# Talk:First Crusade

@Anvib: There were some English that participated in the First Crusade, but the Kingdom of England was not one of the belligerents. If you read Christopher Tyerman's book England and the Crusades, you will realize that. On page 15, he states "...English involvement in the First Crusade was minimal and peripheral." The fact that an English fleet provided some supplies at Antioch does not make them a combatant. Asbridge's work on the First Crusade has exactly one reference to England, and that's the supply at Antioch. Please amend your edit. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 22:13, 28 February 2024 (UTC)

I agree that English participation in the First crusade was more limited and peripheral however that doesn't change the fact that the Kingdom participated. If you question the participation of the Kingdom of England on this basis, then you could also have to for many of the other listed belligerents. And I again refer to the following: :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Crusade#/media/File:Origin_of_the_First_Crusaders.jpg
and :https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christian_forces_of_the_First_Crusade
both of which reference direct participation from the Kingdom of England.
Anvib (talk) 23:29, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree. There's not rationale for many of them. The Republic of Genoa did not even exist when the First Crusade started. On the Eastern side, Armenia and the Marionites were not participants, but the Byzantine empire was. As to the Crusaders, maybe the Christian forces of the First Crusade should be the guide. (Full disclosure: I wrote that article back in 2017.) I support a major-league scrub. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 00:33, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
"The fact that an English fleet provided some supplies at Antioch" There is a more obvious connection to England than that. One of the leaders of this crusade was Robert Curthose, Duke of Normandy. He was the brother and (at the time) heir of William II of England. Dimadick (talk) 13:58, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Read my comment above. The experts on the subject say no. Do you have a source that says the Kingdom of England participated in the First Crusade? Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:25, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
You have got to love WP pedantry :-). The belligerents section is fundamentally flawed and it would be better to delete it entirely. In Feudal society it is probably wrong to say that a particular polity engaged, as opposed to particular leaders and their affinity. For example the kingdom of France is on the list along with a subordinate list of supposed territories even though it wasn't to come into existence for roughly a century and although some are vassals of the King of the Franks it would be wrong to say the were part of the Kingdom of France. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:57, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Tell me about it. I would be just as happy to have Western Europe and Byzantine Empire on the left and the Seljuks and Fatimids on the right. No further breakdown. The Commanders and Leaders is OK, but could be improved. Just list them. As it is right now, the value-added is minimal. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:19, 29 February 2024 (UTC)
Agree entirely :-) Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:29, 1 March 2024 (UTC)

Having followed the discussion above on England I started to wonder whether it would not make sense to split the section on Belligerents in three: Crusaders & Byzantium, Seljuk Turks and the Fatimids.
The reasoning is as follows. As the article states in the beginning, one crucial reason was the Seljuk conquests in the Middle East which then led emperor Alexios to ask for military aid in 1095. At this time, Jerusalem had been for around 20 years under Turkmen and then Seljuk turbulent rule (see Atsiz massacre of 1077, street fights in 1093 under Sökmen,...) which created difficulties for the visiting pilgrims. Thus, the Franks set of to liberate the lands fallen into Seljuk hands and then march on Jerusalem and not to make war on all Muslims. 
Already at Nicea in March 1097, emperor Alexios suggested the crusaders sent ambassadors to the Fatimid caliph because of the shared interest to maintain the Turkish threat (let's remember that Atsiz had tried to invade Egypt in 1076 and that the Seljuks portrayed themselves as strict Sunnites and fighters against the Shiite Fatimids). The embassy of the Fatimid caliph then met the crusaders at the siege of Antioch in February 1098 and it could be that they even fought in the battle of the lake of Antioch on February 9 (see Albert of Aachen: https://books.google.es/books?id=29ivdUpWBj8C, page 237 (chapter iii, 62)). Though it is not certain and most of the sources are written with hindsight after Jerusalem had fallen, it seems that when they left in March 1097, some kind of arrangement had been made, possibly even an alliance. Stephen of Blois writes that the Fatimids had "established peace and concord with us". Ibn Zafir writes al-Afdal, the Armenian Fatimid vezier said that it was better that the Franks occupy the Syrian ports "so that they could prevent the spread of the influence of the Turks on the lands of Egypt" (note that many coastal places were independent or under Turkish hand such as Antioch or Tripolis and see for the quote the Carolina Hillenbrand pp. 44-47). Hillenbrand and others suggest further that there might have been a plan to divide Seljuk lands and that al-Afdal would have liked to have a buffer state between him and the Seljuks.
With the Crusaders binding the Seljuk attention in northern Syria, the Fatimids were then able to go to war against the southern Seljuk towns and reconquer Jerusalem in August 1098. The Frankish ambassadors celebrated Easter 1099 in the reconquered Jerusalem together with the Fatimids. 
The break with the Fatimids came only in April 1099 when the diplomatic discussions before Arqa broke down, likely also influenced by the breakdown of the alliance between (most of) the crusaders and Alexios.
Even then did the crusaders only went straight after Jerusalem, not conquering any further places on their way. Moreover, the Fatimids did not join the Turks in an alliance to expel the crusaders but this joining of arms happened several decades later (under Nur ad-Din? unfortunately I am not well-read on when they actually joined arms). 
One option could be to include the Fatimids on both columns and give an entrance date into the conflict (like Russia here in the infobox on the Seven Years' War) but I think this still gives a wrong impression as if the Fatimids and the Crusaders or the Seljuks and Fatimids were united. 
Therefore, I think these events could be best reflected by having three columns with the crusading forces (maybe we could use here the Wiki pages on the armies of each crusader lord?) & Byzantium in the first, the Seljuk forces in the second and the Fatimids in the third. This shows better the existing division and complexity in the Middle East and will also give the readers the incentive to see the conflict as more than just Christians vs. Muslims.
What do you think?
PS: Here some sources on the topic: 
Asbridge, Thomas S.(2007). Knowing thy Enemy: Latin Relations with Islam at the Time of the First Crusade in Knighthoods of Christ Essays on the History of the Crusades and the Knights Templar, Presented to Malcolm Barber,  pp. 17-25 https://www.google.com/books/edition/Knighthoods_of_Christ/mgskDwAAQBAJ
France, John (1994). Victory in the East, pp. 325-327 https://archive.org/details/victoryineast00john/page/324/mode/2up
Hillenbrand, Caroline (2000). The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives, pp. 44-47 https://books.google.com/books?id=UalnoF5MBHMC
Köhler, Markus (2013). Alliances and Treaties between Frankish and Muslim Rulers in the Middle East, especially  pp.44-54 https://eprints.soas.ac.uk/14644/1/Kohler%20alliances%2C%20published%20version%20prelim%20and%20ch.%201.pdf PontiffSulivahn (talk) 16:52, 2 March 2024 (UTC)

