Talk:William of Rubruck

message: moved to William of Rubruck which I had created before I noticed the existence of this stub dab 12:35, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: I removed the following sentence:
"Because he wrote in Latin his report was not as widely read or known as Marco Polo, who wrote in the vernacular."
This is not fully factual.  Marco Polo did not write at all; he apparently dictated to a prison cellmate.  MSS of his work circulated in various languages, especially Latin, Old French, and various Italian dialects.  In any case, Latin was certainly the most widely read language in medieval Europe; a work's being written in Latin would not have limited its reception.
See, e.g., Yule, Sir Henry, ed. and trans.  The Book of Ser Marco Polo the Venetian Concerning the Kingdoms and Marvels of the East.  3rd ed.  New York: Scribner's, 1903.  Pp. 80 et seq.
David Morgan, Furman Univ.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.143.132.149 (talk) 01:14, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sentence removed comparing success of Marco Polo 

message: I am in no way a historian, nor do I know the story of William of Rubruck, but it seems unlikely to me that when he "reached Tripoli on August 15, 1255", we're talking about Tripoli in Tunesia. Shouldn't it be Tripoli in Lebanon?
Lars Peter Thomsen, Denmark  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.80.16.67 (talk) 10:57, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tripoli, Tunesia? 

message: The  Encyclopedia Britannica and  Encarta Encyclopedia have this person under the heading "Willem van Ruysbroeck" (under the W). The Library of Congress Authorities put him under Ruysbroeck, Willem van. And the books "The journey of William of Rubruck to the eastern parts of the world 1253-5 and  The mission of Friar William of Rubruck, are according to the current publishers, both written "By Willem van Ruysbroeck". I guess that the titles contain "William of Rubruck "as it originally occurred in the 16th century translations from the Latin published by  Hakluyt.
In other words, the usual authorities seem to favor Willem van Ruysbroeck, though the sorting is a bit unsettled. My guess is that during his life he primarily was known by his Latinized name Rubruquis, so that is another alternative.  Anyone disagree with a move to Willem van Ruysbroeck? Afasmit (talk) 11:22, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: As his name, which is not an actual family name but a toponymic one, derives from the modern town of Rubrouck, William of Rubrouck would seem the most appropriate modern spelling.--Joostik (talk) 16:45, 3 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Title

message: According to the Wikipedia article on Jack Weatherford's Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World "Weatherford's claim that the Christian clerics started to sing hymns because they had become drunk is not borne out by William's account". The original account of the religious debate by William of Rubruck is here: http://depts.washington.edu/silkroad/texts/rubruck.html#debate, Chapter XVIII, and indeed the religious discussion doesn't seem to have turn to a drinking party at all. Furthermore, Jack Weatherford is not an historian and seems to have been quite criticized for his mistakes and overall lack of reliability on historical matters (see Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World for details). This quote has also been introduced in Christianity among the Mongols, and should probably be removed there as well. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:58, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, we can't use a Wikipedia article as a source, and neither should we use disagreement with a primary source as the sole reason to rebut the information.  However, this secondary source with a review of the book does seem to confirm that though Weatherford is a professor, his book got a bit slap-dash with the details.  I've pulled the "drunken revelry" part of the story, thanks for pointing it out! --Elonka 16:23, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: "Drunk religious discussion"