Talk:First Crusade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Former featured article First Crusade is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Good article First Crusade has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Main Page trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 18, 2005.
e·h·w·Stock post message.svg To-do:

Here are some tasks awaiting attention:
  • Other: Help the article regain FA status.


This article is getting really good[edit]

I'm a grad student working on the Crusades. I have to say, the Crusades articles on wikipedia are really getting good. The biases are tending to slip away and we're getting clear, concise history. I'm impressed. Just wanted to say good job, folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.102.176 (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)


It is impressive to see the article shaping up beyond petty religious propaganda. I do have one concern (and I certainly am willing to chalk this up to not being exteremely well versed in his work): Tyerman is used as a reference frequently throughout the article. While he certainly seems to be renowned for his efforts in this field of scholarship, Many of the point for which he is used as reference are reaching or subjective. Given a biref read of interviews he's conducted, I can't shake the feeling that he's pursuing a very specific agenda. Regardless, I am not sure I would characterize his views as summary of the general historical consensus. Perhaps the text should be altered to indicate that this is A take on things, not THE universal view? In some context, he does rtaher come off as a bit of an apologist for the Crusades.

Watch the anti-islam slant[edit]

It would be good toj include some detail to avoid unintentional religious slander. Specifically, protection of Christians under Islamic rule was an explicit teaching of Muhammad and the status quo of islam since its earliest expansion, not a secular relaxing of Islamic values.

"But beginning in the early eleventh century, Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah began to persecute the Christians of Palestine. In 1009, he destroyed Christianity's holiest shrine the Holy Sepulcher. He eventually relented and instead of burning and killing, he implemented a toll tax for Christian pilgrims entering Jerusalem. The worst was yet to come. A group of Turkish Muslims, the Seljuks, very powerful, very aggressive and very stringent followers of Islam, began their rise to power."

The Seljuks could not be said to be 'stringent' followers of Islam: stringent followers of Islam must respect 'people of the book', i.e. Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Sabians. The manner in which they are to be respected is also spelled out fairly clearly in the Qur'an. One might call the Seljuks radicals, or militants, or possibly fundamentalists, but not stringent followers. I admit this is a small detail, but in it is the proverbial 'devil' of anti-Islam. A further point: the reasons for the Muslim crackdown on Christian pilgrims is a delicate matter, as an overstatement of malice or ommission of grievance could again produce a biased, inaccurate account. Please reference these details so we are able to evaluate your sources and get this right. 130.195.86.37 (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Aidan MacLeod

Watch your own bias. All of the points you contest are well known points. The Turks attacked Byzantium and thus triggered the call for the Crusades. The Turks have always been very powerful and their conquest of the region points to them being aggressive too. That is not to say that the Crusades were correct, or not aggressive. On the contrary, aggression was met with aggression; religious intolerance was met with religious intolerance - although in the Crusader states, Muslims were tolerated - hence at the Siege of Jerusalem in 1187, Saladin was concerned for the safety of the Muslims, and Balian of Ibelin had a small amount of negotiating power when he negotiated its surrender.Gabr-el 23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)


There were 600 000 crusaders in this crusade but they didn't have an army organization.Turks defeat them all.You didn't write 600 000 crusaders and the gerilla war between turks and crusaders.Crusaders went to Jarusalem but with 50 000 men in 3.Crusade.Turks killed all crusaders at the Anatolia.You should write it i think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.86.125 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They were organised under the princes. There weren't 600,000 of them. The Seljuk Turks did not defeat them all, in fact the First Crusade is about the only truly successful crusade for the Europeans, resulting in the capture of many important cities. Why am I wasting my breath on you? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Persecution of Jews: While it was true indeed that the crusaders (and most of the european people of the time)terribly persecuted jews ,it is important to say that it was not the official first crusade(the princes crusade) that promoted the first holocaust ,but the crusade of the people.I think that detail is important and must be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.38.152 (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC) there were too many crusaders(600000 is not so illogical unlike other cusade all of catholics+byzantium-really powerfull those days- participated. only nobility were organised under the princes, but not only nobility fought against muslims. too much crusader had died not because of gerilla war but because of poisonous lands&water in anatolia that kilij-arslan poisoned. anyway crusade was successful since many important cities captured (and all muslim+jew population were massacred-it was also a goal fur crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.138.191 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

FA review[edit]

Gwinva and Wandalstouring have asked me to add references to make this article fully verifiable. While I don't think that will be possible by the deadline given by the FA people (October 20), it should be quite easy to reference everything with the most up-to-date academic research. The problem is that the literature on the First Crusade is extremely vast; almost everything can probably be found in Thomas Asbridge's "The First Crusade: A New History", but there are dozens of other books and articles that we could also use.

