Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Battle of the Blacks

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 20:20, 24 May 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Battle of the Blacks

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Another in a series of articles on the history of the Fatimid Caliphate. The so-called 'Battle of the Blacks' was an event that marked the end of the Fatimid army as a fighting force, effectively ended the Fatimid Caliphate by removing its last source of armed support, and established Saladin as the ruler of Egypt. It was effectively the first major test of him as a ruler, and shows a ruthless side of him much at odds with the romanticized version current in popular culture. This is a recently written article, just promoted to GA. I hope to get this to FA eventually, and above all, to ensure it is accessible to a non-specialist readership, so any criticism or suggestions for improvement are welcome. Constantine ✍ 19:26, 11 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 00:10, 12 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

HF

Will review. Hog Farm _Talk 07:45, 20 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: - ping me once Gog's comments have been addressed and I will review then. Hog Farm _Talk 22:11, 25 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, Gog's comments have been addressed. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:05, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Will start now; sorry for the delay, have gotten quite a bit busier lately.

"and other pro-Fatimid elements" - recommend blue-linking Fatimid to an article about the Fatimids here. Because Fatimid army is redlinked, the reader never really has a link to explain the Fatimids for them
- Good point, done.
Link majordomo in the lead and the body
- Done.
"and even publicly humiliated when Saladin the palace on horseback (hitherto a privilege of the caliph)" - missing a word?
- Fixed.
"and the strike at Saladin's forces from the rear while he was facing the Crusaders" - is "the" necessary?
- Typo for 'then'. Fixed.
I really think that the historiographic discussion of the truthfulness of the claimed conspiracy should be at least introduced in the section discussing it - it's presented almost as fact initially, but suggested to be false later.
- That is a very good point. I have moved the relevant portion of the last section to the end of the section about Mu'tamin's conspiracy.
The lead directly states that Saladin ordered the execution of Mu'tamin, but this is only implied in the body
- Have rephrased slightly, but I think this is evident; Saladin's men would never touch the palace majordomo, and then bring his cut-off head to him, without the explicit orders of their master.

Having to stop after the Mu'tamin's conspiracy section, will finish this off soon. Hog Farm _Talk 05:14, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

"Gatimid troops rose in revolt in Qus under their commander, Abbas ibn Shadhi, while other areas of Upper Egypt were in turmoil due to the restiveness of the Bedouin and the presence of fugitive black African soldiery." - presumably this revolt was crushed, right?
- Clarified.
"At least some of the black African and Armenian troops may have been retained in service, however, or have been left unmolested in or near Cairo, as they are mentioned during the abortive pro-Fatimid conspiracy of 1173, when the conspirators hoped to use them to seize Cairo in Saladin's absence on campaign against the Crusaders.[51][52][53] Following the discovery of the affair and the execution of its leaders, these troops were banished to Upper Egypt" - this is presented as fact here, but then stated to be dubious later? Again, I think there's a better way to meld the old claims with the modern doubts of accuracy
- As above, I've added the relevant portion right after the summary of the conventional/primary narrative. I also clarified Lev's view about the actual motives of these events.

Not familiar with this subject matter or with the sources, so I can't really dig into this one too deeply. Hog Farm _Talk 07:01, 9 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, thanks for the review. I have tried to address your comments above. Especially since you are not familiar with the subject, I'd like to ask whether you could follow events at all, or whether additional context or clarifications might be in order. Constantine ✍ 12:52, 20 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Hog Farm, a small reminder :) Constantine ✍ 18:34, 27 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Non-expert support. I think the conspiracy section is much improved. Hog Farm _Talk 02:09, 28 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

I will do a little copy editing as I go. Let me know if any of it causes issues.

