Talk:Byzantine–Seljuk wars

Comments

Somebody please make a campaign box for this war with the following battles:

Battle of Caesarea

Battle of Manzikert

Siege of Nicaea (1077)

Siege of Antioch (1084)

Siege of Nicaea

Battle of Myriokephalon

AND WITH ALL HASTE!

Tourskin 15:24, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Mucho gracias

Thank you for whoever added the picture. Tourskin 00:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Hang on a minute, the image should be moved to Byzantine-Arab wars. The seizure of Edessa has nothing to do with the Seljuk Invasions. Yeah, the Byzantines wished they had reached that far. So please remove it or I will. Tourskin 00:40, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Improvement?

I've added lots of references, lots of images and think this article deserves a little more than start class. Tourskin 18:45, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

Yeah so come on, don't be shy, please do tell!Tourskin 05:02, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Okay, Lets get this going, yeah!! I don't think I can improve this article any more, oh well.Tourskin 07:24, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

Work to be done

• Expand the lead per WP:LEAD so as to be a proper summary of the whole article. For this article two short paragraphs would be ok.
• Maybe you should start "Origins" in an even smoother way. "The WRE collapsed ... " What was this entity. You don't have to expand, just to make clear this continuation of your story from Roman empire to WRE to Byzantine empire. Maybe this is also part of a general prose problem. See here for instance: "However, Manzikert fell in 1071 to the restless Seljuks. A large army under the Byzantine emperor Romanos IV was decisively defeated near Manzikert in 1071. Manzikert, which had briefly been restored to the Byzantine Greeks, fell to the Seljuk Turks again." Choppy prose, and repetitive. I think you need some help from a native English speaker with copy-editing.
• Improve your wikilinking: I did not see links for some important articles such as Roman empire or Fourth Crusade (I hope I did not miss any of these and I am unjust here!).
• I think you should devote some words about what are these Seljuk Turks? Why don't we speak just for Turks? How do they make their appearance in history and among the Turkish tribes? Not much, but I think it is necessary to give the reader some idea about them.
• "Alexius had inherited a few remaining coastal towns on Asia minor. These were lost by 1091. In 1094 Alexius Comnenus asked the Papacy in Rome for mercenaries to combat the Seljuk Turks." Again a bit incoherent and seamless the prose here. And in the first of the paragraph you speak about an Alexius I, whom you remember to identify him as "Comnenus" only at the end of the paragraph and of the section.
• I know that we should respect the way WP:SS works, but I would like some more words about the importance of Manzikert, and about it may have influenced the future Byzantine-Seljuk conflicts.
• Maybe you could say a few more things about the few skirmishes just after the Myriokephalon battle. Additionally, I think that just like Manzikert also Myriokephalon deserves some analysis concerning its importance, and its influence for the future development of the Byzantine-Turk antagonism.
• In the "Aftermath" I think you should also say how we pass from the Seljuks to the predominance of the Ottomans.
• "The result was that even when the Byzantine empire was not riddled with civil disputes, it could not defeat the Seljuk Turks, who rarely allowed the Byzantines to decisively defeat them, hence the slow campaigning of John Komnenus. The Byzantines were never able to defeat the Seljuks in a decisive battle." Don't you think the prose could be much better here. In general, in the analysis of yours in "Aftermath" I had sometimed to read twice a sentence, in order to grasp the meaning. Express yourself clearly, with a better flow in your prose, coherently, not seamlessly, and after you write something, read it yourself, in order to see, if you like it, and if you regard it as nice and ok.
• Your "see also" section is redundant. You already have these links in the lead.
• Format your online sources, using Template:cite web, Template:cite books, and Template:cite news. Whatever fits to each case.

The article is informative, with nice photos and maps, but it needs more work in prose, analysis, and comprehensiveness. I hope that these comments will help you?--Yannismarou 22:00, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Hi and sorry I didn't reply to your first message. You're doing a great job the the Byzantine-Seljuk article. I'm sorry I didn't contribute to the Byzantine-Sassanid war as I had promised but I was never given the chance. We were driven away by Mardavich and Azerbaijani until a "consensus" between them was reached and of course the only result was to halt the constructive contributions. As for the Battle of Manzikert, the answer is "because people are POV-pushing". The 15,000 figure does not even appear on the linked source [1]. I'll get back to it once I resume my normal editing routine. Thanks for the notice. Miskin 23:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

OR concerns

This article shows great problem, but I think we need to source more of the comments in the analysis section, including by naming the historians who have reached these conclusions, to avoid violating WP:OR. I would help, but I know nothing about this period. Argos'Dad 00:32, 17 June 2007 (UTC)

