Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Gabr-el (talk | contribs) at 01:05, 17 January 2008 (→Franco-Mongol alliance in historical litterature). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

	Franco-Mongol alliance is a former featured article candidate. Please view the links under Article milestones below to see why the nomination was archived. For older candidates, please check the archive.
Article milestones Date Process Result September 9, 2007 Featured article candidate Not promoted
	A fact from this article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page in the "Did you know?" column on August 29, 2007.

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Military history: European / French / Middle East / Medieval This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status: Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met Associated task forces: /  European military history task force French military history task force Middle Eastern military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Middle Ages Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. International relations This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Archives August-September 2007 September 2007 October-December 2007

Introduction sentence

There seems to be some debate and low-level edit warring regarding how the introduction sentence should be formulated. Technically, the name of the article is "Franco-Mongol alliance", and therefore it is better to start with "The Franco-Mongol alliance is...". But my main point concerns the meaning being conveyed: "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance..." expresses only one point of view ("attempts towards an alliance"), and only a part of the sources (about half of those gathered at this point). There is an obvious better choice which expresses both point of views:

"A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..."

I don't see how we could better represent a neutral point of view, and maintain a good balance between the arguments. In view of the Misplaced Pages policy to maintain balance and NPOV, and in view of the sources, I trust this is the only acceptable choice. PHG 17:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I and Adam Bishop like the phrasing of "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." In fact, if we can stick with that wording, then I'm willing to accept the article title as "Franco-Mongol alliance", how's that for a compromise? --Elonka 17:50, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

• I am amazed... Isn't it quite unethical that you can consider a historical definition the subject of a bargain? Are that your standards Elonka? "Franco-Mongol alliance" is a well-known and published expression, your opinion or acceptance regarding its usage is completely irrelevant. As User:Srnec was saying, you really just act as if you owned the articles around here, but, sorry this isn't the reality. A scholarly expression can stand in its own right, and your refusal or acceptance of it (especially under a bargain!) is totally irrelevant.
• The introduction sentence you propose ("Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance...") is not acceptable. It expresses only one point of view (yours, and possibly Adam's), and only a part of the sources (about half of those gathered at this point). It is POV and doesn't take into account the other half of the sources which consider the Mongol alliance as fact. "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..." is the only NPOV choice, combining both views, and I will reinstate it until a good reason for doing otherwise will appear (and not a cheap bargain please...).
• You claim you have "a consensus" for introducing this one-sided sentence (your last revert): this is a total mis-representation (again!): two opinions against one has never been a consensus. You consistently take liberties with sources (all the references you destroyed, your mis-representation of Tyerman, God's War (above)): please follow sources faithfully and avoid bending source material to fit your point of view.
• I think the reality is that you've now lost your argument against this article: its title is legitimate, it is highly referenced, and it reflects in a balanced and detailed manner the reality of the Mongol alliance. PHG 18:51, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Elonka's proposal makes the most sense...since, as you say, half the sources say there was an alliance and half say there was not, it would be unacceptable to claim that it did in fact exist. You are doing the same thing you are accusing Elonka of doing. Adam Bishop 19:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

I think the current (Elonka/Bishop) version of the lead sentence is fine, however I am opposed to renaming the article. To clarify: whether or not an alliance ever existed for any period of time (and I think the definition of alliance is sufficiently broad to allow that brief alliances did in fact exist, at least I have read that there were attempts at coordinated attacks on a mutual enemy between the Crusaders and the Mongols, which is an alliance by some standards) is not relevant to the article title, since this article discusses the alliance whether it existed or not. Just like an article on the chimera would discuss the chimera, even though no chimera ever existed. (In that case "chimera" would refer to an imaginary thing, but still a thing.) This article discusses Crusader-Mongol relations as attempts to establish an alliance, so the title is fine by my standards. Srnec 01:53, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

It is just a matter of objectivity, NPOV and logic. If some sources speak about attempts, and some about an actual alliance, both views deserve to be reflected. There is no reason to favour one over the other. It is just a matter of respecting available sources. My proposal puts forward both scholarly interpretations, and therefore is necessarily better than a proposal that only favours one side: it is the de facto compromise solution: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, occurred between..." PHG 05:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Let me get this straight. We have three editors (myself, Adam Bishop, Srnec) that like version A, but one editor (you) who likes version B. And so therefore you are saying that the logical compromise is to use version B. Um, no. --Elonka 06:55, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Am I the only one upholding Misplaced Pages's NPOV policy here? 3:1 is clearly way not enough to overturn this encyclopedia's policy for balanced point of view and equal representation of major sources. Neither is it enough to sustain your claim of a "consensus". Again Elonka, your approach is quite disputable for an editor of high-standing. Voting (especially such minuscule-scale voting) has never been reason enough to overturn Misplaced Pages' editorial ethics. And NPOV standards are not subject to micro-votes anyway. As both views are well published, both deserve representation. End of the story. PHG 07:07, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

The consensus seems pretty clear. Adam Bishop, Srnec, and myself (Elonka) like the wording of "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." PHG wants a different wording, and continues to strongly disagree with everyone else, and edit war about it. Now, we've discussed this extensively, looked at alternatives, listened respectfully to PHG's objections, filed an Request for Comment, and even offered mediation, but PHG has rejected that option. So, there seems no alternative, but to declare consensus. PHG, your objections are noted. Now, can we please stop edit-warring about this, and move on to something else? --Elonka 20:14, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

3 against 1 has never been called a consensus Elonka. You are not respecting even the most basic Misplaced Pages rules, just to try to make your point of view prevail. PHG 20:41, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I think the point is, that your point of view is not prevailing. Please see Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. --Elonka 21:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Maybe my point of view is not prevailing at this point (to judge from the microcosm of 3-4 editors), but it is highly sourced from reputable sources nonetheless. Statements from reputable sources cannot just be dismissed because of a 3 to 1 argument. And 3 to 1 has never been a consensus on Misplaced Pages. PHG 14:20, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

