# Talk:Crusades

@Dr. Grampinator: I understand that the article’s scope covers the Crusades as they are most commonly defined in scholarly and lexiconal sources — that is, the papally sanctioned military campaigns for the Holy Land between 1095 and 1291. Other papally inspired campaigns, such as the Northern and Albigensian Crusades, are already treated in dedicated articles. The broader concept of the crusading movement, which encompasses all such expeditions, is also covered elsewhere. These campaigns are already discussed here in the appropriate context, showing their links to the main Crusades. Introducing a separate section for them would be entirely redundant and inconsistent with the article’s defined scope. Borsoka (talk) 00:19, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cloud swimmer 04: please see my remarks above and the well-referenced definition of the Crusades in section "Terminology". The article's lead also addresses the wider concept of the crusading movement. Borsoka (talk) 13:54, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
With regard to your latest edit ([1]), please note that Riley-Smith, in the cited work, refers to the crusading movement (the subject of a separate article) and to the crusade or holy leagues (also discussed in separate articles) in relation to the fifteenth century and 1699. Borsoka (talk) 14:13, 21 October 2025 (UTC)

@Dr. Grampinator: our policy states that "the lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article." Therefore, the lead should reflect the article's content proportionally and represent all of the "numbered" Crusades, not only the First. References to other "crusades" (such as the Albigensian Crusades and the Northern Crusades) that are mainly covered in separate articles or in the one on the wider crusading movement should be kept minimal. Borsoka (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2025 (UTC)

Limiting the "crusades" to the levantine campaigns is a largely outdated position. Either the name of the article needs to be changed to "Numbered Crusades" or the fact that the crusades are a much bigger enterprise must be attached to the article to avoid misleadings. Cloud swimmer 04 (talk) 14:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
No, not so outdated. Please read their definition at Britannica ([2]) and also the introductory lines at the top of the article. Borsoka (talk) 14:35, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Britannica says they took place from 1095-1571 which still contradicts your definition and since it includes the Holy league of 1571, the Holy league of 1684 and the war it waged also are eligible for the label, as is affirmed by the cited sources. Cloud swimmer 04 (talk) 05:46, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Please read more carefully, the Britannica adds the same height to the non-numbered crusades as does this article. Borsoka (talk) 06:34, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
Please read more carefully, Britannica states the crusades took place until 1571, which includes the Holy League of 1571. Thus, the source you cited to argue the crusades ended 1291 refutes your own claim. I have simply added sources that include the campaigns of the Holy League of 1684 as the last Crusade. Cloud swimmer 04 (talk) 06:49, 22 October 2025 (UTC)
My preferred text of the lead is the following: "The Crusades were a series of military campaigns launched by the papacy between 1095 and 1291 against Muslim rulers for the recovery and defence of the Holy Land (Palestine), encouraged by promises of spiritual reward. The First Crusade was proclaimed by Pope Urban II at the Council of Clermont on 27 November 1095 in response to a Byzantine appeal for aid against the advancing Seljuk Turks. By this time, the papacy's position as head of the Catholic Church had strengthened, and earlier conflicts with secular rulers and wars on Western Christendom's frontiers had prepared it for the direction of armed force in religious causes. The First Crusade led to the creation of four Crusader states in the Middle East, whose defence required further expeditions from Catholic Europe. The organisation of such large-scale campaigns demanded complex religious, social, and economic institutions, including crusade indulgences, military orders, and the taxation of clerical income. Over time, the crusading movement expanded to include campaigns against pagans, Christian dissidents, and other enemies of the papacy, promoted with similar spiritual rewards and continuing into the 18th century." Please compare it with the lead of the article in Britannica: "Crusades, military expeditions, beginning in the late 11th century, that were organized by western European Christians in response to centuries of Muslim wars of expansion. Their objectives were to check the spread of Islam, to retake control of the Holy Land in the eastern Mediterranean, to conquer pagan areas, and to recapture formerly Christian territories; they were seen by many of their participants as a means of redemption and expiation for sins. Between 1095, when the First Crusade was launched, and 1291, when the Latin Christians were finally expelled from their kingdom in Syria, there were numerous expeditions to the Holy Land, to Spain, and even to the Baltic; the Crusades continued for several centuries after 1291. Crusading declined rapidly during the 16th century with the advent of the Protestant Reformation and the decline of papal authority." The two texts are not dissimilar. Borsoka (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Modern historians do not agree on a single, universally accepted definition of “the Crusades”. Historian Giles Constable famously categorised scholarly views into four broad schools, which reflect the range of interpretations concerning the scope of crusading activity:
Traditionalists define the Crusades narrowly as those expeditions aimed at the Holy Land (Levant), principally the 11th- to 13th-century campaigns to recover or defend Jerusalem. Scholars such as Hans Mayer adopt this view, limiting the term “Crusades” to the classic numbered expeditions directed eastward.
