Talk:Byzantine army (Komnenian era)

Untitled

The title looks like an original research to me. Is the term used in scholarly literature? Was the 12th-century Byzantine army so much different from that existing before or since? --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:48, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, the term is used in J. Birkenmeier's book "the development of the Komnenian army, 1081-1180". Certainly the 12th century Byzantine army was very different from that existing before and since. For example, Byzantine historian John Haldon says in his "Byzantine Wars" that the Komnenian army was "a very different type of army from that which had won the great victories of the later tenth and early eleventh centuries, and different yet again from the thematic forces which had defended the empire from the seventh century". I hope that answers your question, but if you have any other questions about the term or its use in the article, I'd be glad to answer them. Bigdaddy1204 11:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your answers. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:25, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Birkenmeier?!? Ha, I've had that guy for two classes -- he teaches at UMBC. The Birkenmeister is aweseome! —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 141.157.74.8 (talk • contribs) 18:41, 3 December 2006 (UTC).

Komnenian

Could someone explain me why does this article (and I just noticed that other articles changed since my last visits) use the form "Komnenian" instead of the usual and recognizable "Comnenian"? GhePeU 12:19, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

There was a lengthy discussion about this on Talk:Constantine XI. Basically, it was decided to change the spellings of Byzantine related names to the ODB standard, which is to use common english forms of first names (e.g. John), but to use a form of the surname which is closer to the original Greek (e.g. Komnenos instead of the Latin Comnenus). I hope that answers your question. Bigdaddy1204 12:21, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

1097 = 70,000 troops?

This seems quite impressive. As a Byzantine empire fan, I would wish it to be true, but - seriously - 70,000 troops? 1097? The restoration had not truly begun yet in 1097, though Nicaea was in Byzantine hands. With 70,000 troops, I can't see how Alexius could not even take back the whole of Asia minor. Tourskin

I'm not sure where the 70,000 number comes from. Without a citation, you are right not to trust it. I am the author of this article, but if I remember correctly the 70,000 figure was not part of my original text. I will look into Byzantine army sizes, and see if I can find a reliable estimate of imperial strength at the time. I do have a suspicion that the 70,000 figure may have come from the Men-at-arms book on 'Byzantine armies, 1118-1400s', but I'm not certain of this. Bigdaddy1204 14:20, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Additions?

Under John and Manuel a system of permanent army camps was organised (the names Lopadion and Rhyndacus spring to mind) one in Bythinia the other in Thrace. The army was concentrated at one or other of the camps, depending on the projected area of operations, and these seem to have been used to prepare the field army for campaign. This appears to have been an innovation and may have played a part in the increase in efficiency seen in the Byzantine army in the period.

The Vardariots were an important cavalry unit in the period, raised from Christian Turks settled in the Vardar valley in the Balkans.

The Archontupouloi was a guard regiment raised by Alexius from the sons of dead Byzantine officers.

It might be mentioned that Manuel allegedly Westernised his heavy cavalry, presumably introducing the couched-lance technique and close order charge. (from Kinnamos/Cinnamus - I think).

Urselius 13:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Those are some very good points. If you feel able, I encourage you to add them to the article as soon as possible - the more detail, the better. This article being rated as start class at the moment, I would be very happy for you to add the points you mentioned. :) Bigdaddy1204 14:13, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Happy to oblige. I also mentioned the semi-feudal pronoia system which was just beginning to become important at the end of the Komnenian period.

Urselius 21:37, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

New Section

I have added a section on the structure of the army and some footnotes.Urselius 08:03, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

I have added a section on arms and armour. Urselius (talk) 11:57, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Cataphracts

Can anybody refer me to a primary source that shows the continuing presence of cataphracts in the Komnenian army? As far as I know their last appearance was in 1001--before Alexios I had even risen to the throne--but I'm not closing my eyes to the possibility that the Komneni might have revived the cataphracts yet again.

