Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 1

The causes of fall
the article says: Another factor in the collapse of the empire may have been the demise of the 'theme' system, which had supplied large numbers of troops for the empire in earlier centuries.

In reality, the theme system was already insufficient at the end of 11th century. You see, mid-11th century saw the emergence of two new type of professional warriors - nomadic horse archer (like that of the Seldjucks) and heavy horse spearman (like Norman knights). Facing these two types of opponents, Byzantine suffered catastrophic deafeats. Theme army contained mostly light infantrymen. Such soldiers, even perfectly commanded, could not defeat Norman or Turkish professional. The Theme foot soldiers could not be reequipped or trained to match new types of enemies. Each Theme peasant-soldier was simply too poor to purchase necessary equipment. Also, he had to time to train. In contrast, Norman knight or Turkish horse archer could devote his entire life for training.

If the empire had relied on the theme army, it would have fallen much faster.

Cheers

Yarovit

New Maps
I've been reading some of the comments on this discussion page, and I see that there seems to be demand for more maps to illustrate the long and vary varied history of the Byzantine Empire. The size and shape of the empire changed hugely across the centuries, so I have added two new maps to the article - one showing the empire in 717AD, and one showing it in 1025AD. I hope that together these new maps will be helpful! Bigdaddy1204 04:04, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * The map "The Byzantine Empire under Basil II, c.1025AD" is inacurrate, it shows Croatian medieval kingdom, which was independent in 1025, as a part of the Empire. Actually, only the coastal region was sometimes under the rule of the Byzantines since Slavs came to the region.Mor Vilkacis 15:25, 23 April 2006 (UTC)


 * How about this map:http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Justinian_Byzanz.pngMor Vilkacis 15:41, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Interesting point about the map...if it is inaccurate then I agree it should be corrected. The present depiction of the empire's Croatian frontier is based on an illustration in the Times history of Europe; nevertheless I accept that it could be wrong, since different books often show different versions of the empire's boundaries. However the link you suggested leads to a map of Justinian's empire, five hundred years too early for the reign of Basil II. Perhaps you could edit the existing map and then re-upload it once the correction has been made? Bigdaddy1204 16:51, 23 April 2006 (UTC)

Underlying Reasons for Decline
Hi. I've been writing about the twelfth century in this article, and have added some new sections on this because I think it is a crucial turning point for the empire. I have been thinking about why empires rise and fall, and how there are diferent ways of looking at the reasons. Although you can say that each leader of the state is responsible for the successes or failures that occur during their reign, I am increasingly coming round to the view that it has more to do with underlying institutions and the way the state itself works. For example, under the Comneni the empire was saved by three very capable rulers, but their success masks underlying problems which resulted in catastrophe after they were gone. I have argued that the theme system was one of the crucial reasons for Byzantine success over the centuries, and that its demise coupled with the reliance on strong government by the emperor meant that the state was no longer healthy. Does anyone agree with me on this issue, or are there alternative explanations that I have not covered?

Bigdaddy1204 03:39, 16 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Your opinion has a withstanding historical basis. The fall of the empire did not come by independent wrong-doings of some emperors. It was the result of a century-long wrong policies followed by a series of emperors. For example although the Comneni were very capable military and diplomatic leaders, they lacked sensitivity on internal problems aroused within the 12th and 13th century. The rise of the byzantine aristocracy and the subsequent suppression of the weak independent farmers brought a huge decline in the empire's incomes as well as an unjustifyable increase of expenditures related to the luxurious lifestyle of the newly created aristocracy and the royal court. The Byzantine Empire for the first time faced so critical economic problems. The small independent farmers were the lifeblood of the empire providing I/food for the urban population II/gold to the royal coffins III/men to the imperial army and navy and most importantly - IV/ by inhabiting the eastern extremes of the empire (Mesopotamia, Syria, Armenia) they were acting like a live shield to the expansion of the islamic populations. The emperors after Basil the BulgarSlayer were mostly people coming form the very rich aristocracy of Asia Minor (Aggeloi, Dukes) and as a result they defendended the privileges of their class against the poor. At the same historic period the feudarchy invaded the Byzantine Empire, from the west with the land being separated to large family feuds and local rulers (doux), independent from a strong central authority, which was the emperor. Manuel himself is characterised as a knight-emperor according to the western customs. This rulers were not easily controlable and oftenly acted against the wide interests of the empire. They were not paying taxes to the royal coffins and their local blood-sucking policies drove the agricultural production to a nadir. As now the smaller farmers were fallen into a populous class of miserable plebes the army started increasingly to recruit foreign mercenaries and ex-crusaders. These people did not have the pride to defend the empire against the islamic hordes. They only cared about gold, and when gold run out the empire fallen. It was the first time that the empire had to rely on foreign mercenaries and not on locally recruited tactical army. Byzantine infantry the most basic tactical group of the byzantine army was a projection of the roman legions of the early republican years (2nd and 1st century BC). Their capacity based on their pride and faith had been proven numerous times in the past. After the 12th century the byzantine infantry became a second tier tactical group not properly equipped and comprised of miserable prideless plebes.I hope these factors mentioned here answer some of your questions to a certain extend.

Regards Astavrou 18:21, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

The "cursed" name of this article
Wtf! The following argument about naming of the empire is one of the most meaningless arguments ever. It seems to me that first, there existed the Roman Empire. Then it was divided into Western and Eastern Roman Empire. In this article, we are talking about the Eastern Roman Empire. In current English, this is referred to as the Byzantine Empire. I see no point in having massive discussions about whether to call it Roman (byzantine) Empire or not (except for the comedy-value :)). As long as it is made clear both here and in the Roman Empire article that the Eastern Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire are one and the same thing, what is the problem? Bigdaddy1204 23:25, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

I can only say to you Bigdaddy1204 that even today Greece has made a hell of a problem about the name Macedonia. Revolutions start in the name of something usually Freedom. Go to the north of your own country and ask somebody if you are still in England and they will defiantly say that you are in Scottland. I agree with you about the pointlessness of it all but fact is that ppl simply care. If they care it isn´t pointless. If it isn´t pointless it has to be debated. Flamarande 16:34, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

lol don't worry everyone loves a good argument! I've been to Scotland, it's a great place but I would never think of it as England. But the difference between scotland and england is real enough, the people have their own identity. So people care about the name of this article and they want to debate it, fair enough but I was just poking a little fun at it with the whole pointlessness thing. Still, if you want to see something SPECTACULARLY pointless, check out the talk page and archives of the page on 'petrol', or 'gas' if you're american :) Unbelievable that people got so worked up about whether to call it petrol or gas! Hell, I'm not offended that a whole bunch of people in america want to use the wrong word! hey just joking... both words are fine! Bigdaddy1204 21:13, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

The cursed name of this article
How come I'm the only one who notices that "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" looks extremely ridiculous? Why is it so hard for some people to realize that we're using exonyms for this state? It was not the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself, hence the need to use an exonym. No single scholar refers to this state simply as the "Roman Empire", and trust me but they have their reasons not to. Just use the same names that the scholar use and get over this template-title search once and for all. Miskin 16:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How come I'm the only one who notices that "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" looks extremely ridiculous?


 * Perhaps it is because that is an isolated opinion. You assert that it "was not the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself," yet clearly that POV is not the only one possible.  A strong argument can be made that it was indeed the Roman Empire, since the Roman Emperor moved his capital to Byzantium, renaming it Constantinople.  "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" is a useful way of expressing these two truths&mdash;that the empire in question is in fact the same empire as that founded at Rome and that there is nevertheless a categorical distinction based on geography and other historical factors.  (Not all scholars use "Byzantine Empire," by the way.) &mdash;Preost  talk  contribs  17:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can only say that the name of "this" empire is "fiercly" disputed. The term "byzantine" itself was invented by scholars like Hieronymus Wolf, Edward Gibbon and Montesquieu and gradually entered common use.
 * I read "Byzantium - a history" by John Haldon ISBN 0-7524-2343-6 and I quote: "The name Byzantium is a convenient convention, coined by French scholars during the seventeenth century"....
 * Another problem seems to be that "byzantine" is a "somewhat" derrogative term (or at least it used to be) thanks to Edward Gibbson and the other scholars who were everything but fair. No "NPOV" policy in that time.
 * Same source: "Of that Byzantine empire, the universal verdict of history is that it constitutes, whithout a single exception, the most thouroughly base and despicable form that civilation has yet assumed. There has been no other enduring civilization so absolutely destite of all forms and elements of gratness, and none to which the epithet "mean" may be so emphatically applied...The history of the empire is a monotonous story of the intrigues os priests, eunuchs, and omen, ofpoisonings, of conspiracies, of uniform ingratitude." by Historian William E. H.Lecky (1869), A history of european morals from Augustus to Charlemagne

(see this Derogatory use of 'Byzantine' article)


 * I read the whole book and got the impression that the name is disputed by scholars themselves and it appears that some of them use it only in a "later" context.
 * Don´t forget that some nations are proud of this empire as they seem themselves "heirs" to it.
 * Myself? I would like to call this article: "Eastern Roman Byzantine Empire" (in my personal opinion the more correct name) but I fear to even begin a debate about this. Flamarande 17:11, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Well we're definitely not going to call it that. It's the Byzantine Empire and that's where it's going to stay. This is just what it's called, leave it alone. Adam Bishop 17:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I can live with that Flamarande 17:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree that the article name should remain Byzantine Empire, since that is the most common name used in English scholarship, but I do think it's useful to use "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" at the top of the template. &mdash;Preost talk  contribs  17:19, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

You're contradicting yourself. You are accusing me for passing a POV and yet you admit that you prefer to use a term which is NOT used by the majority of the contemporary scholars. As for my "POV" on the Byzantine Empire not being ethnically a Roman Empire, this is simply proved by the Byzantine tendency to gradually favour the use of "Greek" over "Roman" after the first sack of Constantinople. Speaking of which, even the term "Greek Empire" would be closer to the truth than "Roman (Byzantine)". At least it wouldn't be an POV misinterpretation nor a derogatory exonym. The fact is that the Byzantine Empire was not recognized simply as "Roman" by the majority of the non-Byzantines at the time. In fact it is a frequent confusion in various medieval texts referring to the Byzantines both as Greeks and as Romans. Anyway the use of the POV, english-translated "Roman (Byzantine) Empire" is honestly ludicrous on the template. WP policy should be respected by using the best academically attested terminology here. There are countless examples of derogatory terms being standardised in a similar fashion. The term "Welsh" meaning "foreigner" in Old Western Germanic, or the word "Arab" meaning "black" in Hellenistic Greek, they both now have an official use and nobody knows about their real meaning. Miskin 17:51, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What does ethnicity have to do with any of it? The Apostle Paul was a Roman, yet his ethnicity was certainly not Italian.  &mdash;Preost  talk  contribs  18:07, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Yeah. But that's only because the word "Italian" didn't exist neither as an ethnicity nor as a collective term until some 1200 years later maybe, and "Roman" didn't ever imply "Italian" before 1870. Anyway I don't see what's that got to do with anything. Miskin 18:18, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Red herring. "Roman" in the sense of "Empire" has everything to do with a political reality, yet you seem to be insisting that there's nothing "Roman" about the "Byzantine Empire" because its people were ethnically Greek.  I brought up Paul as an example of someone who was ethnically Jewish yet still politically a Roman, to disprove the notion that ethnicity has anything to do with the location and nature of the Empire.  If not Italian, which ethnicity did you have in mind, anyway?  &mdash;Preost  talk  contribs  18:41, 21 December 2005 (UTC)
 * I never said there was nothing Roman about it. I said that the vast majority of scholars don't use the term "Roman" to refer to it. It's good to have the Byzantine Empire in the disambiguation page of 'Roman', but it's not necessary to call it "Roman (Byzantine) Empire". The equivalent of Paul in Byzantium would be a Slav or an Armenian. Miskin


