Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806)/archive1: Difference between revisions
→Comment by Fowler&fowler: rewording for NPOV |
→Comment by Fowler&fowler: seventh |
||
Line 206: | Line 206: | ||
***"forced to abandon" is both redundant and POV. It wasn't forced. He signed the treaty. Those were the terms. |
***"forced to abandon" is both redundant and POV. It wasn't forced. He signed the treaty. Those were the terms. |
||
*Overall, you should be saying something like, "X-many days/weeks/months after the withdrawal of the Abbasid army, N. ordered his forces to reoccupy some frontier towns, thereby violating the terms of the treaty." But say this only after you have told us in one sentence earlier what the treaty entailed for either side. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 03:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC) |
*Overall, you should be saying something like, "X-many days/weeks/months after the withdrawal of the Abbasid army, N. ordered his forces to reoccupy some frontier towns, thereby violating the terms of the treaty." But say this only after you have told us in one sentence earlier what the treaty entailed for either side. [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 03:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC) |
||
General observation: Complex sentences (ie with long subjects, or long dependent clauses) are creating issues of coherence in the prose. |
|||
*Seventh sentence lead: "Harun's preoccupation with a rebellion in [[Greater Khorasan|Khurasan]], and his death three years later, prohibited a reprisal on a similar scale. |
|||
**The subject here is the noun phrase: "Harun's preoccupation with a rebellion in [[Greater Khorasan|Khurasan]], and his death three years later," |
|||
***Again, we know nothing about a rebellion, let alone a preoccupation; we know nothing about who rebelled. We know nothing about his death, whether unexpected or after a long illness |
|||
*** So when the reader encounters the predicate, "prohibited a reprisal on a similar scale." They expect to read, "However, a reprisal on a lesser scale was conducted in ..." But nothing is mentioned. Question: Was there any reprisal? If there was, why is it not mentioned? |
|||
***A coherent sentence would be: "However, a punitive invasion (on the scale of that of 806—add this only if there was a lesser reprisal) by Harun's army did not take place on account of a rebellion by < > soon thereafter in the province (?) of Khorasan, which was to keep the army engaged in its suppression. Nor did one take place later, as Harun was to die in 809." [[User:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#B8860B">Fowler&fowler</span>]][[User talk:Fowler&fowler|<span style="color:#708090">«Talk»</span>]] 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 22:16, 14 December 2019
Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor (806) (edit | talk | history | links | watch | logs)
Toolbox |
---|
- Nominator(s): Constantine ✍ 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
This article is about the largest expedition ever launched by the Caliphate against the Byzantines after the Second Arab Siege of Constantinople. Although not as dramatic, it was a climax in the long history of Arab–Byzantine wars: a long period of peace followed, before warfare resumed in the 830s. The article is a bit old, and passed MILHIST's ACR back in 2012, but I have continued working on it, adding some more details. I feel confident that it is as comprehensive as I can get it, but any suggestions for improvement are, as always, welcome. Constantine ✍ 18:27, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Alt text, external links etc are all fine. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Dank
- Support on prose per my standard disclaimer. Well done. I checked a diff since I copyedited this at A-class (a long time ago). As always, feel free to revert my copyediting. These are my edits. - Dank (push to talk) 19:06, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Support by Gog the Mild
- Haj is duplinked, but permissibly so IMO.
- "Harun retaliated at once, launching a raid" It is not clear what Harun is retaliating for. From the text Nikephoros had not done anything that needed retaliation. Indeed at this point in the article there has been no mention of any actions at all by him.
- Good point, it was left rather unclear. Fixed now.
- "he barely escaped with his own life" Delete "own".
- Done.
- "Having settled matters in Khurasan" Do we know what the nature of this settlement was?
- Clarified the original problem, and rewritten/added some details. Also took the opportunity to re-check and re-order the references to a more fine-grained pattern.
- "against the local Arab garrison began in Cyprus" suggests that Cyprus was Arab occupied; while "admiral Humayd ibn Ma'yuf al-Hajuri was prepared to raid Cyprus" suggests that it wasn't.
- Clarified.
- "asked Harun to send him a girl from Herakleia" Suggest something like 'asked Harun to send him a young Byzantine woman who had been taken captive when Herakleia fell'.
- Good suggestion, done.
- The related quote shortly after: consider putting it in a block quote per MOS:BQ.
- Done.
- "Abbasid efforts was compounded" Either 'efforts were' or 'effort was'.
- Done.
