Talk:Siege of Urbinus

Just to check

Although he was rescued by Belisarius, he refused to show gratitude, claiming Narses deserved the credit for persuading Belisarius to save him.

--

Is this in reference to John or Vitiges because the way the sentence reads it is Vitiges. But I seem to remember this being John from the previous article @A.Cython LeChatiliers Pupper (talk) 12:25, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, I see the error, it was John that was rescued. I made the change. A.Cython (talk) 14:31, 29 November 2025 (UTC)

Merge proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result of this discussion was to merge. A.Cython(talk) 06:13, 30 January 2026 (UTC)

---

I propose merging Siege of Urviventus into Siege of Urbinus. I think the content in Siege of Urviventus can easily be explained in the context of this article, and merging them would not cause any article-size or weighting problems.

The central problem is that secondary sources rely on the only available primary source (that I am aware of) that of Procopius to tell the story of the events. The two sieges happened concurrently, however, Procopius focus on Belisarius who was at the Siege of Urbinus, meaning we have limited information about the Siege of Urviventus. The Siege of Urviventus (74 word article) is unlikely to grow and it is better suited to be discussed in the current article. We already provide all the information about the particular siege in the current article.

Please provide input whether you concur or not with the merging. Thank you in advance. A.Cython(talk) 05:21, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Good idea; while I'm here, why isbns and oclcs for the same source? Regards Keith-264 (talk) 10:25, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

@Keith-264 Can you elaborate on the isbn and oclc comment? I am not sure I follow. Thanks A.Cython(talk) 22:24, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

Why both? Keith-264 (talk) 22:28, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I tend to be inclusion-ist as it will help the reader to find the book, but if this is against style, i.e., having both, I will remove one of them. Let me know. A.Cython(talk) 22:31, 23 January 2026 (UTC)

I think it is reasonable to merge the two articles. I also think a redirect of the Siege of Urviventus into Siege of Urbinus would be appropriate in case someone might be looking for the former article. Donner60 (talk) 02:13, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

I would agree with Donner60 comment here. Siege of Urviventus is a stub and closely related to this. Cinderella157 (talk) 02:44, 24 January 2026 (UTC)

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.

GA review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Siege of Urbinus/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Nominator: A.Cython (talk · contribs) 05:41, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

Reviewer: Akaza (talk · contribs) 09:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Taking this as part of WT:GARC#85. Will begin work shortly. Akaza ^[talk] 09:23, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Thank you for reviewing. Please let me know if I can assist with verification. A.Cython(talk) 14:40, 15 May 2026 (UTC)

Lede

• Link Siege engine.
  •  Done

Prelude

"sending Moras with 2,000 troops to defend the fortified town of Urbinus and Albilas with 1,000 men to Urviventus."

Who is Moras?

 Done clarified that he was a Gothic commander, not much is known beyond his involvement in the siege.

Amory's book p.396 gives only the following: Set over the garrison of Urbino by Witigis in 538 directly after the failure of the siege of Rome. He had 2,000 men with him, "barbarians" (Procopius, BG 2.19.10). After Narses withdrew from the walls of Urbino, Belisarius treated with the garrison: they surrendered, and became free Roman subjects, retaining their profession of soldier, in the Byzantine army.

Sources

@A.Cython could you please provide direct quotes for the material cited by [1], [6], [9], [10], [12], and [16]?

This is a clean and well-cited article with very few issues. Nice job! Akaza ^[talk] 03:30, 18 May 2026 (UTC)

• citation #1: Bury p.197 ... but the execution of his plan was disarranged by the arrival of reinforcements from the East which now reached Picenum under the command of the eunuch Narses, keeper of the Emperor's privy purse. The new army was 7000 strong, consisting of 5000 Roman troops under another Narses and Justin the Master of Soldiers in Illyricum and 2000 Herul, auxlliaries under their own leaders.

• citation #6: Petersen 155-156 How large the total Gothic military establishment was is difficult to say. Procopius claims that 150,000 Goths besieged Rome, which is clearly far too large for a single force. Heather follows Hannestad in estimating 25-30,000 men for the whole Gothic army during the 530s and 540s.18 While this fits well with Heather’s estimate of Theoderic’s followers in 493 (thus excluding any substantial non-Gothic additions), it is on the small side considering the very extensive operations documented during the war. ... Thus, we have at least 30,000 available for fighting in central and southern Italy in 537-8 alone.

