The Armour Archive

Is it possible, as far as anyone knows, to be a Friar (franciscan) as well as a fighter? I could, I am sure, simply ignore one half of my persona while the other half does it's thing...

The problem comes because I'm not entirely sure that I would want to be a templar. The idea does appeal to me, but there is so much argument and debate about them, I would much rather just be a fighter, perhaps Master of Arms, without dealing with the random arguments that seem to surround historical templars... (that question is of course besdie the point.)

Would a Fransiscan Friar be ostricized from his order if he became a fighter? There is some "historical evidence" of such a combination (Friar Tuck), but I am looking for something more feasible.

--Ecknaft

Being a man-at-arms was not the Franciscan way. This is why:

• Franciscans were mendicant friars, sworn to a vow of strict poverty, and made their living by begging. While the Templars were also sworn to poverty, this was personal poverty, in that they weren't allowed to own any personal possessions, and everything they had belonged to the Order. The vast possessions of the Order were for pursuit of the wars defending Jerusalem and the pilgrim routes to the Holy Places.
  
• One of the main Franciscan tenets was pacifism. St. Francis of Assisi saw himself as an evangelist who wanted to convince people to live a life like his, that of humility and simple poverty. This didn't fit well with a martial lifestyle.
  
• If you are interested in a warrior's portrayal, you aren't limited to a Templar impression. You had the Hospitallers, the Order of St. Mary of the Germans (Teutonic Knights) and several Spanish military orders.

The legend of Friar Tuck is based on a 14th century defrocked priest named John Tucker, who had a taste for little boys and girls. He was executed for pederasty. I don't think you want an impression based on that.

I'm fascinated by the Hospitallers (Knights of St. John) myself; they just kind of faded away (there are still some Knights of Malta today) as opposed to being burned by Phillip the Fair (what a bastard...).
I believe that both the Templars and Knights of St. John were based on Benedictine lines (weren't the Franciscans an offshoot of the Benedictines as well?).
-Will

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2"> Originally posted by Will Knight:
<B>I believe that both the Templars and Knights of St. John were based on Benedictine lines (weren't the Franciscans an offshoot of the Benedictines as well?).
-Will
</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

The Templars were actually based on the Cistercians (yet another mendicant order of friars), all part of a reformist movement in the Catholic Church at the time. The Hospitallers chose a rule similar to the Augustinians.

The Franciscan Rule wasn't based on the Benedictines, as they were not monks, who (by definition) swear a contemplative, communal life and a vow of stability. The Franciscans (and any military order) cannot do that by necessity. The Hospital was unique in that it's mission was primarily that of assisting sick, wounded and ill pilgrims--not primarily military. The Templars (and from the Third Crusade onward, the Knights of St. Mary) were military orders from their foundation.

The Fransciscans were primarily an order that lived of of the money gotten from begging.

Hope that clarifies things a bit.

The Hospitallers are still an active order.
They have a branch/group , whatever its called, about 20 minutes from my house.


[This message has been edited by sedric (edited 05-01-2003).]

What about going for a fighting bishop, like Odo? There are many other examples.

Adam
/aethstan /sca drachenwald

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by sedric:
<B> The Hospitallers are still an active order.
They have a branch/group , whatever its called, about 20 minutes from my house.


[This message has been edited by sedric (edited 05-01-2003).]</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Yup. Hospitallers are still alive as a group, concentrating on charity, especially -suprise, suprise, on the medical field.
The representatives of the Order have diplomatic status.

Most interesting phenomenon is massive amount of splitter groups - like protestant offshoots of th order, and many totally bogus groups that claim affiliation or descen to the Order.

Mikael

Hell even the Jesuits were a militant order.

Militant did not/does not always mean fighting...

Merlin:

A milit<u>ant</u> order and a milit<u>ary</u> order are two entirely different things.

He could always go for the gusto and join the order of St. Lazerus.
Hell on your social life though

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Templar Bob/De Tyre:
[B] <snip>
The Hospital was unique in that it's mission was primarily that of assisting sick, wounded and ill pilgrims--not primarily military. The Templars (and from the Third Crusade onward, the Knights of St. Mary) were military orders from their foundation.
B]</font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

I might split hairs about Hospitals primary mission. Its original mission surely was as you describe, but it acquired a very significant military role that lasted until the days of Revolution and Napoleon. Tehy never gave up the taking care of sick, but I´d say it was very much in the background for several hundred years.

Mikael

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by Mikael:
<B> I might split hairs about Hospitals primary mission. Its original mission surely was as you describe, but it acquired a very significant military role that lasted until the days of Revolution and Napoleon. Tehy never gave up the taking care of sick, but I´d say it was very much in the background for several hundred years.

Mikael

</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

Mikael:

In the context of the original poster's question, I am correct.

While the Hospital was based in the Holy Land, they became a military order. However, their primary thrust was providing care to sick and injured pilgrims. The military arm, by comparison, was quite small--the majority of the order during this time period focused on two things: the support of the military activities of the Crusades (and by extention, the defense of holy pilgrimage sites), and the care of those pilgrims. Overall, the Hospitaller's own writings suggest that their military arm was an extention of the hospice role.

After the fall of Acre in 1291, the mission of the Hospitaller order changed dramatically from a land-based military order (with a strong emphasis on hospital care) to that of a major naval power. But even that military mission lessened with the rise of the French Revolution and the rise of Napoleon (in fact, their ability to recruit was drastically reduced by the Protestant Reformation and the rise of nation states to prominence).

But again, <u>this is out of the purview of the original poster's question</u>.

Respectfully,

Robert Coleman, Jr.

To further this question, what sort of persona would a holy warrior portray while not on the battle field? Could a Hospitalier or a Knight of St. John be a scolastic outside of battle? (Those two were picked as random examples)

-ecknaft

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ecknaft:
<B>To further this question, what sort of persona would a holy warrior portray while not on the battle field? Could a Hospitalier or a Knight of St. John be a scolastic outside of battle? (Those two were picked as random examples)

-ecknaft</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>

IMHO, this holy warrior would outside battelfield still be a holy warrior, perhaps an administrator of the order. (Hospitalers and Order of St. John are btw. different names for same organisation.)
If my memory serves me right fighting orders had priests separately ie. a fighting brother is not a priest, and priest are not figthing brothers. In the Order of St. John duties of even fighting brothers did include personal taking care of the sick.
I do not recall reading about great theological input by fighting brothers of any military Order, but my reading on the subject is not by any means totally inclusive. It could have happened - though I doubt it.

Mikael

As an answer to mr. Coleman.

As I said, I am splitting hairs.
Based on my shallow reading of secondary sources I would say that the military role of the Hospitallers came to surpass their role as caretakers of the sick.

I admit they never have quit the first role, but already in the Holy Land they held extensive tracts of land and several key castles as vassals of the King of Jerusalem and had presence as a significant, elite, military force. At least from 1204-1206 this would be their own fighting brethren.

I do not suspect your facts, I interpret them on another way.

with respect,
Mikael

<BLOCKQUOTE><font size="1" face="Verdana, Arial">quote:</font><HR><font face="Verdana, Arial" size="2">Originally posted by ecknaft:
<B>To further this question, what sort of persona would a holy warrior portray while not on the battle field? Could a Hospitalier or a Knight of St. John be a scolastic outside of battle? (Those two were picked as random examples)

-ecknaft</B></font><HR></BLOCKQUOTE>


Since the military orders often also took vows of poverty and the like, I doubt that there were many books around, let alone the time for scholarly contemplation.