Talk:Battle of Antioch on the Meander

Military history: Asian / Roman & Byzantine / Medieval / Early Muslim

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion not met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Asian military history task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)
	Early Muslim military history task force (c. 600 – c. 1600)

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Turkey Low‑importance

	Turkey portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Turkey, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Turkey and related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.TurkeyWikipedia:WikiProject TurkeyTemplate:WikiProject TurkeyTurkey articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Name change

As the "First Battle Of Meander Valley" has had its name changed, this battle should be changed to the "Battle of The Meander Valley" as there is no longer a first for it to be second to.

Urselius (talk) 11:54, 12 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Meander and Antioch of Psidia

There is an error in the geography of this article. Antioch of Psidia is at present Yalvaç in Ιsparta province of Turkey. Meander is at present Büyük Menderes River. The Valley of Büyük Menderes River never gets near Yalvaç which is much more miles and miles easterly than the source of Büyük Menderes River. There is whole series of mountains and a big lake, Lake Eğirdir, between Yalvaç (Antioch of Psidia) and Büyük Menderes valley. Anybody with knowledge of geography or history should not make this material error. What worries me is that if the writer gets the basic material fact (the location of a supposed battle), wrong, what else has he got right!!!! This article definitely requires an expert opinion at least by a person who has knowledge of terrain of and real history (not a made-up one) of Turkey. 88.106.218.10 (talk) 22:04, 3 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There is some confusion with the geography, but everything else in this article is not in such heavy detail that it casts doubt; so calm yourself. Tourskin (talk) 01:48, 4 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

What you have to ask yourself is were there any sizeable settlements between Antioch and the site of the battle? If not then the description 'in the Meander Valley near Antioch' is valid. The major Ancient and Medieval settlement in the Meander valley was Laodicea (actually on the Lycus river where it entered the Meander valley) if the site of the battle was nearer Antioch than Laodicea then, despite Antioch not being actually in the valley, it would be the nearest major town and a useful point of reference. In "Ramsay, W. M., Antiquities of Southern Phrygia and the Border Lands (I) The American Journal of Archaeology and of the History of the Fine Arts, Vol. 3, No. 3/4 (Dec., 1887), p. 346" the author talks of a bridge over the Meander River in Roman times as being near Antioch. Mark C. Bartusis in his book "The Late Byzantine Army" also places Theodore's victory at Antioch and the Meander Valley (p. 22). Urselius (talk) 12:37, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Just worked it out there was another Antioch, smaller than Antioch in Pisidia, called Antioch-on-the-Meander (famous as the birthplace of the sculptor of the Venus de Milo) near a place called 'Yeni Shehr' at some time. Urselius (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Because this battle is a Greek victory against Turks, it is naturally a frustrating issue for many with a Turkish Nationalistic Agenda, like the User above who is trying to link the article's lack of geographical accuracy with the accuracy of the entire battle.Tourskin (talk) 23:07, 5 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have only now noticed this exchange: I have much experience of nationalist editors, both Turkish and Greek. The anonymous editor above does not seem to me interested in pushing some pernicious "Turkish Nationalistic Agenda" but in correcting a geographical error in the article. I would caution you to assume good faith, particularly when at least one article in this series has been deleted as "made-up" history and several others have been called into question [1] [2].

Incidentally Antioch on the Maeander has a stub, and the title of this article, whether it be Second Battle of the Meander Valley or just Battle of the Meander Valley or even "also known as the Battle of Antioch-on-the-Meander" is made-up. The article contains little substantive information on the battle itself beyond the death of Kaykhusraw I. While I do not question the background information provided, there is little here to inspire trust. Aramgar (talk) 00:58, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Battle of Alaşehir

The importance to the Seljuks of burial in the tomb tower in Konya is well known, and is graphically illustrated by the care taken to reinter the body of Giyaseddin Keyhusrev in Konya after he was killed by the troops of Theodore Lascaris after the battle of Alaşehir. Source: Redford, Scott (1991). "The Alaeddin Mosque in Konya Reconsidered". Artibus Asiae. 51 (1/2). Zürich: Artibus Asiae Publishers: 54–74. doi:10.2307/3249676. ISSN 0004-3648. JSTOR 3249676..

