Talk:Fall of Ruad

Syria Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SyriaWikipedia:WikiProject SyriaTemplate:WikiProject SyriaSyria articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages: Crusades B‑class Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
B	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Crusades task force.

POV

PHG, please stop. There does not need to be an article on this topic, and it appears to just be another coatrack article. Everything here is already well-covered at Franco-Mongol alliance and Siege of Ruad. --El on ka 14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree wholeheartedly that this article must be merged into Siege of Arwad (perhaps moved to Ruad?). Srnec (talk) 22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree that the other one should be Ruad, since that's the most common usage in sources (if the article should even exist at all). --El on ka 22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since it was moved previously without discussion, I just moved it back. I see no reason why it shouldn't exist and cover the entire campaign centred on that fortress. Neither do I see a reason why there should be two articles about the same thing. Srnec (talk) 02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. Though let's maybe keep this article around for a few days, since it's being used as evidence at a request to re-extend PHG's topic ban. It's sad that his last ban expired on February 2nd and he launched right back into POV editing on the 3rd. So I guess we'll just need to get the ban extended again. --El on ka 03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Ruad expedition has been studied in detail by the French historian Alain Demurger, who devotes a whole chapter to the subject in his 2002 book Jacques de Molay. Doesn't this major event deserve its own article? All the specifics of the expedition, had disapeared from Wikipedia. As of February 2, after two years, all that remained was:

"The Templars established a base on Ruad Island,[106] which was then used as a staging area, and a joint force of Cypriots, approximately half of which were from the various military orders, was sent to the island.[107] From there, raids were launched on Tortosa while the Cypriots awaited the arrival of the Mongols. However, the Mongols were delayed, and the Crusader forces ended up returning to Cyprus, leaving a garrison on Ruad. When the Mongols did arrive in February 1301, they were only able to engage in some minor raids before having to withdraw." Franco-Mongol Alliance article

... just a general statement, without anything specific, no mention of Jacques de Molay, numbers, etc, well, a few summary sentences.... which is fine as long as we can find somewhere else all the details of the expedition if we want (hence the need for a specific article on the subject). This is very different from the Siege of Ruad itself, which is the Mamluk-led offensive in 1302, and does only cover the end of the event. Content-wise, you will notice that this article is highly referenced on immediately-checkable online sources, from the best academic authors, so what's the problem???