- "Influenced by the events of Harun's 782 campaign" Is this a typo? If not, why is in an article on the 806 campaign?
- What I meant was that the later narratives conflated the two: the 'famous' expedition was that of 806, and Harun's letter to Nikephoros is widely quoted; but in 782, the Arabs had actually come within sight of Constantinople, so the later sources 'tweaked' things a bit, and had Harun advance to Constantinople twice during Nikephoros' reign. I've tried to clarify this.
And that's all I have. Masterful. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:20, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thanks for the kind words Gog the Mild. As usual, you also caught (hopefully most of) the stuff I overlooked. Please have a look at my changes and let me know of you have any further comments. Best, Constantine ✍ 21:10, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
The changes and clarifications are all good. I am happy to support. Although a cite immediately after the block quote may be helpful. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:21, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Comments from Brianboulton
An interesting and engaging article, dealing most informatively in a sphere of history which is entirely new to me. I'm much inclined towards support, but meanwhile have a few issues for discussion or action:
- The article is quite short, just under 2,000 words ex. lead, of which 680 words deal with background, and 750 with aftermath and impact. That leaves only 550 words on the campaign itself; I just wonder if this constitutes full, comprehensive coverage of the action?
- A reasonable question, which IMO touches on two issues: one, the comprehensiveness of coverage of the 806 campaign, and two, the relation of the 'main' section to the rest of the article size-wise. On the first, the sources are very brief regarding these events. If you check Tabari's or Theophanes' accounts (which are our main sources), you will see that they only mention towns taken, generals involved, etc., pretty much the same as you can read in the article. This is sadly the case with most of the conflicts of the period, sine chroniclers on both sides give a somewhat sanitized, not to say sterile, version of events. Kennedy makes this point when describing the Siege of Kamacha, where for once we actually have details for an event that otherwise would have been an one-liner in Tabari's account. So there is--unfortunately--nothing more to add on the account of the actual campaign.
On the second issue, although we don't know much detail about the actual campaign, it still is of importance in the historiography of the Arab-Byzantine conflict, as it represents a certain climax, and impacted both sides: Nikephoros turned west instead of east, etc., not to mention the erection of a victory monument by Harun, the echoes in later literature, etc. So this definitely needs to be unpacked somewhere. The first half of the 'Aftermath' section properly belongs to the denouement of the campaign itself either way. Similarly for the 'Background' section, because the interplay between Harun and Nikephoros needs to be explained in order to give sufficient context for the campaign itself. If you think there is anything redundant, feel free to add it to the list below for discussion
- A reasonable question, which IMO touches on two issues: one, the comprehensiveness of coverage of the 806 campaign, and two, the relation of the 'main' section to the rest of the article size-wise. On the first, the sources are very brief regarding these events. If you check Tabari's or Theophanes' accounts (which are our main sources), you will see that they only mention towns taken, generals involved, etc., pretty much the same as you can read in the article. This is sadly the case with most of the conflicts of the period, sine chroniclers on both sides give a somewhat sanitized, not to say sterile, version of events. Kennedy makes this point when describing the Siege of Kamacha, where for once we actually have details for an event that otherwise would have been an one-liner in Tabari's account. So there is--unfortunately--nothing more to add on the account of the actual campaign.
- Prose: a bit of final polishing is necessary:
- Lead: "to retaliate for..."? I think you retaliate against.
- I don't know, but "retaliate against the Byzantine successes" reads odd to me; how can you retaliate against a success?
- During my review I started to make the same complaint, anticipated Constantine’s response and left it. It seems to me that the meaning will be entirely clear to a reader and that it is the least grammatically messy way of expressing it without completely recasting it. Wicktionary’s sole quote on the usage of retaliate has “retaliate for”. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- I'm still unhappy with this form, but won't press it unduly. I'll just make one rewording suggestion which I think would work, retaining "for": "In retaliation for the cessation of tribute and the violation of the peace agreement concluded with Irene, Harun launched a raid under his son al-Qasim in spring 803". Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- This is indeed much better, done.
- I'm still unhappy with this form, but won't press it unduly. I'll just make one rewording suggestion which I think would work, retaining "for": "In retaliation for the cessation of tribute and the violation of the peace agreement concluded with Irene, Harun launched a raid under his son al-Qasim in spring 803". Brianboulton (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
- During my review I started to make the same complaint, anticipated Constantine’s response and left it. It seems to me that the meaning will be entirely clear to a reader and that it is the least grammatically messy way of expressing it without completely recasting it. Wicktionary’s sole quote on the usage of retaliate has “retaliate for”. Gog the Mild (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Background:
- I'm not sure of the purpose of "also" in the first line.
