In doing some research, I came across a decade-old book by Ancient Aliens pundit David Childress that I hadn’t heard of: Pirates and the Lost Templar Fleet (2003), in which the irrepressible author tells us that the “lost” fleet of the Knights Templar became a roving band of pirates menacing the American coast for several centuries! I guess this is a little better than imagining that they claimed the entire Mississippi watershed for the imaginary children of Jesus, but not by much. The book appears to have been designed to tie in to two then-popular products, The Da Vinci Code and Pirates of the Caribbean, both released in 2003.
Things don’t start off well, with Childress stating that “most people have heard speculation that the Vikings sailed their long ships to Greenland and Labrador about a thousand years ago” (p. 13). Of all the things Childress has ever proposed as potentially true—from aliens to time travel to ancient atom bombs—the one thing that is actually true he calls “speculation.” Apparently he isn’t aware of the archaeology done in Canada since the 1960s, or any of the known facts about Greenland from the medieval period onward. But based on this dismissal of history, Childress next claims that “modern historians persist in teaching that Columbus was the first to cross the Atlantic.” That hasn’t been the case for most historians since the 1800s, when the Viking voyages were first taken seriously, and certainly not since the 1960s, when the first archaeological evidence proving the Viking voyages came to light. Childress is either purposely lying, ignorant of modern historiography, or he thinks that his half-remembered high school textbooks represent the sum of “official” human knowledge.
In his usual buildup of irrelevancies, Childress next presents the recycled greatest hits of trans-Atlantic diffusionism, including this howler: “The Phoenicians were also known as the Carthaginians” (p. 15). Um, no. Carthaginians were an offshoot of the Phoenicians, but they are not interchangeable. “There is an ancient passage detailing their forays into the Atlantic after the end of the Trojan War, circa 1200 BC.” Oh, so close! He’s referring to the famous Periplus of Hanno, composed by the Carthaginian navigator and hung in the temple of Baal Hammon in the sixth century BCE. It commemorates Hanno’s voyage down the coast of Africa, where he met chimpanzees. Childress was only off by 600 years, and attributed it to the wrong people.
This leads him to the “Jewish” voyage to America. Childress, we should note, differs from Scott Wolter in that he believes that Calulus, the imaginary colony of Arizona, to have been Jewish, not a Templar creation. He keeps blathering on about diffusionist topics, citing Man Out of Asia, Harold Gladwin’s cranky book about academic conspiracies to cover up the real history of America, which is so over-the-top (it’s illustrated with cartoons) that archaeologist Stephen Williams became convinced that Gladwin meant it as a joke.
All of this is a very longwinded way of Childress trying to make it plausible that the Templars came to America. He provides a potted history of the Templars (including—in 2003!—the obsolete spelling of Moslem), but in so doing Childress engages in his usual practice, self-plagiarism. Take a look at this “coincidence” of language. The text on the left is Childress writing in 2003, and the text on the right is Childress’s own introduction to Charles G. Addison’s classic The History of the Knights Templars, the Church, and the Temple (1842), published by Childress six years earlier:
Two commas are different. Weirdly, this same text circulates quite a bit. It also appears verbatim as the work of Ed Shroeder in Treasure Quest magazine, and Childress recycled it again for an article in the edited volume Forbidden Religion by J. Douglas Kenyon.
Moving on, Childress accuses the Catholic Church of existing to “establish hegemony, collect as much money as possible and put fear into the hearts of people” (p. 39); therefore, the Knights Templar secretly opposed the Church to protect the Holy Grail, though he is uncertain whether it is a chalice or the descendants of Jesus. When alternative historians disagree, Childress refuses to pick and choose among them.
So Childress goes on to discuss the “Lost Templar Fleet,” which he does not know from primary sources but rather from Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of The Temple and the Lodge and really terrible researchers. As I discovered last month, this is the entirety of the evidence for the “lost fleet,” the testimony of Jean de Châlons, a Templar and proven liar, making up stories under torture during the suppression of the order:
Then he said that, learning beforehand about this trouble, the leaders of the Order have fled, and he himself met Brother Gerard de Villiers leading fifty horses, and he heard it said that he had set out to sea with eighteen galleys, and Brother Hugues de Châlons fled with the whole treasury of Brother Hugues de Pairaud. When asked how he was able to keep this fact secret for so long, he responded that no one would have dared reveal it for anything, unless the Pope and the King had opened the way, for if it were known in the Order that anyone had spoken, he would at once be killed. (my translation)
Childress follows Michael Bradley—an alternative author who believes many strange things, including that modern Jews are sexually frustrated Neanderthal hybrids—in asserting that the Templar fleet (these imaginary eighteen boats) carried the descendants of Jesus and/or the Ark of the Covenant to Scotland to avoid the Pope, where they adopted the Jolly Roger as their symbol and fell into the service of the Sinclair family! The logic here is that gravestones in northern Scotland were marked with a skull and crossbones; therefore, they must be Templar symbols and the origin of the pirate flag. Sadly, this explanation has infiltrated Wikipedia, but the earliest skull-and-crossbones flag cannot be dated before 1687, while pirate flags used a wide range of symbols, not just the skull and crossbones. Although the Templar-Jolly Roger claim is a widespread trope of conspiracy literature (literally hundreds of books discuss it), allegedly as a symbol of resurrection, in truth there is not a shred of evidence that any Templar ever used it. It’s apparently a modern myth, created as a Freemason legend during the period when the Masons tried to ties themselves back to the Templars. The fake story holds that three Templars exhumed fallen leader Jacques de Molay’s grave but found only his skull and femurs. However, this is an ex post facto story concocted to explain why the Masonic Knights Templar of the United States (not directly descended from the originals) used a skull and crossbones on their insignia, which originated in the adopting of a typical colonial gravestone decoration as a “memory” of the original Templars’ martyrdom. Notably, this symbol was not historically used outside the United States in Masonic devices, and at any rate it came centuries too late to have had anything to do with the original Knights Templar.
