Talk:Historiography of the Crusades

Terminology

The second sentence in the Terminology Section is incorrect:

"In modern historiography, the term "crusade" first referred to a military expedition undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, or 13th centuries to the Holy Land."

According to the section herein on Modern works, the only modern work on the Crusades is the very flawed one by Runciman which does not take this definition. The other examples used in "modern historiography" are related to Kaiser Wilhelm, Franco's Spain and the foundation of the State of Israel and again do not reflect this. As I've said before, I have no idea why there are relevant to this article.

In fact, I am unable to find a single modern work that limits itself to the "numbered Crusades." The closest one is by Thomas Archer and Charles Kingsford from 1904 that avoids the discussion of the "other Crusades" but does not deny their existence.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

OED's first definition of the crusades is a. Historical. A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.α.. It supports this with examples from 1577 to 1856. The second and transferred definition is b. transferred. Any war instigated and blessed by the Church for alleged religious ends, a ‘holy war’; applied esp. to expeditions undertaken under papal sanction against infidels or heretics. with examples from 1603 to 1875, all these dates start within the Early Modern Period e.g. post medieval. The word crusade is a neologism from the 17th century, unknown to the majority of participants of the events covered. The Modern section refers to Carl Erdmann, Riley-Smith, Giles Constable, Hans Eberhard Mayer , Alphandery, Etienne Delaruelle, and Ernst-Dieter Hehl above and beyond Runciman. Needs some work still. There is no reference to limiting the scope to the 'numbered crusades' Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:06, 10 December 2021 (UTC)

You have me at a disadvantage as I don't have access to the OED. Is it possible to copy the entre on Crusades here without having the powers that be swoop down? Introducing Early Modern Period here is changing the goal posts. I don't actually believe that historians seriously use that term. It is certainly not used here, instead seeing the more common "Reformation" and "Enlightenment." The sentence above says "modern" not "early modern," which does not seem to part of this discussion. My comment stands as you a listing historians, most of which did not publish significant works on the subject. When I say "numbered Crusades," I am using a euphemism for what you call "traditionalist" thinking.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 05:11, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

crusade, n.

Pronunciation:

Brit. Hear pronunciation/kruːˈseɪd/

,

U.S. Hear pronunciation/kruˈseɪd/

Forms: α. 1500s croisad, croysade, ( croissard), 1500s–1700s croisade, (1600s crossiade); β. 1600s croisada, ( croy-), cruysado, ( crossado), 1600s–1700s croisado, croy-; γ. 1600s–1700s crusada, cruz-, 1500s–1700s crusado, cruz-; δ. 1700s– crusade.(Show Less)

Frequency (in current use): Show frequency band information

Etymology: = modern French croisade (= Old French croisee ), Provençal crozada , Spanish cruzada , Italian crociata , medieval Latin cruciata (cruzata ), being in the various languages the feminine noun of action formed on past participle of cruciāre , crociare , cruzar , croiser to cross v., literally a being crossed, a crossing or marking with the cross, a taking the cross: compare the early French croisement . The earliest and only Middle English equivalents were croiserie n. (13th–15th cent.), and croisee n. (15–17th cent.), from the corresponding Old French words. In 16th cent. French, croisée was displaced by croisade , with the new ending -ade suffix, adapted from the -ada of Provençal and Spanish. This croisade appeared in English c1575, and continued to be the leading form till c1760 (see Johnson's Dict.). About 1600, the Spanish cruzada made its appearance under the forms crusada and crusado (see -ado suffix); a blending of this with croisade produced two hybrid forms, viz. croisado (-ada ), with French stem and Spanish ending, frequent from c1611 to 1725, and crusade , with Spanish stem and French ending, mentioned by Johnson, 1755, only as a by-form of croisade , but used by Goldsmith and Gibbon, and now universal. From 15th to 17th centuries occasional attempts to adopt the medieval Latin and other Romanic forms, as cruciat , -ada , -ade , cruceat , were made: see cruciade n.(Show Less)

1.

a. Historical. A military expedition undertaken by the Christians of Europe in the 11th, 12th, and 13th centuries to recover the Holy Land from the Muslims.

1577 W. Harrison Descr. Eng. (1878) iii. iv. ii. 29 At such time as Baldwine archbishop of Canturburie preached the Croisad there.

1616 R. Betts tr. King James VI & I Remonstr. Right of Kings 161 Al such..as vndertooke the Croisade, became the Popes meere vassals.

1753 Ld. Chesterfield Let. 1 Jan. (1932) (modernized text) V. 1991 His [sc. Voltaire's] history of the Croisades.

1769 W. Blackstone Comm. Laws Eng. IV. 416 The knight errantry of a croisade against the Saracens.

β.

