Page 3 of 3

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 1:33 pm
by Brother Ranulf
The Templars had a wide range of "ranks" although they didn't think of them in those terms:

Brother knights were just as the name implies
Serjantz (often spelled sergeants today, but this is a misleading term) were a range of servants, some of whom served as lower-grade troops, others simply as admin staff and labourers
Turcopoles were lightly-equipped mercenary troops recruited in Outremer
Squires were effectively trainee knights; some may have served as serjantz, others were attached to the knights as personal assistants both on and off the battlefield.

Add in priests and temporary brother knights serving for a fixed term and probably several other types.

Interestingly, in the early days of the Hospitallers, there were no serjantz - all applicants (whatever their social status) were all treated as equals. This equates exactly with the non-military monastic Orders, where it mattered not one bit what your social background happened to be.

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:38 pm
by Alan_F
So a crossbowman or spearman could be either a Serjant or Turcopoles?

Were Turcopoles specifically people from Outremer or were they people who (for example) lived there or recruited there?

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 2:48 pm
by Brother Ranulf
Both military serjantz and turcopoles are among the least understood troop types during the Crusades era; most people think that turcopoles were light cavalry (which doesn't prevent them being archers, since horse archers were a feature of armies in the Middle East). They would have been Christians, or at least nominally so, but could have been from a wide range of ethnic backgrounds. They would wear their native dress and equipment, so many may have looked very similar to the enemy - their banners would be the distinguishing mark.

Military serjantz are something of an enigma. The rule specifies the colour they should wear, but not much else. They may have been cavalry forming a second rank behind the knights; or they may have been infantry spearmen and crossbowmen; or a combination of these. Until better evidence can be found, it's really a matter of speculation.

Serjantz were members of the Order, while mercenary tucopoles were not - more like "attached troops".

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:08 pm
by Alan_F
So a serjant could be similar to say a hobilar?

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:20 pm
by mac (crucesignati)
Alan_F wrote:
Were Turcopoles specifically people from Outremer or were they people who (for example) lived there or recruited there?
Turcopoles were the Latin Syrian mercenaries employed by the Order. These were light mounted troops used as auxiliaries and scouts and were known for their use of the composite bow and their skill at Saracen fighting techniques

I'm sure I have read somewhere that the Templar squire was not the typical idea of a knight in training and they were more akin to servants. The knights were drawn from the existing secular class whilst the Serjents were from the secualr bourgouisie (spelling?).

Posted: Wed Jul 23, 2008 7:22 pm
by mac (crucesignati)
Turcopoles again... I believe that the people the term referred to changed over a period time. Initially it referred to the above but became a generic term later for a wider range of ethnic christians

Posted: Sat Jul 26, 2008 10:14 pm
by Sygtrygg Athlunkard
Its a bit out of my period of choise but I'll sign up for the order, have kit that can be used- coif, sword, kite shield, just need a tabbard and let me know who to bash for the cash !!!!!
syg 8)

Posted: Wed Oct 15, 2008 1:11 pm
by Guthroth

I am one of a large group who got together at Hastings on Saturday night with a definate plan to start a 2/3rd Crusade group.

We are working on a kit guide, insurance, bank account etc etc - all the boring stuff.

We have contacts with EH, NT and dear old Howard, and a promise of one gig next spring already.

The group is planning to have scope for members of the militant orders as well as secular knights and their footsoldiers who will be armed with spear, sword and crossbow.

If anyone is really interested can I suggest you either pop along to the Yahoo group

or drop me a PM.

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:14 pm
by Brother-Knight
hey guys, did this templar idea ever come to fruition??

Posted: Fri Feb 20, 2009 1:47 pm
by Guthroth
Everything is still on track for Deus Vult, but I can't speak for anyone else.

We are supposed to be having a get-together near Gatwick some time in March, would you like me to post some details when I get them ?

Posted: Sun Feb 22, 2009 7:10 pm
by Alan_F
And to go off topic a bit here:

The Templars were not present at the battle of Bannockburn, they were not some surprise force that came over the hill in the dying stages of the battle and they have no connection to Rosslyn Chapel. Whilst there 100's of books out there claiming all of this, it should be noted that the chroniclers of the time didn't see it happening, which speaks more about those claiming otherwise than can be said here. The only connection I can find to between the Templars and the Scottish Wars of Independence is a Templar knight fighting for Edward I at Falkirk. The only link between Scotland, Freemasonry and the Templars is in the minds of the writers of Holy Blood and Holy Grail, a book that has been rubbished more times than I can count.

Sorry to those who already knew this, just one I had to bring up.

Posted: Mon Feb 23, 2009 9:40 pm
by pjh73
Also, further to Pete's reply, it is now possible to visit the dedicated Deus Vult website