Talk:Siege of Antioch (1084)
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| This article is within the scope of the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[edit] Ahem..
- Basil I did not capture Antioch in the 9th century, it was taken by one of Nicephorus Phocas's generals in the 10th.
- The city wasn't handed back to the Byzantines.It remained to it's Norman princes who only nominally recognized the suzerainty of the Emperor.
- The date of the siege certainly wasn't from 1064 to 1204 and the commander of the Byzantine garrison wasn't the Emperor..
And this article has been like this for over a month..... "reliable" encyclopedia my *ss..... --Padem 09:02, 10 February 2007 (UTC)
- Wow, calm down. First, I made it, so that says something about the qulaity of the article (if any). Secondly, the Byzantine emperor was not the commander in the defence of Antioch, any more than Churchill was commander of the Battle of El Alamein, or Lincoln at the Battle of Gettysburg. Command and control of military forces is always under the nominal control of the head of state, but ofcourse, there is no such true centralization of military command in practice. And if you have any changes to suggest, then change them if no one has objected. Finally the city was eventually handed back, check your history. Tourskin 19:57, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
- Besides, as if any encyclopedia has an accurate article on this siege. Tourskin 23:32, 9 March 2007 (UTC)
-
-
- Anti-intellectualism? A disregard for reliable sources? Why not strive for "an accurate article on this seige"? Aramgar (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
-
[edit] Factual inaccuracies
It was at this point, when he had just just occupied Cilicia, that Suleymān received from Antioch an appeal from one of the native factions that was hostile to Philaretes. Without striking a blow he was able to enter the Christian metropolis of Syria, just as he had entered Nicaea a little earlier, and with some measure of Byzantine authorization.
– Claude Cahen, Pre-Ottoman Turkey: a general survey of the material and spiritual culture and history c. 1071-1330, trans. J. Jones-Williams (New York: Taplinger, 1968), p. 77.
There was no seige. Philaretos Brachamios controlled the city, not the Byzantines. Malik Shah had nothing to do with it. Et cetera. Aramgar (talk) 18:25, 5 April 2008 (UTC)
