Talk:Battle of Mansurah (1250)

Untitled

 * "Islam's citadel and arsenal" are words of the historian Arnold Toynbee.Samsam22 (talk) 23:15, 25 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Why you use vandalism ? you can not change history by vandalism . All information here are from sourcebooks.Thank you Samsam22 (talk) 23:17, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Samsam22. I see that cierderf7 removed some things such as, "The crusaders circulated false information in Europe claiming that king Louis IX defeated the Sultan of Egypt in a great battle and Cairo had been betrayed into his hands." However you can read "The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville" and see that this was the truth. Lord of Joinville was a crusader who fought in Louis's army. Isa Alcala (talk) 23:29, 23 January 2008 (UTC)


 * "The crusaders circulated false information in Europe claiming that king Louis IX defeated the Sultan of Egypt in a great battle and Cairo had been betrayed into his hands". See sourcebook The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville. If you read the book of the Lord of Joinville you will notice that I used his words.

The story of the death of Robert of Artois is quoted in many sources and also in The Memoirs of the Lord of Joinville which is in French and thus available to you.

"and many of the crusaders were seized and exhibited in the streets of Cairo". see sourcebooks "Ibn Taghri, al-Nujum al-Zahirah Fi Milook Misr wa al-Qahirah" and "Al-Maqrizi, Al Selouk Leme'refatt Dewall al-Melouk". The French editions are available. Samsam22 (talk) 23:49, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

" Cirederf7, please stop vandalism. This article goes about Sirat al-Zahir Baibars. The introduction goes about why Baibars was popular and not about French being beaten by him. It explains why the Sirah emerged. Please stop that . As I told you before you can not change history by vandalism."Samsam22 (talk) 03:09, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I saw vandalism was made by you also on page of Sirat Sirat al-Zahir Baibars. I wrote to you this there :

Recent edits
I do applaud Samsam and others the work that they have put into this article but made some edits to conform with Wikipedia standards.

I cut down the size of the last section "Historical consequence", which discussed at length the history of the entire region for the rest of the century. This information is already covered in a number of other articles, so only the briefest summary is needed here. In particular, long paragraphs about the Mongols are definitely off-topic.

As I mentioned regarding an earlier article, the use of medieval Muslim historians (for example, to cite the French losses) is frowned upon here in Wikipedia. See WP:PRIMARY.

All in all, though, good work. MapMaster (talk) 02:30, 8 July 2008 (UTC)


 * What? Why is that frowned upon? Perhaps if we quote their exaggerated numbers unconditionally, it would be (as it would be for medieval historians of anywhere else). The usual solution is to quote some modern historian with a more reasonable number alongside them, but there is no rule against quoting contemporaries. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:10, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I do understand that you, Adam, as a professional historian are expected to use and interpret primary sources but it's frowned upon at Wikipedia because the use of primary sources is generally considered Original Research (and in our case because medieval historians are unreliable and biased). It's not my rule, but I agree with it.  We should not be writing articles based directly on primary sources.
 * From a rough count, half or more of the citations in this article are from medieval historians, which seems excessive.
 * I was referring in particular to the sentence "between fifteen and thirty thousand of the French fell on the battlefield", which was cited to 3 medieval historians without any cautionary text or any analysis by modern historians. I added the phrase "According to medieval Muslim historians" which helps somewhat, but it would be best to have a modern analysis methinks.  MapMaster (talk) 06:36, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * The large amount of un-bracketed Arabic text is also distracting, since to most of us it is meaningless. Is it necessary? Is there a better, less distracting way to present that information? Srnec (talk) 17:59, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I agree. I'll go ahead and remove it soon.  MapMaster (talk) 19:35, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the script. I feel bad about it, since someone put a lot of work into this, but not bad enough not to do it.  I also think it is distracting and unnecessary and useful only to a very small percentage of readers.  Nearly all the script was behind a wikilink, which also added to the redundancy.  MapMaster (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
 * I have removed the script. I feel bad about it, since someone put a lot of work into this, but not bad enough not to do it.  I also think it is distracting and unnecessary and useful only to a very small percentage of readers.  Nearly all the script was behind a wikilink, which also added to the redundancy.  MapMaster (talk) 21:59, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

Numbers..?!
How is it this page gives the crusader forces as 80,000 - when the main seventh crusade page gives the entire force as 15,000? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.184.115.220 (talk) 08:31, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Just checked the source for the listing of 80,000 Crusaders, and the citation contradicts the number given in the article. I'm correcting the number to the one listed in the source. The original source states; "This would indicate an army of some 15,000 men...". It doesn't mention 80,000 Crusaders anywhere.--TheSteelShepherd (talk) 14:32, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

bias
According to sources the Crusaders, they lost from 15,000 to 30,000 soldiers, and why do you put an army with only 15,000 fighters? This is bias, Riley Smith is a historian with pro-crusaders eurocentric. Views from both sides should be put forward if this page is not biased towards one party over another that my soucre( Al-Maqrizi, pp. 455-56/ vol.1 Abu al-Fida, pp. 66-87/year 648H. Ibn Taghri, pp.102-273/ vol.6) Uyh988 (talk) 22:28, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Result of the battle
All The recent reliable sources that I checked describe this battle as a French defeat. Here are some of them:        M.Bitton (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

