| Revision as of 07:04, 1 March 2008 editPer Honor et Gloria (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers53,031 edits →The fate of Jerusalem in 1300: Removed redundant and older Demurger quote← Previous edit | Revision as of 20:17, 1 March 2008 edit undoElonka (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Administrators70,960 edits →Mongol campaigns of 1299-1300: - copyediting/condensing, removing some duplicationNext edit → | ||
| Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
| ==Mongol campaigns of 1299-1300== | ==Mongol campaigns of 1299-1300== | ||
| ⚫ | In the summer of 1299, the Mongols under ] successfully took the northern city of ], and defeated the Mamluks in the ], <!-- Note: Demurger says that this was the Second Battle of Homs --> on December 23 or 24, 1299.<ref>Demurger, p.142</ref> One group of Mongols then split off from Ghazan's army, and pursued the retreating Mamluk troops as far as Gaza,<ref>Demurger, p.142 "The Mongols pursued the retreating troops towards the south, but stopped at the level of Gaza"</ref> pushing them back to Egypt. The bulk of Ghazan's forces then proceeded on to Damascus, which surrendered somewhere between December 30, 1299, and January 6, 1300, though its Citadel resisted.<ref>Demurger 142-143</ref><ref>Runciman, p.439</ref> Ghazan then retreated most of his forces in February, probably because their horses needed fodder. A smaller force of about 10,000 horsemen was left in Syria under the Mongol general Mulay,<ref>Demurger (p.146, French edition): "After the Mamluk forces retreated south to Egypt, the main Mongol forces retreated north in February, Ghazan leaving his general Mulay to rule in Syria".</ref> and engaged in raids as far south as Gaza.<ref name=schein-raid>"Meanwhile the Mongol and Armenian troops raided the country as far south as Gaza." Schein, 1979, p. 810</ref> | ||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| ===The fate of Jerusalem in 1300=== | |||
| ⚫ | In the summer of 1299, the Mongols under ] successfully took the northern city of ], and defeated the Mamluks in the ], <!-- Note: Demurger says that this was the Second Battle of Homs --> on December 23 or 24, 1299.<ref>Demurger, p.142</ref> One group of Mongols then split off from Ghazan's army, and pursued the retreating Mamluk troops as far as Gaza,<ref>Demurger, p.142 "The Mongols pursued the retreating troops towards the south, but stopped at the level of Gaza"</ref> pushing them back to Egypt. The bulk of Ghazan's forces then proceeded on to Damascus, which surrendered somewhere between December 30, 1299, and January 6, 1300, though its Citadel resisted.<ref>Demurger 142-143</ref><ref>Runciman, p.439</ref> Ghazan then retreated most of his forces in February, probably because their horses needed fodder. A smaller force of about 10,000 horsemen was left in Syria under the Mongol general ],<ref>Demurger (p.146, French edition): "After the Mamluk forces retreated south to Egypt, the main Mongol forces retreated north in February, Ghazan leaving his general Mulay to rule in Syria".</ref> and engaged in raids as far south as Gaza.<ref name=schein-raid>"Meanwhile the Mongol and Armenian troops raided the country as far south as Gaza." Schein, 1979, p. 810</ref> | ||
| ⚫ | {{seealso|History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)}} | ||
| ⚫ | ] | ||
| Accordingly, there existed a period of about four months from February to May 1300, when the Mongol il-Khan was the "de facto" lord of the Holy Land.<ref>"For a brief period, some four months in all, the Mongol Il-Khan was de facto the lord of the Holy Land", Schein, p810</ref> But his small force had to retreat when the Mamluks returned in May 1300.<ref name=schein-810>Schein, 1979, p. 810</ref><ref>Le Templier de Tyr mentions that one of the generals of Ghazan was named Molay, whom he left in Damas with 10,000 Mongols - "611. Ghazan, when he had vanquished the Sarazins returned in his country, and left in Damas one of his Admirals, who was named Molay, who had with him 10,000 Tatars and 4 general."611. Cacan quant il eut desconfit les Sarazins se retorna en son pais et laissa a Domas .i. sien amiraill en son leuc quy ot a nom Molay qui ot o luy .xm. Tatars et .iiii. amiraus.", but it is thought that this could instead designate a Mongol general "Mûlay". - Demurger, p.279</ref> Ghazan also promised to return in the winter of 1300-1301 to attack Egypt.<ref>Demurger, p.146</ref> | |||
| ===Extent of raids=== | |||
| In ''Les Templiers'', ] states that "in December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquished the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs and captured ], and even ]",<ref>Demurger, ''Les Templiers'', 2007, p.84</ref> and that the Mongol general ] occupied the Holy City in 1299-1300.<ref>"Mulay, a Mongol general who was effectively present in Jerusalem in 1299-1300", Demurger, ''Les Templiers'', 2007, p.84</ref> According to Frederic Luisetto, Mongol troops penetrated into Jerusalem and ], and are recorded to have committed numerous massacres there.<ref>Frédéric Luisetto, p.205-206 "Troops penetrated in Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres (...) In Hebron, a cross was even raised on top of the mosque of Abraham", also p.208 "We have knowledge of the violences perpetrated in Jerusalem and Damas"</ref> In ''The Crusaders and the Crusader States'', Andrew Jotischky used Schein's 1979 article and later 1991 book to state, "after a brief and largely symbolic occupation of Jerusalem, Ghazan withdrew to Persia"<ref>Jotischky, ''The Crusaders and the Crusader States'', p. 249</ref>. Steven Runciman in ''"A History of the Crusades, III"'' stated that Ghazan penetrated as far as Jerusalem, but not until the year 1308.<ref>Runciman, p.439. "Five years later, in 1308, Ghazzan again entered Syria and now penetrated as far as Jerusalem itself. It was rumoured that he would have willingly handed over the Holy City to the Christians had any Christian state offered him its alliance."</ref> Claude Mutafian, in ''Le Royaume Arménien de Cilicie'' mentions the writings and the 14th century Armenian Dominican which claim that the Armenian king visited Jerusalem as it was temporarily removed from Muslim rule.<ref>Claude Mutafian, p.73</ref> | |||
| Medieval sources give many different views of the extent of the raids in 1299-1300, and there is disagreement among modern historians as to which of the sources are most reliable, and which might be embellished or simply false. The fate of ], in particular, continues to be debated, with some historians stating that the Mongol raids may have penetrated the city, and others saying that the city was neither taken nor even besieged. | |||
