Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance

Archives August-September 2007 September 2007 October-December 2007

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 (to judge from the microcosm of 3-4 editors), 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)

Based on the above opinions, the clear consensus version (noting that PHG continues to disagree) is: 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. --Elonka 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to express a preference for the Elonka/Adam Bishop introduction. The analysis of scholarly sources on this page seems to lean strongly to that being the overwhelming view of scholarly historical sources. Decision making on Wikipedia is made based on agreement by its editors. Consensus is important. I think PHG must do more to recognise that his opinion on how this article should read is a minority one. Many editors disagree and that he really needs to concede some ground given the arguments made. Compromise is a good thing - not something to be looked upon as a threat. The view that such an alliance occured seems to be a minority one - definitely worthy of discussion in the article, but it shouldn't be given the same standing as the view that no such alliance materialised. If it is, then that would be giving that interpretation undue weight. A reader of the article who knows nothing about the topic, should be given the understanding that there is one prevailing view among scholars of the period, and a different opinion backed by only a few. WjBscribe 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I cannot subscribe to the view that the "Alliance" view is a minority one. It is supported by numerous mainstream scholars (User:PHG/Alliance). Elonka's list is partly right, and partly fabricated (for example, her presentation of Amin Maaloof as describing the Alliance only as "a dream" was clearly abusive when I checked the source). According to Wikipedia:NPOV policy, both views should be represented, and the standard intro phrase for that would be "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance...". On our mediation, the mediator, who went into the details, has clearly said also that in his view both theories should be presented and that source-counting was pointless (Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance#On track), and he favoured my "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." approach, so Elonka cannot say that she has a consensus. I will not spend my time lobbying on Wikipedia to try to get votes the way Elonka does to claim a 4:1 or 4:2 (2 being myself +Srnec) or a 4:3 (3 being myself +Srnec + our mediator User:Tariqabjotu) position is a "consensus". It is sufficient for me that both views are expressed by mainstream historians, and that Wikipedia policies therefore allows for the representation of both. Regards PHG 12:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, no, our mediator has not favoured PHG's version, and has corrected PHG on this matter at his talkpage:[1] So the current situation is that we have all editors with an opinion (WjBscribe, Srnec, Elonka, Adam Bishop) liking "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." Except for PHG, whose objections are noted. Anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(followup) Now that we've gotten through the holidays, I'd like to take another look at getting this article cleaned up, condensed/split, and polished up for another run at FA. I see that the first sentence had crept to a different version from what was agreed in the above discussion, so I went ahead and updated it. If anyone has comments or concerns, and agrees or disagrees, please feel free to post here. Thanks, Elonka 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. You seem to be forgetting the result of our mediation which was for the introduction sentence: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts to form such an alliance, was the objective of...". You specifically gave your agreement to that sentence, so let's respect what was said. Regards PHG (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you are seriously distorting things. The version of the lead sentence that was in the article was not what we had agreed to in mediation (though I see that you have since changed it). Further, anything agreed to in mediation is voluntary, not compulsory. Mediation does not override talkpage consensus to take a different action, and participants in a mediation are free to change their minds based on later review. My opinion, and that of WJBscribe, Srnec, Adam Bishop, and now Aramgar,[2] is that there was no alliance. Aramgar hasn't commented on specific wording yet, but based on his comment below, it would seem (Aramgar, please correct me if I'm wrong) that the most appropriate lead sentence for this article is "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. --Elonka 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The revision Elonka made on January 12 (here) best represents scholarly consensus despite all the good faith efforts of the primary editor. This article would be more appropriately called Franco-Mongol diplomacy. Aramgar (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Aramgar. I went ahead and changed the article back to the consensus version of the intro sentence. PHG, can you please respect the consensus here? We have a lot of other things we need to discuss, and I don't want to get bogged down on just this one thing. I really feel that if we can just get past a few more disagreements, we can have an FA-class article here. --Elonka 01:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is to confirm that the introduction sentence agreed on at the mediation between Elonka and myself was: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts to form such an alliance, was the objective of..." (I had only forgotten the "at least" in the original wording). The mediation was made after the various user comments on the introduction phrase, and was agreed to by Elonka and myself as a compromise. I believe the results of the mediation should not be disregarded and should to be abided to in good faith. Expert Wiki-opinion on the subject would be appreciated. PHG (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, as I've said before, an earlier mediation does not trump talkpage consensus. Mediation is voluntary, and participants are free to change their minds. My opinion, and the opinion of every single other editor in this discussion (except you), is that the wording of the intro sentence should 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. If you disagree with this, you are welcome to continue discussing it and trying to convince other editors, but you must absolutely cease edit-warring about it. --Elonka 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The mediation (November 2007) post-dates most of the discussions there had been about this phrase. A compromise sentence was found between you and me in a formal mediation, after something like 2 months of discussion, and you specifically said that you were finally happy with "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts to form such an alliance, was the objective of...". I think it is a basic rule of behaviour that you should abide by your own words and commitments. You cannot just erase what you formally agreeed to, simply because you feel you might have a new opportunity to promote your original point-of-view. Should Wikipedia remember that your commitments have no value? Regards PHG (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Here is the text of Elonka's agreement for the introduction sentence at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive#The mediation is here on November 14th, 2007:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. PHG 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I like that version.  :) --Elonka 07:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Concluded with agreement on the following opening sentence:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

-- tariqabjotu 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG (talk) 04:30, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite

To show what I'm talking about, I have created a completely rewritten version of the article in a subpage of my user space:

• User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance

It's a great deal shorter (70K instead of 167K). I didn't delete very much -- mostly I just split stuff out to other more specifically-focused articles. I did remove a few sources that I found questionable, and I reorganized the timeline so that it goes in order through various monarchs. I tried very hard to give appropriate weight to different historians' viewpoints (especially those of Jean Richard), with an eye towards making the article a readable and neutral synopsis of modern historians' views on the topic.

Let me know what you think, Elonka 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see real efforts at rewriting taking place. I haven't studied your new work in detail, but I wonder why you still have the 'disputed' tag at the top. What is the remaining dispute, as you see it? Is it just the Dailliez issue? EdJohnston 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, forgot it, sorry, I'll go ahead and remove it. I have no dispute with any of the information in the new version of the article.  :) --Elonka 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought Elonka was being gracious by leaving the dispute tag in. Forget about it... This is just Elonka's very own rework of the article I created, with her very own point-of-view. It is, of course, disputed, and doesn't attempt to incorporate alternative points of view. PHG 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you take the time to actually read it, I think that you will find that I put quite a bit of work into incorporating different points of view, per WP:UNDUE, giving appropriate weight to each. If anyone has any specific concerns though, I am interested in hearing them. --Elonka 13:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(followup) Just checking, if anyone has any specific concerns about my rewrite? If not, I'll go ahead and implement it. --Elonka 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not evade mediation, which is undergoing. I am afraid your rewrite is just a compilation of your POV. Even the introduction sentence is blattantly POV as seen through mediation ("Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance..."), describing attempts only. Only a balanced, NPOV intro can be acceptable "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, ..." with attending references. The rest of your rewrite is also POV, and denies the balancing of source. Please discuss issues through mediation as promissed. PHG 12:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• PHG, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are not participating in mediation in good faith. See #Mediation below. As for my rewrite, the introduction sentence is not "blatant POV", it is the consensus version as agreed upon by multiple editors (except you) at the above thread #Introduction sentence. As for me removing unreliable sources, we currently have a clear consensus that you are using bad sources (see Talk:Laurent Dailliez). PHG, Wikipedia is a cooperative project, where we have multiple people working together. If you are completely unwilling to listen to the good-faith concerns of other editors, perhaps you should find some other project to work on. --Elonka 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, my position is already a position of compromise, allowing for the representation of both POVs: "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with relevant references. On the other hand, your position only favours one POV ("Attempts only"). I believe you are actually the one blocking the process by denying both academic views to be represented fairly. Regards. PHG 12:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• PHG, this has been discussed extensively at #Introduction sentence. No one agrees with you. Please see Wikipedia:Tendentious editing. You are continually resisting input from other editors, and if you proceed with this course, there may be further consequences which restrict your editing privileges. To be able to get along on Wikipedia, a massively collaborative project, it is necessary that in the case of dispute, that editors are willing to negotiate in good faith towards a mutually-agreeable compromise. When you continue to insist on your own way as the only "compromise", this is getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. Please reconsider your stance. --Elonka 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

POV is being seized on here, and exargerated in my opinion. As for dispute over how concrete successes were, an alliance doesn't need to reach fruition, it just needs an understanding. The re-write is moving this thing in the right direction. regards --Tefalstar 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, just nudging things along here, since the page has been protected for nearly a month, and I'd like to see what we can do about getting things active again. It appears to me that we have a consensus to switch to my proposed rewrite of the article, at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I've updated it to incorporate the changes that have been agreed upon at mediation so far, and of course mediation can continue on any remaining issues, but I think it would be easier if we had the updated version of the article in place, instead of the old version. Does anyone disagree that there is a consensus? --Elonka 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary

This is basically only Elonka here asking for a replacement of the current article by her own rewrite, with only another editor saying "I haven't studied your new work in detail" and another "The re-write is moving this thing in the right direction". I don't think this would qualify as a consensus to replace the current article by any standard. Elonka's rewrite is really only an attempt at implementing a piece favouring her very own point of view to the exclusion of others. The main article has always been open to alternative interpretations and already does a fairly good job of putting forward various views on the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that that is a fair interpretation of my rewrite. I did my best to present all points of view, per WP:UNDUE and per consensus here at talk. Also, perhaps most importantly, I split the article per WP:SUMMARY so that it is back down to about 73K, rather than the 173K (and growing!) version of the current article. Every single editor who has commented on this, has said that the current version is too long. But rather than splitting it, it seems that more and more information just keeps getting added to it.

Now as for my rewrite, I am happy to adapt it or look into reworking certain sections, but I need more detailed comments to do so. If anyone would care to give specifics, I'd be happy to review them. Otherwise, we should replace the current version with my rewrite, and then continue discussions from there. --Elonka 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the way things work. Normally you make comments on the main article and we try to find a consensus for modifications through discussions on the Talk Page. The main article is always the basis for discussions and edits, and for collaborative effort in general, especially when you have been denying other users modifications to your alternative version claiming User Space ownership. PHG (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, people routinely use the method of making a separate version of an article in userspace, as a point of discussion. Especially when the "live" page is protected, the subject of edit wars, or being sat on by someone in violation of WP:OWN. Usually it works quite well, as it gives an opportunity to review a new version of the article, without there having to be a "fight" to create that version. As for User Space ownership, I have no idea what you're talking about. The only time you've tried to change that page was to add a "Totally disputed" tag to it.[3] But you've never said exactly what it is that you're disputing. So again I am asking, can you please be specific about what it is that you don't like about it? I am very open to making changes to it (or even shrinking it down further), but to do so, someone has to articulate what they want changed. --Elonka 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did complain that I "also added a {{totallydisputed}} tag to a draft version of an article that was still in my userspace" [4] which does mean you do not expect your user space to be edited. I've already said all I had to say about you version: really only an attempt at implementing a piece favouring your very own point of view to the exclusion of others. I am not interested in spending hours commenting and arguing about Userspace stuff that cannot be edited by others. We should focus on what you see as issues with the main page, not the other way around. The main page is unprotected now, and you have always been able to edit it and you did contribute to it in large ways already. PHG (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I also take note again that your claim to a consensus (above) to "switch to your own version", being based on your proposal, two vaguely encouraging editors, and my opposition, is illegitimate by any standards of what a consensus is. It is surprising that someone aspiring to Adminship could rely on such methods. PHG (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Joint Conquests"?

