This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 30, 2008 and October 30, 2009. |
I removed the term "Muslim victory" from the results page since there were no battles fought and therefore the Muslims did not win anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.129.111 ( talk) 23:22, 9 September 2010
THIS WEBSITE HAS NOT ALOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE CRUSADES BUT JUST WHAT HAPPENED IN BETWEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 86.155.49.250 ( talk) 18:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
How exactly is this a "Muslim victory"? There were no battles and the only military action was the siege. The only reason why the crusaders had to quit was because of disease and NOT because of defeat or being repelled in any form by the enemy. Although the campaign was surely a failure, the resulting treaty was quite beneficial for the Christian party, especially for Charles of Anjou. I will change the result to inconclusive instead, it just seems more appropriate. Abyssxox ( talk) 14:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Elsewhere on Wikipedia, it's noted that Tunisia had been a vassal of Hohenstaufen Sicily, but asserted its independence after Charles killed Manfred and Conradin. It seems to me that this Angevin greed would have been the real driver for this "crusade", not anything noble or godly. So I added a sentence to this effect in the article, and whoever's more invested in this article can feel free to debate and modify. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 15:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The article has been subjected to non-stop edit-warring over the "Result" in the infobox since 18 July 2023, when it was first changed to "inconclusive". Essentially no other edit since then has been about anything else. This should have became a talk page discussion as soon as disagreements began, so I'm starting this discussion here and restoring the pre-edit-war version of the page until a proper consensus has been achieved. FlamemanTN, ByzantineIsNotRoman, and any other editors: please discuss and resolve the issue here instead.
I notice that at least one user is edit-warring while logged out, so if disruption continues I will request page protection to prevent IPs and new accounts from being active here. R Prazeres ( talk) 17:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I reviewed the standard texts on the subject (Tyerman, Asbridge, Runciman, Crusades Ency) and no one calls it a Hafsid victory. The term "inconclusive" best summarizes their views. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I just read through Richard's account and R Prazeres may be right. The result wasn't really inconclusive as there was a negotiated settlement where all parties got a little something. He (Richard) regards Lord Edwards subsequent activity as a continuation of Louis' so a possibility for the Infobox is:
Negotiated settlement between France/Sicily and Tunis
Just some thoughts. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Negotiated settlement between France/Sicily and Tunis
We could easily get rid of the "Negotiated settlement...." and the "English continuation...." which could be construed as opinion. Also, I think the statement "Carthage's fortifications were demolished to prevent further use" is incorrect (even though I'm its source). I looked at the citation again and think the Lower was refering to Baibars' fortifications in the Levant, not in Tunisia. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 22:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Based on these latest responses, I think we have a clear enough consensus on how to revise the result in a fairly simple way: moving "Withdrawal of Crusaders from Tunisia" to replace "Hafsid victory". I've gone ahead and made the edit here. Please feel free to discuss further if needed. I've left the other bullet points as they are, since we didn't seem to have any strong feelings about them. The only other suggestion I can think of might be to make "Opening of trade with Tunis" a little more specific? (Though maybe this should be elaborated in the article first, which would then make it easier to summarize accurately.) Thanks everyone. R Prazeres ( talk) 18:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)
This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
A fact from this article was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the On this day section on October 30, 2008 and October 30, 2009. |
I removed the term "Muslim victory" from the results page since there were no battles fought and therefore the Muslims did not win anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.76.129.111 ( talk) 23:22, 9 September 2010
THIS WEBSITE HAS NOT ALOT OF INFORMATION ABOUT THE CRUSADES BUT JUST WHAT HAPPENED IN BETWEEN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 86.155.49.250 ( talk) 18:31, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
How exactly is this a "Muslim victory"? There were no battles and the only military action was the siege. The only reason why the crusaders had to quit was because of disease and NOT because of defeat or being repelled in any form by the enemy. Although the campaign was surely a failure, the resulting treaty was quite beneficial for the Christian party, especially for Charles of Anjou. I will change the result to inconclusive instead, it just seems more appropriate. Abyssxox ( talk) 14:02, 24 May 2019 (UTC)
Elsewhere on Wikipedia, it's noted that Tunisia had been a vassal of Hohenstaufen Sicily, but asserted its independence after Charles killed Manfred and Conradin. It seems to me that this Angevin greed would have been the real driver for this "crusade", not anything noble or godly. So I added a sentence to this effect in the article, and whoever's more invested in this article can feel free to debate and modify. AllGloryToTheHypnotoad ( talk) 15:02, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
The article has been subjected to non-stop edit-warring over the "Result" in the infobox since 18 July 2023, when it was first changed to "inconclusive". Essentially no other edit since then has been about anything else. This should have became a talk page discussion as soon as disagreements began, so I'm starting this discussion here and restoring the pre-edit-war version of the page until a proper consensus has been achieved. FlamemanTN, ByzantineIsNotRoman, and any other editors: please discuss and resolve the issue here instead.
I notice that at least one user is edit-warring while logged out, so if disruption continues I will request page protection to prevent IPs and new accounts from being active here. R Prazeres ( talk) 17:17, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I reviewed the standard texts on the subject (Tyerman, Asbridge, Runciman, Crusades Ency) and no one calls it a Hafsid victory. The term "inconclusive" best summarizes their views. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:11, 9 August 2023 (UTC)
I just read through Richard's account and R Prazeres may be right. The result wasn't really inconclusive as there was a negotiated settlement where all parties got a little something. He (Richard) regards Lord Edwards subsequent activity as a continuation of Louis' so a possibility for the Infobox is:
Negotiated settlement between France/Sicily and Tunis
Just some thoughts. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 18:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)
Negotiated settlement between France/Sicily and Tunis
We could easily get rid of the "Negotiated settlement...." and the "English continuation...." which could be construed as opinion. Also, I think the statement "Carthage's fortifications were demolished to prevent further use" is incorrect (even though I'm its source). I looked at the citation again and think the Lower was refering to Baibars' fortifications in the Levant, not in Tunisia. Dr. Grampinator ( talk) 22:26, 20 August 2023 (UTC)
Based on these latest responses, I think we have a clear enough consensus on how to revise the result in a fairly simple way: moving "Withdrawal of Crusaders from Tunisia" to replace "Hafsid victory". I've gone ahead and made the edit here. Please feel free to discuss further if needed. I've left the other bullet points as they are, since we didn't seem to have any strong feelings about them. The only other suggestion I can think of might be to make "Opening of trade with Tunis" a little more specific? (Though maybe this should be elaborated in the article first, which would then make it easier to summarize accurately.) Thanks everyone. R Prazeres ( talk) 18:14, 21 August 2023 (UTC)