Talk:Phocas

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Phocas article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility

	Biography portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
	This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance).

Middle Ages Low‑importance

	Middle Ages portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Greece: Byzantine Low‑importance

	Greece portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greek history on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreek
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force.

Classical Greece and Rome Mid‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Iran Low‑importance

	Iran portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Iran, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles related to Iran on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please join the project where you can contribute to the discussions and help with our open tasks.IranWikipedia:WikiProject IranTemplate:WikiProject IranIran
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Military history: Biography / Roman & Byzantine / Medieval

This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history

This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-class status:
Referencing and citation: criterion met Coverage and accuracy: criterion not met Structure: criterion met Grammar and style: criterion met Supporting materials: criterion met

Associated task forces:
/
	Military biography task force
	Roman and Byzantine military history task force
	Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500)

Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

Ecological Emperor?

Would anyone like to join with me in the opinion that 'the "Green" faction', of which mention was first added about a year and a half ago by an anonymous user, is much more likely to be a typographical mistake for 'the "Greek" faction'? Q·L·1968 ☿ 20:17, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, Greens is correct. Political life in late ancient and early medieval Constantinople was marked by loosely organized factions or gangs that were associated with different horse-racing and athletic teams who competed in the hippodrome; these teams were in turn designated by colors. The Blues and Greens were the most powerful factions, but I believe that there were Whites as well. I thought there was a Wikipedia article on the subject, but I can't find it now ... might make a good addition. --Jfruh (talk) 22:46, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, it seems like there used to be an article on the subject, as this stub at InfoPlease (a Wiki fork, yes?) indicates, maybe? The "Background" section of the Nika riots article offers an excellent primer on the subject, though. --Jfruh (talk) 22:50, 25 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Fascinating! It reminds me of the Fenerbahçe/Galatasaray/Beşiktaş rivalry in my part of the world, which always feels like it may explode into political violence at any time. Thanks for the clarification (and the stub link). Q·L·1968 ☿ 13:09, 26 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Coin images

Are we sure that the lower of the two images (the one not in the infobox) is really Phocas? It looks nothing like the first image -- the person illustrated is unbearded, for one thing -- and the hairstyle makes the person look like a woman to me, though it's hard to judge fashion at this remove. I also posted a query to the image talk page. --Jfruh (talk) 22:30, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Persians and Heraclius

I recall learning in college that some historians blame much of Phocas's defeats to the Persians in part on Heraclius' revolt. Some discussion of this might be useful. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 149.69.100.176 (talk) 18:57, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is discussed to a certain extent in the "Overthrow and Death" section. --Jfruh (talk) 19:21, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Justinian Dynasty?

He wasn't part of the Justinian dynasty - he ended it when he murdered Maurice and all his sons. Nor did any of his children rule, so there was no Phocasian dynasty. Should that bit be removed entirely from the infobox? 24.42.68.193 (talk) 05:28, 30 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Religious policy / expansion of article

"Heraclius Junior sailed westward" is wrong. He sailed from Carthage to Cyprus eastward, of course.

Internal policy is completely missing. It consisted in silly measures that ignited the ever latent civil strife between Jews, Malikites and monophysitic Christians (Oriental churches) to overt civil war, killing thousands, working uncountable damage and havoc, and inducing the population to welcoming heartily whatever conqueror might end that unbearable situation.

It should be mentioned that parricide shâh Khosrau II managed to take even Chalcedon opposite Constantinople in 608, devastating all Asia Minor both economically and strategically.

 - The article needs expansion. German and French versions are far more explicit.

