Talk:Historiography of the Crusades/Archive 1

Archive 1

Crusades ~ Jihad??!

The secular section contains a comparison of crusades (which are "holy" wars) with jihad (which is more like "efforts" in general, not necessarily efforts against enemies). The islamic section should preferrably contain a cited note about this, if I would be moslem, I would consider the comparison slanderous. Now, I simply think the note is crusade-apologetic, weird, ignorant and POVvy. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:39, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise I like the tone of the article: it makes a real and partially successful effort to explain the mindsets and their consequences onto the political behavior of this-and-that part. Very interesting! ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:43, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing/reformatting "Islamic Perspective" section

I rearranged the "Islamic Perspective" section, and removed items that were repetitive, uncited or non-NPOV. It seemed pretty clear that someone had cut and paste a term paper or an essay into the second half of the section, and many of the unreferenced statements contradicted the referenced statements in the beginning of the section. Anyway, the main change to combine the two sections into one coherent section. Obviously, this section is still terrible, and if someone who was actually qualified would rewrite it in an object, that would be great.

For example, the first section:

""For most Muslims the Crusades were something they won but just another invasion among many in their history," according to Dr Jonathan Phillips, author of The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople. It wasn't until recently that the Muslim world started to take a renewed interest in the Crusades."

is more credible and objective than the contradictory, unreferenced statement in the second one...

"The Crusades have made a lasting impact on the Islamic world, especially in their perception of the West and of Christians. In fact even today Muslims still consider the Crusades to be a symbol of Western hostility toward Islam."

Other problems that I fixed include the use of the word "fact" and the use of fruity, non-NPOV statements like:

"The Muslims were horrified by the brutality of the Franks and how they so willingly massacred civilians and broke promises."

"It did not help that the Crusaders felt little to no remorse for what they did and when the Muslims compared that to Saladin’s reputation of being a man of honor they thought even less of the Franks."

"The fact that the Franks were motivated more by politics and greed than true religious reason has led Muslims to feel that when Europe began to colonize the East it was merely a continuation of the Crusades."

etc. etc.

129.170.125.54 (talk) 22:03, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

Assessment

I assessed the article: class C ~ because I'm not sure whether the topic is adequately covered (because of lack of knowledge), subjectively I would have chosen B otherwise; importance Mid, because I think the topic is pretty central as regards to Western/Mid-East relations even today; maybe I overestimate, but it's simple to alter an assessment if You dislike. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

This article is very misleading. It does not cover the scholasticism of the crusade, but instead discusses the cultural memories of the crusade. This is not a historiography.--129.130.208.10 (talk) 00:35, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

Gibbon

Hi,

Rjensen and I have a disagreement here about whether Edward Gibbon ought to be called "the historian of Byzantium" in this article or not. I posit that he was mainly concerned with Rome, as evinced by the title of his great work - The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Note also the section there - The_History_of_the_Decline_and_Fall_of_the_Roman_Empire#Neglect_of_Byzantium. Yeah, I know that wikipedia itself cannot a 'rs' but I'm talking about editorial consistency: if Gibbon neglects Byzantium there, he cannot be "the historian of Byzantium" over here.

Folks, what do you think?

Bazuz (talk) 09:02, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Byzantium called itself the Roman Empire and historians call it the Eastern Roman Empire. For the period 300-1200 Gibbon's book is largely about Byzantium and he covers all the crusades. Look at the detailed table of contents at Outline of The History of the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. There are 71 chapters and starting at ch 29 the coverage of Byzantium is very full indeed. The Wiki article mentioned quotes one critic who says Gibbon misinterpreted Byzantine history by being too hostile--he did not say he neglected it which Bazuz says. As one recent scholar of Byzantium says, "For Gibbon and Lebeau were genuine historians — and Gibbon a very great one — and their works, in spite of factual inadequacy, rank high for their presentation of their material." (Ostrogorski History of the Byzantine State (1986) p 5 online Rjensen (talk) 10:07, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Rjensen, your points are taken. Note, on the other hand that in the outline of Gibbon's work, he consistently calls the Byzantines Greek rather than Romans (chapters 53,56,60,61,64,67,68). (Generally speaking, the question of how Greek and how Roman was the Byzantine Empire is an old and vexed one). I do agree that he can be characterized as a historian of Byzantium. But I still find it jarring with the "the", because this is not the defining feature of Gibbon, is it? Bazuz (talk) 11:40, 15 October 2011 (UTC)

Repetition?

