Wikipedia

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Crusader states

< Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history | Assessment

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Crusader states

edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Crusader states (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

This article has been through a bit of a torrid time since earlier in the year when Gog the Mild did a GOCE copyedit and Iazyges reviewed and passed for GA. It was nominated for a GAR and the nominator began rewriting it mid-review.

Main issue appeared to be the lack of a narrative history which has now been added. Due to the contentious nature of the subject neutral reviews from third parties would be great. FWIW it is in the queue for a third GA review but with the backlog it is probably months away from being picked up. It seems to be close to A-Class to me, but I think I am too close to it to be objective. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:07, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Hawkeye7

edit
Thanks, done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:37, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:37, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Hawkeye what's the status here? It's been a month ago when your last comment was addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 20:52, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Layout
edit
  • Suggest merging Military and Military Orders, and Economy and Communes.
  • Suggested order: Monarchy, Military, Demography and Society, Economy, Art and Architecture
Both of the above are done Hawkeye7. Welcome back to this, another pair of eyes is very welcome. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:46, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Military
edit
  • Split Military orders into two paragraphs with split after fn 143.
    Now 3 paras, what do you think?
    Good. "Pagans" is a disambig. I have corrected this. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • You describe the Hospitallers but bot the Templars and Teutonic knights. You should add a bit about them too.
    Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Were there any other orders?
    Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Space after fn 144, and remove to one before fn 147
    Are these still there? Edited before I fixed these! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    I have corrected the first one. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:08, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1180 the castles the military orders controlled, 700 knights, sergeants, clerics, layman and servants matched all other military resources available to Jerusalem. This is poorly worded, as what is meant is 700 knights plus the otghers. (Any idea how many they added up to?)
    Reworded, I don't know the support, I'll try and find something but I suspect it is unknown. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:49, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Prawer says the numbers are unknown, I suspect if he doesn't know noone does Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:00, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Religion
edit
  • Orthodox church Does this mean Greek Orthodox here? On the ground in 2020, there seems to be a mix of Greek and Syrian.
  • When Simeon II the Frank Arnulf of Chocques took his place as patriarch of Jerusalem. Sentence fragment
  • (at leat de jure) Typo.
  • Outside communion with Rome the Armenians, Copts, Jacobites, Nestorians and Maronites had greater autonomy Comma after Rome. "Outside communion with Rome" is a little clumsy. Consider re-wording so the reder does not have to stop and think about what is meant. Link Copts, Jacobites (on first mention), Nestorians and Maronites.
  • The Franks' had discriminatory laws against Jews and Muslims Remove the Greengrocers' apostrophe.
  • They were banned -> "jews and Muslims were banned", or re-word.
Hawkeye7—I think I have copyedited all of these out, it seemed easier to do it in one go. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:28, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Economy
edit
  • Paragrph breaks after fn 117, 120 and 126
  • The serfs circumvention of monopolies Apostrophe after "serfs".
  • Commas after "hinterland", "centuries", "booming" and "economy"
  • hyphenate "city centred" (although a better word may be appropraite here)
  • The Frankish noble and ecclesiastical institutional income was based on income from estates, market tolls and taxation what forms of taxation?

Hawkeye7 (discuss) 22:26, 11 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All done in one hit, I think. What do you think Hawkeye7? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:58, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
All looks good. I made some minor changes - feel free to revert. I haven't looked at the History section, but Support based on the rest. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:21, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Borsoka

