Talk:Lord Edward's crusade

Nine?

This should be merged with the Eighth Crusade. What source in English lists it as nine? -- Secisek (talk) 10:29, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

Decisive

Was this really a decisive victory for the mamluks? Having their lands ravaged and a fleet destroyed sounds pretty bad to me. I'd say it was indecisive. It was only after the crusade that they scored more decisive victories.--81.151.119.46 (talk) 10:04, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, it wasn't a victory for the Mamluks. The operations ended in a truce agreement between the Crusader States and the Mameluks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.14.160.191 (talk) 03:44, 20 January 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 8 November 2019

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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: moved per lack of objection (closed by non-admin page mover) DannyS712 (talk) 20:46, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

---

Ninth Crusade → Lord Edward's crusade – This is not the common name of this crusade. "Lord Edward's crusade" is used by Simon Lloyd in an article dedicated to it (see Further reading), by the ODNB and by numerous other sources. It isn't hard to see why: this was not a separate event from the Eighth Crusade (Louis IX's second, the Tunis crusade). It was a continuation of that crusade by an army which showed up late. Srnec (talk) 02:33, 8 November 2019 (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.

how this is considered a success is beyond my imagination — Preceding unsigned comment added by 154.238.255.157 (talk) 20:13, 21 June 2020 (UTC)

Edward and Nazareth

I've reverted an edit here by @Ahendra: that changed "putting its inhabitants to the sword" to "massacring its inhabitants".[1] I'm open to seeing some modern sources that use the "massacring" term though. To my knowledge very little is known about Edward's venture to Nazareth. Most histories don't mention it at all, or just say that he "captured Nazareth".[2] In the casualties section of the infobox on this article there's a mention that the garrison was killed, but without a source, and in any case there's a big difference between killing the soldiers in a garrison, and massacring the inhabitants of the city, especially with Edward's small force. But again, I'm open to seeing if there are some new sources on this? --Elonka 04:55, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

well every common sense understand that "put sword to its inhabitants" were synonymous with massacre. take example with this phrase from Deuteronomy bible: "you must surely put the inhabitants of that city to the sword. Devote to destruction all its people and livestock" Ahendra (talk) 06:56, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

I am fine with sticking to what the sources say. Do we have one that says, "put the sword" or "killed the members of the garrison"? If not, maybe we should re-word things as simply "captured Nazareth"? --Elonka 20:48, 11 December 2021 (UTC)

Possible naming inconsistency Abaqa and Abagha

I think Abaqa and Abagha refer to the same person. Abaqa appears first in para 4 of "Aftermath" whereas Abagha has been mentioned several times previously. 81.152.230.168 (talk) 13:51, 23 November 2023 (UTC)

Results of the Crusade

The Infobox says that the results were Inconclusive and later calls it a Mamluk victory. Nowhere does the citation say that the Mamluks were victorious, rather that "Baybars’s campaigns made possible the final victories won by his successors." The text does not support that conclusion, so I'm going to take it out. Dr. Grampinator (talk) 17:17, 28 January 2024 (UTC)