For a long time we were convinced that behind the backs of the Templars there was and was operating some kind of "order". Therefore, first of all, let us consider one statement from our documents that seems to us the most probable: the Order of the Temple was created by the Zion Community.
For the first time, we found a more or less meaningful link to this Community on the pages of the Secret Dossiers. Indeed, at the top of the page was a quote from Rene Grousset's monumental work on the crusades in 1930, which is now considered undeniable. This quote alludes to Baudouin I, the young brother of Godefroy of Bouillon, Duke of Lorraine and conqueror of the Holy Land, who, after his brother's death, took the crown and became the first king of Jerusalem. Thus, Rene Grousset comments, through Baudouin I, the "royal tradition", which "was founded on the rock of Zion", continues. Consequently, this dynasty is "equal" to the reigning dynasties of Europe - the Capetian in France, the Anglonorman Plantagenets in England, the Hohenstauffens and Habsburgs, who rule in Germany and the former Holy Roman Empire.
Why does Grousset revive the "royal tradition" when Baudouin and his descendants received the throne by election, and not by inheritance? However, the author does not provide any special explanations, nor does he explain why this tradition, "based on the rock of Zion," was "equal" to the most ancient European dynasties.
On the same page of the "Secret Dossiers" there is an allusion to the mysterious Zion Community, or rather to the Order of Zion. Indeed, the text specifies that it was created by Godefroid of Bouillon in 1090, nine years before the conquest of Jerusalem, while other "Community documents" bring this date closer to 1099. According to the same text, Baudouin, the young brother of Godefroid, “owed the throne” to this order, whose official seat was the Abbey of Notre-dame-du-Mont-de-Sion in Jerusalem, or - another possibility - outside Jerusalem, on Mount Zion, the famous "high hill" south of the city.
But since none of the 20th century texts on the Crusades mentions the Order of Zion, we must first determine whether such an order ever existed and whether it is true that it had the right to bestow royal thrones. And for this purpose, we were forced to turn over whole heaps of archives, letters and ancient documents, since in addition to clear references to the order, we also had to find traces of its activities and possible influence, and above all, find traces of the abbey bearing the name of Our Lady on Mount Zion.
In the south of Jerusalem rises the "high hill" of Mount Zion, and when in 1099 the city was taken by the crusaders of Godefroy of Bouillon, the ruins of an ancient Byzantine basilica, probably dating back to the 4th century and called the "mother of all churches", were discovered there. As indicated by a large number of chronicles and stories of contemporaries, the winner hastened to immediately erect an abbey on the site of these ruins, according to the chronicler, who wrote in 1172, this magnificent building was very well fortified, with towers, walls and loopholes, and was christened “The Abbey of Our Lady on Mount Zion”(Notre-Dame-du-Mont-de-Zion).
So the place was taken. Was it a completely autonomous society that took the name of the mountain on which it grew up? And did its members belong to the order of Zion? A perfectly reasonable idea. Indeed, if the monks and knights to whom Godfroy of Bouillon presented the Church of the Holy Sepulcher united in an official order bearing the same name, then why should the inhabitants of the abbey located on Mount Zion not do the same? In the abbey, as one 19th century historian notes, “lived a chapter of Augustinian canons, whose duties included the administration of the service under the leadership of the abbot. This community had the double name “Saint Mary on Mount Zion and the Holy Spirit.” Another historian in 1698 speaks out even more definitely, although his style is devoid of grace: “… and since they gave him the main place of shelter, built on Mount Zion in Jerusalem,dedicated to the mother of God, this gave the right to call the knights: the order of Our Lady of Zion."
In addition to these evidences in favor of the existence of the ancient Order of Zion, we also found some documents with the seal and signature of one or another rector of the order, for example, a letter signed by Prior Arnaldus and dated July 19, 1116, or another, where the name of the same prior appears next to in the name of Hugh de Payne, the first Grand Master of the Order of the Temple.
