Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of Petroe

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.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 00:02, 9 April 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of Petroe edit

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Another Byzantine battle, this article is essentially a chronicle of the rebellion of Isaac I Komnenos, head of a coterie of generals and the first of the "military aristocracy" to become Byzantine emperor outright in two centuries. Gog the Mild brought it to GA in May, but it has since been rewritten almost from scratch in summer, as part of my work on Isaac's article. It is the most complete treatment of the subject I know of, combining the primary accounts (that mostly agree with and complement each other) with commentary and insights by modern scholars. Any comments and suggestions for further improvement are of course welcome, especially as I aim to bring this to FA eventually. Constantine ✍ 22:09, 18 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass edit

All images are correctly licenced. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

SupportComments by Gog the Mild edit

"the rebellious general Isaac I Komnenos" But he wasn't "Isaac I Komnenos" at the time. He was plain General Isaac Komnenos.
- Indeed. Fixed, and clarified that he was crowned emperor after.
"Although the right wing of the army of Komnenos was beaten, the left wing of Komnenos's army" Having "army of Komnenos" and "Komnenos's army" so close does not flow well. Perhaps 'its left wing' instead of "the left wing of Komnenos's army"?
- Rephrased the entire part.
Can I suggest adding a last sentence to the lead about Isaac becoming emperor in the immediate aftermath?
- Expanded a bit in the lede on the aftermath of the battle, as well as Komnenos' brief reign.
"the court circle around the empress" -> Empress
- Fixed.
"A career bureaucrat, Michael was a weak and pliant ruler dominated by the eunuchs; given his advanced years and lack of children, his reign was perceived as weak and unlikely to last from the start, and was plagued by rebellions." Optional: consider replacing the semi-colon with a full stop.
- Fixed.
"and while civil officials were compensated by being raised to higher dignities, the army was not" For this to make sense it needs to read 'army officers were not'. (You can't raise an army to a higher dignity.)
- Fixed.
"appeared before the emperor to request similar promotions" -> Emperor.
- Fixed.
"According to the eyewitness Michael Psellos, the emperor began abusing them at once" Ditto
- Fixed.
"he then made Isaac, as the leader of the deputation, and his second, Kekaumenos, stand forth ... being a coward and incompetent" -> 'being cowards and incompetents'.
- The singular was correct as it was about Isaac, but the phrasing was less that clear. Fixed.
"a plot was formed against the emperor" E
- Fixed.
"The conspirators contacted the veteran general Nikephoros Bryennios—who had unsuccessfully tried to usurp the throne from Theodora[12] —but had recently been recalled by Michael VI as commander of the Macedonian army" 'who had', not "but had".
- Fixed by removing the dashes.
"Soon after, however, Bryennios left with his troops for Asia Minor, to campaign against the Turks. Once in the Anatolic Theme, however," "however" twice. Suggest deleting the first one.
- Removed both, I am bit over-fond of "however"s. Also rewrote this part somewhat.
"This was seen by another local commander, the patrikios Lykanthes, as an attempt at rebellion, and he marched against Bryennios and had him arrested and handed over to Opsaras, who had him blinded." 3 and's in 10 words; I would suggest breaking the sentence.
- Generally rewritten.
"Fearing that their plot was about to be discovered, the eastern generals hastened to act: the conspirators resident in the Anatolic Theme, Romanos Skleros, Michael Bourtzes, Nikephoros Botaneiates and the sons of Basil Argyros, hastened to find Isaac Komnenos at his estates near Kastamon in Paphlagonia, and on 8 June 1057, at a place called Gounaria, proclaimed him emperor." 1) long sentence alert. I would suggest replacing the colon with a full stop. 2) "hastened" twice. Possibly replace "hastened to find" with 'sought out'? You have already established that they were acting hastily.
- Fixed as suggested.
"The emperor placed this force under the command of Theodora's eunuch favourite" E
- Fixed.
"the domestikos ton scholon (commander-in-chief) of the East" Why is E upper case?
- This is commonly found thus in English sources. Probably goes along with the capitalization of the "Domestic of the Schools". However, with the non-anglicized form this does indeed look odd. Removing the capital E.
"sending skilled men to induce the other side to defect" I think that you mean 'trusted' rather than "skilled"
- Clarified by quoting from Skylitzes.
"During the pursuit, many prisoners were taken and many killed, including the imperial generals Maurokatakalos, Pnyemios and Katzamountes." It is unclear whether the three generals were taken or killed.
- Fixed.
"who offered him the title of Caesar if he would cease his rebellion." I think that most readers will be unaware of the practical implications of this.
- Good point. Explained.
In at least one place, your cites are not in number order.
- I think I've got it (refs #25 and #26), but can't find any other cases.
Caption: "A gold histamenon showing Michael VI in imperial regalia, crowned by the Theotokos" -> 'being crowned'.
- Fixed.
Is there a reason why you don't include the OCLC (422765673) of The Chronographia?
- No deliberate reason, just omission. Added.

