Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance

Archives August-September 2007 September 2007 (continued)

Request for comment

Requesting comment on the following questions:

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

09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Another relevant source worth checking is to reread the Vatican Council minutes of Pope Eugene IV in the period 1435-1440, when he takes the surrender of all the Orthodox Churches in a last-gasp attempt to save themselves from the Turks: the Venetians evidently knew of earlier agreements, which might touch on this, so it might be worth going digging in their archives.

Also check the relations between the Holy Roman Emperor Frederic II and the Mongols - I always thought it peculiar they just gave up just when they got to the HRE boundaries. Frederic's court was said to be more than 50% practicing muslim.Jel 12:44, 8 October 2007 (UTC)

Archiving

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

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

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)

Council of Lyon

I have a challenge to this new section:

"At the 1263 Council of Lyon, the terms of the alliance with the Mongols were laid down by the monk Richaldus. Specifically, following his welcoming of the Christian ambassadors to his court, Hulagu had agreed to exempt Latin Christians from taxes and charges, in exchange for their prayers for the Qaghan, prohibited that Frank establishments should be molested, and committed to return Jerusalem to the Franks.(Jean Richard, 435)."

To my knowledge, there were two Council of Lyons, the first was in 1245, and the second in 1274. There was a large contingent of Mongols that went to the second one (arriving unannounced). It was a big deal, since one of them underwent a baptism. To my knowledge there was never a Council of Lyon in 1263. Can we please doublecheck this? Thanks, Elonka 22:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean Richard just says Council of Lyon, so he probably means the 1274 one, where the facts were recorded by Richaldus. PHG 18:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Then the information should be moved out of its current section, which is talking about events in the 1260s. We have another section further down the page which is currently titled "Council of Gregory X (1274)". Let's change that to "Second Council of Lyons" and put the Richard info there. --Elonka 10:07, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

No at all, Richard is clear that Richaldus recorded information about the 1260 period (Hulagu). He only apparently recorded it after the fact (in 1274). The paragraph therefore should remain in the 1260 section.PHG 18:22, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What Richard appears to be claiming, is that he's got proof of an offer of alliance by Hulagu. This offer was supposedly written in 1262, and delivered in 1264, but the offer itself is no longer in existence, so Richard says that he reconstructed it by analyzing the report that was made 10 years later by Rychardus at the 1274 Second Council of Lyons. I've been checking what other historians have to say on the subject, and some seem to be saying that they think the report by Rychardus was a bit embellished in "diplomatic" language (imagine if a diplomat today were trying to summarize events that had happened in the mid-1990s, from memory), so may not have been accurate. And another historian says that though a letter was written, there's no proof that it ever arrived or was read by King Louis. Apparently there was also a problem around then (especially with these long delays in communications) of people presenting themselves at court and saying that they were official representatives, when they actually weren't. Now, we do come back to "published secondary source," and Richard's book definitely meets that standard. So if Richard says that he's convinced of the reliability, yes, we can include that information in the article, but I recommend that we be extremely cautious in how we word things, since not all historians are agreeing about this. --Elonka 22:50, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Article split

Here are some possible suggestions for how we may be able to split up this article, per WP:SUMMARY.

• Armenian-Mongol alliance (or Armenian-Mongol relations)
• History of Jerusalem 1299-1300 (for the whole rumors thing)
• Mongol invasions of Syria
• Kingdom of Jerusalem on Cyprus
• Crusader naval raids

There are definitely a couple sections of this "alliance" article that are getting into very detailed troop movements, especially around 1300. This would probably be better suited for a "Battle" article, but to my knowledge there's no formal name for the coastal raids and the aborted attempt to take Tortosa via Ruad Island, especially because it wasn't part of a formal "Crusade". Maybe it would fit into one of the above topics? Or anyone else have suggestions? Some of it could be moved to History of the Knights Templar, but it's not entirely Templar-related, so that doesn't really fit either. --Elonka 00:30, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For "Kingdom of Jerusalem on Cyprus", we already have Kingdom of Cyprus, which could use some expanding. Adam Bishop 02:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I would support moving much of the coastal raid and Ruad Island info to that article. Then we could provide brief paragraphs here, and at Arwad, which pointed to it. --Elonka 18:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You could copy stuff if you wish, but thank you to leave the material that has been put here as part of the Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG 19:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The point of splitting isn't to copy info out, it's to reduce the length of the article. It's currently at 150K, which is way past recommendations at Wikipedia:Article size#Splitting an article. I'm pretty flexible on where we split it, but there's definitely too much information here for one single article. Overall, this is a good thing -- it means we've got a lot of good info here. --Elonka 23:58, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The article is currently 90K without the (copious) references, which is still rather reasonable, and customarily accepted for subjects deserving in-depth treatment. A lot of articles (including FAs) have more than that. Maybe we could use some slimming somewhere (how about those near original-research portions at the end? and your huge quotes as in #229, which by the way represent copyright infringement). But there is no need to dismember the article. PHG 05:41, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I haven't much followed the current discussions, but I must say that I believe that 90KB is really too much. I hope you won't take this bad PHG, because I greatly admire your editorial work and the devotion you put in it, but I feel that often your articles tend to be a bit too long, and that you don't fully understand the value of concision. A friend of mine once told me as a form of advice that "anything beyond 40kb just ignores the fact that the hypothetical reader doesn't have an hour to devote to your article." 40kb or a bit more, I tend to agree with the principle: the article must be the more possible reader-friendly, and so not to long to read. In this view we shouldn't be afraid to split the article, so that in those articles one could go even deeper on the topics. Now I can say that I agree with all the proposals advanced by Elonka: but for example, a lot could be placed in Mongol invasion of Syria (1299), which could include in detail a lot of what discussed up to now, obviously reducing previous invasions to a "backgroung", and following ones to an "aftermath" section (a seperated Mongol Invasions of Syria could cover the other invasions in detail, consenting to reducing partly this articles). Another article could be, as proposed Lesser Armenian-Mongol relations. In general, I'd advice instead of creating new articles, like that on the ninth crusade, even if we may make an article devoted to Templar Ruad, ie between the fall of Tortosa and its conquest by the Mamluks.--Aldux 17:37, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Aldux. We could trim things around. But the theme being "The Franco-Mongol alliance" specifically, I think all the relevant facts have to be incorporated (we're an encyclopedia after all). This article has been met with a lot a disbelief from various editors ("Christians among the Mongols??", "What, an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols??"), and a lot has been added in the last week (the article doubled in length, and the notes are huge) just to get over that. Now I would like to make sure all the relevant facts are available, just to avoid other disputes. Best regards. PHG 18:32, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction sentence 2

Inspite of all the new references showing that many historians do consider the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact (last of them, and quite decisively by the leading French expert Jean Richard above), Elonka is still insisting on the starting sentence "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance...". I think this reflects an unbalanced point-of-view that only considers attempts and does not consider the alliance as fact: this is quite unfair to a large part of the historical sources. I am therefore reinstating a request to have both scholarly point-of-views represented in the introductory sentence, especially in light of the new sources we have:

"A Franco-Mongol alliance,[1][2][3][4] or attempts towards such an alliance,[5][6] occurred between....

Although Wikipedia does provide for NPOV and balance in general, everyone's view is important here so that some do not keep reverting to assert their own point of view only. Thank you PHG 05:37, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

• Support per nomination PHG 07:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
  • PHG, we've already discussed this, in the above section on #Introduction sentence. All editors except you liked a different wording. Now please, stop edit-warring about this. --Elonka 08:44, 24 September 2007 (UTC)~
    • Elonka, a lot more material has been provided since then, showing that major modern historians to consider the alliance as fact. So I think it is legitimate to re-ask the question (although I think it is only a matter of balancing sources and respecting NPOV). PHG 09:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Then please bring it up in the original thread, rather than starting a new thread with the exact same title. This talkpage is already long enough, we don't need even more confusion.  :) --Elonka 10:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The original thread was not a request for vote, but just a discussion. Now please let other editors give their opinion in light of the new sources. PHG 11:39, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... What about "Starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade, many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance, but it is disputed among scholars if the said attempts were or not successful, and if successful, to which extent."?--Aldux 17:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Identifying the principals

I'm here from WP:FTN too to discuss the Armenian questions. I have a good source: Armenian People from Ancient to Modern Times Volume One (Macmillan, 1997). First, the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (Little Armenia) was not a Frankish kingdom. The royal family at this time (the Hetumids) were Armenian. The relationship between the kingdom and the Western crusaders was always ambivalent and the goals of Cilicia and the Frankish states often varied. The Armenian nobility adopted many Western customs, including feudalism, chivalry and Western dress and many French words entered the Armenian language (the word for "Mr." in Armenian today is still baron, or paron). But there were many differences, most importantly concerning the matter of religion, since the majority of Armenians were neither Catholic nor Greek Orthodox, but followed their own rite. The aim of the Cilician alliance with the Mongols was to defend the kingdom against the Seljuks and the Mamluks. In 1247, Hetum I sent his brother Smbat to the Mongol court at Kara Korum. A few years later he travelled himself and sealed an alliance with the Great Khan Möngke. The alliance initially benefitted both the Armenians and the Mongols when they fought together (along with the Antiochenes) to defeat the Mamluks at Aleppo and Damascus. But the Crusader states became wary of growing Mongol power in the region and in 1260 they allowed the Mamluk army through their land to attack and defeat the Mongols at Ayn Jalut. The Mongols were now pushed back to Iran which made them too distant to help Cilicia against the Seljuks and Mamluks. Baybars punished Hetum's attempt to renew the alliance by devastating the kingdom for 20 days. The destruction was so bad that Hetum abdicated and retired to a monastery (1269). Any hope for a possible new alliance was ended when the Mongols converted to Islam. Hetum (now a Franciscan friar) and his nephew King Levon III travelled to the court of the Mongol emir of Anazarba, where they were treacherously put to death (1307). --Folantin 09:20, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Folantin, that's helpful. Also, do your sources say anything about Antioch? I've seen it variously described as allying with the Mongols, being a vassal state of the Mongols, or being a vassal of Armenia? And what's your opinion on whether Antioch was a Frankish kingdom? Thanks, 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

