Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Ottoman conquest of Lesbos

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article promoted by Peacemaker67 (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 06:20, 17 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Ottoman conquest of Lesbos[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Cplakidas (talk)

The Ottoman conquest of Lesbos was one of the follow-up operations by Mehmed II after the capture of Constantinople in 1453. As an event, it was fairly typical in illustrating the dilemma faced by the many minor rulers in Latin Greece, caught between Ottoman expansion, their own weakness and rivalries, the futility of their protestations of loyal vassalage, and the divergent commercial interests of Genoa and Venice. The article was substantially rewritten in November 2017, and passed GA in January. I think it meets A-class criteria, but, as always, any corrections or suggestions for further improvements are welcome. Constantine ✍ 10:45, 9 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Indy beetle[edit]

Why are the civilians listed under strength? Was it normal at that time for civilians to contribute militarily to the defense of their city?

There are many occasions throughout the Middle Ages civilians assisted in the defense of their city, particularly when the consequences of the city's fall were slaughter, pillage, and slavery. That said, I cannot find an indication that this was the case here, so I am removing it.

Lesbos itself was spared the same fate, for the time being, partly due to the general impotence of the Christian powers in the Aegean. Why would the weakness of Christian powers prevent a Muslim empire from conquering a Christian island?

Because they posed no threat. Clarified.

Is there an OCLC for Miller?

Curiously enough I cannot find any for the original edition, only for recent reprints.

-Indy beetle (talk) 04:42, 16 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Indy beetle, I've answered the points you raised. Any further comments, even going above and beyond ACR requirements? Constantine ✍ 19:55, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think I found the applicable OCLC for Miller on Worldcat and I've added it accordingly. I have no further comments, though I'm admittedly no expert on this subject. I'll save Nikkimaria the trouble and go ahead and affirm that all of the images are appropriately captioned, licensed, and placed. -Indy beetle (talk) 20:10, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Gog the Mild[edit]

Hi Constantine. Good to see this article again.

I have made some edits which you will want to look at.

Your edits look fine. Thanks!

"this served as a perfect pretext for Mehmed to capture Lesbos as well." "[A]s well" as what?

As well as the other Gattilusi domains he had previously taken. But you are right, it is not necessary. Removed

"After the siege began, Cappello with his 29 galleys sailed towards Lesbos..." comes in the paragraph and the section before "On 1 September, the fleet under Mahmud Pasha arrived at the island..." It would, I think, be easier on a reader to mention the events in chronological order. Rather than mention the Venetians and their (lack of) actions under, or only under, Opposing forces.

Otherwise I can find little to pick at in a fine article. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:01, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, here I disagree, because Cappello's fleet was a potential combatant, and in the wider "zone of operations", to use a modern term. If he is mentioned, it should also be made clear that he would not intervene, for this is part of the siege's context: the besieged hoping that he would come, the Turks hasty to finish the affair for the same reason, but the reader knowing with hindsight that he would not.

Well, it's not a deal breaker, quite. I think that it might be for me at FAC. I can see that we are coming at this from different narrative perspectives. I can understand yours, but I don't think that it is appropriate for an encyclopedia article. Would you pick some other random event or non-event and convey it out of sequence so that 'the reader knows with hindsight'? Of course, I could be wrong; other editors views would be welcome. (For me "Opposing forces" should end with "... a fleet under Vettore Cappello was nearby at Chios." and the information in the following sentence should be in its appropriate chronological place.) Irrespective I am supporting. Always enjoyable to read your articles. Gog the Mild (talk) 10:11, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

As usual, thanks for taking the time to review, and for your help in improving the article. Any more comments? This won't go to FA soon until I track down a few articles that deal with the events more directly, but any recommendations or suggestions above and beyond ACR requirements are always welcome. Cheers, --Constantine ✍ 09:27, 28 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not from me. Even by your standards a tight, well written article. I expect it to transit through FAC quite rapidly. Gog the Mild (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review by Gog the Mild[edit]

I am not in a position to say whether all of the relevant literature has been consulted; indeed, Constantine states above that it hasn't. However, the authors of the sources used are highly respected scholars in this area and their works can IMO be considered to be (very) reliable sources. The publishers have impeccable reputations. I consider the information in them to be current, as these things go; Constantine seems to have used Miller, 1921, with care. A reasonable mix of perspectives are represented. A limited spot check of two sources indicates that the article accurately reflects them where they are cited. Everything that I would expect to be cited, is.

In my opinion, all aspects of A1 are met. Gog the Mild (talk) 12:56, 25 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Sturmvogel_66[edit]

This is in fine shape, but I would address Gog's comment about the Venetian fleet by suggesting that After the siege began, Cappello with his 29 galleys sailed towards Lesbos, and could easily have overwhelmed the Turkish fleet, whose crews had gone ashore to assist in the siege, but in the end, he obeyed his strict instructions not to do anything that might provoke a war with the Ottomans. should be truncated at the last clause and appended to the preceding sentence.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 03:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Sturmvogel 66, I've tried to rephrase according to your suggestion. Please have a look, or edit it yourself if I didn't get it right. Anything else? Constantine ✍ 10:00, 9 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I wasn't clear enough in my comment. What I meant was to drop "After the siege began, Cappello with his 29 galleys sailed towards Lesbos, and could easily have overwhelmed the Turkish fleet, whose crews had gone ashore to assist in the siege, but refrained from doing so." entirely as it doesn't appear that the garrison had any knowledge of his movements.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 00:22, 10 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, but we do, and we should explain why the hoped-for help did not arrive. Constantine ✍ 13:51, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that it's necessary, but it's your call.--Sturmvogel 66 (talk) 01:12, 14 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.