Talk:Macedonia (ancient kingdom)/GA1

GA Review

Article (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

Reviewer: Iazyges (talk · contribs) 13:42, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Will start review after I get home. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 13:43, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pericles' reply section

Fantastic! I can't wait to see your input on the matter. I just want to preface whatever comments you have with the point that I do plan on creating an article called History of ancient Macedonia. I realize that the article is rather large per Wikipedia:Article size, so I intend on creating that branch article for the history section using Wikipedia:Summary style. I hope to accomplish this sometime before a possible Featured Article candidacy, which might never happen or if it does it will certainly be way down the road (i.e. months from now if not a whole year to demonstrate article stability given the recent bouts of Wikipedia:Edit warring). Thankfully there has been no edit warring in about a month and the talk page has become very quiet as of late, compared to early January when there was a sudden and inexplicable flurry of activity, debate, and RFC voting in regards to the wording of the lead section. It's the unfortunate perennial issue driven by two different camps of nationalists: Greek versus FYROM POV pushers, yet it's also fueled by academics who have wrangled over the ethnic identity of the ancient Macedonians and the classification of their language as either a dialect of ancient Greek or a language very close to Greek. Pericles of Athens^Talk 15:00, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I've found myself with some time, so I'll begin now (I am on my phone so please forgive mistakes. )Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Comments

It's all very good, the only real problems seem to be towards the average reader not knowing things because of a lack of foreknowledge, but that tends to arise with articles subject to POV wars. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 16:57, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Lead

First paragraph is pretty good, the only change I would recommend is towards "periphery" it seems like a word that is uncommonly enough that the average reader might not know it, perhaps "nearby" or "on the outskirts of".

"With the innovative Macedonian army", sort of unclear, are the soldiers and officers particularly innovative, or are their tactics or weaponry? I'd recommend expanding it (I from foreknowledge know about the pike and cavalry tactics they had and their use of 5m spears, but the average reader may not.

"when the kingdom rose to control the entire Greek world" perhaps change to "during which the kingdom rose to control the entire Greek world".

"and subdued them, while keeping Sparta in check." I'd recommend making a different sentence for the sparta piece, as it implies that Sparta must have been either already under the Macedonians and therefore felt intimidated, or else we're threatened by the show of force, but does not clarify.

"His son Alexander the Great pursued his father's effort to command the whole of Greece through the" perhaps change "pursued" to "continued".

"through the federation of Greek states" perhaps "by controlling the federation of Greek states"

" Alexander overthrew the Achaemenid Empire, conquering a territory that came to stretch as far as the Indus River" perhaps "Alexander conquered the Achaemenid Empire, in doing so he conquered territory that stretched as far as the Indus River".

"were spread to the ancient world." I'd recommend changing it to "were spread throughout the ancient world", as the ancient world isn't given a definitive location, unlike "the Greek world".

Body

"Another legend propagated by Justin" all the other (uncommonly) named historians are given a short introduction, but this one, who has a very common name, doesn't. I would recommend adding a short introduction for him.
"There is much greater evidence for the reigns of Amyntas I of Macedon" this one implies that he was the 6th king of Macedon, is that true? If so it should probably be mentioned."

