Talk:First Crusade/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an archive of past discussions about First Crusade. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Watch the anti-islam slant

It would be good to include some detail to avoid unintentional religious slander. Specifically, the protection of Christians under Islamic rule was explicit teaching of Muhammad and the status quo of Islam since its earliest expansion, not a secular relaxing of Islamic values.

"But beginning in the early eleventh century, Caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah began to persecute the Christians of Palestine. In 1009, he destroyed Christianity's holiest shrine the Holy Sepulcher. He eventually relented and instead of burning and killing, he implemented a toll tax for Christian pilgrims entering Jerusalem. The worst was yet to come. A group of Turkish Muslims, the Seljuks, very powerful, very aggressive and very stringent followers of Islam, began their rise to power."

The Seljuks could not be said to be 'stringent' followers of Islam: stringent followers of Islam must respect 'people of the book', i.e. Christians, Jews, Zoroastrians, and Sabians. The manner in which they are to be respected is also spelled out fairly clearly in the Qur'an. One might call the Seljuks radicals, or militants, or possibly fundamentalists, but not stringent followers. I admit this is a small detail, but in it is the proverbial 'devil' of anti-Islam. A further point: the reasons for the Muslim crackdown on Christian pilgrims is a delicate matter, as an overstatement of malice or omission of grievance could again produce a biased, inaccurate account. Please reference these details so we are able to evaluate your sources and get this right. 130.195.86.37 (talk) 02:26, 16 May 2008 (UTC)Aidan MacLeod

Watch your own bias. All of the points you contest are well-known points. The Turks attacked Byzantium and thus triggered the call for the Crusades. The Turks have always been very powerful and their conquest of the region points to them being aggressive too. That is not to say that the Crusades were correct, or not aggressive. On the contrary, aggression was met with aggression; religious intolerance was met with religious intolerance - although, in the Crusader states, Muslims were tolerated - hence at the Siege of Jerusalem in 1187, Saladin was concerned for the safety of the Muslims, and Balian of Ibelin had a small amount of negotiating power when he negotiated its surrender.Gabr-el 23:12, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

There were 600 000 crusaders in this crusade but they didn't have an army organization. Turks defeat them all. You didn't write 600 000 crusaders and the guerilla war between Turks and crusaders. Crusaders went to Jerusalem but with 50 000 men in 3.Crusade.Turks killed all crusaders at the Anatolia. You should write it I think. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.103.86.125 (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

They were organized under the princes. There weren't 600,000 of them. The Seljuk Turks did not defeat them all, in fact, the First Crusade is about the only truly successful crusade for the Europeans, resulting in the capture of many important cities. Why am I wasting my breath on you? MasterOfHisOwnDomain (talk) 08:24, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

The Persecution of Jews: While it was true indeed that the Crusaders (and most of the European people of the time)terribly persecuted Jews, it is important to say that it was not the official first crusade(the prince's crusade) that promoted the first holocaust, but the crusade of the people. I think that detail is important and must be said. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.13.38.152 (talk) 07:39, 15 October 2008 (UTC) there were too many crusaders(600000 is not so illogical unlike other cusade all of catholics+byzantium-really powerfull those days- participated. only nobility was organized under the princes, but not only nobility fought against Muslims. too much crusader had died not because of guerilla war but because of poisonous lands&water in Anatolia that kilij-Arslan poisoned. anyway, crusade was successful since many important cities captured (and all muslim+jew population was massacred-it was also a goal for crusades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.138.191 (talk) 14:37, 28 October 2009 (UTC)

This article is getting really good

I'm a grad student working on the Crusades. I have to say, the Crusades articles on wikipedia are really getting good. The biases are tending to slip away and we're getting clear, concise history. I'm impressed. Just wanted to say good job, folks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.185.102.176 (talk) 01:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

It is impressive to see the article shaping up beyond petty religious propaganda. I do have one concern (and I certainly am willing to chalk this up to not being extremely well versed in his work): Tyerman is used as a reference frequently throughout the article. While he certainly seems to be renowned for his efforts in this field of scholarship, Many of the points for which he is used as reference are reaching or subjective. Given a brief read of interviews he's conducted, I can't shake the feeling that he's pursuing a very specific agenda. Regardless, I am not sure I would characterize his views as a summary of the general historical consensus. Perhaps the text should be altered to indicate that this is A take on things, not THE universal view? In some context, he does rather come off as a bit of an apologist for the Crusades.

Incorrect source

There is a problem with the recent addition of a citation made here and here). The name Michael Gervers is not associated with that book, and the cited section is written by Susan B. Edgington. The source needs to be rechecked by someone with access to this book. In the meantime, I am reverting back to a "citation needed" template. — CactusWriter | ^needles 10:00, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

That was odd, I missed that. It is by Edgington though, no problem there. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:55, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. Thanks for checking. — CactusWriter | ^needles 15:43, 17 January 2010 (UTC)

Cannibalism occurrence in the First Crusade

I am surprised that the event of the Cannibalism is not covered in this article. If we going to present history, lets do it fair and square folks. Furthermore, Cannibalism did occur and here is western historian, Geraldineit Heng in her work Cannibalism, the first crusade, and the genesis of medieval romance discusses it, "In December 1098 seven months before the capture of Jerusalem by the militia of the First Crusade, Ma'arra an-Numan-a city in northern Syria was sacked and it inhabitants put to the sword, one instance among many of the massacre of Muslims and cultural others enacted in the course of the holy-war-cum-pilgrimage. At Ma'arra however, according to three surviving eye witnesses histories of the First Crusade written independently by Latin participants, the unthinkable happened: the crusaders roasted and ate the flesh of enemy corpse, an act of such unvitiated horror that all three chronicles are immediately driven to defend the cannibalism by invoking extreme famine as exigent explanation." (102-100, 1998) --Saab 1989 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

Title:

Cannibalism, the first crusade, and the genesis of medieval romance.

Authors:

Heng, Geraldine

Source:

Differences: A Journal of Feminist Cultural Studies; Spring98, Vol. 10 Issue 1, p98, 77p

Document Type:

Article

Subject Terms:

*KINGS & rulers

*BOOKS

GREAT Britain

Reviews & Products:

HISTORY of the Kings of Britain, The (Book)

Abstract:

Focuses on the contents of the book `History of the Kings of Britain,' by Geoffrey of Monmouth. Legend of King Arthur in literature; Vocabulary of romance; First crusade and the contigent of horror; King Arthur's materialization at the vanishing point of historical narration; Definition of romance.

