Talk:Manuel Kamytzes/GA1
GA Review
[edit]| GA toolbox |
|---|
| Reviewing |
Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch
Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 20:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Will have a look through this one soon. Looks like an interesting figure in a turbulent time. Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ichthyovenator: Take your time, and be as thorough as you want :) Constantine ✍ 20:24, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
Questions/input
[edit]If Manuel in his only surviving seal only uses the surnames Kamytzes and Komnenodoukas, where does the name Angelos come from? I get that there is a family relation but was he called Manuel Kamytzes Komnenos Doukas Angelos in his own time or was the Angelos name applied to him by historians? I know for instance that Alexios III preferred to call himself Alexios Komnenos rather than Alexios Angelos.- Good point, added.
Is there any reasoning behind the idea that the Kamytzes family could be of Turkish origin?- It is not explicitly mentioned why, but it is the general phonology of it, most likely. "ts" and "tz" sounds are not native in Greek (hence there is no single letter to represent them in the Greek alphabet), so when they are seen, they are almost always foreign imports.
- Ah, gotcha. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- It is not explicitly mentioned why, but it is the general phonology of it, most likely. "ts" and "tz" sounds are not native in Greek (hence there is no single letter to represent them in the Greek alphabet), so when they are seen, they are almost always foreign imports.
When the Germans routed Kamytzes's forces in 1189, Kamytzes apparently did not rejoin his men until three days after being routed. Maybe I'm reading this wrong but the text seems to indicate that Kamytzes fled together with his men? "The Byzantines fled as far as Ohrid". Did Kamytzes flee separately from the rest of the fleeing soldiers?- Clarified
"While Isaac II and his brother Alexios commanded the main body", the Alexios here is Alexios III right? If that is the case, he should probably be linked here first, maybe with a note that he is the future emperor.- Done
It is a bit unclear to me why Alexios III f*cked over Kamytzes so hard. Do we know his explicit reasoning (fearing him as a possible contender for the throne?) or is this just another example of Alexios III making inexplicable and questionable decisions?- Choniates does not give any indication as to his reasoning (which is why I've deliberately quoted straight from him in these sections). Other than Alexios being an indolent, egocentric bastard (he deposed his own brother after all), I cannot offer an explanation. But IMO there doesn't have to be a 'real' rational reason, there are sadly too many examples of shitty, completely irresponsible and short-sighted behaviour among major political leaders even today... Let's face it, idiots exist.
- Oh totally, Alexios III was an ass through and through, just checking if there might have been some method in his madness. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Choniates does not give any indication as to his reasoning (which is why I've deliberately quoted straight from him in these sections). Other than Alexios being an indolent, egocentric bastard (he deposed his own brother after all), I cannot offer an explanation. But IMO there doesn't have to be a 'real' rational reason, there are sadly too many examples of shitty, completely irresponsible and short-sighted behaviour among major political leaders even today... Let's face it, idiots exist.
On what grounds does Varzos believe that the name of the daughter was Maria? Is there evidence that this was her name?- He does not say, but this is clearly because Manuel's mother was named Maria. Greeks have the custom, since antiquity, of naming their firstborn son after the father's father (papponymy) and their firstborn daughter correspondingly after his mother.
There are a lot of titles used throughout this article that most people are going to be unfamiliar with. Protostrator is explained well but others (sebastokrator, Caesar, despot, doux and parakoimomenos) are not explained at all. Might be good to briefly explain them so that the power dynamics between the different players here are made clear in the text.- Good point, I had a go at it.
- Looks good. Just saw that the office of Domestic of the West is also unexplained in the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Done
- Looks good. Just saw that the office of Domestic of the West is also unexplained in the text. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- Good point, I had a go at it.