Really? Are we really calling the Mongol sack of Baghdad a "joint conquest" with the Franks? Is there any evidence that any Franks (as opposed to Georgians or Armenians) participated in said sack? For Syria, does the participation of troops from the by-that-point minuscule principality of Antioch really make it a "joint conquest"? PHG seems to be pushing a pretty dubious POV here. john k (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No argument here. :) BTW John, if you have time, I'd love an outside opinion in the above threads on "article rewrite", "request for comment", and "introduction sentence". --Elonka 01:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole discussion is such a mess I'm having a hard time following it. I did think that your proposed version, from what I read, is superior to the current version. john k (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We could soften the titles, like "Frank involvement in the conquest of Baghdad" or "Participation to the conquest of Syria", but secondary sources are plentiful that describe these two events (references given in the text). Bohemond VI's territories were not minuscule: he ruled both the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli, making up about half of Christian lands in the Levant throughout the period (Johnathan Riley-Smith, "Atlas of the Crusades"). PHG (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Demurger say Bohemond was present at Baghdad in 1258? Runciman certainly implies that he was not. Does Demurger actually discuss this issue in detail, and explain what evidence he has for why he believes Bohemond to have been present then? I've never seen such a a claim anywhere else. Beyond that, softened titles are a good start. john k (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's rather a lot of conflicting information about Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols (both here and at Bohemond VI of Antioch, which I assume you were heavily involved with as well. On the one hand, there are these claims that Bohemond's father had already been a Mongol subject for years. On the other hand, it is due to the influence of his father-in-law Hethoum, who only became his father in law in 1254, that Bohemond becomes a Mongol subject. At any rate, we seem to be stating things far too definitely, given the sources currently at hand. john k (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This all seems to be from Demurger, who in turns seems to be making it up as he goes along, Runciman-style (although not even Runciman goes that far). Tyerman certainly doesn't say anything of the sort, despite the references. I doubt it would have been to Bohemond's advantage to travel all the way to Baghdad when the Mamluks are still active at home. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Runciman, in fact, seems to say that Bohemond was clearly elsewhere at the time of the sack of Baghdad. "In February 1258, Plaisance made an attempt to assert her authority. She crossed from Cyprus with her five-year-old son, King Hugh, to Tripoli to her brother Bohemond, who escorted her to Acre." If Bohemond was in Tripoli and Acre in February 1258, he can hardly have been in Baghdad at the same time. Runciman cites the Assises, the Estoire d'Eracles, the MS. of Rothelin, and the Gestes des Chiprois as sources for this paragraph. How unreliable is Runciman, BTW? I've definitely noticed some rather clear errors, as when he says Ghazzan, who died in 1304, invaded Syria in 1308 and captured Jerusalem. But he's sadly the only source I actually own on the Crusades. john k (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not too bad, since he is clear and honest with his sources and gives lots of footnotes. He just gets carried away with his prose sometimes...he likes to fill in the gaps with his own imagined stories, and if the crusaders do anything distasteful to his own religious beliefs, he definitely lets you know. Sometimes he may just be out of date, and better sources may have since come to light for Ghazzan, in that case. I trust him for Bohemond's whereabouts in 1258, that's a great catch. Bohemond probably sent a contingent of troops to Baghdad, but probably not very many, and certainly was not present himself. This happens a lot in Antioch - there were Antiochene troops at Manzikert and Didgori and many others, but never the whole army led by the Prince himself. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I think my only reference for Bohemond in Baghdad is Demurger (in 2 different books). He's a highly reputable historian, but the 2 books don't give a specific reference for the statement. Would it be possible to have more details on the Runciman references? I guess we could end up with something like "According to Alain Demurger (with ref)... however Runciman states that Bohemond was in the Levant at that time (with ref)". PHG (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, PHG; this the biggest problem you have on every article, you are apparently unable to distinguish a bad source from a good one. Demurger is clearly wrong and should not be referenced at all. This has been going on for months and I don't know how else to say it anymore. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are we to say that Runciman is better than Demurger in this case? Demurger is a highly reputable source, much more recent than Runciman, and one of the foremost French historians on the subject of the Crusades. I'am OK to highlight his interpretation as his own only (until other sources can be found), and to present contrary interpretations in typical Wikipedia NPOV style, but trying to deny the very existence of his interpretation is plain wrong: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." (Wikipedia:NPOV). PHG (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Runciman cites specific sources for Bohemond in Tripoli. You yourself say that Demurger provides no sources for his claim that Bohemond was in Baghdad. john k (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bohemond's article also said (before I attempted to fix it just now) that he did not ally with the Mongols until after they took Baghdad. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• 1) I don't think giving refs for a specific claim is an absolute condition for a reputable historian to be quoted on Wikipedia (although I agree a claim with refs would be better). Demurger is a highly reputable historian: it is enough for his interpretations to be mentionned, even if he didn't give a ref for it.
• 2) I know of 2 references (Demurger and Jackson) that describe an alliance of the Antiochians with the Mongols as soon 1246-1247: in 1247 the Dominicans under Carpini placed the limit of Mongol dominions 2 days' journey south of Antioch, and Matthew Paris included Bohemond V among those who in 1246 became tributary to the Mongols (in Jackson, p.103). According to Alain Demurger, Cilician Armenia as well as Antioch and Tripoli were paying tribute and supplying troops to the Mongols since 1247 (Demurger, "Jacques de Molay", p.55.). PHG (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On Carpini, doesn't that imply that Antioch was a vassal, but that Tripoli was not? That seems a strange and unlikely situation. Beyond that, we have fairly clear and credible evidence saying that Bohemond was in Tripoli and Acre at the time of the sack of Baghdad. On the other side, we have bald assertion, not backed by any citation of primary sources, that he was in Baghdad. As to when Antioch became a vassal of the Mongols, this seems to be somewhat disputed. And is Matthew Paris a worthwhile source on the history of the crusader states? His chronicle, so far as I can gather, was about English history from 1235 to 1259. john k (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We are only here on Wikipedia to present reputable secondary sources: Jackson simply interprets Medieval sources as meaning that the Antiochians had allied with the Mongols by 1247. I have no wish to argue with Jackson's theory personally.... Second point: the date of the alliance between Bohemond and the Mongols is generally thought to be 1254 (1247 is a minority, but not uninteresting, opinion). PHG (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• 3) Also, most historians date the alliance between Bohemond and the Mongols to 1254, as the time of Bohemond's wedding to a daughter of Hethoum, that is well before Baghdad. After around 1254, Bohemond VI, Frank ruler of the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli and one of the Outremer's most important power-brokers, ("Bohemond VI, briefly one of Outremer's most important power broker", Tyerman, p.806) became a long-time ally of the Mongols.("Bohemond of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally” John Riley-Smith, The Oxford History of the Crusades, p.136)("Hethoum's attempts to build a great Christian alliance to aid the Mongols was well received by the local Christian; and Bohemond of Antioch, who was under his father-in-law's influence, gave his adhesion. But the Franks of Asia held aloof.", Runciman, p.299)("The Armenians, in the person of king Hethoum, sided with the Mongols, as did Bohemond of Antioch". Amin Maalouf, p.261 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes). Also: "Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols". Amin Maalouf, p.265 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes)) PHG (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are we calling him "one of Outremer's most important power brokers"? That Tyerman calls him this does not mean that we should call him this in this particular sentence. The actual date of said alliance, at any rate, is not at all clear from the miniature quotes you are providing. Can you give a source which actually says directly that Bohemond became a Mongol vassal in 1254? As to what we are here on wikipedia to do, we of course have to make some effort to judge the reliability of statements in secondary sources. If one secondary source makes a statement "Bohemond VI was at the sack of Baghdad in February 1258," and there is no mention of a primary source which states this, no other secondary sources can be provided which make the same assertion, and another major secondary sources provides fairly specific information that the first secondary source is impossible, we shouldn't include it. As to the date of Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols, it certainly doesn't seem that there's any agreement about when it was. john k (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• John, Runciman doesn't say specifically that Bohemond wasn't in Baghdad. Although the dates seem to be close, nobody can rule out that Bohemond may have been in the Levant at one time, and in Baghdad a few weeks earlier or later. I profoundly disagree that the interpretation of an historian such as Demurger should be discarded just because some Wikipedian is making an OR analysis based on a supposed schedule conflict. Both are reputable published views, and therefore both have the right to be represented.
• One precision on the dates of the alliance: two authors consider 1246-1247 as the date of the alliance between Antioch and the Mongols (Jackson and Demurger above). Other historians connect it to the wedding of the Armenian princess Sibylla of Armenia with Bohemond VI in 1254 (Runciman, p. 278). Runciman doesn't give a exact date, but mentions the alliance of Bohemond with the Mongols after the wedding (1254) and before 1256 (p.298-299): it is the reason why I wrote "After 1254" in the article. I don't have an exact quote :"Bohemond allied with the Mongols in 1254", but historians I've read all connect the alliance to the Mongols to the marital alliance between the Armenians and the Antiochians" (for those who wouldn't know Hetoum I , the king of Armenia and father-in-law of Bohemond, had already allied with the Mongols in 1247, and went himself to Karakorum in 1254). So from the sources I have, it either 1246-1247, or 1254 or slightly after. PHG (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is extraordinarily hard to see how Bohemond could have been in Baghdad in mid-February if he was back in Tripoli, waiting for his sister, only a few weeks later. However respected Demurger might be, he is fully capable of making a mistake. Find another historian who says Bohemond was at Antioch, or a citation to a primary source that indicates this. john k (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the date of the alliance, I agree this is murkier. However, I think you are misinterpreting Runciman. He does talk about Bohemond joining his father-in-law's efforts to cooperate with the Mongols right before he talks about Hulagu's advance into Persia in January 1256. But he gives no clear date as to when this happened. His footnote on this says to "see below". Aforesaid below is a discussion of Bohemond paying tribute to the Khan in 1260, after the fall of Aleppo. There is no indication in Runciman of Antiochene troops participating in any Mongol campaigns prior to that point. As such, there is no clear indication in Runciman of Bohemond actually submitting to the Mongols before 1260. The earlier discussion is vague and without context - we can easily interpret Runciman (especially given his footnote!) of simply foreshadowing Bohemond's later submission to the Mongols in his discussion on p. 298. Runciman is vague enough on this that I think the only things clear from his narrative are that Bohemond submitted after the fall of Aleppo in 1260, and that he was with Kitbogha at Damascus later that year. Everything before that is ambiguous. john k (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I spent considerable time looking through dozens of sources about Bohemond VI, and most of them are pretty vague about when exactly he submitted. The general sense that most of them convey, is that it happened sometime after the fall of Baghdad (1258) and before the taking of Aleppo (January 1260). Keep in mind that Aleppo is just east of Antioch, so Bohemond didn't have much of a choice at that point. He could submit, or he could be overrun. As for timing, I think I saw one source that specifically said 1259, but I don't have it handy to verify the footnotes.

If it's helpful, I've included relevant Antioch quotes from a half-dozen books here: User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Antioch. Some other potentially helpful online sources (Amazon has a good "search inside this book" feature):

• One of Runciman's articles, "The Crusader States, 1243-1291".[5]
• Jean Richard's "The Crusades, c. 1071- c. 1291"[6]

--Elonka 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that Nicholle suggests that Bohemond was not even present at the one place Runciman puts him - the capture of Damascus - calling that a mere legend. john k (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not saying that all sources agree on these events. Quite the contrary, I am just laying out the different interpretations various sources have:

• According to some historians the Antiochian Franks allied with the Mongols in 1246-1247 (Demurger, Jackson)
• According to most historians, the Antiochian Franks allied (or submitted) to the Mongols sometime after the wedding of Bohemond to Sibylla of Armenia in 1254, due to the influence of his father-in-law Hetoum I, a long-time and very active ally of the Mongols (since 1247).
• According to one author (Demurger) Bohemond was in at the Fall of Baghdad in 1258.
• According to most historians, Bohemond campaigned with Hetoum I and Hulegu to take Aleppo and Damascus in 1260.
• According to several historians (Tyerman etc...) a Mongol resident with Mongol troops stationned at Antioch until the Fall of Antioch in 1268.

