74:
53:
1854:
1591:
594:), 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
527:"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.
172:
142:
1530:
1505:
421:"The Templars established a base on Ruad Island, 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. 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."
1465:
875:. 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.
182:
1777:(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
262:
1094:. (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.) --
22:
960:
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
863:
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
1751:
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
1109:
True comment: we have plenty of articles on much more minor and less documented military operations. It is normal
Knowledge (XXG) 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
749:
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
1073:
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'
769:
We do need articles for significant military operations throughout history. This is standard
Knowledge (XXG) practice (I've created 100s of article about military events, often less important than this one), and this is consistent with Knowledge (XXG)'s ambition to be the sum of all knowledge. This
1331:
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
1253:
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
640:
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
1569:
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
1207:
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 Knowledge (XXG), and just uses the title as a
398:
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 Knowledge (XXG). As of February 2, after two
545:
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
1254:
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
477:
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
585:
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
1512:
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.
1122:, 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
1074:
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
1743:. 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
455:
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
1475:, 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
1413:
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.
1198:
that is not usual practice on Knowledge (XXG): 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
1676:
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.
839:
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:
1082:) 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
1024:
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
1705:
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
770:
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
1986:. "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!"
1262:
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:
680:
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
1625:) 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.
2110:
1208:
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
598:?). 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"
781:
confirmed this is actually an undisputed point in the literature), so this is a moot point. This is obviously a Knowledge (XXG)-worthy article, although I agree it might be better to merge
702:"In general, information should not be removed from Knowledge (XXG): that would defeat the purpose of the contributions. So we must create new articles to hold the excised information"
270:
152:
1752:
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. --
1296:
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.
1288:
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
1767:
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
1629:
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.
451:
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
379:. 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. --
745:, 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
601:). 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
1813:
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)
252:
2120:
242:
1953:
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
1078:
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 (
376:
2130:
641:
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:
1961:. 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. --
204:
124:
1312:
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
447:... just a general statement, without anything specific, no mention of Jacques de Molay, numbers, etc, well, a few summary sentences.... which is
2100:
114:
2115:
228:
195:
147:
2105:
90:
1853:
1768:
1590:
361:
cover the entire campaign centred on that fortress. Neither do I see a reason why there should be two articles about the same thing.
2125:
342:
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). --
1806:
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
891:
2095:
73:
52:
33:
1146:, of which the 1302 siege would only be the closing chapter and would be merged into the main article. Simple enough. Cheers
969:) as the siege is really the final event of the expedition, and the available information about it is quite succinct. Cheers
926:
81:
58:
2040:
1899:
1796:
1725:
1651:
1559:
1494:
1448:
1391:
1235:
1165:
1138:. As the seemingly foremost authority on the subject, I suggest he gets precedence and that his wording be accepted here:
988:
804:
727:
628:
497:
171:
141:
1774:, which cannot be more central to the article. It easily superseedes the "Mongol-only" map you recently replaced it with
750:
be removed, and anything actually keepable in this article should just be merged elsewhere. I'm still thinking that the
2077:
1968:
1828:
1759:
1735:
PHG, I understand that the fate of Jerusalem is of crucial importance to you. I get that. But keep in mind, that this
1668:
1577:
1529:
1520:
1323:
1186:
1056:
952:
761:
668:
573:
386:
349:
311:
1775:
1504:
1661:
As already mentioned several times, this article is not the proper place to be haggling over the Jerusalem issue. --
1001:
The Siege article should be merged into this, or this merged into the Siege article, whichever is more convenient.
1464:
705:
697:
1810:
to the concept of Mongols advancing towards Jerusalem. In other words, maps that would be helpful at this point:
1816:
A map that shows the Mamluk troop movements, and/or the locations of the Crusader outposts that fell after Acre.
1472:
Since the map of the 1299-1300 operations was removed on the ground that the Mongol arrow to Gaza was too large
737:
We don't need an article on every single siege of every single castle. Let's at least be clear here, that this
2022:
1881:
1778:
1707:
1633:
1541:
1476:
1430:
1373:
1217:
1147:
1091:
1087:
1021:
970:
786:
709:
610:
479:
357:
Since it was moved previously without discussion, I just moved it back. I see no reason why it shouldn't exist
39:
1017:
1880:
Are there other users besides Elonka who would be opposed to having this synthetic map used in the article?
