Talk:Battle of Sirmium

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 16:12, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Greek sources and proposed edit

I would like to make a few edits based on the Greek sources. The text is based on the English translations of them and there are a few mistakes, for example on the commanders of the brigades, of which 7 are named in the texts, excluding Lampardas. Also some of the other details are conjecture. The Byzantine army was deployed in three divisions as standard practice but the two wings were mainly cavalry, whereas the deployment as stated in the article would make one of the wings consist of infantry. Also the byzantine army did not only deploy in three divisions but also in two to three lines in depth and the stated deployment (which is actually not stated in this way in the original texts) would only permit for a single line in depth. There is no reference to Lombards in the texts nor is the number of the Serb mercenaries stated, these are also conjectures. Anyone objecting, please respond.

Hi, in general English language secondary sources should take precedence over secondary sources in other languages, this being the English language Wikipedia. Also primary sources should be supported by secondary sources to avoid the charge of being "own research", which is a big no-no. Essentially, anything contradicting the secondary sources in English or the English translations of the primary sources is inadmissible. As to your particular points, Choniates does not go into much detail about the army dispositions, and I don't have Kinnamos to hand - I will have a look at it when I can. Urselius (talk) 08:57, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Hello again. I have had a look at Kinnamos and I understand what you mean. Kinnamos' description is not the same as what is in the article, however, as a description of a battle Kinnamos' account is somewhat chaotic. I have checked the secondary sources and the article represents what they say quite faithfully. The authors of the secondary sources are academics expert on Byzantine warfare, and as such they have used evidence from sources other than Kinnamos in order to make his description of the battle more logical and to add missing detail. This is your 'conjecture', but in the circumstances a Wikipedia article can and should use the 'conjecture', or, expressed differently, scholarship, of published experts freely. Urselius (talk) 17:22, 28 July 2015 (UTC)

There are no other sources except the texts of Kinnamos and Choniates. Anything adding to their accounts is pointless until some new source can be discovered. I would not say their accounts are chaotic, they seem very clear on many points. There is no exact number of Serbs mentioned, no Lombards whatsoever. Modern popular accounts also have Varangians (maybe because of the Wikipedia article?) but there is no mention of Varangians in the texts. The mention of Vlach cavalry seems also spurious. Those lines about the deployment seem completely unreferenced. These are not conjectures of scholars (i.e. scholarship) but of the editors of the article. The Greek texts are not secondary sources, they are primary sources. Both historians I believe were imperial secretaries at around the time of this battle. I do not see why checking the Greek originals should be a problem, unless one did not know Greek. If you have access to Charles Brand and Magoulias (their translations are not cheap whereas the originals are available for free), then please check the texts and edit accordingly. I am certain much of what is being said about the deployment contradicts those translations, because it is not there in the originals. Skamnelis (talk) 15:51, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

On Wikipedia secondary sources have precedence over primary. In general Wikipedia requires primary source material to be supported by secondary sources, and not the reverse. As such, a movement from secondary source supported material towards material solely supported by primary sources is against Wikipedia core policies. This is because primary sources can be used to produce 'original research' by the individual editor, which is not allowed. Urselius (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC) Having said this, I have found nothing to support the presence of Vlach troops at the battle, and have removed mention of them. As I said earlier, I have checked the secondary sources, and they support the description given here, as an editor of this article I can only say that it is firmly based on the secondary sources cited. I have Kinnamos and Choniates, I suggest that you get copies of the secondary works and, if you disagree with the material you find in them, that you contact the authors. Also do not insult other editors. Urselius (talk) 22:54, 15 February 2016 (UTC) For your information, the academic backgrounds to the two prominent secondary source authors: John Haldon is Professor of History at Princeton University and is a Senior Fellow at the Dumbarton Oaks Center for Byzantine Studies in Washington D.C. John Birkenmeier is Adjunct Associate Professor, The Catholic University of America and former Junior Fellow at Dumbarton Oaks Research Institute.

