Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusades/archive2

Crusades
I've listed this article for peer review because it would be good to have a fresh pair of eyes look it over before someone/anyone looks to progress it. I think it stands as a good article structurally but this review comes with a risk of re-opening the great what is a crusade debate. (Answer: historians can't agree!)
 * Previous peer review

Thanks, Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Comments from Iazyges
 * "The Crusades were predominantly a series of religious wars" Could be better written as "the crusades were a series of wars, for predominantly religious reasons.
 * "Others consider the Fifth Crusade of Frederick II as two crusades," perhaps the reasoning for why they are considered two separate wars?
 * "successor allowed the Byzantine Empire to rebuild it." Perhaps a the word successor should be a link to the successor or else say the name of the successor?
 * "with Basil II spending most of his half-century reign in conquest" Perhaps change it to "spent most of his half-century reign fighting wars" for easier flow.
 * "Richard I of England conquered the island of Cyprus from the Byzantines " Why is this here? the Byzantines were orthodox so it wouldn't have been part of the crusades.
 * This was a crusading force in transit that did this (part of the third crusade). Illustrates intra-religion conflict but could be clearer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:20, 12 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "However, within sight of Jerusalem supply shortages forced them to retreat without taking the city." How far from the city exactly (if it is known.)
 * " Pope Gregory IX merged the remainder of the military order into the Teutonic Knights as the Livonian Order.[85]" Somewhat confusing, does this mean they put the livonian order inside the Teutonic order as a subsection?
 * "Innocent III also began preaching what became the Fourth Crusade in 1200" This sentence is weird, perhaps "he began preaching for a war that would be the fourth crusade, that happened in 1200."
 * "Led by Andrew II and Leopold VI, Duke of Austria forces of drawn mainly from Hungary, Germany, Flanders, and Frisia achieved little" this sentence is weird, perhaps "troops drawn mainly from Hungary, Germany, Flanders, and Frisia were led by Andrew II and Leopold VI, duke of Austria, but achieved little." should be added.
 * "treaties with Damascus and Egypt that returned territory to the crusader states." Which ones?
 * "Another truce was agreed for a ten-year period and Louis was ransomed for 800,000 bezants."
 * perhaps a (worth around ____$ today) should be added.
 * —removed values to avoid confusionNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "1,537,570 livres, six times the king's annual income." Same thing
 * —removed values to avoid confusionNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "1,000,000 livres in Palestine after his Egyptian campaign" Same thing
 * —removed values to avoid confusionNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "The Teutonic Knights and the Livonian Brothers of the Sword focused on the Baltic. The Order of Santiago, Order of Calatrava, Order of Alcántara, and Order of Montesa concentrated on the Iberian Peninsula and its Reconquista." Does not mention if the teutons, livonians, and all the Spanish orders fought in the crusades.
 * "Other than that, original medieval military orders persists until this day, in modern organisations with modified charters." Which ones? End of constructive criticism. Iazyges (talk) 17:29, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
 * , thank you for your swift and constructive comments. Many of your observations do indeed appear to refer to omissions that need to be corrected; it may take a while to address them all one by one. I might say that I prefer the very first sentence of the article the way it is now, since it seems to me at least to flow better and to be slightly more accurate. And converting the currencies from centuries ago into modern equivalents is unlikely to be achievable, at least in my opinion. But there are many other very insightful comments. You have a good eye. Tks. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 02:31, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * You are very welcome, I can look into the exchange rate thing if you'd like. Iazyges (talk) 02:57, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * it would be very helpful if you could, thx Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:22, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I got a source saying that 24 pence is equal to a bezant, and did the math, 7,1808,000$=800,000 bezants, Ill work on the livres now. Iazyges (talk) 14:39, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

I have to say that I still agree with footnote #12 on the King John article: "Early medieval financial figures have no easy contemporary equivalent, due to the different role of money in the economy." And there's also centuries of monetary inflation. And currency exchange rates. And so on and so forth. But we can wait and see what other editors think. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I used a currency purchase power calculator, that takes into account the amount, and the date, so i did 24 pence in 1249, the calculator said that held the same buying power as 139.65$ today, i then multiplied 139.65 by 800,000, to get to 111720000	$ of worth. http://futureboy.us/fsp/dollar.fsp?quantity=24&currency=pence&fromYear=1249. (I will admit i messed up the math twice however), it is actually 111m$ not 7m, i accidentally set it to 1294 before, I have now changed it. Iazyges (talk) 16:14, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am not in favor of trying to convert currencies from centuries ago. However, we can wait and see what other editors think. Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 20:18, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I am highly dubious about how accurate currency conversions from, say, any earlier than 1800 are likely to be. (I'm fairly dubious about any pre-20th century currency conversions, but the further back we go the more dubious I get).  I agree with  that by the thirteenth century, any currency conversion is likely to be meaningless.  Additionally, I can find absolutely no information on where the conversion rates the site  used came from originally.  They might be the best guesses of historical economists, in which case they're only dubious, but for all I know they might be the best guesses of random men in the street, in which case they are entirely meaningless... Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 08:10, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Thank you for adding to that discussion. I think it's proper to wait for others to opine as well. If you have other insights about the article (and potentially, how to improve it), they are equally appreciated.  Lingzhi &diams; (talk) 13:54, 18 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This debate indicates that the values of these figures are largely meaningless, apart from to indicate they are large. Perhaps a better idea is to remove them altogether, not sure what value they add?Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Comments from caeciliusinhorto

Right, I now have time to give the article something of a proper look-over. I've made a few minor changes to the article, which feel free to revert/modify.


