Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine

Merge

Recommending merge of Mulay and Kutlushah into this article. Neither one of them has sufficient independent information to really justify separate articles at this time. Instead, they both list large quantities of sources that are either only peripherally relevant, or in most cases have nothing to do whatsoever with the topic. --Elonka 22:28, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

The few scraps of biographical information on these two commanders ought to be merged with this article. Aramgar (talk) 23:05, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I think they are fine as separate articles, but as always, the sources and footnotes need to be greatly reduced. Adam Bishop (talk) 15:35, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree Mulay and Kutlushah deserve their separate articles. I will bring more biographical information soon. PHG (talk) 16:12, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Adam that they are fine where they are, but the sources at least need to be restricted to those actually of use. Srnec (talk) 00:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Dispute

It is my feeling that the article makes too-heavy use of primary sources, in order to push a POV about a possible Mongol capture of Jerusalem. I have attempted to copyedit the article,[1][2] but PHG (talk · contribs) is simply reverting me and re-inserting his own information.[3][4] Rather than continuing to edit war, I am bringing the situation here to talk. What do other editors think? --Elonka 19:52, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

As written, this article looks like a POV fork created so that PHG can pursue his idiosyncratic theories about the capture of Jerusalem. The article definitely overuses primary sources. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:05, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

I've read this version of the article, and it looks OK to me. Specifically, wording such as "temporarily successful", "a period of time of a few months", "appeared to have no intention on either occasion of integrating Palestine into the Mongol administrative system, and a few months after the Syrian invasions, the Mamluk forces returned from Egypt and reoccupied the area with little resistance.", "modern historians believe that though Jerusalem may have been subject to at least one Mongol raid during this time, that it was not otherwise occupied or formally conquered.", seem to be better presented than the Franco-Mongol alliance article that lead to the arbcom case. The sections "The fate of Jerusalem in 1300" and "European rumors about Jerusalem" also make things a lot clearer. I actually think this article is one of the better ones at presenting information in a structured and coherent way. I've learnt a lot about this period of history that I didn't know before (and yes, I know the next article or book I read might say something different), but I do think articles like this, while maybe not completely accurate, do help to remove some of the myths and common perceptions among the public about this period of history. Carcharoth (talk) 09:59, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. I worked hard to find wording that was neutral, and covered the different opinions of modern scholarship in an appropriate way. --Elonka 10:03, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Elonka, I appreciate the work you've done to make the article neutral, but I think this article, like others that PHG created, is inherently a POV fork--Mongol activity in Palestine is a footnote to the invasions of Syria, and devoting an article of this length to them is giving undue weight to the subject. I'd rather see the material cut down, and integrated into Mongol invasions of Syria. --Akhilleus (talk) 16:14, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

That was more informative than your first comment. I wasn't sure why you said "POV fork" at first. It would have helped if you had mentioned the Mongol invasions of Syria article in your first comment - not everyone knows what articles exist around these topics. Carcharoth (talk) 17:27, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

We also have to be careful about applying WP:UNDUE to articles and across series of articles and to Wikipedia as a whole. Sometimes an appearance of undue weight appears when some articles are not yet finished or haven't been written. It helps to layout what you would see as proper weighting across an entire period of history and set of articles, and then identify the areas where things need to be either expanded or cutback. Difficult, but probably needed here. Carcharoth (talk) 17:30, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for being unclear at first. If you've been following the Franco-Mongol alliance arbitration case, you can see that User:PHG has been busy creating a bunch of articles related to the supposed Franco-Mongol alliance, and inserting references to the alliance in a bunch more articles. The result is that a fairly minor aspect of the history of this period is being treated as if it's the most important thing that happened.

