Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 18:20, 27 September 2007

	Franco-Mongol alliance is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 29, 2007.

Military history: European / French / Middle East / Medieval C‑class

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history C This article has been rated as C-class on the project's quality scale. This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force French military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Archives August-September 2007 September 2007 (continued)

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below. To clarify, this close is based upon my reading of the talk page in full. There are clearly relevant objections to the current title, but there is no consensus that the objections should overrule the literature that does agree with the current title, or that the proposed title is ideal. Dekimasuよ! 06:24, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Franco-Mongol alliance → Crusader-Mongol relations — Move is being requested to a more appropriate title, since there was never really a formal alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols. —Elonka 08:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Misplaced Pages's naming conventions.

• Support (as nominator). I've done extensive research on this topic, in a variety of reliable sources in multiple languages. Though there is a book from the 1930s by Rene Grousset, written in French, that refers to a "Franco-Mongol alliance", the vast majority of modern sources agree that though there were many attempts at an alliance, that no such thing really existed on a large scale. The topic is still worth a Misplaced Pages article, but it would be better served by an article title of "Crusader-Mongol relations". --Elonka 08:40, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose (as creator of this article) "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a scholarly expression which is fully referenced by Grousset (1936/2006) or a leading expert of the period such as Demurger (2002) as a factual event, and by many others as something that was attempted and achieved in limited ways (Barber, Schein). Although it may have been more or less successfull (5-6 coordinated campaings over a period of 50 years) and ended in defeat, this alliance was nonetheless founded on written agreements between Western kings and Mongol rulers, coordinated strategic actions (attacks from the West by Western rulers, synchronized with attacks from the East by Mongol rulers), and even battles in the same ranks, although Western powers could rarely muster more than a few hundred knights. This alliance was also the main focus of the last efforts of the Templars to reconquer the Holy Land in 1298-1303. On the other hand, "Crusader-Mongol relations" is a neologism, which does not even obtain a single hit on Google, and would have to cover a much broader subject-matter (relations of the Crusaders and the Mongols in the Eastern Europe theater, cultural interactions, respective perceptions etc...). PHG 08:45, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
• Comment While the accusation of favouring a neologism is pretty correct, and so the proposed title may not be the best, I'd generally tend to accept the idea of a change, not because because it's obvious that PHG is wrong, but because it can't be honestly said that there is a full historical consensus behind such a strong title as the current. A softer title would have the advantage IMO of not opting in a direction or the other.--Aldux 23:20, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

• Oppose, because the exact phrase "Franco-Mongol alliance" appears in reputable publications by more than one author and I am therefore inclined to regard it as more than merely a descriptive pharse and as a piece of scholarly currency. A phrase that has been used before of the thing under discussion must be preferred to a merely descriptive phrase invented for our purposes at Wikipeida, in my opinion. Srnec 03:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
• Oppose, I know I suggested some of the other titles, but if this one has been used in the literature, then we are kind of obliged to go along with it. Adam Bishop 23:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Request for comment

Template:RFChist

Requesting comment on the following questions:

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

09:25, 16 September 2007 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Archiving

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

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

Demurger

I still don't have the book, but I'm able to view a few limited pages through the AmazonOnlineReader. It looks pretty good, but I'm not getting the same interpretation from it that PHG seemed to. For example, in terms of an alliance, even Demurger seems to refer to it as "combined operation" and something that was promised or hoped for, but never came together. Here's an excerpt from p. 94:

The two letters sent in late 1299 were now, however totally ineffectual. Seigneurs from Cyprus left the island to join him possibly as early as the end of the 1299, but definitely by January 1300. Two knights of the realm, Guy d'Ibelin, Count of Jaffa, and Jean de Gibelet, landed with their entourages on the Syrian coast at Gibelet and settled in the castle of Nefin with the intention to reach Armenia and join Ghazan. But after a few days they learned that the khan had terminated his campaign and gone back to his capital, Tabriz. This episode with the knights is a minor one, but it signifies none the less the Christians' willingness to become involved. For even though the favourable conditions at the end of 1299 were not likely to happen again soon, the following year would see a better prepared attempt at common action between Mongol, Armenian and Cypriot forces. To which Jacques de Molay was to commit himself totally. The idea of a combined operation by the Mongols of Persia and the Latins was not a new one, and its aims were fairly straightforward: land taken from the Mamluks were to be divided between Mongols and Christians, the latter retrieving the territories of the former Latin States in the East and Jerusalem. This is reiterated in a letter sent by Thomas Gras from Cyprus on 4 March 1300: "And the said Kasan sent his messengers to the king of Jerusalem and Cyprus and to the communes and military-religious Orders who supported him in Damascus or Jerusalem, saying that he would give them all the land which the Christians had formerly held in the time of Godefroy de Bolloin ." Gras is referring to Ghazan's offensive in the autumn of 1299, on the strength of which an optimistic rumour spread in the West early in 1300 that Jerusalem was once more in Christian hands. It was even said that King Hethum of Armenia had celebrated Mass at the Holy Sepulchre on the Feast of the Epiphany. Ghazan's attack and victories also raised great hopes in Cyprus, according to a letter from a Franciscan from Nicosia, dated 14 February 1300. He, too, says that Hethum prayed at the Holy Sepulchre; he further announces that 'our Minister and many of our brethren (of the Franciscan province) are preparing to go to Syria with the Knights, footsoldiers and all the other monks. But the news of Ghazan's retreat in the same month deferred such fine resolutions until later. Which brings us back to the problem of the Mongols' weak point -- the difficult of keeping such a vast army of horsemen mobilized, not because the men could not be kept, but because their mounts could not be fed. Breaking off his pursuit of the Mamluk army after his victory at Homs, Ghazan had not been able to destroy totally the sultan of Cairo's army. The Templar of Tyre considers his pursuit 'feeble' and explains why: 'He began to follow the defeated army, but not very forcefully, for his horses were worn out from the long journey they had made, and the battle, and the shortage of fodder. Returning to Tabriz, Ghazan left Syria under the control of the emir Mulay, who the Templar of Tyre refers to as Molay, thereby leading to confusion with our Grand Master. Perhaps this is what lies at the root of the legend about Jacques de Molay entering Jerusalem -- a legend I will return to at the end of the book. In reality, general command was exercised by Kutlushah, Mulay being only the head of the army which got as far as Gaza and may have penetrated Jerusalem. Meanwhile, Ghazan had announced that he would return the following November, this time to attack Egypt. While he waited, during 1300, the khan stepped up his diplomatic initiatives with Cyprus and the West...."

--Elonka 04:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Demurger on the forces in Ruad. Even he agrees it wasn't just a Templar thing:

p.98 "It may appear that the occupation and defense of Ruad became the exclusive affair of the Templars, but the reality was rather different. Preparation for the landing at Ruad back in November 1300 had taken all year to organise by the whole of the Christian forces based in Cyprus, in the hope that all the promises made by the Mongol alliance would finally be realised."

--Elonka 04:46, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am relieved you finally found something on Demurger :), and recommend that you read the whole book. Nobody denies that the alliance was a difficult one, and that, ultimately it ended with defeat against the Mamluks, but it is described by the "Mongol alliance" nonetheless (including by Demurger). Nobody denies that other forces than the Templars were involved in this 1298-1303 alliance, but the Templars were highly dedicated to it (your own quote "the following year would see a better prepared attempt at common action between Mongol, Armenian and Cypriot forces. To which Jacques de Molay was to commit himself totally."), and they played the central role in implementing the alliance (please see the article where Demurger is already quoted extensively). Are we moving forward? Best regards. PHG 04:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

See my comments below. Though I'll also add that I'm not seeing the "central role of the Templars" in Demurger's book. I agree that De Molay was passionate about a new Crusade to capture Jerusalem, but I see that all of the Cypriots, which included many groups including multiple religious orders and the remnants of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, not to mention the native Cyprus folks, shared that passion. The (small) fleet of ships that was put together was equipped more by King Henry of Cyprus than by the Templars. The invasion force sent to Ruad had about 600 knights, of whom about 150 were Templars. De Molay and the Templars were definitely part of the action, but they weren't the driving force. --Elonka 05:53, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Here's the quote from Demurger about the Templars being the driving force: "The order of the Templars, and its last Grand-Master Jacques de Molay, were the artisans of the alliance with the Mongols against the Mameluks in 1299-1303, in order to regain a foothold in the Holy Land" ("L’ordre du Temple et son dernier grand maître, Jacques de Molay, ont été les artisans de l’alliance avec les Mongols de Perse contre les Mamelouks en 1299-1303, afin de reprendre pied en Terre sainte.") Alain Demurger, Master of Conference at Université Paris-I, in an interview with Le Point, "La Chute du Temple", Aug 11, 2005. Also: OnlinePHG 08:05, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, that is a quote from an interview with the author, while he was promoting his book. That is a primary source, not a "peer-reviewed secondary source." I also still dispute the places where you sourced information from the back cover of Demurger's book, since marketing copy should not be used as a reliable source. Are you next going to want to use quotes from Dan Brown's interviews? --Elonka 17:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

