Talk:Medieval Jerusalem

message: This article seems to extend from the Byzantine period to 1517. It's a fascinating period, no doubt, and one that is little covered in its complexity, but that said, way too much is missing, while over half the article focuses on a single event (the Mongol conquest in 1299/1300) which may or may not have happened. That said, here are some real events that should go into the article.
* 326 Helena - her visit to Jerusalem and the resultant construction of the original Church of the Holy Sepulchre can be considered the beginning of the Byzantine period. Jerusalem became a center of Christian pilgrimage, beginning with an anonymous account from 333.
* 361 - 363 Julian the Apostate - in just two years he managed to turn back the clock on Christian Jerusalem. He even attempted to rebuild the Jewish temple, but an earthquake cut that short, and he was killed/died/assassinated/murdered. Grafitti from that time can still be seen in the Southern Wall Excavations.
* 442 - Eudocia, wife of Theodosius II settled in Jerusalem in 442. She also showed special tolerance to the Jewish residents, causing the Jewish population to flourish--and eventually leading to hostility between them and the Christian population. Legend has it that Saint David, patron saint of Wales, visited Jerusalem at one point to curb Jewish influence.
* 527-565 Justinian literally covered the city with churches, including the Nea Apse, long the biggest church in the world, and more prominent than the Sepulchre itself. This is the period of the Madaba map. Although the Jewish population had dwindled by this time, Jerusalem's character emerged as the Holy City in Talmudic literature, which dates from this period. (Note that the footnote attributed to Zank is completely inaccurate--their were periods when Jewish settlement was limited, but there was almost always a small Jewish presence in the city or its environs). Similarly, this was the period which the Crusaders wished to restore--a city replete with all the most important churches, shrines, and monasteries in all of Christendom.
* 614 Chosroes II of Persia conquers the city. The number of Christian casualties are certainly exaggerated (33,000 - 90,000), but it sure was bloody.
* 628 or 631 -- Date is debated, but Heraclius retook the city.
* 638 - Umar ibn al-Khattab takes the city, introducing Islam. 
* 661-750 - Ummayad control of Jerusalem. While Damascus was their capital, efforts were made to convert Jerusalem into a center to rival Mecca in importance. Abd al-Malik began construcion of the Dome of the Rock and al-Aqsa in 691. Jerusalem emerged as the third holiest city of Islam.
This is just a small section of the period covered and of the article itself. It covers some 425 years and eight lines. Nonetheless, all of this is essential to understanding the emergence of the geopolitical realities of today. How did Jerusalem become the disputed Holy City How were allegiances forged? What were the Crusaders coming to revive? Why were the Muslims intent on creating a rival to Mecca? Why did the Jews keep changing sides? I hope everyone realizes that this is far more important to understanding the city than a debate over whether the Mongols, allied with the Templars, took the city  for a couple of weeks in 1300. Danny 23:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks Danny.  I just created this article today, mostly by copy/pasting information about the city from other articles such as Jerusalem, History of Jerusalem, and Franco-Mongol alliance, but I agree that there's still a long way to go!  Your ideas are definitely good ones, and I look forward to working with you to further expand the information here.  :) --Elonka 04:17, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Expansion 

message: Judith Herrin's 'Byzantium: The Surprising Life of a Medieval Empire', states p. 255: "In 1087, the balance of power in the Middle East shifted decisively when the Seljuk Turks captured Jerusalem...Their capture of Jerusalem cut pilgrim routes to the Holy Land and prompted Christians throughout the known world to action." The Wikipedia article on the First Crusade says that the Fatimids lost Jerusalem to the Seljuks in 1076 but regained it in 1098. These accounts obviously contradict, though Herrin's book appears to me authorative, but either way they are important events which are not covered in this article. Dudley Miles (talk) 21:19, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jerusalem before the First Crusade 

message: Please see the discussion,  Talk:Kingdom_of_Jerusalem#Crusader_priod_in_the_history_of_Jesusalem (city). Staszek Lem (talk) 21:06, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crusader priod in the history of Jesusalem  

