1. The Mongols in the Start of End of the Crusades
Robert Tavenner
History 471Y: Islam and the Body
December 16, 2013

2. 1
The Mongols are not looked at as one of the major actors in the study of the Crusades,
and before the thirteenth century that would a correct statement. In the thirteenth century, the
Mongol involvement in the Crusades begins to increase. Although the Mongols were
successfully attacking the Muslim forces from the East the Latin Christians were not interested in
an alliance with the Mongols. Mongol forces created enemies with the Muslim forces in the
region which would lead the Christian forces into danger. As the Latin Christians begin to leave
the Middle East the Mongol forces begin to be defeated as well. The Mongol involvement in the
Crusades caused the end of the Christians in the Middle East, and thus ended the conflict
between the Christian and Muslims forces in the region.
The initial call for a retaking of territory in the Middle East did not start as a religious
war. Initially the Byzantine Emperor needed troops to push back Muslim forces that were taking
Byzantine territory. In order to get more troops the Byzantine Emperor corresponded with the
Pope to try and get Latin professionally trained soldiers. This is where the idea of the Crusade to
retake the Holy Land began because in the letter to Pope Urban, the Emperor had included that
after Byzantine territory was retaken the forces could work to retake the Holy Land as a
secondary goal. Instead of seeing the Holy Land as a side objective he proclaimed to the Latin
Christian nations that they must engage in a Holy Crusade to retake the Holy Land from Muslim
barbaric forces1. Although the Byzantine Emperor wanted trained soldiers that would serve him
not independent Latin Christian armies to fight for him, they were initially successful for both
sides.
1 Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II (1088-1099):Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095 Speech at Council of Clermont,
1095,Five versions of the Speech, http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/urban2-5vers.asp.

3. 2
For the Latin Christians the First Crusade was a successful one. These forces were able to
retake a lot of Byzantine territory and even retake the Holy Land. Although instead of give back
the Byzantine territory to the Byzantines, because they gave an oath to the Byzantine Emperor,
the Latin leaders kept the territory and created kingdoms for their own. This angered the
Byzantines and would create a rift in the already shaky relationship between the Latin and
Byzantine Christians that would latter hurt the Byzantines latter on.
The goal of the Second Crusade was the capture the Holy Land. After several years of
rule the Latin Christians pushed back the Muslim forces and they tried to obtain more territory.
The Muslims lost the Holy Land. This Crusade led a resurgence in the Latin world with the
control of the Holy Land2.
The Third Crusade has been seen as how the Latin Christians lost the Holy Land. After
the Latin forces lost the Holy Land the Pope Innocent III called another Crusade to recapture the
city. In the Third Crusade the forces of the Latin Christians were led by King Richard the
Lionhearted, and he retook a lot of territory back from the Muslims. It seemed that he would
retake the Holy Lands from the Muslim forces led by Saladin. However, Saladin was able to beat
Richard and his forces retreated from the Holy Land3. Richard had increased the territory of the
Latin Christians, but his failure to retake the Holy Land combined with the bloodshed and
backstabbing of the Fourth Crusade led to a decrees in the support for the Crusades in the Latin
world.
2 Eugene III: Summons to A Crusade, Dec 1, 1154, http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/eugene3-2cde.asp.
3 Medieval Sourcebook: The Decline of Christian Power in the Holy Land, 1164,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/aymeric1164.asp.

