Talk:Marcian

File:Column of Marcianus in Istanbul (Constantinople) Turkey.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Column of Marcianus in Istanbul (Constantinople) Turkey.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests April 2012 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Column of Marcianus in Istanbul (Constantinople) Turkey.jpg) This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 00:01, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Total darkness

This unreliable source records that, the day of Marcian's inauguration, there was no daylight and no eclipse. Any reliable sources confirm so we can add that to this article? — LlywelynII 22:20, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

First anointed

Similarly, this unreliable source records that Marcian was the first example of a Roman emperor being ceremonially entered into his office by the church. Any reliable sources confirm so we can add that to this article? — LlywelynII 22:22, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

Byzantine?

The box states that Marcian was a "Byzantine" emperor. This is not general usage, as required by WP practice. The convention is for the term "Eastern Roman Empire" to be used at least until the fall of the Western Empire, and many such as the impeccable A H M Jones avoid the term "Byzantine" right up to Heraclius and the seventh century crisis. Deipnosophista (talk) 07:18, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Marcian/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Katolophyromai (talk · contribs) 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I will review this article. --Katolophyromai (talk) 04:08, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

GA review (see here for what the criteria are, and here for what they are not)
It is reasonably well written. a (prose, spelling, and grammar): b (MoS for lead, layout, word choice, fiction, and lists): It is factually accurate and verifiable. a (references): b (citations to reliable sources): c (OR): d (copyvio and plagiarism): It is broad in its coverage. a (major aspects): b (focused): It follows the neutral point of view policy. Fair representation without bias: It is stable. No edit wars, etc.: It is illustrated by images, where possible and appropriate. a (images are tagged and non-free images have fair use rationales): b (appropriate use with suitable captions):
Overall: Pass/Fail:
· · ·

Comments

1. There were no spelling or grammar error that I noticed and the article meets all the stylistic guidelines, to the best of my knowledge.
2. The article is very well cited and the sources are reliable. You could perhaps provide links to the Google Books editions for easier verification, if any of the books cited have previews available on Google Books. The plagiarism checker comes up with zero percent similarity, so I am pretty sure plagiarism is not an issue here.
3. The article covers all the essential aspects, but I thought I would point out that the article never states how he died. The article List of Roman emperors#Theodosian dynasty (379–457) states that he died of "natural causes." It might be a good idea to clarify this and, if anything is known about the precise circumstances of his death, I would strongly recommend that you include such information.
4. I did not notice any obvious biases and, to me, the article seemed completely neutral.
5. The article is completely stable and the recent edit history reveals absolutely no traces of edit-warring.
6. The article is illustrated by a sufficient number of useful images. I think all the images are appropriately licensed and the Commons pages all state that they are licensed, but I am known to have made mistakes regarding the various complex and confusing intricacies of international copyright law in the past, so it may be a good idea for someone else to double check and make sure I am right.

All in all, I think this article completely fulfills all of the GA criteria. Congratulations! Excellent work! --Katolophyromai (talk) 03:25, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Copy edit

Noted in passing:

• "where was cared for by Tatianus and his brother Iulius" Tatianus is introduced rather from nowhere. Who is Tatianus? Why does a reader need to know this apparently inconsequential detail? (Yes, the questions are rhetorical.)
•  Done
• "massive influence" and "huge influence". I have left them as is, but I have doubts about their acceptability at FAC.
•  Done
• "along with a need to raid to keep his tribal-state together." A note of why raiding might contribute to the continuity of the tribal state might be useful. Gog the Mild (talk) 16:54, 19 September 2018 (UTC)
•  Done

Informal review

In response to the request on my talk page, I'd like to offer an informal review of this article's suitability for a FAC:

• Per MOS:LEADPARAGRAPH, the first para of the lead should summarise the entire article
•  Done
• "other than that he was a domesticus" - as "domesticus" is an obscure term, you should explain what they were. Similar terms are scattered throughout the article, and are explained in some instances and not in others: I'd suggest explaining them all.
•  Done
• Who were " Tatianus and his brother Iulius"? If they're red linked, presumably they're considered notable?
•  Done
• "Marcian had his daughter Marcia Euphemia, who came from a previous marriage" - I take it we don't know anything of this marriage?

