Talk:Louis IX of France

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 WikiProject Religion
Religion Portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Religion, a project to improve Wikipedia's articles on Religion-related subjects. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards, or visit the wikiproject page for more details.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
This article falls within the scope of the Interfaith work group. If you are interested in Interfaith-related topics, please visit the project page to see how you can help. If you have any comments regarding the appropriateness or positioning of this template, please let us know at our talk page


This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

Contents

[edit] Marriage

re: "Louis married on May 27, 1234, Marguerite de Provence (1221–December 21, 1295), the sister of Eleanor, the wife of Henry III.

Their children were:" ... blady, blody, blah

Objection: Author snootily assumes reign name and political affiliation of Henry III is known to be British. Considering the importance of this union and the many conflicts that resulted as the French thence had a dynastic claim in Britain, and vice versa, 'Of Britain', the coming hundred years war, the beginning of the path leading to Crecy and Agincourt, all should be deliniated in this article. fabartus@comcast.net 05-01-29

"Henry III" links to "Henry III of England" already, but you are hereby encouraged to fix the article if you think it requires further delineation. - jredmond 23:00, 30 Jan 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Pictures

I have deleted the two pictures in this article, which were not true representation of King Louis IX, but were due only to the imagination of the artists. I am replacing them with the only known true representation of the king. Hardouin 16:53, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Should there really be two almost identical picture of Louis IX. My suggestion is either remove one of them or replace it with one of the front of the statue. - Carl Logan 14 April 2005

I don't have front of the statue unfortunately, so at least the two pictures here show different sides of it. Hardouin 20:49, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Antisemitism

I have removed the section about Antisemitism, beacause Louis IX policies against Jews didn't differ much from the rest of Western Europe. It should be in the Jewish history section instead. - Carl Logan 13 April 2005

Totally agree. The claim that Saint Louis killed 30% of France Jews is absurd. First of all, there were no statistics kept back then, so who can tell how many Jews died while Saint Louis was king? Then, let's not forget that back then the central governement had very little control over the kingdom. So at the most, Saint Louis can be held accountable for the fate of Paris Jews, but beyond Paris he can't be held accountable for much of what happened. As far as I know, Saint Louis has no particular reputation at killing Jews or organizing pogroms. Quite the opposite, I think he actually opposed the killing of Jews, as he opposed the killing of any other human beings (except the infidels in the Crusades), even though it is true that he disliked the Jews, like all other Christian men of his day, thinking them guilty of usury, and he expelled them from the kingdom. Hardouin 17:19, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Bigotry

I have changed the so-called "bigotry" section recently added to the article into a section about religious zeal, and greatly expanded on the subject. The "bigotry" section was flawed with bias. In particular, the claim that the purchase of the Crown of Thorns and fragment of Holy Cross in 1239 put France into debt for 150 years is flatly wrong. The kingdom of France was the richest in Europe at the time, and I have never heard anything about a 150 year debt. Besides, Saint Louis' grandson Philip the Fair confiscated the treasures and estates of the Knights Templar in 1307, so at the very most, if there had been a debt, he would have been able to pay it back as early as 1307. Hardouin 19:13, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)


Part of this seems to have been written by a bigot: 'Louis was a homosexual black man who fled his city of versales with his gay lover pope john paul and came to he americas to escape the russain leader kicg cornholio the 5th. his patronage of the arts drove many to believe he was gay.'

[edit] Life

I think we should change and expand the section regarding Louis life. Both making it bigger and changed it in to five parts:

  • Early Life: Between his birth and 1234 when he was deemed of age and took over government of the kingdom from his mother. Should give a bigger part to Blanche of Castile, Louis mother, because without her the work of Philip II could easily been undone. France would once again be a collection of strong feudal lords without a strong king. The English king could have become a strong force in France again.
Also it was during this period that Raymond VII submitted to the French Crown, so it was more his mother Blanche who ended the Albigensian Crusade then Louis (he was only 14 in 1229).
  • Reign: From 1234 to 1248 when he embarked on the seventh crusade. Louis fighting rebellious French Feudal lords in league with the English King Henry. The war ended after Louis victory at Taillebourg in 1242.
  • Louis First Crusade: a summary about the first crusade of Louis IX together with a link to the page about the Seventh Crusade.
  • Between Crusades: From 1254 to 1270 were he reorganised the country. He also tried to insure peace in Western Europe by resolving claims between France and England, and Aragon and France.
  • Louis Second Crusade: a summary on the second crusade of Louis IX and his death together with a link to the page about the Eight Crusade.