| The most often-cited study of the matter is that by Dr. Sylvia Schein in her 1979 article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos", where she concluded, "The alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened."<ref name=gesta-805>Schein, 1979, p. 805</ref><ref>Schein, in her 1991 book mentioned in a footnote that the Mongol capture of Jerusalem was confirmed because they had removed a gate from the ], and transferred it to Damascus. "The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (''Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350'', ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163</ref> Phillips, in ''The Medieval Expansion of Europe'', states "Jerusalem had not been taken or even besieged."<ref name=phillips-128>Phillips, p. 128. ""Disillusionment came swiftly. Jerusalem had not been taken or even besieged; Ghazan evacuated Syria within a few weeks of its conquest probably because his horses were short of fodder. He attacked it again in 1301, and planned further campaigns for the next two years, but achieved nothing. His bitterness at the failure of the European powers to provide the military assistance he had asked for expressed itself in 1303 in yet another embassy to Philip IV and Edward I, to which Edward replied tactfully that he and Philip had been at war and could not send help."</ref> | |||
| However, in his 2007 book ''Les Templiers'', ] states that the Mongols captured ] and that the Mongol general Mulay was "effectively present" in ].<ref>"Mulay, a Mongol general who was effectively present in Jerusalem in 1299-1300", Demurger, ''Les Templiers'', 2007, p.84</ref> According to Frederic Luisetto, Mongol troops "penetrated into Jerusalem and ] where they committed many massacres."<ref>Frédéric Luisetto, p.205-206 "Troops penetrated in Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres (...) In Hebron, a cross was even raised on top of the mosque of Abraham", also p.208 "We have knowledge of the violences perpetrated in Jerusalem and Damas"</ref> | |||
| =====Muslim medieval sources===== | |||
| According to the historian Sylvia Schein "Arab chroniclers, like ], ] and ], report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza."<ref>Schein, "Gesta dei per Mongolos 1300", p.810</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | ====European rumors about Jerusalem==== | ||
| In a 1301 letter, the Sultan ] accused Ghazan of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem, "the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca":<ref>"In a letter dated 3 October 1301, Ghazan was accused by the Sultan ] of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem 'the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca!". Schein, 1979, p. 810.</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | {{seealso|History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)}} | ||
| ⚫ | Whatever the truth may have been, the Mongol advance led to wild rumors in Europe, that perhaps the Mongols had captured ] and were going to return it to the Europeans. These rumours spread and were inflated widely, due to wishful thinking, and the ] environment of large crowds that had gathered in Rome for the ]. The story grew to say (falsely) that the Mongols had taken Egypt, that the Mongol Ghazan had appointed his brother as the new king there, and that the Mongols were going to further conquer ] and ]. The rumors also stated that Ghazan had freed the Christians who were held captive in Damascus and in Egypt, and that some of those prisoners had already made their way to Cyprus. From Italy, the rumors spread to Austria and Germany, and then to France.<ref>Schein, pp. 814-815</ref> | ||
| ⚫ | By April 1300, ] was sending a letter announcing the "great and joyful news to be celebrated with special rejoicing,"<ref name=riley-smith/> that the Mongol Ghazan had conquered the Holy Land and offered to hand it over to the Christians. In Rome, as part of the Jubilee celebrations in 1300, the Pope ordered processions to "celebrate the recovery of the Holy Land," and he further encouraged everyone to depart for the newly-recovered area. King ] was asked to encourage his subjects to depart as well, to visit the Holy Places. And Pope Boniface even referred to the recovery of the Holy Land from the Mongols, in his bull '']''. | ||
| {{quote|"You should not have marched on a Muslim country with an army composed of a multitude of people from diverse religions; neither should you have let the ] enter sacred territory; nor should you have violated the sanctity of the ]."|Letter from Sultan ] to Ghazan, October 3rd, 1301.<ref>Quoted in Luisetto, p.167</ref>}} | |||
| The Arab historian Yahia Michaud, in the 2002 book ''Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI'', describes that there were some firsthand accounts at the time of forays of the Mongols into Palestine, and quotes two major contemporary Muslim sources (] and ]) who state that Jerusalem was one of the cities that was invaded by the Mongols:<ref>Michaud Yahia (Oxford Centre for Islamic Studies) (2002). Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels I-XVI (in French). Chap. XI.</ref> <!-- He was not providing a history book, he was just reproducing spiritual texts. I challenge whether this is a reliable secondary source --> | |||
| {{quote|"The Tatars then made a raid against Jerusalem and against the city of Khalil. They massacred the inhabitants of these two cities (...) it is impossible to describe the amount of atrocities, destructions, plundering they did, the number of prisonners, children and women, they took as slaves".|], Histoire.<ref>Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI</ref>}} <!-- This is a primary source quote, and should be moved to wikisource or wikiquote --> | |||
| {{quote|"The Mongols first marched against Syria in 699 (1299-1300)... In Jerusalem, in Jabal al-Salihiyya, in Naplouse, in Daraya and other places, they killed a number of people, and made a number a number of captives only known to God."|], Textes Spirituels, Chap XI.<ref>Quoted in Michaud Yahia, p.66-67 Transl. Blochet t.XIV, p.667, quotes in Ibn Taymiyya, Textes Spirituels, Chap XI</ref><ref>Also quoted in "L'Orient au Temps des Croisades", p.125</ref>}}<!-- This is a primary source quote, and should be moved to wikisource or wikiquote --> | |||
