Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Peer review/Battle of Naissus

Battle of Naissus

I would like to see this article being assessed for A-class but perhaps it is too small and more concentrated on the events around the battle (because there is too few information for the battle itself in the primary sources). Anyway, User:Roger Davies suggested me to ask first for a peer-review. I liked the idea of getting help in order to improve the article. Some problems I could benefit of some help are the following :

• Greuthungi and Tervingi : while some primary sources are mentioning them, I don't think those names fit to the history of 260s. My secondary sources don't bother with this problem. What do you think?
• Map : this is a self-made map. Possible quality problems could be corrected relatively easily, since the prototype is a layered digital image.
• The balance between the sections : as I mentioned above, the balance would inevitably lean away of the battle itself. Perhaps the article should be called The Gothic Invasions of 267-270 (or might include the entire 3rd century) but I think it would draw more attention with the current title. Besides, in a more generic subject, most of the current details would seem out of place.
• Zonaras : I don't have a version of the Greek text with proper column indicators so I can't use citations to him at the moment.

Dipa1965 (talk) 23:23, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

Kirill Lokshin

Pretty nice, overall; but a few areas that could use some attention:

• The coin image in the infobox breaks the layout; I'd suggest removing it.
• The lead should be somewhat longer; two or three paragraphs is ideal.
• Given that the footnotes are not heavily repeated, I'd suggest doing away with the naming and using combined footnotes at each point in the text, to avoid long strings of successive note numbers.
• Footnotes should be placed consistently relative the closing punctuation; placing them after punctuation is preferred.
• I'd pull all the footnotes to the ends of sentences; the material is not so controversial as to require individual phrases to be cited, in my opinion.
• All images should have captions.
• The primary and secondary sources should be in a single "References" section; if splitting is desired—and I don't think it adds anything, personally—this can be done within that.

Keep up the good work! Kirill 20:25, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for everything! I tried to follow all suggestions with minor exceptions here and there (mostly for combined footnotes). I made the introduction longer (two paragraphs), is this what you meant by saying "The lead should be somewhat longer"? I removed the coin image but I think it would be nice to have it anyway, perhaps in a single row of the box (what do you think about the position and size of the coin image on Battle of Abrittus?). Dipa1965 (talk) 09:15, 22 March 2008 (UTC)

Geuiwogbil

Good work! I'll make comments as I go through the article:

• I don't think the image is showing up correctly: the caption reads "'Scythian' invasions of 250–251 AD". It's the same as on Battle of Abrittus, I believe, though it has the correct filename. Perhaps you should re-upload it? The March 12 version looks like the correct one. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:23, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Hello Geuiwogbil and thank you for the constructive comments! I fixed the image. I 'll respond one by one to the rest of your comments Dipa1965 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• "the troubled 3rd century". Would a link to Crisis of the Third Century be helpful? Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:28, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

It would be indeed. Originally, I thought of including it but I hesitated due to the rather mediocre quality of that article. But you are right, it is so strongly related to this one (Besides, I intend to work on the Crisis of the Third Century in the future). So I am now mentioning it in the lead. Dipa1965 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• I've made some tweaks in the "About the confusion of the primary sources" section, which I've renamed to "Sources" (hope you don't mind). I've added some details from Potter. "Each of these works provides an almost radically different interpretation." Does this sentence refer to the histories that make use of Dexippus (Zosimus, Zonaras, George, HA) or the works in which direct citations to him survive (HA, "ninth-century Byzantine collections of excerpts from earlier writers")? Are they making radically different interpretations of the "text" or of the "events"? Do you have a citation for the statement? I've made some assumptions and written up the sentence as "To make matters worse, the works making use of Dexippus provide an almost radically different interpretation of events." Do correct me if I'm wrong. I'm sorry if I introduced this confusion myself. :( Geuiwogbil (Talk) 19:52, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

I am happy with all modifications you made. The shorter title is better and the text is now much clearer. Now I will try to explain "Each of these works provides an almost radically different interpretation". It refers to the histories of Zosimus, Zonaras, Syngellus et al. We don't have the original Dexippan text (except for a few fragments) but, since each of the later historians and chronographers offered his own course of events (different dating, different sequence of invasions, different number of invasions, different targets, different results), scholars assume that either Dexippus' text was confusing or that they were not able to use it properly (or probably both). Even Gibbon understood the problem, blaming the historians. So I think that your modification was correct. The confusion is exposed indirectly in the next paragraph but I now added one more citation to D.S.Potter and John Bray about it. Bray also suspects (rather rightfully so) that they all also used a second (unknown) source which added to confusion, so I mentioned it. Dipa1965 (talk) 19:14, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

