Talk:Belisarius

White tsar

"beli tsar" mean white emperor. --Anonymous User:217.73.22.12

This relates to this edit by Kuralyov... tacked onto

this anonymous edit that wasn't really right. This stuff probably needs checking whether it's more than hypothetical. --Joy [shallot] 02:57, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

I find it doubious, as the tsar was first used in the 10th century. I think it is just a coincidence. Is there a single academic reference to support the 'white tsar' name theory? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 11:48, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

While I am ignorant where it comes to byzantine history and language, I would think it equally likely that his name comes from belli (war) and caesar (lord) = warlord. It may just be a nickname that he got later in life. Then again I'm just whistling in the dark--Ignignot 19:15, 23 March 2006 (UTC)

Re Tzar used only in 10th century... Actually, TZAR is slavicized for Caesar, which, after Julius Gaius Caesar was used by all Roman emperors as a title. True, Russians did not have actual Tzars until centuries later, but the Slavs probably referred to Roman and Bysantine leaders as Caesars (Tzars), just as we refer to German kings "kaisers" (which, by the way, is also Germanized Caesar) or Ottoman kings "sultans". So it is possible that Belisarius actually means White Prince in a Slavic language at the time.

I cant remember exactly where i read it, i think in the Oxford History of Byzantium, but they quite clearly dismiss the origins of the name Belisarius as being in any way related to a slavic rendition of "White Tsar" as the latter word was not in use at the time - as highlighted in previous comments. An Siarach

Not good enough. The "sar-" root, meaning (roughly) "ruler", has been lurking around the eastern Mediterranean for at least 3,000 years. It is apparently even the etymological source of the "Caesar" family name, many generations before Julius (or Augustus) came along. Of course Belisarius' name wasn't constructed from a form of the word that didn't exist at the time! But it's much too glib to throw out the "sar-" with the bathwater.

Having said that: Is there ANYONE who can vouch for anything more about the etymology here? For instance, was "beli" actually in use as a word for "white" in Thrace or nearby regions at the time? Jmacwiki (talk) 01:46, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Strategy

Given that Belisarius was largely known for his strategic prowess, couldn't there be a little something about it, like perhaps going more indepth into one of his Persian campaigns? --maru 04:06, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Find a source. Link it here so others can do it. Adapt it yourself if others won't. I would also like to see this article expanded, but...it's wiki. If you want something done, you can do it yourself :) --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus ^Talk 09:26, 9 Jun 2005 (UTC)

But... I'm lazy. And I do so much work on other articles, is it so much to ask that someone else do it for once? :( --maru (talk) contribs 02:08, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

¨¨origin of Belisarius:::

I believe that the elements converge in the opinion that Belisarius was a romanized Greek.Belisarius was born in 500 A.D. in the Byzantine province of Dardania. As we know from the Greek-speaking chronographer - historician of this period Prokopios, the mother of Belisarius was Christian and the father a romanised noble who died when the eminent general was very young.Belisarius took his basic education in Adrianoupolis under the protection of his uncle. He had courses in Greek, his maternal language.As we know from Prokopios great impression to the general made Xenophon's "kathodos ton myrion" , as well as the classic masterpieces "Ilias" and "Odyssey".He was also very inderested in logistics.With the acquaintances of his uncle could join the guard of Justinian, who distinguished him between the others .

The Balkan peninsula was southernly (under the Danube) lived from Greek origin Roman citizens. This conclusion we can gather easily from the make that they were given Greek names in all these regions from prehistoric ages. Also the period that was given birth to Belisarius ,the Slavs were located above the Danube , they were pagans and they did not have any contact with the empire only afterwards the 6th century. It is not possible therefore Belisarius was Slav of origin,even if himself ignored his real national identity. However he was what he represented : A glorius Roman general of an empire that remained acquaintance in the history as Byzantium.

I encourage you, whoever you are that wrote this, to add some of this to the article itself. Jmacwiki (talk) 01:51, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

"one of the greatest generals in history"

Isn't that a bit biased and over the top, especially for the first sentence? There is no absolute consensus of the greatest generals of all time, and stating that Belisarius was one as absolute fact seems like too much. Perhaps "is often considered one of the greatest generals in history" or something of the sort. DaBears34 22:27, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I am not sure. Maybe it is true there is no consensus about a "list of the greatest generals". However, Belisarius is indeed one of the best, if you considered what he achieved with the resources he had. Moreover, he is included in the List of military commanders, which of course can include only a selected subset of all those who commanded military operations.--BlaiseMuhaddib 13:27, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

I say it's a clear Peacock term and should be changed. --NEMT 02:27, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not agree with you. Under what term he was not "great"?--BlaiseMuhaddib 22:30, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Surely, but "prolific" is just silly. -- Gwern (contribs) 02:30, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

If you take its reproductive connotation, perhaps, but it can also be used to imply great influence and success. --NEMT 02:50, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

I think it's a bit biased. Isn't it better to just let the reader go through the article and let him say "hey, this guy must be one of the greatest generals of all times!"