Promotional video:
So, everything makes us believe that the Order of Zion already existed in the XII century, and no one could know whether it was founded even earlier, nor which of them - the order or the place it occupied - was earlier than the other. For example, if you remember the Cistercians, they borrowed their name from a place called Cito, while others - Franciscans or Benedictines - bore the names of their founders long before they settled in a certain place. In the case of Zion, the question remains open, and, therefore, we will have to be content with the fact that in 1100 there was an abbey of Notre Dame de Zion, where members of the order lived, which, perhaps, was formed even earlier.
This is our opinion on this matter. But let's continue our investigation.
In 1070, twenty-nine years after the first crusade, monks from Calabria, in southern Italy, arrived in the vicinity of the Ardennes Forest, which was part of the domain of Godfroy of Bouillon. According to some historians, it was led by a certain "Ursus" - a name closely associated in the "documents of the Community" with the Merovingian clan. Upon arriving in the Ardennes, the Calabrian monks enlist the patronage of Matilda of Tuscany, Duchess of Lorraine, aunt and adoptive mother of Godefroy of Bouillon. It is she who bestows on her protégé lands in Orval near Stenay, where Dagobert II was killed about five hundred years ago. Soon they erect an abbey there, but do not stay to live in it, literally disappearing, leaving no trace behind them, in 1108. Some believe that they just returned to their home in Calabria. In 1131 Orval becomes one of the fiefs of Saint Bernard.
But before their disappearance from Orval, the Calabrian monks left an indelible mark in the history of the West. According to all the same historians, there was a man among them who would later become the famous Peter the Hermit, the very same Peter the Hermit, the mentor of Godefroy of Bouillon, who, since 1095, together with Pope Urban II, preaches in France and Germany the need for a crusade. It is necessary, he eloquently declares, to start this holy war, which will return the grave of Christ to the Christian world and snatch the Holy Land from the hands of Muslims.
Taking into account the hints easily discernible between the lines of the "Community documents", we asked ourselves if there could be some semblance of continuity between the monks from Orval, Peter the Hermit and the Order of Zion. Indeed, one can almost be sure that if the latter seemed more like a wandering community of unknown monks who arrived in the Ardennes, then their sudden disappearance after some forty years is proof of their solidarity and organization, which undoubtedly had a constant basis. If Peter the Hermit really belonged to this community, then his calls for a crusade were not a manifestation of fanaticism, but, on the contrary, were a well-thought-out political move. Moreover, if he was a mentor to Godfroy of Bouillon, then it is likely thatthat he was instrumental in his disciple's decision to go to the Holy Land. As for the monks from Orval, did they really return to Calabria, did they not settle in Jerusalem, in the Abbey of Notre Dame de Zion?..
This, of course, is only a hypothesis, which, nevertheless, can neither be rejected nor approved, but on which it is necessary to dwell for a while.
When Godefroy of Bouillon boarded a ship to travel to the Holy Land, it was rumored that he was accompanied by several unknown people, who were possibly his advisers. But the army of Godefroy of Bouillon was not the only one to go to Palestine; there were three more, at the head of which were representatives of the highest European nobility. Four powerful rulers left Europe, and they all had the right to sit on the throne if Jerusalem fell and the kingdom of the Franks was created in Palestine. And Godefroy of Bouillon was convinced in advance that it was he who would take the throne, for he was the only one of the lords leaving their lands to go to the Middle East who gave up all his possessions and sold all his property, as if the Holy Land would reward him for all this. for life.
So, in 1099, immediately after the capture of Jerusalem, a secret conclave gathered, and if History could not accurately establish the identity of all its participants, then three quarters of a century later, William of Tire argued that the most famous of them was none other than “a certain bishop from Calabria ". The purpose of this meeting was quite clear to him: the election of the king of Jerusalem. And, despite the demand of Raymond, Count of Toulouse, mysterious and influential voters very quickly gave the throne to Godefroy of Bouillon, who modestly accepted only the title of "protector of the Holy Sepulcher", and his brother Baudouin finally took the title of king after his death in 1100.
Were the Orval monks attending this strange conclave that handed over the new kingdom to Godefroy of Bouillon? And was Peter the Hermit, who then enjoyed considerable authority in the Holy Land, among them?