Thank you for removing the Vlach cavalry and adding the reference to Haldon. Does Birkenmeier also mention the number 500 for the Serbs? Do both of them mention the Lombards and Varangians or only one of them? I was asking that the exact number of Serbs is removed, that the mention of Lombards is qualified (Kinnamos simply says Italians) and I would have preferred that the reference to the Varangians is also qualified (the primary sources do not mention anything about Varangians). I was also uncomfortable about how the divisions on the march are rearranged into wings on the battlefield. By the way, the hetaireiai and the companions/nobles accompanying the emperor are one and the same thing at this period, mentioned twice. You can check the relevant article of Wikipedia for example. I would have preferred if all 7 taxiarchs were mentioned but that is ok. I have already ordered Haldon's text. I will try to get hold of Birkenmeier's text. I may write to John Haldon if you so insist but are you really suggesting that to amend these points should require a clarification from Haldon about e.g the number of Serbs? What if Birkenmeier does not state such a number? Why is that number so important? I am quite certain that there are no other primary sources. I should think from your own discipline you would take statements made only in a non-peer reviewed publication with caution. You would probably not emphasize them, which is all I am asking. Skamnelis (talk) 16:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I got hold of Birkenmeier's text and he has a very different picture for the deployment, much more how I have understood it. I had assumed that the units' position on the march was the same as their place on the battlefield, otherwise something would have been said about the units being eventually deployed in a different way, which is what Birkenmeier also seems to prefer. He does not mention Lombards, only Italians, and does not mention Varangians. He places Kontostephanos in the rear behind Lampardas (who is on a third line) rather than at the front in the centre with Lampardas on the right. Surprisingly, he also refers to 500 Serbs (p. 119). The reference to it is Kinnamos (superscript 31). I cannot find it there, or in Choniates. My text of Kinnamos does not have 500, just Serbs. Skamnelis (talk) 16:43, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Birkenmeier mentions probable Varangians, which I have included as a qualifying note to the citations. You seem to be coming from a position of extreme parsimony, ie. allowing only inclusion from texts directly describing the battle - I think Makk mentions a German source for the battle somewhere, btw. Historical scholarship is synthetic to a degree, information from outside the narrow confines you are prescribing is employed. I know that a treaty specified a number for the Serbian contingent to be furnished to the Byzantine forces when campaigning in Europe, this is where the number of Serbs comes from. There is a record of "Ligurian" knights being employed by the Byzantines shortly before the battle. As the Byzantines called Normans "Kelts" and Russians "Tauroscyths", so they called people from Lombardy "Ligurians". The authors of the secondary sources are using their background knowledge of Byzantine military units, tactics and politics to flesh out the rather elliptical accounts of the battle. As Wikipedia editors, we are not at liberty to dissect all their conclusions, this would indeed be "original research" and thereby disallowed. Urselius (talk) 18:02, 16 February 2016 (UTC) There does seem to be a division of opinion about the distribution of the infantry, were they in the second line behind the whole army or just behind the centre? I do not think that Birkenmeier is saying that Kontostephanos' centre was behind the wings, just that the "archers, infantry and Turks" were (if Kontostephanos had the "troops usually with the emperor", these would have included cavalry (oikeioi, vestiaritae etc.). Birkenmeier also implies that the two left-wing taxiarchies that stood fast were infantry, whilst the two that fled (or made a feigned flight) were cavalry. Haldon, in contrast, describes the infantry as being only drawn up behind the centre. Urselius (talk) 18:28, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Haldon's book should reach me in the next couple of days. The deployment Birkenmeier describes on page 119 is essentially as described by Kinnamos. Cavalry consisting of Cumans, Turks and a few lancers at the front. Following the cavalry was the first line of phalanx under Philocales, Kokkobasileios and Aspietes. Following these were a second line of hoplites and archers with a phalanx of Turks. Following these were four more taxiarchs (mentioned elsewhere by Birkenmeier, I expect they were the commanders of this second line of hoplites, archers and Turks but it does not matter), then in a third line the elite Romans, Germans and Turks (commanded by Lampardas, which is not mentioned by Birkenmeier). Then followed Kontostephanos with the Emperor's companions, and finally the Italians and the Serbs. To me such a description on the deployment would have been sufficient. On the next page, Birkenmeier places Lampardas with the elite units on the right. I am not sure why. Perhaps this is what caused the rearrangement of the deployment in the article. I see he does not state that as a probability but as a fact, but the original texts say nothing of this kind. On whether Birkenmeier implies that the units that retreated on the left were cavalry: he says the left wing was driven off but the regiments of Kogh Basil and Tatikios remained on the field. Then he discusses combined infantry-cavalry tactics, so he is possibly thinking of the vanguard that retreated, perhaps with some supporting infantry. Kinnamos (also Birkenmeier) says that the cavalry on the vanguard was supposed to move to the sides and vacate the ground before the phalanx in the centre - but instead they simply fled to the rear. About the Italians, Birkenmeier says these were perhaps mercenaries earlier recruited for the campaign in Apulia. He does not say they were Lombards, unless Haldon does. If something is conjecture or unclear in the secondary sources and it is not in the original sources, perhaps it should be stated in some qualified way. Birkenmeier says the companions of the emperor probably also included the Varangian guard. So again he is speculating. That is ok, if stated as such. Skamnelis (talk) 23:39, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

