Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Marcian/archive2

The following is an archived discussion of a featured article nomination. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article candidates. No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was promoted by Ian Rose via FACBot (talk) 20 April 2020 [1].

Marcian[edit]

Nominator(s): Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

This article is about an Eastern Roman Emperor named Marcian, who ruled from 450 to 457; the article was previously nominated, with many suggesting it be run through by a GOCE copyeditor before renomination, which has been done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 23:50, 17 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Image review—pass

All images are free, correctly licensed, and relevant. b uidhe 03:43, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments and support by A. Parrot, including source review[edit]

I've made several nit-picky copyedits, doing them individually so it's easy to revert one if you object to it. There were few problems with clarity, however, so I think the article is in very good shape overall.

"This marked the official abandonment of a rigid Danube barrier, which had been manned by Roman laeti…" I know this term is linked, but could it be briefly defined, so the reader doesn't need to click away from the article?
Done

Thanks, but the explanation given makes one wonder what the distinction was between laeti and foederati. A. Parrot (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The article alternates between "Sassanian" and "Sassanid", and it uses the spelling "Sasanian" once. Also, the Legacy section refers to Persia, a name not used anywhere else in the article, and not all readers will know that the Sasanians are Persia.
Done

Might the passage referring to chariot-team politics link to Chariot racing#Byzantine era?
Done

"…sent an embassy to Theodosius in 450, composed of his brother Hmayeak Mamikonian, Atom Gnuni, Vardan Amatuni, and Meruzhan Artsruni…" Is it necessary to list all of these people? And although Hmayeak is the brother in question, it looks a little odd to say "his brother" and then list a bunch of people. If you keep them all, perhaps you could say "…his brother Hmayeak Mamikonian along with…"
Done

"He was remembered fondly by the people of Constantinople, who would shout "Reign like Marcian!" at the installation of future emperors." Does the source indicate at which coronations this happened? Did the public shout this only while some of them could personally remember Marcian, or did he become a byword for good government that lasted well beyond firsthand memory of his reign?
Source seems to indicate it being a byword; sort of a Byzantine Felicior Augusto, melior Traiano. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The DIR page says "It is also clear that he steadfastly remained out of entanglements with the west. In that sense, Marcian's rule was the conceptual end of a universal--and unified--Roman Empire." I wouldn't want to cite this passage itself, given that your heavy reliance on this page was a source of criticism at the previous FAC, but do the other sources agree with it? Do they say something similar? A. Parrot (talk) 03:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A lot of sources speak to Marcian arising during a time where East and West Rome were practically independent of each other, but only DIR speaks directly of Marcian being 'the end' of the unified empire, so I'm uncomfortable with citing such a thing with only DIR. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:17, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sensible, but do other sources describe Marcian's reign as marking any kind of change in the east–west relationship? A. Parrot (talk) 16:54, 1 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: Working on this, have made a number of small additions based on searches. Nothing huge so far, but does nicely round out the topic of the Western-Eastern Roman relationships. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:47, 2 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks. A few more general content-and style comments, followed by the source review:

The article favors the spelling Genseric, but Gaiseric is the spelling used in the WP article on him and in the Nathan source. I changed this spelling in one instance, but then I realized that the name appears a few more times in the article, in passages cited to sources that I can't access but that seem on the old side. Unless Genseric really is the more widespread spelling in the sources (including recent ones), I suggest changing it all to Gaiseric.
Done

I still don't feel that the distinction between laeti and foederati is adequately explained. The passage in Friell & Williams that supports the text about them actually says the distinction was breaking down in Marcian's time, which seems a relevant topic to discuss.
Done

I think it's worth emphasizing how much friction the Council of Chalcedon created between the Near Eastern churches, most obviously that in Egypt, and the imperial court, and that it was the seed of the split between the Oriental Orthodox Churches and the Eastern Orthodox/Catholic Church. You mention Nestorians fleeing to the Sassanian Empire, but the Oriental Orthodox split was even more consequential, even if it wasn't a firm break until long after Marcian's time. (The Bauer source cited in the relevant paragraph hints at this.) The WP article on Chalcedon has a detailed anecdote about an argument between Dioscorus and Pulcheria that led to Dioscorus's exile, although the sourcing for them leaves something to be desired; it would be interesting to mention if there are credible sources supporting it.
Have significantly expanded on the tensions split. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:41, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A minor point: the "Buildings" section uses "Eastern Emperor" several times, which seems superfluous; very few emperors who ruled the West ever had the opportunity to build in Constantinople, and all those under discussion here postdated the split.
Done

Source review[edit]

I've spot-checked several of the citations and found few problems; those I did find are listed below. All the sources look reliable, with one exception. Some of the sources are older than I'd generally be comfortable with, but sources since 1980 or so predominate, and I know that classical studies haven't changed as much since the late 19th century as my own wheelhouse, Egyptology, has done.

Last time around, Squeamish Ossifrage pointed out problems with Dawes 1948. It's a collection of public domain texts, and the relevant one is a life of Daniel the Stylite. The Ossifrage's objections haven't been addressed; the entry in the bibliography really isn't specific enough, and why is a contemporary, or at least pre-modern, biography of a saint being used as a source for Marcian's foreign policy in the Caucasus? Aren't scholarly sources available for this?
Done

Squeamish Ossifrage also questioned the heavy reliance on the Nathan source. The citation list has only expanded slightly since then, while the use of the Nathan source remains largely the same, but this may be less of a problem than it appears. Several of the citations to Nathan are bunched together with others, and I question whether those citations are actually necessary in every case. See a specific example below.

