Talk:Crusades

Text missing

The last part of the introductory text is unfinished. " Medieval romance, philosophy and literature were galvanised by the wellspring for accounts of heroism, chivalry and piety that crusading..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:983E:4D00:9422:CC30:BCD6:51BB (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2019 (UTC)

• Fixed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:30, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Illustration idea

Hi Norfolk, if you want another image, the maps at Cartography of Jerusalem#Crusader maps (12th–14th centuries) are worth looking at. Onceinawhile (talk) 22:24, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 September 2019

The Crusades are erroneously depicted as religious wars between Christianity and Islam. This is not historically correct! The guiding cause of the Crusades was to prevent further Islamic conquest of additional lands Europe! Islamic teaching requires evangelism! Evangelism by combative force is permitted! It is the war initiated by followers of Islam, that caused Europeans to enter into this mischaracterizeed conflict! Contrary to historic fact, the west, and specifically Christianity, is blamed for the "Crusades!" In fact, the "Crusades" were "The Crusades of Islam!"

I am perplexed by the continuing twist in presentation of pivotal historic information regarding the "Crusades!" A proper understanding of what propelled the West to enter into the "Crusades" provides a calming historical clarification of this extended period of history!

The involvement of the European empires that were Christian was incidental to this war! It did provide a rallying cry to motivate recruits! However, did the military draft in the USA cause the war in Vietnam! No, the draft was a means of projecting Western military power into the Vietnam conflict!

---

The suggested change is at the beginning of the article! The following should be added: """ The Crusades are erroneously depicted as religious wars between Christianity and Islam. The guiding cause of the Crusades was to prevent further Islamic conquest of additional lands Europe! Islamic teaching requires evangelism! Evangelism by combative force is permitted! It is the war initiated by followers of Islam, that caused Europeans to enter into this mischaracterized conflict! """ Tang brav (talk) 11:41, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

 Not done Please review Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Reliable sources.

Onceinawhile (talk) 12:16, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

Jotischky 2004, pp. 26–27

Here is what he says:

Alexander II, anticipating the need for military resources, had developed a system of recruitment to the papal cause by means of oaths taken by members of the nobility to defend the papacy. This was extended by Gregory VII, with the result that by his death in 1085 a network of the fideles Sancti Petri had been created throughout Italy, northern Spain and the French and imperial lands.

The investiture stuff is on p. 25:

Although the immediate cause of the conflict known (somewhat misleadingly) as the Investiture Contest was the issue of appointment to bishoprics, the course of the war itself shaped and refined the reform agenda.

@Borsoka: The material is cited. Contrary to your personal view, every sentence does not need a separate citation. If you have a problem with the wording, fix it. Srnec (talk) 01:00, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The article says: "This struggle, now known as the Investiture Controversy, was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics. To gather military resources for his conflict with the Emperor, Pope Alexander II developed a system of recruitment via oaths that Pope Gregory VII extended into a network across Europe." Which sentence from the cited work verifies that the Investiture Controversy was "was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials"? Borsoka (talk) 01:09, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

The sources says "immediate cause", the editor who added this sentence went with "primarily about". The source says "issue of appointment to bishoprics", which is of course meaningless on its own, so the editor supplied context (maybe not enough) by adding "whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials". The issue here is wording, not a lack of citations. "Church officials" was his biggest mistake. Srnec (talk) 01:25, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

No, the editor's biggest mistake was that he/she thought that the conflict was limited to the Holy Roman Empire. Furthermore, neither the Catholic Church nor the Holy Roman Empire wanted to appoint church officials. Reformist clerics demanded that Church officials are to be elected by clerics and their opponents maintained that the patrons of the churches and the monarchs (not states) are entitled to invest clergymen with churches, bishoprics, abbacies, ... Borsoka (talk) 01:54, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Srnec makes a valid point on my phrasing but also reinforces that what the article says matches the source. It also pretty much matches Investiture Controversy which starts The Investiture Controversy or Investiture Contest was a conflict between church and state in medieval Europe over the ability to install high church officials through investiture. Davies goes further the Investiture contest was a straight forward struggle for power noting that Gregory VII threatened excommuinication of all secular rulers who invested candidates for church appointments without reference to ecclesiastical authority. (pp339-442, source in article) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:58, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Sorry, I do not understand your above remark. Your text refers to the "Holy Roman Empire", the quote to "all secular rulers who invested candidates for church appointments". The Holy Roman Empire was a single state, the secular rulers in case were multiple monarchs, aristocrats, who invested bishops, abbots, clerics with Church offices. Borsoka (talk) 08:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• The main point is that the article is supported by the sources. Where this is relevant to the crusades and the article is the conflict between the Hohenstaufen and the Papacy in the period 1138 to 1254. This relates to the motivations of Popes and Emperors, politics in Italy and the impact this had on the ability of the West to raise crusades to the east. All of which the article refers to in some detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Unfortunately, the text of the sentence was not verified and the conflict between the Hohenstaufen and the Papacy has nothing to do with the crusades' background. All the same, the sentence was deleted. Borsoka (talk) 11:26, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• If the word Bishops was swapped for clerical officials it is was fully verified Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:47, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• No. Do you know what is the difference between a single state and hundreds of rulers? Rulers are human beings, states are not. The term "Holy Roman Empire" does not include the Holy Roman Emperor, the kings of England, Hungary and France (who all opposed Pope Gregory VII's attempts to limit their prerogatives relating to Church appointments). Furthermore, the Investiture Controversy was not limited to bishoprics. Borsoka (talk) 16:57, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
• The article should have used Emperors rather than Empire, I agree. But the core of conflict was over whether the HRE was the leader of the Christian World or the Pope. It is not same as those other kings. The HRE thought they could appoint Popes, the other kings didn't. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:44, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Sorry, I do not understand your above remarks. We are discussing the following sentence: "This struggle, now known as the Investiture Controversy, was primarily about whether the Catholic Church or the Holy Roman Empire held the right to appoint church officials and other clerics." Do you see any reference to the control of the Christian world? Sorry, if you do not understand the difference between the emperors' claim to be the supreme leadership of Christianity and the appointment of bishops in Spain, Norway and England, you should not edit articles concerning this topic. Borsoka (talk) 18:19, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Papal Supremacy