Personnally, I don't care who is right or wrong: I am not an historian, and I don't think any of us should act as apprentice-historians challenging the interpretations of real, published ones. This is just about laying out historical work by reputable sources per Wikipedia:NPOV. PHG (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, our job is to try to assess the scholarly literature and try to determine what is a consensus position, what is a majority position, what is a minority position, and what is a fringe position. I notice that you don't note that according to at least one author (Runciman), Bohemond could not possibly have been at the fall of Baghdad in 1258, and that according to at least one other author (Nicholle) Bohemond was probably not present at the fall of Damascus. BTW, I've just discovered on JSTOR an article by Peter Jackson in the BHR specifically about the Mongol campaigns in Syria in 1260. I'll read and try to report on its relevance. john k (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's be precise with the sources please. Runciman does not say that "Bohemond could not possibly have been at the fall of Baghdad in 1258", he only says that he met with his sister in the Levant in February 1258. And I'm totally OK to add Nicholle as an alternative opinion. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may say this without sounding too pompous, PHG, it is extremely obvious that you are not an historian. If you were, you would know what you are doing and we wouldn't have been having these arguments for all these months. Perhaps that is a clue that you should stop? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Adam, I am only making sure that Wikipedia's editorial principles are respected here: "All Wikipedia articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." (Wikipedia:NPOV). PHG (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some salient quotes from the Jackson article

See User:John Kenney/Mongols. As I go along I see that PHG has apparently already read this article, but I thought that more extensive quotations would be more useful than hand-picked out of context quotations. I've only gone partway through, I hope to continue tomorrow. john k (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hans Eberhard Mayer on Bohemond's whereabouts in 1258.

Mayer wrote an article on the struggles in the Kingdom of Jerusalem between 1253 and 1258, published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society in 1978. Here's what he says. "Hugh, Plaisance, and Bohemund arrived in Acre on 1 February, 1258, claiming the regency and thus doing what the country had been expecting since June, 1253." The Estoire d'Eracles and some other sources are cited for the date. Now, look, if Bohemund was in Acre on 1 February, and then was spending the next several weeks, at least, dealing with the complicated issue of the regency, there is absolutely no way he could have been in Baghdad a week later. Nor is there any real chance he could have broken off being in Baghdad to head back to Tripoli to meet his sister. On the one hand, we have a very well documented event - that Bohemund was in Acre in February 1258 aiding his sister to acquire the regency of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This is attested in multiple sources, and makes it logistically impossible for Bohemund to have been present at the sack of Baghdad. On the other side, we have two statements by one historian, who provides no sourcing whatever for this claim. The only logical conclusion to draw from this is that Demurger has made a mistake. Perhaps he has confused "Bohemund in Baghdad" for the better attested (but still quite possibly false) claim that Bohemund was at the fall of Damascus, I don't know. But he seems pretty damned clearly not to have been in Baghdad. This should be removed from the article. john k (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on Hans Eberhard Mayer. However the argument that "since Bohemond was in Acre on February 1, 1258, he cannot have been at the fall of Baghdad", is your very own, is not sourced itself from a published source, and therefore amounts to original research which has no right of place on Wikipedia ("Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research" in Wikipedia:OR). What we could do is to lay the two claims side by side though: "Demurger claims that Bohemond was at the Fall of Baghdad. However he is also documented to have been in Acre on February 1st (Runciman, Mayer)." PHG (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No PHG, that's ridiculous, and is further evidence of my point that you have no idea what you are doing. You have completely failed to understand NPOV, original research, Wikipedia, and the idea of history in general. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is absurd. Just because Demurger is a reputable historian does not mean that we have to take every statement he makes at equal value. Even the best historians make mistakes, and we shouldn't uncritically repeat what we know to be mistakes. Find another source to substantiate Demurger, or drop it. john k (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Adam Bishop and John K. Sometimes historians make mistakes, and just because a reputable historian says something, doesn't mean that we have to repeat it on Wikipedia. Our job is to provide a neutral synopsis of history based on reliable sources. Where there are differing views among historians, we are to give appropriate weight to majority and minority views. But, if a historian makes a mistake or says something bizarre, that doesn't count as a "minority view", it counts as an uncorroborated statement. Now, if multiple reliable historians repeat this same view, then we might have a case that it's a significant enough view to include. Bottom line: If Demurger is the only one to say something controversial, and no one else is agreeing with him, then the information probably shouldn't be included in the Wikipedia article. --Elonka 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely obvious that Demurger, perhaps led on by the fact that Antiochene troops were probably present, has made an error. I caught myself once making this type of error on Wikipedia, in fact. I read one thing, then typed another which I thought to be perfectly in line with what I had read, only to find out reading something else later that I had, without even thinking, inserted a small detail which connected with the facts very well in my head but had no basis in the sources. You can trace this error of mine at a query I made on Talk:Waldalenus and then edits I made shortly thereafter upon checking my sources at Adalrich, Duke of Alsace. I think it very probable that Demurger did the same sort of thing and that puts four editors in the same camp against you, PHG. The claim that Bohemond was at the Siege of Baghdad is clearly not significant (or more than one historian would mention it), nor reliably sourced (since it is unfootnoted in one author and seemingly contradicted by others), and not unbiased (since only a strong bias in favour of Demurger could get over the insignificance/unreliability). For this claim, at least, PHG, you should back down. Srnec (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done that plenty of times too. The great thing about Wikipedia is that we can correct that sort of thing...except when the original poster bends over backwards to prove he is right anyway... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your comments. The fact remains that Demurger does mention (two times) that Bohemond was present with his troops at Baghdad, and publishes the info in two very reputable books. In a subject where we precisely speak about relations between Franks and Mongols, it is worth mentionning. If you wish we could even isolate Demurger further "Demurger makes a unique and unreferenced claim that Bohemond and his troops were in Baghdad", but I'm very reluctant to condone "book-burning" ("he's wrong, it never happened, don't even allow it to be mentionned"). Demurger being an extremely serious historian, I'm sure he actually has some info to back up such a claim. Furthermore, all the rationale against his claim is actually original research based on the analysis of a possible schedule conflict: I'd like to see at least a published source saying that Bohemond was not in Baghdad, or that Demurger is wrong on this count.
• By the way, several of the editors here have stated that Antiochian troops were probably at Baghdad (even if Bohemond himself weren't)... is there any reference for that? PHG (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no particular signs that Antiochene troops were at Baghdad - this seems to be an assumption, rather than something based on clear sourcing. As to Demurger, only one of your two quotations actually says that Bohemond was personally present at Baghdad. The other merely indicates the participation of Antiochene forces there. john k (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

More info

Today, I bought Alain Demurger's latest book Les Templiers (Editions Jean-Paul Gisserot, 2007), and he is once again unambiguous about the presence of Antiochian Franks at the Siege of Baghdad in 1254 (although, again he doesn't give a source). So let me review what he says exactly in these three books:

• 1) In Les Templiers (p.80-81): "The main adversary of the Mongols in the Middle-East was the Mamluk Sultanate and the Califate of Baghdad; in 1258 they take the city, sack it, massacre the population and exterminate the Abassid familly who ruled the Califate since 750; the king of Little Armenia (of Cilicia) and the troops of Antioch participated to the fight and the looting together with the Mongols."

That is not a statement that Bohemund was present. john k (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• 2) In Croisades et Croisés au Moyen-Age (p.284): "The Franks of Tripoli and Antioch, just as the Armenians of Cilicia who since the submission of Asia Minor in 1243 had to recognize Mongol overlordship and pay tribute, participated to the capture of Baghdad."
• 3) In Jacques de Molay, p.55 "The Count of Tripoli and Prince of Antioch (the two state had the same ruler), and the king of Cilician Armenia (or Little Armenia) had made their submission to the Mongols. Since 1247 already, they had paid tribute and supplied troops. King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258."

Regarding point 3), Demurger does not exactly say that Bohemond was in Baghdad in February 1258 (although his troops were). Therefore I am afraid John's reasonning that Demurger's claim is impossible because he was in Acre on February 1st 1258 doesn't work out: there are plently of other moment in 1258 (before or after) when Bohemond could have been in Baghdad. Baghdad is just a few day's horseride from Acre anyway. PHG (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever Demurger says, you were saying that he was present at the fall of Baghdad. Which is clearly impossible. If he was in Baghdad at some other time that year, we still ought to have a primary source citation for that. And what is the context of Demurger's statement about Bohemund in Baghdad? All you've given us is a bare sentence. Could you give us a bit more? BTW, Baghdad is rather more than "a few days' ride" away from acre. Assuming you go up and around the Fertile Crescent, rather than directly across the Arabian Desert, it's about 800 miles, at least. A person riding a horse, as I understand it, goes about 30 miles a day. So that's about a month's journey. Even as the crow flies, going straight across the desert, it's almost 550 miles, which is almost three weeks journey, assuming my "about thirty miles a day on horseback" is accurate. john k (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• The context of Demurger putting Bohemond in Baghdad in 1258 is clearly (as already visible in the quote above) as an indication of Bohemond's submission to the Mongols: "King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258."

Yes, sorry, I didn't see that until after I replied. I'd still

• As you will see from the Mongol Empire article (Mail system), the Mongol riders could travel about 125 miles a day with a system a relays (a gallop is about 25 to 30 miles per hour, so it would still be equivalent to a 4-5 hours gallop a day). With a relay system in place between Acre/Antioch and troops forward in Baghdad, Bohemond may have been able to travel the distance in about 5 days. At least that was a very feasible speed at that time, and probably more so for a young and fit monarch (21 years old) wishing to get somewhere as fast as possible.PHG (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's ridiculous. Bohemund didn't have a system of relay riders. Is he supposed to pick up a new horse in Aleppo and Edessa? Is he riding by himself? A walk is four miles per hour, and any long journey where one doesn't have replacement horses (as Bohemund obviously would not have) couldn't go much faster than that. The idea that he'd be galloping five hours a day is absurd. Basically, for your "5 days" you are a) assuming that Bohemund could and would travel as quickly as a Mongol post rider who has frequent replacement horses - i.e., the fastest longest distance riding ever done anywhere ever; and b) that he would ride directly across the Arabian desert, since the route around the crescent is probably over 800 miles. This is all ridiculous, especially since you have not a single source saying that Bohemund was in Baghdad at the time of the siege or sack. john k(talk) 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the method employed (he could also in average have galloped 2 hours and trotted 4-6 hours a day or something approaching), 125 miles a day was a feasible daily speed average for horsemen of the period such as the Mongols. As Bohemond was an ally of the Mongols, and most of his return trip was through Mongol territory, there is no reason why he couldn't have used their relay system (nothing easier). Again, he was a young and fit horseman (21 years old). I understand your doubts, but you cannot say that Baghdad-Antioch/Tripoli in a week is an impossible accomplishment under the period and circumstances, and use such disputable original research as the basis of an argument.PHG (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing easier? You are doing as much original research here as anyone, in that you have presented absolutely zero evidence that Bohemund was present at the fall of Baghdad. The only evidence he was in Baghdad at all is a stray, unsupported statement by Demurger. john k (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be fair John. You are making OR estimates to imply that Bohemond VI could not have been both in Baghdad and Antioch in February 1258. I'm just responding to you in kind that, in term of OR estimate, it is actually quite feasible. But it's not the point. The point is that Alain Demurger, one of the leading French historians of the Crusades, states clearly that Bohemond was in Baghdad in 1258. He is a very significant scholar, and therefore his opinion is also quite significant. It is only normal that his comment could at least be mentionned. Per Wikipedia:NPOV, "All significant opinions should be mentionned. This is non-negotiable". Regards. PHG (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And no one in 1258 would be able to ride directly across the Crescent or the desert, thanks to all those Mongols wandering around. It took a week to get from Cairo to Ascalon in 1099, with no one in the way, and they are much closer together. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. The distance could be covered in about 5 days for a few organized, rushing riders at the time of Bohemond. PHG (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I also went beyond my usual personal library (photograph available on my User page) and looked up a few things on Google Books. Overall, I agree that Demurger's claim seems quite isolated, but neither my personal library nor Google Book can have a claim to comprehensiveness, far from it. I learnt a few interesting things though, especially that the forces attacking Baghdad were very composite and included many Christians:

• In The Fire, the Star and the Cross. by Aptin Khanbaghi (p.60): During the siege of Baghdad "the Mongol army included a large Christian contingent, mainly Georgians. The Mongols did not have to beg for their assistance, as the Georgians had suffered tremendously from the cruelty of the Muslims during the invasion of Jalal al-Din Khwarazmshah a few decades earlier. Their churches had been razed and the population of Tiflis massacred. During the sack of Baghdad, the Mongols gave the Georgians a chance to take their revenge on the Muslims."
• In National Geographic, University of Michigan original issue, v.191 1997: "In 1253, the Persian writer Ala-ad-Din Ata-Malik Juvaini recorded Hulagu's preparations for his Baghdad expedition. With the cavalry were a thousand expert artillerymen from China. The army swelled with troops from vassal states: Armenians, Georgians, Persians, Turks. By one estimate, the force grew to 150,000 men."
• In Baghdad, the City of Peace by Richard Coke (p.161) "In the Baghdad troubles two hundred "Franks" are said to have taken part"

Also, it seems that after 1254 Antioch was in the orbit of Armenia, with Bohemond VI's consent, and therefore supplied troops for Armenia's military commitments to the Mongols:

• In The Islamic World in Ascendency: From the Arab conquest to the Siege of Vienna by Dr. Martin Sicker (p.111): "Bohemond, however, resided exclusively in Tripoli and, as a practical matter, Hetoum, whose realm was contiguous with it, ruled Antioch. Accordingly, Antioch was drawn into the Mongolian-Armenian alliance".

