Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Siege of Constantinople (717–718)/archive1


 * 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 Ian Rose 17:17, 24 November 2012.

Siege of Constantinople (717–718)

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍  09:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

One of the most important conflicts of the Middle Ages. It was completely rewritten over the summer, making use of practically all relevant sources. It passed GA and a MILHIST ACR without major problems, and has also just now undergone a GOCE copyedit. I therefore feel that it is up to FA standards. Constantine  ✍  09:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Image comment - Given the time period in question this should be a no-brainer, but the coins do have to explicitly state that they're PD due to age (photograph is a separate license). Nikkimaria (talk) 00:04, 11 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What exactly? ? AFAIK coins don't fall under because they are not two-dimensional... Constantine   ✍  07:48, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, PD-old-100 would be fine. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
 * OK, done. Constantine  ✍  17:37, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Support on prose per standard disclaimer. I've looked at the changes made since I reviewed this for A-class. These are my edits. (Edits may take days to show up on that page.) Nice work. - Dank (push to talk) 21:05, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Comments: I've read to the end of "Opening stages" so far. No real problems, and very readable. It does a pretty good job of explaining a rather messy background. Just a few issues of phrasing for me so far. More to come. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "combined land and sea effort": Effort seems a little weak, but I'm not sure I can think of a better word than "operation", which seems a slightly anachronistic concept!
 * Changed to "offensive". Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The campaign marked the culmination of twenty years of attacks and gradual Arab encroachment on the Byzantine borderlands…": Am I correct in thinking that the Byzantine empire lost a considerable amount of territory at this time? If so, maybe this is underselling it slightly.
 * I've changed it slightly from 'encroachment" to "occupation" to reinforce the image. However, the actual territorial loss was confined to Cilicia (which was either way practically a deserted no-man's-land) and what remained of Armenia IV around Melitene. These were both frontier areas, while no part of the vital core of Asia Minor was not permanently occupied by the Arabs. The process was gradual and the details not very clear. I'd prefer not to focus too much on this, as it has little direct impact on the siege itself. Suffice to make clear that by ca. 710 the Arabs had eroded Byzantine defences and taken over the fortified defensive zone along eastern Asia Minor, allowing them full access to the peninsula itself. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "…aided by internal Byzantine turmoil.": Aided may be a little strong, as it suggests some sort of active co-operation. Maybe worth adding a phrase on how the Byzantine situation had a bearing on this. Perhaps link more explicitly with the sentence on "hoped to exploit the ongoing Byzantine civil strife..."
 * I've rewritten most of this section. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Arab fleet, which accompanied the land army and was meant to complete the city's blockade by sea, was neutralized soon after its arrival by the Byzantine navy through the use of Greek fire, allowing Constantinople to be resupplied by sea, while the Arab army was crippled by famine and disease during the unusually hard winter that followed": Long sentence?
 * Indeed. Broken up in two. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "In spring 718…": Perhaps needs more precision, according to WP:SEASON.
 * SEASON says "unless there is a logical connection (the autumn harvest)". Generally, there's a seasonal connection to military campaigns, and "spring" is commonly used by military historians. - Dank (push to talk) 04:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * No problem, thanks for that one. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks ... we occasionally have heated arguments on that, which I wanted to avoid :) - Dank (push to talk) 20:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "two Arab fleets that were sent as reinforcements": Redundancy.
