Talk:Norman conquest of southern Italy

message: *Conquest of Salerno
*Conquests in Latium and Abruzzi
*Conquest of Malta
*Conquest of Naples
*Conquest of Amalfi
Srnec 05:39, 14 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: What's still missing from this page?

message: Hi, a new article, Arab-Norman civilization was created today by .  What do the editors here think of this topic?  Is it worth its own article, should it be renamed, or should it be merged elsewhere, such as here or to the History of Islam in southern Italy article?  Or somewhere else?  Comments requested at Talk:Arab-Norman civilization, thanks. --Elonka 10:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Opinions needed

message: While reading through I noticed the term imperial army was used to describe the holy roman emperors' force descending on Troia, considering the byzantine empire's armies were imperial armies as well, perhaps it would be better to change the term used or be more specific?  A minor thing, but its a bit confusing.  Fritigern (talk) 06:03, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the context makes it clear, but I will change it anyway. Srnec (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Use of term "Imperial Army" 

message: Since it is not a circumscribed episode as the Norman conquest of England, I suggest changing the title in History of the Normans in southern Italy.--Enok (talk) 19:56, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: But then we have to expand the article scope to describe Norman rule and culture (not just conquest) and almost the whole of the twelfth century (after most conquering was done but before the Norman identity had disappeared). No, the article scope is fine: it is about the Norman conquests in southern Italy which added up to a conquest of southern Italy. Srnec (talk) 20:55, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Military history of the Normans in southern Italy or History of the Norman conquests in southern Italy?--Enok (talk) 21:25, 29 January 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move this article? 

message: I just want to get a sense of other contributors opinions regarding the introduction sentence, "The Norman conquest of southern Italy spanned the late 11th and much of the 12th centuries" and if it should be amended to one that is more supported by literary sources since there was no definite start point during the "late 11th century" (like the Norman Conquest of England.)  I think it would be better to remove the "late" and simply state "11th century" being that southern Italy was conquered throughout the entire century rather than the "late" eleventh century. Here's one literary example of this, author R. Allen Brown wrote in The Normans p. 95 (originally published by Boydell & Brewer in 1984):  The earliest date I came across when it's mentioned as far as "planned conquering" was in 1042 where there was a council between three factions of Normans where for the first time they discussed plans and ambitions and carved up southern Italy amongst themselves, Rainulf Drengot and William Iron Arm were among them. The conquest of Sicily is another matter since that did have a definite start point (1061) but the article isn't called the "Norman conquest of Sicily." — - dain- talk    22:59, 11 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: You are correct, and I already had changed the article before noticing this discussion. Srnec (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Minor rewording the intro paragraph

message: The section about the Lombard revolt contradicts the article 'poena cullei' at § 'Abolition'. It says there that this punishment was abolished by the Basilika in 892, and was only revived by Germans in the late medieval period. How then, could this punishment be meted out in 1021?  — Mr. Guye (talk) (contribs)  05:43, 22 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradiction