Template talk:Campaignbox Ayyubid–Crusader War

Military history: Medieval / Crusades Template‑class

This template is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

Template

This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Crusades task force

Untitled[edit]

Okay, I know that by changing the end date to 1191 and by removing "Crusader invasions of Egypt" I've walked into a hornet's nest. Please hear me out. "Crusader invasions of Egypt" now appears under Fatmid-Crusader War 1099-1169. This is where I think it belongs. Yes, I realize that the Zengids were also involved, but as long as the Fatimids ruled Egypt at the time, it should go there. Since Acre and Jaffa are (I think appropriately) listed under Ayybid-Crusader War, then the ending date ought to be 1191. If you don't like it, I suppose you can change it back. I think the 5th and other Crusades don't belong either, but I've done enough for one day. Djmaschek (talk) 01:30, 26 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're right the other crusades don't belong here, its nonsensical. I'm changing the end-date, --Tefalstar (talk) 12:46, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

You're points are illogical considering that Crusaders and Ayyubids continued to fight each other. Why have you choosen 1191 as an arbitrary end point? The crusaders and Ayyubids would class swords several times, the last time ending in a Mameluke takeover. Tourskin (talk) 17:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Seventh Crusade wasn't a battle. Montgisard and Hattin were. Jamming in the crusades just because the two sides were crusaders and ayyubids is stupid, its a box about a war, that lists battles --Tefalstar (talk) 18:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why is it stupid? The campaign box is battle the conflicts, doesn't have to be a single pitched battle. Of course its a war. Why is it stupid, we're not jamming anything in. There is nothing that seperates one from the other. Tourskin (talk) 23:00, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Forget "whatever", you need to add BATTLES to this box. if you want to take the battle from those crusades then fine, but the Fifth crusade wasn't a battle in a war. There's no problem adding battles from the crusade, but anything else is wrong. If you want to put the crusades back in the box, then it'll have to be their battles.

Take the Sixth Crusade, there wasn't even any fighting then, how can that be in a war box? Add battles not crusades! --Tefalstar (talk) 23:10, 4 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I suppose ideally this box wouldn't even exist; no one ever refers to it as a "crusader-Ayyubid" war. Adam Bishop (talk) 01:09, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The point is the whole thing is a farse and an arbitrary war if it stops at 1191. The sixth crusade did involve war marching by Frederick II Tefalstar, Frederick II arrived and successfully bluffed an attack on Jerusalem. The fifth crusade was a series of battles. Campaign boxes can have mini campaigns in them too, like the world war 2 campaign box. Adam, I think we should add them all in or get rid of this. No one does refer to it as Crusader ayyubid war but if they did, then all crusader ayyubid conflicts should be added in; what status they appear as in Wikipedia should have nothing to do with that!Tourskin (talk) 01:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I don't have a problem with this existing, as long as you add the battles to it. Add the battles and deployments from those crusades and there's no problem, but having stuff in a battle box like "seventh crusade" is stupid. Adding the battles from that crusade is not, however. Do you understand my point? --Tefalstar (talk) 12:18, 5 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I understand what you are saying, I just don't agree with it. Anyways, you have added in the battles now so I am ok with that. I just don't like it when arbitrary dates like 1191 are assigned. Tourskin (talk) 00:43, 6 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]