Talk:Crusades/Archive 6

Edit Semi Protected
The section of this article related to the Historical Perspective/Eastern Orthodoxy seeks a citation for two pieces of information related to the Fourth Crusade. Both statements in the paragraph are supported by Jonathan Phillips in his book The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople.

I believe the citation should read as follows:

I know the citation is correct. Not sure if if I've presented the information correctly for insertion into the article.

Cheers, JPlantje (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)


 * You should write Editsemiprotected as said at Help desk, and it shouldn't be in a heading. I have added for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅ - I've added it to the article using a template, which you may want to look up if you want to source anything in the future. Thanks for the sourcing information, it's appreciated. ~  mazca  t 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Church and Pope started the Crusades"
ZONK ! Crusades were formed as a reaction to muslim politics in the Holy Land. From centuries Jerusalem - Holy City of 3 religions was open to Christians but in 1009 muslim sultan named Al-Hakim gave the order to destroy Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1079 turkish sultan called Suleyman says that Christians of all believes can't go to Jeruslaem anymore. Day from day Christians who tryed to get to Holy Places in the Holy Land were a victim of muslim haterness. That's why pope called for Crusades. First Crusade took place in 1096.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)


 * True, but their information was out of date by the time they attacked. The new Muslim administration was amicable, at least up until the time the crusaders started firing on them! The history rewriters are getting the church for failing to listen to the 11 o'clock news. Remember, like us, they were told to every 15 minutes from 7 o'clock on!  :)Student7 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)


 * Just discovered that people in the Middle Ages didn't quite think like this. a) People were stopped from pilgrimages at some point in time, demonstrating their power over pilgrims. b) This was an affront to knights who were always spoiling for a fight anyway. (Turks not excluded here BTW but nothing in it for them other than to defend what they had. But the Moors were used to fighting each other anyway, as were the crusaders). So the Saracens reversing themselves and the crusaders not realizing it was irrelevant to their thinking. Avoiding war was not high on anyone list in those days. Thugs were in charge on both sides and the more tumultuous the situation, the more you needed thugs to defend you! Not like nowdays at all. The religious issue was just icing on the cake.Student7 (talk) 21:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Opinions aren't relevent such as this:

When analyzing the primary documentation of female militancy, one must be cautious. The accounts of women fighting come mostly from Muslim historians whose aim was to portray Christian women as barbaric and ungodly because of their acts of killing. The contrasting view from Christian accounts portray women fighting only in emergency situations for the preservation of the camps and their own lives. In these cases women are seen as more feminine while behaving like ‘proper women’. Virtually all crusade writings came from men, and women would have been interpreted subjectively no matter what roles they played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.204.201 (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Hey, I thought that the crusades started because the Christians in europe thought that the muslims had taken over Jeruslem, but were mistaken because it was just that the majority of the population had converted to Islam. This view hasn't even been considered in the article, even though it is a widely thought one. Should that be added? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.93.144 (talk) 16:03, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

dabs
The "Crusader" dablinks already appear at Crusade (disambiguation), so they should be removed, with a mention that they are at the dab page. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
 * ✅--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The "isolation, alienation and fear"[1] felt by the Franks so far from home helps to explain the atrocities they committed
This statement is highly disputable: "The "isolation, alienation and fear"[1] felt by the Franks so far from home helps to explain the atrocities they committed, including the cannibalism which was recorded after the Siege of Maarat in 1098." (cited after: Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0192853643; though)

If this would be accepted as a legitimate explanation for the rapes, mass-murder and cruellties of the christian-crusader mob, than every-one can surly get help out of this, to understand the unnamable atrocities/cruelties/devilish things/industial mass-murder of nazi-germany fare abroad agains millions of jews...

If not.... please revert and be more neutral, just mention the mass-murder, rapes, atrocities of jews, muslims, children, women, old people, permitted by the evil devilish christian hordes in jerusalem.

I do agree that the statement is very shocking and not very neutral. Anything can be explained but when done in some cases and not in others it tends to unbalance facts: if crusaders were actually victims, maybe nazis were too. In my opinion these "explanations" don't fit in an encyclopedia.

There's another statement I find very inappropriate and false: "Once inside the city, as was standard military practice at the time,[17] the Crusaders massacred the Muslim inhabitants, destroyed mosques and pillaged the city". There may be sources claiming it was standard military practice but it actually depends a lot on the conditions... the christian Greeks and muslims in general were for instance a lot less keen to procede in these forms, and even Franks fighting other Franks hadn't these standards. So maybe we could change the statement to: "as was standard military practice among the crusaders at the time when it came to muslims and jews and in smaller proportions when it came to local christians" it would be a lot more accurate.Sinekonata (talk) 19:01, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

insignificant typo
in the first sentence the term "religious driven" should be hyphenated. it really bothers me and I cant edit because i lost my sign in info. so someone should correct that 69.254.79.162 (talk) Forcefieldmaker

Barakus(not logged in):

In the introduction part is says that the muslims let pelgrims in the city because of their economic worth and they came to realize it afterwards. There are two lies in this! 1: The mulsims always granted passage of pelgrims to Jerusalem. 2: That the Islam teaches to show respect for other believes. In particular Abrahamic beliefs. In this light the muslims always showed respect to the Christians who wanted to make a pelgrimage to Jerusalem ... I want this text changed. Barakus


 * Actually not. For a short time (a couple of decades), Christians were prevented or harassed in their attempts at pilgrimage to Jerusalem in the middle ages. This had ceased (long ceased by modern standards) when the First Crusade came knocking at the door. Blame slow, out-of-date communication. Agreed that Pilgrims were no longer badgered when "revenge" was visited on the unsuspecting (and innocent at the time) Muslims. Probably rather typical of the day, I suppose. Student7 (talk) 23:00, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Saladin Ransoming Jerusalem inhabitants
I have a source to add for the missing Citation for the statement "In 1187, Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, recaptured Jerusalem, following the Battle of Hattin. After taking Jerusalem back from the Christians, the Muslims spared civilians and for the most part left churches and shrines untouched to be able to collect ransom money from the Franks."


 * 🇦🇹 (trans. Richards, D.S.) (2002). The Rare and Excellent History of Saladin. Ashgate. ISBN 978-0-7546-3381-6

found on page 78 if you want to verify.

In my opinion I would get rid of the part that says "they left churches and shrines untouched" because that is debatable depending on what source you want to believe. I would ask also the line be changed to something similar to this "On October 2nd, 1187 Jerusalem was surrendered to Saladin under the terms that the inhabitants would have to pay a ransom for their freedom. The amounts required were Ten Tyrian dinars for each man, five dinar for each women, and one dinar for children male or female."

(Someone else commenting): Most shrines/churches WERE left intact, but that wasn't to get tax from the Franks, it was because the muslims wanted people to believe what they wanted even if it wasn't right, because then you're free. No-one would be THAT unjust for no reason. 136.242.228.224 (talk) 23:55, 5 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done, added ref. Thanks! —Ms2ger (talk) 20:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Who was the First LEADER of 1. Crusade ?
It was not Godfrey of Bouillon. It was saint Ladislaus I of Hungary —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.111.185.112 (talk) 08:00, 18 November 2008 (UTC)
 * No, Stears81, it wasn't. That's crazy. Where did you learn that anyway? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

NOT regarded by laypeople as heroic adventures
Every time I have EVER heard the Crusades referred to in either school or casual conversation, it has been with disgust and revulsion, viewed as yet another example of religious extremeism. So, if the section titled Popular Reputation in Western Europe is going to claim it's viewed in a positive light, that contributor darn well better prove it with some citations. Europe is among the most secular continents on earth, so I highly doubt they revere this part of their history. 75.70.99.101 (talk) 17:23, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Positive? Negative? 800 years ago religiously motivated Europeans invaded the Middle East for what they felt were good reasons: access to the Holy Land. Would today's secular Europe, (having learned from their history) do the same? No. We are reporting history. If it is being reported as "good" or "bad" we are doing it wrong. History is simply history without bias. Bias is silly particularly with the huge lapse of time involved. If you heard it mentioned with "disgust and revulsion," you were taught by subjective teachers, utterly useless for learning anything from history, of course. Student7 (talk) 20:24, 18 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Well, they used to be viewed more positively, often in connection to European imperialism, so positive connotations have mostly disappeared since the collapse of the various empires in the twentieth century. It's still a positive word sometimes (people often "crusade" for human rights, or against poverty, or whatever), but it seems pretty likely today that the actual crusades are not seen positively; the movie Kingdom of Heaven, for example, or whenever Ayman al-Zawahari calls Americans "crusaders". While I'd agree that anyone teaching that the crusades are simply good or simply bad is not a very good teacher, that's certainly not the point here. Positive or negative views of the crusades go far beyond what some kid may be learning in school. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:30, 23 December 2008 (UTC)
 * They used to be called "The Holy Roman Crusades;" although at the time of the crusades, they were just "crusades" or "Christian crusades." A recent pope desired a re-revision of history and we now call them the crusades once again. Another point in the text is that at least one pope guaranteed full Forgiveness for all past sins, not just ". . . penance for past sins, often called indulgence." I am sure that a primary source will attest to this. I personally was requested by a pope with this very promise to attend to a Byzantine crusade and that if I did not, I would not be Forgiven. I remember that all of my Brothers went, as I did. I came back war sick and war worn and desired that I had not gone because I did not feel Forgiven of the crusade and being told that he would not Forgive me if I did not go (guess a pope needs Forgiving). When another Time of crusade came, I did not go, but many of my Brothers went and I remained at my home near to the Rheine. 216.215.40.65 (talk) 02:23, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
 * ...? Adam Bishop (talk) 02:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Excising the crusades from the history of the west would pretty much leave the current world unrecognizable, as would the deleting of any major event. The lessons learned by the West were incalculable and were to set the stage for the Renaissance and put the West leading the world for the past 500 years. Understandably, there are some people who didn't and don't like that.
 * As far as "popularity" goes, Eisenhower entitled his book "Crusade in Europe" and it sold quite well with no criticism of the title!
 * As far as war popularity goes, it waxes and wanes. One of the difficulties about standing up to Hitler was due to the popularity of "Alls Quiet on the Western Front", an anti-war book about WW I. People just had no stomach to stand up to Hitler when it was important to do so. They told their politicians, "Do anything. But don't fight a war!." Not a good idea as it turned out.Student7 (talk) 00:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggest citing Gibbons Decline and Fall
The "History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire", Vol VI, contains a lot of dated but extremely good material on the Crusades.

