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 95.149.66.138 ( 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?
Nathan eureka0@hotmail.com
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)
Isn't "Latin" a reference to Romans or modern Central Americans? Maybe you should refer to the "Crusader" kingdoms.—Preceding unsigned comment added by BeingDs ( talk • contribs)
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)
Hope this helps,
This
level-5 vital article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
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)
The result of the move request was: Page moved to Siege of Acre (1189–1191). Ucucha 05:47, 13 August 2010 (UTC)
Siege of Acre → Siege of Acre (1189) — There have been five sieges of Acre in history, this is a case of no primary meaning, already the approach of the French and German Wikipedias. PatGallacher ( talk) 09:26, 4 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)
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. --Slazenger ( Contact Me) 05:54, 8 January 2012 (UTC)
Who was sieging and who was under siege? Who ended up taking Acre? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.235.15.150 ( talk) 06:20, 9 March 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 99.186.16.120 ( talk) 02:43, 30 June 2013 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to one external link on
Siege of Acre (1189–91). Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 11:38, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
I have copied some content from the Crusades article to help improve this one. Will look at it again if I get the chance later. Norfolkbigfish ( talk) 09:59, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Hopefully the recent problem is now settled - we don't really need to mention either Israel or Palestine here, since neither the State of Israel or the State of Palestine existed at the time. But there is also no need to edit war over the link, especially now that is now piped and invisible. The title of the Wikipedia article is "Acre, Israel", because Acre is currently unambiguously in Israel. The whole area was sometimes called "Palestine" during the crusades, but it was also called "Syria", and of course no one would think of changing the link to "Acre, Syria". Can everyone agree on that? Adam Bishop ( talk) 21:30, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
The Double Siege section currently states (
and has done for the past 13 years!) that "Sibylla's first husband had been Conrad's older brother
William Longsword, which made a marriage between Isabella and Conrad incestuous under
canon law."
If Isabella was Sybilla's (half-)sister, and Conrad was Humphrey's brother, then the situation was two sisters marrying two brothers un-related to them; how is that 'incestuous'? OTOH
Isabella's article states that the objection under canon law was that the marriage would be adulterous (as they were both already married) which makes far more sense. Comments?
Moonraker12 (
talk) 23:41, 22 March 2019 (UTC)
I was going to say that amazingly enough, Silverwhistle is still occasionally active and we could ask her, but I see you already have! Adam Bishop ( talk) 01:48, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
ALthough there are plenty of French sources that mention Malevoisine (Bad Neighbour), I can't find any mention of "God's Own Catapult". The two sources cited here don't themselves cite their source, which makes the claim doubtful. See the source of sources: Ambroise, L'estoire de la guerre sainte: histoire en vers de la troisième croisade, translated by Gaston Paris, Imprimerie nationale, Paris, 1897, which is whence Malevoisine comes. Urhixidur ( talk) 15:24, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
“Do not use the coat of arms of a person as a stand-in for a national, military, or other flag.” https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/MOS:COA
From my understanding, this does not prohibit the use of Coat of Arms or flags for use in identifying medieval countries. Within the Infobox, especially when there are multiple countries listed, the use of the coat of arms makes the Infobox much easier to follow. I believe they should be added back. Digital Herodotus ( talk) 22:32, 31 December 2022 (UTC)
Hi. The file from the manuscript mantioned as "Siege of Acre" (c.1280), is of the Siege of Antioch. See description of the original copy in the national library of Lyon: https://portail.biblissima.fr/fr/ark:/43093/ifdata0fef015f98551485a03e8a6ef36630522f12c45e.
It is mentioned the the manuscript was probably written in Acre hence the confusion. Noharsh ( talk) 13:41, 21 July 2023 (UTC)