Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Staurakios/archive1

< Wikipedia:Featured article candidates
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was archived by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 7 October 2022 [1].

Staurakios

edit
Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about another relatively unfortunate Byzantine emperor. Living in his father's shadow, he would not rise to become the senior emperor until a brutal defeat where his father was killed and he was mortally wounded. Reigning alone for a short time, he was deposed in a palace coup and died soon after. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:58, 26 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Funk

edit
I'm thinking images more than text, but probably same problem. FunkMonk (talk) 20:17, 4 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Unknown woman, her name sometimes given as Prokopia, possibly due to confusion with her daughter, Prokopia" Is all this detail needed in the otherwise stripped down infobox? Should already be explained in detail in the article body.
    Changed to just "unknown"
  • "who are the main source of history" Sources?
    Done
  • "Bardanes Tourkos revolted" Perhaps introduce him as general?
    Done.
  • " The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium states that Staurakios "raped two beautiful girls",[15] but this is a misreading of Theophanes, who asserts that Nikephoros selected the two most beautiful girls from the bride show, and engaged in open debauchery with them" So it was not Staurakios?
    Well the confusion appears to be two-fold. First, even Theophanes makes no suggestion of rape but only that Nikephoros pretty openly had sex with two girls who were in the bride-show; to be fair, if the story is even true, willing consent probably wasn't great given that the girls were probably ~16 and Nikephoros was literally the emperor, but even that is not as heinous as the corruption that Staurakios, not Nikephoros, directly raped two girls. IMO it's likely the story isn't true, as "oh they were an unfaithful manwhore" is pretty textbook for biased Byzantine sources trying to dunk on people they don't like. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:42, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • "likely because Stephanos was the first to proclaim Staurakios emperor, to propose blinding Michael" Kind of confusing sentence, missing "and" before "to propose blinding"?
    Added
  • " occasionally being forced to make humiliating concessions to powerful enemies, such as the Abbasid Caliph Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809)." The article says nothing of this, though?
    Will re-add some context; I had taken out a foreign relations section for being UNDUE as it was basically just the actions of Nikephoros for most of the reign.
  • Why not show the coin[2] with his father since it's described in the text? Seems it would fit nicely under Historiography.
    Added.
  • ", which included the severing of his spine" why not state this alreadt after: "despite his severe injuries from the battle." Now it seems odd that you kind of only state the nature of his injury upon repetition.
    Moved
    @FunkMonk: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:49, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - I fixed some minor issues in the new section, but everything else looks fine to me now. FunkMonk (talk) 21:15, 5 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oppose from mujinga

edit

I enjoyed reading the article but looking at this version, I regret to say I do not think the article is FA quality at this stage. I would suggest taking it for a peer review then resubmitting.

It fails 1a, well-written, including but not limited to examples such as:

  • readability - On 1 October 811, Staurakios summoned Stephanos, whom he trusted completely, likely because Stephanos was the first to proclaim Staurakios emperor, and to propose blinding Michael; Staurakios was unaware that Michael had the support of Stephanos himself.
    Re-written
  • spelling - Nikephroos was not able to respond quickly as he was preoccupied with the revolt of Bardanes Tourkos, but after defeating Bardanes he gathered his army to meet another, even larger, invasion lead by Harun himself.
    Fixed
  • repetition of bulgarian - Staurakios took part in an invasion of the Bulgarian Khanate in 811, alongside his father and brother-in-law. Although initially successful, with the Byzantines laying siege to the Bulgarian capital of Pliska and defeating a Bulgarian relief force, they were soon ambushed by the Bulgarian Khan Krum, and trapped in a small valley.
    Fixed
  • typos - After being removed from power, he was sent to live in a monastery, where he stayed until he died, either of gangrene or poisoned by his sister, Prokopia. on 11 January 812.
    fixed by Cplakidas.
  • weasel words - Some, such as Historian Alexander Kazhdan, argue that he was proclaimed emperor on 26 July, the day of the battle itself.[20]
    Fixed.
  • close paraphrasing:
    • text here says "According to the Syriac sources—the Chronicle of 813 and Michael the Syrian—and the chronicle of the Petros of Alexandria, there were rumors that Staurakios had been poisoned by his sister Prokopia, rather than dying of gangrene. Theophanes considered these rumors possible and mentions that Theophano herself considered these rumors true"
    • text translated from source says "According to the Syriac sources (Chronicle of 813; Michael Syrus) and the Chronicle of Petros of Alexandreia (197,21f.) there was a rumor that S. had been poisoned by his sister, the later empress Prokopia (# 6351), while Bar Hebraeus 125 speaks of blinding. This news finds an echo in Theophanes 492,20-24, where it is reported that S., on the whispers of his wife Theophano (# 8163), suspected among others also his sister Prokopia of conspiracy."
      Fixed as best I can rewrite it; I'm open to suggestions; a good portion of the text is basically unmovable source names, which makes it difficult.

