Talk:Kingdom of Jerusalem

message: As new generations grew up in the kingdom, they began to think of themselves as "oriental," rather than European. They often learned to speek Greek, Arabic, and other eastern languages, and married Greeks or Armenians (and, rarely, Muslims).
: This paragraph is oxymoronic & needs to be replaced
::How so? Any suggestions? Adam Bishop 20:07 10 Jul 2003 (UTC)
::: It should be utterly self-evident :) I may rewrite it if I can figure out how to reword it in a way that makes sense.
::Self-evident?  How?  It looks fine to me. john 14:18 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
:::Well, if it helps, what I meant was that the Crusaders, who were usually French, thought of the Byzantine Empire and their language (Greek) as "oriental", as were the Armenians, Arabs, Turks, etc.  They were all "eastern" people, and all Crusaders were considered "Latins" or "Franks" (even the ones who weren't from France).  I know it's an oversimplification, and that can be fixed if necessary, but I don't see how it's oxymoronic. Adam Bishop 15:32 11 Jul 2003 (UTC)
----
OK, I never create images, especially PNG ones, so I really don't know what I'm doing...I'm sure there must be better ways to draw this map.  If anyone can make it look a little more "professional," go right ahead.  As it stands right now, is it alright? Does it interfere too much with the article? Adam Bishop 01:41, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, since I was working with the World Factbook map, it didn't extend into modern Lebanon. There must be some map-making program out there somewhere... Adam Bishop 20:25, 5 Sep 2003 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I found a pretty good map of the Crusader States, so I'll put in that article...I've removed the map from here, but if someone still wants to try to fix it, I won't delete it:  Adam Bishop 04:16, 6 Sep 2003 (UTC)
thread_title: older comments

message: I must say, this section is, historiographically, a little outdated. As the likes of Murray and Riley-Smith have shown, there is little evidence that Godfrey used the title of Advocate himself - he seems to have prefered the more general title of Princeps. Also, the aspirations of Daimbert are somewhat problematic. The only evidence available for the claims that Godfrey surrendered Jaffa and Jerusalem to the Patriarch can be found only in the work of Willima of Tyre. Asside from the fact that William's version of this controversy is often somewhat lacking (he fails to tell us, for example, that Daimbert was deposed in 1102 by a synod presided over by a papal legate), the phrasing shows that William wrote, or at least rewrote, large parts of this letter. I'll edit it unless anyone raises any major complaints.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.141.130.170 (talk • contribs) 
:No complaint, especially about the Daimbert stuff, but we should probably still mention the Advocatus title - he may not have really used it, but it's prevalent everywhere so we shouldn't ignore it entirely. Adam Bishop 15:17, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Really? What does the book say? That paragraph was written gradually by various people, like myself and John Kenney, so that's kind of strange. Adam Bishop 20:52, 26 Feb 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Foundation and Early History 

message: Sorry about rolling back...However, my edits are equally valid to yours.  TheUnforgiven 02:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: They may be valid edits, but not for this article. That sort of discussion belongs on the crusade article, not here. Adam Bishop 03:23, 11 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor edits by [[User:John Kenney]] need to be rewoven. 

message: For the past few days I've been trying to expand the article. I think the Kingdom of Acre bit is still a little lacking in information, but I don't know as much about that so it's more difficult to expand (since I am lazy and mostly doing this off the top of my head). Any help/suggestions would be appreciated! Adam Bishop 22:33, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent expansion 

message: The table on the right side of the article is absurd. You didn´t have these concepts of "Constitution" or "Official language" in the Middle Ages, it´s an Anachronism, you should take that from the article. I have also detected mistakes in it, I suggest you read the article from the french wikipedia.
:Yeah it is absurd, but people insist on including such tables on articles both for modern countries and extinct entities. I think it would be better off with just the map and the coat of arms, which is all that used to be there. And where have you detected mistakes, in the article or the table? What are the mistakes? (If you do not want to fix them yourself, perhaps it would be helpful to inform someone else.) Adam Bishop 03:23, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Absurd table 

message: Where did the figures of "750,000 to 1,500,000, with just under half being of Frankish and Italian origin, and the remainder evenly divided between Greek, Syrian, and Muslim with small Jewish communities." come from?
This seems to be way too big.
Aslo, I don't know if the iqta system is equivalent to the 
European Feudal system, since I think the former was more purely
financial than the latter.
MYLO 23:57, 25 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It came from the same anon whose junk you just fixed up on the Mamluk article. Those numbers didn't jump out as nonsense at first, but you're right, they are pretty bizarre now that I look again...375 000-750 000 Franks? Adam Bishop 06:44, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Demographics? 

