Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance

Archives August-September 2007 September 2007 (continued)

Requested move

Franco-Mongol alliance → Crusader-Mongol relations — Move is being requested to a more appropriate title, since there was never really a formal alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols. —Elonka 08:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support (as nominator). I've done extensive research on this topic, in a variety of reliable sources in multiple languages. Though there is a book from the 1930s by Rene Grousset, written in French, that refers to a "Franco-Mongol alliance", the vast majority of modern sources agree that though there were many attempts at an alliance, that no such thing really existed on a large scale. The topic is still worth a Wikipedia article, but it would be better served by an article title of "Crusader-Mongol relations". --Elonka 08:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (as creator of this article) "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a scholarly expression which is fully referenced by Grousset (1936/2006) or a leading expert of the period such as Demurger (2002) as a factual event, and by many others as something that was attempted and achieved in limited ways (Barber, Schein). Although it may have been more or less successfull (5-6 coordinated campaings over a period of 50 years) and ended in defeat, this alliance was nonetheless founded on written agreements between Western kings and Mongol rulers, coordinated strategic actions (attacks from the West by Western rulers, synchronized with attacks from the East by Mongol rulers), and even battles in the same ranks, although Western powers could rarely muster more than a few hundred knights. This alliance was also the main focus of the last efforts of the Templars to reconquer the Holy Land in 1298-1303. On the other hand, "Crusader-Mongol relations" is a neologism, which does not even obtain a single hit on Google, and would have to cover a much broader subject-matter (relations of the Crusaders and the Mongols in the Eastern Europe theater, cultural interactions, respective perceptions etc...). PHG 08:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While the accusation of favouring a neologism is pretty correct, and so the proposed title may not be the best, I'd generally tend to accept the idea of a change, not because because it's obvious that PHG is wrong, but because it can't be honestly said that there is a full historical consensus behind such a strong title as the current. A softer title would have the advantage IMO of not opting in a direction or the other.--Aldux 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, because the exact phrase "Franco-Mongol alliance" appears in reputable publications by more than one author and I am therefore inclined to regard it as more than merely a descriptive pharse and as a piece of scholarly currency. A phrase that has been used before of the thing under discussion must be preferred to a merely descriptive phrase invented for our purposes at Wikipeida, in my opinion. Srnec 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, I know I suggested some of the other titles, but if this one has been used in the literature, then we are kind of obliged to go along with it. Adam Bishop 23:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Request for comment

Requesting comment on the following questions:

1. Was there a major alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols?
2. How should the Wikipedia article be titled? "Franco-Mongol alliance"? Or "Crusader-Mongol relations" or something else?
3. Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem in 1300?
4. How many and what types of primary source quotes are appropriate to use for this subject?
5. Were the Knights Templar major proponents of an alliance with the Mongols?
6. Was Jacques de Molay, Grand Master of the Knights Templar, present at a combined Christian-Mongol capture of Jerusalem in 1299/1300?

09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• 1. No.
• 2. Something like "Papal missions to the Mongol Khan" could cover it - only Piano Carpini, Benedict of Poland, Lawrence of Portugal and Ascelin were involved in the initial diplomatic missions and the focus of the diplomacy was Mongol incursions into Europe.
• 3. No. It's a myth.
• 4. Numerous peer-reviewed secondary sources would be needed for a series of major historical events.
• 5. No.
• 6. No. It didn't happen. After Saladin's reconquest in 1187 the next "Christian" invader of Jerusalem was Allenby in December 1917. --Ian Pitchford 19:03, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Strategically, the Franco-Mongol alliance was a major alliance, but operationally the Western contribution, especially, remained small. Overall, it may not be a "major" alliance, but it was a significant alliance nonetheless.
• 2. "Franco-Mongol alliance", a recognized expression for the event in question.
• 3. Jerusalem was quite possibly taken by the Mongols in early 1300, in light of the overwhelming agreement of ancient sources (whether European, Arab or Armenian), confirmed by multiple modern secondary sources.
• 4. Primary sources: as necessary, but presented and referenced by modern secondary sources. By the way, 13th century historians cannot really be considered primary sources, they are just ancient secondary sources.
• 5. Actually yes, the Knights Templar were major proponents of an alliance with the Mongols, between 1298-1303. Just look at Molay's own writings, quoted by a leading historian such as Demurger.
• 6. Molay was probably not at Jerusalem, although he is known to have been present in the Holy Land shortly before and after the event (in Cilician Armenia in 1299, possibly Alexandria, Acre, Tortosa in July 1300, and surely Ruad in November 1300).

PHG (Original creator of the article Franco-Mongol alliance) 19:41, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• 1. Probably not major, some case for ad-hoc alliances has been made
• 2. Follow history literature, seems to call it Franco-Mongol alliance, hence that seems fair.
• 3. No evidence; there is only the myth.
• 4. As few primary sources as possible; as interpretation is very tricky and should be left to expert scientists (hence use modern secondary lit). Primary sources preferably only to be used for uncontested facts and illustration.
• 5. I have seen no evidence for this, although the ad-hoc alliance may relate to this.
• 6. Very unlikely (the more so as it is not even clear the capture even happened).Arnoutf 19:56, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

• 1. No. There were many attempts at an alliance, but it never came together.
• 2. Crusader-Mongol relations
• 3. No. There were plenty of rumors at the time about such an attack, but they turned out to be false.
• 4. Very few, and only if they're used as major quotes (not just footnotes) in peer-reviewed secondary sources. Any other quotes, move to Wikiquote or Wikisource.
• 5. No (and I'm saying this as the main editor who got the Knights Templar article to Featured status). The Templars were definitely involved with some of the discussions, as were many other parties, but the Templars were not a primary force in the matter.
• 6. No. There was no attack, and De Molay was nowhwere near the area at the time. --Elonka 21:14, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

I am only going to answer question 3, based on my personal background. There was NO conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300. Period. I am speaking as a former Jerusalemite (20 years) who worked as a tour guide and wrote extensively about the city. It is nowhere mentioned in Zeev Vilnai's magnum opus, probably the most comprehensive history of Jerusalem, entitled Yerushalayim (four volumes). I would add that with starting with the arrival of Nachmanides in the city in 1267, we have extensive correspondence about the state of the city throughout the Mamluk period. The last major Mongol threat to Jerusalem was repulsed in Syria in 1281. I can source all of this too. That said, there was a Mongol invasion in 1299, supported by Armenian troops. There is an Armenia legend, unverified, that the king of Armenia ruled for 13 days in Jerusalem at that time as a vassal of the Mongols. I will translate the source and place it here. Danny 23:08, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Here is the text from from the Carta's Atlas of Palestine from Bethther to Tel Hai (Military History), 1974, (very roughly translated by me). The author was Lt. Colonel Mordechai Gichon, PhD, Lecturer in Military History, Tel AViv University.

… But in 1299, the Mongols, supported by an Armenian army (Armenia was the last Christian state in the region apart from Syria), invaded along the ancient route, from the Euphrates through Aleppo, to Homs. After defeating Sultan Lajin there, they continued on to Damascus and conquered it. From there they moved south, into Palestine, and, under the command of Khan Ghazzan, they split into four and followed the major north-south land bridges through the country: the "King's Highway," the Jordan Valley, the "Central Waterline" (rough translation of a Hebrew geographic term describing the central mountain ridge that determines rainfall and the flow of water throughout the country), and Via Maris.

Along the way they were aided by the Druze, members of the sect, founded c. 1020, who had a firmly nationalist orientation. Considered heretics by orthodox Islam, they tended to forge alliances with foreign forces that invaded the country.

According to Armenian sources, the king of Armenia reigned in Jerusalem for 13 days on behalf of Ghazzan. In fact, the events of that period have not been studied fully. In 1303 the Mongols were defeated by Marj as-Sufar, near Damascus, by Sultan Nasser. Ghazzan invaded the Holy Land again in 1308, but was soon forced to retreat because of difficulties on his homefront.

