Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 124 posts

Re: The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

#91

Post by tasuki »

motohagiography wrote: post #60

Too bad so few popular and reliable records exist, as I would be really interested in what their leverage ratio was for loans to deposits, what calendar they used to synchronize everywhere in the world (presumably astronomical), whether the Templars picked it up by learning and adapting Islamic Hawala during the crusades, what the Medicis did differently (covered a bit in Fergusson's The Ascent of Money). The necessa…

> If you are ever in Portugal, I recommend seeing the last Templar castle in Tomar. I found its scale and engineering quite spectacular, as well as how well it appears to have been preserved.

The Templar castle in Tomar was probably my best sightseeing experience, maybe because I wasn't expecting anything (her: "there's a templar castle let's go", me: "ok"). It was quite large and there were surprisingly few tourists: I think there were two other pairs visiting at the same time. Yes there's the window and the architecture is quite varied, but the general atmosphere, the vastness and the quitness is something I'll never forget.

Re: The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

#92

Post by ace32229 »

dgb23 wrote: post #86
FredPret wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International banks have spearheaded an absolute explosion in global economic growth. Looking at your story above, Philip was the bad actor and the Templars should've played politics better (maybe lending money to the pope as well?)

> International banks have spearheaded an absolute explosion in global economic growth. I assumed it's the other way around. Economic growth comes from technical and cultural advancements. Banks are a symptom of that growth.

I disagree it is that clear-cut (including GP's inversion). Access to credit is essential to businesses and governments (and individuals).

Re: The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

#93

Post by Retric »

labster wrote: post #89
yucky wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Christianity forbids usury as well I don't believe this is correct. Admittedly I'm agnostic though, so I may be mistaken. But I've studied the subject quite a bit as an outsider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Christianity It sure looks like direct words from Jesus to me, not to expect anything in return for a loan. It’s just that Christian culture chose to ignore this rule in exchange for capitalism and colonialism.

This doesn’t seem to ban interest instead denouncing expectation of any payments including principal repayments. Though the nuance is clearly lost when converting from the original text to English. It’s interesting framing because the question becomes if X is a good thing is not X automatically a bad thing or could it be neutral?

“And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Even sinners lend to sinners, expecting to be repaid in full. But love your enemies, do good to them, and lend to them, expecting nothing in return. Then your reward will be great, and you will be sons of the Most High; for He is kind to the ungrateful and wicked. Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.”” - Luke 6:34-36 NIV

The Old Testament’s anti interest framing is quoted as “making a profit off a loan from a poor person is exploiting that person (Exodus 22:25–27)” alternative translations: https://www.biblehub.com/exodus/22-25.htm but poor person is an interesting exception. Loaning money to a rich person is hardly exploiting them so a Bentley dealership offering car loans on 250,000 car seems perfectly acceptable.

Re: The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

#94

Post by mherdeg »

twic wrote: post #77
ValentineC wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You could name them, because I have no idea if you're referring to modern-day bankers, the lawyers who took over their premises, or some other organisation.

He can only mean the Templi Resurgentes Equites Synarchici. The less said of whom, the better.

A distant predecessor of Tristero, no doubt.

Re: The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

#95

Post by dang »

robot9000 wrote: post #50

Quoted post unavailable.

Sorry, but you can't do this here. Since your account has posted unsubstantive and flamebait comments in quite a few other contexts too, I've banned it.

If you don't want to be banned, you're welcome to email hn@ycombinator.com and give us reason to believe that you'll follow the rules in the future. They're here: https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html.

Re: The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

#96

Post by sophacles »

overthemoon wrote: post #45

> We don't actually know how the Templars made this system work and protected themselves against fraud. Was there a secret code verifying the document and the traveller's identity? Really? We don't know? If that's true, that surprises me.

Is it that hard to beleive?

The templars were a secret society (that is they had private initiation ceremonies just like any frat, social club, etc today - although the vows they swore were probably taken far more seriously).

They had a lot of money. That money was confiscated by force, including the torture and killing of members. This was backed up by lots of claims of devil worship and the like to get common people to be OK with it.