The only thing it really says is that Cilicia fought alongside the Mongols and the Antiochenes to defeat the Mamluks at Aleppo and Damascus. Nothing about whether Antioch was similarly formally allied with the Mongols. the only other source I have to hand is Runciman, but you've probably already consulted him. --Folantin 09:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

This article needs to do a better job of identifying the principals. All were empires that varied in territory over time and consisted of diverse peoples with varying degres of attachment. WAS 4.250 09:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Folantin, why are you deleting referenced material, such as this:

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

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

I believe it deserves representation as much as your own sources. PHG 10:10, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read what I wrote above. In what way was Cilicia a Frankish kingdom? I'm taking my information from a book by specialists in Armenian history which has an entire chapter devoted to the Kingdom of Cilicia. You've given a single sentence with no explanation as to why Cilicia should be considered "Frankish". --Folantin 10:17, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, the sentence needs to expanded in order to convey anything useful to the reader. In what sense are they being called "Frank states"? They had a treaty? Their ruler has Frank blood? The population were Frank in blood, language, culture, religion? The reader needs detail here in order to not be mislead. Is Pakistan an American state because it has a treaty with the US and has joint military exersizes with the US? Is Brazil a European state due to its culture, language, and population genetic heritage especially in its leadership and upper class? WAS 4.250 12:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Cilicia wasn't a Frankish state, it was an Armenian one. In fact, when the kings tried to make it more "Frankish" in the early decades of the 14th century (e.g. by trying to make the kingdom Roman Catholic), they faced revolt. "There rose to the surface an intense anti-Roman sentiment which soon became a general anti-Western reaction. King Oshin was poisoned in 1320. When his son and successor Levon IV (1320-1341) had both his own wife and stepfather killed and married the widowed queen of Cyprus, the Cilician nobility saw it as evidence of Levon's pro-European policy and rose up and murdered him in 1341". (op. cit. page 288). --Folantin 12:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm quite OK not to say that Little Armenia was a Frankish state (inspite of the scholarly quote to the contrary: "There are five Frank states(...): the Kingdom of Jerusalem, (...) the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, but also the Kingdom of Little Armenia" in Les Croisades, Origines et consequences, p.77-78), as it was probably quite a borderline case anyway. On the other hand, I insist that Antioch and Tripoli were Frank states, contrary to previous posts by Elonka. I don't think there should be any issues with these two. Best regards. PHG 17:01, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

That sentence is hardly convincing given the weight of opposing evidence. I imagine your source lumped Cilicia in with the Frankish states simply as a matter of convenience. Whatever the case, the Kingdom of Cilicia shouldn't be described as Frankish. This article is enormously long (150k), so I'd suggest the Armenian material should be moved to Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia (assuming it's not there already) or maybe to its own article. --Folantin 17:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Folantin. The book I have (Les Croisades, Origines et consequences) states that the Kingdom of Armenia was a (theorical at least) vassal of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, as the other kingdoms quoted in the sentence above. Would you know if that's a fact? Thanks PHG 18:15, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Can't find anything saying that for the period under discussion (unless it was very theoretical indeed). It's obvious from the information in the first comment I posted here that the Armenian kingdom was independent and it and the Crusader states often had widely differing aims ("But the Crusader states became wary of growing Mongol power in the region and in 1260 they allowed the Mamluk army through their land to attack and defeat the Mongols at Ayn Jalut"). That Mongol defeat was a disaster for Cilicia. The Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia ceased to exist in 1375 although the title of "King of Armenia" survived. In 1393 it "passed to Levon V's relative John I, King of Cyprus, who had also inherited the equally meaningless title 'King of Jerusalem'" (op. cit. p.290). So the two kingdoms were united in the end in a way. --Folantin 18:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Factual dispute tag

Why is there a need for a factual dispute tag? WAS 4.250 09:12, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, looks like there was a thread, but it got archived. To reiterate/expand:

• There are multiple disputes on the nature of whether an "alliance" existed, resulting in back and forth edit-warring on various sections of the article.
• There's a new section in the article about actions at the "1263 Council of Lyon", but there was no 1263 Council of Lyon
• There are disputes about the status of Jerusalem in 1299/1300 (PHG says the Mongols captured and "ruled" it, I say no)
• There are disputes about how much the Templars played a central role in Mongol communications (PHG says central, I say no)
• There is a dispute about the lead sentence of the article (see #Introduction sentence above)
• There is a dispute about the meaning of the word "Frank", and how much that an "Armenian-Mongol alliance" or an "Antiochan-Mongol alliance" can be used to justify the term "Franco-Mongol alliance" (see above threads for more)

I think those are the main ones, and the rest of the disputes are just copyediting issues. --Elonka 09:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

(followup) Oh, one more, which is about the use of primary source quotes. PHG has been adding several direct quotes from medieval historians, claiming that they are secondary sources. I dispute that those quotes should be used as reliable sources. See also the #Request for comment section above. --Elonka 09:31, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

These are mainly mis-representations. Personal disputes are irrelevant: the issue is only to properly give representation to what major scholarly sources actually say:

• Scholarly sources either say there was an alliance, or attempts towards in alliance. It is not even a point of contention, just a matter of representing both views.
• "1263 Council of Lyon": clarification pending. It is minor factoid I al currently checking. I think the Pope died just before the Council took place.
• I am not personnally claiming that the Mongols ruled Jerusalem in 1299/1300, just that some scholarly sources say or suggest so (Demurger etc... quoted in the article).
• I have no dispute about the extent of Templar involvement: I have just been presenting very reputable sources (Demurger) that say they were central.
• By definition "an attempt" is an effort, a trial. And actually these efforts led to an actual alliance, according to numerous scholars. This shouldn't be a matter of personal dispute, but just a matter of making a balance representation of sources, with a NPOV.
• Not just the Armenians. Elonka is conveniently forgetting the Frank realms of the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli, who were also long-time allies of the Mongols under Bohemond VI. These are the primary actors of the Franco-Mongol alliance (besides Cypriots and West European powers).
• Primary sources are given only if quoted by reputable secondary sources. PHG 09:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mischaracterizations

Our friend Elonka repeatedly tries to marginalize and mischaracterize some scholars by highlighting their opinion as a unique one ("The French historian Jean Richard considers that ..."), but describing the alternative opinion she favours as "However most historians think ...." (still giving only one reference, such Jackson, in Mongols and the West). See for example the Papal alliance (1263) paragraph (before I corrected).
A statement such as "most historians think..." is highly subjective, and shouldn't be employed unless there is very strong reference to it.
Jean Richard is actually not marginal at all (he is the leading French historian of the Crusades), and as far as I known it is untrue that "most historians" have contrary opinions.
If we feel the need to highlight specific authors (which is usually not necessary, and should only be included in the notes), we should also highlight the contrary opinion as the opinion of specific historian (the one referenced).
This also is about NPOV editing. PHG 06:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

As far as "Most historians think", we have a complete section in the article on this, at Franco-Mongol alliance#Modern interpretations, we can easily do a "see below section". As for Richard, I'm fine on saying that Richard thinks that there was an alliance, but to avoid putting undue weight on his opinion, we should be clear that his statements are different from those of most other historians, who describe it as attempts at an alliance. For example, David Morgan in his well-respected book The Mongols says clearly, "From 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance." (p. 183) "No really effective joint action had ever been organized: in thirteenth-century conditions the problems of co-ordination appear to have been insuperable." (p. 185) "Contacts were maintained under Oljeitu... But after Oljeitu's reign attempts at alliance at last ceased." (p. 186) The idea of an alliance was treated seriously, there were many good faith communications from both sides, but it remained in the realm of attempts, not an actual alliance. --Elonka 10:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, just look at the facts please. Do you remember the definition of an alliance? An alliance is "an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests".

Among the scholars being quoted in the article ("Franco-Mongol alliance#Modern interpretations"), the number who treat this alliance as fact is actually largely superior to the number who treat it as just an attempt. Richard: "In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks." (p.468) "The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere"(p.453) Grousset speaks about "Louis IX et l'Alliance Franco-Mongole" (p521), "The Franco-Mongol coalition, of which the Hospitallers were giving an example" (p.686). Demurger: "This expedition sealed, by a a concrete act, the Mongol alliance"(p.147) "The Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols in 1299-1303" (Le Point). Jonathan Riley-Smith says of the Mongols that "Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli (1252-1275) became their ally." (p.136). Angus Stewart calls it the "Franco-Mongol entente".