That aside, Nathan dates to 1998; that should be specified.
Done

The original publication date for Pharr et al. is 1952; that should be noted (in the same format as the entry for Bury 2012/1889).
Done

The citations for the last paragraph of "Conflict with the Huns" are odd. Nearly the whole paragraph is supported by one set of citations. Most of the text in that block seems to derive from Friell and Williams, but unless the pagination in your copy differs from that in this Google Books preview Citation 22 should be pp. 89–91 instead of just p. 89. The Nathan source (Citation 2) only treats this subject in a general way, and I'm not sure it's necessary to cite it here. Citation 23, to The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire, seems to be to a page that's about the career of Ardabur (in this edition), and unless I'm missing something, it doesn't seem directly related to this block of text—it mentions Ardabur's defeat of unidentified barbarians in Thrace, but that's not mentioned here. If this citation is relevant here, can it be arranged to more clearly indicate which part of the paragraph it's related to?
Done Fixed the pages. I think the general text of the Nathan source is pretty helpful as a sumnation of events; I've removed the The Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire source; unsure of why it was in there. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The wording of the quotation of the Chalcedonian Creed doesn't match the wording provided in the source.
Done

Citation 43 lacks a page number, and the book it cited does not seem to use Arms Trade as part of its title. A. Parrot (talk) 04:41, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The Arms's Trade bit is actually a chapter of the Book; I've adjusted the parameters to match this; it also doesn't have a page number because its an online edition; unless you'd prefer me to call it page one, which I'm not opposed to, although I don't really think it neccesary. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:54, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: Believe I've done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:03, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Final comments[edit]

@Iazyges: Sorry to drag this out any further, but I have a few final points. I'm very close to supporting, don't worry!

The translation of the Chalcedonian Creed hasn't changed, and it still conflicts with the translation in the cited source.
Made an edit before which appears to have not gone through; have made the edit again to fix it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text about the Chalcedonian split is still thorny. For one thing, the text uses the label Monophysite, which Miaphysites reject; for another, the Oriental Orthodox Churches, which descended from the Miaphysites' split with Constantinople, should be linked here.
Done

This text is questionable: "Even after these revolts were put down, the popular dissatisfaction with the Eastern Church among the Monophysitic and Nestorian population remained, as the eastern provinces became increasingly convinced of their need for independence from the Eastern Roman Empire. This would lead to long-lasting disloyalty toward the Byzantine government among the eastern provinces, ultimately facilitating the loss of these provinces to the Sassanians and later to the Arabs." Recent scholarship I've seen on the Islamic conquest of Egypt suggests (with good reason, I believe) that internal religious conflict wasn't necessarily a major factor in the speed and success of those conquests. That position may not be the consensus in the field yet, but the idea that "the eastern provinces became increasingly convinced of their need for independence from the Eastern Roman Empire" seems pretty extreme, and it's based on a source that's more than 60 years old.
Have modified it to specify that this is the opinion of Vasiliev, rather than a universal belief. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I should have said something about this earlier, but in the section on economic and legal policy, do we have any examples of the expenditures that Marcian cut? The sentences that follow don't actually list any. Given that repairing the empire's finances was one of Marcian's most important achievements, more detail here would be welcome. A. Parrot (talk) 23:54, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I haven't been able to find any real detail about the expenses that he cut, other than the cessation of tribute. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:15, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@A. Parrot: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:22, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support. On a personal note, I knew very little about events in the Eastern Empire in this period, so it was good to read a solid article that helped fill that gap. A. Parrot (talk) 04:55, 2 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Gog the Mild[edit]

Nb. It is my intention to use this review to claim points in the WikiCup.

This is a marker, I'll get back over the next couple of days. I have looked at this a couple of times already, so my review may be brief. I shall no doubt do some copy editing as I go; shout if any of it causes alarm. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:43, 8 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Marcian took advantage of the resulting fragmentation of the Hunnic confederation, settling numerous tribes within Eastern Roman lands" Maybe 'by settling', no comma?
Done
"Marcian had reached the rank of tribune." Could we have a brief in line explanation of what "tribune" means? Eg 'Marcian had reached the rank of tribune, a middle ranking officer.'
Done
"He did not see action in the war itself having become ill in Lycia" Delete "itself", replace with a comma.
Done
" Despite being Alanic" You need to explain to a reader why being Alanic was a handicap.
Done
"comparable to that of Stilicho in the Western Roman Empire" As Stilicho has not been introduced and a reader does not know how much power he held, I don't see the point of this. Suggest deleting it.
Done
"After his capture, he is not mentioned again" Is "he" Marcian or Gaiseric? Either way, suggest replacing "he" with their name. Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 17:55, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Eastern Roman Empire had been plagued" Suggest "had been" → 'was'.
Done
"to pay 350 pounds (160 kg) of gold every year" Optional: "every" → 'each'.
Done
"In the face of Eastern Roman weakness, the Huns doubled their demand, asking for 700 pounds (320 kg) of gold per year, which Theodosius agreed to; the threat the Huns posed to the weakly protected Eastern Empire was enough that Theodosius recalled a large number of his forces from Africa." A bit long for a single sentence.
Done
"Theodosius refused to pay the tribute and continued to do so until 439" That's a little unclear. Suggest "do so" → 'refuse'.
Done
" In the spring of 440, 1,100 ships set sail from Constantinople for Africa, twice the size of the fleet that Emperor Justinian would send a century later." 1. To be grammatically correct, you need to add something like 'which was twice the size ... ' And what is a reader to make of this mention, out of the blue, of an event 100 years later. Either explain it or delete it - recommended: If you can source it, just say something like 'extraordinarily large for the time'.
Done
"but this is thought to be merely propaganda created by Marcian's supporters after his election" Do we really need "merely"?
Done
"This has led many historians to suggest a deal was made whereby Zeno would be rewarded for supporting Marcian and not attempt to have himself made the emperor" Could you give the prose from Lee where they state that "many" historians hold this view. Thanks.
Appears I made a general assumption that many historians did; fixed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"indicative of further separation between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires" Further than what? This hasn't been mentioned before.
Done
"Marcian took a much tougher stance against the Huns" "much"? Do the sources support this?
Fixed
"although both Pulcheria and Flavius Zeno were opposed to Chrysaphius' influence, which may have motivated Marcian's actions." This seems out of place. Maybe something like
The election of Marcian in 450 resulted in large changes to eastern imperial policy. Chrysaphius, the eunuch and spatharios (guard of the imperial chambers), who had exercised much influence over the young Theodosius, was either murdered or executed. Both Pulcheria and Flavius Zeno were opposed to Chrysaphius' influence, which may have motivated Marcian's actions. Marcian took a much tougher stance against the Huns and a more direct role in ecclesiastical affairs. For these reasons, some historians consider him the strongest, or at least most independent, Eastern Roman emperor.
Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:35, 9 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sections: Why is "Reign of Theodosius II" under "Reign [of Marcian]"?
Done
Ditto "Rise to the throne"?
Done
"Marcian reversed Theodosius' policies" All of them? Suggest either specifying which in this sentence or inserting 'some of'.
Done
"some Franks, Burgundians, and Ostrogoths" Is that some Burgundians and some Ostrogoths; or just some Franks? Either way, the grammar needs changing.
Done
"resulted in massive losses on both sides" "massive" is a bit 'word to watchy'. Optional: → 'very high'.
Done
"Aetius dismissed his coalition of barbarians" Suggest deleting "of barbarians" It is a bit PoV and doesn't really add anything.
Replaced with "tribes". Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:32, 28 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"into the almost entirely undefended Italy" → 'into Italy, which was almost entirely undefended.'
Done
"He was likely motivated by his desire for revenge" "his → 'a'.
Done
Link lines of communication.
Done
"Aetius was unable to launch an attack on Attila" Either briefly explain why he was unable, or just say 'did not'.
Done
"coupled with the famine that Italy was suffering" "the" → 'a'.
Done
"and enslave it entirely" "enslave" seems an odd word. Optional: → 'conquer' or 'overrun'.
Done
"starting first with the rebellions of the Ostrogoths" Delete the first "the".
Done
Link Lower Moesia.
Done
Link Scythia.
Done
Link Dacia
Done
"various tribal people" Should that be 'peoples'?
Done
"induced to serve the East Empire" Eastern.
Done
"both the Eastern and Western Roman Churches" I don't think there was an Eastern Roman Church. → 'both the Eastern Church and the Western Roman Church'
Done
"The decision considered most objectionable by the Eastern and Western Roman Churches" → 'The decision considered most objectionable by both churches'
Done
"which held enormous religious importance to the early church" "to" → 'for'.
Done
"The council also agreed to condemn Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria" Could we insert 'Coptic', ie 'The council also agreed to condemn the Coptic Pope Dioscorus I of Alexandria' and link Coptic Pope.
Done