Suggestion (a general rule when peacock terms are in play, if you still want to assert an opinion): Give a published, 3rd-party source. In this case, better than a testimonial from some authority figure would be a citation from the curriculum of a military school that teaches about the strategies and successes of "great generals", including Belisarius. Jmacwiki (talk) 01:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Encyclopedia Of Military History (With R.E. Dupuy), New York, 1975, 1986, 1993 (if you can find it in the reference section of a library) contains an assessment of Belisarius career and does, I believe rate him as one of the greatest commanders of all time (or it may have been Heraclius - one of the Byzantine commanders got a surprisingly high rating out of them). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 125.63.184.212 (talk) 04:20, 23 December 2008 (UTC)

There are enough scholarly assessments of Belisarius to create a separate assessment section. If we made such a section and most scholars referenced there believe him to be among the best commanders in history we could safely refer to it when claiming he is considered one of the best commanders in human history. Regardless of how many sources claim him to be a genius or among the best military leaders ever I think it shouldn’t be mentioned as fact, not even that he is considered to be among the greatest, but something like “he is widely considered to be a military genius by historians” instead of “He is considered to be a military genius”. Dorromikhal (talk) 16:19, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Latin explanation?

What does the current text in successionbox means: Succeeded by: Post consulatum Belisarii (East), Iterum post consulatum Paulini (West)? Without ilinks it doesn't make much sense.-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  03:08, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

It is the standard way to tell that there were no consuls for that year, so it was the "(first year) after the consulate of Belisarius (in the East), the second (year) after the consulate of Paulini (in the West). Since it is standard, it stays that way. (You claim to be a proconsul, you should know well.)--BlaiseMuhaddib 22:29, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Belisarius' birth date

I have found in other internet sources (like the spanish page http://www.artehistoria.com/frames.htm?http://www.artehistoria.com/historia/personajes/4780.htm) that Belisarius was born at year 500, not 505. In Robert Graves' book "Count Belisarius" it also mentions the year 500 as Belisarius' date of birth.

Encyclopedia Britannica says c.505. I'll take their word over that of random Internet sites and novels any day. --Gwern (contribs) 16:59, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The Oxford Classical Dictionary (2003) says c. 500 - not that it really matters either way, circa conveys an unknown exact date, 5 years is within the realm of error either way. -- Stbalbach 12:35, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

question about mosaic

Is Belisarius to my right or Justinian's? 04:10, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

— Justinian's, the bearded one.XVA 05:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

cut text from article section notes

I have cut the following text:

Robert Graves biographical novel includes the assertion that Belisarius was able to demonstrate his knowledge of the practices of the East by asserting that the Saracens would be starting their Ramadan fast - this despite the fact that Belisarius died some 5 years before the birth of the prophet Mohamed!

My reasoning is that the fast in the month of Ramadan existed prior to Mohammed. In any case, the text belongs elsewhere, whether it stands or not on its own merit. --5telios 11:51, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

General Belisarius

All hail Belisarius, slayer of the Goths, the German scourge! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.148.120.65 (talk) 19:00, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Leptis Magna

Where-ever Blisarius landed in Africa, it wasn't in Leptis Magna. Lepis Magna is 1000km away, and Blisarius walked to Carthago in 10 days. Procopius does mentions passing a city named Leptis, but nothing more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 132.64.143.57 (talk) 21:35, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Picture spacing

Could someone with the wiki know-how re-space the pictures? We have an adequately sized article, but they are all clumped together. Maybe some could be left justified? --Pstanton (talk) 23:39, 2 February 2009 (UTC)

Eyes put out?

I understand that his eyes were put out, but why? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.66.123 (talk) 07:59, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

For the pictures next to that section, the captions under the first two look like they are mixed around, because in the second picture there looks like a soldier recognizing him, while in the first caption it says that. If they are mixed around, then could the picture / artist names also be incorrect? MarkoPolo56 (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Literature

Dont forget to mention the book of Victor Davis Hanson "The Savior Generals". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.123.156.137 (talk) 14:47, 21 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Belisarius. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060512191139/http://www.westholmepublishing.com/id35.html to http://www.westholmepublishing.com/id35.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Meaning of the name Belisarius/Belisarios

What's the origin of the name Belisarius/Belisarios ? Latin ? Greek ? Isaurian ? Armenian ? Iranian ? Germanic ? 92.90.20.94 (talk) 19:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Unclear, as we know little of his early life and ancestry. Various sources claim that he was an Illyrian, Thracian, or a Goth (of Germanic origin). A suggested etymology is that his name is actually Slavic and that it is connected to the term "Beli-tzar" (white prince), but the idea is considered dubious. See: https://www.behindthename.com/name/belisarius/submitted and http://www.macedoniantruth.org/forum/archive/index.php/t-602.html Dimadick (talk) 21:27, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Or for that matter, just read the comments on this Talk page from several years ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jmacwiki (talk • contribs) 05:36, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Unsourced opinions about his accomplishments.