There are several points in this article where the same paragraph or sectioned is repeated verbatim. This should certainly be altered but also I think more information is needed anyway. I've not read enough round the topic to be able to provide this myself though. 80.2.65.99 (talk) 13:44, 5 July 2012 (UTC) James

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Historiography of the Crusades/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

(I commented in the talk, now it's assumedly properly placed! (?)) ==Assessment== I assessed the article: class C ~ because I'm not sure whether the topic is adequately covered (because of lack of knowledge), subjectively I would have chosen B otherwise; importance Mid, because I think the topic is pretty central as regards to Western/Mid-East relations even today; maybe I overestimate, but it's simple to alter an assessment if You dislike. ... said: Rursus (bork²) 09:52, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Last edited at 09:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC). Substituted at 17:58, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Article scope

This is "Historiography of the Crusades", i.e. it should trace the historiographical debate through the centuries. It is not a collection of random factoids or journalism regarding the wider topic. Afacis, the rough outline of this is going to look more or less like this:

• contemporary and late medieval accounts (Christian, Muslim and Jewish historiography)
• Protestant Reformation (Protestants critical of Catholic "crusading")
• Early modern counter-Reformation historiography (i.e. Jesuits): the Crusades were a great and heroic Catholic enterprise
• Enlightenment era (i.e. anti-clericalism and proto-atheism): the Crusades were barbarous because papism and religion in general is evil and benighted
• Romantic nationalism: the crusades were heroic expressions of our national glory (also, knights are awesome)
• 20th century "deconstruction": The Cursades were barbarous white aggression against innocent non-white victims, add to the postcolonial list of white guilt
• contemporary: perhaps we went to far there, maybe parts were offensive/barbarous and other parts were heroic/defensive?
  • Also, I suppose, fragment into special-interest historiography (i.e. women and the crusades, gay people and the crusades, black people and the crusades[...])

--dab (𒁳) 11:35, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Some text copied from the Crusades article

Some of this is better articulated in the Crusades article. To move this one forward I have copied elements across, although these would need expanding. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:25, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

LIsts & nuggets

There is content on here that is little more than just lists of authors who have written on the crusades and small nuggets of information without context. Perhaps it would make the article read better if these were removed? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:20, 10 February 2020 (UTC)

Popular Reception

I am not convinced that Popular Reception is really historiography, but I am open to debate on that. Historiography is about Historians not History, or indeed popular conceptions. So I removed the text below. Beyond that it has a number of issues like no page numbers and tendency to over-simplification,

The crusades and their leaders were romanticized in popular literature of the late medieval period; the Chanson d'Antioche was a chanson de geste dealing with the First Crusade, and the Song of Roland, dealing with the era of the similarly romanticized Charlemagne, was directly influenced by the experience of the crusades, going so far as to replace Charlemagne's historic Basque opponents with Muslims. A popular theme for troubadours was the knight winning the love of his lady by going on crusade in the east.

In the 14th century, Godfrey of Bouillon was united with the Trojan War and the adventures of Alexander the Great against a backdrop for military and courtly heroics of the Nine Worthies who stood as popular secular culture heroes into the 16th century, when more critical literary tastes ran instead to Torquato Tasso and Rinaldo and Armida, Roger and Angelica. Crusading imagery could be found even in the Crimean War, in which the United Kingdom and France were allied with the Muslim Ottoman Empire, and in World War I, especially Allenby's capture of Jerusalem in 1917.

In Spain, the popular reputation of the Crusades is outshone by the particularly Spanish history of the Reconquista. El Cid is the central figure.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:05, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

the issue of memory has become a major factor in historiography since the 1980s--you need top read the historiography article Rjensen (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)-- start with David Glassberg, "Public history and the study of memory." The Public Historian 18.2 (1996): 7-23 online -- I can send you a copy if you need one (I used to be on the editorial board there]. Rjensen (talk) 10:16, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Rjensen:—thank you Mr Jenson, I would appreciate that. My jstor access has expired. One further thing with your cites can you please use the sfn version of harvard for them for consistency? If this article gets to a more robust state it would be good to put it up for a Good Article review and that is one of the first things it will be pulled up on. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:28, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

please send your email to rjensen@uic.edu and I will get copy right away I can't live without JSTOR! Rjensen (talk) 13:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

References

GOCE copyedit request

• Lists: Some of the lists contain a lot of items. Would you be okay if I added an Oxford comma before each last item?

