Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Crusades

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following discussion 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.

Article promoted by Ian Rose (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 17:06, 27 May 2017 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Crusades[edit]

Nominator(s): Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Crusades (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is currently down as C-Class but during 2016 went through significant change and in my view some improvement. Probably needs a new set of eyes to look it over if it is to improve further. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:09, 29 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. - Dank (push to talk)

  • To start off: pinging Dbachmann, who's done a lot of editing on this article this month, and Rjensen, who has also done some recent editing. I just want to make sure that this is a good time for an A-class review for this article. - Dank (push to talk) 00:25, 30 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Dank:—Hi Dank, nearly five months in and the article now has 3 supports and no objections. Is there anything else needed from your prospective? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:49, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • I'm sorry, I won't have a chance to get to this one. - Dank (push to talk) 11:16, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments: Thanks for your efforts on this article. Unfortunately, I'm not qualified to judge the content on this one, sorry, so I just looked at minor issues. I made some tweaks and have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Ninth Crusade is overlinked in the Terminology section;
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • other examples of overlinked terms are: Anatolia, County of Edessa, Principality of Antioch, Kingdom of Jerusalem, County of Tripoli, Iberian Peninsula, Reconquista...(I stopped halfway down the article, but there are more than just these; if you install this script it will help identify where the duplicate links are);
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • the second part of the first paragraph in the Military orders section appears to be unreferenced;

Green tickY— redrafted and sourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • same as with the last part of the second and third paragraphs of the same section;

Green tickY— redrafted and sourced Norfolkbigfish (talk) 13:00, 7 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • the first couple of paragraphs in the Northern Crusades section appears to be uncited;
Green tickY— added cite to Davies which just about covers everything 17:38, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • the last part of the Albigensian Crusade paragraph needs a reference;
Green tickY— removed irrelevent content Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:04, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Aftermath, this sentence appears uncited: "The Crusade of Varna was another attempt to move against the Ottomans";
Green tickY— Done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:49, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • in the Aftermath, the paragraph beginning "Polish-Hungarian King Władysław Warneńczyk invaded..." appears to be uncited;
Green tickY— removed the uncited text, too much detail Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:48, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • for A-class, the citations should be consistent, but currently there appear to be a few different styles. For example, compare "Tuchman 561" (Ref 159) with "Lock 2006, pp. 187–188" (Ref 157). Likewise, Ref 152 uses a different style also;
I have started on moving all the citations to Harvard—will complete next week Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY— All now converted to Harvard Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:07, 11 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Regional remains of the order was merged with the Knights Hospitallers and other military orders" --> "Regional remnants of the order were merged with the Knights Hospitallers and other military orders"?
Green tickY— removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:55, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there publisher and ISBN details for the Rose book?
Green tickY— added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:43, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • same as above for the Cohn book?
Green tickY—added Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • are there ISBNs or OCLC numbers for the Edington, Runciman, Cantor, Nicolle, Owen and Kolbaba books? These can be found usually at worldcat.org;
Green tickY—done 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • in the External links some of the listings use unspaced emdashes, but one uses a spaced endash. This should probably be made consistent. AustralianRupert (talk) 13:45, 1 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
Green tickY—I've removed the entire section, most of the links were to redundant websites Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:53, 4 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
    • G'day again, I've just noticed that this article also currently has a peer review open: Wikipedia:Peer review/Crusades/archive2. It's probably not a good idea to have two reviews open at once, so I would suggest requesting one of them to be closed. If you wish for the ACR to be closed, please let me know and I can unleash the bot. If you wish for the PR to be closed, I believe that the bot that does that is closed, but if you let me know I think I can do it manually. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 13:20, 3 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Thanks AustralianRupert — please close the PR, it has been dormant for months. I don't think anything further of note will come from it. Hoping the ACR gives greater feedback to move the article forward. Thx again 15:00, 3 January 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

They say "no guts, no glory" so I'll give this mini-monster a try, though its size will dictate several bites to assure easy digestion.