So overall Demurger's claim doesn't actually conflict with the few available sources on the subject. It does seem that Frank Antiochian troops indeed participated to the Siege of Baghdad in 1258 as auxiliaries to the Armenians. Regarding Bohemond's personal involvement in the conflict in 1258, it would indeed be natural that he went to Baghdad to accompany his troops, although not around February 1st 1258. I therefore do not see a reason to classify Demurger's claim as wrong, although I agree it is better to attribute it to him cautiously. PHG (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to accept a statement that some Antiochene troops were likely at Baghdad. Your assumption about it being "natural" for him to go to Baghdad is essentially OR. It is just as natural that, as at this time it would appear that Antioch was in the Mongol orbit but Tripoli was not, and Hethoum was essentially ruling Antioch himself, while Bohemund stayed at Tripoli, Bohemund had nothing to do with the capture of Baghdad. As far as Bohemund being at Baghdad, the campaign against Baghdad was going on in January and February 1258. This is exactly the time when Bohemund could not possibly have been there. The siege began on 29 January. The sack finished up on 20 February. If Bohemund was in Acre on February 1, there is no possible way he could have been involved in any of this. Beyond that, do we even know that Hulagu stuck around Baghdad after that? john k (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the sources, I think it's reasonable for us to say in the Wikipedia article that during the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258, that within the Mongol army of 150,000 were some Christian components from vassal states, primarily Georgians, along with some Armenians and about 200 Franks, at least some of whom were from Frankish Antioch. I don't think we should say anything about Bohemond himself in the context of the "Fall of Baghdad", though if we want to say that he visited the city at some other time in 1258, that might be a factoid worthwhile to put into the Bohemond VI of Antioch article. But it doesn't seem worthwhile to include it here at the alliance article, as I can't see as it's particularly relevant to the topic. --Elonka 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? For Demurger it is a perfectly valid point to discuss within the context of the alliance. Actually he gives it as an example of the alliance in action: "King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258." Also please refrain from major deletions of referenced material [7]. PHG (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no corroboration for Demurger's claims. Find someone else who says Bohemund was in Baghdad. Or better yet, find a primary source. john k (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any rule against quoting a reputable historian. And your "schedule conflict theory" doesn't actually contradict Demurger's statement. As his opinion seems rather isolated we'll just attribute it to him "According to Alain Demurger...". I hope one day I will be able to add additional sources on this subject. No big deal really. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to say that there were "possibly" Antiochene troops at Baghdad, and I removed the bit about Bohemond. The section is about the actual Sack of Baghdad, and though we have one source that Bohemond may have been in the city sometime during that year, we've got nothing that says that he was actually involved in the battle. So I think it's best to leave off his name from that section. --Elonka 21:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols (update)

For information, Alain Demurger, one of the leading French historians of the Knights Templar and the Crusades, is very specific in his last book Les Templiers (2007) that the Mongol ruler Ghazan captured Jerusalem after he had taken Damascus in 1299/1300: "In December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquishes the Mamluks in the Second Battle of Homs, and captures Damascus and even Jerusalem" (Alain Demurger, Les Templiers, p.84) and that his general Mulay was in Jerusalem in 1299/1300: "Mûlay, a Mongol general who was effectively present at Jerusalem in 1299/1300." (Alain Demurger, Les Templiers, p.84). Although the Mongols captured Jerusalem, he also explains that the Frank Christians did not manage to take possession of it from the Mongols because of their unreadiness. (see also Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)). PHG (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not another POV fork? PHG, we've already had an AfD on this, and the resounding consensus was that we didn't need the article Mongol raids on Jerusalem, so it was deleted.[8][9] So you went ahead and created Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) instead? Sorry, but no. The new article should be deleted. Please merge any relevant information from it, into Mongol raids into Palestine instead. Seriously, PHG, this is highly disruptive, you need to stop this behavior. When there is a clear consensus of other editors who want a certain course of action, you need to respect that. If you do not respect that, then you risk being blocked entirely from Wikipedia. --Elonka 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good one, Elonka, I'm glad you're abusing your administrative powers already. Love, Mindraker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.208.13 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Becoming an Administrator did not change your intimidation methods apparently! The AfD was on "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem", which was indeed voted down. The new title is "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)", which is not at all POV. Many authors to describe Mongol raids on Jerusalem. The article as such is totally justified (subject, size, content), and is useful to deflate the size of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. PHG (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I think Elonka's point is that, as per the AFD, the subject can be covered in the Mongol raids into Palestine article, as it is currently. Using "Palestine" instead of "Jerusalem" in the title is more historically accurate, as the raids were not only directed at Jerusalem, and more neutral in their point of view. If you would like to try to gain community consensus to have a "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)" article, please do so on the Mongol raids into Palestine talk page. If not, please continue this conversation at User talk:Elonka or at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine rather than on here, as this article does not specifically pertain to this subject we are addressing. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ioeth. The size of Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) at 36k fully justifies an independent article. The AfD was more about the word "Conquest" in the original article being too POV (hence the "POV-fork" claim). Now "Raids" is much more neutral (actually about as neutral as the other article "Mongol raids in Palestine"), and the expression "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" is shared by numerous historians. PHG (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I have replied on your talkpage. But I would point out now that every single editor who is commenting on this (recently this means me, Ioeth, Adam Bishop, John k, and Srnec) is opposed to your actions. Please stop with your disruptive behavior, and work with editors instead of in opposition to them. --Elonka 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I have been bringing more references forward to make Demurger's case clearer, and I think the dispute has settled down now... before you start bringing undue accusations. You just attacked me on my Talk Page for creating the Armeno-Mongol alliance article. Elonka, you are the one who actually proposed creating "Ameno-Mongol alliance"... and now you say you are against it and criticize me for starting the article? (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article split). You even wrote "I support the idea of creating a separate article for the Armenian-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Title) That's pure nonsense. I am asking you to apologize for your bullying. PHG (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriouly. This does look like bullying. Elonka should reconsider her involvement in this article. If what she claims regarding a consensus is true, surely someone else will come forward to carry her torch?-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No Eupator, this is not bullying, this is trying to keep false and biased information out of Wikipedia. And it's not a case of "me against PHG". I invite you to read the "Hans Eberhard Mayer" thread above, where you will see that multiple editors, including myself, Adam Bishop, Srnec, Ioeth, and John K, are speaking up. But PHG is disagreeing with all of us. I also invite you to read the results at the above #Request for comment thread, where again, every editor is disagreeing with PHG's course of action. --Elonka 06:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

4 or 5 comments by some editors has never constituted a consensus, and all editors do not agree with you Elonka. A consensus is not even sufficient to overturn Wikipedia:NPOV "non-negotiable" rules that all "significant opinions" should be represented. I decided to file an harassment claim against you here. PHG (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

"Armeno"? john k (talk) 21:19, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It's used quite commonly actually, like Greco or Russo. [10],[Armeno Russian].-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Further musings

I had some time to peruse Tyerman's book more fully; I see that this was already sorted out above, but he even continually talks about the lack of an alliance despite all the attempts, and how bad an alliance would have been if there had been one. I would also like, again, to caution against using Maalouf's book as a piece of historical scholarship. I'm sure Maalouf is a nice guy but he's no historian. He's a novelist and the book reflects that; he's not making stuff up but, well, would you want to use this Wikipedia article as a reference? No, of course not. It's the same idea. (This problem isn't specific to the Mongol articles, it's also an ongoing problem with James Reston and the Richard I article, for one example.) I've also been trying to figure out how PHG's various edits fit together. The latest argument about Bohemond is contradicted here and in Bohemond's article. I'm also not sure why this all hinges on Demurger, whose reputation perhaps rests on PHG's constant insistence that he is reputable - but more importantly, the footnote given for Bohemond's presence in Baghdad says nothing about Bohemond being in Baghdad. PHG, are you just misreading Demurger?

There are lots of other fishy statements. Aside from the bald plagiarism, authors who wrote generations apart are made to agree with each other when one is obviously just getting his info from the other. Or they are made to agree when they actually disagree. Like, Runciman is an okay source, if he's the only one and it's a little article. Otherwise, no. There is a continuum in these sorts of things - books just don't appear out of thin air, everyone builds on previous scholarship, and to use everything no matter how outdated is completely unnecessary. Or there is superfluous information which has nothing to do with the Mongols (Edward I for example).

So that's my impression after finally taking five minutes to have a look at it. Sorry for stirring up the debate again, if that is what happens. I think I'll go back to fixing the Siege of Maarat article where I am more at home with that period of history... Adam Bishop (talk) 18:10, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Adam. I have Demurger's book (Jacques de Molay) in front of me, and it says on page 55:

"The Count of Tripoli and Prince of Antioch (the two state had the same ruler), and the king of Cilician Armenia (or Little Armenia) had made their submission to the Mongols. Since 1247 already, they had paid tribute and supplied troops. King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258."

What do you mean he doesn't say that Bohemond VI was in Baghdad? Also Alain Demurger, besides his reputation in France ("one of the most eminent specialists of the history of the Order" Jean-Philippe Camus), is praised as the author of a good general survey on the Knights Templar, in Malcolm Barber's book The New Knighthood : A History of the Order of the Temple (p.397):

"There are good general surveys, by Marie-Louise Bulst-Theile, Sacrae Domus Militiae Templi Hierosolymitani Magistri (1974), and Alain Demurger, Vie et mort de l'ordre du Temple" (Life and Death of the Order of the Temple).

For a list of statements about the factuality of the Franco-Mongol alliance please check User:PHG/Alliance. I'll be glad to discuss other statements you might have issues with. Regards. PHG (talk) 18:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Ah, I missed that one, I was looking at a different footnote (it's kind of hard when there are 400 of them). Alright, well we've already gone over that bit then. I think it would be best to dismiss the whole thing with a footnote, if you're going to insist on mentioning it. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:49, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

As discussed previously, I clearly circumscribed the claim to Demurger: "According to Alain Demurger, Frankish troops from the Principality of Antioch also participated, and Bohemond VI was present at Baghdad in 1258" + footnotes. Regards PHG (talk) 19:01, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

I see you added it back in after I mentioned it, sneaky sneaky! Anyway, I also want to point out that just because an historian says something does not make it true or noteworthy. Are they not human? Are they incapable of error? Of course not. Also, if Demurger is praised as an historian of the Templars, how does this pertain to Bohemond's presence in Baghdad? Adam Bishop (talk) 08:41, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hum, it seems the quote about Bohemond VI in Baghdad in 1258 had been removed from the article by someone, so I had to reinsert it. It had been however on this Talk Page for several weeks (above), for all to see, so it was nothing new.
• I suppose historians may indeed make mistakes, but it is not for us poor Wikipedians to pass such judgements. The only acceptable approach would be to find another historian claiming that Demurger's claim is a mistake, and balance the two opinions, with references.
• Demurger is one of the first authotities on the Templars, but he is also quite an authority on the Crusades as a whole. He has published several books on the Crusades through some of the most reputable publishers in France, such as La croisade au Moyen Âge, Fernand Nathan, Croisades et croisés au Moyen Âge, Flammarion, Nouvelles histoires de la France médiévale. Tome 5 : Temps de crises. Temps d'espoirs. Points Seuil. I would agree he's probably little-known in the US, like most French historians anyway, but I don't think that's a criteria for rejection. Regards. PHG (talk) 09:55, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

John de Monte Corvino passing through Karakorum?

