Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine

message: Recommending merge of Mulay and Kutlushah into this article.  Neither one of them has sufficient independent information to really justify separate articles at this time.  Instead, they both list large quantities of sources that are either only peripherally relevant, or in most cases have nothing to do whatsoever with the topic. --Elonka 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The few scraps of biographical information on these two commanders ought to be merged with this article. Aramgar (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think they are fine as separate articles, but as always, the sources and footnotes need to be greatly reduced. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree Mulay and Kutlushah deserve their separate articles. I will bring more biographical information soon. PHG (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Adam that they are fine where they are, but the sources at least need to be restricted to those actually of use. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Merge

message: The sentence "The historians Runciman and Grousset quote the medieval historian William of Tyre" looks a bit suspicious. William of Tyre died 1186, almost a hundred years before the events described here. So how come he is quoted by two different historians about things that happened long after his death? Avihu (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The author in question is the second William of Tyre (Guillaume de Tyr), who has his article on Wikipedia under Templar of Tyre. The link should be corrected to direct there. Cheers PHG Per Honor et Gloria  19:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry for being picky but the article about Templar of Tyre does not mention either William of Tyre or Guillaume de Tyr. In fact it seems that the name of the writer of the document is unknown. At least the dates seems right. Avihu (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The "Templar of Tyre" is entirely distinct from William of Tyre. That chronicle might not even have anything to do with the Templars or Tyre, it's just a name. "Guillaume de Tyr", of course, is just "William of Tyre" in French, not a different William. (PHG has confused the two numerous times in the past...I'm sure the mix-up is present elsewhere as well.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, why then is this information only in the talk page? This is m:Translation of the week article and and while we discuss the matter the error is being translated into various languages. Avihu (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

text: Well it's not as simple as that. William of Tyre was translated into French and then numerous additions were made in the thirteenth century, which is the "Estoire d'Eracles" you were using from the Fordham website (which is so-called because the first chapter deals with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius). The Templar of Tyre is not one of the continuations of William of Tyre, but a different chronicle, part of the Gestes des Chiprois. I think I've sorted it out now, at least on this article. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your help! PHG Per Honor et Gloria  21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Unfortunately, Gestes des Chiprois merely redirects to Templar of Tyre and Estoire d'Eracles is red. Srnec (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I think I made that redirect, which was not the best idea. Gestes des Chiprois should be its own article (as should the Annales de Terre Sainte, which are not mentioned on Wikipedia at all as far as I know). There should be a "French continuations of William of Tyre" article too, or something, and if I ever finish with William himself I suppose I will start it. I feel kind of responsible that there is still confusion about all this after all these years. I mean, it is certainly the responsibility of each editor to understand his sources, but I could have done more to clarify things, I guess. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Srnec's Law: for every red link that turns blue, two more red links will appear. Also, it's hard sometimes to create a useful little stub, because you know that with that job crossed off the list you will never return to the work of expanding it to something worthy. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something does not quite add up 

message: * "1300: Mongols occupy Jerusalem briefly" , "After a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia" 
* "Although the Mongols were never again a threat to Palestine or Egypt, they did stage  one more raid that reached Jerusalem. This occurred nearly fourty years later in 1300CE, just after the last of the Crusaders had finally been evicted from the Holy Land in 1291CE. Kutubi, a writer nearly contemporaneous with the events he describes, says that a Mongol officer named Bulay (or Mulay) came raiding with 10,000 horsemen.
:"They looted property, and [took] booty and prisonners, in such amounts that only God could count it. With his army he fell upon the region of Gaza, the Jordan River Valley and Jerusalem (bayt al-maqdis)… Bulay came [to Damascus] and with his army, from the Jordan River Valley, Gaza, Ramla and Jerusalem (al-quds). With him was an extremely large number of prisonners."
:Baybars al-Mansuri, a Mamluk emir who had been dispatched with 200 horsemen to guard against just such a Mongol raid, corroborated Kutubi’s account. He says that there were not 10,000 but 20,000 Mongols involved, and that "they fell upon the Jordan River Valley and Baisan" His report continues: "They wreaked havoc and raided that country. They looted what they found of livestock, supplies and equipment, and they killed whoever fell into they hands. Their raids reached Jerusalem and Hebron, and they went as far as Gaza."
:Another chronicler - Ibn Abi’l Fada’il, an Egyptian Christian author- later noted that when the Mongols reached Jerusalem in 1300CE they "killed both Moslems and Christians, drank wine on [the] Haram el-Sharif, and took young women and children [as captives]. They did despicable deeds, destroyed, killed, looted, and captured children and women."
:[…] Following the Mongol raid on Jerusalem in 1300, the Mamlukes ruled Jerusalem until the coming of the Ottomans under Sultan Selim I in 1516CE." by Eric H. Cline in Jerusalem besieged: from ancient Canaan to modern Israel, p.216
Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: '''Occupation of Jerusalem'''

message: * Gaza and Hebron raided in 1260: "Damascus was occupied in February 1260 and Mongol forces raided as far as Gaza and Hebron" 
*Capture of Nablus in 1260 by Hulagu 
*Capture of Jerusalem in 1260 , the Mongols raids reached Jerusalem , "briefly entered Jerusalem" .
*The Mongol raids reached Ascalon 
* A Mongol Yazak ("Advanced guard") under the command of Baydar (Baydarā in Arabic sources) occupied Gaza. This adavance force, set up to monitor developments in Egypt, confronted the Mamluks under Baybars the following summer .
* "In spite of the presence of this force in Gaza and the Mongol raids throughout the country, there is no evidence of the establishment of a Mongol administration in Palestine" 
* Encounter between the Mamluks and Mongols in Gaza: "After crossing the Sinai Peninsula, the Mamluk advanced guard, under Baybars, encountered a small Mongol force at Gaza, which withdrew and alerted Kitbuqa to the unexpected appearance of the Mamluks" 
*There was actually a battle in Gaza, when the Mamluks retook the city from the Mongols: "Qutuz led his troops to Gaza where they overwhelmed the small Mongol garisson" , "drove the Mongol garisson out of Gaza" .
Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Cities raided or occupied in 1260

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Mongol raids into Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080404215845/http://www.encyclopediairanica.com/articles/v10f2/v10f216a.html to http://www.encyclopediairanica.com/articles/v10f2/v10f216a.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified (February 2018) 

message: The article contains references to "Tyerman p 806" and "Tyerman p818", but no work by a Tyerman is given. Presumably something by Christopher Tyerman. DuncanHill (talk) 03:15, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Useless references - Tyerman