Talk:Persecution of Jews in the First Crusade

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:
Persecution of Jews in the First Crusade was a good article, but it has been removed from the list. There are suggestions below for improving the article to meet the good article criteria. Once these are addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.

Delisted version: February 5, 2007


Contents

[edit] Name change

"The German Crusade of 1096 is that part of the First Crusade in which peasant crusaders, mostly from Germany, attacked not Muslims but Jews."

This definition is arbitrary und unscientific.

A: The lable "German" is misleading

1. The perpetrators were not exclusivly German. A large portion of the participants originated from France.

2. The pogroms did not take place exclusively on German soil. The first pogroms started in France (as is clearly documented by letters sent from French to German jews to warn them of the Crusaders). And after the massacers in the Rhineland there were pogroms e.g. in Bohemia.

3. The target of the Crusades was not Germany. The massacers happened on the way to Jerusalem. Although that target was not reached, the Crusaders left Germany and caused further trouble on their way.

4. The label "German crusade" is not used in general. If it is used, it most likely refers to the (failed) Crusade of 1197 of Emperor Henry VI a century later!

B: The German crusade cannot be separated from the Peasants' crusade.

1. The peasant crusaders moved in several groups that united and split and united again. E.g. Count Emicho is presented in the article as the leader of the Crusade. After he left the Rhineland, his group stopped to attack Jews (or at least there are no further reports.) But at the time Emicho had left the Rhineland already, another group (that had split from Emicho's group) went up to the city of Trier to attack Jews there.

2. Virtually ALL groups of the Peasants' crusade harassed or attacked Jews. Some could be pleased with money (including Peter and Walter), others plundered and murdered (Emicho et el.).

3. The "German" crusade and the peasants' crusade happened at the same time (spring 1096) and in the the same areas (Northern France - Rhineland/centralGermany - Bohemia - Hungary).

C: I strongly doubt that these events were the first organised attacks on jews. I am not an expert on this subject, but there was at least one large massacre of jews in York before the crusades.

I am not currently in a position to argue against this in detail, but as for point A.4, that is true, which is why this has "1096" in the title (I envisioned someday writing an article about the 1197 crusade, but I haven't done it yet). You are also correct about point B, but this is a significantly different section of the Peoples' Crusade that it has been spun off into a separate article. I believe it is also a subsection of the Peoples' Crusade section in the First Crusade article. There are other groups in the Peoples' Crusade that, for example, did not even make it to Hungary, which we have also mentioned, but this specific part seems significant enough for its own article. Perhaps it is an historiographical conceit o separate it like that, but there is quite a lot of writing about this. As for point C, you may be thinking of the massacre in York before the Third Crusade, about 90 years later. (I'll give a fuller response when I am able.) Adam Bishop 04:15, 31 January 2006 (UTC)


You are right that those events justify an article for themselves. I simply objected to the title "German crusade" because it's not generally in use and - even worse - misleading.

My suggestions:

(1) Drop "German crusade" and call this article something like "Jews and the (First) Crusade" or whatever seems appropriate.

(2) Expand this article to include other instances of anti-jewish violence during the first crusade (e.g. extortion of money, massacre in Jerusalem etc.) to present a complete picture to the readers.

(3) Create links from "First Crusade" and "Peasants' Crusade" to this article

As for point C, it seems that you are right.

That's an interesting suggestion...there were other examples of extortion by the nobles' crusade too, and a lot of violence in Jerusalem, as you say. Adam Bishop 15:24, 1 February 2006 (UTC)


Another interesting detail is that by attacking jews, the crusaders were actually challenging the authority of German emperor Henry IV. Jews were explicitly protected by empirial law. But Henry IV was still at odds with the Papacy over control of the church in Germany (remember Canossa). So it would be interesting to check if the attacks om Jews were also politically motivated. 1 Feb. 06

[edit] German-Jews in Jerusalem during the First Crusade ...

