Talk:Theodosius III/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Llywrch (talk · contribs) 19:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looking forward to this -- llywrch (talk) 19:13, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

llywrch writes

I've looked over this article a few times, & it appears that the largest share of my review will be checking the sources to confirm they say what they are supposed to -- which means that I'll be spending a good amount of time tracking down a copy of Ralph-Johannes Lilie's book & practicing my German. But while I work on that, I have a few questions about your choice of sources:

For the translation of Theophanes' Chronicle, I see you used the Mango & Scott translation over Harry Turtledove's; was there a good reason to prefer the first over the second? Beyond that Mango & Scott are Byzantine scholars & Turtledove is an amateur? I only ask because the first retails for almost $400 while Turtledove's is closer to $24, & is the translation people are more likely to reference.
It may be a good idea to find a translation-independent way to cite passages. Turtledove does have entries marked by Theophanes' reckoning & by the page in the C. de Boor edition (published 1883, 1885). That way readers don't need to rely exclusively on an expensive work to verify citations.
I am reticent to include a citation using a man most known for sci-fi and fantasy as a source, especially over professional scholars; to my understanding the ease of source acquisition does not overrule WP:V. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand that, & actually agree with you. But my point wasn't for you to change translations, it was to find a translation-independent way of citing Theophanes. I own Turtledove's translation -- which may not be the best, but should be good enough to confirm your citations -- but without some way to coordinate page numbers of the Mango & Scott to Turtledove's, I am unable to do so. (I always seem to buy the wrong translation.) Citation by year date let's say, then adding the page number to Mango & Scott, would allow others to do this. And against other translations neither of us may know exist: a surprising share of en.wikipedia articles are translated into other languages, & having a translation-independent way of citing passages would allow a more conscientious editor on that Wikipedia to make their citations more useful. -- llywrch (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you can find the page numbers for the material in Turtledove I will add it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:58, 31 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think page numbers will help here. What I find in Turtledove's translation is that the material on Theodosius is contained in entries for two years: annus mundi 6207, & 6208. In his translation the numbers to the pages of C. de Boor's edition, vol. I (1883) are noted in the margin, so that pp. 384-386 include the material to annus mundi 6207, & pp. 386-391 to annus mundi 6208. Does the Mango & Scott translation provide similar information so you could reference either to the annus mundi or the page of the de Boor edition? (If not, this matter is concluded.) -- llywrch (talk) 06:35, 5 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I found the periodical Études byzantines is available on the persee.fr website. (I looked because I believe a link to persee.fr would be useful.) However, despite some serious searching I could not find Rodolphe Guilland's article. Is the bibliographic information about this article correct?
I have found it under a list of his works, however, the date is actually 1955, has been corrected. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Good. -- llywrch (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You discuss Graham Sumner's article "Philippicus, Anastasius II and Theodosius III", but did not cite it directly. Was there a reason for not citing this article directly? (BTW, it is available online at [1].)
A failure of effort on my part, unfortunately, now working to incorporate what I can. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
This wasn't really a criticism; if you had a reason, what you did is fine. But otherwise a link to the original is always the best practice to follow, IMHO. -- llywrch (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A last question, out of my own curiosity: was there a reason you relied on an article published in 1899? Wasn't there a more recent discussion of those materials?
Not which I could readily find, unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:11, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'll have more after I have a chance to read Lilie's book. -- llywrch (talk) 03:33, 14 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:, sorry I hadn't responded sooner but I was unaware you had replied here. I answered your comments with my own. And I am still waiting on my library for Lilie's book. -- llywrch (talk) 19:08, 24 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:, I finally got ahold of Lilie's book. It will still be a while before I can read enough to verify the citations, but I figured you should know I'm still working on this. -- llywrch (talk) 08:04, 8 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Llywrch, Iazyges, where does this review stand? It's been over seven weeks since the last post here and over six weeks since the last significant edit by either of you on the article. I hope it can get moving again. Many thanks. BlueMoonset (talk) 18:32, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I've been busy with a number of things that have kept me from completing this review. (The biggest delay has been finding a good unbroken block of time to review Lilie's book in; understanding what he wrote about this event in Byzantine history will effect some thoughts I have on this article.) Finishing this review is at the top of my todo list. -- llywrch (talk) 18:38, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Review continued

Sorry for the delay, @Iazyges: Part of it was due to off-Wiki items (e.g. I had cataract surgery last month, which cost me a month), & partly because I've twice lost my notes on this review. But here are the main points.

First, this meets several criteria for a Good Article: it is concise, neutral, & uses appropriate illustrations. (A map would be a nice improvement, but not necessary.) There are two points where the writing could be improved:

The section "Background" needs to be expanded a bit. More had happened than simply the Arab attacks on Constantinople: the dynasty of Heraclius had just come to an end with the death of Justinian II in 711, so there was no legitimate candidate to hold the throne; the Bulgars were pressing the empire from the north, & at one time advanced as far as the walls of the capital; & the Arab advance along the coast of Asia Minor up thru the Dardanelles into the Sea of Marmora clearly increased the pressure. This was clearly a critical moment for the Byzantines, & it is no surprise that the elites were divided.
In the section "Rise to the Throne", where the text reads "Theodosius instead led his fleet to Chrysopolis", I'd add the detail that Chrysopolis was across the Bosporus from Constantinople. I'm more familiar with the area than the average reader, & I couldn't quickly tell you where Chrysopolis was in relation to Constantinople.

