Talk:Siege of Antioch (1268)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Flex my muscles

I got myself a Crusade sbook by Thomas F Madden, So I'm gonna be BOLD and do some serious editting. STAND BY FELLOW CRUSADERS!!!!Tourskin 06:47, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Michaud?

Mcpaul, is it really necessary to quote Michaud? His work is almost 200 years old...Jean Richard's book should be sufficient, if you're also using that. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I should think the older the source the better when we're talking history, unless of course it predates the event, but even such a one might provide a bit of context.64.60.100.162 (talk) 23:47, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

Well, not for secondary/tertiary sources. The older those are, the more out of date they are likely to be. Adam Bishop (talk) 23:51, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

An "out of date" history? (Sorry, I couldn't resist.) But I agree as regards tertiary sources; better to find the primary if at all possible. 64.60.100.162 (talk) 00:03, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Actually on Wikipedia we're not supposed to use primary sources, which is why it's important to use the best secondary sources. Those definitely can be out of date; new information could be found, or there are more modern interpretations, etc. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:28, 28 September 2012 (UTC)

Opening

What does this, the second sentence, mean? "Prior to the siege, the Crusader Principality was oblivious to the loss of the city as demonstrated when Baibars sent negotiators to the leader of the former Crusader state and mocking his use of "Prince" in the title Prince of Antioch." To paraphrase: "The city was lost even before the siege was laid, but the Crusader Principality either didn't know or didn't care." I don't know how to paraphrase the part after "as demonstrated", for it makes no grammatical sense. Someone who knows the intent, please rewrite. Thanks! 64.60.100.162 (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2012 (UTC)

The numbers...

while in the text it is said that "It is thought that 40,000 Christians were massacred and another 100,000 enslaved." with ref to Michaud, somewhat later there seems to be a literal quote from exactly that source, saying "Most historians agree in saying that fourteen thousand Christians were slaughtered and a hundred thousand dragged away into slavery." I don't have that book at hands, anyone care to look it up and clarify 14 or 40, please? Thanks. --201.214.115.173 (talk) 00:01, 25 January 2013 (UTC)