Talk:Fourth Crusade/Archive 1

Error in References
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)
 * Fixed. A simple mistake (Jonathan Harris also writes about the Byzantines and the crusaders). You are welcome to fix mistakes like that yourself, of course. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:03, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Older
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)


 * Yeah, I think that's one of the original paragraphs, probably from the 1911 Encyclopedia or something. I'll see what I can do with it! Adam Bishop 16:18, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)


 * Actually, I see now that it came from the main crusade article, and prior to that it came from the Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religion. I hope it sounds less stuffy now. Adam Bishop 20:09, 27 Nov 2003 (UTC)

The Crusaders opposed what?
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?


 * Dandolo, who joined the crusade during a public ceremony in the church of San Marco di Venezia, proposed that the crusaders could pay their debts by attacking the port of Zara in Dalmatia (essentially an independent community which recognized King Emeric of Hungary as a protector, and which was previously ruled by Venice). Venice was dependent on wood supplied from the Adriatic coast to build and maintain its commercial fleet. Zara had previously been under its control but was taken from them in the 1170s by the king of Hungary. The Hungarian king was Catholic and had himself agreed to join this Crusade (though this was mostly for political reasons, and he had made no actual preparations to leave). Many of the Crusaders were opposed to this, and some, including a force led by the elder Simon de Montfort, refused to participate altogether and returned home.

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)


 * Yes, they were opposed to attacking Zara. Adam Bishop 16:44, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Fixed. Luiscolorado 04:03, 2 June 2007 (UTC)

Recent edits
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)


 * Not at all. I support your edit. Havard 18:12, 10 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Ironically enough, those edits were correct. The Greeks had vandalized the businesses of Venetian merchants in Constantinople, and developed a hostile attitude towards the West, so the sense of revenge by the Venetians is there. The notion of greed and barbarism was an attribute of the French armies. The fourth crusade is known by both contemporaries and modern historians as the "Crusade that went wrong", a real disgrace to the history of the Latin West. This article in a way justifies this crusade as something that "was meant to happen". This is ridiculously wrong by modern standards, if for no good reason, because it uses pretty much the same logical arguments that were used by those crusaders in order to justify their savage actions. Furthermore, the article contains many historical errors, for example it doesn't mention that the crusaders were approached by Isaac Angelos (Alexius IV) and agreed to help him restore his throne. It only says that the crusaders attacked the city out of the blue because those bad Greeks had allied themselves with the Arabs during the 3rd crusade. Anyway, for those and many other reasons, I think this article should be subject to a large rewrite. Miskin 14:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree on your first point. Those edits we not correct. They were strong POV expressions intended on portraying the Venetians as greedy, calculating schemers who more or less planned from the beginning to derail the Crusade. When comparing this to the events described in more recent works on the topic, removing these parts were entirely correct. Furthermore, I'm a bit baffled by your claim that the article didn't mention the contact with the future Alexios IV as it clearly states so in the section 'Diversion to Constantinople' ("In any case, Alexius offered to pay off the Crusaders' debt to Venice, if they would restore his family to the Byzantine throne, an offer Boniface found difficult to refuse.")... That the article could need some rewriting might be so, but on these two issues you are clearly off the mark, IMO. Havard 15:25, 14 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I think you may be confusing those edits, done way back in December, with the more general case. The "revenge" cited was not because of specific vandalism and the anti-western attitude that had developed in Constantinople since the actions of Barbarossa (all accurate claims), but a more general revenge because of Venice's status as a former colony of Byzantium.  Absolutely the crusaders were approached by Alexius IV Angelos, who promised to use his position to supply and fund the crusade to the Levant, but this only reinforces the argument against those controversial edits which claimed an intentionalist POV that the Venetians wanted to raid Constantinople from day one rather than the more realistic view that the desire to raid Constantinople arose mostly from circumstance, i.e., Alexius was enthroned, broke his promises to the Crusaders, and was dethroned and his replacement, Alexius V, sealed the city against them with the Crusaders having not received any of the promised supplies or funds.  All of this just points back to the original problem, the poorly thought out contract made by the leaders of the crusade with the Venetians that included several promises that the crusade leaders found themselves ultimately unable to fulfill. siafu 19:10, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

User:62.6.139.11
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


 * You probably didn't indend to, but you did it anyway since your edits were based on your personal convictions instead of a credible source. I didn't revert you because I thought you had an ethnic bias, I just thought it would be wiser to retain the terminology as it can be seen directly in my sources. You're right about the Byzantines' self-descriptive name "Romans", but we can't ignore the fact that virtually the entire of Europe (both Latin and Slavic) used explicitely the term 'Greeks', ignoring the political connection of Byzantium to the Roman state. Modern Historians who base their terminology on contermporary sources, favour the usage of 'Greek' over 'Byzantine', which after all didn't mean anything. As you probably already now, Ancient Greeks never recognised themselves by that name, they rather called themselves "Hellenes", yet we use the exonym "Greeks" as it was initially applied to them by the Romans and survived to the present day. Furthermore I reverted you because according to your Talk page and recent edit history, you do have a record of pure vandalism . Miskin 14:23, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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?


 * Actually, the fact that they're referred to as "Greeks" in the literature on the subject does mean that we should probably do the same here. siafu 14:52, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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.


 * 'Greek' has historically meant 'Greek-speaking', not just in this context (at least according to the dictionary definition). Why don't you register a username? This way you won't have to be mistaken for vandals who have very recently used the same "public portal". As for the POV-reproduction, maybe you should read wikipedia policies and guidelines before making any further edits. You have no idea how enlightening it can be. Miskin 15:06, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

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)


 * What edits are you talking about? Adam Bishop 03:20, 21 March 2006 (UTC)


 * The ones edited out by Miskin yesterday, I guess. To the one askign the question (please register an account, as it's impossible to refer to you by any name now): It is already mentioned that the Venetians manned the fleet with their own sailors. Do you have any documentation of Venetian soldiers joining the crusade besides the sailors in question? That also goes for the Italian city-states you mentioned. (Montferrat wasn't a city-state, btw) / Havard 13:39, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Pope John's apologies
Regarding this from the lead section (removed):


 * Almost 800 years later, in the summer of 2001, Pope John Paul II issued an extraordinary statement - an apology to the Greek Orthodox Church for the terrible slaughter perpetrated by the warriors of the Fourth Crusade.