1030:
1026:
859:
Was it symbolic? I don't see how, since Ghazan was a Muslim and he was not giving it over to the Crusaders.
2060:
1622:. The raid of 10,000 to 20,000 Mongols resulted in huge depredations reported in detail by Muslim sources
921:
685:
646:
423:
297:
375:
Agree. Though let's maybe keep this article around for a few days, since it's being used as evidence at
292:
PHG, please stop. There does not need to be an article on this topic, and it appears to just be another
1006:
595:
203:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
89:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
742:
293:
1935:
906:
559:
563:
21:
1365:
1263:
1213:
1143:
777:, and yourself now agrees that the Mongols probably went through Jerusalem during their raids (and
1115:
937:
890:
Instead of engaging in a debate about the fate of Jerusalem (which is probably better suited for
187:
1807:
542:
1332:
bold and moved it. I think the first sentence is also more interesting with the current title.
2056:
1984:
1943:
1099:
771:
599:
2015:
2012:
1990:
1987:
1681:
checked the sources, and confirmed that the presence of the Mongols in Jerusalem in 1300 was
1364:
Great, let's merge the "Siege" into this article, this is the smart thing to do, but I think
234:
2074:
1965:
1825:
1756:
1665:
1574:
1570:
seem to be overpowering the rest of the map. Perhaps a thin dashed line would be better? --
1517:
1320:
1183:
1127:
1053:
1002:
949:
758:
665:
570:
383:
346:
308:
1419:
1369:
1337:
1301:
1279:
1209:
1200:
1139:
1066:
1046:
966:
895:
880:
738:
677:
654:
606:
547:
532:
395:
366:
333:
200:
181:
773:. The "symbolically holding Jerusalem for a few months" is sourced from Andrew Jotischky
1999:: "The Mongols pursued them. They occupied Damascus, and pressed after the fugitives to
1772:
the military actions of the Crusaders in 1299-1300, with their naval raids and landings
1123:
1083:
582:
325:
2089:
1702:
1289:
1271:
1259:
1119:
1070:
962:
911:
856:
Can you call this "taking Jerusalem" or "holding Jerusalem"? I see no reason why not.
782:
689:
650:
602:
551:
452:
301:
1954:
1939:
1736:
1607:"the modern, reliable sources say unequivocally that the Mongols were in Jerusalem"
1313:
1293:
1267:
1195:
1111:
1095:
1075:
1042:
1038:
931:
1688:
1632:
I was able to erase the battle mark around Gaza though. Not too bad is it? Cheers
1623:
2071:
1962:
1822:
1753:
1662:
1571:
1514:
1317:
1180:
1050:
946:
755:
662:
567:
380:
343:
305:
1698:
1678:
1415:
1333:
1297:
1275:
1130:
to the events at Ruad from 1299 to 1302. He clearly describes the events as a
876:
778:
528:
362:
329:
261:
177:
844:
Did they raid it (i.e. take stuff from it or destroy parts of it)? Who knows.
2004:
1996:
1175:
If we're going to give Demurger precedence, we should merge everything to
785:
into it, as the siege is really the final event of the expedition. Cheers
2008:
609:
article indeed, of which it is the conclusion (for Alain Demurger also).
847:
Did they conquer it? Certainly not, as it had no walls and no defenders.
541:
I'm in agreement with Srnec that the current articles seem to be giving
916:
661:, too. That's giving this event way more coverage than it deserves. --
1204:
693:
658:
2080:
2064:
2045:
1971:
1947:
1904:
1831:
1801:
1762:
1730:
1671:
1656:
1580:
1564:
1523:
1499:
1453:
1423:
1396:
1341:
1326:
1305:
1283:
1240:
1189:
1170:
1103:
1059:
1010:
993:
955:
884:
809:
764:
732:
671:
633:
576:
536:
502:
389:
370:
352:
337:
314:
1958:
1852:
1589:
1528:
1503:
1463:
1079:
872:
681:
642:
555:
86:
1540:
Here you go with Tortosa and Ruad mentionned on the map. Cheers!
754:
article is most appropriate, but am open to other suggestions. --
2000:
1770:
is not just about the Mongols at all. It also shows prominently
1255:
1179:, since that's how he titled his chapter, "The Isle of Ruad". --
1176:
1034:
901:
751:
237:
in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
233:
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the
15:
1938:
deserves its own article? If so, any suggestion for sources?