Of course, the alliance had many failures and ended in defeat for the Franks and Mongols, but it was an alliance nonetheless: Richard: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" (p.469). Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", but specifies that in the end it led nowhere.

You are insisting on only representing one side of the story ("just attempts") in clear violation of Wikipedia's NPOV policy. We should represent both opinions ("alliance" and "attempts towards an alliance"), including in the introduction sentence. PHG 18:15, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, you are trying to state that certain historians say that a Franco-Mongol alliance existed as a "fact". In all cases, you are mistaken.

• Jean Richard. He said that there were attempts, and a hope, and offers, but not that it occurred. See #Jean Richard below.
• Alain Demurger. See #Demurger above. Further, you are sourcing things to the back cover of Demurger's book, or to an offhand comment that he made during an interview while he was promoting his book. Those are not reliable sources.
• Jonathan Riley-Smith. No one is disputing that Antioch submitted to the Mongols, but let's be clear that it wasn't a spontaneous alliance, it was a subject vassal relationship, which they did because they were pressured into it by the King of Little Armenia.
• Angus Stewart: You are quoting out of context. Yes he used the word "entente," but let's see the full sentence: "for the Armenian alignment with the Mongols, they were prominent in their promotion of a Mongol alliance, and a Franco-Mongol entente". Promoting an alliance/entente, does not mean that there was one.

Now, will you please stop mis-quoting things? --Elonka 19:59, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your denial of what sources actually say is just amazing...

• Just look at Richards' quotes. He cannot be clearer about the alliance "The Occidentals were rallied to the alliance", "The Franco-Mongol alliance had thus survived" etc...
• There are plenty of relevant quote from Demurger that do not rely on his backcover (just one quote), or on his interview (which was just the interview of an historian, not your interpretation that it was "just promotion talk"). I am not going to repear them all here, pease look at the article.
• Jonathan Riley-Smith: Antiochians were a major Frankish realm, and they were fully part of the Franco-Mongol alliance. Most scholars do name them as effective and long-term "allies" of the Mongols actually (and some say vassals): just respect what they say instead of trying to impose your own interpretations.PHG 05:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Title

This whole article might be better off under a different title, e.g. "Relations between the Mongols and the Christian states of the Middle East" or "The Mongols in the time of the Crusades". "Franco-Mongol Alliance" suggests an alliance between the Mongols and the French. I understand it means the "Franks" here (i.e. Western European Roman Catholic crusaders), but this term is being stretched to include almost all Christians in the region (there's quite a bit about the Georgians, not to mention the Armenians). --Folantin 08:52, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Discussed and voted on before in this Talk Page (top of this page actually). The overwhelming vote was in favor of keeping "Franco-Mongol alliance", a recognized scholarly expression for this subject.PHG 08:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly "overwhelming" consensus. But if you choose to stick with this title then you'll have to narrow your focus because you can't describe all the Christians in the Middle East at the time as "Franks". In other words, the Armenians and Georgians should go. --Folantin 09:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Well Elonka would indeed call it a consensus (although I wouldn't, it is just a clear-cut vote...). But your point is fair enough. We could adjust that part (still mentionning they were key major players as allies to the Franks and participated to most of the actions of the Franco-Mongol alliance), but we could have a more detailed and specific article at Armenian-Mongol alliance. PHG 09:35, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I support the idea of creating a separate article for the Armenian-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure we need to create a new article for this. We need to be clear that the alliance was between the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and the Mongols. The bulk of the Armenians, who had remained in their traditional home lands in eastern Asia Minor, had simply been conquered by the Mongols. This is dealt with by Mongol invasions of Georgia and Armenia. The material about the alliance between Cilicia and the Mongols should be added to the article on the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, which needs expanding. --Folantin 10:16, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

That makes sense. We can move information from here to those two articles, and then leave a summary paragraph with a "See also", per WP:SUMMARY. I say proceed. :) --Elonka 10:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

A large part of the information we have here is highly relevant to the Franco-Mongol alliance. I would be against just moving stuff away from this article, although we may trim a bit. Instead, please just copy usefull information to other articles. PHG 18:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

NPOV violations

By now, this should be really quite obvious, but as described again in Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Mischaracterization, numerous scholars treat the Franco-Mongol alliance as fact, and some others as just "attempts towards an alliance". Wikipedia balance and NPOV policy requires that both point of views be represented.
Elonka has been insisting however that the introduction sentence should describe "Attempts towards an alliance..." only, and has been reverting repeatedly to that version. This is clearly POV, and favours only one scholarly position. She claims that an earlier 3:1 discussion justifies her in her reverts (she calls it a "consensus"). Let it be reminded that votes in general, and especially such micro-discussions, have absolutely no value in negating Wikipedia's ethics of balance and NPOV. Only an inclusive phrase such as "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attemps towards such an alliance,...", clearly presenting both views with relevant references, could maintain NPOV and balance between these two major theses. Not doing so would just be NPOV violation. PHG 19:20, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

First, we've already discussed the introduction sentence in the above section #Introduction sentence, and PHG's view is obviously not prevailing. I would also point out that PHG is ignoring the comments in the above #Request for comment, and that PHG has also refused mediation. That aside, I stand by my claim that no scholars have said that a formal alliance existed between the Mongols and the Europeans. As I see it, PHG has been consistently trying to insert his own bias into this article. Among the false claims that he has been repeatedly making: That there was an alliance (when there wasn't), that there was a battle for Jerusalem in 1299 (when there wasn't), that the Mongols ruled Jerusalem in 1300 (when they didn't), that the Knights Templar were the "artisans" of a Franco-Mongol alliance (when they didn't). I've been trying to assume good faith here, and give PHG the benefit of the doubt that one or two modern historians may have said these things, in which case we should reflect their views along with those of the rest of the reputable historians. But as I dig into the sources and actually look at what PHG's historians were saying, I see that he has been making gross misinterpretations of the actual data. I would also point out that PHG has shown a history of providing unreliable sources, ranging from hobbyist pseudohistory websites, to sourcing statements to the marketing blurb on the back cover of a book, to sourcing an offhand comment from an author while he was promoting his work. And even where PHG claims that he is just providing information from reputable historians, I dispute PHG's claims. For example, most recently he's been saying that Jean Richard said that there was a formal alliance. But again, when I actually went and looked at the source, this is not the case. See section below. --Elonka 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, you are distorting the meaning of what Richard says (hereafter), as you have been repeatedly doing in this article (deleting references or corrupting them... anyone could go into the archives to see that). As a matter of fact, numerous scholars consider the Mongol alliance as fact (just look at the quotes), various scholars consider that Jerusalem was raided and possibly conquered by the Mongols in 1300 (Demurger, Arab historians etc...), and the leading French specialist of the Templars (sorry you did not know him and at one point thought that his was "a summer book"!) considers that the Templars were the artisans of the Franco-Mongol alliance in 1298-1303 (Demurger). I am not claiming these things, sources are: it's all fully referenced. Please accept that various historians can have various opinions on a given subject, and do not accuse editors who are simply introducing their work on Wikipedia. PHG 05:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to the matter of NPOV violation: yes, you are denying that numerous scholars describe the Mongol alliance as fact, and that is not acceptable per Wikipedia balance and NPOV policy. Both views ("Attempts at an alliance", and "Alliance") should be represented. PHG 05:17, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I agree that we should present both views. However, per WP:UNDUE, that doesn't mean that we need to give them both equal weight. The clear majority position among historians is that there were attempts made at an alliance. I do agree that we should list Richard and Demurger too, but they should be clearly listed as minority viewpoints, per WP:UNDUE (please please read it?). --Elonka 16:23, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

So now you recognize these sources, but you have shifted your line of battle to saying that they should not have "undue weight". I suspect that from a US-centric perspective you may be right (looking at your sources), but Grousset, Demurger and Richard are huge authorities in France and in the rest of the world. They fully deserve represention of their analysis, and I see no reason why your own favourite sources should have a privileged treatment. PHG 05:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

To accuse me of being US-centric is absurd. I have been using a variety of sources from multiple continents. Please do not resort to that kind of nationalistic accusation. The issue here is that the vast majority of historians (of all nationalities) say that there were attempts at an alliance, but not an actual alliance. We can definitely state that a couple historians are wishy-washy on the subject, but let's make sure that we put their statements in context, and don't give them undue weight. --Elonka 19:49, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I absolutely do not agree with your personal point of view that the "vast majority of historians speak about attempts". As far as I can see the vast majority actually present the alliance as fact. But that's irrelevant anyway, what is important is that these two important views should be equally and fairly represented. PHG 20:10, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, it is incorrect to characterize this as my "personal point of view." This is the point of view of most historians, and has been backed up by other editors in the #Request for comment, and the discussion in #Introduction sentence. But yes, I'm in agreement with you that we should list different views in the article, as long as we give the appropriate amount of weight to major v. minor views, per WP:UNDUE. --Elonka 20:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, a few Wikipedia Talk Page discussions cannot validate a major claim such as the "vast majority of historians speak about attempts". By the references you have given, only a few actually speak about attempts. Please just give references to your claim, and accept other views in a NPOV and balanced manner. Regards. PHG 13:35, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Jean Richard

