Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Franco–Mongol alliance
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
- The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Franco-Mongol alliance[edit]
Promoted AustralianRupert (talk) 05:19, 16 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Featured article candidates/Franco-Mongol alliance/archive1
- Featured article candidates/Franco-Mongol alliance/archive2
| Toolbox |
|---|
I am nominating this article for A-Class review because I would eventually like to re-nominate the article for FA status. The Franco-Mongol alliance article has a long and complex history, having been the subject of two arbitration cases and various related amendments and other motions over the last few years, but it appears to be stable now. It has been extensively overhauled and rewritten, and each and every source scrutinized for reliability. After review by several editors, the article was promoted to good article status in March 2010, and also underwent a MilHist Peer Review in April 2010. Per advice from MBK004,[1] I am now seeking A-Class status on the article before trying again for an FA nom (see original 2007 FA nom). Any and all comments appreciated, thanks. --Elonka 20:08, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no! - you caught me at a horrible time. If I forget to give this a full review in the next few days, please leave a reminder note on my talk.—Ed (talk • majestic titan) 04:07, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]- Actually, you already reviewed the article last month at the peer review, with good comments which have since been addressed (sorry for my delay in addressing them, I was on wikibreak, traveling in Tunisia). There have been no major changes to the article since then, just minor tweaks here and there. --Elonka 12:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I did, but I wanted to review the rest of it too. :) —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:22, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Actually, you already reviewed the article last month at the peer review, with good comments which have since been addressed (sorry for my delay in addressing them, I was on wikibreak, traveling in Tunisia). There have been no major changes to the article since then, just minor tweaks here and there. --Elonka 12:57, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support
- With regards to this: "If the target acquiesced, the Mongols absorbed the populace and warriors into their own Mongol army, which they would then use to further expand the empire. If a community did not surrender, the Mongols forcefully took the settlement or settlements and slaughtered everyone they found.[23] Accordingly, many communities simply surrendered immediately, including some Christian realms in the path of the Mongols.[24]" -- I'd bet that this is how the Mongols were able to expand so amazingly quickly. Does a source back that up? If so, it might be an interesting addition.
- Otherwise, I can't find anything major. Although there's something wrong with the Encyclopædia Iranica link at the bottom. Great work; I thoroughly enjoyed reading through this. I look forward to supporting at the FAC. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 05:45, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support, but...
- This is of course a wonderful subject and a wonderful article, and I would be delighted if it could reach FA, after my first attempt 3 years ago. However, the "Franco-Mongol alliance" article is currently quite POV and written in a misleading way, in that it actually denies that anything such as an alliance ever occurred between the Franks and the Mongols. This is contrary to what a huge number of historians say and write on the question (see 50 historians describing the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance). In reality, the Franks and the Mongols, after making numerous agreements to fight against the Mamluks (the very definition of an alliance), actually engaged into combined operations on several occasions (1260, 1271, 1281, 1299-1303). Admittedly, these efforts met with huge difficulties and ended in defeat against the Mamluks, but this is not a reason to write that no alliance ever occurred. I have reviewed in detail the sources User:Elonka has brought forward to promote her argument that "no alliance occurred", and it turns out that most sources she quotes don’t say what she claims, but are actually much more on the line of "there were great hopes, alliances and collaboration took place to a limited extent, and these ventures had limited results or ended in military failure" (see Elonka's claims vs what historians actually say). I believe this article should be better balanced, by combining the views of authors who say there was an alliance, and those who say there was none, in the true spirit of Wikipedia. It seems to me that balance is an absolute requirement if this article is ever to become a proper FA. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a communication problem here? My view (that it appears you both share?) is that there were a number of alliances, truces and agreements between Mongol armies and Crusader factions, but there was never an overarching alliance. When I read the article, I think it gave a good account of this. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many authors do speak about an overarching alliance (here), hence, by the way, the very existence of the expression Franco-Mongol alliance in the academic community... It is true however that it mainly consisted, to your point, of "a number of alliances, truces and agreements between Mongol armies and Crusader factions". I have been proposing variations of a wording for a balanced introduction sentence on the line of "The Franco-Mongol alliance was a series of diplomatic and military rapprochements between the Crusader Franks and the Mongols during the second half of the 13th century.". I would be perfectly OK with adding along your proposal: "An overarching alliance, with effective military action, failed to be reached however, and instances of collaboration ended with limited results and an ultimate defeat against the Mamluks" and organize the article in that spirit. It seems common sense enough, but Elonka has been insisting on speaking exclusively about "attempts at an alliance" and denying that any kind of alliance actually took place, which neither reflects your own understanding nor what a large part of the historians write. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, PHG is currently banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing in areas related to the Crusades or the Mongol Empire (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#Motions). So Ed, to answer your question, yes, there's a bit of a communication problem, hence the need for the intervention of ArbCom. PHG is definitely permitted to participate on talkpages, as long as he is able to do so in a civil fashion, but I (and others) tend to disagree with his interpretation of mainstream historical consensus. --Elonka 06:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Elonka, I would appreciate if you could simply look at the facts and sources, rather than make personal attacks and hide behind an unfair ban that you have been promoting artfully. If Arbcom allows me to intervene on Talk Pages in this subject area, it is precisely to allow me to raise issues and have discussions with fellow contributors in my full right: it is not for you to dismiss my posts with a "he's banned from editing anyway, so don't listen to him" everytime. By doing so systematically, you are contravening to the very spirit of Arbcom's resolutions. Actually, contrary to what you have been claiming for three years, a huge number of historians are positive about a Franco-Mongol alliance taking place (here), Jerusalem was indeed occupied by the Mongols in 1300 as uncovered by User:Srnec here, and you have been misrepresenting the sources repeatedly as shown here. To have a fair and balanced article, all it would take is some sense of fairness and compromise on your part, rather then just clinging to an academically false and approximative statement such as "there were only attempts at an alliance". Don't you think that the introduction sentence proposed above is a fair compromise? Can't we just move forward with a statement that fairly incorporates both views, and doesn't just keep claiming that the subject of the article is something that never happened (example: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, took place during the 13th century..."). As we move towards FA, it is essential that this article gives a fair picture of what historians actually write on the subject... Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read 'attempts at an alliance' as 'attempts [for an overarching] alliance' rather than what you are saying... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The point is that historians say both things: many write that there was indeed an alliance ("overarching" or not: here), while others say that there were only "attempts" (a few here). These are two major schools of thought, and to be NPOV with the subject matter we just need to express both views in the article, starting from the introduction, with a sentence such as "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, took place during the 13th century...". It is fairly simple, and only consistent with what Wikipedia recommends when there are conflicting significant opinions on any given subject... Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 19:49, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- I read 'attempts at an alliance' as 'attempts [for an overarching] alliance' rather than what you are saying... —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 19:04, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Elonka, I would appreciate if you could simply look at the facts and sources, rather than make personal attacks and hide behind an unfair ban that you have been promoting artfully. If Arbcom allows me to intervene on Talk Pages in this subject area, it is precisely to allow me to raise issues and have discussions with fellow contributors in my full right: it is not for you to dismiss my posts with a "he's banned from editing anyway, so don't listen to him" everytime. By doing so systematically, you are contravening to the very spirit of Arbcom's resolutions. Actually, contrary to what you have been claiming for three years, a huge number of historians are positive about a Franco-Mongol alliance taking place (here), Jerusalem was indeed occupied by the Mongols in 1300 as uncovered by User:Srnec here, and you have been misrepresenting the sources repeatedly as shown here. To have a fair and balanced article, all it would take is some sense of fairness and compromise on your part, rather then just clinging to an academically false and approximative statement such as "there were only attempts at an alliance". Don't you think that the introduction sentence proposed above is a fair compromise? Can't we just move forward with a statement that fairly incorporates both views, and doesn't just keep claiming that the subject of the article is something that never happened (example: "A Franco-Mongol alliance, or at least attempts towards such an alliance, took place during the 13th century..."). As we move towards FA, it is essential that this article gives a fair picture of what historians actually write on the subject... Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:28, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just for the record, PHG is currently banned by the Arbitration Committee from editing in areas related to the Crusades or the Mongol Empire (see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/PHG#Motions). So Ed, to answer your question, yes, there's a bit of a communication problem, hence the need for the intervention of ArbCom. PHG is definitely permitted to participate on talkpages, as long as he is able to do so in a civil fashion, but I (and others) tend to disagree with his interpretation of mainstream historical consensus. --Elonka 06:20, 24 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Many authors do speak about an overarching alliance (here), hence, by the way, the very existence of the expression Franco-Mongol alliance in the academic community... It is true however that it mainly consisted, to your point, of "a number of alliances, truces and agreements between Mongol armies and Crusader factions". I have been proposing variations of a wording for a balanced introduction sentence on the line of "The Franco-Mongol alliance was a series of diplomatic and military rapprochements between the Crusader Franks and the Mongols during the second half of the 13th century.". I would be perfectly OK with adding along your proposal: "An overarching alliance, with effective military action, failed to be reached however, and instances of collaboration ended with limited results and an ultimate defeat against the Mamluks" and organize the article in that spirit. It seems common sense enough, but Elonka has been insisting on speaking exclusively about "attempts at an alliance" and denying that any kind of alliance actually took place, which neither reflects your own understanding nor what a large part of the historians write. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:27, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Is there a communication problem here? My view (that it appears you both share?) is that there were a number of alliances, truces and agreements between Mongol armies and Crusader factions, but there was never an overarching alliance. When I read the article, I think it gave a good account of this. —Ed (talk • majestic titan) 17:20, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- This is of course a wonderful subject and a wonderful article, and I would be delighted if it could reach FA, after my first attempt 3 years ago. However, the "Franco-Mongol alliance" article is currently quite POV and written in a misleading way, in that it actually denies that anything such as an alliance ever occurred between the Franks and the Mongols. This is contrary to what a huge number of historians say and write on the question (see 50 historians describing the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance). In reality, the Franks and the Mongols, after making numerous agreements to fight against the Mamluks (the very definition of an alliance), actually engaged into combined operations on several occasions (1260, 1271, 1281, 1299-1303). Admittedly, these efforts met with huge difficulties and ended in defeat against the Mamluks, but this is not a reason to write that no alliance ever occurred. I have reviewed in detail the sources User:Elonka has brought forward to promote her argument that "no alliance occurred", and it turns out that most sources she quotes don’t say what she claims, but are actually much more on the line of "there were great hopes, alliances and collaboration took place to a limited extent, and these ventures had limited results or ended in military failure" (see Elonka's claims vs what historians actually say). I believe this article should be better balanced, by combining the views of authors who say there was an alliance, and those who say there was none, in the true spirit of Wikipedia. It seems to me that balance is an absolute requirement if this article is ever to become a proper FA. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:50, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to jump in here since this came up again. Elonka is not the one pushing a novel theory by blatantly misrepresenting sources as the ArbCom cases should have made clear to PHG. Anyone is welcome to review the sources themselves and see how many of PHG's "sources" actually say the polar opposite of what he claims. After two years of this, frankly, we've just learned to ignore him, however I wouldn't want his mistruths to derail this process. Shell babelfish 22:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arbcom declined to make a comment on content, and actually encouraged me to bring up content issues with other contributors, so I think you should respect that, Shell. Too many untruths have been said on this subjects, so everybody is indeed invited to check the sources for themselves and make their own opinion (sources here). Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here be Dragonnes. The End Is Nigh. Doug (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reviewed the arguments in brief doesn't change my perspective. Primarily, Elonka's exposition wins for brevity, clarity and the lack of 'star scales' for classifying incidence of academic occurence. There may also be an issue of definition. In this context, I take an 'alliance' to mean a collaboration between groups or especially nation-states that is documented and that results in meaningful, material and/or political collaboration between the parties to the agreement. Other alliances may occur in word but not in deed, or between on-the-scene commanders at small scale in the form of 'cooperation' (which I choose to define as distinct from an alliance), but ad-hoc collaboration or cooperation cannot be considered a substantive alliance. Doug (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the assessment. I don't think the point is about our personal understanding of what "an alliance" means, or what our individual perceptions of the Mongols are or are not ("pragmatic (at best) or ruthless (at worst)"? [2]). The point is only that a significant enough number of historians do qualify these relations as an alliance indeed (sources), and that this should be properly reflected on Wikipedia independently of individual interpretations. Best Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The definition of terms in the debate by third party authors and ourselves may be no less than critical to this debate. If you decline to define the terms of this debate, how can your opinion be assessed rationally and openly? 'Throwing the book' at the discussion is not constructive. Be under no illusion that in this context, given your explicit rejection of consensus you are taken to be presenting an opinion and the onus rests on your shoulders to present your position with the utmost clarity. Doug (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Hopefully, knowledge on Wikipedia is not just a cluster of opinions and prejudices by its editors. Nothing should count but what academics actually say on any given subjects, and our role should only be to present this knowledge in as neutral and balanced a manner as possible. I have given a detailed account of the numerous authors who describe the Franco-Mongol relationship as an alliance (sources): my only point is that they should be given fair representation. Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 04:08, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The definition of terms in the debate by third party authors and ourselves may be no less than critical to this debate. If you decline to define the terms of this debate, how can your opinion be assessed rationally and openly? 'Throwing the book' at the discussion is not constructive. Be under no illusion that in this context, given your explicit rejection of consensus you are taken to be presenting an opinion and the onus rests on your shoulders to present your position with the utmost clarity. Doug (talk) 02:23, 9 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Thank you for the assessment. I don't think the point is about our personal understanding of what "an alliance" means, or what our individual perceptions of the Mongols are or are not ("pragmatic (at best) or ruthless (at worst)"? [2]). The point is only that a significant enough number of historians do qualify these relations as an alliance indeed (sources), and that this should be properly reflected on Wikipedia independently of individual interpretations. Best Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:23, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Having reviewed the arguments in brief doesn't change my perspective. Primarily, Elonka's exposition wins for brevity, clarity and the lack of 'star scales' for classifying incidence of academic occurence. There may also be an issue of definition. In this context, I take an 'alliance' to mean a collaboration between groups or especially nation-states that is documented and that results in meaningful, material and/or political collaboration between the parties to the agreement. Other alliances may occur in word but not in deed, or between on-the-scene commanders at small scale in the form of 'cooperation' (which I choose to define as distinct from an alliance), but ad-hoc collaboration or cooperation cannot be considered a substantive alliance. Doug (talk) 03:21, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Here be Dragonnes. The End Is Nigh. Doug (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Arbcom declined to make a comment on content, and actually encouraged me to bring up content issues with other contributors, so I think you should respect that, Shell. Too many untruths have been said on this subjects, so everybody is indeed invited to check the sources for themselves and make their own opinion (sources here). Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:39, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Just to jump in here since this came up again. Elonka is not the one pushing a novel theory by blatantly misrepresenting sources as the ArbCom cases should have made clear to PHG. Anyone is welcome to review the sources themselves and see how many of PHG's "sources" actually say the polar opposite of what he claims. After two years of this, frankly, we've just learned to ignore him, however I wouldn't want his mistruths to derail this process. Shell babelfish 22:11, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Support on 1a, 1d (see comments), 2, 3 and 4 with minor comments.
- Since "unusual passive truce" is unclear, perhaps: " The Crusaders of Acre though, saw the Mongols as a greater threat than the Muslims, and
engaged in an unusual passive truce whichallowed the Egyptians to advance unhampered through Crusader territory..." - "European attitudes began changing in the mid-1260s, as the perception of the Mongols changed from that of enemies to be feared, to potential allies against the Muslims." contains redundancy, suggest: "European attitudes began changing in the mid-1260s from perceiving the Mongols as enemies to be feared to potential allies against the Muslims."
- "But the plan failed, and the Egyptians later besieged and captured that island as well. With the Fall of Ruad in 1302 or 1303, the Crusaders lost their last foothold in the Holy Land.[7]" -> "The plan for collaboration failed, the Egyptians later besieged the Crusaders and with the Fall of Ruad in 1302 or 1303, the Crusaders lost their last foothold in the Holy Land.[7]"
- "...and his empire was split up by his descendants into four sections, or Khanates, which degenerated into civil war." Although no expert, my perception is that degenerated is a bit strong in this context.
- Perhaps I misunderstood, but "Edward I's Crusade", although anachonistic and inneffectual, appears to be an instance of genuine allied behaviour. Did Edward and the Mongols meet? A meeting between an 'allied' Prince of the Blood and a general with 230 and 10,000 men respectively is appropriately ironic.
- There's very little information remaining from the time. To my knowledge, there's no documentation of whether or not they actually met, and historians are working mainly from the bits of correspondence that have survived, and we don't have all of those letters either. For a good article on this, see Reuven Amitai's article, "Edward of England and Abagha Ilkhan: A reexamination of a failed attempt at Mongol-Frankish cooperation" --Elonka 06:49, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- "Reasons for failure" fails to note that the Mongol manifestly did not have the cultural context required to understand the highly fractured, multi-tiered states of Western Europe with separation of Church and 'state', such as it was. Confusion of the Pope with a ruler of a tract of land comparable to their own empires is a highly revealing feature of (particularly early) Mongol thinking. I'm guessing this is OR, but worth including if it can be found.
- I made a couple of edits of typo "contacts" to the singular.
- With some reservation in such an environment, I'll comment on my perception of POV or undue weight in the article: I see none. My POV: to the extent that the Mongols thought about the Franks at all, they (quite rightly) assessed that their ability to project power to the Middle East was negligible and therefore not worthy of the respect required for an alliance in any sense. To suggest that these pragmatic (at best) or ruthless (at worst) Mongol leaders would take an 'army' of a few hundred Crusaders seriously is romanticism. As a matter of fact, the Mongols (with a few anachronistic exceptions) only materially and repeatedly treated with European states as enemies or vassals, and evidence supports the supposition that these were the only relationships that they perceived as relevant to the interaction within their cultural context. Doug (talk) 02:46, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- Since "unusual passive truce" is unclear, perhaps: " The Crusaders of Acre though, saw the Mongols as a greater threat than the Muslims, and
- Support No problems reported with external links or alt text. One dab link needs to be located and if at all possible fixed. Otherwise it looks good. Well done. TomStar81 (Talk) 21:20, 8 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.