Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628/archive1

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was not promoted by Ucucha 14:18, 16 September 2011 [1].

Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628[edit]

Byzantine–Sassanid War of 602–628 (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views)

Toolbox
Nominator(s): DemonicInfluence (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I am nominating this for featured article because I've worked pretty hard to try to make this article comprehensive and readabe. I hope that everyone can help me improve the article and perhaps make it a featured article. Thanks DemonicInfluence (talk) 03:42, 23 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - spotchecks not done. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "He advanced slowly because a Persian army under Rhahzadh was nearby; each commander was waiting for an opportune moment to attack." - source?
  • Why use a blockquote template in End of the war? The quote is quite short
  • Be consistent in whether or not ISBNs are hyphenated
  • Be consistent in whether initials are spaced or unspaced
  • Link for Ostrogorsky gives a different date - is this an edition issue? If so, be consistent in whether or not you include later publication dates, as you do for Haldon
  • Check alphabetization of bibliography. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:29, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Response

  • I will add this source when I get home tonight and then edit this post accordingly. I checked my sources, and that original statement was from Norwich, which is kind of old. The other sources seem to agree with the new statement, and I sourced accordingly.
  • I wanted to emphasize that quote and also it is technically 4 sentences, so it kinda fulfills the MOS requirements? I can change this if you'd want.
  • I made them all un-hyphenated
  • If this is in the bibliography, I think I fixed this.
  • The copy I have of Ostrogorsky is from 1969, but the Google Books version is 1986. I used my copy primarily, so should I still put the orig year =1969? I ask this because for Haldon, the copy I used was from 1997, but the Google books version was from 1990, so it was reversed.
  • Fixed this
  • Thanks for your comments DemonicInfluence (talk) 15:15, 24 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Comments. Overall a good article, but it needs work before I am ready to support. I'll go through the article making copyedits and noting the specific points where I have trouble:

  • "Some scholars like John Julius Norwich claim that Bonus tried to forcibly convert the Jews". Could we have another scholar aside from Norwich for this? I love his books, but he is prone to errors and oversimplifications.
    • I remember having this conversation last year. I still can't seem to find any other sources on this, but I felt it was interesting enough idea of Norwich's. Do you think it will be better if it is removed?
      • Well, if it is only Norwich who says this, then I'd remove him.
        • Done
  • "Heraclius controlled the number of state-sponsored personnel". "controlled" is probably not the right verb here. "Limited", perhaps?
    • I changed to limited, fixed a number of places where you put clarify, and fixed some minor typos you inserted.
      • Yeah, good catch, my PC seems to have developed a mind of its own lately and inserts letters wherever it wants...
  • there should be consistent usage of names, e.g. Anatolia or Asia Minor, but not both.
