Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Tiberius III/archive1

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.

No consensus to promote at this time - Sturmvogel 66 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 18:20, 20 September 2020 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Tiberius III[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Featured article candidates/Tiberius III/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is a part of my Roman and Byzantine Emperors project, and I believe it meets the A-Class standards. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:16, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA-5[edit]

Tiberius III (Greek: Τιβέριος Γʹ, Tiberios III; Latin: Tiberius Augustus) Unlink both languages.
Link comes from the lang template itself. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Little is known of Tiberius' early life --> "Little is known of Tiberius's early life"
Done
Byzantine emperor from 15 February 698 to 21 August 705 Add AD here.
Done
What's a droungarios?
Done
Maybe add the date of his death after Latin: Tiberius Augustus)?
His exact birth and death date aren't really known, so I don't think this would be helpful. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We don't know when he was born?
No. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The "History" section is more about the Second Fitna than him?
It provides a lot of background for his reign; this is pretty common for articles about less important/short reigned emperors, especially usurpers. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A group of officers who feared Emperor Leontios' wrath --> "A group of officers who feared Emperor Leontios's wrath"
Done
to Constantinople were opened for Tiberius' forces by members --> "to Constantinople were opened for Tiberius's forces by members"
Done
Tiberius had Leontios' nose slit --> "Tiberius had Leontios's nose slit"
Done
his brother, Heraclius, as monostrategos of the Anatolian themes What's a monostrategos?
Done
the support of the Khazar Khagan Busir, who gave Justinian Sea of blue here.
Done

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:49, 9 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 20 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Constantine[edit]

Claiming my place here, will review over the next few days. Constantine ✍ 15:27, 12 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lede

Little is known about the early life of Tiberius' "his early life" might be better as more simple
Done
droungarios, a commander of about a thousand men the lede is not a place to explain this; droungarios is already linked, so you can leave it, but perhaps simply substituting with "mid-level commander" or just "commander" would suffice.
Done
of Cibyrrhaeot is incorrect; "Cibyrrhaeot" is an adjective. Either "of the Cibyrrhaeots", or "of the Cibyrrhaeot Theme".
Done
Umayyads links to the dynasty, replace with Umayyad Caliphate
Done
seizing the city, This army uncapitalize This
Done
from the Umayyads, but campaigned against the Umayyads along the eastern border with some success. repetition; replace the second "the Umayyads" with "them"
Done

