Talk:Battle of Al Mansurah

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


  • "Islam's citadel and arsenal" are words of the historian Arnold Toynbee.Samsam22 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Why you use vandalism ? you can not change history by vandalism . All information here are from sourcebooks.Thank you Samsam22 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Samsam22. I see that cierderf7 removed some things such as, "The crusaders circulated false information in Europe claiming that king Louis IX defeated the Sultan of Egypt in a great battle and Cairo had been betrayed into his hands." However you can read "The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville" and see that this was the truth. Lord of Joinville was a crusader who fought in Louis's army. Isa Alcala (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

  • "The crusaders circulated false information in Europe claiming that king Louis IX defeated the Sultan of Egypt in a great battle and Cairo had been betrayed into his hands". See sourcebook The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville. If you read the book of the Lord of Joinville you will notice that I used his words.

The story of the death of Robert of Artois is quoted in many sources and also in The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville which is in French and thus available to you.

"and many of the crusaders were seized and exhibited in the streets of Cairo". see sourcebooks "Ibn Taghri, al-Nujum al-Zahirah Fi Milook Misr wa al-Qahirah" and "Al-Maqrizi, Al Selouk Leme'refatt Dewall al-Melouk". The French editions are available. Samsam22 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

" Cirederf7 , please stop vandalism. This article goes about Sirat al-Zahir Baibars. The introduction goes about why Baibars was popular and not about French being beaten by him. It explains why the Sirah emerged. Please stop that . As I told you before you can not change history by vandalism."Samsam22 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)


  • Dwarf Kirlston you asked for references I added that and removed your banner. If you wish more refrences let me know. Thank you Samsam22 (talk) 04:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

Recent edits[edit]

I do applaud Samsam and others the work that they have put into this article but made some edits to conform with Wikipedia standards.

I cut down the size of the last section "Historical consequence", which discussed at length the history of the entire region for the rest of the century. This information is already covered in a number of other articles, so only the briefest summary is needed here. In particular, long paragraphs about the Mongols are definitely off-topic.

As I mentioned regarding an earlier article, the use of medieval Muslim historians (for example, to cite the French losses) is frowned upon here in Wikipedia. See WP:PRIMARY.

All in all, though, good work. MapMaster (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

What? Why is that frowned upon? Perhaps if we quote their exaggerated numbers unconditionally, it would be (as it would be for medieval historians of anywhere else). The usual solution is to quote some modern historian with a more reasonable number alongside them, but there is no rule against quoting contemporaries. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I do understand that you, Adam, as a professional historian are expected to use and interpret primary sources but it's frowned upon at Wikipedia because the use of primary sources is generally considered Original Research (and in our case because medieval historians are unreliable and biased). It's not my rule, but I agree with it. We should not be writing articles based directly on primary sources.
From a rough count, half or more of the citations in this article are from medieval historians, which seems excessive.
I was referring in particular to the sentence "between fifteen and thirty thousand of the French fell on the battlefield", which was cited to 3 medieval historians without any cautionary text or any analysis by modern historians. I added the phrase "According to medieval Muslim historians" which helps somewhat, but it would be best to have a modern analysis methinks. MapMaster (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
The large amount of un-bracketed Arabic text is also distracting, since to most of us it is meaningless. Is it necessary? Is there a better, less distracting way to present that information? Srnec (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I'll go ahead and remove it soon. MapMaster (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
I have removed the script. I feel bad about it, since someone put a lot of work into this, but not bad enough not to do it. I also think it is distracting and unnecessary and useful only to a very small percentage of readers. Nearly all the script was behind a wikilink, which also added to the redundancy. MapMaster (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)


How is it this page gives the crusader forces as 80,000 - when the main seventh crusade page gives the entire force as 15,000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Just checked the source for the listing of 80,000 Crusaders, and the citation contradicts the number given in the article. I'm correcting the number to the one listed in the source. The original source states; "This would indicate an army of some 15,000 men...". It doesn't mention 80,000 Crusaders anywhere.--TheSteelShepherd (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)