Talk:Battle of Dorylaeum (1147)

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Battle of Dorylaeum (1147) article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Middle Ages: Crusades Mid‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

Military history: Medieval / Early Muslim / Crusades

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)
	Crusades task force

Turkey Mid‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Casualty figures

I believe that I have found the origin of the 18,000 casualty figures. They appear, as 9/10ths of the German army, in Sir Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades Vol. II, a book published in the 1950s that had a great impact on subsequent scholarship. In it he cites a number of primary sources immediately after his casualty figures. I have looked at the treatment of the battle in these works and they do not give such a figure. Runciman seems to have made a guestimate, and the figure should not be treated as canonical. I will revert any edits that remove the moderating statements and words of caution that I have added to this figure. Urselius (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Phillips, J. (2008) The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom, Yale University Press, the author has a whole section on how difficult it is to estimate casualties in this battle. This is where the figures for this sentence was derived: "Of the 113 named men in the army, 22 are recorded to have died on the crusade, 42 to have survived and 49 are unaccounted for." These are the only reliable figures available. Even if all of the 'unaccounted for' died on the Crusade, unlikely in the extreme, the survivors are much more than 10%, and indeed are more than a third, being 37%. Urselius (talk) 17:07, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I do believe that caveats about combatant and casualty numbers for all pre-Modern battles should be added to relevant article infoboxes, as most, if not all, are unreliable. However, this seems to be opposed by editors who are ignorant about pre-modern warfare and history and think that any number they find in a source is accurate and reliable. Urselius (talk) 17:24, 22 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Are there any sources concerning Conrad and the number of troops he brought to the Siege of Damascus (1148)? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have been looking for anything on numbers. The only substantiated ones are the numbers for named German survivors, deaths and 'unknowns' for the Second Crusade as a whole. The whole Medieval army numbers and casualties field is a nightmare. Things like the numbers of 'knight's fees' are known for kingdoms and principalities, then there are contemporary records for battles that give numbers in excess of the total number of knights fees in the whole kingdom (and some fees would be possessed by those too old or young to fight). At Arsuf in the Third Crusade the Crusaders were said in contemporary accounts to have numbered 100,000 and the Ayyubids three times that number, patently ridiculous numbers. German losses at Doryleum were certainly very heavy, but there were enough left for some to go to Constantinople (then later to be shipped to Palestine), others to take ship from Attaleia, and yet others to go overland through Cilicia. It looks like very bad planning, but not the actions of a negligible number of men. Urselius (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nicolle, p. 55, says a contemporary figure for the Crusader army at Damascus was 50,000, but he emphasises that all Medieval army numbers are unreliable. This would have been the French, Germans and the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem combined, but the author says, whatever its true numbers, it was a formidable army. Interestingly, the German author of Annales Herbipolenses speaks of meeting many returned soldiers who had been captured by the Turks, whose ransoming had been arranged by the Armenians of Cilicia (Nicolle, p. 81). Urselius (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive victory

The source states that it was a decisive victory for the Seljuks. but Urselius is constantly changing it — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnl0g 044 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mnl0g 044, known to be a sockpuppet of Smokva26, and now banned. Urselius (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Actually you are at 4rr and are removing a reference and referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Decisive? 'Decisive' does not mean the same as 'a major victory' or a 'very one-sided battle', it means that it decided the outcome of a war. Dorylaeum stopped the German Crusaders from overrunning the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, or taking Konya, but that was not the major aim of the Crusaders, their major aim was to get to Syria to bolster the Crusader States after the loss of Edessa. Dorylaeum did not stop the Crusaders from getting to Syria, it was not decisive in the way this word is usually used in Wikipedia. A publication in Turkish which is claimed to say that the battle was decisive, is not all that useful as the context of the usage cannot be checked by non-Turkish speakers. Allied with the bald fact that the battle did not decide whether the Crusaders reached Syria or not, they obviously did reach Syria, means that there is insufficient support for the word 'decisive' being included in the result section of the infobox. This should be viewed in the context of the decisive nature of the Battle of Waterloo being seriously challenged by some Wikipedia editors. A decisive battle that has entered the English language as the epitome of decisiveness, "Meeting my/your/his/her Waterloo". Urselius (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

See Template:Infobox military conflict, terms such as "decisive" are not used. This is Wikipedia policy. Urselius (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Kansas Bear (talk) Cengizsogutlu (talk) 17:36, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How is not Decisive? It was a slaughter. The Germans never had a chance to form themselves up for defense, much less for counter-attack. By nightfall, Conrad was fleeing back to Nicaea. He left behind him his entire camp and all its booty, plus nearly all of his army. Those who were not killed were sold by the Turks into slavery. https://web.archive.org/web/20100613022729/http://crusades.boisestate.edu/2nd/06.shtml. I don't know what Decisive means to you but its completely Decisive victory for seljuks they destoyed main army the rest being enslaved.. What could be more decisive? Cengizsogutlu (talk) 17:46, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From first principles of logic and word meaning a decisive battle has to decide something. It did not stop the Germans reaching Syria, which was their goal, therefore it did not decide the outcome of the war. It is a simple concept. However, in a Wikipedia context 'decisive' is not supposed to be used, see: Template:Infobox military conflict; I quote, "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Urselius (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]