Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Byzantine navy


 * The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by SandyGeorgia 21:34, 15 March 2009.

Byzantine navy

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍ 

This article already underwent a failed FAC in October-November 2008. Since then, it has been greatly expanded and generally rewritten with far more details, although the general outline has remained the same. I have also managed to get access to the most up-to-date and comprehensive scholarly book on the subject, the Age of the Dromon, and am confident that the information included is correct, and reflects the current scholarly views. To prospective reviewers: please be as thorough as you can, and thanks in advance! Constantine  ✍  19:03, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support. Just like I supported the previous nomination, I will reiterate that this is a truly remarkable article well deserving of featured status. Its excellence lies not only in the should I say perfect referencing using works issued by the world's leading university publishers and prominent authors in the field, but also in the very engaging and captivating prose. Cplakidas' writing is something that I really admire, probably because it has always been difficult for me, as a non-native speaker of English, to reach such heights. The article is well-structured, appropriately illustrated, accurate and unbiased in its presentation. I found it particularly difficult to find even the slightest flaw, but I did detect one occasion of the deprecated date linking ("20 April 1453"). And what's of more importance, I believe the article should be more consistent in its usage of original Byzantine family names and not Latinizations (per the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium's conventions), e.g. Anna Komnene and not Comnena, Constantine Porphyrogennetos and not Porphyrogenitus, Euphemios and not Euphemius, Romanos Lekapenos and not Romanus Lecapenus (in the case of the latter two, both variants have been used in the article, which is inconsistent). However, I don't consider these to be shortcomings of enough significance to hold off my support, especially because I'm very confident that Cplakidas will be quick to rectify these. Wikipedia is in dire need of such impressive encyclopedic content and one should be able to recognize what is an actual flaw and what is just a minor issue that can easily be solved, and thus no reason to delay your support, I believe. P.S. By the way, any clue as to why the previous nomination failed? I did not see any objections and any clearly-specified points that remained unaddressed. Does a nomination have to gather a specific number of support votes? Todor→Bozhinov 20:39, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Wow! Thanks for such a ringing endorsement. I shall try and live up to your comments! As for the failure of the previous nomination, I assume that, based on FAC rules, the supervisors deemed there was not enough support. Only you actually voted in favour, and Johnbod suggested that it needed a thorough copyediting. I tried to find someone to do it, but no one really responded, and two days later, the nomination was closed. Lack of interest by reviewers can really kill a FAC. Let's hope this time is the lucky one! Thanks again and best regards, Constantine  ✍  20:58, 2 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments from 
 * Ref formatting (using WP:REFTOOLS)
 * The following ref(s) are spelled out more than once, a ref name should be used instead.
 * Treadgold (1995), p. 67
 * I. Heath (1995), p. 17
 * Pryor & Jeffreys (2006), p. 113
 * Haldon (1999), p. 77
 * Treadgold (1997), p. 145
 * Treadgold (1997), p. 277
 * Treadgold (1997), p. 576
 * Pryor (2003), p. 84
 * The following ref names are given to different references, that needs to be fixed accordingly.
 * TreadgoldB67
 * Heath17
 * Dromon113
 * Tread145
 * Tread277
 * Tread576
 * Pryor84
 * Dabs (using Dabs checker tool)
 * Need to be fixed.
 * External links (using External links checker tool)
 * Are found up to speed-- ₮RU  CӨ   23:42, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, I fixed the citations. However the dab links cannot be "fixed": the Great Schism is not even in the article (at least I can't find it) and the other two (Rus'–Byzantine War and Sieges of Constantinople) are very much meant to be included as such, to provide a list of the relevant conflicts. Following this, could I also bother you for an opinion on the article's quality? Any omissions/unclear areas? Cheers, Constantine  ✍  07:15, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but I mainly only review articles for their ref formatting, dabs, and dead external links. But your dabs and ref formatting is found up to speed as well.-- ₮ RU  C Ө   22:29, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Comments
 * "Sources and bibliography" ?
 * Pictures using thumb and fixed pic size attributes. GraemeLeggett (talk) 07:39, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The first one is because some of the listed works have not been actually used as sources, but more as a general reading. I'll change it simply to "sources". As for the second, I don't understand what you mean. Constantine  ✍  07:50, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * You use two different styles for defining the sizes of images. Please use only one, thumbs or fixed image size. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  13:33, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * To simply change the heading "Sources and bibliography" to "Sources," as you have now done, is a bit misleading. See these sections of Layout. You need to differentiate between "works actually used as sources" and those offered as "general reading". Please make a new section, "Further reading," below "Sources," and migrate the general reading to it. Bishonen | talk 10:28, 3 March 2009 (UTC).
 * Well, since the only title actually falling under the "general reading" category would be Ostrogorsky, I simply removed him. Is that OK? Constantine  ✍  13:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, certainly. Bishonen | talk 14:41, 3 March 2009 (UTC).