PHG has claimed that the French historian Jean Richard (historian) said unequivocally that there was an alliance between the Franks and the Mongols. I dispute this interpretation. When I was reviewing the English translation of Richard's book, Richard seems to say the same thing that all the other historians do, which is that there were attempts at an alliance: "The Mongol alliance could mean the intervention of a large army and other forms of assistance which could be helpful to a crusade. It is hardly surprising that, for nearly forty years, the Westerners remained hopeful of achieving this combination of their efforts and those of the sovereigns of Persia." (p. 424)[1] "The Franco-Mongol alliance... foundered in the face of the vastness of the distances, and the impossibility of predicting events that make joint operations not feasible or of seizing chances offered. It is a story of lost opportunities." (p. 456)[2] Further if you look at the timeline on p. 487, Richard lists 1264 as the date that Hulegu offered an alliance to King Louis,[3] but there's nothing about an alliance being accepted. It's very different language from other years where Richard says, "1252: Alliance between Louis IX and the Mamluks", "1254: Truce with the Muslims". "1272: Truce with the Mamluks. In other words, Richard indicates that alliances were offered and promulgated (promoted), but not that they actually happened. So we go back to my original concern, which is that not a single historian has an unequivocal statement that a Franco-Mongol alliance existed. They use the term, sure, but only to describe the attempts. --Elonka 19:49, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Your use of the phrase "formal alliance" is perhaps revealing. Do you believe there was an informal alliance? And if so, what is the problem with the title then? Either way, what, remembering that this is the Middle Ages, would constitute a formal alliance? I think it is safe to say that there was cooperative action on the part of the Franks (Bohemond VI was a Frank in this sense) and Mongols and cooperative military action can always be described as an alliance. Furthermore, even without military action, I would regard any agreement concerning a common enemy and the need to deal with him as an alliance. So I iterate: the word "alliance" is broad enough to encompass the Franco-Mongol relationship in certain times and places and certainly describes the Franco-Mongol ideal, however far from full realisation it ever was. And a final question, why does Richard say "The Mongol alliance..." and not "A Mongol alliance..."? I see many copyediting issues concerning consistency, orthography, reference style, etc. as well as issues concerning balance in this article, but the title and the use of the term "alliance" to describe the relationship is not really problematic in my opinion. Srnec 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

What constitutes a formal alliance, isn't up to us decide, it's up to the historians to decide. When a historian says, "In 1264, an alliance was offered," I don't believe it's proper for us to say, "In 1264, an alliance started," because there's a big difference between "offered" and "started". We should stick with the wording that the historians use, rather than trying to infer something else. --Elonka 22:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

If Sinor speaks of Abagha strengthening an alliance with England, as he does, it only follows that an alliance with England (whatever that could mean) existed. Srnec 23:11, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Just to make sure we're talking about the same thing, you're talking about this work, yes? The chapter in Hazard/Setton's "History of the Crusades"?[4] If that's the one, I'd point to page 516, where it says, "It is important to note that attempts to seek an alliance with the Mongols were made by princes of France or England..." (p. 516) Again, the "attempts" language. See also p. 519: "The possibility of an alliance with the Mongols." Or p. 523, despite positive overtures, the "policy of rapprochement was destined to fail." See also p. 524: "Perhaps in the darkest moments of affliction Louis had the hopeful thought that the Mongols might wish to join forces with him against the common enemy." I can give more examples if you want. The general course is, many attempts were made, but they were not successful. If, however, you're talking about a different work, please let me know? And I'll be happy to take a look at it. --Elonka 23:42, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you've got the right source and I have read the whole thing. I am just pointing out the discrepancy in Sinor, which I think is engendered by that fact that it is not historians who define what an alliance is, formal or otherwise. There is ample evidence of alliances between Westerners/Franks/Crusaders and Mongols, but this is not to characterise all or even a significant minority of their relations in the 13th and 14th centuries as alliances. This article ought to describe the alliance like the historians do: call it an alliance and then call individual events associated with it acts of cooperation or offers of cooperation. Srnec 02:37, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, actually it is the historians who define what an alliance is. We're dealing here with the core policies of Wikipedia, Verifiability, and no original research. We're not here to make up our own minds about what an alliance is or isn't, we're here to summarize the information that's published in reliable sources. Where there's a dispute between sources, then we should follow the Wikipedia policy of neutrality, and simply describe the different points of view, each in proportion to how widespread it is (see undue weight) so that readers can make up their own minds. We shouldn't editorialize. And the more controversial that a subject is, the more important it is that we stick very closely to what the sources say. --Elonka 04:57, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Historians do not define the word "alliance", which is what I meant. The fact that the Franco-Mongol alliance is called such, even inconsistently, by historians is justification enough for using such terminology (even inconsistently) here. I think the main problem you have with this article—and in this I am in full agreement—is undue weight. The article spends too much time giving air to minority or out-dated opinions. Hence my recent modification of the "capture of Jerusalem" section. Srnec 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, would you kindly be more precise with what sources actually say, instead of distorting them to fit your point? As usual you are advancing that they was a lot of hope, and that the alliance ended in defeat for the Franks and the Mongols, to claim that there was no alliance: this is a total corruption of what sources actually say:

• ""The Mongol alliance could mean the intervention of a large army and other forms of assistance which could be helpful to a crusade. It is hardly surprising that, for nearly forty years, the Westerners remained hopeful of achieving this combination of their efforts ": of course, Westerners hoped for a major combination of their efforts. The reality is that the alliance ended with rather minor cases of implementation.
• "The Franco-Mongol alliance... foundered in the face of the vastness of the distances, and the impossibility of predicting events that make joint operations not feasible or of seizing chances offered. It is a story of lost opportunities.": of course we all agree that it foundered in the end, but to founder, you need to exist first, which is Richard's point. I guess we all agree that the Alliance ended in defeat for the Franks and the Mongols, but it was an alliance nonetheless.
• And of course you conveniently disreguard the other quotes from Richard which clearly prove he considered the alliance as fact:

"The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.: all the narrative here explains that the alliance started in the early 1260's.

"In 1297 Ghazan resumed his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468.

• "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" (p.469)... rich in missed opportunities maybe, but an alliance nonetheless... Richard is certainly not just talking about "attempts". It coulnd't be clearer... PHG 05:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
  • Yes, it could be clearer, if Richard would have actually listed "alliance formed on such and such a date" in his extensive timeline.(p. 487[5]) But he didn't. He simply says in the timeline that Hulegu offered an alliance to Louis in 1264. But that doesn't mean that it was accepted. The interpretation that there was an alliance as of 1264 is not matched by any other historian. Even your next closest historian to saying that an alliance existed, Demurger, with his one sentence "put the seal on the alliance in 1300" comment, is saying something completely different from Richard, at a point in time that takes place generations later. And again, other historians are not agreeing with his interpretation either, as the vast majority describe the situation as attempts at an alliance. A chimera, a will-of-the-wisp, a hope, but attempts that ultimately "led nowhere"(Tyerman). So if we want to quote Demurger and Richard in the article, fine, we should do that, but they should be clearly labeled, per WP:UNDUE, as minority opinions (and please, can you actually read WP:UNDUE?). Summary: We definitely should not use Richard's and Demurger's ambivalent comments as "proof of an alliance," when (1) they're ambiguous and ambivalent in their own works; and (2) they're not even agreeing with each other on this. --Elonka 16:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Grousset, Demurger or Richard are quite clear about the Franco-Mongol Alliance, and you are the only one claiming an ambivalence. This is your own original research (as looking into the timeline, and concluding: "Look! they do not mention the alliance here, only the proposals"). Just stick with what they actual say please: there were huge hopes behind the alliance, it was implemented in many ways, and it ended in defeat.

Your claim that the opinions of these three leading scholars should not receive undue weight is, I believe, not legitimate: they represent a major viewpoint, not just small research by marginal scholars. The least we can do is give them proper representation. PHG 05:35, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Deletion of sources

Elonka is deleting sources which she apparently finds disagreable, as the interview with Demurger. After having once branded Demurger's book an unreliable "summer book" (before learning he was one of the leading French experts on the Templars), she is now trying to erase the mention of a recent interview with the French mainstream magazine "Le Point", branding it an "offhand comment that he made during an interview while he was promoting his book" (total OR comment really). As a matter of fact, this was just an interview about the end of the Templars, not any promotional piece. Here the apparently unpleasant quote:

"The order of the Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols against the Mameluks in 1299-1303, in order to regain a foothold in the Holy Land" ("L’ordre du Temple et son dernier grand maître, Jacques de Molay, ont été les artisans de l’alliance avec les Mongols de Perse contre les Mamelouks en 1299-1303, afin de reprendre pied en Terre sainte.")

