Talk:Crusades/Archive 4

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

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


 * What sources? There was no grand religious alliance between Muslims and Jews (nor was there a single Muslim state, or a Jewish state at all, to make such an alliance). There was some degree of acceptance and tolerance on all sides, but that exists today as well. Adam Bishop 04:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I think his phrasing and your understanding of what he meant is off. In various situations, Muslims and Jews served together in the defense of their cities from their common enemy, the invading Europeans. I have found several internet references to this scenario, particularly in Jerusalem. Sbroderick 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

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

You could say that the Jews were allied with the Muslims much like you could say that the Serfs were allied with a nobleman in a battle. Actually, Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from serving in Muslim armies. And nowhere did Jews prefer to be under Islamic rule as opposed to Christian rule, that's just plain myth. There were edicts put out by the various Popes that prohibited forced conversion or mistreatment of the Jews by Christians. As for Antioch and the various other seiges...to assume that the bloody nature of their sacking had something to do with religious differences would be ignoring the rest of history. The longer a city held out, the more they could expect brutal treatment. Yes Jews were slaughtered...so were Christians caught up in the middle...they were normally Armenian and Assyrian Coptics. For the record, when the Muslims initially took Jerusalem, long before the First Crusade...the Jews didn't make out too well then either.


 * Yes, the Jewish communities in the Middle East profited very nicely with an alliance with the Muslims. This is such an important aspect of understanding the Crusades that in fact I found it odd that this cultural and religious aspect of the region had been left out of the underlying issues of the Middle East. For example, according to A History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to Modern Times, by James Parkes (Oxford University Press, New York, 1909), Persians (Iranians) in 614 A.D. invaded Palestine, a part of the Christian Roman Empire of the East, and took Jerusalem. Here is Mr. Parkes's account: There is no doubt that the . . . Jews aided the Persians with all the men they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre (op. cit., p. 81).


 * "With their churches and houses in flames around them, the Christians were indiscriminately massacred, some by the Persian soldiery and many more by the Jews." -- A History of the Crusades by Steven Runciman.


 * "Jews in the near East, north Africa and Spain threw their support behind advancing Muslim Arab armies."-- The Position of Jews in Arab lands following the rise of Islam by Merlin Swartz


 * Further, "After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Christian Church became the most powerful force in Europe. In the early Middle Ages, the Jews lived fairly peacefully with their Christian neighbors. Many Jews became merchants. Others practiced trades or owned land. Many Christians respected the Jews for their contributions to society."--- Elliot B. Lefkovitz, Ph.D., Adjunct Prof. of History, Loyola Univ. and Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies.


 * Someone with an interest in adding this important and relevant information should do so. Jtpaladin 16:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me just point out the fact from the fiction here; when the TRINITARIAN CHRISTIAN CRUSADERS invaded Jerusalem, civilians were massacred, raped and their property looted en masse (including mosques and synagogues). It was described in the words of a crusader eyewitnes account:''Our men followed and pursued them, killing and hacking, as far as the temple of Solomon, and there there was such a slaughter that our men were up to their ankles in the enemy's blood. . . . and At last the pagans were overcome and our men seized many men and women in the temple, killing them or keeping them alive as they saw fit'' killing men and women, young and old, saving some for 'later'. When the Saracens under the leadership of Saladin re-took it, not one drop of civilian blood was shed, and history proves that, not them 'holier than thou' 'o the crusaders were brilliant' gloryfying of tyrant type of opinions, whih make out that the crusaders were honourable civilised people, who in reality were barbarians who broke the few truces they had made with the Saracens. And yes the crusaders were rapists, and harrased pilgrims off to makkah and plunderd and luted them.According to the chronicle of Ernoul, Raynald had captured Saladin's sister in a raid on a caravan, although this is not attested to in Muslim Sources. According to Muslim Sources, Saladin never had a sister, but only mentioned the term when referring to a fellow Muslim who was female, the raping and 'un god fearing' behaviour was evident in these 'holy' wars, and was expressed when sacking Jerusalem (as well as many other cities). I'll tell you all one thing: I am sure Jesus (peace and blessings be upon him) would never have agreed to the crusades, and every modest, decent person with an open mind will accept this. And in regards to Muslims and Jews co-existing, well they always have. the only reason why they are clashing now, is because of the harsh way the indeginous palestinian population were uprooted by the Zionist movement. Islam calls for the respect of all religeons, especially Christianity and Judaism, and this has been largely implemented in history. The Jews and Unitarian Christians saught help and assistance from the muslims against the trinitarian christians of Spain: that shows the relationship between Muslims and Jews. and in Islamic spain, many of the wizirs and kings advisers were Jewish, as well as Christian. The attacks have always been on Islam, but people some times try to find ways of falsely demonising Muslims, even though they were always merciful to humans and animals, and even crusaders who were captured were treated in a civil manner, and some of them continued to live amongst the muslims and never returned to europe. Agnes Nitt 12:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

That's quite a slanted view you have there, Agnes. First of all, the only reason there wasn't a "drop of blood spilt" when Saladin took Jerusalem was because the nobles made a deal in which they would leave, so long as they paid Saladin a considerable sum. The Church leaders tried to buy passage for as many poor as they could but how much was required often depended on the individual accepting the tax. Furthermore, the account you quote was written by whom? Maybe you should do some research, figure out if the person was indeed at the scene and if perhaps "blood up to our ankles" was not in fact false. Islam calls for the "respect of all religions" but continues to demand that Islam is the only religion. This much is clear by the way the Muslims who first sacked Jerusalem acted and by the very words of Muhammad himself. The Crusades were a brutal time and BOTH sides had blood on their hands. I merely provide balance to unbalanced views of many.Culmo80 16:23, 18 January 2007 (UTC)Cullen


 * I don't agree with much Agnes says, but the notorious "ankles" quote is presumably from Fulcher of Chartres, who was there: "Indeed, if you had been there you would have seen our feet coloured to our ankles with the blood of the slain... " is the translation at First Crusade.  Johnbod 16:38, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

No, its not fulcher of Chartres, It's someone else who is apparantly unknown, I got it from a christian source,which said that it was an account from a soldier. And sorry Culmo80,but no matter what you say, there was no bloodshed when Jerusalem was retaken by Saladin (and yes I mean 'retaken' because it always belonged to middleasterners who were now Muslims- The Europeans and Romans were never the indigenous people of that land.never). I am aware that there was a ransom for the western settlers, and in fact, it is a credit to Saladin, as the story goes as follows:Ballain and Saladin met and Saladin suggested a ransom of 20 bezants for men, 10 for women, and 5 for children, and those who couldnt be sold into slavery. Balain complained it was too much for some people, and so Saladin said it would then be 10 for men, 5 for women and 1 for children. Balain again said it was too much, so saladin said balain should pay 100 000 bezants and then every single person could be ransomed. Balain disagreed to this, so Saladin said no less than 50 000 and 7,000 can go without they themselves paying anything, Balain again disagreed, and at the end 50 000 was lowered to 30 000, which was agreed on, and Saladin said that 2 women or 10 children can take the place of every 1 man, therefore making it easier for the women and children to go without paying a ransom (and therefore a possibility of much more than 7,000). On the 2nd of october the Keys to the tower of David were handed to Saladin. The newly arived residents from Europe who had to go, and who werent already mass ransomed, had a month to pay the ransom (or 50 days depending on the source) if they were able to. Saladin was generous and freed some of those who were forced into slavery, his brother Saphadin asked for 1000 slaves, and on his wish being granted he freed them all. Ballain and Heraclius, not wishing to appear les generous than their enemies, freed some of the slaves out of their own money (however, heraclius hoarded much of his wealth and that of the church and wouldnt spend it towards the freeing of the slaves). Saladin allowed an orderly march of the new western residents away from Jerusalem (headed by the knights templars, Ballain and the patriarch) and therefore avoiding the kind of massacre that was typical when crusaders sacked cities and towns. Even Heraclius, who was unchivilarus and uncharitable and hoarded his personal wealth and church money and wouldnt spend it on ransoming slaves, was leeft to leave, unharmed. This is nothing short of kindness and goodwill from Saladin, who had seen his people raped, massacred by these people who he had allowed to leave unharmed, and whom he had even freed a large amount of them from his own money, and whom he had lowered the ransom so much and made things easier for their sake. Saladin was a true hero and noble man, why in some ways he was nore kinder to the trinitarian christians than they were to each other, he made it easier for them to leave, and freed so many of them, whilst the christian leaders were reluctant to pay for their own people, and stole church money. On the other hand, when acre was conquered by Richard the lion heart, Saladin wanted to secure the release of the Muslim families inside, do you know what happened?? Richard demanded, the return of the piece of true cross, and 200 000 GOLD DINARS.Saladin couldnt pay off the vast sum at once, and when he couldnt gather anymore money, The muslim men wiht their wives and children were trooped out, and herded, and then killed, infront of the tearful eyes of the Muslim army. Compare that with what Saladin did when the western settlers couldnt pay. These Muslim families were kiled. And dont worry about me, I;ve done my research and accounts like the ones I cited are widespread.Im worried about you, because you havent heard of them, even though you will find loads of them in christian and undisputed historical sources, like I found all mine. lol, and trust me, thats not the only account!! So do some research before saying that what I am saying is false, I did my research long ago, I see both sides, and understand them fully, seeing as I am British and used to be a christian myself, thankyou very much. I think what you are saying is false. Yes, Islam does call for the respect of all Religeons. And what kind of religeon believes that every other religeon is 100% true?? if that was the case, then all religeons, even though there are alot of contradictions between them, are correct. sorry, but logically there can only be one right answer most of the time. 1+1=2, it cant be anything else. I cant' see christians saying that Islam is true, or shintoism is true, or hinduism is true, or budhism is true. Christians dont acknowledge that Islam is the truth do they?? nor do hindus nor budhists. Its logic, if I follow Islam properly, and i fuly understand it and believe in it, then that is because I know in my heart that what I am following is the only complete truth; I have researched different religeons and i have found the only one that is logic and fair, and the definite truth to be Islam, therefore I dont think any of the others are 100% true (however most of them seem to contain an element of truth, as if  they originated, but deviated from 1 true monotheistic faith. The difference between Islam and other religeons is the fact that Muslims actually do respect other religeons and their members, especially the monotheistic religeons with books (like the gospels torah, psalms etc), and what is evident from Islamic history is  the coexistance of muslims and christians and jews under Islamic rule (and dont go using the tacky 'jizzyah' arguament; It was only due to those who could afford it, those who couldnt recieved benefits and money from Zakah (charity) and from the Islamic state, like their impoverished and needy Muslim counterparts. These people who werent muslims who paid the Jizzya, did not have to fight in the Muslim army, like their muslim counterparts did- and some muslims even chose to pay the jizzyah, and save themselves the bother of the army!!)Why, christians and jews were amongst the top brass of the islamic state, and served as bankers, and wizirs. Muslims never expelled people of other faiths, nor did they ever mass convert them like the christians were in the habit of doing (even until now-They coax impoverished and war striken paople with money and food. shameful). You say that the Muslims disrespect for members of other religeons is displayed when they liberated Jerusalem, and aparantly they acted by the verry words of Mohammad . o, really, what words of Mohammad?? would you be so kind as to share them with everybody?? i think you have alot of ignorance when it comes to Islam and Mohammad and the Qur'aan. I would like you to bring me these words of Mohammad (and dont go on some anti-islamic, racist, extremist website, which is completely fabricated, and altered versions of the quraan and islam lol!! i read some of them and they were hillarious!! apparantly some Meccan called umm was killed by the muslims!! umm means mum for gods sake haha!! the dumb fools obviously think they can fool some gullable ignoramouses by using foreign words which are actually quite funny when you know what they mean and dont make sense, they are hillarious sometimes!! no i want you to use regular copies and resources- you wont find anyhthig, because I beat you to that and already looked before accepting the truth-anyway) so go ahead and share it with us o you who 'merelly provide balance to the unbalanced views of others'!!! I think you should ballance your views, because you are biased, and evidently dont like the truth that you hear. Yes it does mean that the 'christians' were wrong, but you have to accept it; you cant fabricate history, and just because you dont like it or dont know it, it doesent mean its not true.After all, it's evident from what you say, that I know more about the crusades than you, and I have read more varied sources. You need to do some proper, unbiased reseach and accept the truth, like it or not.Agnes. Agnes Nitt 20:51, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Agnes, I'm sorry but you can't just say "I've done my research and accounts like the ones I cited are widespread," no modern historian can accept that answer. Cite your quotes and facts and you will face a much warmer reception. The fact that you're claiming the ransom for the hand over for Jerusalem was a "credit" to Saladin seems to me like you're more biased than you think. We all know how intelligent Saladin was, his exploits through his time period are legendary. My question to you; What would Saladin have gained with the slaughter of the occupants of Jerusalem? My answer, (open to debate, as is everything said here,) is nothing. So, here we have a man who is remarkably intelligent, faced with a situation that he can profit from. He took it. Your view of Saladin being noble and honorable is exactly that. Your point of view. My point of view is that Saladin was more intelligent than Raymond of saint Gilles, the first Crusades commander, who simply slaughtered the inhabitants (or at least did nothing to stop it.) Saladin realized there was nothing to gain by killing the inhabitants, so he suggested that a ransom was paid. You can interpret the same event in a million different ways, one could argue that Saladin was a money hording coward, who wouldn't risk another hostile take over of Jerusalem for fear of another Crusade, so instead accepted a payment to spare the inhabitants. your opinion is valid, but it is nothing more than an opinion, not fact. Don't treat it like your opinion is better than someone else's.