    • I changed to all Anatolia, except where quoting and referring to another article (Shahin's invasion of Asia Minor)
  • I strongly recommend a general copyedit and a tightening of the narrative. For instance, in the "Persian ascendancy" section the Persian advances are confused: first it is stated that "the Sassanids took advantage of this civil war to conquer Syria and launch raids into Asia Minor itself." then we get a list of raids in Mesopotamia and Cappadocia, which events are essentially repeated in the third paragraph with different details, and in the last paragraph we are told that only after the Persian evacuation of Caesarea did the Persians attack (but not yet conquer) Syria, thus contradicting the opening sentence of the section.
    • I'm not so good at this stuff :(. I think I fixed the one your brought up though and added some more relevant information there. I will try to read over it again later today.
      • For a thorough copyedit, place a request at WP:GOCE. The sequence of Persian conquests now looks much better, though I'll go over it for another copyedit.
        • If you think it's needed, I'll place a request, but I haven't yet, as I hope it will not be so bad as to be needed.
  • the maps are a bit problematic: Mohammad adil's campaign maps are lifted almost verbatim from Kaegi's book and that may be a copyright concern (admittedly, my understanding of copyright minutiae is hazy), while Byzantiumby650AD.JPG completely lacks sources and Sassanid empire map.png (last modified by myself) is only supposed to be approximate.
    • I'm not too sure what to do about this, but I was aware Mohammad adil's maps are under some suspicion =/. The map of 650AD and your map both look reasonably accurate, but they probably are not the best.
      • The maps may be by and large accurate, but for FA articles, sourcing is absolutely necessary. I'd suggest placing a request at WP:GL/MAP for some new maps.
        • Done for the two maps in particular you questioned. I will also try to find some map sources for them.
  • in the "Anatolia" section, it says "Still, the Persians were soon forced to withdraw.", but we are not told why.
    • I looked pretty hard, but I seem unable to find any source that says why. All the sources I have (Kaegi, Persian Frontier, Ostrogorsky, Norwich) talk about how Shahin conquers Chalcedon and then the story goes elsewhere. The next time Shahin seems to appear is in the 620s defending against Heraclius. If you could find a source, that'd be awesome :) I have currently changed it to unknown reasons, but I'm not exactly sure how to cite that.
      • In this case you should simply remove the "were forced", because it implies some external factor. I have largely the same books you have, so I don't think there is much to add.
      • Strike that: Luttwak (p. 398, see below) suggests that Shahin retreated in order to focus on the conquest of Egypt.
        • I added this in. Thanks
  • the statement "has been called the "first crusade"" should be directly attributed in the text.
    • I added some sources. I'm pretty sure William of Tyre was the first to see it as the first of the crusades, though I'm not sure if he explicitly gives it the title of "first crusade." Should I unquote this?
      • If it is not a direct quote, then I'd say unquote it and use some periphrasis instead, e.g. "it has been seen as the first crusade, or as an antecedent of the Crusades". Personally, I'd prefer some catchy quote, if you can find one.
        • I'll try to find one, but if not I'll do as you suggested.
        • I didn't find a cool quote, so I did what you suggested.