Some other problems: how much of this article should focus on the origins of the crusades? The origins of the crusades in general and the First Crusade in particular are obviously very closely linked; the crusade article should go into more detail (although that article is probably beyond salvaging) but some detail is necessary here as well. Also, the influence of Steven Runciman might remain a problem. He was once a great historian and author, and his history of the crusades is still the basis for basically all popular knowledge of the period, but it's very outdated. I know various editors will add info from Runciman or other popular histories based on him, but I think we should try to avoid this. If Runciman has an especially noteworthy opinion on something that differs from current scholarship, I suppose it would be worth mentioning, but otherwise, I hope we can stick to more recent works.

If I ever do get around to this, I think I'll use Asbridge as the basic guide, and probably Jonathan Riley-Smith for stuff about the origins, and branch out from there. Any help and suggestions are welcome, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:45, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

Map of the path taken of the First Crusade[edit]

I have fixed the "problem" of copyright. I am quite sure that BigDaddy had placed the Copyright notice there on by accident and has many times kindly allowed me to edit his maps. Consider the issue resolved. Gabr-el 03:02, 22 November 2008 (UTC)

Infobox / Territorial changes[edit]

"Anatolia and Levant captured for Christendom" This is a bit exaggerated. Not 'all' Anatolia or Levant was captured by the crusaders. Lysandros (talk) 09:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Review of the opening statement[edit]

We have to put historiography on its place.


"The First Crusade was launched in 1095 by Pope Urban II with the dual goals of reconquering the sacred city of Jerusalem and the Holy Land and freeing the Eastern Christians from Islamic rule." Pope Urban II never launched any First Crusade. All accounts mentioned that on Council of Clermont Urban II called for armed pilgrims that hundreds of years laters called First Crusade by historian. The armed pilgrims took cross and sworn to go to the Church of Holy Sepulchure.

The so called "dual goal" never existed in the history, perhaps it is a part of some historical analysis.


"What started as an appeal by Byzantine Emperor Alexius I Comnenus for western mercenaries to fight the Seljuk Turks in Anatolia quickly turned into a wholescale Western migration and conquest of territory outside of Europe." Alexius applied for assistant from Roman Catholic Church on Council of Piacenza. Request for western mercenaries, if any, has no relation with the First Crusade. Most of 40.000 armed pilgrims returned to Europe after Battle of Ascalon. Western mass migration was an aftermath of the First Crusade, if such thing happened (Godfrey mobilize local Arab Christian, Baldwin stick with Edesa population, Behemund occupy Antioch with local Syrian & Armenian). Reopening international trade also an aftermath of the First Crusade. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mudy s (talkcontribs) 07:31, 8 December 2008 (UTC)


My suggestion for opening lines we put all known facts only, for example:


First Crusade was series of events trigerred by religious endorsement of armed pilgrimage from entire Christendom to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem by Pope Urban II at Council of Clermont, on August 15, 1096. The endorsement was made as respose to the request of Christendom military coalition against Moslem teritorial advances from Alexius Comnenus, Emperor of Byzantine, at Council of Piacenza. There were several armed group of pilgrims on the First Crusade, without single army chain of command. First armed group entering Asia Minor known as People's_Crusade destroyed by Kilij Arslan I (Sultan of Rum) near Nicaea. Main armed group consist of army of Bohemund I (Prince of Taranto) with his nephew Tancred, Godfrey of Bouillon (Duke of Lower Lorraine) with his brother Baldwin, Hugh I (Count of Vermandois), and Robert Curthose (Duke of Normandy), Raymond IV (Count of Tolouse), and Robert II (Count of Flanders). There were fleet support from Guglielmo Embriaco of Genoa, Edgar Atheling of England, also support from local Armenian and Syrian. At early phase they're accompanied by Adhemar of Le Puy as Pope representative and Taticius of Byzantine.

After took Nicaea, capital of Seljuk Sultanate of Rum and defeated Kilij Arslan I on Battle of Dorylaeum, the pilgrim army capture Antioch by defeating army of Duqaq of Damascus at First Battle of Harenc, army of Ridwan of Aleppo at Second Battle of Harenc, and later large army of Seljuk Turk led by Kerbogha of Mosul at Battle of Orontes. The pilgrim army then capture Jerusalem and defeat main Fatimid army under Al-Afdal in outskirt of Ascalon on August 12, 1099. Godfrey assume title of Advocate of the Holy Sepulchre, Bohemund became Prince of Antioch, Baldwin inherit County of Edessa and later on became the first King of Jerusalem.