  • The People's Crusade included the Rhineland massacres: the murder of thousands of Jews. Awkward, suggest moving the last clause to the middle of the sentence.
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Constantinople was sacked during the Fourth Crusade Needs some sort of transitional phrase to tie in with the previous sentence.
Green tickY—rephrased Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:01, 2 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Weren't the Crusades responsible for the recovery of a lot of Greek and Roman works that had been translated into Arabic? Even if it took the Europeans a few more centuries to begin to absorb them during the Renaissance. And what about technology transfer?
    • Any progress on this?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:23, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
      • Seems like this wasn't significant from what I can find. There was some, particularly translations from Antioch, but the major transfer happened in Spain, predominantly Toledo, and Muslim Sicily after the Norman conquest. I will add a line before I stop.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:26, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • The map in the Eastern Mediterranean Background section needs a header to explain what it's covering.
  • Tried, but technical details with the legend stop it showing, how about this? 13:02, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Link pontificate, papacy and Rome. In general, I think it's a good idea to link most places as geography literacy continues to decline.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • outbreak of European Antisemitism do not capitalize Antisemitism
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Philip I, king of France capitalize king anytime it's associated with a particular individual as it's a title of rank and thus a proper noun.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
Still some examples left.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:42, 25 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • and Henry IV, Holy Roman Emperor Awkward usage, more commonly seen as the Holy Roman Emperor, Henry IV,...
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • There were campaigns by Fulk V of Anjou between 1120 and 1129, the Venetians in 1122–24, Conrad III of Germany in 1124 and the Knights Templar were established The connection between the Knights Templar and the rest of the sentence is not clear. Break it out into a separate sentence with a bit of exposition about the crusading orders.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • In 1187 Saladin united the enemies of the Crusader States, was victorious at the Battle of Hattin and retook Jerusalem This seems awkward to me, perhaps move the last phrase to the middle?
Green tickY— Done 15:35, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • Led by Conrad of Wittelsbach, Archbishop of Mainz comma after Mainz
Green tickY— Done
  • captured the cities of Sidon and Beirut but after Henry died, most of the crusaders returned to Germany move the middle clause to the end and rephrase.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Down to Crusader states, more later.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:32, 25 January 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Twice conquering Constantinople? That needs some explication.
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:36, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Who is Andrew II?
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • 1240 but Richard of Cornwall arrived in Acre a few weeks later and completed the enforcement Comma after 1240. Enforcement of what?
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 15:16, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Little reliable evidence survives but these events provided a salutary influence that hearts and minds could be engaged for the cause. Awkward.
  • Link the Livonian order and the Livonian Brothers of the Sword and Bremen
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In 1225, Honorius III called the Hungarians to undertake the Bosnian Crusade that failed when the Hungarians retreated following defeat by the Mongols at the Battle of Mohi. Awkward, possibly split the sentence.
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The papacy declared frequent Iberian crusades and from 1212 to 1265, and the Christian kingdoms drove the Muslims back to the Emirate of Granada, which held out until 1492 when the Muslims and Jews were expelled from the peninsula. This is misleading, the Muslims and Jews were not expelled until after the conquest of Granada in 1492.
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • The chronology of the 2nd and 3rd paras in the Aftermath section is confused.
  • In 1536 Francis entered into one of the capitulations of the Ottoman Empire with Suleiman the Magnificent also making common cause with the Sultan's North African vassals including Hayreddin Barbarossa Awkward--Sturmvogel 66
Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:37, 10 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(talk) 20:11, 5 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Hawkeye7[edit]

Working on an article like this one is a thankless task. People will probably say that the article is too big, but there is more material that I would like included. Disclaimer: my own ancestor fought in the First Crusade.