 * Oh brother, here begins the eternal discussion:

Look, most of the ppl (here in wikipedia) know that the term was invented. Everybody has a POV (even scholars, see this Derogatory use of 'Byzantine' article) As far as the majority (here in Wikipedia) knows, the majority of comtemporary scholars do use that term allthough it is "wrong" (and scholars admit that fact). The ordinary person will look for "Byzantine empire". Alltough the term was invented by scholars and is wrong, it is still used by the majority of ppl. Flamarande 18:10, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed with Flamarandre. Miskin 18:20, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Well if you agre with me, you have to admit that "Byzantine Empire" is the most apropiate name for this article.Flamarande 18:31, 21 December 2005 (UTC) P.S.: I do
 * So do I. Miskin


 * When did this become a discussion of the name of the article? The question was regarding the English translation for the Greek text at the top of the template.  &mdash;Preost  talk  contribs  18:37, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

I really hope that plain old truth is valued here. Look ASDamick we allready agreed that Roman (Byzantine) Empire is the most apropiate name. This whole discussion started as you answered: "Perhaps it is because that is an isolated opinion. You assert that it "was not the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself," yet clearly that POV is not the only one possible." instead of explaining the real reasons. As a matter of fact the POV of Miskin is very defendable. And by the way: St Paul was a roman citizen but ethnicaly he was a Jew (as far as I know) born in Anatolia. Flamarande 19:04, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

If for no other good reason, it was not regarded as a Roman Empire because it didn't include the city of Rome. Miskin


 * The "isolated opinion" to which I referred was that "'Roman (Byzantine) Empire' looks extremely ridiculous," and nothing else. Miskin's description of the translation as "extremely ridiculous" were then based on the idea that the Byzantine Empire was not Roman, which he later explained was because it was not ethnically Roman.  I then objected to that, because I don't know of any reputable scholarship which defines "Roman Empire" by ethnicity.


 * My objections are thus to the POV that


 * "'Roman (Byzantine) Empire' looks extremely ridiculous"
 * "It was not the Roman Empire, no matter what it called itself"
 * "Roman Empire" is an ethnic designation which "Greeks" don't deserve.
 * ...and that's all. &mdash;Preost  talk  contribs  19:17, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I think it's ridiculous because it uses two different ethnic titles in the same phrase, and because I've never seen any credible source referring to it as such. I didn't mean to offend the person who came up with it though.
 * I never meant to say that "Roman Empire" is an ethnic designation that Greeks don't deserve. I just regard that the use of the term "Roman" in the template will confuse the reader. After all the history of "Byzantium" is not as popular as that of Rome, so on the contrary, it would be nice to give it more value by differentiating it. Miskin

If you are discussing the translation of the Greek text at the top of the Timeline-template; since the Greek text reads "Roman Empire", then obviously that should be the translation. No matter if the most commonly used term is "Byzantine". --Tokle 19:24, 21 December 2005 (UTC)


 * What you suggest falls under original research. Miskin

Don´t translate that text, as it would only confuse the vast majority (but if you do, then add to the greek version "(Byzantine)"). This argument started with a misunderstandig (mea culpa). Let´s not continue a sterile discussion about the correctness of the term "Byzantine" or "Roman (Byzantine) Empire". Flamarande 19:50, 21 December 2005 (UTC)  P.S.: Don´t add salt to the wound, ok?

That whole template isn't even necessary in the first place, nor is it necessary to have either the Greek or English name at the top of it. The Greek and English names are explained at the beginning of the article anyway. Adam Bishop 20:12, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

The template does look nice though. Miskin


 * I wrote down my reasons for making this template. It´s one "point" above. Flamarande 14:10, 22 December 2005 (UTC)


 * As far as I know the term "Eastern Roman Empire" could also do! Astavrou 17:42, 28 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, but only if your purpose is to confuse the reader. Miskin

Why we don’t use the Greek, and the two most common terms of describing the historical period: Byzantine and Eastern Roman. Perhaps in brackets, we should say "Also known as the Eastern Roman Empire" directly underneath the Greek and 'Byzantine Empire' Biz 06:22, 6 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Oh brother, the cursed name, of this article is "Byzantine Empire". Most of the ppl (here in wikipedia) know that the term byzantine was invented. As far as we (here in Wikipedia) know, the majority of comtemporary scholars do use that term allthough it is "wrong" (and indeed scholars admit that fact).


 * The average person will look for "Byzantine empire". strongest undeniable reason of all


 * Alltough the term was invented by scholars and is factually wrong, it is still used by the majority of ppl. As the majority of ppl use and search for "byzantine empire" we should in name of common sense (if nothing else) use that "bloody" name (and that is final). The name of the template is : "Roman (byzantine) Empire" which is a good compromise. Let´s not change that title for a more correct name as it would only confuse everybody.

Only to demonstrate a point: "Jesus" is a greek-latin translation of "Joshua" yet nobody plans to change the name of that article (or its common use throughout this world) Flamarande 13:14, 9 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Or another example: why do we use the word "Egypt" for the land of the Nile, originally called Khemet? - Egypt is only the Greek/Latin version of Haikuptah, the second name of the city of Memphis.
 * "Byzantine" is used because no one can properly pronounce "Constantinopolitan" and because "Eastern Roman" is a bit unhandy too. Str1977 20:31, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Medicine
I started a Byzantine Medicine page, anyone want to help me out a bit on it? It is probably riddled with mistakes, I don't know that much about it but I did the best I could.

Yarmuk
Erm...people, Mr. Bishop removed the speculation about the Yarmuk thing in early history. Well, all right, I suppose that information does not belong in a that part of the article. Perhaps I should move it to the Battle of Yarmuk page?


 * Well I suppose it would be more appropriate there...but I don't think it belongs anywhere. You have no idea what would have happened if Yarmuk turned out differently. It's not our job to propose alternate realities on Wikipedia. Adam Bishop 21:02, 1 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks
Many thanks for the revisions. The article looks much more informative now. I added some names to establish some empty links that I am planning to fill in the following days. The statement that the date of the invasion of Constantinople is one of the conventional dates for the beginning of modern ages has been deleted. Is this a disputable information? Otherwise, it seems to be a useful information. ErdemTuzun

Thanks for making the article in the first place, I probably wouldn't have said anything otherwise, though Byzantium's one of my favorite civilizations. The comment was missing simply because I forgot to rework it in. I've added it, plus a note on urban life I forgot to make. --Josh Grosse

Should there be a link to the Ottoman Empire, which was in the same region at a later time? -- ansible

Empress Irene
I suggest adding something about the Empress Irene and the Carolingians. Also --and I say this in all seriousness -- WHAT DO YOU MEAN BY FEUDAL? Just wondering, since this term is misused so frequently and context changes according to time and place... JHK


 * Empress Irene and her incapability drove the Empire to very bad and almost catastrophic external and internal situations. She tried to face the economic and defensive problems that she created by subjecting the Roman Empire to western feuds and the Papacy. To my humble opinion her marriage with Charlemagne would never be approved internally and it would led to a civil war. Most probably Irene would have been excommunicated by the Patriarch and she would left the imperial court. As for Charlemagne this was the only way to assert a legitimate grasp over his imperial ambitions. Astavrou 18:38, 28 December 2005 (UTC)

Khazars
Minor question: Were Khazars really overhelming most of Balkany? I always thought that far more important were Slavic invasion which overhelmed most of Blakany, and nevr heard about Khazars doing that.. Any eason why Khazars and Lombards are mentioned and Slavic invasion is not? User:szopen

Again, i don't know much about Byzantine Empire, but i've never ever heard about Khazars conquering whole Balkans, instead i know quite a few stories about Slavic tribes overhelming whole Balkans, Bulgars etc. In Kazars entry there is nothing about that (and that would be important fact). So is this just simple mistake, and i cuol dcorrect it, or there was such a great invasion of Khazars which ended with all Balkans being in their posession? szopen]]

Ok, i asked two times, wait a long time, so i changed Khazars to Slavs. I don't know anything about Khazars overhelming whole Balkans. But i know that Slavs invaded Byzantine empire and _they_ conquered whoel Balkans. So i guess someone just made a mistake, so i corrected it. szopen

I'm the person who mentioned them originally, and unfortunately haven't been here for a while, which is why I didn't respond. The Slavs never really conquered much of the Balkans, except in association with other invading peoples, most notably the Khazars but also the Avars and Bulgars (who were not Slavic until they were assimilated later). I'm not sure if the difference is important enough to revert the page, though. --User:Josh Grosse

Well, yes, they do. They many times sieged Thesalloniki.

The fact was, Slavs were farmers and never organised large staes and large conquest, and they were allies of other people. Bulgars conquered Slavs which were already in Bulgaria.

Interesting to know about Khazars, though. I know about Avars (word Avar, i heard, gave origin to word "olbrzym" meaning big, huge man) but i never, in any historic book i had read, had heard about Khazars cooperating with Slavs. I always thought they were limited to northern steppes. szopen

Does not the text as it stands give insufficient weight to the fact that Latin remained the official language of the administration until the time of Heraclius? djnjwd


 * The inscriptions on their coins were all in Latin until the end of Heraclius / beginning of Constans II, when they switched to Greek. Not sure if that is good evidence or not. M123 20:45, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

When I expanded the article, I hope I made sufficient note of the Latin vs. Greek parts. Adam Bishop 22:02, 19 Aug 2003 (UTC)

Oddly enough, however, these selfsame historians have never felt a need to invent a new name for France, Spain or other western European countries that have radically changed over the centuries.