• Thanks! Who translated Herwig Wolfram's History of the Goths? It should be noted in the "References" section. Geuiwogbil (Talk) 23:10, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Done. Only a minor question left. Why putting "ndash" instead of a simple "-"? Ndash is neither shown as an option when one edits a page while the simple "-" and the larger "—" are. Dipa1965 (talk) 20:22, 18 April 2008 (UTC)

It's there, right before the mdash ("—") after "Insert:". I express it as "ndash" for the same reason I express the mdash as "mdash": because my keyboard doesn't have a key for it. Its use is mandated by Wikipedia's 'Manual of Style' at WP:MOSDASH. The ndash is required for "disjunction" (where it is used in "ranges" (pp. 211–19, 64–75%, the 1939–45 war, May–November) and "As a substitute for some uses of and, to or versus ((Canada–US border, blood–brain barrier, time–altitude graph, 4–3 win in the opening game, male–female ratio, 3–2 majority verdict, Michelson–Morley experiment, diode–transistor logic)), "negative signs and subtraction", and in "lists". Geuiwogbil (Talk) 00:41, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

• "Heruli leader Naulobatus came in terms with the Romans." Do we have details for the terms? Favorable? Unfavorable? Any characterization would be good.

There is now a WP Article on Naulobatus. The ancient sources (mostly from the Fourth Century and later) say very little about the terms of his treaty with the Emperor Gallienus. However, the granting of ornamenta consularia suggests that Naulobatus may have agreed to supply troops to fight in the Roman army. Gallienus tried this trick with the Franks and the Marcomanni as well. The army that Aurelian took to the East is known to have included large numbers of barbarians.Pjbjas2.101.200.104 (talk) 17:57, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• "In the past, this battle was identified with that of Naissus, but modern scholarship has rejected this view." This could use some detail, I feel. Why (on what evidence) has modern scholarship rejected this view? Who propounded the old view? Who supports the new view?

• "On the contrary, there is a theory that the victory at Nessos was so decisive that Claudius' efforts against Goths (including battle of Naissus) were no more than a mopping-up operation." How does this contrast with the previous sentence? (This should be elucidated in the text, since it seems like a jump from the preceding sentence at present.) Who supports this view and why? Does Potter provide an (positive, negative) evaluation of this theory?

The main proponent of the "One-Invasion" interpretation (Naissus only a mopping-up op) was Prof A. Alfoldi ('The invasions of peoples from the Rhine to the Black Sea': CAH XII, 1965). I think that Forgiari agrees with him, but it is not easy to follow his arguments. Those who incline to the two invasions theory (Naissus and the operations in Mons Haemus afterwards fairly decisive, but not an end to the "Gothic" menace) include Bray ('Gallienus: A study in reformist and sexual politics' - an unusually good read for a work of Roman History in my humble O!), Alaric Watson ('Aurelian and the Third Century' - ditto) and R.T. Saunders ('A biography of the Emperor Aurelian' - sound). The modern heavy-hitting classicist, Potter, does not deal with the issue directly, but seems to feel that Claudius won a significant victory against the 'Goths' (who he prefers to call "Skythae") in the eastern Balkans, but did not settle the issue. Perhaps the most interesting analysis in recent years is to be found in R. Batty ('Rome and the nomads: the Pontic-Danubian realm in antiquity').Pjbjas.2.101.200.104 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• "After his victory, Gallienus left Marcianus in place and hastily left for Italy, intending to suppress the revolt of his cavalry officer Aureolus." Marcianus who? What's he doing here? The reader hasn't been introduced to him at this point. Where's Aureolus revolting, and where's Gallienus going off to?

• "Gallienus was assassinated outside Milan in the summer of 268, in a plot led by high officers in his army." I've been tweaking this sentence because it sounds off, but prose is one of my weaknesses, so I'm probably worsening the issue. Some concerns, though: Why is he being assassinated? What led his high officers to be so dissatisfied with him to try to off him or usurp his title?

• "Claudius was proclaimed emperor and headed to Rome to establish his rule." Was Claudius there, in Milan? Was he an accomplice in the murder? Where was he?

