Talk:First Crusade/Archive 3

Root causes of the First Crusade
I don't intend on getting into to a long, drawn out argument on semantics, but the sentence labeled as nonsense seems to be universally accepted as true. I'm not going to start pulling quotes as there is likely no source that says exactly that or the source won't be good enough. The article Crusading Movement says as much. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:10, 27 December 2022 (UTC)


 * In part this is the result of using dated sources for assertions that modern academics have now discounted. As Asbridge puts it this battle was once considered by some academics to be pivotal, but it is now consider only one of a number of events leading to Turkish control of Anatolia. It is hard to justify the assertion that this was a cause of events that happened two decades later. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:49, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Norfolkbigfish. I have to take issue with your changing the article while it was still under discussion. You posted this and then changed the article 4 minutes later. I'm not going to reverse because I don't want get into a big argument on this. But, your description of Asbridge's view is exactly what the article originally said, which is "was one of the root causes of the First Crusade." That's what "root cause" means. Maybe @Firsteleventh could chime in. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:46, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think that it is a worthwhile piece of context, but appreciate that it is covered in detail in the specific First Crusade entry. Firsteleventh (talk) 18:55, 11 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies @Dr. Grampinator, I thought the thread was dormant. Asbridge's point was that acdemics do not consider Manzikert pivotal or as a particularly significant defeat (I am doing this from memory but I think it is in Crusades-happy to be correted). The article implied the exact opposite. Happy to revert and amend if @Firsteleventh has a different suggestion, but imho I think it reades better without the assertion. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:46, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Did some checking, he puts it ...hostorians no longer consider this to have been an utterly cataclysmic reversal...it still was a stinging setback that presaged notable Turkish gains (p27). I read that as notable, but not a root cause. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:18, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is worth mentioning that "Byzantium" was under pressure (of which Manzikert formed an important part), which led to Alexios Comnenus calling for help in fighting off the Turks. Tom doesn't really give that much weight in his intro, but there is more on p.34 that may be useful. Firsteleventh (talk) 09:08, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Norfolkbigfish, @Firsteleventh. While these discussions are enlightening, you shouldn't make what I consider major changes to stable articles like this without a consensus. The same thing happened with the "secular" discussion, which should not be repeated. Also, I wasn't quite sure what book of Asbridge's you were referencing, but I think it was "The Crusades." And the footnotes at the bottom from a previous discussion make this difficult to follow. Can they be moved somehow?
 * Definition of root cause: "An initiating cause of a chain of events which leads to an outcome or effect of interest." (Wikitionary)
 * Quote from Asbridge, the First Crusade, pg. 97: "In 1071 the Emperor Romanus Diogenes suffered the humiliation of defeat and capture at the hands of the Muslim Turks in the Battle of Manzikert, after which much of Asia Minor fell to Islam and the western frontier became destabilised."
 * So you're saying that Manzikert was not one of the root causes of the First Crusade? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:59, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it is a good call to reach a consensus here before changing anything. Firsteleventh (talk) 18:01, 12 January 2023 (UTC)
 * What I am saying is that Manzikert (or Mantzikert) is notable, but it is a bit of a stretch to argue it was a root cause of the crusades. Asbridge notes that academics have changed their view on the significance of the battle, downgrading it as such, and places it in a continuum of events to set the scene in the 11th century. The battle did not change the status quo, so linking it events of 24 years later doesn't really work. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:42, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Norfolkbigfish, @Firsteleventh. We're just arguing semantics here. But the fact remains that you made the change during a Talk discussion and are refusing to revert to the original. So it doesn't matter what anyone's view is, the change is made and so it will remain. Please don't make it a Request for Comment like you did last time which ended up changing a perfectly good term used by historians based on poorly sourced definitions. Just out of curiously, can you justify your statement: "assertions that modern academics have now discounted" with anything other than an unsourced mention by Asbridge? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:01, 13 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Norfolkbigfish, @Firsteleventh. I made some edits to deleted the other use of "root cause" as it was also confusing and to add Ashbridge's words. Please review and comment. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:40, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dr. Grampinator - a few comments, as you asked:
