Dan Jones, thanks for coming on the show. My pleasure. They said this would never happen. They said it would never happen. No, the two of us in one's place. It's impossible. Listen, but that's what I say. I love taking all the credit for your books. It gives me enormous pleasure. Your role in my success is much appreciated. Thank you for all your help. They're selling historian Dan Jones as turned his attention to one of history's most notorious military orders, the Knights Templar.
So listen, the Templars talk about the Templars. What's it all about? It's about a paradox. The idea of a crusading order, of a military order, is a weird thing if you think about Christianity, for a stop. So, back in the era of the crusades, there was a sort of vogue for setting up military orders. So we have the Templars, the Hospitals, the Deutronic Knights, the Sword brothers of Lebonia, there's a lot of them. But the Templars are the ones that have become most famous.
What is a military order? Well, if you can imagine a combination of sort of like a monk, not technically a monk, but a professed religious person, who also happens to be a trained killer, or vice versa, a trained killer who decides to devote his life and his activities to the service of the church. That's what the Templars were effectively. They fought in the front line of the crusades against the enemies of Christ in Palestine, Syria, Egypt, the Spanish kingdoms, Portugal, and so on. All the areas where crusading was going on during the 12th and 13th centuries.
But this was a peculiar thing. And people at the time did notes that it was odd, that a trained killer could say, I'm going to continue killing, maiming, injuring, fighting people. But instead of this being homicide, it will be malicide. It will be the killing of evil, and that God will be super happy with me, because I killed some Muslims, or, you know, pagans, or any non-Christian. Whereas if I were killing Christians, it would be a bad thing.
And so, is this a reflection of the fact that crusades weren't, I mean, I know nation-state didn't really exist, but they weren't at kind of national endeavors. It wasn't like France and England went and invaded the Middle East. Was it just this opportunity for sort of mercenaries and non-governmental bodies to fill that space?
Well, if we start with the. To answer that, I think we can just think about how the Templars came into being, which is 119-1120 in Jerusalem. So we're talking 20 years after the fall of Jerusalem, to the Western, Christian, the Frankish armies of the first crusade. Jerusalem had been in Muslim hands, 1099, it fell to Christian hands. Now, we know from travel diaries written by pilgrims in the 20 years that followed. Lots of Christians from the West, from, in fact, everywhere from Russia to Scotland, Scandinavia, France, all over the place. We're going to Jerusalem on pilgrimage, newly Christian Jerusalem.
But the travel diaries recorded, A, the us of Ardern, the hardship of that journey. But also just how dangerous it was. You know, you were walking into a very unstable countryside. And if you went to Jerusalem and then started, you know, you wanted to take a trip to Nazareth, to Bethlehem, to see if Galilee, to the Dead, see, whatever, all of these pilgrims note in their diaries, sort of what I did on my holiday journal. It was incredibly dangerous. As you walked along the roadside, you would see dead bodies lying there who'd been attacked by brigands, had their throats slit and their money taken. And the roads were too dangerous even to stop and bury them, because, you know, one pilgrim writes, anyone who did that would be digging a grave for himself.
So around 1119, a French, a knight from Champagne called Hugh of Pan, decided that he was going to do something about it. So he and some of his buddies, you know, one of the councils, they were nine of them, another sister of a 30, but a small group of knights got together, hung out at the church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. And said, you know, we should do something about this. We should set up a sort of roadside rescue service to guard pilgrims. There was already a hospital in Jerusalem, a pilgrim hospital, run by what became the hospitalers. They said, you know, people need assistance on the roads. They need guarding. So they were like a private security agency in hostile terrain. And so that was really the problem that the Templars were set up to solve. But very quickly, they expanded beyond their brief and became something else entirely.
