Talk:Constantine V/GA1

GA Review
The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.''

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:01, 1 May 2019 (UTC)

A have a number of over-arching concerns regarding this article, to the extent that I am not sure if it is ready for GAN. But let's see what we can do. Not e the comments below re words to watch and attribution. In many cases, not all specified below, terms (eg associate, palatine) or concepts (eg iconoclasm, circus factions) are introduced with no explanation; the article needs amending to be comprehensible to a lay reader. Also the order of the sections seems odd. There are three on military events, interrupted by two on iconoclasm and domestic policy. There are other issues, but these should be enough for now.
 * Artabasdos' episode is early in the reign and a civil war, the other military activities were later and against external foes - so chronology and context dictates their separation. I have changed the position of Iconoclasm and domestic rule sections I think it improves the flow. I have addressed the other problems.


 * "Iconoclasm" should have a lower case i.
 * Done


 * 48-manasses-chronicle.jpg, SoldiersGuardIgnatios.jpg and Persecution of monks from the Chronicle of John Skylitzes.jpg need USPD tags.
 * Deleted


 * "In August 720 he was associated on the throne" I don't think that the average reader will understand what this means.
 * Added an explanation of Byzantine political theory


 * "Constantine V succeeded his father as sole emperor on 18 June 741." A note here of what had happened to his father would be helpful.
 * Done


 * Link "dung" at first mention.
 * Dung is a common English word and would be overlinking to link it


 * "actively campaigning beyond those borders, both East and West" Why do "East and West" have initial capitals? (Also elsewhere in the article.)
 * Done


 * "dispassionate" Could you rephrase re words to watch.
 * Done


 * "He achieved this by training for serious warfare what had previously been, largely ornamental, palatine parade units" I think that the first comma needs to go; and I don't think that an average reader will understand what "palatine" means.
 * Wording changed


 * "Constantine left a very full treasury" Delete "very"; it was either full or it wasn't.
 * Reworded


 * "He associated only his eldest son, Leo, with the throne as co-emperor" Again, "associated" will not be understood by most readers.
 * Covered in the intro.


 * "With the impetus of having fathered numerous offspring" This doesn't make sense; what "impetus" does fathering offspring provide?
 * If you are the ruler of a state obsessed with etiquette and rank, and have a number of sons, then giving them gradations of rank becomes important. If you have only one son the problem does not arise, or is at least merely theoretical. Had he made them all co-emperors then the succession to become the ruling basileus autokrator might be contested.


 * Just what iconoclasm was/is needs introducing before you move on to "Constantine's position on Iconoclasm was clear …" etc
 * Done


 * Sources. Give original publication date, where applicable.
 * Don't follow you here


 * Give ISBNs or OCLCs for all sources.
 * Done


 * "Christopher, Caesar" etc. A reader is likely to understand these to be giving "Caesar" as the first name.
 * It is linked to Caesar (title) page


 * "However, it refused to follow in all of Constantine's views, which were against the veneration of Mary, mother of Jesus and the saints." I think that you mean 'which it considered to be against ...' There are a lot of instances where you state as fact what is an opinion, either of a contemporary or of a modern historian.
 * Phrasing changed - but you cannot second guess a secondary source, as that would be OR, unless another secondary source offers an alternative opinion.


 * "Constantine specifically targeted the monks, pairing them off" This reads as if he paired the monks off (with each other).
 * Wording changed


 * "The repressions against the monks" repression is singular.
 * Wording changed


 * "An iconodule abbot, Stephen Neos, was brutally lynched by a mob" Delete "brutally"; can one be non-brutally lynched? Could you go through the article looking for and removing other examples of words to watch. ("important", "long" etc)
 * Useful adjectives, though


 * "These campaigns failed to secure any concrete gains" The previous sentence states that he captured two cities; are these not "concrete gains"?
 * No he made absolutely no effort to retain them, his campaign was essentially a raid on a very large scale.


 * "raided as far as the Anastasian Wall" Which is what, and where? Ie, why is it significant?
 * Addressed


 * " where six monarchs lost their crowns" In what period?
 * During Constantine's campaigns - I think the context was clear enough, but I have reinforced it


 * "Constantine was persuaded to reveal to the Bulgarian ruler Telerig the identities of his agents in Bulgaria" How and/or why?
 * Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 14:19, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

Additionally:
 * Where sources are translated, please give the translator's name.
 * Done


 * "In August 720 he was associated on the throne by his father" is contradicted by my copy of Ostrogorsky. In fact, of your "Early life" section, I can only find the second sentence in my copy. (Which admittedly is an earlier edition.)
 * It's in Finlay - have added Finlay as a citation


 * Halden states that the tagmata "was established", rather than developed by better training for existing units. He also stresses the role of mercenaries, which you don't. Most of what Halden has to say about Byzantine tactics does not make it into this article. I am not necessarily concerned by this, but I would like to hear your reasoning.
 * Most of the units making up the tagmata - e.g. Scholae - already existed. Created or modified - both really, he created an effective though small central army, but he used previously decorative palace regiments in order to do so. Haldon is playing rather fast and loose with the concept of 'mercenary'. He is really contrasting the themata troops to both the central Imperial Tagmata and the later provincial tagmata (important in the 11th century). If a soldier who is paid directly by his government (rather than being a soldier-farmer militiaman) is a 'mercenary' then all professional soldiers throughout history are and were mercenaries. Treadgold (1995) concludes that thematic soldiers must have been drafted into the scholae etc to expand their numbers into a militarily useful corps - to produce the tagmata.

Gog the Mild (talk) 10:53, 3 May 2019 (UTC)


 * Gog the Mild (talk) 16:30, 10 May 2019 (UTC)

Haven't the time now - just immediately fail please. Urselius (talk) 17:06, 10 May 2019 (UTC)