Talk:Kingdom of Jerusalem

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Peer review Kingdom of Jerusalem has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

As new generations grew up in the kingdom, they began to think of themselves as "oriental," rather than European. They often learned to speek Greek, Arabic, and other eastern languages, and married Greeks or Armenians (and, rarely, Muslims).

This paragraph is oxymoronic & needs to be replaced
How so? Any suggestions? Adam Bishop 20:07 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
It should be utterly self-evident :) I may rewrite it if I can figure out how to reword it in a way that makes sense.


Self-evident? How? It looks fine to me. john 14:18 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
Well, if it helps, what I meant was that the Crusaders, who were usually French, thought of the Byzantine Empire and their language (Greek) as "oriental", as were the Armenians, Arabs, Turks, etc. They were all "eastern" people, and all Crusaders were considered "Latins" or "Franks" (even the ones who weren't from France). I know it's an oversimplification, and that can be fixed if necessary, but I don't see how it's oxymoronic. Adam Bishop 15:32 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)

OK, I never create images, especially PNG ones, so I really don't know what I'm doing...I'm sure there must be better ways to draw this map. If anyone can make it look a little more "professional," go right ahead. As it stands right now, is it alright? Does it interfere too much with the article? Adam Bishop 01:41, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...I don't know how to edit it. It's not so much that it looks bad that bothers me, as that it doesn't actually show the whole Kingdom; specifically, Sidon and Beirut are left off. (Other places should also be marked: Ramleh, Nablus, Tiberias, and so forth.)

Yeah, since I was working with the World Factbook map, it didn't extend into modern Lebanon. There must be some map-making program out there somewhere... Adam Bishop 20:25, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Well, I found a pretty good map of the Crusader States, so I'll put in that article...I've removed the map from here, but if someone still wants to try to fix it, I won't delete it: media:KingdomofJerusalem.png Adam Bishop 04:16, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Foundation and Early History

I must say, this section is, historiographically, a little outdated. As the likes of Murray and Riley-Smith have shown, there is little evidence that Godfrey used the title of Advocate himself - he seems to have prefered the more general title of Princeps. Also, the aspirations of Daimbert are somewhat problematic. The only evidence available for the claims that Godfrey surrendered Jaffa and Jerusalem to the Patriarch can be found only in the work of Willima of Tyre. Asside from the fact that William's version of this controversy is often somewhat lacking (he fails to tell us, for example, that Daimbert was deposed in 1102 by a synod presided over by a papal legate), the phrasing shows that William wrote, or at least rewrote, large parts of this letter. I'll edit it unless anyone raises any major complaints.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.130.170 (talk • contribs)

No complaint, especially about the Daimbert stuff, but we should probably still mention the Advocatus title - he may not have really used it, but it's prevalent everywhere so we shouldn't ignore it entirely. Adam Bishop 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


The entire paragraph in this section seems to be taken almost word for word, from the book "The Templars" by Piers Paul Read (pg. 87, ISBN 1-84212-142-1). Thus, it needs to be reworded somehow.

Really? What does the book say? That paragraph was written gradually by various people, like myself and John Kenney, so that's kind of strange. Adam Bishop 20:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I'll start from where its relevent:

"...was the Kingdom of Jerusalem, ruled by Godfery of Bouillon who, unwilling to call himself King where Christ had worn a crown of thorns, took the title of 'Defender of the Holy Sepuchre' instead."

"...Baldwin was less scruplous about taking a royal title and on Christmas Day 1100, at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the defeated Daimbert crowned him King of Jerusalem."