With this definition (Pope Urban II Crusade) I put Crusader 1101 as aftermath of First Crusade, on other topic, since it was endorsed by different Pope (Pope Paschal II), with different goals. Also I suggest additional page on Siege of Antioch event: First Battle of Harenc (Crusaders vs Duqaq) and Second Battle of Harenc (Crusaders vs Ridwan) also Battle of Orontes (Crusaders against Keborgha). So that those battles can be refered to from First Crusade, Siege of Antioch, and other pages.

I might be able to help if anyone can tell me how the rewriting progress.

mmmm (talk) 05:34, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Review on the Background[edit]

The origins of the crusades in general, and of the First Crusade in particular, are varied and are widely debated among historians. They are most commonly linked to the political and social history of eleventh-century Europe, the rise of a reform movement within the Papacy, and the political and religious situation of Christianity and Islam in Europe and the Middle East.

No debate on the origin of the First Crusade. The debate exist regarding implicit personal and institutional reason of the First Crusade, which has no way to confirm, and therefore should be left on historiography.


Christianity, which had spread throughout Europe, Africa, and the Middle East in the early Middle Ages, was by the early eighth century limited to Europe and Asia Minor after the rapid spread of Islam.

Christianity appear also outside Europe and Asia Minor. There are Christian among Mongols, Indian’s. Strong Christian population still exist in Anatolia, Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and North Africa. There are involvement of local Christian at various events through out the First Crusade.


Reconguista stuff I thing reconguista stuff should be moved to general Crusade topic, not for the First Crusade. Following paragraph should be enough: Shortly before the First Crusade, Pope Urban II had encouraged Spanish Christians to reconquer Tarragona, near Barcelona, using much of the same symbolism and rhetoric that was later used to preach the crusade.[1] --mmmm (talk) 12:46, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

To respond to both reviews, these are very good points - my only objection is that it would be awkward to rephrase the opening line. Of course Urban did not intend to "launch the First Crusade" but that is, after all, what actually happened. We'll try to deal with the rest of your comments - as you can tell, the article is currently being rewritten. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:56, 8 December 2008 (UTC)
I have five organisational suggestions (spawned by my discussion with Adam and Mudy s's comments here):
  1. Remove "Background" and "Historiography" sections to the general Crusades article, where the background should be covered in great detail. A Historiography of the Crusades article may be justifiable on its own, if there is anybody with the time to write it.
  2. Add a "Historiography" section towards the bottom of this article, covering the primary sources (and their respective value, point of view, etc.) first and then the secondary sources insofar as the bear directly on the First Crusade. How the conquest of Jerusalem has been viewed (and used) by different generations would be an interesting topic for a subsection.
  3. This article should be structured as primarily a narrative, with the non-narrative sections (like historiography) put towards the bottom, after the narrative. The first sections should deal with the subject of what motivated Urban to propose a Crusade, then with the Council of Clermont, then with the recruitment/preaching effort, and finally with the popular movements and the responses of the princes. A lot of this is already in the article. These are the subjects which are appropriately the background to the First Crusade (in my opinion).
  4. The main body of the article should concern the narrative of Crusade itself, from when people started marching east until the 'kingdom' was secured (more or less) by Godfrey and/or the Crusade of 1101. This section will be difficult to subdivide, since no information should appear under a heading "Siege of Antioch" that does not have to do directly with the siege of Antioch, etc. This would actually get easier as the narrative gets longer and more detailed.
  5. The final part of the article should concern the 'legacy' of the Crusade. This is where the historiography section goes and where an arts and literature section goes. There is no need for an "Aftermath" section. The aftermath is covered at other articles. Well placed links and main article/see also hatnotes will do just fine.
  6. Finally, Let's not forget we can always use main article hatnotes, so we should split of information if its appropriate and we should summarise information that is already covered in depth elsewhere.
Despite the length of this post, I actually cooked it up rather quickly. (I'm busy.) Comments? Srnec (talk) 05:57, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

The background should definitely be covered in the main Crusades article, but I think some (perhaps most) of the background is unique to the First Crusade. It happens to have been the first one, so "origins of the crusades" and "origins of the First Crusade" are essentially the same. Later crusades usually did not occur for the same reasons; they were either individual pilgrimages where someone dragged along his whole feudal levy, or responses to specific disasters in the east. (And the causes of the political and anti-heretical crusades in Europe have very different origins.) While this article is ideally one in a series, it is also a stand-alone article. We shouldn't expect a reader to begin with the Crusades article, then come here after having read all the pertinent background information. An article on the historiography of the crusades would be a good idea, although the historiography of just the First Crusade would be long enough for it's own article.

