This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Historiography of the Crusades article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Historiography of the Crusades has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The second sentence in the Terminology Section is incorrect:
"In modern historiography, the term "crusade" first referred to a military expedition undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, or 13th centuries to the Holy Land."
According to the section herein on Modern works, the only modern work on the Crusades is the very flawed one by Runciman which does not take this definition. The other examples used in "modern historiography" are related to Kaiser Wilhelm, Franco's Spain and the foundation of the State of Israel and again do not reflect this. As I've said before, I have no idea why there are relevant to this article.
In fact, I am unable to find a single modern work that limits itself to the "numbered Crusades." The closest one is by Thomas Archer and Charles Kingsford from 1904 that avoids the discussion of the "other Crusades" but does not deny their existence. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 20:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish Very interesting. I knew I should've kept my OED when I moved. I did a little research on this and found the first passage in a work by William Harrison that relates to something that Baldwin of Forde said about the Third Crusade. Here's the full quote:
"..And the experience of this latter is noted by Giraldus Cambrertfis ( Gerald of Wales) to haue beene feene and vfed in Wales, where he did eat in Waien, an Giraldus mya. cheefe made of hinds milke, at fuch time as Baldwine; archbifhop of Canturburie preached the croifad there, when they were both lodged in a gentlemans houfe, whofe wife of purpofe kept a deirie of the fame."
The quote by Lord Chesterfield of Voltaire's is also interesting since the latter included the Albigensian Crusade in his work. Harrison and Étienne Pasquier seem to be the earlier uses of the word, although when Pasquier wrote of his six crusades, he omitted what we call the 5th and 6th, going directly to the crusades of Louis IX, so the statement in the article is incorrect (not that anyone would notice).
The reference to "1706 Phillips's New World of Words" is also interesting. Here's the complete entry"
"Croisado or Crusade: The Expedition of Christian Princes for the Conquest of the Holy Land; a Holy War formerly undertaken against the Infidels out of Devotion, upon encouragement of the Pope's Bulls promising immediate entrance into Heaven, to all that dy'd in the Service; so that those Warriours were distinguish'd by wearing the Figure of the Cross of several Colours."
I may write an article on based on the OED research. I'm not sure of the OED reference in this article as it has a paywall, but I'm not sure anyone would notice. There may be a better place to pull a definition, e.g. Catholic encyclopedia. I'm aware of the cited article by Holt and will have more to say on it later. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 19:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish Comments:
1. In the sentence "In modern historiography, the term "crusade" first referred to a military ..." the beginning "In modern historiography" just confuses things, especially since you just talked about the OED. The sentence reads just fine without it. 2. In Historical Background, the stuff that begins with "Cyprus was Western-ruled from 1191 until 1571...." is out of place. I don't think it is necessary. 3. The Zimmern Chronicle is a little advanced for this audience, and some like Riley-Smith are quite happy with Chanson d'Antioche.
I might be bold and change the title of the section to "The First Crusades" a la Riley-Smith. Dr. Grampinator ( talk)
The write-up on Charles Mills is misleading. He referenced nine crusades, but they are differently numbered. I'll call his crusades CM1, etc.
CM1=First Crusade
CM2=Second Crusade
CM3=Third Crusade
CM4=Crusade of 1197
CM5=Fourth Crusade
CM6=Fifth Crusade and Sixth Crusade
CM7=Baron's Crusade
CM8=Seventh Crusade
CM9=Eighth Crusade and Lord Edward's Crusade.
Also, the statement "seven major and numerous lesser campaigns" is not universally accepted. Not everyone combines the Fifth and Sixth, but most think Barons' is a major one. Also, I can't find anyone that calls it the Ninth Crusade. My personal preference is nine majors, which would be One through Eight + Barons'. Maybe others could chime in, but I do think seven majors is wrong.
Dr. Grampinator (
talk) 20:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Dr. Grampinator (
talk) 06:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
As to the change to the ODNB citation in Crusades, the template provides a citation that says a subscription is required to read the article. It isn't, this is a free article (who knew that such existed). I don't know if the Template can be tweaked, but right now, the casual reader will not go to ODNB because they will think they can't read it. I suggest changing it back. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I have to take exception to much that is written in this section.