Pluralists offer a broader definition, including any papally sanctioned holy war for the defence of Christendom that carried crusade privileges, such as indulgences. Under this view, scholars like Jonathan Riley-Smith and Norman Housley consider not only the Levantine expeditions but also campaigns in Iberia, the Baltic, and against heretics to be Crusades, so long as they were called by the pope and followed the same organisational and spiritual framework.
Popularists focus on the popular religious fervour and devotional motives of the participants. They see Crusades primarily as mass religious movements, which may not always have had papal approval. Examples often cited under this approach include the People’s Crusade and the Children’s Crusade. Conversely, they may exclude more formally sanctioned expeditions if they appear primarily political in character.
Generalists apply the term in the most expansive sense, defining Crusades as any Christian holy war fought for a religious purpose. This school encompasses a wide range of conflicts, including those not authorised by the pope. Under this model, later campaigns against the Ottoman Empire, such as those led by the Holy Leagues in the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries, may be classified as Crusades.
These varied definitions illustrate that there is no single “correct” scope for the term “Crusades”. In historiography, it remains a contested and evolving category. Even pluralist scholars who favour an expanded interpretation typically acknowledge that the Crusades to the East held particular prestige and served as the standard against which other campaigns were measured. The traditional Holy Land expeditions—most notably the First through Ninth Crusades—have long been regarded as the prototypical examples of crusading. Some historians, including Mayer and Jean Flori, continue to argue that only campaigns to recover or protect Jerusalem should be considered true Crusades. Thus, the traditionalist definition remains a defensible and widely accepted position in current scholarship.
Despite their differences, most definitions agree on several core points: that the Crusades were religious wars undertaken by Latin Christians, and that they were fundamentally a medieval phenomenon. Many historians concur that the crusading movement faded by the sixteenth century, particularly after the weakening of papal authority following the Reformation. Nevertheless, within the medieval period, the range of campaigns considered “Crusades” may vary from a narrow set of expeditions to the Holy Land to a much broader array including operations in Spain, Eastern Europe, and against perceived heretical threats.
Given these divergent definitions, any encyclopaedic article on the Crusades must choose a coherent scope. The present article clearly focuses on the traditional set of Crusades—namely, the “numbered” Crusades to the Holy Land and their immediate context—while acknowledging the broader crusading movement in summary. This concentrated approach is necessary for clarity and readability. Attempting to comprehensively cover every campaign ever described as a “crusade” in one article would result in a fragmented and unwieldy narrative.
This structuring is also consistent with major reference works. For instance, Encyclopædia Britannica organises its main discussion around the eight major Crusades from 1096 to 1270, treating those as the principal sequence. It notes additional campaigns such as the Albigensian Crusade, but only in secondary terms. This reflects common usage, especially in general reference contexts, where the term “the Crusades” most often refers to the medieval expeditions to the Holy Land. The Wikipedia article follows the same model: the lead and main sections give primary weight to the Levantine campaigns from 1095 to 1291, while briefly mentioning the expansion of crusading into other theatres over time.
According to Wikipedia policy, the lead should summarise the article’s content proportionally. If the article chiefly covers the Levantine Crusades, then the lead should reflect that emphasis. Other campaigns (such as the Albigensian or Northern Crusades) are best kept to brief references within this article, with more detailed coverage reserved for their dedicated pages. This ensures that broader crusading activity is acknowledged without overwhelming the primary narrative. This structure also aligns with user expectations: someone seeking information on “the Crusades” will typically expect to learn about figures such as Pope Urban II, the conquest of Jerusalem, the Kingdom of Jerusalem, Saladin, and the major campaigns of the twelfth and thirteenth centuries.
