Jump to content

Mongol raids into Palestine: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→‎The fate of Jerusalem in 1300: - Condensing, reducing the reliance on primary sources
Do not delete properly referenced material
Line 42: Line 42:
Medieval sources give many different views of the extent of the raids in 1299-1300, and there is disagreement among modern historians as to which of the sources are most reliable, and which might be embellished or simply false. The fate of [[Jerusalem]], in particular, continues to be debated, with some historians stating that the Mongol raids may have penetrated the city, and others saying that the city was neither taken nor even besieged.<ref name=phillips-128>Phillips, p. 128. ""Disillusionment came swiftly. Jerusalem had not been taken or even besieged; Ghazan evacuated Syria within a few weeks of its conquest probably because his horses were short of fodder. He attacked it again in 1301, and planned further campaigns for the next two years, but achieved nothing. His bitterness at the failure of the European powers to provide the military assistance he had asked for expressed itself in 1303 in yet another embassy to Philip IV and Edward I, to which Edward replied tactfully that he and Philip had been at war and could not send help."</ref>
Medieval sources give many different views of the extent of the raids in 1299-1300, and there is disagreement among modern historians as to which of the sources are most reliable, and which might be embellished or simply false. The fate of [[Jerusalem]], in particular, continues to be debated, with some historians stating that the Mongol raids may have penetrated the city, and others saying that the city was neither taken nor even besieged.<ref name=phillips-128>Phillips, p. 128. ""Disillusionment came swiftly. Jerusalem had not been taken or even besieged; Ghazan evacuated Syria within a few weeks of its conquest probably because his horses were short of fodder. He attacked it again in 1301, and planned further campaigns for the next two years, but achieved nothing. His bitterness at the failure of the European powers to provide the military assistance he had asked for expressed itself in 1303 in yet another embassy to Philip IV and Edward I, to which Edward replied tactfully that he and Philip had been at war and could not send help."</ref>


The most often-cited study of the matter is that by Dr. Sylvia Schein in her 1979 article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos", where she concluded, "The alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened."<ref name=gesta-805>Schein, 1979, p. 805</ref><ref>Schein, in her 1991 book mentioned in a footnote that the Mongol capture of Jerusalem was confirmed because they had removed a gate from the [[Dome of the Rock]], and transferred it to Damascus. "The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (''Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350'', ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163</ref> However, in her 1991 book, Schein includes a brief footnote saying that the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed" because they are documented to have removed the Golden Gate of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]] in 1300, to transfer it to Damascus.<ref>"The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (''Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350'', ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163</ref> This was based on an account from the 14th century priest [[Niccolo of Poggibonsi]], who gave a detailed architectural description of Jerusalem, and mentioned the acts of the Mongols on the gate. Another scholar, Denys Pringle, described Poggibonsi's account as saying that the Mongols tried to destroy, undermine, burn, or remove the gate, but without success, and when the Mamluks returned, they had the gate walled up.<ref>Denys Pringle, 1993, ''The Churches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem'', p.106</ref> <ref>Pringle, p.106</ref>
The most often-cited study of the matter is that by Dr. Sylvia Schein in her 1979 article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos", where she concluded, "The alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened."<ref name=gesta-805>Schein, 1979, p. 805</ref><ref>Schein, in her 1991 book mentioned in a footnote that the Mongol capture of Jerusalem was confirmed because they had removed a gate from the [[Dome of the Rock]], and transferred it to Damascus. "The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (''Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350'', ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163</ref>

⚫
However, in his 2007 book ''Les Templiers'', [[Alain Demurger]] states that the Mongols captured [[Damascus]] and Jerusalem,<ref>"In December 1299, he ([[Ghazan]]) vanquished the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs and captured [[Damascus]], and even [[Jerusalem]]", Demurger, ''Les Templiers'', 2007, p.84</ref> and that [[Ghazan]]'s general [[Mulay]] also was "effectively present" in [[Jerusalem]] in 1299-1300.<ref>"Mulay, a Mongol general who was effectively present in Jerusalem in 1299-1300", Demurger, ''Les Templiers'', 2007, p. 84</ref> According to Frederic Luisetto, Mongol troops "penetrated into Jerusalem and [[Hebron]] where they committed many massacres."<ref>Frédéric Luisetto, p.205-206 "Troops penetrated in Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres (...) In Hebron, a cross was even raised on top of the mosque of Abraham", also p.208 "We have knowledge of the violences perpetrated in Jerusalem and Damas"</ref> In ''The Crusaders and the Crusader States'', Andrew Jotischky used Schein's 1979 article and later 1991 book to state, "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia"<ref>Jotischky, ''The Crusaders and the Crusader States'', p. 249</ref>.

=====Muslim medieval sources=====
According to the historian Sylvia Schein "Arab chroniclers, like [[Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazzail]], [[an-Nuwairi]] and [[Makrizi]], report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza."<ref>Schein, "Gesta dei per Mongolos 1300", p.810</ref>

In a 1301 letter, the Sultan [[al-Malik an-Nasir]] accused Ghazan of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem, "the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca":<ref>"In a letter dated 3 October 1301, Ghazan was accused by the Sultan [[Al-Nasir Muhammad|al-Malik an-Nasir]] of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem 'the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca!". Schein, 1979, p. 810.</ref>

{{quote|"You should not have marched on a Muslim country with an army composed of a multitude of people from diverse religions; neither should you have let the [[Cross]] enter sacred territory; nor should you have violated the sanctity of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]]."|Letter from Sultan [[Al-Nasir Muhammad|al-Malik an-Nasir]] to Ghazan, October 3rd, 1301.<ref>Quoted in Luisetto, p.167</ref>}}

The Arab historian Yahia Michaud, in the 2002 book ''Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI'', describes that there were some firsthand accounts at the time of forays of the Mongols into Palestine, and quotes two major contemporary Muslim sources ([[Abu al-Fida]] and [[Ibn Taymiyyah]]) who state that Jerusalem was one of the cities that was invaded by the Mongols:<ref>Michaud Yahia (Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies) (2002). Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI (in French). Chap. XI.</ref> <!-- He was not providing a history book, he was just reproducing spiritual texts. I challenge whether this is a reliable secondary source -->

{{quote|"The Tatars then made a raid against Jerusalem and against the city of Khalil. They massacred the inhabitants of these two cities (...) it is impossible to describe the amount of atrocities, destructions, plundering they did, the number of prisonners, children and women, they took as slaves".|[[Abu al-Fida]], Histoire.<ref>Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI</ref>}} <!-- This is a primary source quote, and should be moved to wikisource or wikiquote -->

