by S. J. Hodge
After Bohemond’s success at Antioch, he was celebrated as a hero and was given the hand of Constance, daughter of King Philip I of France and ex-wife of Hugh of Champagne. This is a 15th-century Flemish illumination of their wedding in 1105.
Still, with these objects and about three others that were claimed to be the Holy Lance, several people grew sceptical and Peter Bartholomew became the butt of various accusations. So, in April 1099, he requested an ordeal by fire in an attempt to prove his credibility. On Good Friday 1099, he walked through a narrow passage between two huge piles of blazing wood, wearing only a tunic and carrying the Holy Lance. Although horrendously burned, he claimed to be uninjured because Christ had appeared to him in the fire. Twelve days later, he died in agony and this particular Holy Lance lost its allure. For a while, it was kept in Constantinople and at St Peter’s in Rome. Later, it was linked with the Templars, but by then there were at least four other objects scattered throughout Christendom being labelled ‘the Holy Lance’ and, as it was never seen in the Templars’ possession nor found after their end, the idea was soon forgotten.
The Kingdom of Jerusalem
It is believed that 30,000 Crusaders had started out from Europe in August 1096, but fewer than 12,000 were left in June 1099 when they arrived within sight of the Holy City. As they approached, the Muslim governor of Jerusalem closed all exits and entries to the city and poisoned all the wells outside the city walls. A network of underground fresh water systems would keep the inhabitants inside alive, and the city was well stocked with provisions. The outside walls and defences were virtually impregnable. Coupled with their severely reduced troops and limited provisions, it seemed unlikely that the Crusaders would be successful in their ultimate goal of recapturing Jerusalem. An initial attempt at attack failed, but within a week fresh supplies arrived by sea to the port of Jaffa that had been abandoned by the Muslims. In the following days, the Crusaders built two large siege towers, erecting them after dark and moving them close to the city walls. A desperate and prolonged attack was launched from both sides and, on the morning of 15 July, a large faction of the Crusader army commanded by Godfrey de Bouillon captured an inner rampart of the northern wall. The Crusaders poured into Jerusalem and, in a frenzied and unplanned wave of violence and brutality, slaughtered everyone in sight.
The unrestrained and vicious massacre by the Crusaders was not what Urban II had asked them to do in November 1095, and it went against all the values of Christianity. The Pope had wanted them to liberate the Holy Land from the Muslims, not to massacre the inhabitants of Jerusalem. His original call for a return to chivalry had largely been ignored, but it was unlikely that he ever knew of the atrocities, as he died two weeks after the fall of Jerusalem before the news reached Rome.
Despite churchmen in pulpits across Europe condemning the news when they heard it, the Crusaders in the Holy Land believed they had achieved victory. In actual fact, the religious and political conflicts between the Sunnis and the Shi’ites had given the Crusaders greater opportunities for success than they would otherwise have had. Two days after their capture of Jerusalem, the Crusader leaders met to choose someone to take command of the Holy City. Although not everyone agreed, it was decided to turn it into a kingdom with a monarch chosen from among them to remain there and rule. The ideal choice would have been Bishop Adhemar, but he had died the year before at Antioch. So the new crown was offered to Raymond de Toulouse, the eldest, wealthiest and probably the most chivalrous of the Crusaders. But Raymond did not want to rule in the city where Jesus had suffered. So the crown was offered to Godfrey de Bouillon who had been another powerful leader and was somewhat jealous of Raymond. Godfrey accepted the position, but declared he would not wear a royal crown in the city where Jesus had worn a crown of thorns. Rather than the title of King of Jerusalem, he accepted the name Defender of the Holy Sepulchre (Advocatus Sancti Sepulchri) and he used the Al-Aqsa mosque as his palace, believing that it stood on the site of the illustrious scriptural Temple of Solomon (the Templum Salomonis). The Muslim shrine, the Dome of the Rock, adjacent to the Al-Aqsa mosque, which probably is on the site of Solomon’s original temple, was given iron railings and a cross and identified as the Templum Domini, or the Lord’s Temple. The Crusaders also installed an archbishop from Pisa named Daimbert as a Catholic Patriarch, to oversee the Latin Christians who would live in Jerusalem or travel to the Holy Land on pilgrimages. Various other prelates also moved in. Their main goal achieved, most of the Crusaders returned to Europe, taking with them tales of horror, danger, adventure, hardship and ultimate victory.