Done

One more point, which I'll mention as a suggestion not a requirement is the way the navy is described as proceeding to Phoenix (wherever that may be) is a bit awkward. Theophanes states that Anastasius had commanded the elements of the navy to gather at Rhodes to then advance to Phoenix; it was there that the Opsikians mutinied & turned around to raise their candidate to the Purple. Stating this event in those words might be an improvement; again, this is simply a suggestion.
Have changed the words around partially using this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Another thought, which might be more a statement of my preference than something that needs fixing: almost every statement is followed by a string of footnotes, in many cases each duplicating the others. If these authorities differ on some point, it would be worth mentioning all of them & explain where they differ, but in the end they all mostly depend on what Theophanes & Nikeporus have written -- with the exceptions where Arab historians are cited.
I generally like to cite every source involved so that I can check them later if needed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As for the accuracy in use of the sources, I could find none with the ones used. (I admit I didn't check all of them, but based on reading Theophanes, Ostrogorsky's history of Byzantium, Lilie's monograph, & on the articles cited, I found the article mostly conformed to those sources.) Nevertheless, I encountered a couple of problems with the facts provided: one of inclusion, one of omission.

Bronwen Neil is accurately cited about Theodosius restoring the image of the Sixth Ecumenical Synod. However, Ostrogorky states that it was Anastasius II who did this (History of the Byzantine Empire (Rutgers, 1957), p. 136), & cites the writing of one Agathon the Diacon. (Under Agathon (name) an Agathon was a Notary at the Sixth Ecumenical Synod; I suspect this is the author Ostrogorky indicates.) It appears that two reliable sources state different things, & I could not find a copy of the Liber Pontificalis to help decide between them. (I own a translation of that work, but the translation only extends up to 700; the copies I found on the Internet likewise ended before either Anastasius or Theodosius came to the throne. There is an English translation that covers the Popes up to around 900, but I could not get a hold of a copy.) Unless we can find another reliable source to decide between the two -- or provide an explanation why these two authorities disagree -- maybe this detail should be omitted. Which is unfortunate, since there is so little information about Theodosius III.
I've added a footnote stating that Ostrogorky believes the above; I believe this should help reconcile them. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I like that you added a link to archive.org where there is a copy of Ostrogorsky's book available! -- llywrch (talk) 16:27, 6 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In confirming the facts of the article, I stumbled over something omitted here. In the Chronicle of Joshua the Stylite (translated by Amir Harrack as The Chronicle of Zuqnin, Parts III and IV A.D. 488-775 (Toronto: Pontifical Institute of Mediaeval Studies, 1999), p. 150) it has an account of Theodosius' reign at variance with the more familiar narrative. I quote:

Theodosius was on the throne when Masalama invaded the Roman territories.
[...]
When the Emperor (Theodosius Constantine) saw tt a host was marching against himand that his military commander, Leo by name, had negotiated with them, his heart quaked and his hands shook. He resigned the empire, put down the crown and shaved his head. For there is a custom among Roman emperors, if one of them resigns the empire, he shaves his head and stays in his house, having from that time on no entourage. This one acted likewise. Even when Leo, the military commander, sent him a message, saying: "Strengthen yourself and fear not!" he was not persuaded and firmly resigned the empire.

When I encountered this passage, I'll admit I didn't know what to make of it. I was surprised that none of the other authorities had taken notice of this material, so I don't know how we should evaluate the reliability of this account. We do have two accounts of the death of Constans II & authorities disagree about which is the more reliable & if they can be reconciled, so there should be no problem with at least acknowledging a second version exists. (WP:NPOV encourages this.)

Done

I hope these comments were worth the wait. -- llywrch (talk) 07:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I made a few changes in style. (Why tell you to do something when it's easier for both of us if I just make the edits?) The most important of which are: (1) adding 2 inline citations to Theophanes (it appears his chronicle is most commonly referenced by the anno Mundi dates) -- I didn't add more, because to do so would require re-writing the text far more than I felt unilateral edits justified; & (2) when you quoted text, you put footnotes at both where the main text leads into the quotation, and at the end of the quoted text -- you only need to do it at one or the other. (At best, it's redundant; at worst, it looks amateurish.)

I approve of the adding of Theophanes AM dates where they are; on the matter of redundant citations, I generally prefer to do both, as it acts as a definitive citation for the entire sentence leading up to the colon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I still think there should be at least one sentence mentioning how Khan Tervel of the Bulgars was threatening Constantinople from the north, & had advanced to the walls of the city. You didn't respond to my note about this, either to act on my comment or say you disagreed. -- llywrch (talk) 17:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm still working on getting a good reference for this at the moment, but I agree it merits and needs inclusion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:28, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: I've put in a sentence talking about the threat of the Bulgarians and Slavs, but I'm struggling to find a good source to talk about Tervel directly threatening Constantinople; Vasiliev talks about the fact that Justinian II gave them land that was close to Constantinople, but not of the direct threat against it. Do you have a particular source I could incorporate? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:44, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

IIRC, Ostrogorsky mentions that Tervel led his troops to the wall of the city. Since my mind has proven not to be a reliable source, let me check my copy tonight when I'm home. (If I can't verify that, I'll need to let it go.) -- llywrch (talk) 19:40, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I found the passage: Ostrogorsky writes (p. 136) "He [Khan Tervel] advanced to the walls of Constantinople and laid waste the surrounding country. The rich villas and estates in the neighborhood of the capital, where the leading families usually spent their summer, were plundered and devastated by the Bulgar hordes." I think the reason you couldn't find a reference is that O. is writing here about an invasion that happened in the last years of Philippikos Bardenes (712 to be precise). While the capital had was likely not threatened by the Bulgars the year Theodosius was elevated, this happened recently enough to be a point of worry. And Tervel would continue to intrigue in Byzantine politics over the following years. -- llywrch (talk) 04:59, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Llywrch: done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:30, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In that case, I guess I'll be forced to pass this article for GA. -- llywrch (talk) 15:21, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]