Web Analytics

See also ebooksgratis.com: no banners, no cookies, totally FREE.

CLASSICISTRANIERI HOME PAGE - YOUTUBE CHANNEL
Privacy Policy Cookie Policy Terms and Conditions
Talk:Crusades - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Talk:Crusades

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Crusades article.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page.
WPMILHIST This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the quality scale.
Related task forces...
 Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Catholicism, which collaborates on articles related to the Roman Catholic Church. To participate, edit this article or visit the project page for details.
Good article GA This article has been rated as GA-Class on the Project's quality scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale.
Good articles Crusades has been listed as a good article under the good-article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do.
If it no longer meets these criteria, you can delist it, or ask for a review.
Wikipedia CD Selection Crusades is either included in the Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.
This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated GA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History.

Why is this at Crusade (singular)? The name of the thing is "The Crusades," right? It's not like this is an article about the concept of a crusade, for example--it's about the Crusades. --Larry Sanger

Short answer: it "just happened" that way :-) Longer answer: early on there was discussion about whether articles should be named in singular or plural, and the consensus at the time was singular. The ideas of that applying to common versus proper nouns were still being sorted out, so this is what happened. There's no reason it can't be fixed now. --Alan Millar

The other thing is that the *period* was "The Crusades," but what if someone is just looking for a non-specific crusade? Not to put up a dictionary definition of crusade, but it does have a non-historical meaning. Kate Secor

I'm not a history buff but wasn't there more than one crusade? If this article considers more than one crusade then I think it should be moved to Crusades or The Crusades, whichever is more historically accurate Jaberwocky6669 20:01, Jun 24, 2005 (UTC)

I suspect its been renamed back and forth a number of times. But probably the reasoning for the current nameing is 1) There is no "The" for multiple reasons and 2) it is in the singular as that is Wikipedian nameing convention. Stbalbach 20:39, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] the first section

I have found no evidence for the information in the first section (about the warrior class that needed an outlet for their violence). None of my other research has anything on that. The Crusades were really to capture back the Holy Land and protect trade routes with Asia. Andrew Donnellan <andrew@heritagelinux.tk>

Where have you been looking, that you found no evidence? "Protecting trade routes" is an anachronistic motivation: not until the 16yth century would that motivate action. What's your textbook? --Wetman 02:03, 13 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I disagree with this. Why did Columbus try to find a water route to India in 1492 (15th century)? While this was after the last "official" crusade, it was because of the danger in land trade routes. As the Muslums progressed across the middle east and into Asia minor it was becoming more dangerous for traders to go to India even in the 12th century.

I agree with Andrew. The proximate cause was plainly military: Christianity, after having lost 70% of its territory to Muslim invaders, finally decided that it was necessary to put up a fight. (And yes, it was about 70%: North Africa, Asia Minor, the Middle East, even Iberia, much of Easter Europe, etc.) If there were any expected economic benefits, focusing on them is sort of like saying that Roosevelt fought World War II as a Keynesian economic cure, or to stabilize his political base. Such speculation of ulterior motives is not helpful or necessary when there is plainly sufficient cause established elsewhere. -- Dan M.

Here is what I have found. From World History Combined Edition, Upshur, Terry, Holoka, Goff, and Lowry copyright 1991:

There were four main reasons for the Crusades. First,
the pope hoped to unite the entire eastern Mediter-
ranean and the divided Christian West under the ban-
ner of the Latin Church. Second, the Italian city-states,
with their large navies, hoped for commercial gains
and were therefore keen supporters of the Crusades.
Third, the Byzantine Empire was in a severe decline
and could no longer act as a buffer between the Mus-
lim East and the Catholic West. Finally, the Seljuk
Turks, declining in military power, were no longer
able to ensure the safety of Christian pilgrims
visiting the holy sites. By 1097 the Frankish and Ger-
manic knights, eager to reap their shares of booty and
glory, were ready to conquer the "infidel" and secure
the Holy Land for Christendom. These crusaders were
preceded by a Peasants' Crusade where land-hungry
peasants journeyed east, only to have their hopes
deflated in an alien land; most quickly returned home.

Here are some select quotes from The Western Experience to 1715 Fifth edition by Chambers, Grew, Herlihy, Rabb, and Woloch:

The Crusades were viewed by those who part-
icipated in them primarily as acts of religious
devotion

Social and economic motivation also con-
tributed to these holy enterprises. The age of
mass pilgramages and crusades, from about
1050 to 1250, corresponds to the periods in
medieval history in which the European pop-
ulation was growing most rapidly. The cru-
sades may be considered one further example
of the expanding Western frontier, similar in
motivation and character to the Spanish Re-
conquista or the German push East.

Parental lands were often not large enough
to provide support for younger sons. Pope 
Urban apparently believed that this land
shortage created social problems

An additional problem was that
knights were educated to do little but fight,
and it was natural for them to place their
chief hopes for wealth, honor, and social ad-
vance in war. The growth of the fuedal prin-
cipalities, the efforts of the Church to restrict
fighting, and the slow pacification of Euro-
pean society that these policies were bringing
threatened to leave the knights poor, unho-
nored, and unemployed.

And from Early European History by Hutton Webster copyright 1924:

The crusades were first and foremost a spiritual enterprise.

After the conquest of the Seljuk Turks, pilgri-
mages became more difficult and dangerous.

The crusades, in fact, appealed strongly to the warlike
instincts of feudal nobles. The Normans were especially stirred
by the prospect of adventure and plunder which the crusading
movement opened up.

The crusades also attracted the lower classes. The misery
of the common people in medieval Europe was so great that for
them it seemed not a hardship, but rather a re-
lief, to leave their homes in order to better them-
selves abroad.

It seems to me that while this Wikipedia article is a good start, it needs some expanding to more completely reflect all of the complex factors that motivated the Crusades.--12.74.48.207 22:45, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)--Heathcliff 03:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)(added new signature since I just created an account)

Those good summaries ought to be better reflected in the article, Andrew. Here is the reason for that bit about "an outlet for violence": maybe it should be quoted verbatim. Urban II's crusade sermon at Clermont was reported various ways. In one report he said: "An outlet for their violence" is harder to capture in the act, but Urban's exhortation at Clermont includes this observation: Let those who have been accustomed unjustly to wage private warfare against the faithful now go against the infidels and end with victory this war which should have been begun long ago. Let those who for a long time, have been robbers, now become knights. Let those who have been fighting against their brothers and relatives now fight in a proper way against the barbarians. Let those who have been serving as mercenaries for small pay now obtain the eternal reward. [1]Wetman 23:13, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)
While I found no evidence for Andrew's assertion that protecting trade routes motived the Crusades, I did find two related motivating factors as seen in the quotes above: Many people saw a chance to profit either by plunder (Normans), navy profits (Italians), gaining their own lands (lesser sons of nobility), finding a better life (peasants). The other factor was the desire to protect routes used by pilgrims to sites in the holy land. Perhaps he conflated these two things. In any event these two motivating factors should be worked into the article with any others that are not there already.--Heathcliff 03:38, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Lesser sons of nobility is a falacy. Many first born nobles sold their possessions, property and otherwise to finace their fight. Well known European kings and high nobility took part in the crusades for none other than to defend Christians in origianlly Chrisitian lands.

Keep in mind that you are mostly discussing motivations for the First Crusade, not crusades in general, which weren't really some monolithic thing with a specific motivation. Adam Bishop 06:50, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think many of the motivations for the first carry over the to others. Either because the motivation was still there or indirectly (x motivated the first, and the first motivated the second). I'll point out that the sources I took the quotes above from were discussing the causes in general and not just the first one. I also don't find the causes listed to be in any way specific (I listed at least 4 of them depending on how you group them and if you narrow them down to four then you have several variation on some of them). However, if some reasons apply directly to only some Crusades and not others, I think it would be worthwhile to explain that in the article. Are there any particulars you wanted to point out? For example, reason x was a factor in the first and second but not later cursades or y was a factor only for the first.--Heathcliff 12:32, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
Well, from From World History Combined Edition: First, the pope's desire to unite the churches is a minor factor in many of them, so that's true - the Byzantine emperor frequently teased the west with this prospect. Second, the Italians did participate when commercial gains were available, but they tended not to help out unless the crusade was already successful, as in the First, or they came at other times when there was no specific crusade called. Except for the Fourth, of course :) The third and fourth reasons are more problematic. The Byzantines wanted help at the end of the 11th century, but were pretty annoyed whenever another crusade showed up (and when they actually did want help in the 14th and 15th centuries, no one in the west cared anymore). Lastly, I don't think you can say the peasants were land-hungry. The peasants were probably the most religious of all the First Crusaders. What do they know about owning land? What would they do with it? Peasants are only a major factor in the First Crusade anyway (no other peasant crusade made it out of Europe).
And so on for the other quotes (they are mostly good quotes though). I think when people ask what motivated "the crusades", they really mean the First, which is the hardest to analyse. Adam Bishop 16:12, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The article starts with "The Crusades were a series of military campaigns waged in the name of Christendom". Shouldn't it say something more along the lines of "The Crusades were a series of armed pilgrimages waged in the name of Christendom." "Military campaigns" implies a set leadership and leader with stategic goals and plans in mind, which the 1st 1 didn't have. This may not be true of the latter efforts, but surely accurate of the 1st Crusade. --220.253.74.151 10:00, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Most crusades were fought by and under diverse leaders, who often even competed against each other or operated almost independently. I beleive military campaigns is actually used to refer the fractious leadership, as opposed to the word wars, and to refer to the crusades as a collective whole rather than singling out the first. Hope that helps.--Tigeroo 17:44, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
The idea of "armed pilgrimages" is covered in the intro as well. However, the Crusades were miliary campaigns as well (hence the Pope addressed knights and nobility, not peasants). Str1977 (smile back) 18:05, 7 September 2006 (UTC)
Er ... may I suggest something like an "undertaking" instead of "war" or "campaign"? A neutral word would cover any kind of a crusade: from organized (however poorly) military expedition to the "Children's Crusade." How about that? You native English speakers think up better word :) —Barbatus 18:49, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fall of Acre

The Fall of Acre was in 1291, not 1191 as stated in this article.

Oh, 1191 is a different "fall of Acre," when the Third Crusade recaptured it from Saladin. Adam Bishop 14:50, 16 Oct 2003 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade and Jihad are NOT the Same

Only Westerners who know little about Islam equate the terms Crusade and Jihad. jihad simply means effort or struggle. For the believing Muslim there is a greater jihad and a lesser jihad. The greater jihad is the struggle (effort) to follow the dictates of Islam ("struggle in the way of Allah"), much like the believing Christians struggle to follow the 10 Commandments. The lesser jihad is defensive war against those who attack the Muslim community.

If someone is not confused about the difference between ideology and fact, they will not claim that Muslim expansion is "defensive". Are "Westerners" the only people on earth who know that people need an excuse, before they will go to war? And lacking a real excuse, there are several ready made: "defense" against an attack on the "community" is precisely the excuse made by Christian crusaders. Mkmcconn 15:52, 9 Nov 2003 (UTC)

There's something not right about this sentence: Later crusades were called against the remaining pagan nations of Europe such as Polabians, Lithuania [1] and against heresy, the crusade against Bohemia, 1418-1437.

[edit] Tenth Crusade

I have removed this from the article:

Though not a part of the medieval Crusades, some commentators have taken to referring to the wars that have followed the September 11, 2001 attacks (first in Afghanistan and then in Iraq) as the Tenth Crusade. Most of those using this term are steadfast opponents of the wars, with columnist Alexander Cockburn generally being credited with coining the term.

Is that really appropriate here? It reminds me of the Sixth pillar of Islam article. "Crusade" may not always have been very well defined in the past, but this supposed crusade certainly doesn't fit here. Adam Bishop 15:13, 22 Mar 2004 (UTC)

In response to a question in a edit description about whether the tenth crusade is a wikipedia notable concept, I'd like to say it googles 328,000 hits, the majority of which appear to be this usage of the phrase 'tenth crusade'. By contrast, the sixth crusade only googles 316,000. The argument of the Tenth Crusade thesis is that the current war is actually the latest instalment of the historical crusdades, so the information absolutely should be on this page. XmarkX 06:32, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Me Again (Cheers!!!)

So I conducted a very interesting scientific experiment involving the word "Tyrant" (you know... those guys that took over Greece for a couple hundred years) on your magic crystal ball google - Here are my scientific results.
Cypselus - The first Tyrant. The guy that started it all, I typed his name with the world "tyrant" in google.
Results 1 - 10 of about 1,310 for Cypselus is a Tyrant. (0.30 seconds)
Mickey Mouse - Approximately 3 foot tall mouse, symbol of happiness and hugs to children all over the world. Hidden Tyrant?
Results 1 - 10 of about 30,600 for Mickey Mouse is a Tyrant. (0.21 seconds)
Jesus, God to more than 2 billion people across the planet. Crucified for preeching happiness and kindness to everybody - megalomaniac in disguise?
Results 1 - 10 of about 218,000 for Jesus is a Tyrant. (0.30 seconds)
Broccoli - A disgusting vegetable that appears to grow a green fro in full maturity, served to children who hate it. Tyrant?
Results 1 - 10 of about 4,300 for Broccoli is a Tyrant. (0.33 seconds)


Oh.... oh my God! How did we miss this!! QUICK! Somebody add Mickey Mouse, Jesus, and Broccoli to the Tyrant thread!... or at least a link! They have more google responses than the first tyrant in history did!
(interesting fact: Broccoli is also apparently a Crusade.
Results 1 - 10 of about 31,400 for broccoli is a crusade. (0.33 seconds) )
Cheers
It seems you are right (if uncivil in your sarcasm) - Googling with brackets "tenth crusade" only gets 732. Still, that's not far behind, say, "ninth crusade" with 971, so I still think that the number of hits indicates it has some kind of currency, if not as much as I originally thought using my flawed search string.XmarkX 13:11, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)

From Cheers with Love You don't seem to get it. Google is not an accurate tool for determining what should be put into any thread.

Check out what happens when I put "I am Brocolli" in brackets Results 1 - 10 of about 414 for "I am Broccoli". (0.28 seconds) Apparently there are at least 414 vegetables that have figured out english and started using the internet. It is not a convincing argument.

Just give up - we had a nice solution for a good five days before you came back to disrupt it.

Cheers.

By the way you are not using an acurate method for your expirement, if you really wanted to find out wether or not Mickey Mouse is truly a tyrant you would go to advanced Search, its to the right of the text box on Google's hompage and you would enter the phrase u want in the box labaled "with the exact phrase", using this methoed there are only two hits for Mickey Mouse Is A Tyrant, one of them this page.

[edit] Cathars

I have to wonder why the ALbegensian Crusade is listed, the Northern (Slavic) Crusades are shifted off and the Spanish Reconquest is not listed at all. The scope seems to be a little blurred. This article should deal with just Jerusalem with links to related actions, or include everything exhaustivly. I would like some opinion before progressing in the former tack.Dominick 15:31, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

I know from talking to other contributers that we have had a hard time figuring out what to include as a "crusade." They didn't call them crusades at the time, and lots of minor things sometimes get lumped in as "crusades" as well, so there hasn't been a good definition here. Adam Bishop 16:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
IMHO, a crusade would be preached by a Church Leader. Crusade I - IX would qualify. The Pauper's and Children's crusades would be exceptions that make the rule. The Slavic Crusade was a german incursion. The Norma conquest was not preached by the pope, but blessed by it. Dominick 18:12, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)
Would the 6th Crusade by a Crusade by that definition?--Heathcliff 23:14, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)
At the time Crusade was a more or less juristical definition. The Pope (and the Pope alone) could define a military action as a Crusade, which then gave the participants certain rights and privileges. One of the reasons the term fell in disrepute was that some popes used it for their own ends. 213.47.127.75 22:42, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Table

I'm thinking about adding a table to each crusade listed in this article, to facilitate quick browsing. Something along the lines of:

Preceded by:
previous crusade'

Crusades

 Followed by: next crusade

(The term "followed" may imply continuity, and should thus probably be replaced.) An alternative is to use a wiki message such as the one I created at User:Itai/Crusade. Any thoughts? -- Itai 23:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC) I like Itai's idea, although that still leaves the problem of what to consider a crusade (but I guess that is a problem with a box at the bottom too). Adam Bishop The deed is deeded. -- Itai 13:55, 2 Apr 2004 (UTC) I like the idea too :)

[edit] "Crusade" and "Jihad"

This text is not history: There is an interesting symmetry between the terms "Crusade" and "Jihad." In the West the term "Crusade" has positive connotations (for example a politician might use rhetoric such as "a crusade against illegal drugs") while the term "Jihad" has negative connotations associated with fanatical holy war. In the Islamic world the term "Jihad" has positive connotations that include a much broader meaning of general personal and spiritual struggle, while the term "Crusade" has the negative connotations described above. Thus it is viewed by some that to correctly translate nuances of meaning, the use of "Jihad" in Arabic should be translated to "Crusade" in English while use of the Arabic term for "Crusade" should be translated to "Jihad" in English.

