![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Ref. # 10 has "Jonathan Harris, The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople, pp. 110-11." But this book is not at all by Jonathan Harris, it is by Jonathan Phillips. -- Groucho ( talk) 15:37, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
After the third crusade, the vital crusading spirit was dead, and the succeeding crusades are to be explained rather as arising from the efforts of the papacy in its struggle against the secular power, to divert the military energies of the European nations toward Syria.
Can someone please reword this in a clearer form? I would do it, but I honestly can't be sure of what it means :). What is "the secular power"? Is this secular power in general? And if so, how is this struggle between church and state connected to Syria? -- pde 06:23, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)
After reading the following paragraph, it is unclear what the Crusaders were opposed to (see following paragraph). By reading the whole article, and hopefully understanding the context, seems like the Crusaders were opposed to attacking the port of Zara... however, as you can see in the highlighted text, it says that "Many of the Crusaders were opposed to this," but it is unclear what "this" is: attacking the port of Zara? Or the Hungarian king joining the Crusade?
Should the phrase "Many of the Crusaders were opposed to this" be changed to "Many of the Crusaders were opposed to attacking the port of Zara..."?
Luiscolorado 16:36, 30 May 2007 (UTC)
I've reverted some recent edits by 203.5.110.252 that were expressing a very strong intentionalist POV, not to mention chalking the Crusde's direction exclusively to Venetian greed and desire for revenge. IMO these are exceptionally strong claims to be making based on one rather revisionist source. If anyone thinks that this was a wrong move, please convince me. siafu 03:30, 9 December 2005 (UTC)
I reassure you I did not intend pushing POV, I just made minor changes to the terminology, especially wherever the now-called Byzantines are referred to as "Greeks". They might have been in vast majority Greeks and virtually all Greek-speaking but they considered themselves Romans and inheritants of the Roman Empire. It also disregards the significant numbers of other Orthodox populations that lived under the Eastern Roman Empire (or Byzantine as now is referred to). I recognise that is always some problem when we cannot choose between modern terminology and contemporal terminology. By the way I am Greek, so you cannot say I have POV in this matter. User:62.6.139.11
Hey! THIS IS MY FIRST EVER ATTEMPT TO EDIT! This is a public portal and is used by thousands of people! Is not my record of vandalism. I will subscribe so I do not get the bad credit for others! SORRY BUT I AM STILL LEARNING.
By the way I find satisfactory your explanations, still I do not agree that we should perpetuate a wrong term just because there is plenty in sources! I suppose that is a POV but you on the other hand reproduce other's PVO, right?
Oh fair enough, as I said I am still learning. I suppose "greeks" here means greek-speaking rather than ethnic origin which is totally acceptable. Thanks guys.
I am curious as to why someone keeps editing this page, denying or erasing about the fact that Venetians(Italians) took part in this crusade as primarily it was clearly a French/Venetian campaign. So why in the world does someone want to deny this fact that the Venetians not only sent a large force of soldiers along with the whole fleet including transports and war-galleys? The Venetians at the first seige, made the most progress and caused the most damage to the city of Constantinople. The Venetians had a foothold on Blachernae, the N.West part of Constantinople and burned several 100 acres, leaving thousands homeless. This fact along with the French Knights steadfastness led to the fleeing of Alexius III. Either way it showed the weakness of the Byzantine Empire and led to the eventual demise of the Greek ruling Byzantine(Roman)Orthodox Empire to the Muslim Turks.
By the way you speak, you seem to have a POV agenda on the course of the crusade already. This is not about French-Venetian antagonism, nor a bragging on who left more homeless people in Constantinople, nor a hypothesis on who was finally was conquered by whom. This is an article on a relatively complex historical event, which you seem to interpret as a football game, while we're trying to keep it NPOV. I reverted your edits because you changed the content of a section which was almost directly taken from Phillip's book (best source on the subject). Furthermore you claimed that various Italian city-states participated in the crusade. That was misleading and false. A number of Italians (such as Pisan merchants native to Constantinople) were fighting alongside the Byzantine Greeks, against the crusaders. Today you made better, more moderate edits, which proves that I was right to remove the ones of yesterday. You mentioned the name of Doge Dandolo which I was planning to add, and didn't exaggerate on the role of the Italians. For what it matters, both Venetians and French played significant roles in the conquest of the city, but the most important aspect was Byzantine Imperial corruption and incompetence. The Venetians commanded a state-of-the-art fleet, which was a serious threat on the Byzantine fortification. On the other hand, the French commanded a deadly force of foot-soldiers and knights, and came in much larger numbers than the Venetians. Venetian presence of foot soldiers was insignificant (if any). The Venetian fleet was the key to the conquest of the city, but Venetian forces alone would have never stood a chance of surviving once within the walls of Constantinople. It was the French knights who did most if not all of the land-fighting. However, had the Venetian fleet been absent, the French force would have never been able to penetrate the fortifications of the city. Had a capable warrior-emperor been on the Byzantine throne, the Crusader-Venetian forces would have never been a serious threat to begin with. The Byzantine and Crusader armies never really fought against each other, face-to-face at full strength during those 2 years. The Venetian fires were set up by accident, and are not really something to brag about. Most modern and contemporary intellectuals badmouth the crusader armies for the physical damage they caused. Miskin 17:25, 21 March 2006 (UTC)
Regarding this from the lead section (removed):
Pope John's apologies about the crusades have become an interesting social meme that is somewhat complex. I've seen dates for his apologies as 2001, 2001, 2004 and perhaps others. I've also seen considerable controversy that he never actually "apologized", rather expressed "mutual sorrow". I think we need to pin down exactly what he said and when. According to this [2] he never actually apologized. Personally I think the topic of Vatican "apologies" (real or perceived) of historical events (crusades, inquisition, etc..) would make an interesting wikipedia article but I dont have the desire to pursue it in detail right now (probably could write a book about it). -- Stbalbach 17:36, 22 March 2006 (UTC)
My source is objectively more credible than yours. Your distinction between "apology" and "mutual sorrow" is blatantly a POV. Furthermore I think it's important to bring up the apology in order to reflect the modern relation between the churches. Miskin 16:52, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Maybe not, but to remove it under such argument is ridiculous. Miskin 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
An isolated quotation can often be misleading. My edit is directly taken from a scholarly source, I don't know why you insist on making a POV interpretation of the Pope's word. Miskin 18:30, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The main source on my edits is Jonathan Phillips' "The Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople". You can look it up, the comment on the apology is in the introduction. Miskin 18:33, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What do you know, the exact quotation is visible on the internet [3]. Miskin 18:35, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
Quoted and edited for multiple POV. -- Stbalbach 18:44, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
I suppose that even if John Paul II rose from his grave and told you that he actually apologised, you'd still try to edit the section. Miskin 18:48, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
It really is an insignificant matter, and this is why I find your persistence suspicious. Have a look at this link [4]. Do I need to keep looking? I'm sure I can find many people who share Phillips' illusion. Miskin 18:56, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
What the pope said is hardly an apology - the Church is not in the habit of apologizing for anything. It's clever rhetoric that people can interpret as an apology if they so desire. I think Stbalbach's compromise is the best solution. Adam Bishop 19:58, 23 March 2006 (UTC)