A stable web reference is here: http://www.gutenberg.org/etext/736

He is (naturally) particularly thorough on the Crusade against Constaninople.

Gibbons is a very biased author (though certainly not stereotypically pro-Western), but his biases are so open and well-known that I don't think a link would detract from this article's objectivity.

Puttypeg (talk) 00:14, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Citing it how? Using Gibbon to illustrate historiographical biases is a good idea, but using him as a simple reference is not. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:19, 23 December 2008 (UTC)


 * Why not? Because the material is dated? He gives a very thorough and readable narrative, so if simple references are "here is a place you can read more", I'd like to know why he's a bad one. (98.219.163.240 (talk) 01:18, 2 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Well you can certainly read more in Gibbon, but would you really learn anything useful? Thorough and readable is not the same as accurate and informative. Shouldn't Wikipedia provide information from, and links to, the best sources? Adam Bishop (talk) 03:19, 2 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Gibbon is still regarded as accurate and informative - albeit dated in his sources and methodology. Certainly Wikipedia should cite the best sources, but this doesn't mean all modern ones. Of course, with primary sources the question is slightly different - there are lots of references to the Bible and other ancient works in Wikipedia, and they're not all there by virtue of being regarded as accurate, more that they're clearly significant. But if you'd argue that this privilege shouldn't be extended to significant but inaccurate secondary sources, I'd see your point (e.g., it would be silly to cite Herodotus as a source of information on Ancient Egypt just because Herodotus is significant, because he's pretty lousy on Ancient Egypt). So the question comes back to accuracy, and I don't have evidence that Gibbon is inaccurate, he seems pretty good to me, but I'm not an expert on the Crusades.


 * Even if he's not the best source on the Crusades themselves, it is worth noting that his attitude to the Crusaders is not positive, e.g., "At the voice of their pastor, the robber, the incendiary, the homicide, arose by thousands to redeem their souls, by repeating on the infidels the same deeds which they had exercised against their Christian brethren". This is more relevant to the discussion above about attitudes to the Crusades in the West - I agree with your analysis that attitudes have changed in the post-colonial era, but it's interesting to see at least one very significant historian criticizing them long before then, by the late 1700's. I'd suggest this as a quotation for your consideration: much to your point about perhaps citing Gibbon for historiography even if not as a direct source.


 * (Apologies for my inconsistent User logins, I will try to stick to logging in as dwiddows from now on, I didn't realize that I'd made two accounts over the years.) (Dominic Widdows (talk) 23:08, 2 January 2009 (UTC))


 * You've illustrated my point much better than my clumsy attempt - that quote is exactly what I mean. If we take Gibbon as a source for the history of the crusades, we might be inclined to believe that the crusaders were all barbaric criminals. That is not the modern scholarly consensus, which is what should be represented here. But as an illustration of how the crusaders were viewed in previous centuries of historiography, it is very useful. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:49, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * He's actually quite varied (in particular, has great sympathies for Godfrey de Bouillon). The view that many / most Crusaders were largely profiteering thugs, but there were good apples among them, is probably typical of many modern writers. But I think this explains reasonably well why he's perhaps not the clearest or simplest of sources for a summary, you need to read a lot to see that some of the invective shouldn't be generalized without check. (Dominic Widdows (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC))


 * Yes. He is very WP:POV. Anti-church. On this material, he would therefore be one of the worst sources particularly since we have so many newer ones that are less biased. A good "starter" history for someone aware of the bias I suppose. Student7 (talk) 13:14, 3 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Hardly one of the "worst" sources, you could find many worse. And I suspect that many of the "less biased" recent sources may appear quite as biased in the light of another two hundred years of reconsideration.
 * Please try to refrain from writing dismissive superlatives where they aren't appropriate. This is a complex and subtle issue which I believe was being discussed with more care and respect. (Dominic Widdows (talk) 16:47, 3 January 2009 (UTC))

Legacy:Europe and the West
I think there are non neutral points of view in the section Crusades and these are currently built on a synthesis of the given sources.

What does the subsection heading Europe and the West mean? Isn't Western Europe in the West? --PBS (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)

Citations for the above:
 * 1. Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Atlas of the Crusades New York: Facts on File, 1990. ISBN 0-8160-2186-4.
 * 2.Thomas F. Madden. Crusade Propaganda: The abuse of Christianity’s holy wars.
 * 3.Christopher Tyerman. Fighting a not-so-good fight: With God’s War, Christopher Tyerman is the latest historian drawn to the crusades. But they remain misunderstood, Felipe Fernández-Armesto says Timesonline August 19, 2006

These two paragraphs present one POV which does not seem to be supported by the sources given. For example Riley-Smith book carries no page numbers. This biography page suggests that Jonathan Riley-Smith he has been mis-attributed. If he has not then what are the page numbers and the text that supports the use of this citation.

There are problems with the specific wording of the paragraph for example "critical views of the crusades have come to dominate most assessments", seems to be using imprecise language. A military assessment of the tactics used the crusaders during the third crusade may be critical of those tactics without being critical of the campaign. The phrase is too broad to be meaningful.

With regards to the second paragraph: One can be critical of George Bush using the term crusade to describe the "War on Terror", not because one thinks crusades were morally wrong but because it is a tactical mistake which might persuade some moderate Muslims to feel threatened and more likely to side with the "terrorists". The first citation is used to generalise what the citation is an American POV "Ask a random American about them and you are likely to see a face wrinkle in disgust, or just the blank stare that is usually evoked by events older than six weeks. After all, weren't the crusaders just a bunch of religious nuts carrying fire and sword to the land of the Prince of Peace?"

This is not the POV you would find if you asked the question in England as one of the national hero figures is Richard the Lionheart, (Although in Scotland because he is an English hero I suspect most people would of course agree that the was a aggressive thug). As with any great figure in history the man had many facets an although Victorian hagiographies have been replaced by more balanced biographies (to quote another similar figure ""Paint me as I am, warts and all!"), the is still seen as a great English King and one of the few who is better known by is cognomen than his numeral. You see this hero representation of the crusaders at English International football and rugby matches when fans dress in mock crusader costumes (as mentioned in the Christopher Tyerman article). The Muslims are equivocal about Cœur de Lion because without his nemesis is Saladin such a great hero? The mirror image of how Saladin is presented in the popular biographies of Richard.

There are similar national sentiments can be found in many European countries may countries have defining moments fighting against Muslim expansionism, the best known in the English speaking world was the 800 year war waged in Spain. (the biography page mentioned before touches on this as does the Christopher Tyerman article -- the third citation above --)

So I think this section (1) needs a new name and (2) the first two paragraphs need replacing with a balanced text that represents all major POVs. --PBS (talk) 12:16, 18 January 2009 (UTC)


 * Excellent analysis. Any summary has to indicate the value from whose perspective. To say the crusades, a multi-century initiative by Europe, was either "good" or "bad" raises the question of "for whom?" Without the Crusades, Europeans might still being counting using Roman numerals! Forget computers! :) We might have lost Aristotle for another few centuries. It was audacious and a symbol of European emergence from their mud huts.


 * It is simply too massive to sum up with "good" or "bad". Any historian who does so is almost automatically biased.


 * It's like saying that the assassination of John Kennedy was "bad because he was a nice man." But without it, Civil Rights would have been delayed for many years cause Kennedy couldn't get it through Congress. One expects assessments using "good" or "bad" in childrens' books not ones for serious scholarly perspective. Student7 (talk) 00:02, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Also the Crusades prevented further Muslim expansion into Christian territory (on as great a scale as had previously been seen) for hundreds of years.Willski72 (talk) 10:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Nothing to learn from Gibbon? Hardly. It's a masterful work. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.18.110.69 (talk) 12:48, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

apostrophe usage
A minor correction is necessary under the heading, "First Crusade 1095-1099" in the caption for the first picture under this heading. ". . . besieged cities walls. . ." should be changed to read, ". . . besieged cities' walls. . ." to properly indicate the plural possessive form of "city." —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bulatowicz (talk • contribs) 03:46, 20 January 2009 (UTC)

Pilgrimages
Something seems to be missing in the text from the History In context.

Pilgrimages were allowed to the Holy Lands before and after the Sepulchre was rebuilt, but for a time pilgrims were captured and some of the clergy were killed. The Muslim conquerors eventually realized that the wealth of Jerusalem came from the pilgrims; with this realization the persecution of pilgrims stopped.[8] However, the damage was already done, and the violence of the Seljuk Turks became part of the concern that spread the passion for the Crusades.[9]

If this was a main cause, it should be expanded. Faro0485 (talk) 21:02, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Yes. There was a delay in communications that prevented the knowledge that the Muslims had reversed their policy. No Press Secretary. News at 11, that sort of thing. No embassy to Rome which really would have helped here. I don't know about expanding it. That is all that is known. The ball started rolling and didn't stop. It is probably only relatively recently that historians compared notes and realized that the war was essentially fought over a point that had already been won.