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 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)


 * Is it necessary to mention it in the opening paragraph? It's hardly the most pertinent piece of information. Adam Bishop 17:09, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Maybe not, but to remove it under such argument is ridiculous. Miskin 17:11, 23 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Please read what I wrote above, I said we need to pin down exactly what he said and when because the current content is factually in question for a number of reasons as outlined above. -- Stbalbach 18:28, 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. 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)


 * I could really care less. But you seem to disregard and discount other people's POV that he did not apologize. -- Stbalbach 18:51, 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. 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 do you mean "suspicious"? You think I'm a Catholic apologist? I'm a pure blooded heathen. I happened to come across the issue on the Crusade article when someone else pointed out that nowhere does the Catholic Church apologize for the Crusades -- that it was an apology has been entirely an interpretation by other people. It's one thing to try and heal the rift between east and west, the holy grail of any pontif, it's another to come out and apologize. And I can find links that support the no-apology position also. There are multiple POV's - that's why I find your position "suspicious" that you would edit out other people's POV. -- Stbalbach 19:09, 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)
 * "Pope John Paul II made an unprecedented apology for the sins of Christians through the ages, the culmination of the church’s “examination of conscience” for the jubilee year. The pope’s long-awaited “mea culpa” on March 12 was echoed by local churches in the United States and elsewhere and generally welcomed by non-Catholics around the world."
 * '“We forgive and we ask forgiveness!” the pope said during a historic Lenten liturgy in St. Peter’s Basilica. He and seven top Vatican officials pronounced a “request for pardon” for sins against Christian unity, the use of violence in serving the truth, hostility toward Jews and other religions, the marginalization of women and wrongs—like abortion—against society’s weakest members.'


 * Sure, that would be great. Adam Bishop 15:26, 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 - 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)

"emotional apology"?
In fact, this is what the Pope said:


 * "In particular, we cannot forget what happened in the month of April 1204," the Pope said, in reference to the sacking of Constantinople by crusaders. "How can we not share, at a distance of eight centuries, the pain and disgust."

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)


 * Considering what you've reverted in the past, I'm (pleasantly) surprised. It's exactly what needs to be said, it shows multiple POV's with direct quotes and sources. -- Stbalbach 22:51, 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)

Bias
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)


 * Well you are welcome to help fix the article, although I wouldn't go so far as to simply switch the POV from (supposedly) pro-crusader to anti-crusader. The crusaders are well known for causing purposeful destruction? Where, for example? Destroying the Orthodox relics and icons may have helped destroy the power of the Orthodox Church, but does anyone say that specifically? Which popes praised the crusade? Etc. Adam Bishop 02:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The importance of factual information
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.

Destruction of library
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)

Innocent III's comments on the capture of Constantinople
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)


 * It looks to me like a potentially interesting comment on the Crusade by a contemporary who had every right to express an opinion. My comment, therefore, is that it would be better to correct the translation, if we can, than to delete it.
 * If you don't like the formatting, take the quotation out of the "cquote" template and paste it as ordinary text (with ordinary quotes around it, I guess). And rew D alby  22:30, 23 March 2007 (UTC)


 * I find there are a few problems with that translation too. Would anyone object if I make some changes? (under 3)
 * (1) The Latin original:
 * "Quomodo enim Graecorum Ecclesia, quantumcunque afflictionibus et persecutionibus affligatur, ad unitatem ecclesiasticam et devotionem sedis apostolicae revertetur, quae in Latinis non nisi perditionis exemplum et opera tenebrarum aspexit, ut jam merito illos abhorreat plus quam canes? Illi etenim, qui non quae sua sunt, sed quae Jesu Christi quaerere credebantur, gladios, quos exercere debuerant in paganos, Christianorum sanguine cruentantes, nec religioni nec aetati nec sexui pepercerunt, incestus, adulteria et fornicationes in oculis hominum exercentes, et tam matronas quam virgines etiam Deo dicatas, exponentes spurcitiis garsionum. Nec suffecit eisdem imperiales divitias exhaurire ac dirumpere spolia principum ac minorum, nisi ad thesauros Ecclesiarum, et, quod gravius est, ad ipsarum possessiones extenderent manus suas, tabulas argenteas etiam de altaribus rapientes, et inter se confringentes in frusta, violantes sacraria, cruces et reliquias asportantes."


 * (2) Translation offered:
 * "How, indeed, is the Greek church to be brought back into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See when she has been beset with so many afflictions and persecutions that she sees in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, whose swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, are now dripping with Christian blood,­ they have spared neither age nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics."


 * (3) Adjusted translation:
 * "How, indeed, will the church of the Greeks, no matter how severely she is beset with afflictions and persecutions, return into ecclesiastical union and to a devotion for the Apostolic See, when she has seen in the Latins only an example of perdition and the works of darkness, so that she now, and with reason, detests the Latins more than dogs? As for those who were supposed to be seeking the ends of Jesus Christ, not their own ends, who made their swords, which they were supposed to use against the pagans, drip with Christian blood,­ they have spared neither religion [as in 'devotion to religion', for instance: clergy], nor age, nor sex. They have committed incest, adultery, and fornication before the eyes of men. They have exposed both matrons and virgins, even those dedicated to God, to the sordid lusts of boys. Not satisfied with breaking open the imperial treasury and plundering the goods of princes and lesser men, they also laid their hands on the treasures of the churches and, what is more serious, on their very possessions. They have even ripped silver plates from the altars and have hacked them to pieces among themselves. They violated the holy places and have carried off crosses and relics."


 * Iblardi 02:33, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Makes sense, especially your change regarding the "quantumcunque..." phrase, which really gives it a somewhat different meaning. Good job. Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:49, 24 March 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks, I've made the edit. Iblardi 20:18, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Venetian debt
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).


 * While the reduction "to a mere shadow" can be discussed, it certainly was a massive undertaking. According to Robert of Clari the Venetian state suspended all commerce for 18 months, preparing the fleet. Running for such periods without any revenue could put strains on even a rich Venice. Secondly, it wasn't a question of 30-40 thousand marks. According to Villehardouin, only about a third of the contracted amount of crusaders showed, which means that the sum in question was rather around 60 thousand marks, close to an entire year's revenue for the King of France. Havard 21:03, 6 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I think the "mere shadow" statement is unfounded and a much to dramatic way of saying that the venetian state in worst case would go bankrupt. How about editing the lines in question to somethings along the lines of what you are saying then? -Ravage 23:55 07.05.2007 —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.202.60.127 (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2007 (UTC).

Fall of the Empire
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
 * The Byzantine historian Nicetas Choniates characterized it as "the turning point towards the decline of the Roman state"

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)


 * The comment of Choniates referred to the actions of Prince Alexios, who melted down precious gold icons and relics in order to remain under Latin protection. So that prophetic remark was made even before the city fell. The fourth crusade was unarguably the most devastating event in the empire's history. I don't think this is comparable to neither the loss of Alexandria, nor the schism nor Mantzikert. Those disasters had been compensated by the Makedones and the Komnenoi, but this one was too much. The sack of Constantinople by the Latins devastated and depopulated the city. All ancient Greco-Roman treasures that had been gathered in that city for almost 1000 year - ranging from the cross of Christ to the golden statues of Athena and Hercules - were looted, destroyed, and eventually lost. The sack could easily take up an article of its own. Full responsibility of the event goes to the Angeloi, or as they are called by Choniates - the Angels of death. Miskin 22:12, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Reemergence of the Zadar/Zara issue
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)


 * Whither the insult? If it's called the "Siege of Zara", that's likely because it was the Italians who "won".  I'm not sure how this in particular makes them "manipulative", either.  All this is somewhat irrelevant anyway, as it's called Zara in all the relevant literature. siafu 20:30, 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)


 * It's not insulting or POV at all, and it has nothing to do with a pernicious anti-Croatian Italian influence on crusade literature. We just call it Zara; I'm sorry that you are gravely insulted by the missing D, but it is possible to come across an interesting historical tidbit without completely flipping out. Adam Bishop 20:40, 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).