In January 1054 he despatched a legation to Constantinople under Cardinal Humbert de Moyenmoutier, and ordered them to obtain confirmation of his claims to papal supremacy.

• Davies, Norman (1997). Europe: A History. Pimlico. p. 30. ISBN 978-0-7126-6633-6.

I think you tagged this verification failed by mistake @Borsoka: this cited source covers this. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:46, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you. I will comment this issue. My concern is that the Great Schism is not the main subject of Davies' work. I will quote texts from specialized works to show that this is a highly simplified approach. Borsoka (talk) 11:28, 11 October 2019 (UTC)

• Neither is the Great Schism particularly relevant to this article, what is relevent is that there were fundamental and often violent disagreement between the Eastern and Western churches. Happy to rephrase as appropriate, it it helps Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Something wrong with figures in one sentence

Article currently says "He estimates that by 1200 that these figures had risen to 35.6 million in Islamic territory—Anatolia 7 million, Syria 2.7 million, Egypt 2.5 million and North Africa 1.5 million— while the Crusader's home countries population was 35.6 million". I think someone has typed / pasted 35.6 twice here - would someone with access to relevant sources be willing to fix this? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:31, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Y—should have 13.7 million in Islamic territory. That would have been a population explosion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:07, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

I must say, having once looked under the bonnet of medieval estimates for Islamic populations & economies, the underlying data are almost unbelievably thin by European standards, & the estimates should imo be treated with the greatest caution. In particular it is positively misleading to give them an undeserved air of precision by not rounding to the nearest million. Johnbod (talk) 14:27, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Defensive war?

The article currently has an odd passage that didn't sit well with me as a lay reader. It says: "Some historians, such as Thomas F. Madden, argue that modern tensions are the result of a constructed view of the crusades created by colonial powers in the 19th century and transmitted into Arab nationalism. For him the crusades are a medieval phenomenon in which the crusaders were engaged in a defensive war on behalf of their co-religionists". There are two problems. The article says "some historians such as Madden" but cites only Madden. If there are more, they should be cited. However, there may be another solution. These snetences currently occur at the end of a paragraph on 'Legacy'. In which case perhaps the following sentence should be deleted, or taken elsehere in a historiographical diascussion? "For him the crusades are a medieval phenomenon in which the crusaders were engaged in a defensive war on behalf of their co-religionists". I don't think the sentence belongs at the end of this paragraph late in the article. If this is a serious feature of crusade historiography, then this should be being discussed near the start of the article ('causes and precursors'). It seems pretty fundamental. Also, in that regard, I found it difficult as a lay person to discern the meaning of "defensive war" in this context. There is no wikilink. Can this be either linked or explained more fully? hamiltonstone (talk) 10:40, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

