Talk:Siege of Ariminum (538)

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. You can locate your hook here. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Zzz plant (talk) 23:43, 12 February 2026 (UTC)

• ... that the way Belisarius broke the Siege of Ariminum (538) is considered a prime example of Sun Tzu's principle of "Subjugating the enemy without fighting is the true pinnacle of excellence"?

• • ALT1: ... that the Byzantine commander Belisarius broke the Ostrogoths' Siege of Ariminum (538) by projecting larger force? Source: Ilkka Syvänne, Military History of Late Rome 518–565 (2021) p.166 This stands as an excellent example of the tactics adopted when one did not want to engage the enemy in combat, which used all of the branches of service (navy, infantry,cavalry) and employed a skilled use of successive psychological shocks to produce the flight of the enemy.
  • ALT2: ... that the Ostrogoths' Siege of Ariminum (538) was broken by the Byzantine commander Belisarius through successive psychological tactics that caused the Ostrogoths to flee? Source: Same as the above
  • ALT3: ... that Belisarius marched against numerically superior Ostrogoth forces at the Siege of Ariminum (538) to save one his commanders, who had disobeyed his orders and refused thank him in the end? Source: Ian Hughes, Belisarius, The Last Roman General (2009) p. 165 Upon the relief of the town, the first person to the city was Ildiger, and when Belisarius implied that John owed a debt to Belisarius’ son-in-law, John replied that his gratitude was to Narses the eunuch, suggesting that Belisarius had only come to his aid after being persuaded to act.
    John’s response deserves examination. Although the statement has been interpreted by Procopius as an insult to Belisarius, there may have been more to the reply. In the early Roman Empire, citizens of Rome were bound to one another by the client/patron system. No doubt by the time of Justinian the system had changed, and probably drastically, but the idea of owing a personal debt still remained. It is possible that John was not being insulting as such, but was attempting to avoid an obligation to someone with whom he was at odds politically.
  • Reviewed:
  • Comment: This is my forth DYK nomination.

A.Cython(talk) 06:28, 10 January 2026 (UTC).

@A.Cython:First thing's first, article is in good shape, without evidence of copyvio. Eligible via recent GA promotion. Long enough and neutral. I like the initial quote, but I don't think it's right to reference Sun Tzu when its just one person who made the comparison. ALT3 is interesting but a bit overly-technical to non-specialists and long (it's also not standard to say the parenthetical in the hook. Maybe something like "... that Belisarius broke the Siege of Ariminum to save a general who had refused his orders?" Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 07:22, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

@Generalissima:Thank you for your comments. Here are some alternatives based on your input:

• ALT4 "... that the way Belisarius broke the Siege of Ariminum (538) is praised by historians for defeating the Ostrogoths without battle?"

• In addition to Ilkka Syvänne source, here is a second source Ian Hughes 2009 Belisarius The last Roman General p. 165 The whole strategy displays Belisarius’ abilities as a commander. He was able to foresee the enemy’s response and so make maximum use of the forces available. It was an excellent piece of generalship and won the day without a single casualty.
• Another source J. B. Bury 1958 History of the Later Roman Empire: From the Death of Theodosius I to the Death of Justinian vol. 2 p. 198 It required military skill but when Belisarius set his mind to the problem he solved it triumphantly. In order to the mitigate the danger from Auximum, ...
• [edit] One more source Antony Brogna (2015) The Generalship of Belisarius epub pp. 57, 64 Belisarius’ plan to save Rimini was a masterstroke of deception and psychological warfare. Having inferior numbers compared to the Goths at Rimini, ... Through maneuver, deception, and psychological operations alone, and without a single causality, Belisarius had scored a victory against a superior force. ... Knowing their fears, his complex maneuvering, a product of his imagination, led to moving the superior Goth force away from Rimini. What follows below will highlight numerous other examples of his keen intellect.

• ALT5 " ... that Belisarius broke the Siege of Ariminum to save a general who had refused his orders?"

• Sources see above.

• ALT6 " ... that Belisarius in the Siege of Ariminum saved his besieged general who refused to thank him later?"

• Sources see above.

Let me know if the above are an improvement. A.Cython(talk) 14:07, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Added one more in attempt to combine ALT5 & ALT6

• ALT7 " ... that Belisarius in the Siege of Ariminum saved his insubordinate general who in the end refused to thank him?" A.Cython(talk) 23:23, 16 January 2026 (UTC)

Courtesy call to @Generalissima in case you have forgotten. I still feel the ALT0 is the better of all the others (the other three historians provided in ALT4 effectively say the same thing) as it provides interesting connection between Belisarius and Sun Tzu. I may be mistaken, but based on my limited experience with DYK, a hook only needs to mentioned in the article and be supported by a reliable source; it does not require academic consensus, especially on a non-contentious topic. If an academic consensus were required, many DYK hooks would never have appeared on the Wikipedia front page. I only spoke my thoughts aloud, because I will be reviewing DYK soon and I need to have a better grasp of what makes a hook great. That said, I would appreciate hearing your thoughts on the alternative hooks. Thank you in advance for your time and willingness to review the current DYK nomination. A.Cython(talk) 22:10, 21 January 2026 (UTC)

• @A.Cython: Ach, my bad. I had been traveling all last week and haven't had time to respond. I like both ALT5 and ALT6. they're cited in-article and check out in the sources. I feel it's important to have a "punchy" hook to capture readers who might not be familiar with military history or the Byzantines. Generalissima (talk) (it/she) 01:42, 26 January 2026 (UTC)