Talk:Armeno-Mongol relations

message: For accuracy disputes, see Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance and attached archives. Srnec (talk) 06:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be okay on removing the  tag at this point.  What do others think?  Are there still any problematic sections? --Elonka 04:56, 13 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Accuracy 

message: Though there are indeed some historians who refer to the relationship between Cilician Armenia and the Mongols as an alliance, there are many others {see User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Cilician Armenia) who refer to it as a subject/overlord relationship. In other to keep from giving undue weight to the "alliance" aspect, I recommend that we move this article to a more neutral title, such as "Armeno-Mongol relations".  Does anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 04:12, 9 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Support, but only under the condition that undue weight is not given to either opinion throughout Wikipedia.-- Ευπάτωρ Talk!! 04:31, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

text: Just my opinion, but the "Armeno-Mongol alliance", or more often "Armenian-Mongol alliance"  are established expressions and subjects of academical inquiry, discussed as such in historical literature (Google Books for a sampling, starting with The Cambridge History of Islam‎.). I think therefore it deserves an article on Wikipedia as such, even if we can have a discussion about the actual nature, extent, duration, effectiveness etc... of this alliance. In my opinion, the "Armeno-Mongol alliance" article should therefore actually be a sub-article of a much broader and richer article on Armeno-Mongol relations, which actually would go far beyond the actual historical events of the military alliance itself. Cheers PHG (talk) 08:40, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Rename

message: I'm starting a new thread, to discuss specifically the section related to Damascus.  Here is what I propose re-adding to the article in Armeno-Mongol relations#Collaboration in the Middle East:
:  They took the city of Aleppo with the help of the Franks of Antioch, and on March 1, 1260, under the Christian general Kitbuqa, they also took Damascus.Saudi Aramco World "The Battle of Ain Jalut"Grousset, p.581"On 1 March Kitbuqa entered Damascus at the head of a Mongol army. With him were the King of Armenia and the Prince of Antioch. The citizens of the ancient capital of the Caliphate saw for the first time for six centuries three Christian potentates ride in triumph through their streets", Runciman, p.307 Historical accounts, quoting from the writings of the medieval historian Templar of Tyre, used to describe the three Christian rulers (Hetoum, Bohemond, and Kitbuqa) entering the city of Damascus together in triumph,Grousset, p.588 though modern historians have questioned this story as apocryphal.David Morgan, The Mongols (2nd ed.)Peter Jackson, "Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260," English Historical Review 376 (1980) 486"While this report cannot be taken literally, it may contain a grain of truth. Armenian troops were part of Ketbuqa's force, while some time during the Mongol occupation Bohemond visited Baalbek and even intended to ask Hulegu for possession of the town. (...) If this prince reached as far as Baalbek, it is most probable that he also passed through Damascus." De Reuven Amitai-Preiss, "Mongols and Mamluks", p.31 
How does that sound? --Elonka 02:33, 22 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Damascus