Talk:First Crusade/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about First Crusade. 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 2

Archive 3

Why include Peter and Emerich?

Peter the Hermit and Emerich's respective endeavours really have nothing to do with the actual First Crusade that was led by Godfrey, Raymond and Bohemond. Emerich in particular is totally unrelated, since he was a psychotic murderer who wasn't following the Church's teachings. Bishop Rothgard of Mainz tried to protect his Jewish neighbors from him. At any rate, discussions of Peter the Hermit and Count Emerich should have their own articles. This should be about the actual First Crusade that took Jerusalem.

Because it is considered part of the history. The Peoples' Crusade, The German Crusade and the Princes' Crusade all make up the first Crusade. Wow, "psychotic murderer", tell us how you really feel.(Ghostexorcist 01:03, 19 November 2006 (UTC))

Thirdly, they were acting in response to the call to arms made at Clermont (or at least by preachers passing along the message). If you're going to tell part of the story, you have to tell it all! Cooperp1 21:36, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Peter the Hermit stayed with the Crusade and served as a diplomat later on in the Crusade. (User: Foolfromhell 20:13, 24 April 2007

Spoken Wikipedia

(the above header was added so as to move the ToC box to the top of the page by Imc 19:35, 23 November 2005 (UTC) )

Spoken Wikipedia I thought about nominating also. It would require reading the "Main article"'s as well, IMO, since they contain the real story, otherwise it would be a brief treatment hard to say how valuable it would be.Stbalbach 16:29, 29 May 2005 (UTC)

Deletion of a biased paragraph:

I deleted the following paragraph because it comes from an obviously anti-Western Europe biased writer. The idea that the noble classes of Europe during the High Middle Ages were sitting around trying to find something to do other than attack each other is poor history and purely self-involved bigotry. If anyone adds it again I will continue to delete it.:

The origins of the Crusades in general, and of the First Crusade in particular, stem from events earlier in the Middle Ages. The breakdown of the Carolingian empire in previous centuries, combined with the relative stability of European borders after the Christianization of the Vikings and Magyars, gave rise to an entire class of warriors who now had little to do but fight among themselves.

Full of Errors

I teach college courses on the crusades and will try to edit this page if I find time. As it stands it is completely misleading, and seems to reflect Terry Jones' views in the BBC documentary series on the crusades. The same seems to be true for other pages on the crusades.

Sample errors

1. The Battle of Manzikert was in 1071, not 1074.

2. There is no evidence Gregory VII was thinking about "reunion" as the date of 1054 for the Schism of east and western Christianity is purely notional.

3. Urban II had no idea he was calling a "crusade" [the word and its cognates was not used until the end of the 12th century - at the time the expeditions were called "iter" /journey or "peregrinatio"/pilgrimage.

4. The cry at Clermont was "Deus le volt1"

5. The pope had never read the Qur'an (it was not availble in Latin until Peter the Venerable had it translated it in the mid 12th century). The indulgence (the word "plenary" was not used, and in fact belongs to the development of the theology of indulgences in the mid 13th century) does not echo any Qur'anic notions. [Most Mulsim notions of Jihad derive from discussions among Sharia jurists rather than the Qur'an in any case.]

6. There is no evidence whatsoever that younger sons were attracted to the crusades for economic reasons. Painstaking research by historians such as J. Riley-Smith has shown that whole aristocratic families put themselves into debt to support members going on the expedition. When Jerusalem was conquered, almost 90% of the survivors returned home. Venice, Genoa, and Pisa had almost nothing to do with the First Crusade. The great trade advantages to these cities really only emerged in the 13th century - i.e. after the loss of Jerusalem by the Crusaders and the establishment of the rump Kingdom in Acre.

7. Many of the "peasants" in the people's crusade were in fact lower level knights. Given the extent of tied labor, most peasants could not simply get up and leave. At the most, the armies were around 50,000-60,000 - a miniscule percentage of the population.

8. "Fanatical bands" is definitely not NPOV.

9. Peter's armies were quite well organized. How else could such a group be marched all the way to Constantinople? The provisioning alone was a major daily achievement - mostly done by purchase from local merchants, along with some robbery.

10. Peter's armies did not massacre Jews. Emerich's did.

11. Peter's army was quite well armed. See the chronicle of Albert of Aachen on this.

12. Peter's army reached Constantinople more or less intact. Alexius I Comnenus arranged for its transport to Asia Minor. Then, at a battle outside Nicea (100 miles from CP), many of the People's Crusade members were defeated in battle.

13. The pope did not call for the killing of Jews, as noted. However, there were massacres of Jews in later Crusades, specifically the 2nd Crusade.

14. I don't know of any account that says Jews were burned in a synagogue in Jerusalem. The account of blood running ankle deep on the Temple Mount is a literary hyperbole.

15. The Knights Hospitallers existed before the Crusades as a pilgrims' help organization.

Well you are certainly encouraged to fix errors, but I have a few questions/comments on some of your points: 2: Why is 1054 "purely notional"? That's when the Pope and Patriarch excommunicated each other, and was the Papacy not looking to heal that schism? 3: It's an historical convention to refer to it as a crusade...surely we are not going to say "he called for an iter". (They didn't call it the "Great Schism" in 1054, either...) 4: I have seen it written in Latin (Deus vult), Old French (Deus lo/le volt) and even modern French - do we really know what they said, or if they ever said that at all? Was Urban preaching in (Old) French, or Latin? (I assume French!) 15: True, but they weren't established as a military order until afterwards.

I'm sure I'm responsible for many of these errors, and it would be great to have actual scholars working on these crusade articles. I hope you are willing to stick around for awhile! Adam Bishop 18:15, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Now that I look at it again, some of the problems actually come from the original article, which was copied from the 1911 Encyclopedia Britannica - so naturally it was horribly out of date. (Though I can still see where I have added misleading bits as well.) Adam Bishop 23:12, 11 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Okay, if our anonymous prof is still around, I have tried to rewrite the page, at least the first half (and I'll get to the rest when I have time). I hope it now more accurately reflects recent research. Adam Bishop 03:13, 26 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Poor writing examples:

Horrible example 1

The First Crusade was launched in 1099 to take back Jerusalem from the Muslims, and to help the Byzantine Empire fight the Seljuk Turks.

"Take back?" By who? What does it mean to "take back" something?

Horrible example 2

The number of those who assumed the crusader's cross increased daily, and the movement, soon passing beyond papal restraint, seized upon the lower classes. Peasants exchanged plows for arms and were joined by the dissatisfied, the oppressed, and the outcast; members of the lower clergy, runaway monks, women, and children joined this popular mob, recognizing no leader but God.

"The number of those who assumed the crusader's cross??" Good writing for a track - not for an encyclopedia, thanks.

If "no leader but God" is to be used -- it needs to be in quotes, with attribution.

"Peter survived however..."

"Peter survived however?" What did he "survive"? According to the previous text, he was doing the massacring! LOL

-豎&#30505sv

Well, I don't know about anyone else, but I was writing around the entries before me. I haven't been here that long, but I am under the impression that the point of Wikipedia is to constantly improve on the articles to make them the best they can be - which you have done. But I'm pretty sure that does not include being a jackass at the same time :) Adam Bishop 01:09 3 Jul 2003 (UTC)

The jackass bit was entirely gratis, no need to thank me -- and yes, the article was incredibly well written except for those few problems I mentioned... perhaps it was the desparity between these that caused me some causation to 'scribe my consternation. :) -豎&30505sv

I removed this text:

The papacy was concerned by Muslim raids on Sicily (Sicily itself was nominally Muslim). The Pope was unwilling to ask the German emperor for help (as the emperors were traditionally in rivalry with the Papacy), so instead he invited the Normans already in southern Italy to intervene. Robert Guiscard then took control of Sicily, the Pope 'granting' it to him, and it became a tightly-controlled monarchy under the Normans.

