Talk:Crusades/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about Crusades. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

→

Holy Land???

Why is 'holy land' capitalized? it is highly POV and not everyone in the world considers that gutter "holy land". "holy land" should NOT be capitalized as there is nothing "holy" about it or the people/culture there. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.180.39.64 (talk) 23:35, 15 May 2008 (UTC)

United States in the Crusades??

There is a section in this article which talks about the "United States" in the crusades. Please clarify if this is the United States of somoewhere else or something, because obviously America did not exist.

Sounds like Islamic Extremist Propaganda and therefore vandalism.Tourskin 20:30, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

America has existed since Pangea broke up millions of years ago. It is a large piece of land; it is sufficiently large to discriminate three area --- North America, South America and Central America. These three areas currently contain many countries, including Chile, Brazil, El Salvador Canada, and even one called The United States of America. [Notice the preposition "of" there in the name of the country, The United States of America.] So to be clear, the USA did not exist at the time of the Crusades [which is a pity becasue we could have used the help and then been entirely successful]. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 19:52, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection request

The article has had 47 edits in the past 24hrs, of which one edit was legit. This article really should be on life-time protection given its history. -- Stbalbach 18:37, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

Stephen, I feel very strongly that the reason this article gets so much unwanted attention is your stubborn unwillingness to balance the POV. The article has retained a strong European bias despite a very large number of people's comments and attempts to edit the article. On 1st Nov 2006 I wrote you a clear and carefully written explanation of the POV permeating the article, but to date have received no credible response from you. I accept that you intend to carry on acting as the guardian of this article, which you are doing extremely effectively, but I implore you to also spend your time constructively and attempting to balance the POV in the article yourself. Hopefully this will allow you to reduce the time you spend reverting attacks from those who disagree with your POV and we will not have to have the article protected forever.84.12.199.197 00:30, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I beleive that the person who wrote the article refering to the crucades and The United Sates was no reffering to time and place but as the abstract that still exist even today,which separates humanity based on the same all believes and religions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.109.184.69 (talk) 04:00, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

While not answering the pov accusation, I would like to mention that the article gets a lot of unwanted attention from middle schoolers studying the Crusades for the first time. A few insert childish garbage in anything they are pointed to. They are not reacting to pov, if any. They are simply vandalizing. Most are too immature to recognize pov. And, BTW, most would share our pov if it was explained to them! :) Student7 (talk) 11:32, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

European Slant

Overall this article is fine. It's adequately objective. However, it still views the Crusades from a mostly Western perspective. i.e. all of the pictures are European. If any of you guys are interested read. "The Crusade Through Arab Eyes" its a great read and shows the disunity of the Arabs. Cheers.--Yellowfiver 07:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You may think this article is 'fine', if you like fiction, and history books written by novelists, and history films such as 300 and kingdom of heaven etc, or if you like to hear the songs of praise about our ancestors, but you will find that this article is far from 'fine' or 'adequately objective' (obviously depends on what your objective is) It compromises on the humanitarian losses on the Saracen side amongst other things, but in a sense, it's the closest some people can ever get to admiting their mistakes; this is the best they can do when it comes to such a hard sacrifice. It has some academically valid content, but it is also littered with myths and language that beutifys and romanticises the crusades, and overall gives half the (beutified) story and hides something significant, which isn't satisfying when it comes to searching for facts and sources that are as unbiased as possible, but it's like I always say: don;t wait for someone to do your research for you; search for it yourself-there's no point being force fed information you don't have the slightest clue how true it is! If I have time i will try to get hold of that book sometime and see what it's like. Thanks. I heard about it before, but I wasn't really interested, as the writer himself isn't an expert in this field, and is a novelist, so it's a waste of time really, and not the kind of thing I would get my facts from. I don't see why the disunity of the Arabs should be one of the major highlights though (that's how you make it out to be lol)! It was more the Muslims being slack and not being united, rather than it being the Arabs, because the crusades was primarily an aggression against the muslims. The crusades were a severe and horiffic blow, which woke the muslims up and made them return to how they used to be, which solved their problems and made them thrive once more (until they started to slack again lol. If muslims look at history, they will realise that when they followed their guidance properly, they thrived and made great advancements in the sciences and the arts and all fields of knowledge and society, and much of todays knowledge and technology is based on their findings (such as the crank shaft, blood circulation, the camera, medical equipment, pointed arches etc etc) but nowadays you find corupt muslims scholars and leaders who try to change laws to suit their personal needs and desires and act in ways which are against their faith completely and not in the general interest of anyone-except themselves, which is why they are in such a predicament at the moment and have been continuously attacked, but if they go back to their teachings they will live in peace and thrive once more- if only they woke up. An intersting thing: the muslim's prophet informed them that there will come times when the muslim nation is attacked by all sides, and it's not because they are small in number, but rather because they have strayed from their path- I was shocked when I first read it, because if ou look at history in detail, you find that this is actually true; mongol invasion, crusades, colonialism, the current state of the muslims in india, and elsewhere in the world.) About the book again, I have a hunch it will be slightly compromising on the side of the crusaders and make out that they arent as bad as all that, of course it might not be,but the author himself is a Christian (Trinitarian)from Lebabnon, and their recent history speaks enough in itself about the possibility of bias, so it is likely that he would sympathise with the crusaders,even if only a little. But it's nice to read different opinions, I have read all kinds of opinions, and they're intresting. Agnes Nitt 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

You sound like a muslim Extremist lol. If you want to expand your KNOWLEDGE about the crusades and not merely a subjective view of information, reading "The Crusades Through Arab Eyes" would be good. It was written by Amin Maalouf (Arab) so I hope you're happy. --Yellowfiver 03:46, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

lol!!! nooo, you don't get knowledge from novels and films based on history (or books that are someone's way of seeing events-you have to learn about the event properly and then make your own unbiased decisions-as I said before, it has nothing to do with the arabs at all; the crusades were an onslaught against the muslims, so ideally it should be from the muslims point of view, not the arabs). I am a unitarian christian, not a Muslim, however I do consider myself to ba a muslim aswel, because theres nothing i disagree with ins it, and effectively unitarian christianity and Islam ae the same, but I'm not officially a muslim though! Amin Maalouf is an Arab, but he is also a lebanese christian , and the christians and muslims of lebanon in particular have had conflicts in the recent past, and events such as sabra and shatila didn't leave the two sides on good terms, so he would probably compromise alot. Again i would like to point out that knowledge shouldn't be taken from novels etc., and I don't need to say why; it's clear enough. Thanks alot anyway,and don't worry, I am happy lol, i always knew he was an arab (even though it makes no difference whether he is from the far east, Europe or Africa-the big point is that he is a trinitarian christian and not a muslim). Thanks, Agnes Agnes Nitt 10:44, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

The author doesn't have to be Muslim or Arab to write an unbiased perspective of the crusades. Even us 'Jaleel' Christians can write books than when taken together provide a good view on what is probably closest to ground truth: Stephen O'shea, Thomas Asbridge, Bernard Lewis, are some good starting points. Walbe13 (talk) 18:22, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

"murat al numan"?

I have been looking all over here for a mention of the pause after the aquisition of Antioch during the first crusade, and the eventual massacre of the small town of murat al numan. From my understanding there was some indecision on the parts of Baldwin and the others as to where to go after refusing to give control of Edessa and Antioch to the Byzantines (1098). Supposedly a group of crusaders led by bohemund traveled to murat al numan (about two days march from Antioch) and sent an interpreter to tell the nobility that if they let the crusaders into the city to restock supplies, and retreated to a palace above the city gates, they would be spared. After looting the city, the crusaders then proceeded to massacre almost every single person there, 20-25 thousand in all. Not only the Muslims were massacred, but the jews and even christians who lived there as well. Similar to an ethnic cleansing. But, supposedly, after this the city was occupied for a month or so, and the bodies of the dead were devoured in an apalling act of cannibalism. Some researchers believe that this was to inspire fear in the muslims, and damge their morale. This act also persuaded the leaders of the crusaders to continue on to Jerusalem.

I would also be interested in atleast a passing mention of the fact that while the turks were an incredibly blood thirsty group, and that the Fatamids asked for peace, but were vehemently denied.

Please note that I am only interested in this for the sake of providing a less western-biased article. From my understanding the Crusades are both seen as Chivalrous and honorable battles by some, and as a bloodthirsty series of slaughters by others. Which is true, I cannot say, but some representation of BOTH sides would be appreciated.

Yeliw 05:45, 5 April 2007 (UTC) yeliw

We have an article about that, Ma'arrat al-Numan. Adam Bishop 07:42, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

German Armies mentioned in the Crusades

There was no Germany at these times so please could the references a bit more specific. In particular what was the role of the "Kreuzritter" the core of which would become later influential in forming Prussia.

This is a layperson's comment.

Thanks,

Werner Dahn 202.81.243.45 16:30, 19 April 2007 (UTC)wdahn

You are entirely right, The Holy Roman Empire does not get used once on this page. So there is a reference to a Holy Roman Emperor but not the empire itself? Furthermore there is a reference to an instance of Pogrom on the "German" crusade of French and Holy Roman troops in 1096, does anyone here know what or who the hell they are talking about?

