Talk:Middle Ages/Archive 10

Im not available to deal with this tagging campaign and having watched a similar attack at crusades, I’m not going to hang around to watch someone tear the article apart while never providing any sources for the assertions being made. Not worth the aggravation...Ealdgyth (talk) 01:23, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Could you refer to sources stating that Ahtum ruled around 900, that monasteries were primarily established in connection with missionary activities? Could you explain why is important that Otto III spent some years in Italy? Borsoka (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The article's lead wrongly states that "This period [the Middle Ages] also saw the collapse of the unified Christian church, with the East-West Schism of 1054." @Nikkimaria:, are you sure that the emergence of the distinct Nestorian Church and Monophysite/Miaphysite churches after Ephesus and Chalcedon do not contradict the statement? Borsoka (talk) 14:44, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

The article begins "In the history of Europe ...", and in that context the statement is fine. Please stop littering the article with statements of opinion in tags. Johnbod (talk) 14:47, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Have you ever heard of Arianism, Bogumilism? Borsoka (talk) 14:50, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

It may be more accurate to say that it saw the formal division of Christian unity with the East–West Schism with what we now know as the denominations of Catholic Church and the Eastern Orthodox Church. Elias (talk) 22:00, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Arianism, Bogomilism, Catharism, Waldensianism, etc. were considered heresies by the Catholic Church of the time, not schisms, and none of them directly caused "the collapse of the unified Christian church" - Epinoia (talk) 23:15, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Eliasbizannes yes, I think this is the best approach (although Christian unity has never existed). Epinoia yes, but we are not here to present a Catholic PoV as a fact. Borsoka (talk) 23:36, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

I concur with Johnbod; the tagging campaign is not helpful, especially in the absence of sourcing for proposed changes. Nikkimaria (talk) 00:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Tagging is the best approach when a problem is detected. The lead of the article is problematic: most of the statements that I tagged are not verified in the main text. Borsoka (talk) 01:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Given that this is a featured article and has undergone a formal review process, you're going to need to provide sourcing to support your claims. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for deleting the map that was not verified (although the article has undergone formal review processes). If my understanding is correct, you can explain based on the lead why the rediscovery of Justinian's Code why was important? If my understanding is correct, you can list Roman institutions surviving into the Middle Ages in the West based on the article. Could you please list some of them? How could I provide sourcing to my question? Borsoka (talk) 01:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

You clearly believe the article should say something other than what it currently does - here and in other sections. Rather than tag-bombing with dissenting claims, present your proposed text(s) here with supporting sources. Nikkimaria (talk) 01:52, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No, I think the article could and should be improved but I am not a native English speaker, so I am not sure my edits can improve it. Borsoka (talk) 01:59, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Even more reason to present your case here on talk then, where your meaning can be explained. Nikkimaria (talk) 02:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Please read my comments above and below. Borsoka (talk) 02:04, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I can assure you I've read them, which is why I'm inviting you to suggest what you think the article should say instead and what sources support your proposal(s). Nikkimaria (talk) 02:10, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for addressing some of my problems ([1]). I addressed some others ([2]). I think there is one pending issue in the lead. Borsoka (talk) 02:49, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the article: "Cultural and technological developments transformed European society, concluding the Late Middle Ages and beginning the early modern period." This sentence could be inserted in almost any context in European history without substantial changes. For instance "Cultural and technological developments transformed European society, concluding the Stone Age and beginning the Bronze Age.", "Cultural and technological developments transformed European society, concluding the Bronze Age and beginning the Iron Age." "Cultural and technological developments transformed European society, concluding the 1940s and beginning the 1950s." etc, etc. Could the sentence be more specific? Borsoka (talk) 15:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead states that "In the West, most kingdoms incorporated the few extant Roman institutions." I assume the author refers to the survival of the ecclesiastic structure (because there is no mention of other surviving Roman institutions in the article), but the statement suggests more. What were the other Roman institutions incorporated by the "barbarian" kingdoms? Perhaps legal tradition? Borsoka (talk) 00:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Nikkimaria: you deleted my tag raising the question what are the extant Roman institutions incorporated by the western kingdoms ([3]). Could you please list some of them based on the article? Borsoka (talk) 15:15, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The article elaborates on several points where western kingdoms developed on existing Roman institutions - for example in architecture and law. Nikkimaria (talk) 16:18, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

When writing of the fate of Roman buildings in most part of Europe, the article says: "civic monuments and other public buildings were raided for building materials". Sincerely, when I am reading of the incorporation of few extant Roman institutions, I would not think that they were destroyed to be reused. Perhaps this is a matter of language barrier. Yes, as my first remark show above, I assumed the article refers to legal tradition that survived for some decades. Nevertheless, if you say that our readers want to read about "few" and "extant" Roman "institutions" without examples in the lead, I accept your judgement. Borsoka (talk) 16:33, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

@Borsoka You point out as needing clarification the following "The empire's law code, the Corpus Juris Civilis or "Code of Justinian", was rediscovered in Northern Italy in the 11th century.^{[clarification needed]}"

I agree, the Corpus Juris Civilis needs to stand in its out right as the achievement. The subsequent 11th century rediscovery by Western Europe (and related, the translations into Greek with the Basilika) are not the achievement in themselves other than helping transmit the knowledge into the more modern day. Elias (talk) 00:38, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and the Corpus Juris Civilis could hardly be described as the empire's law code. It is a compilation of imperial decrees - as it is mentioned in the main text. Borsoka (talk) 00:40, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

That's not how I understand it: it pulled all decrees since Hadrian, built off the work of the Codex Theodosius, and also interpreted laws when they conflicted to create a new reference point. Elias (talk) 02:48, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, and in practice it was most probably never in use in the Greek East because it was so huge and it was written in Latin. Borsoka (talk) 02:58, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

No, again, my understanding is lawyers had to know Latin so they could use it. Though if you have a source to show how between when the Corpus Juris Civilis in 534 was published and the Greek translation with the Basilika in 892 AD it was never used, I'd love to see it.

"Much of the imperial legislation collected in the Theodosian and Justinianic Codes camouflages imperial decisions in a torrent of hostile rhetoric. The imperial rulings give ample evidence for the ideological and moral high ground claimed by the Roman state, but often tell us very little about how such legislation was applied to actual cases." "The great Justinianic codification of existing Roman law amounts to one of the largest bodies of Latin prose literature... ... However, by the second quarter of the sixth century Latin, the language of law and administration, was being overhauled in Constantinople by the use of Greek, which was spoken by most of the eastern empire's inhabitants... Justinian's own subsequent legislation, his novellae, were mostly issued in Greek." (Mitchell, Stephen (2017) [2007]. A History of the Later Roman Empire, AD 284–641. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Vol. 3. Wiley-Blackwell. pp. 38, 137. ISBN 978-1-118-31242-1.) Borsoka (talk)

The page on Novellae Constitutiones indicates that quite a lot of revisions were made implying ongoing work. I understand the language friction, but your reference does not indicate they were ignored if anything used as reference points for future works which happened to be in Greek. But back to the topic, I support changing the text to refer to the Corpus Juris Civilis which includes work done of the Code of Justinian but which also built on the work of the Codex Theodosianus, the Codex Gregorianus and Codex Hermogenianus, as the focus of the sentence not the rediscovery in Western Europe Elias (talk) 19:09, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the article, "Bulgaria, ... at its height reached from Budapest to the Black Sea and from the Dnieper River in modern Ukraine to the Adriatic Sea." The statement is problematic for two reasons. First of all, it contradicts the cited source, a map in Crampton's monography about Bulgaria's history. The map does not indicate that Bulgaria incorporated territories as far as the Adriatic Sea at the same time when its frontiers allegedly reached as far as the Dnieper and "Budapest". Secondly, the claim that Bulgaria whenever incorporated a large territory in the Carpathian Basin (including whole Transylvania and the plains to the east of the Middle Danube) is a PoV, not a fact. For instance, the Romanian historian Tudor Sălăgean when writing of this period states that "Most of the Transylvanian territory remained outside the domination of the Bulgarian Tsarate...the central and northern regions of the intra-Carpathian territory were subject to the influence of Greater Moravia." (Sălăgean, Tudor (2005). "Romanian Society in the Early Middle Ages (9th–14th Centuries AD)". In Pop, Ioan-Aurel; Bolovan, Ioan (eds.). History of Romania: Compendium. Romanian Cultural Institute (Center for Transylvanian Studies). p. 136. ISBN 978-973-7784-12-4.) The Hungarian historian Pál Engel writes that Bulgaria "reached its apogee under the reign of Krum (803-814), Boris (852-889) and his son, Tsar Simeon (893-927). ... Archeological evidence shows the the southern part of both Transylvania and the Hungarian Plain also belonged to the Bulgarian empire." (Engel, Pál (2001). The Realm of St Stephen: A History of Medieval Hungary, 895–1526. I.B. Tauris Publishers. p. 4). ISBN 1-86064-061-3.) Since Budapest is located in the central region of the intra-Carpathian territory both historians reject that Bulgaria whenever reached it. Borsoka (talk) 02:53, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

What do you believe the article should say instead? Nikkimaria (talk) 03:19, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I made an attempt ([4]). Please feel free to modify it. Borsoka (talk) 05:57, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

I may have been careless when reading, but I did not find any reference to Saints Cyril and Methodius, the Cyrillic script and Old Church Slavonic or their importance in the history of about 1/3 of European territory. Borsoka (talk) 02:10, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the article: "By the late 10th century Italy had been drawn into the Ottonian sphere after a period of instability; Otto III (r. 996–1002) spent much of his later reign in the kingdom." 1. Otto I was crowned by the Iron Crown of Lombardy in 951. 2. His coronation was preceeded and followed by a period of instability. Likewise, the reigns of his son, Otto II, and his grandson Otto III were preceeded and followed by periods of instability. Otto III spent less than 4 years in Italy. Why is this information is so important in the article's context? (In comparison, Henry IV spent more than 10 years in Italy.)Borsoka (talk) 14:59, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