The current compromise is not at all encyclopedia-like, it has a POV polemic overtone. Please Stbalbach do find more links. According to my reasoning, since there are some people who need to point out that the Catholic church did not apologise, then it means that the majority believes they did. Which makes the former party's view a POV. I wonder how come all those "The Pope never apologised" theories are spread only after his death. Miskin 08:54, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
What I mean is this:
What more proof can I possibly provide to justify the term "apology"? A signed document in which the pope says "by the way - this is an apology for my part". I'm reverting until Stbalbach provides more counter-arguments (other than some random article on the internet). Or would you prefer me to say that the Catholic Church "asked for forgiveness"? Miskin 09:03, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
Good cos I have it right next to me. Miskin 16:16, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
You probably want to pick this discussion up with the anon user(s) at Talk:Crusade#APOLOGY? - this is new to me and I have no interest in it. Just saw that there are two POV's and they both seemed valid - the links are out there on Google, it's not hard to see or find the various arguments about this, search on "pope vatican apology crusades". If you believe that one POV should be removed from Wikipedia, and only a single POV represented, than that's your call, but breaks the spirit and rules of Wikipedia. Also your current prose in the article is emotionally laden and sensationalist, you would be better off sticking to the facts of what PJP actually said, with direct quotes, like the ones you quoted above. -- Stbalbach 16:40, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
In fact, this is what the Pope said:
Some news media reported it as an "emotional apology", this is true. Was it an emotional apology? That remains a matter of controversy and should not be presented as factual. Instead we present factually what the Pope said. A news reporters opinions are not exactly a good source. The news media is known to play up emotions to sell good stories. -- Stbalbach 18:47, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
I'm in agreement with Adam's compromise. Miskin 21:06, 26 March 2006 (UTC)
why pope do not apologise for what they had done to jews and muslims during the 1st crusade. much worse had done to those in antioch and jerusalem at that time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.179.138.58 ( talk) 20:35, 26 October 2009 (UTC)
Honestly, I cannot say from what I've read that this is at all unbiased. It is waaaaayyyy to easy on the crusaders and simply accepts at face value the suggestion that the fires set in Constantinople were "fire walls" set up to aid escape and not to cause destruction (the crusaders were well known for causing purposeful devestation) that the melting of idols had noting to do with relgigious reasons (Namely the destruction of the power of the Eastern Orthodox Church to help convert Constantinople to Catholicism) and this article does not go into enough depth about the reaction of the Pope to the Fourth Crusade, it neither mentions some of the ways he spoke out against it in enough detail (it undervalues them) nor that the Pope was also simultaneously priasing the crusaders for winning new land for Catholicism, which is improtant to know because many people lost a good degree of faith in the pope for a while after this as a result of his own contradictions. Aditionally just to point it out, while some popes have apologized for the Fourth Crusade others have praised it. Finally, the article does not emphasize enough how the Fourth Crusade reduced the highly Greece and Constantinople centered Byzantine Empire to a battleground essentially causing the eventual downfall of the Byzantine Empire (the Turks took advantage of this weakness to conquer provinces in Asia Minor, which was the breadbasket and manpower basis for The Byzantine Empire's armies.)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.128.120.108 ( talk • contribs)
I would like to see a more explicit accounting of the numbers of combatants and defenders, and more specifics on what the events were that occured during and after the breach of Byzantium. It would also be helpful to have a bit of economic and historical data regarding the strength of Byzantium and it's rulers at the time. The military situation should be analyzed most appropriately according to the historical records and whatever data is available should be presented factually to allow the reader to make their own determinations as to the moral implications of the events. While some suggest that the Crusaders got off easy in this article and were "well known" to be intentionally destructive (related to the Wall Fires), a reading of the source materials for the 4th Crusade hardly support that contention. I suspect a anti-crusader bias in those comments, which may or may not be reasonable, but should be proven and backed up with sources, not merely stated as though "well known" suffices for actual sited evidence. Evidence should be provided in the form of sources in all cases.
The reason this is important is that we have a current world situation where the topic continues to come up and is being used to back a particular group's contentions that their current political aims are justified, based in part on what happenned in 1204. Therefore it is necessary to be extremely diligent in the research of this topic and make it as acurate and factual as possible, and to whatever degree possible based on numerical and historical data. That would be my recommendation.
In one article on the fall of Byzantium in Wikipedia it says that the 4th Crusade was responsible for the depopulation of the city to the point where 200 years later Byzantium could not defend itself from the Turkish forces. Is that right? I'd like to know a little more about the facts of the case and how this was ascertained.
Petr Beckman: A History of Pi says that during the Fourth Crusade, a large library at Constantinople was destroyed, which many scholars regard as the greatest single loss of classical European literature.
1. Is he right?
2. Would this article be a good place to mention that?
-- 209.179.168.36 01:33, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
I've never heard of the event, but I really doubt that the loss could have been greater than the one caused by the fire of the library of Alexandria some centuries earlier. Regardless, if you have a good source then you should make the edit. Miskin 17:28, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
There is an unsourced quote from Innocent III that is featuring very prominently (mostly due to the enormous quotation marks). It runs:
“ | You rashly violated the purity of your vows; and turning your arms not against Saracens but against Christians, you applied yourselves not to the recovery of Jerusalem, but to seize Constantinople, preferring earthly to heavenly riches . . .
These 'soldiers of Christ' who should have turned their swords against the infidel have steeped them in Christian blood, sparing neither religion, nor age, nor sex . . .. They stripped the altars of silver, violated the sanctuaries, robbed icons and crosses and relics . . .. The Latins have given example only of perversity and works of darkness. No wonder the Greeks call them dogs! |
” |
It was apparently taken from one of Innocent's letters (no. 126, to his legate, in July 1205). However, this is not a faithful translation. The original Latin text along with a more adequate English translation can be found here (passage starting with How, indeed). I propose to adjust the quote or delete it altogether, say something along the lines of "Pope Innocent III, the man who had launched the expedition, thundered against the crusaders for abandoning their promise to liberate the Holy Land and massacring their fellow-Christians instead", and leave a reference in a footnote. Iblardi 21:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
Article quote; "The crusaders could only pay some 51,000, and that only by reducing themselves to extreme poverty. This was disastrous to the Venetians, who had halted their commerce for a great length of time to prepare this expedition. Without their promised payment, Venice would have been reduced to a mere shadow of what it had once been."
What is the source of the last statement? While I can see the need to stress the Venetians needing their payment, I think there is no foundation for this statement. Would Venice really have been reduced to a mere shadow of what it had once been if they lost 30-40 thousand marks of silver? To me it sounds pretty unrealistic. -Ravage 06.05.2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.202.235.156 ( talk) 19:22, 6 May 2007 (UTC).
