Talk:Manuel I Komnenos

message: Hi everyone, just a quick note to say I hope my contributions to this article are of use, and please write some comments! Any suggestions for improvements would be much appreciated.
Thanks! 
Bigdaddy1204 23:26, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Bigdaddy1204, thanks for you contributions to this page, but I have one problem: the paragraph beginning "After Manuel's death, the Normans of Sicily would invade Byzantium again in 1185, sacking Thessalonica..." I am not disputing the truth of the assertions in the rest of the paragraph because that is likely what would have happened, but it is, after all, rather speculative and meaningless. I didn't want to remove it entirely but I also couldn't figure out how to cut down on the speculation. It is not our place on Wikipedia to dicuss "what-ifs" in detail, I don't think. Is there any way we can fix this paragraph? Adam Bishop 18:18, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

text: The earlier link is a hidden link to Battle of Myriokephalon. There is no article for the place. Adam Bishop 21:45, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The image was deleted from Wikipedia, presumably because it was copyrighted somewhere else...I'm not sure. Did you upload it originally? Adam Bishop 01:18, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

text: Oh, well, it must have been taken from another website originally...if it was used elsewhere on Wikipedia, it will have been deleted from those other articles as well, so it's nothing against this page specifically. Adam Bishop 16:40, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Normans of Sicily 

message: :Hi Bigdaddy1204, I hope I didn't remove too much stuff the other day. Sometimes it just felt like the article was getting too off-topic and too verbose. I still have one problem though - can we really say the Empire was founded by Constantine the Great? That is a convenient date for modern historians, but Manuel himself wouldn't have thought that. Adam Bishop 18:48, 24 January 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hmm, that's a good point...when did the Byzantines think the empire started? I assumed they would count all the way back to Augustus, but even that is a modern historical conceit. Did they start from Constantine because he was the first Christian emperor? Adam Bishop 00:59, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who founded Manuel's Empire? 

message: There are several book citations that need cleaning up in the Sources section. Please could you provide details of the ISBN numbers for the sources cited. Also the formatting needs to be standardised, try http://www.qwikly.com/WikiBib.html#book_reference for standard book reference templates. Thanks 
Bigdaddy1204 14:51, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll find the ISBNs for the books I added. Meanwhile, might I suggest you use the "preview" button more often? It can be hard to follow 70 edits in a row :) Adam Bishop 05:51, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sources need to be improved 

message: I could really use a little help with the footnotes of this article. How do you get the numbers to appear properly instead of just the letter 'a'? Bigdaddy1204 16:27, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Footnotes- you can help! 

message: I believe some people are over using pictures. For instance:
1) Satellite image of Greece and surroundings - this is only a part of the Empire. 
2) The Nile.
On the other hand there are very good pictures such as:
1) Fresco of Manuel I  - a must
2) Map of the Byzantine Empire under Manuel. a must
3) This image by Gustave Dore shows the Turkish ambush in action - Very nice
4) This 11th-century Trebizond Gospel was commissioned by Manuel's ancestors. Nice
5) Arrival of the Second Crusade before Constantinople. Nice
The rest of the pictures are more or less OK. Othervise, I think is a good article. Cudos to Bigdaddy1204. --Cigor 15:11, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pictures 

message: Just a minor point: I think the upper (and lower) case in the word Empire/empire should be used in a more consistent way throughout the article.Tankred 20:57, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Technically, I think its "empire" if preceded by something like "Byzantine" or "his [the emperor's]", but Empire if preceded by "the". --Grammatical error 06:11, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's Empire if it's a short form for 'Byzantine Empire', regardless of what precedes it. HenryFlower 20:29, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Empire" or "empire" 

message: I've had a quick look through the article, and can't find anything about this other than what's in the lead.  Why was it "discomforting" to the spectators? HenryFlower 20:28, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Must have seen it as barbaric considering the Greek/Roman distrust of the Germanic kingdoms's ways in Europe.Tourskin 20:08, 19 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Jousting 

