# Talk:Crusading movement

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)

@Borsoka, @’ChasetheDevil', ’Remsense', and any other editors who may have worked on this article, I've just completed the requested copy edit of the article made to the Guild of Copy Editors and I'll be happy to engage in discussion about what I did and why. I'll also make a few suggestions about further possible improvements or helpful things to do with the article. Usually, these are content-related, as I take care of proofreading and formatting issues during my copy edit ... but because I see that re-editing has already begun on the article, I'll add a few observations of that sort too, starting off with just three for now.
— I think it would be very helpful to readers to explain up front that the term "Crusading movement" is widely used by historians in referring to religious, political, and military campaigns during the Middle Ages, mainly those of the Roman Catholic Church to recapture the Holy Land from Muslim control. Not all readers would know this, including me — who majored in history in college — and so they'd find it a bit unusual. 
— Long, chunky paragraphs should be broken up for the sake of readership. An informal but helpful guideline is to do so after 35 words, but at the same time keeping thoughts and lines of discussion together as much as possible.
— About the initial capitalisation format for Crusades/Crusader/Crusading, which I researched carefully because it's a little confusing:

The "C" should be capitalised if it's part of the proper name of a specific historical event or movement like the Crusades, as is the case in much of the article. So whenever Crusades, Crusader(s), and Crusading were capitalised in the work I did on the article, it was with close attention to this rule.
The "C" should be lower case when the words are used in a more general sense, when simply referring to a strong campaign or movement for a cause.
It was a little tricky to decide what to do with terms like "popular crusades," which I think I left with lower case initial "C" even though that term and a few other similar ones were regarded as holy wars because they were not authorised by the Church. I'm frankly not 100% sure about that sort of term.
Augnablik (talk) 06:23, 1 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you for your careful copy-edit and your suggestion. I expanded the lead in line with your comments but chose not to mention the Holy Land in the opening sentence, since the primary sources do not clearly show that Urban referred to it in his Clermont speech. Borsoka (talk) 03:51, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
That greatly surprised me, Borsoka, so I did a quick query on Google about it and found something I hope you'll use as a reason to check further. AI-generated information is often a good springboard to finding strong supporting proof on further inquiry.
"Yes, Pope Urban II explicitly mentioned and urged action regarding the Holy Land and Jerusalem in his speech at the Council of Clermont in 1095, calling for Christians to reclaim these sites from Muslim control and initiate the First Crusade. His appeal highlighted the suffering of Christians and promised spiritual rewards for those who participated in this effort to liberate the Holy Sepulchre and other holy places." Augnablik (talk) 05:16, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
Against AI, I can only refer to the sources cited in the article. Most authors are convinced that Jerusalem was the proclaimed the First Crusade's ultimate goal, but several versions of Urban's Clermont sermon do not contain reference to it. What is clear from all sources that the Pope called for the liberation of eastern Christians. Borsoka (talk) 05:31, 2 October 2025 (UTC)

Although I'd love to get more involved in this sort of discussion, I don't have that much time for it ... so I'll just suggest that you point out in the article exactly what you said above: that several versions of what Urban II said at the council do not contain reference to it. In this day and age of quick recording technology, we have to remember it wasn't available back then. Omission of anything he said could be due not only to his not having said it but also to choosing other things he said. And the "liberation of [E]astern Christians" that you're sure all the sources do support could, in the pope's mind, have been intended to include liberation of the Holy Land itself. I'm not a historical expert on this, just mentioning this.
Incidentally, toward making "Crusading movement" a GA, you might want to consider that going into discussion of conflicted information from supporting sources earns what could colloquially be called "brownie points".
By the way, please recall that my message of 05:16 was not based on AI in the sense of reliance on it for absolute truth ... but was merely suggesting that it's often a good place from which to begin a more detailed editing search. Having once been lambasted by an editor who thought I was actually suggesting reliance on AI when I made a similar suggestion — even though I think I clearly pointed out how AI could be useful, as I did here — I've come to tread carefully when touching on the topic. Augnablik (talk) 06:28, 2 October 2025 (UTC)
@Borsoka, I was just about to pick up again on further comments, after a few days' delay, starting with content-related ones, followed by  the more proofreading ones ... but then I noticed that a GA review is already underway. I wish I'd known how quickly you planned to start that, as I might have been able to speed up my further review comments a little more quickly, though for a day or so I wasn't well. I spent several additional hours preparing something further for you because I knew you were planning to get the article ready for GA review.
I also wish the explanation I already gave about the need for capital vs lower-case letters in several instances (notably C and E) had made more of an impact, as they are important in this particular historical article and as I indicated, I checked this issue very carefully.
At any rate, I wish you success. Augnablik (talk) 17:17, 5 October 2025 (UTC)
Yes, I nominated the article soon after you finished its copyedit. I hope you are well by now. I would still be very grateful for any suggestions to improve the text. Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 6 October 2025 (UTC)


