Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

It is presumed that Rus' rulers (

This article needs a complete review for facts by the editors. Placing theory as fact is absurd, especially modern theory without proper verification and endorsement by the relevant historical international institutes. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.239.108.76 (talk) 04:57, August 29, 2007 (UTC)

All facts, letters, and references are genuine. And at the time many of the Mongols were Nestorian Christians (since about the 6th century).

PHG

05:22, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

No, many of the references are not genuine (see my concerns about the Templar sources below). However, I will confirm that there were some high-ranking Mongols who were Nestorian Christians. In 1260, Hulegu's chief lieutenant in Syria, General

Hulegu (grandson of Genghis Khan) was not. I do, however, agree with the above anon that this entire article needs to be re-checked for accuracy. --Elonka

18:57, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Transcribing factoids:

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

--Elonka 21:25, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By Malcolm Barber. This is from the 2nd edition, page 22, about the activities/whereabouts of Jacques de Molay in 1299/1300:

• "In Cyprus tensions clearly remained, for in 1299
  Boniface VIII granted the island to the Order. The plan failed for, following a very severe winter, in mid-1302, the Mamluks forced the defenders to surrender, enslaving the Templars and beheading the Syrian footsoldiers. Nearly 40 of these men were still in prison in Cairo
  years later where, according to a former fellow prisoner, the Genoese Matthew Zaccaria, they died of starvation, having refused an offer of 'many riches and goods' in return for apostasising. This capitulation certainly infuenced Molay's thinking, since he later vehemently dismissed proposals for a small-scale expedition preliminary to a more general crusade, but it also emphasised that, although they had men and weapons, the Templars had not yet succeeded in building up their naval capacity even though it was becoming increasingly important. The Templar of Tyre says that the Templars were unable to defend the island because they had no galleys, only tarides (transports), and indeed, there is no evidence to suggest that the Order could assemble more than 10 galleys at any given time during the post-1291 period."

--Elonka 21:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

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

--Elonka 22:23, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

By the premier Templar researcher, Malcolm Barber.

• p. 293-294: "The period of the most intensive effort, though, seems to have been between 1300 and 1302, partly because it was believed in some quarters that there was a genuine possibility of an alliance with the Mongols. Both Pope
  Armenian King Hetoum, but it was too late to make the proposed junction. The choice of Tortosa was nevertheless significant, for it shows the strength of Templar influence. It had been the centre of one of the Order's most important enclaves and, together with Atlit
  , had been the last stronghold to be abandoned in 1291. As the Mamluks had dismantled Atlit, Tortosa must have seemed the most practical alternative, particularly as Ruad could be used as a base. The Templars therefore followed up the raid of 1300 by establishing a considerable force on the island and by building (or rebuilding) its defences. The numbers involved show that this was a serious effort to regain a foothold in Syria, since the garrison was close to half the size of the normal complement for the twelfth-century Kingdom of Jerusalem, with 120 knights, 500 archers, and 400 servants under the Order's Marshal, Bartholemew. But the Templar force was too isolated. In 1302 the Mamluks sent a fleet of at least sixteen galleys from Tripoli and besieged the island. Although the garrison fought hard, they were eventually starved into submission. Brother Hugh of Dampierre then negotiated what was believed to be a safe-conduct, but most were killed or sent into captivity. A fleet equipped to rescue them apparently set out from Famagusta, only to find out that it was too late. The loss of Ruad showed the weakness of the Christian forces on Cyprus and had the Mamluks possessed a viable naval force, Cyprus itself would have been very vulnerable."

--Elonka 19:26, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka asked me to comment here; I already mentioned to PHG that Grousset seemed like an odd choice. I can't speak to his authority on the Mongols and Central Asian history, but as a source for the crusades he is quaint and outdated. I knew of this article and PHG's additions elsewhere but I didn't realize this article had expanded so much, and that Grousset was being used so extensively on a FAC. I should say that I have not yet read the entire article. I will also say that the Frankish-Mongol alliance, and this period of the crusader states in general, are not really my area of "expertise", but here is what sprung to mind when Elonka asked for sources:

• David Morgan, "The Mongols in Syria, 1260-1300" (in Crusade and Settlement, ed. Peter W. Edbury)

• Jean Richard, "The Mongols and the Franks", Journal of Asian History 3 (1969) (and probably reprinted in one of his numerous Variorum Reprints collections)

• []Claude Cahen]], "The Mongols and the Near East" in A History of the Crusades: Vol. II, The Later Crusades, 1189-1311, ed. R. L. Wolff and Harry W. Hazard (online

• G.R. Hawting, Muslims, Mongols and Crusaders, which is relatively recent (2005) so I am not very familiar with the book or the author

I also found this bibliography online which has a lot more interesting leads.

Of course, for the Templars, Malcolm Barber is the best source, or any of the recent works by David Nicolle and Helen Nicholson too.

The references given in the article seem to be along the same lines as Grousset - Wallis Budge is old, and Steven Runciman is a great introduction but also rather outdated these days (though because he is so easy to read, I have also written many articles using him as a source, so I can't complain about that). I notice a translation of Riley-Smith's Atlas into French, that's odd; I assume PHG's first language is French though. If so, then Jean Richard has written more about this subject in French, so it would be good to look him up. I see Barber, Richard, Peter Jackson, and Sylvia Schein were also used, so that's good too.

The claim that Jacques de Molay recaptured Jerusalem in 1299 is, to be honest, entirely new to me. I had never heard of that before today! Has something been misread or mistranslated somewhere along the way? Or is this what Schein's article is about? It's definitely not true; after 1244, Christians were never in possession of Jerusalem again until 1917.

Hope this helps; as I said, I can give pointers on where to look but I am by no means an expert on this aspect of the crusades. Adam Bishop 03:23, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Adam, thank you for the great references. I am still wondering where the truth is, as many many French sites do claim that Molay held Jerusalem briefly in 1299-1300. Are strong references either for or against this claim? For example was Molay undoubtedly away from the East during the period? My understanding is that he only returned to Europe in 1306. Incidentally, there is a passage in Le Templier de Tyr, explaining that Molay was a general of Ghazan and was left in Damas etc... etc... I do not know if this refers to the actual Molay or not, or if this may be the origin of the 1299 claims:

"Ghazan, when he had vanquishes the Sarazins returned in his country, and left in Damas one of his admirals, named Molay, and with him 10,000 Tatars and 4 generals". "Cacan quant il eut desconfit les Sarazins se retorna en son pais et laissa a Domas .i. sien amiraill en son leuc quy ot a nom Molay qui ot o luy .xm. Tatars et .iiii. amiraus". Chapter 611 [1]

News that the Mongols took Jerusalem and remitted it is to the Christians did circulate extensively in 1300 Europe. Source. Best regards.

PHG

05:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

It is true that many rumors circulated through Europe, but it is not true that the Mongols took Jerusalem in 1299. In previous years, the Mongols did have raids that reached as far as Jerusalem, and they had taken other cities in the area, but not Jerusalem. Molay was working on an alliance with the Mongols, but this was stalled in 1300 in the coastal city of Tortosa, in Syria. The Templars maintained a garrison at the tiny island of

Knights Templar legends#Claims of descent and revival. Anyway, I recommend that we remove the "Jerusalem retaken in 1299" claim from the Wikipedia article, and concentrate on expanding the other sections with further sources. I'm willing to go in and do some editing myself, but want to check that I'm not stepping on any toes? --Elonka

08:01, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, okay with you if I go in and make some edits? I think it might speed things up a bit. Then again, some of the changes I'm considering might be ones you disagree with. Then again, per the chart at Wikipedia:Consensus, that might be the best route to take at this point. --Elonka 21:07, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka, I'll be glad if you add new information rather than delete what I have been painstakingly putting into this article :) ... All I have put in is pretty correctly sourced at this point... Best regards.