I'll continue from the "Byzantine assault on Persia" section later. Constantine ✍ 10:08, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Continuing the review:

  • "He recovered Caesarea, in defiance of the letter that Khosrau had sent him." This statement is oddly placed, as it does not seem to fit with the narrative. Did Heraclius recover it before marching to the Caucasus, or was this an earlier development still?
    • This was apparently very shortly before going to Caucasus. I added more clarifying sentence
  • A short explanation why the Battle of Sarus was a nominal victory (heavy casualties etc) is necessary.
    • It was a very minor battle and somewhat successful retreat for the Byzantines. I think I changed it to be clearer.
  • I don't remember now, but are there any details on how the Persians coordinated the attack on Constantinople with the Avars?
    • Kaegi says "Neither Persians nor Avars left records of their decisions and actions"
  • On the siege of Constantinople, perhaps it should be made explicit, for those unfamiliar with the topography, that the Persian army could not actually support the assault unless it was ferried over. And perhaps it should be noted that the Persians had a reputation as very skilled in siege warfare, a fact mentioned in the Strategikon of Maurice (XI.1.10).
    • I added both and did some rearranging
  • There should perhaps be a reference in the siege section to the tradition that the Akathist, one of Orthodoxy's most well-known and revered hymns, was composed after the failure of the siege.
    • added
  • "where the Byzantines used the counterweight trebuchet." Two issues here: First, it cannot have been a counterweight rebuchet as this was not used until much later, but a traction trebuchet. Second, why is this important enough to be mentioned (presumably it was one of the first recorded uses)?
    • You're right that it was not a counterweight trebuchet. I misread the Kaegi description. I added in a part about how it was relevant.
      • OK on the correction, but the importance is still missing.
        • I added another bit (it was the first usage of the word helepolis to describe the trebuchet. I can remove if you don't think this is important enough.DemonicInfluence (talk) 20:42, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Hmmm, it is of dubious value. The fact that this was one of the first documented uses of the trebuchet (not only by the Byzantines, but in the West in general, I think) is more important by far than a linguistic note. Constantine ✍ 21:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
            • I dunno, my source seems to say that trebuchets were used before then because they were mentioned in the Strategikon, the Avars in 587 (from stealing Byzantine engineers). I'm not sure just saying more than it was one of the first known use by the Byzantines would be accurate (and even then with the footnote that it may have been used earlier under a different name) DemonicInfluence (talk) 02:29, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "It was mid-September before his brother Theodore had arrived at Chaceldon." Why is this important?
    • It seemed self-evident in that Heraclius waited a long time. However, after more closely reading the sources, I realized the chronology of the return was very uncertain. So I removed that bit.
  • In the "Long-term consequences" section, I think some mention of the Byzantines' inability to recruit or finance many troops should be inserted as a factor in the Arab successes. Kaegi has a good overview of the military aspects of the damage of the war with Persia in his Byzantium and the early Islamic conquests, especially pp. 43-46.
  • I am not sure that the "Composition of the armies and military tactics" works as intended. Though informative, it does not really add to the understanding of the war we have just read about. That is understandable, because the section concerns the tactical aspects of warfare, which are not and cannot be much in evidence unless battles are described in detail. I suggest either adding a few examples where such tactics or the different practices between the two armies are evident, or, better yet, expand the section into one examining the respective military systems, i.e. recruitment, supplies, strategy, army movements etc. which are more in evidence when examining a war as a whole. It is indicative for instance that the Persians did not fortify their camps, or some explanation should be provided on how Heraclius managed to move is army in winter, when campaigns were usually avoided until recent times. Here I strongly recommend that you take Edward Luttwak's The grand strategy of the Byzantine Empire into account, he devotes an entire chapter on Heraclius' strategy, diplomacy and logistics during this war, and gives IMO a far clearer and concise overview of these topics than Kaegi's sometimes rambling account.
    • Sadly, it appears someone has checked out that book at my library until December. I'll try to read the Google Book online preview. If you have the book and could expand that section, that'd be pretty cool (though I'm not sure if you'd still be allowed to review).
    • I added a bit on that, but it seems like an awkward transition. If anyone else can suggest a better transition, that would be quite helpful. DemonicInfluence (talk) 06:45, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added some more. Anyone who can give comments on the effectiveness of the new section would be giving a lot of help to me. DemonicInfluence (talk) 00:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

That's it for now. Constantine ✍ 21:02, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]