It also fails 1c, well-researched, with examples including but not limited to:

  • I can easily find sources which are not mentioned for example "Power, Infirmity and 'Disability'. Five Case Stories on Byzantine Emperors and Their Impairments" - C Laes - Byzantinoslavica-Revue internationale des Etudes 2019 and "Dropping the Base: Why Does Follis Production at Constantinople Appear to Cease for 24 Years between 842–866?" Maria Vrij 2021
    IIRC correctly, Laes was consulted earlier and not incorporated for having little to add; both have now been added, although Vrij is largely identical to Grierson in opinion, Laes adds some interesting facts.
  • text says "but this is a misreading of Theophanes, who asserts that Nikephoros selected the two most beautiful girls from the bride show, and engaged in open debauchery with them" and source says "Theophano was chosen in spite of the fact that, according to Theophanes, she was engaged to another man whom she had already slept with and she was not the most beautiful of those in the show".
    This is an inaccurate reading of the discussion in Theophanes A. M. 6300 discussion of the bride-show which states that Nicephorus chose the two girls, more beautiful than Theophano, and openly debauched with them. from Footnote 7 of Marsh.
  • text says "he was hated by many, especially the contemporary ecclesiastical historians, and the heavily-biased Byzantine historian Theophanes, who are the main sources of history for his reign; many modern historians, therefore, doubt their assertions of his malevolent character.[1][5]" but im not really seeing the justification in the sources currently used. Bury p15 even says of a statement of Theophanes "we have no means of disproving and no reason to doubt"
    Good catch, I've removed the bits I can't find good justification for (including the bit about ecclesiastical historians, which is definitely true, but I'm unable to track down the source for...), and added better sources for Theophanes' biases.
  • there's a lot of claims in the paragraph beginning "After his marriage, Staurakios is not mentioned again until 811" and only three citations at the end so it's too hard for me to verify anything
    The major source is Marsh, with some details cited to others in ways that would make separate sourcing annoying for a reader. (I have however rewritten the paragraph as some bits of it seemed uncomfortably close to the source)
  • The remaining Byzantine forces, including a severely wounded Staurakios, retreated to Adrianople over three days. Staurakios' spine had been severed during the battle, which along with Staurakios' demonstrated lack of ability, led the uninjured influential figures in the empire to consider the issue of Nikephoros' successor. Chiefly they were three who had traveled with Nikephoros and Staurakios, the magistros (Master of Offices) Theoktistos, the Domestic of the Schools Stephanos, and Michael Rhangabe. The severity of Staurakios' wounds led to speculation as to whether he would live, although eventually they judged he would make the best candidate, as the legitimate successor, and declared him emperor.[1][16] - these claims are covered by the sources but Marsh says at this point Rhangabe was asked and refused to be emperor, contradicting what comes later: "Almost immediately after Staurakios ascended the throne, Michael was pressured to usurp it"
    These are actually two separate events. At the exact time that he was to be declared emperor, many wanted Michael to take the throne instead. For the rest of his reign, he was pressured to usurp the throne. One day versus a process.
  • In legacy it would be good to add more opinions. also "For these reasons, historian Matthew Marsh comments that he "remains a brief and shadowy figure in the history of the Empire.[1]" lacks a closing double apostrophe and the quote is wrong, it should be "he remains a brief shadowy figure in the history of the Empire" Mujinga (talk) 12:35, 10 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    I can double check, but I believe Marsh was the only one to provide a legacy for Staurakios himself; I can add some opinions for Nikephoros if desired quite easily, but I'm worried about losing focus.