There used to be a historiography section at the bottom (inaccurate and badly written, probably by me), and now the new stuff at the top should probably be moved back there. It makes less sense at the top if a reader doesn't know the basic narrative yet. I was also planning on writing about the primary sources, eventually.

What motivated Urban is one of the major historiographical questions. That's partly why that section has ballooned at the top of the page. Where do we stop? Something like "Urban may have been motivated by x, y, or z; see historiography below for a discussion."?

Anyway, I do agree that the narrative should be the main focus. But what about specific myths/controversies within the narrative? It would break up the flow but obviously we should discuss things like the cannibalism at Maraat, the massacre in Jerusalem, Godfrey's title, etc. Should there be a "myths" section? Adam Bishop (talk) 09:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)


Great. I cant agree more for both suggestion above.
Some thougts:
  1. I think Adam's method of "see historiography below for a discussion." is good, and this might also be used for unconfirmed / debated events. Perhaps we should make a different sub title: debated events or historical discussion on several events or diffent accounts on various events: canibalism on First Crussade, massacre in Jerusalem, Godfrey title, spear of destiny from antioch, etc. Events that is mentioned in the primary sources but the fact is debateble or disputed by secondary sources, and events that is mentioned differently in primary sources (including myth and legends). Ofcourse such well known events still have to be mentioned in the main body, with link to the debate below or to a dedicated wiki page. We can consider other wiki pages as part of this document.
  2. However debated events (and myth) should be separate from historiography that contains historical analysis of background analysis, concept, aftermath analysis and more abstract components of the First Crusade.
  3. We need to realize that Origin of the crusades / background and analysis of First Crusade has several point of view. Perhaps we should accomodate those view, at least: Christian point of view, Moslem point of view, and Current Academical/Popular/Modern point of view. Christian point of view of the First Crusade, for example, is different with other Crusade. Moslem point of view also has their own references which modern historian and Christian historian might not agree with but represent popular view in current moslem comunity worldwide.
  4. We need clearer definition on First Crusade to decide whether Crusade of 1101 included in bulk or just mentioned as aftermath. As I mentioned above, I prefer to define First Crusade as Crusade called by Pope Urban II, definition that doesnt fit Crusade 1101 / Crusade called by Pope Pascal II and not aimed at taking Jerusalem.
  5. Can we add "List of Battle/armed conflict on First Crusade" without naration, only wiki link, somewhere in the page?
  6. Also, where should we mention games and movies related to First Crusade?
Thanks, Moody (talk) 04:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
(edit conflict: the following written without Moody's input)
Agree that "origins of the crusades" and "origins of the First Crusade" are essentially the same thing. But where does the information go? I would like (ideally) to avoid duplicating information on two pages. I understand that "later crusades usually did not occur for the same reasons", but I was thinking of the origins of crusading as a concept and a movement. As in, where did any lord get the idea of dragging his feudal levy to the Levant in response to some event X, where X is the "cause" of his Crusade? In this sense, I think the origins of anti-heretical crusading are similarly rooted even if the events which "caused" them are very different. I am less sure how to handle the background now.
Urban's motivations and all the debate they engender can be covered at the top of the article, since I think they form a part of the narrative. When I think of a historiography section, I am not envisaging dealing with specific issues like that, though there is clearly some major overlap. I will have to think some more about this.
If we can write about the historiography of the Crusades in general or any Crusade in particular at article length, then I think an article would be justified.
I also think a myths/common misconceptions section would be justified. I think we could safely relegate all nonfactual information there and keep it out of the narrative. All controversial information, on which historiography has not pronounced a certain verdict (as if it ever does), must, I guess, be a part of the narrative. I don't know how easy it will always be to distinguish "definitely not factual" from "historians are divided".
I realise I'm trying to raise some finer distinctions here (and I'm probably not doing a very good job). My suggestion may be impossible to apply/unworkable. Perhaps we should look to the History of the Crusades series (ed. by Setton) for some ideas about organisation? Srnec (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
To address a separate point, I'm not generally a fan of adding in sections on movies/games/fiction unless it's a "classic". Thus, mentioning Lion in Winter or Henry V in the respective monarchs articles doesn't annoy me, but I would be opposed to mentioning every computer game that mentioned the First Crusade or every book that was set during the First Crusade. Ealdgyth - Talk 05:10, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Just to let you all know the Crusaders numbers were anywhere from 60,000-100,000 once they got to Nicea, and the Muslims the Crusaders encountered were anywhere from 400,000-1,000,000. (10/22/09)