Attempting to fully integrate campaigns like the Albigensian Crusade, the Northern Crusades, the Reconquista, and the wars of the Holy Leagues (e.g. Lepanto in 1571 or the Holy League of 1684) into this article would dilute its clarity and coherence. These campaigns are more appropriately covered in their own articles or in a separate overview of the broader “crusading movement”. This is in fact already being done: Wikipedia maintains separate pages on topics such as the Northern Crusades and the Albigensian Crusade, which are properly interlinked. Maintaining the current scope is not a matter of clinging to an outdated view, but of presenting a focused and readable account of a complex historical phenomenon.
To summarise, the article’s title, “Crusades”, remains appropriate. While the term can encompass a wide array of campaigns, it is still most commonly associated with the classic expeditions to the Holy Land from the late eleventh to the late thirteenth centuries. The article provides a coherent narrative centred on those events while acknowledging the broader crusading movement in summary and linking to other relevant entries. This approach avoids confusion, respects both modern scholarship and reader expectations, and ensures that the article maintains a clear and manageable structure. 147.161.142.192 (talk) 13:42, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

@Cloud swimmer 04:, referring to your edit summary ([3]), could you cite reliable sources:

verifying that the Second Crusade was not a failure in the Holy Land (what is the article's scope);,
stating that the Crusade of 1101 was not the earliest papally sanctioned expedition inspired by the First Crusade,
noting that crusading indulgences for the Iberian Crusades, Albigensian Crusades and Northern Crusades had not granted by the early 13th century?
Borsoka (talk) 06:47, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

1. That is not the article's scope, since its titled as "Crusades" and not "Crusades to Palestine", the Second Crusade was a success in Iberia, so the claim that it was a failure is false and unsourced.
2. Pope Urban sanctioned the anti-moor campaigns in Iberia before the Crusade of 1101.
3. Assuming you meant "had been granted", here are sources stating the Iberian campaigns were sanctioned before the fifth crusade as I stated. Cloud swimmer 04 (talk) 07:01, 22 October 2025 (UTC)

1. The narrower scope is more consistent with WP:NAME, as major English dictionaries typically define the term Crusades primarily as the campaigns for the Holy Land.
2. Could you please provide a quotation from a reliable source stating that the Crusade of 1101 was not the earliest papally sanctioned expedition inspired by the First Crusade? Please note that the remission of penance or sins had already been offered by the papacy to participants in Iberian campaigns several years earlier.
3. Thus, the granting of the crusade indulgence was already established by the early thirteenth century. No contradiction. Borsoka (talk) 16:27, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

What should be the scope of the article "Crusades"?

Option A: The article should focus on the papally sanctioned anti-Muslim military campaigns launched for the Holy Land between 1095 and 1291, and only briefly discuss the connections between these "numbered Crusades" and other papally endorsed campaigns that formed part of the wider crusading movement.
Option B: The article should cover all papally sanctioned military campaigns, including those treated in separate articles, such as the Albigensian Crusades, the Iberian Crusades, and the Northern Crusades.
Option C: The article should cover both the Crusades for the Holy Land and, in brief, other campaigns authorised by papal indulgence, but as distinct topics.
Borsoka (talk) 08:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)

Support Option A: We need a separate article dedicated exclusively to the Crusades for the Holy Land. Leading dictionaries define these military campaigns as "the Crusades", and all other campaigns that formed part of the wider crusading movement already have their own articles (such as the Albigensian Crusades, the Iberian Crusades, etc.). The main features of the overall crusading movement are also summarized in a separate article. Borsoka (talk) 08:26, 23 October 2025 (UTC) We should present the connections between the Crusades and other papally sanctioned campaigns within the respective sections devoted to each Crusade, and include a concise overview of the later phases of the crusading movement in a brief section, in accordance with WP:DUE and WP:SIZE. Borsoka (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Option A or C:  the other criterion casts too wide a net, I think—one could as easily start agitating for the Church's "Crusade Against Hunger"¹ to be included, next; a line has to be drawn somewhere, and A provides a natural bright-line category-boundary which offers little purchase for such "arguable extensions" (& I'd bet that most who access the article will be looking for the Crusades proper, anyway.)
Still, the "other crusades" are clearly related, and I'd expect some mention of 'em (if only to note existence + briefly describe)—albeit more in-depth coverage surely ought be relegated to the main articles (e.g. Northern Crusades). Hence, I'm largely ambivalent in re C vs. A; consider my vote added to the more popular of the two, I suppose.   (...unless my vote could cause a three-way tie, in which case please consider me to have voted thusly–)
  ¹(there is not, actually, any Church initiative by this name, as far as I know—but there could easily have been, is m'point!)
