Talk:Battle of Ain Jalut

Wadi al-Khaznadar

"The Egyptian victory over the Mongols would be repeated in 1299 during the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar. Although not as decisive as it had been in Ain Jalut, the Battle of Wadi al-Khazandar would feature 20,000 Egyptian forces against over 115,000 enemy forces, including 60,000 Mongols. The Egyptian Mamluks would be victorious, and would suffer a mere 200 casualties compared to an estimated 10-14,000 Mongol casualties."

I thought that Battle ended an indecisive Mongol Victory, with the Mongols sacking Damascus. Right?

Dennis Kercher 18:08, 19 December 2006 (GMT)

Also, I would question the importance of this battle, after all, it was Mongke's death that forced Hulegu back to Mongolia, not the Mamluks.

Hand cannons at Ain Jalut?

The claim that the Mamlukes used hand cannons at Ain Jalut is very poorly sourced, citing only an Islamic website which itself cites no sources. Remove or source this claim properly. Mojowiha (talk) 07:47, 1 September 2016 (UTC)

     I Would like to add sources that clearly states that the muslim world used gunpowder weapons comparatively later, with the Timurid and the Ottomans being among the first in the 1400 and 1500s. All references until then were most likely referring to nafta. Here see Encyclopedia of African History 3-Volume by Kevin Shillington https://books.google.fr/books?id=WixiTjxYdkYC&pg=PA766&lpg=PA766&dq=mamluks+gunpowder+weapons&source=bl&ots=5N2iVgzjpX&sig=7e4rOF1V0eB-ytu5huft-Pse8FI&hl=fr&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjotbmGzp7RAhWJNFAKHQy2APkQ6AEITjAF#v=onepage&q&f=false and Gunpowder and Firearms in the Mamluk Kingdom: A Challenge to Medieval Society (1956) by David Ayalon : This study of firearms analyzes the employment of such weaponry, dated more than 40 years after use in Europe, towards the close of the 1360s. In chapter 2, he clearly states that mention of naft before the very late 14th century were to nafta.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.103.159.183 (talk) 14:20, 31 December 2016 (UTC) 

So it may stem a misunderstanding of the sources due to "naft" being used for both naphtha and gunpowder? That sounds plausible and parallels what is already mentioned in the Middle East section of the gunpowder article. It does cite historian Ahmad Y. al-Hassan, but the source (a website) again makes sweeping claims with a very scarce use of sources beyond recipes for gunpowder and some very crude illustrations which, although apparently being later additions, he claims represent hand cannon in use at Ain Jalut. In general, al-Hassan seems to have been very keen on attributing all kinds of inventions as originating in the Middle East, going so far as claiming that the Chinese could not have invented firearms before the Islamic world because their gunpowder recipes were faulty and using the mean of 17 of 22 recipes for gunpowder for use in rockets (out of a total of 107 recipes for gunpowder) as an indication of the knowledge of the ideal gunpowder recipe in the Middle East with some rather vague wording used (no explanation of why only these 17 recipes were analysed or the standard deviation etc.).

There are mentions of cannon possible having been used in the Siege of Seville (1247-1248), but yet again wording is vague and sources not clearly identifiable or ending up being al-Hassan again. It also seems odd that if (hand) cannon were in use that early that the article Gunpowder artillery in the Middle Ages quotes Spanish historian Jerónimo Zurita y Castro as describing a cannon as a "new machine that caused great terror. It threw iron balls with fire" during the siege of Alicante in 1331 and the same part of the article also quotes how another Spanish historian, wrinting of the slightly Siege of Algeciras (1342–44), emphasised the use of guns as a novelty. If the forces of Castile had already been encountering gunpowder weapons for the best part of a century during the Reconquista, why were these learned Spaniards of the mid-14^th century noting that these were new inventions? Mojowiha (talk) 17:11, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I have red the al-Hasan reference and it seems pretty sound to me, so I have put back a rewritten version of the paragraph. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 10:37, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