  Unfortunately, yes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:18, 2 January 2019 (UTC)

• The sentence which starts with "The eunuch and spatharios (military attendant) Chrysaphius" is over complex, and the grammar is a bit off
•  Done
• Some background on the pre-Marcian policies towards the Huns is needed to put the change in policy in context
•  Done
• More broadly, the article notes at various points how much better a job Marcian did than his predecessor, but never explains the situation he inherited. A para or two doing this would be very helpful.
•  Done
• "lacking in funds, due to the lack of subsidies" - watch for repetition (words are repeated in sentences at a few points across the article)
•  Done
• The para which starts with "Shortly before Marcian became emperor," is confusing
•  Done
• "Due to his piety, Marcian was compared to both Paul the Apostle and King David" - by whom?
•  Done
• "In order to ensure his law was implemented, he set a penalty of 50 pounds (23 kg) of gold for any judge, governor, or official who did enforce the law" - should this end with "did not enforce the law"?
•  Done
• "He left the Eastern Empire with a budget surplus of seven million solidi, an impressive achievement considering the economic ruin inflicted upon Eastern Rome by the Huns, both through warfare and the massive subsidies they received under Theodosius" - most of this is already stated. Also, as the Huns collapsed early in his reign, how were they still causing economic ruin at the time of his death?

  @Gog the Mild: A lot of the northern Balkans were raided by the Huns during the time of Theodosius (which I'll have to find a way to mention somewhere in the article); the attacks left some pretty lasting damage, many of the cities weren't rebuilt until Justinian, and many simply weren't rebuilt. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:41, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Iazyges and Nick-D: I suspect that this was intended for Nick-D and not me. He made these contributions. I made the three above in Copy Edit, of which only the last is still unaddressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:56, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: That is correct, apologies. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

No worries. And welcome back. You have been missed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• The sentence starting with "Some later scholars" is over-complex
•  Done
• Do we know when the Column of Marcian was erected or dedicated?
•  Done
• Sources should not be listed as external links, as is the case at present.
•  Done
• The "Foreign relations" section obviously only covers a fraction of Marcian's foreign policies (presumably the key details which are known?): this should be made clear.

  How do you think would be best to lay this out; I've yet to find a citation that actually says that most of the details aren't known.Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

• The article presents a generally very positive portrayal of Marcian. Surely he made some mistakes or acted ruthlessly. His suppression of non-Christian religions for instance. These should be spelled out.

  Unfortunately Marcian gets an exceptionally high portrayal from almost everyone, probably a consequence of most historians of the time being very friendly with his political allies; I've yet to find sources that explicitly speak of his mistakes. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

  Please add a date for the "A map of Europe showing the Hunnic confederation under Attila in orange, and the Roman Empire in yellow". Nick-D (talk) 11:21, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

   Done

Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) and Nick-D (talk · contribs), Iulius was governor in Cilicia in the time of Marcian's arrival, while Tatianus was his brother and became, for Marcian's favor, praefectus Urbi in Constantinople some time after. Moreover, it was during Tatianus's tenure that the column of Marcian was erected and dedicated. All these information can be obtained on the Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire.--Renato de carvalho ferreira (talk) 17:51, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

@Renato de carvalho ferreira: Thank you for the information. "Yes, the questions are rhetorical" was intended to indicate that I was aware of the answers to the questions I was asking, but that I felt that a passing reader would not be. Clearly I wasn't clear enough; I shall endeavour to be more so in future. Gog the Mild (talk) 18:08, 20 September 2018 (UTC)

Anthemius and the Theodosians

The article says:

Although Marcian had a son-in-law, Anthemius, he did not have any connection to the Theodosians, and thus would not be considered legitimate, so Aspar was once again left to play the role of emperor-maker. Aspar selected Leo I, a fifty-year-old officer commanding a unit in the praesental army.

This doesn't make sense. If Anthemius's lack of connections to the Theodosian dynasty meant he wasn't a legitimate claimant to the throne, why was Leo, who completely lacked any imperial family connections, considered an acceptable alternative? --Jfruh (talk) 01:03, 7 June 2019 (UTC)

Because Aspar mistakingly believed that Leo I the Thracian would be a relatively convenient puppet ruler:

• "He served in the Roman army, rising to the rank of comes. Leo was the last of a series of emperors placed on the throne by Aspar, the Alan serving as commander-in-chief of the army, who thought Leo would be an easy puppet ruler. Instead, Leo became more and more independent from Aspar, causing tension that would culminate in the assassination of the latter."

