Talk:Crusades/Archive 5: Difference between revisions

• Talk:Crusades/archive1 (prior to 2006)
• Talk:Crusades/archive2 (roughly January-June 2006)
• Talk:Crusades/archive3 (July-August 2006)

Muslim/Jewish Alliance?

I've heard from many sources that eventually the Jews and Muslims were allied during the crusades in some ways in order to drive out the crusaders after they attacked various Muslim and Jewish targets. I've also heard of that there was some cultural acceptance and tolerance between the two cultures/religions (other than the dhimmi status of jews in certain areas). If this is so, would someone like to establish a section on it?

PS: It's too bad the two peoples are in conflict in modern day.

What sources? There was no grand religious alliance between Muslims and Jews (nor was there a single Muslim state, or a Jewish state at all, to make such an alliance). There was some degree of acceptance and tolerance on all sides, but that exists today as well. Adam Bishop 04:05, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

I think his phrasing and your understanding of what he meant is off. In various situations, Muslims and Jews served together in the defense of their cities from their common enemy, the invading Europeans. I have found several internet references to this scenario, particularly in Jerusalem. Sbroderick 19:54, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

All the books I have read are agreed that it was regarded as standard that Jewish populations would favour Muslim rulers against the Crusaders. Thus Muslim-held cities would (after the example of Antioch in the 1stCr) expel Christian populations, but not Jews, before a siege by Christians and Christian-held cities did not in theory allow Jewish residents at any time. Johnbod 21:23, 28 October 2006 (UTC) to clarify: i mean learning from the example of Antioch in the above Johnbod 21:26, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

You could say that the Jews were allied with the Muslims much like you could say that the Serfs were allied with a nobleman in a battle. Actually, Islamic law prohibits non-Muslims from serving in Muslim armies. And nowhere did Jews prefer to be under Islamic rule as opposed to Christian rule, that's just plain myth. There were edicts put out by the various Popes that prohibited forced conversion or mistreatment of the Jews by Christians. As for Antioch and the various other seiges...to assume that the bloody nature of their sacking had something to do with religious differences would be ignoring the rest of history. The longer a city held out, the more they could expect brutal treatment. Yes Jews were slaughtered...so were Christians caught up in the middle...they were normally Armenian and Assyrian Coptics. For the record, when the Muslims initially took Jerusalem, long before the First Crusade...the Jews didn't make out too well then either.

Yes, the Jewish communities in the Middle East profited very nicely with an alliance with the Muslims. This is such an important aspect of understanding the Crusades that in fact I found it odd that this cultural and religious aspect of the region had been left out of the underlying issues of the Middle East. For example, according to A History of Palestine from 135 A.D. to Modern Times, by James Parkes (Oxford University Press, New York, 1909), Persians (Iranians) in 614 A.D. invaded Palestine, a part of the Christian Roman Empire of the East, and took Jerusalem. Here is Mr. Parkes's account: There is no doubt that the . . . Jews aided the Persians with all the men they could muster, and that the help they gave was considerable. Once Jerusalem was in Persian hands a terrible massacre of Christians took place, and the Jews are accused of having taken the lead in this massacre (op. cit., p. 81).

"With their churches and houses in flames around them, the Christians were indiscriminately massacred, some by the Persian soldiery and many more by the Jews." -- A History of the Crusades by Steven Runciman.

"Jews in the near East, north Africa and Spain threw their support behind advancing Muslim Arab armies."-- The Position of Jews in Arab lands following the rise of Islam by Merlin Swartz

Further, "After the fall of the Roman Empire, the Christian Church became the most powerful force in Europe. In the early Middle Ages, the Jews lived fairly peacefully with their Christian neighbors. Many Jews became merchants. Others practiced trades or owned land. Many Christians respected the Jews for their contributions to society."--- Elliot B. Lefkovitz, Ph.D., Adjunct Prof. of History, Loyola Univ. and Spertus Institute of Jewish Studies.

Someone with an interest in adding this important and relevant information should do so. Jtpaladin 16:38, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Let me just point out the fact from the fiction here; when the TRINITARIAN CHRISTIAN CRUSADERS invada Jerusalem, civilians were massacred, raped and their property looted en masse (including mosques and synagogues). When the Saracens under the leadership of Saladin retook it, not one drop of civilian blood was shed, and history proves that, not them 'holier than thou' 'o the crusaders were brilliant' gloryfying of tyrant type of opinions. And in regards to Muslims and Jews co-existing, well they always have. the only reason why they are clashing now, is because of the harsh way the indeginous palestinian population were uprooted by the Zionist movement. Islam calls for the respect of all religeons, especially Christianity and Judaism, and this has been largely implemented in history. The Jews and Unitarian Christians saught help and assistance from the muslims against the trinitarian christians of Spain: that shows the relationship between Muslims and Jews. and in Islamic spain, many of the wizirs and kings advisers were Jewish, as well as Christian. The attacks have always been on Islam, but people some times try to find ways of falsely demonising Muslims, even though they were merciful to people, and even crusaders who were captured were treated in a civil manner, and some of them continued to live amongst the muslims and never returned to europe. Agnes Nitt 12:15, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Defensive war

I've reverted the quotes saying it was a "defensive war" - the causes and meanings of the war are very complex and there is no single reason, it depends on what time frame and layer your looking at, who is doing the interpretation, etc... You can of course find quotes and make a case for various points of view, but they should not be presented here out of context as point of fact, that is original research. If you want to start a new section called "Causes of the war" and present the historiography of the subject and balance the points of view that is fine. -- Stbalbach 13:30, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you about putting things in a larger perspective, However, these edits were hardly OR, given that they were referenced. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 13:34, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Referencing has nothing to do with it. I can string a bunch of referenced quotes together and it can still be OR. Other Western historians like Steven Runciman have called it the last of the great European barbarian invasions. Muslims dont' call it a "western defensive" move, they saw it as an aggressive invasion. Even other European historians have seen it as the start of european expansionism that lasted until the current day. Is the "defensive" perspective correct? Perhaps, with qualifiers and explanation. But these are all various points of view that need a lot more explanation. -- Stbalbach 13:50, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. "Defensive" is certainly not the opinion of the majority of historians. Given the time frames involved, I'd call the "defensive" claim patently absurd. The region had been Muslim much longer than e.g. the US exists. And the original Muslim expansion was not a purely military expansion, but a cultural and religious phenomenon as well. Most people where not exterminated or expulsed, but converted and assimilated. The population of Palestine in 1100 was certainly mostly indigenous. --Stephan Schulz 14:17, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well the review was by Madden, so that was my mistake; Runciman and the colonialism idea are kind of old-fashioned, and this "belated defensive war" (which is how the crusaders saw it) is a current fad in crusade historiography (along with the idea the crusades started in Spain or Sicily, and a bunch of other stuff). Adam Bishop 15:08, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephan, to say that "defensive is patently absurd" is itself patently absurd, though counter-attack would be more fitting still. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 15:58, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

No, calling the Crusades a defensive war from today's perspective is patently absurd. There were more than 10 generations between the original Muslim expansion and the crusades. Of course, the Byzantine empire was under pressure from the Turks, but these were very different people from both the inhabitants of Palestine in 1100 and the Arabs that drove the original Muslim expansion around 700. It's as if Germany invades Sweden today in retaliation for the thirty years war.... --Stephan Schulz 16:21, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Stephan, I have already qualified my statement above. I myself am not insistent as long as one doesn't forget the original Muslim aggressive war and conquest and all that happened in between. Somehow that seldomly gets mentioned, and even your post sounds a bit justifying it by resorting to 10 generations of Muslims rule. (If am wrong, please excuse me.) The Swedish analogy does not hold, since Sweden does NOT occupy parts of Germany at the moment, does not attacks the rest of Germany, does not obstruct pratices cherished by Germans. (The last analogy is of course awkward, since Germany is not a religion.)