--24.128.42.251 17:03, 19 April 2007 (UTC)

Well there was a Germany, so far as the Emperor was also King of the Germans. But it would, of course, be more accurate to refer to the Empire rather than to Germany at this time. Adam Bishop 19:56, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

Legacy

Might be a typo but both Sections 4 and 5 are titled Legacy.

Also, while I can see the relevance of WWI, as it was Europe in the Holy land and all that. Why is it under legacy? Legacy would be Constantinople being Muslim, Austria being Christian, banking/Knights Templar, Dan Brown's bank balance :) that kind of thing. Everytime 03:05, 23 April 2007 (UTC)

Thank you!

Thank you for the latest change regarding the initial motives and purpose behind the crusades. I understand how sensitive a subject it is to many, but to keep an un-biased point of view, stating that it was a war "waged by Christians" simply wasn't acceptable. So thank you for the change, and "Death to America"-that's last bit's a joke. I don't really mean it. -Erasmus —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Volkovoi (talk • contribs) 14:55, 23 April 2007 (UTC).

I think "waged by Christians" is as apt to the Crusades as the "waged by Muslims" is to Jihad. Both terms are peculiar to a particular religion as descriptor for holy justification to war. It would be inconceivable to connote either term with pagan's or Jews for example. Let's not get carried away with PC so as to lose an important facet of these definitions.--Tigeroo 13:12, 25 May 2007 (UTC)

Lepanto and Holy League

What do you think, can we consider Lepanto and Great Turkish War as crusades?İf we can, can we add them to the article?--Jagatai Khan 11:29, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

-someone- I have to do a project on the crusades and it's very interesting! if your interested in history you should get into this topic. : ] i mean i rly luv bugs!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.223.222.218 (talk) 20:29, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Longshanks

Why has the contributions of Longshanks to the Crusades been seriously reduced:

The future Edward I of England undertook another expedition in 1271, after having accompanied Louis on the Eighth Crusade. He accomplished very little in Syria and retired the following year after a truce. With the fall of Antioch (1268), Tripoli (1289), and Acre (1291), the last traces of the Christian rule in Syria disappeared.

It sounds a lot like original research considering its lack of references and small size. In fact Edward I gave Acre a 10 year respite. You see there are no more Crusader cities or forts falling between 1271 and 1281. The paragraph itself mentions the next fall to be 1289 but its arranged as if Edward's lack of effort led to the fall of Tripoli etc.

The Book "Crusades" by Thomas F madden states that "Acre still had powerful allies, notably Edward I of England" when referring to the siege of Acre in 1291. It was in fact interventions by Monarchs such as Edward that gave the Crusader states there an ability to negotiate with the Mamelukes.Tourskin 01:46, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

"...of a religious character..."

I brought this up a while back, but it still bugs me. Shouldn't the first sentence be more specific than "religious character"? What does that mean? Srnec 23:11, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Totally agree. We should be referring to them as Christian pilgrimages where in the participants were supposed to partake in penitential war. Cheers, AgPyth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgPyth (talk • contribs) 00:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Big Contradiction

The Crusades were a series of military conflicts of a religious character waged by Christians during 1095–1291, most of which were sanctioned by the Pope in the name of Christendom.

If thats the case, why does the campaign box for the Crusades continue until Otranto in 1480's? In fact, there was no Crusade in 1291, this date has been mistakenly put and confused with the end of the Crusader states in Palestine (Fall of Acre). That did not end the Crusades, however. I am going to modify this contradiction. Tourskin 20:35, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Of a defensive nature...

Some anonymous user desribed the Crusades this way in the Introduction. Clearly POV. There's nothing defensive in massacring the whole Jewish and Muslim population of Jerusalem in 1099. I think every war can be desribed as defensive by those who support it.85.90.69.35 09:16, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

The current vogue in crusade historiography is to consider the crusades a defensive war against the Muslim invasions of the previous centuries. I suppose the article needs to be updated to reflect this. Adam Bishop 17:45, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

What current vogue is that ? What are you talking about ? Give me one example of a serious historian without a political agenda who does that. I cannot imagine serious scholarship describing war in nothing but neutral terms. What 's next ? Describing the German blitzkrieg as defensive because of Versailles ? 62.163.6.54 05:17, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Madden comes to mind (except for the political agenda part, but I don't know where you'll find a politically neutral historian of anything, good luck with that...). I suppose others have come around to it by now, too. The crusaders themselves thought they were fighting a defensive war, anyway. Adam Bishop 07:52, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you get the point. Describing a war as "defensive" or "offensive" is a value judgment. Therefore such a description has no room in a scholarly, objective discussion. Describing cause and effect is something else. You can mention Muslim expansionism as one of the Crusades' causes and origins, but mentioning one party as the "attacker" and the other as the "defendant" is mixing history and ideology, like your Thomas Madden does, who sees the Crusades and the contemporary U.S. war against Islamic salafism-jihadism through the same prism. This is ridiculous of course, these are two phenomena which have totally different historical contexts. It's like French nationalists around 1900 who saw enmity towards the German Reich as a natural continuation of Rome's wars against the Germanic barbarians. It's a pity too many people do not distinguish between ideologists and genuine scholars.85.90.69.35 08:51, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how "defensive war" is a value-laden term. Saddam Hussein fought a defensive war against the USA, but few US conservatives considered that the war was unjust because it was offensive. It was preemptive. What can that mean but that it was aggressive and offensive, even if it was supposed to defend against something, that thing was not any act of military aggression on Hussein's part. (Certainly the words "defensive" and "offensive" must refer to military actions in a military context.) I think the terms "defensive" and "offensive" are perfectly politically and morally neutral terms for describing war. And here is a great quotation from G. K. Chesterton:

When people talk as if the Crusades were nothing more than an aggressive raid against Islam, they seem to forget in the strangest way that Islam itself was only an aggressive raid against the old and ordered civilization in these parts. I do not say it in mere hostility to the religion of Mahomet; I am fully conscious of many values and virtues in it; but certainly it was Islam that was the invasion and Christendom that was the thing invaded.

Srnec 21:26, 5 July 2007 (UTC)

Leaving the whole "defensive" or "offensive" thing out is definitely more suitable for an objective and neutral encyclopaedia. People who were massacred in Jerusalem in 1099 did not experience the Crusades as a defensive war. I cannot believe a notorious Islamophobe like Robert Spencer - who has a clear political agenda - is used as a serious reference. Stop mixing politics and scholarship. 62.163.6.54 02:10, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

And another thing: using the term "defensive" implies that this was the main motive for waging war against the Muslims. That's nonsense. What about economic motives, the Middle East being more prosperous than Europe at the time ? And the specific circumstances inside the European states in the 11th century and especially the demographic expansion ? Let's do some serious work instead of making these childish simplifications ("the Muslims attacked first so the Crusaders had to fight back.")62.163.6.54 02:27, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Your statement about economics perhaps betrays an outdated-ness in your knowledge on the Crusades? I am not aware of any current scholarship which regards there as being any great economic motivation for Crusading on either a personal or macroeconomic level. Srnec 03:55, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I am aware of e.g. Jonathan Riley-Smith's work. I am sure that a lot of Crusaders, perhaps a majority, thought they were waging a legitimate counter-offensive against the Muslims but I think it is impossible to exclude other intentions, as ideology is never the totality of people's lives. If we say the Crusades were essentially "defensive" there are some odd, unexplained matters. Around 1100 there was a Muslim offensive in Spain going on, that of the Almoravids. Instead of "defending" Christianity close to home most French knights chose to go to Palestine. Why ? And why did Crusaders sack Christian Constantinople in 1204 ? I believe historical processes involving thousands and thousands of individuals and a time span of many centuries are much too complex to reduce to one main motivation, be it ideological or materialistic. 62.163.6.54 12:13, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree that there is no need to boil it down to one motive, but as Chesterton says, "certainly it was Islam that was the invasion and Christendom that was the thing invaded." This is why I think the word "defensive" would be appropriate, though I am not at all adamant that it be reintroduced to the lead paragraph. The reason that so many French knights went to Palestine is simple: the pope suggested it and their Christian brothers in Byzantium desired it. Many Frenchmen did take part in the Reconquista, but the pope did not wish to ignore the Turkish threat to eastern Europe and so enlisted them to fight in that quarter, and especially to regain Jerusalem. The sack of Constantinople had a more materialistic motivation, but it was also motivated by distrust of the Greeks and by Venetian urging (which was economic in motivation, but also well-supplied with Christian justifications). I do think that modern historiography in general has returned to emphasising ideas over economics as Marxist influence wans. Srnec 14:52, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

Case closed then. We agree. 62.163.6.54 15:28, 6 July 2007 (UTC)

The defensive/offensive thing is actually pretty important and we shouldn't really leave it out...whatever your opinion of Madden's politics, he is nevertheless an influential and respected crusade scholar, and his views are among those that should be represented here. And cheer up, 62.163! In another 20 years there will be a whole new historiographical vogue for us to argue about! Adam Bishop 23:45, 7 July 2007 (UTC)

