Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Priscus (general)

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.

Promoted EyeSerene^talk 09:27, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Priscus (general)

Nominator(s): Constantine ✍

I am nominating this article on one of the most capable but unknown generals and one of the "great survivors" of Byzantine history for A-Class review because I believe it meets the criteria. It became a GA without major problems almost two years ago, but I've recently expanded it by adding more details on his Balkan campaigns and gone through the article to closer reflect the sources and remove some ambiguities. Constantine ✍ 21:27, 23 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spport:

Enjoyed it; some points below:
"he was deposed and tonsured, dying shortly after." - it's only the lead and its explained later, but it wasn't clear to me in just reading this if he died as a consequence of the deposition and the tonsuring, or if these events were independent.
"Priscus first appears in the sources " - which sources? (they haven't been mentioned yet in the main text)
"Theophylact Simocatta" - linked, but worth noting in a few words who he was? "e.g. Historian Theophylact..." or similar?
"The Avar khagan was persuaded that the letter was true, arranged for a truce in exchange for the renewed payment of an annual tribute." - the second half "arranged..." feels like its missing an "and" or something like that in front of it.
" Michael Whitby," - again, well worth describing who he is.
"Being absent from Constantinople..." - might be worth reordering this sentence, as you don't get to the noun of the sentence until about half way through.
"Phocas's rule lacked in legitimacy" - "lacked legitimacy"?
" Kazhdan 1991, p. 1722." - if this is an edited volume, it would be worth expanding to include the author of that particular chapter/article. Hchc2009 (talk) 17:49, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, and thanks for the review! I've addressed most of the points you raised. On the "primary sources" question, I preferred to include them one at a time in the article as needed, rather than have them presented all together at this point in the text, where it would interrupt its flow. I could include a note detailing them, if it is considered absolutely necessary. What this would boil down to would be that Simocatta, as noted in the last section, is the main source for the reign of Maurice, while Theophanes the Confessor and others are used as corroborative sources for Maurice's reign and then as main sources for the events under Phocas and after. As much of this material was copied and recopied by later historians, the sources encompass pretty much every historian of note who wrote "universal" histories until the 14th century. Constantine ✍ 19:15, 25 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

On the sources, you could go for "in historical sources", which removes the "the", which is what implies they've been mentioned previously? 17:34, 27 January 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that's a good suggestion. Thanks! Constantine ✍ 19:25, 27 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments/suggestions: generally looks fine, but I have a few copy editing suggestions:

slightly repetitious in the "Under Maurice" section: "and tasked with..." followed shortly by "1,000 cavalry was tasked with holding". Perhaps change one "tasked with" to "ordered to" or something similar;
"bearing a faked letter purportedly". Perhaps change to "bearing a fake letter purportedly";
"Maurice that informed of a seaborne attack". Perhaps change to "Maurice that talked of a seaborne attack";
"a considerably reduced sum over the 100,000". Perhaps change to "a considerably reduced sum compared to the 100,000";
"...Priscus was re-appointed in command as commander of the cavalry in Thrace , with Gentzon leading the infantry, although Priscus, as the more senior of the two, also held overall command". Perhaps change to "...Priscus was re-appointed as commander of the cavalry in Thrace alongside Gentzon who led the infantry. The more senior of the two, Priscus held overall command";
in the Under Phocas section, "and because he retained still a large measure of support within the soldiery". The word "still" is probably not necessary;
"only one of Maurice's senior generals who managed to survive into the new regime". I wonder if this would sound smoother as "only one of Maurice's senior generals who was retained by the new regime";
"In addition, the later historian Paul the Deacon records". I'm not quite sure what this is "in addition" to... Are you trying to explain why Priscus survived the transition? If so, it might need to be reworded slightly;
"His prestige further eroded when the Persian shah". --> "What prestige he held was eroded when..."
"when the Persian shah Khosrau II (r. 590–628) declared war, and when the Byzantine forces suffered their first defeats" --> "when the Persian shah Khosrau II (r. 590–628) declared war, and the Byzantine forces began to suffer their first defeats";
"Unopposed by Phocas's forces, he landed at Hebdomon outside the capital on October 3 and marched to the capital" --> "Unopposed by Phocas's forces, he landed at Hebdomon on 3 October and marched to the capital";
"Heraclius now became emperor of Byzantium, although" --> "After Phocas's fall, Heraclius became emperor of Byzantium, although..."
"As commander of the excubitores, protopatrikios (first among the patrician order) and one of the few" --> "As commander of the excubitores, a protopatrikios (first among the patrician order), and one of the few...";
"most influential Byzantine military manual, the Strategikon ascribed to Emperor Maurice". Probably need a comma after "Strategikon";
"For instance, during the siege of Tomi in 598, he..." I suggest changing "he" to "Priscus" here;
"This may be due to the fact that Simocatta relied for this period on a semi-official" --> "This may be due to the fact that for this period Simocatta relied on a semi-official..." AustralianRupert (talk) 10:15, 3 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the review! I've made the suggested changes, with some minor modifications where warrented. Constantine ✍ 07:43, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

No worries, I've added my support now. Regards, AustralianRupert (talk) 08:31, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support Looks good. All images are tagged. Hawkeye7 (talk) 08:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Support looking through the article, the above reviews seem to satisfy any comments I may have had. I do have one question though: when referring to the currency solidi, you sometimes say "X pounds of gold." I assume you're referring to weight, is there a reason the convert template isn't used for convert measurements? —Ed!^(talk) 13:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I thought it refers to the libris, a unit of currency that translates as "pounds". Hawkeye7 (talk) 22:48, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I might be misunderstanding, but isn't "He also married Phocas's daughter, Domentzia, becoming the effective heir-apparent to the childless ruler. " a contradiction? Do you mean, perhaps, that he specifically did not have a son to inherit? Grandiose (me, talk, contribs) 22:09, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Wow, yes, I feel stupid for making this mistake. Good catch... Constantine ✍ 05:43, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page, such as the current discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.