This is the
talk page for discussing
Siege of Constantinople (717–718) and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Siege of Constantinople (717–718) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 21, 2015. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think this should be merged with "Battle Before Constantinople". The other article appears to have been created by a Bulgarian nationalist and it merely copies segments of my article (poorly), adds nothing new to the discussion and has no sources. In my opinion it should just be deleted.
It will be the 1300th anniversary of the lifting of the siege in about two months and a half. This ought to merit mention on Wikipedia's front page. (Note that the fall of Constantinople to the Turks is mentioned today.)— VAN-ST ( talk) 17:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
My view is clear: "It was a Byzantine victory rather than a Byzantine-Bulgar victory. True that the Bulgars played a crucial role on land, but they were there as a sort of independent auxilaries, and fought (mostly) on byzantine territory"
I think it is misleading to put "Bulgar" because it is giving an impression that the Ummayads intented to conquer both Bulgaria and Constantinople, which is not true at all.
Furthermore, out of these 10-12 academic secondary sources I have consulted, none of them state that it was a byzantine-Bulgar victory. They are only saying that Bulgars played a crucial role on lands in that Byzantine victory, but they never call it a "Byzantine-Bulgar" victory.
"Decisive Byzantine victory" sounds the most logical to me.
What do other editors think?
En historiker ( talk) 03:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Why hello there, my name is Sir Flemeingtonz, and I would like to humbly request that we change the infobox’s image of the article from a boring diagram with little to do with the siege, to something more interesting. A few suggestions could be a miniature of the siege from an illunimated manuscript, or artwork of the siege, ect. This equally applies for the Siege of Constantinople (674–678). Thank you and have a good day, SirFlemeingtonz ( talk) 23:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Sir Flemeingtonz
It is funny that Western historians have no problem estimating the Arab army with 200,000 men and 5,000 ships in this battle because the Byzantines were the ones who won, but they cry like children when they estimate the Yarmouk army. I have an Arab source that mentions that Jund al-Sham did not exceed 30,000 soldiers accompanied by a force of 20,000 Mujahideen in this siege But who cares about a source written by a brown-skinned person? Romeo778 ( talk) 20:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing
Siege of Constantinople (717–718) and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 365 days |
Siege of Constantinople (717–718) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on January 21, 2015. | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This
level-5 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I don't think this should be merged with "Battle Before Constantinople". The other article appears to have been created by a Bulgarian nationalist and it merely copies segments of my article (poorly), adds nothing new to the discussion and has no sources. In my opinion it should just be deleted.
It will be the 1300th anniversary of the lifting of the siege in about two months and a half. This ought to merit mention on Wikipedia's front page. (Note that the fall of Constantinople to the Turks is mentioned today.)— VAN-ST ( talk) 17:46, 29 May 2018 (UTC)
My view is clear: "It was a Byzantine victory rather than a Byzantine-Bulgar victory. True that the Bulgars played a crucial role on land, but they were there as a sort of independent auxilaries, and fought (mostly) on byzantine territory"
I think it is misleading to put "Bulgar" because it is giving an impression that the Ummayads intented to conquer both Bulgaria and Constantinople, which is not true at all.
Furthermore, out of these 10-12 academic secondary sources I have consulted, none of them state that it was a byzantine-Bulgar victory. They are only saying that Bulgars played a crucial role on lands in that Byzantine victory, but they never call it a "Byzantine-Bulgar" victory.
"Decisive Byzantine victory" sounds the most logical to me.
What do other editors think?
En historiker ( talk) 03:13, 1 November 2018 (UTC)
Why hello there, my name is Sir Flemeingtonz, and I would like to humbly request that we change the infobox’s image of the article from a boring diagram with little to do with the siege, to something more interesting. A few suggestions could be a miniature of the siege from an illunimated manuscript, or artwork of the siege, ect. This equally applies for the Siege of Constantinople (674–678). Thank you and have a good day, SirFlemeingtonz ( talk) 23:50, 24 July 2020 (UTC)Sir Flemeingtonz
It is funny that Western historians have no problem estimating the Arab army with 200,000 men and 5,000 ships in this battle because the Byzantines were the ones who won, but they cry like children when they estimate the Yarmouk army. I have an Arab source that mentions that Jund al-Sham did not exceed 30,000 soldiers accompanied by a force of 20,000 Mujahideen in this siege But who cares about a source written by a brown-skinned person? Romeo778 ( talk) 20:38, 23 November 2021 (UTC)