 * Futher comment. This article uses the Infobox War Faction template, the Infobox Military Unit would be more appropriate. GraemeLeggett (talk) 12:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Hmm, if I remember correctly, this had come up at some earlier point. I chose Infobox War Faction over {tl|Infobox Military Unit}} because it had some extra fields like "Allies" and "Opponents", "Area of operations" etc. Personally, I am quite happy with it. If however it is absolutely necessary, I'll change it. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  13:13, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The allies and opponents of the Navy are those of the Byzantine Empire itself - unless the Navy was in civil war/extreme infighting with the Army I wouldn't use faction template.GraemeLeggett (talk) 16:38, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, but not quite (the maritime allies and opponents of the Byzantines were fewer than their land counterparts, for one). I tried applying the Infobox National Military, but it doesn't have the fields I want, and, although I know that the policy is to use Infobox Military Unit for organized formations, it is more suitable for modern units rather than whole medieval armies. I cannot really put the Crusades or the Byzantine-Arab Wars, which were centuries-long processes, under "Engagements", there is no "area of operations", no space to mention the emperor as commander-in-chief and the droungarios and the megas doux as effective commanders, etc. Since to the reader, it makes no difference, I really feel we should leave it. I am sorry if I appear obstinate, but I really think the present box just summarizes the main points of the article better, which after all is the purpose of an infobox. Constantine  ✍  22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose
 * Violates NPOV. Gardiner is used exclusively to push the theses that the Arabs had no naval tradition and copied all. Medieval warfare source book says otherwise and mentions the lot of novelities introduced to naval warfare by technology transfer from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. The Arabian peninsula did in actual fact have a seagoing tradition. But I know that it's hard to tell the difference between a Byzantine and a Muslim ship from the remains, even more so for warships.
 * The ships section is incomplete. The pamphylia needs to be explained and the later highboarded warships.
 * "Like their Roman predecessors, Byzantine and Muslim ships were equipped with small catapults (mangana) and ballistae (toxoballistrai) that launched stones, arrows, javelins, pots of Greek fire or other incendiary liquids, caltrops (triboloi) and even containers full of asbestos or, as Emperor Leo VI somewhat implausibly suggests, scorpions and snakes." I don't believe this about asbestos because it's no instant killer. Has the scribe made an error? You quote this directly from the source, please check a reliable secondary work on that.
 * "Burning fiercely, it could stay ablaze even underwater for a short period. Despite the somewhat exaggerated accounts of Byzantine writers, it was by no means a "wonder weapon", and could not avert some serious defeats." I don't believe that. The earliest sources on saltpetre are Muslim and date centuries after the introduction of Greek fire. Please source how it could burn under water without oxygen or make it very clear that you only echo a highly suspicious opinion. Your sources possibly confused heating with burning because quicklime does heat up when reacting with water and as a result can create steam. This combined with a liquid flammable substance leads to a thermobaric bomb.
 * Mention the countermeasures against Greek fire.Wandalstouring (talk) 11:08, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * At last a comment on the actual content... On point 1), could you provide some more details on the book, so that I can check it? Also, what both the Gradiner book and Pryor make clear is that there was a shared maritime experience, at least in the Mediterranean, because the Arabs did use much of the existing naval infrastructure and manpower and I think that is what I have stated. There is no explicit statement to the effect that they had no naval expertise at all, or that their ships were copycat Byzantine designs. The fact however that both Arabs and Byzantines often used similar terminology and ship names does imply that at least some designs were common to both, or at least very similar. I'll try to modify the effect of the relevant statements, nevertheless. On point 2), Pryor makes clear that there is not much info on the pamphylos, and there is not much to find on it even in as massive book as the Age of the Dromon. I'll try to include whatever else I can find, but the construction characteristics of Byzantine ships in general are very obscure. And, what exactly do you mean by "highboarded warships"? On point 3), you're right, lime was meant, though it was not intended as a killer: Leo says that when the jars are broken, the smoke would choke and confuse the defenders. On point 4), the "burning underwater" is a leftover from very early versions of the article. Somehow it slipped by. As for point 5), what exactly do you mean by "countermeasures"? The simplest and most effective countermeasure was not getting too close (ca. 10-20 yards) to the prow of a siphon-equipped Byzantine warship. Constantine  ✍  12:43, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) Try David Nicolle, Medieval warfare source book/2 ISBN 1-85409-307-X
 * It's a summary that points you to other detailed works. The transfer of maritime technology between the Byzantines and the Muslims should be highlighted as not only a one-sided affair.
 * I found Nicolle's account a rather partial one. Additionall,y he is definitely no expert on naval warfare, but more of a scholar with a broad scope, and as such often uninformed in detail, especially concerning the history of technology. Generally, it should not be overlooked that the early Arabs did not create a new navy, but stepped in the footsteps of the existing millenia-old maritime Mediterranean tradition, with their navy manned by Copts and other Christians. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Concerning the Arab impact on Mediterranean sea-faring (with a special view to the lateen sail, before Lionel Casson long attributed to the Arabs): The lateen sail therefore predates the Muslim invasions of the Mediterranean shores, but this does not prove that some Arabs did not already have it. However, their maritime role before then was so confined that they seem unlikely agents for either its invention or its diffusion. Although Arabs were engaged in east African trade in the first century a.d., and others in the region of the Persian Gulf were reported to be seafarers in the third century, these were probably engaged in local navigation only. As late as the sixth century, when trade to Sri Lanka and beyond was conducted by Persian-speaking mariners, there is no mention of Arabs, who were clearly “playing no noteworthy part on the high seas.”30 Such Arabs as were mariners were south Arabians; the center of affairs in Arabian history abruptly swung to the northern Arabians on the eve of the Muslim outburst, and these people were emphatically not seafarers.31 Thus, when strategic opportunism impelled the Arabs to venture onto Mediterranean waters, they did so in Byzantine-style galleys, built and manned by Copts of Alexandria in their accustomed fashion, and in this way they won the great naval victory of Dhat al-Sawari in 655.32 Hourani assumes that the sails (if any) used by these galleys were square, on the presumption that the lateen was unknown in the Mediterranean for another two centuries. As Casson and others have since shown, however, the lateen was already well established as the auxiliary motive power for the Byzantine dromones. '''It follows that the Arabs learned their naval craft from the Copts and acquired the lateen sail in the same way. Copts, indeed, continued to supply the bulk of naval personnel for the Arabs in the Mediterranean for centuries.''' I.C. Campbell: „The Lateen Sail in World History”, Journal of World History, Vol. 6, No. 1 (1995), pp. 1-23 (9-10) Gun Powder Ma (talk) 10:41, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Amen? Sorry, but it's only one opinion. Feel free to add this source's statement to the article, however, you'll have to live with conflicting views not much older. Wandalstouring (talk) 11:12, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * 2) OK, I've always been wondering about that ship type. It might be a good idea to state that on some ship types information is rare.
 * High boarded ships of Galleass type were introduced in the very late Byzantine navy, but without guns, rather the high ground gave a decisive advantage in boarding. I saw picture of such ships as part of the Byzantine navy. It will take me some time to remember where.