ISSN:

10407391

Accession Number:

1524741

Url:

http://web.ebscohost.com/ehost/detail?vid=3&hid=11&sid=4a12837a-f110-418e-9fc9-9869c94d4811%40sessionmgr4&bdata=JnNpdGU9ZWhvc3QtbGl2ZQ%3d%3d#db=a9h&AN=1524741

PDF version of the article:

I am sharing with you VIA filefront, URL: http://www.filefront.com/16575527/Cannibalism%2C%20the%20first%20crusade%2C%20and%20the%20genesis%20of%20medieval%20romance..pdf

--Saab 1989 (talk) 14:00, 28 May 2010 (UTC)

I have fixed some of the indenting in your post, as it originally had a lot of text going off the screen. It should look like what you had originally intended it to look. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 18:06, 9 July 2010 (UTC)

The First Crusade

This is currently a disambig:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_First_Crusade

It seems to me it should be a redirect to here, with a link to the disambig. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Flying Bishop (talk • contribs) 13:28, 18 December 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, if someone types in "The First Crusade", they expect to come to this page. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:02, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

I have made the page redirect to here, as requested. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:14, 23 July 2010 (UTC)

Peer review comments

I am responding to the Peer review requested at proj, Catholicism. My general impression:

Generally well referenced article. Probably less errors than many other articles in Wikipedia.

How do you say "heavy weight"? I could not bring myself to read this all, there is just too much material and the article is just too long to be useful to me. Sorry. By teh time one gets to People's Crusade it is so long that it is time to click away.

The French, Italian and German Wikipedia articles on this are actually more informative (although they have less material) because they are shorter.

Better map: The French, Italian and German Wikipedia articles all have a nice map and route (See the Italian as an example) that could clarify things here. Here things start with a painting. The map would be better.

By the historian, for the historian: The article seems to be written for the historian, not for the general reader. Again, length is the barrier here.

Then what?: The term "Second Crusade" did not appear in the article. I will add that now. I found the article on Second Crusade easier to read and follow. It has nice maps of the routes etc. If an article is going to be FA, I would choose that one.

Other crusades?: There is no mention if there were X other crusades. I think it should be said that there were 8 more afterwards. It would be VERY nice to have a small crusade navbar at the end that has arrows that go from one crusade to the next.

Art: at the very end, there are a few neglected sentences on art. And no simple gallery of art, etc. I would have liked to see one to get a better feeling there. Overall, the art used in the article does not seem that great, and could be improved.

Overall I think there is too much preamble and the article is too long to be useful to me. I learned very little here. I actually learned more from the other 3 international Wikis I mentioned above. So a lot of work went into this article, but probably too much work. But it has good material. History2007 (talk) 05:22, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

My response is here; I wasn't sure where I was supposed to go to comment. And FWIW I disagree with History's assessment of the detail/length. I grant that most people aren't going to read the whole article, but TMI can't be bad. There are sections, and people can jump to what they're particularly curious about. Article size indicates that this article may be at the cusp of wanting to be split, but I don't think it's necessarily there yet. carl bunderson (talk) (contributions) 17:58, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I think going beyond metrics, I was just giving my first real impression: I still find this article too long, and I really have no vested interest in it. Now, I discovered another element, the list of crusades I was complaining about is "well hidden" in one of the boxes and one has to click on show to see it. Is this "stealth education"? Again, what I do not get here is immediate access to information. I wish it looked like the Second Crusade article. History2007 (talk) 19:57, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

The First Crusade is a lot more complicated than the Second, that's probably why. It's possible to write a very lengthy book about the Second, such as Jonathan Phillips' recent one, and a smaller one about the First (Asbridge's book is smaller than Phillips'), but on the other hand, Phillips' book is pretty much the only book about the Second, and there are dozens about the First. More information, more sources both primary and secondary, more stuff happened...of course it's a longer article. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:04, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Still, hard to read and the details of the People's crusade, the Jewish attacks in Rhineland etc. are just too long, given that there are Main articles out there. Personally, I do not care who took refuge in which mosque during the massacre in Jerusalem and will not remember tomorrow, even if I read it here today. It is: "an article by the historians for the historians" not for me. I had enough here. Bye bye. History2007 (talk) 20:36, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

Well, you can't expect every article to be tailored to your attention span. It's not History2007pedia. What do you care about? Is there anything else in the article that you think could be improved? You are probably right that the sections with their own articles could be shortened a bit. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:51, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I don't actually expect anything. I did not jump in here to pontificate on the Crusades. Someone posted a request for opinion on the project page, I responded to it to provide an opinion. Was that a request for opinion, or a request for praise? I said what I thought about the article, and I stand by it. I did not bother to tag the article as too long, because I am only marginally interested in it. But I do think it is too long, and I think you know that is true. If you ask for feedback, you must remember that it does not always agree with you. As for my attention span, my friend I assure you that it is much longer than most of the first year freshmen who might look at this page. The fact remains that the sections with Mains have too much detail in them that will not be remembered by the reader the next day, e.g. did they make ladders with timber from ships? Who cares? They stormed the place and killed lots of people. That is the message that needs to be telegraphed in the general article. The details of the bloodshed are irrelevant to the Crusade. And all of this in an article that does not have a map? How would I improve this article? I would add a nice map, as in the WikiFrench version, and get rid of the details. And that larger map told me something REAL that this article had failed to tell me: it drove home the difficulty of journey. Some of these people started out way up in Normandy. Just getting to Venice from there these days "by car" is a major undertaking and these people were walking. That human element was not clear to me from the reading and only the map made me think of it. So the article was less informative to me than the international Wiki articles. Anyway, the article is well sourced and pretty factual. So there is no need for more of references and details. What is needed is reducing its cholesterol and clarifying the facts in a more intuitive way. But I will leave that to you guys. History2007 (talk) 23:09, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

I apologize for being unnecessarily snarky. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:15, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

No worries, we will blame it on a keyboard malfunction. History2007 (talk) 09:53, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

I was the one who asked for a review of this article in order to bring this article to FA status. A review would give me a backbone to improve this article on. Any comments are welcome. (By the way, please comment at the peer review page, rather than here. It's a peer review, if you hadn't noticed.) Cheers, —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 17:15, 19 August 2010 (UTC)

I've found some maps that may be useful. This map would look nice if it was labeled, like this French version. If anyone has the time to label the map and upload it to Commons, that would be very appreciated. I'll look into it, but any other help would be welcome. This map and this map are okay, but they look a bit superficial. —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 19:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)

Nominated for A-Class review

I have nominated this article for A-Class review. Please comment here to leave suggestions or comments. Thanks! —MC10 (T•C•GB•L) 22:45, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Members of the Crusade

hi adam, in the big box, just on top right, boulogne and flandres are parts of the kingdom of france. weren´t they parts of the empire? geoffrey for example stands there as a leader for the empire, his brothers for france. i did not really get that, could you /somebody explain that? 78.50.51.229 (talk) 09:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know, that box is completely anachronistic anyway, with all the coats of arms. France and the Empire were not participants in the way the box implies. Parts of Flanders and Boulogne were technically in the Empire and in France, but in reality they were independent. Godfrey's earlier career, however, was entirely in Imperial affairs, while his brothers seem to have been involved in French and English affairs, so maybe that is why they have been separated like that. Adam Bishop (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

And Normandie was never a part of England, it was fief under the crown of France.81.233.187.122 (talk) 18:24, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

'additional aim' ?