Hm... It may be a good idea to mention the controversy of invader/invaded and where scholarship stands on it today. It is not a new issue, but its implications in current politics is all too evident. To allow the reader to leave this page without understanding that modern scholarship does not treat the Crusades as an act of aggression is a disservice. Srnec 05:34, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

The whole debate is in fact about the intentions and motivations of the Crusaders. A controversial matter and very, very important, I agree. My point all the way was that "defensive" and "offensive" are subjective viewpoints. You could easily argue that Saladin waged a "defensive" war as well. 62.163.6.54 06:46, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

But against what was Saladin defending? (And I really think his war was primarily aggressive.) The question quickly becomes, as Chesterton realised, one of "invader" and "thing invaded": and the original invader was Islam by the sword into Christendom. To portray the Crusades, as has formerly been and often the popular media still is common, as early European efforts at colonialism or as an form of imperialism/expansionism (as these terms are usually understood) is generally considered false today and somewhere the article ought to make that very clear. (I still do not agree that defensive/offensive is a subjective distinction only.) Srnec 03:21, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

In Saladin's view he was defending and trying to reconquer lands that his followers remembered to be Muslim-held and that had been Muslim-held for some fifteen generations before 1099. No one remembered the Middle East ruled by Byzantines or Christians, like no one in Toledo in 1085 remembered Visigothic rule but instead were aware of their town being Muslim for the last three and a half centuries. I still do not think you get the point. I did not argue portraying the Crusades as imperialist or colonialist or whatever. My argument is that ANY war or conflict can be described as "defensive" or "aggressive" depending on your viewpoint. Hitler launching WW II can be seen as his "defensive" war against Versailles, Pearl Harbor can be seen as "defense" against U.S. hegemony in the Pacific, the Iraq War can be seen as "defending" against "terrorism". These are all subjective viewpoints and categorizing the Crusades as "defensive" falls in the same category. A more neutral approach would be to say that Muslim expansionism was one of the causes of the Crusades or to say that Germany's humiliation in 1919 was one of the origins of WW II. You and your Chesterton are ideologues. 85.90.69.35 08:10, 9 July 2007 (UTC) (same person as 62.163)

You missed my point above that "the words 'defensive' and 'offensive' must refer to military actions in a military context." Hitler's war was offensive because he took the first military action. Pearl Harbour was not preceded by an US military strike on Japan (though arguments could be made concerning US aid to the Allies). The Iraq war was not preceded by any Iraqi military action against the States. I don't think that any Americans regard the possibility that Japan was "retaliating" for aid given the British as any black mark on the USA's military record nor are they (Bush's supporters) retiscent about the Iraq War just because it was not a response to any Iraqi military operation. The terms are not subjective when refering to who made a military strike first and neither of the terms is necessarily positive or negative. [Perhaps any conflict can be described by both terms, but that just leaves unanswered the questions "defending against what?" and "aggressive against whom?"]

As to "no one remembering" the past, that's simply not true. There were Greek Christians in the Levant who certainly knew about it (and remembered it even though they hadn't lived it, Saladin's troops certainly couldn't remember a Muslim Jerusalem either). All educated Byzantine Greeks and the emperors no doubt remembered that the land of Christ had once belonged to them. Furthermore, there was a very large population of Christians in Andalusia who certainly remembered the Christian Spain of the past and the Leonese kingdom in the north certainly drew on its Visigothic heritage down into the Late Middle Ages. Many towns in southern Spain were not "Muslim" except by government. And certainly no Europeans would have accepted the argument that "Islam has occupied territories unlawfully for centuries, so it must be lawful by now."

What do you call a war waged against expansionism? I think a good case can be made that it is a defensive war (if the expansion is achieved militarily). I am not an idealogue and he is not my Chesterton. I don't know where that came from. Srnec 23:13, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

You are now contradicting yourself. You say "The words 'defensive' and 'offensive' must refer to military actions in a military context." What was the direct military cause of the First Crusade then ? Manzikert a quarter of a century before ? The destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre by al-Hakim ? Do you consider a war waged in reaction to something that happened a century before as "defensive" ?

I am disturbed by your use of "lawful occupation". So you believe Spain and Palestine are in essence Christian; Muslims there are and were by definition intruders and aliens. Islamists hold comparable views on al-Andalus and Muslim Palestine. You are indeed an ideologue. 85.90.69.35 07:48, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as anyone in 1095 knew or cared (or, rather, as far as anyone writing in the aftermath of the crusade wished to believe that people in 1095 thought so), Muslims were daily mistreating Christians in Jerusalem. It wasn't random events from 500 or even just 100 years before. The various records of Urban II's speech at Clermont make that clear. William of Tyre began his book with the Muslim invasion in the 7th century, and the subsequent mistreatment of Christians up to the 11th century. Whether these accusations were true or not hardly matters, I think; the point is the crusaders thought they were true, and immediately used them to justify the crusade once it was over. We're not making this stuff up, it's not modern scholarly nonsense, it goes back to the First Crusade itself. (But anyway, I'm not sure this is much of a discussion anymore, it seems more like an excuse to throw around the fun word "ideologue".) Adam Bishop 14:56, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

I completely agree that most Crusaders believed in the ideas you mentioned. But to describe the whole Crusades therefore as "defensive" is to give this subjective viewpoint preference over the other side's perception of the conflict. Likewise, describing the Crusades as "aggressive" or as a precursor of Zionism is to favour an Arab Muslim worldview. 62.163.6.54 16:15, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

Also, it is not as if nothing had happened since the seventh century and the status quo had been accepted. Warfare had been ongoing and continuous between Christian and Muslim in most regions where they interacted as the Christians tried to regain what had been lost. It is not a secret that Muslims think the original spread of Islam was justifiable so it is no secret that to them the Crusades were wrong even as they were defensive. Why can't defensive/offensive be value-neutral terms? They certainly are not axiological by defintion, as in sports they are defintiely neutral. (I never said that Spain and Palestine were "unlawfully" occupied by Muslims and if you can't realise why by careful reading, this has indeed degenerated from the level of "discussion".) Srnec 23:00, 10 July 2007 (UTC)

speaking of ideologues, this whole fascination w/ "defensive/offensive" reveals the lingering taint of the hippie peace movements of decades past. The Jackal God 01:00, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

It changed with time I've learned, the first one, was clearly and offensive maneuver to defend Christian rights and people from a often very hostile and rapid Muslim expansion. While in later times we see Christian's making defensive moves against what is not ethnically their home but spiritually their home. We can't classify all Crusades as either offensive of defensive because it varies. Cheers AgPyth —Preceding unsigned comment added by AgPyth (talk • contribs) 01:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Muslim population of the Rhineland

In the paragraph about the second crusade it says:

St. Bernard of Clairvaux, who in his preachings had encouraged the Second Crusade, was upset with the amount of misdirected violence and slaughter of innocent people, especially the Jewish and Muslim population of the Rhineland.

I doubt there was a Muslim population in the Rhineland at that time, so this should probably just read "Jewish population of the Rhineland" ... or maybe Clairvaux was talking about the Jewish and Muslim population of some other place, maybe Jerusalem itself? The source given is The New Catholic Encyclopedia ... I only could find a copy of The Catholic Encyclopedia online, that one's article about the Crusades doesn't mention the Rhineland at all. Their article about Clairvaux doesn't mention his denouncing the violence, either. So if someone can get his hands on a copy of The New Catholic Encclopedia, can you check what is really written in its Crusades article? --Sky Diva 16:25, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Bernard did denounce violence against the Jews in the Rhineland, but obviously there were no Muslims there. I don't have a New Catholic Encyclopedia, but it couldn't possibly say that. I'll change it. Adam Bishop 16:41, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Numbers killed

What is the best estimate in term of number of killed of each Crusade and of all The Crusades? I understand that this may be a mute question but I hope there is an attempt to go after those numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bounrith (talk • contribs) 19:48, August 28, 2007 (UTC)

Hi Bounrith, this question is asked a lot and I don't think it's possible to answer, but here is a link from Dr. Helen Nicholson's Crusades FAQ. Adam Bishop 20:57, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Its asking the total dead of a large part of Medieval warfare. A near impossible task, considering its 400 year existence (1099 - 1480's)and the lack of reliable sources at the time. Tourskin 04:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Bounrith. I study the crusades, it is my focus as a history major. As far as numbers are concerned, Medeival people were notoriously horrible number counters. What they thought were tens of thousands of people was most likely a couple thousand. They seemed to be incapable of comprehending the size of armies or gatherings that contained more than a thousand bodies. It was especially horrible when it came to counting the dead. It is unknown whether this was pure ignorance, or whether the chroniclers were notorious exaggerators. Perhaps they wished to display the army they wrote about in superior numbers to seem unbeatable, or the numbers of dead to seem immense in the same respects. Or they will exaggerate the size of the enemy force to make it seem that God was not on the chronicler's side, as if they had sinned and were to engaged this enemy who was so immensely stronger, their loss will be justified in the eyes of God. So in answer to your question, it is next to impossible to determine the number of people killed or participating on the crusade. For reference to crusading armies, i would definitely recommend Western Warfare in the Age of the Crusades: 1000-1300 by John France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by HistoryHawk (talk • contribs) 01:00, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Even if the numbers can't be calculated, the matter should be addressed. Surely it's a common question. All I wanted to know was how many people were killed in the Crusades, and I wasted time scanning the entire article searching for some hint of the numbers. There should be a heading and a paragraph of explanation similar to the above. Further, I should think some historian would be able to suggest some kind of possible range of numbers. I mean, was it likely thousands or millions—that sort of thing. Thank you.