Himaldrmann (talk) 13:15, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
This crusade, this war on terrorism is going to take a while. President GW Bush, Remarks on the south lawn of the White House (September 16, 2001) for example. 2A02:C7C:6B46:AA00:4D1F:EB0B:7A6D:9415 (talk) 14:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Right!  Exactly the sort of thing I was thinking of—thanks for the (actual) example, heh.
Himaldrmann (talk) 17:20, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Option B: The article should reflect all the Crusades as shown in the Crusades CampaignBox. That being said, the focus should be on the Holy Land Crusades through 1291, but with a section on Other Crusades to provide the reader guidance for more detail. This has been the structure of this article for at least 5 years until the recent rewrite. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 14:13, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the article should present the principal campaigns of the crusading movement that had a marked influence on the expeditions to the Holy Land, while also providing readers with references to later enterprises authorised by papal indulgence after the final Levantine Crusade. However, due to limitations on article length, an account of every campaign is not feasible. Readers seeking details on a specific undertaking within the crusading movement can consult the Campaignbox Crusades. Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. There is no point in providing detailed discussions of the later Crusades, as there is no unifying feature. The two articles Crusades after the fall of Acre, 1291–1399 and Crusades of the 15th century are lengthy, 182k and 231k, respectively (longer that the Crusades article itself). Trying to repeat what's there would be counterproductive. They should be referenced, however, in a section that may be called "Other Crusades" or "Later Crusades." The Northern Crusades and Iberian Crusades  should also be referenced in this section. With explanatory material, the section doesn't need to be more that 4 paragraphs long. But I think it is important to call them out just as they were in the Britannica article. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:30, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Presenting other campaigns within the crusading movement in a separate section may mislead readers, as it would fail to show their connections with the Crusades themselves. Relevant information about such campaigns should instead be included, briefly, within the appropriate articles. For example, the campaigns in Iberia and the Baltic were part of the Second Crusade, while the Albigensian Crusades in the West diminished enthusiasm for crusading in the Holy Land. A concise separate section could provide very limited information on crusading campaigns after 1291. I think this is Option A. Borsoka (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
I don't think it would be confusing. The Crusades CampaignBox shows them and a short section of explanation would do. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:27, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
The campaignbox fails to clarify the relationship between the Crusades and other papally initiated campaigns. We should not imply that these two forms of warfare—already distinguished in the Middle Ages as crux transmarina (for the Holy Land) and crux cismarina (in Europe)—were unrelated. Option A includes both categories, enabling us to illustrate their interconnection without overemphasising campaigns in specific theatres of war that already have dedicated articles, like the Albigensian Crusades or Northern Crusades. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Hold on... okay, so:  a section called "Other Crusades" (or some such), which—presumably—provides information about said other crusades (such as "... some of the Iberian Crusades were part of the Second Crusade, as were the Baltic Crusades ...",¹ say), while being itself part of an article titled Crusades'–...
...–well, I may be misunderstanding what you mean, but—how do we envision that such a section would mislead readers, exactly...?  I mean, the connection seems pretty clear, to me—and if it isn't, then surely having a section wherein that connection can be made explicit is less misleading, no? 🤔
 
¹ (wait, that doesn't quite sound right to me actually—are you sure the Baltic Crusades are part of the Second Crusade?)
Himaldrmann (talk) 11:15, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
(1) You are quite right. The statement that "some of the Iberian Crusades were part of the Second Crusade, as were the Baltic Crusades" is indeed misleading. In fact, after the papal bull proclaiming the Second Crusade granted indulgences to its participants, later bulls extended the same privileges to campaigns in Spain and the Baltic. As a result, as the historian Hans Eberhard Mayer observed, these Iberian and Baltic expeditions became, in effect, "a substitute for a crusade". (2) I still maintain that creating a separate section devoted to papally sanctioned campaigns against Moors, heretics, or pagans within Europe would risk misleading readers by implying that such expeditions were entirely distinct from the crusades to the Holy Land. In reality, the various fronts of the crusading movement were closely interconnected. The indulgences granted to those fighting in Europe were identical to those offered to crusaders in the East; as a result, many recipients were reluctant to undertake the long and costly journey to Palestine. These parallel campaigns thus often diminished enthusiasm for the Levantine expeditions. Such interrelations—much like the detrimental effects of conflicts between France and England on crusading efforts—can be meaningfully addressed only within the sections devoted to the individual numbered crusades. Borsoka (talk) 12:51, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
I wouldn't object to a (perhaps somewhat smaller) "Other Crusades" section—I had understood Option B to mean that e.g. the Iberian Crusades would receive equal billing with the First Crusade; but if it just means "there should be some mention of the 'non-canonical crusades'", then I'm probably pretty neutral in re the two proposals.