{{quote|"The Mongols first marched against Syria in 699 (1299-1300)... In Jerusalem, in Jabal al-Salihiyya, in Naplouse, in Daraya and other places, they killed a number of people, and made a number a number of captives only known to God."|[[Ibn Taymiyyah]], Textes Spirituels, Chap XI.<ref>Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI</ref><ref>Also quoted in "L'Orient au Temps des Croisades", p.125</ref>}}<!-- This is a primary source quote, and should be moved to wikisource or wikiquote -->

The 14th century Muslim historian [[Al-Mufaddal]] also mentions the massacres of the populations of Jerusalem and the nearby city of [[Hebron]] (30 km south of Jerusalem) by the Mongols during the 1299-1300 campaign,<ref>Referenced in Luisetto, p.205</ref> and even mentions, together with Al-Nuwayri, that a cross was raised on the top of the [[Mosque of Abraham]] in Hebron.<ref>Luisetto, quoting Al-Mufaddal and Al-Nuwayri, p.206</ref>

=====Armenian medieval sources=====
[[Image:ChurchOfTheHolySepulcher1885.png|thumb|According to Western and Armenian tradition, King [[Hetoum II]] visited the [[Church of the Holy Sepulchre]] in [[Jerusalem]], in early 1300, though this account is disputed.]]
A single Armenian account by the monk [[Nerses Balients]] (an Armenian monk converted to Catholicism by the [[Dominican Order|Dominicans]])<ref>Mutafian, p.73</ref> relates the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols, and describes a prominent involvement of the Armenian king [[Hetoum II]] in the invasion. Of this account, the modern French historian Demurger said, "There is a tradition that Hethoum celebrated a religious office at the Saint-Sepulcre on the day of the Epiphany (January 6).<ref>Demurger, p.143: "There is a tradition that Hethoum celebrated a religious office at the Saint-Sepulcre on the day of the Epiphany (January 6th)."</ref> Dr. Schein listed in both her 1979 paper and 1991 book ''Fidelis Crucis'' the account of Nerses Balients which stated that the Armenian King [[Hetoum II]], with a small force, had reached the outskirts of Cairo and then spent some fifteen days in Jerusalem visiting the [[Holy Places]] after its capture by the Mongols:

{{quote|"The king of Armenia, back from his raid against the Sultan, went to Jerusalem. He found that all the enemies had been put to flight or exterminated by the Tatars, who had arrived before him. As he entered into Jerusalem, he gathered the Christians, who had been hiding in caverns out of fright. During the 15 days he spent in Jerusalem, he held Christian ceremonies and solemn festivities in the Holy Sepulchre. He was greatly comforted by his visits to the places of the pilgrims. He was still in Jerusalem when he received a certificate from the Khan, bestowing him Jerusalem and the surrounding country. He then returned to join Ghazan in Damas, and spend the winter with him"|[[Recueil des Historiens des Croisades]], Historiens Armeniens I, p.660<ref>[http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-51557&M=imageseule Historiens Armeniens, p.660]</ref>}} <!-- This source is controversial and not accepted as reliable by all historians. -->

[[Image:Cathedral of St. James .JPG|thumb|It may be on the occasion of a visit to Jerusalem in 1300 that Hetoum II remitted his amber scepter to the Armenian convent of [[Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem|Saint James of Jerusalem]].]]
According to the historian Claude Mutafian, this may be on this occasion that Hetoum II remitted his amber scepter to the Armenian convent of [[Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem|Saint James of Jerusalem]].<ref>Mutafian, p.73</ref>

In her 1991 book, Schein expanded her earlier statement to say that the Armenian information about Hetoum's visit was confirmed by Arab chroniclers.<ref>Schein, ''Fidelis Crucis'', p. 163. "According to an Armenian source confirmed by Arab chroniclers, Hetoum II with a small force reached the outskirts of Cairo and then spent some fifteen days in Jerusalem visiting the Holy Places.</ref> However, Schein's interpretation of the Armenian involvement has been challenged by Angus Donal Stewart in his 2001 book ''The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks'', where he called the Armenian statement an "absurd claim" from an unreliable source, and said that the Arab chroniclers did not confirm an Armenian involvement in the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols.<ref>Stewart, p. 14. "At one point, 'Arab chroniclers' are cited as being in support of an absurd claim made by a later Armenian source, but on inspection of the citations, they do no such thing." Also Footnote #55, where Stewart further criticizes Schein's work: "The Armenian source cited is the ''[[RHC Arm. I]]'' version of the 'Chronicle of the Kingdom', but this passage was in fact inserted into the translation of the chronicle by its editor, Dulaurier, and originates in the (unreliable) work of [[Nerses Balienc]]... The "Arab chroniclers" cited are [[Mufaddal]] (actually a Copt; the edition of Blochet), [[al-Maqrizi]] (Quatremere's translation) and [[al-Nuwayrf]]. None of these sources confirm Nerses' story in any way; in fact, as is not made clear in the relevant [Schein] footnote, it is not the text of al-Nuwayrf that is cited, but D.P. Little's discussion of the writer in his ''Introduction to Mamluk Historiography'' (Montreal 1970; 24-27), and in that there is absolutely no mention made of any Armenian involvement at all in the events of the year. It is disappointing to find such a cavalier attitude to the Arabic source material."</ref> Another historian, Reuven Amitai, also did a detailed comparison of all of the available primary sources about the events around the [[Battle of Wadi al-Khazindar]], and concluded that the Armenian account was in error, as it did not match up with other similar sources about the same events, was provably full of exaggerations and inaccuracies, and had been written as to glorify the Armenian king Hetoum. Amitai also pointed out that despite Dr. Schein's acceptance of the Armenian source as genuine, that even the original editor of the work, [[Edouard Dulaurier]], had "unequivocally" denied the veracity of the Armenian account.<ref>''Mongol Raids'', p. 246. "A less charitable attitude can be taken towards the other Armenian source, written by the anonymous continuator of Constable Smpad's work. His account is full of exaggerations and inaccuracies, the first of which is the year given for the campaign (751 of the Armenian calendar which equals 5 Jan. 1302 - 4 Jan. 1303). This unknown writer does not even mention Mulay or the Mongols in the raid into Palestine. In their stead only King Het'um of Armenia is found: after the victory of Hims, the king rushed forward to pursue the fleeing sultan. He was joined by 4,000 of his troops. After eleven days of hard riding, Het'um arrived at a location near Cairo called Doli (which I cannot identify). Throughout the pursuit, the sultan was but 10-12 miles ahead of the king. The latter soon withdrew from Doli because he was afraid of being captured. On his return, Het'um entered Jerusalem and gathered all the Christians from the city who had hitherto hidden in caves. During the 15 days he spent in Jerusalem, Het'um performed magnificent Christian ceremonies and also received a patent from Ghazan granting him the city and its surroundings. Afterwards, Het'um left Jerusalem and rejoined Ghazan in Damascus, spending the rest of the winter with him. Even the editor of this work, Edouard Dulaurier, unequivocally denies the veracity of the account and writes that the author's purpose was to glorify King Het'um. There is little resemblance between the facts described here and the Mamluk works or even the account of the historian Het'um, who certainly cannot be accused of lacking a desire to eulogize the Armenian king. It is quite improbable that the Mamluk writers would have missed an opportunity to attack [the muslim] Ghazan for such a despicable action, i.e., abandoning Muslim territory, especially Jerusalem to Christian depredations."</ref> However, Edouard Dulaurier actually only mentions that [[Nerses Balients]] may have added a few fantastic details to exagerate Hetoum's accomplishments somewhat, specifically disputing that Hetoum went as far as [[Cairo]] when Ghazan himself sent 15,000 men only as far as [[Gaza]], but he does not otherwise challenge the account of the Mongol's capture of Jerusalem and Hetoum's visit to the Holy City for 15 days afterwards.<ref>Receuil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Armeniens I, Chronique du Royaume de Petite Armenie, p. 659-660 [http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-51557&M=imageseule Page 659, note 1]:<br>"The account of the battle of Homs, in which [[Ghazan]] routs the Egyptians, on December 23, 1299, can be compared with that of Hayton, ''De Tartare'', cap. XLII, and the narration of M. d'Ohsson, ''Hist. des Mongols'', liv. VI, Chap. vi, t. IV, p.233-240. It is obvious that Nerses Balients added here a few fantastic details, devised to enhance the role played by the king of Armenia Hetoum II, as an auxiliary of the Tartars. We can very certainly put in doubt the pursuing of the Egyptians by this prince, after the battle, as far as the place named Doli by the compiler, which he located near [[Cairo]]. Indeed, the Mongol general who had been dispatched with a body of 15,000 men to pursue Sultan Nacer, did not go farther than [[Gaza]], and stopped at the desert limit between Syria and Egypt". End of the note.</ref>

