# Talk:John II Komnenos

The article on John's son and successor, Manuel I Komnenos, has recently received a major re-write. After going through peer review, it became a featured article, appearing on the Wikipedia Main Page on May 16th this year. I am considering starting an improvement drive on this page as well, so I would be grateful for suggestions on how this page can be updated and improved. Thanks! Bigdaddy1204 11:40, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

This page has been moved from John II Comnenus to John II Komnenos, in accordance with ODB naming procedures. Bigdaddy1204 01:02, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Why did you move this, but not the other Komneni/Comneni? -- Jniemenmaa 06:56, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
The other Komneni (Alexios and Manuel) have now been moved as well. Bigdaddy1204 12:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Ehm, sholdn't this have been discussed first, before moving articles? And why just move the Komneni and not the other Byzantine emperors? Also, now there ara a lot of double redirects that need fixing. -- Jniemenmaa 12:40, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
It was discussed on Talk:Constantine XI. Unfortunately the only options left to us were this, or something even worse, but there it is... Adam Bishop 15:38, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Actually all Byzantine emperors are in the process of being moved, it just takes time.  Right now those who reigned between 1059 and 1261 have been moved.  And double redirects are being fixed.Imladjov 16:47, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
Where is the discussion about Hellenising the names??? Roydosan 12:55, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I fixed the link, it's on the talk page for Constantine XI, not IX. Adam Bishop 17:48, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Territories lost since 1071 were recovered...etc.
No they were not. Look at Anotalia, less than half was recovered and nothing of Italy remains.Tourskin 03:45, 3 June 2007 (UTC)
It does not say 'all territories'. Read more carefully! That said, I will try to add in some more detail on the exact place names of all the areas he did conquer at some point. Good to see you've read the article, anyway :) Bigdaddy1204 10:14, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Out of curiosity, why is Kaloïōannēs translated as "John the Beautiful"? The literal translation would be "Good John" or "John the Good" and while in both Greek and English "good" can mean beautiful it's usually under specific circumstances.Do we have a reference or a source to that effect?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.189.24.193 (talk) 21:48, 1 November 2010 (UTC) 

regarding this line: " As Alexios lay on his deathbed in the monastery of the Mangana on 15 August 1118 "
there were two monasteries in Constantinople at the time. St. Stephen and St. George both of Mangana.
could it be specified to which one it is?
note there are no pages for either Monastery yet.Eaamon (talk) 20:58, 30 July 2011 (UTC)

Should a mention be made for Charles M Brand's assertion that John was possibly murdered by the Latin mercenaries in the army? Gnostiko (talk) 13:25, 5 January 2012 (UTC)
Done Urselius (talk) 19:15, 11 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on John II Komnenos. 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/20050509102032/http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans/cinnamus.html to http://homepage.mac.com/paulstephenson/trans/cinnamus.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) 02:25, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

"Anna, who in infancy had been betrothed to her father's first co-emperor Constantine Doukas, herself harboured obvious aspirations to power and the throne."(Early life/ Accession to the throne), this is a narrative that has been around for some time. However, it is heavily disputed amongst historians and scholars, the information and evidence is thin. This phrase should either be removed or expanded in context. Open for suggestions Ari Fischkopf (talk) 14:18, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe you are quite mistaken in your assertions. As far as I am aware, the contrary view is limited to a very recent biography of Anna, which is mentioned in the text. The weight of scholarly opinion is behind Anna being the motive force behind plots against the throne and life of her brother John II. Anna herself complained that she had been kept incommunicado for 30 years, by both John and his successor Manuel I. I think that this alone is sufficient evidence that Anna was considered a political threat that needed containment. Given that John's brother Isaac, a known conspirator, was internally exiled by John II, this method of dealing with dangerous plotters within the imperial family is well attested. The mere fact that Anna's husband, Nikephoros, accompanied John on military expeditions long after his wife had been effectively confined to house arrest is sufficient evidence that Nikephoros was trusted by John II and was, unlike Anna, not the fount and origin of treasonous activity. Urselius (talk) 06:16, 6 November 2024 (UTC)
True, thank you! Maybe it would be clearer to mention at the start of the sentence that it is a recently disputed narrative, rather than adding it later?  Ari Fischkopf (talk) 12:19, 1 December 2024 (UTC)
Done. Urselius (talk) 13:39, 1 December 2024 (UTC)

@Urselius, I am writing articles about King Fulk's envoys to John and encountering some wildly different figures. Most seem to state that the envoys suggested that John should bring no more than 10,000 (ten thousand) armed men with him, but Bernard Hamilton says (twice) that the suggested number was 10 (ten). Is this why you opted to write simply "a modest escort"? Surtsicna (talk) 20:26, 6 July 2025 (UTC)

I have not seen any specific numbers, but it is obvious that John wanted to bring the imperial field army to Jerusalem and Fulk certainly did not want this to happen. John ostensibly wanted to campaign against the Muslims, presumably directed against Damascus or Egypt, to bolster the Kingdom's position, but Fulk obviously considered that he would be forced to acknowledge some form of vassalage to the Byzantine Empire. Fulk could not deny a Christian ruler access to Jerusalem as a pilgrim, so he was in a bit of a quandary. Hence his rather feeble excuse that his kingdom could not feed such a large army, as the Emperor's. I think that the political situation is more important than the possible numbers. In my opinion, no emperor would have considered such a trip without an escort of the guards units, at least 2,000 men, if not more. Urselius (talk) 15:27, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
This is what struck me as odd too. 10,000 men is not a small escort! But the figure is widely cited in reputable secondary sources, even by John's biographers. Hamilton seems to be the only one offering the more (or less, from John's perspective) reasonable figure. Surtsicna (talk) 15:39, 7 July 2025 (UTC)
The ten men might have been part of Fulk's intent to put John off completely, a train of such small numbers would not be in keeping with the grandeur of a Basileus. Or it could have meant only ten of the great men in John's army, each with their household (oikos). Adding the Emperor's oikos, it would have meant a total of many hundreds if not into the low thousands, plus 500 Varangians, as the emperors always had them in close attendance. Urselius (talk) 17:31, 7 July 2025 (UTC)