Talk:Tancred, Prince of Galilee

Untitled
The following sentence does not make sense:

"In 1099 during the assault on Jerusalem Tancred, along with Gaston IV of Béarn, or Gaston of Beert was the first Crusader to enter the city on July 15."

A comma should be inserted between "Jerusalem" and "Tancred", and another between "Beert" and "was"; but beyond that, there's the question of who is the subject of the verb, "was". If Tancred was the first to enter Jerusalem, and Gaston was with him, then "along with" is inappropriate; "accompanied by" would work. But if the two of them were first, then "was" must change to "were" and "Crusader" to "Crusaders"; and again "along with" should be changed, in this case to "and". Incidentally, I don't think "crusader" should be capitalized, and I'd prefer to see a comma after "in 1099". I'm assuming, though the text is ambiguous, that the two "Gaston" appelations refer to the same person.

-- Marshall Price (user D021317c), June 8, 2006, 2:09 AM (EDT)


 * I think I've fixed it...how is it now? The bigger problem, I think, is that various people claimed to be the first to enter the city, so I've alluded to that as well. Adam Bishop 06:21, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm Confused!!!
"He and Gaston took hundreds of Muslim prisoners, providing protection to some on the roof of the Temple. However, the following morning he issued a command to the Crusaders to proceed to the Temple and kill the rest of the population that had been assembled there, Muslim and Jewish, both male and female. It may have been that the Western Europeans could not distinguish between the features of the Arab and Jewish populace."

It was my understanding that Tancred gave protection to those utop the Al-Aqsa Mosque and that they were massacred against his wishes. The above paragraph makes it sound like he ordered them to be killed. But at the bottom, it says the Crusaders couldn't "distinguish between the features of the Arab and jewish populace." What does this mean? Does this mean he sent the crusaders to kill just the Jews, but all were killed instead? (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 20:39, 18 August 2006 (UTC))


 * I'm not sure there is an answer to this...different sources say different things. It is my understanding that he tried to save some of the Muslims, presumably to ransom them, but someone else ordered them to be killed against his wishes. I'll look around to see what the consensus is. Adam Bishop 22:18, 18 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for helping me out. (!Mi luchador nombre es amoladora de la carne y traigo el dolor! 22:53, 18 August 2006 (UTC))

Incorrect factoid
The article says Tancred refused altogether to swear the oath to Alexius. This is false. He refused to swear at Constantinople; however, after the capture of Nicaea, he so swore. It is said in Runciman, volume 1. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 60.242.167.154 (talk) 04:26, 9 October 2013 (UTC)