User talk:Gabr-el/Archive4

Re:Mango Cyrill

Oh! Come on Tourskin! Of course, I know the book. And Mango is ideed the editor. In fact, in pages 185-187 you cite it is Magdalino the writer and not Mango. And what you say about the preface is irrelevant. Check the list of all the contributors here. If you do have the book, I cannot imagine you haven't seen it! Regards!--Yannismarou 15:38, 6 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Greetings

Hey Tourskin thanks for giving me pointers on the 1173 AD map of byzantium, I used them and uploaded a new map check it out.

Any ideas on maps of byzantium just tell me, thanks and bye. Justinian43

Hey Thanks

Yeah you can give me references and ideas on my maps and map ideas oh yeah I know you aren't stalking me so don't worry HaHaHa. Well Thanks for everything.Bye.Justinian43 —Preceding comment was added at 23:54, 13 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine-Ottoman wars GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I have reviewed Byzantine-Ottoman wars and believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed, and I'll leave the article on hold for seven days for them to be fixed. Please consider helping address the several points that I listed on the talk page of the article, which shouldn't take too long to fix. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. --Nehrams2020 02:42, 16 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors

Did the title "Roman Emperor", through the inheritance of Ferdinand and Isabel, pass and settle into the Spanish, or the Holy Roman line? When Charles V abdicated, did it go to his brother Ferdinand, in order to append further legitimacy to the Holy Roman title, by uniting the two titles--since while the two titles had been held by two different individuals, it lessened the legitimacy of each one--with the Holy Roman one at a natural disadvantage? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was referring to the selling or willing of the Byzantine title to the Catholic Monarchs, which descended to the Habsburgs. Wikipedia currently shows the title as having gone down permanently with the Spanish Royal Family, but I think that is inaccurate. Charles would have transferred the Byzantine imperial title to his brother Ferdinand, rather than his son Philip. It would unite the two imperial titles for some kind of legitimacy, but User:John Kenney tells me that neither the House of Trastamara nor the Holy Roman Emperors claimed the title of Roman Emperor, of the Byzantine line. Wikipedia has to make sense and it just isn't. I want clarification. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:18, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Then why does Wikipedia list Philip as a pretender of the Byzantine version of Rome? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 19:46, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This also has implications for his Queen Mary Tudor. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:37, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The only "outlandish claim" they made to title, was the Kingdom of Jerusalem, but title to the Roman Empire itself is even more crazy. I meant to say that all this would have been extremely tenuous and involving other people than one might think. As far as I know, no academic has turned this up in their studies, like they have for Jerusalem. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:45, 22 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

That's (Archduke of Austria?) not what Wikipedia says. Wikipedia says that Charles VIII predeceased Andrew, so that the will went to Ferdinand and Isabel. Also, it seems likely that if any of this actually happened (because I haven't seen the source text myself), then another option would have been Henry VII. I'd like to see the original sources which state what Andrew did, because it is also stated here and there that he died penniless, meaning that he did not in fact sell his title. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 05:22, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Constantinople

Hi Tourskin, I made some minor edits today to meet the GA requirements, but since I have no access to sources atm I need help with the source requests, can you give it a look? Thanks, --A.Garnet (talk) 15:17, 27 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXI (November 2007)

The November 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot 02:54, 2 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Refs

Thanks. :) Sorry for not getting deeper into it. I'm in the middle of a big "sweep", linking articles to Thomas Madden, and I didn't want to spend too much time copyediting any one article (it's amazing how that can turn into a Scheherazade style of nesting tasks, eh?) But I figured I'd make a start! :) --El on ka 08:26, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Heya, after glancing at your userpage, I was wondering, do you by any chance read Persian? I need something translated.... --El on ka 08:29, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hiya, we're currently debating a title change for the article Franco-Mongol alliance. Since this is loosely related to the Byzantines, would you like to weigh in? We're discussing things at Talk:Franco-Mongol alliance#Article title. --El on ka 00:44, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, thanks for participating. :) The problem is, that we're trying to ensure that the article reflects the consensus of modern scholarship, and most modern scholars say that there wasn't an alliance. You can check quotes if you want, here: User:Elonka/Mongol historians. But no biggie, thanks for giving us a few minutes! :) --El on ka 01:12, 17 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine Religion