Hope this helps. Danny 00:02, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Danny, that's really interesting. My sources agree with Ghazan's troop movements very closely: in concert with Armenians, crossing the Euphrates, taking Aleppo, then having a victory at Homs, and going on to Damascus. All that matches. After that my sources get a big vague, merely saying that there were "raids as far south as Gaza and Jerusalem" but without much detail, so I'm very interested to hear about the details of the King's Highway, the Jordan Valley, the Central Waterline, and Via Maris. I wonder if we can find a modern equivalent term for the Waterline? Also, do you have the citations that Dr. Gichon was using? --Elonka 00:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

People can consult the archive for material needed to make a decision. I reverted the edit not archiving the talk page, because it got long and unwieldy. Mike H. I did "That's hot" first! 10:39, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

Since the page is growing so fast, I've archived more of the September threads (even though they're just a few days old). Archives available here: Archive 2. --Elonka 03:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Demurger

I still don't have the book, but I'm able to view a few limited pages through the AmazonOnlineReader. It looks pretty good, but I'm not getting the same interpretation from it that PHG seemed to. For example, in terms of an alliance, even Demurger seems to refer to it as "combined operation" and something that was promised or hoped for, but never came together. Here's an excerpt from p. 94:

The two letters [Ghazan] sent in late 1299 were now, however totally ineffectual. Seigneurs from Cyprus left the island to join him possibly as early as the end of the 1299, but definitely by January 1300. Two knights of the realm, Guy d'Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, and Jean de Gibelet, landed with their entourages on the Syrian coast at Gibelet and settled in the castle of Nefin with the intention to reach Armenia and join Ghazan. But after a few days they learned that the khan had terminated his campaign and gone back to his capital, Tabriz. This episode with the knights is a minor one, but it signifies none the less the Christians' willingness to become involved. For even though the favourable conditions at the end of 1299 were not likely to happen again soon, the following year would see a better prepared attempt at common action between Mongol, Armenian and Cypriot forces. To which Jacques de Molay was to commit himself totally. The idea of a combined operation by the Mongols of Persia and the Latins was not a new one, and its aims were fairly straightforward: land taken from the Mamluks were to be divided between Mongols and Christians, the latter retrieving the territories of the former Latin States in the East and Jerusalem. This is reiterated in a letter sent by Thomas Gras from Cyprus on 4 March 1300: "And the said Kasan [sic] sent his messengers to the king of Jerusalem and Cyprus and to the communes and military-religious Orders who supported him in Damascus or Jerusalem, saying that he would give them all the land which the Christians had formerly held in the time of Godefroy de Bolloin [sic]." Gras is referring to Ghazan's offensive in the autumn of 1299, on the strength of which an optimistic rumour spread in the West early in 1300 that Jerusalem was once more in Christian hands. It was even said that King Hethum of Armenia had celebrated Mass at the Holy Sepulchre on the Feast of the Epiphany. Ghazan's attack and victories also raised great hopes in Cyprus, according to a letter from a Franciscan from Nicosia, dated 14 February 1300. He, too, says that Hethum prayed at the Holy Sepulchre; he further announces that 'our Minister and many of our brethren (of the Franciscan province) are preparing to go to Syria with the Knights, footsoldiers and all the other monks. But the news of Ghazan's retreat in the same month deferred such fine resolutions until later. Which brings us back to the problem of the Mongols' weak point -- the difficult of keeping such a vast army of horsemen mobilized, not because the men could not be kept, but because their mounts could not be fed. Breaking off his pursuit of the Mamluk army after his victory at Homs, Ghazan had not been able to destroy totally the sultan of Cairo's army. The Templar of Tyre considers his pursuit 'feeble' and explains why: 'He began to follow the defeated army, but not very forcefully, for his horses were worn out from the long journey they had made, and the battle, and the shortage of fodder. Returning to Tabriz, Ghazan left Syria under the control of the emir Mulay, who the Templar of Tyre refers to as Molay, thereby leading to confusion with our Grand Master. Perhaps this is what lies at the root of the legend about Jacques de Molay entering Jerusalem -- a legend I will return to at the end of the book. In reality, general command was exercised by Kutlushah, Mulay being only the head of the army which got as far as Gaza and may have penetrated Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Ghazan had announced that he would return the following November, this time to attack Egypt. While he waited, during 1300, the khan stepped up his diplomatic initiatives with Cyprus and the West...."

--Elonka 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Demurger on the forces in Ruad. Even he agrees it wasn't just a Templar thing:

p.98 "It may appear that the occupation and defense of Ruad became the exclusive affair of the Templars, but the reality was rather different. Preparation for the landing at Ruad back in November 1300 had taken all year to organise by the whole of the Christian forces based in Cyprus, in the hope that all the promises made by the Mongol alliance would finally be realised."

--Elonka 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am relieved you finally found something on Demurger :), and recommend that you read the whole book. Nobody denies that the alliance was a difficult one, and that, ultimately it ended with defeat against the Mamluks, but it is described by the "Mongol alliance" nonetheless (including by Demurger). Nobody denies that other forces than the Templars were involved in this 1298-1303 alliance, but the Templars were highly dedicated to it (your own quote "the following year would see a better prepared attempt at common action between Mongol, Armenian and Cypriot forces. To which Jacques de Molay was to commit himself totally."), and they played the central role in implementing the alliance (please see the article where Demurger is already quoted extensively). Are we moving forward? Best regards. PHG 04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comments below. Though I'll also add that I'm not seeing the "central role of the Templars" in Demurger's book. I agree that De Molay was passionate about a new Crusade to capture Jerusalem, but I see that all of the Cypriots, which included many groups including multiple religious orders and the remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, not to mention the native Cyprus folks, shared that passion. The (small) fleet of ships that was put together was equipped more by King Henry of Cyprus than by the Templars. The invasion force sent to Ruad had about 600 knights, of whom about 150 were Templars. De Molay and the Templars were definitely part of the action, but they weren't the driving force. --Elonka 05:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the quote from Demurger about the Templars being the driving force: "The order of the Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols against the Mameluks in 1299-1303, in order to regain a foothold in the Holy Land" ("L’ordre du Temple et son dernier grand maître, Jacques de Molay, ont été les artisans de l’alliance avec les Mongols de Perse contre les Mamelouks en 1299-1303, afin de reprendre pied en Terre sainte.") Alain Demurger, Master of Conference at Université Paris-I, in an interview with Le Point, "La Chute du Temple", Aug 11, 2005. Also: OnlinePHG 08:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

More Demurger quotes

Demurger on the rumors about De Molay in the 1800s:

p.202: It was only at the end of the eighteenth century, and above all in the nineteenth, that [Jacques de Molay] was to become a hero. This he owed not so much to the wild imaginings of Fabre-Pellaprat and his friends, founders of the neo-templarism movement in the early nineteenth century (the so-called chart of succession of Larmenius, for example, is a crude forgery), as to the development from the mid-eighteenth century onwards of a 'national theatre' always in search of patriotic themes. Jacques de Molay became one of the heroes of this national theatre, thanks to Raynouard, whose tragedy The Templars was staged with considerable success at the Theatre-Francais in 1805-1806 (the celebrated tragedian Talma played one of the protagonists). After the first performance, the Courrier des spectacles wrote: 'The theater has long called for this national subject.' The drama was distinguished by the confrontation with the king, who believed the Tempars guilty but was prepared to pardon them if the Grand Master acknowledge this guilt.... The play was staged throughout the nineteenth century and was re-edited in the popular series 'Good books'.... in which Raynouard's The Templars figured among the four titles representing French subjects (Joan of Arc, Charles IX and The Siege of Calais, alongside Racine and Corneille). This popularity in the nineteenth century, which the reservations of historians such as Michelet did nothing to weaken, was also made evident by Molay's entry into the crusade rooms in the palace of Versaille, a collection built up by Louis-Philippe. Jacques de Molay is represented in a bust by Amaury Duval in an 1840 painting, and figures in an action scene on a large picture by Claude Jacquand, dated 1842, which shows him at the head of his troops entering the reconquered Jerusalem in 1299. It is, of course, a legendary representation, but one founded on a rumour that made the rounds of Christendom in 1300 and was connected with the offensives of the Mongol khan Ghazan in 1299-1303. According to this rumour, khan Ghazan, victor over the Mamluks in December 1299 at the time of the battle of Homs, aided by the Christians of Armenia and the Masters of the Temple and Hospital Orders and their troops, was supposed to have handed Jerusalem back to the Christians. Laurent Dailliez (who has taken mischievous pleasure in muddying the waters) affirms that at that date Jacques de Molay was one of the three generals in the Mongol army, and would have had the honour of victoriously entering the Holy City. Were it not for the text of the Templar of Tyre, who was well known, if not by his contemporaries, at least by later historians, it is possible that this assertion by the usually reliable Dailliez would be taken more seriously. On the basis of the correctly dated text by Hayton of Corycos, I have shown that Jacques de Molay was in Armenia in 1298 or 1299, therefore prior to Ghazan's victorious battle against the Mamluks. The Templar of Tyre states: 'After Cazan had beaten the Saracens, he returned to his country leaving in his place at Damascus one of his admirals who had the name Molay...' In fact, this was a Mongol general by the name of Mulay, easily confused with Molay, and thus with the Templar Grand Master." The contemporary western sources used by S. Schein in his [sic] study on the origin of the rumour current in the West, according to which the Holy City was handed back to the Christians by Ghazan, never associate Jacques de Molay with this episode. Might there be a text which, at some time or another, made the connection between Molay and the supposed recapture of Jerusalem, perhaps based on the confusion caused by the Templar or Tyre's text? The painter Jacquand was not the only one to take the tradition at face value. This is what the article on Molay in the Nouvelle Biographie universelle of 1861, edited by Rapetti, has to say...."