 * 3)OK
 * 4) Change it, saltpetre was used by the Muslims for their Greek fire.(see for references)
 * 5) Wool soaked in vinegar was a popular countermeasure. Try Konstantin Nossov, Ancient and Medieval Siege Weapons (2006).
 * 6)I've been thinking about it and I'm really dissatisfied with your article structure. You have this extremely long section about the history of the navy that tells who when where rebelled and so on. After several sections it's totally boring. I suggest to split the history in three main phases and give for each phase history, structure, ship types, weapons and enemies(you should introduce their capabilities and the type of threat) and then move on to the next. These phases can be early period, middle period and late period as you have in the organization of the navy. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:00, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1)I'll check it if I can find it.
 * 2)Hmmm, I don't really know what to add on this subject. The Byzantines used mostly Western designs from the 12th century onwards, but in small numbers (except for the period of Michael VIII). It would be rather superfluous to describe the galeass in this article, when only a few examples of it must have been ever used by the Byzantines! The focus should be on the indigenous and distinctly Byzantine ship types. If you can find any concrete source however, please let me know.
 * 4)I've got some of John Haldon's notes on this issue. I'll go through them before making any changes.
 * 5)Ah, that's what you mean. OK, it'll be added.
 * 6)I have only been following the structure that seems prevalent in relevant books. I know the history section is very long and probably boring, but it's a summary of a thousand-year history. Only if I reduce it to the barest essentials can it be less "boring", and then the article will lose much of its essence. The ebb and tide of Byzantine fortunes, which was different in the different theaters, will simply vanish and become a bullet-list. If you have any particular areas were you think I go into too much detail, please tell me so. As for your phase proposal, I have thought of something similar before. My one objection is that the three sections would be receive very unequal treatment, owing to the scarcity of good information on the early and late phases. But I'll think on it. Constantine   ✍  14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 6) I've drafted a new structure here. The first section is rather short, but there didn't happen a lot compared to the other sections. The other two are of equal length and do cover threats, adaption and history of the navy. I've added a chapter on the Italian allies for the late navy. In brackets are suggestions for the content. Wandalstouring (talk) 17:02, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Points 4) and 5) taken care of, I think. As for point 1), I tried to clarify it, but sadly, I I can't find Nicolle's book either online or in any local library (bear in mind, I live in Greece). Buying it is out of the question right now, so if you want to add anything from it, be my guest. As for 6), the structure is interesting. One quibble: section 4 would, almost in its entirety, again refer to the middle period, not the one before or after. I intend to try setting up a restructured version in a sandbox tomorrow. Constantine  ✍  22:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll see when I can borrow Nicolle again or contact someone who has the book. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:20, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I've done a very rough preliminary restructuring based on your proposal, and after considering it and moving the pieces around in my mind a bit, I don't really like it. One of the good things in the current article, as I've been told by several other editors, is its clean structure by thematic sections. If we were to adopt a chronological criterion as the primary division, it would mess this up. Since one of the main tenets of this article is to present the development of the Byzantine navy, or, more accurately, "the naval forces of the B.E.", as a single continuous story coterminous with the Byzantine Empire (i.e. from 330 to 1453) the chronological division would make even less sense. In that case, the "early navy", which was not very "Byzantine", but very much "late Roman", should be split off entirely and joined with the Roman Navy article, with which, indeed, there already is a considerable overlap. To put it bluntly, describing the liburnian in an article on the Byzantine navy would not really make sense. Similarly, the late navy was so much dominated by Italian influence (not to mention being very small and with scant details available on it), that any section dedicated to its ships or tactics would be a waste of space and a duplication of things better stated elsewhere. Most articles on historical entities I've come across begin with a history section to provide context and an overview, and then have several sections on the more specific topics: government, culture, military, etc. If the current structure were somehow faulty or misleading, I'd certainly accept any proposal for a reorganization. But if it is only meant to break up the long history section because it is "boring", then no. Historical articles with lots of detail do unfortunately tend to be somewhat packed (reading Pryor's book on the dromon, replete with obscure technical and philological details, was not a pleasure ride either). But in this particular case, I think the prose in itself is good, and it is only the density of information that provides a headache. Even if we adopted the new structure, that would not really change either, as the bulk of the history section (the Byzantine-Arab conflict etc) would continue unaltered. I do look forward though to any additions on the issue of Arab ships. Best regards, Constantine  ✍  19:28, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Remaining issues:
 * The Italian ship types of the Byzantine navy aren't sufficiently covered.
 * In naval tactics and weapons the rise of crossbows should be highlighted because it changed the structure of naval combat. (see Nicolle)
 * I'm still not satisfied with the article structure. The navy adopted to different threats and this isn't highlighted enough. Wandalstouring (talk) 09:24, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * I've tried to cover point 1) without going into too much detail, as this is not the most relevant article. As for point 2), this may be true for Westerners, but I have seen no indication of it for the Byzantines either in books or articles. While crossbows may have been used at sea by the Byzantines, whether they "transformed naval warfare" for the Empire, when the Byzantine navy for the most part consisted of a dozen ships or even less, would be doubtful. A similar example are cannons, which also transformed naval warfare, but not for the Byzantines. In this case, however, we have clear source stating their non-use. On point 3), in terms of structure alone, I have given my reasons for so far refusing to do it. On the totally separate issue of "not highlighting enough" how the navy adapted to different threats, I beg to differ. The changing circumstances under which and the different foes against whom the Byzantines operated are very clearly mentioned in the history section. It is exactly this continuity in the narrative which I fear would be lost if we split the article up. Best regards, Constantine  ✍  16:12, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
 * 1 Needs more coverage because almost half of it's existence this navy depended on Italian type ships or used them.
 * 2 The crossbow is important beause it altered the number of marines and the availability of recruits.
 * 3 I don't ask yout to implement the structure I suggested. I ask you to highlight better how the navy adapted to different threats, because the Vandals were certainly different from the Muslims and the Rus. I don't ask you to highlight any more who, when and where a battle was fought, but by what means the Byzantines prevailed or were defeated. Wandalstouring (talk) 12:20, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * On point 1), I am trying to find more sources on the ships used by the Byzantines, but there is very little to go on. Furthermore, "half its existence" is a very gross exaggeration for the period late 12th century-1450s, when one considers that a navy practically did not exist for several periods during this time. I can not in good conscience add a description of the Italian galleys as complete as that of the dromon in an article about a navy that was not their primary user. Even more so since info on 13th-century galleys is scarce, and the 14th-century galleys, on which we know more, were used by the Byzantines in very small numbers. Also, as the links I provided show, there were different types of ships, and we don't know what kinds the Byzantine used anyway. The prevalence of Italian designs is noted and repeatedly emphasized, and their major characteristics are given. Anything more would derail the Ships section completely. The same (roughly) goes for the crossbow. No evidence for use by the Byzantines. There is also the fact that the Genoese (who were expert crossbowmen) seem to have lost most of their naval engagements with the Venetians, which leads me to doubt the veracity of how the crossbow "transformed naval warfare". I did however add a generic reference. I appreciate your remarks and want to have this article as comprehensive as possible, but please note that it is not titled "Medieval naval warfare", even though it has come to contain most of the stuff related to the subject.
 * As for point 3), I will try to emphasize the differences, but frankly, given the limited nature of our sources, unless the difference was major (e.g. Byzantine dromons vs Rus' monoxyla), there is little to go on. The section on tactics makes clear that winning a naval engagement against a similar-sized and equipped force was very much a matter of luck and generalship, and not related to technical or organizational aspects. Regards, Constantine  ✍  13:23, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Otherwise, sources look okay, links checked out with the link checker tool. Ealdgyth - Talk 14:24, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments -
 * Why are some citations "J. Norwich" but others are "MacGeorge"? Consistency is important. The only reason I could see to use an initial is to distinguish between two authors with the same last name. I don't see any in the sources.
 * No particular reason. Some refs (especially Norwich) were added by other authors. It can be easily fixed. Constantine  ✍  14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * need to make them consistent with the others. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Done Constantine  ✍  15:49, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * What makes "Heath, Ian (1984). Armies of the Middle Ages, Volume 2: The Ottoman Empire, Eastern Europe and the Near East, 1300-1500. Wargames Research Group" a reliable source?
 * The same reason that makes "Heath, Ian; McBride, Angus (1995). Byzantine Armies: AD 1118–1461. Osprey Publishing." a reliable source. Its the same author. His academic credentials may not be comparable to many of the other authors listed here, but he is one of the few sources on late Byzantine warfare I have come across that even mention the navy. Constantine  ✍  14:57, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I was more concerned with the publisher on this, I'm unclear on their reputation for fact checking. I'm on the fence about it, it probably is reliable, but ... Ealdgyth - Talk 15:12, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Yes, I understood as much. I anticipated someone would raise the question, actually. But the work is surprisingly good and thorough, often much better than the relevant Osprey books, if I may say so... Either way, he is used only as citation for two events and one for the Book of Pseudo-Kodinos, so there's not much of a chance he could have included something incorrect I suppose. Constantine  ✍  15:26, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I'll leave this out for other reviewers, but I do lean towards it being reliable, especially as it doesn't appear to be used for something contentious. Ealdgyth - Talk 15:52, 3 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, thanks for the effort!
 * What about a 'redirect' between notes and references of the type used in Hitler? If there are not any guidelines for featured articles to the contrary effect, I would recommend it, as it helps a lot navigating between text and notes and back. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 09:56, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is a good idea. I'll implement it right away. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  11:33, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Support - As far as I can see, almost everything requested has been ammended, and with a small polish, this should become a FA.
 * Support and make that strong if the issues raised in this review are fixed! Very well presented, informative, engaging, well-written. Everything a FA should be.
 * Comments -