I don't object to this per se, but think it might be a little too esoteric for this article. The text doesn't really support this and I think adding this material to the article would just confuse things. I suggest a seperate article discussing the complex relations among all the parties. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 20:57, 2 March 2024 (UTC)
@PontiffSulivahn makes a good point, that the InfoBox as it currently stands is factually inaccurate. Currently it implies the Seljuks and Fatimids were allied, which is clearly untrue. I would go further, it implies a dualist Muslim v Christian contest. This lacks nuance. The Byzantines were not, by definition, either on crusade or part of the crusade. There may have been some common interest in Anatolia, a desire for restituition of Antioch and logistical support but this was in Byzantine interests; their respective objectives were different and many Crusaders were enimies of the Empire.
As such the box needs an edit, and I would suggest four columns rather than 3, or it needs deleting. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:52, 3 March 2024 (UTC)
Good point, the dualist view is far to simplified, especially as this article is about the First Crusade and not about Crusader involvement in the Holy Land in general where it could be considered.
I think with respect to Byzantium the more recent view is to emphasise their role in bringing the crusade to be and the close collaboration they maintained throughout the campaign up to the split at Arqa.
Any suggestions on how to proceed?
@Dr. Grampinator, which text specifically do you have in mind?
Also, if you do not mind I will change as a start the list of belligerent Western Europe to the different crusader armies. Neither was Western Europe involved in this as a whole nor as a "state entity". Happy to discuss it though. PontiffSulivahn (talk) 18:13, 8 March 2024 (UTC)
I'm thinking that the entire upper part of the Infobox can go. But then the right side should have three bold titles: Seljuks of Rum, Seljuk Empire, Fatimid Dynasty. The same basic information is conveyed. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 19:06, 8 March 2024 (UTC)

Add the following during the section on the Siege of Antioch: Firouz, a pivotal figure during the Siege of Antioch, was a Christian who had converted to Islam and held a key position in the city as a tower commander. Discontented with his treatment under the Muslim leaders and motivated by personal grievances, Firouz secretly negotiated with Bohemond. His betrayal allowed the Crusaders to infiltrate the city by guiding them through the city's defenses in the middle of the night. Firouz’s actions directly facilitated the fall of Antioch to the Crusaders, marking a decisive moment on the Crusader's path to Jerusalem Scamilosteez (talk) 02:34, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Jamedeus (talk) 02:39, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

i don't think this part of the page is neutral enough, and more then that "even bishops are defiled with the sin of sodomy and it is now trumpeted abroad that one bishop has succumbed to this abominable sin." i thaught muslims were strict toward sodomy ? i wish if anybody have the ability to give more better express about this part of the page  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.172.212.73 (talk) 21:46, 9 December 2024 (UTC)