Talk:War of the Sicilian Vespers

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


Couldn't this just be a part of the Sicilian Vespers page? Adam Bishop 19:06, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

It probably could, but if so the Sicilian Vespers page probably needs a somewhat better structure than at present. The war was quite complex: for instance, the Aragonese Crusade was only a small, if important, part of it. PWilkinson 19:49, 22 May 2006 (UTC)
This is a useful article if it is expanded significantly. It can cover that whole period of wars from the event called the Vespers itself to the peace of 1302 and including the Aragonese Crusade. It would be especially useful for parts of the conflict which cannot merit their own articles and for giving the various events a unity. Srnec 04:14, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


I've created headings to outline the proposed organization of the article. (See HTML comments there.) I think it makes sense to treat it in four stages: the Sicilian Vespers and the indigenous rebellion, the subsequent invasion of Peter of Aragon, the Aragonese Crusade, and the final phase of the war pitting Naples and Aragon against an independent Sicily. We might add a fifth section discussing the implications of the Peace of Caltabellotta, effects on European polity of the war, etc. Choess 22:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The Collo expedition[edit]

I've added a couple of references (which should be of general use for the entire article) and also made a couple of emendations about the Aragonese expedition to Collo (the modern name for the place, and the one used by both Runciman and Abulafia). My apologies about the formatting of the Muntaner reference - I'm using an antiquated browser that makes any extensive editing of non-ASCII text difficult, and I'm rather short of time at the moment.

The Collo expedition may need its own article, even if it is rather obscure and may be difficult to source in detail. The whole history of the expedition seems full of minor (though possibly connected) oddities: a claimed crusade disowned by Pope Martin IV in apparent support of a ruler of Constantine, Algeria, whom the Aragonese claimed wanted to convert to Christianity but who had been deposed by his Tunisian overlord before the Aragonese reached Collo (allegedly because of messages passed on by Minorcan Muslims - see the article on Abû 'Umar ibn Sa'îd for further details). Also, while Aragonese troops had been in north Africa the previous year, the Collo expedition only set out a few weeks after the Sicilian Vespers - and, having found that the original purpose of the expedition had been superseded, stayed in Collo apparently doing very little until they got the Sicilian invitation. PWilkinson 22:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

I understand. I doubt, however, that a good article could be created for now. If you have enough information, though, please go ahead and I'll add or expand what I can. The chronology of the events of the African expedition is confusing for me. I was unaware of any papal sanction for the invasion of Tunisia as a "Crusade". Srnec 20:20, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


"but [Charles of Valois's] army was decimated by the plague..."

Does this imply reduced by one tenth, or to one tenth? I know it should be the former, but since many people whom one would otherwise assume to be literate use it for the latter, it makes the word basically useless...

Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:28, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

Any literate person knows that the meaning "reduced by a tenth" is now obsolete and has been for some time. Were you trying to show off your deep knowledge of English etymology, your adherence to some prescriptive principle of usage, or your out-datedness? Srnec (talk) 20:57, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
Hey now, no biting. Paul seems to have a good track record copyediting; I doubt he was yanking our chains. That said, I agree with you that "decimated" is commonly understood in a general sense, without strict reference to tenths. If it's really objectionable, perhaps it could be replaced by "devastated" or "ravaged". Choess (talk) 02:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry if I got a little "cranky", but "...many people whom one would otherwise assume to be literate..."? I trust he has a good record—he certainly has the knowledge—, but to use it in this way... I will change the word to "ravaged" since it is true no matter how many died, while the current wording is ambiguous whether the army was cut down in size devastatingly. Srnec (talk) 03:16, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Stupid as this sounds, that completely slipped by me. I'm sorry. Paul, if you're trying to find out what contributors to an article originally meant, snarking at them is not the way to go. Hopefully this is an acceptable compromise. Choess (talk) 03:40, 8 October 2008 (UTC)
Srnec, I didn't mean to snark, although in retrospect I see that it could be taken that way. Sorry for any offense. I see that the Concise Oxford agrees with you (it calls me a "traditionalist'). Just put it down to my advancing years, if you would :-) Paul Magnussen (talk) 15:33, 13 October 2008 (UTC)
You sound much more amiable now. Nothing wrong with being a traditionalist, I am often one myself. :) Srnec (talk) 17:39, 13 October 2008 (UTC)

File:Roger of Lauria.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Roger of Lauria.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Media without a source as of 30 September 2011
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:48, 30 September 2011 (UTC)