Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 2

message: The disagreement boils down to this:  PHG likes "Franco-Mongol alliance".  I don't.  He says that it's what the majority of sources use.  I disagree.  He says it's the only possible title we can use.  I disagree.  I've offered to compromise.  He has rejected all compromises.  I have offered alternatives.  He has rejected all alternatives.  I have asked him to suggest alternatives.  He has declined, and calls it a "non-issue."  I don't feel that PHG is being particularly sporting about this, but let me try and lay things out in a more clear fashion, so that we can see who is using what:
* Grousset.  "Franco-Mongol alliance", or at least that's the title of one minor section heading (in French).  Though I would point out that even Adam Bishop says that Grousset is "quaint and outdated."
* 1911 Brittanica: "The alliance with the Mongols remained, from the first to the last, something of a chimera"  (added 23:46, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, Cilician Armenia is considered as a Frank state ("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, 2004). PHG 07:53, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka, now that you seem to have finally accepted that there were indeed many instances of cooperation between the Franks and the Mongols, it is hard to see why you are so hard against the title itself. Just to state my reasons again: the term "Franco-Mongol alliance" is well referenced among scholarly sources (Grousset, Demurger (2002)... among those I have), and the alternative being proposed are either original research neologisms of yours ("Franco-Mongol alliances"), describe a different content ("Relations between the Mongols and Europe"), or are downright misleading ("Christian-Mongol alliances"... as so many of the Mongols were Christians). "Relations" is also much to minimalist, as the thruth is that alliances were sought for, formally agreed to by Western and Mongol rulers, and applied on numerous instances over long period of time. Regards. PHG 05:44, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Grousset is outdated, and plenty of historians (as mentioned above) strongly disagree with him.  And I strongly disagree that there was "formal agreement" on alliances that were "applied on numerous instances."  The idea of alliance was talked about a lot, but never really happened. Now, I really wish you would simply suggest an alternative title, rather than being completely inflexible on this. --Elonka 05:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Grousset is old (1930's), but not outdated: he is a classic of Crusades history and is constantly re-printed (my edition is 2006). Demurger is neither old nor outdated (2002) and is one of the foremost authorities on the subject. I am afraid that your claim there was no alliance is groundless, contradicted by facts and scholarly sources. Relax Elonka, accept that this is a great article with a great title on a great subject (and lots of great references!) :) Regards PHG 06:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think it's a very good article, that will make a great FA some day, after we deal with a few sections that are trying to push a POV.  I think that there are mainly three inappropriate POVs that are being pushed: (1) The claim that Jerusalem was conquered by the Mongols in 1299/1300; (2) The claim that there was a major alliance between the Franks and the Mongols; and (3) The claim that the Templars were one of the leading forces in both promoting a Mongol alliance, and fighting alongside the Mongols. Of the claim that Jerusalem was conquered by the Mongols in 1299/1300, I believe that this claim is incorrect, that Jerusalem was not conquered by the Mongols, and that the vast majority of reliable historians say that no such conquering took place.  I believe that you think it did take place, and you're trying to bend certain sections of the article into pretzels, in order to try and make your case.  I also believe that you're pushing a POV via the article title, by trying to make a case that there was this grand alliance between the Franks and the Mongols, when the majority of reliable sources say that despite numerous attempts, that there really wasn't such an alliance.  I also protest the Templar-centric views in some parts of the article, but that's a lesser concern.  The top 2 are my main focus right now.  So let me be very clear here, on just the title issue:  I think it is inappropriate to title the article "Franco-Mongol alliance", because there was no formal alliance.  I think we should pick a different title.  PHG, I am trying to respect your own views here, since you created this article, but you and I are currently the two primary editors here, and we do not have consensus that the current title is appropriate. So, I am asking you again, to please choose an alternative, or suggest an alternative, so that we can discuss it and try to reach consensus.  If you still refuse, I'll probably just pick the alternate title that I like best, and file an RM, or an RfC, and then we'll see how things go from there. I would really rather not go that route, as I would rather that you and I could discuss things in good faith, and reach a mutually-agreeable compromise, but you seem completely opposed to any type of compromise, so you are limiting my options here.  :/ --Elonka 07:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka. I am afraid you are mistaken: this is not your opinion against mine, this is really not a matter of opinion at all. Opinions are irrelevant on Wikipedia, only sources and references matter. "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a scholarly expression which is fully referenced (by Grousset (1936/2006) or Demurger (2002) as a factual event, and by many others as something that was attempted and achieved in limited ways). This is enough of a justification to have an article with that name. End of the discussion: there is no need to argue endlessly about your own opinions here. You may well create other articles with other titles if you wish, but the subject discussed here is the Franco-Mongol alliance. Best regards. PHG 07:50, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Just because Grousset has been recently reprinted doesn't mean you should use him as your major source. It was still written in 1936 and crusade studies are far more advanced now. As another example, my copy of Runciman is a reprint from 1994 but it still reflects 1951 scholarship. All that means is that it is an old book in a shiny new cover. Adam Bishop 08:02, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fair enough, but Grousset it still highly relevant in many instances, as is Runciman. Demurger (2002) also is a major modern source. Regards PHG 08:15, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In this occasion, I have to stand with PHG: at the cost ov being obvious, remember that historiography isn't physics, and in historical debate seminal works (as are here without doubt Grousset's and Runciman's works) continue to be upholded and used as references and discussed.--Aldux 23:27, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Article title