所以大约在1119年,来自香槟的法国骑士休·潘(Hugh of Pan)决定采取一些行动。于是他和他的几个朋友,你知道的,他们是一个委员会的成员,他们有九个,还有一个30人的姐妹团,但是一小群骑士聚在一起,在耶路撒冷的圣墓教堂待了一会。然后他们说,你知道的,我们应该解决这个问题。我们应该建立一种类似道路救援服务的东西来保护朝圣者。在耶路撒冷已经有一个医院,一个朝圣者医院,由后来成为医院骑士团的人管理。他们说,你知道的,人们在路上需要帮助。他们需要保护。所以他们就像是在险恶地带的私人安保机构。这实际上是圣殿骑士团设置的问题。但是很快,他们超越了自己的职责,并成为完全不同的存在。
But why was it about the New World that allowed these organisations to sort of flourish and take on a quasi, I don't know, almost governmental characters? I mean, they sort of, they all got, it's like they all got injected with steroids and they became these huge institutions, didn't they?
They did, so. The Templars, like the hospitalers and like the Deutonic Knights, were an international military order. So while they had been granted early in their history, the Templars, this is approval, headquarters and so on, by the king of, the Christian king of Jerusalem, Baldwin II, really their power and their legitimacy sprang from their relationship with the Pope. And they were, by a series of papal edicts and bulls, taken under the papal wing.
And so the Templars were effectively answerable only to the Pope, which meant that, they didn't pay very many taxes, which meant that they weren't under the authority of local bishops or archbishops, which meant that they could own property and place themselves in multiple jurisdictions without being truly answerable to the local king or lord or whatever it was. They had a uniform which, and a flag which was of themselves and not, you know, not that of another authority.
So they were really like a global organisation in modern terms. To think about how Google operates today, or any of these big multinational companies that are able to have headquarters here and there, but a richer animal, powerful than in many cases than some states, and are beyond the discipline of states in many ways. I think it's quite a problem that has, it's modern equivalent.
And so quite rapidly, they start to get buildings and premises, and how does that, I think, they become sort of almost land owners. So after the Templars were founded in Jerusalem, and they began this job of pilgrim duty, they were smart, and they operated through networks of important families back in France, back in England, and gained the patronage and the approval and favour of powerful people. And that meant two things.
One, that they were recruiting members from among the sort of nightly class, people who were already trained to fight, wanted to fight, wanted to go on pilgrims to the Holy Land, and were attracted by the idea of joining an organisation that could help them do that. But of course that wasn't everybody, and you know, a lot of people might approve of the Templars, but not necessarily wish to sign up, you know. So they accrued a lot in donations, donations of land, donations of money, donations of property, and that ranged from the top end of the scale, Alfonso I, King of Aragon, left them in his will a third of his kingdom.
They claimed it, but he left them in his will the third of his kingdom. On the other end of the scale, ordinary men and women were dying and leaving the Templars, what little they had, a coat, a couple of animals, half, share in a vineyard, this sort of, you know. So they accrued all these enormous donations from right through the social scale in Western Christendom.
And one of their early successes was to organise that property, to organise that wealth into a system whereby they set up houses called commandaries or perceptories, linked together in a hierarchy, answerable ultimately to a grandmaster in Jerusalem, and which were very efficient at funneling their profits to war zones, mainly Syria, Palestine, Egypt, or to the Spanish kingdoms where the Reconquista was taking aim at the membersland forces in southern Spain.
And would you just ask about this? Were they any good at protecting the pilgrims or did they become big and massive money making it exciting? Well, they were pretty good at protecting the pilgrims. We have lots of accounts of Templars skirmishing, really. So, although their military function by the middle of the 12th century became equivalent to some special forces, the vanguard or the rear guard of proper big crusading armies, they were pulling special ops effectively. They were the kind of green berets, navy seals of the crusading army.
They were also, particularly in the Holy Land, manning castles, watching the roads, manning the mountain passes. They were there to protect pilgrims as they went about. It was still a very dangerous place, but I think there was an awareness. Certainly there was an awareness on the Muslim side. We have lots of Muslim chronicles. When they mention the Templars, it's with a degree of a healthy degree of respect.
And how did they get on? Because this sounds to me like a massive jurisdiction problem. How did they get on with all the other nightly orders or the government such as it was out in the Holy Land? It was really variable, it's the short answer. And over time, the relations between the Templars and, let's say, the kings of Jerusalem moved up and down along with the character, the personality, the goals of the Templar masters and the individual kings.