Break

"Athens responded by sending a naval invasion force that captured Therma and laid siege to Pydna, although they were unsuccessful in retaking Chalcidice and Potidaea, and so sued for peace with Macedonia." Perhaps some more context should be given, the way it is laid out it, it doesn't explain how long they sieged it for, and why failing to retake it would force them, or persuade them to sue for peace.
"War resumed shortly after with the Athenian capture of Beroea and Macedonian aid given to the Potidaeans during an Athenian siege," is this war considered a "continuation war" like with the Finnish during WW2, or is it an entirely different war?
"yet by 431 BC the Athenians and Macedonians concluded a peace treaty and alliance orchestrated by the Thracian ruler Sitalces of the Odrysian kingdom" Doesn't give context, how was Sitalces involved? Did the alliance follow immediately after the treaty, or was it part of the treaty?
"Archelaus I maintained good relations with Athens throughout his reign, relying on Athens to provide naval support in his 410 BC siege of Pydna, but also providing Athens with timber and naval equipment." The but also part gives off the connotation that it was a tributary relationship, unless this is true, I would recommend you change it to "Archelaus I maintained good relations with Athens throughout his reign, relying on Athens to provide naval support in his 410 BC siege of Pydna, and in exchange providing Athens with timber and naval equipment."
"He improved the financial system and currency of his kingdom." Kind of vague, is it known how he did it? I would presume that it was by purging the mints of corruption, and reducing inflation, but I don't know for certain.
" of four different monarchs claiming the throne: Orestes of Macedon, son of Archelaus I; Aeropus II of Macedon, uncle, regent, and murderer of Orestes; Pausanias of Macedon, son of Aeropus II; and Amyntas II of Macedon, who was married to the youngest daughter of Archelaus I.[61] Amyntas III of Macedon (r. 393–370 BC), son of Arrhidaeus and grandson of Amyntas I, succeeded to the throne by killing Pausanias." Somewhat confusing as it labels the four as monarchs, but doesn't label all of them with their areas of control during the power struggle, perhaps "Pretenders" or else a more substantial rewrite to "of four different claimants to the throne:"
" marrying seven different wives and perhaps only one of them for non-military purposes" Should go on to explain that this means that the marriages were done to attain an alliance, or else loyalty, as the average reader may not know that.
"The Greek members of the League of Corinth revolted yet were soon quelled by military force and diplomacy" Perhaps "The Greek members of the League of Corinth revolted, but they were soon quelled by the use of military force, alongside diplomacy." P.S. Will continue soon. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 02:30, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break

Sorry for a lot of inactivity.

" Although there is little evidence for royal pages in the Antigonid period, they did exist at the end of the dynasty when fleeing with Perseus of Macedon to Samothrace following his defeat by the Romans in 168 BC." Perhaps "Although there was little evidence for royal pages throughout the Antigonid period, evidence for their existence was shown at the end of their dynasty, when they were fleeing to Samothrace alongside Perseus of Macedon, after he was defeated by the Romans in 168 BC."
"The assembly was apparently given the right to judge and pass sentences for those charged with high treason" perhaps "The assembly was apparently in charge of judging cases of high treason, and assigning punishments for them."
"At the death of Alexander the Great the companions immediately formed a council to assume control of his empire, albeit temporarily and followed quickly afterwards by open rivalry and conflict" perhaps "After Alexander the Great, his companions formed a council to control the empire, however it was soon destabilized by open rivalry and conflict between its members".
"Philip II hired engineers such as Polyidus of Thessaly and Diades of Pella capable of building state of the art siege engines and artillery firing large bolts." perhaps "Phillip II hired engineers such as Polyidus of thessaly and Diades of Pella, who were capable of building state of the art siege engines, and artillery that could fire large bolts."
" cavalry composed entirely of ethnic Persians." Is there a reason ethnic is included in the linked part?
" Alexander continued using Cretan archers and for the first time a clear reference to native Macedonian archers is made, although after the Battle of Gaugamela archers of Asian extract became commonplace and were organized into chiliarchs." perhaps "Alexander continued the use of Cretan archers, but around this time a clear reference to the use of native Macedonian archers is made. After the battle of Gaugamela archers of Asian ethnicity became much more common, and were organized on chiliarchs."
"The veteran, top tier Antigonid-period Macedonian infantry from at least the time of Antigonus III Doson were the peltasts, lighter and more maneuverable soldiers wielding peltai javelins, swords, and a smaller bronze shield than Macedonian phalanx pikemen, although they sometimes served in that capacity." I don't know if it's just me but "top tier" makes me feel like I'm on 4chan, perhaps "elite" would work better.
"Macedonian kings continued to fund and equip the navy." Perhaps "Macedonian kings continued to expand and equip the navy."
That's all the suggestions I have. Congrats btw for having almost 1/4 of the article scroll bar be citations and refs. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:41, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Pericles reply #2

Lead section reply

I'm happy to announce that I've addressed each of your points here except for two of them, which I find a bit problematic. Replacing "periphery" with "nearby" is not a better solution, since the word "nearby" suggests that Macedonia was outside of ancient Greece (a POV statement that is most certainly not supported by the majority of academia). "On the periphery" has virtually the same meaning as "on the outskirts of", yet the latter is more often used to describe areas of individual towns and cities, not entire regions and nations. Unless you can think of a better solution, the phrase "on the periphery" is still the best choice out of these three.