[edit] Plagairism?

View this link, you can tell that one page or the other is plagiarizing. [1]

No, actually it's neither. Scroll down to the very bottom of that page. Everyking 00:04, 28 Apr 2005 (UTC)


[edit] Body

There seems to me a useful expansion in the text regarding his body. He is an ancestor of my wife and we spent 3 months in France looking at bits of his history. According to Gerard Sivery, (Louis IX Le Roi Saint (Tallandier 2002)), his entrails were boiled off his bones and put in an urn now in the Basilica of Monreale in Palermo where they remained. His bones were taken to the Royal Necropolis at St Denis north of Paris (I have also photographed a plaque in a Lyon church where his remains rested 7 days en route). Because of his reputation for sanctity the bones were given a silver coffin. However according to a pamphlet in St Denis, it was preferentially stolen by military looters at a later date, and neither bones nor coffin were recovered. It is correct that a finger remains (in a reliquary). But ironically he appears to be the only king not represented at St Denis. (whiteh@paradise.net.nz)

The entrails of the kings and queens of France were always separated from their corpses and placed into special containers that were deposited in convents and churches outside of Saint-Denis. Only the corpses were at Saint-Denis. While the corpses at Saint-Denis were destroyed at the time of the French Revolution, some entrails that were outside of Saint-Denis have survived the Revolution. I think those entrails on French soil that survived the Revolution were later relocated to Saint-Denis at the time of the Restoration (1814-1830). As for Saint-Louis' tomb, I don't think his tomb was made of silver. I have always heard his tomb was of gilt brass, the only such tomb in Saint-Denis. It was melted down at the time of the French Religious Wars (late 16th century). You can see a rare picture of this tomb here [2] (the tomb of Saint Louis is the gilted baldachin behind the altar; only the top of the baldachin can be seen). Last but not least, Saint Louis is not the only king not represented at Saint Denis. There are kings who were burried outside of Saint Denis (3 of them), there are kings who never built tombs (the Bourbon kings, such as Louis XIV, never built tombs and are not represented at Saint Denis; before the Revolution their corpses were deposited inside bare lead coffins standing on trestles in the crypt), and finally there are some tombs that were destroyed at the time of the Revolution. Thus, some of the most famous French kings (Philip Augustus, Saint Louis, Henry IV, Louis XIV) are not reprensented at Saint Denis. Hardouin 29 June 2005 18:09 (UTC)

[edit] Apologetic?

The article seems to have gone from one extreme (with a section titled "bigotry") to the apologetic other ("the decision to expel the Jews was largely welcome in all spheres of society"... I imagine the Jews, for one, weren't too happy about it). Could we try to rework the discussion of the crusades and anti-semitism to a more NPOV phrasing? The article should explain his actions within the context of European culture at the time, but not try to either condemn or excuse them. - Bryan is Bantman 18:48, Jun 2, 2005 (UTC)

The sentence "the decision to expel the Jews was largely welcome in all spheres of society" does not excuse Saint Louis' actions. It simply puts them into context. From many historicans that I have read, the king himself was far less extreme against the Jews than his people would have wanted him to be. To put it bluntly, many people hoped to see the Jews put to the sword, whereas the king himself would have been happy just with them converting to the "true faith" (i.e. Christianism). By the way, let's not make confusions, this has nothing to do with antisemitism per se. It's an attitude against non-Christians in general, be they pagan Saxons, Sarracens, Cathars, or Jews. Hardouin 23:52, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
If you look at the article Jews of France there is a lot of detail about how St Louis took a harder line on prohibiting usury than his predecessors. At least some of this needs to be reflected in this article. More detail is also needed about his participation in crusades. I'll add some when I have a moment. Itsmejudith 21:46, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Image

