4
edits
Changes
Jump to navigation
Jump to search
Line 40:
Line 40: + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + + +
Request opinion for multiple minor revisions and also serious fleshing out of post-First Crusade sections
:Pogroms is similar. As usually envisioned, it implies a government that is giving either its formal or unspoken consent -- neither of which applies in this case. The word will be misinterpreted. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:42, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
:Pogroms is similar. As usually envisioned, it implies a government that is giving either its formal or unspoken consent -- neither of which applies in this case. The word will be misinterpreted. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:42, 10 June 2008 (EDT)
== A Few Issues ==
I'm not sure about the ettiquette for making revisions, so I feel I should just see what people think beforehand. There's a couple of erroneous statements in the article that should probably be altered. Firstly,
"''the crusades in southern Spain, southern Italy, and Sicily were militarily successful''"
The successful campaigns against the Saracens in Sicily and the south of Italy were not crusades, nor were they declared as such - indeed, they were initiated by the Byzantines and by local lords, who later lost control of their own lands to the Norman mercenaries they hired to deal with the Saracens and their own internecine conflicts. I think ""the crusades in southern Spain were militarily successful" is sufficient, as the conflict in Italy was another issue entirely, and never recieved papal sponsorship or had any religious element to it. It was a territorial war, not a crusade.
"''spontaneous cries of "God wills it!"''"
I feel ""spontaneous cries of "Deus le vult!" ("God wills it!")" would be more accurate and encyclopediac in nature. Anyone agree?
Bohemund of Taranto is referred to as "Duke", this is not correct, as he lost his inheritance in Greece and renounced his claim to the Duchy of Apulia in 1087.
On Gottschalk and Emico, it's worth mentioning that this violence occured in Lotharingia, (now the Rhineland) as the article omits the location. I think this just adds clarity.
"''they continued onward and took Edessa and then besieged Antioch''" is also not entirely true, the army split into two - one went to Edessa and one to Antioch. Edessa was also an Armenian (Christian) city at the time. This is important for three reasons (1) It cost the Crusaders the potential of support from the local Armenian populace (2) it was the first time the Crusaders actually fought eachother, Baldwin and Tancred's men clashing and (3) Kerbogha only reached Antioch late because he spent three weeks fruitlessly besieging Edessa.
It's also worth noting that the "Battle of Orontes" (a name I have never heard used before, is there a source for this?) was not a battle so much as Kerbogha being betrayed and abandoned by his so-called allies. This isn't reflected in the article.
Also, are there sources for the numbers used? 50,000 at Ascalon seems like a lot, and it should be pointed out that that was an ambush on the Fatimid camp, as opposed to a pitched battle. And more detail should be there on the founding of the Military Orders (NOT "Crusading Orders" as they are dubbed in the article)
Finally, on the first Crusade, no mention is made of the Papal Legate, Adhemar of le Puy, who basically held the whole thing together on repeated occasions.
The other sections need fleshing out too, I can do these if you want. Can people let me know if the above is okay? If there's no reply in the next while I'll make the edits anyway and we'll go from there. Aplogies for the length of this, but this article is in serious need of work, and since this is supposed to be an educational resource, I think it should be done.
[[User:Forwearemany|Forwearemany]] 18:48, 16 August 2008 (EDT)