Talk:Siege of Constantinople (718)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects:

WikiProject Middle Ages (Rated Start-Class) Middle Ages Portal Siege of Constantinople (718) is part of WikiProject Middle Ages, a project for the community of Wikipedians who are interested in the Middle Ages. For more information, see the project page and the newest articles. Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale. Article Grading: The article has been rated for quality and/or importance but has no comments yet. If appropriate, please review the article and then leave comments here to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article and what work it will need. WikiProject Middle Ages To do: WikiProject Greece      (Rated Start-Class) Greece Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Greece, an attempt to expand, improve and standardize the content and structure of articles related to Greece. If you would like to participate, you can improve Siege of Constantinople (718), or sign up and contribute in a wider array of articles like those on our to do list. If you have any questions, please consult the FAQ. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. (comments) High This article has been rated as a High priority article Additional information: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked WikiProject Syria (Rated Start-Class) Syria Portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Syria, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to articles on Syria on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the Project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the Project's importance scale. After rating the article, please provide a short summary on the article's ratings summary page to explain your ratings and/or identify the strengths and weaknesses. WikiProject Bulgaria (Rated Start-Class) Bulgaria Portal This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Bulgaria, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of Bulgaria-related topics. Please visit the project page if you would like to participate. Happy editing! Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list for Siege of Constantinople (718): edit  · history  · watch  · refresh No to-do list assigned; you can help us in improving the articles in the same category Military history WikiProject     (Rated Start-Class) This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please see the full instructions. Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale. Additional information and associated task forces: This article has been checked against the following criteria for B-Class status: Referencing and citation: not checked Coverage and accuracy: not checked Structure: not checked Grammar: not checked Supporting materials: not checked To fill out this checklist, please add the following to the template call: <!-- B-Class-1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. --> |B-Class-1=yes/no <!-- B-Class-2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain obvious omissions or inaccuracies. --> |B-Class-2=yes/no <!-- B-Class-3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. --> |B-Class-3=yes/no <!-- B-Class-4. It is free from major grammatical errors. --> |B-Class-4=yes/no <!-- B-Class-5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. --> |B-Class-5=yes/no Associated task forces (nations and regions): Balkan military history task force (c. 500–present) Associated task forces (periods and conflicts): Medieval warfare task force (c. 500–c. 1500)

Contents 1 Contemporary Sources 2 Casualties 3 Request for Expansion 4 Fixed infobox reference to "Roman Empire" 5 The Caliphs 6 Merger 7 Bulgarian Aid 8 Hey Roydosan 9 Strength of Arab army ?

[edit] Contemporary Sources

Can we get better reference details a general rewrite of this section, it is just a copy paste as of now which doesn't cut it for wiki.--Tigeroo 06:59, 26 July 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Casualties

Somebody edited the casualties of the Arabs to only be 80,000. I have reverted it back to what it previously was, since this person only has 2 edits in their history, both of them having to do with 8th century Arab battles, and since 80,000 was merely the number of Arab soldiers that Maslama took with him across Anatolia initially. It doesn't account for the troops landed in the Arab war galleys by sea, the reinforcements, and the sailors, nearly all of whom perished. I've left up R.G. Grant's estimates.--bbcrackmonkey

This may sound stupid but I have a book, a well respected book about battles throughout Human history and unless my eyes are bad, I saw 130,000 - 110,000 casualties. So I agree. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.6.230.65 (talk) 05:00, 9 December 2006 (UTC).

Could you please name that book so we can use it as a source in this article? Thanks. --Grimhelm 10:58, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

HagermanBot is almost certainly talking about "Battle: A Visual Journey Through 5,000 Years of Combat", by R.G. Grant, which is already listed as a source at the bottom of the article. It was actually that book which inspired me to create this article in the first place. There are probably several other battles in the book which I can create stubs on. What I really want is to find out where that person got the stub from Michael of Syria from. Bbcrackmonkey 00:03, 15 December 2006 (UTC)

I have that book too! Its awesome. Tourskin 19:57, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Request for Expansion

We need to expand the related Siege of Constantinople (674) article. Thanks for any help! Grimhelm 18:33, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Fixed infobox reference to "Roman Empire"

This battle involved the Byzantine Empire, not the "Roman (Byzantine) Empire." If the nomenclature needed to be revised at all, it would be to "Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire." Dppowell 18:54, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