• "After he defeated them in the Battle of Lake Benacus, he was finally able to take care of the invasions in the Balkan provinces."¶"In the meantime, the second and larger sea-borne invasion had started." The second sentence follows the first, but isn't the first referring to the events of the second? If it is, then it should be clarified as such: Claudius "turned his attention to new disturbances in the Balkan provinces". If not, then it should be made clear earlier on that the Balkans remained unstable in spite of Gallienus' campaign, and that Claudius is returning to clean up continuing instabilities.

• "The battle most likely took place in 269." Are there competing chronologies? (There are always competing chronologies in ancient history, aren't there? ;)) This could be an interesting point of dispute, even if the discussion was confined to a footnote.

• "an epidemic affected the entrapped Goths." Do we have scholarly speculation on what sort of epidemic it was? Does Zosimus say?

• "the battle did not entirely break the Gothic tribes' military strength." Can you cite instances of continued Gothic military strength in the text to demonstrate this point to the reader? A bit of the political history of the Goths following the battle (continuing effects, immediate effects, a change in foreign policy, no effect at all) would be interesting.

That the Romans of the day certainly felt that the Battle of Naissus and the subsequent campaign in Mons Haemus marked the point when they finally avenged Abrittus and the devastating raids into the Balkans and Asia Minor of the 250s-60s is evidenced by their giving Claudius the title Gothicus and voting him a gold shield to be hung in the Temple of Jupiter Optimus Maximus in Rome - this was long before Constantine adopted Claudius as a suitable illustrious ancestor in @ 312 AD. However, Claudius had to initiate campaigns against "Gothic" pirates in 270 AD - see Tenagino Probus and send an army to clear them from Pisidia/Pamphylia under Lucius Aurelius Marcianus. Aurelian conducted a successful campaign north of the Danube, but his decision to give the "Goths" free reign in Dacia was probably as important in keeping them quiet for a few years. Nevertheless, another "Gothic " horde from the Kuban steppe had to be dealt with in Cappadocia-Cilicia by Tacitus in 275-6. Despite the successes of Roman arms in the late-Second and Third Centuries the Gothic problem was never really resolved. Pjbjas. 2.101.200.104 (talk) 21:40, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

• "The psychological impact of this victory was so strong that Claudius became known to history afterwards as Claudius II Gothicus" Is this the only evidence of psychological impact? If there was a profound psychological impact, perhaps a more detailed account of that impact could be written?

• Some more background on why the invasions have taken place at all would be beneficial. What were the Goths' objectives? Plunder? Lebensraum? Specific land claims? Seasonal migration? A brief overview of the Goths' prior relationship with the Romans could help here.

• I feel that "The Gothic Invasions of 267–270" would work better as a subject for the article: so much content in the article is already on material surrounding the battle, and it looks like there's not much to be written about the battle itself. Your concerns about drawing attention are understandable, but, personally, I think that the proposed title (minus the "The", which I think is against our naming policy) would attract more eyes than a "Battle" article, which anyways misrepresents what this article contains. A "campaign" article would also provide a good opportunity to clarify the origins, background, and long-term effects of the campaign, which are a bit obscure in this version.

• Since there isn't much content as it stands, more discussion of the source material and related historiographic concerns would be a good supplement to the narrative. More detail would be useful in the second paragraph of the "Sources" section, for example. At the moment it isn't clear why these individuals hold such contrasting views. Provide the reader with some understanding of what the key points in the dispute are: what evidence is being used, what positions have been discredited, where have they been discredited, who is doing the argumentation? Since there's enough space for it, the specific primary sources used behind the narrative in the article could be cited and discussed. Are there competing claims made for the evidence at a particular point? Has a secondary source made any specific criticisms of the primary sources at a point where it might help in the analysis of the historical narrative? That sort of information is appealing to me, at least. :)

• Still, very good work. I feel like it could use a copy-edit, but I'm not very good at that sort of thing. Have you considered calling up a MilHist Copyeditor to give it a look-over? I think they could help. :) Geuiwogbil (Talk) 01:56, 19 April 2008 (UTC)

An impressive review! Since you also noticed it, it seems good to re-think the material on the basis of a campaign article. It will need a lot of work (e.g. addressing all the issues you mentioned) which I initially wanted to avoid in a battle article. The latter should be concise and narrative, the former would permit more analysis on the problematic nature of our sources. I will return on it later, when I will have available the entire books of John Bray and Alaric Watson. I have recently purchased the Barrington Atlas which will also help a little on the geography of the campaigns. Dipa1965 (talk) 05:07, 19 May 2008 (UTC)