# Talk:Byzantine Empire under the Komnenos dynasty

Hi Bigdaddy1204, nice work, though I think this article needs a little rough bits removed and some others added.

First of, I know this may sound like I am getting left out but the Byzantine-Seljuk Wars article should be either linked and/or mentioned with its own section. Since you have already spread the article amongst the three prominent Komnenoi leaders, its probably just best to mention it a little, link to Byzantine-Seljuk Wars and leave it be.
Secondly the Angeloi and decline section should be reduced - I know that the Angeloi were related to the Komnenoi but they have their own dynasty I thought, so we should make it its own article.
From the second point the decline section should only mention Andronikus Comnenus and the other Comnenoi leader, I forget his name. In any case it wasn't so much of a decline as a stagnation period since the empire was still strong and Andronikus had attempted to maintain the wise reforms of Manuel Comnenus.
Apart from that it looks great. I believe we can add more detail. Its summer and believe it or not I usually have more time to edit when I am at Uni then at free time. So I can't make any promises, I might stick my head in now and again to assist.
Regards,
Tourskin 19:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks! I have added the link to Byzantine-Seljuk Wars. Nice article, by the way. 

I agree about the Angeloi and decline. I will try to tidy that section up at some point.
I also agree that there should be more on Andronikos. Unfortunately I don't know so much about him as the other Komnenoi, but it would certainly be a good idea to add more.
I must go, but I shall return soon! Bigdaddy1204 15:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I'll see what the Oxford encyclopedia of Byzantium has about Andronikus. Tourskin 18:27, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
I have now added a large section dedicated to Andronikos, using information taken mainly from Ostrogorsky's 'History of the Byzantine state'. I will try to clear up the sections on the Angeloi and Fourth Crusade next, together with the conclusion. Bigdaddy1204 16:43, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I have taken on Byzantium under the Komnenoi for review under the Good Article criteria, as nominated on the Good article candidates page by User:Deucalionite. You'll be pleased to hear that the article meets none of the quick-fail criteria, so I'll shortly be conducting an in-depth review and will post the results below.
Where an article is not an outright pass, but requires relatively minor additional work to be brought up to GA standard, I will normally place it on hold - meaning that editors have around a week to address any issues raised. As a precaution to prevent failure by default should this occur, if editors are likely to be unavailable over the next ten days or so, feel free to leave a message on my talk page so we can arrange a more convenient time for review. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 09:28, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

I would be very pleased if this article could become a 'Good article'. I will try, time permitting, to improve it as best I can. Perhaps it may even become a Featured Article eventually; I am reminded of an article I worked on, Manuel I Komnenos, which first became a 'Good Article', and then became a 'Featured Article', and ended up appearing on the Wiki Main Page. Thanks for taking on the review; hopefully this article has a good future ahead of it :) Bigdaddy1204 16:49, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Thanks for the comment. I'm a bit reluctant to start the GA review process whilst the article is being worked on (although minor edits are not a problem), so I'll check back at the weekend. If you are undertaking a lengthy copyedit, it might be best to delist the article and re-nom later when you are ready. Regards, EyeSereneTALK 10:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
Perhaps that would be best, for now. I am going away this weekend, so I won't be able to do much more until I return on Monday evening. I think there is still some more work to be done on this article, including improving the Conclusion section, improving the references, expanding the bibliography, and tidying up minor issues such as spelling mistakes, etc. I don't think this work will take very long, but I probably won't have time to complete it until early next week. Bigdaddy1204 11:31, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If your copyedit is likely to be finished next week I don't really see a problem with keeping the review on hold for now. If you don't mind, just drop a note on my talk page when it's done. Cheers! EyeSereneTALK 12:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


### GA Status on hold
I have now reviewed this article under the six Good article criteria, and have placed it on hold pending the issues below being addressed:

Prose - in places this is unencyclopedic in its tone. The main offender is the Andronikos I Komnenos section, with sentences like "Endowed by nature with the most remarkable gifts both of mind and body, he was handsome and eloquent, but licentious; and, at the same time, active, hardy, courageous, a great general and an able politician. However, he was also capable of terrifying brutality, violence and cruelty." If this is a direct quote from a book, which is how it reads, it should be marked as such... otherwise it needs a rewrite.
Sourcing - there are a number of statements that should be either sourced or removed. To give a couple of examples:
"This helps to explain how the Komnenian emperors, Manuel Komnenos in particular, were able to project their power and influence so widely at this time." (also maybe a slight rewrite here for tone)
Parts of Andronikos I Komnenos are unsourced (generally at least one cite for each paragraph is preferred)
Sections
The Conclusion section should be merged into the rest of the article. This is not an essay and should not have a conclusion; much of this probably belongs in the article introduction.
Some headings do not comply with the Manual of Style. I would recommend changing John's restoration of the empire to either John's restoration or simply Restoration; and possibly Slow recovery to Recovery
Military reform lacks detail - it states that there was one, but does not explain what it was or how it was accomplished... although this is mentioned elsewhere. It might be worth either removing this section entirely or padding it out a bit (although the latter might mean removing parts of other sections to avoid repetition).
Footnotes - although not a requirement for GA status, it's useful to use the templates on WP:CITET to format references and footnotes. This helps out later when bots are used for tasks like converting 10-digit ISBNs to 13-digits, or for tracking down archived versions of web pages that  have gone dead. In any case, ISBNs should be provided for all book references used.
Hold status gives editors up to 7 days to implement the changes requested - I'll check back here in a week, or feel free to leave me a note on my talk page if ready before that. I have fixed a few minor things myself as I was reviewing (mostly grammar to avoid word repetition and remove commentary). All the best, EyeSereneTALK 10:20, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

I have done my best to address the issues raised above, and I feel the article is now ready to be reconsidered. I have also left a message at your talk page. Best wishes, Bigdaddy1204 16:00, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


### GA Pass
Congratulations on an excellent copyedit on the suggestions provided. I have no hesitation in passing Byzantium under the Komnenoi as fully meeting the standards required of a Good Article, and have listed it as such on the Good articles page (under History > World History). For the record, Bigdaddy1204 was the major contributor, with 41 edits at the date of final review. Well done! EyeSereneTALK 17:48, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

At the moment Alexios seems to appear as emperor out of nowhere, perhaps a little background to his family might be useful.
They were members of the Anatolian "military aristocracy" with their powerbase in the region of Kastamonou (Castra Comnenion) in the northern Anatolian plateau. A relative of Alexios, Isaac (his uncle?) had been emperor (aknowledged as legitimate), relatively briefly, before him and his wife was a member of the imperial Dukas dynasty.  He was involved in the suppression of the the revolt of the Norman mercenary Roussel in Anatolia before he became emperor.  Therfore, Alexios had a solid reputation as a general and all the important family connections to make a bid for the throne successful.
Urselius 15:06, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

"Some headings do not comply with the Manual of Style. I would recommend changing John's restoration of the empire to either John's restoration or simply Restoration; and possibly Slow recovery to Recovery" 

I disagree with this change on the grounds that the original phrase was explicit - "John oversaw a restoration in the empire's fortunes" whereas the replacement phrase suggests the alternative meaning "John was restored to his throne."   The latter meaning is historically untrue, John never lost his throne and was never restored.
Urselius 15:13, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

I changed this to Restoration under John II Komnenos - is this better? EyeSereneTALK 09:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
Aye! - Eye Urselius 12:41, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I just grin and bear it. EyeSereneTALK 13:11, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

This article has been reviewed as part of Wikipedia:WikiProject Good articles/Project quality task force. I believe the article currently meets the criteria and should remain listed as a Good article. The article history has been updated to reflect this review. Cheers, CP 22:42, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Each dynasty under the Byzantine Empire has its own article, and therefore material from the article Byzantine civilisation in the twelfth century would fit in nicely here as merged material. I would hope this is agreeable... Monsieurdl mon talk 18:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:Komnenoi which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you.  —RM bot 08:30, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Somebody has again been going round multiple articles replacing the standard name "Byzantine Empire" with "Eastern Roman Empire". Let's clarify this one more time: We use the standard modern English name "Byzantine Empire", because that's what the reliable sources do. Professional historians know just as well as you and I that this empire was legally the continuation of ancient Rome, but they still choose to call it by this separate name, because they consider it sufficiently distinct in cultural and geopolitical terms to warrant such a naming practice. That's why we do the same. The insistence of some Wikipedians of "knowing it better" than the historical literature and pushing the allegedly more "correct" name in everybody's face in as many places as possible is a form of pedantry that really crosses the line into POV-pushing, "righting great wrongs". It's especially annoying when it happens across a series of sub-articles for which this terminological distinction is quite irrelevant, when on the main Byzantine empire article we've sorted things out properly for some time. This is a form of WP:COATRACK writing, hijacking an article as a vehicle to push a POV unrelated to the article's actual topic. This needs to stop. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC

Please, spare me your fake indignation. Reality is POV, alright, splendid. Throw all the unnecessary excessive bureaucracy at me you want, but my point remains. No offense of course.-Metalhead94
Calm down man, personally I couldn't care less what the sources choose to call it.. what civilisation wouldn't evolve over a millennium? It is just annoying to see an artificial name used everywhere in modern English literature. Of course me and you know what the Empire was, but your everyday person probably wouldn't, and that was more along my line of thinking. However, my aspergers ass understands your point: -User:Metalhead94
Yeah, except that this discussion is moot. Wikipedia is not about proving truth, but about following reliable sources and neutral point of view. Overwhelming usage, both in the academic world as well as beyond it, is to use "Byzantine". Until that changes, Wikipedia follows it. Constantine   ✍  12:07, 10 June 2019 (UTC)
Yes, I'm well aware of that fact, having been here since 2008. But my point stands, the term "Byzantine" is not only historically inaccurate, but also unnecessarily muddles the subject for the uninitiated, being essentially a recent western envention attempting to separate the late Empire from it's own identity, but alas, unfortunately it has become a common term in the West obviously. Also, every point you made I was already aware of. No disrespect intended though.
Indeed. Then you are also cognizant of the fact that Wikipedia has a set of core policies and these mandate, among other things, that we follow common usage. Which makes your insistence to disrupt the "Byzantine" articles just to prove a point all the less excusable. Constantine   ✍  20:17, 25 June 2019 (UTC)
I'm not editing it anymore, am I? You've proven your irrelevant point, yes, blather on with useless and distracting bueracracy indefinitely, but it doesn't change history, Arbiter of All that Was. I hope you are also aware of the fact that you're  a condescending, self righteous prick, with your intent being obvious, and emotionally painful. No disrespect meant, though. This is serious.: Metalhead94 25 June 2019
Good to know you will stop this. You can still help improve Wikipedia's content in a myriad other ways, though. Byzantine articles are in particular need of attention, and if you are interested, you are more than welcome to do so. Cheers, Constantine   ✍  21:46, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Energetic, able and determined, Andronikos was a true Komnenos. -- I don't think there is much evidence from the sources to suggest Andronikos was anything more than a rules-bending, power hungry criminal that eschewed responsibility and good-nature whenever it suited him. Andronikos I was the black sheep of the Komnenos family, and deserves very little praise. He destroyed the dynasty single-handedly and did heinous things to achieve his aims. I suggest this section be rewritten entirely as it paints Andronikos in such a positive light. Ambarenya13 (talk) 04:01, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

I have no opinion about Andronikos' character, but I'll just add here that even if he was the most unblemished hero, "being a true Komnenos" isn't a meaningful category and isn't encyclopedic language; it should be removed either way. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:45, 10 November 2021 (UTC)

