Talk:Crusades/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Confused text

There is a confused text on this article which I attempted to edit but it has been reverted to the original again for some reason. The text said "Peace and Truce of God movements, forbidding violence against certain people at certain times of the year." However, the way this is stated seems that the peace of God and the Truce of God movements forbidded violence against certain people at certain times, which is incorrect. The peace of God movement forbided violence against certain people 24/7 every day of the year, while the truce of God forbided violence all together on certain religious holdays and the like. The latter, was against ALL forms of aggressive actions, while the former was a effort to prevent violence ALWAYS against certain people, such as unarmed monks, peasants, and etc. In fact, the stipulations get interesting and complicted - defining weapons along the lines of length of the weapon and also weather the unarmed person had another person armed as a body guard with him (under this condition, attacking was more acceptable). It is obvious that the sentenice is not only misleading, but completly incorrect as it seems to stipulate that only on certain days only certain people were to be protect. This is false, as I showed earlier. If sources are necessary to make this change, I can find them sometime after my test (history of late middle ages) or if someone with authority to change it could, then great. Best regards.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 149.169.89.160 (talk • contribs) .

Yeah I reverted it, it's a complicated subject and the purpose of mentioning P&ToG in this section/article is not to explain what it is, the Peace and Truce of God article does that, but to emphasise there were other methods before the Crusades, rather than going off on a tangent about the technicalities of P&ToG in the Crusades article, we allready have an article that explains it in detail. --Stbalbach 21:10, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Ok... I understand that. The way it is stated is not only lacking detail (which would be fine, given that the link gives more detail), but also is incorrect. That is, together they never endorsed not attacking certain people at certain times of the year. Rather, one endorsed not attacking certain people 24/7 every day of the year, the other endorsed no fighting at all during certain days. To say that together they endorsed not attacking certain people at a certain time of year is wrong.

Logic: Peace of God - do not attack all people of category X

Truce of God - do not attack anyone from any category during the period of Y

Article describes - do not attack category X on Period Y.

Thus, according to the article, outside of period Y the category of people, X, could be attacked - which is not true of the movements. Isn't there a way to change it slightly to give this effect without chaning the emphasis of the section? Best regards, Jason H.

Ok removed the description. If youd like to help review the Peace and Truce of God article that would be great thanks. Stbalbach 16:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

"Slowed down the expansion of Islam..."

An anonymous editor added: "Despite the ultimate defeat in the Middle Eeast, the Crusadors slowed down the military expansion of Islam, helped regaining the Iberian Peninsula and bought Europe some precious time before it faced the next invading force of Islam - the Ottoman Empire." I think this is problematic. For one, the first wave of islamic expansion was long over by the time of the crusades. The conflict between Turk people and the Byzantine empire was not particularly religously motivated, but a simple land grab against a weakening empire. And as a result of the 4th crusade, the Byzantine empire was permanently weakend, which probably sped up the rise of the Ottomans. The comment on the Iberian peninsula seems to be similarly off. It's not as if the Syrians and Palestinians where going to send huge armies to Al-Andalus and were only stopped by the Crusaders... --Stephan Schulz 23:37, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Theres a bunch of stuff in that section that is problematic and not really appropriate for an encyclopedia, or at least this high-level of an article, it needs too much supporting evidence and is POV. Feel free to remove it from the article and copy it to the talk page with reasons why it was removed. --Stbalbach 05:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Islamic expansion wasn't as much of a problem as continued conflict. Reconquista(sp), the Byzantine Empire, Islamic Pirates along the Mediterranean, and (based on memory alone) some conflicts north of Byzantine lands in what is now Eastern Europe. The First Crusade did destabalize Islamic states near Byzantium as it was the first area hit during the crusade.

Just some thoughts to consider, that some of your own thoughts contain a degree of subjectiveness.

WHAT ABOUT OF LOCAL SOCIETIES?

It would be very interesting to know about the local societies and populations in the Levantine and Anatolian (Byzantine and Seldjuk) areas, during the Crusades. What was the local populace? What where the local developments and conflicts? How the local Christians, Muslims and Jews recived the Crusaders? What was the proportions of Chrisitan communities in Syria, Anatolia, Lebanon, Palestine and Jordan at the time of the Crusades? How did these populations fared during the Crusading states?—This unsigned comment was added by Transylvanian (talk • contribs) .

