Misplaced Pages

:Requests for arbitration/Franco-Mongol alliance/Evidence/Shell Kinney Sources Table: Difference between revisions - Misplaced Pages

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
< Misplaced Pages:Requests for arbitration | Franco-Mongol alliance | Evidence Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 21:42, 26 February 2008 editPer Honor et Gloria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers53,031 edits Response by PHG← Previous edit Latest revision as of 02:15, 22 February 2015 edit undoJonesey95 (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, Mass message senders, Template editors372,463 editsm Fixing "Pages with ISBN errors" error in citation 
(22 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 1: Line 1:
:::''Embedded responses by PHG to this table are visible .''

{| class="wikitable" {| class="wikitable"
|- |-
Line 7: Line 9:
|- |-
|{{cite journal | author=Sylvia Schein | title=Gesta Dei per Mongols 1300.The genesis of a non-event | journal=The English Historical Review |volume=94|issue=373|date=October 1979|pages=801|url=http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/XCIV/CCCLXXIII/805}} |{{cite journal | author=Sylvia Schein | title=Gesta Dei per Mongols 1300.The genesis of a non-event | journal=The English Historical Review |volume=94|issue=373|date=October 1979|pages=801|url=http://ehr.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/citation/XCIV/CCCLXXIII/805}}
|While arguing that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1299: 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 the Mongol forces did not take Jerusalem.<br/> |While arguing that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1299: 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 the Mongol forces did not take Jerusalem.<br/><br/>In response to this evidence:"...'''Sylvia Schein nowhere says that "The Mongols did not capture Jerusalem".'''...She also quotes numerous contemporary sources (Muslim, Armenian, Christian) which describe the capture of Jerusalem....Schein actually writes in her 1991 book, that the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed"

Response by PHG. I re-read the article, and I think the interpretation should be more subtle than that. Sylvia Schein nowhere says that "The Mongols did not capture Jerusalem". She actually says "Many Christians laboured under the impression that the Holy Land, including with the Holy Sepulchre, were conquered by the Mongol khan Ghazan from the Moslems and handed over to the Christians. Actually the alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened." I think she denies that the "recovery" by the Christians took place (it is why she uses the word "recovery"), not the conquest itself. Further in the text she describes the incident as an "ephemeral event" (meaning "short in duration", not "inexistent") (p.808). She also says that "for a brief period, some four months in all, the Mongol Il-Khan was ''de facto'' the lord of the Holy Land" (p.810). She also quotes numerous contemporary sources (Muslim, Armenian, Christian) which describe the capture of Jerusalem. I think it is quite unfair to represent Schein's article as a denial that Jerusalem was taken by the Mongols: for her it is visibly rather an "ephemeral" event or a "non-event", but not something that undoubtedly never happened. In a later work, Schein actually writes in her 1991 book, that the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed" because they are documented to have removed the Golden Gate of the ] in 1300, to have it transferred to Damascus. ("The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (''Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350'', ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163). And I am not alone: this is also the understanding of some historians: in ''The Crusaders and the Crusader States'', Andrew Jotischky used Schein's 1979 article and later 1991 book to state, "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia" (Jotischky, ''The Crusaders and the Crusader States'', p. 249). ] (]) 21:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
|Contemporary European chroniclers present for the year 1300 detailed and strangely uniform description of a recovery of the holy land by the Mongols. ... '''Actually the alleged recovery of the holy land never happened.''' ... It is our argument that the basis of the story was a Mongol victory in northern Syria. This victory was transformed in 1300, due to very particular circumstances, into the story of an alleged recovery of the holy land for Christendom. |Contemporary European chroniclers present for the year 1300 detailed and strangely uniform description of a recovery of the holy land by the Mongols. ... '''Actually the alleged recovery of the holy land never happened.''' ... It is our argument that the basis of the story was a Mongol victory in northern Syria. This victory was transformed in 1300, due to very particular circumstances, into the story of an alleged recovery of the holy land for Christendom.
|Schein is completely unambiguous as to her meaning, in fact, her entire paper is devoted to '''debunking the myth that the Mongols captured Jerusalem''', yet PHG titles his post "New sources on the capture of Jerusalem" and even goes so far as to state "in view of these references...Western historians are in doubt whether Jerusalem was actually captured". The article is available via - for those without access, I can provide a limited number of PDF copies of the article. |Schein is completely unambiguous as to her meaning, in fact, her entire paper is devoted to '''debunking the myth that the Mongols captured Jerusalem''', yet PHG titles his post "New sources on the capture of Jerusalem" and even goes so far as to state "in view of these references...Western historians are in doubt whether Jerusalem was actually captured". The article is available via - for those without access, I can provide a limited number of PDF copies of the article.<br/><br/>
From PHG's response, the "numerous contemporary sources" are hard to find; this is because they are ''footnotes'' on a section when Schein says modern historians got it wrong too and please see the reference for PHG's loose interpretation of the word "modern". He does the same thing when referring to the 1991 book; I do not have it on hand at the moment, but that's another footnote folks, not something Schein said. Further, in Schein's last book ''Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099-1187)'' published in 2005, she states on page 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." which clearly contradicts PHG's insistence that this historian claims there was a Mongol conquest of Jerusalem in 1300.
|- |-
|{{cite book |author=Peter Jackson|title=The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410 |year=2005 |pages=173-174 |publisher=Longman |ISBN=0582368960 }} |{{cite book |author=Peter Jackson|title=The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410 |year=2005 |pages=173-174 |publisher=Longman |ISBN=0582368960 }}


