Talk:Siege of Constantinople (674–678)

Fixed infobox reference to "Roman Empire"
This battle involved the Byzantine Empire, not the "Roman (Byzantine) Empire." If the nomenclature needed to be revised at all, it would be to "Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire." Dppowell 18:56, 3 November 2006 (UTC)


 * They are the same thing. Arabic sources refer only to the Roman Empire they do not distinguish between the early 'Roman' empire and the later 'Byzantine' empire. As this is part of Arabic as well as European history Roman (Byzantine) Empire is a good compromise. Roydosan 14:28, 3 January 2007 (UTC)


 * That is because "Byzantine" is the scholarly term that developed in the West after the Fall of Constantinople. The opening of the Byzantine Empire article reads:


 * There is no consensus on the exact point when the Byzantine period began. Some place it during the reign of Emperor Diocletian (284–305), whose administrative reforms divided the empire into a pars Orientis (eastern half) and a pars Occidentis (western half). Some consider Constantine I the first Byzantine emperor. Others start it during the reign of Theodosius I (379–395) and Christendom's victory over pagan Roman religion, or, following his death in 395, with the permanent division of the empire into western and eastern halves. Others place it yet further in 476, when the last western emperor, Romulus Augustus, was forced to abdicate, thus leaving sole imperial authority to the emperor in the Greek East. Others again point to the reorganisation of the empire in the time of Heraclius (ca. 620) when Greek was made the official language and the Empire's conflicts turned largely to the east. In any case, the changeover was gradual and by 330, when Constantine inaugurated his new capital, the process of Hellenization and increasing Christianization was already under way.


 * The reign of Emperor Heraclius is considered the last time the Empire could be called "truly Roman", because, according to historians such as Norman Davies, it is at this point that the Empire's interests turned to the east, reneging its "Imperial mission" of civilisation in the West. It is from the Byzantine-Arab Wars that its position in Western Europe began to deteriorate, as well as its ties with the Papacy; in Europe, the title "Roman" would come to refer to the Franks, while to the Arabs "Rum" applied to Franks, Byzantines and other Europeans in general. --Grimhelm 14:48, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

No the title 'Rum' was only applied to the Byzantine Empire not to the Franks or anyone else. In the vast majority of Arabic sources the empire is always referred to as Roman, never as Byzantine. See | here for example. Roydosan 11:57, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The Mediterranean was called "the Sea of the Rûm", and accordingly those on its north coast were called "the Rûm". This also occurred in Moorish Spain. What about my other points? --Grimhelm 12:05, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't see the relevance at this point in the empire - since until the coronation of Charlegmagne in AD 800 Westerners would also have referred to the Byzantines as Romans. This being in 674 means that the Roman identity was not disputed. Heraclius's Hellenisation of the empire was merely a recognition of the status quo that had existed even during the classical period - i.e. that Greek was the dominant language of the east. Roydosan 15:32, 4 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The point is that the conclusion of the Roman-Persian Wars is seen as the final point at which the Empire can be called truly Roman. The last of the old Roman wars had ended, the Empire's armies, language, administration and religion had been reformed, and Imperial interest in Western affairs would steadily decline. The Byzantine-Arab Wars mark this transition. Charlemagne was a product of this reduced interest in the West, and indeed the Arab conquest of Hispania and deterioration of ties between the Pope and the Emperor. The reversal of the Empire's fortunes in the East put the Empire on the defensive; it was, at this stage, an irreversibly Byzantine Empire. --Grimhelm 19:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think there is any scholarly consensus on this point and my point that Arabic sources contemporary or modern usually only refer to Romans still holds. I'm not disputing the use of the term Byzantine for the article per se only as far as the infobox goes. If you look at the infobox for the Byzantine Empire page it reads (and has done for some time) Roman (Byzantine) Empire. Roydosan 11:55, 5 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I realise that, but "Roman" seemed a bit unnecessary and redundant. Since it mentions both, I don't really have any real problem with it, but then why does the Fall of Constantinople article only say "Byzantine"? I think there should be consistency for post-Heraclian articles. --Grimhelm 14:02, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Roydosan is a Roman Empire fanatic and refuses to accept scholarly consensus on the fact that the Byzantine Empire was not the same state nor civilisation as the Roman Empire. I wouldn't advise you to take him seriously when it comes to this naming dispute. Miskin 23:26, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

redirecting
When I search for 1st siege of constantinople, the link doesn't exist and when it is shown its red. But this is the article. Can someone please redirect 1st siege of constantinople to this article? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk) 04:54, 9 December 2006 (UTC).


 * To my knowledge, the Arab siege of 674 was actually the second siege of Constantinople, and the first was the siege by the Persians several decades earlier. At the moment, "First Arab Siege of Constantinople" redirects here, but I could have Second Siege of Constantinople redirect here as well if you wish. --Grimhelm 11:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * How could this be the second arab siege of constantinople when the "first one" involved the persians? It's a contradiction.  Constantinople has been sieged by many, many armies from many nations.  I don't think the Sassanid Dynasty were the first ones to siege it either.  Atilla the Hun stopped just short of taking the city thanks to the construction of the Theodosian Walls.  It doesn't really say whether Atilla engaged in an actual siege of the city or not though, just that the walls saved the city.  The first real foreign siege of the city after it was renamed to Constantinople, barring Atilla the Hun, was a joint effort by the Avars and Sassanid Persians. Bbcrackmonkey 10:00, 17 December 2006 (UTC)


 * No, there is no contradiction: this was the first siege by the Arabs but the second siege by any army. You just said yourself the First Siege of Constantinople was by the Avars and Persians in 626. The second Siege of Constantinople (ie. the "First Arab Siege") was in 674, which is what this article is about. The third Siege of Constantinople (the "Second Arab Siege") was in 717. I think a look at the Sieges of Constantinople article may clear things up for you. --Grimhelm 10:48, 18 December 2006 (UTC)

Strength of Arab army ?
Dont tell me that any general can handle 200,000 army ! it was not a picnic okey...... the strength of Muslim army has been greatly exaggrated .. more over there is no refference that what the muslims sources says about there army strength, i am gonna find some suitable reference and will gonna edit this strength stuff.

Mohammad Adil 18:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)


 * ok lol!!!Tourskin 20:56, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

"Historicity"
Doubting the historicity of a text doubts the origin of the text itself: perhaps there's a better way. And perhaps " a later interpolation by an anonymous source used by Theophanes, which was influenced by the events of the second Arab siege of 717–718. " can be made to make clearer sense. --Wetman (talk) 15:14, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am not sure I catch what you mean in your first sentence. I've tried to clarify the latter, but unless I post Howard-Johnston's theory in full, I am not sure I can come across clearly enough. Perhaps you could help me in this? Constantine  ✍  17:19, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes, it's much better just reporting the dissimilar accounts, without introducing "historicity"; then the modern assessment can be dealt with in its relevant paragraph further down. Theophanes" "hitherto unique" account: I made it "unique among Christian sources", because the Arab account was always there, simply waiting to be read. --Wetman (talk) 23:55, 17 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I am sorry, but again I have no idea what you're talking about... Could you please be a bit more specific? Constantine  ✍  00:16, 18 July 2012 (UTC)