"Prior to the late 20th century no serious thought had been given to defining what was meant by "crusade" and its scope; it was assumed it meant only Christian attempts to recover Jerusalem."
This is obviously false, as the examples of Foxe and Voltaire above show. It's not clear what the point of the rest of the paragraph is so I'll just note that Mayer was not a traditionalist and Riley-Smith was not a pluralist by these definitions. And who is John Gilchrist
The material on the Wisconsin project is also incorrect. The project was originally planned in the 1930's with La Monte's paper (published in 1940). The statement:
"Now it is challenged in terms of its coherence grounds in the light of new research."
The implication is that Joshua Prawer and Jean Richard are challenging what is in the Wisconsin project. How can that be when they wrote five chapters between the two of them in the work? You are accepting Prawer's work as gospel when it is in fact controversial. He is making some proposals that haven't been universally accepted. His work Histoire du royaume Latin de Jérusalem allegedly refuting Wisconsin was in fact written in 1969, before Wisconsin was published.
So Runciman is "derivative, tendentious and misleading" and Wisconsin is incoherent. Why are we even bothering? Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 20:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Just a few comments in rebuttal. First, just because there is a "reliable source," doesn't mean that it is correct. Tyerman's comments in Murray's Encyclopedia are, frankly, irrational. He calls Wisconsin lacking in coherence and cites works by Prawer and Richard as the reason. Prawer and Richard wrote the relevant chapters in Wisconsin. Further, in the next paragraph, he cites work that modifies and contradicts Prawer. His statement about when the project began is contracted by his own work (Debate on the Crusades). There he has some choice words for the study including "contributed nothing." Apparently, the massive 6-volume study on the Crusades by the leading scholars of the '60s, '70s and '80s is not good enough for Tyerman. But, if it's the consensus of the Wikipedia Crusades community that all of the scholarship of the 20th century is worthless, so be it.
I am curious as to what historians today regard as dated about Wisconsin. Obviously, Tyerman thinks that, but as I pointed out, without any valid rationale. What new, uncontested research has come out since it was published?
As to "there was little thought to defining what a crusade was until the 20th century." Perhaps I don't understand what you mean. There have been definitions of what a crusade was since it was first used in the 16th century. And I'm sure there was plenty of thought that went into it. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
You have a much higher view of Tyerman than I do. He seems to talk in circles. Sometimes he likes Constable, other times he doesn't. At one point, he questioned whether the first three Crusades were really crusades. He thinks all historians other than Smail and Riley-Smith are hacks. Try reading Krey's review of Smail's signature work. Here are some highlights:
He attributes the broad approach in Wisconsin to Riley-Smith. He basically discounts all modern historians but these two. Here are some of the authors of Wisconsin, the work that he hates so:
Kenneth Setton, Sidney Painter, H. A. R. Gibb, Claude Cahen, Steven Runciman, Hans Mayer, Philip Hitti, T. S. R. Boase, Aziz Atiya, Jean Richard and Joshua Prawer
His criticism is ludicrous as it is of Runciman. Atiya's review of Volume 1 is very positive. As I pointed out, he criticizes Wisconsin for not including material of Prawer and Richard, which it does, and then goes on the criticize Prawer.
I continue to be confused about your statement about definitions of crusades. This seems to clear to everyone but me.
As to the constant criticism, I don't think there have been any new facts uncovered about the Crusades since the 19th century. The rest is opinion, and that keeps changing.
I anxiously await the new Cambridge History of the Crusades. I hope Tyerman likes it. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 02:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
As you can tell, I'm not a fan of Tyerman. His attacks on Runciman are, in my opinion, unprofessional and biased. I'm familiar with the referenced list. I won't comment much on what Tyerman says about Runciman's work other than he chides him for using material that previous historians had written. I guess God's War was written from whole cloth with no consideration for past works. He then goes on to criticize Runciman for ignoring Prawer's work! Yes, the same work of Prawer's that was written two decades after Runciman's. And then, in God's War, he doesn't touch much on Prawer at all, and in his Modern Historiography article, he goes on to point out how Prawer's work has received "serious modification, if not contradiction" by his students. But, he really likes Prawer and he really dislikes Runciman.