The other item that I did not address (although I did slightly reword it) was the sentence "Alexander overthrew the Achaemenid Empire, conquering a territory that came to stretch as far as the Indus River." I changed it to "Alexander overthrew the Achaemenid Empire and conquered a territory that stretched as far as the Indus River." Your suggestion (i.e. "Alexander conquered the Achaemenid Empire, in doing so he conquered territory that stretched as far as the Indus River") has a couple problems. The first is that it contains two variations of the word "conquer" in the same sentence; it's best to avoid using the same verb twice in a row (whether it be past tense or present continuous). Your sentence would also require a semi-colon placed after the phrase "Achaemenid Empire" for it to make grammatical sense, if not a period separating it into two sentences.

In either case, thanks for pointing out the other items that needed work. The lead is looking better already! Cheers. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:28, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Body section reply

I have specified that Justin was a Roman historian.
I've also clarified that, depending on which chronology is chosen (with either Perdiccas I of Macedon as the first king or Caranus of Macedon as his predecessor) there were either five or eight kings before Amyntas I of Macedon. Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:36, 9 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break #1 reply

My source, Joseph Roisman (2010), also does not explicitly state exactly how long these cities were besieged, yet at least makes it clear that the entire conflict lasted from 433 BC to 431 BC, when Athens and Macedonia were finally reconciled by way of negotiations staged by Sitalces. Also, keep in mind that Athens, upon sending all these forces into Chalcidice, were most likely spending huge sums of money to maintain the war effort there. If you fail in a siege it is often disastrous, unless you have other cities falling to your forces. Roisman makes it clear that "what saved the [Macedonian King Perdiccas II] was the Athenians' eagerness to focus all their efforts on regaining the Chalcidice and Potidaea, which forced them to make peace with him" (p. 147). He slightly contradicts himself, though, by explaining in the same paragraph that the Athenians reinforced their siege at Pydna with 2,000 hoplites sailing there on 40 ships (Pydna being to the west of the Chalcidice, along the Thermaic Gulf). Given what my source says, I'm not sure how to make any of this any clearer than it already is, aside from Roisman's input that "the king's efforts at mobilizing allies and forcing Athens to fight on more than one front appeared to bear fruit" (p. 147). I've decided to provide Roisman's assertion here into the article. I hope it clarifies things.
I'm not sure if I'd characterize these outbursts of hostilities as something akin to the modern Continuation War. Roisman simply says the truce was broken shortly after the initial peace talks.
I have provided further context as to why the Thracian ruler Sitalces of the Odrysian Kingdom was involved in the negotiation process between Athens and Macedonia.
The peace treaty and alliance were a combined settlement. It's basically implied that one does not become an ally with another until hostilities between the two have formally ended. Rewording this to make it even more explicitly clear is perhaps an unnecessary level of detail, especially given the current size of this article.
That's a very good point about the statement regarding Archelaus I of Macedon and Athens! I have amended the article accordingly, using your reworded suggestion.
I've specified how he improved the kingdom's currency by increasing silver content and issuing new copper coins. Great suggestion!
Roisman asserts that the period between 399-393 BC is very unclear and we can't make strong judgments about any of these four kings. All of them except Orestes managed to mint new currency that imitated that of Archelaus I, albeit in a debased form. There is no clear information about civil war or territorial exchanges between them, and not all of them were simultaneously proclaimed king (for instance, Aeropus II only became king after killing Orestes). I've decided to specify in the article about the ambiguity surrounding this period, with little evidence aside from the numismatic proof (and the implied written histories' input on the matter).
I have made it clear that Philip II's marriages, perhaps barring one of them, were used to ensure the loyalty of subjects as well as friendship of new allies.
I reworded that part about the League of Corinth. Pericles of Athens^Talk 13:16, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Break #2 reply