I'm curious at the fact that the Outcome section is not more explicit in discussing this Crusade as a major factor in the fall of the Empire (some would say this WAS the fall of the Empire). Really the only clear statement of this in the whole article is the brief mention
It seems that this and the East-West schism should be brought out more clearly as the two most significant things that this episode contributed to.
Is this viewpoint debated by any authoritative sources? -- Mcorazao 21:02, 9 May 2007 (UTC)
Note that the city was not called "Zara" in those days by anyone who wasn't Italian. And it is well established that in those days the people living in the city were not predominantly Italian. At the time of the siege the city was part of the Hungarian (Croatia-Hungary) kingdom. It would be called Zara only by the invading manipulative Venetians. If historically the battle was called the siege of Zara because of the larger influence of Italians on historians that is fine, but please take into consideration that it is not NPOV, not to mention insulting, to name it thus. DIREKTOR 20:28, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, if you read the article closely you will see how the Venetians (namely Doge Enrico Dandolo) manipulated the impoverished crusaders into destroying two of their greatest adversaries (and trade rivals) for them, both Christian to boot. One of wich was one of the greatest Christian capitols of the world and the bulwark of said faith: Constantinople. The Byzantine Empire was never the same after this. As for the name, there are 2 facts that favor the use of "Zara": it was known by that name more than by the names actually used by it's inhabitants and their rulers (i.e. Iadera or Zadar), and it was the Italians who won. HOWEVER, none of this changes the fact that the city was NOT called "Zara", it's proper names were Zadar, Iadera or Jader at the time. Please note that the city is not and was not Italian at the time. Why would the Hungarians, or indeed the Croats and Dalmatians (it's inhabitants) call their city by an Italian name? The name is insulting for many reasons. It implies the city is historically Italian (a historically incorrect claim frequently voiced by the modern Italian far-right), and it was the name it had while it was under fascist rule. DIREKTOR 20:49, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Thats just the problem: you call it Zara, while its name wasn't Zara, therefore, calling the battle "Siege of Zara" is historically incorrect. I did not flip out, I am simply annoyed by the amount of Italian I'm finding in Dalmatia-related articles. Dalmatians were a seperate romance people and were as much Italian as the Spaniards. It is not just a "d" it is much deeper than that. Do not simplify the issue. Perhaps you do not know that someone could have been sent to a concentration camp for writing that d in "Zadar" on a wall during certain times of the city's millenia-old history (I am not exagerating, this was actually done).
Very well, but the city should be mentioned by its real name in the article. The battle itself may be subject to customary names, but the city should be called by its real name of the period. I realise you are probably sick of this topic, but let me assure you, ANY Croat that sees the name "Zara" used without constraint will find it offensive. DIREKTOR 21:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
What? Are you even aware the city is called Zadar IN ENGLISH? Check the article ffs. Also, your comparison cannot stand for other reasons. The name "Zara" is nothing but an Italian name for a city that was Venetian for cca. 400 years. Please read what I stated before. Various English names for places are not insulting, because they are simply of that language. For an Italian to use the name Zara is also not insulting. But for the ENGLISH Wikipedia to use the ITALIAN name for a city frequently claimed to be Italian by that country's right-wing politicians is QUITE insulting. Not for me personally, but for the Croatian people and indeed the South Slavs that had inhabited it since the 9th century (ethnic Venetians came only in the 13th century and in very small numbers). DIREKTOR 22:32, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
This is geting better and better. Incredible! Are you saying the city is called Zara in English!! I think the National Geographic Society might disagree with your esteemed oppinion, please look at an atlas before making such a controversial claim. This one for instance: plasma.nationalgeographic.com/mapmachine/. There you will find, for example, "Muchen" written as "Munich" but your "Zara", I'm afraid, is nowhere to be found. One more thing, I am no nationalist and am not motivated by nationalism in any way. I am, in fact, trying to REMOVE nationalistic distortion from Wikipedia. DIREKTOR 23:12, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
Ok. Zadar is irrelevant. Is the entire Dalmatian coast irrelevant by your personal standards then? Because I do not see Spalato there instead of Split, or Fiume instead of Rijeka or Pola instead of Pula etc.... DIREKTOR 23:56, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I say you are suggesting that because these cities (with the possible exception of Split) have had a nerely IDENTICAL political history, and should according to the logic you present also bear their Italian names. I agree, a city (or any geographic feature) should be reffered to in a historical context by the name it had at the time, but if you think that in Hungary (a personal union of Hungary and Croatia, to be exact) the city bore it's Venetian (Hungary's arch-enemy) name than you are sorely mistaken. Also, your comparison with Amu Darya does not stand, because the other name of that river is LATIN. I think I do not have to explain the difference. I would immediately accept the renaming of the Siege of Zadar into the siege of Iadera. In fact, that name was by far the most common outside Zadar (in England perhaps) as these were the Middle agesđ and for English contemporary historians to use the name Zara, would be nearly unimaginable. Even if they did, though, it would not change the name that city held i+ at the very beginning of the 13th century. DIREKTOR 00:27, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
First, it does not matter wether the name was given by native or academic speakers, it is still Latin, THE scholarly language of the Middle ages. In the context of that period, writing Latin names is acceptable by my oppinion, if no consensus can be reached on a more widely used version. Second, the reference to other coastal cities is not confusing if you know their history. These cities also have their Italian names, used just as frequently in relation to their Croatian names as "Zara" (because of said identical history). If Zara is the proper English name, then these cities, by historic association, must also be known by their Italian names (in modern times), something even more unthinkable. DIREKTOR 00:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Fact is, gentlemen, that there is no justification, historic, contemporary or otherwise for the name of the historic capitol of Dalmatia to be written in Italian in wiew of this historic context. As I said, the battle itself, is a different matter and can in my oppinion remain "Siege of Zara" if it is more frequently reffered with such outdated wording. The name of the city however, must be rectified. DIREKTOR 00:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I am getting tired of repeating myself. In the context of the period of the Fourth Crusade, the name of the city was Zadar (or Iadera, if you like) not Zara. Was it part of the Venetian Republic when attacked? Come on people, I know Zara sounds better, but let's be realistic here... Explain to me how is a city going to bear an Italian name, when 1) it's people weren't Italians, and 2) it was not part of any Italian state? DIREKTOR 00:52, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
It was just conquered by said state. I know you are not talking about modern Zadar. Just because the battle is known as the "Siege of Zara" (again, I do not mean to change this) does not mean the actual name of the city should be written incorrectly. The city WAS conquered at the beginning of the campaign, yes, the city of ZADAR was conquered. Not Zara, only later would that name be correct as the area beacme integrated into the Venetian Republic. We must use the name from the beginning of the campaign and then mention the change. DIREKTOR 01:07, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Well, here's the thing, I propose we use the name Zadar with "(Italian: Zara)" in the first mention, until the city is captured. After that there is one more mention, which I propose we rewrite to something like this: "...sailed from the city, now known as Zara...". What do you think? DIREKTOR 01:26, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Read what Bishop said and you will see how likely that is. The people involved at the time? You mean the citizens? they knew their city solely as Zadar. The historians? they wrote Iadera, not Zara. The Crusaders? Germans knew it as Zadar as well. Only the Venetians might call the city Zara. Their point of view is of no concern to me. Zara will not stand as the principal name used in the article. Why? Not because I am a Croat, but because it was incorrect at the time. See how you like this version: "...sailed from the Zadar (now known as Zara)..." That way we do not change the principal name used in the article. DIREKTOR 01:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
What is all this about contemporary historians calling it Zara. They would never write in Italian, but in Latin. I guarantee you you will not find a manuscript with Zara from the period. DIREKTOR 01:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
The italics are mine. In this case there very much is a common English name for the historical period and context, and that name is "Zara". siafu 02:15, 26 July 2007 (UTC)In the absence of a common English name, the current local name of the city should be used. When mentioned in a historical context, if there is not a common English name for the city in that historical period and context, use the appropriate historical name, with the current local name in parentheses (if it is not the same word) the first time the city is mentioned. See Wikipedia:Naming conventions (geographic names) for details.
