Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 1

message: It is presumed that Rus' rulers (Alexander Nevsky, King Danylo) are not part of Europe? --Ghirla-трёп- 20:18, 26 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Rus

message: All the information I have learned about the Mongols is contrary to what this article states - true or not. With the Mongols being the bane of the entire civilized world, and being savage Pagan barbarians. So when did they all of a sudden become Christian? And why aren't their decedents Christian today? Why is it that there are so many apparently Muslim Mongols in the present? Were the Mongols not a completely free society based on the Pagan-Shamanistic religion, which they retain to some extent today? 
All the sources used to develop this article seem to be either from a single source or is derived from a modern individual's "Theory".
Whereas historical fact (which this article seems to lack), are sourced from multiple historical commentators who lived in the general time period after which the event occurred. These commentators usually are from multiple geographic locations and/or multiple languages/civilizations. 
This article needs a complete review for facts by the editors. Placing theory as fact is absurd, especially modern theory without proper verification and endorsement by the relevant historical international institutes.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.108.76 (talk) 04:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC) 
:All facts, letters, and references are genuine. And at the time many of the Mongols were Nestorian Christians (since about the 6th century). PHG 05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, many of the references are not genuine (see my concerns about the Templar sources below).  However, I will confirm that there were some high-ranking Mongols who were Nestorian Christians. In 1260, Hulegu's chief lieutenant in Syria, General Kitbuga, was Christian.  When Damascus fell, three of the conquering princes, Bohemond, Hethoum, and Kitbuga were Christian.  The head Mongol at the time, Hulegu (grandson of Genghis Khan) was not. I do, however, agree with the above anon that this entire article needs to be re-checked for accuracy. --Elonka 18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  So the Mongols are Christians now? What happened to them being Pagan and eventually integrating into the societies they had conquered? 

message: I have some strong concerns about the sources for Templar information in this article.  Please be aware that there's a *lot* of pseudohistory and wishful thinking where the Templars are concerned. On the other hand, there are also many reliable books and articles that can be used, so any website information should be taken with a large grain of salt. I'll see what I can do to help out with this article, but to my knowledge, the Templars really didn't have much to do with the Mongols.  They were pretty thoroughly stomped by the Mameluks in 1291, were beaten back from Acre, to Tortosa, to Ruad Island and all the way back to Cyprus.  The Templars tried to regroup to launch another attack on the Holy Land, but could never even hold a coastal city such as Tortosa, let alone advancing as far as Jerusalem. I wouldn't be surprised to learn that a few roving Templars may have joined a Mongol force somewhere, but I'd be reluctant to call that a major alliance. --Elonka 18:51, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Unreliable sources

message: Transcribing factoids:
* p. 253: The fortress of Marqab was held by the Knights Hospitallers, called al-osbitar by the Arabs. "These monk-knigts had supported the Mongols wholeheartedly, going so far as to fight alongside them during a fresh attempted invasion in 1281."
* p. 254: Arghun, grandon of Hulegu, "had resurrected the most cherished dream of his predecessors: to form an alliance with the Occidentals and thus to trap the Mamluk sultanate in a pincer movement.  Regular contacts were established between Tabriz and Rome with a view to organizing a joint expedition, or at least a concerted one."
* p. 256: Qalawun decided to renew the truce at Acre for another ten years from July 1289.  "The Palestinian port became the scene of intense activity.  Damascene merchants flocked there by the hundreds, renting rooms in the inns near the souks and engaging in profitable transactions with the Venetian traders or the rich Templars, who had now become the principal bankers of Syria."
--Elonka 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''[[The Crusades Through Arab Eyes]]''

message: By Malcolm Barber.  This is from the 2nd edition, page 22, about the activities/whereabouts of Jacques de Molay in 1299/1300:
* "In Cyprus tensions clearly remained, for in 1299 Boniface VIII felt obliged to tell Molay to resolve the Order's quarrels with the king. This seems to have had some effect, for in the summer of the following year, the king and the military orders cooperated to equip a fleet of 16 Maraclea.  More ambitiously, in November, 1300, James of Molay and the king's brother, Amaury of Lusignan, attempted to occupy the former Templar stronghold of Tortosa. A force of 600 men, of which the Templars supplied about 150, failed to establish itself in the town itself, although they were able to leave a garrison of 120 men on the island of Ruad, just off the coast.  The aim was to link up with Ghazan, the Mongol Il-Khan of Persia, who had invited the Cypriots to participate in joint operations against the Mamluks, but it does appear that this was intended as a step in a more long-term project in that, in November 1301, Boniface VIII granted the island to the Order.  The plan failed for, following a very severe winter, in mid-1302, the Mamluks forced the defenders to surrender, enslaving the Templars and beheading the Syrian footsoldiers.  Nearly 40 of these men were still in prison in Cairo years later where, according to a former fellow prisoner, the Genoese Matthew Zaccaria, they died of starvation, having refused an offer of 'many riches and goods' in return for apostasising.  This capitulation certainly infuenced Molay's thinking, since he later vehemently dismissed proposals for a small-scale expedition preliminary to a more general crusade, but it also emphasised that, although they had men and weapons, the Templars had not yet succeeded in building up their naval capacity even though it was becoming increasingly important. The Templar of Tyre says that the Templars were unable to defend the island because they had no galleys, only tarides (transports), and indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that the Order could assemble more than 10 galleys at any given time during the post-1291 period."
--Elonka 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The Trial of the Templars''