We still do not know why do we have to know that Otto III spent some years in Italy. For instance, his short visit to Gniezno had more lasting effects: the establishment of a Polish archbishopric. Perhaps the main contributor to the article wanted to emphasize Otto's idea of the Renovatio imperii Romanorum. In this case, the present vague and imprecise sentence should be modified. Borsoka (talk) 02:40, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the article, "Southern Iberia remained under control of Islamic states, initially under the Caliphate of Córdoba, which broke up in 1031 into a shifting number of petty states known as taifas,[205] who fought with the Christians until the Almohad Caliphate re-established centralised rule over Southern Iberia in the 1170s." Actually, the cited source (Barber) says: "The last independent taifa ruler, in Zaragoza, fell to the Almoravides [in 1110]. ... [N]ew and formidable African forces were consolidating their hold over the remnants of the Almoravides in southern Spain. These were the Almohades..." (I use a different edition of Barber's book than the article, so I will not add the page numbers.) Borsoka (talk) 03:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I have reworded to remove the problem. The unsatisfactory result leaves out the Almoravids completely, but I'm not going to look up a source just to insert them at the moment when the only problem was the word "until". Srnec (talk) 04:38, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Srnec: thank you for your edit. Actually, there were two problems: time (1110 vs 1170s) and the main player (Almoravides vs Almohads). My concern is that the new text suggests that (1) the taifas survived until the Almoravids established a centralised rule in the 1170s, and 2. that the Christians conquered Sevilla from the Almoravids. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I modified the text ([5]). Please feel free to edit it. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

According to the article, "By 1291 all the crusader states had been captured or forced from the mainland, although a titular Kingdom of Jerusalem survived on the island of Cyprus for several years afterwards." 1. First of all the cited source (Lock) does not verify the statement about a titular Kingdom of Jerusalem. We could verify that the rulers of the Kingdom of Cyprus bore the title of "King of Jerusalem". However, this title does not mean that a "titular Kingdom" survived in the island. Especially, because the Angevin kings of Sicily/Naples bore the same title. The author may want to refer to the fact that the Kings of Cyprus regularly granted Jerusalemite titles - seneschal of Jerusalem, Prince of Galilee, etc. - to Cypriote aristocrats, but I think this is not highly relevant in the article's context. Furthermore it should also be verified. (Edbury's book about the Kingdom of Cyprus could be used to verify the latter claim [6]) 2. In most cases, the term "crusader states" include Antioch, Edessa, Tripoli and Jerusalem. However, the article also mentions the Latin Empire of Constantinople, a state established by crusaders of the Fourth Crusades. Taking into account this context, the first part of the sentence ("by 1291 all the crusader states had been captured") may be misleading, because Frankish Greece - states established by crusaders after the Fourth Crusade - survived until the mid-15th century. For instance, the Duchy of Athens survived until 1456 (Lock, Peter (2006). The Routledge Companion to the Crusades. Routledge Companions to History. Routledge. p. 133. ISBN 978-0-415-39312-6.)

I removed the clause that is not verified by the source. I think that "Crusader states" is clear in context: the term only appears in that paragraph in this article and our linked article treats only the four Levantine states as Crusader states. Srnec (talk) 05:08, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. I shortened the text ([7]). Borsoka (talk) 05:29, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead states that "Monasteries were founded as campaigns to Christianise pagan Europe continued." In fact, most monasteries were established after the Christianization of Europe. For instance, during the period of the Christianization of Hungary (c. 970 - c. 1095) less than 20 monasteries were founded - in comparison, during the following centuries hundreds of abbeys, convents, etc. were established. Borsoka (talk) 00:53, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

The lead statement certainly works for Europe north of the Alps. That "most monasteries were established after the Christianization of Europe" is no doubt also true, especially if you include convents, but does not contradict it. Johnbod (talk) 02:25, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

In Hungary more than 150 Benedictine and Cistercian monasteries were established after the Christianization. I edited the text in the lead to avoid ambiguity and to reflect verified material from the main text ([8]). Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't see your change as an improvement. I don't know about Hungary, but in most of Europe monasteries proliferated throughout the MA, but the earliest were the important ones. Johnbod (talk) 02:56, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

What about Cluny? What about Premontré? What about Citeaux? And what about their filials? They were established hundreds of years after the Christianization of Francia (and the rest of Western and Central Europe) and they were as much important as Monte Cassino, Fulda, etc. Borsoka (talk) 03:02, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Important to the Late Middle Ages. I'm still not seeing any problem with "Monasteries were founded as campaigns to Christianise pagan Europe continued." You may want to say something different, but there is nothing wrong with what was being said. Johnbod (talk) 03:35, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Yes, some monasteries (and most new bishoprics) were founded as campaigns to Christianise pagan Europe continued. However, a typical monastery was established years, decades, centuries after the process of Christianization was completed. Of course, we could mention in the lead of the article about homo sapiens that there are people with 6 fingers on each hand, but our readers expect more general information in the lead. I think the new version is less ambigious, furthermore it mentions the role of bishoprics - the basic institutions of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Borsoka (talk) 03:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

• The case for a change here has not been made. Johnbod (talk) 12:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Why? Borsoka (talk) 12:46, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

In the lead, "difficulties and calamities" characterize the Late Middle Ages. I think some other aspects of the period - Renaissance, Humanism, exploration - should also be mentioned. Otherwise, based on the lead one could hardly link this period with Early Modern Times. Borsoka (talk) 15:43, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Not sure about this one; the Early modern period essentially begins with the Renaissance, when humanism and exploration most fully flourished, all of which are after the Middle Ages. To your point on the focus on the negative, the line "The theology of Thomas Aquinas, the paintings of Giotto, the poetry of Dante and Chaucer" etc. includes "...into the Late Middle Ages" which perhaps offers balance positive and negative events of the period. Aza24 (talk) 07:05, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

You may be right, but the article's main text covers the period until around 1500, including exploration. Borsoka (talk) 07:12, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Just some achievements of the period of "difficulties and calamities": the Dome of Florence Cathedral, Donatello's David, The Birth of Venus by Boticelli, printing, Portuguese naval expeditions, etc. Borsoka (talk) 01:07, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

@Aza24:, you would be right if you count the Renaissance as a time in which man threw off the shackles of the medieval mindset (the classic Jakob Burkhardt view). But if the Middle Ages is a chronological period, then it is generally seen as ending by 1500 (with various earlier dates also proposed, e.g. Fall of Constantinople, invention of the printing press, Columbus, etc.). This definitely includes parts of the Renaissance.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:28, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

That doesn't really have to do with what I'm saying? Borsoka seemingly indicated that the Late Middle Ages coincided with Early Modern Times, but our article says it didn't. This gets into the impossible contradictions between the general historical "Middle Ages" and things like "medieval art", which don't coincide exactly. That is, the examples of Donatello and Boticelli would be highly misleading if included; who cares if they just so fit into our article's scope of the middle ages, no book would ever call them "medieval artists" instead of Renaissance artists. There may be a solution in moving the "The theology of... into the Late Middle Ages" sentence into the 3rd paragraph, as most of the figures mentioned fit closer to the late middle ages than high. This might also help Borsoka's point in an earlier thread of their being no examples for the "Cultural and technological developments transformed European society" section. Aza24 (talk) 06:35, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Just a side remark: no, I did not say that the Late Middle Ages coincided with the Early Modern Time. I only referred to the fact that the former was followed by the latter. Since there were no impregnable walls between the two periods, we should clarify the connection between them. For instance, the start of exploration is one of the important links between them. Likewise, Late Medieval Humanism and devotio moderna paved the way for Reformation. Borsoka (talk) 06:44, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Then I have no idea what "Otherwise, based on the lead one could hardly link this period with Early Modern Times" means, as one would not need to link them together them, if they're different things! Aza24 (talk) 07:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Sorry, for my barbarian English. I referred to the fact that Humanism, exploration, etc. link the two periods. Borsoka (talk) 08:02, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

No worries; what do you think about my suggestion of moving that line down and possibly expanding it to balance out that section? Aza24 (talk) 08:19, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

• The case for a change here has not been made. Johnbod (talk) 12:05, 30 December 2021 (UTC)
• Do you want to RfC? Borsoka (talk) 12:48, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? You would need to develop and clarify what you are trying to argue considerably. Johnbod (talk) 17:15, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Seriously? There are two other editors who understand it. First of all, this part of the lead does not neutrally summerize the most important points covered in the article, contradicting WP:LEAD. Furthermore: 1. The Late Middle Ages (the last phase of the period described in this article) was not only of a period of "difficulties and calamities", but also a period of achievements. 2. These achievements include Humanism, early Renaissance and the start of exploration. 3. Renaissance was an important characteristic of Early Modern Times, exploration continued in the same period and Humanism had a role in the development towards the Reformation. Borsoka (talk) 23:06, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Fine - give it a go then. Johnbod (talk) 04:02, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

The article dedicates a whole section to the rise of Islam in the Near East, mentions Otto III's staying in Italy without mentioning its relevance in the article's context, but makes no reference to the Khazars, although they were one of the dominant powers of Eastern Europe for centuries. They were the sole great power to adopt Judaism as state religion and their secure hold of the steppe corridor between Central Asia and Eastern Europe prevented the influx of nomadic peoples to Europe until the early 9th century. Borsoka (talk) 02:18, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Since nobody made comments on the above, I fixed the problem ([9]). Borsoka (talk) 06:58, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "In 972, [Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor] secured recognition of his title by the Byzantine Empire, which he sealed with the marriage of his son Otto II (r. 967–983) to Theophanu (d. 991), daughter of an earlier Byzantine Emperor Romanos II (r. 959–963)." The cited source (Davies) verifies both parts of the sentence (the recognition of Otto's imperial title and Theophanu's imperial parentage). However, more specialized literature makes it clear that Theophanu was not related to the Macedonian dynasty. She was a niece of the upstart emperor John I Tzimiskes. Jonathan Shepard, the editor of The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, writes that "Theophano was not in fact a porphyrogenita but "the most splendid niece" of Tzimiskes, as Otto II' dowry charter terms her. More than forty years later a chronicler could comment openly that she was non virginem desideratam" ("not the desired virgin") (Shepard, Jonathan (2017) [2008]. "Western approaches (900–1025)". In Shepard, Jonathan (ed.). The Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire, c. 500–1492. Cambridge University Press. p. 548. ISBN 978-0-521-83231-1.). Likewise, Warren Treadgold makes it clear that Theophano was Tzimiskes's niece, also mentioning that "some of Otto's courtiers grumbled that Theophano was not a relative of the legitimate Macedonian dynasty" (Treadgold, Warren (1997). A History of the Byzantine State and Society. Stanford University Press. p. 510. ISBN 978-0-804-72630-6.) Finally, in his monography about the dynastic history of the German rulers, Herbert Schutz states that "it was not a porphyrogenita, a princess born to the purple, who was sent, but a non-imperial niece of the successor emperor, Theophanu" Schutz, Herbert (2010). The Medieval Empire in Central Europe: Dynastic Continuity in the Post-Carolingian Frankish Realm, 900-1300. Cambridge Scholars Publishing. p. 64. ISBN 978-1-4438-1966-4.). The claim that Otto's imperial title was acknowledged by the Byzantines is not mentioned in any of the cited sources. Borsoka (talk) 02:12, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: you may want to read before reverting again. Borsoka (talk) 03:54, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