message: What sort of social rank would one have to bear in their family, in order to be a descendent of either?  
How far up the totem pole, would you say?  
This is intended to have broad answers and based on gradients of time and population, not going into specifics about exact descendents.  About how common is their descent in the English or British genepool today?  
I've noticed that American Presidents don't descend from either king, but the most common recent royal ancestor shared by many of us is Edward III.  How common is it for anybody in the English or British genepool, to have a Protestant royal ancestor?  
There is a general cutoff, isn't there?  
Is it because of fratricide in the Wars of the Roses, the Tudors' "new men", or the Union of the Crowns, or the parliamentary union under Queen Anne (I can't think of any non-royal family descent from the Hanoverians within the UK)?  
I'm thinking that there is a big difference between Plantagenet and Tudor descents, that the commons in all likelihood have the former and the latter is held by the lords.  (just generally speaking)  Then again, Tudor descent in the Welsh must be higher in general.  I am further curious about pre-Royal Tudor blood in Anglo-British people today, since the status and/or concept of Welsh royalty/nobility is rather hazy in my mind.  I found the Blevins aka Ap Bleddyn family of Powys in my ancestry, but have no real idea on what to make of it--or any other Welsh "native aristocracy".  I might be able to find Stewart descent somewhere, from way back when.  What percentage of Hanoverian background do you think that German colonists had in America?  
On the British side, I have to go as far back as Welf himself...but any recent genetic relationship with the Hanoverians or the counts of Nassau are completely obscure.  How does one research those other colonial people, such as the Hessians?  
UK genealogy is relatively easy when focusing on English (and French) ancestries.  What would a "national person" of Jerusalem (or Antioch, for example) in Crusader times be known as?  
We say "American" for those Founders, but was there such a nationality-term for the Crusaders in their own domains?  
I guess the term is supposed to be Levantine/Outremer, or "Crusader" as our national heritage says "Colonist"...
IP Address 12:03, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Descendents of Edward IV and Henry VII 

message: May I ask why the Fatimid flag was removed from the infobox so quickly? As far as I know, the Fatimids did fly a plain green flag. (I realize that the image depicts the flag of Libya, but I figure it's a close enough approximation.) Orange Tuesday (talk) 20:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, sorry, I saw "flag of Libya" and just assumed it was sneaky vandalism! Adam Bishop (talk) 01:57, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, sorry. I guess that just adds an unnecessary level of confusion. I'll upload a more appropriately named image. Orange Tuesday (talk) 02:29, 13 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fatimid Flag 

message: * Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Kingdom of Jerusalem/archive1, see instructions at WP:FAC regarding consulting with significant contributors.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:18, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  FAC removed 

message: tolerance for other faiths was in general higher than that found elsewhere in the Middle East. Greeks, Syrians, and Jews continued to live as they had before
I might be wrong, but from my information the Crusaders were not too kind to jews, Muslims or even native christians. I know for sure they massacared them when they entered the city at first.
--Michael1408 00:30, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: They may have, since that's what tended to happen in every city at the time. After 1099 they were pretty tolerant, although, of course, non-Catholics were second-class citizens, and in Jerusalem itself Jews and Muslims were not allowed. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:15, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tolerant? 

message: Feel free to insert the following image into the article: PHG Per Honor et Gloria 06:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Neat. That would be useful for the Economy section. Thanks! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:18, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

text: They weren't the only ones; Normans are more associated with Antioch anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Coinage

message: Why doesn't it mention the Normans as they were the ones that founded the kingdom of Jerusalem after conquering Jerusalem in 1099.Davido488 (talk) 20:56, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: They weren't the only ones; Normans are more associated with Antioch anyway. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:50, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Normans

message: I made some effort in rescuing and cleaning the machine-translated article (now moved into my user space) User:Staszek Lem/Jerusalem during the Crusader period. See some of its fate in Talk:Jerusalem during the Crusader period; people wanted it to be kept, but did't want to spend their time on it.
Please contribute to finishing the job, or I will delete it from my space. I am not even a Jew. 
Please keep in mind that Jerusalem and Kingdom of Jerusalem are not the same, so the redirect of Jerusalem during the Crusader period here is not good. Staszek Lem (talk) 22:58, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Of course, there is still the problem that we now have two articles, that one and History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages). Adam Bishop (talk) 07:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not a problem at all. Staszek Lem (talk) 21:04, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

text: I can't see any point in the existence of theses articles.Jack Bufalo Head (talk) 19:08, 26 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Crusader priod in the history of Jesusalem (city) 

message: Is there a source for the Greek name, Βασίλειον τῶν Ἱεροσολύμων? Google, at least, gives only Wikipedia and Wikipedia mirrors. I haven't looked very thoroughly at the Greek sources, but I see that Anna Komnene refers to the "king of Jerusalem" (using the Latin word "rex"), and John Kinnamos uses "king of Palestine", at least in the English translation. Does anyone ever refer specifically to a "kingdom of Jerusalem"? Adam Bishop (talk) 10:25, 12 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Greek name 