 * Nevertheless, that is what we call it. Adam Bishop 21:05, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Are you saying that you are offended at English speakers correctly using their own language? Why should we not be offended by that? Adam Bishop 21:24, 25 July 2007 (UTC)


 * By this logic, use of names like "Munich" and "Cologne" would be offensive to Germans, and even "Japan" and "China" would be offensive to their respective peoples. I'm afraid that when speaking English, we are bound to use English names unless or until the common name changes.  It's not insulting, it's just a different language. siafu 21:56, 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)


 * That article used to be called Zara (I know because I created it) until some Croatian got offended and moved it to Zadar. The only reason it is referred to as "Zadar" anywhere on Wikipedia is because Croatian users have changed all the references to it. Adam Bishop 22:43, 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)


 * Great, you know why that is? Because Zadar is so irrelevant that nobody cares if it has an English name or not. But in the one instance where it does have an English name, the 1202 siege, I think we ought to be inclined to use it. Adam Bishop 23:20, 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)


 * Because that's what we're suggesting, right. If you don't like my above comparisons, perhaps a more apt one would be the Amu Darya river, referred to in many sources as the Oxus, and the region between it and the Syr Darya as Transoxiana.  You'll note that wikipedia articles on subjects like Timur and Khwarezm use these antiquated terms preferentially because they are relevant to the period being discussed-- exactly the situation here. siafu 00:15, 26 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)


 * You are going to have to explain the difference, as the name "Oxus" was given by native speakers of Latin, so it doesn't have any connection with academic use of Latin. siafu 00:30, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * For the record, no one is suggesting using the name "Zara" outside of this context, so your references to other Croatian cities is a bit confusing. siafu 00:31, 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)


 * That argument is completely irrelevant; the position held here is that since Zadar was known as Zara in the literature of the Fourth Crusade, and by those who occupied it during said Crusade, we call it "Zara" in the article on the Fourth Crusade. Not "in modern times", excepting that this article is written in modern times-- I'm certainly not going to use "Zara" in other situations, which is the rather absurd suggestion you are making.  And your argument regarding Latin is still missing the point rather grossly; Oxus is merely a latinized form of Oxos, which was Greek.  The name was given in describing the conquests of Alexander the Great originally, and stuck in the west until modern times.  In describing the region during the times of Timur, Genghis Khan, or the Roman Empire, the term "Transoxiana" is used, not because anyone is suggesting that that is the proper name to use now, but because that was the proper name to use during the time period relevant to the article. siafu 00:45, 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 became part of an Italian state right in the beginning. I myself am getting a little tired of your repeating yourself, as you've been repeating the same straw man argument and mocking exasperation since the very beginning.  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", so that's the name we use.  We're not talking about modern Zadar, or Zadar before the arrival of the Italians. siafu 00:58, 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)


 * A better solution would be to use "Zara (Zadar)" in the first mention of the actual city, "Zara" thereafter, and include a footnote explaining the name issue. siafu 01:20, 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)


 * I would say that changing names in the middle of the article is worse than using either individual one. I proposed my solution because Zara is the appropriate name from the historical literature and the people involved at the time, and it seems to avoid your principal contention which is that someone might be naively led to believe that "Zara" is the proper modern name. siafu 01:38, 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)


 * I don't recall saying anything was likely or unlikely. You just verified my own statement, which is that you are concerned that someone might read the article and be convinced that the proper name for the city in other contexts is Zara.  In order to fix that, we provide a note explaining and show the name "Zadar" with the first city reference.  Otherwise, we follow the guideline (WP:NAME), which says: "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." 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)


 * Obviously no one called it Zara or Zadar...in Old French (as in Geoffrey of Villehardouin and Robert of Clari) it is Jadres, and in Latin (Pope Innocent III, presumably Marino Sanuto the Elder, and whoever else may have written about it) it is Iadera. Are there any Italian sources this early? (I am not as familiar with Italian crusade chronicles as I should be.) But no one called it Croatia, or Hungary, or Venice, or Jerusalem, or Constantinople, or Egypt, either. And they didn't call themselves crusaders and they certainly had no conception they were on the Fourth Crusade. It would be interesting to trace the evolution of the name "Zara" but the point would be the same - for whatever reason we call it Zara in English. Adam Bishop 03:12, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * What was the point of that comment, exactly? siafu 05:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Oh, nothing, just daydreaming. Adam Bishop 07:18, 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)


 * Actually it would have gone a lot easier if you'd stepped down from the weird nationalist soap box you were on and listened to the arguments presented. But I suppose calling others "offensive" and "uneducated" is just more of the same, and what else should we expect? siafu 14:43, 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)


 * Well, it is true that it is called Zadar on the English Wikipedia because of Croatian wikipedians. As I said, I originally created the article at "Zara", because I didn't even know the city had any modern significance, or a modern name (and surely this is no offense against Zadar or Croatia, but that just goes to show you how significant Zadar currently is). If you interpreted that as my implication that Zara is the modern English name, well I apologize, but as I have said repeatedly to various people over the past week, I really don't care what you call the modern city. In 1202, it was the victim of a crusader siege, and in English crusade historiography, we call that city "Zara". (By the way, Geoffrey of Villehardouin says "Iadres" is in "Sclavonie"...no mention of Croatia at all...) Adam Bishop 17:55, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually the statement: 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 is in fact true. The people of the time, namely those directing the siege, were Italians, and the name used in historiography, AKA THE PEOPLE WHO WROTE ABOUT THE SIEGE OF ZARA, is Zara, as has already been established.  As for the nationalism, perhaps you're right-- it does certainly seem to be, for you, less about the fact that it is not the Croatian name than about the fact that it IS the Italian name (those "manipulative" Venetians!  "Archnemeses"!).  So, less Croatian or Yugoslav nationalist, and more anti-Italian.  Pretty similar when viewed from the outside, I must say.  Finally, we have this: You may expect hard resistance wherever that name is not mentioned in an apropriate historic context.  Strange claim, as we are getting hard resistance when the name is being mentioned only in an appropriate historical context.  siafu 18:42, 26 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, not really...the Italians wrote in Latin, and the French wrote in Latin and Old French, so I don't think anyone called it Zara. I'm looking through the bibliography in "The Fourth Crusade and the Sack of Constantinople" by Jonathan Philips, and the only vernacular Italian source was actually in Old French. There are apparently no Hungarian or Serbian/Croatian sources, but it might be mentioned in some Byzantine chronicles. Maybe the best place to look is "Contemporary Sources for the Fourth Crusade" by Alfred J. Andrea. Now I wonder where Zara comes from too! Adam Bishop 19:04, 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.