  • I would like to see more on the First Crusade, the key component of the article. I would like it expanded to name the key crusaders (Godfrey, Raymond, Tancred, Robert etc) and their forces (only Bohemond is currently mentioned). Also mention the emperor. I would like to mention the important battles fought and won.
  • Break up the Crusader states section; move the Latin Empire paragraph down into the Fourth Crusade and the rest under the First Crusade. Remove the duplication, and expand if you wish.
Green tickY— Done 15:33, 6 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Quick comment[edit]

  • I will try to look at this in detail, but I have a couple of points. Setton is wrongly given at one point as Stetton, and should be linked as Kenneth Setton. Ref 106 is wrong. It is cited as Setton, but he was just the general editor of the multi-volume work. The author cited at ref 106 is shown here as Jean Richard. Dudley Miles (talk) 16:20, 17 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY—Thanks Dudley. Linked to Setton and replaced Ref 106 with Runciman who appears to be the original source of the quote. 08:33, 20 February 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)

Comments by Dudley[edit]

  • "were peasants hoping for Apotheosis at Jerusalem, or forgiveness from God for all their sins." 1. This implies that only peasants were hoping for forgiveness for their sins, which is obviously wrong. 2. I am also doubtful about the capitalisation of "Apotheosis" and the link to Divinization (Christian). It seems more likely that Cohn was using the word in the ordinary dictionary sense of ascension to heaven.
  • "Different perspectives of the actions carried out, at least nominally, under Papal authority during the crusades have polarised historians." This sounds awkward.
  • The capitalisation of "crusades" is inconsistent. It is capitalised in "The Crusades were a series of religious wars" and when referring to numbered crusades such as "First Crusade", but not otherwise. Personally I would capitalise when referring to to the medieval religious wars, as in "The crusades had a profound impact on Western civilisation", but not when the word is used generally as in "The term "crusades" is also applied to other campaigns". Other editors may disagree.
  • The detail of the etymology of the word are excessive and not relevant to this article. Also the word "Etymology" should not be capitalised.
  • "Constable (2001) describes four different perspectives among scholars" "Constable (2001)" links to the bibliography, which is wrong. It should be shown as Giles Constable with a reference giving the page number(s).
  • "Popularists, Constable did not use this term,[11] limit the crusades". This is ungrammatical and confusing.
  • "resident Christians were given certain legal rights" presumably in Muslem lands generally, but this needs clarifying.
  • "Cultures and creeds coexisted and competed, but the frontier conditions became increasingly inhospitable to Catholic pilgrims" What frontier conditions and where?
  • " In this the papacy began to assert its independence from secular rulers, marshalling arguments for the proper use of armed force by Catholics." This is a non-sequitur, and the first part repeats what has been said above.
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 20:31, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It is likely he exaggerated the danger facing the Eastern Empire while making his appeal." As the Byzantines had recently lost almost all Anatolia to the Turks, this could do with clarification.
  • "the County of Tripoli (1104—Tripoli was not conquered until 1109—to 1289)" I do not understand this. The county was founded in 1104 but not conquered until 1109?
  • "In the Iberian Peninsula crusaders continued to make gains". The Reconquista has not previously been as a crusade. Also I do not think "Peninsula" should be capitalised.
  • Saleph River should be linked.
  • "became known as the Third Crusade" You have already said this.
  • "Within sight of Jerusalem supply shortages prevented assault and forced retreat." Is this correct? The version I read is that Richard thought his forces were too weak to hold Jerusalem.
  • Finance. This section seems out of place as it discusses the cost of later crusades before they are described.
  • "After the fall of Acre" You have not yet described the fall of Acre. I would move this paragraph down and mention that the Hospitallers still exist.
  • "instead conquering Byzantium twice" Surely Constantinople and a large part of Byzantium, but not the whole? And what happened after the first conquest?
  • "before being routed by the Bulgars at Adrianople. After gathering in Venice" This is confusing. You do not make clear that you have described the end and then gone back to the beginning.
  • "Further Eastern Crusades". This and the following sections are confused. This one has "Main articles: Fifth Crusade, Sixth Crusade, Barons' Crusade, and Siege of Jerusalem (1244)", but the crusades are not referred to in the text, and the section covers Louis IX's seventh crusade, which according to "Main articles" should be in the next section, "Division and failure". The crusades linked in "Main articles" should be mentioned in the text.
  • "but an invasion further into Egypt was compelled to surrender." An invasion does not surrender.
  • "Although Frederick II had been excommunicated" You need to give further details about Frederick as he has not previously been mentioned, apart from in the terminology section.