• citation #9: Hughes pp. 155-158 Byzantine command of the sea now began to affect the situation. Unable or unwilling to risk transporting supplies to their garrisons by boat, the Goths were forced to withdraw their troops from Portus and Centumcellae. Due to famine, they were also forced to leave the city of Albanum. Belisarius quickly sent troops to occupy all of the vacated positions. Although the Goths protested that this was in violation of their non-aggression treaty, Belisarius laughed and refused to withdraw' his men.

• citation #10: Syvänne Despite the arrival of salaries, the situation in Rome took a turn for the worse in June. Although the soldiers possessed enough grain for themselves, the populace did not. The result was famine and pestilence. When the Goths realized this, they no longer sought decisive battle but settled on starving the Romans. ... His orders were for Procopius to load as many ships as possible with grain and to assemble all soldiers who had arrived from the east or who had been left behind in Naples and other garrisons of Campania and then to convoy the grain to Ostia. ... This news delighted Belisarius. He decided to exploit it by sending detachments of horsemen to the neighbouring strongholds with instructions to sally out of these positions to make ambushes against enemy convoys which were bringing supplies to the Goths. The idea was to besiege the besiegers, ... After this Belisarius no longer offered battle but settled on guarding the walls. The sending of the soldiers to carry out a guerrilla campaign enabled Belisarius to distribute grain to the populace. It is clear that Belisarius feared that the populace would betray the city to the Goths. ... The Huns did likewise so it did not take long for the Goths to run out of food supplies, and they too started to suffer from famine and pestilence. The situation was particularly bad in the camp that the Goths had built at Torre Fiscale. ... The results of this battle and the famine and pestilence demoralized the Goths completely. In the exaggerated words of Procopius, their numbers had been reduced from the myriads to the very few. They felt more besieged than besiegers. When they then learnt that reinforcements had arrived from the east both by land and sea, they became frightened and started to make plans of departure. ... At daybreak he returned to the city, while Antonina and the officers started to plan how to take the cargoes to the city, their oxen having been overworked. It was also dangerous to travel the narrow road with wagons because the wagons could not be formed into defensive circle, and it was impossible to tow the barges on the river because the road on the opposite bank was now held by the enemy. So they improvised in a manner that could have been taken straight out of siege treatises. They took small boats from the ships and built a wall of planks on all sides. Then they embarked archers and sailors on them and waited for a favourable wind so that they could sail the vessels along the Tiber towards Rome. ... At about the same time the Goths posted at Portus abandoned their positions because they ran out of supplies. The reason for this was that the Romans controlled the sea.

• citation #12: Parnell In early 538, Belisarius dispatched John, the nephew of Vitalian, with 2,000 cavalry to raid the region of Picenum in eastern Italy ... Belisarius ordered John to withdraw from Ariminum. Belisarius intended that infantry should now garrison the city, freeing up John’s cavalry force for new offensive operations.27 In a surprising turn of events, John flatly refused the order and decided to remain in the city. ... About this same time, further reinforcements in the form of 7,000 soldiers landed in Picenum under the command of Narses the Eunuch. ... Belisarius and Narses the Eunuch joined forces at Firmum (modern Fermo) and held a conference of offi cers to discuss whether the army should go to the rescue of John in Ariminum.31 That this conference took place at all is interesting and the course of the meeting suggests that all opinions mattered. According to Procopius, the majority of officers present did not want to rescue John ... Unfortunately, Procopius chose this point to cease describing conversation in the conference and switched the focus to Belisarius’s personal deliberation and decision. This is likely an attempt by Procopius to mask the weakness of his patron and his patron’s social network. While Procopius presents the next actions as decisions of Belisarius, it is more likely that the decisions and the necessary tactical and logistical considerations were hammered out as a compromise between Belisarius with his people and Narses with his people.36 The decision was to rescue John and save Ariminum.

• citation #16 Procopius a: And when he saw John and his men pale and dreadfully emaciated, he said to him, hinting at the rashness of his audacious deed, that he owed a debt of gratitude to Ildiger. But John said that he recognized his obligation, not to Ildiger, but to Narses, the emperor’s steward, implying, I suppose, that Belisarius had not come to his defence very willingly, but only after being persuaded by Narses.