Childress follows Bradley in assigning the Jolly Roger to what he calls “Jolly” King Roger of Palermo, a Templar who first flew the flag while raiding and pillaging and fighting the evil forces for Catholicism. So far as I can tell, Bradley simply made this up. The Norman ruler Roger II of Sicily (1095-1154), whom Bradley unlike Childress correctly calls by name, was not called “the jolly,” nor did he fly a Jolly Roger. He did fight against the Vatican, but not because he hated the Church but because (a) the patriarch of Jerusalem voided his mother’s marriage (her husband, King Baldwin I, was committing bigamy) and (b) the pope wanted to break Norman power and declared a crusade against Roger. It failed, and the next pope not only reconciled with Roger; he made him king. The popes and Roger fought off and on for a long time thereafter, but while Roger commanded the best fleet in all the Mediterranean, it was a navy, not a pirate fleet. He fought “Vatican vessels,” yes, but in a war, not for piracy.
Far from being a Templar himself, Roger was against the Templars because they were allied to his enemy, Pope Innocent II, while Roger supported Antipope Anacletus II. Until 1150, the Templars received no royal support and had very limited activities in Roger’s lands. It was only in 1187—after Roger’s death—that the Norman nobility of Sicily started to back the Templars. In 1194, the new sovereign, Holy Roman Emperor Henry VI, crowned king of Sicily, finally began to offer royal and imperial recognition to the Order on the island. It was only after 1208 that the Templars began operating in Sicily and Southern Italy in earnest.
Therefore, history tells us that Roger could not have been a Templar pirate. Why would anyone think he was? It appears it’s because Roger employed al-Idrisi, the Islamic geographer whose globe recorded a fabulous island in the Azores with “three cities of equal size, much peopled, the inhabitants of which were now all slain by civil wars.” This reference, intended to refer to the Azores, got roped into the Spanish myth of the Seven Cities where in 734 seven Christian bishops were alleged to have sailed with men and women to escape the Islamic invasion of Spain. Because Holy Bloodline authors think this records a Cistercian or Proto-Templar voyage to America, al-Idrisi and through him Roger II thus become part of the Templar conspiracy, despite the obvious evidence that Roger opposed the Templars. Childress is thus completely wrong to call Roger’s lands a “Templar kingdom” (p. 59), and he’s even more wrong to somehow think that “Jolly Roger” of Sicily was taking the Templar ships for a spin after the order dissolved, nearly two centuries after his death (p. 62), a claim not even his source, Michael Bradley, had made. Childress even misunderstands the alternative history he copies.
With that, I think we can call it a day on David Childress’s pirate fantasy.
8/10/2013 07:48:18 am
In order to make a penny,just how low will this professional scumbag stoop?.
8/10/2013 08:08:53 am
Some fascinating stuff, Jason!
8/10/2013 08:21:41 am
There are alot of resources online about the Knights Templars but make sure you look at HARD History sites and university sites.
8/10/2013 08:38:00 am
The most authoritative chronicle of the history of the Knights Templar is "A history of the deeds beyond the sea".Written by William of Tyre between 1167 & 1184.
8/10/2013 08:49:52 am
I've seen plenty of "fun" Templar scenes in movies, which I expect are mostly speculative and imaginative...it would be nice to explore the real vs. the make-believe.
8/10/2013 07:17:19 pm
The Other J.
8/10/2013 02:03:59 pm
“modern historians persist in teaching that Columbus was the first to cross the Atlantic.”
8/11/2013 05:57:43 pm
I agree. I once saw a documentary that stat3d Khufu's pyramid was built first and then the step pyramid. Its easier to prove that aliens did it if don't worry about the details.
8/10/2013 03:47:32 pm
Jason said "So Childress goes on to discuss the “Lost Templar Fleet,” which he does not know from primary sources but rather from Michael Baigent and Richard Leigh, authors of The Temple and the Lodge and really terrible researchers."
8/10/2013 06:54:35 pm
Jason,Off topic,but you might want to take a look at:"L'affaire Galilée:une supercherie du sot XIXe siècle" by Dr Bernard Plouvier (Member of The New York Academy of Sciences).the latest book on the Galileo superchery.