APOLOGY?

"Indeed, as soon as the Pope learned of the sack of Constantinople, all who took part were immediately excommunicated. In modern times, Pope John Paul II has also apologized for this massacre."

Is there a source for this (JPII's apology)?.—This unsigned comment was added by 172.129.201.16 (talk • contribs) .

Should I expect to get an answer only after I've removed the unsupported assertion? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.168.176 (talk • contribs)

Don't hurry! You posted your request not even 24 hours ago. I added a {{fact}} tag. Gugganij 10:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

2 seconds to turn it up on a google search. Is this something that some people don't believe? [1]

--Stbalbach 16:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Probably can't be called an "apology", more like "expressing sorrow". [2] -- Stbalbach 17:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

That's not an apology. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 172.164.168.176 (talk • contribs)

I would suggest following this discussion at Talk:Fourth Crusade#Pope John's apologies -- Stbalbach 16:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Background

Removed sentence about Knights being violent thugs having nothing better to do than terrorize their peasants. Unless other articles in the encyclopedia hold the same POV towards nobility/warrior castes, a double standard is being applied, which is unacceptable. Replaced with NPOV wording, describing the stabilization of post-Carolingian Western Europe as one of the main factors enabling the launch of the Crusades.

Added the reconquest of Sicily/Malta and Sardinia/Corsica as related religious warfare in the same period.

Added note on religious propaganda regarding Jerusalem and Antioch.

<Anonymous> —This unsigned comment was added by 81.255.155.129 (talk • contribs) .

Regarding this:

Western Europe thus became able to focus attention towards external threats.

This is original research, and wrong. In fact "Europe" didn't do anything, there was no "Europe", there was a bunch of feudal lords -- the closest to any sort of organized entity was the Catholic Church. And your forgetting that during the Early Middle Ages there were plenty of examples of addressing external threats (Huns, Arabs). In fact, the European nobility were violent thugs, anyone who has studied the middle ages from an academic perspective and not the Romanticized Chivalric perspective knows this, it's the whole reason communes were established, the whole reason castles were built, etc.. you can't understand the period without understanding the violent nature of the noble class, and other articles do in fact discuss it. Restoring accurate section. -- Stbalbach 18:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

"In fact, the European nobility were violent thugs, anyone who has studied the middle ages from an academic perspective and not the Romanticized Chivalric perspective knows this" -- Since that's common knowledge you should have no problem citing authoritative, unambiguous sources. —This unsigned comment was added by 172.164.168.176 (talk • contribs) .

Sure no problem. Start with an overview at Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Supplement 1, page 624, "Violence", by Peter Haidu. For more detailed treatments see Robert Bartlett The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change; Marc Bloch Feudal Society; Georges Duby The Early Growth of the European Economy: Warriors and Peasants from the Seventh to the Twelfth Century; Peter Haidu The Subject of Violence; Thomas Head The Peace of God: Social Violence and Religious Response in France around the year 1000; Amin Maalouf The Crusades through Arab Eyes; Robert Moore The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Power and Deviance in Western Europe, 95-1250; David Nirenberg Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages; Joseph Strayer On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State. See also on Wikipedia Peace and Truce of God, Medieval commune, Castle, Medieval tournament among others. And just to clarify, not every single noble person was a homicidal maniac, now was every peasant a victim, but the general trend was that the nobility ruled by violence and the violence between the nobility in particular was a well documented problem for social stability in the 11th century, which is the context of this article. -- Stbalbach 16:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. Just to clarify, there's a big difference between acknowledging that power flowed from violence and asserting that Medieval European nobility is best characterized as "violent thugs." Authority has flowed from violence since time immemorial. Modern society is little different in its essence. We follow the rules or we get thrown in jail. —This unsigned comment was added by 172.164.168.176 (talk • contribs) .

