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.

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)

Infobox flags

@Shadow. 547: 3 of the 5 of flags in the infobox are WP:OR that aren't in use at the corresponding main articles for those historical states (Mamluk Sultanate, Ayyubid dynasty, Ilkhanate), and the other two, if the Armenian Kingdom of Cilicia and Kingdom of Georgia articles are anything to go by, may have no stated relevance to the period of this battle. Per MOS:INFOBOXFLAG, these icons should only be used if they help the readers; this clutter of different unrecognizable, partly hypothetical flags that overlap between columns, with no explanation or context, does not help readers understand the article at a glance, which is what the infobox is for. The infobox reads not only fine, but much clearer, without these distractions.

Respectfully, the improvised claim that "90%" of the articles do this and that it looks "ugly" without them ([1]) is purely subjective, which is why we have community-vetted policies and guidelines, and not relevant, since the contexts of different articles are not equivalent to each other and most articles are works in progress that often deviate from recommended guidelines. There are plenty of major military conflict articles which omit this practice, and it's telling that the examples include Mongol invasions of the Levant, Mongol invasion of Persia and Mesopotamia, and Mongol conquest of China, which related to the same era, factions, and/or campaign. More usefully, Siege of Baghdad, a recently featured article, does not do this either, and that is pretty much the closest related article we can ask for and one that, as a featured article, generally represents the highest standard of what good Wikipedia articles should look like. R Prazeres (talk) 19:54, 10 April 2025 (UTC)