4. 3
The Fourth Crusade initially started just like the first three Crusades with Latin forces
preparing to be sent out as a new wave against the Muslim forces that threaten the Holy Land.
These forces met up in the Italian peninsula and were instructed to taken across the Medaterian
Sea by Venetian sailors. Unfortunately for the soldiers they did not have the funds to pay the
sailors upfront, and in order to pay the sailors they had to carry out a mission for them. Their
mission was to collect payment for debt that the Byzantines had owed them. The fighting
escalated to bloodshed and the Byzantine government had to flee. Latin rulers would take over
the Byzantine kingdom for a period of time until the Byzantines retook their kingdom4. This act
changed the dynamic between the Latin and Byzantines in many areas including future Crusades.
Due to the outcome of the Fourth Crusade, the level of interest in future Crusades began
to dwindle. The now exiled Byzantine government no longer wanted help from the Latin
Christians which was the original plan of the First Crusade. Latin Christian leaders such as the
Pope was applaud at what had occurred in the Fourth Crusade causing the want for future
Crusades to dwindle even further after the defeat of the Third Crusade. Future Crusades would
be no longer be led in large armies, but rather led by one ruler from one Western European
kingdom.
The Fourth Crusade is the direct opposite of the Mongol Empire invading Muslim
territory from the East. As the Mongols were beginning to gain ground in Muslim territory the
Christian forces were losing ground by fighting amongst themselves. Under the rule of Hulegu
the Mongols were a united military force that moved their way westward. While at the same time
the Latin forces were fighting their Byzantine allies by invading and controlling their territory.
4 Medieval Sourcebook: Pope Innocent III: Reprimand of Papal Legate,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1204innocent.asp

5. 4
This movement would start a change in future Crusades, and an eventual end to both the
Crusades and both original forces from the First Crusade.
Starting in 1256 A.D. the Mongols began to fight Muslim forces as the Mongols were
expanding the empire westward. The Mongols fought the Muslim forces in Iraq, Syria, and
Egypt destroying entire cities such as Baghdad in 12585. As the Mongols fought the Muslims
they expanded their reach and even started to invade Christian territories, “The projects included
aid for political crusades in Italy and the ailing Latin kingdom of Romania (whose capital,
Constantinople, fell in 1261 to the Greeks), and an attempt to muster a crusade in response to the
ingress of the Mongols into the Middle East (ca. 1260).”6 The territory gained by the Mongols
was vast.
Mongols forces were able to increase their western frontier throughout the Middle East.
Muslim forces saw the Mongols as ruthless barbarians. The Mongols began to push back Muslim
forces back into Egypt, which would lead to the Mamluks. Those who were able to survive the
Mongol onslaught wanted revenge on the pagan forces, and this would become a huge problem
for the Mongols.
The combat tactics that the Mongols used upset many Muslims. Mongols would set out to
raid pilgrims going to Holy places such as Mecca, “They intended thus to reconnoitre the roads
and to loot those areas… With [these raiders] were a group of Mongols who did not recognize
Allah and his sanctuary.”7 These practices angered Muslims and when the Mamluks rised they
5 James Harper. 2005. The Crusades:An Illustrated History.New York: Thunder's Mouth, 109
6 Edward Peters, Jessalynn Bird,and James M. Powell.2013. Crusadeand Christendom: Annotated Documents in
Translation fromInnocentIII to the Fall of Acre, 1187-1291.Philadephia. http://muse.jhu.edu, 387.
7Reuven Amitai.1995. Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War,1260-1281.Cambridge:CambridgeUP,
124.

6. 5
would see themselves as the protectors of Muslims from the Mongols. The leader of the
Mamluks during this period was Baybars, “Baybars came to power in 1260, shortly after the
Mamulk victory over the Mongols at Ain Jalut, when, slighted by his master, Sultan Qutuz, he
gained his revenge by plunging a sword in his back.”8The Mongols began to lose ground due to
Baybars, who would ultimately bring their end, and they started to look towards the Latin
Christens in the Middle East to ally with against the Mamluks. “The Mongols were disunited
after their withdrawal from Syria in 1260 and in his wars against the Franks he was able to utilize
the numerous Muslim refugees who poured into Syria and Egypt from Iraq, still held by the
Mongols.”9
Oddly the group that was seen as barbarians by the Muslims would try to ally with the
group that saw the Muslims as barbarians, the Latin Christians. The Mongols would try to create
an alliance alongside the Christians to defeat the Muslim forces that stopped the Mongols from
controlling the rest of the Middle East. Latin forces had a mixed view on the Mongols. Some
Latin forces wanted to ally themselves with the Mongols while others did not.
In order for the Mongols to create an alliance with the Latin Christians they would have
to convince that Christians that, “The traditional Mongol attitude to the Latin Christians, be they
Europe or the Levant, was identical to that shown to the Muslim princess: submit
unconditionally or face destruction.” 10 would not interfere with their alliance in defeating the
Mamluks. Although the Mongols were able to remove that image, While, perhaps the European
Christian leaders were now willing to see the Mongols in a less negative light and to consider
them as partners in the anti-Muslim struggle, this did not bring about a willingness to undertake a
8 James Harper. 2005. The Crusades:An Illustrated History.114.
9CaroleHillenbrand.1999.The Crusades:IslamicPerspectives.Chicago:Fitzroy Dearborn, 227.
10 Revuven Amitai.1995. Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War,1260-1281,94.