@Iazyges:

I'm happy to announce that I've addressed each and every one of your bullet points and concerns, rewording the article accordingly. If there's anything else that I can do, please say so! Do you think the review is now finished? Or do the sub-sections within "culture and society" need further copy-editing? Pericles of Athens^Talk 20:24, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's good. Passing now. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:08, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Thank you so very much for taking the time to review this article! It was a pleasure working with you. Cheers, buddy! Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

SilentResident reply #1

Body section reply

I have nothing to add to the above responses by Perikles thus far, as I find them satisfactory from my part, except perhaps the section about Philip's polygamy. Can we include link to the article of the Wife which King Philip II married for reasons other than securing loyalty and bolstering alliances? Perhaps if we edit the following section:

"Although Macedonia and the rest of Greece traditionally practiced monogamy in marriage, Philip II divulged in the 'barbarian' practice of polygamy, marrying seven different wives with perhaps [ARTICLE_OF_QUEEN|only one that] didn't involve the loyalty of his aristocratic subjects or the affirmation of a new alliance."

that could be good to go. While it is not necessary to mention the Queen's name, a link to her article (if it exists), couldn't hurt. While the Queens of Macedonia were not having as much power as the Kings did, the absence of any links to Macedonian queen pages is not reflecting the Kingdom's affairs, given the historical records which mention of various Macedonian Queens and the influence they had in public affairs through their husbands. -- SILENTRESIDENT 03:29, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

I have added "Cleopatra Eurydice" as a hidden link, since my source Sabine Muller (2010) makes it clear that it was his final, seventh wife that perhaps was wed for reasons other than military concerns. However, Muller, has her doubts about this assertion by ancient historians Plutarch and Athenaeus that this was a marriage of love between a young woman and a man going through a mid-life crisis. Muller's views are expressed later in the "Rise of Macedon" section that this was most likely a marriage with military concerns, because she was the daughter of Attalus (general). Also, since "Cleopatra Eurydice of Macedon" is already linked in this same section, I was able to sneakily provide the hidden redirect link "Cleopatra Eurydice" because redirect links are accepted and are not considered as over-linking/double-linking. In either case, I think the article does a good job covering the women of Macedon who are crucial to understanding its political history, particularly Alexander's mother Olympias, if not Roxana and Lanassa (wife of Pyrrhus). Feel free to raise further concerns, though, because I did not consciously consider women's issues when writing this article; perhaps it deserves its own little sub-section within the "Culture and Society" section. There is a book chapter dedicated to Macedonian women in that Blackwell Companion to Ancient Macedonia, for starters. Pericles of Athens^Talk 05:37, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, but I don't think there is anything else that could be of any concern yet or that it needs any further attention, (at least in the sections reviewed thus far by Iazyges). The new changes are very reasonable and balanced. -- SILENTRESIDENT 19:39, 18 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

P.S.

@PericlesofAthens: congratulations for the successful nom. Just one thing: there are many Errington 2010 short footnotes, but no Errington 2010 in the Bibliography. All other short footnotes check out. – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

@Finnusertop: Thank you so very much for pointing this out! It was a simple typo, an artifact that came about from too much copying and pasting of the Harvard-style citation tag. I actually noticed this problem before and fixed many of them, but apparently I didn't find them all! The other citations should be fine, though, to the best of my knowledge at least. Cheers! Pericles of Athens^Talk 23:02, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, PericlesofAthens, all other citations are fine (verified with User:Ucucha/HarvErrors). – Finnusertop (talk ⋅ contribs) 23:03, 20 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Congratulations for the excellent job! First time this important article gets a Good Article status! -- SILENTRESIDENT 15:41, 21 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]