Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Excubitors

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.

Article promoted by Vami IV (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 02:20, 20 July 2022 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Excubitors

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

Starting back in 2008 (!), I've gradually expanded this article on a late Roman imperial bodyguard unit, that became one of the elite regiments of the middle Byzantine army, and brought it to GA last year. It is, AFAIK, the most comprehensive treatment of the subject, covering the history, organization, and commanders of the unit. All these topics are divided into early and late periods, as the Excubitors underwent a shift in their role. I will attempt a FAC in due course, and am eager to get some additional reviews here so as to improve this article further. Constantine ✍ 20:47, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass (t · c) buidhe 21:59, 5 April 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments from Hawkeye7

This is well outside my area of expertise, so I may have misunderstodd some point.

"numbered 300 men" Suggest putting this in the Organisation section.
- Done.
Suggest splitting the second paragraph in two.
- Done.
"was structured along standardized lines followed by the other tagmata, with a few variations" Alas, I have no idea what that was, let alone what the variations were.
- Have clarified that the differences pertained mostly to titles, and linked the relevant section in the main tagma article. Any more would stray into territory of comparing the structures and nomenclatures of the different tagmata, which is not the subject here.
Was this in infantry or cavalry unit? It says heavy cavalry in the infobox but not the article, and it is not clear if it changed over time.
- The tagmata were all cavalry, as indeed were almost all palatine troops during the Middle Ages, back to the comitatus forces of late antique Rome. Have added a reference to that effect though.
Nor is it clear how big it was. I'm inferring that it changed over time.
- It was apparently 300 strong throughout its early period (added that), but its size is entirely unclear for its later period. What is known, or rather guessed, is in the article.

Constantine, nudge! Gog the Mild (talk) 18:44, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Hawkeye7 and Gog the Mild: comments addressed, I think. Had to break off for a while as I did not have access to my main sources. Constantine ✍ 19:02, 18 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild

Ping me when Hawkeye's comments are addressed. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:08, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have done some copy editing as I have gone. Let me know of anything you don't like.

"who was both excubitor and a scholarius, a member of the Scholae", What is a scholarius? Unless a reader is told, the sentence doesn't mean anything.
- It is already explained, 'a member of the Scholae', but apparently that isn't clear. Put the explanation in parentheses, is that better?
"as one of the imperial tagmata, the elite professional central army". Here you have defined "the elite professional central army" as "the imperial tagmata". I think a 'the key components of' or similar would help.
- Hmmm, there were no other components; the tagmata were the professional central army.

It is more the grammar I am quibbling with. Perhaps 'as one of the imperial tagmata, which made up the elite professional central army' or similar then?

Ah, now I get it. Fixed.

In the lead you define the tagmata as "professional heavy cavalry regiments". I haven't spotted this in the article, especially not the "heavy" part. And what does "heavy" mean here? Were the horses overweight?
- Added links to heavy cavalry, and explained it further in the text.
"mere spatharioi". What does this mean? This is the English Wikipedia.
"rose to those of prōtospatharios and even patrikios." Likewise.
- Have glossed the ranks. 'Patrician' is misleading, but cannot otherwise gloss patricius/patrikios without going into a lengthy diatribe about the evolution of this term. I am completely at a loss how to gloss 'spatharokandidatos'. TBH I would prefer not to gloss the court dignities at all, as their literal meaning was by that time largely divorced from any actual role they played.

I think how you have it now works well. (Personally I like Harry Turtledove's explanation of spatharioi, but as that is in a science fiction novel it is sadly not citeable.

"these designations no longer appear after, and they may have been of brief existence." After when?
- Clarified.
"and indeed there may have been". Why "indeed"?
- Useless commentary, striken.
"but after Constantine V's reforms". Is it known when these took place?
- Clarified (hopefully)
"before becoming emperor. From this post, he ..." Perhaps rephrase to be clearer.
- Clarified.
"A protégé of Justin II, he was appointed count of the Excubitors during the reign of Justinian I already." Why "already"?
- Rewritten.
"with the position of magister militum per Orientem against the Sasanian Empire, until he himself became Caesar in 582. By 577/8, he was also a patrikios." Any chance of a translation into English?
- Done.
"grc|Patrikios". A typo?
- Indeed, fixed. Thanks.
Optional: I would prefer reference 1 to be separated out as a footnote.
- Agree, done.

Gog the Mild (talk) 13:16, 20 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Gog the Mild, thanks for your edits and suggestions. Have tried to address them all. Anything else? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 20:03, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

PS, will be on vacation starting the coming week, so my ability to respond here may be curtailed. Will be back to a stable internet connection ca. 12.7. Constantine ✍ 20:04, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

One quibble left above, but I am supporting anyway, if only so CPA-5 can crack on. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:35, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Source review - pass

As fine a set of sources as one is ever likely to come across and entirely satisfactory formatting. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Support by CPA

Ping me when Hakeye's and Gog's comments are addressed. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:31, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: All yours. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 01:58, 27 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'll review after my holiday. Tomorrow I will go on holiday for a week. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:45, 28 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
"transcribed into Greek as ἐξκουβίτορες or ἐξκούβιτοι)" Maybe romanise it?
- Done.
"the Excubitors long remained a crack fighting force.[4][5][6][7]" Per WP:CITETRIM
- Done.
"titles of excubitor and scribon (see below)" The see below sounds informal.
- Piped the link to 'awarded'
"was routed by Tsar Krum of Bulgaria" No reign?
- Good point, added.
"and of the regiment of the "Walls".[52][51][53]" Re-order the refs here.
- Done.
"The Escorial Taktikon, written c. 971/75" vs "and in 785/6 Irene forcibly disarmed them" One has double digits behind and the other one has only one digit?
- Fixed.
"main subaltern officers of the regiment.[59][48][60]" Re-order the refs here.
- Done.
"against the Italo-Normans in 1081, under the command of Constantine Opos" The infobox says circa 1081? This also applies to the lead.
- The reason is that the regiment is not mentioned after 1081 and was destroyed at or disbanded after Dyrrhachium; but the exact date is unknown.

That's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:03, 11 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi CPA-5, I think i have addressed your comments. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 15:56, 15 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Looks much better. Support. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 18:19, 19 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above 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.