on Elonka (e.g. allegations that it is self-promotory or has invalid links) belong on that article's talk page, not here. Even if those allegations are true (and I'm not saying they are) that does not serve as an excuse for the links here. 
Other than that, if this dispute keeps up, it may be useful to open an WP:RFC on the matter (no, not on the editors involved, on the issue here). >Radiant< 10:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would agree that the principle focus should be on the article, and only the article. I don't think there are two wrongs, merely a clash of culture. This has always been a controversial page, and Elonka has done much good work on defending it from PoV. A relatively new editor with considerable experience of the subject has commenced introducing information that is not substantiated by freely available publications. Elonka was right to be sceptical, however that has created a disproportionate ding-dong, particularly as LordKnowle has interpreted that as an attack on his(?) academic reputation. I think the steps taken to lock the page allows a sensible cooling off. I would hope that all parties can move forward quickly, both accepting the need for independent validation and civility; and every one can concentrate on moving the article forward. Kbthompson 10:56, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please urgently see my entry on LK's talk page. There is something seriously amiss here after doing my own check of 'his' edits on this article. I've compared some of my call logs to the dates and times and there are some issues. I have emailed the person I know as LK to make him aware of this. In the meantime can one of the Admin team please check whether or not a request for a password reminder was requested just prior to LK's reappearance on this site. The Knights Templar is something he normally stays very private about. His only passion on the Internet is aeroplanes and providing updates on his restoration projects so this all very strange. Thanks. HexTokis 11:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two wrongs?