 * But his was the Middle Ages. The arbitrariness of it, after being allowed to visit for so long and then forcibly prevented, really annoyed Christendom. They might not have stopped even if they had known. One of the difficulties in those days was distinguished fiction from fact. Again, no nightly news, no tv interview. Someone returns to England and (hypothetically) says "Well, I didn't have any problem." Does that mean the persecution has stopped? Actually, it did, but how can you tell?


 * I suppose the Crusades showed a need for embassies among other things. The West learned a lot. Student7 (talk) 22:18, 12 March 2009 (UTC)

Toe of Italy
The "Hammer" has deleted the description of Calabria as the "toe of Italy." I thought this was useful, though it may not be essential. (Don't want to argue with the "Hammer" though  :).Student7 (talk) 12:24, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Unverifiable citation
I don't doubt the validity of citation 34 -- an article from an Oxford anthropology journal is a sight better than most citations I come across here -- but it would be nice to be able to read the article given. The site linked requires a login which is not publicly attainable. Is this a requirement for citations? Kiyura (talk) 23:16, 26 April 2009 (UTC)


 * First, access to this site is available to the public at large - it just requires a subscription. However, you can always try to get the article via a library - either via the library's subscription, or via inter-library loan. Or try WikiProject Resource Exchange. In general, while freely available online sources are nice to have, much material, especially reliable academic sources, are not available for free, or even online at all. We only require that sources are reliably published (and hence available in principle), not that they are available for free. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:32, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

Article disappearance
Not sure why the article is disappearing today. No edit summaries are being provided by the deleter. Student7 (talk) 20:07, 4 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The majority of edits 1234 and 5 were split to the article on historiography of the Crusades. This one I have no idea. The rest of the edits look they were uncited, which could possibly be a reason. --Izno (talk) 20:26, 4 May 2009 (UTC)

On Historical Context
I like the Iberian Peninsular bit but perphaps it could just touch on the Muslim invasion of Spain and France in the (was it seventh or eighth century?). In this way people know why the Moors were their. Also it could be mentioned that the expansion of the Seljuk Turks frightened Christians as they saw Christian Turkey falling to the Muslims. (With perphaps good reason as the Ottomon Empire would eventually spread to controlling the Balkan States).Willski72 (talk) 10:44, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

POV and Dubious material
I notice that some POV and dubious material has appeared in the article. I have affixed a tag at the main location. In particular the illustration and caption that has been inserted under 1st Crusade. An emotive and dubious image of unknown people being disembowelled in a cornfield has been inserted prominently, under a caption implying that this was part of a Crusader "policy of terror against Muslims and Jews". None of this is referenced, nor is the connection of the picture to any event of the first crusade made. The caption describes war atrocities in terms that falsely implies that, where they occurred these were of solely Christian origin, and then links to the article Siege of Ma'arrat al-Numan, which describes a pseudo-historical "event" lauded in Islamic legend, but which has little or no historical attribution. The linked article itself has several Original research, disputed facts and misinterpreted citations tags. The section text itself makes the highly dubious claim that the civilian population of Antioch was massacred by the Crusaders.

Much of this and subsequent sections seems to show POV in highlighting and exaggerating Crusader atrocities whilst passing over Muslim ones. The Marrat "cannibalism" is mentioned again further down. Reference to the Crusaders as "Franks", opinion sentences, and laudatory references to Muslim leaders also unbalance the article.  Xan  dar  10:44, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that the caption is a bit much and needs either justification or removal. However, some of the claims are true in context. This was an enormous undertaking for Europe. They had never had lines of supply that long before for an army of that size. Armies generally were expected to "live off the land" anyway. But the siege took a lot longer than expected. I suspect there was a general sack and execution of everybody, typical of the times. And cannibalism of people already dead - small consolation they didn't kill them for the protein! The crusaders were (obviously) deperate and starving. The "terror" biz in the caption is overwrought IMO. Wording owes more to the 21st century than to the 12th. Student7 (talk) 00:33, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the picture in question is referring to the recorded acts of cutting open "Saracens" to get the gold coins they had swallowed. Other records state the Crusaders forwent this and started retrieving the money from the ashes of the burnt bodies. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The "cannibalism" thing has come up several times on WP. Each time I have searched for reliable historical attribution, and have come up blank - except for tales of a small rogue group called the "Taffurs" who MAY have either eaten or pretended to have eaten dead bodies. The allegation of mass cannibalism as a fact seems to come mainly from an oft-repeated muslim legend. It is a dubious claim and should not be in this article without very good and specific attribution. As to the picture, the same thing goes. It has been placed as the key image of the 1st Crusade section a) without attribution of any connection to the First Crusade. and b) even if some attribution is found, I still think usage in this context represents an attempt to put over a POV position on the Crusades. It is WP:UNDUE WEIGHT since disembowelling was not the essence of the 1st Crusade, and massacres were committed by all sides. If the picture has a genuine crusade linkage, it would better appear in a section on massacres.  Xan  dar  22:18, 9 May 2009 (UTC)


 * You could be right. Not where I can research this right now. I thought I remembered starving, desperate Crusaders, but don't have ref at my fingertips and it might not have been at Antioch in any case. Student7 (talk) 01:22, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The cannibalism at Marrat needs to be mentioned as a legend - it's important to the story, and if it's not mentioned, you're just going to get well-meaning editors adding it back in as fact. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:07, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Two responsible editors have commented on this, forcing me to look for sources. The sources I am finding support what they have stated here - that the claims of cannibalism was exaggerated as befits most claims of outrageous atrocities during hostilities. My apologies for falling for this. It was mostly debunked in sources I could find. Thanks for bearing with me. Sorry for holding things up. Student7 (talk) 16:48, 10 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The legend and its background can be mentioned, but it does not rate mentioning twice - and certainly not in the lead picture caption for the 1st Crusade section. Everything here needs really good attribution. Similarly Antioch was a 90% Christian city that had only been in Muslim hands for a few years when taken by the Crusaders. The entire population was certainly not massacred by the Christians, although the Muslim garrison (and possibly most other muslims were by the Crusaders and the Christian citizens. The real massacre of ANtioch came with the Muslim reconquest under Sultan Baybars. SInce then Antioch has virtually ceased to exist as a major city.  Xan  dar  01:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)


 * [[Image:CrusaderAtrocitiesBibliothequeNationaleDeFrance.jpg|thumb|right|400px|For the first decade, the Crusaders pursued a policy of terror against Muslims and Jews that included mass executions, the throwing of severed heads over besieged cities walls, exhibition and mutilation of naked cadavers, and even [[cannibalism]], as was recorded after the Siege of Maarat.]] Since there is no valid attribution for either the image or most of the caption, and both are contentious and controversial, I have removed it and replaced it with a non-contentious image of Peter the Hermit leading the first crusade from Wiki Commons. The removed image and caption are here. Even if this material were proved to have reliable and provenance, I think such material would be better dealt with in a section on outrages and massacres.  Xan  dar  23:49, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

I just read this article and wanted to point out that the following paragraphs/statements seem very POV and aren't cited: "Although Europe had been exposed to Islamic culture for centuries through contacts in Iberian Peninsula and Sicily, much knowledge in areas such as science, medicine, and architecture was transferred from the Islamic to the western world during the crusade era." and "Along with trade, new scientific discoveries and inventions made their way east or west. Arab advances (including the development of algebra, optics, and refinement of engineering) made their way west and sped the course of advancement in European universities that led to the Renaissance in later centuries" I can't remember where, but I've read these claims other places and they have been refuted. I don't think it would be a problem to include as long as they are cited.....79.101.20.1 (talk) 19:41, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

1st Crusade and Cannibalism
I've just finished watching "Christianity: A History - Part 04 of 08 - The Crusades" on YouTube, apparently it was broadcast in the UK (Channel 4) earlier in 2009. This episode states unequivocally that Cannibalism occurred in the 1st Crusade, and that this is confirmed by both Islamic and Crusader sources.

The claim can be seen in this YouTube clip starting at about 1:00. The presenter appears to be reading from a "Crusader" source, but he does not identify the source.