I removed this image because it appeared twice. evrik 17:23, 28 April 2006 (UTC)

Image:StL.jpg
Wooden statue of Saint Louis (perhaps a copy of the statue at the church of Mainneville?)
I tried to remove it too, but just had that change (and all my other edits) reverted too.[3] However, I'd like to assert that not only should we remove the duplicate, we shouldn't be using this image at all. Both images are up for deletion at Commons, as lacking source information. Let's stick with properly sourced images, rather than something questionable. --Elonka 17:33, 2 December 2007 (UTC)
Why are they questionable? They appear to explain what they are and where they come from. Furthermore, the statue is a better, and more contemporary, image, than the 16th century depiction. Michael Sanders 17:35, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Birth

I'm getting confused. Historians believe that Louis IX was born on April 25, 1214, while the Catholic Encyclopedia says he was born on April 25, 1215. Which year of birth is more correct? (I added both possible birth years just to be sure.) --Angeldeb82 (talk) 23:13, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Deletion of referenced material

I dispute the deletion of a large amount of referenced material on the relations of Louis IX with the Mongols [4]. These contacts are an important part of Louis's reign and are, I believe, worthy of inclusion in an Encyclopedia which is supposed to be "the sum of all knowledge". I believe the deleted paragraph should be reinstated:

See also: Franco-Mongol alliance
14th century copy of the February 7, 1248, letter from the Armenian noble Sempad, speaking in positive terms about the Mongols The letter was also shown to Louis IX, who decided to send an envoy to the Mongol court
14th century copy of the February 7, 1248, letter from the Armenian noble Sempad, speaking in positive terms about the Mongols[1] The letter was also shown to Louis IX, who decided to send an envoy to the Mongol court

Louis exchanged multiple letters and emissaries with Mongol rulers of the period. After Louis left France on his first Crusade and disembarked at Nicosia in Cyprus, he was met on December 20, 1248, in Nicosia by two Mongol envoys, Nestorians from Mosul named David and Marc, who bore a letter from Eljigidei, the Mongol ruler of Armenia and Persia.[2] The envoys communicated a proposal to form an alliance against the Muslim Abbasids, whose Caliphate was based in Baghdad.[3] Eljigidei suggested that King Louis should land in Egypt, while Eljigidei attacked Baghdad, in order to prevent the Saracens of Egypt and those of Syria from joining forces.

Though at least one historian has criticized Louis as being "naive" in trusting the ambassadors, and Louis himself later admitted that he regretted the decision,[4] Louis sent André de Longjumeau, a Dominican priest, as an emissary to the Great Khan Güyük Khan in Mongolia. However, Güyük died, from drink, before the emissary arrived at his court, and his widow Oghul Ghaimish simply gave the emissary a gift and a condescending letter to take back to King Louis,[5] demanding that the king pay tribute to the Mongols.[6]

In 1252, Louis attempted an alliance with the Egyptians, for the return of Jerusalem if the French assisted with the subduing of Damascus.

In 1253, Louis tried to seek allies from among both the Ismailian Assassins and the Mongols.[7] Louis had received word that the the Mongol leader of the Golden Horde, Sartaq, had converted to Christianity,[8] While in Cyprus, Louis also saw a letter from Sempad, brother of Hetoum I of Armenia. Sempad, on an embassy to the Mongol court in Karakorum, described a Central Asian realm of oasis with many Christians, generally of the Nestorian rite.[9]

Louis dispatched another envoy to the Mongol court, the Franciscan William of Rubruck, who went to visit the Great Khan Möngke Khan in Mongolia. William entered into a famous competition at the Mongol court, as the Khan encouraged a formal debate between the Christians, Buddhists, and Muslims, to determine which faith was correct, as determined by three judges, one from each faith. The debate drew a large crowd, and as with most Mongol events, a great deal of alcohol was involved. As described by Jack Weatherford in his book Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World:

No side seemed to convince the other of anything. Finally, as the effects of the alcohol became stronger, the Christians gave up trying to persuade anyone with logical arguments, and resorted to singing. The Muslims, who did not sing, responded by loudly reciting the Koran in an effort to drown out the Christians, and the Buddhists retreated into silent mediation. At the end of the debate, unable to convert or kill one another, they concluded the way most Mongol celebrations concluded, with everyone simply too drunk to continue.

