Wikipedia

Talk:Crusades/Archive 11

< Talk:Crusades
Latest comment: 5 years ago by Borsoka in topic Review by Borsoka
Archive 5←Archive 9Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13→Archive 15

Review by Borsoka

Latest comment: 5 years ago243 comments4 people in discussion

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.)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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". Modified.
  • 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?
 Y—done. I am not sure that this is OR, but it is not my entry so I don't have the sources to check so deleted Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:22, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • "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)

  Done—with Borsoka's strike through it would appear this section's review is complete? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

Yes, it is completed. Borsoka (talk) 11:38, 17 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.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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."
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:57, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.)
 Y—done, this is in the Causes section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done. In this lengthy article, we are informed about the modern Arabic word for crusades, we are also informed that the Fatimids were named after Fatimah, we also learn of the Patarini movement and about the Popes' fight against symony and clerical marriage. However, we are not informed about basic facts about the development of the Christian ideology of warfare: the very concept of "holy war" was alien to Christianity, it developed after Christinity became a state religion and there were Christian theologians who remained opposed to it. If specialized works cited in this article dedicate pages or separate sections to this subject, we could hardly ignore it.
 Y—expanded in causes section with reference to Asbridge and Tyerman Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:52, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—added to Terminology, more to follow when I have my sources to hand Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Muslim Iberia (modern Portugal and Spain) Change to "Muslim Iberia (large parts of modern Portugal and Spain)".
 Y—I have taken Dimadick's guidance and amended these to the geographic term to avoid disambig Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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).
 Y—done, removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "...and piracy had been suppressed in the Mediterranean Sea. Otherwise no pirates are mentioned in the lengthy article.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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].
 Y—covered in last para Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:55, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not done. Rewrite "Once considered a pivotal event by historians, Manzikert is now regarded as only one step in the expansion of the Great Seljuk Empire into Anatolia." For an average reader, this statement does not suggest that the Seljuks conquered Anatolia from the Byzantine Empire after the battle of Manzikert. All sources cited in the article say that the Seljuks conquered Anatolia and they clearly make a connection between the conquest and the declaration of the First Crusade. We cannot avoid the use of the term conquest or one of its many synonyms if we want to provide a full picture and avoid OR.
 Y—now reads conquest Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:52, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
It now says "Arab" and the Seljuks weren't Arabs. I assume the sentence is there to indicate that the Crusades were not a response to the initial expansion of Islam. The phrase "age of Arab territorial expansion" evokes a specific historical period, although that may not be clear to the average reader. Srnec (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • I know that the modified sentence can easily be verified. I do not understand why do we need to say that the late-11th-century crusades were not response to the 7th-9th-century expansion of Islam. This is a large article, with no reference to significant events directly connected to the crusades. The best solution is the deletion of this sentence. Borsoka (talk) 02:24, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
 Y— done, para totally rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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 —looks similar to meNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:54, 14 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Oh, I see. It is again the numbering of pages. However, the text from the article refers to the region of Jerusalem in the 7th-11th centuries, the cited work to Anatolia after 1070. WP:SYNTH? Please, quote full texts in the future, because the above fragmentary quote does not reveal that both the space and the time are different.
 Y— done, para totally rewritten Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Describe the local population in Syria and Palestine in 2-3 sentences.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention the sporadic persecution of pilgrimes and local Christians.
 Y— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:25, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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!
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:51, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete. There in no evidence that Christian/Muslim relations differed from the standards of the age. If there is no evidence, why do we need to mention it? We should mention what is evidenced or made probable. What was the standard of the age? Christian people could invite their Christian pals to have a drink (this must have been a standard of the age), but they could not drink wine together with their Muslim friends.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Some contemporary reports note that the Christians were allowed to keep their churches in good order and pilgrimages were allowed. Others talk of pilgrims being attacked as well as the behaviour of the 'Mad Caliph' who destroyed the Church of the Holy Sepulchre—the 4th century church built on the site of Jesus's crucifixion and empty tomb—and persecuted Christians before turning on his Muslim subjects. The two statements contains original synthesis. Ashbridge writes of Muslim-Christian relations in the Holy Land on the eve of the crusades, noting that contemporaneous reports are controversial. He also writes of the acts of the Mad Caliphs, but without connecting them to reports written decades later and without hinting the possibility that the destruction of the Holy Sepulchre and the systematic persecution of Christians did not actually happen early in the 11th century. Borsoka (talk) 02:03, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
 Y—seperated Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:52, 18 October 2019 (UTC)

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)