By the way, everything would be so much easier if the conversation had gone like this:
-DIREKTOR: "Hey guys, did you know that Zara is now called Zadar?" -Everyone: "Yes but we call the historical city Zara in English." -DIREKTOR: "Oh, that's very interesting, thanks!"
And...scene. Adam Bishop 03:20, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
That's nice, Bishop. Earlier on you said the city's MODERN English name is "Zara", and actually called the ancient city (and it's people, by association) INSIGNIFICANT when proven otherwise...
All right, I yield, I yield. I have been defeated, one thing though, the argument would have gone a lot easier if some of us would refrain from fanciful statements such as m "The name used to describe the city by the people of the time, in particular those who wrote about the Siege of Zara is Zara", and my personal favorite, "The only reason it is referred to as "Zadar" anywhere on Wikipedia is because Croatian users have changed all the references to it.". Such uneducated offensive.... stuff, is just the kind of.. stuff that prevents timely understanding between Wikipedians!
DIREKTOR
09:59, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
I am not a nationalist (not even close, as a matter of fact), but when someone says things like "the modern English name of the city is Zara", one cannot help but feel patriotic. ARE YOU SAYING YOU DID NOT SAY SUCH UNEDUCATED NONSENSE AS MENTIONED BY MY LAST REPLY? Perhaps you need to read up on the Medieval period a bit? Perhaps you should see what languages were used by scholars of the era, before claiming that people wrote everything in Latin but used Zara instead of Zadar. What should you expect? You may expect many other, less reasonable, individuals confronting you on the issue of your ridiculous "Zara". You may expect hard resistance wherever that name is not mentioned in an apropriate historic context. Note that your amusing claim I called people "uneducated and offensive", is just that, amusing. I called several of your statements EXACTLY what they are, that's all. DIREKTOR 15:19, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
First your acusation, siafu, is absolutely ridiculous. I am a Venetian Dalmatian by ancestry, and am positively in love with the city (check my Userpage).
Bishop, (not contesting the accuracy of Zara in this historic context) the name Zara came up during the period when the contemporary texts were translated (probably around the middle of the 18th century, I am not sure) to English, since the name of the (then long-time Venetian) city was Zara in the eyes of the world (though the local populace was divided on the name, a fact that obviously later surfaced). The typical historian/translator of the period would certainly not concern himself with the name of the city at the time of the Siege. btw, I am not saying the city is terribly significant in modern times, Bishop, but the fact that it is probably not so is itself unimportant here.
The "Attack on Zara" sections says "Venice had performed her part of the agreement: there lay 50 war galleys, 150 large transports, and 300 horse transports - enough for three times the assembled army." whereas the "Diversion to Constantinople" section has it "The fleet of 60 war galleys, 100 horse transports, and 50 large transports arrived at Constantinople in late June 1203."
It is plausible only part of the transports were used, especially given the small number of crusaders compared to the original plan, but how come there were 10 more galleys? Were they constructed in the meanwhile, even given the crusaders haven't paid for the full sum for the original fleet? Is the difference accounted by Venetian galleys, not under crusader control? Or maybe the different numbers come from different sources?
Top.Squark 09:39, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
At first it is claimed that "he citizens of Constantinople were not concerned with the deposed emperor and his exiled son; usurpations were frequent in Byzantine affairs, and this time the throne had even remained in the same family. From the walls of the city they taunted the puzzled crusaders, who had been promised that Prince Alexius would be welcomed." However, the next sentence says the citizens turned against Alexius III and crowned Alexius IV because of "a destructive fire" set by the crusaders. The connections is not clear. Were the citizens dissatisfied with Alexius III's failure to fight off the crusaders and prevent the fire? What exactly made them change their minds? Possible some struggle between various factions inside the city occurred, which is not described here?
The "Attack on Zara" sections gives the number of crusaders as 12000. The "Diversion to Constantinople" section says Constantinople had a garrison of 30000 man. How come this garrison failed to defeat the crusaders? Did some of soldiers defect, siding with Alexius IV against Alexius III? Or did the crusaders use their naval advantage: 60 vs. 20 war galleys? The later guess, however, is inconsistent with the article which says "The crusaders _landed_, attacked the northeastern corner of the city, and set a destructive fire..."
Top.Squark 09:49, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
The article says "On the second attempt of the Venetians to set up a wall of fire to aid their escape, they instigated the "Great Fire", in which a large part of Constantinople was burned down." Escape from where? Why? The sentence appears completely disconnected from the rest of the article. Is it related to the attack on the mosque in the previous paragraph: "In August 1203, the crusaders attacked a mosque, which was defended by a combined Muslim and Greek opposition." ? No Venetians are mentioned there.
The next paragraph says "The crusaders and Venetians, incensed at the murder of their supposed patron, attacked the city once more." Were no crusaders _inside_ the city at the time? They had to be inside the city at some point since the first paragraph of the "Further attacks on Constantinople" sections says "...In fear of his life, the co-emperor asked the Crusaders to renew their contract for another six months, to end by April 1204. There was, nevertheless, still fighting in the city. In August 1203, the crusaders attacked a mosque, which was defended by a combined Muslim and Greek opposition." Were they driven out of the city by force? Is that the "escape" mentioned in the relation to the "Great Fire"?
Top.Squark 10:01, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
I have to agree that the discussion is confusing. The fire in this section should be the second major fire (the third being lit during the assault of April 1204 and is rightly mentioned in the "Final Capture of Constantinople" section). Villehardouin certainly does not mention who started the second fire, only noting that it was lit following a brawl between Greeks and "the Latins living in the city", a version which I understand to be broadly supported by Choniates. Robert of Clari does not even mention this fire.