More to follow. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:33, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Valentinian also did not recognize the Eastern Roman consul—Marcian for 451, or Sporacius for 452" Just those two, or both consuls for those years? Just those years? Ie, did he recognise Eastern consuls in other years?
Just those two (the other counsul would be West Roman), and just those years. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
"The issue of Eastern authority would prove a point of contention between Eastern and Western Christianity." When?
Done
Refs: the sfn for Nathan are incorrectly set up, and do not link.
Done
Refs 51 and 58 should be "pp.", not "p."
Done
The two Vasiliev works should be in date order.
Done

That's all from me. Gog the Mild (talk) 20:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iazyges Nudge. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:18, 18 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Gog the Mild: done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:44, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Further comments[edit]

"a group considered Barbarian by" Lower case b.
Done

Otherwise I am happy with the various changes. Give me a day or two to read through it again. Gog the Mild (talk) 11:50, 29 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I have done a little copy editing. Could you flag up here if you are unhappy with any of it.

Lead: " allowed Marcian to bribe Attila into retreating from the Italian peninsula. "
Main body: "allowing the Western Roman Empire to bribe him into retreating to his homeland"

Which?
Done
"He mandated that the praetorship must be given to senators residing in Constantinople" Could you explain what this means in English?
Done

Iazyges A few additional points above for your consideration. Gog the Mild (talk) 22:40, 30 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:10, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flows well. A complicated reign, and set of sources, rendered intelligible. Good work. Supporting. Gog the Mild (talk) 19:23, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support from Hawkeye7[edit]

This is a fine article, and I support its promotion to featured article status. I have read through it multiple times, and have no issues. Hawkeye7 (discuss) 20:45, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments by CPA-5[edit]

Marcian (/ˈmɑːrʃən/; Latin: Flavius Marcianus Augustus Unlink Latin.
Done
~~After a month of negotiations Pulcheria, Theodosius' sister --> "After a month of negotiations Pulcheria, Theodosius's sister"~~
If a noun ends with s you put an apostrophe after the s, not a 's, so s' is the correct form. I have crossed out further suggestions that are just this. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: This might be interesting for you. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 13:26, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: That is solely for a silent s at the end of the word; as this article notes, Greek has very few if any silent letters, so it will basically never apply to Greek names; they are also generally pretty uncommon in English. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:11, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Iazyges: Oops that's my fault, I meant this Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 14:33, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: It is largely left up to the editors choice, as the common usage in English is to avoid adding on an extra s; the license granted by "If the singular possessive is difficult or awkward to pronounce with an added sibilant, do not add an extra s; these exceptions are supported by The Guardian,[25] Yahoo! Style Guide,[26] and The American Heritage Book of English Usage.[27] Such sources permit possessive singulars like these: Socrates' later suggestion; or Achilles' heel if that is how the pronunciation is intended." is pretty enormous. I disagree with the concept of using a double s, so I won't use it in articles that I'm the sole writer of. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:38, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Do you think the article is otherwise ready? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:37, 7 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Flavius Zeno was given the prestigious rank of patrician Remove Flavius because it's already mentioned the sentence before.
Done
~~and Flavius Zeno were opposed to Chrysaphius' influence Same as above and an extra "s" after "Chrysaphius'" should be written.~~
~~reversed some of Theodosius' policies --> "reversed some of Theodosius's policies"~~
before meeting Aetius' forces at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains --> "before meeting Aetius's forces at the Battle of the Catalaunian Plains in Northeast Gaul" and why is "Northeast" capitalised?
Fixed capitalization. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Attila retreated to the Hungarian plain, and Aetius dismissed Wait about which Hungarian plain are we talking about the Little or the Great?
Done
He then raided across northern Italy, taking Milan --> "He then raided across northern Italy, taking Mediolanum (Milan)"
Done
After returning to the Hungarian plain Again which Hungarian plain?
Done
Can you explain what a foederatiis in the body because you explained it in the lead, and it is odd to see not see it in the body? Same with laeti.
It is explained below foederati, sub-states that provided troops in exchange for Roman support. and laeti, barbarians settled directly in Roman land in exchange for military service. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Link Egypt to Roman Egypt.
Done
long-lasting disloyalty toward the Byzantine government Just curious how a Byzantine government looks like? Isn't it like a council? If so then government is a little bit the wrong word to use.
It's an empire with essentially more aggressive feudalism, with the church and state strongly linked, and different levels of government closely tied together. The only form of council would be the Byzantine Senate, but they have little to no actual power. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe standardise Eastern Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire.
Done
Vardan II Mamikonian, who was leading a revolt against the Sassanian Empire Where near the border because in his article states he was an Armenian. So the revolte was in Armenia?
In the lands of Armenia, but which were nominally held by the Sassanian Empire empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcian risked the anger of the Sassanians to strike against the king of Lazica --> "Marcian risked the anger of the Sassanians to strike against the King of Lazica"
Done
who would not recognize him until March 452 This sentence in the "Relationship with the Western Roman Empire" section is a repeat of the same sentence a couple sections before?
I don't see this sentence anywhere else? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
~~Valentinian would have attempted to depose Marcian, but for Aetius' opposition --> "Valentinian would have attempted to depose Marcian, but for Aetius's opposition"~~