So one good example might be Amorak I, King Jerusalem in the mid-12th century, who had a very rocky relationship with the Templars, because on the one hand, he recognized that they were extremely necessary parts of the make-up of the Crusader Kingdom. They manned castles, they defended pilgrims, they served in his armies. If he wanted to go down and fight in Egypt, he would take the Templars with him, he used the Emperor Envoy, and so on and so forth.
On the other hand, the Templars caused him a lot of problems because they weren't technically answerable to his authority and they were in some sense a rogue agent. So Amorak I got into it with the assassins, Shiites sect in the mountains of what's now Syria. And he was trying to broker a peace deal with the assassins. Assassins were a sect who specialized in spectacular public murder. They were more or less a terrorist organization. They wouldn't touch the Templars because they realized the futility of murdering Templars because it was effectively, in effect, a deathless corporation. If you killed a Templar, it was like Wacomol, another one would spring up and take his uniform in his place.
So, in fact, the assassins were paying tribute to the Templars to be left alone. But Amorak as King of Jerusalem was interested in a peace deal with the assassins. A peace deal between the assassins and the King of Jerusalem didn't suit the Templars because it would mean the end of the tribute to the assassins were paying to them. So, they unilaterally decided to murder the assassin Envoy and scupper the deal, which they did. King Amorak absolutely furious, understandably, found that he wasn't really able to do very much about it. He went to the master of the order and said, I can't believe you've done this. And the master said, yes, it is a shame, isn't it? I know what. I'll send the guy who did it to Rome for judgment before the Pope.
I mean, totally infuriating because it's just sticking two fingers up at the King of Jerusalem and saying, we might be here in your kingdom, but your so-called authority means nothing to us and we'll pursue our own policies. And you'd better fit in with them. So, they were quite good at making enemies. And those enemies ultimately contribute to their downfall? Yeah, so if we fast forward to the beginning of the. Well, the end of the 13th century, beginning of the 14th century. In 1291, the Crusader states were basically wiped out by Mamluk forces from Egypt. The Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem relocated to Cyprus along with the couple of hundred Templars.
And then the inquest began, if you like. So from 1291, for about the next 15 years, people started to wonder why the Crusader states had been lost. And a certain amount of blame, some fair, most of it unfair, was leveled at the Templars and the Hospitals. As military orders, it was their duty to guard the people and property in Jerusalem manifestly they had failed in that duty. So there was a lot of call for reform and reorganization of the military orders. The idea that they might be rolled into one super order and so on. People were running tracts and all sorts of with this now.
Move to 1306, all of this began to intersect with domestic politics and to an extent foreign policy in France. France, the heartland of the Templars, France, it's traditionally its strongest recruiting ground. France, where the Templars had bailed out French kings when they'd been taking prisoner on crusade, where they'd saved French crusading army, where they'd subcontracted for a hundred years the treasury business of the French crown. France was safe for the Templars. Also, they thought until the reign of Philip IV.
Philip IV was engaged in a long struggle against the papacy and a number of popes, but most particularly one called Boniface VIII, whom he really hounded to death in 1303. But after Boniface's death, still wanted to dig him up and put him on trial for a concoction of charges, corruption, heresy, sodomy, sorcery, you name it. The problem really was that Boniface had refused to allow Philip to tax the church in France.
Put that aside for a second. Philip was also in desperate need for cash. It's often said, oh, Philip was in debt to the Templars. It's not quite that simple. Philip had a massive structural problem with the French economy, which was twofold. One, he'd overspent massively on wars against France, against Aragon, against Flanders. Two, there was a general shortage of silver in Europe, and he couldn't physically make enough coin. This illusion had been to successive devaluations of the French currency.
The economy, to put it simply, the French economy was in the toilet, and Philip was casting about for ways to fix it. He tried taxing the church. It brought him into an almighty conflict with the Pope.
He tried in 1306 to attack the Jews of France, whom he expelled en masse. There were 100,000 Jews in France expelled them all. There were 100,000 Jews in France. He expelled them all, took their property. That didn't bring in enough.
