Talk:Siege of Constantinople (717–718)/Archive 1

Archive 1

Contemporary Sources

Can we get better reference details a general rewrite of this section, it is just a copy paste as of now which doesn't cut it for wiki.--Tigeroo 06:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for Expansion

We need to expand the related Siege of Constantinople (674) article. Thanks for any help! Grimhelm 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Fixed infobox reference to "Roman Empire"

This battle involved the Byzantine Empire, not the "Roman (Byzantine) Empire." If the nomenclature needed to be revised at all, it would be to "Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire." Dppowell 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

They are one and the same. Roydosan 14:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Roydosan, I agree with you that the so-called "Byzantine Empire" is indeed the legitimate successor to the Roman Empire and I am well aware that it regarded itself as the unbroken continuation of the Roman Empire, albeit with Greek, Armenian, and later Slavic influences instead of Latin. I am also well aware of how the word "Byzantine" came into being and how the denizens of Constantinople would never call themselves "Byzantines". Unfortunately the word has become part of the common nomenclature in order to separate the Western and Eastern Roman Empires as well as to avoid confusion with the "Holy Roman Empire". Because this word is part of the common nomenclature and vernacular, Byzantine must be used when describing this great civilization. Just as the Hellenes are called Greeks, and Nippon is called Japan, so must the Eastern Roman Empire be called the Byzantine Empire. Your edits to change the wording, while noble, are misguided and I would appreciate it if you left my particular article out of your personal crusade. Take the issue up with the Byzantine Empire article itself please. Bbcrackmonkey 08:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Casualties

Somebody edited the casualties of the Arabs to only be 80,000. I have reverted it back to what it previously was, since this person only has 2 edits in their history, both of them having to do with 8th century Arab battles, and since 80,000 was merely the number of Arab soldiers that Maslama took with him across Anatolia initially. It doesn't account for the troops landed in the Arab war galleys by sea, the reinforcements, and the sailors, nearly all of whom perished. I've left up R.G. Grant's estimates.--bbcrackmonkey

This may sound stupid but I have a book, a well respected book about battles throughout Human history and unless my eyes are bad, I saw 130,000 - 110,000 casualties. So I agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Could you please name that book so we can use it as a source in this article? Thanks. --Grimhelm 10:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

HagermanBot is almost certainly talking about "Battle: A Visual Journey Through 5,000 Years of Combat", by R.G. Grant, which is already listed as a source at the bottom of the article. It was actually that book which inspired me to create this article in the first place. There are probably several other battles in the book which I can create stubs on. What I really want is to find out where that person got the stub from Michael of Syria from. Bbcrackmonkey 00:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have that book too! Its awesome. Tourskin 19:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Bulgarian Aid

I agree with the idea that the Bulgars did not want Constantinople to fall for their own conquest of the city. But another important reason is that Byzantine had the sufficient resources to bribe the Bulgars into action. This is stated in Previte Orton's "Outlines of Medival hitory". I also wouldn't mind an endnote on the quote you use in the paragraph so i can reference in the future. --Whiskey Blues123 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to edit in the relevant information if it is accurate, as well as include the source of "Outlines of Medieval History" at the bottom of the article. Bbcrackmonkey 07:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

Hey Roydosan

I'm not going to bother reverting your edits. The Byzantines were called Romans anyways, and I'm not going to be a Nazi about formatting the nomenclature. It's still historically accurate to refer to them as Romans and I don't think it detracts from the article at all to add in that one tidbit so I'm giving you a pass. Bbcrackmonkey 09:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

The Caliphs

John Julius Norwich states that the commander of the fleet was named Suleiman, and apparently the Caliph Suleiman was the guy who initially launched the siege. In "A Brief History of Byzantium" Norwich also states that the admiral Suleiman died during the siege, and Caliph Suleiman's wikipedia entry states that he died en-route to attack the Byzantine Empire in 717. Could they be the same person? Caliph Suleiman was actually Maslama's brother, and it seems like he was the one who launched the siege and Caliph Umar II simply picked up where he left off.

I have the same book but never noticed. I dunno let me check.Tourskin 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Strength of Arab army ?

Dont tell me that any general can handle 200,000 army ! it was not a picnic okey...... the strength of Muslim army has been greatly exaggrated .. more over there is no refference that what the muslims sources says about there army strength, i am gonna find some suitable reference and will gonna edit this strength stuff.

Mohammad Adil 18:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol here we are!! Nice to meet you around here too!!