"There seems to be some support even for the view that there were German Jews in Jerusalem at this time. The story is told, on the authority of Elijah Ba'al Shem of Chelm, that a young man named Dolberger was saved by a Jew in Palestine who knew German, and that out of gratitude one of his family who was among the Crusaders saved some of the Jews in Palestine and carried them to Worms ("Seder ha-Dorot," ed. 1878, p. 252). In the second half of the eleventh century halakic questions were sent from Germany to Jerusalem (Epstein, in "Monatsschrift," xlvii. 344)."[1]

- It could be possible that some of these German-Jews had migrated to Jerusalem during the Great German Pilgrimage of 1064. Perhaps this happened even earlier, when King Henry II of Germany forced all Jews from Mainz in 1012, some three years after "mad" Fatimid caliph Al-Hakim bi-Amr Allah destroyed the Holy Sepulchre on October 18, 1009. Either way, the above paragraph suggests that German-Jews were living in Jerusalem prior to the pogroms led by Count Emicho in the summer of 1096. (!Mi nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 03:05, 18 May 2006 (UTC))

Dreadlocke, do not add anything to direct quotes. I realize that I originally added the thing about Rabbi Elijah being a "mystic", but it wasn't apart of the original paragraph, so I deleted it. Check out the link if you don't believe me. Its under the "Under the Arabs" Heading. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 02:37, 27 July 2006 (UTC))

[edit] GA Re-Review and In-line citations

Members of the Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles are in the process of doing a re-review of current Good Article listings to ensure compliance with the standards of the Good Article Criteria. (Discussion of the changes and re-review can be found here). A significant change to the GA criteria is the mandatory use of some sort of in-line citation (In accordance to WP:CITE) to be used in order for an article to pass the verification and reference criteria. Currently this article does not include in-line citations. It is recommended that the article's editors take a look at the inclusion of in-line citations as well as how the article stacks up against the rest of the Good Article criteria. GA reviewers will give you at least a week's time from the date of this notice to work on the in-line citations before doing a full re-review and deciding if the article still merits being considered a Good Article or would need to be de-listed. If you have any questions, please don't hesitate to contact us on the Good Article project talk page or you may contact me personally. On behalf of the Good Articles Project, I want to thank you for all the time and effort that you have put into working on this article and improving the overall quality of the Wikipedia project. Agne 20:46, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Result of the GAR

[edit] German Crusade, 1096

result:Delist 4-0

It was warned 5 months ago for having no inline cits and nothing has been done. Delist Kyriakos 06:43, 25 January 2007 (UTC)

Aye, almost nothing has been done, Delist. Homestarmy 18:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Teemu08 21:24, 25 January 2007 (UTC)
  • Delist per above. Rlevse 14:37, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

This is the consensus to delist. Diez2 16:55, 5 February 2007 (UTC)


[edit] Jewish reactions

The tense in the second paragraph of the section is confusing to me, but I'm reluctant to change it since I'm not familiar with the source material and don't want to accidentally change the meaning. Someone who knows the source material should clean up the tense, and maybe provide a citation.--Hgebel 12:30, 26 February 2007 (UTC)

Why is it confusing? Adam Bishop 21:52, 26 February 2007 (UTC)
Hi, Adam. Sorry, confusing was a poor word choice. The first two sentences of the paragraph are in past tense, then the paragraph switches to present tense. The preceding and succeeding paragraphs are also in the past tense. This is what I was thinking of editing the paragraph to:
The Hebrew chronicles portray the Rhineland Jews as martyrs who willingly sacrificed themselves in order to honour God and to preserve their own honour. Faced with conversion or death, they usually chose death. On numerous occasions, a prominent Jew was willing to convert, only to speak out against Christ and Christianity when a crowd gathered for the baptism, mocking Jesus as a product of "lust" and "menstruation"; a swift death followed. Count Emicho was also cursed whenever he was mentioned ("may his bones be ground into dust"), and the Pope was compared to Satan.
Or to leave it in the present tense, but make it clear that the Chronicles are mentioning it, not that it is still happening:
The Hebrew chronicles portray the Rhineland Jews as martyrs who willingly sacrificed themselves in order to honour God and to preserve their own honour. Faced with conversion or death, they usually chose death. On numerous occasions, the chronicles mention a prominent Jew who expresses a willingness to convert, only to speak out against Christ and Christianity when a crowd has gathered for the baptism, mocking Jesus as a product of "lust" and "menstruation"; a swift death follows. The chronicles curse Count Emicho whenever he is mentioned ("may his bones be ground into dust"), and compare the Pope to Satan.
I'm always (maybe excessively) reluctant to change tense on subjects I am not well versed in myself, as sometimes little tense changes can make big differences in meaning. If the chronicles in question are available on the internet, a citation could be added to make it easier to see exactly what the chronicles say.--Hgebel 11:47, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
Oh I see...in that case your second paragraph is better, I think, because the chronicles haven't changed, and they still say that. The Mainz Anonymous is online, here. Adam Bishop 13:41, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
I put in the second paragraph. Thanks for your help, Adam.--Hgebel 13:56, 27 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Article Title