The section does not provide a clear indication of the rapidly souring relations between Alexius IV and the crusaders, which was chiefly the result of the crusaders' continual requests for payment of the debt Alexius owed them and his continual avoidance of satisfying the debt. The final conflict commenced whilst Alexius IV still held power (and he refused to satisfy the debt in the face of Crusader threats). Murzuphlus had Alexius killed after hostilities had already commenced. In this context it is likely that the 'moral outrage' indicated in the third paragraph (and certainly strongly argued in Villehardouin and echoed in the work of Robert of Clari) was merely a convinient vehicle to continue the assault on Constantinople.
This section also mistates the order of the death of Alexius IV and Isaac. Both Choniates and Villehardouin indicate that Isaac died before Alexius IV was murdered by Murzuphlus. Only Robert of Clari has Isaac's death after that of Alexius IV.
Xenophondb 13:53, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
If nobody has any debate with my commentary above I will try to edit to address these issues in the next few days. 60.242.99.13 10:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
I REALLY hope noone (especially Bishop) mind the slight rewording. After all, the city was known as Zadar at the time (by EVERY non-Italian on the planet) and the fact shoul at least be mentioned in brackets. DIREKTOR 14:23, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The Aztecs did not constitute the majority of the population of the period, the "non-Italians", did. Starting early with the sarcasm, aren't we? DIREKTOR 11:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
??? I don't understand, Variable, how am I being sarcastic?... DIREKTOR 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Believe me, I am a modern Croat/Italian certainly not offended by Italians in general, I am offended by the Italianization of Dalmatia (Zara's province). I KNOW YOU CALL IT ZARA IN THIS CONTEXT, that's fine, but in aknowledgement of the fact that we are dealing with a part of Croatian LOCAL history (many Croats have an interest in this), I do not think that adding TWO sentences explaining (that the city was locally called Zadar or Iadera and that it was under Venetian control only for a relatively short period before the rebellion) is too "distracting". Also, in aknowledgement of the fact that it was locally called Zadar (or Iadera) in 1202, one of those two names deserve a place in brackets by the name Zara. DIREKTOR 12:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Iadera is Latin and Iadres is Dalmatian, while Zadar is Croatian. Since the population of the city was a mixture of (Romance) Dalmatians and (Slavic) Croats, Dalmatian and Croatian were spoken in the city, therefore both versions are acceptable for "Zara alternatives" in this context. In light of more thourough backing of the Iadres "version", I would accept the replacement of "Zadar" with "Iadres". How would you respond to a version that would be altered thusly? P.S. Zenanarh wrote a thorough explanation of the city's name above. It was intended for you, and I'm sure you will find an answer there. I know this may seem tedious and irrelevant, but in order to be able to discuss this issue a thourough familiarisation is required, as it is pretty complex (everything in the Balkans is, after all... ;). DIREKTOR 16:06, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
Of course it's not irrelevant, Zenanarh! I said it may SEEM irrelevent, and it certainly may to anyone not more deeply involved. I am on your side here, simply support the current version by bringing to light information supporting the predominance of the local name most accurate for the begining of the 13th century (1202). We can modify the text accordingly. All I'm trying to prove is that the local name in 1202 was not Zara (the international name was Iadera, of course) and that this requires clarification. DIREKTOR 19:01, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
You appear to be totally ignorant to the fact that that "footnote" is a part of Croatian local history and is therefore a matter of great interest to the average Wikipedian originating from these parts. Like I said before, I perfectly understand how it may SEEM irrelevant to you, but believe me, you and your oppinion are not the only ones existing on this planet.
"Furthermore, the vast majority of English-speaking historians refer to the town solely as Zara." - first of all, how can you know this for certain?, second of all, even if it were true (doubtful) it does not matter as the name of the city, in the English language, is Zadar. Therefore even if your remark was true, on Wikipedia we must use official names.
As for the POV crack, you are extremely naive if you think that during the course of history (especially in the Middle Ages) people did not exploit each other. The city, under the Venetian rule (a merchant republic), paid high taxes, while under the Hungarian King (feudal state) they merely had to aknowledge his sovereignty and pay him an annual tribute. Furthermore, the Venetian republic was totally dependant on free wood from Zadar and Dalmatia, wich they took without compensation. It is well known the city was being exploited under Venetian rule, WHY DO YOU THINK THEY REBELLED IN THE FIRST PLACE, THEY DIDN'T LIKE THE COLOUR OF THE VENETIAN FLAG?!
DIREKTOR
12:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
Was Italian? But let's get back to what you mentioned, where does Jonathan Harris place "Zadar"? In brackets? How unorthodox and distracing of him! I hope you didn't read too much of his work, because it must be totally illegible due to all the distractions! Oh, and the only humanly concievable reason for the Zara rebellion were the more favourable conditions of the free city status it recieved afterwards under Hungarian protection (MUCH lower taxes). "...this isn't an article about what modern Croatians are interested in.", this does not even make any sense, I don't know what to say to that, of course it's not, but it is an article modern Croats are interested in. Like I told you earlier, you need to read up on the contemporary name of the city if you want to engage in discussion here, Zenanarh tried to help, I believe... DIREKTOR 20:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
(Yerushalayim is not the English name for Jerusalem, Zara is not the English name for Zadar, it is ITALIAN) Oh man, look all I did was add a sentence and turn some content from brackets into a seperate sentence! I really don't know what all the fuss is abut? Jonathan Harris apparently wrote the name Zadar in brackets and, while acnowledging it must sound to you like a klingon name or something, it really deserves to be placed in brackets alongside the "more frequently used" version, if nothing else. DIREKTOR 12:44, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
I KNOW THAT, DO YOU EVEN READ WHAT I WRITE!!! I have clearly stated that is beyond dispute (in this context)! READ CAREFULLY:
A.D. 2007:
A.D. 1202:
Now that we've finally gotten that straight, when I said "Yerushalayim is not the English name for Jerusalem, Zara is not the English name for Zadar, it is ITALIAN" I meant in modern terms, because Srnec appeared to be mistakenly believing Zara is the modern English version.
Back to your edit. You, 1) used the pretext of "fixing" the text to remove my explaantory sentence, 2) rather ignorantly and offensively downplayed the importance of Zadar as a means of payment for the Venetian ships; hipothetically speaking, without the "Attack on Zara (Zadar)" there would have been no attack on Constantinople (if the Crusaders did not accept an attack on a Catholic city as a way to settle the debt). I really hope you read this post carefully for a change...
DIREKTOR
01:46, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
You just don't get it do you? Read the summary above, I accept that the customary English name in the context is Zara. HOWEVER:
Now, I'm not saying rewrite the article acordingly, all I'm saying is: let's add a pathetic little explanatory setence for my pathetic little country, savvy? DIREKTOR 14:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC) P.S. I rewrote the exploitation bit, I have no biase in the matter.