Gunpowder weapons may also have been used at the Battle of Mohi, though not maybe hand cannons. By the time of the Siege of Algeciras mentioned above, Europeans were already using gunpowder (most notably in the Hundred Years War), but it was still something of a novelty. So that Spanish historian must not have been well-versed in the latest tech coming down the pike. It also suggests that gunpowder wasn't used much, if at all, in Spain at first.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:28, 17 February 2017 (UTC)

The novel(ty) use of gunpowder in the Hundred Years War was contemporaneous with or even subsequent to the accounts of these Spanish clerics with the noted use of primitive cannon at the Battle of Crécy taking place in 1346, i.e. 15 years after Zurita y Castro described cannon as new machines. So no, these Spaniards were not behind the times. Mojowiha (talk) 19:23, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

You're right. I got confused on the dates. Don't know how that happened.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 19:35, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Hey, such misremembering happens to all of us - which is why it's good to have written sources to consult ;-)

As for the speculations concerning Mongol use of gunpowder, these seem to rely on yet more vague descriptions and at best denote some form of bomb launched by catapult (though again the reference might be to naphtha or even the use of smoke screens, medieval European battle depictions often leaving much to be desired).

More generally, I don't think that an argument based on the documented European use of early cannon in the mid-14th century is a strong case for the use of similar weapons in the Islamic world a century earlier. Such an argument presupposes that Europeans were either very slow to adopt such weapons or unable to (re)produce them, neither of which seems to be an unassailable assumption to me. As I wrote earlier, I think that one or more independent sources backing al-Hasan would be preferable because he seems to me to have been far too keen on chalking up any and all inventions to the Islamic world. Mojowiha (talk) 19:46, 28 February 2017 (UTC)

Harper's military encyclopedia gives the Mamluk strength for this battle as 120 000 - the Mongol strenght as 20,000 - 30,000

Page 424 of Trevor N.; Dupuy, R. Ernest (1993). The Harper Encyclopedia of Military History. Harper Collins Publishers (verbatim quote as it is, without amending anything like emphasis or transliteration differences.):

1260. Battle of Ain Jalut. Hulagu left his general Kitboga (Ket-buka) in command West of Euphrates. Learning Hulagu's departure, the Mameluke leader Kotuz hastily gathered an army of 120,000 men at Cairo and invaded Palestine. Kitboga moved with two or three toumans (20,000 - 30,000) to meet the Egyptians near Goliath Wells. The Mongols were close to victory, and pursuing the fleeing Egyptians, when they were ambushed by Baibars and the Mamelukes. Kitboga was killed and the Mongols routed. The Mongol army was small but this Moslem victory had great psychological significance.

I wrote it as it is, did not even change the typo like Moslem into Muslim or Mameluke into Mamluk. I am not sure if it has to be introduced into the article or if Wikipedia shall dismiss this encyclopedia as unreliable. Their numbers differ than other sources --Ruhubelent (talk) 14:56, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Spencer's account says Bochemud VI of Antioch was allied with Kitboga in this battle.

Source: A Global Chronology of Conflict: From the Ancient World to the Modern Middle VOl I, page 283 says the following (any emphasis is added by meto highlight the relevant part):

Battle of Ain Jalut. Following the Mongol conquest of much of Syria under Hülegü, the Christian Crusaders find themselves caught between the Mongols and Mamluks of Egypt, not knowing which way to turn. Although most of the other Crusader leaders remain neutral, Bohemud VI of Antioch allies with Hülegü’s general Kitbuqa and the Mongols against the Mamluks. The two sides come together in battle at Ain Jalut near Nazareth on September 3, 1260, each deploying about 20,000 men.

This source is cited in the article named Battle of Indus (28/10/2020 version). Shall we introduce it into the article? --Ruhubelent (talk) 14:29, 28 October 2020 (UTC)

Death of Möngke

There is no consensus upon how he died, the article should not state that he "was slain in battle". That's one theory out of many, but we don't know, a several sources state he died of some illnes, not agreeing upon which either. This sentence should be amended, to something like "where he died, possibly slain in battle or possible from disease. Mumroos (talk) 13:56, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

Mongol Empire under Mongol Invasions

Should be mentioned they was a Mongol Empire. Battleprocess (talk) 12:11, 9 August 2024 (UTC)