- Leftover from early drafts. Removed.
- Some pronoun confusion in the first para: we have "when he learned", and in the next line, "he was determined", a different "he". You need to clarify who the different persons are.
- Good point, fixed.
- Formulaic phrases like "in addition" should, if possible, be avoided. (It occurs again in the fifth paragraph.)
- Rephrased, have a look.
- Now we have "retaliated to"
- CHanged to "for", see above.
- I'm not sure that "confronted" is appropriate in the circumstances you describe; exchange of letters doesn't amount to confrontation. Perhaps "faced one another"?
- Good suggestion, done.
- Campaign
- Per MoS, section heading should be just "Campaign", rather than "The campaign"
- Done.
- Link "freebooter". The best is probably a pipelink, thus: freebooter
- Done.
- "Harun's lieutenant Abdallah ibn Malik al-Khuza'i took Sideropalos, from where Harun's cousin Dawud ibn Isa ibn Musa, with half the Abbasid army, some 70,000 men according to al-Tabari, was sent to devastate Cappadocia." Needs reworking for clarity – too many sub-clauses at present.
- Rephrased.
- Impact
- Third para: I got somewhat lost in the convoluted sentence beginning "Influenced by the events..." There seems some fusion of fact with fiction – needs clarifying
- Rephrased, please have a look
- 4th para: Another redundant "also"
- Removed.
- I'd replace "due to", another ugly form, with something simple like "left incomplete on Harun's departure..."
- Done.
- Lead: "to retaliate for..."? I think you retaliate against.
Source review follows. Brianboulton (talk) 14:24, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Sources review
- No spotchecks carried out
- Links: The archived links in refs 3, 24 and 41 all go to the same place, although the refs cite different chapters. The archived link to Kiapidou in the list of sources isn't working at all.
- Hmmm, this is troubling, since the original url also appears more often down than not. Google cache still displays at least the text content. Well, there are two options: One, we link to the Google cache and at some point in the future, when the website is again up and running, I will try to archive it again at the Web Archive, although since I can remember and know that the url had been archived, my hunch is that it has been removed by request and therefore is likely to be removed again. Second, I can remove/replace Kiapidou altogether. It was a major source at the inception of this article (as well as its inspiration, TBH), but that is no longer the case; I can simply remove the references and the content would still be more than adequately cited. It would, however, be rather dishonest to do it, for the reasons mentioned before.
- I think I see a solution to this:
- The linked source for refs 3, 24 and 41 is this, which has three sections: 1. Historical background; 2. Beginning and outcome of the campaign; 3. Consequences.
- I assume these sections are the three "chapters" referred to in your refs?
- Then, all you need do is reformat refs 3, 24 and 41 in harvard short form, and replace the dead link in your sources list with the working link.
- Would that resolve the matter? Brianboulton (talk) 12:06, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Hah, I feel really stupid, I didn't check that the links in the footnotes were working, I just went with the main source link, which was dead. I've fixed it now: the correct archive url is in the "Sources" section, and the footnote links point to the relevant sections in the archived copy. I also renamed from the apparently unclear "Chapter X" to the actual section headings. Constantine ✍ 17:23, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Yes, the link in the source works now. However, you don't need to keep the links in the individual refs, and as suggested above these can be replaced with short citations. Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Erledigt
- Formats:
- Refs 42 and 43 both carry open-ended page ranges, which make verification difficult. Is it possible to be more specific?
- Certainly, will do this ASAP
- Done, I reworked and expanded the section somewhat in the process.
- You could add an oclc number to the 1923 Cambridge medieval history, vol. 4. It is 241580719
- Done, thanks
- Quality/reliability: The sources appear to be of a scholarly nature within our FA criteria for quality and reliability. My lack of subject expertise means I can't judge whether they fully cover the topic, but in the absence of any challenge I accept your word that they do.
Otherwise, all well. Brianboulton (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
- Correction! all is not quite well – the link in the Meinecke source is returning "Page not found". Brianboulton (talk) 22:59, 13 November 2019 (UTC)
- Fixed, thanks.
