Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance

Archives August-September 2007 September 2007 October-December 2007 January 2008 February 2008

Hydrae Capita: POV forks stemming from this article

As Ealdgyth has indicated above, the specious and idiosycratic POV represented in this article has extended further than those articles now being considered for deletion. Let us make a list so that these otherwise sound articles may be reviewed when conflicts are resolved. Aramgar (talk) 20:58, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree that it's worthwhile to make a list of the articles that seem to have been the targets of biased editing. It appears that there has been an attempt to manipulate multiple articles, where biased information has been inserted in multiple locations, as a way for them all to reinforce each other. Some of these articles have now been nominated for deletion (see above threads), but others are going to require more careful review. I agree with Aramgar that we should make a list of all articles about which there may be concerns, so that we can either review them now, and/or, once we figure out how we'd like to proceed and what the consensus is, we can then work through the list to ensure that everything gets cleaned up as needed. --Elonka 23:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately it appears that the problem has expanded to a large number of articles. I was going to review them myself, but I think the problem is too large for one person. So here's what I'm doing: I've provided a list of articles below, which I identified as having either definitely been targeted, or may have been edited in a questionable way. What I'd like, is help checking each article. If you have reviewed an article and see no problems with it, meaning nothing that you think is controversial as regards a biased POV or undue weight issues, then simply cross out the article with <s> and </s> tags. If you review an article and see that it definitely needs work and/or attention, please bold the article name in this list. You may also wish to include a diff of an edit or two that you think are of concern. If you're not sure, or want a second opinion, either don't modify the article name, or maybe italicize it? And of course if you find other articles, feel free to add them to the list. If an article's status changes, or you disagree with another editor's review, we can pull those articles out of the list for special attention in a separate section, since they may need separate consensus discussions. Per common courtesy guidelines, if someone has flagged your own edits as something needing review, it's probably best if you don't challenge that, but instead allow another editor to then review the article and determine if its status needs to be changed.

Does that sound doable? --Elonka 22:43, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

List of articles for review

• Articles that are in bold mean that they definitely have text which needs to be reviewed
• Articles that are crossed out have been reviewed and/or fixed, and been determined to have nothing controversial as regards POV or WP:UNDUE questions
• Articles in italics are ambiguous and need a second editor's opinion
• Articles in plain text have not yet been reviewed

• Abaqa Khan
• Abu Sa'id (Ilkhanid dynasty)[1]
• Alain Demurger
• Amalric, Prince of Tyre
• Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia
• Armeno-Mongol alliance
• Arghun
• Ascelin of Lombardia
• Battle of Ain Jalut
• Battle of Baghdad (1258)
• Bohemond VI of Antioch
• Buscarello de Ghizolfi
• Byzantine-Mongol alliance
• Christianity among the Mongols
• Christianity in Asia
• Christianity in China
• David of Ashby
• Edward I of England
• Fall of Tripoli
• Franco-Mongol alliance (1258-1265)
• Franco-Mongol alliance (1265-1282)
• Franco-Mongol alliance (1297-1304)
• Guillaume de Villaret[2]
• Guiscard Bustari
• Guy of Ibelin (1276-1304)

• Hayton of Corycus
• Hetoum I of Armenia
• Hetoum II of Armenia
• History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)
• History of gunpowder
• Hulagu Khan
• Ilkhanate
• Isol the Pisan (has a long quote in it, otherwise looks okay)
• Jacques de Molay[3]
• Jayme Alaric de Perpignan
• Jean II de Giblet
• Jean-Paul Roux
• Jean Richard (historian)
• John of Montecorvino
• Kitbuqa (has a long quote in it, otherwise looks okay)
• Knights Templar[4]
• Kublai Khan
• Kutlushah
• Latin Patriarch of Antioch
• Laurent Dailliez
• Louis IX of France
• Levon II of Armenia (King)
• Mahmud Ghazan
• Mamluk-Mongol alliance
• Marco Polo
• Medieval Roman Catholic Missions in China
• Michael VIII Palaiologos

• Mongol Empire
• Mongol alliances in the Middle-East
• Mongol invasion of Europe
• Mongol raids into Palestine
• Nerses Balients
• Mulay
• Ninth Crusade
• Öljaitü
• Philip IV of France
• Pope Clement IV
• Pope Clement V
• Pope Honorius IV (has a long quote, otherwise looks okay)
• Pope John XXII
• Principality of Antioch
• Rabban Bar Sauma
• Roman Catholicism in Asia[5]
• Rychaldus
• Sempad (Constable)
• Siege of Acre (1291)
• Siege of Ruad
• Siege of Tripoli (1271)
• Silk Road[6]
• Smpad of Armenia[7]
• Templar of Tyre
• Template:Mongol alliances
• Tommaso Ugi di Siena
• Viam agnoscere veritatis

Updated: 03:05, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Christian vassals

First I would like to state that I prefer the shorter version and believe that it ought be the basis for future discussion. This version, the one now locked, is closer to the prevailing view of scholarship in this area and is free from the egregious eccentricities of longer version.

I am pleased with the tenor of the section entitled Christian vassals. I believe that the emphasis on vassalage is correct. A few editors' insistence that the Principality of Antioch and Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia were not vassals but allies has been the source of much conflict. On this point I would suggest that editors examine Reuven Amitai-Preiss' Mongols and Mamluks: the Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281 (Cambridge 1995). The book is a recent, scholarly work by a noted academic. It deals precisely with the issues at stake in our article. On pages 24 and 25, Amitai-Preiss addresses these Christian vassals. He uses the words "tributary" and "submission" with respect to these, and while acknowledging that the Armenians hoped for some kind of benefit from their allegiance to the Mongols, states that their relationship was that of subordinates. These pages may be seen here. There is even an assessment of the history of Hayton of Corycus (Het'um).

In the past when I have tried to introduce this book into the discussion (here), I received a response from PHG where he seems to suggest that Amitai-Preiss supports his side in this discussion (here). This is a misreading of the book: a clear case of noticing trees but ignoring the forest.

Furthermore I would suggest that the view that the Armenians of Cilicia were not vassals but equal partners allied with the Mongols is tied up with a specifically Armenian and nationalist point of view. I would caution that Armenian sources, both primary and secondary, ought to be carefully examined for such biases. Aramgar (talk) 23:54, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

The fortress of al-Bira is located on the Euphrates; the link to al-Bireh is not correct. I visited the place in 1995. Maybe it ought to have it's own article. I'll see if I can't find my photographs. Aramgar (talk) 23:56, 26 January 2008 (UTC) Birecik / al-Bira has a page already. Aramgar (talk) 19:14, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Aramagar, you're making a lot of baseless statements there. a) The source that you provided merely regurgitates Peter Jackson (see footnote 97). A minority if not a fringe view. b) Your totally absurd and outrageous unfounded claim that Cilcia was allied to Mongols is an Armenian nationalist pov seriously hampers your participation in this dispute. c) Take a look at: User:Eupator/Mongol historians.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 17:44, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Aramgar. Your support of Elonka's short version is well known as you have been reverting to it [8] inspite of the absence of a consensus to do so, an act which in itself goes against Wikipedia's most basic editorial rules.

Regarding "Allies" and "Vassals", the issue is not about choosing one expression over the other: both are used extensively in the literature. For some of the literature using the terminology "allies" see here. The point is that both views should be mentionned, as per Wikipedia:NPOV "All significant views should be presented. This is non negotiable". The full version already does that extensively, listing both views, and often using expressions such as "allies/vassals". As far as I know, the historical ground for this "allies" wording is that neither Cilician Armenia nor the Principality of Antioch were ever invaded by the Mongols, and chose to side with them voluntarily (of course they could have chosen to stand and fight, but instead chose to go along). Relations were usually cordial, and even marital alliances occured (see Sempad the Constable). To me, it's not one wording against the other, but only a matter of using both to properly reflect sources and avoid a pov presentation of facts. Best regards. PHG (talk) 10:40, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that, but so far I have only seen two sources (Jackson and Stewart) contest the alliance. This still makes it a minority view. Their thesis also doesn't make much sense, Stewart at least says that Cilician forces were used in the Mongol offensives against the Ayyubid emirs of Syria so they must have been Mongol vassals.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 18:17, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator and PHG: That the Mongols invaded neither the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia nor the Principality of Antioch has no relevance. The threat of such an invasion in the 1240s was sufficient and both states submitted to the Mongols. This is the view of Amitai-Preiss and majority of scholars in this field. I have seen your list, Eupator, and I have seen PHG's uncritical assemblage of quotes; neither of you seem willing to discuss the list of sources that Elonka has collected here, merely dismissing them as "amateur authors" or as representing only one POV side of a dispute. Perhaps you should stop claiming "absence of consensus" or impeaching my credibility and actually address these claims.

As for the Armenian sources, nationalistic bias is a well know problem in historiography and hardly limited to Armenians. Perhaps you, Eupator, have noticed such biases in Turkish sources; I myself come across them almost every day. Aramgar (talk) 19:10, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Are you or Elonka discussing those lists? Mine is far larger and less ambiguous btw, ergo my assertion of a MAJORITY view. I directly criticized the main thesis of the main source that Elonka presented for example. As such your above claim of blind disregard is false. I already explained to you that it is not the view of Amitai-Preiss. It is the view of Peter Jackson, see footnote 97. Neither you or Elonka has provided any shred of evidence that it is the view of the majority of scholars in this field but I have. So I don't understand on what basis are you continuing to make that claim.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Irrelevant. What's the purpose of you even bringing that up? No secondary "Armenian source" has been used by anyone. Please answer.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 19:56, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I am discussing sources from Elonka's list, specifically Amatai-Priess. I see the footnote and fail to see how it pertains to the discussion at hand. Reuven Amatai-Priess and Peter Jackson are different people. Both are noted scholars in precisely this field. That they agree is significant. Aramgar (talk) 20:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

While ignoring everything else, specifically the majority view. Amatai-Priess' bases his claim on Jackson's opinion not on his individual research. I don't know how notable he is within the field given how he's using modern secondary sources much like we are.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:37, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Reuven Amitai-Preiss is a notable scholar in the field. The pages of his book are dense with footnotes to primary sources in Arabic and Persian. Page 24-25 are in the first chapter "The Historical Background"; it is a general overview were the established understanding of the subject is set forth. But do not take my word for it; read what you can of it here. I would also suggest that the Cambridge University Press does not typically publish the non-notable. Aramgar (talk) 21:09, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

He's still citing another scholar who is already used here. This discussion is pointless.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Read the book, Eupator. That Amitai-Preiss and Jackson agree is significant testimony of academic consensus; that's how scholarship works. And as I said above, the first chapter in which this section appears is a general overview of the established understanding. Or did you miss that point? Aramgar (talk) 21:38, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe establishing academic consensus requires a lot more than you choosing an author who cites another that supports your view in what i'm supposed to believe was meant to display a general overview.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:57, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

(de-indent) I agree with Aramgar that the mainstream view of historians is that Cilician Armenia submitted to the Mongols. Any historian who discusses the situation in depth makes it clear that it was a submission. A voluntary submission, but a submission nonetheless. Jean Richard, Angus Donal Stewart, Reuven Amitai-Preiss, and Peter Jackson are all clear on this. I am collating a list of pertinent quotes, which can be seen at User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Cilician Armenia. They are quite unambiguous. --Elonka 22:24, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, are you sure you want to be the one to pose a thesis that aggrandizes Armenia? Think about it. El_C 23:48, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

El_C, the only thing i'm doing here is supporting the mainstream scholarly view. I have collected quotes from ten authors regarding this matter in a short time which includes Anne Elizabeth Redgate, Richard Hovannisian, Michael Angold, Edmund Herzig, Steven Runciman etc. as well as Cambridge published books. Until now, these sources have been dismissed or not even addressed. There doesn't seem to be any spirit of cooperation in this regard.-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 21:01, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

This whole argument is meaningless, and I think, very un-Wikipedian and needlessly rude. The only interesting point is that some historians describe the relationship as alliance and some as vassality. There is no need to pitch one against the other. Both views are significant, and therefore both should be expressed according to Wikipedia:NPOV. Best regards to all. PHG (talk) 13:41, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, point taken. I will look into it. Thanks for taking the time to compile that material. El_C 21:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Comment - I have no sources or books that even begin to address this subject, so just wanted to say that I'm not addressing issues because I have nothing to add. It's not dismissing anyone's concerns, it's just plain ignorance. Ealdgyth | Talk 22:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

The view that the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia was a vassal of the Mongols is supported by a wide degree of scholarly consensus. As an illustration I would like to cite a tertiary source: the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium in its entry on "Cilicia, Armenian" (vol. 1, p. 463) says, "The recognition of Mongol suzerainty by the Het'umids in 1253 bolstered Armenian Cilicia for a time, but its political situation between the Seljuks of Rum, the Mamluks of Egypt, and the Mongols remained precarious..." The authors of individual entries in the ODB, like those in the Encyclopaedia of Islam, appear under the article. The author of "Cilicia, Armenia" is Nina G. Garsoian, Centennial Professor of Armenian History and Civilization at Columbia University. Aramgar (talk) 22:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Though I appreciate that Eupator took the time to compile sources, I am concerned that some of them appear to be biased, unreliable, or cherry-picked. If we want, we can go source by source through the list. I've already pointed out how practically none of the authors at Eupator's page are authors that are commonly used in academia for the "Mongols and Europe" studies.[9] I would also point out that Eupator is listing Steven Runciman as a proponent of the "alliance" theory, but I don't feel that that is accurate. Just because Runciman (who, though he did fine work at the time, is now considered somewhat outdated) used the word "alliance", doesn't mean that that was the only way he referred to the relationship. In his chapter "The Crusader States, 1243-1291" for Setton's 1969 Crusades, Runciman was clear that the relationship was a vassalage.[10] I would also not lean too heavily on Maalouf's Crusades through Arab Eyes, since an offhand comment in a general-audience (and non-peer-reviewed) book should not be used to argue against detailed analysis by modern scholars. Perhaps it's time that we made a "rated" list of sources, where we sort by the A–D classes that I recommended down in #Reliable sources? Eupator, which of your sources would you regard as "A" sources, meaning modern works of scholarship that argue that the relationship was an alliance and not a vassalage? Then we can take a look at those for ourselves. --Elonka 01:37, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it's best for neutrality's sake that someone other than Elonka or a user canvassed here by her decides which sources are acceptable or not. I'll continue to populate the list. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 03:56, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I can do that...I've been doing it all along, on occasion. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:17, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll be happy with that regardless of the outcome :).-- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 04:20, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Eupator, I too would be happy to assess the sources on your list. I was canvassed by no one and have access to an excellent library. Aramgar (talk) 04:26, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Arbitration

This article, or rather, the conduct of the editors involved with it, is now being considered as the subject of a case by the Wikipedia:Arbitration Committee. It has not yet been decided whether or not the case will be accepted, but anyone who wishes to post a statement, is welcome to do so, at Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration#Franco-Mongol alliance. The decision will probably be made within the next couple days. If accepted, the case will probably take a couple months, and will go through evidence, workshop, and decision phases, but for now, preliminary statements are recommended. --Elonka 11:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Lord of the Mongoliberations (of the Holy City!)

One of the most interesting passages quoting Jackson in these articles, I found, was his sentence from page 173 (a sentence which PHG has added to scores of related articles), about the "Mongol liberation of the Holy City"^[11] I'm interested in an elaboration (i.e. beyond PHG's ubiquitous "according to Jackson" in the articles) on what Jackson actually meant by this "Mongol liberation of the Holy City." (i.e. exact dates, under what conditions, responses from the historiography, etc.). Start with quoting the entire pertinent passage, please. Thanks in advance! El_C 20:32, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, if no one answers you by Tuesday, I should have my copy of that book then. Hopefully someone else with a copy actually in their hands can answer before then. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:36, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

I can answer it. PHG is (again) misquoting and misinterpreting sources. Peter Jackson's book absolutely does not say that the Mongols conquered Jerusalem, but Jackson does discuss the rumors of the time, as did Dr. Sylvia Schein in her article "Gesta Dei Per Mongolos", the first page of which can be seen here.[12] Here is Jackson's statement in actual context:

In many respects, the Mongol occupation of Syria in 1299-1300 represents the high water-mark of Mongol-Latin relations. However ephemeral, it caused a great stir in Western Europe. There was nothing particularly novel about this. Rumour had already made the 'king of the Tartars' in person attend the Second Council of Lyons, where he was allegedly baptized and received a crown at the pope's hands.(54) Over-optimistic reports had likewise circulated in connection with Baybars' invasion of Anatolia and his death in 1277 (supposedly at the hands of the Mongols, who had then reconquered the Holy Land),(55) and with Mongke Temur's campaign in 1281, when a cluster of chroniclers registered the sultan's defeat and recapture and the Mongol reoccupation of Antioch ad annum 1282.(56) A story had surfaced in c.1280 about the birth to the Ilkhan's wife, a daughter of the Armenian king, of a monstrous child, which at baptism became completely normal, whereupon the Ilkhan converted to Christianity and went on to wrest Jerusalem from the Mamluks; in 1299-1300 this tale would be repeated in connection with both Ghazan and his brother.(57) In 1288 and 1293 even more fantastic reports are found in the Hagnaby chronicle regarding Mongol victories over Muslims: on the latter occasion (when rumour may have grossly distorted an Egyptian retreat following the capture of Qal'at al-Rum in 1292) the Sultan's brother was allegedly captured and Muslim prisoners forwarded as gifts to various Western monarchs, including Edward I.(58)

Ghazan's operations in 1300, however, achieved the greatest prominence of all, in part because, as Dr. Sylvia Schein has indicated, they coincided with the Jubilee Year proclaimed in Rome by Pope Boniface VIII.(59) The Mongol campaign rapidly acquired the flavour of an epoch-making Christian triumph in which the Ilkhan appeared to fulfil the role that had long awaited Prester John. Word spread that the kings of 'Greece', Armenia and Cyprus had recovered the Holy Sepulchre with Tartar assistance.(60) The false rumour retailed by the doge of Venice,(61) that the Egyptian Sultan had been taken prisoner, seems swiftly to have turned into a report of his death. The Ilkhan had also signalled his capture of Jerusalem by being baptised.(62) It was even reported that following the occupation of Damascus and the return of the entire Holy Land to the Christians he had gone on to conquer Egypt.(63) Some of these tales may have been spread by Frankish prisoners who had escaped from Mamluk captivity. The Armenian king was supposed to have sent a message to Henry of Cyprus with a knight who had been liberated at the fall of Damascus; and the alleged release by the Sultan of a knight who had been a prisoner in Cairo for several years was turned into the work of the victorious Ilkhan.(64) Other stories may have originated with Latin merchants who had been in Alexandria and Damietta and who declared that Ghazan was certain to conquer Egypt.(65) The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument.(66)

— Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West, pp. 172-173

--Elonka 23:16, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Does the next paragraph (may as well have that) continues to deal with Jerusalem? On multiple articles I looked at (mostly deleted revisions), PHG added the "According to Peter Jackson, the Mongols liberated the Holy City," without further qualifications. Could I get PHG to responsd as to what he feels Peter Jackson is claiming in this passage? Thx again. El_C 23:31, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

There is no next paragraph, as that is the end of the section. The next section header is "The mechanics of Ilkhanid diplomacy" which starts off, "In their successive attempts to secure assistance from the Latin world, the Ilkhans took care to select personnel who would elicit the confidence of Western rulers and to impart a Christian complexion to their overtures." It then goes on to discuss envoys such as Rabban Sawma, Richardus, and others. --Elonka 00:08, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'll wait for PHG to respond, but I note that adding to many articles that "According to Peter Jackson, the Mongols liberated the Holy City" per se., yet failing to note Jackson is referring to "tales," "stories," "rumour[s]," etc., is serious. El_C 00:24, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't think that Jackson says here that the capture of Jerusalem is a false story, just that the account of the capture of the city circulated in the West and was exploited by the Pope in castigating other rulers: "The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument" . He just gives it as an example of how events in the Levant came to be circulated, amplified and sometimes deformed by Western observers. His paragraph is actually a mix of true events (the campaign of Ghazan, the capture of Damascus) and fabulous one, and since he does not say "the alleged capture of Jerusalem" or "the false story of the capture of Jerusalem" as he does with other doubtfull events, then it is normal in this context to consider that for him the capture of the city is just a fact. If Jackson is otherwise known to deny the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols, then, fine, I agree we could take the quote out, but such positive evidence would be needed: we cannot extrapolate or editorialize from what an author does not say.

Besides Jackson, numerous historians also unambiguously refer to the capture of Jerusalem as fact, so it's really nothing extraordinary:

• In Les Templiers, Alain Demurger states that "in December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquished the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs and captured Damascus, and even Jerusalem". (Demurger, Les Templiers, 2007, p.84) and that the Mongol general Mulay occupied the Holy City in 1299-1300 ("Mulay, a Mongol general who was effectively present in Jerusalem in 1299-1300", Demurger, Les Templiers, 2007, p.84)
• According to Frederic Luisetto, in 1299-1300 Mongol troops penetrated into Jerusalem and Hebron, and are recorded to have committed numerous massacres there. (Frédéric Luisetto, p.205-206 "Troops penetrated in Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres (...) In Hebron, a cross was even raised on top of the Mosque of Abraham", also p.208 "We have knowledge of the violences perpetrated in Jerusalem and Damas")
• In The Crusaders and the Crusader States, Andrew Jotischky used Schein's 1979 article and later 1991 book to state, "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia" (Jotischky, The Crusaders and the Crusader States, p. 249).
• Steven Runciman in "A History of the Crusades, III" stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308. (Runciman, p.439. "Five years later, in 1308, Ghazzan again entered Syria and now penetrated as far as Jerusalem itself. It was rumoured that he would have willingly handed over the Holy City to the Christians had any Christian state offered him its alliance.")
• Claude Mutafian, in Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie mentions the writings and the 14th century Armenian Dominican which claim that the Armenian king visited Jerusalem as it was temporarily removed from Muslim rule.(Claude Mutafian, p.73)
• Schein, in her 1979 article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos", stated "The alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened," (Schein, 1979, p. 805) but in her 1991 book mentioned in a footnote that the Mongol capture of Jerusalem was confirmed because they had removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock, and transferred it to Damascus ("The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350, ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163).

Now, I am not trying here to prove that the capture of Jerusalem occured (although it is indeed very likely given the extent of the Mongol invasion as far as Gaza, the fact that they occupied the Levant in its entirety for 4 months, and the numerous contemporary accounts of the capture of the Holy City by Arabs, Armenians and Christians alike), but just that both views exist among historians: some consider it as fact, while other doubt it. Both views are significant and should therefore be expressed according to Wikipedia:NPOV (this principle is even said to be "non negotiable"). Detailed account regarding the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols at User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)#Alliance to recapture the Levant (1297-1303) Regards to all. PHG (talk) 13:02, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm going to not actually "vote" one way or the other until I get the book in my hands, but right now I'd have to say that the passage is uncertain in the meaning. Clearly he's talking about rumors, so at best we'd be guessing at what he means. I'll note though, that most of what he's talking about are clearly rumors. Even the reference to the capture of Damascus is this sentence "It was even reported that following the occupation of Damascus and the return of the entire Holy Land to the Christians he had gone on to conquer Egypt." which is clearly false in the last part, so I'm guessing he's referring to the rumor in it's entirety. Clearly it is NOT clear that Jackson is stating that Ghazan captured Jerusalem. Elonka, do you have the full context for that footnote from the 1991 Schein? I'm afraid I didn't order it, it was a bit pricier than I wanted to spend, given everything else I splurged on. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:36, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've got the book in my hands, it's clear that Jackson is referring to rumors in that section. No where in the main section before that does he discuss the capture of Jerusalem by Ghazan. He discusses in detail Ghazan's operations in 1299 and 1300 on page 170.

Encouraged by the in-fighting among the Mamluk elite, and goaded also by Egyptian campaigns against Lesser Armenia and by the sultan's support for a disaffected Mongol noyan in Anatolia, he first took the field in the winter of 1299. In the Hims region on 22 December , the Ilkhanid army inflicted a crushing defeat on the Mamluk Sultan, Qalaqun's young son al-Nasir Muhammad, who fled back to Egypt. The whole of Syria and Palestine, evacuated by their Mamluk garrisons, lay open to the Mongols, who entered Damascus on 31 December. But Ghazan's forces in turn withdrew early in February 1300, leaving the country to be reoccupied by the Mamluks. In a second campaign, beginning in the late autumn, the Ilkhan reached the vicinity of Alegppo by January 1301. But on this occasion the winter rains rendered the terrain usuitable for an engagement, and the mongol van under Qutlugh Shah ventured no further than Qinnasrin. Extricating his tropps from the mud with some difficulty, Ghazan retired into Mesopotamia in February. His third and last Syrian campaign, in the spring of 1303, was a disaster. The Ilkhan himself retired soon after crossing the Euphrates, leaving his army under the command of Qutlugh Shah, who was defeated by the Mamluks at Marj al-Suffar, near Damascus, on 20 April. In the autumn, while prepareing a fourth invasion of Syria in order to avenge this humiliation Ghazan fell ill. He died on 11 May 1304.Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West, pp. 170

No where in the pages from 165 to 173 (where Jackson is laying out the chronology of the reigns of Hulegu, Abaqa, Teguder, Arghun, Gaikhatu, Baidu, Ghazan, and Ghazan's successors.) does he even mention the capture of Jerusalem, EXCEPT in the quote above where it is clearly in the context of rumors and tales. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:34, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm seeing quite a few mentions of it in Hebrew online sources, actually. Arachim Seminar — "In 1244, Jerusalem was conquered by the Mongolians."; Da'at Jewish Encyclopedia — "In 1244, Jerusalem is conquered by Mongolian tribe until 1850 (in 1860 they again conquered it for a short while"; Britannica (Hebrew version) — "The city was conquered again by Christians and even by Mongolian tribes."; Hebrew Wikipedia (History of Jerusalem) — Exact same sentence (who borrowed what from whom?) The Mongolian Empire one, however, states — "two important cities that were not conquered were Jerusalem and Vienna"). There certainly appears to be mixed views on this. Is this really all that Peter Jackson has to say about this in this book which seems to be hailed as so seminal? El_C 21:25, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't speak Hebrew, but I can tell you what those sources are confused about. In 1244, Jerusalem was conquered by the Khwarezm Turks, who had just been displaced by the Mongols. The Mongols didn't even get raiding parties into the area of Palestine until 1260. So if anything is saying 1244, it's obviously referring to the Turks, which is well-accepted and mainstream history. Then, once Jerusalem was under Turkish (Muslim) control, it stayed under Muslim control (Turks to Mamluks to Ottomans) until 1917, when the British took it from the Ottomans. --Elonka 22:48, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the texts are somewhat confused. I do not accept the Daat text--it is essentially a religious text, which happens to insert a timetable. The Daat text is questionable in that it says that the Khwarizmim were the Mongol tribe. The Britannica text is the least committal, just mentioning the Mongol conquest in passing. Danny (talk) 02:13, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

According to Mordecai Naor and Baruch Gian's Jerusalem: A City Embracing Light (Ministry of Defence Publishing House, 2007), which I have in my possession (and highly recommend), the Khwarizmim in 1244 were actually tribes who were repelled by rather than being part of the Mongolian invasion (i.e. יחידות של לוחמים ח'ואריזמים שנסוגו מאימת פשיטות המונגולים). As for the 1260 event, a quarter Century ago in his "The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260" (The English Historical Review, 1980), Jackson notes only "a single armed clash that occurred." El_C 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

I concur with the statement that the Khwarizmim in 1244 were arriving because they had been repelled by the Mongols rather than because they were part of the Mongol invasion. The Mongols had been advancing westward in 1220, and attacked and conquered the Khwarizmim Empire. However, though they had taken the land, they were not able to decimate the people. The forces of the Khwarizmim fled westward, away from the Mongols, and survived by serving as mercenaries in northern Iraq. They were also later offered an alliance with the Egyptian Mamluks, and along the way to Egypt, the Khwarizmims conquered Jerusalem, taking it from the Christians, and triggering the call for the Seventh Crusade. I'm not sure why any Hebrew sources would say that Khwarizmim were Mongols. All I can guess is that since the Mongols at that point had conquered the Khwarizmim territory, that that area was absorbed into the Mongol Empire, which made that area "Mongol," even though the mercenary forces most definitely were not. --Elonka 01:05, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Source concerns

Once more, I direct PHG's attention to the section above Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Specific concerns. I'll just note that that was posted on 07:58, 22 January 2008 (UTC), and except for the removal of the Christianity among the Mongols, nothing I've listed has been addressed. I'm sorry, the painting issue has been addressed also. I'm afraid I can't agree with "original, highly documented" until I can actually find some of the documents. WP:CITE says "All citation techniques require detailed full citations to be provided for each source used. Full citations must contain enough information for other editors to identify the specific published work you used." Please address these issues, which I'll note are still present in the long version you're linking to above. Ealdgyth | Talk 14:13, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Roux, Jean-Paul, Histoire de l'Empire Mongol, Fayard, ISBN 2213031649
• Foltz, Richard (2000). "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-23338-8.

... To be completed soon. Best regards PHG (talk) 15:54, 28 January 2008 (UTC)

• Setton, Kenneth M., History of the Crusades (Later Crusades, 1189 to 1311) Univ of Wisconsin Press, ISBN 0299048411
• Morgan, David, The Mongols, Wiley-Blackwell, 2007, ISBN 1405135395
• Demurger, Alain, Croisades et croisés au Moyen Âge, Champs Flammarion, Paris 2006, ISBN 9782080801371
• Delcourt, Thierry, Les Croisades : La plus grande aventure du Moyen Âge, Nouveau Monde (20 septembre 2007) (Français), ISBN 2847362592
• Reuven Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281, Cambridge Studies in Islamic Civilization, ISBN 0521522900
• Sicker, Martin, The Islamic World in Ascendancy: From the Arab Conquests to the Siege of Vienna Praeger Publishers (2000) ISBN 0275968928

...more coming soon. PHG (talk) 06:14, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Consensus poll

The following discussion is an archived report. Please do not modify it. Subsequent reports should be made in a new section.

page unprot, purpose of poll is over

---

To help clarify opinions on the question of, "Is there consensus for condensing the article," could everyone please weigh in below? Specifically:

When page protection is lifted, should we continue with the condensed 73K version of the Franco-Mongol alliance article as it exists now,[13] or switch to the 193K version which is currently in PHG's userspace:[14]?

Please provide one comment per editor, thanks:

• Keep condensed version. It better reflects the consensus of talkpage discussions, is easier to read, uses better sources, and avoids a multitude of WP:UNDUE and WP:FRINGE issues that are in the longer version. --Elonka 20:44, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Shorter version less primary source quotations, the source issues are addressed, and it doesn't bring my browser to its knees everytime I load the page. If PHG can come up with a short version before page protection is lifted here, I reserve the right to reconsider. Ealdgyth | Talk 20:55, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
  • Hi Ealdgyth. I did write a shorter 140k version (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Franco-Mongol_alliance&oldid=184477134) which could have still be shortened further, with more detailed split-out content in the articles by dates, but the splits were deleted for "POV-fork", so we're back with just one article having to hold the 195k content. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Abstain I don't like either. Elonka's version is problematic (disputed issues aside) because it's missing quite a lot of information contained in PHG's version. Both versions are poorly referenced in terms of formatting. Long quotes should be eliminated entirely. I can understand one, but so many? Each reference should be used as one note and multiple citations lettered automaticaly with a, b, c, d etc. Perhaps as we go along with the section by section editing PHG can tell us which parts he wants to re-add to the current section. I also recommend reducing the number of primary sources in inline citations and just moving them to the References section. I would like to see what PHG has to say before I change my vote. -- Ευπάτωρ ^Talk!! 20:58, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Condensed/Short version As I said earlier, it is substantially shorter, well-sourced, and offers, I believe, a better balanced picture of a fairly complex historical situation. It eliminates the troubling over-reliance on primary sources and provides a good summary of modern academic consensus. Kafka Liz (talk) 21:01, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain, due to an off-wiki relationship with Kafka Liz, though my opinion is well-know and my interest in the Middle East during the 13th and 14th century well-attested. Aramgar (talk) 02:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

• Abstain because I am sick of taking sides. I propose we delete everything and start from scratch. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:21, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• A consensus poll does sound like a bit of an oxymoron. El_C 21:25, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Keep condensed version. We're all working on it anyways, it is less problematic than the longer version and is a considerably more sound starting point for further work. Shell ^babelfish 22:02, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
• Comment: this article is just plain weird. PHG's original article from back in August was (relatively) tightly-written and looked good. It was structured and made sense. But it turns out it was poorly-supported by sources on several key points. This downside has only gotten worse in PHG's later versions, to the point where it cannot be accepted in articlespace for the sake of the reader, who already takes WP with a large grain of salt... and probably trusts an article with 200+ citations! But, I'm not sure if the current article is "about" much. Adam is onto something when he says "start from scratch", but who in hell would be willing to do that after 6 months of haggling? Maybe we can start creating subpages from scratch and use them as a basis for reforming this article. (And, frankly, that sounds much less daunting to individual editors, I think.) The section-by-section critique/review I suggested above and which seems to have been met with approval may still work, though PHG's behaviour in creating and continuing to edit the "full version" in his userspace is scary. Can I nominate a user subpage for deletion? Srnec (talk) 02:43, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
• Reinstate the full 195k version, and split/condense from that. By the way, the wording of the question is misleading: the shift to Elonka's short version doesn't have a consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 4#False claim of consensus), which means per Wikipedia rules that the original full version (the one before Elonka tried to impose her "summary") is the default and should stay, and should be the basis to work from. The full version is simply much richer in content and much more documented and referenced (400 references). PHG (talk) 05:11, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • The current article is the ~73 KB, so it seems perfectly accurate to say "continue with the condensed 73K version ... as it exists now". -- tariqabjotu 05:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • To be exact (and fair), we should say "Switch back to the 193K version"... I added it in the poll question. PHG (talk) 05:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC) Although I see it has been removed. The wording of this poll is deceptive. The status quo is the long version. PHG (talk) 08:23, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

More comments

So Elonka doesn't scream (note I'm teasing Elonka here, she wouldn't really scream) that we've derailed the poll, a spot for more comments

• Comment The more I dug today, the more I think a total start from scratch is not such a bad idea. I'm not quite ready to "not-vote" that way, but I can't say that the idea of an overarching article on a singular alliance is striking me as the right way to go. And certainly, some of the legacy prose is worrisome. (Not Elonka's fault, I figure she was trying to incorporate as much as possible from before to lessen feelings of having work destroyed and having to start from scratch). To be frank, this whole concept is starting to strike me as OR or a fringe theory. Yeah, I need to read more of what I've gotten in, but what I've read so far makes me think we're going to have to dig through every single sentence and source, and if we're doing that, wouldn't a fresh start be easier? I dont know, just some thoughts.Ealdgyth | Talk 02:56, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • What of the idea of combining a secton-by-section approach with starting from scratch and building up sub-articles which can form the basis of revamped main article? Srnec (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • I honestly don't know yet. I just have this niggling feeling at the back of my mind that something is just off with the whole thing. It's the feeling I get when I read say Holy Blood, Holy Grail or Gold of the Gods. (Yes, I read that tripe. I find it vastly amusing, I have two whole shelves of 'pseudo-history' to amuse myself with when I want that sort of thing). What I need to do is take both versions, sit down and read the citations and compare them to the actual works. But gah...Ealdgyth | Talk 06:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • To me the first choice would be to start from the article with the most material (195k, 400 refs), but I would be quite OK to start from scratch as well, as there are now many editors involved and we could build up a good, neutral, content together. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:00, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • You make a very good point Ealdgyth; something has been bothering me about the way even the condensed version is presented and your comment finally pointed it out to me -- its nothing more than a compaction of the original problems. I'll take the smaller pill, but my preference is to avoid the pill all together. Perhaps a rewrite, while painful, is the best thing -- if we keep working on things we know to be flawed, can we really expect a flawless gem to emerge? Shell ^babelfish 18:04, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
  • PHG, there is plenty of documentation for the most ridiculous things. "There is nothing so absurd that one philosopher or other has not said it," says Descartes. Documentation, references, citations are not enough on their own. The quality of the sources is more important and that is what is being challenged about much of your work on this article. Furthermore, Wikipedia doesn't have rules per se, so you cannot claim a "default" status for anything. If the community does not revert Elonka or tell her to self-revert, then she is on strong ground. In fact, other editors have sided with her, though none seem bold enough to revert her version for yours. The accuracy issues lie primarily with that one. For now, PHG, you should work on finding unobjectionable content in the long version which has been removed from the short one but which may in fact be interesting or helpful and bring it up on the talk page here for discussion so that it can be added when the page is unprotected. But I stress unobjectionable. As is, though, this whole project may begin again from (near-)scratch if Adam, Ealdgyth, and I have our way. Srnec (talk) 05:51, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • • Hi Srnec. The subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance, although arcane, has nothing to do with fringe. See about 30 authors who do consider the alliance as fact: User:PHG/Alliance. A huge amount of facts are known about this alliance, but I suspect that European historians are generally more prone to see it as an effective alliance, probably because of their better access to Old French, Muslim, Latin and Armenian sources. Just an impression. PHG (talk) 08:33, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
    • BTW, I switched the poll wording back to the original. I know it may not sound like a big deal, but trust me, switching poll wording midstream is A Really Bad Idea. I'd rather just run a clean poll, get everyone's opinions for a few days, and then we can see where we're at and judge how best to proceed. --Elonka 07:40, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
      • Elonka, your wording of the question is misleading. "Switch back" at least does give an accurate picture of the events. You make it sound like your "summary" version has always been in place, which is misrepresentation, since you tried to impose it in place of the full 195k article since January 20th without an actual consensus (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 4#False claim of consensus). Please reconsider: you are distorting the poll with deceptive wording. Regards. PHG (talk) 08:25, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
        • You know, give us some credit for reading ability, please. I think everyone has a good idea of what's going on. This isn't a political election where folks don't know what's going on, so let's not fuss. Ealdgyth | Talk 13:27, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Talk about a fair poll... the comments of these two editors were deleted by Shell ([15]) before closing:

• User:Matt57: "This removal of refrenced material is simply wrong and should be reverted. PHG has worked hard to put this all together." [16] (before being intimidated into leaving this page...)
• User:Justin: "Once we have it back to it's original form, I think everyone involved here needs to stop editing the article. Talk pages are here to form a consensus... A lack of consensus = status quo" [17]

PHG (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

That's because you added those comments, not those users. There is no case in which those will be counted. Its also sad that you are again canvassing in an attempt to sway things your way. Shell ^babelfish 11:30, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Shell, you are deleting proper statements made by proper Wikipedia users. I am just mentionning them, because they took a clear stance regarding this issue. Since you wish to disregard their opinion, I am asking them to confirm or infirm what they have written. PHG (talk) 12:05, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can and often does change. Comments that editors made before this entire page of discussion may not be relevant to current discussion. There is absolutely no precedent for adding other editors prior comments to a straw poll -- it is just a tool used to gauge current consensus and encourage further discussion -- it is not a vote. We're not disregarding anyone who's contributed to the discussion, whereas you have tried to change the polls wording, been incredibly incivil to Elonka and brought up old comments only from people who sided with your viewpoint. Frankly PHG, we're all getting rather tired of the antics. Shell ^babelfish 12:15, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Is this a consensus??

So, 4 users have said they prefered to go with Elonka's short version, 3 users have abstained, 1 user (me) has said we should reinstate the long version, and 2 users (Mat57 and Justin) had already said before this poll that we should keep the long version. So that's what, under 50% of voters specifically agreeing to Elonka's version? How is this supposed to be a consensus in favour of installing Elonka's short 75k version? If anything, I believe this is a lack of consensus, which means that the status quo full article (195k, 400 references) should be reinstated as the basis for editing. Guys, please just respect the rules. PHG (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus is not vote counting, ever. You have everyone but yourself agreeing that the long version is flawed, and some even going to the point that the shorter version is flawed because of this. It is likely that many areas of the article will be completely rewritten to divest them of the problems that are being discussed. Absolutely none of the discussion above, save your own, suggested that going back to the longer, more incorrect version was preferable. There is no rule that says you get to have your way on an article if everyone else doesn't side directly against you -- in fact, we have a rule that says exactly the opposite; please review WP:OWN. You might also find Wikipedia:Tendentious editing and Wikipedia:Disruptive editing enlightening. Shell ^babelfish 12:22, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Consensus decision-making is notoriously difficult; especially when there is no unanimous agreement. The Consensus decision-making gives a lot of background that may help determining where to go next. (A warning against using the U-X levels tough-Wiki debates tend to have few participants, so adopting U-3 when 4 people engage, would mean that a single editor would achieve consensus even if all others disagree; I would use at least 75% majority as the absolute lower level for any minor consensus- so U-3 requires at least 12 people engaged). Arnoutf (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

From what I see, Shell is correct that PHG added the two comments. If this is not so, please put the diffs where the editors themselves added it here. I'm protecting the article again. Next time I'll block whomever reverts an agreed upon version. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:50, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

• PS: this article in "short" form is 75K, about 100-110k is max length for wiki for a quality article and people start complaining about size at 90k or less. Making it almost 200k is WAY beyond the size where it needs split apart solely for size reasons. I suggest you all work out a way to have this other info put into subarticles and keep the size of this one reasonable. — Rlevse • Talk • 01:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

Except that the majority of the information contained in the long version is horribly intermingled with original research and statements which mangle the sources original intent. The original text is so flawed, that we've even touched on the fact that the condensed version, which was based off the full, suffers because of it and may need to be completely rewritten. A lot of the improper text weeded out of the larger version has already been copied to multiple articles and many POV forks created to support novel theories; its already been a nightmare to clean up. Please, please don't suggest to PHG that he do so a second time. The rest of us would like to get the article (and related articles) right first and then move information if we end up with a long article again. Shell ^babelfish 02:55, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

The talk page history clearly shows those two editors never edited it for the poll. Arbcom just accepted the case, so I'm unprotecting. — Rlevse • Talk • 10:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

New data

From Lock, Peter (2006). Routledge Companion to the Crusades. New York: Routledge. ISBN 0-415-39312-4.:

p. 123, from the chapter "A Chronological Outline of the Crusades"

"1299 - The Mongol Il-Khan, Ghazan approaches Henry II of Cyprus (1285-1324) and the military orders to participate in his planned invasion of Syria. The western interests took no action. Dec: Mongols defeat the Mamelukes at Homs."

"1300 - Jan: Mongols occupy Damascus. Feb. Boniface VIII announces the first jubilee year in Rome. He uses the flock of visitors to promote a crusade and to captialise on the Mongol successes. Late: Mongols undertake a further campaign in Syria but fail to consolidate their conquests."

From Housley, Norman (1992). The Later Crusades, 1274-1580: From Lyons to Alcazar. Oxford: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-822136-3.:

(page 9) Moreover, in the course of the 1250's the entire political situation in the Middle East was rendered more complicated, and possibly more hopeful for the Franks, by the arrival of Mongol armies. Hulegu, brother of Mongke Khan, took Baghdad in 1258 and Aleppo and Damascus in 1260. Since 1245, when Innocent IV had sent the Franciscan John of Piano del Carpine to the Great Khan's court to convert him to Christianity, some Christians had seen potential converts and allies in the Mongols. None the less, when Hulegu sent his general Kitbuqa southwards to attack Egypt the Franks decided to remain neutral, either because they feared Mongol suzerainty more than the threat of Mamluk conquest, or because they did not want to irritate the Mamluks by allying with Hulegu. Perhaps, too, they hoped that even without Franksih support, the Mongols would inflict enough losses on the Mamluks to make them less of a danger thereafter. It was a disastrous, but understandable miscalculation, for nobody could have foreseen the decisiveness of the Mamluk victory over Kitbuqa at Ain Jalut in September 1260, or the completeness with which Hulegu withdrew to Iran, leaving the Mamluks masters of Syria as well as Egypt.

(page 21-22) As for the Mongols, events in 1299-1303 showed how serious a threat they could still present. In 1299 the greatest of the Ilkhans, Ghazan, who was hostile to the Mamluks despite his own conversion to ISlam, launched an invasion of Syria. He preceded it with a suggestion to King Henry II of Cryprus and the masters of the Military Orders that they should contribute troops, a move which led nowhere but confirmed the wisdom of Mamluk strategy in expelling the Franks fromt he mainland. In December 1299 the Mongol army crushed the Mamluks at Homs, and in January 1300 it occupied Damascus. For the Christians, the next few months were full of hope. Henry II and the Military Orders undertook small-scale military operations on the Syrian and Egyptian coasts, and in response to appeals from Ghazan, who declared himself willing to return the Holy Land to the Christians, Pope Boniface VIII encouraged preparations for a crusade. But Ghazan proved unable to consoloidate his successes of 1299. An invasion in the winter of 1300-1 achieved nothing, and in April 1303 the Mamluks defeated a Mongol army near Damascus. In 1304 Ghazan died, and after an abortive invasion in 1312-13 the Mongols never again presented a danger to Mamluk Syria. The only Christian gain from Ghazan's successes was Ruad, an island off the coast opposite Tortosa, which remained in the hands of the Templars until the Mamluks captured it in 1302. And although Oljeitu, Ghazan's successor, made several overtures to Philip the Fair, Edward I, and Pope Clement V in the new century's first decade, no alliance was forthcoming. Despite the urgings of the Mongols themselves and of their Armenian allies --for whom collaboration with the Ilkhans had long been a fact of life-- the overall lesson for the West of the extraordinary events of 1299-1303 was that regaining the Holy Land through military co-operation with the Mongols was not viable. That formidable task was the burden of western Christiandom alone, and in the forty years following the disasters of 1291 it was to invest much energy and substantial resources in attempts to fulfil it.

From Morgan, David (2007). The Mongols (Second Edition ed.). Malden, MA: Blackwell Publishing. ISBN 978-1-4051-3539-9. {{cite book}}: |edition= has extra text (help):

(page 159-160) A real change in the Mongol attitude towards Europe did come about, but not until after 1260. Events around that time marked the break-up of Mongol unity, and the Ilkhans of Persia, faced with the hostility both of the Mamluk regime in Egypt and of their cousins of the Golden Horde, speedily dropped the old hauteur and began to see the Christian powers as potentially useful allies. The basic idea behind such projects for alliance was a combined operation against the Mamluks: a crusading force would be sent from Europe and its activities would be co-ordinated with an Ikhanid invasion of Syria. Should Syria be conquered by the allies, the Crusaders would again take possesion of Jerusalem; and there was always the tantilizing possibility that the Mongols would themselves become Christian converts. These negotiations, as we now know, were intitiated by Hulegu in 1262, when he sent his letter, recently discovered, to Louis IX. We cannot in fact be certain that Louis ever received the letter: Professor Richard's attempt to identify a Mongol embassy in Paris in 1262 with the delivery of the letter from Persia is interesting, but that particular embassy seems more likely to have been sent by Berke of the Golden Horde. But 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.

(page 161) The conversion of the Ilkhans to ISalm had made no difference to their political enmity towards the Mamluks, and only the Mamluk-Ikhanid peace treaty of 1322 cause the Mongols of Persia to lose all interes in an alliance with the Christian powers. By this time the Christians had been deprived of their last foohold in Syria: Acre had fallen to the forces of the Mamluk sultan al-Ashraf Kalil in 1291. No really effective join action had ever been organised: in thirteenth-century conditions the problems of co0ordination appear to have been insuperable. The loss of Acre did not bring negotiations to an end. Indeed, at one point Europe was swept with rumours that the Mongols had actually taken Jerusalem from theMamluks and had returned it to Christian rule. Although this had not in fact happened, the stories did reflect the reality of Ghazan's remarkable successes in 1299-1300 when he drove the Mamluk forces completely out of Syria, on ly to withdraw again to Persia.

That's some of what I've found just in the first few look throughs. I'll note that Tyerman, Christopher (1988). England and the Crusades, 1095-1588. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. ISBN 0-226-82013-0. does not mention once any alliance (or even attempt) by the English with the Mongols. In 370 pages of text.Ealdgyth | Talk 22:05, 29 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Ealdgyth. Tyerman gives many details about the various events of the relations between the Franks and the Mongols in God's War: A New History of the Crusades (2006). He does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he specifies that in the end it led nowhere,("The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" p.816) and turned out to be a "false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts. Regards. PHG (talk) 06:18, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Another concern

In both versions, there is talk about a 1262 letter from Hulegu to Louis IX of France. In the longer version, this is even referenced to Jackson's book. However, I think it's important to note that on page 166 of The Mongols and the West, Jackson says that "It is unclear whether the letter, of which the only known manuscript has survived in Vienna, ever reached Paris." He then goes on to explain why it is unclear. However, both versions of the article imply strongly (the longer version even more so because it references Jackson's quoting from the letter later in the discussion (page 178 of Jackson)) that the letter arrived at Louis, without any discussion of the fact that it isn't clear if it did or not. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:01, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Please note that this detail has long been mentionned in the Hulagu article: "It is unclear whether the letter ever reached Louis IX in Paris, as the only known manuscript survived in Vienna, Austria.(Jackson, p.166)" PHG (talk) 07:30, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

Let me get this correct. This is the current long version statement:

...On April 10, 1262, the Mongol leader Hulagu sent through John the Hungarian a new letter to the French king Louis IX from the city of Maragheh, offering again an alliance. The letter explained that two years before, in 1260, Hulagu had to withdraw the bulk of his army from Syria due to the hot weather and the lack of provisions and grass for the horses. The letter mentioned Hulagu's intention to capture Jerusalem for the benefit of the Pope, and asked for Louis to send a fleet against Egypt: ...(omit long quotation and picture and some headers) ... King Louis sent the embassy with the letter to Pope Urban IV. John the Hungarian transmitted to the Pope Hulagu's request for help as well as his interest in baptism. In response, the Pope issued a short letter, known as the bull Exultavit cor nostru, which congratulated Hulegu on his expression of goodwill towards the Christian faith. The historian Knobler described it as saying that the Pope tentatively agreed to Hulagu's plans, but only cautiously. According to Reuven-Amitai the Pope wrote that he rejoyced at Hulegu's interest in Christianity, and that "with his baptism effected, Christendom would help Hulegu in his struggle against the Saracens, including the dispatch of soldiers".

Note that this is specifically referenced to Amitai-Preiss (who you refer to as Rueven-Amitai, but whatever) as saying "King Louis sent the embassy with the letter to Pope Urban IV. John the Hungarian transmitted to the Pope Hulagu's request for help..." and give page 95 of Mongols and Mamluks as the reference. However on page 95, the full text of this makes it clear that the author does not believe that Louis had anything to do with sending John the Hungarian to the Pope:

In AD 1262 Hulegu sent an embassy to the West. It is clear from an extant letter from Hulegu to Louis IX that one of the embassy's goals was to reach the French King. The envoys, however, never fulfilled their mission, since upon reaching Sicily they were ordered to return by its ruler, Manfred, then at odds with the Pope. Hulegu's letter mentions one John the Hungarian. This John is named in Urban IV's letter to Hulegu, evidently from AD 1263 (see below), as the source of the information that Hulegu was about to convert to Christianity, as well as his appeal for assistance against the Muslims. It might well be, then, that John the Hungarian had been a member of Hulegu's mission, and perhaps managed to slip past Manfred's officials and make his way to the Pope's court, reporting the general tenor of Hulegu's message. Hulegu's letter, which seemingly did not reach its destination, urged Louis's forces to take up a defensive position along the (Syrian and Egyptian) coasts using naval vessels, so when the Mongols attacket the Egyptians would have no refuge.

To say that this is a bit of a concern about using sources is an understatement. Amitai-Priess says something different in tone and content on that page, than what is being footnoted to him. The fact that the detail is in the Hulagu article is irrevelant. It is in the long version, and it appears to be incorrect. Perhaps you might rewrite the long version? Ealdgyth | Talk 16:21, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

The current article gives Richard's view of the fact that Urban IV's bull Exultavit cor nostrum but Jackson on page 166 gives the view that in last 1264 Urban was still referring to the Mongols as an enemy along with the Mamluks, and dates the change to viewing the Mongols as possible allies to Clement IV in 1265-1268. This makes it not a given that Urban's pontificate was a turning point. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:10, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Good points. I went ahead and rewrote the "Papal communications" section in my userspace:diff (new section) Does that sound like it addresses concerns? --Elonka 22:46, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Yeah, looks better to me. The fun of nuances, joys joys. History was much simpler back in the days of Washington chopping down the cherry tree and saying "I cannot tell a lie"....Ealdgyth | Talk 23:28, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Not so much a concern, but a tweaking prose comment. In the Papal overtures section, the first paragraph, the third sentence is awkward, and is sourced to Runciman. I think a better wording would be "These Turks allied with the Ayyubid Muslims in Egypt, and took Jerusalem from the Christians in 1244." My source for this would be Mayer, but I suspect that Tyerman or others would work as well. Mayer actually calls them mercenaries, in fact. The next sentence, I've lost track on the numbering of the Crusades, which Crusade was it that was called? Or did the call not lead to a crusade? The text leaves this hanging in the air. The next paragraph, I think the sentence "This initiated what was to be a regular pattern in Christian-Mongol communications" would actually work combined with the first sentence following the quotation in something like this... "This initiated what was to be a regular pattern in Christian-Mongol communications: first the Europeans asking for conversion and the Mongols asking for submission. The pattern repeated over and over during the coming decades." And when did Innocent send the mission with Ascelin? at the same time as the one with John? Or later? The structure is unclear. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:16, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

If you wish, feel free to edit my subpage directly: User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance.  :) --Elonka 03:22, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Not a biggie. Figure might as well let others see what I'm proposing too. They may have better wording, and I'd rather not source the first bit to Mayer in the article. I'm still waiting on some of the books. Ealdgyth | Talk 03:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I took another copyediting pass, and substantially reorganized the section.[18] I incorporated some of your suggestions, and other parts I decided to go a different route, like moving the "pattern" language up to the top of the section in a "setup" sentence. Let me know what you think?  :) --Elonka 21:00, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Okay, time to be a pain again

I think it's time to sort out the references. Yeah, I hear the groans. Right now we've got most of the sources listed in the references section, but there are a few listed in the notes that aren't listed below. NOrmally, I'd just go ahead and list them below. The problem is that the short footnotes list "Jackson p. #" and if I put another article by Jackson below, it is going to become unclear which Jackson is referred to. I suggest we go with one of two systems for the short footnotes, either "Author, Title p. #" or "Author (date) p. #". I slightly prefer using the title, as that makes it easier to trace for the reader, but a lot of folks like the date version. Since I didn't write the article, I don't wanna go in and change anything without some sort of input from folks. So .. suggestions?Ealdgyth | Talk 16:38, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, and since I at least have a translation of Richard's Crusades book, any objections if we source to the English language version? I am not going to suggest going through and removing any sources that aren't translated into English, but since there is a translation, I submit that it makes more sense to quote an English language source when possible. Ealdgyth | Talk 16:41, 3 February 2008 (UTC)

I too would prefer sourcing things to the English-language books. It's been difficult to keep track of books (such as Jean Richard's) that are both in English and French, especially because the page numbers aren't in synch.--Elonka 18:42, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

And again being the pain

PHG, would you care to address my concerns from Feb. 1 above under the Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Another concern thread?Ealdgyth | Talk 03:14, 4 February 2008 (UTC)

References