Talk:Byzantine–Ottoman wars

Untitled

How do I make a campaign box for this war? Someone do it for the following battles:\

Siege of Nicaea 1331

Siege of Nicomedia

Fall of Constantinople

References

The author(s) of this article must come up with some references asap. More importantly, I'd like to see some proof that the sequence of historical events described in the article is widely recognised today as a war. Miskin 23:42, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Look up Battle by R.G. Grant. To be honest, alot of the info came from that book and the rest of wikipedia. So all I did was collect the info to be more accessible and then for the battles, I used Battle by R.G. Grant. Tourskin

If it wasn't war , then what was it? Both sides were recognmized factions that were in a great conflict with each other. Besides, if you haven't noticed, Turkey is owned by the Turks. Alas, the Turks won the war! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.156.123.43 (talk) 14:41, 5 January 2007 (UTC).

War (and not battle) has a specific definition in historiography, it's not as abstract as you make it seem. Reasons why it may not be a war: The friendship of John Palaiologos and Mehmet I that had kept the Ottomans from attacking Greece earlier. Secondly as WP:CITE says, you cannot use other wikipedia articles as sources for any wikipedia edits, you must explicitely cite 3rd party sources. One of the reasons is that the articles will become repetitive. For example this article repeats things from Ottoman Empire, were it could easily fit. PS: The anon is probably talking about the off-topic Greco-Turkish War of 1919 Miskin 07:44, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair point, but I hope to add more conflicts and battles. Besides, the siege of Nicaea (1331) and Nicomedia are new articels referenced from Battle R.G. Grant, which refers to it as part of the Byzantine-Ottoman wars. It wasn't just a random conflict. Besides, the Otttomans and the Byzantines, as already mentioned at the beginning of the article rarely made peace. Mehmet was an exception, due to the civil war that followed the defeat of Ankara and the Byzantine support offered. You can't delete the battles, and you can't have a battle without a war, even if the war were to consist of one battle (which it doesn't here, it consists of 3+) Tourskin.

The definition of war, according to our glorious wikipedia is armed conflict between many people, paraphrasing. I can assure you that this conflict involved arms (yes, cannons too!), and it most certainly involved lots of people. I would say 80,000 Ottoman troops at Constantinople's fall is alot of people. So the issue is the referencing. I haven't quite mastered it yet. How ashameful. How would I know. If someone could post the symbols or format needed to do so, that would be great. As I already mentioned above, the battles (with the exception of the Fall of Constantinople, I did not edit any of that) were referenced from the book Battle. Tourskin.

I must say the title suggests that "Byzantine-Ottoman wars" is a common term in historiography, on a par with "Anglo-Dutch wars", "Punic wars" etc., whereas to my knowledge it is not. Maybe it would better be called "Ottoman conquest of the Byzantine empire"? This would also better reflect its largely one-sided nature, as is already pointed out above. Iblardi 10:54, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

I felt that the conflicts between the Byzantines and the Ottomans deserved an article. The Book Battle that I seem to be married to states the battles under a sub heading of "Byzantine-Ottoman Wars". Of course, without citations, neither of us can prove the other wrong, so its best we left it for now until some more light can be shed on it. The problem is that there isn't as much research out there as far as I know on this subject. Hence, I, a student who has finished British and is finishing American College has made this article. Tourskin 05:22, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

"Turkey is owned by the Turks" is valid only after 1923 A.D. Ottomans were not necessarily Turks and they never claimed that either. Soldiers sent to wars by Ottoman kings were mainly from Turks, and after the fall of Constantinople even this is not valid. Such a way of looking is 20. century semantics and one cannot conceive 13-14. centuries with 20. century semantics. Every judgment in this article should be supported by references, otherwise nobody is interested in personal beliefs of an ordinary person on the street. I don't say that article is completely wrong, but history science requires objectivity as all sciences. References to historical documents and/or historians' works are vital.

And (with whichever name one will call it) first Ottoman state cannot be taken as one state owned by one people throughout the territories of Anatolia, there were at least 9 feudal states that Osman 1 had to conquer to create a unified state. And until 1453, fall of the Constantinople, Ottoman state can in no way be called an Empire. Only by invading and replacing Byzantium Empire Ottoman State could start being called an Empire. So, in the article, the statement "By 1299, Osman I felt assured of his position to declare himself Sultan and there after his territories became known as the Ottoman Empire." is wrong, his territories were not become known as Ottoman Empire. Osman 1 was just a king, or we should call king Arthur also as the emperor of British Empire.

But I appreciate the work anyway, because Ottoman history is one of the most debated and controversial subjects in the history, it is very difficult to be objective enough in just one article. This is the dilemma of Wikipedia in general. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kilinc alkan (talk • contribs) 10:57, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Brusa

We should also add the siege of Brusa (captured in 1326). Lysandros 17:56, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

Good. If you can change the campaign box, please do so. Also, add it to the main article where relevant. Tourskin.

