Talk:Martinus (son of Heraclius)

	Martinus (son of Heraclius) is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on June 5, 2023.
Article milestones Date Process Result April 1, 2020 Good article nominee Listed March 15, 2023 Featured article candidate Promoted
Current status: Featured article

This article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Biography: Military / Royalty and Nobility This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the military biography work group (assessed as Low-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject Royalty and Nobility (assessed as Low-importance). An editor has requested that an image or photograph be added to this article. Middle Ages Low‑importance Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Greece: Byzantine ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by the Byzantine world task force. Classical Greece and Rome Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Classical Greece and Rome, a group of contributors interested in Wikipedia's articles on classics. If you would like to join the WikiProject or learn how to contribute, please see our project page. If you need assistance from a classicist, please see our talk page.Classical Greece and RomeWikipedia:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeTemplate:WikiProject Classical Greece and RomeClassical Greece and Rome articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. Military history: Biography / Roman & Byzantine / Russian & Soviet / Medieval This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks. To use this banner, please see the full instructions.Military historyWikipedia:WikiProject Military historyTemplate:WikiProject Military historymilitary history articles Associated task forces: /  Military biography task force Roman and Byzantine military history task force Russian, Soviet and CIS military history task force Medieval warfare task force (c. 500 – c. 1500) Roman and Byzantine emperors Top‑importance This article is within the scope of the Roman and Byzantine Emperors WikiProject, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of the Roman and Byzantine emperors. If you would like to participate, you can visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Roman and Byzantine emperorsWikipedia:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsTemplate:WikiProject Roman and Byzantine emperorsRoman and Byzantine emperors articles Top This article has been rated as Top-importance on the importance scale.

This review is

transcluded from Talk:Martinus (son of Heraclius)/GA1

. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Haukurth (talk · contribs) 08:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I might as well do this one too since there is so much overlap with the Tiberius article. Haukur (talk) 08:56, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Initial comments

A lot of what I've noted at

Now that we're far along with Tiberius, I'm thinking what we can do with Martinus. Here we have even fewer ancient references and even less scholarly discussion. What scholarly discussion there is has centered on chronological issues. So I think the main task left here is to summarize the discussion in Gonis 2008 and Zuckerman 2010, and older sources referred to in those articles if needed. Haukur (talk) 20:00, 14 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: Not sure there is much more to be added here. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 01:55, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Well, we currently don't cite Zuckerman at all here and it is the latest study we've found. Haukur (talk) 07:42, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: Believe I have summarized the discussion. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 12:46, 16 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Possible images

Here's that relatively recently found Egyptian papyrus the article mentions. It's important for nailing down when when Martinus became a Caesar and it's also an artifact dating from his actual reign (such as it was) so I think it would be relevant enough to display in the article.[1] Haukur (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It would be really neat to have a map of the Empire as it was in 641, under heavy attack by the Arabs. We have various maps at Category:Maps of the Byzantine Empire and Commons has many maps too but I didn't find any for that time. Haukur (talk) 16:32, 19 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: For whatever reason I'm unable to upload the image to wiki commons; not sure why. I've found a map of the Byzantines from 650 and added it. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 04:57, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Was Martinus ever raised to co-emperor?

Ten days into a review of this article on a Roman emperor I am now starting to think that he was never a Roman emperor after all. The only source that seems to say he was is the Prosopographie der mittelbyzantinischen Zeit which has other issues as well and I'm starting to distrust it. Stratos and Garland never mention Martinus being elevated alongside David and I don't see why they would omit that from their detailed accounts if it were there in the primary sources. The PLRE also just gives him as Caesar rather than Augustus. Haukur (talk) 20:30, 20 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Haukurth: We are rather trapped by sources here. PMZ lists him as an emperor, and none of the other sources do, but none of the sources refute this point. I can't prove he was not an emperor with sources, nor can I remove it without omitting details. Think we have to keep it unless a source explicitly says he wasn't an emperor. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 00:08, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The other sources implicitly refute it. Being an actual emperor is not something the PLRE would just forget to mention in its entry for the guy. But I have no idea how the PMZ came up with this. It lists five sources and I have now read all of them except Speck. I guess it's just barely possible that Martinus being an emperor is some bold new conclusion proposed in Speck 1990. If you prefer I can wait for Speck to arrive via interlibrary loan before proceeding further.