And gee PHG, I was going to give you props for digging up that encyclopedia quote. Now I see you're just going paragraph by paragraph through Demurger's book. Except, you seem to have left off this part that Demurger said, about the Jacquand painting (emphasis added):

...in the Versailles rooms, he is not shown in a portrait like Hugues de Payns, the founder of the Temple, or Foulques de Villaret, his alter ego in the Order of the Hospital. But it is appropriate that he is depicted in action, even if the action is one in which he did not really engage.

Summary: Demurger says that there were hopes for an alliance, but they didn't really come together, though there were attempts at combined military operations. Demurger says that the Templars were not at the center of the push to build a garrison at Ruad. Demurger says that Jacques de Molay was not involved in the capture of Jerusalem. Demurger says that the story of the capture of Jerusalem is a legend. Demurger says that the painting in Versailles is not based on fact. Let's see, anything else we need to cover? --Elonka 05:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, nobody denies that the alliance was a difficult one, and that, ultimately it ended with defeat against the Mamluks, but it is described by the "Mongol alliance" nonetheless (including by Demurger). Nobody denies that other forces than the Templars were involved in this 1298-1303 alliance, but the Templars were highly dedicated to it (your own quote "the following year would see a better prepared attempt at common action between Mongol, Armenian and Cypriot forces. To which Jacques de Molay was to commit himself totally."), and they played the central role in implementing the alliance (please see the article where Demurger is already quoted extensively). And indeed Demurger is already quoted in the article as saying that de Molay probably did not take Jerusalem. Your point that there was not alliance, that it was it was just a dream just doesn't stand Elonka. PHG 05:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just not getting the same thing out of the Demurger book that you are, PHG. By my read, Demurger is referring to the alliance as a strategy, but not something concrete. "The Cypriot Christians tried to form a strategic alliance with the Mongols" (p. 91) "in the hope that all the promises made by the Mongol alliance would finally be realised" (p. 98) "the strategy of a Mongol alliance was not yet quite dead" (p. 102) "Thus ended the strategy of a Mongol alliance" (p. 105) "...idea of a rapid reconquest of the Holy Land and Jerusalem was widely shared, all the more so because an alliance with the Mongols looked possible" (p. 207) "the idea of forging a Mongol alliance was a good one" (p. 216). "in the late thirteenth and fourteenth century there was still an opportunity to be seized: the Mongol alliance" (p. 217). So yes, he says the phrase "Mongol alliance" quite often, but that doesn't mean he's saying that it really existed. The closest he comes to saying it, is when he talks about the Crusaders setting up their expedition to Ruad. "Above all, the expedition made manifest the unity of the Cypriot Franks and, through a material act, put the seal on the Mongol alliance." But then the Mongols didn't show up, and everything floundered. I feel like this is grasping at straws, though we can definitely quote Demurger in the article. But even if we do, then that confirms that there hadn't been a Mongol alliance up through 1300. Either way, it's a very weak argument. Demurger's ambivalence aside, I still think that the consensus of modern historians is that there were many attempts at forming an alliance, but the attempts bore little fruit. So I stand by my opinion that the Wikipedia article would be best titled as "Crusader-Mongol relations" or "Franco-Mongol alliances" (plural). --Elonka 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, I am afraid you are just playing on words now. Throughout the period, Western rulers and Mongol rulers expressed their intent to fight together against the Mamluks, Western rulers and Mongol rulers actually agreed in writing to combined actions, they actually strategically combined their operations, moving their troops in a coordinated way, and in the end Franks (including Templars and Hospitallers) fought together with the Mongols either in the same ranks in several instances, or separated by some distance (as all armies coordinating movements). If that's not an alliance, I don't know what an alliance is. Would you kindly check again the definition of the word "alliance"?:

"An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests."

• But of course this alliance did not concretize in a major way, to the dismay of all parties involved. Of course there were attempts at creating something bigger. You rightfully say that the alliance bore little fruit, but that surely doesn't not mean no fruits at all, and it still means that there was an alliance nonetheless. Many sizable fruits actually came out of this huge strategic alliance.
• Very simply, an "ineffective alliance" is not the same thing as "no alliance": an ineffective alliance is an alliance nonetheless. By the same token, I guess you could wish to argue that there was no alliance between Japan and Germany during WWII: despite its strategic scope it was largely ineffective (except for the fact that Japan did divert a lot of US ressources, just as the Mongols with the Mamluks), only a few combined operation finally occured, and both parties probably attempted to make it much bigger.

Best regards, PHG 06:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, that's original research. It's not about what you think the definition is, or what I think the definition is, it's about how most historians define it, n'est-ce pas? And most historians clearly say that there was no alliance. It was a chimera, a dream, an attempt, a project, a hope, a strategy, an intention, a will-o-the-wisp, but never something concrete. Though I'll give you that there was an alliance with the Armenians. Maybe that would be a good sub-article? "Armenian-Mongol alliance"? --Elonka 06:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, this definition of "alliance" is from Wikipedia. Please check a dictionary anytime. The reality is that some historians say there was an alliance, some say there were attempts toward an alliance, and some say the alliance was just a chimera. And a detailed and referenced presentation of the events does show "an alliance that bore little fruit" in your own words, but an alliance nonetheless. I think you just have to accept the multiplicity of the opinions here, which nicely reflects into the beginning of this article "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance", with reference. What more balanced and npov stance could we take? I really don't think there should be an issue with that. Best regards PHG 06:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that a better first sentence to the article would be: "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance, between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." I think that's a better reflection of the general consensus of modern historians. Anyone else got an opinion? --Elonka 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I disagree. Technically, the name of the article is "Franco-Mongol alliance", and therefore it is better to start with "The Franco-Mongol alliance...". But my main point concerns the meaning being conveyed: Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance..." expresses only one point of view (yours), and only a part of the sources (those you favour). There is an obvious better choice which expresses both point of views: "A Franco-Mongol alliance,[1][2][3] or attempts towards such an alliance,[4][5] occurred between...". I don't see how we could better represent a neutral point of view, and maintain a good balance between the arguments.PHG 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This thread has been continued in the below section #Introduction sentence. --Elonka 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

New sources

Today, I bought two standard books in my neighbourhood, one on the Crusades, and one on the Mongols, and, guess what, both mention various aspects of the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols matter-of-factly:

• "In 1258 they [the Mongols] sacked Baghdad and two years later Aleppo. Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli (1252-1275) became their ally." p.136 The Oxford History of the Crusades", Joanthan Riley-Smith
• "The fact that they [the Mongols] were anti-Muslim was good enough reason for the king [of Armenia] to place his entire army at their disposal. This unholy alliance took the field in 1259" in p.8 The Mongols, Stephen Turnbull.
  

Let me remind here that Little Armenia was considered also as a Frank kingdom (quotes in the article). So, that's 2 more sources describing the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols as facts. I don't see any reason now not to maintain a balanced point-of-view between authors speaking about an alliance, other speaking about attempts towards an alliance etc... To me, this discussion is over. PHG 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have already stated that (1) I am in agreement that the Armenians were allied with the Mongols; and (2) The Armenians weren't really "Franks". Their kingdom was briefly part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and in certain very broad interpretations they could be referred to as Frankish, but I don't believe it is correct to say that just because the Mongols allied with the Armenians, that they therefore had a "Franco-Mongol alliance." In fact, I saw one source that talked about how the Armenian king was debating whether to ally "with the Europeans" or "with the Mongols." They were really more of an independent body. --Elonka 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Agree (2) Disagree: I think I see what you mean, but Little Armenia was considered as one of the five Frank states, and was a very composite state with a mixture of Franks and Armenians (Riley-Smith). Also "There are five Frank states(...): the Kingdom of Jerusalem, (...) the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, but also the Kingdom of Little Armenia", in Les Croisades, Origines et consequences, p.77-78. Anyway, even by your definition (which I do not follow), many "true Franks" allied with the Mongols as well, so the Little Armenia issue is only marginal.PHG 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I spent quite a bit of time yesterday in a large library (bet you wondered why I was so quiet, heh), reading through a couple dozen books. Based on what I was reading, I think it would probably be worth making a separate article, Armenian-Mongol relations, and then linking to it, summary style. There definitely was an Armenian-Mongol alliance early on, but it was clearly an Armenian thing, not a leading advance for Rome. It also dissolved very unpleasantly, the Armenians were allied with (or at least paying tribute to) the Mamluks for awhile, and Hethoum II was eventually assassinated by the Mongols. There's a really interesting story there that deserves attention, but more later. In the meantime, books that I particularly recommend include:

• Mongols and the West - Peter Jackson (already recommended by Adam Bishop, and definitely "on-point" for this topic). In fact, Jackson goes into several pages about why the Mongol alliance project never worked out, so we should probably add a section like "Reasons for failure" or something.
• Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks - Angus Donal Stewart (this very decisively answers the question on the separation between the Armenians and the Franks)

Another tantalizingly relevant source that I haven't been able to track down yet, but am very much looking forward to reading:

• Amitai, "Mongol Raids into Palestine", JRAS, 1987, 236-255

FYI, Elonka 19:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff indeed. Amazing how so much happened back then... PHG 20:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mongol raids into Palestine

The "Mongol Raids" article is a little tough to find, so I figured I'd give a quick summary here. Basically, the author (Amitai) went into an extremely detailed analysis of every primary source from that time period. He looked at every account, from every historian of every side: Mamluk, Armenian, Hebrew, Christian, Persian, etc., and he even looked at all the different versions of the sources to see which ones matched up, and which ones seemed to vary wildly from the story that everyone else was telling. What he found was that there was a fair amount of nationalism, so the Armenian writers would build up the actions of the Armenian royalty, the Georgians would build up the actions of the Georgian royalty, etc. He would also look at the kind of writing that each historian did, when writing about other very well-known situations, to see how accurate their information was, and what that could tell about that historian's views of other events for which there are fewer corroborating sources. He also compared the type of raids that the Mongols did in 1260, vs. the raids they did in 1300. The summary is..."Both of them were executed by a relatively small part of the Mongol army, most of which remained further north... In both cases the Mongol forces did not meet any serious opposition, except for the incident at Nablus in 1260, and they covered approximately the same extent of territory, i.e. up to Gaza. The raiders had a free hand to loot, kill and destroy, while keeping an eye on the enemy army in Egypt. It seems that at this point the Mongols had no intention of integrating Palestine into the Mongol administrative system and on both occasions the extent of Mongol control over the country was quite loose. There remain, however, several differences between these two raids. First of all, in 1300, it seems that a number of fortified points throughout Syria, and possibly also in Palestine, were not subjugated during the Mongol occupation. Secondly, there is no record of Mongol raids in this latter instance into Transjordan .... Only in 1260 did the Mongols leave forces in the country, at Gaza, to act as an advance guard..."

In terms of Jerusalem itself, Amitai says that all of the sources agreed that Mongol troops had come in from northern Syria to raid the country, though accounts differ on how quickly this happened and where exactly they raided. Some writers say that there was a delay in ordering a pursuit of the Mamluk sultan and his troops. Though Mamluk writers tend to say that their soldiers were pursued. In any case, Ghazan eventually ordered one of his senior officers, Mulay (also called Bulay) to lead a raid through Palestine. Ghazan then took the "lion's share" of the army and went on to Damascus. In terms of the raid(s):

• One source said that Bulay was sent with 10,000 horsemen, who caught up with the muslims, and "fell upon the region of Gaza, the Jordan River Valley, and Jerusalem"...
• A second Mamluk source, Baybars al-Mansuri, considered very credible, said Ghazan sent 20,000 soldiers with Mulay, Esenbuqa, Hujaq and Hulechu, who fell upon the Jordan River Valley and Baysan, and their raids reached Jerusalem, Hebron, and Gaza, but that the raids didn't last long.
• Al-Mansuri's info was then quoted by a Christian writer, who listed al-Mansuri as his source, but also embellished, saying that the raiders had killed Muslims and Christians, drank wine on the Temple Mount, and done other "despicable deeds" such as taking young women and children as captives.
• A Persian historian just said that Mulay came back to Damascus after chasing the Mamluk troops as far as Gaza.
• Another Persian said Mulay was sent with 10,000 troops "to govern the country".
• A Hebrew source said that the Mongol army had come to Jerusalem.
• Then there were two Armenian writers, one of whom said that Ghazan himself had pursued the fleeing Mamluks, and then sent Het'um and Mulay with 40,000 Mongols in pursuit, with orders to bring under his command the country up to Gaza. But Ghazan called back Het'um after 3 days, and ordered Mulay to continue on. Mulay couldn't catch up with the Sultan, and then returned to Damascus via Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley.
• The other Armenian source (the one we're most interested in) had multiple errors in his work, didn't even get the year of the battle right, and said nothing about Mulay or the Mongols, but credited King Het'um with the pursuit of the Sultan, with 4,000 troops. They rode hard for 11 days, only 10-12 miles behind the Sultan, arriving near Cairo at a place called Doli (which Amitai could not identify). Then on his way back north, Het'um entered Jerusalem, stayed there 15 days, performed Christian ceremonies, and was awarded a patent by Ghazan, granting him the city and its surroundings, after which Het'um left Jerusalem and returned to Damascus
• A Georgian account emphasizes the role of the Georgian king Wakhtang III at the Battle of Wadi al-Khazindar, then describes that the Egyptians took flight, the Mongols raided into Palestine, and reached as far as Jerusalem, where Christians and Muslims were massacred. No mention whatsoever is made of any Armenians in the Georgian account. Just as the Armenians made no mention of the Georgians.

So that second Armenian source just doesn't sound credible. Amitai's conclusion of what actually happened: "It seems most likely then that the Mongols raided Palestine by themselves in [1299-1300]. The Mongol forces rode as far as Gaza, looting and killing as they went, and they entered several towns, including Jerusalem. In the end, all the raiders returned to the Damascus area, according to the Mamluk sources by the end of Jumada II/middle of March 1300. Upon their return they found out that Ghazan and the majority of his army had already set off for their country, apparently in the aftermath of reports of an invasion into Ilkhanid territory from Central Asia, although other explanations have been offered. After a few days Mulay also left Damascus and crossed the Euphrates. Soon the Mamluk army returned to Syria, bringing it back into their kingdom."

FYI, Elonka 08:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle question

While checking one of the Demurger sources, I saw that he talked about how the Mongols and the Armenians were fighting against the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs. However, though we're using Demurger as a source, we're linking to the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar. Did Demurger make a mistake here? And, can we get another source to verify which battle that it really was? Thanks, --Elonka 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ready to help, but could you detail which reference you are talking about?? PHG 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what the official name is for each of these battles, but there may be some issue with the Wikipedia nomenclature as well. The First Battle of Homs is a small battle, and does not seem so notable. It is not linked from any article appart from a disambiguation page. It is also a very recent article (created 2 weeks ago). I confirm Demurger calls Second Battle of Homs the December 1299 battle (p.278). In Wikipedia, this December 1299 battle is named Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar, (Wadi al-Khazandar being apparently near Homs anyway), but I don't know if that is a standard English nomenclature, and cannot find it otherwise in the books I have access to. Maybe it should be renamed "Second Battle of Homs", and the first 1260 Hulagu encounter renamed something else...PHG 05:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Checking sources: Tyerman, God's War

