Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance

message: :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 Wikipedia's policy on article titles.
* Support, as nominator. See also discussion in above section "#Move?". --Elonka 01:31, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wonderful Elonka, fine with me, but then let's apply the same rules for everyone: please do not attack me anymore for challenging an old "consensus" between editors, especially as I bring more information to the table : it would be quite unfair if you could challenge a former consensus, but I couldn't. Consensus can change indeed, and I will be more than happy to uphold this principle. I still think that since we've already had 3 formal resolutions on the subject, doing it a 4th time is quite over the top: are we going to make polls on disputed subjects every year from now on? This would be a clear invitation for Wikipedia to drown in incessant and repetitive litigation, away from actual content creation :-) Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:13, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

text: *Comment: In my vocabulary anyway, saying that an alliance was not successful does not equate with "there was no alliance", just as saying that an enterprise was not successful does not equate with "there was no enterprise". As far as I know "not successful" only means that the result was not a success. However the fact that there was agreement, or multiple agreements, between parties (the Franks and the Mongols) towards a common goal (and that's the definition of an alliance) remains nonetheless. The substance of an alliance existed, some military moves were made in agreement but the whole enterprise ended in military failure, which is why the "Franco-Mongol alliance" wording is the one used in the academic literature, and why it is nonetheless often mitigated with expressions such as "attempted", "sporadic", "failure", "unsuccessful" etc... Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:26, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

text: *Comment:" The adjective "Franco-" is generally used by scholars in this case because it stands here for "Franks", which is the way the Crusaders were designated by the Islamic world. It is a bit different from "French", although a large part or arguably most of the Crusaders were actually French themselves. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 02:34, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Then I would posit that "Franco-" is rather ambiguous.  Why not just use "Crusader" rather than a third party designation that is also used as an adjective of France?  —  AjaxSmack  02:53, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *It's just that "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a standard academic phrase to describe the Franks-Mongol relations in the period (Adam Bishop's point). It is a slight ambiguity which academics seem to be content with, so it's probably not the role of Wikipedia to negate that. It is true that it becomes less ambiguous from the 15-16th century, as for example with the Franco-Ottoman alliance. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 03:15, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks.  I have since noticed some of the literature referenced in this discussion uses the term.  I still think the article is a bit of a catchall and is more about relations in general but I'll strike my opinion and let others decide. Carry on.  —  AjaxSmack  04:05, 1 March 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: As of today, there is absolutely no mention in this article of Bohemond VI's "alliance with the Mongols" from 1260. The only wording being used are "subject" or "submission" to the Mongols, whereas a large portion (probably even the majority) of historians qualify this relationship as an "alliance". This is a highly biased way of describing the subject. Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols is generally described as the inception, and sometimes the peak, of Franco-Mongol collaboration. Bohemond and his army of Antiochene Franks captured Damascus in collaboration with Hulegu in 1260, and Bohemond received lands from Hulegu for his contribution. I suggest that the account in this article be at least balanced, so as to at least incorporate the "alliance" view, as described by most of historians hereunder (readable through attached Google Book links): 
Historian                             	Opinion                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                           	Year	Type of analysis
Riley-Smith, Jonathan                 	Sought an alliance: "Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli, who had succeeded Bohemond V in 1252, joined by his father-in-law Hetum of Cilician Armenia in seeking an alliance with the Mongols and entered Damascus with the Mongol army in March 1260"                                                                 	2005	Crusades historian
Reuven Amitai-Preiss                  	An "unequivocal pro-Mongol alliance" maintained by Bohemond VI .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                  	1995	Crusades historian
Cambridge History of Islam            	Bohemond allied with the Mongols, and was later excomunicated for it                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              	1997	Reference work
Ryan, Jame D.                         	Bohemond was persuaded of the "advantages of Mongol 
alliance". . Bohemond rode into Damascus in victory with Hulagu                                                                                                                                                                                              	2001	Crusades historian
Irwin, Robert                         	Bohemond submitted to the Mongols .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               	1986	Crusades historian