| The 14th century Muslim historian ] also mentions the massacres of the populations of Jerusalem and the nearby city of ] (30 km south of Jerusalem) by the Mongols during the 1299-1300 campaign,<ref>Referenced in Luisetto, p.205</ref> and even mentions, together with Al-Nuwayri, that a cross was raised on the top of the ] in Hebron.<ref>Luisetto, quoting Al-Mufaddal and Al-Nuwayri, p.206</ref> | |||
| =====Armenian medieval sources===== | |||
| ] visited the ] in ], in early 1300, though this account is disputed.]] | |||
| A single Armenian account by the monk ] (an Armenian monk converted to Catholicism by the ])<ref>Mutafian, p.73</ref> relates the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols, and describes a prominent involvement of the Armenian king ] in the invasion. Of this account, the modern French historian Demurger said, "There is a tradition that Hethoum celebrated a religious office at the Saint-Sepulcre on the day of the Epiphany (January 6).<ref>Demurger, p.143: "There is a tradition that Hethoum celebrated a religious office at the Saint-Sepulcre on the day of the Epiphany (January 6th)."</ref> Dr. Schein listed in both her 1979 paper and 1991 book ''Fidelis Crucis'' the account of Nerses Balients which stated that the Armenian King ], with a small force, had reached the outskirts of Cairo and then spent some fifteen days in Jerusalem visiting the ] after its capture by the Mongols: | |||
| {{quote|"The king of Armenia, back from his raid against the Sultan, went to Jerusalem. He found that all the enemies had been put to flight or exterminated by the Tatars, who had arrived before him. As he entered into Jerusalem, he gathered the Christians, who had been hiding in caverns out of fright. During the 15 days he spent in Jerusalem, he held Christian ceremonies and solemn festivities in the Holy Sepulchre. He was greatly comforted by his visits to the places of the pilgrims. He was still in Jerusalem when he received a certificate from the Khan, bestowing him Jerusalem and the surrounding country. He then returned to join Ghazan in Damas, and spend the winter with him"|], Historiens Armeniens I, p.660<ref></ref>}} <!-- This source is controversial and not accepted as reliable by all historians. --> | |||
| ].]] | |||
| According to the historian Claude Mutafian, this may be on this occasion that Hetoum II remitted his amber scepter to the Armenian convent of ].<ref>Mutafian, p.73</ref> | |||
| In her 1991 book, Schein expanded her earlier statement to say that the Armenian information about Hetoum's visit was confirmed by Arab chroniclers.<ref>Schein, ''Fidelis Crucis'', p. 163. "According to an Armenian source confirmed by Arab chroniclers, Hetoum II with a small force reached the outskirts of Cairo and then spent some fifteen days in Jerusalem visiting the Holy Places.</ref> However, Schein's interpretation of the Armenian involvement has been challenged by Angus Donal Stewart in his 2001 book ''The Armenian Kingdom and the Mamluks'', where he called the Armenian statement an "absurd claim" from an unreliable source, and said that the Arab chroniclers did not confirm an Armenian involvement in the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols.<ref>Stewart, p. 14. "At one point, 'Arab chroniclers' are cited as being in support of an absurd claim made by a later Armenian source, but on inspection of the citations, they do no such thing." Also Footnote #55, where Stewart further criticizes Schein's work: "The Armenian source cited is the '']'' version of the 'Chronicle of the Kingdom', but this passage was in fact inserted into the translation of the chronicle by its editor, Dulaurier, and originates in the (unreliable) work of ]... The "Arab chroniclers" cited are ] (actually a Copt; the edition of Blochet), ] (Quatremere's translation) and ]. None of these sources confirm Nerses' story in any way; in fact, as is not made clear in the relevant footnote, it is not the text of al-Nuwayrf that is cited, but D.P. Little's discussion of the writer in his ''Introduction to Mamluk Historiography'' (Montreal 1970; 24-27), and in that there is absolutely no mention made of any Armenian involvement at all in the events of the year. It is disappointing to find such a cavalier attitude to the Arabic source material."</ref> Another historian, Reuven Amitai, also did a detailed comparison of all of the available primary sources about the events around the ], and concluded that the Armenian account was in error, as it did not match up with other similar sources about the same events, was provably full of exaggerations and inaccuracies, and had been written as to glorify the Armenian king Hetoum. Amitai also pointed out that despite Dr. Schein's acceptance of the Armenian source as genuine, that even the original editor of the work, ], had "unequivocally" denied the veracity of the Armenian account.<ref>''Mongol Raids'', p. 246. "A less charitable attitude can be taken towards the other Armenian source, written by the anonymous continuator of Constable Smpad's work. His account is full of exaggerations and inaccuracies, the first of which is the year given for the campaign (751 of the Armenian calendar which equals 5 Jan. 1302 - 4 Jan. 1303). This unknown writer does not even mention Mulay or the Mongols in the raid into Palestine. In their stead only King Het'um of Armenia is found: after the victory of Hims, the king rushed forward to pursue the fleeing sultan. He was joined by 4,000 of his troops. After eleven days of hard riding, Het'um arrived at a location near Cairo called Doli (which I cannot identify). Throughout the pursuit, the sultan was but 10-12 miles ahead of the king. The latter soon withdrew from Doli because he was afraid of being captured. On his return, Het'um entered Jerusalem and gathered all the Christians from the city who had hitherto hidden in caves. During the 15 days he spent in Jerusalem, Het'um performed magnificent Christian ceremonies and also received a patent from Ghazan granting him the city and its surroundings. Afterwards, Het'um left Jerusalem and rejoined Ghazan in Damascus, spending the rest of the winter with him. Even the editor of this work, Edouard Dulaurier, unequivocally denies the veracity of the account and writes that the author's purpose was to glorify King Het'um. There is little resemblance between the facts described here and the Mamluk works or even the account of the historian Het'um, who certainly cannot be accused of lacking a desire to eulogize the Armenian king. It is quite improbable that the Mamluk writers would have missed an opportunity to attack Ghazan for such a despicable action, i.e., abandoning Muslim territory, especially Jerusalem to Christian depredations."