edit
General
edit
  • Although the section article contains much information that is only slightly related to the article's subject, it does not provide a relevant context for the crusader states:
  • We are not informed of the European roots of the crusader states' political and social systems.
There are long sections on demography, economy, & monarchy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And? They do not address the problem. Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Neither are we informed of the Near Eastern traditions of state administration or the local societies, although they may have influenced the development of crusader states.
There are long sections on demography, economy, & monarchy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And? They do not address the problem. Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The section article does not mention that Latin Christendom had been expanding towards almost all directions (including Muslim Spain and Sicily) for decades before the crusader states were established. It also fails to mention that traditional Levantine powers (Byzantinum, Abbasids, Fatimids) had experienced a lengthy period of troubles before the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 12:31, 25 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
European expansion is not relevant, First Crusade was an extraordinary event. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was an extraordinary event in the general process of European expansion in the Mediterraneum. Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Moved this section to where it should have been, the introduction to the narrative history ast the start of the article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see no reference to the European roots of the crusader states' political and social systems. I see no reference to pre-crusade Syrian societies or state government in the Islamic world. I see no reference to European expansion. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
European expansion is not relevant, First Crusade was an extraordinary event. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it was an extraordinary event in the general process of European expansion in the Mediterraneum. Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Is there a single source that you can come up with that explicitly supports the idea that the Crusader States (that is specifically the CS, not the Crusades in general) were an event in a general European expansion? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:01, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some quotes from the sources cited in the article:
  • "...western civilisation began to show sure signs of ... expansion. ... The Normans of northern France ... were especially energetic in the mid-eleventh century: ...seizing southern Italy and Sicily from the Byzantines and the North African Arabs. Meanwhile, in Iberia, a number of Christian realms began to push their borders south, reconquering territory from the Muslims of Spain. As western Europe began to look beyond their early medieval horizons, the forces of ... conquest brought them into closer contact ... with the great civilistions of the Mediterranean: the ancient ... Byzantine Empire and the sprawling Arab_islamic world." (Asbridge (2012), pp. 7-8)
  • "...as early as 1059, Pope Nicholas II had promoted the conquest of Islamic Sicily ... The Normans...were thus able to present their attack on [Sicily] as a means of restoring the Church in lands wrongfully seized by Islam in the past, thus offering an obvious precedent for Urban's justification for the invasion of Palestine." (Barber (2012), pp. 10-11)
  • "The very first reference to the Crusades by a Muslim author explicitly describes them as part and parcel of earlier Frankish activity elsewhere in the Mediterranean, beginning with Sicily. ...Sicily and al-Andalus were just the beignning. In 1096, just a few years after the conquest of Sicily and the fall of Toledo, Frankish armies ... arrived on the shores of Anatolia, ... the first steps at the Frankish invasion of the Islamic Near East." (Cobb (2016), pp. 38, 70)
  • "The competitive dynamics of lords, landed knights and paid armed retainers stimulated aristocratic social and geographic mobility. ... [A] lord could exercise lordship wherewere he possesses retinues and income. While this usually imposed geographic limits, ...territorial constraints could give way to more distant career opportinities...: for German Saxon nobles, across the Elbe into the lands of Slavs and Balts; for French lords, into Spain to fight the Moors of al-Andalus...; for Norman knights, over the Alps into southern Italy, Sicily and Byzantiun. The availability and capabilities of western knights joined with opportunity in the Near East and crisis in Byzantium to make the First Crusade possible." (Tyerman (2019), p. 54) Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I can't have made myself clear, although I appreciate the effort you have gone to. I was after an objective quote from a source that says that the foundation of the crusader states was part of a general expansion of Western Europe, and one that didn't mix up crusading with the history of the crusader states. None of these quotes do that. To use them would be just original research without any basis on academic evidence. It would be wrong to confuse the aftermath of an extroadinary religious outburst with a more secular expansion. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:16, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Do you really think that the history of the crusader states can be separated from the crusades? Why do you make reference to the a series of crusades in the article? 2. Why do you think that scholars who link the conquest of Sicily and territories in Muslim Spain with the conquest of large parts of Syria and Palestina make a mistake? Borsoka (talk) 00:41, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1) It is not me but MacEvitt does, and Buck acknowledges that in a chronological/narrative sense this is a solid argumenr. 2) You still haven't produced a single objective explicit source linking the conquest of Sicily directly with the CS. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Please read at least the quotes from Asbridge and Barber again. 2. (ad your point1) You misunderstand what Buck writes about MacEvitt's PoV. Could you refer to a single reliable source about the crusader states' history which does not mention the Levantine crusades? In contrast with MacEvitt (and Köhler, etc), the article does not present the crusader states in a Levantine context. This is one of the mist problematic features of the article. Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This is an issue because none of the sources so far produced explicitly and objectively write The CS were part of the expansion of Latin Europe in the 11th century. As a statement it has at its root the question of the crusaders motivation, why they took the cross and what did they expect from this action? The modern view is that the crusade met the spritual aspirations of the landed class who provided military leadership and whose lives were often. shaped by military experience (Jotischky, p12). The leading crusade academic of the late 20th century, Jonathan Riley-Smith describes as absurd the traditional idea that landless knights blithely departed on crusade.(p42, The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading). Christopher Tyerman in God's War writes Although it would be misleading to assume all recruits and followers shared a similar intensity of religious motivation and zeal, without the element of ideology and spriritual exhilaration there would have been no march to Jerusalem, let alone a successful conquest . Jean Flori writes about Urban and those who recruited: Their success depended on their ability to create a climate of moral and religious pressure through an appeal to emotions. (p30, ideology and motivation in the first crusade in Palgrave Advances in the Crusades ed. Nicholson) On p17 he describes the movement to liberate the church being the framework with in in which to situate the debate. On p18 he does mention Christian reconquest in Iberia and Sicily but notes that Scholars disagree over the significance of these factors in the papal decision to call the crusade. For him the major features of the First Crusade were the direct result of its objective and primary destinatination (that is, the liberation of the eastern Churches and the recovery of Jersualem. He goes on to discuss pilgrimage and the remission of sin, martyrdom, religious soldarity, eschatology, the lack of conversion, glory in the eyes of god and man, demographic growth in the west, material gain, vassalage and familiy solidarity but what he does not mention is that the CS was part of a wider process-the expansion of Latin Europe in the 11th century. The clearest refutation of this is in the actions of the First Crusaders. After great privations and military conquest the tens of thousands who embarked did not expand in the new territory and its surrounds, apart from a few hundreds or maybe low thousands they completed their pilgrimage, packed up and took the long arduous dangerous journey home. This article is not about the crusades and is certainly not about the expansion of Latin Europe in the 11th century it is about the crusader states. This opinions is at best WP:UNDUE, possibly WP:OR and certainly contestable academically. If the was WP:RS to support the statement that would be fine, but there isn't, as far as I am aware, because no crusadie academic would make this claim.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:06, 16 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wikipedia:Third opinion for this was the suggestion is WP:OR Talk:Crusader_states#Third_opinion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:18, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Not relevant. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you explain conflicts between the Byzantines and the Franks over ecclesiastic issues without mentioning the schism? Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sourcing discussed. Murray is WP:RS or at least that was consensus. Other sources also used. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Nobody has denied that Murray is a reliable sources. Our relevant policy says: "Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources and primary sources. ... Reliable tertiary sources can be helpful in providing broad summaries of topics that involve many primary and secondary sources, and may be helpful in evaluating due weight, especially when primary or secondary sources contradict each other." Especially problematic that sentences verified by references to Murray are either closely sentenced or contain original research (tags and edit summaries show the cases ([1])). Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please give examples quoting the text from the source and the article and this can be resolved, if it is an problem. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:32, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both tags in the article and edit summaries refer to them ([2]). Please do not delete the tags without addressing the issues, especially close paraphrasing and original research. Borsoka (talk) 00:24, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outremer
edit