The first thing you learn in history is that every single thought a human has is biased. Every thought you have is influenced by your religion, race, gender, age, education, interests etc. The end of your paragraph is irrelevant, your views are just as biased as anybody else's, so don't try to demean someones views by claiming that they are more biased than yours. You clearly sympathize with Islam, Saladin and the Muslims. Others may sympathize with the franks, but please, argue with facts, not opinions, reference your quotes, try to keep insults out of the picture. The Bryce 12:10, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

Excuse me, but for starters, It’s not right to quote me incorrectly. What you put in at the top in quotation marks which is supposed to be something I said was never said by me. Again, this is another form of plagiarism, in this case not historically, but faking quotes is faking evidence, try to be more careful not to quote anyone incorrectly. And I am sure you will find historians DO agree with what I am saying, it’s just a matter of fact that there are numerous eye witness accounts, just because I can’t remember them all and where I got each and everyone from doesn’t mean they are fake, johnbod mentioned another eyewitness which I had never heard of: I learnt something new. The fact that I don’t recall where I get each and every one of my eye witness accounts is because I have read many many sources and books, but it so happens that I found where I got that quote I mentioned before: http://www.eyewitnesstohistory.com/crusades.htm. It is a factual and unbiased website that provides some quotes from various periods in history. You seem to have an issue with my lack of quoting during a regular conversation (whereas you don’t have a problem with the general lack of quotations in this discussions page; you seem to find them acceptable, perhaps it’s because like most of the other pro crusaders, you are not willing to accept that atrocities were committed on the crusader side and NOT the Saracen side. No compromise can be made) let me to remind you that the discussions section is a section where people discuss things and talk; you don’t usually find normal human beings quoting and citing in their regular conversations, because the bother of quotations and citations is usually confined to more factual articles and publishings etc. I do know one or two exceptional people who have the ability to quote and cite every single little detail correctly in their regular conversations, but alas I am not exceptional!! And my memory isn’t as strong as theirs, so like regular people I do not usually quote in conversations, but luckily for you, this time I went to the bother of retracing my steps and bringing back the source of the quote you required. I am shocked that the people I am discussing things with are not quite what I was expecting: I thought that I was talking to people who were somewhat knowledgeable about the crusades, and who would therefore recognize that there were numerous eyewitness accounts, as any historian would agree with me to. The fact that I see the whole procedure of the ransoming of the prisoners a credit to Saladin does not make me “more biased” than I think, as I have explored and explained why I think this was a credit to him in terms of factual and actual events (not by attempting to delve into his intentions and make conclusions which are heavily un-academic and biased, which you did): - From the events that happened it is clear that Saladin kept lowering the ransom in response to the pleas from Ballain that it was too much for some people - Saladin even tried to lift the entire ransom business from the shoulders of the newly arrived western settlers and place it on the authorities instead, who refused, and were more comfortable with the burden being on their citizens. - After saying that he would not accept less than 50 000 for the ransom to be lifted off 7000 settlers, he took back what he said and further reduced it to 30 000 - He eased the burden off the women and children by allowing 2 women or 10 children to take the place of 1 man (from the 7000 to be exempt from the ransom) thereby making it easier for the poorer settlers to go without paying a ransom. - He freed many of those who were slaves and his brother did likewise, therefore triggering Ballain and Heraclius to do the same out of shame. - He ensured that the settlers were to leave unharmed, and made sure that they were safe, why, even Heraclius, who disgusted everyone by his un-chivalrous behavior, greed and hoarding church money for himself and not spending it on the settlers, left the city unharmed. From his physical and actual actions it is clear that Saladin was nothing short of kind and caring even to his own enemies. It is not for us to say that he probably thought this and that and did it for this and that reason; intentions are known only by God and the actual person, other than that then we are guessing and what we are saying is biased and reflects either our hatred or love for that person, which is bias. Academic facts should be deduced from actual events and not suspicions or slander. You say: “We all know how intelligent Saladin was, his exploits through his time period are legendary.” What do you mean by ‘we’?? I certainly don’t agree that he was someone to describe using the term ‘exploit’, and he was intelligent like many people, but not to the extent that you describe him in: as if he weren’t human. And he was straightforward and not cunning and treacherous like the crusader leaders (which won them many victories). Please stick to facts and not exaggerations and myths. And you had a question for me (which you decided to answer yourself!) my answer is this: what do the crusades gain from raping and massacring Muslim and Jewish civilians?? What did Richard gain from killing the Muslim families in Acre?? Of course Saladin, like any regular civilized human being, would not benefit nor approve of the killing and harming of civilians, and he would not have killed or harmed them anyway, as it would have been his ticket to hell and a disobedience to God and a rebellion against the Islamic morals and the teachings of Prophet Mohammad. You say that Saladin was in a position “that he can profit from. He took it.” Apparently “Saladin was a money hording coward” who “wouldn't risk another hostile take over of Jerusalem for fear of another Crusade”, let me point out first, that this was the first time Saladin retook Jerusalem, so it wasn’t ‘another’ retaking, and the first time when the indigenous people were liberated by the Muslim army it wasn’t ‘hostile’, unlike the byzantian roman conquest which sacked Jerusalem many times, destroyed the temple of Solomon and killed the Jews to make way for Christians. The Muslims brought Jerusalem to its former glory and status and liberated it and the indigenous Unitarian Christians and Jews who lived there, and as usual civilians were unharmed. Now, why would Saladin be scared of the west and another crusade? Saladin and the Muslims had the upper hand and that’s why they were in the position of recovering Jerusalem. If there was anything that would trigger off another crusade, it would be the Muslims recovering of Jerusalem. That was enough. But the crusaders and the west could do nothing to them: they were thrashed and depleted and defeated. Saladin was not scared of the crusaders. That is just hypothetical and unrealistic wishful thinking. As for Saladin who you accuse of being ‘money hoarding’, well if he was money hoarding he would make the settlers hand over all their money, and he would have confiscated all the wealth of Ballain and heraclius (who hoarded church money for his own person), he would have looted the western churches and the western leaders, but no, the settlers and leaders left Jerusalem with their wealth. And I guess the heavy lowering of the ransom, and the ‘2 for 1’ and ‘10 for 1’ ‘offers’ were very profitable for Saladin?? Saladin even freed some of them from his own goodwill. And don’t forget that crusader wealth was looted wealth to start off with: it was stolen from its owners, yet they still left off with it. This Saladin who you accuse of being money hoarding, didn’t have enough money to free his own people from acre, and had to pay in installments, and he wasn’t ‘money hoarding’ like Ballain and heraclius, whom preferred that the civilians buy themselves out so that they, the leaders, can be wealthy when they return home. That was ‘Your point of view’, which was incorrect, biased and extremely wishful. As I previously mentioned you can’t go into people’s minds and intentions, and guess: history isn’t about guessing, it’s about the actual fact and actions that happened. I do not see why you are trying to justify Richards actions: ‘’who simply slaughtered the inhabitants (or at least did nothing to stop it.)’’. Are you implying that he didn’t agree to it and his mistake was that he simply didn’t stop it?? There is no evidence for that, in fact all the evidence points out that Richard IS the one who made the decision and ordered the families to be gathered and slaughtered. And that’s another one of the ‘going into peoples minds and retrieving their intentions’ type of ‘evidence’. And no, there aren’t a ‘million’ ways of interpreting this, it doesn’t even need interpreting: the facts can be extracted from the evidence and the actions. Interpreting in this case is for confined to apologetics who try to excuse crusaders and defame Saladin. It’s the same as saying that someone who is giving to charity, or is helping out, is a show off: there’s no evidence for that, and it is a comment made by people who hate an individual and they slander them and attempt to ruin every good deed and action they do in order to make out they’re bad. It’s not factual at all; it’s just hateful guessing. Only God knows what is inside everyone. Stick to facts, and not spiteful guessing, because there’s no evidence or basis for that. Get your facts from the actions. At the end, the Muslims shed no blood full stop. Whilst the crusaders did; no excuses, and no compromise, the facts are the facts, history is history. You say: “Don't treat it like your opinion is better than someone else's”. As I explained, my statement was not ‘opinion’ and was a fact taken from and proven by actions. It is void from bias, as it is based on what actually happened, and no legends nor lies are involved. You’re statement, on the other hand, is very biased and heavily one-sided. You should accept and respect a good deed done by anyone, not think the worse, on no historical grounds whatsoever.

I don’t know where you learned your history from or who ‘you’ is meant to refer to (definitely not me), but what I learned is that you have to investigate and explore different accounts with as little bias as possible, putting yourselves in their skin and walking around in it, and then weigh out the fact from the fiction, and then align your argument on what is definitely true. I’ll tell you what is definitely true: the crusaders came from Europe into the Middle-east and invaded it, killed and raped. The Muslims defended their land and the people of their land and successfully (and eventually) drove the invaders out. THAT is everything in a nutshell: we have highlighted the aggressors and the defenders, and there is only ever one right answer, and there can never be any compromise. No one can never justify the crusades, because their argument is as baseless of that of Hitler and many other aggressors; they always make up excuses, it just gets to my heart and hurts, because those who were killed and suffered are being either forgotten, or demonized: it’s not fair, and has to stop. History is history. The last paragraph was not irrelevant in the slightest, because it is true that history must be accepted, no matter how sour it is, and it shouldn’t be fabricated, do you not agree with me?? It is relevant because people are forgetting this and are not willing to explore other people’s sides of the story and they are not accepting it, even though it is really quite clear. Personally I have explored all sides, and I understand what they are both saying. And people who are just arguing for the sake of arguing, and their knowledge is lacking to say the least, should not waste their time with arguments that I have already referred to and refuted. And as I said and explained before (and I am not willing to go over this for the umpteenth time) my view is not biased. And of everyone here, I am one of the few who aren’t biased, as I myself am a westerner, and I myself have studied both sides (the pro crusade side more in fact- except that I did not see it as logic or fair or academically correct, it was filled with myth and legend slander and lies, which I did not find on the Muslim side, nor the neutral side, to which I belong). And yes I clearly do sympathize with the Muslims and Saladin (however you seem to refer to that in disdain and disgust) because they are the victims and the defenders of their land and people against atrocities and war crimes committed against them (and do not ask me to go through that again, because I have already explained it). And about the ‘insults’ in my previous contribution, well I’d be grateful if you could be a little clearer and specify an ‘insult’ which I said, however, I am sure that you will agree with me that there are none, once you have re-read it thouroughly. Agnes. Agnes Nitt 20:50, 24 January 2007 (UTC)

“It is void from bias”… This is your downfall. You think that what you’re saying is clean of bias? I have a 500 word rebuttal typed up, but I realise now that none of it is needed. I’m not going to waste my time, or anyone else’s time by posting it. You claiming that what you write has no bias, shows me right here, right now, that you are no historian. You don’t deserve the right to post on Wikipedia. You don’t deserve to be privileged enough to argue with the rest of the people here. You’re wasting space on these discussion boards. Even as I type, I cycle down and read the posts of others who see you as a fool and an idiot. EVERY single piece of writing is biased. You claim to just write “Actions,” but you interpret the actions before you write them,, that is your opinion. An opinion more biased than you are willing to admit. You write your opinion, juclaiming things such as “he was noble,” for doing this, etc. Well, that is NOT the event or actionst like I do. You aren’t better than me, or anyone else, you don’t leave your opinion out of it, therefore your writing is biased, just like mine, just like EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET. As for “I’ll tell you what is definitely true: the crusaders came from Europe into the Middle-east and invaded it, killed and raped. The Muslims defended their land and the people of their land and successfully (and eventually) drove the invaders out.” No, I’ll tell you what is true, without leaving out the key fact: The crusaders were called to arms after Jerusalem was taken by the Muslims. They fought, killed and raped. The Muslims were fighting in defense of their homeland, and the decision that was made to take Jerusalem. The Muslims eventually drove the Crusaders out.

You successfully left out the key element. The reason the crusaders came. You write from a anti-crusade perspective, no matter what you claim. I’m done here. I think you’re a fool. I’ve got nothing else to say.The Bryce 11:10, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