Lay (talk) 13:04, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes try Kinnamos (John Cinnamus - The Deeds of John and Manuel Comnenus) or Psellus (describing Isaac Komnenos' troops in the mid 11th century), and also Niketas Choniates.

Cataphract is a Greek term meaning 'covered-over' or 'fully-covered' and is used in a military context for both heavily armoured soldiers and warships with protection for the upper decks. Cataphract was a rather imprecise term, in a similar way that in English 'harness' could mean body armour or any construct which featured straps and buckles (eg horse-harness), so in Greek cataphractos could refer to anything which was notable for being covered. Any soldiers who were reasonably well armoured with metallic armour could be called cataphractoi, even infantrymen. Modern military histories, particularly populist ones, have given the impression that the term refers only to heavy cavalrymen armoured cap-a-pied and mounted on armoured horses, this was not the case.

In the 10th century the emperor Nikephoros Phokas is recorded as reviving the super-heavy cavalry found in Late Antiquity - soldiers fully armoured, with only the eyes visible, mounted on barded horses. However, these troops, whilst obviously "cataphract" in the general sense of the term had their own name which was 'klibanophoroi' (which might be translated in a mixture of Latin and Greek as 'oven-bearers'). These troops are not mentioned later than the reign of Basil II (died 1025).

It would be wrong to think, just because entire units of these super-heavy cavalry ceased to be recruited, that very complete armour for soldiers or horse armour disappeared completely from Byzantine armies after around 1050; it is merely likely that such expensive equipment became limited to the rich military aristocracy and possibly to some guard units. At least one illustration of Byzantine horse armour occurs in 14th century manuscripts, and the form of the armour appears to be identical to that described in earlier periods. Therefore the total disappearance of such armour in the intervening centuries is unlikely. Urselius (talk) 19:30, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Another source is Anna Comnena - The Alexiad - p. 42 "Alexius covered his face, drawing down the vizor fastened to the rim of his helmet..." This sounds very much like Alexios Komnenos was wearing the type of face-covering mail camail described as part of the protection of the Nikephorian klibanophoros. At the very least, with armour for the face, Alexios was undoubtendly very completely armoured. A later section (Battle of Dyrrachium) in the book describes how Alexios was being thrust at by lances from foes on either side, only retaining his seat on his horse because the pressure was equal, however, his armour must have been very effective because he suffered no injury.

File:Kremlin Armoury 015.jpg Nominated for Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Kremlin Armoury 015.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests August 2011 What should I do? Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 11:18, 24 August 2011 (UTC)

Treadgold

There are two Treadgold books in the secondary sources, but the inline citations for this author do not indicate which of the two books are being referred to. I don't have the books so cannot correct this. Urselius (talk) 20:39, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 18 June 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: moved to the suggestion by Urselius/Constantine. There's a clear consensus that the articles should be moved, but this has been sitting in the backlog for a few weeks because it's a bit unclear what they should actually be moved to. The option I've gone with has the most support, although the suggestions by Srnec and Cuchullain were in no way poor and will be created as redirects. Jenks24 (talk) 15:43, 29 July 2015 (UTC)

---

• Komnenian Byzantine army → Komnenian army
• Palaiologan Byzantine army → Palaiologan army

– It's more natural this way. Or else Byzantine army under the Komnenoi or Byzantine army under the Palaiologoi. The current title may work in prose where it is clear that Komnenian modifies "Byzantine army", but as a standalone title it can be read as if "Komnenian Byzantine" is an awkward compound adjective. Relisted. Jenks24 (talk) 14:29, 7 July 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. George Ho (talk) 01:09, 25 June 2015 (UTC) Srnec (talk) 20:45, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Oppose - with alternative suggestions: It is not ideal at present, however the previous title of this article, "Komnenian Army", was not suitable for the cogent reason that any potential reader who was not versed in Byzantine history would not know that it referred to a Byzantine subject, and hence the article would loose prominence and relevance in the context of Byzantine history. Therefore, although there is scholarly support for this title, we should not revisit it here. I would oppose the suggested change of title in this direction. As for the linguistic angle, I do not see much of a problem, 'Komnenian Byzantine Army' is no different to the constructs: 'Imperial Roman Army' and 'Republican Roman army', which are in general use, including on Wikipedia. However, "Byzantine army under the Komnenoi" or, better, "Byzantine army (Komnenian era)" or "Byzantine army in the Komnenian era" would be acceptable. Use of "Komnenoi", introduces a Greek plural form that might be confusing for English speakers. Urselius (talk) 07:05, 19 June 2015 (UTC)