Scott Redford refers to the so-called Second Battle of the Meander Valley as the "battle of Alaşehir". Alaşehir is the medieval Philadelphia, the last significant Byzantine possession in Anatolia. Please consider moving the article to Battle of Alaşehir. This name appears in at least one reputable publication which cannot be said for the present title. Aramgar (talk) 01:11, 29 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The New Cambridge Medieval History By Rosamond McKitterick, David Abulafia, Timothy Reuter, C. T. Allmand: page 547, describes the battle as being "at the border town of Antioch on the Meander". Also:Encyclopedia of the Middle Ages By Andre Vauchez, Richard Barrie Dobson, Michael Lapidge, Adrian Walford, p. 1014 "victory in 1211 at Antioch on the Meander". Plus: The Late Byzantine Army By Mark C. Bartusis, p.22, "Theodore defeated the Sejuks at the Battle of Antioch on the Meander,...".

The battle should have its name changed to "Battle of Antioch on the Meander", with notes concerning alternate nomenclature. I would weigh against the use of "Alaşehir" as a primary title because this is the Anglophone Wikipedia and the name is not commonly found in English language publications, and the geography of Asia Minor is generally better known in English speaking countries by Classical names, for good or ill, rather than their modern Turkish equivalents.Urselius (talk) 16:49, 27 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the article ought to be moved to Battle of Antioch on the Meander now that we have a source for that name. Hitherto "Battle of Alaşehir" was the only name for which we had evidence in the secondary literature. The names Battle of the Meander Valley and Second Battle of the Meander Valley remain unattested. Thank you for looking into it. Aramgar (talk) 21:53, 28 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"Stabbed to the heart"

For all the people who think that the phrase "stabbed to the heart" used in the article is wrong and want to change it to "stabbed in the heart" please read this.

The construction "stabbed to the heart" is perfectly good English and it is more accurate than the alternative. It has been used by Charles Dickens and Mark Twain on a number of occasions and is found in several translations into English of the Bible.

As a clincher it is also used in contemporary legal English viz: From Evidence to Practice in the United States, the United Kingdom, and Canada Jonathan Lomas, Jane E. Sisk and Barbara Stocking The Milbank Quarterly Vol. 71, No. 3, 1993 pp. 405-410 “The mere knowledge of a fact is pale; but when you come to realize a fact, it takes on color. It is all the difference of hearing of a man being stabbed to the heart, ...”

Further, the phrase stabbed in the heart suggests that the heart is a visible target for a swordsman, like the head or throat, chest, abdomen etc. Anyone aiming a sword thrust at the head and hitting the target would be said to have hit his enemy in the head. However, the heart is hidden, and within the body, so it cannot really be aimed at as the blow could be stopped by the ribs or sternum or be deflected. Therefore the construction "stabbed to the heart" is more accurate, as the swordsman stabbed the enemy in the chest but the blow penetrated to the heart.Urselius (talk) 09:01, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

In your example of the sword wound, I'd say a blow 'to the head' actually sounds better than 'in the head', unless you're describing penetration. Further, it's common knowledge roughly where in the human body the heart is, and can accordingly be aimed at. The construction 'stabbed in the heart' naturally suggests the heart has been succesfully penetrated; as in the death mentioned in this article. If such a blow was deflected, or had missed...well then it can be said one was 'stabbed to the heart'. The legitimacy of the construct 'stabbed to the heart' was never challenged, it's place in an article written in plain, simple English, was. This is, after all, Wikipedia; not a text from Dickens, Twain, or the Bible. The inclusion of such an archaism detracts from the flow of the article. 62.255.91.238 (talk) 18:47, 28 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Blow in the context of swordplay would imply a cut, rather than a thrust. "Stabbed to the head" would not work as a phrase.

Did you not see the reference to the phrase "stabbed to the heart" being used in 1993, some years after the death of Dickens, in a legal context? This would make your argument about Dickensian language irrelevant.

I can just get the page locked so that unregistered users cannot make changes.Urselius (talk) 09:01, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have altered the wording in the article making the whole dispute irrelevant. I really appreciate working on articles to have people then tweak them to no constructive effect - WARNING! heavy irony in use.Urselius (talk) 13:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you 62.255.91.238 (talk) 20:02, 29 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]