message: * p. 174, about Grand Master Thomas Berard: "...But these were all small matters compared to the long-dreaded arrival of the Mongols in the Near East.  Under Genghis Khan, they had already conquered much of China and were now moving into the ancient Persian Empire.  Tales of their cruelty flew like crows through the towns in their path.  However, since they were considered "pagans" there was hope among the leaders of the Church that they could be brought into the Christian community and would join forces to liberate Jerusalem again.  Franciscan missionaries were sent east as the Mongols drew near." 
* p. 231 (about Grand Master Jacques de Molay): "Jacques returned to Cyprus in late 1296 and stayed in the East for the next ten years.  He conducted naval raids on Egypt and participated in another ill-fated expedition to Armenia around 1299, in which the last Templar holding in that kingdom was lost. By early 1306, Jacques was aware of the effect that all these losses were having on public opinion in the West.  He was also embroiled in the politics of the kingdom of Cyprus, just as his predecessors had let themselves become involved in the feuds among the lords of the Latin kingdoms."
--Elonka 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sharan Newman: ''Real History Behind the Templars''

message: By the premier Templar researcher, Malcolm Barber.
* p. 293-294: "The period of the most intensive effort, though, seems to have been between 1300 and 1302, partly because it was believed in some quarters that there was a genuine possibility of an alliance with the Mongols.  Both Pope Innocent IV and King Louis IX had sent representatives to the Mongols, but neither had found much to encourage them.  However, the rise of Mamluk power and the defeat at Ain Jalut in 1260 seems to have persuaded the Mongols to take a more positive attitude to the Christians and, from 1267, embassies came fo the west reasonably regularly in the hope of organising a joint campaign.  The idea was not therefore new in 1300, but the attempts at practical implementation were to show that the logistical and political difficulties which had wrecked previous initiatives still existed. The course of these campaigns shows how the Christians of Outremer were beginning the transition from land-based armies to sea powers, successfully completed by the Hospitallers in the later middle ages.  In July 1300, the military orders, the king, and Amaury of Lusignan equipped sixteen galleys, which sailed from Famagusta and made a wide sweep of the coasts of Egypt, Palestine, and Syria, attacking Rosetta, Alexandria, Acre, Tortosa, and Maraclea.  The chartering of a ship from the Genoese by Peter of Vares, Preceptor of the Temple, in February of that year, may be connected with this expedtion,  It was to be used between March and July, during which time it was to be loaded up in Famagusta and Limassol with the intention of going to Tortosa, Tripoli, Tyre, and Acre.  A proposed division of profit suggests that the intention was to trade, but since these ports were in the hands of Mamluks, it is possible that the attacks of that summer were intended to precede this venture.  The raids themselves were apparently a preliminary to a combined attack with the Mongols, for in November, Amaury of Lusignan, and the Masters of the Temple and the Hospital, with a force of about 600 knights, at least half of which were provided by the military orders, set sail for Ruad, the small island near Tortosa.  From there they made raids upon the town itself, but they waited in vain for the arrival of the Mongols under the Ilkhan, Ghazan, eventually deciding that the threat of the Mamluks was too great and that therefore they had no alternative but to retire to Cyprus.  The Mongol army did appear in the following February, accompanied by their vassal, the Armenian King Hetoum, but it was too late to make the proposed junction. The choice of Tortosa was nevertheless significant, for it shows the strength of Templar influence. It had been the centre of one of the Order's most important enclaves and, together with Atlit, had been the last stronghold to be abandoned in 1291.  As the Mamluks had dismantled Atlit, Tortosa must have seemed the most practical alternative, particularly as Ruad could be used as a base.  The Templars therefore followed up the raid of 1300 by establishing a considerable force on the island and by building (or rebuilding) its defences.  The numbers involved show that this was a serious effort to regain a foothold in Syria, since the garrison was close to half the size of the normal complement for the twelfth-century Kingdom of Jerusalem, with 120 knights, 500 archers, and 400 servants under the Order's Marshal, Bartholemew.  But the Templar force was too isolated.  In 1302 the Mamluks sent a fleet of at least sixteen galleys from Tripoli and besieged the island.  Although the garrison fought hard, they were eventually starved into submission.  Brother Hugh of Dampierre then negotiated what was believed to be a safe-conduct, but most were killed or sent into captivity.  A fleet equipped to rescue them apparently set out from Famagusta, only to find out that it was too late.  The loss of Ruad showed the weakness of the Christian forces on Cyprus and had the Mamluks possessed a viable naval force, Cyprus itself would have been very vulnerable."
--Elonka 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: ''The New Knighthood''