 * Question - It might be late in the day to suggest this, but wouldn't History of the Byzantine Navy be a better title for this article? No 'static' or 'snapshot' view of the navy is provided in the article (correctly IMO), and the tone of the lead suggests that the article will guide the reader through the historical progression. With a time span of 1000 years (and, as the article, says repeated decline/recovery) to suggest that there was a single identifiable "byzantine navy" is perhaps pushing it a bit far. I'd say the same about something like "Roman Army".
 * Some minor points from the lead:
 * With the Muslim conquests from the 7th century onwards, the Mediterranean Sea ceased being a "Roman lake" - Surely it had ceased to be a Roman Lake before 455 when the Vandals sacked Rome from the sea? The point might stand for the Eastern Mediterranean though.
 * Shipping by sea is a tautolog - either 'transport by sea' or just 'shipping'
 * 'very existence of Byzantium - I assume that you mean the Byzantine Empire, but "Byzantium" could also be interpreted by a general reader as meaning the city of Byzantium/Constantinople. I think this should be made less ambiguous if possible.
 * A major point for the lead: I think you should add a fourth paragraph briefly summarising the composition & tactics of the navy. Otherwise the lead does not summarise the whole article.
 * The article ends rather abruptly with a discussion of Greek fire. I think there is definite scope for a short 'Conclusions' section to end the article. Not just a summary (the lead does that) but see if there any general conclusions that authors come to about the navy and its role. For example; Was a strong navy a prerequisite for a strong Byzantium? Although not necessarily easy to do, this would end the article nicely.

MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 12:47, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Gun Powder Ma (below) about the infobox. I would be tempted to kill it completely. The article does such a good job of summarising a millennium history that the reader should be made to read it - infoboxes do so much to detract from the narrative. Also, it is impossible to sum up that millennium of history by simply listing Allies and Enemies (especially since they were often the same state). I really don't think that infobox brings anything to the article.
 * I also agree with Gun Powder Ma about the disappearance of the ram. Surely the ram is too obvious to just have been 'mislaid'? There must have been some factor(s) which caused the ram to be abandonded? Lack of manpower? (Single banked ships might not have been able to generate the speed necessary to effectively ram (compared to a trireme for instance))
 * Having re-read it (and copy-edited the first half for prose), I think it's true that the prose in the second half of the article needs a bit of a polish. I will try to help out with this.
 * I have now gone through the whole article rewording as I saw fit. Another set of eyes would probably help make this more complete!


 * Good observations. For the title, since the Byzantine navy is already a historical entity, it would be rather redundant, again, like the "Roman army" and the likes. If one were to separate the "Operational history" section into a different article, then "History of the Byzantine navy" would make more sense. For the other points: The Vandals did interrupt Roman hegemony, but their threat waned after 477, and with Justinian's conquests, Roman control was fully restored (explained in the article). On the other two points, action is being taken! Cheers, Constantine  ✍  13:09, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Having now read the article fully, I see that the Vandals are discussed. However, I still think the sentence in the lead is a bit misleading; it makes it sound as if there was complete continuity from Rome to Byzntium with no challenge in the Med until the arabs. This is, however, a very minor point.
 * I added the Vandal "interruption" into the lead for completeness. A fourth paragraph will be added, and a conclusion section too. As for the infobox, two points: Venice (and Genoa) are listed in the "enemies" section as well. Venice was a loyal ally of Byzantium for two centuries (and a paid one for a further century) before 1204, and event he Ottomans were once allies of Byzantium under John VI. Nevertheless, that's the problem with infoboxes, and I would gladly do without it, only then someone would come and say "the article needs an infobox". If there are no objections from the current reviewers, I will however gladly consign it to the dustbin. The ram now... There is no claim made in the article as to why it was abandoned. The fact is merely stated. I will try to find some evidence on the process and the reasons. Constantine  ✍  10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I tried to reduce the tactics & ships section into a simple paragraph for the lead, but frankly, the result was not good. I only introduced a brief statement the re-establishment of a permanent navy and the introduction of the dromon as the point where the typically "Byzantine" navy takes over from the Late Roman one. Any suggestions however are welcome. Constantine  ✍  12:23, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Doesn't the info box provide a third category like "changing alliance" or something? Alternatively, one could substitute the info on enemies and allies altogether by cats relating to the navy itself. Something like "Main ship" = "Dromon (type of galley)"; Crews = "lower-class free born men", "tactics" = "grappling, boarding, missile fire"; special weapon = "Greek fire", etc. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 12:05, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Not with one of the standard infoboxes, I'm afraid. We'd have to build one solely for this article. I am quite prepared to do it, but perhaps no infobox might be better. I am waiting for opinions on this. Constantine  ✍  12:44, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong support. The overall composition and structure of the article, the subtle dialectic approach in describing and analyzing the chaging fortunes of the BN over a period of a millenium, the balanced views, and the broad basis of scholarship consulted, make a featured status for this piece of work well-deserved. A few minor points nonetheless
 * The article lacks illustrations both in terms of quality and quantity. Since the author had to contend with what Commons provides, and made the best use of it, this however should not detract from his work.
 * The right-hand box with Venice as "allies" irritates me. After all, Venice was instrumental in bringing down the empire and Constantinople in 1204. Similarly, another "ally" Genoa remained neutral in 1453 when it counted. I am aware that the box is only meant as a rough guide for the layman, but can't we do something about this black-white categorization? It does not seem fitting for an institution which could look back on a 1000 years of alliance and enemities.
 * The role of the ram is somewhat misleadingly perceived as a kind of lost wonder-weapon, whose lack somehow inhibited medieval Mediterranean warfare. However, the actual story is a bit more complicated. If I am not completely mistaken, the process by which the ram was abandoned was not like the story of a technology forgotten, but should rather conceived as a response to certain drawbacks, or the changing nature of naval warfare at the transition from antiquity to the Middle Ages. The article would win in stature if the transition from ancient ramming to medieval boarding and missile tactics can be more plausibly explained to the reader. Gun Powder Ma (talk) 19:46, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please see my reply to MinisterForBadTimes above for the latter two points. As for the first one, the dearth of good illustrations is sadly a fact. Constantine  ✍  10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Oppose, I think that in terms of prose the article starts well, but deteriorates somewhat as the article progresses. A few examples:
 * "The Muslim advance in Asia Minor and the Aegean was halted, and a thirty-year truce concluded soon after." So the truce ended? Or the agreement to a truce concluded, and the truce began?
 * "... it is usually assumed that their naval efforts blended in with the existing Mediterranean maritime tradition ...". What does "blended in" mean? Seems a strange phrase in this context.
 * "... great care was shown to the navy". What does that mean?
 * "Muslim raids unfolded unceasingly". Seems very awkward. Do raids "unfold"?
 * Well, an attack or operation unfolds, so why not a raid? It is certainly less awkward than "raids were carried out unceasingly". Unless you have a better suggestion? Constantine  ✍  10:58, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * "The Byzantines on the other hand were weakened by a series of catastrophic defeats against the Bulgars, followed in 820 by the revolt of Thomas the Slav, which carried along a large part of the Byzantine armed forces ...". What does "carried along mean"?
 * "the increasing fracturing" sounds wierd.
 * "During the course of the latter 9th and the 10th century ...". Latter ninth? Not sure what that's supposed to mean. Late-9th?
 * "The Empire's growing might was displayed in 942, when Emperor Romanos I sent a squadron which destroyed a fleet of Muslim corsairs from Fraxinetum with Greek fire." Sent the fleet where?
 * "... returned home after appearing off Acre due to the refusal of Count Philip of Flanders and many important nobles of the Kingdom of Jerusalem to help." Did they return home because of the refusal to help, or did they appear off Acre because of the refusal to help?