Sthalbach, I hope you will agree with me that the view of one group should not be the basis for the exclusion of conflicting views, especially if they attributed and referenced. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:35, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, pick France then (still occupying Alsace and Lorraine). Or let surviving Iroquois attack the US as a "defensive war". Better yet, let Peru attack the US on behalf of the Iroquois (assuming that Peru has a significant native American population). But that is only one of my points. The major one is that the population in Palestine was essentially indigenous. The land was conquerered 400 years ago (exchanging one foreign master for another (acutally, the sequence was Byzantine->Persian->Byzantine->Arab, if I remember correctly)). But the conquerors were a tiny minority. Many of the conquered converted and adopted some of the culture, and assimilated the conquerors in return. This was not a land where a Christian majority population was supressed by a foreign elite. It was a land where a native population with mixed culture and religion lived in several effectively independent states. Whom did they attack at the time? Especially whom in Western Europe? --Stephan Schulz 17:28, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

A few points here. Firstly, the area conquered by the First Crusade probably had a Christian majority population before the Crusade started. Certainly Antioch and Edessa, which had until only about a decade beforehand been part of the Byzantine Empire, and some parts of which were ruled by n native Christian princes even at the time the Crusaders arrived, did. My understanding is that this is also true of considerable portions of the Kingdom of Jerusalem and the County of Tripoli, as well - notably the area around Jerusalem itself. There were also Muslims in the area, particularly in the coastal cities which were conquered in the decades following the crusade, and in the area around Nablus (iirc), but native Christians probably predominated. Certainly after the Crusade they did, as most of the Muslims and Jews were either massacred or left. As to "several effectively independet states", I'm' not sure what you're talking about. At the time the First Crusade started, the whole of the Levant was under the control of the Seljuk Turks, who formed, more or less, a single state and had until quite recently beforehand been behaving very aggressively towards the Byzantines, whom they had driven not only from the Antioch/Edessa area, but from all of Asia Minor. It is true that Jerusalem itself, and many of the coastal cities of Palestine and Phoenicia, as well, had been recovered by the not-particularly-aggressive Fatimids by the time the Crusaders actually got there. And Tripoli was under the wholly unaggressive Banu' Ammar sheiks. But pretending that the Seljuk turks were innocent victims is silly. john k 18:56, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Not to be too blunt, but this discussion is kind of pointless - it doesn't matter what any of us think. The question is, is there recent scholarship which portrays the crusade as a defensive war, and is this scholarship credible and quotable in an encyclopedia? The answer to both is yes, whether we agree with it or not. Of course, I wouldn't go around rewriting all the crusade articles to match the latest historiographical fad (although I probably shouldn't say that out loud, haha), but it may be worthy of mention (especially if we can quote from Madden's book itself, and not that article that is currently quoted). Adam Bishop 20:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I got carried away a bit. Yes, you are right. But, following WP:NPOV, we also need to make sure that no undue weight is given to this view. It should be clear that this is neither a standard nor a majority view. And we should also avoid weasel words as far as possible. So I would suggest to state "A few historians, including ... , argue that the crusades can be seen as a defensive war" or words to that effect somewhere in the main text, and nothing in the image caption, where this point really is useless and lacks proper context. --Stephan Schulz 20:38, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you so much for accepting the quote from Madden and Riley Smith. I notice from the bibliography that their works are referenced as the most recent scholarship (Madden) and the one with the most number of works (Riley Smith). I think their reputability should be mentioned, as per Wikipedia NPOV, and if it is determined that they are more reputable than others, then they should be given proportionately bigger space. Unbiased writing in Wikipedia is about cold attribution of facts and facts about opinions. Thanks. Thomas 03:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, but don't take this too far. The current version is absolutely one-sided and unbalanced. The number and age of citations of Madden and Riley-Smith in this article is an accident, as far as I can tell (and as far as know, Madden's is a textbook, hence unlikely to contain "the most recent scholarship"). They do not, in this point, represent the mainstream. And Madden's quote seems to be not from a scholary work, but from a popular press (not even pos science press) editorial. Riley-Smith does not speak of a defensive war at all, and it would be necessary to see his quote in context to see how to present it fairly. "Cold attribution of facts and facts about opinion" is not enough for "unbiased writing" - by selecting which facts and opinions to include you can get an arbitrarily biased text. --Stephan Schulz 07:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

It belongs in a separate historiography section, that discusses various historians points of view. See Decline of the Roman Empire for an example of how historiography works on Wikipedia, when there are multiple points of view. It certainly does not belong in the central narrative of events. -- Stbalbach 15:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

I hope and think we agree that this goes for all different POVs. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 17:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

(Fix indent). I've now corrected the attribution of Madden. His text is not a "study", but a series of editorials in rather conservative popular press venues. This is certainly not a scholary source. I've also taken out the Riley-Smith quote. He wrote about the perception of the crusades at the time, and explicitely notes that some of these claims are spurious from a modern perspective. Moreover, the quote is from a movie review of "Kingdom of Heaven", of all things. Can we please try to get some real encyclopedic sources? --Stephan Schulz 22:05, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

On johnk's points above, I think Prawer (now dead) is probably the most notable authority on the religious composition of the local population before Cr1. Yes, Antioch (only held by Islam for a very few years before Cr1 took it) and Edessa were effectively wholely Xtn apart from soldiers & administrators, and other cities were largely Muslim but there simply is not enough evidence to say anything firm about the total size or religious %s of the rural populations. What is very clear, though is that most rural Muslims stayed put, and were encouraged to do so by the Crusader Kingdoms, who needed them to keep agriculture going. My recollection is that most historians accept that the Crusader Kingdoms probably had an overall slight Muslim majority in the population pre-Saladin. See Kingdom of Jerusalem article. If they had managed to get Egypt, which had a clear Xtn (Coptic & Othodox) majority of the population well into the modern period, things would have been different... Johnbod 21:49, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

To say that the Muslim expansion was not altogether military is naive. Even Muhammad himself spread his beliefs by the sword, not words. And if you don't think the Crusades were a defensive war...then explain what happened when Europe deserted the wars against the Muslims and turned on each other. Byzantium fell, Eastern Europe was invaded and Vienna was beseiged how many times? You can too include Spain in this because it has always been the goal of these groups to spread Islam and you can't spread Islam if you aren't in the region you wish to spread to. What's the easiest way to get to those regions if not by military means? And the predominant religion of the region was Christian, then the Muslims invaded and it wasn't through charity that the Christian and Jewish populations diminished, I'll tell you that. Just like with Lebanon in 1975 (which had a Christian majority) the region was converted either by choice or by the sword.

Requested move

Crusade → Crusades – Obvious move. The topic of the article is the Crusades, it already says at the top of the article "This article is about the medieval crusades. For other uses, see Crusade (disambiguation)," yet for some strange reason is entitled "Crusade".

The request succeeded. --Dijxtra 17:19, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Survey

Add "* Support" or "* Oppose" followed by an optional one-sentence explanation, then sign your opinion with ~~~~

• Support, as mover. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 08:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Weak oppose Support. Who is going to clean up the redirections, there are over 1000<?> I believe, needs a bot to be created or enlisted before the move can be done. See note below. -- Stbalbach 15:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
  • There are only seven redirects to this page (see here). This should not be a prime concern. For the other page, any user with AWB can take care of this, and if not bots. Calgacus (ΚΑΛΓΑΚΟΣ) 19:19, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, as the article is not about the abstract notion of "a crusade", but about "the Crusades". Also noting that (as Stbalbach found out correctly) the links to redirects aren't a problem. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. ...and wonder why it took so long to see the obvious... My only concern would be the redirections... but since AdamBishop said he will deal with it, it's ok. --Hectorian 17:56, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. The redirections can be quickly fixed if they are only seven. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 21:29, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support. As I said above. The issue of pages directly linking to another page is not a big deal. john k 21:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• Support, if weakly. It's a bit better and a bit work... --Stephan Schulz 22:55, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
• I support the suggestion. Passer-by 21:24, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Discussion

• Stbalbach, there are actually only seven redirects; by some herculean effort I think I will be able to overcome that workload :) Adam Bishop 15:47, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I mean Crusade->Crusades. The majority of links use "Crusade". Yeah the 7 double redirects are no problem. -- Stbalbach 16:00, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict, partially obsolete (but if I wrote it, you better read it! ;-)) Adam, I trust you will (but don't overdo it, take one per hour ;-), but I suspect he (or she?) is concerned about the links that will point to the redirect that will be newly created. I don't think this is a very strong argument, but it is something to consider.--Stephan Schulz 16:03, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I found this page which seems to suggest it doesn't matter. I also posted a question here - I'll wait a day or so, if there is no new info I will strike my oppose and change to support. -- Stbalbach 16:23, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Right, that's what I meant, sorry...fixing the redirect links will make everything work properly. I'm sure someone will go through every article someday and fix all the redirects there too, but we don't have to do that. Adam Bishop 16:58, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

About the redirects in Byzantine Empire and Greece related articles, i can fix them myself (in a somewhat slow procedure), don't worry 'bout that. --Hectorian 00:10, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Don't even do that. Only the redirect pages themselves need changing. As was quoted earlier, Wp:redirect#Don't fix links to redirects that aren't broken. Fut.Perf. ☼ 05:49, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

"Historical Background" versus "Historical Context"

Could somebody please explain the difference? Or, to put it differently, what is the background of this distinction in the context of our article? ... Thank you very much! —Barbatus 20:50, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

Crusader knights battledress

Is there an article (or would it be a good idea to have one) about the actual arms and armour/battledress/warriors of the crusades?... i.e. an article that encompasses the motivations, nationalities, known names and figures, styles and developement of arms and armour, depictions in art, of crusader warriors (from both Christian and Muslim worlds).

I've come to wikipedia to research this period of warfare in terms of the above, in an effort to decode the uniform as seen say here and here, but have found very little.

