The Knights Templar survive

that actually seems like a possibility. But I doubt that the Spanish and Portuguese would be glad to help the Templars go conquer land in America that they may want for themselves. Given that they would doubt the loyalty of the Templars, given that the Poles seemed to be wrong with trusting the Teutons. And I;d be really hard to launch a Crusade across an ocean, and later on settle the area without the help of a nation that has holdings nearby
Perhaps the Templars become the temporal vassals of the Spanish crown (the Knights of Malta did the same IOTL). Later, when Spanish power wanes, the Templar State breaks away. I'm also thinking that they would settle land that isn't as obviously valuable - probably somewhere in the eastern United States rather than the Caribbean.
 
Perhaps the Templars become the temporal vassals of the Spanish crown (the Knights of Malta did the same IOTL). Later, when Spanish power wanes, the Templar State breaks away. I'm also thinking that they would settle land that isn't as obviously valuable - probably somewhere in the eastern United States rather than the Caribbean.

Yes the Carribean would be the most easy base to attack from, as it is a relatively short boatride before landing. They wouldn't be going to set up colonies and slowly drive away the natives, they would be going as an army that intends to conquer. And you don't want that army and their horses to have spend months at sea just before landing and having to prepare for battle. Not to mention the supplies they need. Without allies, they would consume much more than your average colonist, as they are an army and not a partially self-sufficient colony. On the East-Coast there'd also be far less large groups of natives practicing farming, compared to the Gulf Coast and along the Missisipi. They'd need those to not starve to death, as I doubt that many of the Templars would be willing to start farming for themselves. The Teutons and Livonians didn't conquer empty lands, if they had they would have starved. They used the people they conquered to sustain them, and the Templars would do the same as them. I agree they wouldn't go for the more obvious targets like Mexico and the Yucatan, which they would likely consider too hard. But they would see their best chances in the Southern US, as they would have relatively close possibilities of supply and retreat, these areas housed numbers of farming native populations, and wouldn't be as hard to conquer as the Cities in Mexico.

Them being a vassal of Spain is unlikely though, the only reason the Spanish kept the Knights as vassals, is because they weren't likely to conquer land the Spanish wanted for themselves. The Spanish didn't even expect them to conquer anything around them, as they were weaker than all surrounding nations. The biggest reason the Spanish gave them Malta to begin with was that Malta was useless and it would likely irritate the Ottomans, as the Knights would likely attract Christian Pirates who would start to raid Barbary and Ottoman ships
 
Here's an interesting notion: the Templars stick around as holy bankers long enough for the New World to be discovered, at which point they think "Well, the Teutons did well fighting the pagans of Eastern Europe, so how about we go fight pagans in the New World?"

With their money from banking and Papal support, they could establish an independent colony in the New World, one that might grow into a true nation, given time.

I think it is more likely that the Templars would set up in other countries colonies - kick-starting their development with smaller-scale loans, with land as collatoral. The side effect is that if the colonies are successful, the Templars make bank, if they aren't, the Templars get lots of land and can use their significant capital to ensure their own success.
 
Here's an interesting notion: the Templars stick around as holy bankers long enough for the New World to be discovered, at which point they think "Well, the Teutons did well fighting the pagans of Eastern Europe, so how about we go fight pagans in the New World?"

With their money from banking and Papal support, they could establish an independent colony in the New World, one that might grow into a true nation, given time.

You don't even need the banking system to survive that long to make a New World connection work. Legend has it the reason why the Templars survived in Portugal at all (as the modern-day Order of Christ) is because they were part and parcel of the Portuguese Reconquista. That leads to a very obvious solution - if the Templars were inimically involved in the Iberian Reconquista from the beginning, whether as part of different kingdoms' own conquests in the Peninsula or in the service of another which could unify most of the Peninsula (i.e. Asturias, and/or Galicia, and/or León), that would provide an impetus for the Templars to survive outside of the Holy Land, thus providing a base for exploring the New World. Which would lead to a massive butterfly net in both the Americas and in Iberia due to a larger Templar presence in all aspects of medieval life beyond the Pyrenees.
 
well, depending on who you talk to, they're still around today XD more seriously, i could see the Templars lasting through to the present-day, but not as a chivalric military order--they'd instead be bankers (that was basically their thing, and possibly part of why they were purged IOTL--the King of France was in too much debt to them :p ) possibly with a shared fraternal organization similar to the Freemasons

incidentally, the Freemasons themselves claim descent from the Templars as an organization iirc, so you could look into them for ideas
Or they could be like the Knights of Malta today - a religious order with sovereign status (which OTL is causing headaches with the Vatican now.
 
the conquest of Constantinople meant the transformation of the Empire to a partly Christian state, as the sultan was crowned both Sultan of the Turks (muslims) as he was Caesar of Rum ( the Christians)

AFAIK Mehmed simply used the title of Caesar on some documents, and that was it. It didn't occupy an important place among his other titles, and it was soon dropped by his successors. Are you saying that he was actually crowned as the successor of the Byzantine emperors? I'd be very interested to hear where that idea of coronation comes from... I remember hearing it before, but without any details or confirmations, and it's a bizarre and unlikely idea in more ways than one.
 
