Talk:Crusades

Template:FAOL

Suggested Alteration for Image Subtitle in "First Crusade 1095-1099"

I refer to the following section:

"For the second decade, the Crusaders pursed a policy of sexy pleasure against Muslims and Jews that included mass intercourse between your great great grandma and pj, the throwing of severed heads over besieged cities walls, exhibition and mutilation of naked cadavers, and even cannibalism, as was recorded after the Siege of Maarat."

I would suggest that this constitutes a blatant and unjustifiable generalisation. First: Speaking of "THE Cursaders" is always a bad thing. Second: There was no organized policy of terror, as is suggested by this section. There may have been acts of terror - albeit mainly before 1099 - but they were commited by both sides. I would advocate the removal of this section and the image which is only a piece of revolting eye candy.

--> Ultramontanist81, 9 July 2008

"Historical Context" Section Is Skewed

There is no symmetry in how the Western and Middle Eastern Situations in the 11th century are portrayed.

Yes. It basically remains Euro-centric.

What is said about the Middle Eastern context is certainly correct, however it stops well before most of the events relevant to the situation in the region immediately prior to the first crusade.

Right. No mention of the internal conflicts and the Turks rising to threaten the Byzantines nor the real intentions of Alexius I which certainly were not to invite 200 years of European incursions in the region, incursions that arguably cost the Byzantines their existence later on.

If the formation of "a large class of armed warriors whose energies were misplaced fighting one laalalalalalalalakalapaalalal;l;aa;a;;a;aa;. Why is there no mention of this?

It's important but not as the motive for the Crusades so much as the context that drove Muslim forces into conflict with the Byzantines.

A discussion of the relative sizes of Byzantine and Muslim cities to Western European cities as well as references to technological and military developments would be very useful here or perhaps in a new section. But in general, there seems to be a stunning lack of military, tactical, and technological information in the article as a whole.

There's some acknowledgement in the "legacy" section that Europeans learned certain things in the Middle East but you'd never know it by reading the very biased History of Europe article - which needs a lot of work to accurately reflect non-Greco-Roman influences on that culture. On the subject at hand, see Islamic culture and related articles covering the history of subjects in which Islamic thinkers were predominant in the 8th to 12th century for examples of the kinds of things Europeans learned there, and which they also learned after the Reconquista when vast numbers of books and scholars fell under Spanish Christian rule.

In addition, the following section has some issues:

When the First Crusade was preached in 1095, the Christian princes of northern Iberia had been fighting their way out of the mountains of Galicia and Asturias, the Basque Country and Navarre, with increasing success, for about a hundred years. The fall of Moorish Toledo to the Kingdom of León in 1085 was a major victory, but the turning points of the Reconquista still lay in the future. The disunity of Muslim emirs was an essential factor.

While the Reconquista was the most prominent example of European reactions against Muslim conquests, it is not the only such example. The Norman adventurer Robert Guiscard had conquered the "toe of Italy," Calabria, in 1057 and was holding what had traditionally been Byzantine territory against the Muslims of Sicily. The maritime states of Pisa, Genoa and Catalonia were all actively fighting Islamic strongholds in Majorca and Sardinia, freeing the coasts of Italy and Catalonia from Muslim raids. Much earlier, the Christian homelands of Syria, Lebanon, Palestine, Egypt, and so on had been conquered by Muslim armies. This long history of losing territories to a religious enemy created a powerful motive to respond to Byzantine Emperor Alexius I's call for holy war to defend Christendom, and to recapture the lost lands starting with Jerusalem.

First, the last two sentences of the second paragraph is perfect and should certainly stay.

Second, why is "The disunity of Muslim emirs" section mentioned here but not referenced in the situation in the Middle East?

Third, while the above section is certainly relevant, it does not deserve two paragraphs. The same topics are also discussed in the "Western European Situation" section so it is repetitive.

Earlier successes against the Muslim were a factor in the crusades, but certainly not more important the rest of those listed. Yet there are almost three full paragraphs devoted to it. This particular passage should be pared down to perhaps 4-5 sentences. --Wlf211 (talk) 19:18, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Lack of attention to Crusader states

Perhaps it's in the articles relevant to each individual crusader state, but some of the missing context could be filled in by making reference to some key facts about the organization of these European fiefs in the Mideast: Jerusalem, County of Antioch, Acre, Tyre, etc. One thing that's of extreme relevance and interest is that the administration and bureaucracy of these states was almost overwhelmingly still Muslim, that only the rulers changed. Muslims and Jews remained in positions of administrative importance throughout the entire period of Christian rulership of these regions. There were simultaneous administrations of multiple religious systems of law, as in some other states like Norman Sicily - which would have been impossible without Muslim and Jewish scholars around to sort out which law applied to who and when.