Based on the above opinions, the clear consensus version (noting that PHG continues to disagree) is: Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. --Elonka 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I would also like to express a preference for the Elonka/Adam Bishop introduction. The analysis of scholarly sources on this page seems to lean strongly to that being the overwhelming view of scholarly historical sources. Decision making on Misplaced Pages is made based on agreement by its editors. Consensus is important. I think PHG must do more to recognise that his opinion on how this article should read is a minority one. Many editors disagree and that he really needs to concede some ground given the arguments made. Compromise is a good thing - not something to be looked upon as a threat. The view that such an alliance occured seems to be a minority one - definitely worthy of discussion in the article, but it shouldn't be given the same standing as the view that no such alliance materialised. If it is, then that would be giving that interpretation undue weight. A reader of the article who knows nothing about the topic, should be given the understanding that there is one prevailing view among scholars of the period, and a different opinion backed by only a few. WjBscribe 18:48, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Honestly, I cannot subscribe to the view that the "Alliance" view is a minority one. It is supported by numerous mainstream scholars (User:PHG/Alliance). Elonka's list is partly right, and partly fabricated (for example, her presentation of Amin Maaloof as describing the Alliance only as "a dream" was clearly abusive when I checked the source). According to Misplaced Pages:NPOV policy, both views should be represented, and the standard intro phrase for that would be "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance...". On our mediation, the mediator, who went into the details, has clearly said also that in his view both theories should be presented and that source-counting was pointless (Misplaced Pages talk:Requests for mediation/Franco-Mongol alliance#On track), and he favoured my "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." approach, so Elonka cannot say that she has a consensus. I will not spend my time lobbying on Misplaced Pages to try to get votes the way Elonka does to claim a 4:1 or 4:2 (2 being myself +Srnec) or a 4:3 (3 being myself +Srnec + our mediator User:Tariqabjotu) position is a "consensus". It is sufficient for me that both views are expressed by mainstream historians, and that Misplaced Pages policies therefore allows for the representation of both. Regards PHG 12:18, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

For the record, no, our mediator has not favoured PHG's version, and has corrected PHG on this matter at his talkpage: So the current situation is that we have all editors with an opinion (WjBscribe, Srnec, Elonka, Adam Bishop) liking "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade." Except for PHG, whose objections are noted. Anyone else have an opinion? --Elonka 15:30, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

(followup) Now that we've gotten through the holidays, I'd like to take another look at getting this article cleaned up, condensed/split, and polished up for another run at FA. I see that the first sentence had crept to a different version from what was agreed in the above discussion, so I went ahead and updated it. If anyone has comments or concerns, and agrees or disagrees, please feel free to post here. Thanks, Elonka 21:14, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Hi Elonka. You seem to be forgetting the result of our mediation which was for the introduction sentence: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts to form such an alliance, was the objective of...". You specifically gave your agreement to that sentence, so let's respect what was said. Regards PHG (talk) 22:25, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, you are seriously distorting things. The version of the lead sentence that was in the article was not what we had agreed to in mediation (though I see that you have since changed it). Further, anything agreed to in mediation is voluntary, not compulsory. Mediation does not override talkpage consensus to take a different action, and participants in a mediation are free to change their minds based on later review. My opinion, and that of WJBscribe, Srnec, Adam Bishop, and now Aramgar, is that there was no alliance. Aramgar hasn't commented on specific wording yet, but based on his comment below, it would seem (Aramgar, please correct me if I'm wrong) that the most appropriate lead sentence for this article is "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. --Elonka 22:33, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The revision Elonka made on January 12 (here) best represents scholarly consensus despite all the good faith efforts of the primary editor. This article would be more appropriately called Franco-Mongol diplomacy. Aramgar (talk) 22:55, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Aramgar. I went ahead and changed the article back to the consensus version of the intro sentence. PHG, can you please respect the consensus here? We have a lot of other things we need to discuss, and I don't want to get bogged down on just this one thing. I really feel that if we can just get past a few more disagreements, we can have an FA-class article here. --Elonka 01:42, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

This is to confirm that the introduction sentence agreed on at the mediation between Elonka and myself was: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts to form such an alliance, was the objective of..." (I had only forgotten the "at least" in the original wording). The mediation was made after the various user comments on the introduction phrase, and was agreed to by Elonka and myself as a compromise. I believe the results of the mediation should not be disregarded and should to be abided to in good faith. Expert Wiki-opinion on the subject would be appreciated. PHG (talk) 11:10, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

PHG, as I've said before, an earlier mediation does not trump talkpage consensus. Mediation is voluntary, and participants are free to change their minds. My opinion, and the opinion of every single other editor in this discussion (except you), is that the wording of the intro sentence should be "Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance between the mid-1200s and the early 1300s, starting around the time of the Seventh Crusade. If you disagree with this, you are welcome to continue discussing it and trying to convince other editors, but you must absolutely cease edit-warring about it. --Elonka 18:00, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

The mediation (November 2007) post-dates most of the discussions there had been about this phrase. A compromise sentence was found between you and me in a formal mediation, after something like 2 months of discussion, and you specifically said that you were finally happy with "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts to form such an alliance, was the objective of...". I think it is a basic rule of behaviour that you should abide by your own words and commitments. You cannot just erase what you formally agreeed to, simply because you feel you might have a new opportunity to promote your original point-of-view. Should Misplaced Pages remember that your commitments have no value? Regards PHG (talk) 06:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Article rewrite

To show what I'm talking about, I have created a completely rewritten version of the article in a subpage of my user space:

• User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance

It's a great deal shorter (70K instead of 167K). I didn't delete very much -- mostly I just split stuff out to other more specifically-focused articles. I did remove a few sources that I found questionable, and I reorganized the timeline so that it goes in order through various monarchs. I tried very hard to give appropriate weight to different historians' viewpoints (especially those of Jean Richard), with an eye towards making the article a readable and neutral synopsis of modern historians' views on the topic.

Let me know what you think, Elonka 22:04, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

It's good to see real efforts at rewriting taking place. I haven't studied your new work in detail, but I wonder why you still have the 'disputed' tag at the top. What is the remaining dispute, as you see it? Is it just the Dailliez issue? EdJohnston 23:18, 1 November 2007 (UTC)

Ah, forgot it, sorry, I'll go ahead and remove it. I have no dispute with any of the information in the new version of the article.  :) --Elonka 03:09, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

I thought Elonka was being gracious by leaving the dispute tag in. Forget about it... This is just Elonka's very own rework of the article I created, with her very own point-of-view. It is, of course, disputed, and doesn't attempt to incorporate alternative points of view. PHG 13:10, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, if you take the time to actually read it, I think that you will find that I put quite a bit of work into incorporating different points of view, per WP:UNDUE, giving appropriate weight to each. If anyone has any specific concerns though, I am interested in hearing them. --Elonka 13:09, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

(followup) Just checking, if anyone has any specific concerns about my rewrite? If not, I'll go ahead and implement it. --Elonka 00:17, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Please do not evade mediation, which is undergoing. I am afraid your rewrite is just a compilation of your POV. Even the introduction sentence is blattantly POV as seen through mediation ("Many attempts were made towards forming a Franco-Mongol alliance..."), describing attempts only. Only a balanced, NPOV intro can be acceptable "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or attempts towards such an alliance, ..." with attending references. The rest of your rewrite is also POV, and denies the balancing of source. Please discuss issues through mediation as promissed. PHG 12:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• PHG, it is becoming increasingly obvious that you are not participating in mediation in good faith. See #Mediation below. As for my rewrite, the introduction sentence is not "blatant POV", it is the consensus version as agreed upon by multiple editors (except you) at the above thread #Introduction sentence. As for me removing unreliable sources, we currently have a clear consensus that you are using bad sources (see Talk:Laurent Dailliez). PHG, Misplaced Pages is a cooperative project, where we have multiple people working together. If you are completely unwilling to listen to the good-faith concerns of other editors, perhaps you should find some other project to work on. --Elonka 16:36, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