• Support for the alternative names, esp. Byzantine army (Komnenian era) and Byzantine army (Palaiologan era). Constantine ✍ 08:00, 20 June 2015 (UTC)
• Support Komnenian army per this book, which uses that exact name. I find no sources that use the terms "Palaiologan army"; I'd suggest going with a descriptive title for that one, ie Byzantine army under the Palaiologoi.--Cúchullain ^t/c 17:35, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support per Constantine's suggestion. José Luiz ^talk 17:58, 6 July 2015 (UTC)
• Support alternate suggestions by Urselius and Constantine. Egsan Bacon (talk) 16:34, 16 July 2015 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine army (Komnenian era). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101123070354/http://doaks.org/publications/doaks_online_publications/LACR.html to http://www.doaks.org/publications/doaks_online_publications/LACR.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine army (Komnenian era). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110216085233/http://www.levantia.com.au/military/KKK.html to http://www.levantia.com.au/military/KKK.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:42, 8 December 2017 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Byzantine army (Komnenian era)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Peacemaker67 (talk · contribs) 08:58, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

At the outset, I must admit that I know nothing about this era, so I am flying blind to some extent. I have a few comments, which might take me a few bites to get through:

• The structure makes sense and the article flows nicely.
• in the lead, I am left wondering what the defeat in 1081 was, suggest explicitly using the Battle of Dyrrhachium here, and state it was against the Normans.

Done. Urselius (talk) 10:48, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

• when Pecheneg is first introduced, do the variations on the name then.

Done.

• there is a bit of wikification needed with Macedonia, Thessaly and Thrace. Most readers will not know where these regions are.

Done.

• link Kingdom of Hungary (1000–1301), Anatolia for Asia Minor, Constantinople, Grand Principality of Serbia, Alexios Branas, Serres, Manuel Kamytzes, Frederick I, Holy Roman Emperor

First use of Alexios Branas was already linked. The rest done.

Under Size, Alexius Branas is mentioned, I assume this is Alexios Branas? Therefore, link at first mention here, and delink the first mention in the Timeline. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Done. I didn't write that para., and the use of the Latinised 'Alexius' defeated the search.

• which Philippopolis is it? Link?

First use was linked to Plovdiv - all instances are referencing the same city, do you want all instances linked to Plovdiv?

First use is in the Size section, link that one then delink any after that. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Done.

• 1092-1094 needs an ndash

You got me, not a clue. Urselius (talk) 11:03, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

It needs to be 1092–1094, not 1092-1094, per MOS:NDASH. The ndash is available under Wiki markup at the bottom of the edit window. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

Done, I think

Down to Structure. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:35, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for taking on the review of such a lengthy article. Urselius (talk) 11:20, 9 March 2019 (UTC)

No prob. I like to look at GANs in areas outside my areas of interest. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• link John II at first mention in the body

Done

• Bohemund, is this Bohemond I of Antioch? link?

Done, yes an alternate spelling from Bohemundus

• per MOS:DATERANGE and MOS:NDASH, 1107-8 should be 1107–08 or 1107–1108

Done

• Western European 'knights,' should be Western European 'knights', but why the single quotes? Were they not actual knights?

Done - 'Knight' was becoming a social rank rather than purely a type of soldier - see: Man-at-arms and Ministerialis - an armoured horseman looking like a knight might not be of that social rank.