Peter Malcolm Holt                    	"Bohemond had rallied to Hulegu in 1260" .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                        	1995	Crusades historian
Judith Bronstein                      	Bohemond VI "concluded an alliance with the (Mongol) invaders" . Description of the "Antioch-Mongol alliance" .                                                                                                                                                                                                   	2005	Crusades historian
The New Cambridge Medieval History    	Bohemond VI was in alliance with the Mongols, for which he was punished by having Antioch taken from him by the Mamluks .                                                                                                                                                                                         	2000	Reference work
Jim Bradbury                          	Bohemond VI allied with the Mongol. .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	1992	Historian
Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages       	The city of Antioch was punished for its alliance with the Mongols. .                                                                                                                                                                                                                                             	2000	Reference work
Concise Encyclopaedia of World History	An alliance between the Mongols and Antioch and Armenia, leading to "a Mongol-Christian coalition" which marched victoriously into Damascus". .                                                                                                                                                                   	2007	Reference work
J.R.S. Phillips                       	Bohemond VI "openly assisted the Mongol invasion" p.119.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                          	2003	Crusades historian
May, Timothy                          	The "alliance began to unravel" in 1275 with the death of Bohemond VI p.154.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                      	2003	Crusades historian
Dr. Martin Sicker                     	"Ket-Buqa and Bohemond VI fully appreciated the mutual advantages of the Frank-Mongol alliance". He also mentions an end to the Franco-Mongol alliance after the events of Sidon: "Suitably provoked, the Mongols responded by pillaging Sidon, thereby bringing an effective end to the Frank-Mongol alliance." .	2000	Crusades historian
Christopher Tyerman                   	Describes Bohemond VI's acceptance of Mongol overlorship, their joint victories, and his reward with territory                                                                                                                                                                                                    	2006	Crusades historian
Jonathan Riley-Smith                  	Describes Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols: "Bohemond VI of Antioch-Tripoli became their [the Mongol's] ally", in History of the Crusades, p.136                                                                                                                                                              	    	Crusades historian
Kevin Shillington                     	Describes Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols: "No all Crusaders allied with the Mongols, as did Bohemond initially"                                                                                                                                                                                             	2005	Crusades historian
If anybody still has doubts, please remember that Bohemond was excommunicated for his collaboration with the Mongols (which implies that he volunteered rather than was forced to it), and that his mortal enemy the mamluk leader Baibars reproached him what he himself called Bohemund's alliance with Abagha:
Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:38, 2 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Bohemond's relationship with the Mongols, including the word "alliance", and the quote from the Baibars letter, is already in the article.  See Franco-Mongol alliance#Antioch. --Elonka 04:32, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Granted, but that's really the only time the word "alliance" is used, and not as a description of Bohemond's relationship with the Mongols, but only as a paraphrasical introduction of Baibars' quote, which suggests this is not a view supported by the article or by secondary sources. On the contrary, Bohemond's relationship is only described in the body of the article as "submission"/ "subject"/"vassal" (Franco-Mongol alliance#Christian vassals, Franco-Mongol alliance#Invasion of Syria (1260)). There is the same problem in the Bohemond VI article. This is honestly a very biased and POV way of putting things, which doesn't do justice to a large part (the largest?) of the historical literature, and which should be at least balanced. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:44, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The term "allies" is also used in the image caption.  Overall I think the section (which is a minor portion of the FMA article) seems to be pretty well-balanced, but we can definitely discuss tweaking.  Also, did you see my comment above about Timothy May? --Elonka 05:59, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: We just need to say in the body of the article that some historians see it as a "vassalage" relationship and some as an "alliance" relationship. As far as I know, both views should be given pretty much equal weight in the body of the article, which is not at all the case today. I answered to your Timothy Mair comment. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:03, 3 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols

message: This article is POV and currently written in a misleading way, in that it denies that anything such as an alliance occurred between the Franks and the Mongols, contrary to what a huge number of historians say and write on the question (list hereafter). The Franks and the Mongols, after making numerous agreements to fight against the Mamluks (the very definition of an alliance), actually engaged into combined operations on several occasions (1260, 1271, 1281, 1299-1303). Admittedly, these efforts met with huge difficulties and ended in defeat against the Mamluks, but this is not a reason to write that no alliance ever occurred. I am attaching a list of authors (50!) who actually describe the occurrence of an alliance and combined operations:
The view that "there was no alliance", that "it did not happen"  or that there were "only attempts at an alliance" is therefore wrong, or at least very partial and one-sided. I have reviewed in detail the sources User:Elonka’s brought forward to promote that argument, and it turns out that most sources she quotes don’t say what she claims, but are actually much more on the line of "there were great hopes, alliances and collaboration took place to a limited extent, and these ventures had limited results or ended in military failure". Many times Elonka makes very partial quotes, which are contradicted in the same source, as when she claims that Turnbull explains that an alliance was "Possible, but did not happen", whereas in the next sentence Turnbull describes how the resulting "unholy alliance took the field in 1259" . Here is a full list of Elonka’s quotes and analysis, completed by other relevant quotes from the same works found by me, and a synthesis for each:
I am asking that this article be better balanced, by combining the views of authors who say there was an alliance, and those who say there was none. It seems to me that balance is an absolute requirement if this article is ever to become a proper FA. Best regards to all Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:09, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article does include the minority pro-alliance views of Jean Richard and Alain Demurger.  And as I mentioned (at least twice) already, we could also add the views of Timothy May, if you would like to write something up and provide a properly formatted citation tag. --Elonka 22:54, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It's not a question of adding a small sentence towards the end, and labeling it "another minority view". The whole article is currently written in a one-sided way to expound the notion that there were "only attempts at an alliance", whereas the view that there was indeed an alliance, and that combined operations occured as a result, is also a highly significant view (see above). I would venture to say that the view that there was an alliance may actually be the most prevalent, but it's hard (and rather pointless) to do statistics with academic works. Both views are significant enough to be balanced throughout, starting with an introduction sentence of the type "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance....". This is all the more legitimate with an article that is actually named "Franco-Mongol alliance" and is therefore dedicated to describing the actual details and extent of this alliance. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:14, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  I'm not going to go line by line down your list, but will repeat what has been said before by multiple editors:  Just because a historian uses the word "alliance" in their work, does not mean that he or she was saying that there was an alliance between the Mongols and the Europeans.  There are many cases where you have quoted the word "alliance", from sections that are either talking about how there wasn't an alliance, or are talking about something quite different from relations between the Europeans and the Mongols.  For example, Cilician Armenia should not be considered European or Frankish.  Plus, when Armenia submitted to Mongol authority, that doesn't mean they were allies, it means that they were vassals. Historians may have occasionally used phrasing such as, "the Mongols and their Armenian allies", but that is just a shorthand term for the relationship, and in reading about the subject in-depth, it's clear that the most accurate descriptor is that the Armenians were vassals, a subject state which had submitted to Mongol authority. Also, I must repeat: Just because the Armenians were Christian, does not mean that they were Frankish. --Elonka 14:01, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What is important is what historians actually say, not your interpretation of what they say: if they say that the Franks were the allies of the Mongols, this is what has to be used in this article as well. Nowhere am I saying that the Armenians were Franks, by the way. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:09, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: What you still fail to understand (even after several years of being unable to convince anyone) is that your assertion that by using the word "alliance" the historians meant there was "military or other cooperation formally or informally" is just such an interpretation.  The fact that you ignore the context of the majority of the phrases you pick is a serious issue - when the work discusses the lack of an alliance, once cannot use it to support the interpretation that there was an alliance simply because the word is used.  Part of good scholarship (and article writing) is looking beyond a single word or phrase; in other words, you still miss the forest because you are scrutinizing the trees. Shell   babelfish 20:54, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Absolutely not. In  you will see that historians describe an alliance precisely when they think there was one. As a consequence of these alliances, military campaigns occured: that's a fact, not an interpretation. Most of the time these military operations indeed failed, but that's no reason to claim that there was not an alliance in the first place. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:01, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I have read the majority of these sources personally, as have many of the other editors that have been debating with you for years.  As for your list, you could take any subject, pick out just the phrases you want and manage to completely misrepresent the entirety.  What those historians say is that there was lots of talk about doing something together with the Mongols and a very few say there were actual agreements to do so (hence Elonka's notes above about that addition to the article).  The historians then go on to say that these talks never amounted to anything and that no joint operations happened.Frankly PHG, far too much time has been wasted by a variety of editors in an attempt to help you understand your error with this subject.  At this time I don't believe further discussion with you is likely to be productive.  If you have any other suggestions or concerns for the article, I'd be happy to talk about those. Shell   babelfish 22:27, 18 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: 100px|rightHi Shell. I've read quite a few books on the subject myself (examples attached), and I've provided above a listing of 50 historians who are specific about an alliance occuring. I don't deny that only little came out of these interactions, but this is not a reason to write a whole article one-sidedly saying that there were "only failed attempts at an alliance". Per Wikipedia rules, this view (which I don't deny exists) should be balanced with all those historians who say an alliance actually took place. I believe an intro such as "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance...." is a fair way of balancing these views, which Elonka had recognized was correct at mediation . This balanced approach is much more sensible, tolerant and inclusive, than one that steadfastly rejects all those historians who write there was an alliance indeed. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:01, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  The mainstream consensus of historians is that the Franco-Mongol alliance is best described as a series of attempts which failed. We do refer to a couple of the minority views in the article already, Richard and Demurger, and it is my opinion that the coverage is appropriate, balanced, and in accordance with WP:NPOV, so no further changes are needed to expand coverage of the minority viewpoint. --Elonka 15:18, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: This is only your WP:SYNTHESIS, and this not what sources say, neither mine nor yours. The smart thing would be to present both views simultaneously, and balance authors who claim there was or was not a alliance, as well as, for that matter those who say it was a rapprochement, collaboration etc... Wikipedia articles are not built by asserting a dogma, but by fairly representing the plurality of significant views on any given subject. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:34, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text:  Which "alliance" though? Conflating all the various attempts together into an "alliance" rather than a series of alliances (totally leaving aside the fact that most did not really result in much) is just as much a synthesis. The article discuses lots of alliance negotiations, surely you mean "alliances", not one single alliance? Ealdgyth - Talk 19:44, 19 April 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Most authors just describe an alliance (in the singular) between the Franks and the Mongols (here), and the standard term is indeed "Franco-Mongol alliance", not "Franco-Mongol alliances", but indeed a few authors describe alliances in the plural, so I think it is fair to present their views as well. I fully agree that the result of this alliance/alliances was not much, even if it was strategically considerable. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:57, 19 April 2010 (UTC)