In order to respect Elonka's desire to keep everything short and in summary-form in the main Franco-Alliance article, isn't the solution to go into details in sub-articles? In any case, I recommend that you don't operate a merge until the case is properly resolved. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Doesn't this major event deserve its own article?" Which major event? Why do we need to distinguish events here? All these military actions centre around the island of Ruad and they are all connected. I do not believe there is sufficient material in the primary or secondary literature (I might be wrong, but some quick Google searches only strengthened my faith) to support two articles. One will do. Although I am not so sure which one anymore. Neither "Ruad expedition" nor "Siege of Ruad" (or either term with "Arwad" substituted) can be called a term of art and both appear rarely in the English literature. Srnec (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in agreement with Srnec that the current articles seem to be giving undue weight to this particular set of troop movements. It's true that Demurger has a chapter on this in his biography of Jacques de Molay, but even he doesn't give it a name like "Siege of Ruad" or "Ruad expedition", his chapter is just called "The Isle of Ruad". Accordingly, perhaps we should merge both Ruad expedition and Siege of Ruad to (yet another) place where this is already covered, at Arwad#Crusades history? Or if it's too much info, perhaps History of Ruad might be a proper title to split it out, WP:SUMMARY style. --El on ka 05:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I totally agree that Alain Demurger seems to be by far the author who gives the most details on the event. I was stopped in mid-flight (now voluntarily refraining from editing on the topic for a week or two), but I still have about double the current material to add to the subject (mostly from Demurger Jacques de Molay/ The last Templar), which will make it a 30k article. In the past I've created 100s of articles about military events, and it seems quite clear to me that the Ruad campaign led by the Crusaders is distinct from the 1302 Siege of Ruad at the end of it led by the Mamluks. The title "Ruad expedition" is generic, however Demurger does qualify it as an "expedition" ("Cette expedition avait surtout l'avantage de sceller par un acte concret l'alliance Mongole"/ "This expedition had mostly the advantage of sealing by a concrete act the Mongol alliance", my translation, p.147 of the French edition) or as an "occupation" p.139 (hence Occupation of Ruad?). According to Malcom Barber, it was indeed a major engagement ("a serious effort" engaging ""close to half the size of the normal complement for the twelfth-century Kingdom of Jerusalem" [1]). I think all this makes it quite legitimate and logical to have a specific article indeed. Actually, since, on the contrary, there is very little data on the Mamluk Siege of Ruad (1302) itself, maybe that can be fusionned into the Ruad expedition article indeed, of which it is the conclusion (for Alain Demurger also). Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 05:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Aside from Demurger, who has maybe 10 pages on the topic (half the "Isle of Ruad" chapter), Barber (in his major work about the Knights Templar) covers all of it in a mere two pages. Most other historians that I've checked (Tyerman, Nicholson, Jackson, etc.) barely mention it all. I do think the information is worth covering... I just don't think it's worth an entire article. And it definitely doesn't need to be repeated in multiple locations: Arwad, Franco-Mongol alliance, Siege of Ruad, Ruad expedition, and Ghazan, too. That's giving this event way more coverage than it deserves. --El on ka 05:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is Wikipedia. I think the Ruad expedition article should give as much knowledge of the event as we can (this is the mission of this encyclopedia). However, it should be mentionned in summary style only in other other articles such as Arwad, Franco-Mongol alliance, Siege of Ruad and Ghazan. This is clearly explained in Wikipedia:Summary style: the most detailed content does have to be kept as "In general, information should not be removed from Wikipedia: that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information". (central principle of Wikipedia:Summary style). Easy enough actually... Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We don't need an article on every single siege of every single castle. Let's at least be clear here, that this Ruad expedition article was created simply as a coatrack, for the buried element about Ghazan "symbolically holding Jerusalem for a few months". That's more of the same POV pushing as we've been dealing with for years. It is not a mainstream view of modern historians. The mainstream view is that there was a period of a few months during which Jerusalem, and other cities in Palestine, were probably subject to a Mongol raid. But that's a far cry from "symbolically holding Jerusalem for a few months". That sentence needs to be removed, and anything actually keepable in this article should just be merged elsewhere. I'm still thinking that the Ruad article is most appropriate, but am open to other suggestions. --El on ka 22:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We do need articles for significant military operations throughout history. This is standard Wikipedia practice (I've created 100s of article about military events, often less important than this one), and this is consistent with Wikipedia's ambition to be the sum of all knowledge. This is undisputably an important event: a full chapter in Demurger, and something presented as "a serious effort to regain a foothold in Syria", with forces half those of the Kingdom of Jerusalem, by Barber [2]. The "symbolically holding Jerusalem for a few months" is sourced from Andrew Jotischky Crusading and the Crusader States, and yourself now agrees that the Mongols probably went through Jerusalem during their raids (and User:Srnec confirmed this is actually an undisputed point in the literature), so this is a moot point. This is obviously a Wikipedia-worthy article, although I agree it might be better to merge Siege of Ruad into it, as the siege is really the final event of the expedition. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There is way too much haggling over the language we use to describe the relationship between the Mongols and Jerusalem in the year 1300. Let me try to clear some of it up based on my reading of the secondary literature:

Did they raid it (i.e. take stuff from it or destroy parts of it)? Who knows.
Did they conquer it? Certainly not, as it had no walls and no defenders.
Were they (that is, an army) in it? Seems most likely.
Did they exercise authority in it? Also yes.
Can you call this "taking Jerusalem" or "holding Jerusalem"? I see no reason why not.
Was it symbolic? I don't see how, since Ghazan was a Muslim and he was not giving it over to the Crusaders.

The only reason Jerusalem is especially significant in this context is because the idea of its conquest by the Mongols gave rise to absurd hopes in Europe. That is all. It was of no more significance to the Mongols than any other city they walked in or raided during their brief stay in Palestine. But they did enter it, according to every source I've looked into.