 * An answer to last Adam's question: where Zara comes from? It comes from Italian history books written in 19th century, Italian speaking minority in Zadar was trying to save their positions and honors after the fault of Republic of Venice, in the same time large Croatian majority was awakening from a few centuries sleep and a lot of literacy written in the city at that time was coloured by nationalism. So Italian writers simply translated Iadera (Jadera) to Zara. Now, I read somewhere at this talk page that Zadar was not in use in the age of the siege, which is not correct. When Slavic tribes inhabitted the area in 7th, 8th century the city was populated by a few thousands of Dalmatian language speakers, who were ethnically the most probably Romanized ex-Illyrians (Liburnae, Delmatae tribes), but there were also some Latins, Greeks, Ostrogoths,... The name of the city was Iadera or Iader (Jadera or Jader), documents were written in Latin language and it was Jadrensis, Jaderensis, Jadrense, Jadertina, Jadratinus,...). Initial ia- was spoken ya- (same as it would be in present English). This ia- comes from Illyrian origin. In Latin language, same as in Croatian ja- is spoken ya-. And now what's the most important in Dalmatian language it was written ja- and spoken za-, since J was spoken Z! So they wrote JADERA and spoke ZADERA. Croatian inhabitants in 9th century took that name and used it. Since in Dalmatian language first syllable was accented and second was not, ZADERA sounded much more like ZAD'RA or finally ZADRA. Many documents from 11th-13th were found where the city was written JADRA! In Croatian language it was common that city has male gender name not female, because Croatian GRAD (eng. city) is male gender, so they spoke ZADAR with accent on ZAD (same as in the present time)! Second A in ZAD'RA was also not accented so this ZAD'RA lost it in Croatian language and easily became spoken ZAD'R' in both languages Dalmatian and Croatian! Or more precisely ZADra in Dalmatian and ZADar in Croatian. Although Venetians conquered Zadar in 1202 they were not the real rulers of the city until 1409. Their merchants and traders were passing through Zadar and met Dalmatian spoken format ZAD'RA and translated it to Venetian ZARA since D in the name didn't sound very Italian. Even under occupation citizens were not using Zara. In fact nobody used Zara except Venetians in those ages. In French it was Jadres, please don't claim that in English it was Zara. Second sentence of my post explains everything. The history fake is in question so we can make it correct if we use the only real name and it is Jadera (Iadera - would be suitable in English)!!! Even if we use Zadar it is much more correct than Zara, after all it is the name of the city, isn't it?
 * One more point: Zadar has university for a long time, from 14th century! It's not just some hole at the end of the world. This university was closed in 18th or 19th century I think, because of Italian speaking minority politics, they didn't want to have educated Croats as citizens. I wrote "Italian speaking minority" and not Italians because only 3-5% habitants of Dalmatia were Italians by roots in 19th century. New "University of Science and Arts" was formed after WWII and it's prolonging the tradition. The most reachest archive of Zadar history is placed there with documents written in Greek, Latin, Croatian and Italian language. This university was known as a free place for scientists who were not led by politics during communism years and the same situation is at present. Nationalism and science doesn't go together. Please don't call us "Croatian natioalists" just because we are fighting against shameless appropriation of our culture and people. Italians are doing it for last 100 years and in some periods it was official Italian politics. Italian users have many faked Italian sources and it gives us a lot of headache. Example: Luciano Laurana and Francesco Laurana - the famous people of Zadar in Medieval were actually Luciano and Franjo Vranjanin. Surname Vranjanin comes from Vrana - the lake near Zadar, and Vranjanin should be a man who lives by Vrana lake in Croatian language. In Zadar they were called "de Vrana". Vrana doesn't sound somewhat like Italian so V became U, neither URANA sounds like Italian, but LAURANA does! Italy was centre of culture in Europe in those ages and Slavic names were not wellcome there. Since these people made their careers in Italy and France they translated their names to Italian format, but they were still Croats. In the articles about Laurana's it's said they were Italians! If I dispute it, there will be a bunch of users who will mark me as a nationalist. Am I a nationalist? Zenanarh 18:07, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

How many galleys?
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)

Crowning of Alexius IV
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 "Great Fire" and the second attack on Constantinople
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)


 * Which mosque was the one get burnt down? --Roksanna (talk) 08:20, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Attempt at compromise
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)


 * Oh, I wonder what the Aztecs called it. Anyway, fine, good enough. Adam Bishop 06:44, 16 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)


 * Yes. You are. siafu 00:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

??? I don't understand, Variable, how am I being sarcastic?... DIREKTOR 01:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I certainly was! Anyway, this is really very simple: we call it Zara in this context. When you add a lot of explanatory text, it is very very obvious that you are a modern Croatian who is offended by Italians, or whatever you are, and it distracts from the point that in 1202 the crusaders besieged a place we call Zara. Adam Bishop 07:17, 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)


 * Well, we have sources for Iadera and Iadres, but are there any sources that actually call it Zadar? When was that spelling first used? Adam Bishop 14:03, 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)


 * Excuse me but it's not irrelevant! I wrote about it in Zadar talk page. It's well sourced . First Croatian form was found in 9th century. It was name of Zadar citizens (written in plural) - Jaderani - spoken Zaderani, more precisely Zad'rani. In modern Croatian it is Zadrani! Zenanarh 18:12, 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)
 * I know, I was just putting the link to discussion, with a few too many words ;) Zenanarh 22:43, 17 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is entirely irrelevant. This chapter of the Fourth Crusade is a footnote to the entire enterprise.  As such it needs no long-winded discussion of what the city might have been called by the locals.  Such a diversion adds nothing to a reader's understanding of the story of the Fourth Crusade.  Furthermore, the vast majority of English-speaking historians refer to the town solely as Zara.  Finally, the edits inserted by direktor smack of a particular POV (refer "the exploitative policies of the Republic and cultural differences, caused a rebellion some years earlier".  Please feel free to cite a host of English-speaking Fourth Crusade historians to refute my argument. Xenophondb 06:27, 18 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)


 * I think I've already pretty exhaustively shown that no historians ever refer to it as Zadar, except Jonathan Harris, who put it in brackets and referred to it as Zara thereafter. And yes, we're sure it is of great interest to Croatians, but this isn't an article about what modern Croatians are interested in. And yes, surely the Venetians exploited Zara to their full advantage, but maybe they didn't like the Venetian flag, who knows? Do you? Are there any local chronicles that mention this incident? Are there any written in Croatian? Was Croatian even a language then? Adam Bishop 20:21, 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)
 * Can't the name of the city and its history be explained exhaustively at the city's article? On a page about the Fourth Crusade it ought to be called what it is always called in English historiography of the Crusades: Zara. Should we put "modern Yerushalayim" in parentheses at the Siege of Jerusalem articles? Srnec 05:49, 19 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)


 * Zara IS the English name, at least in this context. That's what we've been trying to tell you! Adam Bishop 19:33, 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:
 * - Zara is the modern Italian name.
 * - Zadar is the modern Croatian name.
 * - Zadar is the modern English name.

A.D. 1202:
 * - Iadera (Latin) is the INTERNATIONAL name in the context of the time.
 * - Zadar (Slavic/Croatian) and Iadres (Dalmatian) are the LOCAL names in the context of the time (1202).
 * - Zara is the English name in the context of the time (1202).