Map completely wrong[edit]

The map "Umayyad Caliphate at its greatest extent." is completely and utterly wrong, the north of portugal (above river douro) and modern day spanish galicia were never under moorish control. It's a pretty crass error. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.84.70.133 (talk) 23:24, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

It's hard to say. They did garrison Gijón on the coast. The mountains (as in the Basque country) were probably never subdued. If they were in control of Galicia it was for a very brief period (probably no more than a few years to a decade). From what I can recall, the wording of the chronicle recording Alfonso I's conquest of Galicia implies that Galicia was a rebellious Christian province (or something like that), not a Moorish territory. But the chronicler may have considered any territory resisting the suzerainty of Alfonso (whom propaganda made "heir" of the Visigoths) to be in rebellion regardless of the exact state of things. So perhaps Galicia was without a ruler before Alfonso re-established Christian authority after the Muslim conquest. Srnec (talk) 04:44, 13 December 2008 (UTC)


Alfonso the grandson of Pelayo_of_Asturias?? That Munuza's seat was at Gijón or León is sufficient to demonstrate that the Arabs had established their rule in the Asturias and that Pelagius was not therefore the leader of a local resistance to Arab conquest.
The map is correct. Only Kingdom of Frank survive Umayyad conquest. Pocket resistance doesnt count as teritorial control in empirium map.
Moody (talk) 05:36, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Attacks on Jews in the Rhineland section[edit]

There are some problems with this section.

  • The attackers of the jews in the rhineland are often described as "cusaders", although they were not part of the official Crusade, which set off later that year, on 15th August, and were a mixture of local people and unofficial groups, who mostly never reached the Holy Land. It needs to be made clear that these were rogue or unofficial groups.
  • The illustration from a bible, claiming to show jews being massacred by "Crusaders", does not clearly show anything of the sort. This seems to be a fanciful attribution with no solid basis. Questions have been raised about the verifiability of this image before (File_talk:FirstCrusade.jpg). In fact it seems to show two crowned kings, (not present in the Rhineland attacks) wearing nothing to indicate that they are crusaders, attacking people (perhaps in Jewish hats) while two people (one with a halo) pray or plead imploringly, There is no original caption to the image, and nothing to indicate that it is not a bible story, or anything else. I am not sure this validates its use here, and certainly the caption should be amended. Xandar 23:00, 30 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the Rhineland massacre was committed by a crusade army[edit]

The First Crusade was not terribly well-organized, and to say that Peter the Hermit's army wasn't a crusade army is rather absurd. See Christopher Tyerman's "God's War: A New History of the Crusades". Peter the Hermit was not an official Papal legate, but his crusade (and the resulting massacre of Jews in the Rhineland) was no less a crusade than the one that set off from France. 163.1.121.7 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)David If you want to include this in the article it should be references already back to "pogroms" which crusaders first committed in 1098 in France and Germany, it is a very relevant point to distinguish the agenda of the crusade, and the nature of the pogroms committed both by Christians and Muslim pogroms against the Jews. Kristina Johnson72.80.126.76 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Removed paragraph[edit]

Not badly written, just doesn't belong in a summary style article like this.

According to Ming and Qing dynasty stone monuments, a Jewish community has existed in China since the Han Dynasty, but a majority of scholars cite the early Song Dynasty (roughly a century before the First Crusade).[2] A legend common among the modern-day descendants of the Kaifeng Jews states they reached China after fleeing Bodrum from the invading crusaders. A section of the legend reads, “The Jews became merchants and traders in the region [of the Near East], but new troubles came in the 1090s. Life became difficult and dangerous. The first bad news was heralded by a word they had never heard before: 'Crusade,' the so-called Holy War ... Jews were warned; "Convert to Christianity or die!"[3]

Collective memory[edit]

The article lacks an account of the collective cultural image that the First Crusade left in the islamic world (comparable in scope only with events like the Thirty Years' War or the Eastern Front (World War II) in Europe). This image still persits as a cultural and rhetorical topos and is of great importance for a proper understanding of the islamic view on western culture. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.160.84.118 (talk) 20:16, 12 July 2009 (UTC)


Members of the Crusade[edit]

hi adam, in the big box, just on top right, boulogne and flandres are parts of the kingdom of france. weren´t they parts of the empire? geoffrey for example stands there as a leader for the empire, his brothers for france. i did not really get that, could you /somebody explain that? 78.50.51.229 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, that box is completely anachronistic anyway, with all the coats of arms. France and the Empire were not participants in the way the box implies. Parts of Flanders and Boulogne were technically in the Empire and in France, but in reality they were independent. Godfrey's earlier career, however, was entirely in Imperial affairs, while his brothers seem to have been involved in French and English affairs, so maybe that is why they have been separated like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And Normandie was never a part of England, it was fief under the crown of France.81.233.187.122 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The First Crusade[edit]

This is currently a disambig:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Crusade

It seems to me it should be a redirect to here, with a link to the disambig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Bishop (talkcontribs) 13:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if someone types in "The First Crusade", they expect to come to this page. MC10 (TCGBL) 19:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)
I have made the page redirect to here, as requested. MC10 (TCGBL) 19:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect source[edit]

There is a problem with the recent addition of a citation made here and here). The name Michael Gervers is not associated with that book, and the cited section is written by Susan B. Edgington. The source needs to be rechecked by someone with access to this book. In the meantime, I am reverting back to a "citation needed" template. CactusWriter | needles 10:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That was odd, I missed that. It is by Edgington though, no problem there. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
Good. Thanks for checking. CactusWriter | needles 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cannibalism occurrence in the First Crusade[edit]

I am surprised that the event of the Cannibalism is not covered in this article. If we going to present history, lets do it fair and square folks. Furthermore, Cannibalism did occur and here is western historian, Geraldineit Heng in her work Cannibalism, the first crusade, and the genesis of medieval romance discusses it, "In December 1098 seven months before the capture of Jerusalem by the militia of the First Crusade, Ma'arra an-Numan-a city in northern Syria was sacked and it inhabitants put to the sword, one instance among many of the massacre of Muslims and cultural others enacted in the course of the holy-war-cum-pilgrimage. At Ma'arra however, according to three surviving eye witnesses histories of the First Crusade written independently by Latin participants, the unthinkable happened: the crusaders roasted and ate the flesh of enemy corpse, an act of such unvitiated horror that all three chronicles are immediately driven to defend the cannibalism by invoking extreme famine as exigent explanation." (102-100, 1998) --Saab 1989 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Title:

Cannibalism, the first crusade, and the genesis of medieval romance.

Authors:

Heng, Geraldine

Source:

Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies; Spring98, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p98, 77p

Document Type:

Article

Subject Terms:

*KINGS & rulers
*BOOKS
GREAT Britain

Reviews & Products:

HISTORY of the Kings of Britain, The (Book)

Abstract:

Focuses on the contents of the book `History of the Kings of Britain,' by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Legend of King Arthur in literature; Vocabulary of romance; First crusade and the contigent of horror; King Arthur's materialization at the vanishing point of historical narration; Definition of romance.

ISSN:

10407391

Accession Number:

1524741

Url:

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=11&sid=4a12837a-f110-418e-9fc9-9869c94d4811%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=1524741

PDF version of the article:

I am sharing with you VIA filefront, URL: http://www.filefront.com/16575527/Cannibalism%2C%20the%20first%20crusade%2C%20and%20the%20genesis%20of%20medieval%20romance..pdf

--Saab 1989 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed some of the indenting in your post, as it originally had a lot of text going off the screen. It should look like what you had originally intended it to look. MC10 (TCGBL) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review comments[edit]

I am responding to the Peer review requested at proj, Catholicism. My general impression:

  • Generally well referenced article. Probably less errors than many other articles in Wikipedia.
  • How do you say "heavy weight"? I could not bring myself to read this all, there is just too much material and the article is just too long to be useful to me. Sorry. By teh time one gets to People's Crusade it is so long that it is time to click away.
  • The French, Italian and German Wikipedia articles on this are actually more informative (although they have less material) because they are shorter.
  • Better map: The French, Italian and German Wikipedia articles all have a nice map and route (See the Italian as an example) that could clarify things here. Here things start with a painting. The map would be better.
  • By the historian, for the historian: The article seems to be written for the historian, not for the general reader. Again, length is the barrier here.
  • Then what?: The term "Second Crusade" did not appear in the article. I will add that now. I found the article on Second Crusade easier to read and follow. It has nice maps of the routes etc. If an article is going to be FA, I would choose that one.
  • Other crusades?: There is no mention if there were X other crusades. I think it should be said that there were 8 more afterwards. It would be VERY nice to have a small crusade navbar at the end that has arrows that go from one crusade to the next.
  • Art: at the very end, there are a few neglected sentences on art. And no simple gallery of art, etc. I would have liked to see one to get a better feeling there. Overall, the art used in the article does not seem that great, and could be improved.