=====Western medieval sources=====
In February 1300, a Francisan monk in [[Nicosia]], Cyprus, wrote a letter saying that King Hetoum had celebrated mass in Jerusalem,<ref>A letter from a Franciscan monk in Nicosia, dated February 4, 1300, relates that Hethoum celebrated mass in Jerusalem and informs that "Our Minister and a lot of our brothers are preparing to go to Syria, together with Knights and soldiers, and all the others of the religious orders". Quoted in Demurger, p.145</ref> evidently at the [[Holy Sepulchre]] on January 6, 1300.

According to Demurger in ''The Last Templar'', the first announcement of the Mongol success was in a letter written in Cyprus in March 1300, which mentions that Ghazan controlled both Damas and Jerusalem:<ref>Demurger, p. 145</ref>

{{quote|"Ghazan dispatched messengers to the kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus, and to the communes and to the religious orders, asking them to come to him in Damas or Jerusalem, so that he could remit to them all the lands the Christians held at the time of [[Godefroy de Bouillon]]".|Letter of Thomas Gras, Cyprus, March 24, 1300<ref>Demurger, p.145</ref>}}

According to Schein, the earliest letter was dated March 19, 1300, and was probably based on accounts from Venetian merchants who had just arrived from Cyprus, which they had left on February 3, 1300.<ref>"The earliest letter was dated 19 March 1300 and addressed to Boniface VIII. Its contents suggest that it was probably written by the Doge Pietro Gradenigo (1289-1311). - Schein, 1979, p. 814</ref> The account gave a more or less accurate picture of the Mongol successes in Syria, but then expanded to say that the Mongols had "probably" taken the Holy Land by that point.

Other reports also mention that Christians were in Jerusalem in April to celebrate [[Easter]].<ref>Chroniques de France, edited by Jules Viard: "Et a Pasques ensivant, si comme l'en dit, en Jherusalem le service de Dieu les crestiens avec exaltacion de grant joie celebrerent". Quoted in Demurger, p.280</ref>.

=====Removal of the Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Mongols (1300)=====
According to historian Sylvia Schein in her 1991 book, the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed" because they are documented to have removed the Golden Gate of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]] in 1300, to have it transferred to Damascus.<ref>"The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (''Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350'', ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163</ref> The account emerged from a 14th century priest named [[Niccolo of Poggibonsi]], who gave a detailed architectural description of Jerusalem, and mentionned the acts of the Mongols on the gate. Denys Pringle in his 1993 ''The Chruches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem'' also mentions that "Nicolas relates how the Tartars, or Mongols, when they took Jerusalem (c.1300), tried at first to remove the entire gate, then, having failed, to undermine it, and finally to burn it, but with no more success".<ref>Denys Pringle, 1993, ''The Chruches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem'', p.106</ref> It is recorded that after these deeds, the Sultan, when he re-captured the city, had the gate walled up.<ref>Pringle, p.106</ref>


⚫
In his 2007 book ''Les Templiers'', [[Alain Demurger]] states that the Mongols captured [[Damascus]] and Jerusalem,<ref>"In December 1299, he ([[Ghazan]]) vanquished the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs and captured [[Damascus]], and even [[Jerusalem]]", Demurger, ''Les Templiers'', 2007, p.84</ref> and that [[Ghazan]]'s general [[Mulay]] also was "effectively present" in [[Jerusalem]] in 1299-1300.<ref>"Mulay, a Mongol general who was effectively present in Jerusalem in 1299-1300", Demurger, ''Les Templiers'', 2007, p. 84</ref> According to Frederic Luisetto, Mongol troops "penetrated into Jerusalem and [[Hebron]] where they committed many massacres."<ref>Frédéric Luisetto, p.205-206 "Troops penetrated in Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres (...) In Hebron, a cross was even raised on top of the mosque of Abraham", also p.208 "We have knowledge of the violences perpetrated in Jerusalem and Damas"</ref> In ''The Crusaders and the Crusader States'', Andrew Jotischky used Schein's 1979 article and later 1991 book to state, "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia"<ref>Jotischky, ''The Crusaders and the Crusader States'', p. 249</ref>.


