Writing about a wealthy monastery, and I'm wondering if there were armed guards at these establishments.
I don't think there were guards normally, but monasteries often hid soldiers during war, and they were often raided, so having a person with weapons in the monastery, and sometimes even for protection, would definitely have happened. Having said that, depending on the monastery, weapons might not have been allowed at some of them, depending on their doctrine.
I agree with jazzabel on this one. I believe it was pretty much an unwritten rule that people weren't supposed to attack monasteries or kill religious people, because it could anger their god and bring bad luck to everyone involved.
If there was a church in the monestary it might have churchwardens. Basically bailiffs for churches. But they would be from a local village serving the church for free on sundays. Like hall monitors.
Now I did forget about the Templar Knights. They would sometimes be called to defend churches, but I don't think they normally stood guard.
Remember, for Christian monks and clergy, they were expressly prohibited from carrying weapons. While I'm sure the more wealthy and established monasteries (these almost always belonged to one of the major religious orders) had some guards, most monasteries probably did not have enough money to hire non-clergy to defend them 24/7. As for the Templars, they and the Hospitalliers both received special dispensation from the Pope within a couple of decades of their founding, allowing them to carry arms. They became warrior-monks (particularly the Templars).
They did in Renaissance Italy. The Papal States had their own armies and fought wars. Apparently Monks were not as peaceful as historians imagined. Have at look at this site: http://www.knightbaker.com/?p=1611
The armies of the Papal States would not have been monks. Monks were a recognized religious class under the umbrella of the Catholic Church, with a number of rules and regulations meant to encourage or prohibit certain activities and beliefs. Of course, the degree to which these rules were enforced varied greatly in time and location, and greatly depended on the wealth and status of whatever Rule or order the monks belonged to.
I'm not familiar with the history of monasteries outside of Britain, but the British ones did not have guards. Nowhere in any of the stuff I've read has there been any mention. Monasteries were considered 'sanctuaries' for the most part, and were respected by nearly everyone, as religion was fairly universal in those days. The monasteries welcomed travelers (who were expected to pay, if they could afford to) who needed a place to stay for a night or so—although they were separately housed, and did not generally interact with the monks themselves, with the exception of the one who was in charge of dealing with outsiders (called a Hospitaller.) I do think they had gates they could keep closed, if they wanted to, and I believe people had to knock for admission. But guards? No. Here's an interesting website that gives a good, illustrated overview of the topic: http://www.oblatespring.com/Resources/Feltonfleet%20School%20Monastic%20life.pdf
What's World of Warcraft? Okay, I just googled it. Ha! Love it. Check this out - not exactly a guard, lol. In fact he looks more like a convert. http://www.michaelsheridanphotography.com/PUGS/PLANET-PUG-1/i-9hSHtQF
Lol, better not let my pug see it. He's pretty pushy getting his num-num ( dinner ) on the floor no later than 5:30.
Somebody in another forum made an interesting point. Many monks were recruited from the noble classes (second sons etc). Since they didn't go into orders as children, they would have undergone all the usual martial training that any fit nobleman undertook. So while there were no "fighting monks" or guards, many of the monks could fight if pressed. Something else to note is that the character of Friar Tuck in the tales of Robin Hood was already around in the 14th to 17th centuries, and he is sometimes depicted as a skilled swordsman and fighter. So the idea was apparently not ridiculous even that long ago.
However, Friar Tuck was a Franciscan out on the road and not your typical cloistered monk. His abbot, if he acknowledged one, would have considered him a renegade. In the 12th century English civil war between King Stephen and the Empress Mathilda many monasteries and convents were sacked and burned and many of the brothers and sisters murdered with no means of defense. Often that happened because armed soldiers of one side or the other side had forcibly seized the monastery as a defensive position, which in the eyes of the attackers removed the protection of sanctity and gave them the right to overrun the place. So hiding armed soldiers in your monastery church during a war would not have been a good move. And it would have violated the monastic rule that the monks and nuns must keep separate from the world and not take sides in secular conflicts. Tending to wounded knights and soldiers would have been a different thing, of course. But such as they would not have been able to defend the monastery complex.
Many monasteries had churches that provided mass for local villagers and townsfolk. It isn't unheard of that a local militia or town guard, charged with policing/protecting the community would also consider the monastery as part of the community they were protecting. This is in addition to groups like the Knights Templar and the actual armies of whatever country the monastery was in.
I think the answer might be in the terms of the question. They're a wealthy monastary. Remember what Willie Sutton supposidly said when they asked him why he robbed banks: “I rob banks because that’s where the money is.” Other monasteries might not have guards, but if they keep valuables there they were either impregnable or they were soon empty of wealth.
I think the spiritual penalties for attacking a monastery or church were pretty high. Hell and eternal damnation, or excommunication? I mean, if you believed in that sort of thing, it was a strong deterrent. The Viking raiders at the start of the medieval period were not Christians yet, and saw no reason not to sack monasteries. And they did, more or less at will. There was nobody guarding those places then.