— Alain Demurger, Master of Conference at Université Paris-I, in an interview with Le Point, "La Chute du Temple", May 27th 2008

I will reinstate it, unless someone shows me that this is not acceptable to quote a leading historian on Wikipedia. PHG 05:49, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

A real-time interview, by definition, is not a "published peer-reviewed secondary source." The only thing that that quote could be used for, would be to say, "In an interview, Demurger said...." It could probably be used in his bio, but it's not an acceptable source to state something as fact here in the "alliance" article, especially when we have dozens of other reliable sources that we can use instead. --Elonka 15:56, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

It is obvious that you are trying to use a technically to disqualify a source that is offending your point of view. Isn't it bothering you that the leading French authority on the Templars, says "The order of the Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols", when you keep claiming that was no alliance at all and that the Templars had no special role in it?

I far as I know, this quote, from a reputable historian, published in a reputable source, has the right to stay. And please read more of Demurger, because there are many more quotes from him of the type you seem to dislike, acutally describing the alliance in action:

"The multiple offensive of Ghazan in the years 1299-1302, in collaboration with the Christian forces of Cyprus, were very close to succeed"

— "Demurger, "Les Croises", p.287

"During these years, there was no Crusade from the West. Only did the Frank forces concentrated in Cyprus and little Armenia, did cooperate with the Mongols"

— "Demurger, "Les Croises", p.287

PHG 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, what bothers me that is that you're trying to insist that an offhand comment during an interview, about a controversial subject, is acceptable as a reliable source. We have dozens of peer-reviewed papers on the subject. If the only thing you can find to bolster your case is an interview comment and a blurb from a book's marketing copy, that's pretty sad. Any statements sourced to those kind of unreliable sources, should be removed from the article. I tried doing that already, but you just reverted me. But the information has to go. --Elonka 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

No Elonka, you are mistaken. This is just one nice quote, among tens of others which also describe the Franco-Mongol as fact. There's no reason to delete it at all. It exists, it was said by an amazingly reputable source, so, let it live. Regards. PHG 19:56, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cooling down period suggested

Elonka and PHG. You are both interested in this topic, perhaps too much. I think your differences in opinion are relatively minor; but by your fierce editting, reverting, etc. you may have both been winding yourselves up to an unnecessary level. I would suggest that both of you stay away from this article and its talk page for 14 days starting 23.59 September 28 Wiki time; per step 2 of WP:DR. After two weeks I am pretty sure tempers may have cooled a bit. Of course it is your voluntary decision to agree with this, but as far as I can see, the current discussion is going nowhere. Arnoutf 17:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Arnoutf, I'm not angry.  :) And I think that if you look at my contribs: Elonka (talk · contribs) you can easily see that I'm working on multiple articles, not just this one. In fact, I just got Fustat to GA status  :). But I'm afraid I have to disagree on the "minor differences of opinion" issue. As I see it, PHG has been deliberately adding false information to Wikipedia, and engaging in POV-pushing. He's also been working on practically nothing else, for about a month now. Just look at his contribs: PHG (talk · contribs). I realize that since we're dealing with some obscure bits of history here, it's difficult for others who don't understand the subject matter to follow exactly what's going on, especially the way that PHG keeps twisting things, but this is definitely not a case of "two editors with a minor disagreement," this is something that's resulting in flat out false information being promoted on Wikipedia. I realize that this article is quite long, but if it's helpful, I can provide exact diffs to show where PHG has been adding false information. For example here[6] where he tried to claim that the Knights Templar and the Mongols had collaborated to launch a "surprise attack" on Jerusalem in 1299, and further that the Mongols then left Jacques Molay alone in Jerusalem to rebuild fortifications. PHG routinely adds references that look like valid sources, but when I'm actually checking into them, I'm finding that the sources are either extremely unreliable, or if they're from reliable historians, he's completely twisting whatever the historian actually said, to something entirely different. When I've been challenging PHG about these practices, he has continued to argue heatedly to promote his own POV, he has generated multiple personal attacks (such as calling me vain and incompetent and a liar), and he has engaged in edit-warring in violation of talkpage consensus, as well as issuing multiple false counter charges, where he's been accusing me of misrepresenting sources. Then when I provide exact quotes, he accuses me of copyright violations! Now, having said that, I'm perfectly willing to go "hands off" on this article for a couple weeks, provided that it's in a state which reflects talkpage consensus at the time. But, is PHG willing to do the same? --Elonka 21:22, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, I created this article, and provided most of its content, so it is normal I have been spending a lot of time on it, as would any dedicated user. You seem to have a quasi-obsession in denying there was an actual alliance between the Franks and the Mongols, which is actually contradicted by numerous sources. Just accept sources and what they have to say, actually read Demurger and Richard before you make you make conclusions about what they have to say. They are two of the leading French historians on the Crusades and the Templars, one of your pet subjects.

I am not even trying to promote my own point of view, I am just asking that both points-of-view ("Alliance" and "just attempts") be respected. This is an inclusionist approach, whether you are endlessly arguing that only you own point-of-view is right ("Attempts only").

All my references are properly sourced, and if someone has been twisting them, you have been the one (see history above).

I have warned you about copyright, not to annoy you, but because quoting more than 4-5 lines of copyrighted text is indeed copyright violation.

Just accept that you are not the only one here, that some views alternative to yours exist and that they have the right to be represented. PHG 05:19, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf. As far as I am concerned, I will not argue endlessly with Elonka. Plenty of proper sources have already been provided which show the alliance as fact (rather than just "attempts only"), especially from the leading French specialists of the field (Grousset, Demurger, Richard). Now that Elonka seems to acknowledge their existence, she is claiming that no undue weight should be given to them. Well, I am not even asking that their view should be the main one, just that they should be represented equally with sources which only present the alliance as attempts. I believe the Wikipedia rule of NPOV and balance is on my side, and I will keep editing so that both views are properly represented. Best regards PHG 05:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I just received a very interesting message on my talkpage, from a previous editor who has dealt with PHG.[7] From what they tell me, the tactics that PHG has been using here, are not new,[8] and that he routinely:

• Uses unreliable sources
• Reads up just enough on a subject to be able to confuse third-party observers as to his competency
• Uses large amounts of text, which make it difficult for third-party observers to see what's going on
• Generates attacks on those who disagree with him
• When his opinion is challenged with reliable sources, he will either quote primary sources to back up his point of view, or misinterpret the secondary sources
• Refuses to negotiate in good faith
• Pushes articles through to FA even though they are biased
• Then points at his history of featured articles to try and bolster his credibility

In short, we may have a larger problem here than just Franco-Mongol alliance, we may have a case of an editor who is pushing multiple articles to FA (and I would point out that PHG nominated this alliance article for FA only two weeks after he created it, and despite the fact that it had gross errors in it at the time).

It is my recommendation that every article that PHG has pushed to FA, be carefully re-examined for accuracy. It may also be time for a User Conduct RfC. --Elonka 17:38, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I know Devanampriya quite well. He has a long history of vandalism, and deletions of sources in favour of a very India-centric/nationalistic approach to history. He has been totally marginalized on Hellenistic pages, and I don't think anybody supports his actions on Wikipedia except a very few very marginal people (a few of them apparently sock-puppets). Be his friend, up to you. And do check my FAs, be my guest. Best regards. PHG 18:20, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a strong word, vandalism, and I see nothing to back it up. I see no blocks or warnings in Devanampriya's record: Devanampriya (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · page moves · block user · block log). I do see a history of you disputing with Devanampriya in pretty much the same way that you've been disputing with me, with one exception: Devanampriya lost his temper. So when he resorted to incivility, that weakened his arguments. Looks like you were fairly uncivil too. But that doesn't mean Devanampriya was wrong. And I find it very uncivil to be accusing a good faith editor of a "history of vandalism." Content disputes are not vandalism. Please try to avoid making these kinds of unfounded personal attacks. --Elonka 19:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

You'll see for yourself Elonka. Go ahead. Have fun :) PHG 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not contributed to this article, but I have participated in some small way in the ensuing dispute. Perhaps a cooling off period is a good idea, but that should not be followed by a further escalation of dispute. I believe it would be better for all the participants to use the time fruitfully to gather their sources and find a way to come up with some acceptable account of what really happened. That said, I think it would be a good time to find the common points so that the actual dispute can be better clarified. For instance, I think everyone agrees that there was talk among the Franks and perhaps some effort to reach an agreement with the Mongols to oppose the Muslims. The question is the degree to which this was carried to fruition. I think we should also be clear about the sources chosen. For instance, no historian today will work solely from primary sources. While they are interesting indicators of mood, they can hardly be accepted as accurate, especially of this period, where they tend to be colored by the bias of the authors. To quote the opening line of the introduction to my copy of Joinville, "Few events in history have been more coloured by romantic imagination than that series of expeditions to the Holy Land known as the Crusades" (Margarret Shaw). That would seem to include nationalist bias today. So, let's take this time to clarify the dispute, collect the sources, and come up with an acceptable version that cannot be challenged. Danny 18:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

(followup) I would just like to point out that I have adhered to Arnoutf's suggestion for a "cooling off" period, and have not edited the article for the last two weeks.[9] I am a bit disappointed that PHG did not abide by the request as well, and further, that he has continued to load even more information into the article (which is now over 160K in length). PHG, would you by any chance be willing to reverse places for a bit, and allow me to have a couple weeks of uninterrupted access to the article, to see what I do with it? --Elonka 22:41, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

164K is simply too excessive for a single article, it would be beneficial to split it. Matthew 11:07, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Scrolling reflists not to be used