Interestingly, one of Tyerman's major problems with the Wisconsin study was that it was delayed by contributors not meeting their deadlines and therefore out-of-date. I can only assume that he is not one of the contributors to the Cambridge History. BTW, I read an interview with Tyerman on NPR where he flatly states that the Crusades have no relevance to modern history. He obviously has a problem with consistency. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 19:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I suggest reading Mayer's article on America and the Crusade. You get a much better, less emotional discussion on Wisconsin. And the fact that different chapters have different viewpoints is to be expected. Pick any group of three experts on a subject and you will get three viewpoints (actually more like six). To me that's a good thing. It separates what is historical fact and what is speculation.
BTW, my own (biased) opinion is that Tyerman's work is not that well thought of. I think he wanted God's War to be the new gold standard and it isn't. How else do you explain Asbridge's comprehensive work 6 years later. For what it's worth. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I did go and review the "modern" works to see if there were any citations that were different from what were used by Runciman or Wisconsin and didn't find any. The use of more recent translations of the Arabic works has an impact and has changed some interpretations but I don't think the basic facts, like those relevant to a high-level Wikipedia article, are changed. Plus these new interpretations are changing, a la Tyerman's discussion of Prawer that morphs in two paragraphs from "gospel" to "maybe not correct."
An example: I wrote an article called Castle of al-Al based on al-Qalanisi and Runciman. The first cut at it was immediately attacked based on strong negative comments by Moshe Sharon, based on archeological information. Then a second contemporary account was found that corroborated al-Qalanisi, and further archeological analysis moved it to the "don't really know" category. The latest research on the subject was published in Crusader Landscapes in the Medieval Levant: The Archaeology and History of the Latin East, a nice book that set me back $85 plus tax and shipping. (A good investment, as it is now selling new for $122.) In the scheme of things, al-Al doesn't really generate much interest in Wikipedia, but it is good research and maybe someday some more information will appear.
I agree that no Crusades historian today views Runciman or even Wisconsin as the last word on the subject, but I also think that they would think the Tyerman attacks are warranted at this level. Lock in the Rutledge Companion has a neutral discussion. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 02:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Much better, although I have a hard time understanding why Tyerman calls out Wisconsin for "lack of coherence." If he means that different viewpoints are expressed in different articles, why is that a bad thing? His explanation in the reference if refuted by his own words. If you must include Prawer, etc., I would do it after Wisconsin and mention Ferdinand Chalandon and René Grousset before Runciman. Tyerman thinks Runciman is copied from Chalandon and Atiya regards his work as the next step after Grousset. OMHO, Smail is not viewed a revolutionary (in a positive sense) by anyone but Tyerman.
The section on Recovery Texts could probably use a new title, but I can't think of a good one. Maybe include Benedetto Accolti the Elder as the earliest and is in RHC. Also Leibniz. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I know you hate to hear me bitch about Tyerman, but his statement about Runciman being derived from Chalandon is gratuitous. Runciman's Volume 1 roughly follows Chalandon, but is twice as long. As to the others, I guess he is claiming the God's War is not based on Gesta, William of Tyre, Grousett? Whenever he can present Runciman in a negative light, he does. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As to the quote, I would ask, why weren't Chalandon and Grousett translated into English to become the standard references? And why did it take over 60 years for a potential replacement for Runciman to appear? And I don't think anyone agrees with Tyerman that Runciman just used other work with no analysis or rigor. It's because of his alleged slant towards Byzantium and against the West that is the basis of their complaints. They might disagree with his analysis but they're not saying it was taken from previous work. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 17:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Historians and histories of the Crusades which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Historiography of the Crusades article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1Auto-archiving period: 30 days |
This article is written in British English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, travelled, centre, defence, artefact, analyse) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Historiography of the Crusades has been listed as one of the History good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it. | |||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||
Current status: Good article |
This article is rated GA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but
graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at
pageviews.wmcloud.org |
The second sentence in the Terminology Section is incorrect:
"In modern historiography, the term "crusade" first referred to a military expedition undertaken by European Christians in the 11th, 12th, or 13th centuries to the Holy Land."