It's okay, but the grant was made two years after the start of the Crusade, in 1098. I substituted text about pressing back Muslim boundaries in the central Mediterranean. Wetman 12:02, 14 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Major Edit to Origins

I have Edited boldly, but not too boldly I hope. Much of the material in the "Origins" section more rightly belongs, or is duplicated in, the main Crusades article. At least that's my feeling. Let me know if you think I've been too bold :) Maastrictian 21:51, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Why was the Peace and Truce of God movement removed.. or not moved to the main article? Editing boldy means moving the material to the correct place, not just deleteing it. Peace and Truce of God and the Crusades are the two major institutions enacted by the church to stem noble violence in the High Middle Ages.Stbalbach 03:02, 18 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moving it to the main article seems the best choice to me at least. I'll do that when I get a chance today. Maastrictian 14:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Moved. Maastrictian 19:32, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Oh...sorry. I thought you were just some vandal! I guess you might want to revert my revert, or talk about the changes here first, maybe. Adam Bishop 21:52, 17 Sep 2004 (UTC)

No problem. I see that I forgot to add a comment to my edit, which probably made me look like even more of a vandal. Sorry for the confusion. Maastrictian 14:34, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Possible "to do" list

To Stbalbach and all others who may be interested, I think this article is progressing to the point where it could be a featured article. But what else needs to be done before that? We now have separate articles for the sieges of Antioch and Jerusalem, but should other bits be expanded in their own separate articles? Such as:

~~Battle of Nicaea - there is plenty of info about it in both Latin and Greek authors, it could easily be a separate article.~~
~~Battle of Dorylaeum - the info about the battle already exists, in a small summary, at Dorylaeum; perhaps it needs to be moved to a separate battle article, if it is worthy of being expanded.~~
Should any other battles in Asia Minor have articles, or should they just be mentioned here in passing?
Should the siege of Arqa ~~and the first battle of Ascalon~~ be treated as separate from the Siege of Jerusalem? (Someone was going to write about the 1153 Battle of Ascalon, a long time ago, I'll have to see if I can find them again - perhaps all the battles there during the crusades can go in one article.)
~~should the crusade of 1101 have a separate article?~~

Those are the questions I can come up - are there any other issues? Would the present state of the article be any more academically pleasing than the older version the anonymous professor was complaining about above? Is this article and its associated subarticles getting too big, or is plenty of detail a good thing? Adam Bishop 02:17, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Adam, first off, excellent job on Antioch and Jerusalem, very good articles. I was thinking of writing up a more detailed article on the peasants war, have not had the time lately but is on my mental to-do list. All the ideas you mention could easily be expanded on, featured article is a worthy goal. Stbalbach 12:27, 31 Oct 2004 (UTC)

In terms of the article itself, I've not finished, but two points so far - firstly, some more information on the Middle Eastern background/situation would, I think, be a good idea. Currently it's pretty tightly focused on the west. Some discussion of the Seljuk Turks' arrival, the death of Malik Shah in 1092, and the ongoing break-up of the Seljuk Empire (with the various players involved) as the crusaders start to arrive should probably be mentioned. Secondly, the historiographical paragraph on the crusaders' socio-economic background discusses "Hugh," "Raymond," "Godfrey," "Baldwin," and, worst of all, since there were two of them, "Robert" without any mention of who these people are - they are introduced later on in the article. This needs to be fixed. More comments as I get further into it. As to the questions above, the First Battle of Ascalon occurred after Jerusalem fell - it should, I think, have its own article, ideally. The Crusades of 1101 would certainly merit an article as well. john k 06:39, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Okay, a bit about the Muslim background has been added, with all (I think) the relevant entities (Rüm, Mosul, Aleppo, Damascus, the Danishmends, the Ortuqids, the Hashshashin, the Fatimids). Conveniently there are already articles about most of that stuff. I fixed the paragraph with out-of-context names - that had been lower down before, after their full names were already mentioned. As Wetman suggested, this could really use a map, but I haven't been able to find one in the public domain. Adam Bishop 01:48, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Looks good enough to be a featured article but if you really wonder what is absolutely missing you might go re-read the very good Norman conquest article and ponder how the aftermath of this adventure, including the formation of the Angevin empire, fits in with the first crusade. Was the whole of northern france too busy with subjugating the anglo saxons to be bothered with crusading? And what all those other Norman nobles are doing in Italy at the same time? --AlainV 02:04, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, I know it had an effect on who controlled Normany and England - Robert Curthose had to sell Normandy to go on crusade, and while he was gone his brother Henry became king of England. This also led to the Battle of Tinchebrai. But they weren't really subjugating the Anglo-Saxons anymore by that point, were they? Anyway, should we add this somehow? Perhaps in a "effect on Europe" section? Maybe it should go in the Curthose article, it's pretty short right now. As for the Normans in Italy, well, a lot of Bohemund's family went on crusade with him, I don't know what else they were doing in general. Adam Bishop 02:52, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Well, some interpretations of the Robin Hood legend portray him as a Saxon fighting the Norman lords while Richard I of England is off crusading. So that would mean that the place is still not completely pacified. The problem is that I am not sure how to put this in and the article is good enough anyway, even if there are a lot of potential linkages missing. --AlainV 02:28, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

That's actually the Third Crusade, but the point is still valid...there was Hereward the Wake, a similar figure, much closer to the Conquest and the First Crusade. Adam Bishop 06:48, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Just wanted to note the progress of related articles - Siege of Nicaea, Battle of Dorylaeum, and Battle of Ascalon now exist. Adam Bishop 20:55, 14 Nov 2004 (UTC)

And now also People's Crusade, thanks to Stbalbach. By the way, I notice on the French wikipedia that they seem to be simultaneously working on their First Crusade articles, but I think independently of us - that's pretty cool. They also have a Crusades wikiproject, maybe we should set up something like that as well. Adam Bishop 01:00, 25 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Nice work on the 1101 crusade, I never knew about it, interesting well written article. On the projects, I'm currently interested in medieval history so would be more interested in a general medieval project page. There may be a number of other medievalists around to help draw on more detailed projects once we form a more general group. Just some thoughts. --Stbalbach 08:22, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yeah that's a good idea, there are a few medievalists around in various subjects. Also, thanks to Wetman, there is now also a Chanson d'Antioche article. Adam Bishop 18:25, 15 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Paragraph moves

I just made some structural changes to the article, no content was lost, just paragraphs moved. We want this article (and all the sub-articles) to be a "featured article" and part of that is telling the story of the First Crusade in a compelling and interesting manner. The Crusades is most interesting and compelling when read in chronological order, as a chronology or narrative story. So I moved the academic analysis, which tends to break the narrative, to a seperate section. In this way the reader can read the article and get the whole story of the Crusades, without distraction in the more academic (although important) analysis which is in a seperate section of the article. This should also help keep future editors from breaking the chronology with analysis by having a seperate area to work in. Stbalbach 02:47, 5 Dec 2004 (UTC)

More re-ordering of paragraphs. Again, idea is to create a section that is a chronical of events, and a section with analysis. Floating the idea out to see how it looks and goes over, not set in stone open to ideas and suggestions. Stbalbach 20:24, 6 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I've done some reordering and rewording as well. Now that all the major parts have their own separate articles, and we've extensively rewritten the page, is there anything else we can do? I think everyones' concerns have been dealt with. Should we put it on Featured Article Candidates? It would be nice to have some new eyes looking at this. Adam Bishop 03:52, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Yes I agree. There are a few more things we could still do; a German crusade article comes to mind, it's the first pogrom and deserves an article (it may allready be, perhaps under a diffrent title or sub-section or name related to Jewish history). It's a good idea to announce and see what recommendations others have. --Stbalbach 06:23, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Oh yeah, that would make a good article. I don't know much about that part, except for what is already here (and in Emicho). What title could we use for that? "German Crusade" can refer to a bunch of other minor crusades so I don't think it would be the best title for a separate article. Anyway, I've added this to the featured article candidate list. Adam Bishop 09:13, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

We need 3 or 4 pictures on the main article page to liven it up. Also an overview map, and perhaps someone who can add arrows showing the routes taken (or if one allready exists in the PD). That would really help to see a map. I've looked around and so far no luck. --Stbalbach 10:51, 19 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Changes: Addressed some concerns by "Ambi" as a "minor object" on the featured article page. Made the opening paragraph high level with few specifics and more generalized, to provide context / meaning. Moved to sub-article or integrated the historian nameing conventions (needs to be there, for search and refrence, but not up-front). --Stbalbach 04:17, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Great! I made German Crusade, 1096 as well - perhaps not the best title, but we can fix that later if necessary. I agree that there should also be more pictures in the article, but I'm not sure what we can use. I can't find any good PD maps online...if we're really desperate I suppose we can draw some lines on a blank map of Europe, but I hope it doesn't come to that! Adam Bishop 01:20, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Cool on the German Crusade. I think the name is NPOV enough and seems to have a historical precedent, unless theres another name more commonly used.

On the Map: Muir's Historical Atlas: (1911) has the exact map we need, which can be seen here .. but, its a clickable format which is no good. There is also this map which is a blank slate to add arrows if we had too. I wonder if theres a way to find the 1911 Muir's map which is in the public domain, it must be online somewhere. --Stbalbach 06:59, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Found a map.. it's 712k not sure if that presents a problem, but the print and route arrows are so small its the only way to read it. Still, best map ive seen in terms of route detail.--Stbalbach 08:13, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Define what the crusade was somewhat better in the intro. I'm thinking, "The First Crusade was a religiously-based military campaign launched by Pope Urban II in 1095 that was designed to restore Christian rule to Jerusalem and the Holy Land, which were then ruled by Muslims; this objective was achieved in July 1099." Something along those lines? Everyking 01:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

A religious military campaign from the pov of the 21st century. For the crusaders, they were pilgrims on a holy mission from god, pilgrims who happened to carry swords, pilgrims who would recieve an automatic ticket to heaven. For the Byzantine Emporer, it was a barbarian invasion. All this is discussed in the article. I don't think we should try to define it in the opening paragraph, it may even escape definition at all, as multiple pov events often do. Rather, summarize and say why it is significant to history on a high level. I do think the article is missing this element: a discussion about why the crusades are significant, the various ideas and theories. However, it belongs in the main Crusades article not the First Crusade. --Stbalbach 07:49, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Point taken, then, but I took it upon myself to expand the intro a bit; hopefully there's nothing wrong with what I added. Everyking 10:34, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

What you wrote is fine. Sounds like whats wanted is more bulk in the lead section so I added some for review. --Stbalbach 03:36, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Nitpicking...