7. 6
concerted joint effort.”11 Most Latin Christians would not side with the Mongols because they
were seen as a threat, “The Mongols, on the other hand, constituted a threat of larger proportions
than the Latin states had faced at any time since the campaigns of reconquest by Saladin”12 and
they did not want to support them. Only a few Christian groups were willing to support the
Mongols.
The only two groups of Latin Christians were the Christians in Syria and Armenia.
Christians in Armenia were the biggest supporters of the Mongols, “From the beginning, the
Armenians were the main pro-Mongol boosters among the Christians, and from an early date
both Armenian rulers and writers made attempts to interest the Christian west in a Mongol-
Christian alliance against the Muslims. After the first Mongol setbacks in Syria in 1260, the pro-
Mongol king… were to target his kingdom for attack by the Mamluks.”13 While the Armenians
were united with the Mongols, there was a divide between the Frankish forces in Syria. The
forces that had sided with the Mongols had a worse fate that than those that decided to not ally
with the Mongols. With the Mongols allying with sects of Latin forces the Crusades would begin
to end.
The Christian forces that sided with the Mongols came to the conclusion that,
“Underlying each of these views is the assumption that, whereas the Mongols constituted a threat
of the greatest magnitude in Europe, they were Latin Christendom's natural allies in the Near
East, where the dominant political powers were Muslim; that they were well disposed towards
the Latin states, and that friendly cooperation was a possibility.”14 Pro-Mongol Franks in Syria
11 Revuven Amitai,96.
12 Peter Jackson . "The Crisisin theHoly Land in 1260." The English Historical ReviewVol. 95, No. 376 (Jul., 1980):
507, http://www.jstor.org/stable/568054.
13 Revuven Amitai,25.
14 Peter Jackson."The Crisisin theHoly Land in 1260." 482,http://www.jstor.org/stable/568054.

8. 7
saw the Mamluks as an end to their reign and allying with the Mongols could prevent this.
“Baybars was the key figure who been the process of finally eradicating the Frankish presence
from the Near East. He began a series of successful campaigns in the 1260s. Pressures from the
new enemy, the Mongols, and the continuing presence of the Franks formed a powerful focus for
channeling the energies of the new dynasty.”15 The Mongols would add their allies into their
armies, “The Mongol army, according to intelligence reports that the Sultan received, numbered
80,000 men, of whom 50,000 were Mongols and the rest Georgians, Seljuq troops from Rum,
Armenians, Franks and renegades.”16 The alliance of the Franks, Armenians, and Mongols made
Baybars attempt to create an alliance of his own with a group the Mongols could not convince to
join them.
Some Christians that needed protection against the Mongols turned toward the Mamluks,
“Edward attempted to sort out the complexities of Outremer politics, and he tried, with little
success, to form an alliance with the Mongols. … The best he could do was sign a ten-year truce
with Baybars, who needed to turn his attention to the threat of the Mongols, knowing the Franks
were there for the taking whenever he wanted.”17 Baybars then turn his attention towards
creating an alliance with the Franks on the coast of Syria to surround the Mongols and their
allies. This group was not pro-Mongol, “the Franks of Syrian coast saw no advantage to be
gained by the intrusion of the Mongols into their country and sought neither to make an alliance
with them nor to tender their submission.”18 The alliance allowed Baybars to create an
intelligence network to defeat the Mongols, “confronted by the Mongol, Frankish and Armenian
15 CaroleHillenbrand.1999.The Crusades:IslamicPerspectives. 227.
16 Revuven Amitai,189.
17 James Harper, 114.
18Reuven Amitai,24.

