Talk:Walls of Constantinople/Archive 1

'Obselete'
Only the advent of gunpowder siege cannons rendered the fortifications obsolete This is a bit of an overstatement -- the walls were hardly 'obsolete' during the last siege in 1453.

GA review
This is generally a good article, but many of the stylistic errors noted in the peer review are still true: I'll be back in a week. Feel free to ask me any questions before then, and good luck. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 03:08, 26 April 2007 (UTC)
 * solo years should be unlinked
 * entries shouldn't be linked to more than once in every section (triple '='), including redirects
 * "Nonetheless, the restored sections give an imposing image of the walls in their original state." could be phrased more neutrally
 * Hello again. I see that you've worked to institute the changes I suggested, though there are a few small changes that you should make.

I'll be back in a few days, though feel free to drop me a message. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 04:58, 3 May 2007 (UTC)
 * "Imposing" should be struck and replaced with an objective description, or else you could quote someone making a statement to that effect. The changes you made to that sentence are fine, but I have no preference between the versions, except for a slight favour for "original state".
 * Try to add more sourcing to the second half of "The Theodosian Walls" if you can.


 * Hello! Since work on the article is progressing again, and not just by me (thanks to those who have contributed), I thought to ask a question. Should we include the other fortifications around Constantinople in this article? Constantinople proper is just the historic peninsula, without even Galata, and the current article reflects that. But if we want to understand the whole fortification system that protected the city, we have to include the Anastasian Walls, the walls of Galata, and maybe also the Rumeli and Anadolu fortresses. In this case, the article might have to be renamed to conform with the content (something like "Fortifications of Constantinople"). Or would it be preferable to simply add a small section in the end, briefly mentioning them (instead of the "See also" section). Personally, I prefer the latter, but would like to have any other opinions. Regards, Cplakidas 10:48, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd like to commend you all on your excellent work on this entry, especially on the difficult research necessary to provide ample, high-quality sourcing. In terms of further walls, unless there is a strong content-based reason for separating them, I would imagine that they could exist here unless/until they grew large enough to warrant a forking, and a change of name might be all that is necessary to alter the scope. Keep up the good work. Cheers,  Tewfik Talk 01:44, 20 May 2007 (UTC)

Error in paragraph 2
Paragraph 2 states that Constantinople was impregnable until the fall of the city in 1453; but the city was indeed sacked in the Siege of Constantinople (1204). Tempshill (talk) 06:21, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * Yes it was. But you must pay closer attention to what is actually written in the paragraph: "when well manned, they were almost impregnable for any medieval besieger" (the "almost" exactly because of 1204), and "Only the advent of gunpowder siege cannons rendered the fortifications obsolete". As a fortification system, the land walls were indeed breached only because the Ottomans had guns. In 1204, the Crusaders scaled the Sea Wall, and even then, the sack was more the result of hopeless inefficiency and unpreparedness on the Byzantine side (in 1204, the "when well manned" condition was certainly not the case, and there was no proper leadership either) and the good knowledge of the city defenses by the Venetians, rather than to any problem with the fortifications. Constantine  ✍  10:58, 12 December 2008 (UTC)
 * I Agree with Constantine. In "1204", the sea walls were actually taken twice, in July of 1203 the Crusaders put in a new emperor in Alexios IV Angelos and then again in April of 1204 to "...pay themselves".  The land walls were never the issue.  Dinkytown (talk) 14:30, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Was the fall of Constantinople a result of entrance through a gateway?
Although some turks did gain access though a postern gate which was left open, I would dispute that this rather than the breaches in the walls was the reason for the fall of the city, as far as I'm aware thebreak in through the postern was contained. Nicolo Barbaro makes no mention of this incident saying instead:

"At sunrise the Turks entered the city near San Romano, where the walls had been razed to the ground by their cannon."

Atma16 (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

Infobox Military Structure
Maybe Infobox Military Structure with the flag of the Byzantine Empire over, and map of Byzantine Empire (showing city's position) below this fine map of Constantinople, would not be a bad idea? --Kebeta (talk) 16:17, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * What infobox are you talking about. Can you link us an example... Dinkytown (talk) 20:13, 13 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Something like this, you have original Infobox Military Structure here. Since, Walls of Constantinople are Military Structure, it would be o.k. Maybe, it would be better if instead of map of Turky, somebody could put map of Byzantine Empire from the 5th century, because walls are from that time of history. --Kebeta (talk) 11:42, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I went ahead and implemented the infobox. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  12:24, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Looks great to me - power to the people!!! Dinkytown (talk) 16:40, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Is an infobox really necessary? It seems to merely repeat most of what's already stated in the lead while taking up a crapload of space.
 * Peter Isotalo 19:26, 23 December 2009 (UTC)