Review

The latest review of the article shows that it most probably does not meet GA criteria. It contains unverified claims, misinterpreted facts, it does not address the main aspects of the topic, but it also goes into unnecessary detail and it is not neutral. Relisting the article could hardly add value to our community work, so I think the article should comprehensively reviewed. I am ready to start a review, but it is not a one-man-show, especially because I am not a native English speaker and I am not an expert of the crusades. As Ian Rose suggested at least four editors - @Lingzhi2:, @Johnbod:, @Norfolkbigfish: and myself - should cooperate to improve the article. I also ping @Auntieruth55: because he/she completed the last GA review more than two years ago. What do you think about my proposal? Thank you for your cooperation in advance. Borsoka (talk) 07:00, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yuk. Going into GAR would be an unnecessary detour IMHO, whether or not you feel it's GA-worthy. If no one agrees to work toward FA, then go to GAR. If people agree to work toward FA, then WP:IAR, don't GAR, don't delist, leave it GA, on the condition that everyone continues to work toward FA... the goal is article improvement, not rule-following. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 07:10, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I fully agree. We should improve the article, not relist it. @Srnec:, I guess you have deeper knowledge of the crusaders than any of us. Would you join? Borsoka (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with @Lingzhi2: as well. While acknowleding that it needs improvement I disgree profoundly with Borsoka. The claims track back to the sources, facts match current academic thought, the detail has been requested by many viewers and has maintained a NPOV for a difficult subject. What is lacking is more on the Islamic world and response. The last FAR got four supports, not exactly the sign of an article that is below GA. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:30, 13 October 2019 (UTC)
• Worth noting that the article also passed a Milhist A-Class Review for what it is worth Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:35, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for your readiness to cooperate. I copy my previous review here and I will continue it. I suggest that at least the following new sources should be introduced to secure that facts indeed match current academic thought:

• Barber, Malcolm (2012). The Crusader States. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11312-9.
• Lock, Peter (2006). The Routledge Companion to the Crusades. Routledge. ISBN 9-78-0-415-39312-6.
• Harris, Jonathan (2003). Byzantium and the Crusades. The Boydell Press. ISBN 978-1-78093-831-8. {{cite book}}: Invalid |ref=harv (help)
• Hodgson, Natasha R. (2007). Women, Crusading and the Holy Land in Historical Narrative. The Boydell Press. ISBN 978-1-78327-270-9.
• Lilie, Ralph-Johannes (2004) [1993]. Byzantium and the Crusader States, 1096-1204. Clarendon Press. ISBN 9780198204077.
• Richard, Jean (2001) [1996]. The Crusades, C. 1071-c. 1291. Cambridge medieval textbooks. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 9780521625661.

I have access to about a dozen further books about the history of the crusades in my home library, but most of them are too specialized, concentrating to certain personalities or crusader states. I think we should not use too specialized books. What about my above suggestion? Borsoka (talk) 08:21, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I think the comments above are pretty largely nonsense, frankly. I have said I'm willing to continue my review. I think sufficient sources are probably already being used, and there are probably too many editors involved, pulling the article in different directions. I think it should return to FAC after a while. Johnbod (talk) 11:48, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Riding on Johnbod"s "too many editors" comment, let me say that I say without false modesty that I have exactly nothing to offer here except a willingness to work. And since several others are involved, I will now bow out, unless you need a warm body to do yeoman's work. I support your efforts to bring this back to FAC. ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 11:59, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

@Johnbod:, @Lingzhi2:, yes, WP is a huge community and hundreds of editors are to cooperate. I am afraid we can hardly avoid adding further sources, if we want to provide a fair picture of "current academic thought". If my understanding is correct, you suggest I must finish my review without your support. Can I ask a last favour? There are many unverified statements in the article. I will place "citation needed" and "failed verification" tags after each unverified sentences. I understand you have enough knowledge of the crusades to review the article without cooperating with other editors. I am sure you could assist Norfolkbigfish to find proper sources to verify those claims, because one editor can hardly finish this work. I want to avoid that editors who are not deeply involved in this proces open the article's GA review to relist it for original research. Thank you for your assistance. Borsoka (talk) 12:32, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Review by Borsoka

Terminology

• Define the term "crusade" (The first sentence of the article - "The crusades were a series of religious wars sanctioned by the Latin Church in the medieval period." - defines the term, but this statement is not verified in the main text.)
• The range of events to which the term has been applied has been greatly extended, so its use can create a misleading impression of coherence, particularly regarding the early crusades. Extended to what? Actually, this sentence does not make sense. The subject of the sentece is a mysterious "range of events" and there is an "impression of coherence", but it is "misleading".
• not all armed pilgrims fought and not all who fought had taken religious vows Close paraphrasing?

Y—removed. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• It was not until the late 12th and early 13th centuries that a more specific "language of crusading" emerged. OR? The cited source does not write of the development of a specific crusading vocabulary, but about the fusion of "the language and practice" of armed and unarmed pilgrimages. Actually, it writes that both armed and unarmed pilgrims (that is, both crusaders and traditinal pilgrims) were confusingly mentioned as peregrini

Y—No, not OR and not mine. Sourced to Asbridge Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for changing the reference, because Tyerman did not verify the sentence.

• The modern English "crusade" dates to the early 1700s. The term used in modern Arabic, ḥamalāt ṣalībiyya حملات صليبية‎, lit. "campaigns of the cross", is a loan translation of the term "crusade" as used in western historiography. Why was this terminology adopted? The practise of "taking the cross" is first mentioned in section Conflict with Egypt including the Fifth and Sixth Crusades, without any previous explanation, although this was the principal element of the crusaders' oath and that is why we call them crusaders.