M.Bitton (talk) 20:32, 14 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Exactly. The French lost this battle according to almost every source, including Wikipedia in Arabic and other languages. That's why the city is called Mansurah in Arabic, which translates to "victorious." 2603:8000:D003:453A:E198:AE08:4843:13F (talk) 21:29, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Only five Templar Knights escaped alive is what is stated in the battle's description, yet for some strange reason someone decided to describe it as a French victory. I removed the result for now pending more input from the community. M.Bitton (talk) 22:22, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * @M.Bitton Hello. I do not understand why you write "Only five Templar Knights escaped alive is what is stated in the battle's description, yet for some strange reason someone decided to describe it as a French victory." when you deleted yourself the following text which showed why this battle was labelled as a French victory. Mansurah was not limited to the ambush in the city.
 * As for the sources, the few which mention the battle in more than one word or sentence all repeat each other: "the French were ambushed in the city, retreated to their camp and then were besieged" (it's not even mentioned how they managed to escape the siege, because they did since they ended up captured at Fariskur).
 * On the contrary, Périni wrote a detailed account of the battle in which he describes how the French vanguard was slaughtered in Mansurah but how the Ayyubids tried vainly to assault the French camp and were eventually beaten back, though the French suffered heavy losses too.
 * Finally, you claimed that Périni never stated that the battle was a French victory by pretending the supposedly only thing on the page cited related to the battle was "the losses of the two battles of Mansurah" whereas the entire sentence is "The Crusaders now had one option to take: to take advantage of this new victory to go back to Damietta, resupply and repair the losses of the two battles of Mansurah".
 * I mean... LaHire07 (talk) 01:23, 30 January 2023 (UTC)


 * I have no issue with the article being amended using the sources cited and the result then being changed to reflect the sources. Cinderella157 (talk) 23:33, 14 January 2023 (UTC)
 * thank you for your input. I have now adjusted the result per the cited sources. M.Bitton (talk) 19:03, 18 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, my comment was (paraphrasing) that the infobox should be a reflection of the body of the article and that the body of the article should be amended to tell us what the result was. Then, the infobox can be changed (ie we don't write an article in the infobox).  As you appear to have gone through the source to some extent, would it be possible to make some amendments to the article around what the result was? Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Hi . As far as I can tell, after I removed the contradicting and unrelated content, the result now reflects what's in the battle section. I'm not really sure what else can be added to the fact that they were tricked into entering what looked like an abandoned town and slaughtered as a consequence. I will try to have another go (including checking some sources that look like they have been misrepresented) as soon as I have some free time. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 16:59, 19 January 2023 (UTC)


