Conservapedia - User contributions [en]

The Crusades

2008-08-21T22:41:02Z

Forwearemany: series of minor alterations, mainly to the section on the first crusade

{{Middle Ages}}
[[Image:Crusader.jpg|thumb|200px|right|A returning [[Crusader]]]]
The '''Crusades''' were a series of military conflicts fought between [[Europe]]an [[Christians]] and [[Arab]] [[Muslims]] to regain the [[Holy Land]]. Most often, the term "Crusades" refers to the campaigns in the Holy Land against Muslim forces sponsored by the [[Papacy]], of which there were four. There were other crusades in the Holy Land lead by private royal armies, as well as crusades against Islamic forces in southern [[Spain]], southern [[Italy]], and [[Sicily]]. Furthermore, the campaigns of [[Teutonic knight]]s against [[pagan]] strongholds in [[Eastern Europe]] are also sometimes called crusades. Lastly, military action within Christendom lead against heretical and schismatic groups is also sometimes called a crusade. The four papal-sponsored crusades aimed at securing the Holy Land occured between A. D. 1097 and 1204.

Of the four papal-sponsored crusades in the Holy Land, only the first and (to a lesser extent) third crusades were successful in terms of their military goals. Though [[Jerusalem]] was held for nearly a century and other strongholds in the Near East would remain in Christian possession much longer, the crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. The fourth crusade resulted in a very damaged relationship between [[Orthodox Church|Greek]] and [[Roman Catholic|Latin]] Christendom. [[Islam]]ic expansion into Europe would renew and remain a threat for centuries, with courageous crusading orders establishing strongholds on Mediterranean islands that often, against all odds, managed to prevent Christendom from suffering from Islamic conquest. On the other hand, the crusades in southern [[Spain]] were militarily successful, eventually leading to the demise of Islamic power in the region in 1492 A.D. – a power which had existed there since the first Islamic [[Jihad]]-conquests of the eighth and ninth centuries. The Teutonic knights expanded Christian domains in Eastern Europe, and the much less frequent crusades within Christendom, such as the [[Albigensian Crusade]], achieved their goal of maintaining doctrinal unity.<ref>For such an analysis, see Brian Tierney and Sidney Painter, ''Western Europe in the Middle Ages 300–1475''. 6th ed. (McGraw-Hill 1998)</ref>

== Holy Land Crusades ==

The Holy Land had been part of the [[Roman Empire]], and thus the [[Byzantine Empire]], until the Islamic conquests of the seventh and eighth centuries that forced the Byzantines out and saw the area gradually turn Islamic. Calm returned and Christians had generally been permitted to visit the sacred places in the Holy Land until 1071, when the [[Seljuk Turks]] assailed the Byzantines, defeating them at the [[Battle of Manzikert]], and conquered Jerusalem from the Egyptian Fatimids the same year. They were not friendly to Christian pilgrims, in contrast to how the Fatimids had been, and soon pilgrims came under threat of robbery or even death as they were no longer welcome. The Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius I]] asked for aid from the west both to the Popes and the Christian monarchs. Nothing meaningful happened. Alexius may have been hoping for money from the pope for the hiring of mercenaries. Instead, Urban II called upon the knights of Christendom to fight for the defense of the Christian East and the protection of pilgrims in a speech made at the [[Council of Clermont]] on November 27, 1095. Urban demanded that all internal feuds within Christendom end, threatening [[excommunication]] for anyone who continued to bicker internally, and promising [[absolution]] and assurance of [[salvation]] to anyone who died in the crusade. In a sense this matched the claims that Islam made in regard to Jihad since the inception of that religion.
This time Europe listened. Those who were there erupted in spontaneous cries of "Deus le vult!" ("God wills it!") - which would become the watchword of what we now know as the Crusades.

Nothing like this had previously been done, and the Pope himself had no military power so to speak and had to count on those who were in positions of power to supply it. While the monarchs of Europe did not get directly involved, it was a series of prominent nobles who answered the call, among the most famous being: the Norman Bohemund of Taranto, former claimant to the Duchy of Apulia, his nephew Tancred, Count Raymond of Toulouse, Duke Godfrey de Bouillon of Lorraine, Duke Hugh of Vermandois (brother of the King of France), Duke Robert of Normandy, and Count Robert of Flanders. The spiritual leader who would accompany meet and accompany them was French Bishop Adhemar du Puy, who was appointed Papal legate. All that was known at the start was that the forces to participate would meet together in [[Constantinople]]. Alexius had no idea what was being unleashed.

Others took matters into their own hands. The peasantry, stirred by the preaching of the layman [[Peter the Hermit]], embarked on a disorganized and poorly supplied “crusade”, which failed utterly, being rather unwelcome in the cities they stopped in on their journey, and being slaughtered by the first Islamic army they met. This was an unofficial, impromptu affair involving the peasantry, and which was warned, and forbidden, by the Christian feudal lords and the papacy alike, but to which they paid no heed.

A smaller group of peasants led by Gottschalk took out their fervor on a more local target, the Jewish communities of Lotharingia. Their actions were condemned by the Church and the local populace.<ref>The Age of Faith, Will Durant, 1950, Pg. 589</ref><ref name="RS">Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: a History.'' 2005: Yale University Press. ISBN: 0300101287</ref> A much larger threat against Jews took the form of a larger mob led by Count Emico of Leiningen, who was more organized and more brutal. Already a man with a sullied reputation, he ignored the pleas of the Bishops in town after town to desist. Apart from being hidden by the local populace when they heard Emico was coming, there was little the Jews could do. Previously in Europe, local difficulties against Jewish communities would rise from time to time in various places, but would be isolated to that local area. This started a phase not previously seen, a systematic effort to weed out and attack Jewish communities.

== The First Crusade ==
The [[First Crusade]], properly speaking, was lead by Feudal lords, mostly of [[Franks|Frankish]] origin. Many of the knights left home never expecting to return, knowing virtually nothing about the [[Holy Land]], and trusting in God for victory. The army consisted of almost 20,000 men, including a mass of [[squire]]s and other servants necessary to support a mounted knight. Arriving at Constantinople the force, which eventually reached almost 50,000 total men, was not what the Byzantine Emperor [[Alexius]] had expected. He had hoped for a few thousand well trained mercanaries to help him retake his lands from the Turks, and had little in common with the goal of 'freeing the Holy Land'. An uneasy tension ensued from 1096 to 1097 as the forces gathered, but through a combination of firmness and diplomacy, Alexius avoided serious complications. In return for his assurance of assistance, he obtained oaths of allegiance from the Crusader leaders, and their promise that they would help recapture [[Nicaea]] from the Turks and return to him any other former possessions which they conquered. Alexius then transported them across the Bosporus - being careful not to allow any large number of Crusader forces inside the walls of his capital at any given time. He also provided them with food and with an escort of Byzantine troops to guide them towards their objectives (and incidentally to prevent Crusader plundering).<ref>Encyclopedia of Military History, Dupuy & Dupuy, 1979, Pg. 312-313</ref>

After a hard march to the Holy Land, the army captured invested Nicaea in 1097. By a combination of skillful fighting and skillfull diplomacy, Alexius arrnage for the surrender of the city to him after a successful Crusader-Byzantine assault on the outer walls. The Crusaders were upset at Alexius' refusal to give them permission to sack the city.

The Crusaders continued to the southeast in parallel columns, without any one commander in charge. After fighting the inconclusive [[Battle of Dorylaeum]], the army split in half. Tancred and Baldwin, brother of Godfrey of Lorraine and future King of Jerusalem, went east took the Armenian fortress-city of [[Edessa]] - an action that destroyed the support of many local Armenian Christians for the Crusade, and weakened it's internal bonds, as Balwin and Tancred's men clashed over posession of the city, with Baldwin emerging triumphant. The main boy of the army continued onward and besieged [[Antioch]]. The city was surrounded for 8 months from October 21, 1097 to June 3, 1098. Two relieving armies were driven off in the [[Battles of Harenc]] in December and February. Due to poor arrangements for supplies, the Crusading army was actually close to starvation, but was saved by the fortuitous arrival of English and Pisan flotillas which seized two nearby ports and brought provisions. Bickering among the Crusader leaders, especially [[Bohemund]] and [[Raymond]] was rampant. The initiative of Bohemund led to the capture of Antioch just 2 days before a relieving army of 75,000 strong under the atabeg of Mosul, [[Kerboga]] would arrived, delayed itself after a fruitless three-week long attempt to dislodge Baldwin from Edessa.

Now it was the Crusaders turn to be trapped inside the city as Kerboga sieged Antioch from June 5, to June 28, 1098. The Crusaders were cut off from supplies and again near starvation. A Byzantine army was coming to take the city as agreed, but hearing that the Crusaders were doomed, turned back to Constantinople. It was then the 'Holy Lance' was discovered; the weapon said to have pierced Jesus' side. While few historians or theologians believe this miraculous discovery was valid, it energized the Crusader army at just the time they needed it. The [[Battle of the Orontes]] was fought on June 28 where 15,000 Crusaders left Antioch to battle and drove off the entire Moslem army and broke the siege, helped in part by the decision of several of the local emirs serving under Kerbogha to abandon him during the battle, fearing that he coveted their territory.

Due to internal bickering, many of the Crusaders did not continue on to [[Jerusalem]]. The force that arrived in June 1099 was only about 12,000 strong, far fewer than the army of defenders. They sieged the city from June 9 to July 18. Realizing they didn't have enough men to keep out supplies and starve the defenders, they boldly attacked. Overrunning the city, many of the inhabitants were massacred, including other Christians. A relieving force of 50,000 strong arrived in August to fight the Crusaders, but were routed at the [[Battle of Ascalon]]. The military aspects of the First Crusade had ended.

Four feudal kingdoms were established, which would remain for nearly 100 years. Several Military Orders, consisting of [[paladin]]s, were also set up within the next few years, focussing mainly around the protection of the welfare of pilgrims and the defense of Christendom within the framework of an orgainsation that was both spiritual and martial in nature. The best known of these orders were the Knights of the Temple, or [[Templars]], and the Knights of the Hostpital of St. John, or [[Hospitallers]]. The Hospitallers still exist today in the form of the Order of Malta and St. John's Ambulance.

== The Second Crusade ==
The [[Second Crusade]] occurred in 1145 when [[Edessa]] was retaken by Islamic forces. It was ultimately a failure, owing in part to the French king's insistence on betraying and attacking his only Muslim ally, [[Damascus]]. In 1187 the Muslims
captured Jerusalem under their leader [[Saladin]], which brought about a new call for a Crusade.

== The Third Crusade ==
The [[Third Crusade]] (1189-92) is famous for the battles between [[Richard I|Richard the Lionheart]] and [[Saladin]], highlighted by the deep respect the two enemies had for each other, and the sense of [[chivalry|chivalric]] honor of King Richard. The crusade also involved the king of France (who returned home after an argument with Richard at Acre) and the Holy Roman Emperor (who drowned en route). The crusade had the limited success of obtaining a truce between Richard and Saladin that promised to allow Christian pilgrimage to Jerusalem.

== The Fourth Crusade ==
The [[Fourth Crusade]], begun by [[Innocent III]] in 1202, intended to retake the Holy Land but was soon subverted by [[Venetian]]s who used the forces to sack the Christian city of [[Zara]]. Innocent excommunicated the Venetians and crusaders. Eventually the crusaders arrived in [[Constantinople]], but due to strife which arose between them and the [[Byzantines]], rather than proceed to the Holy Land the crusaders instead sacked Constantinople and other parts of [[Asia Minor]] effectively establishing the Latin Empire of Constantinople in [[Greece]] and Asia Minor . Both Zara and Constantinople were Christian cities, and the ultimate effect was a severely damaged relationship between Greek and Latin Christendom.