Did this mysterious assembly meet at Mount Zion Abbey? There were so many different people and so many different questions, but did they not make up a single whole and did they not give a single answer? Of course, this hypothesis is very difficult to confirm. But it cannot be discarded. If it is well tested, then perhaps the power of the Order of Zion would be confirmed, as well as its authority to bestow the royal throne.
The secret creation of the Order of the Knights of the Temple
According to the "Secret Dossier", the founders of the Order of the Temple are Hugo de Payne, Bisol de Saint-Omer and Hugo, Count of Champagne, as well as some members of the Order of Zion: André de Montbar, Archambaut de Saint-Aignan, Nivard de Mondidier, Gondemar and Rossal …
We already know Hugo de Payne and Saint Bernard's uncle André de Montbar; we also know Hugo, Count of Champagne, who gave the land where Saint Bernard built the Abbey of Clairvaux. Having become a Templar in 1124, he took an oath of allegiance to his own vassal and received a letter from the Bishop of Chartres, which we also know. But, despite the fact that there was a certain relationship between the Count of Champagne and the Templars, nowhere except in the "Secret Dossiers", he is not listed among the founders of the order. As for André de Montbar, the humble uncle of Saint Bernard, he simply belonged to the Order of Zion, that is, to another order, different from the Order of the Temple, which preceded him and played a major role in its creation.
But that is not all. One of the texts of the Secret Dossiers mentions that in March 1117 Baudouin I, “who owed his throne to Zion,” was “forced” to negotiate for the approval of the Order of the Temple at Saint-Leonard-d'Acre; and our searches revealed to us that this place was just one of the fiefdoms of the Order of Zion. But we do not know at all why Baudouin was “forced” to enter into these negotiations. This word suggests the idea of coercion or pressure, and it, judging by some hints in the Secret Dossiers, was given by this very order of Zion, to which Baudouin "owed his throne." If this is the case, then the assumption is confirmed that the Order of Zion was in fact an omnipotent and influential organization that had the right not only to bestow the throne, but also, obviously, to force the king to bow to the wishes of the order.
If, therefore, the Order of Zion was really responsible for the election of Godfroy of Bouillon, then surely his young brother Baudouin "owed his throne" to him. In addition, we now know that, in all likelihood, the Order of the Temple existed (at least in its infancy) for a full four years before the generally accepted date of its foundation, that is, before 1118. In 1117 Baudouin was ill, almost dying; perhaps the Knights of the Temple were already acting as helpful military and administrative assistants to the Order of Zion, which sheltered them in its fortified abbey? Could it also be that King Baudouin, while on his deathbed, was forced either for health reasons or under pressure from the Order of Zion to grant the Templars official status in order to ensure their legal existence?
In the course of our research on the Templars, we had already discovered a web of ingenious relationships, closely entangled, that seemed to reveal the existence of some grandiose design, and based on all this, we developed a hypothesis, but without definite conclusions.
Now it seems to us, thanks to new data about the Zion Community, that the alleged conspiracy is acquiring some stability, which allows us to list many important points:
1) At the end of the 11th century, a mysterious monastic community from Calabria arrived in the Ardennes, where the aunt and adoptive mother of Godfroy of Bouillon took her under her patronage, who gave them lands in Orval.
2) Among them, perhaps, is the mentor Godefroy, one of the preachers of the first crusade.
3) Some time after 1108, the monks leave Orval and disappear; no one knows in which direction they departed; perhaps they went to Jerusalem. In any case, Peter the Hermit is going to the Holy Land, and if he was one of the monks from Orval, it would be reasonable to assume that they went with him.
4) In 1099, Jerusalem was taken by the crusaders, and a conclave of unknown personalities, led by a native of Calabria, invited Godfroy to take the throne of the new kingdom of the Franks.
5) At the request of Godfroy of Bouillon, an abbey is erected on Mount Zion; it is inhabited by an order bearing the same name, possibly consisting of the very individuals who invited him to take the throne.
6) In 1114, there are already knights of the Temple, and their activities (possibly military) depend on the order of Zion. But the establishment of the order was agreed only in 1117, and its existence is officially dated only the next year.