Being void from bias has never been any one’s downfall and never will be. What you are saying is that nobody in the world says anything void from bias: does that mean there are no (and never will be by the way you’re putting things) reliable resources on Earth?? I think it is clear to anyone form what you have said that YOU are no historian, and in fact you probably never got to grasps with history in the past, definitely not at present, and perhaps (if you carry on with this weird and ignorant idea of yours) not even in the future. If you knew anything about history, or were a historian, then you would have done extensive research from all sorts of sources; some of them will obviously be heavily biased for and against different people, and some will be more neutral, and some things will be absolute facts (e.g.: battles that occurred, and events that happened-such as the procedure of ransoming the western settlers) so again you are wrong, not ‘EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET’ is biased, You definitely are, but a lot of people aren’t. It is obvious that you are a very stuck up person; just because you are biased you seem to think that surely no one else can be better than you, therefore everyone else must be biased as well, in order that nobody exceeds your majesty in anything. You claim that you are not going to waste your time by posting the ‘500 word rebuttal’ even though you previously mentioned that it was already ‘typed up’. Please clarify how you will be wasting your time if it is already ‘typed up’?? Quite frankly you haven’t typed up any ‘rebuttal’ whatsoever, otherwise you would have posted it to disprove what I have said. The only thing that you have ‘realised’ is that you have now been proven to be a liar in addition to someone who practices plagiarism and doesn’t know a thing about history or its many sources and references. If I were you I’d get typing quickly in order to save your face, because I’m waiting for that ‘rebuttal’ (which will somehow refute the fact that Saladin kept lowering the ransom, and that Ballain and Heraclius were greedy, money hoarding, church looting thieves) As for the fact that I ‘don’t deserve the right to post on Wikipedia’ and that I ‘don’t deserve to be privileged enough to argue with the rest of the people here’, well it’s not for you to decide, because some people would say that you yourself shouldn’t be posting any comments on the crusader discussions page because amongst other things, you haven’t so far countered a thing of what I have said: all you have done was to lose your marbles and stoop down to the level of attempting to insult me by saying I am a ‘fool’ and an ‘idiot’, which shows that you have lost the argument badly (like someone else before you who did a similar thing just because they knew that they had been proven wrong-like you). I am not insulted, because I know who is the real ‘fool’ and the real ‘idiot’; people speak for themselves. ‘Even as I type, I cycle down and read the posts of others who see you as a fool and an idiot.’ What?? You are typing and scrolling at the same time?? Do you think anyone is daft enough to believe that?? You talk nonsense, not only in terms of historical content and bias, but also you seem to talk nonsense in everything. Perhaps you should enact the saying: If you haven’t got anything good to say, then shut up. Apparently ‘EVERY single piece of writing is biased’, what about writings that say things like: ‘German forces have invaded Poland and its planes have bombed Polish cities, including the capital, Warsaw. The attack comes without any warning or declaration of war.’ Are they not fact?? Or do you think they are someone’s bias?? They are clearly historical facts. In the same way, Saladin continued reducing the ransom and made things easier for settlers to leave, Ballain (and especially Heraclius) were greedy and refused to lift the ransom from the settler’s shoulders, Saladin and his brother freed many slaves, prompting Ballain and Heraclius to follow suit, and Heraclius hoarded the western church’s wealth for himself and didn’t use it on behalf of the ransom. The same way, Richard the Lion heart ordered the murder of Muslim families in Acre in front of the Muslim army after one time receiving a late monetary installment due to the large sum he demanded (200 000 gold dinars), is a fact as well, so far, no bias has been added, such as: Richard did nothing to stop the killing. THAT is bias. The fact that I say it was cruel to kill the families just because one installment was late (due to it’s high value, and the Islamic state’s inability to make up the money and pay it on time that once) is no bias, but rather a fact than anything else, no-one can justify the crusader’s killing of them Muslim families in cold blood. The same way, some one who gives to charity is charitable-a fact, someone who helps others is virtuous-a fact, someone who rules a country is called a ruler-a fact, someone who kills civilians is a tyrant-a fact and therefore, Saladin who freed the western slaves and lowered the ransom for their sake is virtuous, not greedy, and merciful (considering what the crusader’s did to Muslims, and the money they had was looted money and property), and the same way, Ballain and Heraclius were greedy and uncharitable and unmerciful to their own people, because they refused to lift the burden off the settlers shoulders from their own money, let alone church money, but instead hoarded it for themselves so they could be rich when they got back home. I am commenting on actions that actually took place: lowering of a ransom, hoarding of church money, allowing people to leave unharmed (even their leaders), making a deal that makes things easier for women and children and weaker members of the community: these are all actions which I am commenting on, unlike you, who claimed that he was only doing it for this and that reasons (which I proved incorrect in my previous comment) Yes, indeed I do ‘interpret’ actions, just like any historian would, e.g.: Hitler shouldn’t have invaded and destroyed Poland’s civilian infrastructure, therefore he was BAD. He killed Jewish civilians, therefore he was BAD. Some apologetics stick up for him and defend him with rubbish arguments, but at the end of the day, and no bias involved, just interpreting historical facts and actions he did, it is safe to say he was BAD and an AGGRESSOR. The same way crusaders were BAD aggressors, and they were invited over by BAD Western-Roman aggressors and invaders who were afraid they were loosing the land they had occupied In the first place, and the control of its indigenous people, whom they had oppressed. As usual you don’t talk sense: when you said I was ‘claiming things such as “he was noble,” for doing this, etc. Well, that is NOT the event or action’ what on earth do you mean?? Are you mad or drunk?? YOU SAID IT YOURSELF: I called him noble, because he had done so and so, freed slaves, made things easier for the invaders etc. therefore I backed up what I said and explained things to those who were too slow to realize this for themselves, how on earth is it ‘NOT the event or action’, if freeing slaves and making things easier for women and children are not events, then what are events?? Spotted elephants?? Wake up for God’s sake, If you’re not thinking properly or have a problem with understanding English, then come back when you’ve sorted your problems out, because it seems to me you haven’t understood a word of what I have said. You say: ‘‘You aren’t better than me, or anyone else’’. Did I ever say that I was better than anyone?? Are you putting words in my mouth again?? Do you not learn?? You mentioned in your first ever comment on this discussion: ‘’try to keep insults out of the picture’’ and I replied to that part by saying: ‘’And about the ‘insults’ in my previous contribution, well I’d be grateful if you could be a little clearer and specify an ‘insult’ which I said, however, I am sure that you will agree with me that there are none, once you have re-read it thoroughly’’ You couldn’t answer that because there were none, so instead, you decided to not ‘keep insults out of the picture’ and called me a ‘fool’ and an ‘idiot’ – hypocritical!! By calling me a ‘fool’ and an ‘idiot’ you are implying that I am lower than everybody else, because if I was indeed like everyone else, then you are implying that everyone else is like me and are fools and idiots. You have not only broken the Wikipedia rules, but you have also broken any rational person’s trust in you by acting in an ignorant and hypocritical way. And I now reverse what you said to me, and I know say this to you: You are definitely no better than anyone else, and that includes you not being better than me. ‘’therefore your writing is biased, just like mine’’ well, you’ve just admitted (although I already knew) that you are biased, but still that doesn’t bring the level of what I’m writing down to yours, nor does it bring the level of what ‘’EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET’’ down to the level of bias un-academic inaccuracies based on ignorance which you write, of course there are people like you who don’t understand things properly yet violently support something which doesn’t make sense and has been refuted and believe in bias myths and legends (such as Richard the lion heart was a gallant and noble man, and Saladin was a cunning cut throat child eating baboon) and they directly insult people when they are proven wrong, and tend to have short tempers. But there are a lot of educated individuals out there, who read different sources and look into things and are knowledgeable of what happened and the different accounts and can use facts, logic and reason to come to the truth, so don’t you dare generalize and insult ‘’EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET’’ by making out that they are somehow like you, who believe in bias and are hard headed, don’t you dare insult people any further. You claim that the key fact was: ‘’The crusaders were called to arms after Jerusalem was taken by the Muslims‘’ Are you telling me that THIS is the key fact which I apparently ‘’successfully left out’’ ?? I purposefully didn’t mention the well known fact that the byzantinians in the Levant called for help because they were loosing their occupied territory, because it is NOT the key fact, the key fact is that there is an aggressor and a defender: the aggressor: crusaders, the defender: Saracens. The fact that the invaders were calling for help because the indigenous people were once again taking control of their land is something the pro crusaders should be ashamed of, not claiming it is the key fact. The crusades were basically reinforcements to Roman invaders to help them quell the rising of the occupied indigenous people. Yes, I am definitely anti crusades, anti invaders, anti aggressors, and I say that myself, and most rational unbiased people educated in the crusader field will agree with me that the crusaders were rapists criminals and aggressors (in addition to thieves and looters). The people who were uprooted and abused were the Saracens, in the same way I am anti Hitler, and most educated unbiased rational people take my stance due to him being an aggressor and a war criminal, and we would ultimately sympathize with those who suffered under him and were invaded, e.g.: Jews gypsies etc. I sympathize with the victims of the brutal crusades-the Muslims. You may think I'm a fool, but I know who the real fool is from their naff argument, and by the way, you haven't ansered or contradicted a thing I have written so far. Agnes. Agnes Nitt 19:19, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

Couldn't be bothered reading your unstoppable wall of text. I read the first couple of sentences, and the fact is, that there AREN'T any reliable sources. Everyone is biased. Everything that is written is based on the writers interests, race, religion. Everything about the person influences the writing. I could ask you to write about basketball. Your account would include things that are important to you, and leave out things that may be essential to me. You might say, that there are rules that need to be taken out, to leave the game open, with more tactics involved. I might say they need more rules, because the game is too open ended.

By now, we have two accounts of the same game. But because we have different views, interests, thoughts, educations, etc. our writing on the same subject might be so different that a future reader might be unable to even link the two accounts to the same game. Anyway, i'm done here. I doubt I'll check this page again. The Bryce 00:51, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

No, I am sure that you HAVE read all of what I have written (just like you have read through ALL my comments before and apparantly deduced that I was a fool and an idiot from them). If you were confident of what you are arguing for because it is the ultimate truth based on evidence, then you wouldn't pretend that you 'couldn't be bothered'reading my reply to YOU. I know you have read it because it directly concerns you, your rudeness, unacademic way of looking at history and its sources and your uncivilised behaviour in a debate, you claim not to have read it simply because you don't know what to say, and I don't blame you, and perhaps I even respect that partin you that you don't argue against someone once you have been proven wrong-I'll give you the benefit of the doubt. I won't bother replying to your baseless arguament about ''there AREN'T any reliable sources. Everyone is biased because I have already refuted that many times, and in my previous reply to you (which you have read)I made it clear that what you are saying is ridiculous and may reflect on you and the quality of literature and history books that you read (that is if you actually read anything, perhaps you 'couldn't be bothered' to read in the past, hence your current arguament. If you wish to involve yourself in any kind of debate, then I advise you to grow out of that can't be bothered, closed mind attitude, many new things might dawn to you if you give it a go)but doesn't reflect on EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET''. Your arguament about basketball is again absolutely baseless, for starters I wouldn't involve myself in basket ball because it is not something I know too much about (you, however have stuck yourself right in the middle of a field in which you obviously have no academic knowledge in-just myths and facts and personal opinions. Secondly If anyone in the world was to write a factual text about basket ball, then it is impossible for anyone to incllude bias in it: the rules of basketball are this this and that, the ball has these specifications, you are not allowed to do this etc, it is impossible to involve bias, certain things are facts no matter what, so again it is absured to claim that people would disagree when writing about basketball, apparently my account would include things that are important to you, and leave out things that may be essential to me - no it wouldn't, I would write about the facts of the game, same as you would (som many players on a team, etc) its rules etc, there are set rules for basketball and they are NOT subject to opinion at all, so what you have said shows that you don't even know what you're on about. You can't introduce new rules because it is the same as introducing new things in history: you can't because history is cast in iron-it can not change and there can be no compromise, the same with basketball it is only what it is because of it's rules, if you change it then it's not basketball: it's something else, same with history, if you change it then it's not history anymore, it's something else: plagerism and bias. There is only ever one truth, so if you decided to add rules to basketball because you thought it was 'too open ended' then your version would be wrong full stop. you take things how they are and you can't change them just because you want to. so no, again you are wrong about 'that a future reader might be unable to even link the two accounts to the same game',that is not because of our different 'educations' 'views' and 'interests' (which have nothing to do with writing an account of basket ball-all you need to do is write about its rules etc)it is more to do with one of them being fake. At the end of the day, if someone made up a load of rubbish about basketball and argued that it was open to everyone's bias and opinion, I would tell them to wake up to the truth and realise that there is only one version of basketball and their new rules are pointless and not acceptable. I know you will check this page again because like all normal people you would want to know what my reply to you is.Agnes Nitt 15:08, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Well Agnes, you were right. I came back to read your reply. Granted, it took me some time to build up to it, and I was looking forward to a good wall of your text to read. I don’t want this talk page to turn into a discussion on basketball, but I think its worth a moment of our time to quickly come to terms. I said to write about basketball. You took that to mean a book about rules, and would have written about “ball specifications,” and such. However, I could have been asking you to write about the history of basketball, basketballs greatest players, how basketball courts have been developed, or how basketball players train. Already we have completely different accounts of basketball. You’ve proven my point perfectly. One person writes about history, the other writes about rules. Either could overlap, create conflicting images, or confusion. Imagine what difficulty people might have trying to describe the events of their lifetime. I’d inquire as to how old you are, since I believe what I’ve just described to you is one of the first things taught in any high school history class, as well as universities these days. I think that pretty much voids your whole debate.

I would like to stop arguing now. Lets leave this page for constructive discussion. I’m calling a ceasefire here. Just let it go.The Bryce 09:56, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

It took you more than just 'some time' to reply, but it seems to me you haven't actually read what I have written. Either that, or you don't understand what I have been repeating over and over again. And if you really don't want this to turn into a discussion about basketball (which you started) then keep to the point and don't stray off. I will say it one last time and hope that I don't have to repeat myself again: There is only one truth; the aggressors and rapists were the crusaders, and the defenders, the ones who were looted, kicked out of their homes and raped were the Saracens. full stop. No compromise, non of this 'my version' 'your version' crap. cut out the clutter, and the technical stuff about the basketball, which I don't give a damn about, we're talking about the crusades here. I am offeneded by your enquiery about my age. Don't you know better than to ask a woman about her age? The thing I'll tell you about your age is that no matter what it is, your way of thinking and understanding is well below what I expected. My arguament quite clearly contradicted what you were ranting on about, and never in the slightest proved the crusaders to be good, or the Saracens to be bad. If you haven't got that by now, then just give up talking to me and read my 'walls' of text and try to get what I'm saying into your head. And I'd advise you to not mix crusades and basketball together, because your confusing yourself. I don't know what kind of university you attended, but if you've spent 3-4 years learning absolutely nothing then you've wasted your time and money, because if you've come out of university believing that nothing is true, and that everything is just a matter of opinion then my advice to you is: wake up; only one set of events occurred during the years of the crusades, and to be honest, there isn't much dispute in the events between the two sides (if you ignore the myths and the bias and just stick to the facts and events) and every reasonable, educated, sensible, open minded person will realise that what we have all been brought up with (in regards to the crusades) isn't as sweet and heroic as it seems. Believe it or not, I, at one point was at the same stage as you, but as I learnt more and more, and delved deeper and deeper into the subject and did my own unbiased research because I wanted to find out the truth about many things, including the crusades, I realised how biased WE were, and that the aggressors were the crusades, and that those who were oppressed were the Muslims, Jews, and Unitarian Christians. An example of a biased text is the wikipedia crusade article; it completely ignores and disregards the attrocities committed and loss on the Muslim side. It portrays the crusades as heroic and hounarable, when they were not in the slightest. It may be hard to admit that our ancestors were wrong and bad and all that, but if we're going to be big headed and stubborn and arrogant, then we're only tricking ourselves. The truth is the truth, and deep down inside we all know it. Agnes Nitt 22:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I never said the crusaders were good. I never said that the crusaders weren't the aggressors. I am saying that the crusaders weren't inherently evil, the Muslims weren't saintly warriors. This alone is what you infer. This is why people are offended. The crusaders were rallied by their popes, and sent on what they viewed as a holy mission for god. Were they heroic? Your call. They redefined the word invasion. They were people with a general mind map of about 10 kilometers square. They went crashing off into unknown lands. They fought for their religion, their beliefs, their comrades and their dreams. Thats what people admire. Thats why we respect them. The truth? They raped, killed and eventually massacred the inhabitants of Antioch and Jerusalem in anger and frustration. Now, it's true, most of what I've just written is my own opinion, but obviously no research has been done into how people view the crusades. What you infer is that the crusaders were evil people who went out to destroy a vast beautiful and civilized culture.

The basketball point was relevant. Can we trust all sources? No way. Can we assume they're mostly accurate, allowing for mild exaggeration or bias? Yeah, we have to. "There is only one truth; the aggressors and rapists were the crusaders, and the defenders, the ones who were looted, kicked out of their homes and raped were the Saracens. full stop." I can't believe you don't see the bias in your own words. Granted all these things happened. Agnes, you're right! I'm not disputing these things. It's the choice in facts that you include. These truths certainly happened, however why did you say that the crusaders were rapists? Clearly this was not the intention of the crusades; to rape and kick Muslims out of their homes. The intention was to recapture Jerusalem. Or maybe for profit in some cases. The other things happened as consequence. However, in your one sentence summary of the crusades you choose to say, instead of "Recapture Jerusalem." Or even "Aggressively recapture Jerusalem." You choose to say the crusaders were "Aggressors and rapists." Can you begin to understand why people aren't respecting your opinion? No one is saying that you are stupid. No one is saying your opinion is less valuable. No one is saying your facts aren't accurate. People are telling you that you're biased. And you are. So is everyone! So don't take offense to that. Hence my basketball idea. You just seem to let your bias show more than others.

I'll give a shot at stating the facts like you tried. I'll try to keep it neutral. "There is only one truth; the aggressors (crusaders) went into the middle east to recapture Jerusalem, and the defenders, were the Saracens who fought against the invaders to defend their homes. Full stop." This states why both parties were involved in the conflict and doesn't make one party out to be evil. Clearly this leaves many questions unanswered. If I were to continue writing about the crusades I would dedicate many paragraphs to the violence of the crusaders, and other things. However, it is not appropriate to advertise the crusaders as murderers and rapists, since this was not their primary or secondary role. It happened. Yes. But it would be uneven to judge the crusaders as only rapists. Rape was a big fact in those times, very common in all cultures, including Islam. Saying the crusaders were rapists would be like saying the Americans are warmongers. Yeah, it happens, but its not the main thing they do.The Bryce 08:11, 15 March 2007 (UTC)

I would like to start off by correcting your rash and uneducated statement regarding rape: i agree that rape was a 'big fact' in those days, however you say that this includes Islam; how far you are from the truth - rape is a crime in Islam punishable by DEATH. During the crusades, it was the crusaders who raped pillaged and looted the Muslims, making the crusaders evil (contrary to what you claim) you can not argue against the fact that they were evil for all they did. This is not an opinion, it's a fact: what they were doing was bad and wrong. I don't care if it was a primary secondary or tertiary reason, I simply don't care-there is no excuse-it's pathetic to try and excuse what they did, it's like trying to excuse a thief who decided to rape his victim after mugging her: his primary reason was to rob, but that doesn't alter the fact that he is and evil and corrupt man for raping her, does it?! Just because his primary intent wasn't rape, it doesn't mean that he isn't a rapist. If the crusades hadn't done all they did, they wouldn't have been bad, but they did, so they are bad. The Saracens on the other hand were the ones we should pity, because they suffered, therefore I sympathise with them. They defended their lands and homes and families, therefore they can't be evil-it's a fact, there is no opinion: someone who defends his home can not be bad. The Crusaders (Europeans) never 'recaptured' Jerusalem, because it never was theirs, the Romans took over many lands including Egypt and settled there, yet it was never theirs, it belongs to the indigenous people of the area. Like in Egypt and north Africa and many other regions, the indigenous people were Unitarian Christians who followed the true followings of Jesus, and were being persecuted by the pagaon Roomans (who decided to merge christianity into their pagan beliefs in order to keep hold of their empire: in fear that christianity would spread and overrun their empire. The Romans were always willing to accept anything new into their faith so long as everyone was submissive to the Roman Emperor-nowadays the pope in italy) and they had the coming of a last prophet confirmed in their books so they accepted Islam, therefore the indigenous people were Muslims, and therefore the orient (acre syria etc) was their land, never ever the Romans. The Romans persecuted them and tortured them for following the true teachings of christ and for rejecting the trinity. So 'recaptured' is incorrect.