The article about John of Montecorvino states that he went to Khanbalyk by ship, so passing through Karakorum would be somewhat difficult. Even overland Karakorum seems a bit out of the way. Yaan (talk) 20:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

I indeed had the same doubts when I took the segment from Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China. I suppose that "passing Karakorum" is a typo for "bypassing Karakorum". Would it make more sense? Regards. PHG (talk) 20:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe. But as said, I don't think Karakorum was on the standard route from Europe to China anyway, the silk road is further south. Regards, Yaan (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yaan. I think what is meant is that the onland route to Mongol lands in the East normally implied a passage through the capital Karakorum. Regards. PHG (talk) 07:02, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Jerusalem

I tried to clarify the various sources about the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols (precise modern accounts, medieval accounts by Arab, Armenian and Christian sources). I also took away one phrase which seems too general in nature and over-editorialized to really belong to a detailed, factual, segment about Jerusalem in 1300: "In a general comment on Jerusalem in her 2005 posthumous book Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099-1187), Schein said nothing about Mongol conquest, but simply noted: "After 1187 and for the rest of the Middle Ages, Earthly Jerusalem, ruled by the Moslems (except for the short period of 1229-1244), was to loom large in all types of late medieval apocalypticism." PHG (talk) 15:09, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Aside from the fact that I disagree with PHG's sources and interpretation of events (as the vast consensus of modern historians is that the Mongols never "conquered" Jerusalem), I also disagree that this article is even the right location for a discussion of this. Multiple editors have stated multiple times in previous talkpage threads that this article is too long. And yet, PHG keeps pouring more and more information into it, such that the article is now 183K in length. I recommend that everything in this article related to Mongol activities in the Palestine area (except for a small paragraph, per WP:SUMMARY), be split to Mongol raids into Palestine. I have suggested a way to further rewrite/condense the article (see the "Article rewrite" section above), and everyone (except PHG) has agreed with my rewrite. It is my opinion that the consensus of editors at this talkpage, is that the article needs to be shortened. If someone else wants to do it, that's fine with me, but if not, I will proceed with this in the near future. --Elonka 18:41, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have been a long time observer of the Franco-Mongol Alliance article and the many other pages now associated with it, and it is with some hesitation that I become involved. I would like to support Elonka’s statements on consensus in both the academic and Wikipedia communities: the academic consensus is that no alliance existed. Whatever might have happened in those months of 1300, no Mongol army conquered Jerusalem. The article is too long. Some considered part ought to be moved to Mongol raids into Palestine. Moreover, I would suggest that the articles Mulay and Kutlushah be deleted and the few details about these two commanders be moved to the same. Aramgar (talk) 21:06, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• I am now nearly through with article content, most events are highly documented (400 refs), and indeed the time is soon coming to split the article into smaller parts. I will see what can be done about it.
• Regarding the Mongol conquest of Jerusalem in 1300, please be objective and just look at the sources (I suggest you read that chapter again: Franco-Mongol alliance#The fate of Jerusalem in early 1300). Most contemporary sources (Arab, Armenian and Christian) do mention the conquest of Jerusalem and many, many, maybe most, modern historians do consider that Jerusalem was indeed captured, although for a short time. At least there is far enough to mention both views as per WP:NPOV.
• As for Mulay and Kutlushah, they are perfectly notable Mongol generals of the period, with numerous references. There is absolutely no reason why they shoudn't have their own article in an Encyclopedia. Best regards PHG (talk) 21:48, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• hi PHG, first I want to commend you for the superb extraordinary work you've been doing. As an outsider, I dont know whats going on in this article but I want to comment on Mulay: I was expecting to find information about him in the article, however it was information about the battle :), so, maybe some kind of merge should be done or that information moved into other relevant places. My 2 cents as an outsider on the Mulay affair. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

• Hi Matt. Thank you for the compliment, I truely appreciate! I am currently preparing more biographical information on both Mulay and Kutlushah (I will also do Samagarh a bit later). Best regards. PHG (talk) 11:26, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Article title

Aramgar suggested above, that this article (currently at "Franco-Mongol alliance") might be better titled as "Franco-Mongol diplomacy". I've personally supported "Franco-Mongol relations", myself, but I'd be willing to go along with "Franco-Mongol diplomacy" as a title. Anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 00:54, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Either of those is preferable to the current title. I wonder if it might be better to say "Crusader" rather than "Franco"? john k (talk) 02:11, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I've thought about that too, but "Crusader" starts really broadening the topic. As I understand it, the main thrust of this article is about the diplomatic relations between the Mongols, and the Franks of Western Europe. So another possible title is "Latin-Mongol relations"? That would help distinguish it from the Byzantines? --Elonka 02:19, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How does Crusader broaden the topic? We are talking about relations between the Mongols on the one hand, and the elements which constitute "Crusading" in western Europe and the Eastern Mediterranean on the other. This includes the nobility of Outremer and Cyprus, the Military Orders, and whatever western European leaders happen to be involved in crusading at any given time (primarily Loui IX at the time we're talking about, but also Edward I, and perhaps some others). Referring to this as the "Franks" is appropriate. But Franco-Mongol relations, or whatever, can easily be interpreted as being about relations between France and the Mongols, which is not the subject of the article. Most people don't know that the Crusaders are called "Franks." "Latins" would be okay as well, but I don't understand how "Crusader" broadens the topic. john k (talk) 02:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the title for the article has already been discussed extensively, and has already been the object of a consensus in favour of "Franco-Mongol alliance": see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move. Basically, "Franco-Mongol alliance" is the way these events are called in the historical litterature: a sampling here. PHG (talk) 10:58, 15 January 2008 (UTC

John: You are probably better qualified to define the term than I, but my impression was that "Crusader" was a term that could apply to multiple cultures, not just Western Europeans. However, I'll freely agree that it usually means Western Europeans, so I'm not totally against the title.

Although as a common noun "crusader" can be used in a variety of contexts, as a proper noun, Crusader can only refer, so far as I'm aware, to actual Christian crusaders from the Middle Ages. Am I missing something here? john k (talk) 21:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, the subject was discussed back in September. Consensus can change, and it is reasonable to re-examine the issue from time to time, especially when there are new voices. We only had five participants in the previous discussion, two of whom have not been actively engaged in quite awhile. It would be nice to get input from more people to ensure that the article title reflects actual consensus. If the consensus is still to keep the article title at "Franco-Mongol alliance", then fine, it'll stay. If the consensus has changed, then the article should be moved. --Elonka 17:44, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The article seems to be about the relationship between the West and the Mongols with an emphasis on the overall Crusading movement's dealings with the Mongols. Something along the lines of Mongol-Catholic relations during the Crusading period would be more appropriate than the current title. It's not like there was "a West" or, after the break-up of the Mongol Empire, "a Mongol state" that could actually form something as technical as an alliance. You've got the Pope, with his relations with the Great Khan and then lesser Khans for lots of different reasons, curiosity, conversion, crusading, etc; then you've got the actual crusader states dealing with the Mongol Khanates and armies on a practical basis; then you've got the the three great kings of the west dealing with them for whatever reason. Keeping most of the current content, I'd suggest the article could be renamed Crusader states and the Mongols (which is what the article is mostly about), with all the more general stuff going into Mongols and the West or something like that. Catholic-Mongol alliance is a small article about theory and historical debate, not this one. This is a very impressive looking article btw! Deacon of Pndapetzim (Talk) 00:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• Thank you Deacon of Pndapetzim for your appreciation of the article! Best regards PHG (talk) 06:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

If it's helpful, I've compiled a list of several dozen quotes from various books, to see how they are referring to the issue: User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Quotes. The top two "in text" descriptions seem to be "alliance" (as in "absence of the hoped-for Mongol alliance"), and "relations". But for an actual title, the patterns are different. "Mongols and the West" is used a couple places, plus "Western Europe and the Mongol Empire". I'd personally be happy with many of the above suggestions as well. I also like the "Relations" variants since that seems to be more of a Wikipedia standard (see Category:Foreign relations by country, though that's obviously more for modern countries). Let's definitely keep talking and see if we can find a consensus.  :) --Elonka 00:30, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

The subject of the title for the article has already been discussed extensively, and has already been the object of a consensus in favour of "Franco-Mongol alliance": see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move. Basically, "Franco-Mongol alliance" is the way these events are called in the historical litterature: a sampling here. PHG (talk) 05:47, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, that's just a copy/paste of what you already said 20 hours ago, at 10:58 on 15 January. Can you please not keep repeating the same thing? --Elonka 00:50, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance in historical litterature

For those who are new to this discussion, please see hereafter a sampling of how the expression "Franco-Mongol alliance" is used in historical litterature, and how the notion of the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols is developed. In summary, "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a highly recognized academic expression to describe these (admitedly little-known...) events. As far as I know, "Franks" is considered as the most exact term to designate Western European Crusaders dealing with the Middle-East, as this was the general name given to them by the Muslims. Other designations are too vague (Crusaders, Christians, Catholics) for this specific subject. Preference should clearly go to the recognized academic nomenclature for article title. PHG (talk) 09:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

