Wikipedia:WikiProject Military history/Assessment/Aegidius

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 Zawed (talk) via MilHistBot (talk) 08:20, 13 November 2018 (UTC) « Return to A-Class review list[reply]

Aegidius[edit]

Instructions for nominators and reviewers

Nominator(s): Iazyges (talk)

I am nominating this article for A-Class review because it has passed as a Good Article and I believe it meets the criteria for A-Class, and it is a part of my work on the Gallic Empire. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:47, 6 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

~~Comments~~Support by PM

This article is in good shape. I know little about this period, and although this article is brief, it appears to have coverage of all aspects of his life, but needs a few tweaks here and there.
you might like to note in the lead that the Kingdom of Soissons was short-lived
Done
the lead generally needs to be fleshed out with the main points of the body
Done
Gaul is overlinked in the lead
Done
the use of unexplained Latin terms isn't helpful for the reader, suggest a translation or explanation after, similar to what you've done with magister militum per Gallias. eg magister militum and Comes (although this is defined later on as "count")
Done
The History section needs a bit more detail, like that Gaul was part of the Western Roman Empire etc
Done
was Aetius magister militum of the whole Western Roman Empire, or just Gaul?
Done
"Aegidius served under Aetius during the latter's time as magister militum, alongside the future emperor Majorian" is unclear. Does this mean that Aegidius served alongside Majorian, or alongside Aetius? Reword.
Done
"Majorian secured the throne" what throne? Western Roman Empire?
Done
a bit more on the Battle of Arelate is needed. Who were they fighting, the Visigoths? How much of the force did Aegidius command? How did he contribute to Theodoric II's defeat? What were the outcomes of Theodoric II's defeat?
Done Couldn't find a source for number of troops. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
suggest "After Ricimer assassinated Emperor Majorian 461 and replaced him with Libius Severus, Aegidius refused to recognize the new emperor."
Done
Senior Emperor isn't explained. Would it be better to say something like "Libius Severus was also not recognized by the emperor of the Eastern Roman Empire, Leo I, who was considered to be senior to the emperor of the Western Roman Empire"?
Done
Gallic Legions or Gallic legions?
Done
link Vandals
Done
"then elected Aegidius to ~~elect~~rule them"?
Done
"theory of Soissons" Soissons is undefined here, and needs to be introduced/explained
Done
"Lyons"
Done
did Aegidius personally kill Frederic, or was he just killed during the battle? It currently reads like the former.
Done
Theodoric II has already been introduced, so just Theodoric will do at this point, also overlink
Done
are any details of the Battle of Orleans known?
None in particular unfortunately. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]
"~~Burgundian King~~ Gundioc"
Done
all isbn's should have hyphens
Done
who publishes Byzantion? Location?
Done
Frankish is an overlink
Done
in the succession box, it says Syagrius was the next magister militum of Gaul, but the article says others were appointed after Aegidius seceded?
Here it is a matter of legitimacy. According to Soissons, Syagrius was the next magister militum of Gaul, but according to Rome it was one of the two listed in article. Not quite sure how to mention that in the box; but if you have suggestions I'd be more than willing. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 17:58, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's me done. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 07:36, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Believe I have responded to all comments. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 18:08, 25 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No worries. I tweaked a couple of extra things. Supporting. Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 04:31, 26 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Support Comments by Gog the Mild[edit]

Lead:

~~"Aegidius threatened to invade Italy". It might be appropriate to insert 'repeatedly' or 'constantly' before threatened.~~

~~Could you state Syagrius' relationship to Aegidius.~~

History:

~~"Aegidius served under Aetius during the latter's time as magister militum (Master of Soldiers)". I don't see why "Master of Soldiers" is capitalised.~~

"Aegidius was granted the title of magister militum per Gallias (Master of the Soldiers for Gaul)". Ditto, and in other places.

""the primary cause for Theodoric II defeat". 's

"Aegidius is credited with being the primary cause for Theodoric II defeat; as a result of the defeat Theodoric II was forced to return Visigoth territory in Hispania to the Western Roman Empire, and submit again to the Western Roman Empire as foederatus." A. A rather long and complicated sentence. B. "Western Roman Empire" twice in 11 words; could it be rephrased to avoid this. C. What is a "foederatus"? I know that it is Wikilinked, but a bracketed translation would improve readability. (Personally I would use an English phrase and Wikilink to foederatus, but that's just because I prefer the English Wikipedia to be written in English.)