Np Tenryuu—I am not a grammertician so will take your advice on this Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done.

• Capitalising "Crusades": The term is used frequently throughout the article though capitalising it seems very random. Am I correct in assuming that when "crusades" is used, it refers to the term in general and not the events that happened in the Crusades?

This is a constant across the subject, I tend to capitalise only proper nouns. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done.

• [...] Joseph François Michaud with his History of the Crusades for the Recovery and Possession of the Holy Land in 1820, but he also praised a level of crusader chivalry [...]: Emphasis added. Is "level" important? Can it be removed?

Yes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

? Ambiguous. In any case I've removed "a level of".

That is correct, I meant to type No but made a mistake, apologies and lol Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:56, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

• that the Crusades were one stage in the improvement of European Civilisation: Changed it already, but I'm assuming this is standard European civilisation we're talking about.

Yes Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done.

• The Muslim world exhibited little interest in the Crusades for whom they did not represent a single or coherent [] even until the middle of the 19th century: I'm assuming there is a missing noun where I added the [].

I think something like event or phenomenon would fit, I think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:31, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

 Done. Reworked sentence.

Looking forward to hearing your reply. --Tenryuu (🐲 • 💬 • 🌟) 21:51, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: Finished my second pass. Let me know if you have any questions or concerns. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 02:15, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

@Norfolkbigfish: Expediting the process a little but I have finished my copyedit. Let me know if you have any other areas on here that still need to be addressed. Best of luck to your good article candidacy. --Tenryuu 🐲 ( 💬 • 📝) 17:11, 1 March 2020 (UTC)

Did you know nomination

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: rejected by BlueMoonset (talk) 22:59, 24 April 2020 (UTC)
Regrettably, article was nominated twelve days too late, which is just too long. Closing as unsuccessful.

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that ...? that historians cannot agree on what was a crusade
  • ALT1:... that ...? that historians cannot agree on what was a crusade

Improved to Good Article status by Norfolkbigfish (talk). Self-nominated at 15:17, 19 April 2020 (UTC).

• : The article passed for GA back on March 31, 2020. Making it ineligible. ~~ CAPTAIN MEDUSA^talk 03:39, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

GA?

@Norfolkbigfish and Iazyges: during the article's A-class review three experienced editors has concluded that the article is incomplete and incomprehensible. One of them added that "I basically have comments on every sentence I read, many of which I can't immediately tell what the sentence is trying to say." How much time do you think you need to fix the problems? Borsoka (talk) 09:29, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

• I rewrote this after discussion with Norfolkbigfish. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:40, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Recent edits

@Dr. Grampinator: This article is listed as GA (it was nominated for A) and has thus been peer reviewed. Deleting large sections without discussion is the very least discourteous. The Background supplied is essential to understanding why the Crusades are seen differently - you might disagree but that's not your call to make.

The relevance of inserting large swathes of pre-Crusading literature is not clear - apart from one unsupported sentence at the beginning claiming they were used by historians of the crusades. You then list them without actually showing who used them and how.

Articles can always be improved - that does not require the deletion of material which took me a lot of work. I'm sure you spent a fair amount of time on this so when you consider your response, I suggest you pause - I left this for a couple of days to avoid saying something I might regret. Its really annoying when you put in a lot of effort and someone just turns up and removes it. Isn't it?

We can either discuss this in a collaborative way or go to arbitration - I'm not interested in an edit war. Let me know. Robinvp11 (talk) 14:17, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

@Robinvp11: Thanks for your comment. I was wondering if anyone was paying attention to what I was doing to this article. I started looking at the subject during last year's A-Class review but didn't really know enough about the subject to chime in at that point. As you probably noticed, I started out small and, of course, nothing is quite like you think until you get it down on paper.

I didn't have a problem per se with the Background and Terminology sections. I deleted them as they are adequately covered in the Crusades article and didn't think that anyone would read this one without reading that one first.

As to the pre-Crusade material, I thought it was adequately explained with the references to Fuller and Michaud, but you should also look to the Wisconsin Study, Runciman, Tyerman's God's War, Murray's Encyclopedia.