ChicagoLarry (talk) 04:12, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Rewrite again?

I haven't actually read through this whole article in awhile, and now I am wondering how useful it is. It seems very bloated and unorganized to me. Of course, I am not sure how to go about rewriting it to everyone's satisfaction, if that would even be possible. Also, do we need a new separate article about the historiography of the crusades throughout the centuries? Any thoughts? Adam Bishop 04:02, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I was thinking we could use an article on historical criticism (positive and negative and especially contemporary) on the Crusades. A historiography article would be nice. In general, I agree that this article seems bloated: it looks like merely a collection of paragraphs describing the various major events beneath notices that say "Main article: ....." —Srnec 02:21, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Would probably be good to re-write. Noticed that a user had deleted a big chunk[1], and thought it probably wasn't the sort of re-write you were thinking about.The.helping.people.tick 14:28, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I've recently read through this article, as I'm taking a class on the Crusades at uni and wanted to see what Wikipedia had. The article is sorely missing some true scholarly work that is needed. A re-write would do a great deal to improve the value of the article. --Laserbeamcrossfire 07:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

We can't think of anyone better qualified than a university student like you to re-write the article. Go for it --- and maybe we'll get the chance critique your output with similar cursory derision. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.59.9.52 (talk) 19:39, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

I would appreciate opinions at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Painting, to discuss whether or not Jacques de Molay was part of a force which re-took Jerusalem in 1299. Most books agree he didn't, but there is evidently a painting hanging in Versailles, which says that he did.[2] Opinions are requested. Thanks, El on ka 07:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(followup) This dispute has continued and expanded, and a formal RfC has been filed. Disputed issues include (1) Was there a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols? (2) How should the Wikipedia article be titled? "Franco-Mongol alliance"? Or "Crusader-Mongol relations" or something else? (3) Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem in 1300? (4) How many and what types of primary source quotes are appropriate to use for this subject? (5) Were the Knights Templar major proponents of an alliance with the Mongols? (6) Was Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, present at a combined Christian-Mongol capture of Jerusalem in 1299/1300? Any opinions on any of these questions would be appreciated at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Request for comment. --El on ka 10:02, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

There was only one official alliance between Franks and Mongols: the embassage from Edward I's representatives in 1271, which succesfully procured a force of Mongol cavalry. These raided successfully in Syria, clearing the region of Aleppo of Mamelukes, but they were not numerous and retreated beyond the Euphrates with the advance of Baibur's main army from Cairo.

The most influential act of Mongol 'cobelligerency' of course was Hulagu Khan's capture of Baghdad (1258) and Damascus (1260), destroying the Abbasids and Abuyyids and with them the unified Caliphate, with effects felt to the present day. Had Hulagu not turned around to deal with a revolt in Central Asia, it is possible, even likely, that Egypt and Anatolia would have fallen, political Islam snuffed out, and the Holy Land remained Christian controlled under light Mongol overlordship, as in Russia.

It is generally agreed that the Mongol expedition southwards after the fall of Aleppo in 1299-1300 pursued the rertreating Muslims army as far south as Gaza and the borders of Sinai; but that fortified Jerusalem was never besieged nor taken, and Ghazan soon thereafter abandoned the Levant south of Syria, concentrating on retaking Damascus.Solicitr (talk) 17:15, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments. At this point in the discussion, the best place to participate is probably to post your opinion at one or more of these locations:

You may also wish to read and/or monitor and/or participate at the mediation page: Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance. --El on ka 15:50, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

bad grammar!

Very many married women from Apulia in Southern Italy, where living conditions were often harsh, encouraging young women to take ship for Palestine in the knowledge that many men there were looking for wives.

Should be encouraged.

AbbytheP 23:26, 4 October 2007 (UTC)AbbytheP 10/4/07

Thanks. Adam Bishop 21:01, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Gunslinger1812's additions

Gunslinger1812: I have recently begun contributing to Wikipedia after being a reader for quite some time. I am not completely familiar with Wikipedia protocol, but have noticed a good deal of my Crusader contributions undone. The original article was extremely simplistic and did not give an accurate picture of the Crusaders, ignoring/glossing over such events/conditions as the Crusader-Portugese retaking of Lisbon in 1147 (part of the Second Crusade), the success of the Third Crusade in retaking vital port cities, the economic drive of the Crusades by the maritime powers of Venice, Genoa, Pisa, and to some extent Angevin France, and the crumbling state of the Byzantine Empire by the late 1100s. Also the original article placed far to much emphasis on Islam as an influential factor in the Renaissance and completely glossed over the importance of Frederick II Hohenstaufen and Greek immigrants to Italy. Overall the article just present a very simplistic image of an extraordinary event. I was hoping my contributions could help, but they won't if they're not on the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Gunslinger1812 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I haven't followed this exchange, but you might want to read some core Wikipedia policies, in particular WP:RS (all statements must be backed by reliable sources), WP:NOR (don't present your own original research, unless previously published by a reliable source with independent editorial oversight), and WP:V (content must be verifiable via proper attribution and citations). This may explain why additions are reverted. If, after this, your additions are still reverted, please discuss them one by one on the talk page. Please also sign your talk page contributions with for tildes (~~~~) or use the signature item above the edit box. Thanks! --Stephan Schulz 09:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I agree that sourcing is very important, especially when dealing with very controversial edits. And the problem is magnified because this particular "Crusades" page is a target for frequent vandalism, so any changes are going to be under more scrutiny than they might be on other pages. There are also certain "flags" which will cause an edit to be instantly reverted. For example, Gunslinger, I saw you try to change the section header of "First Crusade" to "False Crusade".[3] To do something like that, you're going to need to provide proof that most reliable historians have been referring to it as the "False Crusade" (which I doubt you're going to find). See also WP:FRINGE and WP:UNDUE. Also, when your top edit is something highly controversial, the rest of your edits, even if good, are probably going to be reverted sight unseen, simply because the assumption will be made that they are just as controversial. Gunslinger, since you're encountering resistance, I recommend that you start with small, uncontroversial changes. Pick one section that needs expanding, expand it, and include a source showing where the information has come from. That'll be a better way to get your edits to "stick", especially when trying to edit a high-profile page. --El on ka 16:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Gunslinger's original edits were probably reverted because they fell between instances of un-reverted vandalism, so everything was reverted, good or not. It also doesn't help that his most recent edit is now a giant block of text with footnotes that point nowhere... Adam Bishop 12:51, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Refs

I spent some time today cleaning up some duplicate refs, but I have to admit some concern as to what we are using as references. For example, some of them go to Madden "a distinguished historian of the Crusades", but, aside from the fact that I've never heard of Madden (and I've read dozens of books about the Crusades), if you actually follow the URL given, it seems to go to some kind of hobbyist website that's linking the Crusades and 9/11.[4] Plus of course anything that starts off "The Real History of the Crusades" usually sets off warning bells in my mind. Another concern is that we now have about two dozen refs in the article going to this book: "Lewis, Archibald (January 1988). Nomads and Crusaders: AD 1000-1368. Indiana University Press. ISBN 9780253206527." I haven't read the book in particular, but I'm concerned that we may be giving its theories a bit too much weight, in violation of WP:UNDUE. Then again, I will repeat that I haven't read the book or gone over that section of our article in detail yet... I just wanted to express a concern, and see what other people thought. --El on ka 15:56, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

Thomas Madden is one of the finest Crusade historians in my opinion, and his Concise History is of much higher quality than some of the longest tomes. Particularly his work on the 5th crusade and those of King Louis is excellent, Madden references should be sound, and more numerous in an ideal world. Regards --Tefalstar 00:29, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yes, Thomas Madden is a fine reference, probably one of the most visible crusade historians currently. His visibility mostly comes from association with right-wing organizations like The National Review or whatever, which seems to be distasteful to to the left-wing sensibilities of Wikipedia, but he is an important historian nonetheless. He is also an expert on the Fouth Crusade. As for Archibald Lewis, I don't know, the name and the book are unfamiliar aside from the giant block of text recently added. Adam Bishop 03:11, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Yeah good point, Madden is associated with the Right but it doesn't impact on his work, well not to any extent i can see. Also i've never heard of Lewis or the Book attributed to him. Regards both --Tefalstar 18:55, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

"Archibald Ross Lewis" is his full name and he is deceased. I have read some parts about the Mongols in Lewis' Nomads and Crusaders. Lewis is a scholar, but I don't know what his "specialty" is. I have seen his The Development of Southern French and Catalan Society, 718–1050 and "The Dukes in the Regnum Francorum, A.D. 550–751" cited frequently enough to confirm that he is a respected scholar. He also co-authored European Naval and Maritime History. Man of wide interests, I guess... Srnec 23:37, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Jack of all trades then...--Tefalstar 13:42, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the input, I agree that Madden's book looks reputable. When I saw the cover, I realized that I had flipped through it at one point.[5] It was just the "9/11" website that threw me for a bit. Thanks for the confirmation, everyone. :) --El on ka 19:43, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Wikifying "trade"

I wikifyied "trade"... although some don't work right. 68.83.127.31 02:10, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: Delisted

In order to uphold the quality of Wikipedia:Good articles, all articles listed as Good articles are being reviewed against the requirements of the GA criteria as part of the GA project quality task force. Unfortunately, as of November 14, 2007, this article fails to satisfy the criteria, as detailed below. For that reason, the article has been delisted from WP:GA. However, if improvements are made bringing the article up to standards, the article may be nominated at WP:GAN.

