Talk:Phocas

Ecological Emperor?

Would anyone like to join with me in the opinion that 'the "Green" faction', of which mention was first added about a year and a half ago by an anonymous user, is much more likely to be a typographical mistake for 'the "Greek" faction'? Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually, Greens is correct. Political life in late ancient and early medieval Constantinople was marked by loosely organized factions or gangs that were associated with different horse-racing and athletic teams who competed in the hippodrome; these teams were in turn designated by colors. The Blues and Greens were the most powerful factions, but I believe that there were Whites as well. I thought there was a Wikipedia article on the subject, but I can't find it now ... might make a good addition. --Jfruh (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmm, it seems like there used to be an article on the subject, as this stub at InfoPlease (a Wiki fork, yes?) indicates, maybe? The "Background" section of the Nika riots article offers an excellent primer on the subject, though. --Jfruh (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Fascinating! It reminds me of the Fenerbahçe/Galatasaray/Beşiktaş rivalry in my part of the world, which always feels like it may explode into political violence at any time. Thanks for the clarification (and the stub link). Q·L·1968 ☿ 13:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Coin images

Are we sure that the lower of the two images (the one not in the infobox) is really Phocas? It looks nothing like the first image -- the person illustrated is unbearded, for one thing -- and the hairstyle makes the person look like a woman to me, though it's hard to judge fashion at this remove. I also posted a query to the image talk page. --Jfruh (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Persians and Heraclius

I recall learning in college that some historians blame much of Phocas's defeats to the Persians in part on Heraclius' revolt. Some discussion of this might be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.69.100.176 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

This is discussed to a certain extent in the "Overthrow and Death" section. --Jfruh (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Justinian Dynasty?

He wasn't part of the Justinian dynasty - he ended it when he murdered Maurice and all his sons. Nor did any of his children rule, so there was no Phocasian dynasty. Should that bit be removed entirely from the infobox? 24.42.68.193 (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Religious policy / expansion of article

"Heraclius Junior sailed westward" is wrong. He sailed from Carthage to Cyprus eastward, of course.

Internal policy is completely missing. It consisted in silly measures that ignited the ever latent civil strife between Jews, Malikites and monophysitic Christians (Oriental churches) to overt civil war, killing thousands, working uncountable damage and havoc, and inducing the population to welcoming heartily whatever conqueror might end that unbearable situation.

It should be mentioned that parricide shâh Khosrau II managed to take even Chalcedon opposite Constantinople in 608, devastating all Asia Minor both economically and strategically.

 - The article needs expansion. German and French versions are far more explicit.

Nuremberg Oct. 1st, 2011 angel.garcia2001@googlemail.com 87.158.147.210 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)

Sections completely without references

The Accession section is uncited. Needs at least one RS! Ditto for the overthrow section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.37.15 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Bias of Phocas history

I feel that we should at the very (least) acknowledge that the majority of what we know about Phocas was written by 2 historians in the 630s, one based in Alexandria, and the other working for Heraclius. The reality is that the only surviving history about him was written by those who can hardly be considered as impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieAres (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

That's why Wiki uses secondary, scholarly sources as much as possible.50.111.14.1 (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

POV

To make long story short article is saying: "Despite the execution of the previous emperor and his dynastic successors, Phocas remained in a precarious position, which led him to devote his energy to purging enemies and destroying conspiracies. Because of this focus, and the local resistance he faced all throughout the Byzantine Empire, he was unable to confront foreign attacks on the empire's frontiers. The Avars and Slavs launched numerous raids into the Balkan provinces of the Byzantine Empire, and the Sassanian Empire launched an invasion of the eastern provinces of the empire.

The Avars were able to take all land in the Balkans north of Thessalonika. The populations of Christian cities were slaughtered or captured. The Byzantines transferred most of their forces to the eastern front due to the threat from the Persians."

This are all false statements which represent typical black legends about Phocas created by Heraclius regime. Until rebellion of Heraclius and 2 years long civil war (608-610) Phocas has not been defeated by foreign attacks. Persians has not defeated Byzantine defences until 609 ( Cambridge University Press, Walter Emil Kaegi:Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium page 65 and many, many others) and on other side there has been peace on Avar-Byzantine border until 612 (see Avar–Byzantine wars). All in all article is really, really bad.Analitikos (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)

The article has 16 references. It has in-line citations. If you can dispute these Reliable Sources with counter-sources, please provide. In the meantime, since you have not provided any, I'm removing the tag. If/when you return with sources to improve the article and can challenge it, you can restore it. 50.111.22.69 (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

I'm going to re-add the tag. Take this quote from the opening: "Phocas was an incompetent leader, both of the administration and army, and under him the Byzantine Empire was threatened by multiple enemies, with frequent raids in the Balkans from the Avars and Slavs, and a Sassanid invasion of the eastern provinces. Because of Phocas' incompetence and brutality, the Exarch of Carthage, Heraclius the Elder, rebelled against him." In the body of the article, there is only one in-line citation for the charge of incompetence. As an encyclopedia, we don't need to have an opinion. We can instead have a section on historiography that combines the "Legacy" section and the judgment of the modern historian cited in the article. --JECE (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)

WE don't - but the scholarly reliable sources most certainly can, and we summarize what they state. The 'one citation' you note actually points to three within that author's website. I'll clean this article up a bit and point to more generally-accepted historical university roundtable agreements on Phocas than the DIR website when I get a chance.50.111.14.1 (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

I have removed the sentence summarising the sources' view of Phocas career as an "incompetent leader of the administration and the army." Ostrogorsky calls him "tyrannical", my 1970s-era brittanica calls him a "disaster", but reading their treatments in full makes it clear that neither of these are a judgement on his competence per se. He didn't lose battles because of strategic or tactical errors: instead, he alienated his generals and they defected. He apparently closed the university of Theodosius II, not because he was a poor administrator, but out of spite. He persecuted Monophysites and Jews, but he didn't do so from incompetence, but out of malice. He took the side of the Pope against the Patriarch of Constantinople, but again, this is not because he was unfamiliar with the nuances of church governance but because he wanted to humiliate the Byzantine aristocracy. The sources hostile to him don't describe him as a bumbler, but as a tyrannical ruler who knew exactly what he was doing. We can have a debate over whether that is fair, but I think it's pointless to argue about a sentence that doesn't even summarise the anti-Phocas sources accurately. --Jpbrenna (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)

@Jpbrenna: I'm making an article about his historiography in my userspace, hope to have it out and summarized as a section within this article at some point soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)