====European rumors about Jerusalem====
====European rumors about Jerusalem====
{{seealso|History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)}}
{{seealso|History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)}}
Whatever the truth may have been, the Mongol advance led to wild rumors in Europe at the time, that perhaps the Mongols had captured [[Jerusalem]] and were going to return it to the Europeans. These rumours, starting around March 1300, were probably based on accounts from Venetian merchants who had just arrived from Cyprus.<ref>"The earliest letter was dated 19 March 1300 and addressed to Boniface VIII. Its contents suggest that it was probably written by the Doge Pietro Gradenigo (1289-1311). - Schein, 1979, p. 814</ref> The account gave a more or less accurate picture of the Mongol successes in Syria, but then expanded to say that the Mongols had "probably" taken the Holy Land by that point. These rumors were then inflated widely, due to wishful thinking, and the [[urban legend]] environment of large crowds that had gathered in Rome for the [[Jubilee (Christian)|Jubilee]]. The story grew to say (falsely) that the Mongols had taken Egypt, that the Mongol Ghazan had appointed his brother as the new king there, and that the Mongols were going to further conquer [[Barbary]] and [[Tunis]]. The rumors also stated that Ghazan had freed the Christians who were held captive in Damascus and in Egypt, and that some of those prisoners had already made their way to Cyprus.<ref name=schein-815>Schein, p. 815</ref>
Whatever the truth may have been, the Mongol advance led to wild rumors in Europe at the time, that perhaps the Mongols had captured [[Jerusalem]] and were going to return it to the Europeans. These rumours spread and were inflated widely, due to wishful thinking, and the [[urban legend]] environment of large crowds that had gathered in Rome for the [[Jubilee (Christian)|Jubilee]]. The story grew to say (falsely) that the Mongols had taken Egypt, that the Mongol Ghazan had appointed his brother as the new king there, and that the Mongols were going to further conquer [[Barbary]] and [[Tunis]]. The rumors also stated that Ghazan had freed the Christians who were held captive in Damascus and in Egypt, and that some of those prisoners had already made their way to Cyprus. From Italy, the rumors spread to Austria and Germany, and then to France.<ref name=schein-815>Schein, p. 815</ref>


By April 1300, [[Pope Boniface]] was sending a letter announcing the "great and joyful news to be celebrated with special rejoicing,"<ref>Riley-Smith</ref> that the Mongol Ghazan had conquered the Holy Land and offered to hand it over to the Christians. In Rome, as part of the Jubilee celebrations in 1300, the Pope ordered processions to "celebrate the recovery of the Holy Land," and he further encouraged everyone to depart for the newly-recovered area. King [[Edward I of England]] was asked to encourage his subjects to depart as well, to visit the Holy Places. And Pope Boniface even referred to the recovery of the Holy Land from the Mongols, in his bull ''[[Ausculta fili]]''.
By April 1300, [[Pope Boniface]] was sending a letter announcing the "great and joyful news to be celebrated with special rejoicing,"<ref>Riley-Smith</ref> that the Mongol Ghazan had conquered the Holy Land and offered to hand it over to the Christians. In Rome, as part of the Jubilee celebrations in 1300, the Pope ordered processions to "celebrate the recovery of the Holy Land," and he further encouraged everyone to depart for the newly-recovered area. King [[Edward I of England]] was asked to encourage his subjects to depart as well, to visit the Holy Places. And Pope Boniface even referred to the recovery of the Holy Land from the Mongols, in his bull ''[[Ausculta fili]]''.

Revision as of 19:26, 8 March 2008

Mongol raids into Palestine took place towards the end of the Crusades, as a follow up to temporarily successful Mongol invasions of Syria, primarily in 1260 and 1300. Following each of these invasions, there existed a period of time of a few months during which the Mongols were able to launch some raids southward into Palestine, reaching as far as Gaza.

The raids were executed by a relatively small part of the Mongol army, who proceeded to loot, kill, and destroy. However, the Mongols appeared to have no intention on either occasion of integrating Palestine into the Mongol administrative system, and a few months after the Syrian invasions, the Mamluk forces returned from Egypt and reoccupied the area with little resistance.[1]

Mongol campaigns of 1260

The 1260 Mongol offensive in the Levant. The primary forces concentrated on northern Syria, though some smaller raiding parties reached as far south as Gaza.

In 1258, the Mongols under the leader Hulagu, on their quest to further expand their empire, successfully captured the center of power in the Islamic world, the city of Baghdad, effectively destroying the Abbasid dynasty. After Baghdad, the Mongol forces, including some Christians from the previously conquered or submitted territories of Georgia, Cilician Armenia, and Antioch, then went on to conquer Syria, domain of the Ayyubid dynasty. They took the city of Aleppo, and on March 1, 1260, conquered Damascus,[2][3][4][5] destroying the Ayyubid Dynasty as well.

With the Islamic power centers of Baghdad and Damascus gone, the center of Islamic power transferred to the Egyptian Mamluks in Cairo. The Mongols probably would have continued their advance on through Palestine towards Egypt, but had to stop their invasion because of an internal conflict in Turkestan. Hulagu departed with the bulk of his forces, leaving only about 10,000 Mongol horsemen in Syria under his Nestorian Christian general Kitbuqa, to occupy the conquered territory.[6] From this base, the Mongols engaged in raids southward towards Egypt, reaching as far as Ascalon and Jerusalem, and a Mongol garrison of about 1,000 was placed in Gaza,[7][8][9] with another garrison located in Nablus.[10]

Hulagu also sent a message to King Louis IX of France, saying that they had remitted Jerusalem to the Christians. However, modern historians believe that though Jerusalem may have been subject to at least one Mongol raid during this time, that it was not otherwise occupied or formally conquered.[11][12]

Battle of Ain Jalut (1260)

Main article: Battle of Ain Jalut

After retreating from Syria to Cairo, the Egyptian Mamluks negotiated with the Franks of Acre, and the Franks adopted a position of passive neutrality between the Mamluks and the Mongols, even though the Muslim Mamluks had been the traditional enemies of the Crusaders. At the time, the Franks appear to have regarded the Mongols as a greater threat than the Muslims. Thus the Mamluk forces were permitted to pass through Crusader territory unharmed, and amass a sizable force to confront the remains of the Mongol army in September 1260, at the historic battle of Ain Jalut in Galilee. The Mamluks achieved a major victory, which was important not only for the region, but also in that it was the first time that the Mongol Army had suffered a major defeat. After this battle, the Mongols would again attempt several invasions of Syria, but would not be successful until 1300, when again they would only hold territory for a few months.

Sidon incident (1260)

With Mongol territory now bordering the Franks, a few incidents occurred, one of them leading to trouble in Sidon. The Crusader Julian de Grenier, Lord of Sidon and Beaufort, described by his contemporaries as irresponsible and light-headed, took the opportunity to raid and plunder the area of the Bekaa in Mongol territory. When the Mongol general Kitbuqa sent his nephew with a small force to obtain redress, they were ambushed and killed by Julian. Kitbuqa responded forcefully by raiding the city of Sidon, although the Castle of the city was left unattained.[11][13]

Mongol raids during Edward I's Crusade (1271)

In 1269, the English Prince Edward (the future Edward I), inspired by tales of his uncle, Richard the Lionheart, and the second crusade of the French King Louis, started on a Crusade of his own, the Ninth Crusade.[14] The number of knights and retainers that accompanied Edward on the crusade was quite small,[15] possibly around 230 knights, with a total complement of approximately 1,000 people, transported in a flotilla of 13 ships.[16][17] Many of the members of Edward's expedition were close friends and family including his wife Eleanor of Castile, his brother Edmund, and his first cousin Henry of Almain.