'General remark.' @Norfolkbigfish:, I highly appreciate your hard work, so I would like to prevent you from making unnecessary (or rather unproductive) edits. My concern is that instead of addressing the problems identified during the review, you are editing other sentences and you are creating new problems. For instance, the article contained the following sentence about the conversion of the Roman Empire "Christianity was adopted throughout the Roman Empire in Late Antiquity". The sentence was short (10 words), it was verified and it contained all information necessary in the article's context. You replaced this sentence with the following text: "Christianity displaced paganism throughout the Roman Empire in the 4th century following the conversion of Emperor Constantine and its adoption as the Empire's official religion." The new sentence is more than twice longer, it could hardly be verified (because paganism survived the 4th century) and it contains irrelevant information." I am afraid if we continue this process, the article's review will be a never-ending process. I have plenty of time and I do not have much work with the review, but you will be loosing much time. I suggest you should concentrate on the identified issues. Borsoka (talk) 13:32, 17 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done—I think that is everything covered? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:52, 21 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)
Not done. Yes, you are right. It is verified. Sorry. All the same, my principal concern was not addressed. This part is extremly disturbing and that was why I thought it contained original research. First of all, you changed the sequence of the sentences, making connection between unconnected facts, like the weakness of the Seljuks in Jerusalem and the Byzantines' determination to reconquer Anatolia. Secondly, you almost verbatim copied the summary part of the section from the cited book, thus readers do not have the context. I suggest some modification in order to avoid close paraphrasing and to give a fuller picture: "Clerics and laypeople, aristocrats and commoners were coming to the Holy Land to do penances for their sins at the most venerated shrines of Christianity. The Seljuk hold on Jerusalem was weak and reports of sporadic acts of violence against pilgrims and churches were spreading in Europe. The Byzantines' demand for mercenaries converged with the popes' will to demonstrate their supreme authority and with the western knights' eagerness to fight under papal banners." [Jotischky, pages 34-41., 47.] (I am sure that my text should be modified, but this is the sequence of events that can be verified and it avoids copyvio.)
 Y—resequenced to match comment and reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1074 Pope Gregory VII had unfulfilled plans to reinforce the principle of papal sovereignty with displays of military power. This is a nice sentence (because it is practically a copy from Jotischky's text), but its core cannot be understood. The sentence is about Pope Gregory VII's plan to lead an armed pilgrimage to the Holy Land. This should be mentioned in the article, I think in the context of the development of the Christian concept of holy wars. The sentence should also be rephrased in order to provide information and avoid copyvio.
 Y—doneNorfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Warfare was endemic in Western Europe in this period... Close paraphrasing?
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:04, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ...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.)
  • However, this sentence is not about the level of violance amongst noblemen, but about a specific phase of the development of the Christian ideology of holy war. For the subject of the article is a Christian holy war, the development of this ideology should be summarized in 3-4 sentences.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • 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.)
It relates to the religious climate in the West Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
Delete ...rioting in Italy and.... What is the connection between the northern Italian Patarini movement and the First Crusade with its Lotharingian, French, Provençal and Norman crusaders?
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:37, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—edited back Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The doctrine of papal primacy, however, was in conflict with eastern Christians... Change to "The popes' will to increase their authority over bishops, however, was in conflict with eastern Christians...", or to something similar (the Eastern Christians acknowledged the popes' honorary primacy).
Important not to confuse the doctrines of Papal primacy and Papal supremacy. Srnec (talk) 03:15, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 Y—done, thanks Srnec, both used to avoid confusion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—edited back Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This account has fallen out of favor. Why? (A very short explanation.)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—actually the cited source did cover this, expanded to make it more obvious Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:05, 18 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—missed this one. done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:48, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
Not done. (1) The cited source writes of the prosperity of the region and also mentions that the Arabs formed the majority of the population in the towns. No reference to relative peace (or to relative autonomy, as it is claimed in the modified text). (2) The cited source emphasize that the Seljuks did not develop a centralized empire, but pockets of local power emerged. (3) The sentence clearly contradicts other sources cited in the article. Asbridge writes: "The crusaders nonetheless had one advantage: Muslim Syria was in a parlous state of disarray. ...[T]he region's Turkish potentates were more interested in pursuing their own petty infighting than in offering any form of rapid or concerted Islamic response to to this unexpected Latin incursion. ... The two young feuding brothers Ridwan and Duqaq ruled the major cities of Aleppo and Damascus, but were locked in a civil war." Tyerman writes: "These old Arab cities, while often owing allegiance to one or other of one of a series of competing Seljuk lords, were often controlled by Tukish military commanders... Everywhere, ethnic and religious diversity complemented the alienation of ruled - whether town-dwellers, rular cultivators or Bedouin or steppe nomads - ruler. In parts of Syria immigrant Turkish Sunnis ruled indigenous Shia populations or exerted control over local Arab nobles." (page 12.) Do we really think that the concept of "relative peace" covers civil war and ethnic conflicts?
 Y—Expanded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
I did not find its expansion. I think it was deleted. If this is the case, it is OK. Borsoka (talk) 15:13, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • In 1092 that relative stability began to disintegrate... Change to "In 1092 the Seljuk Empire began to disintegrate..."
 Y— I've used status quo and also removed peace and stability phrase you queried that I will pick up in Background with the two not dones, hope this works? Also, thinking on the restructure question below so this is not fixed in stone yet. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:34, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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]
  • Yes. The above listed military campaigns sanctioned by the Popes are mentioned in specialized literature (even if most of the modern historians does not call them "proto-crusades") [Tyerman (p.46.); Jotischky (2017) (p. 26.); Lock (2006) pp. 307-308]. Please remember, I explicitly said that I did not ask you to use the term "proto-crusades".
 Y—covered in expansion of the development of christian holy war theaory Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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. Done.

  Done Everything looks addressed in this section Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:08, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done. There is an outsanding issue, relating to papal primacy. Borsoka (talk) 02:56, 24 October 2019 (UTC) Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

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]
 Y—Turks, and Seljuks added + sourced to Jotischky Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:47, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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]
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:50, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ...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.)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ...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.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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."
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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).
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not done. We should clearly be informed that the Byzantines had recently lost the town to the Seljuks.
 Y—16 years is not recent Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Not done. Asbridge (page 52) mentions that Nicaea was "brazenly declared" the capital of the Seljuk Empire and writes of the "reconquest" of the town. Tyermans (pages 122, 124) mentions that Nicaea "returned" to the Byzantine Empire or it "reverted to imperial control". If the two principal sources of the article emphasize that the town was reconquered, we cannot simply write of the capture of the Seljuk capital, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Read him again: [Nicaea] "threatened the security of Constantinople itself, but it had stubbornly resisted the emperor's best efforts at reconquest. Now Alexius deployed his new weapon: the "barbarian" Franks..." Borsoka (talk) 10:56, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change "became one of the crusaders states" to "the first crusader state".
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "but lacked the resources to fully invest the city; the residents lacked the means to repel the invaders"
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:09, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:25, 22 October 2019 (UTC)
  • His ambition was to gain a Crusader state princedom of his own. Delete either "Crusader state" or "princedom".
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:38, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention the development of Armenian Cilicia in 1 sentence.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done. There is no reference to the development of Armenian states in Cilicia. Instead, the article contains an unverified reference to the (non-existing) Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 Y—changed to Armenian Cicilians, although the article matches the WP article anyway Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:44, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I modified the sentence to be fully in line with the cited source ([1]). WP articles are not deemed to be reliable sources for WP purposes. Borsoka (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done—this section now looks done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:00, 23 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done. Niceae is still problematic and there is a highly debatable sentence about the Kingdom of Cilicia.

