Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Theodosius III

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.

Article promoted by Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2021 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Theodosius III

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

Featured article candidates/Theodosius III/archive1

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it is part of my ongoing work to improve the articles of Roman and Byzantine emperors, and I believe it meets the standards. I'm also hoping to get this one to FA at some point. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:03, 2 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Nick-D

It's always good to see a fellow civil servant make good ;) I'd like to offer the following comments:

The first sentence of the 'Background' section is over-long and complex
Done
Ditto the sentence starting with 'The success of these raids'
Done
And the sentence starting with 'Anastasios led his armies'
Done
And the sentence starting with 'Leo proclaimed himself'
Done
"with hostilities again engaged" - the grammar is a bit off here
Fixed
Note who the Opsicians were
Elaborated that it was the troops of a province, rather than something special. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Do we know why Theodosius was picked as emperor by the troops? This seems very random!
It is not impossible that they picked him entirely because he already had an imperial name, he had no friends in court, and he was there. I'll consult Bury and the other narrative-heavy sources to see what can be found. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Is it fair to say that nothing is known about Theodosius' life before this incident? If so, the article should state it.
I'll try my best, but only the PLRE really had a habit of fessing up that they know nothing pre-reign, and they don't cover this far. The PBE may have something, however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:16, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The 'Identity' section feels out of place and is unclear, and should be integrated into the article better (this might help answer my above point)
Done
The article feels a little bit thin, largely as it never really explains how a random tax collector ended up as the Byzantine Emperor. More information on who he was and the political background would be useful (e.g. presumably the Byzantine state was in a very bad way if the soldiers were able to get away with rebelling like this). Nick-D (talk) 04:54, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Nick-D: I've added to the article to explain the general status of the empire (not great), as well as some more explanation of why he might have been chosen. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:53, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support Those changes look good, and I'm pleased to support this nomination. Nick-D (talk) 09:53, 6 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Image review

Not sure about this one. On the one hand, I can't find it on the internet before it was uploaded. On the other, the resolution and exif data suggests that it may not be the uploader's own work (and other of his uploads have been questioned on similar grounds). I've asked here for advice. (t · c) buidhe 10:10, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe:, I would be happy to replace it with File:INC-2026-a Солид. Феодосий III Андрамитянин. Ок. 715—717 гг. (аверс).png, of similar quality, and with no copyright issues. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:41, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That sounds like a good solution. (t · c) buidhe 14:46, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Buidhe: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:02, 4 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

Lille: Why do you not give details of the volume in which this work is a section?
Fixed
Sumner: Why no identifier? (Possibly the ISSN is 0017-3916.)
Fixed; I struggled to find the unique identifier for the article itself, but I suppose the ISSN for the journal works as well.
Two sources from the 19th century? Are they really necessary? If so, why?

They are useful for narrative building because they cover more; Brooks could theoretically be removed, but I don't particularly see the need to, he's a respected historian. Bury is also mainly useful for narrative of events, but also provides some information and opinions which others do not. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The fact that a 19th century historian is not supported by modern sources makes me even less inclined to accept them. What make either of them reputable sources? (The sourcing standard for ACR is "reputable". That for FAC is HQ RS; assuming that you wish to take this there I fail to see how 120+ year sources are going to get over that bar other than in tightly constrained circumstances.)

Both of them are among the most respected in the field; J. B. Bury is one of the most prominent Byzantists of all time, a Regius professor of two different subjects, and chair of another. Brooks was a Fellow of the British Academy. In spite of age, they are still some of the highest quality sources available by terms of merits. Bury in particular is rarely directly mentioned except to disagree because his works are one of the most foundational in the field of Roman and Byzantine history. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:50, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

From checking some newish books I own on Byzantine history, Bury is usually cited. For instance, Peter Heather references two of his works in his Rome Resurgent (2018) and Roger Crowley references the work cited here in his Constantinople: The Last Great Siege (2005). Nick-D (talk) 09:30, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify my Bury in particular is rarely directly mentioned except to disagree statement, since it doesn't really take my meaning across; Bury is often assumed to be God's given truth in the field of Byzantism. He is not always right, as a consequence of having fewer sources at his disposal, but the thousands of editions of his books (incidentally one could probably find a new one made at least every few years for the last century) usually note where he was wrong, and most authors take him as given and cite him, but mention him directly on the occasions he is wrong. Bury is the most up-to-date widely accepted long-scale narrative of Roman and Byzantine history. People largely haven't attempted one after him because it is unnecessary to do so. Kazhdan and the PLRE/PBE/PBW are the best dictionaries (alphabetical, rather than chronological), and Treadgold, Kaegi, Stratos, etc. have definitive period histories, but I can't think of another who attempted to write the entire history of them after Bury; and if they exist, they are nowhere near as accepted. It is worth noting that many of the things he was wrong about were only recently discovered; such as the propaganda against Phocas remaining largely unchallenged until 1989 by Olster, and only recently turning around in academia. For this reason, I am comfortable declaring Bury to be the gold standard in the chronological narrative history of Roman and Byzantine history, and as a chronological history, he gives more useful narrative elements which would be OR for to me insert otherwise. That Theodosius was probably chosen because he had the quiet respectability of a modern-day small-town doctor, an imperial name, and was easy to control as he had no allies, is something few would bother to mention in a way that I can cite without OR; after all, why bother? Bury already wrote it. Bury here is not cited for "hard facts", directly at least, most sources here probably draw at least indirectly from him, but for his narrative explanations not given by other books. I would also stand by Brooks as a source worthy of FAC, but I am comfortable removing him, as he is not needed in the same fashion. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:11, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Happy to accept Bury as an RS>. Is Brooks also cited by modern RSs? Obviously, not to the extent Bury is. Note my query above "If so, why?" (On this basis you seem to indicate that you may ley Brooks go.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: I've removed Brooks as a cite and moved him to further reading. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:11, 9 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Have responded. Thanks for taking a look. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:21, 7 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Support by Gog the Mild