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

4KKOMNENOS.png
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:51, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Hi @NeimWiki, you reverted whitout explanation the false map what you Photoshopped: 1 This is not a reliable academic map.
@Borsoka @Norden1990 you are really expert in medieval Hungarian topics, what is your opinion in the subject?
The lead image is a false map: Byzantine Empire 1173: https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/d/d2/20230625093405%214KKOMNENOS.png
This map is just a Photosopped fantasy map by an user. (This map make user seems it already spreaded everywhere this fake map.) Please check out the history of Kingdom of Hungary, King Béla III of Hungary (1172-90), the article itself show another different map for the same year 1173: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Byzantium1173.JPG, which means even the maps contradict each other in the same article.
What is the academic source of this Photohsopped map? Or any reliable academic map made by historians?
Kingdom of Hungary and Halych was never part of the Byzantine Empire, nor in 1173 during the reign of King Béla III of Hungary. I think Wikipedia is not a place for fantasy maps. We need use academic maps like this or adapt these maps: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1190.jpg
Background story about this Hungarian-Byzantine wars:
Saint Irene of Hungary (1088-1134) was a Byzantine empress, she was the daughter of King Saint Ladislaus I of Hungary. She was the mother of the Byzantine emperor Manuel I Komnenos.
The mother of King Géza II of Hungary was Helena of Serbia, her brother was Belos who was Ban of Croatia and Palatine of Hungary (second rank after the King).
Byzantine relations had been good with the Serbs and Hungarians since 1129, so the Serb rebellion came as a shock. The Serbs of Rascia invaded Byzantine territory in 1149. Géza II supported Rascian Belos against Manuel however the main Hungarian forces was in Halych with Géza. Manuel forced the rebellious Serbs, and their leader, Uros II (Belos brother), to vassalage (1150–1152). He then made repeated attacks upon the Hungarians with a view to annexing their territory along the Sava. Part of Manuel army occupied Zemun (part of today Belgrade), another part completely plundered Syrmia, another army led by Boris Kalamanos ravaged the Banat (He was a claimant to the Hungarian throne. King Coloman of Hungary expelled her mother from Hungary and never acknowledged that he was Boris's father). At first Belos arrived with a Hungarian army, but he did not take up the fight alone, eventually Géza arrived from Halych with the entire army. At that time the Byzantines retreated and armistice was concluded. They made this game many times in the next years.
Béla was the second son of King Géza II. Around 1161, Géza granted Béla a duchy, which included Croatia, central Dalmatia and possibly Sirmium. In accordance with a peace treaty between his elder brother, Stephen III, who succeeded their father in 1162, and the Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Komnenos, Béla moved to Constantinople in 1163. Béla, younger brother of the Hungarian king Stephen III, was sent to Constantinople to be educated in the emperor's court. He was renamed to Alexios, and received the title of despot, which had previously been applied only to the emperor himself. He was engaged to the Emperor's daughter, Maria. Manuel intended the youth to marry his daughter, Maria, and to make him his heir. Béla's patrimony caused armed conflicts between the Byzantine Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary between 1164 and 1167, because Stephen III attempted to hinder the Byzantines from taking control of Croatia, Dalmatia and Sirmium. Béla-Alexios, who was designated as Emperor Manuel's heir in 1165, took part in three Byzantine campaigns against Hungary. In 1167, Manuel sent 15,000 men under the command of Andronikos Kontostephanos against the Hungarians, scoring a decisive victory at the Battle of Sirmium and enabling the Empire to conclude a very advantageous peace with the Kingdom of Hungary by which Syrmia, Bosnia, and Dalmatia were ceded. By 1168 nearly the whole of the eastern Adriatic coast lay in Manuel's hands. In 1169, Manuel's young wife gave birth to a son, thus depriving Béla of his status as heir of the Byzantine throne. Then, in 1172, Stephen died childless, and Béla went home to take his throne and became King Béla III of Hungary. Before leaving Constantinople, he swore to Manuel that he would always "keep in mind the interests of the emperor and of the Romans". Béla III kept his word: as long as Manuel lived, he made no attempt to retrieve his Croatian inheritance, which he only afterwards reincorporated into Hungary.
Bela was the heir of Manuel, he was engaged his daugther but when Manuel had a son he lost this and he was married with emperor sister in law: Agnes of Antioch. And when the Hungarian king died Bela went to Hungary to became king, he had many local conflict because Hungarians thought he is a Byzantine spy and was called the Greek Bela. Even his brother was imprisoned and his own mother expelled by him to the Holy Land. It is not a vassal status that earlier Béla was the heir of the emperor with the engagement with his daughter. Béla himself also needed fight for the Hungarian throne at home. Manuel asked Bela to see the interest of the Byzantine empire, but this does not mean he was a vassal, Bela also sent troops to Manuel at the battle of Myriokephalon. The connection between Hungary and the empire was excellent.
Hungary had many vassal states also where the Hungarian king appointed the ruler and needed make the vassal oath, and regular taxation… The Hungarian kings did not make any vassal oath for the Byzantine emperor. Please show me any academic historical source which say Hungary was vassal state of the Byzantine empire at that time? Or any academic reliable map regarding the subject? I do not know any, in Hungarian historiography this is also unknown…
OrionNimrod (talk) 18:28, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Alright, I'll remove Hungary from the map then. NeimWiki (talk) 09:15, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
@NeimWiki Thanks for the modification! I withdraw the deletion request. OrionNimrod (talk) 19:08, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
Question about the Anatolian border as well, the article says that in 1160 Manuel drove the Turks out of Isauria, and the Wikipedia article on the theme of Seleucia states that it was restored in 1099/1100 and only conquered by the Armenians in 1180. Should those be changed or is the map incorrect? Μανουήλ (talk) 11:25, 28 February 2024 (UTC)
I agree that this map is quite misleading. Béla III was an ally of the Byzantine Empire in the early 1170s, at most. During the 1160s war, the Byzantines seized Croatia, Dalmatia (and Bosnia). These regions were recovered by the Hungarians after Manuel's death in 1180. --Norden1990 (talk) 20:17, 24 June 2023 (UTC)