Whenever the passive voice of non-attribution in a phrase like "it is viewed by some" appears in any sentence, watch for the agenda. Here, it is that the "correct" nuances of meaning are the negative connotations inspired by the "other" kind of jihad/crusade. Our "feelings" about this subject belong elsewhere. Wetman 06:35, 27 Apr 2004 (UTC)

"The term "crusade" has since carried a connotation in the west of being a "righteous campaign," usually to "root out evil," or to fight for a just cause. In the Arab world, the equivalent term is jihad, while "crusade" is a term which connotes a hostile and foreign invasion by "infidels," those disrespectful or defiling of the Muslim culture." This apparently balanced and descriptive text has been dropped out today, and the word jihad doesn't seem to appear anywhere in the current Crusade entry. If the Christian concept of a "holy struggle" did indeed come from Hispanic experiences of jihad, this is not neutral history. If it did not, then this widespread misconception should be addressed. Is it considered contentious nowadays even to mention jihad in the context of "Crusade"? Wetman 23:26, 29 Jul 2004 (UTC)

It's still there, with the jihad reference, I just moved it down into the new section about the origin of the term "crusade", where I thought it fit better. Adam Bishop 06:20, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Why, so it is! My error: I found it. M'goodness, that is discreet. Wetman 06:37, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Indeed :) By the way, since we seem to be the only two major editors to this articles lately, do you think we should coordinate our efforts in some way? I will be trying to expand the "influences on Europe" and "origins of the term" sections when I have more time...but do you think there is any other general information that needs to be added? I know there must be plenty of stuff to add that I haven't thought of. Adam Bishop 15:18, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Surely jihad - holy struggle - and crusade - imperialistic religous war - mean very different things?? (ricjl 02:02, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC))
But, Ricjl, most people don't use crusade to mean "imperialistic religious war." Some do, but some people also use jihad to mean that as well. Christians argue that claiming that crusade means "imperialistic religious war" is wrong just as much as Muslims argue that claim that jihad means "imperialistic religious war" is wrong.
The concept of Jihad as expressed in this text is a Western Concept, which I agree upon is copied by some groups who call themselves Muslims. It's not the original Islamic concept, as Jihad is not a crusade to rid the world from infidels, it's a defence against attacks from enemies of Islam. Only defence of Islamic ground, which means according to most scholars that attacks on enemy grounds are not permitted. Secondly Jihad is used in the sense of personal strive and the word strive is the only correct translation of Jihad--Ameer 13:57, May 12, 2005 (UTC)
Uh, Jihad is most certainly not a defensive struggle. Reply back and I will fill you in... that is, unless you are just trying to impose your "Islam=Peace" lies on people.--Absent 18:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
I think there is absolutely no need to insult other users. Gugganij 23:45, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
Now there's just some small niggling part of me that can't help but think that Ameer who identifies himself as "Muslim" on his userpage, may have a better understanding of what the word Jihad means, than Absent whose userpage says "The truth about ISLAM is Intolerance, Slaughter, Looting, Arson and Molestation of women" - heck, I'd probably point out that Ameer doesn't seem to be 'Intolerant' since he appears to have studied Judaism, Christianity, Taoism, and both Tibetan and Zen Buddhism...so erm...yeah...one person in this disagreement seems to be fairly open-minded and neutral, while the other is very proud of the fact he's here to advance an anti-Islam agenda - I wonder which one I side with? Sherurcij (talk) (bounties) 00:07, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

People, people...let us not be trolled. Adam Bishop 01:12, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Lacking Detail

All these crusaders series have little information/bacground on Muslim territories. What was happening there before crusaders' invasion? What emirs/sultans were ruling what part? How the crusaders effected all that? How it united them?

All these articles First Crusade, Second Crusade, Third Crusade, etc. need a new section that goes into background and more detail on how Arabs/Muslims viewed the crusaders at that time, how it effected them, what was happening there just before the invasion. (OneGuy Oct. 12, 2004

I'll second that! And I bet many of the appropriate articles (good or bad) have already been created and just need to be linked from each Crusade. There's gotta be someone with a better overall view than me! Wetman 08:23, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think some of that info is floating around in various places - the articles on the caliphates, the Crusader states, the kings of Jerusalem, the battles, the various Muslim leaders...it's just not in one unified spot at the moment. That's a good idea though. Adam Bishop 12:20, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)
I think there is a book called Crusades Through Arab Eyes. If anyone has read it or has access to it, it would be easy to combine/present all this info in shorter coherent form that relates to the topic. (OneGuy Oct. 12, 2004
There is also "The Crusades, Islamic Perspectives" by Carole Hillenbrand, although I don't have that with me. "The Age of the Crusades: The Near East from the Eleventh Century to 1517" by P.M. Holt is good too, I have that one here, it's a little shorter though. Adam Bishop 13:24, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Rephrasing needed for the final sentence in an upcoming Featured Article

The POV word successful popped out at me when looking at an upcoming Featured Article: the First Crusade. This is just asking for angry reaction from anyone outside of Christendom. Due to the urgency of this, I am unilaterally changing the sense of the sentence to something like the crusades which followed were relative failures. Ancheta Wis 10:32, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Please respond or fix the sentence if you wish.

In history writing, "success" and "failure" are doubly assessed, both by the standards of the time and by the long view of the historian, but they are not generally adjusted for fear of "angry reactions"— at least not in an authentically neutral discourse. "Christendom" is an odd synonym choice for "the world of professional historians and unbiased, moderately educated readers" that was surely intended by the poster. Now I've added a "'Success' and 'failure'" subsection where we can sum up the crusades in their own terms. --Wetman 19:59, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)
==="Success" and "failure"===
Though success and failure are relative terms and offer false polarities that are too simplistic for such a complicated series of phenomena, the relative successes of the Crusades are properly assessed by a double standard: Did the Crusades accomplish the overt goals expressed by contemporaries? Did the Crusades succeed in affecting Christian and Muslim cultures in the long run?
Short-term overt goals included
#Recapturing the "Holy Land"
#Reuniting Christendom under the Papacy
#Converting the "infidel"
#Providing feudal territories for adventurers
Ancheta had brought this up to contend the use of the word "success" in First Crusade's opening paragraph, which has been addressed (see also discussion). I removed the above because I'm not sure Crusade is the place to discuss the particulars of each crusade in detail, rather, each of the individual Crusade articles should contain an analysis section that outlines current major scholarly views on the Crusades (see First Crusade). --Stbalbach 19:25, 17 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Crusade should provide a condensed summary of the material at the articles on individual crusades. "Success" and "failure" are terms forbidden to grade-school teachers but are employed all the time by historians to assess, well, success— and, um, failure. --Wetman 08:01, 21 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Birth of the Red Cross and St. John's Ambulance?

One of the things discussed when taking a St. John's First Aid course is their involvement in early medicine, following "in the wake of the crusaders" patching up the wounded after the battle, they were originally referred to as the "Knights Hospitallers". Rather than trying to put information about this in each of the Crusade articles, it would make sense to possibly include reference to this in the primary article summarizing the crusades.

Resources:

--Kyrin\talk 15:51, 2005 Jan 18 (UTC)

Well, we already have a Knights Hospitaller article, and a St. John's Ambulance article, and military orders, and they are discussed in various other related articles. Adam Bishop 15:59, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The War on Terror as an "American Crusade"

Removed this business about an "American Crusade" in Iraq, as well as the nonsense about a British crusade after WWI. It is as intellectually useless as it is irrelevant to the topic - which to remind the author is about the Crusades not exercises in metaphor. On a more disturbing level those comments could easily be used to play upon anti-western sentiment in an already enflamed arab world. If the author wishes to make a point of it that some blatently biased scholar made such a reference, then the author can create a new seperate, objective and neutral topic leave this article for legitimate - historical crusades.

This is an encyclopedia - not a forum, and as such needs fact not speculation or (what is more likely) accusation.

Cheers

[edit] War on Terror

Once again I had to remove your juvenile "war on terror" crusade comments. It is an opinion - not a fact and as such has no place in an encyclopedia, it certainly fails neutrality. I see you have restructured to include your "war on terror" comments as some sort of example of "other uses" of the term crusade. That is a tertiary point. This thread is about the historic crusades, although it is acceptable to note that the word crusade is used outside that historic context, there is no point in taking that a step forward and providing a few examples out of the hundreds of possibilities.

If you are so insistent about applying the word crusade to the War on Terror to satisfy some incontollable urge, either create a new topic or add those comments to the "criticism" section of the War on Terror topic - that is the adequate place for an opinion. The focus of this topic is the historic crusades, not opinions of modern wars.

Cheers

Your criticisms seem fair on the surface, although an anonymous point of view seems oxymoronic - please login and sign your comments. Ignoring for a moment the vitriolics, the claims in both this section and the above have some validity, if only for the appropriate use of limited article space to deal with primary matters, and leaving secondary matters to others. But according to the view that such has any relevance at all, the "tertiary" topics should at least have a link to reference them - in this case they do not. So your proposal fails the 'consistent application of neutrality test' on that one aspect.
And while its rather typical of historians to view current events as irrelevant and trivialities in times of antiquity as paramount, this is not definitive for either encyclopedicism nor neutrality. Hence the "historian" view itself needs checking with the journalist view, which may see these events in greater and similar contexts, and at the very least offers prominent source quotations which draw such conclusions in contemporary discussion. So, in summation, I have read your objections and they are noted. -SV|t|th 23:22, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

My Response

You've done a fantastic job of completely ignoring the issues. Although I initially suggested creating a link, I removed all the links on a second thought. The labling of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade, purely for the purpose of insult or to further a political agenda is not even a tertiary topic - it is completely irrelevant. Consequently I removed even the link. Shall I create a link to the word "tyrant" in the FDR thread? It was, afterall a very common insult at the time - even still today.
I think not. The labling of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade, in the crusade thread is fabricating history. The Pope did not declare the War on Terror to be the "will of God" in a fiery speech in France, Byzantium was left very much intact, in short there is nothing linking the War on Terror to the Crusades other than the fact it is a war that on occasion can manifest itself in Middle Eastern territories - however is certainly not restricted to that location.
As for the relevance of your "journalists" anyone with free time, an agenda, and access to the internet can find a handful of bored academics who share a crackpot idea. Are they all worthy of serious consideration? I highly doubt a reasonable person could say so.
The Crusades took place nearly a millenium ago, that is what this topic is about. I find that very much within the realm of historians, and not very much in need of augmentation from your journalists from this imaginary contemporary discussion. Is that contemporary discussion on the Crusades or the War on Terror? Aside from the buzz from a Gladiatoresque supermovie appearing this summer, I haven't heard much discussion on the Crusades - a bit of a sleepy topic actually. I do not deny that the War on Terror is a contemporary event though, with a contemporary discussion attached there to, and conveniently enough it is seperate topic on Wikipedia as well. Hint, Hint.
So in summation I have read your response, found many large interesting words - and behind them very little substance.
Cheers.

Hi - I would refer you to the above discussion of the Tenth Crusdae concept, particularly my contribution, under 'Tenth Crusade'. The inclusion of this conception of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade is both neutral and encyclopedically necessary as long as this is a widely held thesis. The concept of crusade is not an objective benchmark, but rather something that applies according to a contingent categorisation i.e. though we call the nine crusades 'The Crusades' now, they were not always seen as such, and certainly will not always be grouped together historically in the same way - they may one day be grouped with the War on Terror, or not - we have no way of knowing that or not. It is irrelevant to our purposes. All that matters is that people are talking about a Tenth Crusade, not just a couple of people but millions of people, it's a current concept! Google it if you don't believe me. Fortunately, you are incapable of regulating what people regard as a crusade.XmarkX04:14, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

"Anonymous user" (shall we call him/her "Cheers" for lack of a name) made some excellent points. I would say this belongs in the "See Also" section, with one or two sentences, but by giving it its own section heading in the TOC, it gives it a legitimacy on par with the rest of the article it does not deserve. This is not an Academically established concept in the mainstream of academia, this is a first and foremost a history article and the rest of the article conforms to those standards. Not every subject or topic belongs in every article, that is why we have see also sections. About the only connection between these two topics, as "Cheers" pointed out, is they both are battles in the Middle East, and even that is a loose connection. Stbalbach 04:39, 23 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Another one of My Condescending and Mean Spirited Responses

Stbalbach I like your suggestion. I can accept this "Tenth Crusade" nonsense in a see also section or under the "uses of the word crusade" section. In short a cross reference that does not firmly establish the historically establish "correctness" of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade - but does acknowledge that a small constituency uses the term. Frankly I think it should be a point of differentiation - not a point of acceptance. I reject XmarX's strange point about the Crusades being some amorphous blob in history that really had no definable character, however I concur that (wisely) in retrospect we have lumped them together. The War on Terror is a current event - let the historians of the distant future decide if there was continuity between the crusades of nearly a millenium ago, and the War on Terror in the present day. The scholarship is not so clear and convincing that one stands back and exclaims "aha! I see it!"
I simply do not see a war which unfolds on a global battlefield - not confined to one location, not even a traditional war as we understand it to be, with no religious ideology and no religious blessing, against no stated particular religion, can be considered by scholars as a crusade. There might be a few points of comparison but they are nominal-anecdotal at best. The war on terror as a tenth crusade - linked to the original crusades is a commonly used insult.
XMarkX (note, I responded to your 10th Crusade thread above), I see no reason why you are making such a fuss about the number of google hits the term is getting (some of which actually refer to the British destruction of the Caliphate after WWI). I wasn't aware history was democratically elected on google. To illustrate my point I conducted a very scientific experiment on google, the following are my results: Results 1 - 10 of about 59,600 for Bush is a Douche Bag. (0.29 seconds). Clearly, as you can see we are going to have to add a Bush section to the Douche Bag article because a sizable number of people responded affirmatively, it would be egregiously injurious if we allowed this important contemporary discussion to be fritted away as if it were some sort of unfounded insult.
You're wasting our time with googled information (henceforth use infomine.ucr.edu, they only list scholarly information.) The undeniable fact of the matter is that the overwhelming body of scholarly information suggests that the Crusades were religious wars, sanctioned by the Catholic Church to take possession of lands specifically in the middle east (with the exception of Constantinople), for the Catholic Church nearly a millenium ago.
The War on Terror is a non traditional war, involving intelligence gathering primarily, domestic policy changes wrt crime control, and yes - the military proper. It can and does take place anywhere in the world at any time, and its target is any terrorist organization regardless of what the religious adherence of the participants is. (MUK is secular nationalist incidentally, and was one of alleged "state sponsered terrorist organizations" of iraq from the 2000 trends in global terrorism report by the state department).
Cheers
Please sign your posts. SV|t|add 05:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cheers is how I sign my posts.

I see no reason to include the "War on Terror" or even a link to it in the Crusade article. Calling it the "Tenth Crusade" is a rhetoircal device. I have yet to see anyone present a historical reason for lumping the conflicts together.--Heathcliff 23:26, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Popular reputation

The Popular reputation section is a mess. It starts with a needless and somewhat opinionated description of popular history and then offers a description of the popular opinion of the Crusades in the west that completely fails to mention the negative reputation the Crusades have developed in recent years in the west. But most of the article is just a random string of facts about the Crusades that have little to tie them together and many of which have nothing to do the the subject of Polular reputation.--198.93.113.49 19:47, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC) (signed belatedly)

Please sign your edits. -SV|t|add 05:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade VIIIII

Text of Popular repuatation section for work
In the Islamic world, however, the Crusades continue to be regarded as cruel and savage onslaughts by "the Franks" on cultured Islam, and so, for example, some of the rhetoric of Islamic fundamentalists uses the term "crusade" in this emotional context to refer to Western moves against them, and sees the crusaders' ultimate defeat as a triumph for modern Pan-Arabism.
In the context of contemporary events, a number of scholars and commentators have drawn comparisons between the United States and past empires, such as the British Empire and the Roman Empire, while others have further declared that the ""war on terrorism") can or should be viewed in the context of history as the "new crusade." They claim that the current war has identical or comparable aspects to the Crusades of antiquity —a largely religious-based military campain of European culture against countries in the Middle-East of Islamic culture. This view asserts that the United States is an inheritor of European culture, and its ties and allegiances to Europe are deeply cultural as well —hence any sociological and religious examinations of the current war may have (or does have) direct precedents in the historical articles.
Further information: Tenth Crusade

The first part about it being an insult in the arab world seems to me to be a redundant point to the section on uses of the term. The second part is my biggest pet peeve with this article - i'm sure you've seen my assertions.

Cheers

[edit] A Late point by point response to Cheers

Note: Yes, I notice youre being a bit more agreeable - thats good.

  • "Avoiding the issues?" - You avoid the context. This is an open project and your particular standards of selectionism are not supreme here.
  • "Insult" - to whom?
  • "Advancing a political agenda" - Certainly representing a different point of view. How is that advancing an agenda?
  • "FDR was called a tyrant" - If true, it would be certainly appropriate to add it, and inappropriate to selectively remove from a page.
  • "fabricating history" - The American President himself used the term in the context of the War on Terror. That alone makes it an appropriate reference.
  • "not restricted to that location" - were the Crusades exclusively "location" based, no they were culturally based conflicts. This is the point you dont seem to be getting through to the synapses.
  • "on Pope's orders" - Was that the way all crusades began? Of course not, and even if it was, the medieval role of the Pope as the Commander in Chief of Christendom - was as political then as the US presidency is today. There is a correlation.
  • "journalists," free time, bored academics, crackpot ideas - you seem to quite full of this rather vitriolic characterization of your fellow editors. I find your lack of m:wikifaith disturbing.
  • "I highly doubt a reasonable person could say so." - What you doubt or do not is not relevant, nor do I tacitly accept your defininion of what is "reasonable." You failed to answer any of my points so far.
  • "The Crusades [were this and only this]" - Certainly thats not debated. What else was just that and not this now? You say "Crusades" (plural, many) took place nearly a millenium ago," which even on its surface is an absurd way to look at history.
  • "I find that very much within the realm of historians, and not very much in need of augmentation from your journalists from this imaginary contemporary discussion." Fair enough, and now you at least admit that all of this is about your opinion: Now lets test it: Would you say that an article on Newton cannot reference Einstein, or an article on Darwin cant talk about the influence he had on things like statistical population genetics?
  • "I do not deny that the War on Terror is a contemporary event though, with a contemporary discussion attached there to, and conveniently enough it is seperate topic on Wikipedia as well." LOL in other words, "Please go away with your scary journalism and current events - Go forth, you heathen, back into the dross and detritus of contemporary propaganda and polemics." Thanks but Ive only got one item of business here, which is to permeate some cultural context into the article — contrary to your opinion.
  • Cheers: "In short a cross reference that does not firmly establish the historically establish "correctness" of the War on Terror as a Tenth Crusade - but does acknowledge that a small constituency uses the term. Frankly I think it should be a point of differentiation - not a point of acceptance"
    • NPOV demands that articles not assert a POV, merely to reflect POVs that exist and have some worth. Reading your responses, you seem to be growing in your worldview quite quickly, so I'll express my hope that you can see how the mere mention of this does not by itself make any assertion of truth.
  • Cheers: "I simply do not see a war which unfolds on a global battlefield - not confined to one location, not even a traditional war as we understand it to be, with no religious ideology and no religious blessing, against no stated particular religion, can be considered by scholars as a crusade."
    • Your opinion is one which thinks the article should avoid dealing the plain observational connection that wars between the same cultures carry much of the same religious overtones (or undertones). This is not a controversial statement, and I dont see how anyone reasonable can deny the connection, nor consider the views of those who make that mere connection "crackpot journalists" Well, on second thought, yes - I can see one way: if by the ommision of references to that connection, one is, by act of censorship, supporting a particularly narrow point of view. -05:42, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Playing with History - much like Fire, is Dangerous Is it so much to ask that you actually stay in context in your "point by point" response? I mean really. Yes, President Bush called it a crusade once in a speech. Just before he retracted that statement. Thus we cannot hold it to him. However if you still want to make a point of it, I am afraid I am going to have to refer to the dictionary - ya know... the thing... with the definitions in it. Apparently "Crusade" isn't just some amorphous blob we can apply to any war we feel like! How bout that? source cru·sade ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kr-sd) n. 1. often Crusade Any of the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims. 2. A holy war undertaken with papal sanction. 3. A vigorous concerted movement for a cause or against an abuse

Well then, is it possible the President used the term in terms of the 3rd definition, and then when he realized the political implications of the term due to the other two definitions retracted it? And now that we have a solid definition, let's examine the War on Terror in context of the first and second definitions - which you claim the War on Terror might be an extension of.