1611 J. Speed Hist. Great Brit. ix. xx. 734/1 A Croisado heere against the Turkes.

1655 J. Howell 4th Vol. Familiar Lett. xix. 50 A Croisada to the Holy Land.

1748 Ld. Chesterfield Let. 20 Sept. (1932) (modernized text) IV. 1222 This gave rise to the Croisadoes, and carried such swarms of people from Europe to the..Holy Land.

γ.

1631 J. Weever Anc. Funerall Monuments 793 To preach the Crusado.

a1678 A. Marvell Britannia & Raleigh in State Poems (1689) 12 Her true Crusada shall at last pull down The Turkish crescent and the Persian sun.

1765 H. Walpole Castle of Otranto (1834) v. 249 Until his return from the crusado.

δ.

1706 Phillips's New World of Words (new ed.) Croisado or Crusade.

c1750 W. Shenstone Ruin'd Abbey 118 Here the cowl'd zealots..Urg'd the crusade.

1755–73 S. Johnson Dict. Eng. Lang. Crusade, Crusado: see Croisade.

1781 E. Gibbon Decline & Fall III. lxi. 546 The principle of the crusades was a savage fanaticism.

1841 W. Spalding Italy & Ital. Islands II. 318 A single campaign of the first crusade, that of 1099.

1856 R. W. Emerson Eng. Traits xiii. 216 The power of the religious sentiment..inspired the crusades.

b. transferred. Any war instigated and blessed by the Church for alleged religious ends, a ‘holy war’; applied esp. to expeditions undertaken under papal sanction against infidels or heretics.

1603 J. Florio tr. M. de Montaigne Ess. ii. xxvii. 403 George Sechell..who vnder the title of a Croysada, wrought so many mischiefs.

1624 R. Montagu Gagg for New Gospell? xiii. 95 Vrban the eight, that now Popeth it, may proclaime a Croisado if hee will.

1681 Bp. G. Burnet Hist. Reformation: 2nd Pt. 122 Afterwards croisades came in use; against such princes as were deposed by popes.

1875 W. Stubbs Constit. Hist. III. xviii. 106 Commander of a crusade against the Hussites.

(Hide quotations)

2. figurative. An aggressive movement or enterprise against some public evil, or some institution or class of persons considered as evil.

1786 T. Jefferson Writings (1859) II. 8 Preach, my dear Sir, a crusade against ignorance.

1839 T. De Quincey Lake Reminisc. in Tait's Edinb. Mag. Feb. 102/2 This new crusade against the evils of the world.

1854 H. H. Milman Hist. Lat. Christianity III. vii. i. 114 Dunstan's life was a crusade..against the married clergy.

1893 N.E.D. at Crusade Mod. The Temperance crusade.

†3. A papal bull or commission authorizing a crusade, or expedition against infidels or heretics.

1588 (title) The Holy Bull and Crusado of Rome, first published by the Holy Father, Gregory the XIII.

1643 W. Prynne Soveraigne Power Parl. App 64 They concluded to crave ayd from all Christian Princes, and a Crossado from the Pope against the Moores.

a1677 I. Barrow Treat. Pope's Supremacy (1680) 31 To summon and commissionate Souldiers by Croisade, &c. to fight against Infidels, or persecute Infidels.

1724 T. Richers tr. Hist. Royal Geneal. Spain 247 The Pope, willing to help the King to sustain this War, sent him the Croisade, by which Means he raised 300,000 Ducats.

1771 O. Goldsmith Hist. Eng. I. 317 The pope published a crusade against the deposed monarch.

†4. Spanish History. A levy of money, or a sum raised by the sale of indulgences, under a document called Bula de la cruzada, originally for aggression or defence against the Moors, but afterwards diverted to other purposes. Obsolete.The sale of the indulgences granted under the Bula became a permanent source of revenue, held by the kings of Spain in consideration of expenses incurred by them as champions of Catholicism and in the conversion of the American Indians. A board for the collection and administration of these revenues was created in the 16th cent. called Consejo de la Cruzada, the court or tribunal of the Crusade.

1579 G. Fenton tr. F. Guicciardini Hist. Guicciardin i. 39 The moneyes gathered in Spaine..vnder coler of the Croysade.

1579 G. Fenton tr. F. Guicciardini Hist. Guicciardin xii. 688 The Pope had transferred to the king of Aragon for two yeres the moneys and collections called the Croissards of the realme of Spaine.

