Talk:Crusading movement

Coverage and Neutrality

The article currently presents the Crusading movement primarily from a Western Christian perspective, which limits its neutrality and comprehensiveness. For instance, the motivations and theological framing of Latin Christians are explored in depth, but there is very limited discussion of how the Crusades were perceived and experienced by Muslim, Jewish, and Eastern Christian communities. For example, the article briefly notes the massacre of Jews during the First Crusade but does not explore the broader impact of repeated crusading on Jewish life in Europe. Similarly, the section on the Islamic response is minimal, with no mention of the intellectual and cultural consequences of the Crusades in the Islamic world.

Additionally, some language may unintentionally reflect bias—for example, referring to certain military campaigns as "remarkable victories" (e.g., the capture of Jerusalem in 1099) without qualification or acknowledgment of the accompanying civilian massacres. Such phrasing can appear triumphalist and fails to reflect the complexity of events or the perspectives of those who suffered.

To improve neutrality, the article should incorporate the viewpoints of non-Western groups more thoroughly and ensure that language remains factual and balanced. Including well-sourced content on Muslim reactions and adaptations, Byzantine concerns over Western interference, and Jewish responses to crusading violence would contribute to a more rounded and objective account. Avoiding value-laden terms and presenting differing interpretations side-by-side will also help achieve a more neutral tone.

ChasetheDevil (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

The article is about the movement, which clearly narrows the scope to one more focused on the Crusaders. Compare the focus of this article versus that of the articles about each of the Crusades themselves. Remsense ‥ 论 16:00, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

"the broader impact of repeated crusading on Jewish life in Europe" Do we have written primary sources about how the Jews viewed the pogroms at the hands of the Crusaders? Dimadick (talk) 16:06, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for the responses. Regarding the scope: while it’s true that this article is about the movement rather than individual campaigns, that actually supports the case for broader contextualization. A movement, by definition, encompasses not only those who participated directly (e.g., Latin Christian crusaders), but also those affected by it over time—politically, religiously, and culturally. Even within a Crusader-focused frame, the movement's formation, evolution, and justification were shaped through interactions with—and responses from—Muslim powers, the Byzantine Empire, and Jewish communities. These are essential to understanding how the movement developed and how it was perceived beyond its own adherents. Comparable thematic articles (e.g., Jihad or Islamic revival) regularly include external reactions and impacts, which is a precedent worth following here to ensure encyclopedic balance.

On the question of Jewish sources: yes, there are several contemporary Jewish accounts of the First Crusade pogroms, particularly in the Rhineland massacres of 1096. The Hebrew Chronicles—such as those of Solomon bar Simson and Eliezer bar Nathan—are vivid and widely cited in secondary literature. They not only detail the violence but also give insight into Jewish theological and communal reactions. These sources have been translated and discussed in modern scholarship (e.g., in Robert Chazan's European Jewry and the First Crusade), making them both accessible and verifiable within Wikipedia’s sourcing standards. Including perspectives based on such sources would help present a fuller, more balanced view of the Crusading movement's consequences. ChasetheDevil (talk) 16:20, 3 May 2025 (UTC)

Proposed Rewrite of Lead Section

To help align the article with Wikipedia's Manual of Style for lead sections and support potential GA nomination, I propose the following rewritten lead. It aims to summarize the main points more concisely and clearly, using neutral, encyclopedic language:

The Crusading movement refers to a series of religiously sanctioned military campaigns initiated, supported, and sometimes led by the Latin Church during the medieval period. Originally directed at recapturing the Holy Land from Muslim control, crusades later expanded to include campaigns against pagans, heretics, and political opponents of the Papacy. The movement played a significant role in shaping the religious, political, and military landscape of medieval Europe and its neighbors.

Rooted in Christian concepts of holy war, the Crusades were underpinned by the granting of spiritual rewards, such as indulgences, for those who took part. The movement emerged during a period of reform within the Church, and its ideological foundation was shaped by evolving views on penance, violence, and the defense of Christendom.