You say that the 'crusaders weren't inherently evil' yes they were because of what they did. And please: I never implied that the Muslims were 'saintly' warriors, all I did was sympathise for them and show my anger at the reverse portrayal of the two sides; the crusades are always talked about from th point of view that the crusades were good, defending themselves from the evil and horrible Saracens, when in reality the oppposite is what is true-and historical events prove this. You state that 'this alone (i.e.: muslims 'saintly' warriors-crusaders 'inheretantly evil') is what you infer'. Again, this proves that either you haven't understood a word of what I have ever written, or you think you can fool me by putting in snide and untrue remarks which you think I won't notice; you know very well what I am trying to 'infer'- not that muslims are sainlty warriors,because they were mostly civilians, not at all warriors, the crusaders on the other hand were mostly warriors and soldiers. About hte crusaders, yes they were evil, but what I am trying to get at here is that the likes of you are extremely biased, and just because you revere the crusades (as is evident from what you say e.g.:'it is not appropriate to advertise the crusaders as murderers and rapists' - it bloody well is, and whertehr you think its 'appropriate' or not, it's true, what's not appropriate is to angelify the crusaders, and portray them as 'saintly warriors'. you also try to give an excuse to the crusaders by saying that they did what they did 'in anger and frustration' more like:out of lust and greed lol!! stop pardoning them, its horrifying how far you are willing to go just to justify what they did, give it a rest: what they did was w-r-o-n-g) you will do anything just to justify what they did, and cover up the fact that the Muslims were the ones who were abused and attacked. That is what I object to: covering up the truth.

I couldn't care less if you love and adore them because 'They went crashing off into unknown lands. They fought for their religion, their beliefs, their comrades and their dreams. Thats what people admire. Thats why we respect them.' quite frankly I don't care, again, if you cut out the bias and folk lore, you'll find that Europe was in a state of abject poverty, and quite frankly any tramp etc off the street would enroll for the crusades because they would escape from their appaling conditions and go off to the wealthy orient, where they would make their fortunes-which they did. Alot of your oh, the crusades are gallant, saintly warriors who were sooo chivalrous is basically a load of myths that is taught in Catholic primary schools and very basic sources of knowledge. perhaps if you had done a PHd on the subject or knew high end historians, you would know better, but regurgitating all that stuf taught in primary school, and found in the DK Childrens Encyclopedia, or a book written by mr 'I-hate-Muslims-and-adore crusades-and-think-I-can-fool-people-who-don't-know-much-about-the-topic' dooesn't impress me.

You say: 'You just seem to let your bias show more than others' may I remind you that I am probably one of the only people on this discusssion page who is the least bias of them all- as I am a European, and raised as a Christian, yet I grew up doing my own research (not regurgitating memorised phrases) and I know that we Europeans were wrong. I am not an Arab, nor am I married to an Arab, nor do i have any Arabian reltaions- quite frankly, I have no need to be biased on the Saracen side- I am not a Saracen. I acknowledge and know us Brit's role in the crusades, and yet I know we were on the wrong and they were on the right. Does it not hint anything to you that someone like me who sides with the side people wouldn't expect me to side with, and who is not benefiting in doing so (quite the contrary infact), actually has a point?? If I was very arrogant and stuck up for 'my side' just becase they are 'my side' I would refuse to acknowledge that the crusades were brutal, and that the Muslims were on the right (as historical events quite clearly show), but i have left that behind me, as the only way to be as unbiased as possible, is to put yourself in the other persons skin and walk around in it, and to leave al you arrogance and pride aside. YOU are the one who is very biased and yes, even though you claim that you 'never said the crusaders were good' you are doing so whether you are doing it conciously or not, you are saying that they are good, you are not being neutral. Why is it that just because I disagree with the crusaders I am biased and wrong?? I am sure most people will say that they disagree with Hitler and the Nazi party, yet they are not biased nor are they wrong: because in this instance, they are basing their judgement on undisputed historical events and fact. Hitler was bad. Some of these people ar Germans, so how are they biased?? They acknowledged the truth, just as I have done, and you have not yet done. Again, it seems to me that you have not understood a word of what I have said, and I wonder if you'l understand whatI am saying now?? Agnes Nitt 21:17, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

I can't bear this. I tried to finish it, but you refused to. Im not replying to you any more. This article is fine.The Bryce 04:34, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

If you think so. Just keep to your word this time. Agnes Nitt 14:10, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

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

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


 * Referencing has nothing to do with it. I can string a bunch of referenced quotes together and it can still be OR. Other Western historians like Steven Runciman have called it the last of the great European barbarian invasions. Muslims dont' call it a "western defensive" move, they saw it as an aggressive invasion. Even other European historians have seen it as the start of european expansionism that lasted until the current day. Is the "defensive" perspective correct? Perhaps, with qualifiers and explanation. But these are all various points of view that need a lot more explanation. -- Stbalbach 13:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. "Defensive" is certainly not the opinion of the majority of historians. Given the time frames involved, I'd call the "defensive" claim patently absurd. The region had been Muslim much longer than e.g. the US exists. And the original Muslim expansion was not a purely military expansion, but a cultural and religious phenomenon as well. Most people where not exterminated or expulsed, but converted and assimilated. The population of Palestine in 1100 was certainly mostly indigenous. --Stephan Schulz 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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


 * No, calling the Crusades a defensive war from today's perspective is patently absurd. There were more than 10 generations between the original Muslim expansion and the crusades. Of course, the Byzantine empire was under pressure from the Turks, but these were very different people from both the inhabitants of Palestine in 1100 and the Arabs that drove the original Muslim expansion around 700. It's as if Germany invades Sweden today in retaliation for the thirty years war.... --Stephan Schulz 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Stephan, I have already qualified my statement above. I myself am not insistent as long as one doesn't forget the original Muslim aggressive war and conquest and all that happened in between. Somehow that seldomly gets mentioned, and even your post sounds a bit justifying it by resorting to 10 generations of Muslims rule. (If am wrong, please excuse me.) The Swedish analogy does not hold, since Sweden does NOT occupy parts of Germany at the moment, does not attacks the rest of Germany, does not obstruct pratices cherished by Germans. (The last analogy is of course awkward, since Germany is not a religion.)
 * Sthalbach, I hope you will agree with me that the view of one group should not be the basis for the exclusion of conflicting views, especially if they attributed and referenced. Str1977 (smile back) 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, pick France then (still occupying Alsace and Lorraine). Or let surviving Iroquois attack the US as a "defensive war". Better yet, let Peru attack the US on behalf of the Iroquois (assuming that Peru has a significant native American population). But that is only one of my points. The major one is that the population in Palestine was essentially indigenous. The land was conquerered 400 years ago (exchanging one foreign master for another (acutally, the sequence was Byzantine->Persian->Byzantine->Arab, if I remember correctly)). But the conquerors were a tiny minority. Many of the conquered converted and adopted some of the culture, and assimilated the conquerors in return. This was not a land where a Christian majority population was supressed by a foreign elite. It was a land where a native population with mixed culture and religion lived in several effectively independent states. Whom did they attack at the time? Especially whom in Western Europe? --Stephan Schulz 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * A few points here. Firstly, the area conquered by the First Crusade probably had a Christian majority population before the Crusade started.  Certainly Antioch and Edessa, which had until only about a decade beforehand been part of the Byzantine Empire, and some parts of which were ruled by n native Christian princes even at the time the Crusaders arrived, did.  My understanding is that this is also true of considerable portions of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the County of Tripoli, as well - notably the area around Jerusalem itself.  There were also Muslims in the area, particularly in the coastal cities which were conquered in the decades following the crusade, and in the area around Nablus (iirc), but native Christians probably predominated.  Certainly after the Crusade they did, as most of the Muslims and Jews were either massacred or left.  As to "several effectively independet states", I'm' not sure what you're talking about.  At the time the First Crusade started, the whole of the Levant was under the control of the Seljuk Turks, who formed, more or less, a single state and had until quite recently beforehand been behaving very aggressively towards the Byzantines, whom they had driven not only from the Antioch/Edessa area, but from all of Asia Minor.  It is true that Jerusalem itself, and many of the coastal cities of Palestine and Phoenicia, as well, had been recovered by the not-particularly-aggressive Fatimids by the time the Crusaders actually got there.  And Tripoli was under the wholly unaggressive Banu' Ammar sheiks.  But pretending that the Seljuk turks were innocent victims is silly. john k 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to be too blunt, but this discussion is kind of pointless - it doesn't matter what any of us think. The question is, is there recent scholarship which portrays the crusade as a defensive war, and is this scholarship credible and quotable in an encyclopedia? The answer to both is yes, whether we agree with it or not. Of course, I wouldn't go around rewriting all the crusade articles to match the latest historiographical fad (although I probably shouldn't say that out loud, haha), but it may be worthy of mention (especially if we can quote from Madden's book itself, and not that article that is currently quoted). Adam Bishop 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I got carried away a bit. Yes, you are right. But, following WP:NPOV, we also need to make sure that no undue weight is given to this view. It should be clear that this is neither a standard nor a majority view. And we should also avoid weasel words as far as possible. So I would suggest to state "A few historians, including ..., argue that the crusades can be seen as a defensive war" or words to that effect somewhere in the main text, and nothing in the image caption, where this point really is useless and lacks proper context. --Stephan Schulz 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thank you so much for accepting the quote from Madden and Riley Smith. I notice from the bibliography that their works are referenced as the most recent scholarship (Madden) and the one with the most number of works (Riley Smith). I think their reputability should be mentioned, as per Wikipedia NPOV, and if it is determined that they are more reputable than others, then they should be given proportionately bigger space. Unbiased writing in Wikipedia is about cold attribution of facts and facts about opinions. Thanks. Thomas 03:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but don't take this too far. The current version is absolutely one-sided and unbalanced. The number and age of citations of Madden and Riley-Smith in this article is an accident, as far as I can tell (and as far as know, Madden's is a textbook, hence unlikely to contain "the most recent scholarship"). They do not, in this point, represent the mainstream. And Madden's quote seems to be not from a scholary work, but from a popular press (not even pos science press) editorial. Riley-Smith does not speak of a defensive war at all, and it would be necessary to see his quote in context to see how to present it fairly. "Cold attribution of facts and facts about opinion" is not enough for "unbiased writing" - by selecting which facts and opinions to include you can get an arbitrarily biased text. --Stephan Schulz 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It belongs in a separate historiography section, that discusses various historians points of view. See Decline of the Roman Empire for an example of how historiography works on Wikipedia, when there are multiple points of view. It certainly does not belong in the central narrative of events. -- Stbalbach 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope and think we agree that this goes for all different POVs. Str1977 (smile back) 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

To say that the Muslim expansion was not altogether military is naive. Even Muhammad himself spread his beliefs by the sword, not words. And if you don't think the Crusades were a defensive war...then explain what happened when Europe deserted the wars against the Muslims and turned on each other. Byzantium fell, Eastern Europe was invaded and Vienna was beseiged how many times? You can too include Spain in this because it has always been the goal of these groups to spread Islam and you can't spread Islam if you aren't in the region you wish to spread to. What's the easiest way to get to those regions if not by military means? And the predominant religion of the region was Christian, then the Muslims invaded and it wasn't through charity that the Christian and Jewish populations diminished, I'll tell you that. Just like with Lebanon in 1975 (which had a Christian majority) the region was converted either by choice or by the sword.

