Talk:Siege of Constantinople (860)

Merging: Siege of Constantinople (860)
"There seem to have been no siege." (History page, User:Ghirlandajo)


 * "A siege is a military blockade and assault of a city or fortress with the intent of conquering by force or attrition." (see Siege article)


 * The military activity of 860 is generally accepted as a siege; the Rus', according to this article, "started pillaging the suburbs of Constantinople" on 18 June until 4 August. A drawn-out attack on the the city in this manner would definately seem to fit the criteria of a siege. The ships of the Rus' blockaded the waterways, while the land forces attacked the suburban areas outside the walls in a war of attrition.


 * Rus'-Byzantine War (860) is not the best name for the article, as its only mentioned battle was an attack on the Byzantine capital itself; it was actually not a single war with just one battle, but part of the wider Rus'-Byzantine Wars, with hostilities in 860, 907, 911, 941, 945, 971, and finally 1043. So Rus'-Byzantine War (860) should instead be merged into Siege of Constantinople (860).


 * --Grimhelm 21:41, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

Tsargrad vs. Miklagard
Grimhelm, I removed the assertion that the Rus referred to the city as Miklagard, because it is known from Nordic sagas only, while all the Slavonic sources of the period (including the Primary Chronicle) refer to the city as Tsargrad. I actually intended to name the article the Tsargrad expeditions of the Rus, so common is the appelation in Russian-Ukrainian sources. As for Roerich's image (uploaded by myself), it should go, because: it is featured in half a dozen articles already (which is annoying) and because it depicts the Varangians navigating on some northern river, most likely the Volkhov. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:22, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I was going to ask if it made more sense to list both variants of the name, but you beat me to it. Good job. --Grimhelm 18:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * How about Image:Roerich slavs.jpg instead? (coincidentally another of your uploaded images). The Dneipr was the route to Constantinople. --Grimhelm 18:42, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't mind, since this image is more relevant and less exposed, although ideally we'd better leave it for later Russo-Byzantine campaigns. I have a third image of Roerich's in store, but I would not upload it for the time being. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:48, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * It can just be removed when later campaign articles are written. Also, why not use that picture for the DYK instead of the current image being used? --Grimhelm 18:52, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:57, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

DYK
I just nominated the article on T:TDYK. An alternative nomination is welcome. -- Ghirla -трёп-  18:38, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

GA Nomination
On Hold, for now.

The problems I see are thus:

1) The lead is too short. Leads for articles this small only have to be about one paragraph or so long, but two sources is too little. The lead should also sum up each major point, which if I read this article right would look somthing like this:
 * The Rus raided Constantinople; the army and navy couldn't defend the city; the rus pilliaged and left; the records say that the emperor drove them off; there are modern skeptics about that reconstruction of history

except it would be more proseish. Thanatosimii 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Expanded as appropriate. --Grimhelm 20:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

2) The article is not necersarrily helpful to the layman, or at least it makes it too difficult on us. You have these people and things named which ought to be explained better. Make use of the appositive. Instead of just saying "Askold and Dir" and making me look them up themselves, summerize them in an apposative, "Askold and Dir, semi-legendary rulers of Kiev." Active links are very good things, but they are no substitute for sufficient clarity. Don't go overboard (I think we can leave Constantinople and the Bosperous as links for whoever needs them) but do define specific terms and people, specifically: The Brussles Chronicle, The Primary Chronicle, and Askold and Dir. Thanatosimii 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * I put in succint descriptions as requested, although I am unfamiliar with the Brussels Chronicle and it should link to an article. For this I will probably have to wait for Ghirlandajo's input. --Grimhelm 20:53, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

3) The article needs a good stylistic overhaul with footnotes and references. First of all, unless there are multiple citations for different clauses in the same sentance, the footnote should always come on the end of the sentance after the period. Take for instance:
 * The barbarian fleet of about 200 vessels[2] arrived to the walls of the imperial capital at an opportune moment when Emperor Michael III was absent from the city, as was his navy dreaded for its skill in using lethal Greek fire.

Now, you have a citation for the 200 vessels. If that citation also serves the rest of the sentance, put it after the period. If it does not, you have to have a citation for the rest of the sentance anyhow. You technically don't have very good inline citations either. Some of your citations are full footnote style citations. Some of your citations are mere (Author:Pagenumber) style citations making reference to the bibliography. Don't do both.

4) finally, broaden your coverage to explain more about the raid, or explain that there is nothing more known about the raid. I don't know who carried it out except a bunch of Rus who may or may not have been lead by these Askold and Dir people. I don't know why they did it, I don't know what they hoped to achieve besides plunder, I don't know the aftermath on the Rus's side- what happened to them after they plundered? Perhaps there are no answers to these questions. That's fine. But if there are no answers, you must admit in the article somthing to the effect that the reader understands, "There's a hole here in the article's coverage, and it might not make total sense to you, but that's because there's a hole in our scholarly understanding of the period and we really don't know either."