Overall I think there is too much preamble and the article is too long to be useful to me. I learned very little here. I actually learned more from the other 3 international Wikis I mentioned above. So a lot of work went into this article, but probably too much work. But it has good material. History2007 (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My response is here; I wasn't sure where I was supposed to go to comment. And FWIW I disagree with History's assessment of the detail/length. I grant that most people aren't going to read the whole article, but TMI can't be bad. There are sections, and people can jump to what they're particularly curious about. Article size indicates that this article may be at the cusp of wanting to be split, but I don't think it's necessarily there yet. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think going beyond metrics, I was just giving my first real impression: I still find this article too long, and I really have no vested interest in it. Now, I discovered another element, the list of crusades I was complaining about is "well hidden" in one of the boxes and one has to click on show to see it. Is this "stealth education"? Again, what I do not get here is immediate access to information. I wish it looked like the Second Crusade article. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
The First Crusade is a lot more complicated than the Second, that's probably why. It's possible to write a very lengthy book about the Second, such as Jonathan Phillips' recent one, and a smaller one about the First (Asbridge's book is smaller than Phillips'), but on the other hand, Phillips' book is pretty much the only book about the Second, and there are dozens about the First. More information, more sources both primary and secondary, more stuff happened...of course it's a longer article. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Still, hard to read and the details of the People's crusade, the Jewish attacks in Rhineland etc. are just too long, given that there are Main articles out there. Personally, I do not care who took refuge in which mosque during the massacre in Jerusalem and will not remember tomorrow, even if I read it here today. It is: "an article by the historians for the historians" not for me. I had enough here. Bye bye. History2007 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
Well, you can't expect every article to be tailored to your attention span. It's not History2007pedia. What do you care about? Is there anything else in the article that you think could be improved? You are probably right that the sections with their own articles could be shortened a bit. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)
I don't actually expect anything. I did not jump in here to pontificate on the Crusades. Someone posted a request for opinion on the project page, I responded to it to provide an opinion. Was that a request for opinion, or a request for praise? I said what I thought about the article, and I stand by it. I did not bother to tag the article as too long, because I am only marginally interested in it. But I do think it is too long, and I think you know that is true. If you ask for feedback, you must remember that it does not always agree with you. As for my attention span, my friend I assure you that it is much longer than most of the first year freshmen who might look at this page. The fact remains that the sections with Mains have too much detail in them that will not be remembered by the reader the next day, e.g. did they make ladders with timber from ships? Who cares? They stormed the place and killed lots of people. That is the message that needs to be telegraphed in the general article. The details of the bloodshed are irrelevant to the Crusade. And all of this in an article that does not have a map? How would I improve this article? I would add a nice map, as in the WikiFrench version, and get rid of the details. And that larger map told me something REAL that this article had failed to tell me: it drove home the difficulty of journey. Some of these people started out way up in Normandy. Just getting to Venice from there these days "by car" is a major undertaking and these people were walking. That human element was not clear to me from the reading and only the map made me think of it. So the article was less informative to me than the international Wiki articles. Anyway, the article is well sourced and pretty factual. So there is no need for more of references and details. What is needed is reducing its cholesterol and clarifying the facts in a more intuitive way. But I will leave that to you guys. History2007 (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)
I apologize for being unnecessarily snarky. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)
No worries, we will blame it on a keyboard malfunction. History2007 (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── I was the one who asked for a review of this article in order to bring this article to FA status. A review would give me a backbone to improve this article on. Any comments are welcome. (By the way, please comment at the peer review page, rather than here. It's a peer review, if you hadn't noticed.) Cheers, MC10 (TCGBL) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found some maps that may be useful. This map would look nice if it was labeled, like this French version. If anyone has the time to label the map and upload it to Commons, that would be very appreciated. I'll look into it, but any other help would be welcome. This map and this map are okay, but they look a bit superficial. MC10 (TCGBL) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for A-Class review[edit]

I have nominated this article for A-Class review. Please comment here to leave suggestions or comments. Thanks! MC10 (TCGBL) 22:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)


'additional aim' ?[edit]