Again, I am obliged to disagree with some of the remarks and comments made under this section: no.1, if rooting families out of their homes and killing them is considered a form of self defence, then i'd hate to see an attack, no.2, since when have us Europeans ever existed in the Middle east?? never. therefore, we werent defending our property, more like we were invading someone else's property.no.3, even if it's under the pretence of religeon, then I'll tell you this: the majority in the levant, especially the crusader conquered areas were NOT christians, and from amongst the christians there, there was a great number of non roman catholics. It is ridiculuos to say that the majority population was christian.no.4, this was NOT a 'just' war, because I am sure if jesus (peace be upon him) saw the carnge and rape and uprooting involved he would never have supported it: just because the pope did, it doesnt mean that Jesus would have (even though apparantly the pope never makes mistakes, pah, its an insult to christianity and religeons as a whole, because the number of times the pope has made mistakes is uncountable-like the popes decision to change the limbo status-is god too dumb to know what is right from what is wrong?? It is blasphemus to change God's Law and order-to forbid what he allowed and to allow what he forbade, such as the consumption af wine and swine, The pope also recently made a mistake when appointing the new archbishop of Poland-its seems to me gods representative on earth who never makes mistakes seems to have forgotten to check the archbishops papers for any signs of a dark history of spying. They live in the biggest of palaces and in the most splendid surroundings-so much for the love of Jesus- and these are the creme de la creme of this earth). no.4, Mohamad never preached by the sword, and I challenge any single one of you to come up with a verse from the Quraa'an disproving what I say (and i dont mean some rubbish anti-islamic website with false citations and false meanings- i mean a regular Quraan with the meaning written in English by a Muslim). Mohammad was merciful to women children, the elderly and animals, and he was the first one to properly reform womens rights and implement them. Civilians were never killed, and when they conquered mecca and liberated it from paganism, not a single civillian was harmed, even though the people of mecca had kicked them out, raped their wives and daughters, sold their properties and families into slavery and starved them(hence the muslims retalliation of attacking the trade caravan loaded with their property and families headed for damascus and claiming it back during the first year of migration to medina), and he ha a policy of forgiving and protecting any soldier who surrendered during and aftr war. he never won people by force, he won their hearts, like he won mine, after I converted to Islam after extensive reading of different opinions, (and all the scientific evidence which is overwhelming-and is a living miracle amongst other things)Im surprised I was able to get t the truth on my own althogh there are so many false filters out there which try to make out Mohammad was bad-even though they have no evidense what so ever (perhaps the odd 1 or 2 anti Islamic website, but thats all) I managed to go through this with an open mind, and now I am at peace. no.5, in terms of forcible conversions, this has never happened under proper Islamic rule, and I am a testimony to this, as are most of the worlds muslim population. I used to be a unitarian christian and believed in the authentic and accurate gospel of barnabas, which is an accurate account of Jesus's life- better than the 300 yr old versions etc which are heavily altered and influenced by pagan Roman religeon (trinity etc-and why on earth is Rome so holy-whats jesus got to do with it??-the cross symbol-the pagan egyptian fish symbol etc)and Lebanese people were never converted into Islam after the 1975 war, in fact quite the contrary, the christian phalange accompanied by the Israeli army killed muslims in a similar manner to the crusades, a strong reminder of this is the Sabra and Shatila massacre, in daughters were raped and killed infront of their families and wives were raped infront of their mothers husbands and children and people were masacred in ttheir own homes. This as you can see was committed by 'god loving' christians under the name of Christianity, from which I am no longer part of. and in no way was any lebanese person ever converted ny the oppressed Muslim minority. You should be ashamed of yourselves speaking of the victims aas if they were aggressors and vice versa.If muslims were a bad as you make out they are, then perhaps you would not have been alive today; muslims were the most advanced people in the world at one point, and they could have gone further than Spain if they had wanted to, instead of establishing a centre of knowledge in the west they could have carried on through Europe, killing everything and everyone. We're lucky they were merciful when they were in power. We on the other hand werent, unfortunately. Isn't it time to reflect on the past and realise that we are demonising the wrong people, in order to justify our acts?? I certainly have, and I feel I have found the truth. Oh, and about forced conversions, the spanish Inquisition in spain used to kidnap moorish muslim children and forcibly convert them, and what missionaries are doing in Africa-coaxing starving people with food and money. Agnes Nitt 14:46, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Agnes, once again, you're just a tad bit biased. How do you defend the advances of Islam for centuries leading up to the call for the Crusades in 1095? And it wasn't a European verses Arab conflict...it was a Christian-Muslim conflict. There were no "Europeans" back then as there are today...that meaning you're more European than you are French or British. The Pope called for the Crusades upon the pleas of the Byzantine Emperor who had been fighting the Muslims since they invaded Byzantine lands and sacked Jerusalem. Were you even aware that the inquisition was NOT called for by the Pope but was instead an instrament used by nobility to establish their own power? Were you even aware that the Pope issued edicts forbidding the forced conversions of Jews when the Crusades were launched? Probably not because you've obviously been filled with anti-Christian, Muslim apologetics. you obviously think that life under islamic rule it great and wonderful and that life under Christianity is just about the worst thing. Your ignorance is clear. I find your anti-Christian views somewhat offensive, Agnes. Have you ever met a missionary? Maybe you should drop your bigotry towards Christians and try being objective. Culmo80 16:32, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh you dont say!! I think you will find it very clear from everything I have contributed towards on wikipedia that concerns this subject, that I am the one who has clarrified that it was a Muslim-Christian conflict. And no, once again, you are very biased, and lack alot of knowledge about your own faith. Yes, there were Europeans, the 'west', what were they then,?? Africans, Asians?? that part of the world is called Europe. The crusaders came from all over Europe, so get that right for starters. I dont need to defend the Muslim advances lol, they speak for themselves; mass acceptance of Islam from the majority unitarian population of the levant, e.g.: egypt, and north africa, due to prophecies in their gospel of a prophet: a final prophet after Jesus, with descriptions, and the approximate time in their gospel. And the mixing of honest, normal muslim human beings like merchants, who people were attracted to due to their exeptional honesty and pure teachings which were liberating, e.g.: parts of Africa and the orient. YOU romans need to justify YOUR advances and mass enslavement of people by brute military force. And let me tell you this, these muslims who were 'invading' Byazantinian lands, were the people of the middle east who were conquered by the byzantinians. These 'pleaing' byzantinians, along with the ROMAN catholics were all trinitarian christians, and remenat of the pagan Roman Religeon (due to the inevitable spread of true jesuit unitarian christianity, the roman empire found itself in a critical position and had to adopt the christian faith and embed it in their previous pagan beliefs, hence the celebration of sunday- rather than the jesuit saturday- sunday was tthe holy day for pagan romans. The cross, a pagan roman sign-never adopted by jesus. the fish, a pagan Egyptian sign adopted by the romans, the trinity, the whole tihing about the vatican in rome etc etc.)were massacring the indigenous people of the levant which they occupied, who were mostly unitarian sects of christianity, and the followers of the more accurate versions of the gospel (which weree written fairly shortly after Jesus's ascent-not the centuries old, heavily altered versions you follow). These Unitarians had prophecies in their gospels of the coming of a final prophet, and the signs and times pointed to Mohammad and most of them adopted Islam, because they knew Mohammad was their prophet, as prophesized by Jesus. The byzantinians (romans) were killing them and there familys, and they were deemed by the church at the councils of nicea as heretics, so the mass population who were invaded by romans, were indeed monotheistic Unitarians. The Muslims liberated these people of the land from the tyrant byzantinians. Even under Islamic rule, the roman minority citizens were left to live in peace amongst the Muslims, and a testimony to this is the fact that these same roman minorities still live on in the middle east. Jerusalem was sacked ny the romans, and its people liberated by the Muslims. And were YOU aware that the inquisition (which by the way you put it acted independantly from the church-stop lying, the church was the ultimate ruler as everyone knows, which murdered science and scientists and had complete control over everyone-as seen by the call to the crusades. You are an apologetic, not muslims, everything was done in the name of the church, why, even colonialists came into countries and plundered them with priests accompanying them)You claim it has nothing to do with the church-and I never said that the inquisition was called for by the pope, where did you get that rubbish from?? dont put words in my mouth-however, up until the 18th /19th century, the bodies and skeletons of muslims and 'heretics' killed by the inquisition were still hangig from the ceilings of churches!! The church is the one who deems people as heretics, and is the one who approved of the killings full stop. Please dont try to correct me before you yourself go and do some academic unbiased research like I did, most of my sources were non muslim sources that were ballanced. (obviously unlike you) And about the pope issuing edicts against the killing of Jews, well what do you mean THE pope, dont you mean, A pope (there were many you know). And this is about the inquisittion and not the pope, perhaps a pope at a different time to the inquisition said that they (logically) shouldnt kill other people like barbarians, Im not doubting,But Monsieur holy, mouth of god didnt seem to care for the protection of women, children and the elderly, and he never condemned the massacre of jews anyway!. Again, dont go off the topic, this was about hte inquisition. And yes, I bloomin love life under Islam, as a woman I feel liberated and free, and as an environmentallist and a concerned person for childrens rights i feel supported, and as a lover of logic and equality I feel I found the truth (there was a debate in the church at one point and they were discussing whether or not women were humans!!!!) If it wasnt for Islam the motor wouldnt have been invented (the crank shaft) tall buildings (dur to architectural techniques) education including higher education for all sexes classes and colours, merit was becasue of knowledge, and not wealth, and there is so much more that is owed to them, basically, we would have stil been living in huts right now if it wasnt for them, and dont forget that the romans forcibly converted us to roman 'christianity' when they invaded us. I love Islam, and YOU are showing everybody how ignorant YOU are by exposing your complete lack of knowledge (and trying to stray off the arguament). And I find your anti Islam comments quite ofensive, as they are based on Ignorance. Just because you dont like what you hear about christianity, face the truth, its history, I didnt like it either, so I left it. And yes I have met many missionaries before, and have sent them ripping their hair off, because basically I knew more about christianity than them, and they were obviously quite wrong and that made them mad, and the annoying buggers stopped comming. good riddance, trying to convert people, leave them to find the truth!! Agnes. Agnes Nitt 21:35, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

This is really quite ridiculous. Can we please just stop responding to her? Adam Bishop 23:54, 18 January 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that some people hate what I am saying, and quite frankly I dont care: it's the truth. They know that all my answers to their vicious 'challenging' are correct, which they dont like and didn't expect. If you don't want to talk to discuss things with me, then go ahead; I probably don't want to talk to you either. Yes it is ridiculous how I have to repeat myself over and over again. However if someone decides to insult me and call me ignorant, and deny history and ridicule it, like them holocaust deniers, then I will show them how ignorant they are.Agnes Nitt 00:24, 19 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Agnes has been blocked, because I am impatient and she pisses me off. Adam Bishop 00:34, 19 January 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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


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

Discussion

 * Stbalbach, there are actually only seven redirects; by some herculean effort I think I will be able to overcome that workload :) Adam Bishop 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * I mean Crusade->Crusades. The majority of links use "Crusade". Yeah the 7 double redirects are no problem. -- Stbalbach 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * (edit conflict, partially obsolete (but if I wrote it, you better read it! ;-)) Adam, I trust you will (but don't overdo it, take one per hour ;-), but I suspect he (or she?) is concerned about the links that will point to the redirect that will be newly created. I don't think this is a very strong argument, but it is something to consider.--Stephan Schulz 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, I found this page which seems to suggest it doesn't matter. I also posted a question here - I'll wait a day or so, if there is no new info I will strike my oppose and change to support. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Right, that's what I meant, sorry...fixing the redirect links will make everything work properly. I'm sure someone will go through every article someday and fix all the redirects there too, but we don't have to do that. Adam Bishop 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
 * About the redirects in Byzantine Empire and Greece related articles, i can fix them myself (in a somewhat slow procedure), don't worry 'bout that. --Hectorian 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't even do that. Only the redirect pages themselves need changing. As was quoted earlier, Wp:redirect. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

You are going to want to research each crusade as its own. Arms and armour history is a lot larger than even Wikipedia shows it to be. Much of it is over generalized, and we shouldn't let this page become the same. Crusaders from the first Crusades would likely laugh at those from the last for what they were wearing. Some things would be similar, other things changed rapidly in that period. If someone does the research (I don't have time sadly) they should be aware this isn't something one or two books are going to cover in full.--Talroth 14:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as armor is concerned, that task is a huge one as Talroth explains. I do highly recommend the following two websites for heraldry during the Crusades. http://perso.numericable.fr/~earlyblazo/ http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/ Mk26gmls 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Criticisms" section
Regarding the following section titled Criticisms moved here from the article:
 * As with many events of the Middle Ages, the two sides in the Crusades tell very different stories. Whilst the standard Western legend speaks of heroism and honour, the Eastern (Islamic and Orthodox Christian) chroniclers tell stories of barbarian savagery and brutality . Some observers feel that these contemporary Eastern perspectives are rarely discussed in standard Western textbooks on the subject, perhaps because stories of cannibalism, rape and massacres by the Crusader forces are not well received by today's Catholic community . However, many atrocities remain vivid in the modern Arab and Islamic psyche. The suggestion that these have been overlooked by Western historians (eager to justify their ancestors' endeavours) is suggested as underpinning Islamic resentment of the West today. . On the other hand stories of brutality by Muslims are not found in Arab accounts of the Crusades, nor are the Crusades juxtaposed with Muslim attacks on Christian lands to which the Crusades responded.


 * The standard Western interpretation of the Crusades often neglects to discuss the Arab perception of the Crusader forces as barbarians. That is, they were seen to have come from an inferior civilization and were viewed as comparatively brutal and dishonourable in their conduct. The Arab view is linked to the fact that the Crusades occured during the "Islamic Golden Age" (750-1200), which Arab historians, and to an extent many western historians, hypothesise as a Muslim period of particular wealth and enlightenment, although some scholars disagree with this hypothesis. At the same time, the pre-Renaissance Europe of the High Middle Ages was just beginning to recover from its (hypothesised) 700-year cultural stagnation following the fall of the Roman Empire.

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

Stbalbach, the section is attempting to achieve a number of points, which admittedly it may not be achieving in its current form, and attempts to highlight the fact that these viewpoints, while widely held in the Islamic world, are rarely discussed in standard Western literature:
 * 1) It attempts to address the fact that 95% of the article is written from the European/Catholic POV and gives very limited and a misleadingly watered-down viewpoint on the effects of the Crusades on the Islamic and Orthodox worlds;
 * 2) it attempts to highlight the Arab view that the Islamic world was a significantly more advanced civilisation than Christendom at the time (relevant as this contradicts the standard Western understanding)
 * 3) it attempts to highlight the atrocities commited by the Crusaders, often omitted from Western history books
 * 4) it attempts to highlight probably the most currently-relevant aspect of the Crusades - that whilst the West remembers the Crusaders as heroes, the Arabs remember them as barbaric mercenaries, who brought only evil and hatred. (As an aside, the Arabs remember the Crusades as a wholly unjustified invasion of their land, whilst the article in its current form attempts to justify the Crusades based on the actions of the Fatimids almost 100 years before and the encroachment of the Seljuks on Constantinople - this is of course the Western view and the article contains no balancing arguements.)

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

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


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

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


 * George W. Bush, in his heart-of-hearts, seems to think pretty fondly of them:


 * http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html


 * ...On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." ...


 * Atlant 16:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the reference to "textbooks" and "standard Western literature" could be changed to "Western school history textbooks", which are nationalistic by definition and seek to whitewash any of the dishonor in relation to the Crusades. This is not dissimilar to the Japanese history textbook controversies, but less sensitive due to the passage of time (see ; ; ; or perhaps the following excepts from Text_book:
 * Selectively retelling history, through textbooks or other literature, has been practiced in many societies, from ancient Rome to the Soviet Union. History textbooks are not subjected to review by professional academics, nor can authorship of a high school textbook be used to advance an academic toward tenure at a university. The content of history textbooks thus lies entirely outside the academic forum of fact and social science and is instead determined by the political forces of state adoption boards and ideological pressure groups.

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

For all who have any interest in this topic, the attached article is excellent (from the National Catholic Reporter . A few excerpts are below which back up points 2) to 4). Perhaps the Criticisms section should be rewritten to reflect these more refined viewpoints:
 * Madden: In the West there are two popular perceptions, one born in the 18th century and the other in the 19th. The first, which gained currency during the Enlightenment, was that the Crusades were a series of unnecessary wars in which a barbaric people steeped in ignorance and superstition attacked a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a black mark on the history of Western civilization in general and the Catholic church in particular. This view is still very popular, although it is usually glossed with the assertion that the Crusades were a form of proto-colonialism -- the West’s first attempt to subjugate the world. The other popular perception grew out of 19th-century Romanticism. This view sees the Crusades as noble wars led by larger-than-life men motivated by honor and chivalry. Religion and the church are usually airbrushed out of this perception, leaving behind only courageous and selfless knights fighting for righteousness in far-away lands. This perception was particularly popular among colonial powers in the 19th century, but it has waned in the 20th and 21st centuries. Still, it hangs on. Run a Nexis search and see how often the word “crusade” is used to mean a noble and praiseworthy pursuit and “crusader” is used to mean a selfless and courageous individual.
 * Hillenbrand: The Crusades are a Western Christian phenomenon with their roots in medieval Europe. From the outset, it was predominantly Western Christian chroniclers who wrote about them. Nowadays the weight of Western scholarship about many aspects of the Crusades is positively awesome -- thousands of books and tens of thousands of articles. Not so in the Muslim world. Not a single separate account of the Crusades written by a Muslim has survived. There is abundant information about the events of the Crusades in medieval Muslim historiography, but it has to be searched for amid a welter of other accounts predominantly concerned with the dynastic history of the Islamic world itself. Medieval Muslim writers do indeed mention the coming of the Crusaders, but they evince little curiosity as to why they came. Until recently, Muslim historians have not tended to interest themselves in the Crusades. Wherever possible, Western specialists on the Crusades use medieval Muslim sources, but, as so few of them know Arabic, they have to rely on the small number of these texts that have been translated into Western languages. It is this problem of language that has kept the two sides in their separate boxes.
 * Madden: Medieval Europe in the 11th century was still picking up the pieces from its numerous invasions. In comparison to the Muslim world, be it Syria, Egypt, Spain or elsewhere, medieval Europe was poor, backward, weak and chaotic. More important, it was getting smaller, while Islam and its many kingdoms continued to grow.