I removed that because it sounded a little bitter, or something...also, France has not always been called France, it was Gaul, or Francia/Austria/Neustria, I believe this is discussed in the History of France article. Adam Bishop 19:29, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

The way this is written, it makes it sound like everyone in the Eastern Empire spoke Greek. Greek was the language of Alexandria, Antioch and a few other major cities, but most of Egypt spoke Egyptian (Coptic), and Aramaic was the langauge of the area between Egypt and modern Turkey. There was also a latin-speaking region - Justinian I was a native latin speaker from modern albania. - 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

Greek
Just a note on romanization of Greek: There is a tendency to use quasi-Latin romanization of Greek names and words in the Western tradition. This is somewhat defensible up to the Hellenistic Era, as there is evidence that ancient Greek was pronounced rather differently than modern Greek (although the resulting pronunciations do sound rather ugly...). For the Byzantine era, the evidence is that the pronunciation then current is more like modern than ancient Greek, and so a modern system of romanization is very much in order. Good examples are the titles of the emperor: aftokrátor (autocrator in quasi-Latin) and vasiléfs (basileus). (If you're looking for evidence that β was pronounced [v] and not [b], just look at the Cyrillic alphabet, which dates from the mid-Byzantine era: the letter в, borrowed directly from Greek, represents [v], and a new letter (б) was invented for the [b] sound.) Anyway, an article on Greek history should represent Greek terminology and names in a less Latinocentric manner. I'm not going to mess with the names of the vasileîs for now, but they too should really not be Latinized after a certain point. &mdash;Tkinias 09:48, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * Addendum: It looks like the sound changes occurred earlier than I had realized, so that New Testament–era Greek is pronounced more like modern than ancient Greek . &mdash;Tkinias 10:03, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

In principle I agree with you, but there is a Wikipedia convention that all proper names should be given in their most common form in English, and the fact is that for Greek names English traditionally uses Latinised forms, so we write Byzantium rather than Byzantion, just as we write Moscow rather than Moskva etc. I think this is a sound practice in a general-readership encyclopaedia (as opposed to an enkuklopaidia). Once we abandon this principle, where do we stop? Adam 10:20, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * That's why I didn't embark on a wholesale moving of emperors to the Greek spellings! ;) The only things I altered (unless I got carried away somewhere...) were where Greek words or names were directly cited&mdash;for example, the quasi-Latin Constantinoupolis or basileus.  It would be useful, of course, to give the Greek and romanized-Greek versions of names on the appropriate pages, but I'm not going to campaign to get everything moved to romanized Greek spellings for the emperors' names, when the Latinized ones are established in usage.  (I'm busy trying to fix really screwed up Arabic romanization at the moment anyway...)  Hell, it's not like we get the Latin Romans' names right in English, either...  In short, I'd just like to see mediaeval Greek accurately romanized, while remaining within the Wikipedia convention of filing things under English versions of names. &mdash;Tkinias 10:34, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Um, yes, but the fact is that Konstantinoupolis is not the most common form of the name in English, Constantinople is. The correct Greek forms of the name can be discussed at Constantinople, but in this article the standard form should be used without comment, since this is not an article about Greek etymology. Likewise with "valiseios" and "aftokrator" etc. This kind of semantic digression doesn't belong in this article. Adam 11:05, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)


 * I agree that semantic digressions are inappropriate in this article. I did not add them; I merely corrected the romanization of Greek terms or names which were introduced into the article by other contributers. Not mentioning the Greek name of Constantinople, or the Greek title of the emperor, is one thing; mentioning them and inaccurately romanizing them is another.  An analogy would be:  If an article consistently writes Munich in reference to the Bavarian city, that would be normal (and, according to Wikipedia policy, correct) English usage; if the article notes that the name in German is Munshen, it would be appropriate to correct that to München. &mdash;Tkinias 11:37, 1 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Naming
An anonymous user (212.113.164.98) is changing references to the Byzantine Empire to read Eastern Roman. Has this been discussed somewhere? I don't know enough about the topic to know if it is valid. -[[User:Aranel|Aranel (" Sarah ")]] 00:49, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * It hasn't been, and I think they have all been reverted now...I suppose it doesn't really matter either way, but we have been using "Byzantine" here rather than "East Roman." Adam Bishop 05:55, 27 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I really don't think it matters. Byzantine is just the term modern historian terminology, even though at the time the Byzantines regarded themselves as the Roman empire itself, which was true. I think the terms are interchangeable, and readers are well aware of this from the beginning. As to whether it was more Roman than the Western side of Europe depends entirely on which side you sympathise. It is important to note to people who don't know much about the subject, that there has been a lot of western European bias about the Byzantine empire (they were hated and envied) up until recently. The empire has been shunned from the (Western-written) history books. Modern Greek people regard themselves as descendants of the Byzantines (rather than the Ancient Greeks), and so there is a lot of pride in the empire by Greek people. Biz 11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Map
The map provided is not good enough. I don't think it is representative of the true breadth of the Byzantines. The map, taken as a snapshot in 1265, was when the empire was in steep decline. The sacking of Constantinople in 1204 also quite literally ripped the guts out of the empire. So a map when the empire was in steep decline, and at its most vulnerable as it tried to reclaim lost land, is inappropriate. I will try to find a better map, but I think people should be aware of this. It is the equivalent of using a map of modern day Britain, and as the sole picture, implying that is what the British Empire was like at its peak. Biz 11:57, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I found a link for people to get a better understanding about the size of the empire. These maps compare the Roman empire, Byzantine empire and several empires on a map of Europe. Most importantly, it shows the Byzantine empire at 1204 - its low point - and 564, when it was at its peak. The site also has other maps and information which will help newbies with the subject., Biz 12:42, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * Well, the problem is that we need to find a map in the public domain, or a map that is not copyrighted. There are plenty of good maps on the Internet but we can't use most of them. Adam Bishop 17:01, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)


 * I've done some Byzantine maps for the Finnish WP. See fi:Bysantin valtakunta. I've been meaning to translate all the names to "english", but I've been too busy. :) -- Jniemenmaa 17:56, 22 Dec 2004 (UTC)

I'm using IE 6.0.28 and the "timeline" that is supposed to line the right side of the page blocks out the entire abstract. Unfortunately, fixing it is a bit beyond my expertise.Variable 19:47, 29 Dec 2004 (UTC)
 * Sorry, that was my fault, I fixed it now - I forgot to set the width of the new table row I added. Adam Bishop 00:11, 30 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

Just wondered why the new qualifying language and interpolations about multiethnicity and multilanguage were removed. It is simply not true that all of the "Balkans" and "Asia Minor" were mostly Greek during the Byzantine period. Even the Greeks in Greece proper were not all Greek, since waves of Slavic settlers kept coming in. Further, it is not true that the Armenians were the only significant minority--what about the Bulgarians? What about the Isaurian mountain folk? What about the Bogomils (a religious minority)? What about the predecessors of the Albanians? Furthermore why was the reference to the Armenian buffer state -- and to the fact that Armenians rose to high positions in the imperial state -- removed? I am a great admirer of the medieval Greeks--in other new interpolations I exerted myself to refute the unfair prejudices and stereotypes about them that for too many centuries dominated scholarship on this subject. But the paragraph on Byzantine identity as it stands seems to be an exaggeration of the facts. Although it is certainly true that the late Empire was solidly Greek and indeed was the forerunner of the modern Greek nation (just read Plethon), it is not necessary to extend a strong national cohesiveness back to earlier periods, and certainly not to the period prior to Manzikert. Unless the point about the Greek identity of the "Balkans" etc. can be substantiated by scholarship, I think the text should either be restored or something entirely new should be added by someone who has the scholarly foundation in Byzantinism that I sadly lack.

Apology
I'm sorry if I have offended you by editing the article but the picture promoted of Byzantium as a cultural amalgamation by Runciman and his followers falls short of the truth. More recent scholarship has proved that even in its early centuries Byzantium was more Greek than previously believed, rendering older works outdated. The simple fact that even before the fall of Rome "Roman" had already began to mean "Greek" demonstrates the marginalization of foreign societies (which shouldnt be a suprise given that even in the pre-Diocletian empire some lands were favored over others despite their equality in law). See for example Warren Treadgold (History of the Byzantine State and Society, 1997, pg.136): "By that time [fall of Rome] most easterners had come to think themselves as Christians, and more than ever before had some idea that they were Romans. Although they may not have liked their government any more than before, the Greeks among them could no longer consider it foreign, run by Latins from Italy. The word Greek itself had already began to mean a pagan rather than a person of Greek race or culture. Instead the usual word for an eastern Greek had begun to be Roman, which we modern render as Byzantine".

Treadgold deliberately distincts Greeks from the rest of the population precicely because of their elevated position in the empire, in order to explain their subsequent dominance in it. The fact that the Constitutio Antoniniana granted citizenship to all races does not mean it provided for the development of a pluralist society, which was defined by the aggregate of national traits. That would amount to partiallity because the influence of Greeks was disproportionaly greater than that of other peoples ever since the beginning, and would also be unfair to the persistance of national identities alongside Byzantinism within the territories, such as those of the Armenians.

Which is why I think Byzantium's identity depends more on its fluid society than on the territories it encompassed, as you suggest.

The fact that Armenians resided within the Byzantine Empire does not erase their own existing national identity, which is also true for the Armenians that resided outside the empire (the so called armenian buffer state). To quote Armenian area specialist Nina G. Garsoian (The Problem of Armenian Integration in the Byzantine Empire, 1998, pg.54):As early as the reign of Diocletian, the ancient cis-Euphratine kingdom of Armenia Minor emerged from Cappadocia to become a seperate province which was split under Theodocius I into Armenia I and Armenia II... Subsequent evidence that the region remained demographicaly and culturaly Armenian is provided by the complaints of the bishops of Armenia II, in their answer to the Encyclical of emperor Leo in 458, that they were living among barbarians. One century later, the great administrative reform of Justinian in 536, which created four Armenias, including the two former provinces of that name together with portions of the trans-Euphratine kingdom of Greater Armenia and Pontus, indicates that the imperial authorities still regarded the regions as primarily Armenian." There is a plethora of medieval sources that distinct between Romans and Armenians, indicating and verifying that the Armenians never truly integrated into Byzantium and maintained their own national consience, which is why they were never anything more than an ethnic minority and alien to Roman nationality.

'''It is simply not true that all of the "Balkans" and "Asia Minor" were mostly Greek during the Byzantine period. Even the Greeks in Greece proper were not all Greek, since waves of Slavic settlers kept coming in.'''

This was the basis of Fallmerayer's theory of the bastardization of the modern Greek nation, whose blood supposedly was permanently lossed after centuries of repeated Slavic settlements. His theory though has long been rejected and his claims refuted. Slavic conquests into Greece proper were temporary and whatever population movement came with them eventually returned to north of Macedonia where it remained ever since. The few Slavic settlers that did remain behind were either assimilated by Greeks or marginilized into extinction since no medieval source indicates the presence of large slavic population among Greeks.