 * In short, I think that the second-half of the article in particular still needs some copyediting to reach the level of prose required of an FA. --Malleus Fatuorum 21:08, 4 March 2009 (UTC)


 * "blended in" was my humble addition today. Obviously, I am no native speaker, and I apologize for contributing to the presumed "deterioration" of the article. I will refrain from making further edits. However, I do think that the points you raised are in sum minor given the length of the article, and could be properly addressed, if the nominator is given sufficient time. Regards Gun Powder Ma (talk) 21:53, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I have made only one point, which is that I think that the second half of the article needs to be thoroughly copyedited. I do not consider that to be "minor". What I listed above are simply a few examples of why I think that copyediting is required. --Malleus Fatuorum 22:36, 4 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I shall begin re-checking the prose now. I assume that by "second half" you mean the second half of the history section, no? Constantine  ✍  10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I mean the second half of the article, as I said. --Malleus Fatuorum 13:20, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Wandalstouring asked me to drop by with some further info from Nicolle ( Nicolle, David; (1996) Medieval Warfare Source Book: Christian Europe and its Neighbours, Brockhampton Press, ISBN 1860198619) regarding the transfer of maritime technology from the Indian Ocean to the Mediterranean. Rather than introducing yet another editor's ideas contribs into the equation, I'm just offering some quotes rather than editing the article itself. (I found some on rams, too, which seems to answer other questions raised above.)
 * Arab influences

Hope this helps the debate. I can look up further info if required. Regarding the rise of crossbows, Nicolle states that "During the 13th century armoured crossbowmen became a specialist marine elite". (p. 178). Do you need more than that? Wandalstouring also asked about high boarded ships - which I shall look into. Gwinva (talk) 01:31, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * (p.47)Does Nicolle also gives his references? If Arab sailors were used in numbers in Med fleets from early on, there must certainly exist primary sources on which he relied.
 * As for the supposed introduction of the lateen by the Arabs into the Med, the use of both types of lateen already in Greco-Roman times has been long demonstrated by a number of authors (see, e.g., Campbell: The Lateen Sail in World History), with Lionel Casson leading the case. A selection:
 * J. Sottas: An Early Lateen Sail in the Mediterranean, MM 25 (1939), 229-230
 * H. H. Brindley, “Early Pictures of Lateen Sails,” The Mariner’s Mirror 12 (1926): 13
 * Richard LeBaron Bowen, “The Earliest Lateen Sail,” The Mariner’s Mirror 42 (1956): 241-
 * Lionel Casson, “Fore-and-Aft Sails in the Ancient World,” The Mariner’s Mirror 42 (1956): 3–5
 * Richard LeBaron Bowen, “Fore-and-Aft Sails in the Ancient World,” The Mariner’s Mirror 43 (1957): 160–64
 * Lucien Basch, “The Way to the Lateen Sail,” The Mariner’s Mirror 75 (1989): 328–32
 * G. Percival Kaeyl, “The Lateen Sail,” The Mariner’s Mirror 42 (1956): 154
 * and many more


 * (p.87)His claim on the Chinese transmission, seems to be based on conjectures by Joseph Needham, which have been in my view convincingly refuted by Lawrence V. Mott, The Development of the Rudder, A.D. 100-1337: A Technological Tale, Thesis May 1991, Texas A&M University, p.92f.. Mott points out that the very idea of mounting a rudder was far from new in the Med, and that the technological differences between the Arab and the Chinese rudder were too fundamental to asssume a transmission process:


 * "During the 13th century armoured crossbowmen became a specialist marine elite". Is he referring to Byzantine, Muslim or Latin crossbowmen? There is strong evidence that the crossbow was introduced by the crusaders into the Levant, since Anna Komnena called the weapon new in 1098, while Arabs chroniclers named it henceforth "Frankish bow". Gun Powder Ma (talk) 03:48, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Nicolle says that the Muslim did also employed it and had a special arrow clip. Wandalstouring (talk) 10:18, 5 March 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of points: contemporary historical texts clearly mention that in many cases, Arab navies were manned by Copts and other Christians. The Muslim navy in Carthage was built by Coptic shipwrights, and a large part of the crews sent to the sieges of Constantinople defected because they were Christians. Now, I also find it hard to believe that Persian and Iraqi shipwrights were needed to construct "shipyards in Palestine and Lebanon" from scratch, as is implied. This region had a naval tradition stretching back to pre-history, and had a great number of harbor cities. Persian and Iraqi shipwrights may have been relocated there, but I seriously doubt they provided the core of the Arab naval build-up. As for crossbows, the Byzantines may have already had crossbows in the 10th century: there is mention of cheirotoxobolistrai in the Cretan expeditions, but opinion is divided on whether these were deck-mounted ballistae drawn by hand (John Haldon), or crossbows carried by hand. George Dennis and Pryor are of the latter opinion. The new crossbows (tzangra) mentioned by Anna Komnene may have been of a different design and possibly more powerful, or, alternatively, the use of the earlier crossbows could have been discontinued. Constantine  ✍  10:50, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * From reading the excerpts from Nicolle graciously provided by Gwinva, I really don't see any major problems. He clearly states that "Islamic and Byzantine Mediterranean warships were much the same, with a considerable exchange of technology and terminology.", which is all we need in the present article. Anything more and this article will be derailed. We are not debating the exact nature of medieval Arab warships, or where each and every piece of nautical technology came from, but general outlines so that the correlation between the Arab and Byzantine navies is better understood. I have incorporated Nicolle's references to the section (including the one on Persian shipwrights, presumably he is basing it on primary sources), which ought to be OK now. Constantine  ✍  13:49, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * OK, issue solved about the exchange of technology and who manned the Muslim ships(there were Yemeni settlements in the Levant that contributed marines, but that should be a minor issue here). Gunpowder Ma has contributed some sources about the introduction of the lateen sail. That ought to be incorporated because more large masts usually demand a different construction of the ship's frame and rigging. Also, the lateen sails enabled better cruising. This change seems to appear in the Late Roman/Early Byzantine navy. Wandalstouring (talk) 14:32, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * I quite agree, preferably this should be added right after the newly-added section on the abandonment of the ram. If anyone is willing to contribute to that, he's welcome! Constantine  ✍  15:40, 5 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Gun Powder Ma and I have added some info on the lateen sail and its origin. I have also added some more info on the late navy (Nicaean period, and negative aspects of the Komnenian reforms) as well as expanding the lead per MinisterForBadTimes' suggestions and making several copyedits. I invite the reviewers to re-check the article (esp. Malleus for prose), and also to offer their opinion on the issue of retaining the infobox or not. Best regards to all, Constantine  ✍  22:06, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Strong Support The page addresses an important subject on which there is relatively little scholarly comment available. What little is available is often sketchy and widely dispersed within books whose main concern is not the Byzantine navy. The most relevant sources are indeed referenced, in particular the Conway book on galley evolution and 'The Age of the Dromon.'

With regard to the above-the-waterline spur replacing the ram, I believe that there is some belief that it was intended for use as a 'boarding bridge' (see: Medieval Naval Warfare, 1000-1500 By Susan Rose, p. 132 and Renaissance War Galley 1470-1590 By Angus Konstam, p.8). This makes considerable sense when the difficulties of broadside to broadside boarding between vessels with rows of projecting oars is recognised. The subject of the article is of considerable scope, particularly chronologically, and it covers it admirably. I don't think there is as fine a single-article treatment of the Byzantine navy available anywhere else, in any medium. I would reiterate my strong support for the 'elevation' of this article.Urselius (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Image concerns as follows:
 * File:Saracen fleet against Crete.jpg and File:Reconquest of Crete.jpg &mdash; the links are no longer correct.


 * File:ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo+themes.PNG &mdash; was this created by translating the information/maps gathered in the book onto a public domain base map? If not, please do so, as a direct copy of the maps would be copyviolations.


 * The map is not directly copied from the book. I happen to think the map, and the original it was taken from, is remarkably inaccurate in its depiction of Byzantine Thrace (the Byzantines controlled Adrianople, Philipoppolis, Serdica (mod. Sofia) etc. at the time, but this has no bearing on its copyright.Urselius (talk) 09:22, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * After checking the source through Google Books, I agree. The maps in the book are more detailed and focus on the eastern Mediterranean.  It is reasonable to say that the author likely created the base map from scratch or memory, adding the information from the book (which are accurate or not).  Anyway, this is struck.  Now if someone can re-locate the sources of the two images above, we can clear the image concerns.  Jappalang (talk) 13:56, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Image sources re-linked directly to the files. Constantine  ✍  14:15, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Please link to the page that is hosting the image, not directly to the file. The direct links to the file can be appended to the page, e.g. "[link to site] (specifically [link to file])".  Jappalang (talk) 15:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That's what I'd done before, but the site doesn't allow direct linking: if you try to input the link directly, it always redirects back to the main page (e.g. for the Byz. reconquest image and  for the Arab fleet. I have expanded the source info with a more detailed pat,h, so that their origin is verifiable, however. Constantine   ✍  18:18, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * That is great, thank you for providing the path. Jappalang (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)