More Demurger quotes

Demurger on the rumors about De Molay in the 1800s:

p.202: It was only at the end of the eighteenth century, and above all in the nineteenth, that was to become a hero. This he owed not so much to the wild imaginings of Fabre-Pellaprat and his friends, founders of the neo-templarism movement in the early nineteenth century (the so-called chart of succession of Larmenius, for example, is a crude forgery), as to the development from the mid-eighteenth century onwards of a 'national theatre' always in search of patriotic themes. Jacques de Molay became one of the heroes of this national theatre, thanks to Raynouard, whose tragedy The Templars was staged with considerable success at the Theatre-Francais in 1805-1806 (the celebrated tragedian Talma played one of the protagonists). After the first performance, the Courrier des spectacles wrote: 'The theater has long called for this national subject.' The drama was distinguished by the confrontation with the king, who believed the Tempars guilty but was prepared to pardon them if the Grand Master acknowledge this guilt.... The play was staged throughout the nineteenth century and was re-edited in the popular series 'Good books'.... in which Raynouard's The Templars figured among the four titles representing French subjects (Joan of Arc, Charles IX and The Siege of Calais, alongside Racine and Corneille). This popularity in the nineteenth century, which the reservations of historians such as Michelet did nothing to weaken, was also made evident by Molay's entry into the crusade rooms in the palace of Versaille, a collection built up by Louis-Philippe. Jacques de Molay is represented in a bust by Amaury Duval in an 1840 painting, and figures in an action scene on a large picture by Claude Jacquand, dated 1842, which shows him at the head of his troops entering the reconquered Jerusalem in 1299. It is, of course, a legendary representation, but one founded on a rumour that made the rounds of Christendom in 1300 and was connected with the offensives of the Mongol khan Ghazan in 1299-1303. According to this rumour, khan Ghazan, victor over the Mamluks in December 1299 at the time of the battle of Homs, aided by the Christians of Armenia and the Masters of the Temple and Hospital Orders and their troops, was supposed to have handed Jerusalem back to the Christians. Laurent Dailliez (who has taken mischievous pleasure in muddying the waters) affirms that at that date Jacques de Molay was one of the three generals in the Mongol army, and would have had the honour of victoriously entering the Holy City. Were it not for the text of the Templar of Tyre, who was well known, if not by his contemporaries, at least by later historians, it is possible that this assertion by the usually reliable Dailliez would be taken more seriously. On the basis of the correctly dated text by Hayton of Corycos, I have shown that Jacques de Molay was in Armenia in 1298 or 1299, therefore prior to Ghazan's victorious battle against the Mamluks. The Templar of Tyre states: 'After Cazan had beaten the Saracens, he returned to his country leaving in his place at Damascus one of his admirals who had the name Molay...' In fact, this was a Mongol general by the name of Mulay, easily confused with Molay, and thus with the Templar Grand Master." The contemporary western sources used by S. Schein in his study on the origin of the rumour current in the West, according to which the Holy City was handed back to the Christians by Ghazan, never associate Jacques de Molay with this episode. Might there be a text which, at some time or another, made the connection between Molay and the supposed recapture of Jerusalem, perhaps based on the confusion caused by the Templar or Tyre's text? The painter Jacquand was not the only one to take the tradition at face value. This is what the article on Molay in the Nouvelle Biographie universelle of 1861, edited by Rapetti, has to say...."

And gee PHG, I was going to give you props for digging up that encyclopedia quote. Now I see you're just going paragraph by paragraph through Demurger's book. Except, you seem to have left off this part that Demurger said, about the Jacquand painting (emphasis added):

...in the Versailles rooms, he is not shown in a portrait like Hugues de Payns, the founder of the Temple, or Foulques de Villaret, his alter ego in the Order of the Hospital. But it is appropriate that he is depicted in action, even if the action is one in which he did not really engage.

Summary: Demurger says that there were hopes for an alliance, but they didn't really come together, though there were attempts at combined military operations. Demurger says that the Templars were not at the center of the push to build a garrison at Ruad. Demurger says that Jacques de Molay was not involved in the capture of Jerusalem. Demurger says that the story of the capture of Jerusalem is a legend. Demurger says that the painting in Versailles is not based on fact. Let's see, anything else we need to cover? --Elonka 05:08, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Again, nobody denies that the alliance was a difficult one, and that, ultimately it ended with defeat against the Mamluks, but it is described by the "Mongol alliance" nonetheless (including by Demurger). Nobody denies that other forces than the Templars were involved in this 1298-1303 alliance, but the Templars were highly dedicated to it (your own quote "the following year would see a better prepared attempt at common action between Mongol, Armenian and Cypriot forces. To which Jacques de Molay was to commit himself totally."), and they played the central role in implementing the alliance (please see the article where Demurger is already quoted extensively). And indeed Demurger is already quoted in the article as saying that de Molay probably did not take Jerusalem. Your point that there was not alliance, that it was it was just a dream just doesn't stand Elonka. PHG 05:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I'm just not getting the same thing out of the Demurger book that you are, PHG. By my read, Demurger is referring to the alliance as a strategy, but not something concrete. "The Cypriot Christians tried to form a strategic alliance with the Mongols" (p. 91) "in the hope that all the promises made by the Mongol alliance would finally be realised" (p. 98) "the strategy of a Mongol alliance was not yet quite dead" (p. 102) "Thus ended the strategy of a Mongol alliance" (p. 105) "...idea of a rapid reconquest of the Holy Land and Jerusalem was widely shared, all the more so because an alliance with the Mongols looked possible" (p. 207) "the idea of forging a Mongol alliance was a good one" (p. 216). "in the late thirteenth and fourteenth century there was still an opportunity to be seized: the Mongol alliance" (p. 217). So yes, he says the phrase "Mongol alliance" quite often, but that doesn't mean he's saying that it really existed. The closest he comes to saying it, is when he talks about the Crusaders setting up their expedition to Ruad. "Above all, the expedition made manifest the unity of the Cypriot Franks and, through a material act, put the seal on the Mongol alliance." But then the Mongols didn't show up, and everything floundered. I feel like this is grasping at straws, though we can definitely quote Demurger in the article. But even if we do, then that confirms that there hadn't been a Mongol alliance up through 1300. Either way, it's a very weak argument. Demurger's ambivalence aside, I still think that the consensus of modern historians is that there were many attempts at forming an alliance, but the attempts bore little fruit. So I stand by my opinion that the Misplaced Pages article would be best titled as "Crusader-Mongol relations" or "Franco-Mongol alliances" (plural). --Elonka 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, I am afraid you are just playing on words now. Throughout the period, Western rulers and Mongol rulers expressed their intent to fight together against the Mamluks, Western rulers and Mongol rulers actually agreed in writing to combined actions, they actually strategically combined their operations, moving their troops in a coordinated way, and in the end Franks (including Templars and Hospitallers) fought together with the Mongols either in the same ranks in several instances, or separated by some distance (as all armies coordinating movements). If that's not an alliance, I don't know what an alliance is. Would you kindly check again the definition of the word "alliance"?:

"An alliance is an agreement between two or more parties, made in order to advance common goals and to secure common interests."

• But of course this alliance did not concretize in a major way, to the dismay of all parties involved. Of course there were attempts at creating something bigger. You rightfully say that the alliance bore little fruit, but that surely doesn't not mean no fruits at all, and it still means that there was an alliance nonetheless. Many sizable fruits actually came out of this huge strategic alliance.
• Very simply, an "ineffective alliance" is not the same thing as "no alliance": an ineffective alliance is an alliance nonetheless. By the same token, I guess you could wish to argue that there was no alliance between Japan and Germany during WWII: despite its strategic scope it was largely ineffective (except for the fact that Japan did divert a lot of US ressources, just as the Mongols with the Mamluks), only a few combined operation finally occured, and both parties probably attempted to make it much bigger.

Best regards, PHG 06:14, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, that's original research. It's not about what you think the definition is, or what I think the definition is, it's about how most historians define it, n'est-ce pas? And most historians clearly say that there was no alliance. It was a chimera, a dream, an attempt, a project, a hope, a strategy, an intention, a will-o-the-wisp, but never something concrete. Though I'll give you that there was an alliance with the Armenians. Maybe that would be a good sub-article? "Armenian-Mongol alliance"? --Elonka 06:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, this definition of "alliance" is from Misplaced Pages. Please check a dictionary anytime. The reality is that some historians say there was an alliance, some say there were attempts toward an alliance, and some say the alliance was just a chimera. And a detailed and referenced presentation of the events does show "an alliance that bore little fruit" in your own words, but an alliance nonetheless. I think you just have to accept the multiplicity of the opinions here, which nicely reflects into the beginning of this article "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance", with reference. What more balanced and npov stance could we take? I really don't think there should be an issue with that. Best regards PHG 06:57, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that a better first sentence to the article would be: "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance, between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." I think that's a better reflection of the general consensus of modern historians. Anyone else got an opinion? --Elonka 17:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually I disagree. Technically, the name of the article is "Franco-Mongol alliance", and therefore it is better to start with "The Franco-Mongol alliance...". But my main point concerns the meaning being conveyed: Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance..." expresses only one point of view (yours), and only a part of the sources (those you favour). There is an obvious better choice which expresses both point of views: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between...". I don't see how we could better represent a neutral point of view, and maintain a good balance between the arguments.PHG 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Note: This thread has been continued in the below section #Introduction sentence. --Elonka 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

New sources

Today, I bought two standard books in my neighbourhood, one on the Crusades, and one on the Mongols, and, guess what, both mention various aspects of the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols matter-of-factly:

• "In 1258 they sacked Baghdad and two years later Aleppo. Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli (1252-1275) became their ally." p.136 The Oxford History of the Crusades", Joanthan Riley-Smith
• "The fact that they were anti-Muslim was good enough reason for the king to place his entire army at their disposal. This unholy alliance took the field in 1259" in p.8 The Mongols, Stephen Turnbull.
  