  • "Defeated at Gaza, Theobald agreed treaties with Damascus and Egypt that returned territory to the crusader states." I do not understand this. He was defeated but secured territory for the crusaders?
  • "In 1244 a band of Khwarezmian mercenaries travelling to Egypt captured Jerusalem" Captured on whose behalf?
  • "Louis IX organised a crusade to attack Egypt in response" You need to explain that this was King Louis of France.
  • The last paragraph of "Further Eastern Crusades" would be better placed at the beginning of "Thirteenth century".
  • More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Division and failure'. Again the subjects linked in 'Main articles' are not specifically mentioned in the text.
  • The first paragraph is confusing. "In 1256 Genoa and Venice went to war over territory in Acre and Tyre." Presumably from what is said below Genoa held the territories and Venice attacked them, but you need to say so.
  • "Venice conquered the disputed territory but was unable to expel the Genoese." If Venice was unable to expel the Genoese then it did not conquer the territory.
  • "Two factions embarked on a 14-month siege" Siege of where and who were the besiegers (presumably Venice but you should say so)?
  • "Pope Urban IV brokered a peace to support the defence against the Mongols." You need to say first that the Mongols were sweeping through the area.
  • "Genoa finally regained its quarter in Acre in 1288." The quarter has not previously been mentioned.
  • The second paragraph of 'Division and failure' assumes considerable background knowledge of matters which are not explained.
  • "He delayed Charles by beginning negotiations with Pope Gregory X for union of the Greek and the Latin churches with Charles and Philip of Courtenay compelled to form a truce with Byzantium." The last part of this sentence is unclear. Presumably the Pope compelled Charles and Philip - who has not been mentioned before.
  • "But the fleet was destroyed in an uprising fomented by Michael VIII Palailogos and Peter III of Aragon. Peter was proclaimed king" The fleet was destroyed where and Peter king of where? Presumably king of Sicily as Charles was king of Sicily but this has not been explained.
  • "before Charles died in 1285, allowing Henry II of Cyprus to reclaim Jerusalem." How did Charles's death allow Henry to reclaim Jerusalem - and why "reclaim" - had he held it before?
  • "This led to the legitimisation of seizing land and possessions from pagans on religious grounds and was debated through to the Age of Discovery in the 15th and 16th centuries." This seems to hint at a thought which is not spelled out. Presumably the arguments used to justify seizing land from Muslims were later used to justify expropriation of natives of colonies. Does "debated" mean that the justification was contested?
  • Green tickY— I have taken this out. One sentence that didn't add much 18:23, 8 March 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • "This made the reunification of the Christian church impossible and created a perception of the Westerners of being both aggressors and losers." This should probably be qualified. The crusades cannot have been the only factor making reunification impossible.
  • "Helen Nicholson argues that the increased contact between cultures the Crusades instigated improved the perception of Islamic culture." "instigated" is an odd word here.
  • "Alongside contact in Sicily and Spain the crusades led to knowledge exchange with Christians learning new ideas from the Muslims in literature and hygiene." This could do with clarification. So far as I know, Europeans learned about ancient classical and later Muslim and Jewish thought mainly in Spain, but other centres such as Sicily and the crusader states no doubt contributed.
  • "The order also came into conflict with the Eastern Orthodox Church, Pskov Republic and Novgorod Republic. In 1240 the Novgorod army defeated the Swedes in the Battle of the Neva, and two years later they defeated the Livonian Order in the Battle on the Ice." Were Pskov and Novgorod Orthodox and were the battles defeats for the Catholics?
  • "The Cathars were driven underground" Surely they were exterminated rather than driven underground?
  • " I would leave out the quotes from Brehier in 1908 as they are dated and probably do not reflect modern scholarship.
  • "Francis I of France sought allies from all quarters, including scandalous plans with German Protestant princes." This is vague and "scandalous" is POV.
  • This article is some way off A-Class in my view. There are far too many matters alluded to but not explained. A more serious fault is that there is very little on the crusaders' opponents. If I remember correctly when reading Runciman, the early successes and later failures of the crusaders were to a considerable degree due to early disunity among the Muslim rulers and later unity under leaders such as Saladin, but this is not brought out. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:05, 23 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • In the process of working my way through the gap on the Crusaders opponents.16:21, 20 March 2017 (UTC)Norfolkbigfish (talk)
  • @Dudley Miles:—Do you think you can have another look through, Dudley. I have added some content on the key Muslim beligerants which I feel adds to the context. Runciman while respected in a literary sense doesn't seem to carry the weight he once did amongst historians and the old unity/disunity argument for the ebb and flow of the conflict doesn't seem so compelling, at least to Asbridge. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:19, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments

  • "Many modern historians hold widely varying opinions of the Crusaders under Papal sanction." This reads a bit oddly. I would delete the word "many" and "under Papal sanction". Also the comments you cite are all criticisms of the Crusaders, whereas from the first sentence the reader would expect examples of disagreements among historians.
  • Green tickY—done, also joined the two paragraphs to give pro and anti view Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Constantinople was sacked during the Fourth Crusade, rendering the reunification of Christendom impossible." Was reunification in prospect at that point? Was not the key result of the sacking to weaken Byzantium so much that it eventually fell to the Turks?
  • Green tickY—removed clause on that basis, although it is sourcable to Davies. I don't think the idea that this led to the fall carries so much weight these days due to the two have centuries between events. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • ""Crusade" is not a contemporaneous term" Yet you say crucesignatus dates to the end of the eleventh century. This is the time of the Third Crusade, which seems pretty contemporary.
  • ""Croisade" appeared in English [[:Category:|Category:]]1575, and continued to be the leading form until [[:Category:|Category:]]1760." Eh?
  • "Giles Constable describes four different perspectives among scholars:" It would be helpful to reference this as much of the detail below is referenced to other scholars.
  • "The resulting unified polity in the 7th and 8th centuries" I am not sure "unified" is the correct word in view of the civil wars and Sunni Shia split.
  • "Following the Gregorian Reform, an assertive, reformist papacy attempted to increase its power and influence." As you have just been discussing the East-West Schism I would add for clarity "over the laity".
  • "The majority ecumenical view was that non-Christians could not be forced to accept Christian baptism or be physically assaulted for having a different faith" This seems dubious as crusades were partly about forcibly converting heretics and pagans.
  • "Historian Paul Everett Pierson" If I remember correctly, reviewers have complained when I wrote "Historian" instead of "The historian". Dan do you have a view on this?
  • "In addition to the motivations of the landed classes" I do not know what this means in the context of the People's Crusade. Delete?
  • The use of the term "apotheosis" is confusing. In the lead you define it as forgiveness of sins and link to the article on apotheosis. However, the apotheosis article defines it as glorification of a subject to divine level, and says the term is not used by the Catholic church. It gives "Main article: Divinization (Christian), and in the main text you pipe apotheosis to Divinization (Christian), which does not mention apotheosis but gives a similar definition to the apotheosis article. These definitions are different from the one you give in the lead. I think you need to look further in your sources and maybe just explain what the poor crusaders were hoping for and avoid using a term like apotheosis which is defined differently in your source to the Wikipedia article you link to.
  • Green tickY— Both the source and OED agree on a definition of ascension to heaven. Changed to match to avoid confusion Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The Normans resisted for hours before the arrival caused a Turkish withdrawal." The arrival of the main army?
  • "the sultan of Baghdad sent a relief force" I think it would be clearer to say a force to recapture the city rather than relief force, which would normally mean a force to prevent the crusaders from taking the city.
  • "No assistance was provided by the Byzantines" Obviously assistance to the crusaders, but you should say so.
  • "surprised by the motivation of the Franks" motivation does not seem the right word. Maybe "vigour" or "sudden attack by the Franks".
  • "the narrative did much to cement the Crusaders' reputation for barbarism" What narrative?
  • "Al-Afdal's relief force at Ascalon" Who was Al-Afdal?
  • "The Crusaders considered their pilgrimage complete" I would say most of the crusaders? Is there any estimate of how many returned?
  • Green tickY—gone for most, I can't find any relaible figure for the numbers that returned. I don't think it is known. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:21, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • "A second Crusade known as the Crusade of 1101 followed in which Turks led by Kilij Arslan defeated the Crusaders in three separate battles.[55]" This is confusing as you describe the Second Crusade of the mid 12th century below. I would delete if you only think it is worth this brief mention.