Borsoka (talk) 07:07, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done

Not done. The presentation of the capture of Nicaea is not in line with the major sources of the article. Borsoka (talk) 00:49, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Zengi's conquest of Edessa and the Second Crusade

  • Delete "defensive or expansionist".
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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?
 Y—Jotischky writes ....a high turnover of fief holders from death in battle or imprisonment....Baldwin had encouraged settlement from the West and brought Christians from across the Jordan Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:19, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "Under the papacies of successive popes,"
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:07, 15 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
  • Conrad was deleted.
 Y
  • Mention the establishment of Italian, Catalan and Provençal merchant colonies in the towns.
 Y—you confusing the actions of the Italians, Catalans and Provençals with the Communes that never numbered more than hundreds Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:40, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Not done. No, I do not confuse anything. Italian, Catalan and Provençal merchants received quarters in the coastal towns, because they assisted the kings of Jerusalem to conquer them. What you do not know, that the "communes" only emerged in the 13th century. Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "Initially, support was sluggish, partly because Pope Eugenius III delegated the preaching. The Second Crusade has its own article.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "...in a decision that historians now criticise,..." (the following sentence explains this)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "...and coexistence..." (they continued to coexist) and add ", but the siege was a failure for the crusaders." (or something similar)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y— One sentence on the defeat doesn't seem excessive Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "... hostility to the Byzantines grew..." Repetition
 Y—removed earlier reference Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 23 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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)
  • The Damascene realized that they could not resist the crusaders alone. My principal concern is that the unification of Damascus and Aleppo comes out of the blue in the next section. Borsoka (talk) 02:48, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
 Y—that happened years before the second crusade, the Damascans were allied to the crusaders before the crusade which is what makes it such a catastrophic mistake Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done—all done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:54, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done. The merchant colonies should be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 00:58, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

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
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.

  Not done—such an important figure warrants an introduction and an explanation of what he is known as. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We do not explain the nicknames of the crusader leaders and we do not write of the saintly life of Saint Louis. If we want to introduce Saladin, we should mention that he was a Kurdish leader instead of providing the etymology of his Western name.
  • 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.)
 Y—moved to match chronology Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • 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.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:41, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "After building a defensive force to resist a planned attack by the Kingdom of Jerusalem that never materialised,.. PoV
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:42, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "The crusaders became so deprived at times they are thought to have resorted to cannibalism." Did they eat human flesh or not?
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Shorten "Philip considered his vow fulfilled and returned to France to deal with domestic matters, leaving most of his forces behind. But Richard travelled south along the Mediterranean coast, defeated the Muslims near Arsuf, and recaptured the port city of Jaffa. He twice advanced to within a day's march of Jerusalem. Richard judged that—while Saladin had a mustered army—he himself lacked the resources to successfully capture the city or defend it in the unlikely event of a successful assault. This marked the end of Richard's crusading career and was a calamitous blow to Frankish morale." The third crusade has its own article (Maybe?: "Philip considered his vow fulfilled and returned to France, but Richard travelled south along the Mediterranean coast, and recaptured the port city of Jaffa. He twice advanced to within a day's march of Jerusalem, but judged that he lacked the resources to successfully capture and defend the city. This marked the end of Richard's crusading career and was a calamitous blow to Frankish morale.")
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:35, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done—all points covered Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople

 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:30, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Add the year of the siege of Zara (1202).
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "He only condemned the attack when the siege started. He withdrew his legate to disassociate from the attack but seems to have accepted it as inevitable. The Fourth Crusade and the Siege of Zadar have their own articles. This is a huge article, and the Pope's ambivalent position could be mentioned with 5-6 words, but this is not a crucial issue.
  Not done—demonstrates the Pope's ambivalent position Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "Historians question whether for him, the papal desire to salvage the crusade may have outweighed the moral consideration of shedding Christian blood. Close paraphrasing and it is said only by one historian (Jotischky)
 Y—rephrased, it is alos worth you noting that the Jotischky book is an undergraduate primer based on the works of the major historians in the field and the current academic climate Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:47, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change "Innocent did excommunicate the Venetians who continued to plot to further their aggressive territorial objectives. to "He did excommunicate the crusaders for shedding Christian blood, but granted an absolution to all of them, but the Venetians, before the end of the year." (or something similar) 1. All crusaders were excommunicated. 2. The Venetians' further "aggressive territorial objectives" are not connected either to their excommunication or to Alexios IV's proposal to attack Constantinople (Jotischky, Tyerman)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:01, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change "They were joined by King Philip of Swabia, who intended to use the Crusade to restore his exiled nephew, Alexios IV Angelos, to the throne of Byzantium. The latter would require the overthrow of Alexios III Angelos, the uncle of Alexios IV." to "The crusaders were joined by the exiled Byzantine prince, Alexios IV Angelos, who intended to use the Crusade to overthrow his uncle, Emperor Alexios III Angelos." Philip comes out of nowhere and dissappears. The term "King Philip of Swabia" suggests that he was the king of Swabia, although he was Philip of Swabia, King of Germany (or of the Romans). Alexios IV was not his nephew, but his brother-in-law.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:49, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change "It was agreed the crusade would attack Constantinople supporting Venice's objectives. The plan was that when these were achieved, Alexios IV would provide the crusade passage to the Holy Land or Egypt. to "He persuaded the crusaders to attack Constantinople, promising both support for completing their campaign against Saladin's successors and the restoration of church union." (or something similar) [Jotischky] 1. Venice's objectives were unclear, so we should rather summarize what the Byzantine prince actually promised. 2. He promised more than a free passage to the crusaders.
  Not done—for the purposes of the article this promise is largely irrelevent, what was important is that his inability to provide the logistics led directly to the sack (because the crusade would have progressed) and the failure Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:34, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change "Alexios III fled. The crusaders initially took Constantinople easily, but not the wider Byzantine Empire. But Alexios IV Angelos was unable or unwilling to fulfil his commitments and the original purpose of the campaign was defeated by his murder in a violent anti-Latin Byzantine revolt. to "The crusaders' arrival forced Alexios III to flee, but Alexios IV was murdered in a violent anti-Latin revolt early in 1204." (or something similar) 1. The crusaders only took parts of Constantinople 2. Actually, Alexios and his partriarch acknowledged the popes' primacy (so at least one of his promises was fulfilled).
  Not done—for the purposes of the article this promise is largely irrelevent, what was important is that his inability to provide the logistics led directly to the sack (because the crusade would have progressed) and the failure Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change "The continuation of the crusade was now impossible because many crusaders now lacked the desire for further campaigning and the crusade no longer had the necessary Byzantine logistical support. to "The continuation of the crusade was now impossible because most crusaders lost the desire for further campaigning." We were informed in one of the previous sentences that the crusaders had not had the necessary Byzantine logistical support even before the sack of Constantinople, so they could not loose it.
  Not done—for the purposes of the article what was important is that his inability to provide the logistics led directly to the sack (because the crusade would have progressed) and the failure Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:38, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "The result was that the Fourth Crusade never came within 1,000 miles (1,600 km) of its objective of Jerusalem." We were informed that the crusaders did not continue the campaign. Distance between Constantinople and Jerusalem is the sole piece of information in this sentence in this lengthy article. Is it relevant?
  Not doneyes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Write of the establishment of crusader states and Italian colonies in Byzantine territory and the survival of Byzantine successor states.
  Not done—these have their own sections Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:09, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done—all appropriate changes made Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:39, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done. The section contains original research ([2]). Borsoka (talk) 01:12, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for rewriting the section. The new version looks much better. I will review the new text after completing the review of the article. Please compare the text of the two first sentences with the cited work. I guess they contain original synthesis (they connect two different events that happened in two different years). Borsoka (talk) 06:54, 29 October 2019 (UTC)

Conflict with Egypt including the Fifth and Sixth Crusades

  • Why did the crusaders attack Egypt many times in the 13th century instead of fighting for Jerusalem?
  • I will source it, but from memory it became a question of military strategy. Jerusalem was not defensible, however Egypt was vulnerable. If it was possible to seize it the crusaders would have logistical advantages in defending Jerusalem. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • General: the Mongols could be mentioned only after Frederick II's crusade for chronological reasons. For instance, it is disturbing that they seems to have destroyed Hungary before Andrew II of Hungary's crusade, although Andrew launched his crusade in 1218 and the Mongols invaded Hungary in 1241.
  • Maybe, but it causes misunderstanding. We cannot introduce a book about the history of WWII with a section dedicated to the Tehran Conference.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:03, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "Although little reliable evidence survives for these events, they provide an indication of how hearts and minds could be engaged for the cause." How?
 Y— rephrased in simpler English for you
Thank you, but my problem was that this sentence reads like a quote from a Romantic novel and it does not provide information. Furthermore, it is not verified by Asbridge. If my understanding is correct, a whole book verifies this beautiful sentence. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • He lacked the Islamic moral authority of his brother required to unite the Muslim world. OR? Saladin never united the Muslim world. What does "Islamic moral authority" mean? The cited source only writes of moral authority.
 Y—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change "Geoffrey Chaucer's The Pardoner's Tale may demonstrate a cynical view of vow commutation but it was a pragmatic approach that led to more people taking the cross and raising more money in the following century than in the previous hundred years." to "Vow commutation was a pragmatic approach that led to more people taking the cross and raising more money in the following decades than in the previous hundred years." 1. Chaucer lived more than a hundred years later. 2. Did his work demonstrate a cynical view, or not? 3. If you insist on providing wikilinks to Chaucer and his tale, I think they should be mentioned in an other section, because they are not connected to the Fifth and Sixth Crusades.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:22, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
I would restore the following sentence: "Vow commutation was a pragmatic approach that led to more people taking the cross and raising more money in the following century than in the previous hundred years." That the number of "crusaders" increased through payment is important: sinners did not have to make an armed pilgrimage any more.
  Not done The Chaucer bit was the interesting part, not the unsource vow commutation Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:45, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I was pretty sure that you would not understand why vow commutation is important in the context of the article. However, I can live without mentioning it. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "...and later Latin Emperor of Constantinople...". Irrelevant in this context.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:25, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change "Holy Roman Emperor Frederick II was excommunicated for breaking a treaty obligation with the pope and failing to join the crusade. But after his marriage to Isabella II of Jerusalem, John of Brienne's daughter and heir, he had a claim to the kingdom of Jerusalem prompting him to journey to Acre in 1228." The actual sequence of events was the following: 1. Frederick takes the cross, but fails to launch a crusade. 2. He marries Isabella and is acknowledged as king of Jerusalem. 3. He sails for a crusade, but illnes soon forces him to return. 4. The Pope accuses Frederick of oath-breaking and excommunicates him. 5. The excommunicated Frederick leads a crusade to the Holy Land. I do not say that all these events should be mentioned, but (1) he married the Queen before his excommunication, and (2) the circumstances of his excommunication are more complicated than it is presented in the text.
 Y—ce, space precudes anything but the important detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ...and the territorial reach was that of the Kingdom before the disaster at Hattin in 1187. OR? We could maximum say that "almost the territorial reach".
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Change "The Jerusalem nobility rejected the succession of the Emperor's son to the kingdom's throne. As a result, the kingdom could no longer rely on the resources of the Holy Roman Empire and was left dependent on Ayyubid division, the crusading orders and other western aid for survival." This is a highly simplified approach, because significant parts of the nobility acknowledged Conrad's and Conradin's claim to the throne. We should rather write of absent monarchs, civil wars and the disintegration of the kingdom into petty lordships. [Jotischky (217), pp. 241-244]
  Not done—the kingdom of Jerusalem has its own article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
Yes, but we cannot present our own interpretation as per WP:NOR ([3]). Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "The Patriarch of Jerusalem put the total losses at 16,000; only 36 out of 348 Templars, 26 out of 351 Hospitallers and 3 out of 400 Teutonic knights escaped alive." If we do not write of casualties in other battles, why do we need to cover this topic?
  Not done—because we have a primary source and it was such a catastrophic defeat the the kingdom never really recovered Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
We also have primary sources about the battles of Ager Sanguinis and of Hattin. They were also decisive battles. However, we do not mention casualties. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • When Innocent IV wrote to the Mongols to question what right they had to attack peaceful Christians in Russia, Poland and Hungary they replied by demanding his total submission to their authority What is the context of this random sentence?
 Y——done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done—all resonable points addressed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:42, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