Y—crucesignatus added here Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• The crusades in the Holy Land are traditionally counted as nine distinct campaigns, numbered from the First Crusade of 1095–99 to the Ninth Crusade of 1271–72. This convention was used in 1820 by historian Charles Mills in his History of the Crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land. It is often retained for convenience even though it is a somewhat arbitrary system OR?
• "Saracen" was a common Greek and Roman term for an Arab Muslim. Why is this relevant in the context of the article? I know that the Muslims were mentioned as Saracens in the age of the crusades, but the sentence does not say this, because it covers Antiquity.

Y—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• [The term Saracen] "was derived from a name used for the nomadic peoples of the Syro-Arabian desert who raided the Syrian region of the Roman Empire." Delete. It is not relevant.

Y—cut back Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Change the order of the 5 last sentences (The term Saracen comes out of nowhere, especially because we have not been informed that the crusaders primarily fought against Muslim Arabs. I suggest that the last paragraph should be introduced by the terms "Franks" and "Latins", because the previous paragraphs were dedicated to the crusaders themselves.)

Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:56, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Background

• The first Christian Roman Emperor, Constantine the Great, founded the city of Constantinople in 324. Delete. The article is too long.
• In this city the Roman Empire continued until 1453, while the Empire in the west collapsed at the end of the 4th century. Rephrase. No scholar says that the Roman Empire continued in Constantiople, because the empire survived in its eastern territories. During the crusaders' rule in Constantinople, the empire survived in Nicaea. We should not close the sentence with the fall of the Western Roman Empire because it is not directly connected to the crusades. I suggest: "In the west, the Empire collapsed at the end of the 5th century, but it continued in the east until 1453 for almost a millenium." (The Despotate of the Morea, a successor state, fell in 1460, the Empire of Trebizond, in 1461.)
• The city and the Eastern Roman Empire are more generally known as Byzantium, the name of the older Greek colony it replaced. Delete "The city and" - the article (hopefully) never refers to Constantinople as Byzantium. I suggest: "The Eastern Roman Empire is more generally known as Byzantium after the ancient Greek name of its capital, Constantinople."
• I am missing an introduction to the development of the Christian ideology of holy wars/just wars (2 or 3 sentences). (I suggest to use Lock (2006) pp.298-299 and Richard (2001) pp. 1-3. Tyerman (2006) dedicates a whole chapter to this theme.)
• Mention "jihad (or holy war)" in connection with the Muslim expansion. The text of the article about Muslim expansion is verified by a section titled "Islam and Holy War" from Tyerman's book. Asbridge also dedicates pages to the idea of jihad in his book about the Crusades, cited in the article.
• Muslim Iberia (modern Portugal and Spain) Change to "Muslim Iberia (large parts of modern Portugal and Spain)".
• The recovery of territory by the Byzantine Empire reached its furthest extent in 1025, through the military successes of Emperor Basil II. Its frontiers stretched as far east as Iran. It controlled Bulgaria as well as much of southern Italy and piracy had been suppressed in the Mediterranean Sea. From this point, the arrival of new enemies on all frontiers placed intolerable strains on the resources of the state. In Italy they were confronted by the Normans; to the north, the Pechenegs, the Serbs and the Cumans, as well as the Seljuks to the east. Emperor Romanos IV Diogenes attempted to confront the Seljuks to suppress sporadic raiding; this led to the 1071 defeat of the Byzantine army at the Battle of Manzikert. OR? (I added references Borsoka (talk) 10:44, 13 October 2019 (UTC))
• Its frontiers stretched as far east as Iran. Iran is a modern term. We should rather write of the (re-)capture of Crete, Cyprus, Antioch from the Arabs, because these geographical terms are relevant in the context of the crusades. Their mention could be verified by Harris (2003) (page 1).
• Delete "...and piracy had been suppressed in the Mediterranean Sea. Otherwise no pirates are mentioned in the lengthy article.
• From this point, the arrival of new enemies on all frontiers placed intolerable strains on the resources of the state. Delete "intolerable".
• ...to the north, the Pechenegs, the Serbs and the Cumans.... Delete "Serbs" (they are not mentioned again) and replace "Cumans" with "Uzes" (Harris writes of the Uzes, so we do not need to find other sources to verify the reference to the Cumans).
• Mention the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia. The Seljuk conquest was the principal immediate cause of or the only pretext for the declaration of the First Crusade. The conquest is mentioned in the sources cited in the article [Asbridge (2012), page 27., Tyermann (2006), page 11., Jotischky (2004), pages 42, 44].
• This situation was probably the cause of instability in the Byzantine hierarchy rather than the result. Delete. The article is too long and the sentence is a PoV. (I emphasize I do not debate its reliability, but it is irrelevant in the context of the article.)
• Yet positive signs of the overall health of the Empire at this time have been identified by recent scholarship. Delete. The article is too long and the sentence does not say anything: "positive signs" (what?) "overall health" (what?) "recent scholarship" (who). We can enjoy the article without understanding the meaning of this PoV sentence.
• By the end of the 11th century, the age of Islamic territorial expansion was long gone. OR?

