Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Fatimid conquest of Egypt

Article promoted by Hawkeye7 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 25 February 2020 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Fatimid conquest of Egypt
Instructions for nominators and reviewers
 * Nominator(s): 

The Fatimid conquest of Egypt was a turning point in the history of the Middle East and of Islam. The establishment of the radical Shi'a regime in Egypt threatened the Abbasids and the Sunni world as never before, the rise of Egypt as an imperial power in the Eastern Mediterranean, the establishment of Cairo as a major Muslim capital, all these would have manifold repercussions in religion and history in ways that still influence the world today. I began the article in October, it passed GA in November, and after considerable expansion since then with some new sources, I think it is now ready for A-class. Constantine  ✍  18:38, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Source review—pass
Correctly formatted, everything looks like an RS, different authors represented, mostly recent academic sources which is good. No source checks done because of nominator's good reputation. buidhe 00:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Image review—pass
No issues buidhe 00:05, 19 January 2020 (UTC)

Support from Gog the Mild
I gave this a good look at at GAN, but I am sure that I can find further nit picks.


 * That's a long lead, even for a 5,500 word article.
 * True, but it is rather short as a summary; much of Jawhar's activity as viceroy has been omitted entirely, for example. I am open to suggestions, but I don't see how it can be trimmed more without losing vital context.
 * "before Fustat and their navy was destroyed" Optional: "before" → 'in front of' may avoid a double take.
 * Done.
 * "Al-Qa'im moved to the Fayyum Oasis, but was again forced to abandon it in the face of fresh Abbasid troops and to retreat over the desert to Ifriqiya. As the Abbasid Caliphate entered a severe crisis in the 930s, the Fatimids again tried to take advantage of the ensuing conflicts between the military factions in Egypt in 935–936. Fatimid forces again briefly occupied Alexandria" Optional: fewer agains.
 * Yes, there's a tad too many :). Done.
 * "This enfeeblement of the former imperial power combined with internal developments to make the possibility of a Fatimid takeover more attractive to the Egyptians." Would this sentence not fit better at the end of the section, rather than of the first paragraph of it?
 * Good suggestion, done, with some rewrites to function as the summary of the entire section.
 * "occupied the region of Alexandria" It is not clear (to me) what "the region of Alexandria" is. Does it include the city? Or is it only the region around the city?
 * Fixed.
 * "not only were their salaries left unpaid and the money for the upkeep of the mosques vanish" Suggest 'vanished.
 * Fixed.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:51, 30 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "The death of long-time Ikhshidid strongman Abu al-Misk Kafur in April 968 effectively paralyzed the regime." Being picky, I am not sure what "effectively" adds.
 * Nothing, you are right.
 * "The pact quickly unraveled, as the personal and factional rivalries of the Ikhshidid elites came to the fore: Shamul lacked any real authority over the army, so that the Ikhshidiyya clashed with and expelled the Kafuriyya from Egypt, while Ibn al-Furat began arresting his rivals in the administration, thereby effectively bringing government and, crucially, the flow of tax revenue, to a halt." I know that you are fond of long sentences, broken by colons or semi colons, but you may want to review this one.
 * A habit deriving from both Greek and German, I am afraid. Fixed.
 * "The first years of al-Mu'izz' reign" Maybe 'The first years of the reign of al-Mu'izz'?
 * Much better, changed.
 * "Anti-Abbasid and pro-Fatimid propaganda had been widespread in the Islamic world during the early 10th century" Optional: "had been" → 'was'.
 * "with sympathizers even in the Abbasid court" → 'with pro-Fatimid sympathizers even in the Abbasid court'.
 * Changed to 'Isma'ili', since the sympathizers were rather generically pro-Shia rather than explicitly pro-Fatimid, but nevertheless may have impeded the Abbasid reaction to the emergence of the Fatimid Caliphate. Think vaguely Socialist sympathizers vs the Soviet regime.
 * " is recorded before the second invasion in 917/8, and in 919, the local governor arrested several people who were in correspondence with the invading Fatimid army." I find the punctuation here confusing. I suggest two sentences to cover the two separate events, but something needs changing.
 * Tried to untangle this, have a look.
 * That works.


 * "the Fatimids turned even more to propaganda and subversion" "even more"? It hasn't previously been mentioned.
 * This is meant to refer to the opening sentence of the section.
 * And you have mentioned "agents-provocateurs and sympathizers". OK. Me bad.


