Talk:Battle of Dorylaeum (1147)

message: I believe that I have found the origin of the 18,000 casualty figures. They appear, as 9/10ths of the German army, in Sir Steven Runciman's History of the Crusades Vol. II, a book published in the 1950s that had a great impact on subsequent scholarship. In it he cites a number of primary sources immediately after his casualty figures. I have looked at the treatment of the battle in these works and they do not give such a figure. Runciman seems to have made a guestimate, and the figure should not be treated as canonical. I will revert any edits that remove the moderating statements and words of caution that I have added to this figure. Urselius (talk) 16:18, 22 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: Are there any sources concerning Conrad and the number of troops he brought to the Siege of Damascus (1148)? --Kansas Bear (talk) 16:00, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have been looking for anything on numbers. The only substantiated ones are the numbers for named German survivors, deaths and 'unknowns' for the Second Crusade as a whole. The whole Medieval army numbers and casualties field is a nightmare. Things like the numbers of 'knight's fees' are known for kingdoms and principalities, then there are contemporary records for battles that give numbers in excess of the total number of knights fees in the whole kingdom (and some fees would be possessed by those too old or young to fight). At Arsuf in the Third Crusade the Crusaders were said in contemporary accounts to have numbered 100,000 and the Ayyubids three times that number, patently ridiculous numbers. German losses at Doryleum were certainly very heavy, but there were enough left for some to go to Constantinople (then later to be shipped to Palestine), others to take ship from Attaleia, and yet others to go overland through Cilicia. It looks like very bad planning, but not the actions of a negligible number of men. Urselius (talk) 16:27, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Nicolle, p. 55, says a contemporary figure for the Crusader army at Damascus was 50,000, but he emphasises that all Medieval army numbers are unreliable. This would have been the French, Germans and the army of the Kingdom of Jerusalem combined, but the author says, whatever its true numbers, it was a formidable army. Interestingly, the German author of Annales Herbipolenses speaks of meeting many returned soldiers who had been captured by the Turks, whose ransoming had been arranged by the Armenians of Cilicia (Nicolle, p. 81). Urselius (talk) 21:26, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Casualty figures 

message: The source states that it was a decisive victory for the Seljuks. but Urselius is constantly changing it  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mnl0g 044 (talk • contribs) 15:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Mnl0g 044, known to be a sockpuppet of Smokva26, and now banned. Urselius (talk) 11:39, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Actually you are at 4rr and are removing a reference and referenced information. --Kansas Bear (talk) 15:55, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

text: Decisive? 'Decisive' does not mean the same as 'a major victory' or a 'very one-sided battle', it means that it decided the outcome of a war. Dorylaeum stopped the German Crusaders from overrunning the Seljuk Sultanate of Rum, or taking Konya, but that was not the major aim of the Crusaders, their major aim was to get to Syria to bolster the Crusader States after the loss of Edessa. Dorylaeum did not stop the Crusaders from getting to Syria, it was not decisive in the way this word is usually used in Wikipedia. A publication in Turkish which is claimed to say that the battle was decisive, is not all that useful as the context of the usage cannot be checked by non-Turkish speakers. Allied with the bald fact that the battle did not decide whether the Crusaders reached Syria or not, they obviously did reach Syria, means that there is insufficient support for the word 'decisive' being included in the result section of the infobox. This should be viewed in the context of the decisive nature of the Battle of Waterloo being seriously challenged by some Wikipedia editors. A decisive battle that has entered the English language as the epitome of decisiveness, "Meeting my/your/his/her Waterloo". Urselius (talk) 09:05, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

text: See Template:Infobox military conflict, terms such as "decisive" are not used. This is Wikipedia policy. Urselius (talk) 11:07, 29 October 2020 (UTC)

text: From first principles of logic and word meaning a decisive battle has to decide something. It did not stop the Germans reaching Syria, which was their goal, therefore it did not decide the outcome of the war. It is a simple concept. However, in a Wikipedia context 'decisive' is not supposed to be used, see: Template:Infobox military conflict; I quote, "Do not introduce non-standard terms like "decisive", "marginal" or "tactical", or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". Omit this parameter altogether rather than engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Urselius (talk) 20:08, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive victory