>Ultimate shit tier
Prove me wrong.
Protip: you can't/
Templars were the ultimate shit-tier, that's a fact.
They were fucking bastards, sodomites, failed every military action they tried, and at the end of their reign, they became merchants obsessed with earning gold.
They were such fucking cunts that they even refused to pay the ransom of Saint-Louis, King of France, who was the only King of Europe who still waged a crusade in the Holy Lands.
They deserved being put to the torch by Philippe le Bel.
Hospitallers are cool though.
>failed every military action they tried
Hey, they were useful at Arsuf, Montgisard and were one of the major militant forces of Kingdom of Jerusalem. I don't defend all of their actions, but you can't deny that they were effective to some extent.
They were really shit though.
>Literally no success in the Holy Land - the main reason why the Order was found to begin with
>Beg for the land in Europe after fall of crusades
>Respectively kicked out by various kings after discovering their true nature of landgrabbing leeches
>Finally, get employed by Polish duke to christianize the Prussians
>Conquer their lands, but that's not enough
>Turn on their fellow Christian neighbours
>Rape, pillage and steal their land
>Lose dozen times at papal court, but still refuse to give back stolen clay
>Eventually get asses kicked by the angry Christian neighbours who united forces against them
>Run away and in their final move allow the lands they conquered to be consumed by Luther heresy
Templar, of course. Knights of Christ would be pretty high up, too for all the Spanish and New World stuff. But again, not if we're doing only Crusader era.
Was thinking Ks of St Lazerus for mid-tier, but mostly because I like their styel.
French, Spanish knights
English, Germanic knights
Slavic, hungarian, italian knights
>Ultimate shit tier
>totally not biased
I don't even like them that much, but you are describing them like comic book villains. They took the land they fought for and they didn't want to give to the poles.
Are you polish or something?
>you are describing them like comic book villains
Well, they were created to fight pagans, not Christians, right? And aside of rape and pillage practice that was pretty common at the time, they lost almost all of trials at the papal court, which - as I have mentioned - ordered them to give Poland back the lands they have stolen.
They didn't listen.
There were no Franks after the 9th century
It was a synonym of French
The reason why Muslims generalized Crusaders as "Franks" is literally because a huge majority of them was French
Just look at a list of Templar or Hospitaller masters, 90% of names are French
>Just look at a list of Templar or Hospitaller masters, 90% of names are French
Quite a few English nobles had French names too. Funny how that works out.
But yes, I'm aware of it, but Franks and Saracens are the main colloquial names for the sides.
Here you go (based on founders, leadership, and who made up the majority of knights).
>How comes England had no famous knight order?
English knights were French.
The only occurence I can think of is Agincourt, where the English knights were so afraid of facing the French ones that they had archers snipe them from afar in order to avoid confrontation...
>what would make the Templar's French even though they had forts all over the reaches of Europe.
Maybe the fact the founding members and all the Grandmasters were French?
It's like claim the Royal Air force wasnt British because it also had Polish volunteers within its ranks...
Well like I said, it was founded by French people, every single one of its grand masters was French, and the vast majority of its knights were French.
They also had their main headquarters in France. It was called "the Temple", a whole little fortified city on the edge of Paris.
And when the king of France had the Templar leaders executed, that was the end of the Templars (unless you believe they went underground and became the Freemasons).
Yeah but, its not like they created the Order in the name of France, they did so in the name of Christendom.
Its like saying the Red Cross was a Swiss organization because it was founded by Swiss people.
Pic related, the Temple.
Now demolished, but it would be in the middle of modern Paris.
Knights Hospitaller are pretty based
To make such a strange connection from a Crusading Order, to a Male Fraternity which like to have BBQ and shoot the shit once and while; then point your fingers are them for trying to take over the world or some shit is crazy.
Its hard to go over this on a Korean Noddleshop website
>Born to late to join Hospitaller Knights
>Born to to early to join Space Hospitaller Knights
>Born just in time to fight in European Race war
So things aren't that bad
>Male Fraternity which like to have BBQ and shoot the shit once and while
Yeah, that might be what the Freemasons are the US (where something ridiculous like 1% of the whole population is a member of it), but in Europe masonic loges have historically been highly political, and still are used as instruments of power.
In France for example most politicians are Freemasons, and loges have pretty obvious political agendas. The main loge is the Great Orient, which is leftist oriented and generally affiliated with the Socialist Party. Generally speaking all Freemasons share a few key ideological elements that they cooperate to push: liberalism (both social and economic), globalism, destruction of Christianity.
In a more practical sense, masonic loges in French Africa are used as a forum for African leaders and French politicians and business leaders (all of whom are Freemasons) to talk in a secret setting.
Catholics are forbidden to join the Freemasons, I found it weird that you would say something like that. But alas, the moment you bring up Socialists it all comes together.
Now if you tell me the Freemasons are trying to take over the world, I'd tell you to fuck off; but if you tell me the Freemasons have been infiltrated by Marxists hell bent on liberalism and third wave bullshit, I'd welcome you into my own house.
Although, where did you get this? I thought the Freemasons were one the underground Whigs of Continental Europe.
>but in Europe masonic loges have historically been highly political, and still are used as instruments of power.
Not real ones, though. Only the dodgy French ones.
>Catholics are forbidden to join the Freemasons
Kinda. It's a very loose ban. Even Catholic clergy are members.
>but if you tell me the Freemasons have been infiltrated by Marxists
People really don't get how lodges work...
>Kinda. It's a very loose ban
I am a Roman Catholic, and no I cannot join. Joining would result in excommunication, and a priest joining would result in, once again. Excommunication.
>People really don't get how lodges work
What are you trying to say here; are you referring to me not knowing how a lodge works, or that the general people don't know.
Personally, from my understanding a lodge is a Masonic Meeting center. We have one down the road from me.
>Joining would result in excommunication
Not automatically. The way I see it, is that if Bishops can join, and retain their Bisophric, the ban is pretty lax.
>What are you trying to say here
That people use the term "infiltrated" because it sounds sexy and conclusive. But really, private lodges are just groups of guys with their own views, not some gestalt hivemind which has been had the switch flicked from "help thy neighbour" to "Jewish Marxist plots".
kek it's literally excommunication latae sententiae you fucking noob
From the Vatican website:
DECLARATION ON MASONIC ASSOCIATIONS
It has been asked whether there has been any change in the Church’s decision in regard to Masonic associations since the new Code of Canon Law does not mention them expressly, unlike the previous Code.
This Sacred Congregation is in a position to reply that this circumstance in due to an editorial criterion which was followed also in the case of other associations likewise unmentioned inasmuch as they are contained in wider categories.
Therefore the Church’s negative judgment in regard to Masonic association remains unchanged since their principles have always been considered irreconcilable with the doctrine of the Church and therefore membership in them remains forbidden. The faithful who enrol in Masonic associations are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.
It is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to give a judgment on the nature of Masonic associations which would imply a derogation from what has been decided above, and this in line with the Declaration of this Sacred Congregation issued on 17 February 1981 (cf. AAS 73 1981 pp. 240-241; English language edition of L’Osservatore Romano, 9 March 1981).
In an audience granted to the undersigned Cardinal Prefect, the Supreme Pontiff John Paul II approved and ordered the publication of this Declaration which had been decided in an ordinary meeting of this Sacred Congregation.
Rome, from the Office of the Sacred Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, 26 November 1983.
Joseph Card. RATZINGER
It means that a Catholic can join, not tell anyone, then still go along to Mass without fuss. They can even tell people, and be known as a Mason, and go to Mass without fuss. But if someone wants to see them given the boot after that for it, they can.