I disagree with Elonka that this should be merged into Arwad. I disagree with PHG that we need two articles for a series of related military endeavours surrounding Arwad in a space of a few years: one will do, but I have no good idea what to call it yet. I still support a merge. I agree with Elonka that the remark about Jerusalem in this article needs to be removed or reworded at least, because, as I said, Jerusalem was of no military significance and therefore adds nothing to an article that is not about brief European expectations of an imminent reconquest of Outremer. Srnec (talk) 01:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Instead of engaging in a debate about the fate of Jerusalem (which is probably better suited for Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine), let's focus on the fate of the Ruad expedition article. Possible merge targets:

Any other ideas? --El on ka 03:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I subscribe to Srnec's phrasing that Jerusalem was "taken" or "held" by the Mongols from December 1299: let's implement it. I think it is important to mention, as it had a huge impact in Europe, and also as re-conquering the Holy Land with Mongol help and taking Jerusalem back was the whole point of the expedition. Lastly, I propose that Siege of Ruad be merged into this article (Ruad expedition) as the siege is really the final event of the expedition, and the available information about it is quite succinct. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Siege article should be merged into this, or this merged into the Siege article, whichever is more convenient. Adam Bishop (talk) 09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'm uncomfortable keeping either title of "Siege of Ruad" (1 Google Books hit) or "Ruad expedition",(1 hit) simply because they're not supported by the sources. Neither term is in common use. Most sources simply refer to "the island (or isle) of Ruad", or if there's any common term, it's more likely to be "Fall of Ruad"(7 hits) or "Loss of Ruad".(20 hits) My own preference is still just to merge everything to Ruad, but if we have to have a separate article, how about Fall of Ruad, which would at least be consistent with titles such as Fall of Acre and Fall of Baghdad? --El on ka 23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd think that the articles Ruad expedition and Siege of Ruad can indeed be merged. The events are definitely very interesting (aren't they the last operation of the crusaders on the Asian mainland?), but since the two articles can share the "background" and "aftermath" sections, and since the actual material on either the crusaders' operation or the Mamluks' counter-operation is fairly short in size, together they probably would make a fine article. Besides, the two events are closely connected logically. I don't have strong opinion on what the best title on the name of the merged article should be, but the Fall of Ruad is probably as good as any. However, I definitely would not want to go as far as to see the info about the military events merged into the article on Ruad (Arwad) Island itself: both because the events of ca. 1300 are notable enough in their own right, and because the island has an interesting 3000+ year-long history of its own too. Think of how we have separate articles on Tarakan Island, Battle of Tarakan (1942), and Battle of Tarakan (1945). (Incidentally, if the Ruad events had taken place 640 or 700 years later, and the battles there were had been fought by Americans or Australians, I am sure noone would be objecting to separate articles on the actions of 1299 and 1302... But as there was no CNN or embedded reporters in 1299-1302, our sources may not be extensive enough to warrant having two articles.) -- Vmenkov (talk) 04:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