Zadar is deprived of fundaments in the present article. This name was officialy used for the first time after WWII when the city was annexed to Yugoslavia. In the present time Croatia, due to the high level of nationlism, the presence of autoctone Italians and Serbian inside the present Croatian territory is simply negletcted. When the Croatian users will present a valid source where is wrotten that the city in the Middle Age was called 'Zadar' they will change the article, meanwhile they should stop to impose POV. I suggest to do an internet search on the maps printed since the middle age and until 1918. You will alwyas find 'Zara' and NEVER'Zadar'. Do the same seache on google boook: sercah ALL the books in English, French, German, Spanish, Dutch (or whatever) books printed before WWII; it does not matter how old they are. You will always find Zara, you will NEVER find Zadar. Best regards-- Giovanni Giove 15:15, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Zara was under Croatian sovereignty during the period of the
Kingdom of Croatia, from the time of
King Tomislav I. on. You should really check your history. Also, just because it was not Croat ABSOLUTELY does not mean it was not inhabited by Croats, it was. Please remember this simple fact: Dalmatia, in it's entire history (includeing Roman times), never had an ethnic Italian (or Italic) majority. And was under Italian rule for just under 450 years out of 2100. Keep that in mind.
"Zara" IS a non-Latin name, just like Zadar.We do know this about the LOCAL Zadar name in 1202: FOR SURE IT WAS NOT ZARA.
DIREKTOR
16:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
King Tommy was appointed the protector (he did not conquer, like the venetians) of the cities by the Byzantine Empire, you know, the empire the venetians practically ruined because of their greed. And when the city innocently asked for venetian support against the Narentans, the doge quickly betrayed them and put them under his rule. For a short while, thankfully, as the city was back under Croatian rule by the time of King Petar Krešimir IV the Great of the Trpimirović dynasty. DIREKTOR 17:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
(It's spelled Venetian, FFS.) READ THE WIKIPEDIA ARTICLES, FOR ONE! WHERE are your sources that the city was called Zara in 1202 :), hmmm? I am still waiting. DIREKTOR 17:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Now let's be reasonable Giove. I know we instinctively oppose one-another, but as two intelligent human beings I think we can both se there is no real argument here. We both know the name in the article should be Zara. All I did really, was add one sentence explaining the city was not called that in 1202. It was called Jadra (prononced Zadra) or Jader (pronounced Zader) in 1202, or Iadera (Latin), internationally of course. That deserves to be mentioned in any historic article. (BTW, Zadar was not a diversion from Constantinople, it was the reason for the whole trip at first, since it was payment for the venetian ships.) DIREKTOR 18:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
READ CAREFULLY: JADERA (OR JADRA) IS NOT LATIN (Iadera is, and nothing else), IT IS DALMATIAN AND IT IS PRONOUNCED ZAD'RA. NOW DO YOU UNDERSTAND? "Anyway Jadera IS Latin (what else shall it be??)" LOL! You are not even aware of the predominant language in the city, are you now? LOL! DIREKTOR 19:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
I've deleted the unnecassary conceptt of "Personal used", used nowhere, bit in Croatia, and refused bu Hungarian Histriogaphy, that deny even the existence of the so-called Pacta Conventa. Croatia did not freely joined Hungary... but it was conqured, so that it LOST its own indipendence (depsite the Croatian claims). Even the Lombardo-Veneto Kingdom (to give an example), was in a "personal union with Austria (such as Boehmia, Ruthenia, Croatia, Slavonia and many others). For sure it was neither, free nor indipendent. Giovanni Giove 11:55, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Google search, results:
-- Giovanni Giove 17:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
"Siege of Zara" IS correct, FFS. Because it is the English name for the city in the context of the time! Do not just come here like some pathetic Deus ex machina! read the discussion first. DIREKTOR 17:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Cool? LOL! Was Italian the official language (I don't think Alighieri was even born then)? Yes we do have some "special" documents confirming Zadar was contemporary. Read above
They are not etymological hypotheses (see above), they are referenced etymological fact. FFS!, how do you think "Zara" came to be? I would LOVE to hear your etymological hypotheses.
Iadera -> Jader (pronounced Zader in Dalmatian, today Zadar) -> Zara
DIREKTOR
21:16, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Thank you Zenanarh, for finally clearing up this mess. Giove, uncharacteristically, seems to have finally shut up, but now Bishop is threatening to ban anyone that even marginally attempts to explain Zara was a later Italian name. Also, Bishop has suggested that the info concerning the Etymology of the name Zadar (possibly in an entirely new section) could be added in the Zadar article. I like the idea, do you think it is necessary? DIREKTOR 07:31, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Oh come on, Bishop! Like I said about a million times: YES, the city was internationally known as Zara in the 18th and 19th century (including Charles Mills). But that was after 400 years of Venetian rule. 1202, was before BEFORE. That's just the point! It was not "half-Italian" back then, while in 1822, it was. You are constantly mixing up the two Zaras. In 1202, "Zara" as a name did not even exist and all I'm doing is making a note of this. DIREKTOR 16:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Let me repeat myself: YES, the city was internationally known as Zara in the 18th and 19th century (including Charles Mills). But that was after 400 years of Venetian rule. 1202, was BEFORE. That's just the point! It was not "half-Italian" back then, while in 1822, it was. You are constantly mixing up the two Zaras. In 1202, "Zara" as a name of the city did not even exist (we do not know for certain if even the Venetians called it that yet) and all I'm doing is making a small note of this in the article. I'm hoping you will finally remove your "threat block" and realise this is not a radical, disruptive, incorrect, unecessary or extensive edit.
P.S. I removed the "exploitative policies" bit from my last version.
DIREKTOR
22:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Correct the following sentences, plz.
Title: "Siege of Zara" (we agree)
Classic Latin name:Iadera (we agree)
Vulgar name after Venetian rule: Zara (we agree)
Name in 1202
Giovanni Giove 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
This is all quite irrelevant. It belongs on the Zadar article, and perhaps on the Siege of Zara article, but not here. I've emended the text with an acceptable solution and a reference. I know I have a conflict of interest because I am involved in the dispute, and you can claim administrator abuse all you want, but the next person who changes it will be blocked, by me, much to my amusement. Adam Bishop 22:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Bishop, please read the following carefully. It is commendable that the information you added into the article is correct, but so is the REFERENCED (above) and relevant info you removed, contained in the SINGLE EXPLAINATORY SENTENCE I added. I have become convinced of the following: You do not have the dedication required to thouroghly debate on this subject (the name of Zadar) you involved yourself in, and are thus prone to arrogantly dismissing information, people and, indeed entire cities and nations(!) as "irrelevant". I do believe your attitude expressed here is not customary with you, as debating to this extent about issues not considered important (by you) can frustrate anyone, but I will not stand still and allow you to force your irrationally and superficially formed oppinion here. I hope you will see your error and go back on your threat(!). I also hope you realise that I must see what can be done about this, should you fail to do so. As I mentioned before, I do not mean any offence since I understand how the issue may seem irrelevant to an individual not personally involved, but I must remind you that you chose to get into this without a compromising attitude or the determination to truly explore the issue.