Y—Again this is not OR, it was close to verbatim from the source so I have rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:13, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done. Thank you. I fixed the page to verify the claim. However, the sentence is strange. We know that the Sunni Seljuks conquered Armenia and Anatolia in the 1070s and 1080. What is a conquest if not a form of territorial expansion? Why do we have to emphasize that the Muslims were not continuosly conquering Syria and Palestina from the 7th until the end of the the 11th century? I suggest delete "In the Near East by the end of the 11th century, the age of Islamic territorial expansion was long past.", especially because we should write of the Seljuk conquest.

• However, fractious frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world remained across the Mediterranean Sea. The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries. During this time levels of tolerance, trade, and political relationships between the Muslims and the Christians fluctuated. Catholic pilgrims had access to sacred sites and Christian residents in Muslim territories were given dhimmi status on payment of a poll tax, legal rights and legal protection. Indigenous Christians were also allowed to maintain existing churches, and marriages between people of different faiths were not uncommon. OR?

Y—Again not OR, pretty much matches the source Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done. No similarity.

• a mostly Chritian population....made the eligible to live under Muslim rule as dhimmis.....cultures and creeds coexisted...frontier zone....intermarriage was one of the most prominent themes in this environment Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Describe the local population in Syria and Palestine in 2-3 sentences.
• Mention the sporadic persecution of pilgrimes and local Christians.
• Mention the importance of the Holy Sepulchre in 1-2 sentences. For instance, Asbridge writes that the "crusaders had marched east from Europe in their thousands to reclaim this church" [Asbridge (2012), page 91.]- but the church is first mentioned in section 8. Art and architecture!

Comment The Iberian Peninsula should probably not be mentioned as "Iberia". It has to be disambiguated from the Byzantine theme of Iberia (theme), located in the Caucasus. Dimadick (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2019 (UTC) Y—Iberia>>Iberian peninsular now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:11, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

Causes and precursors

• Historical analysis has demonstrated that the First Crusade had its roots in developments earlier in the 11th century but for contemporary Western chroniclers it seems to have been a surprising and unexpected event. OR? Am I wrong that we only want to say that the declaration of the First Crusade was a surprising event for 11th-century people?

Y—Again not OR - reflects Jotischky p46 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• The city of Jerusalem had become increasingly recognised by both laity and clerics as symbolic of penitential devotion. There is evidence that segments of the western nobility were willing to accept a doctrine of papal governance in military matters. The Seljuk hold on the holy city was weak and the Byzantines were open to the opportunity presented by western military aid to fight them. This presented the papacy with a chance to reinforce the principle of papal sovereignty with a display of military power such as that proposed by Pope Gregory VII in 1074 but not followed through. OR? This part of the section is extremly chaotic. I assume these sentences are destined to introduce the principal causes of the crusade, but we are jumping from fact(oid)s to fact(oid)s with little coherence. For instance, a sentence writes of both the Seljuks' weak position in Jerusalem and of the Byzantines' will to employ Western mercenaries - however, the Seljuks' position was week against the Fatimids and the Byzantines wanted to employ Western mercenaries in Anatolia and Syria (not in Palestine). We should not suggests that these two facts are connected. A plan of Pope Gregory VII is also mentioned, but without explaining it. I think the best approach if we delete most of these meaningles and obscure sentences.