AFAIK Mehmed simply used the title of Caesar on some documents, and that was it. It didn't occupy an important place among his other titles, and it was soon dropped by his successors. Are you saying that he was actually crowned as the successor of the Byzantine emperors? I'd be very interested to hear where that idea of coronation comes from... I remember hearing it before, but without any details or confirmations, and it's a bizarre and unlikely idea in more ways than one.

The ottomans did crown themselves as the succesors to Byzantium, and they considered themselves to be the new Romans.
The Patriarch of Constantinople even recongised them as the rightfull successors, Mehmet even used his descent from a Byzantine Princess.
Further they even tried to retake Rome, during their Italian Campaign following the landing in Otranto.
The Turks did actively consider themselves to be the Roman Empire, and even referred to the Greek population (especially the first few centuries) as Romans.
The Patriarchs of Constantinople were a big part in it, as they kept recognising the Turks as the rightfull Romans, and in return they maintained a lot of Authority, that on some points even exceeded the level of Authority they had during Byzantine Times.
That's also a reason why the Turks had so much hate towards the Habsburgs, as they were considered not only a tactical rival, but also a competing claim to Rome
 
It was Carlos I who gave away Malta Islands, till then for centuries unquestioned parts of Sicily.
What would have happened if an order of chivalry were given some of the West Indies? Spaniards had more than they needed, with Arawaks and Caribs hunted out.
 
It was Carlos I who gave away Malta Islands, till then for centuries unquestioned parts of Sicily.
What would have happened if an order of chivalry were given some of the West Indies? Spaniards had more than they needed, with Arawaks and Caribs hunted out.

But why would they though, the order would bring more trouble than they'd be worth. Giving them an Island in the West Indies would have not given the same advantages as giving Malta to the Knights. The Maltese Order was a haven for Pirates that Harrassed the Turks, and on top of that, housing the Knights that fled Rhodes was a pretty good Up-Yours to the Ottomans.

The Spanish would have no reason to give the Templars a base in the Carribean, as the Spanish weren't really planning on encouraging piracy of any sort there, and they would likely also be a liability if they start allying with natives, or warring with natives on their own accord, possibly strengthening Spanish enemies and alienating possible allies.

The Spanish would just have nothing to gain by housing a Holy Order there, as they were doing fine battling the natives themselves, why would they need a Holy Order around there if they can handle their enemies without difficulty.
 
Could we send the Templars to Tunisia instead?
It would interesting to see an Order State established there.
It would make sense with the Portuguese - they did invade N.Africa historically. Having the Templars control N.African territories might be wise for the Portuguese as they don't have to pay for the garrisons - but Templars with banking that can allow them to hire mercenaries and equip new Templars could be an interesting dynamic. However, being set up in N.Africa and with a banking network they would be potential rivals for New World colonies consisting of Christian Berbers.
 
It would make sense with the Portuguese - they did invade N.Africa historically. Having the Templars control N.African territories might be wise for the Portuguese as they don't have to pay for the garrisons - but Templars with banking that can allow them to hire mercenaries and equip new Templars could be an interesting dynamic. However, being set up in N.Africa and with a banking network they would be potential rivals for New World colonies consisting of Christian Berbers.

Quoting myself, how vain.

I thought I'd add to this - IF this Templar state did go a-colonising, it almost certainly would do an Australia and ship off criminals, be they Christian or Muslim. That way any dangerous dissidents are removed from Africa and out to the Caribbean. Which would contrast with the near-existential policy of soft-touch rule and tolerance in Africa. If they aren't attached to equal treatment under law, then I can see the colonies having almost the opposite approach, criminal enslavement. A dark chapter could be the trade in Muslim slaves in the New World. Muslim criminals being ordered around by Christian Berber slavemasters and overseers. It may be different that unlike OTL slavery, without the racial difference I can't see Christian Berbers being unwilling to adopt children of Muslim parents and raising them as Christians, or the Order itself doing it. It'd be a weird way to create Templar alt-Janissarys, brainwashed to despise criminals. Parents policed by their own brainwashed children is terrible in its own way - but at least the children of slaves aren't slaves, but well, 'managers'.
 
The ottomans did crown themselves as the succesors to Byzantium, and they considered themselves to be the new Romans.
The Patriarch of Constantinople even recongised them as the rightfull successors, Mehmet even used his descent from a Byzantine Princess.
Further they even tried to retake Rome, during their Italian Campaign following the landing in Otranto.
The Turks did actively consider themselves to be the Roman Empire, and even referred to the Greek population (especially the first few centuries) as Romans.
The Patriarchs of Constantinople were a big part in it, as they kept recognising the Turks as the rightfull Romans, and in return they maintained a lot of Authority, that on some points even exceeded the level of Authority they had during Byzantine Times.
That's also a reason why the Turks had so much hate towards the Habsburgs, as they were considered not only a tactical rival, but also a competing claim to Rome.