|"According to Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West, the Mongols liberated the Holy City." Reference provided: "The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument", p.173, Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West, |"According to Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West, the Mongols liberated the Holy City." Reference provided: "The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument", p.173, Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the West,
<br/><br/>In response to this evidence: "Twice Jackson mentions the capture of Jerusalem...without explicity discounting it, although I agree he mentions it in a paragraph about rumours...'''his statements are all indicative that he considers the capture of Jerusalem as facts'''
|p.173 Ghazan's operations in 1300, however, achieved the greatest prominence of all, in part because, as Dr. Sylvia Schein has indicated, they coincided with the Jubilee Year proclaimed in Rome by Pope Boniface VIII...Other stories may have originated with Latin merchants who had been in Alexandria and Damietta and who declared that Ghazan was certain to conquer Egypt. The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument. |p.173 Ghazan's operations in 1300, however, achieved the greatest prominence of all, in part because, as Dr. Sylvia Schein has indicated, they coincided with the Jubilee Year proclaimed in Rome by Pope Boniface VIII...Other stories may have originated with Latin merchants who had been in Alexandria and Damietta and who declared that Ghazan was certain to conquer Egypt. The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument.
|Like Schein above, Jackson is discussing the rumors of Mongol deeds that spread through the West, but by picking only the last sentence of that section, PHG makes it look as if Jackson states that the Mongols took Jerusalem.<br> |Like Schein above, Jackson is discussing the rumors of Mongol deeds that spread through the West, but by picking only the last sentence of that section, PHG makes it look as if Jackson states that the Mongols took Jerusalem.<br/><br/>Another good example: PHG's claim that Jackson thinks it happened because Jackson doesn't explicitly discount it every single time he mentions it in a paragraph clearly about rumors.
⚫ <br>
Response by PHG. Twice does Jackson mentions the capture of Jerusalem in a factual manner (p.172-173 hereunder) without explicity discounting it, although I agree he mentions it in a paragraph about rumours, but in both cases it is quite doubtfull that the rumours refer to the capture of Jerusalem itself. In another paragraph, he also mentions that the WHOLE of Palestine and Syria was wide open to the Mongols in 1299/1300, before their withdrawal in February 1300 and the re-occupation of the land by the Mamluks, a statement fully indicative of the capture of Jerusalem. (p.170, hereunder). Afaik, Jackson nowhere denies the capture of Jerusalem. To the contrary, his statements are all indicative that he considers the capture of Jerusalem as facts, just as many other historians. He also unambiguously writes that Jerusalem was raided by the Mongols in 1260 (p.116), so he does state that the Mongols preyed on Jerusalem on one occasion at least. (]). ] (]) 21:42, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

