Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)

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 Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 11:20, 26 June 2019 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Fatimid invasion of Egypt (914–915)

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

This was the first attempt by the newly founded Fatimid Caliphate to push east into the heartlands of the Muslim world and replace the Abbasids, and the event which actually made them noticed for the first time in Baghdad. Although at times it seemed on the verge of overrunning Egypt, the enterprise was a failure, not least because it was a gamble, with the Fatimid regime itself too unstable to sustain such a costly effort for long, against the still relatively intact resources of the Abbasid empire. The article is relatively new, has passed GA, and I hope to eventually submit it for FA. Any feedback and suggestions for further improvement are of course welcome. Constantine ✍ 09:15, 18 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5

Damn you're fast in those articles. Oh well it looks good I'd say.

coast between Ifriqiya and Egypt, and captured Alexandria Unlink Egypt.

I'd rather not; it is a common term, but I prefer to link to the countries/regions, because from bitter experience I know that people often know surprisingly little about "common terms". PS I've relinked to Medieval Egypt.

wife of Ali, they regarded the Sunni Abbasids Unlink Sunni.

Here I definitely disagree. Most people don't know what the Sunnis are, or that Islam has branches. The Sunni-Shi'a rivalry is an integral part of this article's subject.

Intresting here in Belgium the people I know know at least one difference between Sunni-Shi'a especially the Muslim comunity (btw I am not a Muslim so I don't really cheat by saying everyone who I know are also a Muslims). But it is possible that non-Muslims in other countries or regions don't know them. But works for me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:16, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

the gateway to the Levant and Iraq Maybe add modern or present-day before Iraq or use Mesopotamia instead of Iraq?

Relinked to Iraq (region), since the name Iraq was definitely current in the 10th century (and is the origin of the modern country's name).

cities on the coast at Tripolis Maybe add Greece before Tripoli because Lebanon and Libya have both alsoon 27 August 914 he a city called Tripoli.

Huh, that's embarrassing, it is the wrong link. Of course Tripoli in Libya was meant. I was mislead by the fact that in German and Greek, the name can be still either Tripolis or Tripoli. Fixed now.

on 27 August 914 he entered Alexandria.[12][11] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.

Fixed, also a couple of other occurrences.

raided south along the Nile and devastated This is a little treaky for me as a child back then we know about the rivier but I do not know or it is in the rest of the world knows it. Probably it is if children (not sure or they know the river these days) know then I guess we can unlink it.

Just as with Egypt, I prefer not to unlink; I have even added "River" to give a clue to the clueless.

are contained within this basket!".[30][21] Suggest ordering the refs numerically here.

Fixed, as above.

as an Isma'ili Shi'a sect claiming descent Does the source claims it was a sect at the time? Because in the present-day it is definitely not a sect.

@Cplakidas: Hey Cplakidas sorry for disturbing you but this comment is still not addressed just a little reminder. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:43, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Sorry, I didn't see this. It depends on what you understand under "sect", I guess. It is clear that the Isma'ilis were a Shia offshoot, and the Fatimids, at their beginning perhaps not even the dominant tradition in that offshoot (that would go to the Qarmatians, I guess) although such things are very fluid, not well attested, and still not clearly understood. At any rate, "sect" is IMO an apt designation, heck, the sect article explicitly includes the Isma'ilis as an example. Constantine ✍ 10:00, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:20, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 09:58, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, thanks again for taking the time. Please have a look. Constantine ✍ 16:39, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

G'day CPA-5 just checking you've see this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - Support

The sources used are all solidly reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. The sources referred to seem to support the text cited, insofar as I have checked them. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current, as these things go. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

" ISBN 9004117415"; "ISBN 3-406-35497-1". Could you standardise?
Madelung, could you add the location? (Cambridge.)

Fixed both. Constantine ✍ 07:59, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

I have made some copy edits which you will want to check.

"The attempts to conquer the capital, Fustat" Optional: delete "The"; add 'Egyptian' before "capital".

Done.

"The Fatimids came to power in Ifriqiya in 909, when they overthrew the reigning Aghlabid dynasty with the support of the Kutama Berbers. In contrast to their predecessors, who were content to remain a regional dynasty on the western fringes of the Abbasid Caliphate, the Fatimids held ecumenical pretensions: as an Isma'ili Shi'a sect claiming descent from Fatima, the daughter of Muhammad and wife of Ali, they regarded the Sunni Abbasids as usurpers and were determined to overthrow them and take their place." A slightly long sentence. Suggest converting the colon to a full stop.