Himaldrmann (talk) 17:17, 23 October 2025 (UTC)
Like Dr. Grampinator, I support that "the focus should be on the Holy Land Crusades through 1291, but with a section on Other Crusades to provide the reader guidance for more detail. This has been the structure of this article for at least 5 years until the recent rewrite". This Rfc is rather misleadingly written, & this view might be regarded as either A or B. Johnbod (talk) 00:19, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
For me, this is Option C: "The article should cover both the Crusades for the Holy Land and, in brief, other campaigns authorised by papal indulgence, but as distinct topics." (I refer to this version: [4].). Borsoka (talk) 01:02, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Well yes, that would do. But you don't give that as an option, which is especially unhelpful as it was "the structure of this article for at least 5 years until the recent rewrite", to quote Dr G. Can you point to where the structure of your rewrite actually achieved consensus here? Will you add Option C to this Rfc, and if not, why not? Johnbod (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Added. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Thanks. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Option C, noting it was added 3 days into the Rfc. Johnbod (talk) 14:01, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Option A. There is no universally accepted definition of “the Crusades” in historical scholarship. As Giles Constable outlined, there are at least four major schools of interpretation—traditionalist, pluralist, popularist, and generalist—each offering different criteria for what constitutes a Crusade. Among these, the traditionalist view, which defines the Crusades narrowly as the papally sanctioned campaigns to the Holy Land between 1095 and 1291, remains both academically defensible and widely adopted in general reference works.
For the sake of coherence and reader clarity, it is both practical and appropriate for this article to adopt a clearly delimited focus on the classic “numbered” Crusades. These expeditions—centred on the struggle for Jerusalem and the Latin East—form the most recognisable and historically central element of the crusading movement. Broader campaigns, such as those in Iberia, the Baltic, and against heretics, are already discussed in detail in separate, dedicated articles. Including them all within this article as fully parallel topics would fragment the narrative and obscure the distinctiveness of the Levantine campaigns.
Maintaining a focused article, while briefly acknowledging the wider crusading movement in summary and linking to other articles, reflects the structure used by major sources such as Encyclopædia Britannica. It also meets Wikipedia’s guidance on proportionality and summary style. This approach avoids confusion, preserves a clear thematic arc, and respects both historical complexity and editorial practicality.
I suppose the point I am making is that the concerns raised here could largely be addressed by expanding the opening sentence of the Terminology section. The necessary citations are already present, so it would simply be a matter of clarifying the range of scholarly definitions without altering the article’s overall scope. 147.161.142.176 (talk) 08:29, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Not true. All medieval historians recognize that there were other Crusades than those to the Holy Land. Everyone also agrees that the focus should be on the Holy Land Crusades, but the other Crusades should be recognized as they are as part of the Second Crusade and in the lead-up to the Fifth Crusade. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:32, 24 October 2025 (UTC)
Several historians (such as Asbridge, Mayer, Richard) do not regard the Iberian or Albigensian Crusades as belonging to the main series of Crusades. English dictionaries likewise tend to define the term narrowly, restricting it to the campaigns for the Holy Land. Borsoka (talk) 02:05, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Norman Housley — The Crusaders (2002), p. 2
“There is no universally accepted definition of the crusade. The movement’s development was complex, and historians disagree about its essential nature.”
Norman Housley — Contesting the Crusades (2006), p. 3
“Historians have been forced to confront the fact that ‘crusading’ could express itself in a wide variety of theatres and circumstances. This has led, inevitably, to disagreements over what the term should properly embrace."
Jean Flori — La Guerre Sainte: La formation de l’idée de croisade dans l’Occident chrétien (2001), p. 11
“The term ‘crusade’ is itself the product of history and interpretation. It did not possess a fixed or precise meaning in the Middle Ages, and it still does not today.”