"who was considered the Senior Emperor". I don't think that "Senior" should be capitalised. The MoS would (strongly) suggest that neither should "Emperor".

"Aegidius threatened to invade Italy". It might be appropriate to insert 'repeatedly' or 'constantly' before threatened.

"Some historians have said that this was due to pressure from the Visigoths, whereas others assert that he was unable or unwilling to march to Italy, leaving Gaul exposed". I cannot find this debate in the single source given. Do you list the correct page numbers? MacGeorge offers different reasons on pages 93-94 without referencing other historians, except, arguably, Pricus. Perhaps change to 'Modern historian Penny MacGeorge has suggested that...'?

"According to some primary sources..." Personally I dislike the phrase "Primary sources" given that most of them weren't. But it seems to be generally accepted, so that is just a niggle.

"his death led to an invasion by the Visigoths, which historians have tentatively located as having occurred in the Auvergne area". I can't find this in the source given. Page 125 does refer to the Visigoth conquest of Auvergne in 475, 10 years after Aegidius' death.

References:

~~Personally I dislike the phrase "Primary sources" given that most of them weren't. But it seems to be generally accepted, so that is just a niggle.~~

Nice to see recent sources and scholarship used.

Leans heavily on MacGeorge, but she is certainly a RS and gives the most detailed and comprehensive modern account that I am aware of, which admittedly isn't very far. (Other sources I have to hand, including one more recent (Mitchell), do not contradict in any way anything the article sources to MacGeorge.)

~~For the ISBN given for Mac George I get a publication date of 2002, not 2003.~~

Declaration of interest. I added the three references to Mitchell back in March.

Political offices (in the box at the bottom):

~~I though that it was accepted that Agrippinus preceded Aegidius as magister militum per Gallias?~~

Looks a good, well written, exhaustive and balanced account of what we know about Aegidius to me. Gog the Mild (talk) 14:13, 1 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Gog the Mild: Done. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 19:00, 2 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

CommentsReviewing by Eddie891[edit]

*Syagrius is linked twice in the body, in an article this size it really doesn't need to be. That's about it. I'll look a bit closer in a few minutes/later today, but seems to be pretty good. Eddie891 ^Talk _Work 15:43, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Image review: The map used in the article is good to go. Parsecboy (talk) 20:21, 10 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Source review The used sources seem of high quality and reliable, but A Companion to Late Antiquity, Philip Rousseau (ed.), seems to have useful material on his likely status, saying that he might have been more of a regent. Also Studies in the history, literature and society of Late Antiquity by Hakkert seems to have quite a few mentions of him and should probably be examined before a FAC nom. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:33, 21 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Peacemaker67: Unable to find an accessible copy of A Companion to Late Antiquity online (found one that didn't have page numbers, which is fairly useless in terms of citations, unfortunately); only snippet view of Studies in the history, literature and society of Late Antiquity. I'll see about buying them if I make a run for FAC, but I'm focusing my efforts at finishing off my GAR's as of right now. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:24, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, no problem. I'm happy with the sources as they stand. Treat the above as a suggestion for FAC if this goes there. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:05, 12 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comments Support by Kges1901[edit]

Excellent article.

In the first paragraph of history, there are three consecutive sentences beginning with 'Aegidius', suggest diversifying the vocabulary.
- Done; not sure how to change the third "Aegidius" without severe awkwardness unfortunately.
Aegidius is credited By whom?
- Done
Not useful to link Italy to the modern country in the history section.
- Done
Childeric I was exiled briefly explain who Childeric I was and why he is relevant
- Done
The sources go on to say that Aegidius ruled them for eight years, before Childeric was recalled and reinstated as king. This story is considered fictional by most modern historians. Both sentences can be combined, and suggest noting that these are the primary sources.
- Done
Primary sources of the time say he was either assassinated or poisoned, but the person doing so, or allegedly doing so, is not given. Suggest rewording as "Primary sources of the time report that he was either assassinated or poisoned, but do not mention a perpetrator." Kges1901 (talk) 21:58, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]
- Done

G'day Iazyges, just a reminder that this review is here. This is progressing well so far as I can see. Cheers, Peacemaker67 (click to talk to me) 00:40, 13 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Kges1901: Implemented where I could; I avoided use of "Primary sources", because they didn't exist in the way we use them (almost all Ancient "primary sources" were removed from their stories by several degrees.) Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:31, 11 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for addressing. Changed to Support. Kges1901 (talk) 21:33, 11 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.