PHG

21:16, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi Elonka. I will hapilly drop the references to the Templar site if it is not substantiated by other sources, and delete the corresponding phrases from the article. Thanks for your new references also, I will incorporate several of them in the article. Best regards.

PHG

17:51, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

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

Hi Elonka! Thanks for checking this reference. I am relieved I am not the one who put it in, but I believe it was added in good faith by a contributor of high standing (

PHG

18:09, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

I definitely agree with PHG that this is a subject that is sufficiently notable to warrant a Wikipedia page. However, I'd like to discuss the possibility of changing the page name? As I understand it, though there were many writings and rumors to the contrary, there was never an actual alliance between the French and the Mongols. There was a great deal of discussion about such a thing, there was a desire for an alliance, there were multiple envoys that were sent back and forth for decades, there were aborted attempts at coordinated military actions, but the alliance never occurred. And even when armies set forth with the hope of an alliance, they never actually fought in the same place at the same time. So, perhaps a better title for this page might be "Franco-Mongol attempted alliance"? Or "Franco-Mongol relations during the Crusades"? Or if we keep the "alliance" title, I recommend that we make it clear in the lead that this was an attempted alliance that never actually came to fruition. As I mentioned above, I'm willing to go in and do some edits myself, but since this article is in the middle of an FA nom, I am very reluctant to go in and make substantial changes unless I'm sure that the main editor (PHG) is okay on it, since I think my changes would substantially change the thrust of this page (to indicate that there were attempts at an alliance, but they were never successful). Let me know, Elonka 16:43, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. The term "Franco-Mongol alliance" is certainly not a neologism. In the published references which I have, it is already mentionned hundreds of time (such as "Histoire des Croisades", Rene Grousset). Although I agree this alliance can be qualified (it was arguably small, rarely successful, and ultimately ended in defeat), I do not think it is exact to say that it did not happen. As a matter of facts, Mongol and Western head of states actually exchanged written agreements for military collaboration, and military cooperation actually occured in several instances (battle together with the Franks of Antioch, with Edward I, mobilization of the Templars etc...). Although this title may be surprising to some, it nonetheless reflect a diplomatic and military reality. I would welcome however additions explaining further the shortcoming of this cooperation. Best regards

PHG

18:06, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I agree that there were some joint efforts between the Mongols and such Christian leaders as

Athid, a Muslim, actually removed his glove to shake hands with Arabic-speaking Christian knights, in an alliance against Nur al-Din of Syria. It's not Mongol-related, but is indeed a description of a remarkable alliance between Christians and non-Christians, against a common enemy. If nothing else, I think that one would be good as a "see also" from here. --Elonka

20:35, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. My first name for the page was

PHG

20:55, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way I don't quite agree with the statement "pockets of coordinated effort, rather than a sweeping Papal-approved alliance": Kings and Poped did approve (in writing!) of combined operations with the Mongols... it is just that the result of their efforts were amazingly small: at the end of the 13th century, it seems that sending a few hundreds of knight to the Holy Land is the best they could manage to do, probably owing to trouble in Europe and the waning interest for Crusades. Best regards

PHG

21:04, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

How about changing from "Franco-Mongol alliance" to "Franco-Mongol alliances"? The plural would help make the distinction that I'm interested in. --Elonka 21:05, 7 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I don't know, really. My sources use "Franco-Mongol alliance" in the singular, so I would rather not play around with that... Best regards

PHG

10:38, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Can you please list a few of the sources? My own tend to phrase it as attempted alliance. One even calls it a chimera, like a mythical beast. Maalouf called it a "dream". Barber called it "a project", and "the possibility of an alliance." In Schein's article it was "the Mongol khan, joined by the Christian kings", but wasn't called an actual alliance. Martin called it simply "a combined force." Tyerman called it "pursuing the will of the wisps of a Mongol alliance." Nicolle says the Mongols were regarded as "potential allies," but that overall the major players were the Mamluks and the Mongols, and that the Christians were just "pawns in a greater game." When I search at scholar.google.com, the phrase "Franco-Mongol alliance" doesn't pull up a single hit. And when I do a regular Google search, the majority of the hits on the term are coming from this very Wikipedia article, which is not how things should be working. Wikipedia should reflect the usage of outside sources, not try to push a particular point of view. Or in other words, I still think the better title for this article would be something like "Franco-Mongol cooperation in the Crusades", "Franco-Mongol diplomacy", or "Franco-Mongol alliances" (plural). There was definitely some cooperation, but there just wasn't a major alliance. Given a choice between the current title, Franco-Mongol alliance, or your first one, "Mongol relations with Europe", I'd rather go back to your first one. --Elonka 01:09, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

As already discussed, "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a term used extensively by Grousset and Demurger for example. I disagree with your point that there wasn't a major alliance: there were written agreements to fight together between Christian and Mongol rulers, and these agreements were put in practice through several concerted military actions. You may want to claim that the alliance had little result, but it was an alliance nonetheless.

PHG

21:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not yet seen the books by Grousset and Demurger, but am open to reviewing their exact wording if you would care to provide it. So far you've said several times that Grousset and Demurger are using that language, but haven't provided any quotes. I myself spent more time in a (small) library today, and still couldn't find a single book that referred to an actual alliance. Everything I checked used terms such as "attempted alliance," "hope for an alliance," "promoted an alliance," "failed attempts at an alliance," etc. In the sizable volume III "History of the Crusades" (which I think you'd enjoy reading, since it has an entire very detailed chapter on the subject), they titled the chapter "The Mongols and Western Europe" (p. 513-544). Terms that they used to describe the situation were generally "relations." "In this chapter an attempt will be made to give a succinct but comprehensive picture of the relations that existed between the Mongols and western Europe." (p. 513) "The Mongols' relations with the west" (p. 526) Any times they used the word alliance, it was generally with the "attempt" language: "Attempts to seek an alliance with the Mongols were made" (p. 516) "The possibility of an alliance with the Mongols was completely lost from sight." (p. 519) "Arghun's boldest attempt to establish an alliance with the western powers" (p. 532), "Oljeitu... followed the same friendly policy toward the Western powers...and offered in very general terms an alliance...No answer by the French king to Oljeitu's letter has come to light." (p. 537) etc. So, how about changing the title to "Franco-Mongol relations"? Or, going back to your first title, "Mongol relations with Europe"? Or feel free to suggest something else? I'm very open to alternatives here. --Elonka 21:57, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Among many other quotes, in which the Franco-Mongol alliance is treated as a fact, not just a potentiality: Grousset, p521: "Louis IX et l'Alliance Franco-Mongole", p.653 "Seul Edward I comprit la valeur de l'Alliance Mongole", p.686 "la coalition Franco-Mongole dont les Hospitaliers donnaient l'exemple", Demurger, p.147 "Cette expedition avait surtout l'avantage de sceller, par un acte concret l'alliance Mongole".

PHG

22:23, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Also: Demurger p.145 "La strategie de l'alliance Mongole en action", "De Molay anime la lutte pour la reconquete de Jerusalem, en s'appuyant sur une alliance avec les Mongols" (Demurger, back cover), Angus Steward says "Franco-Mongol entente" [2]. Best regards

PHG

06:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for the quotes. However, Grousset's book is seriously outdated at this point, since it was published in the 1930s. I recommend that we stick with more current research, which state attempted alliance. As such, do you have any other suggestions for a page title? --Elonka 23:38, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, Grousset is starting to be old, but it is not outdated: his is still a standard book on the Crusades, constantly being republished (mine is the 2006 edition). Demurger is clearly not dated as he was fist published in 2002. In substance as well, alliances were agreed to in writing by ruler, and put in application through several actions on the field. I don't see a reason to change the title of this article. Regards.

