Jump to content

Talk:Hugh III of Cyprus/GA1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]
GA toolbox
Reviewing

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Display name 99 (talk · contribs) 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]


Will start review in the coming days. Display name 99 (talk) 15:04, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

  • "both kingdoms"-Suggest changing to "Cyprus and Jerusalem" to avoid confusion with the Principality of Antioch, a separate political entity and to whose family of rulers the article says he belongs. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I had not thought of that. "Cyprus and Jerusalem" did not read well because the sentence goes on to mention "underage kings Hugh II of Cyprus and Conrad III of Jerusalem", so I removed "both kingdoms" instead. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "as the first resident king of Jerusalem since the 1220s..." Please clarify. The Kingdom of Jerusalem controlled the city from 1229 until 1239 (in part) and again from 1243 to 1244, when it lost it for good. So Hugh could not have resided there, and the king who had last done so would have lived in the city after the 1220s. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Changed to "the first king of Jerusalem to reside in the kingdom since the 1220s" for clarity; resident in the state, not the city. Isabella II moved to Europe in 1225, and her son and grandson never came to either the kingdom or the city of Jerusalem. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Hugh tried to restore the royal domain, reassert royal authority over the increasingly independent mainland vassals, and prevent further loss of territory to the Egyptian Mamluks."-Suggest changing to "restore the royal domain by reasserting...and preventing..." because reasserting his authority over the vassals and preventing the further loss of territory were the ways in which royal authority would be reasserted. The latter two goals were not separate from his overall goal of strengthening the monarchy but rather the means through which he would do it. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Restoring the royal domain means taking back land that belonged directly to the monarch before being given to vassals by regents. That is different from enforcing authority over vassals. I had hoped the link would suffice. I would appreciate a suggestion on how to make that clearer without expanding the lead too much. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Background

  • This section is too short. I'd like at minimum a sentence or two on each of his parents so that we get a sense of where Hugh came from. In what way was Isabella related to the royal family of Jerusalem? How did she come into contact with Hugh, if that is known? What is the evidence of a marriage versus the evidence of a betrothal? Do you have any information that is more specific on Hugh's character as a youth, whether from Runciman or the source(s) that he cites? Is there anything notable that happened to him? In short, I think that at least a paragraph or two of additional content would be good here. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • Done, I think. No biography of Hugh has been published as far as I know, so his early life has not been examined. The best available sources are general histories of Cyprus and Jerusalem, and in them, narratives of Hugh's life naturally start when he assumes control of the kingdoms. The only thing that happened to him before then that is reported in these publications is his marriage, and even that is rather poorly covered. That is why I included the character description in the background. Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bibliography

  • Looking down at the sources, I'm very slightly concerned by a lack of recent scholarship on the subject. What we know about Medieval history, particularly the Crusades, as expanded considerably since the late 20th century with new discoveries and translations of primary sources. As a result, many modern scholars consider many of the works that have been released on the Crusades in the early to mid 20th century to be less than reliable. Runciman's work is among those that is now heavily questioned, and yet he is heavily cited throughout the article. It's still a good resource for a number of things and should not be entirely discounted, and I'm pleased to see references to Riley-Smith and Peter Edbury. But have you looked for any other recent secondary sources, like Tyerman? Citations to primary sources, though not required, are excellent and I very much like to see GAs and FAs make use of them at least occasionally. I won't hold up the review over it, but try adding some if you can. Display name 99 (talk) 20:52, 22 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • I have avoided citing Runciman's second volume when expanding the Baldwin IV of Jerusalem article because, in the story of Baldwin, it relies exclusively on one primary source. The third volume I have found to be more balanced, and nothing in it concerning Hugh contradicts Edbury, Riley-Smith, or indeed Tyerman, so I went along with it. I suppose that means virtually all references to Runciman could be replaced with the more recent three if thought to be prudent. I am very reluctant to cite primary sources; whether information provided in them is reliable or relevant to a general biography is something I prefer to leave to qualified and published historians to evaluate :D Surtsicna (talk) 12:20, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

More to come.