That's the thing - are you saying that Mehmed had an actual coronation in Constantinople? If so, where does that idea come from?

There was no Patriarch of Constantinople when Mehmed conquered the city, the office was empty. Mehmed was recognized by a man he himself appointed to that position.

In the Ottoman Empire, they (the Turks and the ruling dynasty) called Greeks the Roman "millet", but not themselves - they, as the entire Muslim population, were a separate millet (nation) and explicitly not a part of the "Rum".

Another complication is that Mehmed claimed to be "Kayser", but the Emperors of Byzantium did not use that title. Their title was Imperator, Basileus: "Fasiliyus" in Turkish.
 
Very true. Reforming into a banking system would be quite interesting or as legal counsel

A real-life Iron Bank of Braavos would be interesting.

Alternatively...

assassins-creed-last-descendants-novels-announced_2etu.640.jpg
 
Quoting myself, how vain.

I thought I'd add to this - IF this Templar state did go a-colonising, it almost certainly would do an Australia and ship off criminals, be they Christian or Muslim. That way any dangerous dissidents are removed from Africa and out to the Caribbean. Which would contrast with the near-existential policy of soft-touch rule and tolerance in Africa. If they aren't attached to equal treatment under law, then I can see the colonies having almost the opposite approach, criminal enslavement. A dark chapter could be the trade in Muslim slaves in the New World. Muslim criminals being ordered around by Christian Berber slavemasters and overseers. It may be different that unlike OTL slavery, without the racial difference I can't see Christian Berbers being unwilling to adopt children of Muslim parents and raising them as Christians, or the Order itself doing it. It'd be a weird way to create Templar alt-Janissarys, brainwashed to despise criminals. Parents policed by their own brainwashed children is terrible in its own way - but at least the children of slaves aren't slaves, but well, 'managers'.

Since the Templars would need to be in cahoots with the Portuguese why wouldn't they just directly sell their Criminals as slaves to the Portguese, instead of bothering to set up a colony.
A colony is not a good thing for a holy order to set up, as the Holy order would want as much knights as possible in the homeland, setting up colonies isn't going to help with that.
Why do people always seem to think that holy orders would colonize
 
Since the Templars would need to be in cahoots with the Portuguese why wouldn't they just directly sell their Criminals as slaves to the Portguese, instead of bothering to set up a colony.
A colony is not a good thing for a holy order to set up, as the Holy order would want as much knights as possible in the homeland, setting up colonies isn't going to help with that.
Why do people always seem to think that holy orders would colonize
Set up cash crop on a Caribbean island, with the money fund their order ?
 
None of the iberian military orders played any remarkable role in the exploration and colonization of the iberian powers. At the 16th century being a member of the Kinghts of Christ (rebranded actual templars under portuguese protection) Kinghts of Santiago, Knights of Alcantara or Knights of Calatrava (I think I'm forgetting some order) was pretty much a badge of honor and probably a way to have access to useful political and economical connections, something you added to your coat of arms and to your clothes and not much more. The hospitaliers continued having an actual function as military order due to their position in a Mediterranean contested between the ottomans and the catholic powers. My bet is that, with the right circumstances, a surviving Templar Order could play a role in the mediterranean dispute, but not in the New World, whose resources the Crown, involved in a proccess of centralization and legitimation of its power in the borning modern states of Europe, took care to monopolyze, even treating those who conquered new territories and became a problem, as traitors if necessary. Futhermore, the Inter Caetera was pretty clear. Of course butterflies could blow away the Inter Caetera, but then the history of exploration and first colonial experiences would be different to OTL.

All in all, I think that around the late 17th century this Templar order wouldn't be that different from the Hospitaliers and others, politically and military irrelevant (those functions being unfitting with Modern States that can cover that by themselves, unlike in the Middle Ages) and pretty much as said, a membership understood as a badge of honor, familliar tradition, whatever where mostly rich people play to remember old glories and make connections.Maybe they would keep strong links with the financial world, as suggested by others.
 
Since the Templars would need to be in cahoots with the Portuguese why wouldn't they just directly sell their Criminals as slaves to the Portguese, instead of bothering to set up a colony.
A colony is not a good thing for a holy order to set up, as the Holy order would want as much knights as possible in the homeland, setting up colonies isn't going to help with that.
Why do people always seem to think that holy orders would colonize

That is certainly a way to go - but I see the Templars transitioning from banking Holy Order to hybrid theocratic corporation-state. With a base in Morocco, and with part of their modus operandi being the expansion of Christendom AND having an interest in trade and profit - I can't see why they wouldn't want to set up their own plantations, it ticks the expansion of Christendom box and the trade goods to sell box.
 
Top