True comment: we have plenty of articles on much more minor and less documented military operations. It is normal Wikipedia practice, and therefore I am not sure what's the point of creating a whole problem out of it just here (although I'm fine with merging if it resolves anything). Regarding the title candidates, to me, Fall of Ruad or Loss of Ruad are only possible alternative names to Siege of Ruad, as they only point to the last phase of the events, when Ruad was finally captured by the Mamluks in 1302. They thus do not represent a suitable title for the whole campaign itself. As far as I know, the authority who wrote most extensively on the subject is Alain Demurger, who devoted a full 20 pages chapter in his biography of Jacques de Molay to the events at Ruad from 1299 to 1302. He clearly describes the events as a "campaign" and an "expedition". As the seemingly foremost authority on the subject, I suggest he gets precedence and that his wording be accepted here: Ruad expedition or Ruad campaign, of which the 1302 siege would only be the closing chapter and would be merged into the main article. Simple enough. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 11:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to give Demurger precedence, we should merge everything to Ruad, since that's how he titled his chapter, "The Isle of Ruad". --El on ka 15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out by User:Vmenkov that is not usual practice on Wikipedia: Ruad has otherwise a varied history of 3,000 years, and it is standard to have specific articles for significant events surrounding a given geographical location. It would be like asking to put Siege of Vienna into the Vienna article... The usual practice would just be to mention the siege in summary form in the main article (2 lines indeed), but go into details in the sub-article about the military event. Demurger does have entitled his chapter "Ruad", but Demurger is not Wikipedia, and just uses the title as a shorthand for what he relates otherwise as the "campaign" or "expedition" of Ruad (it seems you have access to the book, so you are very well placed to see that). This clearly militates for Ruad expedition or Ruad campaign as the common title for these events. Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If I can add an opinion, I would also agree for a merge. While I think there is more than enough info for notability standards to consent a standalone article 2 pages in Barber and 10 pages in Demurger's bio would be enough to crush per SNOW any VFD (to make a comparison, how many and thorough are the sources available for US state legislators of all except half a dozen states, all of which, I remember, are notable) there is, as noted by Srnec and Vmenkov and Elonka, a lot of points of contact which invite clearly to a single article, but I must disagree with merging in Ruad, mostly for the reasons advanced by Vmenkov; if we merged Siege of Ruad as a not enough for a standalone article, more than half the articles on medieval battles would disappear. I'm not sure which would be the best title for the article merged from the two articles: Ruad campaign, Fall of Ruad and Siege of Ruad seem all ultimately acceptable.--Aldux (talk) 21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think there is agreement between myself, Adam Bishop, Vmenkov and Aldux about what must be done. Elonka agrees about a merge (but not on a separate article). I suggest merging Siege of Ruad here and then retitling this as we see fit. I think Fall of Ruad is acceptable, since the transformation of Ruad into a citadel of importance (for the launching of expeditions against the mainland) was the cause of its fall within a few years. Srnec (talk) 03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Srnec, I do not believe that is a fair representation of my views. In fact, if you'll look, you'll see that I was actually the one that suggested Fall of Ruad. It's not my first choice, but I definitely support it. --El on ka 03:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You suggested it as a title "if we have to have a separate article", which I interpreted, in my comment that you are referring to, as opposition to a separate article. I did not explicitly say that you would not accept the (now current) title Fall of Ruad, and I am glad to hear you do. I have been bold and moved it. I think the first sentence is also more interesting with the current title. Srnec (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Great, let's merge the "Siege" into this article, this is the smart thing to do, but I think Ruad campaign or Ruad expedition would be a better, more inclusive, title. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 03:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Moved

I have changed the merger headings to reflect the consensus here. I have boldly moved this article because Vmenkov, Aldux, Elonka, and I have all said we can accept it this way. I don't think Adam would object, and PHG should find it workable. Srnec (talk) 17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Srnec! The article looks great! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 21:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Map of 1300 operations

Since the map of the 1299-1300 operations was removed on the ground that the Mongol arrow to Gaza was too large [3], I redrew it accordingly. I also added a small arrow to Jerusalem, as everyone now seems to be in agreement that the Mongols raided the city. I'll be delighted if someone can be kind enough to insert the new map into the article! Best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 03:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We actually already have a map which indicates the Mongol troop movements (see at right). Though it couldn't hurt to have a map that indicates strictly the Crusader naval sorties. Though if we do that, it should really point out the location of Tortosa and Ruad. --El on ka 06:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Here you go with Tortosa and Ruad mentionned on the map. Cheers! Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 06:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There was no battle in Gaza, and having an arrow pointing straight to Jerusalem is giving undue weight to that aspect of the raids. Better is the method in the other map, which shows a general direction of raids, and a question mark. I'd also prefer if the green naval lines were thinner, as they seem to be overpowering the rest of the map. Perhaps a thin dashed line would be better? --El on ka 06:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the presence in Jerusalem is beyond doubt now ("the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem" [4] and it can be said that they "took" and "held" the city [5]. The raid of 10,000 to 20,000 Mongols resulted in huge depredations reported in detail by Muslim sources [6]) so the map does no more than express that fact. The arrow is already in the other map you presented, so it shouldn't be a problem: it's only the question mark which is not relevant anymore.