Let me remind here that Little Armenia was considered also as a Frank kingdom (quotes in the article). So, that's 2 more sources describing the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols as facts. I don't see any reason now not to maintain a balanced point-of-view between authors speaking about an alliance, other speaking about attempts towards an alliance etc... To me, this discussion is over. PHG 17:54, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe I have already stated that (1) I am in agreement that the Armenians were allied with the Mongols; and (2) The Armenians weren't really "Franks". Their kingdom was briefly part of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, and in certain very broad interpretations they could be referred to as Frankish, but I don't believe it is correct to say that just because the Mongols allied with the Armenians, that they therefore had a "Franco-Mongol alliance." In fact, I saw one source that talked about how the Armenian king was debating whether to ally "with the Europeans" or "with the Mongols." They were really more of an independent body. --Elonka 19:01, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

(1) Agree (2) Disagree: I think I see what you mean, but Little Armenia was considered as one of the five Frank states, and was a very composite state with a mixture of Franks and Armenians (Riley-Smith). Also "There are five Frank states(...): the Kingdom of Jerusalem, (...) the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, but also the Kingdom of Little Armenia", in Les Croisades, Origines et consequences, p.77-78. Anyway, even by your definition (which I do not follow), many "true Franks" allied with the Mongols as well, so the Little Armenia issue is only marginal.PHG 19:58, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I spent quite a bit of time yesterday in a large library (bet you wondered why I was so quiet, heh), reading through a couple dozen books. Based on what I was reading, I think it would probably be worth making a separate article, Armenian-Mongol relations, and then linking to it, summary style. There definitely was an Armenian-Mongol alliance early on, but it was clearly an Armenian thing, not a leading advance for Rome. It also dissolved very unpleasantly, the Armenians were allied with (or at least paying tribute to) the Mamluks for awhile, and Hethoum II was eventually assassinated by the Mongols. There's a really interesting story there that deserves attention, but more later. In the meantime, books that I particularly recommend include:

• Mongols and the West - Peter Jackson (already recommended by Adam Bishop, and definitely "on-point" for this topic). In fact, Jackson goes into several pages about why the Mongol alliance project never worked out, so we should probably add a section like "Reasons for failure" or something.
• Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks - Angus Donal Stewart (this very decisively answers the question on the separation between the Armenians and the Franks)

Another tantalizingly relevant source that I haven't been able to track down yet, but am very much looking forward to reading:

• Amitai, "Mongol Raids into Palestine", JRAS, 1987, 236-255

FYI, Elonka 19:50, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Very interesting stuff indeed. Amazing how so much happened back then... PHG 20:51, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Mongol raids into Palestine

The "Mongol Raids" article is a little tough to find, so I figured I'd give a quick summary here. Basically, the author (Amitai) went into an extremely detailed analysis of every primary source from that time period. He looked at every account, from every historian of every side: Mamluk, Armenian, Hebrew, Christian, Persian, etc., and he even looked at all the different versions of the sources to see which ones matched up, and which ones seemed to vary wildly from the story that everyone else was telling. What he found was that there was a fair amount of nationalism, so the Armenian writers would build up the actions of the Armenian royalty, the Georgians would build up the actions of the Georgian royalty, etc. He would also look at the kind of writing that each historian did, when writing about other very well-known situations, to see how accurate their information was, and what that could tell about that historian's views of other events for which there are fewer corroborating sources. He also compared the type of raids that the Mongols did in 1260, vs. the raids they did in 1300. The summary is..."Both of them were executed by a relatively small part of the Mongol army, most of which remained further north... In both cases the Mongol forces did not meet any serious opposition, except for the incident at Nablus in 1260, and they covered approximately the same extent of territory, i.e. up to Gaza. The raiders had a free hand to loot, kill and destroy, while keeping an eye on the enemy army in Egypt. It seems that at this point the Mongols had no intention of integrating Palestine into the Mongol administrative system and on both occasions the extent of Mongol control over the country was quite loose. There remain, however, several differences between these two raids. First of all, in 1300, it seems that a number of fortified points throughout Syria, and possibly also in Palestine, were not subjugated during the Mongol occupation. Secondly, there is no record of Mongol raids in this latter instance into Transjordan .... Only in 1260 did the Mongols leave forces in the country, at Gaza, to act as an advance guard..."

In terms of Jerusalem itself, Amitai says that all of the sources agreed that Mongol troops had come in from northern Syria to raid the country, though accounts differ on how quickly this happened and where exactly they raided. Some writers say that there was a delay in ordering a pursuit of the Mamluk sultan and his troops. Though Mamluk writers tend to say that their soldiers were pursued. In any case, Ghazan eventually ordered one of his senior officers, Mulay (also called Bulay) to lead a raid through Palestine. Ghazan then took the "lion's share" of the army and went on to Damascus. In terms of the raid(s):

• One source said that Bulay was sent with 10,000 horsemen, who caught up with the muslims, and "fell upon the region of Gaza, the Jordan River Valley, and Jerusalem"...
• A second Mamluk source, Baybars al-Mansuri, considered very credible, said Ghazan sent 20,000 soldiers with Mulay, Esenbuqa, Hujaq and Hulechu, who fell upon the Jordan River Valley and Baysan, and their raids reached Jerusalem, Hebron, and Gaza, but that the raids didn't last long.
• Al-Mansuri's info was then quoted by a Christian writer, who listed al-Mansuri as his source, but also embellished, saying that the raiders had killed Muslims and Christians, drank wine on the Temple Mount, and done other "despicable deeds" such as taking young women and children as captives.
• A Persian historian just said that Mulay came back to Damascus after chasing the Mamluk troops as far as Gaza.
• Another Persian said Mulay was sent with 10,000 troops "to govern the country".
• A Hebrew source said that the Mongol army had come to Jerusalem.
• Then there were two Armenian writers, one of whom said that Ghazan himself had pursued the fleeing Mamluks, and then sent Het'um and Mulay with 40,000 Mongols in pursuit, with orders to bring under his command the country up to Gaza. But Ghazan called back Het'um after 3 days, and ordered Mulay to continue on. Mulay couldn't catch up with the Sultan, and then returned to Damascus via Jerusalem and the Jordan Valley.
• The other Armenian source (the one we're most interested in) had multiple errors in his work, didn't even get the year of the battle right, and said nothing about Mulay or the Mongols, but credited King Het'um with the pursuit of the Sultan, with 4,000 troops. They rode hard for 11 days, only 10-12 miles behind the Sultan, arriving near Cairo at a place called Doli (which Amitai could not identify). Then on his way back north, Het'um entered Jerusalem, stayed there 15 days, performed Christian ceremonies, and was awarded a patent by Ghazan, granting him the city and its surroundings, after which Het'um left Jerusalem and returned to Damascus
• A Georgian account emphasizes the role of the Georgian king Wakhtang III at the Battle of Wadi al-Khazindar, then describes that the Egyptians took flight, the Mongols raided into Palestine, and reached as far as Jerusalem, where Christians and Muslims were massacred. No mention whatsoever is made of any Armenians in the Georgian account. Just as the Armenians made no mention of the Georgians.

So that second Armenian source just doesn't sound credible. Amitai's conclusion of what actually happened: "It seems most likely then that the Mongols raided Palestine by themselves in . The Mongol forces rode as far as Gaza, looting and killing as they went, and they entered several towns, including Jerusalem. In the end, all the raiders returned to the Damascus area, according to the Mamluk sources by the end of Jumada II/middle of March 1300. Upon their return they found out that Ghazan and the majority of his army had already set off for their country, apparently in the aftermath of reports of an invasion into Ilkhanid territory from Central Asia, although other explanations have been offered. After a few days Mulay also left Damascus and crossed the Euphrates. Soon the Mamluk army returned to Syria, bringing it back into their kingdom."

FYI, Elonka 08:20, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Battle question

While checking one of the Demurger sources, I saw that he talked about how the Mongols and the Armenians were fighting against the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs. However, though we're using Demurger as a source, we're linking to the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar. Did Demurger make a mistake here? And, can we get another source to verify which battle that it really was? Thanks, --Elonka 19:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Ready to help, but could you detail which reference you are talking about?? PHG 20:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not sure what the official name is for each of these battles, but there may be some issue with the Misplaced Pages nomenclature as well. The First Battle of Homs is a small battle, and does not seem so notable. It is not linked from any article appart from a disambiguation page. It is also a very recent article (created 2 weeks ago). I confirm Demurger calls Second Battle of Homs the December 1299 battle (p.278). In Misplaced Pages, this December 1299 battle is named Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar, (Wadi al-Khazandar being apparently near Homs anyway), but I don't know if that is a standard English nomenclature, and cannot find it otherwise in the books I have access to. Maybe it should be renamed "Second Battle of Homs", and the first 1260 Hulagu encounter renamed something else...PHG 05:49, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Demurger evidently got it wrong, and referred to the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar as the Second Battle of Homs. I think there's some case to say that Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar was the "Third Battle of Homs", but I haven't seen anyone refer to it that way. In any case, I agree that we should just link to the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar, and perhaps point out in the note that Demurger seems to have a typo. --Elonka 21:12, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Checking sources: Tyerman, God's War

• I bought Christopher Tyerman, God's War: A New History of the Crusades today (my budget is shrinking daily ;). I think he deserves to be quoted more faithfully. Actually, he DOES describe the existence of the Mongol alliance as fact, even if he says that in the end it led nowhere, which I think is quite true: "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" (p.816). This is quite different from saying that there was NO alliance: Tyerman says there was an alliance, but that it was ultimately fruitless...
• The article says that Tyerman "described it as "an attempt to capture the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", but actually he only refers to the early frustrated attempts of Louis IX. Here the full quote: "The mission was regarded by some on all sides as another attempt to capture the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance" (p.798) It is not quite proper therefore to describe this as Tyerman's own qualification of the alliance in general. I will modify the claim accordingly in the article.
• The article also says "He also described it as "pursuing the will of the wisps of a Mongol alliance with the Il-khan of Persia". Not quite. In the quoted phrase, he does not refer to the Mongol alliance in general, but to Edward's efforts towards making an alliance. What he actually says is: "Edward contented himself with pursuing the will of the wisps of a Mongol alliance with the il-khan of Persia and internal harmony within Frankish Outremer".
• Elsewhere Tyerman DOES mention concrete occurences of the Mongol alliance, as when he mentions that "Bohemond VI, briefly one of Outremer's most important power broker, had already accepted Mongol overlordship, with a Mongol resident and battalion stationed in Antioch itself, where they stayed until the fall of the city to the Mamluks in 1268", or "The Frankish Antiochenes assisted in the Mongols' capture of Aleppo" etc...
• Conclusion: Tyerman does indeed ackowledge the existence of a Mongol alliance, even if he stresses that ultimately it ended nowhere, and that some attempts were frustrated, and that some worked out. We cannot portray Tyerman as someone denying the existence of an alliance, and saying it was only attempts, dreams and chimeras. I will incorporate these more exact elements into the article, and also add some more details from Tyerman. PHG 20:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Just because Tyerman uses the phrase "Mongol alliance", does not mean that he is confirming that there was one. He was very clear that there were attempts at an alliance, but they were unsuccessful: "an attempt to capture the chimera of a Franco-Mongol alliance.... a false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom" (pp. 798-799) "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere" (p. 816) --Elonka 21:41, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

