View source for Franco-Mongol alliance
From RoyalWeb
Jump to:
navigation
,
search
====The fate of Jerusalem in early 1300==== [[Image:Chaime II d'Aragón.jpg|thumb|[[James II of Aragon]] complimented Ghazan for his victories in 1300, and offered to procure him ships, troops and supplies in exchange for one fifth of the territory of the Holy Land.]] There are pervasive contemporary accounts, whether from European, Armenian or Arab sources, claiming that the Mongols occupied Jerusalem around that time, but modern scholars are divided on the question. After their defeat at Homs, the Mamluk forces retreated south to Egypt, and the Mongols occupied the Levant as far as [[Gaza]]. In February, the main Mongol forces retreated north, and Ghazan left his general [[Mulay]] to rule in Syria.<ref>Demurger, p.146</ref> 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 that 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> In ''Les Templiers'', [[Alain Demurger]] states that "in December 1299, he (Ghazan) vanquished the Mamluks at the Second Battle of Homs and captured [[Damascus]], and even [[Jerusalem]]",<ref>Demurger, ''Les Templiers'', 2007, p.84</ref> and that the Mongol general [[Mulay]] 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 [[Hebron]], and are recorded to have committed numerous massacres there.<ref>Frédéric Luisetto, p.205, also p.208</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>. According to Peter Jackson in ''The Mongols and the West'', the Mongols liberated the Holy City.<ref>"The Mongol liberation of the Holy City, of course, furnished the opportunity for Pope Boniface and Western chroniclers alike to castigate Latin princes by claiming that God had preferred a pagan ruler as His instrument", p.173, Peter Jackson, ''The Mongols and the West''</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> Demurger, in ''Jacques de Molay'', mentions the possibility that the Mongols may have occupied Jerusalem, quoting an Armenian tradition describing that Hethoum celebrated mass in Jerusalem in January 1300.<ref>Demurger, p.143</ref> However, Phillips, in ''The Medieval Expansion of Europe'', states that "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> According to Riley-Smith in ''The Crusades'', "a rumour swept the West that the Mongols had conquered Palestine and handed it over to the Christians".<ref name=riley-smith>"In 1300 a rumour swept the West that the Mongols had conquered Palestine and handed it over to the Christians. Pope Boniface VIII sent 'the great and joyful news' to Edward of England and probably to Philip of France as well. He encouraged the faithful to go at once to the Holy Land and he ordered the exiled Catholic bishops to return to their sees. All over Europe men hurriedly took the cross and in Genoa several ladies sold their jewelry to help pay for a crusading fleet, although in the end the project was dropped." (Riley-Smith, p. 246)</ref> Schein, in her 1979 article "Gesta Dei per Mongolos", stated "The alleged recovery of the Holy Land never happened,"<ref name=gesta-805>Schein, 1979, p. 805</ref> but 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.<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> David Morgan in ''The Mongols'', using Schein as a reference, wrote that of the taking of Jerusalem and the returning of the city to the Christians, "this had not in fact happened."<ref>''The Mongols'' by David Morgan, p. 161. "Indeed, at one point Europe was swept with rumours that the Mongols had actually taken Jerusalem from the Mamluks and had returned it to Christian rule. Although this had not in fact happened, the stories did reflect the reality of Ghazan's remarkable successes in 1299-1300 when he drove the Mamluk forces completely out of Syria, only to withdraw again to Persia."[http://books.google.com/books?id=AZdK54YuEPsC&pg=PA161&dq=mongols+jerusalem+1299&sig=9P8Y67RNJkOEGBLcfVkDKVEZFfk Source]</ref> =====Muslim medieval sources===== According to the historian Sylvia Schein "Arab chroniclers, like [[Moufazzal Ibn Abil Fazzail]], [[an-Nuwairi]] and [[Makrizi]], report that the Mongols raided the country as far as Jerusalem and Gaza."<ref>Schein, "Gesta dei per Mongolos 1300", p.810</ref> In a 1301 letter, the Sultan [[al-Malik an-Nasir]] 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 [[Al-Nasir Muhammad|al-Malik an-Nasir]] of introducing the Christian Armenians and Georgians into Jerusalem 'the most holy sanctuary to Islam, second only to Mecca!". Schein, 1979, p. 810.</ref> {{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 [[Cross]] enter sacred territory; nor should you have violated the sanctity of the [[Temple of Jerusalem]]."|Letter from Sultan [[Al-Nasir Muhammad|al-Malik an-Nasir]] 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 ([[Abu al-Fida]] and [[Ibn Taymiyyah]]) 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".|[[Abu al-Fida]], 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."|[[Ibn Taymiyyah]], 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 [[Al-Mufaddal]] also mentions the massacres of the populations of Jerusalem and the nearby city of [[Hebron]] (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 [[Mosque of Abraham]] in Hebron.