Talk:Timeline of the Kingdom of Jerusalem

Sidon
I read: "The Pope confirms the jurisdiction of the Latin Patriarchs of Jerusalem over the newly established bishoprics of Sidon and Beirut, ignoring the traditional boundary between the patriarchal sees of Antioch and Jerusalem."

But the bishop of Sidon was previously suffragan to Tyre. Why is it called "newly established"? I’ve asked elsewhere how Paschal could have acted in response to Baldwin II on the question of Sidon in 1111. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 11:05, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * Sidon and Beirut (and Jerusalem and Tyre and Antioch and all the rest) already had Orthodox bishops at the time of the First Crusade, or they were vacant since the Muslim conquest. The crusaders ignored the Greek hierarchy (and the Armenian and all the other rites that already had bishops) and established their own Latin bishops there, so they were "new" in the sense that there had never been Roman-rite bishops there before. They also reorganized the suffragans of the patriarchs of Jerusalem and Antioch based on the new political boundaries, not the ancient ecclesiastical boundaries. But then the new patriarchs argued about whether Sidon and Beirut (and Tyre, among others) should be suffragans of Antioch, as they had been since antiquity (and still were, under the Greek rite that they were otherwise completely ignoring), or of Jerusalem, as they were now located within the Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Pope decided in favour of Jerusalem. I'm not sure about Baldwin II in 1111, but maybe that's just at typo for Baldwin I. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * So the timeline should say newly established Roman rite... or Latin rite?
 * I read at Patriarch of Antioch that “the Franks took the city [Antioch] in 1099 and installed a Latin Patriarch of Antioch.” Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:50, 8 October 2018 (UTC)


 * For Baldwin and 1111 see Roman Catholic Diocese of Sidon. Bmclaughlin9 (talk) 13:58, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your message. I hope both problems were fixed: and . Borsoka (talk) 14:01, 8 October 2018 (UTC)
 * Maybe, even clearer: . Borsoka (talk) 14:09, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Edits to Introduction
The following edits were made for clarity:

* Clarification of Godfrey's title; deleted patriarch discussions (not appropriate for introduction)

* Added Baldwin I's successors for continuity

* Deleted last sentence of 1st paragraph: Not true in that time period.

* Deleted last paragraph: unimportant as part of the Introduction. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:03, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your edits. Please find my comments below:

1. I moved the reference to Godfrey's alleged title of "Advocatus Holy Sepulchri" to a footnote, because significant historians deny that he actually adopted it. 

2. Do we need to list them? Especially, because the last Egyptian city on the coast Ascalon was not captured by Baldwin I, Baldwin II or Fulk (as your version suggested).

3. The deleted statement contains relevant and verified information. For instance, Tripoli was administered between 1164 and 1173 by King Amalric on behalf of Raymond III. Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 4 August 2022 (UTC)

1. The reference to "Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre" is made by Tyerman, Asbridge and Lock in standard references and should be used here. The Daimbert reference is a simplification that doesn't belong here.

2. Yes you do.

3. The single Tripoli example (which would rightly be at the end of the next paragraph) does not warrant a mention in the Introduction.

Please don't revert these changes without discussing on the Talk Page. Dr. Grampinator (talk)
 * I did not revert them without discussion. Perhaps you want to discuss it before reverting. Borsoka (talk) 01:22, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * I asked you not to revert without discussion and you did it anyway. Just saying that you didn't do it doesn't make it so. The discussion of the kingship of Godfrey is supported by your own reference in the timeline. Other edits explained individually.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 01:59, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Godfrey's kingship is not supported by any of the cited source. His title is mentioned in a footnote. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
 * , I think you edits did not improve the timeline, but I want to avoid edit warring. Please respect our community's basic rules, especially WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 02:17, 7 August 2022 (UTC)