• Elonka, my position is already a position of compromise, allowing for the representation of both POVs: "An alliance, or attempts towards an alliance,..." with relevant references. On the other hand, your position only favours one POV ("Attempts only"). I believe you are actually the one blocking the process by denying both academic views to be represented fairly. Regards. PHG 12:48, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

• PHG, this has been discussed extensively at #Introduction sentence. No one agrees with you. Please see Misplaced Pages:Tendentious editing. You are continually resisting input from other editors, and if you proceed with this course, there may be further consequences which restrict your editing privileges. To be able to get along on Misplaced Pages, a massively collaborative project, it is necessary that in the case of dispute, that editors are willing to negotiate in good faith towards a mutually-agreeable compromise. When you continue to insist on your own way as the only "compromise", this is getting in the way of building an encyclopedia. Please reconsider your stance. --Elonka 16:43, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

POV is being seized on here, and exargerated in my opinion. As for dispute over how concrete successes were, an alliance doesn't need to reach fruition, it just needs an understanding. The re-write is moving this thing in the right direction. regards --Tefalstar 22:21, 7 November 2007 (UTC)

Hiya, just nudging things along here, since the page has been protected for nearly a month, and I'd like to see what we can do about getting things active again. It appears to me that we have a consensus to switch to my proposed rewrite of the article, at User:Elonka/Franco-Mongol alliance. I've updated it to incorporate the changes that have been agreed upon at mediation so far, and of course mediation can continue on any remaining issues, but I think it would be easier if we had the updated version of the article in place, instead of the old version. Does anyone disagree that there is a consensus? --Elonka 19:24, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Summary

This is basically only Elonka here asking for a replacement of the current article by her own rewrite, with only another editor saying "I haven't studied your new work in detail" and another "The re-write is moving this thing in the right direction". I don't think this would qualify as a consensus to replace the current article by any standard. Elonka's rewrite is really only an attempt at implementing a piece favouring her very own point of view to the exclusion of others. The main article has always been open to alternative interpretations and already does a fairly good job of putting forward various views on the subject of the Franco-Mongol alliance. PHG (talk) 14:34, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I do not believe that that is a fair interpretation of my rewrite. I did my best to present all points of view, per WP:UNDUE and per consensus here at talk. Also, perhaps most importantly, I split the article per WP:SUMMARY so that it is back down to about 73K, rather than the 173K (and growing!) version of the current article. Every single editor who has commented on this, has said that the current version is too long. But rather than splitting it, it seems that more and more information just keeps getting added to it.

Now as for my rewrite, I am happy to adapt it or look into reworking certain sections, but I need more detailed comments to do so. If anyone would care to give specifics, I'd be happy to review them. Otherwise, we should replace the current version with my rewrite, and then continue discussions from there. --Elonka 17:59, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think that's the way things work. Normally you make comments on the main article and we try to find a consensus for modifications through discussions on the Talk Page. The main article is always the basis for discussions and edits, and for collaborative effort in general, especially when you have been denying other users modifications to your alternative version claiming User Space ownership. PHG (talk) 18:26, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

To the contrary, people routinely use the method of making a separate version of an article in userspace, as a point of discussion. Especially when the "live" page is protected, the subject of edit wars, or being sat on by someone in violation of WP:OWN. Usually it works quite well, as it gives an opportunity to review a new version of the article, without there having to be a "fight" to create that version. As for User Space ownership, I have no idea what you're talking about. The only time you've tried to change that page was to add a "Totally disputed" tag to it. But you've never said exactly what it is that you're disputing. So again I am asking, can you please be specific about what it is that you don't like about it? I am very open to making changes to it (or even shrinking it down further), but to do so, someone has to articulate what they want changed. --Elonka 18:58, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, you did complain that I "also added a {{totallydisputed}} tag to a draft version of an article that was still in my userspace" which does mean you do not expect your user space to be edited. I've already said all I had to say about you version: really only an attempt at implementing a piece favouring your very own point of view to the exclusion of others. I am not interested in spending hours commenting and arguing about Userspace stuff that cannot be edited by others. We should focus on what you see as issues with the main page, not the other way around. The main page is unprotected now, and you have always been able to edit it and you did contribute to it in large ways already. PHG (talk) 05:59, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I also take note again that your claim to a consensus (above) to "switch to your own version", being based on your proposal, two vaguely encouraging editors, and my opposition, is illegitimate by any standards of what a consensus is. It is surprising that someone aspiring to Adminship could rely on such methods. PHG (talk) 07:51, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

"Joint Conquests"?

Really? Are we really calling the Mongol sack of Baghdad a "joint conquest" with the Franks? Is there any evidence that any Franks (as opposed to Georgians or Armenians) participated in said sack? For Syria, does the participation of troops from the by-that-point minuscule principality of Antioch really make it a "joint conquest"? PHG seems to be pushing a pretty dubious POV here. john k (talk) 00:46, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No argument here. :) BTW John, if you have time, I'd love an outside opinion in the above threads on "article rewrite", "request for comment", and "introduction sentence". --Elonka 01:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

The whole discussion is such a mess I'm having a hard time following it. I did think that your proposed version, from what I read, is superior to the current version. john k (talk) 02:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We could soften the titles, like "Frank involvement in the conquest of Baghdad" or "Participation to the conquest of Syria", but secondary sources are plentiful that describe these two events (references given in the text). Bohemond VI's territories were not minuscule: he ruled both the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli, making up about half of Christian lands in the Levant throughout the period (Johnathan Riley-Smith, "Atlas of the Crusades"). PHG (talk) 05:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Does anyone other than Demurger say Bohemond was present at Baghdad in 1258? Runciman certainly implies that he was not. Does Demurger actually discuss this issue in detail, and explain what evidence he has for why he believes Bohemond to have been present then? I've never seen such a a claim anywhere else. Beyond that, softened titles are a good start. john k (talk) 08:27, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Also, there's rather a lot of conflicting information about Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols (both here and at Bohemond VI of Antioch, which I assume you were heavily involved with as well. On the one hand, there are these claims that Bohemond's father had already been a Mongol subject for years. On the other hand, it is due to the influence of his father-in-law Hethoum, who only became his father in law in 1254, that Bohemond becomes a Mongol subject. At any rate, we seem to be stating things far too definitely, given the sources currently at hand. john k (talk) 08:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