Ethnonym now explained in following paragraph. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Murray writes Outremer is a name used in medieval sources and in modern scholarship as a collective term for the four Frankish states established in Syria and Palestine by the First Crusade (1096–1099) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The alternative Crusader States is less accurate because after 1130 extremely few of their Frankish inhabitants were actually crusaders. Is the article's name correct if "Crusader States" is less accurate? Borsoka (talk) 02:01, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Outremer was merged into this article ,n March 2019, following this discussion Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1#Merge_from_Outremer. The suggestion to rename this article Outeremer did not achieve consensus in this RFM Talk:Crusader_states/Archive_1#Requested_move_10_March_2020 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:30, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is a commonly held academic viewpoint, sourced to an academic encyclopedia with an extensive review board of the leading academics in the field. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Ethnonym explained in the following paragraph. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but is the adjective necessary in the context? Borsoka (talk) 11:13, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Medieval sources and modern scholars commonly use the term Franks for the ruling, privileged class of the Outremer. Are you sure this text properly summerizes Murray's definition? It differs from his approach presented in his article about the the societies in the Outremer. (Murray, Alan V. (2013). "Franks and Indigenous Communities in Palestine and Syria (1099–1187): A Hierarchical Model of Social Interaction in the Principalities in Outremer". In Classen, Albrecht (ed.). East Meets West in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: Transcultural Experiences in the Premodern World. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 291–301 (specifically, 291–292, 309). ISBN 978-3-11-032878-3.) Why do we need to refer to tertiary sources if there are plenty of secondary sources dealing with this issue? Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both sources pretty much marry the article This definition means that only the initial, conquering generation and some later immigrants were actually crusaders; from around 1130 onwards, the vast majority of the inhabitants of European descent had themselves been born in the East. A more accurate name would be that used by the Western settlers themselves, namely the Old French ethnonym Francs (rendered in Latin as Franci), or in modern English, “Franks.” This name was not the result of a transference of the ethnic name for the contemporary French; rather, it seems to have been adopted as a collective designation by the settlers themselves, who originated from many different parts of Europe, from the names given to them by Byzantines and Muslims, who for centuries had lumped all Western Christians together as Frangoi in Greek and al‐Ifranj in Arabic. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...The Franks originated in western Europe... Are you sure this tex properly summarizes Murray's views? It differs from his text in his article about the the societies in the Outremer. (Murray, Alan V. (2013). "Franks and Indigenous Communities in Palestine and Syria (1099–1187): A Hierarchical Model of Social Interaction in the Principalities in Outremer". In Classen, Albrecht (ed.). East Meets West in the Middle Ages and Early Modern Times: Transcultural Experiences in the Premodern World. Walter de Gruyter. pp. 291–301 (specifically, 291). ISBN 978-3-11-032878-3.) Why do we need to refer to tertiary sources if there are plenty of secondary sources dealing with this issue? Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As above. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Byzantines used Frangoi all Westerners; a word that had previously described the Germanic people that conquered western Europe between the 8th and 10 centuries. In Arabic al-Ifranj was used to distinguish the Franks from the Greek-speaking Byzantines. The chronicles of the First Crusade sometimes used Franci, both for subjects of the king of France and for all the crusaders. It is likely that this reflects actual linguistic usage and the adoption of the term by the crusaders and their descendants in the East. Is this necessary? Borsoka (talk) 02:37, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It explains why the Byzantines used the term, that the Muslims used a similar one and the adoption within the crusader states as a self identifier. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 26 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a hereditary monarchy was established in 1100... Dubious PoV statement, even if it verified by the cited work. Barber writes about the accession of Baldwin II to the throne after Baldwin I's death: "The apparent smoothness of the succession is ... deceptive, for there had been a vigorous debate, vaguely referred to by Albert of Aachen, but described in detail by William of Tyre, who says that some wanted to wait for Eustace [Baldwin I's brother] and "not interfere with the ancient law of hereditary succession", while others argued that, given the circumstances in which they live, a leader was urgently needed." (Barber (2012), p. 118) Jotischky on the same events: "The succession of Baldwin II was aeffectively a coup d'état that polarised baronial opinion in the kingdom into a "legitimist" faction that supported the Bouillon dynastic claim and a "pragmatic" group that preferred to elect the closest relative already in the East." (Jotischky (2017), p. 78.) Prawer's summary: "Hereditary claims to the Crown of Baldwin I ... and Baldwin II ..., second and third rulers of the kingdom, barely existed. The nobles were primarily responsible for their accession to the throne and, in the case of Baldwin II, they actually overruled the herditary (sic) claim by Eustace of Boulogne, brother and legitimate heir of Baldwin I." (Prawer (2001), p. 96.). Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When a monarchy was established in 1100... The monarchy was established in the previous year with Godfrey being elected as prince and Defender of the Holy Sepulchre. I think the year is a typo, and the title was first used in 1118, but I will check. Borsoka (talk) 07:11, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Yes, it is a typo: 1115 is the correct year according to the new source. This is the third reason I do not like hastily completed encyclopedias: they always contain typos, especially if the same author publish the same article in multiple encyclopedias published by the same publishing house. Now two encyclopedias containing the same typos are used to verify this article. :) (You originally wrote this sentece based on Murray's and Nicholson's encyclopedic article. The reference was changed to Murray's work, but the date remained unchanged, although Murray's work does not contain the typo.) Borsoka (talk) 07:26, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...the ruler of Jerusalem was titled king of the Latins in Jerusalem reflecting the fact that only Franks held full political and legal rights in the kingdom. Were the European settlers in Outremer named Latins or Franks? Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 5 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Levant prior to the First Crusade
edit
  • When the Franks arrived in Syria at the end of the 11th century the polities were fragmented, rulers inexperienced, the Great Seljuk sultanate and Fatimid Empire were both disinterested and declining. In medias res? No introduction to the Great Seljuk Sultanate or the Fatimid Empire?
Perhaps, but really a introductory sentence to the section that represents 1092 onwards Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Adds no value, removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historian of the Islamic world Carole Hillenbrand has compared Islamic politics of the time... OR? She writes specifically of the Seljuks and Fatimids.
As drafted it is pretty close to Jotischky's view of what she wrote. Cited to him p41 of the 2004 edition.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
One Islamic historian has recently compared the year 1092 in its effect on Islam to the fall of the Iron Curtain in Europe in 1989 is what is written from a WP:RS. Article looks bang on. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:18, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Both Jotischky and Hillenbrand list the events of 1092: the death of three important personalities of the Seljuk and Fatimid Empires. For the time being, the sentence in the article does not reflect the core of their narration, because the article only repeats a tabloid-like comparison.
This sentence is a hook or introduction to generate reader interest. All of the further information is in the article: In 1092, he was killed in conflict with the Great Seljuk Empire. In the same year, the vizier and effective ruler of the Seljuk Empire, Nizam al-Mulk, the Sultan Malik-Shah, the Mamluk Armenian vizier of Egypt Badr al-Jamali and the Fatimid khalif, Al-Mustansir Billah all died. Malik-Shah's brother Tutush, the atabegs of Aleppo and Edessa were killed in the succession conflict. Tutush's sons succeeded in Damascus and Aleppo but the atabegs were in control. Edessa was seized by an Armenian warlord. The Egyptian succession resulted in a split in the Ismāʿīlist branch of Shia Islam. The Persian missionary Hassan-i Sabbah led a breakaway group, creating the Nizari Ismaili state in Iran at Alamut. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:39, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Let's forget that comparing the fall of the Iron Curtain with events causing chaos in the Near East is quite strange, because it is a scholar's PoV. However, the sentence is is out of context and without context it provides no useful information.[User:Borsoka|Borsoka]] (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Islamic world was vulnerable to surprise because it had disregarded the outside world. OR? 1. Jotischky does not write of the Islamic world. 2. He does not make connection between its vulnerability and its disregard of the outside world.
Certainly a pretty vague sentence in any case. Removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This [Turkic migration] had begun in the 9th century with rulers utilising Turkic nomads as slave soldiers. 1. OR? Slaves captured by slave-traders did participate in a migration? 2. Why did Mulim rulers utilised slave soldiers? This is a specific feature of medieval Islamic world in comparison with Europe.
Pretty much a statement of fact, slavery brought the first Turks into the region, migrating them from the Steppes if you like. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Could we say, the first Afro-Americans migrated to the USA? Findley does not write of migration either. We are not informed why Islamic rulers employed slave soldiers.
Turkic migration permeated the region. Turks were present from the 9th century when rulers began utilising Turkic nomads as slave soldiers. better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:49, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If we could describe the capture of young Turkic males by slave traders and their sale in foreign lands as a part of Turkic migration, we could also introduce the sentence about the slave soldiers with a reference to Turkic migration. We are still not informed why Muslim rulers employed slave soldiers.
Now reads Turks were present from the 9th century when rulers began utilising Turkic nomads as slave soldiers. Slavers captured young boys from beyond the Black Sea, selling them to Islamic leaders. These were known as ghilman or mamluk and were emancipated when converted to Islam. Mamluks were valued for their extraordinary martial skills, but also because the link of their prospects to a single master generated extreme loyalty. Within the context of Near Eastern politics this made them more trustworthy than familial relations. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The above statements are verified by Asbridge who writes of the 13th-century Mamluks of Egypt, not of the 9th-11th-century ghilman and mamluks of Central and Western Asia. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