I replaced the scrolling reference list per Wikipedia:Citing_sources#Scrolling_reference_lists Arnoutf 12:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Division

This whole article is too long now. Even if just for copyediting purposes and consistency, it must be broken down and split off into sub-articles. Srnec 18:25, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I recommend that we move sections to History of Jerusalem, History of Cyprus, and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia. It might also be worth making an article like History of Jerusalem (Crusades). --Elonka 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

As already said by other contributors, we should first solve the factual disputes in this article, before we even start thinking about slicing it up. PHG 19:45, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

We've pretty much come to agreement on the Jerusalem rumors, so I have created an article, History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) that incorporates that info. We should reduce the info here in the alliance article to a single paragraph, and then link to the new History article. If PHG wants to do it, that's fine, otherwise I'll try to get to it later today. --Elonka 20:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've merged the information out, and shrunk it down to one paragraph. I removed multiple pages of information, but we're still running at 135K (and the History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages) article is now seriously overweighted with information about the 1299/1300 raids). But at least it's a start! Any recommendations on which part to do next? --Elonka 04:58, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

The alliance of Bohemond VI with the Mongols

Issues

I am afraid the part on the alliance between Bohemond VI and the Mongols has been quite distorted and watered down, following Elonka’s general effort to deny that there was an effective alliance between the Franks and the Mongols. An argument was made that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli (above in this Talk Page) were not Frank. This is historically untrue, and I am glad nobody has been following this claim. She also wrote that Antioch was a part of Armenia, this time a geographic untruth. Also, the designation of “The Franks of the Principality of Antioch” was changed to “Antiochians” in several paragraphs, in an apparent effort to diminish their “Frankish color”. Lastly, the mentions of “alliance” were changed to simply “relations”.

Facts

First of all, I think it should be made clear that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli were Frankish realms. Regarding the issue of the alliance, I would like to remind that Bohemond VI went to the Mongols (he was never invaded) and willingly accepted their suzerainty, rather than fight them or remain neutral (as the Franks of Acre did). As a matter of fact, most historians speak about an alliance, although a few mention that he submitted to the Mongols and became their vassals. A few quotes:

• "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)
• "Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols". Amin Maalouf, p.265 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes)

I believe this is sufficient ground to have a title mentioning “alliance” rather than just “relations”, as “relations” could be anything (from alliance to conflict), and to explain in the body of the paragraph that some scholars regard this as vassalship and submission to the Mongols. I think what is important is that over a period of more than 10 years, Bohemond VI chose to join the Mongols rather than fight them or remain neutral, participated to many conquests with them, and repeatedly called them when he was in need of help against the Mamluks. Numerous sources further testify to the good relationship Bohemond VI and his Armenian father-in-law Hethoum I had with the Mongols. There are ample facts, confirmed by numerous modern historians, in favour of a clear description of the alliance between Bohemond and the Mongols. PHG 18:32, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Bohemond of Antioch did not ally with the Mongols, he submitted to the Mongols. Even Jean Richard said that. "customary marks of submission to which Bohemond VI ... had had to conform." (Richard, p. 422) And Bohemond submitted because of pressure from his father-in-law Hethoum I. "The principality of Antioch was dominated by its Armenian neighbour -- it was through the will of the Armenian king that the Antiochenes came to aid Hulegu in 1259-60." ("The Logic of Conquest" Al-Masaq, v. 14, No.1, March 2002, p. 8) "Bohemond of Antioch, who was under his father-in-law's influence, gave his adhesion. But the Franks of Acre held aloof." (Runciman, p. 299) --Elonka 19:30, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

There you go again... using some scholarly sources to deny other scholarly sources? Do you often do that? I could go on, quote my sources, and say "No, Elonka, your sources are wrong, because my sources say they were allies", and we'll be in a stupid un-Wikipedian stalemate again. Again, can't you see scholars are just divided on the question? The smart answer is: "He was an ally of the Mongols (according to some scholars), and a vassal of the Mongols (according to other scholars)". Sounds like this introduction sentence again: "some scholars say it was an alliance, some say it was just an attempt towards an alliance". There is absolutely no reason why the sources you favour should prevail over the others, don't you think? And it is an unasailable Wikipedia principle that major views should be presented equally in a NPOV spirit. PHG 19:43, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, this is your source, the "leading world authority" French historian Jean Richard who says that Bohemond submitted to the Mongols. --Elonka 19:55, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

He is not my source, sources do not belong to me, they just are. I will never reject a scholar because another scholar says something different. If both views are expressed by reputable scholars, both deserve to be mentionned. It is not one against the other, can't you see? Scholars are together on this, and the both of us are together on this: we just need to express fairly what the different opinions are, matter-of-factly, without being partisan, and that's it, and that's the way Wikipedia is being built. PHG 20:02, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Date of Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols

Elonka is claiming that Bohemond allied with the Mongols in 1259 only. Would it be possible to have references for that Elonka, before editing and reverting? Demurger states that Bohemond was present at the Siege of Baghdad in 1258:

"Bohemond was present at Baghdad in 1258" ("Bohemond VI etait present a Baghdad en 1258")

— “Jacques de Molay”, Demurger, p.55

also:

”The Franks of Tripoli and Antioch, as well as the Armenians of Cilicia who, as soon as the submission of Asia Minor in 1243 had to recognize the suzerainty of the Mongols and pay tribute, participated to the capture of Baghdad.

— Demurger, “Croisades et Croises”, p.284

PHG 19:01, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

The timeline was thus:

• 1258, the Mongols, with their Armenian and Georgian subjects, successfully conquered Baghdad. Bohemond of Antioch appears to have been present at the siege, but it's unclear with how large a force, or whether they participated in the fighting.
• 1259, Bohemond of Antioch formally submits to the Mongols
• 1260, The Mongols, now with Armenian, Georgian, and Antiochene subjects, successfully conquer Aleppo.

In more casual (and somewhat flippant) terms, think of it like this. The King of Armenia, Hethoum, already a Mongol subject since the 1240s, is bringing his forces to join the Mongol army in their attack on the prize city of the Islamic world, Baghdad. As he's prepping in 1258, he calls over his son-in-law Bohemond, and says, "Hey there son, how're you treating my daughter? BTW, we're going to go attack Baghdad with the Mongols, want to join?" Bohemond replies, "Sure dad, sounds like fun!" Then along the way, Hethoum steadily pressures Bohemond to join the Mongols too. After Baghdad falls, Bohemond agrees to join the winning side, the Mongols, in 1259. So then he brings a force, along with those of his dad, to the Mongol party at Aleppo, which they all capture together in 1260. Three Christian leaders, Bohemond, Hethoum, and the Mongol general Kitbuqa, ride into Damascus in triumph. And the Mongols generously share the spoils, giving back to Bohemond all the cities that he'd previously lost to the Muslims. Bohemond then enlists the help of local Templars and Hospitallers, and they go clean house in those cities, reclaiming them from local Muslim garrisons. That make more sense? --Elonka 19:21, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting. Sounds like you are fully accepting the alliance with the Mongols now. By the way, would you have references (and quotes) to support your nice point on the dates, against Demurger? PHG 19:33, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka's story and its dates corresponds to what I know from volume 2 of A History of the Crusades ([10]). Srnec 19:47, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice ref, thank you. Do you have anything specific on Bohemond's participation to the siege of Baghdad? PHG 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, you still haven’t provided a reference to your claim that Bohemond only allied with the Mongols in 1259. Srnec’s quote is nice and informative, but does not give a clear answer on the date question. On my side, I have given Demurger’s reference that Bohemond already fully involved himself with the Mongols at the siege of Baghdad in 1258, indicating that his alliance with the Mongols started earlier. Could you kindly back up your claim with some solid reference? Regards.PHG 16:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, you are the one trying to twist sources here. If Demurger said that Bohemond was at the siege of Baghdad in 1258, then that's all we should infer from that, which is that Bohemond was present. It is not appropriate to try and take that as some sort of confirmation from Demurger that there was an alliance, when Demurger said no such thing. --Elonka 18:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. Actually Demurger says that Bohemond participated with his troops to the 1258 Mongol capture of Baghdad: ”The Franks of Tripoli and Antioch, as well as the Armenians of Cilicia who, as soon as the submission of Asia Minor in 1243 had to recognize the suzerainty of the Mongols and pay tribute, participated to the capture of Baghdad." p.284. Now, I am OK to leave it at that, but don't claim he only allied with the Mongols in 1259, unless you have sources to prove your point, because available sources (Demurger) strongly suggest your claim is wrong. If you have sources to prove your point, I am fine with that, and we will try to accomodate that with Demurger's claim. I am only challenging your claim because you have not provided any reference for it. Best regards PHG 19:04, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

All of my sources say that Bohemond submitted Antioch to the Mongols in 1259, or at least after the conquest of Baghdad, and that he then joined for the attacks on Aleppo and Damascus. --Elonka 00:03, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The banner of the Il-Khan