This source gives an estimate of 200,000 men. Yes, like I said as well, thats a lot of men to keep together and to fight. But that might explain why they lost, since in the winter the Arabs lost many men due to starvation (not enough provisions) and cold. This reference says 200,000 men took part on the Arab side:

Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley. pp. p. 74. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

This reference confirms the Arab land army of 80,000 men and 1,800 ships arriving as well making total number of men on the Arab side 200,000:

Norwich, John Julius (1997). A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Vintage Books. pp. p. 110. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

Thsi reference says that the Caliph had 120,000 men and 1,800 ships sent and then another reinforcing army from Egypt was sent so that could have made a total of 200,000 men as well. Either way, the Arabs seemed to have at least 100,000 men:

Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford UP. pp. p. 138. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help)

In view of this, the numbers should say 200,000 total including 80,000 combatants and 1,800 ships. A large army that suffered from starvation and cold. Tourskin 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All the sources I could find provided the Arab strength as being around 200,000 men. Considering the fact that the Umayyad Caliphate was MASSIVE and it was pouring a gigantic chunk of its military into attacking the most heavily fortified city on earth and the capital city of its most bitter enemy at the time, I have no reason to doubt the sources. A lot of them might have been sailors but those sailors still might have been combatants in sorties against the Byzantine navy. You'll notice that the Turks later completely bypassed Constantinople and simply took the area around it for many years and finally assaulted it in 1453 with 80,000 to 200,000 men, the exact same numbers we're working with in this article. I actually wrote quite a large research essay on the topic for a history class claiming that the same Arab army under Maslama should have been used to pacify Anatolia instead of being thrown at an impregnable city. They might very well have succeeded in taking Constantinople if it had not been for a number of factors, such as the horrible winter, their supplies being cut off, the death of their Caliph trying to lead a relief expedition and the help of fresh Bulgarian soldiers.

Bbcrackmonkey (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

• again 200,000 troops are unrealistically and sinfully high, it isnt about caliphate was MASSIVE or some thing its about logistical capabilities of tht era, they could not provide a large gathering of 200,000 men with food and necessary equipment when they were thousands of miles away from their closest logistic base (which was in Tarsus). The size 200,000 is been taken from the primary sources and some scholars have quoted it uncritically in their modern works (West-east bias or any thing god knowns), mean while almost all the academic scholars avoid estimating any specific numbers for the muslim troops besieging the city. I am no scholar but my personal estimates (due to my own research on the early islamic conquests) ranges from maximum of 80,000-100,000 men. dont know about non-combatants but they most probably had arrived on island 80 miles from constantinopole during winter as according to early islamic military doctrines they use to avoid taking non combatants (including women n childern) to what they use to call a "far away" region. 700 years later in 1453, Mehmet II is estimated to have maximum 80,000 men (See David nicole's fall of byzantium).

For the time being, to keep the neutrality, i have replaced the numbers by some thing i think quite satisfactory in the absence of any Modern estimates. I am searching for some modern estimates meanwhile. Comments please.... regards

• david nicolle in the armies of muslim conquest at page 15 says tht the size is highly exaggrated.

الله أكبرMohammad Adil 12:43, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Constantinople (717–718)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Canadian Paul (talk · contribs) 15:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

I'll be reviewing this article in the near future, hopefully later tonight. There don't seem to be any obvious reasons for a quick-fail, so I should be set to go! Per the toolbox at the side, there are two disambiguation links in the article, and resolving them may help my review of the article. Canadian Paul 15:33, 21 June 2012 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)

1. It is reasonably well written.

   a (prose): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists):

2. It is factually accurate and verifiable.

   a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR):

3. It is broad in its coverage.

   a (major aspects): b (focused):

4. It follows the neutral point of view policy.

   Fair representation without bias:

5. It is stable.

   No edit wars, etc.:

6. It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate.

   a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):

7. Overall:

   Pass/Fail:

Comments:

1. The "Background" section is written as if a reader has read the lead but, since the lead cannot introduce anything that is not in the body of the article per WP:LEAD, the "Background" section needs to provide the same sort of basic contextualization/Wikilinking that is present in the lead even if it is a bit of stating the obvious.
2. A little context on who Warren Treadgold is and why one should care about his opinion would be helpful here, especially since his Wikipedia page is somewhat lacking. Even "Nevertheless, as Byzantine-era historian Warren Treadgold comments..." This also immediately alerts the reader to the scholar's specialty (Byzantine rather than Umayyad) and what his potential biases may be.
3. Under "Opening stages of the campaign", there's a side note "(this is may be a confusion with Phoenicia)", which would probably be better for the flow if it were a footnote rather than a part of the text itself.
4. Same paragraph, "Finally, in late summer the rebels entered the capital through treason." This is kind of an awkward fragment in the middle of that disrupts the flow - I would suggest either adding an explanation (How does one enter a capital through treason) or perhaps rewording/reworking it to maintain flow.
5. Same section, second paragraph, "while the famed Maslamah ibn Abd al-Malik" - famed seems like a fairly POV word to me here. Either it should be explained/cited per WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV or simply removed.
6. I'm a little confused with the second paragraph in general, maybe it's just something that needs to be explained to me rather than clarified in the article. I guess what I'm missing is why the Arabs offered terms of surrender for the fort when they could have just taken it and what purpose they thought it would serve having those terms be the acknowledgement of Leo as emperor. What Arab objective did he thwart? I get that he tricked the Arabs into not capturing the fort so that he could have it himself, but what were the Arabs planning on gaining by not capturing the town in the first place? A strategic alliance? (Reading on after it seems like this was the case, but it's not very clear from this paragraph)
7. Same section, third paragraph: "Leo's success was a stroke of luck for Byzantium, since Maslamah with the main Arab army and in the meantime crossed the Taurus Mountains and was marching straight for Amorium." I think there's a word missing here that would help me understand the sentence.
8. Under "Historical assessment and impact", there is a direct quote ("By turning back the Moslem invasion, Europe remained in Christian hands, and no serious Moslem threat to Europe existed until the fifteenth century. This victory, coincident with the Frankish victory at Tours (732), limited Islam's western expansion to the southern Mediterranean world.") that requires a direct citation at the end of the sentence, especially since there is a group of citations that end the paragraph.