I beg to differ - I would like to see these unverified claims. Most of what there is is fact - the Greek and Catholic Churches did not trust each other after 1204 and the Ottomans rose to power. I would like to bring in a third party to suggest yes or no to your suggestions. Also, without sounding personal or unfriendly, you yourself have stated a lack of knowledge on this period. I however, have several references, which have been added to the article and have been used as a basis for every claim made. Please point out where you think there is original research, don't simply speculate, prove it. Tourskin 20:05, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

• Philip Sherrard, Great Ages of Man Byzantium, Time-Life Books
• Madden, Thomas F. Crusades the Illustrated History. 1st ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan P, 2005
• Parker, Geoffrey. Compact History of the World. 4th ed. London: Times Books, 2005
• Mango, Cyril. The Oxford History of Byzantium. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2002
• Grant, R G. Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2005
• Turnbull, Stephen. The Ottoman Empire 1326 - 1699. New York: Osprey, 2003.

I appreciate your asking me to point out statements in Byzantine-Seljuk wars that are unsourced and may therefore be subject to criticism as OR. I particularly note the section entitled "Analysis" and the following unsourced statements:

• Furthermore, every other Crusade after the First had a detrimental effect on the Empire with Crusader armies unable to resist raiding towns which were supposed to be their allies.

• The Second Crusade saw increased unity amongst the Islamic World.

• Added to this is the fact that the Crusades gave Byzantium's enemies even more religious zeal in their wars.

• For as long as there was an Eastern Christian Kingdom, Crusades would be launched.

• The Seljuk Turks and later, their successors the Ottoman Turks, saw the destruction of Byzantium as a vital step to ceasing Crusader activity.

Please understand that I am not doubting the veracity of these statements or that the analysis comes from experts in this field. I am trying to strengthen this article by pointing out that these unsourced statements in a paragraph entitled "Analysis" is likely to be flagged as possible OR. I am not all offended that you would believe that I am not an expert in the history of this era, but I would like this article to be rated as GA (or better) and that won't happen unless more of this section is sourced. Also, I would recommend changing the name of the section to "Effects of the wars" or some other title that sounds less like a "synthesis of published material" per WP:OR. Argos'Dad 20:44, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I can't see much more to improve to the analysis section at the moment, much of it is either obvious (i.e. the Byzantines lost lots of land) or sourced. Tourskin 14:54, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Passed GAC

1. Well written?: I think that the article is well written. I think that some extra paragraphs should have been made to split up the large amounts of writing further and I have done this. 2. Factually accurate?: It appears accurate. There are some uncited paragraphs and these should be fixed. 3. Broad in coverage?: I think that it is broad in coverage. 4. Neutral point of view?: Seems neutral. 5. Article stability? Yes, it seems stable. 6. Images?: Good maps.

So I am pleased to imform you that this article has met the GA criteria and has passed. Good luck and I hope you inprove the article fyrther. Kyriakos 14:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. I have made several minor corrections and fixes myself. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed.

1. The main reason that the article is on hold is the lead. It should be expanded to two or three paragraphs to better summarize and cover the various parts of the article. See WP:LEAD for help.
2. In several sections throughout the article, move some of the image around, as text shouldn't be sandwiched between images.
3. "His attempts to continue the militarization of the empire led to his torture, blinding, 3-day public humiliation and finally death in 1185." This could use an inline citation. If a source can't be found, either consider removing it or inserting the statement into a hidden comment until one is found.
4. Although not necessary for GA, the inline citations should use the citation templates found at WP:CITET, which makes it easier for the reader to see the author, article, last access date, etc. of the source. I'd recommend that the citations that only have the url should be fixed (most of the ones between 1-23).

If these are not addressed within seven days (the main requirements being 1 & 3), the article may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. I will leave notices on the talk pages of the main contributors to this article along with related WikiProjects to ensure that the above issues are addressed by the appropriate people. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 07:26, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

First point has been taken care of I hope. As for the 3rd point, I will find a reference but hell will freeze over if I don't because its well known the torture that Andronikus (which he often employed) suffered. The second point involving the images - a little tricky but I did something, so tell me if its enough. As for point four, I have had this at the back of my mind and will see what I can do. Tourskin 08:00, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

I think that it looks ok now. Is there anything else that needs an improvement? Baristarim 05:04, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol I still aint added thequote for andronikus' death - theres no need for it trust me its well known. Tourskin 05:12, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Oh oh references - Baristarim I would be grateful if you could wikify the references. Tourskin 05:13, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I will try to do so soon, probably today or tomorrow. cheers! Baristarim 05:25, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