So 1307, he began to look at the Templars as a convenient order whose role was somewhat under question, following the fall of the Crusader states, whom he knew was cash rich and land rich, because they were running French treasury functions out of the temple in Paris. He knew how much physical coin they had. He also knew they were extremely wealthy in terms of their land of the states. They were kind of unpopular, and they were connected with the Pope, and it was in his interest to bash the papacy.
So he put one, two, three, four together and came up with a plan, which was to arrest en masse all the Templars in France, charge them with a series of sexed up in every sense, accusations, accusations of spitting on the cross, of trampling on images of Christ, of having sort of illicit kissing at their induction ceremonies, of having mandated sodomy between members. If you'd wanted to compile a list of things that would shock people in France in the Middle Ages, this was the charges that were leveled at the Templars.
On Friday 13th of October 1307, Phillips agents all over France, that dawn, went to every temple house, knocked on the door, presented them with the accusations and arrested them en masse. They were tortured, they were put on show trials, and eventually an enormous amount of evidence was compiled. Eventually an enormous amount of evidence was compiled that appeared to show the Templars were individually guilty of terrible crimes against the Christian faith in church, and as an institution, it redeemably corrupt.
And was that the end of them? Once that central proper fallen, once that the kings of England and elsewhere immediately go, oh, we'll have some of that as well.
No, they didn't really. Once the initial reaction to Phillips' attack on the Templars, it seems to have been sort of bafflement. I mean, even Ed with the second, new to the throne in England, not a wonderful or sensible king, couldn't really believe that, you know, he was betrothed at that time and seemed to be married to Phillips' daughter, and so he had an interest in falling in line with the church, but people just sort of shook their heads and, well, what is this guy on? You know, what's going on here? But the process was begun.
The Pope at the time, Clement V, was a gaskone. He was more or less a Frenchman. I mean, gaskone was English, but it was also part of France. He was a very pliable. He was a pope that was in Phillips' pocket, let's say. He never took up residence in Rome. He was the first pope to live in Avignon. He was. people saw him as a French puppet. Even for him, it was a little much to countenance, the rolling up of the most famous military order in the world. So he did the best he could, which was to take over the process himself, which was to say to the king for us, you know, this is a church matter. I'm going to take it over, and we're going to investigate the Templars everywhere.
So that had the effect of then rolling this policy of investigating the Templars out to England and Aragon and Sicily and the Italian states and German states and so on. And, I mean, while the evidence in France, most of it acquired, through torture, was almost uniformly bad, and Templars were lining up to admit that they'd committed grotesque crimes. Everywhere else where torture wasn't really used, there was not much to go on.
I mean, in England, they sent French inquisitors to look into the English Templars, but they weren't allowed to use torture, and they became incredibly frustrated because they got nowhere with the Templars. They said, you know, did you have sex with each other and kiss each other and spit on Christ's image? And they wouldn't know. And, in fact, there's evidence, which is amazing to me, that the French inquisitors started looking into mass extraordinary rendition for the Templars. They wanted to take them all across the channel to the County of Pontoure, which was another one of these places that was part English, part French, where they could torture them because it would be in France. And you could do things in for. And this is amazing. It didn't happen in the end.
Enough evidence was kind of weedled out at the acres. Anyway, you get to 1312. All of this evidence from all of these territories is amassed and sent to a church council, 1311 church council in Vien, near Lyon. And, by 1312, the Templars weren't allowed to represent themselves at this council. The King of France parks an army down the road to make sure the council came up with the right result, but the result was, nevertheless, that the Templars were useless as an organisation. No one will want to join them anymore. They're rolled up and they're shut down. They're gone. And was this a huge boon to the, well, certainly the King of France? I mean, was there long-term value there or was it a bit of a short-term income boost? Much like Philip's attacks on the Jews, he didn't get enough out of it. I mean, we have to assume, although we don't know for sure, that the coin in the Templar treasury in Paris ended up in the French treasury, which would have been a short-term gain in income, but the Templar lands, which were the real wealth, existed, the long-term wealth, were given to the Hospitallers. They were not given to the King of France. So the plan must have been to appropriate this land, but it didn't happen. And so most of the Templar lands everywhere really were granted to the order of the hospital, the Hospitallers, who then had a sort of real pain of ten years of legal cases trying to, you know, secure their rights to these things. So it was really a futile, wasteful, and kind of tragic attack, because it didn't gain anyone anything.
