Talk:Sixth Crusade

message: I don't think this section is particularly useful and should be absorbed into the main article. It also does not come across as balanced enough, as it hinges on the perception of Frederick's crusade as a success, which some historians would argue is flagrantly untrue. Gh0ti-2 22:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: How was it not a success? It achieved its goal - the restoration of Jerusalem to Crusader control, not to mention a fair amount of additional territory. All that without fighting a single battle. Pretty successful, especially when compared to the other 13th Century Crusades to the Holy Land, all of which ended pretty horribly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.251.184.121 (talk) 07:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Legacy and Precedent 

message: Can anyone explain to me why the Sixth Crusade is, in German, the :de:Fünfter Kreuzzug, that is to say the Fifth? The articles clearly refer to the same event, I'm just wondering why the discrepancy in numbering; it might be worth explaining in the article, since it can be very confusing when trying to do research. -- Jmabel 21:12, Sep 19, 2004 (UTC)
:Well, both the fifth and the sixth were led by Frederick II, and sometimes they are considered to be one giant crusade. Sometimes nothing after the fourth is numbered, because there are just too many of them to divide into numbered and unnumbered. I have also seen these referred to as "Frederick II's first crusade" and his "second crusade," and also "Louis IX's first crusade" (and his second, to refer to what we have as the eighth and ninth here). However, on de:, they also have :de:(Fünfter) Kreuzzug, and a note on the un-bracketed Fünfter saying "Dieser Kreuzzug wird manchmal als Sechtster Kreuzzug gezählt" ("sometimes also considered the Sixth Crusade"). So, after all this, I don't really know why they do that :) Adam Bishop 04:46, 20 Sep 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the non-numbering system works best. Calling Frederick II's crusades 5th and 6th is very much a French tradition and isn't really reflected in most historical studies. Going back to the German numbering that was traditionally used in English language works would obviously cause confusion since the popularisation of the French numbering but it doesn't agree with most of the more in depth books people might go to(people like Riely-Smith, Smail, Kedar, Mayer, Ellenbaum). Naming by leaders is the clearest way to define them in my opinion. 147.10.143.23 06:58, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think naming by leaders only functions from the 'Fifth Crusade' onwards. The preceding expeditions all had numerous leaders, or at least a clear hierarchy was not really established. Gh0ti-2 22:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Numbering the Crusades 

message: The content of this article suggests the opposite of the stated result. 143.167.78.182 (talk) 12:21, 9 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Decisive Saracen Victory? 

message: hello! on this site its not very clear about who the leader was, so if you can, please help me and edit this talk and tell me who the leader ! thanks!! 86.155.49.250 (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  the leader