This was effectively the last crusade sponsored by the papacy; later crusades were sponsored by individuals.

== The Fifth Crusade ==
The [[Fifth Crusade]] and the [[Crusade of St. Louis]] both nearly succeeded in regaining Jerusalem by way of attacking Egypt and failed only through the greed of men like [[Robert of Artois]].

Legends tell of a so-called [[Childrens Crusades|Children's Crusade]], where a mass of peasant children, enthused at the notion of a holy war, embarked to the Holy Land, only to be captured by greedy Genovese merchant men and sold into slavery before ever leaving Europe. Historians, though divided, generally consider this event to be a fiction.

== Aftermath ==
Thus, though Jerusalem was held for nearly a century and other strongholds in the Near East would remain in Christian possession much longer, the crusades in the Holy Land ultimately failed to establish permanent Christian kingdoms. It should be noted that, in explaining why the crusaders ultimately failed, contemporary churchmen pointed out the sins of the crusaders. Islamic expansion into Europe, while temporarily stalled, would renew and remain a threat for centuries with the disintegration of the [[Byzantine Empire]] and culminate with the campaigns of [[Suleiman the Magnificent]] in the sixteenth century.

==References==
<references />

[[category:European History]]
[[category:Crusades]]

Talk:The Crusades

2008-08-19T19:17:56Z

Forwearemany:

My good lord, this is perhaps the greatest whitewashing of historical fact I have ever seen. Where is the information about the power crazed Pope? What about the slaughter of entire towns and the sacking of Constantinople? This page's analysis is a joke and thus, it has been deleted. There are barely any references at all on a subject that still affects us today. -[[Xenuite|Xenuite]]

:'...greatest whitewashing of historical fact I have ever seen...' Don't get out much do you? For what it shows it is pretty straightforward, and evenhanded. It can be expanded. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:40, 15 February 2008 (EST)

:: xenuites dramatic flare aside. what he saying is true. this article doesn't mention any of the atrocities of the crusades. when the crusaders took Jerusalem they slaughtered the whole city, Muslim, Christian, and Jew alike. the crusaders were not noble in the slightest. a good way to think of crusaders would be to compare them to modern day Jihadis. crazed fighters unafraid to kill innocents because they believe there on a mission from god to "kill the infidel". anyone who identifies with a crusader is either ignorant of a fool. these were not good people! [[User:Gailim|Gailim]] 01:04, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::: I disagree. There were atrocities, but Jerusalem was hardly the only city ever taken and many other places did not receive the same treatment. They were upset at a population that was fighting for the forces of Islam which had originally conquered the lands by the sword. In the Crusaders eyes, they were the liberators. The Crusades were fought over a couple of hundred years. To take isolated examples and make them the sole norm of what the Crusades were is unfair to the overall reality of what occurred. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:10, 24 February 2008 (EST)

::::I don't know much about the crusades, but be careful using the logic of "in the Crusaders eyes, they were the liberators". The Nazi's had a pretty high opinion of themselves as well. [[User:HelpJazz|Help]][[User talk:HelpJazz|Jazz]] 18:27, 24 February 2008 (EST)

:::::If the Crusaders acted like the Nazis, then I would agree. But too much of what is being taught about the Crusades today fixates on points/places in time (yes there were atrocities) and misses the total picture. The truth is they were a mixed lot fighting over a very complex issue. If your land is taken by force do you have the right later on to take it back? If so, after how much time has passed? Why is the original forced conquest barely mentioned and only the reconquest condemned? At the time the Crusades started, the Muslim Empire was twice the size of Christian Europe, and it had spread entirely by the sword (and would again a couple of centuries after the Crusades under the Ottomans). Was it wrong to harness the fighting spirit that was common during that time period and turn it against an outside threat? There are no easy answers, and certainly no definitive 'bad guys'. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 18:36, 29 February 2008 (EST)