 * Removed. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The siege is also credited with halting the Muslim advance into Europe, and is hence often considered one of history's most decisive battles.": These are some pretty grand sweeping claims, and maybe worth attributing to someone. Possible "Professor X believes…" would not work here, as it is probably a pretty widely held view. My preferred format is "Historians credit…" or "Historians consider", but you may disagree vehemently, and if so please ignore this one as it is not a big deal.
 * "Historians credit..." sounds good. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "and the consequent Byzantine ascendancy in the East enabled them to extract huge amounts of tribute from the Umayyad government in Damascus": I presume "them" here is the Byzantines, but the sentence begins with the caliphate as the subject which makes this a little ambiguous.
 * Clarified. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "In 692, as the Umayyads victoriously ended the Muslim Civil War…": Not sure about victoriously; maybe "the Umayyads prevailed in the Muslim Civil War"?
 * Changed to "emerged as victors from". Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Byzantine reaction became more and more feeble.": Feeble is slightly POV. Perhaps better to elaborate in what way it became feeble, or to use a less pejorative word such as ineffective.
 * I've rephrased to make clear that the sources cease to mention acts of Byzantine reaction, from which scholars deduce that their defensive system had collapsed. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Nevertheless, as the Byzantinist Warren Treadgold comments…": Using "as" suggests that we are concurring in a sense of editorialising. Maybe just cut "as" completely.
 * Removed the "Nevertheless, as..." entirely and rephrased. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "allegedly because of a prophecy that a Caliph bearing the name of a prophet would capture Constantinople": Alleged by who? This is a weak phrasing, and it may be better to rephrase. It either was the case, or it wasn't. If it is an apocryphal story, where does it come from?
 * Clarified that this is mentioned in the Arab accounts of the siege. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "at a time when the Umayyad state experienced a period of continuous expansion": Can a state experience something? Perhaps "underwent" or "was undergoing" or just "was continually expanding".
 * Done. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "were repaired and equipped with ample artillery": Perhaps specify what "artillery" as the reader may picture canons!
 * I can't really think of a term that would adequately encompass the engines in question: "mechanical artillery" is too technical, "siege engines" too general, as it includes much besides artillery. Any ideas? For now, I've simply added "(catapults and other siege weapons)" next to it to avoid confusion. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * That looks fine now to me, and I'm afraid siege terminology was never my strongest point! Sarastro1 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "and those inhabitants who could not stockpile food to last for three years evacuated": Slightly awkward phrasing.
 * Rephrased. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "it is also likely that this is a confusion with Phoenix across Rhodes,[13] and perhaps even with Phoenicia (modern Lebanon), famed for its cedar forests[14]": I'm afraid this lost me. Among whom is there confusion?
 * I've tried to rephrase it. In essence, the sources simply mention "Phoenix", which is usually held by modern scholars to be the city in Lycia, but from the context of subsequent events might also be a small town of the same name across from Rhodes, and at least one scholar of note (Lilie) holds that this could be an error in the medieval sources, who misread Phoenix for Phoenicia ("Phoenice", which is an alternative name for "Phoenix", is also the Greek name for Phoenicia). Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "There, they acclaimed a rather reluctant tax collector": This is a little too informal.
 * Removed the "rather", any suggestions otherwise? Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The accession of Theodosios, who by all accounts was…": By whose accounts? This phrasing is both too informal and rather imprecise.
 * Rephrased. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "French scholar Rodolphe Guilland theorized that he offered to become a vassal of the Caliphate": It's a bit ambiguous who "he" is in this sentence.
 * Clarified that it was Leo. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Leo's success was a stroke of luck for Byzantium…": This comes across as editorial judgement. Sarastro1 (talk) 22:13, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Rephrased. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