I'm not certain that this is strong enough to readmit the discussion of cannibalism just yet into the article, but it was worth putting here in the Discussion section for review. Manning (talk) 06:03, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As a general rule, everything on TV is crap, especially historical documentaries. TV producers are not interested in facts, but in entertainment. However, according to our own article on the Siege of Ma'arrat al-Numan, he is reading Ralph of Caen, who was not present on the crusade. It looks suspiciously like the presenter's source was actually our Wikipedia article, but of course he left out the "some people say..." bit. Ralph is not so unequivocal. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:08, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Eek - I had not seen the Siege of Ma'arrat al-Numan article. After reading it I suspect you are correct. Manning (talk) 13:12, 21 May 2009 (UTC)


 * The programme was presented by a Muslim journalist, not a historian. The whole series was awful, and riddled with opinion and inaccuracies. There is no solid attribution to this story.  Xan  dar  22:18, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Cannibalism did occur and here is western historian, Geraldineit Heng in her work Cannibalism, the first crusade, and the genesis of medieval romance discusses it, "In December 1098 seven months before the capture of Jerusalem by the militia of the First Crusade, Ma'arra an-Numan-a city in northern Syria was sacked and it inhabitants put to the sword, one instance among many of the massacre of Muslims and cultural others enacted in the course of the holy-war-cum-pilgrimage. At Ma'arra however, according to three surviving eye witnesses histories of the First Crusade written independently by Latin participants, the unthinkable happened: the crusaders roasted and ate the flesh of enemy corpse, an act of such unvitiated horror that all three chronicles are immediately driven to defend the cannibalism by invoking extreme famine as exigent explanation." (102-100, 1998)--Saab 1989 (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Title: Cannibalism, the first crusade, and the genesis of medieval romance. Authors: Heng, Geraldine Source: Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies; Spring98, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p98, 77p Document Type: Article Subject Terms: *KINGS & rulers *BOOKS GREAT Britain Reviews & Products: HISTORY of the Kings of Britain, The (Book) Abstract: Focuses on the contents of the book `History of the Kings of Britain,' by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Legend of King Arthur in literature; Vocabulary of romance; First crusade and the contigent of horror; King Arthur's materialization at the vanishing point of historical narration; Definition of romance. ISSN: 10407391 Accession Number: 1524741

Url:http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=11&sid=4a12837a-f110-418e-9fc9-9869c94d4811%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=1524741

PDF version of the article: I am sharing with you VIA filefront, URL: http://www.filefront.com/16575527/Cannibalism%2C%20the%20first%20crusade%2C%20and%20the%20genesis%20of%20medieval%20romance..pdf --Saab 1989 (talk) 13:47, 28 May 2010 (UTC)


 * The "three surviving eye witnesses" would be of interest. Having said that, the "famine" defense did seem credible when realizing that the European armies were used to "living off the land." when afield in Europe. There was, most likely, no "Quartermaster General" anticipating their food needs in Palestine, a less arable place.


 * Army-wide cannibalism out of nowhere, does not seem credible IMO. Where would they have derived that cultural practice? Europeans were not known to be cannibals. It does seem ad hominem, with no context and no named witnesses.


 * Nearly all invaders have been accused of the most horrid atrocities since the beginning of time. This is one of the earliest wars from which we have much documentation. I can remember the propaganda from WWII. There was nothing the Japanese weren't accused of. And some of them they actually did (Nanking, for example). But mostly they were just ferociously combative, usually nothing much worse than that.Student7 (talk) 16:41, 30 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Also, this quote, by itself, is not necessarily good enough for the article. We are not questioning the fact that people claimed there was cannibalism, that is clear enough from the various primary sources. But that does not mean it is 100% true that it was. I don't think we should quote anybody who says it is definitely true or definitely not true. There are many reasons why someone would claim that, and we must always be aware that with most of the primary sources for the crusades (and even some of the secondary...and sometimes even the tertiary), we are reading literature, not purely history. The title of Heng's article (about the "genesis of romance") suggests that the cannibalism is a literary device, and if we read the entire thing, her argument will probably be more nuanced that the sample quote that has been pasted here. (I have not read it myself, but I will try to do so.) Adam Bishop (talk) 03:16, 31 May 2010 (UTC)


 * Ah, I see what's going on, she is saying that the accounts of cannibalism during the crusades were borrowed by the authors of Arthurian legends. That's pretty interesting. And she mentions a bunch of other places were crusader cannibalism is mentioned, aside from the usual two or three chronicles. That's pretty good, we could use that as a source, although it might still be better to refer to regular crusade historians; I thought someone else wrote about cannibalism recently but I can't think of who it is at the moment. (There is another pdf version [www.utexas.edu/cola/files/308838 here], by the way.) Adam Bishop (talk) 15:05, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Suggested change to the first sentance of the article
Although I am a long time Wikipedia reader and editor I have never gotten around to creating an account. Hence no permission to edit this page.

Reading the page for the first time I feel the introduction lacks some immediate indication of the period, and length of time, during which the Crusades took place. To this end I would like to suggest altering the first sentence from:

The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged by much of Latin Christian Europe against external and internal opponents.

to:

The Crusades were a series of religion-driven military campaigns waged over nearly 200 years, between 1095 and 1272, by much of Latin Christian Europe. The campaigns were waged against both external and internal opponents.

Chris Scott ( 187.24.4.142 (talk) 15:16, 26 May 2009 (UTC) )


 * Nice and precise. I like it. Made the change. Thanks. Student7 (talk) 18:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)


 * But the crusades didn't end in 1272...in the broadest definitions of "crusade" they went on even up to the 18th century. The date of 1272 limits the crusades to the Near East against the Turks/Arabs. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:10, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes. This article covers the crusades up until the 15th Century, so the lead sentence had to be changed. The Crusades in the holy Land actually ended in 1291 with the Fall of Acre, and other crusades in Eastern Europe and Spain lasted until the 15th Century. I have altered the lead sentences to reflect this. If we include Rhodes and Lepanto, of Course, that would take us to the 1570s. The Siege of Vienna was in the 17th Century, but I don't think was considered part of the Crusades.  Xan  dar  23:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

England Flag No this is St Georges Cross
The red cross on the white background is Saint Georges Cross, used as the flag of the British and incorporated in the the flag of the UK but is not England's Flag. This is miss leading and should be labeled as St. Georges Cross, which was the standard used during the Crusades by some. 71.138.18.91 (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC) CARollson71.138.18.91 (talk) 09:58, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
 * I don't think I understand your comment. As far as I can tell, we do not mention the English flag in the article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 11:25, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

Point of information: the red cross of St George on a white ground (shown as an illustration in the article) is used as the flag of England. It also forms the dominant emblem in the flag of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland, the Union Flag or (colloquially) the 'Union Jack', superimposed on the cross of St Andrew (of Scotland) and St Patrick (Ireland). The badge of a red cross sewn on the breast or shoulder appears to have been used both by later English crusaders and and was used by English soldiery in Europe until the 17th century. St Georges flag as an English national emblem has seen a revival in popularity since its mass-adoption by supporters of the English national football team in the 1990sJF42 (talk) 13:13, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Personal interpretation is unscholarly and unreliable
Came here for some facts but there is a lot of "personal interpretation" of motives in this article which i find unscholarly and therefore unreliable —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.253.11.141 (talk) 08:31, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Like what? Adam Bishop (talk) 14:55, 31 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Maybe stuff like, "On a popular level, the first crusades unleashed a wave of impassioned, personally felt pious Christian fury that was expressed in the massacres of Jews that accompanied the movement of the Crusader mobs through Europe, as well as the violent treatment of "schismatic" Orthodox Christians of the east."? This seems over the top, particularly with no citation. In addition, the use of the word, "mobs", in this and the next sentence appears to have a defamatory intent. As others have stated, emphasizing atrocities on one side over the other gives the impression of bias.RRJP (talk) 06:04, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

This Wikipedia article currently states: "Local Christians assassinated Yaghisiyan, former ruler of the city". A Christian is a follower of Christ. What is the source that proves that the people who assassinated Yaghisiyan were following Christ? - Servant David (talk) 04:27, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * They were Armenians, according to the Gesta Francorum (a Christian source, pg 48 of Rosalind Hill's translation) and Ibn al-Athir (a Muslim source, pg 15 of vol. 1 of D.S. Richard's translation). If you're trying to make the point that people who follow Christ wouldn't kill someone...well, that's great, but that's not how it really works. They were Armenian Christians and probably wouldn't have been too concerned what you thought about it. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)


 * By the way, I mention those two because they happen to be online, but Raymond of Aguilers and William of Tyre say they were Armenians. Raymond and the author of the Gesta were eyewitnesses, too. It would be interesting to see if Matthew of Edessa says anything about it, since he was also Armenian (although not an eyewitness). Adam Bishop (talk) 15:08, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Tobby72's addition
Tobby, I see that it was not some random website as I first thought, but Mackay's book online; nevertheless, it is inappropriate to quote a particular number of casualties because we simply do not know how many people participated or died. It is also inappropriate to describe the events as murders or atrocities. The crusades have been politicized everywhere else; let's just stick to the facts here (I know the article isn't great at the moment but let's not make it worse!). We can certainly say, for example, that according to Mackay 2 million people died, but since he pulled that number out of thin air it would be more useful to explain why the numbers are actually unknown. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:16, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tobby, you didn't do anything that time except take out the specific number of 2 million. The section would be far better if it was nothing but the 2 million quote from Mackay! But here are the real problems: First, Mackay was not an historian, and his book is from 1841. Second, Time magazine is not a valuable source. The first Time article is from 1930, and is a book review of Harold Lamb, who like Mackay was not an historian. By quoting this on Wikipedia we are five steps removed from any useful information. The other article is hardly any better. The Britannica and Jewish library sources are probably okay, but still, the whole section doesn't exactly improve an already poor article. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Incorrect link under "See also"
Currently, the link to "Khalil" retrieves the page for an R&B singing group.