~~which may simply be a muddling of Aetius' campaign Same as above.~~

~~Due to Euphemius' influence over foreign policy Same as above.~~
whereas the Suda states that Emperor Justin II What is the Suda?
Done
How do we know he was 65 when he died while his birth date is unknown?
The 65 is not backed in the sources, likely a holdover from the old dates. I have removed it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Okay that's anything from me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 15:16, 4 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@CPA-5: Done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:21, 5 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Looks good to me. Cheers. CPA-5 (talk) 16:51, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments bySupport from Borsoka[edit]

Great article.

Lede[edit]

Introduce Ardabur and his son Aspar as military commanders.
Done
Flavius Zeno, a military leader whose influence was similar to Aspar's, agreed to help Marcian to become emperor in exchange for the rank of patrician. The statement is not verified in the main text (the text in sub-section 2.2 Rise to the throne writes of the possible role Zeno played in M's ascension).
A holdover from when main text said this before it was removed for not being said in citation. Fixed.
Marcian reversed many of the actions of his predecessor, Theodosius II, in religious matters and in the Eastern Roman Empire's relationship with the Huns under Attila. I suggest: Marcian reversed many of the actions of his predecessor, Theodosius II, in the Eastern Roman Empire's relationship with the Huns under Attila and in religious matters. (The sentences after this statement follow this sequence of events.)
Done
Link Hungarian plain to Great Hungarian Plain.
Done
the Council of Chalcedon ... reversed the outcome of the earlier Second Council of Ephesus and declared that Jesus had two natures: divine and human. The Council of Chalcedon did not reverse the Second Council of Ephesus, but condemned it. (The source cited to verify this statement in sub-section 3.2 Religious policy does not support the claim either.)
Done
Mention the consequences of the Council of Chalcedon in the lede (the alienation of the masses of Egyptians and Syrians, who did not accept Chalcedonian Christology), because it would have important consequences.
Done

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 11:18, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early life[edit]

Consider linking Illyria to Praetorian prefecture of Illyricum (in the age, Illyria was a not well-defined region and the Illyrian emperors hailed from many parts of Illyricum, not only from Dalmatia).
Done
Despite being Alanic,... He was actually half-Alanic and half-Gothic (Friell, Williams (2005), pp. 45, 75).
Done
...a group considered barbarian by much of the Eatern Roman Elite... Delete: the article is not about Aspar and the Alans may have been considered barbarians by the Eastern Roman elite, but Aspar was born in the empire.
Done
Some sources give a likely false account... Consider changing to Evagrius Scholasticus, Procopius and later authors give a like false account..., as per WP:WEASEL.
Done

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 15:52, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rise to the throne[edit]

