Talk:Siege of Constantinople (717–718)

Merger

I don't think this should be merged with "Battle Before Constantinople". The other article appears to have been created by a Bulgarian nationalist and it merely copies segments of my article (poorly), adds nothing new to the discussion and has no sources. In my opinion it should just be deleted.

Forthcoming anniversary ("tredecicentennial")

It will be the 1300th anniversary of the lifting of the siege in about two months and a half. This ought to merit mention on Wikipedia's front page. (Note that the fall of Constantinople to the Turks is mentioned today.)—VAN-ST (talk) 17:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)

"Decisive Byzantine victory" or "Decisive Byzantine-Bulgar victory" ?

My view is clear: "It was a Byzantine victory rather than a Byzantine-Bulgar victory. True that the Bulgars played a crucial role on land, but they were there as a sort of independent auxilaries, and fought (mostly) on byzantine territory"

I think it is misleading to put "Bulgar" because it is giving an impression that the Ummayads intented to conquer both Bulgaria and Constantinople, which is not true at all.

Furthermore, out of these 10-12 academic secondary sources I have consulted, none of them state that it was a byzantine-Bulgar victory. They are only saying that Bulgars played a crucial role on lands in that Byzantine victory, but they never call it a "Byzantine-Bulgar" victory.

"Decisive Byzantine victory" sounds the most logical to me.

What do other editors think?

En historiker (talk) 03:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I agree. As explained in the article body, the role of the Bulgars is unclear, i.e., whether they acted as allies of the Byzantines, or whether they attacked independently. The only source to imply a full-blown Byzantine–Bulgar alliance is Michael the Syrian, who wrote much later. Besides, the Bulgar attacks did not change the outcome: the main focus and events of the siege were at and around Constantinople, namely the defeat of the Arab fleets, and the inability of the Arab army to breach the walls. Modern Bulgarian nationalist historiography naturally exalts the role of Tervel and even ascribes him the title "Saviour of Europe" (as is reflected in the various edits by IPs or throw-away accounts that pop up here regularly, e.g. [1]), but a clear and dispassionate reading of the sources shows that the plaudits are due to Leo the Isaurian. Constantine ✍ 09:21, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

PS. for at least the last year, the only edits to this article have been vandalism of one kind or another (mostly the Bulgarian nationalist kind). I think a permanent semi-protection of this page might be in order. Constantine ✍ 09:33, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

PS2 the reasons for the Arab defeat, according to scholars, are listed in the "Historical assessment and impact" section. Inevitably, they focus on a) logistical concerns, b) the inability to blockade the city completely due to Greek fire, which coupled with the strength of its walls had already doomed the 674 siege, c) Leo's diplomatic skills, which are universally highlighted by the Arab sources. Now of course this plays to the "devious/perfidious enemy" trope, but still... The Bulgars played a role, definitely, but it is unclear what that was: as allies of the Byzantines (13th-century source), or because the Arabs strayed into their territory (9th-century). Theophanes writes of 22,000 Arabs killed in a single battle, but such numbers are always suspect in medieval sources. Furthermore, even following Theophanes, the Bulgar victory came after the siege had effectively been decided: the moment Constantinople was safe from the sea, it could no longer be taken, as shown by pretty much every other siege of Constantinople, including the successful ones of 1204 and 1453.

The target of the Arab attack was not to invade Byzantium and Bulgaria, it was to capture Constantinople and thus the nerve centre of the Byzantine Empire. That was the main enemy and objective. Bulgaria was not threatened and involved except indirectly, and its participation reflects that, in the same way that in the Byzantine–Bulgarian war of 894–896, it was a Bulgarian victory because it was about Bulgaria, not about the Pechenegs, even though their role was (arguably even more) crucial. Constantine ✍ 13:45, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

We should have a better image for the infobox

Why hello there, my name is Sir Flemeingtonz, and I would like to humbly request that we change the infobox’s image of the article from a boring diagram with little to do with the siege, to something more interesting. A few suggestions could be a miniature of the siege from an illunimated manuscript, or artwork of the siege, ect. This equally applies for the Siege of Constantinople (674–678). Thank you and have a good day, SirFlemeingtonz (talk) 23:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Sir Flemeingtonz

two sided

It is funny that Western historians have no problem estimating the Arab army with 200,000 men and 5,000 ships in this battle because the Byzantines were the ones who won, but they cry like children when they estimate the Yarmouk army. I have an Arab source that mentions that Jund al-Sham did not exceed 30,000 soldiers accompanied by a force of 20,000 Mujahideen in this siege But who cares about a source written by a brown-skinned person? Romeo778 (talk) 20:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)

OK. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:03, 24 November 2021 (UTC)

I'm the person who originally created this article during a college project, back when I only had a handful of Greek chroniclers to read from, and I have been consistently amazed and impressed by the contribution of Arab and Muslim historians to correct this article and flush out the details. I wish I had access to their books when I made this page. Bbcrackmonkey (talk) 21:31, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

@Bbcrackmonkey: The sheer scale of resources that have become available online since then, many for free, is truly astonishing, even just in the last few years (which I suppose I am more qualified to speak on, given I was four years old when the article was first written). Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:48, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Because the Umayyad Caliphate kept such meticulous records I knew there had to be Arabian sources who commented on this military campaign. I wanted them for my project so I could present the Greek, Bulgar, and Arab sides all respectively and equally. From the very beginning there were serious questions about the strength of the Arab army and the article has been edited with higher quality sources through the years to give a more accurate picture. Bbcrackmonkey (talk) 21:04, 17 January 2023 (UTC)