• I bought Christopher Tyerman, God's War: A New History of the Crusades today (my budget is shrinking daily ;). I think he deserves to be quoted more faithfully. Actually, he DOES describe the existence of the Mongol alliance as fact, even if he says that in the end it led nowhere, which I think is quite true: "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" (p.816). This is quite different from saying that there was NO alliance: Tyerman says there was an alliance, but that it was ultimately fruitless...
• The article says that Tyerman "described it as "an attempt to capture the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", but actually he only refers to the early frustrated attempts of Louis IX. Here the full quote: "The mission [of William of Rubruk] was regarded by some on all sides as another attempt to capture the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance" (p.798) It is not quite proper therefore to describe this as Tyerman's own qualification of the alliance in general. I will modify the claim accordingly in the article.
• The article also says "He also described it as "pursuing the will of the wisps of a Mongol alliance with the Il-khan of Persia". Not quite. In the quoted phrase, he does not refer to the Mongol alliance in general, but to Edward's efforts towards making an alliance. What he actually says is: "Edward contented himself with pursuing the will of the wisps of a Mongol alliance with the il-khan of Persia and internal harmony within Frankish Outremer".
• Elsewhere Tyerman DOES mention concrete occurences of the Mongol alliance, as when he mentions that "Bohemond VI, briefly one of Outremer's most important power broker, had already accepted Mongol overlordship, with a Mongol resident and battalion stationed in Antioch itself, where they stayed until the fall of the city to the Mamluks in 1268", or "The Frankish Antiochenes assisted in the Mongols' capture of Aleppo" etc...
• Conclusion: Tyerman does indeed ackowledge the existence of a Mongol alliance, even if he stresses that ultimately it ended nowhere, and that some attempts were frustrated, and that some worked out. We cannot portray Tyerman as someone denying the existence of an alliance, and saying it was only attempts, dreams and chimeras. I will incorporate these more exact elements into the article, and also add some more details from Tyerman. PHG 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just because Tyerman uses the phrase "Mongol alliance", does not mean that he is confirming that there was one. He was very clear that there were attempts at an alliance, but they were unsuccessful: "an attempt to capture the chimera of a Franco-Mongol alliance....[turned out to be] a false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom" (pp. 798-799) "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" (p. 816) --Elonka 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Let's respect what sources actually say (same issue with the other mis-interpretations of Tyerman mentionned above). "An alliance that leads nowhere" cannot never be interpreted as meaning that "there was no alliance". Tyerman simply says succintly that there was an alliance, in which many embassies were exchanged over a period of 15 years, and that it ended without effective results. But an alliance doesn't have to have results to exist, and Tyerman actually describes a few cases where there were results anyway (Bohemond VI). To me, there's no debate to have on this. And we're only talking about being fair and precise in handling Tyerman here, as many other historians do mention the Mongol alliance as fact (extensively quoted in the article).PHG 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Acutally, per Wikipedia's policies, it's not up to me to prove that an alliance didn't exist, it's up to who ever wants to include the information to prove that it did exist. Or look at it this way. Normally when there's an alliance, we have history books that say things like, "Group A and Group B formed an alliance in 1767. It lasted for 10 years, and they renewed it in 1777." Alliances are these kinds of formal "signatures on paper" "beginning on such and such a date" kind of affairs. Is that maybe where we're having a dispute here? I understand, PHG, that English is not your first language, correct? So perhaps you're looking at an alliance as an informal "working together" thing, and the rest of us are looking at it as more formal, like an actual signed treaty? --Elonka 07:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please just stick with sources and do not corrupt them as you are doing with Christopher Tyerman, God's War (details above). Let me give a simple example: "Research on nuclear fusion led nowhere": this means that there was indeed "Research on nuclear fusion", but that in the end it was fruitless. This is language-independent: just a matter of what is being said or not said, and you have no right to corrupt it to fit your point-of-view. Besides, there are plenty of sources specifically describing the Mongol alliance, already quoted in the article. PHG 07:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry PHG, but I'm afraid that you're the one that is mistaken. The fact is that though the term "alliance" was used in several books, doesn't mean that there was an actual alliance. There were attempts at an alliance. They led nowhere. That's not my opinion, that's a word-for-word description of what the source said. "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere." (Tyerman, p. 816) You appear to have a bias that (1) an alliance existed between Europe and the Mongols; and (2) That the Mongols "ruled" Jerusalem in 1300. I'm afraid that both of these are false. If you wish to argue, please don't just argue from your opinion, please provide actual reliable modern history books which say differently, and I'll be happy to review them. For now though, I think it would be helpful if you reviewed the comments in the above RfC. Or think of it this way -- if you're so sure that you're right, then other editors would agree with you. But we're not agreeing with you. You appear to be POV-pushing. You are also refusing all attempts at dispute resolution. You're ignoring the results of the RfC, you're edit-warring at the page, and you have refused to even accept mediation. Granted, mediation is an entirely voluntary process, but it's making it difficult to find a way through this dispute. In fact, I would recommend that you review Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. Now please, can we stop arguing about this, and can we please move on to something else? You're obviously a hard worker, a detailed researcher, and I am genuinely impressed by the way that you are able to write articulately in English, considering that it's not your first language. But really, it's time to drop this and move on. We've got a very good article here, which I think will make a great Featured article once we can get these disagreements put away. So can we please get past this impasse? --Elonka 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, quantities of reputable sources are describing the Mongol alliance as fact (Grousset, Demurger, Jonathan Riley-Smith, Seven Turnbull, Angus Stewart, Claude Lebédel, and, yes, Christopher Tyerma) so you have no right to deny that in favour of your opinion that these were only "attempts towards an alliance". Why do you just keep denying the obvious and only accept your own point of view? And you are (again!) misrepresenting reality when you claim you have a concensus: 2:1 has never been a consensus. We should just stick with the facts and the principle of NPOV: some author describe the Mongol alliance as fact, some as just an attempt, and we should express both views. And how about your mis-representations of Tyerman's God's War (above)? That's honestly quite unacceptable. PHG 17:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, to say that all of those sources are describing the alliance as fact, is absurd. Can you please point to a single one that says clearly, "An alliance was formed on such-and-such a date"? Again, just because they used the word alliance, doesn't mean that there was an alliance. There were attempts at an alliance. But they led nowhere. Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica called it a chimera. A fantasy, something that didn't exist. --Elonka 06:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Historians treating the alliance with the Mongols as fact:

What is really "absurd" Elonka, if I may use your own words, is your obstinate denial of the tens of reputable sources which describe the Mongol alliance as fact (even if they haven't been prescient enough to use your exact own sentence above :), and your POV efforts to characterize them as only "attempts towards an alliance" (although of course a few sources to describe "attempts only", and I am totally ready to ackowledge them as well). Just open your mind and accept that scholars may have various interpretations:

The French historian Grousset, writing in the 1930s, used the terms "L'Alliance Franco-Mongole" and "La coalition Franco-Mongole", mentioning especially "Louis IX and the Franco-Mongol alliance" (Grousset, p521: "Louis IX et l'Alliance Franco-Mongole", p.653 "Only Edward I understood the value of the Mongol alliance, p.686 "the Franco-Mongol alliance, examplified by the Hospitallers"). The modern French historian Demurger, in the Jacques de Molay biography The Last Templar, refers to it as the "Mongol alliance", which came to fruition through such events as the 1300 combined offensives between the Templars and the Mongols, further describing that in 1298-1303 Jacques de Molay fought to reconquer Jerusalem, by relying on an alliance with the Mongols.(Demurger, p.147 "This expedition sealed, by a concrete act, the Mongol alliance", Demurger p.145 "The strategy of the Mongol alliance in action", "De Molay led the fight for the reconquest of Jerusalem, by relying on an alliance with the Mongols" (Demurger, back cover). Demurger in "Croisades et croises au Moyen-Age" describes "The concretization of this alliance met with three obstacles etc...", "The renewed offensives of the Mongol khan the Il Khan Ghazan in the years 1299-1302, in coordination with the Christian forces of Cyprus" (p.287), "These are the only Frank forces, located in Armenia and Cyprus, which cooperated with the Mongols" (p.287), "This ended the promisses of the Mongol alliance" (p.287)). Jonathan Riley-Smith in The Oxford History of the Crusades (2002) mentions that the Frank ruler Bohemond VI became an ally of the Mongols ("In 1258 they [the Mongols] sacked Baghdad and two years later Aleppo. Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli (1252-1275) became their ally." p.136 The Oxford History of the Crusades", Joanthan Riley-Smith.) He further mentionned in his Atlas of the Crusades that in 1285 the Hospitallers of the north agreed to ally to the Mongols.("En 1285, Qalawun, nouveau sultan mamelouk, reprend l'offensive, qu'il dirige contre les Hospitaliers du nord, qui s'etaient montres prets a s'allier aux Mongols", Jonathan Riley-Smith, "Atlas des Croisades", p.114). Angus Stewart called it "Franco-Mongole entente." ([1]). Stephen Turnbull, in The Mongols (1980) describes the "unholy alliance" between the kingdom of Little Armenia and the Mongols, and how the Mongols and "their Christian allies" entered Damas triumphaly ("The fact that they [the Mongols] were anti-Muslim was good enough reason for the king [of Armenia] to place his entire army at their disposal. This unholy alliance took the field in 1259", also: "Their Christian allies joined them [the Mongols] in a triumphal entry, forcing the defeated Muslims to carry the cross before them, and later turned one of the city's mosques into a Christian church" in p.8 The Mongols, Stephen Turnbull). Sean Martin referred to it as a "combined force."(Martin, p. 114.) Claude Lebédel states that during the 1260 offensive "the Barons of the Holy Land refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the king of Armenia and Bohemond VI, prince of Antioch and Count of Tripoli".(Claude Lebédel, p.75) Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", but specifies that in the end it led nowhere ("The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" (p.816) and turned out to be a "false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom." (Tyerman, pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, especially Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories ("Bohemond VI, briefly one of Outremer's most important power broker, had already accepted Mongol overlordship, with a Mongol resident and battalion stationed in Antioch itself, where they stayed until the fall of the city to the Mamluks in 1268. The Frankish Antiochenes assisted in the Mongols' capture of Aleppo, thus in part achieving a very traditional Frankish target, and had received lands in reward." (p.806). Amin Maalouf in "Les croisades vues par les Arabes" mentions the Franks of Antioch "guilty of having made common cause with the Mongol invaders" (p.267), "Once more the allies of the Mongols [the Northern Franks] were chastized without the latter being able to intervene" (p.271).PHG 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow PHG, that's some pretty impressive mis-quoting. You're even bolding the words "Mongol alliance", in sentences where historians were saying that there wasn't an alliance. I'll give you that Demurger was a bit wishy-washy on the subject, in that in most cases he said that there wasn't an alliance, but then he had one (1) sentence where he used that "seal" language, but I'll also point out (again) that that attack meant nothing, because the Mongols didn't show up, and an alliance needs a "seal" from both sides to be official. Now, the Armenians definitely had a (forced) alliance with the Mongols, but they weren't Franks. The Armenian King Bohemond, as I've listed elsewhere, chose "subjection" to the Mongols over annihilation. But that doesn't mean a Franco-Mongol alliance, because the "Franks" were the Western Europeans, not the Armenian natives in the Outremer. So just because the Mongols had an alliance with Armenia, doesn't mean that they had an alliance with the Papacy and Western Europe. Your quote from Lebedel is accurate, but it proves that there wasn't a Franco-Mongol alliance: "the Barons of the Holy Land refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the king of Armenia and Bohemond VI, prince of Antioch and Count of Tripoli." Armenia/Antioch were part of the Holy Land. They were also Christian (as were many Mongols). But they weren't Franks. --Elonka 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, maybe you could argue that Armenia was not Frank (inspite of the scholarly references I have put forward to the contrary), but how can you say that the Principality of Antioch was not Frank?? Are you joking? Or is it just ignorance? I am starting to have real doubts about your competence here.
• Since you're still in denial... how about Jean Richard, the leading French expert on the Mongols (ask Adam Bishop if in doubt):