This looks pretty good. I should be back here in a day or two. Could it be clarified in the lead who possessed Tyre? It does still seem a tad perplexing to have Acre described as the only city directly controlled by the king but to say that Tyre was a loyal city. Was it controlled by a loyal vassal? Clarify if so. I don't advocate replacing all of the Runciman sources, but I do suggest consulting Tyerman to see whether any information in Runciman can also be found there, and if so, adding a couple of Tyerman citations to replace them, or seeing whether there is any good information in Tyerman which is not already in the article and adding it if there is. Display name 99 (talk) 13:22, 25 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Accessions

I see that the above points have been actioned. Display name 99 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Policy

  • "such grants were legally tenuous"-What grants? It appears from reading further that the text is referring to land grants given to monastic orders or nobles, but you have to explain what you're talking about before you say "such grants." Display name 99 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see it. Display name 99 (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The regents had alienated much of the royal domain, but such grants were legally tenuous..." I am somewhat perplexed here. Is the issue the word alienate? It is used in the sense of "to transfer the ownership of (property, title, etc) to another person". The cited source uses it too. If the wording is the problem, I would much appreciate a suggestion. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Surtsicna, I think I see it now. It's not entirely clear what you mean just from the article text. I suggest trying something like "alienated much of the royal domain by selling/granting land to [whoever it was that was receiving the land], but such grants were legally tenuous..." This would clear things up, I think. Display name 99 (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do you mean Philip of Montfort? John is mentioned in the paragraph, but after this sentence. This doesn't quiet answer the question of why Hugh wanted to forge close relations with them. Display name 99 (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, that is right. I hope this indicates the importance of the Montforts to Hugh's policy. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • What was Edward I's position at the time of his arrival in the Outremer? How many troops did he have? Come to think of it, shouldn't Edward's crusade, sometimes called the Ninth Crusade, have a few sentences of introduction? Display name 99 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • "The dispute was humiliating for Hugh. It was decided that the king could summon his knights abroad for four months each year if led by him or his son but he never did so again." There are some problems here. One is that it's not completely clear to me how it was a humiliation for Hugh. Why did he never summon the troops again? Also, this sentence is grammatically opaque. It needs to be either reworded, to be split into two, or to have some sort of punctuation. Display name 99 (talk) 16:14, 27 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Not done with this section yet.

Baronial opposition

Charles is first introduced in the sentence describing Hugh's accession as the man who had Hugh's predecessor executed. (Somewhat ironically, Charles thus conveyed the crown of Jerusalem to Hugh, only to later try to take it away from him. Unfortunately, the cited sources do not make note of this.) I've made sure to mention Charles's "ambition to dominate the Mediterranean" and to give him both a geopolitical ("ruler of Sicily") and familial background ("brother of the celebrated crusader King Louis IX of France"). That is all the background Edbury gives. I am not sure I can conjure more in the context of Hugh.
Runciman does not say, unfortunately. I suspect the reply has not been preserved. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Simply by refusing to recognize Hugh's claim, as far as I can tell. No force was used by either party. I have tried to make that clear. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I too wondered about that. Charles is not commonly found in the lists of the kings of Jerusalem, so I am on the fence. How does this look to you? Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Neither Edbury nor Runciman go any deeper into the matter than describing them as Muslims. I have tried to make it clear that it was Hugh who thought these raiders were linked with the Templars. No evidence is mentioned. Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That should be all. Display name 99 (talk) 14:52, 28 July 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Surtsicna, hello? Display name 99 (talk) 13:47, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Apologies, I had not noticed the new comments. These have been very helpful. Thanks! Surtsicna (talk) 15:41, 3 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You're welcome. Please answer my one final suggestion about land grants and I think I'll be ready to pass the article. Display name 99 (talk) 13:50, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have finally worked it out. Surtsicna (talk) 14:12, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
This article meets the GA criteria and thus I have chosen to pass it. Future improvements based on additional reliable information are always welcome. Display name 99 (talk) 15:08, 4 August 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Hugh_III_of_Cyprus/GA1&oldid=1037104715"