If these things can be quickly adressed, I can still pass this article, so I'm putting it on hold for now. I hope you can straighten this out; it is an interesting article and is mostly GA quality already. Thanatosimii 19:52, 24 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Mostly taken care of by recent edits, however the citations are still a bit of a mess. Use full footnotes or (Author:pagenumber) method with later bibliography, not both. Thanatosimii 07:27, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Getting better- but they need to be all standard. You've got "last name pagenumber"; "full name, p. pagenumber" among other ways of doing it. Stylistically, if you're going to use the author:pagenumber, it ought to read just (author page), no commas, like you've already got with "Vasiliev 25", except you need parenthesis: (vasiliev 25). Thanatosimii 17:20, 27 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, now you've got books in the bibliography which are just authors and page numbers- no titles! Thanatosimii 18:24, 27 December 2006 (UTC)


 * There's a maximum timeframe of seven days of putting a GA nom on hold, and I couldn't stand to see this article not pass, but there are still reference issues if anyone can take care of them. I'd almost do them myself but I'm technically not supposed to. The sole remaining reference issue is that in your bibliography, you have three authors without books attributed to them. Find the titles of those books and it'll pass. Thanatosimii 19:28, 30 December 2006 (UTC)
 * Quite good. Passed. Thanatosimii 20:13, 30 December 2006 (UTC)

Centuries
The "Criticism" section of the article states "the 9th century and later sources are out of tune with the earliest records of the event." This is confusing, because the war itself happened in the ninth century. Chubbles 17:42, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

Rus' and Byzantine First Contact
These two sentences are seemingly contradictory:

"It is not clear when the Rus' and Byzantines first came into contact. The first mention of the Rus' near the Byzantine Empire comes from Life of St. George of Amastris, a hagiographic work whose dating is debated. The Byzantines had first come into contact with the Rus' in 839."

Which is it? Could the 839 date come from the Life of St. George of Amastris? Fralupo (talk) 18:55, 23 November 2013 (UTC)

Requested move 6 March 2015

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: moved to Siege of Constantinople (860). There was support for a move. The user who moved the page to the longer title and the merge request above appear to prefer this title. If any user wants to move to Rus'–Byzantine War (860) instead, feel free to open a new request. DrKiernan (talk) 17:05, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Siege of Constantinople (Rus' Siege of Constantinople) (860) → Rus'–Byzantine War (860) – A user moved the page "Rus'–Byzantine War (860)" in multiple steps to Siege of Constantinople (Rus' Siege of Constantinople) (860). The new name is overly long and unwieldy, and it will always require a pipe. There was no discussion about moving the page, and several other pages link to it referring to the prior name. It should be moved back. I tried to move it back to the original name, but I cannot because the page already exists, and it was done in multiple steps so it cannot be reverted. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support. Should be uncontroversial. Srnec (talk) 01:21, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support, I was about to move back before I saw the discussion, although Siege of Constantinople (860) would also work for me. Constantine  ✍  08:30, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * This title choice was also discussed previously above. —  AjaxSmack  16:20, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * Support a move to Rus'–Byzantine War (860) (or another option of others agree) for procedural reasons. The article was at that title from its creation in 2006 until a series of three undiscussed moves yesterday (ever heard of the sandbox?).  The current new title also probably violates about six guidelines and policies.  I would say move this discussion to the Requesting technical moves section of RM per WP:RMUM but since a user has proposed another title, let's leave this open.  —  AjaxSmack   16:11, 6 March 2015 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Siege of Constantinople (860). Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927003322/http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S759X~ser=FOR to http://www.ospreypublishing.com/title_detail.php/title=S759X~ser=FOR

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 07:14, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Questioning the Label: The Use of 'Rus' Khaganate' in Historical Discourse
As per Wikipedia, the "Rus' Khaganate" is considered a hypothetical state presumed to have existed before the formation of Kievan Rus'. Nevertheless, historical consensus among scholars does not strongly support the existence of such a "Khaganate" for the Rus' people. Considering this, it is advisable to refrain from employing a speculative term in a Wikipedia article focused on the Siege of Constantinople in 860. I propose replacing "Rus' Khaganate" with either "Kievan Rus'" or the more general term "the Rus' people" for accuracy and historical precision. Odoxon (talk) 09:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Rus' victory?
It does not make sense in article entitled "Siege of ___" to put "X victory" in the infobox where X is the besieging power and the city did not fall. Srnec (talk) 04:59, 30 June 2024 (UTC)