• Let's respect what sources actually say (same issue with the other mis-interpretations of Tyerman mentionned above). "An alliance that leads nowhere" cannot never be interpreted as meaning that "there was no alliance". Tyerman simply says succintly that there was an alliance, in which many embassies were exchanged over a period of 15 years, and that it ended without effective results. But an alliance doesn't have to have results to exist, and Tyerman actually describes a few cases where there were results anyway (Bohemond VI). To me, there's no debate to have on this. And we're only talking about being fair and precise in handling Tyerman here, as many other historians do mention the Mongol alliance as fact (extensively quoted in the article).PHG 05:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Acutally, per Misplaced Pages's policies, it's not up to me to prove that an alliance didn't exist, it's up to who ever wants to include the information to prove that it did exist. Or look at it this way. Normally when there's an alliance, we have history books that say things like, "Group A and Group B formed an alliance in 1767. It lasted for 10 years, and they renewed it in 1777." Alliances are these kinds of formal "signatures on paper" "beginning on such and such a date" kind of affairs. Is that maybe where we're having a dispute here? I understand, PHG, that English is not your first language, correct? So perhaps you're looking at an alliance as an informal "working together" thing, and the rest of us are looking at it as more formal, like an actual signed treaty? --Elonka 07:18, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• Please just stick with sources and do not corrupt them as you are doing with Christopher Tyerman, God's War (details above). Let me give a simple example: "Research on nuclear fusion led nowhere": this means that there was indeed "Research on nuclear fusion", but that in the end it was fruitless. This is language-independent: just a matter of what is being said or not said, and you have no right to corrupt it to fit your point-of-view. Besides, there are plenty of sources specifically describing the Mongol alliance, already quoted in the article. PHG 07:38, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I'm sorry PHG, but I'm afraid that you're the one that is mistaken. The fact is that though the term "alliance" was used in several books, doesn't mean that there was an actual alliance. There were attempts at an alliance. They led nowhere. That's not my opinion, that's a word-for-word description of what the source said. "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere." (Tyerman, p. 816) You appear to have a bias that (1) an alliance existed between Europe and the Mongols; and (2) That the Mongols "ruled" Jerusalem in 1300. I'm afraid that both of these are false. If you wish to argue, please don't just argue from your opinion, please provide actual reliable modern history books which say differently, and I'll be happy to review them. For now though, I think it would be helpful if you reviewed the comments in the above RfC. Or think of it this way -- if you're so sure that you're right, then other editors would agree with you. But we're not agreeing with you. You appear to be POV-pushing. You are also refusing all attempts at dispute resolution. You're ignoring the results of the RfC, you're edit-warring at the page, and you have refused to even accept mediation. Granted, mediation is an entirely voluntary process, but it's making it difficult to find a way through this dispute. In fact, I would recommend that you review Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. Now please, can we stop arguing about this, and can we please move on to something else? You're obviously a hard worker, a detailed researcher, and I am genuinely impressed by the way that you are able to write articulately in English, considering that it's not your first language. But really, it's time to drop this and move on. We've got a very good article here, which I think will make a great Featured article once we can get these disagreements put away. So can we please get past this impasse? --Elonka 16:24, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, quantities of reputable sources are describing the Mongol alliance as fact (Grousset, Demurger, Jonathan Riley-Smith, Seven Turnbull, Angus Stewart, Claude Lebédel, and, yes, Christopher Tyerma) so you have no right to deny that in favour of your opinion that these were only "attempts towards an alliance". Why do you just keep denying the obvious and only accept your own point of view? And you are (again!) misrepresenting reality when you claim you have a concensus: 2:1 has never been a consensus. We should just stick with the facts and the principle of NPOV: some author describe the Mongol alliance as fact, some as just an attempt, and we should express both views. And how about your mis-representations of Tyerman's God's War (above)? That's honestly quite unacceptable. PHG 17:16, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, to say that all of those sources are describing the alliance as fact, is absurd. Can you please point to a single one that says clearly, "An alliance was formed on such-and-such a date"? Again, just because they used the word alliance, doesn't mean that there was an alliance. There were attempts at an alliance. But they led nowhere. Even the Encyclopedia Brittanica called it a chimera. A fantasy, something that didn't exist. --Elonka 06:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Detailed response hereafter. Your Encyclopedia Brittanica quote is from 1911 (!!) PHG 16:25, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Historians treating the alliance with the Mongols as fact:

What is really "absurd" Elonka, if I may use your own words, is your obstinate denial of the tens of reputable sources which describe the Mongol alliance as fact (even if they haven't been prescient enough to use your exact own sentence above :), and your POV efforts to characterize them as only "attempts towards an alliance" (although of course a few sources to describe "attempts only", and I am totally ready to ackowledge them as well). Just open your mind and accept that scholars may have various interpretations:

The French historian Grousset, writing in the 1930s, used the terms "L'Alliance Franco-Mongole" and "La coalition Franco-Mongole", mentioning especially "Louis IX and the Franco-Mongol alliance" (Grousset, p521: "Louis IX et l'Alliance Franco-Mongole", p.653 "Only Edward I understood the value of the Mongol alliance, p.686 "the Franco-Mongol alliance, examplified by the Hospitallers"). The modern French historian Demurger, in the Jacques de Molay biography The Last Templar, refers to it as the "Mongol alliance", which came to fruition through such events as the 1300 combined offensives between the Templars and the Mongols, further describing that in 1298-1303 Jacques de Molay fought to reconquer Jerusalem, by relying on an alliance with the Mongols.(Demurger, p.147 "This expedition sealed, by a concrete act, the Mongol alliance", Demurger p.145 "The strategy of the Mongol alliance in action", "De Molay led the fight for the reconquest of Jerusalem, by relying on an alliance with the Mongols" (Demurger, back cover). Demurger in "Croisades et croises au Moyen-Age" describes "The concretization of this alliance met with three obstacles etc...", "The renewed offensives of the Mongol khan the Il Khan Ghazan in the years 1299-1302, in coordination with the Christian forces of Cyprus" (p.287), "These are the only Frank forces, located in Armenia and Cyprus, which cooperated with the Mongols" (p.287), "This ended the promisses of the Mongol alliance" (p.287)). Jonathan Riley-Smith in The Oxford History of the Crusades (2002) mentions that the Frank ruler Bohemond VI became an ally of the Mongols ("In 1258 they sacked Baghdad and two years later Aleppo. Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli (1252-1275) became their ally." p.136 The Oxford History of the Crusades", Joanthan Riley-Smith.) He further mentionned in his Atlas of the Crusades that in 1285 the Hospitallers of the north agreed to ally to the Mongols.("En 1285, Qalawun, nouveau sultan mamelouk, reprend l'offensive, qu'il dirige contre les Hospitaliers du nord, qui s'etaient montres prets a s'allier aux Mongols", Jonathan Riley-Smith, "Atlas des Croisades", p.114). Angus Stewart called it "Franco-Mongole entente." (). Stephen Turnbull, in The Mongols (1980) describes the "unholy alliance" between the kingdom of Little Armenia and the Mongols, and how the Mongols and "their Christian allies" entered Damas triumphaly ("The fact that they were anti-Muslim was good enough reason for the king to place his entire army at their disposal. This unholy alliance took the field in 1259", also: "Their Christian allies joined them in a triumphal entry, forcing the defeated Muslims to carry the cross before them, and later turned one of the city's mosques into a Christian church" in p.8 The Mongols, Stephen Turnbull). Sean Martin referred to it as a "combined force."(Martin, p. 114.) Claude Lebédel states that during the 1260 offensive "the Barons of the Holy Land refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the king of Armenia and Bohemond VI, prince of Antioch and Count of Tripoli".(Claude Lebédel, p.75) Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", but specifies that in the end it led nowhere ("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." (Tyerman, pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, especially Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories ("Bohemond VI, briefly one of Outremer's most important power broker, had already accepted Mongol overlordship, with a Mongol resident and battalion stationed in Antioch itself, where they stayed until the fall of the city to the Mamluks in 1268. The Frankish Antiochenes assisted in the Mongols' capture of Aleppo, thus in part achieving a very traditional Frankish target, and had received lands in reward." (p.806). Amin Maalouf in "Les croisades vues par les Arabes" mentions the Franks of Antioch "guilty of having made common cause with the Mongol invaders" (p.267), "Once more the allies of the Mongols were chastized without the latter being able to intervene" (p.271).PHG 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow PHG, that's some pretty impressive mis-quoting. You're even bolding the words "Mongol alliance", in sentences where historians were saying that there wasn't an alliance. I'll give you that Demurger was a bit wishy-washy on the subject, in that in most cases he said that there wasn't an alliance, but then he had one (1) sentence where he used that "seal" language, but I'll also point out (again) that that attack meant nothing, because the Mongols didn't show up, and an alliance needs a "seal" from both sides to be official. Now, the Armenians definitely had a (forced) alliance with the Mongols, but they weren't Franks. The Armenian King Bohemond, as I've listed elsewhere, chose "subjection" to the Mongols over annihilation. But that doesn't mean a Franco-Mongol alliance, because the "Franks" were the Western Europeans, not the Armenian natives in the Outremer. So just because the Mongols had an alliance with Armenia, doesn't mean that they had an alliance with the Papacy and Western Europe. Your quote from Lebedel is accurate, but it proves that there wasn't a Franco-Mongol alliance: "the Barons of the Holy Land refused an alliance with the Mongols, except for the king of Armenia and Bohemond VI, prince of Antioch and Count of Tripoli." Armenia/Antioch were part of the Holy Land. They were also Christian (as were many Mongols). But they weren't Franks. --Elonka 18:59, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, maybe you could argue that Armenia was not Frank (inspite of the scholarly references I have put forward to the contrary), but how can you say that the Principality of Antioch was not Frank?? Are you joking? Or is it just ignorance? I am starting to have real doubts about your competence here.
• Since you're still in denial... how about Jean Richard, the leading French expert on the Mongols (ask Adam Bishop if in doubt):

