Talk:Basiliscus

The coin

Odoacer article says this coin celebrates Zeno.--213.141.142.41 13:14, 18 March 2007 (UTC)

Roman, Eastern Roman, or Byzantine?

Is it apt to refer to Basiliscus as a Byzantine Emperor? I realize the dividing line is somewhat arbitrary, and open to debate, but wherein the Western Roman Empire did not fall until after Basiliscus became emperor in the east, does this not make him still at least an Eastern Roman Emperor by modern description? Hiberniantears 18:04, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Hiberniantears' excellent point. 19:06, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

Supposed picture of Ayasofya

I am deleting the picture given of Ayasofya (present name of Hagia Sophia) because it is totally inappropriate for this article. The photo given is of doubtful imagination; just a photo reconstructed by eliminating the minarets. It does not depict the real Ayasofya as it exists at present. It does not represent the Ayasofya reconstructed by Justinian either. It had undergone many repairs after repeated earthquake damage (at 552, 859, 994, 1317 etc.) Especially the buttresses shown on the imaginary photo were added in 1317. Thus, it definitely is not in the shape of the cathedral, which was constructed by the architect Rufinius during the reign of Arcadius at 415 in shape of a basilica with a wooden roof, which was the Hagia Sophia that Basiliscus took refugee in.Noyder (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Basiliscus. 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/20060818172605/http://www.earlychristianwritings.com:80/fathers/zachariah05.htm to http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/zachariah05.htm

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 02:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Basiliscus. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.earlychristianwritings.com/fathers/zachariah05.htm
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060822010105/http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/index.html to http://www.ancientlibrary.com/smith-bio/index.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

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: 5 June 2024).

• 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) 23:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

10,000 ships! 100,000 soldiers! needs better sourcing for realistic numbers

Smith wrote in 1870 and gives credence to the ancient sources, much like Will Durant did. The other ref is the DIR website - which is not bad but is just an amateur site. Modern reference works, which reflect the actual capacity of the East-Roman Empire at this time, should be used. I am away from my private library for the immediate future, but I'm sure others would kick in to re-align this portion of the operation against the Vandals. Yes, it was a large military operation, but not in those numbers - I've tagged the statement accordingly. 50.111.10.215 (talk) 07:29, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

On this day

This article was slated to appear in OTD for 9 Jan (tomorrow) with the blurb:

• 475 – Basiliscus became Byzantine Emperor after Zeno was forced to flee Constantinople.

But it was pointed out that this is not sourced in the article (which appears to source only his coronation a few days later), and it has been removed, which is a pity as dates outside 19th–21st centuries are scarce. Can anyone help out here? Regards, Espresso Addict (talk) 08:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)

Nuking article

Just to make anyone who watches this article aware, I plan to totally rewrite this article within my userspace, before nuking the article, as it's currently quite a big mess, and would not survive a FAR. At this point, getting out content whose source is lost/unreliable would be harder at this point than for me to just totally rewrite it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:49, 2 October 2021 (UTC)

Review for URFA/2020

I was asked here to do a review of this article. As I read through the article, I conducted a copyedit with various changes. I might have inadvertently changed the meaning of sentences, so please revert and note below so I can learn more about what is needed for this article. General comments and questions are below; to keep this organised, please post under the bullet point that you are responding to.

• "only leaving once his sister, Empress Verina, secured him a pardon." Who was a pardon secured from? This is also not clear in the article text.
•  Fixed
• "as well as her nephew Armatus" who is the "her" in this sentence?
•  Fixed
• The lede is quite long: after reading the whole article I might try to reduce this length, although I encourage more knowledgable editors to make an attempt first.

  I'll take a look at it.

• "Leo rose to the throne in 457" Which throne?
•  Fixed
• ", much as he had selected Marcian himself." Why is it important for the reader to know this in Basiliscus's biography? If it's not important, delete it.

  It is important for understanding Aspar's role.

• "and wielded significant power over Marcian and then Leo." Why is it important in this biography to mention Marcian here? I get the impression that Basiliscus was not important during Marcian's reign.

  Same answer.

• "Historian Peter Heather points out that, at this point, Basiliscus had just returned from considerable success on the Balkan frontier of the empire." Why is this important? I feel like this is implying something that should be outright stated.

