Talk:Historiography of the Crusades

Popular Reception

I am not convinced that Popular Reception is really historiography, but I am open to debate on that. Historiography is about Historians not History, or indeed popular conceptions. So I removed the text below. Beyond that it has a number of issues like no page numbers and tendency to over-simplification,

The crusades and their leaders were romanticized in popular literature of the late medieval period; the Chanson d'Antioche was a chanson de geste dealing with the First Crusade, and the Song of Roland, dealing with the era of the similarly romanticized Charlemagne, was directly influenced by the experience of the crusades, going so far as to replace Charlemagne's historic Basque opponents with Muslims. A popular theme for troubadours was the knight winning the love of his lady by going on crusade in the east.

In the 14th century, Godfrey of Bouillon was united with the Trojan War and the adventures of Alexander the Great against a backdrop for military and courtly heroics of the Nine Worthies who stood as popular secular culture heroes into the 16th century, when more critical literary tastes ran instead to Torquato Tasso and Rinaldo and Armida, Roger and Angelica. Crusading imagery could be found even in the Crimean War, in which the United Kingdom and France were allied with the Muslim Ottoman Empire, and in World War I, especially Allenby's capture of Jerusalem in 1917.

In Spain, the popular reputation of the Crusades is outshone by the particularly Spanish history of the Reconquista. El Cid is the central figure.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

the issue of memory has become a major factor in historiography since the 1980s--you need top read the historiography article Rjensen (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)-- start with David Glassberg, "Public history and the study of memory." The Public Historian 18.2 (1996): 7-23 online -- I can send you a copy if you need one (I used to be on the editorial board there]. Rjensen (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen:—thank you Mr Jenson, I would appreciate that. My jstor access has expired. One further thing with your cites can you please use the sfn version of harvard for them for consistency? If this article gets to a more robust state it would be good to put it up for a Good Article review and that is one of the first things it will be pulled up on. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

please send your email to rjensen@uic.edu and I will get copy right away I can't live without JSTOR! Rjensen (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

References

GOCE copyedit request

• Lists: Some of the lists contain a lot of items. Would you be okay if I added an Oxford comma before each last item?

Np Tenryuu—I am not a grammertician so will take your advice on this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done.

• Capitalising "Crusades": The term is used frequently throughout the article though capitalising it seems very random. Am I correct in assuming that when "crusades" is used, it refers to the term in general and not the events that happened in the Crusades?

This is a constant across the subject, I tend to capitalise only proper nouns. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done.

• [...] Joseph François Michaud with his History of the Crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land in 1820, but he also praised a level of crusader chivalry [...]: Emphasis added. Is "level" important? Can it be removed?

Yes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

? Ambiguous. In any case I've removed "a level of".

That is correct, I meant to type No but made a mistake, apologies and lol Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• that the Crusades were one stage in the improvement of European Civilisation: Changed it already, but I'm assuming this is standard European civilisation we're talking about.

Yes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done.

• The Muslim world exhibited little interest in the Crusades for whom they did not represent a single or coherent [] even until the middle of the 19th century: I'm assuming there is a missing noun where I added the [].

I think something like event or phenomenon would fit, I think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Reworked sentence.

Looking forward to hearing your reply. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 21:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: Finished my second pass. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: Expediting the process a little but I have finished my copyedit. Let me know if you have any other areas on here that still need to be addressed. Best of luck to your good article candidacy. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Regrettably, article was nominated twelve days too late, which is just too long. Closing as unsuccessful.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that ...? that historians cannot agree on what was a crusade
  • ALT1:... that ...? that historians cannot agree on what was a crusade

Improved to Good Article status by Norfolkbigfish (talk). Self-nominated at 15:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC).

• : The article passed for GA back on March 31, 2020. Making it ineligible. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 03:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

GA?

@Norfolkbigfish and Iazyges: during the article's A-class review three experienced editors has concluded that the article is incomplete and incomprehensible. One of them added that "I basically have comments on every sentence I read, many of which I can't immediately tell what the sentence is trying to say." How much time do you think you need to fix the problems? Borsoka (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• I rewrote this after discussion with Norfolkbigfish. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Dr. Grampinator: This article is listed as GA (it was nominated for A) and has thus been peer reviewed. Deleting large sections without discussion is the very least discourteous. The Background supplied is essential to understanding why the Crusades are seen differently - you might disagree but that's not your call to make.