The link should be to: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Al-Ashraf_Khalil —Preceding unsigned comment added by Littleoracle (talk • contribs) 19:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Catalonia state and map of Iberia
Catalonia did not exist at the time of the crusades. That territory was part of the kingdom of Aragon and did not have a state. The "maritime states" were city states and catalonia was not a maritime state neither a city state. The map is wrong and tendentious so it does not show the kingdom of Aragon and asimilates the city of Barcelona to catalonia, a political entity that did not exist at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.58.223.2 (talk) 00:10, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Burckhardt's idea
Just added an observation by Burckhardt. The crusaders were attempting to seize back memorial cathedrals commemorating various places holy to Christendom. Without this identification, of course, there would nothing but open ground which is hard to justify a war over. Initially it was pilgrims visiting these sites, whose visits were obstructed. Without the sites, maybe no war. Student7 (talk) 21:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Hmm...I'm not sure if that's particularly relevant. Burkhardt wasn't really an historian, especially not of the crusades, and shouldn't we strive to include only the best expert opinions? What Burkhardt thought of the crusades might make an interesting essay or article, but it seems unnecessary here. This quote is also rather simplistic and at the same time a bit of a stretch. Any event in the previous thousand years could be seen as a cause of the crusades. Of course the fact that there were Christian churches there had something to do with it, but then so did the fact that Jesus was crucified there, and that the Muslims conquered the land; to pick Constantine's building projects as the cause is completely arbitrary and not very insightful. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's face it, with open fields, unidentifiable cities (except Jerusalem), Palestine would not have been a serious objective for any but the most determined pilgrims. The area was in ruins when Helena found it and the sites not really identified that well, most likely. Another 700 years, forget it! And Jacob Burckhardt, is, of course, a historian. Was he a specialist? Yes. Does that make him, automatically, unreliable when he speaks of another time? Rather, being keenly aware of the factors in Constantine's day, he is much more aware of the effect of that era on the future. That was his point in focusing on that time IMO.Student7 (talk) 11:41, 14 September 2009 (UTC)

Massacre at Acre
In the section about the Third crusade it says:

"Richard the Lionheart promised to leave noncombatants unharmed if the city of Acre surrendered. The brutality of an outnumbered army in a hostile land could be seen again when the city surrendered and Richard proceeded to massacre everyone, despite his earlier promise"

Yet in the main Siege of Acre article I find no mention of this massacre, in fact it says:

"On July 12, the city once more offered terms of surrender to the Crusaders, who found their offer acceptable this time. Conrad of Montferrat, who had returned to Tyre because of Richard's support for Guy of Lusignan as king of Jerusalem, was recalled to act as negotiator, at Saladin's request. Saladin was not personally involved in the negotiations, but accepted the surrender. The Christians entered the city and the Muslim garrison was taken into captivity."

Seems like both articles are contradicting each other, so wich one is correct? --Anselm (talk) 03:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)


 * If you read a little further down, the Siege of Acre article has a separate section about the massacre. He executed a few thousand prisoners, not the entire city; so this article is actually the incorrect one (surprise surprise). Adam Bishop (talk) 04:30, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
 * It seems so, I changed that part to read as follows: "Richard the Lionheart occupied the city of Acre and took the entire muslim garrison under captivity, which was executed after a series of failed negotiations" Sounds good? --Anselm (talk) 20:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

muslim crusade of 8th century
why does the islamic invasion of christian europe through spain and portugal in the early part of the 8th century always get a pass when it comes to the atrocities done in the name of god.this was 300 years before the christian crusades into the middle east and no one ever talks about how the muslims tried to conquer europe in the name of allah and convert everybody,especially the culture,to islam.they failed but they did occupy the iberian penisula for hundreds of years.invading and conquering in order to impose your religious beliefs onto others is a crusade.


 * I actually do agree with you. When I was younger I always heard, by school and people generally, that the crusades where an especially terrible act by Christians. But as I have learned more about history, I have found that this is just another lie (by the European culture radical elite?). In the start the "Western world" was Christian, until the 7th century, when Muhammad came to be. From the 7th century up until like the 17th century the muslims conquered North Africa, the Middle East, Anatolia, for a period Iberia and the Balkans. This has seen no substantial critisism, however the short period when the Christians tried to fight offensively back against the increasing pressure from Islam, that is like one of the worst crime in human history. This is obviously something that can't be done anything about on Wikipedia, I just wished to comment what you said. Regards, -GabaG (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

The muslims actually just came as trders at first, and then naturally the religion spread. You know, converting, just like it is today. The muslims mistreating the europeans in their current land was after a Sunni ruler took over from a Shia leader, after some Sunni's decided that Shia are not muslim. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.128.93.144 (talk) 16:12, 1 December 2009 (UTC)


 * (out of sequence answer to out of sequence editor above). The Jews and Christians were second class citizens under Muslim rule, which was originally imposed by violence. They either played along (and converted) or did not prosper. Most chose to "convert." While not at a point of a sword, it was still coerced. Student7 (talk) 15:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Remember this is not a discussion forum, limit the discussion about how to improve this article, not to start a debate about how people see the crusades and it's causes. --Anselm (talk) 01:12, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I know, I just couldn't help myself when I saw the post. Thought it deserved a response, sorry. Regards, -GabaG (talk) 00:15, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
 * I understand, but really this is a sensitive topic and it seems quite a few off-topic discussions have already erupted in the past so let's try not to open another can of worms if we can help it. --Anselm (talk) 01:11, 13 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok, here is how the article can be greatly improved. Add a section talking about the Islamic crusades of the 8th century and the Islamic crusades of the 16th and 17th centuries, with links to the Sieges of Vienna in 1529 and 1683.  In its current form the article is shamefully bias against Europeans.  To be fair and complete the article must address the Islamic crusades.Ranp (talk) 02:21, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Those aren't "crusades". Obviously Muslim expansion is a root cause of the crusades (and is that not already in the article?), but there is no definition of "crusade" that would include the Muslim conquests. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:18, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * It's just barely in there. Overall the Crusades are presented as totally evil while Muslim Conquest are presented as just another story in history.  So how is it that a defensive war against aggression is evil yet the aggression itself is not seen as evil?  The article quotes Sir Steven Runciman saying, "High ideals were besmirched by cruelty and greed … the Holy War was nothing more than a long act of intolerance in the name of God". OK, but we both know that no religion has been as cruel and intolerant as Islam.  Please make the article fair and balance and reflective of actural history.  As a Christian I thank God for the Crusaders, they did save Europe from Islam.65.197.90.162 (talk) 18:41, 25 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but you have a very narrow world view. No matter what the situation is today, many streams of Islam were, as religions go, fairly tolerant for quite a while. Check out Albigensian Crusade ("Kill them all, God will know his own") or the Northern Crusades for your "defensive" theory. And it's quite doubtful if the Crusades "saved Europe". By the time of the first Crusade, the Reconquista in Spain was well underway, the Normans had taken Sicily, and the low point of the Byzantine Empire, the Battle of Manzikert, was nearly a generation in the past. In fact, the 1204 sack of Constantinople (by Venice and the 4th Crusade) permanently weakened Byzantium, helping the Turkish (and only incidentally Islamic) expansion into the Balkans. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:11, 29 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Steven, your reply to my statements was to list evils of the Crusadors while noting that Islam is so tolerant. My you never have to endure such peace and tolerance.  But, you made my point.  So again, why are the Crusadors specially and Christians in general presented as evil while the Islamic invasions are present as just another story in history?  When the Muslims invaded Spain, France, Austria, etc., were they passing out flower?  Wow, the Turks were only "Incidentally Islamic"!  Anyway, there is still a great inbalance in the presentation of the materials.Ranp (talk) 15:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Simplisitic ideological arguments are not going to fix this article's problems. Islam and Christianity are both tolerant and intolerant depending on the situation and the time period; it's unnecessarily inflammatory to say that one saved somewhere from the other. The "defensive theory", by the way, is hardly Ranp's idea, it is one of the theories to explain the origins of the crusades, and goes back to the original crusaders themselves. (The Albigensian and Northern Crusades have nothing to do with that, obviously.) Adam Bishop (talk) 16:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree that what Ranp was trying to argue was just shifting this article from one point of view to another, but I also agree that a little more information should be given on the reasons why the crusades happened besides the religious fervor, just like land and power grab were reasons for the Albigensian Crusades and the fact that the pagan peoples of the Baltic had been in conflict with the Christian kingdoms since long before the Northern Crusades. As for "Saving Europe from the Muslim invasions" yeah that's a stretch, however after the crusader states fell the Ottoman Empire did attempt to many times to invade Europe and the Hospitallers, later know as the Knights of Rhodes and Malta, which were formed during the crusades contributed a great deal in gaining decisive victories against the Ottomans, most famously during the Siege of Malta. Which do you feel *are* this article's problems then by the way, Adam? I don't really know much about the topic and I don't like getting into heated discussions, but still i wanted to voice my thoughts.--Anselm (talk) 05:14, 3 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The problems are kind of intangible, in the sense that it is just one of those articles about a subject that has attracted both scholarly and popular interest on a very large scale. And since non-scholars always outnumber scholars on Wikipedia, I just find it impossible to maintain an article like this. Even just reading the last few talk-page discussions I've been involved in, it's obvious that popular and scholarly concerns are not the same. It might be fairly easy to academic-ize this article, if everyone else stopped editing it, but that's not going to happen. I'm sorry I can't be any more clear than that; and what do I know anyway, as far as Wikipedia is concerned I'm just some guy (and a pompous one who likes to make sweeping statements instead of doing anything useful...) Adam Bishop (talk) 22:13, 6 October 2009 (UTC)
 * You (Ranp) miss-read nearly everything that I wrote. Please read it again. "The Muslims", over a period of nearly a millennium, are a very diverse group. The Arabs and arabized Berbers that invaded Spain in 711 are very different from the Mameluks who beat back the 7th Crusade and the Mongols, which are very different again from the Ottomans that conquered the Balkans. And yes, the Turks, like the (non-Islamic) Magyars and (only later Islamized) Mongols (not to mention the Huns and the Tartars) were one of several waves of steppe invaders primarily in it for the land and power grab. And who claims "good" and "evil"?--Stephan Schulz (talk) 16:57, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Academic would be nice. Just so long as it is readable. Or is that an oxymoron? :) With continued interest in schools and tv about the topic, this article will always be "under siege" as far as pov theories are concerned, but I think editors have been handling this well. (do I dare say it? -) We seem to have lost the real vandals we used to get inundated with. I suppose the article is semi-protected.Student7 (talk) 18:13, 8 October 2009 (UTC)