"Theodosius led his troops to Chrysopolis and then Constantinople". What is the significance of Constantimople?
Done
"Theodosius led his troops to Chrysopolis and then Constantinople, seizing the city in November 715, although Anastasios would not surrender until several months later, accepting exile into the monastery in return for safety." A busy sentence, consider splitting.
Done
"Many themes refused to recognize". What are they?
Done
"allied himself with the Umayyad Caliphate". What's that?
Done
"and died at some point after." Most people do. What information is this supposed to convey?
Done
"However, hostilities were resumed by Byzantine Emperor Justinian II (r. 685–695, 705–711), resulting in a string of Arab victories, and the loss of control over the Armenia and the Caucasian principalities for the Byzantines, as well as a gradual encroachment upon Byzantine borderlands." Another sentence which covers a lot of ground.
Done
"Byzantine response to these raids became more scarce". I'm not sure that a response can become more scarce. Rephrase?
Done
"Annually, generals from the Caliphate would launch raids into Byzantine territory ... who had prepared for a second assault". Is 'against Constantinople' missing? If not, "annual" raids and a "second" assault seem to contradict each other.
Great catch, fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:10, 11 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Byzantine control in the Balkans and Greece." Redundancy - Greece is a part of the Balkans.
Done
"preventing the emperors from growing stronger and preserving the status quo". This reads as if the nobles wished to prevent the emperors from preserving the status quo.
Fixed
"period" and "this period" are used a lot. Any chance of a bit of variety?
Done
"During this period, seven different emperors took the throne, including Justinian himself for a time." Another "this period" and the meaning of the second clause is not clear. Could it be rephrased.
Done

"Emperor Anastasios II began making preparations to defend against this new onslaught, including sending the patrician and urban prefect, Daniel of Sinope, to spy on the Arabs, under the pretense of a diplomatic embassy, as well as shoring up the defences of Constantinople,[17][18][19] and strengthening the Byzantine Navy." Over-long sentence.
Done
"Theophanes states (A.M. 6206)". The bit in brackets will mean nothing to virtually all readers. Either fully explain it or, my strong preference, lose it.
Done
"had commanded the elements of the navy to gather". Delete "the elements of".
Done
"it may also be modern Fenaket across Rhodes". What does "across" mean in this context? Is it USEngvar?
Theoretically yes, although, in this case I just neglected to add "from"; should be "across from Rhodes". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"famed for its cedar forests". Delete.
Done
Five cites for 10 words. ReallY?
I've shifted it to a footnote, willing to take out some cited if you still view it as necessary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:31, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"Historian J. B. Bury" → 'The historian J. B. Bury' to avoid a false title.
Done
"he was selected haphazardly". Suggest 'he was selected at random'?
Done
"it would mean that Theodosius had to have lived". Delete "had to have".
Done
"However, Theodosius was allegedly unwilling". Delete "However".
Done
"Theodosius instead led his fleet". Delete "instead" - already covered by "Rather than".
Done
"Remove the cites at the end of "seize the city in November 715" as they are repeated at the end of the next sentence.
"Ironic, isn't it..." Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
"The accession of Theodosius, which Byzantine sources convey as being both unwilling and incapable, viewed as a puppet emperor of the troops of the Opsician theme, was not recognized as legitimate by many other themes, especially the Anatolics and the Armeniacs under their respective strategoi (generals) Leo the Isaurian and Artabasdos." Over-long sentence. And sort out the grammar. "which" refers to "The accession", an accession can't be "unwilling and incapable".
Done
"and thought the confusion and weakening of the Byzantine Empire would make it easier to take Constantinople". Suggest 'and thought the confusion would weaken the Byzantine Empire and make it easier to take Constantinople'.
Done
"a treaty with the Bulgarian Khan Tervel". Lower case k.
Done
"to secure their support against an imminent Arab attack against the Byzantine Empire". Can "against" twice in six words be avoided? And delete "against the Byzantine Empire", readers will have worked that out by this point.
Done
"who would be unlikely to battle their influence". What does this mean?
I've changed it to "unlikely to politically weaken them" Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The lengthy quote from Joshua the Stylite, how do you square this with MOS:QUOTE "While quotations are an indispensable part of Wikipedia, try not to overuse them. Using too many quotes is incompatible with an encyclopedic writing style ... It is generally recommended that content be written in Wikipedia editors' own words. Consider paraphrasing quotations into plain and concise text when appropriate".
Done
"He died at some point after he abdicated". Well, yes, is there not a more felicitous way of conveying this?
Done