 * Hi, I edited the lead to better summarise the battle and indicate the result. The article is very sloppy so I hope I got it right.  I am not specifically familiar with the battle, so anything else you might do would be a bonus. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 02:23, 20 January 2023 (UTC)
 * According to Jonathan Riley-Smith's book The Crusades: A History, this battle was a french victory. although the Robert d'Artois's troops did be slaughtered by its enemy on february 8. The main army which lead by Louis had eventually won the battle next day.
 * All these sources you found only conclude on february 8, but the egyptian withdrew the battlefield finally. Waylon1104 (talk) 08:54, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I can't see your Google Books link, but in my physical copy of this book, it's on page 221. Riley-Smith does not say anywhere that it was a "victory", only an "initial success" before the crusaders were "destroyed". Adam Bishop (talk) 12:16, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * He did mention "the Egyptians withdrew leaving Louis in possession of the field." This is a sign of victor Waylon1104 (talk) 14:25, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, that's WP:OR that contradicts the RS and basic common sense. The reliable sources describe the battle as a crusaders' defeat for a reason: the outcome of a notable battle is usually dependent on whether its objective was achieved and not on the skirmishes that took place before and after it. In this case, far from capturing Mansurah, they ended up being lured into a trap and massacred. If we start taking everything into consideration, then it would still be a defeat since the entire army was ultimately captured, making it a crusaders' defeat (regardless of how you look at it). M.Bitton (talk) 14:50, 2 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, the small troops lead by Robert d'Artois did be slaughtered by its enemy on february 8. But next day, the main army lead by louis show up and defeat the egyptians. Waylon1104 (talk) 01:08, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * this article only mention what happened on february 8. Waylon1104 (talk) 01:10, 3 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Since you completely ignored the important part of my previous comment, I'll try to formulate it differently (one more time). This was a crusaders' defeat, any way you slice it: a) if you concentrate on the notable battle that sealed the fate of the expedition (the one that the RS consistently refer to as the battle of Mansurah), then that's a defeat. b) If you concentrate on the period that the rest of the crusaders spent besieged around Mansurah until their retreat (attacked on a daily basis and starving while the Ayyubids were preparing a checkmate), then that's a defeat too. c) If you concentrate on their surrender, then that's a defeat as well. Luckily, you don't have to do any of that because there are plenty of reliable sources (secondary and tertiary) in English, Arabic and French that describe it as what it was (a crusaders' defeat). M.Bitton (talk) 00:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "All The recent reliable sources that I checked describe this battle as a French defeat"
 * Apart from the fact that most these sources evoke this battle in no more than a sentence, that some of them confuse Mansurah and Fariskur, that Nicolle claims the ambush of February 8 took place on February 11, that Tucker repeats word for word what Mikaberidze wrote and that Grant considers that the battle began on 8 February and ended on April 6 with the surrender at Fariskur, it seems that you've been really "unlucky" to only find sources that go your way.
 * It has not taken me long to find 17 sources (10 being post-1990) that describe the battle in detailed presentation as a Crusader victory                LaHire07 (talk) 12:28, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I ignored your first comment as I usually have no time for those who cast aspersions, but the "unlucky" crap will get you the answer that you deserve: I have yet to see a single edit of yours that doesn't push a nationalist agenda. If you believe that you cherry picked nonsense that doesn't stand up to basic common sense deserve more than a laugh, then you're welcome to seek consensus for it. I can literally swamp the article with reliable sources, including the tertiary ones (the ones that establish DUE) in multiple languages that paint the exact opposite picture of your nationalist wet dream. I'm done here. M.Bitton (talk) 12:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You shouldn't have claimed that "ALL the recent sources" you checked describe the battle as a French defeat. That was a bad mistake. You should have looked for more. In 20 minutes, I found 17 sources, including 10 post-1990 sources, which describe the battle as a French victory. And those sources actually present a very detailed account of the battle, and they don't confuse events or plagiarize each other. So I understand your anger, as you've been caught red-handed.
 * My cherry picked sources that you call nonsense without having read them are not less cherry picked than yours, and for my part I've never pretended that all the sources I checked describe a French victory.
 * Calling nonsense the work of 17 historians including reknown ones makes your comment about my motivations quite dubious. Especially when the sources I've cited present a far greater material of analysis about that battle than yours.
 * I don't care that you can swamp the article with sources. You've claimed that all the recent sources you've checked describe the battle as a French defeat, and you've been proven badly wrong. One could call your comment intellectual dishonesty. LaHire07 (talk) 13:36, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * No, there was no mistake and all of them describe the battle (and not the battles or a cherry picked non-notable battle among the many that took place after the famous battle and the final capture of the army) as a crusaders' defeat. I stand by every word I wrote in this comment. M.Bitton (talk) 13:42, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * So you stand by every word you wrote even after I presented to you seventeen different sources which all describe THE BATTLE OF MANSURAH (and not any "cherry picked non-notable battle among the many that took place after the famous battle and the final capture of the army") as a French victory? LaHire07 (talk) 13:49, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, I stand by every word I wrote in this comment. If you have anything of value to add to that, then you're welcome to present it. Good luck! M.Bitton (talk) 13:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The thing is nobody cares about what you think of the outcome of the battle based on your more than incomplete view of the battle itself. What's important is what professional historians think about it, and I've just given you 17 of them, almost all of whom give a detailed account of the battle. Refusing to take them into consideration and calling them nonsense without even having read them is called denial. I hope will understand the problem we're facing here.LaHire07 (talk) 13:59, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Whether you like it nor not, the battle of Mansurah is commonly known as a crusaders' defeat (for obvious reasons. A fact that i supported by secondary and tertiary sources). No attempt at rewriting history in the name of some nationalist BS will change that. M.Bitton (talk) 14:07, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * "commonly known": How do you know?
 * "A fact that is supported by secondary and tertiary sources". A "fact" that is not supported by many other secondary and tertiary sources, as I've shown.
 * "No attempt at rewriting history in the name of some nationalist BS will change that" Are you saying that the 17 historians I cited are rewriting history?
 * Just tell me a reason why you can dismiss these historians as you are doing right now. And do you understand that the battle of Mansurah is far bigger than just the ambush in the town?LaHire07 (talk) 14:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I already explained to you why I'm dismissing your cherry picked nonsense, but since you like repetitions, here it is again.
 * This was a crusaders' defeat, any way you slice it: a) if you concentrate on the notable battle that sealed the fate of the expedition (the one that the RS consistently refer to as the battle of Mansurah), then that's a defeat. b) If you concentrate on the period that the rest of the crusaders spent besieged around Mansurah until their retreat (attacked on a daily basis and starving while the Ayyubids were preparing a checkmate), then that's a defeat too. c) If you concentrate on their surrender, then that's a defeat as well. Luckily, you don't have to do any of that because there are plenty of reliable sources (secondary and tertiary) in English, Arabic and French that describe it as what it was (a crusaders' defeat). M.Bitton (talk) 14:18, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read what these sources have to offer you instead of putting a blinfold over your eyes. You've dismissed them without even reading them. Terrible methodology. We don't care what your personal opinion is. You can't dismiss these 17 historians because you personally don't agree with them. LaHire07 (talk) 15:32, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Haha wow, it's been a long time since I've seen an old-fashioned edit war like this! Like I've been transported back in time to 2005. This has always been the problem with battle infoboxes, everyone gets hung up on the numbers or the results. The whole context of the battle is either ignored or not understood in the first place. So what do we do? Well LaHire's "17 historians" (and however many M.Bitton would like to cite) are a distraction. You could both find 100 sources that say the same thing, it doesn't really matter. Most of them do indeed say this was a crusader victory, as long as you don't read anything further. Every single one of them go on to say the victory was hollow, they gained no advantage from it, and they were destroyed and humiliated shortly afterwards.