More battles

There was also the fall of Galipoli in 1354. Tourskin

The fact that Philadelphia fell to the Ottomans as late as 1390 should also be mentioned. I am not sure of the status of the town at that time (Byzantine, protected by the Knights of St. John, or both?). Iblardi 12:24, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Oh yeah, forgot about that. It was a vassal of a Turkic Beylik at the time, not sure though if it was an Ottoman vassal - it had to pay tribute . Its somewhere I am sure in the article, though I felt that its fall was inconsequential so didn't include it in the campaign box - that and i wasn't bothered. If you insist, I could change the campaign box and an article or atleast redirect. In fact i will.Tourskin 21:52, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Successful good article nomination

I am glad to say that this article which was nominated for good article status has succeeded. This is how the article, as of July 12, 2007, compares against the six good article criteria:

1. Well written?: prose is acceptable

2. Factually accurate?: article is clearly referenced and all required informationis sourced

3. Broad in coverage?: article more than adequatrely covers the topic

4. Neutral point of view?: no evidence of POV

5. Article stability? article is free of edit wars

6. Images?: all are free or appropriately tagged

If you feel that this review is in error, feel free to take it to a GA review. Thank you to all of the editors who worked hard to bring it to this status. — Argos'Dad 17:48, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Yah! Looking back, this article did not look like it was gonna survive infancy...Tourskin 00:00, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Main image difficult to interpret

Can I suggest putting some kind of border lines between the pictures that make up the main image? I thought the two on the left side were actually one solid picture at first. Oberiko 13:10, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Sure. And please, feel free to be bold and improve grammar!!!Man of Bravery!! 22:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

A thin black line has been added along their respective borders.Man of Bravery!! 23:02, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

GA Sweeps Review: On Hold

As part of the WikiProject Good Articles, we're doing sweeps to go over all of the current GAs and see if they still meet the GA criteria. I'm specifically going over all of the "Conflicts, battles and military exercises" articles. I believe the article currently meets the majority of the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. In reviewing the article, I have found there are some issues that may need to be addressed. I have made multiple corrections (I also removed the two tags at the top of the article) and have included several points below that need to be addressed for the article to remain a GA. Please address them within seven days and the article will maintain its GA status. If progress is being made and issues are addressed, the article will remain listed as a Good article. Otherwise, it may be delisted. If improved after it has been delisted, it may be nominated at WP:GAN. Here are the points that need to be addressed:

1. Single sentences shouldn't stand alone, so statements like "Whilst the civil war was raging, the Turks in Anatolia took the opportunity to seize Philadelphia in 1390, marking the end of Byzantine rule in Anatolia, although by now the city was far from Imperial rule." either needs to be expanded on or incorporated into another paragraph.
2. For an article of this length, the lead needs to be expanded to several paragraphs to better summarize the article. See WP:LEAD for guidelines.
3. Image:Osman I.jpg needs a source for where the image was found or it may be deleted on Wikimedia Commons.
4. Add some sources to the "Ottoman strengths" section, it currently has none. Feel free to use either book or web sources, whichever is more convenient for you.

Overall, the article was an interesting read and well-sourced. The above issues shouldn't take very long to address and should be easy to fix. Good job on getting so many free images to include in the article. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. Happy editing! --Nehrams2020 02:40, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

GAR: Kept

At this time since the above issues were addressed, I believe the article should keep its GA status since it meets the requirements of the GA criteria. If you have any questions, let me know on my talk page and I'll get back to you as soon as I can. I have updated the article history to reflect this review. --Nehrams2020 (talk) 06:56, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

woo hoo! Though to be honest there wasn't much to address. Tourskin (talk) 08:57, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Good article ? really ?

Is this really a good article ? I am not so sure about it. A few notes are as follows:

1. In the introduction it is claimed that Osman I decleared himself as Sultan. But my sources say that Osman never used the title sultan. It was his grandson Murat I who used that title.
2. In the section Rise of Ottomans it reads that Byzantine general Mouzalon occurred at Magnesia and Bapheus. But it is questionable. Because Magnesia (ad Sipylum as it is linked in the article) than was not a part of Ottomans but it was the capital of another beylik (Saruhan) Besides, it was too far away from the Ottoman Byzantine frontier.
3. In section Ottoman Victory there is a nasty description. :... The blood flowed in the city like rainwater after a sudden storm, and the corpses of Turks and Christians were thrown into the Dardanelles, where they floated out to sea like melons along a canal. Well this is not a novel, this is an encyclopaedia. This description serves no purposes and it should be deleted.
4. In section Consequences it is claimed that Ottoman power reached its zenith in mid 17th century. But this is not true. The zenith had already been reached by the end of the 16th century.17th century was stagnation. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 17:28, 14 May 2010 (UTC)

In response:

1) The Battle of Vienna in 1683 is widely seen as the highest peak of Ottoman power. After that, it was downhill.

2) The "nasty" description" you speak off, as if nothing of the war described is "nasty", is the primary eyewitness account of a Venetian nobleman who was at the fight. So it is more important than any sentimental feelings of "nastiness".