The introduction to the article suggests that responding to the Byzantine request for help was the primary aim of the First Crusade - this point is subject of considerable debate among scholars. Until very recently the broad consensus was that the Pope had already decided on an expedition to retake Jerusalem, and used Alexios' request as a 'spark' and a way to present the crusades as a defensive war, in line with contemporary theories about what constituted a just war. Previous, unanswered, requests for help and the language of the papal bulls and speeches promulgating the crusades suggest that the primary aim was always Jerusalem. However, a recent book by Frankipan argues that the Byzantine request was the primary cause. This uncertainty should be acknowledged in the introduction - as it stands now, it is misleading. There is also the issue of the aims of the leaders being different to the aims of the participants, but that's all a bit complicated for the introduction. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.197.140 (talk) 15:08, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Numbers

Given the issues surrounding the numbers of people on crusade, I'm not sure the infobox is particularly helpful. In the main body of the article it's explained that it is difficult to estimate the size of the armies, so I don't object to a single estimate being used for illustrative purposes (though I would lean towards Riley-Smith rather than Nicolle), but the nature of the infobox means that the issues aren't clear. Moreover, I can't see where the figure of 40,000 Muslim soldiers is referenced in the article. Given these drawbacks, would anyone object if I removed these figures from the infobox? Nev1 (talk) 19:17, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No. Any figures should be sourced and if there is no source then there should be no figures. --Vrok (talk) 20:52, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

The 40,000 figure was introduced by HaZaM123 without a source so I've reverted it per WP:V. I've left the crusader figures for now. Nev1 (talk) 22:45, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, the Rhineland massacre was committed by a crusade army

The First Crusade was not terribly well-organized, and to say that Peter the Hermit's army wasn't a crusade army is rather absurd. See Christopher Tyerman's "God's War: A New History of the Crusades". Peter the Hermit was not an official Papal legate, but his crusade (and the resulting massacre of Jews in the Rhineland) was no less a crusade than the one that set off from France. 163.1.121.7 (talk) 17:24, 27 November 2009 (UTC)David If you want to include this in the article it should be references already back to "pogroms" which crusaders first committed in 1098 in France and Germany, it is a very relevant point to distinguish the agenda of the crusade, and the nature of the pogroms committed both by Christians and Muslim pogroms against the Jews. Kristina Johnson72.80.126.76 (talk) 21:47, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Christian Slant to connect the sanctioning of the Crusades by Urban to rescue Christian lands.

The history and motive or the first Crusade has been skewed by the Catholic Church; which has completely over shadowed the first and foremost motive.

It is not just an argument of debate between scholars as to the true motive behind the first crusade. It obvious from the actions taken at the time; the motive was primarily designed to open up trade roots for the west and that “selling point” of a righteous cause was retaking lands lost to Rome in the distant past. This idea of retaking lands taking 461 years past is without question propaganda.

Logically you could not have amassed 40,000 men woman and children from all over Europe to severe the trade needs of the Emperor. This article is flagrantly corrupt which only demonizes Muslims and puts the crusaders in the role of rescuer. My apologies if this seems to not show good faith of the authors, however; this slanted view historically has been designed as self-severing to the motive of the Catholic Church. Kristina Johnson72.80.126.76 (talk) 15:14, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

"It is not just an argument of debate between scholars as to the true motive behind the first crusade". Yes, it is. That's all Wikipedia seeks to do. We can't advance any personal argument or position that isn't derived from (and cited to) reputable scholarly sources. Haploidavey (talk) 15:31, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

I am sorry you misunderstood the point I was making on this article; we MUST always follow Scholarly sources and at the same time be aware of academic fraud and political agenda which seeks to interpret a consensus of well cited and verified historical truth, which is in conflict with theological interest.

The intention of Wikipedia or any journal article is to submit the evidence for scholarly review which is well cited and verified; at the same time avoiding slanted interpretation which is required by (neutral point of view) in the wiki guidelines. So to clarify; epistemology must be applied to well cited evidentiary conclusions which are implied in bias and not proven.

This article does not contain well cited evidence as to the actual motive behind the first crusade and only suggests that a self-serving bias motive from catholic scholars can be cited; therefore, the most well cited evidence is suspect from the perspective of epistemology. The article starts out with a declarative statement as to the absolute motive of the crusades; after which it explains previous and motive based actions which are in conflict with its opening statement.

The debate remains open that the Byzantine Emperor Alexios I Komnenos “did not” have the wealth to subscribe an army of 40,000 to reopen trade roots for the interest of the west and the fact that he petitioned Urban to assist in amassing a volunteer army of crusaders is accurate. I implore someone to edit the opening statement “The First Crusade (1096–1099) was a military expedition by Roman Catholic Europe to regain the Holy Lands” This opening statement violates NPOV. Kristina Johnson72.80.126.76 (talk) 12:49, 20 May 2013 (UTC)

Just 35 000 men?

In topic there writes; crusades had got 35 000 men at total. But we know that the pope provokated the eurpean public for attacking muslims. Have you ever hear a number 600 000 which includes christian villagers and teenagers? 35 000 is not a realist number according to me. This must be discussed. Aydın ERGÜL — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.24.165.111 (talk) 07:54, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Watch out for Christianophobia

Is more than obvious that the crusade was defensive. The Byzantines were Christian too. An encyclopaedia should be apolitical.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.139.112.242 (talk • contribs)

It will be useful to recognize the First Crusade as a seamless continuation of the Byzantine–Arab wars (780–1180). For some reason, in the 1090s, the bishop of Rome grew concerned enough to become involved. So yes, this is simply a phase of a war of conquest that had been going on since the 7th century. But I don't see how this relates to "Christianophobia" (fear of Christians?) and how the "Byzantines were Christians too", or to being "apolitical". You should be more specific, or perhaps even make suggestions for improving the article directly. --dab (𒁳) 11:49, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

That is one of the current historical theories (as opposed to the Runciman-ian "western barbarians attack advanced civilizations for no reason"). It's not really any more or less "obvious" than any other theory though. Also I'm not sure how to say this diplomatically, but the defensive theory is not at all apolitical at the moment, since it is a viewpoint favoured by conservatives reacting to 9/11. Anyway this has been discussed several times before and I'm pretty sure the article covers the various theories. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:04, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

The Historiography section

Historiography section of this article is well done presenting different historian opinion. I'm amazed by this great work. Alexis Ivanov (talk) 19:47, 29 October 2015 (UTC)

Origin

Two conflicting Second Waves are described? Mouselb (talk) 03:11, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Flags and coats of arms

There is an unfortunate "tradition" on Wikipedia of treating heraldic items as clip-art not worth bothering about to research or reference. Flags and coats of arms shown on this page should be historical, i.e. there should be a reference making it at least plausible that the symbol was in use in the 1090s. If there is no such reference, it will be better to just leave out the symbol than to sport it without comment. I don't know how heraldry got to be treated as a topic somehow outside of WP:CITE, but it is high time to go over the historical (medieval era) articles and fix them, even if it means the articles will be graced by fewer colourful thumbnails. The First Crusade was at the very beginning of the age of heraldry. Certain heraldic symbols may have been in use, but the burden of showing they were lies clearly with those who wish to claim they were. --dab (𒁳) 10:55, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