Reworked.

"cities on the coast at Tripoli and Cyrenaica" Mixing a city and a province reads oddly. If you keep it, it should be 'and in Cyrenaiac'. But maybe 'in Tripolitania and Cyrenaica?

Good point, reworked this part.

"the powerful Kutama general" "powerful" seems an odd descriptor. What was it that made him powerful?

Rephrased

"but Sunni sources claim" You write as if Sunni sources were in opposition to Imad al-Din. Were they? If so, could you elaborate? (Yes, I know, but it's a bit esoteric for the average reader IMO.)

Clarified this in the section where the sources are first introduced.

"... Barqa was evacuated without battle, but Sunni sources claim that the Fatimid troops committed atrocities …" Not sure about the connection. Suggest full stop after "battle". (And delete "but".)

Hmmm, you are right. Rephrased.

"the Syrian provinces were mobilized; already in September 914, the first Syrian troops began arriving in Fustat" Recommend swapping the semi colon for a full stop. (Delete "already")

Done

"which either way became impossible when" Recommend deleting "either way".

Done

"The Fatimid expedition itself was considered risky" Recommend deleting "itself".

Done

"Indeed, according to Michael Brett" Recommend deleting "Indeed".

Done

"orientalist" needs disambiguating.

Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, thanks as usual for the copyedits and the good suggestions. Anything more? Constantine ✍ 11:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Nicely done. No, that was all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:46, 24 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support from Indy beetle

Nice to see some old African history here. My comments:

In the event, it was not until 969 that the Fatimids conquered Egypt... Excise "In the event", it doesn't seem a necessary lead in.

Done.

The Fatimid heir-apparent, al-Qa'im bi-Amr Allah led a combined land and naval expedition against them. Them being the Hawwara?

Indeed. Changed accordingly.

The conquest of Cyrenaica promised to be beneficial to the Fatimid treasury: the land tax (kharaj) brought in 24,000 gold dinars annually, with another 15,000 dinars provided by the jizya paid by the Christian dhimmi, the zakat, and the ushr. Were these local taxes of which the Fatimids were conscious of when they attacked?

You mean, where the specific tax sums known to the Fatimids, and did they factor into their decision to attack? Unknown on the former, the data come from the records of the Abbasid bureaucracy, and on the second, about as much a any territorial conquest is meant for gaining more resources. Ultimately, the main motive for the invasion is that stated at the beginning, i.e. the only way to actually reach Iraq and depose the Abbasids was to conquer everything in between.

News of the Fatimids' arrival in Barqa provoked the Abbasid authorities in Egypt to send an army against them. Habasa's men, reinforced by fresh troops from Ifriqiya, won the ensuing battle on 14 March. Is it known where this battle took place?

Added.

Jund is overlinked.

Fixed.

The article gives the impression that Habasa's presence on the battlefield was of key importance. I'm curious as to exactly why. Al-Qa'im was alarmed by his departure, but had already asked that he be replaced. Was it his skills as a military officer that were missed, or was he a source of morale for the Fatimid troops?

Well, when your most prominent general flees the battlefield in the midst of battle, it definitely impacts the morale and cohesion of your army. This is so in any army, and even more so in the still very much tribe-based force that was the Fatimid army; the Kutama might have obeyed the Qa'im, but first they were followers of their own tribal leaders, of whom Habasa was the foremost present. Certainly the men whom Habasa had commanded since before the invasion would look first to him, and then to the Qa'im. This is not something easily included in the scope of this article, unfortunately.

[Habasa's] capture and imprisonment... It seems more like he was arrested than captured.

First he was "hounded as a criminal". Added an "eventual" to clarify that he was not immediately arrested, but had to be caught first.

-Indy beetle (talk) 22:45, 29 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy beetle, thanks for taking the time to review. I've addressed the points you raised above. Please have a look. Constantine ✍ 12:37, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

All of my comments have been addressed. I've spotchecked Brett, and everything seems fine there. Supporting. -Indy beetle (talk) 15:49, 30 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Image review G'day Constantine, File:Gold dinar of al-Qaim, AH 322-334.jpg needs a tag for the original coin as well. Suggest PD-art-3d, but maybe Nikkimaria has a different view? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:56, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That exact tag does not exist at Commons where this particular image is hosted, but PD-art-70-3d would work. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:01, 14 June 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, done. Nikkimaria, thanks for the suggestion. Constantine ✍ 07:36, 14 June 2019 (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.