Y—Again not OR, relect source. This is an important list that reflects the situation of the time compressed for space Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:40, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Warfare was endemic in Western Europe in this period... Close paraphrasing?
• ...with violence often a part of political discourse Delete, the article is too long. (Furthermore, it is not fully in line with the cited source which says: "Warfare was endemic in western Europe in the eleventh century. Wars consisted, however, mostly of small-scale localised conflicts, rather than larger affairs between sovereign powers.")
• Contemporaries recognised the moral danger which the papacy attempted to deal with by permitting or even encouraging certain types of warfare. Delete. The Christians' ambivalent approach towards holy wars should rather be explained under the previous ("Background") section. (Furthermore, the sentence is not verified.)
• The Christian population had a desire for a more effective church which evidenced itself in rioting in Italy and a greater general level of piety. Delete. How can riots evidence the Christian population's desire for a more effective church? I know that the sentence secretly refers to the Pataria movement, but until we do not mention facts directly connected to the crusades we should not write of popular movements with almost no connection to armed pilgrimages. (Furthermore, the sentence is not verified.)
• Roman families appointed relatives and protégés as popes, while Emperor Henry III invaded Rome and replaced two rival candidates with his nominee. The reforming movement coalesced around Pope Leo IX, intent on abolishing simony and clerical marriage and implementing a college of cardinals responsible for electing future popes. Delete, the article is too long.
• This movement established an assertive, reformist papacy eager to increase its power and influence over secular Europe. I suggest the following wording: "The reforming movement established an assertive, reformist papacy eager to increase its power and influence." (The popes' principally wanted to secure their absolute primacy within the Church. Popes Gregory VII, Innocent III and Boniface VIII indeed tried to achieve a supreme leadership with authority over secular rulers, but most popes were weak and only dreamed of secular power in secret.)
• The doctrine of papal primacy, however, was in conflict with eastern Christians... Change to "The popes' will to increase their authority over other bishops, however, was in conflict with eastern Christians...", or to something similar (the Eastern Christians acknowledged the popes' honorary primacy).
• There were several key doctrinal divisions between east and west, but all these controversies became far less tractable because of an essentially political issue – the more fundamental question of papal supremacy. These religious and political divisions spurred Leo IX to send a legation to the Patriarch of Constantinople in 1054 demanding that papal supremacy be recognised. The Patriarch responded with an alternative manifesto, so the legation excommunicated him. A Synod of the Greek church in turn excommunicated the legation while condemning the Latin church as heretics in creed and practice. This was a turning point in an irreparable split known as the East–West Schism. There were now two supposedly universal orthodox Christian realms. Where the principle line of division had been between a heathen North and a Christian South, now it was between the Catholic West and an Orthodox East. I know that this sentence can be verified by a reference to a general work on Europe's history. However, it contains a highly simplified approach. I suggest that these 7-8 sentences should be replaced by a single sentence which states that conflicts between the pope and the patriarch of Constantinople caused a mutual excommunication, but it did not terminate the communion of the two Churches [Jotischky (2004), page 29]. Communion is important, because it tacitly explains why the Orthodox Byzantine Emperor sought assistance from the Catholic Pope.
• This account has fallen out of favor. Why? (A very short explanation.)
• A second account emphasises the straightforward economic attraction of gathering spoils of war. OR. The cited source clearly writes only of the crusaders' alleged lust for landed property, not about the crusaders' desire for pillaging raids.
• Power theoretically rested with the respective caliphs in Baghdad and Cairo. In practice executive power was in secular hands: the Sultan in Baghdad and the Vizier in Cairo. Delete, because the article is too long.
• The conquered indigenous Arabs had lived under the Seljuks in relative peace and prosperity. OR? Delete.

Y—Again, not OR,matches source, reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:43, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• In 1092 that relative stability began to disintegrate... Change to "In 1092 the Seljuk Empire began to disintegrate..."
• Mention 2-3 "proto-crusades" (I know this is a controversial term, so I do not want you to use it). Maybe the following projects could be listed: Pope Leo IX's 1053 campaign against the Normans, the Norman invasions of Sicily in 1069 and of England in 1066 (fought under the banner of St Peter in token of their "holy" character) and Pope Gregory VII's plan to lead an armed pilgrimage to Jerusalem. [Lock (2006), pages 307-308]
• A general remark: this section should significantly be restructured, because it contains sentences without internal coherence. Maybe grouping of the causes of the crusades would be the best approach. For instance, we could begin the section with a (verified) remark about the surprise that the declaration of the First Crusade caused. We could continue with the economical, social and political causes, and we could close the section with the spiritual causes. I emphasize, we do not need to create new sub-sub-subsections or to state that X, Y and Z were the economical causes of the crusades.