• citation #16 Procopius b: But Belisarius feared that, if the Romans should go against many places at once, it would come about that the emperor’s cause would be weakened and finally ruined by the confusion resulting therefrom, and so he shewed a letter from the Emperor Justinian which he had written to the commanders of the army, conveying the following message: “We have not sent our steward Narses to Italy in order to command the army; for we wish Belisarius alone to command the whole army in whatever manner seems to him to be best, and it is the duty of all of you to follow him in the interest of our state.” Such was the purport of the emperor’s letter. But Narses, laying hold of the final words of the letter, declared that Belisarius at the present time was laying plans contrary to the interest of the state; for this reason, he said, it was unnecessary for them to follow him.

Looks good. Pass. Akaza ^[talk] 22:16, 19 May 2026 (UTC)}

Did you know nomination

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. Track your hook after promotion. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Dclemens1971 (talk) 15:57, 9 June 2026 (UTC)

(

• Comment or view
• Article history

)

• ... that Byzantine general Belisarius lost a significant part of his army over a disagreement with his military commanders but still was able to capture Urbinus without a fight?

• Source: Syvänne, Ilkka (2021). Military History of Late Rome 518–565 p. 167 Therefore the army and commanders were now divided, but Belisarius acted as if this was not yet the case ... Narses, John, Justinus, Aratius and others who opposed Belisarius still followed but pitched their camp separately from that of Belisarius so that the Roman army that besieged the city which was located on a hill consisted actually of two armies under two commanders. The hill on which Urbinus was located was round and very high and the garrison placed inside was strong and well provisioned. ... When the soldiers of Belisarius were preoccupied with this, the friends of Narses pointed out to him that John had already attempted to capture the place and had found it impossible. In their opinion it was better to recover Aemilia for the emperor as Narses had suggested than waste time here. Narses accordingly abandoned his camp at night and marched fast to Ariminum. When the Gothic commander Moras saw this in the morning, he taunted Belisarius, but he did this too soon. Belisarius was still determined to storm the place, but little did he know that he did not need to do it because luck was on his side. The spring which had provided the defenders with water dried up and the Goths were prepared to surrender.

• • ALT1: ... that the Gothic garrison during the siege of Urbinus was confident with their supplies and city's fortifications only to surrender once the stream supplying the city with fresh water dried up? Source: Hughes, Ian (2009). Belisarius: the last Roman general p. 167 Narses, John and their adherents followed Belisarius but set up their camp on the opposite side of the city. The envoys that Belisarius sent failed to convince the garrison that they should surrender, so Belisarius began to prepare siege engines with which to assault the city. John, who had on a previous occasion decided not to attempt to attack the city, declared that the city could not be taken. Narses agreed with him, and, although Belisarius begged him to stay, their forces abandoned the siege and returned to Ariminum.
    Belisarius’ luck now came to his aid again. As he was preparing to assault the city, the spring inside the city upon which the garrison relied for water inexplicably failed. As the assault troops moved towards the city, the Goths appeared on the walls and surrendered to Belisarius.
    Syvänne, Ilkka (2021). Military History of Late Rome 518–565 p. 167 Therefore the army and commanders were now divided, but Belisarius acted as if this was not yet the case ... Narses, John, Justinus, Aratius and others who opposed Belisarius still followed but pitched their camp separately from that of Belisarius so that the Roman army that besieged the city which was located on a hill consisted actually of two armies under two commanders. The hill on which Urbinus was located was round and very high and the garrison placed inside was strong and well provisioned. ... When the soldiers of Belisarius were preoccupied with this, the friends of Narses pointed out to him that John had already attempted to capture the place and had found it impossible. In their opinion it was better to recover Aemilia for the emperor as Narses had suggested than waste time here. Narses accordingly abandoned his camp at night and marched fast to Ariminum. When the Gothic commander Moras saw this in the morning, he taunted Belisarius, but he did this too soon. Belisarius was still determined to storm the place, but little did he know that he did not need to do it because luck was on his side. The spring which had provided the defenders with water dried up and the Goths were prepared to surrender.
  • Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Monticello replicas

Improved to Good Article status by A.Cython (talk). Number of QPQs required: 1. Nominator has 17 past nominations.

A.Cython(talk) 00:31, 21 May 2026 (UTC).

• General eligibility:
• New enough:
• Long enough:
• Other problems:

Policy compliance:

• Adequate sourcing:
• Neutral:
• Free of copyright violations, plagiarism, and close paraphrasing:
• Other problems:

Hook eligibility:

• Cited:
• Interesting:
• Other problems:

QPQ: Done.

Overall: @A.Cython: Became a GA and was nominated for DYK two days later. The first hook is rather interesting. QPQ is met. The article looks fine and I cannot find any major errors stopping it from becoming a DYK. Jon698 (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2026 (UTC)