The "combattants" slot also gets the structure of the involved entities wrong, imo. The "Kingdom of France" and the "Holy Roman Empire" were not "combattants". The king of France was even excommunitated at the time. The duke of Normandy participated, so ok, list the duchy of Normandy under "combattants". The duke of Normandy was the brother of the king of England. As far as I can see, that is the full extent of the participation of the "kingdom of England" here, so I don't see why England should be listed under "combattants" any more than France. The arrangement is still unsatisfactory, though, because it misses the nature of feudalism. The "combatants" were not states or territories, the "combattants" were private (i.e. feudal) lords who funded their armies themselves. The duke of Normandy even pledged Normandy to his brother, the king of England, in order to pay for the crusade. So when we say "Normandy was a combattant" what we mean is that the duke sold Normandy to his brother the king of England, and with the money he got from him he paid for his soldiers. --dab (𒁳) 11:14, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

perhaps a better way of giving a summary of "combattants" on the Christian side, instead of listing random territories held by the leaders listed below under "commanders", would be

either: Western Christendom (followers of Urban II) and Eastern Christendom (involvement of the Byzantines; followers of Alexios)
or: the (proto-)"national" composition, i.e. Franks, Normans, Provencals; Byzantine Greeks

either way would give a more meaningful summary than the claim that for some reason "Le Puy-en-Velay" and "Blois" were "combattants" in the First Crusade. --dab (𒁳) 11:26, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd rather just see the leaders listed, honestly. They were the combatants - because not all of Western Christendom took part nor did all the Franks or Normans. Actually, the best solution might be to have nothing in that slot of the infobox - after all if you can't summarize the information easily, it probably means the slot in the infobox is not a good idea to be filled. And I favor removing all the little icons/flags/do-dads. Ealdgyth - Talk 13:46, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'd second Ealdgyth's points. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2014 (UTC)

Me too. It seems like this issue comes up all the time, but we can never quite get rid of the flags. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:37, 23 December 2014 (UTC)

From what I've been able to dig up - the first usage of a personal coat of arms was with Geoffrey Plantagenet - either in 1127 or a bit later. The first representation of his arms is on his tomb, and dates from around 1160. Either date is well after the First Crusade. So there is no evidence for the use of later coats of arms to identify the combatants in the First Crusade. And I highly doubt that the various Muslim states were using flags as identifying marks at this time either. So ... without ironclad evidence for the use during the First Crusdae, putting the little icons in the infobox is anachronistic and misleading to the readers. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:30, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Holy Roman Empire

It surprises me that the Holy Roman Empire was not mentioned among the participants of the Crusade in the infobox. Godfrey of Bouillon, the most improtant leader of the expedition, was Duke of Lower Lorraine, at the time one of the most important fiefdoms of the Holy Roman Empire. Granted, Godfrey and many of his lords were actually French-speaking, but they came from the HRE and not from France. Conversely, Genoa was mentioned, but it was not mentioned as part of the HRE, which is wrong. Even if the Genoese Republic had a great degree of autonomy, like the other North Italian towns, they were still vassals of the Emperor and formally part of the Kingdom of Italy.--186.53.24.116 (talk) 20:36, 12 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on First Crusade. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070813150036/http://www.deremilitari.org/RESOURCES/ARTICLES/magdalino.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/articles/magdalino.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:57, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Non neutral tone and focus

When the wording is examined further, one can notice that the Crusader side's rationale and behavior is explained a lot with the verb "may", indicating possibilities. There is no such tone or style when it comes to the defending side. One would expect to see the conflict from both sides. There should also be a "Reaction" section. Furthermore, and more importantly, there are no mentions from Arab and non Western historians. There would either need trimming or addition for more info to shift the focus away from the Crusader side to be more neutral.CaliphoShah (talk) 22:13, 18 August 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20041213174036/http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1stCrusade1.htm to http://history.hanover.edu/texts/1stCrusade1.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:31, 1 October 2017 (UTC)

Removed passing mention of author

The section on historiography said something like- "the crusades have been attempted to be explained by many authors, the most recent of which is jay Rubenstein". It didn't mention anything else about him, and his publisher was "basic books". This almost seems like self-promotion. Unless he did some groundbreaking work, this seems unnecessary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.161.196.21 (talk) 03:38, 5 January 2017 (UTC) --2601:4A:C002:38A2:C8F5:1A3C:500B:93B3 (talk) 18:54, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Jay Rubenstein is a good medieval historian, and his book could be an appropriate reference here, although I agree that the sentence is pretty useless as it is currently written. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:46, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Removed paragraph

Semi-protected edit request on 16 August 2019

"Primarily Frankish nobles"

re-conquest of Jerusalem

"RE-conquest" of Jerusalem? What is that supposed to mean? The term conquest itself is problematic; you can call it simply "capture". But a "re" conquest? Was the city under Western European control at any time before that? The Byzantines, who had had ruled the city before the Muslims, were separate (actually one Crusade was directed against them). Is it a re-conquest by Christians? In this case, you're taking the perspective of the Crusaders--in which case you should use quotation marks, if at all. A better, neutral term is simply "capture". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.183.40.137 (talk) 23:23, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

In light of the recent edit by @Newstockholm: that was rollbacked(fairly arbitrarily, I believe it was a good faith edit in accordance with WP:BOLD) by @Chewings72:, I think we should start discussing this. Was the First Crusade an expedition aimed at capturing, or recapturing Jerusalem? Which wording is correct? The First Crusade was for the most part a Western European military effort, and indeed the Holy Land had never been under Western European control before the establishment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. In my opinion though, "recapture" in this context means bringing the city back under Christian control, seeing as it had been under Eastern Roman control for centuries before being conquered by Muslims in 636 AD(IIRC). It can also simply mean bringing it back under Byzantine control; the First Crusade did start as an attempt to aid the Eastern Roman Empire in recovering lost provinces, as the article states. Qualcomm250 (talk) 09:15, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

@Newstockholm:@Qualcomm250: I agree with the view that the First Crusade (at least) was seen by both the Western Europeans and the Byzantines as the desire to "recapture" Jerusalem which had been under Roman / Byzantine control since Jesus' time (and from the 4th century Christian control). As such my change was not arbitrary, but based on the view that recapture is a valid and reasonable word to use in this context. Chewings72 (talk) 09:28, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Isn't the use of rollback supposed to be limited to vandalism according to WP:ROLL? Either way, I agree with you on this issue. Qualcomm250 (talk) 09:37, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Lead Picture

Confusion about dates and seasons

What was the name of the tribe that took over the Holy Land in 1076?

Skip parts of France

Semi-protected edit request on 29 May 2021

This edit request to First Crusade has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

There are some more recent studies on the First Crusade that should appear in the bibliography, and that should be referenced in the main body of the text at Historical Context and Historiography, particularly Elizabeth Lapina's "Warfare and the Miraculous in the Chronicles of the First Crusade" (2015), Nicholas Morton's "Encountering Islam on the First Crusade" (2016) and Ane Bysted's "The Crusade Indulgence: Spiritual Rewards and the Theology of the Crusades, C. 1095-1216" (2014).