message: The more I look at the website at http://templis.free.fr/maitre.htm , the more I'm convinced that we need to remove it as any kind of source.  For example, it's being used as a source on the Templar Grand Master William of Chartres, but it's extraordinarily sketchy, and basically focuses on the Mongol link, saying that William was the first to receive emissaries from Genghis Khan in 1209, for which he was accused of treason.  Well, according to my own sources, William didn't even become Grand Master until 1210, and I have no sources affirming the charges of treason.  And if that website were supposed to be reliable, where's the other information about William?  Such as when he was ambushed in Armenia, or was one of the signers of an agreement about property rights, brokered by Pope Alexander III?  What about his efforts during the Fifth Crusade in Egypt?  The info about Damietta is accurate, but, as with other information from that webpage, I'm not finding any other reliable sources to confirm the Mongol information. The more I look at templis.free.fr, the more I'm convinced that it's just a hobbyist site, that we really shouldn't be using as our sole source on anything. --Elonka 09:27, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka. I will hapilly drop the references to the Templar site if it is not substantiated by other sources, and delete the corresponding phrases from the article. Thanks for your new references also, I will incorporate several of them in the article. Best regards. PHG 17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Questionable source

message: I removed the reference for this statement: "In 1298 or 1299, Jacques de Molay halted a Mamluk invasion with military force in Armenia following the loss of Roche-Guillaume in the Belen pass, the last Templar stronghold in Antioch, to the Mamluks." It was referenced to Barber's book The New Knighthood, p. 79.  However, I checked the page, and though it confirms that there was such a Templar castle there, it said absolutely nothing about the Mamluks or Jacques de Molay, or any events after 1212. I've been checking my other sources (searching indexes on things like Belen, Armenia, La Roche Guillaume, and Cilicia), and haven't found much.  The closest I've found is a snippet in Newman's book, p. 231, that says that De Molay had an "ill-fated expedition to Armenia around 1299, in which the last Templar holding in that kingdom was lost." --Elonka 09:56, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka! Thanks for checking this reference. I am relieved I am not the one who put it in, but I believe it was added in good faith by a contributor of high standing (User:Wetman) in reference to the castle of Roche-Guillaume here.PHG 18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Reference removed