1. The US is not Europe 2. It is not undertaking a military expedition between the 11th and 13th centuries 3. The stated goal has nothing to do with taking the holy land from muslims. Well that pretty much fails definition 1.

Definition 2, is the US fighting a Holy War with papal sanction? Well he sure has a funny way of bestowing his blessing http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A14823-2004Jun4.html This topic is about the crusades. By putting a Roman numeral (that's actually X, not VIIIII, for future reference) in front of it and placing it in context of the real crusades you are deliberately spreading misinformation to support a political position - that the War on Terror or in Iraq is a war against Islam which the President enfatically denies. Once again, you are bringing contemporary issues into a historic thread. If you want to include this 10th crusade nonsense - DO SO IN THE WAR ON TERROR TOPIC - as a critique, not in the CRUSADES topic as there is no HISTORIC connection. You are simply being unreasonable. I think its best illustrated by your "point" about history: "You say "Crusades" (plural, many) took place nearly a millenium ago," which even on its surface is an absurd way to look at history." Yea... studying things that happened between the 11th and 13th centuries as if they happened nearly a millenium ago is an absurd way to look at history. What was I thinking.

"Please go away with your scary journalism and current events - Go forth, you heathen, back into the dross and detritus of contemporary propaganda and polemics." Yes, that is exactly what I mean. Right down to "dross and detritus" Thanks but Ive only got one item of business here, which is to permeate some cultural context into the article — contrary to your opinion. Why does history need to be permeated with contemporary cultural context? I have no problem with this discussion in the War on Terror thread - at least that signifies it's contemporary and debatable, feel free to permeate away. My problem is with you REWRITING HISTORY for Kerry '08, or whatever your particular agenda is.

Question for ya. Find me one textbook, ONE textbook, that categorizes all the crusades and lists the War on Terror as number 10. Not articles by people supposedly "speculating" the war on terror. But people objectively looking at all the crusades and just happens to mention "oh yea and the War on Terror is probably number 10" Good luck with that. And throwing the censorship card at me - a cute canard but I suppose it's at least a silent personal acceptance of the realization you have no supportable position. -Cheers.

Hi Cheers. I see youve been reverting my edits

Ill but them back. "We cannot hold it to him" Oh really? Says who? Is that a policy here somewhere, maybe at "Wikipedia:Do not hold world leaders to what they say?" Ah yes, the "dictionary." The foundation of all definition in the humanities, updated now every four years, by a select group of tasteful Western-culture oriented academics. Welcome to Wikipedia, where things move a little faster.

3rd definition: Certainly even you noticed that the dictionary itself fails to mention the etymology of the third definition as related to the first two. Maybe an encyclopedia might endeavor to explain little matters of relatedness like etymology, and such. "Extension of definitions one and 2" Assuming even that the dictionary definitions are valid, I dont "claim" anything, merely report that others have claimed. Even the most ardent exclusionists dont claim that attributed quotes are irrelevant if they are put into context. Beyond that, exclusionists are called censors. Certainly the War on Terrorism does not fit into the first two definitions. It does fit well between the second and third ones. Does the current war on terror have papal sanction, well yes, as a matter of fact Pope John Paul II condemned the September 11 Terrorist attacks, didnt he? It could even be argued that his condemnation was in fact, taken as a material "sanction." "Ive shown you the dictionary, now show me a textbook" If by "textbook," you mean an outdated, smelly, controversially Western polemic-patriotic high-schoolerish look at history, that uses language like "recover the holy land from the Muslims" then I'm afraid I simply cant comply — merely because its beneath me. -SV|t 18:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Geez, you're both nuts. Stevertigo, the Pope's position in the current world is clearly nothing like it was 1000 years ago, and what the pope thinks about September 11 is pretty irrelevant. Do you think George Bush was waiting anxiously for the pope's blessing? What authority does the pope have over a secular country, or over Bush himself? Sorry, but this is the Worst Historical Analogy Ever :) Adam Bishop 19:35, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

The point is that if even the definition of "Crusade" depends on papal sanction, its besides the point (like you say "irrelevant" because its fair to draw fair parallels. The only counter to this is if such a parallel was POV, in which case its still not an argument for exclusion, but rather for placing it in proper context. IBDTSFY, Adam, and I know the difference between irrelevant and exclusionism. Note that much of the material about Islamic views toward the crusades has been removed, or is otherwise diminished as irrelevant. If one wants to claim that 'the English encyclopedia should show a western bias,' I have a 24 hour block button with their name on it. -SV|t 01:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)
I agree. Arguing semantics and dictionary defenitions is usually a dead end in any discussion. Now, the article states in the very first line that This article is about historical Crusades, but there should be a short section about modern usage. Attempts to link the current conflict in the Middle East with the historical Crusades deserve mentions with a line or two (if the authors are noteable), but the discussion of the basis behind this claim should be somewhere else. Fornadan 20:11, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)
I agree also. Much of the etymology in the opening section should be moved to the body under etymology, or moved to Wiktionary. What Stevertigo wrote will be removed as original research and/or POV. This is a history article, we talk in the past tense here, the Crusades are over, done, complete. I know of no serious professional historian who says the Crusades covers the period 1100-2005. The Crusades are defined by professional historians as covering a set time period, which is what this article covers. If mainstream academic say otherwise we will change, until then we follow what the mainstream academic world says. Thats how (and why) Wikipedia works. Stbalbach 20:54, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Cheers and Jeers Stevertigo, ooooo the pope condemned the terrorist attacks of 2001 - Crusade! Oh wait... so did the majority of muslims worldwide. No way! The first crusade in history to have the blessing of muslims! What a fascinating modern age we live in. A few jeers at the dictionary and calling all history books that do not include your fictional tenth crusade "dusty" is not a reasonable response. Clearly you are allowing your political agenda to cloud any semblance of logic you might have employed at an ealier time. I am not just arguing semantics, I am arguing the ding-an-sich. You seems to be arguing that a crusade is pretty much a blob of clay that you can mold to fit any situation. In which case why bother with "definitions" or "encyclopedia articles" they have to be SOMETHING. You have a 10th crusade article - as its own seperate article - which discusses this "contemporary discussion" of your academics. That is where this nonsense belongs. THIS article is about the historic crusades. One through Nine. The very name "Tenth" Crusade indicates that there is a serial connection to the European wars at the end of the medieval era, where clearly there is none. Not temporally, not ideogically, not even by location.

At BEST you can say that there is a cultural motivation in the spread of democracy. Is that the same as the religious warring of the original crusades - to which the term tenth crusade points? Of course not. In fact, by Bush Doctrine standards the people of the medieval era didn't have freedom and probably would be great targets for democracy. Western culture has evolved so much that it hardly resembles medieval west. America didn't even exist during the original crusades - an obvious point, but when little Joey Mumbleton quotes wikipedias "new modern, not smelly" ***TIME OUT*** Smelly? Okay now I can accept a wide array of words here... dusty, racist, etc and just dismiss them as outrageous and unfounded. But smelly?! Have you been sniffing glue or something? I don't remember the last time we wouldn't accept something in a wikipedia article based on its odor. definition of the crusades and marks number ten down - he had better have a good explanation for how a country that didn't exist for another 700 years picked up Richard the Lionheart's sword.

I am still amazed by your ranting against the Dictionary and all history textbooks everywhere as part of some sort of big western conspiracy. But I suppose when you don't have a viable argument the soapbox starts to look friendly, doesn't it? -Cheers

"A cultural motivation in the spread of democracy"

ROFL. Spreading democracy indeed. Fair to say you have an exclusionist point of view, while I have an inclusionist one. Its fair to say that my own personal assertions do not belong in an article, but to argue against merely mentioning that others have published works that make such a connection, as "irrelevant" is simply exclusionism. Granted you newbies know only the >500k article Wikipedia and dont remember the < 25k wikipedia (like some of us do) and hence dont have an appreciation for including material rather than excluding it. Nor do you see the connection between your elitist selective exclusionism and censorship. This is all grist for the mill in the humanities, I suppose. -SV|t 01:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

huh?

Wow your political agenda is getting out of hand. We are all aware of the events of Abu Ghraib - they are certainly not in dispute here, nor do they have anything to do with the subject. You must think we are pretty weak minded if a picture of somebody being tortured along with a sarcastic off-topic quip is going to convince us that your pathetic historic analysis is acceptable. I merely ask that you stay on topic with this discussion and keep your obvious political motives out of it. Is that so much? In return I am called "exclusionist" and you patronize myself and everyone else that "doesn't get it" for not being here when there were less articles.

If wikipedia is going to have any academic value it must have standards. You apparently have no standards - or at least very small standards if you expect us to allow you to scribble in a "tenth crusade" based on YOUR analysis that the Pope gave religious sanction to the War on Terror by condemning 911. You can call me "exclusionist" tell me I have no "wikifaith" and throw any other combination of wiki+x at me but I am not yielding and clearly I have a majority that agrees with me. There is not enough serious scholarship for wikipedia to start a revolution in the field of history.

A link is appropriate for those people who hear the term used and based on the words alone make the mistake of assuming the war on terror is the legitimate 10th crusade. When they see the "see also" section that links them to a seperate article dealing with the controversial use of the term they will learn to think of the rhetorical use of the term "tenth crusade" as a seperate idea. IF YOU CAN PROVE TO ME that the majority of scholarship on the subject of the crusades have agreed to the addition of the war on terror as number ten - I will accept it as a legitimate part of this article. However I submit that you will not find such evidence. As I noted before the history books still teach the crusades ended at nine - which signifies to me and others involved in this discussion that the adacademic world is not taking the "Tenth crusade" arguments seriously.

So why should we?

Cheers.

History books don't always agree that there were nine; sometimes they count up to eleven (which is why the War on Terror is sometimes called the "Twelfth Crusade" as well). Often they don't count anything past the Fourth Crusade - they will say "Frederick II's first crusade", "Louis IX's second crusade," "Richard of Cornwall's crusade", "crusade of Nicopolis", etc. We have many smaller articles here that do not fit into the nine-numbered scheme. I suppose this is besides the point; you are right that nothing after the end of the Middle Ages, whenever you want to date that, is seriously considered a crusade by current historians. Adam Bishop 01:28, 6 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Questions on tenth crusade

Who, exactly, used or uses the term? Whats the etymology? This is a highly politicized term, one with pejorative meaning meant to express disapproval for one party and approval of another, it is not a neutral historical descriptor, it is contemporary propaganda. A "See also" to the seperate 10th crusade article is appropriate. The text as added recently about the 10th crusade reads like Original Research, one persons POV about what the term means. A noble effort, but not scholarly, no references, no etymology, no historiographical context. Stbalbach 16:19, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I think that bit did have references at one point but they have been lost in the edit warring. As a comment about this whole thing: many things have been called "crusades" as late as the 16th century and even as late as the 19th. The Spanish Armada was seen as a crusade of sorts. This page also mentions that the term can be borrowed for other purposes - the third paragraph at the very beginning. I think a mention of Bush's speech is perfectly valid here, but otherwise I agree with Stbalbach - if the Tenth Crusade references that were there at one time can be restored, that would be at least slightly better, but even more ideal would be to have a simple "see also." Then you can all take your edit warring there, off of my watchlist :) Adam Bishop 16:30, 24 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have no problem with a see also link to the "10th crusade" thread. This whole conversation so far has had little to do with the Crusades, and everything to do with the War on Terror, frankly I find that telling. So let us have a link in the See Also and be done with this. -Cheers.

Glad to see Cheers being a bit more agreeable, perhaps that agreeability should extend to context as well? -SV|t 01:42, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

I have explained my position several times. A link is reasonable - context is not. If you cannot give us a viable argument for why we should change history, then stop interrupting the process of crafting this argument.

Cheers

[edit] Statement in the 4th Crusade section

I find the 2nd claus in this statement unclear. What does it mean?

The popular spirit of the movement was now dead,
and the succeeding crusades are to be explained
rather as arising from the Papacy's struggle to
divert the military energies of the European
nations toward Syria.

--Heathcliff 23:00, 29 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Someone asked about that on the Fourth Crusade article itself; it has been written out by now. It originally came from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion, so it's full of 19th-century Britannica-esque prose like that. Adam Bishop 04:44, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Thanks. I'm glad I'm not the only one baffled by it. I think it should be rewritten in this article as well. I'd do it myself, but I'm still not sure precisely what it's trying to say.--Heathcliff 04:58, 30 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] The Crusades Man... They Sucked

Dude, we all need to just chill out, CHILL OUT! Like seriously, we've got people saying this is the tenth Crusade, this isn't the tenth Crusade, this might be the Tenth Crusade. How do we know that there are only ten Crusades? Maybe there were more, maybe there were less. But still, this whole madness between Mr. Cheers and stevertigo needs to stop before somebody dies like Biggie and Tupac. It's like Farakhan said, beef just isn't the answer. I don't know if this is the Tenth Crusade, but your beef might be the Tenth Crusade. We should all just take some hits off the peace pipe and make some mad peace. And maybe some mad love. Like, why are the terrorists attacking us anyways? I think I know why, it's because we get all uppity over the tenth Crusades. If we just smoked the peace pipe and CHILLED OUT, then I don't think the terrorists would hate us. And dude, why you gotta be hatin on the encyclopedia? You know how many papers I've written using only the encyclopedia? And hey, you know how many times I've used the dictionary to write papers? A LOT! So let's just CHILL OUT and give MAD PROPS to the DICTIONARY. And we don't need more Biggie and Tupac man, that's not how I want to see this end. Mr. Cheers, I'm not gonna say that I'm with you in case you get shot, but I'm with you. MAD PROPS TO THE DICTIONARY, ONE LOVE, PEACE! -CHILL....

ROFL. If only you agreed with me, you would truly be cool. :) your Ball Slapping article needs work by the way. SV|t 01:57, 5 May 2005 (UTC)

Amazing, even stoners can differentiate between history and election propaganda. - Cheers

I don't even know where this belongs, but I thought I'd put it here cause some of the argument is similar: I'm just very confused about why the Crusaders being Christians faught at all? Doesn't Jesus preach against violence quite strongly, giving the example of "Pick up the cross and follow me", such that we turn the other cheek completely and get killed rather than fight? But what about protecting and how can you protect your family if you're dead? On the other hand we see Jesus angry at people in the temple, going against what he said earlier, and there is also the idea of "Jesus with a sword" -- but that means you don't have to listen to your parents if they don't understand Christ. I don't understand Christ because of these arguments, so can someone add something to the article which covers pacifism, self-defense, etc, and how one is meant to see these things as a person who is sincerely trying to practice Christianity? Thankyou.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 218.101.27.185 (talk • contribs) .

Christianity as a pacifistic religion stopped about the time Constantine adopted it as a quasi-state religion. "In hoc signo vincet" and so on... That said, the discrepancy between the teachings of Jesus and the actual situation were felt. Especially after the end of the Viking age and the hot phase of the Spanish reconquista, people were increasingly worried about wars and violence between Christians. There was a Peace of God movement in the west, and when that didn't work out so well, Urban II had the great idea of allowing a just war and sending off all the troublemakers to Palestine (The preceeding is a slightly simplified version of history;-). --Stephan Schulz 21:29, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

To speak of Christianity as a pacifist religion ignores the complicated subject of state-sponsored violence (criminal justice system, war, et cetera) as opposed to personal violence (brigandage or self-defense). Christian doctrine proper really only addresses the latter, as the former didn't enter the realm of possibility until about Constantine's time. The idea of a nation-state 'turning the other cheek' is nowhere addressed in Scripture, and therefore cannot be properly considered as an element of Christian dogma. For more information you might consult Augustine, who wrote fairly extensively on the subject (as indeed on most others), and is regarded as an authority by most orthodox Christians.

-Turi (this is a foreign keyboard with no tilde key...)