</ref> However, Edouard Dulaurier actually only mentions that ] may have added a few fantastic details to exagerate Hetoum's accomplishments somewhat, specifically disputing that Hetoum went as far as ] when Ghazan himself sent 15,000 men only as far as ], but he does not otherwise challenge the account of the Mongol's capture of Jerusalem and Hetoum's visit to the Holy City for 15 days afterwards.<ref>Receuil des Historiens des Croisades, Historiens Armeniens I, Chronique du Royaume de Petite Armenie, p. 659-660 :<br>"The account of the battle of Homs, in which ] routs the Egyptians, on December 23, 1299, can be compared with that of Hayton, ''De Tartare'', cap. XLII, and the narration of M. d'Ohsson, ''Hist. des Mongols'', liv. VI, Chap. vi, t. IV, p.233-240. It is obvious that Nerses Balients added here a few fantastic details, devised to enhance the role played by the king of Armenia Hetoum II, as an auxiliary of the Tartars. We can very certainly put in doubt the pursuing of the Egyptians by this prince, after the battle, as far as the place named Doli by the compiler, which he located near ]. Indeed, the Mongol general who had been dispatched with a body of 15,000 men to pursue Sultan Nacer, did not go farther than ], and stopped at the desert limit between Syria and Egypt". End of the note.</ref> | |||
| =====Western medieval sources===== | |||
| In February 1300, a Francisan monk in ], Cyprus, wrote a letter saying that King Hetoum had celebrated mass in Jerusalem,<ref>A letter from a Franciscan monk in Nicosia, dated February 4, 1300, relates that Hethoum celebrated mass in Jerusalem and informs that "Our Minister and a lot of our brothers are preparing to go to Syria, together with Knights and soldiers, and all the others of the religious orders". Quoted in Demurger, p.145</ref> evidently at the ] on January 6, 1300. | |||
| According to Demurger in ''The Last Templar'', the first announcement of the Mongol success was in a letter written in Cyprus in March 1300, which mentions that Ghazan controlled both Damas and Jerusalem:<ref>Demurger, p. 145</ref> | |||
| {{quote|"Ghazan dispatched messengers to the kings of Jerusalem and Cyprus, and to the communes and to the religious orders, asking them to come to him in Damas or Jerusalem, so that he could remit to them all the lands the Christians held at the time of ]".|Letter of Thomas Gras, Cyprus, March 24, 1300<ref>Demurger, p.145</ref>}} | |||
| According to Schein, the earliest letter was dated March 19, 1300, and was probably based on accounts from Venetian merchants who had just arrived from Cyprus, which they had left on February 3, 1300.<ref>"The earliest letter was dated 19 March 1300 and addressed to Boniface VIII. Its contents suggest that it was probably written by the Doge Pietro Gradenigo (1289-1311). - Schein, 1979, p. 814</ref> The account gave a more or less accurate picture of the Mongol successes in Syria, but then expanded to say that the Mongols had "probably" taken the Holy Land by that point. | |||
| Other reports also mention that Christians were in Jerusalem in April to celebrate ].<ref>Chroniques de France, edited by Jules Viard: "Et a Pasques ensivant, si comme l'en dit, en Jherusalem le service de Dieu les crestiens avec exaltacion de grant joie celebrerent". Quoted in Demurger, p.280</ref>. | |||
| =====Removal of the Golden Gate of the Temple of Jerusalem by the Mongols (1300)===== | |||
| According to historian Sylvia Schein in her 1991 book, the conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was "confirmed" because they are documented to have removed the Golden Gate of the ] in 1300, to have it transferred to Damascus.<ref>"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</ref> The account emerged from a 14th century priest named ], who gave a detailed architectural description of Jerusalem, and mentionned the acts of the Mongols on the gate. Denys Pringle in his 1993 ''The Chruches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem'' also mentions that "Nicolas relates how the Tartars, or Mongols, when they took Jerusalem (c.1300), tried at first to remove the entire gate, then, having failed, to undermine it, and finally to burn it, but with no more success".<ref>Denys Pringle, 1993, ''The Chruches of the Crusader Kingdom of Jerusalem'', p.106</ref> It is recorded that after these deeds, the Sultan, when he re-captured the city, had the gate walled up.<ref>Pringle, p.106</ref> | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ] spread the news about the capture of the Holy Land in 1300.]] | |||
| Most scholars agree that whatever the facts involving Jerusalem, that the situation led to wild rumors in Europe, though there is disagreement as to when exactly the rumors started, when the word about the Mongol activities reached Europe, and which sources from the time were reliable, and which were embellished, misinformed, or simply false. | |||
| ⚫ | |||
| ⚫ | By April 1300, Pope Boniface was sending a letter announcing the "great and joyful news to be celebrated with special rejoicing,"<ref name=riley-smith/> that the Mongol Ghazan had conquered the Holy Land and offered to hand it over to the Christians. In Rome, as part of the Jubilee celebrations in 1300, the Pope ordered processions to "celebrate the recovery of the Holy Land," and he further encouraged everyone to depart for the newly-recovered area. Edward I was asked to encourage his subjects to depart as well, to visit the Holy Places. And Pope Boniface even referred to the recovery of the Holy Land from the Mongols, in his bull '']''. | ||
