Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Nikephoros III Botaneiates

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

No consensus to promote at this time - Gog the Mild (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 14:20, 4 March 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Nikephoros III Botaneiates[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is part of my ongoing work to improve the articles of Roman and Byzantine emperors, and I believe it meets the standards. I'm hoping to get this one to FA later on, since for once I didn't have to fight tooth and nail for every word. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:57, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass no licensing issues found (t · c) buidhe 09:22, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass[edit]

Inconsistent mention of publisher, publisher location, ISBN/OCLCs.
Fixed as best I can.
Linking part of "Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library" seems less than helpful.
Fixed
I am a little surprised to see sources from 1836, 1839 and 1844 used. Are these really needed? If so, why?
In this case, no. I have removed them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"although most historians focus on John Doukas, rather than Nikephoros, limiting the depth of analysis." Which of the three cites supporting this give which parts of this information? Or is it OR and the cites are your examples?
Seems I misunderstood the sources, or some other mixup occured; they were talking about his reign in general; I've moved it to the end of his reign section and explained in better detail.
"1002 – 1081". Why a spaced dash?
Fixed
What makes "Property dispute between Lavra & Theodoros tou Aichmalotou was settled by Nikephoros Botaneiates" a reliable source?
It is part of the Prosopography of the Byzantine World project (now linked), a collaboration of many academics. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:55, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Have a look at these thoughts and then I'll dig in properly. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:29, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Ready for the second round. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:42, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Vami[edit]

Reserving place for review. –♠Vami _IV†♠ 03:07, 2 November 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing I notice about this article is its massive lead. Heraclius, another GA and a far more consequential emperor, has a lead maybe the third the size of this one.

Comments by PM[edit]

Good to see another one of these Byzantine emperors nominated at ACR. A few comments:

Lead

agree that the lead seems bloated. Three large (one extra large) paras seems excessive based on the size of the article.
drop the comma from "governors of Trebizond and Antioch, respectively"
"who persuaded them to support Alexios" persuaded who?
suggest "where he abdicated and became a monk. He died later that year."
Byzantine Senate is duplinked in the lead and body

Body

"his reproduction of ~~Byzantine Emperor~~ Michael VII Doukas'" we already know he was emperor
in general, I think it is unnecessary to preface emperors' names with "Byzantine Emperor" when first introduced, certainly "Byzantine" isn't needed
where was the Battle of Zygos Pass fought? In general terms, I assume modern-day northern Bulgaria? Was this a Byzantine province?
why initial capital for "Paroikoi"?
suggest "Nikephoros sent Michael the spatharokandidatos to inquire into the case. He then ruled that, based upon a chrysobull issued by Basil II which..."

Down to "Later military career". More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:11, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

is there a contemporary link for Byzantine Armenia and Cilicia?
~~Roussel de~~ Bailleul at second and subsequent mentions
"The military acumen and family renown of Nikephoros ~~(III)~~" I think it is obvious you are referring to the subject of the article here, not the just mentioned general
Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder is duplinked
full stop after "defected to the side of Nikephoros"
"The first revolt was that of Nikephoros Bryennios" the Elder?
"who rebelled in Dyrrhachium"
link for Nicomedia?
in general, the use of the Greek words without any inline explanation doesn't help the reader. Parenthetical explanation per hypertimos may be warranted?
Nikeophoros→Nikephoros
"who persuaded them to support Alexios" who is "them"?
"While the reforms of Nikephoros ~~are~~were quite minor"

That's all I have. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:43, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Iazyges, just checking you've seen this. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:45, 21 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Thanks for the ping (and the review), I had not; I haven't been active as much due to the busy season of Accounting. I'll get round to this as soon as I finish my GAN review. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:41, 24 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges ? Gog the Mild (talk) 21:56, 3 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Sorry, forgot I still had this open. I expect to be busy for at least another month, so it may be best to close this in the meantime. I appreciate all the reviews, and I'll work to fix the comments left here when I do have the time. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:57, 4 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Oppose by Constantine[edit]

Will review over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 19:18, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Agree that the lede is far too large. You can easily shorten it by removing too much detail like in which they suffered eleven days of harassment before finally reaching the Byzantine city of Adrianople, Eudokia, Patriarch John VIII of Constantinople, and the Byzantine Senate agreed that their top priority was the defense of the empire and that they needed an emperor to lead troops to repel the Turks or who was nearby in Damalis in Anatolia, and sent messengers to him across the Bosphorus. The details should be dealt with in the body of the article.
he was made doux of Thessalonica -> Nikephoros was made doux...
Monastery of Peribleptus, Nikephoros Bryennius please be consistent in using either transliterated or Latinized names. In this case it would be Peribleptos and Bryennios.

Historiography and sources

I think the section should be placed at the end of the article. For a non-expert, it might be off-putting due to its length and difficult to follow as it refers to several events without any context (e.g. Manzikert or the Norman invasions). This effectively requires the reader to know the events before even beginning to read the article. The lede is IMO no substitute for this.
counters the narrative of Byzantine historian Michael Psellos's Chronographia, the only other contemporary source it would be good to briefly summarize Psellos' view as well here, or how it differs from Attaleiates.
dedicates several pages -> devotes several pages
Nikephoros's last years in power Nikephotos was in power for three years only, so what is meant here?
Better don't use the term 'Continuatus' as this will only confuse readers. Call it 'the Continuator of Skylitzes's work' or something analogous. And then of course a formulation like his Continuatus...whom he is known to have favore is incorrect; it was the Continuatus of Skylitzes', but was not necessarily written by him, so 'he/him' here, referring to Skylitzes, is misleading.
I would recommend dealing with Anna Komnene and Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger one after the other, as they are mutually related in their background and biases.
The entire section relies heavily on Maynard's article, which is almost the only work cited, but I see statements here that are not in Maynard's article, e.g. as a foreigner, he was removed from the court politics of the Byzantine Empire, and thus provides a fair and objective view of Nikephoros or are therefore quite objective in their treatment of Nikephoros, lacking political intrigue related to him, or while he provides a contemporary source from the view of the Byzantine nobles, he is far from objective in his review of events etc. While some of these judgements are semi-plausible, the generalizations here are dubious: no historical source lacks bias. Holding up Attaleiates, who as mentioned has very good reasons to be favourable to his patron Nikephoros, as less biased than Psellos, is nonsense. They are differently biased, but that's it. The entire section therefore smacks of WP:OR.