 * The First Crusade was the response of the Christian world to the expansion of Islam, through the Fatimids and Seljuks, into the Holy Land and Byzantium. is subjective opinion rather than objective fact and as such probably infringes WP:NPOV
 * I don't have a copy of Riley-Smith's The Crusades but have read several of the versions of this article and would be very supprised if he wrote this without greater nuance, qualification and/or context.
 * The root causes of the crusades continue be a source of argument amongst crusade historians (as for everything else, they are a argumentative lot) and if one cause is mentioned the debate and other causes should be as well.
 * As Asbridge put it in his introduction more even handedly A charged and vexatious question remains:did the Muslim world provoke the crusades or were these Latin holy wars of agression? ....in fact, on the basis of all the surviving evidence, the case could be argued in either direction
 * The use of Christian world in this context is misleading, the crusades were not a response of Res publica Christiana, it was the acts of the Latin Church only
 * if the sentence was amended nad sourced (it should be easy) to something like The crusade was the response of the Latin Church to requests for military aid from Alexios I Komnenos to combat the expansion of the Seljuks, into Anatolia the above would not be issues
 * Equally it could be removed entirely without any harm to the article
 * If you want to discus cause explicitly it might be worth carving out a new section to do this. A useful start could be the text you excised:While the root causes are varied and continue to be debated, it is clear that the First Crusade came about from a combination of factors earlier in the 11thcentury in both Europe and the Near East.
 * Romanus's 8 days of captivity doesn't warrant the only time in history a Byzantine emperor became the prisoner of a Muslim commander which is largely irrelevent with regards to the subject of this article
 * The battle was a stinging setback that presaged notable Seljuk gains is WP:Plagarism unless you include in the text you got this from Asbridge
 * He didn't write and contributed to the call for the First Crusade, so this is unsourced. It is wrong as well
 * In a c11,000 word article Manzikert is mentioned three times, once is enough. 3 times is as many times as mosr major works mention it - the Oxford Illustrated, for example, mentions it only once and then just to talk about the use of Mamluks. Hardly indicative of a major cause
 * worried about the advances of the Seljuks in the aftermath of the Battle of Manzikert of 1071 the source doesn't mention that, so it is unsourced and should be deleted
 * Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:45, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Norfolkbigfish, @Firsteleventh. All good comments. I'm glad we're getting away from the snipping and back to improving the article. I'm not going to try to respond to all of them at once as there are quite a few. But here goes:
 * First, I think the term "root cause" should be removed as no one understands it. I don't support a separate section on "Causes..." but think that maybe its own article would be warranted.
 * Absolutely get rid of two of the mentions of Manzikert. I'll do that when I'm done with this post.
 * Agree that the capture of Romanus IV is a little much, but then again so is the deaths of Nizam al-Mulk, Malik-Shah and Al-Mustansir Billah. Romanus is usually mentioned in First Crusade books and it provides a little color. There's a lot in the Historical Context section...some might find it interesting, most will jump to Clermont.
 * We should be able to come up a simple sentence that says what the cause of the First Crusade was. I took a shot at it with: "The First Crusade was the response of the Christian world..." that seems to be understandable. We can play with it, but isn't that the essence? I don't understand why that would be considered my opinion.
 * Wasn't the First Crusade a response of the Christian world which would include both Latin and Greek Orthodox?
 * I seriously oppose bringing in the idea that the First Crusade was a Holy War of aggression on behalf of the West. To me, that's a fringe idea that doesn't belong in an introductory article.
 * More to come after I have time to think. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:27, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

