Knights Templar - Part 2: The Templars at the Siege of Ascalon

[@RealCrusadesHistory]

Absolutely. The Patriarchs of Jerusalem seemed to resent the special relationship between the King and the Templars. William of Tyre's chronicle is absurdly biased against not only the Templars, but all of his other political enemies. One must always take into account the prejudices of a chronicler.

[@RealCrusadesHistory]

Thanks very much! Glad to have you on board! :)

[@GhostHawk1776]

Interesting account. I would have to say that a break down in communications does make the most sense. Such break downs in communications have led to many disasters, which is why communication is considered extremely important in warfare, today.

[@numastis23]

Really appreciate all the effort you put into these videos. You can tell you love the subject matter and it shows through the production value. It would be exceptional if you could annotate where you obtained the fantastic artwork from and more importantly the artists who produced them. Glad I subscribed to your channel.

[@visionplant]

William was famously biased against the Knights Templar, whom he believed to be arrogant and disrespectful of both secular and ecclesiastical hierarchies, as they were not required to pay tithes and were legally accountable only to the Pope. Although he was writing decades later, he is the earliest author to describe the actual foundation of the Templar order. He was generally favourable towards them when discussing their early days, but resented the power and influence they held in his own time. William accused the Templars of hindering the Siege of Ascalon in 1153; of poorly defending a cave-fortress in 1165, for which twelve Templars were hanged by King Amalric; of sabotaging the invasion of Egypt in 1168; and of murdering Hashashin ambassadors in 1173.

[@Rikard_A]

very interesting video.

[@dashinvaine]

Not entirely dissimilar to the debacle at Mansourah, (although Matthew Paris claims the Templars advised caution on that occasion, but were goaded on by Robert of Artois). The issue at Ascalon, as you correctly say, was the question of whether the Templars forbade others to follow them in so as to gain all the spoils and glory for themselves. I wonderd if this claim was fabricated to absolve the royal army of blame for failure to support the Templars. William had a grudge against the KT anyway.

[@arttrombley7385]

Real Crusades History , Do You have anything further about the Master that was lost that day ?.

[@heybooboo757]

i would have to agree with that .

[@heybooboo757]

Good Evening, While working on My Family tree I found on several Rootsweb pages That Bernard Du Tremblay the 4th Master Templar, was given the Holy Shroud of Christ, but that's about all that they say. Have You ever read that anywhere that I could use as real evidence?. Thank You in advance for any help and thank You for Your very nice video's.

[@OxAO]

@OccidentalSoapbox Yes, but even with the New Egyptian Government saying they might to bury the pyramids in wax while the world looks on rooting them on like nothing is wrong.

[@bassault]

Poor fellas, too brave for their own good. William's story also doesn't make sense because there isn't much the templars could do with the booty anyway, afterall they were slaves to their chivalry. However, I think tactical imcompetence of medieval warfare caused this to happen.

[@doncasey9962]

weird narrative, game-boy bias