You're probably right about the Byzantines, but not necessarily the Western Romans. I've read in a couple books by Ramsay MacMullen that worship of the gods survived much longer in the West. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Thegreyanomaly (talk • contribs) 08:38, 5 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Granny Square - not to do with the main page

Granny Square a DYK mention. I thought main page discussion was the place to note that the article being on the main page may have attracted a passing wingnut. Sorry if it was out of place. Cheers, Mooney 12.146.184.9 (talk) 20:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantium

Just an FYI, as you may have seen I quick failed Byzantium under the Heraclians at GA. It's generally a good looking article, but needs some work. More importantly, many of the issues I raised there apply to the other two articles you have up for GA, and will need some work to pass. From my experience (I have had about 8 articles I've worked on pass GA) it works really well to find someone else familiar with copyediting and Wikipedia's manual of style to look through the article before nomination a GA. For instance peer review or the League of Copyeditors. Good luck. Aboutmovies (talk) 00:44, 14 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Help with understanding

Tourskin, if I may impose on you I was hoping you might help me understand what happened in the recent discussion on the Byzantine Empire article. From my perspective

The question I asked was never addressed at all.
The opinions I expressed were mostly not addressed. I didn't ask for a discussion about those opinions but to the extent that a discussion about opinions was warranted the opinions I expressed were not discussed (and to be clear, the reason I tried to close the debate was that we should really only be debating scholarly consensus not original research so if there is no scholar that supports my thesis then what are we debating about).
Mostly what was discussed was a bunch of ridiculous accusations about things I never said. I could never get a handle on where that was coming from.
People seemed very angry as if I somehow triggered memories of some previous discussion that I was never part of.

Can you give me some insight as to what exactly you folks were talking about and why you guys were making all of those accusations?

Thanks.

--Mcorazao (talk) 20:25, 18 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

... and flights of angels sing thee to thy rest...

May you and yours have all the best of this Season's Greetings: a

Very Merry Christmas

and a

Happy New Year.

Shir-El too 00:30, 23 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Basra

Hello Tourskin, I heard that you are good in history, do you know orginal Basra belong to whom? Akkad, Sumer or Arab? many thanks. Mussav (talk) 18:45, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

BYzantine arab wars

Asalamualikum.

hi how r u brother, actually i am out of my town doing C.A from islamabad, cant use net regularly due to studies i have posted my comments there at use page check them there. Mohammad Adil (talk) 21:04, 24 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Re: Why did you remove the image?

Um... you requested deletion of the image. east.718 at 09:20, December 27, 2007

'Offended'

You put a section about your views (sorry I was tralling your user page im looking for user boxes to decorate my userpage, I thought it was possible you had the Armenian genocide box), your probably not intrested in a long discussion, and you said 'the following will offend some people'. However as a British citizen, who had also spent some time in the middle east (however was not born there), I find your views slightly worrying. Note, I am all for criticism of aspects of islam, I could even live with unjusitfied criticism of islam, but your type-casting people into groups which not everyone belongs to. Personally I do not believe a view of biological race holds much water, and people only maintain the race fallacy for protection, but your views on muslims seem to be that all muslims subscribe to a certain ideology, and all muslims are the same person, and you have to be a 'bad' person to be a muslim. Let me tell you, personally I knew an Assyrian (onnly briefly I might add), a muslim married his sister, the Assyrian murdered his sister, and much of the muslims family. The reponse of the community the Assyrian was part of was to band together to pay for the Assyrians release. I can tell you now, these actions did not impress me, but I have not let them affect my views of Assyrians, I judge a person on their individual merit as a human being, not their personal beliefs which have been shaped by their enviroment. I know christians are persecuted in the middle east, however no persecution is ever one way (but it is worse for christians in the middle east, as they are far outnumbered by muslims), and although you will probably not heed my advice and may well delete what I have written, two wrongs never make a right, and surrendering humanity in order for revenge never produces anything. Sorry for being self-righous, but your views concerned me, you probably think Im just 'politically correct'.Anti-BS Squad (talk) 03:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXII (December 2007)