*More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 15:29, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[edit]

  • "smaller scale Crusading continued around the Crusader States in the early 12th century" I do not think "Crusading" should be capitalised, and what does it mean - attempts to expand the territory of Crusader States?

Green tickY—elaborated, but this is covered in the list Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC) "Governance fell to the caliph's chief administrator, called the vizier. From 1121 the system fell" Rrepetition of "fell" and the first sentence does not sound right. I am not sure of the best wording but maybe "The caliph's chief minister, the vizier, was dominant in the government." Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "After a life-threatening illness" A date would be helpful here.

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Saladin lured the force into inhospitable terrain with water" with no water?

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Pope Urban III died of deep sadness on 19 October 1187 on hearing of the defeat.[75] Pope Gregory VIII issued a papal bull" I would say "His successor, Pope Gregory"

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "For the first time, reigning monarchs not only swore their support to the Crusades but endeavoured to take part in them." But Louis VII and Conrad III had taken part in the Second Crusade.

Green tickY— correct, removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "before judging that he lacked the resources to successfully capture the city." The version I read was that he thought he could capture the city but not defend it. However, that may not reflect current scholarly opinion.

Green tickY— Generally it looks like Richard's motivations are unclear, but reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "most of the Crusaders returned to Germany when Henry died." When?

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Large groups of young adults and children spontaneously gathered, believing their innocence would enable success where their elders had failed." Did any of them travel to the Eastern Mediterranean?

Green tickY— not many, if any Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • You say that all Byzantine territories were conquered by the Fourth Crusade, but this is wrong. Some areas were not conquered.

Green tickY— qualified to European territoryNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Frederick was the most Muslim of Christian monarchs" This does not sound right - most knowledgeable about it or sympathetic to it?

Green tickY—reworded Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Louis IX's brother Charles of Anjou." Presumably Charles was the leader of the Crusaders at that time, but it is worth saying so.

Green tickY—no, Louis led the crusades, Charles was attempting to build a Empire in the Med Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "leaving only Prince Edward" I would say that he was the future King Edward I of England.

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Most remaining Latin Christians left for destinations in the Frankokratia". According to the article on Frankokratia it means the period of Latin rule over parts of the former Byzantine empire rather than an area. The term is in any case better not used as few people will understand it. What happened to those who did not go to Byzantine areas - did most of them return to Europe?

Green tickY— or rather Cyprus Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:13, 16 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

More to follow. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:33, 12 May 2017 (UTC)[edit]

  • "In 1322 the king of France suppressed the Knights Templar, ostensibly for sodomy, magic, and heresy, but probably for financial and political reasons." This is wrong. In 1307 King Philip IV of France had the Templars arrested, tortured and some burned at the stake. In 1312 he pressured the Pope into suppressing the order.