When Edward finally arrived in Acre on May 9, 1271, he immediately sent an embassy to the Mongol ruler Abaqa.[18] Edward's plan was to use the help of the Mongols to attack the Muslim leader Baibars.[19] The embassy was led by Reginald Russel, Godefrey Welles and John Parker.[20] [21] Abaqa answered positively to Edward's request in a letter dated September 4, 1271. The historians Runciman and Grousset quote the medieval historian William of Tyre:

"The messengers that Sir Edward and the Christians had sent to the Tartars to ask for help came back to Acre, and they did so well that they brought the Tartars with them, and raided all the land of Antioch, Aleppo, Haman and La Chamele, as far as Caesarea the Great. And they killed all the Sarazins they found."

— Guillaume de Tyr, Estoire d'Eracles, p. 461, [22][23][24]

In mid-October 1271, the Mongol troops requested by Edward arrived in Syria and ravaged the land from Aleppo southward. Abaqa, occupied by other conflicts in Turkestan, could only send 10,000 Mongol horsemen under general Samagar from the occupation army in Seljuk Anatolia, plus auxiliary Seljukid troops,[24] but they triggered an exodus of Muslim populations (who remembered the previous campaigns of Kithuqa) as far south as Cairo.[20] The Mongols defeated the Turcoman troops that protected Aleppo, putting to flight the Mamluk garrison in that city, and continued their advance to Maarat an-Numan and Apamea.[24]

When Baibars mounted a counter-offensive from Egypt on November 12, the Mongols had already retreated beyond the Euphrates, unable to face the full Mamluk army.

Mongol campaigns of 1299-1300

Franco-Mongol operations in the Levant, in 1299-1300

In the summer of 1299, the Mongols under Ghazan successfully took the northern city of Aleppo, and defeated the Mamluks in the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar, on December 23 or 24, 1299.[25] One group of Mongols under the command of the Mongol general Mulay then split off from Ghazan's army, and pursued the retreating Mamluk troops as far as Gaza,[25] pushing them back to Egypt. The bulk of Ghazan's forces then proceeded on to Damascus, which surrendered somewhere between December 30, 1299, and January 6, 1300, though its Citadel resisted.[25][26] Ghazan then retreated most of his forces in February, probably because their horses needed fodder. Ghazan also promised to return in November to attack Egypt.[27]

Accordingly, there existed a period of about four months from February to May 1300, when the Mongol il-Khan was the "de facto" lord of the Holy Land.[28] The smaller force of about 10,000 horsemen under Mulay engaged in raids as far south as Gaza,[29] returned to Damascus around March 1300, and a few days later followed Ghazan back across the Euphrates.[30]

The Egyptian Mamluks then returned and reclaimed the entire area in May 1300,[31] without a battle.[32]

The fate of Jerusalem in 1300

Medieval sources give many different views of the extent of the raids in 1299-1300, and there is disagreement among modern historians as to which of the sources are most reliable, and which might be embellished or simply false. The fate of Jerusalem, in particular, continues to be debated, with some historians stating that the Mongol raids may have penetrated the city, and others saying that the city was neither taken nor even besieged.[33]

The most often-cited study of the matter is that by Dr. Sylvia Schein in her 1979 article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos", where she concluded, "The alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened."[34][35]

However, in his 2007 book Les Templiers, Alain Demurger states that the Mongols captured Damascus and Jerusalem,[36] and that Ghazan's general Mulay also was "effectively present" in Jerusalem in 1299-1300.[37] According to Frederic Luisetto, Mongol troops "penetrated into Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres."[38] In The Crusaders and the Crusader States, Andrew Jotischky used Schein's 1979 article and later 1991 book to state, "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia"[39].

Muslim medieval sources

According to the historian Sylvia Schein "Arab chroniclers, like Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazzail, an-Nuwairi and Makrizi, report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza."[40]

In a 1301 letter, the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir accused Ghazan of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem, "the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca":[41]

"You should not have marched on a Muslim country with an army composed of a multitude of people from diverse religions; neither should you have let the Cross enter sacred territory; nor should you have violated the sanctity of the Temple of Jerusalem."

— Letter from Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir to Ghazan, October 3rd, 1301.[42]

The Arab historian Yahia Michaud, in the 2002 book Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI, describes that there were some firsthand accounts at the time of forays of the Mongols into Palestine, and quotes two major contemporary Muslim sources (Abu al-Fida and Ibn Taymiyyah) who state that Jerusalem was one of the cities that was invaded by the Mongols:[43]

"The Tatars then made a raid against Jerusalem and against the city of Khalil. They massacred the inhabitants of these two cities (...) it is impossible to describe the amount of atrocities, destructions, plundering they did, the number of prisonners, children and women, they took as slaves".

— Abu al-Fida, Histoire.[44]

"The Mongols first marched against Syria in 699 (1299-1300)... In Jerusalem, in Jabal al-Salihiyya, in Naplouse, in Daraya and other places, they killed a number of people, and made a number a number of captives only known to God."

— Ibn Taymiyyah, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI.[45][46]

The 14th century Muslim historian Al-Mufaddal also mentions the massacres of the populations of Jerusalem and the nearby city of Hebron (30 km south of Jerusalem) by the Mongols during the 1299-1300 campaign,[47] and even mentions, together with Al-Nuwayri, that a cross was raised on the top of the Mosque of Abraham in Hebron.[48]

Armenian medieval sources
According to Western and Armenian tradition, King Hetoum II visited the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem, in early 1300, though this account is disputed.

A single Armenian account by the monk Nerses Balients (an Armenian monk converted to Catholicism by the Dominicans)[49] relates the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols, and describes a prominent involvement of the Armenian king Hetoum II in the invasion. Of this account, the modern French historian Demurger said, "There is a tradition that Hethoum celebrated a religious office at the Saint-Sepulcre on the day of the Epiphany (January 6).[50] Dr. Schein listed in both her 1979 paper and 1991 book Fidelis Crucis the account of Nerses Balients which stated that the Armenian King Hetoum II, with a small force, had reached the outskirts of Cairo and then spent some fifteen days in Jerusalem visiting the Holy Places after its capture by the Mongols:

"The king of Armenia, back from his raid against the Sultan, went to Jerusalem. He found that all the enemies had been put to flight or exterminated by the Tatars, who had arrived before him. As he entered into Jerusalem, he gathered the Christians, who had been hiding in caverns out of fright. During the 15 days he spent in Jerusalem, he held Christian ceremonies and solemn festivities in the Holy Sepulchre. He was greatly comforted by his visits to the places of the pilgrims. He was still in Jerusalem when he received a certificate from the Khan, bestowing him Jerusalem and the surrounding country. He then returned to join Ghazan in Damas, and spend the winter with him"

— Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Armeniens I, p.660[51]
It may be on the occasion of a visit to Jerusalem in 1300 that Hetoum II remitted his amber scepter to the Armenian convent of Saint James of Jerusalem.

