Talk:Eighth Crusade

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

There was a Siege, how is that not a military action/battle? 70.187.179.139 (talk) 22:32, 20 January 2013 (UTC)

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)

Kingdom of Sicily

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)

Edit-warring over Result in infobox

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)

Dr. Grampinator puts it perfectly, all scholars I’ve reviewed as well do not list the Eigth Crusade as a Hafsid Victory. It wasn’t. There was no actual fighting whatsoever, and neither side gained or lost any territory. It was inconclusive. Please lock the page so the other guy can’t just keep using a new IP address to edit war. ByzantineIsNotRoman (talk) 05:06, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

it wasnt inconclusive either its more leaning to a hafsid victory than inconclusive, if something could be done in the middle that would be perfect, however i have to agree it wasnt a full on hafsid victory but it leans that way more than inconclusive, and no there was fighting but disease spread to the camps owned by the crusaders that killed their king thus the crusade was a failure with some economic and political rights granted to the christians, and i accidentally forgot to log in with my account to edit the page as i for some reason logged out while using vpn FlamemanTN (talk) 19:37, 10 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)

Agreed completely, same here. The page needs to be locked to prevent further vandalism ByzantineIsNotRoman (talk) 05:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

it aint no vandalism https://www.historycrunch.com/eighth-crusade.html#/ FlamemanTN (talk) 19:43, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

• What was the objective of the crusaders? Did they achieve it? Once you answered these two questions, the result will become clear to you. M.Bitton (talk) 12:42, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

"Hafsid victory" could be overstating it, but "inconclusive" doesn't sound right either; the Crusaders withdrew and never attacked Tunis again, so it seems pretty conclusive to me. It's also incorrect that there was "no fighting whatsoever"; of course there was fighting, read through Lower 2018, for example. The fighting was mostly a stalemate, roughly speaking, and both sides ended up aiming for, and achieving, a negotiated settlement (as Lower describes). So it might be simpler to just state the Treaty of Tunis as the main result, with other consequences listed after it. R Prazeres (talk) 16:32, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

thats fine by me but it sure was not inconclusive FlamemanTN (talk) 19:39, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

their goals failed though as the crusade was a failure but got compensated with other rights FlamemanTN (talk) 20:04, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

no it doesnt FlamemanTN (talk) 19:41, 10 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

• Death of Louis IX
• Treaty of Tunis
• Resumption of trade between Sicily and Tunis
• English continuation to the Holy Land in Lord Edward's Crusade

Just some thoughts. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 18:07, 10 August 2023 (UTC)

I think something like that could work, with some tweaks. For conciseness, the first line (before the bullet points) could simply be "Treaty of Tunis" instead of "Negotiated settlement (...)", I think. The line about the English is not really central to the topic in my opinion and would require further explanation that is better left to the main text, but the "withdrawal of Crusaders from Tunisia", as the current infobox mentions, should be included since that's the main overall result. R Prazeres (talk) 15:57, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

i agree with this FlamemanTN (talk) 16:39, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Yes, having the result as "Treaty of Tunis" would be most meaningful. Iskandar323 (talk) 16:44, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

How about we replace "Hafsid victory" with "the withdrawal of Crusaders from Tunisia" and keep the other bullet points as they are? This would still convey the same result (the failure of the expedition to achieve its objective) without attributing a victory to the Hafsids (which ByzantineIsNotRoman, who has since been indeffed for socking, objected to). M.Bitton (talk) 18:47, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

this would be better actually tbh FlamemanTN (talk) 18:51, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

That's fine too, conveys the same overall point. Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 19:08, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

what he said would be better FlamemanTN (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

The withdrawal from Tunisia isn't actually explicitly mentioned anywhere in the body at the moment ... it looks like this page has many, many problems beyond the infobox snafu. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:09, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

well it still happened FlamemanTN (talk) 19:11, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

It might be easy to miss, but it does say so at the end of the Treaty of Tunis section: "The Crusaders left shortly thereafter and Carthage's fortifications were demolished to prevent further use. The Eighth Crusade was over" R Prazeres (talk) 19:17, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

Oh yes, there it is ... I guess I was looking in the aftermath section here, and I'd checked the Treaty of Tunis page for the actual treaty details, but that page is even barer than the summary here, and doesn't have that last bit. Iskandar323 (talk) 19:40, 15 August 2023 (UTC)

No hurry, but in the interest of not letting the issue stagnate, just pinging Dr. Grampinator to see if they have thoughts on the latest suggestions above (see M.Bitton's last comment)? And Iskandar323 expressed support for my suggestion just before that, but perhaps you could clarify if you're also supportive of M.Bitton's suggestion? (And like I said, I'm fine with either.) Thanks, R Prazeres (talk) 21:33, 20 August 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton's suggestion is better tbh FlamemanTN (talk) 10:55, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Here's what I had proposed:

Negotiated settlement between France/Sicily and Tunis

• Death of Louis IX
• Treaty of Tunis
• Resumption of trade between Sicily and Tunis
• English continuation to the Holy Land in Lord Edward's Crusade

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)

i think we should go with M.Bitton's proposal FlamemanTN (talk) 10:56, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I totally understand what you're picturing, Dr. Grampinator: do you mean basically just a bullet list with the first three points? With no primary/summarizing line? R Prazeres (talk) 16:50, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Sorry. Maybe start with "Withdrawal of Crusaders from Tunisia" That seems to be acceptable to everyone. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:59, 21 August 2023 (UTC)

Ok. Thanks for clarifying! R Prazeres (talk) 18:04, 21 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)

In my opinion, Status Quo Ante Bellum is the best and most fair result. Thoughts? 2600:6C51:427F:2100:EC2B:7133:EB77:8373 (talk) 08:37, 22 August 2023 (UTC) Blocked sock. M.Bitton (talk) 09:21, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

We've already come to a consensus, but regardless of that, Status quo ante bellum is not better, since there were in fact changes under the new treaty signed, so what reason would there be to use that? Also, do you have any connection to User:ByzantineIsNotRoman? R Prazeres (talk) 08:45, 22 August 2023 (UTC)

indeed we already discussed it, and how are you so sure he has any connection with that user? FlamemanTN (talk) 11:23, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

@FlamemanTN: That was obvious. Besides, they have been confirmed as a sock and subsequently blocked. M.Bitton (talk) 11:26, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

wait huh im confused lmao i thought your account got blocked for having any connection with that user FlamemanTN (talk) 11:30, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

got it now, that prick just was a disturbance FlamemanTN (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2023 (UTC)

thats fair and further to be discussed about if necessary FlamemanTN (talk) 11:39, 23 August 2023 (UTC)