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

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
No edit summary
Shell Kinney (talk | contribs)
33,094 edits
moving comments to talk
Line 10: Line 10:


|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.
|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 [http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/XCIV/CCCLXXIII/805 JSTOR] - for those without access, I can provide a limited number of PDF copies of the article.<br>
|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 [http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/XCIV/CCCLXXIII/805 JSTOR] - for those without access, I can provide a limited number of PDF copies of the article.
<br>
Response by PHG. I re-read the article, and I think the interpretation should be more subtle than that. Sylvia Schein nowhere says that "The Mongols did not capture Jerusalem". She actually says "Many Christians laboured under the impression that the Holy Land, including with the Holy Sepulchre, were conquered by the Mongol khan Ghazan from the Moslems and handed over to the Christians. Actually the alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened." I think she denies that the "recovery" by the Christians took place (it is why she uses the word "recovery"), not the conquest itself. Further in the text she describes the incident as an "ephemeral event" (meaning "short in duration", not "inexistent") (p.808). She also says that "for a brief period, some four months in all, the Mongol Il-Khan was ''de facto'' the lord of the Holy Land" (p.810). She also quotes numerous contemporary sources (Muslim, Armenian, Christian) which describe the capture of Jerusalem. I think it is quite unfair to represent Schein's article as a denial that Jerusalem was taken by the Mongols: for her it is visibly rather an "ephemeral" event or a "non-event", but not something that undoubtedly never happened. In a later work, Schein actually writes in her 1991 book, that the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed" because they are documented to have removed the Golden Gate of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]] in 1300, to have it transferred 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). And I am not alone: this is also the understanding of some historians: 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). [[User:PHG|PHG]] ([[User talk:PHG|talk]]) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
|-
|-
|{{cite book |author=Peter Jackson|title=The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410 |year=2005 |pages=173-174 |publisher=Longman |ISBN=0582368960 }}
|{{cite book |author=Peter Jackson|title=The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410 |year=2005 |pages=173-174 |publisher=Longman |ISBN=0582368960 }}
Line 18: Line 16:
|"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 West[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Franco-Mongol_alliance_%281297-1304%29&timestamp=20080115113235 Example(in section The fate of Jerusalem in early 1300)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=193448361]
|"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 West[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Special:Undelete&target=Franco-Mongol_alliance_%281297-1304%29&timestamp=20080115113235 Example(in section The fate of Jerusalem in early 1300)], [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance/Workshop&diff=prev&oldid=193448361]
|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.
|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.<br>
|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.
<br>
Response by PHG. Twice does Jackson mentions the capture of Jerusalem in a factual manner (p.172-173 hereunder) without explicity discounting it, although I agree he mentions it in a paragraph about rumours, but in both cases it is quite doubtfull that the rumours refer to the capture of Jerusalem itself. In another paragraph, he also mentions that the WHOLE of Palestine and Syria was wide open to the Mongols in 1299/1300, before their withdrawal in February 1300 and the re-occupation of the land by the Mamluks, a statement fully indicative of the capture of Jerusalem. (p.170, hereunder). Afaik, Jackson nowhere denies the capture of Jerusalem. To the contrary, his statements are all indicative that he considers the capture of Jerusalem as facts, just as many other historians. He also unambiguously writes that Jerusalem was raided by the Mongols in 1260 (p.116), so he does state that the Mongols preyed on Jerusalem on one occasion at least. ([[User:PHG/Franco-Mongol alliance (full version)#The fate of Jerusalem in 1300]]). [[User:PHG|PHG]] ([[User talk:PHG|talk]]) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