According to the section herein on Modern works, the only modern work on the Crusades is the very flawed one by Runciman which does not take this definition. The other examples used in "modern historiography" are related to Kaiser Wilhelm, Franco's Spain and the foundation of the State of Israel and again do not reflect this. As I've said before, I have no idea why there are relevant to this article.
In fact, I am unable to find a single modern work that limits itself to the "numbered Crusades." The closest one is by Thomas Archer and Charles Kingsford from 1904 that avoids the discussion of the "other Crusades" but does not deny their existence. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 20:39, 10 December 2021 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish Very interesting. I knew I should've kept my OED when I moved. I did a little research on this and found the first passage in a work by William Harrison that relates to something that Baldwin of Forde said about the Third Crusade. Here's the full quote:
"..And the experience of this latter is noted by Giraldus Cambrertfis ( Gerald of Wales) to haue beene feene and vfed in Wales, where he did eat in Waien, an Giraldus mya. cheefe made of hinds milke, at fuch time as Baldwine; archbifhop of Canturburie preached the croifad there, when they were both lodged in a gentlemans houfe, whofe wife of purpofe kept a deirie of the fame."
The quote by Lord Chesterfield of Voltaire's is also interesting since the latter included the Albigensian Crusade in his work. Harrison and Étienne Pasquier seem to be the earlier uses of the word, although when Pasquier wrote of his six crusades, he omitted what we call the 5th and 6th, going directly to the crusades of Louis IX, so the statement in the article is incorrect (not that anyone would notice).
The reference to "1706 Phillips's New World of Words" is also interesting. Here's the complete entry"
"Croisado or Crusade: The Expedition of Christian Princes for the Conquest of the Holy Land; a Holy War formerly undertaken against the Infidels out of Devotion, upon encouragement of the Pope's Bulls promising immediate entrance into Heaven, to all that dy'd in the Service; so that those Warriours were distinguish'd by wearing the Figure of the Cross of several Colours."
I may write an article on based on the OED research. I'm not sure of the OED reference in this article as it has a paywall, but I'm not sure anyone would notice. There may be a better place to pull a definition, e.g. Catholic encyclopedia. I'm aware of the cited article by Holt and will have more to say on it later. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 19:22, 11 December 2021 (UTC)
Norfolkbigfish Comments:
1. In the sentence "In modern historiography, the term "crusade" first referred to a military ..." the beginning "In modern historiography" just confuses things, especially since you just talked about the OED. The sentence reads just fine without it. 2. In Historical Background, the stuff that begins with "Cyprus was Western-ruled from 1191 until 1571...." is out of place. I don't think it is necessary. 3. The Zimmern Chronicle is a little advanced for this audience, and some like Riley-Smith are quite happy with Chanson d'Antioche.
I might be bold and change the title of the section to "The First Crusades" a la Riley-Smith. Dr. Grampinator ( talk)
The write-up on Charles Mills is misleading. He referenced nine crusades, but they are differently numbered. I'll call his crusades CM1, etc.
CM1=First Crusade
CM2=Second Crusade
CM3=Third Crusade
CM4=Crusade of 1197
CM5=Fourth Crusade
CM6=Fifth Crusade and Sixth Crusade
CM7=Baron's Crusade
CM8=Seventh Crusade
CM9=Eighth Crusade and Lord Edward's Crusade.
Also, the statement "seven major and numerous lesser campaigns" is not universally accepted. Not everyone combines the Fifth and Sixth, but most think Barons' is a major one. Also, I can't find anyone that calls it the Ninth Crusade. My personal preference is nine majors, which would be One through Eight + Barons'. Maybe others could chime in, but I do think seven majors is wrong.
Dr. Grampinator (
talk) 20:44, 12 December 2021 (UTC)
Dr. Grampinator (
talk) 06:41, 13 December 2021 (UTC)
As to the change to the ODNB citation in Crusades, the template provides a citation that says a subscription is required to read the article. It isn't, this is a free article (who knew that such existed). I don't know if the Template can be tweaked, but right now, the casual reader will not go to ODNB because they will think they can't read it. I suggest changing it back. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 15:55, 14 December 2021 (UTC)
I have to take exception to much that is written in this section.
