Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Byzantine navy/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 User:SandyGeorgia 19:58, 8 November 2008 [1].

Byzantine navy[edit]

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

I'm nominating this article for featured article. It became a WPMILHIST A-class article in May, and since then I've worked on and off trying to improve the prose, add some images and minor details, as well as information in some areas I felt to be somewhat deficient, such as the early navy, tactics and the ships. In terms of content, I feel it is now quite complete and comprehensive, and I believe satisfies the FA criteria. Constantine ✍ 13:55, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

  • Wow. Great work. I don't have the time to review it in detail, but I'm looking forward to reading it in more detail later. What I'm missing to support right now is some mentioning of the various Rus'–Byzantine Wars, many of which had a naval component. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 14:30, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, the Rus'-Byzantine clashes were very much an infrequent sideshow, which is why I didn't put them in a separate section, but they're still there: their first appearance in the section "Renewed Muslim ascendancy" and the more serious wars of the mid-10th century in the section "The recovery of Crete and the Levant". Hope that's enough. Constantine ✍ 14:35, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comments
    • Page ranges in the references need en dashes (–).
    • Otherwise, sources look good.
–Juliancolton Tropical Cyclone 15:02, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, done. Constantine ✍ 15:29, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment, the quote from the Muqaddimah and Alexiad need sources... as in, which translation and which page from that translation with proper bibliographic detail. The Strategikon quote has "Kekaumenos, Strategikon, Ch. 87" listed but it needs more publisher data too. Image:Justinien 527-565.svg and Image:ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo+themes.PNG needs sources to justify its accuracy. We have no idea if these self-made maps are accurate without outside references. gren グレン 18:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
On the Strategikon, it is divided into chapters, it is irrelevant which edition you choose, the quote is right at the beginning of Ch. 87. The same goes for the Muqaddimah (III.32) and the Alexiad (XI.10). I have preferred this citing system over pages exactly because it is the only constant across the various editions. In my experience, this is the quoting system for ancient/medieval sources that is most widely used, for the same reasons. You can find the Muqaddimah quote online here and the Alexiad here. As for Kekaumenos, I have his book in a Greek version, and the quote comes from an online translated version, which I can't find right now (however it is a verbatim translation). As for the maps, I obviously didn't make them myself. However the maps are accurate, and similar ones can be found in many books on Byzantine history with only minor differences. Just as a sample, on the 717 map, here (I think this was the actual inspiration for the article's map) and the 565 map here and here. Constantine ✍ 19:33, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's fine that you also mark it that way... but you need to provide a reliable source from where you got the quote. There might be / probably are multiple translations of these things. I understand why it's important to use the sections within the book... but that doesn't replace a bibliographic citation. Those websites might work... but a paper, reliable source is preferable, I think. As for the maps... those sources if they provide reliable references for all of the facts represented in the maps should be cited. Sources should be given on Wikipedia. gren グレン 23:58, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I really don't see what good it is (I did provide the website links just as a means of quick reference), but I'll find the relevant bibliographic sources anyway. On the maps, I have contacted the editors who uploaded them. PS. I have used the same citing format on Leo VI's Tactica. Do you expect page numbers here as well? Constantine ✍ 05:44, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, bibliography for the quotes done, 717 map done. Awaiting 565 map. Constantine ✍ 06:46, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think that putting specific edition information is standard practice especially for old work with various translations. But, what you did for the Muqaddimah is good. Thanks. gren グレン 14:06, 22 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As no response was forthcoming, I replaced the 565 map with one from W. Shepherd's atlas. Constantine ✍ 13:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Comments -