The First Crusade is one of my areas of scholarly research and publication, so I'm pretty current on the literature, advances in sources, and areas of argument and further discussion. Wichmann92 (talk) 11:29, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Question: Can you provide links to these sources? Thanks! ― Qwerfjkl | 𝕋𝔸𝕃𝕂 (please use {{reply to|Qwerfjkl}} on reply) 18:14, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Not done for now: Wichmann92 Subject matter experts! So rare. In any case, an edit request is for asking for precise changes. I suggest you make a few more edits elsewhere, and then you should be able to edit this page directly. Qwerfjkl I've done a quick search and the books appear to be available on JSTOR or via other online means, ex. Lapina 2015, Morton 2016, Bysted 2014. Of course if Wichmann has access to them I assume he can add or propose changes directly without me having to run off to WP:RX. Cheers, RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 22:17, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Coming back to this after some months of being called away for work, I'm reading the feedback here. I'll see what I can do. As I'm learning how Wikipedia editing works, I wasn't sure whether and how I should explain my edits, to include my background (or not). So, your mocking tone is not appropriate, and I would request you not continue to use it. That said, I'll do some more edits elsewhere and come back to this page when I obtain access to it. Thanks! Wichmann92 (talk) 19:02, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Wichmann92 I added Lipana's work to the beginning of the Historiography section, as it seems to me to be an excellent discussion of the Western sources of the First Crusade. I wasn't sure where Bysted's would fit, although the work seems interesting, if somewhat obtuse for me. I thought Morton's book might be one of those trying to explain today's situation with that of the Crusades, but seems rather to be focused on the Turks and am not sure where it would fit in the current construct. I do think the whole Historiography sections should be reworked. The selection and commentary on modern historians seems curious to me. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:40, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

Thanks! I'll build up my editing cred on other entries and be glad to come back to this later. The historiography section does seem remarkably long, especially given that there are separate, quite detailed articles on that topic. Wichmann92 (talk) 19:09, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

Wichmann92 Glad to see you back. I rewrote the historiography section here after you directed me to Lapina's work and I realized how bad the existing writeup was. At that time, the article "Historiography of the Crusades" was a mess and the entire section on original sources (covering all crusades) was a mere one paragraph long, and a bad one at that. It is getting better now, but I still think the detail should remain here as it's probably the only article most people might read. I also wrote a similar section for the main article Crusades, and ones for the 5th, 6th and 7th. Eventually, it will all come together, but (as you a probably discovering) the wheels of Wikipedia sometimes move slowly. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:41, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

First Crusades

1st crusade date 1066

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2022

This edit request to First Crusade has been answered. Set the |answered= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

In the first paragraph of the intro - I suggest changing the line: "The Kingdom of Jerusalem was established as a secular state under the rule of Godfrey of Bouillon" to "The Kingdom of Jerusalem was established as a crusader state under the rule of Godfrey of Bouillon" Or simply remove the word 'secular' without replacing it with 'crusader state'.

The kingdom wasn't secular in any modern sense of the word (i.e neutral to matters of religion) - it was a Catholic kingdom. The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem - a reference - discusses in some detail the laws and customs of that kingdom and highlights its religious nature. Aral-v (talk) 18:43, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Done, the intention was clear but really quite misleading. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Most historians refer to the kingdom as a secular rather than an ecclesiastical state. True, it doesn't meet today's standards, but few things do. The change renders the statement without value. I'm going to revert. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:51, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I am not sure this is strictly true. Most historians note the failure of the papacy to establish a theocracy, but calling this secular is clearly wrong, as @Aral-v points out. As you think that without the word secular the sentence is meaningless, I will delete. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:29, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

I think we're trying to hard to fit the 12th century into modern parlance. Here's what Tyerman says: "The capture of Jerusalem, however remarkable a crowning achievement, did not end the expedition, its internal divisions or its military vulnerability. The settlement of secular and ecclesiastical authority within the city and its surrounds resurrected the simmering hostilities between the leaders. On 22 July, Raymond of Toulouse was once more outmanoeuvred. After apparently refusing an offer to accept the crown of Jerusalem, perhaps on clerical prompting, he saw instead his latest chief rival, Godfrey of Bouillon, the only other main leader willing to remain in the east, elected as secular ruler, or Advocate (the title implying ecclesiastical authority)."

The current write-does not reflect this view, which I believe is held by most historians. It is also a critical point that is now lost. I suggest you move it back to the original before Aral-v jumped in. 18:59, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

It's definitely "secular" in the technical sense that it's not governed by the church (although even then there is a distinction between "secular" and "religious" - "secular" really means non-monastic). Adam Bishop (talk) 20:36, 28 November 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Adam Bishop, this sent me back to the OED for the definition of secular and there lies @Aral-v's issue I think. As used previously and in the quote from Tyerman, it was ambiguous and simplified the complex power relationships between the Papacy and secular powers at the time. Riley-Smith described the crusader states as religious colonies and a modern reader is going to be misled if they are described as secular. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:37, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Yeah. It's definitely not secular in the way a modern country is. I remember being confused when I first encountered Bernard Hamilton's book about The Latin Church in the Crusader States, subtitled "The Secular Church". How can there be a secular church?! But there's a technical/academic meaning that's not the same as the popular understanding of the word. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:18, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Since all modern historians use the term secular, don't you think we should too? Yes, there is an ambiguity to it, but so what. When you use the term "secular powers", what exactly does that mean? Is "religious colonies" a better term? Colonies of whom? It needs to go back to the way it was. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:10, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

"Colonies" is even worse than secular unless we want to present the Prawer Thesis and historiographical debate about colonialism and the crusades (and this article certainly doesn't seem to be the place for that). Adam Bishop (talk) 21:16, 29 November 2022 (UTC)

Agree @Adam Bishop, this is not the place to present that. It took me a while and some digging to get my head round the subtitle to Hamilton's book after you mentioned it, but I think I got there in the end. Thank you, I enjoyed that. That probably raises the point that it shouldn't be necessary for a WP reader to have a working knowledge of the subject and do research in order to understand the meaning of a sentence in an article; clarity is important. The sentence in the lead was previously rendered as The Kingdom of Jerusalem was established as a secular state which is not only unsupported in the article as written but difficult to unpick and easy to misunderstand. The quote from Tyerman above does not support this as it refers to Godfrey himself rather than the entity that later became the kingdom of Jerusalem and even then implies he had ecclesiastical authority. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:50, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

This is nonsense. The use of the term secular is fully supported by the references. Any reader can understand the difference between secular and ecclesiastical states. If you want to write an article about what that meant in the 12th century, go for it. It is not discussed much by Crusades scholars in texts, maybe in journal articles. The changes need to be reverted. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:35, 30 November 2022 (UTC)

Firstly, what source says The Kingdom of Jeruslaem was eastablished as a secular state? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:20, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I think the point that matters here is what the average reader of Wikipedia would infer from a statement like that. I, as one of those average readers, definitely found it extremely confusing.