I went through and did a copyedit, so hopefully there should be no more problems in that department. To allow for these changes to be made I am placing the article on hold for a period of up to a week. I'm always open to discussion so if you think I'm wrong on something leave your thoughts here and we'll discuss. I'll be checking this page at least daily, unless something comes up, so you can be sure I'll notice any comments left here. Canadian Paul 00:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for taking the time to review this article, and for your edits! I've fixed the issues you raised, and hopefully clarified any uncertainties in the narrative. Please have a look and tell me if anything still needs fixing. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:59, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Great! I'll take a look at it right now. Canadian Paul 18:08, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

One small thing: Under the "Opening stages to the campaign" section, first paragraph, "sent an embassy to Damascus". Is that supposed to be "sent an emissary to Damascus"? I would have normally just fixed that myself, but I wanted to double check that I'm reading it correctly. Also, in the same paragraph, "There they declared a former tax collector emperor as Theodosios III." sounds a bit odd, because it makes it seem like they declared an emperor of tax collection to be named Theodosios III (it's kind of hard to explain why that reads funny).

Anyways, there's no need to keep the article on hold for those two little issues, so I am going to go ahead and pass the article as a Good Article, because I now believe that it meets all the criteria, so congratulations and thank you for your hard work! Canadian Paul 18:24, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify your two points: an embassy is properly the delegation sent to a country, it refers to the building they are housed through metonymy. On the "as", it reads a bit odd, indeed, but it is partly there because it is probable that "Theodosios" was a regnal name, and not his actual name. Anyhow, thanks for your help and your edits! Constantine ✍ 07:37, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

Numbers

According to sources the number of arabs were arroind or close to 200 000 man. Bulgarian king Tervel came with arround 100 000 but the arabs were very ill and deceases were spread. Battle were not swift. The arabs were surounded and killed in 2 major battles.At the end 5 000 arabs left and they run away by sea. This is all from the byzantine sources and some bulgarian scholars like prof. B.Dimitrov support this datas. For example the battle on Poatie by Carl Martel was less in numbers. SOme say 20 000 strong on both sites other even 6000. However king Tervel were know untill the 19th century as saviour of europe and he was connonisied as saint Tribelius in cathilic church. These facts are not mentioned in this article which is a shame. There is not a single scholar to agree that without the help of Tervel, Constantinople would stand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nix1129 (talk • contribs) 20:29, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

The role of the Bulgars is unclear, and this is mentioned in the article. The earlier sources don't mention them except towards the end of the siege, when the Arabs had practically failed already, and only later sources attribute them a more active role. Be that as it may, the claim that the city would have fallen but for Bulgar intervention is nowhere substantiated. Constantinople was perfectly capable of holding out indefinitely from the moment that the Arabs could not breach the land walls and their intention to institute a maritime blockade was thwarted already at the beginning. Without a fleet securing naval supremacy and/or gunpowder, Constantinople was unassailable to a medieval army. As for Tervel becoming known as "Saviour of Europe" or being canonized, with the exception of some non-WP:RS modern Bulgarian websites used in Tervel's article (possibly drawing from modern Bulgarian books), I have yet to see a single reference to it either in medieval or in modern non-Bulgarian sources. Constantine ✍ 06:48, 27 September 2013 (UTC)

Broken citation

Note number 28 is broken. Not sure what's wrong. The Master ---)Vote Saxon(--- 03:04, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

Expressing likelihoods and possibilities

The use of the grammatical construction "may have" + "verb" is for emphasising speculation or guesswork, but not an educated guess. (Although it is common in colloquial English, especially US English, today to mean any level of uncertainty.) The correct form in English and also the correct past tense is "might have" + "verb" which conveys a reasonable level of probability that is relevant to the point being made and explains the situation being described. That is a suitable construction for the text involving the contribution of the Bulgars to the siege. In fact speculation is of no use in any article. It should be clarified to establish why it would be sufficiently notable to be included. In this case, it is probable that the Bulgars intervened against the much stronger Arab forces due to some understanding with the Byzantines, although there are other satisfactory explanations as well. Therefore "might have" is the best construction.--Mevagiss (talk) 09:20, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Umayyad vs. Arab seige

Hi @Cplakidas: other than being more specific and detailed, the term 'Umayyad siege' is also stated in numerous sources. I don't see a reason for your reverts. Swazzo (talk) 22:18, 21 December 2017 (UTC)

Please see my reply at your talk page. Thanks. --Constantine ✍ 22:24, 21 December 2017 (UTC)