That blank line at the top to make room for the template... not very attractive, huh? --tilde 06:16, Jan 15, 2005 (UTC)

Final sentence in the lead paragraph

The POV word successful popped out at me when looking at an upcoming Featured Article: the First Crusade. This is just asking for angry reaction from anyone outside of Christendom. Due to the urgency of this, I am unilaterally changing the sense of the sentence to something like the crusades which followed were relative failures. Ancheta Wis 10:33, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC) Please respond or fix the sentence if you wish.

Successful was being used in a neutral sense, I don't think anyone could have seriously interpreted that to mean anything else. However, to avoid political correctness concerns I have re-worded so there is no ambiguity. Stbalbach 17:14, 15 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Jesus! I cannot see how the fall of the Carolingians and the Christianization of Vikings and Magyars led to the Iberian (and not Spanish) Reconquista! It sure looks like TV-history. User:Velho

Well, that's not really what it says, but I suppose it can be taken that way since the paragraphs follow each other. What would you suggest? Adam Bishop 02:58, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Template needed

Since Crusade was essentialy a war, this needs to use the Template:Battlebox, like seen on Polish-Soviet War for example. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 12:21, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I would disagree with that for a number of reasons. Stbalbach 17:30, 15 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Them being? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 19:06, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, again, there's the fact that the Battlebox is for battles, not wars. Will you ever respond to this? john k 02:16, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

But of course. Think of it as an evolution. This template has been designed for battles, but it has been so good that it can be adapted with little trouble to wars, making them more readable. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Plus the Crusades is not a series of battles, nor was it a war, it is a political and social movement that ran across every aspect of society. These were mass migrations of peoples. To tag a battle box on these article makes them in to, well, articles about battles, which they are not (although battles did occur). Not to mention, the Crusaders did not see themselves as fighting a war, they saw themselves as pilgrims. There is a whole section on this in the article, you should read it. To make it into a war with a series of battles is highly POV, it also means you would have "sides" and "winners and loosers" , again, very POV, and not very professional. --Stbalbach 03:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Well, as far as Crusade goes, I am not going to argue strongly for this box, although I'd suggest moving this article from War section of Featured Articles to another then. I don't see POV here, and I do think that things like campaignbox and chronological list of battles (there were battles, weren't they?) would be useful, but I am willing to wait and see if I am alone on this here... --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 10:48, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

We do have battleboxes on the battle articles (and a campaignbox), but as Stbalbach said there is more going on than a series of battles. We discussed moving it out of the War category but no one has gotten around to doing it yet. Adam Bishop 16:52, 17 Feb 2005 (UTC)

It's now moved from the "War" category to "History" in the FA list. Stbalbach 05:40, 20 Feb 2005 (UTC)

siege of Jerusalem

Comments and discussion in relation to characterisation of crusaders displaying 'murderous intent' and related issues is sought. Premise A: such characterisation does not lack NPOV when the killings were in fact intentional and systematic (compare 'evil intent'). Premise B: general characterisation of the accounts of this event as hyperbole (as compared with say, Rev 14:20) may itself lack NPOV to the extent that the brutality and scale of the massacres is discounted (by a draft which does not appropriately note the very real enthusiasm displayed by most crusaders in murdering the inhabitants of Jerusalem). Separately, the main article on the siege should be edited to improve consistency with this article — 21 Feb 2005.

the first holocaust

This is standard mainstream stuff, just about every book on the first crusade mentions this phrase. It may or may not be controversial to some people, but it is how the mainstream academics present it. I suppose there is a historiographical history behind it that would be an interesting aside, but this is not the place to explore that in detail. Stbalbach 03:52, 25 July 2005 (UTC)

In all honesty isn't the expulsion of the Jews from Egypt usually given this “honor”? There have been Jewish holocausts prior to the first crusade, and in all honesty far more terrible. Off of the top of my head the Babylon and Roman incursions spring to mind.

Stbalbach, could you cite specific sources other than Riley-Smith that use this phrase? I feel as though I've read a fair amount about the First Crusade without (remembering) coming across the phrase "the first holocaust". It seems like an obnoxious phrase to me, in that it basically seems to be used not because this particular violence against the Jews was especially notable, but because it happened in Germany, the place where the main "Holocaust" occurred. Thus, the purpose doesn't seem to be so much to illuminate anything as it is to suggest that the persecutions in the Rhineland are the direct precursors to the Holocaust 800 years later. I don't see that we have any business pushing that kind of garbage, even if Professor Riley-Smith wants to advance such a dubious proposition. john k 22:12, 9 August 2005 (UTC)

I strongly support John K here. Commenting out that objectionable expression. ←Humus sapiens ←ну? 08:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

I think its kinda stretching it to suggest that one cause that other, no one says that, that would be very POV. The emphesis is on the "first" ethnic massacre of the Jews in Europe. Here are further references. Ill change the wording so it says "some historians". This is pretty mainstream stuff, Im not aware of any controversy over its usage, given the context in which it is used, its clearly not meant to suggest any connection with the 20th century.

Christianity: The First Two Thousand Years

by David Edwards (01 October, 1999) page 124 : " ... leaders were a mixture of nonmilitary visionaries such as Peter the Hermit and extremely military, but ... to Christ, so that their first action was to perpetrate the first holocaust of Jews in European history, in massacres in the Rhineland. ... "

The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading (Middle Ages Series)

by Jonathan Riley-Smith (01 September, 1991) page 50 : " ... where, after taking six weeks to construct a bridge over the river in front of the town, its first assault ended in panic and flight. In what has been called `the first holocaust', most of these armies had begun their marches by persecuting ... "

Rick Steves' Europe 101: History and Art for the Traveler (6th Edition)

by Rick Steves and Gene Openshaw (30 October, 2000) page 82 : " ... do. Crossing Germany, they slaughtered Jews. (Some historians call this the First Holocaust.) By the time the crusaders reached Jerusalem, the Moslems had ... "

The Complete Idiot's Guide(R) to the Crusades

by Paul Williams and Paul L. Williams (18 October, 2001) page 39 : " ... In This Chapter > Little Peter leads the Crusade of the Poor > The crusaders perpetrate the first holocaust > The wonders of Constantinople dazzle the crusaders > Barbaric ... "

When Plague Strikes : The Black Death, Smallpox, AIDS

by James Cross Giblin and David Frampton (30 May, 1997) page 35 : " ... completely wiped out in western Europe. In the meantime, though, the Flagellants had stirred up trouble ... convenient target: the Jews. THE FIRST HOLOCAUST For centuries the Jews of Europe had been treated like ... "

The Crusades (Essential Histories)

by David Nicolle (01 February, 2001) page 25 : " ... in this way illustrates their lack of understanding of what the First Crusade was all about. Such ... has been called `the first Holocaust' some sections of what was clearly a Infantryman with tall ... "

--Stbalbach 14:19, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. Obviously the term is more common than I had thought. That being said, I note a couple of things: firstly, that many of these sources are popular, rather than scholarly works; and secondly, that most of these sources are not themselves calling it "the first holocaust," but rather weaseling around with "it has been called 'the first holocaust.'" The two sources which are both explicitly about Crusades and not Idiots' guide books very speciifcally do not themselves call it the "first holocaust." (BTW, did Paul Williams and Paul L. Williams really collaborate on the Idiots' Guide to the Crusades? Or is this an Amazon fuck up?) john k 15:34, 11 August 2005 (UTC)

With Google Print now online here are more sources: [1]. Google Print is still new a lot of books are not scanned in yet. Stbalbach 04:58, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Once again, most of the sources go with the "it has been called 'the first holocaust,'" rather than actually calling it that themselves. john k 06:17, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Yeah I know its kinda funny. Well hopefully once Google Print scans more books the ultimate source for the quote will show up. I suspect Reily was the one who made it famous as his Idea of Crusading seems to be quoted aften as the source (but he just says "its been called.." also). And there is another source that says "many Jewish writers call it.." Stbalbach 17:13, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

