Talk:Crusades

Template:Vital article

Bosnian crusades...

Definitely it's called a crusade by the Routledge Companion to the Crusades. pp. 172-173 section titled "Crusades Against Bosnian Heretics 1234 and 1241". "During the 1220s linked to the suppression of Catharism in the Languedoc, rumours spread of the exustence of a Cathar antipope, Nicetas, living the Bosnian banate. It was unclear then and remains unclear today whether there wever was a Cathar antipope. The rumours were inflamed by the Hungarians, eager to reassert their authority over Bosnia. It did, however, provoke such concernt that in 1221 Honorius III called for a crusade against the heretics in Bosnia." Papal calls for a crusade don't get much more clear as a crusade. Jonathan Riley-Smith in The Crusades: A History (second edition) p. 201 also calls it a crusade.Simon LLloyd in his article The Crusading Movement 1096-1274" in The Oford History of the Crusades (ed. by Jonathan Riley-Smith) p. 40 agrees and calls it a crusade. Ealdgyth - Talk 01:07, 2 August 2013 (UTC)

This cuts to the matter of what the definition of a crusade is, and what is used for this article. Personally, if the incumbant Pope at the time calls it a crusade that seems the definion that works best. Where this is controversal is that this asks difficult questions and challenges accepted opinion. If this is the accepted definition it cuts across the argument that the Crusades were a defensive act against Muslim aggression and also that they were based on faith. This is in the section around the Albigensian Crusade - a largely intolerant act by the papacy to exterminate the culture and theology of fellow Christians with different beliefs messily interwovan with a rather crude land grab by the Nothern French. Not far from the anlaysis that many have of the Middle East crusades either. Suggest that the challenge is removed - unless I have missed something? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:20, 3 August 2013 (UTC)

Intolerance? "Fellow Christians"? The article says "Cathar beliefs varied between communities because.. [they had]..few set guidelines. The Cathars were a direct challenge to the Catholic Church, renouncing its practices and dismissing it outright as the Church of Satan (ref)" It was dualistic, always condemned as a heresy by the church from the founding of the church. "They" (some Cathars) murdered the pope's legate, which may have seemed like a good idea at the time, but in retrospect, probably not a good idea.

At the time, Christians "tolerated" Jews to a certain extent, though the toleration was often inconsistent. Muslims "tolerated" other faiths, sort of. People were "expected" to embrace the national religion nearly everywhere.

Granted, this shouldn't have applied to the Cathars who were supposedly residing in an "independent" state. "Independence" was a bit of a transient phenomenon at the time, as well. Smaller "nations" were often in "fealty" to some higher one. The King of England was supposedly subject to the King of France for some of his French possessions. And so, yes, a land grab by the French. But that's what kings did in those days. When they could get away with it. The pope claimed religious jurisdiction everywhere he could, which was most of Western Europe. From his pov, Languedoc was under his theological jurisdiction. That many people do not hold the same perception today is not really relevant to the article. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 7 August 2013 (UTC)

Crusade, or not a Crusade - that was the question. The Pope called it a crusade, they acted like a Crusade so no real reason for it not to be considered a Crusade in this article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:21, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

---

The objection was probably only to the line of "catholic in theology". Not to the characterization of Hungarian incursion as a crusade (against "bogomil" heresy, patarene heresy, originating in Bulgaria. Indeed, the papacy often referred to Bosnia as "a den of snakes and vipers".

The objection was most probably raised by an orthodox Serb "contributor" who dislikes the historical fact that Bosnia was an overwhelmingly catholic land, with orthodoxy present only in eastern Hertzegovina until the Ottoman conquest. Best to remove the entire paragraph, in order to avoid political back-and-forth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.179.78.190 (talk) 03:31, 5 December 2013 (UTC)

aimed at defending the Christians from Muslim invasion and oppression

Why is it that User:Stalwart111 and his friend obelix or something keep removing my edits? Do they own wikipedia? It seems the Christianophobians rule wikipedia. Wonder why so many editors leave wikipedia...

Joanakestlar (talk) 21:38, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Maybe they keep taking out your edits because you deleted material supported by well known reliable sources, and instead insert your own random thoughts unsupported by anything except your prejudices. Just a thought. DeCausa (talk) 21:47, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

DeCausa got it in one. Stalwart111 23:08, 8 November 2013 (UTC)

Of course he got it right. Anti-white racists and anti-christian xenophobians like you two would agree with each other...

Joanakestlar (talk) 15:38, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

BTW where was I prejudiced? The Christians were defending themselves from Muslim barbaric aggression (they still have this attittude this day, in the XXI century, can you imagine back then?). Your POV is similir to "the French were guilty of the Germans invading them"... So who is prejudiced? Joanakestlar (talk) 15:43, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

The article expresses the view held by reliable scholarship on the history of the period. You are pushing a POV without citing a reliable source. And the sentence you keep adding conflicts with the very next sentence in the intro. Your comments make clear that your only concern is to deride Muslims, not to accurately represent the scholarship on the subject. This is in direct conflict with Wikipedia policy (WP:NPOV) and the objective of an encyclopedia. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:21, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Your objective is to deride the Christians and defend the Muslims. It's MORE THAN OBVIOUS the crusades were defensive wars aimed at protecting the Christians from Muslim invasion and consequent oppression. You seem to be biased agains the Christians! Joanakestlar (talk) 18:29, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

If it is "more than obvious," then finding reliable sources supporting your POV should be an easy matter. And please tell me where I said anything biased against Christians. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:33, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