• link Seljuk Empire for Seljuk

Done

• link Cumans and also Oghuz Turks for Uzes

Done

Down to Equipment:Arms and Armour. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:57, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• "used by light infantry" needs a comma after it
• link Huns for Hunnic
• link Sling (weapon)
• link cuirass, chain mail, and scale armour
• link Pontic–Caspian steppe and Kievan Rus'

Done for all above

Down to Troop types. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:07, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• My Greek is obviously not up to this, but isn't hoplites a plural? It seems to be a singular in this case, talking about a heavy infantryman? Should it be hoplite

The term was added by a native Greek speaker - so I suspect it is correct. In Greek the singular was οπλίτης (oplítis) and the plural οπλίτες (oplites) so it depends how you transliterate the respective vowel letters. Urselius (talk) 11:42, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• menavlion should be italics
• link lance

Done for both above

• "were organised into formal regiments" earlier you have used the term tagmata. Should this be used here too?

No, I don't think so. I was using 'regiment' here as a contrast with more informal bands of mercenaries hired for a particular campaign.

• for Alexios Petraliphas, perhaps link Petraliphas which mentions him

Done

• suggest ‘imperial tagmata’ for consistency

There is a difficulty here as the "Imperial Tagmata" were a formation created by Constantine V in the 8th century that disappeared in the later 11th century, they were decimated at Manzikert and Dyrrhachion probably saw their end. However, the word 'tagmata' also just means 'regiments' and was used rather loosely in Greek. I have capitalised all references to the formation of Imperial Tagmata, which may help discriminate between usage.

• should Alexiad be in italics throughout as the title of a work per MOS:ITALIC?

Yes, done

• link Cappadocia

Done

• link Roman Syria#Syria in the Byzantine Empire

Done for the single specific case - other instances linked to 'Syria (region)', when the general region was intended

• "the fall of Anatolia" should this be Asia Minor? Earlier you have used Asia Minor as the name for this region. There is another couple of mentions in the Development section.

All use of 'Asia Minor' has now been changed to 'Anatolia'

• link Danishmendids
• should Nikephoros II Phokas be linked in the Kataphraktoi subsection?

Done for both above

Down to Development. More to come. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:09, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• the mention of the 300 young commanders has been mentioned before, it is a little repetitious.

Wording changed and '300' removed, it was an important innovation of Alexios, however, and bears some level of repetition.

• link İpsala for Kypsella at first mention
• link Lopadion at first mention
• link Sea of Marmara for Sea of Marmora

Done for all above - Marmora is an alternative form.

• in the Timeline, drop the space in 1107- 1108
• The list of Notable generals needs citations

I would argue that it is essentially just a list of links to articles that have citations themselves, and therefore does not require independent citation. I am not particularly attached to the list and would preferentially delete it rather than slog though the citations.

It really does need citations, unless all the generals are already listed in the main body or the timeline. We can't use Wikipedia as a reference, per WP:CIRCULAR, we have to cite them directly. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Section deleted

• There is a citation link for fn 112. to Choniates & Magoulias 1984, which doesn't link anywhere

I suspect these were imported from another article with differing citation methodology - I have converted all Choniates & Magoulias to just Choniates.

• There is a citation link for fn 118. to Magdalino 2002 which doesn't link anywhere

Can't seem to find it

I fixed it, it was a harvard cite, with isn't consistent with this article, so I changed it to conform. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• there are a bunch of duplicate links, which need to be reduced to a single link on first mention. The script to identify this is available at User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.

Quite possibly far beyond my computing skills - although a scientist I leave computer-related stuff alone as far as possible.