  It's stating that he points out that Basiliscus had shown himself a competent general; Heather doesn't explicitly say "the argument that Aspar picked him because he sucked doesn't make sense", so I can't put it in the article, unfortunately.

• "was not blocked off by chain" What does "blocked off by chain" mean?

  Clarified.

Unfortunately, I have to depart, but I got halfway through "Military career" and will continue this later. Z1720 (talk) 01:03, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Later has arrived:

• "and held it till 467/478;" These are big differences in numbers, perhaps there should be a note to explain why there's a nine-year gap between when he might have relinquished the role

  Typo on my behalf, was meant to be 467/468.

• " and surprise, with half of it being destroyed" What is meant here by surprise?

  They were surprised.

• "but Marcellinus was assassinated" Who assassinated him?

  Added

• "When anti-German sentiment rose up, Aspar and Leo fought," What did they fight about?
•  Fixed
• "Theodoric Strabo attempted to avenge Aspar, laying siege to the Thracian cities of Arcadiopolis and Philipopolis. He was prevented from entering Constantinople by Basiliscus and Zeno and forced into peace negotiations." How does this relate to Basiliscus, and is it necessary for a reader to know this to understand Basiliscus's biography?

  I think so yes. For one, it explains an action he took (protecting Constantinople), and gives more context to who Theodoric Strabo is. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• The "Rise to power" takes almost 2 paragraphs before Basiliscus is mentioned. I think a lot of this can be trimmed down to the most important information that directly pertains to Basiliscus. Other information should be moved to other articles or deleted.

  Disagree, to be honest. It gives a fuller view of the context of his reign. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

• Although Zeno kept his promise to have Armatus made magister militum praesentalis, and his son crowned caesar, he soon had Armatus killed by Onoulphus, and subsequently seized his property and forced his son into the priesthood. While this is interesting information, I don't think it pertains to Basiliscus and thus should be moved to a different article.
•  Fixed
• "By then he was persuaded by him to attack the tenets of Chalcedonianism" Who are "he" and "him" referring to?
•  Fixed
• Why is the "In popular culture" section a level 3 heading in the Reign section?
•  Fixed
• Any additional information about his legacy? Any statues of him, streets, locations, or other depictions of him? The "In popular culture" section seems very small.

  That's all I could find. He didn't rule for long, and no one thought back on him particularly fondly.

• The Reign and Religious policies sections have multiple cases of WP:CITEKILL. This is an essay, so this is not required for keeping this article's FA star. However, it might be worth considering if four or five citations for a sentence are necessary, and if some of the references can be removed. In other cases, perhaps we can WP:CITEBUNDLE to make the text easier for readers to read, which is the point of Wikipedia.

  I shall consider bundling. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

That's it for my first readthrough. Please ping when the above have been responded to. Z1720 (talk) 21:50, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Responded. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:03, 10 October 2021 (UTC)

I reviewed the lede. Here are some places that I think can be cut. I am making these recommendations because the lede is longer than I would like:

• "When Emperor Leo died in 474, his grandson Emperor Leo II (r. 474) took power, but soon died; his father," Not sure if the intricacies of who is emperor is important for the lede.
• I'll keep this one for transitioning.
• "This plot was supported by Theoderic Strabo (who was angered by Zeno's coronation) and Basiliscus," & "Soon after he alienated Theoderic Strabo by elevating Armatus to magister militum praesentalis." The lede doesn't really explain who Strabo is, so I think both references to him can be deleted.
•  Done
• "Basiliscus commanded an army of more than 100,000 men for an invasion of the Vandal Kingdom" -> Basiliscus commanded an army for an invasion of the Vandal Kingdom... I'm not sure that the exact number is necessary here, and this detail can be discovered later in the text.
•  Done
• "and soon had his son, Marcus made caesar, his wife, Zenonis, made augusta, and" Marcus and Zenonis are not mentioned again in the lede, so I am not sure if this detail is important for the lede.
•  Done

Let me know what you think of these cuts. Z1720 (talk) 02:12, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

@Z1720: Done all but the Leo I and II. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:07, 12 October 2021 (UTC)

Additional questions. Most of these have to do with adding something in the text about who the people cited in the article are, and can probably be fixed with adding "historian" in front of the person's name. (Although alternatives would be nice, as there's a lot of people whose credentials have to be established).