PHG

04:43, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I reinstated the painting representing the conquest of Jerusalem by de Molay. The title of the painting in Versailles is "JACQUES MOLAY PREND JERUSALEM.1299", which does make the object of its depiction clear [3] [4] [5]

The painting is about an event that never occurred. Molay never took Jerusalem in 1299. There was no such battle. Also, I don't feel the painting is appropriate for this article, since it has nothing to do with Mongols or alliances. I'm concerned that it's just going to cause confusion. --Elonka 06:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. This painting DOES exist, and illustrates the widespread belief in the West for several centuries that Molay actually took Jerusalem in 1299 (cf "Le grand-maître s'etait trouvé avec ses chevaliers en 1299 à la reprise de Jerusalem", François Raynouard, Précis sur les Templiers, 1805 online). For my part, at this point, I am not so sure that this event actually never took place (as I said, paintings, published sources, lots of French sites claiming it did happen). You claimed that Molay was not in the Levant, but actually he was, and was very active. If there is a certainty that this event did not take place, you need to give reference to that, and I will be very interested by it. Even so, it seems to me this painting is a great illustration of the impact of the Franco-Mongol alliance(s) on the West. Best regards.

PHG

07:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the painting exists, but we cannot use the simple title of a painting to source the fact that a battle occurred, especially in the face of dozens of other reliable sources saying that the battle did not occur. As for providing sources, please review the multiple sections that I've typed in above. Such as the quote from the book by Malcolm Barber. Or here's another one, from "God's War: A New History of the Crusades, p. 771: "...[the Khwarazmian Turks] attacked Jerusalem on 23 August [1244], easily overcoming the feeble defences, killing any Franks they found and desecrating the Christian Holy Places. Christian rule in the Holy City was ended, not to be revived until the ending of Ottoman rule in December 1917 by a British army." To summarize: There was no, repeat no re-taking of Jerusalem in 1299. Especially not by Christians, and especially not by the Grand Master of the Knights Templar. The Christians lost Jerusalem in 1244, and didn't control the city again until the 20th century. I have multiple modern and reliable books which agree on this point. That there may have been French sources in 1805 which say otherwise, fine, I can believe that those sources exist. But that doesn't make the information true. Please see also this article (which you yourself provided the link for), of the article "Gestus Dei Mongols." [6] It says, right there on the top page, "Actually the alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened." Perhaps we need an RfC here? --Elonka 07:44, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I think we need a more specific discussion of the 1299 event. Do you have access to the details of the article in the JSTOR? Anyway, you will see that I reformulated that paragraph in the article along your lines ("There are many stories that it did happen, even paintings of it, although it is thought that it did not happen"), so I don't see what the problem is. Regards.

PHG

07:56, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindent) Reading the above I see a very circular argument. "This painting DOES exist, and illustrates the widespread belief in the West for several centuries that Molay actually took Jerusalem in 1299". In my opinion the painting was created when there was already widespread belief in the west that Molay took Jerusalem. Hence the painting is an illustration of the "widespread belief". If there is evidence this belief is false (and that evidence seems convincing) then the painting cannot be used for any argument (as it was based on false belief, it depiction is that of an event that never occurred).
On the other hand the article claims only the belief and the name of the painting reflects that belief. No untruth is given in the article. Neverheless for the quick skim-reader the image with caption may cause confusion; especially as the caution in the aragrpah is not reflected in the caption. How about rephrasing the image capture as: "Jacques Molay takes Jerusalem.1299 (by Claude Jacquand- Musee Versailles), reflecting the long held belief Molay conquered Jerusalem" Arnoutf 08:11, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Right. The argument is that the combined operations of the Mongols and the Franks generated a belief that Molay took Jerusalem in 1299, of which the painting is a proof. This is how I reorganized the paragraph, and I believe it is very interesting in itself. Incidentally, I would like to have strong, pointed, proof that indeed this was just a belief, and indeed never happened, for the sake of historicity. The current title for the painting is from [7], we cannot take liberties with that. I will try to go to

PHG

08:23, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I would be reluctant for us to say that the painting "reflects a belief" when we have no source which says that. For all we know, the title is just a typo, and instead of "Jacques Molay Takes Jerusalem, 1299", it was supposed to depict "Jacques Molay Takes Tortosa, 1300" (which did happen, and may have been mis-transcribed somewhere, which caused the origin of the 1800s confusion). But we can't say that was what the painting was intended to depict, because again, we'd just be guessing. Unless we can come up with a reliable source that says what the painting was for, I think we should just avoid using it. --Elonka 08:29, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Elonka, but you are the one doing the guessing. This painting, with its title is referenced by a French government site [8], so there is really no reason to dismiss it. However, I can drop the "reflects a belief", and just say that the painting exists. Regards

PHG

08:40, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Corrected: Please re-read the paragraph, it doesn't say anywhere "reflects a belief". I actually think the paragraph as it stands is now very very NPOV.

PHG

08:42, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok the "title" of the painting reflects the belief then. After all, Rembrandts Nightwatch was only called that after 200 yrs of dirt has settled on the originally much brighter picture.

@PHG. A painting is not proof, I can create a painting today depicting that Molay visited the moon in 1295. Your request to provide proof that it is only a belief is not valid. Nobody (yourself included) challenges this belief. However Elonka challenges that this belief is rooted in fact. The burden then lies by the editor supporting this fact to provide the evidence (ie reliable sources) for the fact (not with the editor challenging the fact that the fact never occurred).

Apparently there is a debate over the claim whehter Molay took Jerusalem. This means that this claim now needs a

reference

and may be deleted after due consideration otherwise. It is not the case that the editor challenging a claim should provide evidence, but it is the case that the editor supporting the challenged claim should.

With regard to the title. If the official title is"JACQUES MOLAY PREND JERUSALEM.1299" as you claim - the translation is "Jacques Molay takes Jerusalem.1299". The original title does not seem to include the bit about him being leader of the templars etc. so I am not sure where that comes from in the English translation, IMHO we can and should leave it out. By the way you guys did a great jonArnoutf 08:51, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

If you check the paragraph, at this point I have three sources claiming that Molay took Jerusalem in 1299 (the numerous 13th century accounts mentionned in JSTOR, the François Raynouard, Précis sur les Templiers quote, and the painting with its title), and one specifically claiming that it did not happen (the same JSTOR article). Besides, there are numerous modern French sites claiming he did take Jerusalem, but I agree this cannot be used as a reference. At the very least, this is enough to mention that the story of the capture of Jerusalem circulated in the West: nobody can contest that, I think, and it is exactly what the paragraph says. As you can see, I am quite OK to write that "it is thought this event did not happen". I am not trying to prove that Molay captured Jerusalem in 1299, just that the story circulated (actually for several centuries, down to our time). Regards.

PHG

09:01, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair enough, I would say the claim the story circulated is proven by the sources you give. Whether it actually happened is another issue entirely. Both Western and M.Eastern histories maybe highly biased for propaganda aims. Only in the second half of the 20th century historians have been trying to systeaitcally disentangle fact from romantisised stories (and the fact often proved to be less heroic and much grimmer compared to the stories); and many folk historians will still believe the stories rather than the academics (it is this view you find on many hobby websites). So although your sources are good primary sources for the existence of the story, I would be very careful using such sources to say anything about the actual event. Arnoutf 09:47, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, although I critisise a section above; in general I am very much impressed with the rigorous use of high quality scholarly references throughout this article. Well done there. I think referencing will not prevent you FA candidacy, I would like to see editors from other articles I am involved in to adopt this standard of referencing. Arnoutf 09:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you very much!! I really appreciate!!