On the pages 590-591 that support the statement, Asbridge writes of the idea and concept of Mamluks. The loyalty question is supported by the same 11th century quote from Nizam al-Mulk that Findley quotes on p67. Nizam died in 1092. Asbridge also refers to Nur Al-Din from the 12th century. Some additional detail added and sourcing moved together for clarity, now reads Turks were present from the 9th century when rulers such as Al-Mu'tasim began utilising Turkic nomads as slave soldiers. Slavers captured young boys from beyond the Black Sea, selling them to Islamic leaders. These were known as ghilman or mamluk and were emancipated when converted to Islam. Mamluks were valued for their extraordinary martial skills, but also because the link of their prospects to a single master generated extreme loyalty, as illustrated in verse within the princely Islamic manual by Nizam al-Mulk within the context of Near Eastern politics this made them more trustworthy than familial relations. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:46, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asbridge writes of the 13th-century Mamluks of Egypt. That is why the article contains anachronistic details when writing about 9th-century Syria, Iraq. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads Slavers captured prisoners from beyond the borderlands between Khurasan and Transoxania selling them to Islamic leaders. and is supported by Findley p67. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now it is OK, but why is Asbridge cited? He clearly writes of slaves captured in the steppes to the north of the Black Sea in the 13th century. He does not verify the statements about slaves captured in Central Asia in the 9th-11th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asbridge cite removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These were known as ghilman or mamluk and when converted to Islam they were emancipated, eventually rising in the Muslim hierarchy to dynastic founders and king makers.Why could emancipated slaves rise to power? This is also a specific feature of medieval Islamic world in comparison with Europe. Who were known as ghilman or mamluk? Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Slightly rephrased and added some as a qualifier, pretty much a statement of fact now. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:23, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • We are not informed why Islamic rulers appointed ex-slaves to the highest positions.
Added Mamluks were valued for their extraordinary martial skills, but also because the link of their prospects to a single master generated extreme loyalty. Within the context of Near Eastern politics this made them more trustworthy than familial relations.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:32, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A sentence about a principal feature of Islamic polities in the 9th-11th centuries cannot be verified by a book's chapter about the Mamluks in 13th-century Egypt. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As above Asbridge was writing of the idea and concept of Mamluks on the pages 590-591 that support the statement. The loyalty question is supported by the same 11th century quote from Nizam al-Mulk that Findley quotes on p67: One obediant slave is better than three hundred sons; for the latter desire their father's death; the former his masters glory. Some detail added and sourcing moved together for clarity, now reads Turks were present from the 9th century when rulers such as Al-Mu'tasim began utilising Turkic nomads as slave soldiers. Slavers captured young boys from beyond the Black Sea, selling them to Islamic leaders. These were known as ghilman or mamluk and were emancipated when converted to Islam. Mamluks were valued for their extraordinary martial skills, but also because the link of their prospects to a single master generated extreme loyalty, as illustrated in verse within the princely Islamic manual by Nizam al-Mulk within the context of Near Eastern politics this made them more trustworthy than familial relations.
Asbridge writes of the 13th-century Mamluks of Egypt. That is why the article contains anachronistic details when writing about 9th-century Syria, Iraq. Borsoka (talk) 03:13, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
As above this is supported by the Findley citation, p67, now reads Slavers captured prisoners from beyond the borderlands between Khurasan and Transoxania selling them to Islamic leaders. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
OK, but why is Asbridge cited? He clearly writes of slaves captured in the steppes to the north of the Black Sea in the 13th century. He does not verify the statement about slaves captured in Central Asia in the 9th-11th centuries. Borsoka (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asbridge citation removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:12, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Arab Islamic expansion in the Middle East had been over for centuries. OR? The cited source does not refer to Arabs and the Middle East.
Removed Arab and Middle East to match source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Islamic expansion had been over for centuries. Is this true? The Seljuks has just arrived to conquer Anatolia from the Byzantines. The Almoravids were expanding to the south and to the north.
Jotischky, a reliable source, is clear The age of Islamic territorial expansion was long past, and save for in the Iberian peninsula, contact with Europeans was minimal. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:03, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but the article refers to a recent event of Islamic expansion: the expansion of the Turcoman tribes in Anatolia, in clear contradiction to the above statement. Borsoka (talk) 06:20, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Again, adds little value. Removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the mid-11th century a minor clan of Oghuz Turks named Seljuks, after the warlord Saljūq, from Transoxania had supplanted the Ghaznavids in Khurasan. Does this sentence properly summarize the mass migration of the nomadic Oghuz Turks to the sedentary world of the Middle East and the effects of the mass migration? Why do we need to mention the Ghaznavids?
This sentence introduces the Seljuks and explains who they supplanted, if it wasn't mentioned some reviewers would ptobably ask that it was. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 11 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • And it does not explain the effect of a mass migration of nomads, just decades before the crusades, on the region. Now some reviewers can ask who were the Ghaznavids and what is their role in the development of the crusader states. The Ghaznavids had no much influence on Near Eastern politics, in contrast with the Buyids who controlled the Abbasid Caliphate and were replaced by the Seljuks.
Migration is now covered further on in the Background at the point it happened chronologically:This enabled the entry into Asia-Minor of large numbers of ghazi and nomadic Turcoman tribesmen seeking pasture. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And it still refers to the Ghaznavids who had nothing to do with the Levant. It still fails to mention the destructive effects of the influx of tens of thousands of nomads.
Can we understand the development of the crusader states without a reference to the desctruction of the traditional Islamic society in the Levant some decades before the crusades? Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Paraphrased the Holt quote above with the older one that was in the article: Significant disruption was caused by this. It enabled entry into Anatolia for large numbers of ghazi turkic warbands who raided, engaged in local politics or acted as swords-for-hire and nomadic, pastoralist tribesmen who sought grazing. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:58, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The destruction was not limited to Anatolia, as it is demonstrated by the above quotes. Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now covered as Seljuk success was achieved by extreme violence. It brought disruptive nomadism to the sedentary society of the Near East and set a pattern followed by other Nomadic Turkish tribes. The Great Seljuk Empire was decentralised, polyglot and multi-national. Junior Seljuks were titled Malik, the Arabic for king, ruling provinces as appanages. Mamluks held positions of atabeg, derived from ata meaning father and beg meaning commander. The atabegs were often powerful guardians ruling on behalf of minors. This often continued when the malik reached majority enabling the atabegs to become emirs. Through this, the Seljuks created sophisticated networks of allies and patronage enforced by targeted violent coercion.. In addition Ghaznavids reference removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...and set a pattern followed by other Nomadic Turkish tribes. Why do we need to refer to Turkic tribes with no connection with the crusader states, especially because the article does not cover several important aspects of the subject? Borsoka (talk) 03:26, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There were nomadic turks that were not Seljuks. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In part it answers the question below. Also adds context to what the title meant. Ghilman & Mamluk are also explained. As is the position of caliph. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Covered above—Mamluks held positions of atabeg Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We are still not informed who were the atabegs. If I say that "an apple is often a green fruit hanging on a tree", I do not define apples, because an apple is often a red fruit placed on a shelve in a shop. Holt writes: "It was customary in Turkish pirincipalities for a ruler's son to have an atabeg ... as his tutor and guardian, who would become in effect the regent if the ruler died while his son was a minor. In these circumstances an atabeg sometimes legitimised his position by marrying the late ruler's widow and might in fact found a ruling dynasty." (Holt, Peter Malcolm (2004). The Crusader States and their Neighbours. Pearson Longman. p. 10. ISBN 0-582-36931-2.). Tyerman also writes of the atabegs: "in theory guardians, mentors and military advisors to young Seljuk princes. In practice atabegs assumed independent authority, subservient in name only, a model familiar to Islamic politics." (Tyerman, Christopher (2019). The World of the Crusades. Yale University Press. p. 10. ISBN 978-0-300-21739-1.)
  • These were tutors and often regents of young Seljuk princes who often remained as military chiefs after the malik reached adulthood. 1. OR. Neither cited sources say that atabegs were often regent for Seljuk princes. They specify the circumstances under which the atabegs became regents for maliks. 2. In the article's context, we should explain that atabegs often assumed actual power, because many enemies of the crusader states were atabegs. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These acted for young Seljuk maliks as tutors, guardians, and where the malik held an appanage as regents with absolute power. OR. The sentence now makes no sense (Its second parts actually says "if a malik was a malik"...). Please also check the text from copyvio aspect. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The powerful position of atabeg was held by mamluks were usually military commanders acting for young Seljuk princes called maliks as tutors, guardians, and where the malik held an appanage as regents with absolute power. 1. Copyedit needed. 2. The sentence makes no sense: maliks were the Seljuk princes who held appanages, so the article now in fact says "if a malik was a malik." 3. Close paraphrasing to the previously cited source can still be an issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:58, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • On occasions the atabeg retained power after the death of the malik... And, more importantly, when their ward reached the age of majority (Holt (1986), p. 68). What is important, on occasions an atabeg "assumed independent authority, subservient in name only" (Tyerman (2019), p. 43.) Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ..., as in 1104 with the case of Toghtekin on the death of Duqaq (Seljuk ruler of Damascus). In 1115, the sultan formally granted him and his successors what was the first heritable atatabegate. This set an example that when followed by the Zengids led to the Seljuk Empire's decline. Is this the best place to introduce these rulers? Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The clan expanded through Iran to Baghdad, assimilating into Perso-Arabic culture. OR? Findley makes a clear distinction between the Seljuks and the local Arabs and Persians.