Kaiser matias 19:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I wrote the offending passage. I have not read or heard of The Templars, by Piers Paul Read. Furthermore, the passage under discussion is not "word for word" the same as the passage quoted. The similarities are the bit about the crown of thorns, which is, I think, a quote from the chronicles themselves, although I'm not really certain (at any rate, it is how Godfrey's action is typically explained); and the use of the word "scrupulous," which seems a slight basis on which to base a claim of plagiarism. john k 20:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

After reading the part from the book, and then here again, I noticed that it isn't that similar. Just when I quickly glanced at it the first time, it seemed very familiar. But, well, it seems very different when compared closely. Kaiser matias 21:15 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Some Medieval Accounts of Salah al-Din's Recovery of Jerusalem

there seems to be no account of besiege of Jerusalem by Salah al-Din's army anywhere in wikipedia. Here is an excellent article about it, maybe someone would like to add it: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.html

[edit] Minor edits by User:John Kenney need to be rewoven.

Sorry about rolling back...However, my edits are equally valid to yours. TheUnforgiven 02:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

I fixed the mistake I made. TheUnforgiven 02:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

They may be valid edits, but not for this article. That sort of discussion belongs on the crusade article, not here. Adam Bishop 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Recent expansion

For the past few days I've been trying to expand the article. I think the Kingdom of Acre bit is still a little lacking in information, but I don't know as much about that so it's more difficult to expand (since I am lazy and mostly doing this off the top of my head). Any help/suggestions would be appreciated! Adam Bishop 22:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Absurd table

The table on the right side of the article is absurd. You didn´t have these concepts of "Constitution" or "Official language" in the Middle Ages, it´s an Anachronism, you should take that from the article. I have also detected mistakes in it, I suggest you read the article from the french wikipedia.

Yeah it is absurd, but people insist on including such tables on articles both for modern countries and extinct entities. I think it would be better off with just the map and the coat of arms, which is all that used to be there. And where have you detected mistakes, in the article or the table? What are the mistakes? (If you do not want to fix them yourself, perhaps it would be helpful to inform someone else.) Adam Bishop 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Demographics?

Where did the figures of "750,000 to 1,500,000, with just under half being of Frankish and Italian origin, and the remainder evenly divided between Greek, Syrian, and Muslim with small Jewish communities." come from?

This seems to be way too big.

Aslo, I don't know if the iqta system is equivalent to the European Feudal system, since I think the former was more purely financial than the latter.

MYLO 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

It came from the same anon whose junk you just fixed up on the Mamluk article. Those numbers didn't jump out as nonsense at first, but you're right, they are pretty bizarre now that I look again...375 000-750 000 Franks? Adam Bishop 06:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)


- - - -

Here are numbers I found:

According to P.M. Holt in "The Age of the Crusades" (1986):

"Few reliable statistics exist or can be deduced. it has, however, been surmised that the Frankish population [of the Crusader holdings] consisted at most of about 250,000, about half of whome were in the Kingdom of Jerusalem [I assme prior to Hattin]. The three great cities of the kingdom were Acre, which probably had over 60,000 inhabitants in the 12th century, Tyre and Jerusalem itself with 20,000 to 30,000."


David Nicolle in "Hattin 1187 (Osprey Campaign Series 19)" (1993) says:

"In the early 1180's the Kingdom of Jerusalem had 400,000-500,000 inhabitants, no more than 120,000 of whome were latins (Christians of western European origin). The rest constisted of indigenous 'Oriental' Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Samaritans."


Bot these figures agree, with about 120,000 western Europeans in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, prior to Hattin atleast.

MYLO 00:23, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII

What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?

How far up the totem pole, would you say?

This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents. About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?

I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III. How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?

There is a general cutoff, isn't there?

Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?

I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords. (just generally speaking) Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general. I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind. I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy". I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when. What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?

On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure. How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?

UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries. What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?

We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?

I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...

IP Address 12:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fatimid Flag

May I ask why the Fatimid flag was removed from the infobox so quickly? As far as I know, the Fatimids did fly a plain green flag. (I realize that the image depicts the flag of Libya, but I figure it's a close enough approximation.) Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, sorry, I saw "flag of Libya" and just assumed it was sneaky vandalism! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, sorry. I guess that just adds an unnecessary level of confusion. I'll upload a more appropriately named image. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)