Jump to content

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Manuel I Komnenos

Add links
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Manuel I Comnenus

[edit]

The subject matter of this article seems particularly compelling at the moment, given the current world focus on the issues surrounding the clash of Islam and the west; and the struggle today between Israel and the Palestinians over the 'Holy Land', which in some ways echoes that of the era of Manuel Comnenus and the Crusaders. Manuel's reign was a crucial moment in the history of the Byzantine Empire, a topic which itself has only recently begun to recieve the attention it deserves as one of the major epochs in world history. But what makes Manuel so fascinating is that his fate was so closely bound up with that of the empire he ruled, and that at this most crucial point in the history of his empire, it was his judgement which determined whether Byzantium would rise again like the phoenix of legend, or whether it would decline and drift into impotence. This article has had a peer review and is a self-nomination. Bigdaddy1204 18:15, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Looks quite nice. Any chance you could add {{Infobox Military Person}} to it? —Kirill Lokshin 18:34, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I had a go at putting the template in but it didn't work; but feel free to add the template yourself if you can fix it :) Bigdaddy1204 19:09, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I added the infobox- I couldn't find most of the information though, so I left them as HTML comments. AndyZ 20:33, 27 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

My thanks to you on the image, I've found a place for it here [[2]] in the section I've been writing on Twelfth century Art & Culture on the Byzantine Empire page Bigdaddy1204 19:35, 3 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Object. I appreciate the well written prose, but neutrality of the article is questionnable. Manuel I is praised (especially in the introduction) as a great hero and victor. However, the most important event of his reign is arguably the Battle of Myriokephalon (as the end of Byzantine attempts to reconquer Anatolia), which he lost. In general, the introduction is not very well balanced. Too much space is devoted to Manuel's chivalry ant personal friendships. Moreover, it mentions "Byzantine protectorate over the Crusader kingdoms", though it was just the case of Antioch and not Jerusalem. Similarly, the Kingdom of Hungary is claimed to have been "reduced to a client status" (The Danube frontier section). This is too strong for a description of Byzantine influence over Hungary (which was only temporary and Hungary under Béla III should be described rather as an ally). The "Assessment..." section seems to argue that Manuel was generally successful, though unrealistic in his ambition. IMO, more space should be devoted to the assessment of military defeats because thay showed that the Empire is not in capacity to reconquer the lost territories in Asia Minor and Italy. Finally, some of the pictures are redundant (the satellite picture of Greece and the picture of the Nile, for instance).Tankred 18:31, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On the "Byzantine protectorate over the Crusader kingdoms", the statement 'it was just the case of Antioch and not Jerusalem' is simply not accurate. In his landmark work "A Short History of Byzantium", John Julius Norwich says that by 1170, Manuel "had imposed his suzerainty over the Crusader states of Outremer". Furthermore, according to Jonathon Harris in "Byzantium and the Crusades", Manuel "had secured an acceptance of the empire's hegemony over Antioch and Jerusalem". Both authors are quite clear on that point.

As for the kingdom of Hungary, on page 209 of Michael Angold's "The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204", he says that Béla III was acclaimed king "only after he had taken an oath to uphold the interests of the Byzantine Emperor". When summing up the section, Angold says "The western Balkans were now under Byzantine control and Hungary had become a client state." Clearly, Angold does not think that it is 'too strong' to describe Hungary as a client state.

I disagree that the pictures are redundant. I will remove them if you really want, but I do not see that they harm the article in any way; rather, I feel that they complement the text and liven up the appearence of the article.

On the positive side, I will edit the introduction to fix the points you mentioned. Also, in response to 'more space should be devoted to the assessment of military defeats', I will have a go at doing just that. Bigdaddy1204 19:06, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I look forward to reading a more balanced introduction and a more carefull general assessment of military defeats. In the maentime, I am withdrawing my objection and I really would like to change it into support after you rework the introduction. As for the pictures, you are right, they are no harm. As for the Crusader states, you convinced me. As for Hungary, the Byzantine influence was really strong by the time of Béla III's coronation. But during his reign, Hungary quickly became an ally ruled by a friendly and powerful monarch. Anyway, although I still think that the "client status" is not an appropriate formulation, it is not a reason to oppose such a good article.Tankred 19:40, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I have now re-worked the introduction in line with your suggestions. Also, I have completely re-written the section on the battle of Myriokephalon, adding much more detail to the defeat and its consequences. My thanks to you for pointing out the introduction: I had not noticed until then that Myriokephalon was absent. Hopefully the additions have fixed the article :) Bigdaddy1204 21:18, 4 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'm also not comfortable with some of the images and some of the, I don't know, let's say slightly bombastic writing, but about client states - Hungary and the Crusaders acknowledged at least some sort of dependence on the Empire. I don't know about Hungary but the King of Jerusalem even visited Manuel (unfortunately we don't know what he did there, so Norwich, Harris, Angold, etc are really just speculating, and of course in reality Manuel had as much control over Jerusalem as he did over, say, Venice). Anyway, I think I would support this. Adam Bishop 03:59, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per the Bishop of Adam:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 22:12, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Support, as per Machine in the Ghost:>--Ghirla -трёп- 13:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Weakly support with the following concerns: (1) the absence of Magdalino's Empire of Manuel I Komnenos as a ref; (2) Norwich's Short History is clearly not the equal of Angold, Harris and the two primary sources, and I'd like to see it replaced by something else; (3) describing the Muslim reconquests in Outremer as a jihad, however correct it may be literally, is probably going to confuse readers. Otherwise I liked it a lot. Angus McLellan 16:50, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd have to agree that Norwich isn't equal to some of the other sources, but I feel I should recognise that his book was still of some use to me when writing the article: as a concise source that can be referenced for useful names, dates and basic details. For anyone who hasn't read the book, and is perhaps looking for a general introduction to the Byzantine Empire, I would recommend it. As for the jihad, I think we needn't worry too much about it being confusing - given the degree of general interest in the crusades, manifested in the countless books and even recent hollywood epic devoted to the subject, it seems likely that most users will know what it means. Bigdaddy1204 18:18, 7 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Comment, not quite Object The lead is too long and quite over the top with all the praise (almost sounds like an ad for the all new Comnenus). Also, Christianity and the religious context should made clear, what with all the talk of Crusades and jihads. --Tsavage 03:21, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

(NOTE: Comments below are post-FA promotion:)

I concur. --Ghirla -трёп- 08:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think it is over the top. Comparison with the recent featured article on Epaminondas reveals that a positive approach is normal. You have to catch the reader's interest, and pointing out notable successes is one way of doing so. However I shall take a look at the article to see if more religious context can be included. Bigdaddy1204 09:41, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
re top, over the: I understand the intent, but I think it will like as not backfire from reader to reader. My comment was on exactly that point, I wasn't arguing for "balance", but considering reader interest. A topic too forcefully promoted as positive at too much length makes me suspicious. People are pretty skeptical these days, and making claims in too strong and certain a matter is almost guaranteed to set up prejudices before the reader has started reading. The final three paras of the lead are like waves of glowing testament, hammering the praise home, and no matter how accurate and balanced, will still shift the POV of the reader one way or the other. The effect is not subtle. It took away from the article for me: after reading the lead, I was more looking for fault (as much or more from the authors than the subject) than interested to read about this guy... Incorporating the same message in a more subtle (and succinct) way would I think more effectively intrigue. --Tsavage 18:30, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_candidates/Manuel_I_Komnenos&oldid=1138466405"