First. Again I must point out, that by describing the nobility/warrior caste of Europe as a bunch of thugs who had nothing better to do than to terrorize their peasant population, a double standard is being applied. Regardless whether medieval knights were generally of a criminal nature, or if "someone" has an agenda, Wikipedia articles discussing similar subject (Samurai, Mamluk, Zulu, etc.) follow markedly different standards. Hence it is not an objective viewpoint. Therefore it should be removed.

Second. Stbalbach's strawman argument. Western Europe was not united in politics, it was united in religion. (The article already indicates this.) Internal stability is prerequisite to military expansion. The idea that military expansion only takes place in order to divert military agression away from one's own population may be popular in some circles, but not substantiated. If you can substantiate it, please do. Unless you do, you cannot claim a NPOV argumentthe idea that this was the cause for the Crusades is unsubstantiated, and should be removed. —This unsigned comment was added by 81.255.155.129 (talk • contribs) .

(indent follows to left)

It's really a very standard interpretation of the events in late 11th century Europe. Regarding strawman arguments:

• "by describing the nobility/warrior caste of Europe as a bunch of thugs" - the article doesn't call them thugs.
• "The idea that military expansion only takes place in order to divert military agression" - that's a generalization the article does not make. There is no single reason why the crusades happened.
• "Internal stability is prerequisite to military expansion." - another generalization. I wouldn't call the people's crusade much of a "military expansion" or internally stable.
• "be popular in some circles, but not substantiated." - I just listed a raft of top-tiered medieval historians. What "circles" do you follow?
• "If you can substantiate it, please do." - I already did. In fact this is such a standard interpretation the onus is on you to provide an alternative minority view with sources. So far you've produced original research.

--Stbalbach 15:56, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

I believe that info is derived from Jonathan Riley-Smith's summaries and introductions to the crusades. "In many areas society was still dominated by the castellans and their knights; and therefore it was still violent." This is just from opening a random page in the introduction The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading, which I happen to have at hand so I can tell you this as lazily as possible (it is pg. 9 to be precise). Earlier, he says "French society had been extremely violent...Society had been dominated for a long time by the needs of war and the enjoyment of plunder...in many parts of France, instead of disbanding, the local armed companies turned their attention to the ordinary villagers in the neighbourhood." Etc etc...this is from page 3. A look through Marc Bloch's "Feudal Society" and Georges Duby's "The Three Orders" would also provide more substantiation, I'm sure. Adam Bishop 17:09, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Historical Background, second paragraph

This currently runs as follows: Before the Comneni, particularly under the threat of Seljuks, Byzantine Emperor Michael VII made a request to Pope Gregory VII for help. The Pope sent several letters, however in 1005 caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah had sacked the pilgrimage hospice built in AD 600. In 1056 the Church of the Holy Sepulchre was closed and more than 300 Christians were expelled from Jerusalem. Later, after the two Seljuk invasions to Georgia (in 1064 and 1068) the country began to render a tribute until 1099, when Jerusalem was reconquered by Crusaders. In 1063, Pope Alexander II had given papal blessing to Iberian Christians in their wars against the Muslims, granting both a papal standard (the vexillum sancti Petri) and an indulgence to those who were killed in battle. A plea for help from the Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus in opposing Muslim attacks thus fell on ready ears.

There are some problems with this that I notice even without my books:

• Michael VII was a member of the Comnenus/Ducas clan and came after Isaac Comnenus. So "Before the Comneni" is problematic (it was before they had a stable grip on the Empire, though)
• All this was long after 1005 (and, according to Wikipedia, 1009 was the year al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah started serious persecution of Christians). The Church of the Holy Sepulchre was destroyed then, but had been rebuild in 1048 by Constantine IX. So the time line seems to be rather convoluted...

Someone with more knowledge should straighten this out (I can do this, but need some time for research, which means it would not happen before next week at the earliest). --Stephan Schulz 13:32, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

I tried to fix it, but I don't know what is going on with that paragraph. It just repeats information found later in the same section. This whole article needs to be rewritten completely, it gets so much crap added to it, or just simple vandalism, I don't think anyone can follow it anymore. Adam Bishop 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

It's much better now, thanks! --Stephan Schulz 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

French Bible Picture

Is there any original source for the picture allegedly showing "Crusaders executing jews" supposedly taken from "a French Bible".

