Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence/Shell Kinney Sources Table

Reference	PHG	Source	Comments
Sylvia Schein (October 1979). "Gesta Dei per Mongols 1300.The genesis of a non-event". The English Historical Review. 94 (373): 801.	While arguing that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1299: Therefore I suppose that when she says earlier that "the recovery of the holy land never happened", what she means is that the recovery by the Christians from the Mongols did not happen, not that the Mongol forces did not take Jerusalem.[1] In response to this evidence:"...Sylvia Schein nowhere says that "The Mongols did not capture Jerusalem"....She also quotes numerous contemporary sources (Muslim, Armenian, Christian) which describe the capture of Jerusalem....Schein actually writes in her 1991 book, that the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed"[2]	Contemporary European chroniclers present for the year 1300 detailed and strangely uniform description of a recovery of the holy land by the Mongols. ... Actually the alleged recovery of the holy land never happened. ... It is our argument that the basis of the story was a Mongol victory in northern Syria. This victory was transformed in 1300, due to very particular circumstances, into the story of an alleged recovery of the holy land for Christendom.	Schein is completely unambiguous as to her meaning, in fact, her entire paper is devoted to debunking the myth that the Mongols captured Jerusalem, yet PHG titles his post "New sources on the capture of Jerusalem" and even goes so far as to state "in view of these references...Western historians are in doubt whether Jerusalem was actually captured". The article is available via JSTOR - for those without access, I can provide a limited number of PDF copies of the article. From PHG's response, the "numerous contemporary sources" are hard to find; this is because they are footnotes on a section when Schein says modern historians got it wrong too and please see the reference for PHG's loose interpretation of the word "modern". He does the same thing when referring to the 1991 book; I do not have it on hand at the moment, but that's another footnote folks, not something Schein said. Further, in Schein's last book Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099-1187) published in 2005, she states on page 157 "Earthly Jerusalem, ruled by the Moslems (except for the short period of 1229-1244), was to loom large in all types of medieval apocalypticism." which clearly contradicts PHG's insistence that this historian claims there was a Mongol conquest of Jerusalem in 1300.
Peter Jackson (2005). The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410. Longman. pp. 173–174. ISBN 0582368960.	"According to Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West, the Mongols liberated the Holy City." Reference provided: "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", p.173, Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the WestExample(in section The fate of Jerusalem in early 1300), [3] In response to this evidence: "Twice Jackson mentions the capture of Jerusalem...without explicity discounting it, although I agree he mentions it in a paragraph about rumours...his statements are all indicative that he considers the capture of Jerusalem as facts	p.173 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...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. 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.	Like Schein above, Jackson is discussing the rumors of Mongol deeds that spread through the West, but by picking only the last sentence of that section, PHG makes it look as if Jackson states that the Mongols took Jerusalem. Another good example: PHG's claim that Jackson thinks it happened because Jackson doesn't explicitly discount it every single time he mentions it in a paragraph clearly about rumors.
Peter Jackson (2005). The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410. Longman. pp. 172, 179. ISBN 0582368960.	"these attempts evolved into a regular alliance, complete with military cooperation," and "Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West entitles a whole chapter "An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the viscicitudes and the actual limited results of the Mongol alliance." (User:PHG/Alliance) and "...I think it is true. Jackson does qualify the Mongols as allies of the Christians (title)..." [4]	p.172 "Hulegu and his successors made a series of overtures designed to gain Latin collaboration in the war against the Mamluks. These diplomatic contacts, which continued into the early fourteenth century, were made with the popes and with Western European sovereigns, particularly the French and English kings and sometimes also those of Aragon and Sicily. Only minimally and rarely did they involve the Near Eastern Franks, who were now a negligible quantity."" and p.179 "Why, then, did the diplomatic contacts between the Ilkhanate and the West fail to lead anywhere?"	Jackson starts by explaining that many attempts at an alliance were made and then spends the entire chapter discussing why it never happened. PHG is basing his claim that Jackson affirms there was an "alliance, complete with military cooperation" on a chapter title even though the entirety of the text says exactly the opposite.
Bernard de Vaulx (1961). History of the Missions. Hawthorn Books. p. 53.	Bernard de Vaulx in History of the Missions (p. 53) writes about the Franco-Mongol alliance.(on User:PHG/Alliance)	The only time the word Mongol appears on the page (and one out of only twice in the entire work) "... while two Dominicans, Andrew of Longjumeau and Ascelin of Cremona, were sent, one to Syria and beyond and the other to the Mongol princes."	In this particular area, the source is discussing letters between the Pope and various world leaders. At no time on any page does the book makes any reference whatsoever to any Mongol alliance, attempted or otherwise. Response by PHG: I don't know why you're inventing this. Here is the Google Book link to the quote: [5]. PHG (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC) Your absolutely correct I did miss the one time in the entire work the words Franco-Mongol alliance were used and thank you for linking so that everyone can see this was a response about "plans for a Franco- Mongol alliance against the Moslems of Irak." The same "plans" every other reputable historian talks about before bemoaning the fact that it never happened. Shell babelfish 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
Rene Grousset (1935). Histoire Des Croisades Et Du Royaume Franc De Jerusalem. Plon. p. 523. Steven Runciman (2002). History of the Crusades, III. Penguin Books. p. 259. ISBN 014013705X.	In the article Viam agnoscere veritatis (originally created to support PHG's alliance theories) "...in the response he remitted to them deplored the delays in establishing a general alliance between the Christians and the Mongols.[7] Runciman also states that Aibeg and Sarkis returned to the Mongol realm in November 1248, "with complaints that nothing further was happening about the alliance".[8]" Reference #7 given as "^ "Histoire des Croisades", Rene Grousset, p523: Grousset mentions the "response remitted to Aibag and Sargis" in which "he deplored the delays to the general agreement between Mongols and Christiandom" ("Innocent IV congédia Aibag and Sargis en leur remettant pour Baiju une réponse dans laquelle il déplorait les retards apportés à une entente générale des Mongols et de la Chrétienté.")."[6]	Neither Grousset nor Runciman at any time mention a document "Viam agnoscere veritatis" Books currently not available to quote exactly, so leaving this empty for now. The 1248 letter PHG refers to can be found here in Latin and with translation.	Grousset and Runcimens's statements are stripped of all context in order for PHG to imply that a letter (again, Viam agnoscere veritatis never appears in either source, so this is OR on his part) , and responses to it, discussed a Franco-Mongol alliance and bemoaned delays to its formalization. Grousset's text about the letter indicates it contained the Pope's pleas to the Mongols, not a discussion of some kind of alliance; he states that the Pope sent these letters and emissaries because he wanted the Mongols to convert to the "true faith"; this is consistent with the actual text of the letter. For extra flavor, PHG added Runcimen's comments about the "complaints" Aibeg and Sarkis brought to the Mongols - when you actually read the source though, you find these comments were not in reference to the letter.
Christopher Tyerman (2006). God's War: A New History of the Crusades. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. pp. 798–799, 816. ISBN 674023870. {{cite book}}: Check |isbn= value: length (help)	Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he specifies that in the end it led nowhere,("The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" p.816) and turned out to be a "false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts.(User:PHG/Alliance)	p.816 "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere"; pp.798-799 "The mission [of William of Rubruk] was regarded by some on all sides as another attempt to capture the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance...[turned out to be] a false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom" "Edward contented himself with pursuing the will of the wisps of a Mongol alliance with the il-khan of Persia"	Each instance of "Mongol alliance" is accompanied by a statement that it was pursued, but didn't happen and yet PHG counts this as a historian that confirms an alliance existed?