@Epinoia: you may want to read before reverting. Borsoka (talk) 04:22, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

And you might want to revise how to place links in tags (since you do so many) - and check afterwards whether your links actually work. Johnbod (talk) 12:13, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your advice. Yes, I should not have assumed that experienced editors knew that they could find relevant remarks on the Talk page (even it was explained by the tag itself). Yes, I have placed so many tags in this FA. Please let me know if any of them were baseless, I do not want to tear this FA apart. Borsoka (talk) 12:50, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

If you try to link to something, just make sure the link actually works. A link to a section on another page will not work. There was nothing to indicate you had opened a section on talk - let's face it, you usually do not do this when tagging, though you should. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

What is unclear—beyond Theophano's descent—is what motivates an editor to tag an article when they find an error—and it is an error even though it matches the source—when they have sources available to correct the error themselves? Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:37, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Despite claiming a multitude of FAs and GAs, when attacking articles not written by him, Borsoka likes to claim (as he does above here) that his English is not up to even suggesting a rewording. As we know from Crusades etc. Johnbod (talk) 17:49, 2 January 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps I want to improve the article? This is the most disgusting motivation in WP. Shame on me, shame on me. I often edit articles written by other editors. For instance, in contrast with the above statement, I am a major contributor to the Crusades article ([10]). I also expanded the section about military affairs in Crusader states ([11]). In a civilised society, my tags would be thanked because they indicate actual problems. In this strange circle of editors, I have been attacked from the start. This "FA" does not meet GA criteria because it contains unverified claims, marginal scholarly PoVs and its lead does not present the main text neutrally. Perhaps you also want to improve it instead of making ad personam remarks. Borsoka (talk) 03:25, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't think anyone doubts your content creation, which includes a vast array of high quality articles. While I understand the concerns of other editors, at the end of the day Borsoka is bringing up legitimate issues, the solving of which will certainly improve the article. This FA is now 8 years old, and would be due for a WP:URFA look over anyways. One can either react to this defensively (or simply leave, as in a thread above), or collaboratively. I choose the latter, perhaps it will result in something positive. The first part of the concern in this thread seems to be largely addressed by the article text now noting contradiction in sources. I am unsure on the second part (on the recognition); if the sources do not outright say that Otto's imperial title was not acknowledged, can we really assume that that means Davies is wrong? Aza24 (talk) 04:31, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your remarks. The first part is still problematic: she was not Romanos' daughter or niece, but Tzimiskes' niece according to all specialized sources. I am not sure that Otto's imperial title was acknowledge on this occasion. Do we have to mention it? Davies is not the best source for specific claims in European history. Borsoka (talk) 04:45, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

I deleted the whole sentence ([12]). Borsoka (talk) 07:00, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "The invasions brought new ethnic groups to Europe, although some regions received a larger influx of new peoples than others. In Gaul for instance, the invaders settled much more extensively in the north-east than in the south-west. Slavs settled in Central and Eastern Europe and the Balkan Peninsula." I have access only to the Hungarian translation of the cited source (Davies), but it does not say that new ethnic groups settled in Europe. Most Germanic tribes invading the Roman Empire came from Eastern and Central Europe, the Franks from Western Europe, the Alans and the Slavs from Eastern Europe. The Huns and the Avars indeed came from Asia, but they are mentioned in other context. Borsoka (talk) 00:22, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed by Srnec ([13]). Borsoka (talk) 07:02, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "Justinian's reconquests have been criticised by historians for overextending his realm and setting the stage for the early Muslim conquests, but many of the difficulties faced by Justinian's successors were due not just to over-taxation to pay for his wars but to the essentially civilian nature of the empire, which made raising troops difficult." First of all, the cited source (Brown) does not make connection between Justinian's reconquests and early Muslim conquests. Secondly, Brown writes of Justinian's "extravagance" that includes Justinian's "lavish building program" as well. Thirdly, Brown proposes that the "plague and long-term economic factors" caused the Byzantine Empire's decline during the reign of Justinian's successors. Borsoka (talk) 04:42, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Perhaps the causes of the transformation of Justinian's conquering war machine into an empire of "essentially civilian nature" should also be explained. Borsoka (talk) 05:17, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody commented on the abover remarks I fixed the problem, and deleted the obscure reference to the "essentially civilian nature" of the Byzantine Empire ([14]). Borsoka (talk) 07:05, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

The map presents "Ahtum lordship" along the northwestern frontiers of Bulgaria although Ahtum - if ever existed - lived in the early 11th century. Norman Davies's map, the alleged source of this map, does not present this lordship. Neither are the two Burgundian kingdoms and Lotharingia presented in the alleged source of this map. Borsoka (talk) 00:37, 28 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed by Nikkimaria ([15]). Borsoka (talk) 07:08, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article's lead: "The Crusades, first preached in 1095, were military attempts by Western European Christians to regain control of the Holy Land from Muslims." It is a correct statement, but @Nikkimaria: are you sure that these military actions are more important than the crusades against the Moors, the Baltic and Finno-Ugric tribes? The latter contributed to the development of at least 7 EU member states and directly effected the history of further European nations. Borsoka (talk) 14:48, 27 December 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody opposed the suggested change, I fixed it myself ([16]). Borsoka (talk) 07:10, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "The Franks, Alemanni, and the Burgundians all ended up in northern Gaul..." Actually, the Alemanni settled to the west of the upper Rheine, the Burgunians along the Rhone. None of the two territories could be described as located in northern Gaul. Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 7 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed by Srnec ([17]). Borsoka (talk) 07:12, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "Under the Angevin dynasty of Henry II (r. 1154–89) and his son Richard I (r. 1189–99), the kings of England ruled over England and large areas of France, brought to the family by Henry II's marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine (d. 1204), heiress to much of southern France. Richard's younger brother John (r. 1199–1216) lost Normandy and the rest of the northern French possessions in 1204 to the French King Philip II Augustus (r. 1180–1223)." I have not access to the cited sources (Backman, Loyn), but it is a well-known fact that Normandy, Anjou, Maine (and Bretagne) were not "brought to the family by Henry II's marriage to Eleanor". The two sentences are especially confusing, because Philip II Augustus seized these three (or four) realms from the Angevins. Borsoka (talk) 15:42, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The Angevin kings of England lead puts it better: The Angevins (/ˈændʒɪvɪnz/; "from Anjou") were a royal house of French origin that ruled England in the 12th and early 13th centuries; its monarchs were Henry II, Richard I and John. In the 10 years from 1144, two successive counts of Anjou in France, Geoffrey and his son, the future Henry II, won control of a vast assemblage of lands in western Europe that would last for 80 years and would retrospectively be referred to as the Angevin Empire. As a political entity this was structurally different from the preceding Norman and subsequent Plantagenet realms. Geoffrey became Duke of Normandy in 1144 and died in 1151. In 1152 his heir, Henry, added Aquitaine by virtue of his marriage to Eleanor of Aquitaine. Henry also inherited the claim of his mother, Empress Matilda, the daughter of King Henry I, to the English throne, to which he succeeded in 1154 following the death of King Stephen. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 16:54, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed (dubious statement deleted) by myself ([18]). Borsoka (talk) 07:13, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

In several cases, the article ignores chronology unnecessarily. For instance, in section "Byzantine survival" the Avar Khaganate is destroyed in 796, and in a next chapter ("Rise of Islam") we are informed about the early Muslim conquests between 632 and 750. Similarly, the Magyars/Hungarians are converted to Christianity and establish Hungary in the Carpathian Basin in section "New kingdoms and Byzantine revival", but their conquest of their future homeland is briefly mentioned in a following chapter ("Rise of state power"). I agree that we do not need to follow chronology, but in specific cases the ignorance of chronology is quite disturbing. Borsoka (talk) 07:28, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: perhaps you want to read before reverting and reverting.... Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "In the 560s the Avars began to expand from their base on the north bank of the Danube". One of the cited sources (James) indeed makes reference to the Avars' staying in the lands to the north of the Danube, but the same source makes it clear that the Avars came from Central Asia and they were staying in the lands north of the Danube only for a short period. I think the sentence is misleading. Borsoka (talk) 18:04, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Or in the case of the elite, from East Asia, as suggested by dna studies of elite cemeteries. What would "a short period" be? There was much earlier Greek mention of Avars, but these were perhaps the same lot. "Base" does not suggest a very permanent homeland, so I don't see how the sentence is misleading. What would you suggest? Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

Those who began to expand in the 560s came from Central Asia (at least according to the cited sources). The Avars were first mentioned by Agathias and Menander the Guardsman [Curta (2006), p. 61] around the time they first appeared in Europe in the 550s. You are right, if we do not want to mention that the Avars came from Central Asia, the sentence is perfect. Could we say that the crusaders began to expand towards the Holy Land from their base in northern Syria without mentioning their places of origin in Europe? Borsoka (talk) 01:55, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed by myself ([19]). Borsoka (talk) 07:14, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Since the language (alliance bit) is at best unidiomatic, or downright ungrammatical, it is MUCH better if you PROPOSE CHANGES HERE FIRST! I don't understand why you object to doing this. Johnbod (talk) 05:21, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

You should decide what you want. Above you and your pal suggested that I did not want to edict this article for some unethical reasons ([20]). Now you are shouting at me for editing the article. Sorry, I prefer to work with members of the guild of copyeditors. Borsoka (talk) 05:29, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Who's my "pal"? You don't seem to like working with anyone, but the guild of copyeditors are a notoriously variable bunch. Johnbod (talk) 17:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

