Talk:Siege of Lisbon

message: Arnold III of Aerschot, Christian of Ghistelles, Simon of Dover, Andrew of London and Saher of Archelle are not listed in Runciman and are of questionable notability. Does anyone have a citation for these fellows? -- Secisek (talk) 08:10, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah they're listed at the beginning of the anonymous De expugnatione Lyxbonensis (The Conquest of Lisbon, trans. by Charles Wendell David). Jonathan Phillip's new book also mentions them on page 143. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:22, 31 March 2008 (UTC)

text: I think they should be named here as the leaders of the expedition, but without the wikilinks. I don't know about the others but Arnold could have an article...he was related to Godfrey of Bouillon, ruled an imperial county, and is attested in other places unrelated to the crusade. But I don't imagine anyone ever bothering to write about him, so he can remain unlinked until someone does. Adam Bishop (talk) 08:59, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Commanders

message: This is uncited and not directly related to the history of the battle or the effect of it. If this is returned, please cite this material. -- Secisek (talk) 08:51, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: In fiction

message: So I assume Alfonso was using sticks and stones to besiege Lisbon until the 2nd Crusade arrived?Gabr-el 00:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The infobox not only doesn't contain the Portuguese troops (who had been already waiting for the crusaders for at least 8 days, but whose number isn't known), but also  the 164 ships that brought the crusaders an blocked the city from the riverside. Also, incorrectly puts the number of defenders at 7000 even though Osbernus repeatedly mentions the city's huge population boosted by merchants and refugees from other cities recently conquered by the Portuguese: 60,000 tax-paying families alone, plus an undisclosed number of untaxed ones to the astounding total of "one hundred fifty-four thousand men, not counting women and children" - but "only fifteen thousand lances and shields with which to arm its men", forcing them to rotate the weapons at each shift and retrieve them from the fallen.Cmdr. Maegil (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  No portuguese soldiers? 

message: This makes to look as if the crusaders only sat and waited, not mentioning that the city only asked for terms on that date, -not surrendered-  on the verge of a two-front attack from a wide breach on the walls and a siege tower that was about to drop the gangplank. Also, on the Portuguese translation excerpt covering some of the same as in the English excerpt, but also develops much more the events leading to the capitulation itself: in http://www.arqnet.pt/portal/pessoais/cruzado_lisboa.html, Osbernus mentions the abandonment of an early mining attempt due to the sorties, and the defence of the siege tower when it was isolated by the high tide - but not its destruction, nor that of the two ballistas used to bombard the city, nor of any other siege equipment. The footnote leads to a fallacious religious-oriented disparagement to the city's medina architecture taken out of context; the original actually reads: Cmdr. Maegil (talk) 14:55, 17 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Almost vandalism, needs rewrite

message: Please, the article must be clear. This wasn't just a Christian victory, but in fact, it was a Catholic victory.Agre22 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: A Catholic, not just a Christian victory

message: This section should be updated to reflect the new scholarly work that has been done with respect to the so-called "Lisbon Letter", which demonstrates that Lisbon may have been a goal of the Crusaders before they left port, and was a decision influenced by Bernard himself. See: Jonathan Phillips, “St. Bernard of Clairvaux, the Low Countries, and the Lisbon Letter of the Second Crusade” in The Journal of Ecclesiastical History 48(3):1997, 475-497 as well as Susan Edgington, “Albert of Aachen, St. Bernard, and the Second Crusade” in The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences, Jonathan Phillips and Martin Hoch, eds. (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 2001), 54-70. Kerregor (talk) 02:38, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spontaneous nature of the siege (Section: Redirected Efforts) 

message: As per the Portuguese page, 7,000 Portuguese, 6,000 English, 5,000 Germans and 2,000 Flemish participated in the siege. Since it's possible to differentiate between the participating nations I decided to break down their numbers instead of just having them all indiscriminately bundled into a single figure for greater accuracy. Crenelator (talk) 21:35, 4 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Numbers of Christian attackers

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Siege of Lisbon. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110718171218/http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/283/2/Norman_and_AngloNorman.pdf to http://etheses.nottingham.ac.uk/283/2/Norman_and_AngloNorman.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:15, 3 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: An edit of 10 May 2019 tried to add something about "William Viel" and friends being difficult in negotiations. I can find at least one source that discusses this, searching for "William Viel crusader" finds "The Second Crusade: Scope and Consequences" by D. M. Hadley, Hoch Phillips, which has description on page 76. There may be more and better elsewhere. The added sentence is malformed, and possibly misplaced. And of course the mention may be superfluous to begin with. Shenme (talk) 03:25, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  William Viel and damaged edit 

message: Do any sources actually specify which state or political group held the city when it came under siege? The Taifa of Badajoz is named in the first paragraph but I don't see any clear citation to support that, and wherever I look in available sources elsewhere the authors are frustratingly vague and refer to the "Muslim" garrison without actually clarifying the political attachment of the city at the time. Given the progressive collapse of Almoravid rule in al-Andalus during this exact period, both an Almoravid or a Taifa affiliation seem plausible, but this needs clarification/confirmation. (I'm asking partly because I saw this information being changed recently at Siege of Lisbon (1142), but the sources there are no help either.) Thanks in advance for any help. R Prazeres (talk) 23:44, 11 June 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Almoravids or Taifa of Badajoz?