Nuremberg Oct. 1st, 2011 angel.garcia2001@googlemail.com 87.158.147.210 (talk) 13:54, 5 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Sections completely without references

The Accession section is uncited. Needs at least one RS! Ditto for the overthrow section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 104.169.37.15 (talk) 06:56, 5 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bias of Phocas history

I feel that we should at the very (least) acknowledge that the majority of what we know about Phocas was written by 2 historians in the 630s, one based in Alexandria, and the other working for Heraclius. The reality is that the only surviving history about him was written by those who can hardly be considered as impartial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AussieAres (talk • contribs) 03:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's why Wiki uses secondary, scholarly sources as much as possible.50.111.14.1 (talk) 11:55, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

POV

To make long story short article is saying: "Despite the execution of the previous emperor and his dynastic successors, Phocas remained in a precarious position, which led him to devote his energy to purging enemies and destroying conspiracies. Because of this focus, and the local resistance he faced all throughout the Byzantine Empire, he was unable to confront foreign attacks on the empire's frontiers. The Avars and Slavs launched numerous raids into the Balkan provinces of the Byzantine Empire, and the Sassanian Empire launched an invasion of the eastern provinces of the empire.

The Avars were able to take all land in the Balkans north of Thessalonika. The populations of Christian cities were slaughtered or captured. The Byzantines transferred most of their forces to the eastern front due to the threat from the Persians."

This are all false statements which represent typical black legends about Phocas created by Heraclius regime. Until rebellion of Heraclius and 2 years long civil war (608-610) Phocas has not been defeated by foreign attacks. Persians has not defeated Byzantine defences until 609 ( Cambridge University Press, Walter Emil Kaegi:Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium page 65 and many, many others) and on other side there has been peace on Avar-Byzantine border until 612 (see Avar–Byzantine wars). All in all article is really, really bad.Analitikos (talk) 12:08, 1 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The article has 16 references. It has in-line citations. If you can dispute these Reliable Sources with counter-sources, please provide. In the meantime, since you have not provided any, I'm removing the tag. If/when you return with sources to improve the article and can challenge it, you can restore it. 50.111.22.69 (talk) 10:02, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I'm going to re-add the tag. Take this quote from the opening: "Phocas was an incompetent leader, both of the administration and army, and under him the Byzantine Empire was threatened by multiple enemies, with frequent raids in the Balkans from the Avars and Slavs, and a Sassanid invasion of the eastern provinces. Because of Phocas' incompetence and brutality, the Exarch of Carthage, Heraclius the Elder, rebelled against him." In the body of the article, there is only one in-line citation for the charge of incompetence. As an encyclopedia, we don't need to have an opinion. We can instead have a section on historiography that combines the "Legacy" section and the judgment of the modern historian cited in the article. --JECE (talk) 17:00, 5 October 2019 (UTC)[reply]

WE don't - but the scholarly reliable sources most certainly can, and we summarize what they state. The 'one citation' you note actually points to three within that author's website. I'll clean this article up a bit and point to more generally-accepted historical university roundtable agreements on Phocas than the DIR website when I get a chance.50.111.14.1 (talk) 12:06, 26 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have removed the sentence summarising the sources' view of Phocas career as an "incompetent leader of the administration and the army." Ostrogorsky calls him "tyrannical", my 1970s-era brittanica calls him a "disaster", but reading their treatments in full makes it clear that neither of these are a judgement on his competence per se. He didn't lose battles because of strategic or tactical errors: instead, he alienated his generals and they defected. He apparently closed the university of Theodosius II, not because he was a poor administrator, but out of spite. He persecuted Monophysites and Jews, but he didn't do so from incompetence, but out of malice. He took the side of the Pope against the Patriarch of Constantinople, but again, this is not because he was unfamiliar with the nuances of church governance but because he wanted to humiliate the Byzantine aristocracy. The sources hostile to him don't describe him as a bumbler, but as a tyrannical ruler who knew exactly what he was doing. We can have a debate over whether that is fair, but I think it's pointless to argue about a sentence that doesn't even summarise the anti-Phocas sources accurately. --Jpbrenna (talk) 13:44, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Jpbrenna: I'm making an article about his historiography in my userspace, hope to have it out and summarized as a section within this article at some point soon. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:20, 15 September 2021 (UTC)[reply]