The article was rated as GA status back in early 2006 without a review and since then the GA criteria has changed significantly. Although the article currently has a good number of inline citations, several sections throughout the article are lacking sources. Go through the article and add an inline citation for any statement that a reader may question over its verifiability (this includes all of the current statements tagged with "citation needed". If you can find sources online, feel free to include those, although book sources are always great, which this article uses a lot of. Due to the length of the article, the lead should also be expanded by another paragraph or so to better summarize the article. For more information, see WP:LEAD. However, the rest of the article looks fine considering meeting the broad, NPOV, and image requirements (except the license for Image:Europe 1142.jpg needs to be fixed).

Again, if you address these issues and check the article against the rest of the GA criteria, consider renominating the article at WP:GAN and let me know and I'll look it over again (so you can avoid the current month+ backlog). If you feel this decision has been made in error, you may seek remediation at WP:GA/R. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article's history to reflect this review. Regards, --Nehrams2020 21:36, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Sigurd 1 of Norway

I added that Sigurd 1 was the first king who went on a crusade as its relevant to the first crusade and the article in general. Nastykermit (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 18:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article Fluidity

Due to apathy, indolence and a whole gamut of laudable qualities; I cannot argue the following matter thoroughly. Nevertheless, I believe that the affixed portion of this article not only to mars the very fluidity of this article, but is also quite unnecessary. -- Grammaticus VII (talk) 08:06, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

One source identifies Michael VII in Chinese records as a ruler of Byzantium (Fulin) who sent an envoy to Song Dynasty China with gifts for Emperor Shenzong.[8] The records read, "In the 10th month of the 4th year of Yuanfeng (November 1081), King Mieliyiling Gaisa for the first time sent the great official Nisiduling Simengpan to present a tribute of horses with saddles, sabres, swords, and pearls."[9] Chinese scholar Yang Xianyi, however, identifies the King as Melissenos Kaisar, the brother-in-law of Alexios I Komnenos, and the official as Simon I de Montfort.[10]

Yang Xianyi suggests the sudden burst of diplomatic activity between Constantinople and the Chinese capital of Kaifeng was part of the same effort at finding allies against the Seljuk Turks. However, this remains speculation since the objective of the two proceeding missions ten years later in 1091 is unknown - the only details given are that the Song emperor gave the ambassador various gifts, including 200 bolts of silk, to bring back to "Rum".[10] Rum was the Muslim term for Byzantium.[11] Based on this, College of New Jersey history professor Thomas T. Allsen claims it was the Seljuks themselves who visited China in 1081 and 1091. He says Rum was actually the Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm.[12] He also states the “Ta-shih, the Abbasid Caliphate,...sent fifty or so missions to [China] between 966 and 1116.”[12]

Well, I tried to delete it, but got reverted.

Here is the reasoning. A Chinese reference to a early Middle Ages Western fact is not going to be particularly useful. But worse than that, it is peripheral to the issue. I don't see how it helps even if 100% true with an on-the-spot reporter. It doesn't seem that germane to the Crusades article.

How does it help? Student7 (talk) 21:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Peripheral? It is in a section that describes the powers that be reaching out for foreign aid. Of course its relevant. Besides, you can't just delete cited material without discussing it first. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:48, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It is a pretty cool piece of information, but since the Chinese have nothing to do with the crusades, and this is not an article about Byzantine diplomacy which may or may not have even occurred, what is the purpose of it being here? (And what is with everyone's hard-on for cited facts lately? A cited fact can still be irrelevant.) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

You are the person who told me to put it on this article. Remember this?--Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I know...but it still seems kind of irrelevant here too. Maybe it needs to be much shorter or moved to a footnote. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:19, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Just as long as it stays on the page, I don't care. I can easily shorten both paragraphs into one and place further pertinent info in a footnote. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Well...why does it need to stay? Adam Bishop (talk) 04:32, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Let me ask a question first. This is an article about the Crusades, right? It should stay because it is material pertaining to the First Crusade. The info can even be placed in a sub-section of some kind. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 11:11, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It doesn't really pertain to the crusades at all, but I suppose it's fine the way it is now. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:42, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems awfully peripherally related IMO.Student7 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Opponents

Alexander Nevsky and the Teutonic Knights are in there already, it seemed to me that people "opposed" on both sides. Why not Richard, Eleanor's first husband, and Barbarossa? Student7 (talk) 21:25, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I've added Zengi to the list as a replacement. This section really should not be there, but it should only contain enemies of the crusade if it stays. Simply adding opponents would mean hugh, robert, bohemond, stephen, godfrey, baldwin and 100s more, just from the first crusade. There is already a list of principle cursaders. I'd scrap this stupid list to be fair, its all contained within articles anyway.

regards, --Tefalstar (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

I vote to Delete subsection as per the above reasons. Student7 (talk) 02:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)

On the Horses of San Marco and the sculptures of Parthenon

There is no claim on behalf of the Greek state or the greek scientific community as to the status of the Horses of San Marco that are integral part of the monument of the San Marco Basilica, along with the Four Tetrarchs and all other sculptures looted from Constantinoupol during the forth crusade.
These is also no similarity between the Horses of San Marco and the scluptures of the Parthenon which are integral part of the monuments of the Acropolis of Athens and according to scientific principle they must be returned and exhibited in the museum of Acropolis in proximity to the Pathenon itself, like the original Horses are exhibited in San Marco's museum.
I think that the article should be corrected, not using vague terms like "modern Turks and Greeks" that could describe 100,000,000 people and their various opinions on the subject, and not confusing two cases that from a scientific point of view are very clear and very an-similar. Piraeus77 (talk) 13:58, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Made some changes Piraeus77 (talk) 14:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Crusader wiki as a reference

Someone has added the crusader wiki to the list of external links. We know what problems we have with our article. We have no idea what problems or what quality they have with theirs. I think one wiki using another as a reference is probably (with the exception of Wikicommons and Wiktionary) probably not a good idea. What info can they provide that we can't? Just found out that this is now a reference for Knights Hostpitaller as well. So it seems that it is really more or less spam for the wiki. Student7 (talk) 23:40, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Yes, it was added to all the crusade articles. It seems like an interesting site but I can't imagine it would be any better than our own crusade articles. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:02, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

On further inspection, virtually all of their articles have been imported from here anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:49, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

"Other" crusades...OT?

It seems to me that this article started out being about "the" Crusades, if you catch my drift. The "other" crusades are only tangentially related, if at all. FWIW. Ifnkovhg (talk) 01:57, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Apparent Factual Error

"In the Byzantine homelands, the Eastern Emperor's weakness was revealed by the disastrous defeat at the Battle of Manzikert in 1071, which reduced the Empire's Asian territory to a region in western Anatolia and around Constantinople. A sure sign of Byzantine desperation was the appeal of Alexius I Comnenus to his enemy, the Pope, for aid. But Gregory was occupied with the Investiture Controversy and could not call on the German emperor, so a crusade never took shape."

Alexius was not Emperor in 1071, should this be referring to Michael VII? Also it seems a too strong to assert that the Byzantine Emperor was an enemy of the Pope - to my mind relations may have been tense and involving conflicts of interest, but did not necessarily constitute enmity.

Thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.231.97 (talk) 14:19, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Can you place a doublebrace-fact-doublebrace after the comment you are referring to? There's a lot that isn't footnoted inline and probably needs to be. Editors sometimes have jumped to conclusions or drawn their own facts contrary to WP:OR. Your request for facts would enable us to examine whether the statement was born out by the reference or not. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 17:21, 21 February 2008 (UTC)

Biased

The last paragraph of the section on the first crusade sounds somewhat overly biased in favor of Saladin and against Richard the lionheart. The choice of John Esposito as a source is somewhat disturbing since his focus is islamic studies vice history. Would reccomend a more neutral citation from Bernard Lewis or other Historian.Walbe13 (talk) 18:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

This is brand new information that was just put in yesterday in a "Muslim perspective" section. I merged it without editing into the first crusade figuring that historically, it either happened or it didn't. We now know. There is no "muslim perspective" on history, per se, nor western. If it needs editing, please feel free. I'm no expert and just wanted to move the data for inspection by other editors without prejudice. Student7 (talk) 21:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Needs a ton of work. I fixed the offending section, but the article details events out of chronoligical order and some events are detailed twice. There is sooo much out there about this subject that the article could quite easily be made GA if effort was put forth to make it so. -- SECisek (talk) 23:13, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

At the very end of the article under the heading "World War I and The Ottoman Empire", the references to France and Britain occupying locations in the Levant and the middle-east seems unrelated to the crusades themselves. True, this may be looked at as an example of European Colonialism, as some may interpret the crusades, by I think it difers enough from the core focus of the crusades that it should be considered for deletion. Just a thought. Walbe13 (talk) 18:42, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, this is totaly off subject. I'll kill it. The survival to the present of some Crusading orders might be worth a mention. For that matter, some discussion of the Marionites in the Lebanese Civil War or modern Liberation Theology would be more closely related to the topic than this stuff. -- SECisek (talk) 23:16, 5 March 2008 (UTC)

I totally agree, although I would urge caution in detailing the modern evolution of the Knights Templar or Knights Hospitaller. I know the Knights of Malta still exist as a lay order of the Catholic church and represent the Hospitallers, but I think there is still some debate about the "Descedents" of the Knights Templar (i.e. Masons, Switzerland, etc.) Walbe13 (talk) 14:21, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Oh, let's be serious - there is no debate. The Templars were disbanded in 1312. The Hospitaller and the Knights of Malta are one in the same, but that Moose-lodge-type group that uses the name has nothing to do with the knights. There is much to improve before we add this stuff, anyway. -- SECisek (talk) 18:46, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

Yup, totally agree. I just mention it because a lot of those organizations claim themselves to the be legitimate successors to the Knights Templar. You could make a legitimate case for the Swiss being their successors, or at least more legitimate than most others, but even that is slightly tenuous. 137.246.104.100 (talk) 16:24, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Main reason(s) for first crusade?

Can I just ask is there a specific reason for the crusades and if so why?

Is it true that the crusaderes thought if they recaptured Jerusalem, they could be granted a gateway to heaven? Also, did some of the crusaders only want to fight but not for religous beliefs? —Preceding unsigned comment added by NanoSpart (talk • contribs) 09:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The first crusade is the best understood and most documented. Western Europe had accurate though dated info that pilgrims were being restricted from traveling to the Holy Land. This had changed by the time they got there, so the defenders were someone mystified and rather permanently annoyed when the crusaders showed up!

In a large group, there are always people with varying reasons for going to war. The first crusade is probably more notable for the high number of participants who had "purer" motives.

It is not true about the "gateway to heaven." However, crusaders were granted an indulgence for past sins. Certainly not ones committed after the indulgence was granted. By itself, assuming no further sinning, it was a "pathway to heaven" of sorts I suppose, in the event of the crusaders death. Student7 (talk) 12:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

gay?

Seems like someone is having fun and blaming us gay people again for the crusades. It really should be removed! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Linda Lobsta Defenda (talk • contribs) 21:16, 17 March 2008 (UTC)

Crusades task force

I've created a Crusades task force as part of the Middle Ages WikiProject, if anyone is interested in helping out (like step one, how do I get that into the banner up at the top!). Adam Bishop (talk) 09:51, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me know if there's anywhere in particular you'd like my help with. Walbe13 (talk) 15:43, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

Not led by Rome

A knowledgeable editor made the correct change to material yet asked how can a war be pursued against papal enemies not be led by Rome (the pope)? Well, this happens all the time, doesn't it? Anyway, they were probably sanctioned by Rome except the really looney ones like the Children's Crusade. Popes most likely had their own problems and the logistics of mobilizing a truly huge army for the time, supplying it, and transporting it thousands of miles was probably well beyond the pope who often had his own front yard wars and political problems to contend with. Also there was the international politics. If you led the war you appeared strong to your neighbors. Usually the strongest did the leading. This was (in retrospect) a maturation thing for nations which led to the Reformation and political changes. I'm implying that the leaders sensed some of this at the time.

For the knowledgeable editor who made the changes this is far too long an answer. And probably too naive. Just wanted to leave a reply to the edit summary.Student7 (talk) 12:57, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

Problem with statement in Islamic Perspective

Re: The following quote "This view caused the Muslims to set up intellectual barriers and become very isolationist in their policies causing them to be left behind in the world scene.[35]".

Well, while there may be a good bit of truth to this, and it may be a fairly reasonable statement, the volatile nature of this subject, especially in these times, begs the need for a higher standard of editorial professionalism. While this statement may lead some people to understand and possibly sympathize with the Islamic/Arabic position in the world today, it is likely to only further red-flag other people's suspicions of the actions of some Islamic/Arabic peoples. It is also a very unqualified statement (e.g. "some" Muslims? "most" Muslims? "a few extremist" Muslims?), that assumes inferior agency ("intellectual barriers", "isolationist") on the part of the Islamic world. While it may be supported by a footnote, it is only one footnote from a relatively old source that is not from one of the most pre-eminent, established authorities (i.e. Harvard, Oxford). Miloluvr (talk) 04:19, 20 March 2008 (UTC)

There is a marked contrast in the end of the previous paragraph where it remarks that the crusades were largely unknown in the moslem world until 1899. This is understandable. The wars were fought as necessary. There was no great need to rationalize them or to have a deep philosophical opinion about them.

This is followed by the "Islamic perspective" (which was just presented. The reference is about that very thing). This states that the moslem world holds (which is fine) but "has held" that the wars were invasions, etc. etc. So this "deep" feeling has been remorsely cultivated since 1899 or what? It was unknown and unphilosophized about before then as far as anyone can determine. The statements seem a bit overwrought. Kind of like the French getting annoyed with the Italians for "overrunning" their land by Julius Caesar in 30 BC or thereabouts. Or by the Italians for the Huns overrunning them in 446 AD. Isn't there a statute of limitations for complaining and resentment? Well, there should be! Student7 (talk) 01:01, 21 March 2008 (UTC)

Shouldn't the "Islamic Perspective" start off with the concluding line of the introduction? For example, "Muslims were largely ignorant of the crusades until 1899. At that time, nationalists and fundamentalists disgusted with Ottoman rule, looked around for issues to capture the minds of the public. Because of what was perceived as unwanted outside interference by Europeans, one of the issues they thought would be useful was the crusades. This was slanted to give the idea that a continuous political system had survived from the founding of Islam who came into possession of the Dome of the Rock shrine (nevermind how that happened) when they were beset on by crazy Europeans trying to persecute them for no good reason. Etc." Too truthful? Student7 (talk) 17:32, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

I think something along those lines would probably work well. One notable example of the perpetuation of this type of propaganda is how areas are reffered to today in the Muslim world. Case in point, the area of greater Syria (The country of Syria, parts of Iraq, part of turkey, etc.) is still referred to as Greater Syria or Sham in Arabic, although it hasn't been a functioning entity in about a millenia. Walbe13 (talk) 15:37, 24 March 2008 (UTC)

clear muslim bias - very different from university slant

There is a clear muslim bias I believe in this article. I remember studying the crusades at university. The tone in this article is completely wrong : partially modern viewpoint, partially muslim bias. "The poor innocent muslims taken by surprise by evil moronic crusaders" seems to be the attitude. I mean please, this is the middle ages we are talking about. In the vision of the time it would have been (for the first crusade) : "a militarily more advanced western christian world strikes back at a muslim world that via the turks was trying to expand into the bizantine empire ". Rape and pillage of towns in the middle ages are completely incidental. If you lose, you pay. The saracens did it during their period of conquest before the crusades and the mongols did it in the period after.

The article has to be flagged up as academically controversial and irreconcilable with a western university viewpoint of the crusades —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.37.128.162 (talk) 16:07, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, it is supposed to be correct according to scholarly writings. If it isn't please change it, BUT we need footnotes from scholarly sources. Student7 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Omission, documented elsewhere in Wiki

On the edit protected http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crusades#Third_Crusade_1187.E2.80.931192 (Third Crusade 1187-1192) is what I see as an important omission.

Present text: "After taking Jerusalem back from the Christians the Muslims spared civilians ..."

Following this text, an important point is missing: "... only following Balian of Ibelin's threat to kill every Muslim in the city, estimated between 3,000 to 5,000, and to destroy Islam’s holy shrines of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque if quarter was not given."