You make a good point that this article might not give undue weight in the context of a fully developed series of articles about the Mongol invasions. This is an area of history I'm not very familiar with, so I'm not going to be very dogmatic about this, but I think that the Mongol raids in Palestine are a minor matter, and tightly connected with their invasions of Syria, so I'd prefer to see the material from this article merged into Mongol invasions of Syria. But if others feel differently, I'm not going to be too upset. The big problems with the article--the overuse of primary sources, and the obvious POV problems--have been fixed already. --Akhilleus (talk) 19:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and removed the tags, since I think that the major concerns have been addressed. Did anyone still have any outstanding issues that we need to talk about? --Elonka 06:55, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

Misleading image

Both of the (PHG-created) maps in the article are fairly misleading. Starting with just the first one about 1260, it implies that the Mongols invaded all the way through Palestine, engaging in a series of major battles all the way to Gaza. However, mainstream history is that the key battles were just in Aleppo and Damascus, at which point the majority of the Mongol Army withdrew, and a much smaller force under Kitbuqa proceeded as far as Ain Jalut, where they were engaged by the Mamluks and decisively defeated. I am unaware of any major confrontations at Baalbeck or Aljun (unless this is referring to the Battle of Ain Jalut?), and there was no battle at Gaza at all. The Mongols did send raiding parties southwards during this period, and set up a small garrison in Gaza for a few months, but when the Mamluks advanced northward from Egypt, the Mongols fled from Gaza without resistance. I recommend either improving or replacing the map to something more accurate, or if we can't find anything, I think we should remove it from the article, and possibly nominate it for deletion on Commons. To be specific, the map needs at least the following changes:

• It should indicate that the majority of the Mongol Army withdrew before Ain Jalut (so it needs a much smaller arrow from Damascus southwards).
• Remove the "clash" marks at Baalbek and Gaza
• Remove the word Aljun
• Remove or drastically reduce the arrow pointing to Gaza
• Indicate something of the Mamluk troop movements at the time, coming north towards Acre to engage the Mongols at Ain Jalut (this would also be a useful image to have at the Battle of Ain Jalut article)

The second map in the article has WP:UNDUE issues as well, but I figured I'd start with the first one since it's easier. What do other editors think? Get rid of it? Or keep it for now because it's better than nothing? --Elonka 19:41, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

• The arrows already get smaller, but the contrast could be heightened.
• The clash marks need to be defined in the key. Maybe we'd know where they ought to be if we knew exactly what they were for.
• Is there a significance to Aljun? Why remove it? But why is it there?
• Keep a small arrow into Gaza, perhaps looping around and pointing back out.
• Sounds great.

I think the map ought to be improved and kept/replaced, but not yet removed. Is there anybody with the abilities to fix it? (And the other one?) Srnec (talk) 04:44, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

We could ask User:MapMaster. He excels at this type of thing, as his name suggests. Kafka Liz (talk) 09:52, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

RE: 'Ajlūn and Ajlun Castle. This place is one of a series of Mamluk fortifications destroyed during the invasion and later rebuilt by Baybars. I am not sure why it is emphasized on the map when the other fortifications are not. See Reuven Amitai-Preiss, Mongols and Mamluks: the Mamluk-Īlkhānid War 1260-1281 (Cambridge University Press, 1995), pp. 33, 76.

The location of 'Ayn Jālūt ought to be adjusted: it is west of the Jordan and southeast of the Sea of Galilee. Perhaps its importance should be emphasized with some sort of symbol for battle. With User:Srnec I am unsure of the significance of the little red "blasts". I support the other changes mentioned above. Aramgar (talk) 12:27, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

I have moved to my work computer and have only now noticed the little circle, in more or less the correct location, representing 'Ayn Jālūt. It should be noted that 'Ayn Jālūt is a very small place, only important as near the site of the battle. The circle ought to be replaced with the little crossed-sword symbol used to represent the location of battles on maps. I really do not like the red "blast" symbols. Aramgar (talk) 13:10, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Upon the request of Kafka Liz I have created a map of the 1260 Mongol engagements that I am hoping you all will find suitable. While adding it to the article, I also added a bit of information from Amitai about Kitbuga's smaller campaign in mid-1260. I would be happy to discuss any aspect of this map further or to make changes as necessary. What do you think? MapMaster (talk) 02:44, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

P.S. I'd also like to make additional maps, of the Ain Jalut campaign as well as something to replace the other map in the article.