History

Very little is known of Tiberius before the reign of Byzantine Emperor Leontios, except that he was Germanic, a droungarios, a commander of about a thousand men, of Cibyrrhaeot, a region in southern Anatolia, and that his birth name was Apsimar. OK, a lot to unpack here: give regnal dates for Leontios; "of Germanic origin"; put the explanation for droungarios in parentheses, otherwise it looks as if he was a commande rof about a thousand man in addition to being a droungarios; fix Cibyrrhaeot per above; the Cibyrrhaeot Theme was not just a region, but a military province associated with the fleet, which is important in order to explain the context of the expedition to Carthage; and mention that it is because of the name "Apsimar" that we know he was of Germanic origin.
Done
Husayn ibn Ali the Alid declared himself caliph in early 680, revolting against the Umayyad caliph Yazid I, but was defeated in October 680 and executed Husayn never declared himself caliph, he was killed in the Battle of Karbala (and not executed). Despite these inaccuracies, what do this and the following sections (up to "... under Constantine IV, providing for a weekly tribute of 1,000 pieces of gold, one horse, and one slave") have to do with Tiberius? We don't need to know all the contenders for the caliphate, nor the chronology and details of Justinian's campaigns, except in so far as they have something to do with the subject of this article. To wit, that there was a civil war in the caliphate, and that Justinian made some gains, but these were reversed after a defeat at Sebastopolis in 692. Everything else should go per WP:SS.
Done
A group of officers who feared Emperor Leontios's wrath "Emperor" is redundant here
Done
regnal name Tiberius III remove the regnal number, this is a modern convention. Also, I would suggest a footnote explaining that and point out that quite often he is found in modern works as "Tiberius/Tiberios II", by not counting Tiberius.
Done
which was enduring the bubonic plague "enduring an outbreak of the bubonic plague"
Done
the gates to Constantinople "of" Constantinople
Done
Anatolia and Syria, seize part of Armenia Link Anatolia, Syria to Bilad al-Sham, Armenia to Arminiya
Anatolia is linked earlier, have linked the other two as asked. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
While these campaigns were initially successful, the Byzantines were later repulsed and lost control of Armenia The first part is redundant, it is already mentioned that Heraclius scored successes. Where/from where were the Byzantines repulsed? When is "later"? Can you give some details?
Unable to find a source that gives great details unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
trengthen the Byzantine military by reorganizing its structure, as well as reorganizing the Cibyrrhaeotic Theme some details of this reorganization?
Added what I could in paragraph. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:17, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
and Syrians who had been captured near the Propontis You are mixing things here. The PmbZ says that the Cypriots who had been moved to the Propontis, and those who had been captured by the Arabs and brought to Syria, were allowed to return home.
Done
strengthened the garrison of the island with troops from the Taurus Mountains Bury mentions the Mardaites, add this.
Done
Tiberius also banished the future emperor Philippikos Bardanes... why?
Done
support of the Bulgar king Tervel. relink "Bulgar" to First Bulgarian Empire
Done
In 693 Justinian escaped from Cherson... sought the support of the Bulgar king Tervel., In 705 Justinian led an army of Slavs ...months before being captured MooreA is used as a reference for both sections, but I see nothing from that article that might be used to reference them.
Done
I strongly recommend ditching Norwich as a source. If you need a narrative history, use Treadgold or some other professional historian. You already have Haldon and Brubaker in the references, use them, it is an excellent source.
Done
The 'Power and Subversion in Byzantium: Papers from the 43rd Spring Symposium of Byzantine Studies, Birmingham, March 2010' reference is wrong. This is a proceedings publication, you need to reference the paper ('Usurpers and rebels in Byzantium: image and message through coins' and the paper's authors, Vasiliki Penna and Cecile Morrison
Done
The coin image in the infobox needs alt text
Done
Nothing is mentioned of his son, Theodosius, who became Archbishop of Ephesus
Done

Given all the above, I have to say I am surprised this article made GA, which shows the danger of people not actually familiar with a subject reviewing an article. I am pretty sure that several parts of this have been written by copying from other articles rather than actual research of the sources, which explains the wide eclecticism of the sources. In the process things have become garbled: for example the Cypriot issue above, or the fact that Haldon & Brubaker p. 586 say absolutely nothing about Heraclius and his campaigns.

Poor referencing is also evident at Haldon & Brubaker p. 730, which deals actually with the establishment of the Cibyrrhaeots, and where the only information relevant to the article is that "Apsimar rebelled against Leontios", which is used as a reference for "Tiberius gathered a fleet and allied himself with the Green faction (one of the Hippodrome factions), before sailing for Constantinople, which was enduring the bubonic plague." This is from a brief spotcheck in a work that could and should have been the main source for this article, since it is the best and most comprehensive treatise on this period; the chances are good that if I dig into the other sources, I will find similar slipshod referencing. Constantine ✍ 19:25, 21 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: The article is largely reliant upon Moore, and I inserted the derivative references within it to the related prose without checking it myself, a massive error on my part. Will work on clearing out the resulting mess. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:51, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Total removal of Norwich and improperly cited materials should be complete, adding in better material/citations now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:59, 18 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: I'm back after a long absence, and will have a look at this over the next couple of days. Constantine ✍ 16:37, 18 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it definitely looks *much* better. Still, a few issues:

Regarding his Germanic origin, if the origin of the name is disputed, then the Germanic origin is too, since IIRC it hinges on the name. Thus I would definitely qualify the reference (e.g., "most scholars consider him to have been of Germanic origin because .... but others ...." etc.). BTW, good job in finding the alternative suggestions, I was not aware of them.
Half of the pre-reign portion still is about events and people other than Tiberius. We need to know who Justinian and Leontios were, but why do the terms of the 688 treaty, for example, or where Leontios campaigned, have any relevance to Tiberius, who ruled under vastly different conditions? This part should be still shortened IMO per WP:SS. Only those events and persons who are necessary for understanding the context of Tiberius' actions/reign are relevant.
Some scholars, such as Walter Kaegi, identify Heraclius as Tiberius' son, rather than his brother. Kaegi is clearly incorrect here; both primary sources, Theophanes and Nikephoros clearly identify him as his brother, as do all other modern sources I am aware of.
attempted to strengthen the Byzantine military by reorganizing its structure, as well as reorganizing the Cibyrrhaeotic Theme this is still a troublespot. The way it is written, the reorganization of the Cibyrrhaeots was distinct from the reorganization of the military structure. Or is it that the only specific reorganization we know of is that of the Cibyrrhaeots?
On re-reading this, the settlement of a Mardaite garrison in Cyprus is highly dubious. First, the island was supposed to be demilitarized, any such action would lead to reaction from the Umayyads. Second, the way this is phrased in Bury, it is clear that this is a conjecture by Sathas, who extrapolates from later terms (the reference to the stradioti, a much later term, should be a clear warning signal here). I've made a brief search and immediately this resulted in a reference that disputes that theory. I stress again that although Bury is still very handy for narrative history, his work is also 130 years old and must be treated with caution, especially where it is clear that he bases himself on another scholar's conjecture rather than primary sources...
Tiberius attempted to contain the Arabs at sea by way of creating new military provinces, with the creation of the Theme of Sardinia and separating the Theme of Sicily from the Exarchate of Ravenna. this should be added to the reorganization mentioned earlier. Also, I am not at all sure that Sardinia was a theme; IIRC it was ruled by a dux or archon, and never a strategos. Treadgold mentions its presence in an Arab list of provinces, but Treadgold is also somewhat at pains to produce a coherent and consistent administrative-military structure with neat round numbers, where none likely existed (keep that in mind with Treadgold in the future). Ekkehard Eickhoff in his study Seekrieg und Seepolitik zwischen Islam und Abendland (p. 100) explicitly says that 'Sardinia probably never was a regular theme'. See also Haldon & Brubacker, pp. 730-731. Given that Byzantine rule over Sardinia was largely nominal, that makes sense. So I would recommend removing the mention of a 'Theme of Sardinia' altogether.
Be consistent in using either the transliterated patrikios or the anglicized "patrician" throughout. Personally I prefer the former, since the latter means something different in English today.
Tiberius is often referred to as Tiberius III by modern conventions, and is also sometimes called Tiberius II, when the original Tiberius is excluded from the regnal count. clarify that this is because the 'original' Tiberius was a Roman emperor, and Tiberius II and Tiberius III are 'Byzantine' emperors, so that the numbering is not always carried over
Tiberius also banished the future emperor Philippikos Bardanes, the son of a patrician, to the island of Cephalonia,[27] according to Byzantine chronicler Theophanes the Confessor he was exiled for spreading word that he had had a dream in which he was emperor.[28] either merge these two to avoid repetition of the banishment/exile, or separate them by replacing the comma with a full stop.
Grierson is not just a numismatist, but a historian; the work which is cited here has nothing to do with numismatics. Also, "Byzantist" -> "Byzantinist"
and presided over the Council of Hieria in 754,[31][32] remove the 'and'
In the references, publications from the same author in different dates should proceed chronologically, from the earlier to the later date, e.g. Head 1969 should be mentioned before Head 1970
'Byzantine Historian' usually means a historian who was active in the Byzantine Empire. Be consistent and use 'Byzantinist', or simply 'historian'.
as later Emperor Theodosius III (r. 715–717). -> as the later emperor Theodosius III (r. 715–717).
relink Ephesus to Metropolis of Ephesus.
The map is very rudimentary and entirely unreferenced. File:ByzantineEmpire717+extrainfo+themes.svg, File:Caliphate 740-en.svg, or something else should do the trick.