Whilst pages like Knight, Armour and Great helm exist, there's nothing really of a serious academic nature addressing the battledress or look of crusader knights, neither here or it seems, the wider internet. 86.133.72.79 00:02, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

You are going to want to research each crusade as its own. Arms and armour history is a lot larger than even Wikipedia shows it to be. Much of it is over generalized, and we shouldn't let this page become the same. Crusaders from the first Crusades would likely laugh at those from the last for what they were wearing. Some things would be similar, other things changed rapidly in that period. If someone does the research (I don't have time sadly) they should be aware this isn't something one or two books are going to cover in full.--Talroth 14:36, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

    As far as armor is concerned, that task is a huge one as Talroth explains.  I do highly recommend the following two websites for heraldry during the Crusades.
    http://perso.numericable.fr/~earlyblazo/
    http://www.heraldique-europeenne.org/
    Mk26gmls 19:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

"Criticisms" section

Regarding the following section titled Criticisms moved here from the article:

As with many events of the Middle Ages, the two sides in the Crusades tell very different stories. Whilst the standard Western legend speaks of heroism and honour, the Eastern (Islamic and Orthodox Christian) chroniclers tell stories of barbarian savagery and brutality. Some observers feel that these contemporary Eastern perspectives are rarely discussed in standard Western textbooks on the subject, perhaps because stories of cannibalism, rape and massacres by the Crusader forces are not well received by today's Catholic community . However, many atrocities remain vivid in the modern Arab and Islamic psyche. The suggestion that these have been overlooked by Western historians (eager to justify their ancestors' endeavours) is suggested as underpinning Islamic resentment of the West today. . On the other hand stories of brutality by Muslims are not found in Arab accounts of the Crusades, nor are the Crusades juxtaposed with Muslim attacks on Christian lands to which the Crusades responded.

The standard Western interpretation of the Crusades often neglects to discuss the Arab perception of the Crusader forces as barbarians. That is, they were seen to have come from an inferior civilization and were viewed as comparatively brutal and dishonourable in their conduct. The Arab view is linked to the fact that the Crusades occured during the "Islamic Golden Age" (750-1200), which Arab historians, and to an extent many western historians, hypothesise as a Muslim period of particular wealth and enlightenment, although some scholars disagree with this hypothesis. At the same time, the pre-Renaissance Europe of the High Middle Ages was just beginning to recover from its (hypothesised) 700-year cultural stagnation following the fall of the Roman Empire.

This reads like original research. Yes there are footnotes, but it strings together various sources and facts to arrive at conclusions cherry picking facts. It's not clear what this section is about - "criticisms" can mean just about anything. Are we presenting the different POV's from leading academics? It makes a lot of generalizations. "Some observers feel" .. "The Arab view" .. "The suggestion .. is suggested" etc.. it reads like an essay. -- Stbalbach 18:25, 19 September 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach, the section is attempting to achieve a number of points, which admittedly it may not be achieving in its current form, and attempts to highlight the fact that these viewpoints, while widely held in the Islamic world, are rarely discussed in standard Western literature:

1) It attempts to address the fact that 95% of the article is written from the European/Catholic POV and gives very limited and a misleadingly watered-down viewpoint on the effects of the Crusades on the Islamic and Orthodox worlds;

2) it attempts to highlight the Arab view that the Islamic world was a significantly more advanced civilisation than Christendom at the time (relevant as this contradicts the standard Western understanding)

3) it attempts to highlight the atrocities commited by the Crusaders, often omitted from Western history books

4) it attempts to highlight probably the most currently-relevant aspect of the Crusades - that whilst the West remembers the Crusaders as heroes, the Arabs remember them as barbaric mercenaries, who brought only evil and hatred. (As an aside, the Arabs remember the Crusades as a wholly unjustified invasion of their land, whilst the article in its current form attempts to justify the Crusades based on the actions of the Fatimids almost 100 years before and the encroachment of the Seljuks on Constantinople - this is of course the Western view and the article contains no balancing arguements.)

You may not appreciate the style or the structure, but you should read Maalouf and Gabrieli before you claim that this is "original research".

—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 82.133.110.12 (talk • contribs) .

Well, please don't take it personally. First some of these various POV's are already discussed in the article and have their own section. It is taking various POVs from authors and stringing them together to form a thesis - which is original research. If we present the view of Francesco Gabrieli, than what about other views that don't agree with him? I could find counter-views to just about everything said here. What's the "standard western interpretation"? I've read many histories of the crusades and they don't all agree with this "standard" - whose standard is this, who set the standard? It's almost like a straw-man, saying there is a standard western and Muslim view (without saying what it is), and then tearing it down with more up to date revisionist views that are presented as correct with no counter-view. These are all generalizations. Why can't we name names and various peoples points of views? Basically what this would need to become is a historiography of the Crusades, showing how historians views of the Crusades have changed over time - on an academic level. Then on a popular culture level, that would be another discussion entirely. This is a known weakness in the current article and there have been discussions in the past about writing a separate Crusades historiography article; but a few paragraphs with the mention of only a couple historians and broad generalizations and definitive answers to a controversial subject violates original research and NPOV rules. -- Stbalbach 15:00, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

Is there any real basis to say that, at present, the Crusades are viewed at all positively in the West, either in popular culture or in the scholarly community? It seems to me that the general view of the Crusades is, by any measure, pretty strongly negative, and has been for a long time now. john k 16:23, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

George W. Bush, in his heart-of-hearts, seems to think pretty fondly of them:

http://www.csmonitor.com/2001/0919/p12s2-woeu.html

...On Sunday, Bush warned Americans that "this crusade, this war on terrorism, is going to take awhile." ...

Atlant 16:32, 20 September 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, the reference to "textbooks" and "standard Western literature" could be changed to "Western school history textbooks", which are nationalistic by definition and seek to whitewash any of the dishonor in relation to the Crusades. This is not dissimilar to the Japanese history textbook controversies, but less sensitive due to the passage of time (see ; ; ; or perhaps the following excepts from Text_book:

Selectively retelling history, through textbooks or other literature, has been practiced in many societies, from ancient Rome to the Soviet Union. History textbooks are not subjected to review by professional academics, nor can authorship of a high school textbook be used to advance an academic toward tenure at a university. The content of history textbooks thus lies entirely outside the academic forum of fact and social science and is instead determined by the political forces of state adoption boards and ideological pressure groups.

To dispel any uncertainty, please see attached a selection of links to textbooks which whitewash the atrocities / barbaric nature of the Crusades ;;. Can anyone provide links to Western school textbooks which do highlight any of points 2) to 4) above? 12.47.208.34 10:21, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

For all who have any interest in this topic, the attached article is excellent (from the National Catholic Reporter. A few excerpts are below which back up points 2) to 4). Perhaps the Criticisms section should be rewritten to reflect these more refined viewpoints:

Madden: In the West there are two popular perceptions, one born in the 18th century and the other in the 19th. The first, which gained currency during the Enlightenment, was that the Crusades were a series of unnecessary wars in which a barbaric people steeped in ignorance and superstition attacked a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world. The Crusades, therefore, were seen as a black mark on the history of Western civilization in general and the Catholic church in particular. This view is still very popular, although it is usually glossed with the assertion that the Crusades were a form of proto-colonialism -- the West’s first attempt to subjugate the world. The other popular perception grew out of 19th-century Romanticism. This view sees the Crusades as noble wars led by larger-than-life men motivated by honor and chivalry. Religion and the church are usually airbrushed out of this perception, leaving behind only courageous and selfless knights fighting for righteousness in far-away lands. This perception was particularly popular among colonial powers in the 19th century, but it has waned in the 20th and 21st centuries. Still, it hangs on. Run a Nexis search and see how often the word “crusade” is used to mean a noble and praiseworthy pursuit and “crusader” is used to mean a selfless and courageous individual.

Hillenbrand: The Crusades are a Western Christian phenomenon with their roots in medieval Europe. From the outset, it was predominantly Western Christian chroniclers who wrote about them. Nowadays the weight of Western scholarship about many aspects of the Crusades is positively awesome -- thousands of books and tens of thousands of articles. Not so in the Muslim world. Not a single separate account of the Crusades written by a Muslim has survived. There is abundant information about the events of the Crusades in medieval Muslim historiography, but it has to be searched for amid a welter of other accounts predominantly concerned with the dynastic history of the Islamic world itself. Medieval Muslim writers do indeed mention the coming of the Crusaders, but they evince little curiosity as to why they came. Until recently, Muslim historians have not tended to interest themselves in the Crusades. Wherever possible, Western specialists on the Crusades use medieval Muslim sources, but, as so few of them know Arabic, they have to rely on the small number of these texts that have been translated into Western languages. It is this problem of language that has kept the two sides in their separate boxes.

Madden: Medieval Europe in the 11th century was still picking up the pieces from its numerous invasions. In comparison to the Muslim world, be it Syria, Egypt, Spain or elsewhere, medieval Europe was poor, backward, weak and chaotic. More important, it was getting smaller, while Islam and its many kingdoms continued to grow.

12.47.208.34 13:37, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

To my mind it is absurd to say that the standard Western literature ignores the "barbarity", both culturally and militarily, of the Crusaders when the two most influential writers (in English, which is what is usually meant by Western in Wikipedia), namely Gibbon & Runciman, have strong prejudices against the Crusaders and are constantly mentioning their failing in this area with relish.