I personally think it's a big improvement, thank you for your work.  :) --Elonka 04:13, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Something does not quite add up

The sentence "The historians Runciman and Grousset quote the medieval historian William of Tyre" looks a bit suspicious. William of Tyre died 1186, almost a hundred years before the events described here. So how come he is quoted by two different historians about things that happened long after his death? Avihu (talk) 19:03, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The author in question is the second William of Tyre (Guillaume de Tyr), who has his article on Wikipedia under Templar of Tyre. The link should be corrected to direct there. Cheers PHG ^{Per Honor et Gloria} 19:33, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Sorry for being picky but the article about Templar of Tyre does not mention either William of Tyre or Guillaume de Tyr. In fact it seems that the name of the writer of the document is unknown. At least the dates seems right. Avihu (talk) 20:21, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

The "Templar of Tyre" is entirely distinct from William of Tyre. That chronicle might not even have anything to do with the Templars or Tyre, it's just a name. "Guillaume de Tyr", of course, is just "William of Tyre" in French, not a different William. (PHG has confused the two numerous times in the past...I'm sure the mix-up is present elsewhere as well.) Adam Bishop (talk) 20:22, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

OK, why then is this information only in the talk page? This is m:Translation of the week article and and while we discuss the matter the error is being translated into various languages. Avihu (talk) 20:31, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks both for catching this. I created this article, and I am delighted if any mistake can be corrected. Adam is clearly right (It's nice to have some specialists on Wikipedia!) Could someone edit the article and replace the instances of "Guillaume of Tyre" or "William of Tyre" with Templar of Tyre? PHG ^{Per Honor et Gloria} 20:44, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Well it's not as simple as that. William of Tyre was translated into French and then numerous additions were made in the thirteenth century, which is the "Estoire d'Eracles" you were using from the Fordham website (which is so-called because the first chapter deals with the Byzantine emperor Heraclius). The Templar of Tyre is not one of the continuations of William of Tyre, but a different chronicle, part of the Gestes des Chiprois. I think I've sorted it out now, at least on this article. Adam Bishop (talk) 21:11, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your help! PHG ^{Per Honor et Gloria} 21:14, 24 September 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately, Gestes des Chiprois merely redirects to Templar of Tyre and Estoire d'Eracles is red. Srnec (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I think I made that redirect, which was not the best idea. Gestes des Chiprois should be its own article (as should the Annales de Terre Sainte, which are not mentioned on Wikipedia at all as far as I know). There should be a "French continuations of William of Tyre" article too, or something, and if I ever finish with William himself I suppose I will start it. I feel kind of responsible that there is still confusion about all this after all these years. I mean, it is certainly the responsibility of each editor to understand his sources, but I could have done more to clarify things, I guess. Adam Bishop (talk) 04:04, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Srnec's Law: for every red link that turns blue, two more red links will appear. Also, it's hard sometimes to create a useful little stub, because you know that with that job crossed off the list you will never return to the work of expanding it to something worthy. Srnec (talk) 05:02, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Now for another thing that should be fixed in the article. As far as I know Sidon incident happened before Battle of Ain Jalut so the sections order should be switched. Avihu (talk) 10:01, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

Mongol conquest of Jerusalem

Discussion moved from User talk:Elonka.