Bravo! A magisterial treatment. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:46, 19 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the flattery Gog the Mild :), but more than that, thanks for finding the trouble-spots above. The article looks much better now. Any further comments or recommendations? Constantine ✍ 20:32, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I don't do flattery. That looks as if you have picked up all of my points. Given the amount of rewriting I would like to reread the whole thing, but won't be able to manage that tonight. I'll get back to you. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:02, 26 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

"the loyalist forces of the Byzantine emperor Michael VI Stratiotikos (r. 1056–1057) under the proedros Theodore, and the supporters of the general Isaac Komnenos" If you are stating "loyalist" for the one, it would be appropriate to state 'of the rebel general ...'
- Fixed.
"dislike of the military aristocracy for the "regime of eunuchs and civilian politicians" " There should be a cite immediately after the quote.
- Have made the attribution clearer.
"A second delegation to Strabospondylos was received" Suggestion only: 'A second delegation, this time to Strabospondylos, was received'.
- Good suggestion, done.
"but also appropriated the army chest carried to pay the soldiers as he saw fit." This doesn't quite make sense. Try removing "carried" to see what I mean.
- Fixed.
"Fearing that their plot was about to be discovered, the eastern generals were forced to act." Suggestion only: "were" -> 'felt'.
- Good suggestion, done.
"the soldiers from both camps, often friends and relatives" "and" -> 'or'.
- Fixed.
"Initially, the commanders of the two armies tried to take advantage of that" Suggestion only: "that" -> 'this'.
- Fixed.
"other powerful generals, like Romanos I Lekapenos" Suggestion only: "like" -> 'such as'.
- Fixed.

Gog the Mild (talk) 21:03, 27 January 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks again Gog the Mild, and sorry for the delay in answering. Any further suggestions, above and beyond ARC? Constantine ✍ 17:47, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

No. The main differences as I see them are that FAC is tougher on sourcing and MOS. I haven't looked at sourcing and I don't give you much leeway on MOS anyway . No problems re the delay - Wikipedia isn't going anywhere. Supporting now. Ping me when it goes for FAC. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 17 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review edit

All sources are properly formatted.
You may want to expand ODB as it took a few seconds for me to figure out what you were referring to.
Surely the Cambridge Medieval History's been updated since 1923?--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Cplakidas this looks good to go once you've addressed Sturm's comments. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:34, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66. On the ODB, it is the standard abbreviation in the literature, which I am loath to change; the link in the reference points to the correct entry in the sources section, so that's not an issue IMO. On the Cambridge Medieval History, yes it has, there is the imaginatively named "The New Cambridge Medieval History", but it really is a different kind of work. The old work contained a lot detailed narrative history, as it was meant to be a standard reference work for a field that was still in its infancy. The modern version, as you can see, has no dedicated volume on Byzantium, but treats it as part of the broader medieval world. The modern scholars know they can rely on a much larger number of both year-by-year narratives and in-depth studies for specifics, so they write more about the broader historical context and social, economic, etc. force as they manifest themselves in different areas. For this reason, the 1923 work is not really "replaced" by the modern edition, but rather complemented. Given that the chief narrative primary sources known then remain the same ones today (at least for most events), it remains up-to-date on this point, provided that one is aware of its limitations (same as using Bury, Miller, Runciman, or even Gibbon, for that matter). In this article, furthermore, the 1923 edition has only been used for rather minor stuff (name, date, and an overview of the events immediately after the battle). Constantine ✍ 09:57, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Good to go, then.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 11:29, 7 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from AustralianRupert edit

Support: G'day, Constantine, nice work. I have a few suggestions/comments: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:23, 23 February 2019 (UTC)[reply]

in the lead, engaged at the plain of Hades: is there a link that could be provided for this place?
- Unfortunately not. The relevant volume of the Tabula Imperii Byzantini has not yet been published, and I haven't been able to find any further identification so far.
suggest upscaling "File:Map Byzantine Empire 1025-en.svg"
- I tried that, but it would have to be upscaled a lot to be legible, and I try to avoid huge images for display quality reasons
Constantinople is overlinked in the lead
- Fixed
there are no dab links and the ext links all work (no action required)
referencing looks okay to me (no action required)
In Easter 1057 --> "During Easter 1057", or even "Over Easter 1057"?
- Fixed
I couldn't find 20 August as the date mentioned in the body of the article, although it appears uncited in the lead and infobox
- Added, with caution: I have searched extensively to find whether a precise date is mentioned in the primary sources, but could not find anything. Nevertheless, throughout the modern literature the date of the battle is consistently given as 20 August.
Thus Skylitzes reports: full name and link for Skylitzes here (removing the later link)
- Fixed
Theodora's eunuch favourite: "Theodora's favourite eunuch"?
- Not quite: he was one of Theodora's favourites, who tended to be eunuchs.
funds for his own use.[9][6]: suggest reordering refs into numerical order
- Fixed
the section header "The battle" should probably just be "Battle" per WP:MILMOS/C
- Fixed
and handed over to --> "and handed him over to"?
- Fixed
by attacking him with from two sides: missing word, or typo?
- Fixed
in the Sources, the hyphenation of the ISBN for the Kaldellis 2017 source is slightly inconsistent with the others (for instance compare it with the 2012 Kaldellis souce
- Fixed
is there a location of publication that could be added for the Vogt source?
- Fixed

Hi AustralianRupert, and apologies for the delay. I think the issues you raised above are all taken care of. Any further comments/suggestions? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 15:48, 17 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day, no worries. Added my support now. Thanks for your efforts. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:50, 19 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentSupport by CPA-5 edit

his own fortified camp some 12 miles north of the city No km? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 07:33, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed, it was not actually miles, but stadia (I don't know why I had miles in the first place, it was clearly not realistic). Constantine ✍ 11:20, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Oh I see well for the rest it looks great. Nice jobe. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:36, 5 April 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you CPA-5. Constantine ✍ 11:42, 5 April 2019 (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.