# Talk:Nikephoros III Botaneiates

This is a minor error, but one that should be resolved if the article is to become a GA or higher. The article uses a mix of {{cite book}} and {{citation}}, which render the sources differently (commas instead of full stops, for one thing). One or the other should be chosen for all sources. – Jonesey95 (talk) 14:19, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

@Jonesey95: Done. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:26, 27 November 2019 (UTC)

This review is transcluded from Talk:Nikephoros III Botaneiates/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.
Reviewer: Ichthyovenator (talk · contribs) 15:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Feel like I have to compensate you for your stellar work of clearing up my GA backlog today, It's been a while since I've done a review so I might be a bit rusty but I think I will be able to offer some input here. Will begin soon :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:27, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Some initial thoughts:

The article is lacking a bit in images. There is only one image besides the one in the infobox but there are more images in Nikephoros III's category at Commons. For example; 1 and 2. Is there a reason why these or other images (maybe maps, artefacts etc.) are not included? Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done
For the coin image, maybe specify that Nikephoros is the figure on the right. A reader unfamiliar with the practice of putting Christ Pantocrator on the coins could easily confuse the right image (an enthroned figure) with the emperor. With that in mind, it could also be nice to state that it's Christ Pantocrator on the left. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
 Done

The only image in the article outside of the infobox is huge, don't know why since I can't see anything in the source code for why that is (maybe it's on my end?). Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Fixed, the upright parameter was making it huge for unknown reasons. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 22:55, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
There are a lot of red links in the article, are all of these notable figures, events, places etc. that have enough information on them to one day become full-on articles? Not saying they aren't, asking just in case. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:46, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
All of the red links could have an article that passes WP:V; although whether they ever will be made is in the air. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:24, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, fair enough. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:25, 15 April 2020 (UTC)
Maybe "History" should be split into a separate "Historiography and sources" section and a "Biography" section? Maybe there is a reason for keeping them in just one section but in other articles they seem to be separate.
 Done
You've linked the Pecheneg revolt in the lede but not the Pechengs themselves (in the sentence after the link to the revolt).
 Done
In the last paragraph under "Historiography and souces" you say "Nikephoros is also mentioned in the accounts of both Matthew of Edessa and Michael the Syrian, who wrote their chronicles several centuries after the events and are therefore quite objective in their treatment of Nikephoros" but then you go on to state that both of these authors used previous sources and seem to have carried with them the same (not necessarily entirely objective?) assessments of Nikephoros. Maybe I'm misreading this but doesn't that mean that the old biased views of him were carried over in the later works?
I've explained it better; they are considered more objective because they themselves do not have political reasons to be against him. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, okay, this works 👍 Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Some things are linked twice; Michael VII, Robert Guiscard and Maria of Alania.
 Done
Maybe you could offer some brief explanation of what the office of Magistros meant when you say that Nikephoros was awarded the title, something to the effect of a "high court rank" or whatever you feel is best.
 Done
"At an unknown date, Nikephoros married a woman named Vevdene, but he later would marry Maria of Alania" maybe just "but he later married Maria of Alania"?
 Done
"during this period the civil officials had increasingly become more powerful, until the reforms of Isaac I curbed the power of the civil officials so strongly as to leave a lasting impression" gonna suggest "during this period the civil officials had increasingly become more powerful, until the reforms of Isaac I curbed their power so strongly as to leave a lasting impression" or something to that effect, there is a lot of repetition of "civil officials" here.
 Done
You offer a quite detailed explanation of what kouropalates entails but nothing on what being a strategos means.
 Done
"Nikephoros warned John not to cross the Zompos Bridge and engage the forces of Roussel, however, John disregarded him and lead his troops to defeat at the Battle of the Zompos Bridge in 1074" nothing to change here, just wow.
It really does feel like if you went back in time and shot like 10 Byzantine people the empire would still be standing today. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Totally. Their worst enemy really was themselves. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
"... and turned against Nikephoros, forcing him to rebel against Michael to protect himself". There might be more explanation needed here as to what exactly the emperor "turning against you" entailed and thus why Nikephoros has to do something as drastic as rebel and declare himself emperor.
 Done
"Nikephoros, now too old to command armies, sent Alexios to defeat him", I assume the Alexios here (and in the rest of this paragraph and section) is Alexios Komnenos? Could be worth putting in his lastname either here or in the previous sentence.
 Done I've put it in both just to ensure its understood that Alexios the usurper and Alexios the general are one in the same. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:29, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
There's a lot of sending people into exile in monasteries in this article; might be worth pointing out at the earliest time it's mentioned that this was a somewhat common practice of dealing with usurpers (or those who had been usurped).
 Done
The article on Nikephoros's intended heir, Synadenus Botaniates, doesn't exist yet but shouldn't his name be spelled Synadenos (as Greek spellings seem to be preferred for Byzantine stuff)
 Done
"he also donated generously to charities" <- this is very interesting. Do we know what kind of charities he donated to and what charity looked like in his day?
Unfortunately nothing much is known about which charities; presumably it was mostly monasteries, but none of the sources are willing to say such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
That is unfortunate, it won't hold up a GA if it's not in any of the sources, though. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
"first enacting a law regarding spousal insanity", what kind of law was this? Allowing people to divorce their spouse if their spouse was insane?
Unfortunately "spousal insanity" is as far as reputable sources go in explaining what this means. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
Ah, a shame since "spousal insanity" really catches you off-guard, but yeah I understand. Not an issue then if the sources don't explain it. Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
"they provide insight into Nikephoros's desire to relieve some of the issues plaguing the Byzantine empire and correct the rampant corruption of the Byzantine courts", "Byzantine Empire" should be capitalized, right?
 Done
"... and thus became nominally independent of the Byzantine Empire"; didn't they become the opposite of nominally independent? With their domains divided from the rest of their empire they would have become de facto independent but still remained de jure (and thus nominally) vassals of the emperor, right? Philaretos appears to have tried to become fully independent but as you say in the article, he soon submitted and was accorded titles by Nikephoros. I could be mistaken here.
You are correct. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
"because of Philaretos's dislike of the corrupt Nikephoros the Logothete" maybe use "Nikephoritzes" instead of "Nikephoros the Logothete" since "Nikephoritzes" is used elsewhere in the article and "Nikephoros the Logothete" could be confused with Emperor Nikephoros I, who was also called "the Logothete". Unless this is yet another Nikephoros who was a Logothete.
 Done
That's everything I had to add. I think this is an excellent article and found it very interesting to read up on an emperor I knew almost nothing about. Will pass it once you're done with the stuff above. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:00, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

