Talk:Second Swedish Crusade

Untitled
I replaced both with the latter in the following sentence: “Sweden's previous attempts to gain foothold in Estonia in 1220 and at the Neva in 1240, both its traditional long-term colonies from the Viking Age, had ended disastrously...” There are no Scandinavian or Estonian historical sources which could even remotely interpreted as talking about colonies in Estonia, nor have any archaeological sites (e.g. burials) ever been discovered which would contain evidence of Viking settlers in Estonia. Sagas and chronicles contain a lot of narratives about raiding both ways, but nothing about colonization or settlements of either Estonians in Sweden, or Swedes in Estonia. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.56.203.6 (talk) 00:33, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Semi-historical
What on earth is a semi-historical expedition? Either it is historical or unverified or disputed. "Semi-historical" doesn't make sense especially since the article goes on to explain what the consequences of this "semi-historical" crusade were. --RandomNumberSee (talk) 00:20, 28 April 2009 (UTC)
 * I was wondering the same thing, and simply removed the wording. Without a proper explanation or link to a page explaining what "semi-historical" means in this context (there is currently no such page), it made no sense whatsoever. I can see how a novel or myth could be semi-historical, but not a medieval military campaign. - Alltat (talk) 17:19, 6 October 2010 (UTC)

Citation
I added the citation from Eric`s Chronicle but the style could be better. So if any of you have experience with templates that could work here, please edit. --Velivieras (talk) 15:36, 25 December 2016 (UTC)