@Aral-vIn the future, please make your comments at the end of the chain. Putting comments in the center of a thread makes it difficult to follow. I think most people that would read this article would understand the difference between secular and ecclesiastical. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The conversation here is enlightening; thank you all for that, but as @Norfolkbigfish points out, it's far-fetched to expect the reader to go through research just to understand what was meant by 'secular' here.

Most people could figure out what secular meant.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Adding that statement is confusing and removing it isn't harmful to understanding the overall topic of the article. Aral-v (talk) 20:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

The sentence is a key feature to the early kingdom. Perhaps you can come up with a better sentence. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

At the moment it is unclear why this sentence is considered key. The Franks were deeply religious and the Western Church was deeply embedded in everything they established in the Latin East. Their very raison d'etre was religious. No one would dream of describing other kingdoms of the period as secular, say England or France, and yet Jersusalem was equally as religious if not more so. As @Adam Bishop points out the adjective secular is debatable.

A. adj.

I. Of or pertaining to the world.

1. Ecclesiastical.

a. Of members of the clergy: Living ‘in the world’ and not in monastic seclusion, as distinguished from ‘regular’ and ‘religious’. secular canon: see canon n.2 1. secular abbot: a person not a monk, who had the title and part of the revenues, but not the functions of an abbot.In early use frequently placed after the noun, as canon secular, priest secular.

b. Of or pertaining to secular clergy.

a. Belonging to the world and its affairs as distinguished from the church and religion; civil, lay, temporal. Chiefly used as a negative term, with the meaning non-ecclesiastical, non-religious, or non-sacred. secular arm (= medieval Latin brachium seculare, French le bras séculier): the civil power as ‘invoked’ by the church to punish offenders.

†b. transferred. Of or belonging to the ‘common’ or ‘unlearned’ people. Obsolete.

c. Of literature, history, art (esp. music), hence of writers or artists: Not concerned with or devoted to the service of religion; not sacred; profane. Also of buildings, etc., Not dedicated to religious uses.

d. Of education, instruction; Relating to non-religious subjects. (In modern use often implying the exclusion of religious teaching from education, or from the education provided at the public expense.) Of a school: That gives secular education. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

Reference 111. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Secondly, William of Tyre wrote of Daibert establishing his authority over the seculat leaders: both Duke Godfrey and Prince Bohemond humbly received from his hand, the former the investiture of the kingdom, and the latter that of the pricipality, thus showing honour to him whose vice regent on earth they believed the patriach to be. Barber wrote Godfrey promised Daibert the city of Jerusalem and gave him a quarter of the city and well as a quarter of Jaffa. Godfrey would have viewed his position as God's Gift. the Franks filled and created multiple archbishoprics, and the general view of the time was only the Pope or the Empereror could create kingship. None of this rests easily with the idea that Jerusalem was a secular kingdom. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:03, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

I have re-read my copy of Asbridge's 2012 The Crusades:The War for the Holy Land and nowhere on page 103 does he write that The Kingdom of Jerusalem was established as a secular state. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:10, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Policy: Wikipedia articles usually rely on material from reliable secondary sources. Articles may make an analytic, evaluative, interpretive, or synthetic claim only if it has been published by a reliable secondary source. [Like Tyerman, Asbridge, Runciman]

Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:11, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

This is the talk section, not particularly necessary to have reliable secondary sources here. But if you try it is fairly easy to find William's comments being quoted or analysed. Try page 56 of Barber, Malcolm (2012). The Crusader States. Yale University Press. ISBN 978-0-300-11312-9. JSTOR j.ctt32bvs5. referring to the Babcock and Krey translation (page 440). Fulcher also mentions this ceremony btw and he was actually there. The church wanted a theocracy or ecclesiastical state and failed to achieve this for a variety of reasons, not least because a warlord was required. That much is true and all academics cover that. But extending that to use the adjective secular for the whole kingdom (which at this point didn't really amount to much) is to much of a stretch both in terms of the time and those of today. I doubt very much whether an academic has, or would, use this phrase and certainly not without qualification. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Are we reading the same book? I found numerous references to the subject in Barber that support my position. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:13, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

Barber is not a source used in this article Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:00, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

As I stated above, it is difficult to track multiple conversations when they are interspersed in multiple spots. The term "secular' to describe the kingdom is commonly used by historians and has been used in this article for at least 10 years. The red herrings thrown up are not convincing. You can't claim the the term is inappropriate when your own article Crusading movement uses it multiple times. The references you provided do not support your contention. You cannot provide a single, respected history of the Crusades that does not explicitly or implicitly describe it as such. I'm going to revert it back to the original and I'll be happy to continue to conversation. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:41, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Grampinator-sorry but there was no consensus for the revert, the plurality in this thread is that the old version was misleading and you do not have the support of a single editor. I have restored to the improved version on this basis. It would help if you could come up with one academic who describes the kingdom of Jerusalem as secular. You have not. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:49, 2 December 2022 (UTC)

We can debate further. I understand the point you are making but it is badly worded in the article to a degree that it is misleading. Rather than edit waring over the word secular it would be much better to explain the context in full. You do not have a single source that matches the sentence as written. You do not have the support of a single editor for the sentence as written. So rewrite to match the souces. Simply put, it is wrong to assert that the kingdom of Jerusalem was secular in the terms of the time, in the terms of the present and in academic opinion. That said it was not a theocracy as the the papacy wanted. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 00:01, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

It is much better to take it to any of the dispute resolution processes available. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 00:05, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I can find several sources that describe the kingdom as secular. For example Susan Edgington, writing about the events of 1100 in her biography of Baldwin I, says "In the future Jerusalem was to be a secular kingdom." It would be trivially easy to find a dozen more sources calling it secular. Your examples of England and France were absolutely also secular. Even the Papal States were a secular kingdom. But I think we're all sort of talking across each other - obviously it's not secular in the modern sense (where a church has no role in government), but obviously it is secular in the medieval sense. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:37, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Thank you @Adam Bishop, you put it very well. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:36, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Barber in his Crusader States refers to the "secular princes of the West", "relations between the secular and ecclesiastical authorities", Baldwin was the "secular guardian", and generally uses the term 28 times. Pringle wrote a book called "Secular Buildings in the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem". Tyerman refers to "The settlement of secular and ecclesiastical authority." Godfrey was elected "secular ruler." Asbridge writes " the clergy continued to resist the idea that this most sacred of cities might be ruled by a secular king." Finally, Asbridge says: "The First Crusaders had brought Latin rule to the secular and spiritual realm of Jerusalem." How many more examples do I need to provide?Dr. Grampinator (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Grampinator In these examples the adjective is applied to authorities, guardian, buildings, authority, ruler, and king but not the kingdom which was the ask. So the answer to your question is one. But that is irrelevent because @Adam Bishop has kindly helped us out by providing an attribution to Edgington (see above). He also highlights that this has largely been a case of cross purposes, that in medieval terms the kingdom was secular, but in modern terms it is not. I am sure the is consensus on all of this. The RFC process can resolve whether this leaves the use of secular in this case within this article is appropriate or not. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:21, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish It seems like the voting is going against my view, so I would like you to amend the question to also ask: How would you describe the kingdom if not secular? Should the term "secular" be applied at all in medieval history and how? Are you interested in reviewing all articles on medieval history that use the word "secular" and propose revisions? In particular Kingdom of Jerusalem and Crusading Movement. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:06, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

