Wikipedia:Peer review/Alexios I of Trebizond/archive1

Alexios I of Trebizond

This peer review discussion has been closed.
I've been working on this article (& others related to the former Empire of Trebizond) for some time now, & am wondering how much I have been improving them. For instance, this article is packed with details & various opinions -- perhaps at the cost of this article being readable to the non-expert. While I'm not much concerned with how well it conforms to the WP:MOS, any comments would be welcome. -- llywrch (talk) 01:38, 4 February 2015 (UTC)

Quick comments from Nikkimaria

• I would suggest explaining or replacing "panegyric", as most readers will be unfamiliar with that term. Also, what is the significance of this panegyric?
• "Trapezuntine" is not explained until quite late in the article, and its meaning isn't exactly intuitive
• Why was John passed over? Nikkimaria (talk) 16:31, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Comments from Dudley

• I think you need a bit more detail in the lead as the subject will be unfamiliar to most readers. I would specify Trebizond on the southern shore of the Black Sea and location of Nicaea. Also there is a jump from death of Andronikos I in 1185 to conquest in 1204 - worth explaining that the emperors from 1185 to 1204 were distant relatives.
• A map would be very helpful - perhaps the one in Empire of Nicaea.
• "governing the Nicaean Empire succeeded in becoming the de facto successors, and rendered his dynastic claims to the imperial throne moot," This is an odd wording. Another way of putting it is that when the Nicaeans re-conquered Constantinople they established a new dynasty and rendered the claim of Alexios's descendants null.
• "While his brother David conquered a number of Byzantine provinces in northwestern Anatolia" Conquered from who?
• "despite sending an envoy to seek their surrender the city refused to capitulate to Sultan Kaykaus I," This is confusingly worded and too minor for the lead.
• "Somehow the boys arrived at the court of their relative Queen Tamar of Georgia". I would leave out the vague "Somehow". Ditto somehow 3 lines down.
• "Exactly how Alexios and Queen Tamar of Georgia were related is not clear." This implies that they were related but elsewhere you imply that it is only one theory.
• "Trapezuntine chronicler Michael Panaretos". I would specify fourteenth-century.
• "the houses of Palaiologos or Doukas" - presumably implying pure Byzantine descent, but needs spelling out.
• After marching from Georgia, and with the help of their paternal aunt Queen Tamar, Alexios and David occupied Trebizond in April 1204." You make clear later that this was conquest of Byzantine territory. Did they not have to fight to get control? If this is unknown you should say so.
• "She decided to avenge the insult by supporting her nephews in their invasion of Byzantine territories." This is stated as a fact but you then make clear it is only one theory.
• "the brothers entered the competition for recovery of the imperial city". No change needed but was there no attempt at cooperation against the Crusaders?
• "Over the following months," It is not clear who the brothers were fighting. Were these territories conquered by the Seljuks before the Crusaders took Constantinople?
• "A contemporary might have assumed it was only a matter of time before a male heir of Andronikos once again ruled from Constantinople as "Basileus and Autokrator of the Rhomaioi"." This is unreferenced speculation. I would delete.
• "the Paphlagonian possessions of Alexios' brother David" Was empire divided into two separate territories ruled by each brother?
• "the panegyric of Niketas Choniates" - a book exalting Choniates? By who and when written? As Nikkimaria said, this is unclear.
• "Alexis had crossed the border and seized territory belonging to the Sultan—when there was no point to this action." Presumably Alexios not Alexis, and why no point - was he not trying to conquer Seljuk territory?
• "the future emperors John I and Manuel I" - for clarity I would specify "of Trebizond".
• "Spouse possibly Theodora Axouchina" This is only mentioned in the infobox. As you say in the text his wife is unknown I would delete.
• This is an interesting article, but needs tightening, especially on who was fighting whom. Dudley Miles (talk) 17:59, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Response from Llywrch

Thanks for the input. While I'm considering everything written here so far, there are a few comments I feel I need to respond to to give you an idea what I'm working with to write this (& related) articles.