Further, it is not true that the Armenians were the only significant minority--what about the Bulgarians?

The Bulgarians held an even lower position than the Armenians. They were organized into ducates, not themes, which means they were recognized as a non-Roman people who were not granted citizenship, did not participate in the army, were exluded from the authority of the Constantinopolitan Church and served primarily to protect the Greek speaking territories south of them. The position of Venice parallels this. As part of the empire in the 10th century, just like Bulgaria, she served more as an ally.

What about the Isaurian mountain folk?

The Isaurians were considered barbarians or at least Romans of barbaric origins that lived well into the empire. Zeno the Isaurian was forced to change his name into Greek and a great deal of his pains during his reign were due to his Isaurian origins.

'''What about the Bogomils (a religious minority)? '''

Religious heresies were always present, and Bogomilism in particular originated from Bulgaria so there is little to say about Byzantium.

What about the predecessors of the Albanians?

Albanians were were one of the smallest non-Greek populations in the empire. What about them?

Furthermore why was the reference to the Armenian buffer state -- and to the fact that Armenians rose to high positions in the imperial state -- removed?

Because I think that the fact Armenians rose to high administrational positions does not reflect the prevailing Byzantine concept of a Roman that was defined in spite of those minorities. The army was always the chief integrational mechanism, and all Armenians that entered government achieved it through the army, but that still doesnt take into account that Armenians maintained their own seperate national conscience, that remained alive even after they were left outside the empire.

Although it is certainly true that the late Empire was solidly Greek and indeed was the forerunner of the modern Greek nation (just read Plethon), it is not necessary to extend a strong national cohesiveness back to earlier periods, and certainly not to the period prior to Manzikert.

Why not? The Byzantines themselves were aware of their Greek-Roman ancestry and so were the neighbours of Byzantium, even prior to the the battle of Manzikert.



Absolutely no offense taken. Thanks for your detailed answer. I do not dispute that a Greek Orthodox elite and a Greek Orthodox culture were dominant throughout the empire. My only remaining question would be whether "most" of the people in the giant Balkan and Anatolian territories of the Middle Empire (before Manzikert) actually regarded themselves as Greeks. Your grasp of recent scholarship on this point is impressive and I am inclined to defer to you. Might I suggest you add a sentence or two to the article about why the Seljuks were able to take over and Islamicize eastern and central Anatolia with so little apparent resistance from the local population -- and why the imperial state didn't exert itself more strongly to recover what some modern scholars have depicted as the Empire's heartland. This is something that's always puzzled me. Its like the big elephant in the middle of the living room in the accounts (admittedly outdated) of Byzantine history that I have read. Had environmental degradation already partly depopulated this region, or what?


 * They did attempt to take back Anatolia, when they had a big enough army to do so, and they gradually took a lot of it back in the 12th century. Myriokephalon was more of a disaster than Manzikert in this sense - they never got eastern Anatolia back at all after that battle. By the way, you guys might want to sign your names here, even if you don't have a user name (just type ~ ), it makes it easier to follow a discussion. Adam Bishop 00:48, 11 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Roman Empire
I seriously encourage everybody to agree to moving "Byzantine empire" (a modern semi-spurious coinage) to Eastern Roman Empire, which is more accurate. It won't cause any problems, as anybody typing in "Byzantine empire" will be redirected. Decius 04:06, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Aaarrgggh...we were just talking about this on Talk:List of Roman Emperors. I seriously encourage you *NOT* to move this. I don't see why "Eastern Roman Empire" is all that much more accurate, they didn't call it that either. In modern historiography it is called "Byzantine Empire" no matter what they called it...I mean, every modern work on the subject calls them "Byzantine" (personally I have three text books with "Byzantine" in the title, and Dumbarton Oaks has "Byzantine Studies", etc etc). Please, DON'T move it. Adam Bishop 04:12, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

They called themselves the Roman Empire, so it is more accurate. And the article should be moved. Decius 04:14, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

The fact that many modern works refer to it as "Byzantine" is irrelevant, and I don't see why this ongoing error should be continued in this new Century. That's old garbage. Decius 04:16, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Oh Christ...it'll get moved over my banned de-adminned move-warring body :) Adam Bishop 04:26, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Decius, while I sympathize with the sentiment, I think that a) you need to calm down, and back down a bit; and b) that we need to make our article titles correspond to usage, not to ideal usage. Now, it seems to me that English usage has been a bit towards the term "Eastern Empire" rather than "Byzantine Empire." And, logically, it doesn't make much sense to call it after the name that its capital bore before the state itself existed. That being said, as Adam points out, dominant English usage remains "Byzantine Empire," and wikipedia's job should be to reflect usage, not create it. The fact that other terms are sometimes used ought to be mentioned up front, though. john k 04:27, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not in any way creating usage, as there are many scholarly references past and present that refer to it as the Eastern Roman Empire, so I don't see any legs for the counter-argument. Decius 04:34, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * But the counter-argument is that there are many scholarly references past and present that refer to it as the Byzantine Empire. How could that not have "legs"? Adam Bishop 04:39, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Eastern Roman Empire is also in common usage, and it has the advantage of being more accurate. Think about it. I don't know why you are so much in support of the Byzantine term, just because it is somewhat more common in English usage. Decius 04:43, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't want this to turn into a battle of egos, I just want this proposed renaming of the article to be voted on at least. Decius 04:44, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, because it's more common, as you said. I think you just answered your own question. I don't know about you, but I've never met any Eastern Roman historians, taken a class on the Eastern Roman Empire, read any books about the Eastern Roman Empire...we call it Byzantine, that's just what we call it now. But fine, set up a vote if you want. Adam Bishop 04:48, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

You are using an example that is misleading: in certain contexts, "Byzantine" is simply an easier adjective to use (i.e. "Byzantine studies", a "Byzantine ship"), but when it comes to the official name of an article, there is no need to use shorthand. Decius 04:55, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I have read English books with Eastern Roman Empire as the titled used, though I don't remember the ISBN's. Decius 04:59, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * It's not misleading at all, "Byzantine" in this sense is used as a formal name. "Eastern Roman" can be used alongside this as an alternate name, but it sounds kind of archaic or poetic. If you can remember those books you read, that would help I suppose. Adam Bishop 05:09, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire is simpler, and more common. I vote we keep it here. But what of the Western Roman Empire? Simply limiting Roman Empire to the history of the West, and a footnote to mention Byzantium is ignorant and damaging. -Chris5369 22:45, 24 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It seems to me that the Roman Empire article should discuss the history of the entire empire through the fifth century, and then refer you to Byzantine Empire for the further history of the east. john k 02:14, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Err, why? Wouldn't make much more sense to create an overview of the entire empire, and refer to such specific lengths in detail in their respective articles? -Chris5369 05:12, 25 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Well, the Roman Empire article should of course note that the eastern empire survived until 1453. But I don't think it should go beyond that. The Byzantine Empire is a separate field of study from the Roman Empire. I agree with you that it is wrong to talk in the 5th century as though the western empire is the empire, when the eastern empire continues to exist and is just as much the empire. But after that, so long as the Roman Empire article makes clear that the eastern empire continued and is known as the Byzantine Empire, and covered in that article, what would be the benefit of having a review of Byzantine history in the Roman Empire article? To recount Byzantine history at the same length as one recounts the earlier history would make the article unwieldy. Plus, you open the question of whether the western empire that recommenced with Charlemagne should be discussed. (The rationale for crowning Charlemagne, after all, was that the Byzantine throne was empty due to the usurpation of Irene). And that would just be a mess. Why don't we just leave it as it is? john k 16:14, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * Well, I don't want the article to even go as in-depth as it does now. I would like it to be a brief overview of the Roman Empire, and various times and subjects (the republic & dictatorships [an introduction to the empire], principae, dominate, byzantium, etc.) would have their own seperate articles that are referred to. -Chris5369 16:53, 26 Mar 2005 (UTC)

"Eastern Roman Empire" was a temporary term, used when the empire was ruled by two co-emperors and was permanently abandoned after the fall of the western half of the Roman empire. The term is not recorded in any official records after the 5th century nor is it used in any pre-modern histories. For the short period of time it was used it didnt relate to any of the cultural or other processes underway that would eventually allow the east to grow independently of the west, but was used purely for administrational reasons. The Roman empire from beginning to end was always considered a single realm, politicaly indistinguishable from the later christian empire that turned into a Greek nation state. In that respect, and insofar as "Eastern Roman Empire" describes the empire after the fall of the west, it is a modernist construction as artificial as "Byzantine Empire", because in truth neither was used by roman contemporaries in the manner historians use it today. The fact that the former holds a precedent over the later (in that it was used by 4th and 5th cent. authorities) doesnt give it an edge over other terms. Like another contributor noted above, the Roman empire in antiquity differed vastly from that in the middle ages and nominal continuities shouldnt overshadow irreversible breaks with the past. No need to be scholastic.

The men that fought against the Turks in 1453 believed that they fought defending the same empire Augustus forged in 27 b.c., yet only in name had those in Constantinople anything in common with Augustus' contemporaries in Rome. I dont think a larger common article about the Roman empire -ancient and mediaeval- is required, nor is a bundle of smaller ones sorted out in periods, nor is any renaming required. "Byzantine" is a better established term than "Eastern Roman" and roman history in wikipedia is more or less already well categorized. There's room for improvement but I dont think there's a need for massive restructuring. What's needed is closer ties to academic discipline. -Colossus


 * Who was saying that "Greeks were the minority" ? Greeks were one of the many ethnicities that comprised the Empire---that phrase doesn't imply that they were in the minority or the majority, it's just a statement of fact. As for Eastern Roman Empire no one here was saying that such a term was used by the Empire itself. The fact that the term Eastern Roman Empire is also in common usage is to be stated upfront. "Proof against the notion", but that notion was not even raised by that statement, and I have no qualms with "that notion". Decius 14:54, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't give a shit what anyone says on the matter, and not stating that there are other common names used to refer to the Empire is a stupid-motherfucking-thing-to do, point blank. Decius 17:21, 28 Mar 2005 (UTC)


 * You're being scholastic. Just because it contains the word "roman" doesnt mean it holds closer ties to historical truth than "byzantine" does. Both terms were adopted as a means to refer to the medieval empire as a SEPERATE entity without bringing to mind its ancient predecessor, and the only way to do that was creating a new name that would have no relation with its ancient past. The fact that you insist on using a term that makes the connection with antiquity all the more evident and the distinction with it all the more confusing goes against the very reasoning it was based upon. Otherwise it would just be called the Roman empire, without the easterns and byzantines. Middle ground isnt always the best solution, which is why academics prefer "Byzantine". But you seem to be fixated on that so I wont push it. So be it.
 * As for the Greek thing your original article read as: "also as the Eastern Empire, or the Greek Empire, though Greeks were only one of the many ethnicities comprising the empire". Again you claim that its not a distortion of truth, yet you leave room for doubt by implying the label "Greek Empire" is a paradox or at least peculiar given that other ethnic groups co-existed along with Greeks. As if there ever was or ever will be a state or even a nation-state which is ethnicaly 100% pure. So, unless the Byzantine empire is a special case, why should the obvious need be mentioned at all? Isnt it a given that ethnic minorities exist in every sovereign state? Is it necessary to mention that Romania isnt inhabited by ethnic Romanians only? -Colossus

The entire article is extremely enlightening and was a pleasure to read. The question of the name seems to me somehow important. Reading the article, it seems that the appropriation of the name 'Roman' by the West is one of the great con jobs of history. We seem to accept the great ripoff as a fait accompli, but in very simple terms, the Byzantine Empire was in direct line from the Roman Empire -- it is reasonable to call it the (Eastern) Roman Empire -- and the Westerners who later tried to lay claim to the name are in a sense usurpers. In legal terms, they tried to rip off someone else's inheritance! (As a completely irrelevant aside one recalls the oft-quoted comment that the Holy Roman Empire was neither Holy nor Roman nor an Empire.)

