Talk:Battle of Arsuf

message: I removed the following sentence from the heading paragraph: "Despite losing the day, Saladin learned valuable lessons about Richard which would help him in later battles." This sentence seems to imply that Richard would eventually be defeated by Saladin in a battle, which did not happen. In the final battles of the Third Crusade outside of Jaffa, Saladin was again utterly defeated by the Crusaders. Indeed, Saladin did not win a single victory in the Third Crusade. The only "victory" Saladin achieved, if any, was passive in that Richard chose not to besiege Jerusalem. -TrueCross
I also removed the link to the "Treaty of Ramla" from the results section, since the treaty would not be drawn up until the end of the Crusade long after Arsuf. After Arsuf Richard would deprive Saladin of more castles and cities before Ramla's agreement, in which Saladin was forced to accept Richard's conquests. -TrueCross   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.177.216 (talk) 03:18, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implications of future Muslim victory 

message: "As the Crusader army made camp on the far side of the river at Caesarea, Saladin was making his own dispositions. He had planned to place his army by the old Roman roads further into the interior, allowing him to to attack in any direction as the occasion presented itself. But the coastal advance of the Crusaders compelled him to follow on a parallel course. As the first light harassing attacks failed to have the intended effect these were stepped up in intensity, becoming mini-battles in the process. When Richard's army approached Caesarea on 30 August the rear guard, commanded by Hugh III of Burgundy, came under serious onslaught, cutting it off from the rest of the army for a time. Richard managed to rally the troops, as the whole of the army cried Sanctum Sepulchrum adjuva (Help us, Holy Sepulchure)."
A few problems. 
#I'm not aware of a river at Caesarea, although I could have a faulty memory and it's possible there was one, but there is no longer.
#Chronologically, the parag skips back and forth -  it starts with the Crusaders at Caes., but then they're just approaching
#The logic of Saladin's thinking isn't apparent. The southward parallel movement could equally be achieved along the Roman roads that went "in any direction". I can't work out what's intended.
Excellent work btw by all concerned - this article's so much improved. It could do with some citations though. --Dweller 11:45, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Saladin's response parag 

message: "Arsuf was an important victory; but unlike Saladin's early triumph at the Horns of Hattin it was far from decisive" contradicts the claim of a decisive victory in the battle box. --Dweller 11:49, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction 

message: Can anyone help me "find" this river. I seriously doubt it was "at" Caesarea. More likely it was between the Roman roads "in the interior" and Caes. itself. But I'm reticent to amend based on my OR. --Dweller 12:23, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  River 

message: "With the Saracens still intact, Richard decided that the prudent action would be to secure his flank by taking and fortifying Jaffa, thus interrupting the advance on Jerusalem." yet the Lead states that Jaffa was his aim. --Dweller 12:42, 10 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's a problem. Jaffa was always a target for the Crusade. It would have been unreasonable to attack Jerusalem while Jaffa remained in Muslim hands, since Jaffa is the closest port to Jerusalem. Indeed, during the First Crusade Jaffa was the only port city that the Crusaders bothered to take specifically for this reason.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.177.216 (talk) 03:21, 7 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another contradiction 

message: I have thoroughly overhauled the article, rewriting much of it, and have introduced a much higher level of citation. Unfortunately, I have had to remove some interesting details which were not supported by my available sources. Why do people go to the effort of writing prose without using inline citations? It isn't particularly difficult to add them. Urselius (talk) 09:04, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article overhauled 

message: From Template:Infobox military conflict "result – optional – this parameter may use one of several standard terms: "X victory", "Decisive X victory" or "Inconclusive". The choice of term should reflect what the sources say. In cases where the standard terms do not accurately describe the outcome, a link to the section of the article where the result is discussed in detail (such as "See the 'Aftermath' section") should be used instead of introducing non-standard terms like "marginal" or "tactical" or contradictory statements like "decisive tactical victory but strategic defeat". It is better to omit this parameter altogether than to engage in speculation about which side won or by how much." Aozyk (talk) 23:16, 10 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: The Itinerarium explains how the charge wasn't deliberated but I couldn't find where it explains the alternative outcome. Would you mind point it out for me? Aozyk (talk) 09:30, 17 May 2015 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the clarification. I read the cited passage but somehow the exact phrase had eluded me. Aozyk (talk) 21:36, 24 May 2015 (UTC)

text: seriously what is wrong with you. A fellow editor tries to resolve a dispute by consulting the relevant guidelines -- "Egad! Yet another Wiki-legalist!".  "almost a millennium ago, modern military concepts and terminology, such as 'decisive battles', did not exist". Uses uncited "anonymous translations" instead of secondary references.  This has got to be one of the best-studied eras of medieval military history. Simply consult the plethora of scholarly publications. --dab (𒁳) 10:12, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Hello Dbachmann, you seem to be merely picking a fight with me. Why? Urselius (talk) 13:06, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title: Result

message: regarding these two edits:
*history painting != "historical painting"
*"RichardSaladin.jpg" is just a filename chosen by "Captian Blood" in 2006. The image has nothing to do with either Richard or Saladin. 
Thank you. 
--dab (𒁳) 10:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: No idea???? In my world, obviously not identical with that of Wikipedia, the construct "History painting" does not exist. A genre of painting should use an adjective - i.e. 'mythological painting' as opposed to 'mythology painting'. You cannot paint a mythology, but you can paint a mythological scene; likewise, you cannot paint history, but you can paint a historical scene.Urselius (talk) 12:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Just noticed I did not address your second point. It is obvious, from other contemporary images, that the figure on the right represents a 'Saracen'. The figure on the left exhibits the royal blazon of England. The blazon does not show any heraldic 'difference', such as a label as would be exhibited by a king's son, or the descendant of a king's younger son. As such, it unambiguously indicates that the figure represented is a ruling king of England. The only king of England to fight against Saracens while king, was Richard I. Edward I went on Crusade, but as Prince of Wales, other royal princes also served on Crusade, but they all would exhibit heraldic difference. The figure on the left must represent Richard I. Urselius (talk) 15:12, 10 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title: User:Urselius