All right, Dan, let's get down to the nitty gritty. Why the mystique, why the myth, what is going on with the Templar thing? Yeah, it's funny, isn't it? We're not sitting here talking to Hospitallers or Teutronic Knights really. I mean, no one's making Hollywood movies or big budget TV series or what have you. It's always the Templers, right? A little bit of it must come from their origins, the Temple Mount, the Temple of Solomon, which is what they were named after. Now the Alaxa Mosque, or every time the Alaxa Mosque, which was identified by the Crusaders with the Temple of Solomon.
There's great mystery, the central mysteries of the Christian faith all come from around the Temple Mount, the Harimasharee, right? So there's partly that. But I think it's much more than that. I think the nature of the Templers fall, the grotesque black propaganda that was leveled against them, and the enormous wealth, the unaccountability of the organisation, the combination of the military, spiritual, financial, all-world together, make this a ripe organisation on which to attach conspiracy theory, about grand global plans and so on.
But I think the nature of the fall, the fact that they were brought down so quickly, so devastatingly, so brutally in such a short period of time, and then appeared to disappear. It was as if they were just rolled up, people find that very, very hard to credit and think that no, that these can't have happened. Temples must have escaped, and they must have taken the ferocity with which the French crown pursued them, must mean that they had something more than just wealth. There must be some great secret they'd found in Jerusalem. This is all total speculation, but you can see why it's alluring.
Now, my normal sort of retort to that point is, hey, do you remember a company called Lehman Brothers, and what about Best urns? They vanished like that in 2008. We know this can happen, but that doesn't really answer the substantive point, I know, which is that, hey, these guys, there must have been something going on.
Now, in Templar history, you also have big holes, partly because the Templar Central Archive, which was moved from Jerusalem to Acre to Cyprus, disappeared when the Ottomans took Cyprus in the 16th century, is gone. So there's lots of stuff we don't know about the Templars. Pile onto that, the fact that Templars were genuinely legends in their own lifetime. If you go back to 1200, 1210, Wolfram von Echembach, writing King Arthur's stories, plunk the Templars in as guardians of this thing called the Grail. Now, the idea of the Grail, the history of the Holy Grail, is something that has a sort of a life of its own, a mystique and a mystery of its own.
What was it? Did it exist? Where did it come from? What did it stand for? Da-da-da-da-da. Plug that into the Templars, and you have this sort of incredible concoction of myth and magic, and sex and scandal, and holy mystery that has just proved irresistible, quite understandably, to screenwriters, to novelists, to the people who are making entertainment from the 1200s, you know, from the early 13th century. This is not a 20th, 21st century phenomenon. This is as much a part of the history of the Templars as the history of the Templars.
So they've got the branding was kind of remarkable even at the time. Phenomenal. Very, you know, again, we like to think, as 21st century kids invented branding, right? I mean, the Templars, they had it down in the 1130s, 1140s. This, for the Knights of White Uniform, for the Sergeant of Black Uniform, all emblazoned with a red cross which stood for their willingness to shed blood in the name of Christ, for the blood that Christ had shed. The name, which was so evocative of Christianity's central mysteries. They were a very, it was a very potent, sexy idea.
And I think when you look at the Templars, over the years they made many enemies and only one of them really understood where the Templars were vulnerable. So you take the great Sultan Saladin, for example, he thought the way to get rid of the Templars was to kill them. After the Battle of Hateen, 1187, when Jerusalem fell back into Muslim hands, the aftermath of Hateen, it did anyway. But after the Hateen campaign, Saladin paid big fat feet, have every Templar who his men could capture brought to him, lined up 200 Templars and Hospitalers. 200 Templars and Hospitalers were lined up in front of Saladin and he allowed his religious entourage to volunteer to be head them one by one. These were guys who were not headsmen, not executions. There was a bloody scene. And he thought this was the way to get at the Templars, to kill their members. But he was wrong because within ten years the Templars had bounced back.