message: Significant similarites between this article and the history given at http://www.roman-emperors.org/mannycom.htm.  I realize it is possible for two people to come up with similar reactions to similar materials, but this looks like just a direct lift to me.  -- Bill 23:12, 16 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that what Bigdaddy1204 wrote is no longer necessarily what is contained in the article, especially after the massive amount of editing it has received over the past few days when it was on the main paeg. I would not be surprised if someone added some copywritten text from that website, since this happens extremely frequently on Wikipedia. On the other hand, the passages Bill has quoted are not conclusive. Adam Bishop 03:09, 18 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In response to 'Bill' 

message: Regarding the following:
:climate change
The link is to the "Center for Carbon Dioxode and Climate Change" based in Arizona. According to Sourcewatch  "The Center has links to the fossil fuel industry, both through personnel and funding" - it is not a reliable source, just one of many industry-funded groups out to discredit climate change. In the bigger picture, the issue of climate change and history is highly controversial, since this is a history article, it would be appropriate to use sources from historians, in particular historians who work at or publish through the mainstream historical bodies, such as Harvard, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.. there is an lot of "junk science" out there. -- Stbalbach 18:07, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: All aspects of climate change and its predicted effects - from melting ice caps to species extinction, to more severe weather - are criticized by the Center and either refuted or presented as beneficial. Fred Palmer, head of Western Fuels, said about the center: "The Center's viewpoint is a needed antidote to the misleading and usually erroneous scientific claims emanating from the Federal scientific establishment and adopted by leading politicians, such as Vice President Al Gore."
-- Stbalbach 18:10, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The page I linked to summarizes research published in mainstream scientific journals.  You’re not even claiming CO2 Science misrepresents the research they summarize. I don’t know or care where they get their money from. The idea of looking at a site's budget before looking at it’s content strikes me as a bit bizarre. Am I to understand that Sourcewatch is your idea of reliable source?  It’s certainly a very partisan site. I suspect it may not even be written by professional historians! Where do they get their money from, anyway?Kauffner 20:05, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: the effects of climate on civilizations in the medieval period is very controversial and you will find evidence and arguments on both sides of the debate in the historical community, there is no consensus on it. Climate scientists are quick to point to what they know best (climate) as an explanation, but how much do climate scientists know about other historical forces? And to really have a convincing argument, you need a book-length treatment. Also see Wikipedia:Reliable sources for what reliable source means. "Do the sources have an agenda or conflict of interest, strong views, or other bias which may color their report?" - in the case of co2science.org, yes. Sourcewatch or Exxonsources are not being used a source in Wikipedia, but for the purposes of determining if co2watch is a reliable source which is fine, unless you have evidence that Exxonsecrets has a history of lying and can't be trusted on even basic black and white facts like a direct quote from Fred Palmer. -- Stbalbach 22:52, 6 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  climate change 

message: I don't know Paparrigopoulos, but surely we can do better than Gibbon? I don't see how his use as a source can be defended. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:29, 31 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: See my remarks in the article's ongoing FAR. Yes, "better" sources are always welcomed but properly cited.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:56, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gibbon 

message: I have a partial memory that when the van of Manuel's army moved back through the pass after the settlement with the sultan, they found that the faces and genitals of the dead had been mutilated.  This was supposedly done so that the Byzantines would not be able to tell Christian from Muslim and therefore calculate how many casualties the Turks had suffered.
Does anyone have a source for this?
Urselius (talk) 16:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, Niketas Choniates is the source for this. He says that the scalps and genitals were removed, so that the uncircumcised could not be differentiated from the circumcised, as many had fallen on both sides.  Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 18:45, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Myriokephalon mutilation 

message: I can't see any mention of Manuel's early, just after his accession, campaign against Konya.  In a way it was much more successful than the Myriokephalon campaign as Manuel reached the city of Konya, though he could make no impression on its defences.
I think an important military expedition of this sort should be included somewhere, perhaps before the crusade section.
Urselius (talk) 11:06, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As a Byzantine fan it sounds great but we need references for it. Tourskin (talk) 03:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Konya Campaign 

