User:Elonka/Mongol historians


 * Note: This is a temporary page for data-gathering

'''Was there a Franco-Mongol alliance? Or the hope of an alliance? What did the historians say?'''

Overview
The question is, "What do historians say about whether or not there was an alliance between the Crusaders and the Mongols?"

My (Elonka's) interpretation is that:
 * The clear consensus among modern historians is that there were many attempts to put together an alliance, but that the attempts failed.
 * Some older historians (such as Rene Grousset) spent time in their books arguing that an alliance would have been a good idea, and was a "missed opportunity" for the Crusaders
 * Modern historians are generally acknowledging Grousset's interpretation, but the main dispute is not whether or an alliance occurred, but, "Would an alliance have been a good idea or not?"
 * At least one modern historian, Jean Richard, argues that the alliance actually existed; however, most other more recent historians (Jackson, Morgan, Atwood) are clear that the alliance did not occur.

Historian quickref
- for a quick overview (2-3 paragraphs) of the historical context of this dispute

Antioch
Did Bohemond VI, Prince of Antioch and Count of Tripoli, ally with the Mongols, or submit to the Mongols? I say submit:

Cilician Armenia

 * Point of dispute at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance: Did the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia, under King Hetoum I of Armenia, ally with the Mongols, or submit to the Mongols?  I (Elonka) say that the consensus of modern historians is that the correct definition is "submission."