This all seems to be from Demurger, who in turns seems to be making it up as he goes along, Runciman-style (although not even Runciman goes that far). Tyerman certainly doesn't say anything of the sort, despite the references. I doubt it would have been to Bohemond's advantage to travel all the way to Baghdad when the Mamluks are still active at home. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Runciman, in fact, seems to say that Bohemond was clearly elsewhere at the time of the sack of Baghdad. "In February 1258, Plaisance made an attempt to assert her authority. She crossed from Cyprus with her five-year-old son, King Hugh, to Tripoli to her brother Bohemond, who escorted her to Acre." If Bohemond was in Tripoli and Acre in February 1258, he can hardly have been in Baghdad at the same time. Runciman cites the Assises, the Estoire d'Eracles, the MS. of Rothelin, and the Gestes des Chiprois as sources for this paragraph. How unreliable is Runciman, BTW? I've definitely noticed some rather clear errors, as when he says Ghazzan, who died in 1304, invaded Syria in 1308 and captured Jerusalem. But he's sadly the only source I actually own on the Crusades. john k (talk) 16:00, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Not too bad, since he is clear and honest with his sources and gives lots of footnotes. He just gets carried away with his prose sometimes...he likes to fill in the gaps with his own imagined stories, and if the crusaders do anything distasteful to his own religious beliefs, he definitely lets you know. Sometimes he may just be out of date, and better sources may have since come to light for Ghazzan, in that case. I trust him for Bohemond's whereabouts in 1258, that's a great catch. Bohemond probably sent a contingent of troops to Baghdad, but probably not very many, and certainly was not present himself. This happens a lot in Antioch - there were Antiochene troops at Manzikert and Didgori and many others, but never the whole army led by the Prince himself. Adam Bishop (talk) 16:23, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. I think my only reference for Bohemond in Baghdad is Demurger (in 2 different books). He's a highly reputable historian, but the 2 books don't give a specific reference for the statement. Would it be possible to have more details on the Runciman references? I guess we could end up with something like "According to Alain Demurger (with ref)... however Runciman states that Bohemond was in the Levant at that time (with ref)". PHG (talk) 17:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

No, PHG; this the biggest problem you have on every article, you are apparently unable to distinguish a bad source from a good one. Demurger is clearly wrong and should not be referenced at all. This has been going on for months and I don't know how else to say it anymore. Adam Bishop (talk) 17:18, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Who are we to say that Runciman is better than Demurger in this case? Demurger is a highly reputable source, much more recent than Runciman, and one of the foremost French historians on the subject of the Crusades. I'am OK to highlight his interpretation as his own only (until other sources can be found), and to present contrary interpretations in typical Misplaced Pages NPOV style, but trying to deny the very existence of his interpretation is plain wrong: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." (Misplaced Pages:NPOV). PHG (talk) 18:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Runciman cites specific sources for Bohemond in Tripoli. You yourself say that Demurger provides no sources for his claim that Bohemond was in Baghdad. john k (talk) 18:15, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Bohemond's article also said (before I attempted to fix it just now) that he did not ally with the Mongols until after they took Baghdad. Adam Bishop (talk) 18:25, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• 1) I don't think giving refs for a specific claim is an absolute condition for a reputable historian to be quoted on Misplaced Pages (although I agree a claim with refs would be better). Demurger is a highly reputable historian: it is enough for his interpretations to be mentionned, even if he didn't give a ref for it.
• 2) I know of 2 references (Demurger and Jackson) that describe an alliance of the Antiochians with the Mongols as soon 1246-1247: in 1247 the Dominicans under Carpini placed the limit of Mongol dominions 2 days' journey south of Antioch, and Matthew Paris included Bohemond V among those who in 1246 became tributary to the Mongols (in Jackson, p.103). According to Alain Demurger, Cilician Armenia as well as Antioch and Tripoli were paying tribute and supplying troops to the Mongols since 1247 (Demurger, "Jacques de Molay", p.55.). PHG (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

On Carpini, doesn't that imply that Antioch was a vassal, but that Tripoli was not? That seems a strange and unlikely situation. Beyond that, we have fairly clear and credible evidence saying that Bohemond was in Tripoli and Acre at the time of the sack of Baghdad. On the other side, we have bald assertion, not backed by any citation of primary sources, that he was in Baghdad. As to when Antioch became a vassal of the Mongols, this seems to be somewhat disputed. And is Matthew Paris a worthwhile source on the history of the crusader states? His chronicle, so far as I can gather, was about English history from 1235 to 1259. john k (talk) 19:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

We are only here on Misplaced Pages to present reputable secondary sources: Jackson simply interprets Medieval sources as meaning that the Antiochians had allied with the Mongols by 1247. I have no wish to argue with Jackson's theory personally.... Second point: the date of the alliance between Bohemond and the Mongols is generally thought to be 1254 (1247 is a minority, but not uninteresting, opinion). PHG (talk) 19:48, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• 3) Also, most historians date the alliance between Bohemond and the Mongols to 1254, as the time of Bohemond's wedding to a daughter of Hethoum, that is well before Baghdad. After around 1254, Bohemond VI, Frank ruler of the Principality of Antioch and the County of Tripoli and one of the Outremer's most important power-brokers, ("Bohemond VI, briefly one of Outremer's most important power broker", Tyerman, p.806) became a long-time ally of the Mongols.("Bohemond of Antioch-Tripoli became their ally” John Riley-Smith, The Oxford History of the Crusades, p.136)("Hethoum's attempts to build a great Christian alliance to aid the Mongols was well received by the local Christian; and Bohemond of Antioch, who was under his father-in-law's influence, gave his adhesion. But the Franks of Asia held aloof.", Runciman, p.299)("The Armenians, in the person of king Hethoum, sided with the Mongols, as did Bohemond of Antioch". Amin Maalouf, p.261 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes). Also: "Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols". Amin Maalouf, p.265 (Les Croisades vues par les Arabes)) PHG (talk) 19:33, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Why are we calling him "one of Outremer's most important power brokers"? That Tyerman calls him this does not mean that we should call him this in this particular sentence. The actual date of said alliance, at any rate, is not at all clear from the miniature quotes you are providing. Can you give a source which actually says directly that Bohemond became a Mongol vassal in 1254? As to what we are here on wikipedia to do, we of course have to make some effort to judge the reliability of statements in secondary sources. If one secondary source makes a statement "Bohemond VI was at the sack of Baghdad in February 1258," and there is no mention of a primary source which states this, no other secondary sources can be provided which make the same assertion, and another major secondary sources provides fairly specific information that the first secondary source is impossible, we shouldn't include it. As to the date of Bohemond's alliance with the Mongols, it certainly doesn't seem that there's any agreement about when it was. john k (talk) 20:02, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