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Saladin#Capture_of_Jerusalem

"Saladin initially was unwilling to grant terms of quarter to the European occupants of Jerusalem until Balian of Ibelin threatened to kill every Muslim in the city, estimated between 3,000 to 5,000, and to destroy Islam’s holy shrines of the Dome of the Rock and the al-Aqsa Mosque if quarter was not given." —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.59.201.16 (talk) 20:21, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for pointing that out. As you will note, this article is the "lead" (high level) article. Each crusade is separately documented much more extensively in forked articles. We are trying to keep this article free from a lot of detail. If anything, I have a pro-West bias. However, I can understand why any editor might have summarized the result when the Muslims retook the city. This detail is not concealed, though it may seem to be from the casual reader who does not go on to read the detail in the forked article. Cruelty was so much a part of medieval life, that the experienced reader kind of skims over them. I realize that this may seem callous, but cruelty abounded. The soft-hearted did not win many battles in those days! Student7 (talk) 23:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Let's also keep in mind that Wikipedia is not accepted as a reliable source for Wikipedia. The claim in Saladin#Capture_of_Jerusalem is unsourced in that article. Before we consider if we mention this somewhere else, we need reliable external sources for the claim. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:56, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Found one (1) reference to it which I put in Saladin. See what you think. Who knows, maybe it's just great! :) Maybe this should be in Third crusade. Definitely not in this article's summary IMO. The article "Jerusalem" seems a little sparse on Crusader history, to say the least BTW in case anyone wants to take a look at it. Student7 (talk) 00:54, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

I found it in Runciman, which is slightly less ancient and more reliable, I think. But neither source claims that Saladin refused to grant quarter, only that he refused to accept a conditional surrender. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 08:17, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

It's all been moved to History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages), I think. By the way, I believe the ultimate source for Balian's threat is the Old French continuation of William of Tyre. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:34, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

What god really wanted

"One of the ironic things about the Crusades is that even though “God may have indeed wished it, there is certainly no evidence that the Christians of Jerusalem did, or that anything extraordinary was occurring to pilgrims there to prompt such a response at that moment in history.”

How the hell do you know what god wants or doesnt want. This is very bias and ask for it to be removed. 70.176.133.226 (talk) 00:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

This is a direct quote from a book written by Dr. John Esposito, and while I agree that it sounds somewhat biased, I believe that he is trying to use sarcasm to express his view that the entire crusade was just a horrible event. I think it's appropriate where it's at. Walbe13 (talk) 17:03, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Then Dr. Esposito needs to be highlighted as the person who said the statement. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:45, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

It is marked in "Quotes" with a citation after it.137.246.104.100 (talk) 17:42, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It does not matter because "God may have indeed wished it" is not a majority view of scholars. You have you state who actually said the comment other wise it borders on WP:Weasel even with a citation.--Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:17, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

It is hard to evaluate that sentence as being scholarly, I don't care who said it. The Christians archbishop asked Rome for help. It might not have reflected the Christians view, but how do we know now? "No evidence?" There's "no evidence" they watched Miami CSI either, but that's not stated! I think the sentence should be deleted in lieu of some overriding need to keep it. If we want to know what Christians thought, I suggest we need something stronger than this supposition. Student7 (talk) 21:51, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if any of you has caught the reference. "Deus vult" ("God wishes it") was the rallying cry of the crusaders. The author was being clever.... --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Fourth crusade

One of the major defects in the summary of the fourth crusade is the lack of any mention of the number of times after the crusade was launched that Innocent III tried to intervene and redirect the crusaders efforts towards Jerusalem under the threat of excommunication. I think the paragraph deserves the remark, "started but later repudiated by Innocent III." Way more accurate. Student7 (talk) 02:02, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Antioch around 1100

Did anything significant happen in Antioch around 1100 or 1101? The reason I ask is because I've read a source that says some of the Karaite Jews held ransom by the Crusaders in Jerusalem were not allowed to leave. The Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon specifically mention an eight year old boy and a Kohen as two of a hand full that were never released. A footnote in my source states the boy was "Possibly identical with the boy from a noble family, reported as still being held by the Crusaders in Antioch." (S.D. Goitein. A Mediterranean Society (Vol. 5)) However, the book that is stated to have more info on the boy is in Hebrew. I'm wondering if anyone on here knows if these Jews were ever ransomed. I imagine the Crusaders could have gotten lots of money from a noble family. It sounds like something that would be mentioned in western sources. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Well, Bohemond I of Antioch was taken prisoner by the Danishmends in 1100, and his nephew Tancred became regent and was constantly at war with Byzantium, the Danishmends, and, well, everyone else. Nothing too exciting. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:56, 5 April 2008 (UTC)

This line needs to be reworded

This was further strengthened by religious propaganda, advocating Just War in order to retake the Holy Land—which included Jerusalem (where the death, resurrection and ascension into heaven of Jesus took place according to Christian theology) and Antioch (the first Christian city)—from the Muslims.

I like the coding links but the use of parenthesis is pretty ugly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nicocrust (talk • contribs) 17:25, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes. Poorly worded. I was about to try to change it. But if you look at the whole paragraph, none of it is that great. Worse, it had no inline footnotes. It mentions piety twice. Rambles on about the investiture controvery which doesn't really seem to have anything to do with the crusade itself. The one sentence above covers too much ground and ground that has already been covered. I suggest shortening the whole paragraph, maybe even subsection by one-half. I don't think much real information will be lost. Student7 (talk) 20:11, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Russia and Ukraine split as a major result of Crusades

Under the "Legacy" heading it might also be mentioned that one of the most important results of Crusades was decline of an ancient trading rout "from Varagians to Greeks" via Kyiv. Thus, Kyiv came to decay. Kyivan Rus split apart with one part (Russia) economically and politically oriented towards Tatatars and the other part (Byelorussia and Ukraine) - towards Eastern Europe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.20.167.41 (talk) 09:21, 26 May 2008 (UTC)

Suggested Alteration for Image Subtitle in "First Crusade 1095-1099"

I refer to the following section:

"For the first decade, the Crusaders pursed a policy of terror against Muslims and Jews that included mass executions, the throwing of severed heads over besieged cities walls, exhibition and mutilation of naked cadavers, and even cannibalism, as was recorded after the Siege of Maarat."

I would suggest that this constitutes a blatant and unjustifiable generalisation. First: Speaking of "THE Cursaders" is always a bad thing. Second: There was no organized policy of terror, as is suggested by this section. There may have been acts of terror - albeit mainly before 1099 - but they were commited by both sides. I would advocate the removal of this section and the image which is only a piece of revolting eye candy.

--> Ultramontanist81, 9 July 2008

I have to agree or at least suggest the switch 'even cannibalism' to 'one recorded instance of' for clarity's sake.

-> Internetdudecool, 25 May 2009 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.162.192.193 (talk) 19:17, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

The info on the massacres of the First Crusade is massively flawed. More than half the population of Jerusalem--and, indeed, the entire Holy Land, was Christian (Eastern Orthodox, not Catholic), Muslims came next, and there were hardly any Jews living there at all. Making claims that "Muslims and Jews" defended the city, but not mentioning all the eastern Christians living their presents a thoroughly false picture, and this is deliberately done by the person who wrote this article to further the goal of making the Crusades sound like a Christian genocide against Muslims (with Jews thrown in, I suppose, to further the feeling of anti-European comradeship). Go to a convention of Medieval historians and ask them about how many Christians there still were at the time of the Crusades and the majority of them will tell you what I just did. Note: I'm not defending what any Crusaders did, but let's try to look at the event through the objective lens of what is KNOWN, as opposed to what some modern day revisionists would like us to believe. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.4.53 (talk) 02:56, 16 July 2009 (UTC) SEE--The Crusades and the Christian World of the East: Rough Tolerance (The Middle Ages Series) (Hardcover)by Christopher MacEvitt...if I have time I'll bring more references for this--MAYBE SOMEBODY WITH THE POWER, AND WITH A DESIRE TO HAVE WIKIPEDIA BE A RELIABLE SOURCE FOR TRUTH, WILL ADD THIS INFO TO THIS TOPIC so ignorant ppl who read this with the intention to learn, will see that the Crusades was about a lot more than just Christians vs. Muslims.

What reference are you criticizing particularly?

Article was not written by one person but by, perhaps a hundred authors, all with different points of view. Some like yours and some different. This is, like most controversial articles, a compromise, which those of us working with it for some time can accept. If you cannot, please point out individual weaknesses, particularly with regard to WP:RELY references. Suggest that major changes be discussed here first, though. Student7 (talk) 17:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

MacEvitt is a good source for this, as well as Ronnie Ellenblum's "Frankish Rural Settlement". Benjamin Kedar has a very lengthy article about the massacre in July 1099, which I think has been used in the article about the siege. This article is a jumbled mess and has clearly been written by numerous people, which is unfortunate since it is by far the most-viewed article about the crusades on Wikipedia. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:56, 14 April 2010 (UTC)

"Historical Context" Section Is Skewed

There is no symmetry in how the Western and Middle Eastern Situations in the 11th century are portrayed.

Yes. It basically remains Euro-centric.

What is said about the Middle Eastern context is certainly correct, however it stops well before most of the events relevant to the situation in the region immediately prior to the first crusade.

