Talk:Siege of Jerusalem (1099)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Jacobwirtzer.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 22 January 2020 and 6 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Mukherjeesiddhant2000.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 09:19, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Crusader Casualties

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)

Number of victims

The article states that all inhabitants of J were killed - but that's quite meaningless unless one quantifies how many inhabitants remained in the city?

No way! If all inhabitants are killed (more than 40.000) then this is a genocide. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.75.194.86 (talk) 13:05, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Additionally, the writer claims that subsequent to all of the inhabitants of Jerusalem "massacred with indiscriminate violence", the "True Cross" was recovered by questioning these selfsame inhabitants. Unlikely.

This is not really as big a problem as people like to make it. It's partly a matter of the quirks of medieval chronicling, partly the authors of the article (like me) being lazy and making certain assumptions about the audience. The crusaders may not have killed "all" the inhabitants, but sufficiently large numbers of them that they thought it was everybody - certainly most if not all the Muslims, most of the Jews, and possibly any Christians that stayed behind, but most of them left or were expelled beforehand. There's a month between the capture of the city and the Battle of Ascalon, which is plenty of time for the Christians to return, and these certainly would have been the people to question about the True Cross - why would the Muslims or Jews know or care about that? (In any case, the remaining Muslims and Jews were expelled, so there must have been some left to expel.) Adam Bishop 21:25, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I AGREE! Well said Adam Bishop!I just added this to the main article (the BOLD words are only on the discussion page):

The Gesta francorum et aliorum Hierosolymytanorum (The deeds of the Franks and the other pilgrims to Jerusalem), states some people managed to escape the siege unharmed. 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."[1] Later it is written, "[Our leaders] also ordered all the Saracen dead to be cast outside because of the great stench, since the whole city was filled with their corpses; and so the living Saracens dragged the dead before the exits of the gates and arranged them in heaps, as if they were houses. No one ever saw or heard of such slaughter of pagan people, for funeral pyres were formed from them like pyramids, and no one knows their number except God alone." [2]

This is a highly trusted source for info about the Jerusalem siege. As you can clearly see, some were kept as captives. Later the survivors are made to clean up all of the dead bodies. If everyone was dead, I highly doubt the French nobles nor the foot soldiers would have done it themselves!!!(!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor!)

Does anyone know what the population of Jerusalem was at the time? Its smaller then Cairo 500 000 - 1 000 000, and smaller then Paris ~ 100 000, many European cities of the time were in the realm of tens of thousands, but cities in the Middle East were larger. Some reliable information on this would give context even if the number of victims cant be certain. Ottawakismet (talk) 19:46, 15 August 2011 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ottawakismet (talk • contribs) 19:40, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Benjamin Z. Kedar says Jerusalem had perhaps 20,000-30,000 inhabitants at the time of the siege. One particular source gives the death toll as high as 65,000 souls, which is obviously beyond reason. Kedar, however, thinks Ibn al-Arabi's conservative estimate of 3,000 is more plausible. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 21:36, 15 August 2011 (UTC)

Battleboxes

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)

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)

Ease of assault

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)

Well, according to the info box, the siege was only six weeks before the attack, which is actually very short peroid for a siege (pre-cannon). And yes, a mere 1000 troops (also per info box) is way too few to properly man fortifications. Jon 13:47, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

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)

The burning of the Jews and their synagogue

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") [3] 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))

Jewish massacre

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)

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))

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))

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)

Good point. I was thinking about doing that while I was at work. (Ghostexorcist 09:18, 3 April 2007 (UTC))

Raymond or Godfrey?

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)

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)

good info, not sure how to integrate it

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)

NPOV

"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)

"Muslim sorcerers"

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."

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)

   - ,yup quite true, sorcery is a cardinal sin (kufr) in Islam..  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.227.79.183 (talk) 16:08, 1 February 2009 (UTC) 

References

Massacre (again...)

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)

Jewish defenders

I dont like the meaning that jews and muslims defended jerusalem together from crusaders. It is ilogical. The Islam occupied to that time Jerusalem. I doubt that jews fought side by side with their supressors.

You can see my changes in "view history"

First of all the sentence:

"Although the Crusaders killed many of the Muslim and Jewish residents"

This sentence is wrong, when you stage muslimic occupants together with jewish victims and both suffered from the crusade. You ignore the difference of a supressor and a victim. Crusaders never had the intention to slaughter jews but to free jews from the occupation.