DIREKTOR
23:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
Because of that, I ask that you go back on your threat. You (and not just you ;) are getting all worked up over nothing: all I'm inserting is the absolute minimum demanded by (now thoroughly referenced, see above) historic fact. A single sentence, FFS! DIREKTOR 03:41, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's just the point, the etymology of Zadar (interesting of not ;) is not explained in the article (I'll see about adding it in the Zadar article). Just the historic fact that the city was not called Zara at the time, primarily to avoid any incorrect assuptions. I don't think the prevention of misunderstanding in the article is SO irrelevant that it does not warrant an explainatory sentence, do you?
DIREKTOR
07:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Well?
DIREKTOR
10:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Giove, on every single Dalmatia related article you are constantly trying to show that Dalmatia belongs to Italy and only Italy since THE BEGINNING OF TIME! What we are doing is showing the fact that before the 400-year period of "Venitian" rule, Zadar had almost nothing to do with Italy (culturally and ethnically). It was a Dalmatian/Croat city. Now, if you don't have evidence to the contrary, I suggest you vent your frustration elsewhere. DIREKTOR 16:48, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
That's your problem: classic Mussolini "Italian/Roman Empire" rhetoric, Italians = Romans. For the millionth time: Romans ARE NOT Italians. Italians are people of Italy. Dalmatia was not Italy (even in Roman times). The Romans in Dalmatia were romanised Illyrians, not people from the Italian peninsula. Italians came to Dalmatia during the longest period of Venetian rule. According to your groundbreaking theory France is Italian!! (Latin people invaded by German Franks) You have some serious problems with history, Giove. DIREKTOR 18:00, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Giovanni Giove 18:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
("Cool"?) Look, how can I explain this to you, please read carefully... Dalmatia had its own: 1) ethnic makeup (Romanised Illyrians/Slavs) and 2) culture and language (
Dalmatian language), as different from Italian as Spanish. There is some truth in what you say though, the Dalmatian culture, being Romance, was closer to the Italian than the Slavic one, HOWEVER, this simmilarity is like to the one between the Spaniards and the Italians (both Romance cultures). They were commercially and economically connected with Italy, but so was the
Kingdom of Aragon, for instance, do the cultural and economic ties make them Italian? The only difference between Dalmatia and Aragon is size and geography, the small size of the Dalmatian culture caused it to be absorbed by the Italian culture, but only after the first century of the largest (400 years) period of Venetian rule, during which the Italians started moving (in small numbers) into the now conquered Dalmatia, as the elite.
I hope you now understand.
DIREKTOR
19:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
No, Italians absorbed and destroyed the Dalmatian culture, attempting to assimilate it into their own by the 1860s (they partially succeded). "The culture and habbits" of Dalmatia are as different from the Italian culture as the Spanish habbits and culture, and the people are not ethnically Italian. You have no solid argument supporting your view. Read the Dalmatian language article. THERE IT IS CLEARLY STATED THAT DALMATIAN WAS A DIFFERENT LANGUAGE FROM ITALIAN, NOT ONE OF ITS DIALECTS. DIREKTOR 19:58, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
ROTFL!! LOL!!! Dalmatian even today?? IT IS EXTINCT! It existed when? IN THE MIDDLE AGES! Language (as culture) does not coincide with ethnicity? DNA does not coincide with ethnicity? THEN WHAT DOES COINCIDE WITH ETHNICITY!? You are quite amusing and are now contradicting yourself. You have no argument and are starting to blab. Like I said Dalmatia had a different ethnicity (Illyrian Roman/Slavic) and an OFFICIALLY different culture (as represented by the OFFICIALLY seperate language). What did they have in common with Italy more than the Aragon did? Please tell me. DIREKTOR 20:26, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
I am not hysteric, just excellently amused. I know, Italian and Dalmatian are close, BUT DIFFERENT, as decided by many world linguists (read the article sources). Aragon is just an example of a medieval Romance culture, with STRONG (I know my history) TRADE LINKS with many Italian states (notably Genoa (Genova) and Tuscany (Toscana)), just like Dalmatia, their culture is considered different (WHAT a surprise!). DIREKTOR 20:43, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
You know, I had a feeling he might be a kid! You're absolutely right Zenanarh, I will not try to educate him any longer. DIREKTOR 21:09, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Sure, junior, whatever you say. DIREKTOR 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
Hi Adam,
Your threats to block editors who change your edits may be inappropriate here. You may be right regarding the content but it is not appropriate for an admin to use or threaten to use his admin privileges to resolve a content dispute.
I would suggest that you ask an uninvolved admin (like myself) to block any editors who should be blocked. That would avoid any appearance of improper use of admin privileges.
Regarding the current edit war between Giove and DIREKTOR, this needs to stop. I am on the verge of protecting this page. Please continue your discussion on this Talk Page and come to a consensus before editing further.
Also, please observe WP:NPA. Whether or not an editor is a "kid" is no reason to engage in "ad hominem" attacks regarding their age or maturity. If the editor is making an invalid argument, then address the argument not the editor.
-- Richard 17:23, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
I appologise for it, but the man insulted me on many an occasion.
There is no discussion actually going on. I think Bishop and I may have reached a consensus. As for Giove, he has no argument or reference and is reverting my edits without any apparent reason. He refuses to understand that we are not talking about the most frequently used 19th century name, but the 1202 vernacular name. His hope, I think, is to be the last one to edit before the inevitable block. This is one of his favorite tactics, as I recall. Such things are done. DIREKTOR 17:50, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
Zadar is absolutely the same thing as Zadra, spoken in a different dialect. Giove, you are obviously not familiar with what you are claiming. DIREKTOR 18:33, 23 August 2007 (UTC)
The other day I said I wasn't sure what we were arguing about anymore, and this is why. This should never have been about the vernacular name of Zadar in 1202; what relevance does that have for the Fourth Crusade? Zenanarh and Direktor have tried to turn this into an argument about the etymology of the name, which would be fascinating on the Zadar article, not here. I don't know what Giove is up to, their quarrel goes beyond me and this article. We call the city Zara in English, and that is the only point I was ever trying to make. Adam Bishop 02:46, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Bishop, for the millionth time, your point is taken and accepted. All I did was add the vernacular name in the article, because it was not Zara. This was done 1) to avoid misunderstanding, and 2) to show Croatian (and other ex-Yugoslav) Wikipedians that their city was not known known as "Zara" in 1202. All this is one sentence and it is worth the space. If we agree that the vernacular name was Zadra (Zadar), I do not see what is the argument about. The space or "disruption" a single (correct) sentence causes? Or do you truly believe (as you have often actually stated) our nations are soo irrelevant that they do not warrant a single sentence in the article wich involves the history of a city of ours? DIREKTOR 03:32, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
LIKE I SAID A MILLION TIMES BEFORE, the Slavic version happens to be virtually the same as the Dalmatian, this is logical, after all. The Italian does not, once again logical as it evolved later. Why are you writing your nonsense without end? You are now starting to just say outright lies to vent your frustration... P.S. I know you are Italian, but please tyr to refrain from calling me "dear". DIREKTOR 16:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Croatia was invaded and conquered by the Hungarian King Coloman and consquntly lost its indipendence. To talk about a "personal union" is weasel, even if this is a normal concept in Croatia (but only in Croatia). Dalmatia was invaded by Hungary, and not by Croatia. The supposed semi-indipendence stated by Pacta Convencta is just a supposition of the Illyric movement of XIX cent. Hungarian historiography still refuse the existnce of the Pacta Convencta. We just face a further nationalistic POV.