"The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities"

— in "Histoire des Croisades", p.469

Or if you wish to have a statement connecting the Franco-Mongol alliance and chronology:

"In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said.

— in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468

or:

"The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere

— in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453

Elonka, face it: your argument really doens't stand at all. The reality of the alliance with the Mongols is indeed recognized by quantities of highly reputable scholars. They is absolutely no justification for you to deny it. PHG 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, accusing me of "ignorance" and saying that you doubt my competence, is really not the way to be strengthening your case. Please try to be more civil, and please try to focus your arguments on the article, and not the editors. --Elonka 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka. I am just amazed at your claim that the Principality of Antioch was not Frank. You may claim a "typo" again, but fundamentally it suggests a total misunderstanding of the situation of the Middle East during the Crusades. Would you either confirm or retract your statement, and provide sources if you wish to confirm it? PHG 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Antioch was a Crusader State, that was effectively a sub-state of Cilician Armenia. Both states had (sometimes) close ties with the Franks, and close ties with each other, and (at times) close ties with the Mongols As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term "Frankish" is usually referring to the Franks from Western Europe, but in certain broad connotations can be used to apply to other states (such as Armenia). And the Muslims definitely referred to the entire lot as "Franks" or "Franj", regardless of where they were from. But let's be careful what we're using our definitions for. To say that the Armenians were Franks, and then to say that that proved that there was a "Franco-Mongol alliance", is I think putting undue weight on the Frankish definition. Armenia, when under immediate threat of Mongol invasion, chose to ally with the Mongols. However other Franks flat out refused to ally. I think it's definitely fair to say that there was an Armenian-Mongol alliance, and to say that Antioch was also an ally, but in terms of the article, let's just keep things simple and say precisely what they were. In other words, we can say "The Armenians allied with the Mongols," yes, but to say "The Frank state of Armenia allied with the Mongols" is starting to get a bit misleading. As far as Antioch, it too was in this class of "different things to different points of view." Yes they were a Frankish state, but they were also more autonomous. Antioch had, as Tyerman described it, "A vigorous independent identity" (p. 189) and "autonomy from Jerusalem" (p. 190). As far as the Antioch-Mongol relationship, we could phrase it multiple ways, and they would all be correct. All three of these would work: "The Frankish state of Antioch allied with the Mongols," but also "King Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli accepted Mongol overlordship" (so more of a vassal than an ally). Or we could just quote Stewart directly: "The principality of Antioch was dominated by its Armenian neighbour -- it was through the will of the Armenian king that the Antiochenes came to aid Hulegu in 1259-60." ("The Logic of Conquest" Al-Masaq, v. 14, No.1, March 2002, p. 8) So, in the Wikipedia article, let's be careful how we word things. I recommend that we stick to the most basic facts, in a very neutral manner, rather than trying to infer that "because A is true, therefore B is true." In other words: Yes, we could say that Antioch allied with the Mongols, and that it was a Frankish state. But no we should not say, that because Antioch allied with the Mongols, that there was a Franco-Mongol alliance. I think that latter sentence would be too misleading. --Elonka 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Weatherman

I took the liberty to correct a phrase referencing Weatherman, as the phrase claims that all allies were "Vassals", whether he can only be speaking about the Georgians since he mentions the conquests of Subodei. The phrase was, after a phrase describing the alliance between Franks, Armenians, Georgians and Mongols: "Though some historians refer to this not as an alliance, so much as the Mongols acting in concert with their own conquered vassal states." Weatherford, p. 138: "Subodei made the country a vassal state, the first in Europe, and it proved to be one of the most loyal"".

As Weatherman clearly speaks about Georgia only, I modified the phrase to: "In the case of Georgia, Weatherford refers to this not as an alliance, but as a vassal relationship. Weatherford, p. 138. "Subodei made the country a vassal state, the first in Europe, and it proved to be one of the most loyal and supportive Mongol vassals in the generations ahead."" Please correct me if I'm wrong here. PHG 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Georgia should be regarded as a vassal state, and that Armenia can really be described as either way. Armenia (specifically the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia) was really scrambling to survive, and so went through several different phases, depending on which way the political wind was blowing. They allied with the Mongols, but also allied with the Muslims, and allied with the Europeans. They were vassals of the Mongols, and also allies of the Mongols. They had strong elements of Frankish culture, but were also an independent Christian state that joined the Kingdom of Jerusalem for a time, and were considered a Crusader state. Every one of those statements can be considered true to some degree, depending on context. Which is why I don't think that we should take what Armenia did or didn't do, as proof of any major actions on the part of anyone else. Mostly Armenia was just along for the ride, whatever was happening. Don't get me wrong, their troops fought hard, and they suffered amazing tragedies and amazing victories -- but this was usually in conjunction with what other larger powers were doing, and Armenia really wasn't that much in control of its own destiny at the time. --Elonka 22:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's be more precise. Hethoum I and Bohemond VI are most of the time described as allies of the Mongols (rather than vassals) because they spontaneously went to the Mongols, rather than being conquered by them. They could have resisted, fought battles (I'm not saying that would have been easy), but instead they chose to cooperate, and entered into a relationship in which they fought side-by-side with the Mongols, received presents, territories and cities. In the case of these two, it is not either vassal or ally, as most modern historians do favour the "ally" qualification.

For Georgia, it is a bit different, as the Georgian army was destroyed several times by the Mongols, their territory was invaded, and they only reached a vassal relationship under the Mongols a a vanquished people, in which the Georgian king could remain, in exchange for providing his army. PHG 05:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the word "spontaneous" is accurate at all. The Mongols were invading, and Armenia was directly in their path. Armenia had the choice to ally, surrender, or try to fight back. If they would have tried to fight, the Mongols would have not only overwhelmed them, but probably slaughtered tens of thousands of innocents (or more), because that's exactly what the Mongols had done in countless other locaitons. That's how the Mongol empire expanded so fast -- they were ruthless. They'd arrive in a location, say "surrender or be slaughtered," and they killed hundreds of thousands of people. When word got out about how nasty they were, many communities in their path didn't even try to fight, they just surrendered immediately as soon as the Mongols arrived. Then once an area had been taken over, the Mongols incorporated those people into their army. So the Mongol army grew, and it wasn't just a bunch of Chinese guys, it was Turks and Russians and whoever else had already been conquered and "assimilated". The Armenians were assimilated too, but they were assimilated more as voluntary "allies" than conquered "vassals". But the end result was pretty much the same, they did what the Mongols wanted. --Elonka 07:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. But that's precisely why the Frank Antiochans and Armenians are usually considered as allies rather than vassals, and Georgians considered as vassals rather than allies. PHG 07:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Which I mostly agree with, except that it's not accurate to say that the Armenians were Franks. They were Christian (as were many Mongols), but they weren't European. Real "Franks" on the other hand, were really those from Western Europe. The Armenians were closer to Turkish, but that doesn't hit it either. Heck, just look at the Armenian script, which is completely unlike any other language. Even at the Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, they separate out the Armenian category. There are historians from the "West", and historians from the "East", and then there are the Armenians. If we want to make an article about their alliance with the Mongols, the correct title would be Armenian-Mongol alliance, or maybe Cilician-Mongol alliance, but not Franco-Mongol. --Elonka 16:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Armenians" at this time are not necessarily "pure" Armenians...of course the vast majority of them are, but the ruling class was half-Frankish. I'm sure they mixed heavily with the Turks too but they are far older than the Turks, they have been in that general area since prehistory, and their language is Indo-European, likely related to Greek. Their alphabet is pretty funny looking but it's basically derived from Greek too. Note that the RHC also separates the Greek historians from the "West" and "East". Adam Bishop 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope everyone will understand that instead of Elonka's original research and disputable interpretations, I would just like to stick with what reputable sources say:

"There are five Frank states(...): the Kingdom of Jerusalem, (...) the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, but also the Kingdom of Little Armenia"

— Les Croisades, Origines et consequences, p.77-78

PHG 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Elonka, don't forget that the Il-Khanate was usually quite protective of the Christians (remember Damas 1258?) and did profess a liking for them (the numerous letters from the Khans). So I am not sure it is exact to deny any kind of affinity or good relations between the two parties. I am afraid you are just expressing a stereotype here that the Mongols were just brutes seeking total domination. PHG 17:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend reading, "The Logic of Conquest" by Angus Stewart: Al-Masaq, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2002. It does a very good job of showing the differences between the Armenians and the Franks: "The relationship between the Armenians and the Franks is worthy of some consideration here." "While the Armenian kingdom and its Frankish neighbours to the south may have had close relations, and may have even been seen in similar terms by the Mamluks, there were significant differences. First, the Armenian kingdom was a kingdom inhabited by Armenians: the Crusader States were only ever partially inhabited by Crusaders. While the Frankish population of the Syrian coast, was, especially by the end, confined largely to the port-cities, the settlement pattern of the Armenians in Cilicia was very different...." "The Armenian kingdom [was seen] as being part of the Christian communtiy of realms. In many ways, the kingdom can be viewed as an 'honorary Crusader state.'" "The Armenian king saw alliance with the Mongols - or, more accurately, swift and peaceful subjection to them - as his best course of action. He could thereby save his kingdom from assault, and could even make territorial gains, as happened during Hulegu's expeditions." "In response to [the 1281] raids, and with no prospect of aid from either the Mongols or the Franks, King Lewon II arranged a truce with the new Mamluk sultan, Qalawun, in 1285." --Elonka 06:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, as far as I know, you are abusively claiming that Little Armenia was not Frank. This goes against reputable sources, and your original research on whether the Armenians were "pure Franks" or not, has absolutely no place here. Please find hereafter a quote from a reputable source. Should you wish to contradict it, please give a reference, instead of just spreading unhealthy OR:

"There are five Frank states(...): the Kingdom of Jerusalem, (...) the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, but also the Kingdom of Little Armenia"

— Les Croisades, Origines et consequences, p.77-78

PHG 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction sentence

There seems to be some debate and low-level edit warring regarding how the introduction sentence should be formulated. Technically, the name of the article is "Franco-Mongol alliance", and therefore it is better to start with "The Franco-Mongol alliance is...". But my main point concerns the meaning being conveyed: "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance..." expresses only one point of view ("attempts towards an alliance"), and only a part of the sources (about half of those gathered at this point). There is an obvious better choice which expresses both point of views:

"A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..."

I don't see how we could better represent a neutral point of view, and maintain a good balance between the arguments. In view of the Wikipedia policy to maintain balance and NPOV, and in view of the sources, I trust this is the only acceptable choice. PHG 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I and Adam Bishop like the phrasing of "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." In fact, if we can stick with that wording, then I'm willing to accept the article title as "Franco-Mongol alliance", how's that for a compromise? --Elonka 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am amazed... Isn't it quite unethical that you can consider a historical definition the subject of a bargain? Are that your standards Elonka? "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a well-known and published expression, your opinion or acceptance regarding its usage is completely irrelevant. As User:Srnec was saying, you really just act as if you owned the articles around here, but, sorry this isn't the reality. A scholarly expression can stand in its own right, and your refusal or acceptance of it (especially under a bargain!) is totally irrelevant.
• The introduction sentence you propose ("Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance...") is not acceptable. It expresses only one point of view (yours, and possibly Adam's), and only a part of the sources (about half of those gathered at this point). It is POV and doesn't take into account the other half of the sources which consider the Mongol alliance as fact. "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..." is the only NPOV choice, combining both views, and I will reinstate it until a good reason for doing otherwise will appear (and not a cheap bargain please...).
• You claim you have "a consensus" for introducing this one-sided sentence (your last revert): this is a total mis-representation (again!): two opinions against one has never been a consensus. You consistently take liberties with sources (all the references you destroyed, your mis-representation of Tyerman, God's War (above)): please follow sources faithfully and avoid bending source material to fit your point of view.
• I think the reality is that you've now lost your argument against this article: its title is legitimate, it is highly referenced, and it reflects in a balanced and detailed manner the reality of the Mongol alliance. PHG 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Elonka's proposal makes the most sense...since, as you say, half the sources say there was an alliance and half say there was not, it would be unacceptable to claim that it did in fact exist. You are doing the same thing you are accusing Elonka of doing. Adam Bishop 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current (Elonka/Bishop) version of the lead sentence is fine, however I am opposed to renaming the article. To clarify: whether or not an alliance ever existed for any period of time (and I think the definition of alliance is sufficiently broad to allow that brief alliances did in fact exist, at least I have read that there were attempts at coordinated attacks on a mutual enemy between the Crusaders and the Mongols, which is an alliance by some [broad] standards) is not relevant to the article title, since this article discusses the alliance whether it existed or not. Just like an article on the chimera would discuss the chimera, even though no chimera ever existed. (In that case "chimera" would refer to an imaginary thing, but still a thing.) This article discusses Crusader-Mongol relations as attempts to establish an alliance, so the title is fine by my standards. Srnec 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just a matter of objectivity, NPOV and logic. If some sources speak about attempts, and some about an actual alliance, both views deserve to be reflected. There is no reason to favour one over the other. It is just a matter of respecting available sources. My proposal puts forward both scholarly interpretations, and therefore is necessarily better than a proposal that only favours one side: it is the de facto compromise solution: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..." PHG 05:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. We have three editors (myself, Adam Bishop, Srnec) that like version A, but one editor (you) who likes version B. And so therefore you are saying that the logical compromise is to use version B. Um, no. --Elonka 06:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one upholding Wikipedia's NPOV policy here? 3:1 is clearly way not enough to overturn this encyclopedia's policy for balanced point of view and equal representation of major sources. Neither is it enough to sustain your claim of a "consensus". Again Elonka, your approach is quite disputable for an editor of high-standing. Voting (especially such minuscule-scale voting) has never been reason enough to overturn Wikipedia' editorial ethics. And NPOV standards are not subject to micro-votes anyway. As both views are well published, both deserve representation. End of the story. PHG 07:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus seems pretty clear. Adam Bishop, Srnec, and myself (Elonka) like the wording of "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." PHG wants a different wording, and continues to strongly disagree with everyone else, and edit war about it. Now, we've discussed this extensively, looked at alternatives, listened respectfully to PHG's objections, filed an Request for Comment, and even offered mediation, but PHG has rejected that option. So, there seems no alternative, but to declare consensus. PHG, your objections are noted. Now, can we please stop edit-warring about this, and move on to something else? --Elonka 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

3 against 1 has never been called a consensus Elonka. You are not respecting even the most basic Wikipedia rules, just to try to make your point of view prevail. PHG 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I think the point is, that your point of view is not prevailing. Please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. --Elonka 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my point of view is not prevailing at this point, but it is highly sourced from reputable sources nonetheless. Statements from reputable sources cannot just be dismissed because of a 3 to 1 argument. And 3 to 1 has never been a consensus on Wikipedia. PHG 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Grousset

