Talk:Battle of Montgisard

message: Society is smothered in Political correctness today. Why did the movie Kingdom of Heaven not include this Battle? I know its not decisive, despite being a costly defeat for the Arabs, but then again, why bother include so many other things?
:Because it took place outside of the time frame of the movie? Because there isn't enough info to reconstruct it? Because the writers just didn't feel like it? Who knows? Who cares? Baldwin mentions it, at least. Adam Bishop 09:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Political correctness 

message: Ahem, i have doubts as to whether this battle ever took place: i've read, and am re-reading The Crusades Through Arab Eyes by Amin Maalouf, and no mention of it (yet, Mr Maalouf does not tend to skip over the muslims' defeats, that i've noticed); 2nd, i look in this 1957 Britannica, and have not found anything yet: nothing in the Saladin article, nor in the "Baldwin VI" (its main article, and all other references in the index checked), no entry in the index for "Mont Gisard"; no "Mont Gisard" in my french "Petit Larousse" (the equivalent of an english Webster College Edition). Googling "battle Montgisard" returns lots of hits, but i do wonder.
I added a banner requesting sources, and verification. TIA.
--Jerome Potts 10:24, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This is one of those old articles that we never bothered to give sources for. Of course it happened, though. I don't see it in Maalouf either, and it's not in Gabrieli's Arab Historians of the Crusades, but it is mentioned by Baha ad-Din. Baha says it took place near Ramla, not Montgisard specifically, but Montgisard was just a little castle outside the city of Ramla. William of Tyre mentions it in detail. Steven Runciman notes that it is also mentioned in Ernoul, Michael the Syrian, Abu Shama, and Ibn al-Athir. Malcolm Lyons and D.E.P. Jackson list Imad ad-Din as well, but they question whether it really took place at Montgisard. Bernard Hamilton adds al-Maqrizi as a source. Apparently Roger des Moulins also wrote a letter about it. Of the primary sources I only have Baha ad-Din and William of Tyre handy, but they definitely mention it. Adam Bishop 17:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Wow, sounds good. Thank you for the prompt reply. I hope you will find the time to include the refs. Hey, i see no article on Behaeddin; wanna create one? --Jerome Potts 05:29, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, I rewrote some of it and added some sources. How is it now? Baha ad-Din does need an article, as does Imad ad-Din...someone will get around to them someday. Adam Bishop 09:53, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Very nice. Thank you. --Jerome Potts 18:35, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: May I add that the identification of Mons Gisardi with Geser or Jezer is probably fortuitous, based on the similarity of the words. Gisardi is a French word, a name, whose origin and meaning I do not know, but it is certainly not a corruption of Geser. Ramla was an administrative district that extended almost up to Ascalon. The battle took place only a few hours' march from Ascalon at most, so it could have not been anywhere near the town of Ramla itself, such as near Gezer. There is a river mentioned, and there is not one flowing by Geser either. Besides, one of the Arab historians mentions that Saladin was preparing to lay siege on a Crusader fortress and there was one standing on al-Safiya, the hill near the village of Menehem that the Arab sources refer to. It has been identified as Blanchegarde, a fort that Saladin eventually destroyed in a later campaign. So unless there were other hills with the name of al-Safiya in the district of Ramla, Montgisard is probably modern Tell es-Safi, near Menehem. One of the roads to Jerusalem begins to traverse the hills at this point, which was probably why the Crusader fort was placed there. If it is true that the Crusaders built a monastery at the location of the battlefield to commemorate their victory, then there is hope future archaeological excavations could locate the battlefield. At least two modern historians have considered Mons Gisardi to be Tell es-Safi itself or a nearby hill.Skamnelis (talk) 03:37, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

text: Nah, the Battle of Ascalon was another, and earlier. --Jerome Potts (talk) 05:05, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

text: Agreed. I read somewhere that the Crusaders had about 7,000 men in total, including knights etc. While percentage wise, Saladin lost many more troops than the Crusaders did, I don't see how it could be classed as anything but a decisive victory - it couldn't be a pyrrhic victory as the main Crusader army wasn't even present at the battle - it was much further north. Most of the Crusaders that fought at Montgisard were levies. (82.28.237.200 (talk) 13:12, 15 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  did it happen at all? 

message: I'm detecting a Crusader bias here. Anyone with me?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.229.233.34 (talk) 02:04, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NEUTRALITY ALERT!!! 

message: Someone needs to provide a decent secondary source with thorough research in primary sources to back up the numbers, namely that Saladin lost 23000 out of 26000 men!  It simply doesn't add up.  First, Saladin had difficulty raising that many men and when he did, it was for major operations.  So let's say it was, for sake of argument.  In which case, Saladin would've brought up most of his heavy cavalry, which normally did not exceed 10000 - 20000 men at any given time, and were crucial in fending off formidable Latin knights and their irresistible charge.  Furthermore, these men were expensive, in not only materiel but also in time invested, just as knights were.  They absolutely could not be replaced easily or in speed.  For a major operation, Saladin could take anywhere from 10000 to 15000 heavy cavalry with him.  And since this was a major operation involving 26000 men and one that involved fighting Latin knights, at least 10000 of them should've been his irreplaceable heavy cavalry.  Therefore, if he really did lose 23000 out of 26000 men, his heavy cavalry should've been almost completely wiped out.  Which means that his offensive capability almost completely wiped out for foreseeable future, yet not only did he invade Jerusalem again in a few years, but he also had no problem projecting his power into Aleppo and Mosul.  What this tells me is that either the total numbers or the number of casualties is grossly inflated.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.20.242.108 (talk) 03:58, 18 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  The numbers sound like complete bogus 

message: Please see new discussion section at Talk:Battle of Marj Ayyun about what is meant by term "Egypt" and/or how readers not immersed in the local history, arriving from elsewhere, can understand what is going on. --Doncram (talk) 22:09, 26 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Eqypt" meaning what??? 

message: why my edit deleted through add 2 source?Deutsch wiki say that casualties is 20.000 too.
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schlacht_von_Montgisard
https://www.thoughtco.com/crusades-battle-of-montgisard-2360719 "While exact casualties for the Battle of Montgisard are not known, reports indicate that only ten percent of Saladin's army returned safely to Egypt. Among the dead was the son of Saladin's nephew,"https://historyonthisday.com/events/crusades/battle-of-montgisard/ "Baldwin himself, covered in sores and bandages, was in the thick of the fighting. Saladin eventually fled the field and escaped to Egypt with only a tenth of his army."78.175.233.5 (talk) 12:45, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Neither source is reliable. Also, Wikipedia can not be used to reference Wikipedia articles.   Are you the IP that has continues to remove, "greatly exaggerated"? That is referenced information, and continued removal of referenced information can result in a block or ban. --Kansas Bear (talk) 12:56, 3 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Caualties