I think one of you guys should start another page on Muslim Holy wars, and/or one on Muslim expansionism. I agree the Muslim Holy wars are overlooked in modern culture, and because in the US Christian's are a majority no one really seems to care, but the Christians themselves. Almost like a sub-conscious prejudice? Crazyhistory (talk) 23:57, 5 May 2010 (UTC)


 * What is that supposed to mean? If you had bothered to spend even one second looking, you would see that Wikipedia already has plenty of articles about the Muslim conquests. Try that page and the dozens of links to specific areas of expansion. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:42, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

Error in the Third Crusade section
"In 1187, Saladin, Sultan of Egypt, conquered Jerusalem after being over a hundred years under Christian rule..." Actually Jerusalem was under Christian rule only since 1099, which is less than 90 years. 128.139.226.34 (talk) 15:56, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
 * Fixed. Thanks. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 18:18, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Suppressing Piracy and the Slave Trade as a cause and effect:
Why no mention of the political and economic consequences of eliminating the pirate threat by conquering their home ports. Venice was a major sea power and certainly not impartial but they didn't have an army. Every country on the Mediterranean must have profited from the reduction in pirate attacks and slave raids. Merely facilitating the pilgrims travel plans does not explain the vast economic investment that fielding so many crusades would have required. The ships carrying them obviously carried profitable goods back to Europe. The fact that the last crusade attempted coincided with the destruction of the Silk Road countries by Genghis Khan and that this disruption of the profitable Asian caravan trade made any future crusades economically unfeasible should be mentioned as a contributing cause to the end of the crusades. Ironduty2 (talk) 23:22, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but do you have any sources? And what pirates are you talking about? I'm not aware that there were more pirates or slave traders operating from palestine than from other (Christian or Muslim) ports at that time. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:38, 20 October 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, what pirate threat? And the crusaders (especially the Italians) certainly took part in the slave trade, so there was no concern for suppressing it. Also, Genghis Khan and the "last crusade attempted" (whichever one that might mean) do not really coincide. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:26, 21 October 2009 (UTC)

Citation Style
I've added the tag to this article as the article uses references frequently to explain the text rather than cite sources. Also, several sources are lacking page numbers and are ambiguous and not useful. Toddst1 (talk) 19:42, 1 November 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree that cites should contain page numbers.


 * Some Wikipedians don't like footnotes which are found at the bottom of the page. These are often used to explain text. Of course, these footnotes could be placed directly into the text. Usually, though, there is a reason for being footnoted - they are tedious, though accurate; they are pedantic; there is too much information already, etc. I'm not sure that all text footnotes should be moved to the article text. I don't consider them citation violations per se. Student7 (talk) 18:47, 4 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Missing page numbers is bad, but I don't understand the opposition to supplementary text in the footnotes. I've encountered this complaint on the Featured Article Candidates page too. Academic books do that all the time. My favourite is Hagenmayer's edition of Fulcher of Chartres, which has a footnote that goes on for a couple of pages, leaving the actual text with only two or three lines at the top of the page. (An edition of a primary text might be different than an article like this, but actual books and articles also do it.) Adam Bishop (talk) 19:23, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, nothing wrong with footnotes. Some articles separate footnotes and references, though. Its technically possible, but somewhat ugly. See global warming for an example. Page numbers are desirable, but problematic, as they depend on editions and translations...I think my copy of Runciman is a German paperback omnibus edition, for example. Page numbers will be different from the English hardcover, for example. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 20:16, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
 * Just ran across the same thing in another article. It uses to separate text footnotes. Note that this one had to be forced to tag "E", a heck of a thing that there is no automatic resequencing. Like Stephan Schultz, I find it is inelegant. Student7 (talk) 17:45, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

great job
you guys are way better than wiki answer boy they are mean —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.108.164.67 (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

War of Barbastro
Nothing is said in the article about the war of Barbastro, which is assumed to be the first time that a crusade took place. I think it should be cited here at least as an prececent to he crusades to Holy Land. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.172.79.147 (talk) 11:19, 8 March 2010 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I've added it under "See alsos." Student7 (talk) 15:15, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Main/first Image
hi guys. for a long time i have been thinking of that first(main picture or whatever) is not suitable. OK it is very nice but it doesnt show spirit of crusades. And because it is being used in Crusades page, it isnt put on first crusade page, which i think it is to be placed there. I am of opinion that this picture should be shown: http://www.harunyahya.org/kitap/tapinak_sovalyeleri/res/17.jpg It more clearly points the situation. Muslim soldier at defence, a crusader attacking. I am a Turk and the picture was taken from Turkish internet address. Unfortunately, i couldnt find orginal version. because the picture isnt so quality as it is now and it has frames, which doent seem so nice. Does anybody know where that pic come from? I suggest to use that one and replace Antioch picture to first crusade...--Yetjanissary (talk) 02:58, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Was the Spanish Armada officially a crusade?
It's my understanding that it was declared to be so by the Pope, but I'm struggling to find reference to it as such. Anyone know for sure / able to point to the relevant Bull? Ender&#39;s Shadow Snr (talk) 10:21, 6 May 2010 (UTC)


 * It may have had all the language and symbology of a crusade (indulgences, blessing of the banner which had a cross on it), but I'm not sure where the Sixtus V specifically mentioned all this. There is probably a letter in his register somewhere. Try Christopher Tyerman's "England and the Crusades", which has a bit about the Armada (pages 360-362, apparently, although I can't view those pages on Google Books), and "The Spanish Armada: The Experience of War in 1588" by Felipe Fernández-Armesto. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:26, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

"After losing"
"After losing the war, Tokhtamysh ..."

Is it grammatically correct, or does it need to be changed to "Having lost the war, ..."?

VZakharov (talk) 11:58, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

Either version would be grammatically correct.Ordinary Person (talk) 11:56, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

What benefits to europe did the wars have
The crusades failed but what benefits to europe did the wars have? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.161.11.81 (talk) 08:29, 15 June 2010 (UTC)


 * This is ostensibly covered in Crusades. "Ostensibly" because the word "crusade" has been extended to cover Albigensian, and just about any other war that Europe was involved in for several hundred years. The Albisgensian "Crusade" was successful BTW - the Albigensians stamped out! Maybe some of the others, too.

Peter the Hermit
Why is this spell-binding orator missing from the first crusade?

Peter the Hermit is actually part of a pre-crusade

Lack of attention to Crusader states
Perhaps it's in the articles relevant to each individual crusader state, but some of the missing context could be filled in by making reference to some key facts about the organization of these European fiefs in the Mideast: Jerusalem, County of Antioch, Acre, Tyre, etc. One thing that's of extreme relevance and interest is that the administration and bureaucracy of these states was almost overwhelmingly still Muslim, that only the rulers changed. Muslims and Jews remained in positions of administrative importance throughout the entire period of Christian rulership of these regions. There were simultaneous administrations of multiple religious systems of law, as in some other states like Norman Sicily - which would have been impossible without Muslim and Jewish scholars around to sort out which law applied to who and when.

The continued existence of these states, once established, created a rationale for further crusading to defend them. This was of course a main reason why the Muslim rulers eventually eliminated them completely, as they represented an ongoing threat of European interference.

Occupation: NPOV
The introduction describes" "Muslims who had occupied the near east since the time of the Rashidun Caliphate".

Hmmm... is it strictly NPOV to describe this as an occupation? Just asking.Ordinary Person (talk) 11:55, 25 July 2010 (UTC)


 * Are we looking for "resided" here? As always, there is the suggestion, as there always is, of who was "entitled" to be there. Nowdays, we figure a generation or two at the most. But China invaded Tibet on a several hundred year old "entitlement" claim. And the "Muslims" could have been non-Arabs whose ancestors converted and had lived there "forever" as it were. I agree that the word "occupied" merits some thought. Student7 (talk) 16:37, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Palestine linked to its own page?
All the other nations are, and Palestine isn't, what gives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 161.184.156.105 (talk) 08:01, 3 September 2010 (UTC)


 * It has always been a vague name. More vague then since the rulers didn't call it that. It was some administrative district ruled from Egypt. The Crusaders intended for the name to mean the "three areas known as Palestine." Linking to the current article on Palestine would be more confusing than enlightening IMO. Student7 (talk)

La Reconquista
It should be noted that some campaigns in the Reconquista (781 year war between the spanish and portuguese christians against the islamic mooors in the iberian peninsula) were granted the official status of crusades by the popes at that time. For instance, the campaign that concluded in the battle of Las Navas de Tolosa was granted the status of crusade by Pope Innocent III. The same can be said for the Battle of Río Salado. The Reconquista, and these battles in particular, should receive some lines in this article.--Knight1993 (talk) 23:50, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Siege of Jerusalem
I would propose that the entire text of siege of Jerusalem part should be edited. The conclusions of the events and quotations are based on arabic history books. Islamic literature often alters the real events that took place to a more pleasent one for the islam, why i see the entire text as unserious. The first sentence for example "The Jews and Muslims fought together to defend Jerusalem against the invading Franks" is incorrect. Islamic forces occupied Jerusalem before and repulsed jews or forced them to convert. I doubt that these repulsed Jews fought together with their supressors.

iam working on a text, but i doubt that i can handle these complexe and sensibel issue alone. i would be thankfull for any helps and cooperation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * If all Jews were expelled, please explain how Jewish letters post-dating the siege by only a few months state Jews were among those held ransom by the Crusaders. One of these letters is known as the Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon. There were so many Jews held captive that the normal going ransom of 100 dinars for 3 people was scrapped. They wanted to get rid of them as fast as they could. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 17:06, 14 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I could imagine that this had to do with the attitude against the islam. The letter you mentioned is written in arabic judaeo. I would like to use the expression of an islamic-jewish writting. It is no secret that the islam tried and tries to get a food in every part of life and in every civilization. But an other question: Why have the christians been in Jerusalem? To slaughter or enslave Jews? I guess it had more to do with the believing of freeing Jerusalem and the original jewish and christian population from islamic occupation. Even during medieval the christian and jewish believing shared a lot in common, when you take the anti jewish progroms in Europe to this time. Logic tells us that it is neccessary first that jews must have been living there before it got to a point of progroms. This is fact one. Fact two is: Whenever christians left Europe for battling the Islam not everyone followed, and exactly during these times when those men who left europe to battle the Islam, anti-jewish progroms started. The logical conclusion of this would be that those who stood behind never had an intention to protect christian border countries or freeing jerusalem. If they had no intention of defending "home" why do they stood behind? maybe they already seen that the islam is spreading in their own towns, like it is today, and wanted to defend the towns itself. Or maybe because they never had a problem with the islam. And if you ask me which christians had the intention of getting rid of jews, the answer would be "the ones who never had a problem with the islam" for whatever reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.220.221.150 (talk • contribs)


 * I cannot understand what point you are trying to make. How does this relate to questioning whether Jews actually helped Muslims defend Jerusalem from the Crusaders?