"The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities"

— in "Histoire des Croisades", p.469

Or if you wish to have a statement connecting the Franco-Mongol alliance and chronology:

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

— in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468

or:

"The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere

— in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453

Elonka, face it: your argument really doens't stand at all. The reality of the alliance with the Mongols is indeed recognized by quantities of highly reputable scholars. They is absolutely no justification for you to deny it. PHG 20:35, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, accusing me of "ignorance" and saying that you doubt my competence, is really not the way to be strengthening your case. Please try to be more civil, and please try to focus your arguments on the article, and not the editors. --Elonka 21:33, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka. I am just amazed at your claim that the Principality of Antioch was not Frank. You may claim a "typo" again, but fundamentally it suggests a total misunderstanding of the situation of the Middle East during the Crusades. Would you either confirm or retract your statement, and provide sources if you wish to confirm it? PHG 14:18, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Antioch was a Crusader State, that was effectively a sub-state of Cilician Armenia. Both states had (sometimes) close ties with the Franks, and close ties with each other, and (at times) close ties with the Mongols As I've mentioned elsewhere, the term "Frankish" is usually referring to the Franks from Western Europe, but in certain broad connotations can be used to apply to other states (such as Armenia). And the Muslims definitely referred to the entire lot as "Franks" or "Franj", regardless of where they were from. But let's be careful what we're using our definitions for. To say that the Armenians were Franks, and then to say that that proved that there was a "Franco-Mongol alliance", is I think putting undue weight on the Frankish definition. Armenia, when under immediate threat of Mongol invasion, chose to ally with the Mongols. However other Franks flat out refused to ally. I think it's definitely fair to say that there was an Armenian-Mongol alliance, and to say that Antioch was also an ally, but in terms of the article, let's just keep things simple and say precisely what they were. In other words, we can say "The Armenians allied with the Mongols," yes, but to say "The Frank state of Armenia allied with the Mongols" is starting to get a bit misleading. As far as Antioch, it too was in this class of "different things to different points of view." Yes they were a Frankish state, but they were also more autonomous. Antioch had, as Tyerman described it, "A vigorous independent identity" (p. 189) and "autonomy from Jerusalem" (p. 190). As far as the Antioch-Mongol relationship, we could phrase it multiple ways, and they would all be correct. All three of these would work: "The Frankish state of Antioch allied with the Mongols," but also "King Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli accepted Mongol overlordship" (so more of a vassal than an ally). Or we could just quote Stewart directly: "The principality of Antioch was dominated by its Armenian neighbour -- it was through the will of the Armenian king that the Antiochenes came to aid Hulegu in 1259-60." ("The Logic of Conquest" Al-Masaq, v. 14, No.1, March 2002, p. 8) So, in the Misplaced Pages article, let's be careful how we word things. I recommend that we stick to the most basic facts, in a very neutral manner, rather than trying to infer that "because A is true, therefore B is true." In other words: Yes, we could say that Antioch allied with the Mongols, and that it was a Frankish state. But no we should not say, that because Antioch allied with the Mongols, that there was a Franco-Mongol alliance. I think that latter sentence would be too misleading. --Elonka 21:05, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. Antioch WAS a Frankish state, Tripoli WAS a Frankish state: there is no going around that. Please ackowledge this. You may have a point with Little Armenia, although it is also considered a Frankish state in general. And I am not the one infering from that the expression "Franco-Mongol alliance": reputable sources such as Grousset, Richard, Demurger etc... are. There is nothing to argue about this: it is just the way these historians have chosen to call it. Best regards. PHG 16:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Weatherman

I took the liberty to correct a phrase referencing Weatherman, as the phrase claims that all allies were "Vassals", whether he can only be speaking about the Georgians since he mentions the conquests of Subodei. The phrase was, after a phrase describing the alliance between Franks, Armenians, Georgians and Mongols: "Though some historians refer to this not as an alliance, so much as the Mongols acting in concert with their own conquered vassal states." Weatherford, p. 138: "Subodei made the country a vassal state, the first in Europe, and it proved to be one of the most loyal"".

As Weatherman clearly speaks about Georgia only, I modified the phrase to: "In the case of Georgia, Weatherford refers to this not as an alliance, but as a vassal relationship. Weatherford, p. 138. "Subodei made the country a vassal state, the first in Europe, and it proved to be one of the most loyal and supportive Mongol vassals in the generations ahead."" Please correct me if I'm wrong here. PHG 20:35, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I believe that Georgia should be regarded as a vassal state, and that Armenia can really be described as either way. Armenia (specifically the Kingdom of Cilician Armenia) was really scrambling to survive, and so went through several different phases, depending on which way the political wind was blowing. They allied with the Mongols, but also allied with the Muslims, and allied with the Europeans. They were vassals of the Mongols, and also allies of the Mongols. They had strong elements of Frankish culture, but were also an independent Christian state that joined the Kingdom of Jerusalem for a time, and were considered a Crusader state. Every one of those statements can be considered true to some degree, depending on context. Which is why I don't think that we should take what Armenia did or didn't do, as proof of any major actions on the part of anyone else. Mostly Armenia was just along for the ride, whatever was happening. Don't get me wrong, their troops fought hard, and they suffered amazing tragedies and amazing victories -- but this was usually in conjunction with what other larger powers were doing, and Armenia really wasn't that much in control of its own destiny at the time. --Elonka 22:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's be more precise. Hethoum I and Bohemond VI are most of the time described as allies of the Mongols (rather than vassals) because they spontaneously went to the Mongols, rather than being conquered by them. They could have resisted, fought battles (I'm not saying that would have been easy), but instead they chose to cooperate, and entered into a relationship in which they fought side-by-side with the Mongols, received presents, territories and cities. In the case of these two, it is not either vassal or ally, as most modern historians do favour the "ally" qualification.

For Georgia, it is a bit different, as the Georgian army was destroyed several times by the Mongols, their territory was invaded, and they only reached a vassal relationship under the Mongols a a vanquished people, in which the Georgian king could remain, in exchange for providing his army. PHG 05:07, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that the word "spontaneous" is accurate at all. The Mongols were invading, and Armenia was directly in their path. Armenia had the choice to ally, surrender, or try to fight back. If they would have tried to fight, the Mongols would have not only overwhelmed them, but probably slaughtered tens of thousands of innocents (or more), because that's exactly what the Mongols had done in countless other locaitons. That's how the Mongol empire expanded so fast -- they were ruthless. They'd arrive in a location, say "surrender or be slaughtered," and they killed hundreds of thousands of people. When word got out about how nasty they were, many communities in their path didn't even try to fight, they just surrendered immediately as soon as the Mongols arrived. Then once an area had been taken over, the Mongols incorporated those people into their army. So the Mongol army grew, and it wasn't just a bunch of Chinese guys, it was Turks and Russians and whoever else had already been conquered and "assimilated". The Armenians were assimilated too, but they were assimilated more as voluntary "allies" than conquered "vassals". But the end result was pretty much the same, they did what the Mongols wanted. --Elonka 07:28, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. But that's precisely why the Frank Antiochans and Armenians are usually considered as allies rather than vassals, and Georgians considered as vassals rather than allies. PHG 07:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Which I mostly agree with, except that it's not accurate to say that the Armenians were Franks. They were Christian (as were many Mongols), but they weren't European. Real "Franks" on the other hand, were really those from Western Europe. The Armenians were closer to Turkish, but that doesn't hit it either. Heck, just look at the Armenian script, which is completely unlike any other language. Even at the Recueil des Historiens des Croisades, they separate out the Armenian category. There are historians from the "West", and historians from the "East", and then there are the Armenians. If we want to make an article about their alliance with the Mongols, the correct title would be Armenian-Mongol alliance, or maybe Cilician-Mongol alliance, but not Franco-Mongol. --Elonka 16:36, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

The "Armenians" at this time are not necessarily "pure" Armenians...of course the vast majority of them are, but the ruling class was half-Frankish. I'm sure they mixed heavily with the Turks too but they are far older than the Turks, they have been in that general area since prehistory, and their language is Indo-European, likely related to Greek. Their alphabet is pretty funny looking but it's basically derived from Greek too. Note that the RHC also separates the Greek historians from the "West" and "East". Adam Bishop 16:43, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope everyone will understand that instead of Elonka's original research and disputable interpretations, I would just like to stick with what reputable sources say:

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

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

PHG 17:03, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Also, Elonka, don't forget that the Il-Khanate was usually quite protective of the Christians (remember Damas 1258?) and did profess a liking for them (the numerous letters from the Khans). So I am not sure it is exact to deny any kind of affinity or good relations between the two parties. I am afraid you are just expressing a stereotype here that the Mongols were just brutes seeking total domination. PHG 17:19, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I recommend reading, "The Logic of Conquest" by Angus Stewart: Al-Masaq, Vol. 14, No. 1, March 2002. It does a very good job of showing the differences between the Armenians and the Franks: "The relationship between the Armenians and the Franks is worthy of some consideration here." "While the Armenian kingdom and its Frankish neighbours to the south may have had close relations, and may have even been seen in similar terms by the Mamluks, there were significant differences. First, the Armenian kingdom was a kingdom inhabited by Armenians: the Crusader States were only ever partially inhabited by Crusaders. While the Frankish population of the Syrian coast, was, especially by the end, confined largely to the port-cities, the settlement pattern of the Armenians in Cilicia was very different...." "The Armenian kingdom as being part of the Christian communtiy of realms. In many ways, the kingdom can be viewed as an 'honorary Crusader state.'" "The Armenian king saw alliance with the Mongols - or, more accurately, swift and peaceful subjection to them - as his best course of action. He could thereby save his kingdom from assault, and could even make territorial gains, as happened during Hulegu's expeditions." "In response to raids, and with no prospect of aid from either the Mongols or the Franks, King Lewon II arranged a truce with the new Mamluk sultan, Qalawun, in 1285." --Elonka 06:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, as far as I know, you are abusively claiming that Little Armenia was not Frank. This goes against reputable sources, and your original research on whether the Armenians were "pure Franks" or not, has absolutely no place here. Please find hereafter a quote from a reputable source. Should you wish to contradict it, please give a reference, instead of just spreading unhealthy OR:

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

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

PHG 14:46, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

• PHG, your accusations are not very civil, please try to show more respect for your fellow editors. As for your questions, I think they are addressed in my reply here: --Elonka 21:16, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, I am being perfectly civil. Your claim that Little Armenia was not a Frank state is just mistaken and contradicted by reputable sources (above), although I agree that Armenia may not be as clear-cut as the other Crusader states. Best regards. PHG 16:18, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Introduction sentence

There seems to be some debate and low-level edit warring regarding how the introduction sentence should be formulated. Technically, the name of the article is "Franco-Mongol alliance", and therefore it is better to start with "The Franco-Mongol alliance is...". But my main point concerns the meaning being conveyed: "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance..." expresses only one point of view ("attempts towards an alliance"), and only a part of the sources (about half of those gathered at this point). There is an obvious better choice which expresses both point of views:

"A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..."