An image of the Holy Sepulchre from a 15th-century Greek manuscript known as The Oracle of Leo the Wise. The Holy Sepulchre is venerated as Golgotha, the site of Christ’s crucifixion and resurrection, as well as where a part of the Holy Lance was believed to be at one time.
Outremer
During the first few years of the 12th century, four different states were established in the territories now controlled by Christians: the County of Edessa, the Principality of Antioch, the County of Tripoli and the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In Europe, these states became known collectively as ‘Outremer’ which was French for overseas (‘outre-mer’). In 1100, Godfrey de Bouillon died and his brother, Baldwin de Boulogne, succeeded as King Baldwin I of Jerusalem, being less reluctant than his brother to take a royal title.
Nevertheless, the name he adopted mattered far less than the overriding problem that had rapidly become apparent in Outremer, which was that there was insufficient protection for the thousands of Christian pilgrims travelling there. The towns were made fairly secure, but travellers beyond the walls were vulnerable to bandits and other assailants. As soon as Jerusalem was in Christian hands once more, an upsurge of pilgrims travelled there from Europe and, with no one to defend them as they journeyed to and from the holy sites, many were attacked and murdered outside the city walls. In 1102, a pilgrim known as Saewulf of Canterbury recorded how pilgrims were often set upon as they travelled on the road from Jaffa to Jerusalem. Specifically targeted by Bedouin nomads, Turks and Egyptians, such small groups of pilgrims were often killed for the money they sewed into their clothing, and their bodies were left to rot where they were killed. This would have incensed the Christian world, not just because pilgrims were being callously robbed and murdered, but because they were also being denied Christian burials.
Hugh de Champagne
One traveller to the Holy Land at that time was Hugh, the Count of Champagne (c.1074–1125), the third and youngest son of Theobald de Blois. Wealthy, powerful and pious, Hugh was known for most of his life as Hugh de Troyes, after the land he inherited from an elder brother who died at an early age. Although interested in the First Crusade, he had not joined it, possibly as he had recently married Constance, the daughter of Philip I of France, so remained at home with his new wife and took care of his considerable lands and property. With his wife’s dowry and an inheritance from his mother and deceased brother, Hugh seemed to have everything going for him. But his marriage broke down and in 1103, after an attempted assassination from which he narrowly escaped, he spent months being nursed to health by the nuns at the Convent of Avenay. Once recovered, he made a pilgrimage to the Holy Land to give thanks for his life, and while he was gone, his marriage to Constance was annulled on the grounds of consanguinity and failure to produce an heir. In 1107, he returned to Champagne and married another noblewoman, Elizabeth de Varais.
Yet Hugh soon tried to have this second marriage annulled as well. In 1114, when he had returned once more to the Holy Land, Elizabeth went to the Bishop of Chartres and implored him to prevent her husband from rejecting her. As a result, Hugh received a letter from the bishop, remonstrating with him for leaving his wife in order to join ‘La Milice du Christ’ (the Knights of Christ). This was the original name given to the Knights Templar and the name that they were called by Bernard of Clairvaux (1090–1153), but at the time of the bishop’s letter, as far as can be ascertained, the Or
der was not officially formed. This letter seems to have had little effect on Hugh, however. He didn’t return from the Holy Land until the end of 1115 and, about two years later, Elizabeth gave birth to a son, whom Hugh immediately denounced as illegitimate. His reasons for this are not confirmed, but they seem to have been valid as the illegitimacy was not disputed at the time (although the boy, Eudes, tried unsuccessfully to claim legitimacy later in life). The official reason that has been recorded, which Hugh insisted upon, was that he was sterile. Whatever it was, Elizabeth and the child were cast aside.