[edit] Etymology

Belongs in the etymology section. Really it doesnt belong in the article at all, it belongs in Wiktionary. This article is a history of the Medieval crusades. It is not an essay on all the dozens of shades of meanings and usages of the word Crusade. Check the OED for that, you seem to have a single pet definition you continue to push, related to the ongoing current events in the Middle East. Go to Wiktionary, it was created just for this purpose. They need help. Perhaps you can fill out all the various meanings of Crusade there. Encyclopedia articles are not dictionaries. Stbalbach 02:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

This is pure nonsense —relating the meaning of a term is encyclopedic, and particularly when the term has different but related meanings. Its not "etymology" - its current use in language! Have you taken a look around Wikipedia at all? Do you think that those articles which do bother to differentiate related terms should be changed to fit your view that encyclopedia and dictionary are definitively separated? Having been editing here for more than a month, sir, I can tell you that the 'distict separation policy' is not an absolute nor definitive measure, but a simple guideline - not to be bandied about as an excuse to stodge an article. -SV|t 02:21, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

That's why we have a disambiguation page, that is what they are for. According to the Oxford English Dictionary there are 10 TEN meanings of the word crusade. Shall we list them all in the opening paragraph? Ive looked at your work here, ive seen your edits on this article, and watched your behaviour when challenged in this article over previous disputes. It's all been heavily political related to the Iraq war, and you can be extremely stubborn and even beligerant at times (I quote: "Who do you think you are?"). It is obvious you are pushing a single meaning into the opening paragraph, not for neutral reasons to help make it a better article, but because you have an agenda. This much is clear: this is an article about the Medieval crusades. There is a separate article for disambigutation, for other meanings. If you start talking about modern uses of the term, then it opens the article up to politics, and we have edit wars. This is a history article, not a political soapbox. Stbalbach 02:41, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

You are almost completely incorrect, Stb. Disambiguation is for listing unrelated terms with the same names — not for explanatory differentiation of related meanings of a term, or which are otherwise thought to be related and hence must (or should) be clarified (dont assume prerequisite knowledge). Articles often begin with a clarification of the term. "Foo is bar and nothing else" doesnt cut it when x does mean something else, and an abstraction to the term rather than a rigid and stoic notion of concept is necessary for clarification. Keep in mind the article is titled "Crusade." A title is a term. And the definition of the term is appropriate in all cases. An encyclopedia is (by definition) "not a dictionary" precisely because it must (or should) be explanatory and clarifying. A dictionary often must not: it lists various meanings for the term, often without thoroughly relating them to their context. A dictionary is a compendium of definitions —should an encylopedia be removed of any and all "definitions?" Of course not. Second, your "medieval crusades" argument might be valid if the article was named "medieval crusades" - but even in that context, the current meaning of the term "crusade" as it is directly derived from history, is of course relevant. Your assertion of my having an agenda is off topic if not a pure ad hominem. Thank you for the MHTL though. -SV|t 03:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Your wrong. There are at least 9 ways to use the term crusade in the English language. When people come to this article they are coming here to learn about the Crusades, which means somthing very specific, one of those 9 meanings. They dont come here to learn the different meanings of the word, that is called a Dictionary. Certain subjects have a priority on name real estate in Wikipedia because they are the most common usage. If there is reason to explain the different meanings of the term that is done sometimes. For example Feudalism, to learn about the origin of the word it helps to explain the etymology of the word. In the case of Crusade, all your doing is saying "Crusade means X. Crudade means Y". Who cares? If you want to write an article about Y, then disambig it, the X article has nothing to do with it. Stbalbach 05:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I think the one line in the introduction should be here (as long as it stays as one sentence), and at least the first paragraph in the etymology section too. Not sure about the rest. Fornadan 03:09, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

"The rest," Fornadan? -SV|t 03:58, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Here's a pertinent question that I'm not sure of the answer to, but I think the answer is directly related to whether or not the disputed definition should be in the article: Would the word crusade have the usage described if not for the Crusades? If not I don't think it belongs in the article. But if the Crusades influenced the later usage of the term then I think it is relevent here.--Heathcliff 02:30, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Rename article

Stevertigo suggested this article be renamed "Medieval crusade". The current crusade disambiguation article would become the new top-level Crusade article, pointing readers to the more specific article. I personally dont care about the real estate value of the name "Crusade", let us Medievalists work on project in piece without the constant ambiguations and political soapboxing. It might finally turn into a decent article without fear of stepping into a war zone all the time. Pros or cons? Stbalbach 05:01, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

Disagree - this is getting way out of hand. Forking the article is no solution. I suppose I care more about the "real estate value" of the title - when people search for "crusade" we all know what they are searching for, and it is not a disambiguation page. "Medieval crusade" is superfluous, and "crusade" is nothing more than a figure of speech now...this argument is rather bemusing and frustrating. Adam Bishop 06:36, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Yeah I didnt seriously think it would get much support, but it underlies this article is about the Medieval Crusades. The bemusing and frustrating problem continues.Stbalbach
It's clear to me what somebody expects to see when they look "Crusade" up in an encyclopedia. This is it. Demi T/C 06:51, 2005 May 13 (UTC)
Stb- first of all I didnt "suggest" renaming it - I said that even if you did, the terms are related and therefore a simple concise explanation is justified. R E L A T E D - thats the point you keep avoiding — talking about "political agenda", "disambiguation", "Wikipedia is not a dictionary" blah. Nonsense. And your snarky comment "let us Medievalists work on..." just shows that your'e another academic chauvinist who doesnt quite get the idea of Wikipedia, nor do you understand that people like yourself made Nupedia the stunning success it was. Please listen to reason, and stop being an exclusionist. Adam: "Medieval crusade" is superfluous, and "crusade" is nothing more than a figure of speech now." Thanks for showing perspective and humor.
-SV|t 10:42, 13 May 2005 (UTC)
Oh good lord, me an academic authoritarian? Now that is humorous, you dont even want to know my academic history (although I do have a BA in History), I wont go there. At best I am a Professional amateur (ProAm Revolution) like most people on Wikipedia, and at worst a hack (although some may not be so kind). As for the meanings being related, of course they are, it's language, but it has nothing to do with the practical issue, this article is about the Medieval Crusades. We've had continual problems in this article with people overtly and covertly referring to the current events in the Middle East, drawing connections to the Medieval Crusades, which is original research and/or non-mainstream and has been established does not belong in the article. You talk about exclusivity, yet you leave out other meanings of the word, only putting in the one meaning that you wish to expouse. Yet if you were to put in all the meanings, it would become an etymological section, which doesnt belong in the opening paragraph and allready has a separate section. How do you propose to resolve this? Stbalbach 16:31, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

By the way, you guys aren't really talking about etymology, you're talking about usage. The etymology of "crusade" is pretty convoluted, but not as much as all this :) Adam Bishop 21:02, 13 May 2005 (UTC)

I see no point in renaming the article "Medieval crusade"; however I do think it should be renamed "Crusades".--Heathcliff 02:23, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Thats interesting - the policy is to use singulars instead of plurals, but in this case the plural is still specific to historical events. Im sure its been discussed before - I think theres a good case for it.
Stb: "We've had continual problems in this article with people overtly and covertly referring to the current events in the Middle East, drawing connections to the Medieval Crusades, which is original research and/or non-mainstream and has been established does not belong in the article."
So, assuming for the moment this is all true, what does this have to do with excluding a related definition? Would it not be proper to infer that the crusade to purge the article of "non-mainstream" material (as it overreaches to include common and uncontroversial material as well) has been excessive? Such excess could also fairly be viewed as expressing a POV which simply supports a "mainstream" view. Again, all of this is assuming that what you say above was valid! The claim of "original research" is not valid, as WP:NOR doesnt apply to the "original research" of others —historians, critics, journalists, etc. Your qualifier "and/or non-mainstream" shows the "NOR" as weak, and the appeal to an assumed "no non-mainstream views" policy doesnt work either. The claim "has been established does not belong in the article" is likewise dubious, but at least it appeals to a consensus view - all one needs to do is check the record to see what the actual consensus was, and who or who is not really interested in it. Stb:"You talk about exclusivity, yet you leave out other meanings of the word, only putting in the one meaning that you wish to expouse." Again, this argument rests upon an assumption that there is some absolute way to interpret the WP:WINAD policy and the WP:Dis process. Convoluting the argument by including "all the meanings" isnt convincing either - these are tactful value-judgements of balance that arent solved by any kind of absolutism. -SV|t 07:11, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I was surprised this wasn't named Crusades as well. Crusade seems more general; Crusades would refer to what this article deals with, surely? 'Crusades' does redirect here, but having it as the title seems to make more sense.Ben davison 12:54, 8 October 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Former "popular reputation" subheading

Without an introductory paragraph, this section is misleading and fatuous. Until it can be provided with a caveat about pop history, I've had to remove it. The article reads more smoothly without it. --Wetman 08:13, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

I agree with you that the article reads more smoothly without it. Do we need this section? Perhaps if there's an interest in keeping it, it could be moved to its own page. Generally, I don't like splitting articles up to much, but in this case it might allow the section to get more attention and even get expanded into something really interesting. I don't know if it can grow much buried in this Crusade article. And I think the section could use some developement. As it is, it seems a bit sketchy. For instance it doesn't really go into how the popular reputation of the Crusades as evolved in recent years. I'm sure if a bunch of contributors got to work on it, it could turn into a very thorough article.--Heathcliff 14:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I like the way you think H — there are many ways by which an article can be split - there has been a long history of culture related to the crusades, so a split along those lines would be useful. My caveat is this - that a split is not used to exclude and segregate information - it must still be treated in the main - but to allow space and context for that approach to be dealt with in more depth. Note: The tenor of some people here is to have an absolutist view toward this rather important and influential topic - to treat it as a singular object, and hence as with a kind of exclusionism toward other things. Its not necessary to be that rigid, and that kind of absolutism will only invite challenges from inclusionists like myself. That said, if room needs to be freed to go into each particular crusade section in more depth, that is quite the way to go. The topic box will then need to be changed to reflect that. -SV|t 19:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Ok Mr. Association of Inclusionists, how come you have excluded other possible meanings of Crusade from the opening section and only focused on the one? Stbalbach 22:27, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I think Ive gone over that like, 102 times now. -SV|t 00:01, 15 May 2005 (UTC)
Well I don't think we need a separate article about that. It's almost like there are two separate arguments going on in this talk page...I mean, look what Stevertigo and Stbalbach are talking about, it's certainly directly relevant to that. What I (and apparently some anonymous people) was opposed to was the patronizing tone of the "pseudohistory" bit. I know Wetman is really proud of it and I see that he is having a snit now that it has been removed, but as I said elsewhere, readers do not need to be told they are idiots. Keep the section, definitely, and let's see if we can still keep Wetman's "caveat" somehow. Adam Bishop 15:59, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
I wouldn't call Wetman's brief statement above a snit, but I agree with you that the section as it was came across a bit patronizing. I also find the intro to be editorial in nature. It seems to me that we can just present the facts and let people decide for themselves if the popular repuation of the Crusades is pseudohistory.
As for its own page, the more I think about it the more I like it. It would allow the history of the Crusades' reputation to be fleshed out and we could devote seperate sections to the Crusades in literature, the Cruasades in mass media, and the use of the reputation of the Crusades in politics. We could also further address the issue of the popular repuation of the Crusades in the east. If the section is worth having then I think it is worth doing well, and I think that it is more likely to be done well as its own article. Also some of the ideas in the Legacy section relate directly to this so perhaps that could be worked into a new page with the popular reputation section
Another advantage to having a seperate article for the popular reputation section is we could link to it from the individual Crusade articles. As it is, a person who comes to the Crusade page but who really wants to read about the 1st Crusade we'll immediately follow the link to the first Crusade, but if anyone tries to add a link from the first Crusade to the popular reputation of the Crusades he has to send readers back to were they've come from. I find this awkward and suspect that some people might arrive back on the Crusade page and say "oh this is a bad link I've already been here."--Heathcliff 16:36, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Agree wholeheartily we need a separate article. Actually this falls under crusade historiography, with popular media in the 20th century just one part of it. For a similair article allready done for the Middle Ages, see Middle Ages in history, which allready lightly touches on the Crusades in popular perception. It's not just 20th century, but every century since the Crusades ended. In fact, even during the period of the crusades there was "Crusade propaganda" -- Crusade Propaganda is the name of an Encyclopedia article in the "Dictionary of the Middle Ages", even the professionals agree. There is a lot to be said on this subject that has not been. Stbalbach 16:49, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
Regarding Wetmans quotes, there is nothing factually wrong with it, and in fact there is some deep universal wisdom there that goes beyond the Crusades. However I agree with its removal because it would only be appropriate in an article that was longer and able to illustrate the points it makes, which this short section can not do. It should be a conclusion, based on deductive reasoning of the facts, than an introduction to the article as inductive reasoning. For the average reader these things are not obvious and it assumes a certain advanced level of understanding. Its a black diamond in a green circle article, a bit of a trip up for most readers. We need clarity and simplicity for a wide audience. Stbalbach 17:05, 14 May 2005 (UTC)
We seem to have a general agreement. -SV|t 19:41, 14 May 2005 (UTC)

[edit] crusade historiography page

Okay it looks like 3 of us so far would like the create a Crusade historiography or a Crusades in history page and move some of the content on this page to it. Aynone else want to way in. What is your opionion Adam? I know you were opposed to a Popular reputation of the Crusades page what about a Crusades in history page similar to the Middle Ages in history? What does everyone else think?--Heathcliff 23:00, 17 May 2005 (UTC)

I think that's okay..."crusades in history" would be pretty interesting I guess. Adam Bishop 00:21, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Similar to etymology, the word historiography is often misapplied. Historiography would be how historians wrote about the Crusades. The Middle Ages in history article (which I wrote) is not really historiography since it covers such a wide range of topics like film and architecture and philosophy. Perhaps a real historiography of the crusades could be done, Im not sure how interesting it would be outside of specialized circles, it would be a long list of obscure titles and authors, arcane stuff for an arcane term. But, an article along the lines of Middle Ages in history, on the search for "the popular" in the Crusades, would certainly be interesting. Even more so an article called "Medievalism" which I hope to write someday, on the popular interest in Medieval topics in general. Stbalbach 00:23, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Then it sounds like it should be called "The Crusades in history" since that would allow us to cover both historiography and the popular reputation of the Crusades in one page. Is there a way we can round up some support to help get it started? I'm very happy to contribute, but I can't do the whole thing (or even a quarter of it).--Heathcliff 02:24, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
Well I'd say in the spirit of Wikipedia, go ahead and make a go and see who comes along, time is on your side, never know who shows up to contribute or when. I can make some additions of stuff thats allready done in other articles as well, but its never complete, always incomplete :) The Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages may also be of interest. Stbalbach 14:57, 18 May 2005 (UTC)
We'll if anyone feels like starting it go ahead. If no one else does, I'll start it in a week or so after I've had a chance to run by the library.--Heathcliff 22:28, 18 May 2005 (UTC)

Greetings everyone. It's been while since I had said I'd eventually be starting a Crusades in History page, and I thought I'd just update anyone who cared on my progress: there isn't any (progress that is) and there isn't like to be any in the future. While I found Wikipedia to be an exciting idea at first, the more I see of it the more I realize it will never work. I see now that a Wikipedian spends 1% of his time creating and 99% of his time defending his creation from other editiors who want to add their POV, insert inaccuracies or simply delete it out right without any reason. Worse still, administrators are as likely to be the source of the problem as editors. I don't want to seem too negative: 90% of Wikipedians are great and 99% of Wikipedia is probably accurate, but when you stop to think about it an encyclopedia which is wrong 1% of the time and whose writers are working to put their own agend into it 10% of the time isn't much of an encyclopdia. I still use Wikipedia for pop culture stuff though not so much for hard factual stuff like history. Anyway, I'm sure I'll still be editing this or that from time to time, but I just don't have the patience to make major contributions.--Heathcliff 21:50, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Image of first crusade knights

Enlarge

Im fairly certain that image is inaccurate. They are carrying Norman shields. They have Mustaches, Im pretty sure the Franks were clean shaven, might be wrong, but it was the Anglo-Saxons who had the crazy facial hair. They have a "red cross" banner, which did not evolve until after the First Crusade. To fairly represent Crusaders, you would show the chain armour underneath a sleeveless cloak with a large cross on the back .. this was because the temperatures were so hot, they wore their armour fairly naked (only some padding to prevent scapping) and then a loose sleeveless cloak over top.Stbalbach 02:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Title/disambiguation

To me, it's totally zany that this page is at "Crusade". Look back up this page - basically everyone, in their comments, talks about the "Crusades". I know about the "titles should be singular" rule, but we also have Wikipedia:Ignore all rules. If we're all calling the subject "Crusades", let's recognize reality and dispense with the Procrustean "Crusade", and rename it. (I'd do it myself, but I'm not a contributor here, and so I'll leave it up to you all). As an added benefit, "Crusade" can then become a disambiguation page (I think I recall some discussion of disambiguation above) and/or a page about the concept of a crusade, whereas "Crusades" can be exclusively about the historical Crusades. Noel (talk) 19:32, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

Yeah it's kind of zany I guess, but it's not that big of a deal. But it would be a lot more zany to split the page into one about the concept and one about the specific crusades themselves. As long as one redirects to the other, I don't see much point in arguing about whether or not there should be another S there. Adam Bishop 19:44, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

Would I be amiss in adding Runciman to the list of possible readings at the bottom of the article? Obviously, his book is old, and utterly unconcerned with doing anything but providing a politico-military narrative of the Crusades. But his is still probably the best (or, at least, the fullest) politico-military narrative of the crusades in English, as far as I am aware. But if his work is an embarrassment, or something, I don't want to add it. john k 18:42, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

It's not an embarrassment...sometimes Runciman lets his imagination run wild, but yeah, it's one of the best general summaries. He even wrote the First Crusade parts for the much larger work edited by Setton, and I don't think there have been any large-scale general histories since then. Adam Bishop 00:28, 4 September 2005 (UTC)

[edit] How many died?

Are there any serious estimations of how many people died due to the crusades? Gugganij 06:42, 17 September 2005 (UTC)

There sure is, but the numbers vary so much that it's not worth sticking with one. Darth Panda 19:15, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
If you want to read more about that, Jonathan Riley-Smith wrote an article called "'Casualties and the Number of Knights on the First Crusade", in the first volume (2003) of the journal "Crusades", published by the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East. Adam Bishop 01:27, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Thanxs for the info. Gugganij 06:39, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] History Channel show Sunday night

History Channel will be airing a major new show on the Crusades Sunday night with lots of promotion in the US. I suspect there will be a lot of edits from it. Keep in mind it is a TV show, primarily the work of a single scholar Jonathan Phillips (a regular commentator on the History Channel). Hopefully will be a good show entertainment and factual. Stbalbach 03:48, 6 November 2005 (UTC)

[edit] recent vandalism

There has been quite a bit of vandalism to this page recently. I'm not sure if we should continue to just watch and revert, or take more drastic measures (locking and bans). --Ignignot 16:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps once the high school students finish their 2-page double-spaced report on the "Crusades" after watching the teacher-assigned Crusades special on the History Channel things will die down. This page has always had a constant background hum of vandalism higher than normal, it seems to come and go in waves as popular attention wanes and waxes. Does it appear to be a single person? Stbalbach 17:07, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


No it doesn't seem to be just one person. A look at recent vandals puts them all across the map, with mostly residential high speed connections. Here's a quick table I made:
137.141.246.34 SUNY College at Oneonta
71.114.25.34 Verizon Internet Services
194.154.22.35 RIPE Network Coordination Centre
216.73.54.2 USLEC Corp.
24.62.183.106 Comcast Cable Communications Holdings
198.209.39.100 MOREnet
66.76.71.25 Cox Communications Inc.
65.213.44.9 UUNET Technologies, Inc.
198.209.39.110 MOREnet
198.170.191.85 Verio, Inc.
66.31.93.133 Comcast Cable Communications Holdings, Inc
24.119.76.208 CABLE ONE CABLEONE
68.33.151.215 Comcast Cable Communications, Inc.
67.173.5.194 Comcast Cable Communications
209.133.140.254 State of South Carolina
71.244.52.239 Verizon Internet Services
12.111.200.36 AT&T WorldNet Services
The different Comcast IPs are from different subnets (one NJ, one Boston, etc) so they aren't the same person. I don't really know how vandalism like this can be dealt with other than maybe putting a warning on the page, which could either reduce or increase the vandalism. --Ignignot 18:32, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
This page isnt as bad as Age of Enlightenment for some reason (although not recently). Any of the big topic articles that are part of intro to Western Civ classes (high school or non-major undergrad) seem to get a fair share of vandalism. It is possible for a sophisticated vandal to spoof an IP, so a single user can appear to come from any, and as many IP's, but since most of these line up to home broadband its probably not the case. When you consider the sheer number of high school kids using google to write homework assignments, versus the number of Wikipedians who revert vandalism, its a wonder theres not more work than there is to keep it under control. Clay Shirky wrote an interesting article on the dynamics "A Group Is Its Own Worst Enemy"--Stbalbach 02:35, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

I would agree. Some of the earlier versions of the page had at least brief segments on the second and third crusades, and probably something longer than the minor blurb on the first. The Hypatia burning vandals seemed to have sacked and burned here beyond recognition.