1316:. It's not my first choice, but I definitely support it. --
260:
1687:. I've given many authoritative sources to the same effect
1258:, mostly for the reasons advanced by Vmenkov; if we merged
1857:
Mongol and Crusader operations in the Levant in 1299-1300.
1594:
Mongol and Crusader operations in the Levant in 1299-1300.
1533:
Mongol and Crusader operations in the Levant in 1299-1300.
1468:
Mongol and Crusader operations in the Levant in 1299-1300.
1126:, who devoted a full 20 pages chapter in his biography of
1016:
I'm uncomfortable keeping either title of "Siege of Ruad"
1041:, which would at least be consistent with titles such as
554:
to (yet another) place where this is already covered, at
1695:
1685:
1620:
1609:
1605:
I think the presence in Jerusalem is beyond doubt now (
1473:
1037:, but if we have to have a separate article, how about
1033:
My own preference is still just to merge everything to
871:
I disagree with Elonka that this should be merged into
868:
enter it, according to every source I've looked into.
850:
Were they (that is, an army) in it? Seems most likely.
296:
article. Everything here is already well-covered at
1292:
here and then retitling this as we see fit. I think
700:: the most detailed content does have to be kept as
605:(1302) itself, maybe that can be fusionned into the
199:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
85:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of
1216:as the common title for these events. Best regards
2111:B-Class articles with conflicting quality ratings
1372:would be a better, more inclusive, title. Cheers
1697:. So we're actually way beyond a state of pure
8:
853:Did they exercise authority in it? Also yes.
1690:. Even you now write that the Mongol raids
136:
47:
562:might be a proper title to split it out,
320:I agree wholeheartedly that this article
2014:. Hethum may have been in this campaign
1429:Thanks Srnec! The article looks great!
1118:are only possible alternative names to
961:the expedition. Lastly, I propose that
213:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Middle Ages
138:
49:
19:
377:a request to re-extend PHG's topic ban
676:This is Knowledge (XXG). I think the
558:? Or if it's too much info, perhaps
7:
193:This article is within the scope of
79:This article is within the scope of
2121:Low-importance Middle Ages articles
38:It is of interest to the following
1983:Mongol occupation of Gaza in 1299
894:), let's focus on the fate of the
235:project-independent quality rating
14:
2131:All WikiProject Middle Ages pages
1274:seem all ultimately acceptable.--
898:article. Possible merge targets:
775:Crusading and the Crusader States
269:This article is supported by the
99:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Syria
2070:I'm up for a GA review, sure. --
1934:Does anyone here feels that the
1747:be helpful is a map showing the
892:Talk:Mongol raids into Palestine
741:article was created simply as a
216:Template:WikiProject Middle Ages
180:
170:
140:
72:
51:
20:
696:. This is clearly explained in
247:This article has been rated as
119:This article has been rated as
927:History of the Knights Templar
1:
2101:Mid-importance Syria articles
1701:that would justify putting a
1611:and it can be said that they
1454:21:27, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1424:17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1397:03:26, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
1342:17:48, 27 February 2010 (UTC)
1327:03:54, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
1306:03:23, 26 February 2010 (UTC)
1284:21:59, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
1241:21:39, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
1190:15:50, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
1171:11:32, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
1110:the title candidates, to me,
1104:04:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)
1060:23:26, 24 February 2010 (UTC)
1011:09:28, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
994:07:35, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
965:be merged into this article (
956:03:49, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
885:01:55, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
810:00:06, 23 February 2010 (UTC)
765:22:59, 22 February 2010 (UTC)
733:06:02, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
706:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
698:Knowledge (XXG):Summary style
672:05:56, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
634:05:42, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
577:05:10, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
537:00:15, 18 February 2010 (UTC)
503:07:13, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
399:years, all that remained was:
390:03:27, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
371:02:29, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
353:22:38, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
338:22:25, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
315:14:50, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
207:and see a list of open tasks.
93:and see a list of open tasks.
2116:B-Class Middle Ages articles
2081:04:39, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
2065:04:24, 16 October 2011 (UTC)
1978:Southern extent in 1299-1300
1065:I'd think that the articles
708:). Easy enough actually...
2147:
2106:WikiProject Syria articles
2046:08:54, 11 April 2010 (UTC)
2011:, robbing and plundering"
1972:21:48, 25 March 2010 (UTC)
1948:16:02, 24 March 2010 (UTC)
328:(perhaps moved to Ruad?).