Ladislaus II and Stephen IV of Hungary were Byzantine vassals for a short period in the early 1160s. Borsoka (talk) 05:55, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
What about the other territories marked in lighter purple in the map, e.g. the Sultanate of Rum? I see no indication in either this article or in any of the linked related ones that it was dependent on Byzantium during the Komnenian period. Or what else is that color to signify? Fut.Perf. ☼ 19:35, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

Hi Fut.Perf., That is why I say we need use academic maps like this or adapt these maps: this is 1190  https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Europe_mediterranean_1190.jpg I think we can use Photshopped maps if they adapt academic maps or the borders are same and according to the year the vassal country status is well documented. So it would be good to know what is the source of the map maker user, he did many Byzantine map from different timeline. OrionNimrod (talk) 21:40, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
I also think that receiving your entire kingdom from an oath of good disposition prioritizing the interests and needs of the most eminent kingdom of the region is in many ways an inferred vassalship for which little explicitness is needed.
The Byzantine role in the reign of Bela III could be taken in many ways as a sharp influx of Byzantine influence both culturally and politically which honestly amazes me has been accepted without more cautious observation. Pablo1355 (talk) 04:48, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Hi @Pablo1355 I think it need more regarding the "vassal status" than a good alliance and relationship, Béla was friend (he was his heir + his daughter) of Manuel, but it does not mean he was a vassal, also he was a relative of Manuel. That is why I ask reliable academic historical sources in the subject. OrionNimrod (talk) 12:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manuel_I_Komnenos
Between 1158 and 1162, a series of Byzantine campaigns against the Seljuk Turks of the Sultanate of Rûm resulted in a treaty favourable to the Empire. According to the agreement, certain frontier regions, including the city of Sivas, should be handed over to Manuel in return for some quantity of cash, while it also obliged the Seljuk Sultan Kilij Arslan II to recognize his overlordship. NeimWiki (talk) 22:10, 25 June 2023 (UTC)
That sounds pretty thin, given that the two powers were repeatedly at war throughout the Komnenian period, both before and after that peace. Seriously, unless you have solid academic sourcing explicitly describing this or that territory as factually subordinated to Byzantium, in a stable, lasting way and across at least a significant part of the Komnenian period, I'd prefer removing all these light-purple things from the map. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:37, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
Where is the criterion of your judgment?
"I also think that receiving your entire kingdom from an oath of good disposition prioritizing the interests and needs of the most eminent kingdom of the region is in many ways an affected vassalship for which little explicitness is needed.
The Byzantine role in the reign of Bela III could be taken in many ways as a sharp influx of Byzantine influence both culturally and politically which honestly amazes me has been accepted without more cautious observation."
If you don't think it's enough or you simply omit the obvious for leisure, I can provide the necessary academic support.
Here's the soruce you asked for: Rogers, Clifford J, The Oxford Encyclopedia of Medieval Warfare and Military Technology: Vol. 1., 290 Pablo1355 (talk) 10:58, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
@ Fut.Perf. what do you think about the Holy Land? It was vassal of the Byzantine Empire? I know this:  Prince Béla from the Arpad dynasty moved to Constantinople to Manuel, where Béla engaged Mary, the daughter of Manuel. Emperor Manuel ceremoniously made Béla the heir of the Byzantine Empire in 1165 and granted him the title of “despotes”, which only emperors had used before that time. But some years later, Maria of Antioch, Manuel's young wife gave birth to a son, which deprived Béla of his status as heir of the Byzantine throne, Manuel granted him the inferior rank of “caesar” and Béla married the emperor's sister-in-law, Agnes of Antioch, daugther of Raynald of Châtillon who was a famous participant in the Crusades. The couple went on a pilgrimage to the Holy Land, to Jerusalem. In 1172, King Stephen III of Hungary died childless, and Béla went home to take his throne and became King Béla III of Hungary. Later King Andrew II (Reign: 1205-1235) inherited the vow to lead a crusade to the Holy Land from his father, Béla III and he fulfilled it. The maternal grandfather of the Hungarian king was Raynald of Châtillon, who was killed by Sultan Saladin in 1187 at Hattin.  OrionNimrod (talk) 12:25, 26 June 2023 (UTC)
The map is dated to March 1173, at the peak of Manuel's power, which is explicitly stated in its description. It is not representative of or meant to represent all 104 years of Komnenoi rule. NeimWiki (talk) 13:18, 26 June 2023 (UTC)