:::::: I would like to point out that king Richard and Saladin did not have that much respect for each other as the article claims. When Richard first captured acre he held 3000 muslims hostage and demanded an obscene amount of gold and the release of several christian prisoners of war including a number of select prisoners. Saladin paid the ransom except for a few of the select prisoners and Richard (after receiving the ransom) Saw this as a breach of the agreement and slaugthered the prisoners, most of them civilians -[[toby|toby]]

::::::: Time and resources were on the side of Saladin. Saladin wanted to keep Richard from advancing and knew he could not do so with his prisoners. He stalled to get Richard to run out of supplies and give himself time to mount a defense and Richard showed him he was serious the way that they would in that time period. In the end Richard was unable to take Jerusalem when Saladin continued to attack that same weakness by retreating with a "scorched earth" policy including poisoning all wells so Richard would run out of food and water. Their admiration was seen in their coming to an arrangement to end the Crusade after personally talking with each other, an arrangement that both men trusted and honored. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 03:20, 8 March 2008 (EST)

== Gottschalk ==

There are many reasons to favor the information as written.
1) Durant barely mentions him
2) He operated quickly; nobles take time to gather an army as did the others who actually answered the call
3) He is never given a title, unlike Count Emicho right under him
4) He did not fight in the Holy Land, an oddity for a noble with an army of 10,000 -- which would have been one of the largest assembled.
5) He should have been sought after extensively to join the Crusade -- he was not

All indications point to the idea that your source is embellishing. It's not the first time a writer of a book has done so. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 21:14, 5 June 2008 (EDT)

I'll drop the whole Gottschalk thing, although Thomas Asbridge in ''The First Crusade'' writes, "Historians long believed that these atrocities were the work of uncontrolled peasant mobs, a vile distortion of the crusading ideal at the hands of the illiterate, undisciplined masses. The unsettling reality is that, although peasants did make up a large portion of the People's [Crusade's] expedition, most contingents... were led by knights. ... Certainly no rabble, this contingent, thousands strong, was a potent military force.... The pogroms of 1096 were not simply random, rogue incidents, nor were they necessarily misrepresentative of the ideals that drove the First Crusaders." You'll forgive the ramshackle quote; it's a long section. Perhaps we can compromise and change it from the current version:
<blockquote>
A smaller group of peasants led by Gottschalk took out their fervor on a more local target, Jews along their path. Their actions were condemned by the Church and the local populace.<ref>The Age of Faith, Will Durant, 1950, Pg. 589</ref><ref name="RS">Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: a History.'' 2005: Yale University Press. ISBN: 0300101287</ref> A much larger threat against Jews took the form of a larger mob led by Count Emico of Leiningen, who was more organized and more brutal. Already a man with a sullied reputation, he ignored the pleas of the Bishops in town after town to desist. Apart from being hidden by the local populace when they heard Emico was coming, there was little the Jews could do. Previously in Europe, local difficulties against Jewish communities would rise from time to time in various places, but would be isolated to that local area. This started a phase not previously seen, a systematic effort to weed out and attack Jewish communities.
</blockquote>
To this version:
<blockquote>
Smaller forces led by local noblemen took out their fervor on a more local target, Jews along their path. Their actions were condemned by the Church and the local populace.<ref>The Age of Faith, Will Durant, 1950, Pg. 589</ref><ref name="RS">Riley-Smith, Jonathan. ''The Crusades: a History.'' 2005: Yale University Press. ISBN: 0300101287</ref> A much larger threat against Jews took the form of a larger mob led by Count Emico of Leiningen, who was more organized and more brutal. Already a man with a sullied reputation, he ignored the pleas of the Bishops in town after town to desist. Apart from being hidden by the local populace when they heard Emico was coming, there was little the Jews could do. Previously in Europe, local difficulties against Jewish communities would rise from time to time in various places, but would be isolated to that local area. This started a phase not previously seen, a systematic effort to weed out and attack Jewish communities with brutal pogroms.
</blockquote>
I think this small change would satisfy us both, yes?--[[user:TomMoore|<font color="#000066" >Tom Moore</font>]]<sup>[[User talk:TomMoore|fiat justitia ruat coelum]]</sup> 17:36, 6 June 2008 (EDT)