Deus le volt

Umm...the Columbia Encyclopedia 2001 ed. Translates it as 'Dues Volt' with out the 'le'. Anybody know if this is correct? Thanks, hdstubbs

http://www.bartleby.com/65/cr/Crusades.html

I'm not sure what we should do with this. The only witnesses to Clermont recorded it in Latin as "Deus vult" (as there are no French sources), but I don't think Urban was addressing the crowd in Latin, nor would they respond in Latin...or would they? (Assuming the story is true and such an exclamation was even made at all.) Since there are a multitude of possible ways to spell "God wills it" in Old French (and since Clermont is far enough south that they have spoken some form of Occitan there), we should probably just leave it in Latin. Or, find the earliest Old French source and see what they say (I'm not sure what that would be, maybe the translation of William of Tyre). Adam Bishop 04:03, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Could do a couple things. Have a footnote and just outline the historiography issues as youve noted (which is pretty interesting). Or have a footnote that says "The phrase variously appears as .." and list the variations. This will satisy most inclusionist impules. See for example Divine Comedy, footone #1, on the translations of the quote: "Abandon all hope, you who enter here". --Stbalbach 04:23, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Capture of Nicea and march to Jerusalem

I rewrote the sentences about the surrender of Nicea. The suggestion that Alexius betrayed the crusaders by negotiating the honourable surrender of the city implies that it would have been honourable to sack and loot it, very much a Crusader viewpoint, but one that is likely to be disputed by others. I added a reference to Arslan advising the garrison to surrender; source for this item is Karen Armstrong, Holy War. Also added a link to the article on Maarrat en Numan, and the first cannibalism incidents there. Still to add; a reference to the further cannibalism reports, that took place during the later march to Jerusalem. Imc 19:06, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Does Karen Armstrong cite her source? She's often unreliable and usually biased.Nathanm mn 08:03, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Pope Urban's proclamation at Clermont

I'd just like to add that there is disagreement as to whether Urban ever mentioned Jerusalem at Clermont, and thus this was not necessarily the original aim of the crusade. Commonalities between the accounts of his speech are generally agreed upon, but the earliest accounts do not mention Jerusalem. Later accounts do, but arguably by this point they would have known that the crusade had captured Jerusalem, and thus have claimed that this was the original aim. Jerusalem may have been introduced around 1096 to aid recruitment.

Here is a link to a website that has a few accounts: Medieval Sourcebook

Also, in answer to 'Horrible example 1', it is not so unreasonable to say that the first crusade was launched to 'take back' Jerusalem. Jerusalem was the Holy Land, and was considered formerly owned land. The definition of a 'Just War' was specifically defined by the Church, and thus Christian property that had been proclamed as such by a legitimate authority could be retaken.

--Hugo Thorneycroft 14:24, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Hi! The various accounts of the council are discussed in the Council of Clermont article (with links to Halsall's website), although if the disagreements aren't adequately discussed in this article, then perhaps we should make that clearer. Adam Bishop 15:19, 5 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Just to add something else to the Clermont question - the decree of the council, 18-27 Nov 1095 is as follows: "Whoever for devotion alone, not to gain honour or money, goes to Jerusalem to liberate the Church of God can subsitute this journey for all penance" - taken from Crusades, Ideas and Reality, a book of sources published by Riley-Smith. To me this is reasonably clear evidence that even if Urban did not mention Jerusalem in a speech when discussing the Crusade (don't forget how patchy and inaccurate records of the council are), by the time the council was concluded, Jerusalem underpinned the Crusade as far as Urban was concerned. Maidenoxforduni 20:43, 30 April 2006 (UTC)

The Jerusalem comment is spot-on. There's no consensus that Jerusalem was the stated aim of the First Crusade. Wasn't it more about relief for the Byzantines and reclamation of holy sites? --Dweller 20:36, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I think it occured to these guys that they could kill a couple of birds with the one stone.The Bryce 04:40, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

German-Jews in Jerusalem during the First Crusade ...

"There seems to be some support even for the view that there were German Jews in Jerusalem at this time. The story is told, on the authority of Elijah Ba'al Shem of Chelm, that a young man named Dolberger was saved by a Jew in Palestine who knew German, and that out of gratitude one of his family who was among the Crusaders saved some of the Jews in Palestine and carried them to Worms ("Seder ha-Dorot," ed. 1878, p. 252). In the second half of the eleventh century halakic questions were sent from Germany to Jerusalem (Epstein, in "Monatsschrift," xlvii. 344)."[2]

- It could be possible that some of these German-Jews had migrated to Jerusalem during the Great German Pilgrimage of 1064. Perhaps this happened even earlier, when King Henry II of Germany forced all Jews from Mainz in 1012, some three years after "mad" Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroyed the Holy Sepulchre on October 18, 1009. Either way, the above paragraph suggests that German-Jews were living in Jerusalem prior to the pogroms led by Count Emicho in the summer of 1096. (!Mi nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Well it could be possible, but that's not really the kind of speculation we want here...I mean, even if it is true, so what? However, that reminds me, we really do need an article about the German Pilgrimage. Adam Bishop 04:28, 18 May 2006 (UTC)

So what? That doesn't sound like something an "administrator" should be saying. Wikipedia is about sharing information. I was doing my part to further the understanding of the peoples that inhabited Jerusalem at the time of the Crusaders' siege. There were more than just Muslims, Persian Jews, and Eastern Christians living in Jerusalem at that time. (!Mi nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 06:49, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Spoken Article File

Hello. I saw that there was a request to have this as a spoken article, and I gave it a full effort. I'm confident that I have some pronunciation flaws in the foreign names, but hopefully they are few and forgivable. Brinticus 21:35, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Arts and literature

I made an arts and literature section to talk about the chansons de geste, Tasso, Verdi, Dore, etc...I'm sure this can be expanded even further. (But hopefully it will not become an overwhelming "First Crusade in popular culture" type of thing...) Adam Bishop 06:38, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

The burning of the Jews and their synagogue

The info is missing from both this page and the Siege of Jerusalem article. Both mention the massacre of the Muslims in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, but the burning of the synagogue was the other major atrocity performed. If you look for it on the internet, most accounts will say that the Jews were rounded up by the crusaders or had already gathered there for the Sabbath and where locked in. Then the building was set on fire. I’ve even read one account of how Duke Godfrey of Bouillon sang a song of praise to Jesus ("Christ, we adore thee") [3] while he circled the flaming complex.

However, I just recently watched an episode of the television show “Uncommon Knowledge” (which originally aired April 22, 2002) and it held a forum discussing the Crusades. The moderator Thomas Madden welcomed two guests:

1) William Hamblin, Professor of History, Brigham Young University

2) Thomas Madden, Associate Professor of History and Department Chair, Saint Louis University; Author, A Concise History of the Crusades

In the middle of the discussion, Thomas Madden shed his own educated view on what he thinks the circumstances were that led to the Jews being burnt alive in their synagogue. The following transcript section of the show's discussion was taken from the Hoover Institute website:

"Thomas Madden: And they speak of three thousand, approximately, people being killed. But not, as you get the western sources, where they speak of rivers of blood, that people are wading through rivers of blood, show up all the time in the Middle Ages, but they're not real. But nevertheless, there was a massacre. As for the Jewish synagogue, what appears to be the case there, it probably happened, people have argued about it, but this was not a situation in which the Crusaders would have rounded up all the Jews and put them in the synagogue and said now we're burning it down because you are Jews in a synagogue. Rather, the Jews who were the Jewish defenders, and there weren't that many, but those Jewish defenders of the city in 1099, knew the rules of the game. They knew that their lives were forfeit now, and so they wanted to go to their synagogue and were allowed to go to their synagogue..."

Peter Robinson: To prepare for death.

Thomas Madden: To prepare for death, that's right."

I thought this to be very interesting. Never have I heard it from this point of view.

I’ve written Prof. Madden on whether he thinks these Jews fled from the “Northern” or “Southern” wall defensives, but he has yet to write me back. The reason I wrote him was because I was unsure which one they left. It seems more plausible that they left from the northern wall shortly before it was taken by the Frankish armies led by Duke Godfrey. On the contrary, the southern wall was FAR MORE successful in combating the Provencal armies of Raymond of Toulouse. So I doubt they would have fled from there. The southern defensive did not falter until news of the northern breach spread like wild fire around the city.

Do you think that some of the quoted transcript should be added to this and the "siege" article? I realize the Siege of Jerusalem article should detail the most info about this, but a small sentence in this article should at least be added. If so, I'll leave it to someone more qualified than myself. You've already got the info right here. No research required!

I you would like to watch this edition of the show, CLICK HERE! and you will be able to watch it in either Real Player or Windows Media Player. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 19:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC))

first sentence

The first sentence The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II imho sounds slightly misleading. I dont think one can say that the pope launched the crusade, he made a call and people answered. TeunSpaans 10:09, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

I'm not a historian by any means, so I wouldn't dare to edit this article - but 'The success of the First Crusade was unprecedented' seems like a statement of the obvious (but, then, what would I know?) Pavium 06:41, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

Background Issues

The word "ongoing" wars is misleading as it seems to refer to an monolothic singular entity of a "Muslim" or Islamic empire. This is absolutely wrong representation for the period, it was a diverse set of expansionist Muslim kingdoms who competed with each other as much any European oppurtunites that were available, and in the century preceding the crusades europeans had seen success on the Mediterranean front.

