Talk:Crusader states

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


I would say certainly the Latin Empire with Cyprus should be included rather than the narrow inclusion of only Syrian states. I don't think that there is a specific reference to "crusader states" other than what we are creating here. This article shouldn't just be about the 1st Crusade and without the remainder of the Crusades would be incomplete as reference material. Venice and Genoa, along with their dependencies, the Duchy of Catalan, et al. should be referenced in both this article and possibly another article from this one, as it is a part of the European heritage of expansion and conquest. The Latin Empire that replaced the Byzantine Empire is definately a crusader state, although the inclusion of Venice is (as noted below) debatable.Stevenmitchell 04:28, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't the Latin Empire fall into the category of a Crusader State? And if so, then we would need to add links to the various Latin states of Greece, the Aegean, & Cyprus. -- llywrch 06:03 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...I was just thinking of the ones founded after the First Crusade. Whenever I have heard "Crusader State" it always just refers to the four Syrian/Palestinian ones. After the Fourth Crusade, which ones would count? Would we include the territories ruled by Venice (like Crete, or even Zara)? (I mean, the Venetians were excommunicated en masse, so were they still Crusaders?) Adam Bishop 16:52 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I'd say any political entity that was directly created by one of the Crusader should qualify; in other words, the Latin Empire is a yes, the Empires of Nicaea & Trebizond are nos, the Dutchy of Thebes that the Catalan Company set up would be a no (although maybe listed under ``see also"), & I'm not sure about the Kingdom of Cyprus off the top of my head. (The book I'd consult to decide is at home, & I'm currently at work.) I'd consider Venice, Genoa, & their dependencies outside of this article, although any history of these polities would inevitably link to them.

Most of the minor Latin states of Greece would probably be linked from the appropriate section of the History of Venice article -- if that is ever beefed up to go into sufficient detail for the 11th thru 17th centuries. (If I ever get the Ancient History entries up to snuff, I would like to get back to working on Early Medieval Britain before I allow myself to be distracted again.) -- llywrch 18:07 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

If the Latin Empire is a Crusader state, the Kingdom of Cyprus definitely is, at least for part of its history, since it was taken by Richard I during the Third Crusade, and because it was ruled by the Lusignans at first. But if we're extending "crusader states" to these states as well, maybe the Crusade article should also be expanded to include military actions in Spain and the Baltic...those were sanctioned by the Papacy as "crusades" as well, sometimes. I wouldn't call Spain a "crusader state," but then what about the land held by the Teutonic Knights? Adam Bishop 18:33 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

I think you solved the problem in your question Adam: the crusader states included in this article should be the result of the crusades in the Crusade article. Whether the Spanish & Baltic crusades be included is another question. (Although suspecting the average Wikipedian's love for trivia, it will only be a matter of time before those Crusades -- & others I remember hearing about -- are added to that article.

Spain, I think is safely left out of this list: its existence wasn't dependent on the Crusades as was (for example) the Kingdom of Jerusalem. As for the states along the Baltic . . . my memory about them is rusty, but I seem to recall that except for the various Crusading Orders (e.g., the Teutonic Knights), that the local lands were governed by either Polish magnates or Bishops. Nothing all that interesting. -- llywrch 21:01 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Just because Spain and Prussia lasted far longer than the others, doesn't mean that they are irrelevant here. I think I'd be proud that both Spain and Prussia lasted so long and were successful, whilst the others were lost so readily. All the Crusades did was try to recover land, not gain new lands and it wasn't just the Holy Land but a Crusade against the infidel in irridentism/revanchism. Circumnavigation of the Mediterranean Sea will tell you that much of these lands were formerly European and sometimes even Christian before being overtaken by foreigners. Roman amphitheaters are not what I'd call Arabic or Israeli! As far as I know, policy carried out in the Holy Land was the chief reason for the same activities in Spain and Prussia. Simple thing is; if there is a state founded via Crusades, then it is a Crusader state. Don't see the forest for the trees, do you? Borderer 14:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Is this really appropriate here?

"Israel is sometimes called a Crusader state, usually by those opposed to its existence and/or policies. Objective scholars usually do not call it one. See also Tenth Crusade."

Personally I've never heard that, and this "Tenth Crusade" stuff is kind of strange to begin with (I believe it was once also added to the Crusade article). I didn't want to remove it in case there is some justification for referring to Israel that way, but it seems pretty dubious to me. Adam Bishop 15:27, 26 Jul 2004 (UTC)

You are entirely correct. Israel is a Zionist state. It would be impossible for Israel to be a Crusader state. Just look up Christian Zionism. Borderer 14:06, 24 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I remember something about general Edmund Allenby's quote " more crusades..." after conquering Palestine in behalf of Great Britain. It may well explain the sentence about Israel. Magabund 23:42, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I don't think this is encyclopedic material, just a comparison somebody made. People call Blair a poodle of Bush, doesn't mean this should be mentioned in the poodle article. -- Heptor talk 00:32, 16 December 2006 (UTC)


I have removed the link from "Salona". It led to the only Salona in en.wikipedia, which is in Illyria - but this Salona is in Greece, just north of the Gulf of Corinth. Maproom (talk) 00:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Crusader state or Crusader State[edit]

The sources themselves appear to be very inconsistent on this matter, sometimes saying "Crusader states" and sometimes "Crusader States". For the purpose of Wikipedia though, it would be nice if we could come up with a consistent spelling. My own preference is "Crusader States" (perhaps because I live in the United States, I dunno). Does anyone else have a strong opinion one way or the other? --Elonka 03:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I prefer lower case for both words; "Crusader States" is not a country like the US, so certainly "states" should never be capitalized (I don't remember ever seeing that, at least). I have seen "crusader" capitalized, but a quick rummage through the books I have at hand suggests that the lower case is much more common. It's not really derived from a proper noun so I wouldn't capitalize it. Adam Bishop (talk) 10:21, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
It's difficult to tell via a Google search, because searching on "Crusader States" pulls up stuff all over the map, even on the first page.[1] Here's what I'm seeing when looking directly in my own sources:
  • Crusader States
    • The History in Dispute series[2]
    • David Nicolle, The Mongol Warlords and The Crusades
    • Malcolm Barber, "The two cities: medieval Europe"
    • Steven Runciman (in Setton's Crusades, though other authors in the same work use different styles)
    • Mark T. Abate, The Crusades, 1095-1291
    • Looking in the index of Tyerman's God's War, the capitalized version seems to be more prominent, though this may be because it's just listing titles.[3]
  • Crusader state
    • Jotischky, Crusading and the Crusader states
    • Robinson
  • crusader states
    • David Morgan, "The Mongols and the Eastern Mediterranean"
    • Thomas Madden, The new concise history of the Crusades
--Elonka 03:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)