message: I definitely agree with PHG that this is a subject that is sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia page.  However, I'd like to discuss the possibility of changing the page name?  As I understand it, though there were many writings and rumors to the contrary, there was never an actual alliance between the French and the Mongols.  There was a great deal of discussion about such a thing, there was a desire for an alliance, there were multiple envoys that were sent back and forth for decades, there were aborted attempts at coordinated military actions, but the alliance never occurred.  And even when armies set forth with the hope of an alliance, they never actually fought in the same place at the same time.  So, perhaps a better title for this page might be "Franco-Mongol attempted alliance"?  Or "Franco-Mongol relations during the Crusades"?  Or if we keep the "alliance" title, I recommend that we make it clear in the lead that this was an attempted alliance that never actually came to fruition.  As I mentioned above, I'm willing to go in and do some edits myself, but since this article is in the middle of an FA nom, I am very reluctant to go in and make substantial changes unless I'm sure that the main editor (PHG) is okay on it, since I think my changes would substantially change the thrust of this page (to indicate that there were attempts at an alliance, but they were never successful).  Let me know, Elonka 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka. The term "Franco-Mongol alliance" is certainly not a neologism. In the published references which I have, it is already mentionned hundreds of time (such as "Histoire des Croisades", Rene Grousset). Although I agree this alliance can be qualified (it was arguably small, rarely successful, and ultimately ended in defeat), I do not think it is exact to say that it did not happen. As a matter of facts, Mongol and Western head of states actually exchanged written agreements for military collaboration, and military cooperation actually occured in several instances (battle together with the Franks of Antioch, with Edward I, mobilization of the Templars etc...). Although this title may be surprising to some, it nonetheless reflect a diplomatic and military reality. I would welcome however additions explaining further the shortcoming of this cooperation. Best regards PHG 18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I agree that there were some joint efforts between the Mongols and such Christian leaders as Bohemond VI of Antioch and Hetoum I of Armenia. So how about re-titling the article "Christian-Mongol alliances"?  That decreases the impression that this was a large alliance, and makes it clear that this was instead a case of pockets of coordinated effort, rather than a sweeping Papal-approved alliance. If we can come up with a good enough title, something along the lines of "Unusual alliances during the Crusades" we might also be able to include something about the alliance brokered by Shawar of Egypt in the 1160s, when the young Fatimid caliph Athid, a Muslim, actually removed his glove to shake hands with Arabic-speaking Christian knights, in an alliance against Nur al-Din of Syria. It's not Mongol-related, but is indeed a description of a remarkable alliance between Christians and non-Christians, against a common enemy. If nothing else, I think that one would be good as a "see also" from here. --Elonka 20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka. My first name for the page was Mongol relations with Europe. But I then realized the scope was much too wide, as it would have required including the very different story of Eastern Europe as well. Franco-Mongol alliance turned out to be a much more focused title (the cooperation between the Franks and the Mongols), which corresponded to what I wished to cover, and is an academic designation as well. "Christian-Mongol alliances" is not bad, except that it is not as specific, and might warrant coverage of very different matters (all the relations of the Mongols and the Christians in Central Asia, possibly alliances in Eastern Europe, what happened with Chinese Christians etc...). For that, I started Christianity among the Mongols. I am personnaly very interested in this precise matter of the alliance between the Franks and the Mongols, whatever its actual historical impact. I guess you might also see a similar interest in the close contact between two very different cultures in another article I created: Indo-Greek kingdom. Best regards PHG 20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

text: By the way I don't quite agree with the statement "pockets of coordinated effort, rather than a sweeping Papal-approved alliance": Kings and Poped did approve (in writing!) of combined operations with the Mongols... it is just that the result of their efforts were amazingly small: at the end of the 13th century, it seems that sending a few hundreds of knight to the Holy Land is the best they could manage to do, probably owing to trouble in Europe and the waning interest for Crusades. Best regards PHG 21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about changing from "Franco-Mongol alliance" to "Franco-Mongol alliances"?  The plural would help make the distinction that I'm interested in. --Elonka 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka. I don't know, really. My sources use "Franco-Mongol alliance" in the singular, so I would rather not play around with that... Best regards PHG 10:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Can you please list a few of the sources?  My own tend to phrase it as attempted alliance.  One even calls it a chimera, like a mythical beast.  Maalouf called it a "dream".  Barber called it "a project", and "the possibility of an alliance." In Schein's article it was "the Mongol khan, joined by the Christian kings", but wasn't called an actual alliance.  Martin called it simply "a combined force." Tyerman called it "pursuing the will of the wisps of a Mongol alliance." Nicolle says the Mongols were regarded as "potential allies," but that overall the major players were the Mamluks and the Mongols, and that the Christians were just "pawns in a greater game."  When I search at scholar.google.com, the phrase "Franco-Mongol alliance" doesn't pull up a single hit. And when I do a regular Google search, the majority of the hits on the term are coming from this very Wikipedia article, which is not how things should be working.  Wikipedia should reflect the usage of outside sources, not try to push a particular point of view.  Or in other words, I still think the better title for this article would be something like "Franco-Mongol cooperation in the Crusades", "Franco-Mongol diplomacy", or "Franco-Mongol alliances" (plural).  There was definitely some cooperation, but there just wasn't a major alliance.  Given a choice between the current title, Franco-Mongol alliance, or your first one, "Mongol relations with Europe", I'd rather go back to your first one. --Elonka 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: As already discussed, "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a term used extensively by Grousset and Demurger for example. I disagree with your point that there wasn't a major alliance: there were written agreements to fight together between Christian and Mongol rulers, and these agreements were put in practice through several concerted military actions. You may want to claim that the alliance had little result, but it was an alliance nonetheless. PHG 21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have not yet seen the books by Grousset and Demurger, but am open to reviewing their exact wording if you would care to provide it. So far you've said several times that Grousset and Demurger are using that language, but haven't provided any quotes. I myself spent more time in a (small) library today, and still couldn't find a single book that referred to an actual alliance.  Everything I checked used terms such as "attempted alliance," "hope for an alliance," "promoted an alliance," "failed attempts at an alliance," etc.  In the sizable volume III "History of the Crusades" (which I think you'd enjoy reading, since it has an entire very detailed chapter on the subject), they titled the chapter "The Mongols and Western Europe" (p. 513-544). Terms that they used to describe the situation were generally "relations."  "In this chapter an attempt will be made to give a succinct but comprehensive picture of the relations that existed between the Mongols and western Europe." (p. 513) "The Mongols' relations with the west" (p. 526) Any times they used the word alliance, it was generally with the "attempt" language: "Attempts to seek an alliance with the Mongols were made" (p. 516) "The possibility of an alliance with the Mongols was completely lost from sight." (p. 519) "Arghun's boldest attempt to establish an alliance with the western powers" (p. 532), "Oljeitu... followed the same friendly policy toward the Western powers...and offered in very general terms an alliance...No answer by the French king to Oljeitu's letter has come to light." (p. 537)  etc.  So, how about changing the title to "Franco-Mongol relations"?  Or, going back to your first title, "Mongol relations with Europe"? Or feel free to suggest something else?  I'm very open to alternatives here. --Elonka 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Among many other quotes, in which the Franco-Mongol alliance is treated as a fact, not just a potentiality: Grousset, 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", Demurger, p.147 "Cette expedition avait surtout l'avantage de sceller, par un acte concret l'alliance Mongole". PHG 22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also: Demurger p.145 "La strategie de l'alliance Mongole en action", "De Molay anime la lutte pour la reconquete de Jerusalem, en s'appuyant sur une alliance avec les Mongols" (Demurger, back cover), Angus Steward says "Franco-Mongol entente" . Best regards PHG 06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you for the quotes.  However, Grousset's book is seriously outdated at this point, since it was published in the 1930s.  I recommend that we stick with more current research, which state attempted alliance.  As such, do you have any other suggestions for a page title? --Elonka 23:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, Grousset is starting to be old, but it is not outdated: his is still a standard book on the Crusades, constantly being republished (mine is the 2006 edition). Demurger is clearly not dated as he was fist published in 2002. In substance as well, alliances were agreed to in writing by ruler, and put in application through several actions on the field. I don't see a reason to change the title of this article. Regards. PHG 04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Should the page be renamed?