6/28/2015 06:02:44 am
Regarding your statement on the origin of the skull and crossbones : A fake story that says three templars exhumed Molay’s grave and found only his skull and femurs... There is another story of a grave being exhumed, but it holds the deceased love of a Templar Knight who marries her corpse , and/or, depending on the teller, consummates the marriage with the corpse. A ‘voice’ tells the Knight to return in nine months, where upon he finds a skull and two bones inside the grave, etc. You did not mention this tale, but I’m sure you’ve heard of it. I am curious about your opinion. It most likely is just as fake? But for the same purpose? If not then why?
6/28/2015 06:16:59 am
Sorry to bother with the same thing, but old woman like a dog with a bone... Right after my earlier comment I did a little research and found 'another researched' article about the story I shared with you. Necrophilia has existed for centuries so I do not doubt that part of the story happening... well, at least by someone, not necessarily a Knight of the Temple. However, magic and voices from the void... not so much. At any rate, there are two stories that 'suggest' the origin of the skull and bones for the Templars. I've read so much that now I have confused myself. 'IS' there a definitive explanation or time frame of introduction of the skull and bones TO THE KNIGHTS TEMPLARS.. not the Masons. Suggested 'recognized authentic historical' sources would be most appreciated. Also, in case you are interested, here is the link to the story I told you:
8/21/2015 04:05:21 pm
Jason, you should keep this post on hand for Wolter's new show. Seeing as it is going to be about him connecting pirates to the Templars and Masons as well it could save you the time to review what will hopefully (and most likely) be his last show on the History channel.
Jason, think your hatred for Childress is a little too over-bearing. It seems every thing he said or propose you must destroy with your own so called properly researched comments. What you have countered to his arguments are as controversial as what Childress had written. You seem to show you have very little accurate knowledge of who the Templars really were and their culture. Do not envy someone else who has done extensive research, not just at the libraries, but actually travelling to the places of interest in the subject matters and speaking to the people who live there regarding the historical aspects there, etc. Have you actually done that other than just going to libraries? I would not discount what Childress has proposed as pseudo-science or utter nonsense. I always keep an open mind, including the nonsense you have written to discredit him.
4/29/2021 02:52:55 am
What I find ridiculous is the fact that anyone is arguing about this at all. No research needs to be done. The only thing you need to research or anybody needs to research is symbols. All any idiot has to do is pay attention to the symbols. We all live one of these stupid symbols everyday and have no idea when any of them truly mean. The Freemasons of today's exact same symbols of the Templars did. And the Templars ain't going to have that much money in that big of a fleet and just disappear if they went somewhere. Geee i wonder where. It's not rocket science. I don't see what the big deal is. I don't understand why they have to be so gosh damn secretive. No one cares if you were the Templars. No one cares if you worship Lucifer because he set us free in the Garden of Eden.. as long as Freemasons keep trying to keep secrets them people going to keep speculating. Unless it's a matter of National Security there's absolutely no reason for anybody to ever keep secrets unless there is something bad to hide.
10/8/2018 08:08:57 am
As soon as I hear garbage I stop reading. Have you been to Newfoundland. The place you say about Vikings does exist and is now widely accepted. So any further argument you have against Childress is all lost.
10/8/2018 08:26:59 am
Reread author's comment and misunderstood what he was saying. Can't delete what I said so ignore my comment.
c luke gurbin
9/25/2019 03:07:45 pm
My father was involved in opening L'anse Aux Meadows, if that is spelled correct. Dad didn't know about Alexandria's VIKING museum in MN state though, til recently.
9/25/2019 03:05:57 pm
This is a good research topic.
4/29/2021 02:46:13 am
Wow. I have never in my life heard such Circle talk nonsense. I'm talking about this author. The entire time you're bashing the people that you're talking about I'm just thinking about how only people that are trying to lie and cover-up things Bash people the way you do. I'm going to go ahead and agree that some of the things that you say are true that the ideas portrayed are far-fetched and weird. But a lot of them have some really good truth to them in the way that you try to dismiss them is kind of circle talk. You don't really back up any of your points kind of like the Jews do. It's jew Circle talk and I see it all the time out of them people. You cannot properly 100% discount the Knights Templar turning into the Pirates of the Caribbean and then into the Freemasons of the United States. Nor can you discount the so-called Jews of today really being from khazaria and stealing the identity of the real Jews who were black and taken from Africa. Go ahead and let's hear some more jew Circle talk
Your comment will be posted after it is approved.
Leave a Reply.
I am an author and researcher focusing on pop culture, science, and history. Bylines: New Republic, Esquire, Slate, etc. There's more about me in the About Jason tab.
Enter your email below to subscribe to my newsletter for updates on my latest projects, blog posts, and activities, and subscribe to Culture & Curiosities, my Substack newsletter.
Terms & Conditions
Please read all applicable terms and conditions before posting a comment on this blog. Posting a comment constitutes your agreement to abide by the terms and conditions linked herein.