The person who understood how to damage the Templars was Philip IV, because he understood it was a brand, it was a brand, it was values. He attacked the Templars' chastity, their probity, their religiosity, all the things that were at the core of why people donated to the Templars, why people joined the Templars. He came up with this list of accusations that said, yeah, you've taken vows of poverty, chastity and obedience, and you haven't been obedient to the church, you've been rolling around in this filthy money of yours, and you've been shagging each other. Like, that's. So you went hard at the Templars' central values, and that was where they were weak.
The myths around the Templars, the Hollywood rewriting, there's going to be people listening to this, watching this desperate to know, can you just rule out Holy Grail, secret treasure? If the Templars had any secret treasure, it remained secret. And I see no special reason to believe that they did have any. As for the Holy Grail, well, there's a connection between the Templars and the Holy Grail, but it's like the connection between James Bond's Spectre and MI6. It exists in fantasy, and it's a very long-running and one of the most successful entertainment business stories of the last 800 years, because that's its history. But do we mistake if an actual real fact was the Holy Grail an actual real thing? No, of course it wasn't. It was a trope. It was a literary idea. So we mustn't mistake that for truth. But I'm not here to kill fun, right? And I think you aren't either.
I think as historians, the temptation can often be to say, you come across the fun police, the joysuckers, right? You want to look at all these great films and TV shows and novels and say, that's what you've got wrong, this is all nonsense. Okay, my business and your business and all of our businesses' historians is presenting the facts as best we can have to discern them. But I don't think it's zero sum, and I think that the Templars would not be fun if you take away all the myths. But all you've got to remember is that here's the history and here's the myth. They can coexist. It sounds to me like quite a lot of other organisations that I history that begin as something and then kind of morph into something else.
Now, you could look at East India Company as a kind of transnational organisation that becomes an imperial power, unintentionally. And is it that by the end of the Templar period, they were. They lost some of their legitimacy because they weren't actually no longer fulfilling the job they'd been set up to do? Yeah, I think there was a certain degree of criticism of the Templars was justified after 1291 in that they'd been set up to defend the Crusader states and Crusader states left to defend. So you can understand why people began to question them.
You also have to think about the order of the poor knights of the Temple of Solomon. Their seal, the image on their seal was of two brothers on the same horse. Poverty was supposed to be ingrained in them. By the time you get to the early 13th century, they've been overtaken as the kind of cool poverty, by the mendicened orders. They weren't poor anymore. You had someone like Francis of Assisi wandering around, turning up to the fifth crusade, dressed in bare feet and in sackcloth effectively. This is what you call it, like this is a poor brother. Whereas by that point, the Templars, the Templars, the Templars, it was quite an extremely rich in the master. He had an enormous co-tory of servants, about ten horses of his own, a strong box to keep his valuables in, his own private cook, his own private scribe, Saracen Translate. All of this stuff, juxtapose, and there's this great moment which I've described in the book, where at the fifth crusade, the Templars are there with the Christian armies and along comes Francis of Assisi himself. And he says, I'm going to take care of this. And he goes over to see the Sultan and tries to convert him to Christianity. And the Sultan is absolutely flabbergasted to see him and sends him packing miraculously without beheading him. But there's juxtaposition. And the Templars, by the 13th century, were clearly no longer poor. And that had been set up to be dependent on charity and on handouts, but they had so much charity in handouts, they were no extremely wealthy.
They'd also become financially extremely sophisticated. So, people often say the Templars were the first bankers, but it's this idea that you could deposit money in one temple house and withdraw it another. I mean, that's not even a part of it. They were into financial services in a big way. It wasn't just banking, deposit-based banking. They were subcontracting all, or a huge swathe of treasury duties from the French crown for 100 years. Like half of the French treasury was running through the Paris temple. They were doing that job. They were employed by popes to collect crusading tax from all over Europe and deliver it to where the crusade was happening. Again, the fifth crusade. You've got Templars in England, France, Portugal, Hungary, all going out, physically collecting tax from people and funneling it to Egypt. I mean, logistically, it has an incredible operation. It's very, very hard to do. And you've got to be not only skilled in getting money out of people, but accountancy. You've got to be effectively like the brown-vansecurical guys of the Middle Ages, taking this money down into a war zone. So none of that was in the original purpose of the temple. They were supposed to be guarding pilgrims. This organization becomes something quite different by the end.