Comments. The writing is basically fine, with a few hiccups. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • "The magnanimity of Tiberius II Constantine had created a large debt in the Byzantine treasury, which Maurice tried to alleviate with strict fiscal measures. However, these measures made him unpopular with the army, as he cut their pay. When, in 602, Maurice commanded his troops campaigning in the Balkans to spend the winter in the barbarian lands beyond the Danube to save money, this led to open revolt.": If there was actual debt, say who the debt was owed to. If not, "strained the Byzantine treasury" would be better. Also, the whole passage needs to be tighter. - Dank (push to talk) 21:07, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • will check out my source tomorrow
    • Changed with a bit more info. Might be a bit clearer.
  • "friend and father,": WP:LQ.
    • fixed
  • "casus belli": follow this with: (a reason given for war). Also follow comes Orientis with a translation in parentheses. - Dank (push to talk) 23:49, 27 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Added
  • Please check the placement of ref "frontier184"; I moved things around a bit.
    • Seems fine.
  • "His use of ceremonies allowed him to legitimize his dynasty, and his support of justice strengthened his internal situation. Still, external threats loomed before the empire.": unclear - Dank (push to talk) 03:43, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I changed this. Please tell me if it is improved. Thanks for your help. DemonicInfluence (talk) 04:49, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
      • "However, despite the change in Emperor, external threats loomed before the empire.": still unclear. One solution would be to delete this sentence, but if you want to say that it was hoped or expected that the change in Emperor would reduce the threat, but it didn't, then expand a little on that. - Dank (push to talk) 13:56, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I mainly have this to better transition to the next section. It seemed a little awkward to end talking about Heraclius' justice. However, I removed because it seems to bring confusion.
  • "Luttwak called the Strategikon of Maurice the "most complete Byzantine field manual", and it provides valuable insight into the military thinking and practices of the time.": "providing" instead of "and it provides" would indicate that you're continuing to give Luttwak's view; "and it provides" means you're giving someone else's view, perhaps a consensus of historians. Can you clarify? - Dank (push to talk) 12:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes I wished to indicate that other historians also felt it was important. I had the Luttwak quote because I felt it was interesting. I also didn't want to add many historians feel it is an important source because I think that's against Wikipedia policies. I changed the comma to a semicolon to better delineate that they are two different ideas.
  • Your source says: "King Abgar wrote a letter to the Lord, and the Lord replied through his messenger Ananias ...". You write: "Edessa ... was thought impregnable by the Byzantines because of Jesus' promise to King Abgar V of Edessa to give him victory over all enemies ...". See the problem?
    • I'm not sure what is the problem. I guess my sentence might imply that Jesus promised Abgar personally, but I don't think its much of an issue as that source even quotes Abgar saying that "you promised us no enemy..."
      • If you don't personally believe that Jesus guaranteed a victory, then the promise needs to be attributed to someone other than Jesus. Anything that you don't attribute implicitly or explicitly to someone else is what you're saying you believe based on your reading of the references you cite. - Dank (push to talk) 21:11, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm still very confused. I believe that back then, people believed that Jesus guaranteed a victory, and my sources say that. However, I added the word "supposed" to make it seem more objective, if that is what you wish for.DemonicInfluence (talk) 03:36, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
          • Okay. Suppose your books suggest that everyone around Abgar believed that Khosrau made a promise to him, but that in fact no such promise was made. Would you say "Edessa was thought impregnable by the Byzantines because of Khosrau's promise to King Abgar V"? Won't a reader who hasn't read the books take that to mean that Khosrau actually did make the promise? Now substitute "Jesus" for "Khosrau" and you'll see what I mean. - Dank (push to talk) 04:24, 29 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • "In Armenia, the strategically important city of Theodosiopolis fell in 609 or 610 to Ashat Yeztayar, after the Persians presented a man who claimed to be Theodosius, the eldest son and co-emperor of Maurice, who had supposedly fled to the protection of Khosrau.": What does it mean to "present" someone? What's the connection between presenting someone and winning a military victory?
    • I changed to better indicate the use of diplomacy.
  • "the Persians had conquered all the Roman cities east of the Euphrates, Armenia, and had moved on to Cappadocia, ...": nonparallel.
    • Changed
  • "the Heraclii": If you mean the family of Heraclius, say that. Don't use Latin plurals for family names.
    • changed
  • "did little to improve the immediate situation regarding the Persian threat.": did little to reduce the Persian threat (if that's what you mean).
    • changed
  • "... Phocas, the original casus belli": Maurice's death was given as "a" casus belli; are you now saying that there was just one casus belli, and it was Phocas' actions generally?
    • changed
