Talk:Amalric of Jerusalem

Untitled

FYI, some of the dates given here for the three invasions of Egypt do not agree with the dates given on the pages for Nur ad-Din, Bilbeis, and Damietta, though it seems to agree with the Shirkuh page against the other three on one of the dates. I don't have any idea which are correct, but it would be nice if Wikipedia were at least self-consistent. — B.Bryant 06:38, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I suspect this one is wrong, if only because it comes from the 1911 Britannica and they seem to be a little off sometimes. But I'll see if I can sort it out (unless someone else does it). Adam Bishop 08:23, 2 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Is it any better now? There were more than three invasions - he was there in 1163, 1164, 1167, 1168, and 1169. The other pages now reflect this too, I think. Adam Bishop 06:43, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Removed the reference to the "blunder" of attacking "allied" Damascus during the second crusade. Damascus had broken its alliance with the Kingdom of Jerusalem by the time of the second crusade - the Damascenes had shifted their allegiances to the Zengids and Mu'in ad-Din had attacked the Kingdom's allies in Bosra and Sarkhad. The Kingdom had fought an inconclusive battle with the Damascenes outside Bosra in 1147. An attack on Damascus under these circumstances was inevitable if the second crusade were to stand any chance of defeating the Zengids. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.167.108.49 (talk) 13:24, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Requested move 22 April 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved per request. Favonian (talk) 19:52, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

---

Amalric I of Jerusalem → Amalric of Jerusalem – Numeral is superflous and old-fashioned, as explained in the article. – Srnec (talk) 02:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• @Srnec: But also see Amalric II of Jerusalem. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:37, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Amalric II is a redirect to Aimery though. Amalric and Aimery are the usual current spellings. This is confirmed by a detailed literature search...ha, no, just kidding, I just picked up some books on my shelf, but these are their names in Jonathan Riley-Smith's "The Crusades: A History" (2nd ed.), Malcolm Barber's "The Crusader States", and Peter Edbury's "The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades". If it's good enough for those three it's good enough for Wikipedia! Adam Bishop (talk) 17:09, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

Second Adam, because 1) he's right and 2) he should know. Choess (talk) 20:36, 22 April 2015 (UTC)

• Oppose. Britannica calls him "Amalric I." The numeral is part of a standard style for royalty. Whether there was an Amalric II or not is beside the point. According to WP:COMMONNAME, "quality encyclopedias" are a valid source on style matters. Runciman, the main modern source listed in the article, gives him as "Amalric I, King of Jerusalem."[1] Who are we to gainsay our own sources? Britannica and Runciman are both more recent than the 1947 book cited to support this move. The eigenvector (talk) 03:08, 23 April 2015 (UTC) !vote by sock of community-banned user struck. Favonian (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Runciman's history was published in 1954. Riley-Smith's 2nd edition was published in 2005, Barber in 2012, Edbury in 1991. WP:COMMONNAME says that "the term or name most typically used in reliable sources is generally preferred". Per WP:RS and WP:NOR, the modern, reliable secondary sources that Adam has presented ought to, in reasonable editorial judgment, take precedence over a generalist encyclopedia and an older secondary source. The fact that the article as currently written might be better sourced doesn't bear on the argument. Choess (talk) 05:05, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

The standards used to resolve style issues are not the same as those used to resolve factual content issues. Any style book will tell you that style issues are resolved by consulting a widely available reference work, not a specialist source. "Other encyclopedias are among the sources that may be helpful in deciding what titles are in an encyclopedic register, as well as what names are most frequently used," per WP:TITLES. Not only Britannica, but also Columbia Encyclopedia gives this name as "Amalric I." The current king of Spain is "Juan Carlos I." So there is no rule to the effect that you need a second monarch of the same name to justify putting a numeral on the first. Finally, the claim that "Amalric I" is old-fashioned is not consistent this ngram. The eigenvector (talk) 06:01, 23 April 2015 (UTC) Comment by sock of community-banned user struck. Favonian (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

I'm familiar with Wikipedia's population of style experts, yes, but I'd rather not discuss my opinions on the broader subject. In any case, I refer you to WP:NCROY, point 4: "Where there has only been one holder of a specific monarchical name in a state, the ordinal is used only when it was in official use, as with Juan Carlos I of Spain". IMO, the question of whether there has been only one holder of a specific monarchical name is one of fact, not style, and has been adequately established by the sources above. (Janus of Cyprus is a similar case, incidentally, but his mis-designation as "John" didn't penetrate as far into the general literature.) Choess (talk) 12:45, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

There's actually a third edition of Riley-Smith's book published in 2014 that also uses Amalric and Aimery. But it's true that it's not entirely consistent. Here are some other recent books:

Bernard Hamilton, "The Leper King and His Heirs" (2005) - Amalric and Aimery, no numbers

Thomas Madden, "The New Concise History of the Crusades" (2005) - both Amalric, but neither are numbered

"The Crusades: An Encyclopedia" (2006) - Amalric and Aimery, no numbers

Christopher Tyerman, "God's War" (2007) - Amalric and Aimery, no numbers

Christopher MacEvitt, "The Crusades and the Christian World of the East" (2008) - Amalric I, but the other isn't mentioned (plus he uses "Amalric of Limoges" for the bishop who is usually called Aimery)

Andrew Jotischky, "The Crusades: A Beginner's Guide" (2014) - Amalric I and Aimery

Paul Cobb, "The Race for Paradise: An Islamic History of the Crusades" (2014) - Amalric I (the other one is not mentioned)

"Deeds Done Beyond the Sea", a collection of essays in honour of Peter Edbury's retirement (2014) - Amalric, no number (Aimery is not mentioned, and Benjamin Kedar's chapter refers to Amalric as "Amaury")

So, it's not like historians got together and decided to make a conscious change. It probably depends a bit on personal preference, and simply what each historian is used to calling them. Not that I matter, but personally I have called them Amalric I and Amalric II. Still, I suggest using unnumbered Amalric and Aimery, because clearly the specialist literature is moving in that direction, and most of the works I mentioned here are pretty general, even intended for non-specialists. Other encyclopedias will obviously be slow to catch up, but I don't see why that should matter at all. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:56, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the analysis. I think we should obviously have a hatnote if the page is moved to indicate that "Amalric II of Jerusalem" is now "Aimery of Jerusalem". In my personal opinion, I think there's a significant difference between a situation like this and, say, the question of whether to use Anglicized forms ("Henry" vs "Henri", for instance). The latter is a stylistic question, the preferred answer to which could swing back and forth over time. The present case is a historical mistake, albeit a longstanding one; it's not as if Aimery's name is going to be changed back to Amalric, so the inevitable trend is going to be away from "Amalric II". (But I think a good-faith argument can be made that it's too soon to drop the numeral; I just happen to disagree.) Choess (talk) 16:33, 23 April 2015 (UTC)

I see we are back to crystal balling about how current usage is an error that will be corrected by an "inevitable trend." No! The usage for "Amalric II" was just as high in 2008 as it was back in the 1950s, at least according to this ngram. The fact that each specialist is doing his own thang is of course a reason not to rely on specialists for this purpose. Even if "Amalric II" is a mistake, "Amalric I" is not. It's a useful way to distinguish the two kings. The eigenvector (talk) 02:11, 24 April 2015 (UTC) Comment by sock of community-banned user struck. Favonian (talk) 11:22, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

Perusing the works listed in that ngram for 2008 (just picked a random recent year), I see that there are several books in there that I hadn't considered above, which is helpful - but there are also reprints of very old books, novels, and false positives (one of which is talking about Mathieu Amalric). Using the same parameters, here is an ngram for "Aimery of Lusignan", and here is one for "King Aimery", both of which give much higher results among recent works than "Amalric II". "Much higher" for certain definitions of "high", of course, since neither of these guys are making a big impact in the popular mindset. They are kind of a specialist subject, which is why we take a look at what specialists are saying. Adam Bishop (talk) 03:06, 24 April 2015 (UTC)

By the way, the old 6-volume "Wisconsin History" uses Amalric I and Aimery. Another recent work, "Holy Warriors" by Jonathan Phillips, doesn't mention Aimery but doesn't give a number to Amalric. So we've got:

Amalric I and Amalric II

Amalric I with a number and Aimery

Amalric without a number and Aimery

Amaury and Aimery

There is also a pretty clear "chain of authority" for why certain historians use the different names, ultimately based on trends in the evolution of American, British, French, and perhaps also German historiography of the crusades, but it's a bit hard to explain and not exactly relevant here I guess. Essentially, Amalric I and Amalric II are used by people who read Steven Runciman at an early age and simply retained those names, since that's one of Runciman's less significant errors. But this is the dreaded "original research" I suppose. I still think it's pretty clear that the "big guns", the major current historians and popularizers of the crusades, use unnumbered Amalric and Aimery. Adam Bishop (talk) 20:18, 25 April 2015 (UTC)

• Support per the explanations given by Adam Bishop. Egsan Bacon (talk) 13:02, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
  • Seems like I did all that searching for nothing now that eigenvector turned out to be a banned sockpuppet! Adam Bishop (talk) 15:40, 30 April 2015 (UTC)
    • Still, I'd be interested in hearing more about the "chain of authority", if there's more to tell. When was "Amalric II" first coined? Srnec (talk) 17:28, 30 April 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.