9. 8
enemies and having set up a centralized state, Baybars was both motivated and able to establish a
regular intelligence service.”19This intelligence provided valuable information that benefited
both his forces and his allies, “The Franks received relatively good terms from the Sultan,
probably because he wanted to secure that front so as to be able to devote his full attention to the
danger front from the Mongols. For the time being, however, no more is heard of an expected
Mongol raid. Instead, the Sultan received word that Mongols envoys had arrived in Damascus,”20
This alliance gave Baybars the upper hand on the Mongols.
Bayabars began to win many battles against the created Mongol-Christian forces. “In
663/1265 he began a series of offensives against the Franks which continued until 670/1271. In
these years important Frankish citadels fell into Muslim hands and Antioch, which had been
ruled uninterruptedly by the Franks since 1097, was also conquered. At the same time Baybars
fought against the pagan Mongols, Christians in Little Armenia, fellow Muslims in Anatolia and
Isma’ili heretics.”21 These victories were successful in part because of the intelligence network
against the Mongols, “We can assume that at least some of the information of Ilkhanid-Frankish
contacts and the attempts at concerted action against the Mamluks was gained through the
intelligence system, be it among the Mongols or the Franks.”22 As Baybars was able to beat the
Mongols he would shift his focus in defeating the remaining Christian forces.
As Baybars saw the Mongol threat dwindle he decide to finish off the Franks in Syria and
Armenians that had allied with the Mongols. His tactics was, “In periods between dealing with
the Mongols and their allies or when the danger from the quarter seemed minimal, Baybars
19 Revuven Amitai,140.
20 Revuven Amitai,127.
21CaroleHillenbrand,227.
22 Revuven Amitai,144.

10. 9
turned his attention to the Franks, systematically reducing their power and territory.”23 Those
who had supported the Mongols would be punished, “With their Mongol protectors gone,
churches were burnt, the stores and houses of Christians were looted and they were physically
assaulted. In the general excitement, Jewish property was also attacked until it was remembered
that the Jews had not offend the Muslims. In addition, Mongols sympathizers among the
population were attacked and killed by angry mobs.”24 Once the Mongol supporters had been
defeated Baybars had turned his attention to getting rid of his allies.
Baybars wanted full control of the region that his Frankish allies controlled, “The
rationale for this was the knowledge that the coastline could not be adequately garrisoned, and it
was feared that if the Franks attacked from the sea, over which they had undisputed control,
these cites could thus be easily recaptured and function as a bridgehead for a new Crusading
effort.”25 Also Baybars would just decide to not support his allies in order to allow them fall to
the Mongols, “But like Bohemond V of Antioch, who had similarly received an ultimatum from
the Mongols, the Muslim princes doubtless hesitated to come to the aid of the Latin Kingdom out
of fear that they would return.”26 The Mongols would be tired out and easier to be defeated.
Mongols and Christian forces in the region were struggling.
There was one last chance for the Mongols-Christian forces to overcome the Mamluks.
The forces would need help from the West in Europe, and envoys were sent to petition for help.
“In the spring of 1287, a Mongol ambassador was making his way to Western Europe to try to
forge an anti-Muslim alliance – his attempts would stir the interest but not the actions of
23 Revuven Amitai,114.
24 Revuven Amitai,46.
25 Revuven Amitai,76.
26 Peter Jackson. "The Crusades of 1239-41 and Their Aftermath” 57, http://www.jstor.org/stable/616893.