• Up to note 14 the article is wikified. What is this powerpoint in note 15?! Author?! I'll do some further wikifying with the notes while Baris is also helping.--Yannismarou 14:37, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• In note 22 you use as reliable source the article of Answer.com about Smyrna, which is a copy of Wikipedia's article!!! I think you should find another source.--Yannismarou 14:44, 3 November 2007 (UTC)
• When you mention the The Oxford History of Byzantium have in mind that Mango is the editor. So, you should mainly cite the actual author of the article you use; not the editor of the whole work.--Yannismarou 14:52, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me but I can't see what ur on about the Mango Cyril thing. Nowhere in the book does it explicitly state an author. In fact in the long list of contributors Mango Cyril is present and he himself has written the preface of the book suggesting that he was also the man behind the framework of the text as well as the editor. Where ever I look on the book for a name, its Mango here and there. I imagine that you don't know it either since you haven't actually given me a name. Tourskin 04:54, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

• Oh! Come on Tourskin! Of course, I know the book. And Mango is ideed the editor. In fact, in pages 185-187 you cite it is Magdalino the writer and not Mango. And what you say about the preface is irrelevant. Check the list of all the contributors here. If you do have the book, I cannot imagine you haven't seen it!--Yannismarou 15:37, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps: Pass

Good work on addressing the above issues, and at this time the article continues to meet the requirements of the GA criteria. I still think that an inline citation should be added for #3, as although it may be widely known, not everybody knows about it, and readers would appreciate a source to find information on it. I looked through Google and couldn't find anything myself, and without an inline citation, I can't verify if it's true or not. Since the editors here may have knowledge of it and know it to be true, a source should be added for the uneducated. Continue to improve the article, ensuring all new information is properly sourced. If you disagree with this review, you can seek an alternate opinion at Good article reassessment. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Nehrams2020 22:58, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I'm on the citation. Tourskin 04:34, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank you contributors, Yannis I know ur busy as an admin but thanks again and thanks to everyone too!!!!Tourskin 04:35, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Please document this flag

What documentation do we have for the Seljuqs of Rum using such a flag? The image is labeled in Turkish "Great Seljuk State". Please provide a source at Image talk:Buyuk selcuklu devleti.gif. Aramgar 14:49, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The Seljuks of Rum were the only "Great Seljuk State". All the other Turks were Danishmends or any other independant tribe. Tourskin 18:28, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Here we are : http://www.crwflags.com/fotw/flags/tr_imp.html Tourskin 18:30, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

The term "Great Seljuk" usually designates the Empire founded in Central Asia and Iran during the first half of the 11th century. The Seljuk Sultanate of Rûm is the realted state in Anatolia. Does the word devlet apply only to the Anatolian Seljuks?

About the flag: "some dude Ivan" probably does not count as reliable source (vide WP:RS). Is it possible to find this dude Ivan's source? Aramgar 20:53, 9 November 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, how about the website above? I said it was made by a guy called Ivan and the above website is a reference - what is it now that is needed?Tourskin 00:48, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS. Not just any website counts as a reliable source. Even the guy called Ivan says that it is an "alleged flag." To me this does not seem a strong enough reason to include it on this page or any other page mentioning the Seljuks of Rum. Aramgar 19:15, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

At the moment, it looks your just trolling to me. Theres no proof it is not the flag and yet there is proof that it may be the flag. Its innocent until guilty and more so because the website alledges so. Every mpdern historian makes a point that they can't be sure of 100% because they weren't there to see it as a primary source. If you can find something that says otherwise, good, then get rid of the false flag. Otherwise its referenced and ok. Tourskin 19:27, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

It is not a trial here to use the argument of innocence until guilt is proven. This may well be the Seljuk flag, but I would like you indeed to "strengthen" your sourcing on this issue. A website (launched by whom? Is it any university or credible history institute?) and a design by some guy "Ivan something" (Who is he? Is he a historian? Does he teach in any university? What is he?!) does not count as a reliable source. Any printed source and any reliable historian verifying that this is indeed the Seljuk flag? For me, the existence of the flag is not properly backed and sourced for now. And Tourskin I have also mentioned some other points in the text where your referencing is problematic (A powerpoint with no author signing it, an article of Ask.com which is actually a copy of the Wikipedia's article), but I got no answer. The GA review may be over (and cons for that), but my concerns still stand.--Yannismarou 16:07, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Ok buddy hold on a moment. I know I made some dodgy references, yeah, like half a year ago in June (when I had just grasped the code for referencing, as simple as it is I din't know how to reference using <ref)!! I'm trying to work on it but understand that I have a busy life. Tourskin 18:36, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

His name is Ivan Sauche and hes associated with an organization called "Flags of the World", here: http://fotw.net/flags/index.html

If you're not satisfied than remove the flag. Tourskin 18:55, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

A thumbnail with this Seljuk flag occurs on this page of the (very official) site of the Turkish presidency, explaining the meaning of the sixteen stars on the Presidential insignia. I do not know where they got these sixteen flag thumbnail images from; I hope they did not get them from Wikipedia. :)  --Lambiam 12:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Lol are you sure? The site looks like a horrible amatuer's blog. Tourskin 03:55, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Reliable sourcing