I've seen what you've done on your rewrite and have some suggestions. Sections 2.2 and 2.3 are fine, as they were in the original (by that I mean before the 4th of July). Section 2.4 is seriously lacking in that really only discusses Runciman, whose work at this point is 70 years old. I would suggest adding Tyerman, Asbridge, Riley-Smith (his work, not just what he said about Runciman), Hillenbrand, etc.

Section 2.1 presents the history of the Crusades, not the historiography. That was really the crux of my problem with the original article, which discussed Dwight D. Eisenhower and George W. Bush, but not Anna Komnene or Christopher Tyerman.

I apologize if I stepped on your toes. As I said, I started out small and.... The stuff that I wrote that is in Section 3 (and Section 4, just beginning) is way out of proportion to the rest of the article as is and should be deleted. I would suggest that the Primary Sources be truly reflective of RHC and show the Greek historians (and maybe Michael the Syrian). Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:13, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Interesting that you removed the Main article tag that pointed Crusading_movement#Historiography to this article with the commentary Target article is not the Main Article for this section as it contains far less information than presented here, although I have no objection Dr. Grampinator and looking at both broadly agree. Robinvp11 might be interested in the content there, as a pointer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:29, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish I have no strong opinion on the issue, and feel free to put it back in if you like. My understanding is that the use of the "Main Article" reference means that the target article provides significantly more information than the section, and the case here is just the opposite. Maybe a "See Also" is more appropriate? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:31, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator First, I appreciate the considered and supportive response - I haven't had much luck in assuming Positive Intent over the past two years, so its a good reminder that I should continue making that leap :)

I also got involved in this due to the A class review and did a lot of research as it was an interesting topic, particularly for someone who's spent a lot of time in the Middle East. I can see you've written numerous articles on this area so please feel free to add or expand.

I know the Crusades are covered in far more detail elsewhere but the purpose of the Background is to explain the context in which they were viewed, otherwise its hard to make the links and I don't think its too much.

You clearly know more about the Primary sources than I do so feel free to expand but I think we need to avoid simply producing a long list - maybe better in a separate List Article?

Re the point made by Norfolkbigfish; perhaps Crusading_movement#Historiography should be deleted or merged; as suggested, I've taken a (quick) look - not sure I agree with all of it (any reference to Sir Walter Scott as a historian starts furious alarm bells ringing in my head) but some of it could be incorporated here. Robinvp11 (talk) 18:45, 19 July 2021 (UTC)

I think I may have confused rather than clarified my views. Dr. Grampinator—I was broadly supportive of your edit on Crusading_movement#Historiography. The scope of that section is probably broader than this article, I think that this one would be improved if it was expanded to match and then went into further depth. Robinvp11—part of the scope of Crusading movement is the memorilisation of the crusades: historiography and indeed Walter Scott is a significant part of that. I don't read the section as implying that Scott was an historian. I have found Tyerman, Christopher (2011). The Debate on the Crusades, 1099–2010. Manchester University Press. ISBN 978-0-7190-7320-5. very interesting on the subject, it is worth a look. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:47, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

NorfolkbigfishYes, I was also puzzled by the Walter Scott comment above and did check both the Crusader Movement reference as well as Tyerman. Even more curious is that the Historiography article says exactly the same thing in its Post-Medieval section. (The comment on Scott in the Long 19th Century section is at best misleading, some might say false, as is much of the rest of the article.) And, clearly the Historiography section in Crusade Movement needs to stay put as the "Crusader Movement" is different from the "Crusades" per the extension discussions of the last year. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:30, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

Dr. Grampinator Can I check; which bits of this article do you consider "misleading, some might say false"? Robinvp11 (talk) 11:22, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

New work on this article

Now that this article is being reworked, some of the glaring problems should be pointed out. The problems begin with the first sentence:

"The historiography of the Crusades has been subject to competing and evolving interpretations from the capture of Jerusalem in 1099 until the present day."

• It never defines what the "historiography of the Crusades" is.
• If it is what I think it is, the historiography itself has not been subject to various interpretations.
• Why 1099? Aren't Urban's letters of interest? What about the Reconquista? What about the causes of the First Crusade?

The first few sentences need to what the article is about and what its scope is. The second sentence says:

"The religious idealism, use of martial force and pragmatic compromises made by those involved in crusading were controversial, both at the time and subsequently."