For the thickness of the green lines, sorry but you might remember I lost my laptop some time back, and my source files with them, so this is not something I can adjust easily.

I was able to erase the battle mark around Gaza though. Not too bad is it? Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 07:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

As already mentioned several times, this article is not the proper place to be haggling over the Jerusalem issue. --El on ka 15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody is "haggling" Elonka, and please take into account the efforts I've been making in responding to your various requests to modify this map. We're just trying to have a map that accurately represents our knowledge of these events. Srnec checked the sources, and confirmed that the presence of the Mongols in Jerusalem in 1300 was "unequivocal" [7]. I've given many authoritative sources to the same effect [8]. Even you now write that the Mongol raids "probably" passed through Jerusalem [9]. So we're actually way beyond a state of pure hypothesis that would justify putting a question mark on Jerusalem, don't you think? We're speaking about a certainty, or if you will, a quasi-certainty. For the sake of our collaboration, I sincerely hope you can acknowledge this point. My very best regards Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 18:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

PHG, I understand that the fate of Jerusalem is of crucial importance to you. I get that. But keep in mind, that this Fall of Ruad article is not about Jerusalem. We really don't need three maps showing Mongol troop movements in the direction of Jerusalem. We already have two maps showing the direction of the Mongol forces, and that's plenty. If we're going to be adding another map to this article, what would be helpful is a map showing the Mamluk troop movements. They advanced north from Cairo, took Atlit, Roche-Guillaume, Servantikar. We should have a map showing those locations. Also, if you want to focus on the Crusaders, there's also the paragraph about Botrun and Nephin. Let's have a map for those locations as well. Or moving on to the Mongols, they advanced in 1299, but had to retreat due to an attack by Qutlugh-Khoja. Let's have a map that shows the direction of that attack. That would be very helpful. --El on ka 19:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Elonka, you are contradicting yourself, and at the same time attempting to move the discussion to something else entirely. The above map I spent time to correct at your request [10] is not just about the Mongols at all. It also shows prominently the military actions of the Crusaders in 1299-1300, with their naval raids and landings, which cannot be more central to the article. It easily superseedes the "Mongol-only" map you recently replaced it with [11] (and which has nothing to do with Ruad by the way), because it depicts the actions of the Crusaders and the Armenians in addition to those of the Mongols. Removing it effectively suppresses the illustration of what the Crusaders were doing in 1299-1300, which is objectively central to the subject matter of this article. Once this basic point is resolved, of course we can think about more maps. Cheers Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 20:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that a map of Crusader naval operations would be helpful. What I am objecting to, is using it as an opportunity to give undue weight to the concept of Mongols advancing towards Jerusalem. In other words, maps that would be helpful at this point:

An accurate map which shows, with less confusing lines, the Crusader naval operations (but without the arrow pointing at Jerusalem, because it just sidetracks things)
A map that shows the Mamluk troop movements, and/or the locations of the Crusader outposts that fell after Acre.

--El on ka 20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Are there other users besides Elonka who would be opposed to having this synthetic map used in the article? Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 15:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Citadel of Arwad

Does anyone here feels that the Citadel of Arwad deserves its own article? If so, any suggestion for sources? Yazan (talk) 16:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My own opinion is that it should not yet be a separate article at this point. Instead, if sources can be located, create a section about it either here at Fall of Ruad or maybe at Arwad. Then, if sufficient sources exist, and the section grows large enough, it would be easy enough to split it out to its own article at that point. --El on ka 21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Southern extent in 1299-1300

Mongol occupation of Gaza in 1299 [12]. "In 1299 CE, for example, the Mongols defeated the Mamlukes at Salaamiyet. Mongol units were recorded as pursuing the remnants of the enemy army as far as Gaza — 300 miles from the battlefield!" [13]. Occupation of Gaza [14].
Raid on Jerusalem: "The Mongols pursued them. They occupied Damascus, and pressed after the fugitives to Gaza, Jerusalem and the territory of al-Karak, robbing and plundering" [15]. Hethum may have been in this campaign [16].

Per Honor et Gloria ✍ 08:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA

Possible good article? Bruno Ishiai (talk) 04:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I'm up for a GA review, sure. --El on ka 04:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]