  • "Heraclius attempted to stop the invasion at Antioch, and even met with Saint Theodore of Sykeon to ask for a blessing for the battle. However, at Antioch, the Byzantines under Heraclius and Nicetas suffered a serious defeat at the hands of Shahin.": Did you really want to say that they lost despite a blessing from a saint? Also, the successive "however" in the following sentence is a problem, and the two sentences might be better off combined.
    • shortened to combine the ideas
  • "severing the land links between with Constantinople and Anatolia on the one side and Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and the Exarchate of Carthage on the other": severing Constantinople and Anatolia's land link to Syria, Palestine, Egypt, and the Exarchate of Carthage.
    • changed
  • Okay, apart from the things I mentioned, and the things I fixed (see the edit summaries), the prose is fine per standard disclaimer down to where I stopped, Persian dominance. The prose has been generally fine with a few hiccups, and the writing is generally of a higher quality than in most of our history articles, but I'm hoping someone checks the prose starting at the point where I stopped. I'll come back later and have a look; I might support or oppose at that time. - Dank (push to talk) 15:20, 28 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Continuing. Except for the following few points, I'm happy with the edits in response to my comments above.
  • "In Armenia, the strategically important city of Theodosiopolis surrendered in 609 or 610 to Ashat Yeztayar through the diplomacy of a man who claimed to be Theodosius, the eldest son and co-emperor of Maurice, who had supposedly fled to the protection of Khosrau.": The meaning here isn't clear to me. Diplomacy doesn't usually result in a surrender, and what does "supposedly fled" mean?
    • I changed diplomacy to persuasion. Supposedly fled means there were rumors that he fled to Khosrau at the time.
  • "Although the Persian conquest was a gradual process, by the time of Heraclius' accession, the Persians had conquered all the Roman cities east of the Euphrates and in Armenia before moving on to Cappadocia, where their general Shahin took Caesarea.": I'm not sure what "although" means here. Consider the sentence without it: "The Persian conquest was a gradual process; by the time ...". Is that not exactly what you wanted to say? Are you trying to make the point that the victories were accelerating? If so, please make that explicit.
    • I changed to what you suggested
  • "Heraclius attempted to stop the invasion at Antioch, but despite the blessing of Saint Theodore of Sykeon, the Byzantines under Heraclius and Nicetas suffered a serious defeat at the hands of Shahin.": It would help if I knew why it was important that Theodore blessed the battle. (His article is red-linked, so I can't look it up there.) Did he represent some important faction? - Dank (push to talk) 17:00, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • St. Theodore of Sykeon was just a widely respected saint that had helped Heraclius earlier in his rebellion. His hagiography is a useful source for the reign of Heraclius. He does not represent an important faction as far as I know, though he had at one point very close relations with Phocas. Still, Kaegi only says it is plausible that the ties of Phocas were important to the meeting. Hope that explains it. Do you think it should just be removed?
    • I created an article about St. Theodore with some of his information.
  • "defeat": a better description for what readers will find after clicking is "suffered a serious defeat"; I made the edit.
  • "The details of the battle are not known however due to inadequate sources." Which details aren't known? And I'm not sure what "due to inadequate sources" means here ... would the meaning of the sentence change if you omitted that? - Dank (push to talk) 17:12, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Details of how the battle was carried out/maneuvers etc are not available in the primary sources from what I can tell. I have just removed it.
  • "although local elites constructed fortifications,": I don't understand "elites" in this context.
    • Elites meaning local nobility and people with money.
  • "but there was no active Monophysite treachery from 600 to 638 and many saw the Persian occupation in very negative terms.": I'm not following; do you mean there was no treachery against the Byzantines? I thought the Sassanids were in power for part of this time. - Dank (push to talk) 20:34, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • Yes, I mean there was not active treachery against the Byzantines, meaning that the Monophysites did betray the Byzantines the Persians. They also did not work the hardest to restore Byzantine rule.... I also don't think they rebelled against the Persians either. DemonicInfluence (talk) 20:46, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I made a few edits, and I'm fine with what we've got so far. I got down about halfway, to Byzantine resurgence.
  • Oppose. It's been a lot of work to get halfway through, and we've probably waited long enough ... if someone were going to jump in and help here, it would have happened already, probably. If this FAC fails, see if you can find someone who's interested in the history of the period, or maybe just someone who enjoys copyediting, to go over the second half, looking for the same kinds of problems I found in the first half. Best of luck. - Dank (push to talk) 22:16, 15 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wait, I'll try one more thing. Demonic, if you can look through the second half of the article and fix any obvious problems, and any problems that are the same as ones I've already pointed out, I'll ask at WT:MIL to see if anyone can help. - Dank (push to talk) 01:54, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]
    • I'll try, but I tend to be not very skilled at this sort of thing. Hopefully it works out though DemonicInfluence (talk) 02:35, 16 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]



The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Byzantine–Sassanid_War_of_602–628/archive1&oldid=1086103642"