message: 1) Apparently, the Khwarezmians "ruthlessly decimated" the population, leaving only 2,000 people.  Does this mean decimated in the technical sense (kill 1/10) or in the colloquial senese (massacre)?  If the latter, then "massacred" would be clearer and more appropriate.
2)Regarding the rumours that the Mongols had captured Jerusalem and were planning to return it to the Crusaders: is it right to refer to this as an "urban legend"?  That sounds to me to be an anachronistic term, and not really the sort of this that "urban myth/legend" normally refers to. Iapetus (talk) 10:49, 27 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Choice of words 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on History of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181302/http://www.historynet.com/historical_conflicts/3028446.html?page=4&c=y to http://www.historynet.com/historical_conflicts/3028446.html?page=4&c=y
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:51, 3 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "Middle Ages" is a European term. In Jerusalem there was not a Dark Age with barbarians wreaking destruction on--and disrupting--the ancient civilisation, no European-style feudalism, no Renaissance to end the "Middle" Ages. Middle of what, in the Middle East? In Europe it means: after the glorious Greco-Roman civilisation, and before its presumed "rebirth", Renaissance; it has its typical social characteristics, organisational, social, religious and cultural. The Middle East is a very different place, it does not much resemble the European medieval scheme. That's why serious historians have developed a different, by now standard periodisation for the wider region and a specific one for Palestine (region)/the Land of Israel. They use the term "period" (not era, not rule). Most are agreeing with this:
* Late Roman period (c. 130-c. 325)
* Byzatine period (c. 325-628)
* Early Muslim period (628-1099)
* Crusader period (1099-1244); since the Ayyubids regained control for long stretches of time, I much prefer Crusader/Ayyubid or Crusader-Ayyubid period (1099-1260).
* Mamluk period (1260-1517), with major architectural developments and monuments in Jerusalem.
* Ottoman period (1517-1917). One can discuss here if and when the "Modern period" took hold. Without debate is only that the Ottomans ruled until 1917-18.
The term "Middle Ages" is used academically for this city & country only for the period of West European rule, that is: the Crusader period, with a king, fiefdoms, barons of the realm, ecclesiastic provinces and domains, Frankish settlers, etc., etc.
I can recognise here an unwillingness on behalf of Jewish (religious and otherwise) nationalistically-oriented people to see Jerusalem other than through a Jewish prism. Jerusalem as "the eternal Jewish capital" is a religious, spiritual,... notion, but not an academic one. Jerusalem has been populated by - nobody between 70-130 CE -, then by majorities of Roman pagans, Eastern Christians, Western Christians, and Muslims from c. 130 CE to the 19th century. So not just "ruled" by X or Y. So "Early Muslim period" is the correct name for the mainly Rashidun, Umayyad, Abbasid and Fatimid periods taken together. Even if somebody is allergic to a period called "Muslim this-or-that" in Jerusalem's history. Same with "Crusader". "Middle Ages" sounds neutral, but is plain wrong.
Also, the Umayyad period is included by some into the classical antiquity.
So, think again and please, rename. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 17:48, 22 May 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wrong title! 

message: hi. If interested, please see above under "Wrong title!". This article has no reason to exist as it stands now, except maybe on Hebrew Wikipedia, where some Israeli users want to see the customary Zionist periodisation - First, Second, and Third Jewish Commonwealth, with everything what stands in between combined into hic sunt leones amorphous articles, without a clear definition other than "these were periods sans Jewish rule".
This article starts, in spite of the completely phony heading of "Byzantine rule", before 70 CE. It continues with the Bar Kokhba revolt (13-135/6), which is still Roman, not Byzantine period. The actual Byzantine period is dealt with in 3-4 sentences. The Jews' fate under the Rashiduns is squeezed into the Byzantine period (?!), together with the 8th to 11th centuries (?!!!). This is worse than bad. The next paragraphs are slightly better.
I have separated and (I hope) expanded a bit the material relating to the Early Muslim period in a separate article, which is now submitted to be reviewed (I'm not familiar with the procedure, is it really a must? It can apparently take up to 8 weeks. Madness.) You can find it here: Draft:History of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim period
The next step is to split "History of Jerusalem during the Middle Ages" into several articles. At the most, we can end up with 5, but there is no must to have one for each period.
* History of Jerusalem during the Byzantine period. Problem: there is no consensus on when this period starts - between c. 325 - c. 380.
* History of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim period (already written)
* History of Jerusalem during the Kingdom of Jerusalem (already online) - Crusader period defined as until the final demise of the Kingdom of Jerusalem (actually of Acre) in 1291, although Jerusalem was lost for good in 1244. Includes periods of Ayyubid rule and 3 decades (1260-91) of the Mamluk period.
* History of Jerusalem during the Mamluk period -- main focus: lots of great architecture in 2.5 centuries. Huldra has started working on it (User:Huldra/Mamluk Jerusalem).
* History of Jerusalem during the Ottoman period. -- A full 4 centuries. The "Modern period" is considered to start around 1840.
We already have Jerusalem during the Second Temple Period (late C6 BCE - 70 CE), Aelia Capitolina (not well developed. Deals with 130 - ?638?), and then we jump to Jerusalem Subdistrict, Mandatory Palestine. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 20:57, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Most articles on Jerusalem aren't worth the digital void they are written on. The articles on the old city's quarters are disgracefully unhistoric, for example. If you're willing to take on this complex workload, it's fine by me. You'll be doing the encyclopedia a great favour. Nishidani (talk) 21:18, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: What Nishidani said. Doug Weller talk 10:08, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Thank you both for your trust, but I hope to escape Coronaville, unemployment and madness before 2050. Anyhow, I'll try to bring some small contribution where I can. Who is reviewing new articles? It would be helpful to get 'History of Jerusalem during the Early Muslim period' through faster than in 8 weeks. That would be end of Sep.! I might have went the way of the dodo ten times by then. Arminden (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