text: Most of the authors who do go into the details describe a general alliance with ups and downs spanning a period from 1260 and the beginning of the 14th century (here, especially the first part of the list). Other authors, who tend to mention an alliance in passing, often mention a specific part, or several parts, of the alliance related to their own narrative: Bohemond VI's 1260 alliance with the Mongols especially, Edward I with Abaqa in 1271, or also the Hospitallers in 1281, and the Templars in 1299-1300 (here, especially the second part of the list). Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:54, 20 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Misleading

message: Could the sandbox article Mongol influences in European art be introduced in the mainspace as a regular article? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:08, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: The article seems to be based almost entirely on one source, Rosamond Mack's book.  It is a reliable source, but I'm not sure it's worth basing an entire Wikipedia article on the concept. Unless other sources can be provided, this material might be better included as a subsection of some other article? --Elonka 14:56, 13 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't see any problem with such an article being created... HarunAlRashid (talk) 07:23, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a well written and nicely laid article so go for it. I don't think the single source is an issue - there is no doubt that its a valid standalone article since the illustrations are in some cases by well-known artists and therefore notable. Nice work Philg88 (talk) 21:36, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

text: I agree your wording "depiction of elements of Mongol script, textiles and people in Western art" is most precise, so I've move the article to Mongol elements in Western medieval art. I've also incorporated your other suggestions. Thank you for your comments! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:54, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: RfC: Mongol influences in European art

message: Thanks guys, really interesting and well-written article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.95.109.18 (talk • contribs) 03:40:04
:I'll second that. One of the most fascinating WP:TFAs I can remember for a very long time. --Dweller (talk) 08:44, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks! It was definitely a long and complex journey with efforts from many many editors for several years. I'm very pleased to see that we ended up with such a great article as a result. --Elonka 14:58, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Thank you

message: It seems that "Muslims" in the lede needs to wikilink some place. We've got links for the Cristians and the Mongols.  Why not the Muslims?  Jehochman Talk 13:17, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Muslims 

message: Isn't the statement "Such an alliance might have seemed an obvious choice" basically speculation, WP:POV and WP:OR? - Who is John Galt? ✉ 18:09, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's what the sources say, then it is fine. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 20:07, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not speculation if it's what the sources say.  Example: Atwood. "Western Europe and the Mongol Empire" in Encyclopedia of Mongolia and the Mongol Empire. p. 583. "Despite numerous envoys and the obvious logic of an alliance against mutual enemies, the papacy and the Crusaders never achieved the often-proposed alliance against Islam". --Elonka 20:10, 26 April 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unencyclopedic 

message: I am not a specialist, but the number of people massacred in Baghdad, according to this section (80,000) seems very low. In the main article on the Siege of Baghdad (1258), estimates range from 90,000 to 1 million. Clearly, the number is uncertain, and the self-assured way in which 80,000 is postulated here (unsourced, I believe) seems out of place.
Filursiax (talk) 21:25, 15 March 2017 (UTC)
replies: text: the referenced article was way out of whack, and I've made some corrections to its exaggerations (quoting medieval biased sources willy-nilly) - good catch! 50.111.38.72 (talk) 19:05, 24 July 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sack of Baghdad - massacres 

message: Lots of French among the Crusaders, but definitely not all. Frankish/Faranj is a Muslim (Persian, Arabic) term for all W Europeans, OK, but who's forcing us to stick to that? Arminden (talk) 19:01, 3 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: It basically boils down to using the term that our sources use. It's a confusing batch, but the most common term is usually "Franco-Mongol". --Elonka 05:25, 15 November 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Franco-... means French-.... Why not Frankish-Mongol, or Crusader-Mongol?!