Alan V. Murray — in The Crusades: An Encyclopaedia (ed. Murray, 2006), vol. 1, p. 4
“Attempts to provide a single definition of ‘crusade’ that satisfies all historians have repeatedly failed. The term covers a range of expeditions which cannot be easily reduced to a single essence.”
James A. Brundage — Medieval Canon Law and the Crusader (1969), p. ix
“The crusade was never a static institution. Its scope, purpose, and justification changed fundamentally over time, a fact that explains the variety of modern interpretations.”
Carl Erdmann — The Origin of the Idea of Crusade (1935; English trans. 1977), p. 14
“The crusade was not born fully formed; it emerged gradually from earlier ideas of holy war. The variety of its expressions ensures that scholars will continue to dispute its boundaries.”
2A02:C7C:6B46:AA00:7789:7551:156B:2561 (talk) 08:38, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Support Option A  Dr. Grampinator Your claim that "all medieval historians" recognize the other crusades is not supportable. Borsoka and I are not friends, and rarely agree on anything, but on this point, he is absolutely correct. Jenhawk777 (talk) 09:51, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
I always get in trouble when I use generalizations, so let's say that many prominent historians recognize that there are other crusades other than those to the Holy Land. Even Option A admits that and Borsoka counts some 200 individual crusades in his argument why they shouldn't be considered. But the article "Crusades" should be the anchor for the hundreds of articles in Wikipedia on the subject. I agree that the focus should be the traditional crusades, but to not admit that there are many more is not a neutral POV. Even the current article as written (I assume is the model for Option A) starts with statement that is immediately contradicted. In my mind, the differences among Options A, B and C is the degree to which the "other crusades" are treated. Option C (the original version which began changing in July) recognizes that there are other crusades and provides the links to the appropriate articles. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:17, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Sorry for the double response, but the lead statement in the current article is:
The Crusades were a series of military campaigns launched by the papacy between 1095 and 1291 against Muslim rulers for the recovery and defence of the Holy Land (Palestine), encouraged by promises of spiritual reward.
I could see that being the case for an article on Crusades to the Holy Land, but not for a general article on Crusades. I don't see that using the article List of Crusades as the anchor article is viable.  Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:23, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Option A and rename to The Crusades, matching The Holocaust and WP:NCTHE. Onceinawhile (talk) 09:26, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
My statement that "All medieval historians recognize that there were other Crusades than those to the Holy Land" was perhaps a little too hasty, as there are clearly some differences of opinion. However, comprehensive works like Murray's Encyclopedia, Lock's Routledge Companion to the Crusades, and Riley-Smith's Atlas of the Crusades consider the full range of Crusades and theaters. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 16:33, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
It depends on what we consider to be a comprehensive work on the Crusades. For instance, both Asbridge and Mayer have written comprehensive studies of the Crusades, but they almost exclusively present the campaigns in the Holy Land. Borsoka (talk) 06:57, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Option B. This is an overarching article, which should have each of the individual crusades - where ever they may have taken place - as sub-articles. There is probably room for Crusades in the Holy Land, however named, to be a sub-article with the individual crusades there to be sub-sub-articles. (If this were a vote on an article with a different name I may vote differently, but I am voting on the question set, not a hypothetical question which wasn't. :-) ) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:21, 25 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your !vote. What distinction would you make between the Crusading movement—the overarching article on the subject—and this one? It seems difficult to see how more than 200 individual campaigns, from the First Crusade to the last Holy Leagues against the Ottomans, could be meaningfully treated within a single article. Borsoka (talk) 00:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Simple answer to the last sentence is that it can't. @Gog the Mild's suggestion is valid, but for a very different article to this or I suspect to the one proposed by those supporting options B or C. The result would be an compendium or list including any event identified by anyone following Constable's 'Generalist' approach. It would in effect be an annotated expansion of the Campaign Box which I note includes 1 crusade twice under different names while omitting several others that some would consider crusades. The root cause of all this is that there has never been an academically agreed single definition of what a crusade actually is and there never will be. This article currently has a coherent arguable scope and those who disagree with this should propose what their alternative scope is. 2A02:C7C:6B46:AA00:B352:862B:1255:6FE2 (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Of course an article could be written covering Crusades "from the First Crusade to the last Holy Leagues against the Ottomans". I am unsure if those suggesting otherwise actually intend their argument to be taken seriously. And if an RFC is started with a set of options to !vote on, to argue that the onus for explaining why an !vote which differs from an editor's preference should even be considered is on the editor so voting is not how RFCs work, not how Wikipedia works, and not helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:16, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