Comments by Constantine

edit

Will have a look at the article over the following days. Constantine ✍ 17:18, 13 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Early life
  • Refs #2 and #3 are from the same work.
    To clarify, you think I should consolidate the p. 14 footnote and p. 14 sfns?
    Yes.
    Done.
  • 'logothetēs tou genikou' is not Latin.
    Fixed
  • Nikephoros was logothetēs tou genikou (finance minister) at the time of Staurakios' birth Hmmm, pace PmbZ he was gen. logothetes at the time of the coup, and we don't know anything about his career before that. Marsh writes that 'possibly in the same time period that Nicephorus became Irene’s Chief Logotheate in charge of finance for the empire.', referencing Treadgold 1988. I strongly recommend a) qualifying the statement and b) using Treadgold's work (which is listed in the sources, but not used) and tracking down his arguments there.
  • Byzantine Empress regnant 'Byzantine' is probably redundant, and it should be 'empress-regnant'
    Fixed.
    Not entirely, fixed the 'empress-regnant' bit myself.
  • instituted caesaropapism very vague and hence debatable; Byzantine emperors generally leaned towards caesaropapism, and Nikephoros did not really do anything that his predecessors or successors did not also do.
  • For these reasons, he was hated by many, especially the heavily-biased Theophanes, who is the main source of history for his reign to a lay person, the 'reasons' are unclear. Clarify why Theophanes was biased. Also 'hated by many' refers to Theophanes and his faction. The sparse references to him from other sources (including hagiographies) are rather positive. Bury is not the best source to use here, he is definitely out of date, have a look at the PmbZ article on Nikephoros. Marsh also does not contain anything on Theophanes' attitude on Nikephoros, so he is out of place as a source here.
  • The Historian David Olster comments that although some historians have viewed the Chronicle of Theophanes as being free his editorial hand, this assumption has been challenged by Hans-Georg Beck, who demonstrated how vast the changes Theophanes made upon his sources are, with Theophanes inserting his own view of history This is ancient history: no-one since the 20th century at least would consider Theophanes unbiased. I don't know how this helps a reader (since the article already says before that Theophanes is biased), and whether this has a place here.
    Removed.
  • After Staurakios was elevated to co-emperor, he is not mentioned again in the sources until 807,[13][14][15] except for the installation ceremony of Patriarch Nikephoros,[12] -> Except for the installation ceremony of Patriarch Nikephoros, Staurakios is not mentioned in the sources until 807,[13][14][15]'
    Done.
  • held an imperial bride show pace PmbZ, this is a subject of considerable debate. Marsh points to an article by Treadgold dealing with the issue. It should be at least stated that the historicity of this bride show is heavily debated.
  • The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium states that Staurakios "raped two beautiful girls",[17] but this is a misreading of Theophanes, who asserts that Nikephoros selected the two most beautiful girls from the bride show, and engaged in open debauchery with them.[1] This should be relegated to a footnote. An error in a tertiary source that non-experts won't ever get to see is not something that belongs in the core narrative.
    Done.
  • son-in-law Michael Rhangabe, a kouropalates (high-ranking court official), better 'son-in-law, the kouropalates (high-ranking court official) Michael Rhangabe,' otherwise it might be read that the kouropalates was a different person.
    Done
  • Add regnal dates for Khan Krum.
    Done
    Fixed it.
  • Re the new addition on the Abbasid invasion, two comments:
    • Generally, please refrain from using old sources, even if they are easily available. To be frank, I was not even aware of Foord before. Is he a Byzantinist? I very much doubt it, it looks like a popular history on the lines of Norwich. Strongly recommend eliminating this work from the article altogether, I would not consider it WP:RS.
    • Specifically, Foord's statement about and six great gold medals is nonsense; the sources are quite clear that this was payment of a head tax (jizya). This information comes from Tabari, and he is explicit in writing about 'dinars'. Treadgold should suffice here.
Reign
  • Staurakios' spine had been severed during the battle, which along with Staurakios' demonstrated lack of ability close repetition of 'Staurakios'
    Done
  • the magistros (Master of Offices) while technically a correct translation, by this time the magistros was a honorific title, hence the gloss provided is inaccurate.