253:project's importance scale
125:project's importance scale
102:Template:WikiProject Syria
1905:15:31, 6 March 2010 (UTC)
1832:20:40, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
1802:20:24, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
1763:19:43, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
1731:18:23, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
1694:passed through Jerusalem
1672:15:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
1657:07:16, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
1581:06:54, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
1565:06:28, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
1524:06:13, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
1500:03:57, 2 March 2010 (UTC)
268:
246:
232:
165:
118:
67:
46:
2126:B-Class history articles
1092:Battle of Tarakan (1945)
1088:Battle of Tarakan (1942)
704:. (central principle of
2055:Possible good article?
196:WikiProject Middle Ages
2096:C-Class Syria articles
1858:
1741:is not about Jerusalem
1595:
1534:
1508:
1469:
1460:Map of 1300 operations
922:Franco-Mongol alliance
686:Franco-Mongol alliance
647:Franco-Mongol alliance
556:Arwad#Crusades history
424:Franco-Mongol Alliance
298:Franco-Mongol alliance
265:
28:This article is rated
2007:and the territory of
1989:. Occupation of Gaza
1856:
1593:
1532:
1507:
1467:
1020:or "Ruad expedition",
581:I totally agree that
264:
32:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1018:(1 Google Books hit)
219:Middle Ages articles
945:Any other ideas? --
271:Crusades task force
1859:
1596:
1535:
1509:
1470:
1194:As pointed out by
1029:or "Loss of Ruad".
940:(suggested 24 Feb)
934:(suggested 24 Feb)
596:Occupation of Ruad
266:
188:Middle Ages portal
34:content assessment
285:
284:
281:
280:
277:
276:
135:
134:
131:
130:
82:WikiProject Syria
2138:
2036:
2033:
2030:
2027:
1936:Citadel of Arwad
1930:Citadel of Arwad
1895:
1892:
1889:
1886:
1792:
1789:
1786:
1783:
1721:
1718:
1715:
1712:
1647:
1644:
1641:
1638:
1555:
1552:
1549:
1546:
1490:
1487:
1484:
1481:
1444:
1441:
1438:
1435:
1387:
1384:
1381:
1378:
1231:
1228:
1225:
1222:
1161:
1158:
1155:
1152:
1128:Jacques de Molay
984:
981:
978:
975:
917:Tartous#Crusades
800:
797:
794:
791:
723:
720:
717:
714:
624:
621:
618:
615:
592:The last Templar
588:Jacques de Molay
493:
490:
487:
484:
221:
220:
217:
214:
211:
190:
185:
184:
174:
167:
166:
161:
158:
155:
144:
137:
107:
106:
103:
100:
97:
76:
69:
68:
63:
55:
48:
31:
25:
24:
16:
2146:
2145:
2141:
2140:
2139:
2137:
2136:
2135:
2086:
2085:
2053:
2043:
2034:
2031:
2028:
2025:
1980:
1932:
1902:
1893:
1890:
1887:
1884:
1799:
1790:
1787:
1784:
1781:
1728:
1719:
1716:
1713:
1710:
1654:
1645:
1642:
1639:
1636:
1562:
1553:
1550:
1547:
1544:
1497:
1488:
1485:
1482:
1479:
1462:
1451:
1442:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1411:
1394:
1385:
1382:
1379:
1376:
1370:Ruad expedition
1238:
1229:
1226:
1223:
1220:
1210:Ruad expedition
1201:Siege of Vienna
1168:
1159:
1156:
1153:
1150:
1140:Ruad expedition
1067:Ruad expedition
1047:Fall of Baghdad
991:
982:
979:
976:
973:
967:Ruad expedition
907:History of Ruad
896:Ruad expedition
807:
798:
795:
792:
789:
739:Ruad expedition
730:
721:
718:
715:
712:
678:Ruad expedition
655:Ruad expedition
631:
622:
619:
616:
613:
607:Ruad expedition
560:History of Ruad