PHG has said several times that Grousset said that there was a Franco-Mongol alliance, but I challenge this interpretation. As I've been digging into Grousset's book myself, it would appear the term "Franco-Mongol alliance" even when used by Grousset was being presented not as a "fait accompli", but as a description of something that was attempted around 1259. See Grousset's book The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, p. 363: "Kitbuqa, now in control of Mongol Syria and Mongol Palestine, was well-disposed toward the Christians there, not only because he himself was a Nestorian, but also, it seems because he appreciated the advantage to both parties of the Franco-Mongol alliance. Unfortunately, though Bohemund VI, prince of Antioch-Tripoli, might share his views on the subject, the barons of Acre continued to see in the Mongols mere barbarians to whom even the Muslims were to be preferred. One of these barons, Count Julien of Sidon, attacked a Mongol patrol and killed Kitbuqa's nephew. The enraged Mongols replied by sacking Sidon. This was the end of the alliance, explicit or tacit, between Franks and Mongols."[2] And even in Histoire des croisades, p. 871, it was called "l'alliance folle: The false, or crazy alliance. --Elonka 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• First quote: Grousset is only speaking about the barons of Acre, who refused the alliance, and the 1260 events, which ended with the defeat of Kitbuqa. Here again "This was the end of the alliance" just confirms his understanding that there indeed was an alliance... simple logic. According to Grousset, the Mongol alliance soon resumes, with the Crusade of Edward I: "Edouard I and the Mongol alliance" (p.653), etc...
• Second quote... I will not question your French as you did my English... but l'alliance folle does not mean the "false alliance" (never), but just the "crazy alliance", and clearly means an alliance nonetheless. And, actually, you get the context wrong: when Grousset speaks about "l'alliance folle", he refers to the (passive) alliance of the Franks of Acre with the Mamluks against the Mongols in 1260. Full quote: "L'alliance folle: accord des Francs d'Acre avec les Mameluks contre les Mongols", p.598.
• Other quotes: p521: "Louis IX et l'Alliance Franco-Mongole", p.653 "Seul Edward I comprit la valeur de l'Alliance Mongole", p.686 "la coalition Franco-Mongole dont les Hospitaliers donnaient l'exemple". I will bring more quotes from Grousset if you wish. PHG 05:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• It looks to me like even Grousset is saying that there was not a clear formal alliance. The language "explicit or tacit" means that he's saying that it was ambiguous as to whether a formal alliance existed or not. Aside from just using the language of "understanding the importance of an alliance," can you supply any quotes from Grousset which clearly say, "An alliance was formed on such and such a date"? For example, that's what we have with the Armenians. In A Concise History of the Armenian People, we have "Smbat met Kublai's brother, Mongke Khan and in 1247, made an alliance against the Muslims... In 1254, Hetum visited Karakorum himself and renewed the alliance.... In 1269 Hetum abdicated in favor of Levon II, who was forced to pay a large annual tribute to the Mamluks... Hetum II sought a closer union with Rome. His efforts did not materialize.... Hetum, now a Franciscan monk [after his abdication], made one more attempt at a Mongol alliance agsinst the Mamluks. Upon their arrival at the Ilkhan's headquarters in northern Syria, all forty-two were put to death." (p. 101) See, there we have precise language on when an alliance was made, and when it was renewed, and how each monarch needed to formally sign off on it with their own administration, and how some of the communications clearly showed that there was not an active alliance (like putting the entire delegation to death, is pretty unfriendly). And that's just the Armenian side of things. In terms of the Western Europeans, we just don't have anything concrete like, "An alliance was formed in year ####". There was lots of flirtation with the Mongols, but never a formal alliance. --Elonka 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

not being anything like an expert in this part of history, it does seem to me that Elonka is correctly interpreting her reference that whatever alliance was tried didn't last more than a few months at most. --Rocksanddirt 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

~

Elonka, I am afraid you are effectively trying to defend your point of view with your own original research about what an alliance is or not. What is important is what scholarly sources say. If they say there was an alliance, then you have no ground to argue differently (except if this itself is referenced). In any case both views would have the right to cohexist.

As a matter of fact, Jean Richard (among others), the leading French expert on the Mongols (in his 1996 History of the Crusades) does clearly speak about an alliance: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", p.469, "In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468, "The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453. Both views ("an alliance", and "attempts towards an alliance") need to be handled in this article. This is the basic principle of balance and NPOV.PHG 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright worries

Elonka, it seems you have been pasting pages and pages of copyrighted material on this Talk Page and in the Article. May I recommend some cautionness? An author can usually be quoted for 4-5 lines at a time. As far as I know, beyond that, it is usually considered as copyright infringement. PHG 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, I have not been copy/pasting "pages and pages". I've definitely been including lots of different quotes from lots of different sources though.  :) I'm also frequently combining multiple smaller quotes into one larger quote, by using "..." marks. So the quote may be lengthy, but is actually just a collation of several different sections. The information is also clearly being used for educational purposes. If you still think that something is overly long though, you are welcome to point it out, and we can redact it to history. --Elonka 21:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just asking you to be carefull. It seems you have been well beyond the 4-5 lines of quotes in several instance (even just looking at this page). PHG 14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Alliance

"Those who are not with us are against us" implies that either the Mongols were enemies or allies. If not the former, then the latter. Now, everybody does not believe the old adage, but it illustrates why determining whether or not an actual alliance ever existed is secondary: it all depends on what is meant by alliance. I was reading Bisson's The Medieval Crown of Aragon today and I came upon this: "Even so, in 1267 James [the Conqueror] was inspired by an invitation from the Mongol Khan ... to mobilize a major crusade that set sail for the East two years later." Is a Mongol invitation an alliance? Note that James' bastard sons did arrive at Acre with troops. Was that, however modest, part of a Mongol alliance? Do alliances have to engage in joint action to be real? Do they need assurances on paper? Or treaties? Also, picking up volume III of the excellent A History of the Crusades and turning to Denis Sinor's chapter "The Mongols and Western Europe", we find that "as soon as [Edward of England] disembarked at Acre on May 9, 1271, [he] sought to obtain Abagha's help ... As a result of these negotiations an army of about ten thousand horsemen, part of the Mongol force stationed in Anatolia, invaded Syria, where it achieved some local success but withdrew before engaging Baybars's principal army." And what is Sinor's evaluation of this? "Although of limited importance, this first case of effective coöperation between Mongol and western forces justified, in Abagha's view, further efforts to strengthen his alliance with England." I leave it up to all of you to judge this as you see fit. Srnec 05:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Srnec, extra opinions (and sources!) are always welcome. And you have as much a say in this as anyone else, so definitely stick around.  :) --Elonka 05:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Snerc. It seems that your new quotes do support the view that an alliance actually existed: "effective cooperation", "strengthening of his alliance with England" etc...

Jean Richard, the leading French expert on the Mongols does clearly speak about an alliance: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", p.469, "In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468, "The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.

Now we may have our own opinions about the actual extent of this alliance, bu the bottom lie is that reputable sources are divided on subject: some just speak about the alliance as fact (as Jean Richard and the others), and some speak about it as an attempt towards an alliance. Both views need to be handled in this article. This is the basic principle of balance and NPOV. PHG 14:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical untruths and denial of reputables sources

I am afraid Elonka's stubborn opposition to the idea of the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols has led her to defend several major historical untruths, and deny major reputable sources in favour of her own point of view.

• 1) Elonka is insisting that Little Armenia and Antioch/ Tripoli, the strongest allies of the Mongols according to virtually all sources, were not Frankish states. For Armenia, there may be some discussions, but for Antioch/Tripoli this is total historical nonsense. I'll just give one reputable source, but everyone who has a minimum knowledge of the Middle East during the crusades knows that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli, were Frank states:

"There are five Frank states(...): the Kingdom of Jerusalem, (...) the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, but also the Kingdom of Little Armenia"

— Les Croisades, Origines et consequences, p.77-78

• 2) Elonka is denying that numerous reputable sources consider the alliance with the Mongols as fact. I have given tens of such sources already (above). I have never seen such brazen denial of referenced sources on Wikipedia yet. I am just asking her to accept that sources are divided on the subject, and that some sources consider the alliance as fact, and some as "attempts towards an alliance".
  

Among all these sources presenting the alliance as fact, I will quote again Jean Richard, the leading French expert on the Crusades: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", p.469, "In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468, "The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.

I am not trying to defend one view against the other, I am just saying that reputable sources are divided on subject: some just speak about the alliance as fact (as Jean Richard and the others), and some speak about it as an attempt towards an alliance. Both views need to be handled in this article. This is the basic principle of balance and NPOV. PHG 15:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, you seem to be overly-personalizing this dispute, with "Elonka is stubborn," "Elonka is lying," "Elonka is incompetent," etc. etc. Can you please try to get away from the personal attacks, and return to a discussion of the article? If you and I disagree about whether or not an alliance actually existed, fine, then let's disagree. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. But the point of this talkpage is not to try and decide "what is truth," especially on points where major historians point out that there is ambiguity. The purpose of the talkpage here, is to discuss the Wikipedia article. Our goal is to make the article neutral, to ensure that all major points of view are properly represented, to ensure that we're not giving undue weight to certain theories, and that we're accurately summarizing what is said in reliable sources. I think the article is currently making good progress towards that goal, though there are still a few sections that need some work. Ultimately, I think we can at least agree on the following, yes?

• This is a remarkable article, that is going to be an excellent Featured article someday
• The article is currently too long, and needs to be split up, summary style
• We need to decide where the most appropriate split points should be

Can we agree on this much? --Elonka 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)