I don't see how we could better represent a neutral point of view, and maintain a good balance between the arguments. In view of the Misplaced Pages policy to maintain balance and NPOV, and in view of the sources, I trust this is the only acceptable choice. PHG 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I and Adam Bishop like the phrasing of "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." In fact, if we can stick with that wording, then I'm willing to accept the article title as "Franco-Mongol alliance", how's that for a compromise? --Elonka 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am amazed... Isn't it quite unethical that you can consider a historical definition the subject of a bargain? Are that your standards Elonka? "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a well-known and published expression, your opinion or acceptance regarding its usage is completely irrelevant. As User:Srnec was saying, you really just act as if you owned the articles around here, but, sorry this isn't the reality. A scholarly expression can stand in its own right, and your refusal or acceptance of it (especially under a bargain!) is totally irrelevant.
• The introduction sentence you propose ("Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance...") is not acceptable. It expresses only one point of view (yours, and possibly Adam's), and only a part of the sources (about half of those gathered at this point). It is POV and doesn't take into account the other half of the sources which consider the Mongol alliance as fact. "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..." is the only NPOV choice, combining both views, and I will reinstate it until a good reason for doing otherwise will appear (and not a cheap bargain please...).
• You claim you have "a consensus" for introducing this one-sided sentence (your last revert): this is a total mis-representation (again!): two opinions against one has never been a consensus. You consistently take liberties with sources (all the references you destroyed, your mis-representation of Tyerman, God's War (above)): please follow sources faithfully and avoid bending source material to fit your point of view.
• I think the reality is that you've now lost your argument against this article: its title is legitimate, it is highly referenced, and it reflects in a balanced and detailed manner the reality of the Mongol alliance. PHG 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Elonka's proposal makes the most sense...since, as you say, half the sources say there was an alliance and half say there was not, it would be unacceptable to claim that it did in fact exist. You are doing the same thing you are accusing Elonka of doing. Adam Bishop 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current (Elonka/Bishop) version of the lead sentence is fine, however I am opposed to renaming the article. To clarify: whether or not an alliance ever existed for any period of time (and I think the definition of alliance is sufficiently broad to allow that brief alliances did in fact exist, at least I have read that there were attempts at coordinated attacks on a mutual enemy between the Crusaders and the Mongols, which is an alliance by some standards) is not relevant to the article title, since this article discusses the alliance whether it existed or not. Just like an article on the chimera would discuss the chimera, even though no chimera ever existed. (In that case "chimera" would refer to an imaginary thing, but still a thing.) This article discusses Crusader-Mongol relations as attempts to establish an alliance, so the title is fine by my standards. Srnec 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just a matter of objectivity, NPOV and logic. If some sources speak about attempts, and some about an actual alliance, both views deserve to be reflected. There is no reason to favour one over the other. It is just a matter of respecting available sources. My proposal puts forward both scholarly interpretations, and therefore is necessarily better than a proposal that only favours one side: it is the de facto compromise solution: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..." PHG 05:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. We have three editors (myself, Adam Bishop, Srnec) that like version A, but one editor (you) who likes version B. And so therefore you are saying that the logical compromise is to use version B. Um, no. --Elonka 06:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one upholding Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy here? 3:1 is clearly way not enough to overturn this encyclopedia's policy for balanced point of view and equal representation of major sources. Neither is it enough to sustain your claim of a "consensus". Again Elonka, your approach is quite disputable for an editor of high-standing. Voting (especially such minuscule-scale voting) has never been reason enough to overturn Misplaced Pages' editorial ethics. And NPOV standards are not subject to micro-votes anyway. As both views are well published, both deserve representation. End of the story. PHG 07:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus seems pretty clear. Adam Bishop, Srnec, and myself (Elonka) like the wording of "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." PHG wants a different wording, and continues to strongly disagree with everyone else, and edit war about it. Now, we've discussed this extensively, looked at alternatives, listened respectfully to PHG's objections, filed an Request for Comment, and even offered mediation, but PHG has rejected that option. So, there seems no alternative, but to declare consensus. PHG, your objections are noted. Now, can we please stop edit-warring about this, and move on to something else? --Elonka 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

3 against 1 has never been called a consensus Elonka. You are not respecting even the most basic Misplaced Pages rules, just to try to make your point of view prevail. PHG 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I think the point is, that your point of view is not prevailing. Please see Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. --Elonka 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my point of view is not prevailing at this point (to judge from the microcosm of 3-4 editors), but it is highly sourced from reputable sources nonetheless. Statements from reputable sources cannot just be dismissed because of a 3 to 1 argument. And 3 to 1 has never been a consensus on Misplaced Pages. PHG 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Grousset

PHG has said several times that Grousset said that there was a Franco-Mongol alliance, but I challenge this interpretation. As I've been digging into Grousset's book myself, it would appear the term "Franco-Mongol alliance" even when used by Grousset was being presented not as a "fait accompli", but as a description of something that was attempted around 1259. See Grousset's book The Empire of the Steppes: A History of Central Asia, p. 363: "Kitbuqa, now in control of Mongol Syria and Mongol Palestine, was well-disposed toward the Christians there, not only because he himself was a Nestorian, but also, it seems because he appreciated the advantage to both parties of the Franco-Mongol alliance. Unfortunately, though Bohemund VI, prince of Antioch-Tripoli, might share his views on the subject, the barons of Acre continued to see in the Mongols mere barbarians to whom even the Muslims were to be preferred. One of these barons, Count Julien of Sidon, attacked a Mongol patrol and killed Kitbuqa's nephew. The enraged Mongols replied by sacking Sidon. This was the end of the alliance, explicit or tacit, between Franks and Mongols." And even in Histoire des croisades, p. 871, it was called "l'alliance folle: The false, or crazy alliance. --Elonka 21:23, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• First quote: Grousset is only speaking about the barons of Acre, who refused the alliance, and the 1260 events, which ended with the defeat of Kitbuqa. Here again "This was the end of the alliance" just confirms his understanding that there indeed was an alliance... simple logic. According to Grousset, the Mongol alliance soon resumes, with the Crusade of Edward I: "Edouard I and the Mongol alliance" (p.653), etc...
• Second quote... I will not question your French as you did my English... but l'alliance folle does not mean the "false alliance" (never), but just the "crazy alliance", and clearly means an alliance nonetheless. And, actually, you get the context wrong: when Grousset speaks about "l'alliance folle", he refers to the (passive) alliance of the Franks of Acre with the Mamluks against the Mongols in 1260. Full quote: "L'alliance folle: accord des Francs d'Acre avec les Mameluks contre les Mongols", p.598.
• Other quotes: p521: "Louis IX et l'Alliance Franco-Mongole", p.653 "Seul Edward I comprit la valeur de l'Alliance Mongole", p.686 "la coalition Franco-Mongole dont les Hospitaliers donnaient l'exemple". I will bring more quotes from Grousset if you wish. PHG 05:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

• It looks to me like even Grousset is saying that there was not a clear formal alliance. The language "explicit or tacit" means that he's saying that it was ambiguous as to whether a formal alliance existed or not. Aside from just using the language of "understanding the importance of an alliance," can you supply any quotes from Grousset which clearly say, "An alliance was formed on such and such a date"? For example, that's what we have with the Armenians. In A Concise History of the Armenian People, we have "Smbat met Kublai's brother, Mongke Khan and in 1247, made an alliance against the Muslims... In 1254, Hetum visited Karakorum himself and renewed the alliance.... In 1269 Hetum abdicated in favor of Levon II, who was forced to pay a large annual tribute to the Mamluks... Hetum II sought a closer union with Rome. His efforts did not materialize.... Hetum, now a Franciscan monk , made one more attempt at a Mongol alliance agsinst the Mamluks. Upon their arrival at the Ilkhan's headquarters in northern Syria, all forty-two were put to death." (p. 101) See, there we have precise language on when an alliance was made, and when it was renewed, and how each monarch needed to formally sign off on it with their own administration, and how some of the communications clearly showed that there was not an active alliance (like putting the entire delegation to death, is pretty unfriendly). And that's just the Armenian side of things. In terms of the Western Europeans, we just don't have anything concrete like, "An alliance was formed in year ####". There was lots of flirtation with the Mongols, but never a formal alliance. --Elonka 20:34, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

not being anything like an expert in this part of history, it does seem to me that Elonka is correctly interpreting her reference that whatever alliance was tried didn't last more than a few months at most. --Rocksanddirt 22:06, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

~

Elonka, I am afraid you are effectively trying to defend your point of view with your own original research about what an alliance is or not. What is important is what scholarly sources say. If they say there was an alliance, then you have no ground to argue differently (except if this itself is referenced). In any case both views would have the right to cohexist.