    Fixed.
  • and Michael Rhangabe an optional editorial suggestion: remove Michael from the first reference above, and first mention him here. This places Michael in proper context, and simplifies the previous statement to Nikephoros led the campaign over the Balkan Mountains and into the Bulgarian Khanate alongside Staurakios, his son-in-law, the kouropalates (high-ranking court official) Michael Rhangabe, and many senior Imperial officials.
    Done
  • eventually they judged he would make the best candidate, who is 'they'?
    Done.
  • This was the first time a Byzantine emperor was installed outside of Constantinople not sure how to take this (don't have access to the source itself to check). 'Installed' is a tricky word here, because it does not correspond to any of the constitutionally necessary acts of becoming emperor. If it means 'proclaimed', then it is incorrect since a lot of pre-395 emperors, as well as some later usurpers like Theodosius III proclaimed themselves emperor (or were proclaimed by their troops) outside Constantinople. If it means 'crowned', then it is also incorrect because Staurakios was already crowned co-emperor, and did not need another coronation.
    The literal words from the source are At the instigation of Stephanos, the domestic of the Schools, Staurakios was proclaimed emperor at the end of July 811. The matter was apparently urgent, and therefore he became the first emperor who was not installed in Constantinople. ; I can provide a PDF via email if desired. The source was recommended for inclusion by Mujinga above. Christian Laes is a high-quality classicist and has something like 100 publications (many focused on children and disability in the classical world), but it seems here he perhaps made a mistake or else is stating something neither of us are picking up on. He is not ignorant of the fact that Staurakios was already crowned, "On Christmas Day of the year 803, Nikephoros had his son Staurakios, who was at that moment in his early teens, crowned co-emperor. (p.224), so perhaps Laes simply believes that the matter necessitated re-crowning? Perhaps simply removing this bit may be the best option. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:54, 20 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Historian Alexander Kazhdan argues that he was proclaimed emperor on 26 July, the day of the battle itself.[25] Well, I looked it up, and this statement is doubly incorrect. First, the article in ODB was not written by Kazhdan, but by Paul A. Hollingsworth. Second, the article clearly has his reign starting at 28 July. The wording allows for some confusion ("on 26 July 811 Staurakios was gravely wounded during Nikephoros's fatal encounter with KRUM and was carried to Adrianople, where the domestikos ton scholon Stephanos proclaimed him emperor") but nothing along the lines of anyone 'arguing' for 26 July as the date.
    Removed, good catch.
  • and his military abilities. any details on this?
  • as well as his marriage to Prokopia, which made him brother-in-law to Staurakios the latter part is a tautology to the former; perhaps smth like 'as well as his family ties to Staurakios via his marriage to Prokopia.'?
    Done.
  • The historians Edward Foord and George Finlay comment that the army seemed willing to stand by Staurakios, but for his mortal wounds posing a threat to the succession of the empire. Again, Foord is likely not a historian, and Finlay is definitely out of date. Here is a good place to use Treadgold instead.
  • Re the whole section, it is sometimes frustrating how modern historians make all kinds of guesses and explanations, or interpret the sequence of events, from Theophanes often very frugal statements: "The patrician Stephen, who was Domestic of the Schools, in the presence of the magistros Theoktistos, proclaimed Staurakios emperor and the latter spoke to the remnants of the army blaming his own father, at which they were greatly pleased." Since Theophanes is, whether we like it or not, our only source, a statement like Staurakios gave a speech to the surviving troops, where he insulted Nikephoros' military judgment, before being acclaimed by the army is, strictly speaking, incorrect. Here I would simply follow (and even cite) Theophanes: Stephen proclaimed him emperor, the speech was held, the troops were pleased. Then the opinions of the historians (attributed, of course) can follow.
  • to have funds that Nikephoros had collected returned to the church this is something that should be mentioned above, when discussing Nikephoros' policies (since this was a major reason for Theophanes' hostility, IMS).

