Talk:Frisian involvement in the Crusades

Untitled

Created by Ezza, who did a great job, according to me! -)-(-H- (|-|) -O-)-(- 15:51, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about that...I can understand that Occo Scharlensis would have written about these people, and that there were probably local legends about them, but that is no reason to assert that they actually did what Occo claims, or even that they existed at all. It was very popular, in the 13th century and beyond, to claim descent from someone who had fought in the First Crusade, but it's usually impossible to know anything more about them than that.

The descriptions here sometimes seem confused. Did they all follow Peter the Hermit? Did they all escape back to Constantinople with him? The siege of Nicaea in 1097 was not let by Peter, it happened after the real armies arrived. But the Byzantine took the city by a trick, and the crusaders certainly did not leave a garrison there, especially not one led by some random Frisian peasants. There were lots of problems in the Ygo Galama article before it was deleted, but they aren't repeated here, I see. And what does it mean that Lyauckama and Botnia were knighted by Godfrey? Knights were not created in the 11th century the same way they are today.

Part of my problem is that I don't know where to look for sources for these people. It seems like Occo was recording oral history concerning the ancestors of people who lived in sixteenth-century Friesland, and I'm not sure that's the best source. There seem to have been Frisians attested on the Fifth Crusade, but before that, I can't find any references to them fighting on land; they are always mentioned in a naval capacity, and no individual names are mentioned. Of course I don't doubt that there were Frisian crusaders on land as well, but there really doesn't seem to be any contemporary evidence for these specific people. Adam Bishop 08:45, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

Like Adam, I am only aware of a mentionable Frisian presence from the Fifth Crusade. While Frisians may have been present on previous ventures, their indivdiual contributions were not great enough to warrant any mention that I know of. So even assuming that this is oral tradition being preserved by Occo, it grew in scope with time and does not really reflect history. The names of the individuals too are doubtful and it was common enough to invent Crusader ancestors after the concept of a Crusade took off (following the success of #1). Srnec 18:26, 2 July 2007 (UTC)

They did probably excist. But in Fryslan, there are, even today, relatives of those heroes, or at least much claiments. Even the starter, of this article,, said to be related to them. Isnt that suspicious? You'd better check Mr. Ezza. -The Bold Guy- 11:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

But what is the primary evidence for their association with any Crusade before the fifth? Srnec 03:20, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Read: 'The Chronicle of Fulcher of Chartres' he makes specific mention of the presence of Frisians at Nicaea in the first crusade. Also Robert II who in the first crusade won the name of 'the Lance and Sword of Christendom' son of Robert I of Flanders (also known as Robert the Frisian) lead a force of Frisian and Belgian crusaders to the holy land.

The reference I have quoted (which uses Occo as its source) in the Frisian Crusader article is accurate and the text is still available, I suggest you read it before making ridiculous claims about Frisians not being present in the first crusade. If you read further than your secondary school crusader text books and actually do a bit of research .. you may have do some work and actually translate... you will find Frisians were present in the second and third crusade as well.. and yes they did actually have names and some may just have been nobles as well!!

Also, there is no conspiracy I do not know the possibly over enthusiastic Haggawaga - Oegawagga, we are not the same individual.. your Wikipedia admin people can tell you our IP addresses are from different countries.Ezza61 09:36, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, there is no conspiracy to remove all mention of Frisians from Wikipedia, so calm down. Neither Srnec nor I ever denied that there were Frisians in the early crusades, we just said they were not a substantial force on land until the Fifth. The real problem is that these particular individuals are not attested anywhere. Where does Fulcher mention Frisians? (A chapter number, or page number, would help...I don't see them mentioned in the chapters about Nicaea.) According to Albert of Aix there were some Frisian pirates who met up with the crusaders, but no Frisian knights. There must have been Frisians at the Siege of Lisbon during the Second Crusade, but they aren't even specifically mentioned as a group in De Expugnatione Lyxbonensis, much less by name. For the Third Crusade, the Itinerarium Peregrinorum and the Chronicle of Ernoul mention a large fleet of Danish and Frisian (in the Itinerarium) or Frisian, Breton, and German (in Ernoul) ships at the Siege of Acre, but the only name connected with them is James of Avesnes. So yes, of course there were Frisians, but where do these names come from? Adam Bishop 17:12, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Okay, upon further inspection of Fulcher, he mentions Frisian as one of the multitude of languages among the crusader armies. But still no names. And Jonathan Riley-Smith's "The First Crusaders, 1095-1131" doesn't mention any Frisians either, as far as I can see. Adam Bishop 19:58, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I have rewritten the article based on what I could find online and in books on hand, but I do not have the primary sources. It would be nice if you could perhaps add references to the information I lifted from this talk page or perhaps some quotations from the primary sources? Srnec 22:09, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Great Srnec, thanks! Hopefully this will be acceptable to the Frisian contributors as well. I will search through the primary sources at hand for some pithy quotes. Adam Bishop 22:17, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