• It seems an odd image for a Bible.
• The two men with swords are crowned as kings, not crusaders.
• Two unexplained men are kneeling behind the kings as if in supplication.

This does not really match the caption.

Slowing down the Ottomans.

From the original article:

Despite the ultimate defeat in the Middle East, the Crusaders slowed down the military expansion of Islam, helped regaining the Iberian Peninsula and bought Europe some precious time before it faced the next invading force of Islam - the Ottoman Empire.

Aside from a bad tense (should be "regain"), I find the third claim a bit fishy. Now, I'm all about alternative history theories and counterfactuals- I think they fit in an encylopedia just fine- but let's not forget that the Fourth Crusade burned down Constantinople and greatly weakened the Byzantines, the people holding the Ottomans back. While perhaps the Crusades slowed down Islam as a whole (and I left that in), it's a much murkier issue with regards to the Ottomans. Secondly, from what I recall, the Ottoman Empire isn't quite "the next invading force of Islam-" while everybody loved to style themselves the true succeding caliph at the time, I don't recall the Ottomans as being particularly devout toward Islam. They certainly cheerfully let lots of Christian communities continue to exist in Serbia, Greece, and Hungary when they eventually did move in. SnowFire 17:19, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

This is a helluvah difficult way to go about correcting a spelling error on Wikipedia, of all places, but considering the article is locked, I have no choice.

Under the "Crusade legacy" section, "Europe" subsection, final line: the correct spelling is "permanently," not "permenantly."

I'm sure we'd all appreciate a revision by someone who has the keys to this page. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 24.233.155.64 (talk • contribs) .

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. But for me, the page appears neither protected nor semi-protected at the moment. If you have a problem, any administrator can protect or unprotect pages. --Stephan Schulz 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

It is semi-protected, so anonymous users can't edit it. I know it sucks, but otherwise it gets craploads of vandalism. Adam Bishop 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Albigensian Crusade

I'm just going to alter the section on the Albigensian crusade if that's Ok with everyone. Eg It only became a French war of conquest towards the later stages, the area was not then part of France, and the mention of heresy could be seen as POV. Also there is an increasing tendency to refer to the Crusades (there were two separate ones) as the Cathar Wars. Ernie G C P Spiggot 17:26, 24 May 2006 (UTC)

Les principaux chefs

The French Wiki has an excellent summary list of Crusading leaders at Liste des principaux chefs croisés. I think it should be translated into English. It's a long list, but I will begin to create it soon if nobody else does. Srnec 15:33, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

CRUSADERS WERE NOT EXCOMMUNICATED

There is no way that Crusaders were 'excommunicated' for slaughtering Jews. You can check it on Encarta.com search: Crusades and Jews. Jews were persecuted not because a few Crusaders were anti-Semitic but because they were told to do so. Again you can check it on Encarta.com search: Crusades and Jews. You'll also find it there that what the Roman Catholic Church and other Christians did sounds very similar to what Hitler id as well. Someone needs to be able to edit the page "Crusades" and the section on the Jews on that page. Unsigned by Iliketoedit 01:06, 29 May 2006

Thanks. Adam Bishop 01:19, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Crusaders were not excommunicated for slaughtering Jews", because Crusaders did not slaughter Jews in general. In regard to the first Crusade, there was two instance in which Jews were slaughtered: the massacres in the Rhineland and the conquest of Jerusalem - the second instance was part of the battle and involved every defender (Jews and Muslims) of the city - draw you own conclusions. The first was done by a band of un-official crusaders led by a count Eimicho, the third army that moved through the area. The first two armies did not molest the Jews. The third killed Jews because they hated them - not because this was part of the crusade, the aim of which was not to "kill the enemies of Christ" (as Eimicho's gang said) but to liberate Jerusalem. They were not specifically excommunicated but their deeds were generally reviled, even by authors who did not like the Jews at all. And Hitler is a completely different league alltogether. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:31, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

first external source new url

The url listed currently redirects to the website's home page. The correct URL is [3]. Pcu123456789 20:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Fixed--I didn't realize it was only semiprotected/. Pcu123456789 20:54, 29 May 2006 (UTC)