# Talk:Battle of Arcadiopolis (970)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Battle of Arcadiopolis (970)/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 18:29, 7 September 2010 (UTC)
GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

Is it reasonably well written?
A. Prose quality: 
Some awkward text in the lede and a spelling problem in the main body.
B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists: 
Refs need place of publication.
Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
A. References to sources: 

B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary: 

C. No original research: 

Is it broad in its coverage?
A. Major aspects: 

B. Focused: 

Is it neutral?
Fair representation without bias: 

Is it stable?
No edit wars, etc: 

Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales: 

B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions: 

Overall:
Pass or Fail: 

Rewrote lede, fixed typo error, added publication sources. Constantine   ✍  04:27, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Philippopolis is described by Fine as being a Byzantine city at the time it was sacked. It also appears in Constantine VII's De Ceremoniis as being in the eparchia of Thrake " In Eparchia Thraciae habet metropolis Philippopolis "- and therefore Byzantine in the mid 10th century. Plus it makes more military sense for the city to have been Byzantine at the time of its sacking by Sviatoslav. Virtually all of Bulgaria was under Sviatoslav's control and he had the Bulgarian Tsar held hostage, why in this situation would a Bulgarian provincial governor offer resistance to Sviatoslav?  It makes no sense, however, if the city of Philippopolis was Byzantine at the time its resistance to Sviatoslav's forces makes perfect sense. Urselius (talk) 12:53, 2 October 2013 (UTC)
Haldon makes no reference to Philippopolis being Bulgarian when it was sacked, he merely states that it was a fortress in Thrace. The referencing should be amended. Urselius (talk) 12:55, 7 September 2014 (UTC)
Many historians do not assign Philippopolis a definite national status at the time of its sack by Sviatoslav, including Florin Curta in Southeastern Europe in the Middle Ages 500-1250. Equally, a number state that the city was Bulgarian. Additionally to Fine, a number of historians state that it was Byzantine, for example: Riasanovsky A History of Russia, Blondal The Varangians of Byzantium, Deriabin Watchdogs of Terror: Russian Bodyguards.  As the relevant scholarship is seriously divided or non-commital on this subject a statement in Wikipedia in favour of one viewpoint is not tenable. I have, therefore, altered the text to be entirely neutral on this matter. Urselius (talk) 08:22, 28 March 2017 (UTC)
Florin Curta does say (p. 227), early in the reign of Tsar Peter of Bulgaria that: "... the Thracian towns that had been under Bulgarian occupation for several years were deserted and razed to the ground." Urselius (talk) 08:39, 28 March 2017 (UTC)

The result in the infobox has too much information, it should refer to either X victory, inconclusive, or link to something like an aftermath section to explain this. See the documentation for Template:Infobox military conflict. Mellk (talk) 17:19, 7 July 2024 (UTC)

I created a new section and added a link to it in the infbox section Dushnilkin (talk) 18:06, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Thanks. Though, if most historians believe that this was a Byzantine victory, would we be better off writing this as a Byzantine victory instead to reflect the common viewpoint? Mellk (talk) 18:09, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
Well, I added some sources from myself, there are also second sources about the victory of Rus, give me time and I will add them Dushnilkin (talk) 18:12, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I found a work that mentions two sources at once, this is a book by Nikolay Karamzin, in which he argues that for a more detailed description of events, it is necessary to take the Byzantine Chronicle. I suggest leaving the article in its current form, since ignoring the original source is clearly wrong for presenting information. Dushnilkin (talk) 18:31, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I think we can mention him, but in general it is better to consider this based on modern scholarship. Mellk (talk) 18:35, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
I added it to the article, from the new works we can take Norwich's book "the history of the Byzantine Empire" (there is in the article), Karamzin is just trying to analyze two sources at once, drawing a conclusion on this basis Dushnilkin (talk) 18:38, 7 July 2024 (UTC)
OK, sure. Mellk (talk) 09:11, 10 July 2024 (UTC)
I tend to agree with @Mellk: on this one. I've made this edit as a way of noting the version of the events given by the Primary Chronicle, but without putting it at the same level as the modern academic consensus. Leptictidium (mt) 06:26, 7 September 2025 (UTC)