  • Please spell out lesser known abbreviations in the footnotes and references, such as JRAS, etc.
  • Current ref 117 ... the first link (Under Instanbul...) needs a publisher and a last access date
Otherwise sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 11:09, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Done Constantine ✍ 14:14, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support, that's a pretty impressive work! I'm not the greatest fan of small sub-sections, but it's a matter of style, I guess :) Also, I'd like to see a few more sentences about the seven centuries of Byzantine–Bulgarian Wars, as Bulgaria was Byzantium's most invariable opponent and the Danubian and Black Sea fleet were pretty often in use during Byzantium's Bulgarian campaigns. More notable than the episodic and remote enemy that the Rus' was, I believe :) Todor→Bozhinov 12:17, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for the support! As for the Bulgarian wars, the problem is that most sources (understandably) focus on the conflicts with the Arabs in the Mediterranean. I do not think that, outside a transport role, the navy was that important in the wars with Bulgaria, as the latter had no navy of its own. The conflicts with the Rus' were more sporadic, true, but they had a heavy naval component, and were more spectacular (Greek fire!). I'll try to find something more, though. If you have some specific incident in mind that ought to be included, please add it or contact me about it. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Well, indeed we didn't have a full-time navy, but it's not like we were scared of water :D But it's true the Byzantine navy mainly served a transport purpose in those conflicts. What I have in mind in particular is (because I've researched that topic) the role it played in the Byzantine-Bulgarian wars during Simeon I: ferrying Magyar invaders despite parts of the Danube were closed off with chains and unsuccessfully transporting troops to the Battle of Anchialus. There are some other episodes when the navy was used to invade Bulgaria from the Black Sea rather than by foot from Thrace, have to check up on the specific dates :) True, it was not a decisive role, but it did offer strategic variety to the Byzantine campaigns. Todor→Bozhinov 15:42, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, the Battle of Anchialus is included, but I only dimly remember that the navy was used to ferry Magyars across the Danube, and nothing on the obstacles. Thanks, that will be added. Constantine ✍ 16:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Reference to Magyar ferrying added. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this image of a Byzantine ship is labeled as being from the 10th century, but on its talk page, there's someone who claims it may have been from between 14th and 16th century. I think someone should check that. bogdan (talk) 12:26, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmmm, he makes some good points. Especially the single rudder, which appeared in the Med in the 12th century... Damn, I should have known better... I am removing the picture, but I'll try to find another one, possibly a schematic from a book, under fair use. Thanks for bringing this up, I had not seen that there had been comments on the talk page. Mea culpa. Constantine ✍ 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
OK, new picture uploaded & placed in article. Constantine ✍ 16:33, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: did the Byzantines had any particular flags they used for their ships? The picture above appears to have a flag with white and red stripes. bogdan (talk) 12:29, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Very little is (sadly) known about what flags the Byzantines used. There are illustrations, e.g. in the Skylitzes manuscript (examples 1 and 2), of banners, and we know that a different shape or number of tails signified a different unit and its size, but nothing concrete. The flammoulon or bandon of the ship mentioned in the Tactica would look like these. There exists a conjectural "navy" flag, but there is no source to even remotely back it up. It's just the Palaiologan tetragrammatic cross in white and blue, inspired (since it's a Greek reconstruction) most likely by the modern Greek flag. As for the picture above, if it dates to the 14th-16th centuries, as is likely, it could be inspired by a Latin or (more likely) an Ottoman ship. While it could very well represent a type of galleys the Byzantines too used in the twilight of the Empire, I would hesitate to draw too many conclusions from it. Constantine ✍ 13:11, 25 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Very good work. One very small nit to pick. In the history section, 4th to 5th centuries, technically that's the history of the Roman Empire (I know this could be discussion, but the Roman Empire still existed). I'm not sure what could be the right word, but maybe "Roman predecessor" or something like that. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 23:56, 28 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I am not supportive of this for a number of reasons. First and foremost, there is no clear line of transition between "Roman" and "Byzantine" empires or their military systems, nor indeed do many people and scholars see the need to actually draw any dividing line. In order to avoid the debates attached to this issue, and for reasons of comprehensiveness, I've selected the earliest proposed date for the "establishment" of the Byz. Empire, 330 AD. The fact that the East Roman fleets coexisted with the West Roman fleets, and, until 395, were a single fleet, is secondary, since we're dealing with a transitional period from the "classic" Roman navy to the later "classic" Byz. navy. If you check the article on the Roman Navy, you'll see that these sections overlap significantly for the exact same reason. There is no possibility to draw a clear line - should we take the (uncertain) removal of the praetorian fleets to Constantinople (i.e. the transfer of the center of power eastwards), the division of the Empire in 395, or the re-establishment of a permanently maintained central fleet by Anastasius? - so I've decided to include it all. I do have included a reference to the "imperial Roman predecessor" right at the beginning of the article to differentiate between the two, because the nature of the Byz. fleet was indeed quite different from the Augustan-era classis. Constantine ✍ 12:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: this fairuse image: Image:Byzantine dromon reconstruction.png can be redrawn (while respecting the features of the dromon presented in the image), so it doesn't fit the "irreplaceable" criterion required for non-free images. bogdan (talk) 01:04, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, OK, perhaps replaceable, but by whom and how? If one did not alter it significantly, would it not be a derivative work, again governed by copyright? If you can find someone who can make it both correct and not a mere copy, please tell me so that I can contact him/her. Either way, if you are suggesting that it does not satisfy fair use criteria (do you?) this is the best (and likely most accurate) image of a dromon there is (Pryor is perhaps the expert on ancient galleys), at least until someone publishes the finds from the Yenikapi harbour. It is absolutely essential to both articles it is included in. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:25, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Erm, any further suggestions or comments on this? Is the image OK or not? Constantine ✍ 13:09, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Generally impressive, but some of the prose is unidiomatic or worse - it really needs a run-through by a good copy-editor. Some links appear to be missing - I don't Venice has one for example. I did wonder if it would make more sense to move at least the "Ships" and "tactics and weapons" sections up to the top, as really you need to read these before the "History". Reading between the lines, it would seem the Byzantines did not use slaves or prisoners as rowers, but it might be as well to clarify this. Were rowers volunteers or conscripts? Johnbod (talk) 11:43, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Could you point out some instances of prose and missing links? Venice was linked in the infobox, for some reason I forgot to link it in the main text, however. On the arrangement of sections, I am actually of the opposite view :P. The history section is quite distinct, and a knowledge of ships and tactics is not required since the article does not go into too much detail over individual battles, where this would have mattered (not that we know much about most of them, either way). The two sections "history" and "tactics etc" are quite distinct and practically independent of each other, but I put history first since we are dealing with a historical article, and the most common practice in such articles is to provide the historical context and evolution first. As a side note, I hope to eventually flesh out the dromon article in order to provide some more detailed information on it. On the rowers, the Byzantines, like the Romans and the Greeks before them, never used slaves, but free men, who were paid salaries and/or supported by estates. You are right, that ought to haven been more clearly stated, as the "galley slave" is a common misconception. Constantine ✍ 12:58, 6 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]
You will see some prose things I edited, but to be honest the whole thing needs a check-over by a good native-speaking copyeditor. I'd see if you can recruit one. Johnbod (talk) 13:06, 6 November 2008 (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_navy/archive1&oldid=1088285569"