Let us start from say even the 10th century and the Fatimids who had risen in Ifriqiya during the 10th century displacing the other existing dynasties such as the Aghlabids (who had captured the Italian regions in the preceding century) and the Ikhshidids of Egypt and began an intensive rivalry with the Abassids. They were unable to take over the Sicilian areas thereby forming the breakaway Kalbids who ruled there until their dynasty broke down in about 1053 and became prey to newly expanding and newly Christianized Viking Normans. Later along in the century the Almoravid's were rising and expanding in the Maghreb displacing the Fatimids and coming to the aid of the Taifas in the Reconquista. The Seljuk dynasty had itself arisen in the 11th century bringing in the Turkic phase as they swept up the Fatimids, Ghaznavids, Buyids and became the new puppet masters of the Abassid caliphs and expanding their boundaries over to Anatolia against the Byzantines, before collapsing while the Crusade was being declared. Successful conquests, had taken place in the meditterranean regions in the early 11th century following the collapse of the Umayyad and Kalbid dynasties of Hispania and Italy and the opportune Genoan push in the Mahdia campaign upon a beleagured Fatimid state. Even the Normans had only come to Italy initially to fight the Byzantine Catapanate of Italy by the Lombards and established themselves by taking territories from all; Christian and Muslim rulers alike. By the scale of internal conflicts in European nations and Muslim nations it was not an "ongoing war" between, but a concept was rising with the political concept of a christendom, the exertion of the Papacy in the wake of the Investiture Controversy, the formulation of a Just War concept and a continuation of the Peace and Truce of God. The Encylopedia Catholica itself states: "The idea of the crusade corresponds to a political conception which was realized in Christendom only from the eleventh to the fifteenth century; this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes. All crusades were announced by preaching." It was a way of solidifying papal authority over european monarchs by providing an external threat, motivated by religiosity and aimed at the conquest of the Holy Land,

Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless are big examples of the role played by preachers in selling the idea to the masses who made the movement a popular one.
Holy Land (Biblical) is a better short form where the readers can read all about it being a relic and makes the sentence tighter.
The area that the sentence seems to refer to as of Egypt and Syria etc. were a) not firmly even Byzantine when captured by the Muslims but newly gained from the Sassanids. b) They were not the Christian heartland, homeland/ heartland maybe but the population while heavily christian was no way equivalent to extent to which the land was christian in the more European regions of the byzantine empires and around the center of power of the time. c) Were "monophysite" and involved in conflict with the Chruch when captured by the Muslims though over time that could have been forgotten.--Tigeroo 12:49, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Tigeroo, can you explain what is meant by "the political conception of christendom" as a justification for the Crusade? I'm also not clear what this means "Exhortations by monks spreading reports of Muslims abusing Christian pilgrims travelling to Jerusalem" - Thanks! -- Stbalbach 16:11, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

political concept of christendom is briefly detailed in the article of christendom and Separation of church and state (medieval), as well more fully here. But to recap it was a concept of the "federal" (and i use the term loosely), union of christian kingdoms under the guidance of religious, read Papal guidance ("this supposes a union of all peoples and sovereigns under the direction of the popes.") which for the first time created a "Christian" army to fight the Muslims. Earlier period kingdoms did not see the conquests or conflicts in those terms. There were plenty of invaders and conqueroring foreigners walking all over European territory setting up new kingdoms. As for the other part, see Peter the Hermit and Walter the Penniless. The First Crusade was a mass movement and preachers played a very important role in inspiring the masses and one of the primary approaches was exhorting by preaching about the evils ocurring in the holy lands: atrocities, tortures, gross violations of churchs, inhumane behavior, devlish practices, brigandancy, unholy beleifs etc. Reports of such can be found attributed to the pope himself" "[They circumcise the Christians, and the blood of the circumcision they either spread upon the altars or pour into the vases of the baptismal font.]" The monks were so motivated that it required direct intervention by the pop to attempt to bar them from joining the crusaders on their march as well.--Tigeroo 06:08, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've made some edits to clarify what is being said. If you could expand or clarify the "christiondom" concept in the article as Im still not sure it is clear. Or make other edits as needed. -- Stbalbach 15:29, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Added introduction

Also, the article lacks an opening paragraph. I added one, and I must say it's quite good.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.74 (talk • contribs) .

Sorry, what introduction did you add? I just saw you had deleted some paragraphs.-- Stbalbach 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if this 152.163.100.74 is the same person as 64.12.117.10 (Talk) that keeps on adding the "second opening paragraph" to this page or not, but THEY NEED TO STOP!!! Plus they are deleting a good 1/4 of the material from the page without discussing it first in advance. But they repeatedly do it again and again! Both talk pages are splattered with vandalism warnings and blocks. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 00:00, 7 November 2006 (UTC))

"People's" and "German" deleted

I removed the sub-articles about the so-called "German Crusade" and the People's Crusade, both of which don't belong in an article about the First Crusade. In reality the labeling of Emerich's massacre of Jews as a Crusade is nothing more than bias. It had nothing to do with the Crusades.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 152.163.100.74 (talk • contribs) .

Well, that's an interesting opinion, but not one held by the majority of mainstream Crusade historians. Also, this is a WP:Featured article, many people have worked on it and looked at it and voted on it. -- Stbalbach 13:04, 5 November 2006 (UTC)`

Shocking...

You people are aware, of course, that Fulcher of Chartres was a fibber. The Fatamid garrison was in Jerusalem during the siege; they had previously ejected all nocombatants from the city when they received word that the Crusaders were coming. Fighting during the siege was bloody by even the most liberal standards of the day but there were no women or children in Jerusalem at the time, or peoples of different faiths. Only Muslims soldiers. When I hear people spouting off this argument I cringe, it's pure nonsense. Someone reign me in before I change it all. It's just this sort of polemic gobbledegook that goads people into theological arguments leading *surprise surprise* nowhere.

Cupbearer 03:03, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I am not an expert on the subject, but what about the Gesta Francorum, which states “When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished." I realize that this was written 1 – 2 years after the siege, but so was the version by Fulcher. I guess it could be possible that one lied and the other followed suit (just to show how the Christians slayed the so-called "pagans"), but why comment on how the soldiers held some men and women captive? Would it just be a false story to show the Crusaders’ supposed mercy? I guess that is possible too.

What is your source that says all non-combatants were forced to leave? I think I have heard of this before. I have also heard the legend of how the Jews were rounded up and bunt alive. As I stated here, one history professor says the Jews were most likely Jewish defenders amongst the Muslim garrisons who excused themselves to their synagogue to prepare for death.

The reason I ask about your source is that I am writing a book based around a young German-Jew who survives the Crusaders' siege of Jeruslaem to live in Song Dynasty China and I need to make it as historically correct as possible. I know that sounds odd, but from sources I've read, German-Jews lived in Jerusalem prior to the attack and the Kaifeng Jews have lived in China from at least the Song dynasty (960 -1279). Some sources say they have lived in China since the Han Dynasty. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 03:46, 10 November 2006 (UTC))

I've recently corresponded with Prof. Thomas F. Madden, an authority on the Crusades, and this is what he wrote me in an email regarding the 'non-combatants' of Jerusalem:

"Since it was generally assumed that the crusaders could not take Jerusalem before relief forces arrived from Egypt, one would assume that non-combatants remained in the city. The best treatment of the massacre of 1099 is Benjamin Z. Kedar. 'The Jerusalem Massacre of July 1099 in the Western Historiography of the Crusades.' Crusades 3 (2004): 15-75. It is a very in-depth study of the event."

I will purchase this book and update the individual Siege of Jerusalem page. (Ghostexorcist 00:00, 3 February 2007 (UTC))

Pacacy opposed killing Muslim and Jewish inhabitants?

Is this true? - "Although the papacy abhorred and preached against the purging of Muslim and Jewish inhabitants during this and future crusades, there were numerous attacks on Jews following every crusade movement." This is counter to what I have heard. Thanks, Hu Gadarn 22:47, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Im sure that in the 1st crusade, the council of clermont did not say that "france was overcrowded with milk ad honey" sillyness like this could make students project scores go down. Plus this will also make students in school move down a set. All because for the amusement of a person. Please don't put down things you know that aren't true. :) thank you. :)

hmm? Who put that were? Anyways as for the Jews and Muslims, I am not sure about the Muslims but the Papacy and all the monarchs did not want to kill Jews because they were heavily taxed and their taxes brought about great revenue. Tourskin 17:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Urban's real motives for instigating the crusade?

I am studying the beginning of the crusades, primarily whether Pope Urban II had another motive than genuine relgion when calling it. I have read many theories such as Urban's desire for extra wealth for the Papacy through opening up trade routes to Eastern Europe and of course loot. Other ideas are that Urban wished to assert his authority over Orthodox Christianity prompting Alexius I of Byzantium to accept him as head of all Christianity thus healing the Great Schism of 40 years previously.

Could anyone offer any historians views on this subjects or websites, books etc, that could be helpful.

Maps.