Green tickY—date corrected and sentence expandedNorfolkbigfish (talk) 16:58, 17 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Wendish Crusade of 1147 saw Saxons, Danes, and Poles enforce Catholic control over the tribes of Mecklenburg and Lusatia, Polabian Slavs (or "Wends")." I suggest "tribes of Mecklenburg and Lusatia, who were Polabian Slavs"? Also, "enforce Catholic control" is euphemistic. According to the article on the Wendish Crusade it was an unsuccessful attempt at forcible conversion.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Livonian Knights were defeated by the Lithuanians," You should make clear that Livonian Knights is another name for the Brothers of the Sword. A date would also be helpful.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The order also came into conflict with the Eastern Orthodox Church in the form of the Pskov and Novgorod Republics." I would delete "the form of"

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "they defeated the Livonian Order itself" Why "itself"?

Green tickY— removed Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Cathar culture was brutally suppressed" The Cathars were brutally suppressed, not just their culture.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "against the Bosnian Church and was depicted as a campaign against Catharism (Bogomilism)" I suggest "against the independent Bosnian Church, which was accused of Catharism".

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Sigismund advised the Crusaders to focus on defence when they reached the Danube" I am not clear what this means. Was Sigismund suggesting that they join the defence of a town or area against Turkish attack?

Green tickY— reworded - suggestion was for a cautious defensive approach rather than frontal attack Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "a 1456 Crusade to lift the Siege of Belgrade." I would specify "by the Turks"

Green tickY— gone for Ottoman Empire Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • " In April 1487 Pope Innocent VIII called for a Crusade against the Waldensians of Savoy, the Piedmont, and the Dauphiné in southern France and northern Italy."What were the Waldensians etc accused of?

Green tickY— heresy, amended Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The final end of the Crusades, in an at least nominal effort of Catholic Europe against Muslim incursion," This is confusing. I read this initially as referring to the last Crusade, but from what follows it appears to refer to a Christian Moslem alliance which put an end to Crusades. Which does it mean, and if the latter why should it have put an end to the Crusades as there had been such alliances before? Also, "final end" is tautologous.

Green tickY— final removed. Slightly reworded, the point is that the Franco-Imperial conflict was the primary concern, along with the wars of religion. Crusading ended and became part of wider politics across faiths Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Textual sources are simpler, and translations made in Antioch are notable but considered secondary in importance to the works emanating from Iberia and the hybrid culture of Sicily. In addition, Muslim libraries contained classical Greek and Roman texts that allowed Europe to rediscover pre-Christian philosophy." I would say "Moslem Spain" rather than Iberia. Also, I do not see the relevance of these comments to the Crusades. The Crusaders had no interest in book learning and played no part in transmitting it to Christian Europe.

Green tickY— some editors have raised the transmission of culture via the Crusades so it is useful to put into context. It is considered secondary but still significant due to the two centuries of the Outremer and the resulting trade etc Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The Muslim world exhibited sustained disinterest in the Crusades" I would prefer "The Muslim world showed no interest in the Crusades". This paragraph partly repeats what is said above under 'Legacy'.

Green tickY— done Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:24, 18 May 2017 (UTC) Dudley Miles (talk) 15:27, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Dudley Miles:—Thank you for the detail run through, I think I have addressed your comments and I hope it meets your satisafaction. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:10, 18 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

A few more

  • "The term Crusades itself is early modern English, modelled on Middle Latin cruciatae" This contradicts what you say in terminology.

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "Under the papacies of Calixtus II, Honorius II, Eugenius III and Innocent II On a smaller scale," The grammar has gone wrong here.

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the King of Portugal, Afonso I, re-took Lisbon" Had he held it before?

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • "the ruthless Baybars" You spell is Baibars above

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC).[reply]

  • "allowed Europe to rediscover pre-Christian philosophy." - and science and medicine?