The December 2007 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 23:50, 3 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Byzantine successor

Sorry, I must have overlooked your latest response on the talk page of Ottoman Empire, possibly because the last and major part of it was not indented beyond my posting. I have replied there now. --Lambiam 11:36, 5 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Shlama

Glad to hear from you brother. Merry Christmas and a Happy New Year to you too! Chaldean (talk) 04:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Khon, I found a new website about Ancient Assyria - [[1]], its got some great information that we can use, but what interested me the most was [this picture] - a listing of all the provinces. I always wanted to do something like this template - perhaps we can do that now. Chaldean (talk) 16:10, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I can actually do the map - I'm really good in photoshop. Chaldean (talk) 22:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

:) - Glad to be working with you again. Will work on the map Chaldean (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Trade Routes Maps

Hey! How`s the progress on them? AdrianCo (talk) 08:52, 12 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo[reply]

:( That was bad news .... I myself am entering the exams period ....so my time on pc(other then programing in C++/programing in MIPS/learning) is limited...so I can`t. AdrianCo (talk) 14:31, 13 January 2008 (UTC)AdrianCo[reply]

Speaking of maps, I was looking at your post-Manzikert map on the Battle of Manzikert page and trying to work out what the red symbols with the green dates meant. Perhaps a key would be in order. Patrick Neylan (talk) 10:50, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Manuel I Komnenos

Hello Tourskin,

Myriokephalon is a little bit controversial. Firstly, I have to say that Norwich is not a reliable source. His book is very good, but it's not academic; in my course on Byzantine history, I have been told time and again that you can't use Norwich as a source to prove anything. It's best to cite either the primary sources, or a respected historian like Haldon or Angold or Birkenmeier.

There is a difference between the account of Myriokephalon that you will find in popular histories and more general books about the Crusades and so on, and the more specific, academic works on the subject. In the more popular histories, Myriokephalon is often described as an absolute catastrophe in which the entire imperial army was utterly destroyed. Norwich follows in this tradition.

However, modern experts on Byzantine history take a different view. Haldon, for example, in his book 'The Byzantine wars' takes a careful look at the evidence, and comes to the conclusion that in fact the battle was not very costly. The number of men lost was relatively small, and the army was not significantly affected by the battle. Byzantine units were back in the field in the years immediately afterwards, winning victories over the Turks.

What really made a difference was the death of Manuel I Komnenos himself in 1180, and the increasing anarchy and disunity that followed. This is Haldon's conclusion, and it is supported by Angold and Birkenmeier too.

Therefore, the best analysis of the battle at Myriokephalon would be that it was a significant defeat, since Manuel had been aiming to conquer the Seljuk capital at Konya. His failure to actually achieve this was a humiliation. It was not, however, a disaster. The Byzantine defeat was, according to Birkenmeier, entirely the result of Manuel's overconfidence and bad generalship. Had the campaign been conducted properly, I see no reason why it could not have reached Konya and place the city under siege. After that, it is pointless to speculate what might have been.

As for the subsequent decline of Byzantine power, I don't really think that belongs in a section with Myriokephalon. Territorial losses occurred after 1180, but I believe that had much more to do with the instability in Constantinople after Manuel's death, than the battle of Myriokephalon back in 1176. Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 20:12, 13 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure about Dorylaeum. I thought all that happened was Manuel dismantled the fort he had built there. As you say, the Empire of Nicaea controlled the area for another century after Manuel's death in any case. Haldon says that the Turks were unable to press even what limited advantage they had been able to gain from Myriokephalon, since they were decisively defeated by the Byzantines the next year (1177).