According to the historian Claude Mutafian, this may be on this occasion that Hetoum II remitted his amber scepter to the Armenian convent of Saint James of Jerusalem.[52]

In her 1991 book, Schein expanded her earlier statement to say that the Armenian information about Hetoum's visit was confirmed by Arab chroniclers.[53] However, Schein's interpretation of the Armenian involvement has been challenged by Angus Donal Stewart in his 2001 book The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks, where he called the Armenian statement an "absurd claim" from an unreliable source, and said that the Arab chroniclers did not confirm an Armenian involvement in the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols.[54] Another historian, Reuven Amitai, also did a detailed comparison of all of the available primary sources about the events around the Battle of Wadi al-Khazindar, and concluded that the Armenian account was in error, as it did not match up with other similar sources about the same events, was provably full of exaggerations and inaccuracies, and had been written as to glorify the Armenian king Hetoum. Amitai also pointed out that despite Dr. Schein's acceptance of the Armenian source as genuine, that even the original editor of the work, Edouard Dulaurier, had "unequivocally" denied the veracity of the Armenian account.[55] However, Edouard Dulaurier actually only mentions that Nerses Balients may have added a few fantastic details to exagerate Hetoum's accomplishments somewhat, specifically disputing that Hetoum went as far as Cairo when Ghazan himself sent 15,000 men only as far as Gaza, but he does not otherwise challenge the account of the Mongol's capture of Jerusalem and Hetoum's visit to the Holy City for 15 days afterwards.[56]

Western medieval sources

In February 1300, a Francisan monk in Nicosia, Cyprus, wrote a letter saying that King Hetoum had celebrated mass in Jerusalem,[57] evidently at the Holy Sepulchre on January 6, 1300.

According to Demurger in The Last Templar, the first announcement of the Mongol success was in a letter written in Cyprus in March 1300, which mentions that Ghazan controlled both Damas and Jerusalem:[58]

"Ghazan dispatched messengers to the kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus, and to the communes and to the religious orders, asking them to come to him in Damas or Jerusalem, so that he could remit to them all the lands the Christians held at the time of Godefroy de Bouillon".

— Letter of Thomas Gras, Cyprus, March 24, 1300[59]

According to Schein, the earliest letter was dated March 19, 1300, and was probably based on accounts from Venetian merchants who had just arrived from Cyprus, which they had left on February 3, 1300.[60] The account gave a more or less accurate picture of the Mongol successes in Syria, but then expanded to say that the Mongols had "probably" taken the Holy Land by that point.

Other reports also mention that Christians were in Jerusalem in April to celebrate Easter.[61].

Removal of the Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Mongols (1300)

According to historian Sylvia Schein in her 1991 book, the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed" because they are documented to have removed the Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem in 1300, to have it transferred to Damascus.[62] The account emerged from a 14th century priest named Niccolo of Poggibonsi, who gave a detailed architectural description of Jerusalem, and mentionned the acts of the Mongols on the gate. Denys Pringle in his 1993 The Chruches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem also mentions that "Nicolas relates how the Tartars, or Mongols, when they took Jerusalem (c.1300), tried at first to remove the entire gate, then, having failed, to undermine it, and finally to burn it, but with no more success".[63] It is recorded that after these deeds, the Sultan, when he re-captured the city, had the gate walled up.[64]


European rumors about Jerusalem

See also: History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)

Whatever the truth may have been, the Mongol advance led to wild rumors in Europe at the time, that perhaps the Mongols had captured Jerusalem and were going to return it to the Europeans. These rumours spread and were inflated widely, due to wishful thinking, and the urban legend environment of large crowds that had gathered in Rome for the Jubilee. The story grew to say (falsely) that the Mongols had taken Egypt, that the Mongol Ghazan had appointed his brother as the new king there, and that the Mongols were going to further conquer Barbary and Tunis. The rumors also stated that Ghazan had freed the Christians who were held captive in Damascus and in Egypt, and that some of those prisoners had already made their way to Cyprus. From Italy, the rumors spread to Austria and Germany, and then to France.[65]

By April 1300, Pope Boniface was sending a letter announcing the "great and joyful news to be celebrated with special rejoicing,"[66] that the Mongol Ghazan had conquered the Holy Land and offered to hand it over to the Christians. In Rome, as part of the Jubilee celebrations in 1300, the Pope ordered processions to "celebrate the recovery of the Holy Land," and he further encouraged everyone to depart for the newly-recovered area. King Edward I of England was asked to encourage his subjects to depart as well, to visit the Holy Places. And Pope Boniface even referred to the recovery of the Holy Land from the Mongols, in his bull Ausculta fili.

In the summer of the Jubilee year (1300), Pope Boniface VIII received a dozen ambassadors, dispatched from various kings and princes. One of the groups was of 100 Mongols, led by the Florentine Guiscard Bustari, the ambassador for the Il-khan. The embassy, abundantly mentioned in contemporary sources, participated in the Jubilee ceremonies.[65] Supposedly this ambassador was also the man nominated by Ghazan to supervise the re-establishment of the Franks, in the territories that Ghazan was going to return to them. There was great rejoicing for a short time, but the Pope soon learned about the true state of affairs in Syria, from which in fact Ghazan had withdrawn the bulk of his forces in February 1300, and the Mamluks had reclaimed by May.[65] But the rumors continued through at least September 1300.[67]

