extenision- crusader historians??? (1 Viewer)

[Barbarossa]

heya,
just wanting to know if anyone else is doing the "campeign of the sross" topic in extensions and what historians they are using from that period or any good websites with some info on these historians
cheers and thanks
babs

 

[Sleiphnir]

I'm doing the Crusades too.
My historians are; Fulcher of Chartes, Edward Gibbon, Dana Carleton Monro, Steven Runciman(/Terry Jones), Jonathon Riley-Smith, Louis Bréhiér, Saunders and Atiya.
Obviously I'm not going to write about all of them though.

As for websites - Try this one; http://togodubnus.blogspot.com/ There was something written about the Crusades there (It was linked on these forums I think)

Good luck.

 

[jabbie]

The debates of the crusades involve Pluralist vs Traditionalist

What do you need to know?

pm cause i know heaps

Anna Comnena
Eddy Gibbon
Runciman
Jones
Riley Smith

 

[Barbarossa]

heya thanks so much!!!
can i be ingnorant and ask what the Pluralist argument would be?
and to Sleiphnir thx for the link its preety good :-D

in the exam for the second question do you put forward much of your own argument, ie one of the quetsions a couple of year ago was discuss 2 different interpreations of your event, but do you have to say what you think abut the 2 different interpreation and add your own theory??? i tried looking at standards packages but its very hard reading the 2nd quetsion respone when its a different case study

babs

 

[jabbie]

Traditionalist view of the crusaders is going to the Holy land to Defeat the Muslims and get riches etc etc

Pluralist ( Riley Smith) say that crusades were costly therefore money may not have been the reason people crusaded its a bit hard to explain with out sheets in front of me

 

[Asheroth]

Traditionalist view of the crusaders is going to the Holy land to Defeat the Muslims and get riches etc etc

Pluralist ( Riley Smith) say that crusades were costly therefore money may not have been the reason people crusaded its a bit hard to explain with out sheets in front of me

Most of that is wrong

The Traditionalist/Pluralist debate refers to the debate of 'What is a Crusade?' and not to questions of motivations, materiel etc.

Traditionalists state that only an expedition launched in the name of God with its eventual aim being to conquer/capture Jerusalem is a Crusade. Thus, the Albigensian Crusade is not a real crusade, as it was launched against the Cathar heresy in the south of France. Runciman is a Traditionalist.

Pluralists state that any expedition sanctioned by the Pope and granted the indulgence (the waiving of normally compulsory penance for sins) is a real Crusade. For Pluralists, the Albigensian Crusade is a proper Crusade, because it was sanctioned by the Pope and granted the indulgence.

I'm doing the Crusades as well; it took me ages to get relevant information and organise it, so I'm a little protective of what I have

 

[jabbie]

Yes i got the two mixed up

but what i said about being the pluralist i mean RILEY SMITH ( who takes the PLURALIST APPROACH)

 

[hollhollholly]

J-R-S
Fulcher of cartes
Madden
Armstrong
Hillenbrand
William of tyre
Runciman
Kresis
Constable
Anna Comnena
Terry Jones
hope that helps