I found the map of the Mediterranean region to be extremely confusing. It shows the Umayyad empire some 350 years earlier. No Seljuks. No Fatimids. No Abbasids. Basically the map doesn't say who had power in Jerusalem at the time, if anyone.

I'd honestly remove it to avoid confusion, or put in a neutral map showing city names so that readers can follow the text city by city.

I did search wikipedia but only found this map, which doesn't match any of the other maps from around the web, see below.

[4]

Here's a couple from the web, whose (c) I don't know.

fatmids ... [5]

europe/ME ... [6]

slava 15:10, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

muslim lands at time of 1st crusade [7]

thanks.

More cities

Iconium, Caesarea and Heraclea as well as Sozopolis and numerous other cities were taken and then lost by 1101 so I added that one in. I have also added it in the Notes section.Tourskin 17:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Frederick's crusade

was the only crusade to capture Jerusalem.

No the first was not the only one to capture jerusalem because didn't the Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II rent it out? I know he didn't capture it but the sentence above in italics makes it sound like jerusalem was lost to the arabs after saladin forever but it wasn't cos Frederick had it rented out for more than 10 years (14 i think, the second ten year term ended in war)Tourskin 17:19, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Map of First Crusade

I editted a map and used information from this book:

Compact History of the World, by THE TIMES.

File:Byzantium+firstcrusade.PNG

The path of the First Crusade in red showing the cities they captured. Pink shows the territory actually consolidated by Alexius I. The light Blue region shows territory retaken by the Turks after the First Crusade^[1]^[2]

Tell me if you like it. I wanna ad it and will do so if no one objects in 24hrs time.Tourskin 19:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Wrong

"The call to crusade came at a time when years of bad harvests had nearly devastated the Western European economy. The attraction of trying to start a new life in the far more successful East caused many people to leave their lands. Europe was not a place of great opportunity anymore and the possibility of gaining something that had eluded people in the West, whether spiritual, political or economic, was tempting to countless participants."

This is in fact completely the opposite of the truth - the 11th century was a turning point for Europe, according to the Book Traditions and Encounters - before then the Dark Ages ruled Europe and farms were poor. It was a population expansion in the 11th century resulting from an increase in farm yields that allowed the Europeans to expand and initiate the Reconquista (Capture of Toledo in 1085) and the First Crusade. There was also the Norman Expansion into Souther Italy and the rise of the cities in Europe. This statement above uses irrelevant words such as "Western Economy" which are poorly defined at such a time.

Further moore, how could uneducated peasants and poor knights know or hear about anything to do with eastern lands and their productivity? Considering the recent Turkic invasions of the region and the resulting wars, the place must have been quite devastated.

Finally the above paragraph is uncited and I shall correct this.

Tourskin 07:33, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

What book is that? Who wrote it, published it, etc? Is it even about the crusades? Adam Bishop 13:59, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

I have posted you a response on your talk page (Adam) - everyone else who wishes to see this response, please see it there or message me for information.Tourskin 23:03, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Featured Article Review

I Belive that this article needs a wealth of references to improve it significantly. The wealth of knowledge is poorly backed up as I had to edit the last section somewhat. 14 references is a poor number indeed, even for a B class article.Tourskin 07:37, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Raymond or Godfrey?

This article claims it was Raymond of Toulouse who said he "wouldn't wear a crown of gold where Christ had worn a crown of thorns" whereas the article Siege of Jerusalem credits Godfrey of Bouillon with this phrase. Where lies the truth? Can anyone provide sources? Top.Squark 09:37, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I can't find that specific phrase about the "crown of gold" but all the sources seem to agree that Raymond said something like that. The problem is that Godfrey also refused to be king but accepted a different title. Adam Bishop 16:19, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The problem is there is a contradiction between two articles. Mind the correction (Siege of Jerusalem instead of First Crusade).Top.Squark 10:22, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Well yes that too :) I think it should be Godfrey. Adam Bishop 22:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I think I've tracked down the origin of this. It was Godfrey, not Raymond. It's in William of Tyre, book 9, chapter 9 (or here if you prefer the Old French version). However, this exact quote appears in Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem by François-René de Chateaubriand, translated into English in 1814 by Frederic Shoberl and conveniently found on Google Books; the original is here, "Godefroy refusa de mettre sur sa tête la couronne brillante qu'on lui offrait, 'ne voulant point, dit-il, porter une couronne d'or où Jésus-Christ avait porté une couronne d'épines.'" and Shoberl's translation is "Godfrey refused to put on his head the brilliant crown that was offered him, declaring that 'he would not wear a crown of gold where Christ had worn a crown of thorns.'". I suppose citing sources was not held to the same standard in 1811, because Chateaubriand doesn't say what he is quoting, but I assume it must be the Old French William of Tyre, with the order reversed ("il respondi quen cele sainte cite ou Nostre Sires Jhesucriz avoit portee courone despines por lui et por les autres pecheeurs ne porteroit il ja se Dieu plesoit corone dor"). (And this itself is slightly different from the original Latin, "Promotus autem, humilitatis causa, corona aurea, regum more, in sancta civitate noluit insigniri: ea contentus et illi reverentiam exhibens, quam humani generis reparator, in eodem loco usque ad crucis patibulum pro nostra salute spineam deportavit.") Where William got this from, I don't know; I'll have to check the contemporary chronicles of the First Crusade. Also, the question of what Godfrey's actual title was is discussed by Jonathan Riley-Smith ("The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon", Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 52 (1979), 83-86) and Alan Murray ("The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon as Ruler of Jerusalem", Collegium Medievale 3 (1990), 163-78), which I have also not looked at yet, but presumably they will be useful. Adam Bishop 17:11, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Adding to the confusion is Raymond of Aguilers, who says: "The princes, disregarding admonition and opposition, urged the Count of St. Gilles to accept the kingdom. But he said that he abhorred the name of king in that city, though he would consent to have others accept it. For this reason they together chose the Duke and placed him in charge of the Sepulchre of the Lord." Adam Bishop (talk) 16:40, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Adam, for the heads up.

To my knowledge it was Godfrey who made the "crown of thorns" comment. The source is William of Tyrus.

This also makes sense: Raymund refused the rule completely so he never was in the position to talk about crowns. Godfrey however, regardless of what his actual title was, accepted the rule but not the "crown of gold". Str1977 ^(talk) 19:25, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Minor Change

I removed "seen as" for the line about the Reconquista being launched to retake lands "seen as lost to Muslims". It wasn't "seen as" lost to the Muslim invaders. It WAS lost to Muslims. That's not a matter of perception or point of view.

Yes. That must have been a case of political correctness. Tourskin 01:18, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Causes of Crusade

Wouldn't it be accurate to say that the original cause of the first crusade was the Byzantine emperor's plea for aid to return Anatolia and the Levant to Byzantine control. He wanted aid to help retake lands recently lost to the Turkish invasions; saying "to aid against the Turks" seems to be a little bit too politically correct and less accurate. Is there anyway this could be changed. I don't want to write anything controversial without getting a consensus here. Thanks - Patman2648 07:06, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Chinese links to the First Crusade

According to the History of the Song Dynasty, a Chinese historical book, European envoys from Byzantium came to China once in 1081 and twice in 1091. One Chinese scholar speculates that the objective of the 1091 missions were to enlist the help of the Chinese to help combat the Seljuk Turks. I would like to add this info to this article, but I am unsure where to place it. I have several citations for the material. The source of the Chinese scholar's theory is in Chinese, but I have an English language citation for the info from the History of the Song. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 12:15, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Maybe in the part about Piacenza and Clermont...but it would probably fit better in the crusade article, which has a more extensive section about the Byzantine situation. That is very interesting though, I am not aware of any Byzantine-Chinese contact at all! Adam Bishop (talk) 17:23, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

That's fine. I'll place it in the Crusades article. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:52, 26 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review my roll back

Some one more familiar with the topic, please reveiw my recent roll back. thanks. --Bhadani (talk) 15:40, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, a vandal deleted huge chunks of text, so there is no problem reverting that... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Multiple entries of Crusader cannibilism

Both this article and the Cannibilism entry contain information on apparent cannibilism by the Crusaders. The people that post these entries and continue to revert them when they are removed are Teran endorsed Academics example user Zereshk who openly displays accolades for promotion from Teran. How can you allow information from a secondary source to be used in this article and not mention the primary source within. Why is there no Reason given for the Crusaders urge to cannibilise such as starvation or contempt for muslims which is mentioned in arab literature as a reason. The Crusaders simply became cannibals is sloppy. Why is a source from an arab perspective, is there a christian source that states the same thing? Perhaps a jewish source? If there are distinct accounts of the crusades from arab and european eyes why is there not two accounts The crusades from an Arab perspective and one from a European perspective that is a good neutral idea. Instead of a mash up of different oppinions. Because of this im readily going to research incidences of Canabilism and sodomy by muslims with christian secondary sources and make sure its on every applicable page.

