|
![]() | This ![]() It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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).
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)
Hmm...I don't know how to edit it. It's not so much that it looks bad that bothers me, as that it doesn't actually show the whole Kingdom; specifically, Sidon and Beirut are left off. (Other places should also be marked: Ramleh, Nablus, Tiberias, and so forth.)
I must say, this section is, historiographically, a little outdated.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)
The entire paragraph in this section seems to be taken almost word for word, from the book "The Templars" by Piers Paul Read (pg. 87, ISBN 1-84212-142-1). Thus, it needs to be reworded somehow.
I'll start from where its relevent:
"...was the Kingdom of Jerusalem, ruled by Godfery of Bouillon who, unwilling to call himself King where Christ had worn a crown of thorns, took the title of 'Defender of the Holy Sepuchre' instead."
"...Baldwin was less scruplous about taking a royal title and on Christmas Day 1100, at the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, the defeated Daimbert crowned him King of Jerusalem."
Kaiser matias 19:04, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
I wrote the offending passage. I have not read or heard of The Templars, by Piers Paul Read. Furthermore, the passage under discussion is not "word for word" the same as the passage quoted. The similarities are the bit about the crown of thorns, which is, I think, a quote from the chronicles themselves, although I'm not really certain (at any rate, it is how Godfrey's action is typically explained); and the use of the word "scrupulous," which seems a slight basis on which to base a claim of plagiarism. john k 20:11, 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
After reading the part from the book, and then here again, I noticed that it isn't that similar. Just when I quickly glanced at it the first time, it seemed very familiar. But, well, it seems very different when compared closely. Kaiser matias 21:15 27 Feb 2005 (UTC)
there seems to be no account of besiege of Jerusalem by Salah al-Din's army anywhere in wikipedia. Here is an excellent article about it, maybe someone would like to add it: http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/salahdin.html
Sorry about rolling back...However, my edits are equally valid to yours. TheUnforgiven 02:41, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
I fixed the mistake I made. TheUnforgiven 02:51, 11 July 2005 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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.
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)Reply
- - - -
Here are numbers I found:
According to P.M. Holt in "The Age of the Crusades" (1986):
"Few reliable statistics exist or can be deduced. it has, however, been surmised that the Frankish population [of the Crusader holdings] consisted at most of about 250,000, about half of whome were in the Kingdom of Jerusalem [I assme prior to Hattin]. The three great cities of the kingdom were Acre, which probably had over 60,000 inhabitants in the 12th century, Tyre and Jerusalem itself with 20,000 to 30,000."
David Nicolle in "Hattin 1187 (Osprey Campaign Series 19)" (1993) says:
"In the early 1180's the Kingdom of Jerusalem had 400,000-500,000 inhabitants, no more than 120,000 of whome were latins (Christians of western European origin). The rest constisted of indigenous 'Oriental' Christians, Muslims, Jews, and Samaritans."
Bot these figures agree, with about 120,000 western Europeans in the Kingdom of Jerusalem, prior to Hattin atleast.
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"...
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)Reply
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)
See pages 60 - 61 and page 478, for example, of Jean Richard's superb The Crusades, c. 1071-c. 1291, (available on Google Book Search in English translation) for references. 41.241.23.60 (talk) 13:41, 7 May 2009 (UTC)Reply
Feel free to insert the following image into the article: PHG Per Honor et Gloria 06:06, 7 November 2009 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply
There is no map of the internal division of KOJ on Wikipedia. I found and uploaded a single PD one: commons:File:1889 The Kingdom of Jerusalem, shewing the Fiefs, about 1187 A.D..jpg. Is it reliable enough to use here? trespassers william (talk) 02:19, 27 April 2014 (UTC)Reply
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:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 21:45, 10 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
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.
Here is a link to a archive from the book and it links directly to pages 62 to 63:
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)Reply
References
Is there actually any evidence for any of the names of the kingdom in other languages? I'm not even sure they usually called it "kingdom of Jerusalem" in Latin and French. In Arabic and Greek it seems to me that they usually called it "kingdom of the Franks" or something similar. Simply translating the modern English term into various languages is incorrect and misleading (and in Wikipedia terms, probably original research). I'd look around for translations in the primary sources, but then, that wouldn't really be acceptable for Wikipedia either, would it... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:42, 15 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
OK I looked around a bit and here are some of the actual names used by medieval authors:
Examples from Latin and French are too numerous to give a full list. Any combination of royaume/roiaume/reiaume/reaume de Jerusalem/Ierusalem/Iherusalem/Hierusalem, and probably other spellings. I'm certain I also saw "kingdom of Syria" in a crusader source but I can't find it now (it was something like "reaume de surie").
Latin is typically regnum Hierosolimitanum/Hierosolymitanum, etc. (with or without the H). I didn't check every possible Latin source because they're pretty much endless, but William of Tyre usually says "Kingdom of Jerusalem" with the plural form of Jerusalem, which is common for cities in Latin, regnum Hiersolymorum. At least once he also says "king of the Latins in Jerusalem", rex Latinorum Hierosolymis.
Arabic authors usually don't have a name for it. Usama ibn Munqidh for example doesn't have a name for the kingdom but he often refers to the “king of the Franks”. Ibn al-Furat calls it مملكة عكا ("Kingdom of Acre") (The History of Ibn al-Furat, vol. 7, (Beirut, 1942), pg. 262 and elsewhere). Frederick II wrote a letter to the sultan of Egypt in Arabic, in which he refers to all of his kingdoms, including مملكة الشام القدسية (the "Jerusalemite kingdom of Syria") (Tarikh Mansuri, Biblioteca Arabo-Sicula, Appendix 2, 1887, 34-7). Abu Shama is the only one I have found who does use "Kingdom of Jerusalem", مملكة القدس (RHC Or, vol. 4, pg. 391). He also uses ملك الشام الفرنجي, "Frankish Kingdom of Syria" (as opposed to the Muslim Kingdom of Syria), but interestingly in this case instead of the usual "mamlakah" he uses the more abstract noun "mulk" RHC Or, vol. 4, pg. 492).
In Greek nobody seems to call it anything. Anna Komnene uses the Latin word rex for the kings though, ρηξ ιεροσολυμων.
In Hebrew there also doesn't seem to be a name, at least not in Benjamin of Tudela or Petachiah of Regensburg.
I can't find anything in Armenian either. Ara Doustourian's translation of Matthew of Edessa uses the phrase "kingdom of Jerusalem", but the French version in the RHC doesn't say that. The Armenian text in the RHC doesn't seem to say that either, but I can't read Armenian so I'm not sure (RHC Arm, vol. 1, pg. 119).
In Old Norse, the city is called Jorsalaborg, the reegion in general is Jorsalaland, and the king is called Jorsalakung. Occasionally the kingdom is called Jorsalariki or Jorsalarike. (For example, in Thomas Saga Erkibyskups, ed. Eirikr Magnusson, vol. I, London, 1875, pg. 353).
What about Occitan, Spanish, Catalan, Italian? Middle English, Middle German? Maybe even Coptic? Georgian? Syriac? All of these languages were spoken there. Where do we stop? Even if we just use the Latin/Old French terms, which variants do we list? And as I mentioned earlier, isn't this the sort of synthesis/original research that is frowned upon here? Maybe we shouldn't include any names, at least not in the infobox. Maybe we should have a separate section in the text for the names. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:47, 18 October 2020 (UTC)Reply
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)Reply
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)Reply