 * I would say the historiography of the battle is maybe even more important than the history. Why do we think this was a distinct event in the crusade? Because historians (medieval and modern) wanted to give Louis a great victory here? Why does it matter to us today whether the crusaders won or lost? (All of us here included, LaHire, M.Bitton, myself and anyone else reading this.) What are you trying to say?


 * Anyway, the only solution here is that it was a brief victory followed by utter defeat (which is what all the "17 historians" actually say, as you're surely aware). Personally I would delete the infobox entirely. Infoboxes are the worst. Oh well. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:55, 4 February 2023 (UTC)


 * Could we take the information concerning the initial and subsequent result(s), write said information(like what Adam Bishop has stated) into the article and link the result in the infobox to that particular section? --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:06, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * of course we can, but I believe that our time will be better spent working out what the scope of the article is. Is is about the battle that took place inside Mansurah (the one that sealed the fate of the crusade)? There are plenty of sources that support this; is it about the whole period that the crusaders spent around Mansurah until their retreat and surrender? There are sources that would support this too; or is it about both? That's what I tried to explain in my last comment. M.Bitton (talk) 20:14, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * See, that's exactly what I was talking about. You have not read any account of the battle of more than one page if not one paragraph. The ambush in Mansurah was a part of the battle of Mansurah: "Without waiting for the rest of the army, Robert's vanguard charged through the Muslim camp and into El Mansura itself, where it was trapped in the narrow streets and destroyed. Robert was killed. Louis, who had crossed with the main body, fought a dogged battle with the Muslim army all day, before the Egyptians withdrew, leaving him in possession of the field." Jonathan Riley-Smith
 * Moreover a second major engagement took place on February 11 (which is why the article had the battle going from 8 February to 11 February, and which is why several authors talk about "the battles of Mansurah".) And once again, the French held the ground and pushed back the Ayyubids.
 * You should perhaps have read the accounts I presented to you before dismissing them the way you did.
 * The fact that the French suffered losses they could not replace doesn't mean they were not victorious that day. If you want to make it a Pyrrhic victory, that's not a problem, since it certainly was. Anyway I'll write something when I have time, based on the source material. LaHire07 (talk) 21:15, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Please refrain from replying to my comments (I have zero interest in reading your usual nationalist nonsense).
 * please let me know if you want to take over this and I will forward some relevant reliable sources to you. Best, M.Bitton (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2023 (UTC)

, I have revered your edit to the result parameter because the article does not support the change you made. The article would need to be amended, calling upon WP:RSs before the result parameter can be changed and a consensus reached wrt to the result indicated by the article. Until then, it would be inappropriate to change the result. I would note, that the result parameter refers to the immediate result defined by the scope of the article and the dates of 8 - 11 February. It does not rope in subsequent events. Regards, Cinderella157 (talk) 13:02, 2 February 2023 (UTC)

The purpose of the infobox is to summarise the article. I agree with 's observations and perhaps the best course would be to delete the infobox at this point. That way, the focus might turn to development of the article rather than a non-productive disagreement that cites many sources that aren't being used. , your thoughts on deleting the infobox? Cinderella157 (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the slow response... I have no feelings either way regarding infoboxes. If you and Adam feel the article would be improved by removing said infobox, then so be it. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:55, 7 February 2023 (UTC)