|- |-
|{{cite book |author=Peter Jackson|title=The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410 |year=2005 |pages=172,179 |publisher=Longman |ISBN=0582368960 }} |{{cite book |author=Peter Jackson|title=The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410 |year=2005 |pages=172,179 |publisher=Longman |ISBN=0582368960 }}
Line 29: Line 30:
|Bernard de Vaulx in History of the Missions (p. 53) writes about the Franco-Mongol alliance.(on ]) |Bernard de Vaulx in History of the Missions (p. 53) writes about the Franco-Mongol alliance.(on ])
|The only time the word Mongol appears on the page (and one out of only ''twice'' in the entire work) "... while two Dominicans, Andrew of Longjumeau and Ascelin of Cremona, were sent, one to Syria and beyond and the other to the Mongol princes." |The only time the word Mongol appears on the page (and one out of only ''twice'' in the entire work) "... while two Dominicans, Andrew of Longjumeau and Ascelin of Cremona, were sent, one to Syria and beyond and the other to the Mongol princes."
|In this particular area, the source is discussing letters between the Pope and various world leaders. '''At no time on any page does the book makes any reference whatsoever to any Mongol alliance, attempted or otherwise.''' |In this particular area, the source is discussing letters between the Pope and various world leaders. '''At no time on any page does the book makes any reference whatsoever to any Mongol alliance, attempted or otherwise.'''<br>
⚫ <br>
Response by PHG: I don't know why you're inventing this. Here is the Google Book link to the quote: . ] (]) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)<br/><br/> Your absolutely correct I did miss the '''one time''' in the entire work the words Franco-Mongol alliance were used and thank you for linking so that everyone can see this was a response about "plans for a Franco- Mongol alliance against the Moslems of Irak." The same "plans" every other reputable historian talks about before bemoaning the fact that ''it never happened''. ] <sup>]</sup> 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)
|- |-
|{{cite book |author=Rene Grousset|title=Histoire Des Croisades Et Du Royaume Franc De Jerusalem|publisher=Plon|date=1935|page=523}} {{cite book |author=Steven Runciman|title= History of the Crusades, III|publisher=Penguin Books|date=2002|ISBN=014013705X| page=259}} |{{cite book |author=Rene Grousset|title=Histoire Des Croisades Et Du Royaume Franc De Jerusalem|publisher=Plon|date=1935|page=523}} {{cite book |author=Steven Runciman|title= History of the Crusades, III|publisher=Penguin Books|date=2002|ISBN=014013705X| page=259}}
|In the article ] (originally created to support PHG's alliance theories) "...in the response he remitted to them deplored the delays in establishing a general alliance between the Christians and the Mongols. Runciman also states that Aibeg and Sarkis returned to the Mongol realm in November 1248, "with complaints that nothing further was happening about the alliance"." Reference #7 given as "^ "Histoire des Croisades", Rene Grousset, p523: Grousset mentions the "response remitted to Aibag and Sargis" in which "he deplored the delays to the general agreement between Mongols and Christiandom" ("Innocent IV congédia Aibag and Sargis en leur remettant pour Baiju une réponse dans laquelle il déplorait les retards apportés à une entente générale des Mongols et de la Chrétienté.")." |In the article ] (originally created to support PHG's alliance theories) "...in the response he remitted to them deplored the delays in establishing a general alliance between the Christians and the Mongols. Runciman also states that Aibeg and Sarkis returned to the Mongol realm in November 1248, "with complaints that nothing further was happening about the alliance"." Reference #7 given as "^ "Histoire des Croisades", Rene Grousset, p523: Grousset mentions the "response remitted to Aibag and Sargis" in which "he deplored the delays to the general agreement between Mongols and Christiandom" ("Innocent IV congédia Aibag and Sargis en leur remettant pour Baiju une réponse dans laquelle il déplorait les retards apportés à une entente générale des Mongols et de la Chrétienté.")."
|'''Neither Grousset nor Runciman at any time mention a document "Viam agnoscere veritatis"''' Books currently not available to quote exactly, so leaving this empty for now. The 1248 letter PHG refers to can be found ] in Latin and with translation. |'''Neither Grousset nor Runciman at any time mention a document "Viam agnoscere veritatis"''' Books currently not available to quote exactly, so leaving this empty for now. The 1248 letter PHG refers to can be found ] in Latin and with translation.
|Grousset and Runcimens's statements are stripped of all context in order for PHG to imply that a letter (again, Viam agnoscere veritatis never appears in either source, so this is OR on his part) , and responses to it, discussed a Franco-Mongol alliance and bemoaned delays to its formalization. Grousset's text about the letter indicates it contained the Pope's pleas to the Mongols, not a discussion of some kind of alliance; he states that the Pope sent these letters and emissaries because he wanted the Mongols to convert to the "true faith"; this is consistent with the actual text of the letter. For extra flavor, PHG added Runcimen's comments about the "complaints" Aibeg and Sarkis brought to the Mongols - when you actually read the source though, you find these comments were not in reference to the letter. |Grousset and Runcimens's statements are stripped of all context in order for PHG to imply that a letter (again, Viam agnoscere veritatis never appears in either source, so this is OR on his part) , and responses to it, discussed a Franco-Mongol alliance and bemoaned delays to its formalization. Grousset's text about the letter indicates it contained the Pope's pleas to the Mongols, not a discussion of some kind of alliance; he states that the Pope sent these letters and emissaries because he wanted the Mongols to convert to the "true faith"; this is consistent with the actual text of the letter. For extra flavor, PHG added Runcimen's comments about the "complaints" Aibeg and Sarkis brought to the Mongols - when you actually read the source though, you find these comments were not in reference to the letter.