While the most well-known crusades targeted the Eastern Mediterranean, campaigns were also waged in the Iberian Peninsula, the Baltic region, and parts of Central Europe. Participants came from diverse social backgrounds, and the crusading ethos influenced European culture, art, law, and state-building.

Historians continue to debate the nature of the Crusades—whether they constituted colonial enterprises, religious pilgrimages, or ideological conflicts. The movement has also been subject to modern criticism and reinterpretation, particularly in light of its impact on Christian-Muslim relations and its legacy in contemporary historical narratives.

Feedback and further edits welcome! ChasetheDevil (talk) 11:54, 30 May 2025 (UTC)

I agree that the present lead should be rewritten radically (for instance, its first sentence is a closely paraphrased version of an encyclopedic definition of crusading ideology). I would prefer to rewrite the lead when the article is completed, but I do not oppose other approaches. The first sentence of the proposed lead defines the crusades instead of the crusading movement. Borsoka (talk) 01:29, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

Thanks @Borsoka for the thoughtful feedback.

The proposed version is a strong starting point: it is clearer, better structured, and more neutral in tone than the current lead. That said, I also share your concern that the first sentence reads more like a definition of "Crusades" rather than the broader "Crusading movement," which implies a longer-term, ideologically and institutionally sustained phenomenon beyond specific military campaigns.

Perhaps a small tweak to the first sentence could resolve this distinction, for example:

"The Crusading movement was a long-term religious, ideological, and military phenomenon initiated, supported, and often led by the Latin Church during the medieval period. It began with campaigns to capture the Holy Land and expanded over time to include wars against pagans, heretics, and political opponents of the papacy."

This could help distinguish the movement from the individual Crusades while preserving the improved tone and clarity of the draft.

Happy to help workshop further revisions as the article develops! ChasetheDevil (talk) 15:13, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

e.g. revised candidate

The Crusading movement refers to a long-term religious, ideological, and military phenomenon initiated, supported, and often led by the Latin Church during the Middle Ages. Originally directed at recapturing the Holy Land from Muslim control, the movement later expanded to include campaigns against pagans, heretics, and political opponents of the Papacy. It played a significant role in shaping the religious, political, and military landscape of medieval Europe and its neighbours.

Rooted in Christian concepts of holy war, the Crusades were underpinned by the granting of spiritual rewards, such as indulgences, for those who took part. The movement emerged during a period of reform within the Church, and its ideological foundation was shaped by evolving views on penance, violence, and the defence of Christendom.

While the most well-known crusades targeted the Eastern Mediterranean, campaigns were also waged in the Iberian Peninsula, the Baltic region, and parts of Central Europe. Participants came from diverse social backgrounds, and the crusading ethos influenced European culture, art, law, and state-building.

Historians continue to debate the nature of the Crusades—whether they constituted colonial enterprises, religious pilgrimages, or ideological conflicts. The movement has also been subject to modern criticism and reinterpretation, particularly in light of its impact on Christian-Muslim relations and its legacy in contemporary historical narratives.

ChasetheDevil (talk) 15:57, 31 May 2025 (UTC)

English Variant

Hey Remsense — thanks for your edit. Just to clarify, which English variant are we using for this article? I noticed the revert and want to ensure consistency moving forward. ChasetheDevil (talk) 15:25, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Oh this always happens. Top of the article has one ENGVAR tag, talk page somehow another. If I'm wrong in my recollection of which one is more ancient, feel free to switch everything over. Cheers, and thanks for helping out! Remsense ‥ 论 15:27, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Thanks, Remsense — I see you've updated the tags to indicate Oxford English. That works for me, as long as we're consistent throughout. I'll go through and make sure any remaining American spellings that aren't part of Oxford usage (like defense or honor) are adjusted accordingly. Let me know if you'd prefer a different approach! ChasetheDevil (talk) 15:46, 1 June 2025 (UTC)

Cheers! I just remember Oxford being the case when I first worked on this article, and have no preference otherwise than allowing others to focus on work they enjoy more. Remsense ‥ 论 15:47, 1 June 2025 (UTC)