Alternatively, the PMZ could have drawn the conclusion that Martinus was an emperor based on the John of Nikiu account. But I think everything there still makes sense with him just being a Caesar and the PMZ would be a weird place to present a new theory without even mentioning that it's a new theory. So I think this is probably just a mistake. Another mistake in PMZ is saying David was emasculated, something no other source seems to suggest. Haukur (talk) 11:21, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for Speck to arrive; if he doesn't have anything, we'll work something out. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 15:29, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, I'm in no rush. Haukur (talk) 15:33, 21 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I have Speck now. He has a lot of speculative opinions about a lot of stuff but no, he doesn't have a theory about Martinus being emperor. I, on the other hand, have a theory about how the mistake arose. One source says David and Martinus were raised to Caesar together and in German it's easy to confuse Kaisar (=Caesar) and Kaiser (=emperor). Maybe that's how the PdmZ text arose. I'll write to the PdmZ folks and ask them to look into this. Haukur (talk) 14:10, 28 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@

Talk:Tiberius (son of Heraclius)/GA1? AIRcorn (talk) 08:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply

]

Hi! I had kind of forgotten about this. I should update the article with information from Speck and the other sources we obtained. And we certainly should not say that Martinus was a co-emperor, that must be a mistake in the PdmZ. After that, yeah, a second opinion would probably make sense. I'll try to find time to do this soon. Haukur (talk) 09:24, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I am don't know much about the topic area, but if you need a second opinion and I am available feel free to ping me. AIRcorn (talk) 17:55, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you so much and thanks for the reminder. Haukur (talk) 18:11, 1 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

• @Haukurth: Any word from PdmZ on how they came to declare that Martinus was emperor? Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 20:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Haukurth: Have removed words of him being co-emperor from article, working on removing from associated pages/templates. -- Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 21:15, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Status query

Haukur, the review of David/Tiberius has just closed after 234 days, and this is now at 233 days, approaching eight full months. Unless you are prepared to commit to working consistently and frequently on this nomination—and it took three weeks for you to return to David after my most recent ping—I think this should pass to another reviewer who has the time to commit to it. This is now the oldest review by over a month and a half. Please let me know what you plan to do. Thank you. BlueMoonset (talk) 01:18, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I regret that I have had minimal time and energy to spend on Wikipedia for a while and I am unlikely to find much in the near future. Do feel free to pass this on to another reviewer. But there really isn't much to say about poor Martinus. Haukur (talk) 01:44, 31 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Comments from Kingsif

I'll add some comments to finish up this review :) Kingsif (talk) 00:10, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• In the lead, the from c. 638–September/October 641 part should be prose (i.e. from c. 638 until/to September...}}
•  Done
• Lead is probably too long for the article length, and there's some excess about his family history in it that could be trimmed
•  Done Made it more about him also. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• In the body - which I presume could be broken into relevant sections? - there's a part that reads According to John of Nikiu, David and his brother Martinus were involved in. Martinus should go first, since the article is about him.
•  Done
• Is The main source for the life of Tiberius is John of Nikiu relevant?

  Removed; article is a derivative of David-Tiberius', forgot to remove it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• There's a large chunk that names a lot of people and their roles, without having given any context. Please, expand this out with some information on who these people are, what they have done, how they relate to the dispute, how they relate to Martinus, and if they're really relevant to his biography.

• This is the chunk: A mob rose up in the city, demanding that Pyrrhus must crown Constans II as emperor,[13][14][15] and then abdicate, to be replaced by his steward Paul II. Martina, now in a truly desperate situation, offered the military further donatives, recalled Philagrius from Africa, and offered Valentinus the title of Count of the Excubitors

• Did some work to expand on the roles and immediacy of the people mentioned within the chunk. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:03, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Re. Valentinus entered the city in September/October - it's just said September/October, couldn't this instance be replaced with "shortly thereafter"?
•  Done
• have been "escorted forth with insolence", where following, Valentinus had Martinus' nose cut off - is "where following" common enough to be used here?

  I personally think so, but I'm happy to change it. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• Two wikilinks are listed as primary sources. These aren't acceptable, though they don't seem to be referenced in the article? Perhaps this part is best removed, or the titles of their writings that are the primary sources should be included in the bibliography?

  The articles are not the primary sources, the things linked to are the primary sources. John of Niku is mentioned directly in the article; I have expanded the primary source citations, and will see about adding a reference to the Synodicon Vetus. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  I've removed the vetus primary source, and added in the papyri mentioned in the body. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

•  On hold Kingsif (talk) 00:25, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Iazyges: Kingsif (talk) 00:27, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• Oh, I also think his infobox still refers to him as co-emperor, which should be amended. Kingsif (talk) 00:30, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  The infobox still refers to him as Emperor of the Romans because Caesars essentially served as Emperors in Waiting when given to the sons of a ruling emperor; so he would have held some level of influence, and barring revolt he likely would have become first emperor at some point. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 08:56, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

• @Kingsif: Believe I have done all. Iazyges Consermonor Opus meum 09:11, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]
• @Iazyges: Looks good Kingsif (talk) 14:39, 1 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]