User:Per Honor et Gloria/Sources

Here is a "Report on the use of sources", finally disclosed by User:Sam Blacketer about 6 months after the first ruling, which attempts to put forward an analysis on my usage of sources.

In principle, this is quite a faulty procedure: it is improper to hide from editors findings which they thus cannot argue against (any defendant in the world is supposed to have access to the accuser's "proofs").

In terms of content, I am sorry to say that this report is unfortunately largely innacurate, and critically relies on mistranslations of the French to make its points.

Report on use of sources [1]	Response by Per Honor et Gloria
"As noted in the present request for clarification, arbitrators examined closely the use of sources by the parties in this dispute. In summary we found PHG to be honest with sources to the limited extent that cited material is in reliable sources, and when a direct quote is given, it is indeed to be found in the source in the place mentioned. However, material is taken out of context, and frequently more weight is put on an imprecise wording than it will reasonably bear. The following is a summary of the examination of sources undertaken. Some of the more important sources were available to every member of the committee".	Confirmation that my references are exact, but challenge as to their interpretation.
"An extensive check found not a single source which could support the contention of "a regular alliance, complete with military cooperation". Taken together the sources are clear that the Mongols and Franks found themselves coincidentally both in the Middle East and both opposing the muslims, and so sometimes their objectives happened to coincide. However, attempts by the Mongols to form something more formal were rebuffed".	HISTORIANS ON THE FRANCO-MONGOL ALLIANCE Please just check Historians on the Franco-Mongol alliance. You claim that "not a single source which could support the contention of "a regular alliance, complete with military cooperation". This is untrue. Many authors, probably most, talk about the occurence of an alliance, based on written agreements, with military cooperation, lasting years at a time, although they generally differ about its precise nature and timing. You further state that the Mongols and Franks encounters were only "coincidental". This is absolutely inexact. The reality is that the Franks and the Mongols actually exchanged letters of agreement to cooperate, and then effectively cooperated on the field, although in limited and rather ineffective ways. There was nothing coincidental or fortuitous about these instances of cooperation. On the contrary, they were rather well planned, but poorly excecuted due to the problems of time, distance and communications. See Historians on the Franco-Mongol alliance.
"In the citation of Peter Jackson's "The Mongols and the West" we examined the contention that it contains a chapter about the Mongols as allies. It was noted that individual citations from within the chapter were scarce. On examination the chapter was found to tell the story of how Mongol attempts to form an alliance did not meet with success. It was confirmed that when Jackson reported that the Mongols liberated Jerusalem, this was as one among a list of false rumours spread at the time".	PETER JACKSON AND THE ALLIANCE I never claimed that Peter Jackson was an all-out proponent of the Mongol alliance. Here is what I wrote, and I think it is quite exact: "Peter Jackson in The Mongols and the West entitles a whole chapter "An ally against Islam: the Mongols in the Near East" and describes all the viscicitudes and the actual limited results of the Mongol alliance." Peter Jackson indeed mentions several cases of Franco-Mongol cooperation: numerous combined operations and attempts at coordination, from Bohemond's settlement and campaign with the Mongols in 1260, to a climax with the operations of 1300: Bohemond VI's participation to the Mongol campaign in 1260 ("Prince Bohemond VI, perhaps under the influence of his father-in-law King Hetum of Lesser Armenia, waited upon Hulegu in person and was allowed to reach a settlement that covered his county of Tripoli as well. He participated in the Mongol campaign against Ba'labakk, which he hoped to obtain from Hulegu, and may have ridden into Damascus with the Mongol army" [2]. Edward I's ineffective coordination with the Mongols ("Only the English contingent under the Lord Edwards... made contact with the Mongols" [3]. The failed junction of Hugh III of Cyprus with the Mongols in 1280 [4]. The participation of the Hospitallers in the Mongol offensive in 1281 [5]. The arrival of a contigent of 800 Genoese in Baghdad in 1290 to build a fleet against the Mamluks [6]. The seaborne operations of 1299 in attempts to coordinate with the Mongols [7]. The major Ruad expedition in 1300 to coordinate an offensive with the Mongols [8], described as "the high-water mark of Mongol-Latin relations" [9]. PETER JACKSON AND JERUSALEM I agree the phrase about Jerusalem is ambiguous "The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castagate Latin princes", but it can honestly be taken both ways. Peter Jackson basically mentions the Mongol liberation of Jerusalem as a fact, not specifically as a "false rumour", as the basis for the Pope's castigation of Latin princes. Let me remind that Jackson also says the Mongols raided Jerusalem in 1260 (sorry, I don't have the book with me right now). This also has to be considered within the context of what other authors write on the subject: the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols in 1300 is considered as fact by most authors: see Mongol occupation of Jerusalem. Actually, since then, other users such as User:Srnec have come forward to defend the fact that basically all historians agree that Jerusalem was occupied by the Mongols in 1299-1300, explaining that "the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem": Mongol conquest of Jerusalem.