You may both enjoy this piece on that, https://apholt.com/2018/04/15/the-first-crusade-as-a-defensive-war-four-historians-respond/ Firsteleventh (talk) 17:31, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I did enjoy the piece as I have with Holt's other discussions. This is why I miss academics. Some comments:
 * Franke made the following statement: "(and by ‘recent’ I mean from the mid-1080s to early 1090s, not from Manzikurt in 1071, as is often assumed—I think we were all in agreement on that point)", which I'm sure my colleague will focus on. But I would argue that the Crusaders went to liberate Jerusalem, not Nicaea or Antioch (which I'm sure most had not even heard of). Maybe Manzikert was not the end-all/be-all of Byzantine control, but it started the ball rolling. If not it, then what?
 * Going back to Holt's piece, I would note that if the Crusades were defensive, then Christianity has not done a very good job, as Jerusalem was controlled by Christians essentially only from 1099–1187 (and a few others), but has been under the control of Muslims until 1967 when the Israelis took it.
 * To be pedantic (no surely not :-) ) the UK controlled Jerusalem for three decades in the 20th century Mandate for Palestine Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I still contend this argument doesn't belong in Wikipedia, which is for general audiences not academics. An article such as this should summarize more detailed articles when available. Battle of Manzikert states that it "is also interpreted as one of the root causes for the later Crusades, in that the First Crusade of 1095 was originally a western response to the Byzantine emperor's call for military assistance after the loss of Anatolia." which is pretty much was said in the original write-up.
 * Regardless of Urban's intent (which will never be precisely ascertained), the fact is that Jerusalem was taken by a hostile Muslim regime and Byzantium was incapable of protecting pilgrims. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:46, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @Dr. Grampinator-musings only at this point but you hit the, or rather a, nail on the head with the key objective being Jerusalem. When it comes to what set the ball rolling the rise of an assertive, muscular Papacy through the Gregorian Reform is key. Byzantium requested support after Manzikert but there was no response. It again requested support at Piacenza and again there was no response. But when Urban preached at Clermont there was a massive response, perhaps because he preached a Passagium generale to Jerusalem instead? It is worth noting that Jerusalem was under Muslim rule from the 7th century without any great concern. What changed?
 * As for this argument it is normal, and expected, to articulate both sides of any debate in WP, if there is debate. If you wanted to avoid this it would be better to excise the sentence on response for the reasons above and concentrate on objective facts that historians can agree on e.g. Urban preached for a crusade after Alexios asked for military support but Alexios wasn't expecting a crusade, rather a mercenary detachment. That is fairly uncontentious.
 * One last thing, what you and I think is immaterial. What ever the outcome it needs to be closely sourced to a reputable crusade academic or two. There are plenty who discuss this. Personally, I find Asbridge fairly neutral on the matter. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:56, 15 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I will also try to contribute to the topic of whether the crusades were a response of the Christian world and why they happened in that moment. I think the term response fits pretty well. The motivation for the response was of course varied.
 * For Pope Urban II the response seems to have been primarily "long-term" thinking in which he thought that a new era was beginning that had started with the reconquest of Toledo (1085), Southern Italy and Sicily and that would not only reunite formally the Eastern&Western church but also renew Christianity as a whole. I would suggest reading Paul E.Chevedden's "The Islamic View and the Christian View of the Crusades: A New Synthesis" on this topic as well as "Crusade creationism versus Pope Urban II's conceptualisation of the crusades". I would also maintain that the response was of both churches as the crusaders collaborated (at least until after the First Crusade) with both the patriarch of Antioch as well as the patriarch of Jerusalem. On the other hand, Alexios Komnenos responded to the abysmal situation that threatened his rule primarily through the Turks and then by his own noble who were discontent with his handling of it, with him being even called "abandoned by God". For this I would recommend reading Peter Frankopan's Call from the East.
 * Then there is a good amount of people who responded to the tales of suffering Christians were undergoing as reported by pilgrims, soldiers who had been in Byzantine employment and others who had been to the East (e.g. Goibertus of Marmoutier who very probably knew Stephen of Blois and who had been in the reconquered city of Nicomedia just years before the 1st Crusade, see "A relic collector" in Zwischen Polis, Provinz und Peripherie: Beiträge zur Byzantinistischen Geschichte und Kultur). These tales were than exaggerated by Byzantine propaganda as well as in public preaching as possibly seen in the recreation of Urban II's speech at Clermont by the chroniclers of the 1st Crusade. *For many others it was simply convenient. I think here of Bohemond of Taranto who was checked in his ambitions by his half-brother and uncle, Robert II of Normandy who was a disaster as a duke and Godfrey who ruled over a pretty unruly duchy and had had to fight for it a long time.
 * Also, and call me a materialist here, I would assume the years before the call for the crusade were also important. As Conor Kostick in "The Social Structure of the First Crusade" shows, there were many famines and plagues in the years preceding the call, especially in 1094 and 1095, before the situation got better in 1096. Combined with the reports of Guibert of Nogent that there were families with all their livelihood on carts pulled by oxen I think the response to the reports of unrest and violence in the Holy Land and Byzantium motivated people to start going. Together with this is an argument I have no one to quote except myself that it seems to me that for many this could have been a opportunity to gain money by fighting this threat which especially in these times, maybe together with Byzantine propaganda and recruitment offices (see here Frankopan) would have motivated many soldiers to go East. I see this in context with the slogan at Dorylaeum as reported by the Gesta Francorum "Today, if God wants, you will be rich" and Henry of Esch and Baldwin of Hainaut hastening towards Constantinople to claim their share (as recounted by Runciman).
 * Maybe I would phrase the hopefully simple sentence differently, I would possibly leave out the Fatimids. It seems to me that for the majority of the rule of the Fatimids over Jerusalem Western Europe perceived them not as a threat and were fine to go to Jerusalem while it was under their dominion. Only once Jerusalem had been taken in 1073 by the Turk Atsiz do the ideas of a military expedition in the East come up. I would also possibly go as far as stating that it was not a response against Islamic expansion as such as all the dealings of the crusaders with the local Arabs would show (sending an embassy to the Fatimids, writing Duqaq that they did not desire his territory, Godfrey accepting the alliance with the Muslim Emir of Azaz, Omar). Therefore maybe my suggestion would be to write it was the Christian response to the Turkish invasion of the Holy Land and Byzantium. Please do not get me wrong! I am not advocating for bashing the Turks but there arrival there definitively upset the local balance of power. This not only in a political way but also in a economical way as there way of living as nomads with cattle they had to feed was quite distinct from the fairly urbanised societies they encountered there. PontiffSulivahn (talk) 16:46, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Text & map inconsistent?
So, about the Byzantine empire, the text says, “ territorial recovery of the empire reached its furthest extent in 1025.”