I looked over the sources cited at Mongol raids in Palestine for the alleged conquest of Jerusalem in 1300, and the only historian I see there cited as disagreeing is Schein in her Gesta Dei per Mongolos. So I read it. It is not clear to me at all that she denies the Mongols held Jerusalem. There is one non-European contemporary source for it. It is, all in all, completely unexceptional. A large, powerful army invaded a rather weakly-defended territory belong to its chief enemy and had control of it for some four months or so, including the strategically unimportant, but religiously significant, city of Jerusalem. Schein highlights how much Christendom could, in a Jubilee year especially, magnify such a non-event into a miraculous turning point in their fortunes. So can you cite a historian who denies explicitly that the Mongols had control of Jerusalem? I think the sources we have cited say that they did. And it is not a big deal. Certainly their brief running-over of Palestine represents nothing objective in connexion with Europe, only subjectively in those fourteenth-century imaginations. Srnec (talk) 02:51, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

There was not a large powerful army in Palestine, there were just some raids for a few months, and when the Egyptians returned from Cairo, the Mongols retreated without resistance. For more info, I recommend reading Reuven Amitai's article.[5] If you don't have JSTOR access, let me know and I'll send you a copy. --Elonka 02:55, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I said "large, powerful" because (i) Ghazan himself appeared to be present with his forces and (ii) it was large and powerful relative to the completely absent Mameluke army. I am relying here on Schein, 810. Amitai confirms all this except Ghazan's presence (244–47). Every source I have read confirms that Mongol forces entered Jerusalem and that for a brief period of time (on the order of months) there was no other authority in the entire region of Palestine. Baibars gives the Mongol army under Mulay as 10,000- or 20,000-strong (obviously exaggerated greatly, but it does show that my denomination "large" has a contemporary source to back it up!). I think you may be over-reacting to PHG's own version of a Gesta Dei per Mongolos. (By the way, the event of 1299–1300 appears to have been a single "raid" not many.) Srnec (talk) 03:17, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

It's not just Schein and Amitai. Phillips, too, said, "Jerusalem was not taken or even besieged." In any case, isn't this pretty well covered at Mongol raids into Palestine? If you know of other sources, feel free to add them there. My own feeling is that it's not up to us to decide the dispute, we're just here to describe it. Based on my own reading of sources, there is disagreement among the historians, so that's how it's written in the Mongol raids article. We would be doing a disservice to our readers if we were to try and state as categorical fact that the Mongols were in Jerusalem. Instead, we state that there's disagreement, quote what the different historians say in a neutral manner, and then let the reader make up their own mind. --Elonka 03:28, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

What I am saying is that it doesn't seem that there is any disagreement that the Mongols were in Jerusalem in 1300 (both Schein and Amitai say they were). I don't care if we bring this up in the Franco-Mongol article or not (although a treatment like Schein's would belong there). I care that we not invent a dispute where there isn't one. As to Phillips (can I get a page number?), nobody is saying Jerusalem was besieged. Who would have defended it? And what does he mean by "was not taken"? Does he mean that it was not taken as the result of a military action? Then I agree, none of the sources suggest it was. The army just walked in. There was nobody there to defend it. But I don't think Phillips is here nearly so reliable as Schein or Amitai, who are wrestling with the primary sources directly. Did Phillips? If you don't mind, I've left a note on Adam Bishop's talk page to see if he can enlighten us, since the problem seems to be our interpretation of the secondary literature. Srnec (talk) 03:38, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

How about we centralize this discussion at Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine? --Elonka 03:46, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Good idea. Just one note though - I don't think Jerusalem's walls were rebuilt after 1244, so it would have been easy to just walk in and take it (and obviously there couldn't have been a siege). I might be wrong about that though. I haven't really looked at the Palestine raids article but I'll put it on the list... Adam Bishop (talk) 04:14, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

If anyone speaks Hebrew, there's I. Hazani, "A Hebrew source on the Mongol incursion into Eretz Isreal and Jerusalem in 1299", Zion 47(3):343–6, cited in Amitai, who also, p. 237, says that the walls of Jerusalem were not rebuilt at the time of 1260 (that it "had no walls to speak of" is what makes it inherently likely that the Mongols entered it that year). Srnec (talk) 04:30, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

My own feeling is that it's not up to us to try and deduce whether or not the Mongols were in Jerusalem. Instead, we should just be reporting what the (modern, reliable) sources say. If different sources say different things, then we try to neutrally present the significant points of view, and leave it at that. --Elonka 05:01, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

