This is the talk page for discussing Manuel I Komnenos and anything related to its purposes and tasks. This is not a forum for general discussion of the subject of the article.
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
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Greece, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Greece on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GreeceWikipedia:WikiProject GreeceTemplate:WikiProject GreeceGreece
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Christianity, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Christianity on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ChristianityWikipedia:WikiProject ChristianityTemplate:WikiProject ChristianityChristianity
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Middle Ages, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Middle Ages on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Middle AgesWikipedia:WikiProject Middle AgesTemplate:WikiProject Middle AgesMiddle Ages
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Crusades, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the Crusades on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CrusadesWikipedia:WikiProject CrusadesTemplate:WikiProject CrusadesCrusades
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
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
Fine - p. 289 - says that The Byzantines invaded Hungarian Dalmatia in "the mid-1160s". However, Hungary formally recognised the Byzantine annexation in 1167. So both are probably correct. Urselius (talk) 15:18, 13 February 2022 (UTC)[reply]
The Gibbon box in assessement should be replaced by a more modern historian
The Gibbon box should be removed and be replaced by a comment from a more contemporary historian.Gibbons assessement is dated,as well as his book and his opinions arent taken seriously.There could be comment from a more contemporary historian.As it is it give a false impression on Manuel by a "historian" known for his biases against the Byzantine empire. 2A02:587:5513:2B00:9C9F:EB92:BA5A:6816 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The ancestry tree has recently been removed from the article, I have sourced a number of supporting references for it. Lack of references was cited as a reason for its removal. Reasons for its reinstatement, additional to my references, include: more information is almost always better than less, in a hereditary monarchy - which Byzantium effectively was at this time - the ancestry of the monarch is obviously important, Manuel is often cited as being pro-Western in his outlook, his ancestry shows that he was half-Latin, with Hungarian, Polish, German and Italian forebears. No Byzantine emperor had had so much Western ancestry for centuries, or connections with Latin royal families and this probably had some effect on Manuel's outlook. Urselius (talk) 11:10, 24 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this ahnentafel format is used on thousands of pages because it crept into them by being copy-pasted despite the concerns of experienced editors. This was discussed at Template talk:Ahnentafel and the consensus was that it should not be included by default but only when its inclusion is supported by its appearance in secondary sources. None of the many books about Manuel presents his genealogy in such a manner. None of the cited sources do. Magdalino, for example, gives us detailed genealogy charts that name Manuel's siblings, nieces, nephews, grandnephews, grandnieces, cousins, etc. These are the people who shaped Manuel's life. Magdalino never once names an Adelaide or a Richeza or a Rudolf. That is the chart we should build here using Template:Family tree. I'll get to it soon. Surtsicna (talk) 08:29, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
See my reasoning above as to why genealogy is important in all cases of hereditary monarchs and Manuel in particular. You have not addressed these. Wikipedia usages are often irrational. Urselius (talk) 12:07, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Is your reasoning supported by published secondary sources that discuss the importance of Manuel's descent from Rudolf of Swabia and Richeza of Poland? Do any scholars specializing in Manuel even name Rudolf, Richeza, Adelaide, etc? Surtsicna (talk) 12:24, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Manuel's Latin ancestry is of vital importance in Byzantine-Hungarian relations and the whole Bela-Alexios succession plan. You seem to want me to skip about satisfying your demands. Let me put the shoe on the other foot, please explain to me how genealogy and ancestry is unimportant in a hereditary monarchy. Though not strictly feudal, the concept of lordship pervaded contemporary Byzantium. The concept of being 'well born' was also of vital importance. Urselius (talk) 13:13, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I am not stating that ancestry is unimportant. I am saying that Rudolf, Richeza, Adelaide, etc are unimportant. They are not named in any of the four genealogical tables in Magdalino's 500+ biography of Manuel or, indeed, anywhere in the text. Nor does any other scholar name them in relation to Manuel. To paraphrase your argument from the section below, if a scholarly magnum opus on the subject of Manuel's reign does not mention these people, why should a Wikipedia article? If Manuel's Latin ancestry is so vital, it should be explicitly stated in the prose with citations to scholars discussing it, not left to the reader to somehow deduce from names dropped without context. Surtsicna (talk) 13:26, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Who picks whose ancestors are or are not important? I am of the opinion that more information is almost always better than less. Urselius (talk) 13:34, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No, the addition of information about early life is also supported by Magdalino, who provides such information. And, of course, you are welcome to cite any scholar writing about Manuel or the Komnenoi who includes these people in a genealogy chart or at the very least names them. Surtsicna (talk) 07:49, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be essentially working from a false premise here. If reliable material exists that delineates the ancestry of a hereditary monarch it is usual to include it in any biographical work on that monarch. Putting it into the form of a genealogical tree is merely an aid to the reader, rather than having them wade through lengthy prose. Simple. Urselius (talk) 07:57, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Ahnanetafeln are not at all usual in reliable sources–on the contrary, they are extremely rare–and there is no false premise. Your understanding is in contravention of Wikipedia policy. Per WP:NOTDATABASE, "To provide encyclopedic value, data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources." Merely dropping the names of great-grandparents who are otherwise never referenced in the article is of no enyclopedic value. Surtsicna (talk) 19:17, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
How does this article get away with jumping straight from Manuel's birth in 1118 to his part in a siege in 1140? Is there nothing to say about the first 22 years of his life? Surtsicna (talk) 10:16, 26 July 2025 (UTC)[reply]
We are looking at an Early to High Medieval period monarch, who up until 1142 was the younger sibling of a co-Emperor, had two other elder brothers, and was not likely to succeed to the throne. How much information do you think is out there?