 * - Zara is a name NOT USED for the city, in the context of the time, by anyone, except PERHAPS the Venetians (irrelevant, it was not a part of their state at the time of the siege), and they did tot use the name in any contemporary documents, prefering Latin.

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)


 * I am not "ignorant" that the siege is part of local Croatian history - I just don't care. It is not relevant to this topic, which is about the Fourth Crusade.  It is not the section about 'what happened in 1202' on the Zadar page.  I'll repeat my assertion in plainer language for you - It does not matter what the locals called the city, in the language of the story of the Fourth Crusade it was called Zara.


 * How can I be certain that the majority of English-speaking historians call it Zara? By actually reading the academic literature.  Below is a short list of references which call the town only Zara (there are a lot more but I do not intend to invest the time to list more - if you disagree with me, provide the evidence that 'Zadar' is used more frequently in English historical texts).


 * Joinville & Villehardouin (trans: M. R. B. Shaw), Chronicles of the Crusades, Penguin Books, Harmondsworth, 1980


 * Robert of Clari (trans: E. H. McNeal), The conquest of Constantinople, Columbia University Press, New York, 2005


 * C. Morris, 'Geoffroy de Villehardouin and the conquest of Constantinople', History, Vol. 53, 1968, pp. 24-35


 * D. E. Queller, Fourth Crusade: the conquest of Constantinople, 1201-1204, University of Pennsylvania Press, Pennyslvania, 1977


 * D. E. Queller & G. W. Day, 'Some argument in defense of the Venetians of the Fourth Crusade', The American Historial Review, Vol. 81, No. 4. (Oct., 1976), pp. 717-737


 * (There are many other Queller works, but I'll leave them out - he only ever uses Zara. You will no doubt be interested to know that he is a prolific book and journal artilce author on the Fourth Crusade).


 * In contrast I have only come across one work which adopts the approach you are championing, and even there he uses Zadar (in brackets) once then calls the town Zara thereafter:


 * J. Richard (trans: J. Birrell), The Crusades c.1071- c.1291, Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 2001 [contrast page 245 with pages 247-248]


 * And yes, you have as good as admitted deliberate POV - It is not a matter of stating that 'it is well known the city was exploited under Venetian rule'. If the "everybody knows it" argument held true we would have already put this argument about the name of the town behind us (because other than you and zenanarh everyone knows that it was called Zara).  It is not a question of whether people are exploitative.  It is a question of evidence.


 * I note that you have avoided my earlier request to attribute references. Again, please feel free to quote some authoritative sources.  Failing that, everyone's resources would be much better devoted to actually making constructive changes to the article. Xenophondb 10:13, 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:
 * A) The begining of the Fourth Crusade is part of Croatian local history.
 * B) The actual name of the city during the period was Zadar or Iadres or Iadera. Zenanarh explained it in detail above (if he did not cite references, I will promptly ask him to), please read, despite the fact you do not seem to care about an entire nations history.

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 - correct/incorrect
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)
 * Giove, Zadar was not Italian in 1202 and the only reason the name Zara is primary is because it is customary to use it in the context of the time. Your accusations are irrelevant and incorrect because you do not represent Italy (thank god). Zenanarh has explained the matter in the context of 1202 thouroughly. The 19th century maps you found are irrelevant as well, since we are talking about the year 1202. Best regards--DIREKTOR 15:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * PRESENT SOURCES OR SHUT UP!--Giovanni Giove 15:28, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * LOL, oh, I will, my friend, I will. Meanwhile, YOU PRESENT SOURCES THAT THE NAME IN 1202 WAS "ZARA" OR SHUT UP! DIREKTOR 15:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For sure the name was NOT Zadar, if I'm wrong present sources or SHUT UP. In all the Anglosaxon history books we will ALWAYS find "Siege of Zara". We do not know the eaxct vulgar name in 1202 because documents are in Latin. Under Byzantium the name was DIADORA (for sure), for sure under Venice (and later France and Austria) was ZARA. Meanwhile (1202-1400) it was NEVER called Zadar (otherwise present an official documents), as was NEVER officialy called Zadar before WWII. Show the contrary, and do not forget sources. Do not forget that Zara became Croat only after WWII, before it was Austrian, French, Venetian, Hungarian, Byzantine, Francs, Gothics and Roman..... Do not forget that Zara retained until WWII his native italian population, even if with a slavic minority (nobody neglect this) --Giovanni Giove 15:45, 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)
 * Yes. Old dear king Tommy. Can you tell me 1) when Zara was annexed by the Croatian kingdom, 2)when it was pushed out. King Tomislav raised in 925, it seems that in 998 Zara was already indipendent, beacuse it was one of the free cities, that asked the Venitian help against the Narentans (Source: Britannica ). According to Britannica,it was under Byzantine rule till 998, so not Tomislav... Anyway how long was this rule? 20 years 25?... I've tried (I'm serious!!!!) but I've not find mention of the Tomlisav's conquest of Zara (he did not conquered all Dalmatia, just the Northern part and not all the cities). Do not forget sources.--Giovanni Giove 16:53, 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)
 * Cool!:-) Sources? ..... your evil Venitian --Giovanni Giove 17:13, 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)
 * I've already answered, read better plz. Meanwhile, provide your sources TX.--Giovanni Giove 17:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * In 1202 the city was officialy Jadera, and didn't change its name in the next few hundred years. In some documents Jadra was found.

(PROVINCIALE VETUS - Old provincial catalogue or Catalogue of universal Church provinces, Croatian Academy of Sciences and Arts, Zagreb, 2005). 
 * A. Škegro: "PROVINCIALE VETUS – Stari pokrajinski katalog ili Katalog provincija opće Crkve – Provinciale vetus sive Ecclesiae universae provinciarum notitia", Hrvatska akademija znosti i umjetnosti, Zagreb, 2005


 * This is translation to Croatian language of the writing (original in Latin) which is full of data about late-Antique and early-Medieval accidents in church and political life of  cultural Europe, compiled of several sources from different time periods and finally arranged by an author from the fall of early-Medieval ages. Last changes were from 13th century.
 * Previously to this edition it was last published by Jacques Paul Migne in his Patrologia Latina, Paris, 1851, compilation of Medieval sources.


 * It includes one of the most oldest lists of catholic bishops dioceses in Christian Medieval countries.
 * In the section Civitates Dalmatiae et Croatiae num. XX, 19 Croatian cities were noted as sitting places of dioceses. Zadar was noted as civitas Jadera. Zenanarh 18:08, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We alredy knw that Jadera (or Iadera or Jadra) was the Latin name of the city (that one used in Latin documents). What about Zadar? Was this the official name?Giovanni Giove 18:13, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ONLY Iadera is Latin. Diadora is (ancient) Greek. You did not name a single source that claims Zara was the official name for the city in 1202. DIREKTOR 18:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * For the simple reason that I NEVER did this claim, I just said that 'Zadar' is unsourced. Anyway Jadera IS Latin (what else shall it be??)--Giovanni Giove 19:03, 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)


 * We know that in the Medieval Latin the name of the city was wrotten Jadera. As it was usual, we had some variants (Jadra and Jader). We know nothing about the spelling. Furthemore in that time there was not the concept of 'official name', 'official language' or whatever. There was not the concept of nationality and states were based on the power of their ruling classes. We don't know the correct name in the every-day language, because documents were wrotten in Latin. To resume what we know is:
 * 1) Latin name: Jadera
 * 2) The vulgar name two century later: Zara (probably the Venitian way to say 'Zadra').Giovanni Giove 19:03, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Wrong!
 * 1) Liburnian: Iadera, Iader
 * 2) Latin (Roman): Iader, Iadera
 * 3) Dalmatian/Croatian: Jadera, Jadra - Latin: Jadrensium —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Zenanarh (talk • contribs).