"Attention was drawn to the citation in Jackson of the mediaeval British monk Matthew Paris claiming Bohemond V was a tributary to the Mongols in 1246. However Jackson's view of Matthew Paris is given on page 58 where he describes Matthew Paris as "a problematic source in view of the author's tendency to insert material of his own fashioning".	I hadn't noticed that Jackson considered him as a problematic source in page 58. Jackson nonetheless quotes Matthew for the Bohemond VI bit, so I guess he still gives some credence to it, and I don't think you can criticize me for mentioning the quote. Jackson is actually unambiguous about Bohemond VI's cooperation with the Mongols: "Prince Bohemond VI, perhaps under the influence of his father-in-law King Hetum of Lesser Armenia, waited upon Hulegu in person and was allowed to reach a settlement that covered his country of Tropoli as well. He participated in the Mongol campaign against Balabakk, which he hoped to obtain from Hulegu", p.117. "His conciliatory attitude towards the Mongols had incurred a ban of excomunication by the Papal legate Thomas Agni di Lentino.", p.117.
"It was then noted that the claim that Bohemond VI may have ridden into Damascus with the Mongols is followed by Jackson rubbishing the rumour that Bohemond converted the Great Mosque in Damascus into a church, and that the same source is given for both assertions. It was considered that the word "may" was particularly important".	"May have ridden into Damascus with the Mongol army": this is what I quoted and referenced, no more no less. The fact that "Jackson rubbished the rumour that Bohemond converted the Great Mosque in Damascus into a church" is a different fact. Nothing indicate that the source is common to these two assertions: they are separated by a ";", and the only thing that Jackson declares apocryphal is the story of the church.
"Sylvia Schein's "Gesta Dei per Mongolos" has been cited many times by participants in this dispute. The subtitle of the article is "The genesis of a non-event", the non-event in question being the recovery of the Holy Land by Mongols and its subsequent handing over to the Christians. We considered that citation of Schein on matters of detailed history ought not to disguise a text concentrating on rebutting its underlying thesis that no extensive collaboration between Mongols and Christians took place and certainly no alliance".	SCHEIN: THE ALLIANCE AND JERUSALEM Sylvia Schein does have an article entitled "The genesis of a non-event", but the "non-event" refers to the recovery of the Holy Land by Mongols and its subsequent handing over to the Christians. She nonetheless writes about the existence of a Franco-Mongol alliance: "They (the Templars, Hospitallers and crusaders of Cyprus) sailed to the island of Ruad, and, from that base, captured Tortosa, but retired a few days later when their allies (the Mongols) did not appear.", p.811. Schein even states in her 1991 book that Jerusalem was indeed captured by the Mongols: "The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350, ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus". Schein, 1991, p. 163. Schein, Sylvia (1991). Fideles Crucis: The Papacy, the West, and the Recovery of the Holy Land. Clarendon. ISBN 0198221657
"We considered the claim that Amin Maalouf is "extensive and specific on the alliance". Although arbitrators looked at a different translation (published by Al Saqi Books, 1984) so the page numbers were different, the relevant quotes were located". We found that the opinion that Armenian Franks "sided with the Mongols" leaves out Maalouf's following opinion which was translated as follows: "But the prevalent impression in both East and West was that the Mongol campaign was a sort of holy war against Islam, a pendant to the Frankish expeditions". We considered the use of 'pendant' intriguing, possibly an example of mistranslation or possibly making the French preposition 'pendant' into a noun. If it was the latter then Maalouf's opinion would seem to be that the Mongols were having a go at the muslims during the same time that the Franks were there".	AMIN MAALOUF AND THE ALLIANCE Here are a few actual excerpts from Maalouf. Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia are described as allies of the Mongols, and the Alliance of the Hospitallers with the Mongols in 1281 is also mentionned. "The Armenians, in the person of their king Hetoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond, his son-in-law. The Franks of Acre however adopted a position of neutrality favourable to the muslims" (The Crusades through Arab eyes, French edition, p.261). "Bohemond of Antioch and Hethoum of Armenia, principal allies of the Mongols" (p.265). "Hulagu (…) still had enough strength to prevent the punishment of his allies [Bohemond and Hethoum]" (p.267), "..the Hospitallers. These monk-horsemen allied with the Mongols, going as far as fighting at their side in a new attempt at invasion in 1281." MISUNDERSTANDING OF FRENCH WORD "PENDANT" You base your rebuke on a discussion of the meaning of Amin Maalouf's usage of the French word "pendant" and what he really means. Your understanding of the word "pendant" is simply mistaken: the adjective "pendant" and the noun "un pendant" have quite different meanings, even online dictionaries are clear about it (Definition of "pendant"). The best translation of the noun would be "counterpart"/"match" in a pair of two matching objects, and really has basically nothing to do with a discussion of simple timing or chance synchronicity which could be implied by the adjective "pendant" (=during). Maalouf clearly uses "pendant" as a noun, and not as an adjective, in the expression "faire pendant à" ("to match something" [10]): here is what Maalouf writes in the original French: "Les Armeniens , en la personne de leur roi Hetoum, prennent fait et cause pour les Mongols, ainsi que le Prince Bohemond. En revanche, les Franj d'Acre adoptent une position de neutralite, plutot favorable aux Musulmans. Mais l'impression qui prevaut, aussi bien en Orient qu'en Occident, c'est que la campagne mongole est une sorte de guerre sainte qui fait pendant aux expeditions franques": i.e. "The Armenians, in the person of king Hethoum, sided with the Mongols, as well as Prince Bohemond. On the contrary, the Franks of Acre took a position of neutrality, rather favourable to the Muslims. But the prevailing feeling in the East and the West was that the Mongol campaign was a sort of Holy War which was to match the Frankish expeditions." I am sorry to see that your interpretation of the french is mistaken, and even more sorry to see that this can be used as a base for an arbitration.
"We noted accurate later references in Maalouf referring to Frankish rulers as being "allies" of Mongols, although a fuller reading supports the view that there was nothing formal in it. Our attention was drawn to the quotation that says the Hospitallers were "going as far as fighting at [the Mongols'] side", which we considered as implying that such a thing had never, or rarely, happened before".	I do not dispute, and have never disputed, that the instance of actual Franco-Mongol collaboration have always been few and rather unsuccesfull. The "formality" of the alliance relies on the fact that formal agreements to cooperate were made in writing on numerous occasions (the letter exchanges between the Mongol rulers and their European counterparts). What was unsuccessfull was the implementation of these agreements.
"A check of Zoe Oldenbourg's "The Crusades" to find the reference to "Alliance of Franks and Mongols against Qalawun" in 1280 discovered it to be a single entry in a timeline at the very end of a very long book. There was no mention in the text amplifying or explaining the reference, given that the focus of the book is before 1280".	I do not dispute that Zoe Oldenbourg does not further elaborate on the alliance, and that this is a single mention in her book. She nonetheless mentions it in her timeline, and therefore shows she considers the event as an alliance. Whether the mention is short or long, is I think rather irrelevant, as long as we are truthfull to what she says.
"It was noted that Peter Edbury, after mentioning an alliance and giving an example, followed this mention by stating "but there was no effective co-operation between Mongols and Christians". We considered that when Edbury says the Mongol attack coincided with Edward I's presence, the context of the book shows that the word "coincidence" is used in the sense of 'accidentally happening at the same time' rather than a deliberate choice".	MISUNDERSTANDING OF EXPRESSION "STAGED TO COINCIDE..." Here is what Peter Edbury exactly says: he mentions the Franco-Mongol alliance in The Kingdom of Cyprus and the Crusades, 1191-1374 (p. 92) and gives as an example that "the Mongol staged an attack to coincide with the Frank offensive during the Crusade of Edward I" Google Books: "to stage an attack to coincide with the Frank offensive" does not means at all a coincidence or a chance event as you claim, this means that the Mongols deliberately organized both offensives to work together (actual meaning of "stage to coincide").
"In addition to checking sources cited, some other books not cited were checked to see if they helped shed light on the subject. J.J. Saunders' "Aspects of the Crusades" (University of Canterbury, 1962) had a chapter entitled "The Franks and the Mongols" which apppeared particularly relevant. The opening sentence of the chapter reads: "In the last years of Frankish Outremer the Christians were unexpectedly presented with a potential ally of enormous strength, and had the two joined forces, Islam might have been annihilated." The thrust of the chapter is along exactly the lines foreshadowed in its opening. At the end Saunders usefully summarises René Grousset. The summary is that Grousset reproves the Franks for not forming an alliance with the Mongols".	SAUNDERS ?? I do not dispute your reading of J.J. Saunders' "Aspects of the Crusades" (University of Canterbury, 1962): this is not a source I have been using or knew of anyway. However, his scepticism has been strongly criticized by the specialist of the period Reuven Amitai-Preiss: "The Latin-Ilkhanid alliance was much less equivocal than Saunders would have us believe" [11]. GROUSSET AND THE ALLIANCE You could read Grousset first hand to make an opinion, but he does say that there was a "Mongol alliance", or "Franco-Mongol coalition", upheld by Edward I and the Knights Hospitaller, although it was not pursued far enough by the West: "Louis IX and the Franco-Mongol alliance" (p521). The 1260 expedition in some respect "had even the appearance of a Franco-Mongol crusade" [12], with successful combined opearations to take Aleppo and Damascus [13], after what they advanced as far as Gaza [14]. Later, "only Edward I understood the value of the Mongol alliance" (p.653) "Edward I and the Mongol alliance" (p.653), "Edward I renewed the precious Mongol Alliance" (in "L'épopée des Croisades", p.301). "The Franco-Mongol coalition, of which the Hospitallers were giving the example" in 1281 (p.686). "Thus to the 50000 Mongols were added 30000 Armenians, Georgians, and Franks" in 1282 at Homs [15]
"Arbitrators found this work provided a useful background before considering the user conduct issues raised by the case". Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:45, 28 August 2008 (UTC)	I thank you for listing the Arbitrator "evidence" that have been relied on in my case, but I am sorry to say that I don't see much incriminating here. If the case of the Arbcom is such a weak one, I think it has to be cancelled.