Well, we're trying, I apologize if we are not working as quickly as you wish. What are "Teran endorsed Academics"? Anyway, the current secondary source is Maalouf, who is not the best source, but the incident is mentioned in every source about the first crusade. Some primary sources are listed at the Siege of Ma'arrat al-Numan article and others are listed on that article's talk page, which are yet to be incorporated into the main article. There is a reason given - the crusaders had no food or supplies, and internal squabbling impeded organized foraging, so they were starving and had to resort to cannibalism. If you would like to help out with this info on cannibalism, please do; I'm pretty sure you're not going to find anything about sodomy though. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:33, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Now that I look at your contributions I see that you have simply been vandalizing these pages. If you're going to do that, your "help" is not welcome and your criticism is irrelevant. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

This article stinks

This is a terrible article. It desperately needs to be brought into conformity with the conclusions of actual, current crusade scholarship. The way it reads now, it could have been written by Terry Jones or those numbskulls over at the Shistory Channel.

I suggest it be tagged as in need of attention from an expert on the subject. I could revise it myself, but I'm too busy right now. At least the tag will notify readers that the article is suspect.

-A professional crusade historian

65.201.172.123 (talk) 16:04, 19 February 2008 (UTC) !!!!

Yes, all the crusade articles need that. Naturally we are all too busy to revise it. It would help if you can point out specific problems. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:34, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

How profoundly unhelpful...--Tefalstar (talk) 19:25, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not really. How can anything be fixed if we aren't told what the problems are. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:32, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

For a "profesional crusade historian" you don't have a very profesional demeanor. Beeblbrox (talk) 19:31, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

List commanders?

I'm thinking the commanders of each side should be listed in the infobox, like in other war articles. --Jedravent (talk) 01:01, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Since nobody has opposed, I have added them. --Jedravent (talk) 19:19, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

FA review

Gwinva and Wandalstouring have asked me to add references to make this article fully verifiable. While I don't think that will be possible by the deadline given by the FA people (October 20), it should be quite easy to reference everything with the most up-to-date academic research. The problem is that the literature on the First Crusade is extremely vast; almost everything can probably be found in Thomas Asbridge's "The First Crusade: A New History", but there are dozens of other books and articles that we could also use.

Some other problems: how much of this article should focus on the origins of the crusades? The origins of the crusades in general and the First Crusade, in particular, are obviously very closely linked; the crusade article should go into more detail (although that article is probably beyond salvaging) but some detail is necessary here as well. Also, the influence of Steven Runciman might remain a problem. He was once a great historian and author, and his history of the crusades is still the basis for basically all popular knowledge of the period, but it's very outdated. I know various editors will add info from Runciman or other popular histories based on him, but I think we should try to avoid this. If Runciman has an especially noteworthy opinion on something that differs from current scholarship, I suppose it would be worth mentioning, but otherwise, I hope we can stick to more recent works.

If I ever do get around to this, I think I'll use Asbridge as the basic guide, and probably Jonathan Riley-Smith for stuff about the origins, and branch out from there. Any help and suggestions are welcome, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Map of the path taken of the First Crusade

I have fixed the "problem" of copyright. I am quite sure that BigDaddy had placed the Copyright notice there on by accident and has many times kindly allowed me to edit his maps. Consider the issue resolved. Gabr-el 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox / Territorial changes

"Anatolia and Levant captured for Christendom" This is a bit exaggerated. Not 'all' Anatolia or Levant was captured by the crusaders. Lysandros (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of the opening statement

We have to put historiography on its place.

"The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the dual goals of reconquering the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and freeing the Eastern Christians from Islamic rule." Pope Urban II never launched any First Crusade. All accounts mentioned that on Council of Clermont Urban II called for armed pilgrims that hundreds of years later called First Crusade by a historian. The armed pilgrims took the cross and sworn to go to the Church of Holy Sepulcher.

The so-called "dual goal" never existed in history, perhaps it is a part of some historical analysis.

"What started as an appeal by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus for western mercenaries to fight the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia quickly turned into a wholescale Western migration and conquest of territory outside of Europe." Alexius applied for assistant from Roman Catholic Church on Council of Piacenza. Request for western mercenaries, if any, has no relation with the First Crusade. Most of 40.000 armed pilgrims returned to Europe after Battle of Ascalon. Western mass migration was an aftermath of the First Crusade, if such thing happened (Godfrey mobilize local Arab Christian, Baldwin stick with Edesa population, Behemund occupy Antioch with local Syrian & Armenian). Reopening international trade also an aftermath of the First Crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudy s (talk • contribs) 07:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

My suggestion for opening lines we put all known facts only, for example:

First Crusade was series of events triggered by a religious endorsement of armed pilgrimage from entire Christendom to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Pope Urban II at Council of Clermont, on August 15, 1096. The endorsement was made a response to the request of Christendom military coalition against Moslem territorial advances from Alexius Comnenus, Emperor of Byzantine, at Council of Piacenza. There were several armed groups of pilgrims on the First Crusade, without a single army chain of command. First armed group entering Asia Minor known as People's_Crusade destroyed by Kilij Arslan I (Sultan of Rum) near Nicaea. Main armed group consist of army of Bohemund I (Prince of Taranto) with his nephew Tancred, Godfrey of Bouillon (Duke of Lower Lorraine) with his brother Baldwin, Hugh I (Count of Vermandois), and Robert Curthose (Duke of Normandy), Raymond IV (Count of Toulouse), and Robert II (Count of Flanders). There was fleet support from Guglielmo Embriaco of Genoa, Edgar Atheling of England, also support from local Armenian and Syrian. At early phase, they're accompanied by Adhemar of Le Puy as Pope representative and Taticius of Byzantine.

After took Nicaea, capital of Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and defeated Kilij Arslan I on Battle of Dorylaeum, the pilgrim army capture Antioch by defeating army of Duqaq of Damascus at First Battle of Harenc, army of Ridwan of Aleppo at Second Battle of Harenc, and later large army of Seljuk Turk led by Kerbogha of Mosul at Battle of Orontes. The pilgrim army then capture Jerusalem and defeat main Fatimid army under Al-Afdal in outskirt of Ascalon on August 12, 1099. Godfrey assume title of Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre, Bohemund became Prince of Antioch, Baldwin inherit County of Edessa and later on became the first King of Jerusalem.

With this definition (Pope Urban II Crusade) I put Crusader 1101 as the aftermath of First Crusade, on another topic, since it was endorsed by different Pope (Pope Paschal II), with different goals. Also, I suggest an additional page on Siege of Antioch event: First Battle of Harenc (Crusaders vs Duqaq) and Second Battle of Harenc (Crusaders vs Ridwan) also Battle of Orontes (Crusaders against Keborgha). So that those battles can be referred to from First Crusade, Siege of Antioch, and other pages.

I might be able to help if anyone can tell me how the rewriting progress.

mmmm (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Review on the Background

The origins of the crusades in general, and of the First Crusade in particular, are varied and are widely debated among historians. They are most commonly linked to the political and social history of eleventh-century Europe, the rise of a reform movement within the Papacy, and the political and religious situation of Christianity and Islam in Europe and the Middle East.

No debate on the origin of the First Crusade. The debate exist regarding implicit personal and institutional reason of the First Crusade, which has no way to confirm, and therefore should be left on historiography.

Christianity, which had spread throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle East in the early Middle Ages, was by the early eighth century limited to Europe and Asia Minor after the rapid spread of Islam.

Christianity appear also outside Europe and Asia Minor. There are Christian among Mongols, Indian’s. Strong Christian population still exist in Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa. There are involvement of local Christian at various events through out the First Crusade.

Reconguista stuff I thing reconguista stuff should be moved to general Crusade topic, not for the First Crusade. Following paragraph should be enough: Shortly before the First Crusade, Pope Urban II had encouraged Spanish Christians to reconquer Tarragona, near Barcelona, using much of the same symbolism and rhetoric that was later used to preach the crusade.^[3] --mmmm (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To respond to both reviews, these are very good points - my only objection is that it would be awkward to rephrase the opening line. Of course Urban did not intend to "launch the First Crusade" but that is, after all, what actually happened. We'll try to deal with the rest of your comments - as you can tell, the article is currently being rewritten. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

I have five organisational suggestions (spawned by my discussion with Adam and Mudy s's comments here):

Remove "Background" and "Historiography" sections to the general Crusades article, where the background should be covered in great detail. A Historiography of the Crusades article may be justifiable on its own, if there is anybody with the time to write it.
Add a "Historiography" section towards the bottom of this article, covering the primary sources (and their respective value, point of view, etc.) first and then the secondary sources insofar as the bear directly on the First Crusade. How the conquest of Jerusalem has been viewed (and used) by different generations would be an interesting topic for a subsection.
This article should be structured as primarily a narrative, with the non-narrative sections (like historiography) put towards the bottom, after the narrative. The first sections should deal with the subject of what motivated Urban to propose a Crusade, then with the Council of Clermont, then with the recruitment/preaching effort, and finally with the popular movements and the responses of the princes. A lot of this is already in the article. These are the subjects which are appropriately the background to the First Crusade (in my opinion).
The main body of the article should concern the narrative of Crusade itself, from when people started marching east until the 'kingdom' was secured (more or less) by Godfrey and/or the Crusade of 1101. This section will be difficult to subdivide, since no information should appear under a heading "Siege of Antioch" that does not have to do directly with the siege of Antioch, etc. This would actually get easier as the narrative gets longer and more detailed.
The final part of the article should concern the 'legacy' of the Crusade. This is where the historiography section goes and where an arts and literature section goes. There is no need for an "Aftermath" section. The aftermath is covered at other articles. Well placed links and main article/see also hatnotes will do just fine.
Finally, Let's not forget we can always use main article hatnotes, so we should split of information if its appropriate and we should summarise information that is already covered in depth elsewhere.