:Actually Tom, this is the type of thing that I wish to avoid. The number of nobles in Germany, using the word in its loosest form, could not have been fit in a football stadium. But when we use the word, our readers will assume we are talking about men of prestige, renown, and power. The leaders of the peasants' cruade and their positions are unclear, except for such prominent men as Count Emico. Based on the lack of food and general disorganization, it does not match what would be expected if "nobles" (as the word is usually used) are in charge in any type of meaningful way.

: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)

:Your early change seem appropriate; I would make some reference to ex-Duke instead of removing the knowledge that he was once a Duke. This is assuming you will provide sources. The Battle of the Orontes (I left out the word the) and the count at Ascalon are both discussed in the Encyclopedia of Military History. Also, the battles are discussed and do not match the changes that you state above. For instance in The Battle of Orontes, the Moslem army was defeated due to being hemmed in between the river and the nearby mountains from successful counterattacks by Bohemund after Kerboga's initial attacks were repulsed. Unable to maneuver or stand against the charge, where the Crusader armor certainly made them superior man for man, they broke and fled. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 14:11, 18 August 2008 (EDT)

:I agree on the ex-Duke thing and will agree on the use of Orontes and the numbers at Ascalon. On the battle of Orontes itself, while the Crusaders did engage and defeat a portion of the army (the part under the direct command of Kerbogha), the vast majority of Muslim potentates who had been basically forced against their will into riding with Kerbogha abandoned him, not wishing to see him triumph. Source for this is Steven Runicman's ''A History of the Crusades Volume I: The First Crusade'', pp. 247-250, especially p. 248. For the surprise attack on the camp at Ascalon as opposed to a pitched battle, see the same book, pp. 296-7. I would aslo question the estimation of Kerbogha's force to be 75,000, as little to no evidence exists, and the most generous estimates of size I can find seem to be around 30,000-35,000, considering by comparison that the forces of the entired Byzantine Empire, the most heavily populated state in the world, had a total force of 70,000 men. That said, if you have a source I do not, I will defer on this issue. [[User:Forwearemany|Forwearemany]] 12:44, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

::The Byzantines traditionally had 150,000 men under arms, smaller than the Roman Empire before them, but they weren't really a military empire and preferred to spend their money in other ways. They counted on quality of troops above quantity. It is possible their numbers were down significantly after Manzikert, as they no longer had the rich lands of Anatolia from which to raise armies - an area where at one time they could raise up to 120,000 men when pressed to do so. The 75,000 men number in the battle comes from the Encylopedia of Military History. Remember that the Byzantine army that was coming to help turned away believing the situation was hopeless, an unlikely move if there were only 30,000 men coming to enforce the siege. If you have extra information on the Battle of Ascalon, then you are welcome to add it. [[User:Learn together|Learn together]] 13:39, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

::: To this I would say that since Alexius had been informed by Stephen of Blois that Antioch had fallen to Kerbogha, his decision to turn around was influenced by the assumption that he would have to assault the walls and engage in a protracted siege, leaving Constantinople vulnerable to assault, rather than being scared off by numbers. Both Runciman and Hans Eberhard Mayer take this view. However since it is an issue of contention, I'm willing to leave it and go ahead with the other alterations as soon as I have the wording right. [[User:Forwearemany|Forwearemany]] 15:17, 19 August 2008 (EDT)

Talk:The Crusades

2008-08-19T16:44:46Z

Forwearemany:

Talk:The Crusades

2008-08-16T22:48:35Z

Forwearemany: Request opinion for multiple minor revisions and also serious fleshing out of post-First Crusade sections