548:Ruad expedition
500:
491:
488:
485:
482:
396:Ruad expedition
324:be merged into
290:
218:
215:
212:
209:
208:
201:the Middle Ages
186:
179:
159:
156:
150:
104:
101:
98:
95:
94:
61:
29:
12:
11:
5:
2144:
2142:
2134:
2133:
2128:
2123:
2118:
2113:
2108:
2103:
2098:
2088:
2087:
2084:
2083:
2052:
2049:
2041:
2020:
2019:
2018:
1993:
1979:
1976:
1975:
1974:
1931:
1928:
1927:
1926:
1925:
1924:
1923:
1922:
1921:
1920:
1919:
1918:
1917:
1916:
1915:
1914:
1913:
1912:
1911:
1910:
1909:
1908:
1907:
1900:
1851:
1850:
1849:
1848:
1847:
1846:
1845:
1844:
1843:
1842:
1841:
1840:
1839:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1835:
1834:
1819:
1818:
1817:
1814:
1797:
1726:
1652:
1630:
1627:
1626:
1588:
1587:
1586:
1585:
1584:
1583:
1560:
1527:
1526:
1495:
1461:
1458:
1457:
1456:
1449:
1410:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1400:
1399:
1392:
1355:
1354:
1353:
1352:
1351:
1350:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1345:
1344:
1248:
1247:
1246:
1245:
1244:
1243:
1236:
1166:
1124:Alain Demurger
1084:Tarakan Island
1063:
1062:
999:
998:
997:
996:
989:
943:
942:
941:
935:
929:
924:
919:
914:
909:
904:
861:
860:
857:
854:
851:
848:
845:
837:
836:
835:
834:
833:
832:
831:
830:
829:
828:
827:
826:
825:
824:
823:
822:
821:
820:
819:
818:
817:
816:
815:
814:
813:
812:
805:
728:
629:
583:Alain Demurger
514:
513:
512:
511:
510:
509:
508:
507:
506:
505:
498:
466:
465:
464:
463:
462:
461:
460:
459:
458:
457:
436:
435:
434:
433:
432:
431:
430:
429:
428:
427:
409:
408:
407:
406:
405:
404:
403:
402:
401:
400:
326:Siege of Arwad
289:
286:
283:
282:
279:
278:
275:
274:
267:
257:
256:
249:Low-importance
245:
239:
238:
231:
225:
224:
222:
205:the discussion
192:
191:
175:
163:
162:
160:Low‑importance
145:
133:
132:
129:
128:
121:Mid-importance
117:
111:
110:
108:
105:Syria articles
91:the discussion
77:
65:
64:
62:Mid‑importance
56:
44:
43:
37:
26:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
2143:
2132:
2129:
2127:
2124:
2122:
2119:
2117:
2114:
2112:
2109:
2107:
2104:
2102:
2099:
2097:
2094:
2093:
2091:
2082:
2079:
2076:
2073:
2069:
2068:
2067:
2066:
2062:
2058:
2050:
2048:
2047:
2044:
2039:
2038:
2037:
2016:
2013:
2010:
2006:
2002:
1998:
1994:
1991:
1988:
1985:
1982:
1981:
1977:
1973:
1970:
1967:
1964:
1960:
1956:
1952:
1951:
1950:
1949:
1945:
1941:
1937:
1929:
1906:
1903:
1898:
1897:
1896:
1879:
1878:
1877:
1876:
1875:
1874:
1873:
1872:
1871:
1870:
1869:
1868:
1867:
1866:
1865:
1864:
1863:
1862:
1861:
1860:
1855:
1833:
1830:
1827:
1824:
1820:
1815:
1812:
1811:
1809:
1805:
1804:
1803:
1800:
1795:
1794:
1793:
1776:
1773:
1769:
1766:
1765:
1764:
1761:
1758:
1755:
1750:
1746:
1742:
1738:
1734:
1733:
1732:
1729:
1724:
1723:
1722:
1704:
1703:question mark
1700:
1696:
1693:
1689:
1686:
1684:
1683:"unequivocal"
1680:
1675:
1674:
1673:
1670:
1667:
1664:
1660:
1659:
1658:
1655:
1650:
1649:
1648:
1631:
1628:
1624:
1621:
1618:
1614:
1610:
1608:
1604:
1603:
1602:
1601:
1600:
1599:
1598:
1597:
1592:
1582:
1579:
1576:
1573:
1568:
1567:
1566:
1563:
1558:
1557:
1556:
1539:
1538:
1537:
1536:
1531:
1525:
1522:
1519:
1516:
1511:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1501:
1498:
1493:
1492:
1491:
1474:
1466:
1459:
1455:
1452:
1447:
1446:
1445:
1428:
1427:
1426:
1425:
1421:
1417:
1408:
1398:
1395:
1390:
1389:
1388:
1371:
1367:
1366:Ruad campaign