As has already been pointed out, the title of this article MUST be changed. These events are simply never referred to as the "German Crusade" in scholarship in any language. It is greatly misleading. Although many of the participants were German speakers ("German" not yet being a recognized identity), there were also French speakers involved, such as William the Carpenter of Melun. As Robret Chazan and others have pointed out numerous times, the Hebrew sources themselves also clearly indicate that the crusade army was drawn from a variety of places. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 150.108.70.239 (talk) 18:52, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, I will be bold. I have never seen a this described as "German Crusade" in all my studies. -- Secisek (talk) 21:19, 25 March 2008 (UTC)
Hmm...I'm pretty sure I've seen it called that. Or did I just make up that title for Wikipedia? Adam Bishop (talk) 01:07, 26 March 2008 (UTC)
I've never seen it called this either, but GoogleBooks gives The Routledge Atlas of Jewish History (2003) and Popes from the Ghetto (1964). A few other less important ones appear, and there is even "German Crusade of 1101" in print. Take that for what it's worth. The current title works, so long as the article covers all such persecutions and not just German(y)-related ones, if there are even others. Srnec (talk) 04:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, they were attacked in France, too. The German Crusade, according to Riley-Smith, followed the Third. This seems to describe mob action rather than a indulged Crusade. I know some crusades were not much better, but this seems to be unrelated to the millitary campaigns and battles that define the Crusades. It is an important article, but including it in a campaignbox is inconsistent with the treatment these events get from historians. -- Secisek (talk) 04:18, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

I've looked through the books I used when I created the original article, and "German crusade" does not appear in reference to these events. I guess I made it up after all :( Adam Bishop (talk) 07:10, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

The First Crusade was made up of three "waves" 1. Peoples Crusade, 2. Princes' Crusade, and the 3. Crusade of 1101 - one of these is a red link and we should try to fix that. -- Secisek (talk) 07:40, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, the way these set of articles were originally designed, the Princes' Crusade was in effect the First Crusade article. Peoples' Crusade and Crusade of 1101 were spun off from it. Wouldn't it be redundant to have a separate Princes' Crusade article? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:05, 26 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] New material

The massacres of the German Jews seems to be the overall theme of the article. When I find the time, I will add a section about what happened to the Jewish captives after the fall of Jerusalem. I created an article called the Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon which details how these Jews were held ransom (along with their holy books). It is only a stub, but I plan on expanding it in future. Anyway, those that were not ransomed were sold as slaves and transported to southern Italy by sea. Some of these were either drowned on purpose or beheaded. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 04:09, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Speculation re: R1a and R1b haplotypes

I suppose that quite a few R1a and R1b males might have deluged the Jewish people of the Rhineland whilst massacring them; after all, pillage and massacres often come with rape, and so I would not be surprised to find that many a Jewish child of the middle ages was actually sired by some absentee German (including people from Slavic lands) or French soldier, or some drunken peasant. 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:06, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Scratch R1b, that's more of a Sephardic haplogroup. R1a1 is a largely Eastern European haplotype and it is supposed to have come into the Jewish population (or the Levite part of it) 1000-600 years ago. The 1st Crusade was 900 years ago. hmm. Suppose some Sorbs migrated to France and Germany and wound up siring people who thought Jewesses were pretty... 204.52.215.107 (talk) 19:28, 30 April 2008 (UTC)