Not done. The article contains OR. Borsoka (talk) 01:37, 25 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Crusades of Saint Louis

  • Delete "Thirteenth century politics in the eastern Mediterranean were complex, with numerous powerful and interested parties." This is the least informative sentence that I have ever read in WP. Furthermore, we cannot introduce all powers at the beginning of the section because powers (Byzantine Empire, Ayubbide Empire, the Hohenstaufens' empire) disappeared and new powers (Mameluks, Anjous and the Crown of Aragon) emerged in the second half of the 13th century (which is the actual timeframe of the section).
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention the southward expansion of the French monarchy towards the Mediterranean in the first half of the 13th century (if anything, this is a proper background for the section) [Tyermans (2007), p. 601.; Jotischky (2017) p. 189]
  Not done—France has its own article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
I was pretty sure that you do not understand the significance of France's expansion towards the Mediterranean in the context of the article. However, it is not a major issue. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Shorten "Communication with the Mongols was hindered by the enormous distances involved. Louis sent an embassy to the Mongols in Iran in 1249 seeking a Franco-Mongol alliance. When the reply found him in Palestine in 1251 it was again only a demand for tribute." If my understanding is correct we only want to write of Louis' failed attempt to forge a Franco-Mongol alliance against the Ayubbids. If this is the case, we should not explain it in three sentences, which includes a romantic reference to the enourmous distances. We have not mentioned the distances in connection with a single crusade. Why do we emphasize it in connection with a marginal aspect of the crusades?
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "..., most probably by Baibers. Did Baibers kill him or not?
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The threat presented by an invasion by the Mongols led to Qutuz seizing the sultanate in 1259 and uniting with another faction led by Baibars to defeat the Mongols at Ain Jalut. The Mamluks then quickly gained control of Damascus and Aleppo before Qutuz was assassinated. Introduce Qutuz and Baibars as rival Mamluk commanders. Write of the significance of the Mongols' defeat: the Mamluks became the dominant power of the Near East.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "Baibars had three key objectives: to prevent an alliance between the Latins and the Mongols, to cause dissension among the Mongols (particularly between the Golden Horde and the Persian Ilkhanate), and to maintain access to a supply of slave recruits from the Russian steppes. He supported King Manfred of Sicily's failed resistance to the attack of Charles and the papacy." We can understand the article without these details.
  Not done—Baibers strategic imperatives demonstrate the politics of the region Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:59, 24 October 2019 (UTC)
However, the strategic imperatives of other rulers are not mentioned in the article. This is a huge article with many important details missing.
  • Modify "...his rebel Arab vassals...". Muhammad I al-Mustansir was not Charles' vassal, he had not rebelled against Charles and I am not sure that he was actually Arab.
 Y—done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:15, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

  Done—all reasonable points addressed

Not done. We do not need to understand Baibars' stretegic imperatives, if we were not informed of the strategic imperatives of Amalric I of Jerusalem or John of Brienne. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 25 October 2019 (UTC)

Decline and fall

  • Succession disputes and dynastic rivalries in Europe, failed harvests and heretical outbreaks... Close paraphrasing? Fixed. Borsoka (talk)
  • It is reported that many Latin Christians, evacuated to Cyprus by boat, were killed or enslaved. Despite this, Ottoman census records of Byzantine churches show that most parishes in the former Crusader states survived at least until 16th-century and remained Christian. Original synthesis? Asbridge does not write of the survival of Orthodox communities in connection with the fall of Latin Christianity in the Holy Land. Jotischky does not connect the two events either.
You should sign and date new comments to the talk page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:18, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Reconquista

  • At the time of the First Crusade, Spain had the largest population of Latin Christians living under Muslim rule. OR? The cited source says, most Christians lived under Muslim rules in the peninsula and this statement most probably covers the period before 1031. Srnec, fixed the problem. Thank you. Borsoka (talk) 01:20, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
You should sign and date new comments to the talk page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:19, 28 October 2019 (UTC)
  • A consensus has emerged among modern historians against the view of a generation of Spanish scholars who believed that a Spanish religious and national victory over Islam was inevitable. Delete. This is a large article, plenty of details of the crusades are not mentioned. Do we need to provide pseudo-information? "Yes, it was inevitable. No, it was not. But it was. No it was not." Either it is a consensual view, or not, we do not need to mention it, because we do not need to explain the details of this debate. Borsoka (talk) 18:20, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 08:14, 3 November 2019 (UTC) Superfluous sentence was restored. This is a lengthy article which does not address several principal points of the crusades. We should not fill it with pseudo-information. Borsoka (talk) 10:01, 4 November 2019 (UTC) Deleted again. Borsoka (talk) 01:21, 5 November 2019 (UTC)