More comments: Read to the end now, looking good. Just a few more comments and suggestions but I look forward to supporting. Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "the Arabs had prepared for a major assault on Constantinople": Perhaps a slight redundancy.
 * Removed. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * On the size of the forces: Apart from the contemporary/near-contemporary numbers, are there any modern estimates of numbers? I know historians sometimes attempt this.
 * Not that I know of. There is really no indication on which a modern estimate might be attempted, as the force assembled was of unprecedented size. I will however add a short footnote giving, by way of comparison, estimates of the overall size of Umayyad armies based on the men registered in the military lists. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Estimates added. Constantine  ✍  20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The only extant details on the Arab force are...": Not quite sure this is correct, given the many details you have just given. Maybe "details of the composition of..."
 * I've rephrased it a bit, which is hopefully clearer: we have numbers etc., which may or may not be accurate, but know next to nothing nothing of the internal command structure of the army, i.e. the units that participated, where they were recruited from, etc. Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Although the siege consumed a large part of the Caliphate's resources..." Another phrasing one; does this mean physical resources, or just numbers of men?
 * Good point. Changed to "manpower and resources". Constantine  ✍  09:28, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "The victory encouraged the Byzantines and dejected the Arabs": Can dejected be used as a verb like this?
 * Of course. "Deject" is a transitive verb, hence "dejected". Constantine  ✍  20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Ah! Quite right. Sorry, slight moment of idiocy on my part. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "had originally intended to sail to the sea walls the same night and try to scale them using the ships' steering paddles. The same night, Leo drew up...": Same night ... Same night.
 * Good spotting. Corrected. Constantine  ✍  20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "with supplies reportedly piled up in high mounds in their camp": Similar to allegedly above, I don't think reportedly is the best way to phrase this.
 * Altered, as above. Constantine  ✍  20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "As the siege drew into winter, negotiations opened between the two sides, extensively reported by Arab sources but ignored by Byzantine historians.": Do any historians suggest a reason for this?
 * It is inferred, but not stated openly. It may well be that the negotiations, as reported, are apocryphal and part of the later legendary tradition that grew around the siege, or that the Byzantine primary source did not want to show Leo negotiating with the Arabs. Either way, we don't really know why. Constantine  ✍  20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "the Lombard historian Paul the Deacon put the number of their dead from hunger and disease at an incredible 300,000.": Incredible is POV; also, these numbers do not tally with those given earlier for the Arab forces. This may be worth commenting on so that it does not look like a mistake.
 * Guilland himself, from whom the reference to Paul comes, comments "chiffre manifestement exagéré" on the number, I've rephrased to include that. Constantine  ✍  20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "despite its obvious exaggeration, gives an idea of the scale of the defeat.": A hint of editorial voice here.
 * Rephrased to quote directly from the relevant author. Constantine  ✍  20:11, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Images: Is it worth adding a photograph or photographs showing the area or any surviving walls? (Forgive my ignorance if these are not appropriate or available)
 * I've added a map I was working on, plus a photo of the land walls. I was unsure if it would be relevant, since the walls don't really feature much in this siege, but then I figured it was best to give an idea of what the Arabs faced so that the average reader understands why they settled for a long siege rather than an all-out assault. Constantine  ✍  13:09, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * What about historiography; have views of the siege altered over time? For example, what did Gibbon have to say? I'd imagine that opinions have changed among historians over the years. Similarly, the later Arab view of the siege is given, but what about the Byzantine view?
 * On the general historical assessment, the outcome is really too obvious for there to have been diverging views as to its importance. Already Gibbon, since you mention him, wrote that the siege "excluded the Arabs from the eastern entrance of Europe". On the Byzantine view, the siege was hailed as a miraculous delivery (as noted in the article, ascribed to the Virgin Mary) but it did not impact Byzantine culture as much as the Arab one. I've searched for an explanation, but haven't been able to find one specifically for this event. However, if you allow me a bit of OR, the reasons are plain enough. For the Arabs it represented the climax of their initial wave of conquests, the great attempt to seize the ultimate prize promised by Muhammad himself. Plus, the accounts and heroes of the initial conquests became the stuff of a common Muslim narrative, that was capable of bridging the political, ethnic or doctrinal divisions that came later. Conversely, for the Byzantines it was certainly a crucial event, but only one among the sieges of the city. The city's first siege in 626 by the Avars was arguably as perilous and important, and indeed left some profound traces in Byzantine and Orthodox tradition, likewise associated with the Virgin Mary. Its relative importance probably diminished in the ling term when measured against the Byzantines' perception of an already thousand-year-long Greco-Roman historical continuity. In addition, the siege was obscured by the onset of the Byzantine iconoclasm, as a result of which Leo the Isaurian was much maligned by later, staunchly iconophile, historians. In the Greek Orthodox view, he had to wait until the 19th century, when nationalism superseded religion in importance, to receive a rehabilitation of sorts (cf. Lambros' comment linking him with Miltiades). Constantine  ✍  11:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Finally, is it worth summarising somewhere what written accounts of the siege survive? Several are mentioned throughout, but what about explicitly talking about them and reflecting on their "viewpoint"? Sarastro1 (talk) 19:50, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added a short section on the main sources and their respective qualities. Constantine  ✍  11:51, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Looks good. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:52, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Support: A fantastic article, all the changes look good and I'm happy to support now. One last remaining point, which does not affect my support. Sarastro1 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC) Support (and thanks to Sarastro for querying things I might have raised :-)). Fascinating account of a critical historical event. Only one point of possible clarification: "Leo escaped to Pisidia and, in summer, supported by Artabasdus, was crowned emperor". Emperor of where/what? hamiltonstone (talk) 03:30, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * "Anastasios strengthened his navy and in early 715 dispatched it against the Arab fleet that had come to the shores of Phoenix in Lycia—it is also likely that this is a reference to Phoenix across Rhodes,[15] or perhaps a confusion with Phoenicia (modern Lebanon), famed for its cedar forests": Perhaps make it clear that a source refers to this place; the information is presented as a fact, but then it says actually, it may also be this. A simple rephrasing to something along the lines of "Source X says he dispatched it ... shores of Phoenix in Lycia, but this may be..." Sarastro1 (talk) 17:53, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I've rewritten this part again. A big thanks for your very thorough review! Constantine  ✍  10:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Clarified it. Constantine  ✍  10:10, 16 November 2012 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.