As a matter of fact, Jean Richard (among others), the leading French expert on the Mongols (in his 1996 History of the Crusades) does clearly speak about an alliance: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", p.469, "In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468, "The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453. Both views ("an alliance", and "attempts towards an alliance") need to be handled in this article. This is the basic principle of balance and NPOV.PHG 14:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's not get off-topic here. The subject is what Grousset said, not Jean Richard. --Elonka 21:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, your argument against Grousset does not make sense and is pure original research. An “Alliance, explicit or tacit”, is an alliance nonetheless. PHG 12:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure how my quoting Grousset can be construed "original research". My point is, that Grousset was ambiguous on the subject. In terms of how we phrase it in the article, instead of saying "Grousset confirmed there was an alliance" or "Grousset said there wasn't an alliance," the most neutral way to say it, is that he was ambiguous on whether the alliance was "explicit or tacit". --Elonka 20:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Copyright worries

Elonka, it seems you have been pasting pages and pages of copyrighted material on this Talk Page and in the Article. May I recommend some cautionness? An author can usually be quoted for 4-5 lines at a time. As far as I know, beyond that, it is usually considered as copyright infringement. PHG 20:38, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Um, no, I have not been copy/pasting "pages and pages". I've definitely been including lots of different quotes from lots of different sources though.  :) I'm also frequently combining multiple smaller quotes into one larger quote, by using "..." marks. So the quote may be lengthy, but is actually just a collation of several different sections. The information is also clearly being used for educational purposes. If you still think that something is overly long though, you are welcome to point it out, and we can redact it to history. --Elonka 21:18, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Just asking you to be carefull. It seems you have been well beyond the 4-5 lines of quotes in several instance (even just looking at this page). PHG 14:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Also look at your huge quote #229: this is probably copyright infringement. Just trying to help. PHG 07:34, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Alliance

"Those who are not with us are against us" implies that either the Mongols were enemies or allies. If not the former, then the latter. Now, everybody does not believe the old adage, but it illustrates why determining whether or not an actual alliance ever existed is secondary: it all depends on what is meant by alliance. I was reading Bisson's The Medieval Crown of Aragon today and I came upon this: "Even so, in 1267 James was inspired by an invitation from the Mongol Khan ... to mobilize a major crusade that set sail for the East two years later." Is a Mongol invitation an alliance? Note that James' bastard sons did arrive at Acre with troops. Was that, however modest, part of a Mongol alliance? Do alliances have to engage in joint action to be real? Do they need assurances on paper? Or treaties? Also, picking up volume III of the excellent A History of the Crusades and turning to Denis Sinor's chapter "The Mongols and Western Europe", we find that "as soon as disembarked at Acre on May 9, 1271, sought to obtain Abagha's help ... As a result of these negotiations an army of about ten thousand horsemen, part of the Mongol force stationed in Anatolia, invaded Syria, where it achieved some local success but withdrew before engaging Baybars's principal army." And what is Sinor's evaluation of this? "Although of limited importance, this first case of effective coöperation between Mongol and western forces justified, in Abagha's view, further efforts to strengthen his alliance with England." I leave it up to all of you to judge this as you see fit. Srnec 05:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Srnec, extra opinions (and sources!) are always welcome. And you have as much a say in this as anyone else, so definitely stick around.  :) --Elonka 05:37, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Snerc. It seems that your new quotes do support the view that an alliance actually existed: "effective cooperation", "strengthening of his alliance with England" etc...

Jean Richard, the leading French expert on the Mongols does clearly speak about an alliance: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", p.469, "In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468, "The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.

Now we may have our own opinions about the actual extent of this alliance, bu the bottom lie is that reputable sources are divided on subject: some just speak about the alliance as fact (as Jean Richard and the others), and some speak about it as an attempt towards an alliance. Both views need to be handled in this article. This is the basic principle of balance and NPOV. PHG 14:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Srnec's new quotes do not say "that an alliance actually existed," they say, "Srnec has supplied us with some more quotes." But yes, I agree that multiple views can and should be represented in the article. --Elonka 21:22, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Wow, that's news! So you agree that both these of "Alliance" and "attempts towards an alliance" should be represented in the article. Let's move forward with that. PHG 12:43, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I have always said that both views should be represented in the article. But please do not take my statement as an excuse to edit-war on the lead paragraph. In terms of the lead sentence, I still feel that the correct wording is "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance," as that's the best representation of the consensus of modern historians. --Elonka 20:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, you seem to have a strange understanding of what a consensus is: as many modern historians do describe the Franco-Mongol as fact, you logically cannot claim a consensus that the alliance didn't exist and was only attempted at. Both views should be represented, including in the lead sentence. PHG 14:09, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I go not by the dictionary definition of consensus, but the Misplaced Pages definition. See Misplaced Pages:Consensus. I can also point you to plenty of ArbCom rulings that reinforce the concept that "consensus does not require unanimity". In the case of the introduction sentence, we clearly have a consensus, now let's please move on. --Elonka 17:53, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You claim a consensus of historians where there is obviously none at all, so please be honest and just say that their opinions are divided on the subject. PHG 18:21, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Historical untruths and denial of reputables sources

I am afraid Elonka's stubborn opposition to the idea of the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols has led her to defend several major historical untruths, and deny major reputable sources in favour of her own point of view.

• 1) Elonka is insisting that Little Armenia and Antioch/ Tripoli, the strongest allies of the Mongols according to virtually all sources, were not Frankish states. For Armenia, there may be some discussions, but for Antioch/Tripoli this is total historical nonsense. I'll just give one reputable source, but everyone who has a minimum knowledge of the Middle East during the crusades knows that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli, were Frank states:

"There are five Frank states(...): the Kingdom of Jerusalem, (...) the County of Edessa, the County of Tripoli, the Principality of Antioch, but also the Kingdom of Little Armenia", Les Croisades, Origines et consequences, p.77-78

• 2) Elonka is denying that numerous reputable sources consider the alliance with the Mongols as fact. I have given tens of such sources already (above). I have never seen such brazen denial of referenced sources on Misplaced Pages yet. I am just asking her to accept that sources are divided on the subject, and that some sources consider the alliance as fact, and some as "attempts towards an alliance".
  

Among all these sources presenting the alliance as fact, I will quote again Jean Richard, the leading French expert on the Crusades: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", p.469, "In 1297 Ghazan resumes his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468, "The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.

I am not trying to defend one view against the other, I am just saying that reputable sources are divided on subject: some just speak about the alliance as fact (as Jean Richard and the others), and some speak about it as an attempt towards an alliance. Both views need to be handled in this article. This is the basic principle of balance and NPOV. PHG 15:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, you seem to be overly-personalizing this dispute, with "Elonka is stubborn," "Elonka is lying," "Elonka is incompetent," etc. etc. Can you please try to get away from the personal attacks, and return to a discussion of the article? If you and I disagree about whether or not an alliance actually existed, fine, then let's disagree. You believe what you want, I'll believe what I want. But the point of this talkpage is not to try and decide "what is truth," especially on points where major historians point out that there is ambiguity. The purpose of the talkpage here, is to discuss the Misplaced Pages article. Our goal is to make the article neutral, to ensure that all major points of view are properly represented, to ensure that we're not giving undue weight to certain theories, and that we're accurately summarizing what is said in reliable sources. I think the article is currently making good progress towards that goal, though there are still a few sections that need some work. Ultimately, I think we can at least agree on the following, yes?

• This is a remarkable article, that is going to be an excellent Featured article someday
• The article is currently too long, and needs to be split up, summary style
• We need to decide where the most appropriate split points should be

Can we agree on this much? --Elonka 19:32, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. I did not say you lied, but I did say your opposition to the idea that the "Franco-Mongol alliance" existed was stubborn (inspite of all the references from scholarly sources I have been laying out... I have never seen such obstinate denial from any Misplaced Pages editor so far!), and that I was starting to have doubts on your competence, which, as a matter of fact, is true. These are not intended as personal attacks, but just refer to your edit methods and your apparent misunderstading of Middle Eastern history. Please understand: Little Armenia aside, denying that Antioch and Tripoli were Frank states is quite something!! (or writing that Antioch was part of Armenia as one of your recent edits!) I hope you can soon ackowledge these little lapses, so that we can resume our good editorial relationship. By the way you have your own record of incivility, such as saying some of my referencing was "absurd". Best regards PHG 16:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

While agree with those points, Elonka, I think the most important thing right now is getting that disputed tag off the top of the article. If there is still a dispute over accuracy, we should wrap it up, if not, the tag should be removed. An article with such a tag at top may be ignored by others who do not know what to trust and what not to. Srnec 03:34, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. I'm currently working on a major copyedit of the article, to try and get it to a point where I can say, "I'm happy with this wording." If PHG will be happy with it too, then we can remove the tag. If not, then hopefully we can identify specific points of disagreement, and try to work through them. --Elonka 05:59, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka, would you kindly answer to the question instead of evading it? You are making a huge historical mistake "Antiochians were not Franks", so please be honest enough to recognize it. And please also kindly recognize that Jean Richard considers the Mongol alliance as fact. PHG 12:45, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

My dear Elonka, for your benefit, I have attached above a map showing exactly the various territories in question. Please kindly stop writing that Antioch is part of Armenia (one of your last edits), or that Antioch or Tripoli were not Frank :) Best regards. PHG 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

(to Srnec) Well, I spent several hours trying to edit the article yesterday. I got about halfway through, and then went to sleep around 6 a.m. my time. I logged on today intending to finish, but it looks like PHG has already reverted most of my changes. So it looks like this article is going to stay "disputed" for quite awhile. I have to admit I'm finding it discouraging to spend so much time on something, and then just get reverted. We could try going section by section, but so far PHG won't even acknowledge consensus on the lead sentence, so this is going to be slow going if we have to fight this way through every line of the article.  :/ --Elonka 20:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, not exactly. This is untrue, and you know it. Besides one or two minor corrections (and masses of additions) I only reinstated the former text which you had essentially deleted (Modern interpretations of the Franco-Mongol diplomatic relations), and you had replaced by a much more basic, POV paragraph (this is called "Deletion of referenced material", exactly 2,700 bites of it ). For example you deleted all the quotes from Jean Richard, the leading French specialist on the Crusades. So I will reinstate it. Please respect the contributions of others, as I am respecting yours. Best regards. PHG 05:19, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, can you at last enlighten us on your understanding of Antioch and Tripoli as not being Frank? Best regards PHG 05:48, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