Will continue with the rest later. Constantine ✍ 09:49, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

  • his imperial authority 'imperial' is redundant here
    Done
  • impending death...impending danger from foreign countries avoid repetition (replace one with imminent?) and be clear as to which foreign countries we talk about.
    Done
  • a return to normality was therefore essential hmmm, this is a rather modern turn of phrase, and misses the point IMO. What was needed here was a successor who could govern and lead the army, i.e. what was needed was a stable and competent succession.
  • The delay of Staurakios in selecting an heir -> 'The delay of Staurakios in selecting a successor'
    Done.
  • while Theophano backed herself -> 'while Empress Theophano backed herself'
    done
  • Staurakios wavered between two possible options for succession -> 'Staurakios reportedly wavered between two possible options for his succession.'
    Done.
  • The first, to make Theophano empress Theophano was empress by virtue of her marriage. You mean empress-regnant.
    Done
  • The second option is considered by Bury to be the machinations of an addled brain if it did in fact happen this is a bit oddly phrased. Perhaps 'Bury dismisses the second option as the machinations of Staruakios' addled brain, and furthermore questions the authenticity of the report' or something similar.
    Done.
  • that future Emperor decapitalize Emperor
    Done.
  • Stephanos gathered the remaining tagmatic forces and senate at the Great Palace of Constantinople, and declared Michael emperor....Michael was publicly proclaimed emperor in the Hippodrome of Constantinople, by the remaining tagmatic forces and the senate duplication. Remove one of the two (I'd say the first) occurrences.
    Removed the secondary one, as I think it strips the first of much meaning otherwise.
  • Symon the monk 'the monk Symon', and Symon is not really a Greek name; is it perhaps Symeon?
    Fixed. It's actually Simeon per Bury; Marsh gives it as Symon.
  • he was buried in the Monastery of Braka here it might be worthwhile to elaborate a bit on the name, e.g. "he was buried in a monastery that was likely named 'ta Stavrakiou' after him, but later popularly known as Braka or 'ta Hebraika'" or similar. Also, marsh does not say anything about his burial.
  • which was given to Theophano by Prokopia, this seems to contradict PBE, 'monastery founded after their overthrow by his wife Theophano 1'

Will do the final two sections later. Constantine ✍ 13:24, 17 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Foreign relations

This entire section has little to nothing to do with Staurakios. At most, the payment of tribute in the form of a head tax for him is notable. That can be included in the 'Early life' section, the rest should be deleted.