They are one and the same. Roydosan 14:29, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Roydosan, I agree with you that the so-called "Byzantine Empire" is indeed the legitimate successor to the Roman Empire and I am well aware that it regarded itself as the unbroken continuation of the Roman Empire, albeit with Greek, Armenian, and later Slavic influences instead of Latin. I am also well aware of how the word "Byzantine" came into being and how the denizens of Constantinople would never call themselves "Byzantines". Unfortunately the word has become part of the common nomenclature in order to separate the Western and Eastern Roman Empires as well as to avoid confusion with the "Holy Roman Empire". Because this word is part of the common nomenclature and vernacular, Byzantine must be used when describing this great civilization. Just as the Hellenes are called Greeks, and Nippon is called Japan, so must the Eastern Roman Empire be called the Byzantine Empire. Your edits to change the wording, while noble, are misguided and I would appreciate it if you left my particular article out of your personal crusade. Take the issue up with the Byzantine Empire article itself please. Bbcrackmonkey 08:47, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Caliphs

John Julius Norwich states that the commander of the fleet was named Suleiman, and apparently the Caliph Suleiman was the guy who initially launched the siege. In "A Brief History of Byzantium" Norwich also states that the admiral Suleiman died during the siege, and Caliph Suleiman's wikipedia entry states that he died en-route to attack the Byzantine Empire in 717. Could they be the same person? Caliph Suleiman was actually Maslama's brother, and it seems like he was the one who launched the siege and Caliph Umar II simply picked up where he left off.

I have the same book but never noticed. I dunno let me check.Tourskin 00:28, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Merger

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.

[edit] Bulgarian Aid

I agree with the idea that the Bulgars did not want Constantinople to fall for their own conquest of the city. But another important reason is that Byzantine had the sufficient resources to bribe the Bulgars into action. This is stated in Previte Orton's "Outlines of Medival hitory". I also wouldn't mind an endnote on the quote you use in the paragraph so i can reference in the future. --Whiskey Blues123 11:51, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

By all means, feel free to edit in the relevant information if it is accurate, as well as include the source of "Outlines of Medieval History" at the bottom of the article. Bbcrackmonkey 07:05, 22 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Hey Roydosan

I'm not going to bother reverting your edits. The Byzantines were called Romans anyways, and I'm not going to be a Nazi about formatting the nomenclature. It's still historically accurate to refer to them as Romans and I don't think it detracts from the article at all to add in that one tidbit so I'm giving you a pass. Bbcrackmonkey 09:42, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Strength of Arab army ?

Dont tell me that any general can handle 200,000 army ! it was not a picnic okey...... the strength of Muslim army has been greatly exaggrated .. more over there is no refference that what the muslims sources says about there army strength, i am gonna find some suitable reference and will gonna edit this strength stuff.

Mohammad Adil 18:04, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Lol here we are!! Nice to meet you around here too!!

This source gives an estimate of 200,000 men. Yes, like I said as well, thats a lot of men to keep together and to fight. But that might explain why they lost, since in the winter the Arabs lost many men due to starvation (not enough provisions) and cold. This reference says 200,000 men took part on the Arab side:

Grant, R.G. (2005). Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley, p. 74. 

This reference confirms the Arab land army of 80,000 men and 1,800 ships arriving as well making total number of men on the Arab side 200,000:

Norwich, John Julius (1997). A Short History of Byzantium. New York: Vintage Books, p. 110. 

Thsi reference says that the Caliph had 120,000 men and 1,800 ships sent and then another reinforcing army from Egypt was sent so that could have made a total of 200,000 men as well. Either way, the Arabs seemed to have at least 100,000 men:

Mango, Cyril (2002). The Oxford History of Byzantium. New York: Oxford UP, p. 138. 

In view of this, the numbers should say 200,000 total including 80,000 combatants and 1,800 ships. A large army that suffered from starvation and cold. Tourskin 20:42, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

All the sources I could find provided the Arab strength as being around 200,000 men. Considering the fact that the Umayyad Caliphate was MASSIVE and it was pouring a gigantic chunk of its military into attacking the most heavily fortified city on earth and the capital city of its most bitter enemy at the time, I have no reason to doubt the sources. A lot of them might have been sailors but those sailors still might have been combatants in sorties against the Byzantine navy. You'll notice that the Turks later completely bypassed Constantinople and simply took the area around it for many years and finally assaulted it in 1453 with 80,000 to 200,000 men, the exact same numbers we're working with in this article. I actually wrote quite a large research essay on the topic for a history class claiming that the same Arab army under Maslama should have been used to pacify Anatolia instead of being thrown at an impregnable city. They might very well have succeeded in taking Constantinople if it had not been for a number of factors, such as the horrible winter, their supplies being cut off, the death of their Caliph trying to lead a relief expedition and the help of fresh Bulgarian soldiers.

Bbcrackmonkey (talk) 10:50, 11 February 2008 (UTC)