|-
|-
|{{cite book |author=Peter Jackson|title=The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410 |year=2005 |pages=172,179 |publisher=Longman |ISBN=0582368960 }}
|{{cite book |author=Peter Jackson|title=The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410 |year=2005 |pages=172,179 |publisher=Longman |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)..." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ealdgyth/Crusades_quotes_testbed&diff=193254474&oldid=193253777]
|"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)..." [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User:Ealdgyth/Crusades_quotes_testbed&diff=193254474&oldid=193253777]
|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?"
|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'''.<br>
|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'''.
<br>
Response by PHG. This is highly inexact. Jackson had a chapter entitled "AN ALLY AGAINST ISLAM: THE MONGOLS IN THE NEAR EAST" and goes into a detailed discussion the instances of cooperation between the Crusaders and the Mongols, before concluding that the alliance led nowhere. He does no deny that agreements occured and that there were cases of collaboration as a result:
*In 1260, "Prince [[Bohemond VI]], perhaps under the influence of his father-in-law King [[Hetoum I|Het'um]] of [[Cilician Armenia|Lesser Armenia]], waited upon [[Hulegu]] in person and was allowed to reach a settlement that covered his [[county of Tripoli]] as well. '''He participated in the Mongol campaign''' against Ba'labakk, which he hoped to obtain from Hulegu, and may have ridden into [[Damascus]] with the Mongol army. (...) '''Mongol overlordship''' brought certain benefits in its wake. His [Bohemond VI] conciliatory attitude towards the Mongols had incurred a ban of excomunication by the Papal legate Thomas Agni di Lentino." (Jackson, "The Mongols and the West", p.117). [[User:PHG|PHG]] ([[User talk:PHG|talk]]) 06:06, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
*"Not until Clement IV’s pontificate (1265-8), it seems, did the Curia begin to entertain the possibility that the Ilkhan might serve as '''an ally''' against Baybars", p.166
*In 1267, the Pope agrees in principle to combined actions: “The Pope for his part had to tell the Ilkhan in 1267 that he would notify him of the timetable [for the next Crusade] once he had consulted the various monarchs” (p.180)
*In 1271 “Only the English contingent, under the Lord Edward (the future Edward I), sailed on from Tunis and '''made contact with the Mongols'''. In September 1271, Abaqa asked Edward to coordinate his activities with those of the Mongol general Samaghar, whom he was sending against the Mamluks. (…) The Sultan was able to prevent any junction of his enemies. (…) Edward’s simultaneous attack on Qaqun was a feeble affair.” (p.167)
*From 1273, Jackson also mentions the alliance of the Byzantines with the Mongols: “'''From 1273 Michael allied with Noghai''', giving him an illegitimate daughter in marriage and using him as a means of putting pressure on Bulgaria when its king menaced the empire’s northern frontier in 1273 and 1279. When Michael died in 1282, he had just welcomed in Constantinople a band of Mongol auxiliaries whom Noghai had sent to assist him against the despot of Thessaly” (p.203)
*In 1281 “Both Bohemond VII of Tripoli and King Hugh III of Cyprus were urged to join forces with the Mongols. But Hugh’s arrival was delayed, and the new Sultan Qalawun was able to position his army between Mongke Temur and the Franks on the coast. '''It seems that some Hospitallers from Margat (Marqab) participated in the campaign'''.” (p.168)
*In 1288 the Mongol ambassador Rabban Sawma received '''promisses of Western support''' (although not concrete) to the Mongols: he “left only with many assurances of support and no promisses of concrete assistance” (p.169)
*In 1291, concrete combined actions took place, as “'''a contingent of 800 Genoese arrived, whom he [Arghun] employed in 1290 in building ships at Baghdad''' with a view to harassing Egyptian commerce at the southern approaches to the Red Sea.” (p.169)
*In 1299: “The king of Cyprus made some attempts to mount '''combined operations''' in harmony with the Mongol's movements. In the Autumn of 1299, he sent two galleys to occupy Botrun and to rebuild the fortress of Nephin, while a larger fleet of 16 galleys made what amounted to no more than a demonstration at Rosetta and outside the harbour of Alexandria before touching briefly at Acre, Tortosa and Maraclea. More serious was '''the expedition led in 1300, in response to another appeal by Ghazan''', by the king’s brother Amaury, titular Lord of Tyre and Constable of the Kingdom of Jerusalem – the first attempt since 1291 to restore the Latin settlement in the Holy Land and to coordinate military activity with the Ilkhan’s forces. The Templar Jacques de Molay seems to have been particularly enthusiastic about the campaigns.” (p.171)
*"In many respects, the Mongol occupation of Syria in 1299-1300 represents the '''high water-mark of Mongol-Latin relations'''" (p.172)
*This continued to some extent until 1405: “In the Near East, Temur’s death only a few years previously, in 1405, marked the passing of the last “Tartar” sovereign who was widely regarded in the West as '''a potential, or even real, ally against the Muslim powers''', the Mamluks and the Ottomans” (p.3)
Jackson generally describes the relations between the Mongols and the Crusaders as cordial but abortive: “The more cordial, though abortive, diplomatic relations between the Ilkhans on the one hand and the Papacy and Western monarchs on the other” (p.3), and stresses the ultimate defeat of all these efforts. [[User:PHG|PHG]] ([[User talk:PHG|talk]]) 21:49, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

|-
|-
|{{cite book | author=Bernard de Vaulx|title=History of the Missions|date=1961|publisher=Hawthorn Books|page=53}}
|{{cite book | author=Bernard de Vaulx|title=History of the Missions|date=1961|publisher=Hawthorn Books|page=53}}

Revision as of 21:57, 26 February 2008

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]
 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.
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), [2] 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.
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)..." [3] 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: [4]. PHG (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

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.")."[5] 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?
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Requests_for_arbitration/Franco-Mongol_alliance/Evidence/Shell_Kinney_Sources_Table&oldid=194266556"