@Ichthyovenator: Done all as best I could. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:55, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
@Iazyges: All looks good! Passing now :) Ichthyovenator (talk) 21:36, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

There is considerable confusion over the chronology of Nikephoros Botaneiates' rise to the Byzantine throne on this page, across the various language versions of the page, and across other Wikipedia pages which address the same subject.
The amount of different dates I have now seen for each stage borders on comical. For example, sources/pages variously give the start of his revolt as June 1077, July 1077, October 1077, November 1077, January 1078, and (as this page currently has it) July 1078. I won't bother running through the various contradictory dates for Botaneiates' entry into Nicaea or the contemporary revolt of Bryennios the Elder.
As best I can understand things, and this is mostly going off of Eric McGeer's footnotes in his recently-published translation of the Skylitzes Continuatus, these contradictions have emerged from differences between the Histories of John Skylitzes, Michael Attaleiates, and Nikephoros Bryennios the Younger. He admits furthermore that "The chronology of Botaneiates' acclamation is not fully coherent".
However, he states with something of an air of authority that Botaneiates began his revolt in October 1077 and Bryennios the Elder in November 1077, and that the date of his entry into Constantinople was indeed March 24, 1078 (as this page currently has it).
It seems worthwhile for an experienced editor to comprehensively go through all of these pages and at least make sure they are offering consistent information. The claims on this page about revolts beginning in July/October 1078 which cite an online 'Encyclopedia of Roman Emperors' are certainly incorrect given the unanimous agreement elsewhere that Michael VII was overthrown by March 1078.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.168.5.157 (talk) 17:37, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Quite a mess indeed. I think the article should at least mention these contradictions, because it's really confusing. That said, I think these are all the main dates on the matter:

2 July 1078 [1077] — "Receiving the acclamations of his authority by all on the second day of the month of July, of the first indiction." (Att. 27.4) This date is problematic since it doesn't match with the rest of the chronology, unless the indiction is wrong. In his Notes on the Eleventh-Century Chronology, Polemis argues that this (or 2 June) was Nikephoros' "true" date of coronation (in 1078). This is the one shown in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, even though it contradicts both Attaleiates and the Continuatus.
3 October 1078 [1077] — "They acclaimed the kouropalates Nikephoros Botaneiates emperor in the month of October of the first indiction... On the third day of the month of October, when Botaneiates was about to pitch his imperial tent, a sudden light flashed through the air." (Skyl. Cont. 6.28)
7 Jan. 1078 — "[The Senate] declared Botaneiates emperor; this was on the day after the candlelit procession of Epiphany; even though he was still in his hometown." (Att. 32.2)
24 March 1078 — "On the eve of the day of the Annunciation to the Mother of God [...] They deposed the emperor Michael". (Att. 32.15) The Continuatus uses the same date, but for a different event: "[Constantinople] proclaimed Bonateiates emperor". (Skyl. Cont. 6.37) This seems to be the only date explicitly corroborated by another source (Kleinchroniken 1, 162)... well, assuming the chronicle it's not directly inspired by Attaleiates.
27 March 1078 — "And they kept the City in order without a ruler for three days [until Nikephoros' entrance]". (Att. 32.17) In the Continuatus it would be 3 April.
31 March 1078 — "They deposed the reigning emperor Michael [...] on the same Sunday [Saturday] when the miracle performed on Lazarus is celebrated." (Skyl. Cont. 6.38)
1 April 1078 — "On Palm Sunday... the whole Senate [...] was awarded [by Nikephoros]". (Att. 33.3)
3 April 1078 — "Shortly afterwards he himself entered on Holy Tuesday and received the crown from the hands of the Patriarch." (Skyl. Cont. 7.1) This is the date used by Polemis and the ODB, although it contradicts Attaleiates. The 2019 translation gives the date as 27 March, but Easter fell on 8 April, not 1... Maybe Attaleiates made the same mistake? or maybe the Continuatus is the one wrong? Both sources do agree that Nikephoros entered the city on a Tuesday and three days after the deposition of Michael VII.
I put this here because I don't know where else to put it. --- Tintero21 (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2021 (UTC)