| In the summer of the Jubilee year (1300), Pope Boniface VIII received a dozen ambassadors, dispatched from various kings and princes. One of the groups was of 100 Mongols, led by the Florentine ], the ambassador for the Il-khan. The embassy, abundantly mentioned in contemporary sources, participated in the Jubilee ceremonies.<ref>Schein, p.815</ref> Supposedly this ambassador was also the man nominated by Ghazan to supervise the re-establishment of the Franks, in the territories that Ghazan was going to return to them. There was great rejoicing for a short time, but the Pope soon learned about the true state of affairs in Syria, from which in fact Ghazan had withdrawn the bulk of his forces in February 1300, and the Mamluks had reclaimed by May.<ref>Schein, p.815-816</ref> But the rumors continued through at least September 1300.<ref name=schein-805>Schein, p. 805</ref> | In the summer of the Jubilee year (1300), Pope Boniface VIII received a dozen ambassadors, dispatched from various kings and princes. One of the groups was of 100 Mongols, led by the Florentine ], the ambassador for the Il-khan. The embassy, abundantly mentioned in contemporary sources, participated in the Jubilee ceremonies.<ref>Schein, p.815</ref> Supposedly this ambassador was also the man nominated by Ghazan to supervise the re-establishment of the Franks, in the territories that Ghazan was going to return to them. There was great rejoicing for a short time, but the Pope soon learned about the true state of affairs in Syria, from which in fact Ghazan had withdrawn the bulk of his forces in February 1300, and the Mamluks had reclaimed by May.<ref>Schein, p.815-816</ref> But the rumors continued through at least September 1300.<ref name=schein-805>Schein, p. 805</ref> | ||
| =====19th century reconstructions===== | |||
| ] takes Jerusalem, 1299", a painting created in the 1800s by Claude Jacquand, and hanging in the "Hall of Crusades" in Versailles. In reality, though the Mongols may have been technically in control of the city for a few months in early 1300 (since no other troops were in the area), De Molay was almost certainly on the island of ] at that time, nowhere near the landlocked city of Jerusalem.]] | |||
| The story of this alleged capture of Jerusalem was retold by historians during the following centuries, and even expanded in the 19th century to claims that Jerusalem was taken not by Mongols, but by ], ] of the ].<ref>Demurger, p.278-279</ref> In 1805, the French historian/ playwright Raynouard said, "In 1299, the Grand-Master was with his knights at the taking of Jerusalem."<ref name=raynouard>"Le grand-maître s'etait trouvé avec ses chevaliers en 1299 à la reprise de Jerusalem." {{cite web|author=François Raynouard|title= Précis sur les Templiers|date=1805|url=http://www.mediterranees.net/moyen_age/templiers/raynouard/precis.html}}</ref> The story was also expanded to say that Jacques de Molay had actually been placed in charge of one of the Mongol divisions. According to Demurger in ''The Last Templar'', this may have been because the medieval history ] referred to a Mongol general named ].<ref>Le Templier de Tyr mentions that one of the generals of Ghazan was named Molay, whom he left in Damas with 10,000 Mongols - "611. Ghazan, we he had vanquished the Sarazins returned in his country, and left in Damas one of his Admirals, who was named Molay, who had with him 10,000 Tatars and 4 general."611. Cacan quant il eut desconfit les Sarazins se retorna en son pais et laissa a Domas .i. sien amiraill en son leuc quy ot a nom Molay qui ot o luy .xm. Tatars et .iiii. amiraus.", but it is thought that this could instead designate a Mongol general "Mûlay". - Demurger, p.279</ref> In the 1861 edition of the French encyclopedia, the ''Nouvelle Biographie Universelle'', it says in the "Molay" article: | |||
| {{quote|"Jacques de Molay was not inactive in this decision of the Great Khan. This is proven by the fact that Molay was in command of one of the wings of the Mongol army. With the troops under his control, he invaded Syria, participated in the first battle in which the Sultan was vanquished, pursued the routed Malik Nasir as far as the desert of Egypt: then, under the guidance of ], a Mongol general, he was able to take Jerusalem, among other cities, over the Muslims, and the Mongols entered to celebrate Easter"|''Nouvelle Biographie Universelle'', "Molay" article, 1861.<ref>Demurger, p. 279</ref>}} <!-- Interesting, but please add the exact French in the footnote? --> | |||
| There is even a painting, ''Molay Prend Jerusalem, 1299'' ("Molay Takes Jerusalem, 1299"), hanging in the French national museum in ], created in 1846 by Claude Jacquand,<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.culture.gouv.fr/public/mistral/joconde_fr?ACTION=RETROUVER&FIELD_98=REPR&VALUE_98=Molay%20Jacques&NUMBER=2&GRP=0&REQ=%28%28Molay%20Jacques%29%20%3aREPR%20%29&USRNAME=nobody&USRPWD=4%24%2534P&SPEC=1&SYN=1&IMLY=&MAX1=1&MAX2=250&MAX3=250&DOM=All|accessdate=2007-09-09|title=Jacques Molay Prend Jerusalem.1299|date=1846|author=Claudius Jacquand|format=painting|work=Hall of Crusades, Versailles}}</ref> which depicts the supposed event in 1299. However, De Molay was certainly nowhere near Jerusalem at the time. His actual whereabouts were that he was recorded in Armenia in 1298-1299 for a failed military operation, and may or may not have participated in the Crusader coastal raids during the summer of 1300, attacking such cities as Alexandria and Acre. He was also surely on the island of ] in November 1300, attempting (unsuccessfully) to retake the coastal city of Tortosa. But there are no reliable sources that say that he was anywhere near the landlocked city of Jerusalem in 1299 or 1300.<ref>"He was seldom on the field: in Armenia in 1298 or 1299 maybe, at Ruad in november 1300 surely, but probably not in the naval operations of July-August 1300 in Alexandria, Acre, Tortosa. If the planned 1301 offensive of the Mongols had occurred, he would have been at the head of his troops in combat." Demurger, p. 159</ref> | |||
| ==See also== | ==See also== | ||
Revision as of 20:17, 1 March 2008
| Mongol invasions and conquests | |||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||
Mongol raids into Palestine took place towards the end of the Crusades, as a follow up to temporarily successful Mongol invasions of Syria, primarily in 1260 and 1300. Following each of these invasions, there existed a period of time of a few months during which the Mongols were able to launch some raids southward into Palestine, reaching as far as Gaza.
The raids were executed by a relatively small part of the Mongol army, who proceeded to loot, kill, and destroy. However, the Mongols 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.
Mongol campaigns of 1260
In 1258, the Mongols under the leader Hulagu, on their quest to further expand their empire, successfully captured the center of power in the Islamic world, the city of Baghdad, effectively destroying the Abbasid dynasty. After Baghdad, the Mongol forces, including some Christians from the previously conquered or submitted territories of Georgia, Cilician Armenia, and Antioch, then went on to conquer Syria, domain of the Ayyubid dynasty. They took the city of Aleppo, and on March 1, 1260, conquered Damascus, destroying the Ayyubid Dynasty as well.