 * In the lead, wikilinking the phrase "polarised historians" to Crusades is a little bit WP:EGG-ish, and frankly strikes me as totally unnecessary.
 * —removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Contrary to their stated aims and promises, crusaders often pillaged as they travelled, and their leaders retained much of the captured territory rather than returning it to the Byzantines. The People's Crusade included the Rhineland massacres: the murder of thousands of Jews. Constantinople was sacked during the Fourth Crusade, rendering the reunification of Christendom impossible. These and other controversial actions were incongruous with the stated aims and implied moral authority of the papacy and the crusades, in one case to the extent that the Pope excommunicated crusaders. I would restructure this entirely, so that we start with the general point – that Crusaders took part in controversial and arguably unchristian actions which undermined the moral authority of the crusade – and then move onto specific examples
 * —rewordedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Still in the same paragraph, it's not clear what historians have been polarised over: only one point of view on these actions has been given
 * —I think the paragraph below touches on thisNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * When crusaders swore a vow (votus) to reach Jerusalem, they received a cloth cross (crux) to be sewn onto their clothing. This "taking of the cross" became associated with the entire journey, and crusaders saw themselves as undertaking an iter (journey) or peregrinatio (armed pilgrimage). All this Latin (English) breaks the flow of the sentence. I can see why we might want to give the Latin crux, as it is ultimately the root of the word "crusade", but I'd cut all the other Latin in this sentence.
 * —removedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * 'The inspiration for this "messianism of the poor"' This seems like a non-sequitur. We haven't mentioned anything about the class of crusaders, or explicitly about messianism
 * —Expanded to explainNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:11, 30 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "In Europe, the Germans expanded their territories at the expense of the Slavs": the crusades really aren't my period, and so maybe I'm missing something really obvious – and it's possible that this will become clearer later in the article – but this clause has left me scratching my head. I can see what the reconquista, the capture of Sicily, and the expansion of the Byzantine empire have to do with the background to the crusades, but what do German-Slav relations have to do with anything?  And when we say "Germans" are we referring to the Holy Roman Empire here, or something else?  (I am showing my ignorance of medieval Europe here, I know!)
 * —by germans the article is refering to german christians embarking on Crusades against pagen slavs. Hope it is clearer now, german is used racially here as it is more complicated than just including the HRE Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)


 * In Germany they massacred Jewish communities does "they" refer to those involved in the People's Crusade?
 * —yes, amended.


 * Alexios urged them again, who is this mysterious them?
 * —People's crusade, amended11:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

More soon. Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

— any more? 11:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Having look at the rest of the article...


 * The Knights Templar were recognised and grants of crusading indulgences to those who opposed papal enemies are seen by some historians as the beginning of politically motivated crusades. What does "the Knights Templar were recognised" mean? Were they given some sort of official sanction by the papacy?  And is this connected to the beginning of politically motivated crusades? (In which case, "the recognition of the Knights Templar and the granting of crusading indulgencies to those who opposed papal enemies..."; else they should be two separate sentences)
 * not connected and reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * after his sister were taken prisoner by the island's ruler should this be "sisters were" or "sister was"?
 * sister was Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)


 * Konrad of Masovia gave Chelmno to the Teutonic Knights in 1226 as a base for crusade.[84] The Livonian Knights were defeated by the Lithuanians so Pope Gregory IX merged the remainder of the order into the Teutonic Order as the Livonian Order. These two sentences are virtually identical to two sentences in the previous paragraph which convey exactly the same information.  Some cutting/expanding/rewriting is in order here.
 * duplication removed 09:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)


 * The crusade fell under the ambitions of Doge Enrico Dandolo and Philip of Swabia. I'm not entirely sure what this sentence means.
 * reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

In general, the chronological sections read to me so much like a list of dates and places that I doubt I would retain any of it if I were examined on it. I wonder if it might be better to rewrite that whole section geographically/thematically, so you deal with e.g. the crusades in the holy land, the reconquista, and the various crusades against Christian heretics in different sections...


 * Point taken, but this means that the article wouldn't reflect contemporaneous trends across different geographies 09:54, 3 October 2016 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 16:45, 31 August 2016 (UTC)