SWORDS of TEMPLARS 1119-1312, part II

Swords of Templars 1119–1312, Part II  

The Rule and the Sword: Decoration and Discipline 
by Maciej Kopciuch

Among modern reenactors and collectors, one of the most persistent misconceptions is the belief that the Templar rule strictly forbade  any  form of decoration on weapons — particularly on swords and scabbards. This view, often repeated without reference to original sources, stems from a misunderstanding of what the medieval term  decor  or  ornamentum  actually implied. In the twelfth and thirteenth centuries, “decoration' in the context of monastic or knightly rules meant   luxury, excess, and vanity   — not the sober, symbolic embellishment that characterized most medieval arms.

A careful reading of the  Regula pauperum commilitonum Christi Templi Salomonis  — the original Latin Rule of the Templars approved at Troyes in 1129 — reveals no explicit prohibition against simple religious motifs, inscriptions, or modest ornamentation on swords or their scabbards. What the Rule condemns, consistently and without exception, is   ostentation  .

---

    The Language of the Rule

Several key passages illustrate the spirit of the prohibition. In Chapter 36, the brothers are told:

>  “Nolumus omnino, ut aurum vel argentum … in frenis aut in pectoralibus habeant.' 
> (“We absolutely do not wish gold or silver to appear on bridles or breastplates.')

This injunction targets the luxurious horse trappings of contemporary knights, not functional or devotional decoration. Likewise, Chapter 38 adds:

>  “Tegimen in clipeis et hastis non habeatur.' 
> (“Let there be no coverings or adornments upon shields or lances.')

Here again, the concern lies in  display , not utility. These passages, together with the repeated admonitions against “vanity' ( vanitas ) and “superbia' (pride), show that the Order’s founders sought to maintain an image of austerity and discipline — not to outlaw every form of artistic or religious expression.

No clause in the Latin text mentions swords ( gladii ), blades ( ensis ), or scabbards ( vagina ), let alone inscriptions or crosses engraved upon them. The silence of the Rule in this regard is telling: had such decorations been regarded as sinful or prohibited, one would expect an explicit article, as in the case of garments, mounts, and armor.

---

    Later Additions and Statutes

After the Council of Troyes (1129), the Templar rule evolved. By c. 1140, it had been translated into Old French, expanded, and supplemented by several additional collections:

Retraits   (ca. 1165) — a set of disciplinary ordinances governing daily conduct;
Status hiérarchiques   (ca. 1240–1250);
 Egards   (ca. 1257–1267) — procedural rules and penalties for misconduct.

None of these later texts introduce any new prohibitions regarding the decoration of weapons. On the contrary, the  Retraits  emphasize obedience and humility, leaving matters of equipment largely to the discretion of the  maître . One article reads:

>  “Si nova data fuerint, magister provideat quid de talibus faciat.' 
> (“If new items are given, the Master shall decide what is to be done with them.')

This clause indicates that the Master could accept donated arms and equipment as long as they did not conflict with the Order’s discipline. In practice, this would easily encompass swords or scabbards decorated with pious inscriptions or crosses — symbols entirely consistent with the Templar vocation.

---

    The Chronology in Brief

1118–1119 – Founding of the Templar brotherhood in Jerusalem under Hugues de Payens.
1129 (Council of Troyes) – Approval of the Latin Regula pauperum commilitonum.
1139 – Papal bull Omne datum optimum (Innocent II) grants autonomy and privileges.
1140–1165 – French translation and first expansions of the Rule; Retraits compiled.
13th century – Statutes and customary laws (Status hiérarchiques, Egards) further codified.
1312 – Dissolution of the Order by the bull Vox in excelso (Clement V).
---

    Interpretation and Implications

The cumulative evidence demonstrates that the Templar rule enforced moral simplicity, not visual anonymity. There is a crucial difference between a sword lavishly encrusted with gems and one that bears a cross, an invocation ( Benedictus Dominus Deus meus ), or a simple geometric ornament embossed on the scabbard. Medieval devotion often manifested through such symbols — restrained, functional, and meaningful.

To assume that the brothers of the Temple wielded only featureless blades is to misread both the Rule and the culture of the twelfth century. Their discipline demanded humility, but humility was expressed through moderation, not through the erasure of identity or faith. The presence of a small engraved cross or scriptural phrase would have served as a visible reminder of divine service — entirely in keeping with the Order’s spirituality.

---

    Conclusion

In light of the original Latin Rule and subsequent statutes, there is   no historical basis   for the modern claim that Templar swords and scabbards were required to be devoid of any decoration. The prohibition concerned  wealth and vanity , not  symbolic or devotional ornament .

Thus, when reconstructing Templar arms today, one may with full historical legitimacy incorporate modest religious inscriptions, crosses, or geometric designs — provided they reflect the austerity, functionality, and reverent spirit that the Rule intended.

---

  Selected References  

   Regula pauperum commilitonum Christi Templi Salomonis , Council of Troyes, 1129 (Latin text in Mansi,  Sacrorum Conciliorum nova et amplissima collectio , XXII).
  J. M. Upton-Ward (ed. & trans.),  The Rule of the Templars: The French Text of the Rule of the Order of the Knights Templar , Boydell, 1992.
  E. de Curzon (ed.),  La Règle du Temple , Paris, 1886.
  M. Barber,  The New Knighthood: A History of the Order of the Temple , Cambridge, 1994.
  M. Gervers (ed.),  The Second Crusade and the Cistercians , New York, 1992.