As for the Palaiologan army, I'd love to help, but I'm currently writing my dissertation on the campaigns of John II Komnenos, so my opportunities to get involved in wikipedia are very limited! But I certainly support the creation of an article on the Palaiologan army. I wish I could be of more use! Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 23:59, 16 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Will you fix the map in Greece article??

Is it possible to fix the map on the infobox in Greece article? The Eastern Aegean Islands are missing as well as Rhodes. Thanx! 77.83.38.159 (talk) 14:11, 19 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Image copyright problem with Image:Violinsstoppedplaying.JPG

Image Copyright problem

Thank you for uploading Image:Violinsstoppedplaying.JPG. However, it currently is missing information on its copyright status. Wikipedia takes copyright very seriously. It may be deleted soon, unless we can determine the license and the source of the image. If you know this information, then you can add a copyright tag to the image description page.

If you have any questions, please feel free to ask them at the media copyright questions page. Thanks again for your cooperation. NOTE: once you correct this, please remove the tag from the image's page. STBotI (talk) 06:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Military history WikiProject Newsletter : Issue XXIII (January 2008)

The January 2008 issue of the Military history WikiProject newsletter has been published. You may read the newsletter, change the format in which future issues will be delivered to you, or unsubscribe from this notification by following the link. Thank you.
This has been an automated delivery by BrownBot (talk) 01:23, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Military history coordinator selection

The Military history WikiProject coordinator selection process is starting. We are aiming to elect nine coordinators to serve for the next six months; if you are interested in running, please sign up here by February 14! Woody (talk) 10:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dude Come on

Constantinople falling was a victory yes but not the decisive earth shattering kind of victory that you see in the movies. The turks had like what 10 times as many soldiers, Constantinople was a practical wasteland, a bunch of western euros ran away before the battle even started... oh and lets not forget the monster 100 ton cannons. Conquering Constantinople in its weakend state was not a big problem for the Turks... well they might have had a problem with the walls but thats about it. just so you kow Im the guy (kid) that changed the result box on feb 15 08 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.34.164.133 (talk) 15:50, 16 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fall of Constantinople

You reverted my edit to this artice ([2]). I assume it was just a trigger-happy counter vadalism, does this artile really need a self-link to a non-existing section? Fireice (talk) 18:11, 21 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Mohammad Adil

Asalamualikum, hope you remmember me bro ? dint't you. any ways as i told you that i am out of town to attend my university at islamabad, now i am going to home in march, and will remain there for a mounth. What the reason was, to tel u all this, it was that i searched a lot on your one message that byzantines had no greater then 150,000 soldiers for all battles in 7th century A.D. It seems reasonable size to me. More over i have did a lot of research about exxagration of the sizes of armies and casualties etc etc.... now i am going to edit the battles mainly Ajnadyn and Fahal that had a huge byzantine army quite exaggrated ... thats a good news for you lolzzz. i will discuss with you some of my research work on those Byzantine-Rashidun Caliphate wars more whn i go to home. now what i need is any byzantine book on this topic ? do you have any ? or any other book on the byzantine military during Rashidun caliphate-byzantine wars, if you have any in the E-book form then do sent me i will give u my e-mail address for this, or if you kno any link from where i can download it "free". what i need is the western view and army sizes on the topic. and also i strongly disagree with some bias book mentioning 7,500 muslim troops at battle of yarmouk lolzz, i still wonder who wrote that book, i mean 7,500 are too less to control the Roman syria(which include palistine, isreal, syria,jordan,lebonan, and soutthern turkey) any ways waiting for your reply. bye Mohammad Adil (talk) 12:43, 24 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

User:Elias

Hey tourskin, unfortunatly Elias is currently banned from editing any wiki pages, so you really can't get a hold of him on Wiki. If you want to talk to him, his email address is eliasmaycry@gmail.com Have a nice day. Chaldean (talk) 06:30, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Oh I see. Well if you want to voice your opinoin on the issue, visit Wikipedia:Administrators'_noticeboard/Incidents#EliasAlucard_indef_blocked_by_Will_Beback Chaldean (talk) 06:42, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]