I have never claimed that it would be impossible to write an article covering the Crusades "from the First Crusade to the last Holy Leagues against the Ottomans". In fact, there are already two existing articles that do so: Crusading movement and List of Crusades. What I questioned was whether more than 200 individual campaigns, from the First Crusade to the final Holy Leagues, could be meaningfully discussed within a single article. As an ordinary editor, not someone authorised to speak on behalf of millions of Wikipedians, I would not presume to make broad statements about how Wikipedia works. However, after editing and participating in RfCs for over 15 years, I have learned that it is essential to consider all implications of an !vote carefully. Otherwise, we may end up closing one RfC only to open another, in this case, about the scope of the Crusading movement article itself. Therefore, I must again ask: what would be the actual difference between an "Option B" Crusades article and the existing Crusading movement article? Borsoka (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
The earlier intent seems to have been such that Crusading movement focuses on the ideological background of the crusades, while crusades would be the broadest article in the topic area, and also more focused on the campaigns themselves. Jähmefyysikko (talk) 05:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, the Crusading movement article focuses on several overarching aspects of crusading — including its institutions, ideology, finances, and participants — whereas Crusades primarily deals with the individual campaigns. The question is how broadly these campaigns should be defined: only around twenty expeditions to the Holy Land (Option A), or more than two hundred campaigns across Europe and the Mediterranean (Option B). Borsoka (talk) 06:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
There was such an article in Wikipedia. It was called Crusades and it was an A-Class article, stable for many years. It underwent a major rewrite beginning in July. While most of the rewrite is good, it eliminated discussion of "Other Crusades" in both the lede and in the main body. This whole issue could be resolved by simply adding back the original lede and the section entitled "Other Crusades." As noted above, there are lengthy articles on Crusades of the 14th century and of the 15th century and that material needs only be properly referenced not repeated.
I think is is curious that, other than myself, no member of the Crusades Task Force has chimed in on this important issue. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 13:46, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
That article was representative of Option C, treating other campaigns of the crusading movement largely separately from the main Crusades. It featured a lead that focused almost entirely on the First Crusade and the crusading campaigns in Europe ([5]). Borsoka (talk) 13:53, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Better to restore the Terminology section to explain what is in scope, what is out, why, and a pointer to what some are calling other crusades. 2A02:C7C:6B46:AA00:4A2D:749B:8CCC:B3F5 (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2025 (UTC)
Section "Terminology" is expanded with a clear reference to the Iberian, Northern and Albigensian Crusades. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
It is a serious point @Gog the Mild as illustrated by your first sentence. Why pick the Holy Leagues as the end point? What serious academic source says this is the end and is this the consensus amongst historians? I have seen arch pluralistic Riley-Smith mischievously make the argument that crusading was still extant in the 19th century. He was probably only making a point, but it is valid and missed by many. Unless the article has a defined scope, defended by academic opinion and sourced to an explicit statement this just becomes a random collection of facts without context. That is less an article and more of a mess. If you had 100,000 words you might pick a different scope, but this needs to be compressed to c10k. That requires editorial choice. 2A02:C7C:6B46:AA00:4A2D:749B:8CCC:B3F5 (talk) 10:55, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Option D: Split? the American Heritage Dictionary counts three senses of the word "crusade." The first sense refers to option A and is "often" capitalized. However, the second sense refers to any "holy war undertaken with papal sanction" which would apply to option B. Perhaps we should have two separate articles, one for the historical wars in the Holy Land and one for the concept of papally sanctioned wars? ―Howard • 🌽33 15:06, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
A precedent could be the articles civil war and American civil war, which is usually just called "the Civil War" in the US. ―Howard • 🌽33 15:11, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
That is a valid point, but we already have two (or rather three) articles: Crusading movement, which covers all papally sanctioned wars and several crucial aspects of the movement (such as its institutions, finances, and warfare); Crusades, which deals with the crusading expeditions to the Holy Land; and List of Crusades, which provides an overview of each crusading campaign. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
