Jump to content

Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Manuel Kamytzes

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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 Eddie891 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 23:20, 13 January 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Manuel Kamytzes

[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Manuel Kamytzes (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)

Toolbox

Manuel Kamytzes was a military commander in late 12th-century Byzantium. Born to the high aristocracy, his life and travails encapsulate the crisis of the Empire during this time, having to confront revolts, the Crusades, with a weak army and led by astonishingly incompetent rulers. Kamytzes was not a brilliant commander, but dependable and loyal, that is until he was captured, and the emperor decided to not only let him rot in prison, but also dispossess him and imprison his family. Once free, Kamytzes rebelled, but was defeated, and his ultimate fate is lost to history. The article was written almost from scratch in July, and has passed GA. It is as comprehensive as I think it can get, and ready for A-class. Constantine ✍ 13:36, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

Images are freely licensed (t · c) buidhe 22:00, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle

[edit]
  • The Kamytzes family first appears in the late 11th century. "First appears" in old documents? Sources? Or do the scholars think the family did not exist before that time?
    • Clarified
  • According to a brief notice by Eustathius of Thessalonica, he participated in the campaign against the Italo-Normans who were besieging Thessalonica, but no details are given. Perhaps this text already answers my question, but is it known if he was acting in a position of authority?
    • He is apparently listed among the commanders, but other than that, "no details are given". Added the distinction.
  • Do the historians explain why they think Kamytzes died soon after fleeing into presumable exile? Because a person so notable as him would appear on other records if he had lived much longer? -Indy beetle (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
    • No explanation is given, but your assumption hits the mark. Especially in the turmoils of the Fourth Crusade, he would likely have popped up somehow, somewhere.
  • Is "Kamytzai" an old Greek way of styling a plural word?
    • "Kamytzai" (Καμύτζαι) is indeed the (now archaic) plural of "Kamytzes".
  • This source appears to call him the "local toparch or archon of Macedonia and Thessaly before 1204". I know almost nothing about this portion of history, so I'm deferring to your judgment as to whether this is the same person or any way at all could add to what is presented in this article.
    • I rather disagree with this description. He was not really a toparch, as he was not a governor or territorial ruler anywhere there. "Archon", being more generic, sort of applies, but again misses the point: Kamytzes was a military commander, and only 'ruled' some territory during his revolt, which was rather brief. If he had come to some accommodation with the emperor, like Chrysos, and ruled some province as a local potentate, he would certainly qualify as a toparch, but he didn't.
  • This source suggests Choniates thought that Kamytzes rivalry with John Doukas over the throne was the most significant of the succession disputes. It also says Doukas was Kamytzes' uncle.

-Indy beetle (talk) 23:46, 16 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

    • On whether it was the 'most significant', I don't really think that Choniates does single them out particularly (you can see his account in the Google Books link, p. 274). Yes, the conflict between Kamytzes and Doukas is somewhat more verbosely expressed, but it is a very slim basis on which to draw such a conclusion. Probably Laiou opines this because these were two very prominent men either way: Kamytzes was at the time the most prominent military commander, and Doukas was the sebastokrator and hence the most senior member of the court apart from the emperor. And yes, Doukas was also Kamytzes' uncle, as the entire Byzantine elite of the time was defined by its kinship to the Komnenian emperors and thus interrelated. I didn't want to go too much into that discussion, which is why I didn't mention it.
Hello Indy beetle, I've responded to your comments. Please have another look, looking forward to the rest of your suggestions, if there are any. Constantine ✍ 14:40, 23 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Indy beetle: a small reminder. Constantine ✍ 17:42, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM

[edit]
  • cite his full names in the first sentence of the Origin section
    • I incorporated the footnote from the lede here, with some more details.
  • link elegy
    • Done
  • pipe Sack of Thessalonica (1185) to "besieging Thessalonica" rather than just "besieging"
    • Done
  • "first took the throne" given he held it twice
    • Excellent point, done
  • "In September 1187, Emperor Isaac II"
    • Done
  • "Uuprising of Asen and Peter"
    • Done
  • Do you mean Lardea?
    • Indeed, thanks a lot.
  • link Armenians
    • Done
  • is there a link for this Isaac Komnenos?
    • Not a link, but Varzos offers an identification of him. Added in a footnote until I can find more information to confirm Varzos' supposition and write an article.
  • no name for Kamytzes' daughter? I see it is in the Family section, but perhaps just give it as "possibly called Maria"
    • Is it really necessary here? I think it rather derails the flow of the text to add an aside on a hypothesized name.
      • I'm not going to die in a ditch over it, but because you don't explain his family until later, it just begs the question what her name was. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 21:34, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
        • Understandable, but I think adding "possibly called Maria" would just beg the question, "why 'possibly'"? Since her name is rather irrelevant here, and is dealt with later, I choose to omit it.
  • "Kamytzes himself clashed with the elderly sebastokrator John Doukas"
    • He may be the only Doukas mentioned in the article, but i think the disambiguation is still necessary, both for inattentive readers, and because during the Komnenian period, there were often several people of the same name around.
  • is Kritzimos the same as Krichim?
    • Indeed, thanks again for this!