"Purple-born" is unexplained in the text but I think what it means is quite widely known; might be nice to just include a quick "(born during her father's reign)" or something to that effect though.- Hmmm, I don't know; the point I want to make here is her high prestige, somehow I feel that explaining it diminishes that, as the 'technical' reason for the appellation is somewhat pedestrian. I'd have to include a whole footnote, that "children born during their father's reign received the honorific 'purple-born' which gave them exceptional prestige, associating them with dynastic legitimacy" or similar.
- Yeah, fair enough. The article is fine without a detailed explanation of what purple-born means (and it is clear from the text that it is obviously honorific). Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- Hmmm, I don't know; the point I want to make here is her high prestige, somehow I feel that explaining it diminishes that, as the 'technical' reason for the appellation is somewhat pedestrian. I'd have to include a whole footnote, that "children born during their father's reign received the honorific 'purple-born' which gave them exceptional prestige, associating them with dynastic legitimacy" or similar.
On Kamytzes 1196 attempted campaign against Ivanko; are there any more in-depth reasons why an army that seems to have been specifically assembled to attack the Bulgarians refused to risk a battle with the Bulgarians (or is it as simple as the soldiers just not wanting to fight)?- Clarified
Is there a known reason why it was Kamytzes's daughter in particular who was chosen to marry Chrysos in 1197 (despite already being married)?- It is not stated by Choniates, and Varzos does not speculate. I can make an educated guess that no other women of sufficient rank were available.
I assume Alexios III's brothers having been blinded by Andronikos II is an error since Emperor Andronikos II hadn't been born yet. This should be Andronikos I, right?- Indeed, corrected.
Alexios III got Chrysos to submit by offering him the hand of his granddaughter Theodora in marriage. Had Kamytzes's daughter died at this point or did Chrysos practice polygamy?- Good point, I forgot to add that Chrysos presumably divorced Kamytzes' daughter (per Varzos). Done now.
"Varzos suggests the possible name of Maria..." since Varzos is not introduced elsewhere in the text perhaps Varzos here should be Greek historian Konstantinos Varzos (or maybe that is unnecessary?).- No, it is a good suggestion, I had already introduced him previously in the text, but in the rewrites it got removed.
Overall a very well-written article. I think that it is really interesting to read about intrigue and personal relations so long ago. This is probably the first time I've read about a Byzantine revolt not being aimed at taking the throne. One can hardly blame Kamytzes for revolting out of revenge when 15 years of faithful imperial service were repaid by being left to rot away in a prison cell, having your property confiscated and your family imprisoned. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ichthyovenator: Indeed, his life is a perfect snapshot of just how terrible the Angelos emperors, and especially Alexios III, actually were. Choniates may exaggerate a bit here and there since he writes with the benefit (and post-1204 bitterness) of hindsight, but there is no doubt that he narrates the events truthfully.
- Is there anything else? Anything left unclear, or where more detail might be warranted? I intend to push this on up to FA, so any criticism, even beyond the scope of a GA review, is more than welcome. Constantine ✍ 16:06, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: I've read through the article from start to finish again and added a little more above, but overall this is very good (everything I've found have really been nitpicks) and on top of that also quite captivating, should be no problem pushing this up to FA later. Will read through it again one last time just in case after you've responded to the new stuff. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
- @Ichthyovenator: Thanks again for the thorough review. Your comments have been addressed, I think. Looking forward to your replies and the final pass :) Constantine ✍ 10:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: I've read through it for the third time now; the article reads well and there is nothing that I feel needs to be explained better or elaborated upon. Again, good work on this! Thoroughly enjoyed learning about this figure. Passing now :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:32, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Ichthyovenator: Thanks again for the thorough review. Your comments have been addressed, I think. Looking forward to your replies and the final pass :) Constantine ✍ 10:23, 1 August 2020 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: I've read through the article from start to finish again and added a little more above, but overall this is very good (everything I've found have really been nitpicks) and on top of that also quite captivating, should be no problem pushing this up to FA later. Will read through it again one last time just in case after you've responded to the new stuff. Ichthyovenator (talk) 19:35, 30 July 2020 (UTC)