1363:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1358:
1357:
1356:
1343:
1339:
1335:
1330:
1329:
1328:
1325:
1322:
1319:
1315:
1311:
1310:
1309:
1308:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1295:
1291:
1290:Siege of Ruad
1287:
1286:
1285:
1281:
1277:
1273:
1272:Siege of Ruad
1269:
1265:
1264:Ruad campaign
1261:
1260:Siege of Ruad
1257:
1252:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1242:
1239:
1234:
1233:
1232:
1215:
1214:Ruad campaign
1211:
1206:
1202:
1197:
1193:
1192:
1191:
1188:
1185:
1182:
1178:
1174:
1173:
1172:
1169:
1164:
1163:
1162:
1145:
1144:Ruad campaign
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1125:
1121:
1120:Siege of Ruad
1117:
1113:
1108:
1107:
1106:
1105:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1081:
1077:
1072:
1071:Siege of Ruad
1068:
1061:
1058:
1055:
1052:
1048:
1044:
1040:
1036:
1032:
1028:
1023:
1019:
1015:
1014:
1013:
1012:
1008:
1004:
995:
992:
987:
986:
985:
968:
964:
963:Siege of Ruad
959:
958:
957:
954:
951:
948:
944:
939:
936:
933:
930:
928:
925:
923:
920:
918:
915:
913:
912:Siege of Ruad
910:
908:
905:
903:
900:
899:
897:
893:
889:
888:
887:
886:
882:
878:
874:
869:
867:
858:
855:
852:
849:
846:
843:
842:
841:
811:
808:
803:
802:
801:
784:
783:Siege of Ruad
780:
776:
772:
768:
767:
766:
763:
760:
757:
753:
748:
744:
740:
736:
735:
734:
731:
726:
725:
724:
707:
703:
699:
695:
691:
690:Siege of Ruad
687:
683:
679:
675:
674:
673:
670:
667:
664:
660:
656:
652:
651:Siege of Ruad
648:
644:
639:
638:
637:
636:
635:
632:
627:
626:
625:
608:
604:
603:Siege of Ruad
600:
597:
593:
589:
584:
580:
579:
578:
575:
572:
569:
565:
561:
557:
553:
552:Siege of Ruad
549:
544:
540:
539:
538:
534:
530:
526:
525:
524:
523:
522:
521:
520:
519:
518:
517:
516:
515:
504:
501:
496:
495:
494:
476:
475:
474:
473:
472:
471:
470:
469:
468:
467:
454:
453:Siege of Ruad
450:
446:
445:
444:
443:
442:
441:
440:
439:
438:
437:
425:
422:
419:
418:
417:
416:
415:
414:
413:
412:
411:
410:
397:
393:
392:
391:
388:
385:
382:
378:
374:
373:
372:
368:
364:
360:
356:
355:
354:
351:
348:
345:
341:
340:
339:
335:
331:
327:
323:
319:
318:
317:
316:
313:
310:
307:
303:
302:Siege of Ruad
299:
295:
287:
272:
263:
259:
258:
254:
250:
244:
241:
240:
236:
230:
227:
226:
223:
206:
202:
198:
197:
189:
183:
178:
176:
173:
169:
168:
164:
154:
149:
146:
143:
139:
126:
122:
116:
113:
112:
109:
92:
88:
84:
83:
78:
75:
71:
70:
66:
60:
57:
54:
50:
45:
41:
35:
27:
23:
18:
17:
2057:Bruno Ishiai
2054:
2024:
2023:
2021:
1957:or maybe at
1955:Fall of Ruad
1933:
1883:
1882:
1808:undue weight
1780:
1779:
1771:
1748:
1744:
1740:
1737:Fall of Ruad
1709:
1708:
1691:
1682:
1635:
1634:
1616:
1612:
1606:
1543:
1542:
1478:
1477:
1471:
1432:
1431:
1412:
1375:
1374:
1314:Fall of Ruad
1294:Fall of Ruad
1268:Fall of Ruad
1219:
1218:
1196:User:Vmenkov
1149:
1148:
1136:"expedition"
1135:
1131:
1116:Loss of Ruad
1112:Fall of Ruad
1076:Fall of Ruad
1064:
1043:Fall of Acre
1039:Fall of Ruad
1000:
972:
971:
938:Loss of Ruad
932:Fall of Ruad
870:
865:
862:
838:
788:
787:
774:
746:
711:
710:
701:
612:
611:
591:
587:
543:undue weight
481:
480:
448:
420:
358:
321:
291:
248:
194:
120:
80:
40:WikiProjects
1003:Adam Bishop
210:Middle Ages
148:Middle Ages
2090:Categories
1699:hypothesis
1692:"probably"
1132:"campaign"
779:User:Srnec
564:WP:SUMMARY
456:problem???