A minor thing: should the article be retitled "Frisian participation in the Crusades" as I emboldened in the first line? Interestingly, I picked up The Italian Crusades just to see if any Frisians participated in those and what do you know, it had "Frisian crusaders" right there in the index! But it was referring to their participation in crusades VII and VIII. Srnec 22:24, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Yeah that would be a better name. Adam Bishop 02:15, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Finally, justice is done to all brave Frisian warriors, fighting in the crusades!You did a great job, you tryly did. Thanks a loy! 84.87.138.105 09:33, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The last sentence

I am confused Srnec, Jordan makes no specific mention of Frisians participating in the falsities you mention in your last paragraph. You appear to have turned a generalisation into a specific without any real evidence/reference. Why? What is the relevance to your article? If there is evidence of Frisians, specific individuals - individual names, what are these references and do the authors actually say that the claims are false? If you have no quotable references to substantiate your claim you should remove your last sentence in the last paragraph. You say these claims were ‘not uncommon’ i.e. common in Frisia, I have found there are in fact very very few Frisian pilgrims/crusaders, specifically’ named throughout the crusades in Dutch or English texts. If they are so common, where are the references?

The relevance to the article is that it prevents the types of misunderstandings that led to the creation of several inaccurate articles in the past (see the original version of this page). It explains the names sometimes encountered in research concerning Frisian involvement in the First Crusade: names for which there is no basis in history. You are right that there are very few individuals names in accurate texts, that is what Mol says. However, early modern historians did write down names of supposed Frisian First Crusaders and those are found in the initial version of this article. Look at the article history. Jordan explains the tendency of Europeans to fabricate crusading ancestors and Mol explains the dearth of actual Frisian individual crusaders known to us. Together I think they are satisfactory, if you still believe it is original research, however, you can remove it without fear that I will reinsert it. Though the last paragraph, which is easily sustantiable, suddenly has no purpose without it. Srnec 03:54, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Re: Removal of Original Text in this article. I am familiar with the reference ‘De Vrije Fries, 1842 [Nord-Nederland En Kruistogten by J. Dirks, Pg. 141-146]’ and must say the translation by Eza is correct so there is no misrepresentation on Eza’s part. I would also not call a language translation as ‘original research’ this info has been available for many hundreds of years in a variety of Dutch and Frisian publications. The Occo ref mentioned is known as Ocko Scharlensis folio 25. This ref does specifically mention these Frisian nobles by name as followers of Peter the Hermit. Also the monk Ubbo Emmius also mentions in his Latin works 'Rerum Frisicarum historiae libri 60' (6 vols) these very same individuals as Frisian noble crusaders also. This Latin text was translated to the German by Eric von Reeken and was published in 1981. A number of Dutch chronicles through the 19C also mentions this specific group of individuals although they probably draw on the works of Emmius and OSc..

Does Johan Mol in his paper actually single out this particular group of Frisian individuals as non-participants in the first crusade, does he refer to the sources of Emmius and OSc as being inaccurate and discredit them, do any scholars? I do not think we can dismiss these works simply on a gut feeling, some recognition must be given, perhaps with cautions. I do not think you can simply bury the information because of what you may consider as ‘inconsistencies’ or because of lack of a primary source. Lets face it even primary sources can be filled with inconsistencies. Primary source may well be destroyed, misplaced or lost over time that does not mean we should throw out the secondary source as well. A bit of latitude should be given here with cautions perhaps. 16C claims of eight Frisian nobles taking part in the first crusade is not exactly an outrageous claim, most of the names and even traceable descendants still exist in Friesland and a number have been long associated with nobility, some prior to the first crusade. I still believe the last sentence in your last paragraph should be removed as it is ‘original research’ and a tad inflammatory. If you think this then makes the last paragraph pointless then remove it as well. I also think there is a place in the Wiki article for these individuals to be mentioned, with appropriate cautions perhaps concerning the lack of contemporary sources, after all the article is about Frisian participation in the crusades. I am sure you take your editing seriously but it appears to border on censorship in this instance. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.101.137.143 (talk) 12:56, August 26, 2007 (UTC)

It is a form of censorship. The information is highly suspect and no properly cited source has been provided. Several sources provided that were available online were checked and found wanting. No further internet sources show up any information. A hundreds year old source is not valuable without a more modern critique. I have only read Mol's abstract, but he specifically mentions a death of individuals' names in his abstract. Srnec 04:21, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

I skimmed through that article in Crusades by Mol, and it seemed to be about the Fifth Crusade, mostly. I didn't have time to read the whole thing, but I will try to next time I am in the library. Adam Bishop 07:08, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Another source

Another good source about Frisian participation on the Fifth Crusade is Anatomy of a Crusade, 1213-1221, by James M. Powell. I will try to add to the article if I have time. Adam Bishop 15:23, 25 October 2007 (UTC)