 * Nobody said that "Zadar" was official. Jadera = Zadar. Croatian language was in the earlier centuries written mostly in Glagolithic alphabetics especially in liturgy. When Croatian language in Zadar was written in Latin alphabetics it was done by Dalmatian language "grammatics". And in Dalmatian language letter J was spoken Z. Written Jadera was spoken Zad'ra. There's an inscription from 9th century in the St. Simeon's church in Zadar with graphy Jaderani, spoken Zad'rani, which is typical Slavic ethnonym for Zadar citizens (modern Zadrani - people of Zadar)


 * Here you can see variances when Dalmatian/Croatian name Jadera was translated to official Latin:


 * Scripts of Zadar notars in 13th and 14th century:


 * Spisi zadarskih bilježnika Henrika i Creste Tarallo 1279.-1308./Notariorum Jadrensium Henrici et Creste Tarallo acta quae supersunt 1279.-1308.Mtirko Zjačić, Notarilia Jadertina/Spisi zadarskih bilježnika (dalje SZB) 1, Zadar, 1959 (Scripts of Zadar notars (further on: SZB) 1)


 * Spisi zadarskih bilježnika Ivana Qualis, Nikole pok. Ivana, Gerarda iz Padove 1296…1337/Notarium Jadrensium Johannis Qualis, Nicolai quondam Johannis, Gerardi de Padua acta quae supersunt 296…1337. - Mirko Zjačić i Jakov Stipišić, SZB 2, Zadar, 1969.


 * Spisi zadarskog bilježnika Franje Manfreda de Surdis iz Piacenze 1349.-1350./Notarii Jadrensis Francisci ser Manfredi de Surdis de Placentia asta quae supersunt 1349.-1350. - Jakov Stipišić, SZB3, Zadar, 1977. Zenanarh 18:54, 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)
 * Present sources. Tx (BTW: Jadera and Iadera are pronunced in the same way in Latin.... like "Juventus").--Giovanni Giove 19:31, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Mate Suić: «O imenu Zadra», Zadar Zbornik, Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb 1964 ("About the Name of Zadar", Zadar - Scientific essays, Zagreb 1964) on the page 102 mentiones a  document from Medieval (12th century) Cod. dipl. III 231 where Latin Zadur which was Croatian Zadъr was found. This "Latin" literal variance is an example how Croatian name was used in the documents (written in Latin language) related to the Kingdom of Croatia and it clearly shows the weakening of the second syllable also present in Dalmatian variances Jadera->Jadra.  Original source was last published: Smičiklas Tadija, ed. Codex diplomaticus Regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae et Slavoniae, sv. III, Zagreb 1905 Zenanarh 21:06, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
 * It is ONE single document, and the is no reason to consier it a Slavic word. No Slavic languages where normally used in the city in 1202. The vernacular language in 1202 was the Dalmatian language.

Personal Union
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)

"Siege of Zara" - correct/incorrect
Google search, results:
 * "siege of Zara" 2190
 * "siege of Iadera" 0 (Propesed as 'compromise')
 * "siege of Zadar" 10 (including Wiki and some Croatian links, all the other are false positives)

--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! Now present sources for 'Zadar' in 1202 (was Croatian the official language in that time?... d o you have some special documents?)--Giovanni Giove 17:44, 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
 * There are no documents above, just etymological hypotheses (with Latin names derived from... Croat).--Giovanni Giove 20:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Mate Suić: «O imenu Zadra», Zadar Zbornik, Matica Hrvatska, Zagreb 1964 ("About the Name of Zadar", Zadar - Scientific essays, Zagreb 1964)


 * page 103 (translation):
 * …The name of the city was also found in old French chronics which were describing the accidents from Fourth Crusade (P.Skok: Tri starofrancuske kronike o Zadru u godini 1202., Zagreb 1951, - Three old-French chronics about Zadar in the year of 1202). The name of the city was Jadres there. It’s usually considered that this graphy had responded to the local people pronunciation of the name, according to format Jadra which was most found in the documents, with final –s of French language singular nominative. Some of the authors of these chronics were passing through the city so allegedly they were able to hear how native population pronounced the name.  However a somewhat different view is much more convincing. In the age of Fourth Crusade Zadar was very important centre, known much far out of Dalmatia; its name written in official Latin was spreading through the documents and literal writings. Therefore much more logical conclusion is that authors of these chronics, written directly after the accidents that were described (a siege), simply Franchised a conventional graphy Jadra (-e- exchanging –a-  and adding –s for nominative), taken from numerous written sources and without interference by local educated people...


 * Conclusion: original documents about the siege written by French writers in the same year were using JADRES!!! Crusaders were mostly Frenchmen and some of these chronic writers were actually some kind of literal escort of the Fourth Crusade. Zara in "Siege of Zara" was an invention of Italian historians in 19th century. English translators didn't translate from original Latin sources neither from original French crusaders sources, they were using this "second hand" literature which had obviously abused the historical context for political reasons at that moment. Zenanarh 22:42, 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)


 * In general Zadar article is not well edited, many important data are missing. It was not possible to rearrange it because of the edit warring and... Well, we surely must do it and a section concerning etymology of the name should be a part of it, I agree. The next thing to improve would be all history from early Medieval to 20th century (example: history of Zadar without mentioning Madi family is not history of Zadar,...) But that's something we should talk about on Zadar talk page. Cheers. Zenanarh 09:29, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Hooray, everyone finally agrees. However, Zenanarh, who are these Italian historians of the 19th century? Edward Gibbon (an English historian of the 18th century) called it Zara, although the earliest English historian I can think of, Thomas Fuller, called it Jadera. Zara seems to be the name used by everyone, English, French, Spanish, and Italian, in the 19th century. But I suppose you may be pleasantly surprised to find that Zadar is occasionally used by the Germans! Adam Bishop 14:56, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * I would also note that Charles Mills wrote, in 1822, "Jadera is the Roman, Diodora the barbarous, and Zara the modern name for this town." He seems to take this from the French. Adam Bishop 15:53, 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)


