Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)


 * 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.

Article promoted by Anotherclown (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 05:30, 16 September 2017 (UTC) &laquo; Return to A-Class review list

Siege of Thessalonica (1422–1430)

 * Nominator(s): 

A drawn-out conflict that involved Byzantium, Venice, the Ottomans, and was part of a wider regional struggle that saw the rise of the Ottomans to renewed power following the Battle of Ankara. The siege of Thessalonica revealed the limitations of Venice's maritime power when pitted against a strong land empire, and heralded the fall of Constantinople itself a generation later. The article was (re)written from scratch a few months ago, and recently passed GA. I have used most of the related sources available, a few others (which are either complementary, or already referenced by the sources I used) are listed as further reading. I am confident that the article is comprehensive, and would like to submit it for FA eventually. Constantine  ✍  11:54, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

support auntieruth55
 * reviewed for grammar etc I've made some minor (very!) modifications in verb tense, etc. here.  auntieruth (talk) 19:06, 16 June 2017 (UTC)

source review
 * sources checked via Earwig's copy vio detector. report is here.  In addition, bibliography is good, modern sources, translations, etc.  also addition of "additional reading" will help readers identify where to go and what to start with.  auntieruth (talk) 15:31, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Hchc2009: Support (disclaimer - I reviewed at GA). Hchc2009 (talk) 19:29, 7 July 2017 (UTC)

Comments: Maury Markowitz (talk) 16:32, 12 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Even a brief overview turned up a number of instances of run-on and oddly formed sentences. I think a throughout GR run-through is desirable. I have not had time to catalog these, although I may in the future.
 * The lede is too long. There's a significant amount of information that could be further reduced or even just left out. Is this something you'd be comfortable letting me take a shot at?
 * Go ahead, thank you very much for offering it. If there you inadvertently introduce some error or remove something vital, I can always fix that. Constantine   ✍  19:44, 13 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Ok take a look and let me know what you think. Maury Markowitz (talk) 15:41, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi User:Maury Markowitz, sorry for the delay. Your edits look fine, I've only made some minor modifications, and re-introduced, in shortened form, the Venetians' attempts to seek allies. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)

Comments by Dudley
 * "In March, Venice formally declared war on the Ottomans" It would be helpful to explain earlier that the Venetians did not declare war earlier, perhaps in the sentence about the aim to block the Dardanelles.
 * Hmm, sending a task force to strong-arm someone during negotiations is not tantamount to declaration of war; it is simply an earlier form of gunboat diplomacy. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * My point is Ottoman raids and Venetian retaliation sounds like a war, so it would be helpful to clarify that the powers were not formally in a state of war at that stage. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "laid waste to the remaining Byzantine territories. Chrysopolis was captured by storm and largely destroyed.[4] Thessalonica too submitted" But you said in the previous paragraph that Chrysopolis and Thessalonica had surrendered several years earlier. I know you said that they were allowed almost complete autonomy, but it is still puzzling to see them described as Byzantine territories.
 * I have rephrased to clarify the situation. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "the disastrous Battle of Ankara against Tamerlane in 1402" It would be helpful to spell out that it was an Ottoman defeat.
 * Relevant section has been rephrased. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "the former city's local aristocracy" Why "former city"? Had it lost its status?
 * "Former city" refers to Thessalonica, i.e. the first of the of aforementioned cities of Thessalonica and Constantinople; rephrased for clarity. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Referring to Thessalonica, you say "the autonomous regime of Manuel II in 1382–1387" As above, I thought you said that it was the Ottomans who conquered the city but allowed it autonomy.
 * Manuel too had led an autonomous regime in the city. Rephrased a bit to make it clearer. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "While the Ottomans blockaded and attacked Thessalonica from land, trying to starve it into surrender" and "by October 1424 the situation in Thessalonica was so dire" Is no further detail available? My impression so far is that this seems to be a general account of the wars with passing mentions of the siege, rather than an article about the siege.
 * There is no account that deals with the siege proper on a year-by-year basis. These events are all part of the same conflict, of which the siege is the centrepiece. A title like "Ottoman–Venetian conflict over Thessalonica" might be more accurate, but in the end it is the same. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "the Venetians found Ierissos abandoned by its garrison" Presumably its Ottoman garrison?
 * Indeed, clarified. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "five other forts" other than what? You have not mentioned any other forts.
 * Other than Ierissos, of course. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * You said that the garrison abandoned the town. If it was a fort at the town, you should say so. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)


 * "In response, Michiel occupied both the fort of Kassandreia, which he refortified and strengthened by the construction of two smaller forts in the area." The grammar has gone wrong here. "both" requires x and y.
 * Sorry, yes. A leftover from a previous phrasing. Removed. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * "At the same time, according to the Codex Morosini, a pretender claiming to be Mustafa Çelebid[›] arrived in Thessalonica, and gathered a growing following of Turks who considered him to be the true son of Sultan Bayezid. Pseudo-Mustafa launched raids against Murad's forces from the city" Presumably Michiel supported him, but this should be clarified. Also, which Turks supported the pretender - ones living in Thessalonica or ones who came to him from Ottoman territory?
 * There were no Turks living in Thessalonica during the siege. Where is that suggested? Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * More to follow, but as I said above, there seems to me too much background and not enough details of the siege. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:19, 25 July 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Dudley Miles, and thanks for taking the time to review! I have tried to answer/fix the points you have raised so far, and am awaiting the remainder. On your last comment, the background is necessary to show the motivations of the various parties in this conflict, and as I wrote above, the article is intended to portray the entire conflict over Thessalonica, which was to a large degree not carried out exclusively in or near the city itself. Constantine  ✍  12:36, 14 August 2017 (UTC)
 * It would be helpful to explain in the lead that there is no year by year account of the siege so that readers expect an account of the context rather than details of events in the city. (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hmm, a discussion on sources is not really warranted for the lede. I have rephrased it however to clarify that the article describes a) the blockade and occasional attacks on Thessalonica, and b) the wider conflict that featured raids and counter-raids. Constantine  ✍  08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Adrianople. Various sources say Murad had renamed the city Edirne.
 * "Edirne" is simply the Turkish name for the city. In English, as in most Western languages, in any context up to the early 20th century, "Adrianople" is still the common form. Only in an exclusively Ottoman/Islamic context would "Edirne" be used. Constantine  ✍  08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * Finished review - looks good. Dudley Miles (talk) 14:56, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
 * G'day can you advise if you are supporting or are taking a neutral position on the promotion of this article please? It looks close to being ready to go. Peacemaker67  (click to talk to me) 02:40, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * I am neutral as the nominator has not replied to my comments of 21 August. Dudley Miles (talk) 05:08, 29 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry for the delay Dudley Miles, been rather busy elsewhere. I hope I have addressed the final concerns. Any more suggestions/comments, even if above and beyond ACR requirements, are welcome, however. Constantine  ✍  08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)


 * Comments - nice work. One thought, more to come (hopefully!).
 * Can this sentence be split in two? Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 04:49, 11 August 2017 (UTC)
 * Hi Ed! Good point, split has been done. Any more comments? Constantine  ✍  08:36, 5 September 2017 (UTC)
 * I don't know if I'll have time to fully circle back on this—but with all the copyediting I did plus subsequent changes, I feel comfortable supporting this. Ed [talk] [majestic titan] 05:25, 7 September 2017 (UTC)

Image review had a look through the image licensing and it all looks ok to me, mostly reproductions of PD-100 2D artwork or free. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:46, 29 August 2017 (UTC)


 * The discussion above 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.