Talk:Council of Clermont

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Untitled[edit]

are we sure that it was clarmont in france,and not clarmont in switzerland? Carinae986 (talk) 21:50, 29 November 2011 (UTC)

hi where is the image taken from ? where does it appear ?

thanx nir_evron <at> yahoo.com

As I posted on the Reference desk:

I think I got the image itself from http://www.churchofsaginaw.org/churchstory/crusades.htm. It's a pretty common image on the internet; it comes from a painting in a manuscript written about 1490, which is located in the Bibliotheque Nationale in Paris. The date and place info about the image, although not the image itself because it wasn't as good a copy, comes from http://www.unf.edu/classes/crusades/, the homepage for a class taught by Paul Halsall, probably the most trustworthy source for crusade info on the Internet. Unfortunately I don't know the name (or the shelf mark) of the manuscript, if you wanted to go to Paris to look it up, but I hope this helps! Adam Bishop 04:15, 23 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Another Council of Clermont of 535[edit]

Some kind of disambig has to be done. There was another Council (or Synod) of Clermont in 535 [1] [2] [3] Thoughts? ←Humus sapiens←ну? 09:53, 27 December 2005 (UTC)

Indeed. "The Council of Clermont" refers to ANY of the medieval church councils held within the Diocese of Clermont-Ferrand (Auvergne, France). For example, another notable "Council of Clermont" is Clermont (1130): see the entry for the Second Lateran Council. More info on Council of Clermont (535):
  • The chief event of the episcopate (bishop-hood) of St. Gal (A.D. 527 to 551) was the Council of Clermont (535). Fifteen prelates of the kingdom of Austrasia assisted at it under the presidency of Honoratus, Bishop of Bourges. {more info: http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/06335b.htm }
This could be partially resolved by moving the current article (main page) to Council of Clermont (1095).
- Libertas 10:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)
I think it would be best to disambiguate the councils of 535 and 1130...this one is far more well-known and the overwhelmingly most likely intended target of a search. Adam Bishop 16:34, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Another point[edit]

While I think work still needs to be done to address the Council of Clermont (535) issue, I find it somewhat disturbing that no mention is made, anywhere in the article, which Clermont hosted this Council... Tomertalk 02:32, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Oops, fixed. Adam Bishop 04:20, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Gruesome offenses?[edit]

A statement regarding Robert the Monk states the following:

"Urban listed various gruesome offenses of the Muslims..."

I think it's fair to add the word "alleged" there since this is merely a claim (at best) and practically shows so.--SlightlyInsane 21:01, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

"Alleged" is already well understood, since Urban is being indirectly quoted in this instance. "Alleged" might be inserted into many sentences in all historical accounts, for they are all largely "alleged". --Wetman 22:56, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Urban's real motives for instigating the crusade?[edit]

I am studying the beginning of the crusades, primarily whether Pope Urban II had another motive than genuine relgion when calling it. I have read many theories such as Urban's desire for extra wealth for the Papacy through opening up trade routes to Eastern Europe and of course loot. Other ideas are that Urban wished to assert his authority over Orthodox Christianity prompting Alexius I of Byzantium to accept him as head of all Christianity thus healing the Great Schism of 40 years previously.

Could anyone offer any of their own views or other historians views on this subjects or websites,books etc, that could be helpful. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.78.99.167 (talk) 19:41, 12 January 2007 (UTC).

Baldrick, archbishop of Dol[edit]

A "Baldric, archbishop of Dol" is mentioned in the article. Dol was not an archbishopric, only a bishopric, a suffragan of the diocese of Tours. And 'Baldric' was never a bishop of Dol.

Has some editor made a mistake? Or is some source unreliable?

--Vicedomino (talk) 03:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

I take it all back. I found the proof texts that show that he signed himself "Baldricus Dolensis Archiepiscopus" in a bull of Pope Paschal II. I still do not believe, however, that Dol was an archbishopric. The punctuation should be 'Baldricus Dolensis, Archiepiscopus'.

--Vicedomino (talk) 04:03, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

His page is at Baldric of Dol. According to fr-wiki, Dol was an archbishopric from 859 to 1209. --dab (𒁳) 16:15, 9 December 2017 (UTC)