Removed the Perso-Arabic reference. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The caliph granted the title Sultan, power in Arabic to the Seljuk Tughril founding the Great Seljuk Empire. Does this sentence properly summarize the actual position of the Caliph and the Sultan?
Rephrased for conciseness, now only refers to the grant of the title of Sultan. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This was an acknowledgement that while the caliph remained the legitimate leader of Dar al-Islam or universal Islam, power and rule was theoretically delegated to the Sultan. does the job? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No. 1. The Abbassid Caliph was regarded the legitimate leader only by the Sunnis. Moreover, his leadership was absolutely symbolic - he was a puppet. 2. The Sultan were not the theoretical, but actual rulers of vast territories in the Abbasid Caliphate, although their own relatives often ignored them in other parts of the Caliphate.
Sentence revised to In this segregation of control the caliph retained legitimacy and prestige, but the sultans or other synonymously titled leaders held political power. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:59, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this segregation of control No segregation of control is mentioned in the previous sentences. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In this segregation of control removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • ...Eastern Orthodox and Christian... Do we know of non-Christian Eastern Orthodox people?
Removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Eastern and Western churches... 1. Wikilinks? 2. After a sentence about the Byzantine Empire, we jump to ecclesiastic differences, before returning to the Byzantines.
Wikilinked and reordered (see below) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Eastern church viewed the pope as only one of the five patriarchs of the Church that included the Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem. And? What does this sentence suggest? What is the context?
Eastern and Western Christianity were divided over differences in custom, creed, and practice and had been in schism since 1054. Western Christians had developed a theory of Papal primacy, but the traditional view held in the Near-East that the pope was only one of the five patriarchs of the Church. The five included Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and [[Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem|Jerusalem. better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The theory of papal primacy was not developed in the West. It was a universally accepted theory: the four Eastern patriarchs acknowledged that the popes were primes inter pares.
Jotischky, the source, writes The doctrine of papal primacy was clearly central to Gregory's relations with secular powers; but it had an effect far wider than the Investiture Contest. For in claiming headship over all Christians, the popes undermined the traditional view of the Church's hierarchy held by Eastern Christians, so reworded to 11th century popes asserted the doctrine of Papal primacy, but the traditional view held in the Near-East that the pope was only one of the five patriarchs of the Church. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:16, 16 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. In the context of the above quote, Jotischky writes how Gregory developed the doctrine of papal primacy, claiming authority over the whole Christian world. 2. Jotishky also makes it clear that "The bishop of Rome was held in particular honour by virtue of occupying the see of S. Peter, but Christian doctrine could only be determined or altered in an ecumenical council at which all five patriarchates... were represented." Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, and this is now rendered into the article as In the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII developed the doctrine of Papal primacy, but the traditional view held in the Near-East that the papacy was only one of Pentarchy of the Church, although it was particularly honoured as the Holy See. Doctrine could only be agreed at an [[Ecumenical council] including representatives of the other four Patriarchates, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:25, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Again: the doctrine of papal primacy was not developed by Gregory VII. 2. The Holy See was not particularly honoured because it was the Holy See. 3. Why do we need to mention that according to Orthodox views, doctrine could only be decided at ecumenical councils? 4. Could you summarize all this in 1-2 sentences? Borsoka (talk) 10:31, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded to In the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII claimed leadership of all Christians. However, the traditional view held in the Near-East that the papacy was just one of the Pentarchy of the Church. This included Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem although the bishops of Rome were particularly honoured because of their occupancy of the see of St Peter Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:51, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Papal primacy does not exclusively cover the Popes' claim to leadership of all Christians. 2. Pope Gregory VII was not the first pope to claim papal supremacy. 3. Four cities cannot make up a Pentarchy. 4. Why is the bishop of Rome mentioned? Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reworded as In the 11th century, Pope Gregory VII claimed leadership of all Christians. However, the traditional view held in the Near-East that the papacy was just one of the Pentarchy of the Church. In addition to the popes as bishops of Rome, this included Patriarch of Alexandria, Patriarch of Antioch, Ecumenical Patriarch of Constantinople and Greek Orthodox Church of Jerusalem, although the bishops of Rome were particularly honoured because of their occupancy of the see of St Peter.—matches source. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
1. Papal primacy does not necessarily cover the Pope's claim to universal leadership. 2. Why do we need to mention Pope Gregory VII's claim to universal leadership? 11:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)
On reflection, entire paragraph deleted. It is not relevent to the narrative history at this point in the article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So, we are not informed about the East–West Schism. Borsoka (talk) 02:52, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Empire stretched east to Iran and controlled Bulgaria and much of southern Italy. 1. Which empire? 2. When?
When Basil II died in 1025, this Empire stretched east to Iran and controlled Bulgaria and much of southern Italy. They were on the offensive, having recaptured Antioch in 969 after three centuries of Arab rule and invading Syria. better? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Why is Basil II mentioned?
How about In the early 11th century? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Byzantines were open to western military aid for campaigns on all frontiers and was on the offensive against the Seljuks having recaptured Antioch after three centuries of Arab rule and invaded Syria. 1. Were they actually open to western military aid? 2. Did they recapture Antioch from the Seljuks? 3. Did they employ soldiers from the West during their Syrian campaign ending with the capture of Antioch?
Rephrased {see above} Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads What remained of Eastern Roman Empire was ruled by Byzantine Greeks. Between the late 10th and early 11th  century they had been on the offensive, recapturing Antioch in 969, after three centuries of Arab rule, and invading Syria. The Empire stretched east to Iran and controlled Bulgaria and much of southern Italy. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:52, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Turkish ghazi and their Byzantine equivalents called Akritai and often also Turkish, indulged in ephemeral cross border raiding. 1. Why is this sentence placed before the Battle of Manzikert? 2. Introduce the word "ghazi", especially because Syria and Anatolia as border lands, were important regions of Islamic holy war. 3. Were the akritai the equivalents of ghazis? The concept of a holy war securing salvation was alien to the Byzantines, while the ghazi were warriors fighting in the hope of their own salvation (although they received a salary for their fight).
Turkish brigands and warriors of the faith, called ghazi and their Byzantine, also often ethnically Turkish, counterparts called Akritai indulged in ephemeral cross border raiding. better? 1 Holt is clear that at 1071 march-warriors of a type which had long been familiar on the frontiers of Islam. e.g. ghazis were already known prior the battle. 2 Done 3 Used counterpart rather than equivalent, as Holt does. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1. The sentence suggest that only Turkish warriors are called ghazi. 2. Syria and Anatolia were important Islamic borderlands, thus venues of the holy war: that is why ghazi could be recruited to fight against the Byzantines. We should mention this. 3. Is there a source suggesting that the Akritai were "warriors of the faith"?
Removed for precision and warriors of the faith, called ghazi. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:56, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The section still fails to mention that Syria was a borderland, thus an important venue of Islamic holy wars. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It does Turkish brigands and their Byzantine, also often ethnically Turkish, counterparts called Akritai indulged in ephemeral cross border raiding. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:35, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, the above statement refers to Anatolia. Borsoka (talk) 11:52, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...while securing his northern border. Whose border? Where?
Anatolan......rephrased for clarity. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Does Holt write that Alp Arslan wanted to secure his Anatolian borders? In The Crusader States and Their Neihgbors, he writes that Alp Arslan was planning to invade the Fatimid Empire and wanted to secure his rear against a sudden Byzantine attack. Borsoka (talk) 06:19, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Holt wrote This encounter in Dhu'l-Qa'da 463/August 1071 did not result from Byzantine operations against the tribesmen but was a conflict between the field armies of the Emperor Romanus IV Diogenes and the Great Seljuk Sultan Arp-Arslan, who had broken off a campaign against the Fatimid Egypt in order to secure his northern marches. This is now rendered in the article as In 1071, while securing his Northern borders during a break in his campaigns against the Fatimids, Suljuk Sultan Alp Arslan defeated Romanos IV Diogenes at Manzikert Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:17, 13 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...nomadic tribesmen... I guess you refer to the Turcoman tribesmen.
Yes, added Turcoman. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:48, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