1630 tr. G. Botero Relations Famous Kingdomes World (rev. ed.) 531 His Subsidies which he levieth extraordinarily (of late times for the most part turned into ordinary, as his Croisados).

a1639 D. Digges Compl. Ambassador (1655) 288 To suffer a levy of money to be made within his Dominions, termed by the name Crusado, for the maintenance of the Turkish Wars.

1716 in London Gaz. No. 5480/3 The President of the Cruzada is ordered to draw up a perfect Account of the intire Produce of the Cruzada, as well in Spain as in the Indies.

1772 J. Adams tr. A. de Ulloa Voy. S. Amer. (ed. 3) II. vii. xii. 132 Here [i.e. in Peru] is also a court of inquisition, and of the croisade.

(Hide quotations)

†5.

a. A marking with the cross; the symbol of the cross, the badge borne by crusaders. Obsolete.

1613 R. Zouche Dove 43 Like the rich Croisade on th' Imperiall Ball.

1641 W. Prynne Antipathie 299 He tooke up the Crossado and went..with King Richard..to the warres in the holy Land.

1700 J. Tyrrell Gen. Hist. Eng. II. 772 He took upon him the Crusado, i.e. Vowed an Expedition to the Holy-Land.

(Hide quotations)

†b. figurative (with allusion to ‘cross’ in the sense of trial or affliction). Obsolete.

1654 R. Whitlock Ζωοτομία 531 The Noble Order of the Cruysado Heaven bestoweth not on Milk-sops.

1654 R. Whitlock Ζωοτομία 533 The Cruysado, or Crosse of Christ, above all Orders taken up by the Potentates of the World.

(Hide quotations)

6. attributive.

1750 T. Carte Gen. Hist. Eng. II. 706 The crusado troops of Cardinal Beaufort.

1764 T. Harmer Observ. Passages Script. xviii. i. 43 The Croisade army arrived there in the end of May. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:27, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

When it comes to historians this is a bit of fun, but it gives an idea of the historians historian https://apholt.com/2017/10/07/15-most-important-books-on-the-crusades/#more-12432 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:38, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish Very interesting. I knew I should've kept my OED when I moved. I did a little research on this and found the first passage in a work by William Harrison that relates to something that Baldwin of Forde said about the Third Crusade. Here's the full quote:

"..And the experience of this latter is noted by Giraldus Cambrertfis (Gerald of Wales) to haue beene feene and vfed in Wales, where he did eat in Waien, an Giraldus mya. cheefe made of hinds milke, at fuch time as Baldwine; archbifhop of Canturburie preached the croifad there, when they were both lodged in a gentlemans houfe, whofe wife of purpofe kept a deirie of the fame."

The quote by Lord Chesterfield of Voltaire's is also interesting since the latter included the Albigensian Crusade in his work. Harrison and Étienne Pasquier seem to be the earlier uses of the word, although when Pasquier wrote of his six crusades, he omitted what we call the 5th and 6th, going directly to the crusades of Louis IX, so the statement in the article is incorrect (not that anyone would notice).

The reference to "1706 Phillips's New World of Words" is also interesting. Here's the complete entry"

"Croisado or Crusade: The Expedition of Christian Princes for the Conquest of the Holy Land; a Holy War formerly undertaken against the Infidels out of Devotion, upon encouragement of the Pope's Bulls promising immediate entrance into Heaven, to all that dy'd in the Service; so that those Warriours were distinguish'd by wearing the Figure of the Cross of several Colours."

I may write an article on based on the OED research. I'm not sure of the OED reference in this article as it has a paywall, but I'm not sure anyone would notice. There may be a better place to pull a definition, e.g. Catholic encyclopedia. I'm aware of the cited article by Holt and will have more to say on it later.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed the Pasquier reference, that mistake got into the article by a mistaken edit between GAR and FAC for some reason. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:32, 12 December 2021 (UTC)

Norfolkbigfish Comments:

1. In the sentence "In modern historiography, the term "crusade" first referred to a military ..." the beginning "In modern historiography" just confuses things, especially since you just talked about the OED. The sentence reads just fine without it. 2. In Historical Background, the stuff that begins with "Cyprus was Western-ruled from 1191 until 1571...." is out of place. I don't think it is necessary. 3. The Zimmern Chronicle is a little advanced for this audience, and some like Riley-Smith are quite happy with Chanson d'Antioche.

I might be bold and change the title of the section to "The First Crusades" a la Riley-Smith.Dr. Grampinator (talk)

The write-up on Charles Mills is misleading. He referenced nine crusades, but they are differently numbered. I'll call his crusades CM1, etc.