<ref>Luisetto, quoting Al-Mufaddal and Al-Nuwayri, p.206</ref> =====Armenian medieval sources===== [[Image:ChurchOfTheHolySepulcher1885.png|thumb|According to Western and Armenian tradition, King [[Hetoum II]] visited the [[Church of the Holy Sepulchre]] in [[Jerusalem]], in early 1300, though this account is disputed.]] A single Armenian account by the monk [[Nerses Balients]] (an Armenian monk converted to Catholicism by the [[Dominican Order|Dominicans]])<ref>Mutafian, p.73</ref> relates the capture of Jerusalem by the Mongols, and describes a prominent involvement of the Armenian king [[Hetoum II]] 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 [[Hetoum II]], with a small force, had reached the outskirts of Cairo and then spent some fifteen days in Jerusalem visiting the [[Holy Places]] 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"|[[Recueil des Historiens des Croisades]], Historiens Armeniens I, p.660<ref>[http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-51557&M=imageseule Historiens Armeniens, p.660]</ref>}} <!-- This source is controversial and not accepted as reliable by all historians. --> [[Image:Cathedral of St. James .JPG|thumb|It may be on the occasion of a visit to Jerusalem in 1300 that Hetoum II remitted his amber scepter to the Armenian convent of [[Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem|Saint James of Jerusalem]].]] According to the historian Claude Mutafian, this may be on this occasion that Hetoum II remitted his amber scepter to the Armenian convent of [[Cathedral of St. James, Jerusalem|Saint James of Jerusalem]].<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 ''[[RHC Arm. I]]'' 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 [[Nerses Balienc]]... The "Arab chroniclers" cited are [[Mufaddal]] (actually a Copt; the edition of Blochet), [[al-Maqrizi]] (Quatremere's translation) and [[al-Nuwayrf]]. None of these sources confirm Nerses' story in any way; in fact, as is not made clear in the relevant [Schein] 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 [[Battle of Wadi al-Khazindar]], 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, [[Edouard Dulaurier]], 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 [the muslim] Ghazan for such a despicable action, i.e., abandoning Muslim territory, especially Jerusalem to Christian depredations."</ref> However, Edouard Dulaurier actually only mentions that [[Nerses Balients]] may have added a few fantastic details to exagerate Hetoum's accomplishments somewhat, specifically disputing that Hetoum went as far as [[Cairo]] when Ghazan himself sent 15,000 men only as far as [[Gaza]], 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 [http://visualiseur.bnf.fr/CadresFenetre?O=NUMM-51557&M=imageseule Page 659, note 1]:<br>"The account of the battle of Homs, in which [[Ghazan]] 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 [[Cairo]]. Indeed, the Mongol general who had been dispatched with a body of 15,000 men to pursue Sultan Nacer, did not go farther than [[Gaza]], 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 [[Nicosia]], 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 [[Holy Sepulchre]] 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 [[Godefroy de Bouillon]]".|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 [[Easter]].<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 [[Temple of Jerusalem]] 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 [[Niccolo of Poggibonsi]], 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> =====European rumors===== [[Image:Giotto - Bonifatius VIII.jpg|thumb|[[Pope Boniface VIII]] 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. One thing that is certain, is that whatever their source, that once they had reached Europe, the 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 (Christian)|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.<ref>Schein, pp. 814-815</ref> 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 ''[[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.<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===== [[Image:JacquesMolayPrendJerusalem1299VersaillesMuseeNationalChateauEtTrianons.jpg|thumb|"[[Jacques de Molay|Jacques Molay]] 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 [[Cyprus]] 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 [[Jacques de Molay]], [[Grand Master (order)|Grand Master]] of the [[Knights Templar]].<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 [[Templar of Tyre]] referred to a Mongol general named [[Mulay]].<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 [[Kutlushah|Kutluk]], 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 [[Musée national du château de Versailles et des Trianons|Versailles]], 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 [[Ruad]] 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>
Return to
Franco-Mongol alliance
.
Views
Page
Discussion
View source
History
Personal tools
Log in
Navigation
Main page
Community portal
Current events
Recent changes
Random page
Help
Search
Toolbox
What links here
Related changes
Special pages
MOOCOW
Google AdSense