Campaigns against heretics and schismatics

  • Delete "and schismatics" in the title. No crusades against schismatics are mentioned in the section. Alternatively, some specific campaigns could be mentioned (in 1 sentence) under this title. For instance, during the Western Schism popes proclaimed crusades against their opponents' supporters.
  • At the Third Council of the Lateran in 1179, Pope Innocent III set a precedent relevant to those crusades that were and are considered as political. OR? Jotischky writes of crusades against heretics and the precedent had been set by Pope Gregory VII, according to the cited source. It was not the Third Council of the Lateran, but the Albigensian Crusades which set precedent for the political crusades, according to Jotischky. Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Who were the Cathars? (An explanation of no more than 3-4 words: if we read etimologies about Saladin's and the Fatimids' name in the article, we should be informed about one of the principal medieval "heretical sects", especially because a crusade was declared to exterminated them.) Explained. Borsoka (talk) 01:24, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "and is named after the city of Albi, one of the main centres of Catharism." I know that this statement could be verified (even if Jotischky does not verify it), but why do we need to provide etimologies? This is not the most superfluous etimology in this lengthy article. Borsoka (talk) 14:34, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Delete "The thirty-year delay in instigating the crusade illustrates a lack of priority given to the campaign in comparison with the more immediate response in crusading rhetoric regarding the papal territorial conflicts in Italy." OR? What do we want to explain? The northern French nobles annihilated Catharism in the first half of the 13th century, on the other hand I do not remember a single crusade which ended with the annihilation of the popes' enemies. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 14:36, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The Albigensian Crusade taught the papacy that it was in fact far easier to attack those who tolerated heresy rather than to identify and eradicate the heresy itself. Close paraphrasing. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 14:48, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The historian Norman Housley notes the strong political undertones and connection between heterodoxy and anti-papalism. Houxley only writes of the situation in Italy. Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 14:31, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Significant crusades against heretics are not mentioned in the section. At least, the crusades against Hussites should be mentioned. Done. A middle of the road approach would have been much better, because now all crusades against heretics are listed, but I let other reviewers raise this issue. Borsoka (talk)
You should sign and date new comments to the talk page Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:17, 28 October 2019 (UTC)

Political campaigns

  • Historians such as Joseph Strayer consider all crusades as political and aimed at the conquest of territory. Rewrite. 1. We do not know that other historians actually consider all crusaders as political, but Strayer's argumentation is quite general, so we cannot present it as a PoV. 2. Close paraphrasing. 3. Misinterpretation (all crusaders can be regarded as political crusaders, because they were always aimed at the conquest of territory, according to the cited source). For instance, "The acquisition of territory was a principal target of all crusades, so they can be labelled as "political crusades" without exception." Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • This is despite numerous papal sponsored holy wars from the 11th century to the 14th century having a rhetorical connection to a spiritual mission. Delete. The sentence does not provide information, especially in the context of the section, because its core is the following statement: spiritual missions are the drivers of holy wars. We should introduce the concept of "political crusades", as it is defined by scholars. For instance, Jotischky writes that "...some holy wars preached or sponsored by the papacy from the eleventh to the fourteenth centuries were ostensibly "political" in the sense that they had aims that could only by some rhetorical justification be said to fulfil the spiritual mission of the Church." Tyerman who prefers the term "crusades against Christians" writes that the "main wars of the cross against Christians in the thirteenth and fourteenth centuries revolved around the temporal position of the papacy in Italy, the defence of the Papal States, church rights, access to ecclesiastical wealth and fears of territorial encirclement." [Tyerman, page 895] (I'd rather insist on the "political crusade" terminology, which is also applied by Peter Lock ([4]), because the Fourth Crusade was also fought against Christians.) Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Deleted. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention that Pope Innocent III's Albigensian Crusade set precedent for political crusades. (This is mentioned in the previous section, because you misinterpreted the cited source, as I explained it under the title "Vexatious Tagging or vexatious lack of knowledge or WP:NOTHERE?" below.) Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • .. the underage Emperor Frederick II. Rewrite: "...the underage king of Sicily, Frederick..." Frederick was crowned emperor years after the conflict and he was the first Sicilian monarch named Frederick. Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Crusading was also unsuitable for these Italian campaigns against the Hohenstaufen. Crusades required clear limitations and firm objectives, but this was a war of attrition. Delete. This is a lengthy article, but many important aspects of the crusades and political crusades are not mentioned. We do not need to understand every details of the political crusades against Frederick II in Italy. Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention further political campaigns in 2-3 sentences. Peter Lock is a good source. Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Done. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention Markward von Annweiler: there are two sentences about Innocent's crusade against him, but there is no wl to assist readers to understand to which conflict we are referring. Borsoka (talk) 05:15, 29 October 2019 (UTC) Modified. Borsoka (talk) 01:27, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Pagans in the North