Dear Elonka. It seems you have been repeatedly reverting a sentence mentioning the presence of "the banner of the Il-Khan" on the Frank fleet raiding the coasts of the Holy Land in 1300. Instead, you systematically replace it with a sentence of a slightly different meaning: “Ghazan's envoys had raised their banner on the galleys”. Although a minor factual detail, I am afraid it does not reflect what the sources say. Actually both quoted sources (Demurger, and The Templar of Tyre quoted by Demurger) specifically say, respectively, "The banner of the Il-Khan" and "Ghazan's banner", not just the ambassador’s banner. It is somewhat important as the Il-Khan’s ambassador was the Italian Isol le Pisan, so your phrasing could suggest for example that an Italian banner was raised instead of Ghazan’s banner. So let’s please be faithful to our sources and just say exactly “The Banner of the Il-Khan” if you don't mind. Best regards.PHG 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, the problem with the information that you're trying to insert, is that you're trying to make a case that the fleet "sailed under the flag of the Mongols." This is absolutely not what the sources said. Your wording also seems designed to try and enforce some sort of viewpoint about modern ships and flags, onto medieval sailing ships. What the source said, is that the envoys of the Mongol, raised their banner on the ship. There's no indication of whether or not this was the only banner, or whether it was in any kind of official capacity. And the context in which it was brought up, was when the Templar of Tyre mentioned that some Mongol prisoners on shore in Rosetta, saw the Mongol's banner on the galleys, and broke free of their captors to go towards the ships. It is wrong to try and infer from that, that the ships were somehow owned by or registered to the Mongols. We need to stay neutral in how we report this. --Elonka 18:35, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, I am just following the source:

"The banner of the Mongol Il-Khan was hoisted on the boats, because he [Ghazan's ambassador] was onboard" ("La banniere de l'Ilkhan fut hissee sur les bateaux parce qu'il etait a bord")

— Demurger, "Jacques de Molay", p.147

Please do not misquote or misinterpret scholarly quotes. Let's just follow what they say. It is just a matter of integrity. Best regards. PHG 18:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced "however, most historians think that…"

Dear Elonka. I am afraid the above “however, most historians think that…” is becoming a leitmotiv, which is appearing in uncountable instances in the article. Let me remind (again) that such statements are highly subjective, and should better be replaced by specific references. Unreferenced “however, most historians think that…” (especially coming after properly referenced material that state otherwise) are quite characteristic of POV editing and should be avoided, in favour of a proper balanced presentation of the opinions of the various authors on a given subject.PHG 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Balancing sources and NPOV editing

Various attempts have been made at denying the words of some major historians, by using differing statements by some other major historians. This clearly goes against Wikipedia’s fundamental rule of balanced presentation of major sources and NPOV editing.

• For example, scholars are divided in their evaluation of the Franco-Mongol alliance, some treating it as fact, some saying it was “just attempts towards an alliance”. However numerous edits and reverts have been made to try to impose the latter view only, even claiming a 3 editors vs 1 editor (me) discussion as a “consensus” capable of going against this most basic Wikipedia rule of balance and NPOV editing (Let it be reminded that Wikipedia editing principles can never be overruled by small local discussions or micro-votes).
• Another example is the qualification of Bohemond VI alliance with the Mongols. Many historians do describe this as an alliance indeed, while some others explain that Bohemond (willingly) submitted to the Mongols and was their vassal. Some historians even claim both at the same time. I am not saying either view is right or wrong, just that both exist, both are coming from highly reputable sources, and both therefore have the right to be represented per Wikipedia Balance and NPOV rule. There is no reason to favour one view over the other.

I am asking everyone here to uphold Wikipedia NPOV policy and accept that various views be presented, whatever their personal opinions on the subject (as far as I know, the opinions of editors are irrelevant on Wikipedia: we just lay out the opinions of reputable sources and references).

• Specifically, only speaking about “attempts at an alliance” in the introduction is POV editing, favouring only one side of the story, and suggests that the alliance never actually happened. This opinion is contradicted by many reputable sources, and therefore ‘’’both’’’ views should be represented, such as in “A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, ….”, with attached references.
• Bohemond’s alliance with the Mongols should clearly be presented as such, with attending moderations that he accepted Mongol overlordship and voluntarily became their vassal.PHG 16:23, 28 September 2007 (UTC)
  • We have already discussed the "attempts at an alliance" phrasing, in the above thread #Introduction sentence. We also already have a thread about Bohemond. PHG, please stop making multiple threads about topics that have already been discussed. --Elonka 18:39, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Your position is contravening to Wikipedia's rules of NPOV and balanced reporting. Major sources deserve representation and equal treatment. There is no reason we should leave this matter to rest. Best regards. PHG 18:44, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Misquotes

Elonka, please be carefull in your editing to avoid misquotes. You wrote:

• "Most say that it was just one more in a series of failed attempts at communication between the Franks and the Mongols.<ref>(Richard, p. 434 (french), p. 422 (english). "What Hulegu was offering was an alliance. And, contrary to what has long been written by the best authorities, this offer was not in response to appeals from the Franks.")</ref>"

Your sentence doesn't reflect what Richard says in the reference. He just says that Helegu's proposal of an alliance was spontaneous, and was not in response to Western sollicitation.PHG 17:12, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

• Yes, it does reflect what Richard said. To the best of my knowledge, I transcribed an exact quote from the English translation of Richard's book, page 422.[11] --Elonka 18:43, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I am afaid no, Elonka. Here's the French original:

"L'offre de Hulegu etait celle d'une alliance. Et, contrairement a ce qu'ont longtemps ecrit les meilleurs auteurs, cette offre n'etait pas une reponse a des sollicitations venant des Francs"

This is totally different from what you imply ("Most say that it was just one more in a series of failed attempts at communication between the Franks and the Mongols"). Would you like to give me the English translation? (It doesn't seem I can access it from your link).PHG 18:54, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have double-checked, and I have transcribed the English translation exactly, from the top of page 422. Feel free to check it yourself. --Elonka 23:47, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Again Elonka, could you kindly give the actual quote you are referring to, please, because the quote you wrote originally (beginning of this paragraph) has nothing to do with your claim. PHG 16:25, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Nearly there

Appart from the few issues mentionned above, and the need to equally represent major sources ("alliance" and "attempts towards an alliance", or Bohemond's "alliance" and "subordination") in an NPOV manner, I think the article is pretty much there in terms of content. I would think this article is probably now the best available comprehensive source on the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance! Thank you all for your efforts on this arcane subject! PHG 18:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, this tactic of yours of claiming that things are "done", when there are obviously still major disputes, is not helpful. As can be easily seen by the above threads on this talkpage, most editors are not agreeing with the bias that you're trying to insert. I also take strong exception to the article that you just created to promote your biased POV: Mongol conquest of Jerusalem. Please, you need to stop this kind of Tendentious editing. I realize that you're convinced that you're right, and everyone else is wrong, but please, try to show more respect for the opinions of other editors. If you can't get other editors to agree with your position, please accept that your position may not be as strong as you think it is. --Elonka 18:31, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, could you kindly be more specific with your accusations? I will be delighted to respond to them one by one, and to retract myself anytime if something was claimed wrongly. By the way, I think I have found a good NPOV title for the new sub-article: "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem". Do you like it? PHG 19:37, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I have moved the article to Mongol raids into Palestine. --Elonka 20:28, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. The sub-article content being 99% about the controversy regarding the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongol, I am afraid your new title ("Mongol raids into Palestine") is much too broad... and would require a much larger article. This tittle is basically inadequate in respect to actual article content, and contravenes to your first intent (outsourcing the info on Jerusalem and the Mongols), don't you think? Can I ask you why didn't you like the much more focused and highly NPOV "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem"? PHG 06:17, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

This discussion has evidently been continued at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem, where the community consensus appears fairly clear that "Mongol conquests and Jerusalem" is not an appropriate concept for an article. --Elonka 23:46, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Srnec's intro

• Thank you Srnec for your new great intro! Following proper Wikipedia form, it allows the opening sentence to use the wording of the title "A Franco-Mongol alliance was...". I also think it nicely balances the will of all parts (Mongols and Franks) to achieve this alliance, and the reality of its limited results. To me, it is near perfect. Thanks again!
• I also take note that Elonka's 3:1 claimed "consensus" in favour of the "attempts only" approach (justification to her reverts) is thus disappearing, as it would be now a 2:2 at best. It would further evolve should some other users, or Adam, also decide to give their approval to your phrasing. I will not remind here again that micro-polling is no ground to overturn Wikipedia's rules of balanced and NPOV anyway.