PHG

10:37, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I just received a book on Jacques Molay by Alain Demurger, a foremost French specialist of the field, published just ... 2 days ago. He DOES mention at length the possibility that Jerusalem was taken in 1299-1300 by Mongol and Christian forces. An excerpt:

"On December 24th, 1299, the Khan and his allies accomplished a remarkable victory over the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs. The Mongols pursued the fleeing Mamluks towards the south, but stopped in the region of Gaza. On December 30th, Ghazan takes Damas, but the citadel continues to resist. Did they occupy Jerusalem? There is a tradition that Hethoum celebrated a religious office at the Saint-Sepulcre on the day of the Epiphany (January 6th). In the first few months of 1300, all Syria is on the brink of being conquered by the Mongols". "Jacques de Molay"

I will detail these points in the article.

You notice from the quote after "did they occupy J" there is mention of "a tradition" which I would interpret as more evidence of the never disputed claim that it has been believed in the west that Jerus was taken. He does NOT say there is historical evidence, so Demurger is very, very cautious here. Arnoutf 14:14, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

Clearly. I will go on lining up his argument. Interesting stuff... Best regards.

PHG

14:18, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

I have greatly updated the 1298-1303 part based on Demurger. In summary, quite an amazing level of combined activity between the Christians and the Mogols, although they were ultimately met with failure. Regarding Jerusalem, Demurger is quite positive that the capture of the city may have happened, and gives a sampling of the numerous contemporary sources describing various aspects of the occupation, but on the other hand he thinks that Molay was probably not part of that offensive. I tried to reflect these elements in the corresponding paragraph.

PHG

17:06, 8 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no attack on Jerusalem in 1299. Demurger saying, "Did they occupy Jerusalem?" is not a reliable source. I, however, have multiple reliable sources which say that there was no attack. I fear that this section of the article is now straying well into the realm of

undue weight

to a speculation from hundreds of years ago.

In other words, we shouldn't say, "There may have been an attack, but not all sources agree on this." Instead, we should say, "Rumors circulated that there had been an attack on Jerusalem, but modern historians agree that such an event never occurred." --Elonka 01:24, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

There was nothing stopping Christians from visiting Jerusalem and celebrating their own religion there (except for times when it was extremely dangerous and foolish for them to try, like when the Khwarezmians had just occupied it). This goes back as far as Saladin. That Hethoum celebrated an office in the Holy Sepulchre means very little, and especially does not mean he controlled the city. Adam Bishop 04:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I am basically OK with "Rumors circulated that there had been an attack on Jerusalem, but modern historians agree that such an event never occurred.", but forgive me if I would like a few pointed references for that statement. I would also like this stance to be softened, as, for example, Demurger (a modern historian, and quite a reference) never says that the event never took place. As I understand it, all contemporary sources claim that Jerusalem was taken, and it is only a modern analysis that doubts it happened (with only one pointed reference given at this point... a reference I had given in the first place). Throughout his book Demurger (and he is not a "revisionist") clearly leaves the possibility open, and does put forward the statements regarding Hetoum, Easter, the letters from the monks of Cyprus announcing the event etc... as an indication that it may indeed have happened. As far as I know, Christians were not allowed in Jerusalem after 1290 (that is, after the 10-year 1281 truce between Qalawun and Acre). Thank you for the fabulous expansion of that portion of the article by the way!

PHG

05:27, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Sorry but a statement like "Demurger never says that the event never took place" makes no sense in any kind of serious writing. There are vastly more things Demurger never said that never happened. I am, for example pretty, sure that Demurger never said that people never jumped over the moon" - that does not say that he implies people regularly jump over the moon, does it?

What I understand from your account of Demurger is that he does not want to go there. This might mean Demurger considers the historical evidence inconclusive. However, as Demurger is not explicitly anaysing the historical evidence (as far as I understand from you accounts) we cannot draw that conclusion from Demurger. To make such a claim we have to find a source explicitly studying the historical evidence (several outcomes possible - I did happen per the stroies, I did not happen at all, something happened but not exactly like the stories, We don't know) before we can make such claims.

What seems to be the case here - correct me if I am wrong - is that especially in the West the conquest of Jerusalem is the aim of any operation in the East. When successes are reported, losses are sustained and extra troops/money is needed boasting about Jerusalem by the local commanders, or interpretation of objetive reports as such by recipients (literacy was not what it is today) may have created the image of the fall of Jerusalem. Of course this will probably have been taken up happpily by the masses; and the folk-belief came into existence. A source detailing such an argument would IMHO be very interesting (my own lines are original research in as much that it is speculation).Arnoutf 10:01, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

You've got it right, Arnoutf. For a source, see Gesta Dei per Mongolos, a paper that appeared in 1979,[10] and thoroughly discusses the extent and sources of the rumors. The full paper isn't online, but I can email you a pdf if you'd like. I've also been in correspondence with a couple history professors about this, and they're in agreement that there was no attack on Jerusalem in 1299, but that there were indeed rumors of such an attack, because that's what the Christians wanted to believe, and because the large crowds in Rome that year (for the Jubilee) made the environment ripe for a really juicy urban legend. Please see my new "Rumors" section in the article for more. As for the 1800s painting in Versailles, I haven't found any formal "debunking" published source on it yet, but the professors that I've spoken to all agree that it was based on faulty history, and that there was no 1299 attack. I've also written to the Versailles museum to see if they can offer any further background. Granted, any letter that I might get back would be unusable as a source in the Wikipedia article, but it would still be nice to learn more! --Elonka 11:40, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I cannot agree with such sweeping statements as "the capture of Jerusalem DID NOT happen" or "modern scholars agree that it did not happen". The leading French specialist Demurger, for example, discusses the issue extensively, and refrains from concluding one way or the other. This is quite a NPOV stance in my opinion, as neither can really be proved, and circumstantial evidence does suggest it may well have happened (contemporary reports, the Mongol advance going as far south as

PHG

14:20, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

It's very difficult to prove a negative. But what things really boil down to, as far as Wikipedia is concerned, are reliable sources. In other words, the burden of proof is not on me to prove that the battle didn't happen, but instead on any editor who wishes to add the information, to prove that it did happen. So far I have not seen any reliable sources which categorically state that the battle occurred, but if you feel that you have such sources, I am open to reviewing them. Or to put it another way: Just what further sources do you think would help settle your mind that the battle did not occur? Or alternately, what source would you like, to prove that the vast majority of modern academics, are in consensus that there was no such battle? --Elonka 22:56, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. I am not trying to "prove" that it did, or did not happen. I am just making a point that it seems rather inconclusive actually. My reference for that is Demurger, who takes this exact stance. As he is a leading expert on the question, it is sufficient reason to avoid statement to the effect that "all experts agree on this point", or that Jerusalem "categorically" was no taken. Best regards.

PHG

23:07, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I dispute that Demurger is a "leading expert" on the subject. The leading expert on the Knights Templar, is Malcolm Barber, followed probably by Helen Nicholson. Neither of whom agrees that there was a 1299 battle. And even Demurger did not categorically state that there was a battle. He didn't say that Jerusalem was captured, he simply raised the question, "Did they occupy Jerusalem?", and then commented that King Hethoum celebrated a Christian ceremony in the city. Even my own sources agree that Hethoum was at one point in Jerusalem, but that's a far cry from saying that there was an entire battle there. Hethoum wasn't "occupying" the city, he just made a side trip to play tourist. --Elonka 18:12, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Demurger is probably the leading French expert on Jacques de Molay, and as this is primarily a French topic, I think that he would naturally be one of the leading experts Internationally. Regarding your second point, as a matter of common sense, I really wonder how you can claim that Hethoum, who participated to the Mongol invasion, "just made a side trip to play tourist" in enemy territory. Regards

PHG

21:21, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Hethoum is said to have been heading a small force when he reached the outskirts of Cairo and then spent 15 days in Jerusalem... (Schein, p.810) so he clearly was not there as a tourist...