7) In 1115, Saint Bernard, a member of the Cistercian order, which is on the verge of collapse, becomes one of the most brilliant personalities in Christendom. At the same time, his order stands at the head of the richest and most prestigious religious institutions in Europe.
8) In 1131, Saint Bernard received the Abbey of Orval, which had been occupied by Calabrian monks a few years earlier. Orval becomes the home of the Cistercians.
9) During the same time, the paths of some faces mysteriously intersect due to various events, but, nevertheless, this allows some pieces of the puzzle to be put together. This is the case with the Count of Champagne, who grants lands to Saint Bernard in order to build the Abbey of Clairvaux, maintains a brilliant court in Troyes, as in the novels of the Holy Grail, and in 1114 joins the Knights of the Temple, whose first known Grand Master, Hugo de Payne, is his own vassal.
10) André de Montbar, uncle of Saint Bernard and supposed member of the Order of Zion, teams up with Hugo de Payne to found the Order of the Temple. Some time later, the two brothers André join Saint Bernard at Clairvaux.
11) Saint Bernard becomes an enthusiastic supporter of the Knights of the Temple; he receives them in France and participates in the elaboration of their statutes, which, therefore, will be similar to that of the Cistercians.
12) Between about 1115 and 1140, the Cistercians and Templars flourished: both land and wealth increased significantly.
So again we are forced to ask ourselves: are these multiple relationships just a collection of coincidences? Perhaps we are talking only about people, events and phenomena completely independent of each other and only by chance superimposed on one another at approximately equal intervals of time? Or have we discovered the main lines of a plan conceived and constructed by the human brain, none of the manifestations and elements of which is accidental? And could it be that this brain was the Order of Zion?
Therefore, the question posed in the future reads as follows: could the order of Zion, keeping in the shadows, act behind the backs of St. Bernard and the Templars? Did the famous Cistercian monk and soldiers of Christ act in accordance with some higher policy?
Louis VII and the Community of Zion
The "Community documents" do not contain any indication of the activities of the Order of Zion between 1118 - the official date of the formation of the Order of the Templars - and 1152, and, in all likelihood, during this period the order remained in the Holy Land, in an abbey near Jerusalem. But, according to rumors, the French king Louis VII, returning from the second crusade, brought with him ninety-five members of the order. No one knows how they should have helped him in anything, nor why he wanted to patronize them; but if we admit that the Order of Zion acted in the shadow of the Templars, the heavy military and financial debts that Louis VII made to the wealthy knights may explain everything.
So, the Order of Zion, founded by Godefroy of Bouillon half a century before the events described, set foot or re-entered the land of France in 1152. Indeed, the text of the "documents" clarifies, sixty-two members of the order settle in the "large community" of St. Samson in Orleans, which the king gave them; seven others joined the ranks of the Templars; and twenty-six (or two groups of thirteen) arrived at the "small community on Mount Zion" located in Saint-Jean-le-Blanc in the vicinity of Orleans.
Knowing these details, we go beyond the boundaries of uncertainty and find solid ground under our feet, for the letters with which Louis VII established the Order of Zion in Orleans still exist; they have been reproduced many times, and the originals can be viewed in the municipal archives of the city. In the same archives there is a bull of Pope Alexander III, dating from 1178, which officially confirms the possession of the order: houses and vast territories in Picardy and in France (including the monastery of St. Samson in Orleans), in Lombardy, in Sicily, in Spain and in Calabria, numerous lands in Palestine, including Saint-Leonard-d'Acr. Prior to World War II, the Orleans archives contained at least twenty letters mentioning the Order of Zion. Unfortunately, during the 1940 air raids, all but three died.