• "A map would be very helpful" -- I agree, although the one you suggested might not be the best. (Much of the activities described in this article happen either off the map, or in a small section to the East of Nicomedia. But if I invest in the time to develop one, it could be reused in David Komnenos.
• "'While his brother David conquered a number of Byzantine provinces in northwestern Anatolia' Conquered from who?" -- Good question. I don't know, & neither do the experts. Which cities around 1204 were controlled by the Byzantine Empire & which by the Seljuks does not lend itself to a simple answer. The evidence is incomplete, contradictory, & not completely studied. I could spend a few paragraphs discussing this, or simply state that they were still part of the Byzantine Empire (most of which were) & hope no one challenges this blanket statement.
• "'Exactly how Alexios and Queen Tamar of Georgia were related is not clear.' This implies that they were related but elsewhere you imply that it is only one theory." -- Well, the fact is that the primary sources state they are related; exactly has been the matter of dispute in the secondary sources. I guess I need to make this clearer.
• You ask a good question about the "conquest of Byzantine territory. Did they not have to fight to get control?" AFAIK, the primary sources do not say; the secondary ones imply that they simply showed up at the various cities, starting with Trebizond, & the local notables immediately opened the gates & declared for them. The alternative was that they waited for someone from the central government -- which was, at best, in disarray after the fall of Constantinople -- to arrive & handle matters.
• "'The brothers entered the competition for recovery of the imperial city'. No change needed but was there no attempt at cooperation against the Crusaders?" -- Another good question. On the Byzantine/Imperial side, the three known factions & the Bulgarians were in fierce competition to reclaim the fallen city. So fierce that it actually allowed the Latin Empire to survive for 30-40 years longer than it should have.
• "'A contemporary might have assumed it was only a matter of time before a male heir of Andronikos once again ruled from Constantinople as "Basileus and Autokrator of the Rhomaioi".' This is unreferenced speculation. I would delete." -- My point here was to indicate this was the high-water mark of the Komnenoi brother's hopes to regain Constantinople. It's an uncontroversial interpretation of the events: after this point, the Nicaean Empire & the Seljuk Turks pushed the frontier of the Trabizond Empire far enough back that they no longer had a realistic hope of ever regaining the capital. I'm not sure any there is a secondary source that explicitly makes this statement.
• "'the Paphlagonian possessions of Alexios' brother David' Was empire divided into two separate territories ruled by each brother?" -- Yet another good question. I don't know, & this seems to be an issue the secondary sources talk around. I know I've encountered one map which shows the territories David Komnenos controls separate from those of Alexios. (If you haven't surmised by now, there are a lot of omissions & interpretations based on presumptions in the material. I've been trying to find a source that will explicitly state which was the older brother; all of the secondary sources I've read -- & by this point, I've read most of what has been written on the Empire of Trebziond in English, there isn't that much -- imply or assume Alexios was the older brother.)
• About "panegyric" -- Normally I would explain an unfamiliar word by making a link -- & I hadn't thought it that unfamiliar. However, I haven't linked this word to the article because I felt it would be overlinking. And having read the article, I'm not very happy with it as it currently stands.
• "'Spouse possibly Theodora Axouchina' This is only mentioned in the infobox. As you say in the text his wife is unknown I would delete." -- Welcome to one of the issues I'm trying to deal with in the articles relating to the Empire of Trebizond. An established editor, who usually does good work, has created a series of articles on the consorts of the Emperors of Trebziond. The problem with this is that (1) most of the material is taken from a website that is not considered reliable; (2) there isn't much that can be written about these women beyond the fact they existed & married a given Emperor; (3) there was no formal honor known as "Consort of the Emperor of Trebizond" -- if this patriarchal society, we are often lucky if we have the name of the various women. I've wanted to delete or merge these articles wholesale, but the last time this was attempted, the good people at WP:AfD decided to keep the nominee.
• "Why was John passed over?" And a fourth good question. Nobody knows. I discussed some of this in the related articles Andronikos I of Trebizond & John I of Trebizond, which leads to a question I've pondered for years: where should we put content that applies to one or more subjects? Repeat it in each article, & struggle with keeping all of them up to date? Or put it in one, & expect the curious reader to look for further information thru the hyperlinks? Both have their strengths.

My sincere thanks in advance. -- llywrch (talk) 21:25, 8 February 2015 (UTC)