Marcian had served Aspar's father Ardabur loyally for fifteen years and had served Aspar for some time. The cited source says that M. served Ardabur and Aspar for fifteen years.
Done
This was due possibly to negotiations between Aspar and Pulcheria, Theodosius II's sister, who agreed to marry Marcian. The cited source says that the one-month interregnum was due to negotiations and one of those negotiations was possibly conducted with Pulcheria.
Done
Despite being married to Marcian, Pulcheria kept the vow of virginity she had made in 413, at age 14, during her three years of marriage to him. I did not find the text that verifies this statement in the cited work.
Done
Their marriage helped to legitimize Marcian's rule, as Pulcheria's family, the Theodosian dynasty, had direct ties to the throne. Consider moving it to directly follow the sentence about their marriage. I think the text "as Pulcheria's family ... to the throne" should be deleted: we are informed that she was the last emperor's sister. Do we need to repeat the information just to link "Theodosian dynasty"? If we want to link that article, we could add a "See also" section at the bottom of the main text.
Done I think the theodosian dynasty bit is helpful in explaining why the marriage was so important, as imperial ties were a huge part of the legitimacy of a new emperor/usurper. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Consider mentioning that Pulcheria is thought to have agree to marry Marcian only after he had promised to abandon Theodosius II's religious policies and convoke a Church council in this section. [Lee (2013), p. 104.]
Done
It is possible negotiations were also needed between Flavius Zeno, who was in a similar position of military power, and Aspar. Zeno was given the prestigious rank of patrician upon Marcian's ascension in 450. This has led some historians, such as A. D. Lee, to suggest a deal was made whereby Zeno would be rewarded for supporting Marcian and not attempting to have himself made the emperor. Consider the following text, as per WP:WEASEL: Historian Doug Lee proposes that negotiations were also needed between Aspar and Flavius Zeno, who was in a similar position of military power. Zeno was given the prestigious rank of patrician upon Marcian's ascension, suggesting a deal whereby Zeno was rewarded for supporting Marcian instead of claiming the throne for himself.
Done
Consider mentioning that Zeno died in a year. (Lee (2013), p. 98)
Done
Consider mentioning that Aspar's son, Ardabur "was promoted to a high military command soon after Marcian's ascencion" (Lee in the Cambridge Ancient History, page 43.)
Gone one step further; in politics this was mentioned but I've moved it up to here as it is relevant. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Marcian was elected without any consultation with the Western Roman Emperor, Valentinian III, which has been viewed as indicative of further separation between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires than before his reign. Consider changing: Marcian was elected without any consultation with the Western Roman Emperor, Valentinian III—clear indicative of further separation between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires than before his reign. We do not need to present the second statement as a PoV. It is quite obvious and nothing indicates that any scholars have challenged it.
Done
Consider mentioning the proposed exact date of Marcian's recognition by Valentinian in the main text (not in a footnote). It is quite relevant.
Done, I've also done my best to explain that it is a matter of dispute between the two. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 07:44, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
In 453, Marcian had his daughter from a previous marriage, Marcia Euphemia, marry Anthemius, the future Western Roman emperor. Why is this mentioned in connection with the Western Roman Emperor Valentinian III? Anthemius was a patrician in the Eastern Roman Empire, as far as I know with no connection with Valentinian or the Western Roman Empire until he was sent to Rome to seize the throne more than a decade later. If we mention the marrieage here, we suggesting a connection between Marcian's recognition by Valentinian and the marriage, although - as far as I know - they are not connected.
Done
Delete the young - Theodosius was almost fifty when he died.
Done
For these reasons, some historians consider him the strongest, or at least most independent, Eastern Roman emperor. I did not find the source verifying this claim. Lee says that Marcian "can appear as a stronger figure than many other fifth-century incumbents of the imperial office", but he does not support this claim. If there are historian who consider him the strongest (?) or most independent Eastern Roman Emperor, they should be named, but Lee's doubts should also be mentioned.
Done

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 02:00, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Conflict with the Huns[edit]

Almost immediately after becoming emperor, Marcian reversed some of Theodosius' policies, revoked all treaties with Attila and proclaimed the end of subsidies. Consider changing to Almost immediately after becoming emperor, Marcian revoked Theodosius' treaties with Attila and proclaimed the end of subsidies. We are informed that he changed everything in the previous section.
Done
Consider changing ...he would be repelled... to ...Attila would be repelled....
Done
Consider shortening the text about Hunnic-Western Roman relations. I think we should really shortly be informed about the following facts and events: 1. the Huns' dependence on tribute and loot (which is the principal reason of their constant wars or demand of tribute); 2. the first Hunnic invasion of the Western Roman Empire (because it prevented Attila from attacking the Balkans), and 3. the Hunnic invasion of Italy (because it enabled Marcian to invade the Huns' heartland). A too detailed storyline prevents us from understanding the Leitmotif.
IMO the extensive text on the relationship is necessary because it dominates Marcian's reign. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

My concern is that we are informed about lots of events, but their relevance in the context of Marcian's life remains obscure (WP:Summary style). Why do we need to list lots of barbarian tribes, who did not play any role in Marcian's life? Why do we need to mention towns in Gaul and Italy which had nothing to do with Marcian? The core information is that Attila had no time to deal with the Eastern Roman Empire, because he was waging war against the Western Roman Empire. Borsoka (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it's important for giving the context of the conflict; the locations of where the war was being waged are very important for the empire, east and west. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:03, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, Gaul and Italy. We should give the context of Marican's life and rule. From this perspective, lengthy sentences about faraway conflicts are disturbing. We should make it clear what is their relevance in the context. Would you mention the details of battles fought against the German invaders in the Soviet Union during WWII and would you list the ethnic groups fighting in the Red Army in an article dedicated to Roosevelt's or Churchill's life. No. Borsoka (talk) 11:17, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Marcian forcibly settled multiple peoples in the recovered European provinces: the Rugians in eastern Thrace, Sciri in Lower Moesia and Scythia, Gepids in Dacia and others, as foederati, sub-states that provided troops in exchange for Roman support. The source cited to verify the sentence writes of Marcian and his successors and does not write of forced settlements of the barbarian groups. (When writing of force, Friell and Williams clearly refer to Attila, instead of Marcian). A recently published book, not cited in the article - Elton, Hugh (2018). The Roman Empire in Late Antiquity: A Political and Military History. Cambridge University Press. ISBN 978-1-108-45631-9. - makes it clear that during Marcian's reign only groups of Goths were allowed (and not forced!) to settle in Pannonia Prima and Pannonia Valeria provinces. (The two sources cited in the article also mention only the Goths clearly in connection with Marcian.)

@Borsoka: could you give the page number(s) for the Elton source? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Page 172
Done

This marked the official abandonment of a rigid Danube barrier, which had been manned by Roman laeti, barbarians settled directly in Roman land in exchange for military service. The source cited to verify the text actually writes that Marcian tacitly abandoned the idea of restoring the rigid Danube that had existed before the emergence of Attila. I am not a native speaker, so I may be wrong, but I think the text quoted from the article does not reflect the cited source.