That wouldn't be a particularly well contructed RFC. Kingdom of Jerusalem and Crusading Movement do not have the same issue. In fact the the former explains the events far more precisely and without the risk of misunderstanding. It would worth copying the text (with attribution) into this article. It would be an improvement. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:41, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

There was still some uncertainty about what to do with the new kingdom. The papal legate Daimbert of Pisa convinced Godfrey to hand over Jerusalem to him as Latin Patriarch, with the intention to set up a theocratic state directly under papal control. According to William of Tyre, Godfrey may have supported Daimbert's efforts, and he agreed to take possession of "one or two other cities and thus enlarge the kingdom" if Daimbert were permitted to rule Jerusalem.(William of Tyre, vol. 1, bk. 9, ch. 16, pg. 404.) Godfrey did indeed increase the boundaries of the kingdom, by capturing Jaffa, Haifa, Tiberias, and other cities, and reducing many others to tributary status. He set the foundations for the system of vassalage in the kingdom, establishing the Principality of Galilee and the County of Jaffa, but his reign was short, and he died of an illness in 1100. His brother Baldwin of Boulogne successfully outmanoeuvred Daimbert and claimed Jerusalem for himself as "King of the Latins of Jerusalem". Daimbert compromised by crowning Baldwin I in Bethlehem rather than Jerusalem, but the path for a monarchy had been laid.(Tyerman, pp. 201–202.)) Within this framework, a Catholic church hierarchy was established, overtop of the local Eastern Orthodox and Syriac Orthodox authorities, who retained their own hierarchies (the Catholics considered them schismatics and thus illegitimate, and vice versa). Under the Latin Patriarch, there were four suffragan archdioceses and numerous dioceses.(Hans Eberhard Mayer, The Crusades, 2nd ed., trans. John Gillingham (Oxford: 1988), pp. 171–76.</ref> ) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:45, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish. How can you justify the term "theocratic state" when you so strongly dispute the term "secular state"? Would you regard the Papal states as theocratic or governed by the secular powers of the pope? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Not my words, from Kingdom_of_Jerusalem#First_Crusade_and_the_foundation_of_the_kingdom. Wikitionary defines as Government under the control of a state religion which pretty much nails it in common parlance.OED a touch more wordy A form of government in which God (or a deity) is recognized as the king or immediate ruler, and his laws are taken as the statute-book of the kingdom, these laws being usually administered by a priestly order as his ministers and agents; hence (loosely) a system of government by a sacerdotal order, claiming a divine commission; also, a state so governed: esp. applied to the commonwealth of Israel from the exodus to the election of Saul as king. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:17, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish. You didn't answer my question. The term "secular state" also appears in Wikipedia and yet you've stirred up this hornet's nest against it, despite use by historians. Please provide a reference for the use of "theocratic state" as your claim above about Wikitionary is not the case. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:32, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

This started with Semi-protected edit request from @Aral-v who thought a single sentence was misleading. It was not the word secular itself, but its use as an adjective for the kingdom. The RFC below seems to indicate this is the consensual view. The paragraph above is not mine, I suspect it is originally by @Adam Bishop who could probably explain this far more eloquently than I ever could. Alternatively we could repeat the RFC process along the lines of below, say Can Daimbert's plans for Jerusalem be described as a theocratic state in a way that can be understood by a modern reader although I would expect the answer to be Yes in this case. Afterall, and FYI, one of the Wiktionary examples of usage is The Vatican City State is a sovereign city-state and a Christian theocracy ruled by the Pope. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:07, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Look up theocracy or secular in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:18, 5 December 2022 (UTC)

Looks like that was me way back in 2006! (Although it has been improved since then.) Adam Bishop (talk) 01:40, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish. I give up. You're not giving straight answers to simple questions and so I've had enough. Apparently now all terms applied to the Crusades must use modern definitions despite commonplace usage by recognized experts. I hope you're planning to work the description above into the write-up. BTW, the description of Daimbert's plans for Jerusalem above is disputed. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:59, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Grampinator, put simply it was suggested that one sentence in this article was confusing and it should be edited (not by me, the suggestion that is). You disagreed and reverted twice despite the consensus being that it was confusing. I don't think I opened this hornet's nest and I am genuinely sorry you think I did. This has been a very WP characteristic exercise. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:08, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish. Not even close to what happened. A user new to Wikipedia was confused about the use of the word "secular" and suggested a change to what was a tautology. You made the change without hesitation and I reverted it as the original was both correct and part of a mature article that has been extensively reviewed. You then continued to edit out "secular" references despite the on-going discussion. The subsequent dialog that included Adam Bishop clearly showed a preference for the original and so I reverted back again. You continually threw up red herrings and put in an RFC where the vote was "no". The current version of the article is worse and the original was easily fixed by pointing to the Medieval sentence in secular or the section in separation of church and state. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:12, 6 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dr. Grampinator, with @Adam Bishop's interjections I have learnt a lot about the technical usage of secular. Both interesting and useful, but this debate has grown out of all proportion to its importance. This I regret, and apologise for the irritation I have given you. While the sentence in the lead was technically correct, it wasn't explained clearly along the lines of the consensus achieved in the RFC below and was therefore confusing for some readers. Even though it didn't become an ecclessiatically ruled state as some wanted, the kingdom of of the Latins of Jerusalem was clearly very religious by modern standards, and even arguably by those of the time. There were two other secular references. One, I removed on the basis it seemed to add little information as it stood. Another, I copyedited out as Godfrey assumed power, there was no need for qualification by adjective, there was no other primary power. I think the consensus below is fair. I have no objection to the usage of secular in its commonly understood meaning of areligious at all, and I have no objection to its use in the more technical senses, if those are clearly explained in the text. If used, it just needs that clarification. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:19, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish,@Adam Bishop. At the risk of keeping this thread going, here's where we stand:

"the sentence in the lead was technically correct". You argued vehemently against this.

"it wasn't explained clearly...and was therefore confusing for some readers". I'm guessing they're even more confusing now.

"I have no objection to the usage of secular in its commonly understood meaning of areligious." This directly contradicts your definition of "secular" in Crusading movement and implies that it should never be applied to the Crusades. Again, this contradicts common use by historians.

The article separation of church and state says it best: "the issue of the separation of church and state during the medieval period centered on monarchs who ruled in the secular sphere but encroached on the Church's rule of the spiritual sphere." Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:51, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

Request for Comment - Can the adjective secular be applied to the Kingdom of Jerusalem?