I've tagged a number of the cites appearing here as unreliable sources. Websites like allempires.com, about.com, answers.com, aboutgeorgia.net, and the couple of personal webpages, are not WP:RS. They might contain convenient tertiary information to link to, but by their nature none of 'em ought to be relied upon to back up any statement. Not to say that the statements themselves necessarily aren't correct, but if they are then it should be a simple enough matter to find a more worthy & reliable source for them. Until better qualified sources can be supplied, IMO the reliance on these websites is problematic for retaining GA rating. --cjllw ʘ TALK 23:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll see what I kind can do about it soon enough. Gabr-el 05:13, 22 March 2010 (UTC)

20 years

In the introduction it is claimed that even after Manzikert, Byzantine rule over Asia Minor did not end immediately for 20 years. This asserion is questionable. Nicea the second most important city of Byzantine Empire was captured in 1077 just 6 years after the battle of Manzikert and İzmir, the western most point of Anatolia fell to Çaka Bey in 1081. It was only after the first crusade, Byzantine Empire could gain some of its former territory. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:40, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Unreliable sources

There are a lot of references to about.com and answers.com, which have been marked as unreliable. I am pretty sure most editors would agree that these are not good enough. Would someone who watches this article be able to replace them (the have been here for a while). Otherwise this will probably need to be delisted as a Good article. AIRcorn (talk) 08:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Conversion to Islam

In section Origins it is claimed that Turks converted to Islam in the 7th and 8th centuries. I didn’t check the source Tiscali encyclopaedia . But this claim is not correct. In fact, mass conversion to Islam was much later, i.e., in mid 10th century. (see Kara-Khanid Khanate) Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 18:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I do not believe that site could be considered a reliable source. According to, Michael Adas, Agricultural and Pastoral Societies in Ancient and Classical History, (Temple University Press, 2001), page 99, their conversion was around 985.[2] --Kansas Bear (talk) 06:28, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, the Turks did not convert all at once, it was mostly on a tribal and clan basis. Although not a completely unbiased source, Saunders in A History of Medieval Islam in chapter 9 relates: in 960 the conversion of a Turkish tribe of 200,000 tents is recorded: their precise identity is unspecified. Thus the tenth century witnessed the islamization, under Samanid auspices, of a large section of the Western Turks, an event of great significance. Conversion continued into the 11th century, with some Turkic tribes (not Seljuq) to the northeast still unconverted at the time of the Mongol invasion. --Bejnar (talk) 17:55, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Missing

In this article two events are missing: The Second Crusade and the invasion of Mongols (i.e.battle of Kösedağ and consequently the decline of Seljuk power in Anatolia). Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 21:18, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine–Seljuq wars. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080530042519/http://www.tiscali.co.uk:80/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0009478.html to http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/encyclopaedia/hutchinson/m0009478.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

POV pushing from a user

Hello @ H20346

The issue with your edits is that you're pushing a one sided POV showing a long quotes list of Atrocities against the other faction, the issue is that these quotes are rhetorical and would use such inflammatory phases so it seemed like a very one-sided view, and an extensive use of Quotations which is unnecessary Please note that Wikipedia has a policy of maintaining a neutral point of view in its articles; see Wikipedia:Neutral point of view also with the page Byzantine–Ottoman wars, half of the article are just a long quotes having emotional wordings which is generally not suited to encyclopedic writing and really unnecessary, and if I attempt to correct this you would tell me I'm pushing a POV about Turks spreading hugs and kisses but that's absurd, no one is attempting to push any one sided point of view except you as you have attempted to do with Muslim conquest of Spain but was reverted by @Iskandar323 and @ P Aculeius, due to copyright issues and a POV pushing.

while it's true this is a war and bloodshed happens, to an extent that it's necessary to dive into it, then there's no need for it, if your additions to the article mostly repeat things that are already mentioned, or overemphasize them in an unbalanced way or non-constructive detail when it doesn't have to, then I will probably delete it.

you should be aware that even other editors are pointing out your mistakes (refer to talk page) which could result in banning from editing privilege, regards.

عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 11:30, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

Wound back

I've effectively wound the article back a little further to a previous status quo by removing the section first inserted - so far as I can see - by now-blocked Wojak6, removed and subsequently reinserted by unregistered editors (IPs). This way we leave intact the work done by other editors elsewhere on the article. NebY (talk) 16:08, 2 June 2023 (UTC)

hello @NebY thanks for your edit, I hope this fix the problem, however the user H20346 has done the same pages Byzantine–Ottoman wars but i revert it and its possible in the future the user would come and restore back his/her edits despite numerous times i had to tell the errors of pushing a certain POV. عبدالرحمن4132 (talk) 16:49, 2 June 2023 (UTC)