I have no idea what this even means in the context of historiography. For what its worth. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:47, 3 December 2021 (UTC)

Hey @Dr. Grampinator, I am sure there is more that we agree on than disagree. By way of explanation the article has been going backwards since it passed GAR, edits have largely concentrated on what was wrong in the content, but the issue was more what was missing in terms of depth and coverage. So as a starting point I restored content excised from the GAR version. I had hoped that editors would add this themselves but as is so often the case in this area of WP it was a chance to exercise pedantry and axe grinding. I think the lead will become obvious when the body is sorted, rather than vice versa, but I have only got as far as a generalised summary of western medieval sources so far. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:32, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Btw Rjensen taught me some interesting things about historical memory; that largely seems to have also been excised from this article. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:40, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

This goes back to when this article came up for "A Class" review; I took a look at it, and literally could not understand large parts of it. When I brought this up, in a list of detailed comments, Norfolkbigfish claimed to have "been tidying it up" and effectively told me they weren't interested. Fair enough.

So let's be clear; I spent a lot of time on this article, trying to make sense of overly prolix language and sentences that went nowhere. These were removed. I then spent considerable effort running down Sources and expanding content eg the entire sections of how its viewed in Islam, 19 and 20th centuries.

As a result, I take considerable exception to this statement; ...edits have largely concentrated on what was wrong in the content, but the issue was more what was missing in terms of depth and coverage. So as a starting point I restored content excised from the GAR version. I had hoped that editors would add this themselves but as is so often the case in this area of WP it was a chance to exercise pedantry and axe grinding. That is a complete misrepresentation of what has occurred.

Articles are written for the general user; stringing a series of long words together does not ipso facto make it clearer. Large parts of this article are simply incoherent. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:19, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

The major issue with this article is the depth and coverage. When that is addressed it can go to WP:GOCE. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:30, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish: I am glad that you are taking on this article, because as we both know it needs a lot of work. The point that I was trying to make was that it is not at all clear what the article is talking about. I'm not going to get into the editing battles that have characterized the discussions on this article (and are going on now) until the lede is fixed. It is not at all clear what is trying to be accomplished, and the later text demonstrates this problem. Here's an example, the lead sentence in the Medieval section:

"During the medieval period, historiography focussed on presenting moralistic lessons rather than factual information, with Crusades extolled as moral exemplars and defining a shared culture."

That's not quite what Tyerman said, but even at that, it was the summary of a very long chapter that discussed many things about the medieval histories of the Crusades. Tyerman tends to wax poetically at the end of his chapters but that doesn't make those waxings understandable out of context. Let's move on the next sentence:

"When the Crusades began, most primary sources were written in Latin and this remained the case for official documents until the end of the Middle Ages."

Not true even for the First Crusade. Many original sources were written in Greek, Arabic, Syriac, and Hebrew. What about later crusades. Joinville's work on the Seventh Crusade was in French.

Robinvp11 In response to you query, I think the discussion above summarizes my view.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:48, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Grampinator on what this aricle is about the OED gives a good, if rather dated example: [Speculum 26 166] A wise old professor outlined for the class in historiography three major aspects of the subject: (1) the assembling and testing of source material, (2) the synthesizing of this material into a logical pattern, and (3) its transmission to the reader. which would work rather well if ....of the Crusades was added. Regarding the two examples I have excised the first sentence and qualified the second with the adjective western which I think does the job.

Much more to do, I have only got to 1108 with the expansion so far, and only Western sources at that. Structure wise I think @Dbachmann, with whom I haven't always agreed, summarised what is required at Talk:Historiography_of_the_Crusades/Archive_1#Article_scope back in 2016. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 20:34, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I'm going to make a modest proposal. Let's limit the scope to the numbered Crusades to the Holy Land. As far as I know, no one out there has ever attempted the broader subject. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:42, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

I would also get rid of all references to history not related to the Crusades. Specifically, the establishment of Israel, French Wars of Religion, the Crimean War, the 1830 French occupation Algiers, French and British foreign policy in the 19th century, Kaiser Wilhelm II, World War I, Francisco Franco-era Spain, etc. I guarantee you that any such write-ups could and would be disputed. This is a very large and complex subject, these tangents don't help things.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 23:28, 4 December 2021 (UTC)

Good idea @Dr. Grampinator Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:31, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

A few points. First, I did not create this article or its structure; I only got involved because it was put forward for A class review by Norfolkbigfish and I try to participate in these where possible. I do so in a constructive way; occasionally, I might suggest different wording but I'm not a grammar freak. However, even by the standards of Wikipedia, large parts of this article were simply incomprehensible, while there were many factual errors; when I asked for these points to be clarified, it was withdrawn. I even asked another reviewer if they understood what was meant in case I was missing something and it wasn't just me - frankly, I cannot understand how it ever got to GA status.