message: I have changed the authorship of a book: Comnena, Anna (1969). "XLVIII-The First Crusade", The Alexiad translated by Edgar Robert Ashton Sewter. Penguin Classics (1969), from "Comnene" to "Comnena."   It is the second version which is the one on the book's cover, and is recorded in bibliographies.
OK, fads in the transliteration of Medieval Greek names into the Roman alphabet have changed since the book was printed, but this doesn't change the spelling on the book itself.  A bibliographic reference should reference the book in whatever the spelling of the book's title or authorship was at the time the book was printed.  For example the book "Animadversions of Warre" of 1632 should not be labelled in a reference "Advice on Warfare" even though English usage and spelling has changed.  
Urselius (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration madness 

message: In the primary sources, Urselius changed "Komnene" to "Comnena" (see his arguments in his edit summaries, I think he'll expose them again here). Urselius, I do not dispute what you say about your book's title! What I say is about the Wikipedia article which is Anna Komnene. Therefore, I reverted back to "Komnene" for two reasons:
*This is the title of the Wikipedia article.
*There must be some consistency about how we spell all the Komnenians. We can't have a Manuel Komnenos and an Anna Comnena! Same family - same spelling!
Anyway, this is my opinion, but maybe my rationale is not convincing enough, and that is why, although this is a trivia issue, I brought the matter in the talk page for more input.--Yannismarou (talk) 13:27, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: As per Template:Cite book the fields you filled Yannis refer to the author of the book not the title. We have the unusual case here where the author and part of the title are the same. But:
*The name of the author should be rendered according to the current convention: Anna Komnene, because the name of the author is not to be confused with the name on the title of the book.
*The title, of course, should be rendered verbatim as Anna Comnena, which it already is. Dr.K. (talk) 15:33, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Since the current bibliography refers to the alternate spelling I took the liberty to include it. If anyone disagrees let me know. Dr.K. (talk) 16:05, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: The title of the book will remain unchanged. What you were filling were the author fields. The Author Fields are not related (normally) to the title fields. In this unique case the title remains the same as the original and the author is rendered according to the existing convention. Dr.K. (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Your comments about the title are implicitly correct. As far as Benito, he's a special case. Since he ruled by decree he could decree himself always right even though he may have been always wrong. So you are, technically, right ;) Dr.K. (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Anna Komnene or Comnena

message: I have changed the authorship of a book: Comnena, Anna (1969). "XLVIII-The First Crusade", The Alexiad translated by Edgar Robert Ashton Sewter. Penguin Classics (1969), from "Comnene" to "Comnena."   It is the second version which is the one on the book's cover, and is recorded in bibliographies.
OK, fads in the transliteration of Medieval Greek names into the Roman alphabet have changed since the book was printed, but this doesn't change the spelling on the book itself.  A bibliographic reference should reference the book in whatever the spelling of the book's title or authorship was at the time the book was printed.  For example the book "Animadversions of Warre" of 1632 should not be labelled in a reference "Advice on Warfare" even though English usage and spelling has changed.  
Urselius (talk) 12:44, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The title of the book will remain unchanged. What you were filling were the author fields. The Author Fields are not related (normally) to the title fields. In this unique case the title remains the same as the original and the author is rendered according to the existing convention. Dr.K. (talk) 15:39, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

text: Your comments about the title are implicitly correct. As far as Benito, he's a special case. Since he ruled by decree he could decree himself always right even though he may have been always wrong. So you are, technically, right ;) Dr.K. (talk) 15:50, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Transliteration madness 

message: The last sentence about the ransoms Manuel paid doesn't belong to this section. Dipa1965 (talk) 06:45, 20 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Doctrinal controversies (1156–1180)

message: This might be a featured article and I can only raise hat to people who helped to create it - alas, I belive that there is one thing that should be improved; the intro. It is too long for what it is; an intro. Intro should only include basics about something, and I belive that the intro as it is now has more than most basic information of Manuel I. --Kurt Leyman (talk) 15:38, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I beg to differ - take a look at Byzantine Empire for example, whoe lead was expanded. Manuel's life is both notable and well known. As such, it is only natural that a relatively long intro is needed for an article of this calibre. Tourskin (talk) 16:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I also disagree. Per WP:LEAD a lead should be a comprehensive summary of the whole article. And, in an article of more that 80 kbs length (prose must be about 55 kb I suppose), a two-paragraphs lead is nothing but long; I would find a rationale in the opposite objection, that it is a bit short!--Yannismarou (talk) 06:43, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