They are able to cooperate with editors who are not native English speakers. You are wrong. I enjoy working with lots of editors. You can find many examples on this Talk page. I think this Talk page is not the best platform to analyze my psychological features. Borsoka (talk) 17:34, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: based on your latest revert, I understand that you can refer to reliable sources verifying that papal supremacy, the offices of cardinal, canon, dean existed already in the Roman Empire. Could you name them? Borsoka (talk) 06:39, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "Normans also settled in Sicily and southern Italy, when Robert Guiscard (d. 1085) landed there in 1059 and established a duchy that later became the Kingdom of Sicily." Although I have access only to the Hungarian version of the cited source (Davies), it makes clear that the first Normans settled in southern Italy in 1017, and does not say that Robert Guiscard landed in Italy (or Sicily?) in 1059. Borsoka (talk) 14:29, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: your latest revert indicates that you can refer to reliable sources verifying the above quote from the article. Could you name them? Borsoka (talk) 06:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed by Richard Nevell ([21]). Borsoka (talk) 18:37, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Not fixed very well, imo. Will probably need returning to. At most one word of the original needed changing. Johnbod (talk) 18:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it could be improved. More than one word should be changed in the original text. Borsoka (talk) 19:17, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

While Johnbod's tact may be slightly lacking, he is right that my edit needs further work. It's sticking plaster, not a finished work. The original text matched what Davies said, so I removed the verification failed tag and added another source which has more information. Essentially, 1059 seems to have been picked because of the official recognition from the pope, but the Norman presence in the previous decades may also be worth including. Richard Nevell (talk) 20:08, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

First of all thank you for you edit. Actually, the original text contradicted Davies' text because 1. Davies writes that the Normans arrived in 1017 (not in 1059), and 2. he does not write that Guiscard landed in Italy in 1059. Borsoka (talk) 21:14, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I made a new attempt ([22]). Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "Religious beliefs in the Eastern Roman Empire and Iran were in flux during the late sixth and early seventh centuries. Judaism was an active proselytising faith, and at least one Arab political leader converted to it. Christianity had active missions competing with the Persians' Zoroastrianism in seeking converts, especially among residents of the Arabian Peninsula. All these strands came together with the emergence of Islam in Arabia during the lifetime of Muhammad (d. 632). First of all, the cited source (Collins) does not write that religious beliefs "were in flux" in the Eastern Roman Empire and Iran (Persia). He mentions that in both empires "religious affiliation was linked to political allegiance". He also writes of a "religious fervent" in the period, but strictly in connection with conversions to Judaism, and Zoroastrian and Christian missionary activities outside of both empires. (Actually, after the 451 Council of Chalcedon religious beliefs were not in flux in the Eastern Roman Empire until the Muslim conquest: most Syrians, Egyptians and Armenians insisted on their "heretical" Myaphisite beliefs, while the rest of the empire remained Orthodox.) Secondly, Collins mentions Jewish, Zoroastrian and Christian proselytism as the "background to ... the emergence of Islam", without suggesting that Jewish, Zoroastrian and Christian activities "came together with the emergence of Islam". Borsoka (talk) 02:30, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed by myself ([23], [24]). Borsoka (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The article mentions the Christianization of Moravia, but there is no mention of the fate of this country. I think a sentence about the importance of this country and its fall should be inserted. Borsoka (talk) 02:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? We can't cover everywhere in detail. What would it say? Johnbod (talk) 03:51, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Moravia was the first country where Slavonic literature flourished. Furthermore, if Christianization of Moravia is mentioned, its collapse should also be mentioned. Borsoka (talk) 03:57, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Even the History of Moravia barely covers this, under a misleading header. The peak "Greater Moravia" period only lasted about a decade, and indeed it seems very unclear what its territory was, and the degree of Moravian control over it. As so often, the more detailed articles should be sorted out first. Johnbod (talk) 04:13, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

"Great Moravia" existed for at least half a century. When discussing an article that dedicates a whole section to events in the Near East and a whole sentence to Otto III's staying in Italy, are you sure we cannot mention the flourishing literature and the fall of the first Slavic empire? Borsoka (talk) 04:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Pretty much. Johnbod (talk) 17:31, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Why? Borsoka (talk) 17:35, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

"Great Moravia", if it ever existed, was a short-lived state entity in Central Europe, whose territorial extent is even highly disputed and it is not certain that we can speak of a single proto-state called "Moravia". In such a comprehensive article, it is enough to mention Moravia briefly. --Norden1990 (talk) 19:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, in a short sentence, without mentioning the controversial issues. Now, it is mentioned as an existing state, without any reference to its fall and its role in the development of Slavic literature. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The development of the Slavic literature is connected to the activity of Cyril and Methodius, which influenced other short-lived hypothetical Slavic "states" too, like the Principality of Lower Pannonia and the Principality of Nitra. Even Hungary, a more prominent and tangible country has altogether only 6 mentions in this article. Even in the most optimal case, Greater Moravia had existed for five decades. But it is very likely that it is a state formation that never existed and was artificially constructed a millennium later.--Norden1990 (talk) 08:56, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

What is clear that a state called Moravia existed somewhere in Central Europe, but it quickly disintegrated. For the time being the article only refers to its establishment. Borsoka (talk) 09:08, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Even the date and circumstance of its disintegration are unknown. Contradictory positions coexist in Slovak historiography. What was the cause? 1st standpoint: Hungarians defeated the Moravians: emphasis on a "thousand years of slavery". 2nd standpoint: Slovaks (=Moravians) invited Hungarians to settle and adopt Christianity, and the Slavs became catalysts of the Christian statehood of the Hungarians. At the same time they are prisoners and initiators of the Hungarian kingdom., which reflects a state of splitting of consciousness in Slovak historiography. The date of disintegration is also in question. 894? 907? 1108? (Slovak historians claim the institution of ducatus was in fact the survival of Slavic statehood as "Duchy of Nitra"). I don’t think such uncertain theories could be displayed in an article as comprehensive as the current one. Instead of Moravia, we should emphasize the activity of Cyril and Methodius and their contribution to the Glagolitic then Cyrillic script. --Norden1990 (talk) 23:17, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

The sources cited in the article are clear: Moravia disintegrated after the Magyar invasion. The article is not comprehensive in this respect (either): for the time being Moravia does not cease to exist. Borsoka (talk) 01:35, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

I added this sentence, but if you could provide a source for it, I would be very grateful. --Norden1990 (talk) 09:50, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you. Because of the incoherent chronology of several parts of the article, the Hungarian conquest will surely be removed from this section (an earlier section mentions the establishment of the Hungarian kingdom - a quite unusual approach). Borsoka (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "[Frederick II, Holy Roman Emperor] and his successors faced many difficulties, including the invasion of the Mongols into Europe in the mid-13th century. Mongols first shattered the Kievan Rus' principalities and then invaded Eastern Europe in 1241, 1259, and 1287." I have access only to the Hungarian translation of Davies's cited book, but it does not make a connection between Frederick and the Mongols. Indeed, Frederick II promised assistance to Béla IV of Hungary in return for an oath of allegience, but he never fight the Mongols. This whole sentence should be rewritten to reflect the actual historical events. The lasting effects of the Mongol invasions on Eastern Europe should also be mentioned briefly. Borsoka (talk) 05:53, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

I can't fix the lacuna, but I have fixed the sentence in question (which, indeed, was not verified by the former source). It is a relatively minor point, compared to the Mongol impact further east, but it is a necessary segue for now. Srnec (talk) 16:17, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Thank you. My concern is that the Mongol invasion had only a minor impact on the Holy Roman Empire: it was a real, but never realized threat. I think we do not need to make connection between the Mongol invasion and the empire in this article. Borsoka (talk) 23:09, 30 December 2021 (UTC)

Fixed by myself ([25], [26]). Borsoka (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "The breakup of the Abbasid dynasty meant that the Islamic world fragmented into smaller political states, some of which began expanding into Italy and Sicily, as well as over the Pyrenees into the southern parts of the Frankish kingdoms." I do not have full access to the cited source (Bauer), but I assume that pages 147-149 do not verify the statement because they deal with events that occurred in the 5th century. Furthermore, I do not remember that the small Muslim realms expanded "over the Pyrenees into the southern parts of the Frankish kingdoms". Perhaps the main contributor to the article wanted to refer to the conquest of some Provencal forts by Arab and Berber corsairs? Borsoka (talk) 07:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

I expect they meant the Umayyad invasion of Gaul. Johnbod (talk) 04:37, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

No. Please read the quote before commenting. Borsoka (talk) 05:13, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I fixed the sentence ([27]). Borsoka (talk) 05:36, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: based on your revert, I understand you do not know that Palaeologi is the plural for Palaeologos. Would you say in English that "Tudors kings" and "Habsburgs emperors"? Borsoka (talk) 06:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You keep saying your English is imperfect; well so it is. Johnbod (talk) 16:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is. Thank you for your English lesson. Borsoka (talk) 18:34, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

If you think that response doesn't come over as highly sarcastic, your command of tone is also very defective. Johnbod (talk) 18:58, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Sorry for it. If you want to give me some more English lessons, please use my Talk page. I will be really grateful. Perhaps, you want to use these pages to improve the article. As far as I know you were one of the nominators, so you are responsible for its quality. It did not and does not meet basic GA criteria. Borsoka (talk) 19:16, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

A completely ludicrous claim! Johnbod (talk) 15:42, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

No, it is a fact: 1b. The article's lead did not and does not summarize the most important points. 2c. The article contained and still contains original research. 3a. It did not and does not address the main aspects of the topic. 3b. It went and goes into unnecessary details. For further details I refer to my comments above and below. Although many problems were fixed by other editors or by myself, there are still pending issues. Furthermore, even after a quick research one can easily find new and new examples of original research. I think a close cooperation of many editors is needed to fix all these problems and secure the featured status of this article. Sorry, I do not want to discuss the obvious with you. I prefer working. Borsoka (talk) 16:26, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

The article fails to mention the development of Orthodox monasticism and the importance of Mount Athos for Eastern Orthodox communities, although it dedicates several sentences to Western monasteries, monks. Borsoka (talk) 05:16, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: perhaps you want to discuss the issue here instead of reverting. By the way, could you refer to a reliable source stating that Benedict of Nursia wrote his Rule "for western monasticism" as it is stated in your preferred version? Borsoka (talk) 06:30, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