CM1=First Crusade

CM2=Second Crusade

CM3=Third Crusade

CM4=Crusade of 1197

CM5=Fourth Crusade

CM6=Fifth Crusade and Sixth Crusade

CM7=Baron's Crusade

CM8=Seventh Crusade

CM9=Eighth Crusade and Lord Edward's Crusade.

Also, the statement "seven major and numerous lesser campaigns" is not universally accepted. Not everyone combines the Fifth and Sixth, but most think Barons' is a major one. Also, I can't find anyone that calls it the Ninth Crusade. My personal preference is nine majors, which would be One through Eight + Barons'. Maybe others could chime in, but I do think seven majors is wrong. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)Dr. Grampinator (talk) 06:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

The number seven is sourced to Davies. The important aspect of the sentence is that the numbering is contested and arbitrary so this had been copy edited to match, hence some historians. Removed the confusing clause, out of place content and renamed the section as per suggestion. What do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:58, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Since no one else is chiming in and you are actually doing the editing, you win. Just out of curiosity, what are his seven?Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:35, 13 December 2021 (UTC)

Not a matter of winning, just of relying on sources to state this explicitly @Dr. Grampinator, if there are other reputable sources that say otherwise just put them in. Davies doesn't say, which doesn't help. There was someone somewhere who listed five, based on campaigns that actually arrived. That seems a logical argument-I will did it out and add rather than take something away. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps winning was the wrong word. Since Davies doesn't say, maybe you should say seven or eight, or seven to nine, majors and leave it to the reader's imagination. As the Muller count, despite what Tyerman says, I don't think the Seventh Crusade could be counted in that list. But again, we'll see if any one notices.

As to the change to the ODNB citation in Crusades, the template provides a citation that says a subscription is required to read the article. It isn't, this is a free article (who knew that such existed). I don't know if the Template can be tweaked, but right now, the casual reader will not go to ODNB because they will think they can't read it. I suggest changing it back. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

@Dr. Grampinator - I have asked for help on fixing the template Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:33, 14 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed @Dr. Grampinator, apparently it needed the attribute freearticle=y Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:11, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Modern Writeup

I have to take exception to much that is written in this section.

"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."

This is obviously false, as the examples of Foxe and Voltaire above show. It's not clear what the point of the rest of the paragraph is so I'll just note that Mayer was not a traditionalist and Riley-Smith was not a pluralist by these definitions. And who is John Gilchrist

The material on the Wisconsin project is also incorrect. The project was originally planned in the 1930's with La Monte's paper (published in 1940). The statement:

"Now it is challenged in terms of its coherence grounds in the light of new research."

The implication is that Joshua Prawer and Jean Richard are challenging what is in the Wisconsin project. How can that be when they wrote five chapters between the two of them in the work? You are accepting Prawer's work as gospel when it is in fact controversial. He is making some proposals that haven't been universally accepted. His work Histoire du royaume Latin de Jérusalem allegedly refuting Wisconsin was in fact written in 1969, before Wisconsin was published.

So Runciman is "derivative, tendentious and misleading" and Wisconsin is incoherent. Why are we even bothering? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)

The section needs a copy edit for clarity certainly, but all the comments are sourced, and well sourced. That said other sources are available. There is nothing here that is particularly contentious; I doubt if you could find an academic now working in the field who would contest that Runciman is flawed, Wisconsin is dated and there was little thought to defining what a crusade was until the 20th century. Equally, there would be broad agreement that they were important at the time and played a part in the development of thinking on crusading. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 07:50, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

As for Gilchrist, he was a specialist in Canon Law. See:“The Erdmann Thesis and Canon Law,1083–1141,” in Crusade and Settlement: Papers Read at the First Conference of the Society for the Study of the Crusades and the Latin East and Presented to R. C. Smail, ed. Peter W. Edbury (Cardiff: University College Cardiff Press,1985), pp. 37–45 Norfolkbigfish (talk) 11:00, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a few comments in rebuttal. First, just because there is a "reliable source," doesn't mean that it is correct. Tyerman's comments in Murray's Encyclopedia are, frankly, irrational. He calls Wisconsin lacking in coherence and cites works by Prawer and Richard as the reason. Prawer and Richard wrote the relevant chapters in Wisconsin. Further, in the next paragraph, he cites work that modifies and contradicts Prawer. His statement about when the project began is contracted by his own work (Debate on the Crusades). There he has some choice words for the study including "contributed nothing." Apparently, the massive 6-volume study on the Crusades by the leading scholars of the '60s, '70s and '80s is not good enough for Tyerman. But, if it's the consensus of the Wikipedia Crusades community that all of the scholarship of the 20th century is worthless, so be it.