text: Was I picked randomly to be pinged?--☾Loriendrew☽ ☏(ring-ring) 15:02, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are among those who have contributed more than a comma to the article. At least so I thought after a quick look through its history. Ignore if not relevant. Arminden (talk) 15:11, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks for taking the initiative here. I have intended to expand at least the early Islamic history (especially Umayyad era) of the city for a while now, as what we have is quite meager. I'll help expand the new article as soon as I can. --Al Ameer (talk) 18:53, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article has no ''raison d'être''; will split it according to academic criteria (historical periods) 

message: , I've accepted the draft above on the rough consensus that this article be split. Much of the content is copied from this page, so the sooner that the rest of this article is split to create new pages the better. Of course, this is a volunteer project, but it would be helpful to delete this article soon once all the relevant material has been split into the correct time periods. Zoozaz1 (talk) 05:15, 6 August 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Draft acceptance, article split 

message: Empty reference. Dropped here and in the Crusader Jlm article from the machine-translated Hebrew Wiki article. "Google search" knows of no such author, probably made up by the "Google translate" algorithm from a set of Hebrew consonants. Poor Wiki, poor us. Arminden (talk) 11:31, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: , hi. I see that you have crated the article and added the Anderson source here, on 28 September 2007. I realise it's been ages since, but maybe you can help out? Thanks! Arminden (talk) 12:34, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:   Solved! Change "Anderson" to "Armstrong". I noticed that the page numbers for Anderson and Armstrong are essentially the same so I looked up Armstrong and there I found everything cited to Anderson. Zerotalk 12:54, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Bravo! I had seen that as well yesterday, but didn't manage to find the info. Dizzy after spending too many hours online I guess, 'cause now a search for Salih brought up the snippet immediately. I'll fix it. "Near Jericho and Ramle" must be added, as it isn't directly about Jerusalem, but it did impact the city. I'll look deeper into it. Salih connects to White Mosque, Ramla; Moses to Nabi Musa, but what does N. Musa have to do with the Jews? Maybe it's one of those cases of interfaith religious convergence, where folk religion brought people of all faiths to the same shrine for worship, but I seriously doubt Baibars ever had an ecumenical use in mind, this must be a local development, if it ever did exist. Let's see what we can gain from this article and maybe there are more out there, if they can be accessed. Maybe you could get it via that WP desk and share it? That'd be great and useful for many articles and the wider picture on I/P, too. Cheers, Arminden (talk) 13:14, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

text: I was afraid it would become a case of looking for Mr Anderson that would take us deep into the WP Matrix, deeper than we are already in it. Arminden (talk) 13:17, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  (, ) Hi, sorry, I'm just noticing this. Yes, the intent was to cite Karen Armstrong, my apologies. I may indeed have just been watching The Matrix, or maybe Lord of the Rings, I can't see Elrond without also thinking of Agent Smith, LOL! In any case, thanks for spotting and fixing the typo. :) --Elonka 00:33, 13 May 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who is Anderson? What book did s/he write? 

