Talk:Byzantine Empire under the Komnenos dynasty

What this article should have

Hi Bigdaddy1204, nice work, though I think this article needs a little rough bits removed and some others added.

• First of, I know this may sound like I am getting left out but the Byzantine-Seljuk Wars article should be either linked and/or mentioned with its own section. Since you have already spread the article amongst the three prominent Komnenoi leaders, its probably just best to mention it a little, link to Byzantine-Seljuk Wars and leave it be.

• Secondly the Angeloi and decline section should be reduced - I know that the Angeloi were related to the Komnenoi but they have their own dynasty I thought, so we should make it its own article.

• From the second point the decline section should only mention Andronikus Comnenus and the other Comnenoi leader, I forget his name. In any case it wasn't so much of a decline as a stagnation period since the empire was still strong and Andronikus had attempted to maintain the wise reforms of Manuel Comnenus.

Apart from that it looks great. I believe we can add more detail. Its summer and believe it or not I usually have more time to edit when I am at Uni then at free time. So I can't make any promises, I might stick my head in now and again to assist.

Regards,

Tourskin 19:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I have added the link to Byzantine-Seljuk Wars. Nice article, by the way.

• I agree about the Angeloi and decline. I will try to tidy that section up at some point.

• I also agree that there should be more on Andronikos. Unfortunately I don't know so much about him as the other Komnenoi, but it would certainly be a good idea to add more.

I must go, but I shall return soon! Bigdaddy1204 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what the Oxford encyclopedia of Byzantium has about Andronikus. Tourskin 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I have now added a large section dedicated to Andronikos, using information taken mainly from Ostrogorsky's 'History of the Byzantine state'. I will try to clear up the sections on the Angeloi and Fourth Crusade next, together with the conclusion. Bigdaddy1204 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review

I have taken on Byzantium under the Komnenoi for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by User:Deucalionite. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I'll shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.

Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be very pleased if this article could become a 'Good article'. I will try, time permitting, to improve it as best I can. Perhaps it may even become a Featured Article eventually; I am reminded of an article I worked on, Manuel I Komnenos, which first became a 'Good Article', and then became a 'Featured Article', and ended up appearing on the Wiki Main Page. Thanks for taking on the review; hopefully this article has a good future ahead of it :) Bigdaddy1204 16:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the comment. I'm a bit reluctant to start the GA review process whilst the article is being worked on (although minor edits are not a problem), so I'll check back at the weekend. If you are undertaking a lengthy copyedit, it might be best to delist the article and re-nom later when you are ready. Regards, EyeSerene^TALK 10:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps that would be best, for now. I am going away this weekend, so I won't be able to do much more until I return on Monday evening. I think there is still some more work to be done on this article, including improving the Conclusion section, improving the references, expanding the bibliography, and tidying up minor issues such as spelling mistakes, etc. I don't think this work will take very long, but I probably won't have time to complete it until early next week. Bigdaddy1204 11:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If your copyedit is likely to be finished next week I don't really see a problem with keeping the review on hold for now. If you don't mind, just drop a note on my talk page when it's done. Cheers! EyeSerene^TALK 12:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

GA Status on hold

I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have placed it on hold pending the issues below being addressed:

• Prose - in places this is unencyclopedic in its tone. The main offender is the Andronikos I Komnenos section, with sentences like "Endowed by nature with the most remarkable gifts both of mind and body, he was handsome and eloquent, but licentious; and, at the same time, active, hardy, courageous, a great general and an able politician. However, he was also capable of terrifying brutality, violence and cruelty." If this is a direct quote from a book, which is how it reads, it should be marked as such... otherwise it needs a rewrite.
• Sourcing - there are a number of statements that should be either sourced or removed. To give a couple of examples:

• "This helps to explain how the Komnenian emperors, Manuel Komnenos in particular, were able to project their power and influence so widely at this time." (also maybe a slight rewrite here for tone)
• Parts of Andronikos I Komnenos are unsourced (generally at least one cite for each paragraph is preferred)

• Sections

• The Conclusion section should be merged into the rest of the article. This is not an essay and should not have a conclusion; much of this probably belongs in the article introduction.
• Some headings do not comply with the Manual of Style. I would recommend changing John's restoration of the empire to either John's restoration or simply Restoration; and possibly Slow recovery to Recovery
• Military reform lacks detail - it states that there was one, but does not explain what it was or how it was accomplished... although this is mentioned elsewhere. It might be worth either removing this section entirely or padding it out a bit (although the latter might mean removing parts of other sections to avoid repetition).

• Footnotes - although not a requirement for GA status, it's useful to use the templates on WP:CITET to format references and footnotes. This helps out later when bots are used for tasks like converting 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digits, or for tracking down archived versions of web pages that have gone dead. In any case, ISBNs should be provided for all book references used.

Hold status gives editors up to 7 days to implement the changes requested - I'll check back here in a week, or feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if ready before that. I have fixed a few minor things myself as I was reviewing (mostly grammar to avoid word repetition and remove commentary). All the best, EyeSerene^TALK 10:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done my best to address the issues raised above, and I feel the article is now ready to be reconsidered. I have also left a message at your talk page. Best wishes, Bigdaddy1204 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Pass

Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have no hesitation in passing Byzantium under the Komnenoi as fully meeting the standards required of a Good Article, and have listed it as such on the Good articles page (under History > World History). For the record, Bigdaddy1204 was the major contributor, with 41 edits at the date of final review. Well done! EyeSerene^TALK 17:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Alexios and his origins

At the moment Alexios seems to appear as emperor out of nowhere, perhaps a little background to his family might be useful.