"Prior to the late 20th century no serious thought had been given to defining what was meant by "crusade" and its scope; it was assumed it meant only Christian attempts to recover Jerusalem."
This is obviously false, as the examples of Foxe and Voltaire above show. It's not clear what the point of the rest of the paragraph is so I'll just note that Mayer was not a traditionalist and Riley-Smith was not a pluralist by these definitions. And who is John Gilchrist
The material on the Wisconsin project is also incorrect. The project was originally planned in the 1930's with La Monte's paper (published in 1940). The statement:
"Now it is challenged in terms of its coherence grounds in the light of new research."
The implication is that Joshua Prawer and Jean Richard are challenging what is in the Wisconsin project. How can that be when they wrote five chapters between the two of them in the work? You are accepting Prawer's work as gospel when it is in fact controversial. He is making some proposals that haven't been universally accepted. His work Histoire du royaume Latin de Jérusalem allegedly refuting Wisconsin was in fact written in 1969, before Wisconsin was published.
So Runciman is "derivative, tendentious and misleading" and Wisconsin is incoherent. Why are we even bothering? Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 20:05, 23 December 2021 (UTC)
Just a few comments in rebuttal. First, just because there is a "reliable source," doesn't mean that it is correct. Tyerman's comments in Murray's Encyclopedia are, frankly, irrational. He calls Wisconsin lacking in coherence and cites works by Prawer and Richard as the reason. Prawer and Richard wrote the relevant chapters in Wisconsin. Further, in the next paragraph, he cites work that modifies and contradicts Prawer. His statement about when the project began is contracted by his own work (Debate on the Crusades). There he has some choice words for the study including "contributed nothing." Apparently, the massive 6-volume study on the Crusades by the leading scholars of the '60s, '70s and '80s is not good enough for Tyerman. But, if it's the consensus of the Wikipedia Crusades community that all of the scholarship of the 20th century is worthless, so be it.
I am curious as to what historians today regard as dated about Wisconsin. Obviously, Tyerman thinks that, but as I pointed out, without any valid rationale. What new, uncontested research has come out since it was published?
As to "there was little thought to defining what a crusade was until the 20th century." Perhaps I don't understand what you mean. There have been definitions of what a crusade was since it was first used in the 16th century. And I'm sure there was plenty of thought that went into it. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:52, 24 December 2021 (UTC)
You have a much higher view of Tyerman than I do. He seems to talk in circles. Sometimes he likes Constable, other times he doesn't. At one point, he questioned whether the first three Crusades were really crusades. He thinks all historians other than Smail and Riley-Smith are hacks. Try reading Krey's review of Smail's signature work. Here are some highlights:
He attributes the broad approach in Wisconsin to Riley-Smith. He basically discounts all modern historians but these two. Here are some of the authors of Wisconsin, the work that he hates so:
Kenneth Setton, Sidney Painter, H. A. R. Gibb, Claude Cahen, Steven Runciman, Hans Mayer, Philip Hitti, T. S. R. Boase, Aziz Atiya, Jean Richard and Joshua Prawer
His criticism is ludicrous as it is of Runciman. Atiya's review of Volume 1 is very positive. As I pointed out, he criticizes Wisconsin for not including material of Prawer and Richard, which it does, and then goes on the criticize Prawer.
I continue to be confused about your statement about definitions of crusades. This seems to clear to everyone but me.
As to the constant criticism, I don't think there have been any new facts uncovered about the Crusades since the 19th century. The rest is opinion, and that keeps changing.
I anxiously await the new Cambridge History of the Crusades. I hope Tyerman likes it. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 02:41, 26 December 2021 (UTC)
As you can tell, I'm not a fan of Tyerman. His attacks on Runciman are, in my opinion, unprofessional and biased. I'm familiar with the referenced list. I won't comment much on what Tyerman says about Runciman's work other than he chides him for using material that previous historians had written. I guess God's War was written from whole cloth with no consideration for past works. He then goes on to criticize Runciman for ignoring Prawer's work! Yes, the same work of Prawer's that was written two decades after Runciman's. And then, in God's War, he doesn't touch much on Prawer at all, and in his Modern Historiography article, he goes on to point out how Prawer's work has received "serious modification, if not contradiction" by his students. But, he really likes Prawer and he really dislikes Runciman.