There has not and is not an edit war going on. I made some changes, tried to rewrite the article in English without removing too much content (even though I strongly disagree with most of the current Lede), although I expanded in some areas. Its been stable for about a year; I'm not sure what sparked this revival but the problem is not the article structure or depth (we might disagree on what specific areas need expanding, but write them first); the main problem is the style in which it is written is prolix, never uses one word where four will do and is really difficult to understand. In the recent edits, I have not objected to a single factual statement made by Norfolkbigfish but the writing and grammar are often almost impossible to decipher, while there are whole paragraphs of statements without citations. If that is "pedantry and axe grinding" (see above), then I'm happy to own that.

Many of the specific queries raised by Dr. Grampinator were not written by me eg It never defines what the "historiography of the Crusades" is, If it is what I think it is, the historiography itself has not been subject to various interpretations, Why 1099? Aren't Urban's letters of interest? What about the Reconquista? What about the causes of the First Crusade? The religious idealism, use of martial force and pragmatic compromises made by those involved in crusading were controversial, both at the time and subsequently - what does this mean? Yeah, me too (see above)

Historiography is the study of the various approaches to historical method, the actual writing of history, and, primarily, the various interpretations of historical events. How can you therefore produce an article on the Historiography of the Crusades which ignores how those changed over time? Having spent large parts of my life in the Middle East, I can tell you from direct experience interpretations vary depending on who's writing about them. Its nonsense to suggest we simply remove "all references to history not related to the Crusades" because that implies the interpretation of those events has not altered. 9/11 caused a huge resurgence of interest in different historical perspectives on these events - Bush said he wished someone would have told him the negative connotations of using the word "crusade".

Robinvp11 You are missing my point, which was: there is no definition of "Historiography of the Crusades" in the article. What you write above is getting close, but it is not clear what "the various approaches to historical method" might mean. Maybe "the various applications of the historical method" might be better.

The article is about the events known as the Crusades, not about the word "crusades." Eisenhower wrote "Crusade in Europe," Bush used the word crusade, so what? I have no problem with including information if it is relevant. I looked at some of the references in the article to the items below and the ones I reviewed were generally taken out of context and discussed the legacy of the Crusades, not the historiography. If you want the article to discuss legacy, it's going to be a whole lot bigger. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:53, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Kaiser Wilhelm II, World War I, Francisco Franco-era Spain, etc. I guarantee you that any such write-ups could and would be disputed. These have all been sourced; if you disagree, then do so and explain why, rather than simply demanding their removal. The fact we disagree with interpretations does not make them ipso fact WRONG. A while back, Dr. Grampinator dealt with this by simply over writing it, which I objected to because it wasn't even discussed; whether or not you intend to, this seems a second attempt to remove content because you don't agree.

Whatever; let me know when you've finished rewriting it, I will read it and then make comments. But you really should consider your style; there is no point in investing effort in writing articles if no one can understand them. Robinvp11 (talk) 19:34, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish Much better. I added a link to the article in Crusades.

Dr. Grampinator You're starting from the answer you want, which (presumably) is why your original edits simply erased the entire section. Legacy (as in cultural memory) informs historiography (how we interpret or view an historical event), which naturally changes. If I wrote an article on WWII which ignored any perspective other than that of Anglo-American historians, it would be a nonsense. My point about Bush was that even today the West sees the Crusades very differently from Muslims or even Orthodox Christians - hence why Pope John Paul apologised for them. Why including a short section on these different perspectives appears to be so controversial escapes me.

...ones I reviewed were generally taken out of context and discussed the legacy of the Crusades, not the historiography... I've written this down for future use because I enjoyed it so much; "ones I reviewed" (vague), "generally" (vaguer) "taken out of context" (which could mean almost anything) and "legacy of the Crusades, not the historiography" (even if right, not relevant). Rare to see a criticism so dismissive while remaining so non-specific. Superb; thanks for that. Robinvp11 (talk) 11:10, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Hit piece on Runciman

The Modern section of this article reads like a hit piece on Runciman and the reader gets the impression that his work is to be avoided. For example:

"Jonathan Riley-Smith described Runciman as a writer of literature rather than an historian."