Last para. of the intro describes him as a "military genius" who is "often considered to rival Napoleon or Hannibal." Although I buy all of it, it is unsourced opinion. It needs references! (Unfortunately, I do not know how to insert the link for "Unsourced material needing references".) Jmacwiki (talk) 05:40, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

You forgot how to insert templates? The main template for that is Template:Citation needed, so we have several templates with similar scopes. Anyway, I added the citation as you suggested. Dimadick (talk) 08:52, 23 March 2018 (UTC)

Thanks, Dimadick. (No, I didn't forget how. I've never known how, but I generally add or subtract textual content, not meta. This was an exception.) Jmacwiki (talk) 03:32, 24 March 2018 (UTC)

Vandal war

I rewrote the section of the Vandal war. Added everything I know of involving Belisarius, maybe it is too extensive and some information should be removed? I do think it was a good idea to add info of Belisarius’ personal role in battles like at Ad Decimum as it can often be unclear when reading the articles on specific battles what was and what wasn’t a decision of the overall commanders of the forces involved and articles on military leaders from the modern era also often do that. This way a reader can form an opinion on Belisarius’ contribution to the campaign and battle and his of overall skill instead of just listening to what others have to say about it. Dorromikhal (talk) 00:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

If you would want to change this piece of the article please either inform me of what you want to be done so I can do it or notify me of what you did and why here. This is so I can take another look in my sources and add simplified version of events or something like that to avoid the section from becoming confusing. I was also planning on creating fully separate sections for the Vandal war and the gothic war. Dorromikhal (talk) 00:52, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

I forgot to say this but let please let me know what you think about creating separate Gothic and Vandal war sections. I think it might be a good idea to do so to make the article easier to navigate when it gets bigger. Dorromikhal (talk) 00:54, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Bad lead section?

I have read a couple of books on Belisarius and frequently edited this page. What is bothering me is that the lead section of the article makes a number of claims that all or most of the books I’ve read dispute. Firstly it claims that Justinian’s reconquests were an ambitious project instead of just saying that much land was reconquered during Justinian’s rule. Hughes and Heather dispute this (their books can be found in the notes) I’ve gone into more detail on the page about Justinian himself but the point is that Justinian’s policy doesn’t sound logical when putting it into the context of his ambition to reconquer the west. Secondly it claims that Justinian provided only limited support to Belisarius. This is strange as they were (probably) personal friends, Belisarius passed every test of his loyalty and when sent to the east to fight the Persians (in between his Italian campaigns) he was put into a perfect situation to rebel: having the absolute loyalty of the troops in the west, being in the east were his reputation could have turned the troops against Justinian if he revolted, having a possible motive because of his poor treatment lately, having potential allies in the nobility who disliked the “commoner” Justinian and from the people who disliked Justinian’s high taxes. Apart from questioning Belisarius loyalty the only other possibly motive to not support his campaign seems to have been to prevent himself from expanding his power which Justinian certainly wouldn’t do to himself. Then it says he is frequently considered a military genius while there is no citation there nor is there an assessment section. Then it gives a very incomplete overview of his career and claims Belisarius won and as such held command during the battle of Tricamarum which he probably didn’t. I’m honestly not really impressed by this and would like to edit it a bit. Please inform me on what your thoughts on the lead section are here so in can take it into account when I edit it (or not edit it at all). Dorromikhal (talk) 15:10, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Marching speed in Africa

Both my sources (Hughes and Brogna) on the issue consider the speed of the march from Caput Vada to have been somewhere under ten miles a day. However even at ten miles a day Belisarius would take over 15 days to get to ad Decimum. He reportedly approached the site after ten days. Dorromikhal (talk) 17:05, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Timeline on iPad

When I view the article from my iPad the timeline doesn’t show up. I suspect this isn’t a problem with just my device. Of course you can just view it via the desktop mode but it would be nice if someone could fix this, I don’t know how to (without replacing the entire thing) myself. Dorromikhal (talk) 19:33, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

voyage to africa

the sequence of events seems to be a bit confused here. Peter Flass (talk) 03:53, 4 October 2019 (UTC)