The introduction to the article suggests that responding to the Byzantine request for help was the primary aim of the First Crusade - this point is subject of considerable debate among scholars. Until very recently the broad consensus was that the Pope had already decided on an expedition to retake Jerusalem, and used Alexios' request as a 'spark' and a way to present the crusades as a defensive war, in line with contemporary theories about what constituted a just war. Previous, unanswered, requests for help and the language of the papal bulls and speeches promulgating the crusades suggest that the primary aim was always Jerusalem. However, a recent book by Frankipan argues that the Byzantine request was the primary cause. This uncertainty should be acknowledged in the introduction - as it stands now, it is misleading. There is also the issue of the aims of the leaders being different to the aims of the participants, but that's all a bit complicated for the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.197.140 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Numbers[edit]

Given the issues surrounding the numbers of people on crusade, I'm not sure the infobox is particularly helpful. In the main body of the article it's explained that it is difficult to estimate the size of the armies, so I don't object to a single estimate being used for illustrative purposes (though I would lean towards Riley-Smith rather than Nicolle), but the nature of the infobox means that the issues aren't clear. Moreover, I can't see where the figure of 40,000 Muslim soldiers is referenced in the article. Given these drawbacks, would anyone object if I removed these figures from the infobox? Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Any figures should be sourced and if there is no source then there should be no figures. --Vrok (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
The 40,000 figure was introduced by HaZaM123 without a source so I've reverted it per WP:V. I've left the crusader figures for now. Nev1 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Christian Slant to connect the sanctioning of the Crusades by Urban to rescue Christian lands.[edit]

The history and motive or the first Crusade has been skewed by the Catholic Church; which has completely over shadowed the first and foremost motive.

It is not just an argument of debate between scholars as to the true motive behind the first crusade. It obvious from the actions taken at the time; the motive was primarily designed to open up trade roots for the west and that “selling point” of a righteous cause was retaking lands lost to Rome in the distant past. This idea of retaking lands taking 461 years past is without question propaganda.

Logically you could not have amassed 40,000 men woman and children from all over Europe to severe the trade needs of the Emperor. This article is flagrantly corrupt which only demonizes Muslims and puts the crusaders in the role of rescuer. My apologies if this seems to not show good faith of the authors, however; this slanted view historically has been designed as self-severing to the motive of the Catholic Church. Kristina Johnson72.80.126.76 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"It is not just an argument of debate between scholars as to the true motive behind the first crusade". Yes, it is. That's all Wikipedia seeks to do. We can't advance any personal argument or position that isn't derived from (and cited to) reputable scholarly sources. Haploidavey (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you misunderstood the point I was making on this article; we MUST always follow Scholarly sources and at the same time be aware of academic fraud and political agenda which seeks to interpret a consensus of well cited and verified historical truth, which is in conflict with theological interest.

The intention of Wikipedia or any journal article is to submit the evidence for scholarly review which is well cited and verified; at the same time avoiding slanted interpretation which is required by (neutral point of view) in the wiki guidelines. So to clarify; epistemology must be applied to well cited evidentiary conclusions which are implied in bias and not proven.

This article does not contain well cited evidence as to the actual motive behind the first crusade and only suggests that a self-serving bias motive from catholic scholars can be cited; therefore, the most well cited evidence is suspect from the perspective of epistemology. The article starts out with a declarative statement as to the absolute motive of the crusades; after which it explains previous and motive based actions which are in conflict with its opening statement.

The debate remains open that the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos “did not” have the wealth to subscribe an army of 40,000 to reopen trade roots for the interest of the west and the fact that he petitioned Urban to assist in amassing a volunteer army of crusaders is accurate. I implore someone to edit the opening statement “The First Crusade (1096–1099) was a military expedition by Roman Catholic Europe to regain the Holy Lands” This opening statement violates NPOV. Kristina Johnson72.80.126.76 (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Just 35 000 men?[edit]

In topic there writes; crusades had got 35 000 men at total. But we know that the pope provokated the eurpean public for attacking muslims. Have you ever hear a number 600 000 which includes christian villagers and teenagers? 35 000 is not a realist number according to me. This must be discussed. Aydın ERGÜL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.24.165.111 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Watch out for Christianophobia[edit]

Is more than obvious that the crusade was defensive. The Byzantines were Christian too. An encyclopaedia should be apolitical.

  1. ^ Jonathan Riley-Smith, The Crusades: A History, 2nd ed. (Yale University Press, 2005), pg. 7.
  2. ^ Weisz, Tiberiu. The Kaifeng Stone Inscriptions: The Legacy of the Jewish Community in Ancient China. New York: iUniverse, 2006 (ISBN 0-595-37340-2).
  3. ^ Xu, Xin, Beverly Friend, and Cheng Ting. Legends of the Chinese Jews of Kaifeng. Hoboken, N.J.: KTAV Pub, 1995 (ISBN 0881255289).