Now that there is a Wikipedia:Semi-protection_policy I think this page is a good candidate for the limited protection it provides. From the policy "In the worst case articles receive few good edits; instead, they have turned into battlegrounds in which virtually every edit is either one by a vandal or one reverting vandalism. So much time is wasted that nothing substantive can be done to improve the material or quality of information in these articles. This situation tarnishes the reputation of Wikipedia and hampers the efforts of reputable editors to improve article content quality." That seems to fit this article - I spend no time even considering how to improve it, instead I just watch it for vandalism. I think our time could be better spent actually improving it. --Ignignot 19:15, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Thanks of bringing that to our attention and I agree this article would qualify (I can think of a few others as well). --Stbalbach 20:17, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, someone has been interjecting "Canadian" into the text. Since Canada wasn't established until 1867 I think it's safe to say it has nothing to do with the topic and this too is an act of vandalism. I believe the original word was "Christian" and I have changed these instances. --Anonymous 22:15, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for noticing that...this gets so much vandalism that even when I think I've reverted it, I haven't at all. We didn't even notice the Second and Third Crusade blurbs were missing for over a month, even when it was mentioned right here. I've semi-protected it, as Ignignot and Stbalbach mentioned (so unfortunately, anonymous editor above, you won't be able to edit it either). Adam Bishop 22:20, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

Just wanted to let you know that I removed a piece of vandalism having to do with "feline fornication" from the bottom of the Fourth Crusade summary. Ugh. Blbecker 20:00, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

There is still a big chunk of vandalism...it needs to be reverted back to March 12, if not further. (I can't do a manual revert from this computer, unfortunately.) Adam Bishop 02:18, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

I made a new request for semi protection. --Ignignot 20:25, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More Facts

  • How many people died...
    • on the muslims side
    • on the english side
English side? Erm.... --Stephan Schulz 00:20, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
Someone else asked this before, up in the "How Many Died" section. There's no way to give an actual number, for whatever "side" you are looking for. Adam Bishop 00:38, 20 December 2005 (UTC)
The field of medieval demography has come a long way recently (the linked article details methods used in the last section), but for somthing like Crusade deaths broken down by side, I just can't imagine anything more than a SWAG. But I bet someone will make an attempt at it and make a name for themselves, if not allready. --Stbalbach 00:58, 20 December 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Confused text

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

[edit] "Slowed down the expansion of Islam..."

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

Theres a bunch of stuff in that section that is problematic and not really appropriate for an encyclopedia, or at least this high-level of an article, it needs too much supporting evidence and is POV. Feel free to remove it from the article and copy it to the talk page with reasons why it was removed. --Stbalbach 05:36, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Islamic expansion wasn't as much of a problem as continued conflict. Reconquista(sp), the Byzantine Empire, Islamic Pirates along the Mediterranean, and (based on memory alone) some conflicts north of Byzantine lands in what is now Eastern Europe. The First Crusade did destabalize Islamic states near Byzantium as it was the first area hit during the crusade.

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

[edit] WHAT ABOUT OF LOCAL SOCIETIES?

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

[edit] APOLOGY?

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

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

Should I expect to get an answer only after I've removed the unsupported assertion? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.168.176 (talk • contribs) .
Don't hurry! You posted your request not even 24 hours ago. I added a {{fact}} tag. Gugganij 10:56, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
2 seconds to turn it up on a google search. Is this something that some people don't believe? [2]
--Stbalbach 16:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
Probably can't be called an "apology", more like "expressing sorrow". [3] -- Stbalbach 17:24, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
That's not an apology. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 172.164.168.176 (talk • contribs) .
I would suggest following this discussion at Talk:Fourth Crusade#Pope John's apologies -- Stbalbach 16:02, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Historical Background

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

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

Added note on religious propaganda regarding Jerusalem and Antioch.

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

Regarding this:
Western Europe thus became able to focus attention towards external threats.
This is original research, and wrong. In fact "Europe" didn't do anything, there was no "Europe", there was a bunch of feudal lords -- the closest to any sort of organized entity was the Catholic Church. And your forgetting that during the Early Middle Ages there were plenty of examples of addressing external threats (Huns, Arabs). In fact, the European nobility were violent thugs, anyone who has studied the middle ages from an academic perspective and not the Romanticized Chivalric perspective knows this, it's the whole reason communes were established, the whole reason castles were built, etc.. you can't understand the period without understanding the violent nature of the noble class, and other articles do in fact discuss it. Restoring accurate section. -- Stbalbach 18:23, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
"In fact, the European nobility were violent thugs, anyone who has studied the middle ages from an academic perspective and not the Romanticized Chivalric perspective knows this" -- Since that's common knowledge you should have no problem citing authoritative, unambiguous sources. —This unsigned comment was added by 172.164.168.176 (talk • contribs) .
Sure no problem. Start with an overview at Dictionary of the Middle Ages, Supplement 1, page 624, "Violence", by Peter Haidu. For more detailed treatments see Robert Bartlett The Making of Europe: Conquest, Colonization and Cultural Change; Marc Bloch Feudal Society; Georges Duby The Early Growth of the European Economy: Warriors and Peasants from the Seventh to the Twelfth Century; Peter Haidu The Subject of Violence; Thomas Head The Peace of God: Social Violence and Religious Response in France around the year 1000; Amin Maalouf The Crusades through Arab Eyes; Robert Moore The Formation of a Persecuting Society: Power and Deviance in Western Europe, 95-1250; David Nirenberg Communities of Violence: Persecution of Minorities in the Middle Ages; Joseph Strayer On the Medieval Origins of the Modern State. See also on Wikipedia Peace and Truce of God, Medieval commune, Castle, Medieval tournament among others. And just to clarify, not every single noble person was a homicidal maniac, now was every peasant a victim, but the general trend was that the nobility ruled by violence and the violence between the nobility in particular was a well documented problem for social stability in the 11th century, which is the context of this article. -- Stbalbach 16:40, 22 March 2006 (UTC)


Thanks. Just to clarify, there's a big difference between acknowledging that power flowed from violence and asserting that Medieval European nobility is best characterized as "violent thugs." Authority has flowed from violence since time immemorial. Modern society is little different in its essence. We follow the rules or we get thrown in jail. —This unsigned comment was added by 172.164.168.176 (talk • contribs) .
First. Again I must point out, that by describing the nobility/warrior caste of Europe as a bunch of thugs who had nothing better to do than to terrorize their peasant population, a double standard is being applied. Regardless whether medieval knights were generally of a criminal nature, or if "someone" has an agenda, Wikipedia articles discussing similar subject (Samurai, Mamluk, Zulu, etc.) follow markedly different standards. Hence it is not an objective viewpoint. Therefore it should be removed.
Second. Stbalbach's strawman argument. Western Europe was not united in politics, it was united in religion. (The article already indicates this.) Internal stability is prerequisite to military expansion. The idea that military expansion only takes place in order to divert military agression away from one's own population may be popular in some circles, but not substantiated. If you can substantiate it, please do. Unless you do, you cannot claim a NPOV argumentthe idea that this was the cause for the Crusades is unsubstantiated, and should be removed. —This unsigned comment was added by 81.255.155.129 (talk • contribs) .

(indent follows to left)

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

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

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

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

[edit] Historical Background, second paragraph

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

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

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

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

I tried to fix it, but I don't know what is going on with that paragraph. It just repeats information found later in the same section. This whole article needs to be rewritten completely, it gets so much crap added to it, or just simple vandalism, I don't think anyone can follow it anymore. Adam Bishop 15:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
It's much better now, thanks! --Stephan Schulz 21:47, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] French Bible Picture

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

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

This does not really match the caption.

[edit] Muslim/Jewish Alliance?

I've heard from many sources that eventually the Jews and Muslims were allied during the crusades in some ways in order to drive out the crusaders after they attacked various Muslim and Jewish targets. I've also heard of that there was some cultural acceptance and tolerance between the two cultures/religions (other than the dhimmi status of jews in certain areas). If this is so, would someone like to establish a section on it?

PS: It's too bad the two peoples are in conflict in modern day.

What sources? There was no grand religious alliance between Muslims and Jews (nor was there a single Muslim state, or a Jewish state at all, to make such an alliance). There was some degree of acceptance and tolerance on all sides, but that exists today as well. Adam Bishop 04:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)
I think his phrasing and your understanding of what he meant is off. In various situations, Muslims and Jews served together in the defense of their cities from their common enemy, the invading Europeans. I have found several internet references to this scenario, particularly in Jerusalem. Sbroderick 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All the books I have read are agreed that it was regarded as standard that Jewish populations would favour Muslim rulers against the Crusaders. Thus Muslim-held cities would (after the example of Antioch in the 1stCr) expel Christian populations, but not Jews, before a siege by Christians and Christian-held cities did not in theory allow Jewish residents at any time. Johnbod 21:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) to clarify: i mean learning from the example of Antioch in the above Johnbod 21:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slowing down the Ottomans.

From the original article:

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

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

[edit] Spelling

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

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

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

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. But for me, the page appears neither protected nor semi-protected at the moment. If you have a problem, any administrator can protect or unprotect pages. --Stephan Schulz 00:32, 21 May 2006 (UTC)
It is semi-protected, so anonymous users can't edit it. I know it sucks, but otherwise it gets craploads of vandalism. Adam Bishop 23:07, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Albigensian Crusade

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

[edit] Les principaux chefs

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

[edit] CRUSADERS WERE NOT EXCOMMUNICATED

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

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

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

[edit] first external source new url

The url listed currently redirects to the website's home page. The correct URL is [4]. Pcu123456789 20:51, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

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

[edit] Caucasus

The note of crusaders settling in the caucasus is bogus. I removed it, but I am willing to wait another few days for a reference. I am confident that it will not come! How long has this section been here? Str1977 (smile back) 08:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA review

Still looks good ... :

But the image Image:Crusade.JPG doesn't state its fair use rationale. Lincher 03:04, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Defensive war

I've reverted the quotes saying it was a "defensive war" - the causes and meanings of the war are very complex and there is no single reason, it depends on what time frame and layer your looking at, who is doing the interpretation, etc... You can of course find quotes and make a case for various points of view, but they should not be presented here out of context as point of fact, that is original research. If you want to start a new section called "Causes of the war" and present the historiography of the subject and balance the points of view that is fine. -- Stbalbach 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about putting things in a larger perspective, However, these edits were hardly OR, given that they were referenced. Str1977 (smile back) 13:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Referencing has nothing to do with it. I can string a bunch of referenced quotes together and it can still be OR. Other Western historians like Steven Runciman have called it the last of the great European barbarian invasions. Muslims dont' call it a "western defensive" move, they saw it as an aggressive invasion. Even other European historians have seen it as the start of european expansionism that lasted until the current day. Is the "defensive" perspective correct? Perhaps, with qualifiers and explanation. But these are all various points of view that need a lot more explanation. -- Stbalbach 13:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Agreed. "Defensive" is certainly not the opinion of the majority of historians. Given the time frames involved, I'd call the "defensive" claim patently absurd. The region had been Muslim much longer than e.g. the US exists. And the original Muslim expansion was not a purely military expansion, but a cultural and religious phenomenon as well. Most people where not exterminated or expulsed, but converted and assimilated. The population of Palestine in 1100 was certainly mostly indigenous. --Stephan Schulz 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the review was by Madden, so that was my mistake; Runciman and the colonialism idea are kind of old-fashioned, and this "belated defensive war" (which is how the crusaders saw it) is a current fad in crusade historiography (along with the idea the crusades started in Spain or Sicily, and a bunch of other stuff). Adam Bishop 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephan, to say that "defensive is patently absurd" is itself patently absurd, though counter-attack would be more fitting still. Str1977 (smile back) 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, calling the Crusades a defensive war from today's perspective is patently absurd. There were more than 10 generations between the original Muslim expansion and the crusades. Of course, the Byzantine empire was under pressure from the Turks, but these were very different people from both the inhabitants of Palestine in 1100 and the Arabs that drove the original Muslim expansion around 700. It's as if Germany invades Sweden today in retaliation for the thirty years war.... --Stephan Schulz 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Stephan, I have already qualified my statement above. I myself am not insistent as long as one doesn't forget the original Muslim aggressive war and conquest and all that happened in between. Somehow that seldomly gets mentioned, and even your post sounds a bit justifying it by resorting to 10 generations of Muslims rule. (If am wrong, please excuse me.) The Swedish analogy does not hold, since Sweden does NOT occupy parts of Germany at the moment, does not attacks the rest of Germany, does not obstruct pratices cherished by Germans. (The last analogy is of course awkward, since Germany is not a religion.)
Sthalbach, I hope you will agree with me that the view of one group should not be the basis for the exclusion of conflicting views, especially if they attributed and referenced. Str1977 (smile back) 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Well, pick France then (still occupying Alsace and Lorraine). Or let surviving Iroquois attack the US as a "defensive war". Better yet, let Peru attack the US on behalf of the Iroquois (assuming that Peru has a significant native American population). But that is only one of my points. The major one is that the population in Palestine was essentially indigenous. The land was conquerered 400 years ago (exchanging one foreign master for another (acutally, the sequence was Byzantine->Persian->Byzantine->Arab, if I remember correctly)). But the conquerors were a tiny minority. Many of the conquered converted and adopted some of the culture, and assimilated the conquerors in return. This was not a land where a Christian majority population was supressed by a foreign elite. It was a land where a native population with mixed culture and religion lived in several effectively independent states. Whom did they attack at the time? Especially whom in Western Europe? --Stephan Schulz 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
A few points here. Firstly, the area conquered by the First Crusade probably had a Christian majority population before the Crusade started. Certainly Antioch and Edessa, which had until only about a decade beforehand been part of the Byzantine Empire, and some parts of which were ruled by n native Christian princes even at the time the Crusaders arrived, did. My understanding is that this is also true of considerable portions of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the County of Tripoli, as well - notably the area around Jerusalem itself. There were also Muslims in the area, particularly in the coastal cities which were conquered in the decades following the crusade, and in the area around Nablus (iirc), but native Christians probably predominated. Certainly after the Crusade they did, as most of the Muslims and Jews were either massacred or left. As to "several effectively independet states", I'm' not sure what you're talking about. At the time the First Crusade started, the whole of the Levant was under the control of the Seljuk Turks, who formed, more or less, a single state and had until quite recently beforehand been behaving very aggressively towards the Byzantines, whom they had driven not only from the Antioch/Edessa area, but from all of Asia Minor. It is true that Jerusalem itself, and many of the coastal cities of Palestine and Phoenicia, as well, had been recovered by the not-particularly-aggressive Fatimids by the time the Crusaders actually got there. And Tripoli was under the wholly unaggressive Banu' Ammar sheiks. But pretending that the Seljuk turks were innocent victims is silly. john k 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to be too blunt, but this discussion is kind of pointless - it doesn't matter what any of us think. The question is, is there recent scholarship which portrays the crusade as a defensive war, and is this scholarship credible and quotable in an encyclopedia? The answer to both is yes, whether we agree with it or not. Of course, I wouldn't go around rewriting all the crusade articles to match the latest historiographical fad (although I probably shouldn't say that out loud, haha), but it may be worthy of mention (especially if we can quote from Madden's book itself, and not that article that is currently quoted). Adam Bishop 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I got carried away a bit. Yes, you are right. But, following WP:NPOV, we also need to make sure that no undue weight is given to this view. It should be clear that this is neither a standard nor a majority view. And we should also avoid weasel words as far as possible. So I would suggest to state "A few historians, including ... , argue that the crusades can be seen as a defensive war" or words to that effect somewhere in the main text, and nothing in the image caption, where this point really is useless and lacks proper context. --Stephan Schulz 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much for accepting the quote from Madden and Riley Smith. I notice from the bibliography that their works are referenced as the most recent scholarship (Madden) and the one with the most number of works (Riley Smith). I think their reputability should be mentioned, as per Wikipedia NPOV, and if it is determined that they are more reputable than others, then they should be given proportionately bigger space. Unbiased writing in Wikipedia is about cold attribution of facts and facts about opinions. Thanks. Thomas 03:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, but don't take this too far. The current version is absolutely one-sided and unbalanced. The number and age of citations of Madden and Riley-Smith in this article is an accident, as far as I can tell (and as far as know, Madden's is a textbook, hence unlikely to contain "the most recent scholarship"). They do not, in this point, represent the mainstream. And Madden's quote seems to be not from a scholary work, but from a popular press (not even pos science press) editorial. Riley-Smith does not speak of a defensive war at all, and it would be necessary to see his quote in context to see how to present it fairly. "Cold attribution of facts and facts about opinion" is not enough for "unbiased writing" - by selecting which facts and opinions to include you can get an arbitrarily biased text. --Stephan Schulz 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
It belongs in a separate historiography section, that discusses various historians points of view. See Decline of the Roman Empire for an example of how historiography works on Wikipedia, when there are multiple points of view. It certainly does not belong in the central narrative of events. -- Stbalbach 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
I hope and think we agree that this goes for all different POVs. Str1977 (smile back) 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(Fix indent). I've now corrected the attribution of Madden. His text is not a "study", but a series of editorials in rather conservative popular press venues. This is certainly not a scholary source. I've also taken out the Riley-Smith quote. He wrote about the perception of the crusades at the time, and explicitely notes that some of these claims are spurious from a modern perspective. Moreover, the quote is from a movie review of "Kingdom of Heaven", of all things. Can we please try to get some real encyclopedic sources? --Stephan Schulz 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On johnk's points above, I think Prawer (now dead) is probably the most notable authority on the religious composition of the local population before Cr1. Yes, Antioch (only held by Islam for a very few years before Cr1 took it) and Edessa were effectively wholely Xtn apart from soldiers & administrators, and other cities were largely Muslim but there simply is not enough evidence to say anything firm about the total size or religious %s of the rural populations. What is very clear, though is that most rural Muslims stayed put, and were encouraged to do so by the Crusader Kingdoms, who needed them to keep agriculture going. My recollection is that most historians accept that the Crusader Kingdoms probably had an overall slight Muslim majority in the population pre-Saladin. See Kingdom of Jerusalem article. If they had managed to get Egypt, which had a clear Xtn (Coptic & Othodox) majority of the population well into the modern period, things would have been different... Johnbod 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Hussite Wars

I ran into an article Hussite Wars and as I was reading it called its purpose as an anti-hussite crusade with a papal bull and all. I was wondering if it was overlooked, for inclusion in the Crusades or it does not belong.--Tigeroo 10:38, 7 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More descriptive pictures?