More to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:39, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Duqaq and Ridwan added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thoros of Edessa added. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Do we need to mention Edessa twice in the same short sentence? Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The events that brought the Franks to the region were unexpected by contemporary chroniclers, but historical analysis demonstrates these derived from developments earlier in the century. Jerusalem was increasingly recognised as worthy of pilgrimage. From 1000 pilgrim numbers increased after the development of safer Hungarian routes. New devotional and penitential practise supported crusading appeals.[15] The motivation may never be understood. It may have been a desire for penance through warfare. Historian Georges Duby suggested it was economic gain and improved social status for younger sons of nobles but this has been challenged for not accounting for wider kinship groups in Germany and Southern France. Gesta Francorum mentions the economic attraction of gaining "great booty". Adventure, enjoyment of warfare and extended patronage systems that obliged the following of feudal lords are also a possibilities. All theories about possible motives of crusaders are listed (although this is not relevant in this article's context). However, the certain crusader leaders' determination to carve out their own principalities in the Levant is not mentioned (although this is the only relevant info in the article's context). Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair point, removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...when slavers captured prisoners... Findley writes of "Muslim border warriors (ghazis)", Holt refers to "Turkish bodyguards from prisoners of war and men brought to them by slave-traders". Both expression suggests that crossborder raids were the primary sources of Turkish slaves in the Islamic world. Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...dynastic founders and king makers... Perhaps "king makers or even dynastic founders"/"king makers or dynastic founders"?
Done, used former Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Used in introduction of Tughril Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources do not verify the statements about Saljūq. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) (Now verified by a new reference) Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cited sources do not verify the statements about Saljūq. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC) (Now verified by a new reference) Borsoka (talk) 04:41, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...or other synonymously titled leaders... OR? Is this necessary in the article's context? The atabegs will soon be introduced (and their title is not synonymous with sultan). Borsoka (talk) 05:34, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tyerman writes ...the disruptive injection of a nomadicelement into the sedentary economy and society of the Near East held lating significance. Other nomadic Turkish tribes roamed with increasing freedom across the whole of the fertile crescent and Anatolia. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Foundation
edit
  • By the end of the 11th century the Byzantine army had a long history of utilising mercenaries, so Alexios I Komnenos’s request for military support against the Turks to Pope Urban II was not unusual. OR? Could you refer to other occassions when a Byzantine Emperor approached the Pope for military support? Borsoka (talk) 04:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 1095, Alexios I Komnenos’s requested military support from Pope Urban II to fight the Turks. Urban responded by calling for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont. better?
  • For specific conflicts with the Seljuks, the Byzantines welcomed western aid and in 1095 Alexios I Komnenos’s made a request for support from Pope Urban II. 1. Specific conflicts? Were the Byzantines invading Seljuk territories or were the Seljuks occupying Byzantine territories in Anatolia? 2. The Byzantines welcomed western aid? When? Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now reads For specific campaigns against the Seljuks, the Byzantines welcomed western military support which has enough detail of the point and matches what Jotischky wrote.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Alexios Komnenos wanted to reoccupy the territories recently lost to the Seljuks. One can hardly understand the context of the establishement of the crusader states and their later history without understanding that the crusaders came to assist the Byzantines to reconquer territories. Borsoka (talk) 11:44, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
the crusaders came to assist the Byzantines to reconquer territories—OR? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:27, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. Of course, the liberation of the Holy Land was the principal religious motivation of most crusaders, but the First Crusade was proclaimed also for waging a war against the Seljuk Turks on the Byzantines' behalf. Can you refer to a book denying this? Individual crusaders' own motivations may have been different. For instance, as I already mentioned, the article should mention that some crusader leaders came to Syria to establish their own principality. Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rewritten to The Byzantines augmented their military manpower with the recruitment of Turks, Normans, western and northern Europeans. In 1095, Alexios I Komnenos’s requested support from Pope Urban II and Urban responded by calling for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:56, 18 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No. All sources say that the Byzantines needed Western support to reconquer territories lost to the Seljuks. I do not understand why we should adopt an original approach. Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Addressed with This compensated for a shortfall caused by lost territory, at a time the Byzantine Emperor faced enemies on many fronts: Seljuks, rogue Norman mercenaries, disloyal army commanders, Danishmends, other Turcic tribes, Italo-Normans in the Adriatic Sea, Pechenegs and Cumans in the Balkans.. Western primary sources largely ignore Alexios request for support entirely. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:25, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Could you refer to a reliable source ignoring Alexios' request at the Council of Piacenza when introducing the First Crusade? Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Byzantines augmented their military manpower with the recruitment of Turks, Normans, western and northern Europeans. If Tyerman explains the reasons behind the Byzantines' attempt to recruit foreign mercenaries, why it is not mentioned here. It would nicely introduce the whole section. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added This compensated for a shortfall caused by lost territory, at a time the Byzantine Emperor faced enemies on many fronts: Seljuks, rogue Norman mercenaries, disloyal army commanders, Danishmends, other Turcic tribes, Italo-Normans in the Adriatic Sea, Pechenegs and Cumans in the Balkans. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:22, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Can you refer to reliable sources stating that Alexios' representatives approached the Pope for military support against Italo-Normans, Cumans, Pechenegs, or any other enemies in the Balkans? If no reliable sources states this, why should we mention it? Borsoka (talk) 09:56, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Expanded to cover Alexios's intenations: In 1095, Alexios I Komnenos’s requested support from Pope Urban II. Historians think he was hoping for a small detachment of Latin troops he could direct. Instead, Urban responded by calling for the First Crusade at the Council of Clermont. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:33, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This could shortly be mentioned, but this is not the most relevant info. That Alexios requested support from Urban II against the Turcomans of Anatolia is more relevant in the article's context. Borsoka (talk) 10:55, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
True, added Asbridge's Islamic threat. Important to note that Alexios asked for troops, not a massive Crusade. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:06, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I clarified that Asbridge's Islamic threat is actually Seljuk threat.
  • ...extracting promises from some that recaptured Byzantine territory would be restored to him... 1. Was it a promise or an oath? 2. Only Raymond of St. Gilles refused Alexios. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Added Oath and reference to Raymonds resistance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A Byzantine-Crusader coalition recaptured Nicaea and in July 1097 the crusade defeated a Seljuk and Danishmendid force at Dorylaeum. Is this relevant in the article's context? Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:49, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:48, 19 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:48, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Normans, western and northern Europeans... Were not the Normans western Europeans? I know that Tyerman verifies the list, but his text could be rephrased to clarify the issue (and this would also solve the slight close paraphrasing issue). Borsoka (talk) 06:26, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Rephrased to make the w-l clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asbridge writes Alexius required Godfrey solemnly to promise "that whatever cities, countries, or forts he might in future subdue, which in the first place belonged to the Roman Empire he would hand over to the officer appointed by the empereror....the duke then offered the emperor an oath of vassalage. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Please compare the text in the article with the above quote. The text in the article still contains OR (especially, because scholars cited in the article do not agree which territories were covered by the treaty). Borsoka (talk) 01:47, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Introduced. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:28, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
hunt for supplies and reinforcements according to Asbridge. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MacEvitt, p60, changed towns to fortifications. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Was Thoros an Armenian or Greek warlord? (He was Armenian, but adhered to the Byzantine (Greek) Orthodox Church. The local Christians should be introduced in a Background section because without such an introduction we can hardly understand the origins of conflict between Greeks and Armenians, Jacobites, Copts.) Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
MacEvitt writes all sources concur in naming him Greek and then goes on at some length in the footnotes to explain this. The name is Armenian, but there is doubt that that was his name and there is no evidence that he was Armenian beyond this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1097 or 1098, Syrian Sunnis had approached Seljuk Sultan Barkiyaruq for assistance... The Sunnis were not introduced. That is why we need a wider context in an introductory section. Borsoka (talk) 06:16, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...a Greek called Thoros We cannot present PoVs as facts. Asbridge introduces Thoros as "the ageing Armenian ruler of Edessa" (Asbridge (2012), p. 60.). Holt refers to Thoros as "the Armenian governor" (Holt (1986), p. 21.). Borsoka (talk) 03:33, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
No, MacEvitt writes The crusader, for his part, rejected T'oros's many gifts of gold, silver and horses because he saw them as meretricious payments for military service, implying he was a hired mercenary. Baldwin had no intention of working for anyones' benefit but his own. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So after he could not hire Baldwin, he adopted him - this is the sequence of events as they are presented in the cited source. We are still not informed that the Armenians and Jacobites were hostile towards the Greek Orthodox Thoros. Perhaps this info could be mentioned in the previous section. Borsoka (talk) 02:45, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexios withdrew, rather than join the siege of Antioch after the deserting Stephen, Count of Blois told him its defeat was imminent. Bohemond amongst others claimed that this, and Tatikios failure to return from his supposed hunt for supplies and reinforcements, was treason that freed them from their oaths to Alexius. Rephrase the sentences to reflect the sequence of events: 1. Tatikios and his Byzantine troops leave; 2. Stephen deserts; 3. Alexios withdrew. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Alexios withdrew, rather than join the siege of Antioch after the deserting Stephen, Count of Blois told him its defeat was imminent. Out of context. I was wrong. Perhaps copyediting could improve the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 02:21, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As they had sworn at Constantinople, offered Alexios Antioch recognising the value of Byzantine help during the siege. 1. Who? 2. Are you sure this is what France writes? In his work dedicated to the First Crusade, France gives a different explanation (France, John (1994). Victory in the East: A Military History of the First Crusade. The Cambridge University Press Press. pp. 209–210. ISBN 0-521-41969-7.). In his monography about the establishment of the Principality of Antioch, Asbridge provides an absolutely different summary. (Asbridge, Thomas (2000). The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1130. The Boydell Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-85115-661-3.) 3. Why do we need to use a tertiary source to describe the circumstances of the establishment of the principality, if secondary sources abound in the "References" section? Borsoka (talk) 03:27, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • When they later learnt of Alexios's withdrawal ... 1. Are you sure this is what France writes? In his monography about the establishment of the Principality of Antioch, Asbridge provides a different explanation. (Asbridge, Thomas (2000). The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1130. The Boydell Press. p. 93. ISBN 978-0-85115-661-3.) 2. Why do we need to use a tertiary source to describe the circumstances of the establishment of the principality, if secondary sources abound in the "References" section?