About an emperor? Plenty. His youth would have been of interest to contemporaries, who would have, at the very least, remembered where he was born and his education. That he was very well educated is widely commented on by historians. And what happened to all the brothers? The eldest is never even named. Kinnamos tells us who Manuel's favorite cousin while growing up was–spoiler alert, it's the one who caused him most trouble–and that the two cousins were raised and educated together. Completely skipping 22 years is inexcusable. Surtsicna (talk) 12:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I have added all that can be easily gleaned from Kinnamos and Magdalino's 500+ page book concerning Manuel's early life, which is not a great deal. I have removed the banner, if a scholarly magnum opus on the subject of Manuel's reign has little on his early life, expecting a Wikipedia article to have more is unreasonable. Andronikos's relationship to Manuel is only really historically relevant when Manuel is emperor and it is referenced elsewhere in the Article. Urselius (talk) 13:00, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That would be a fair conclusion, but Magdalino says much more than that about Manuel's youth in those 500+ pages. Unfortunately it is not in chronological order. On page 434 we learn that he was born in the Purple Chamber. That Manuel was raised and educated with Andronikos and that Andronikos was his childhood best friend is on page 197. On page 436 it is said that John trained him to be a soldier and made him a sebastokrator. On page 468 Magdalino mentions that Euthymios Malakes praised the fact that Manuel had not had any formal education. And so on. And the article still does not even name John's eldest son, let alone explain what happened to him. The first 22 years of Manuel's life are thus not yet adequately covered. Surtsicna (talk) 13:21, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think that Magdalino not having a separate section on Manuel's early life speaks of its unimportance. Manuel was born to a ruling emperor, therefore a porphyrogennetos and they were usually born in the porphyry chamber, Alexios his elder brother was not, but he was still a porpyrogennetos. The Komnenoi were a military clan, all male members, if sound of wind and limb, were soldiers. If you want to trawl through every mention of Manuel's existence prior to 1143, feel free to do so. I would consider it unnecessary. I don't think that it adds to what is of importance about Manuel, which is his reign and policies. That his father thought him brave but reckless is of some interest, however. Urselius (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia articles are not written for experts in Byzantine history. They are written for the general audience. It is entirely unreasonable to expect the general audience to know or reach the conclusion that Manuel was born in the Purple Chamber of the Imperial Palace in Constantinople. Just as unreasonable is to expect the general audience to know that all male Komnenoi were meant to be soldiers. We are supposed to tell them that. That is the point of having the article. To explain. Besides, how is a reader going to conclude that born to a reigning emperor = porphyrogennitos = born in the Porphyra = born in Constantinople when we do not even tell them that Manuel's father was a Byzantine emperor? Surtsicna (talk) 13:53, 10 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
Please feel free to add as much trivia on Manuel's early life as you can glean. However, please do not replace the banner asking other editors to fruitlessly waste their time pandering to your desires for additions of debateable value. Urselius (talk) 07:40, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
That hostility is unwarranted. Is the fact that Manuel's father was the emperor of the Byzantine Empire trivia for you? It is becoming clear that the best way to go about this is a featured article review. Surtsicna (talk) 07:47, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
No hostility, just exasperation. Though I despise Wikipedia's internal workings and processes, please feel free to instigate a review. You seem to draw attention to things not being quite to your liking, but do nothing to actively improve them. Why is this? Urselius (talk) 07:50, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I think I have already made it abundantly clear that, for me, you can add whatever you like to the sum of information shown here on Manuel's life before his accession. On your prompting, I have already added material. I am just exasperated at being given jobs to do by yourself, while you seem to do nothing actively to rectify the deficiency that you bemoan. A deficiency that I cannot see the importance of myself. Urselius (talk) 08:02, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
I do not think it is fair to say that finding the information and citations is nothing. I do not mind including that information myself, though. Surtsicna (talk) 08:30, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You have still added nothing to the section in question, being unable to read your mind, it equates to nothing to me. BTW the extensive sourcing of references I added to the genealogical table, another little job you imposed on me, was also not nothing, and I added it to the article rather than leaving it in a hypothetical state. Urselius (talk) 18:37, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
It was imposed on you not by me but by your wish to keep that trivia in the article. I would have been perfectly happy to see that chart go. Surtsicna (talk) 19:12, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
And how useful is Wikipedia without charts, templates, and infoboxes? The all-prose format scares readers away. I haven't been able to convince anyone to read some of Wikipedia's articles for quite some time, since they don't find the walls of texts appealing. Dimadick (talk) 22:18, 11 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to be irremediably wrong-headed on this topic, which is why I have abandoned this article, despite having an interest in it and having added useful, well-referenced, text in the past. Good luck with your censorship of valuable information. Your stricture that information on the relationships of ancestors is irrelevant if they do not directly mention a particular descendant is frankly ludicrous. Urselius (talk) 16:03, 18 August 2025 (UTC)[reply]
level-4 vital article is rated FA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
.svg){kind=small}