The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

It would seem that consensus was achieved around :@Seraphimblade's view that The average reader, upon seeing that a state is referred to as "secular", will take that in the modern context of there being an effective separation of church and state, which is not true in this case. The unqualified and unexplained use of "secular" results in a high likelihood of misinterpretation. It is therefore better to use articulate fully the church's role in governance. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:44, 29 December 2022 (UTC)

Can the Kingdom of Jerusalem be described as secular, in a way that can be understood easily by the modern reader? The above debate refers.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 00:45, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

At the very least not without explanation of what "secular" means in that context. The average reader, upon seeing that a state is referred to as "secular", will take that in the modern context of there being an effective separation of church and state, which is clearly not true in this case. So, rather than using a term very likely to be misunderstood, I think it best to explain in full what the church's role was in governance. But I oppose the unqualified and unexplained use of "secular" due to that high likelihood of misinterpretation. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:50, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Seraphimblade. Good point. I wasn't aware of the article "separation of church and state" which in fact describes exactly the explanation that you're looking for. The discussion on separation in the Middle Ages states that "the issue of the separation of church and state during the medieval period centered on monarchs who ruled in the secular sphere but encroached on the Church's rule of the spiritual sphere." References can be found there. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No. Concur with Seraphimblade for same reasons. The word "secular" meaning "not subject to or bound by religious rule; not belonging to or living in a monastic or other order" or something of that like, is too easily confused with "secular" in terms of its modern usage as being areligious. Ifly6 (talk) 03:46, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
No @Seraphimblade articulates the rationale perfectly.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:30, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No per Seraphimblade. Sammy D III (talk) 12:25, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Yes, since it should be easy enough to explain what it means, if necessary. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment. We are running the risk of dumbing down of Wikipedia, but I will propose an alternative: The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem formed under secular leadership. I might remind the commenters that words can mean different things throughout history and that they should read the last sentence of the first paragraph of secular. Also, the antonym of ecclesiastical is secular according to Merriam-Webster, so if it's an either-or, it's secular. I do object to a statement made above: "What source says The Kingdom of Jerusalem was established as a secular state?" as it is not a Wikipedia requirement to merely mimic other reference works. I think this is a reasonable approach, but if the collective still objects to the use of secular, I propose that all Crusades-related articles be similarly purged of the term, a radical idea indeed. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:57, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Further Comment. After some reflection, I thought the applicable paragraph from secular would be helpful: "The Christian doctrine that God exists outside time led medieval Western culture to use secular to indicate separation from specifically religious affairs and involvement in temporal ones." Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
Further Clarification. Somebody made the comment that "At the moment it is unclear why this sentence is considered key." It is not possible to provide full details of every idea in an introductory paragraph, and if it still unclear when you read the section entitled "Establishment of the Kingdom of Jerusalem" then the reader should then try the more detailed article The title of Godfrey of Bouillon. If it's still confusing then why the secular nature of the kingdom is important, then we'll have to address that issue. I would remind the commenters that an article's introductory paragraph will not generally provide full explanations. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:23, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

I think you may be over-thinking the lead. "Any reader can understand the difference between secular and ecclesiastical states" and "Most people could figure out what secular meant" is sort of insulting to me. I couldn't. I just think "separation", not some government structure. I would read an article in 2022 and expect it to be written in 2022 English. Especially in the lead. You seem to be making things complicated for no real reason. Discuss it in the body somewhere? Sammy D III (talk) 19:38, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

@Sammy D III. I did not intend to be insulting, but it does sort of look that way. I was responding to an editor that I deal with a lot, and so I'm sorry. The words secular and ecclesiastical are used constantly in Crusader histories and I have never seen them defined in any context. But I do think they are being used correctly in 2022 English, as Wikitionary defines secular as: "Not specifically religious; lay or civil, as opposed to clerical" and ecclesiastical as "Of or pertaining to the church, or clerical." They are regarded as antonyms. When it was founded, some wanted the Kingdom of Jerusalem to be an ecclesiastical state, one run by the patriarch reporting to the pope. Instead, it became a secular state: still Roman Catholic, but whose leader had independence from Rome. After this exercise, which as I noted above, seems to be going against my position, we'll try to clarify what these mean. I made a proposal for an alternate presentation above, and here's a slight modification: "The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was formed as a Christian state, led by an elected monarch. The monarch (king or queen after 1100) was recognized as head by the Haute Cour, but legally only primus inter pares." What do you think? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:04, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator Sorry to take so long to answer, and "insulting" was way to strong. I don't think "as a secular state" means anything in the lead and isn't needed. Personal opinion: drop "shunned" down a paragraph, work on that line. Farther down is sort of above me, but I don't see that "secular" is very clear anywhere unless you know the Crusades. Sammy D III (talk) 23:44, 3 December 2022 (UTC)

No per Seraphimblade. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:16, 3 December 2022 (UTC)
No. I have changed my vote to No for the following reasons. (1) The concept of "state" did not exist in the 12th century and so there could not be a secular state at Jerusalem. (2) Despite the fact that historians use the word "secular" when describing the kingdom (e.g., Asbridge, The First Crusade (pg. 323): "The First Crusaders had brought Latin rule to the secular and spiritual realm of Jerusalem."), the current definition and use of the word of secular does not match the meaning in Medieval times and so is confusing. The reference to both a secular and spiritual realm is also confusing. (4) No reliable source uses the phrase: The Kingdom of Jerusalem was established as a secular state. (3) The government of the kingdom is best described as a monarchy, which is by definition non-ecclesiastical, and so the adjective secular is superfluous. (4) My recommendation for the description is: The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was formed to rule the captured Palestinian territories in 1099, led by an elected monarch. More to come tomorrow, as it's late. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 03:08, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
Comment. Because Godfrey refused the title of king and Dagobert of Pisa had his sights on ruling the Holy City himself, I'm wondering if the kingdom of Jerusalem was not actually formed until Baldwin I was enthroned as the first king of Jerusalem. This position seems to be supported by Tyerman in his work God's War. There (pg. 180) he states: "Such was the importance of the Genoese in the creation of the kingdom of Jerusalem under its first king, Baldwin I,..." That the term Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem is appropriate should be clear, but debatable as there was no king at first. So maybe a better description would be: "The Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem was formed to rule the Holy City, led by an elected monarch. Godfrey of Bouillon was elected first Latin ruler of Jerusalem, using the title prince or Advocate." That leaves flexibility in describing when exactly the kingdom was formed. The title "Advocate" implies ecclesiastical authority (Tyerman, pg. 159) and so his use of the word secular in describing the rule of Jerusalem is contradictory. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:15, 4 December 2022 (UTC)
No The current definition or understanding of the term secular does not have any similarity or equivalent in the kingdoms that existed thousands of years ago. - Mnair69 (talk) 01:44, 5 December 2022 (UTC)
No per Seraphimblade AnneDant87 (talk) 15:39, 15 December 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

[1]
U. T. Holmes, A. H. Schutz (1938), A History of the French Language, p. 29, Biblo & Tannen Publishers, ISBN 0-8196-0191-8

Request for Comment - Can the adjective secular be applied to the Kingdom of Jerusalem?

Related Articles