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 16:24, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would say a tacit abandonment in official policy makes it an official abandonment; its somewhat semantical but the meaning is much the same. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:06, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The text suggest that Marcian withdrew Roman troops from the lands along the Danube and declared that he did not want to recover them. The cited source writes that the Roman troops had been withdrawn from the lands along Roman frontier decades before Marcian and Marcian did not make attempts to restore Roman rule there, but the source does not imply that he whenever declared that the Romans abandoned their claims to those lands. (And this is the difference between a tacit and an official abandonment.) Borsoka (talk) 08:18, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Done

Religious policy[edit]

Shortly before Marcian became emperor, the Second Council of Ephesus was held in 449. Despite the intention that it be ecumenical it was marred by what both the Eastern Church and the Western Roman Churches saw as heretical beliefs, causing both to refuse to recognize the decisions of the council. The decision considered most objectionable by the Eastern Church and the Western Roman Churches was on the matter of Christology. The council stated that Jesus had one divine united nature, called miaphysis, which went against both churches' belief in the hypostatic union. I think the text is loose and contains OR. 1. First of all the sequence of the sentences should be changed. We learn about the negativ reception of the council's decisions before we are informed about their core. 2. The terms "Eastern Church" and "Western Roman Church" are not defined (remember most Syrian and Egyptian bishops supported the decisions of the council). Neither are they verified in the cited sources. I would rather say that both the Pope and the Patriarch of Constantinople rejected the doctrine adopted at the council. 3. I would avoid the use of the term "ecumenical" in the context. After 431 the use of the term is in itself a PoV: the Second Council of Ephesus is not regarded ecumenical by Catholic and Eastern Orthodox Christians, while Chalcedon is refused by the Syrian, Armenian, Egyptian and Ethiopian Churches. 4. Which source verifies the use of the term "miaphysis"? 5. Consolidate references No. 25 and 26.
Done
The council was to take place near Constantinople so that Marcian and Pulcheria could watch the proceedings closely. I think the sentence is closely paraphrased, but does not properly reflect the cited source which does not say that Marcian and Pulcheria wanted to "keep a close eye on proceedings" at the council. I think the cited source simply wants to say, that the imperial government wanted to keep the council under control (but I am not a native speaker).
For English to watch something closely generally means to ensure that it goes the way you want it to; so I think it works well in the example. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The cited source does not write of Marcian and Pulcheria, it uses a general term referring to the imperial government. Borsoka (talk) 08:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done
...the Danube, which was being raided by the Huns under Attila. The sources cited to verify the sentence does not write of raids (and we are informed in the previous section that the Huns launched two invasions against the Western Roman Empire in this period). The cited source refers to the strained relationship between the Hunnic and Eastern Roman Empires.
Done
Consider mentioning that the elevation of the See of Constantinonple was offensive for the Patriarchs of Alexandria. (Bauer (2010), p. 122.)
Done
Consider mentioning that the fact that Marcian enacted the doctrines adopted at the council shows that they were not universally accepted. (Lee (2013), p. 148)
Done
One such edict ordered the repression of Eutychianists, barring them from holding state offices, forbidding them from criticizing the Council of Chalcedon, and ordering their literature, along with that of the Nestorians, to be burned. Consider summarizing this statement without introducing new and unexplained terms like "Eutychianists" and "Nestorians". If we want to link the two terms to this article we can mentioned them in a "See also" section.
I think the introduction are somewhat necessary for later usage. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The anti-Miaphysite resolutions of the council led to a large increase in civil disruption in the eastern provinces of Syria and Egypt, where the majority of the population was Miaphysitic. The work cited to verify the statement does not contain the terms "anti-Miaphysite" and "Miaphysitic" (or any similar term).
A matter of semantics actually; Vasiliev as an Eastern Orthodox man refers to them as Monophysites, whereas the Miaphysites reject being called such; he is definitely referring to the Miaphysites however. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
According to the Byzantist Alexander Vasiliev,... and Vasiliev states that... Why are the statements that follow these introductions are presented as Vasiliev's PoV? I have not read a single book about Eastern Roman, or Byzantine, history that contradicts Vasiliev's statement. Could you refer to one?
I think the claim that it "ultimately facilitating the loss of these provinces to the Sassanians and later to the Arabs". is a pretty strong stance to take, so stating that this is a belief of Vasiliev adds clarity. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...Eastern Church... A loose term. Consider using the term imperial/official/state church.
Done
...the Miaphysite and Nestorian population... The work cited to verify the statement does not use the term "Miaphysite" (or any similar term).
As per above. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The separation of the Miaphysites from... Does Meyendorff use the term "Miaphysites"?
Same point as with Vasiliev. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:38, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
... the Western and Eastern Churches.... Loose terms (Syria and Armenia are located to the east of Constantinople). Consider using the term "churches accepting Chalcedonian doctrine", or similar.
Done
Due to his piety, ... Herrin does not verify this introduction. She rather suggests that Marcian's comparison with David and Paul was flattering by his courtiers.
Done
Consider introduce Paul as "the apostle Paul" and "David" as the "Biblical king David" (there are billions of people in the world to whom these two first names do not suggest anything).
Done
...later religious figures. Some example?
Done

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 03:31, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Economic and legal policy[edit]

Consider linking "senator" to Byzantine Senate#Admission and composition.
Done
Marcian laid out many legal reforms in his five novels, or codes of law, many of which were targeted at reducing the corruption and abuses of office that had existed during the reign of Theodosius. 1. I think the statement is not verified by the source cited. 2. The cited source is a translation of primary sources. We need a secondary source, or at least a footnote in the cited source to refer to it as per WP:SOURCE. 3. If the sentence were verified, it would be a good introduction of the list of his decrees after the sentence "Marcian attempted to improve the efficiency of the state in multiple ways." in the previous paragraph. 4. Consider deleting the word "many" and the expression "many of which were" from the sentence as per WP:WEASEL.
Done

Politics[edit]

Change Anthemius, the future Western Roman emperor to a talented military commander, Anthemius, who descended from an aristocratic family. At the time of marrying Marcian's daughter, Anthemius was "only" an aristocrat and a talented general. (Dzino, Parry (2017), p. 258.) Of course, we should shortly mention Anthemius' future carrier in the "Death" section, but it is not relevant in this context.
Done
...dictated policy directly... Close paraphrasing?
Despite Aspar's great influence, the Eastern Roman elites retained much of their anti-German sentiment. Marcian patronized the Blues... This is a sudden change of subject - there is no connection between the two statements.
Done
[The Blues} were one of the original four circus teams. The two teams that remained had become more like political parties than sports teams by his time, wielding large influence in the empire, the other being the Greens; both vied for power 1. The cited source does not verify this statement. 2. We do not need to mention that once there were four circus demes, because during Marcian's reign there were only two of them (WP:Summary style). 3. Link the expression to "Deme#Later usage" (not to "chariot racing").
Done
Consider changing dynastic motivations to "political/personal motivations" (close paraphrasing and for a non-native speaker the adjective "dynastic" is surprising in the context).
Done
Consider changing Chrysaphius to the once powerful/disgraced/murdered eunuch, Chrysaphius (to help readers to identify him soon).
Done