In the Middle Eastern context section, while it mentions the stopping of European pilgrims, it does not mention how, in a notable event, thousands of pilgrims were murdered by the Seljuk Turks--this is the thing that was used to spark hatred in the Christians against muslims and set fire to the whole Crusade movement. If Crusader atrocities are described in detail here, why isn't this be mentioned? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.164.4.53 (talk) 03:13, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think that it is productive to look for multiple reasons for the Crusades. The Crusaders discovered that earlier pilgrims had been thwarted from going to Jerusalem. Period. These other facts are "subtleties" that, I expect, escaped them at the time. They didn't really need a lot of reasons. Just spoiling to fight as were all what passed for governments in those days (not excluding the Saracens). I agree with the non "anti-Muslim" comment but it wouldn't have made a difference if the people thwarting the pilgrimage had been Orthodox. They would have gone to war anyway! Just the times. Student7 (talk) 20:14, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Right. No mention of the internal conflicts and the Turks rising to threaten the Byzantines nor the real intentions of Alexius I which certainly were not to invite 200 years of European incursions in the region, incursions that arguably cost the Byzantines their existence later on.

If the formation of "a large class of armed warriors whose energies were misplaced fighting one another and terrorizing the local populace" in Europe and extended mentions of early battles with Muslims in the Mediterranean and Iberian peninsula are important, then why not the deaths of Suleyman I and Malik Shah I within a decade of each other? This happened immediately before the crusaders arrived and the ensuing power struggle within and between their families and eventually the Fatimids is an extremely important factor in the successes of the crusaders during the first crusade. Why is there no mention of this?

It's important but not as the motive for the Crusades so much as the context that drove Muslim forces into conflict with the Byzantines.

A discussion of the relative sizes of Byzantine and Muslim cities to Western European cities as well as references to technological and military developments would be very useful here or perhaps in a new section. But in general, there seems to be a stunning lack of military, tactical, and technological information in the article as a whole.

There's some acknowledgement in the "legacy" section that Europeans learned certain things in the Middle East but you'd never know it by reading the very biased History of Europe article - which needs a lot of work to accurately reflect non-Greco-Roman influences on that culture. On the subject at hand, see Islamic culture and related articles covering the history of subjects in which Islamic thinkers were predominant in the 8th to 12th century for examples of the kinds of things Europeans learned there, and which they also learned after the Reconquista when vast numbers of books and scholars fell under Spanish Christian rule.

In addition, the following section has some issues:

When the First Crusade was preached in 1095, the Christian princes of northern Iberia had been fighting their way out of the mountains of Galicia and Asturias, the Basque Country and Navarre, with increasing success, for about a hundred years. The fall of Moorish Toledo to the Kingdom of León in 1085 was a major victory, but the turning points of the Reconquista still lay in the future. The disunity of Muslim emirs was an essential factor.

While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of European reactions against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered the "toe of Italy," Calabria, in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca and Sardinia, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine Emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands starting with Jerusalem.

First, the last two sentences of the second paragraph is perfect and should certainly stay.

Second, why is "The disunity of Muslim emirs" section mentioned here but not referenced in the situation in the Middle East?

Third, while the above section is certainly relevant, it does not deserve two paragraphs. The same topics are also discussed in the "Western European Situation" section so it is repetitive.

Earlier successes against the Muslim were a factor in the crusades, but certainly not more important the rest of those listed. Yet there are almost three full paragraphs devoted to it. This particular passage should be pared down to perhaps 4-5 sentences. --Wlf211 (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

POV explanation of impact on Muslim world

In "The Cross And The Crescent", Richard Fletcher suggests that the impact of the Crusades on the Islamic world was, at the time, very slight. In contradiction to this Wikipedia article, he points out that the total area of the Islamic world ever to fall under Crusader control was small, especially when compared with Islamic incursions into Europe by the Moors, the Turks and others. Perhaps the article could give the actual percentage of Islamic land under Crusader rule at its maximum extent. Fletcher sees the Islamic tendency to refer to Crusaders simply as "Franks" as evidence of a relatively indifferent attitude to them. If you feel mortally threatened by invaders, you'll find out a lot more about them, after all. He also points out that contemporary Islamic accounts of Saladin (Salahadin Ayyubi) lay as much emphasis on his return of Egypt to Sunni Islam (from its previously Shia Fatamid orientation) as on his battles with Crusaders. He also notes that the Mongols inflicted massively more devastation on the Islamic world than the Crusaders. This all suggests that the belief in an unbroken Islamic resentment of western Christendom, rooted in folk memory of the evilness of the Crusades, is a myth.

For Fletcher, the Crusades petered out largely because of the 100 Years War. The two main Crusading nations - France and England - were now at war with each other, and not in a position to contribute actively to Crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgesdelatour (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the assumption that colonizing was equivalent to crusading and thus to genocide may have been common in the intellectual classes of the Muslim world after the Crusades - it was common in the Christian world too though criticism of forced conversions were muted. It seems quite POV though to assert that this was the reason why Islamic culture ceased to innovate, expand or change much after about the 14th century. This has much more to do with the rise of the Ottoman Empire, which like China (which suffered no such crusades), sought better internal control of people and found constant external contact and invention and innovation distracting from internal order. The shift from Arabs to Turks was similar to the shift from innovating and experimenting Greeks to codifying and engineering Romans. Any stagnation probably had more to do with the replacement of ijtihad with taqlid and freezing of fiqh in law, more to do with trading-based Arab capitals like Damascus losing dominance to the militarist Turks and Baghdad being sacked by the Mongols - it had over thirty public libraries in it at the time, and Europe had none. Also civilizations lose their will to expand or trade extensively often and for no simple set of reasons - it happens often in history. So to ascribe the insular Ottaman-era civilization to a prior European influence during the Crusades is extremely Euro-centric.

Most credible scholars do analogize crusading to colonizing and note especially that one effectively ceased and the other effectively began in the same year, 1492. Quoting several scholars who disagree with each other would seem to be mandatory on this matter, which involves comment on the fate and ambition of many civilizations. Did the Spanish approach the Maya, Aztec and Inca similar to the way they'd approached Egypt, Jerusalem, Lithuanians, Albigensian French and Muslim Spain? Yes, probably. They'd learned a lot about propaganda and how to win a clash of cultures - and about torture and genocide, in which they became experts.

The whole debate is worth a paragraph of its own to discuss the controversies and influences that caused the general decline of Islamic and rise of Western Christian dominance in the world, but this can't be separated from discussions of European colonization after 1492 and the way that rising naval power made it possible to blockade and dominate key ports in Asia, Africa and the Mediterrean later on in the 19th century, e.g. via Singapore, Cape Town, Gibraltar.

"Slight" seems to make sense. The invadees didn't seem to have nearly as much problem with the crusaders once they achieved some form of unity of purpose around the invaded area. Whereas the first crusade was one of the few successes.

I could be wrong, but it seems to me that enthusiasm for the crusades kind of petered out. Territory in a foreign "Holy" land, sounds great in church and on paper, but required a lot of work and expenditure much of which was never paid back. Rise of the merchant/lending class and all that.

The Hundred Years War, "local" by comparison, was tough enough. And somewhat inevitable, wasn't it, given the vague succession at the time? The amazing part, mainly, is that the crusades could have been mounted in the first place. Taking an army (from England) a thousand miles away to fight a war for a year or two. And a series of them. To me, it demonstrates the faith of the West in itself. It laid the basis for the next 900 years of history. Student7 (talk) 12:18, 30 May 2010 (UTC)

Some thoughts on "responsibility" - cause and effect

1. Feudalism nurtures warriors. And vice versa, I'm sure. The normal activity of the guys at the top was fighting somebody, often somebody closer to home than the Middle East. Kings may have noticed that the internal wars weren't terribly productive (no theory of economics, remember). Fighting Saracens seemed more desirable/attractive than (say) fighting France or fighting the Duke of York.

2. The guys at the top were basically thugs until about 1800 or so. And remember, this includes the Middle East as well. Earlier than 1800 in some places, some places thugs still rule. Thugs can use a bit of legitimacy. As groups of thugs replaced each other, it was nice to have somebody wave their hand and convey to them the right to rule.

2.a. Even so, thugs could normally claim a right to fight somebody. William in Normandy, Harold defending his kingdom, etc.

3. The church, who often had an "election" for pope (seem more like "experiments" nowdays and their succession was sometimes thuggish but anyway) appeared to have that legitimacy. Successor of Peter and all that.

Given the above, the crusades were a gimmee. No downside in theory.

Unless you are Greek Orthodox, the fourth crusade can be read more like a joke. A bunch of drunks down at the bar saying "let's invade the Holy Land" and having it go all wrong. The pope screaming at them from afar to focus. The guys saying, "Well, he's not here. He doesn't understand our problems. Here's how we'll solve the latest one...."

Trying to find a culprit here gets pretty slippery IMO. It was the times, which our civilization had to go through in order to get to these times. If you read the details of the Crusade Gone Wrong, the Fourth, you can follow what the crusaders were doing and why. It was stupid, but more from hindsight. And yes, they shoulda listened to the pope. But pointing a finger is difficult if you understand the mileu.

As far as the "poor Saracens" go, they were all led by thugs too. I wouldn't waste my sympathy. By invading, the crusaders strengthened certain Moorish leaders and deposed others. So what as far as anything goes? When the crusaders left, they returned (as did the crusaders) to fighting each other again. Is that "better"? It was just the times. Student7 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)