As for 'Byzantine', it may be the accepted historical term but it only came into use centuries after the Empire it describes ceased to exist. In a modern age where the name a country gives itself is a matter of great sensitivity, the gross injustice of calling an Empire a name completely different from the name it called itself seems to be largely unnoticed. Anyway, this is just a comment. I'm not advocating a change in location. Congratulations on a great article.

Bathrobe 24 June 2005

Even if Eastern Roman Empire was the more common usage, Byzantine or a similar greek sounding name would be more appropriate. Calling the empire roman does not indicate the evolution from roman to greek that occured. Honestly I sympathize with you, the romantic part of me wants to agree and think that the Roman empire existing another thousand years. The somewhat sad truth however is that the Byzantine became somthing else, although it was always a successor state it evolved into a greek empire, and grew out of it's roman routes. This is reflected in the change of official language from latin to greek.- Moshe Constantine Hassan Al-Silverburg 06:06, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

"Flag of the Byzantine Empire"
Bogus anachronism. Not to waste words. --Wetman 04:40, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That whole table is pretty anachronistic. Adam Bishop 11:31, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * That motto! --Wetman 13:30, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

To User:207.5.206.179 and User:Rangeley (assuming you are the same person), it's more than population and land area that are anachronistic:


 * 1) First of all, we already have numerous maps on the page; to suggest any of them is representative of the empire is not very useful, especially because for most of its history it didn't control the western Mediterranean.
 * 2) The motto is not the motto of the empire, it's the motto of the Palaeologan dynasty (and the carving of the double-headed eagle that was added to the table awhile ago is a Palaeologan symbol, not one of the empire in general).
 * 3) I suppose it is possible to say the "official language" was Greek, although it wasn't always (for the period in that map and that flag apply, it was Latin). The idea of an "official language" is anachronistic in itself anyway.
 * 4) So much of this article talks about how difficult it is to date the beginning of the empire...284 won't do without a lot of explanation (and even 1453 for "dissolution", whatever that means here, can be kind of contentious).
 * 5) The currency changes frequently, the follis is not the only currency they ever had (and to say they ever had an official currency is, again, an anachronism).
 * 6) Where did you get that flag anyway? See Wetman's comment above. Adam Bishop 21:18, 9 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Technically the Byzantine Empire began in 27 B.C. because it was really just a continuation of the Roman Empire, just with a different capitol

The Byzantines themselves were Greeks not Romans, and that makes a tiny big difference. Of course the real Latin-speaking Romans as an ethnic group were already extinct, and the term "Roman" became a title of nobility (in a way). But then again the Latins of the middle-ages were the enemies of the Byzantines, so again it doesn't make sense unless you draw a line between Roman and Byzantine Empires. Of course it's wise to point out their strong cultural and historical links and characterise Byzantium as an authentic Roman successor state. Miskin


 * I've created an image in JPG format of a depiction of the flag of the Palaeologian emperors I came across in a heraldry book a few years ago. This design, in turn, was actually from taken from the Conoscimiento de todos los Reinos, a major source of information on the flags of the fourteenth century. It is described as having combined the George Cross (red cross on white field) and the Arms/Flag of the Palaeologus Dynasty (gold cross with four gold fire steles - Πυρεκβόλα - on a red field). The steles represented the letter "B" (beta) in Greek, and formed the initials of the Paleologian motto - Βασιλεύς Βασιλέων Βασιλεύων Βασιλευόντων - "King of Kings, ruling over Kings". Dragases 13:50, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

It would be interesting to gather up the myriad of Byzantine heraldry. As its been noted, the template does suffer of a design based on a modern exemple. A thousand years of existance has given it multiple flags, motos and everything else that makes it a nation, as per our conception of the term. Good work on the flags Dragases. Any idea why the George Cross?Dryzen 15:26, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

No idea about the George Cross - it surprised me when I first saw it. Crosses have been used in Byzantine military/naval banners since the early centuries AD. According to most accounts, the Genoese and the English began using the George Cross as a "national" emblem from around late 13th century; it would be very interesting to discover whether it was borrowed from the Byzantines during the period, or the other way around (I'd be betting on the former). Then again, it may only have been described as the George Cross because the original author knew it as the George Cross - to the Byzantines it may only have been a "red Greek cross on a white field". Who knows?
 * That is a very likely possibility (The loss of the original cross name after the fall of the empire) Malta is also know to sport the George cross, but I must confess my mediocre level of knowledge on the George Cross and its symbolism.Dryzen 18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere on Wikipedia it is claimed that England borrowed the St. George cross from the Knights Templar (I challenged this but nobody listens...) Adam Bishop 19:27, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I have a list of names of Byzantine nobility and their heraldic arms, but this is written in heraldic terminology; and I haven't been able to track down any visual depictions of them. I'd be happy to post it here for someone who can translate a heraldic description into a drawing. Dragases 09:55, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'dd be honoued to take up task. I'm comfortable in the vernacular and an avid artist. Do you think if would be preferable to have these done in digital format (i.e. with a computer assisted design) or to have them hand drawn? How big is the list? You could either send it to me via e-mail or on my user page. We could also set up a page on the nobility and keep the information in comment format <! -- -->.Dryzen 18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I've posted the list on your user page - there are about 25+ families. Digital would be the preferable format (SVG, AI, EPS). I may be able to get a hold of some shield templates in vector format for you. Dragases 00:30, 22 April 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll begin in a square flag template, from there is canbe modified to fit in a shield or crest. Once they are done I'll post link here, unless we deign it reasonnable to start up an article on the blazons. I have a few emblems used by the thematic troops, I'll see about posting them also.Dryzen 15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

I've uploaded SVG versions of the Palaeologian flags (at least, for the ones I've been able to provide sources), however, the SVG images don't appear in the main article - strange. To get around this, I've provided JPG images under the same name. To get the SVG images, just change the extensions from JPG to SVG (the filename is the same). If someone here knows why the SVG images don't appear, please help! Dragases 10:57, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * Where are the versions, are they the three you recently posted?Dryzen 18:29, 21 April 2006 (UTC)
 * The SVG files are now appearing correctly. Dragases 23:52, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Heraldry Taking from the above mention of the heraldric termonology, I begun to think about the nature of the blazons. Where these from frankish(european) master heralds describing centuries old Byzantine banners, seals and shield markings (that may or may not have followed the european norms)? Or was the custom of coats of arms acquired over the centuries of european involvement in the middle-east, a legacy from the crusaders? Perhaps forced upon them durign the reign of the Latin Empire? Or mayhaps it had its origins in the Byzantine lands all along and was brought to europe by the returning mercenaries? These are of course very open to discusion and I invite anyone with knowledge on the origins of coat of arms to post, be it for theories or facts.


 * Some links as a starting point. Dragases 02:31, 22 April 2006 (UTC)

http://www.geocities.com/hellenicarmiger/History.html http://www.christopherlong.co.uk/per/vlasto.byzantium.html http://www.sca.org/heraldry/laurel/names/byzantine/introduction.html
 * Thanks.Dryzen 15:27, 24 April 2006 (UTC)

Maps
What happened to all the maps?


 * Nothing...I still see them... Adam Bishop 05:29, 15 May 2005 (UTC)


 * I see them as well. That said, it seems to me we should have some maps covering the appearance of the empire between 565 and 1180...one in the early 8th century, showing the effects of the Arab, Slavic, and Lombard incursions, and one in the early 11th century, showing the recovery under the Macedonian Empire, would be good.  One showing the restored empire of the Palæologi at its height would be nice, too. john k 06:56, 15 May 2005 (UTC)

Done. I have created two new maps for this purpose. :) Bigdaddy1204 23:13, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

Don't you mean to say the "Macedonian Dynasty"? The "Macedonian Empire" refers to a different period of Greek history... Miskin

Byzantine disambig page
The Byzantine page has recently been changed from a redirect (to here) to a disambig. The only alternate meaning given other than the Empire is the adjectival (convoluted, perversely complex). This latter sense is also covered in the article here (section #8) - so, for the sake of avoiding minor annoyance of multiple hops, are there any objections if this is changed back to a redirect? --cjllw | TALK  01:52, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia is not a dictionary - the meaning of the word "byzantine" is not encyclopedic. It should stay a redirect. john k 05:36, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Yeah, change it back. It also helps to have it as a redirect when I am too lazy to type Byzantine :) Adam Bishop 06:16, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

OK, 'tis done - reverted.--cjllw | TALK  09:11, 2005 Jun 10 (UTC)

Maps
I noticed when reading over this article that all the maps have copyright tags on them. Shouldn't these be removed as they're under the GNU Free Documentation License? Leithp 11:06, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * If you follow the links to their licenses on Wikimedia Commons, you'll see that the userid who uploaded them is extremely similar to that of the person whose name is in the copyright notices. He seems to have placed them under the GFDL himself.  &mdash;&mdash;Preost  talk  contribs  21:01, Jun 12, 2005 (UTC)