• John, Runciman doesn't say specifically that Bohemond wasn't in Baghdad. Although the dates seem to be close, nobody can rule out that Bohemond may have been in the Levant at one time, and in Baghdad a few weeks earlier or later. I profoundly disagree that the interpretation of an historian such as Demurger should be discarded just because some Wikipedian is making an OR analysis based on a supposed schedule conflict. Both are reputable published views, and therefore both have the right to be represented.
• One precision on the dates of the alliance: two authors consider 1246-1247 as the date of the alliance between Antioch and the Mongols (Jackson and Demurger above). Other historians connect it to the wedding of the Armenian princess Sibylla of Armenia with Bohemond VI in 1254 (Runciman, p. 278). Runciman doesn't give a exact date, but mentions the alliance of Bohemond with the Mongols after the wedding (1254) and before 1256 (p.298-299): it is the reason why I wrote "After 1254" in the article. I don't have an exact quote :"Bohemond allied with the Mongols in 1254", but historians I've read all connect the alliance to the Mongols to the marital alliance between the Armenians and the Antiochians" (for those who wouldn't know Hetoum I , the king of Armenia and father-in-law of Bohemond, had already allied with the Mongols in 1247, and went himself to Karakorum in 1254). So from the sources I have, it either 1246-1247, or 1254 or slightly after. PHG (talk) 20:52, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

It is extraordinarily hard to see how Bohemond could have been in Baghdad in mid-February if he was back in Tripoli, waiting for his sister, only a few weeks later. However respected Demurger might be, he is fully capable of making a mistake. Find another historian who says Bohemond was at Antioch, or a citation to a primary source that indicates this. john k (talk) 22:31, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

As far as the date of the alliance, I agree this is murkier. However, I think you are misinterpreting Runciman. He does talk about Bohemond joining his father-in-law's efforts to cooperate with the Mongols right before he talks about Hulagu's advance into Persia in January 1256. But he gives no clear date as to when this happened. His footnote on this says to "see below". Aforesaid below is a discussion of Bohemond paying tribute to the Khan in 1260, after the fall of Aleppo. There is no indication in Runciman of Antiochene troops participating in any Mongol campaigns prior to that point. As such, there is no clear indication in Runciman of Bohemond actually submitting to the Mongols before 1260. The earlier discussion is vague and without context - we can easily interpret Runciman (especially given his footnote!) of simply foreshadowing Bohemond's later submission to the Mongols in his discussion on p. 298. Runciman is vague enough on this that I think the only things clear from his narrative are that Bohemond submitted after the fall of Aleppo in 1260, and that he was with Kitbogha at Damascus later that year. Everything before that is ambiguous. john k (talk) 22:38, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I spent considerable time looking through dozens of sources about Bohemond VI, and most of them are pretty vague about when exactly he submitted. The general sense that most of them convey, is that it happened sometime after the fall of Baghdad (1258) and before the taking of Aleppo (January 1260). Keep in mind that Aleppo is just east of Antioch, so Bohemond didn't have much of a choice at that point. He could submit, or he could be overrun. As for timing, I think I saw one source that specifically said 1259, but I don't have it handy to verify the footnotes.

If it's helpful, I've included relevant Antioch quotes from a half-dozen books here: User:Elonka/Mongol historians#Antioch. Some other potentially helpful online sources (Amazon has a good "search inside this book" feature):

• One of Runciman's articles, "The Crusader States, 1243-1291".
• Jean Richard's "The Crusades, c. 1071- c. 1291"

--Elonka 22:55, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I note that Nicholle suggests that Bohemond was not even present at the one place Runciman puts him - the capture of Damascus - calling that a mere legend. john k (talk) 23:04, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

I am certainly not saying that all sources agree on these events. Quite the contrary, I am just laying out the different interpretations various sources have:

• According to some historians the Antiochian Franks allied with the Mongols in 1246-1247 (Demurger, Jackson)
• According to most historians, the Antiochian Franks allied (or submitted) to the Mongols sometime after the wedding of Bohemond to Sibylla of Armenia in 1254, due to the influence of his father-in-law Hetoum I, a long-time and very active ally of the Mongols (since 1247).
• According to one author (Demurger) Bohemond was in at the Fall of Baghdad in 1258.
• According to most historians, Bohemond campaigned with Hetoum I and Hulegu to take Aleppo and Damascus in 1260.
• According to several historians (Tyerman etc...) a Mongol resident with Mongol troops stationned at Antioch until the Fall of Antioch in 1268.

Personnally, I don't care who is right or wrong: I am not an historian, and I don't think any of us should act as apprentice-historians challenging the interpretations of real, published ones. This is just about laying out historical work by reputable sources per Misplaced Pages:NPOV. PHG (talk) 05:44, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

In fact, our job is to try to assess the scholarly literature and try to determine what is a consensus position, what is a majority position, what is a minority position, and what is a fringe position. I notice that you don't note that according to at least one author (Runciman), Bohemond could not possibly have been at the fall of Baghdad in 1258, and that according to at least one other author (Nicholle) Bohemond was probably not present at the fall of Damascus. BTW, I've just discovered on JSTOR an article by Peter Jackson in the BHR specifically about the Mongol campaigns in Syria in 1260. I'll read and try to report on its relevance. john k (talk) 05:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Let's be precise with the sources please. Runciman does not say that "Bohemond could not possibly have been at the fall of Baghdad in 1258", he only says that he met with his sister in the Levant in February 1258. And I'm totally OK to add Nicholle as an alternative opinion. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:58, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

If I may say this without sounding too pompous, PHG, it is extremely obvious that you are not an historian. If you were, you would know what you are doing and we wouldn't have been having these arguments for all these months. Perhaps that is a clue that you should stop? Adam Bishop (talk) 06:02, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

With all due respect Adam, I am only making sure that Misplaced Pages's editorial principles are respected here: "All Misplaced Pages articles and other encyclopedic content must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), representing fairly and, as much as possible, without bias all significant views (that have been published by reliable sources). This is non-negotiable and expected on all articles, and of all article editors." (Misplaced Pages:NPOV). PHG (talk) 08:14, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Some salient quotes from the Jackson article

See User:John Kenney/Mongols. As I go along I see that PHG has apparently already read this article, but I thought that more extensive quotations would be more useful than hand-picked out of context quotations. I've only gone partway through, I hope to continue tomorrow. john k (talk) 06:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Hans Eberhard Mayer on Bohemond's whereabouts in 1258.