 * I have reverted your edits because you did not allow time for other users to weigh in on the issue before deleting cited material from the article. Your personal belief that Islamic records are biased is not a valid reason for making such changes. You need to provide evidence that the information consulted by the author of the cited work is unreliable. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 03:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

I guess you have the believe that crusaders came to jersualem to conquer the land. With my text i only wanted to explain that christanity and judaism share the same believings, and that jews never been the target of crusades. Jerusalem was taken by Force by the Islam before. Therefore they occupied Jerusalem. Jews who lived there suffered from islamic occupation. Crusaders battled the islam. When you say that jews and moslems defended together jerusalem you ignore the occupation of the islam and create a pleasent lie that is only your personal belief. when a person occupies your home and is holding you hostage, then police comes trying to free you, you dont battle police together with the one who is helding you hostage. i will not allow your false logical conclusion to make of victims and offenders, victims = jews..... offenders = moslems....... two victims. and you do this when you say that jews and moslems defended jersualem together. of course the intention of moslems is to alter their status of an offender to a victim. but logic and the truth will alwys prevent such lies. i will always edit any changes of yours to seperate victims and offenders. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.52.167 (talk) 07:43, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Sorry, but your history is extremely spotty. "Islam" had conquered Jerusalem in 638, more than 450 years (15 generations!) before the first Crusade. Your claim is as absurd as expecting American Indians to help Bin-Laden bombing Manhattan to throw out the evil invaders. But what is more, under Constantine "the great", the first Christian emperor of Rome, Jews where banned from Jerusalem. This ban was upheld for 300 years, and Jews where only allowed back into the city after the Muslim conquest. So why would they feel particularly friendly to Christians? In fact, not even the Orthodox Christian and Monophysite Christians were thrilled at the prospect of schismatic western barbarians overrunning the near East. Anyways, we go with what reliable scholars say. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Christians and Jews lived together without any Wars or Battles, they even created during medieval languages like the Yiddish or ladino. There have been Anti-Jewish Progroms, but mostly from Citizens who keep theirself away from Crusades. I dont like persons who create a picture of an enemy between judaism and christianity and telling that judaism and islam fought together. This is unrealistic and out of history an absolute lie. I dont know why everyone stages the islam, christianity and judaism on the same level. But alone that the circumcision as an initial ritual in islam or circumcision as a love proof from a christian, hindu, buddhistic or jewish women to her islamic partner tells me the islam doesnt belong to any categorie related to christianity and judaism. Therefore i see how the beheaviour of the islam is in present. Then i look at the Relationsship between Christianity and Judaism today and see that there is no picture of an enemy between christianity and judaism. This is what the Islam wants to create, what the Islam always wanted to created, a struggle in Relationsships. And Persons like you are supporting this lies of equivalent religion. i dout that an indian living in Kashmir will look at you friendly when telling him that the Islam isn evil. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 14:36, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a Soapbox for your personal beliefs. If you can't provide a source that says the reference cited by the author of the work you keep altering is unreliable, you have no basis for deleting the material from the page. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * Indeed. Santiago84, did you even read what I wrote? Whatever the relations between religions (or splinter groups claiming to speak for them) may be today, they were very different a thousand years ago. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:00, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Take the bible, its an old text that says that jews, judaism and israelis themself suffered from persecution, torture, slavery etc. by pre islamic force. And this is source enough.... i will not be part of a lie that is created to make the islam equivalent to judaism and christianity. The entire background and beheaviour of the islam stands in absolut opposition to christianity or judaism. and the neutrality of the page "crusade" and other pages is not granted because the islam recieves a status of a victim together with judaism. and christians are the invaders and agressors. this is wrong. Christianity reacted with the Crusades, and Jews suffered from the islamic occupation. and the situation of religions arent that differen a thousand years or two thousand years ago... it is always repeating. Islam concquers, christianity reacts, christianity is the agressor. To look about history the way you look reminds me to ignore the fact that the islam was a responsible part for two world wars and the holocaust. i will end this conversation. truth is constant and immanent and those who create lies or keep them up will fail sooner or later. --Santiago84


 * The bible, in this instance, is not a valid source because it has nothing to do with whether Jews fought along side Muslims against Crusader siege of Jerusalem. A valid source would be, for example, something written by a credentialed Crusade scholar. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 16:19, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * I have left some comments about this at Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (1099). Adam Bishop (talk) 17:17, 15 October 2010 (UTC)


 * As far as the Christians coming to the Holy Land during the Crusades - their intent was to secure the place for Christian pilgrimages. I doubt whether they had taken Jews into consideration at all. It seems unlikely that they even realized Jews (and other minorities including some Christians) were there at all! Their information ("military intelligence") was scanty to the point of being laughable. Student7 (talk) 18:09, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

muslim strongholds in sardinia?
here there is a lot of confusion i read in this article: "The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca and Sardinia, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids."

first) maritime republics of genoa and pisa's expeditions in sardinia were due a request of aid to sardinian giudicati from saracen raids against sardinia

second) sardinia at the time was subdivided in 4 kingdoms (called Giudicati) procteted by genoa, pisa and the Pope, they were all 4 christian kingdoms

third) the only muslim recorded presence in sardinia was a military camp site settled by Mujāhid ibn ʿAbd Allāh al-ʿĀmirī lasted one year between 1015-16 AD, it doesn't mean that sardinia was under muslim control, because like i have written before officially sardinia was subdivided in 4 Giudicati under protection of Pisa and Genoa  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Axe84 (talk • contribs) 03:44, 28 October 2010 (UTC)

The land ownership factor
I would propose this to be inserted in the 'Western European situation' section after the first paragraph:

In early medieval Europe, ownership of agricultural land became heavily monopolized by nobility and church, and often it was inherited only by the oldest son to prevent fragmentation. This caused agricultural stagnation, and land hunger by the non inheriting sons of the nobility. Only in Spain under Muslim administration, the land was slowly taxed away form the rich and redivided under peasants. This caused spectacular reductions in peasant poverty and mortality, and hence a strong population growth. Islam became the faith of choice for many of Spain's poor. Hence, land hunger within the gentry and Islam were increasingly perceived as a threat to the stability of the feudal and papal economy. These factors probably helped to align church and nobility against Islam, and into land conquering adventures to the east.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 08:37, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I think the first two sentences are undoubtedly true, and relevant, although we should probably find a more up-to-date source than Smith. The last part of your suggestion is currently without a source. It's a somewhat surprising statement, at least to me, and thus should be well-supported by secondary sources. Without proper support for the conclusion the middle part seem irrelevant as well. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 13:16, 10 December 2010 (UTC)

OK, seeing the rest of the discussions, this can indeed use some backing up. I have to dig around a bit, will take some time. Thnx, Pieter.Pieter Felix Smit (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm surprised that anyone would consider land ownership by nobility a "recent" invention of the Middle Ages. The land had always been perceived as owned by the local Lord under the preceding Roman government. Personal ownership of land for any length of time and passing it to heirs has got to be a fairly recent phenomenon. Where would you register land title that would be supported by any local government? A stable local government, a relatively literate society, a place of registry, impartial registrars, all these are required. None of these has been available in any measurable quantity until rather recent times. Russians and Chinese have just started to own land individually (at the "peasant" level) for example. Lords owned the land and sometimes parceled it out to people they liked.
 * As far as Muslims are concerned, Lords of all countries tried to oust their neighbors and control their land whenever possible. When Ferdinand ran out of Christian neighbors to attack, he picked on the one that was left. Instead of appealing to a barely-existent nationalism, he was able to construe his enemies as "heretic usurpers." What a gift! Nevermind that the Muslims had been born In Iberia just like Ferdinand had been. So 1) Muslims were in the way of Ferdinand's ambition.2) they got removed. We don't need to look for any subtle reason. Subtlety was not their strong suit! Student7 (talk) 21:25, 12 December 2010 (UTC)

Not "Penance"
In the first paragraph, the last sentence, the word should be "absolution" not "penance". thanks amgrayiv — Preceding unsigned comment added by Amgrayiv (talk • contribs) 20:59, 17 December 2010 (UTC)
 * Thanks for pointing that out. I've changed it to "plenary indulgence" which is more accurate. (Redirects to Indulgence which has an explanation of Plenary indulgence). Student7 (talk) 01:23, 20 December 2010 (UTC)