I do not have the relevant books with me at the moment, so I cannot check details. The core of this discussion may be moot, in a Wikipedia context drawing attention to differences in secondary source accounts, where they occur, is quite valid. What is not valid, is using primary source material to critique the secondary sources. This is most definitely straying into the realms of original research. I quote the official Wikipedia line on the use of primary sources: "Policy: Unless restricted by another policy, primary sources that have been reputably published may be used in Wikipedia; but only with care, because it is easy to misuse them. Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. A primary source may only be used on Wikipedia to make straightforward, descriptive statements of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source but without further, specialized knowledge. For example, an article about a novel may cite passages to describe the plot, but any interpretation needs a secondary source. Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so. Do not base an entire article on primary sources, and be cautious about basing large passages on them." See: WP:OR Urselius (talk) 09:00, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Right, I have had a look at Kinnamos and Choniates and I see the basic problem. The two authors are not entirely consistent, but a number of things are evident. What Kinnamos describes in detail is not the deployment of the Byzantine army for battle, he is describing their order of marching from their encampment to the battlefield; at the end of this description he says (in translation) "Thus arrayed the Romans took the road". However, what he does describe is the division of the Byzantine army into the customary 'three battles' (plus a vanguard of Turks and Cumans and a few lancers), and says which troops were brigaded together. What he does not say is which grouping of units comprised which 'battle'. Later we are told that the 'four taxiarchies' (the group led by Tatikios and Kogh Vasil etc. plus those led by the Branas brothers) formed the left wing. We then need to work out the composition of the centre and right wing battles. The centre is where most Medieval commanders-in-chief would be posted, so it is logical to place Kontostephanos and his units in the centre battle. This is supported by Choniates saying that the left and right wings were were ordered to attack first, "He [Kontostephanos] commanded the troops of both the right and left wings who were following close behind..." Here Choniates contradicts Kinnamos by implying that Kontostephanos' troops were leading the march, rather than following the others. By a process of elimination the right wing battle must consist of the troops commanded by Lampardas and the missing commander's name (a lacuna in the manuscript), most probably Kontostephanos' brother John. I suspect that as the order of marching has the named infantry units following cavalry, this has led the secondary source authors to place them to the rear of the cavalry in the battle array. This was a standard Byzantine practise, though it was often reversed when fighting Turks, as at the Battle of Philomelium fought by Alexios I. Kinnamos then describes the course of the battle, the Byzantine left is routed, except for the units led by Tatikios and Kogh Vasil (possibly infantry), the Byzantine right wing, however, is victorious, driving back the Hungarian left. Lampardas, presumably at the head of part of the victorious right wing, sees the Hungarians around Dionysios preparing to assault the centre under Kontostephanos, and charges them. There is a great melee, until Kontostephanos commits the Byzantine centre, at which the Hungarian army starts to break up in defeat. As is usual, the side retaining the last fresh units in good order wins. In essence this is what is described by the secondary sources, with some extra flourishes. Urselius (talk) 21:14, 17 February 2016 (UTC) All Medieval, indeed all pre-modern, armies marched in column but fought in line. Had Kontostephanos deployed his army in the deep and narrow formation described in the marching order, he would have been quickly defeated. The Hungarian centre would have engaged the front Byzantine formation, whilst the unopposed Hungarian left and right would have outflanked the Byzantines and crashed in on their deep formation from both sides. It would have resulted in a massacre very like that the Romans suffered at Cannae. Commanders dreaded being outflanked, and would thin their line rather than allow this to happen. Urselius (talk) 10:53, 18 February 2016 (UTC) I have just noticed that Choniates, before the section relating Kontostephanos' speech, says unambiguously that Lampardas was appointed to command the right wing, that command of the left wing was split amongst a number of taxiarchs, and infers Kontostephanos' command of the centre. Urselius (talk) 09:56, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I had missed the part where Choniates talks about Lampardas being on the right. I have no serious objections then. I saw that the text about the rearrangement of the divisions came from Haldon, so that is in principle ok, although I am still not confident that anything became rearranged. There is nothing explicitly in the two Byzantine sources saying so. I do not see a conflict between the deployment on the march and the deployment when the battle began, except in relation to Lampardas. Kontostephanos is according to Choniates commanding the phalanx (not Varangians) and Kinnamos also has the phalanx in two lines on the march behind the horse archers, so the two accounts agree on there being a phalanx at the centre and a second line of phalanx/hoplites behind. Kinnamos simply has Kontostephanos with the Emperor's companions in the rear. He is not implying that Kontostephanos only commanded the Emperor's companions during the battle. The only discrepancy is about where Lampardas himself was, which may be what prompted Haldon to rearrange the divisions before battle. Not sure if it would have been a moot point, if the article contradicted both secondary and primary sources (it did about the Vlachs) and it is better to qualify anything not in the primary sources, which the article now does. Skamnelis (talk) 19:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC) Commanders dreaded a deep formation no more than a front miles long and only a few men deep. One would argue (irrelevant to this article) that the arrangement on the march is essentially in agreement with the Tactica that recommends that there should be two lines of phalanx, or even three with additional cavalry in the rear to protect against encirclement when facing an army strong in cavalry. This is how Kinnamos describes the formation when on the march. He also explicitly says 4 of the taxiarchs were behind the second phalanx, as the Tactica recommend. The formation on the march was two lines of phalanx, so only about 8-16 men deep in total once deployed, possibly 32 men deep in total on their march to battle. They would have not deployed within charging distance of the enemy cavalry but at a safe distance and only then would they march to battle. Kinnamos describes the start of the battle and does not say that between the march and the start of the battle the units were deployed in some other way. The missile cavalry was still at the front and phalanx was still behind, so where is the rearrangement? They were marching to battle, so they should have reasonably been in battle formation. The vanguard of cavalry had orders to go the sides after the first action and Demetrios Branas who was behind the second line ended up fighting early on, so to a degree the Byzantine formation's flanks were exposed when that cavalry manoeuvre failed. Skamnelis (talk) 09:35, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