message: I question this section of  the article: 
The Mongols first invaded Persian territory in 1220, destroying the Kwarizmian kingdom of Jelel-ad-Din, and then conquering the kingdom of Georgia. Genghis Khan then returned to Mongolia, and Persia was reconquered by Muslim forces.
In 1231, a huge Mongol army again came in 1231 under the general Chormaqan. He ruled over Persia and Azerbaijan from 1231 to 1241. In 1242, Baichu further invaded the Seldjuk kingdom, ruled by Kaikhosrau, in modern Turkey, again eliminating an enemy of Christendom. The Christian Georgian king George IV submitted to the Mongols in 1243, and became a regular ally in their military conquests.
George IV can't have allied with the Mongols in 1243, since he died in 1223.  Plus, we're already saying that Georgia was conquered in 1220, so an "alliance" of a vassal state doesn't make a lot of sense.  Can we please double-check sources here?  Thanks, Elonka 23:54, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for catching this. It was Queen Rusudan of Georgia. "In 1243 the Queen herself became vassal on the understanding that the whole Georgian kingdom was to be given to her son under Mongol suzerainty." Runciman, p.250. The Mongols came once in the 1220's, and a second time in the 1240's. Best regards PHG 04:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Georgia question

message: If Alain Demurger is not in your US libraries (so much for European sources, and so much for US-centric research!!), you can try Amazon: . Alain Demurger is honorary Master of Conference at Université de Paris I Panthéon-Sorbonne. Here is his French Wikipedia article: . He is published in French, English, Spanish, and German. Alain Demurger published extensively on the subject of the Templars , he is quoted by Barber in The New Knighthood : A History of the Order of the Temple as one of the references for a modern introduction to the Templars (p.397): "There are good general surveys, by Marie-Louise Bust-Theile, 'Sacrae Domus Militiae Templi Hierosolymitani Magistri (1974), and Alain Demurger, Vie et mort de l'ordre du Temple" . I don't think anybody wrote more extensively than him on Jacques de Molay and the period of 1298-1303 covering the alliance with the Mongols. Best regards. PHG 04:48, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Alain Demurger

message: I think this paragraph was essentially an original research essay by Elonka (original combination of existing sources as per OR), but OK, it has the advantage of describing the various points of view on the question. I modified Elonka's characterization that only French historians speak about the existence of an alliance. I balanced, ordered and structured, and NPOVed it. Hope everybody likes it! I tend to think however that this paragraph should go to the end of the article, after the description of the various historical facts. Best regards PHG 18:52, 17 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Extent of the Franco-Mongol alliance