I am curious as to what historians today regard as dated about Wisconsin. Obviously, Tyerman thinks that, but as I pointed out, without any valid rationale. What new, uncontested research has come out since it was published?

As to "there was little thought to defining what a crusade was until the 20th century." Perhaps I don't understand what you mean. There have been definitions of what a crusade was since it was first used in the 16th century. And I'm sure there was plenty of thought that went into it. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)

Tyerman is widely respected amongst crusade academics, possibly only second in terms of influence to Riley-Smith in recent decades. That said his critique of the Wisconsin project is based on a general view amongst medievalists that, like Runciman, it is is large in scale, important in terms of bredth and content but cannot now be used unreservedly. It is not just Tyerman, it is fairly easy to find numerous other active academics who express similar criticism:

• While many of the contributions in the so-called “Wisconsin History” are now dated, others can be read with great profit—Paul E. Chevedden – The University of Texas at Austin
• A masterly late-twentieth century overview of the crusades, much of which is dated, but some of which has not yet been replaced—Paul F. Crawford – California University of Pennsylvania
• Today, its usefulness is uneven because many of the pieces employ outdated approaches and/or predate more recent discoveries and sources of information—John D. Hosler – U.S. Command and General Staff College
• Although much of its scholarship was uneven and is now dated, and publication was slow, this work was for its time the standard reference work in the field—Edward Peters – University of Pennsylvania

There has been much talk of it being replaced by a new multi-volume Cambridge History of the Crusades edited by Jonathan Phillips, Thomas F. Madden, Marcus Bull, and Andrew Jotischky.

As to definitions of the crusading I have not seen a single source that attempts this prior to the 20th century, or indeed an academic who claims such thinking existed. Again Tyerman discusses the historiography, it would seem unlikely that he would have missed these if they existed. There may be misunderstanding of the phrasing. The word was used in the 16th century, but I havn't seen any source that attempts to define the paradigm before the 20th century. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:56, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

You have a much higher view of Tyerman than I do. He seems to talk in circles. Sometimes he likes Constable, other times he doesn't. At one point, he questioned whether the first three Crusades were really crusades. He thinks all historians other than Smail and Riley-Smith are hacks. Try reading Krey's review of Smail's signature work. Here are some highlights:

• Smail finds that virtually all the previous writers on the subject have erred...which his own detailed investigation cannot fully support
• ...to maintain that our ancestors learned nothing from their century of contact with the superior devices of the East presupposes a degree of stupidity on their part which seems quite unreasonable.

He attributes the broad approach in Wisconsin to Riley-Smith. He basically discounts all modern historians but these two. Here are some of the authors of Wisconsin, the work that he hates so:

Kenneth Setton, Sidney Painter, H. A. R. Gibb, Claude Cahen, Steven Runciman, Hans Mayer, Philip Hitti, T. S. R. Boase, Aziz Atiya, Jean Richard and Joshua Prawer

His criticism is ludicrous as it is of Runciman. Atiya's review of Volume 1 is very positive. As I pointed out, he criticizes Wisconsin for not including material of Prawer and Richard, which it does, and then goes on the criticize Prawer.

I continue to be confused about your statement about definitions of crusades. This seems to clear to everyone but me.

As to the constant criticism, I don't think there have been any new facts uncovered about the Crusades since the 19th century. The rest is opinion, and that keeps changing.

I anxiously await the new Cambridge History of the Crusades. I hope Tyerman likes it. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 02:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

When 33 academic specialists where asked for the 10 most important works on the subject of the Crusades (and answered on importance, not merit, accuracy or innovation Riley was by far and away the most mentioned with 31. Tyerman came second with 14 (the list continued with 3 Carole Hillenbrand (13), 4 Norman Housley (12) 5= Carl Erdmann and Steven Runciman (11) 7 Joshua Prawer (10) 8= John France and Hans Eberhard Mayer (8) and 10= Thomas Madden, R.C. Smail, Eric Christiansen, and Kenneth M. Setton (7)). Rather than Tyerman basically discounts all modern historians, Tyerman's list was works by Bongars, Michaud, von Sybel, Runciman (yes, Runciman), Prawer, Mayer, Riley-Smith, Hillenbrand and Christiansen. A fine list, but more he went on to describe the world of contemporary research the magisterial Amnon Linder and the wonderful Cecilia Gaposchkin on liturgy; John France on warfare; John Pryor on logistics; Bernard Hamilton and Malcolm Barber on more or less everything; Anthony Luttrell on the Hospitallers; Peter Edbury on texts and on Cyprus; Jonathan Shepard and Peter Frankopan outmanoeuvring Runciman on his own ground; Werner Paravicini on Prussia; Jacques Paviot on Burgundy or the extraordinary and elegant polymath Jean Richard etc etc . The list is long and could be extended far, which suggests the subject survives in fruitful diversity. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:32, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Btw I asked Andrew Buck about the Cambridge History and he replied that although he wasn't involved directly the last he heard was it was massively delayed by contributors not meeting their deadlines and we shouldn't expect publication in the next two or three years, but it would happen sometime. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