The relevance of inserting large swathes of pre-Crusading literature is not clear - apart from one unsupported sentence at the beginning claiming they were used by historians of the crusades. You then list them without actually showing who used them and how.

Articles can always be improved - that does not require the deletion of material which took me a lot of work. I'm sure you spent a fair amount of time on this so when you consider your response, I suggest you pause - I left this for a couple of days to avoid saying something I might regret. Its really annoying when you put in a lot of effort and someone just turns up and removes it. Isn't it?

We can either discuss this in a collaborative way or go to arbitration - I'm not interested in an edit war. Let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: Thanks for your comment. I was wondering if anyone was paying attention to what I was doing to this article. I started looking at the subject during last year's A-Class review but didn't really know enough about the subject to chime in at that point. As you probably noticed, I started out small and, of course, nothing is quite like you think until you get it down on paper.

I didn't have a problem per se with the Background and Terminology sections. I deleted them as they are adequately covered in the Crusades article and didn't think that anyone would read this one without reading that one first.

As to the pre-Crusade material, I thought it was adequately explained with the references to Fuller and Michaud, but you should also look to the Wisconsin Study, Runciman, Tyerman's God's War, Murray's Encyclopedia.

I've seen what you've done on your rewrite and have some suggestions. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 are fine, as they were in the original (by that I mean before the 4th of July). Section 2.4 is seriously lacking in that really only discusses Runciman, whose work at this point is 70 years old. I would suggest adding Tyerman, Asbridge, Riley-Smith (his work, not just what he said about Runciman), Hillenbrand, etc.

Section 2.1 presents the history of the Crusades, not the historiography. That was really the crux of my problem with the original article, which discussed Dwight D. Eisenhower and George W. Bush, but not Anna Komnene or Christopher Tyerman.

I apologize if I stepped on your toes. As I said, I started out small and.... The stuff that I wrote that is in Section 3 (and Section 4, just beginning) is way out of proportion to the rest of the article as is and should be deleted. I would suggest that the Primary Sources be truly reflective of RHC and show the Greek historians (and maybe Michael the Syrian). Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that you removed the Main article tag that pointed Crusading_movement#Historiography to this article with the commentary Target article is not the Main Article for this section as it contains far less information than presented here, although I have no objection Dr. Grampinator and looking at both broadly agree. Robinvp11 might be interested in the content there, as a pointer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish I have no strong opinion on the issue, and feel free to put it back in if you like. My understanding is that the use of the "Main Article" reference means that the target article provides significantly more information than the section, and the case here is just the opposite. Maybe a "See Also" is more appropriate? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator First, I appreciate the considered and supportive response - I haven't had much luck in assuming Positive Intent over the past two years, so its a good reminder that I should continue making that leap :)

I also got involved in this due to the A class review and did a lot of research as it was an interesting topic, particularly for someone who's spent a lot of time in the Middle East. I can see you've written numerous articles on this area so please feel free to add or expand.

I know the Crusades are covered in far more detail elsewhere but the purpose of the Background is to explain the context in which they were viewed, otherwise its hard to make the links and I don't think its too much.

You clearly know more about the Primary sources than I do so feel free to expand but I think we need to avoid simply producing a long list - maybe better in a separate List Article?

Re the point made by Norfolkbigfish; perhaps Crusading_movement#Historiography should be deleted or merged; as suggested, I've taken a (quick) look - not sure I agree with all of it (any reference to Sir Walter Scott as a historian starts furious alarm bells ringing in my head) but some of it could be incorporated here. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I may have confused rather than clarified my views. Dr. Grampinator—I was broadly supportive of your edit on Crusading_movement#Historiography. The scope of that section is probably broader than this article, I think that this one would be improved if it was expanded to match and then went into further depth. Robinvp11—part of the scope of Crusading movement is the memorilisation of the crusades: historiography and indeed Walter Scott is a significant part of that. I don't read the section as implying that Scott was an historian. I have found Tyerman, Christopher (2011). The Debate on the Crusades, 1099–2010. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7320-5. very interesting on the subject, it is worth a look. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

NorfolkbigfishYes, I was also puzzled by the Walter Scott comment above and did check both the Crusader Movement reference as well as Tyerman. Even more curious is that the Historiography article says exactly the same thing in its Post-Medieval section. (The comment on Scott in the Long 19th Century section is at best misleading, some might say false, as is much of the rest of the article.) And, clearly the Historiography section in Crusade Movement needs to stay put as the "Crusader Movement" is different from the "Crusades" per the extension discussions of the last year. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)