The point I take from this is that List of Crusades probably meets all the criteria that those preferring Options B and C are working to while adding the definite article to the name of this article satisfies the criteria of those choosing to support Option A. That would make it an article naming question rather than a scope one. Or have I missed something? ~2025-31520-72 (talk) 13:07, 7 November 2025 (UTC)
Option C to fit with common parlance. It must also not be minimized that the Crusades also featured  anti-Jewish massacres, not just military campaigns against the Muslims.  Therefore the broadest approach possible is proper. Scharb (talk) Scharb (talk) 22:39, 30 October 2025 (UTC)
Common parlance is Option A @Scharb. This would also include the Rhineland massacres as part of the First Crusade. General crusade related anti-semitism is for the Crusading movement. ~2025-31520-72 (talk) 10:47, 6 November 2025 (UTC)
B, I suppose. Or maybe C? This has been discussed many times and has been the topic of multiple RFCs over the years. My opinion is unchanged. The scope of the article was settled for years (correctly) before the crusading movement article was spun off some years back. Three points:Srnec (talk) 01:41, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
The definition of a crusade has shifted from a narrow focus on medieval holy wars to a complex, multifaceted concept. Early historians such as Steven Runciman viewed the Crusades as a series of religious wars to recover Jerusalem. From the 1960s, scholars like Jonathan Riley-Smith redefined them as papally authorised, vowed, penitential pilgrimages—a legal and spiritual category grounded in the Church’s authority. In the 1990s, historians including Jonathan Phillips and Norman Housley expanded this to a pluralist view, treating crusading as a social, political and cultural movement that extended across medieval Christendom, not just the Holy Land. More recently, Christopher Tyerman and others have taken a historiographical approach, arguing that “the Crusades” are themselves a modern scholarly construct, not a single medieval phenomenon. Today, historians speak of a crusading movement—a diverse set of church-sanctioned, religiously inspired wars whose definition depends on context, motive and later interpretation. ~2025-31520-72 (talk) 18:49, 9 November 2025 (UTC)
One of the earliest histories of the Crusades is by Michaud whose comprehensive work on the Crusades published in 1840 also includes the crusades against the Turks in the 14th and 15th centuries. The seminal articles on the Crusades in the Catholic Encyclopedia and Encyclopedia Britannica (11th edition) of the early 20th century also take the more comprehensive approach. Runciman does include a chapter in his Volume 3 on the later crusades. The comprehensive 6-volume Wisconson History of the Crusades treats the full set of crusades as does Lock's Routledge Companion to the Crusades and Riley-Smith's Oxford history. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:48, 10 November 2025 (UTC)
These works illustrate how the concept of “the Crusades” itself evolved rather than describing a single, continuous enterprise. Michaud’s early 19th-century history helped create the modern idea of unified “crusades” stretching from the 11th to 15th centuries. Runciman preserved that broad framework but moralised it as a tragic episode of religious intolerance. The Wisconsin History of the Crusades professionalised the field, analysing crusading as an institutional system of papally authorised warfare. All such interpretations reflect later historians’ attempts to impose coherence on what were, in reality, diverse medieval campaigns understood very differently by their participants. ~2025-31520-72 (talk) 09:19, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
What I am saying in summary, I guess, is @Borsoka has edited this article well against a defined scope that can be academically defended. If I came to this article as an unengaged reader it would give me what I wanted or needed. Some of the alternatives suggested are much less intellectually coherent, largely relying on the inclusion of topics in a partially selected number of works rather than the opinion or judgement taken from what academics actually wrote on the subject of what a crusade is. As such, if that was the question a reader wanted answered a better article to begin with is Historiography of the Crusades ~2025-31520-72 (talk) 09:34, 11 November 2025 (UTC)
(no change) - which I think is close to Option A phrasing.  As the longstanding focus and no need shown to change.  "The Crusades" seems the WP:COMMONNAME for this, plus as User:Srnec mentioned here, this has been covered before e.g. in Archives 14, 15, and RFC in Archive 18.  Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:51, 8 November 2025 (UTC)
I think you mean Option C. Until July, the article represented the consensus from the RFC in Archive 18. After that point, it was changed to reflect Holy Land Crusades only. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:42, 10 November 2025 (UTC)

the use of the parenthetical "Palestine" is laughable - the land is not called that now, nor was it called that at the time of the Crusades either by the crusading Europeans nor by the local inhabitants nor by the Saracen defenders. It is more Wikipedian agitprop and while I don't expect any change to be permitted by the Trotskyite cabal overseeing such things, I had a free moment. ~2025-32624-18 (talk) 19:02, 10 November 2025 (UTC)