12.47.208.34 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

The present article is too inadequate to be a standard article for an encyclopedia. It needs citations for its claims. Many of which are very questionable and one-sided. There should be another well-conducted research and a well-drafted article on this very controvertial topic. User: Johnbrillantes 30 November 2006

If we are to look at Islamic sources for how they felt about the Crusaders, why there are no Christian sources concerning the practices of the Muslims? Slavery was practiced by the Muslims, not by the Christians. So if we're going to include personal opinions of Muslims, how about the personal opinion of Christians at the time. The point is both sides were barbaric and brutal, to single out one side is outright bias. And someone mentioned that the Islamic world was so much more sophisticated than the west...true in some aspects, but hardly a statement of fact.Culmo80 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

No it was true in ALL aspects, in no way was the west as advanced or even nearly as advanced as the east; this clash of cultures is what enlightened the west-and thats a fact, and if you can disprove it, then go ahead Agnes Nitt 17:00, 9 January 2007 (UTC) oh and I forgot to mention something: Just because you find it hard to accept the fact that Europe was backward, it doesnt dismiss it, oh, and who were the slave trading colonialists?? no one short of christians themselves, who plundered the 'colonies' accompanied by priests. As for Muslims being slave traders, alot of Mohammads companions were freed slaves, and he discouraged slavery, but couldnt ban it at once (because its like stopping alcohol altogether-it is done over time and cant be a sudden movement so people can get used to it)and he said that whoever sells a slave then they will be punished in the fire, and hence discouraging slavery, which gradually came to a halt. As for servants and people under one's control, he ordered people to treat them equally: feed them what you eat and cloth them as you would cloth yourself, and do not make them do anything you yourself wouldnt and couldnt do. And you say Muslims are slave traders?? I think you need to get your facts sorted, it was christians who were slave traders (one example other than colonialism was what happened in the 'childrens crusade' and i dont mean the legend, i mean the facts lol)Agnes Nitt 18:42, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, interesting read. Seems to me, that once again Agnes, you are just so, SO, biased you don't see things clearly. You ask for us to disprove the comment that "in no way was the west as advanced or even nearly as advanced as the east" Please read: "As to the thief, Male or female, cut off his or her hands: a punishment by way of example, from Allah, for their crime: and Allah is Exalted in power." - Quran 5:38 Now, from a very biased view of a Christian westerner, this doesn't sound like an action committed by an "advanced civilization." Personally I view this "Advanced," culture more backward that the west. However, you seem to think otherwise. Personally, I think both had their ups and downs. I'm sure you have a different view though. Positive, in fact.The Bryce 11:26, 27 January 2007 (UTC)

No, once again, you are making it clear how biased you are by claiming that the East was not advanced due to its capital punishment, however you forgot (or perhaps didn’t even know) the fact that the we ‘civilised’ westerners used to give the death penalty to thieves (a sentence blown out of proportion and too harsh for theft), and here in Britain, the last death sentence was in 1964. I presume that you are trying to imply that Britain was also not an advanced country in 1964?? If that is what you are saying, well in America I’ll have you know that the people used to take the law in their own hands, and were in no way more advanced than Britain. There is nothing wrong with capital punishment: I am well aware of that verse thank you very much, and I would like to point out that you missed out a part that would roughly mean: as a recompense for that which they committed. This is not the first time I have had to warn you of inaccurately quoting a source. Capital punishment is a must for every civilised nation; however, the laws of God are more fair and appropriate than those made by humans, and when I mean fair, I mean that you have to take the victim into consideration: a woman or girl was raped by a man-Islamic law states that the man is to be killed for his crime, It is only fair for the woman who has had a horrendous and indescribable time to see justice done to her aggressor who humiliated her and has mentally scarred her forever: it wouldn’t be fair if he served 20 yrs in jail and then got let out early for good behaviour or some rubbish like that, he is a potential threat to the society, he might pose a threat to the woman who caused his imprisonment if he is released, and as is evident from countries where capital punishment has been abolished, rape murder and theft etc is more widespread because people are not too afraid of the consequences, however, if capital punishment was implemented, then people automatically think twice before they rape, murder or steal from someone. That is why when a thief has his/her hand cut off for theft (must be of a responsible age, sane, and the stolen goods must be over a certain value, so one wouldn’t have their hand cut off if they stole a cabbage or something from a market lol and they must be aware of the punishment-so as you can see it’s not as simple as: you stole anything so your hand comes off.) other thieves are put off and likewise, potential thieves get the idea of theft clear out of their heads. Also, prisons don’t become overcrowded, which leads to certain criminals not getting punished because there isn’t enough space for them in Jail, which was what happened here in England recently: a paedophile- a threat to our children- was let off the prison sentence due to crowded jails. Disgraceful. Islamic law would automatically order the execution of someone who is proven to be a rapist (in this case of children). And why should the taxpayer have to cover the expenses of these criminals in jail?? The money should go to better purposes. Treating criminals, who often offend again, too leniently and not giving the victim their due rights is not a sign of civilisation, however it is not a sign of technological backwardness either: it has nothing to do with technology, therefore your criticism of capital punishment is baseless and does nothing to disprove that the east was the mother of most of today’s current advancements, all it does prove is the perverted ‘justice’ that occurs in the West, and indeed a lot of the world today: the criminal is treated better than they should be, and the victim doesn’t get their due right (another case in England when a farmer shot at two intruders breaking into his house, and ended up killing one: he was taken to court and had to pay a compensation to the colleague of the dead intruder due to the intruders shock and ‘depression’ and he ended up in jail-how is that carrying out justice?? In Islamic law, the man would not be penalised at all because he is defending himself and his family) Capital punishment is the carrying out of justice for victims, a punishment for the offender and a warning for other (potential) offenders. The fact that major thieves who are aware of the law, yet are daring enough to break it and violate people’s privacy (their homes) and property have their hand chopped off is absolutely appropriate: the thief will definitely not re-offend, as it will become even more difficult now they have a hand cut off, other thieves will drop out of the dirty practice, and the society can get along normally without criminals. Killing thieves is blown out of proportion, as it is not appropriate to the offence (as is what used to happen in Britain and most other countries up until relatively recently). In Islam the death penalty is confined to major crimes such as rape, but if someone kills some one, then the family of the deceased has the choice of taking a compensation, or killing the murderer (if the murderer raped the victim and then killed them then they would be tried for both crimes and will be killed for the crime of rape). God’s law is always fair and appropriate to the crime. In Islam, all terrorists are also killed, because they terrorise civilians and threaten their human rights of feeling safe (which is what all criminals who aren’t punished do). Maybe someone should use that to refute all terrorists who claim what they are doing is under the name of Islam: tell them: no, not only are you going to get punished in Hell, but also under Islamic law-God’s law, you should be killed. The end result of all this is that capital punishment that is not too excessive and not too lenient (basically what god has ordained is perfect and actually works) is realistically needed if we want to live in an environment that is safe and where victims have their rights carried out. However victims are reminded that it is better to be merciful, but they have their rights to punishing the offender. It is a matter of fact that society needs to penalise criminals otherwise the community would be living under threat constantly and terrorists, rapists and murderers would have the upper hand and may lead to people taking the law into their own hands, and then things would go completely out of hand. In my are last year there was a paedophile who lived near the local primary school, and the police had him tagged; it is just too lenient, parents from the community were protesting to get rid of him, at the same time if paedophiles were ripped up with spoons it would be too harsh, so a reasonable punishment for the crime of rape, such as the death penalty would suffice, and would scare off other paedophiles from raping and sexually abusing children. That way, people like me and others in my community can feel safe and our children can enjoy their basic human rights. The miscarriage of the victim’s justice is what needs to be criticized. You have still not disproved the fact that the Muslims are to thank for many of the things we have nowadays, and as I explained before, capital punishment has never been a sign of being technological backwardness, and in fact, Islamic capital punishment is fair and appropriate, and the dangers of abolishing capital punishment are scary: my community has seen enough already in the past few months and years. So no, both sides didn’t have their ups and downs, only one of them did, and that was the west, which learnt from the east, and it’s not something to be ashamed of, it’s something to be proud of: I wish we were always that accepting and open to new things. Agnes Nitt 22:53, 28 January 2007 (UTC)

"what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul."- Billy Madison. The Bryce 05:45, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

lol, it's obvious that you haven't heard alot of thigs than have you?!! and you definately haven't heard yourself!! To be honest I never expected you to understand a thing of what I said, because you have a nack of not being able to understand simple concepts even if they are repeated to you over and over again, I would advise you to practice reading a bit more, and perhaps brush up on your etiquette when it comes to talking to a lady (perhaps you don't understand that either- never mind) I don't care who you quote from but at the end of the day i know when someone is trying to insult me. Don't worry, your not the only one who has insulted me on this discussion page, I'm used to aggressive zealots on this page, so don't worry about it (you've got enough to worry about when to comes to reading 'walls' of text, and understanding things-so I'll let you off) If 'Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it', then you would have to be an exception, because I don't think you can became anymore than you already are. Thankyou for your pointless and rude comment, I really appreciate it, what a decent and educated person you are. Thankyou very much. And God has had mercy on my soul thanks, and I hope he has mercy on your's too. Agnes Nitt 21:35, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

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

Stbalbach, I agree with you approach - I do not feel it is appropriate for me to edit the Criticisms section further myself as I am new to editing wikipedia and therefore unsure how to rewrite in a way that would correlate with your view of NPOV. I can see from reading above that there are a number of people in the past who have tried to politicise the article - i.e. apportion blame to one side or another. I would like to rewrite the article, but given my lack of reputation I think that it would be immediately reverted and I would have wasted my time. For what it's worth, I think there are a couple of other sections in the article which are related to those which you tagged:
 * 1.2 / 3.3 - these give very limited detail;
 * 6 - this only gives a limited number of POVs, rather than a balanced overview. Some of this would probably be better off in a section called "Crusades in Popular Culture"

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

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

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

Hello!

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

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

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

Thankyou!

81.103.144.108 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Stbalbach, I am still not entirely sure what the O.R. / unverified tags are for in the following sections: It seems to me that everything in those two sections is verifiable, if the Fact  tags are placed then citations can be found. In addition the information seems to me to be reasonably presented. Perhaps you could glance at these sections again? If you are sure you see a problem then we can certainly discuss these sections here. N-edits 13:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Western vs. Eastern Interpretation
 * Wider geo-political effects

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

Granted, the following comment did make me chuckle.

'Fifth Crusade

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

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

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

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

Thanks!

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Str1977, to address your third point: As per the above, removing that paragraph serves only to hide the other side of the coin. You may not agree with the views stated, but this is clearly labelled the Arab view - it reduces the value of the article to remove one whole viewpoint. It is clear from the rest of your statement that you are not as well rounded in this subject as you would like to think - you unfortunately fell in to the trap of making your own "jingoistic and onesided, highly questionable statement": I wonder which civilisation was really stagnant and which one was dynamic: the one that ostraciued Averroes or the one that critically embraced his writings...
 * A) you discuss Averroes without any real knowledge - he was and is lauded within the Muslim world, and was banished temporarily by the Mullahs of Cordoba despite support from the Almohad Caliph at the time. His most controversial work, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, is viewed no differentely in the Muslim world than the works of Darwin and Copernicus are in the Christian world (i.e. only the strictest take issue with it);
 * B) On this same point, i would love to hear your views on why the treatment of Averroes was any different to the Catholic treatment of William of Ockham, a man you claim on your talksite to dislike;
 * C) Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, Avicenna and other 12th century philosophers are prime examples of why is is generally accepted that the Muslim world was culturally advanced compared to Europe at the time. Correct me if I am wrong, but at the time there had been no Christian writers of similar stature since the 5th century (i.e. Augustine of Hippo), and the next great Christian writers, Aquinas and Dante, took their inspirations from Averroes and Ibn Arabi respectively

84.12.177.96 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry if I reverted some legitimate edits, but it did seem like a series of attacks. I'm sure you can restore whatever is legitimate.—Barbatus 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)


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

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

I stuck the following in some way above just now, but since I now see the bone is being chewed again here: To my mind it is absurd to say that the standard Western literature ignores the "barbarity", both culturally and militarily, of the Crusaders when the two most influential writers (in English, which is what is usually meant by Western in Wikipedia), namely Gibbon & Runciman, have strong prejudices against the Crusaders and are constantly mentioning their failing in this area with relish.