11. 10
Europe’s great and good.”27 Europeans had become tired with the Crusades and no longer wish
to send forces to the Middle East. One last attempt was then attempted, “In particular, they were
unaware that a meticulous campaign, conceived by Arghun, had been proposed in writing to the
pope and the major kings of the West. One of these letters, addressed to the French sovereign,
Philip IV, has been preserved. In it the Mongol chief proposes to launch the invasion of Syria
during the week of January 1291.”28 These attempts were never successful and the Mongols and
Christians were ultimately defeated by the Mamluks.
The disinterest to support the Mongols, along with Christians living in the region, in
defeating the Mamluks come from several events. First, the combination of the failure of the
Second, Third, and Fourth Crusades left Europeans tired of Crusades in the Middle East. Also
the Mongols had been disruptive to Europeans before the rise of the Mamluks, “Since the
channels of trade with the East had been interrupted for many years by the Mongol presences,
the shortfall could be made up only through an expansion of Mediterranean trade.”29
Mongolian activity in the Crusade conflict between the Christians and the Muslim forces
signaled the end of the Crusades. The extra force in the conflict almost helped the Christians by
beating back the Muslim forces. Unfortunately for the Mongols the spilt in the Christian view of
the Mongols and the Mongols quest for total control of the region created a resurgence in
Muslim forces in the region. The new force came in with a fury that would destroy Christian and
Muslim forces in the region. As the Crusades came to the end the Mamluks rose in the region,
“The early Mamluk period witnessed the last great Mongol attacks on the Middle East as well as
continuing Crusading activity and occupation. The Mongol forces under Hulegu swept through
27 James Harper. 2005. The Crusades:An Illustrated History.New York: Thunder's Mouth, 116.
28 Amin Maalouf.1984. The Crusades through Arab Eyes. London: Al Saqi,254.
29 Amin Maalouf.1984. The Crusades through Arab Eyes. 256.

12. 11
Syria and threatened Egypt. The Mamluk army under the command of the future sultan Baybars
confronted a depleted Mongol army now led by Kitbogha Noyan and defeated them at the battle
of ‘Ayn Jalut in Ramadan 658/September 1260.” 30 Once the Mamluks destroyed the Christians
this would end the Crusades for all sides, Christians, Muslims, and Mongols.
30 CaroleHillenbrand,225.

13. 12
Bibliography
Amitai, Reuven. 1995. Mongols and Mamluks: The Mamluk-Ilkhanid War, 1260-1281.
Cambridge: Cambridge UP.
Eugene III: Summons to A Crusade, Dec 1, 1154.
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/eugene3-2cde.asp
Fletcher, Joseph. 1986. "The Mongols: Ecological and Social Perspective." Harvard Journal of
Asiatic Studies 11-50.
Harpur, James. 2005. The Crusads: An Illustrated History. New York: Thunder's Mouth.
Hillenbrand, Carole. 1999. The Crusades: Islamic Perspectives. Chicago: Fitzroy Dearborn.
Jackson, Peter. 1980. "The Crisis in the Holy Land in 1260." The English Historical Review 481-
513, http://www.jstor.org/stable/568054.
Jackson, Peter. 1987. "The Crusades of 1239-41 and Their Aftermath." Bulletin of the School of
Oriental and African Studies, Unveisity of London 32-60,
http://www.jstor.org/stable/616893.
Maalouf, Amin. 1984. The Crusades through Arab Eyes. London: Al Saqi.
Medieval Sourcebook: Pope Innocent III: Reprimand of Papal Legate.
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/1204innocent.asp
Medieval Sourcebook: The Decline of Christian Power in the Holy Land, 1164.
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/aymeric1164.asp

14. 13
Medieval Sourcebook: Urban II (1088-1099): Speech at Council of Clermont, 1095 Speech at
Council of Clermont, 1095, Five versions of the Speech,
http://www.fordham.edu/Halsall/source/urban2-5vers.asp.
Peters, Edward, Jessalynn Bird, and James M. Powell. 2013. Crusade and Christendom:
Annotated Documents in Translation from Innocent III to the Fall of Acre, 1187-1291.
Philadephia, http://muse.jhu.edu.