 * Yes, I noticed that. I was referring to removing the tags, not the maps. Leithp 21:52, 12 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * I added the copyright notices on the images themselves because I got tired of seeing my maps on one certain Wikipedia clone that claimed they owned the copyrights for them (fortunately that site is compliant with the GFDL nowadays). But anyway, I still own the copyright for the maps even if I released the maps under the GFDL. Of course anyone could just remove the copyright-notice from the map, that shouldn't conflict with the GFDL. At least I think so... IANAL -- Jniemenmaa 12:30, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay thanks for clearing that up, I was a little confused. It's a fairly petty point I was making but since it's a featured article I thought I should ask anyway. Leithp 13:27, 13 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Derogatory use of Byzantine
Transfered last paragraph of the article to a page of its own (see:Derogatory use of Byzantine) as it didnt quite fit to the subject of the Byzantine Empire. I also added a link for it in the  Byzantine  disambiguation page. I think its more appropriate this way. What do contributors think? Colossus 19:31, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Does that really require a separate article? If you're going to make "Byzantine" into a page on it's own, why not discuss the uses of the term there? Adam Bishop 20:52, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

My only reservation for not explaining its usage directly in the disambiguation page was size. The text was three paragraphs long, far too much for a disamb page. And there's always the possibility that someone might further it in the future. Colossus 23:04, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * Sure, but it doesn't need to be a disambiguation page, does it? That page could be about the word "Byzantine" and its usage. Adam Bishop 23:10, 26 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Rise of nationalism
Just a comment on the question of nationality in Byzantium and the middle ages in general, in face of the recent edits in the article questioning the existence of such a concept. A distinction needs to be drawn between the nation-state and nationality in itself. The rise of the nation-state is connected with the universal adherence of the right of nations to self-determination, from which the French Revolution was born. Nationality, on a scale of millions, came out of the middle ages. Antiquity also witnessed similar movements, but only on small numbers (the ancient Greek city states for example all qualified as nations). In the case of the Byzantines, there are numerous testimonies that verify the concept of Greek nationality was well established among them, as it undoubtebly did for its western counterparts of France, England, Germany, even Italy. The official name of medieval Germany was Holy Roman Empire of the German nation. In fact, the war of names with Byzantium after Charlemagne's crowning as "Imperator Romanorum", over the matter of rights of Roman heritage, was a contest of ownership between rival nations. Colossus 16:14, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

--

The article was reverted again to Greek-speaking Roman Empire! I dont understand the logic behind it. If nationality was indeed unknown in the middle ages, as some users would have us believe, despite the testimonies of contemporaries that prove otherwise, by applying the same methodology to other medieval states would it be an accurate description naming medieval France as French-speaking Western Francia? Or medieval England as English-speaking England? Or the Holy Roman Empire as German-speaking Holy Roman Empire? The inhabitants of all of the above states considered themselves much more than mere citizens of a state speaking a common tongue. The later kingdom infact, was officialy named Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. I'm really curious for someone to explain why the term Roman Empire during the middle ages, a Christian state of the Greek nation (or people) is deemed inapropriate. And also to explain why medieval Germany was named Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation if nationality and nation did not exist at the time. Colossus 16:59, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * But doesn't that only apply to the Palaeologus period of the empire, when it was relatively small and only had Greeks living in it anyway? Certainly the previous 800 years cannot fit into this arrangement. Yes, the empire is essentially Greek in language, culture, religion, etc, for its entire history, but this is not a "state of the Greek nation". Whatever that even means. Note also that the Holy Roman Empire was not always called "of the German nation", as even our own article about it states. Adam Bishop 18:03, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

A paradox arises from that: If the empire became Greek only in towards the end, and given that only Greeks speak Greek, how could the empire have been Greek-speaking for its entire history? The empire had in fact become Greek as early as the 7th century, after a series of Arab and Lombard invasions left only Asia Minor and the Balkans, both immiscibly Greek populated lands, as the article already makes clear. How many times did the Popes or the Germans refer to the Byzantines as Greeks, proving that any remaining non-Greek populations were too small to be taken into account? In fact, King Khosrau II of Persia, in threatening letter he sent to Heraclius refered to the Byzantines as "Greeks", and that was in 622 when the empire's Asian and European territories where still intact (see 3-volume work by John Julius Norwhich, book 1, chapter: The First Crusader).

The Greekness of the empire was not questioned. The original editor, Theathenae, edited the opening sentence of the article on the grounds that the byzantines, and any medieval people for that matter, would have been incapable of identifying themselves as members of a nation, apparently because the concept of nationality hadnt been developed yet. That's a rather bold statement given bibliography on the subject, especialy when Wikipedia itself states that the first known use of the word "nationality" was made "in 968 a.d. when Liutprand, bishop of Cremona, while confronting the Byzantine emperor on behalf of his patron Otto I, Holy Roman Emperor." (see: nation)

Byzantium, for Liutprand, qualifies the requirements that define a "nation", which judging by the rest of the sources in this case also happens to be the Greeks.

I myself borrowed the phrase Greek nation from the work of a known, though old, Byzantine scholar, August Heisenberg (Sources and studies of late byzantine history: Collected work, 1974), who defined Byzantine civilization: "Byzantium is the Roman state of the Greek nation, that became Christian". A more recent scholar, George Ostrogorsky, on the same issue said: "Roman administration, Greek civilization and Christian faith are the three main sources of Byzantine evolution." Since then, other scholars, more specialized in the field, such as Helen Ahrweiler, quoted in the main article, were also crystal clear on the issue.

In light of the above, could someone explain how is nationality absent from Byzantium or the middle ages in general, and why is calling the Byzantine empire a state of the Greeks such a misdirection? Especially when contemporaries didnt mind calling it as such? Colossus 22:52, 11 July 2005 (UTC)

Those are not very strong counter-arguments. First of all the term "Empire" itself is by definition an expanding state where one ethnic group dominates over others, therefore the term "multi-ethnic empire" sounds bizarre. Therefore it doesn't make sense to point out how many non-Greek ethnic groups had existed within the Empire in order to determine its ethnicity. The medieval "Greek nation" or "Greek people" would refer to the Greek-speaking Christians of the Eastern Roman Empire who recognised themselves as Romans. Colossus is right on this one, a "nation-state" is a modern term, but a "nation" (ethnos) of people is a very ancient one. Secondly, unless you're implying that there was a significant change (other than loss in lands) in the Byzantine Empire after the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders, I really don't see a reason for not accepting the 13th century rise of Greek nationalism as a description of the Empire's historical ethnic character, especially when you know that foreigners referred to the nation as "Greeks" since at least the 8th century. We've already been using a term which was unknown to the "Greco-Romans" (Byzantines), because scholars thought it was necessary to make a distinction between Roman and Medieval Greek history. I'm sure that if the crusade of 1204 caused some a big change to the ethnic or cultural character of the Empire, scholars would have invented another term to describe the period of Palaeologus (Hellenic Empire?). By calling the Byzantine Empire a "Greek-speaking Empire" it's like implying "they were not really Romans as they claimed in the beginning, so we call them Byzantines, but they were neither really Greeks as they claimed at the end, so we call them Greek-speaking". I really don't see the logic in that, especially when in Ostrogorsky's own words (who is quoted in your sources) "Byzantine history properly speaking is the history of the medieval Greek Empire". I've never come across any scholars referring to Byzantium as part of the medieval "Greek-speaking" history. Miskin 23:06, 11 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Okay, first off: I am not following Miskin, I've been following this page for awhile, and something here is quite curious: why does Monsieur Colossus continue to claim that the Byzantine empire was not multi-ethnic? Certainly, the majority of the population spoke Greek and identified themselves as Greeks/Romans. But, let's be real here and not forget about (to note one example) the Armenians, and the many emperors they contributed; let's not forget the many emperors of Illyrian or Daco-Thracian background (Diocletian, etc.); and so on. It is not incorrect to refer to its later phase as a Greek empire, but claiming that it was not a multi-ethnic empire through much of its history is bizarre. And note also: many of those "Greeks" were in fact Hellenized peoples of originally non-Hellenic ethnicity: South Thracians, Mysians, Phrygians, Lydians, Carians, and so on and so forth, though since they later became Greeks, one can't use them to claim a multi-ethnic empire (the various ethnicities became absorbed into the Greek ethnos). Still, it is pointless to claim that the Eastern Roman Empire was not multi-ethnic for much of its history. Decius 01:09, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the (Greek-speaking) peoples of the Byzantine Empire called themselves "Romans" suggests that we should be careful about calling them Greeks. It was always my understanding that the term "Greek Empire" was one mostly used by Westerners. As far as whether it was a multiethnic state, it obviously was - even after the loss of the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa in the 7th Century, there were still lands in Italy (partially Greek-speaking, but also with, at different points, Italians, Lombards, and so forth), there were always Latinate speakers in the Balkans. There were presumably the ancestors of the Albanians. There were Armenians. Most of all, there were, from the time of the Macedonian Emperors until the Fourth Crusade or so, a whole lot of Slavs. Only at the very end, when the Empire basically consisted of Constantinople, Salonica, and some lands in the Peloponnesus, was it mostly Greek (and even then, I wonder - how Slavic was Salonica at that time?) john k 01:38, 12 July 2005 (UTC)


 * Westerners calling it the "Greek Empire" was also something of an insult - rather than acknowledge their Roman heritage, which of course was also claimed by the HRE. Adam Bishop 03:06, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I'm not really insisting to change it into "Greek nation", but I don't find a valid counter-argument in here not to do so either. So according to you Decius, which Empire was ever not multi-ethnic? An Empire by definition is conquering foreign nations and therefore has many ethnic groups, period. The point here is which ethnic group (if any) is in charge of the empire. In that case it's the Greeks, who also happen to be the majority (but that doesn't really matter) and since the term "Empire" implies multi-ethnic, there's no point mentioning it. A multi-ethnic, expanding, Greek-speaking, Christian, medieval state can be efficiently summarised as: A Greek Empire. The Greeks vs Hellenised people is also a weak counter-argument. Ethnicity is defined in terms of culture, otherwise the only real Greeks (by your definition) would be the speakers of proto-Greek. According to your definition, the ancient Greeks should not be called Greeks either, as they were basically the admixture of Indo-European Greek speakers and the barbarians locals in Greece (e.g. Pelasgians). Ancient Athens is by no sane person regarded as a "multi-ethnic city-state", therefore your logic is academically false. Miskin 03:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The fact that the (Greek-speaking) peoples of the Byzantine Empire called themselves "Romans" suggests that we should be careful about calling them Greeks.

But we are not calling them what they called themselves either, because the term "Romans" is obviously misleading. Since we're using a made-up terminology we might as well give it some value. In other words, what the Byzantines and many other medieval civilizations called themselves is irrelevant. The foreigners called them Greeks since the 7th or 8th century BC, and after the 4rth crusade the Byzantines called themselves Greek as well. So as you see the "Greek Empire" is not really coming out of the blue here.

''There were Armenians. Most of all, there were, from the time of the Macedonian Emperors until the Fourth Crusade or so, a whole lot of Slavs. Only at the very end, when the Empire basically consisted of Constantinople, Salonica, and some lands in the Peloponnesus, was it mostly Greek (and even then, I wonder - how Slavic was Salonica at that time?)''