With the Islamic power centers of Baghdad and Damascus gone, the center of Islamic power transferred to the Egyptian Mamluks in Cairo. The Mongols probably would have continued their advance on through Palestine towards Egypt, but had to stop their invasion because of an internal conflict in Turkestan. Hulagu departed with the bulk of his forces, leaving only about 10,000 Mongol horsemen in Syria under his Nestorian Christian general Kitbuqa, to occupy the conquered territory. From this base, the Mongols engaged in raids southward towards Egypt, reaching as far as Ascalon and Jerusalem, and a Mongol garrison of about 1,000 was placed in Gaza, with another garrison located in Nablus.
Hulagu also sent a message to King Louis IX of France, saying that they had remitted Jerusalem to the Christians. However, 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.
Battle of Ain Jalut (1260)
Main article: Battle of Ain JalutAfter retreating from Syria to Cairo, the Egyptian Mamluks negotiated with the Franks of Acre, and the Franks adopted a position of passive neutrality between the Mamluks and the Mongols, even though the Muslim Mamluks had been the traditional enemies of the Crusaders. At the time, the Franks appear to have regarded the Mongols as a greater threat than the Muslims. Thus the Mamluk forces were permitted to pass through Crusader territory unharmed, and amass a sizable force to confront the remains of the Mongol army in September 1260, at the historic battle of Ain Jalut in Galilee. The Mamluks achieved a major victory, which was important not only for the region, but also in that it was the first time that the Mongol Army had suffered a major defeat. After this battle, the Mongols would again attempt several invasions of Syria, but would not be successful until 1300, when again they would only hold territory for a few months.
Sidon incident (1260)
With Mongol territory now bordering the Franks, a few incidents occurred, one of them leading to trouble in Sidon. The Crusader Julian de Grenier, Lord of Sidon and Beaufort, described by his contemporaries as irresponsible and light-headed, took the opportunity to raid and plunder the area of the Bekaa in Mongol territory. When the Mongol general Kitbuqa sent his nephew with a small force to obtain redress, they were ambushed and killed by Julian. Kitbuqa responded forcefully by raiding the city of Sidon, although the Castle of the city was left unattained.
Mongol raids during Edward I's Crusade (1271)
In 1269, the English Prince Edward (the future Edward I), inspired by tales of his uncle, Richard the Lionheart, and the second crusade of the French King Louis, started on a Crusade of his own, the Ninth Crusade. The number of knights and retainers that accompanied Edward on the crusade was quite small, possibly around 230 knights, with a total complement of approximately 1,000 people, transported in a flotilla of 13 ships. Many of the members of Edward's expedition were close friends and family including his wife Eleanor of Castile, his brother Edmund, and his first cousin Henry of Almain.
When Edward finally arrived in Acre on May 9, 1271, he immediately sent an embassy to the Mongol ruler Abaqa. Edward's plan was to use the help of the Mongols to attack the Muslim leader Baibars. The embassy was led by Reginald Russel, Godefrey Welles and John Parker. Abaqa answered positively to Edward's request in a letter dated September 4, 1271. The historians Runciman and Grousset quote the medieval historian William of Tyre:
"The messengers that Sir Edward and the Christians had sent to the Tartars to ask for help came back to Acre, and they did so well that they brought the Tartars with them, and raided all the land of Antioch, Aleppo, Haman and La Chamele, as far as Caesarea the Great. And they killed all the Sarazins they found."
— Guillaume de Tyr, Estoire d'Eracles, p. 461,
In mid-October 1271, the Mongol troops requested by Edward arrived in Syria and ravaged the land from Aleppo southward. Abaqa, occupied by other conflicts in Turkestan, could only send 10,000 Mongol horsemen under general Samagar from the occupation army in Seljuk Anatolia, plus auxiliary Seljukid troops, but they triggered an exodus of Muslim populations (who remembered the previous campaigns of Kithuqa) as far south as Cairo. The Mongols defeated the Turcoman troops that protected Aleppo, putting to flight the Mamluk garrison in that city, and continued their advance to Maarat an-Numan and Apamea.
When Baibars mounted a counter-offensive from Egypt on November 12, the Mongols had already retreated beyond the Euphrates, unable to face the full Mamluk army.
Mongol campaigns of 1299-1300
In the summer of 1299, the Mongols under Ghazan successfully took the northern city of Aleppo, and defeated the Mamluks in the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar, on December 23 or 24, 1299. One group of Mongols then split off from Ghazan's army, and pursued the retreating Mamluk troops as far as Gaza, pushing them back to Egypt. The bulk of Ghazan's forces then proceeded on to Damascus, which surrendered somewhere between December 30, 1299, and January 6, 1300, though its Citadel resisted. Ghazan then retreated most of his forces in February, probably because their horses needed fodder. A smaller force of about 10,000 horsemen was left in Syria under the Mongol general Mulay, and engaged in raids as far south as Gaza.
Accordingly, there existed a period of about four months from February to May 1300, when the Mongol il-Khan was the "de facto" lord of the Holy Land. But his small force had to retreat when the Mamluks returned in May 1300. Ghazan also promised to return in the winter of 1300-1301 to attack Egypt.
Extent of raids
Medieval sources give many different views of the extent of the raids in 1299-1300, and there is disagreement among modern historians as to which of the sources are most reliable, and which might be embellished or simply false. The fate of Jerusalem, in particular, continues to be debated, with some historians stating that the Mongol raids may have penetrated the city, and others saying that the city was neither taken nor even besieged.
The most often-cited study of the matter is that by Dr. Sylvia Schein in her 1979 article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos", where she concluded, "The alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened." Phillips, in The Medieval Expansion of Europe, states "Jerusalem had not been taken or even besieged."