What purpose does this serve, if true, other than to show a bias against Runciman? Apparently the executive team writing the Wisconsin study did not agree with this, as they selected Runciman to write three very critical segments of the work.

"An historian of the Byzantine Empire, Runciman was appalled by the Fourth Crusade, which colours his perspective."

The implication is that, among Crusader historians, only Runciman was appalled, when in fact they were all appalled. Some did not include as a real crusade. But the real topper is this:

"He uses broad stereotypes: western Europeans were ignorant, rough and rude; Byzantine Greeks were cultivated, sophisticated and decadent; Muslims had tolerance, faith and martial vigour..."

This is an absolute falsehood. I have read every word in Runciman's work and he does no such thing. Tyerman has particular disdain for Runciman (I'm not sure why) and has relentlessly attacked him and his work repeatedly.

"other academics consider it a dated polemic that was derivative, tendentious and misleading even at the time"

And yet it is the most referenced work used in Wikipedia. For a reason. It is readable, complete and generally accurate. I have also read all of God's War and could make exactly the same points. In fact, the comment:

"the conflict was driven by religious and cultural values, rather than political or economic"

concerning Runciman is again absolutely false, and probably applies more to Tyerman whose work frames the crusades entirely in the religious aspects.

I'm happy to debate these points, but as it stands, the Modern section is incomplete, biased and flat out incorrect. Just one more example:

"Prior to the late 20th century no serious thought had been given to defining what was meant by "crusade" and its scope; it was assumed it meant only Christian attempts to recover Jerusalem."

Simply not true. But, enough said. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:08, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Actually the "broad sterotypes" bit is pretty true - he makes it clear he wouldn't readily offer a sherry to any Western crusader except for Raymond of Toulouse, while the Byzantines are generally regarded as gentlemanly, and fit for the senior Common Room. Runciman's history has its faults, but still scores as a very detailed narrative account of the period it covers, and readable. Johnbod (talk) 20:45, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Your point is taken. My point was that is a sweeping statement like that can't possibly be true, nor is it particularly relevant. I can give any number of counterexamples, but what's the point? This is supposed to be a serious article, not a book report. And again, I ask the question, if Runciman was so ill-thought of, why did he get selected to write key sections of the Wisconsin study? Your last sentence is, I think, all the summary discussion that is needed. Also, basing the entire modern period on one work is misleading and incomplete.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 21:17, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

• Fifty years later, I am aware of its flaws, but at the time I was impressed by Runciman’s masterly fusion of narrative with the authority of the primary sources. Susan Edgington – Queen Mary, University of London
• As I became more acquainted with him as a Byzantinist and his views on the Crusades, however, I have found other historians of the Crusades whose interpretations were more reliable and sometimes more positive, but his presentations have often remained the best stories in the way that he wrote about them. Jaroslav Folda – University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
• he saw the crusaders as a series of unreconstructed thugs, and the crusades – as the very last line of the final book famously proclaimed – a “sin against the holy spirit.” Cecilia Gaposchkin – Dartmouth College
• Runciman’s hostility to the Crusaders is now rejected by many scholars, but the existence of such a brilliantly written condemnation of the heroic Crusaders still contributes a valuable perpective, and no doubt will continue to do so. Steve Muhlberger – Nipissing University
• Yet at university I began to doubt some of Runciman’s interpretations, and subsequently have disagreed with a great many things he wrote. Alan V. Murray – University of Leeds
• the work itself contains many errors and is no longer helpful for scholarly use, except in demonstrating the high art of English prose. Edward Peters – University of Pennsylvania
• a moral epic of heroic ambition, weary outrage, literary finesse and second-hand scholarship. Except in locating the crusades as a major feature of Byzantine history, academically nugatory, heavily reliant on a parade of earlier scholars- Hagenmeyer, Chalandon, Bréhier, Stevenson, Grousset, Atiya etc- Christopher Tyerman – Oxford University
• Runciman has been the starting-point for many of those who have become interested in the crusades, through the clarity (at the price of over-simplification) of his books, and the direction of his narrative, which excludes whole areas of crusading and whole periods. Like it or not, this is the book most non-specialists used to read. David Abulafia – Cambridge University
• Beautiful prose from a master storyteller, shoddily researched and conveyed a profoundly flawed view of the crusades that has, sadly, shaped the understandings of tens of millions of people, if not more. Paul F. Crawford – California University of Pennsylvania.