message: I am extremely concerned by the excessive quantity of primary source quotes that being used (and are continuing to be being added) in the article.  We already have plenty of secondary sources about this time period, we really shouldn't be quoting so many primary sources, especially because all historians are agreeing that many of the primary sources from the time were wrong. Per WP:QUOTE, an excessive number of quotes also tend to be distracting, and break up the flow of the encyclopedia article.  And per WP:NOT, we're not trying to provide a comprehensive list here of every single quote about the topic, we're trying to provide a readable encyclopedia article.
In my opinion, the only primary sources we should be quoting on this topic, are direct extracts from correspondence between the leaders of the time, and only if such correspondence is being referred to in the text of the article, and has been confirmed by some other reliable secondary source as accurate.  See WP:PSTS.  For example, if we're saying, "There was communication between the Pope and the Mongol leader", it makes sense to quote an extract of that communication.
It is not, however, wise to be quoting all kinds of  bits and pieces from the 1300s accounts of the Templar of Tyre and Hayton of Corycus and others from that era. I feel we're running afoul of WP:NOR, and we've already agreed that rumors were running rampant in the 1300s, so there's no need for us to continue spreading misinformation now, 700 years later.  These extra primary source quotes should either be removed entirely, or moved down to the "Notes" section. Though considering that the Notes section is getting absurdly long as it is (over 200 notes, last I checked), I'm leaning towards deletion. Or, let's move them all over to Wikisource or Wikiquote, and then we can link to the page there. That way the collected information can still be maintained, but in a more appropriate venue. --Elonka 20:48, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ancient sources are most of the time quoted here when they are also quoted by modern secondary sources, so you do not have to worry for OR (I am much more concerned by many of your OR statements in preceding discussions :)). Books on the periods have plenty such quotes, so there is no reason why Wikipedia should be an exception. Also, I am not sure that it is fair to qualify 13th century historians as "Primary sources" (Templar of Tyre or Hayton of Corycus for example): I would think they are actually secondary sources (historians, writing about a period), with the particularity that they are quite ancient. Lastly, ancient sources have an amazing capability to moderate modern fancy theories, i.e. they give us an objective window into what people actually heard, said and thought. What kind of historian would want to do away with ancient sources? As it stands, the article has a fine balance of ancient sources and modern theories, and I think it is fair not to privilege one over the other. PS: I do not see anything absurd in having 200 notes, and actually you are the one who initially complained this article was not referenced enough. Best regards PHG 21:14, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  They may have been historians, but they were generally writing their firsthand views on the situation.  They were not writing in peer-reviewed publications, and should not be used as reliable sources, especially when we have much more recent research from modern and reliable historians.  Our job at Wikipedia isn't to read the primary sources and then draw our own conclusions, our job is to summarize the modern perspective on the situation.  The comments from the 1300s folks may be interesting, and worthy of including at Wikisource or Wikiquote, but I think we're getting much too cluttered here at the Wikipedia article, and that we're losing focus on what it is that we're trying to be doing here.  We're not trying to write a comprehensive book or doctoral thesis here, we're trying to provide a readable encyclopedia article.  PHG, I'm not faulting your ability to research -- you're obviously highly-motivated on this topic, and spending a lot of time researching.  But I don't think that Wikipedia is the place for what you're trying to do.  If you want to write a full out article where you quote everything in sight and lay out your opinions on what did or didn't happen in 1299/1300, fine, then write and publish an article in an academic history journal somewhere. But I think you're trying to bend Wikipedia to a purpose here, for which it's really not intended. Or in other words, a few sparing and rare quotes from the 1300s historians may be appropriate, but right now we have way too many, and they're not being used effectively.  It seems like you're trying to transcribe every footnote from the French history books, here into the Wikipedia article.  And that's just not appropriate. --Elonka 21:38, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Elonka. Do you always exagerate that much??? Only the most essential quotes have been included in this article, and they are quotes which have been put forward and validated in the publications of modern historians. Best regards PHG 21:52, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I am very sorry that we seem to have reached yet another impasse.  PHG, I do have great respect for much of the work that you have done on Wikipedia, and for your great attention to detail.  It is just on this issue about the Mongols (and especially the Templars, a subject with which I am very familiar), that I feel we disagree.  Since it seems that we are losing the ability to communicate in good faith towards mutually-agreeable compromises, may I suggest that we proceed to another stage of dispute resolution, and seek a neutral mediator?  Perhaps with a third party in this discussion, we might be able to find a better way to communicate? Truly, I would rather find a way to work with you than against you, PHG. We obviously have many overlapping areas of interest, and I think that if we could figure out how to work through disagreements, it would be an overall advantage for Wikipedia. Please, join me in mediation? --Elonka 22:37, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally tend to think that there may be an excess of quotes of primary sources, and I'm always a bit uncomfortable with presenting primary sources without mediation; also I'm a bit scared by the length this article is assuming. That said, I feel Elonka is not fully understanding the importance of the rumours that spread in 1300, as they are of great importance to understand the hopes and expectations the West had towards the Mongols; for this, quite a lot of books from a research I made through Google Books cover these rumors, making them clearly notable.--Aldux 23:11, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  To the contrary, Aldux, I am extremely aware of the importance of the rumors, I'm the main person that's been presenting the case that there were rumors, and I'm even the one that created the "rumors" section in the article.  However, my concern is that PHG is presenting some of these rumors as though they were reliable sources.  I am completely okay on presenting a couple quotes about rumors, as long as we clearly present them as what they were, examples of speculation from the time period, that were later proven to be false. I'm also concerned with edits like this one, where PHG added an image (which is fine), but then he used the opportunity to place what I felt was a POV statement in the caption, saying that "Contemporary sources, whether Western, Armenian, or Arab, consistently describe the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in early 1300".  I feel that that kind of statement is misleading, and is again being used to push a biased POV that Jerusalem was captured in 1300, when the majority of modern sources agree that it wasn't. --Elonka 23:33, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka, I am afraid you are denying the obvious. It is the reality that "Contemporary sources, whether Western, Armenian, or Arab, consistently describe the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in early 1300". It sums up the situation and can be referenced by several authors. And it does not even attempt to substitute itself to the judgement of modern authors, who by the way are simply divided on the subject, and are amply (too amply?) treated in the article. Ancient sources constitute an indisputable statement about what was actually said and thought during the covered period, and therefore are highly historic and encyclopedic in nature. I am amazed that you are trying to erase from this article the mention of what ancient sources have to say, especially when they are endorsed, referenced and quoted by a quantity of modern authors. Regards. PHG 04:32, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Too many primary sources