message: Continuing from above. Mapping Muslim Sacred Tombs in Palestine During the Mandate Period by Seth J. Frantzman and Doron Bar does address the topic of shared local shrines, but it has nothing on Jews having a stake in Nebi Musa, as expected. I see this article is on the page in full, I was to quick to think that only the abstract is for free. It also offers nothing on Baybars opening Nebi Musa to the Jews. All I could find is the following, which all relates to Nebi Musa's beginnings as an anti-Christian event, to other interfaith contacts, but nothing at all on Nebi Musa being (re)created as part of Baybars' attempt to mend ties with the Jews, or it being open to and sought by the Jews as a place of worship:
:"Christians attended Muslim feasts such as Nebi Musa welcome reception in Jerusalem or the Jewish feast of Shim’on HaTzadik."
:"the Ottoman millet categories were only partly relevant when the barriers between the three denominations eroded and national identities emerged."
:"Even though Nebi Musa lay in the desert, on the way to Jericho, about twelve miles from Jerusalem, its pilgrimage festival was very much a Jerusalem celebration."
:"It started as an anti-Christian identity demonstration"
:"After the defeat of the Crusaders in 1187, this new Muslim king permitted Christians to visit their holy sites in Jerusalem. As a counterweight to the Easter celebrations in Jerusalem and to Christian visits to baptismal sites on the Jordan River, he initiated the Nebi Musa pilgrimage from Jerusalem to the shrine."
:"The Muslim festival began precisely a week before the Orthodox Easter and ended on the eve of Good Friday. Since it was both a counter-celebration and a Jerusalem-Muslim one, it could not escape a connection with al-Haram al-Sharif."
:"Even the horse races had a religious rationale—according to tradition, they began when Salah a-Din resolved to display Muslim might for Christian pilgrims."
There is a lot on Jewish participation starting with the phrase
:"Jews did not follow Nebi Musa festival participants to the place. However, Jews participated in the festival celebrations in Jerusalem and Hebron",
but it all seems to refer to the late 19th century at best, and certainly to the early 20th, so it has no bearing whatsoever on Baybars' time, the 13th century.
It all looks as if the statement in the article is incorrect, either 1) Armstrong got it wrong, 2) the editor misread the text, or 3) maybe Armstrong does present arguments, which are not in the snippet and must be considered (who has access?), but aren't shared by other more recent authors (Armstrong 1996 vs. Frantzman & Bar 2013, Klein 2018). Arminden (talk) 13:55, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Baybars building shrines for Muslims AND JEWS - ?! 

message: Medieval period, or the Middle Ages: one possible, and frequently used definition, is the one I've added now:
:"The term Middle Ages (in other words: the medieval period) in regard to the history of Jerusalem, is defined by archaeologists such as S. Weksler-Bdolah as the time span consisting of the 12th and 13th centuries.
:[ref: Shlomit Weksler-Bdolah (2011). "Early Islamic and Medieval City Walls of Jerusalem in Light of New Discoveries". In Katharina Galor & Gideon Avni, eds. Unearthing Jerusalem: 150 Years of Archaeological Research in the Holy City. Eisenbrauns.]"
Hugely necessary, as it is not the only one - more on other views is needed, as this vagueness makes most sources ambiguous! This article uses another, wider definition, starting much earlier (Byzantine & Early Muslim periods) and doesn't seem to set an end date, as it even includes a disproportionately (and carefully) short section on the "Ottoman era", which nobody fully includes in the medieval period, if any part of it at all.
Weksler-Bdolah's definition is from the introduction to a paper and doesn't really go into detail. It probably refers to the Crusader period only, so 1099-1244. I have read the opinion that the terms Middle Ages and medieval correspond to typically, and strictly, European constructs (feudal society, "intermezzo" between classical antiquity and Renaissance) and therefore cannot be used in the Levant except for the period when European Crusaders ruled part of the region. I am yet to find a citable discussion on the topic, but this leaves us with a title and approach that cannot be supported by an academic consensus: What time period does this article here cover? What are its characteristics which warrant its treatment as one period? Nothing. Arminden (talk) 12:23, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: It seems like it currently covers the Middle Ages in the broadest (somewhat European) sense of the 5th-15th centuries, but I can't really see why it would be worth breaking out such a huge period from History of Jerusalem, which is still well belong the length of necessitating a split. This would be better merged back into the parent article in my personal opinion. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:43, 7 August 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Middle Ages" in Jerusalem: define! Whole article on shaky legs.