However, in his 2007 book Les Templiers, Alain Demurger states that the Mongols captured Damascus and that the Mongol general Mulay was "effectively present" in Jerusalem. According to Frederic Luisetto, Mongol troops "penetrated into Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres."
European rumors about Jerusalem
See also: History of Jerusalem (Middle Ages)Whatever the truth may have been, the Mongol advance led to wild rumors in Europe, that perhaps the Mongols had captured Jerusalem and were going to return it to the Europeans. These rumours spread and were inflated widely, due to wishful thinking, and the urban legend environment of large crowds that had gathered in Rome for the Jubilee. The story grew to say (falsely) that the Mongols had taken Egypt, that the Mongol Ghazan had appointed his brother as the new king there, and that the Mongols were going to further conquer Barbary and Tunis. The rumors also stated that Ghazan had freed the Christians who were held captive in Damascus and in Egypt, and that some of those prisoners had already made their way to Cyprus. From Italy, the rumors spread to Austria and Germany, and then to France.
By April 1300, Pope Boniface was sending a letter announcing the "great and joyful news to be celebrated with special rejoicing," that the Mongol Ghazan had conquered the Holy Land and offered to hand it over to the Christians. In Rome, as part of the Jubilee celebrations in 1300, the Pope ordered processions to "celebrate the recovery of the Holy Land," and he further encouraged everyone to depart for the newly-recovered area. King Edward I of England was asked to encourage his subjects to depart as well, to visit the Holy Places. And Pope Boniface even referred to the recovery of the Holy Land from the Mongols, in his bull Ausculta fili.
In the summer of the Jubilee year (1300), Pope Boniface VIII received a dozen ambassadors, dispatched from various kings and princes. One of the groups was of 100 Mongols, led by the Florentine Guiscard Bustari, the ambassador for the Il-khan. The embassy, abundantly mentioned in contemporary sources, participated in the Jubilee ceremonies. Supposedly this ambassador was also the man nominated by Ghazan to supervise the re-establishment of the Franks, in the territories that Ghazan was going to return to them. There was great rejoicing for a short time, but the Pope soon learned about the true state of affairs in Syria, from which in fact Ghazan had withdrawn the bulk of his forces in February 1300, and the Mamluks had reclaimed by May. But the rumors continued through at least September 1300.
See also
Notes
- Amitai, Mongol Raids, pp. 247-248
- Saudi Aramco World "The Battle of Ain Jalut"
- Grousset, p. 581
- "On 1 March Kitbuqa entered Damascus at the head of a Mongol army. With him were the King of Armenia and the Prince of Antioch. The citizens of the ancient capital of the Caliphate saw for the first time for six centuries three Christian potentates ride in triumph through their streets", Runciman, p.307
- "The king of Armenia and the Prince of Antioch went to the army of the Tatars, and they all went off to take Damascus".|Gestes des Chiprois, Le Templier de Tyr. "Le roy d'Arménie et le Prince d'Antioche alèrent en l'ost des Tatars et furent à prendre Damas". Quoted in "Histoire des Croisades III", Rene Grousset, p586
- Runciman, p.310
- Jean Richard, p.428
- Amin Maalouf, p.264
- Tyerman, p.806
- Amin Maalouf, p.262
- ^ The British historian Steven Runciman considers that Nablus and Gaza were occupied, but that Jerusalem itself was not reached by the Mongols. Runciman, p.308 Cite error: The named reference "runciman-308" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
- "Hulegu informed Louis IX that he had handed over the Holy City to the Franks already, during the brief Mongol occupation in 1260 (although, as we have seen, this is nowhere indicated in any of the Muslim sources, still less in the Frankish appeals for help to the West), and the claim was reiterated in 1274 by Abaqa's envoys.", Jackson, p.174
- "It happened that some men from Sidon and Belfort gathered together, went to the Saracens' villages and fields, looted them, killed many Saracens and took others into captivity together with a great deal of livestock. A certain nephew of Kit-Bugha who resided there, taking along but few cavalry, pursued the Christians who had done these things to tell them on his uncle's behalf to leave the booty. But some of the Christians attacked and killed him and some other Tartars. When Kit-Bugha learned of this, he immediately took the city of the Sidon and destroyed most of the walls . Thereafter the Tartars no longer trusted the Christians, nor the Christians the Tartars." Fleur des Histoires d'Orient, Chap. 30
- Hindley, pp. 205-206
- Nicolle, p. 47
- Tyerman, p. 818
- Grousset, p.656
- "When he disembarked in Acre, Edward immediately sent envoys to Abagha (…) As he (Abagha) could not commit himself to the offensive, he ordered the Mongol forces stationned in Turkey under Samaghar to attack Syria in order to relieve the Crusaders” Jean Richard, p.446
- "Edward was horrified at the state of affairs in Outremer. He knew that his own army was small, but he hoped to unite the Christians of the East into a formidable body and then to use the help of the Mongols in making an effective attack on Baibars", Runciman, p.335
- ^ Grousset, p.653.
- Runciman, p.336
- "Et revindrent en Acre li message que mi sire Odouart et la Crestiente avoient envoies as Tartars por querre secors; et firent si bien la besoigne quil amenerent les Tartars et corurent toute la terre dantioche et de Halape de Haman et de La Chamele jusques a Cesaire la Grant. Et tuerent ce quil trouverent de Sarrazins", Estoire d'Eracles, Chap XIV
- Quoted in Grousset, p.653
- ^ Runciman, p.336
- Demurger, p.142
- Demurger, p.142 "The Mongols pursued the retreating troops towards the south, but stopped at the level of Gaza"
- Demurger 142-143
- Runciman, p.439
- Demurger (p.146, French edition): "After the Mamluk forces retreated south to Egypt, the main Mongol forces retreated north in February, Ghazan leaving his general Mulay to rule in Syria".
