Talk:Siege of Zara

Gibbon

Gibbon says that the 'epistles' of Innocent III contain a blow-by-blow of the action of the entire battle. i don't think these are online, nor are they at my university library. if anyone can find this, this article could be expanded significantly. another account of the battle is contained in the book The Deeds of the Bishops of Halberstadt (1209) Rehpotsirhc 18:27, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Probably more useful would be the vast secondary literature on the Fourth Crusade. Check the sources section of the Fourth Crusade article. Innocent's letters would be useful, but all the other sources already use them (and they are in Latin, anyway). Adam Bishop 19:57, 23 February 2006 (UTC)

I removed the qualification of Hungarian king's joining the crusade as ironical, since he obviously didn't take part in the siege. It would be far more useful to add what the king reaction to the sacking was (if anyone knows, please?).

The Croato-Hungarian king was furious, but could not take any actio because of the inner problems of the kingdom! User: emoutofthevee

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Siege of Zara. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Replaced archive link https://web.archive.org/web/20030329113813/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/history/weblearning/MedievalHistoryTextCentre/Letters%20of%20Innocent.doc with https://web.archive.org/web/20110821111652/http://www.leeds.ac.uk/history/weblearning/MedievalHistoryTextCentre/Letters%20of%20Innocent.doc on http://www.leeds.ac.uk/history/weblearning/MedievalHistoryTextCentre/Letters%20of%20Innocent.doc

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:17, 7 December 2017 (UTC)

Jadera, not Zara

Zara was not the name. It was Jadera. Zara was just Medieval Venetian exonym. Officially, the city became Zara not earlier than in 1408 when it was sold to Venice. Before that there was not any kind od Venetian administration in the city and all documents were about Jadera or sometimes Jadra because of pronounciation which was Zadèra. Zadar was never a part of Venetian Republic before 1408. It was attacked and conquered by the Venetians a few times for just short periods from 998 to 1408 but not to be attached to the Republic. These were Venetian military actions to secure safe passage for their ships since the Adriatic waterway stretched along the Dalmatian coast and was controlled by Dalmatian cities led by Zadar. Title "Siege of Zara" is an oxymoron, understandable only from Italian nazi revisionist point of view. Shame.85.114.52.106 (talk) 13:20, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

You'll go far here mocking WP:CIVILITY by referring to Italians as "Nazis" (hopefully since then you've picked up a history book - or 11 or 12). 50.111.24.158 (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If the city had a Slavic population and "slav Croatian character" back then, as Marcus Tanner remarks in its Croatia: A History from the Middle Ages to the Present Day, then the article should be named in a way in which native residents called their own city, not in a way in which Venetians called it. Franjo Tahy (talk) 17:13, 24 December 2019 (UTC)

Requested move 10 November 2020

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: Not moved (non-admin closure) BegbertBiggs (talk) 20:08, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

---

• Siege of Zara → Siege of Zadar (1212)
• Siege of Zara (1813) → Siege of Zadar (1813)

– Some sieges of this city are at Zara, others are at Zadar. This city seems to have been known by several names at different times and in different languages. Without a good reason to the contrary we should consistently use its modern name, which it is know by to most of its inhabitants. PatGallacher (talk) 18:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

• Oppose - the modern name is irrelevant to the naming of the historical events. See Fall of Constantinople and Battle of Iconium (1190). The articles should be titled what the events are referred to in scholarly sources, which is presumably based upon what the cities were called at the time. Unless someone can demonstrate that either event is more commonly called "Siege of Zadar", I see no support for this move. Note that our article Zadar indicates that it became known as Zadar only in 1947; as such, I strongly oppose revising the historical name. ‡ Єl Cid of Valencia ^talk 20:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above. The modern name is pretty recent in English-language sources about the town and not commonly seen used in an historical context. There would be a case for renaming the first one Siege of Zara (1202) though. -- Necrothesp (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose historical name. Majority of modern English-language scholarly works also use this name variant, see GB results. --Norden1990 (talk) 22:36, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose, the event is notable under the historical name, which is correctly used by almost every other Wikipedia. Moonraker (talk) 23:31, 15 November 2020 (UTC)
• Oppose per above.--Presbite (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.