First Crusade and aftermath

• In 1095, Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos requested military aid from Pope Urban II at the Council of Piacenza, probably a small body of mercenary reinforcements he could direct and control. Mention that Alexios specifically asked the Pope's help "to repel the thread posed by Islam", specifically the Seljuks and other Turkic tribes. [Asbridge (2012), page 34]
• Alexios had restored the Empire's finances and authority but still faced numerous foreign enemies. Delete. We were already informed that the empire was invaded from everywhere, but Alexios sought the Pope's assistance specifically against the Muslim Turks, according to the cited source [Asbridge (2012), page 34]
• Most significant were the migrating Turks, in particular the Seljuks and their followers, who had formed the main body of in-migration to Anatolia. Delete. The cited source describes a lengthy period (1071-1243) and does not specifically write of the years around 1095.
• This was part of wide-ranging anti-Jewish activities, extending from limited, spontaneous violence to full-scale military attacks. Delete, because the article is too long. (The Rhineland massacres are linked in the previous sentence.)
• Many people wondered why they should travel thousands of miles to fight non-believers when there were already non-believers closer to home. Delete, because the article is too long. (The sentence does not provide significantly more information than the previous one.)
• ...leaving Byzantine controlled territory on their journey to Nicaea... Change to "leaving Byzantine controlled territory in Anatolia" (Shorter and Anatolia is mentioned several times in the previous sections.)
• ...members of the high aristocracy from France, western Germany, the Low Countries, Languedoc and Italy.... Delete "from France, western Germany, the Low Countries, Languedoc and Italy": this will be explained in the following sentences.
• Alexios persuaded many of the princes to pledge allegiance to him. Change to "Alexios persuaded all princes, but Raymund of Toulouse, to pledge allegiance to him."
• he also convinced them their first objective should be Nicaea, the capital of the Sultanate of Rum. Change to "he also convinced them their first objective should be the recapture of Nicaea. This town had recently been proclaimed the capital of the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum." (or something similar).
• Change "became one of the crusaders states" to "the first crusader state".
• Delete "but lacked the resources to fully invest the city; the residents lacked the means to repel the invaders"
• A force to recapture the city was raised by the general Kerbogha. The Byzantines did not march to the assistance of the crusaders because the deserting Stephen of Blois told them the cause was lost. Instead Alexius retreated from Philomelium, where he received Stephen's report, to Constantinople. The Greeks were never truly forgiven for this perceived betrayal and Stephen was branded a coward. Losing numbers through desertion and starvation in the besieged city, the crusaders attempted to negotiate surrender but were rejected. Bohemond recognised that the only remaining option was open combat and launched a counterattack. Despite superior numbers, Kerbogha's army — which was divided into factions and surprised by the Crusaders commitment and dedication— retreated and abandoned the siege. Delete or summarize with 4-5 words.
• His ambition was to gain a Crusader state princedom of his own. Delete either "Crusader state" or "princedom".
• Shorten "Even the Turks remained divided, they had found unity unachievable since the death of Sultan Malik-Shah in 1092, with rival rulers in Damascus and Aleppo.": "The Turks remained divided, with rival rulers in Damascus and Aleppo." (Most scholarly works say that the lack of unity was a characteristic of the Seljuk Empire and Malik-Shah's rule was an exception.)

Zengi's conquest of Edessa and the Second Crusade

• Delete "defensive or expansionist".
• This led to high mortality rates among the nobility as well as a policy of encouraging settlers from the West and Christians from across the Jordan. OR?
• Shorten "Bohemond seized Christian cities in Cilicia, refused to return Antioch and in 1108 organised a Crusade against the Byzantine Empire. The Crusade ended in failure after Alexius starved Bohemond of supplies by cutting his supply lines. The resulting Treaty of Devol, although never implemented, forced Bohemond to acknowledge Alexius feudal as his lord.": "Bohemond returned to Europe and invided the Byzantine Empire from Italy, but his expedition ended in failure in 1108. The resulting Treaty of Devol, although never implemented, forced him to acknowledge Alexius as his feudal lord." (or somethin similar)
• Delete "Under the papacies of successive popes,"
• Shorten "The third decade of the 12th century saw campaigns by French nobleman Fulk V of Anjou, the Venetians who captured Tyre, and King Conrad III of Germany, as well as the foundation of the Knights Templar, a military order of warrior monks which became international and widely influential.": "The first decades of the 12th century saw campaigns by the Venetians, Genoese and Pisans, who assisted the crusaders to capture the prosperous towns on the Palestinian coast, by French nobleman Fulk V of Anjou, as well as the foundation of the Knights Templar, a military order of warrior monks which became international and widely influential." (or something similar) (Conrad III came to the Holy Land only in the 1140s, Tyre was only one of the towns conquered, the presence of Venetian, Genoese and Pisan merchants and their rivalry will be important in the next century.
• Mention the establishment of Italian, Catalan and Provençal merchant colonies in the towns.
• Delete "After his father was executed for treason in the Seljuk succession crisis little is known of his early years. Zengi has his own article.
• Delete "Initially, support was sluggish, partly because Pope Eugenius III delegated the preaching. The Second Crusade has its own article.
• Modify the text "This formed part of a general increase in crusading activity..." ("This" seems to refer to the progroms, but the Second Crusade should be the context of this sentence.
• Delete "...in a decision that historians now criticise,..." (the following sentence explains this)
• Delete "...and coexistence..." (they continued to coexist) and add ", but the siege was a failure for the crusaders." (or something similar)
• Delete "Bad luck, poor tactics and a feeble five-day siege of Damascus led to internal arguments; the barons of Jerusalem withdrew support and the crusaders retreated before the arrival of a relief army led by Zengi's sons. The Second Crusade and the siege of Damascus have their own articles.
• Delete "... hostility to the Byzantines grew..." Repetition
• Mention the conquest of Damascus by Nur ad-Din (this is the most important consequence of the crusade and this info appears out of context in the following section)

'Rise of Saladin and the Third Crusade'