It is actually really easy to install, you just click on User:Urselius/common.js to create your common.js user page and paste in importScript('User:Evad37/duplinks-alt.js'); // [[User:Evad37/duplinks-alt]] and save the page. After that, you will see a link under "Tools" on the left hand side of your page which says "Highlight duplicate links". If you click on that when viewing any article, it highlights all duplicate links in red rectangles for ease of reference. The duplicate links are Byzantine Army, Normans, Tagmata (military) (×2), vestiaritai, archontopouloi, Vardariotai, Theme (Byzantine district), Cumans, Dynatoi, Varangians, Battle of Dyrrhachium (1081), Nikephoros II Phokas, Cyprus, Battle of Sirmium, Battle of Myriokephalon, John II Komnenos, and Andronikos I Komnenos. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 01:48, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Done

Still to look at the bibliography and images. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 11:13, 10 March 2019 (UTC)

• Is there a publisher for Choniates?

Done

• Kinammos needs to be changed to conform with the formatting of the other sources, ie the year needs to be in parentheses immediately after the authors. Brand also.

Done

• some sources have a place of publication, others don't. This should be consistent.

Done

• some sources need a numerical identifier to be added, ISBN or OCLC.

Have done most of the outstanding ones, but three have eluded me - I cannot find the number codes online

• in general the sources are not consistently formatted, some use the citation template, some use the cite book template, others are plain text. It is not a requirement at GA, but if you are hoping to submit this as a Featured Article candidate at some point, it would be a good idea to make them all consistent.

I have experience of one FA review, and would prefer to gnaw my own arm off than do it again :(

• some footnotes have a bare page number instead of p. X or pp. X–X. For example, fns 33, 34, 49 etc

Think I changed all of them

• some footnotes have been done with harvard formatting, these are the ones that have the name and year highlighted, such as fns 163 and 179. The footnoting style should be consistent, so you should change these to plain <ref></ref> like the rest of the article.

Done

The image licensing needs some work:

• For File:John II Komnenos.jpg use use PD-Art with PD-old-100. It also needs information added to the Description. A simple English translation of the French, along the lines of "A photograph of a depiction of John II Komnenos from a mosaic in the Agia Sophia mosque in Istanbul, Turkey.", Date: Unknown, Source: Unknown, Author:Unknown. G'day Nikkimaria, can we use such a file if there is no information about who took the photograph of the mosaic? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yep, reproduction of a 2D work garners no new copyright in the US. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Replaced with another image of the same subjetc

• File:Hortus Deliciarum 36-6m.jpg needs a PD-1923 licence tag for the US

Done

• Hi Nikkimaria, I'm not familiar with the licensing of three dimensional art. Does File:Demetrios icon Met 1970.324.3.jpg need an additional tag? Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• Yes, not covered by freedom of panorama. Nikkimaria (talk) 11:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have looked through the licencing for 20+ Byzantine low relief steatite and ivory sculptures and found only "PD-old-70-1923" employed, and that was in one instance, additional to the photographer's 'release'.

Uncertain about what to do here, there doesn't seem to be much in the way of precedents available for licencing tags for Byzantine low relief sculpture. However, I have added {{PD-old-100-1923}} pro tem. Urselius (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• File:Yaroslav II helmet.jpg needs a PD-1923 licence tag for the US

• OK, I've done this one, now do the same for the next one. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• File:Trebuchet1.png needs a PD-1923 licence tag for the US

Done

• If File:Hungarian warrior.jpg is from a Middle Ages fresco, then use PD-Art with PD-old-100

Done

• Add PD-old-100 to the PD-Art tag on File:Alexius I.jpg

• Ok, I've done this one. Now do the same on the one above. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:23, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

• What sources were used to draw File:Manuel'sEmpire.png?

I suspect Ostrogorsky, from the look of the map. I have added a note about the source of the map - it was certainly in the first edition, though later paperback editions do not contain any of the fold out maps.