It seems to me that all of the pictures in this article are either too small, or too docile. The crusades were a regime of blood and genocide, and I think some pictures need to illustrate that. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Torus (talk • contribs) .

Images created centuries after the crusades are usually politically and culturally interesting not so much for what they say about the Crusades, but what they say about the time period when the images were created, and how they imaged the past. See Middle Ages in history for a brief outline. Generally we try to stick with contemporary images in history articles. -- Stbalbach 04:27, 20 August 2006 (UTC)


[edit] Censoring and falsifying history

Str1977: "... the original Muslim aggressive war and conquest. ... Somehow that seldomly gets mentioned. ... Sthalbach, I hope you will agree with me that the view of one group should not be the basis for the exclusion of conflicting views, especially if they attributed and referenced."

I accuse Sthalbach of deleting information from other viewers because he doesnt like it. (Sthalbach's POV seems unreasonably committed to "sanitizing" Muslim history.) The Crusades were in part, "a response to Islamic imperialist expansionism". Islamic expansionism invaded both Europe's east (Byzantine Empire) and west (Spain), and the Christian Europeans were alarmed. Part of the Islamic expansionism engulfed Palestine. And later it re-engulfed Palestine. To not even mention this as a factor, and to actively delete it, betrays the lack of a NPOV. The article does not address Islamic imperialism because Stalbach keeps erasing history. --Haldrik 13:41, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

You put it in the first sentence of the Wikipedia:Lead section as fact. What caused the Crusades is a huge matter of debate along professional medieval historians, so much so it could be its own article entirely. Also there is currently a school of thought among certain popular historians that Islam was at fault for the Crusades which you can find in New York Times best-seller lists (I can mention authors and titles if you wish). These popular accounts are written by, shall we say, non-neutral parties and non-professional medieval historians under the guise of not being politically correct -- I have no doubt that you think I am a "politically correct" person who "sanitizes" history, but please do your research, this article is based on academic sources, not political rhetoric like "Islamic imperialistic expansionism". -- Stbalbach 13:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It must be mentioned. To not mention it is lying. --Haldrik 14:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The word "expansionism" is what it is: the Islamic policy of expansion had been aggressive since Muhammad. The word "imperialism" is what it is. The original Arab Muslims colonized the areas they conquered.
Only for some very weird definition of "colonized". They were not classical colonies, and the conquering "Arabs" (actually, in later phases they often were other people) did not eliminate the native population, but merged with it, spreading Islamic culture, but neither a coherent Islamic rule (many of the new territorries where de-facto independent) nor Arab population. --Stephan Schulz 14:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
By your logic, the Ancient Greek colonies arent "colonies" because they blended in with local population too. Funny. We still call them "Greek colonies", tho. And the "Greek Empire". Are the Spanish colonies in Latin America not "colonies" because they blended in with the local populations too? --Haldrik 15:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Actually, the classical Greek colonies (like the one in Greater Hellas) did not blend with the local population quickly, but remained distinct Greek polises, with a population that understood itself as "Hellenes" and that, to a large degree, was of Greek ancestry. Moreover, at least for some time after founding, there was a special relation ship between founding city and colony, not unlike a client/patron relationship. Also note that we don't count the conquests of Alexander (that are somewhat similar both in scope and nature of mixing/assimilation/cultural expansion to the Islamic expansion) as "greek colonies". And I've yet to see a serious historian to talk about a "Greek Empire", except as an alternative term to the East Roman empire. --Stephan Schulz 15:40, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"Dont count the conquests of Alexander as 'greek colonies'". LOL! You mean?! All those colonies that Alexander founded (even called Alexandria, no less!) shouldnt be counted as "Greek colonies" even tho we call them "Greek colonies". ?! ?! ?! LOL! --Haldrik 16:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"Classical Greek colonies remained with a population that understood itself as 'Hellenes'". And in what Islamic colony, did the Muslims not understand themselves as "Muslim". Oppositely, the Emperor Alexander who spearheaded helenism DID blend in quickly. --Haldrik 16:08, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
As Stephan Schulz even admits: "The conquests (of the Empire) of Alexander are somewhat similar both in scope and nature of mixing/assimilation/cultural expansion to the Islamic expansion". Exactly. Couldnt have explained Islamic imperialist expansionism better myself! --Haldrik 16:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Besides, it is hardly the Islamic policy to "merge" with the "native population". Either they converted to Islam in order to marry other Muslims - frankly cultural genocide - or Islamic policy disempowered the native population as soon as possible. Exactly why are the Islamic imperialists so different from the Spanish conquistador imperialists? --Haldrik 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I cant help but suspect that if someone violated you in the name of Christianity, in the mildest of ways, you would cry for days. And every newspaper would know about it. And if you live in the US, the lawyers are already on their way. But you can witness atrocities committed in the name of Islam, and you do everyting in your power to explain it away. Just an impression. I hope I'm wrong. --Haldrik 15:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Your mind reading device apparently is out of order. --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The word "Islam" is what it is. Your actions to silence the voices of history are distorting a balanced point of view. --Haldrik 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The neutral point of view is achieved by presenting multiple views, not by eliminating the views you dont like. --Haldrik 14:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"What caused the Crusades is a huge matter of debate along professional medieval historians." Only if those historians are Marxists, I bet. --Haldrik 14:20, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
This is an extremely stupid and uncalled for claim. If you think any debate about events 900 years back has a simple, settled answer, you have no idea about history.--Stephan Schulz 14:33, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
I'm being humorous here, but it's hardly "stupid" to claim the human sciences are well-represented by Marxists (whether sociologically or politically). --Haldrik 14:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, if the "human sciences" are well-represented by Marxists, we should hire more. But I suspect that is not what you wanted to say. Did you try to say that "Marxists are well-represented among scientists in the humanities"? In that case either your definition of "well-represented" means "there are some", or your definition of "Marxists" includes everybody on the sane side of Rush Limbaugh. --Stephan Schulz 15:07, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"scientists in the humanities". We call that the "human sciences": psychology, sociology, anthropology, archeology, etc. --Haldrik 15:11, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Who is we? It's certainly the first time I have heard this term. --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"Also there is currently a school of thought ..." Feel free to mention this "school of thought" too. While at the same time the "school of thought" that the Christian Europeans were scared out of their minds, is being mentioned, which is obviously a NOTABLE and well established argument! --Haldrik 14:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Christian Europeans"? As in a village peasant in Spain, the Pope in Rome, and the Eastern Roman Emperor, all at the same time? At the time of the Crusades, the Reconquista had been in full swing for a number of generations. The Eastern Roman empire was under pressure not by "Islam", but by a number of Turkish groups who happened to be Islamic. --Stephan Schulz 14:38, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"The Christian Europeans - a vilage peasant in Spain, the Pope in Rome, the Eastern Roman Emperor - all at the same time" ... "were scared out of their minds". Yes. Just like all Americans were scared out of their minds in 9/11. --Haldrik 15:03, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, not many of those I know. And of course the village peasant and the pope got their news presented 24/7 via FOX News as well...--Stephan Schulz 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Just be careful that your own political motives arent undermining your ability to defend the need for multiple points of view. --Haldrik 02:15, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

The problem is your attributing the crusades to be the fault of the Islam religion. I don't know of any historian who does that, except the few I mentioned on the NYT best-seller list and some other recent documentaries that are clearly not reliable sources. -- Stbalbach 14:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Referring to Robert Spencer and his websites, books and films, stuff like "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)". -- Stbalbach 14:31, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

It is not my intention to say that everything is Islam's fault. Obviously, Islam learned its "imperial expansionism" from the Romans. Nevertheless, Islamic imperialist expansionism is one of the main factors of the Crusades and must be mentioned. --Haldrik 14:35, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"The fault of the Islam religion."

  • I live in a democracy, and I have the right to critique a religion if I feel like it! Nothing personal.
  • Americans can and do critique Christianity and Judaism, and Islam is ripe for some critiquing too.
  • Like any other ideologies, religions are vulnerable to human limitations (and worse) and can be ... and MUST BE ... prevented from becoming abusive.
  • To refuse to let Islam take any responsibility for its own actions is wrong-headed.

--Haldrik 14:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Fear of Islamic expansion as a cause of the crusades is a very old idea - even William of Tyre made the connection in the 12th century, and his history begins with the rise of Islam. Did he really think that was the cause, or was it a rhetorical device? We are not even sure that Jerusalem was Urban II's intended target in 1095; it sounds like you are completely unfamiliar with the immediate, 11th century cause, or with the organization of the Islamic world at the time. I agree that your argument has some merit, but I don't think anyone is going to let you hijack this article for your crazy anti-Islam ranting. Adam Bishop 16:24, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

"Fear of Islamic expansion as a cause of the crusades is a very old idea - even William of Tyre made the connection in the 12th century." All the more reason, Islamic imperial expansionism must be mentioned. --Haldrik 16:34, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
But not as a simple fact and not in the opening line, which can quite suitably remain neutral about any theories of causation. Islamic expansion as one of the factors in the historical background is already treated adequately further below in the text. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The whole premise of some of the above arguments is fraudulent. There are intellectual somersaults to force that "Islamic imperialism" isnt "imperialism". And "Islamic colonies" arent "colonies". And doubtless! - if this debate were about so-called "American imperialism" these somersaults would suddenly reverse in mid-air to argue that "American imperialism" really is "imperialism". And "American colonies" (eg. in Africa) really are "colonies". The whole intellectual process is disgusting.

Your mind reader is still out of order. --Stephan Schulz 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

The so-called "historical research" has devolved into a silly infomercial for Islam. --Haldrik 16:43, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Is it apparent to everyone else that this discussion has nothing to do with the crusades? Yes? Good. Adam Bishop 16:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The complaint is that the committed-ideology to "sanitize" Islamic history is distorting and even erasing a neutral multi-view of the crusades. This "sanitization" is disgusting. And intellectually dishonest. And no one would put up with this crap in a REAL academic field that didnt involve Islam. --Haldrik 16:54, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Okay, you've made your point, now go away, do your homework and come back when you've actually read some of the scholarly literature about the crusades. Like people in a REAL academic field would. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:59, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If you say, Islamic imperialist expansionism isnt a factor in the crusades, you are a liar. --Haldrik 17:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If Wikipedia pretended there was a unanimous consensus in the scholarly literature that ascribed the crusades to "Islamic imperialist expansionism", Wikipedia would be lying. Debate over. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:13, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia doesnt pretend that there is such thing as a unanimous consensus. The opposite. It REQUIRES all notable views of a subject matter to be included. At least up to this point, the actions to "protect" Islam from criticism by erasing other voices violates Wikipedia policy. --Haldrik 17:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Except that we do not protect Islam from criticism, but history from falsification.--Stephan Schulz 18:18, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Islam was expansionist. Europe feared it. When Islam expanded into Jerusalem, that was Europe's 9/11, and it flung Europe into war. Islamic imperialist expansionism is a main factor in the crusades. It must be mentioned. --Haldrik 18:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps I was deseived by the Marxists, for I attended a Soviet school, but I always thought Jerusalem is located in Asia. ... And, how many centuries passed since Jerusalem was lost to Arabs before the first Crusade? How in hell that loss "flung Europe into war"? —Barbatus 18:47, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Only about 450 years or 15 generations. --Stephan Schulz 18:49, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
My point exactly. It means that the Holy City had been in Moslem hands longer than it was part of any Christian empire by the time of the first Crusade. —Barbatus 19:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
"In 1009, the Fatimid caliph al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah had sacked the pilgrimage hospice in Jerusalem and destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre." (Those in the name of) Islam destroyed Christianity's holiest site on earth. --Haldrik 18:58, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Just what exactly are you trying to prove? Should we list Christian churches destroyed by the Christians (like in Constantinople in 1204)? If you're trying to prove that Islam is worse than Christianity, it's futile, from my point of view. Both have long bloody history. —Barbatus 19:10, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It is intellectually dishonest to hold Christianity or any other ideology up to scrutiny, and not hold Islam up to scrutiny. --Haldrik 19:39, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well, now we are down to 100 years, or three generations. I can see pagan Dane Wulf Headcleaver tell his son Erik about what he heard as a small child, with Erik then moving to the British Danelaw, converting in 1066, and telling his son to work up a real good anger at the infidels, so that he can partake in a crusade when he is grown up. Moreover, that destruction was more than 300 years after Jerusalem had fallen in the first wave of Islamic expansion. And the church had been rebuild 50 years or so before the first crusade...--Stephan Schulz 19:12, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Christianity's holiest site on earth "was later rebuilt by the Byzantine emperor, but this event" of its destruction "may have been remembered in Europe and may have helped spark the crusade." No doubt.
Moreover, "the immediate cause of the ... Crusade was ... Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire." Not only is Islamic imperialist expansionism (the territorial advances of the Islamic Empire or Caliphate) a main factor of the Crusades, it is the main factor of the crusades. "In 1071, at the Battle of Manzikert, the Byzantine Empire had been defeated" by the Islamic Empire, "and this defeat led to the loss of all but the coastlands of Asia Minor (modern Turkey)", being obsorbed into the Islamic imperialist expansionism. --Haldrik 19:36, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Curious ... whom are you citing here? What historian uses something like "Islamic empire," I wonder? —Barbatus 19:44, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The term Islamic Empires corresponds to Caliphates, as you well know. It is appropriate when describing Islamic among other empires in the region. --Haldrik 19:56, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
No I do not. In what academic works is it used like that? —Barbatus 20:00, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
A Google of the phrase "Islamic Empire" gets 249,000 hits. --Haldrik 20:02, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
With all respect to Google, it is not an academic work. —Barbatus 20:05, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
If there was an Islamic Empire, it is not used to refer to that of the Seljuk Turks, but to the early caliphate, from Umar through the early Abbasids. john k 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
The term Seljuk Empire is used here in Wikipedia in the normal and appropriate context in the Empire article. --Haldrik 02:09, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Guys, guys, guys, don't you know it started when the Phoenicians stole Io from Argos and took her to Egypt? It's right there in Herodotus. Conclusion: Asia's fault.

Uhu ... or was it Jupiter who stole Europe from Asia, who started all this? —Barbatus 20:29, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
According to Herodot yes, but he does not write about the Crusades but about the Persian War. Str1977 (smile back) 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
It was, per Herodotus, Cretan pirates who stole Europa from Asia, as I recall. Since Europa was, however, a descendant of Io, it must have been the Asians who started it. And of course the Crusades are just a continuation of that same constant struggle between east and west. I suggest we discuss these issues in considerable depth at the beginning of the article. john k 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Even if "Islamic Empire" might not be a proper term, the gist of Haldrik's post is correct. Even if there is no Islamic Empire as such (and the Caliphate was already on the wane), the fact of Islamic expansionism and, if you will, imperialism is undisputable. Islam conquered the Middle East in the 7th century (and quite frankly, for the issue whether the crusades were justified the length of Muslim domination is of secondary nature at best, but I digress). Hakim destroyed the Holy Sepulchre in 1009 but it was later rebuilt under the auspices of the Eastern Emperor in agreement with Hakim's successor Caliphs. However, in the 1090s a new power, the Seljuks took Jerusalem from the Egyptian Caliphs the status quo was shaken again. Thoughts like "if civilized Egyptians could do this, what will come off these Eastern hordes" are not that unreasonable, especially in the light of actual Seljuk infractions, even if these were later exagerated. Plus, the Seljuks had defeated the Emperor at Manzikert and threatened the Empire, which led to the Emperor asking for Western help (already under Pope Gregory). Str1977 (smile back) 21:17, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

All very reasonable, Str, but that's not what Haldrik's really about. What Haldrik is about is attacking Muslims. Certainly the role of recent Seljuk aggressions, and of Hakim's destruction of the Holy Sepulchre, in the origins of the Crusades, are worth discussing in the article. So are issues of internal European politics, like the Pope's and the Kings' desire to decrease the constant feudal warfare in the west, and so forth, and such like. I don't see what any of that has to do with Haldrik, who's using this article to argue about contemporary politics, and does not appear to be the slightest bit interested in having a balanced discussion of causes. john k 21:57, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
Well said. Thank you, John! —Barbatus 22:09, 28 August 2006 (UTC)
John Kenney is dead wrong when he says: "What Haldrik is about is attacking Muslims." Rather: What Haldrik is about is ensuring a "balanced discussion of causes". --Haldrik 00:34, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Or perhaps a "fair and balanced" discussion of causes? john k 00:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
I just want intellectual honesty. --Haldrik 01:00, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
What on earth does intellectual honesty have to do with calling the rise of Islam "the 9/11 of Europe"?? How can one rationally debate isues when you put them in such patently ridiculous and inflammatory ways? john k 01:25, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
Because some editors were questioning that the fear of Islamic aggression was a real cause of Medieval Christian Europeans going to war, I mentioned that as an example that many people could relate to, that such fear indeed is a real motive for going to war. --Haldrik 01:30, 29 August 2006 (UTC)
John, that is not how I took Haldrik's post I read above (I only read this subsection before posting, and the upper subsection only later, but that didn't change my impression):
I cannot look into his head and find out "why" he writes what he writes (WP:AGF) and so I content myself with the gist of his argument and that seems to me valid - that the Crusades were a response to Islamic expansionism, especially against its latest wave led by the Seljuks.
Yes, Haldrik often did not mince his words and he used somewhat problematic analogies (9/11) or wordings and unnecessary narrowing of the issue (e.g. the Marxists mentioned). However, there has also been personal attacks against him.
And much too often this debate here is drawn into side issues, e.g. Haldrik says "Manzikert was 9/11" and people are debating that (indeed problematic) analogy as if this was the entire issue and as if he wanted to included this into the article. No doubt, Haldrik bears his fair share of the blame for tempers flaring up but can we now cool down (all of us) and actually address the issue. Thanks. Str1977 (smile back) 06:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crusade or Crusades?