Interestingly, one of Tyerman's major problems with the Wisconsin study was that it was delayed by contributors not meeting their deadlines and therefore out-of-date. I can only assume that he is not one of the contributors to the Cambridge History. BTW, I read an interview with Tyerman on NPR where he flatly states that the Crusades have no relevance to modern history. He obviously has a problem with consistency. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 19:54, 28 December 2021 (UTC)
I suggest reading Mayer's article on America and the Crusade. You get a much better, less emotional discussion on Wisconsin. And the fact that different chapters have different viewpoints is to be expected. Pick any group of three experts on a subject and you will get three viewpoints (actually more like six). To me that's a good thing. It separates what is historical fact and what is speculation.
BTW, my own (biased) opinion is that Tyerman's work is not that well thought of. I think he wanted God's War to be the new gold standard and it isn't. How else do you explain Asbridge's comprehensive work 6 years later. For what it's worth. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 17:13, 29 December 2021 (UTC)
I did go and review the "modern" works to see if there were any citations that were different from what were used by Runciman or Wisconsin and didn't find any. The use of more recent translations of the Arabic works has an impact and has changed some interpretations but I don't think the basic facts, like those relevant to a high-level Wikipedia article, are changed. Plus these new interpretations are changing, a la Tyerman's discussion of Prawer that morphs in two paragraphs from "gospel" to "maybe not correct."
An example: I wrote an article called Castle of al-Al based on al-Qalanisi and Runciman. The first cut at it was immediately attacked based on strong negative comments by Moshe Sharon, based on archeological information. Then a second contemporary account was found that corroborated al-Qalanisi, and further archeological analysis moved it to the "don't really know" category. The latest research on the subject was published in Crusader Landscapes in the Medieval Levant: The Archaeology and History of the Latin East, a nice book that set me back $85 plus tax and shipping. (A good investment, as it is now selling new for $122.) In the scheme of things, al-Al doesn't really generate much interest in Wikipedia, but it is good research and maybe someday some more information will appear.
I agree that no Crusades historian today views Runciman or even Wisconsin as the last word on the subject, but I also think that they would think the Tyerman attacks are warranted at this level. Lock in the Rutledge Companion has a neutral discussion. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 02:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
Much better, although I have a hard time understanding why Tyerman calls out Wisconsin for "lack of coherence." If he means that different viewpoints are expressed in different articles, why is that a bad thing? His explanation in the reference if refuted by his own words. If you must include Prawer, etc., I would do it after Wisconsin and mention Ferdinand Chalandon and René Grousset before Runciman. Tyerman thinks Runciman is copied from Chalandon and Atiya regards his work as the next step after Grousset. OMHO, Smail is not viewed a revolutionary (in a positive sense) by anyone but Tyerman.
The section on Recovery Texts could probably use a new title, but I can't think of a good one. Maybe include Benedetto Accolti the Elder as the earliest and is in RHC. Also Leibniz. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
I know you hate to hear me bitch about Tyerman, but his statement about Runciman being derived from Chalandon is gratuitous. Runciman's Volume 1 roughly follows Chalandon, but is twice as long. As to the others, I guess he is claiming the God's War is not based on Gesta, William of Tyre, Grousett? Whenever he can present Runciman in a negative light, he does. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 20:27, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
As to the quote, I would ask, why weren't Chalandon and Grousett translated into English to become the standard references? And why did it take over 60 years for a potential replacement for Runciman to appear? And I don't think anyone agrees with Tyerman that Runciman just used other work with no analysis or rigor. It's because of his alleged slant towards Byzantium and against the West that is the basis of their complaints. They might disagree with his analysis but they're not saying it was taken from previous work. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 17:42, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Historians and histories of the Crusades which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 21:47, 23 February 2023 (UTC)