Best regards, and thank you for your support and contributions. PHG 06:34, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Srnec, I've been giving it some thought for a couple weeks (per the "cooling off" request), but I still feel that the majority of historians refer to the topic with "attempts" language (see User:Elonka/Mongol historians). For example, David Morgan, author of The Mongols puts it clearly, "From 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance." I really want to make sure that the word "attempts" gets into the lead. So, how about this as an alternative wording? "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least what many historians refer to as attempts towards forming such an alliance, was the object of a series of diplomatic endeavors between the courts of Western Europe and the Mongol Empire (primarily the Ilkhanate) in the 13th and 14th centuries, starting from around the time of the Seventh Crusade." --Elonka 22:10, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

ANI thread

Because of the recent POV fork articles that PHG has been creating (such as Mongol conquest of Jerusalem and Mongol conquests and Jerusalem), and the failure of all other attempts at dispute resolution (as seen by the above threads, including the multiple archives over the last few weeks), I have taken the matter to ANI, the Administrators' Noticeboard. FYI, Elonka 22:07, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

So nice of you Elonka. You are so completely loosing the argument on this page (and loosing the support of other contributors), that the only thing you can find now is slander me on various notice boards? Why don't you stick to the facts, stop corrupting sources to fit your storyline, and respect a balanced presentation of sources in a NPOV manner? Best regards PHG 07:35, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Considering that everyone who has weighed in at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Mongol conquests and Jerusalem has said to delete the article (except for you), I have to again question your judgment here in terms of your ability to correctly determine consensus. Please stop with this attitude of "PHG is right and everyone else is wrong," and try to work with other contributors, instead of continually insisting on your own way? --Elonka 23:45, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Please recognize you lost your vote here to change the article name, and that your 3:1 supposed "consensus" was never one, and it actually disappeared when Srnec offered his compromise. If everybody wants to delete the title "Mongols raids on Jerusalem", I'm fine with it, it is a minute detail. Best regards. PHG 05:36, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation

Are we ready to take another try at mediation? This is a voluntary process, and non-binding. However, with an experienced mediator to assist us with communication, I am hopeful that we may be able to find ways through some of the current deadlocks.

Issues to mediate

Issues that I recommend mediating (this is just a startpoint, and we can always add others later):

• Determining how to best define the consensus of modern reliable historians on the "Was there a Franco-Mongol alliance?" issue. Specifically: Is the consensus that there was an allliance, wasn't an alliance, or are historians evenly split? How many opinions on the matter are mainstream, and how many are fringe? Which should be represented in the article?
• Determining the best name for this article
• Determining the best wording for the lead sentence/paragraph
• Deciding how many and what type of primary source quotes should be used
• Deciding how best to present the relationship of the Armenians with the Mongols: Alliance or submission to overlordship?
• Deciding how best to present the relationship of the Antiochenes with the Mongols: Alliance or submission to overlordship?
• Discussing how to best present the information about the status of Jerusalem in 1300: Conquered, raided, or left alone?
• Deciding if or how to best split this article into manageable sections, WP:SUMMARY style
• Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not (example: back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview, etc.)
• Determining how to best present the impact of the Knights Templar, in relation to the Mongols (were the Templars a central organizing force, or no?)

Participants

If you are interested in being a party to this mediation, please add your name below. After a couple days, if the primary participants are onboard, I'll go ahead and file the paperwork to get things started. You are also welcome to suggest additional issues for mediation if you would like. Thanks, Elonka 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

The following users are interested in participating in mediation:

• Elonka 02:24, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

• PHG. I will be glad to go to mediation is you wish so, but not on your terms. Most of these subjects have already been dwelt with, or are covered by Wikipedia regulations. The ideal title has already been decided to "Franco-Mongol alliance" by a large vote in your disfavour. Why come back to the charge? You are loosing a libelous case against me at ANI, where it is clear you are actually the one corrupting sources to fit your story. Regarding the usage of various sources, Wikipedia is clear that we should maintain a NPOV and balance the various major sources. We are not here to decide how best to qualify the various events you mention: we are not historians. You are visibly pushing for giving only one interpretation of history (the one you favour, as usual), but the only way is to let the true historians speak, lay out their opinions in a balanced manner, and leave it at that. Best regards. PHG 05:44, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
  • Erm, so, which issues are you willing to take to mediation? --Elonka 16:58, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

To respond to your points:

• Determining how to best define the consensus of modern reliable historians on the "Was there a Franco-Mongol alliance?" issue. Specifically: Is the consensus that there was an allliance, wasn't an alliance, or are historians evenly split? How many opinions on the matter are mainstream, and how many are fringe? Which should be represented in the article?

According to Wikipedia NPOV rules major authors all have the right to representation in the article. Main views should be represented in a balanced way. If you have issues with this principle, I am ready to take it to mediation.

• Determining the best name for this article

This was already voted for, overwhelmingly in your disfavour. I do not think it legitimate to again discuss it.

• Determining the best wording for the lead sentence/paragraph

A great compromise opening sentence was made by Snerc. Your claimed "consensus" disappeared, so it seems to me Snerc"s proposal is the best.

• Deciding how many and what type of primary source quotes should be used

Wikipedia rules also already apply here. A reasonable amount of primary sources is accepted, especially when quoted by secondary sources. I'm not sure there is even any discussion to have here.

• Deciding how best to present the relationship of the Armenians with the Mongols: Alliance or submission to overlordship?

I think there's nothing to decide. Reputable scholars describe both. If you have an issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.

• Deciding how best to present the relationship of the Antiochenes with the Mongols: Alliance or submission to overlordship?

I think there's nothing to decide. Scholars describe both. If you have an issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.

• Discussing how to best present the information about the status of Jerusalem in 1300: Conquered, raided, or left alone?

I think there's nothing to decide. Scholars describe all three. If you have an issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.

• Deciding if or how to best split this article into manageable sections, WP:SUMMARY style

Why not, but I am quite reluctant with your approach of drowning a sub-subject into a larger article (such as you did unilaterally for Mongol raids into Palestine.

• Deciding which sources are reliable secondary sources, and which are not (example: back cover of a book, medieval historians, author interview, etc.)

Yes, I'd be glad to know what Wikipedia standards are in this respect (nothing for us to decide though, just a matter of following Wiki guidelines).

• Determining how to best present the impact of the Knights Templar, in relation to the Mongols (were the Templars a central organizing force, or no?)

I think there's nothing to decide. Scholars describe the two views. If you have an issue with balanced reporting in general, we could address that through mediation.

It seems your main issue is with Wikipedia's policy of balance and NPOV presentation of various scholarly sources. You seem to imply that a specific view can be imposed, whether Wikipedia generally states that the various views should be described. This is a fundamental editing principle on Wikipedia. If you have a fundamental problem with that principle, I'll be glad to discuss it through mediation. PHG 17:23, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Well that's a start! Let's proceed to mediation.  :) Anyone else want in? --Elonka 17:47, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Mediation request filed

Alright, I've started the page at: Wikipedia:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance. Anyone else that would like to join, either list your name here, and I'll add your name to the page, or you can just add your name directly to the page. PHG, you're already listed, so I'd appreciate if you could signify your agreement to mediate, by posting "Agree" at the bottom of the page. You are also welcome to list "additional issues to mediate" in the appropriate section. If anyone has questions, let me know!  :) --Elonka 00:21, 3 October 2007 (UTC)

The Mongols (2nd ed)

Just picked up a copy of David Morgan's new book today. He updated it quite a bit since the 1985 version, and goes into some detail on the research that's been done on the Mongols over the last decades. He's extremely clear that the alliance never took place, and further, he lists this as the prevailing view among other historians as well (especially Grousset):

"This has long been seen as a 'missed opportunity' for the Crusaders. According to that opinion, most eloquently expressed by Grousset and frequently repeated by other scholars, the Crusaders ought to have allied themselves with the pro-Christian, anti-Muslim Mongols against the Mamluks. They might thus have prevented their own destruction by the Mamluks in the succeeding decades, and possibly even have secured the return of Jerusalem by favour of the Mongols." (p. 136)

""From 1263 until well into the fourteenth century repeated attempts were made to arrange an alliance, and these appear to have been entered into in perfectly good faith by both sides. We possess the texts of numerous letters sent in both directions. The Popes were always enthusiastic, as much for evangelistic as for specifically crusading reasons, and several western monarchs also treated the idea of an alliance seriously." (p. 160)

FYI, Elonka 05:42, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

One more opinion isn't it? I guess we're getting quite good at cataloguing the various scholarly views on the subject...PHG 06:46, 7 October 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about Dailliez

I am concerned that PHG is adding information from Dailliez's book into the Wikipedia article as a source. For example, today,[12] the text that PHG added is, "Another French historian, Laurent Dailliez in Les Templiers explains that the Templars allied with the Mongols and that Jacques de Molay signed a treaty with them against their common Muslim enemy." And PHG added as a ref: ""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". (to read the book for yourself, check Amazon[13])

Please be aware that there is a lot of misinformation out there about the Templars, and just because someone writes a book about them, doesn't mean that the information is accurate. I looked at Dailliez's book, and it does not appear to be a work of serious scholarship. There are no footnotes, and there are multiple errors. For example, this claim that the Templars "signed a treaty with the Mongols" is not backed up by any other historian, and I would also point out that Jacques de Molay cannot have signed a treaty with them in 1260, because he wasn't Grand Master until 1292! Can we please stick to reliable modern peer-reviewed sources? --Elonka 19:27, 15 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. Again trying to discredit modern reputable sources which do not share your views? As far as I know, Dailliez is considered as a "Classic" of Templar history, standing above other authors ("Parmi les multiples ouvrages consacrés aux Templiers, celui de Laurent Dailliez émerge. Il est devenu un « classique »" [14]). You are also misreading the quote: it says that the Templars allied with the Mongols after 1260 (not in 1260), and Dailliez certainly does not mistake the dates of Jacques de Molay, whose letters to Edward date to 1299-1300. This is almost getting comical. PHG 19:44, 15 October 2007 (UTC)