See also

Notes

  1. ^ Amitai, Mongol Raids, pp. 247-248
  2. ^ Saudi Aramco World "The Battle of Ain Jalut"
  3. ^ Grousset, p. 581
  4. ^ "On 1 March Kitbuqa entered Damascus at the head of a Mongol army. With him were the King of Armenia and the Prince of Antioch. The citizens of the ancient capital of the Caliphate saw for the first time for six centuries three Christian potentates ride in triumph through their streets", Runciman, p.307
  5. ^ "The king of Armenia and the Prince of Antioch went to the army of the Tatars, and they all went off to take Damascus".|Gestes des Chiprois, Le Templier de Tyr. "Le roy d'Arménie et le Prince d'Antioche alèrent en l'ost des Tatars et furent à prendre Damas". Quoted in "Histoire des Croisades III", Rene Grousset, p586
  6. ^ Runciman, p.310
  7. ^ Jean Richard, p.428
  8. ^ Amin Maalouf, p.264
  9. ^ Tyerman, p.806
  10. ^ Amin Maalouf, p.262
  11. ^ a b The British historian Steven Runciman considers that Nablus and Gaza were occupied, but that Jerusalem itself was not reached by the Mongols. Runciman, p.308 Cite error: The named reference "runciman-308" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
  12. ^ "Hulegu informed Louis IX that he had handed over the Holy City to the Franks already, during the brief Mongol occupation in 1260 (although, as we have seen, this is nowhere indicated in any of the Muslim sources, still less in the Frankish appeals for help to the West), and the claim was reiterated in 1274 by Abaqa's envoys.", Jackson, p.174
  13. ^ "It happened that some men from Sidon and Belfort gathered together, went to the Saracens' villages and fields, looted them, killed many Saracens and took others into captivity together with a great deal of livestock. A certain nephew of Kit-Bugha who resided there, taking along but few cavalry, pursued the Christians who had done these things to tell them on his uncle's behalf to leave the booty. But some of the Christians attacked and killed him and some other Tartars. When Kit-Bugha learned of this, he immediately took the city of the Sidon and destroyed most of the walls [and killed as many Christians as he found. But the people of Sidon fled to an island, and only a few were slain. oe43]. Thereafter the Tartars no longer trusted the Christians, nor the Christians the Tartars." Fleur des Histoires d'Orient, Chap. 30
  14. ^ Hindley, pp. 205-206
  15. ^ Nicolle, p. 47
  16. ^ Tyerman, p. 818
  17. ^ Grousset, p.656
  18. ^ "When he disembarked in Acre, Edward immediately sent envoys to Abagha (…) As he (Abagha) could not commit himself to the offensive, he ordered the Mongol forces stationned in Turkey under Samaghar to attack Syria in order to relieve the Crusaders” Jean Richard, p.446
  19. ^ "Edward was horrified at the state of affairs in Outremer. He knew that his own army was small, but he hoped to unite the Christians of the East into a formidable body and then to use the help of the Mongols in making an effective attack on Baibars", Runciman, p.335
  20. ^ a b Grousset, p.653.
  21. ^ Runciman, p.336
  22. ^ "Et revindrent en Acre li message que mi sire Odouart et la Crestiente avoient envoies as Tartars por querre secors; et firent si bien la besoigne quil amenerent les Tartars et corurent toute la terre dantioche et de Halape de Haman et de La Chamele jusques a Cesaire la Grant. Et tuerent ce quil trouverent de Sarrazins", Estoire d'Eracles, Chap XIV
  23. ^ Quoted in Grousset, p.653
  24. ^ a b c Runciman, p.336
  25. ^ a b c Demurger, pp. 142-143 "The Mongols pursued the retreating troops towards the south, but stopped at the level of Gaza"
  26. ^ Runciman, p.439
  27. ^ Demurger, p. 99
  28. ^ "For a brief period, some four months in all, the Mongol Il-Khan was de facto the lord of the Holy Land", Schein, p. 810
  29. ^ "Meanwhile the Mongol and Armenian troops raided the country as far south as Gaza." Schein, 1979, p. 810
  30. ^ Amitai, p. 247
  31. ^ Schein, 1979, p. 810
  32. ^ Amitai, p. 248
  33. ^ Phillips, p. 128. ""Disillusionment came swiftly. Jerusalem had not been taken or even besieged; Ghazan evacuated Syria within a few weeks of its conquest probably because his horses were short of fodder. He attacked it again in 1301, and planned further campaigns for the next two years, but achieved nothing. His bitterness at the failure of the European powers to provide the military assistance he had asked for expressed itself in 1303 in yet another embassy to Philip IV and Edward I, to which Edward replied tactfully that he and Philip had been at war and could not send help."
  34. ^ Schein, 1979, p. 805
  35. ^ Schein, in her 1991 book mentioned in a footnote that the Mongol capture of Jerusalem was confirmed because they had removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock, and transferred it to Damascus. "The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350, ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163
  36. ^ "In December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquished the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs and captured Damascus, and even Jerusalem", Demurger, Les Templiers, 2007, p.84
  37. ^ "Mulay, a Mongol general who was effectively present in Jerusalem in 1299-1300", Demurger, Les Templiers, 2007, p. 84
  38. ^ Frédéric Luisetto, p.205-206 "Troops penetrated in Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres (...) In Hebron, a cross was even raised on top of the mosque of Abraham", also p.208 "We have knowledge of the violences perpetrated in Jerusalem and Damas"
  39. ^ Jotischky, The Crusaders and the Crusader States, p. 249
  40. ^ Schein, "Gesta dei per Mongolos 1300", p.810
  41. ^ "In a letter dated 3 October 1301, Ghazan was accused by the Sultan al-Malik an-Nasir of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem 'the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca!". Schein, 1979, p. 810.
  42. ^ Quoted in Luisetto, p.167
  43. ^ Michaud Yahia (Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies) (2002). Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI (in French). Chap. XI.
  44. ^ Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI
  45. ^ Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI
  46. ^ Also quoted in "L'Orient au Temps des Croisades", p.125
  47. ^ Referenced in Luisetto, p.205
  48. ^ Luisetto, quoting Al-Mufaddal and Al-Nuwayri, p.206
  49. ^ Mutafian, p.73
  50. ^ Demurger, p.143: "There is a tradition that Hethoum celebrated a religious office at the Saint-Sepulcre on the day of the Epiphany (January 6th)."
  51. ^ Historiens Armeniens, p.660
  52. ^ Mutafian, p.73
  53. ^ Schein, Fidelis Crucis, p. 163. "According to an Armenian source confirmed by Arab chroniclers, Hetoum II with a small force reached the outskirts of Cairo and then spent some fifteen days in Jerusalem visiting the Holy Places.
  54. ^ Stewart, p. 14. "At one point, 'Arab chroniclers' are cited as being in support of an absurd claim made by a later Armenian source, but on inspection of the citations, they do no such thing." Also Footnote #55, where Stewart further criticizes Schein's work: "The Armenian source cited is the RHC Arm. I version of the 'Chronicle of the Kingdom', but this passage was in fact inserted into the translation of the chronicle by its editor, Dulaurier, and originates in the (unreliable) work of Nerses Balienc... The "Arab chroniclers" cited are Mufaddal (actually a Copt; the edition of Blochet), al-Maqrizi (Quatremere's translation) and al-Nuwayrf. None of these sources confirm Nerses' story in any way; in fact, as is not made clear in the relevant [Schein] footnote, it is not the text of al-Nuwayrf that is cited, but D.P. Little's discussion of the writer in his Introduction to Mamluk Historiography (Montreal 1970; 24-27), and in that there is absolutely no mention made of any Armenian involvement at all in the events of the year. It is disappointing to find such a cavalier attitude to the Arabic source material."
  55. ^ Mongol Raids, p. 246. "A less charitable attitude can be taken towards the other Armenian source, written by the anonymous continuator of Constable Smpad's work. His account is full of exaggerations and inaccuracies, the first of which is the year given for the campaign (751 of the Armenian calendar which equals 5 Jan. 1302 - 4 Jan. 1303). This unknown writer does not even mention Mulay or the Mongols in the raid into Palestine. In their stead only King Het'um of Armenia is found: after the victory of Hims, the king rushed forward to pursue the fleeing sultan. He was joined by 4,000 of his troops. After eleven days of hard riding, Het'um arrived at a location near Cairo called Doli (which I cannot identify). Throughout the pursuit, the sultan was but 10-12 miles ahead of the king. The latter soon withdrew from Doli because he was afraid of being captured. On his return, Het'um entered Jerusalem and gathered all the Christians from the city who had hitherto hidden in caves. During the 15 days he spent in Jerusalem, Het'um performed magnificent Christian ceremonies and also received a patent from Ghazan granting him the city and its surroundings. Afterwards, Het'um left Jerusalem and rejoined Ghazan in Damascus, spending the rest of the winter with him. Even the editor of this work, Edouard Dulaurier, unequivocally denies the veracity of the account and writes that the author's purpose was to glorify King Het'um. There is little resemblance between the facts described here and the Mamluk works or even the account of the historian Het'um, who certainly cannot be accused of lacking a desire to eulogize the Armenian king. It is quite improbable that the Mamluk writers would have missed an opportunity to attack [the muslim] Ghazan for such a despicable action, i.e., abandoning Muslim territory, especially Jerusalem to Christian depredations."
  56. ^ Receuil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Armeniens I, Chronique du Royaume de Petite Armenie, p. 659-660 Page 659, note 1:
    "The account of the battle of Homs, in which Ghazan routs the Egyptians, on December 23, 1299, can be compared with that of Hayton, De Tartare, cap. XLII, and the narration of M. d'Ohsson, Hist. des Mongols, liv. VI, Chap. vi, t. IV, p.233-240. It is obvious that Nerses Balients added here a few fantastic details, devised to enhance the role played by the king of Armenia Hetoum II, as an auxiliary of the Tartars. We can very certainly put in doubt the pursuing of the Egyptians by this prince, after the battle, as far as the place named Doli by the compiler, which he located near Cairo. Indeed, the Mongol general who had been dispatched with a body of 15,000 men to pursue Sultan Nacer, did not go farther than Gaza, and stopped at the desert limit between Syria and Egypt". End of the note.
  57. ^ A letter from a Franciscan monk in Nicosia, dated February 4, 1300, relates that Hethoum celebrated mass in Jerusalem and informs that "Our Minister and a lot of our brothers are preparing to go to Syria, together with Knights and soldiers, and all the others of the religious orders". Quoted in Demurger, p.145
  58. ^ Demurger, p. 145
  59. ^ Demurger, p.145
  60. ^ "The earliest letter was dated 19 March 1300 and addressed to Boniface VIII. Its contents suggest that it was probably written by the Doge Pietro Gradenigo (1289-1311). - Schein, 1979, p. 814
  61. ^ Chroniques de France, edited by Jules Viard: "Et a Pasques ensivant, si comme l'en dit, en Jherusalem le service de Dieu les crestiens avec exaltacion de grant joie celebrerent". Quoted in Demurger, p.280
  62. ^ "The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350, ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163
  63. ^ Denys Pringle, 1993, The Chruches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem, p.106
  64. ^ Pringle, p.106
  65. ^ a b c Schein, p. 815
  66. ^ Riley-Smith
  67. ^ Schein, p. 805