Mayer wrote an article on the struggles in the Kingdom of Jerusalem between 1253 and 1258, published in the Proceedings of the American Philosophical Society in 1978. Here's what he says. "Hugh, Plaisance, and Bohemund arrived in Acre on 1 February, 1258, claiming the regency and thus doing what the country had been expecting since June, 1253." The Estoire d'Eracles and some other sources are cited for the date. Now, look, if Bohemund was in Acre on 1 February, and then was spending the next several weeks, at least, dealing with the complicated issue of the regency, there is absolutely no way he could have been in Baghdad a week later. Nor is there any real chance he could have broken off being in Baghdad to head back to Tripoli to meet his sister. On the one hand, we have a very well documented event - that Bohemund was in Acre in February 1258 aiding his sister to acquire the regency of the Kingdom of Jerusalem. This is attested in multiple sources, and makes it logistically impossible for Bohemund to have been present at the sack of Baghdad. On the other side, we have two statements by one historian, who provides no sourcing whatever for this claim. The only logical conclusion to draw from this is that Demurger has made a mistake. Perhaps he has confused "Bohemund in Baghdad" for the better attested (but still quite possibly false) claim that Bohemund was at the fall of Damascus, I don't know. But he seems pretty damned clearly not to have been in Baghdad. This should be removed from the article. john k (talk) 06:50, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the info on Hans Eberhard Mayer. However the argument that "since Bohemond was in Acre on February 1, 1258, he cannot have been at the fall of Baghdad", is your very own, is not sourced itself from a published source, and therefore amounts to original research which has no right of place on Misplaced Pages ("Editors often make the mistake of thinking that if A is published by a reliable source, and B is published by a reliable source, then A and B can be joined together in an article to advance position C. However, this would be an example of a new synthesis of published material serving to advance a position, and as such it would constitute original research" in Misplaced Pages:OR). What we could do is to lay the two claims side by side though: "Demurger claims that Bohemond was at the Fall of Baghdad. However he is also documented to have been in Acre on February 1st (Runciman, Mayer)." PHG (talk) 08:11, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

No PHG, that's ridiculous, and is further evidence of my point that you have no idea what you are doing. You have completely failed to understand NPOV, original research, Misplaced Pages, and the idea of history in general. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:06, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Indeed, this is absurd. Just because Demurger is a reputable historian does not mean that we have to take every statement he makes at equal value. Even the best historians make mistakes, and we shouldn't uncritically repeat what we know to be mistakes. Find another source to substantiate Demurger, or drop it. john k (talk) 14:45, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

I am in agreement with Adam Bishop and John K. Sometimes historians make mistakes, and just because a reputable historian says something, doesn't mean that we have to repeat it on Misplaced Pages. Our job is to provide a neutral synopsis of history based on reliable sources. Where there are differing views among historians, we are to give appropriate weight to majority and minority views. But, if a historian makes a mistake or says something bizarre, that doesn't count as a "minority view", it counts as an uncorroborated statement. Now, if multiple reliable historians repeat this same view, then we might have a case that it's a significant enough view to include. Bottom line: If Demurger is the only one to say something controversial, and no one else is agreeing with him, then the information probably shouldn't be included in the Misplaced Pages article. --Elonka 19:09, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

It is definitely obvious that Demurger, perhaps led on by the fact that Antiochene troops were probably present, has made an error. I caught myself once making this type of error on Misplaced Pages, in fact. I read one thing, then typed another which I thought to be perfectly in line with what I had read, only to find out reading something else later that I had, without even thinking, inserted a small detail which connected with the facts very well in my head but had no basis in the sources. You can trace this error of mine at a query I made on Talk:Waldalenus and then edits I made shortly thereafter upon checking my sources at Adalrich, Duke of Alsace. I think it very probable that Demurger did the same sort of thing and that puts four editors in the same camp against you, PHG. The claim that Bohemond was at the Siege of Baghdad is clearly not significant (or more than one historian would mention it), nor reliably sourced (since it is unfootnoted in one author and seemingly contradicted by others), and not unbiased (since only a strong bias in favour of Demurger could get over the insignificance/unreliability). For this claim, at least, PHG, you should back down. Srnec (talk) 04:46, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I've done that plenty of times too. The great thing about Misplaced Pages is that we can correct that sort of thing...except when the original poster bends over backwards to prove he is right anyway... Adam Bishop (talk) 20:58, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• Thank you all for your comments. The fact remains that Demurger does mention (two times) that Bohemond was present with his troops at Baghdad, and publishes the info in two very reputable books. In a subject where we precisely speak about relations between Franks and Mongols, it is worth mentionning. If you wish we could even isolate Demurger further "Demurger makes a unique and unreferenced claim that Bohemond and his troops were in Baghdad", but I'm very reluctant to condone "book-burning" ("he's wrong, it never happened, don't even allow it to be mentionned"). Demurger being an extremely serious historian, I'm sure he actually has some info to back up such a claim. Furthermore, all the rationale against his claim is actually original research based on the analysis of a possible schedule conflict: I'd like to see at least a published source saying that Bohemond was not in Baghdad, or that Demurger is wrong on this count.
• By the way, several of the editors here have stated that Antiochian troops were probably at Baghdad (even if Bohemond himself weren't)... is there any reference for that? PHG (talk) 05:50, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I see no particular signs that Antiochene troops were at Baghdad - this seems to be an assumption, rather than something based on clear sourcing. As to Demurger, only one of your two quotations actually says that Bohemond was personally present at Baghdad. The other merely indicates the participation of Antiochene forces there. john k (talk) 06:55, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

More info

Today, I bought Alain Demurger's latest book Les Templiers (Editions Jean-Paul Gisserot, 2007), and he is once again unambiguous about the presence of Antiochian Franks at the Siege of Baghdad in 1254 (although, again he doesn't give a source). So let me review what he says exactly in these three books:

• 1) In Les Templiers (p.80-81): "The main adversary of the Mongols in the Middle-East was the Mamluk Sultanate and the Califate of Baghdad; in 1258 they take the city, sack it, massacre the population and exterminate the Abassid familly who ruled the Califate since 750; the king of Little Armenia (of Cilicia) and the troops of Antioch participated to the fight and the looting together with the Mongols."

That is not a statement that Bohemund was present. john k (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• 2) In Croisades et Croisés au Moyen-Age (p.284): "The Franks of Tripoli and Antioch, just as the Armenians of Cilicia who since the submission of Asia Minor in 1243 had to recognize Mongol overlordship and pay tribute, participated to the capture of Baghdad."
• 3) In Jacques de Molay, p.55 "The Count of Tripoli and Prince of Antioch (the two state had the same ruler), and the king of Cilician Armenia (or Little Armenia) had made their submission to the Mongols. Since 1247 already, they had paid tribute and supplied troops. King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258."

Regarding point 3), Demurger does not exactly say that Bohemond was in Baghdad in February 1258 (although his troops were). Therefore I am afraid John's reasonning that Demurger's claim is impossible because he was in Acre on February 1st 1258 doesn't work out: there are plently of other moment in 1258 (before or after) when Bohemond could have been in Baghdad. Baghdad is just a few day's horseride from Acre anyway. PHG (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, whatever Demurger says, you were saying that he was present at the fall of Baghdad. Which is clearly impossible. If he was in Baghdad at some other time that year, we still ought to have a primary source citation for that. And what is the context of Demurger's statement about Bohemund in Baghdad? All you've given us is a bare sentence. Could you give us a bit more? BTW, Baghdad is rather more than "a few days' ride" away from acre. Assuming you go up and around the Fertile Crescent, rather than directly across the Arabian Desert, it's about 800 miles, at least. A person riding a horse, as I understand it, goes about 30 miles a day. So that's about a month's journey. Even as the crow flies, going straight across the desert, it's almost 550 miles, which is almost three weeks journey, assuming my "about thirty miles a day on horseback" is accurate. john k (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

• The context of Demurger putting Bohemond in Baghdad in 1258 is clearly (as already visible in the quote above) as an indication of Bohemond's submission to the Mongols: "King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258."

