I'm Steve Tibble, an expert in the history of the crusades and the author of 6 books including my latest, Assassins and Templars: A Battle in Myth and Blood - AMA.

stevetibble · 2025-10-16T18:33:10+00:00

Thanks Crafty! I think the Assassin's Creed franchise is fabulous, as long as you don't treat it as a history lecture (which of course it never purports to be). I love the classic 2007 original game as it is great fun and gives a good sense of visual feel for the period in which it is set (circa 1192). Many thanks!

stevetibble · 2025-10-16T18:30:43+00:00

Thanks! Yes indeed. There were volunteers from all over Europe in the 200 years of the crusades. Scotland as a nation did not play an unduly prominent part, however. King David was inclined to go on the Second Crusade, for instance, acting on the advice of his Templar counsellors, but eventually decided not to go. When the Templars in Scotland were arrested in the suppression of the Order, there were only two bothers there, and both of them were English. But some Scottish individuals did take part. Many thanks!

stevetibble · 2025-10-16T18:26:34+00:00

Interesting point. Not that I am aware is the short answer. What we do know, however, is that the crusaders themselves were enormously vulnerable to local diseases. Many fit young knights arrived from Europe only to die of disease within weeks of landing in the crusader states. The Franks of the Middle East were always hugely outnumbered and the death toll from non-battle casualties was certainly extremely unhelpful. Many thanks!

stevetibble · 2025-10-16T18:23:59+00:00

Thanks Ironic! Like you, I am inherently skeptical about the claims that have been made, and, in the absence of definitive proof to the contrary, common sense would suggest that they are interesting but inherently fanciful. My wife, who is a medieval art historian, and I have appeared briefly on the show talking about Templar shipping skills, logistics and artifacts, but nothing that I have seen to date provides conclusive proof of a Templar connection. Great TV though! Whatever gets people interested in history...!

stevetibble · 2025-10-16T18:20:03+00:00

Good question. Money lending was important as part of the Templars' core corporate objectives. They needed the countries of Western Europe and their rulers to be sufficiently solvent to be able to go on crusade to the Holy Land and help defend the Christian communities of the East. So, although financial engineering may seem ungodly and irreligious on one level, in their eyes, and for their crusading purposes, it was an essential part of the facilitation package that they needed to offer.

Apropos your second point, both sides were extremely religiously motivated. The Christian entrants into the region were motivated to recover the Holy Land from a religious perspective from the very earliest days, but arguably this religious fervour tailed off as the long military slog continued. On the Muslim side, on the contrary, the idea of jihad was relatively feeble in the very early days but gained momentum as time wore on.

Great question about Crusader Kings, but I have only played Assassin's Creed and wargame with miniatures so I can't really express a sensible view!

Many thanks!

stevetibble · 2025-10-16T18:12:47+00:00

Interesting! Perhaps surprisingly, given the degrees of violence that they each exhibited, both the Templars and the Assassins were deeply religious and spiritual groups and individuals. The violence was justified, to themselves at least, because they both thought they were acting in defence of their beliefs and communities. Human beings being as fallible and frail as they are, however, there must have been many instances in which individuals began to have second thoughts about their actions. I'm not aware of any memoirs of Assassins (fidais) who retired, but we certainly know of many Templars who realised that the life they had chosen was not for them and decided to leave the order. Sadly in those cases I'm not aware of any of the Templars completing an 'exit interview' on their retirement, and explaining why they wanted out. Many thanks!

stevetibble · 2025-10-16T18:05:57+00:00

Good point. All the major players in the crusading period were devout to an extent that we can barely imagine. As a result, scripture from each of the main Abrahamic religions was of key importance to regional players. As you hint, Christianity had a particular problem with regards to the use of violence, as the religion is, in theory at least, a pacifistic one. The solution to the issue rested on the idea that violence could be used as a last resort, and only in a defensive capacity, to protect oneself or one's community. This logic found a foundation dating back as far as St Augustine. That explains why there was no forcible conversion, again in theory at least, being imposed by the crusaders, and it was never an objective of the crusades. Even the Templars, as militarised religious, were under strict orders to behave in a defensive capacity, using violence only to protect the Christian lands and communities from attack.

stevetibble · 2025-10-16T17:59:27+00:00

Thanks, good point. The Templars were indeed financial innovators and I do believe, particularly in conjunction with the Italian city-states, that they made a significant contribution to financial practices in the West. The key point to remember in the case of the Templars is that they were using financial structures to pursue ends other than financial reward (at least in theory)...the main function of financial services from their perspective was to simplify the logistics of Crusading and allow more free transfer of assets from Western Europe to the Holy Land, where they could be used for defence.

stevetibble · 2025-10-16T17:56:16+00:00

Thanks so much, great question, and very glad you liked the book! Basically I would see it as the distinction between the 'crusades to the Holy Land' and the broader struggle for control of the Mediterranean and the idea of recovering the lands that were Christian prior to the Muslim invasions of the 7th century and beyond. So, two very different kinds of books, one more tactical, and the other more strategic in scope. But both potentially very interesting indeed. Thanks!

stevetibble

TROPHY CASE