OK, placing on hold for the above to be addressed. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 02:58, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

• • I have not a clue about image licensing - perhaps the GA review should just be scrapped. Urselius (talk) 08:56, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
    • I'm sorry that you don't have a clue about image licensing, but dealing with copyright issues is a Wikipedia requirement to get an article right for GA, and frankly, I have put in quite a bit of effort to help you get this article to this point, and it would be disappointing to give up now. I am happy to help you and walk you through it, but you need to get a grip of it if you want to get articles to GA. It isn't that hard really, and there are editors who are quite expert on this stuff who you can call upon to get advice if you are not sure. However, if you want to drop it, I'm (relatively) happy to fail it at GAN. Personally I think that would be a shame given this is so close, but it is up to you. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 09:29, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
      • I just write stuff, usually it is fairly good. I am so out of my comfort zone with Wikipedia mechanics. I don't know. Urselius (talk) 10:17, 11 March 2019 (UTC)
        • It is a requirement at GA that you can do this stuff. I don't want to deter an editor that wants to contribute content, but we still need the copyright issues addressed. It isn't optional. As I said, happy to help. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 10:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Part of my difficulty is that I do not know what PD-1923 licence tag, PD-Art or PD-old-100 mean. I presume that they are some sort of pro-forma declaration that can be stuck on an image page on Wikimedia Commons, but where would I find them? Urselius (talk) 10:59, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons:Copyright_tags Nikkimaria (talk) 20:38, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, I searched the page, but nothing containing "1923" was evident - is the tag out of present use? Urselius (talk) 21:01, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I am floundering - the "1923" tag does seem to have been replaced. "PD-Art" seems to produce a red link on the page - I tried on the File:Alexius I.jpg page. Urselius (talk) 21:24, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

The 1923 tag is {{PD-US}}. The PD-Art tag seems to be working, you just need to add in the parameters for it. Nikkimaria (talk) 23:43, 11 March 2019 (UTC)

I have uploaded a total of two images to Wikimedia, and the process is foolproof, that is the only real interaction, apart from using images in articles, I have had with it. Never in a month of Sundays would I have worked out combining two tags with a "|" between them. Urselius (talk) 11:12, 12 March 2019 (UTC)

I appreciate this has a been a bit of a learning experience, but at least you have a bit more of an idea about image licensing now. Given you have had a bad experience at FA before (who hasn't, frankly) you might like to submit this for a WikiProject Military history A-Class review to get a few more experienced sets of eyes on it and see where it could possibly be improved further. The A-Class standard is very close to FA, and it has been my experience that having been through an A-Class review eases the pain of FAC. The instructions for that are at WP:MHR. Saying that, this article is well-written, verifiable using reliable sources, covers the subject well, is neutral and stable, contains no plagiarism, and is illustrated by appropriately licensed images with appropriate captions. Passing. Nice work! Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 05:21, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Thanks, in particular for all your work in reviewing the article, which is not unappreciated. Also thanks for the help with the image licensing - my brain just does not work well in that sort of context, and what is obvious to others entirely escapes me. I was involved in an FA review for the Battle of Waterloo, which failed because some of the reviewers wanted a historiography section. They could not comprehend that the sheer volume of works written since 1815, plus the history of revisionism and nationalistic bias would require an entirely separate article. I will certainly think about your A-Class review suggestion. Urselius (talk) 10:14, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

Russia and Rus'

To everyone tempted to change all use of 'Russia' and 'Russian' in the article. Please consider that scholarship takes precedent over political or nationalistic considerations, and that in the English language Wikipedia sources in English language are used preferentially.

The use of 'Russia' and 'Russian' is supported by a number of factors.

1) It is used in the secondary sources.

2) The word 'Russia' derives from the Byzantine Greek Rhosia, so its use in a Byzantine article is apt linguistically.

3) At the time period of the article the ethnogenesis of White Russians, Ukrainians and Great Russians had not taken place. It did not take place until after the Mongol invasions, at the earliest. These peoples were politically and culturally homogenous, spoke East Slavic dialects that were not yet separate languages and wrote in the same language, Old Church Slavonic. Plus, to outsiders, who universally adopted variants of the Greek term Rhosia, they were all 'Russians'.

4) The use of a terminal apostrophe, as in Rus', is remarkably ugly to English-speakers and primarily suggests "belonging to more than one 'Ru'". Urselius (talk) 17:55, 12 November 2022 (UTC)