Talk:First Crusade: Difference between revisions
imported>Todd Coles No edit summary |
imported>Denis Cavanagh |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 4: | Line 4: | ||
:Looks good, the only thing I can think of is that this probably needs to be moved to [[First Crusade]] and drop the The. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | :Looks good, the only thing I can think of is that this probably needs to be moved to [[First Crusade]] and drop the The. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | ||
::Thanks Todd, what do you think of the way I've split it up amongst the major Princes - too bulky? I thought the way I had it before was less reader friendly. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::Arghh!!! Can someone please move it for me, for some reason I can't get my head around this!!! [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
:::: Let me give it a closer read and I'll let you know. --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 17:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Question. == | |||
I've only time to make it through the Origins section right now - I came across a sentence I don't understand, but sounds off when I read it. "After the victory at Ascalon following the conquest of Jerusalem, only around 300 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers remained with Godfrey as ruler of Jerusalem, leading for most of them wealthier lands and riches in the east than they ever could have achieved in Europe." Is this meant to say that the soldiers who did not stay with Godfrey left for land and riches in the east? --[[User:Todd Coles|Todd Coles]] 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
What I was trying to get across there was that to some (The greatest examples been the two Baldwins and Tancred, and much later Guy and Reynald de Chattilon) the east offered opportunities which were not open to them in the west. I do agree that that sentance doesn't make much sense though and will change it now. [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
==Disclaimer== | |||
I realise its quotation heavy with a lot of John France quotes. This is solely because I'm writing this with notes I collected from a variety of authors, but with whom I need to consult the book version when I return to the college library. I have France's book (Along with Runciman and Riley Smith) which should do for now. Also, this article needs heavy copy editing as I am, as you are probably well aware, a fairly sloppy writer. :-) [[User:Denis Cavanagh|Denis Cavanagh]] 22:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
Latest revision as of 16:23, 17 March 2009
For this article I am using a variety of sources, but in particular John France, Stephen Runciman and Jonathon Riley Smith. As the three great 'men' of Crusading historiography I thought this might lead to a balanced account. The article will be broken up from the Princes Crusade like this: 1) Europe to Constantinople, 2) Nicea, 3) Dorylaeum, 4) Siege of Antioch, 5) Road to Jerusalem, 6) Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem. Of course, anyone else is more than welcome to join in. Denis Cavanagh 11:56, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Looks good, the only thing I can think of is that this probably needs to be moved to First Crusade and drop the The. --Todd Coles 16:11, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Thanks Todd, what do you think of the way I've split it up amongst the major Princes - too bulky? I thought the way I had it before was less reader friendly. Denis Cavanagh 17:23, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Arghh!!! Can someone please move it for me, for some reason I can't get my head around this!!! Denis Cavanagh 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Let me give it a closer read and I'll let you know. --Todd Coles 17:48, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
- Arghh!!! Can someone please move it for me, for some reason I can't get my head around this!!! Denis Cavanagh 17:36, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Question.
I've only time to make it through the Origins section right now - I came across a sentence I don't understand, but sounds off when I read it. "After the victory at Ascalon following the conquest of Jerusalem, only around 300 knights and 2,000 foot soldiers remained with Godfrey as ruler of Jerusalem, leading for most of them wealthier lands and riches in the east than they ever could have achieved in Europe." Is this meant to say that the soldiers who did not stay with Godfrey left for land and riches in the east? --Todd Coles 18:02, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
What I was trying to get across there was that to some (The greatest examples been the two Baldwins and Tancred, and much later Guy and Reynald de Chattilon) the east offered opportunities which were not open to them in the west. I do agree that that sentance doesn't make much sense though and will change it now. Denis Cavanagh 18:40, 16 March 2009 (UTC)
Disclaimer
I realise its quotation heavy with a lot of John France quotes. This is solely because I'm writing this with notes I collected from a variety of authors, but with whom I need to consult the book version when I return to the college library. I have France's book (Along with Runciman and Riley Smith) which should do for now. Also, this article needs heavy copy editing as I am, as you are probably well aware, a fairly sloppy writer. :-) Denis Cavanagh 22:23, 17 March 2009 (UTC)