The continued existence of these states, once established, created a rationale for further crusading to defend them. This was of course a main reason why the Muslim rulers eventually eliminated them completely, as they represented an ongoing threat of European interference.

POV explanation of impact on Muslim world

In "The Cross And The Crescent", Richard Fletcher suggests that the impact of the Crusades on the Islamic world was, at the time, very slight. In contradiction to this Wikipedia article, he points out that the total area of the Islamic world ever to fall under Crusader control was small, especially when compared with Islamic incursions into Europe by the Moors, the Turks and others. Perhaps the article could give the actual percentage of Islamic land under Crusader rule at its maximum extent. Fletcher sees the Islamic tendency to refer to Crusaders simply as "Franks" as evidence of a relatively indifferent attitude to them. If you feel mortally threatened by invaders, you'll find out a lot more about them, after all. He also points out that contemporary Islamic accounts of Saladin (Salahadin Ayyubi) lay as much emphasis on his return of Egypt to Sunni Islam (from its previously Shia Fatamid orientation) as on his battles with Crusaders. He also notes that the Mongols inflicted massively more devastation on the Islamic world than the Crusaders. This all suggests that the belief in an unbroken Islamic resentment of western Christendom, rooted in folk memory of the evilness of the Crusades, is a myth.

For Fletcher, the Crusades petered out largely because of the 100 Years War. The two main Crusading nations - France and England - were now at war with each other, and not in a position to contribute actively to Crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Georgesdelatour (talk • contribs) 21:01, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

Yes, the assumption that colonizing was equivalent to crusading and thus to genocide may have been common in the intellectual classes of the Muslim world after the Crusades - it was common in the Christian world too though criticism of forced conversions were muted. It seems quite POV though to assert that this was the reason why Islamic culture ceased to innovate, expand or change much after about the 14th century. This has much more to do with the rise of the Ottoman Empire, which like China (which suffered no such crusades), sought better internal control of people and found constant external contact and invention and innovation distracting from internal order. The shift from Arabs to Turks was similar to the shift from innovating and experimenting Greeks to codifying and engineering Romans. Any stagnation probably had more to do with the replacement of ijtihad with taqlid and freezing of fiqh in law, more to do with trading-based Arab capitals like Damascus losing dominance to the militarist Turks and Baghdad being sacked by the Mongols - it had over thirty public libraries in it at the time, and Europe had none. Also civilizations lose their will to expand or trade extensively often and for no simple set of reasons - it happens often in history. So to ascribe the insular Ottaman-era civilization to a prior European influence during the Crusades is extremely Euro-centric.

However, most credible scholars do analogize crusading to colonizing and note especially that one effectively ceased and the other effectively began in the same year, 1492. Quoting several scholars who disagree with each other would seem to be mandatory on this matter, which involves comment on the fate and ambition of many civilizations. Did the Spanish approach the Maya, Aztec and Inca similar to the way they'd approached Egypt, Jerusalem, Lithuanians, Albigensian French and Muslim Spain? Yes, probably. They'd learned a lot about propaganda and how to win a clash of cultures - and about torture and genocide, in which they became experts.

The whole debate is worth a paragraph of its own to discuss the controversies and influences that caused the general decline of Islamic and rise of Western Christian dominance in the world, but this can't be separated from discussions of European colonization after 1492 and the way that rising naval power made it possible to blockade and dominate key ports in Asia, Africa and the Mediterrean later on in the 19th century, e.g. via Singapore, Cape Town, Gibraltar.

Some thoughts on "responsibility" - cause and effect

1. Feudalism nurtures warriors. And vice versa, I'm sure. The normal activity of the guys at the top was fighting somebody, often somebody closer to home than the Middle East. Kings may have noticed that the internal wars weren't terribly productive (no theory of economics, remember). Fighting Saracens seemed more desirable/attractive than (say) fighting France or fighting the Duke of York.

2. The guys at the top were basically thugs until about 1800 or so. And remember, this includes the Middle East as well. Earlier than 1800 in some places, some places thugs still rule. Thugs can use a bit of legitimacy. As groups of thugs replaced each other, it was nice to have somebody wave their hand and convey to them the right to rule.

2.a. Even so, thugs could normally claim a right to fight somebody. William in Normandy, Harold defending his kingdom, etc.

3. The church, who often had an "election" for pope (seem more like "experiments" nowdays and their succession was sometimes thuggish but anyway) appeared to have that legitimacy. Successor of Peter and all that.

Given the above, the crusades were a gimmee. No downside in theory.