New section for ease of editing - carries on directly from the above

We have a basic problem with the Byzantine use of the word 'phalanx'. Byzantine writers were always writing for a literate audience, which, even if it had a military component, reverenced archaisms. Such writers were forever looking at ways of showing their erudition by referring back to Homeric or Classical texts in their expressions. Byzantines, therefore, used 'phalanx' for any close formation of either infantry or cavalry (see Birkenmeier, p. 92). Mention of a 'phalanx' by Kinnamos or Choniates could indicate cavalry or infantry, only context can sometimes allow certainty. On a personal note, I think that the same uncertainty also applies to the terms kontophoros and lonchephoros. Urselius (talk) 10:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Birkenmeier's comment is specifically about Choniates. Choniates must be using the term loosely because he describes the Hungarian formation as being entirely lonchephoros and on horse, then later speaks of the Hungarian "phalanxes". However, in relation to the Byzantine deployment, his use of the word is consistent with the account of Kinnamos. Kinnamos does not use the word to describe the archers, Italians or the Serbs armed with spears or any cavalry, so he uses it consistently. It was a contemporary military term with a reasonably well circumscribed meaning. Anna Comnena also does not refer to the Varangians at Dyrrhachium as a phalanx, although they were ordered to deploy on foot in rank and file. Skamnelis (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Birkenmeier states, and I quote, "The Byzantine use of the Greek word phalanx..." He is not specifying any particular author. We know the technical Byzantine term for a heavy infantryman and that was skoutatos (from the Latin scutum, for a large shield), or very occasionally hoplites. These are the terms used in 10th-11th century military treatises, written by soldiers for soldiers. There are no military treatises surviving from, or possibly written in, the Komnenian era, and the term skoutatos disappears from the written record. We are left, therefore, with historical works written by non-soldiers who are self-concious Hellenists, Kinnamos may have been a military secretary but he was not a soldier, aimed at a general literate audience and full of literary and not precise military terms for military matters. To treat Kinnamos as being any more technically precise than Choniates on military subjects is unwarranted. As I have said before, this is moot as personal interpretation of primary sources is most definitely original research. Urselius (talk) 20:56, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