  • Change the title to "Baltic crusades" or "Baltic pagans" or something similar: were the Estonians, Lithuanians pagans of the North or of the East? Changed. Borsoka (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Introduce the section with 2-3 sentences about its geographical scope, about the "pagans in the North" and previous attempts to convert them and about the Drang nach Osten. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Bernard of Clairvaux persuaded Pope Eugenius III that the conflict with the Wends was a holy war analogous to the Reconquista, even though the Germans were more motivated by wars of territorial conquest than events in the east. 1. Define the term "Wends". 2. Rephrase. The sentence combines two distant sentences from the cited source, suggesting that Bernard knew that the Germans were motivated by their lust for land, but he convinced the Pope that the Germans' pure intention is the spread of the faith. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • ...Polabian Slavs.. OR? According to Eric Christiansen's monography ([5]), there were more than one pagan Slavic tribes along the Elbe and the Baltic coast. He writes that the crusader's enemy, Niklot, was the prince of the Abodrites. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The theoretical justification, however, was weak without the argument that the crusaders were fighting to reclaim Christian territory. OR? Jotischky does not write that the theoretical justification was "weak", he states that it was "unclear", but provides examples. I suggest that Jotischky's comparison between the Northern and East Mediterranean crusades should be included. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC) OK. Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ...the Teutonic Knights who were founded in Palestine after the Siege of Acre in the 1190s and modelled on the Templars. Close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • ...including Orthodox Christians OR? I am not sure that the Teutonic Knights suppressed Orthodox Christians in the 13th century and I have not found a reference to this claim in the cited work. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 08:07, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • In this way Latin control was extended 300 miles (480 kilometres) to the east in the 13th century. Close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 13:44, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Historian Robert Bartlett defines the conquest and organisation of power in the Baltic as part of a general movement for 'the expansion of Latin Christendom'. It was made possible by the crusading ideology placing the full machinery of the Church behind superior military technology. It enabled the recruitment of troops via preaching, the offer of spiritual rewards for combatants and the administrative machinery to establish government in the conquered territories. 1. Close paraphrasing. 2. Out of context. The first sentence (after modification) could be part of the introduction to the section. The other two sentences could be deleted or summarized in 4-5 words. Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC) Moved. Borsoka (talk) 13:43, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention the Prussians, the Reissen of individual Western and Central European monarchs and magnates to Lithuania, the conversion of the Lithuanians and the Battle of Tannenberg. (Peter Lock is a good source.) Borsoka (talk) 03:53, 30 October 2019 (UTC)

Late medieval and early modern crusades

  • Introduce the Ottomans in 1 sentence. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • The Ottomans had conquered most of the Balkans and reduced Byzantine influence to the area immediately surrounding Constantinople after their victory at the Battle of Kosovo in 1389. Rewrite. Jotischky does not verify this claim. Furthermore, the Ottomans did not conquer "most of the Balkans" after the Battle of Kosovo. We should rather mention that they appeared on the Balkans in 1354 taking advantage of a Byzantine civil war and they became the dominant power of the peninsula after 1389. [Tyerman, page 843] Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Pope Boniface IX proclaimed a new Crusade of Nicopolis to recover the city from the Ottomans, that ended in 1396 with a comprehensive defeat in the Battle of Nicopolis and left Bulgaria in Muslim hands for 500 years. Rewrite. I maintain that Davies' general history of Europe is not the best source for this article: for instance, he does not write of the Ottoman conquest of Bulgaria as a main cause of the crusade, but claims that the recovery of Nicopolis was the crusaders' principal object and mentions that Bulgaria remained under Ottoman rule for 500 years "because" of the crusaders' defeat at Nicopolis. Peter Lock's summary and Tyerman's conclusion are less simplicistic and less speculative: Ottoman advance on the Balkans threatened Hungary, both popes declared the crusade, mainly French joined the Hungarians, they were defeated and their defeat consolidated the Ottomans' dominion in the Balkans. [Lock, page 200; Tyerman, page 843] Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • As the Ottomans pressed westward, Sultan Murad II destroyed the last papal-funded crusade at Varna on the Black Sea in 1444. Four years later, he crushed the last Hungarian expedition. Delete. I maintain that Davies' general history of Europe is not the best source for this article (for instance, Jotischky makes it clear that Pope Calixtus (1455-58) set up a separate administrative body to coordinate the financing of the crusades and Locke mentions Pope Sixtus IV's 1480 anti-Ottoman crusade). Furthermore, the second sentence (although it is closely paraphrased) does not properly present Davies' (erroneus) statement: Davies claims that the 1448 expedition was the last Hungarian expedition across the Danube (actually, King Matthias Corvinus invaded Ottoman territory across the Danube in the 1450s and 1460s). I would rather write that the anti-Ottoman crusades proclaimed between 1444 and 1517 did not halt the Ottoman expansion and the Ottomans conquered Constantinople in 1453. [Jotischky pages 278-279] Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Venice was the only polity to continue to pose a significant threat to the Ottomans in the Mediterranean, but it pursued the crusade mostly for its commercial interests, leading to the protracted Ottoman–Venetian Wars, which continued, with interruptions, until 1718. OR? Furthermore, did Venice pursue the crusade? Why do we only write of the Mediterranean? Central Europe was the principal theatre of war in the 16th-17th centuries and the Habsburgs were the Ottomans' principal enemies. I think this sentence should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The end of crusading in terms of at least nominal efforts by Catholic Europe against Muslim incursions, came in the 16th century, when the Franco-Imperial wars assumed continental proportions. The first part of the article (ending with the words "...came in the 16th century") contains OR and contradicts the previous sentence which writes of Venetian crusades in the 18th century. The second part of the sentence is closely paraphrased. I assume we want to write of the French-Ottoman alliance. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. I maintain that Davies should not be used as a source. His large book about Europe's history contains simplifications and factual errors in comparison with specialized works. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Introduce the Reformation, because the German Protestant princes come out of nowhere. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC)
  • Amongst these, he entered into one of the capitulations of the Ottoman Empire with Ottoman Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent while making common cause with Hayreddin Barbarossa, an Ottoman admiral, and the Sultan's North African vassals. Close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 01:44, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. I maintain that Davies should not be used as a source. His large book about Europe's history contains simplifications and factual errors in comparison with specialized works. Borsoka (talk) 13:55, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Demography in the Outremer

  • The Frankish population of the Kingdom of Jerusalem became concentrated in three major cities. Close paraphrasing. Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • By the 13th century the population of Tyre probably exceeded 60,000, then came Acre and the capital itself was the smallest of the three with a population somewhere between 20,000 and 30,000. Rewrite. Acre was the most populous among the three towns, then came Tyre, and Jerusalem was the third, according to the cited source. Borsoka (talk) 13:51, 31 October 2019 (UTC) Fixed. Borsoka (talk) 13:48, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Muslim majority population from the 6th century. There were no Muslims in the 6th century. Srnec (talk) 00:19, 1 November 2019 (UTC)   Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:57, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
  • These communities were thought to be of near equivalent size. I'm not sure exactly what this is referring to. It appears to be in reference to the Samaritan and Muslim communities in central Palestine in the 7th century. (Frankly, I think it a bit unlikely that Muslims were a majority anywhere in Palestine before the end of the 7th century, but I do know that the Samaritans lost ground faster than the Jews and Christians.) Srnec (talk) 01:06, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Colonisation