But if I’m reading the accompanying map right, a significant portion of modern day Turkey was outside the empire in 1025, but within it by 1081.

Furthermore, the text says it stretched eastward to Iran, but the map (which doesn’t show modern borders) looks to me like it only extended east of Turkey in 1081.

What gives? 2600:6C60:6A00:175:75BA:F824:3C51:8F6 (talk) 15:47, 16 June 2023 (UTC)


 * Map was created by @Amitchell125, I suspect there is a very good answer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:29, 16 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023
Onilaalex (talk) 12:31, 30 June 2023 (UTC) Just to know that the country Walachia participated in the first crusade
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. M.Bitton (talk) 14:19, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 June 2023 (2)
·Walachia

86.122.74.154 (talk) 16:55, 30 June 2023 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:05, 30 June 2023 (UTC)

New map
I'd like to add a freely-licensed map showing where the participants on the First Crusade came from.



It's the outcome of a project that's discussed here

History Matters - Mapping the First Crusaders (sheffield.ac.uk) Charleslincolnshire (talk) 08:19, 13 July 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2023
Lacking military discipline, in what likely seemed to the participants a strange land (Eastern Europe), Peter's fledgling army quickly found itself in trouble despite the fact they were still in Christian territory.[36] The army led by Walter fought with the Hungarians over food at Belgrade,

Austria, Hungary, Serbia etc. are not Eastern Europe, unless you define that as everything that is not Western Europe (aka the NW corner of the continent with Italy and Iberia). The second sentence is a downplaying of events. The Hungarians (Christians) in Zemun were massacred and Belgrade residents (also Christians) fled and both cities were burned down by the crusaders as is stated on the People's Crusade page.

Remove the apologetics, pilgrims regularly passed through this "strange land" earlier on their way to Jerusalem. Change "in what likely seemed to the participants a strange land (Eastern Europe)," to "being outside their lands of origin, Peter's army" or something like that. Add that Zemun and Belgrade were burned down and Christians in at least Zemun were massacred. 78.2.116.124 (talk) 23:16, 22 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Shadow311 (talk) 17:00, 7 December 2023 (UTC)