That's it right now. Once these have been taken care of, I will do a re-read, in case something escaped my attention, and then hopefully support. Constantine ✍ 10:05, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review - Pass[edit]

The single image is appropriately licenced, positioned and captioned. However, this is a bit thin for such an article. There are relevant maps available, eg File:Central and Eastern Europe around 700 AD.jpg; would it be possible to include one? Gog the Mild (talk) 11:15, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:54, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by PM[edit]

This article is in good shape. I have a few comments:

but campaigned against ~~the~~ them
Not sure what the suggestion is here? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
delete "the" Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done
Abd al-Malik ibn Marwan in full and link, also say he was the caliph, also use in full when talking about him as there are two Abd al-Malik's in this article
Done
for "nose slit" link Rhinotomy
Done
suggest Abd al-Malik→Abdallah ibn Abd al-Malik throughout for clarity given there are two Abd al-Malik's in this article
Done
link Cibyrrhaeot Theme
Done
link numismatist
Done
link abdication
Done
is there an ISSN for Sumner, Graham V.?
Not that I can find. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
you can link Greek, Roman, and Byzantine Studies, it is published by Duke University, and the OCLC is here. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:46, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done
is there a web link for Lilie et al?
Done

That's all I could find, nice job. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Believe I have done all but the first one; not sure what the suggestion was there. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:05, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:13, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 06:25, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by AustralianRupert[edit]

G'day, I had a look at this due to the age of the review. My review comments do not consider content or sources as I do not know enough about this topic to comment on those. (Has Constantine confirmed whether or not you have successfully addressed their concerns?). I have the following suggestions: AustralianRupert (talk) 09:59, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

suggest trying to split the lead into two paragraphs if possible (possibly the second paragraph could begin with "Tiberius did not attempt..."
the date range in the infobox should have a spaced endash
there are a few overlinked terms, for instance: Cyprus, Taurus Mountains, Slavs, Rhinotomy
that he was a droungarios --> "and that he was a droungarios"
in the Bibliography the hyphenation of the ISBNs is inconsistent
suggest adding endashes for the date ranges in the titles of Brubaker, Garland, Grierson, Head, Kaegi and Treadgold
De Imperatoribus Romanis is overlinked in the Bibliography
suggest starting a new paragraph here: After approximately six months
and the 21 August date is instead the date where Tiberius was captured in Sozopolis --> "and 21 August is instead when Tiberius was captured in Sozopolis"?
in the Bibliography, suggest translating the title of the Lilie work; also is there an OCLC or ISBN for this work
Byzantine Historian Graham Sumner has suggested --> "Byzantine historian Graham Sumner has suggested"
if you can address these points, I will take another run through from a copy editing perspective
location for publication for Garland? AustralianRupert (talk) 10:39, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]
same as above for Kazhdan?
same as above for Ostrogorsky?

@Iazyges: G'day, are you in a position to respond to my comments and the follow up points from Constantine above? Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 09:48, 28 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@AustralianRupert: Yes. Hoping to return permanently from my hiatus, but currently, I'm focused on finishing up my GA reviews in case that is not the case. Should get around to this soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:53, 30 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by Robinvp11[edit]

From my limited reading on the Byzantines, and listening to the History of Byzantium podcast, internal politics are as important as the external issues, and it seems light on that aspect. Or at least hard to follow - maybe a separate section?
Justinian must have had support from within the court, and it's hard to work out what that was.
The article would benefit from more pictures and/or graphics. If you look at this on a tablet (which is how over 50% of users see it), the paragraphs are too long - you end with large blocks of text, so split them up.

Robinvp11 (talk) 18:57, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: are you still working on this? You have not edited since June, I hope everything is all right. To any coord, if the nominator remains absent, I would be willing to take over on his behalf. Constantine ✍ 14:27, 4 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Yes, I am. I'll see if I can finish off the suggestions within this week. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:42, 12 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges:, how are you going with this? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:17, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Where are we on this? If you need more time to address the comments, we can always archive this one since you've got a lot of issues identified and renominate it once it's ready.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Sturmvogel 66: I should be able to start tackling this soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:27, 2 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

G'day Iazyges, I'm going to list this for archiving in the next day or so unless there is some action to address the outstanding comments. You can always re-nominate it later if you are short on time. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 08:05, 12 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's past due. Closing now.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 17:35, 20 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

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.