When he had returned to the Holy Land in 1114, Hugh had taken a retinue of knights with him. Before he left, he declared to all that he would be ‘taking up the gospel knighthood’ once there. It is not clear what he meant by this; he may have been implying that he intended to travel to the Holy Land as the Crusaders had done, or he may have planned to protect the sacred Christian sites once there. The conundrum deepens. Hugh stayed in the Holy Land for nearly two years and when he returned to France, he left one of his vassals, Hugh de Payns (c.1070–1136) behind. This was a most unusual course of action. While Hugh de Champagne was back in France, Hugh de Payns was helping to form an order of military monks in Jerusalem. It is possible that Hugh de Champagne returned to France specifically to organize funding for the order in Jerusalem and had left his vassal with instructions about organizing the group of men. With his multiple trips to the Holy Land and later events, it seems likely that Hugh de Champagne was involved in some way. Eventually in 1125, he handed over his land in Champagne to his nephew, Theobald, renounced his worldly wealth and returned to the Holy Land to join the Order of the Knights Templar soon after its official formation. He was probably the only member of the nobility to join at the start of the Order. Even more unusual: to become a Templar, Hugh, the Count of Champagne, had to swear allegiance to his former vassal Hugh de Payns.
Hugh de Payns
Also often called Hugues de Payens, despite his significance in the establishment of the Knights Templar, there is little substantiated about him, apart from his being Hugh de Champagne’s former vassal. As far as we know, there is no contemporary biography in existence and so information about him is extremely fragmented. The most detailed accounts come from Archbishop William of Tyre (c.1130–86), who recorded his information over 60 years after the First Crusade, but even these notes are not comprehensive. Born at the family chateau on the banks of the River Seine in the Champagne region, Hugh de Payns (c.1070–1136) is often documented by later chroniclers as being a cousin of Hugh de Champagne and Bernard of Clairvaux, two of the most powerful men in Europe at the time. He is also believed to be related to two other powerful men and leaders of the First Crusade: Raymond de Toulouse and Godfrey de Bouillon.
Several documents state that Hugh de Payns was married to Elizabeth de Chappes or, some later chroniclers assert, to a Catherine St Clair. There is little evidence about Catherine St Clair, however, and it seems far more likely that he was married to Elizabeth de Chappes between 1108 and 1111. He has also been attributed with having either one child or three, whose names have been recorded as Guibuin, Isabelle and Theobald. Theobald is known to have existed as he became abbot at the monastery of La Colombe in 1139, but nothing is recorded about the other two children. There is no written documentation of Hugh leaving his family, nor of what happened to them after he had left France for the Holy Land. In those days, it was not unusual for married people to take holy orders, but first they had to obtain permission from their spouses, and often the spouses would also enter a convent or a monastery at the same time. This might have happened with Hugh and his wife, but with so few records, it is equally probable that she died, that the child or children were taken in either by wealthy relatives or into the Church, and then Hugh was free to travel with a clear conscience.
Another battle scene from the lavishly illustrated manuscript that depicted the Crusades from 1096 to 1291, Les Passages d’Outremer (Journeys to Outremer).
It is also probable that, before his marriage, he went on the First Crusade under the leadership of one of his relatives, either Raymond de Toulouse or Godfrey de Bouillon. By his actions and behaviour, it can be deduced that Hugh de Payns was a devout and earnest man, inspired by his noble relatives and determined to do what he could to defend the holiest sites in Christendom. He was also poorly educated and lacked intellectual acuity. He was doubtlessly a good fighter and reliable, but it seems that he was also a bit dull and deliberate. With his simplicity of mind, staunch faith and understanding of fighting, he was an ideal choice to lead the first group of Templars. It could also be that he was chosen to help uncover valuable secrets without really understanding their worth.