Yes, sorry, I didn't see that until after I replied. I'd still

• As you will see from the Mongol Empire article (Mail system), the Mongol riders could travel about 125 miles a day with a system a relays (a gallop is about 25 to 30 miles per hour, so it would still be equivalent to a 4-5 hours gallop a day). With a relay system in place between Acre/Antioch and troops forward in Baghdad, Bohemond may have been able to travel the distance in about 5 days. At least that was a very feasible speed at that time, and probably more so for a young and fit monarch (21 years old) wishing to get somewhere as fast as possible.PHG (talk) 05:00, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Are you serious? That's ridiculous. Bohemund didn't have a system of relay riders. Is he supposed to pick up a new horse in Aleppo and Edessa? Is he riding by himself? A walk is four miles per hour, and any long journey where one doesn't have replacement horses (as Bohemund obviously would not have) couldn't go much faster than that. The idea that he'd be galloping five hours a day is absurd. Basically, for your "5 days" you are a) assuming that Bohemund could and would travel as quickly as a Mongol post rider who has frequent replacement horses - i.e., the fastest longest distance riding ever done anywhere ever; and b) that he would ride directly across the Arabian desert, since the route around the crescent is probably over 800 miles. This is all ridiculous, especially since you have not a single source saying that Bohemund was in Baghdad at the time of the siege or sack. john k(talk) 06:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Whatever the method employed (he could also in average have galloped 2 hours and trotted 4-6 hours a day or something approaching), 125 miles a day was a feasible daily speed average for horsemen of the period such as the Mongols. As Bohemond was an ally of the Mongols, and most of his return trip was through Mongol territory, there is no reason why he couldn't have used their relay system (nothing easier). Again, he was a young and fit horseman (21 years old). I understand your doubts, but you cannot say that Baghdad-Antioch/Tripoli in a week is an impossible accomplishment under the period and circumstances, and use such disputable original research as the basis of an argument.PHG (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Nothing easier? You are doing as much original research here as anyone, in that you have presented absolutely zero evidence that Bohemund was present at the fall of Baghdad. The only evidence he was in Baghdad at all is a stray, unsupported statement by Demurger. john k (talk) 18:18, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Please be fair John. You are making OR estimates to imply that Bohemond VI could not have been both in Baghdad and Antioch in February 1258. I'm just responding to you in kind that, in term of OR estimate, it is actually quite feasible. But it's not the point. The point is that Alain Demurger, one of the leading French historians of the Crusades, states clearly that Bohemond was in Baghdad in 1258. He is a very significant scholar, and therefore his opinion is also quite significant. It is only normal that his comment could at least be mentionned. Per Misplaced Pages:NPOV, "All significant opinions should be mentionned. This is non-negotiable". Regards. PHG (talk) 13:44, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

And no one in 1258 would be able to ride directly across the Crescent or the desert, thanks to all those Mongols wandering around. It took a week to get from Cairo to Ascalon in 1099, with no one in the way, and they are much closer together. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:04, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

See above. The distance could be covered in about 5 days for a few organized, rushing riders at the time of Bohemond. PHG (talk) 05:06, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I also went beyond my usual personal library (photograph available on my User page) and looked up a few things on Google Books. Overall, I agree that Demurger's claim seems quite isolated, but neither my personal library nor Google Book can have a claim to comprehensiveness, far from it. I learnt a few interesting things though, especially that the forces attacking Baghdad were very composite and included many Christians:

• In The Fire, the Star and the Cross. by Aptin Khanbaghi (p.60): During the siege of Baghdad "the Mongol army included a large Christian contingent, mainly Georgians. The Mongols did not have to beg for their assistance, as the Georgians had suffered tremendously from the cruelty of the Muslims during the invasion of Jalal al-Din Khwarazmshah a few decades earlier. Their churches had been razed and the population of Tiflis massacred. During the sack of Baghdad, the Mongols gave the Georgians a chance to take their revenge on the Muslims."
• In National Geographic, University of Michigan original issue, v.191 1997: "In 1253, the Persian writer Ala-ad-Din Ata-Malik Juvaini recorded Hulagu's preparations for his Baghdad expedition. With the cavalry were a thousand expert artillerymen from China. The army swelled with troops from vassal states: Armenians, Georgians, Persians, Turks. By one estimate, the force grew to 150,000 men."
• In Baghdad, the City of Peace by Richard Coke (p.161) "In the Baghdad troubles two hundred "Franks" are said to have taken part"

Also, it seems that after 1254 Antioch was in the orbit of Armenia, with Bohemond VI's consent, and therefore supplied troops for Armenia's military commitments to the Mongols:

• In The Islamic World in Ascendency: From the Arab conquest to the Siege of Vienna by Dr. Martin Sicker (p.111): "Bohemond, however, resided exclusively in Tripoli and, as a practical matter, Hetoum, whose realm was contiguous with it, ruled Antioch. Accordingly, Antioch was drawn into the Mongolian-Armenian alliance".

So overall Demurger's claim doesn't actually conflict with the few available sources on the subject. It does seem that Frank Antiochian troops indeed participated to the Siege of Baghdad in 1258 as auxiliaries to the Armenians. Regarding Bohemond's personal involvement in the conflict in 1258, it would indeed be natural that he went to Baghdad to accompany his troops, although not around February 1st 1258. I therefore do not see a reason to classify Demurger's claim as wrong, although I agree it is better to attribute it to him cautiously. PHG (talk) 19:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

I'd be willing to accept a statement that some Antiochene troops were likely at Baghdad. Your assumption about it being "natural" for him to go to Baghdad is essentially OR. It is just as natural that, as at this time it would appear that Antioch was in the Mongol orbit but Tripoli was not, and Hethoum was essentially ruling Antioch himself, while Bohemund stayed at Tripoli, Bohemund had nothing to do with the capture of Baghdad. As far as Bohemund being at Baghdad, the campaign against Baghdad was going on in January and February 1258. This is exactly the time when Bohemund could not possibly have been there. The siege began on 29 January. The sack finished up on 20 February. If Bohemund was in Acre on February 1, there is no possible way he could have been involved in any of this. Beyond that, do we even know that Hulagu stuck around Baghdad after that? john k (talk) 19:38, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Based on the sources, I think it's reasonable for us to say in the Misplaced Pages article that during the Mongol sack of Baghdad in 1258, that within the Mongol army of 150,000 were some Christian components from vassal states, primarily Georgians, along with some Armenians and about 200 Franks, at least some of whom were from Frankish Antioch. I don't think we should say anything about Bohemond himself in the context of the "Fall of Baghdad", though if we want to say that he visited the city at some other time in 1258, that might be a factoid worthwhile to put into the Bohemond VI of Antioch article. But it doesn't seem worthwhile to include it here at the alliance article, as I can't see as it's particularly relevant to the topic. --Elonka 20:56, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