message: Hi Elonka. Could you kindly refrain from deleting sources and references as you did in ? All this is sourced from highly recognized published material (Demurger, Schein etc...), and I believe it is highly relevant to the description of the rumors connected to the capture of Jerusalem. Modern historians are quoting and referencing extensively from these contemporary sources, so there is no reason why we should not mention them on Wikipedia. Best regards. PHG 05:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: I'm impressed with the amount of work that has been done on this article, and the many high quality sources that are accumulating.  :)  However, the article has grown to a size that is beginning to get a bit unwieldy, at about 80K.  Per WP:SUMMARY, we should probably start splitting out certain sections, but the question is, where?  My own recommendation is that we split out the 1299/1300 section, which would seem a natural division since that part of the article delves into many of the rumors from around that time.  Perhaps move it to History of Jerusalem - 1299-1300?  Or are there any other suggestions on a good splitting point? Another possible would be to split out one article entitled Mongol-Armenian alliance, 1258-1260, and then another article entitled Franco-Mongol relations, 1261-1322 ? --20:20, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the current issues need to be solved first. Then a round of thorough copy-editing should be put on the text (it is possible the text is shortened by that). If the article is still unwieldy I think then is the time to consider splitting. I agree with your problem... where??. Most splits will be artificial. So I would suggest trying to keep it together for now at least. Arnoutf 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article split

message: Hi Elonka. You are deleting huge portions of the article, to replace it with your own interpretation . This is not a nice way to proceed. Again, please respect the contributions of others: add onto them rather than destroy them. PHG 03:53, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Deletions

message: * Elonka, you write "The Mongol forces also retreated north in February 1300, possibly because their horses needed fodder.[125] This left something of a vacuum in Palestine, but meant, as Dr. Sylvia Schein puts it, "...[from] the end of January till the end of May 1300 there were no Mameluk forces left in Syria. For a brief period, some four months in all, the Mongol il-khan was de facto the lord of the Holy Land"". You forget to say that 10,000 Mongols remained in the Holy Land to occupy it: it is totally unjustified that you qualify that as "something of a vacuum". PHG 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am afraid your interpretation is unjustified and farfetched as Schein's statement is extremely vast and vague, and does not refer specifically to the Mongol invasions. On the contrary, when she does write about Mongol invasions, she discusses extensively about the evidence suggesting they briefly occupied the city in 1300. PHG 04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Misinterpretation of sources