 * Why not moving out of that slugishness, Adam. You can do better than that... The name should be used in the proper context. That's all I can say. 18th, 19th century whatever, the city was officially Zara in that period, historians were using Zara. It's Zadar at present historians are using Zadar... oops no, they use it in the historical context. OK than it's Jadera. It isn't? What is it? Zara. Hmm aaah I know! It is really used in the proper context because it is the proper historical context of the book! A book which tells about the accident. So the proper historical context of that historical accident is the proper historical context of the book. Book was from 1837 and historical data were automatically frozen in that year. Hibernated. To awake it we need much more sofisticated future technology. And it's very important that it is the book we like the most. Adam, whatever you like. Zenanarh 16:53, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Well now I'm confused, Zenanarh. You said "Zara in "Siege of Zara" was an invention of Italian historians in 19th century" but that clearly isn't true. Adam Bishop 21:47, 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)


 * You know, I'm not even sure what we're arguing about anymore. Adam Bishop 22:22, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Do you know what is the day, year...? :))) I envy you.Zenanarh 08:39, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Relax Zenanarh, getting personal won't get us anywhere (except with Giove, he is a special kind of boy, isn't he?). Bishop, let's finish this. I will include a small, mildly written sentence, explaining the actual name of the city in 1202. I will not: A) go down to details, B) take up much space, C) include anything about the exploitation of Zara. Now it comes to it, do you agree? DIREKTOR 12:28, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That depends what your actual sentence is. I've added the Latin and Old French names along with the modern name, is that good enough? Adam Bishop 18:50, 22 August 2007 (UTC)


 * All right, I will make the edit, it's the best way to show you what I mean. (You can revert it, of course) DIREKTOR 19:53, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

=Resumée= 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


 * in written Latin documents: Jadera or Jadra (we agree)


 * There are no written documents with the vulgar (= used in the every day language) name used before the Venetian rule -(I think we agree)

Giovanni Giove 20:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We do not agree on the last 2 sentences:
 * - In written Latin documents: Iadera (Latin) AND Jadera or Jadra (vulgar).
 * - There ARE written LATIN documents wich include the vulgar (i know what "vulgar" means) name for the city (instead of the Latin name).


 * Correct me if I'm wrong, but I do not think you understand that Jadera or Jadra (pronounced Zad'ra or Zader) are vulgar names for the city, used before, including and after A.D. 1202. The names are Zadar equivalents. They are not Italian, Croatian or Latin, they are Dalmatian (Dalmatian is a language nerely as separate from Italian as Spanish). It just happens that the current Croatian name is the virtual equivalent the Dalmatian name.


 * READ CAREFULLY: Latin -> Dalmatian (the name is the same in Croatian) -> Italian
 * I.E.: Iadera -> Jader (pronounced Zader or Zadar in Dalmatian) -> Zara


 * How do you believe Zara evolved from Iadera as the Italian name? I would LOVE to hear your answer as soon as possible Giovanni Giove. DIREKTOR 21:23, 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)


 * Well, you're right, I do not have the dedication to commit to this argument! Adam Bishop 03:11, 21 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)


 * Well some anonymous editor has added something in the meantime anyway :) But I still disagree that anything is "demanded" here; I think what I wrote is sufficient (and I am not being selfish or proud, I am just trying to stop this ridiculous argument). What you want to add sounds like a parenthetical distraction. The etymology of Zara/Zadar is very interesting and should be mentioned, but on the Zadar article, not here. Adam Bishop 05:59, 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)
 * D. your only aim is to show that Dalmatia was Croat and only Croat since the time of King Tomislav, and that Zara/Zadra/Jadra or whatever rebelled to preserve the "Croatian freedom" against Venitian.... Those thesys are no so relevant here (BTW find me a line where I wrote that the 'official' name was 'Zara' in 1202).
 * Anyway I can't see 'misunderstanding' in the present version.
 * --Giovanni Giove 10:26, 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)
 * Quote me a single line were I wrote these supposed climes. In coastal Dalmatia lived for centuries an autoctone Italian community that had his roots in the Latin people, which survived to the Slavic invasions. Zara was a city were this community has survived as a majority until XX century. No comment on your paranoid personal attacks.Giovanni Giove 17:10, 21 August 2007 (UTC)


 * That autochtone "Italian" community of yours is mostly of "Illyrian" Haplogroup I1b (Y-DNA), popularly called "Dinarian" Giove, you didn't noticed that this is Fourth crusade talk page? Your propaganda doesn't have a place here. Zenanarh 17:33, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Ethnicity is not connected with DNA(except for the Nazis, of course), and old Illyrian had no connection with Slavs. Try something else. Giovanni Giove 17:42, 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)
 * "Romans were not Italians": cool! But, honestly, who cares? Italian culture gradually grew up from Latinity during all the Middle Age, and Roman Dalmatians were involved in this process, connected with Italy by language, culture, laws, economy and trade (by mean of the the Adriatic routes) and separated from the Balkan mainland by the Dinaric Alps. Of course the process involved just the developed coastal Latin cities, and not the inland (for an easy-to-find source: see Britannica1911).

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)
 * Even Lombard, Sicilian, Sardinian, Friulan, (etc.) langauges are different from Italian (MORE than Dalmatian).Ethnicity does not coincide with the vernaculars, but with common habits and culture. Dalmatians became Italian together all other Italians: they slowly built the Italian culture like all the other "Italics" people (and not Aragona!). Dalmatians were Italians in the same way of Lombards and Venetians when these last arrived.Giovanni Giove 19:51, 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)
 * Nice Croatian POVs:) But we are talking about the Middle Age... and I repeat:ethnicity does not coincide with a grammar...and BTW, Dalmatian even today, is quite well understandable.... more than the Lombard or the Sicilian!For sure, more than the Serbocrotian.Giovanni Giove 20:14, 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)
 * Refrain your hysteria, and read a WROTTEN Dalmatic document! Amd then try to read a Lombard one (if you know Italian). I don't know what is an "officially" different culture. Aragona what a distant and indipendent country, far and with few links with Italy. --Giovanni Giove 20:35, 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)


 * Direktor it's no use to argue with his childish claims, he doesn't even know what is he talking about. His claims and conclusions are ridicilous. There's no even basic knowledge of history and culture of Dalmatia and all of the region from his side. He's just a frustrated boy from Venice who reads a little bit controversial authors of somewhat more controversial theories which were succesfully and easily disputed a lot of times in the science world, but he doesn't even know it. It's out of date. His political attitude is 150 years old fossil. Zenanarh 20:53, 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)
 * Cool, so maybe you will have time to find proper SOURCES.Giovanni Giove 21:13, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure, junior, whatever you say. DIREKTOR 21:18, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
 * ....such as Dalmatic and king Tomislav?Giovanni Giove 21:24, 21 August 2007 (UTC)

Comment to Adam Bishop, Giove and DIREKTOR
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.
 * DIREKTOR YOU ARE THE THE ONE THAT INSULTS. I STRONGLY SUGGEST YOU TO STOP WITH PERSONAL ATTACKS AND UNDECENT AND FALSE ACCUSATIONS. Anyway you are costantly reported to ADMINs, and soon you will have proper news.Giovanni Giove 12:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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 modern Croatian. In 1202 we SUPPOSE that the name of the city was pronunced 'Zadra'(in Dalmatian language). Thus this therm was never reported, because we do not have documents in Dalmatian. Zadar is modern croatian and it is not equvalent of "Zadar". The title should be (pheraps!! ) Zara (Zadra).Giovanni Giove 18:11, 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)
 * Giove is up to do nothing, but SOURCED edits; it sometime they do not fill the believing of an exclusive Croatian possesion on Dalmatia since the times of King Tomislav, that is not my problem.