Why? For Demurger it is a perfectly valid point to discuss within the context of the alliance. Actually he gives it as an example of the alliance in action: "King Hetoum I went to Karakorum to make his submission in 1253, and Bohemond VI was present in Baghdad in 1258." Also please refrain from major deletions of referenced material . PHG (talk) 05:04, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

There is absolutely no corroboration for Demurger's claims. Find someone else who says Bohemund was in Baghdad. Or better yet, find a primary source. john k (talk) 05:56, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any rule against quoting a reputable historian. And your "schedule conflict theory" doesn't actually contradict Demurger's statement. As his opinion seems rather isolated we'll just attribute it to him "According to Alain Demurger...". I hope one day I will be able to add additional sources on this subject. No big deal really. Regards. PHG (talk) 05:24, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence to say that there were "possibly" Antiochene troops at Baghdad, and I removed the bit about Bohemond. The section is about the actual Sack of Baghdad, and though we have one source that Bohemond may have been in the city sometime during that year, we've got nothing that says that he was actually involved in the battle. So I think it's best to leave off his name from that section. --Elonka 21:09, 12 January 2008 (UTC)

Capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols (update)

For information, Alain Demurger, one of the leading French historians of the Knights Templar and the Crusades, is very specific in his last book Les Templiers (2007) that the Mongol ruler Ghazan captured Jerusalem after he had taken Damascus in 1299/1300: "In December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquishes the Mamluks in the Second Battle of Homs, and captures Damascus and even Jerusalem" (Alain Demurger, Les Templiers, p.84) and that his general Mulay was in Jerusalem in 1299/1300: "Mûlay, a Mongol general who was effectively present at Jerusalem in 1299/1300." (Alain Demurger, Les Templiers, p.84). Although the Mongols captured Jerusalem, he also explains that the Frank Christians did not manage to take possession of it from the Mongols because of their unreadiness. (see also Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)). PHG (talk) 09:34, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Not another POV fork? PHG, we've already had an AfD on this, and the resounding consensus was that we didn't need the article Mongol raids on Jerusalem, so it was deleted. So you went ahead and created Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) instead? Sorry, but no. The new article should be deleted. Please merge any relevant information from it, into Mongol raids into Palestine instead. Seriously, PHG, this is highly disruptive, you need to stop this behavior. When there is a clear consensus of other editors who want a certain course of action, you need to respect that. If you do not respect that, then you risk being blocked entirely from Misplaced Pages. --Elonka 19:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that's a good one, Elonka, I'm glad you're abusing your administrative powers already. Love, Mindraker —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.143.208.13 (talk) 10:23, 28 December 2007 (UTC)

Becoming an Administrator did not change your intimidation methods apparently! The AfD was on "Mongol conquest of Jerusalem", which was indeed voted down. The new title is "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)", which is not at all POV. Many authors to describe Mongol raids on Jerusalem. The article as such is totally justified (subject, size, content), and is useful to deflate the size of the Franco-Mongol alliance article. PHG (talk) 19:48, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I think Elonka's point is that, as per the AFD, the subject can be covered in the Mongol raids into Palestine article, as it is currently. Using "Palestine" instead of "Jerusalem" in the title is more historically accurate, as the raids were not only directed at Jerusalem, and more neutral in their point of view. If you would like to try to gain community consensus to have a "Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300)" article, please do so on the Mongol raids into Palestine talk page. If not, please continue this conversation at User talk:Elonka or at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine rather than on here, as this article does not specifically pertain to this subject we are addressing. Ioeth _{(talk contribs friendly)} 19:58, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ioeth. The size of Mongol raids on Jerusalem (1300) at 36k fully justifies an independent article. The AfD was more about the word "Conquest" in the original article being too POV (hence the "POV-fork" claim). Now "Raids" is much more neutral (actually about as neutral as the other article "Mongol raids in Palestine"), and the expression "Mongol raids on Jerusalem" is shared by numerous historians. PHG (talk) 20:23, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

PHG, I have replied on your talkpage. But I would point out now that every single editor who is commenting on this (recently this means me, Ioeth, Adam Bishop, John k, and Srnec) is opposed to your actions. Please stop with your disruptive behavior, and work with editors instead of in opposition to them. --Elonka 20:31, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Quite the contrary. I have been bringing more references forward to make Demurger's case clearer, and I think the dispute has settled down now... before you start bringing undue accusations. You just attacked me on my Talk Page for creating the Armeno-Mongol alliance article. Elonka, you are the one who actually proposed creating "Ameno-Mongol alliance"... and now you say you are against it and criticize me for starting the article? (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article split). You even wrote "I support the idea of creating a separate article for the Armenian-Mongol alliance. --Elonka 09:56, 25 September 2007 (UTC)" (Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Title) That's pure nonsense. I am asking you to apologize for your bullying. PHG (talk) 20:44, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

Seriouly. This does look like bullying. Elonka should reconsider her involvement in this article. If what she claims regarding a consensus is true, surely someone else will come forward to carry her torch?-- Ευπάτωρ 23:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

No Eupator, this is not bullying, this is trying to keep false and biased information out of Misplaced Pages. And it's not a case of "me against PHG". I invite you to read the "Hans Eberhard Mayer" thread above, where you will see that multiple editors, including myself, Adam Bishop, Srnec, Ioeth, and John K, are speaking up. But PHG is disagreeing with all of us. I also invite you to read the results at the above #Request for comment thread, where again, every editor is disagreeing with PHG's course of action. --Elonka 06:45, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

4 or 5 comments by some editors has never constituted a consensus, and all editors do not agree with you Elonka. A consensus is not even sufficient to overturn Misplaced Pages:NPOV "non-negotiable" rules that all "significant opinions" should be represented. I decided to file an harassment claim against you here. PHG (talk) 18:53, 1 January 2008 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages Did you know articles
• All unassessed articles
• C-Class military history articles
• C-Class European military history articles
• European military history task force articles
• C-Class French military history articles
• French military history task force articles
• C-Class Middle Eastern military history articles
• Middle Eastern military history task force articles
• C-Class Medieval warfare articles
• Medieval warfare task force articles
• B-Class Middle Ages articles
• Low-importance Middle Ages articles
• B-Class history articles
• All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
• WikiProject templates with unknown parameters
• Unassessed International relations articles
• Unknown-importance International relations articles
• WikiProject International relations articles