2005:Jerusalem
1997:Jerusalem
1619:the city
1203:into the
1031:(20 hits)
566:style. --
2009:al-Karak
1995:Raid on
1739:article
1027:(7 hits)
743:coatrack
294:coatrack
153:Crusades
1134:and an
1096:Vmenkov
1022:(1 hit)
426:article
251:on the
157:B‑class
123:on the
30:C-class
2035:Gloria
2029:Honor
1894:Gloria
1888:Honor
1791:Gloria
1785:Honor
1749:Mamluk
1720:Gloria
1714:Honor
1646:Gloria
1640:Honor
1617:"held"
1613:"took"
1554:Gloria
1548:Honor
1489:Gloria
1483:Honor
1443:Gloria
1437:Honor
1386:Gloria
1380:Honor
1230:Gloria
1224:Honor
1205:Vienna
1160:Gloria
1154:Honor
1090:, and
983:Gloria
977:Honor
799:Gloria
793:Honor
722:Gloria
716:Honor
694:Ghazan
659:Ghazan
657:, and
623:Gloria
617:Honor
492:Gloria
486:Honor
36:scale.
1959:Arwad
1940:Yazan
1745:would
1679:Srnec
1416:Srnec
1409:Moved
1334:Srnec
1298:Srnec
1276:Aldux
1080:Arwad
1025:Ruad"
877:Srnec
873:Arwad
864:they
682:Arwad
643:Arwad
529:Srnec
363:Srnec
330:Srnec
96:Syria
87:Syria
59:Syria
2061:talk
2026:Per
2001:Gaza
1944:talk
1885:Per
1782:Per
1711:Per
1637:Per
1615:and
1545:Per
1480:Per
1434:Per
1420:talk
1377:Per
1338:talk
1302:talk
1280:talk
1270:and
1256:Ruad
1221:Per
1177:Ruad
1151:Per
1100:talk
1069:and
1049:? --
1045:and
1035:Ruad
1007:talk
974:Per
902:Ruad
881:talk
790:Per
752:Ruad
713:Per
692:and
614:Per
550:and
533:talk
483:Per
449:fine
394:The
367:talk
334:talk
322:must
304:. --
300:and
2032:et
1891:et
1788:et
1717:et
1643:et
1551:et
1486:et
1440:et
1383:et
1368:or
1227:et
1212:or
1157:et
1142:or
1114:or
980:et
866:did
796:et
747:not
719:et
620:et
489:et
359:and
288:POV
243:Low
115:Mid
2092::
2078:ka
2075:on
2072:El
2063:)
2051:GA
2003:,
1969:ka
1966:on
1963:El
1946:)
1829:ka
1826:on
1823:El
1821:--
1760:ka
1757:on
1754:El
1669:ka
1666:on
1663:El
1578:ka
1575:on
1572:El
1521:ka
1518:on
1515:El
1513:--
1422:)
1340:)
1324:ka
1321:on
1318:El
1304:)
1282:)
1266:,
1187:ka
1184:on
1181:El
1102:)
1086:,
1057:ka
1054:on
1051:El
1009:)
953:ka
950:on
947:El
883:)
762:ka
759:on
756:El
688:,
684:,
669:ka
666:on
663:El
653:,
649:,
645:,
590:/
574:ka
571:on
568:El
535:)
387:ka
384:on
381:El
369:)
350:ka
347:on
344:El
336:)
312:ka
309:on
306:El
151::
2059:(
2042:✍
2017:.
1992:.
1942:(
1901:✍
1798:✍
1727:✍
1653:✍
1561:✍
1496:✍
1450:✍
1418:(
1393:✍
1336:(
1300:(
1278:(
1237:✍
1167:✍
1098:(
1005:(
990:✍
879:(
806:✍
729:✍
630:✍
531:(
499:✍
365:(
332:(
273:.
255:.
229:B
127:.
42::
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
