Talk:Battle of Azaz (1030)

Citations

Hey @Cplakidas: I added some new information with new sources to the Background section and as a result, a lot of the previously cited information has been left uncited. I added citation needed tags to those sentences and would have had added the citations themselves, but I don't have complete access to the sources you used. Could you add those citations whenever you have the chance. On another note, I have further info to add here and hopefully we can nominate this article for GA soon. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 23:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Hello Al Ameer! Your additions are always welcome! I've added the missing references. If you have more (presumably from Arabic sources), by all means add it. Right now its about half-way to GA level, so it would be great if we could get it there! Best, Constantine ✍ 19:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Al Ameer, is there any chance that the article might be expanded further with Arab-perspective sources? Otherwise, I think we should start the nomination procedure for GA and so forth (I think A-class is easily attainable). Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 15:46, 22 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Azaz (1030)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Gog the Mild (talk · contribs) 22:16, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. A couple of initial thoughts:

• Suggestion only. To my eye the lead seems a little short. Permissibly so , but you may wish to relook at it. (Or you may not.)

• I'll have a look over the next couple of days

• Could patrikios be wikilinked? (Or explained in the text.)

• It has already been wikilinked, at Leo Choirosphaktes

• That will teach me not to give "initial thoughts". Apologies.

• There is a "citation needed" in there. (Norwich page 273 at a push, but you probably have better.) Gog the Mild (talk) 17:46, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

• Fixed, and made an overhaul of the citations in the section, which had become garbled due to the subsequent insertion of new material and the breaking up of the original text

Hi Gog the Mild, thanks a lot for taking on this. Please be as thorough and nit-picking as you can, above and beyond GA requirements :) Cheers, Constantine ✍ 12:34, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Hi Constantine. I have boldly made some changes to y=the article. If you dislike any of them just revert, and if I feel they are important I'll bring them up here. (Nice article.)

• Very little for me to pick at. You have done a fine job. I did feel that several sentences were overlong and/or over-complicated. A couple of times I had to reread to get the sense of them, and I am familiar with the subject. So you may want to go through and split a number of them.

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

OK. A fine article. It's at or close to GA standard. As requested I will now go through being picky. Make of my suggestions what you will.

• "Romanos decided to campaign against Aleppo to preserve the status quo in the aftermath of a defeat inflicted on the Byzantine governor of Antioch by the Mirdasids, with contemporary Byzantine chroniclers maintaining that the emperor's primary motivation was the quest of military glory." A long sentence, and on two different topics, and with the second not, IMO, clearly expressed. Break it after "Mirdasids".

• Good point, done.

• "The Byzantines advanced up to Azaz". I am not sure what "up" adds to the sentence. And there are two"up's" in the sentence.

• Good point, done.

• "The Mirdasids ambushed and destroyed a Byzantine reconnaissance force, and began harassing the imperial camp; the Byzantines began suffering from thirst and hunger, and attempts to break out were defeated." Nothing wrong with it, but IMO would read better without 2 "began's" in eight words.

• Good point, done.

• "begun to acknowledge the suzerainty". How can one begin to acknowledge suzerainty? I know what you are trying to say, but IMO this is a slightly clumsy formulation.

• Fixed.

• "his young sons". It would be helpful to have at least a rough idea of how young. if available.

• Unknown; the EI2 article simply states "very young".

• " "wiped out by the [Banu] Kilab" . A cite directly after the quote?

• The quote is unnecessary, rephrased. The reference is as for the rest of the phrase, from EI2

• "; the Kilab, from which the Mirdasid dynasty sprung, were the most powerful Arab tribe of northern Syria and provided the core of the Mirdasid military." As a whole the article has too many semi-colons. I would definitely lose this one.

• Indeed; I've moved this to a footnote, as it is an aside to the main subject.

• "; according to Psellos, he wanted to emulate the ancient Roman emperors such as Trajan and Augustus, or even Alexander the Great." And again.

• Hmmm, somehow I feel that here the semicolon is correct, it being a continuation and amplification of the statement of the previous sentence.

• "According to Psellos, so confident was Romanos". A little WP:IDIOM. Maybe 'According to Psellos, Romanos was so confident...'

• Done.

• "As Psellos commented..." The "As" needs to go. I would want this for GA.

• Rephrased.

• "The majority of the mobilized forces were commanded by Thimal who safeguarded Aleppo and its citadel, while the remaining troops, composed entirely of Kilabi and Numayri horsemen, were led by Nasr, who set out to confront the Byzantine force." This would break readily into two sentences: '... its citadel. The remaining...'

• Done.

• "Arabic accounts of Nasr's troops vary:". It is normal when colon'ing the start of a list to separate its components with semi-colons. Your use of just the one at the end had me re-reading the sentence twice. I would suggest making Zakkar's claim a separate sentence.