It seems that Islamic writers of the later Middle Ages did not dwell on the Crusades too much & were naturally much more concerned with the Mongol invasions, which had a far more devastating impact on the Islamic world. Johnbod 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

The present article is too inadequate to be a standard article for an encyclopedia. It needs citations for its claims. Many of which are very questionable and one-sided. There should be another well-conducted research and a well-drafted article on this very controvertial topic. User: Johnbrillantes 30 November 2006

If we are to look at Islamic sources for how they felt about the Crusaders, why there are no Christian sources concerning the practices of the Muslims? Slavery was practiced by the Muslims, not by the Christians. So if we're going to include personal opinions of Muslims, how about the personal opinion of Christians at the time. The point is both sides were barbaric and brutal, to single out one side is outright bias. And someone mentioned that the Islamic world was so much more sophisticated than the west...true in some aspects, but hardly a statement of fact.Culmo80 19:46, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

original research

I've added a number of Original Research tags to two sections - these sections take select quotes from select sources (some of them very weak) and leap to broad definitive conclusions that are POV and unbalanced. I plan on editing these sections for OR and verifiable sources sometime in the future, for now I have put up a warning tags as a stop-gap measure in the hopes the editor will make some improvements. -- Stbalbach 17:55, 22 September 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach, I agree with you approach - I do not feel it is appropriate for me to edit the Criticisms section further myself as I am new to editing wikipedia and therefore unsure how to rewrite in a way that would correlate with your view of NPOV. I can see from reading above that there are a number of people in the past who have tried to politicise the article - i.e. apportion blame to one side or another. I would like to rewrite the article, but given my lack of reputation I think that it would be immediately reverted and I would have wasted my time. For what it's worth, I think there are a couple of other sections in the article which are related to those which you tagged:

1.2 / 3.3 - these give very limited detail;

6 - this only gives a limited number of POVs, rather than a balanced overview. Some of this would probably be better off in a section called "Crusades in Popular Culture"

I am happy to work on any of these sections, but obviously have become a little averse to adding any value as my work just gets deleted / tagged (as per the previous section) 84.12.192.199 11:39, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

I would suggest before taking on a project of re-writing this article, which will require the co-operation of a lot of people since this article is very popular and a lot of people have invested a lot of time into it, establish a user account on Wikipedia with a user profile about yourself and work on creating a reputation as an editor on a number of other articles. Maybe work on other Middle Ages articles, there is a Middle Ages group see Wikipedia:WikiProject Middle Ages -- Stbalbach 00:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I am copying the following discussion onto this talk page from user:Stbalbach's talk page the for the convenience of our other contributors...

Hello!

I see that you have added some original research tags to Crusades. Thankyou for your contributions. I would be grateful if you could give further information on the crusades talk page.

You write: "I've added a number of Original Research tags to two sections - these sections take select quotes from select sources (some of them very weak) and leap to broad definitive conclusions that are POV and unbalanced".

Your statement seems entirely reasonable in principle. Unfortunately I am unable to understand to what excactly you are refering. I would be grateful if you could be more specific as to exactly which quotes you consider "select" and "weak"; and which "broad definitive" and "unbalanced" conclusions are leapt to.

Thankyou!

81.103.144.108 22:43, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I can do that with fact and balance tags, it may be sporadic over the next week or so when I can focus on it. The Crusades have always been seen from two views, there is no single "traditional" view, it's always been a word mixed with the horrors of violence and blood with the honor of triumph of God and country - there has never been a single take on it. So what I see in those sections is a strawman by saying there is a single traditional view, and original research to use the 19th C catholic encyclopedia to "prove" it. -- Stbalbach 17:15, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for you comments! I am sorry I was not signed in for my last comment.

You are right, obviously we should put in different points of view. The Catholic Encylopedia (which is incidently 20th Century) is a completely acceptable source used in many articles, but should be put alongside other sources.

Personally I would say that there is a single traditional catholic point of view, but is you wish to say it is just one of the catholic viewpoints, that seems acceptable.

My main concern is that those arguments with which you (presumably) disagree be placed alongside competing arguments, to give readers an overview of different viewpoints, rather than being deleted. If you feel the phrasing of the article overstates the points of view presented, a rephrasing would of course be appropriate.

Incidentally I will move this discussion onto the Crusades talk page for the convenience of our other contributors.

N-edits 13:09, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

N-edits 13:14, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach, I am still not entirely sure what the O.R. / unverified tags are for in the following sections:

• Western vs. Eastern Interpretation
• Wider geo-political effects

It seems to me that everything in those two sections is verifiable, if the tags are placed then citations can be found. In addition the information seems to me to be reasonably presented. Perhaps you could glance at these sections again? If you are sure you see a problem then we can certainly discuss these sections here. N-edits 13:38, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Note: This article has a very small number of in-line citations for an article of its size and currently would not pass criteria 2b.
Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:48, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Granted, the following comment did make me chuckle.

'Fifth Crusade

(...) compelled them to choose between surrender and destruction. The people then pooped all the way home.'

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Crusades&diff=78344620&oldid=78308355

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Contributions&target=71.201.155.231

Can someone look into this? I'm not familiar with wikipedia procedure. Heck, I don't even know the proper way to report this.

Thanks!

East vs West section

I have added back the East vs West interpretation. This is clearly an important topic for anyone attempting to understand the Crusades. Whilst it requires some work to reach Wikipedia standards, deleting the whole section seems like laziness. This comment is for both 61.68.128.38 and Stbalbach (who removed the section previously) - unless you think the topic is not worthy of the article, if you have such strong views then it would be great if you could channel your energy contructively rather than destructively. I thought Wikipedia was all about iteration...12.47.208.34 12:44, 2 October 2006 (UTC)

Western vs. Eastern interpretation

I've made some additions and removals from this section. I will address the removals:

1. The presupposition that the Western view is positive, and the eastern view is negative, and thus there is a fault-line between "east" and "west" and the two don't mix - is wrong. The term crusade has always been contradictory and there has always been debate in the west about it, there is no "standard" view. There are only specific views - the Catholic Church, the secular humanists, popular culture, etc.. you have to speak specifically on whose view, and when those views are being expressed, for it to make any sense. The Catholic view in 1908 (really the 19th C view) is different from the Catholic view in 2006. The Enlightenment secular humanist view was certainly different from the Catholic Reformation view which was different from the Italian Humanists view -- but the idea of barbarism has always been a part of western discourse.
2. The generalization that textbooks don't discuss the barbarism of the crusades is wrong - you can find some, but you can find some that do also. This is a strawman, and largely incorrect today.
3. The notion that the atrocities of the crusades have been overlooked by western historians is wrong. I included a quote by Runciman but could find others, no modern historian of the crusades does not express moral outrage at the barbarism and hypocrisy of the Holy War (even the Pope has weighed in on it).

-- Stbalbach 14:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

You are, Stbalbach, of course right in pointing out and rectifying the problem you describe above. However, I am afraid, a whole set of problems still remain:

• To say that war flat out contradicts Christianity is at least a very questionable statement, given a quite developed theology on such issues, including the theory of just war. Bringing in the "holy war" epithet, that can mean thousand different things, doesn't help in this.
• Some modern historians have expressed outrage, but that's neither a position held/uttered by all historians nor is it the historian's job to express moral outrage. Historians will much rather see events in their historical context. I don't think it proper to end this on a highly problematic statement (talking about the latter part of his quote) even by an authority as respected as Runciman.
• The former text said that "The standard Western interpretation of the Crusades often neglects to discuss the Arab perception of the Crusader forces as barbarians". That was not only onesided but outright wrong, as the standard Western interpretation, maybe not scholarly research but the popular views, very much echo this notion of Western barbarians, as onesided as might be. Unfortunately much of this remains in the last paragraph, which I hereby move over from the article.
  The Arab view of barbarism is in part supported by the contrast that the Crusades occured during the "Islamic Golden Age" (750–1200), which Arab historians saw as a Muslim period of particular wealth and enlightenment, although some scholars disagree with this hypothesis. At the same time, the pre-Renaissance Europe of the High Middle Ages was just beginning to recover from its (hypothesised) 700-year cultural stagnation following the fall of the Roman Empire.
  This frankly endorsed a variation of jingoism and a formal statement that some disagree doesn't help, especially when it is immediately followed by another onesided, highly questionable statement about alleged stagnation. I wonder which civilisation was really stagnant and which one was dynamic: the one that ostraciued Averroes or the one that critically embraced his writings.

Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 16:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Stbalbach, to address your points in order:

• 1) I do not agree with your assertion that crusade is seen equally as much to mean "a valiant struggle for a supreme cause" and as a byword for barbarism and aggression. Look for example at any online dictionary definition (try dictionary.com for instance). On your other point, I agree that there are many diverse viewpoints on the crusades. If this article is to have real value, we must try to express as many of these as possible and work against those who try to delete or hide any negative commentary.
• 2) I disagree with your point on textbooks. Clearly I have a better knowledge of UK textbooks, but I can tell you that the Crusades are taught here in schools with great pride in the "heroes of the conquest". It would be a rare teacher to dare to explain that things were actually a little more complicated than that. And, to the great detriment of current international relations, what child in the West learns that the Muslim world was more civilised/sophisticated than Western Europe at the time. Like it or not, school history is nationalistic by definition. In my view (which of course you are entitled to disagree with), it is worth highlighting this in the article since most Western children grow up with a distorted view of the crusades.
• 3) This was never the point being made in the paragraph - the intended point is as per 2) above.