Despite the length of this post, I actually cooked it up rather quickly. (I'm busy.) Comments? Srnec (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The background should definitely be covered in the main Crusades article, but I think some (perhaps most) of the background is unique to the First Crusade. It happens to have been the first one, so "origins of the crusades" and "origins of the First Crusade" are essentially the same. Later crusades usually did not occur for the same reasons; they were either individual pilgrimages where someone dragged along his whole feudal levy, or responses to specific disasters in the east. (And the causes of the political and anti-heretical crusades in Europe have very different origins.) While this article is ideally one in a series, it is also a stand-alone article. We shouldn't expect a reader to begin with the Crusades article, then come here after having read all the pertinent background information. An article on the historiography of the crusades would be a good idea, although the historiography of just the First Crusade would be long enough for it's own article.

There used to be a historiography section at the bottom (inaccurate and badly written, probably by me), and now the new stuff at the top should probably be moved back there. It makes less sense at the top if a reader doesn't know the basic narrative yet. I was also planning on writing about the primary sources, eventually.

What motivated Urban is one of the major historiographical questions. That's partly why that section has ballooned at the top of the page. Where do we stop? Something like "Urban may have been motivated by x, y, or z; see historiography below for a discussion."?

Anyway, I do agree that the narrative should be the main focus. But what about specific myths/controversies within the narrative? It would break up the flow but obviously we should discuss things like the cannibalism at Maraat, the massacre in Jerusalem, Godfrey's title, etc. Should there be a "myths" section? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Great. I cant agree more for both suggestion above.

Some thougts:

I think Adam's method of "see historiography below for a discussion." is good, and this might also be used for unconfirmed / debated events. Perhaps we should make a different sub title: debated events or historical discussion on several events or diffent accounts on various events: canibalism on First Crussade, massacre in Jerusalem, Godfrey title, spear of destiny from antioch, etc. Events that is mentioned in the primary sources but the fact is debateble or disputed by secondary sources, and events that is mentioned differently in primary sources (including myth and legends). Ofcourse such well known events still have to be mentioned in the main body, with link to the debate below or to a dedicated wiki page. We can consider other wiki pages as part of this document.
However debated events (and myth) should be separate from historiography that contains historical analysis of background analysis, concept, aftermath analysis and more abstract components of the First Crusade.
We need to realize that Origin of the crusades / background and analysis of First Crusade has several point of view. Perhaps we should accomodate those view, at least: Christian point of view, Moslem point of view, and Current Academical/Popular/Modern point of view. Christian point of view of the First Crusade, for example, is different with other Crusade. Moslem point of view also has their own references which modern historian and Christian historian might not agree with but represent popular view in current moslem comunity worldwide.
We need clearer definition on First Crusade to decide whether Crusade of 1101 included in bulk or just mentioned as aftermath. As I mentioned above, I prefer to define First Crusade as Crusade called by Pope Urban II, definition that doesnt fit Crusade 1101 / Crusade called by Pope Pascal II and not aimed at taking Jerusalem.
Can we add "List of Battle/armed conflict on First Crusade" without naration, only wiki link, somewhere in the page?
Also, where should we mention games and movies related to First Crusade?

Thanks, Moody (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

(edit conflict: the following written without Moody's input)

Agree that "origins of the crusades" and "origins of the First Crusade" are essentially the same thing. But where does the information go? I would like (ideally) to avoid duplicating information on two pages. I understand that "later crusades usually did not occur for the same reasons", but I was thinking of the origins of crusading as a concept and a movement. As in, where did any lord get the idea of dragging his feudal levy to the Levant in response to some event X, where X is the "cause" of his Crusade? In this sense, I think the origins of anti-heretical crusading are similarly rooted even if the events which "caused" them are very different. I am less sure how to handle the background now.

Urban's motivations and all the debate they engender can be covered at the top of the article, since I think they form a part of the narrative. When I think of a historiography section, I am not envisaging dealing with specific issues like that, though there is clearly some major overlap. I will have to think some more about this.

If we can write about the historiography of the Crusades in general or any Crusade in particular at article length, then I think an article would be justified.

I also think a myths/common misconceptions section would be justified. I think we could safely relegate all nonfactual information there and keep it out of the narrative. All controversial information, on which historiography has not pronounced a certain verdict (as if it ever does), must, I guess, be a part of the narrative. I don't know how easy it will always be to distinguish "definitely not factual" from "historians are divided".

I realise I'm trying to raise some finer distinctions here (and I'm probably not doing a very good job). My suggestion may be impossible to apply/unworkable. Perhaps we should look to the History of the Crusades series (ed. by Setton) for some ideas about organisation? Srnec (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

To address a separate point, I'm not generally a fan of adding in sections on movies/games/fiction unless it's a "classic". Thus, mentioning Lion in Winter or Henry V in the respective monarchs articles doesn't annoy me, but I would be opposed to mentioning every computer game that mentioned the First Crusade or every book that was set during the First Crusade. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you all know the Crusaders numbers were anywhere from 60,000-100,000 once they got to Nicea, and the Muslims the Crusaders encountered were anywhere from 400,000-1,000,000. (10/22/09)

Map completely wrong

The map "Umayyad Caliphate at its greatest extent." is completely and utterly wrong, the north of portugal (above river douro) and modern day spanish galicia were never under moorish control. It's a pretty crass error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.70.133 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say. They did garrison Gijón on the coast. The mountains (as in the Basque country) were probably never subdued. If they were in control of Galicia it was for a very brief period (probably no more than a few years to a decade). From what I can recall, the wording of the chronicle recording Alfonso I's conquest of Galicia implies that Galicia was a rebellious Christian province (or something like that), not a Moorish territory. But the chronicler may have considered any territory resisting the suzerainty of Alfonso (whom propaganda made "heir" of the Visigoths) to be in rebellion regardless of the exact state of things. So perhaps Galicia was without a ruler before Alfonso re-established Christian authority after the Muslim conquest. Srnec (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Alfonso the grandson of Pelayo_of_Asturias?? That Munuza's seat was at Gijón or León is sufficient to demonstrate that the Arabs had established their rule in the Asturias and that Pelagius was not therefore the leader of a local resistance to Arab conquest.

The map is correct. Only Kingdom of Frank survive Umayyad conquest. Pocket resistance doesnt count as teritorial control in empirium map.

Moody (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Attacks on Jews in the Rhineland section

There are some problems with this section.

The attackers of the jews in the rhineland are often described as "cusaders", although they were not part of the official Crusade, which set off later that year, on 15th August, and were a mixture of local people and unofficial groups, who mostly never reached the Holy Land. It needs to be made clear that these were rogue or unofficial groups.
The illustration from a bible, claiming to show jews being massacred by "Crusaders", does not clearly show anything of the sort. This seems to be a fanciful attribution with no solid basis. Questions have been raised about the verifiability of this image before (File_talk:FirstCrusade.jpg). In fact it seems to show two crowned kings, (not present in the Rhineland attacks) wearing nothing to indicate that they are crusaders, attacking people (perhaps in Jewish hats) while two people (one with a halo) pray or plead imploringly, There is no original caption to the image, and nothing to indicate that it is not a bible story, or anything else. I am not sure this validates its use here, and certainly the caption should be amended. Xandar 23:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Collective memory

The article lacks an account of the collective cultural image that the First Crusade left in the islamic world (comparable in scope only with events like the Thirty Years' War or the Eastern Front (World War II) in Europe). This image still persits as a cultural and rhetorical topos and is of great importance for a proper understanding of the islamic view on western culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.84.118 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

^ Parker, Geoffrey. Compact History of the World. 4th ed. London: Times Books, 2005. 48-49.
^ Mango, Cyril. The Oxford History of Byzantium. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. 185-187.
^ Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A History, 2nd ed. (Yale University Press, 2005), pg. 7.

[1] Parker, Geoffrey. Compact History of the World. 4th ed. London: Times Books, 2005. 48-49.

[2] Mango, Cyril. The Oxford History of Byzantium. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2002. 185-187.

[3] Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A History, 2nd ed. (Yale University Press, 2005), pg. 7.

[1]

[2]

[3]