PHG

23:00, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

He may have left his force in Cairo and visited Jerusalem with a few friends during the non-fighting season. Please do not project modern ideas of warfare on the medievial culture. Arnoutf 07:30, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

(unindented) Please stop bickering about source reliability. As far as I can see both sources are highly reliable, and they do not openy contradict each other. Overly reliance on a single source will introduce a bias in the article as all scientist interpret, hence try to use both rather then one.
About the visit. Both tourism and total war are fairly new inventions. It is not unlikely that in the mores of that time enemies visitors (outside open fighting actions) were accepted in enemy towns. How to deal with citizens in war changes; remember the American civil war where women and children came out as spectators to the battles..... Of course Hethoum did not visit Jerusalem as a "tourist". He probably thought it a holy duty to risk breach of parley by his enemies to visit the holy city (compare the pilgrimage to Mecca). Hence it is not so strange he visited.
Please try to work towards a solution, I think this article is too good to be plagued by this debate forever. Arnoutf 21:40, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

If you read again the paragraph as it stands today, I don't think there should be any issue. Regards.

PHG

22:25, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

I noticed the article was not promoted. My advice would be to solve the Jerusalem discussion (above), read and copyedit once more. Have a look at the FAR comments, process those, and try to get it through GA candidacy; the level for GA is lower while it still indicates the article is very good. I think it would also be a step towards a next FA review after some mre development Arnoutf 10:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article will be a great FA candidate someday, but isn't there yet. Specific changes that I'd like to see (aside from finally putting the Jerusalem issue to rest), would be:

• A wider variety of sources. Right now much of the article is sourced to the books by Runciman and Grousset, which are considered worthy from the time that they were written, but are currently viewed as being a bit out-dated in parts, since they were written in the 1950s and 1930s. There are many many other more modern books and articles on this subject, which should also be considered as sources.
• Less reliance on primary source quotes. per
  WP:QUOTE I think that a few judiciously-used quotes can be good for an article, when they're directly relevant, and major "notable" quotes on a subject. But right now this article has sections where quotes are scattered every few lines, and I think that this breaks up the narrative flow. I'd recommend either removing many of the quotes entirely, or perhaps moving them down to the "Notes" section, or even setting up a page at Wikiquote or Wikisource
  , which we can link to from here.
• Condensing sections. The article is pretty long already (64K). We should either condense some sections, or move them out to separate articles per
  WP:SUMMARY
  .
• Decide on a better article title. I just don't think "Franco-Mongol alliance" is appropriate, since there really wasn't a clear alliance. Perhaps "Franco-Mongol diplomacy" or "Franco-Mongol alliances"? I'm open to suggestions.

--Elonka 12:05, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

• Huge thanks to all editors for your efforts and contributions during this FA process! The article almost doubled in length, and I think became much more interesting and precise in content!
• This article has been attacked quite strongly from its inception, as it apparently surprised some editors that the Mongols had anything to do with Christianity, or that the Templars may have been involved in alliances with the Mongols. I am extremely glad we apparently went over that, and that the reality of Franco-Mongol alliances is now better understood and recognized. I'll put it up for FA again some time from now, and hope for further collaboration to bring the article to that level.
• I have started to condense some of the quotes, but I feel they bring so much to the authenticity of the article, and are so amazing in their content, that I would essentially like to keep most of them... like Molay writing he is preparing his troops to join the Mongols!!
• Again, "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a standard appellation for these event, used by scholarly sources abundantly (Demurger, Grousset). I think we should keep it, and not try to soften it into for example "Franco-Mongol diplomacy", as alliances were indeed made, and resulted in quite a few common actions in a period close to a century. I thought again about "Christian-Mongol alliance", but it has one terrible drawback: it implies that the Mongols were not, or had nothing to do with Christianity (!!), which of course makes this title an impossibility. Best regards.
  PHG
  15:44, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

I would have expected "Frankish-Mongol", since "Franco-" sounds like modern France. I can't remember what the term is in French but I'll take your word for it :) And yes, it is very silly that people opposed this because they couldn't believe the Mongols had any connection to Christianity. That is a major drawback to the Peer Review and Featured Article process here... Adam Bishop 04:15, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Adam. The term in French indeed is "Franco-Mongol alliance" (Demurger, Grosset), and apparently also in English quite often (Google... Angus Stewart has "Franco-Mongol entente" [11]). Google only turns up two instances of "Frankish-Mongol alliance". Best regards.

PHG

04:53, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

For the record, I did not oppose the FA candidacy because I disputed that the Templars were in discussions with the Mongols, I disputed the FA for many other reasons, including that a great deal of other Templar-related information in the article was flat-out wrong. For example, the version of the article at that time had an entire section claiming that the Templars had joined forces with the Mongols to capture Jerusalem in 1299.[12] Such a battle did not happen, and I'm disappointed that it has taken so much effort on my part to get that section removed or even toned down. Since I'm the primary editor behind getting the Knights Templar article to FA status, I would think that there could be some assumption of good faith, that I know what I'm talking about when it comes to the Templars, and that the sources I am quoting, are reliable ones. I also intend to dispute several other current statements in the "alliance" article, but I'm not going to address them all at once, especially if I'm going to meet as much resistance on all of them, as I am on the false statements about the "1299 Capture of Jerusalem." To be clear: Any information in this article which comes from sources that claimed the capture of Jerusalem in 1299, should be seriously questioned, because if they got that part wrong, they probably got a lot of other information wrong too. --Elonka 18:26, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

@Elonka. I think you are making a big issue of a relatively minor detail here (although I agree it has to be solved before FA can be awarded). PHG has been trying to make the case for the 1299 Jerusalem attack, but he has not provided a single (reliable) source explicitly supporting his/her claim. However, (unlikely as it may be) if a modern historian of high standing would report such evidence in a high quality scientific publication, this information should be taken seriously and weighed against sources that state no such attack occurred in a fair and objective way. However, this is strictly hypothetical at the moment; and (IMHO) it is unlikely that such a reference appears in the future so it seems a moot point. Arnoutf 20:47, 10 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka, following your request Templar-related internet sites were removed from the article when used as sources. Should you have trouble with any other claim in the article, do not hesitate to point them out. Regards

Hi Elonka. Could you kindly refrain from deleting sources and references as you did in [13]? All this is sourced from highly recognized published material (Demurger, Schein etc...), and I believe it is highly relevant to the description of the rumors connected to the capture of Jerusalem. Modern historians are quoting and referencing extensively from these contemporary sources, so there is no reason why we should not mention them on Wikipedia. Best regards.

I read the full text of "Gesta Dei Per Mongolos 1300. The genesis of a non-event", by Sylvia Schein.

Actually, she does consider as fact that the Mongols ruled over the Holy Land for 4 months between January and May 1300:

"The fact still remains that since the end of May 1300 there were no Mameluk forces left in Syria. For a brief period, some four months in all, the Mongol il-khan was de facto the lord of the Holy Land"

— Sylvia Schein, p.810

Therefore I suppose that when she says earlier that "the recovery of the Holy Land never happened", what she means is that the recovery by the Christians from the Mongols did not happen, not that Mongol forces did not take the Holy Land.