message: In a geographic sense, doesn't the territory of modern-day Israel include the Palestinian territories; the link to the historical geographic region of Palestine doesn't seem to fit the decriptor of modern-day; (not sure of what a territory of a modern-day territory might be)?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.183.224.2 (talk) 20:07, 9 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: It may have said "Palestinian territories" at one point (I'm pretty sure I wrote that bit and I thought that's what I linked to), but links to contentious articles like that are occasionally changed in drive-by mass edits, and maybe this one was never changed back. I'm not sure, but anyway, it certainly should link to the modern state/territory/whatever of Palestine. Adam Bishop (talk) 02:05, 10 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  territory of modern-day Israel, Palestine 

message: Shouldn't it be mentioned somewhere that King Juan Carlos I of Spain claims to be also King of Jerusalem even now in the XXI Century? 201.141.228.133 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Current King of Jerusalem 

message: There is no map of the internal division of KOJ on Wikipedia. I found and uploaded a single PD one: . Is it reliable enough to use here? trespassers william (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Map 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Kingdom of Jerusalem. 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/20120319183603/http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp/keyword.cross+potent/qx/symbolism_details.htm to http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp/keyword.cross+potent/qx/symbolism_details.htm
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) 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: *The article incorrectly states the following under the "Crusader society and demographics" section, the source provided does not back it up:
*""""There were an unknown number of Muslim slaves living in the Kingdom. There was a very large slave market in Acre which functioned throughout the twelfth and thirteenth centuries. Although Christians, both Western and Eastern, were by law prohibited from being sold into slavery, the native Christians were often indistinguishable from the Muslim population and the Italian merchants were sometimes accused of selling them along with Muslim slaves""""
*The source that is used for the above, is from page 62 to 63 of the book "The Feudal Nobility And The Kingdom Of Jerusalem 1174 1277 By Jonathan Riley Smith". It is source #104 at very bottom of the article.
However, the book says nothing at all about selling native Christians as slaves. What those pages DO say, is that European Christians were being sold as slaves in the markets there and that they were wrongly being sold as "Muslims", in order to get around the ban on having Christian slaves. 
It does not state who - Christian / Jewish / Muslim or other wise - were buying the slaves either. It is flat out wrong the way this part of the article is written since the source does not state that. It implies brutality upon the native Christians along with implying racism. Below I have copied and pasted page 62 and page 63 from the source provided.
*Frok page 62 to 63 of the book "The Feudal Nobility And The Kingdom Of Jerusalem 1174 1277 By Jonathan Riley Smith": """""There is evidence for another grave abuse in a letter written by Pope Innocent IV in 1246 in which he informed the patriarch and his bishops that italian merchants were sailing to Palestine from Greece with their ships loaded with Greeks, Bulgarians, Ruthenians and Wlachs, all Christian men and women, whom they would sell into slavery as Muslims: indeed this passing off as Christians as Muslims seems to have been common enough in the kingdom to have resulted in legislation""""".
Here is a link to a archive from the book and it links directly to pages 62 to 63:
https://archive.org/details/thefeudalnobilityandthekingdomofjerusalem11741277byjonathanrileysmith/page/n75/mode/2up
If it not changed within a week then I will remove the passage, I am not experienced at editing myself.
174.48.155.235 (talk)  —Preceding undated comment added 00:55, 25 April 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  This passage in the article is wrong. The source provided for it does not say what the article claims it does... 

message: In the paragraf depicting melisendes rule over Jerusalem it is writen as if her King Consort Fulk was in the drivers seat. Even after explicity stating that he was ousted from prominece and power. Is the way the article seemingly gives power of action to Fulk especially in the second paragraf accurate? 
I am happy to be corrected as i am new to this topic although it seems contradictory to me in the current state. 45.156.242.143 (talk) 21:13, 1 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Melisende's rule 1131 

message: Is the term "Frankish Kingdom of Palestine" in widespread use? Is is used at all? I found Frankish Kingdom in Palestine, but nothing else. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 15:49, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Looking at @Adam Bishop's blog referenced above https://kojnames.blogspot.com/ there exist usage from Peter of Blois and Gerald of Wales at the very least. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 23:59, 27 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: That's not a reliable source of course, but there is an article by Andrew Buck, "Settlement, Identity, and Memory in the Latin East: An Examination of the Term ‘Crusader States’" (English Historical Review 135, 2020) that also talks about some of these names. Adam Bishop (talk) 00:08, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Accordingly, we should add the Kingdom of Palestine, the Principality of Jerusalem, and the Eastern Kingdom? So far, haven't seen the Frankish Kingdom of Palestine. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 03:11, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: In the infobox? I would stick with "Kingdom of Jerusalem" in Latin and Old French, since the rest are mostly just rare curiosities. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:46, 28 December 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Frankish Kingdom of Palestine