The felled elm of Zhizor
If you believe the "documents of the Community", then 1188 was the most important year for Zion and the Knights of the Temple. A year ago, Jerusalem was taken again by the Saracens, mainly due to the incompetence of Gerard de Ridfort, Grand Master of the Knights Templar. As for the "Secret Dossiers", their verdict is more severe: they do not speak of either the cruelty or incompetence of Gerard, but directly spoke of his "betrayal". If we do not know what exactly his betrayal consisted of, then we must state that it, in all likelihood, forced the "initiates" of the Order of Zion "all together" to get to France and, possibly, to Orleans. The statement is plausible, for when Jerusalem was again in the hands of the infidels, the abbey on Mount Zion was to suffer the same fate. Therefore, there is nothing surprising in the fact that in such circumstances its inhabitants,having lost their stronghold in the Holy Land, they began to seek refuge in France, where they already had land in their possession.
The events of 1187 - the "betrayal" of Gerard de Ridfort and the surrender of Jerusalem - seem to have precipitated the rift between the Order of Zion and the Templars. The exact reasons for this are unknown, but, according to the Secret Dossier, the following year saw a decisive turn in the life of both orders. And when in 1188 there was a final break, the Order of Zion ceased to be interested in their famous protégés, as a father rejects his child … This break occurred during a ritual ceremony, which is hinted at in the "Secret Dossiers" and other "documents of the Community", narrating about the "cutting of an elm ", Which took place in Zhizor.
If all the points in this text are confusing, then History and Legends admit that in 1188 a very strange event occurred in Gisor that provoked the felling of an elm tree. The facts are as follows: in front of the fortress there was a meadow called the "sacred field", which, according to medieval chroniclers, enjoyed special veneration from time immemorial, and which in the 12th century was often a meeting place for French and English kings. In the center of it grew an old elm, which in 1188, during a conversation between Henry II of England and Philip II of France, for some unknown reason became the subject of a serious, if not bloody, quarrel.
According to one of the stories, the elm tree, casting a single shadow on the sacred field, was more than eight hundred years old, and its trunk was so thick that nine people, arms outstretched, could barely grasp it. Under this welcoming shadow, Henry II and his companions settled down; they overtook the French monarch, who came later under the hot rays of the merciless sun. On the third day of the negotiations, temperaments were heated under the influence of the heat, the armed men exchanged insulting remarks, and an ill-fated arrow was fired from the ranks of the Gallic mercenaries of Henry II. the French at once rushed forward, and, since there were much more of them than the British, the latter were forced to seek refuge outside the walls of the citadel. It is said that, in a rage, Philip II cut down a tree and hastily returned to Paris, being in a very bad mood; there he statedthat he had not come to Gisor to play the lumberjack.
Of course, we did not fail to try to read between the lines of this naively simple medieval anecdote. Behind his external charm, an obvious truth is revealed that a superficial glance might well have overlooked. You can try to see in it a connection with our plot. However…
In another story, Philip seems to have really told Henry about his intention to cut down the tree, and Henry ordered to "strengthen" the elm trunk with steel blades. The next day, a phalanx of six squadrons of armed Frenchmen appeared, each headed by important lords of the kingdom; the soldiers had slinges, axes and clubs in their hands. In the ensuing battle, the eldest son and heir to the English throne, Richard the Lionheart, at the cost of great bloodshed, tried to protect the tree. By evening, the French were victorious on the battlefield, and the elm was cut down.
In this second story, as we can see, there is something more than a furious quarrel of kings, namely: the introduction of warriors from both sides into battle with a large number of participants and, possibly, victims. Unfortunately, no biography of Richard the Lionheart contains the slightest hint of such an event.
But history and legends confirm both "documents of the Community": indeed, in 1188 an interesting dispute took place in Zhizor, which ended with the cutting of an elm tree. Therefore, if nothing confirms the possible connection of this event with the Order of Zion or the Order of the Temple, for the existing stories are simultaneously too vague and too contradictory to be considered irrefutable, then it is no less likely that the Templars were present at this incident - it has been noted many times their attendance to Richard the Lionheart, especially since at that time Gisor had already been in their power for thirty years.
In short, this adventure with the elm tree hides from us a reality that is not at all what the official stories conveyed to descendants. In their very ambiguity, does not the main element seem to be released; Isn't a simple allegory revealed to the general public that hides the truth behind it?
Continuation: The Order of Zion - creators of the Templars. Part two