So not just Tyerman, but a general scepticism amongst academic specialists of the crusades, and yes this list is cherry picked to make a point. Runciman's work was the best part of 70 years ago. Yes it was influential, yes the prose is tremendous but that doesn't mean it is above criticism. The pros are there in the article, so the cons should be too. Anything else would be misleading, don't you think? Quotes from https://apholt.com/2017/07/27/historians-rank-the-most-important-books-on-the-crusades/ Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:41, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

As Tyerman seems to be almost obsessively anti-Runciman, let's look at the comment provided above:

a moral epic of heroic ambition, weary outrage, literary finesse and second-hand scholarship. Except in locating the crusades as a major feature of Byzantine history, academically nugatory, heavily reliant on a parade of earlier scholars- Hagenmeyer, Chalandon, Bréhier, Stevenson, Grousset, Atiya etc-

It does not seem that the others above agree with the work as "academically nugatory" which is really beyond the pale and insulting to both the author and the other historians above. As Tyerman is complaining about it being "heavily reliant on a parade of earlier scholars" Isn't that what historians do, build on previous work done. I can only assume that he did not use any of these in "God's War" (he did by the way). And also, Atiya had not written any works on the Crusades per se when Runciman wrote his books so that too is misleading. Atiya's review of Volume 1 is worth reading and paints a decidedly different picture than Tyerman does 70 years later. Again I'll ask, where's the replacement. The Wisconsin study is the most comprehensive and both Runciman and Atiya are major contributors. I'm not sure of the source of Tyerman's total dislike of Runciman and his work, but I don't believe that view should be present in Wikipedia. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:51, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Putting Tyerman to one side, although he is a perfectly reputable historian, the view across a number of historians is that Runciman's work is flawed, unreliable, has a negative slant on the crusaders, is now widely rejected, there is academic disagreement on many points, error prone, over-simplified, selective rather than comprehensive and poorly researched. This is not my view but the explicitly stated view of many specialists in the field. It is pretty close to the consensus. That said it is recognised as the most influential work of the immediate post-war period, widely read and there is a uniform agreement agreement it is superbly well written. That is the historiography here. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:03, 8 December 2021 (UTC)

Robinvp11 I thought I'd respond to your comment along with the current discussion. Two discussions at once are to hard to keep track of. Your response of "Rare to see a criticism so dismissive while remaining so non-specific. Superb; thanks for that." sounds like you are taking this personally which it is not. I made specific comments on this article as well as general. The first sentence was subsequently changed. My comments on Runciman were not so well received and I'll discuss them below. I also made general comments like the ones you are complaining about in hopes that someone would make changes that would IMHO make the article better.

My general comments were that discussions on history unrelated to the Crusades per se do not belong here. You apparently are in need of specifics, so here goes. The sentence referenced by footnote [39] goes to a section by Asbridge called "The Legacy of the Crusades." Legacy is different from historiography and does not fall in the scope of the definition given in the lede. Asbridge does not discuss the subject of this article. Footnote [54] refers back to a lengthy paragraph by Tyerman in his introduction. First, it is taken out of context, which does matter, and second, he does not expound on why he might think that. BTW, I am open to discuss whether or not Franco's Spain is related to the Crusades. Tyerman himself talked of people regarding the Crusades of having "a largely spurious relevance to the 21st century." I had not planned on doing a line-by-line criticism of the article, but I guess I'll have to.

Norfolkbigfish Now, back to my favorite subject, Runciman vs. the world. I think what you just said, in many words, is that maybe Tyerman was a little harsh on SR. Thank God he's not on Wikipedia! I can just imaging what he might say about me, or you. I might point out that I have not seen a critique of SR's work that called out specifics and that I could take each general criticism and apply it to any work on the Crusades.

I suggest that the modern discussion begins with La Monte's article "Some Problems in Crusading Historiography" in Speculum, Volume 15 (1940), where he lays out the roadmap for what was to be the Wisconsin study which began appearing 30 years after his proposal. Runciman fills a gap between essentially no comprehensive work on the Crusades and Wisconsin, writing by himself and, despite comments above, exhaustively researched given the state of knowledge of sources. (See La Monte for a discussion on what needed to happen source-wise before Wisconsin could be realized.) The works of Tyerman, Asbridge, Riley-Smith would not be possible without them and their works are all flawed in some way. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:06, 8 December 2021 (UTC)