message: I already mentioned this a couple times, but it seems to be getting buried in the discussion, so I'd like to start a new section to ensure that my offer is seen.  We obviously have an impasse here, where dedicated editors (primarily myself and PHG) have a difference of opinion, and have been having trouble reaching consensus on how to proceed.  Since we are at an impasse, I therefore propose that we seek the assistance of a third-party mediator, per WP:RFM, to try and assist us through this process.  PHG, will you please join me in mediation? It is a voluntary process, and it is non-binding.  Nothing is going to be forced on us by a mediator, but it is my hope that through the assistance of a mediator, that we may be able to find better ways to communicate, and find a mutually-agreeable way to proceed. --Elonka 07:30, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Elonka. I am afraid it just seems that you are loosing ground on this page, and that now you would like to bring your battle somewhere else. Your proposal to change the article title is going nowhere near what you wished, quite the contrary. Your wish to eradicate ancient sources from the face of history articles cannot go very far either. You introduced many original research statements in your presentation of various historians, which you had to take away. You would like to go to Mediation now? But you don't even have a good reason to go to mediation. A few quotes too many? This is such a minor issue... An article title that you don't like? It is actually referenced in multiple publications. Elonka, I do appreciate your contribution, but I do not want to spend my life endlessly arguing with you on minor and pointless issues. Let's relax and have a good time. Be tolerant of others' contributions. Best regards. PHG 08:15, 16 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Mediation

message: 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 [Ghazan] 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 [sic] 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 [sic]."  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Demurger

message: 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 [Jacques de Molay] 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 [sic] 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 Wikipedia article would be best titled as "Crusader-Mongol relations" or "Franco-Mongol alliances" (plural). --Elonka 05:43, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Elonka, this definition of "alliance" is from Wikipedia. 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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,[1][2][3] or attempts towards such an alliance,[4][5] 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)
replies: text:  Note: This thread has been continued in the below section #Introduction sentence. --Elonka 20:04, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: More Demurger quotes

message: 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 [1299-1300].  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)
thread_title: Mongol raids into Palestine

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

text: I am not sure what the official name is for each of these battles, but there may be some issue with the Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia, 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title: Battle question

message: *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 [of William of Rubruk] 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)
replies: text: * 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....[turned out to be] 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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: * Acutally, per Wikipedia'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)
replies: text: *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)
replies: text: * 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 Wikipedia: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)

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

text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Checking sources: Tyerman, ''God's War''

message: 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 [the Mongols] 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 [the Mongols] were anti-Muslim was good enough reason for the king [of Armenia] to place his entire army at their disposal. This unholy alliance took the field in 1259", also: "Their Christian allies joined them [the Mongols] 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 [the Northern Franks] were chastized without the latter being able to intervene" (p.271).PHG 15:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Historians treating the alliance with the Mongols as fact:

message: 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)
thread_title: Proposal

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

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Muncinis

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

message: 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)
replies: text: * 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 Wikipedia article that are now talking about the same Council, but from entirely different decades. It's embarrassing. --Elonka 17:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Existence and timing of the Franco-Mongol alliance

message: 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)
replies: text: 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 Wikipedia 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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 Wikipedia, not just this one.  :) --Elonka 09:28, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

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

message: :Image:HistoiredesCroisadesJeanRichard.JPG is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 09:19, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:HistoiredesCroisadesJeanRichard.JPG