Talk:Sixth Crusade

Legacy and Precedent

I don't think this section is particularly useful and should be absorbed into the main article. It also does not come across as balanced enough, as it hinges on the perception of Frederick's crusade as a success, which some historians would argue is flagrantly untrue. Gh0ti-2 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

How was it not a success? It achieved its goal - the restoration of Jerusalem to Crusader control, not to mention a fair amount of additional territory. All that without fighting a single battle. Pretty successful, especially when compared to the other 13th Century Crusades to the Holy Land, all of which ended pretty horribly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.184.121 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Numbering the Crusades

Can anyone explain to me why the Sixth Crusade is, in German, the de:Fünfter Kreuzzug, that is to say the Fifth? The articles clearly refer to the same event, I'm just wondering why the discrepancy in numbering; it might be worth explaining in the article, since it can be very confusing when trying to do research. -- Jmabel 21:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)

Well, both the fifth and the sixth were led by Frederick II, and sometimes they are considered to be one giant crusade. Sometimes nothing after the fourth is numbered, because there are just too many of them to divide into numbered and unnumbered. I have also seen these referred to as "Frederick II's first crusade" and his "second crusade," and also "Louis IX's first crusade" (and his second, to refer to what we have as the eighth and ninth here). However, on de:, they also have de:(Fünfter) Kreuzzug, and a note on the un-bracketed Fünfter saying "Dieser Kreuzzug wird manchmal als Sechtster Kreuzzug gezählt" ("sometimes also considered the Sixth Crusade"). So, after all this, I don't really know why they do that :) Adam Bishop 04:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)

I think the non-numbering system works best. Calling Frederick II's crusades 5th and 6th is very much a French tradition and isn't really reflected in most historical studies. Going back to the German numbering that was traditionally used in English language works would obviously cause confusion since the popularisation of the French numbering but it doesn't agree with most of the more in depth books people might go to(people like Riely-Smith, Smail, Kedar, Mayer, Ellenbaum). Naming by leaders is the clearest way to define them in my opinion. 147.10.143.23 06:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

I think naming by leaders only functions from the 'Fifth Crusade' onwards. The preceding expeditions all had numerous leaders, or at least a clear hierarchy was not really established. Gh0ti-2 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Probably typo, certainly confusing

"…and his wife, late Mary I, Queen of Jerusalem." I'm guessing that "late" is a typo for "later", but it can (very obscurely) mean "previously". Could someone who knows the facts here please turn it into "later" or "previously", whichever is correct? -- Jmabel | Talk 01:15, Jun 7, 2005 (UTC)

Decisive Saracen Victory?

The content of this article suggests the opposite of the stated result. 143.167.78.182 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)

the leader

hello! on this site its not very clear about who the leader was, so if you can, please help me and edit this talk and tell me who the leader ! thanks!! 86.155.49.250 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

No other commanders, no flags nor coats of arms

Why were the coats of arms and flags in the article removed? There is no rule that forbids their use, nor do they make the article confusing, but vice versa. Why were the other crusade leaders deleted? The military campaign couldm't be the work of one man, it's absurd. The coats of arms and flags depicted who they fought for, or to which faction or family belonged to, this is meaningless, the infobox does not contain any extra information, only basic things, low informational value like learning in elementary school. Preventing the article from being expanded means keeping it at a low informational value and no benefit to the article. This cannot be justified by the pursuit of brevity, clarity etc., when it is against the encyclopedic style. If you want short articles with a minimum of information, then create another Wikipedia for kids. -- Dragovit (talk) 18:46, March 25, 2021 (UTC)

Your comments make no sense unless we pretend that the infobox is the entire article. An infobox is an extremely condensed medium for conveying a few key facts from an article; it cannot be comprehensive. These coats of arms appear in a microscopic size, and are extremely obscure. They're not there to "inform"; they're there for the delectation of people who already know and can picture them. There's nothing wrong with being passionate about heraldry, but you're pushing it into the wrong place. Why not work on adding properly-sourced coats of arms to the articles of the people who bore them, where they can be seen in enough resolution to appreciate them, rather than trying to jam miniscule ones into the infoboxes here? Choess (talk) 05:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

No, your comment make no sense. You don't understand at all that without flags it isn't at all clear who fought against whom. For example, in the Kingdom of Sicily several dynasties exchanged and without a flag or banner or coat of arms it isn't clear whether the kingdom was at that time under the dynasty of Staufen or Anjou or Trastamara etc. Some kingdoms and empires have existed for a thousand years and without a flag or symbol it isn't at all clear what the period is. That's why there are pictures and templates to use, but you're just repeating someone's favorite opinion about aesthetics and don't respect that their creation took someone's time and energy, that's all. -- Dragovit (talk) 17:11, March 26, 2021 (UTC)

Needless duplication of discussion Already told that duplicate discussion is not helpful. Please go to the thread at WT:MILHIST instead of repeating the same points at pages where no one will see them. RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 16:55, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

You're just censoring right now. There isn't repetition of the same points, but the answer to someone's question which you deleted with my answer. User Choess can also participate at WT:MILHIST discussion, but cannot if doesn't know about it. -- Dragovit (talk) 19:02, March 26, 2021 (UTC)

I did not delete any of your comments. I just left a note pointing to the discussion at a centralised location, exactly so they can know about it... RandomCanadian (talk / contribs) 18:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

I didn't see the comments here, so I considered it deleted. And what about comment in the Aragonese Crusade, it was deleted by you, it's true that there were similar points, but they were related to the article. -- Dragovit (talk) 20:53, March 26, 2021 (UTC)