Green tickY—Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:40, 22 May 2017 (UTC) Dudley Miles (talk) 19:31, 19 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support. thanks for the effort you have put in to making this a first rate article. Dudley Miles (talk) 07:57, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

comments by auntieruth55[edit]

  • I've read/reread this several times, over time. I agree with many of the comments above, especially Dudley's. And it's definitely improving as you incorporate reviewer's comments! This is an overview article, so it should have, specifically, an overview of the Crusades: all of them, their general problems, opponents, purposes, challenges, and commanders. I don't think it needs to go into a lot of detail, but it should link to other articles that do. Allusions to an issue, for example, need to be directly explained. Not in massive detail, but clearly enough to cover the issue. I'd like to be able to refer one of my students to this article and have them come away with a broad overview of the Crusades: time frame, goals, opponents, campaigns, general outcomes, etc.
  • one specific thing: footnotes should probably be called Notes. The section you call "references" is structured the way foot notes usually is in printed material.
  • The above said, this is a massive project, and thank you for tackling it. auntieruth (talk) 17:44, 28 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • This article has appeared on the GA list of nominees, and I've asked the editor to get someone from GOCE to have a look at it. I agree with above that it has some ways to go, and I think the editor is willing to put in the effort. It has good "bones" and Norfish is dedicated, so can we put all this either on hold or be patient, while the GOCE people have a look? Thanks. auntieruth (talk) 20:10, 17 March 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • There now appears to be the start of an edit war here, so not sure what to do. auntieruth (talk) 18:59, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Less an edit war, more some low level vandalism being reverted by other editors. This article seems to attract it from time to time, it will dies down soon. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 19:28, 3 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • good. What's the story on the GOCE? auntieruth (talk) 13:43, 4 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Auntieruth55:—number 26 in the queue today, I have tried a previous copyeditor but he is too busy to repeat the effort. I think we will just need to be patient. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:25, 18 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

(←) I've passed this through Good Article. It's had a serious copy edit by the GOCE and we should have a look at it again. auntieruth (talk) 19:36, 5 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Auntieruth[edit]

  • I've gone through and these are some initial edits. Please revert or adjust as you see fit. auntieruth (talk) 15:32, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • did a little more in run through, especially under historiography. Linked authors, etc.
  • you mention rise of nationalism in 13th century, I think. That would have to be cited. I really doubt that anything existed that could be construed as nationalism that early. There would be pride in your ruler's conquests, certainly, but I think what you're talking about is kingdom building. auntieruth (talk) 20:24, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Green tickY—I don't think the entire paragraph worked, it looks largely sourced from the Charles I of Naples article, which is also uncited. I have rewritten based on Asbridge. I think it looks a lot better now Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Auntieruth55:— Hi Auntieruth, nearly five months in and the article has 3 supports and no opposes, anything else needed from your prospective? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:51, 22 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Image review[edit]

  • I've emailed the editor for this information. It should be in there regardless of whether the article is going on to additional assessments. auntieruth (talk) 20:29, 8 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • Sources appear to be:
  • It doesn't need to be in the article itself, just on the image description page. Have a look at the other maps in the article, they all incorporate reference details. Parsecboy (talk) 15:38, 11 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Norfolkbigfish: - can you add the source details to the map? I think that might be the only thing holding this up from promotion, now that the article has 3 supports and no pending comments. Parsecboy (talk) 13:59, 23 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Parsecboy:— I have looked at this again and deleted the image in case this was all that was holding up promotion. I was looking at the wrong image by mistake when I thought I could source this. @Auntieruth55: did try to email the author but I haven't heard anything so I assume there was no luck there. I don't think the image/map really added much of use so it seemed better to remove. What happens now regards to promotion? Thanks Norfolkbigfish (talk) 06:35, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
  • No problem at all, everything looks to be in order now. I posted the review on the Coordinator talk page, so it should be promoted within the next day. Great work on such a gigantic topic. Parsecboy (talk) 10:01, 24 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]
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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Crusades&oldid=782551457"