Irrelevant Events
A number of events are listed that are: This is paticularly true of events that happened before the kingdom cam into existance. It would appear to be an issue with separating the kingdom from the wider history of crusading, which considering its importance to the crusades is totally understandable. It is better that those without direct connection are removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:55, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Irrelevent to the actual Kingdom
 * Do not have their relevance explained, or it is not clear
 * Are WP:UNDUE
 * 1. There are 28 events listed in the Background section. Could you name those you are referring to? 2. Please remember this is a timeline, so we do not need to explain everything. Borsoka (talk) 12:17, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * 1 September 27. The Fatimid caliph al-Hakim orders the destruction of the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem. The subsequent persecution of Christians lasts for more than a decade.
 * 2 The Holy Sepulchre is rebuilt after a Byzantine–Fatimid treaty.
 * 3 The Seljuk ruler Tughril seizes Baghdad as the Abbasid caliphs' protector. During the following decades, the Seljuks expand their empire towards the Levant fighting the Fatimids and the Byzantines.
 * 4 A Byzantine–Fatimid treaty strengthens the position of Byzantine emperor Constantine X Doukas as the patron of the Christians in the Fatimid Caliphate. The Christians settle in their own fortified quarter in Jerusalem.
 * 5 Merchants from Amalfi establish the Benedictine Saint Mary of the Latins Abbey in Jerusalem.
 * 6 August 21. Battle of Manzikert: the Seljuk Turks overcome the Byzantines and invade Asia Minor.
 * 7 A Seljuk Turk commander, Atsiz ibn Uvaq, captures Jerusalem from the Fatimides.
 * 8 March 1. Pope Gregory VII is planning to launch a military campaign against the Seljuk Turks for the liberation of the Holy Land.
 * 9 The Gregorian theologians Anselm of Lucca, Bonizo of Sutri and John of Mantua complete the Roman Catholic ideology of holy wars.
 * 10 November. The Seljuk sultan Malik-Shah I dies and his empire disintegrates into small states. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:39, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ad 1-2: The Kingdom of Jerusalem was established during the First Crusade, a religious war or armed pilgrimage declared for the "liberation" of Palestine, a region that the Christians (has) regarded as a Holy Land. The Holy Sepulchre was the most venerated Christian shrine in Palestine in the Middle Ages. Its significance in medieval Christian consciousness is emphasized by most reliable sources about the Crusades and the history of the crusader states. Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Ad 3-4, 6-7, 10: The political history of the Near East on the eve of the First Crusade is a standard part of the background section of standard literature about the crusades or the crusader states. If we ignored these events in the Background section, one could hardly understand who were the Seljuks, the Fatimids and the Byzantines and why they were deeply involved in the affairs of the Jerusalemite kingdom.
 * Ad 5: The presence of a Catholic institution, closely connected to the establishment of the Hospitalers, in Jerusalem decades before the First Crusade could hardly be ignored in the Background section.
 * Ad 8: The first plan about a military campaign for the "liberation of the Holy Land" could hardly be ignored in the Background section.
 * Ad 9: Yes, it could be deleted. It is not highly important in the article's context. Borsoka (talk) 16:53, 16 August 2022 (UTC)

I have to agree with on this. From my viewpoint, the timeline before the First Crusade is relevant and pretty much at the right level of detail. You could argue a few points, but nothing I would fall on my sword over. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:05, 16 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Happy to agree that there is nothing to fall on a sword here @Dr. Grampinator, though my POV is different. The Kingdom of Jersusalem was a Western European polity, a religious colony according to Riley-Smith. That the Sepulchre was demolished and then rebuilt decades before the polity came into existance has little relevance, as does the general political situation in the region when the key drivers were in the West and still to come. It wrong to imply that crusades were declared to liberate Palestine, crusades were declared for the control of places considered Holy only. The wider crusader states grew from strategic imperitives. Jerusalem was never defensible on its own. As it stands this is really just a timelines of the canonical crusades and related events. That said, happy to go with the consensus on this. Ultimately it is not very important. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:54, 16 August 2022 (UTC)
 * Yes, from the crusades' perspectives lots of other events could be mentioned, but this is a timeline of the history of a realm, not of the crusading movement. You may have not realised but this colony could be described as a religious colony because it was established in a region where the most venerated shrines of Christendom were located. The article is not about other crusader states, but specifically about the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Furthermore, this is not an encyclopedic article, but a timeline: we do not need to explain the strategical importance of other crusader states. Borsoka (talk) 01:46, 17 August 2022 (UTC)