Str1977, to address your third point: As per the above, removing that paragraph serves only to hide the other side of the coin. You may not agree with the views stated, but this is clearly labelled the Arab view - it reduces the value of the article to remove one whole viewpoint. It is clear from the rest of your statement that you are not as well rounded in this subject as you would like to think - you unfortunately fell in to the trap of making your own "jingoistic and onesided, highly questionable statement": I wonder which civilisation was really stagnant and which one was dynamic: the one that ostraciued Averroes or the one that critically embraced his writings...

• A) you discuss Averroes without any real knowledge - he was and is lauded within the Muslim world, and was banished temporarily by the Mullahs of Cordoba despite support from the Almohad Caliph at the time. His most controversial work, The Incoherence of the Incoherence, is viewed no differentely in the Muslim world than the works of Darwin and Copernicus are in the Christian world (i.e. only the strictest take issue with it);
• B) On this same point, i would love to hear your views on why the treatment of Averroes was any different to the Catholic treatment of William of Ockham, a man you claim on your talksite to dislike;
• C) Averroes, Al-Ghazali, Ibn Arabi, Avicenna and other 12th century philosophers are prime examples of why is is generally accepted that the Muslim world was culturally advanced compared to Europe at the time. Correct me if I am wrong, but at the time there had been no Christian writers of similar stature since the 5th century (i.e. Augustine of Hippo), and the next great Christian writers, Aquinas and Dante, took their inspirations from Averroes and Ibn Arabi respectively

84.12.177.96 00:30, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry if I reverted some legitimate edits, but it did seem like a series of attacks. I'm sure you can restore whatever is legitimate.—Barbatus 02:19, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me respond, 84, even though I am "without any real knowledge" and you "Clearly ... have a better knowledge".

It is bordering on the surreal to claim that in western schools (in the present, we are not talking about the colonial age) the crusades are portrayed as an heroic effort. Reality is (unfortunately in my view) quite the opposite. Runciman is still the pinnacle of crusades historiography and that he can give such a in my book oneside statement about "nothing more" is telling you one thing, that the west is in principle not well disposed towards the crusades.

You said. "removing that paragraph serves only to hide the other side of the coin", but I did not remove the paragraph permanently but moved it over here so that we can look for a way to include this without having WP taking sides.

I don't think I fell into a jingoistic onesided statement but even if I did, for the sake of raising awareness of the issue, I didn't try to include it into the article as fact.

The thing about Averroes and William misses the important thing. Yes, Christendom condemned heretics as well, and William is among them (my view of him is irrelevant here), but despite all conflicts, there was debate and a critical examination. Yes, two great minds were both condemned as heretics by their respective communities, but in the Islamic context this practically happened all the time.

And yes, the myth of superior Islamic civilization is what I called jingoistic. That it is immensly popular in the West as well, doesn't change this. The fact is that Islam conquered an already advanced area, while Western Christianity existed in a backwater spot wrecked by the migrations.

Another thing you miss is that Western civilisation was open for influx from "Islamic" sources, while the Islamic world even at large rejected the finest they had to offer. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 09:33, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

What again is the history of the Almagest? It doesn't exactly look like they rejected the "finest", although I'm not aware of a significant flow from "backwater, wrecked by the migrations" (not that I disagree) Western Europe. You have a point: Islamic civilization probably was not superior because it was islamic, but at least in part because it overlaid and united a complex mix, including some of the most advanced areas of Earth. But that does not mean that it was not one of the great civilizations, even compared to most of Europe at the time. --Stephan Schulz 11:06, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

To clear up an apparent misunderstanding, Stephan, let me state that "the finest" I was talking about are not influx from the West but explicitely people like Averroes and the like, that are often cited as examples for "Islamic superiority" but did get nowhere in the Islamic world, whereas things were quite different in the West, regarding both Islamic as well as "native" thinkers. Str1977 ^{(smile back)} 12:54, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Anon user (I don't know how to address you, you don't have a name nor seem to have any desire to participate in Wikipedia by getting one). Your comments and edits are editorial soapboxing from your personal perspective. Your complaining that some textbooks in some places in the UK don't give both sides of the story, and therefore you feel the need to show how it really is on Wikipedia. I appreciate your wish to set the record straight. Wikipedia is not the place for such activity. We don't tell the world how things should be, we don't re-write the history books on how we think they should be. We simply report on how things are based on what the rest of the world says (from reliable sources). The world portrays the crusades in any number of ways, and we report on that here. Sometimes it is portrayed as heroic. Sometimes it is portrayed as barbaric. Sometimes both. In most modern texts there is no bias towards the heroic, in fact by Runciman as early as the 1950s (for which he was knighted by the Queen) he portrayed the crusades to be barbaric. Popular culture sometimes shows it to be heroic. But this is an encyclopedia and we use academic sources (we have a separate section for crusades in popular culture). I honestly believe your personal perspective about the crusades has been tainted by some unfortunate sources, and I might recommend you read some of the better quality ones this article lists in the bibliography section. -- Stbalbach 15:57, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I stuck the following in some way above just now, but since I now see the bone is being chewed again here:

To my mind it is absurd to say that the standard Western literature ignores the "barbarity", both culturally and militarily, of the Crusaders when the two most influential writers (in English, which is what is usually meant by Western in Wikipedia), namely Gibbon & Runciman, have strong prejudices against the Crusaders and are constantly mentioning their failing in this area with relish.

It seems that Islamic writers of the later Middle Ages did not dwell on the Crusades too much & were naturally much more concerned with the Mongol invasions, which had a far more devastating impact on the Islamic world. Johnbod 22:07, 28 October 2006 (UTC) Johnbod 22:28, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Casualties

How many both Christians & the other citizens who lived in, around & near the holy land? I'm curious about this. More than the casualties than the amount of casualties in WW2?User:Pic Business

See the previous discussion of this topic on this page. The question is hard to answer - even the 9 main crusades spread out over 180 years. Most people who died during the crusades would have died anyways. Others have not been born because their parents were killed - do they count? And historical reports are extremely unreliable with respect to numbers and casualties. However, in absolute numbers I suspect that far fewer people than the 60 million usually given for WWII were killed due to the crusades. The current total population of the area is less than that. But comparing a modern, high intensity war with a medieval century-long conflict is rather moot.--Stephan Schulz 11:55, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

Wow, that's ALOT. More than the casualties in WW2.User:Pic Business

Actually, I said "far fewer people than the 60 million usually given for WWII were killed due to the crusades."--Stephan Schulz 06:15, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

For me, I think about the same amount as the Black Death which is 25 million people died in the Black Death & I think 25 million people died in the Crusades as well.User:Axe Ghost

Get a grip, people!! The largest army the Crusader Kingdoms could muster in between foreign interventions from Europe was probably under 10,000 strong. Many campaigns were fought with about 4,000. Prawer estimates the Fall of Jerusalem in the 1st Crusade, the most notorious massacre of the whole Crusades, took less than 20K lives on the Muslim defending side, military & civilians together. Probably the next most notorious, the massacre of prisoners outside Acre by Richard I of England, involved a bit over 2,000. There were never 25 or 60 million people in the whole region. Indeed there are no figures, but I suspect it would be impossible to do an guesstimate/extrapolation excercise that got into 6 figures. If you want big casualties, look at the Mongol invasions of the Islamic world, or the Muslim invasions of the Indian sub-continent. Really the Crusades were a pretty small scale affair. Johnbod 22:22, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

• Yeah, really. The population of the word around 1000 AD was 275 million and essentially didn't double itself until 1650. You figure overall population density and persons per square mile at the intervening years between 1000-1272 AD (stopping at the 9th Crusades), 60 million KIA would be *one hell* of a dent in the human world. No, you want a real crusade that killed millions of people, look at population charts indicating growth rates around the time of the Black Plague. Shadowrun 05:55, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Where do you get the 275 million for the entire world's population? I've never head anything like that and I'd question it.Culmo80 19:54, 7 December 2006 (UTC)culmo80

Response to Stbalbach

I have taken a few weeks away from wikipedia in order to cool off and contemplate whether it is worth the time and effort to contribute to WP, having been put off by the behaviour of a small group editors of this article (particularly Stbalbach and STR). Unfortunately for my own sanity, I could not allow myself to leave Stbalbach's last comment (9 Oct) unchallenged:

• NPOV: Stbalbach, to come back to you on your own editorial soapboxing: We all agree that WP should not tell the world how it should be - only how it is. The basis for the ever-accelerating popularity of WP is its ability to act as a global repository of information, incorporating all considered viewpoints alongside one another (in other words, an encyclopaedia for the information / globalisation age). Unlike yourself, I have never deleted/edited other peoples viewpoints to match my own - only added alongside those viewpoints which I believe to be valuable to any reader who wishes to make his/her own judgement. You (and STR) have consistently deleted viewpoints held by many leading academics (not to mention 1 billion Muslims) - your behaviour renders your commentary above both farcical and hypocritical.
• Christian Bias: One of the most commonly quoted problems with WP is that pages can be taken over through the concerted efforts of similar pressure groups. I ask you to step back for one second and consider the following: The Crusades were (broadly speaking) a conflict between Christianity and Islam. However, whilst this page is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, WikiProject Catholicism and has a front-page position on the Christianity Portal, there are no Islamic or Arab groups to balance this out. To my mind, this accounts for the ridiculous situation we find ourselves in - i.e. that the article currently has a Perspectives section with topics limited to three Christian perspectives ("Catholic Encyclopaedia", "Eastern Orthodoxy", "Popular reputation in Western Europe") and a "Western vs. Eastern interpretation" section which has been neutralised to the point where it has zero value to readers interested in the Islamic perspective.
• Getting Personal: For the record, I did not appreciate your personal attack. I did not participate with a username etc due to lack of time to commit to WP. That does not make my contributions any less valuable than your own - WP allows anonymous edits to ensure that people with limited time can still participate. Unfortunately, this situation has made me much less keen to get any more involved. As has the fact that you deleted one of my comments on the talk page at the same time as this attack (I had assumed that deleting talkpage comments was banned, but clearly not).
• No Islamic Perspective: The Islamic perspective has been deleted from the article on a regular basis. To have an article on the Crusades without an Islamic or Arab perspective is like having an article about a football match and only talking about one team. If you disagree with the specific drafting I would be more than happy to discuss, however comments above from yourself and STR imply a knowledge of Islamic History limited to the western popular version - the comments show no evidence of any academic knowledge.
• Western Popular Perspective: To clarify one point which I have tried to communicate a number of times, but perhaps I have not been clear: I do not claim that all Western literature ignores the barbarity of the crusades - it is clear that many respected writers have focused on this. However, many Western high schools teach the crusades to children at an early age, when it is too early to discuss academic literature. These children are then taught all about the heroic knights who valiantly fought for justice, freedom and the Great Western Civilisation against an evil enemy. Many examples of this phenomenon have been cited above - I believe that you and a number of other commentators on this page have become too lost in academic detail to realise that the Western Popular Perception has yet to catch up with Hillenbrand, Gabrieli, Runciman, Gibbon or many other major academic writers - hence the current state of the "Popular reputation in Western Europe" section.
• Respected Scholars: Whilst Runciman is certainly one of the most respected scholars on the subject, you are wrong to suggest that his works are proven fact, and/or universally accepted. His major works on the subject were written more than 50 years ago, since when many more contemporary Islamic texts on the subject have been brought to light. Runciman was above all a scholar of Byzantium and Byzantine culture, and his knowledge of the Arab experience does not compare to the modern writers Hillenbrand and Gabrieli, who introduce many sources unknown to Runciman

84.12.183.27 00:16, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

- "many Western high schools.." etc - in what countries? I find this a very suprising assertion. Can you back it up? Most certainly does not happen in UK.

Johnbod 15:17, 6 November 2006 (UTC)

- I am writing my dissertation on the popular perception of the crusades and was surprised when I discovered as part of my research that at Church of England primary schools here in the UK teach the Crusades as defensive wars against a demonised Moslem enemy.

82.46.90.219 22:30, 27 December 2006 (UTC)

How did the Crusades weaken Feudalism?

Plese help. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 216.162.25.9 (talk • contribs) .

Is this for a class? I would not recommend Wikipedia for that question. -- Stbalbach 16:13, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Semi-Protection

Earlier this afternoon, I put in a request for semi-protection, meaning new users with accounts only 4 days old and anonymous users can't edit this page. I put the request in during that anonymous user's "edit-spree", when he was replacing the entire article with nasty stuff. It was granted just a minute ago. I'll guess he'll have to move onto another page to vandalize. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 21:05, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

I second that.--Barbatus 21:14, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Third. -- Stbalbach 13:51, 18 November 2006 (UTC)

Boy, it sure is a good thing you guys took away this article's "semi-protection". You take it down and look what happens, numbskulls begin to vandalize it again. Put it back up and leave it up this time! (Ghostexorcist 21:02, 28 December 2006 (UTC))

Heraclius

It might be a good idea to mention Heraclius in the introduction. His 621 campaign against Sassanid Persia ran under the motto of recapturing the Holy Cross the Sassanids had taken when they conquered Jerusalem in 614. The term Crusade stems from there, and the crusaderrs saw themselves as the heirs of Heraclius. This is related iin detail in Steven Runciman's somewhat classic history of the Crusades. 213.47.127.75 22:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

All new comments go to the bottom of the page (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:15, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

Sorry, still learning. 213.47.127.75 22:45, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry about it! (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:49, 17 November 2006 (UTC))

Introduction

Compare with WP:LEAD. It doesn't summarize the article, doesn't answer the simple "who what where why and when." I will attempt to expand, but am not an expert in the subject...Kaisershatner 15:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Who - Xtan's vs. pagans, heretics, Muslims or those under the ban of excommunication. Generally under the Banner of the Papacy. Various nations over varying periods of time. Why? It is a collection of events for a collection of various reasons with a collection of various actors. Common theme - religious flavor, motivations debateable. Initially against Muslims OK but then scope expanded. Byzantine Empire's appeal being "the principal reason" is argued over, re-capture of Jerusalem agreed upon by all. Reversing gains by various competing Turcoman tribes "raids" and "forays" (Ghazwat) into Anatolia under the appanage system of the loose Seljuk overlordship against Byzantine lands accepted as a desired secondary result. What? When? There were numerous and significant crusades against non-muslim as well. Generally, the change also made the LEAD extremely long, earlier version more succintly captured the entire picture. All items elucidated by you are taken up later in the article in much greater detail. --Tigeroo 08:50, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, thanks for the comments. To take your last point first, Wikipedia:Summary style suggests all items in the lead should be taken up later in the article in much greater detail. That's the whole idea of the lead. As it stands, it doesn't even give a general idea of when these Crusades occurred. And I will defer to your expertise on this, my knowledge of this is strictly as a layperson, but the popular usage of "The Crusades" as far as I know evokes Knights, Richard the Lionhearted, Saladin, Jerusalem, etc. The latter Spanish or Nordic events should be included in a comprehensive article, but I think the term "The Crusades" pretty clearly means those major Holy Land excursions in the 1100-1300 range. Kaisershatner 15:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and btw, I agree my version was overlong. It could certainly be cut down, but what we have here is way too brief. Kaisershatner 15:34, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I didn't say it was perfect as it stands :). Just take it up in parts. The definition of Crusades as it stands is one taken up by concencus of the editors to dispel just that over-emphasis on knights and King Richard etc. and those battles in the Holy land. Maybe a tweak is required to restore the importance of a Christian vs. Muslim world contest that may appear to have gotten lost.--Tigeroo 18:56, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi, made another try based on our discussion. The lead now defines the Crusades as usually the 1000-1300 stuff and immediately mentions it can also apply to the broader, wider campaigns that followed. I left in the thing about the Seljuks, put "Ghazwhat" into the footnote. I would like to move on the the 2nd "definition" paragraph. Let me know if it's terrible. Kaisershatner 14:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I made some minor edits. I am not sure just how universal the Byzantine support theory is accepted since it was quite a while after their appeal that anything got underway and not in any manner that pleased them.--Tigeroo 16:40, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

So can we remove the Byzantine support theory into the body of the article rather than the intro? It was here when I got here.Kaisershatner 16:51, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead sentence

(emphasis added)

• The 1911 EB defines the Crusades as "CRUSADES, the name given to the series of wars for delivering the Holy Land from the Mahommedans, so-called from the cross worn as a badge by the crusaders. By analogy the term "crusade" is also given to any campaign undertaken in the same spirit."
• Here's Encarta's lead sentence: "Crusades, series of wars by Western European Christians to recapture the Holy Land from the Muslims (see Palestine). The Crusades were first undertaken in 1096 and ended in the late 13th century. The term Crusade was originally applied solely to European efforts to retake from the Muslims the city of Jerusalem, which was sacred to Christians as the site of the crucifixion of Jesus Christ. It was later used to designate any military effort by Europeans against non-Christians."
• Current EB version does mention the latter crusades: "military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by Western Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291, usually as military campaigns intended to halt or slow the advance of Muslim power or to conquer pagan areas."

Kaisershatner 16:06, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

It's a difficult thing to define as so many people have different definitions and perspectives. But, there is a general mainstream view, for practical purposes its possible, with the article containing qualifiers and expansion. We might even want to say that, if others disagree or try to expand on it in the lead section, say it is a qualified definition, like in the lead section of feudalism. Good idea researching how other recent encyclopedias handle it. -- Stbalbach 16:09, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Pagans and heretics

Can we change this to "those viewed by the Catholic Church as pagans or heretics"? It's not objective that the targeted people were heretics or pagans, just that the Crusaders designated them as such. I just wasn't sure if it is accurate to use Catholic Church or if it should instead read "viewed by the Crusaders" or something instead. Kaisershatner 14:21, 5 December 2006 (UTC)

I made this change.Kaisershatner 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

St. Bernard

Listen, I love St. Bernard of Clairveaux as much as the next guy (ok, maybe not) but what in the world is he doing in the introduction of an article that spans 500 years of European and Middle Eastern history. Especially when not a single Pope, Emperor, or Caliph is mentioned by name in that intro? I'm taking him out. Kaisershatner 16:37, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Well, don't put him in the Fourth Crusade section - I don't know what it is specifically referring to, but Bernard was involved in the Second Crusade and was long dead by the Fourth. Adam Bishop 23:48, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Picture

The article needs some artwork; I chose the Siege of Antioch picture because it is so clear and colorful, and has those nice Crusader banners and a walled city. I doubt we'll find a single image that is representative of the entire Crusades given the number and differences among them, but I thought this would be a decent choice. If you hate it, we can look for something else. Kaisershatner 18:43, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

Historical perspectives on the Crusades

I am impressed by the amount of discussion on this article. The Crusades represent an important event in world history and has been represented with great variance of viewpoints over the centuries. It is important that Wikipedia represent this with as NPOV as possible.