This page really ought to be at Crusades. It is about the history of the Crusades, not the concept of a crusade (which would really be an issue for a dictionary. john k 20:22, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Larry Sanger made the same comment four years ago, and no one has ever bothered to move it :) Adam Bishop 20:25, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I agree this should be moved to Crusades. The concept of crusade, though, scores of books and articles devoted to it, and certainly merits a wiki article; this may or may not be satisfactorily covered at Religious war (which IMHO would be better as Holy War). Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 23:14, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

I would also be inclined support such a move. However, it would likely be somewhat confusing for the casual reader. This whole subject is a veritable minefield, as can be seen in the above exchanges between people of very strongly held views. Moreover, the subject is huge and cannot be fully dealt with here; this article can only really be a gateway into the subject and at the moment does a reasonable job.--M.J.Stanham 23:27, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Why can't we write about the abstract concept here, along with the historical events? That's the way it is now (although admittedly not very well done). Adam Bishop 23:45, 28 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah we can't have separate articles "Crusade" and "Crusades", it would be a disambiguation problem, many people use those terms interchangeably, "main articles" can branch off if needed. As for the singular versus plural, it's half a dozen one way, six the other - you can find MoS rules and logic arguments that support each position - as soon as you change it to one, someone else will say the other. IMO we should be pragmatic and choose the name of least resistance based on "What links here" - choose the name that is most popular. -- Stbalbach 00:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

What links here is bound to be somewhat prejudiced in favor of whatever the current page is. But this article really is clearly about the Crusades, and the rule that all titles should have to be singular was based on things like Elephant and Aardvark, not on things like this. But it's not incredibly important. Is there anyone who actually prefers the singular, all things being equal (i.e. is there anyone who, assuming that there were no article on the Crusades, would wish to start one at the location Crusade)? john k 00:44, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the current article ought to be divided so that it begins with a discussion of 'crusade' before proceeding to individual 'crusades' . I expect that as this article grows each individual crusade will eventually require its own page anyway (probably including unnumbered ones), which could be linked from here. I was quite surprised that there was no article entitled The First Crusade. The end result would be that this article would be about 'crusade', rather than 'crusades.' In my opinion, a desirable outcome, but a lot of work.--M.J.Stanham 13:31, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Are you aware of First Crusade (no "The")?--Stephan Schulz 15:33, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Oh dear, I must have been half asleep not to notice that embedded in the article itself. I thought it was pretty strange. Thinking too much, sleeping too little. Sorry. --M.J.Stanham 15:42, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Why is this even controversial? The Crusades are the Crusades. No-one refers to "the Crusades" as "Crusade". If anything, "Crusade" should be a redirect to Religious war. Even the text of the article says "Crusades". The current name seems to have been merely a mistake Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:37, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's not controversial, but the idea of 'crusade' and the history of the 'crusades' are distinct.--M.J.Stanham 15:57, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree. That's why I said "If anything, "Crusade" should be a redirect to Religious war". The article we have here is about the Crusades, not the idea of holy war or the particular concept of christian holy war, although obviously that has a place in the article. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 15:45, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It's a disambiguation problem, people refer to the Crusades and Crusade interchangeably meaning the same thing. The other pragmatic concern is that if this article is renamed, someone will need to go through the What links here and resolve all the redirects which looks like 3 or 4 hours of hard word, or a bot will need to be created. -- Stbalbach 16:07, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

Better now than later. It will have to be done at some point. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

I would say 'crusade' remains preferable as long as this article discusses 'crusade', provides an overview of 'the crusades' and functions as a gateway to articles about individual crusades. I would like to see more emphasis on the former aspect, though. --M.J.Stanham 16:28, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

It says at the top of the article "This article is about the medieval crusades. For other uses, see Crusade (disambiguation)." Do we need a new article of the Crusades then? Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 16:32, 29 August 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

Crusade → Crusades – Obvious move. The topic of the article is the Crusades, it already says at the top of the article "This article is about the medieval crusades. For other uses, see Crusade (disambiguation)," yet for some strange reason is entitled "Crusade".

The request succeeded. --Dijxtra 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

  • Support, as mover. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Weak oppose Support. Who is going to clean up the redirections, there are over 1000<?> I believe, needs a bot to be created or enlisted before the move can be done. See note below. -- Stbalbach 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
    • There are only seven redirects to this page (see here). This should not be a prime concern. For the other page, any user with AWB can take care of this, and if not bots. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, as the article is not about the abstract notion of "a crusade", but about "the Crusades". Also noting that (as Stbalbach found out correctly) the links to redirects aren't a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. ...and wonder why it took so long to see the obvious... My only concern would be the redirections... but since AdamBishop said he will deal with it, it's ok. --Hectorian 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. The redirections can be quickly fixed if they are only seven. Str1977 (smile back) 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support. As I said above. The issue of pages directly linking to another page is not a big deal. john k 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Support, if weakly. It's a bit better and a bit work... --Stephan Schulz 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • I support the suggestion. Passer-by 21:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Discussion

  • Stbalbach, there are actually only seven redirects; by some herculean effort I think I will be able to overcome that workload :) Adam Bishop 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
I mean Crusade->Crusades. The majority of links use "Crusade". Yeah the 7 double redirects are no problem. -- Stbalbach 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
(edit conflict, partially obsolete (but if I wrote it, you better read it! ;-)) Adam, I trust you will (but don't overdo it, take one per hour ;-), but I suspect he (or she?) is concerned about the links that will point to the redirect that will be newly created. I don't think this is a very strong argument, but it is something to consider.--Stephan Schulz 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • Ok, I found this page which seems to suggest it doesn't matter. I also posted a question here - I'll wait a day or so, if there is no new info I will strike my oppose and change to support. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
Right, that's what I meant, sorry...fixing the redirect links will make everything work properly. I'm sure someone will go through every article someday and fix all the redirects there too, but we don't have to do that. Adam Bishop 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
About the redirects in Byzantine Empire and Greece related articles, i can fix them myself (in a somewhat slow procedure), don't worry 'bout that. --Hectorian 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
Don't even do that. Only the redirect pages themselves need changing. As was quoted earlier, Wp:redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Historical Background" versus "Historical Context"

Could somebody please explain the difference? Or, to put it differently, what is the background of this distinction in the context of our article? ... Thank you very much! —Barbatus 20:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Crusader knights battledress

Is there an article (or would it be a good idea to have one) about the actual arms and armour/battledress/warriors of the crusades?... i.e. an article that encompasses the motivations, nationalities, known names and figures, styles and developement of arms and armour, depictions in art, of crusader warriors (from both Christian and Muslim worlds).

I've come to wikipedia to research this period of warfare in terms of the above, in an effort to decode the uniform as seen say here and here, but have found very little.

Whilst pages like Knight, Armour and Great helm exist, there's nothing really of a serious academic nature addressing the battledress or look of crusader knights, neither here or it seems, the wider internet. 86.133.72.79 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Criticisms" section

Regarding the following section titled Criticisms moved here from the article:

As with many events of the Middle Ages, the two sides in the Crusades tell very different stories. Whilst the standard Western legend speaks of heroism and honour, the Eastern (Islamic and Orthodox Christian) chroniclers tell stories of barbarian savagery and brutality[1]. Some observers feel that these contemporary Eastern perspectives are rarely discussed in standard Western textbooks on the subject, perhaps because stories of cannibalism, rape and massacres by the Crusader forces are not well received by today's Catholic community [2]. However, many atrocities remain vivid in the modern Arab and Islamic psyche. The suggestion that these have been overlooked by Western historians (eager to justify their ancestors' endeavours) is suggested as underpinning Islamic resentment of the West today. [3]. On the other hand stories of brutality by Muslims are not found in Arab accounts of the Crusades, nor are the Crusades juxtaposed with Muslim attacks on Christian lands to which the Crusades responded.
The standard Western interpretation of the Crusades often neglects to discuss the Arab perception of the Crusader forces as barbarians. That is, they were seen to have come from an inferior civilization and were viewed as comparatively brutal and dishonourable in their conduct. The Arab view is linked to the fact that the Crusades occured during the "Islamic Golden Age" (750-1200), which Arab historians, and to an extent many western historians, hypothesise as a Muslim period of particular wealth and enlightenment, although some scholars disagree with this hypothesis. At the same time, the pre-Renaissance Europe of the High Middle Ages was just beginning to recover from its (hypothesised) 700-year cultural stagnation following the fall of the Roman Empire[4].

This reads like original research. Yes there are footnotes, but it strings together various sources and facts to arrive at conclusions cherry picking facts. It's not clear what this section is about - "criticisms" can mean just about anything. Are we presenting the different POV's from leading academics? It makes a lot of generalizations. "Some observers feel" .. "The Arab view" .. "The suggestion .. is suggested" etc.. it reads like an essay. -- Stbalbach 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach, the section is attempting to achieve a number of points, which admittedly it may not be achieving in its current form, and attempts to highlight the fact that these viewpoints, while widely held in the Islamic world, are rarely discussed in standard Western literature:

1) It attempts to address the fact that 95% of the article is written from the European/Catholic POV and gives very limited and a misleadingly watered-down viewpoint on the effects of the Crusades on the Islamic and Orthodox worlds;
2) it attempts to highlight the Arab view that the Islamic world was a significantly more advanced civilisation than Christendom at the time (relevant as this contradicts the standard Western understanding)
3) it attempts to highlight the atrocities commited by the Crusaders, often omitted from Western history books
4) it attempts to highlight probably the most currently-relevant aspect of the Crusades - that whilst the West remembers the Crusaders as heroes, the Arabs remember them as barbaric mercenaries, who brought only evil and hatred. (As an aside, the Arabs remember the Crusades as a wholly unjustified invasion of their land, whilst the article in its current form attempts to justify the Crusades based on the actions of the Fatimids almost 100 years before and the encroachment of the Seljuks on Constantinople - this is of course the Western view and the article contains no balancing arguements.)

You may not appreciate the style or the structure, but you should read Maalouf and Gabrieli before you claim that this is "original research".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.133.110.12 (talk • contribs) .

Well, please don't take it personally. First some of these various POV's are already discussed in the article and have their own section. It is taking various POVs from authors and stringing them together to form a thesis - which is original research. If we present the view of Francesco Gabrieli, than what about other views that don't agree with him? I could find counter-views to just about everything said here. What's the "standard western interpretation"? I've read many histories of the crusades and they don't all agree with this "standard" - whose standard is this, who set the standard? It's almost like a straw-man, saying there is a standard western and Muslim view (without saying what it is), and then tearing it down with more up to date revisionist views that are presented as correct with no counter-view. These are all generalizations. Why can't we name names and various peoples points of views? Basically what this would need to become is a historiography of the Crusades, showing how historians views of the Crusades have changed over time - on an academic level. Then on a popular culture level, that would be another discussion entirely. This is a known weakness in the current article and there have been discussions in the past about writing a separate Crusades historiography article; but a few paragraphs with the mention of only a couple historians and broad generalizations and definitive answers to a controversial subject violates original research and NPOV rules. -- Stbalbach 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any real basis to say that, at present, the Crusades are viewed at all positively in the West, either in popular culture or in the scholarly community? It seems to me that the general view of the Crusades is, by any measure, pretty strongly negative, and has been for a long time now. john k 16:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush, in his heart-of-hearts, seems to think pretty fondly of them:
http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html
...On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." ...
Atlant 16:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the reference to "textbooks" and "standard Western literature" could be changed to "Western school history textbooks", which are nationalistic by definition and seek to whitewash any of the dishonor in relation to the Crusades. This is not dissimilar to the Japanese history textbook controversies, but less sensitive due to the passage of time (see [5]; [6]; [7]; or perhaps the following excepts from Text_book:

Selectively retelling history, through textbooks or other literature, has been practiced in many societies, from ancient Rome to the Soviet Union. History textbooks are not subjected to review by professional academics, nor can authorship of a high school textbook be used to advance an academic toward tenure at a university. The content of history textbooks thus lies entirely outside the academic forum of fact and social science and is instead determined by the political forces of state adoption boards and ideological pressure groups.

To dispel any uncertainty, please see attached a selection of links to textbooks which whitewash the atrocities / barbaric nature of the Crusades [8];[9];[10]. Can anyone provide links to Western school textbooks which do highlight any of points 2) to 4) above? 12.47.208.34 10:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For all who have any interest in this topic, the attached article is excellent (from the National Catholic Reporter[11]. A few excerpts are below which back up points 2) to 4). Perhaps the Criticisms section should be rewritten to reflect these more refined viewpoints:

Madden: In the West there are two popular perceptions, one born in the 18th century and the other in the 19th. The first, which gained currency during the Enlightenment, was that the Crusades were a series of unnecessary wars in which a barbaric people steeped in ignorance and superstition attacked a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a black mark on the history of Western civilization in general and the Catholic church in particular. This view is still very popular, although it is usually glossed with the assertion that the Crusades were a form of proto-colonialism -- the West’s first attempt to subjugate the world. The other popular perception grew out of 19th-century Romanticism. This view sees the Crusades as noble wars led by larger-than-life men motivated by honor and chivalry. Religion and the church are usually airbrushed out of this perception, leaving behind only courageous and selfless knights fighting for righteousness in far-away lands. This perception was particularly popular among colonial powers in the 19th century, but it has waned in the 20th and 21st centuries. Still, it hangs on. Run a Nexis search and see how often the word “crusade” is used to mean a noble and praiseworthy pursuit and “crusader” is used to mean a selfless and courageous individual.
Hillenbrand: The Crusades are a Western Christian phenomenon with their roots in medieval Europe. From the outset, it was predominantly Western Christian chroniclers who wrote about them. Nowadays the weight of Western scholarship about many aspects of the Crusades is positively awesome -- thousands of books and tens of thousands of articles. Not so in the Muslim world. Not a single separate account of the Crusades written by a Muslim has survived. There is abundant information about the events of the Crusades in medieval Muslim historiography, but it has to be searched for amid a welter of other accounts predominantly concerned with the dynastic history of the Islamic world itself. Medieval Muslim writers do indeed mention the coming of the Crusaders, but they evince little curiosity as to why they came. Until recently, Muslim historians have not tended to interest themselves in the Crusades. Wherever possible, Western specialists on the Crusades use medieval Muslim sources, but, as so few of them know Arabic, they have to rely on the small number of these texts that have been translated into Western languages. It is this problem of language that has kept the two sides in their separate boxes.
Madden: Medieval Europe in the 11th century was still picking up the pieces from its numerous invasions. In comparison to the Muslim world, be it Syria, Egypt, Spain or elsewhere, medieval Europe was poor, backward, weak and chaotic. More important, it was getting smaller, while Islam and its many kingdoms continued to grow.

12.47.208.34 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To my mind it is absurd to say that the standard Western literature ignores the "barbarity", both culturally and militarily, of the Crusaders when the two most influential writers (in English, which is what is usually meant by Western in Wikipedia), namely Gibbon & Runciman, have strong prejudices against the Crusaders and are constantly mentioning their failing in this area with relish.

It seems that Islamic writers of the later Middle Ages did not dwell on the Crusades too much & were naturally much more concerned with the Mongol invasions, which had a far more devastating impact on the Islamic world. Johnbod 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] original research

I've added a number of Original Research tags to two sections - these sections take select quotes from select sources (some of them very weak) and leap to broad definitive conclusions that are POV and unbalanced. I plan on editing these sections for OR and verifiable sources sometime in the future, for now I have put up a warning tags as a stop-gap measure in the hopes the editor will make some improvements. -- Stbalbach 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach, I agree with you approach - I do not feel it is appropriate for me to edit the Criticisms section further myself as I am new to editing wikipedia and therefore unsure how to rewrite in a way that would correlate with your view of NPOV. I can see from reading above that there are a number of people in the past who have tried to politicise the article - i.e. apportion blame to one side or another. I would like to rewrite the article, but given my lack of reputation I think that it would be immediately reverted and I would have wasted my time. For what it's worth, I think there are a couple of other sections in the article which are related to those which you tagged:

1.2 / 3.3 - these give very limited detail;
6 - this only gives a limited number of POVs, rather than a balanced overview. Some of this would probably be better off in a section called "Crusades in Popular Culture"

I am happy to work on any of these sections, but obviously have become a little averse to adding any value as my work just gets deleted / tagged (as per the previous section) 84.12.192.199 11:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest before taking on a project of re-writing this article, which will require the co-operation of a lot of people since this article is very popular and a lot of people have invested a lot of time into it, establish a user account on Wikipedia with a user profile about yourself and work on creating a reputation as an editor on a number of other articles. Maybe work on other Middle Ages articles, there is a Middle Ages group see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages -- Stbalbach 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am copying the following discussion onto this talk page from user:Stbalbach's talk page the for the convenience of our other contributors...

Hello!

I see that you have added some original research tags to Crusades. Thankyou for your contributions. I would be grateful if you could give further information on the crusades talk page.

You write: "I've added a number of Original Research tags to two sections - these sections take select quotes from select sources (some of them very weak) and leap to broad definitive conclusions that are POV and unbalanced".

Your statement seems entirely reasonable in principle. Unfortunately I am unable to understand to what excactly you are refering. I would be grateful if you could be more specific as to exactly which quotes you consider "select" and "weak"; and which "broad definitive" and "unbalanced" conclusions are leapt to.

Thankyou!

81.103.144.108 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)


Yes, I can do that with fact and balance tags, it may be sporadic over the next week or so when I can focus on it. The Crusades have always been seen from two views, there is no single "traditional" view, it's always been a word mixed with the horrors of violence and blood with the honor of triumph of God and country - there has never been a single take on it. So what I see in those sections is a strawman by saying there is a single traditional view, and original research to use the 19th C catholic encyclopedia to "prove" it. -- Stbalbach 17:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)


Thankyou for you comments! I am sorry I was not signed in for my last comment.

You are right, obviously we should put in different points of view. The Catholic Encylopedia (which is incidently 20th Century) is a completely acceptable source used in many articles, but should be put alongside other sources.

Personally I would say that there is a single traditional catholic point of view, but is you wish to say it is just one of the catholic viewpoints, that seems acceptable.

My main concern is that those arguments with which you (presumably) disagree be placed alongside competing arguments, to give readers an overview of different viewpoints, rather than being deleted. If you feel the phrasing of the article overstates the points of view presented, a rephrasing would of course be appropriate.

Incidentally I will move this discussion onto the Crusades talk page for the convenience of our other contributors.

N-edits 13:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

N-edits 13:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)


Stbalbach, I am still not entirely sure what the O.R. / unverified tags are for in the following sections:

  • Western vs. Eastern Interpretation
  • Wider geo-political effects

It seems to me that everything in those two sections is verifiable, if the [citation needed] tags are placed then citations can be found. In addition the information seems to me to be reasonably presented. Perhaps you could glance at these sections again? If you are sure you see a problem then we can certainly discuss these sections here. N-edits 13:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Granted, the following comment did make me chuckle.