You've demonstrated there's still a great public appetite for medieval history out there at a time where lots of people saying kids shouldn't be learning at schools and all that stuff. Why do you think it still matters fundamentally? It matters to me because, you know, I've always loved these stories. It's a time of, it's a very, it's a formative time in which, in this country in England, in the United Kingdom, some of the real building blocks of today's political, social, legal, cultural kind of world, where they came from. But it's also a very strange world. It's got that lovely balance. It's a sweet spot for me which is between being recognizably similar. We're sitting here in the law courts and the legal profession dates back to the high Middle Ages in this country. And so the ends of court, there's a medieval institution, it's still with us today. And yet it's also incredibly weird. You know, this weird stuff goes down in the Middle Ages and it's a mindset that takes you some effort to get into. So I think, for me, that's the feel of the period. That's what I love.
I think it is often read as old-fashioned to say that things, you know, we need to learn about things like Magna Cartel because they made us the men we are today. That's not quite it. I mean, these things are valuable to study in and of themselves and they happen to our ancestors and our people. They're part of who we are and where we've come from. And that's not a question of trumpeting them and being also Victorian and Wiggish and triumphalist about our history. It's just to say that every country has its history and people's of every country. I think if they want to be good citizens of that country or to know the history of where they are and where they're from.
When you read the sources, you immerse yourself in medieval history, what strikes you? The similarity in our conditions, the sort of universal human response things, or do you think this is a different world? It's actually very hard to navigate it.
Their ideas are different. They believe different things about what we would now call science, the natural world, the spiritual world. What's up emotionally on mind? It is both. That's a terrible historians answer to give, I realise, but it is both.
It's that you cannot, at one moment, feel extraordinarily close to the characters whom you're writing about and feel their elemental human struggles and flaws and problems. But at the turn of the page, you just say, you know what, this stuff is batshit crazy and I've no idea what you guys are on.
Particularly with the sufficient of Christian thought into absolutely every aspect of life and the weird cosmology of a world in which if something goes wrong, it's because of our sins. It must have been sinful. Yes, it's really, that's kind of the opposite of the way we think. Normally now we think if something goes against us, we've been incredibly unlucky. And if we do something that's successful, it's because we're incredibly great human beings.
And the medieval world doesn't seem to conform to that. It's all seen to a sort of lens of piety. If you lose a battle, you go into battle and you parading a fragment of the true cross above your head and thinking that this is going to help you out. And you lose the battle, then there's always these enormous periods of soul-searching with people saying, I mean, how on earth did we lose that one? It must be because of our sins.
Imagine if every time England got knocked out of a world cup on penalties, we all went around saying it's because we're bad people, it's because as a nation we've sinned too much. Maybe that's the answer. Maybe we should be thinking more in that way, I don't know. But I don't suppose you want to get into English football too much.
And you've enjoyed big success in America as well. Why do you think the Americans are. I mean, we know that on paper, of course, America founded overwhelmingly with English, Irish and Scottish immigrants, therefore there's an interest in British medical history. Why does it touch a nerve over there?
I think it's tremendously exotic in the United States. I think my American friends, my American readers, I think find the things that we take for granted, sitting here outside a church which dates back to the 13th, the 12th century, to be almost unimaginably brilliant and exotic. Because as you rightly say, the Western takeover of the continental United States is a relatively recent thing.
The United States has an incredibly rich and learned history of its own. You only have to look at civil war to see how deeply engaged with and invested in their history, our American friends are. You don't have castles. You've got the Hearst Castle. That's about as good as it gets.
I just think that we are enormously blessed in Europe and in this country with the fabric of a history that is much more ancient than we often think. And particularly in the United States, I think people there seem to appreciate what we have in a way that we cannot because we take it all for granted.