|- |-
|{{cite book | author=Christopher Tyerman | title=God's War: A New History of the Crusades | date=2006 |publisher=Belknap Press of Harvard University Press | pages=798-799, 816 |ISBN = 674023870}} |{{cite book | author=Christopher Tyerman | title=God's War: A New History of the Crusades | date=2006 |publisher=Belknap Press of Harvard University Press | pages=798-799, 816 |ISBN = 0674023870}}
|Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he 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." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts.(]) |Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he 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." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts.(])
|p.816 "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere"; pp.798-799 "The mission was regarded by some on all sides as another attempt to capture the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance... a false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom" "Edward contented himself with pursuing the will of the wisps of a Mongol alliance with the il-khan of Persia" |p.816 "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere"; pp.798-799 "The mission was regarded by some on all sides as another attempt to capture the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance... a false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom" "Edward contented himself with pursuing the will of the wisps of a Mongol alliance with the il-khan of Persia"
|Each instance of "Mongol alliance" is accompanied by a statement that it was pursued, but didn't happen and yet PHG counts this as a historian that confirms an alliance existed? |Each instance of "Mongol alliance" is accompanied by a statement that it was pursued, but didn't happen and yet PHG counts this as a historian that confirms an alliance existed?
|} |}

{{NOINDEX}}

Latest revision as of 02:15, 22 February 2015

Embedded responses by PHG to this table are visible HERE.
Reference PHG Source Comments
Sylvia Schein (October 1979). "Gesta Dei per Mongols 1300.The genesis of a non-event". The English Historical Review. 94 (373): 801. While arguing that the Mongols captured Jerusalem in 1299: 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 the Mongol forces did not take Jerusalem.