Croatia had their own kings. Hungarian king Ladislav I was trying to spread his political influence to the Adriatic Sea by using Croatian kings. When Croatian king Zvonomir died a few of Croatian «tribes» and Dalmatian cities invited him to accept a Croatian Kingdom throne, since he was a brother of king Zvonimir's widow. He accepted it, crossed the Drava river but he was stopped at Gvozd (Velika Kapela) mountain. His political plan was finalized by his nephew Koloman who beat last Croatian king Petar Snačić at the same place – Gvozd mountain. In 1102 Koloman made a contract of personal union – Pacta Conventa with the headmen of 12 Croatian tribes (Croatia was organized in 12 territorial units). Croatia didn't lose the territory, neither sovereignty. Croatian ruler was Ban (Bans were rulers of the early Medieval Croatian states) - vassal of Hungarian king. For example the church organization was the same. 19 Croatian and Dalmatian cities were noted as dioceses and 1 Hungarian at the territory of Croatia. Zagreb diocese was the main Croatian but not on the "Croatian and Dalmatian" list. It was on the Hungarian list! Just like some kind of symbol of Hungarian ruler dominance. During previous Kingdom of Croatia Zadar (Jadera) was given economical autonomy which was a long-term-wish of its citizens in the Byzantine ages. However it was still a part of Croatia. Hungarian kings didn't change that kind of relationship with Zadar. Zenanarh 17:47, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
Yes, but what Bishop is saying is that it is not relevant for the article. Here's the thing Bishop, if adding two (accurate) words is too much for the sake of increased historical accuracy, I am forced to believe you might have become personally against Croatian edits. DIREKTOR 18:06, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
. :) Come on, try to put yourself in our collective (primitive) position. It's not like we're rewriting the whole article, its a matter of minor, historically correct edits that we believe deserve the space because Zadar is a Croatian city. My point is, we're not reducing the quality of the article. Please agree? DIREKTOR 18:25, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
I applaud your objectivity, Str1977. DIREKTOR 23:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
We want to keep the "...King of Hungary and Croatia (the two were in a personal union)..." sentence the way it is. I thought that was clear. Every issue that comes up "has nothing to do with the Fourth Crusade". Even if these were monsterously huge edits (wich they're not) why should the article not include a slightly (and I do mean slightly) broader picture? DIREKTOR 03:11, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
Emperor of Austria,
Apostolic King of Hungary,
King of Bohemia, of Dalmatia, of Croatia, of Slavonia, of Galicia, of Lodomeria, and of Illyria,
King of Jerusalem, and so forth,
Archduke of Austria,
Grand Duke of Tuscany and of Cracow,
Duke of Lorraine, of Salzburg, of Styria, of Carinthia, of Carniola and of the Bukovina,
Grand Prince of Transylvania,
Margrave of Moravia,
Duke of Upper Silesia, of Lower Silesia, of Modena, Parma, Piacenza and Guastalla, of Auschwitz and Zator, of Teschen, Friuli, Ragusa and Zara,
Princely Count of Habsburg and Tyrol, of Kyburg, Goritz and Grandisca,
Prince of Trient and Brixen,
Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and in Istria,
Count of Hohenems, Feldkirch, Bregenz, Sonnenberg, and so forth,
Lord of Trieste, of Cattaro and of the Wendish Mark,
Grand Voyvode of the Voyvodie of Serbia, and so forth,
Sovereign of the Order of the Golden Fleece.
Of corse all this states were in ..."Personal union":-) I wonder: why this special enphasis just for Croatia???
Giovanni Giove
13:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
Rascia (Serbia) actually were in the title of the Hungarian King.
Oh and the idea of the "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia" was actually born some 600+ years later, in the 19th century. -- PaxEquilibrium 19:48, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
"Oh and the idea[?] of the "Triune Kingdom of Dalmatia, Croatia and Slavonia" was actually born some 600+ years later, in the 19th century." I am not sure of this either... I'll look it up.
DIREKTOR
20:03, 28 August 2007 (UTC)
Smičiklas Tadija, ed. Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, sv. III - document written in Latin language in 12th century!
Zenanarh
18:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
How come the term "division" is used to describe troop formations in this article? I understand that it's common for historians to replace ancient designations with modern ones to help casual readers more easily understand, but shouldn't it be with formations of similar size Ie Tuoman= Division Century= Company. The "divisions" in this article are only 500 men, shouldn't these be either refered to by their own designation or as a batallion or regiment?
An anonymous user took the long Vryonis quote out, with an explanation in the summary: "It would be useful if several views were quoted but on its own it seems to me too definitive. See Jean Richard pgs. 251 - 2, eg., for a more cautious view." User:Gabr-el has put it back, but I think there is something in what the anonym says. I like Vryonis's work, but I'm not sure we should be quoting a single modern viewpoint at such length. In the context of Vryonis's book, no problem; in the context of our article, some of those assertions need to be documented or balanced. And rew D alby 09:33, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't know if the current picture is named after 4th crusade, but I believe that is wrong and it shows something completelly different. First the tent on the left cide has a crecent upon it (not a cross as one would except for eastern orthodox christians). Secondly the man almost in the middle of the picture upon the walls is holding an arquebus (that it didn't existed then) and last the clothes of the defenders depict a more islamic fashion(propably Ottoman?). Of course all this can be due to the fact that the painting may have been created after 1453 (fall of constantinople to Ottoman Turks) and as most of paintings in medieval times it can be tottaly imaginary. If anyone knows any info about it plz post it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.49.149.31 ( talk) 13:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)
I have to second that. The picture is taken from a site that does not state the painting is thirteenth century; it only suggests it is depicting a scene from the thirteenth century. The anachronisms in the picture itself suggest a late 14th or 15th century date for the painting itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.66.46.77 ( talk) 22:18, 2 November 2009 (UTC)
Which mosque was the mosque the crusaders set on fire in 1204? -- Roksanna ( talk) 20:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)
: As far as I know there were not any mosques in the city at the time.