Expanded ([28], [29]) Borsoka (talk) 05:26, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The article claims that " Christian Spain, initially driven into a small section of the peninsula in the north, expanded slowly south during the 9th and 10th centuries, establishing the kingdoms of Asturias and León." I have no access to the cited source, but it is a well known fact that Asturias emerged soon after the Muslim conquest of Spain in the 8th century. From among the works cited in the article Collins (pages 378-79) and Reilly (pages 74-75) confirm my statement. Borsoka (talk) 01:40, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed ([30]). Borsoka (talk) 08:36, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The article says, "The Islamic conquests reached their peak in the mid-8th century." The cited source (Brown) indeed states that after 732 the "Frankish reoccupation of southern France formed a potent barrier to further Arab expansion by land." However, the same pages refer to further Muslim conquests (for instance, the conquest of Sicily and Crete). Furthermore, even in the article's context we are informed of the Ottoman conquest of Anatolia and the Balkan Peninsula. Borsoka (talk) 02:13, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I don't see a contradiction here. The Ottomans were not Arabs, and had nothing to do with "Arab expansion". Dimadick (talk) 02:51, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read the quote: it writes of "Islamic conquest". If we changed this term to "Arabic conquest", the sentece would still contradict the cited source which writes further Arabic conquests in the Mediterranean (for instance, the conquest of Sicily, Creta in the 9th and 10th centuries). The sentence should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 02:57, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed ([31]). Borsoka (talk) 08:37, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

While the article mentions the Battle of Poitiers (Charles Martell's victory over the Umayyad invaders), it fails to refer to the unsuccessful sieges of Constantinople by the Arabs, although with the fall of Constantinople no power could have stopped Arab conquests in the Balkans. Borsoka (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Added ([32]). Borsoka (talk) 08:39, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

In the section on the later Roman Empire we use the attached map. I can't speak to the accuracy of the other boundaries, but the purported Hunnic terrible is without any foundation in academic sources and is similar to other maps I've seen that are usually touted by Pan-Turkic nationalists around Wikipedia showing the Huns ruling most of Europe. This one somehow shows the Huns ruling territory east of the Caspian Sea without bothering to give the non-seafaring Huns a land route to that land. For the other peoples shown as somehow independent of the Huns (Slavs, Franks, Angles, Frisians) we have no evidence that they somehow existed without any Hunnic control either. The map has no sources. This should be replaced. Compare the map used at Huns.--Ermenrich (talk) 15:52, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Agree that the map is questionable. Actually, it has two sources but I have no access to them. Borsoka (talk) 01:43, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

So it does - my mistake. I'm still sure it's a rather creative interpretation of the sources though.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:48, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The map clearly contradicts maps published in reliable sources. For instance, a map depicting the Hunnic Empire during Attila's reign in one of Peter Heather's works shows a significantly smaller territory under Hunnic rule (Heather, Peter (2010). Empires and Barbarians: The Fall of Rome and the Birth of Europe. Oxford University Press. p. 631. ISBN 978-0-19-973560-0.). In Stephen Mitchell's monography about the Later Roman Empire, a map showing the barbarian settlements in the Western Roman Empire around 450 depicts more barbarian territories and places the Visigoths in Spain (Mitchell, Stephen (2017) [2007]. A History of the Later Roman Empire, AD 284–641. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Vol. 3. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 119. ISBN 978-1-118-31242-1.). Borsoka (talk) 15:59, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Deleted by Ermenrich ([33]). Borsoka (talk) 16:40, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The article writes that "Missionary efforts by both Eastern and Western clergy resulted in the conversion of ... the Slavic inhabitants of the Kievan Rus'". I have only access to the Hungarian translation of the cited book (Davies), but it does not write that only the Slavic inhabitants of Rus' converted to Christianity. He indeed writes of the introduction of Old Church Slavonic as liturgical language in the Rus' which implies that most inhabitants of Rus' spoke Slavic, but this does not verify the sentence. Borsoka (talk) 02:23, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The article states that " These conversions [to Christianity in the 9th and 10th centuries] contributed to the founding of political states in the lands of those peoples—the states of Moravia, Bulgaria, Bohemia, Poland, Hungary, and the Kievan Rus'." I have only access to the Hungarian translation of the cited book (Davies), but it does not verify this statement. Furthermore, in the case of Bulgaria and Kievan Rus' the statement clearly contradicts well-known facts. Bulgaria came into being around 680 and it developed into a powerful empire under the reign of pagan rulers. Kievan Rus' also existed decades before Vladimir's conversion. Borsoka (talk) 02:31, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

When describing commerce in the Early Middle Ages the article writes that "In the northern parts of Europe, not only were the trade networks local, but the goods carried were simple, with little pottery or other complex products. Around the Mediterranean, pottery remained prevalent and appears to have been traded over medium-range networks, not just produced locally." I do not have access to the cited source (Wickham), but this statement clearly contradicts other sources cited in the article. For instance, Collins writes about commercial contacts between the Baltic region and Western Europe in the 7th and 8th centuries and refers to luxury goods like fur, walrus ivory, and amber (Collins (1999), p. 347). Without learning of this background, one can hardly understand the beginnings of Viking raids and the development of the Scandinavian kingdoms. Borsoka (talk) 06:02, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

It's not goods like "fur, walrus ivory, and amber" it's just those, all as raw materials, the latter two from relatively limited areas. That's for the exports. If "the northern parts of Europe" is taken to include England, there were imports of various sorts of manufactured goods, if not on a huge scale. Johnbod (talk) 17:47, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

If my understanding is correct, you agree that the article does not present the situation in accordance with the cited sources. Collins emphasizes the significance of these raw materials. Borsoka (talk) 18:24, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

But Collins is not cited here, & Wickham, which neither of us have seen, is a better source in general. What the article says is no doubt generally true, and important to say. To cover the situation fully, as with many of the nit-picks you find, is not possible within an article on such a large size. That "one can hardly understand the beginnings of Viking raids and the development of the Scandinavian kingdoms" without reference to the ivory etc. trade is not obvious and presumably OR. Why don't you suggest a better wording? Johnbod (talk) 18:35, 24 January 2022 (UTC)

I agree that some sources cited in the article does not meet our community's standards, but Collins' book is an excellent source. Collins makes a clear connection between trade and state formation. Sorry, I supposed you read the books cited in the article because you were one of its nominators. Now I understand why you were reverting my edits: you nominated an article without reading its sources. Borsoka (talk) 07:43, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

My own contribution, as I think the nom said, was mostly restricted to the art sections. I have read some of the cited sources, but also many others (often better) on the wider subject, which is why I am so dubious about many of your nit-picks. I repeat: why don't you suggest a better wording? And you could suggest other sources while you are at it. Johnbod (talk) 18:38, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

I have been suggesting new wording for weeks. Please do not refrain from challenging my "nit-picks" but do not restore unverified claims. Perhaps you also want to rewrite problematic sentences in the parts you wrote. Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No, you have never suggested anything. You just insert new stuff, sometimes on a completely different topic, without suggesting anything here. In one case, pointed about above, after waiting a whole minute after raising an issue here, without suggesting anything. Be serious, I'm not going to edit the article at all with you auto-reverting everything I do. I'll wait for the inevitable grand revert. Johnbod (talk) 03:55, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read my remarks above and compare them with article history. I have always raised a problem and waited for days before editing the article. Indeed, as soon as a new problem was detected (and mentioned in the Talk page), I placed a tag in the text. This is the normal way of editing. If you read article history you will realise that I reverted your reverts because your reverts restored unverified claims and you always failed to read my remarks on this Talk page before reverting. You may be dreaming of an "inevitable grand revert" but restoration of original research can hardly be regarded as a constructive approach. If you cannot improve the article, you may want to stop commenting. Your comments have so far added no value. Borsoka (talk) 04:38, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

The first part of that is blatently untrue - see higher up. You seem unable to imagine that anyone might a) read your comments and also b) not agree with them. All disagreement with you is a result of not reading your comments! At the moment, while not objecting to all your comments, I am concentrating on resisting the large number of your edits that, in my opinion, damage the article. When other people are allowed to edit the article without being instantly reverted by you, there will certainly be many reverts. Johnbod (talk) 04:50, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

No, all parts of my above statements are true, but I will not discuss this issue with you. I have so far reverted your reverts restoring unverified claims. You cannot refer to a single case when your or other editor's edit was reverted by myself. In the future, you may want to use the talk page before reverting because now one can assume that either you failed to read talk page comments before reverting, or your knowledge of the subject is extremly limited ([34], [35], [36], [37]). Borsoka (talk) 05:10, 26 January 2022 (UTC)

When referring to 476, the article states that "This is the year the last Western Roman Emperors were driven from Italy." I have no access to the cited source (Wickham), but according to other source the last Roman Emperor, Romulus Augustulus settled in the Italian Campania after his deposition in 476. His predecessor, who continued to regard himself as emperor, Julius Nepos indeed left Italy, but not in 476 but in 475. (Elton, Hugh (2018). The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. p. 218. ISBN 978-1-108-45631-9.) Borsoka (talk) 16:18, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed ([38]). Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

The article says that "This settlement [in Normandy] eventually expanded and sent out conquering expeditions to England, Sicily, and southern Italy." I have only access to the Hungarian translation of the cited source (Davies), but it only mentions William the Conqueror's conquest of England. Otherwise Davies writes that Robert Guiscard sailed to southern Italy, adding that Normann rule in Sicily lasted for a longer period than in Normandy. As we know that Robert Guiscard arrived in southern Italy alone in 1046, we can hardly describe his voyage as a "conquering expedition". For instance, John Julius Norwich writes that Robert "travelled alone ... he was unable to afford a suite and could put his trust only in the generosity of his half-brothers" (Norwich, John Julius (1992). The Normans in Sicily: The magnificent story of 'the other Norman conquest'. Penguin Books. p. 1046. ISBN 978-0-14-015212-8.). Borsoka (talk) 02:46, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

The footnote pretty much matches the source and although clumsily worded is factually correct. Robert wasn't the only or first Norman in Italy, or indeed even the first or only Hautville. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 22:39, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Based on a reference to Robert Guiscard's voyage to southern Italy in Davies' book one cannot write of a conquering expedition, because Robert travelled alone. 2. Could you refer to books writing about Norman conquering expeditions to southern Italy? 3. The footnote is not only unverified, but also superfluous. The Normans' rule in southern Italy, England and Sicily is mentioned in the main text of the article. Borsoka (talk) 02:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

The footnote neither refers to Robert d'Hauteville or any voyage (sic) he may have made. Normans travelled to southern Italy (and Sicily) over time, and when they were there conquered territory. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 08:43, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

1. Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying your text about Norman "conquring expeditions" to southern Italy? 2. Could you quote text from any other reliable sourced verifying your text about Norman "conquering expeditions" to southern Italy? Borsoka (talk) 09:08, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Upon arrival in Italy around the early eleventh century, the northern knights – coming from a broad swathe of transalpine Europe, not just Normandy, as shown by Léon-Robert Ménager – successfully gained an autonomous political space through their political reconstruction of southern Italy at the expense of the Byzantine and German empires. The Normans’ ascension culminated with the royal coronation of Roger of Hauteville as King Roger II in Palermo on Christmas Day 1130. Luigi Russo in Rethinking Norman Italy Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:52, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

1. As you did not quote text from Davies' book verifying the footnote, I do not understand why did you revert my tag that stated that the footnote is unverified by Davies. 2. The above quote does not refer to Norman "conquering expeditions". 3. Why do you think that the footnote that contains information that is repeated in the main text should not be deleted as I suggested above? Borsoka (talk) 16:16, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Davies writes about the Normans arriving in Italy and also them conquering, presumably in an expedition. It is incontrovertable that this is historical fact, there is no rational reason that has been given to delete a long standing footnote. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:04, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

No, Davies writes about Robert Guiscard's arrival to Italy. Why do you think that this piece of information should be mentioned twice: once in a footnote and once in the main text? This is not the principal problem with the article, but we should try to improve it whenever it is possible. Borsoka (talk) 17:10, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Davies writes of Normans reaching Italy in 1017, the Hauteville expansion and the Norman conquest between pages 336 and 339 as the citation indicates. It is relevant here, because it indicates the importance of a Francophone viking settlement that otherwise might not be clear. Norfolkbigfish (talk) 17:15, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, the first Normans arrived as mercenaries, not as conquerors in southern Italy. Are you sure that our readers do not understand that the Normans who would conquer England and southern Italy with Sicily in a following chapter are indeed Normans? Nevertheless, the new text is better even if it contains unnecessary duplication. Borsoka (talk) 17:21, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "Another change was the Christianisation, or conversion of the empire to Christianity, a gradual process that lasted from the 2nd to the 5th centuries." Actually, the cited author (Brown) does not mention the 2nd century. He writes of St Paul (who lived in the 1st century) and about the importance of the late 3rd century in the process. The cited pages neither verify the claim that the empire's Christianization lasted till the 5th century. On the other hand, Brown emphasizes the Romanization of Christianity as a decisive factor in its success. Borsoka (talk) 15:22, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

That does not mean the claim is "OR", as your edit summary claims - it clearly isn't, and in fact understates the period involved, especially in the West, where it was almost certainly incomplete by the time "the empire" ceased to exist, and had indeed suffered a considerable rolling-back. Johnbod (talk) 15:55, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

Please read my remarks again: the cited source does not say or imply that the Christianization of the Roman Empire started in the 2nd century and ended in the 5th century, as it is claimed by the article. Borsoka (talk) 16:20, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed ([39]). Borsoka (talk) 04:21, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The article writes that "Slavery declined as the supply weakened, and society became more rural" in the Early Middle Ages. I have only access to a different edition of the cited source (Bakman), but it does not contain similar sentences. It writes that slavery was the "common fate of defeated soldiers between the third and sixth centuries, but in the seventh and eight centuries, a number of changes in servile status took root in the north". Borsoka (talk) 04:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If you don't have access to the version cited, you can't definitively say it's failed verification - content does change between editions. Someone would need to get hold of the edition cited. Nikkimaria (talk) 13:10, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I found the pages the article's author obviously refers to. Furthermore, my quote from the book clearly contradicts the statement from the article. Borsoka (talk) 13:16, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

In which edition? Nikkimaria (talk) 13:17, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Fourth edition. Borsoka (talk) 13:19, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Backman's prefaces to his book do not indicate that he changed it in this respect. In this article, this is not the first and unfortunatelly not the last example of unverified claims. Borsoka (talk) 13:24, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems to me the source exactly supports the sentence - the very next sentence in the article begins "Between the 5th and 8th centuries,....". Why do you think there is a contradiction, as to decline? There isn't. One might query increased rurality as a reason. Johnbod (talk) 15:33, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

Could you quote the text from Backman's book suggesting that slavery declined "as the supply weakened, and society became more rural"? Borsoka (talk) 15:44, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

I can't see him, but the ref is to 6 pages, from which you have cherry-picked a few words, in your usual style. Johnbod (talk) 17:42, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

If you cannot see him, you cannot state that I have "cherry-picked a few words". As a I read the six pages I can assure you that the sentence does not represent Backman's text. By the way, could you refer to cases when I cherry-picked a few words in my "usual style"? Borsoka (talk) 02:06, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed ([40]). Borsoka (talk) 04:23, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

The article states that "Warfare was common between and within the kingdoms" in the Early Middle Ages. I have only access to a different edition of the cited source (Backman), but in the relevant pages it writes exclusively of the Frankish Empire. Furthermore, the sentence is absolutely uniformative: wars and civil wars had been common in the Late Roman Empire, and they would be common in the High Little Ages, the Late Middle Ages and Early Modern Times as well. I think it should be deleted. Borsoka (talk) 04:57, 29 January 2022 (UTC)

• Deleted ([41]). Borsoka (talk) 04:24, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "Few large stone buildings were constructed between the Constantinian basilicas of the 4th century and the 8th century, although many smaller ones were built during the 6th and 7th centuries." In fact, the cited source (Stalley) writes: "Between the fourth and the sixth centuries most of the great cities of the Roman Empire were furnished with churches of basilican design, those in Rome and Ravenna being among the best known. The beauty of these early churches is derived from their interior space and decoration, and this is very much the case at Santa Sabina. Immediately noticable are the 24 marble columns, 12 on each side....An inscription in mosaic indicates that Santa Sabina was founded ... sometime between 422 and 432. ... Throughout the fourth and fifth centuries Christian basilicas were erected in many parts of the Roman Empire, both in the Byzantine east and in the Latin west. ... In about 470 a huge church with 120 columns and 52 windows ... was built at Tours... Following the conversion of the Franks to Christianity a five-aisled basilica was erected in Paris under the auspices of King Childebert (511-18). ... [Ravenna] experienced three different regimes in just over a century and impressive basilicas survive from each period...". In Ravenna, he lists Sant'Apollinare Nuovo (c. 490), Sant'Appolinare in Classe (549). Furthermore, Stalley does not write of buildings in general on the cited pages, but exclusively of basilicas and churches. Borsoka (talk) 19:05, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

You seem to be confusing "few" and "no". I notice you have allowed precisely one minute for "discussion" of this issue between posting this section and editing the article. Santa Sabina can certainly be called "large", and the Ravenna basilicas are certainly impressive, but the 6th-century Basilica of San Vitale is perhaps not that large and only a "basilica" in ecclesistical terms, not in architectural ones. None, except possibly the vanished one at Tours, are as large as the Constantinian basilicas, although a couple of Eastern ones (the Church of Saint Simeon Stylites in Syria, and the Church of Mary in Ephesus) perhaps come close. Santa Maria Maggiore in Rome is (and was then) certainly very large, & just falls into the period, being largely complete by 432. To say "most of the great cities of the Roman Empire were furnished with churches of basilican design" is not to say that these were buildings on this scale - very few or none were. Are you suggesting there were other sorts of "large stone buildings" in the period? If so, what and where? Justinian had to rebuild the Great Palace of Constantinople after destruction in the chariot-racing riots, and the Palace of Blachernae and the Boukoleon Palace seem to have been begun in the period, as secondary residences, about which we know little. think the sentence could perhaps do with a "very" before "large", but is otherwise ok. Johnbod (talk) 20:55, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What is clear, 1. the cited source writes of massive building projects in sharp contrast with the article 2. the allegedly cited pages cover basilicas, while the article refers to buildings in general. Borsoka (talk) 21:09, 18 January 2022 (UTC)

What is clear to me is the the quoted snippets of the source & article cover different periods (neither really precisely expressed). The source clearly includes the "Constantinian basilicas of the 4th century" and mentions a handful of later buildings. The article references 6 pages of the source, so I suspect the snippets quoted here don't tell the whole story. Even from these, I see no "sharp contrast" between them, nor is talk of "massive building projects" after c 450 or 500 appropriate. "most of the great cities of the Roman Empire were furnished with churches of basilican design" is not a huge claim - there were, what, perhaps a dozen such places, at most 20 (by this period). Johnbod (talk) 15:22, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

I will not copy pages here. I think the case is clear. Borsoka (talk) 16:29, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Well it clearly isn't. Johnbod (talk) 18:08, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Please do not refrain from copying text from the allegedly cited source to verify the text in the article. Borsoka (talk) 23:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Since you have reverted ALL changes I have made to the article for a week or so, I obviously won't be doing that. I'll save it for the grand revert that is no doubt coming. Have you actually read all the pages cited? Johnbod (talk) 04:42, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Actually, I reverted your reverts because you restored original research. Yes I read. Borsoka (talk) 04:47, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Not very carefully it seems. Stalley is fine as a source - you seem to have missed page 32, and not noticed that he also deals with other buildings (see his introduction also - most of these were timber not stone). I would suggest changing "Few large stone buildings were constructed between the Constantinian basilicas of the 4th century and the 8th century, although many smaller ones were built during the 6th and 7th centuries" to "Few large stone buildings were constructed between about 550 and the 8th century, although many smaller ones were built during the 6th and 7th centuries". This is fine with the same reference, and an important point. Johnbod (talk) 05:03, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

By changing the timeframe of the text (by more than 200 years), you have got closer to the cited source. However, the cited source lists significant building projects between the Constantinian basilicas and the 6th century while your suggested text exclusively emphasizes that smaller churches were built in the following centuries. Borsoka (talk) 05:18, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Yes, you've got it! Note that we don't start the period until 500. Johnbod (talk) 05:51, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for fixing one of the principal problems in the sentence. However, we cannot ignore Justinian, we should add positive information (what types of buildings were built) and pages dealing with basilicas cannot verify a sentence about buildings. Borsoka (talk) 06:06, 21 January 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed ([42]). Borsoka (talk) 04:25, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "There were several differences between the newly established Carolingian Empire and both the older Western Roman Empire and the concurrent Byzantine Empire. The Frankish lands were rural in character, with only a few small cities. Most of the people were peasants settled on small farms. Little trade existed and much of that was with the British Isles and Scandinavia, in contrast to the older Roman Empire with its trading networks centred on the Mediterranean." I have only access to a later edition of the cited source (Backman), but it makes no comparison between the Carolingian Empire and the Western Roman/Byzantine Empires when describing Carolingian society. Backman only mentions (in the pages describing Charlemagne's imperial coronation) that the "Byzantines regarded the Latin westerners, for the most part, as a backward and ill-educated poor cousins-members of the Christian family, to be sure, but hardly the sort of relatives to boast about". Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed ([43]). Borsoka (talk) 02:27, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