She further mentions that modern Arab historians consider as fact that the Mongols raided Jerusalem and Gaza that year:

"Arab historians however, like Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazzail, an-Nuwairi and Makrizi, report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza"

— Sylvia Schein, p.810

This led me to Arab sources, which appear to be very specific that the Mongols took Jerusalem in the 1300 offensive. I just looked at the translation of the work of Ibn Tamiyya, Chap 11, translated by Yahia Michaud, Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies [14]:

"In 1300 (...) the Mongols made 100,000 captives among the Muslims. In Jerusalem, in Jabal al-Salihiya, in Naplouse, in Homs, in Daraya and elsewere, they killed and made a number of captives that only God can reckon"

— Ibn Tamiyya p67

It is interesting that Arab sources claim that the Mongols raided and took Jerusalem, as they hardly can have depended on Western "rumours" for their knowledge of the situation in the Levant...

On balance, in view of these references, I plan to clearly state in the article that:

• The Mongols invaded the Holy Land as far as Jerusalem and Gaza in 1300 (basically everyone agrees on that)
• That Jerusalem was probably raided and captured during the Mongol offensive, quoting modern Arab historians and ancient Arab sources.
• That Western historians are in doubt whether Jerusalem was actually captured (Demurger clearly is in doubt, and we still need a reference positively stating that Jerusalem was not taken in 1299).

Regards,

I think it would be unwise, and probably a violation of the policy on

no original research to try and make the case here that Jerusalem was taken, based on a few primary sources from the 1300s. In order to make such a major claim (and really, the possession of Jerusalem has been one of the key turning points in history for several hundred years now), we need some major, modern, and extremely reliable sources. Jerusalem wasn't some minor village that changed hands here and there, it was the center of attention. The Crusades have been documented in multiple books and articles -- I would want to see affirmation in modern works that such a capture happened, before we should add such an incendiary claim to the Wikipedia article. Also, this really isn't the place that this matter should even be being discussed. If you think you've got a good case that Jerusalem was under Mongol control, you should try convincing the editors at the History of Jerusalem article first. --Elonka

16:00, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Elonka here. Primary sources are likely to overstate/change things because of political reasons at the time. Also your quote

can also mean that the "countryside" was raided but the cities were not taken.

Although I disagree with Elonka that other articles should change first. If you provide a source that explicitly confirms that the city Jerusalem was conquered you can put it in here. However, your current quotes as I have illustrated above are not conclusive and IMHO you have overinterpreted the meaning of those. Please let your interpretation not be guided by what you want to read, but by what the author wants to communicate. Arnoutf 17:10, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

For the benefit of other editors, I am reproducing the two footnotes from Schein's article, which PHG seems to be relying upon:

Statement: "Meanwhile the Mongol and Armenian troops raided the country as far south as Gaza"(3)
 

Footnote (3): Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazail, Histoire des Sultans Mamlouks, ed. E. Blochet, Patrologia Orientalis, xiv (1920), pp. 623 ff.; xx (1929),pp. 17 ff. An-Nuwairi in D. P. Little, An Introduction to Mamluk Historiography (Wiesbaden, 1970), pp 24-27. Histoire des Sultans Mamlouks de l'Egypte ecrite en Arabe par Taki Edditt Ahmed Makrixi, ed. and trans. M. Quatremere, ii (Paris, 1845), pp. 134 ff. Geschichte Gazan-Hari's aus dem Ta'rih-I-Mubaruk-I-Gazani des Rasid al-Din, ed. K. Jahn (London, 1940),p. xxxvii
 

Statement: "According to an Armenian source, Hethoum II with a small force reached the outskirts of Cairo and then spent some fifteen days in Jerusalem visiting the Holy Places.(4)
 

Footnote (4): Chronique du Royaume de la Petite Armenie, RHC. Doc. Arm., i. 660: 'Pendant les quinze jours qu'il passa dans la Cite sainte, il fit celebrer avec pompe les ceremonies du culte chretien, et des fetes solennelles aux Saints Lieux . . .'. See also p. 656. These expeditions of the King of Armenia and especially his visit to Jerusalem are strangely enough, not mentioned either by the 'Templar of Tyre', Marino Sanudo or even by Hayton. Arab historians however, like Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazzail, an-Nuwairi and Makrizi, report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza (see above n. 3).
 

Summary: We don't exactly have a slamdunk case from these that "The Mongols took Jerusalem." We have sources stating that the Mongols engaged in raids as far south as Gaza, and we have a statement that according to one unconfirmed Armenian source, Hethoum was in Jerusalem for 15 days. It's a huge leap to go from that, to saying that the Mongols captured Jerusalem. We just don't have sufficient reliable sources to make that kind of claim. Also, think of it this way: When a battle occurred in that region, it was usually extensively documented, in excruciating detail. Scribes were recording the date of the attack, the names of the officers, and often even the details of the siege equipment involved. We just don't have anything like that to corroborate an attack on Jerusalem. It's one thing to say that there were military forces in the area. It's another to say that a city was captured. --Elonka 17:02, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

I think that is a fair interpretation of the issue. Note that even if Hethoum was facutally in Jerusalem that still does not confirm he took it by force. During a ceasefire it is far from impossible that he got permission to visit the holy city. This may sound strange from a modern perspective on war, but may not have been so weird 800 yrs ago Arnoutf 17:12, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, I do have quite a good secondary source that speaks of a Mongol conquest of Jerusalem, Runciman, that is quoted quite a lot in the article. Only nothing is said of a Mongol conquest in 1300; in 1299 Ghazzan did invade Syria, smashing the Mamluks at Homs (December 23) and occupying Damascus in January 1300, but he left Syria in February. Eight years later, Ghazzan invaded Syria again and took Jerusalem. Runciman adds that no attempt to estabilish tractatives was made by the Franks, the Pope or Cyprus, but speaks of a legend written down two centuries laters of a good Tartar Christian emperor called "Casanus" that would have offered Jerusalem to the Franks.--Aldux 17:49, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Response by PHG

• Thank you Aldux for your mention of Runciman. It seems however that Ghazan was already dead in 1308, but his successor also indeed raided Syria. I will research whether he also went to Jerusalem (later though, I guess that will be my next debate with Elonka!). Regards.
  PHG
  21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

• Here's another, even more precise ancient quote from Arab sources related to the 1299-1300 conquest (quoted in "Textes Spirituels d'Ibn Taymiyya", Chap XI):

"The Tatars then made a raid against Jerusalem and against the city of Khalil. They massacred the inhabitants of these two cities (...) it is impossible to describe the amount of atrocities, destructions, plundering they did, the number of prisonners, children and women, they took as slaves".

— Ibn Abi L-Fada'Il, Histoire, Trad. Blochet, t.XIV, p.667

Clearly, these raids were not just in the countryside, but took place inside the cities.

• Although I respect Elonka's position, she hasn't been able to provide one single reference specifically backing her claim that the Mongols "DID NOT take Jerusalem in 1299-1300". The closest would be an interpretation of a statement by Schein, but the same Schein also states as a fact that the Mongols ruled over the Holy Land between February and May 1300. On the contrary, I have brought forward quantities of quotes from Western and Arab ancient sources alike which relate the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols, modern sources (especially modern Arab historians quoted by Schein) which describe matter-of-factly the Mongol raids on Jerusalem, and other modern sources such as Demurger who do entertain the possibility of the conquest of Jerusalem, given the ancient evidence.

• In summary, I have found nothing specifically stating that this DID NOT happen, on the contrary all the sources in my possession do indicate that it did. I am only interested in the truth, so if there are sources proving otherwise, they have to be put forward, otherwise there is no need to continue this discussion: we will stick with what available references say. Thank you to all for this interesting discussion... at least we have a very highly referenced article now. Best regards
  PHG
  21:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Elonka's point about primary sources is valid. There is no evidence that d'Ibn Taymiyya did report the actual facts; at least not according to modern views on historic reporting. To make the claim stick we need a 1950 or (preferably much) later academic historian that has the same view.

There is no need (nor possibility) to provide sources of something that did not happen. This is obvious as otherwise anyone could be challenged to find a source that explicitly denies that Julius Caesar was actually a 9 foot tall purple radioactive octopus (try to find a source explicitly denying that...).