Deletion of "Other Crusades".
Propose the deletion of the "Other Crusades" section. By the criteria of the lead paragraphs, they do not qualify as crusades. The Stedinger Crusade is particularly egregious as it was against Roman Catholics. This was just a naked land grab, not a crusade. Propose to put all these events into a new article with a "See also" to this article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 12:27, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The definition of a crusade is a military campaign or war declared by the pope to be a crusade. The first and most significant ones were the ones in the Middle East, but the reason that the opponents were not Catholic does not figure into it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:42, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * By your own explanation above, you'd have to agree that as none of the "Other crusades" was "a military campaign or war declared by the pope to be a crusade", then they were not crusades. They were land graps, military adventures etc. Some may have had the approval of Prince-Bishops, acting in their secular capacity, but that does not make them crusades. Were the wars of conquest in the Papal States (as they were later known) by Pope Julian II or the other Borgias crusades? Hardly. Laurel Lodged (talk) 15:38, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Actually, they were. The Wendish Crusade was declared by Pope Eugene III, the Stedinger Crusade by Pope Gregory IX, the Aragonese Crusade by Pope Martin IV, and so on. Sure, they were also land grabs, military adventures, and so on, but that's no different from the major crusades. They were declared as crusaded by a pope, and they are called crusades in the literature. The Borgia campaigns are not - by that time, the role of religion in society had changed, and the instrument no longer fit into it. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Apart from the Wendish campaign, none of the others even mentions the name of the papal bull. There is no citation for that bull. There are no citations for any of the other clamed papal authorisations. Laurel Lodged (talk) 18:24, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact that the the articles are less than perfectly complete is not a valid argument - in particular because our record of history is incomplete to begin with. Gregor IX issued a bull calling for a crusade against the Stedingers in Anagni, on October 29, 1232, although I cannot find the name (but then, AFAIK, not all bulls are named). What's more, we rely on scholarly sources in deciding what to call what. For the Aragonese Crusade see e.g. J.R. Strayer, The Crusade Against Aragon, Speculum 28(1):102-113 or Norman Housey, The Italian Crusades: The Papal-Angevin Alliance and the Crusades Against Christian Lay Powers, 1254-1343, Oxford University Press, 1982. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 22:59, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with Stefan. The name crusade itself derives from crucifix. There were many crusades against Christians such as the ones carried out against the Cathars and Albigenses.--Jeanne Boleyn (talk) 14:40, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I would think that we would want the classical crusades involving the middle east in one article. The others would like to be here to be read by the same readers, but that is why they shouldn't be. They need to stand on their own somewhere. Maybe fork both to "Crusades in Middle East", "Other Crusades." Putting them both together diminishes the impact of what we can say about the Mid-east ones collectively. And they can be, and usually are, treated as a collective group. The others are but scattered "Pretenders to the Name."  :)  Student7 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I agree with most of what user Student7 has written. We need to go with common sense here. We need to put in what people would expect to find when they search for "Crusades". They expect to find the expeditions to the Levant. They expect that they were all explicitly approved by the Pope, so this should be the main article with its current name. I am not attempting to censor or remove the "Other" crusades. They have their place, but not in this article. A "See also" section would be perfectly adequate re-direction for the curious reader. That's what blueline links are for. Let's remove these "Pretenders to the Name" or "Hangers-on to the coattails" to another article. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Do you still maintain that the "other" crusades were not explicitly approved by the Pope? All crusades were part of the same movement, endorsed by the same church and executed, at least in part, by the same people. They had different targets and impacts, but then take a look at the Fourth Crusade (which, BTW, was disendorsed by the Pope, so is it a Crusade?). We should have all of the Crusade movement covered by the main top level article. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:20, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The "Stedinger Crusade" was allegedly called by an archbishop, not the Pope. I've not looked into the other minor ones. Only the numbered crusades (1st to 9th) should be in this article. All others should move to another article. They were not all part of the same movement. There were many complex motives - many venal. The numbered ones at least had a unity of purpose, if not of execution. Laurel Lodged (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2011 (UTC)
 * How do you know what readers expect to see in this article? Should articles only contain information that readers already know? Perhaps readers will come here hoping to read about the crusades to the Middle East, but they may be pleasantly surprised to find that the word was (or is) used for other types of expeditions. They will come away knowing more than they did before, and will not have simply confirmed what they already knew or believed they knew. I don't understand the point of making a bunch of other articles. The "numbered crusades" already have their own articles, as do many other unnumbered ones; the ones with numbers tend to have been called by a Pope, but not all of them, and there were many other major expeditions during the "classic" period that are not numbered and were not called by a pope. Some are currently mixed together with a numbered one; the crusades of Thibaut of Navarre and Richard of Cornwall, for example, were rather separate from the Sixth Crusade, but we don't have an article on those. The "crusade of 1101" is two or three separate crusades mixed into one. The Second Crusade has at least two distinct and essentially unrelated phases. Even the First Crusade wasn't really one single crusade. After the Fourth Crusade there's no consensus on which expeditions should be numbered (we use a scheme that goes up to 9, but that's not the only possibility). Assuming we use 9, they aren't all part of the same movement either. There's hardly unity of purpose in all 9 crusades. They all had complex motives, many venal, and this especially includes the First Crusade at least, if not all the other ones. As Stephan mentioned, where does this leave the Fourth Crusade? In addition, where would this leave the Albigensian Crusade, which is a crusade by any definition? All the crusades should stay in this article, in fact there should be more of them. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:20, 18 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree that the Fourth Crusade is truly strange, but initially approved by the Pope as a "good idea." It went bad and he strongly disapproved. But it is normally counted with the others since their original intent was the Middle East and it wouldn't have happened without that in mind.
 * Note that the old Catholic Encyclopedia kind of supports this division and adds their own for other crusades. Student7 (talk) 23:45, 19 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I strongly believe that any source that begins "The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny." is neither compatible with current scholarly interpretations of history, not with Wikipedia's neutrality requirements. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:00, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It is not your place to say whether Wiki agrees with a source. Wiki is concerned with verifiable sources. Once it's verifiable and not totaly crank, it can go in. If it needs to be offset by other articles on the other side to maintain NPOV, so be it. But do not exclude it because it does not concord with your POV. Laurel Lodged (talk) 00:09, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * It's a book from 1908. It's POV and language are antiquated and its scholarship is highly dubious. Calling Muslims "Mohammedans" alone is, to use your words, a sign of being "totally crank". It has no place here. And it is indeed my place as an editor to evaluate sources and reject unsuitable ones. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 00:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * Heh, actually, that is totally compatible with current scholarly interpretations of the crusades (well, one iterpretation, at least). "Mohammedan tyranny" is a little outdated but otherwise it's not bad. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:27, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * I expected bad things of CE when I first extracted an article from there for Wikipedia. I was pleasantly surprised. There are a few contemporary attitudes which had to be reworded, but I found it nearly modern on commentary on Protestants and Judaism. Most of it is quite scholarly. But it was the split on Crusades that I found interesting and, obviously, from the Catholic Church's pov at the time. Sources can be both pov and usable. We have the option of ignoring the pov parts. I don't find the CE "controversial" at all. I think most of us would either agree with it or not. Usually agree. It's too outdated when it is pov to argue.
 * I don't find the split they had as "controversial." I think it is informative. You either accept it or not and go on to another suggested format. Student7 (talk) 18:03, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * The source is more than 100 years old. When it was printed, the theory of relativity was brand-new, nobody had split the atom, we did not know or think that other galaxies were, well, other galaxies, Werner Heisenberg was about to enter elementary school, Alan Turing's parents probably had not yet met, the Wright Flyer was high-tech, and the Dreadnought had just made all other battle-ships obsolete as the ultimate weapon of all times.  We cannot ignore 100 years of scholarship and treat the 1908 CE like a modern source. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 21:50, 20 January 2011 (UTC)
 * True. We shouldn't use the CE as a basic source here; that would certainly be inappropriate. But it would be useful, for example, if we wanted to illustrate historical ideas about the origin of the crusades (and, in some cases, how these haven't changed). Adam Bishop (talk) 02:30, 21 January 2011 (UTC)


 * Agreed.
 * Please note good faith comment made above, " 'The Crusades were expeditions undertaken, in fulfilment of a solemn vow, to deliver the Holy Places from Mohammedan tyranny.' is neither compatible with current scholarly interpretations of history, not with Wikipedia's neutrality requirements." As Adam Bishop has pointed out, we may need to make use of otherwise solid references but with a pov. These are best used for non-controversial material, but sometimes, surprisingly to support supposedly controversial material, when the reference (CE in this case) admits to papal wrongdoing, for example. Throwing out academically researched and presented material of yesteryear, in its entirety, because we have a broader pov nowdays is not only not a good idea, we can jettison very useful material by painting it with a broad brush labeled "tainted." There are very few formerly recognized academic references that should be totally jettisoned in that manner. Also note, while we would not use it today, the quoted comment above was made in "good faith" by its CE author based on best available material at the time. Few people in the West would have disagreed with that statement at the time. i.e. it was not considered pov in the West when written! Student7 (talk) 13:54, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

There are many hundreds of wiki articles that use the CE as a verifiable source. If user SS wants to launch another "Other crusade" to jettison the CE in its entirety, then he needs to find another forum for that task. Laurel Lodged (talk) 14:32, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Why is it that any transfer of knowledge that may have happened during the Crusades is always described as Xtians having learned from the muslims and never simply as a mutual exchange? If Xtians learned from muslims, is it not logical to surmise that muslims learned from Xtians, too?

Please modify the text here to eliminate bias. Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.162.74.196 (talk) 19:36, 5 April 2011 (UTC)