text: Intro is well done. It covers in one or two sentences every important aspect of rule of Manuel I. In whole article those themes are exposed and explained whicj is, in my opinion, good way to write encyclopedic article.--Vojvodae please be free to write :) 11:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Too long intro 

message: How come there is no section speaking about this emperor having been a clear-cut black man?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.26.152 (talk) 16:44, 3 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure what a "clear cut black man" is - I am assuming by your slang that you mean to say from the physical representation of a centuries old painting or paintings with colours that have darkened over time, means you think Manuel - a Greek - was somehow a black African?  Please. 98.67.185.200 (talk) 06:27, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Manuel, like his father, was relatively swarthy for a European. The Venetians once dressed up a "Moor", presumably a North African Arab or Berber, in a parody of imperial vestments, in order to insult him. Unfortunately, there is a tendency amongst Afrocentrists, usually Americans of marginal education or whose appreciation of history is highly warped by ideology, to pick up on anything like this - for example the Viking king Halfdan the Black's name - to claim prominent people from various cultures as being in some bizarre fashion Sub-Saharan Africans. It is a form of cultural appropriation - reverse imperialism - that should be refuted by reasoned argument in every case. Urselius (talk) 07:57, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Black Soul Brother 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Manuel I Komnenos. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070202070010/http://asv.vatican.va:80/en/doc/1146.htm to http://asv.vatican.va/en/doc/1146.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20050213114657/http://www.deremilitari.org:80/RESOURCES/SOURCES/clari1.htm to http://www.deremilitari.org/resources/sources/clari1.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:55, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Manuel I 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/20170510103216/http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/crusades-from-the-perspective-of-byzantium-and-the-muslim-world/cr08.pdf to http://www.doaks.org/resources/publications/doaks-online-publications/crusades-from-the-perspective-of-byzantium-and-the-muslim-world/cr08.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:58, 13 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: "The Byzantines were too dispersed, and were surrounded."
This is the major description of the tactical situation at the Battle of Myriokephalon within the article. It is not useful for too reasons: (1) it is logically flawed, and (2) it is inaccurate. Sources suggest that the Seljuk army was smaller than the Byzantine, in the region of 20,000 to 25,000, with the Byzantine army at 25,000 to 40,000. In order for a dispersed 40,000 to be surrounded by 25,000 the latter would have to have been even more dispersed. The descriptions of the battle (mostly Choniates) make it clear that it was the narrowness of the pass that allowed the Seljuks to concentrate their attacks on certain divisions of the Byzantine army while the rest, in greater numbers, could not be deployed against them. The defeat of the Byzantines was in detail, 3 of the 6 divisions of the Byzantine army suffered negligible casualties, the troops immediately around the emperor suffered some casualties, while the remaining 2 divisions, and the baggage and siege train, were essentially destroyed. The idea that the entire Byzantine army was surrounded is just not accurate. Urselius (talk) 10:47, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rather poor sentence in Myriokephalon section 

message: The lead is bereft of dates other than his birth and death years. His reign is not even dated. This seems weird for a historical figure. Srnec (talk) 15:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dates in lead 

message: When did Manuel conquer Bosnia, Dalmatia and Syrmia? This article (FA) suggests 1167, but the article Béla III of Hungary (GA) says 1165. Surtsicna (talk) 13:37, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine - p. 289 - says that The Byzantines invaded Hungarian Dalmatia in "the mid-1160s". However, Hungary formally recognised the Byzantine annexation in 1167. So both are probably correct. Urselius (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Conquest of Bosnia, Dalmatia and Syrmia 

message: The Gibbon box should be removed and be replaced by a comment from a more contemporary historian.Gibbons assessement is dated,as well as his book and his  opinions arent taken seriously.There could be comment from a more contemporary historian.As it is it give a false impression on Manuel by a "historian" known for his biases against the Byzantine empire. 2A02:587:5513:2B00:9C9F:EB92:BA5A:6816 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Gibbon box in assessement should be replaced by a more modern historian