 * "The Fatimid cause was further helped by the terror inspired by news of the continuation of the Byzantine advance into northern Syria in 968: without facing serious opposition, the Byzantines raided the area at will, and captured large numbers of Muslim prisoners." Full stop or semi colon after "opposition".
 * Done.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 13:01, 31 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "The Fatimids were well aware of this fact: in the previous invasions, although they had managed to occupy much of the country, their failure to capture Fustat determined their failure; conversely, the career of Muhammad ibn Tughj al-Ikhshid, and Jawhar's own success in 969, showed, according to Lev, that "the conquest of the centre determined the fate of the country, although the provinces were not totally subjugated"" A slightly long sentence?
 * Done.
 * " rumours spread that the military above all refused to accept it" Why "above all"?
 * That is a good question. I assume from the wider context it was because the aman said nothing about them, and they stood to lose their privileged position (as indeed happened). But neither Halm nor Lev explicitly say this, so I am a bit at a quandary here whether to state this. For now I have removed 'above all'.
 * "Using these boats, Ibn Fallah led a part of the Fatimid army across, although it is unknown where; according to al-Maqrizi, four Ikhshidid commanders had been sent with their troops to reinforce the possible landing points, but the Fatimid troops managed to land, and on 3 July, prevailed against their opponents in battle." Another sentence which tries to cover a lot ground.
 * Fixed.
 * "The rest of the Ikhshidid troops then abandoned Rawda and dispersed, abandoning Fustat and fleeing" Could this be recast?
 * Done.
 * "but Jawhar prudently decided to agree to its renewal" "prudent" seems a bit PoV. If solidly backed by RSs, perhaps it could be attributed in line?
 * Again, a lot of context from surrounding sections. Removed as the simplest option.
 * "From Damascus a Fatimid army moved north to besiege Antioch, only to be defeated." Could a reader be informed by whom they were defeated?
 * Done.
 * "5,000–6,000"; "1500 boxes of money" Could you standardise your use, or not, of commas in four figure numbers.
 * Done.
 * "The Fatimids distrusted their loyalty and refused to incorporate them" Another picky point: given the "them" and "their" I am not sure why this starts a new paragraph.
 * Fixed.
 * "The Fatimids distrusted their loyalty and refused to incorporate them as regulars into their army, but still recognized their usefulness as a "reservoir of fighting manpower" (Lev) for emergencies, especially since they were deprived of any other means of livelihood:[93] many were recruited to confront the Qarmatian invasion in 971 (see below), but many more who had fled Egypt joined the Qarmatians instead." Another long and busy sentence.
 * Fixed.
 * "After the invasion was repulsed" What invasion? The only one mentioned to this point was the successful Fatimid one.
 * The 'first Qarmatian invasion' is mentioned in the preceding sentence, but changed to 'Qarmatian invasion was repulsed' for clarity
 * "tread carefully"; "trod carefully". Optional: rephrase one of them?
 * Done.
 * "The Fatimid general called almost the entire population of Fustat to arms, and in two fierce battles on 22 and 24 December 971" No article on this? Not even a red link?
 * I've written an article that covers the Qarmatian invasions at Al-Hasan al-As'am, and at some point I'll flesh out the First Qarmatian invasion of Egypt and the Second Qarmatian invasion of Egypt into a proper article; but right now I am not sure there is enough info to even create a separate article on the battles at Ayn Shams.
 * OK.


 * "and the Qarmatians fought off in a battle just north of Ayn Shams" Ditto.
 * Per above.
 * "especially as Jawhar could not spare the necessary resources" Any chance of a 'to ... ' on the end?
 * "Despite the continuing local unrest, following the repulsion of the Qarmatian attack, Jawhar judged Egypt sufficiently pacified to invite his master, al-Mu;izz, to come to Egypt." Would that read better as 'Following the repulsion of the Qarmatian attack, despite the continuing local unrest, Jawhar judged Egypt sufficiently pacified to invite his master, al-Mu;izz, to come to Egypt.'?
 * Indeed, done.

Splendid work. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:28, 31 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi Gog, I've dealt with/answered your comments above. Please have a look. Any further suggestions? I am particularly concerned with comprehensibility in terms of context for the average reader. Constantine  ✍  09:25, 2 February 2020 (UTC)


 * You seem to have overlooked '"especially as Jawhar could not spare the necessary resources" Any chance of a 'to ... ' on the end?' I don't insist, so I leave it with you.
 * Frankly, I think that an average reader is going to struggle with it. But I don't see that that is your fault. The time and place was inherently incomprehensible. Makes Game of Thrones look straight forward. I feel that you have done a good job of balancing simplifying and trimming as against giving a full explanation. One could reasonably set that balance in a different place, but I am not sure that would result in a "better" article.
 * Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Support from AustralianRupert
G'day, not a lot stood out to me. Nice work. I have a few very minor comments/suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 05:25, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
 * there are no dab links (no action required)
 * external links work: (no action required)
 * all information appears referenced/cited (no action required)
 * coverage seems complete to me as someone without knowledge of the topic (no action required)
 * with some 5000–6000 of their men --> "with some 5,000–6,000 of their men"?
 * Fixed.
 * I spotted "color" (US English variation) but also "defenceless" (British)
 * There's been some copying from my contributions to other articles where US English is used, thanks for spotting that.
 * unraveled --> unravelled?
 * Fixed.
 * ordered to dismount and do Jawhar homage --> "ordered to dismount and pay Jawhar homage"?
 * "do homage" is a bit archaic, but correct; and IMO it reflects better the actual act of showing deference.
 * "autumn 971" and "summer of 972" -- I wonder if these should be avoided per MOS:SEASON
 * I've used the months whenever possible, but in some cases that is not explicitly given in the sources. WP:SEASON is also unlikely to apply here, given the timeframe and clear location in the northern hemisphere.
 * other than the couple of very minor points above, the prose seems well written to me (no action required)
 * in the References, Bianquis and Canard are possibly overlinked
 * I generally add author links to all entries where these exist. I am not sure that MOS has a concrete rule on this.
 * in the References is there an OCLC number, or similar, for the Gibb work?
 * I've only been able to find one for the entire work, rather than the volume.
 * in the References, the ISBN for Hathaway should have hyphens for consistency with the others
 * Done.
 * Hi AustralianRupert, thanks for taking the time. I've addressed your comments. Could I also, like Gog above, ask you about the comprehensibility of the article, and if there is anything you feel should be changed/improved in this regard? Constantine  ✍  10:40, 16 February 2020 (UTC)