In that regard, I agree with those proposing that the section on "Historical perspectives on the Crusades" is too much centered on the European/Christian perspective. I would think it would be fairly straightforward for someone knowledgeable on this subject to add a sub-section called "Islamic Perspective".

Tony 17:42, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment, 12/11/06 - I am again impressed with the changes made to this article in only a few days of toil since last reading this article on 12/2. I am pleased as well that the section on Historical perspectives has added a subsection on the Islamic perspective as recommended above. Well done, Wikipedia team.

Tony 04:18, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Lead

To justify my edits to the lead paragraph:

• "religious character" sounds like "we're not sure exactly what". Mentioning "Christendom" and "Muslim rule" should be sufficient to get the point across.
• Why 1095-1291? I know why, but it seemed a little arbitrary even for describing Crusades proper.
• why quotation marks and the modifier "sacred" to "Holy Land"? Holy Land is what its called and sacred is very redundant.

Srnec 18:09, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph is accurate. They were of a religious character. That is the main key point that sets them apart from just a large-scale invasion. See the section on what it meant to be a Crusader and why people went on Crusade. As for the dates they define roughly the period, I'm not sure what dates you had in mind but for practical purposes we need to provide a rough framework of dates that everyone can agree on, for the lead section. -- Stbalbach 14:24, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Also, per WP:LEAD, the lead section is supposed to be a summary of the article. It should contain no footnotes. As it stands, the lead section is basically it's own unique part of the article and doesn't really reflect what is contained in the rest of the article - whole thing needs to be re-done according to WP:LEAD. -- Stbalbach 14:26, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Would you prefer something like "beginning in the High Middle Ages?" The WHEN needs to be in the first sentence IMO. Also, "sacred" isn't in quotes in the article. "Holy Land" is - it is only considered Holy by the Western monotheisms, right? You might argue that Holy Land on its own is just a proper noun, on the other hand, but putting it in quotations makes it clear we're referring to an area considered by the Crusaders to be "THE HOLY LAND." Kaisershatner 14:27, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I never disputed the accuracy of "religious character", I just think it sounds too imprecise to be meaningful. If the time period is rough, exact dates should be avoided (dates like 1095 and 1291). I didn't mean to say that "sacred" was in quotes, only that it redundantly modified Holy Land. I am not a Moslem, but I have no trouble referring to the Koran as their holy book. It is called the Holy Land without quotes by almost every scholar of the Crusades. It is petty to add them here. Everybody knows (or ought to) that "holy" is a relative term for different religions: one considers this holy, another that.

I am fine with the idea of rewriting the into, I just wanted to correct some minor deficiencies of the current one (in my opinion) and I though that, in light of the recent changes to the lead, a justification preemptively offered at the talk page was wise. Srnec 05:39, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Frankly, I kind of agree w/you about "religious character" being kind of weaselly. And I agree that "sacred" is redundant. And I agree, as I wrote above, that one can consider The Holy Land to be a commonly-used term with obvious meaning (ie that part of the Middle East considered sacred by Christians, Muslims, Jews), although I do object to your usage of "petty" above. Just two points: AFIK the dates refer to the start of the first crusade and the elimination of the last vestige of the Crusader kingdoms - not a bad estimate given the difficult nature of defining when. I would be ok with "High Middle Ages" as I wrote above, but I think that leaves most readers (including me) kind of lost as to exactly when all this took place. Second, just to beat the "Holy Land" thing to death, while you write "I have no trouble referring to the Koran as their holy book" I think it unlikely that you would write something like "a war that was fought to defend The Holy Koran," but rather "to defend the Koran, considered Holy to Muslims," or something- you wouldn't adapt the terminology of the believers (not NPOV) but might instead objectively state their beliefs. So The Holy Land might imply something that "The Holy Land" doesn't. In the end, though, I see where you're coming from, as the Holy Land is a commonly-used term and might connote "Holy Land (to christians, muslims, jews)" without explicit mention. Kaisershatner 15:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

They really were military campaigns of a religious character. The Crusaders didn't consider themselves "soldiers", they were hybrid monks, monks with swords so to speak, monks who killed on behalf of god. I also think adding specific dates is fine, dates can be qualified if needed, so long as its mainstream, and matches the scope of the article itself. -- Stbalbach 16:42, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I do try to always assume good faith, I meant only to imply that quotation marks were petty and not to impute pettiness to anybody in particular. But, in short, I take that back.

As to the point about the Koran, touché, but it is merely because the Koran was not the best example. The Holy See is better. I am not a papist and there is nothing holy about the bishopric of Rome to me, but I still call it by its name. Same for any "sacred Hindu shrine" or some such thing. We would readily attach "sacred" (synonymous with "holy") to such objects of veneration whether or not we venerate them.

My only problem with 1095-1291 is that the First Crusade may have been launched in 1095, but 1291 is only the date of the fall of Acre, the last Crusader stronghold on the mainland Orient. The island of Arwad, just of the Syrian coast, was held until 1303. But these years did not stop the Crusading movement. I think a closing date should be avoided, a term like medieval can qualify the dates well enough.

They were military campaigns of a religious character. But what does that mean? Doesn't saying "Christian versus Moslem" accomplish the same thing without the vagueness? I don't believe the Crusaders regarded themselves as monks of any sort, they were soldiers with vows. Srnec 17:01, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm fine with removing the "end date." I was ready to endorse the Holy Land change and the "Holy See" example (note the quotation marks are appropriate in this usage, ha ha!) is well-taken. I also think we can do better than military campaigns of a religious character - it used to, maybe still wikilinks to religious war. Is that an inaccurate definition of the Crusades? (I'm asking. I am not an expert.) Kaisershatner 17:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I have some problem with religious war. It is accuracte insofar as the Crusades were "of a religious character", but the first line of the religious war article cites "differences in religion" as the basis of such warfare. I cannot say the the real basis for the Crusades was difference in religion, that was but part of the justification for going to war for other reasons. I won't object to using "religious war," but I'd make sure the Wiki article is accurate for the Crusades. Srnec 18:36, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think religious war is too strong a term and full of implications. "religious character" is vague for a reason, there are many interpretations, it all depends on your perspective in place and time, as well as various people's opinions. All we can really say in the lead section is that it was of a religious nature or character and then fill in the details in the main body of the article. This is how lead sections work, a high-level general summary with details in the article. -- Stbalbach 14:07, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

I concur that "religious war" has too many false implications for this article. I understand how a lead works and the purpose it fulfils, but if we call the Crusades a "series of military campaigns" of a "religious character", many will wonder why it isn't just called a religious war. I think mention of the Christian and Moslem players as opponents suffices to encapsulate the religious character expediently. Srnec 17:09, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

"Religious character", refers to many aspects that are taken up later in the article. First point Crusades are not limited to Christian vs. Muslim in this article. It extends to Christians vs. Pagans, and Christians vs. Heretics as well. It refers to the fact that the crusades carried a strong Papal endorsement and encouragement for such wars. It refers to the taking of the cross, and the sense of the soldiery that they were conducting warfare for the faith. All these aspects are explored and expanded in the article later and the two words very quickly capture the essence that unlike conquest, loot, or revenge there was strong religious element/ overtone to them. In essence it captures the question: What differentiates a crusade from a mere war? The sense of righteousness associated with taking up arms for the cause of the faith. However I am at a loss as to why it cannot simply be called a religious war, its listed as a cross link on the religious war page.--Tigeroo 20:26, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Crusade Origins

Hello everyone. First off, I am new here, so I apologize for any mistakes I might make beforehand in how I post and sign.

I have been reading in the discussion pages about the origins of the Crusades and I have several books here by Jonathan Riley Smith, Jonathan Phillips and Thomas Madden. Below are some points from their books I have included that show some light on their thoughts on this matter.

In the preface of Thomas Madden’s “The New concise history of the Crusades”, Madden states, “The Crusade, first and foremost, was a war against Muslims for the defense of the Christian faith”. In his conclusion, he makes the same argument.

Jonathan Riley-Smith in “What were the Crusades?” refers to them as a “defense against aggression”. In his “The Atlas of the Crusades”, he defines the Crusades on page 23 as “Crusades were holy wars fought against those who were perceived to be the external or internal foes of Christendom, for the recovery of Christian property or in defense of the Church or Christian people.”

I will have to dig into some of my books for more references.

I don’t think the authors are referring to a “defensive war” in the sense of the Muslims attacked and took Jerusalem hundreds of years before the first crusade which lead the Crusaders to avenge that so far after the fact. I think it was in view of the constant attacks and encroachments on Christian territory that were continuing at the calling of the first crusade by the Pope. The blocking of Christian pilgrims to the holy sites was another motivation. As history shows, Muslim conquests of Christian land continued even after 1291. Even Saladin himself, a man respected by his enemies and who is idolized today, said he wanted to take the war to Europe. He never got the chance since he died shortly after Richard I left the holy land.