My second change:

Jewish defenders. I doubt that a victim will fight together with a supressor side by side. During second world war allied forces invaded germany to free jews and germans from the nationalsozialistic power. I doubt that any one of those fought side by side with the Nazis.

My third change:

"seeking aid for Jews who escaped Jerusalem at the time of the Crusader siege "

This sentence should be erased because together with the rest of the text:

"There is no question that there was a massacre of some Jerusalem Jews, for contemporary letters from the Cairo Geniza seeking aid for Jews who escaped Jerusalem at the time of the Crusader siege refers to such killings"

you start with an imagination that jews and christians were enemies. And this is wrong. The entire logical conclusion in the text about siege of jerusalem is based on islamic writtings. i doubt that in these writtings lies more truth than in simple logic.

my fourth change:

"that there were some Jewish survivors as well" i delete the word "some" because in this context the words "some survivors" let you start thinking that the crusaders intention was based on killing more jews in jerusalem then moslems. and again christians and jews were no enemies. christians and moslems have been. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Santiago84 (talk • contribs) 08:09, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

The sentences were correct before you changed them. There were Jews and Christians and Muslims living in Jerusalem at the time; apparently most of the Christians had left, or had been expelled by the Muslim governor (who thought, probably correctly, that they would collaborate with the crusaders - that is how the crusaders captured Antioch, actually). The number of Jews in Jerusalem wasn't large, but they were there. Islam has a basic toleration of Christianity and Judaism, as I'm sure you know. It doesn't always work out very well, and they were taxed more heavily, among other problems, but nevertheless there were Jews in Jerusalem. They knew about the massacres of the Jews in Europe, long before the crusaders even arrived in Asia, so it makes sense that they wanted to defend Jerusalem just as much as the Muslims did. It was never the crusaders' intention to free the Jews from Muslim occupation. I actually can't think of anything that is further from any of the crusaders' known goals. They wanted to make the land Christian again, as it had been immediately before the Muslim conquest in the 7th century. (Your other argument about World War II is equally invalid. That war was not about freeing the Jews, just as the American Civil War was not about freeing slaves.)

As you noted, some of this is mentioned in the Geniza documents - I'm not sure why you think that should be deleted, other than that you don't like it and it doesn't agree with you. I'll have to look up some other sources (the article could, of course, use more references), but this is a fairly uncontroversial matter. I would definitely recommend Benjamin Kedar's article, which is already listed as a reference. I don't think Robert Chazan writes about the Siege of Jerusalem, but he has written a lot about the massacres of the Jews in the Rhineland in 1096. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:12, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

You wrote: "Your other argument about World War II is equally invalid. That war was not about freeing the Jews, just as the American Civil War was not about freeing slaves." Are you insane? even the goal of terrorist groups is to free persons who are held in prisons in western socity, by blackmail and terrorist strikes. how can you say that no american soldier, exspecially an american jew, never had the intention of freeing jews during second world war? how can you say that no christian, exspecially jewish christian never had the intention of freeing jews and jerusalem from islamic occupation? the most persons here use quotations of writtings of islam. and the islam practices polygamie, forced marriage, honor trough fear, honorkillings and initial ritual. I guess that these things turn the islam into implausible, what turns the islamic writtings implausible, which turn the entire conclusions based on the writtings (exspecially entire passages of articles) into an implausible value.

i also close this "discussion" down for my part

"Your other argument about World War II is equally invalid. That war was not about freeing the Jews" this sentence i will never forget —Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.1.52.167 (talk) 18:18, 15 October 2010 (UTC) Santiago84

Please see WP:NPOV and, especially, WP:CIVIL. --Ghostexorcist (talk) 18:26, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Well, if one Jewish American soldier fought in World War II in order to save the Jews of Europe, that does not mean that the purpose of the war was to save the Jews. How could it have been? It was a big war. Were Americans fighting in the Pacific to save the Jews? Of course not. What about all the other countries? Were Russians fighting to save Jews? Of course not. "how can you say that no christian, exspecially jewish christian never had the intention of freeing jews and jerusalem from islamic occupation?" I can say this because it is absolutely, completely, 100% not true. The crusades had nothing to do with the Jews, except that some crusaders occasionally killed Jews by accident or on purpose. The crusades were about helping other Christians and restoring Christian rule in places that had formerly been Christian. There was never any intention at all to restore the Holy Land to Jewish rule. From the standpoint of medieval Christianity, that would have been insane. (What's a Jewish Christian, by the way?) Adam Bishop (talk) 21:02, 15 October 2010 (UTC)

