Talk:Peter the Hermit

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): TheGrandMasterofTheUniverse.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 06:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

why
Why was he called Peter the Hermit? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.183.125.231 (talk • contribs)


 * It's a good question. Our current article is from a 1911 encyclopedia and doesnt go into it. This probably should be explained. Id have to research it, but I believe he was like many poverty striken priests of his time, he gave up all worldly goods and lived a solitary and lowly life, perhaps living off the kindness of strangers, a proto-Franciscan. A poor homeless monk preaching to anyone who would listen. Perhaps called a "hermit" because he once was, or was called thus generally, since he was not part of a monastic community. --Stbalbach 05:43, 16 January 2006 (UTC)


 * According to Runciman, "His contemporaries knew him as Little Peter - chtou or kiokio in the Picard dialect - but later the hermit's cape that he habitually wore brought him the surname of 'the Hermit', bu which he is better known to history." Anna Comnena calls him "Koukoupetros", William of Tyre says "he was known, both in fact and in name, as the Hermit", Guibert of Nogent calls him "a certain Peter the Hermit" who "lived as a hermit, dressed as a monk", and Albert of Aix says he is "Peter by name, formerly a hermit." That's all I have here; we'll have to check the First Crusade chronicles more carefully. (I don't know where Runciman got the cape from, unless he's extrapolating from Guibert's statement, but it would not be surprising if it's just an embellishment he invented himself.) Adam Bishop 07:17, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

Numbers
The article is lacking numeric estimates (crusaders, casualties). This page gives number 300,000 (sourced). I came here to check it and found nothing. Pavel Vozenilek 00:42, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Numeric estimates for the crusades (and for the Middle Ages in general) are usually very difficult. Unfortunately that page is...well, that page sucks. And so do his sources, when he is quoting from other encyclopedias or popular histories. (But partial credit for using the primary sources sometimes, I guess.) Just because something is "sourced" doesn't mean the source is any good. Adam Bishop 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, expected. Pavel Vozenilek 09:31, 17 May 2006 (UTC)

Peter the Hermit, mistake in the date of his death
Pierre did not die in 1131 but the 8 July 1115 in Neufmoutier (Belgium). Peter the Hermit Papydenis


 * Well that's strange...that page has the same 1911 Britannica article as us, but the date is changed to 1115 for some reason. Why should we trust that date? Note that the online 1911 Britannica currently says 1151, which could be a typo for either 1131 or 1115. What does Albert of Aix actually say? Adam Bishop 17:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Peter the Hermit legend
In his legend in 1375, the french poet Jehan-le-Bouteiller sings the memory of a certain Pierre the Hermit descending of a count of Clermont by a lord of Herimont and being granted for wife a daughter of Montaigu. At the time of the first Crusade, at the end of the 11th century, exist in Wallonie/Belgium ''near Huy-(where he died on July,8th 1115) a seigneurie de Clermont and not far from there in Rochefort, a seigneurie de Montaigu and a place called Hérimont'. There was born myPeter the Hermit in a legendary novel under the title:"Pierre d'Hérimont dit l'Ermite" by Freddy Van Daele/2008.freddy (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2008 (UTC)

Massacre of jewish communities
The section on the massacre of the Jewish communities of the Rhineland reads very ... dry? to me. Like, a lot of odd circumlocutions, rather than saying, in this section as well as in the first paragraph about him, that he led the massacres of the Rhineland Jewish communities.

Example: "In the spring of 1096 Peter was one of the prominent involved in the Rhineland massacres against civilians adherent to the Jewish religion." Problems with this sentence: 1) "was one of the prominent involved"? The typo "was one of the prominent" aside, just say he was a leader of the massacres. Not that he was "involved", or "was one of" - he led the massacres. No need to prevaricate or obfuscate. 2) "civilians adherent to the Jewish religion" - this is an awkward phrase, but it's also a bit misleading in its implicit characterization of medieval anti-Jewish sentiment. While medieval Christian anti-Judaism certainly involved religious differences, the animosity was broader than the fact of someone being an "adherent" of a different "religion". Even the term "religion" wouldn't really be applicable in the way we use it now (as one aspect of multi-faceted identity, a set of beliefs and practices consciously chosen). Religious identity as relates to inter-community animosity was much less about points of faith and more about points of identity. That is, the Crusaders were not marching to wipe out adherents of the Jewish religion, they were looking to wipe out Jews. Although they did not yet use the racialized language they would later develop, in the eyes of Crusaders, Jewish people were thought of almost as a different species, and certainly as subhuman. So this phrase should be altered, but also, the paragraph does very little to convey the sentiment expressed by Peter and those he influenced, and says almost nothing about why they massacred these communities.

"Peter and his troops participated in the torture and slaughter of Jews in Lorraine, Cologne, Worms, Speyer and Mainz". These were some of the major centers of Judaism in all of Europe, both in terms of academies/thought leaders who were produced there, and in terms of population. The gravity of these massacres needs to be conveyed. This wasn't some far-off town, these were the major centers of Jewish life.

"In Mainz, Peter's followers killed a large group of Jews that had been granted refuge by a local bishop in exchange for money." Awkward phrasing that makes it sound as if the Jews were on the run and paid for refuge. Why not say "a bishop extorted the Jewish community in exchange for protection, who were then murdered by Peter and his followers"?

"Death toll estimations vary from 2,000 - 2,800 civilians, some speak about 5,000 or even 10,000 people killed." "Civilians" is an odd choice here. This was not a war. There were no combatants and no armies. This was a massacre of settled communities. Every person killed was a civilian, 130.44.133.254 (talk) 03:07, 11 June 2024 (UTC)