In response to this evidence:"...Sylvia Schein nowhere says that "The Mongols did not capture Jerusalem"....She also quotes numerous contemporary sources (Muslim, Armenian, Christian) which describe the capture of Jerusalem....Schein actually writes in her 1991 book, that the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed" 		Contemporary European chroniclers present for the year 1300 detailed and strangely uniform description of a recovery of the holy land by the Mongols. ... Actually the alleged recovery of the holy land never happened. ... It is our argument that the basis of the story was a Mongol victory in northern Syria. This victory was transformed in 1300, due to very particular circumstances, into the story of an alleged recovery of the holy land for Christendom. Schein is completely unambiguous as to her meaning, in fact, her entire paper is devoted to debunking the myth that the Mongols captured Jerusalem, yet PHG titles his post "New sources on the capture of Jerusalem" and even goes so far as to state "in view of these references...Western historians are in doubt whether Jerusalem was actually captured". The article is available via JSTOR - for those without access, I can provide a limited number of PDF copies of the article.

From PHG's response, the "numerous contemporary sources" are hard to find; this is because they are footnotes on a section when Schein says modern historians got it wrong too and please see the reference for PHG's loose interpretation of the word "modern". He does the same thing when referring to the 1991 book; I do not have it on hand at the moment, but that's another footnote folks, not something Schein said. Further, in Schein's last book Gateway to the Heavenly City: Crusader Jerusalem and the Catholic West (1099-1187) published in 2005, she states on page 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." which clearly contradicts PHG's insistence that this historian claims there was a Mongol conquest of Jerusalem in 1300.

Peter Jackson (2005). The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410. Longman. pp. 173–174. ISBN 0582368960. "According to Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West, the Mongols liberated the Holy City." Reference provided: "The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument", p.173, Peter Jackson, The Mongols and the WestExample(in section The fate of Jerusalem in early 1300),



In response to this evidence: "Twice Jackson mentions the capture of Jerusalem...without explicity discounting it, although I agree he mentions it in a paragraph about rumours...his statements are all indicative that he considers the capture of Jerusalem as facts

p.173 Ghazan's operations in 1300, however, achieved the greatest prominence of all, in part because, as Dr. Sylvia Schein has indicated, they coincided with the Jubilee Year proclaimed in Rome by Pope Boniface VIII...Other stories may have originated with Latin merchants who had been in Alexandria and Damietta and who declared that Ghazan was certain to conquer Egypt. The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument. Like Schein above, Jackson is discussing the rumors of Mongol deeds that spread through the West, but by picking only the last sentence of that section, PHG makes it look as if Jackson states that the Mongols took Jerusalem.

Another good example: PHG's claim that Jackson thinks it happened because Jackson doesn't explicitly discount it every single time he mentions it in a paragraph clearly about rumors.
Peter Jackson (2005). The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410. Longman. pp. 172, 179. ISBN 0582368960. "these attempts evolved into a regular alliance, complete with military cooperation," and "Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West entitles a whole chapter "An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the viscicitudes and the actual limited results of the Mongol alliance." (User:PHG/Alliance) and "...I think it is true. Jackson does qualify the Mongols as allies of the Christians (title)..." p.172 "Hulegu and his successors made a series of overtures designed to gain Latin collaboration in the war against the Mamluks. These diplomatic contacts, which continued into the early fourteenth century, were made with the popes and with Western European sovereigns, particularly the French and English kings and sometimes also those of Aragon and Sicily. Only minimally and rarely did they involve the Near Eastern Franks, who were now a negligible quantity."" and p.179 "Why, then, did the diplomatic contacts between the Ilkhanate and the West fail to lead anywhere?" Jackson starts by explaining that many attempts at an alliance were made and then spends the entire chapter discussing why it never happened. PHG is basing his claim that Jackson affirms there was an "alliance, complete with military cooperation" on a chapter title even though the entirety of the text says exactly the opposite.
Bernard de Vaulx (1961). History of the Missions. Hawthorn Books. p. 53. Bernard de Vaulx in History of the Missions (p. 53) writes about the Franco-Mongol alliance.(on User:PHG/Alliance) The only time the word Mongol appears on the page (and one out of only twice in the entire work) "... while two Dominicans, Andrew of Longjumeau and Ascelin of Cremona, were sent, one to Syria and beyond and the other to the Mongol princes." In this particular area, the source is discussing letters between the Pope and various world leaders. At no time on any page does the book makes any reference whatsoever to any Mongol alliance, attempted or otherwise.