References

Ancient sources

Modern sources

  • Amitai, Reuven (1987). "Mongol Raids into Palestine (AD 1260 and 1300)". JRAS: 236–255.
  • Barber, Malcolm (2001). The Trial of the Templars (2nd edition ed.). University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978-0-521-67236-8. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help)
  • Encyclopedia Iranica, Article on Franco-Persian relations
  • Foltz, Richard (2000). "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-23338-8.
  • Demurger, Alain (2007). Jacques de Molay (in French). Editions Payot&Rivages. ISBN 2228902357.
  • Hazard, Harry W. (editor) (1975). Volume III: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. A History of the Crusades. Kenneth M. Setton, general editor. The University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-299-06670-3. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  • Jackson, Peter (2005). The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410. Longman. ISBN 0582368960. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)
  • Lebédel, Claude (2006). Les Croisades, origines et conséquences (in French). Editions Ouest-France. ISBN 2737341361.
  • Newman, Sharan (2006). Real History Behind the Templars. Berkley Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-425-21533-3.
  • Nicolle, David (2001). The Crusades. Essential Histories. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-179-4.
  • Phillips, John Roland Seymour (1998). The Medieval Expansion of Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198207409.
  • Prawdin, Michael (pseudonym for Charol, Michael) (1940/1961). Mongol Empire. Collier-Macmillan Canada. ISBN 1412805198. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Prawer, Joshua (1972). The Crusaders' Kingdom: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. Praeger. ISBN 9780297993971.
  • Richard, Jean (1996). Histoire des Croisades. Fayard. ISBN 2-213-59787-1.
  • Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1987, 2005). The Crusades: A History (2nd edition ed.). Yale Nota Bene. ISBN 0-300-10128-7. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help); Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Runciman, Steven (1987 (first published in 1952-1954)). A history of the Crusades 3. Penguin Books. ISBN 9780140137057. {{cite book}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  • Saunders, J. J. (2001). The History of the Mongol Conquests. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812217667.
  • Schein, Sylvia (October 1979). "Gesta Dei per Mongolos 1300. The Genesis of a Non-Event". The English Historical Review. 94 (373): 805–819.
  • Schein, Sylvia (1991). Fideles Crucis: The Papacy, the West, and the Recovery of the Holy Land. Clarendon. ISBN 0198221657.
  • Schein, Sylvia (2005). Gateway to the Heavenly City: crusader Jerusalem and the catholic West. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 075460649X.
  • Sinor, Denis (1999). "The Mongols in the West". Journal of Asian History. 33 (1).
  • Turnbull, Stephen (1980). The Mongols. Osprey Publishing Ltd. ISBN 9780850453720.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link)
  • Weatherford, Jack (2004). Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0-609-80964-4.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Mongol_raids_into_Palestine&oldid=196832462"