Done.
Historiography
  • and the weakness and bias of the sources by 'weakness' I assume you mean paucity? or poor quality?
  • are similar to that of the Isaurian dynasty 'similar to those'
    Done.
  • Perhaps it would be better to include the discussion on the bias of Theophanes here, and simply refer and link to it from earlier in the article.
  • The discussion on coinage is not really 'Historiography'; I'd recommend its own section.
    Done.
  • Please use the {{transl|grc|}} template for the Greek terms
  • show the junior emperor on the reverse, and senior emperor on the obverse optional, to help the reader, add who is who, e.g. "show the junior emperor (Staurakios) on the reverse, and senior emperor (Nikephoros) on the obverse" or similar
    Done.
  • the rank of despotes, whereas Nikephoros is given as basileus despotes at this time was not a rank as it became after Manuel I, but merely a title meaning 'lord'
    Done.
    Please use {{transl|grc|}} as well (and not {{lang|grc|}}!
  • one would expect miliarensia one would expect {{transl|grc|[[Miliaresion|miliaresia]]}}
    Done.
  • Empress Regnants 'Empress-regnants'
    Done
Legacy
  • occasionally being forced to make humiliating concessions to powerful enemies hmmm, this is very debatable. Most modern scholars would argue that the 'humiliating' concession was actually a success: yes, Nikephoros and Staurakios symbolically submitted to the Caliph, but in real terms, they lost nothing. The whole Abbasid invasion of 806 was a propaganda success for Harun, but in actual terms it accomplished very little, especially compared with all the effort expended.
Sources
  • Treadgold 1988 is underused, and I know why: the relevant sections were copied from other articles, on the Abbasid invasions. Nevertheless, this is the main up-to-date, easily available, English-language treatment of the period. Would much prefer to see this work used rather than Bury (still broadly valid but more than a bit out of date) and especially Venning & Harris, who offer nothing but a chronological compendium. In fact, I would advise against using Venning & Harris at all, apart from citing dates of events. To be blunt, Treadgold is a source that needs to be included to satisfy 1c of the FA criteria.
  • Summing up on some comments from above: please replace Venning & Harris, Foord, and, as far as possible, Finlay. Use at least Treadgold 1988.
  • Treadgold also has a good book on The Middle Byzantine Historians, which might be useful for discussing the sources and their biases for the Historiography section.
  • Specify the ODB articles used, with correct attribution (e.g. Hollingsworth for Staurakios' article)
  • Add location for Martindale 2001. Also, unless I am very much mistaken, Martindale is not the sole author of the work, but its editor.
    Yes, a lot of places seem to ascribe it to him as the author for the sake of simplicity, how would you recommend I go about it? Give British Academy as the author and Martindale as the editor?
    Just Martindale as the editor (like you would with Kazhdan in the ODB); unless you know the authors of the specific entries.
  • Add location for Ostrogorsky.
    Done.

Will continue with the 'Reign' section as soon as I can. Constantine ✍ 15:24, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Cplakidas: Is the inclusion of Treadgold something you view to be too disruptive to take place in the FAC process (i.e. a fundamentally different article than that seen by earlier reviewers)? If so I am happy to withdraw and work on the article with your advice before re-nominating it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:43, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Iazyges Let me have a closer look at the rest of the article first. But the subject is of fairly limited scope, and even if we introduce Treadgold, I don't expect major changes in the content or the basic narrative. So this should be doable without too much disruption. Constantine ✍ 19:50, 15 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
OK, that's it for a first pass. Content-wise I think the article is fairly accurate and complete, but some fixes here and there are necessary. The biggest problem are the sources used (criterion 1c): some are not RS (Foord) or unsuitable (Venning & Harris), and the main half-way modern work focusing on the period (Treadgold 1988) is effectively not used. @Iazyges: feel free to ping me if you need access to sources. Constantine ✍ 10:23, 18 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Just leaving a note that I've become pretty busy IRL, but I should be able to get around to finishing this on Wednesday; should be done by the end of the week. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 26 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Coordinator comment - I'm sorry, but as this one is over a month in with only a single support and an active oppose, this one will have to be archived within the next couple days if a sizable move towards a consensus to promote does not occur. Hog Farm Talk 00:18, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
    • Following up HF's comment, as there's been no new activity or resolution it's time to archive this and perform further work away from FAC, bringing back in a minimum of two weeks or later per usual practice. Cheers, Ian Rose (talk) 22:45, 7 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Staurakios/archive1&oldid=1114729092"