- @Brianboulton: just a heads up, can you please have a look at my edits and replies above and indicate whether any outstanding issues remain? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 13:27, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- No further issues: sources are fine now. Brianboulton (talk) 16:09, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: Thanks :). What about the general/style comments above? Constantine ✍ 16:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Your responses to my expressed concerns are fine. I intend to read (slowly) through the whole article again, in a few days' time (you can ping me in a week, if I haven't done so by then) before making a final decision on supporting - so far, I've only speed-read it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Take your time and be as nitpicky as you like :). Constantine ✍ 21:33, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- Your responses to my expressed concerns are fine. I intend to read (slowly) through the whole article again, in a few days' time (you can ping me in a week, if I haven't done so by then) before making a final decision on supporting - so far, I've only speed-read it. Brianboulton (talk) 17:02, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
- @Brianboulton: Thanks :). What about the general/style comments above? Constantine ✍ 16:28, 20 November 2019 (UTC)
Support with a few additional comments/suggestions:
- Lead: delete "ever" from first line
- Erledigt
- Background:
- Para 2, 4th line: delete "himself"
- Changed to "in person"
- Para 4, line 2: "that summer" – specify year
- Done, with some rewriting around
- Campaign: since here you state that the number 135,000 is "certainly exaggerated", perhaps you should mention this in the lead, where the number is first mentioned.
- Good point, done
- Aftermath: "surprisingly" is perhaps editorial comment?
- Indeed, removed.
- Impact: "Nikephoros's efforts would end tragically in the disastrous Battle of Pliska". A bit vague – you could say "would end with his death". And presumably, the story of his being hanged from the Hagia Sophia is fictional – that needs be be made clearer.
- Good point, I rewrote the section a bit, I think now it is clear.
An impressive article, deserving of FA status. Brianboulton (talk) 13:35, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
- Thank you for your time and contributions, Brianboulton! Cheers, Constantine ✍ 14:26, 28 November 2019 (UTC)
Image review by PM
All the images are appropriately licensed and have appropriate captions. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:05, 21 November 2019 (UTC)
CommentsSupport by CPA-5
- Unlink Arab.
- men from Syria, Palestine, Persia, and Egypt Maybe pipe Persia to the medieval Persia?
- Was unaware of the link, done.
- Despite the sack of Herakleia, which is given prominent treatment in Arab sources Isn't the sack a proper noun?
- You mean it should be capitalized? No, here it is used descriptively, not as a named event.
- victory monument about 8 kilometres (5.0 mi) west of Raqqa Round the nought here.
- Done.
That's anything that I found. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:56, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: your points have been addressed. Anything else? Cheers, Constantine ✍ 18:39, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: Arab is still linked? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 10:39, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- Ooops, indeed. Replaced with "Abbasid". Thanks. Constantine ✍ 11:38, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- @Cplakidas: Just a question do we really not know the casualties and/or strength? Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:03, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- @CPA-5: Apart from what is mentioned about the size of the Abbasid army, we know nothing. That is the norm for the period and the kind of sources we have available, I am afraid. Constantine ✍ 16:05, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
- That's sad to hear but maybe one day we'll find it out anyway I think I can support now. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 11:23, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
Comment by Fowler&fowler
After quickly reading the lead and skimming the rest of the article, I feel that the article's prose (which includes, syntax, coherence, and cohesion) is insufficient to meet the requirements of an FA. Here are just a few examples that make it very difficult for a newcomer.
General comment: The determiner "the" is most commonly used to refer to things that are a part of the writer's and the reader's shared world. (or Websters: "used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent refers to someone or something previously mentioned or clearly understood from the context or the situation.) (Or, OED: "Marking an item as having been mentioned before or as already known, or as contextually particularized) There seem to be several confusing uses of "the" in the article
- Sentence 1: The Abbasid invasion of Asia Minor in 806 was the largest operation launched by the Abbasid Caliphate against the Byzantine Empire.
- "The largest." We know nothing about these invasions, at this point. The definite article presumes familiarity with the context.
- What is an "operation?" In general, it does not even connote a military operation. Did they overrun or merely infiltrate? Was it an army operation or naval or both. You need to be more specific.
- The "Byzantine Empire?" The page name makes no mention of the empire, whose geographical extent in 806 CE, in any case, is not a matter of common knowledge. The lead sentence needs to explain the terms in the page name, among other things.
- Continuing in the same vein, where is "Asia Minor" in this explication? It doesn't help that Anatolia (to which it redirects) makes no mention of this invasion, incursion, expedition, or military operation.
