Talk:Siege of Acre (1189–91)
|WikiProject Middle Ages / Crusades||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
It is inevitable that as far as Military History is concerned, the English language wikipedia is getting hijacked left, right and centre. There is just too much bias and opinion to merit this as a reliable source, or indeed, most other articles that have two nationalities or religions fighting each other. Ban it all I say and encourage an academic and impartial appreciation of what happened as defined by the numerous historiographical books and journal articles out there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 13:31, 13 May 2013 (UTC)
This article is so poorly written it isn't even clear who was 'besieging' and who was 'under siege'. First the Crusaders are besieging, then the Saracens are facing Acre. Which is it?
- Well, the German Wikipedia had a much better article, so I've attempted to translate it. I hope it makes more sense now. Adam Bishop 20:10, 24 Jun 2005 (UTC)
What does this mean: "it was the first time in the history of the crusades that the king was compelled to personally see to the defense of the Holy Land"? Why don't Godfrey's victory at Ascalon or Baldwin's victory at Mont Gisard, among many other actions, count? Srnec 02:58, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
- I don't know, I think I just absent-mindedly translated that from German (and probably very poorly so). I think it means the first time the kingdom was on the verge of absolute destruction, not the first time the king was at the head of an army - if Baldwin had lost at Montgisard, that would have been equivalent to Hattin, but the kingdom was still intact at that point. If Godfrey lost at Ascalon, there wouldn't have been a kingdom in the first place, but then, he wasn't really "king" anyway :) That sentence would not be missed if it were removed, though. Adam Bishop 03:26, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
- The Kingdom of Jerusalem and the Kingdom of Acre are often referred to as the "Latin Kingdom", if the crusader context is obvious (which it should be here). The Roman Kingdom is never called that, and are there any Latin American kingdoms? What is the problem? Adam Bishop 00:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)
Here are a few things that I noticed, that may help the article develop.
1) “but also compelled Saladin to bring in so many more troops that he was able to surround both the city and the crusade camp in two separate sieges.” Here it seems as if Saladin was besieging his own city. Saladin was actually sieging the Crusader camp, which was in turn sieging the city. I'm sure you meant to say that, but the sentence does not come off right.
2) “so that he could replace the exhausted defenders with a new garrison; otherwise the old garrison would have all died of disease.” I have read in many places that this is only one side of the story. Some sources argue that this is the actual cause of the fall of Acre, because Saladin could replace the 10,000 battle hardened men with only about 4,000 raw recruits. The numbers are of course controversial, but the argument has some merit. (see Lionhearts: Regan, Geoffrey. "Richard 1, Saladin, and the Era of the Third Crusade.")
3) “On July 31, Philip also returned home, to settle the succession in Vermandois and Flanders, and Richard was left solely in charge of the Christian expeditionary forces.” I think this part should also mention the power-politics going on between Richard and Louis. Nothing very big mind you, but the fact that Richard could rally more support among the factions of the Crusade and assumed de-facto control of the campaign played a large role in Louis' departure. (The whole dispute between the House of Capet and the House of Plantagenet may be mentioned too very briefly, because it might help explain why Louis could not accept a role secondary to Richard)
There have been five sieges of Acre, it is not obvious to me that this is the most important and the primary meaning. In particular, the 1291 siege has the longer article on Wikipedia. Does this siege seem more important than the 1291 siege because the Crusaders won the former but the Saracens won the latter? If so, a clear example of systemic bias, see WP:BIAS. If we do decide to move this, do we go for "Siege of Acre (1189)" or "Siege of Acre (Third Crusade)" or what? PatGallacher (talk) 18:58, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
- It's not really bias, it's just that this one happened to be created first, and no one has bothered to move it yet. The Siege of Antioch still has the same problem (for the same reason). (And actually disambiguating those two by year would be slightly more difficult because they lasted more than one year.) Adam Bishop (talk) 23:41, 3 August 2010 (UTC)
Because of this move, there are now many links to the dab page Siege of Acre (see Special:Whatlinkshere/Siege of Acre). I fixed some, but perhaps some of the people here can also do a few. Ucucha 06:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
- Mostly done now, apart from a few that weren't clear from context. Several actually meant the 1291 or 1799 siege—a sign that this move was a good idea. Ucucha 12:02, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Strength and Casualty Figures
There has been a lot of edit warring on the figures for the strengths and casualties. I'm just a recent edits patroller, but it is very apparent that someone needs to find a verifiable source and provide inline citations for the figures, as the various edits that have been made have extremely different figures.05:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
I agree with all the comments above re the poor quality of this article. Incomprehensible gibberish. I "gave up" with the astoundingly confused section "Acre". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 02:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)