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

Ofcourse the western world ignores the barbarity of the crusades, as seen in alot of books which either dismiss it or keep it low key, as seen from the previous version of this article, which i had to alter, and cut out the false fiction and legend and drama, and insert some more 'proper' facts- the things people dnt like to hear. Yes it is hard to admit that we were wrong, but its only hard if you are big headded arrogant and cruel. Agnes Nitt 14:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Casualties
How many both Christians & the other citizens who lived in, around & near the holy land? I'm curious about this. More than the casualties than the amount of casualties in WW2?User:Pic Business
 * See the previous discussion of this topic on this page. The question is hard to answer - even the 9 main crusades spread out over 180 years. Most people who died during the crusades would have died anyways. Others have not been born because their parents were killed - do they count? And historical reports are extremely unreliable with respect to numbers and casualties. However, in absolute numbers I suspect that far fewer people than the 60 million usually given for WWII were killed due to the crusades. The current total population of the area is less than that. But comparing a modern, high intensity war with a medieval century-long conflict is rather moot.--Stephan Schulz 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

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


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

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

Get a grip, people!! The largest army the Crusader Kingdoms could muster in between foreign interventions from Europe was probably under 10,000 strong. Many campaigns were fought with about 4,000. Prawer estimates the Fall of Jerusalem in the 1st Crusade, the most notorious massacre of the whole Crusades, took less than 30K lives on the Muslim defending side, military & civilians together. Probably the next most notorious, the massacre of prisoners outside Acre by Richard I of England, involved a bit over 2,000. There were never 25 or 60 million people in the whole region of the Levant. Indeed there are no figures, but I suspect it would be impossible to do an guesstimate/extrapolation excercise that got into 6 figures. If you want big casualties, look at the Mongol invasions of the Islamic world, or the Muslim invasions of the Indian sub-continent. Really the Crusades were a pretty small scale affair. Johnbod 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yeah, really. The population of the word around 1000 AD was 275 million and essentially didn't double itself until 1650. You figure overall population density and persons per square mile at the intervening years between 1000-1272 AD (stopping at the 9th Crusades), 60 million KIA would be *one hell* of a dent in the human world. No, you want a real crusade that killed millions of people, look at population charts indicating growth rates around the time of the Black Plague. Shadowrun 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get the 275 million for the entire world's population? I've never head anything like that and I'd question it.Culmo80 19:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80


 * Schulz- I think most people would agree that anyone that dies during any incident would have died anyway at some time. And of course when people die, they may very well have had kids were they not to die. However casulties always consider people killed directly by something or indirectly in a non-roundabout away. They don't consider kids who may have been born now is the fact that these people would have died anyway particularly relevant Nil Einne 13:09, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Response to Stbalbach
I have taken a few weeks away from wikipedia in order to cool off and contemplate whether it is worth the time and effort to contribute to WP, having been put off by the behaviour of a small group editors of this article (particularly Stbalbach and STR). Unfortunately for my own sanity, I could not allow myself to leave Stbalbach's last comment (9 Oct) unchallenged: 84.12.183.27 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)
 * NPOV: Stbalbach, to come back to you on your own editorial soapboxing: We all agree that WP should not tell the world how it should be - only how it is. The basis for the ever-accelerating popularity of WP is its ability to act as a global repository of information, incorporating all considered viewpoints alongside one another (in other words, an encyclopaedia for the information / globalisation age). Unlike yourself, I have never deleted/edited other peoples viewpoints to match my own - only added alongside those viewpoints which I believe to be valuable to any reader who wishes to make his/her own judgement. You (and STR) have consistently deleted viewpoints held by many leading academics (not to mention 1 billion Muslims) - your behaviour renders your commentary above both farcical and hypocritical.
 * Christian Bias: One of the most commonly quoted problems with WP is that pages can be taken over through the concerted efforts of similar pressure groups. I ask you to step back for one second and consider the following: The Crusades were (broadly speaking) a conflict between Christianity and Islam. However, whilst this page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Catholicism and has a front-page position on the Christianity Portal, there are no Islamic or Arab groups to balance this out. To my mind, this accounts for the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in - i.e. that the article currently has a Perspectives section with topics limited to three Christian perspectives ("Catholic Encyclopaedia", "Eastern Orthodoxy", "Popular reputation in Western Europe") and a "Western vs. Eastern interpretation" section which has been neutralised to the point where it has zero value to readers interested in the Islamic perspective.
 * Getting Personal: For the record, I did not appreciate your personal attack. I did not participate with a username etc due to lack of time to commit to WP. That does not make my contributions any less valuable than your own - WP allows anonymous edits to ensure that people with limited time can still participate. Unfortunately, this situation has made me much less keen to get any more involved. As has the fact that you deleted one of my comments on the talk page at the same time as this attack (I had assumed that deleting talkpage comments was banned, but clearly not).
 * No Islamic Perspective: The Islamic perspective has been deleted from the article on a regular basis. To have an article on the Crusades without an Islamic or Arab perspective is like having an article about a football match and only talking about one team. If you disagree with the specific drafting I would be more than happy to discuss, however comments above from yourself and STR imply a knowledge of Islamic History limited to the western popular version - the comments show no evidence of any academic knowledge.
 * Western Popular Perspective: To clarify one point which I have tried to communicate a number of times, but perhaps I have not been clear: I do not claim that all Western literature ignores the barbarity of the crusades - it is clear that many respected writers have focused on this. However, many Western high schools teach the crusades to children at an early age, when it is too early to discuss academic literature. These children are then taught all about the heroic knights who valiantly fought for justice, freedom and the Great Western Civilisation against an evil enemy. Many examples of this phenomenon have been cited above - I believe that you and a number of other commentators on this page have become too lost in academic detail to realise that the Western Popular Perception has yet to catch up with Hillenbrand, Gabrieli, Runciman, Gibbon or many other major academic writers - hence the current state of the "Popular reputation in Western Europe" section.
 * Respected Scholars: Whilst Runciman is certainly one of the most respected scholars on the subject, you are wrong to suggest that his works are proven fact, and/or universally accepted. His major works on the subject were written more than 50 years ago, since when many more contemporary Islamic texts on the subject have been brought to light. Runciman was above all a scholar of Byzantium and Byzantine culture, and his knowledge of the Arab experience does not compare to the modern writers Hillenbrand and Gabrieli, who introduce many sources unknown to Runciman

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

Johnbod 15:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

- I am writing my dissertation on the popular perception of the crusades and was surprised when I discovered as part of my research that at Church of England primary schools here in the UK teach the Crusades as defensive wars against a demonised Moslem enemy.

82.46.90.219 22:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I'm British, and yes it is true unfortunately, it's like a stroy time session, rather than a 'history' lesson. Agnes Nitt 21:39, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

How did the Crusades weaken Feudalism?
Plese help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.25.9 (talk • contribs).


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

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


 * I second that.--Barbatus 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Third. -- Stbalbach 13:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy, it sure is a good thing you guys took away this article's "semi-protection". You take it down and look what happens, numbskulls begin to vandalize it again. Put it back up and leave it up this time! (Ghostexorcist 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

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


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


 * Sorry, still learning. 213.47.127.75 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

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

Introduction
Compare with WP:LEAD. It doesn't summarize the article, doesn't answer the simple "who what where why and when." I will attempt to expand, but am not an expert in the subject...Kaisershatner 15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Who - Xtan's vs. pagans, heretics, Muslims or those under the ban of excommunication. Generally under the Banner of the Papacy. Various nations over varying periods of time. Why? It is a collection of events for a collection of various reasons with a collection of various actors. Common theme - religious flavor, motivations debateable. Initially against Muslims OK but then scope expanded. Byzantine Empire's appeal being "the principal reason" is argued over, re-capture of Jerusalem agreed upon by all. Reversing gains by various competing Turcoman tribes "raids" and "forays" (Ghazwat) into Anatolia under the appanage system of the loose Seljuk overlordship against Byzantine lands accepted as a desired secondary result. What? When? There were numerous and significant crusades against non-muslim as well. Generally, the change also made the LEAD extremely long, earlier version more succintly captured the entire picture. All items elucidated by you are taken up later in the article in much greater detail. --Tigeroo 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, thanks for the comments. To take your last point first, Summary style suggests all items in the lead should be taken up later in the article in much greater detail.  That's the whole idea of the lead.  As it stands, it doesn't even give a general idea of when these Crusades occurred.  And I will defer to your expertise on this, my knowledge of this is strictly as a layperson, but the popular usage of "The Crusades" as far as I know evokes Knights, Richard the Lionhearted, Saladin, Jerusalem, etc.  The latter Spanish or Nordic events should be included in a comprehensive article, but I think the term "The Crusades" pretty clearly means those major Holy Land excursions in the 1100-1300 range.  Kaisershatner 15:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh, and btw, I agree my version was overlong. It could certainly be cut down, but what we have here is way too brief.  Kaisershatner 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't say it was perfect as it stands :). Just take it up in parts. The definition of Crusades as it stands is one taken up by concencus of the editors to dispel just that over-emphasis on knights and King Richard etc. and those battles in the Holy land. Maybe a tweak is required to restore the importance of a Christian vs. Muslim world contest that may appear to have gotten lost.--Tigeroo 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi, made another try based on our discussion. The lead now defines the Crusades as usually the 1000-1300 stuff and immediately mentions it can also apply to the broader, wider campaigns that followed.  I left in the thing about the Seljuks, put "Ghazwhat" into the footnote.  I would like to move on the the 2nd "definition" paragraph.  Let me know if it's terrible.  Kaisershatner 14:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I made some minor edits. I am not sure just how universal the Byzantine support theory is accepted since it was quite a while after their appeal that anything got underway and not in any manner that pleased them.--Tigeroo 16:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)


 * So can we remove the Byzantine support theory into the body of the article rather than the intro? It was here when I got here.Kaisershatner 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead sentence
(emphasis added) Kaisershatner 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The 1911 EB defines the Crusades as "CRUSADES, the name given to the series of wars for delivering the Holy Land from the Mahommedans, so-called from the cross worn as a badge by the crusaders. By analogy the term "crusade" is also given to any campaign undertaken in the same spirit."
 * Here's Encarta's lead sentence: "Crusades, series of wars by Western European Christians to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims (see Palestine). The Crusades were first undertaken in 1096 and ended in the late 13th century. The term Crusade was originally applied solely to European efforts to retake from the Muslims the city of Jerusalem, which was sacred to Christians as the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was later used to designate any military effort by Europeans against non-Christians."
 * Current EB version does mention the latter crusades: "military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291, usually as military campaigns intended to halt or slow the advance of Muslim power or to conquer pagan areas."


 * It's a difficult thing to define as so many people have different definitions and perspectives. But, there is a general mainstream view, for practical purposes its possible, with the article containing qualifiers and expansion. We might even want to say that, if others disagree or try to expand on it in the lead section, say it is a qualified definition, like in the lead section of feudalism. Good idea researching how other recent encyclopedias handle it. -- Stbalbach 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pagans and heretics
Can we change this to "those viewed by the Catholic Church as pagans or heretics"? It's not objective that the targeted people were heretics or pagans, just that the Crusaders designated them as such. I just wasn't sure if it is accurate to use Catholic Church or if it should instead read "viewed by the Crusaders" or something instead. Kaisershatner 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I made this change.Kaisershatner 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

St. Bernard
Listen, I love St. Bernard of Clairveaux as much as the next guy (ok, maybe not) but what in the world is he doing in the introduction of an article that spans 500 years of European and Middle Eastern history. Especially when not a single Pope, Emperor, or Caliph is mentioned by name in that intro? I'm taking him out. Kaisershatner 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, don't put him in the Fourth Crusade section - I don't know what it is specifically referring to, but Bernard was involved in the Second Crusade and was long dead by the Fourth. Adam Bishop 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture
The article needs some artwork; I chose the Siege of Antioch picture because it is so clear and colorful, and has those nice Crusader banners and a walled city. I doubt we'll find a single image that is representative of the entire Crusades given the number and differences among them, but I thought this would be a decent choice. If you hate it, we can look for something else. Kaisershatner 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical perspectives on the Crusades
I am impressed by the amount of discussion on this article. The Crusades represent an important event in world history and has been represented with great variance of viewpoints over the centuries. It is important that Wikipedia represent this with as NPOV as possible.

In that regard, I agree with those proposing that the section on "Historical perspectives on the Crusades" is too much centered on the European/Christian perspective. I would think it would be fairly straightforward for someone knowledgeable on this subject to add a sub-section called "Islamic Perspective".

Tony 17:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment, 12/11/06 - I am again impressed with the changes made to this article in only a few days of toil since last reading this article on 12/2. I am pleased as well that the section on Historical perspectives has added a subsection on the Islamic perspective as recommended above. Well done, Wikipedia team.

Tony 04:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead
To justify my edits to the lead paragraph: Srnec 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "religious character" sounds like "we're not sure exactly what". Mentioning "Christendom" and "Muslim rule" should be sufficient to get the point across.
 * Why 1095-1291? I know why, but it seemed a little arbitrary even for describing Crusades proper.
 * why quotation marks and the modifier "sacred" to "Holy Land"? Holy Land is what its called and sacred is very redundant.

The paragraph is accurate. They were of a religious character. That is the main key point that sets them apart from just a large-scale invasion. See the section on what it meant to be a Crusader and why people went on Crusade. As for the dates they define roughly the period, I'm not sure what dates you had in mind but for practical purposes we need to provide a rough framework of dates that everyone can agree on, for the lead section. -- Stbalbach 14:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article. It should contain no footnotes. As it stands, the lead section is basically it's own unique part of the article and doesn't really reflect what is contained in the rest of the article - whole thing needs to be re-done according to WP:LEAD. -- Stbalbach 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you prefer something like "beginning in the High Middle Ages?" The WHEN needs to be in the first sentence IMO.  Also, "sacred" isn't in quotes in the article.  "Holy Land" is - it is only considered Holy by the Western monotheisms, right?  You might argue that Holy Land on its own is just a proper noun, on the other hand, but putting it in quotations makes it clear we're referring to an area considered by the Crusaders to be "THE HOLY LAND." Kaisershatner 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I never disputed the accuracy of "religious character", I just think it sounds too imprecise to be meaningful. If the time period is rough, exact dates should be avoided (dates like 1095 and 1291). I didn't mean to say that "sacred" was in quotes, only that it redundantly modified Holy Land. I am not a Moslem, but I have no trouble referring to the Koran as their holy book. It is called the Holy Land without quotes by almost every scholar of the Crusades. It is petty to add them here. Everybody knows (or ought to) that "holy" is a relative term for different religions: one considers this holy, another that.