I still think you have convinced yourself the 1299 capture took place and are now over-interpreting sources to fit your idea. I have no strong feelings about the issues, but you have not provided sources, nor interpretation of sources that convinces me otherwise. Arnoutf 21:54, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arnoutf, I am not saying there is definite proof one way or the other (there may never be). I am only saying that all the references we have found on the subject favour the occupation of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1299-1300. If you read the article, you will see that I write "It remains unclear whether Jerusalem was actual taken or not during this Mongol/Christian offensive", which is fairly NPOV, and is referenced by a very authoritative modern source (Demurger).

The three modern Arab historians quoted by Schein do consider as fact that Jerusalem was raided by the Mongols. Normally, it is a sufficient statement, but you said it might be only the countryside. This is why I am putting in the Ibn Taymiyya quote, which clearly indicates it was the city itself.

Another among modern historian, Demurger, doesn't take a final position, but suggests that evidence indicates that Jerusalem was taken.

As mentioned by Aldux, Runciman (1954) does state that the Mongols took Jerusalem, although he puts the date in 1308. I suppose Elonka would not accept this statement as well.

All ancient sources, Western and Arab, state that Jerusalem was taken by the Mongols in 1299-1300... I do think that's quite something to mention in an Encyclopedia!

Beyond this, if Elonka wants to prove that all this never happened, she needs to put forward sources now, because none have been provided.

The article just states what available references say at this point, no more no less. Best regards

PHG

22:11, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, we have multiple sources which state that the battle did not occur. If you want, I can quote multiple timelines of the Crusades which skip right over 1299. If Jerusalem had changed hands in 1299/1300, it is definitely an event which history books would mention. But they are silent on this, because they are in agreement that there were rumors of the capture of Jerusalem, but that these rumors were false. I also have multiple sources which state that after the Khawarizmi Turks took Jerusalem in 1244, that it was not under Christian control again until 1917, when the British took it from the Ottomans. We also have Schein's article, which states categorically on the first page: "The alleged recovery of the Holy Land [in 1300] did not happen."[15] We also have the book The Mongols by David Morgan, which on page 161 says, "Indeed, at one point Europe was swept with rumours that the Mongols had actually taken Jerusalem from the Mamluks and had returned it to Christian rule. Although this had not in fact happened, the stories did reflect the reality of Ghazan's remarkable successes in 1299-1300 when he drove the Mamluk forces completely out of Syria, only to withdraw again to Persia."[16] We also have all the sources that I have quoted above. I understand why you may be confused on this issue, with all of the rumors racing around in 1300, of course we have multiple written primary source documents from that time period, which state that Jerusalem was captured. But here we are, 700 years later, and we know that those sources were based on faulty information and rumors, and that Jerusalem was not captured. This is a classic case of where we must rely on the Wikipedia policy of

WP:NOR. It is up to us to report the prevailing views of modern and reliable historians. It would be irresponsible of us to try and have a Wikipedia article that said, "The Mongols captured Jerusalem." In fact, it would be flat out embarrassing. --Elonka

22:55, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, I think you also is exagerating Elonka in presenting the conquest of Jerusalem as PHG's OR, as there are certainly reliable secondary sources who support this (and also the opposite). Also I have difficulty in putting this under "extraordinary claims". Also, what do you mean with "after the Khawarizmi Turks took Jerusalem in 1244, that it was not under Christian control again until 1917, when the British took it from the Ottomans."? Look that the Ilkhans were muslims after 1295, and the Armenians were just vassals, so this statement you make is a bit strange. That said, there certainly are sources which clearly state that no Jerusalem takeover happened in 1300. To the sources: Andrew Jotischky in Crusading And The Crusader States writes "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia". Against this, one can counter The Medieval Expansion of Europe, which states "Jerusalem had not been taken or even besieged". Another source is The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks by Angus Donal, which is careful not to endorse or refuse, and simply notes that the earliest Armenian account "has been accepted as genuine by at least one modern historian of the period." Against this David Morgan in his Mongols, using Schein as a reference, roundly states of the taking of Jerusalem "this had not in fact happened".--Aldux 23:48, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

From "God's War: A New History of the Crusades, p. 771: "...[the Khwarazmian Turks] attacked Jerusalem on 23 August [1244], easily overcoming the feeble defences, killing any Franks they found and desecrating the Christian Holy Places. Christian rule in the Holy City was ended, not to be revived until the ending of Ottoman rule in December 1917 by a British army." Adam Bishop also confirmed this in his own comment above.[17] And I can probably pull up many more sources which say effectively the same thing. --Elonka 00:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm.. It's point that I don't catch; as the Mongols were Muslims thereselves and the Armenians hardly more than vassals, I hardly see how an eventual Ilkhanid conquest in 1300 would affect the sentence quoted by you in any way, anymore than the Ottoman conquest in 1517...--Aldux 00:48, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for offering additional sources, they are helpful. As for my pushing the point about the Christians, part of that is because much of this debate has been about whether or not the Christians were in control of Jerusalem in 1299/1300. If we can all agree that they never were, I'm willing to put that issue to rest. As for the Mongols, I think there's also considerable confusion about years here. The Mongols were most notably in the area twice, once around 1260, around the time that they were beaten back by the Mamluks at the Battle of Ain Jalut, and again around 1300. As I understand it, they caused damage to Jerusalem around 1260, but merely engaged in some raids in the area around 1300. I think that some historical accounts are muddling the 1260 Mongol actions, with anything they may or may not have done in 1300. So could you please clarify on your sources, which years that we're talking about? I'm specifically interested in the Jotischky book, which I am not familiar with. What is he using for a source, to claim that the Mongols occupied Jerusalem in 1300? Also, just checking, is there any chance that he is confusing the 1300 Mongol incursions to Palestine, with their activities in the area in 1260? Thanks for checking, Elonka 02:30, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you all for providing all these additional sources! As far as I know, Jerusalem was not taken in 1260. The situation regarding 1299-1300 however is quite clear: all ancient sources, Western and Arab, are coherent in stating that Jerusalem was raided or taken. On the other hand, modern sources are divided on the question.
• Clearly, the Mongols were already starting to become Muslims at that time (Ghazan was a Muslim), although their enimity towards the Mamlouks had not abated and they found an objective ally in the Franks. Considering their capture of Jerusalem not a Christian capture is essentially true, except for the fact that the Armenians constituted one of the invasion armies under Ghazan, and that some Hospitallers and Templars also joined his invasion (Demurger, p.142). The Armenians indeed were Christians, and they are documented to have been to Jerusalem during the invasion.
• I am glad we are seemingly through with this discussion. For the actual article content, little changes: description of ancient Arab and Western sources, modern sources stating that Jerusalem was raided/captured, and modern sources stating that it was not. I will tone down the huge part on "all this never happened and was just imagined by wishful-thinking Westerners", in favour of a more balanced statement (pros and cons).
• Thank you again to all and best regards
  PHG
  05:08, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Dear Elonka. You have been deleting a huge amount of proper references without discussions in your latest edits. Can you please kindly discuss beforehand what you want to edit and why, and respect the contributions of others? I am reinstating the pre-existing material, and am ready to discuss should there be any specific issue. Please add on other's work, rather than delete what they have done: at this point the more sources and information we have, the better. Also, if you wish to tag "Disputed" on an article, you need to give a rationale for that. Best regards,

I am in the middle of a very large copyedit, please give me some time to finish.  :) --Elonka 06:03, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