As you can tell, I'm not a fan of Tyerman. His attacks on Runciman are, in my opinion, unprofessional and biased. I'm familiar with the referenced list. I won't comment much on what Tyerman says about Runciman's work other than he chides him for using material that previous historians had written. I guess God's War was written from whole cloth with no consideration for past works. He then goes on to criticize Runciman for ignoring Prawer's work! Yes, the same work of Prawer's that was written two decades after Runciman's. And then, in God's War, he doesn't touch much on Prawer at all, and in his Modern Historiography article, he goes on to point out how Prawer's work has received "serious modification, if not contradiction" by his students. But, he really likes Prawer and he really dislikes Runciman.

Interestingly, one of Tyerman's major problems with the Wisconsin study was that it was delayed by contributors not meeting their deadlines and therefore out-of-date. I can only assume that he is not one of the contributors to the Cambridge History. BTW, I read an interview with Tyerman on NPR where he flatly states that the Crusades have no relevance to modern history. He obviously has a problem with consistency. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I can tell @Dr. Grampinator, but with sincere respect your opinion of Tyerman is irelevent in the world of WP—and I say that as someone who has his own criticisms of the man. He easily reaches the threshold for WP:RS. Furthermore, I doubt that you would find any academic active in the field who would argue with the thrust of the comments in the article that he is cited to support: namely Runciman was influential but the work is flawed by error; the Wisconsin project is a broad resource, useful in parts but numerous contributions are out-dated. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:16, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Clearly, Tyerman is a reliable source, as is Riley-Smith. But even their historical works have errors. I have found statements in God's War and The First Crusaders that when checked against their references do not pan out. I think it is nearly impossible to write on that scale and not have errors. That being said, their writings (especially Tyerman's) on historiography are opinion pieces. His dislike of Runciman is obsessive and he gets prone to hyperbole. Do you really think that Runciman portrays all Muslims as having tolerance, faith and martial vigour, and all Crusaders as ignorant, rough, and rude? His statement on Wisconsin is misleading, and refuted by his own words. His praise of Prawer is again contradicted by later pointing out that his work is flawed.

I suggest reading Mayer's article on America and the Crusade. You get a much better, less emotional discussion on Wisconsin. And the fact that different chapters have different viewpoints is to be expected. Pick any group of three experts on a subject and you will get three viewpoints (actually more like six). To me that's a good thing. It separates what is historical fact and what is speculation.

BTW, my own (biased) opinion is that Tyerman's work is not that well thought of. I think he wanted God's War to be the new gold standard and it isn't. How else do you explain Asbridge's comprehensive work 6 years later. For what it's worth.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I am not that taken with God's War myself and share a preference for Asbridge as well. If you were interested in where academia is currently at you might find https://www.eventbrite.co.uk/e/understanding-the-sources-for-the-crusades-new-approaches-tickets-193777081467?aff=ebdsoporgprofile interesting. We can agree on Tyerman, then to a point, but do you still believe that Runciman is not considered dubious by academics or that many of the chapters of the Wiconsin collaboration have been superceded by more modern research? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:37, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

As to Meyer's article it is very useful on his view 41 years ago, but it is not useful on whether the Collaboration has been superceded since? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:44, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I am a strong supporter of research and read as much of it as I can afford. But the fact remains that there are a finite number of original texts, charters, etc., out there and barring new translations, the facts that have been known for over 100 years don't change much. Interpretations and other analyses are interesting but impact more of the work that you are interested in rather than what I typically work on. I don't know much other than the Holy Land Crusades, First through Seventh, and so can't speak to other campaigns, politics, methodology, etc.

I did go and review the "modern" works to see if there were any citations that were different from what were used by Runciman or Wisconsin and didn't find any. The use of more recent translations of the Arabic works has an impact and has changed some interpretations but I don't think the basic facts, like those relevant to a high-level Wikipedia article, are changed. Plus these new interpretations are changing, a la Tyerman's discussion of Prawer that morphs in two paragraphs from "gospel" to "maybe not correct."