—Jack Weatherford, Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World, p. 173

But even after the competition, Möngke replied only with a letter via William in 1254, asking for the King's submission to Mongol authority.[10]"

Comments welcome. PHG (talk) 17:31, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

I deleted the extra information because it was undue weight and needless detail in the article. We are supposed to write in a summary style, and I summarized the information given and there is still a section setting forth Louis' contacts with the Mongols in the article. I welcome others comments if summarizing the information was against consensus, but given length of the information, and the relative lack of coverage of his Mongol contacts in most secondary sources dealing with Louis' reign, I felt that the article would be best served by a more concise statement. Please note that there is still a paragraph in the article about Louis' contacts with the Mongols, it just doesn't have lengthy quotes from the letters or information that isn't connected with Louis, who is the subject of the article. Ealdgyth - Talk 17:38, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
Articles on Wikipedia are not supposed to be written in "summary style" at all: actually that would "defeat the purpose of the contributions" (See Wikipedia:Summary style). In short, it is improper to delete important referenced information from an article, except if you provide a link to a more detailed sub-article somewhere else (could be Louis IX and the Mongols). One way or another, this information is proper and therefore should be reinstated. PHG (talk) 18:01, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
I think we disagree about how important it is to include the minute details of embassies. That information is, in my opinion, better included in a historical monograph or full length biography. You will note that the fact that Louis sent embassies to the Mongols is still included in the article. Much of what I cut has no bearing on Louis at all, especially the quotation on the debate between William of Rubruck and the Mongols, which did not involve Louis at all except that he sent William on the embassy. That quote would be better suited to an article about William of Rubruck. The sentence about the fact that Sempad described the Central Asian realm as an oasis of Christians is also unrelated to Louis, who is, I remind you, the subject of THIS article. The one bit that might need to be returned, "In 1252, Louis attempted an alliance with the Egyptians..." is actually unrelated to Mongols and is unreferenced. It is also covered in the section on the Crusades, where it states that Louis conducted diplomacy with the states of Syria and Egypt. Ealdgyth - Talk 18:16, 15 March 2008 (UTC)
It looks like, as you said, you removed material that didn't pertain to the subject of the article or that was repeated elsewhere. Good edit. Shell babelfish 02:30, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Here is important information pertaining to Louis IX which has been deleted in the process:
  • The "main" link to Franco-Mongol alliance has disapeared, although is it well known that Louis IX made several attempts to form this alliance, and a lot of information can be found there.
  • The decription of the two Mongol envoys David and Marc who met with Louis IX in Cyprus on December 20, 1248, in Nicosia disapeared.
  • The fact was also erased that Louis, while in Cyprus, saw a letter from Sempad, brother of Hetoum I of Armenia. Sempad, on an embassy to the Mongol court in Karakorum, described a Central Asian realm of oasis with many Christians, generally of the Nestorian rite,[11], motivated attempts by Louis to further approach the Mongols.
These important facts, directly related to Louix IX, should at least be reinstated. User:Ealdgyth also deleted all information related to interactions with the Mongols, in the Edward I of England article [5], which also constitutes deletion of referenced and relevant information. This also should be reinstated. 09:11, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
We'll have to disagree about the importance of the description of the two envoys and the details on the meeting between them and Louis. I'll point out that no where else in this article is such a level of detail gone into, so I fit the information to what is already in the article. This is what is known as collaborative editing, working with the information already there. The other information aobut Sempad is the same, no where else in this article are individual letters described in such detail. The link to the article, I'll listen to other editors in this subject area as far as suggestions on that. I'm not a regular editor in the Capetian monarchy, so I'll leave that in Srnec or some of the others that edit over on the continent. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:37, 16 March 2008 (UTC)
Per Wikipedia:Summary style, in case there is detailed information on a subject "This information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information." It is improper to delete important referenced information from an article, except if you provide a link to a more detailed sub-article somewhere else (could be Louis IX and the Mongols). PHG (talk) 16:13, 16 March 2008 (UTC)