Response by PHG: I don't know why you're inventing this. Here is the Google Book link to the quote: . PHG (talk) 21:53, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Your absolutely correct I did miss the one time in the entire work the words Franco-Mongol alliance were used and thank you for linking so that everyone can see this was a response about "plans for a Franco- Mongol alliance against the Moslems of Irak." The same "plans" every other reputable historian talks about before bemoaning the fact that it never happened. Shell 22:20, 26 February 2008 (UTC)

Rene Grousset (1935). Histoire Des Croisades Et Du Royaume Franc De Jerusalem. Plon. p. 523. Steven Runciman (2002). History of the Crusades, III. Penguin Books. p. 259. ISBN 014013705X. In the article Viam agnoscere veritatis (originally created to support PHG's alliance theories) "...in the response he remitted to them deplored the delays in establishing a general alliance between the Christians and the Mongols. Runciman also states that Aibeg and Sarkis returned to the Mongol realm in November 1248, "with complaints that nothing further was happening about the alliance"." Reference #7 given as "^ "Histoire des Croisades", Rene Grousset, p523: Grousset mentions the "response remitted to Aibag and Sargis" in which "he deplored the delays to the general agreement between Mongols and Christiandom" ("Innocent IV congédia Aibag and Sargis en leur remettant pour Baiju une réponse dans laquelle il déplorait les retards apportés à une entente générale des Mongols et de la Chrétienté.")." Neither Grousset nor Runciman at any time mention a document "Viam agnoscere veritatis" Books currently not available to quote exactly, so leaving this empty for now. The 1248 letter PHG refers to can be found here in Latin and with translation. Grousset and Runcimens's statements are stripped of all context in order for PHG to imply that a letter (again, Viam agnoscere veritatis never appears in either source, so this is OR on his part) , and responses to it, discussed a Franco-Mongol alliance and bemoaned delays to its formalization. Grousset's text about the letter indicates it contained the Pope's pleas to the Mongols, not a discussion of some kind of alliance; he states that the Pope sent these letters and emissaries because he wanted the Mongols to convert to the "true faith"; this is consistent with the actual text of the letter. For extra flavor, PHG added Runcimen's comments about the "complaints" Aibeg and Sarkis brought to the Mongols - when you actually read the source though, you find these comments were not in reference to the letter.
Christopher Tyerman (2006). God's War: A New History of the Crusades. Belknap Press of Harvard University Press. pp. 798–799, 816. ISBN 0674023870. Christopher Tyerman, in God's War: A New History of the Crusades, does mention the existence of "The Mongol alliance", although he 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." (pp. 798-799) He further describes successes and failures of this alliance from 1248 to 1291, with Louis IX's early attempts at capturing "the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance", Bohemond VI's alliance with the Mongols and their joint victories, and Edward's largely unsuccessful attempts.(User:PHG/Alliance) p.816 "The Mongol alliance, despite six further embassies to the west between 1276 and 1291, led nowhere"; pp.798-799 "The mission was regarded by some on all sides as another attempt to capture the chimera of a Franco-Mongol anti-Islamic alliance... a false hope for Outremer as for the rest of Christendom" "Edward contented himself with pursuing the will of the wisps of a Mongol alliance with the il-khan of Persia" Each instance of "Mongol alliance" is accompanied by a statement that it was pursued, but didn't happen and yet PHG counts this as a historian that confirms an alliance existed?