An example: I wrote an article called Castle of al-Al based on al-Qalanisi and Runciman. The first cut at it was immediately attacked based on strong negative comments by Moshe Sharon, based on archeological information. Then a second contemporary account was found that corroborated al-Qalanisi, and further archeological analysis moved it to the "don't really know" category. The latest research on the subject was published in Crusader Landscapes in the Medieval Levant: The Archaeology and History of the Latin East, a nice book that set me back $85 plus tax and shipping. (A good investment, as it is now selling new for $122.) In the scheme of things, al-Al doesn't really generate much interest in Wikipedia, but it is good research and maybe someday some more information will appear.

I agree that no Crusades historian today views Runciman or even Wisconsin as the last word on the subject, but I also think that they would think the Tyerman attacks are warranted at this level. Lock in the Rutledge Companion has a neutral discussion. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 02:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have taken your more general point @Dr. Grampinator, and attempted to moderate the language—what do you think? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:45, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Much better, although I have a hard time understanding why Tyerman calls out Wisconsin for "lack of coherence." If he means that different viewpoints are expressed in different articles, why is that a bad thing? His explanation in the reference if refuted by his own words. If you must include Prawer, etc., I would do it after Wisconsin and mention Ferdinand Chalandon and René Grousset before Runciman. Tyerman thinks Runciman is copied from Chalandon and Atiya regards his work as the next step after Grousset. OMHO, Smail is not viewed a revolutionary (in a positive sense) by anyone but Tyerman.

The section on Recovery Texts could probably use a new title, but I can't think of a good one. Maybe include Benedetto Accolti the Elder as the earliest and is in RHC. Also Leibniz. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Ferdinand Chalandon

I know you hate to hear me bitch about Tyerman, but his statement about Runciman being derived from Chalandon is gratuitous. Runciman's Volume 1 roughly follows Chalandon, but is twice as long. As to the others, I guess he is claiming the God's War is not based on Gesta, William of Tyre, Grousett? Whenever he can present Runciman in a negative light, he does. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Np @Dr. Grampinator, appreciate your engagement & politeness. The key question is how to place Runciman within this topic, and in doing that it tends to be snippets of comment, even in Tyerman's Debate on the Crusades. Tyerman employs the disdain of a crusty old Oxford Don to describe Runciman, but there is little in what he writes that any currently active academic historian would disagree with. Ultimately, his gripe is that Runciman is not an historian and as such uncritically uses the mentioned sources, there is no analysis or rigour. That said all agree his influence, and literary skills as a writer. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:59, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

It baffles me as to why Tyerman would be so adamant against Runciman. My theory is that he wanted God's War to be the new standard and that Madden's [I think] review of his book shot that down. Again, how can he claim that Runciman was not a historian when he was selected for four chapters in Wisconsin? He is essentially saying that whole generation, less the few (e.g., Prawer) that he likes is wrong.

As to the quote, I would ask, why weren't Chalandon and Grousett translated into English to become the standard references? And why did it take over 60 years for a potential replacement for Runciman to appear? And I don't think anyone agrees with Tyerman that Runciman just used other work with no analysis or rigor. It's because of his alleged slant towards Byzantium and against the West that is the basis of their complaints. They might disagree with his analysis but they're not saying it was taken from previous work. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

