Disputatio:Prima expeditio sacra

No such word as Crusada. Crusade etymologically reconstructs to *crucata, but that's not much of a real word. At the conventiculum I normally hear bellum crucigerum or crucigerentia (also -fer-), and I think elsewhere on wikipedia, I've seen bellum sacrum. As to what people actually used at the time, or even in later Latinate eras, I can't really say. --Iustinus 04:15, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, whatever you think is best. Alexanderr 04:33, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

How about Bella Catholicorum insana quibus caedem cum summa superbia Arabicis gerebant? Ack, you're right, probably a little too clunky...--Ioshus ^(disp) 04:49, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hilarious. Alexanderr 04:55, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, don't get me wrong, Ioshus, the Crusades were attrocious, but I think the Christians often get criticism for the wrong aspects. Anyway, Alexanderr, here's what David Morgan says:

753 crusade, holy war, jihad bellum sacrum, expeditio sacra, bellum pro sacris Christianis per orientem susceptum (Hase v), bellum a Francis Dei signa sequentes in Syra susceptum (Hase 3), expeditio occidentalium ad sacra loca recuperanda (Hase pt. II, 3)

753 crusader cruce signatus, Francus Dei signa sequens (Hase 3)

Yeah, cruce signatus is another thing I hear a lot of, but it doesn't help us here. Hase apparently wrote (in the 19th century) a book called Recueil des historiens des croisades: Historiens grecs, which makes it particular odd that he found nothing less clunky. --Iustinus 05:40, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

None of those seem very catchy. Alexanderr 06:02, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nomina fere apta sunt bellum sacrum et cruciata (litteras graves infra addidi). Dicit en:wikipedia: "In 1095, at the Council of Clermont, Pope Urban II raised the level of war from Bellum iustum ("just war"), to bellum sacrum." In libro De bello Constantinopolitano scripsit Paulus Rhamnusius Venetus (ca. 1532–1600): "ANNO igitur a natali die CHRISTI Millesimo centesimo nonagesimo octavo, eodem Innocentio III. Pontifice Max. Et Philippo Augusto in Francia, in Britannia autem Richardo, qui cor Leoninum dictus est, regnante, Fulco, cognomento Nuyllianus, vir singulari sanctitate et idem Nuyllii Paroeciae Curio (id oppidum inter Latiniacum ad Matronam et Lutetiam Parisiorum interiectum) non in Francia modo, sed apud finitimos de cultu Dei et religione [8] asserenda fere quotidie conciones habebat; aiunt, hominem pertotam ferme Galliam, instinctu divino afflatuque concitatum, mirifica divinitatis exempla edere solitum, ita ut hominis fama Innocentius incredibiliter commotus, ei, Crucis signum, singulare ad bellum sacrum incitamentum (Cruciatam appellant) omnibus denuntiandum mandaret." Scripsit Polydorus Vergilius in libro De Anglica Historia: "Quo cum ad diem constitutum frequentes convenissent, ipse, habita longe luculentissima oratione, bellum sacrum decrevit, idque rebus omnibus antevertendum esse docens, ita principes Galliae caeterosque Christianos duces ad recuperanda Hierosolyma a Saracenis diu occupata incendit, ut anno salutis humanae MXCIIII ad ccc millia hominum nomina dederint." Scripsit alius chronologista: "Viginta millia puerorum proficiscuntur in Palaestinam ad bellum sacrum 1013. Pereunt fame, peste, gladio" (vide via Gugla). In Ephemeride interretiali anno 2004 scripsit Victorius Ciarrocchi: "Mortuo Henrico (a. 1189), Richardus, quem prae ceteris filiis mater diligebat, expeditionem in Terram 'sanctam', ut id temporis dicere plerique solebant, fecit; quae quidem expeditio, quam "tertiam Cruciatam" voce mediaevali quidam dicunt, sed Latinius forsan "tertium bellum nomine Christi susceptum", haud prosperiorem quam secunda exitum habuit." ¶ Quoque erat falsa cruciata. Encyclopedia A. Mertens, patris Francisci, circa annum 1980 scripta, attestationem medievalem citans dicit: "Breccia (in Italy): Circa 630 falsa cruciata Brixiensium tempore imperatoris Heraclii (Asc. Martinengus, vita S. Felicis, nr 3) (AA.SS. Feb 23)." IacobusAmor 13:57, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Categorizing could have helped: We have a page Expeditio sacra. --Rolandus 06:58, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Sigrides Albert habet: ".mdv crusade / expeditio sacra [s.18]; (expeditio) cruciata [s.17] (HELF.) ]] expeditio ad Terram Sanctam liberandam; -r assectator sancti belli (LEV.)" --Alex1011 14:10, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Too many options, none of which is "Crusada". The earlier choice, "Expeditio sacra" (I hadn't seen that article till now) may be best, I think. "Bellum sacrum" is unspecific -- we might want to use the term for Holy War, on behalf of any religion. I have not come across any medieval term for Crusade that is both precise and commonly used -- they tended to use imprecisions like "peregrinatio" and "Crucis negotium".

Whenever we want it, "Cruce signatus" is definitely a Crusader, i.e. one who has taken the Cross. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:39, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I like the idea of saving bellum sacrum for any religion. A jihad for instance...--Ioshus ^(disp) 1555, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)

(Added later) Or Cruciata I suppose is nice and brief. If I understand IacobusAmor's summary correctly, it has been used since the 17th century, which is not bad. And everybody would immediately understand Prima Cruciata. Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 15:52, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Since the sixteenth century, since he died in 1600. And note the tantalizing parenthesis, "Cruciatam appellant": who were "they," the ones who called it thus? Were they the participants, alive in 1198? Maybe Paulus Rhamnusius knew of sources we haven't found yet. While googling, I got the feeling that more info is available on the internet. Others may want to look. IacobusAmor 16:42, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well, my assumption would be that "they" are the vulgus. --Iustinus 17:00, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Probably, or he might have written "appellamus." But that's a 16th-century attestation regarding a 12th-century event; it would be better to have a 12th-century attestation. Still, the term seems valid, not least because the modern Latinist Victorius Ciarrocchi accepts it. So maybe we should use bellum sacrum and expeditio sacra for the general term, 'holy war, jihad, etc.', and save cruciata for 'crusade'. I take it that in origin, cruciata is an adjective modifying an understood expeditio, but of course Latin freely nominalizes adjectives. IacobusAmor 17:37, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I would agree that your attestations for Cruciata are pretty persuasive. I guess the reason the term has histrically been avoided by Latinists of the right sort ( ;) ) is that in Classical Latin it can only mean "tortured, crucified." --Iustinus 17:47, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Well I see nothing wrong with Cruciata, however expeditio sacra might be okay too since we already have an article on it, and it links to "Prima Expeditio Sacra" - the first crusade. Alexanderr 16:12, 26 Ianuarii 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Although I myself felt OK about Cruciata (see above), I am thinking that Expeditio sacra would be even better and I might move Prima Cruciata and Secunda Cruciata before the other articles get started. Would anyone object? Andrew Dalby (disputatio) 13:33, 7 Martii 2008 (UTC)[reply]