Cut from article

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 (ISBN 0801077583 ) 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)

I see this was already addressed above, unfortunately based on historians debating in a TV show rather than in quotable literature, but the upshot seems to be that the Jewish defenders indeed seem to have been burned in the synagogue, not sure about the singing. In any case this isn't an instance of medieval antisemitism (which did exist, of course) but simply a case of killing all the city's defenders. It would be worth discussing this based on actual references (medieval studies), but it is clearly a bad faith anachronism to try and contort this into a part of an antisemitic "legacy of hatred" as the 1990 book apparently did. --dab (𒁳) 11:44, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Ok, I think I fixed this. There is some material at History of the Jews and the Crusades which could be used. It's partly based on a TV show, but that's still better than nothing. diff.

As for Rausch (1990), the page number is 27, but,

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)

I have tried an "emergency fix" for this, as I saw the naive figure ("seventy thousand were butchered") was spilling over to other articles. I have not done an in-depth research on the literature, and obviously the article is still in dire need of quality references. What I think can be said for certain is,

• there has been a historical "massacre" in the sense that the city refused to surrender, was sacked, and the civilian population was slaughtered
• the casualty figures are basically unknown. Contemporary sources apprarently give between 30k and 70k, but even the low figure is apparently considered an exaggeration by modern historians. It is safe to say that "many" were killed, but I don't think we can be more specific than that.
• the question whether the event was out of the ordinary at the time remains open. Medieval chroniclers dramatized the event because it was Jerusalem, and not necessarily because the massacre was considered excessively brutal. By modern standards, it would of course be a war crime of the first order. At the time, it was part of the game that when a city was asked to surrender, the threat was that if it failed to do so and was still sacked, everyone would die. This was just part of the "game" of warfare and you had to follow through in order to keep up a credible threat for your next siege. I do not know if the events in Jerusalem were within this "normal" procedure of medieval warfare, and figures were exaggerated because of the extremely significant nature of this siege in particular, or if the massacre was really far beyond what was considered acceptable at the time.

--dab (𒁳) 12:23, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

In line with some of the above comments, I’ve added a brief line on the norms of Medieval siege warfare to situate the massacre in a contemporaneous context to help the uninformed reader stay from judging by modern standards alone. I’ve also further elaborated upon groups of Jews being ransomed as revealed by the Cairo Geniza papers, including a link to the wiki page on the Letter of the Karaite elders of Ascalon. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.163.202.76 (talk) 00:23, 30 March 2015 (UTC)

this article needs more references

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)

Introduction and section regarding "Massacre"

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)

Added to "Muslim" section of the page

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)

Massacre

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)

Useless reference - Tyerman

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)

WP:SDNONE

Short description changed to none per WP:SDNONE. Editor2020 (talk) 18:29, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

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)

WP:IDONTLIKEIT

In regard to my recent edit, I deleted the comment not because I didn't like it, but because it is irrelevant and, in my opinion, a poorly thought out redirect. First, why should a reader care if another article redirects to this section? And why should they care if there are other massacres? That's what categories are for and this article references relevant massacres.

Second, it is not appropriate for the "Massacre of Jerusalem" to redirect here. There are many instances of massacres in the city that come to mind, including the 1244 massacre by the Khwarezmians. The redirect does not meet the criteria for singling out the one in 1099. I assume you created the redirect and it should be removed. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 03:26, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

The "Redirects here" template is commonly used on this site. For instance, WP:LISTEN uses this form of template once being redirected.

I did not make that redirect, it was actually made by @Dimadick. All that this claim is demonstrating is WP:ACCUSE. If you don't know who made the redirect, then just look at the redirect's history. Dunutubble (talk) (Contributions) 14:00, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

I do understand that sometimes the "Redirects here" is used, but only if it provides some useful information. That fact that someone (who I know now is not you) thinks that "Massacre of Jerusalem" should redirect here is one thing. I've already stated that I don't think it makes any sense. The other issue is whether a faulty reference should clutter up the paragraph, especially linking to a list that is almost all 20th century attacks that aren't usually referred to as a massacre. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:56, 7 March 2022 (UTC)