No problem, Elonka. Looking forward to the result! Best regards

PHG

06:04, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, based on the fact that we have considerable disagreement in previous threads on this talkpage, and that you did a wholescale revert of my edits before I was even finished (even deleting new sources that I had added),[18] I think it's pretty clear that we have a dispute. But yes, I'm in full agreement that the best way to proceed is to add on others' work, rather than delete what they have done. I recommend that we leave the "disputed" tag on the article until things are a bit more stable. Also, glancing at your contribs:

talk · contribs), it seems that you've been pretty much intensely focused on this one article for several days now. This isn't always a bad thing, but may I gently suggest that you might want to spend some time working on other articles, too? It could help give some perspective on things. Best, Elonka

06:53, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I've removed the {{

inuse}} tag. There are actually some other edits I wanted to make (I spent some time in a (very large) library today), but it's late here and I need to get some sleep. PHG, the baton is yours, though please do keep in mind that I have other additions in store.  :) --Elonka

07:09, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, I have just spent 2 hours reinstating dozens of sources you had deleted. I appreciate your edits, but please avoid deleting existing references while making them.
  PHG
  08:19, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

• PHG, to my knowledge, I did not delete any sources, though it's possible that some information may have been lost when I was running into edit conflicts with you. I did, however, move several primary source quotes from the main text, down into the Notes. I also combined several references. For example, it's not necessary to have multiple references in one paragraph that all link to the same page -- one single ref at the end of the paragraph is plenty. As it is, the "references" section on this article is getting unwieldy, with over 170 cites right now, many of which appear to be duplicates. Since we have so many references that are going to the same few pages, it makes sense to do some condensing. This does not mean that I have any intention of removing the sources of Demurger, Runciman, and Grousset... I'm just reducing the quantity of times that they're cited, since they're already very well-covered. --Elonka 18:05, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm impressed with the amount of work that has been done on this article, and the many high quality sources that are accumulating.  :) However, the article has grown to a size that is beginning to get a bit unwieldy, at about 80K. Per

I think the current issues need to be solved first. Then a round of thorough copy-editing should be put on the text (it is possible the text is shortened by that). If the article is still unwieldy I think then is the time to consider splitting. I agree with your problem... where??. Most splits will be artificial. So I would suggest trying to keep it together for now at least. Arnoutf 20:36, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Arnoutf. The subject is already so narrow and arcane that I don't think there is a good reason to split it. When you take the (copious) notes out, the article stands at about 60K, which is a very reasonable size. Many FAs are bigger than that. By the way, I think I am about through with adding content, so the article should not get much bigger. Elonka, I am glad you are starting to like this article :)

PHG, I am very concerned about something. Yesterday, as part of a larger edit, you added a source for a claim about whether or not to believe the Armenian source that Jerusalem had been captured. Your specific ref was:

""The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks" by Angus Donal, in which he is careful not to endorse or refuse, and simply notes that the earliest Armenian account "has been accepted as genuine by at least one modern historian of the period.""[19]

However, when I went in to verify the source today, it seemed to say something quite different. He seemed to clearly reject Schein's assertion about the Armenian source, and said instead:

"At one point, "Arab chroniclers" are cited as being in support of an absurd claim made by a later Armenian source, but on inspection of the citations, they do no such thing.

And in his footnote, he further criticized Schein's work. Specifically:

"The Armenian source cited is the RHC Arm., I version of the 'Chronicle of the Kingdom', but this passage was in fact inserted into the translation of the chronicle by its editor, Dulaurier, and originates in the (unreliable) work of Nerses Balienc... The "Arab chroniclers" cited are Mufaddal (actually a Copt; the edition of Blochet), al-Maqrizi (Quatremere's translation) and al-Nuwayrf. None of these sources confirm Nerses' story in any way; in fact, as is not made clear in the relevant footnote, it is not the text of al-Nuwayrf that is cited, but D.P. Little's discussion of the writer in his Introduction to Mamluk Historiography (Montreal 1970; 24-27), and in that there is absolutely no mention made of any Armenian involvement at all in the events of the year. It is disappointing to find such a cavalier attitude to the Arabic source material."

You can read the text for yourself at Google Books: Footnote #55. Can you please explain? --Elonka 01:17, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

The phrase "Another source is The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks by Angus Donal, which is careful not to endorse or refuse, and simply notes that the earliest Armenian account "has been accepted as genuine by at least one modern historian of the period." was provided above by User:Aldux, who is typically a knowledgeable contributor of high-standing. He didn't give a specific page as a reference though, which would be nice to have.

In the part you are quoting, it seems Angus is actually challenging Schein's own reference to Arab works, which would explain the portion "Angus(...)simply notes that the earliest Armenian account "has been accepted as genuine by at least one modern historian of the period.", the historian in question being Schein. Fair enough. Then remains the "which is careful not to endorse or refuse", which would require to read the whole book to confirm Angus's position, but this is not accessible through the link you gave.

This would require further reading the whole book, or obtain a more precise reference from Aldux, but for the moment your point seems inconclusive.

By the way, you do not even have to refer to these Chroniclers for the part about the Mongols going as far as Gaza, this is already mentionned by Le Templier de Tyr, and Armenian primary sources are directly quoted by Schein regarding the story of king Hethoum going to Jerusalem.

PHG

03:29, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

I apologize for accusing you of misquoting the source, as I agree, you appear to have just been copy/pasting what Aldux posted. As for Stewart's quote "accepted by a modern historian as genuine", it is from footnote 354, where Stewart (and btw, his name is Angus Donal Stewart, not Angus Donal) is referring to Schein.[20] The quote is accurate, but I believe that it's taken out of context, as Stewart ends the footnote with the statement, "I do not see how any of these references (especially the latter, which does not mention any Armenian involvement at all) confirm Nerses' story)," and if you look at the actual text of the page, rather than the footnote, it's clear that he regards the Armenian source as unreliable. In other words, he's saying that Schein accepted the source as reliable, but Stewart strongly disagrees. And he's not ambiguous about it -- elsewhere in the book he calls it "an absurd claim." I would also point out that in one of your recent reverts, that the misquote from Stewart's book (including the misspelling of his name) was put back into the article (footnote 130 in this edit[21]). --Elonka 05:15, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Hello everybody. Regarding the source in question, I've read from Google books using the limited preview option pages 142, 143, 144, 146, that is those that spoke of the 1299/1300 campaign. I can't say I agree with your interpretation of the text, but obviously mine also is inevitably an interpretation of the author's pages.--Aldux 22:55, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. You are deleting huge portions of the article, to replace it with your own interpretation [22]. This is not a nice way to proceed. Again, please respect the contributions of others: add onto them rather than destroy them.

• Elonka, you write "The Mongol forces also retreated north in February 1300, possibly because their horses needed fodder.[125] This left something of a vacuum in Palestine, but meant, as Dr. Sylvia Schein puts it, "...[from] the end of January till the end of May 1300 there were no Mameluk forces left in Syria. For a brief period, some four months in all, the Mongol il-khan was de facto the lord of the Holy Land"". You forget to say that 10,000 Mongols remained in the Holy Land to occupy it: it is totally unjustified that you qualify that as "something of a vacuum".
  PHG
  04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, you write: "In Schein's 2005 book, Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099-1187) published shortly after her death in 2004, she seems to have put the matter to rest, by stating clearly that after Saladin recaptured the city in 1187, except for the period from 1229-1244, Jerusalem remained under Muslim control throughout the rest of the Middle Ages." quoting Schein, 2005, p. 157. "Earthly Jerusalem, ruled by the Moslems (except for the short period of 1229-1244), was to loom large in all types of medieval apocalypticism."

I am afraid your interpretation is unjustified and farfetched as Schein's statement is extremely vast and vague, and does not refer specifically to the Mongol invasions. On the contrary, when she does write about Mongol invasions, she discusses extensively about the evidence suggesting they briefly occupied the city in 1300.

PHG

04:07, 14 September 2007 (UTC)