• "this argument has been opposed by Wolfram Brandes and Hugh Elton." Who are Brandes and Elton?
•  Done
• "Gerard Friell and Stephen Williams dismiss this" Who are these people?
•  Done
• "According to Michael Kulikowski, Friell, and Williams" Who is this person? Perhaps "According to historians Michael Kulikowski, Friell, and Williams"?
•  Done
• "L. M. Whitby suggests this may have" Who is this person?
•  Done
• "Bury and Ernst Stein suggest" -> "Historians Bury and Ernst Stein"?
•  Done
• " and Ernest Walter Brooks suggest the Isaurian" -> and Ernest Walter Brooks, historian and scholar of the Syriac language, suggest the Isaurian"?
•  Done
• "Kamilla Twardowska and W. D. Burgess" Who are they?
•  Done
• "Mirosław Leszka attributes the action to" Who is this?
•  Done
• "John Malalas states that" -> "Byzantine chronicler John Malalas states that"?
•  Done
• "Maciej Salamon has argued that" Who is this?
•  Done
• "Jason Osequeda posits" Who is this?
•  Done
• " Richard Price argues" -> "Philosopher Richard Price"?
•  Done
• "Warren Treadgold argues for a figure of 400,000 total men, as given by John the Lydian," -> "Historian Warren Treadgold argues for a figure of 400,000 total men, as given by Byzantine administrator John the Lydian in the time," ?
•  Done

@Z1720: Done all, tried to introduce variety where possible. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Other than the credentials issue mentioned above, I think this article is ready to be declared "Satisfactory" Z1720 (talk) 02:08, 14 October 2021 (UTC)

"He utilized the support of the Isaurians, marrying the Isaurian chieftain Zeno (r. 474–475, 476–491) to his daughter Ariadne, in exchange for support." - The link to Ariadne doesn't seem to be the right one. Hog Farm _Talk 23:21, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

@Hog Farm: fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:25, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

• @Z1720 and Hog Farm: do you think the article now meets standards satisfactorily? If both of you do, the article is then, as I understand it, ready to be moved to the no FAR required section on the URFA page, with three satisfactories. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:13, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I made some minor tweaks, but I think it's Satisfactory and marked it as so at URFA/2020. Z1720 (talk) 23:54, 19 October 2021 (UTC)
  • I will mark so as well. Hog Farm _Talk 02:41, 20 October 2021 (UTC)

Marcus

If Marcus was co-emperor shouldn't this be marked in the lead and infobox? Marcus's own article has the latter (and he is included in the emperors nav box), but I don't know the protocol (or full context) for these sorts of things. Aza24 (talk) 06:04, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24: I've added it to the infobox; not sure his co-emperorship is important enough for the lede though. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:30, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Fair enough—you've done a marvelous job (as usual) restoring this article, by the way. Aza24 (talk) 19:29, 22 October 2021 (UTC)

Source of the map

What's our reference for File:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png? I found these sources:

• Muir, Ramsay, and George Philip. Philips’ Historical Atlas: Mediæval and Modern. 6th ed., George Philip & Son, Ltd., 1927.: similar but not identical (esp. Gepidae and Scotland).
• Public Schools Historical Atlas by C. Colbeck, 1905: not exactly the same date. Again, similar but not identical.

@GPinkerton said on Commons:File talk:Europe and the Near East at 476 AD.png: "The area marked "Picts" is too far south; the Picts' territory was to the north of the Clyde-Forth line." The above sources agree on this. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 08:21, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Pinging @Jimfbleak as this article is scheduled for TFA in January 2023. a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 09:24, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

@A455bcd9 and GPinkerton: The map is useful but not essential, and unless there is a major problem with the text (I couldn't see anything obvious}, I'd be prepared to cut the map and run it without. Is there any reasonable prospect of either attributing the current map or finding a suitable replacement? I imagine that there musty be a few Roman Empire maps out there, but not my area of expertise Jimfbleak - talk to me? 09:35, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I agree @Jimfbleak. Other options:

• Upload one of the above maps if PD (or find another PD map) and replace the current map
• Ask for a new SVG map in the Wikipedia:Graphics_Lab/Map_workshop based on one of the above maps

a455bcd9 (Antoine) (talk) 11:01, 13 December 2022 (UTC)