The money was tied to the records.

Is it that surprising that in this process all the records were destroyed? The powerful didn't want the records and the legal hassle they entail, they just wanted the gold. The common folks didn't want to be spiritually corrupted by the blasphemous works (that they likely couldn't read anyway). The records were probably burned or scraped clean and re-used (see palimpsest) since paper and parchment were expensive commodities.

There may be a document or two hiding in various corners of some old monastary library or in some book binding somewhere - as recently as 2001 some records surfaced from the vatican secret archives: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chinon_Parchment but like a lot of other knowledge of that era, most of it is probably lost.

Re: The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

#97

Post by pessimizer »

Retric wrote: post #93
labster wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usury#Christianity It sure looks like direct words from Jesus to me, not to expect anything in return for a loan. It’s just that Christian culture chose to ignore this rule in exchange for capitalism and colonialism.

This doesn’t seem to ban interest instead denouncing expectation of any payments including principal repayments. Though the nuance is clearly lost when converting from the original text to English. It’s interesting framing because the question becomes if X is a good thing is not X automatically a bad thing or could it be neutral? “And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Ev…

The temptation to make a theological argument is a distraction here. The fact is that Catholicism thought that interest was a sin for a very long time, so Christians weren't allowed to do it. It's the only reason that Jews are slandered with accusations of usury, because they were the only Europeans allowed to openly make a living lending money.

Re: The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

#98

Post by FredPret »

dgb23 wrote: post #86
FredPret wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

International banks have spearheaded an absolute explosion in global economic growth. Looking at your story above, Philip was the bad actor and the Templars should've played politics better (maybe lending money to the pope as well?)

> International banks have spearheaded an absolute explosion in global economic growth. I assumed it's the other way around. Economic growth comes from technical and cultural advancements. Banks are a symptom of that growth.

Banks are a massively significant cultural innovation. I can pay someone in a different country by pressing a button and it's a reliable, robust system.

In those days, it was a huge deal to be able to pay a merchant in France by giving gold, or even a paper representing ownership of gold, to a bank in England. Before, you had to send the money on a ship and hope for the best.

International banks led to a massive explosion in trade and global prosperity.

Re: The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

#99

Post by johnohara »

This article was an interesting (and quick) read. Thanks for posting it.

FTA: Few regulators have been quite as ardent as King Philip IV of France. ... He owed money to the Templars, and they refused to forgive his debts. ... the last grandmaster of the Templars, Jacques de Molay, was brought to the centre of Paris and publicly burned to death.

Which is a novel way to default on your loan, close your account, and start doing business with Florentine Franzesi bankers.

The royal treasure was transferred from the Paris Temple to the Louvre around this time.

In other words -- he seized the Templars assets.

It's against this backdrop that the wikipedia page on Philip IV of France achieves renewed vitality and is worth perusing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philip_IV_of_France

Re: The Knights Templar started London's first bank (2017)

#100

Post by Retric »

pessimizer wrote: post #97
Retric wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This doesn’t seem to ban interest instead denouncing expectation of any payments including principal repayments. Though the nuance is clearly lost when converting from the original text to English. It’s interesting framing because the question becomes if X is a good thing is not X automatically a bad thing or could it be neutral? “And if you lend to those from whom you expect repayment, what credit is that to you? Ev…

The temptation to make a theological argument is a distraction here. The fact is that Catholicism thought that interest was a sin for a very long time, so Christians weren't allowed to do it. It's the only reason that Jews are slandered with accusations of usury, because they were the only Europeans allowed to openly make a living lending money.

The theological argument is simply context to understand why the Church changed it’s mind between 325 and 1311. It then changed again between 1311 and now. And of course why the Eastern Christian perspective on usury is yet again different.

This stuff is really caught up on more fundamental philosophical changes over huge stretches of time. Someone outside of western culture reading the text as written would presumably miss the argument around interest and instead view it as a setup for the final line Be merciful, just as your Father is merciful.” While someone within the culture sees echoes of arguments going back thousands of years.

PS: No offense meant if your belief system is based on the assumption that this stuff is unchanged through time.

Post reply on HN