Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (1099)

message: The info box states that 11,000 of the 13,500 crusaders were casualties.  I know that that is way too high.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.168.53.81 (talk) 00:56, 22 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Crusader Casualties

message: I have to say, they make the article look like kids stuff. It's a bumer when you spend a lot of time working on the text to be of best quality possible and you have a "battlebox" taking up half the page with questionably useful information on old conflicts which we dont really have solid figures for anyway. You dont find battleboxes in academic literature, but you do find them in glossy picture-laden 8x11 format military history books in bookstore bargin bins. Stbalbach 15:59, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an old habit...I never found them useful for sieges but I guess people are adding them to siege articles now too. See Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history for the stuff about "battleboxes" and "warboxes", and there is some discussion in a few of the archived talk pages there. I can't remember whether I argued for or against them in the last discussion :) At least we have stopped colour-coding them by continent, though... Adam Bishop 17:12, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Battleboxes

message: The article first describes how difficult the siege was, and then, suddenly, the crusaders just enter the city with the help of siege engines. This raises some questions: Why did they start with a siege at all? If the assault turned out to be so easy, why did wait so long? Or did they need the time to build the siege engines? Was there really so few fighting inside the city that the massacre started right away? It all sounds to me as if the defenders were few in number and relied on the strength of their fortification which then turned out to be not so good. Maybe somebody could clarify. Simon A. 09:23, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah it was pretty short, especially compared to the Siege of Antioch, which took months. Jerusalem was not very important to the Muslims, the Fatimids didn't even bother to send a relief army until it was too late, so it wasn't particularly well-defended. It was difficult for the crusaders because of the lack of food and water and horses, not for the people inside; the crusaders needed the time to build siege engines, which, when you are starving and thirsty and don't have any wood available, might take awhile. Adam Bishop 15:36, 7 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ease of assault

message: The info is missing from both this page and the main First Crusade article. Both mention the massacre of the Muslims in the Al-Aqsa Mosque, but the burning of the synagogue was the other major atrocity performed. If you look for it on the internet, most accounts will say that the Jews were rounded up by the crusaders or had already gathered there for the Sabbath and where locked in. Then the building was set on fire. I’ve even read on account how Duke Godfrey of Bouillon sang a song of praise to Jesus ("Christ, we adore thee")  while he circled the flaming complex.
However, I just recently watched an episode of the television show “Uncommon Knowledge” (which originally aired April 22, 2002) and it held a forum discussing the Crusades. The moderator Thomas Madden welcomed two guests:
 
:1) William Hamblin, Professor of History, Brigham Young University
:2) Thomas Madden, Associate Professor of History and Department Chair, Saint Louis University; Author, A Concise History of the Crusades 
In the middle of the discussion, Thomas Madden shed his own educated view on what he thinks the circumstances were that led to the Jews being burnt alive in their synagogue. The following transcript section of the show's discussion was taken from the Hoover Institute website:
:"Thomas Madden: And they speak of three thousand, approximately, people being killed. But not, as you get the western sources, where they speak of rivers of blood, that people are wading through rivers of blood, show up all the time in the Middle Ages, but they're not real. But nevertheless, there was a massacre. As for the Jewish synagogue, what appears to be the case there, it probably happened, people have argued about it, but this was not a situation in which the Crusaders would have rounded up all the Jews and put them in the synagogue and said now we're burning it down because you are Jews in a synagogue. Rather, the Jews who were the Jewish defenders, and there weren't that many, but those Jewish defenders of the city in 1099, knew the rules of the game. They knew that their lives were forfeit now, and so they wanted to go to their synagogue and were allowed to go to their synagogue..."
:Peter Robinson: To prepare for death.
:Thomas Madden: To prepare for death, that's right."
I thought this to be very interesting. Never have I heard it from this point of view. 
I’ve written Prof. Madden on whether he thinks these Jews fled from the “Northern” or “Southern” wall defensives, but he has yet to write me back. The reason I wrote him was because I was unsure which one they left. It seems more plausible that they left from the northern wall shortly before it was taken by the Frankish armies led by Duke Godfrey. On the contrary, the southern wall was FAR MORE successful in combating the Provencal armies of Raymond of Toulouse. So I doubt they would have fled from there. The southern defensive did not falter until news of the northern breach spread like wild fire around the city.
Do you think that some of the quoted transcript should be added to this and the main article? If so, I'll leave it to someone more qualified than myself. You've already got the info right here. No research required! 
I you would like to watch this edition of the show, CLICK HERE! and you will be able to watch it in either Real Player or Windows Media Player. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 17:52, 19 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The burning of the Jews and their synagogue 