On the contrary, I don't think anyone agrees with the implication that Runciman exhibited rigour or analysis, not even the man himself. He wrote I believe that the supreme duty of the historian is to write history, that is to say, to attempt to record in one sweeping sequence the greater events and movements that have swayed the destinies of man.—not much detail or rigour there. But that is the answer to your rhetorical question, it remains a good read, close to fiction and occasionally actually fiction. Seeing as you mention Madden, he is also highly critical— I am well aware of the problems with Runciman's work...Many of Runciman's conclusions about the motives of crusaders, their relationship with Byzantium, and relations between the empire and the Latin Kingdom have been contradicted by recent studies and In the aftermath of September 11, the popular media approached the medieval crusades strictly from Runciman's perspective... I consider that a bad thing. Harris criticised Madden's decision to include Runciman in The Crusades:Essential Readings:One of the main problems is its almost uncritical acceptance of the main Byzantine source for the First Crusade, Anna Comnena’s Alexiad...Runciman also takes at face value Anna Comnena’s descriptions...Madden is, of course, well aware of all this. He openly admits in his introduction that many aspects of Runciman’s work have been criticised since he wrote (pp. 6, 11), and he himself has done much to mitigate Runciman’s picture...One can even detect a certain antipathy to the Runciman thesis on Madden’s part in his introduction to this collection, albeit expressed in oblique fashion. He is highly critical of the 1995 BBC Television series, presented by Terry Jones, because it portrayed the crusades as ‘a long, misguided war of intolerance, ignorance and barbarism against a peaceful and sophisticated Muslim world’ (p.1). Substitute ‘Byzantine’ for ‘Muslim’, and you are left with the essence of Runciman’s opinion on the matter, one that he expressed succinctly in interviews given for the Jones programme. Jones was, moreover, heavily dependent on Runciman as his main historical source. He even faithfully reproduced some of Runciman’s errors. In the second episode, for example, while recounting the siege of Antioch in 1097-8, Jones mentions how Alexius I obligingly sent the English exile, Edgar the Aethling, from Constantinople with a shipload of siege engines for the hard-pressed crusaders. The story appears in History of the Crusades, vol. 1, p. 227, but subsequent investigations have shown that it has no basis whatsoever. It therefore seems impossible to criticise Jones without, by implication, criticising Runciman as well...In short, even though his work is now fifty years old and many of his ideas discarded, in one respect, namely his sheer accessibility combined with genuine erudition, Runciman remains unsurpassed. For this reason, Madden is justified in including him. Yet his very inclusion is also ample proof that a re-examination of east-west relations at the time of the crusades is long overdue.' Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Andrew Holt summarises nicely:

Yet while the historians cited above may agree on the significance of Runciman’s work in inspiring popular modern understandings of the medieval crusading movement, or emphasize how his work inspired their own studies of crusading, they also generally agree that one should approach Runciman’s scholarship with significant caution. While modern crusade historians may think fondly on their first experiences with Runciman, the beauty of his prose, and his keen ability as a story teller, his scholarship has largely been rejected by current scholars.

Alan V. Murray, for example, credited Runciman for sparking his interest in the crusades, yet he also notes, “at university I began to doubt some of Runciman’s interpretations, and subsequently have disagreed with a great many things he wrote….it is a work which has had a huge capacity to inspire despite its flaws.” Similarly, Jaroslav Folda, who referenced Runciman’s work as the first “serious” history on the crusades that he ever read, also notes, “I have found other historians of the Crusades whose interpretations were more reliable….” A bit harsher in his assessment is Paul F. Crawford, who while he acknowledges the influence of the work and its “beautiful prose,” also notes that it is, “shoddily researched and conveyed a profoundly flawed view of the crusades.” Most soberly, or perhaps tongue in cheek, Laurence Marvin has noted that while he was “heavily influenced” by Runciman’s work, he has also spent the years afterwards “in recovery fighting off its influence.” Marvin further notes, “It ought to have a warning informing its readers that if they plan to read only one thing on the crusades, they cannot read these volumes.”

Indeed, this Manichean view of Runciman’s work by historians, praising its popularizing of the field, its role in inspiring others to become historians, and its beautiful prose on the one hand, is countered by the alternative (widely held) view of his scholarship as poor on the other hand. It’s as if historians want to love Runciman, but can’t quite commit, as his scholarship is ultimately a deal breaker. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I'm sure we have beat this horse to death, but I can't help but comment on Edgar the Aethling. The source was Orderic Vitalis and was regarded as true by both Chalandon and Grousett, and is repeated in Wisconsin. So, as late as 1969 and likely later, the story was believed by historians. The first refutation I can find is in Tyerman's work on England and the Crusades in 1988 and it is also discussed in Asbridge's First Crusade in 2004. An attack on Runciman based on this is hardly valid. This is my last word (perhaps) on the subject. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I have tried to tone down the the sentence to something less controversal. However, the Edgar instance is quite intructive on Runciman (and Wisconsin). It is in Wisconsin because Runciman put it there and even at the time of writing Runciman knew it was debatable, and he continued peddling this into the 80s. (CW Davis challenged this as early as 1920 in his biography of Robert Curthose). It is well documented the Edgar was in Scotland in the Autumn of 1097, not on crusade. It is not credible that he could have sailed from there in time to be in Antioch in the Spring of 1098. Rather than doubt a source written decades after the events, Runciman surmised, without any evidence whatsoever, that he could have made the journey by land. My undersatnding is that historians believe that Orderic confused this event with Edgars arrival in the Holy Land in 1102. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 14:51, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

You know, I hate it when you're right. Time to move on. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:53, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Moving on @Dr. Grampinator, I was going add a sincere but jokey aside, but they all sounded like sarcasm or smug condecension neither of which would have been intended. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:30, 6 January 2022 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Historians and histories of the Crusades which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 21:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)