  • The poor Franks were dismayed by delays in progress to Jerusalem spent savagely capturing Syrian towns, before Raymond IV, Count of Toulouse proceeded leaving Bohemond behind in control of Antioch. OR. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Asbridge writes Among Syrian Muslims the crusaders reputation for savagery now gained currency......Dismayed by the fact....Raymond....preferred to contest control of Syria rather than march on to Jerusalem, a mob of poor Franks....Facing this protest etc etc p85 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the crusader leaders' debate about Antioch, because this is an important aspect of the foundation of the second crusader states. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the Siege of Ma'arra and its consequences, because the first treaties between the crusaders and local Muslim rulers were concluded after the massacre. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eventually, Raymond left with Tancred and Robert Curthose to besiege Arqa while Bohemund remained at Antioch. In despair of the delay, many remained with Bohemond or joined Baldwin in Edessa. Pressure from the poor Franks forced Godfrey and Robert II, Count of Flanders reluctantly to join the siege. Relations worsened when Raymond welcomed an imperial embassy asking for further delay so that Alexios could join despite opposition from the other leaders. Could these sentences be shortened? A number of less important crusader leaders suddenly appear on the scene. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...in the second destructive siege the city had suffered in recent decades. Perhaps we should mention only the last destructive siege. If we do not want to emphasize that Jerusalem had enjoyed a period of relative peace in comparison with the Islamic centers (which had been regularly pillaged), we should not mention that the term "relative peace" includes two destructive sieges. Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raymond refused the royal title claiming only Christ could wear a crown in Jerusalem. This may have been to dissuade Godfrey from assuming the throne,... What is the background (with 3-5 words)? Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • These medieval French crusader states in the Middle East became known as Outremer or outre-mer, a phrase whose Etymology was derived from outre or beyond and mere or sea. OR. No crusader states have been mentioned. Do we need such a lengthy etymological explanation? Borsoka (talk) 02:54, 21 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consolidation (1099 to 1126)
edit
  • He solidified his position by backing Daimbert of Pisa for the Patriarchy of Jerusalem, granting a section of Jerusalem to him and Jaffa to the Pisans. 1. OR. 2. Perhaps a very short context? Borsoka (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Godfrey's following enabled the succession of his brother Baldwin who ceded Edessa to his cousin, another Baldwin, of Bourcq. 1. Perhaps a very short context? 2. Is "following" the best term? Borsoka (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...creating an theocracy... Could you rephrase it? (Sorry, I thought you would paraphrase Asbridge's text to make it clear.) Borsoka (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The first paragraph ignores chronology, although in this case it is highly important: 1. Daimbert dreams of a theocracy. 2. Godfrey dies. 3. Godfrey's retainers seize the Tower of David and offer the throne to Baldwin of Boulogne. 4. Baldwin of Boulogne cedes Edessa to Baldwin of Bourcq 5. Baldwin seizes Jerusalem. 6. Daimbert crowns him the first Latin king. Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:08, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raymond laid the foundations of the County of Tripoli. 1. Consider introducing the county as the fourth crusader state. 2. Consider placing the county in a modern map. Borsoka (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1097 or 1098, Syrian Sunnis had approached Sultan Barkiyaruq for assistance, but he was engaged in a power struggle with his brother Muhammad Tapar. This is out of context in this section. This sentence could nicely placed in the previous section. Borsoka (talk) 06:12, 22 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:14, 23 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...his Jerusalemite possessions... 1. Can we refer to Tancred's Galilean principality as Jerusalemite possessions at this time? (Jotischky's text clarifies why the "Jerusalemite" adjective is problematic.) 2. Do we need to introduce a tertiary source to verify this statement? There are plenty of reference to this event in secondary sources. Borsoka (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done, removed Sunni Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Fatimid Caliphate repeatedly attacked in 1101, 1102 and 1105, on the last occasion in alliance with the Damascene Toghtekin. The principal problem has not been addressed: the Shiite-Sunnite conflict and its relevantce in the article's context should be presented. Afterwards, our readers should be informed about the relevance of a Sunnite-Shiite alliance. Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historian Thomas Asbridge argues that the Treaty of Devol absorbed Antioch into the structures of Byzantine rule but Tancred did not consider the terms applied to him. 1. OR. 2. Summarize the core of the Treaty of Devol in 3-4 words. Borsoka (talk) 06:34, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Not done. The new text ("much of Baldwin II's time was taken defending Antioch, as regent for Bohemond II") does not explain anything. Baldwin was the ruler of both Antioch and Jerusalem, but he spent more time in Antioch than in Jerusalem. Why? And why could he ignore Jerusalem? Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:14, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Opposition of Zengi, Nur ad-Din and Saladin (1127 to 1189)
edit
  • Three years later when Raymond finally arrived in Antioch Alice's struggle for power was ended. This sentence does not precisely present the events. I think Barber can help to understand the exact circumstances. Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saladin's determination to reunite Nur ad-Din's empire led to twelve years of warfare with the Zengid rulers of Syria and Iraq. Was this advantegous for the crusader states? Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • No, it is not done. It is deleted. Now the article fails to mention Saladin's 12-year-long war against the Zengids (although it was clearly advantegous for the crusader states). Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raymond III of Tripoli appealed to the high court on the grounds he was Baldwin's closest relative and was granted the role of bailli and the rule of the kingdom. What was the role of Miles of Plancy during this period? Borsoka (talk) 04:13, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:09, 9 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Miles of Plancy took control. He was Seneschal of Jerusalem, lord of Transjordan through marriage to Stephanie of Milly and as a member of the Montlhéry family related to the royal family. Miles alienated the baronage by controlling access to the king and was murdered on the streets of Acre, possibly by plotters unknown. Raymond III was granted the role of bailli and the rule of the kingdom on the grounds he was Baldwin's closest relative by the High Court. Could the three sentences be consolidated? Borsoka (talk) 04:40, 10 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:03, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In November, Sibylla married William of Montferrat, Count of Jaffa and Ascalon. Sibylla was Baldwin's heir. William was the cousin of both Holy Roman Emperor Frederick Barbarossa and Louis VII of France. Consider consolidating the text. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baldwin negotiated a marriage between Hugh III, Duke of Burgundy and Sibylla but the succession crisis in France prevented him sailing. Is this necessary? Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce Guy of Lusignan very shortly. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • William of Tyre explains this as Baldwin's method of foiling what he believed was a plot by Raymond III and Bohemond III to depose him and elevate Sibylla to the throne under their control. OR. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1183 the Franks levied an extraordinary tax for defence funding. What does this show? Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saladin captured Aleppo and three years later he completed the suppression of the Zengids by capturing Mosul. OR. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baldwin dismissed Guy from his position as bailli for failing to fully engage the enemy, although historians such as R.C. Small believe it was this was the result of obstruction by Guy's baronial enemies. 1. Barber presents the obstruction as a fact. Are there historians who think Guy's enemies did not obstruct him? 2. Baronial? Does Barber state that only secular lords obstructed Guy? 3. The historian's name is Smail. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Baldwin crowned Guy's 5-year-old stepson,also called Baldwin, as co-ruler... OR. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1185 King Baldwin did not have long to live. He called a council of the Frankish barons in which Raymond became bailli for ten years. The new king Baldwin V was put under the protection of Joscelin, which also protected Raymond, who was the nearest male relative, from suspicion should the boy die prematurely. As there was no consensus on what should happen in that event it would be for the pope, the Holy Roman Emperor, the kings of France and England to decide between the succession. Consider consolidating the text. Introduce Joscelin. The last sentence makes no sense. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Joscelin seized Acre and Beirut... Why? Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raymond and the barons supported an alternative candidate in Isabella's husband Humphrey IV of Toron. 1. OR. 2. Introduce Isabella. Borsoka (talk)
  • The barons now had no alternative but to accept the new rulers... Whom? Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Franks divided on tactics. Raymond urged defensive caution while Reynald and the master of the Templars, Gerard de Ridefort urged attack. They considered that Raymond a traitor. Guy was persuaded to address Saladin's siege of Tiberias. The march across Galilee was arduous and Saladin used his forces to separate the Franks from water supplies. On 4 July 1187 Raymond attacked, aiming to gain the springs at Hattin. The Franks trampled some of their own men and the Muslims retreated. The survivors included Raymond, his stepsons, Raymond of Antioch, Reynald of Sidon, Balian and Joscelin. They left the battle making their way north to Safed and eventually Tyre. The remains of the Frankish army retreated up the Horns of Hattin and were overwhelmed. In the defeat all the major Frankish leaders were taken prisoner including Guy, Gerard, Reynald of Châtillon, William of Montferrat, Aimery of Lusignan, Humphrey and Hugh of Gibelet. Imad ad-Din al-Isfahani reports Saladin beheaded Reynald himself. Terricus who was the most senior surviving Templar, wrote that 230 Templars were beheaded. Hattin was a massive defeat for the Franks. Guy had committed all the available Frankish resources. Letters to Europe describe it as a military defeat that had cost 25,000 lives in a single day. The Battle of Hattin had its own article. It should be summarized in 2 sentences. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Eschiva surrendered Tiberias assuming that Raymond and her sons were lost. Joscelin submitted Acre and the citizens were given forty days to leave. According to Terricus by August the kingdom only retained Jerusalem, Ascalon, Tyre and Beirut. He did not realise that the great inland castles held out. Beirut fell quickly and the coastal towns followed without great loss of life, but numerous Christians were enslaved. Ascalon surrendered in return for safe passage to Jerusalem and freedom for ten people. These included Guy, his brother Aimery, the marshal, and Gerard of Ridefort. Although Guy was not released until the following July. Balian handed the keys. of Jerusalem to Saladin and those inhabitants who could afford ransom were released. The territorial consequences of Hattin should be summarized in one sentence. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Later, after fierce fighting outside Acre Saladin accused Guy of breaking his oath. Out of context. What should be mentioned here, that Guy did not leave Palestine. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Recovery and Civil War (1190 to 1244)
edit