As usual with Roman emperors, they depended on the army's support to get to the throne. The previous emperors Jovian, Valentinian I, and Eugenius had been elected or appointed by the army during interregnums. With the Theodosian dynasty out of the way, it was back to business as usual. Dimadick (talk) 17:14, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I'm well aware of the larger politics in play. I'm just saying the sentence doesn't make sense. It basically says "Anthemius wasn't part of the Theodosian dynasty so he couldn't become emperor; therefore Aspar picked someone else to be emperor, who also wasn't part of the Theodosian dynasty."

Is the point supposed to be that if Anthemius had been a true Theodosian dynast he would have become emperor more or less automatically, but because he wasn't, Aspar got to make his own pick? If so that's not really clear. --Jfruh (talk) 19:30, 9 June 2019 (UTC)

old (and silly) map of 450 A.D.

This map from 1911 (most likely Brittanica?) is wildly inaccurate, just like some of the much-exaggerated Mongol Empire maps we've had removed ... Attila's empire neither reached the northern sea or the northern parts of today's Russia - there are many better sources out there. This needs to be replaced - and badly.50.111.14.1 (talk) 21:14, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:32, 27 April 2020 (UTC)

Ah - much improved. I was just going to suggest --> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/f/f0/Huns450.png when I came back here. A new map along the lines of this would look good, if one of our volunteers is looking for a project: https://i.postimg.cc/RZVGdXq3/Attilas-Empire.png Thanks.50.111.24.147 (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect term

A quote: Marcian was elected without any consultation with the Western Roman Emperor, Valentinian III—a clear indication of further separation between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires than before his reign.

There were eastern and western emperors, but there were not Eastern and Western Empires, there were eastern and western halves, regions, segments or any relevant words like that. There was only one empire. Each emperor had the legitimate right to rule the whole empire, both halves, if there were not political decisions overriding that right, such as the political agreement to have two emperors in a then current time.

Edit: talking of western emperor Valentinian III, he was appointed by eastern emperor Theodosius II, going back to Valentinian I, he appointed himself to the west and brother Valens to the east. I am writing this on 12th April, the date eastern emperor Leo I appointed Anthemius as western emperor.

Middle More Rider (talk) 14:29, 26 January 2022 (UTC) Middle More Rider (talk) 00:57, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

@Middle More Rider: Sorry for the late response, only recently back. By the time of this writing, the two were only theoretically connected; I've seen elsewhere your commentary on bias in terms of "Byzantine Empire" vs "Roman Empire Part 2", which I'm inclined to agree with, but I think here the distinction is truly meaningful. Yes, in theory, East and West were part of a unified Roman Empire, but by this time that had effectively broken down. Clearly, the Western Emperor had no power to rule over the east if he wasn't even asked. By long-standing formula of legitimacy, Valentinian III should have become emperor of both East and West and selected a replacement himself. That did not happen, he wasn't even asked. Yes, the two were theoretically the same nation, but they did not even necessarily share a common defense by this point; something even the United States under the Articles of Confederation did when it was still an "are" and not an "is". Wikipedia is constrained here not just by scholarly sources, which tend to emphasize the difference between west and east, but by how to explain the situation to a layman. Historiographic inventions are not respectful towards the opinions of those who lived in them, but they are helpful. Yes, few if any who lived in those times would consider it to be two empires, but that's how they functioned at the time. I'm sympathetic towards your arguments on the history of the invention of "Byzantium", although I doubt it will change in our lifetimes, in this case, it is a reflection of both sources and reality, if not ideal institutions. De jure they were the same state, de facto they functioned as two states. IMO the reasoning behind the separation of two historiographical inventions of East and West, before the fall of the West, is sound, even if the failure to transfer a unified "Roman" title to the East after the fall of the West is not. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:22, 5 August 2022 (UTC)

Today, as it is the anniversary, I am reminded of another situation. The Magister Militum (something like field marshall, very powerful) in the west appointed Eugenius as emperor in the west of the empire, Theodosius I in Constantinople considered himself sole ruler at that point, he did nothing for around 5 months, then from Constantinople he appointed his son Honorius as emperor of the west, this sealed the fate of Eugenius, they went to war and he was executed.

Middle More Rider (talk) 11:31, 22 August 2022 (UTC)