The title "Macedonian" has nothing to do with the modern Macedonian Slavic nation. Basil I was of Armenian origin but the majority of the Dynasty was pretty much Greek (Roman even). Secondly the cities of Greek Macedonia, neither in Byzantium neither in the Ottoman Empire, never maintained a significant Slavic population (especially not Thessaloniki). Actually the Slavs were an ethnic minority within the Empire which had always been trying to gain some political power but never achieved it. On the other hand many scholars support that one of the reasons of the Byzantine defeat at the Battle of Manzikert was because of the Armenian, Slavic, Bulgarian etc missionaries in the Byzantine army. Those things proves that a Byzantine Greek nationality did exist, and the non-Greek ethnic groups that existed within the empire were in fact considered ethically foreigners to the "Byzantine" nation. The fact that ethnic distinctions such as "Armenians, Arvanites, Bulgars, Slavs, Turks" existed within the Empire, proves that there actually was a nation. Miskin 03:39, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

I never said that the Macedonian Emperors were Slavs. Slavs invaded and took over much of the Balkans (including much of mainland Greece) in the early 7th century. This area, still presumably inhabited by Slavs, was reconquered by the Macedonian Emperors. Meaning that there were a ton of Slavs (including Bulgarians) in the Byzantine Empire as it stood between the 10th century and the 13th century. Miskin - I think you are really putting a much more modern conception of nationhood onto 11th century Byzantium than was actually conceived at the time. As to Greek Empire, this should be noted as an alternative name, but it shouldn't be used as a primary name. john k 03:52, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The Slavs were in regions that were called Sclavinias, not all over the place and not in the big cities. The majority of the Sclavinias were eliminated by the Byzantine Emperors and is therefore no argument on the ethnic composition of the empire (I can be specific on this if you want). Miskin 12:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

As to whether Salonica was Slavic in the 15th century, I really wasn't sure - certainly it was not a terribly Greek city by the beginning of the 20th century, and, as I noted, there were Slavs all over the place starting in the 7th century.

Slavs never established a presence neither in big cities neither in the government. Miskin 12:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

Also - on what basis do you claim that westerners called it the "Greek Empire" from the 4th century. I've never heard it called anything but the "Eastern Empire" or the "Roman Empire" at least up through the Justinian period (Justinian, recall, was a native Latin-speaker, as were his successors through Maurice, I think). Greek didn't become the language of the Empire until Heraclius, and even then I'm not sure westerners would have called it the "Greek Empire" until after Charlemagne. john k 03:55, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

It's ironic that you mention Justinian as an example of a native Latin-speaker. Justinian wrote Novellae in Greek, excusing himself for using the mother language of his own and of the Empire (Greek) instead of the father language (Latin). Miskin 12:03, 17 July 2005 (UTC)

---

Secondly, unless you're implying that there was a significant change (other than loss in lands) in the Byzantine Empire after the fall of Constantinople to the Crusaders, I really don't see a reason for not accepting the 13th century rise of Greek nationalism as a description of the Empire's historical ethnic character, especially when you know that foreigners referred to the nation as "Greeks" since at least the 8th century. The significant change in the empire's territory occured at the 7th century, which then gave rise to the nationalist movement. The first surviving reports of a conscious nationalist awareness date from the 9th century, which lie in par with parallel developments in Western Europe, so it really isnt an extreme position. Nationalism was a gradual development that took place over several centuries. By the time of the fall of Constantinople in 1204 it was already complete. We would expect that Liutpand's testimony would have greater impact to us when he said that the dispute with the Byzantines was a dispute among nations and settle the matter of nationality permanently.

'''Okay, first off: I am not following Miskin, I've been following this page for awhile, and something here is quite curious: why does Monsieur Colossus continue to claim that the Byzantine empire was not multi-ethnic? Certainly, the majority of the population spoke Greek and identified themselves as Greeks/Romans. But, let's be real here and not forget about (to note one example) the Armenians, and the many emperors they contributed; let's not forget the many emperors of Illyrian or Daco-Thracian background (Diocletian, etc.); and so on.' Are you familiar with the phrase ethnic-minoritiy''? It is the group or groups of people that differ in their race or culture from the majority of the people They exist in every state, including modern nation-states, and if the presence defines multi-ethnicity then we all live in multi-ethnic countries today. The truth of the matter is that such groups are recognized certain priviliges in order to protect them from the norm exactly because they are considered little less than foreigners inside their own country. The Armenians were a divided nation that lived on the borders between Byzantium and Persia. The population that lived within Asia Minor numbered 1/10th of the Greeks in that region, and at the same time were considered a culturally distinct people, meaning that they differentiated themselves from Byzantines, qualifying as a ethnic-minority status. The limited impact they had in the state was done from participation in the army, and of Byzantium's 91 emperors only 3 were of Armenian origin. And the Illyrian emperors are not considered to be Byzantines, Diocletian himself being on the borderline.

'''Still, it is pointless to claim that the Eastern Roman Empire was not multi-ethnic for much of its history. - As far as whether it was a multiethnic state, it obviously was. Even after the loss of the Levant, Egypt, and North Africa in the 7th Century, there were still lands in Italy (partially Greek-speaking, but also with, at different points, Italians, Lombards, and so forth), there were always Latinate speakers in the Balkans. There were presumably the ancestors of the Albanians. There were Armenians. Most of all, there were, from the time of the Macedonian Emperors until the Fourth Crusade or so, a whole lot of Slavs.' Ethnic'' is an ambiguous term, which can mean either "race" or "culture" or both. In the case of Byzantium, the empire undoubtebly is held to be multi-ethnic, in that is was comprised of a variety of peoples of comparable population, up and until the reign of Heraclius when most of ancient Roman empire territories still existed. But from Heraclius and onwards, the overwhelming majority of the population was Greek, and in the last 4 centuries exclusively Greek. Non-Greek populations never reached significant numbers.

In the year 800, the composition of the Byzantine state was:
 * Asia Minor: about 800,000 Armenians from 8 million Greeks
 * Greece proper: about 200,000 Albanians from 2 million Greeks
 * Balkan protectorates and ducates: 3 million (figures by Mcevedy and Jones, Atlas of World Population History, Harmondsworth, 1978)

A large part of the Balkan, Italian and Asian (non-Asia Minor) territories were organized into Ducates or Protectorates, technixally part of the empire, but in practice independent states meant to protect inner lands. Citizenship was not extended to the conquered territories, so the Bulgars, Serbs, Croats, Lombards, Georgians, Venetians or any conquered people were never put in the process of assimilation. In the same way India was part of the British empire, but Indians were not considered British. The autocephaly of Churches is an even better indication of the political enviroment in Byzantium. The Church in Constantinople remained authoritative for the Byzantines, while non-Roman people had their own Churches recognized by the ecumenical Patriarch, including the Armenians.

'''Miskin - I think you are really putting a much more modern conception of nationhood onto 11th century Byzantium than was actually conceived at the time. As to Greek Empire, this should be noted as an alternative name, but it shouldn't be used as a primary name.''' The only difference between medieval and modern nationalism is that today it is attached to the state. Medieval kingdoms could legitimately expand their territories into foreign nations while today the right of every nation to rule itself is considered universal and supreme. Liutprand cursed the Byzantines for imprisoning him, and quoted Virgil's Aeneid to demonstrate his exasperation for the Greeks.

The problem with the opening sentense is that "Greek speaking" leaves room for misinterpretation, implying that others beside the Greeks may have lived within Byzantium speaking Greek, which simply isnt true. Since nationality is a verifiable medieval product, what's wrong with stating the obvious and saying that Byzantium was a medieval Greek state, a phrase prefered by academics also, when that's exactly what it was most of the time? Colossus 10:11, 12 July 2005 (UTC)
 * The reason why I chose the term "Greek-speaking" is precisely because there were others besides the Greeks who lived within Byzantium and spoke Greek in addition to their own languages, and "Greek-speaking Roman Empire" is a neutral description of the empire's identity throughout its history. Byzantine nationality was determined far more by religious affiliation than ethnicity in the narrow sense. Nonetheless, I have toyed with the idea of "Greek-led" or "Greek-dominated" instead of "Greek-speaking", or perhaps even "Greek Orthodox" which is entirely unambiguous. What are your thoughts?--Theathenae 10:57, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

The reason why I chose the term "Greek-speaking" is precisely because there were others besides the Greeks who lived within Byzantium and spoke Greek in addition to their own languages Who were those "other" nations that that spoke Greek despite being of non-Greek origin? Because the term Greek-speaking refers to a person for whom Greek is the mother tongue and not a second language. In the same way English-speaking refers to that person for whom English is first language, not second. In danger of stating the obvious, no people other than Greeks spoke Greek. Which is why "Greek-speaking" is a paradox and should be reverted back.

"Greek-speaking Roman Empire" is a neutral description of the empire's identity throughout its history. You speak of neutral as if one party or another is bound to be wronged by the truth. Ignoring the other inadequacies deriving from such a characterization, Greek-speaking indicates only the empire's language, which is obvious to all anyway since only one major group inhabited its territories. In the same way you dont need to mention the language of the Holy Roman Empire is you can establish before hand its medieval Germany your talking about.

Byzantine nationality was determined far more by religious affiliation than ethnicity in the narrow sense. Which was the reason behind the autocephaly of the Orthodox Churches. Non-Byzantines where granted autocephalous status for their own Churches while the Greeks maintained their ecumenical Patriarchate in Constantinople for themselves - itself, more proof that Byzantines and Greeks identified.

'''Nonetheless, I have toyed with the idea of "Greek-led" or "Greek-dominated" instead of "Greek-speaking", or perhaps even "Greek Orthodox" which is entirely unambiguous. What are your thoughts?--''' With the exception of "Greek-Orthodox", the other terms presuppose the existence of non-Greek groups of comparable population to the Greeks, which we've already established isnt true, making the idea of "leading" or "dominating" over something negeligible, a moot point. "Greek-Orthodox, already mentioned in the article, is virtually synonymus with "Christian state of the Greek nation" so I dont understand why then the change in the first place. Colossus 16:03, 12 July 2005 (UTC)

How about 'predominantly Greek'?