- Sentence 2: "The expedition was commanded in person by the Abbasid caliph, Harun al-Rashid (r. 786–809), who wished to retaliate for the Byzantine successes in the Caliphate's frontier region in the previous year and impress Abbasid might upon the Byzantine emperor, Nikephoros I (r. 802–811)."
- Sentence 2 (part 1): The expedition was commanded in person ...
- "The expedition?" Again, "the" assumes familiarity. All we know at this point is an invasion taking place. An expedition is different from an invasion, besides we have no idea how many expeditions took place concurrently.
- "In person," means, "by one's own action or physical presence." What other forms of command were available to an individual in the early medieval period?
- Sentence 2 (part 2): "who wished to retaliate for the Byzantine successes in the Caliphate's frontier region in the previous year ..."
- "the Byzantine successes" We know nothing about them at this stage. The definite article presumes familiarity.
- To retaliate means to take revenge for, or to avenge, an injury, harm, insult, etc. to a person, nation, etc. A "success" is too much of a euphemism for that injury, harm, or insult. You have to tell us more precisely which Byzantine action constituted an insult. Note I thought BrianB had suggested an improvement, but I don't see it implemented in the lead.
- You probably want to say something like, "who wanted to avenge the loss of life, property, and livestock incurred during the Byzantine incursions of the previous year." (I'm making that up, but you get the idea.)
- Or if you want to use retaliate: "the loss of life, property, and livestock of the previous year at the hand of the Byzantines, caused him to retaliate by invading Anatolia." ("Retaliate" does not go with "for," except very rarely.)
- You probably don't want to mention the "frontier region," at this stage. Where else would an incursion have taken place in medieval times if not at a frontier? You especially don't want to link it to thughur which in turn redirects to al-ʿAwāṣim. Too much recondite information for a second sentence. You could point to direction if you like, e.g. "northeastern region," if that is the case.
- Sentence 2 (part 3): and impress Abbasid might upon the Byzantine emperor, Nikephoros I (r. 802–811).
- What does it mean to impress might upon? Are we saying after avenging an insult he wanted to insult in return, or to display a medieval version of shock and awe in return? This is all too vague.
- Sentence 2 (part 1): The expedition was commanded in person ...
- Sentence 3: "The huge Abbasid army—the Arab sources report, with exaggeration, that it numbered 135,000 men—set out from Raqqa on 11 June 806, crossed Cilicia and the Taurus Mountains, and invaded Cappadocia."
- Sentence 3 (part 1): "The huge Abbasid army"
- Again, "the" presumes we know about this army or about its relative numerical size.
- Huge is an informal word, like gigantic, or enormous, meaning very numerous. How is a reader to know what constituted "huge" in 806?
- Sentence 3 (part 2): "—the Arab sources report, with exaggeration, that it numbered 135,000 men—"
- m-dashes, unless appearing in fiction, or creative non-fiction, should be replaceable with commas. That is not the case here. The third sentence in the lead is not the place for an off-handed aside.
- "with exaggeration" generally implies that the exaggeration was a deliberate, or an invariant, feature of such estimates. Whether or not that is the case, the reader does not know that. How do we know it is an exaggeration? If there is a source that suggests that, then what is their more realistic estimate of the army's strength?
- What are "Arab sources?" Do you mean "contemporaneous Arabic language sources?" Do you mean "historical Arabic language sources?" Do you mean Abbasid court historians? This is the first time you have used Arab. The reader is left confused.
- Sentence 3 (part 3): "set out from Raqqa on 11 June 806,
- Here we are using Raqqa the modern name for a medieval city, (whereas elsewhere we are using medieval names for a modern region (such as Asia Minor for Anatolia) which is fine, but you should tell us what was Raqqa's significance. Why did the army set out from Raqqa?
- I think you will be better off saying: "On 11 June 806, a large army, numbering 135,000 by some (optimistic) estimates, set out from the Abbasid capital of Raqqa."
- These are just the first three sentences. But they point to the kind of issues appearing in many later sentences in the article.
Besides, the lead is too short for the article. As BrianB has mentioned, the article is already too short. If I had more time, I would oppose its candidacy and stick around to help it improve, but I recommend that my critique be taken as a model of a longer one.Best, Fowler&fowler«Talk» 20:35, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
A general discussion which is not relevant, as F&f is offering only a critique of the prose now
|
---|
|
- Prose: Hello there.
