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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Spain, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Spain 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.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Italy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles on Italy 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.
Ci sono un mucchio enorme di supposizioni in questa voce che non hanno nessun fondamento storico. La storia non è fatta di supposizioni ma di fatti comprovati da fonti storiche. Non basta che un autore ipotizzi un fatto, tale fatto deve essere dimostrato. La Sardegna non è mai stata conquistata dai mussulmani e non c'è nessuna fonte storica che provi il contrario. Tutto il resto sono illazioni belle e buone. Sarrabus deriva dal fenicio Sarcapos non dall'arabo. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 126.96.36.199 (talk) 00:49, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
I have clarified the caption. There is ample evidence—and don't lie, the primary sources, which are mostly Italian, are presented—that the judicate of Cagliari was conquered and that the Saracens attempted to secure by fortifying it. They failed within a year or so. The whole island was never conquered, but a part of it certainly was. This was not mere raiding. (In the future, please use English to the best of your ability on the English Wikipedia. Thanks.) Srnec (talk) 04:06, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
Those are nice web pages, but they are not primary or secondary sources. The article cites its sources quite clearly. In 1015–16 some Saracens from Spain attempted to conquer Sardinia. They were at least partially (albeit ephemerally) successful. That is all. Do you have a specific beef with one of the sources used in the article or do you have sources that argue that the Saracen adventures were mere raiding? Srnec (talk) 20:51, 12 August 2010 (UTC)
This article is an historical mystification, i read absurdities like Pisa in Tuscany and Sardinia that was captured by Saracens, but there aren't confirmed historical sources that claim it or some references here are based on impartial writings by arabs and pisans (that both contended the conquest of Sardinia). By the way in Sardinia and Tuscany were never found traces of arab settlements, none neither a helm, a coin, a sword, a hut, or a ship wreck. So anyone can explain how is it possible, if this article speaks about "conquest"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.8.131.52 (talk) 17:54, 11 September 2012 (UTC)
All the sources are in the article. The Liber maiolichinus says that the Saracens held the coastal plain. This is a conquest, however ephemeral. Srnec (talk) 00:29, 12 September 2012 (UTC)
Yes really where? can you explain which plain? and what means "coastal plain"? large part of sardinian coasts are constituted by high cliffs, the rest of coastal plains were deserted wetlands infested by the malaria. So can you tell me where to find traces of an arab conquest in sardinia, obviously if you are right, there will be some settlements or archeological remains, like happen in Spain, Balearics and Sicily, but may be you are only person in the world who suppose it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Codex1985 (talk • contribs) 02:56, 5 February 2013 (UTC)