Unless you are Greek Orthodox, the fourth crusade can be read more like a joke. A bunch of drunks down at the bar saying "let's invade the Holy Land" and having it go all wrong. The pope screaming at them from afar to focus. The guys saying, "Well, he's not here. He doesn't understand our problems. Here's how we'll solve the latest one...."

Trying to find a culprit here gets pretty slippery IMO. It was the times, which our civilization had to go through in order to get to these times. If you read the details of the Crusade Gone Wrong, the Fourth, you can follow what the crusaders were doing and why. It was stupid, but more from hindsight. And yes, they shoulda listened to the pope. But pointing a finger is difficult if you understand the mileu.

As far as the "poor Saracens" go, they were all led by thugs too. I wouldn't waste my sympathy. By invading, the crusaders strengthened certain Moorish leaders and deposed others. So what as far as anything goes? When the crusaders left, they returned (as did the crusaders) to fighting each other again. Is that "better"? It was just the times. Student7 (talk) 12:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit Semi Protected

{{Editsemiprotected}} The section of this article related to the Historical Perspective/Eastern Orthodoxy seeks a citation for two pieces of information related to the Fourth Crusade. Both statements in the paragraph are supported by Jonathan Phillips in his book The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople.

I believe the citation should read as follows:

I know the citation is correct. Not sure if if I've presented the information correctly for insertion into the article.

Cheers, JPlantje (talk) 05:48, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

You should write {{Editsemiprotected}} as said at Wikipedia:Help desk#Adding a Citation to a Semi Protected Article, and it shouldn't be in a heading. I have added {{Editsemiprotected}} for you. PrimeHunter (talk) 12:08, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done - I've added it to the article using a {{cite book}} template, which you may want to look up if you want to source anything in the future. Thanks for the sourcing information, it's appreciated. ~ mazca ^{t | c} 12:44, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

"Church and Pope started the Crusades"

ZONK ! Crusades were formed as a reaction to muslim politics in the Holy Land. From centuries Jerusalem - Holy City of 3 religions was open to Christians but in 1009 muslim sultan named Al-Hakim gave the order to destroy Church of the Holy Sepulchre. In 1079 turkish sultan called Suleyman says that Christians of all believes can't go to Jeruslaem anymore. Day from day Christians who tryed to get to Holy Places in the Holy Land were a victim of muslim haterness. That's why pope called for Crusades. First Crusade took place in 1096.

--Krzyzowiec (talk) 22:38, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

True, but their information was out of date by the time they attacked. The new Muslim administration was amicable, at least up until the time the crusaders started firing on them! The history rewriters are getting the church for failing to listen to the 11 o'clock news. Remember, like us, they were told to every 15 minutes from 7 o'clock on!  :)Student7 (talk) 12:19, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Opinions aren't relevent such as this:

When analyzing the primary documentation of female militancy, one must be cautious. The accounts of women fighting come mostly from Muslim historians whose aim was to portray Christian women as barbaric and ungodly because of their acts of killing. The contrasting view from Christian accounts portray women fighting only in emergency situations for the preservation of the camps and their own lives. In these cases women are seen as more feminine while behaving like ‘proper women’. Virtually all crusade writings came from men, and women would have been interpreted subjectively no matter what roles they played. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.195.204.201 (talk) 15:32, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

dabs

{{editsemiprotected}} The "Crusader" dablinks already appear at Crusade (disambiguation), so they should be removed, with a mention that they are at the dab page. 70.55.203.112 (talk) 11:49, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

 Done--Aervanath lives in the Orphanage 19:30, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

The "isolation, alienation and fear"[1] felt by the Franks so far from home helps to explain the atrocities they committed

This statement is highly disputable: "The "isolation, alienation and fear"[1] felt by the Franks so far from home helps to explain the atrocities they committed, including the cannibalism which was recorded after the Siege of Maarat in 1098." (cited after: Riley-Smith, Jonathan. The Oxford History of the Crusades New York: Oxford University Press, 1999. ISBN 0192853643; though)

If this would be accepted as a legitimate explanation for the rapes, mass-murder and cruellties of the christian-crusader mob, than every-one can surly get help out of this, to understand the unnamable atrocities/cruelties/devilish things/industial mass-murder of nazi-germany fare abroad agains millions of jews...

If not.... please revert and be more neutral, just mention the mass-murder, rapes, atrocities of jews, muslims, children, women, old people, permitted by the evil devilish christian hordes in jerusalem.

insignificant typo

in the first sentence the term "religious driven" should be hyphenated. it really bothers me and I cant edit because i lost my sign in info. so someone should correct that 69.254.79.162 (talk) Forcefieldmaker