Gog the Mild (talk) 17:45, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:00, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Nice work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:49, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsSupport by CPA

In 715, the Byzantine Navy and the troops of the Opsician Theme Since when has the navy of the Empire an upper case?
Done
of the Opsician Theme revolted against Byzantine Emperor Anastasios II (r. 713–715) Is there an article about the revolt?
Unfortunately, no. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Many themes (Byzantine provinces) refused Little bit late to explain what themes are if there's Opsician Theme above? Maybe explain themes in that sentence instead of this one?
Done
Opsician theme vs Opsician Theme?
Theme is generally capitalized.
Bulgarians under Khan Tervel No reign?
Done
capturing many officials, including Theodosius' son --> "capturing many officials, including Theodosius's son"?
Done
Do we know who his son was?
Very heavily disputed if he or is his son are the same person, so not firmly.
and died at some point after, possibly on 24 July 754 This sentence say totally something different than the infobox?
Fixed
in the first Arab siege of Constantinople (674–678), the Arabs and Byzantines Unlink Arabs its too common to link.
Done
I see a lot of "however"s. Maybe remove them?
Done
Sulayman (r. 715–717) continued planning the campaign,[7][8][9][10] Per WP:CITEKILL maybe remove at least one citation?
Done
The Slavs and Bulgarians also formed Maybe use Bulgars instead of Bulgarians since they're also Slavs?
Done
(modern Lebanon), famed for its cedar forests.[5][10][21][22][23] WP:CITEKILL here.
Moved some to footnote, kept three in body. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Theodosius, a tax collector, as Emperor Theodosius III.[5][10][21][22] Same as above.
Done
city in November 715.[26][28][29][30] Anastasios remained at Nicaea for several months, before finally agreeing to abdicate and retire to a monastery.[26][28][29][30] Two WP:CITEKILL issues.
Done
One of Theodosius' first acts as emperor --> "One of Theodosius's first acts as emperor"?
Done
himself Byzantine emperor in the summer of 716.[32][33][34][35] WP:CITEKILL here.
Done
negotiated a treaty with the Bulgarian Khan Tervel No reign?
Done
and then marched to Chrysopolis.[26][32][40][41][42] After his son was captured, Theodosius, taking the advice of Patriarch Germanus and the Byzantine Senate, agreed to abdicate and recognize Leo as emperor.[26][32][40][41][42] WP:CITEKILL here
Done
son to retire to a monastery as monks.[32][40][41][42] Same as above.
Done
Little is known of his reign His son or Theodosius himself?
Done
Can you translate Guilland and Lilie's titles?
Done

That's everything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:03, 14 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:46, 18 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 17:03, 22 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

HF - Support

Will look at this one as well. Hog Farm _Talk 14:52, 19 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The lead uses the capitalization Opsician Theme, while Opsician theme appears in the body. Recommend sticking with one consistently
Done
" more than the fact that already had an imperial name" - that he?
Done
Lead ceding the Zagore region to the Bulgarians - body ceding the Zagore region to the Bulgarians - The links in these two passages go to different places
Done
"After his retirement to a monastery, Theodosius became bishop of Ephesus. He may have died on 24 July 754" - this looks the theory that he was son of Tiberius, which is previously stated to be considered unlikely be several historians
Yeah, I was uncertain how to include this; it's the only person who has hazarded a guess on the date; I've added According to Sumner, before it, to clarify. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:00, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Would it be possible to tie these two things together a bit more? I'm a bit confused as to if it's consensus that he became bishop of Ephesus, or if he is only thought to have become bishop if he were the same person as the son of Tiberius. Hog Farm _Talk 05:19, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If he's the same as Tiberius' son, as Sumner says, then he was the bishop, if not, there was an unrelated bishop named Theodosius who was the son of Tiberius. I'm not sure how to make this more clear in the text. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:35, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe move the "According to Sumner" to before "After his retirement to a monastery, Theodosius became bishop of Ephesus"? Hog Farm _Talk 17:37, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Hog Farm: Double checking Neil, it's actually more complicated. Neil does actually assert that Theodosius became the bishop of Ephesus, but is not necessarily the same person as the Bishop Theodosius of c. 729, who was definitely Tiberius' son. I've changed it to After his retirement to a monastery, Theodosius became bishop of Ephesus. According to Sumner, he may have died on 24 July 754, if he is the same as the Theodosius, son of Tiberius, who was bishop of Ephesus in c. 729. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:25, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That's all my comments on this one; good work here. Hog Farm _Talk 00:04, 21 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Hog Farm: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 05:00, 21 October 2021 (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.