# Talk:Siege of Damascus (1148)

I don't think "fiasco at Damascus" was how that was known...that's just the title of the Internet Medieval Sourcebooks page. I also don't think it's appropriate to use Britannica as a source...why use some other encyclopedia to reference our own? They can only be using the same sources we have access to! I'll add some more references soon. Adam Bishop (talk) 07:43, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Ok, it's pretty clear that Britannica was using Runciman, so I replaced those references. Runciman is perhaps not the most up-to-date source, and he could stand to be replaced by a newer general reference like Tyerman's "God's War"; the information is more disjointed and spread across a larger number of pages, but he has a more modern analysis of the events, which also needs to be incorporated here. William of Tyre, ibn al-Qalanisi, and Usamah ibn Munqidh could also be utilized more (plus any other contemporaries I don't have in front of me). The reference to Marshall Baldwin is incomplete, but I'm not sure how to fix that in the cite-template - it is a chapter in vol. 1 of Setton's compilation, mentioned in the external link. Also, perhaps I am just old and stubborn, but I don't understand how to use "ref name" if I am referring to more than one page, so I just used regular "ref" tags.
There are a few articles in journals or edited books about the Second Crusade which we could use here. Unfortunately there isn't a general monograph dealing with the Second Crusade specifically; I was sure one had just been published, or is about to be published, but I can't think of it, if it exists. I'll try to keep adding more refs as I find them. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:10, 28 March 2008 (UTC)
It is refered to as "The Fiasco at Damascus" in Riley-Smith. It is a small point.
As for Brittanica, I agree, but my Runciman is still in storage (the new project caught me by surprise) and I haven't gone to pick it up yet. You present some good ideas to push it to FA status. I think it is probably close to GA. There is still one paragraph with no cites at all that could be problematic. -- Secisek (talk) 22:58, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

The chapter in Runciman is "Fiasco" as well. That's probably where it comes from. Adam Bishop (talk) 05:49, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Aha, I was right, there is a new monograph about the Second Crusade: "The Second Crusade: Extending the Frontiers of Christendom" by Jonathan Phillips. We should definitely use that for the whole series of articles. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:46, 30 March 2008 (UTC)
Also "The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences", by Phillips and Hoch, which I see has been used...we should use that more too! Adam Bishop (talk) 09:06, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Do you think the Council warrants a separate article? I was thinking about that a few years ago when I originally expanded the Second Crusade article and created this one. There didn't seem to be much that couldn't be said in the main article, so I didn't make a separate one. But I've compiled a list of participants on my sandbox, so maybe that is a start. Adam Bishop (talk) 06:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

Wow, I was thinking that myself. I encourage you to be bold about it. -- Secisek (talk) 07:59, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Done - Council of Acre. That's the best I can do with books on my shelf at this time of the morning :) Adam Bishop (talk) 12:28, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
I went and picked up my Runciman from storgae today, Siege of Lisbon should be the next target. -- Secisek (talk) 02:03, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm happy to pass this for GA, its a well written short piece on what seems to be a fairly short engagement. I have a couple of comments but neither should hold up this GA nomination.

Firstly, the lead talks about a generation of recriminations but the aftermath section does not really emphasise this. Think about expanding it to include some more information about specific conflicts this bad feeling created.
The link Mujahideen in the lead is not helpful. The article it links to does not relate to this historical mujahaideen at all as far as I can see and thus is a bit misleading. Is there a better term which could be used here to replace Mujahideen?
Otherwise its great. Well done.--Jackyd101 (talk) 18:53, 29 March 2008 (UTC)
Suggestions were helpful. Thank you for your time! -- Secisek (talk) 02:05, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The current narrative has this paragraph;  
"The crusaders decided to attack Damascus from the west, where orchards would provide them with a constant food supply. Having arrived outside the walls of the city, they immediately put it to siege, using wood from the orchards. On 27 July, the crusaders decided to move to the plain on the eastern side of the city, which was less heavily fortified but had much less food and water. Nur ad-Din Zangi arrived with Muslim reinforcements and cut off the crusader's route to their previous position. The local crusader lords refused to carry on with the siege, and the three kings had no choice but to abandon the city. The entire crusader army had retreated back to Jerusalem by 28 July."
Certainly the words above cannot be correct!  It actually states that the crusader army moved from the east side of Damascus on 27 July, and returned to Jerusalem on 28 July! (retreated back to Jerusalem by 28 July!)  Does this mean that the entire Crusader army was able to break camp and quick march back to Jerusalem in one full day or less?  I certainly doubt it!  How about you?69.92.23.64 (talk)Ronald L. Hughes  —Preceding undated comment added 18:53, 18 August 2010 (UTC). 
The distance is about 135 miles as the Corvus flies!  By land it might well approach 160 miles! 69.92.23.64 (talk)Ronald L. Hughes  —Preceding undated comment added 18:57, 18 August 2010 (UTC). 

Maybe "Jerusalem" means the Kingdom itself, as the northern parts of it were pretty close to Damascus. Adam Bishop (talk) 19:03, 18 August 2010 (UTC)
If so it should be clarified. --The Ivory Cowboy (talk) 19:53, 29 July 2017 (UTC)