  • The new territories were based on shared language, family or feudal ties and the settlers' regions of origin. The Principality of Antioch, founded in 1098 and ruled by Bohemond, became Norman in character and custom. The Kingdom of Jerusalem, founded in 1099, followed the traditions of northern France. The County of Tripoli, founded in 1104 (although the city of Tripoli itself remained in Muslim control until 1109) by Raymond de Saint-Gilles became Provençal. The County of Edessa, founded in 1098, differed in that although it was ruled by men from northern France, relatives of the counts of Boulogne and lords of Courtenay, its largely Armenian and Jacobite native nobility was preserved. The pages of Asbridge's cited work does not verify these statements, but I know that Prawer (in his book first published almost half a century ago) verifies them. Recent literature does not always support this traditional view. For instance, Kevin James Lewis in his 2017 monography about the counts of Tripoli states that "just as the county was not the only area in Latin Syria with high proportions of Occitan settlers, so too was the county itself not exclusively or homogeneously Occitan" [Lewis, Kevin James (2017). The Counts of Tripoli and Lebanon in the Twelfth Century: Sons of Saint-Gilles. Routledge. p. 91. ISBN 978-1-4724-5890-2.] In his 2000 study about the establishment of the Antiochene principality, Asbridge likewise says, "Historians have long suggested that the principality of Antioch was, during the first decades of its existence, largely populated by people of Norman stock. ... These statements represent rather unsubstantiated generalisations..." [Asbridge, Thomas (2000). The Creation of the Principality of Antioch, 1098–1130. The Boydell Press. p. 163. ISBN 978-0-85115-661-3.] Borsoka (talk) 01:42, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
The paragraph talks about character and custom, not population. Lewis says high proportions of Occitan settlers, does he say that Tripoli did not follow Occitan customs? The Google Books summary of the book seems to indicate otherwise highlighting poetry composed by troubadours in Occitan at Tripoli’s court. If the court is speaking Occitan how much character and custom is there? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:33, 1 November 2019 (UTC)
"The new territories were based on shared language, family or feudal ties and the settlers' regions of origin." This makes it clear that Prawer wrote of almost "uniform" crusader states, in contrast with Lewis and Asbridge. Provencal troubadours were popular guests in European monarchs' courts. I think we should indicate that the above sentences contain PoV and this century-old scholarly PoV is not fully shared in recent literature. Borsoka (talk) 13:34, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Ethnic segregation

  • Is "ethnic segregation" a good title? It was rather a religious and social segregation. Jotischky writes of a local Arab leader who converted from his Muslim faith to Catholicism and became an important aristocrat. Yes, Muslims and Christians did not marry, but this was also true in the case of Frank aristocrats and peasants. Segregation was a general characteristic of medieval societies. We should rather change the title to the neutral: "Feudal society" (or something similar) Borsoka (talk) 03:40, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention that Outremer was a frontier society and its consequences. [Jotischky 2017, page 135] Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The "Law of Conquest" supported the seizure of land and property by impecunious crusaders from the indigenous population, enabling poor men to become rich and part of the nobility. OR? Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Verified and deleted (because repeats info mentioned in section "Causes and precursors"). Borsoka (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • However some historians, like Andrew Jotischky, question the model once proposed, where the primary motivation was understood in sociological and economic rather than spiritual terms. Close paraphrasing. Furthermore, the context of the statement has nothing to do with the ethnic composition of the Crusader states. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC) Deleted (because repeats info mentioned in section "Causes and precursors"). Borsoka (talk) 08:12, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The key differentiator in status and economic position in the crusader states was between urban and rural dwellers. Original synthesis. 1. Jotischky's cited statement only covers the subject peoples, not the whole society. 2. He introduces his statement with the following sentence: "In law, the Franks effectively made no distinction on religious grounds between their subject peoples". Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The key differentiator in status and economic position in the crusader states was between urban and rural dwellers. 1. Jotischky does not write of economic position. 2. Clarify what was the main difference (servitude). Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • There was no Frankish peasantry... OR? Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • The Franks imposed their own feudal culture on agricultural production which made little difference to the conditions of the rural population. Rephrase to avoid close paraphrasing and to clarify that the situation in the West and Near East was quite similar already before the arrival of the Crusaders. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • However, the Muslim poll tax on non-Muslims was reversed. Close paraphrasing. 1. Clarify what this statement means: under the crusaders the Muslims were to pay this special tax. 2. Mention other discriminatory measures against Muslims: a. they could not enter Jerusalem b. biased local courts. [Jotischky 2017, pages 135, 139] Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • This enabled the feudal Lords to raise punitive levels of revenue from indigenous peoples, whether Muslim, Jewish or Christian. Original synthesis. Jotischky's cited statement only covers Muslims. Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention that Galilean Muslim villagers were more prosperous and content than those living under Muslim rule, according to Ibn Jubair. [Jotischky 2017, page 139] Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Very few Muslims lived in urban areas except those in servitude, although indigenous Christians could gain legal status and acquire wealth through commerce and industry in towns. 1. Close paraphrasing. 2. Why are the local Muslims and local Christians connected in the same sentence? Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention the autonomous status of the local population. [Jotischky 2017, page 139] Borsoka (talk) 03:00, 2 November 2019 (UTC)
  • Mention royal and aristocratic marriages between Franks and Armenians. Borsoka (talk) 03:36, 2 November 2019 (UTC)

Latin rule in Greece

Missing information

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Crusades/Archive_11&oldid=929340804"