Talk:Battle of Gallipoli (1312)

Stefan Uroš II Milutin

I even doubt this was or battle or whatever ever existed...—Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.230.201.161 (talk) 07:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Unless a source can be produced that shows that Milutin was at Gallipoli in 1312, he should be removed as being a commander at this battle. All the sources I've found, state he sent 2000 calvary to the Byzantine Empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 18:41, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

http://www.rastko.org.yu/rastko-bl/istorija/corovic/istorija/3_5_l.html There is a paragraph describes the Serbian aid and it explicitly says that the Serbs maintained their own local commanders and didn't fight in the main Byzantine army, they fought independently of it. There is mention of it here:http://books.google.com/books?id=rUs-hHd89xAC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=serbs+byzantine+1312&source=bl&ots=aeEIUJBRlh&sig=G05wMzwWzCn7oixG0XS5f1OFNqI —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.157.86 (talk) 19:12, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the same book calls them Cumans[1]. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:20, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Only Mark Bartusis claims (hypothesizes) that the Serbian cavalry consisted of Cumans. Contemporary sources, and Nicol and Oikonomides makes no mention of Cumans. The Byzantine Emperor explicitly thanked the Serbian king for his aid in two chrysobulls.--Zoupan 03:33, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

That's your opinion(Bartusis). And Nicol does not say they were Serbian either, simply 2000 cavalry.

According to Cumans and Tatars: Oriental Military in the Pre-Ottoman Balkans, 1185–1365, by István Vásáry, page 119, also mentions the possibility of Cumans (Mavromatis & Bartusis) at Gallipoli. Your unilateral removal of referenced information is reverted. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:47, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

No, Bartusis explicitly states: it is possible ... were actually a group of 2,000 Cumans. Instead of adding this possibility to the infobox, the information is clearly present in the article body ("according to Bartusis, these were possibly Cumans earlier lent to the Byzantines"). I don't see how "unilateral removal of referenced information" is the least truthful. You actually reinforced the former revision by adding Vásáry: It is not impossible ... consisted of Cuman troops. So, Cumans will not stay in the infobox.--Zoupan 02:22, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

And Vasary mentions TWO sources for the Cumans. Ignoring what the sources say will not help you. Oh, and Nicol does not call them "Serbian", simply cavalry. So only Oikonomides calls them "Serbian". Using Nicol in the template indicating 2000 Serbian cavalry is source misrepresentation. --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:36, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

We'll need to see Mavromatis, as it is unclear what he says. Where have I ignored what the sources say? First of all, you mentioned yourself "the possibility", then wrongfully claimed that I removed "referenced information". It is clear from the previous revision that you are wrong. I don't think my answer is confusing. The cavalry were still sent by Milutin, possibilities or not, so, obviously, having "or Cumans (possibly)" in the infobox is not appropriate. I don't see how "Serbian cavalry" is the least misrepresentative. The information is still found in the article body, which a normal person reads. Elaborated further and added annotation.--Zoupan 02:52, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Odd, you can not accept Vasary, but Oikonomides is irrefutable?

• "Cumans (possibly)" in the infobox is not appropriate."
  

Not for an editor with an agenda. If we use your "reasoning", Nicol's lack of the word Serbian would indicate his own doubts as to their ethnicity.

• "I don't see how "Serbian cavalry" is the least misrepresentative"
  

I do not see how you can assume that Nicol means "Serbian", when clearly he does not use that word. So, for you, it is ok to present Nicol stating "Serbian"(ie. source misrepresentation), but you would have to see Mavromatis since he's "unclear".

• "which a normal person reads"
  

And yet here you are suppressing referenced information on an obscure battle simply to ensure the only word listed in the template is "Serbian". Yeah, <sarcasm>no bias there</sarcasm>. So let's get this straight, it's ok for you to ignore 3 sources(Vasary, Bartusis and Mavromatis) that state the possibility of Cuman cavalry while all you have is your own opinion of Nicol and Oikonomides. What a joke! --Kansas Bear (talk) 03:29, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

By this comment you are finely showing your misplaced ethnocentric view. If I get this straight, you believe that using "Serbian cavalry" in the infobox is "an agenda" and "suppressing referenced information" (!?). Where have I not accepted Vasary? Nicol says "Milutin of Serbia lent him 2000 cavalry". You have a problem with "Serbian cavalry" in the infobox, but not "Byzantine" or "Genoese"? The possibility of the troops being Cumans is in the article body: 2,000-strong Serbian cavalry troops (possibly Cumans).[a+] Could you show me an example of a battle article where the infobox uses possible ethnicity of a unit instead of the representative faction? It's simply giving undue weight by including it in the infobox where it doesn't belong. --Zoupan 04:19, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Could someone show any medieval mentioning of Cumans in this battle? Yeah. Exactly. I know of Novak Grebostrek, a Serbian nobleman sent by king Milutin Nemanjic to help Byzantine against Turks. 178.237.222.121 (talk) 20:16, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Complement of calvary

Two sources state that the calvary sent to the Byzantine Empire was made up of Cumans.

• Vasary, Istvan, Cumans and Tatars, Cambridge University Press, 2005.
• Bartusis, Mark C., The Late Byzantine Army, University of Pennsylvania Press, 1997.

--Kansas Bear (talk) 18:53, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

I have found a neutral source clearly stating "SERBIAN" cavalry. Its in english. Here you go. http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/pdfs/oikonomides.pdf —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.149.157.86 (talk) 22:32, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

@Kansas Bear: funny how you just accused me of opinions, when you in 2009 clearly did^. A bit POV? The two sources state that it is a possibility that the cavalry were Cumans, not that they were. There's a difference. --Zoupan 04:34, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

You have a problem with a word "Serbian". That is obvious here. 178.237.222.121 (talk) 20:17, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Raska or Serbian Empire

Serbian Empire havent taken part in battle. She was formed in 1346!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Raska took part in battle. And Stefan II Milutin was king!!!!!!!!!--FriedrickMILBarbarossa (talk) 16:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Novak Grebostrek

It should be noted that Serbian historiography has Novak Grebostrek commanding the forces.--Zoupan 07:29, 4 April 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this was a second cavalry corps that arrived after the battle.--Zoupan 02:44, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

So why Byzantine emperor put a military parade in Constantinople in honor of Serbian nobleman Novak Grebostrek? 178.237.222.121 (talk) 20:11, 11 June 2022 (UTC)

Mark Bartusis

Mark Bartusis claims that this was the first time a Serbian leader provided military assistance to the Byzantines, but I have chosen not to add it to the article since I think this is highly dubious. Without a doubt, since the establishment of the Serbian polity in the 7th century, that the Serbs provided assistance to the Byzantines. Already in the 9th century, according to sources. The Battle of Sirmium (1167) included 500 infantry, and the Battle of Pelagonia (1259) included 600 cavalry, for instance.--Zoupan 03:21, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Image

Is there any image depicting the battle, such as from the Madrid Skylitzes?--Zoupan 03:39, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Flag of Serbia (1281).svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 17:08, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

"Battle of Gallipoli(1312)" listed at Redirects for discussion

The redirect Battle of Gallipoli(1312) has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2024 January 11 § Battle of Gallipoli(1312) until a consensus is reached. Steel1943 (talk) 23:07, 11 January 2024 (UTC)