True Birkenmeier says so, but after referring to a text by Choniates. He does not say whoever used the word, used it out of context or as a metaphor. Kinnamos uses it consistently and Choniates differs only in allusion to the Hungarian cavalry not deployed in "companies or phalanxes" (which cavalry he describes as "lonchephoros in its entirety" and as a "unity of sharp points"). You are basically saying "phalanx" can mean something else, therefore it has to be taken to mean something else - presumably Varangians? The Tactica and Maurice's Strategicon have the word phalanx and it has a well circumscribed meaning. It has nothing to do with Hellenism or a display of erudition. It was at least not a term that had fallen out of use since ancient times. Many Byzantine historians used the term and mostly to mean what we understand as its literal meaning. Both Kinnamos and Choniates speak of a phalanx in referring to the first line of the Byzantine infantry and there is no particular reason to imagine they were speaking metaphorically and it was anything but a phalanx. I am certainly not the one who is interpreting anything. Quite the opposite, I would have preferred that some of those passages in the article describing the battle were in more cautious terms. Probablys and possiblys from Haldon and Birkenmeier have been turned into factual statements. The two modern authors certainly do not say in their books why they think the Serbs were 500, why the Italians were possibly Lombards or why the emperor's companions possibly included also Varangians. I am not even saying they are necessarily wrong, just I do not think the possibilities are very high or the Byzantine authors would have been more explicit. I have the impression you think the possibilities are so high, they are certainties and need to be included as certainties in the article. Going in that direction of greater certainty seems at least as unprincipled as going in the opposite direction by erring rather on the side of caution. Skamnelis (talk) 18:19, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

A critique of secondary sources based on a personal interpretation of primary sources is original research. There is no valid way to circumvent Wikipedia's strictures on original research. Urselius (talk) 21:23, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

What am I personally interpreting about the original text? I would be happy if you quote it verbatim, I would have no problem with that. Are the secondary sources not interpreted in the article? Skamnelis (talk) 15:35, 8 March 2016 (UTC) Birkenmeier: "... the Italian mercenaries. Perhaps these were the same mercenaries and lancers that Michael Palaiologos had recruited when he was in Venice, for his campaign in Apulia". For sure they were Italians, perhaps they had been recruited in Venice (which is not in Lombardy) for a campaign in Apulia (also not in Lombardy). Haldon also mentions Italians and I think in parentheses probably Lombards. The primary sources have Italians. But the article has "Italian mercenaries from Lombardy", not probably, certainly.Skamnelis (talk) 16:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

On the Italian question, it is fine to change that as there is a difference of opinion between secondary sources. For the 'phalanx = infantry' interpretation then no, that flies in the face of what a secondary source has stated. In general, anything directly derived from a primary source by a Wikipedia editor which runs contrary to that of a reputable secondary source is inadmissible, as it is original research. Urselius (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC) In the case of Byzantine military history, especially of the Komnenian era, there are very few secondary sources. This means that there is much less room to highlight uncertainty, precisely because there are very few alternatives available. I can think of perhaps a dozen reputable histories of the Agincourt campaign alone, probably a score on the Hundred Years War, but there is only one reputable specialist book on the Komnenian military. Urselius (talk) 08:48, 9 March 2016 (UTC)