Foreign relations[edit]

Are you sure that the cited sources verify the paragraph? Jones, Martindale, and Morris does not mention the details of the Vardan II Mamikonian's embassy (although they are cited to verify). The two Mamikonians and Hmayeak Mamikonian's partners are not mentioned by Mikaberidze.
Done
If the sentences referring to the following persons are verified, introduce them: Vardan II Mamikonian and Gubazes I.
Done
Marcian was counseled by Anatolius and Florentius not to make war with the Sassanians and thus did not agree to help them. [This text is verified!] Introduce , Anatolius, Florentius. Why did the two men dissuaded Marcian from waging war against the Sassanids? Why did Marcian accept their advice?
Done

....more to come. Borsoka (talk) 13:10, 11 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Relationship with the Western Roman Empire[edit]

When Marcian was elected in 450, it was done without consulting the Western Emperor, Valentinian III, who would not recognize him until either March 451 or March 452; Marcian's appointment marked a further stage of separation between the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. Duplicated info. Delete it either from section Rise to the throne, or from here. WP:Summary style does not allow us to repeat the same information in the same article.
Done
Change ...Excerpta de insidiis... to ...John of Antioch's Excerpta de insidiis.... Do we know whether this is a chronicle deemed to be reliable by historians?
Done Unfortunately I've not been able to locate a source that directly
References to footnotes in the cited books are not consequent (compare references No. 64 and 65.)
@Borsoka: Uncertain what this means? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Valentinian also did not recognize the Eastern Roman consul—Marcian for 451, or Sporacius for 452. This is not a proper summary of the cited source. It writes that Valentinian did not recognize the consuls of the Eastern Roman Empire for the years 451 and 452, and Valentinian also "seems to have refused to acknowledge Marcian until 452".
Done
Marcian also radically changed Eastern Roman policies, especially in relation to the Huns,[53] without consulting the Western Roman Empire, which infuriated Valentinian. We have been informed about the change. Consider Marcian's unilateral change also radically changed Eastern Roman policies, especially in relation to the Huns,[53] without consulting the Western Roman Empire, which infuriated Valentinian. 1. The first part of the sentence is a repetition of a fact already mentioned. (Furthermore, page 98 of the cited work verifies it again.) 2. The second part of the article is based on a book published by Quercus publishing. Is this a peer-reviewed book. As far as I understand anybody who has an agent can access to publishing at Quercus ([2]). Furthermore the statement is highly problematic: Marcian stopped paying tribute to the Huns who were preparing for an invasion of the Western Roman Empire, thus risking a Hunnic invasion of the Eastern Roman Empire. Why his step outraged Valentinian? I suggest the whole sentence should be deleted. If the second part of the sentence is kept, it should be presented as Potter's PoV, with a reference to Potter's profession.
I did not check the publisher for Potter's book because I recognized him as being reliable; his decision to publish the book commercially rather than academically seems to have been good for him, but unfortunately makes it unusable here. I've removed the entire sentence. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Introduce Hydatius.
Done
Does Grant explicitly write of Marcian settling the Ostrogoths in Pannonia and the Gepids by the Tisza? Especially the reference to the Gepids is strange: the lands to the north of the Danube along the Tisza had been outside Roman control for almost two centuries. Could the settlement of South American refugees in New England outrage the government of the UK?
He does: ...and when he granted part of Pannonia to the Ostrogoths and the Tisza region to another people, the Gepids, he was accused of encroaching upon the borderlands between eastern and western Empires. (Grant, p. 307) I've changed "settled" as it was in the article to "granted" as it was in the source, as I think granted implied he allowed them to live there without harassment, but also did not fully control them, which settled would imply. Not 100% sure why the Western Roman Empire got mad about this, but perhaps they thought the introduction of new groups close to their border would cause new problems. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:43, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
...the Eastern Roman Empress, Licinia Eudoxia and her daughters Placidia and Eudocia She was Western Roman Empress. Consider changing to ...the Dowager Empress, Licinia Eudoxia and her daughters by Valentinian III, Placidia and Eudocia.
Done
Around this time, Marcian made peace with Lazica and settled the Ostrogoths and other tribes along the Danubian frontier, both of which would allow him to direct his attention elsewhere. We have been informed about the settlement of Ostrogoths in Pannonia three times. Furthermore, we have just been informed that the settlement of the Ostrogoths outraged Valentinian. Now we are informed that the Ostrogoths were likely settled in Pannonia after Valentinian's death. Please clarify what happened when and avoid duplicating/triplicating the same info.
Done
Is Maximus identical with Petronius Maximus? Consider using his name consequently or introduce Petronius Maximus as an emperor.
Done
...a century after the fact... For a non-native speaker the term "fact" is strange in the context. Maybe "event/episode"?
Done
The issue of Eastern authority would prove a point of contention between Eastern and Western Christianity... 1. Almost the same (but slightly different) info is already mentioned in the section. 2. This is Consider changing to Authority over the Church/Supreme church authority in the Eastern Roman Empire would prove a point of contention between Rome and Constantinople... (the ancient Eastern patriarchal sees of Antioch and Alexandria were also outraged by the elevation of the see of Constantinople).
Done

Death[edit]

Consider mentioning that he had problems with his legs and could not walk at the end of his life (based on these symptoms Meijer suggests gangrene).
Done
[Anthemius] did not have any connection to the Theodosians and thus would not be considered legitimate.... Neither did have Leo I any connection to the Theodosians, so this is not an explanation.
Added explanation. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:03, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anthemius would later become the Western Roman emperor. Consider mentioning that Leo I sent Anthemius to Rome to seize the imperial throne.
Done