• Done.

• "The Byzantine army is estimated at some 20,000 men and contained many foreign mercenaries. In contrast to their precise counts of Nasr's forces, the Arabic chroniclers recorded the fantastical figure of 600,000 Byzantine troops." You have a present tense "is" at the start and a past tense "recorded" at the end.

• Done.

• "but was defeated, and fled back to the camp." '... he fled back to camp.'

• Rephrased by removing the comma.

• "to pillage the camp's market stores". I suspect that your average reader will struggle with this. (Is it an American expression?) Suggest deleting "market".

• Rephrased a bit. I haven't got access to the main source for this, as it was added by Al Ameer son, but what is probably meant was that the market, which was a common feature in any camp where camp followers sold things, was plundered. Since this is a bit complicated and ultimately comes down to the same, I've removed the market reference.

• "Nasr used this moment of disorder to lead his Kilabi troops". I would suggest deleting "moment".

• Good point, done.

• "As most Byzantine troops were too worn out from thirst and dysentery to fight". I'm not happy with the phrasing. Suggest 'As most Byzantine troops were worn out from thirst and dysentery" or similar. Again, one for GA.

• Good point, done.

• "and that some troops were killed in a chaotic stampede by their fellow soldiers". Suggest 'and that some troops were killed by their fellow soldiers in a chaotic stampede'.

• Done.

• Could you give an indication of what rank is inplied by "officer"? To a modern reader, losing three officers is hardly something of note. (Perhaps 'high ranking officers'?)

• I assume that "officer" is a translation of a term like "qa'id" in Yahya; probably mid-ranking commanders. I don't have access to the relevant volume of Yahya's history, unfortunately.

• "which the Byzantine emperors habitually carried along on campaigns". "carried along" is a little clumsy. Perhaps 'which traditionally accompanied the Byzantine emperors on campaigns

• Good point, done.

• "whereby he returned to tributary and vassal status towards Byzantium." I would delete "towards Byzantium". It is redundant in the context of the sentence.

• Good point, done.

• "The Byzantine resurgence in the East". 'east', lower case. Third one for GA.

• Good point, done.

Is that "nit-picking" enough for you? Gog the Mild (talk) 09:52, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

@Gog the Mild: It is always a pleasure to get such a thorough review . Constantine ✍ 11:18, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Always a pleasure to have my tendency towards nit-picking appreciated. And always a separate pleasure to read your work. This one is as good and thorough as ever. I look forward to seeing it again on its journey to FA. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:13, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

Good Article review progress box

Criteria: 1a. prose () 1b. MoS () 2a. ref layout () 2b. cites WP:RS () 2c. no WP:OR () 2d. no WP:CV () 3a. broadness () 3b. focus () 4. neutral () 5. stable () 6a. free or tagged images () 6b. pics relevant () Note: this represents where the article stands relative to the Good Article criteria. Criteria marked are unassessed

Treaty of Safar and other stuff

@Cplakidas: According to Zakkar, citing Yahya of Antioch, the treaty between Nasr and Byzantium was the “restoration of the 969 treaty”. We should plug the Treaty of Safar article here. Could you do this as I’m not sure if we should link it in the Background section and reference it again in the Aftermath or only link/reference it in the Aftermath section. —Al Ameer (talk) 14:17, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

P.S. I added whatever else I could from the Arab side—take out or copyedit as you see fit. There's one more thing (other than linking the Treaty of Safar), but I'm not sure where or how best to integrate it or if it should be added at all. Zakkar (pp. 117–118) writes "Psellus' report of this battle is most interesting, describing as it does the tactics employed by the Kilabis in contrast to the heavy movement of the Byzantine army. These tactics reveal the nomadic character and method of fighting." And Kamal Salibi in his Syria under Islam: Empire on Trial, 634-1097, Volume 1 (p. 85) writes of the Kilab (and the Tayy for that matter) "Their chief military asset, in fact, was their Bedouin swiftness of movement", though Salibi was not discussing the Battle of Azaz, just about the Syrian Kilab in general during this time period. It might be useful for context to explicitly mention this aspect as it gives insight for the average reader to how a small Bedouin force, because of its high mobility and flexibility, could defeat a much larger conventional standing army. Bianquis (p. 122) also notes the Mirdasids' tactics in this regard was more effective than those employed by the Hamdanids in their wars with Byzantium. --Al Ameer (talk) 16:37, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

@Al Ameer son: All good points, done, and thanks for the additions. Also, if you want to address specific parts of the FAC comments, please go ahead. You are as much this article's author as I :). Constantine ✍ 17:57, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for making the changes and for taking the initiatives which have seen this article's consistent promotion. And I'll respond to FAC comments wherever I think I could be helpful. Cheers --Al Ameer (talk) 18:06, 26 September 2019 (UTC)