  • Mention the declaration of the Third Crusade and its participants. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Historia de expeditione Friderici imperatoris records that... Is this introduction necessary? Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Ernoul,... Is this introduction necessary? Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the conquest of Cyprus. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...in Tyre Conrad refused entry to Guy, his brothers Geoffrey and Aimery, Gerard of Ridefort and Andrew of Brienne and 600 knights. Why? Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to Ambroise and Itinerarium Peregrinarum et Gesta Regis Ricardi, Conrad bribed the princes to allow him to marry Isabella, Sibylla's half-sister, despite her marriage to Humphrey of Toron and the belief that he had two living wives. Those hostile sources describe Isabella's mother Maria Comnena as "steeped in Greek filth from the cradle" and criticised her husband Balian of Ibelin's morals. Consider shortening the text. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Richard led the crusade to victory at Arsuf... Against whom? Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historian Claude Cahen described the early 13th century history of northern Syria as "a lack of conflicts with the Muslims, [but] constant conflicts with the Armenians". Does Burgtorf who is cited to verify this statement share Cahen's view? Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Armenians of Cilicia became increasingly independent after the 1176 Byzantine defeat by the Seljuks at Myriokephalon ended Greek control in Cilicia and northern Syria. In 1185, during an Armenian civil war Bohemond III of Antioch forced his guest, Ruben III, Prince of Armenia, into becoming his vassal. When Roupen died, his brother Leo supplanted his daughter and heiress, Alice. These events should be mentioned in the previous section, especially because the Battle of Myriokephalon also influenced the crusader states' history. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Raymond died first. Bohemond III's second son, Bohemond IV, was recognised as heir by the commune while Alice and Raymond's posthumous son, Raymond-Roupen, were exiled to Cilicia.[101] Bohemond III died in 1201. The commune of Antioch renewed its allegiance to Bohemond IV, although a number of the nobility felt compelled to support Raymond-Roupen and joined him in Cilicia. Bohemond requested aid from Saladin's son, Az-Zahir Ghazi of Aleppo and Suleiman, the Sultan of Rûm. They invaded Cilicia. This forced Leo to abandon his support of his great nephew. Bohemond IV was often absent asserting control in Tripoli. In 1203 the Templars prevented Leo taking advantage, in 1205/1206 it was Az-Zahir Ghazi. In 1207/1208 Bohemond suppressed an Antiochene revolt by the Latin patriarch of Antioch and the exiled nobles. Leo and Raymond-Roupen exhausted Antioch with frequent destructive raids and in 1216 occupied the city during another of Bohemond IV's absences. Leo left to fight the Anatolian Seljuks in Cilicia. Relationships between Leo and Raymond-Roupen soured and Bohemond IV's supporters took advantage, restoring him in 2019. Raymond-Roupen fled to Armenia, seeking Leo's support and when Leo died in May attempting to gain the throne. Constantine of Baberon who was regent for Leo's younger daughter, Isabellal, acted quickly. He captured Raymond-Roupen, who then died in prison. Isabella was married to Bohemond IV's son, Philip. In late 1224, Phillip was abducted and poisoned by Armenians. Bohemond attempts at revenge were foiled by an alliance between the Armenians and Bohemond IV's former Ayyubid allies in Aleppo. Consider shortening the narrative and including it in the wider context of crusader states' history. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the power struggle between the Ayyubids that followed Saladin's death. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Saladin's brother Al-Adil I ruled the majority of Ayyubid territory.... When? Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...his third son Az-Zahir Ghazi... Whose? Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Armenia... Which? Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce John of Brienne. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1210, he married Maria and when she died after the birth of Isabella II two years later became king-regent for their daughter. When did he become king? Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ... the new Sultan Al-Kamil... Only Seljuk sultans are mentioned in previous sentences. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Damietta was besieged by the crusaders. Al-Kamil offered repeatedly the return Jerusalem and Palestine west of the Jordan in exchange for a crusader withdrawal. This was rejected contrary to the opinions of some of the Franks, probably including John. The defensibility of Jerusalem was questionable, the agreement was time limited, Palestine was controlled by al-Kamil's brother the sultan of Syria not al-Kamil and the crusaders’ vows would be unfulfilled. Instead after twenty-one months of stalemate the crusaders marched on Cairo before being trapped between the Nile floods and Egypti...an army. Damietta was surrendered In return for safe conduct and the crusade ended. Consider shortening the text. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1225 Frederick became king... Frederick had been king since his childhood. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention Frederick's excommunication. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Frederick arrived. Where? Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Cypriot Franks, Templars and Hospitallers were hostile to his rule. Why? What about the Jerusalemite nobility? Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • There was a negative reaction to the ten-year treaty he agreed with al-Kamil... Why? Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jerusalem's monarchs were then absent until Hugh III of Cyprus succeeded in 1269. Rephrase because Hugh comes out of the blue (furthermore, the Lusignans also rarely visited the mainland). Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who supported the Ibelins? The "local baronage" or the "Cypriot nobility"? Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • This brought the War of the Lombards to a close. When and where did it begin? Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • The papacy's conflict with Frederick... No conflict was mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • ...Frederick's tactics of forceful diplomacy... This was not mentioned before. Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Destruction by the Mamluks (1244 to 1291)
edit
Monarchy
edit
  • The section does not present the monarchy in the crusader states, because it is dedicated exclusively to the Jerusalemite monarchy. Its main source, Prawer, also writes of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. It should be rewritten. Borsoka (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Military
edit
  • The section presents the Jerusalemite army, but does not refer to other crusader states. Prawer's cited book is dedicated to the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • John of Ibelin wrote that in 1170 the military force of the kingdom of Jerusalem was based on a feudal host of about 647 to 675 heavily armoured knights who would also provide their own armed retainers. Prelates and the towns were to provide 5,025 non-noble light cavalry and infantry known as serjants. This force would be augmented by hired soldiery called Turcopoles and in times of emergency a general muster of the Christian population. 1. Does Jotischky verify these statements? 2. Who were the Turcopoles? 3. Were native Christians subject to a general muster? Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Prawer emphasizes the social and geographical context when presenting the crusading armies' structure. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The Franks changed strategy from the tactics of gaining and holding territory to attempting the destruction of Egypt. This would have removed a constant regional challenge giving the Franks time to improve the kingdom's demographic weakness. Egypt was isolated from the other Islamic power centres, it would be easier to defend and was self-sufficient in food. 1. OR. 2. The background to Frankish campaigns against Egypt should be presented in the narrative sections. Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The military orders were a form of religious order first established in the first quarter of the 12th century with a purpose of defending Christians while observing three monastic vows of poverty, chastity, and obedience. Close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • According to William of Tyre and Ernoul, the first foundation was the initiative of a group of knights with the assistance of the king or patriarch of Jerusalem. 1. Close paraphrasing. 2. Explain the first foundation. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is a knightly confraternity? Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • The differences between military confraternities and military orders were not always clear. Why? Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider presenting the military orders based on secondary literature instead of trying to paraphrase an encyclopedic article. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 1 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Consider shortening the text on the military orders, because each has its own article. Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the significance of religious fervour in warring. Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Mention the arms and tactics. Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Demography and Society
edit
  • As a general remark: the section contains many statements without clarifying that they only cover the kingdom of Jerusalem, according to the sources cited. Perhaps sources other than those specialized on the kingdom should be used when presenting the crusader states. 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
  • As another general remark: the section does not present the society. Instead, it contains many sentences about the peasantry, refers to the townspeople and mention royal marriages. Women, children are not mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Introduce the crusader states' society as a frontier society, because it explains its many pecularities (colonists, their freedom, women's position, etc). Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Modern research indicate Muslims and indigenous Christian populations were less integrated than previously thought. 1. Jotischky writes of the Jerusalemite kingdom. 2. He also explain the sources of this statement, so the use of undefined and mobile terms like "Modern research" could be avoided. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Maronites were concentrated in Tripoli; Jacobites in Antioch and Edessa. Armenians were concentrated in the north, but communities existed in all major towns. Do the cited pages verify these statments? Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Central areas... Prawer writes of the Jerusalemite kingdom's central regions. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Muslim Druze... OR. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Jews resided in coastal towns and some Galilean villages. Do the cited pages verify the statment? Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little research has been done on Islamic conversion but the available evidence led Ellenblum to believe that around Nablus and Jerusalem Christians remained a majority. 1. OR. 2. Is this necessary? 3. If yes, introduce Ellenblum. 4. Ellenblum published a new book that contains the results of his research on this subject in the 2010s. Borsoka (talk) 05:27, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • If communities were segregated as indicated by the written evidence and identified by Riley-Smith and Prawer inter-communal conflict was avoided and interaction between the landed and the peasants limited. Unverified. Furthermore, the segregation model is outdated. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • McEvitt identifies possible tension between competing groups. The sentence makes no sense: tensions can always be identified between competing groups. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Economy
edit
Art and architecture
edit
  • Prawer argued that no major Western cultural figure settled in the states... Is this PoV necessary? For instance, Aimery of Limoges, Patriarch of Antioch, was a well-known intellectual of his age and William of Tyre wrote a remarkable chronicle. Borsoka (talk) 03:01, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Drive-by comment from Hog Farm

edit

The harvref errors script I have installed is saying that there's nothing pointing to the refs for Asbridge 2000, France 2006, MacEvitt 2006, Murray 2006c, and Richard 2006. Are the sources used and just formatted badly from a harvref perspective, or not used at all (in which case they should either be incorporated or moved to further reading). Hog Farm Bacon 19:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

All encyclopedic articles were deleted. I think there is no point in listing them in section Further reading, especially, because some of the articles from the same enncyclopedia are still cited. Borsoka (talk) 05:33, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Query

edit

I've asked the nominator if he intends to address the remaining comments any time soon. Will update here once he responds.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 19:20, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

He'd prefer to let it go for now and come back to it later. Failing now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Crusader_states&oldid=1018040657"