Will continue with the rest of the article soon. Constantine ✍ 14:28, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life and family

from the Anatolic Theme I think it would be useful to identify and place the Anatolic Theme geographically (e.g. "a large province covering western central Anatolia" or similar).
Attaleiates is the only source which gives this information. this is redundant. You have already mentioned that this is according to Attaleiates.
Botaniati family was related to Byzantine Emperor Nicephorus II Phocas and the Phocas family what I said above about Latinizations: Botaneiates, Nikephoros II Phokas, and Phokas.

Early career

for his actions after the Battle of Zygos Pass in 1053 reiterate here that this was during the Pecheneg revolt, to connect this to the previous section, and eliminate the close repetition of 'Pecheneg' in Pecheneg forces during the Pecheneg revolt.
it fits comfortably 'this report fits comfortably'
After the Dynatoi were humiliated who were the Dynatoi? Also, the word does not need capitalization.
which is mentioned by Skylitzes, Psellos, and Attaleiates redundant.
At Constantinople, the Battle of Petroe took place Petroe is about 50km from Constantinople and in a different continent...
reportedly one of the bloodiest battles the Byzantines engaged in during a civil war. according to whom?
the first time a general had held the throne since the death of Emperor Basil II in 1025 By implication, Basil II was a general? Basil was the legitimate emperor, even if he was a warrior-emperor. If you want a comparison, this should be made with the usurping general-emperors Nikephoros II and John Tzimiskes...
settle complaints in the theme which theme? 'in the local theme' or 'in the province' suffices, but do not assume the readers know the administrative structure of the empire. Alternatively, change doux of Thessalonica to 'doux (governor) of the Theme of Thessalonica'.
on the Byzantine government 'Byzantine' is redundant here. Also, 'Byzantine Emperor' is often used, but is really not needed. It is clear we are talking about Byzantines most of the time, only when non-Byzantines are concerned, this should be clarified.
The first complaint was a dispute centered on the Byzantine government's confiscation...which Nikephoros reasserted the level of detail here is IMO unwarranted, and contravenes WP:SS. These are the disputes we know of, because the relevant documents have survived as they concern Athonite monasteries, so a full listing of them is misleading (it strongly implies that the list is exhaustive). I strongly recommend moving them to a footnote, and at the very least noting that these are the judgments we know of, and that they are indicative.
In the fall of 1064, the Oghuz Turks rename to 'Uzes' as in the primary sources and link Uzes (people)

Later military career

Maynard (again, this article's most frequently cited source) writes that "Nicephorus Botaniates was sent to Cyprus to become its Doux from 1065-1067". This is not mentioned anywhere. Why? Instead, 1065 is the date given for his assuming the government of Antioch in the article, and 1067 as the date he was relieved of command. This contradicts Maynard, who is the sole source for this entire section.
The Seljuk Turks are not mentioned during his governorship in Antioch, although they definitely were present in the area (and mentioned by Maynard).
There is a very heavy reliance directly on Attaleiates in Kaldellis' edition. While obviously the main source, primary sources should be avoided unless they are the only detailed source, or the modern secondary literature effectively rehashes them. Even more so when we know that Attaleiates was biased in favour of Botaneiates. There exist some excellent secondary sources for the period (Angold's The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204: A Political History among the most commonly used, Cheynet's Pouvoir et contestations, and Kaldellis' own Streams of Gold, which is listed but cited only once!).
Conversely, Norwich should not be used. He is a very good and entertaining writer, and an excellent introduction into Byzantine history, but not really a WP:RS.
declared him kouropalates and governor of the Anatolic Theme the latter part is not in Maynard, who writes that "After the Battle of Zompos Bridge, Nicephorus was appointed Doux of Anatolikon from 1074 until his revolt in 1077". In contrast, there is information from Maynard that is missing without obvious explanation: "Botaniates was once again appointed as Doux of Opsikion after he concluded his tenure as Doux of Hellas and Peloponnese sometime before 1074", i.e. before his participation in the campaign against Roussel.
A month later, in November 1077, the general Nikephoros Bryennios the Elder raised his own revolt against Michael clarify that this was in the western Balkans.
No mention of the attempt of Roussel to join Botaneiates' revolt, or the defection of Melissenos and Palaiologos, or the details of Botaneiates' revolt, e.g. the march on Nicaea, the role of the Seljuks, etc. This is hugely important because it effectively completed the Seljuk conquest of Anatolia, after all Nicaea was their first capital there.

I am stopping here. The article has a lot of minor weaknesses that can easily be rectified, but I've hit on too many omissions and discrepancies with the sources. I worry that the more I dig, the more I find, especially in terms of sources and their use. I am definitely voting to oppose at this time. The article needs to be thoroughly reworked, using further reliable secondary sources. There is no problem with relying heavily on Maynard, but if so, then there should be no gaps, and there should be no OR stuff using Maynard as a source but not actually there. Constantine ✍ 17:55, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.