That viewpoint is already mentioned several times in the article. Joan is just wasting our time. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2013 (UTC)

Conduct

At the very beginning of the article there is a blurb about the "conduct" of the Crusaders which needs to be removed. The idea that they engaged in massacre or violence that was unusual for the time is viewpoint. The violence involved in the Crusades was typical of the period. I removed the paragraph that promotes the idea that the Crusades = atrocities, because that is a subjective, worldview assessment and not objective history and certainly doesn't belong in the introductory paragraph of an article about the general Crusades movement, which involved everything from Frederick II's bloodless Sixth Crusade, to the defense of Spain from Islamic conquest in the Reconquista. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.160.191 (talk) 13:07, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

This is well sourced content, and the conduct was criticized even at the time. In the Muslim world, the word Crusade is synonymous with atrocity. The appropriate thing to do would be to add reliably sourced content expressing the view stated here, rather than removing sourced material. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

The sourced material is valid, however if it seems to convey the message to the reader that the Crusades were bad, then it would need to be re-written to get in line with WP:NPOV. Generally it should be written in a way that readers would be presented with either the option to think the Crusades were or were not atrocities, and not encourage or force readers to take a side. K6ka (talk | contrib) 17:42, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree with Laslo, completely. The paragraph is objectively important because it illustrates that the behaviour is shocking to modern sensibilities but was also condemned at the time by important actors in the events of the time such as Saint Bernard, the Byzantines and the Papacy. While the violence may not have been untypical for the period, it being undertaken under papal sanction thousands of miles from their homelands and combined with a millennial panic amongst the poor certainly was. It also seems to be the beginning of antisemitism in Europe. What has been removed also shows contrast between the history of the period and also the literature legacy of the devout Christian knight. This important contrast is lost without the criticism and also plays into the later historiography and analysis. The article quotes Madden on several occasions to put the contrary defensive war argument.Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:46, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Absolutely not. It wasn't shocking at the time. Most of the neighboring Muslim powers couldn't even be bothered to respond for decades. And what's more, it presents too narrow a view of the Crusades. The Crusades in no way are encapsulated in the First Crusade, or Bernard of Clairvaux, who was involved in only like a tiny fraction of what ended up being this massive, centuries spanning movement that runs into the early Modern era. Even if I grant you that the early Crusaders engaged in atrocities (and that is in no way a foregone conclusion, but a simple subjective viewpoint), the opening of this article should summarize the larger Crusades movement. It should talk about things like papal Crusade bulls, it should list the major theaters of action (the Holy Land, Spain, Italy, the Baltic, southern France, the wars with the Ottomans, etc etc etc). This has got to be removed and made both more neutral and more general. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.160.191 (talk) 21:10, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Also, the papacy did not condemn the Crusades. There was some criticism of some actions by some popes, but in general the popes viewed it very favorably. And not all of the Byzantines had a problem with it either. Manuel Comnenus supported the Latin West, and fostered Latin rule in the Holy Land, even hosting western style jousts in Constantinople. A Byzantine faction even allied with the Crusaders to regain power for themselves during the Fourth Crusade. And Bernard of Clairvaux did not condemn the Crusaders. He may have criticized some actions, but he expressed massive support for the Templars and even wrote their rule, in which he couldn't compliment them enough. Should we include a little blurb about Bernard's endorsement of the Templars in that opening section? I'd be happy to write it complete with sources. Also, should we discuss all the Muslim powers that allied with Crusaders against fellow Muslims, including shortly after the fall of Jerusalem in 1099?

It's clear what's going on here. Some of you have a negative viewpoint of the Crusades and want to beat them with your modern judgements. Wikipedia is not place for that. We need to be neutral here.

To be neutral means to include both views. We are guided by reliable sources here. As mentioned above, some of the views you express are discussed in the text. Perhaps those arguments warrant expansion in the body and inclusion in the intro. But the way to proceed is to find reliable sources for the arguments you make above, not simply to remove what you don't agree with. And making accusations about other editors violates WP:AGF. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Wikipedia rules require that all major interpretations be included, whether we like them or not. Erasing one of them is a bad idea. If you think there are alternative interpretations by reliable sources, then please present them. Rjensen (talk) 07:52, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

There's something about that paragraph that bugs me too, but nevertheless, a crusade is almost by definition an unusual form of violence for the period - not in the extent of the violence itself, but in the organization of it. Otherwise we wouldn't have a separate article about the crusades, would we? This uniqueness is already mentioned in the article though, I don't think it's necessary to point it out again with this clumsy paragraph.

There is plenty of medieval criticism of the crusades for various reasons, violence included. There is a bit of this mentioned already, but a good place to start would be Critcism of Crusading, 1095-1274 by Elizabeth Siberry.

Also remember that just because something can be referenced doesn't mean it has to be included. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:58, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The Crusades are really a modern construction of a medieval event. The way we view the Crusades as something revolutionary and new is not necessarily what you find in medieval interpretations. This is especially true for the Muslims and Byzantines, who never viewed the Crusades as some kind of revolutionary idea, but simple expansionism by Westerners that was consistent with the usual military expansionism of the time. In other words, the Byzantines and Muslims saw in the Crusades no novelty. I will work on that paragraph and work toward getting it more neutral. It had some simple historical errors, for example, claiming that Bernard of Clairvaux was a "contemporary" of the First Crusade, and claiming that all of the First Crusaders failed to return their conquests to the Byzantines, when in fact Nicaea was returned, and Raymond of Toulouse established the County of Tripoli as a Byzantine vassal state.