I think the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem. (That bit about the walls is Amitai's reasoning, not my own. But it is applied to the 1260 campaign. And Hazani's article is in Hebrew: I'm not suggesting somebody go track down his primary source.) Srnec (talk) 05:26, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

Occupation of Jerusalem

• "1300: Mongols occupy Jerusalem briefly" [6], "After a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia" [7]
• "Although the Mongols were never again a threat to Palestine or Egypt, they did stage one more raid that reached Jerusalem. This occurred nearly fourty years later in 1300CE, just after the last of the Crusaders had finally been evicted from the Holy Land in 1291CE. Kutubi, a writer nearly contemporaneous with the events he describes, says that a Mongol officer named Bulay (or Mulay) came raiding with 10,000 horsemen.
  

"They looted property, and [took] booty and prisonners, in such amounts that only God could count it. With his army he fell upon the region of Gaza, the Jordan River Valley and Jerusalem (bayt al-maqdis)… Bulay came [to Damascus] and with his army, from the Jordan River Valley, Gaza, Ramla and Jerusalem (al-quds). With him was an extremely large number of prisonners."

Baybars al-Mansuri, a Mamluk emir who had been dispatched with 200 horsemen to guard against just such a Mongol raid, corroborated Kutubi’s account. He says that there were not 10,000 but 20,000 Mongols involved, and that "they fell upon the Jordan River Valley and Baisan" His report continues: "They wreaked havoc and raided that country. They looted what they found of livestock, supplies and equipment, and they killed whoever fell into they hands. Their raids reached Jerusalem and Hebron, and they went as far as Gaza."

Another chronicler - Ibn Abi’l Fada’il, an Egyptian Christian author- later noted that when the Mongols reached Jerusalem in 1300CE they "killed both Moslems and Christians, drank wine on [the] Haram el-Sharif, and took young women and children [as captives]. They did despicable deeds, destroyed, killed, looted, and captured children and women."

[…] Following the Mongol raid on Jerusalem in 1300, the Mamlukes ruled Jerusalem until the coming of the Ottomans under Sultan Selim I in 1516CE." by Eric H. Cline in Jerusalem besieged: from ancient Canaan to modern Israel, p.216

Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:00, 16 April 2010 (UTC)

Cities raided or occupied in 1260

1260 Mongol raids.

• Gaza and Hebron raided in 1260: "Damascus was occupied in February 1260 and Mongol forces raided as far as Gaza and Hebron" [8]
• Capture of Nablus in 1260 by Hulagu [9]
• Capture of Jerusalem in 1260 [10], the Mongols raids reached Jerusalem [11], "briefly entered Jerusalem" [12].
• The Mongol raids reached Ascalon [13]
• A Mongol Yazak ("Advanced guard") under the command of Baydar (Baydarā in Arabic sources) occupied Gaza. This adavance force, set up to monitor developments in Egypt, confronted the Mamluks under Baybars the following summer [14].
• "In spite of the presence of this force in Gaza and the Mongol raids throughout the country, there is no evidence of the establishment of a Mongol administration in Palestine" [15]
• Encounter between the Mamluks and Mongols in Gaza: "After crossing the Sinai Peninsula, the Mamluk advanced guard, under Baybars, encountered a small Mongol force at Gaza, which withdrew and alerted Kitbuqa to the unexpected appearance of the Mamluks" [16]
• There was actually a battle in Gaza, when the Mamluks retook the city from the Mongols: "Qutuz led his troops to Gaza where they overwhelmed the small Mongol garisson" [17], "drove the Mongol garisson out of Gaza" [18].

Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:15, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

External links modified (February 2018)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Mongol raids into Palestine. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080404215845/http://www.encyclopediairanica.com/articles/v10f2/v10f216a.html to http://www.encyclopediairanica.com/articles/v10f2/v10f216a.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:44, 4 February 2018 (UTC)

Useless references - Tyerman

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