### Crusading movement
Previous peer review

The article examines the ideological, institutional, social, and economic framework of the movement that emerged from the First Crusade. The papally sanctioned medieval military campaigns for the Holy Land are covered in a separate article, Crusades, while other papally sanctioned military actions—such as the Iberian, Northern, and Albigensian Crusades—each have their own dedicated entries. I have listed this article for peer review to ensure that it adequately covers the main aspects of the movement without going into unnecessary detail, and I would be grateful for any suggestions to improve the prose.
Thanks, Borsoka (talk) 01:53, 17 October 2025 (UTC)


### Peer review comments
#### Coverage and scope
The article comprehensively covers the main facets of the crusading movement, fulfilling its aim of examining the ideological, institutional, social, and economic framework of the movement that emerged from the First Crusade. It rightly focuses on the broader movement rather than retelling the military expeditions, which are handled in the separate Crusades article. Key themes are addressed: the ideological foundations, the papal and institutional mechanisms, the social composition of crusaders (including the often-overlooked participation of women), and the economic dimensions of crusading. The geographical expansion of crusading beyond the Holy Land is duly included, with appropriate mention of campaigns in Iberia, the Baltic, and against heretics. The article also extends to legacy and historiography, discussing the movement’s lasting impact on intercultural relations and summarising the evolution of scholarly interpretation.
The depth is largely appropriate: it illustrates each point with sufficient detail without straying into superfluous narrative. However, a few subsections verge on excess—for example, the section on Frankish Greece offers intricate dynastic detail that might exceed the scope of a general overview. Nonetheless, the article largely succeeds in presenting the main aspects of the movement with commendable clarity and focus.


#### Structure and organisation
The article is logically organised, beginning with background and origins before progressing through the development of the movement and then exploring thematic aspects and its aftermath. The inclusion of a concise Crusades section with subsections for the First Crusade, later campaigns, and various theatres ensures a solid chronological framework.
Thematic sections are generally well-placed. However, the section titled Crusading and societies functions as something of an omnibus, encompassing recruitment, privileges, finances, warfare, institutions, and culture. A clearer delineation between the processes of crusading and its cultural legacy might improve clarity. Consider splitting this section or renaming it—for instance, using headings such as Organisation and institutions and Cultural impact—to enhance readability.
The hierarchy of headings is appropriate, and the lead section offers a strong overview. One possible improvement would be to incorporate a brief mention of the crusading legacy in modern times, thus tying the lead more clearly to the article’s conclusion.


#### Clarity and tone
The prose is formal, clear, and generally well-written. Complex historical terms are introduced with adequate context, and jargon is avoided or explained. The tone is neutral and balanced throughout, with due attention paid to multiple perspectives, including those of Muslims, Jews, and Eastern Christians.
Nonetheless, there are occasional issues with ambiguous pronouns. For example, in the sentence “Coinciding with the so-called 'Twelfth-Century Renaissance', it also inspired literary works,” the antecedent of “it” is unclear and could be misread. A minor rephrasing could resolve this.
The article maintains appropriate tone, though it occasionally uses phrases such as “so-called” in a way that might introduce scepticism. These could be reworded (e.g., “what historians call…”), in accordance with the Manual of Style’s preference for impartial phrasing.
Some inconsistency in English variety is present: the article mixes British and American spellings (e.g., “endeavour” vs. “armor”). Given the topic’s historical context and the peer review’s reference to Oxford English, it would be preferable to standardise on British English throughout.
Foreign-language terms such as imitatio Christi and crucesignati should be italicised or tagged using the lang template, as per MOS:FOREIGN.


#### Recommendations
To improve the article’s prose and Manual of Style compliance, I suggest the following:

Standardise on British English spelling throughout the article.
Clarify ambiguous pronouns for readability.
Avoid use of “so-called” in the article’s own voice; use neutral alternatives.
Italicise or tag non-English terms appropriately.
Consider summarising sections that exceed necessary detail, such as dynastic histories in Frankish Greece.
Rename or restructure the “Crusading and societies” section to improve thematic clarity and reader navigation.
In summary, the article is well-researched and commendably broad in scope, offering a detailed yet focused treatment of the crusading movement. The suggestions above are intended as refinements to polish what is already a strong article. With these revisions, the entry will move closer to meeting the standards expected of a Featured Article. The contributors are to be congratulated for producing such a thorough and well-balanced work.