- "Meanwhile the Mongol and Armenian troops raided the country as far south as Gaza." Schein, 1979, p. 810
- "For a brief period, some four months in all, the Mongol Il-Khan was de facto the lord of the Holy Land", Schein, p810
- Schein, 1979, p. 810
- Le Templier de Tyr mentions that one of the generals of Ghazan was named Molay, whom he left in Damas with 10,000 Mongols - "611. Ghazan, when he had vanquished the Sarazins returned in his country, and left in Damas one of his Admirals, who was named Molay, who had with him 10,000 Tatars and 4 general."611. Cacan quant il eut desconfit les Sarazins se retorna en son pais et laissa a Domas .i. sien amiraill en son leuc quy ot a nom Molay qui ot o luy .xm. Tatars et .iiii. amiraus.", but it is thought that this could instead designate a Mongol general "Mûlay". - Demurger, p.279
- Demurger, p.146
- Schein, 1979, p. 805
- Schein, in her 1991 book mentioned in a footnote that the Mongol capture of Jerusalem was confirmed because they had removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock, and transferred it to Damascus. "The conquest of Jerusalem by the Mongols was confirmed by Niccolo of Poggibonsi who noted (Libro d'Oltramare 1346-1350, ed. P. B. Bagatti (Jerusalem 1945), 53, 92) that the Mongols removed a gate from the Dome of the Rock and had it transferred to Damascus. Schein, 1991, p. 163
- Phillips, p. 128. ""Disillusionment came swiftly. Jerusalem had not been taken or even besieged; Ghazan evacuated Syria within a few weeks of its conquest probably because his horses were short of fodder. He attacked it again in 1301, and planned further campaigns for the next two years, but achieved nothing. His bitterness at the failure of the European powers to provide the military assistance he had asked for expressed itself in 1303 in yet another embassy to Philip IV and Edward I, to which Edward replied tactfully that he and Philip had been at war and could not send help."
- "Mulay, a Mongol general who was effectively present in Jerusalem in 1299-1300", Demurger, Les Templiers, 2007, p.84
- Frédéric Luisetto, p.205-206 "Troops penetrated in Jerusalem and Hebron where they committed many massacres (...) In Hebron, a cross was even raised on top of the mosque of Abraham", also p.208 "We have knowledge of the violences perpetrated in Jerusalem and Damas"
- Schein, pp. 814-815
- Cite error: The named reference
riley-smithwas invoked but never defined (see the help page). - Schein, p.815
- Schein, p.815-816
- Schein, p. 805
References
Ancient sources
- Le Templier de Tyr (circa 1300). Chronicle du Templier de Tyr, Online (Original French).
- Hayton of Corycus (1307). Flowers of the Histories of the East, Online (English translation).
- Guillaume de Tyr (circa 1300). History of Deeds Done Beyond the Sea, Online (Original French).
Modern sources
- Amitai, Reuven (1987). "Mongol Raids into Palestine (AD 1260 and 1300)". JRAS: 236–255.
- Barber, Malcolm (2001). The Trial of the Templars (2nd edition ed.). University Press, Cambridge. ISBN 978-0-521-67236-8.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help) - Encyclopedia Iranica, Article on Franco-Persian relations
- Foltz, Richard (2000). "Religions of the Silk Road : overland trade and cultural exchange from antiquity to the fifteenth century". New York: St. Martin's Griffin. ISBN 0-312-23338-8.
- Demurger, Alain (2007). Jacques de Molay (in French). Editions Payot&Rivages. ISBN 2228902357.
- Hazard, Harry W. (editor) (1975). Volume III: The Fourteenth and Fifteenth Centuries. A History of the Crusades. Kenneth M. Setton, general editor. The University of Wisconsin Press. ISBN 0-299-06670-3.
{{cite book}}:|author=has generic name (help) - Jackson, Peter (2005). The Mongols and the West, 1221-1410. Longman. ISBN 0582368960.
{{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter:|coauthors=(help) - Lebédel, Claude (2006). Les Croisades, origines et conséquences (in French). Editions Ouest-France. ISBN 2737341361.
- Newman, Sharan (2006). Real History Behind the Templars. Berkley Publishing Group. ISBN 978-0-425-21533-3.
- Nicolle, David (2001). The Crusades. Essential Histories. Osprey Publishing. ISBN 978-1-84176-179-4.
- Phillips, John Roland Seymour (1998). The Medieval Expansion of Europe. Oxford University Press. ISBN 0198207409.
- Prawdin, Michael (pseudonym for Charol, Michael) (1940/1961). Mongol Empire. Collier-Macmillan Canada. ISBN 1412805198.
{{cite book}}: Check date values in:|date=(help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) - Prawer, Joshua (1972). The Crusaders' Kingdom: European Colonialism in the Middle Ages. Praeger. ISBN 9780297993971.
- Richard, Jean (1996). Histoire des Croisades. Fayard. ISBN 2-213-59787-1.
- Riley-Smith, Jonathan (1987, 2005). The Crusades: A History (2nd edition ed.). Yale Nota Bene. ISBN 0-300-10128-7.
{{cite book}}:|edition=has extra text (help); Check date values in:|date=(help) - Runciman, Steven (1987 (first published in 1952-1954)). A history of the Crusades 3. Penguin Books. ISBN 9780140137057.
{{cite book}}: Check date values in:|date=(help) - Saunders, J. J. (2001). The History of the Mongol Conquests. University of Pennsylvania Press. ISBN 0812217667.
- Schein, Sylvia (October 1979). "Gesta Dei per Mongolos 1300. The Genesis of a Non-Event". The English Historical Review. 94 (373): 805–819.
- Schein, Sylvia (1991). Fideles Crucis: The Papacy, the West, and the Recovery of the Holy Land. Clarendon. ISBN 0198221657.
- Schein, Sylvia (2005). Gateway to the Heavenly City: crusader Jerusalem and the catholic West. Ashgate Publishing, Ltd. ISBN 075460649X.
- Sinor, Denis (1999). "The Mongols in the West". Journal of Asian History. 33 (1).
- Turnbull, Stephen (1980). The Mongols. Osprey Publishing Ltd. ISBN 9780850453720.
{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: numeric names: authors list (link) - Weatherford, Jack (2004). Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World. Three Rivers Press. ISBN 0-609-80964-4.