 * I am fine with the idea of rewriting the into, I just wanted to correct some minor deficiencies of the current one (in my opinion) and I though that, in light of the recent changes to the lead, a justification preemptively offered at the talk page was wise. Srnec 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Frankly, I kind of agree w/you about "religious character" being kind of weaselly. And I agree that "sacred" is redundant.  And I agree, as I wrote above, that one can consider The Holy Land to be a commonly-used term with obvious meaning (ie that part of the Middle East considered sacred by Christians, Muslims, Jews), although I do object to your usage of "petty" above.  Just two points: AFIK the dates refer to the start of the first crusade and the elimination of the last vestige of the Crusader kingdoms - not a bad estimate given the difficult nature of defining when.  I would be ok with "High Middle Ages" as I wrote above, but I think that leaves most readers (including me) kind of lost as to exactly when all this took place.  Second, just to beat the "Holy Land" thing to death, while you write "I have no trouble referring to the Koran as their holy book" I think it unlikely that you would write something like "a war that was fought to defend The Holy Koran," but rather "to defend the Koran, considered Holy to Muslims," or something- you wouldn't adapt the terminology of the believers (not NPOV) but might instead objectively state their beliefs.  So The Holy Land might imply something that "The Holy Land" doesn't.   In the end, though, I see where you're coming from, as the Holy Land is a commonly-used term and might connote "Holy Land (to christians, muslims, jews)" without explicit mention.  Kaisershatner 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * They really were military campaigns of a religious character. The Crusaders didn't consider themselves "soldiers", they were hybrid monks, monks with swords so to speak, monks who killed on behalf of god. I also think adding specific dates is fine, dates can be qualified if needed, so long as its mainstream, and matches the scope of the article itself. -- Stbalbach 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I do try to always assume good faith, I meant only to imply that quotation marks were petty and not to impute pettiness to anybody in particular. But, in short, I take that back.
 * As to the point about the Koran, touché, but it is merely because the Koran was not the best example. The Holy See is better. I am not a papist and there is nothing holy about the bishopric of Rome to me, but I still call it by its name. Same for any "sacred Hindu shrine" or some such thing. We would readily attach "sacred" (synonymous with "holy") to such objects of veneration whether or not we venerate them.
 * My only problem with 1095-1291 is that the First Crusade may have been launched in 1095, but 1291 is only the date of the fall of Acre, the last Crusader stronghold on the mainland Orient. The island of Arwad, just of the Syrian coast, was held until 1303. But these years did not stop the Crusading movement. I think a closing date should be avoided, a term like medieval can qualify the dates well enough.
 * They were military campaigns of a religious character. But what does that mean? Doesn't saying "Christian versus Moslem" accomplish the same thing without the vagueness? I don't believe the Crusaders regarded themselves as monks of any sort, they were soldiers with vows. Srnec 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with removing the "end date." I was ready to endorse the Holy Land change and the "Holy See" example (note the quotation marks are appropriate in this usage, ha ha!) is well-taken.  I also think we can do better than military campaigns of a religious character - it used to, maybe still wikilinks to religious war.  Is that an inaccurate definition of the Crusades? (I'm asking.  I am not an expert.) Kaisershatner 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I have some problem with religious war. It is accuracte insofar as the Crusades were "of a religious character", but the first line of the religious war article cites "differences in religion" as the basis of such warfare. I cannot say the the real basis for the Crusades was difference in religion, that was but part of the justification for going to war for other reasons. I won't object to using "religious war," but I'd make sure the Wiki article is accurate for the Crusades. Srnec 18:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I think religious war is too strong a term and full of implications. "religious character" is vague for a reason, there are many interpretations, it all depends on your perspective in place and time, as well as various people's opinions. All we can really say in the lead section is that it was of a religious nature or character and then fill in the details in the main body of the article. This is how lead sections work, a high-level general summary with details in the article. -- Stbalbach 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur that "religious war" has too many false implications for this article. I understand how a lead works and the purpose it fulfils, but if we call the Crusades a "series of military campaigns" of a "religious character", many will wonder why it isn't just called a religious war. I think mention of the Christian and Moslem players as opponents suffices to encapsulate the religious character expediently. Srnec 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
 * "Religious character", refers to many aspects that are taken up later in the article. First point Crusades are not limited to Christian vs. Muslim in this article. It extends to Christians vs. Pagans, and Christians vs. Heretics as well. It refers to the fact that the crusades carried a strong Papal endorsement and encouragement for such wars. It refers to the taking of the cross, and the sense of the soldiery that they were conducting warfare for the faith. All these aspects are explored and expanded in the article later and the two words very quickly capture the essence that unlike conquest, loot, or revenge there was strong religious element/ overtone to them. In essence it captures the question: What differentiates a crusade from a mere war? The sense of righteousness associated with taking up arms for the cause of the faith. However I am at a loss as to why it cannot simply be called a religious war, its listed as a cross link on the religious war page.--Tigeroo 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Crusade Origins
Hello everyone. First off, I am new here, so I apologize for any mistakes I might make beforehand in how I post and sign.

I have been reading in the discussion pages about the origins of the Crusades and I have several books here by Jonathan Riley Smith, Jonathan Phillips and Thomas Madden. Below are some points from their books I have included that show some light on their thoughts on this matter.

In the preface of Thomas Madden’s “The New concise history of the Crusades”, Madden states, “The Crusade, first and foremost, was a war against Muslims for the defense of the Christian faith”. In his conclusion, he makes the same argument.

Jonathan Riley-Smith in “What were the Crusades?” refers to them as a “defense against aggression”. In his “The Atlas of the Crusades”, he defines the Crusades on page 23 as “Crusades were holy wars fought against those who were perceived to be the external or internal foes of Christendom, for the recovery of Christian property or in defense of the Church or Christian people.”

I will have to dig into some of my books for more references.

I don’t think the authors are referring to a “defensive war” in the sense of the Muslims attacked and took Jerusalem hundreds of years before the first crusade which lead the Crusaders to avenge that so far after the fact. I think it was in view of the constant attacks and encroachments on Christian territory that were continuing at the calling of the first crusade by the Pope. The blocking of Christian pilgrims to the holy sites was another motivation. As history shows, Muslim conquests of Christian land continued even after 1291. Even Saladin himself, a man respected by his enemies and who is idolized today, said he wanted to take the war to Europe. He never got the chance since he died shortly after Richard I left the holy land.

In addition to the previous paragraph, even if someone doesn’t believe the early crusades were “defensive” in nature, what of the latter crusades? What of the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims? The invasion of the Balkans? The fall of Hungary? The fall of Rhodes? The Battle of Lepanto? The fall of Cyprus? The fall of Crete? The siege of Vienna? At some point, even if you take the line of thought that the early crusades were not defensive in nature, there was a definite shift from “offensive” to “defensive”.

Jonathan Phillips in “The Crusades 1095-1197” does state the purpose of the first crusade was the capture of Jerusalem. His evidence are letters and charters by participants that state that as the purpose in documents 2 & 3 in the back of the book.

Professor Phillips does have some things to say about Steven Runciman’s work. Basically that Runciman’s view of the “Crusaders as ignorant thugs” is a significant flaw in his writing.(The Crusades 1095-1197, pg 4) This is due to Runciman’s distain for the sacking of Constantinople since his sympathies are on display for the Byzantines.

In view of Constantinople, in “The Fourth Crusade” by Donald Queller & Thomas Madden (which I recommend) on page 321, both authors take a shot at Runciman for his number of “errors” in his work. They refer to the popularity and influence of his work as “unfortunate”.

In Thomas Madden’s book “The New concise History of the Crusades”, Madden blasts Runciman on pages 216 – 217 for the mindset his work has had on the subject. On page 231, he does commend Runciman on his 1st Crusade work and the Crusader states, but notes his errors when he writes past the 13th century. Thomas Madden in “The Crusades: An Illustrated History” goes as far to say on pages 10 & 11 that “The society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, a professional organization of crusade scholars, has at present nearly 500 members in thirty countries and hundreds of scholarly studies are published each year. As a result of all of this research, modern scholars have largely rejected Runciman’s conclusions, returning instead to the idea that medieval people should be understood on their own terms rather than ours.”

I have also read criticisms of Runciman’s “second son theory” and his chronology of the fall of Constantinople, but can’t lay my hands on which book I have it in at the moment. Page 12 of “The New concise history of the Crusades” mentions this case in point in regards to which sons went on crusade without referring to Runciman specifically.

I do have 2 of the 3 of Runciman’s three part work here that I have read and I do get a different impression of the Crusades from him as compared to many other crusade authors I have read.

Just some thoughts from a novice.

Mk26gmls 04:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I doubt there are many Muslim historians who saw the invasion and conquest as a "defensive war" - it is like the current war in Iraq, it is being sold as a defensive war (war against terror) but few in the middle east sees it that way. Or the American civil war, which the north saw as a "defensive war" (south fired first shot), but the south saw as a northern war of aggression (north provoked it). There are many layers to the Crusades and depending on your perspective and what elements are being emphasized will result in different opinions. -- Stbalbach 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read “The Crusades Through Arab Eyes” by Amin Maalouf and he refers to the Crusades as Frankish Invasions throughout the book. In his Chronology in the back of the book, he breaks down events with subtitles. One is titled “Before the Invasion”. In that listing, it is ironic that he lists in the “7th to 8th Centuries: the Arabs build an enormous empire, from the Indus River in the east to the Pyrenees in the west.” I thought that pretty funny myself. Yes, depending on your perspective, you will look at the same events and come to a different opinion.

As Thomas Madden wrote in his book “The New concise history of the Crusades”,(pg. 213) the Ottoman Empire at its height had then resulted in ¾ of former Christian lands over the past 1,000 years were now in Muslim control.

In this article, Crusades, I see a listing of Crusades. Has anyone considered writing pieces on several of them that are not mentioned? Such as:

The Reconquest of Spain

Crusades to North Africa from 1480 – 1578 by Spain and Portugal?

Crusades against the Muslim Turks in Central Europe and the Aegean Region from roughly 1521 – 1672  (These would include crusades in response to Turkish assaults of Cyprus, the invasion of Hungary in 1663, The Crusade for Crete from 1645 – 1669, and the Turkish invasion of Poland in 1671 – 1672)

Crusade in defense of Vienna in 1683/84 and continued Crusades to beat back the Muslims in Hungary until roughly 1718: Mk26gmls 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Not every war against an Islamic (or other) opponent is a Crusade. I'm not aware that any of the ones you list are considered crusades. But we do have e.g. an article on the Reconquista, which lead to the development of the concept of a holy war against the infidels, on the Ottoman wars in Europe and in particular on the Siege of Vienna. Madden is rather tendentious...the Christian Byzantine Empire was 100% on former "pagan" lands (most of it following Greco-Roman religions), and France was full of Druids at one time. --Stephan Schulz 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that not every war between Islamic and Christian forces were Crusades, but the following references I believe show that the Crusades continued into the late 17th century, not the 16th century as listed in the intro of this article.

This is not an exhaustive list. I pulled these items together in about 30 minutes. More needs to be researched so these and other crusades can be listed on this article.

In 1517, Pope Leo X called for Crusade against the Turks. (Source The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 286)

In 1529, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, worked with the Pope in the relief of Vienna. (Source The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 287 – 288)

In 1535, Pope Paul III gave indulgences and money for the expedition to Tunis lead by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor.(Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 162 and The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 288)

1537 - 1540, Charles V – Holy Roman Emperor, Venice and the Papacy formed a league and was defeated at Preveza off the coast of Greece. (Source The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 290 and The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

In 1566, Pope Pius V calls for Crusade against the Muslims for further incursions into Hungary. There was little response until Italy was threatened with invasion in 1571. (Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

In 1571, a Holy League made up of Venice, Spain, and the Papacy under Pope Pius V defeated the Turks at the Battle of Lepanto. The church sold indulgences and used church taxes to pay for the fleet. (Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

1593 – 1606, the Pope called for Crusade against the Muslim invasion of the Balkans. The Pope encouraged the Christians living in Muslims lands to rise up against the Muslims. (Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

1645 – 1669, the struggle for Crete saw the Papacy again provide for the defense of the island as well as Christian men from all over Europe. (Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

Papal indulgences were given for those that took part to defend Crete and Vienna. (Source Crusades – The Illustrated History by Thomas Madden, pg 198)

In 1663, Spain, Germany, France and the Papacy led a crusade into Hungary which lead to the Christian victory at St Gotthard. Pope Innocent IX worked to bring financial resources and Christian forces together to relieve the pressure on Vienna. (Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

1684 – 1697, the Holy League is formed by Pope Innocent IX with indulgences for the participants are given. It consists of the Holy Roman Empire, Poland and Venice. This League of the last Crusaders began driving back the Turks. This would have occurred without indulgences according to Thomas Madden. (Source Crusades – The Illustrated History by Thomas Madden, pg 198)

Even after the Protestant Reformation, Protestants celebrated Catholic victories over the Muslims such as Lepanto in 1571 and even Protestants took part in the campaigns. The Protestants argued that secular leaders should take the war to the Turks, not the Papacy. (Source Crusades – The Illustrated History by Thomas Madden, pg 192 – 193)

I will read the Reconquista. I am curious to how this is not listed as part of the Crusade listing though? The crusades in Spain were given the same benefits by the Pope as the ones to the Middle East.

Mk26gmls 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that crusades did not end as described, and the Reconquista were also considered Crusades by the papacy. That can be fixed.
 * As for defensive wars, the major explanation is indeed the 7th century conquests. If you look at the 10th century and 11th century preceding the crusades, the Muslims were fragmented into competing forces unlike earlier and were actually being pushed back. The collapse of the Umayyads in Andalusia, the eviction from Italy, cyprus, the resurgent push by the byzantines from the late 8th century. The Genoan and Ventian naval victories across the Mediterranean. The borders with European nations were being rolled back. What changed was the arrival of the newly arrived Turkic conquerors of the Abassid lands, the Seljuks who pushed on rolled back Byzantine gains in the Levant and the pressed onto Anatolia as well. Byzantine had been contesting the levantine borders for over a millenium, first with the Sassanids, and then with the Caliphates.--Tigeroo 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

p

Still issues with intro phrasing
Just a general comment. I think the intro still phrases things in a misleading way. Although the detailed sections do clarify I think the introduction should be able to stand on its own.

The way it is phrased it contrasts "Christian" with Eastern Orthodox and, in some sense, seems to imply that Roman Catholicism had primacy in the Christian world. Although arguably the Catholic Church has probably supported this viewpoint over the years it is certainly not the viewpoint of historians regarding this time period. Also it implies that the call was an Eastern Orthdox vs. Roman Catholic issue when, in reality, it was more of a "Roman Empire" calling out to the rest of the Christian world situation.

It would be more proper to say in some fashion that the Christian Eastern Empire, which had lost the Holy Land and Anatolia to the Muslims, called on their fellow Christians in Western Europe (and the Slavic lands) to help them restore these lands to the "Roman Empire" (which, after all, was what the "Byzantine Empire" was). The result, of course, was different from what either the emperor or the Pope intended. --Mcorazao 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Mass changes
Agnes Nitt, might I suggest rather than going through the article and making massive changes from top to bottom in a single session - a lot of people have worked very hard on this article over a long period of time - that you make small incremental changes, see if there is any feedback, wait a day for people to respond, come back make more small changes, etc.. this is one of the more active and controversial articles on Wikipedia. Thanks. -- Stbalbach 17:26, 9 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This discussion on my user page is probably relevant here. --Stephan Schulz 21:18, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Dont worry, I wont, but if I were you, I would be a bit open minded in the future, dont you agree? Face the truth like I did, and it helped me at the end. But no, I wont be changing this article in a hurry, I did so before as I was new and was horrified at all the innaccuraccies and one-sidedness of it all so I thought I should add a bit more facts to it and cut out the legends e.g.; the childrens crusade. I realise that you have put effort into this article, but dont concentrate your efforts to try and demonise the victims and plagiarise history please. Vary your sources and references a bit more. Any way, I assure you I will not be making any major changes to the text. Agnes Nitt 22:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Crusades"

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. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.78.94.2 (talk) 13:52, 13 January 2007 (UTC).

For future reference, Wikipedia isn't here to do your homework for you, hence the lack of replies. If what you want isn't in the article, look somewhere else, or draw your own conclusions.

This is not a chat forum. - Yes I am sorry but i do sort of agree. Besides, you wouldn't find that kind of information in this article; you're best off doing you're own unbiased academic research, that way you'll learn alot more :) . Sorry I couldn't help you (I can't remember any references at the moment) good luck any way. Agnes Nitt 21:46, 16 March 2007 (UTC)

Jesus Agnes, give it a rest.The Bryce 04:36, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Page links to Crusaders
Believe it or not, rather then linking here or to a separate article about the participants of the Crusades, this un-ambiguated titled actually goes to an article about a Rugby team. Now unfortunately this means that many of the 200+ links that are actually meant to go here are linking there. Now there is a page move request to move the Rugby team article to one that actually makes a lick of sense and to have the Crusaders redirect here but assuming that doesn't go through, it might be helpful to have some folks take a look at these misdirected links so we can get them pointing to a more appropriate article. 205.157.110.11 15:08, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Thanks for pointing that out. I have added my support for Crusaders to redirect to Crusades on the Crusaders talk page move discussion. -- Stbalbach 17:31, 3 February 2007 (UTC)