The article states that "Clergy and local bishops served ... as the imperial officials called missi dominici, who served as roving inspectors and troubleshooters." The cited source (Davies) clearly emphasizes the bishops' role as missi, but without suggesting that only local bishops were appointed as missi. He does not write either that clergymen who were not bishops were appointed as missi. Specialized books clarify that "pairs of missi (often a bishop and a count) were depatched to check up on the conduct of affairs in carefully defined territories", adding that local bishops were first appointed as missi to their dioceses from the 830s (Costambeys, Marios; Innes, Matthew; MacLean, Simon (2011). The Carolingian World. Cambridge medieval textbooks. Cambridge University Press. pp. 180–181. ISBN 9780521563666.). The article should mention the relevance of the office of missi dominici instead of over-emphasizing the role of local bishops. Borsoka (talk) 04:53, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed ([44]). Borsoka (talk) 02:28, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "Knights were the lowest level of nobility; they controlled but did not own land, and had to serve other nobles." Actually, the cited author (Singman) specifically refers to "landowning knights". Borsoka (talk) 03:38, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Fixed ([45]). Borsoka (talk) 02:50, 3 February 2022 (UTC)

Section 3.1 and 3.3 are titled "New societies" and "Western societies". Actually, both sections are dedicated to Western Europe. Perhaps section 3.1 should be renamed. I think "New realms/Tribal kingdoms" could be a good name. Borsoka (talk) 04:35, 1 February 2022 (UTC)

• Done [46]. Borsoka (talk) 06:06, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

The article says that "The political structure of Western Europe changed with the end of the united Roman Empire. Although the movements of peoples during this period are usually described as "invasions", they were not just military expeditions but migrations of entire peoples into the empire. Such movements were aided by the refusal of the Western Roman elites to support the army or pay the taxes that would have allowed the military to suppress the migration." The cited historian (Brown) does not explicitly associate the non payment of taxes with military weakness. He rather writes of the sharp contrast between Eastern Roman and Western Roman politics. He writes of the Eastern Roman Empire where a "judicious combination of force, adaptability and hard cash neutralized the effects of Visigothic immigration." On the other hand, he continues, the Western Roman "senators had failed to pay their taxes or to provide recruits for the Roman army; yet, when they were asked, in 408, to pay for a diplomacy based on subsidies to [the Goths], that might have covered their military weakness, the Senate rejected the proposal..." Borsoka (talk) 15:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

• Done [47]. Borsoka (talk) 06:08, 12 February 2022 (UTC)

According to the article, "By the middle of the 8th century, new trading patterns were emerging in the Mediterranean; trade between the Franks and the Arabs replaced the old Roman economy." The cited source (Cunliffe) does not contain any reference to verify the second part of the sentence about the replacement of the old Roman economy by trade between the Franks and the Arabs. The old Roman economy (whatever it was) collapsed centuries before the consolidation of the Arab rule in the Mediterranean gave a new impetus to the development of commerce. We should write of this process and the significance of slave trade, the development of Venice as a major commercial center, etc. Borsoka (talk) 04:52, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed ([48]). Borsoka (talk) 01:33, 13 February 2022 (UTC)

The article states that "Intermarriage between the new kings and the Roman elites was common. This led to a fusion of Roman culture with the customs of the invading tribes, including the popular assemblies that allowed free male tribal members more say in political matters than was common in the Roman state." Actually, the cited source (Wickham) does not make connection between intermarriage and the fusion of Roman culture with the customs of invading tribes. Borsoka (talk) 01:38, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The article claims that "In the 1330s, the Italian humanist and poet Petrarch referred to pre-Christian times as antiqua (or "ancient") and to the Christian period as nova (or "new")." The cited source, an obviously not peer reviewed classroom material by Dr. E. L. Skip Knox, verifies the date. However, an other source, Mommsen's article about Petrarch's Conception of "The Dark Ages" contradicts Knox. Mommsen states that Petrarch "drew a line of demarcation between "ancient" and "modern" history" in 1341. Borsoka (talk) 05:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

@Johnbod: you have been reverting the following sentence: "By the middle of the 8th century, new trading patterns were emerging in the Mediterranean. Franks traded timber, furs, swords and slaves in return for silks and other fabrics, spices, and precious metals from the Arabs." I highly appreciate that you can speak your native language at a higher level than myself. I must apologize for my extremly (!!!) barbarian English. I should have realized that you are one of the few editors who are unable to understand non-native English speakers. However, after reading section "Trade and commerce", could you explain why do you think that the same piece of information should be repeated in two sections? Could you also explain why do you that we should emphasize that Franks (not Vikings, Moravians, Magyars, Byzantines) had commercial contacts with the Arabs if specialized literature (cited in section "Trade and commerce") does not verify this emphases (!!!) on their rule? If my questions are unclear for you, please ping me. I will be always ready to make another attempt to rephrase them just for you. Borsoka (talk) 23:42, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

There's really no point, since you always either revert me or insult me, or both. That is all you are "always ready" to do. Johnbod (talk) 03:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I have always reverted your reverts restoring original research or sentences that present PoVs as facts. If you think my statement is false, please add examples here instead of reverting, and reverting and reverting. Sorry, I did not want to insult you, I only wanted to help you to better understand my barbarian English. Or (to adopt your style of communication) I ONLY WANTED TO HELP YOU TO UNDERSTAND ME. Borsoka (talk) 03:49, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• @Ceoil: there is a separate section dedicated to "Trade and commerce". Why do you think that we should twice mention in the same article that from the middle of the 8th century Europe (not the Franks!) delivered slaves, furs, arms and timber to the Mediterranean, and imported spices, silks, medicines, etc from the Mediterranean. Why do you think that we should emphasize the Franks' commercial contacts with the Arabs, if other actors (Vikings, Khazars, Venetians, etc) also had a significant role in the process. Borsoka (talk) 08:34, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

The article claims that "In the 19th century, the entire Middle Ages were often referred to as the "Dark Ages", but with the adoption of these subdivisions [i.e. "Early", "High" and "Late Middle Ages"], use of this term was restricted to the Early Middle Ages, at least among historians." The last part of the sentence is verified by a reference to Mommsen's cited article. In fact, Mommsen contradicts this claim. He writes that that the term "Dark Ages" was used in a work about the history of literature and two encyclopedias as a synonym for the Early Middle Ages in the first decades of the 20th century, but it was abandoned. Borsoka (talk) 16:20, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Referring to Mommsen's article about Petrarch, the article claims that "Petrarch regarded the post-Roman centuries as "dark" compared to the "light" of classical antiquity." Actually, when writing about the metaphor of light and darkness Mommsen states that it "was not at all new, for throughout the Middle Ages, it had been used to contrast the light that Christ had brought into this world, with the darkness in which the heathen had languished before His time. It was this sense that Petrarch used the old metaphor when he pitied Cicero who had to be die shortly before "the end of the darkness... and before the dawn of the true light". Mommsen adds that later Hummanist scholars, like Boccaccio, Villani, etc. were the first to contrast "the 'rebirth' of the arts and letters which, they held, had been effected by Dante, Giotto, and Petrarch, with the preceding period of cultural darkness." On a page other than cited to verify the quote from the article, Mommsen indeed states Petrarch regarded the period between the Fall of the Roman Empire and his own age as a dark age because it was "worthless", but without mentioning that Petrarch contrasted his own age's darkness with the light of classical antiquity. Borsoka (talk) 05:38, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

What are you talking about here? You need to quote the passage you are talking about, and then make your objections much clearer. Johnbod (talk) 16:12, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

Could you quote the text from the cited source verifying the quote from the article? You can read it using jstor. Borsoka (talk) 16:22, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

In some cases, the same information is repeated in the article unnecessarily. Examples include:

• the conquest of Italy by the Ostrogoths (sections Later Roman Empire and New societies)
• the re-conquest of northern Africa and Italy under Justinian (sections Later Roman Empire and Byzantine survival). Borsoka (talk) 03:35, 31 December 2021 (UTC)

Since nobody commented on the above remarks, I fixed the problem ([49]). Borsoka (talk) 07:03, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

• That little trade existed in Western Europe in the Early Middle Ages is mentioned both in sections "Trade and economy" and "Carolingian Europe". The Mediterranean trading network is also mentioned in both sections. Borsoka (talk) 05:20, 2 February 2022 (UTC)

• Fixed ([50]). Borsoka (talk) 02:43, 26 March 2022 (UTC)

• The political, social and ethnic changes following the invasions are mentioned twice, in sections "Later Roman Empire" and "New realms". The core information could be consolidated in section "Later Roman Empire" because most changes occurred before 476. Borsoka (talk) 03:24, 28 March 2022 (UTC)

The article fails to mention two significant non-Orthodox variants of Christianity. Most Germanic peoples who settled in Roman territory in the Migration Period were Arians and their Arianism was an importamt element of their self consciousness. For instance Brown writes that the barbarian settlers in the west "could not had been 'detribalized' ... because as 'barbarians' and heretics they were marked men. ... [They] ruled effectively as heretical kingdoms precisely because they were hated." (Brown (1989), pp. 124-125) Bogumilism was a significant "heretic" movement in Southeastern Europe (for further details I refer to Curta (2019), pp. 527-533). Borsoka (talk) 05:16, 29 March 2022 (UTC)

The article claims "Intermarriage between the new kings and the Roman elites was common" after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Actually, the cited source says that most of the "barbarian" royal families "had, or soon established, links of marriage to the Romans". The source does not imply that intermarriage was "common". Borsoka (talk) 01:35, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