They were members of the Anatolian "military aristocracy" with their powerbase in the region of Kastamonou (Castra Comnenion) in the northern Anatolian plateau. A relative of Alexios, Isaac (his uncle?) had been emperor (aknowledged as legitimate), relatively briefly, before him and his wife was a member of the imperial Dukas dynasty. He was involved in the suppression of the the revolt of the Norman mercenary Roussel in Anatolia before he became emperor. Therfore, Alexios had a solid reputation as a general and all the important family connections to make a bid for the throne successful.

Urselius 15:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A problem of style versus meaning

"Some headings do not comply with the Manual of Style. I would recommend changing John's restoration of the empire to either John's restoration or simply Restoration; and possibly Slow recovery to Recovery"

I disagree with this change on the grounds that the original phrase was explicit - "John oversaw a restoration in the empire's fortunes" whereas the replacement phrase suggests the alternative meaning "John was restored to his throne." The latter meaning is historically untrue, John never lost his throne and was never restored.

Urselius 15:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed this to Restoration under John II Komnenos - is this better? EyeSerene^TALK 09:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Aye! - Eye Urselius 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just grin and bear it. EyeSerene^TALK 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps (Pass)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Cheers, CP 22:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Merging this article

Each dynasty under the Byzantine Empire has its own article, and therefore material from the article Byzantine civilisation in the twelfth century would fit in nicely here as merged material. I would hope this is agreeable... Monsieurdl ^{mon talk} 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Komnenoi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RM bot 08:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

"Roman" vs "Byzantine" empire, once more

Somebody has again been going round multiple articles replacing the standard name "Byzantine Empire" with "Eastern Roman Empire". Let's clarify this one more time: We use the standard modern English name "Byzantine Empire", because that's what the reliable sources do. Professional historians know just as well as you and I that this empire was legally the continuation of ancient Rome, but they still choose to call it by this separate name, because they consider it sufficiently distinct in cultural and geopolitical terms to warrant such a naming practice. That's why we do the same. The insistence of some Wikipedians of "knowing it better" than the historical literature and pushing the allegedly more "correct" name in everybody's face in as many places as possible is a form of pedantry that really crosses the line into POV-pushing, "righting great wrongs". It's especially annoying when it happens across a series of sub-articles for which this terminological distinction is quite irrelevant, when on the main Byzantine empire article we've sorted things out properly for some time. This is a form of WP:COATRACK writing, hijacking an article as a vehicle to push a POV unrelated to the article's actual topic. This needs to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC

Please, spare me your fake indignation. Reality is POV, alright, splendid. Throw all the unnecessary excessive bureaucracy at me you want, but my point remains. No offense of course.-Metalhead94

Calm down man, personally I couldn't care less what the sources choose to call it.. what civilisation wouldn't evolve over a millennium? It is just annoying to see an artificial name used everywhere in modern English literature. Of course me and you know what the Empire was, but your everyday person probably wouldn't, and that was more along my line of thinking. However, my aspergers ass understands your point: -User:Metalhead94

Yeah, except that this discussion is moot. Wikipedia is not about proving truth, but about following reliable sources and neutral point of view. Overwhelming usage, both in the academic world as well as beyond it, is to use "Byzantine". Until that changes, Wikipedia follows it. Constantine ✍ 12:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of that fact, having been here since 2008. But my point stands, the term "Byzantine" is not only historically inaccurate, but also unnecessarily muddles the subject for the uninitiated, being essentially a recent western envention attempting to separate the late Empire from it's own identity, but alas, unfortunately it has become a common term in the West obviously. Also, every point you made I was already aware of. No disrespect intended though.

Indeed. Then you are also cognizant of the fact that Wikipedia has a set of core policies and these mandate, among other things, that we follow common usage. Which makes your insistence to disrupt the "Byzantine" articles just to prove a point all the less excusable. Constantine ✍ 20:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

I'm not editing it anymore, am I? You've proven your irrelevant point, yes, blather on with useless and distracting bueracracy indefinitely, but it doesn't change history, Arbiter of All that Was. I hope you are also aware of the fact that you're a condescending, self righteous prick, with your intent being obvious, and emotionally painful. No disrespect meant, though. This is serious.: Metalhead94 25 June 2019

Good to know you will stop this. You can still help improve Wikipedia's content in a myriad other ways, though. Byzantine articles are in particular need of attention, and if you are interested, you are more than welcome to do so. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 21:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

"A true Komnenos"? Please.

Energetic, able and determined, Andronikos was a true Komnenos. -- I don't think there is much evidence from the sources to suggest Andronikos was anything more than a rules-bending, power hungry criminal that eschewed responsibility and good-nature whenever it suited him. Andronikos I was the black sheep of the Komnenos family, and deserves very little praise. He destroyed the dynasty single-handedly and did heinous things to achieve his aims. I suggest this section be rewritten entirely as it paints Andronikos in such a positive light. Ambarenya13 (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)