message: The article already says "over the course of that afternoon, evening and next morning. Muslims, Jews, and even a few of the Christians were all massacred with indiscriminate violence." I don't know why need to list 5 different sources in a lengthy paragraph that "prove" Jews were killed, there is no debate about it, the Crusaders killed everyone - Jews, Muslims and Christians. This is standard history, it can be summarized in one sentence with a link to a reliable scholarly source (do we need links to TV programs?) See History of the Jews and the Crusades which is a more detailed treatment.  -- Stbalbach 00:05, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The page focuses more on the chronicles that mention the deaths of the muslims. I put the info on the page to reflect what happened to the Jews. I'm sure there is a way that I can mold all of it into a more fluid sentence. (Ghostexorcist 00:16, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article about the Jews and the Crusades has a very brief sentence about the burning of the synagogue. It doesn't go into great detail and there is no source given. (Ghostexorcist 00:20, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I know but it should, it should be the article that deals with the Jews in and the Crusades in most detail. Perhaps move the detail from here to there, and a summary here? -- Stbalbach 00:53, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point. I was thinking about doing that while I was at work. (Ghostexorcist 09:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Jewish massacre

message: This article claims it was Godfrey of Bouillon who said he "refused to wear a crown of gold in the city were Christ wore a crown of thorns" whereas the article "First Crusade" credits Raymond of Toulouse with this phrase. Where lies the truth? Can anyone provide sources? Top.Squark 09:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I posted this at Talk:First Crusade too: I think I've tracked down the origin of this. It was Godfrey, not Raymond. It's in William of Tyre, book 9, chapter 9 (or here if you prefer the Old French version). However, this exact quote appears in Itinéraire de Paris à Jérusalem by François-René de Chateaubriand, translated into English in 1814 by Frederic
Shoberl and conveniently found on Google Books; the original is here, "Godefroy refusa de mettre sur sa 
tête la couronne brillante qu'on lui offrait, 'ne voulant point, dit-il, porter 
une couronne d'or où Jésus-Christ avait porté une couronne d'épines.'" and Shoberl's translation is "Godfrey refused to put on his head the brilliant crown that was offered him, declaring that 'he would not wear a crown of gold where Christ had worn a crown of thorns.'". I suppose citing sources was not held to the same standard in 1811, because Chateaubriand doesn't say what he is quoting, but I assume it must be the Old French William of Tyre, with the order reversed ("il respondi quen cele sainte cite ou Nostre Sires Jhesucriz avoit portee courone despines por lui et por les autres pecheeurs ne porteroit il ja se Dieu plesoit corone dor"). (And this itself is slightly different from the original Latin, "Promotus autem, humilitatis causa, corona aurea, regum more, in sancta civitate noluit insigniri: ea contentus et illi reverentiam exhibens, quam humani generis reparator, in eodem loco usque ad crucis patibulum pro nostra salute spineam deportavit.") Where William got this from, I don't know; I'll have to check the contemporary chronicles of the First Crusade. Also, the question of what Godfrey's actual title was is discussed by Jonathan Riley-Smith ("The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon", Bulletin of the Institute of Historical Research 52 (1979), 83-86) and Alan Murray ("The Title of Godfrey of Bouillon as Ruler of Jerusalem", Collegium Medievale 3 (1990), 163-78), which I have also not looked at yet, but presumably they will be useful. Adam Bishop 17:12, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Raymond or Godfrey? 

message: I have material that states the Jews who died in the siege were of the Karaite order. The source claims that the Rabbincal community traveled to Tyre when their synagogue was moved there in 1077. Both Jewish and Crusader sources mention a Rabbinical synagogue being burnt, but the Jewish sources, which are dated mere weeks after the incident, do not corroborate the story of people actually dying inside the burning complex. 
I'm not sure if this is worth noting. I'll leave it up to somebody else. If you would like to add it, contact me and I will give you the passages and accompanying citations. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 19:07, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  good info, not sure how to integrate it 

message: "The final assault and massacre" is, astonishingly, pro-Crusader. How are sentences like these relevant?
"Finally, though the crime is heinous, especially by today's standards, it must be remembered that the Christian population of Jerusalem had been forcibly invaded and subjected to treatment which would qualify as genocide under the law of nations.[9] An example of what images must have been coarsing through the minds of the Crusaders as they took the city was this report of the treatment of Christians in Jerusalem:"
"Additionally, though this number seems like a lot, it is less than half the number of Christians that were slaughted [sic] by the joint Persian and Jewish siege and capture of Jerusalem in 614 A.D.[8]"
"While many were killed in this siege, there is no evidence that what occurred was any more extraordinary than what occurred during other battles at the time to cities who resisted. In fact, because the rules of war allowed for the slaughter of all the inhabitants, it is worth noting as an historical matter, that this is one of rare times during this period that such an extermination did not occur."
The sources are incredibly weak. A Christian TV network? A Geocities page? Come on. (It is worth noting that in the course of revising the page, someone added "anti-christian atheist" to Paul Tobin's name.) The Catholic Encyclopedia is a respected encyclopedia and can be used, but when it is it must be noted, as it obviously has a stake in this "debate." aristotle1990 (talk) 17:21, 3 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: NPOV