'Fifth Crusade

(...) compelled them to choose between surrender and destruction. The people then pooped all the way home.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusades&diff=78344620&oldid=78308355

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=71.201.155.231

Can someone look into this? I'm not familiar with wikipedia procedure. Heck, I don't even know the proper way to report this.

Thanks!

[edit] East vs West section

I have added back the East vs West interpretation. This is clearly an important topic for anyone attempting to understand the Crusades. Whilst it requires some work to reach Wikipedia standards, deleting the whole section seems like laziness. This comment is for both 61.68.128.38 and Stbalbach (who removed the section previously) - unless you think the topic is not worthy of the article, if you have such strong views then it would be great if you could channel your energy contructively rather than destructively. I thought Wikipedia was all about iteration...12.47.208.34 12:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Western vs. Eastern interpretation

I've made some additions and removals from this section. I will address the removals:

  1. The presupposition that the Western view is positive, and the eastern view is negative, and thus there is a fault-line between "east" and "west" and the two don't mix - is wrong. The term crusade has always been contradictory and there has always been debate in the west about it, there is no "standard" view. There are only specific views - the Catholic Church, the secular humanists, popular culture, etc.. you have to speak specifically on whose view, and when those views are being expressed, for it to make any sense. The Catholic view in 1908 (really the 19th C view) is different from the Catholic view in 2006. The Enlightenment secular humanist view was certainly different from the Catholic Reformation view which was different from the Italian Humanists view -- but the idea of barbarism has always been a part of western discourse.
  2. The generalization that textbooks don't discuss the barbarism of the crusades is wrong - you can find some, but you can find some that do also. This is a strawman, and largely incorrect today.
  3. The notion that the atrocities of the crusades have been overlooked by western historians is wrong. I included a quote by Runciman but could find others, no modern historian of the crusades does not express moral outrage at the barbarism and hypocrisy of the Holy War (even the Pope has weighed in on it).

-- Stbalbach 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are, Stbalbach, of course right in pointing out and rectifying the problem you describe above. However, I am afraid, a whole set of problems still remain:

  • To say that war flat out contradicts Christianity is at least a very questionable statement, given a quite developed theology on such issues, including the theory of just war. Bringing in the "holy war" epithet, that can mean thousand different things, doesn't help in this.
  • Some modern historians have expressed outrage, but that's neither a position held/uttered by all historians nor is it the historian's job to express moral outrage. Historians will much rather see events in their historical context. I don't think it proper to end this on a highly problematic statement (talking about the latter part of his quote) even by an authority as respected as Runciman.
  • The former text said that "The standard Western interpretation of the Crusades often neglects to discuss the Arab perception of the Crusader forces as barbarians". That was not only onesided but outright wrong, as the standard Western interpretation, maybe not scholarly research but the popular views, very much echo this notion of Western barbarians, as onesided as might be. Unfortunately much of this remains in the last paragraph, which I hereby move over from the article.
    The Arab view of barbarism is in part supported by the contrast that the Crusades occured during the "Islamic Golden Age" (750–1200), which Arab historians saw as a Muslim period of particular wealth and enlightenment, although some scholars disagree with this hypothesis. At the same time, the pre-Renaissance Europe of the High Middle Ages was just beginning to recover from its (hypothesised) 700-year cultural stagnation following the fall of the Roman Empire[12].
    This frankly endorsed a variation of jingoism and a formal statement that some disagree doesn't help, especially when it is immediately followed by another onesided, highly questionable statement about alleged stagnation. I wonder which civilisation was really stagnant and which one was dynamic: the one that ostraciued Averroes or the one that critically embraced his writings.

Str1977 (smile back) 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach, to address your points in order:

  • 1) I do not agree with your assertion that crusade is seen equally as much to mean "a valiant struggle for a supreme cause" and as a byword for barbarism and aggression. Look for example at any online dictionary definition (try dictionary.com for instance). On your other point, I agree that there are many diverse viewpoints on the crusades. If this article is to have real value, we must try to express as many of these as possible and work against those who try to delete or hide any negative commentary.
  • 2) I disagree with your point on textbooks. Clearly I have a better knowledge of UK textbooks, but I can tell you that the Crusades are taught here in schools with great pride in the "heroes of the conquest". It would be a rare teacher to dare to explain that things were actually a little more complicated than that. And, to the great detriment of current international relations, what child in the West learns that the Muslim world was more civilised/sophisticated than Western Europe at the time. Like it or not, school history is nationalistic by definition. In my view (which of course you are entitled to disagree with), it is worth highlighting this in the article since most Western children grow up with a distorted view of the crusades.
  • 3) This was never the point being made in the paragraph - the intended point is as per 2) above.

Str1977, to address your third point: As per the above, removing that paragraph serves only to hide the other side of the coin. You may not agree with the views stated, but this is clearly labelled the Arab view - it reduces the value of the article to remove one whole viewpoint. It is clear from the rest of your statement that you are not as well rounded in this subject as you would like to think - you unfortunately fell in to the trap of making your own "jingoistic and onesided, highly questionable statement": I wonder which civilisation was really stagnant and which one was dynamic: the one that ostraciued Averroes or the one that critically embraced his writings...

  • A) you discuss Averroes without any real knowledge - he was and is lauded within the Muslim world, and was banished temporarily by the Mullahs of Cordoba despite support from the Almohad Caliph at the time. His most controversial work, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, is viewed no differentely in the Muslim world than the works of Darwin and Copernicus are in the Christian world (i.e. only the strictest take issue with it);
  • B) On this same point, i would love to hear your views on why the treatment of Averroes was any different to the Catholic treatment of William of Ockham, a man you claim on your talksite to dislike;
  • C) Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, Avicenna and other 12th century philosophers are prime examples of why is is generally accepted that the Muslim world was culturally advanced compared to Europe at the time. Correct me if I am wrong, but at the time there had been no Christian writers of similar stature since the 5th century (i.e. Augustine of Hippo), and the next great Christian writers, Aquinas and Dante, took their inspirations from Averroes and Ibn Arabi respectively

84.12.177.96 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I reverted some legitimate edits, but it did seem like a series of attacks. I'm sure you can restore whatever is legitimate.—Barbatus 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
Let me respond, 84, even though I am "without any real knowledge" and you "Clearly ... have a better knowledge".
It is bordering on the surreal to claim that in western schools (in the present, we are not talking about the colonial age) the crusades are portrayed as an heroic effort. Reality is (unfortunately in my view) quite the opposite. Runciman is still the pinnacle of crusades historiography and that he can give such a in my book oneside statement about "nothing more" is telling you one thing, that the west is in principle not well disposed towards the crusades.
You said. "removing that paragraph serves only to hide the other side of the coin", but I did not remove the paragraph permanently but moved it over here so that we can look for a way to include this without having WP taking sides.
I don't think I fell into a jingoistic onesided statement but even if I did, for the sake of raising awareness of the issue, I didn't try to include it into the article as fact.
The thing about Averroes and William misses the important thing. Yes, Christendom condemned heretics as well, and William is among them (my view of him is irrelevant here), but despite all conflicts, there was debate and a critical examination. Yes, two great minds were both condemned as heretics by their respective communities, but in the Islamic context this practically happened all the time.
And yes, the myth of superior Islamic civilization is what I called jingoistic. That it is immensly popular in the West as well, doesn't change this. The fact is that Islam conquered an already advanced area, while Western Christianity existed in a backwater spot wrecked by the migrations.
Another thing you miss is that Western civilisation was open for influx from "Islamic" sources, while the Islamic world even at large rejected the finest they had to offer. Str1977 (smile back) 09:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
What again is the history of the Almagest? It doesn't exactly look like they rejected the "finest", although I'm not aware of a significant flow from "backwater, wrecked by the migrations" (not that I disagree) Western Europe. You have a point: Islamic civilization probably was not superior because it was islamic, but at least in part because it overlaid and united a complex mix, including some of the most advanced areas of Earth. But that does not mean that it was not one of the great civilizations, even compared to most of Europe at the time. --Stephan Schulz 11:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
To clear up an apparent misunderstanding, Stephan, let me state that "the finest" I was talking about are not influx from the West but explicitely people like Averroes and the like, that are often cited as examples for "Islamic superiority" but did get nowhere in the Islamic world, whereas things were quite different in the West, regarding both Islamic as well as "native" thinkers. Str1977 (smile back) 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon user (I don't know how to address you, you don't have a name nor seem to have any desire to participate in Wikipedia by getting one). Your comments and edits are editorial soapboxing from your personal perspective. Your complaining that some textbooks in some places in the UK don't give both sides of the story, and therefore you feel the need to show how it really is on Wikipedia. I appreciate your wish to set the record straight. Wikipedia is not the place for such activity. We don't tell the world how things should be, we don't re-write the history books on how we think they should be. We simply report on how things are based on what the rest of the world says (from reliable sources). The world portrays the crusades in any number of ways, and we report on that here. Sometimes it is portrayed as heroic. Sometimes it is portrayed as barbaric. Sometimes both. In most modern texts there is no bias towards the heroic, in fact by Runciman as early as the 1950s (for which he was knighted by the Queen) he portrayed the crusades to be barbaric. Popular culture sometimes shows it to be heroic. But this is an encyclopedia and we use academic sources (we have a separate section for crusades in popular culture). I honestly believe your personal perspective about the crusades has been tainted by some unfortunate sources, and I might recommend you read some of the better quality ones this article lists in the bibliography section. -- Stbalbach 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I stuck the following in some way above just now, but since I now see the bone is being chewed again here:

To my mind it is absurd to say that the standard Western literature ignores the "barbarity", both culturally and militarily, of the Crusaders when the two most influential writers (in English, which is what is usually meant by Western in Wikipedia), namely Gibbon & Runciman, have strong prejudices against the Crusaders and are constantly mentioning their failing in this area with relish.

It seems that Islamic writers of the later Middle Ages did not dwell on the Crusades too much & were naturally much more concerned with the Mongol invasions, which had a far more devastating impact on the Islamic world. Johnbod 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Johnbod 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

How many both Christians & the other citizens who lived in, around & near the holy land? I'm curious about this. More than the casualties than the amount of casualties in WW2?User:Pic Business

See the previous discussion of this topic on this page. The question is hard to answer - even the 9 main crusades spread out over 180 years. Most people who died during the crusades would have died anyways. Others have not been born because their parents were killed - do they count? And historical reports are extremely unreliable with respect to numbers and casualties. However, in absolute numbers I suspect that far fewer people than the 60 million usually given for WWII were killed due to the crusades. The current total population of the area is less than that. But comparing a modern, high intensity war with a medieval century-long conflict is rather moot.--Stephan Schulz 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's ALOT. More than the casualties in WW2.User:Pic Business

Actually, I said "far fewer people than the 60 million usually given for WWII were killed due to the crusades."--Stephan Schulz 06:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For me, I think about the same amount as the Black Death which is 25 million people died in the Black Death & I think 25 million people died in the Crusades as well.User:Axe Ghost

Get a grip, people!! The largest army the Crusader Kingdoms could muster in between foreign interventions from Europe was probably under 10,000 strong. Many campaigns were fought with about 4,000. Prawer estimates the Fall of Jerusalem in the 1st Crusade, the most notorious massacre of the whole Crusades, took less than 20K lives on the Muslim defending side, military & civilians together. Probably the next most notorious, the massacre of prisoners outside Acre by Richard I of England, involved a bit over 2,000. There were never 25 or 60 million people in the whole region. Indeed there are no figures, but I suspect it would be impossible to do an guesstimate/extrapolation excercise that got into 6 figures. If you want big casualties, look at the Mongol invasions of the Islamic world, or the Muslim invasions of the Indian sub-continent. Really the Crusades were a pretty small scale affair. Johnbod 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Stbalbach

I have taken a few weeks away from wikipedia in order to cool off and contemplate whether it is worth the time and effort to contribute to WP, having been put off by the behaviour of a small group editors of this article (particularly Stbalbach and STR). Unfortunately for my own sanity, I could not allow myself to leave Stbalbach's last comment (9 Oct) unchallenged:

  • NPOV: Stbalbach, to come back to you on your own editorial soapboxing: We all agree that WP should not tell the world how it should be - only how it is. The basis for the ever-accelerating popularity of WP is its ability to act as a global repository of information, incorporating all considered viewpoints alongside one another (in other words, an encyclopaedia for the information / globalisation age). Unlike yourself, I have never deleted/edited other peoples viewpoints to match my own - only added alongside those viewpoints which I believe to be valuable to any reader who wishes to make his/her own judgement. You (and STR) have consistently deleted viewpoints held by many leading academics (not to mention 1 billion Muslims) - your behaviour renders your commentary above both farcical and hypocritical.
  • Christian Bias: One of the most commonly quoted problems with WP is that pages can be taken over through the concerted efforts of similar pressure groups. I ask you to step back for one second and consider the following: The Crusades were (broadly speaking) a conflict between Christianity and Islam. However, whilst this page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Catholicism and has a front-page position on the Christianity Portal, there are no Islamic or Arab groups to balance this out. To my mind, this accounts for the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in - i.e. that the article currently has a Perspectives section with topics limited to three Christian perspectives ("Catholic Encyclopaedia", "Eastern Orthodoxy", "Popular reputation in Western Europe") and a "Western vs. Eastern interpretation" section which has been neutralised to the point where it has zero value to readers interested in the Islamic perspective.
  • Getting Personal: For the record, I did not appreciate your personal attack. I did not participate with a username etc due to lack of time to commit to WP. That does not make my contributions any less valuable than your own - WP allows anonymous edits to ensure that people with limited time can still participate. Unfortunately, this situation has made me much less keen to get any more involved. As has the fact that you deleted one of my comments on the talk page at the same time as this attack (I had assumed that deleting talkpage comments was banned, but clearly not).
  • No Islamic Perspective: The Islamic perspective has been deleted from the article on a regular basis. To have an article on the Crusades without an Islamic or Arab perspective is like having an article about a football match and only talking about one team. If you disagree with the specific drafting I would be more than happy to discuss, however comments above from yourself and STR imply a knowledge of Islamic History limited to the western popular version - the comments show no evidence of any academic knowledge.
  • Western Popular Perspective: To clarify one point which I have tried to communicate a number of times, but perhaps I have not been clear: I do not claim that all Western literature ignores the barbarity of the crusades - it is clear that many respected writers have focused on this. However, many Western high schools teach the crusades to children at an early age, when it is too early to discuss academic literature. These children are then taught all about the heroic knights who valiantly fought for justice, freedom and the Great Western Civilisation against an evil enemy. Many examples of this phenomenon have been cited above - I believe that you and a number of other commentators on this page have become too lost in academic detail to realise that the Western Popular Perception has yet to catch up with Hillenbrand, Gabrieli, Runciman, Gibbon or many other major academic writers - hence the current state of the "Popular reputation in Western Europe" section.
  • Respected Scholars: Whilst Runciman is certainly one of the most respected scholars on the subject, you are wrong to suggest that his works are proven fact, and/or universally accepted. His major works on the subject were written more than 50 years ago, since when many more contemporary Islamic texts on the subject have been brought to light. Runciman was above all a scholar of Byzantium and Byzantine culture, and his knowledge of the Arab experience does not compare to the modern writers Hillenbrand and Gabrieli, who introduce many sources unknown to Runciman

84.12.183.27 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

- "many Western high schools.." etc - in what countries? I find this a very suprising assertion. Can you back it up? Most certainly does not happen in UK.

Johnbod 15:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How did the Crusades weaken Feudalism?

Plese help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.25.9 (talk • contribs) .

Is this for a class? I would not recommend Wikipedia for that question. -- Stbalbach 16:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Semi-Protection

Earlier this afternoon, I put in a request for semi-protection, meaning new users with accounts only 4 days old and anonymous users can't edit this page. I put the request in during that anonymous user's "edit-spree", when he was replacing the entire article with nasty stuff. It was granted just a minute ago. I'll guess he'll have to move onto another page to vandalize. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

I second that.--Barbatus 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Third. -- Stbalbach 13:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Heraclius

It might be a good idea to mention Heraclius in the introduction. His 621 campaign against Sassanid Persia ran under the motto of recapturing the Holy Cross the Sassanids had taken when they conquered Jerusalem in 614. The term Crusade stems from there, and the crusaderrs saw themselves as the heirs of Heraclius. This is related iin detail in Steven Runciman's somewhat classic history of the Crusades. 213.47.127.75 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All new comments go to the bottom of the page (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC))
Sorry, still learning. 213.47.127.75 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../c/r/u/Talk%7ECrusades_6882.html"

Static Wikipedia (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2007 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu -

Static Wikipedia 2006 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu

Static Wikipedia February 2008 (no images)

aa - ab - af - ak - als - am - an - ang - ar - arc - as - ast - av - ay - az - ba - bar - bat_smg - bcl - be - be_x_old - bg - bh - bi - bm - bn - bo - bpy - br - bs - bug - bxr - ca - cbk_zam - cdo - ce - ceb - ch - cho - chr - chy - co - cr - crh - cs - csb - cu - cv - cy - da - de - diq - dsb - dv - dz - ee - el - eml - en - eo - es - et - eu - ext - fa - ff - fi - fiu_vro - fj - fo - fr - frp - fur - fy - ga - gan - gd - gl - glk - gn - got - gu - gv - ha - hak - haw - he - hi - hif - ho - hr - hsb - ht - hu - hy - hz - ia - id - ie - ig - ii - ik - ilo - io - is - it - iu - ja - jbo - jv - ka - kaa - kab - kg - ki - kj - kk - kl - km - kn - ko - kr - ks - ksh - ku - kv - kw - ky - la - lad - lb - lbe - lg - li - lij - lmo - ln - lo - lt - lv - map_bms - mdf - mg - mh - mi - mk - ml - mn - mo - mr - mt - mus - my - myv - mzn - na - nah - nap - nds - nds_nl - ne - new - ng - nl - nn - no - nov - nrm - nv - ny - oc - om - or - os - pa - pag - pam - pap - pdc - pi - pih - pl - pms - ps - pt - qu - quality - rm - rmy - rn - ro - roa_rup - roa_tara - ru - rw - sa - sah - sc - scn - sco - sd - se - sg - sh - si - simple - sk - sl - sm - sn - so - sr - srn - ss - st - stq - su - sv - sw - szl - ta - te - tet - tg - th - ti - tk - tl - tlh - tn - to - tpi - tr - ts - tt - tum - tw - ty - udm - ug - uk - ur - uz - ve - vec - vi - vls - vo - wa - war - wo - wuu - xal - xh - yi - yo - za - zea - zh - zh_classical - zh_min_nan - zh_yue - zu