• Delete "Nur ad-Din prevaricated before responding when it became clear that, otherwise, the crusaders might gain a strategic foothold on the Nile. Some historians consider this decision a visionary attempt to surround the crusaders. WP:WEASEL, WP:NPOV
• Delete "...Yusuf ibn Ayyub, who became known by his honorific 'Salah al-Din' ('the goodness of faith'), which has been westernised as..." Saladin has his own article.
• Delete "..., the first Muslim to unite Aleppo and Damascus in the crusading era... (This info is to be mentioned in the previous section, because the Second Crusade is the proper context, not Nur ad-Din's death.)
• Delete "Assuming control after the death of his overlord Nur al-Din, Saladin had the strategic choice of establishing Egypt as an autonomous power or attempting to become the pre-eminent Muslim in the eastern Mediterranean; he chose the latter. Politicians always have choices.
• Delete "After building a defensive force to resist a planned attack by the Kingdom of Jerusalem that never materialised,.. PoV

Verification

@Borsoka:—what edition of Jotischky are you using for verification checking? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:33, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• Jotischky, Andrew (2017). Crusading and the Crusader States. Routledge. ISBN 978-1-138-80806-5.

Comments from Onceinawhile

Very important not to lose track of this comment by @Onceinawhile: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

• I can’t precisely put my finger on it, but the article feels overweighted towards the Crusaders. A good comparator article is the Norman conquest of England - both are about invaders coming from outside, but this article is focused more on the invaders themselves whereas the Norman conquest of England article is focused more on the place being invaded. It comes across in the relative weightings of description of the various protagonists and their armies and institutions, the legacy of the Crusades in Western Europe vs the Byzantine Empire and the Middle East. I realize this comment is vaguer than the others, but it is arguably the most important one to get right given WP:WORLDVIEW. Onceinawhile (talk) 14:07, 18 September 2019 (UTC)

I second the suggestion. No, it is not vague. Modern historians dedicate pages to the native population in their books (I refer to Malcolm Barber and Peter Lock's books mentioned above). I do not understand why do we need to concentrate on the individual military campaigns, especially because separate articles are dedicated to each campaign and its each commander. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

Johnbod

Also worthwhile not losing touch of these unactioned notes from @Johnbod: Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:50, 13 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm loathe to add many points to this page - the quality of comments seems to be deteriorating down the page, not that I have read all. But:

• we're not linking Lisbon?

Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• "In the 15th century the pivotal events in Christian–Islamic relations were marked by two events: " - stop at "were"?

Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• "Modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the crusaders" - "views" better?

Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:21, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• "By the end of the 11th century, the age of Islamic territorial expansion was long gone.[23] However, fractious frontier conditions between the Christian and Muslim world remained across the Mediterranean Sea. The territory around Jerusalem had been under Muslim control for more than four centuries." - Hmm - importantly for the 1st Crusade, Antioch was only taken in 1084, and in the Balkans expansionary efforts continued for centuries. Never mind Central Asia, Russia etc.

Y—well Antioch is 1000km from Jerusalam, but I take your point. Limited the comment by Geography Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• "There were several key doctrinal divisions between east and west" - were there? Really only Filioque was "doctrinal", and it is hard to call that "key".

• I did this. The source refers to theological disputes plural, but names only unleavened bread and filioque as main ones. [filouque = "one of the main points at issue"; It also says these were matters of custom rather than fundamental doctrinal differences, but the politics made the issue worse... It goes on to make the point I quoted above.... ♦ Lingzhi2 (talk) 02:20, 12 October 2019 (UTC)

• " This was a turning point in an irreparable split known as the East–West Schism" - hmm, not so much a turning-point as the culmination of several centuries of increasing detachment on both sides. And I expect both sides would have been astonished to find it still unrepaired 930 years later.
• ENGVAR - "centre" but "This account has fallen out of favor".

Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:35, 14 October 2019 (UTC)

• "a thirst for adventure and a general liking for warfare" - some of your sources must say that the acquiring of fame as a warrior was an extremely powerful motive for all kinds of medieval elite foolishness, just as in ancient and later times.
• "Finally, one motivating factor may have been spiritual – a desire to gain penance through warfare" - seems grudging, and not well-expressed; most historians think spiritual benefit was key for many crusader leaders, and grace better expresses what they were after rather than "penance". I find myself querying lots of points cited to Jotischky.
• "the Norman community of southern Italy" seems an odd way to refer to this tiny piratical band.
• Nicaea - no link
• "the Muslim city of Antioch" - it had only been Muslim-ruled for a few years, and the civilian population was still very largely Christian
• "raised by the general Kerbogha" - he was effectively independent as ruler of Mosul.
• "The original ideas that Jerusalem would become an ecclesiastical domain and the claims of Raymond were discounted in the face of the contingent of troops from Lorraine" - "idea". The end is unclear.
• "forced Bohemond to acknowledge Alexius feudal as his lord"
• More later. Johnbod (talk) 00:12, 12 October 2019 (UTC)