• René Grousset mentions especially "Louis IX and the Franco-Mongol alliance" (p521), "Only Edward I understood the value of the Mongol alliance" (p.653) "Edward I and the Mongol alliance" (p.653), "Edward I renewed the precious Mongol Alliance" (in "L'épopée des Croisades", p.301), "The Franco-Mongol coalition, of which the Hospitallers were giving the example" (p.686)
• Jean Richard in Histoire des Croisades, has the Franco-Mongol alliance start in earnest in the 1260s ("The sustained attacks of Baibars (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.) and continue on-and-off until it was strongly revived by Ghazan, to continue to have an influence until 1322 ("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). He concludes on the many missed opportunities the alliance offered: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", 1996, Jean Richard, p.469
• Dr. Martin Sicker, in The Islamic World Ascendancy (p.113): "Ket-Buqa and Bohemond VI fully appreciated the mutual advantages of the Frank-Mongol alliance". He also mentions an end to the Franco-Mongol alliance after the events of Sidon: "Suitably provoked, the Mongols responded by pillaging Sidon, thereby bringing an effective end to the Frank-Mongol alliance." (p.113)
• Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he 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." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts.
• Bernard de Vaulx in History of the Missions (p. 53) writes about the "Franco- Mongol alliance".
• Peter W. Edbury in The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374 (p. 92) mentions the "Franco-Mongol alliance", and gives as an example that the Mongol staged an attack to coincide with the Frank offensive during the Crusade of Edward I.
• Jean-Paul Roux, in Histoire de l'Empire Mongol ISBN 2213031649, has a chapter on the "Frank alliance" with the Mongols. He describes the continuation of this alliance until the time of Oljeitu: "The Occident was reassured that the Mongol alliance had not ceased with the conversion of the Khans to Islam. However, this alliance could not have ceased. The Mamelouks, through their repeated military actions, were becoming a strong enough danger to force Iran to maintain relations with Europe.", p.437
• Claude Mutafian in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie describes "the Mongol alliance" entered into by the king of Armenia and the Franks of Antioch ("the King of Armenia decided to engage into the Mongol alliance, an intelligence that the Latin barons lacked, except for Antioch"), and "the Franco-Mongol collaboration" (Mutafian, p.55)
• Zoe Oldenbourg in The Crusades mentions the 1280 "Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun". (Oldenbourg, "The Crusades", p.620)
• Alain Demurger, in the 2002 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.(Demurger, p.147 "This expedition sealed by a concrete act the Mongol alliance"), "The strategy of the Mongol alliance in action(Demurger p.145) "De Molay led the fight for the reconquest of Jerusalem by relying on an alliance with the Mongols", back cover)
• Jonathan Riley-Smith mentions 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) He also describes Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols: "Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally", in History of the Crusades, p.136
• Laurent Dailliez, in Les Templiers, mentions that the Knights Templar allied with the Mongols, and that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with them against the Muslim "their common enemy".("The Mongols, after taking Damascus and several important cities from the Turks, after having been routed by the Sultan of Egypt at Tiberiade in 1260, allied themselves with the Templars. Jacques de Molay, in his letter to the king of England said that he had to sign such a treaty to fight against the Muslims, "our common enemy"" Dailliez, p.306-307)
• Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West entitles a whole chapter "An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the viscicitudes and the actual limited results of the Mongol alliance.
• Claude Lebedel in Les Croisades describes the alliance of the Franks of Antioch and Tripoli with the Mongols: (in 1260) "the Frank barons refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the Armenians and the Prince of Antioch and Tripoli".
• Amin Maalouf in The Crusades through Arab eyes is extensive and specific on the alliance (page numbers refer to the French edition): “The Armenians, in the person of their king Hetoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond, his son-in-law. The Franks of Acre however adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the muslims” (p.261), “Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols” (p.265), “Hulagu (…) still had enough strength to prevent the punishment of his allies [Bohemond and Hethoum]” (p.267), “..the Hospitallers. These monk-horsemen allied with the Mongols, going as far as fighting at their side in a new attempt at invasion in 1281."
• Sylvia Schein in Gesta Dei per Mongolos describes the Templars, Hospitallers and crusaders of Cyprus as allies of the Mongols in the campaings of 1300-1302: "They (the Templars, Hospitallers and crusaders of Cyprus) sailed to the island of Ruad, and, from that base, captured Tortosa, but retired a few days later when their allies (the Mongols) did not appear.", p.811
• Patrick Huchet in Les Templiers, une fabuleuse epopee relates that "Jacques de Molay, elected Master in 1292, associated himself with the Mongols to set up military operations on the island of Ruad (near Tortose)."
• E. L. Skip Knox, Boise State University, in The Fall of Outremer online: "Some of the Crusader States wanted to form an alliance with the Mongols, while others weren't so sure. The allure of destroying Egypt was great, but the Mongols were pretty scary allies. In the end, Armenia and Antioch joined, along with the Templars and Hospitallers." also here: "A double army marched down from the north and east, crossing the Euphrates in 1281. Qalavun marched north and they met near Homs on 30 October. Once again, Christians fought alongside the Mongols (the Hospitallers and the Armenians this time)".
• Reuven Amitai-Preiss writes about the "Mongol-Frankish rapprochement" (Mamluk perceptions of the Mongol-Frankish rapprochement, MHR 7 (1992), p.50-65)
• Emmanuel Berl in Histoire de l'Europe (p. 219) writes about the "Franco-Mongol rapprochement".

PHG, isn't the above just another copy/paste of what you've already got at User:PHG/Alliance? You've already copy/pasted this to multiple talkpages, please, in the future, just give the link rather than repeatedly pushing this onto talkpages? --Elonka 17:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I may be new to the discussion but I have read every tedious word. I am concerned that many of the sources adduced to provide evidence for an alliance have been misrepresented. Yes, they use the word, but close reading will reveal that the author believes no alliance was ever effected. Yes, there was much coming and going of envoys. Yes, letters were exchanged. Yes, there were a couple of failed attempts to coordinate. Yes, an alliance was the aspiration of both the Ilkhans and parties in the West. But it did not happen.

A good summary of the current scholarly opinion on this subject is Reuven Amatai-Preiss’ book Mongols and Mamluks: the Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281 (Cambridge University Press, 1995). In the fourth chapter, in a section entitled “The Īlkhāns and the Franks” (pp. 94-105), Amatai-Preiss discusses all this coming, going, and letter writing, ill-starred coordinating and aspiring. He does not use the word alliance. And lest someone suggest that the book is limited in its scope, extending only to 1281, allow me to quote from the concluding paragraph:

…the fact is that through his reign Abagha sent at least four embassies to the West. Each visited more than one court, including that of the Pope, and carried a letter calling for a joint anti-Muslim campaign. This phenomenon, perhaps more than any other, indicates the importance which Abagha attributed to the war with the Mamluks, and the extent to which he wanted to extend his sway into Syria and perhaps beyond. Most of his successors shared these goals, and in order to realize them they attempted, like him, to interest the Christian West in a common venture. They were all equally unsuccessful in achieving this goal. (p. 105; link and emphasis my own.)

Rather than citing every use of the word “alliance” in the relevant literature, editors ought to take into account what the relevant literature actually says. See Elonka’s page on the opinions of various scholars in the field. I find it much more compelling than the references provided above.

I believe that per Amatai-Priess and PHG’s suggestion “Franco-Mongol” is right. The new title ought to be either Franco-Mongol diplomacy or Franco-Mongol relations. I prefer the former but am flexible on this point. Episcopus and Elonka ought to perform a major “coproëctomy.” I would rather go back to the Sultans of Rum. Too many good editors —and I include PHG among them—have wasted too much time here. Aramgar (talk) 18:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't see why people are tearing themselves to bits here. Leave the article's name as it is. A Franco-Mongol alliance, whilst it may have never been felt in force in the Middle East, did occur to a small extent. The Mongols and the Franks were unable to cooperate due to many reasons. That sounds like an alliance that was never used when needed most. A Franco-Mongol alliance ofcourse, had nothing to do with Byzantium, although it must be said that the Mongols of the Ilkhanate Persian regime and the Byzantine Empire did attempt to ally to stop the Ottomans, but this failed as well to achieve success. There were alliances between the Franks and the Mongols. Its just that it was not enough to beat the Mamelukes - simple as that, and the article explains this, so who cares, just leave the name as it is. Tourskin (talk) 01:05, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Article split

I started splitting the article into periods, which actually correspond to the reigns of the various Il-Khan rulers. That's going to take some more fine tuning, but the article size is already down to 140k (and it is only 80k without the copious references).PHG (talk) 12:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am not sure that splitting Franco-Mongol alliance into three or four separate articles which perpetuate a selective and idiosyncratic reading of the secondary literature is what the other editors had in mind. So now we have a Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265), a Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282), and a Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304). Perhaps there should be some central list of all the articles that have been affected by the primary editor’s Franco-Mongol enthusiasms. In time these will all have to be moderated. Aramgar (talk) 16:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As always, moderation, with due references and presentation of the various significant views as per Wikipedia:NPOV, is welcome. Regards PHG (talk) 16:17, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I am with Aramgar that splitting the article into multiple "Franco-Mongol alliance" by date sections is not appropriate. PHG, surely you should have realized that such a change is highly provocative and disruptive, and should have been discussed first? All other discussions about splits were about moving information to existing articles, not making new ones. When you've created POV forks in the past, they have been deleted,[11][12] and it seems that you're just trying to find new titles to push this POV. Your point of view is that there was an alliance between the Mongols and the Franks, and everything that you're writing is pushing this bias. You state "alliance" as the primary view, and you state "maybe there wasn't an alliance" as a minority view. But this is backwards to modern scholarship, and is giving undue weight to opinions of modern historians. In actuality, the vast consensus of modern historians is there was not an alliance, though there are a couple isolated incidents of historians (Jean Richard, Alain Demurger) who argue that an alliance technically existed. But even Demurger and Richard don't agree with each other as to the scope of it. PHG, your edits are in violation of WP:UNDUE. Please stop what you're doing, and work with other editors, instead of against them. --Elonka 17:53, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I dont have any comments on the nuetrality and other disputes (including titles of the splits) right now but I feel that dividing the article by age/era is the most suitable way because all the headings in the article are arranged after all in chronological way. Seems to makes sense to me to divide the article into the various time periods it covers. If the alliance word is not found to be suitable under consensus, then all the titles of the various splits will later have to be changed which shouldnt be a problem. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 22:36, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you Matt. Let me remind that a formal consensus was already established in favour of the "Franco-Mongol alliance" title: see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move. There is therefore nothing more legitimate than to split the article according to this same nomenclature. PHG (talk) 05:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304) implies even more strongly than Franco-Mongol Alliance that there was an explicit treaty alliance between Franks and Mongols. john k (talk) 14:46, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Splitting the article at all is a bad idea. We don't need to spread this around to a whole series of articles; more than anything, this one just needs to have a crapectomy. Adam Bishop (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur. I believe that until the apparent contoversy over the main article has been settled, it is unwise to split it into separate smaller article. It seems to be an attempt to confuse the issue by implying a resolution that does not currently exist. Kafka Liz (talk) 15:29, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

After all the requests to split the article, it is a little disheartening to see that now some editors are not so much into splitting after all... Basically, I have taken great care to give the most complete account possible on the various contacts and collaboration between the Mongols and the Franks. I spent 4 months and went through about 40 books to get all the pieces together. We now have a highly documented article, probably one of the best reference anywhere on the Franco-Mongol alliance. Everything is referenced, so I am quite reluctant to delete any of the available information. As the article is a roughly 200k, the only way is to split, and probably do so along chronological/regnal lines. This also gives us the opportunity to condense the main article in summary style, as I think everybody desires, myself included. I suggest we spend the next few weeks condensing the main article, but I will also expand slightly the sub-articles in the meantime, as I have a few more elements coming up (from Reuven-Amitai mainly). It is the very beauty of Wikipedia that we can indeed go into a lot of detail even for very arcane and obscure subjects: this is what is making it a reference worldwide. Best regards. PHG (talk) 17:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

My point is just that I think that consensus should be reached and the controversy resolved before the article is split into subpages. The issues are easier to keep track of if they are all on a single page, no matter how long that page may be. Having subpages that propagate such different viewpoints makes Wikipedia look bad. PHG, you’ve unquestionably done a lot of work here, but I think it should remain in the main article for the time being. Regards, Kafka Liz (talk) 18:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Kafka Liz. It's really no big deal to keep track of one article and 4 subpages, especially when content size justifies it. Best regards. PHG (talk) 19:09, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks PHG, it does look like people leaned towards retaining that title though it would be nice to have gotten input from more people on that poll. I will agree with John K though. Also, its looking like even though there's many historians that have confirmed the existence of the alliance, there's many that have talked in unsure terms about it. Sorry, I havent been following up this debate and dont mean to ask you to repeat the arguments, but in short terms what do you think of these alternate opinions Elonka archived here on her user space? From this it looks like, historians have differed on how they recorded this incident and were at times, unsure of the whole thing while others have been sure of it, like you have presented. What do you think?