message: I've removed the following section:
" While the Christian soldiers engaged in the barefoot procession, they were subjected to the insults and incantations of Muslim sorcerers.Catholic Encyclopedia, http://oce.catholic.com/index.php?title=Crusades"
The expression "Muslim sorcerors" seems incorrect and biased in the extreme. My understanding of the Islamic faith (experts please correct me) is that "sorcerors" are not part of this belief system. Given this expression, I'd suggest the whole sentence needs to be removed and at least considered closely before putting back in (I've done so but included it above if somebody feels strongly it should be re-incorporated) --mgaved (talk) 21:41, 7 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: "Muslim sorcerers"

message: Scythian1, if you read the Kedar article, it talks about the massacre and its likely literary sources, and why the crusaders probably did not literally massacre everyone. This is why I was reverting your changes. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:28, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacre (again...) 

message: : One account alleges that the Crusaders circled the flaming building while singing "Christ, We Adore Thee!, Thee are our light, our direction, our love". (Rausch, David. Legacy of Hatred: Why Christians Must Not Forget the Holocaust. Baker Pub Group, 1990 ( ) however, this account is still questionable. But there is no question that there was killing of Jerusalem Jews, for ...
Yes of course, let's make this about the Holocaust. 
Seriously, as shown in the section above, there is altogether too much WWII and "clash of civilization" here and not enough serious medieval historiography. 
Yes, the contemporary account alleging that the crusaders sang a merry song while burning the Jews in the synagogue would certainly be worth mentioning. 
But let's make sure that we cite the actual source, not just "one account", apparently taken from  Holocaust literature where it was presumably used to create a backdrop of "long history of Christian atrocities". 
*at the very least, give the page number in Rausch and say what exactly is written there
*better still, identify the primary source, and discuss it in the context of medieval studies, not Holocaust literature
*provide a decent translation, not one in broken English (not sure if this is a Wikipedian's fault or Rausch's). "Thee are our light", I ask you...
--dab (𒁳) 11:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The Crusaders "[circled] the screaming, flame-tortured humanity singing 'Christ We Adore Thee!' with their Crusader crosses held high."
the screaming, flame-tortured humanity? Seriously, what sort of pamphlet is this? Certainly not something we could or should use as encyclopedic reference. He probably added a pulp illustration of a burning Jew to drive home his point. 
Please. This is about a war in 1099. People died, including civilians. This is why it is called a "massacre". Stick to medieval historians and try to keep out the people trying to dramatize this in terms of "screaming, flame-tortured humanity" in the service of some modern-day agenda. --dab (𒁳) 11:59, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Cut from article

message: There are a number of paragraphs in the article that do not contain any footnotes. Specifically, in the following sections:
* Background (1st para)
* Final assault (2nd para)
* Muslims (4th para)
* Aftermath (entire section)
Please do not remove the maintenance tag until this has been addressed. Thanks. —howcheng  {chat} 17:57, 5 June 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  this article needs more references 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians!
Firstly, I think we should change the second sentence under the title of the article as I believe the word "seize" is slightly redundant considering we just said how it was a "successful siege" a couple words ago. Furthermore, I believe that the first sentence under the "Massacre" section of the article is a bit too broad to be stated without any reference. Instead, we could possibly find a source that reaffirms the position that massacres were just part of medieval warfare, and we could attach the link within the article and have an extra citation to gain extra credibility. Jacobwirtzer (talk) 19:55, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Introduction and section regarding "Massacre" 

message: For this edit, I added two sentences to the second to last paragraph(starting with "additonally") of the section, and also added the reference for my source. Jacobwirtzer (talk) 00:34, 5 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added to "Muslim" section of the page 

message: From the article: "The eyewitness Gesta Francorum states that some people were spared. Its anonymous author wrote, 'When the pagans had been overcome, our men seized great numbers, both men and women, either killing them or keeping them captive, as they wished.'" It is unlikely me that so many people would voluntarily have had themselves killed rather than become captive. To me, it sounds like the Saracens were offered conversion, and those ready to become Christian weren't killed. Does the Gesta say anything about that? Steinbach (talk) 11:23, 15 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Massacre 

message: The article contains a reference to "Tyerman 2006, pp. 153–157." but no work by a Tyerman is given. Presumably something by Christopher Tyerman. DuncanHill (talk) 03:17, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless reference - Tyerman 

message: Short description changed to none per WP:SDNONE. Editor2020 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Given the large number of sieges over the years, a short description is appropriate. I'm going to revert.Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:58, 24 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  WP:SDNONE