Your other points, regarding what Osman did and so forth seem valid. I'll look into it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.176.10.168 (talk) 03:04, 29 May 2010 (UTC)

Good Article status should be reassessed

Here we have a page on Byzantine and Ottoman history that does not cite even a single source written by an Ottomanist historian. This should be considered inexcusable. If you look at the citations you'll see that almost the entire article is based on just two sources anyway: the Oxford History and Crusades: the Illustrated History. They may be fine sources, but for this to be a good article there needs to be some diversity in the source base. And Leaving that aside, this article is full of unsourced statements. That alone disqualifies it. Several of the summaries under "Ottoman Strengths", "Byzantine Weaknesses", and "Consequences" are uncited and may constitute original research. Chamboz (talk) 02:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove GA?

As with many Islam related articles, it seems GA was iven too fast here. There is a big Issue-Tag and as it seems, even for a longer time of period. I would like to go the steps to withdraw GA-Status, if noone objects it.--VenusFeuerFalle (talk) 23:48, 8 June 2019 (UTC)

@VenusFeuerFalle: This is an important article, but a quick skim suggests that it may well not meet the standards. I agree that a reassessment would be the way to go. I would be grateful if you could keep me informed. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:48, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

GA Reassessment

This discussion is transcluded from Talk:Byzantine–Ottoman wars/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the reassessment.

Plenty of tags and the last three sections all question the GA status. Tags obviously need to be dealt with and I am thinking it would be easier to delist this and allow editors to work on it. @Chamboz, VenusFeuerFalle, and Gog the Mild: AIRcorn (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Not really my era I'm afraid. Lots of uncited text, but a skim doesn't reveal any which is obvious nonsense or even clearly incorrect. I would have though that it could be resolved fairly rapidly by someone with access to the sources - pinging Constantine; what do you think? Gog the Mild (talk) 22:32, 5 December 2019 (UTC)

Hmmm, it is an OK article, but rather superficial and teleological. The entire series of conflicts is presented as almost a progression of inexorable (and inevitable) Ottoman conquest. Several sections are rather problematic; the "Causes of the Byzantine defeat" in particular is essay-like, schematic and sorely needs good sources. The article also tends to play to the "limitless Ottoman hordes" trope to a worrying degree, as best seen in the depiction of the fall of Constantinople: "The city's fall was not a result of the Ottoman artillery nor their naval supremacy....the defenders were overcome by sheer attrition as well as the skill of the Ottoman Janissaries". Yeah, well, if not for the cannon and the naval supremacy, Constantinople's walls were perfectly capable of holding out against numerically superior armies, as had been demonstrated many times before. This is a variant of the "limitless Russian hordes" argument from WWII, and just as outdated.

There's quite a lot of editorialisms in the article, but that can be fixed; what can't be fixed that easily is the subconscious editorial POV, which IMO takes sides in favour of Byzantium: the Ottomans are almost faceless, a monolithic mass of invaders; even where their leaders are mentioned by name, they simply conquer; there is no mention of the fact that many of these leaders acted on their own, of internal dissensions, or of the difficulties they faced by having to shift armies from Anatolia to Europe and vice-versa, especially after they lost Gallipoli in 1366. Indeed, the Savoyard crusade is entirely missing, as is any mention of the return of Gallipoli in 1376, which was arguably one of the biggest "what if" moments for the history of the Balkans.

Generally, the article lacks a lot of context: at least a discussion of the context of the Ottoman beylik's establishment, i.e., pre-Ottoman Turkish Anatolia and the Byzanine-Turkish relations there; at least some mention of gunpowder empires and the ghazi thesis and its refutation; the political fragmentation of the Balkans, and the centrifugal tendencies in the Byzantine Empire; the siphoning off of the wealth generated from trade to the Italian maritime republics, which left Byzantium permanently cash-strapped; the divide between hawks and doves in the Byzantine establishment as to how to best deal with the Ottomans; the Ottoman Interregnum gets barely a mention; etc. etc. In short, it faces the common problem of having been written with the narrative in mind (and that imperfectly as well), without any real examination of the historical forces at work and the framework in which the main players operated.

Even if the missing references are put in, and the prose tightened, I still would consider the article in its present state to be a C-class rather than GA. Constantine ✍ 09:17, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

Thanks Constantine; especially for actually reading the article. So it seem that it should be downgraded, and can I recommend that Constantine's comments be copied to the talk page, as a guide for future editors? Gog the Mild (talk) 10:46, 6 December 2019 (UTC)

@Aircorn and Gog the Mild: I've gone ahead and delisted the article. Cheers, Constantine ✍ 22:11, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Thanks Constantine. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:27, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Yep thanks. AIRcorn (talk) 23:06, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

Ottoman campaigns aginst the byzantines

So for some reason its okay to discuss what the Mongols did in their invasions of Poland and Hungary and the devastation they brought to these lands here. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Mongol_invasion_of_Hungary

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mongol_invasion_of_Kievan_Rus%27

But its not ok to discuss the campaigns of the ottomans (turkic steppe people similar to the mongols) in westeen Anatolia and its destructive impact on Byzantine Asia Minor. Its literally a war that led to the decline and fall of the Roman empire... H20346 (talk) 21:06, 3 January 2024 (UTC)