Talk:William of Tyre

Untitled

The illumination (right) of crusaders catapulting heads into the besiged city is from a ms of William's Histoire d'Outre Mer; is this illustrating the Siege of Nicaea? It makes a lively illustration, as the event is generally deemed apocryphal. --Wetman (talk) 04:13, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure, we'd have to find an image that includes the surrounding text. Unfortunately all the ones online seem to include only the pictures. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:59, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Roger of Wendover

William of Tyre is mentioned in Roger of Wendover in the year of 1188 , it does not matter if you think Roger of Wendover thought of another person - he is still mentioned - then you might say in the article that you think he meant another one - but you cant undo it .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by Understandable science (talk • contribs)

Yes, Roger says it was William, but Roger was writing a generation later, and all other evidence shows that William was dead before then. Possibly Roger knew William's name and his work, and assumed that the archbishop of Tyre in question must have been William; however I don't remember the exact arguments and I will have to look them up. I'm pretty sure there is a discussion of the situation in Stubbs' edition of Roger. It would still be worth mentioning here, as long as we also mention that Roger was mistaken. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:09, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, maybe I mean Luard, not Stubbs. The edition in the Rolls Series, anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:05, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough , I have contacted the Vatican today , asking if they have any records of William of Tyre being a pontifical legate around A.D. 1188 - however the Vatican is in general not very helpfull, and as you probably know , their library has been closed since 2007 ( scheduled to open again in september 2010 ) - if I do get an answer from the Vatican , no matter if it is positive or negative , then I will write it here .....have a nice day , Adam Bishop :-)) understandable science (talk) 11:22, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, the Vatican won't have any specific information on anything from 1188...they'll need to use the same sources we use. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:04, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Comments

I've left some comments above but unfortunately they appear in every banner rather than just one...if anyone knows how to fix it, please do. Hadrian89 (talk) 14:28, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I was wondering what you meant by this! I've just noticed Talk:William of Tyre/Comments. I don't know how to put that link in the banner either though. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:52, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

As for my comments so far, I think I am mostly satisfied with the details of his life (although I do need to add a note about those who use 1186 as the date of his death, and I still need to find a source that talks about why Roger of Wendover thought he was at Gisors in 1188). The rest is still jumbled at the moment. Perhaps the Latin chronicle and the Old French translation need to be split off into their own articles, although I think they should still be discussed in detail here; after all, when we say "William of Tyre", the archbishop and the chronicle are interchangeable. I would like to talk more about certain bits of the chronicle: the legends about Godfrey of Bouillon and Peter the Hermit, his secular-ish view of history, his opinions of the Templars, the Byzantines, the Muslims, the church, and the kings he knew persoonally. And we definitely need more about his legacy; his view of certain events were taken as fact up to the nineteenth century and even later (especially Godfrey and Peter, and the court party vs. noble party). I started collecting other historians' opinions of him in the "modern assessment" section but that can be greatly expanded. For the "Sources and further reading" that Hadrian89 mentioned in his comments, I went a little overboard with that and included every book or article that I could find about him, but of course that could be pared back to include only the most important ones. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I sorted out the date of his death (I'm not sure where I got the idea that 1185 was the standard date...). I still can't find anyone who comments on Roger of Wendover's statement that William was at Gisors...it's pretty obvious that Roger had William's book, knew that an archbishop of Tyre was at Gisors, and assumed it was the famous William, but I guess I can't say that without a reference. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:21, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

I knew I had read it somewhere. It was in Krey's introduction to the translation, right under my nose all along. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I've said everything I wanted to say...the only thing I am not satisfied with is the section about the Old French continuations, but that might require a new article. I've chopped down the "further reading" list too. I think I'll submit this to Peer Review before attempting GA or FA. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Authority control

What's this: "LCCN: n50025192"?? --Catalaalatac (talk) 15:03, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Nice article.

Good article. Green Cardamom (talk) 19:42, 20 March 2011 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:William of Tyre/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

Comment(s)

Press [show] to view →

The content is very good and on the covers the requisite topics fairly evenly; however, it would be good to see more evaluation of his work: there is information about what happened to his chronicles ('copied and circulated in the crusader states and eventually brought to Europe...may not have been widely read in original form') but not much about what was thought of them - did his contemporaries see him as accurate and comprehensive? Has more modern scholarship upheld or subverted that view? The hidden text suggests that the veracity of certain incidents has come into question, but it would be good to get a more general appreciation of his critical reception throughout the ages as well. As for format and layout: the section Sources and Further Reading should perhaps be split; I can't think of a good reason that the two need be lumped together, and it will be easier both for the casual reader and for any team that is reviewing the article if they are separate. Suggestions for further reading should be fairly short (5-10 books perhaps) and should present those books which are either comprehensive or which are suitable for the reader just beginning to tackle the subject (or both!), rather than texts which focus on a particularly narrow area of the topic or which require a significant degree of prior knowledge.

Last edited at 14:31, 20 April 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 10:44, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

William of Tyre

I'm fine with the fact that yall list all this information but could somebody possibly post his real name on here not just his title?Joeshmoe1 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:05, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

William is his only name, as far as anyone knows. If he had a family name, he never mentioned it. His parents or grandparents may have been from Europe, but we have no idea where. So, all we know is that he called himself Guillelmus in Latin, and we call him William in English. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:35, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

William & Knights Hospitallers

The article mentions William's hostility towards the Templars, but not the Hospitallers. This seems odd, given that i.) the Hospitallers were arguably just as important as the Templars in the 12th century Levant, and ii.) William's hostility towards the Hospitallers was just as strong as towards the Templars.

For just one example, see especially XVIII.3–8: here, William recounts the entire history of the Hospital over several pages, purely in order to portray them as turning away from piety towards greed and incorrigibility: e.g. 'the Hospitallers have neither reverence towards God nor regard for any man, except those whom they fear'. See also Edbury & Rowe, pp. 124–7 for this.

If people are fine with it, I'd propose adding a few lines on William's hostility to the Hospitallers next to the bit on his Templar hostility. Drivingrevilo (talk) 20:00, 18 April 2017 (UTC)