I want to ask people here though: for the view that the alliance didnt happen, how does this affect the rest of the article? I have not read the article and i may be wrong but it looks like to me on first glance that the rest of the article doesnt have any meaning if the alliance didnt happen. Is that right? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Very simply, all these contacts and military cooperation between the Franks and the Mongols are amply proven to have happened. Now, some famous scholars just say this was a Franco-Mongol alliance, some say there was a Franco-Mongol alliance but the results were few, some say there was no alliance, and some say it was more of an entente etc... For a summary of modern views, please check Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations). Now it supposed to be easy to deal with on Wikipedia: according to Wikipedia:NPOV, all significant opinions should be presented (it's even said to be "non negotiable rule"), which is what we're trying to do here. Best regards. PHG (talk) 19:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, thanks. 1) First, regardless of whether the alliance existed or not, I also think the title "Franco-Mongol alliance" implies that the alliance existed. Do you agree on that? (although likewise, we have Flying Spaghetti Monster which does not exist). I would say though the title of this historical topic would suggest that this alliance existed. My opinion is that if historical topics are titled like this, it usually means the title is something that is a historical fact. 2) I'm seeing the article link you gave. There are many people who are denying the alliance, e.g. "The attempts of the crusaders to create an alliance with the Mongols failed", "the failure of the attempt at an alliance", "attempts were made" (the author would not say it like this if he meant, the alliance existed)- etc. What is your opinion of the writings of these reliable authors? Are you saying they got it wrong? The sources which say it existed, are also strong. I'm not decided about whether it happened or not. One group of these people is obviously wrong, either it happened or it didnt or maybe it happened halfway (i.e, they tried to make an alliance, achieved something but not much). I would like to ask: Out of these 3 options, which one has received the more authorship in terms of volume and quality of reliability? Is there a way to determine that? If we have 8 sources that said it did happen and they wrote a lot about how it happened and what happened during it, and only 3 say it didnt happen and say nothing about how or why it didnt happen, then the 8 would win. This is one way of determining who got it right. Again, I have about no knowledge of the subject so I'm looking at it from a generic point of view. 3) I should ask this question after I get your answer about #2, however I'll just ask it now: How would it effect the topic if it was renamed to what Elonka suggested, Franco-Mongol relations? This does not mean that the alliance didnt exist, although yes if it did, the word alliance looks and fits better than "relations". --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Adam (and others) I have a rewritten and much-condensed version of the article at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. How does this look to folks? If everyone likes it, we could:

• Use the text from my subpage to completely rewrite the text in the main article at Franco-Mongol alliance
• Delete/redirect the other various "split" articles that have accumulated, including:
  • Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265)
  • Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282)
  • Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304)
  • Template:Franco-Mongol alliance
  • Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations)
  • (possibly) Armeno-Mongol alliance
  • (possibly) Byzantine-Mongol alliance
  • (possibly) Mulay
  • (possibly) Kutlushah

Then, we could continue discussing things in a more focused fashion, since we'd only have the one article, Franco-Mongol alliance, to worry about, and it would be a much shorter and condensed version that would be easier to discuss. We could then move on from there, to determine if more information needed to be added or removed, and also continue our discussions on whether or not it needed to have a title change.

How does that sound? --Elonka 21:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I would much prefer a single, consolidated article to the Hydra-esque confusion this article has become. I'm not sure I feel comfortable commenting on the content at this point, in part because I haven't had the chance to read through all of the material yet. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:32, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

That is like saying "I would much rather prefer a single consolidated article on Islam" (which would have all the information summarized in it rather than every subject having their own article). There's a lot of sourced content which PHG has worked hard to bring in. It wouldnt make sense at all to shrink the amount of knowledge the article has. Usually, the more the better. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

With respect, Matt57, it is a completely different case because most modern historians -- nay, even the President of the United States -- agree that Islam exists. The problem with PHG's sourced material is that he has read it selectively with less-than-scrupulous regard for the authors' intent. More is not better when more is a fringe theory. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, regardless of whether there are fringe theories existing in the article, it is not reasonable to write one's own version of an article and want to replace it with the main article, especially if it is half in size. The correct way to deal with any fringe theories or other disputes is to deal with them directly on the article itself. If anything, such a replacement should be done with consensus and yes Elonka is trying to do that by asking us all but you can see that I would be opposed to such a replacement and I'm guessing some other people would oppose this too, so consensus is not likely to form in favour of such a replacement. There would be people who would oppose it and some who would not and I'm guessing, more people would oppose it. Although from the edits, 85% or so of the article is written by PHG so we could say that this means that both pieces have equal weight since one is an Elonka version and the other is (mostly) a PHG version. Even in that case, I would still say replacing one article with the other is not the right way. Thats not what happens on this website. People raise every issue with the article and resolve it on the talk page with the author(s), thats what everyone else does. No one here writes up their own version and replaces it with the main article (unless the main article was something like a CopyVio or total OR written by someone who refuses to discuss it - in which case no one would object to the replacement). In short a replacement like this is not possible. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

So in summary, if there are any claims of un-scrupulous-ness, these should be brought out on the talk page and discussed individually. Writing up our own version of an article which according to us is now 'scrupulous', and then replacing it with the main version, thats not right. I could claim this for any Islam related article and I'll tell you, my trying to replace any Islam related article with my own claimed 'scrupulous' version wont be accepted by anyone. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:46, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Matt57, I'm not trying to pick nits with you, but I have not yet committed to the proposed rewrite as I have not yet read it. I would, however, like there to be a single version of this page, rather than numerous subpages, until the whole mess is more straightened out. This, as you can see, is what I wrote to PHG above. You seem to be putting words in my mouth. Kafka Liz (talk) 01:57, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Maybe I misread you when you said "single, consolidated article". You didnt mean to say you wanted the article shortned then, only keep it in one place? If so, I apologize. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 02:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I didn't get a chance to respond to you earlier. Yes, what I meant was that I would like to see it all in one place. I still don't feel I give an opinion at this point as to whether or how it should be shortened, although, speaking generally, I think most articles benefit from streamlining -- removal of repetitive material, sources that pertain only tangentally an article, etc. Please bear in mind that my last statement is just a generalization; I'm not referring specifically to this article (I was thinking more of stuff like this as an extreme example). Kafka Liz (talk) 03:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, the piece you wrote at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance is only your own according to the edit history, am I correct? I dont think a proposal to simply replace the current version of the article with the one you have written is right. Thats like me going into Islamophobia, writing up my own completely different version in my article space and then asking eveyrone to replace the one we have with mine. No one would accept that if I tried to do that. The correct way is for me to go in and contest everything that should be changed, or change the main article. I dont know much about your version and I havent read it, but your version is only 70KB, as compared to the current 190K (before the splits). Doesnt that mean you have removed sourced content, or did you summarize? In any case I think more detail is better than less (and splits would thus make sense). Dont worry about the various splits and titles. All those will be changed or left unchanged, according to any consensus. The important issue right now is to decide what the title should be. Once we decide that, we can change (or according to consensus, leave unchanged) the titles of the split articles easily. I'm not currently decided about the title yet. I'll try to read up more and think about how this can be resolved. For the title I think we are going to have to get more community input on this, specially from any other subject knowledge experts. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 00:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the option of providing an optional rewritten version is quite commonly used in disputes. I've used this technique multiple times at other articles, usually successfully. And you are correct, the edit history just shows my name, but that's just because I copy/pasted the version of the article at that time into my userspace, and then worked from there. In no way am I trying to claim credit for PHG's work, as I freely acknowledge that he has been the majority contributor to this article, and has easily written over half of the text. In fact, I agree with much of what PHG has written. However, I also think that there's too much of what PHG has written, and further, that the article currently reflects too much of PHG's own bias, especially as regards the two issues of "Was there an alliance" and "Did the Mongols conquer Jerusalem". PHG appears to believe that the answer to both of those questions is "Yes." Most modern scholars disagree. But in any case, by copy/pasting my rewrite into the article, it would not in any way erase any of PHG's previous edit history. We'd just have a really big diff, showing a major condensing of the article, and then discussions would continue. --Elonka 07:17, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

FYI, Tourskin's comments on Elonka's talk page here are interesting and seem reasonable. Again, I'm still undecided about whether the alliance existed or not. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 01:38, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Appart from the fact that Elonka seems to be inviting friendly users to participate to this discussion [13] [14] (isn't this canvassing, or is it OK if I do the same?), I agree that Tourskin's opinion on Elonka's Talk Page [15] seems highly worthwhile and relevant:

"Thanks for the little invite into the discussion. My opinion has been stated on the relevant talk page, but in short:

• Christians of Armenia (who were influenced by the West) participated in battle with the Mongols
• Friendly relations between Mongols and Franks were established but never capitalized upon.
• Therefore the alliance existed, but it was a rather defunct alliance and/or lacked results. Tourskin (talk) 01:08, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

What is an alliance? Declaration of cooperation? Actual cooperation? Recognition of mutual goals? The Franks and the Mongols had something going on thats for sure (not necessarily the last three mentioned things). Some such as myself will call it an alliance, but only for the sake of simplicity because there was more good feeling than aminosity. Others will not. Sorry, but I had to defend my point. Tourskin (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I personnally agree that there was an effective alliance, as examples of epistolary agreements and effective cooperation abound (under Bohemond VI, during the Crusade of Edward I, with the Hospitallers, under Ghazan), BUT:
- that many unsuccesfull attempts were made until actual and limited military cooperation occured.
- that it ended with little results... and overall ended in defeat (but, hey, not all alliances end in victory, do they?).
- that it was meant to be much bigger but was hampered by communication/ logistical problems.
- that it is unknown if the intentions of the Mongols were honest (it may have been a tactical alliance, until the Christians would have been conquered by the Mongols ultimately.)

But that's not even the point. The point is that "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a standard expression used by historians to describe these events, even if the alliance was imperfect, or even tentative. It is more of a convention to call it so, and it is OK to put all the disclaimers we want about its actual extent. A title such "Franco-Mongol relations" is not bad, and such an article could also exist, but it would have to include much more material, beyond the alliance stuff (Mutual perceptions, cultural exchanges, plenty of religious interractions, the actual neutrality/opposition of some of the Franks (Acre) against the Mongols, the in-depth commercial relations of the Venetians and Genoese with the Mongols), of which the Franco-Mongol alliance (diplomacy + military cooperation) is only a small part. By the way, I am interested in creating such an article in the near future. Regards PHG (talk) 05:39, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I hesitate to offer this compromise, but would "Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations" work as a title? "Alliance" carries the connotations of something more formal than just friendly relations and mutual goals. That would be what most non-specialists think of when they hear alliance. Ealdgyth | Talk 05:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. The fact is that actual military cooperation occured repeatedly, so it goes much beyond just diplomatic relations. For example, in response to Edward I's embassy and request for help, Abaga responded ""After talking over the matter, we have on our account resolved to send to your aid Cemakar (Samaghar) at the head of a mighty force" and did send an army to support the English ruler (Franco-Mongol alliance#Cooperation during the Ninth Crusade (1269-1274). The "alliance" was actually repeatedly consummated through actual military actions on the field. Regards PHG (talk) 06:01, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Poll for renaming the article

Just to see if there's any rough consensus for the rename which is a big issue right now, I'm just listing here some people who have supported or opposed the renaming of this article. Yes I know there had been a poll before here but it had only 3 other people besides Elonka and PHG participate so lets see if we can get more people in. If you list yourself in this list, please also provide a short reason (this is not a simple yay/nay poll). If I've listed anyone wrongly, please fix it:

Keep the current title (Franco-Mongol alliance)

• PHG (main disputing party)
• Tourskin: "Leave the article's name as it is." ... (detail)
• Srnec: "however I am opposed to renaming the article" ... (detail)
• Adam Bishop: "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." detail

Rename to Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations or similar

• Elonka: (main disputing party)
• Ealdgyth: "would "Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations" work as a title"?
• Aramgar: "The new title ought to be either Franco-Mongol diplomacy or Franco-Mongol relations. I prefer the former" - detail
• john k: "Either of those is preferable to the current title." detail
• Deacon of Pndapetzim: "Something along the lines of Mongol-Catholic relations during the Crusading period would be more appropriate than the current title." - detail

Undecided currently:

• Matt57

Please add your opinion here if its not listed. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 18:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Voting is evil, especially when it is already clear consensus is unlikely. Arnoutf (talk) 18:56, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thats why I've asked for a reason besides signing up. RfA's, AfD's are all "votes" or polls or consensus, whatever you want to call it. RfA's are actually worse, people come and sign up as Support/Oppose, frequently without giving a reason. That process is accepted here but this 'poll' is better since I'm asking people to provide a reason. This discourages the simple nay/yay the policy page you link to mentions. You're right though, there isnt appearing any consensus on this issue as of right now. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:06, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I think that a straw poll at some point may be a good idea, but I don't think that we're at that point yet. Right now, a poll may have the unfortunate side effect of making it look like opinions are polarized, when I don't think that's the case. Also, the current structure of this one is making it look like people have weighed in, in a "poll" format, when these are just comments in a discussion. And lastly, some of the comments above are many months old, and not necessarily still valid. If we do want to go with a poll format, it might be better to list various alternatives, and then ask everyone to weigh in on which ones that they would support. --Elonka 19:09, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I was just going through past discussions and bringing in all the opinions together to see what people have said. The main point is that currently it seems there is no consensus for doing anything about the title and this is what I wanted to find out. As for people's comments being outdated, I doubt they've changed their opinions. Some have not come back for the discussion here. If there are any old opinions, we could contact those people and reconfirm their opinion. Do you feel there is a consensus for the title change? --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 19:20, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Fair enough, reading just the introduction of this vote I got a bit worried it migh be overinterpreted. If the only conclusion is that there is no consensus, that is fine with me. Quantifying qualitative arguments tends to create the perception of precision and 'truth'. That is why I am very hesitant about polls. Arnoutf (talk) 21:51, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I've clarified it slightly to discourage plain voters. They should give some argument for their reasons. --Matt57 ^{(talk•contribs)} 23:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

I stand by my opinion given in the original move request (and restated above by Matt57) that the current title is fine whatever you think of the "alliance". Even if it never existed, the article discusses attempts towards achieving it. And the phrase "Franco-Mongol alliance" appears in the literature sparingly; does "Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations"? The title is a side issue, the real dispute, in my opinion, is what consistutes a reliable source and who decides. Srnec (talk) 22:41, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Mongol alliances in the Middle-East

Template:Mongol alliances I just created the “last piece” in the puzzle of the geopolitics of the Middle East under the Mongols: the alliance between the Mamluks and the Mongols of the Golden Horde (Mamluk-Mongol alliance). This alliance actually worked as a counter-balance to the Franco-Mongol and to the Armeno-Mongol alliances. The Byzantine Empire had a more ambivalent posture and actually allied alternatively, and sometimes with both, the Il-Khanate and the Golden Horde. I also created a template that will permit navigation between these various political and military alliances. I guess this might again irk a few, but frankly this interweaving pattern of alliances, between the Ilkhanate and the Golden Horde on the one hand, and the Franks, the Mamluks and the Byzantine Empire on the other, is perfectly presented throughout historical literature. Best regards.PHG (talk) 18:11, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, this is getting ridiculous. This is obviously just another attempt on your part to push this POV of "there was an alliance." Multiple editors now have been speaking up against your actions, and yet you keep escalating. The template needs to be either deleted, or rewritten for neutrality. Please stop this disruptive behavior. --Elonka 19:07, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

"Perfectly presented throughout historical literature"? Would such a perfect presentation of academic consensus have generated the reams of archives on this page? I see one editor pushing a suspect POV, and several other informed editors with serious concerns. This seems to me just another Hydra's head. Please, let us resolve disputes here prior to any grand expansion. Aramgar (talk) 19:40, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

This template illustrates the various alliances at play in the Middle East during the Mongol Empire in the 13th-14th century. These alliances were also highly connected. The Mamluk-Mongol alliance worked as a counter-balance to the Franco-Mongol and to the Armeno-Mongol alliances. See historian Ryley-Smith for example: "When the Golden Horde allied with the Mamluks, the Ilkhanate looked towards an alliance with the Christians" (Atlas of the Crusades, Jonathan Riley-Smith, p.112, French edition), with is the exact illustration of this template. Regards. PHG (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Deletion nomination of Template:Mongol alliances

Template:Mongol alliances has been nominated for deletion. All interested parties are invited to comment on the discussion at the template's entry on the Templates for Deletion page. Thank you. — Elonka 20:18, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

More data points

More Mongol quotations for you:

From Barber, Malcolm (1992). The two cities: medieval Europe, 1050-1320. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-09682-0.

p. 135 in the context of Louis IX's crusade at Damietta, and after the payment of his ransom ... "During the withdrawl [from Damietta] the king was captured and only released on payment of a ransom of 800,000 besants and the cession of Damietta. Despite this disaster the king stayed in Outremer for another four years, rebuilding his defences and making contact with the Mongols, with whom the possibility of an alliance was being canvassed."

p. 507 "Although in the east Kubilai remained amenable to visits by westerners, including the Polos and the mendicants [friars in this case], any slim hope that a Mongol-Christian alliance could revive the sinking fortunes of the Crusader States had largely vanished by the 1260's, despite sporadic attempts at reviving it."

You may also wish to look at Payne, Robert (2000). The dream and the tomb: a history of the Crusades. New York: Cooper Square Press. ISBN 0-8154-1086-7., especially the last chapter, where he states that (page 390) in 1300 "Ghazan, before leaving Damascus, sent ambassadors to the pope and the sovereigns of Europe, urging them to pour men, money and armaments into Palestine, which was his gift to them. He wanted an alliance between the Mongols and the countries of Europe against the Mamelukes, and he was prepared to back up the alliance with his vast army." and later "The pope told the Mongol ambassadors that the time was not ripe for another Crusade, and the soverigns of Europe said the same." It should be noted that this is a popular history, and is not footnoted very well.

Lastly, about King Edward I of England. From Prestwich, Michael (1997). Edward I. New Haven, Conn: Yale University Press. ISBN 0-300-07157-4., which is the most modern scholarly biography of Edward.

p. 75, dealing with Edward's crusade in 1271, "Edward spent frustrating weeks in Acre before moving against the enemy. His men and horses had to be prepared, and diplomatic arrangements had to be made. An English embassy was sent to the Mongol II-Khan Abagha, to try to organize concerted action against the redoubtable Baibars." (this is footnoted to Liber de Antiquis Legibus: Cronica maiorum et vicecomitum Londoniarum ed. T. Stapleton Camden Society 1846 p. 143)

p. 78, still dealing with 1271-1272, this after Edward's attempt to take the fortress of Qaqun, while the Mongols advanced on Syria. "He [Edward] may have hoped that help would be provided by the Mongols, but Baibars soon entered into negotiations with them, and it became clear that they had no intention of launching a major campaign in the Holy Land."

p. 80, an assessment of Edward's crusade "In Palestine, Edward's diplomatic efforts to obtain the co-operation of the Mongols achieved little, and in military terms his troops were too few to achieve much."

p. 331, talking about a proposed crusade after the fall of Acre in 1291, "The prospects for the crusade were undoubtedly diminished in the absence of the hoped-for Mongol alliance." and later on the same page "In that year the West rejoiced at news that a Mongol army under a new Il-Khan, Ghazan, had retaken Jerusalem, which was now thought to be safe for Christianity. The news was, of course, a considerable exaggeration of the facts, for Ghazan's control of the Holy Land only lasted a few months, and he was the first of the Il-Khans to accept the Moslem faith, a piece of information his envoys withheld from the West."

p. 332 same context, "The failure of the Mongol alliance was but one of the many obstacles in the way of Edward's crusade in the early 1290's."

I didn't see these works referenced yet in the discussion. Certainly if we're going to discuss Edward I of England we should look at Prestwich's biography. Barber's is one of the more recent overviews of medieval history, and Payne's book is a popular history of the Crusades, designed to reach the non-historian audience. Comments in brackets are mine to elucidate the context. Ealdgyth | Talk 21:23, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth, that's very helpful.  :) I've gone ahead and added the information to User:Elonka/Mongol historians. If you see anything that needs changing, or would like to add other authors, please feel free. In fact, anyone who wishes to add other authors is free to do so, though of course I reserve the right to tweak as needed. --Elonka 01:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Ealdgyth. All sources are welcome. PHG (talk) 04:20, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Articles for deletion

I have nominated the various dated subpages of this article for deletion. Those interested are welcome to join the discussion here. Kafka Liz (talk) 22:47, 17 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. For ease of use, I am listing below all of the currently active deletion discussions, so that anyone who is interested, can easily participate:

• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mulay
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Kutlushah
• Wikipedia:Templates for deletion#Template:Mongol alliances
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265) (also covers Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282) and Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304))

--Elonka 01:25, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the summary :) A few comments though. User:Kafka Liz, who has been creating all these AfDs is totally new to our discussions (to this subject?), and has been invited in by Elonka ([16] Canvassing?). This seems like some fairly objectionable methodology. Regarding the issues at hand:

• Franco-Mongol alliance (modern interpretations) is a content collaboratively created between Elonka and myself to keep track of the modern sources on the subject. It was simply created as a split to reduce the size of the main article.
• Mulay and Kutlushah are Biographical articles on well-known Mongol generals. There is no resean whatsover to delete these articles, as already stated by several editors who are highly knowledgeable of this subject (Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine).
• Template:Mongol alliances is only an attempt at summarizing the various geopolitical alliances in the Middle East under the Mongols.
• Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265), Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282), Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304). These three articles were created after multiple requests from other users (but mainly Elonka) to split the main article Franco-Mongol alliance. The objective was to reduce the size of the main article, which was about 190k before the split. As the name "Franco-Mongol alliance" for the main page has already been accepted through a formal consensus (see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2#Requested move), and as the split was specifically requested by other users, accusations of POV fork are quite unfair. PHG (talk) 03:49, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, can you show me evidence of these multiple reqests for splitting the article? I've seen Elonka mention splitting in some of her remarks, but I haven't noticed anyone else requesting it. I myself would support splitting the article, if warranted, after consensus is reached, but not before, and I suspect that these multiple editors you mention feel the same way. Kafka Liz (talk) 10:41, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Introduction sentence (part 2)

Elonka has been edit warring to force an introduction sentence to this article which only expressed one point of view ("attempts at an alliance"), claiming an earlier consensus (various comments from Talk Pages discussions over September and October). We then went to mediation, where Elonka specifically gave her agreement to a compromise sentence "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of...." on November 14th. Elonka is not repecting this agreement, which is a moral issue, but also I think an issue per Wikipedia. I am asking for the compromise sentence to be reintroduced, as it gives both sides of the story and presents the variety of sources per Wikipedia:NPOV. Here is the transcript of the agreement at Wikipedia talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive#The mediation is here:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. PHG 06:44, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I like that version.  :) --Elonka 07:14, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
Concluded with agreement on the following opening sentence:

A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, was the objective of diplomatic endeavors between the Franks and the Mongols, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade.

-- tariqabjotu 19:18, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

PHG (talk) 04:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi PHG, as you must have noticed, there are now more interested parties than there were at the time you and Elonka pursued mediation. Both of you are probably going to have to adapt your views to the consensus developing with this wider involvement of editors. Concensus can change and you cannot require editors to agree to part of an unsuccessful mediation they were not party to. Also people in mediation sometimes agree to a compromise on issue X in the hope that the other person will give way on issue Y. Any agreement at mediation is hard to rely out of context - in the end the two of you could not reach agreement - and must now be adapted to take into account the views that have since been expressed. WjBscribe 05:06, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi WjB. The bottom line is that this is simply a case of Elonka breaking an important agreement reached through a formal mediation process. Especially as this agreement (November 14th) post-dates the earlier Talk Page discussions that she is now claiming as a justification for edit-warring. PHG (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Outside opinion

Elonka seems to be getting no trouble at all for solicitating outside opinion ([17] [18]). I will therefore also invite a few editors who are highly knowledgeable of these issues, although I will self-limit myself to 2 invitations for balance. I would appreciate to have some information on Wikipedia policy in this respect. Regards PHG (talk) 08:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, I have been following this conflict without comment for some time. I have been hesitant to get involved for a variety of reasons, including the vast drain on my time that involvement would seem to entail. I stepped in at this juncture because the rapidly multiplying number of POV forks you've created suggested to me that the situation was getting out of control. While I appreciate having being invited to the discussion, I want to emphasize that the decision to contribute here is my own and results from what I perceive as your own disruptive behavior. I still don't understand your reluctance to refrain from splitting the page until greater concensus has been reached. Can you explain it to me? Kafka Liz (talk) 10:22, 18 January 2008 (UTC)