In addition to the previous paragraph, even if someone doesn’t believe the early crusades were “defensive” in nature, what of the latter crusades? What of the fall of Constantinople to the Muslims? The invasion of the Balkans? The fall of Hungary? The fall of Rhodes? The Battle of Lepanto? The fall of Cyprus? The fall of Crete? The siege of Vienna? At some point, even if you take the line of thought that the early crusades were not defensive in nature, there was a definite shift from “offensive” to “defensive”.

Jonathan Phillips in “The Crusades 1095-1197” does state the purpose of the first crusade was the capture of Jerusalem. His evidence are letters and charters by participants that state that as the purpose in documents 2 & 3 in the back of the book.

Professor Phillips does have some things to say about Steven Runciman’s work. Basically that Runciman’s view of the “Crusaders as ignorant thugs” is a significant flaw in his writing.(The Crusades 1095-1197, pg 4) This is due to Runciman’s distain for the sacking of Constantinople since his sympathies are on display for the Byzantines.

In view of Constantinople, in “The Fourth Crusade” by Donald Queller & Thomas Madden (which I recommend) on page 321, both authors take a shot at Runciman for his number of “errors” in his work. They refer to the popularity and influence of his work as “unfortunate”.

In Thomas Madden’s book “The New concise History of the Crusades”, Madden blasts Runciman on pages 216 – 217 for the mindset his work has had on the subject. On page 231, he does commend Runciman on his 1st Crusade work and the Crusader states, but notes his errors when he writes past the 13th century. Thomas Madden in “The Crusades: An Illustrated History” goes as far to say on pages 10 & 11 that “The society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East, a professional organization of crusade scholars, has at present nearly 500 members in thirty countries and hundreds of scholarly studies are published each year. As a result of all of this research, modern scholars have largely rejected Runciman’s conclusions, returning instead to the idea that medieval people should be understood on their own terms rather than ours.”

I have also read criticisms of Runciman’s “second son theory” and his chronology of the fall of Constantinople, but can’t lay my hands on which book I have it in at the moment. Page 12 of “The New concise history of the Crusades” mentions this case in point in regards to which sons went on crusade without referring to Runciman specifically.

I do have 2 of the 3 of Runciman’s three part work here that I have read and I do get a different impression of the Crusades from him as compared to many other crusade authors I have read.

Just some thoughts from a novice.

Mk26gmls 04:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there are many Muslim historians who saw the invasion and conquest as a "defensive war" - it is like the current war in Iraq, it is being sold as a defensive war (war against terror) but few in the middle east sees it that way. Or the American civil war, which the north saw as a "defensive war" (south fired first shot), but the south saw as a northern war of aggression (north provoked it). There are many layers to the Crusades and depending on your perspective and what elements are being emphasized will result in different opinions. -- Stbalbach 16:47, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I have read “The Crusades Through Arab Eyes” by Amin Maalouf and he refers to the Crusades as Frankish Invasions throughout the book. In his Chronology in the back of the book, he breaks down events with subtitles. One is titled “Before the Invasion”. In that listing, it is ironic that he lists in the “7th to 8th Centuries: the Arabs build an enormous empire, from the Indus River in the east to the Pyrenees in the west.” I thought that pretty funny myself. Yes, depending on your perspective, you will look at the same events and come to a different opinion.

As Thomas Madden wrote in his book “The New concise history of the Crusades”,(pg. 213) the Ottoman Empire at its height had then resulted in ¾ of former Christian lands over the past 1,000 years were now in Muslim control.

In this article, Crusades, I see a listing of Crusades. Has anyone considered writing pieces on several of them that are not mentioned? Such as:

The Reconquest of Spain

Crusades to North Africa from 1480 – 1578 by Spain and Portugal?

Crusades against the Muslim Turks in Central Europe and the Aegean Region from roughly 1521 – 1672 (These would include crusades in response to Turkish assaults of Cyprus, the invasion of Hungary in 1663, The Crusade for Crete from 1645 – 1669, and the Turkish invasion of Poland in 1671 – 1672)

Crusade in defense of Vienna in 1683/84 and continued Crusades to beat back the Muslims in Hungary until roughly 1718: Mk26gmls 21:44, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Not every war against an Islamic (or other) opponent is a Crusade. I'm not aware that any of the ones you list are considered crusades. But we do have e.g. an article on the Reconquista, which lead to the development of the concept of a holy war against the infidels, on the Ottoman wars in Europe and in particular on the Siege of Vienna. Madden is rather tendentious...the Christian Byzantine Empire was 100% on former "pagan" lands (most of it following Greco-Roman religions), and France was full of Druids at one time. --Stephan Schulz 22:18, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that not every war between Islamic and Christian forces were Crusades, but the following references I believe show that the Crusades continued into the late 17th century, not the 16th century as listed in the intro of this article.

This is not an exhaustive list. I pulled these items together in about 30 minutes. More needs to be researched so these and other crusades can be listed on this article.

In 1517, Pope Leo X called for Crusade against the Turks. (Source The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 286)

In 1529, Charles V, the Holy Roman Emperor, worked with the Pope in the relief of Vienna. (Source The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 287 – 288)

In 1535, Pope Paul III gave indulgences and money for the expedition to Tunis lead by Charles V, Holy Roman Emperor.(Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 162 and The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 288)

1537 - 1540, Charles V – Holy Roman Emperor, Venice and the Papacy formed a league and was defeated at Preveza off the coast of Greece. (Source The Oxford Illustrated History of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 290 and The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

In 1566, Pope Pius V calls for Crusade against the Muslims for further incursions into Hungary. There was little response until Italy was threatened with invasion in 1571. (Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

In 1571, a Holy League made up of Venice, Spain, and the Papacy under Pope Pius V defeated the Turks at the Battle of Lepanto. The church sold indulgences and used church taxes to pay for the fleet. (Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

1593 – 1606, the Pope called for Crusade against the Muslim invasion of the Balkans. The Pope encouraged the Christians living in Muslims lands to rise up against the Muslims. (Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

1645 – 1669, the struggle for Crete saw the Papacy again provide for the defense of the island as well as Christian men from all over Europe. (Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

Papal indulgences were given for those that took part to defend Crete and Vienna. (Source Crusades – The Illustrated History by Thomas Madden, pg 198)

In 1663, Spain, Germany, France and the Papacy led a crusade into Hungary which lead to the Christian victory at St Gotthard. Pope Innocent IX worked to bring financial resources and Christian forces together to relieve the pressure on Vienna. (Source The Atlas of the Crusades by Jonathan Riley-Smith, pg 164)

1684 – 1697, the Holy League is formed by Pope Innocent IX with indulgences for the participants are given. It consists of the Holy Roman Empire, Poland and Venice. This League of the last Crusaders began driving back the Turks. This would have occurred without indulgences according to Thomas Madden. (Source Crusades – The Illustrated History by Thomas Madden, pg 198)

Even after the Protestant Reformation, Protestants celebrated Catholic victories over the Muslims such as Lepanto in 1571 and even Protestants took part in the campaigns. The Protestants argued that secular leaders should take the war to the Turks, not the Papacy. (Source Crusades – The Illustrated History by Thomas Madden, pg 192 – 193)

I will read the Reconquista. I am curious to how this is not listed as part of the Crusade listing though? The crusades in Spain were given the same benefits by the Pope as the ones to the Middle East.

Mk26gmls 12:15, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree that crusades did not end as described, and the Reconquista were also considered Crusades by the papacy. That can be fixed.

As for defensive wars, the major explanation is indeed the 7th century conquests. If you look at the 10th century and 11th century preceding the crusades, the Muslims were fragmented into competing forces unlike earlier and were actually being pushed back. The collapse of the Umayyads in Andalusia, the eviction from Italy, cyprus, the resurgent push by the byzantines from the late 8th century. The Genoan and Ventian naval victories across the Mediterranean. The borders with European nations were being rolled back. What changed was the arrival of the newly arrived Turkic conquerors of the Abassid lands, the Seljuks who pushed on rolled back Byzantine gains in the Levant and the pressed onto Anatolia as well. Byzantine had been contesting the levantine borders for over a millenium, first with the Sassanids, and then with the Caliphates.--Tigeroo 18:54, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

p

Still issues with intro phrasing

Just a general comment. I think the intro still phrases things in a misleading way. Although the detailed sections do clarify I think the introduction should be able to stand on its own.

The way it is phrased it contrasts "Christian" with Eastern Orthodox and, in some sense, seems to imply that Roman Catholicism had primacy in the Christian world. Although arguably the Catholic Church has probably supported this viewpoint over the years it is certainly not the viewpoint of historians regarding this time period. Also it implies that the call was an Eastern Orthdox vs. Roman Catholic issue when, in reality, it was more of a "Roman Empire" calling out to the rest of the Christian world situation.

It would be more proper to say in some fashion that the Christian Eastern Empire, which had lost the Holy Land and Anatolia to the Muslims, called on their fellow Christians in Western Europe (and the Slavic lands) to help them restore these lands to the "Roman Empire" (which, after all, was what the "Byzantine Empire" was). The result, of course, was different from what either the emperor or the Pope intended. --Mcorazao 16:30, 5 January 2007 (UTC)