Talk:Siege of Acre (1291)
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Siege of Acre (1291) article.|
|To-do list for Siege of Acre (1291):|
I assume this comes from http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/source/1291acre.html the Medieval Sourcebook] with Ludolph's text removed...can we actually use that here? I know it says at the bottom that Brundage's book is out of copyright, but that seems odd since it was published relatively recently. Adam Bishop 21:46, 28 December 2005 (UTC)
- They put the Copyright note: Professor Brundage informed the Medieval Sourcebook that copyright was not renewed on this work. Moreover he gave permission for use of his translations. I don't understand what they mean by copyright not being renewed, however. Probably we should move this notice into the text. --Ghirla | talk 10:27, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
I deleted : "and grandson of Baybars who had started his life as a slave but rose to become Sultan of Egypt and Syria". You can put back if you have a good reference. Because it means that Qalawun married daughter of Baibars. Thanx Samsam22 (talk) 18:05, 17 March 2008 (UTC)
- Hi , This article is about the siege of Acre but most of what is written is not about the siege of Acre. Maybe Copy / Past part of the Conquere of Acre on Al-Ashraf Khalil article easy idea. Regards all. Samsam22 (talk) 21:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)
I have An Encyclopedia of Battles: Accounts of Over 1,560 Battles from 1479 B.C. to the Present by David Eggenberger. Should I update the article ASAP? Nostalgia of Iran (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2009 (UTC)
I've not viewed the source texts as yet but the article reads as if biased. The Muslims are always portrayed as having only reacted to the evil doings of the Christian crusaders. There are a couple of quite stilted sections particularly "the muslim attack on the city" that read as if they've been bowdlerised badly - this section makes it sound like a small band of untrained people came over and held Acre against the 200,000 or so Muslims. The article also makes it apparent that the Muslims _only_ attacked because this untrained band had killed some Muslims in the outskirts of the city.
This seems bizarre, compare it with the County of Tripoli article which states "The Egyptian Sultan Qalawun was determined to destroy the last Christian possessions and turned his attention on Tripoli. Although he had a peace treaty with the County, he attacked it in March 1289." ... so which article is wrong? Was Qalawun on a mission to wipe out any Christian remnant and, having taken Tripoli County, moved on to the final remnant shored up in Acre OR did Qalawun intend all along to leave some Christians in the Holy Land and only raised an army (of more than a hundred thousand!) because a handful of merchants apparently were killed? I know wars have been started over less but it sure seems that Qalawun was simply continuing his campaign.
It would be interesting to get some perspective, if sources exist, for why Muslim traders would consider themselves safe around Acre whilst (1289) in the next county Sultan Qalawun had reneged on his peace treaty and massacred the non-Muslim population except for 1200 women and children taken as slaves; indeed the Knights Hospitaller and other groups (Franks) were sending reinforcements to Tripoli from Acre. Surely the real reason for the attack was Qalawun's desire to kill the Crusaders? 220.127.116.11 (talk) 13:55, 22 October 2009 (UTC) user:pbhj
mameluke vassalship of Cyprus
Once the city was pillaged, however, the Crusaders returned as speedily as possible to Cyprus to divide their loot. As a crusade, the episode was futile, leading instead to a destructive counter-raid by the Mamelukes; Cyprus was later forced into Mameluke vassalship with a hefty yearly tribute.
I've never heard of this, and thus checked the reference links... they say nothing about a mameluke vassalship on Cyprus at this period at all. Either delete this text or find some real creditable reference-sources that support this claim.