But neither were eyewitnesses to the accounts they described, indeed they were not even contemporaneous. The assertions are based on two famous accounts one by William of Tyre, the other by Jacques de Vitry.

It is asserted by other that the Knights Templar were founded in 1118 or 1119. Guillaume de Tyre tells us that the Templars were formed by nine French knights in 1118. There may not have been anything ‘sinister’ in this ‘secret society’ (which in our modern times equates a‘secret society’ with all kinds of conspiracies). The aims and activities of the early knights probably attest to some sort of cohesive organisation which directed those activities. This perhaps is not as far fetched as it seems. These same ideas have been expressed in many ways, most notably through the suggestion that behind the Knights Templar was a ‘secret society’. I have suggested in previous articles that the Knights Templar had their origins twenty years before Hugh and his Knights ever approached Baldwin I. A reason why the Templar origins might be shrouded in mystery may be because their activities of the first nine years were secret and This is all that is reasonably known about him and that is more than we know about the other founders! It is said that the Knights Templar, as they became known, were to also protect the Holy Sepulchre of Christ in Jerusalem, as well as visiting and travelling pilgrims. Hugh de Payen is known as a ‘minor’ noble from Champagne. Not much is known about the founding Knights and what we do know is rather vague. The Templar origins as a whole are completely shrouded in mystery.

One might wonder, in the light of the above, why a King of Jerusalem would agree to the requests of nine rather obscure Knights and give them such illustrious headquarters. But are we really to believe that Hugh and his eight other companions spontaneously decided to carry out this venture? When and how did they arrive at this decision? Indeed, why did they take up this risky undertaking? As Barber and Bate noted ‘for contemporaries their activities (of the earliest Templars ) were not noteworthy’ As is recorded for posterity, Baldwin I, King of Jerusalem, agreed to their requests and granted them the Al Aqsa Mosque as their residence.

They wanted, as is often reported, to create an order which would help protect pilgrims when they came to visit Jerusalem. As they said ‘there is a great contrast between the obscurity of Templar origins and the massive publicity given to their shocking demise’ Why should there be such a vast difference in the ‘beginnings’ of the Templars and in their end regarding historical documentation? Some historians would probably posit that when Hugh de Payns and Godfrey de Saint-Omer approached Baldwin I they barely had their own ideas about the Order they wanted to inaugurate. The First Templars Barber and Bate were probably correct when they highlighted the difference between the origins of the Templars and their demise.

Godfrey de saint omer