A final suggestion[edit]

I think the article is really close to FA. I accept your concerns regarding some of my above proposals. My final suggestion is about a summary of the Christological debates of the early 5th century. Several concurring Christologies are mentioned and even some prominent theologians, but but we are not informed about the core of the debate. I think Lee provides a good summary. He presents the two principal theological schools, the Alexandrian and Antiochene, and explains the main differences between them. (Lee (2013), p. 137.) I propose a summary based on his work which could be a good introduction to section Religious policy. Thank you for your patience. Borsoka (talk) 14:10, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Done. Thank you so much for your incredible effort and suggestions. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:33, 15 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Legacy[edit]

Some later scholars... Consider naming some, as per WP:WEASEL. Borsoka (talk) 14:24, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources[edit]

The chapter cited from Cambridge Ancient History was written by A. D. Lee. Use the proper template to attribute the work to him.
Does this mean the entire CameronWard-PerkinsWhitby2001 reference should be A. D. Lee instead? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 03:06, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he is the author. Borsoka (talk) 03:58, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Done

The chapter cited from The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies was written by Clarence Gallagher. Use the proper template to attribute the work to him.

Done

Infobox[edit]

In the infobox, Pulcheria is mentioned as his successor. Nothing verifies this in the main text.
Fixed
What is the source verifying his full name?
Done
Did he whenever styled himself as "Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire"? Is there any reliable source using this title? It looks like a WP-invention.
It's mostly a matter of differentiating the Eastern and Wester emperors; all of them would have the title Augustus, but there's commonly a reference to them as being a "Western Roman Emperor" or a "Eastern Roman Empire". In Wikipedia, this takes the form of his styled title of Augustus followed by "of the Eastern Roman Empire" as a measure of geographical area, rather than the full title. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 06:57, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If it is only a WP invention, we should delete it, as per WP:NOR. Borsoka (talk) 07:15, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's not an invention of Wikipedia, but of the sources. He's often referred to as the "Eastern Roman Emperor" by sources; although he certainly never called himself that. Along the same lines as the fact the Byzantine Empire never called themselves the Byzantine Empire, but they are universally known as such. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Does any source cited in the article uses the term "Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire"? Borsoka (talk) 08:26, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Several of them call him Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire; Fik Meijer, for instance, calls them the Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:53, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have never questioned it. However, which of them uses the term "Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire"? Borsoka (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A source doesn't need to say that Marcian specifically was called Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire; all Eastern emperors were. Every Wikipedia article on Roman emperors has this. Because that was their title; sources merely use Emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire because its less complex, and means exactly the same thing. The precedent behind its use is enormous. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 10:01, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So it is a WP-invention: none of the Eastern Roman Emperors are mentioned as "Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire" by academic sources. We are not here to create titles. What about simply mentioning his title Augustus? Borsoka (talk) 10:59, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
His title is Augustus, but only really Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire; he wasn't a sole Augustus, he had no real authority over the Western Empire. I don't think the distinction between Augustus and Emperor is significant enough to actually matter; it means the same thing, but he would have called himself Augustus. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 11:07, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I do not like WP-inventions. If academic sources do not style him as "Augustus of the Eastern Roman Empire", neither can we use the title. I raised the issue on the Talk page of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome. Borsoka (talk) 11:41, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Borsoka: Favor for Emperor of the [x] Empire over Augustus of the [x] Empire seems overwhelming, I have corrected it here. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:06, 13 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What is the source verifying his regnal name?
Done

* Comments Support from Norfolkbigfish[edit]

Just nitpicking at the moment, feel free to ignore

domesticus, assume it is Latin so domesticus
Done
Ardabur and his son Aspar – who are they?
Done
patrician – what does it mean, language tag
Done
patrician – language tag, perhaps punctuation is better than parenthesis for explanation
Done
seven million solidi – is this a lot? Whats a solidi?
Done
Enlisted – is the term correct for the period, would join be better?
Enlisted actually works better, though this may only be true for the Roman Empires. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Tatianus and Iulius are dead links, can we explain something about them
What has been said about them is all that is known about them, unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 14:49, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Up to Background, more to come Norfolkbigfish (talk) 12:10, 8 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

From Rise to the throne

Chastity (and link) rather than virginity might be better
I'd like to use chastity but almost all sources use virginity so I'm inclined to use it also. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
had direct ties to the throne isn't this supefluous, her being the previous Emperor's sister
Helps set up the following sentences, even if it is superfluous, IMO. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
if Attila was loyal, loyal would seem to be the wrong word, frendly, peaceful, allied??
Done
Comes et Magister Utriusque Militiae dead link
Done
battle involved around 100,000 men how do we know?
Sources estimate so. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
anyone should be any one
Done
foederati, laeti, need language tags
Done
ecumenical needs explanation
Has been removed. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
repression of Eutychianists and anti-Miaphysite terms probably need explanation
Done
vir illustris language tag?
Done
humilis dead link
Not anything easy to redirect it to, hopefully the article will be made at some point. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hmayeak Mamikonian, dead link
Done
C. E. Stevens, Geoffrey Nathan, dead links. Also are these guys particularly notable? If yes, perhaps it needs expaning why. If no, is it worth attributing these opinions to a named source?
They're all historians who could at some point have articles; don't really consider it a negative to have red links for now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
while at a long religious procession surely on procession rather than at?
Done
Marcian was received, would regarded be more appropriate than received?
Done
Heptaconch Hall dead link
Done
Some maps might help understanding of the geographic dsecription?
For what parts? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Not an area of which I am familiar but good work.

Norfolkbigfish (talk) 10:02, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Norfolkbigfish: Did/answered all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Support—nice work Iazyges Norfolkbigfish (talk) 09:50, 10 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Closing note: This candidate has been promoted, but there may be a delay in bot processing of the close. Please see WP:FAC/ar, and leave the {{featured article candidates}} template in place on the talk page until the bot goes through. Ian Rose (talk) 05:59, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this page.