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)
 * Dear, 'Zadar' is NOT equivalent of 'Zadra'. The 1st is Slavic, the 2nd Dalmatian. Your just try, as usual, to impose your pushing Croatian POVs. I suggest you to stop with paranoid accusations, insults and personal attacks. Present, if you can, proper sources and comments. You did not actually present a single valid argument to justify the use of the therm 'Zadar' (different from 'Zadra'!!!) in 1202.Giovanni Giove 11:31, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Listen G.G. misinterpreting of others comments or conclusions by your side is nothing new. In fact I cannot remember when you wrote last time something by sense. We already got used to it. Anyway this is Fourth Crusade article, not Zadar. I have suggestion: let's make something like stopping of discussion here so these people, Adam and other "Crusaders fans", have a little peace on this page. Zenanarh 13:24, 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)

Deleted another nationalistic POV
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.


 * The Hungarian historiography doesn't recognizes the document itself not the Pacta Conventa (The terms agreed on) between Hungary and Croatia. All historians agree that the agreement was there and this was evident in the fact Croatia retained it's own parliament (Sabor), had it's own ruler (Ban) who acted in the name of the king and in the fact Coloman crowned himself separately as King of Croatia and Dalmatia (Rex Croatorum et Dalmatiae) in Biograd na moru.--DalmatinoA 13:08, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't know what this is all about but the Fourth Crusade article is not the proper place for it. I don't know much about medieval Hungary or Croatia, and I will investigate further, but when they enter into the history I am familiar with, the crusades, Croatia is never mentioned. The kings of Hungary are referred to as kings of Hungary only, in both contemporary chronicles and modern histories; various Slavic peoples are sometimes mentioned, but never in the context of possessing their own kingdom. They are just part of Hungary, or Byzantium, or, dare I say, Venice. What it sounds like here is Hungary conquered some Croatian petty kingdom and graciously allowed them to keep their own king as a Hungarian client. And now we have two claims, one by Direktor that Hungary and Croatia were in "personal union", and one by DalmatinoA who believes Croatia still had its own ruler. What is going on? Are there two kings or one? I suppose this would be equivalent to saying the Roman Emperor was in personal union with the King of Judea. In any case there is no point in mentioning that in this article. Adam Bishop 15:04, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bishop, someone is now trying to say that the Hungarian King was not a king of Croatia as well, but that Croatia was annexed. Something like saying that Queen Elisabeth II is not the queen of Canada, but that Canada is part of Great Britain. There is confirmation of the personal union agreement between Hungary and Croatia (the Pacta Conventa). It is well known that Croatia did enter a personal union with Hunagary, just the authenticity of the archeological document found is disputed, not the personal union. This person has obviously misunderstood, but will probably now refuse to back down.
 * (Not again,) there is need to mention this, because when Zadar was part of the Kingdom of Hungary (and Croatia) it was part of the Croatian "section" of that realm. A noteworthy fact since it is, after all, a part of Croatia nowadays. It is a matter of leaving the correct two words "...and Croatia" in the article that were added there nearly a week ago by moi. Please agree, please? DIREKTOR 16:17, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Bishop you didn't read my message as you should. Croatia entered in a personal union with Hungary, the Hungarian king who was also crowned as a Croatian king appointed a Viceroy (Ban) who acted in his name. I was very clear on that in my previous post. Check the the Ban (title). Ban was basically a Hungarian Viceroy of Croatia who acted in the name of the Hungarian-Croatian king. I suggest you read up on the history of Hungary, Croatia and especially to read Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen and Croatia in the union with Hungary. The reason why they were all simply referred as Hungary is because all lands under the Hungarian crown were called Archiregnum Hungaricum. And last, this should be in the article because Zadar was closely associated with Croatia, the very reason why Hungary had a claim on the Dalmatian cities is because of the Croatian title they obtained through the Pacta Conventa. The Dalmatian cities were semi-autonomous communities in vassalage with Croatia even before Croatia entered in union with Hungary. This all wouldn't be an issue if certain user didn't started to falsify historical facts, I don't have any problem with the rest of the article as it is, nor am I interested in this ongoing name dispute.--DalmatinoA 17:38, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

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)


 * Yeah, me too. Adam Bishop 18:13, 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)


 * Once the Hungarian Kings became Kings of Croatia as well they were Kings of Croatia - not the Ban who was only a deputy. There is no justification for retrospectively depriving the King of Hungary and Croatia of one of his kingdoms. Str1977 (talk) 23:28, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * No one was depriving anyone of anything. I made it clear that Ban (Viceroy) was appointed by the king to administer the kingdom in the name of the king.--DalmatinoA 14:09, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I applaud your objectivity, Str1977. DIREKTOR 23:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Great, but what does that have to do with the Fourth Crusade? Adam Bishop 02:39, 25 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)
 * In that case we should always write "Franz Joseph I", as

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)


 * The emphasis is there because Zadar was part of Croatian part of the kingdom and thus part of Croatian title. --DalmatinoA 14:46, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Actually it was never part of the indipendent Kingdom of Croatia. After it was conquered by the Hungarians, but it was never included by them, into the Hungarian ruled Kingdom of Croatia. Giovanni Giove 14:59, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * But wasn't Zadar actually an independent city-state at the time, just like Venice? It wasn't part of Italy, or Hungary, or Croatia...it allied with Hungary, as a separate state. Adam Bishop 14:51, 27 August 2007 (UTC)
 * No. Zadar was never an independant city-state. They had certain level of autonomy so they were sort of vassals. Zadar acknowledged the rule of Croats since the 9th century and also during the times of Petar Krešimir IV and Dmitar Zvonimir. During the time of Fourth Crusade they acknowledged the rule of Emerik of Hungary who was also at that time 'King of Croatia' and Zadar was due to this, part of Croatian part of the kingdom as the Hungarian royal family inherited all claims and all terms with those communities due to Croatian title. --DalmatinoA 15:17, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

DIREKTOR
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)


 * I know about that, just read this article (more carefully), Emeric of Hungary. It is well known that the Kingdom titles of the King of Hungary were that of Hungary and Croatia (this included Dalmatia, of course). Other titles, like King of Serbia, were disputed and not realised (except in Vojvodina). They were mostly claims and did not last long. But this is beside the point, the main reason I added "and Croatia" is that Zadar (Zara) was part of that Kingdom of the Crown of St. Stephen. I excluded other possible (and there are many lesser titles) of the King because of their irrelevance to the matter at hand. (I still really doubt the Hungarian king was the King of Serbia and Bosnia in practice in 1202...)

"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)

Incorrect Terminology
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?

The Vryonis quote
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)

Picture of the 4th crusade
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)

Mosque
Which mosque was the mosque the crusaders set on fire in 1204? --Roksanna (talk) 20:21, 12 September 2009 (UTC)