And Dan, what I find fascinating about what you do, you're medievalist, is it's just bewildering. Because I mean, look at, we today, we can't agree as a society on whether Barack Obama was a good president. But sources wildly, even without fake news, serious journalists and commentators think as question whole aspects of his legacy. So how on earth are we supposed to judge and even write about those kind of characters that you're writing about? And we're basing it on one single source, unsubstantiated. We're basing it on things written hundreds of years after their death.
And I'm confident that you're creating a sort of accurate picture of any of the people you're writing about. I think the search for objective accuracy will drive you mad, or you'll become Bob Kerrow and still be writing about Lyndon Johnson, you know, 40 years after he began. I admire, but I think is a sort of beautiful form of insanity.
One is helped slightly by distance in that in terms of your judgment, we are further from events. And I would find it much easier to think about the kingship of Philip IV of France, for example, than I would about the presidency of Barack Obama, partly because we're still living Obama. You know, it's still, we're so far from any kind of place where we can really assess this with regard, something like Barack Obama's presidency with regard to its long term, medium term, perhaps even short term effects.
It's somewhat easier when you go back 800 years and you know, you just have the benefit of perspective. You also have a more manageable source base. And there is something to be said for the Middle Ages in that it's possible to master your sources in a way that I think it must be much harder for, you know, modern historians who have to read, who have so much more that there is to read. The flip side of that is that we have much bigger holes in the sources and you know, you can only ever be provisional based on the material you've got. So, you know, you're trading the two things off, but, you know, to go back to your question about the Middle Ages, one of the things I like is there's just enough material in the Middle Ages, right? There's just enough that you can get your head around it without becoming completely overwhelmed and have this sort of terrible feeling that you're never going to read all the primary stuff, let alone the secondary stuff. But there is sufficient that we can have interesting debates and think critically and disagree as historians about what it is we're looking at.
Do you have to enjoy the idea that you can never know? I mean, I think if you're an 18th centuryist or beyond, you really get the sense that opinions can harden up. I think I do know quite a lot about the premiership of Warpole and I can make quite concrete judgments, but do you think medievalists when you're hanging out with each other smoking your pipes? Do you almost enjoy the blank spaces and do you enjoy filling that with imagination? Obviously considered and footnoted speculation. I think so. I mean, I enjoy it. As I go on, as I write more and think more and read more, I become more conscious of what that line is between how much you can fill with historical speculation, imagination and how much you are rigorously contained by your source material and what those lines are. And you could fill a room full of medievalists and you would find people drawing the lines in different places. But it's a really thriving discipline at the moment. I think people are. This is helped by moving to pop culture through Game of Thrones. Extraordinary discoveries like the Richard III thing, which is all you need to say now with the Richard III thing, by Hollywood's sort of awakening or reawakening to the Middle Ages. So I think it's a lively old discipline and there's lots to go round in it as well. And I think partly because of the sort of gaps in the evidence, it's becoming much more interdisciplinary. People are mapping together archaeological work and textual work and legal work and cultural history. And I think all of that is very fruitful and good for us in general.
Young people, you go and talk to their schools all the time. Why do you tell them study history? I think history is the subject. Well, look, first of all, the subject matter of history is the combined endeavors and deeds of the entire human race dating back to the limit of record. So how could you not want to educate yourself in everything that's ever happened? Secondly, I think that more now than at any time in my life, the development of a bullshit detector is extremely important. And we are bombarded with information and it is part of our experience and in a sense our duty as citizens to filter, to examine, to ask why we're being told things. Because there's a form of information wars to use that terrible phrase out there and you're going to be able to navigate and history teaches you all of those skills. And thirdly, but actually it should be firstly, it's just really good fun. I mean, I have a blast. Right, this is storytelling with the beautiful bonus that it's all true.
And it's in some way a define. Good for you. Thanks for watching this video on the History Hit YouTube channel. You can subscribe right here to make sure you don't miss any of our great films that are coming out. And if you are a true history fan, check out our special dedicated History channel, history hit.tv. You're going to love it.