The medievalist Chris Wickham seemingly verifies the quote from the article, stating that "almost all the 'barbarian' leaders intermarried with Roman imperial families" (Wickham, Chris (2016). Medieval Europe. Yale University Press. p. 26. ISBN 9780300208344.). However, Wickham refers to the period preceeding the fall of the Western Roman Empire and to barbarian strongmen instead of royals. An other historian, Lisa M. Bitel makes it clear that "Merovingian monarchs tended to marry women from their own or other Germanic tribes, not local Gallo-Roman or Celtic women. Goths did the opposite, achieving assimilation with the eastern Roman empire, but extinction as a viable dynastic group, by marrying their princesses to off-spring of emperors. The non-royal natives of Gaul, northern Italy, Aquitaine, Iberia, and Britain freely mixed family lines and names with newcomers." (Bitel, Lisa M. (2002). Women in Early Medieval Europe, 400–1100. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. Cambridge University Press. p. 57. ISBN 978-0-521-59773-9.) Finaly a geneology of the Vandal kings shows that the wives of most Vandal royals (about 10 individuals) were unknown. Out of the three known Vandal queens two were of barbarian origin and only one was a Roman princess (Cumberland Jacobsen, Torsten (2012). A History of the Vandals. Cambridge Medieval Textbooks. Westholme. p. 318-319. ISBN 978-1-59416-159-9.). Borsoka (talk) 01:02, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The article writes that "The percentage of serfs amongst the peasantry declined from a high of 90 to closer to 50 percent by the end of the period." First of all, the cited author (Singman) does not make a general statement, because he clearly refers to "some places". Secondly, the quote is placed in the section about Late Middle Ages in the article, so it suggests that the percentage of serfs declined to about 50 percent by the end of the 15th century (this is the end of the Late Middle Ages). However, Singman writes of the period between the mid-11th century and the early 14th century. Borsoka (talk) 05:04, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps the reason it has not been addressed is because you are flooding the zone with multiple sections, and your approach is putting people off from engaging. Its certainly the case for me; one thing thing at a time, on its merits, would be fine, but all these sub-headers and one thing after another indicates smugness and an unwillingness to properly engage or listen. Its fair to say that you burned up your goodwill a fair few months ago. Ceoil (talk) 05:11, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

Perhaps. Could you refer to cases when I were unvilling to properly engage or listen? When did I burn up my goodwill? 05:18, 2 April 2022 (UTC)

The article claims that the Visigoths invaded the Western Roman Empire in 400. I do not have access to the cited source, a popular book written by Susan Wise Bauer (who is not a historian). However, specialized literature makes it clear that it was in 401 that Alaric first invaded the Western Roman Empire:

• Elton, Hugh (2018). The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. p. 154. ISBN 978-1-108-45631-9.
• Heather, Peter (2006) [2005]. The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford University Press. p. 483. ISBN 978-0-19-532541-6.
• Lee, A. D. (2013). From Rome to Byzantium, AD 363 to 565: The Transformation of Ancient Rome. The Edinburgh History of Ancient Rome. Vol. 8. Edinburgh University Press. p. 111. ISBN 978-0-7486-2791-2.
• Mitchell, Stephen (2017) [2007]. A History of the Later Roman Empire, AD 284–641. Blackwell History of the Ancient World. Vol. 3. Wiley-Blackwell. p. 98. ISBN 978-1-118-31242-1.
• Wolfram, Herwig (1988) [1979]. History of the Goths. Translated by Thomas J. Dunlap. University of California Press. p. 150. ISBN 0-520-06983-8.

Borsoka (talk) 04:02, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

The article claims that "In the 430s the Huns began invading the empire". The cited source (James) does not verify the statement. James writes that the predecessors of Attila, who ruled from around 435, "initiated the policy of blackmailing Roman Emperors out of large sums of money by threatening to invade". The Huns launched the first major attack on the Roman Empire in 395-396. (Heather, Peter (2006) [2005]. The Fall of the Roman Empire: A New History of Rome and the Barbarians. Oxford University Press. p. 483. ISBN 978-0-19-532541-6.) Borsoka (talk) 02:02, 5 April 2022 (UTC)

The article contains the following two sentences: "The emperors of the 5th century were often controlled by military strongmen such as Stilicho (d. 408), Aetius (d. 454), Aspar (d. 471), Ricimer (d. 472), or Gundobad (d. 516), who were partly or fully of non-Roman background. When the line of Western emperors ceased, many of the kings who replaced them in the west were from the same background." I do not understand what is the principal message when the second sentence refers to "the same background" of "barbarian" kings. Do we want to emphasize that the "barbarian" kings were not Romans? Actually, the cited source (Wickham) writes that "a high percentage" of the barbarian leaders came from the Balkans, and many of them had had "careers in and around the imperial court before becoming king." Borsoka (talk) 03:41, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

The article claims that "In the 6th century, the Lombards settled in Northern Italy, replacing the Ostrogothic kingdom with a grouping of duchies that occasionally selected a king to rule over them all. By the late 6th century, this arrangement had been replaced by a permanent monarchy, the Kingdom of the Lombards." Actually, the cited source (Collins) writes that the Ostrogothic Kingdom was replaced by the Kingdom of the Lombards, because the Lombards were ruled by kings from the start with the exception of a ten-year-long period of interregnum between 574 and 584. Before this period, one can hardly refer to "occasional" election of kings, because only two kings ruled: Alboin (r. 560-572) who led the Lombards and their allies to Italy, and his successor, Cleph (r. 572-574). After the interregnum, the kings were also elected, even if mainly from among the relatives of earlier kings or queens. Borsoka (talk) 02:36, 17 April 2022 (UTC)

The article claims that "The conquest of Italy was not complete, as a deadly outbreak of plague in 542 led to the rest of Justinian's reign concentrating on defensive measures rather than further conquests." I have no access to the cited source which was written by Susan Wise Bauer who is not a historian. Specialized literature makes it clear that the Byzantines completed the conquest of Italy between 552 and 562, and conquered southeaster of Spain in the 550s:

• Elton, Hugh (2018). The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. pp. 269–271. ISBN 978-1-108-45631-9.
• Lee, A. D. (2013). From Rome to Byzantium, AD 363 to 565: The Transformation of Ancient Rome. The Edinburgh History of Ancient Rome. Vol. 8. Edinburgh University Press. pp. 291–293. ISBN 978-0-7486-2791-2..

Borsoka (talk)18:21, 3 May 2022 (UTC)

My understanding is that Belisarius was intent on wiping out the Goths but Justinian pulled him out to fight the Vandals in North Africa which he was very unhappy about. It was defensive in that they nearly gained dominance but had to divert focus. Belisarius almost went rogue and the issued caused tension in his relationship with Justinian, who is recorded that he also feared Belisarius would be king of Italy a title bestowed on him by the locals which he did not accept to their chagrin. Elias (talk) 04:50, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it is true. However, in contrast with the quote from the article, the Byzantines both conquered Italy and seized southeastern Spain after Justinian's plague. Borsoka (talk) 04:59, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Answe 196.189.26.184 (talk) 13:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, see the article. Johnbod (talk) 14:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

"Christian ethics brought about significant changes in the position of slaves in the 7th and 8th centuries. They were no more regarded as their lords' property, and their right to a decent treatment was enacted."On its face, this is ridiculous. I can't imagine anyone sane claiming this, unless it's some religious "scholar". And in that case - it's an invalid reference.The second reference, behind the same sentence is " G. The English word "slave" derives from the Latin term for Slavs, slavicus.[79] "Which tells you of the section author's state of mind, ideology, and ability to provide Sensible references.Is anyone still editing this article? How can something like this stand, and the article be Locked ?How was any kind of consensus achieved on this content, by whom, and article locked so this racist nonsense can't be corrected? 73.129.28.5 (talk) 01:45, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

It's unclear exactly what part of these sentences you're objecting to. Decent treatment? Serfs weren't property. And yes, slave derives from Slav from when most slaves in Europe were of Slavic origin. That's not racist, it's etymology.--Ermenrich (talk) 01:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

As I mentioned previously I don't like associating the entire Middle Ages with just one image, especially if it represents only Latin Christianity, which was after all a very small part of the European/African/Asian world. Why not a mosaic? Here are some possible images to include:

We can still keep the cross. I also picked the Ummayad Mosque in Damascus, Hagia Sophia, the Mosque/Cathedral of Cordoba, a Viking runestone, an illustration of a Muslim and Jew playing chess in Spain, the Registan in Samarkand, and the church of St. George in Lalibela. These mostly happened to be religious images, but they could easily be replaced with other things - the possibilities are almost endless. We even have numerous images in the article already that could be included. Obviously things need to be adjusted to get rid of the white space as well. But how is this for a start? Adam Bishop (talk) 15:00, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Did somebody forget to read the hatnote and the first words of the article? They are:

• "This article is about medieval Europe. For a global history of the period between the 5th and 15th centuries, see Post-classical history...."
• "In the history of Europe, the Middle Ages or medieval period lasted approximately...".

Personally, I loathe multiple images at the start of articles. The images, already too small, become tiny, & there is no room for proper captions. Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)Johnbod (talk) 15:37, 2 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah that also makes no sense. Why isn't this article at "medieval Europe" or something then? Anyway. I like mosaics at the start. Adam Bishop (talk) 12:01, 3 July 2022 (UTC)

If we don't like the idea of talking about the Middle Ages outside "Europe" then there are still easily dozens of images we can use alongside/instead of the cross. The Hagia Sophia, Cordoba, runestone, and chess pictures are still relevant. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:51, 27 July 2022 (UTC)

There was a wide variety of homes in the medieval times but they weren't as long lasting as our homes nowadays nor where there safe. They didn’t have access to cement, tools, brick. Amberlee hogg (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

The article claims that "The 7th century was a tumultuous period of wars between Austrasia and Neustria" in Francia. The article also makes a connection between these wars and the development of the Carolingians' power. Both statement are verified by references to a book written by Susan Wise Bauer who is not a historian. Reliable sources cited in the article clearly contradict these statements. For instance, Roger Collins writes that "It is ... significant, unlike the period 567-613, most of the seventh century was not a time of warfare between the various Frankish monarchs. The co-existence of rival Merovingian kingdoms was actually much rarer at this time, and after the death of Dagobert II of Austrasia in 678/9, an unbroken unitary kingship over all the component parts of Francia was maintained until 714." (Collins, Roger (2010) [1991]. Early Medieval Europe, 300-1000. Palgrave History of Europe. Red Globe Press. p. 168. ISBN 978-0-230-00673-7.) Borsoka (talk) 03:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)