- General: The determiner "the" is most commonly used to refer to things that are a part of the writer's and the reader's shared world. (or Websters: "used as a function word to indicate that a following noun or noun equivalent refers to someone or something previously mentioned or clearly understood from the context or the situation.) (Or, OED: "Marking an item as having been mentioned before or as already known, or as contextually particularized) There seem to be several confusing uses of "the" in the article
- Specific prose issues:
- Fourth sentence, lead: "The Abbasids met no opposition and raided at will, capturing several towns and fortresses, most notably Herakleia.
- At will means "as they wished" or "as and when it suited them." When there is no opposition, how else will they have raided?
- "several" is too vague in a description of military success. You need to give us a better idea.
- You need to tell us something about Herakleia, and why its capture was notable, why its capture would have precipitated a Abbasid impulse to seek peace, alluded to in "This" in the next sentence.
- Fifth sentence lead: "This forced Nikephoros to seek peace in exchange for the payment of tribute, including a personal tax levied on Nikephoros and his son and heir, Staurakios."
- Generally not a good idea to use "This" in a vague way.
- As you know the "peace" in the expressions "seek peace," "negotiate peace," "sign peace," is a count noun, meaning a treaty of peace, a pact to end a war, etc. The tribute is a part of the peace terms. You can't really seek peace terms in exchange for something that is a part of them. Was the tribute offered by the Abbasids or extracted from them by the Byzantines? (It is usually the latter.) That is not clear in the sentence.
- I am not sure I understand the distinction between tribute and personal tax in early- to mid medieval times in what most likely was a fiscal-military state. How could the peace terms ensure that the "personal tax" was somehow not passed on to (the medieval version of) taxpayers? Overall it would be better to say, "N. sought peace terms. These included ..." More soon. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 21:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)
- Fourth sentence, lead: "The Abbasids met no opposition and raided at will, capturing several towns and fortresses, most notably Herakleia.
- Sixth sentence lead: "Following Harun's departure, however, Nikephoros violated the terms of the treaty and reoccupied the frontier forts he had been forced to abandon."
- Sixth sentence lead (part 1): "Following Harun's departure, however, ..."
- We know nothing, from what has been established thus far, about the extent of the agreed-upon retreat in the treaty, from how far forward to how far back. So "Following Harun's departure, however" stated matter-of-factly, comes as a surprise. Not all treaties involve retreats. Many simply agree to a cessation of hostilities at the existing lines of control.
- In other words, you need to add a sentence about the terms of the treaty before "Following ..."
- Sixth sentence lead (part 2) "... Nikephoros violated the terms of the treaty and reoccupied the frontier forts"
- the chronological order is: (a) N reoccupies the towns, (b) he violates the peace terms. not the other way round. In other words, you should be saying, "He reoccupied the frontier towns, thereby violating the peace terms."
- Sixth sentence lead (cont): "... he had been forced to abandon."
- "forced to abandon" is both redundant and POV. It wasn't forced. He signed the treaty. Those were the terms.
- Sixth sentence lead (part 1): "Following Harun's departure, however, ..."
- Overall, you should be saying something like, "X-many days/weeks/months after the withdrawal of the Abbasid army, N. ordered his forces to reoccupy some frontier towns, thereby violating the terms of the treaty." But say this only after you have told us in one sentence earlier what the treaty entailed for either side. Fowler&fowler«Talk» 03:38, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
General observation: Complex sentences (ie with long subjects, or long dependent clauses) are creating issues of coherence in the prose.
- Seventh sentence lead: "Harun's preoccupation with a rebellion in Khurasan, and his death three years later, prohibited a reprisal on a similar scale.
- The subject here is the noun phrase: "Harun's preoccupation with a rebellion in Khurasan, and his death three years later,"
- Again, we know nothing about a rebellion, let alone a preoccupation; we know nothing about who rebelled. We know nothing about his death, whether unexpected or after a long illness
- So when the reader encounters the predicate, "prohibited a reprisal on a similar scale." They expect to read, "However, a reprisal on a lesser scale was conducted in ..." But nothing is mentioned. Question: Was there any reprisal? If there was, why is it not mentioned?
- A coherent sentence would be: "However, a punitive invasion (on the scale of that of 806—add this only if there was a lesser reprisal) by Harun's army did not take place on account of a rebellion by < > soon thereafter in the province (?) of Khorasan, which was to keep the army engaged in its suppression. Nor did one take place later, as Harun was to die in 809." Fowler&fowler«Talk» 22:16, 14 December 2019 (UTC)
- The subject here is the noun phrase: "Harun's preoccupation with a rebellion in Khurasan, and his death three years later,"