The two bullet points under Result seem to clutter the infobox. And contradict the template instruction "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"."
- Hmmm, it is a bit cluttered, but the outcome of this battle was not merely a military victory of Saladin; it was followed by the killing of most of the surrendered black troops, and resulted in a major political victory. This should be reflected somehow, or not?
  Not. "this parameter may use one of two standard terms: "X victory" or "Inconclusive"." seems pretty clear! I mean, a little fudging is one thing, but you're trying to work a paragraph in. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:38, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  Guilty as charged. Fixed this.
"Saladin's rise to power" What rise to power. Where? To a position, or just as a generalissimo?
- Good point, rephrased
"the new vizier relied chiefly". Could the vizier be named and/or linked?
- Saladin was meant here, but obviously not clearly enough. Explicitly named.
Link Kurdish, Turkish, Isma'ili,
- Done.
No link for Mu'tamin al-Khilafa?
- Added.
"justify Saladin's move against the Fatimid troops". How was executing the palace majordomo a "move against the Fatimid troops"?
- Well, not sure this can be easily explained in the lede: Mu'tamin, as the chief black palace eunuch, had close ties with the black troops, and the black troops, forming the bulk of the Fatimid army, would obviously play a major role in Mu'tamin's planned betrayal of Saladin. Modern historians OTOH suspect that whatever the reason for Mu'tamin's execution, Saladin sought and welcomed the confrontation with the Fatimid troops, so as to get rid of them. The whole conspiracy was possibly a manufactured story.
"only to be driven [back?] ... The black troops and their allies appeared to be winning". This appears to be a contradiction, or at least confusing.
- Rephrased.
"the burning of their quarters". "quarters" can be ambiguous in this context. Maybe 'barracks', or 'living accommodation'?
- Settlements?
Suggest replacing "black" with 'black African' throughout. (Optional.)
- Good suggestion. Done.
"This culminated in the restoration of Sunni dominance over Egypt and the deposition of the Fatimid dynasty in September 1171, and the establishment of Saladin's own Ayyubid dynasty in its place." too much happening here. Can we split it into two sentences?
- Good suggestion. Done.
"His troops numbered a few thousand". I am unclear as to what constitutes "his" troops. As opposed to the large number of soldiers in the area who, I assume, were not.
- Good point, rephrased.
"and himself a Sunni leading a Sunni army, at the head of a nominally Isma'ili state". Mention that Ismailism is Shia, and that Sunni and Shia are the main divisions of Islam.
- Hmmm, rephrased to that it doesn't require too much exposition (hopefully).
How does "important symbolic figures, sources of legitimacy, and in command of enormous financial resources" equate to "virtual powerlessness?
- Because they were not at the head of the administration, nor of the army. The vizier exercised that power. The Queen of England also has these attributes, but her political power is almost nil, apart from a vague authority and deference that she might command. Same with the last Fatimid caliphs: in theory revered, in practice they had about enough power to determine what they would have for supper.
"In the meantime, Saladin gradually began distancing himself from the Fatimid regime: he introduced the name of Nur al-Din in the Friday prayer after that of Caliph al-Adid, relegated the latter to a ceremonial role and even publicly humiliated him by entering the palace on horseback (hitherto a privilege of the caliph), and began openly favouring his Syrian troops, awarding them military fiefs (iqṭāʿ) for their upkeep, while withdrawing similar fiefs from the Fatimid commanders." A long sentence, which makes up the entire paragraph.
- Good point, done.
Article: "Mu'tamin made contact with the Crusaders, inviting them to invade Egypt." Is this the same report that "Modern historians have questioned the veracity of"? (Lead.)
- Yes.
"firing stones". Do you mean 'throwing stones'? Or were they fired by siege engines or firearms?
- Definitely not firearms at that time. Replaced with 'throwing stones and shooting arrows'.
"There they set fire to the quarter". The whole quarter, or just the barracks?
- 'Barracks' is a poor term, I've replaced it with 'homes'. The troops lived there for generations, in normal houses with their families. Nothing in common with modern-day barracks.
"preventing them from flanking their pursuers". You what? How does one flank a pursuer?
- By doubling back from the side alleys and attacking the pursuers from the side. Here Saladin's troops did the opposite.
  I think this needs some further explanation or rephrasing. ('preventing them from easily turning on their pursuers'?)
  - Have explained it a bit further.
"There the blacks were attacked and killed by Turan-Shah." Yet the lead says "most who survived the massacre" and the article later "Only a fraction of the black troops escaped". I can see a couple of ways how this could have happened, but perhaps not be so definitive in the main article?
- Good point. I've tried to rephrase a bit. Apparently not all blacks at Giza were killed, not all black troops in Cairo were at Giza, and not all black Fatimid troops were in Cairo.
"the other black eunuchs". Was Mu'tamin a black eunuch? If so, could we be told at first mention.
- Oops, added.
"with pursuing them and killing them. Over the following months, Saladin pursued his phasing-out". "... pursuing ... pursued ..."
- Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looking good. A couple of responses to your responses. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 27 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, I've addressed the final outstanding issues. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 09:03, 5 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Pass

The sources all seem to me to be appropriately reliable and I can see no formatting issues. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:46, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

Could you remove the first (short) paragraph in the lead?
- Merged with the one after.
"The Battle of the Blacks or Battle of the Slaves was a conflict in Cairo" Was this a slave revolt? If so maybe change conflict into slave revolt?
- No. Slave soldiers are not the same as slaves. The name derives from the term 'bought slaves' for the Black troops, since they were indeed purchased as slaves before entering military service.
"caliphal palaces and the palace of the vizier" --> "aliphal palaces and the palace of the Vizier"?
- these were buildings associated with the offices, not the individuals holding them.
"sort of representative and champion of their interests.[23][22][26]" Switch the refs here?
- Done.
"were joined by other Fatimid troops and ordinary Cairenes.[16][22][26][23]" Same as above?
- Done.
"waiting to see who the caliph would support" --> "waiting to see who the Caliph would support"?
"to target the caliph's pavilionéµ" --> "to target the Caliph's pavilion"?
"who believed they had been fighting in support of the caliph" --> "who believed they had been fighting in support of the Caliph"?
- For all three of the above, MOS:PEOPLETITLES/MOS:JOBTITLES tends to discourage capitalization.
"Africans were attacked and killed by Turan-Shah, with only a few surviving.[35][32][36]" Switch the refs here?
- Done.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:22, 2 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hello CPA-5, thanks for taking the time. I've addressed your points above. On capitalization, I admit I admit I am confused by its rules, but MOS seems to prefer uncapitalized except when coupled with the holder's name. Constantine ✍ 19:13, 3 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

(talk page stalker) Ah, if only it were that simple. Also when the title is used as a stand in for a specific, individual holder. Gog the Mild (talk) 15:18, 5 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: thanks for the clarification. @CPA-5: Done. Constantine ✍ 18:08, 8 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: a small reminder. Constantine ✍ 11:48, 14 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 00:32, 19 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.