––– 2A02:C7C:6B46:AA00:44F3:FEFD:FF0:AD60 (talk) 09:43, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
 2A02:C7C:6B46:AA00:44F3:FEFD:FF0:AD60 (talk) 12:16, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your comments and recommendations. I appreciate the feedback, though it appears that a few of the comments may reflect ChatGPT's well-known tendency for hallucination.

I have standardised British English spellings, but several of the examples mentioned (e.g. favor*, anal*, realiz*, toward*) do not actually appear in the peer-reviewed text ([1]).
I have clarified ambiguous pronouns where necessary.
I have removed the phrase "so-called".
The terms imitatio Christi and crucesignati are italicised in the peer-reviewed text ([2]), so no change was needed.
I believe the section on Frankish Greece remains within the necessary level of detail, illustrating the region's political vulnerability.
I agree that the section "Crusading and societies" could benefit from clearer structure. I will work on it. Borsoka (talk) 12:58, 21 October 2025 (UTC)
Section "Crusading and societies" was restructured. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 22 October 2025 (UTC)


### Hawkeye7
Great article. These sort of high level articles are extremely difficult to write and you are congratulated for taking it on! I still find it confusing in scope though. Is this article of Crusades the main article? It is not is the navbox; perhaps it should be? You say it deals with the "ideological, institutional, social, and economic framework" of crusading; Crusades says it deals with "theoretical, sociological, institutional, military, and financial dimensions of crusading". I am not seeing the economic framework of Outremer. This is a short section on Finance. My personal interest is military logistics and I could probably write an entire article on the subject but the point that it is not covered. My suggestion would be to drop "military and financial" from the description. (Obligatory typo: "induvidual".) Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:23, 26 October 2025 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your note and suggestions. Yes, this article is intended to serve as the comprehensive overview of principal topics related to crusading. The reference to it was removed unilaterally from the navbox less than three months ago ([3]). I believe a new navbox should be created to cover the core elements of crusading — including theatres of war, ideology, warfare, finance, indulgences, and so on. However, to be truly comprehensive, this article should indeed address the "theoretical, sociological, institutional, military, and financial dimensions of crusading". Many thanks also for your suggestion regarding logistics; I will expand the article with a few sentences devoted specifically to that topic. I agree as well that several sub-articles still need to be created — such as Crusading warfare, Logistics of the Crusades, Violence and the Crusades, and Byzantines and the Crusades. I hope you might find time to start or expand some of them. Borsoka (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Okay, so I would suggest a short section on the economics of the crusader kingdoms, equivalent to that on the arts, with paragraphs on (a) agriculture (b) the finances of the kingdoms and (c) commerce. Anything larger would belong in an article of its own. I can help you write it if you like. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 19:47, 27 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you very much for your suggestion. I would be grateful for any recommendations of specialised literature on the logistics of the crusading campaigns. However, I believe this article cannot devote more than one or two sentences to the economics of the new states (the Crusader states, Frankish Greece, and the realms of the Teutonic Knights and Knights Hospitaller) due to article size limits. Their economies are only tangentially related to the topic of this article, as are their societies, politics, and legal systems. More detailed coverage can (or should) be found in the articles dedicated to those states. Borsoka (talk) 02:14, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Bell, Gregory D. (2020). Logistics of the First Crusade: Acquiring Supplies Amid Chaos. Lanham: Lexington Books. ISBN 978-1-4985-8640-5. OCLC 1114421188.
Pryor, John H., ed. (2018) [2006]. Logistics of Warfare in the Age of the Crusades : Proceedings of a Workshop Held at the Centre for Medieval Studies, University of Sydney, 30 September to 4 October 2002. London: Routledge. ISBN 0-7546-5197-5. OCLC 974916801.
Tyerman, Christopher (2016). How to plan a Crusade. London: Penguin Books. ISBN 978-0-241-95465-2. OCLC 962404708.
Hawkeye7 (discuss) 18:40, 28 October 2025 (UTC)
Thank you for your suggestions. I have expanded the article with two sentences on the economies of the Crusader states. After reading two of the recommended works, it seems that the essential points on crusading logistics are already addressed, and the sentence in the "Warfare" section makes clear that many aspects of the topic are poorly documented. I believe the subject would be best treated in a dedicated article, and it could also be explored in greater depth in more military-focused articles such as Crusades, Iberian Crusades, and Northern Crusades. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 20 November 2025 (UTC)