Talk:Remembering the Templars

Do you have any sources that say Marco Polo did not go to China? I'm curious, many textbooks cite Marco Polo going to China, and his works. I know there was a debate about it for a while, but I thought it had been settled: https://digitalcollections.anu.edu.au/bitstream/1885/41883/1/Marcopolo.html Hethrir (discuss • contribs) 22:59, 20 October 2011 (UTC)


 * My understanding of the situation is that it is unprovable that Marco Polo, as the author and personage in the book, existed at all. Analysis made on the book have demonstrated that it is an aggregation of several authors and some of the related facts are pure fantasy or incorrect. In regard to this national heroes, it becomes impossible to establish veracity of facts especially considering the age. Even Columbus nationality is disputed. In this book the fact is irrelevant I just didn't see a value in promoting one side of the story like it was on the wikipedia article.  --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:35, 20 October 2011 (UTC)
 * That is quite a sweeping assertion, and I can find no sources to justify it. Can you please provide some links?-- Arthur  Vogel  19:36, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry don't have links, but the even the link Hethrir provided already lists those possibilities and the rest can even be inferred by the Wikipedia article on The Travels of Marco Polo. I got the information from a video documentary but can't remember the title. my recollection is that they performed analysis on the text of the existing copy (note that it is a copy and the book predates the printing press). --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:53, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The link seems clear enough. "In her book Did Marco Polo Go To China? (first published by Secker & Warburg, London, in 1995), Dr Frances Wood claims that Marco did not go to China ... All F.W.'s arguments have been discussed in detail and refuted in Igor de Rachewiltz's review-article".  In my experience, these documentaries like to promote such sensational fringe theories, so that people wil be interested in them.  Few will care to watch a documentary that says "there is a crackpot who says so-and-so, but we can easily disprove this" unless the theory is extremely well-known and popular, when the debunking is itself sensational.  Against that, I could easily post plenty of links, apparently more recent than 1995, that do not mention this theory.-- Arthur  Vogel  20:31, 21 October 2011 (UTC)
 * The fact remains that what I said continues to be valid. There is no original version of the work or conclusive prof for any of the thesis. The copies that exist have errors and even some fantasy in them, this attacks the credibility of the tale being told. Historically the silk road existed long before Marco Polo, to expect him to be the first to embark on that voyage makes it also extremely unlikely. Then there is the objective of the work itself what was its purpose in the context it was created. All this factors alone makes a good case.
 * For what matters this information is not important to the subject being covered (I could as well have removed it all, and probably will reedit it soon) I was just adding the other side to the statement that was present on the original article, to what presentation I disagreed, the objective is to keep it all NPOV under the scope of the book. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 20:47, 21 October 2011 (UTC)

Knights Hospitaller
Mention and link also with the Knights Hospitaller. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 23:25, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Examine other battles
Timeline
 * 1054 East-West Schism
 * 1066 Battle of Hastings
 * 1071 Battle of Manzikert
 * 1095 First Crusade
 * 1291 Acre, the last European outpost in the Middle East, is captured by the Mamluks under Khalil. --Panic (discuss • contribs) 19:11, 16 April 2012 (UTC)