Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)


 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page.  No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Closed/promoted -- Ian Rose (talk) 11:01, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)

 * Nominator(s): Constantine  ✍ 

One of the biggest and most celebrated (by the Arabs) campaigns of the entire Byzantine-Arab conflict, and yet a sort of swan song for the sustained Abbasid offensive against Byzantium under Harun al-Rashid. The article passed GA without major problems a couple of weeks ago, and I think it meets A-class criteria. Constantine  ✍  14:37, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments:
 * Some comments below, most of them on the prose. As usual, a well researched article!
 * In the infobox, should the "summer..." and "central..." be capitalised?
 * "Following the deposition of Empress Irene of Athens in October 802 and the accession of Nikephoros I, a more violent phase in the long history of the Byzantine-Arab Wars began." - it may be worth explaining in the main text here (as well as in the lead) who these two are (it assumes the reader knows they are Byzantine, rather than Arab, and that they are the rulers etc.).
 * "a truce with Harun al-Rashid" - ditto
 * "Nikephoros, on the other hand, was both more warlike—a Syriac source records that when he learned of Nikephoros's accession, a Byzantine renegade warned the Arab governor of Upper Mesopotamia to "throw away his silk and put on his armour"—and determined to refill the imperial treasury by, among other measures, ceasing the tribute." - the last clause is quite a way from the noun at the start of the sentence; I'd recommend splitting after armour.
 * "an ultimately unsuccessful revolt of the Asian army under its commander-in-chief, Bardanes Tourkos." - what is the Asian army?
 * "a second, larger invasion under the Caliph himself. " was the first technically an invasion, since the Asian army was already (I'm assuming) in the empire?
 * "In the next year, a force under Ibrahim ibn Jibril" - "an Arab force" would make clear which side this was on
 * "he launched the first Byzantine raid in two decades into the Arab frontier district (thughur) in Cilicia." - the first raid for two years into this district, or the first Byzantine raid more generally?
 * "The city, which had only been refortified and repopulated on Harun's orders in 786 to strengthen the Muslim hold on Cilicia, fell " - "only" could mean that it was recently done, or that Harun had done this primarily to strengthen the Muslim hold etc. Unclear which one is meant here.
 * "garrisoning Tarsus and Melitene..." missing a matching second speech mark
 * " Altough they are certainly exaggerated..." spelling of although
 * "numbering 135,000 regular troops and even more volunteers and freebooters." taken literally, this would mean that there were another 135,000+ volunteers and freebooters (i.e. 270,000+ overall). Or did it mean "and additional volunteers and freebooters"?
 * "The huge invasion army departed Harun's residence..." Do you really mean that the whole army left his house?
 * More generally, I wasn't sure from the article on a couple of broader points. What sort of terrain was the invasion fought over? Was it mountainous, hot, etc.? I also wasn't sure what sort of military technology was employed - was this a war fought with lots of cavalry, or foot soldiers, etc.? A few sentences early on could help place the conflict for the new reader. Hchc2009 (talk) 15:39, 20 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Hello and thanks for the sharp-eyed review! I've dealt with most points, except for the last, AFAIK "residence" can be used for a favourite residing place, and not strictly about a house or palace located therein. On the general remarks, I'll dig the sources and see what I can find. Wait a couple of days. Constantine  ✍  08:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've had a look in my sources. There isn't much to say concerning your points: the composition of the Abbasid army is unknown, although from its size alone it was probably largely infantry. On the terrain, I've added a map of the frontier region, which should show the mountainous nature of the frontier region. I could add more info on the respective armies, but it would be too generic and not particular to this article's subject. If you have any particular points that you would like me to examine, however, please tell me and I'll see what I can do. Constantine  ✍  14:25, 26 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The chronology of the first section seems a little confusing to the reader. "In the next year, an Abbasid force under Ibrahim ibn Jibril crossed the Taurus Mountains into Asia Minor." Is this 803? If so, then it seems that Harun al-Rashid's offensive was meant to preempt "similar attacks for the next year" which would be 804? But Harun al-Rashid doesn't send forces until 806. This seems a bit confusing.
 * The humiliating poll-tax paid by Nicephorus of 3 gold pieces for both his son and himself seems relevant. See Ostrogosky (1957) pg. 173 or books.google.com/books?id=Igp8hxsHV_AC&pg=PA1016. Also, the second source (which uses Theophanes) seem to suggest a different amount than specified in the article.
 * Overall, this was pretty excellent though.
 * Support pending the above points DemonicInfluence (talk) 19:52, 27 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks for taking the time and reviewing this! I've clarified the chronology in the firs section, but I can't understand what you mean in your second observation. Do you think I should include Ostrogorsky or the other source in the article? As to the amounts of the tribute and the poll tax, both versions, of Theophanes and Tabari, are included and cited straight from the standard translations of their work. Please clarify. Constantine  ✍  21:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I like the clearer chronology in the first part. Sorry, I'm stupid and failed to read how you already quoted Theophanes and Tabari because I assumed that would be in the aftermath. Support DemonicInfluence (talk) 23:58, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Comments. As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. Please check the edit summaries. For things that I've pointed to in reviews of your previous articles, see the previous reviews for the explanation. - Dank (push to talk)
 * "reportedly"
 * "deposition": deposing
 * "Byzantine-Arab" - Dank (push to talk) 17:25, 20 June 2012 (UTC)


 * What's wrong with "deposition"? There's even an article: Deposition (politics). And with "Byzantine-Arab" I assume you mean an endash is required? If so, that's done. I also rephrased the first "reportedly" in the lede, which was out of context, but I think the second fits well. As always, thanks for taking the time and your edits! Constantine  ✍  07:04, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Google ngrams won't help since "deposition" is used in so many senses. If someone knows a way to check a corpus for how often "deposition" is used in this sense, that would be great. Until then, I'll be happy to ask at WT:FAC if you'd like a second opinion. - Dank (push to talk) 17:42, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * There's another "reportedly" in The campaign. Again ... it's not that the word is never acceptable, it's that the word casts doubt on what you're reporting, so the reader needs a clue about why you doubt the information; it's not up to the reader to guess. - Dank (push to talk) 17:46, 21 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Once you've said "in Arabic", don't keep repeating it, just give the translations in italics.
 * "August/September"
 * "As soon, however, as the Arabs had withdrawn, the Emperor again restored ...": I went with and recommend: "But as soon as the Arabs had withdrawn, the Emperor again restored ...". If you prefer "however", then go with "As soon as the Arabs had withdrawn, however, the Emperor again restored ..."
 * Support on prose per standard disclaimer. - Dank (push to talk) 20:17, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Support:
 * external links all work;
 * suggestion only: images could have alt text added to them, but as they are both maps it might be of little value:
 * the images themselves appear correctly and suitably licenced to me;
 * the article is well referenced and the coverage seems complete (to me as a non-expert);
 * I'm happy to accept Dank's endorsement of the prose. I read it through for completeness and didn't see anything major to draw my attention;
 * I checked the online refs for copyright violations with the Duplication Detector but nothing stood out as being problematic. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 07:20, 23 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.