For the third time: I have already answered this question in the above section Historians treating the alliance with the Mongols as fact. Let's please try and keep discussions focused, instead of making multiple threads about the same issue. --Elonka 09:40, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I did read again. You still do not seem to recognize that the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli were Frankish realms: that really doesn't make sense. And please do not write that Antioch was part of Armenia. PHG 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I have answered this question in the thread that I mentioned: Historians treating the alliance with the Mongols as fact. Let's please keep discussions focused there. --Elonka 17:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

You are just evading the question. Were the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli Frankish realms, yes or no? PHG 18:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Muncinis

There are currently a couple statements in the article referenced to "Muncinis, p. 259", but with no further info. I did searches at scholar.google.com and books.google.com, but came up with nada. Anyone know what the expanded citation on this might be? --Elonka 07:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

I tried to find it on Google.com (ie the broadest possible search) and also on amazon.com, amazon.fr and amazon.de and indeed.... nothing. I doubt whether this reference exists. Please provide more Arnoutf 10:53, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Good catch. Muncinis is apparently a typo for Runciman, as the page number for the reference is the same. Thanks!! PHG 16:29, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

New sources

I have added references, sources and quotes from three new works:

• "History of the Crusades", by Jean Richard, the leading French specialist.
• "Crusades in the Middle Age", by Alain Demurger, the leading French specialist of the Templars.
• "Crusades, seen through Arab eyes", by Amin Maalouf

In particular, Jean Richard is very clear about the existence and duration of the Franco-Mongol alliance: he has it start in earnest around 1264 (after the first approximations of Saint Louis), and end around 1303, with prolongation as a major political factor until 1322. Hopefully this will now be sufficient for everyone to accept both scholarly views that there was "An alliance", or just "attempts at an alliance".

I hope everyone will enjoy these new additions. Best regards.PHG 16:12, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Remember though that Maalouf is not an historian and that book often reads like a novel. Better translations of Arab works are in "Arab Historians of the Crusades" by Francesco Gabrieli. Adam Bishop 16:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

And thanks for directing me to Jean Richard in the first place! PHG 16:38, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Maalouf isn't new, we were already using him as a source. PHG appears to have just added the French version of the book. And in any case, Maalouf does not confirm an alliance, but instead called it a "cherished dream".(p. 254) --Elonka 20:41, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Existence and timing of the Franco-Mongol alliance

I believe the leading French scholar on the Crusades Jean Richard (in his 1996 book "History of the Crusades") is answering perfectly to Elonka's request for a proper quote and chronological definition of the Franco-Mongol alliance:

• Jean Richard has the Franco-Mongol alliance start in earnest in the 1260s during the attacks of Baibars, and after the aborted experiments of Louis IX during his first Crusade: "The sustained attacks of Baibar (...) rallied the Occidentals to this alliance, to which the Mongols also convinced the Byzantines to adhere", in "Histoire des Croisades", p.453.
• The alliance continued on-and-off (I am not putting the details here) but was strongly revived by Ghazan, to continue to have an influence until 1322: "In 1297 Ghazan resumed his projects against Egypt (...) the Franco-Mongol cooperation had thus survived, to the loss of Acre by the Franks, and to the conversion of the khan to Islam. It was to remain one of the political factors of the policy of the Crusades, until the peace treaty with the Mamluks, which was concluded in 1322 by khan Abu Said." in "Histoire des Croisades", p.468.
• He finishes by concluding on the many missed opportunities the alliance has presented: "The Franco-Mongol alliance (...) seems to have been rich with missed opportunities" in "Histoire des Croisades", 1996, Jean Richard, p.469
  

Best regards PHG 17:02, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

• By my read, Richard seems to be referring to "cooperation" more than "alliance," but sure, I have no problem with representing Richard's views. It's still my feeling that the majority of historians say that there wasn't a clear alliance, but towards our goal of neutral reporting, it makes sense to also include Richard's opinion on the subject. Let's just be careful not to give it undue weight. --Elonka 20:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Please read again. Jean Richard speaks factually about Alliance, Franco-Mongol cooperation, and Franco-Mongol alliance. Actually, the majority of the sources we have speak about the "Mongol alliance", rather than "Attempts towards an alliance" (just look at the paragraph about "Modern historians", before you deleted most of its content). I am not arguing for one against the other, I am just saying that both have to be represented fairly. In particular, there is no justification for the introduction sentence to speak about "attempts towards an alliance" only. PHG 05:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

According to what you added to the article, Richard also said that the alliance was confirmed at the Second Council of Lyon in 1263. But there was no Council of Lyon in 1263. This isn't a minor typo, this is a major issue, since Richard is trying to claim other events in the 1260s based on that non-existent Council. And we also now have two sections in the Misplaced Pages article that are now talking about the same Council, but from entirely different decades. It's embarrassing. --Elonka 17:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Off subject I guess, but Jean Richard just says Council of Lyon, so he probably means the 1274 one, where the facts were recorded by Richaldus. PHG 18:41, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Council of Lyon

I have a challenge to this new section:

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

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

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

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

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

Article split

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Introduction sentence 2

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

"A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between....

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

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

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

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

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

Need help?

Help was asked for. I have the time and the interest, but I don't know the subject (which is why I have the interest, I like to learn). My bias is inclusion-ism and I am fond of actual quotes from recognized unbiased experts whose positions have not been repudiated by later better informed experts. Original research is unacceptable but quoting experts is not in and of itself original research. Can I be useful here? WAS 4.250 06:50, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi WAS 4.250! I am trying to have User:Elonka ackowledge that experts are divided on the subject, some supporting as fact that there was an alliance with the Mongol, some saying these were just attempts at an alliance. Probably seems like a minor issue, but according to Misplaced Pages NPOV/ Balance policy, it seems that both point of view should be represented, especially from the introduction sentence. Actually more sources speak about "an alliance" than about "attempts towards an alliance". PHG 07:23, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

It seems to me, based on reading this article that there were attempts at an alliance based on common interests resulting in a de facto alliance consisting in confidence building exchanges of compliments, information, and resources building up to poorly coordinated shared joint military operations but due to Mongol internal problems and other things never resulted in an actual treaty and so was never a formal alliance. Therefore, depending on one's definition of "alliance" there either was one or wasn't one. Do I have this right? If I have this right then the article can't be too bad cause its my only source. On the other hand, I would like to note that saying there were attempts towards an alliance does not preclude the existence of an alliance. Would making a distinction in the article between a formal alliance and a de facto alliance help anything? WAS 4.250 08:32, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks WAS, you're coming up to speed pretty fast. And yes, you seem to have it right. We do have a section where we're trying to distinguish between what the different historians said. I'm not sure why PHG is claiming that I refuse to acknowledge that experts are divided on the subject, considering I'm the one that added the section on differing opinions. A section which then PHG tried to out-and-out delete, claiming it was "Original research." We've defiitely been edit-warring a bit about how best to present this information, so additional opinions are very welcome.  :) My own opinion is that we should definitely include the opinions of many different reliable historians, in as neutral fashion a possible. --Elonka 08:57, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are both doing a fantastic job and together are creating an article better than either one of would have created alone. Consider each other to be a spur in your side making wikipedia better for all of us, even if at the moment you experience the other as a pain. WAS 4.250 09:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Yup, I agree that we're going to end up with an amazing article. I've definitely been spending many hours in libraries over the last couple weeks, and I'm looking forward to using this knowledge to expand several articles at Misplaced Pages, not just this one.  :) --Elonka 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

As the creator of this article, contributor of most of its content, and staunch defender, I do appreciate your comment WAS 4.250. Thank you. PHG 11:36, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Heh. PHG, And you say "I" am vain? :) --Elonka 18:08, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough. But I don't claim around that I have 8 FAs against the single one you seem so proud of... Best regards :) PHG 18:18, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Without doubt, this article is simply fantastic: I'm only sorry that such tension has arised between two so good editors, with uch a long history of good contributions. Maybe taking a couple of weeks pause, for both of you, would help creating a better atmosphere on your return. As for the case advanced of OR, I'm sorryb but I think PHG is right; even if good sense through a scrutiny of sources points that the "attempt" point has a majority support, airing such an opinion in the article text is OR (unless scholars state its a majority position).--Aldux 18:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Aldux, and I agree that I'm sorry that there's so much tension here. As for "original research", I don't just think that it's a case of a "majority" of historians disagreeing, I think it's all historians disagreeing. I know this is a strong claim, but I think that PHG has been misquoting sources, and deliberately using unreliable sources, to try and promote his biased POV. For more info, please see the #NPOV violations section below. --Elonka 20:02, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Identifying the principals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Factual dispute tag

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Proposal

Thank you both for the clarification. I propose we resolve these factual disputes one at a time, using the method of each side presenting their preferred version of a specific paragraph (or as close to that as makes sense) with references, each side agreeing or disagreeing with the sources and interpretations (I must trust you two to agree on acceptable sources, I am not qualified; but if you can't agree maybe you can agree on the facts you rely on to make that decision and others like myself can help weigh those facts in a judgement of which sources are acceptable for what claims) and we'll see if all of us together can agree on a wording that fairly represents reliable relevant published sources. WAS 4.250 10:06, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Judging by activity since I posted this, the two combatants prefer to revert each other on the article page and taunt each other on this talk page. Go for it. I'm outta here. WAS 4.250 18:34, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mischaracterizations

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Title

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

NPOV violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jean Richard

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Deletion of sources

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

— "Demurger, "Les Croises", p.287

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

— "Demurger, "Les Croises", p.287

PHG 05:29, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Cooling down period suggested

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Scrolling reflists not to be used

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

• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Medieval warfare articles
• Medieval warfare task force articles