A Templar knight ready for battle, from a stained-glass window in the Church of St Andrew, Temple Grafton, Warwickshire, 1875.
The start of the Order
In 1118, Baldwin I died suddenly and was succeeded as King of Jerusalem by his cousin Baldwin of Le Bourg, who became known as Baldwin II. The Patriarch Daimbert also died that year and was succeeded by Warmund of Picardy. Perhaps while he was in Jerusalem during 1114 and 1115, Hugh de Champagne had devised with Baldwin I or Daimbert the plan to form a band of knights specifically to protect pilgrims, or perhaps the king or Patriarch had asked Hugh to leave his retinue of knights in the Holy Land for that purpose. Alternatively, it could be that the idea was contrived between the king and Patriarch and Hugh de Champagne several years before, perhaps when Hugh first travelled to Jerusalem in 1104. Or it is possible that when he travelled there ten years after his first visit, in 1114, it was with the distinct intent of organizing a protective body of knights in Outremer, and that could have been what he meant when he declared that he was ‘taking up the gospel knighthood’. Most accounts record that the Templars did not form until 1118, but the letter to Hugh de Champagne from the Bishop of Chartres that referred to the ‘Milice du Christ’ was sent in 1114. So the concept at least was possibly being discussed at that time. Alternatively, the Bishop of Chartres may have been referring to a small, unofficial group of Christians already in Outremer who were attempting to protect the holy sites independently. The popular account written later by William of Tyre is that the formation of the Order was solely the idea of Hugh de Payns, which seems unlikely. According to William, Payns approached King Baldwin II and Warmund independently in the year of their accessions with his notion of forming a permanent and reputable brotherhood of men to protect Christians and Christian sites in the Holy Land.
The truth might never be known. Most of the information comes from William of Tyre’s History of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, which he wrote in Latin between 1165 and 1184. The work is sometimes given the title ‘History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea’ (Historia rerum in partibus transmarinis gestarum) or ‘History of Jerusalem’ (Historia Ierosolimitana), or simply the ‘Historia’. It was translated into French soon after William’s death at the end of the 12th century, and then into several other languages. Because it is the only account of Jerusalem in the 12th century written by someone living there, historians have often assumed that it is impartial and objective, but it has recently been realized that William was particularly involved in the kingdom’s politics and so some of his information is in all likelihood somewhat biased. Nonetheless, his work is important in that it gives contemporary views on the Crusades and other related events, even though his account of the formation of the Knights Templar was written between 45 and 65 years after he records that it happened. In his account, he asserts that the first Templars were a group of ‘noble knights’ who took the three monastic vows of chastity, poverty and obedience in 1118 and, at the same time, pledged to protect Christians and sacred sites in Jerusalem, by force if necessary. He recorded that the Order began when Hugh de Payns and a small group of men, including Godfrey de St Omer and André de Montbard, were accepted by the new King and Patriarch of Jerusalem to form a community of religious knights in the Holy Land:
In this same year
[1118] certain noble men of knightly rank, religious men, devoted to God and fearing him, bound themselves to Christ’s service in the hands of the Lord Patriarch. They promised to live in perpetuity as regular canons, without possessions, under vows of chastity and obedience. Their foremost leaders were the venerable Hugh de Payns and Godfrey de St Omer. Since they had no church nor any fixed abode, the king gave them for a time a dwelling place in the south wing of the palace, near the Lord’s Temple. The canons of the Lord’s Temple gave them, under certain conditions, a square near the palace which the canons possessed. This the knights used as a drill field. The Lord King and his noblemen and also the Lord Patriarch and the prelates of the church gave them benefices from their domains, some for a limited time and some in perpetuity. These were to provide the knights with food and clothing. Their primary duty, one which was enjoined upon them by the Lord Patriarch and the other bishops for the remission of sins, was that of protecting the roads and routes against the attacks of robbers and brigands. This they did especially in order to safeguard pilgrims.
WILLIAM OF TYRE, THE HISTORY OF THE KINGDOM OF JERUSALEM