That's all I could find, pretty easy to read, most of the above is wikification/MOS stuff. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:45, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Peacemaker67, please have a look at my replies above and my changes in response to your suggestions. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:55, 17 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Peacemaker67: Done. Constantine ✍ 12:32, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Supporting, excellent work on this. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 23:47, 18 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5

[edit]

Claim my seat here. Please ping me when you've addressed PM's comments. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 12:54, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, I've addressed PM's comments, thanks for taking the time! Constantine ✍ 10:24, 20 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is it possible to add more information in the first paragraph of the lead or split the second paragraph and merge it with the first one or make a paragraph? It's just, I'm not really keen about the first paragraph and the second paragraph is gigantic if you compare it with the first one. If not then I'm fine with that.
    • Well, the first 'paragraph' is really a one-sentence summary of the article itself. I have expanded the second paragraph and then split it into a 2nd and 3rd, by emperor he served under. Is that better?
  • late 12th century, and led an unsuccessful rebellion in 1201–02 Could you add against whom he fought?
    • Done.
  • Maybe add "his cousin" after "against" and maybe with a comma after it too?
  • Done.
  • with the rank of protostrator, from 1185/6 until 1199 --> isn't it "with the rank of protostrator, from 1185/86 until 1199"?
    • Done.
  • In early 1199, as the emperor briefly fell gravely ill
  • I've removed 'the emperor' and replaced it with his name for clarity
  • but the emperor not only refused to ransom him --> "but the Emperor not only refused to ransom him"
    • Done.
  • It's a little bit to see, that the lead doesn't mention about his actions in the Third Norman invasion of the Balkans, which looks pretty important in my eyes.
    • Added.
  • I see a lot of "hes" (plural of he). Is it possible to replace them with his name or so?
    • Done.
  • Born c. 1150, Manuel Kamytzes was the son of Constantine Kamytzes Somehow my ears aren't familiar with circa here and want "Born around 1150, Manuel Kamytzes was the son of Constantine Kamytzes". I'm fine whatever you pick, but, the first one sounds a little bit odd to me.
    • Done.
  • prestigious surnames of "Doukas", "Komnenos", and "Angelos" Maybe put these in alphabetical order or in his name's order like in the lead already does.
    • Done.
  • May I ask you why "Komnenodoukas" isn't included in the lead if he used it as his surname?
    • It is the combined, somewhat colloquial, form of "Komnenos Doukas"
  • Link Archbishop.
    • Done.
  • When Kamytzes' first cousin, Isaac II Angelos (r. 1185–1195, 1203–1204), first took the throne Does this mean Isaac II was the first "cousin" of the two of Kamytzes's cousins or Isaac's first reign?
    • Clarified, hopefully.
  • which broke out in summer 1186, or, more likely, in 1187 --> "which broke out during the summer of 1186, or, more likely, in 1187"?
    • Done.
  • No "during" after "broke out"?
  • Oops, done now.
  • fortune available to the emperor for use --> "fortune available to the Emperor for use"?
    • Done.
  • were routed and their prisoners, some 12,000, liberated --> "were routed and their prisoners, some 12,000, were liberated"?
    • Done.
  • the emperor came to terms with Chrysos --> "the Emperor came to terms with Chrysos"
    • Done.
  • Link suzerainty.
    • Done.
  • The emperor had only daughters --> "The Emperor had only daughters"
    • Done.
  • John Doukas, while the emperor's three brothers Same as above.
    • Done.
  • in February 1199, the emperor married his widowed Same as above.
    • Done.
  • ransomed, but the emperor refused Same as above.
    • Done.
  • 200 pounds of gold, according to Choniates No metric unit?
    • Added link and approximate weight.
  • from where he again wrote to the emperor --> "from where he again wrote to the Emperor"
    • Done.
  • as he reminded the emperor, was many times Same as above.
    • Done.
  • Enraged at his treatment by the emperor,[23][e] Could you switch the note here with the citation? Also shouldn't emperor have an upper case?
    • Done.
  • and surrendered Pelagonia and Prilep to the emperor Same as above.
    • Done.
  • army under Alexios III invaded Thessaly. In the ensuing battle, Kamytzes's This is the first time I see an extra s in his name.
    • Removed
  • I also see 3 "howevers" which looks a little bit too much in a short article like this.
    • Removed two.
  • I see some ISBNs use 10-digit and others 13 can you standardise them?
    • Hmmm, the 10-digit ones are from templates, and reflect the isbn at the time of publication, as imprinted on the books themselves; conversely, the 13-digit ones only have 13-digit ISBNs. I hesitate to alter the templates just for this, to be honest, and because they are the original ISBNs after all.
  • There's no policy about standardising ISBNs but I think this issue falls within WP:CITEVAR and could be described as a different citation style. But since you've used the 10-digit ISBN first and the 13-digit ISBN second I think we should use the 10-digit ISBNs. But since the 13-digit ISBNs have only the 13 then I'd recommend to change it into the 13-digit ISBNs.
  • Ordinarily, not problem. But again, this requires me to change the templates, which I am loath to do, as this will likely lead to breaks in citation format consistency in other articles. TBH I have gotten this request for ISBN uniformity quite often at reviews, but never until now really thought about it: where does it originate? Because to me it makes sense that the reference information needs to be accurate, and the structure/style is taken over by the cite book templates. Anything else is trivial. WP:CITEVAR does not apply to this at all; it is about inline citation styles such as the MLA or Chicago formats, but AFAIK none of them addresses the question of whether the 10-digit or 13-digit ISBN is to be used.
  • Guilland has no link and can you translate his title?
    • Done.
  • "1185/6–1199" --> "1185/86–1199"
    • Done.
  • Can you put the battles/wars in the infobox under each other?
    • Done.

Phew that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 21:55, 28 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, thanks for the thorough review. I think I've addressed your comments, please have another look. Constantine ✍ 20:31, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CPA-5 seems to be on a Wikibreak. Constantine seems to me to have addressed all of the issues from CPA-5's thorough review, so I am going to personally Support on the strength of it. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:58, 13 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

[edit]

The sources used all appear to me to be reliable. I am unable to find any other sources which would materially add to the content of the article. I have carried out no spot checks. I found no unattributed close paraphrasing. I consider the sources to be current. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:52, 30 December 2020 (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.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Assessment/Manuel_Kamytzes&oldid=1000173206"