I tidied up the other images (licenses, rationales, etc), so they should be fine. Resolving the above should settle the image issues. Jappalang (talk) 03:42, 8 March 2009 (UTC)
 * All image issues resolved. Jappalang (talk) 22:14, 8 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Support Well written, well referenced, illustration issues have been fixed. What is there not to like? Only issue a few redlinks such as Vitalian, Damian of Tyre and pavesade. I don't like redlinks and in any case they should be eliminated from an FA article. Aside from that I'm sold. Dr.K. logos 02:42, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * MOS cleanup; please see WP:MSH regarding the use of "the" in section headings. Please review WP:MOSDATE and WP:DASH and review throughout; when date elements have spaces, the endash is spaced, when the surrounding date elements are unspaced, the endash is unspaced. Also, quotes need to be corrected throughout: per WP:ITALICS, quotes are not italicized. I also found incorrect bolding, pls review for WP:MOSBOLD.  Sandy Georgia  (Talk) 16:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Sorry, the italicised quotes were my fault! MinisterForBadTimes (talk) 16:54, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

— Bellhalla (talk) 19:41, 11 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Comments (Disclaimer: I was asked to help copy-edit by Constantine)
 * In the lead section there's an ambiguous their (noted in an embedded comment). Although it quite likely refers to the Byzantine Empire, it could be interpreted to mean Venice/Genoa.
 * In section "6th century…", 2nd paragraph, sentence beginning In 535, the Gothic War began by a double-pronged Byzantine offensive…, what were the two prongs? Also, wars are generally started by someone; perhaps it might be better if it read In 535, the Gothic War began with a double-pronged…
 * Same section, 3rd paragraph begins with this sentence fragment: In 541 however, the new Ostrogoth Byzantines.
 * During the 640s, the Muslim conquest of Syria and Egypt created a new threat. To whom were they a threat?
 * The sentence beginning The Byzantines followed this up with the destruction of the North African flotillas… should probably be split into two sentences.
 * The sentence beginning This "Byzantine Reconquest" was overseen by the able sovereigns… is uncited.
 * I got lost in this sentence: Continuing the policies of his predecessor, Michael III (842–867), he showed great care to the fleet, and as a result, successive victories followed: in 867, a fleet under the droungarios tou plōïmou Niketas Ooryphas relieved Dalmatia from Arab attacks and reestablished Byzantine presence in the area,[63] while a few years later, he twice heavily defeated the Cretan pirates,[64] temporarily securing the Aegean.[54]. It should be split into two (or more) sentences to make the meaning easier to follow.
 * Who is saying the quoted material that begins Byzantium's lack of a navy [...] meant that Venice could…? It just appears and is not attributed to anyone. The same goes for the extended quote in the section "Naval strategy, logistics and tactics" farther down in the article.
 * Another really long sentence that should be split: The fleet under John Doukas was subsequently used to suppress revolts in Crete and Cyprus,[16] and with the aid of the Crusaders, Alexios was able to regain the coasts of Western Anatolia and expand his influence eastwards: in 1104, a Byzantine squadron of 10 ships captured Laodicea and other coastal towns as far as Tripoli.[17]
 * In the section "Naval themes", each of the first three themes is introduced by its name in bold type, followed by a period, then a sentence beginning "It was…". Integrate the names and incorporate some variation in these descriptions, much like what is done for the other themes appearing below these.
 * In the section "Dromon and its derivatives", bold type is used for emphasis, counter to MOS:BOLD.
 * Many thanks for your help! I have gone through the list and addressed your concerns. Is there anything else you would like to remark on, aside from MOS issues? Regards, Constantine  ✍  23:08, 11 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Happy to return to Wikipedia reading such a great article. Comments:
 * The article is long, and I am not sure if the use of WP:SS is always the recommended one. For instance, is Byzantium under the Isaurians far more analytic than the section "Byzantine counter-offensive", in terms of a main article–summary relation? Anyway, comprehensiveness is above length, and sometimes choices in this field are subjective.
 * History is replete with instances where galley fleets were sunk by bad weather". Such broad remarks make the reading more enjoyable, but, at the same time, I always fell my leaps asking "such as?"! Again, a somehow subjective comment related to the continuously unanswered question about how exactly we want an encyclopedis article written.
 * Minor minor issue, but if Basch in your references is also in french, you should indicate that as you do with your first source.
 * Well-written, excellent research and referencing, nice use of quotes, images, captions. Comprenensive definitely! I am a little concerned about the length and SS issue, but I'll support this great article. I read it once, but I'll do it again, and if I find some issues I ommitted in my first reading, I'll come back here with further comments.--Yannismarou (talk) 00:20, 13 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Hello Yannis! It is a great pleasure to see you back! The third point has been addressed, and as for the second, I have added a reference to the massive Roman losses during the First Punic War. On your first concern, sadly, there are several such instances: the dromon article is much shorter than the current section in this article. Hopefully however, these articles will be expanded to justify their inclusion. Thanks for your support, and once again, welcome back! Constantine  ✍  12:49, 13 March 2009 (UTC)
 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.