Bathrobe

NPOV
User:AlexR, why dont you discuss with us you reservations about NPOV and perhaps we can resolve them here, instead of putting a clean up tag in the main article waiting for a Byzantologist to notice it. Colossus 18:48, 6 August 2005 (UTC)

Improvement Drive
The article History of the Balkans has been listed to be improved on This week's improvement drive. You can add your vote there if you would like to support the article.--Fenice 17:18, 14 August 2005 (UTC)

Names of the Greeks
The Names of the Greeks article on the bottom of the History of Greece template became a Featured Article Candidate. Come vote for it at Featured article candidates. Colossus 20:02, 15 August 2005 (UTC)

Concluding remarks
I changed the conclusion to something a bit more dramatic. I just want to qualify one of my statements that the Byzantine Empire has laid the foundations of western civilisation as we know it. Biz 23:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * preserved ancient knowledge
 * was the empire that introduced christianity to Europe
 * Justinian's revamped law code of old Roman law, is the basis of most of modern Europes codified law
 * was the barrier between Europe and the Middle East - keeping the Muslim empires for over running Europe
 * had a central role to play in the Crusades, of whose affect on the world are too numerous to list
 * was the cultural, economic and political superpower for the middle ages

Why do you go to such great lengths?
To please everybody's concerns? I always see a lot of angry Italians on these boards demanding the name be changed to 'Roman', I agree with them, ironically enough - As the article states, Latins had lost their Romanic Heritage with the Norman and other preceeding Invasions. Call it The Roman Empire, or ERE, but it still doesn't change Historical Fact, the Empire wasn't Latin, so it certainly wasn't Roman in the 'Traditional' sense that most think of, thats why we refer to the inhabitants (Greeks) as Byzantines, because there was such a sea change in every aspect of The Empire, right up to the dominant population. This NPOV is so pathetic, anyone can use it as an excuse for editing, granted, I haven't read as much as some of the more knowledgable people on these forums, but thats because I am 16 years old, but from what I have read - The Empire wasn't just dominantly Greek, it was Greek full stop. Should we also give equal coverage to Global Warming denialists just because it happens to be an opinion (disregarding the fact 99% of all climatologists consider their claims totally erroneus). Lets get one thing straight, the Empire wasn't Latin, it wasn't Albanian, it wasn't Armenian, it was Greek, lets just put down Historical fact ffs! Instead of pandering to everyones demands to always attribute someone elses history to their own. Same with the Alexander question, I haven't seen one god damn person mention that the first slavs to enter The Balkans came in 555AD, which makes their claim upon Alexander utterly fradulent, no.... we've got to *give* them equal coverage as if their claims are backed up by ANY kind of Historical fact. Actually, if that's the case, why doesn't somebody go and devote half of the Holocaust page to revisionist theories? We all know *that* wouldn't happen, but it's perfectly alright for others to attribute Greek History as their own, angry Italians, Albanians and even Bulgarians!


 * I share your concerns, and agree, especially given my Greek backgroud and this naturally affects my pride (and hence bias). However, understand something: history is politics. And modern politicians use the past to achieve ends in the present and future, so that is why we need to tred a difficult line.
 * I have done a lot of reading on the empire - in fact I just read Norwich's condensed history of the entire period - and I was surprised to then read this Wikipedia article on how it was a Greek state. Never heard that perspective, and I think there is an element of truth about it, but I don't agree with it. Why? Because the definition of empire, at least in my eyes, is the conquering of foreign cultures. By that definition, the Byzantines were an empire because they ruled parts of Latin Italy, regions that are now serbia, the Bulgars, and the Egyptians. Sure, they spoke Greek - but language is only one aspect of identity. Modern Greeks today, would consider Greek language, and christianity (especially Orthodoxy) as what constitutes someone being "Greek". But that is now. Back then, they considered themselves Romans. They called themselves Roman. They never called themselves Byzantine. So the problem is, trying to balance our modern day perspective, with their own perspective, to get the closest we can to the truth. But we never will get the truth, and that is why history is so great - because it is a reflection of times when people wrote, and those views reflect what our descndants will consider of us when one day, we are history as well. Biz 15:26, 30 August 2005 (UTC)

Name in infobox
Any opinions on what the name of this entity should be at the top of the infobox? Currently it is:
 * Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων
 * Imperium Romanorum
 * Empire of the Romans
 * (Byzantine Empire)

Seems a bit much to have 4 names given. Also, does "Imperium Romanorum" really mean "Empire of the Romans"? In the Roman Empire box, it is translated as "Roman Empire". --JW1805 17:46, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It literally means "of the Romans", yes (Roman Empire would literally be Imperium Romanum). I don't know what they called themselves in Latin, but in Greek they usually just called the empire "Romania" and the emperor was "emperor of the Romans." This is all kind of silly, it would probably be most useful just to have "Byzantine Empire" in the box, but whoever creates the rules for these boxes would have it otherwise, I guess. Adam Bishop 18:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * In fact, was the Roman Empire itself not the Empire of the Romans (IMPERIVM ROMANORVM), rather than the "Roman Empire" (IMPERIVM ROMANVM) per se?--Theathenae 18:31, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
 * I suppose the reasoning for not including "Byzantine Empire" is that its already in the main title, and the infobox should be for native terminology. I also dont understand why the latin title needs to be kept. There was no such thing as "official language" in the Roman empire, and if there were it was co-official with Greek, with Latin never extensively used in the East. It which would be misleading to attach 11 centuries of history to a latin title barely used for 2 or 3. That being said, I am against infoboxes anyway. Colossus 20:10, 29 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I vote to just have:
 * Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων
 * Byzantine Empire

It has the name basically used at the time, in the most common language, and the modern name. Putting "Roman Empire" or "Empire of the Romans" in English and Latin is just confusing and unnecessary.--JW1805 21:40, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

"Empire of the Romans"?? Who's coming up with that crap? That's completely incorrect, not in use, and misleading. The direct English translation of the Byzantine usage of the word "Roman" is Romaic. Look it up in any English dictionary. Roman is referring to the Romans. Miskin 15:22, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
 * "that crap"??? The OFFICIAL name of the Byzantine Empire was Empire of the ROMANS because its inhabbitans be they latin-speakers as Justinian (until the 7th century) or greeks like Herakleios named themselves and considered themselves ROMANS. The German Emperors however also called themselves Emperors of the Romans, hence, after the Byzantine Empire was destroyed, they coined various terms for those Romans as "Byzantines", "Romaic" etc. However, it would have been an insult for a Byzantine to be called Byzantine. A Greek should tell you. I am not one but I take serious insult if somebody changes the translation of the OFFICIAL name in the infobox, which is EMPIRE OF THE ROMANS, because I am an Orthodox Christian and a Romanian. Now the words "that crap" are seriously offensive, especially because you made no effort to learn about the HISTORICAL significance of the words and you just took a dictionary and translated the greek word. The dictionary obviously was biased. It is like instead of saying to a Russian: "You come from a Slavic people" (because Russians are a part of the group of peoples known as Slavs) "You come from a slave people."

For details about the name of the Byzantines see the article http://www.romanity.org/htm/fox.01.en.what_if_anything_is_a_byzantine.01.htm Regarding the info box that place is for the OFFICIAL NAME of the country. In Greek it's Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων. As Greek was the main language used in the Empire that will go first. Imperium Romanorum is the name in Latin and it means THE VERY SAME THING. Latin was widely used in a diglossy with Greek until the 7th-8th centuries in the Empire, it will go second. After that the thranslation in English should come and that is (approximatively) Empire of the Romans. I say approximatively because Imperium can be also translated with "Power", "Authority" (although Auctoritas can also be translated with "Authority"; but in Latin Imperium and Auctoritas are very different things), "Domain", "Country" etc. Than, in brackets (Byzantine Empire), the name by which the Empire is known today in English. "Empire of the Romans" MUST be written, because the Greek and Latin words need to be translated (maybe someone who reads this article doesn't know Greek or Latin, so they should know how the Empire was called officially). "Byzantine Empire" should also be present, because this is the name used today by most people, but it should be in brackets because it was NEVER USED BY THE BYZANTINES THEMSELVES. Therefore, the name in the infobox should be:
 * Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων
 * Imperium Romanorum
 * Empire of the Romans
 * (Byzantine Empire)

Q.E.D. Well, I won't hold to that, if you so consider, just note the correct translation. I don't want to enter a polemic or fight with any of you, therefore if I have offended any of you please forgive me. After all, as our Holy Church teaches us, the Empire of God is not of this world. But there may be persons who may take it more seriously. I for one agree with this name, that you propose. Also, Miskin, I didn't take offense in a personal way. At least I'm not taking anymore. But it is rather offensive in a general way. And the explanation about the meaning of the name is for you. It's not misleading, it is correct. The Greeks considered themselves Romans at that time. As for the offense part, you know, when speaking about anything in the Balkans (by the way, I don't like this name - Balkans), its hard not to raise emotions. I hope I didn't started a vendetta... :)
 * That's all well and good, but four names is just to much. The compromise: Βασιλεία Ῥωμαίων ; Roman (Byzantine) Empire is uncluttered and has all the necessary information.  The Latin, and "Empire of the Romans" just isn't necessary.  Note that the text of the article has "Roman Empire", and that is how it is translated at Roman Empire as well.  --JW1805 22:22, 4 October 2005 (UTC)


 * The OFFICIAL name of the Byzantine Empire was Empire of the ROMANS because its inhabbitans be they latin-speakers as Justinian (until the 7th century) or greeks like Herakleios named themselves and considered themselves ROMANS.

Justinian was not a native Latin speaker as he was born and raised in the Eastern part of the Empire. He learned Latin by being a member of a "royal" bloodline and eventually by becoming a Roman Emperor. His native language however was Romaic and this is verified by his written works. Justinian wrote in Classical Latin and in Medieval Greek, the former being a literary form of speech with no native speakers and the latter the vernacular of the Byzantines. He probably didn't speak the vernacular Vulgar Latin that was spoken in the Western part of the empire at the time. For that reason in his 'Novellae' he wrote: "ου τη πατρίω φωνή τον νόμον συνεγράψαμεν, αλλά ταύτη δη τη κοινή και Ελλάδι, ώστε άπασιν αυτόν, είναι γνώριμον δια το πρόχειρον της ερμηνείας". That means "We didn't write the law in our paternal language, but in our common language of Greece, so that everyone will be familiar with its context". Miskin 08:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

The German Emperors however also called themselves Emperors of the Romans, hence, after the Byzantine Empire was destroyed, they coined various terms for those Romans as "Byzantines", "Romaic" etc.

No in fact they coined various terms much earlier, such as "Imperium Graecorum". "Romaic" was not a coined title, it was a direct translation. Miskin 08:49, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

How to edit this?

 * By preserving the ancient world, and forging the medieval, the Byzantine Empire's influence is hard to truly grasp. However, to deny history the chance to acknowledge its existence, is to deny the origins of Western civilization as we know it.

I can't get any content out of this: it's the parsing that's truly hard to grasp, I trow. And who's denying history the chance to acknowledge its existence? Not I for one. --Wetman 11:25, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I am not particularly attached to the sentence, so change it if you want (yes, I wrote it). However, what I mean is that it is hard to list the contributions the Byzantine Empire made to society, because it was a cultural empire that has been lost in time - with its legacy absorbed into other cultures like the Russian and Ottoman empires.
 * Denial in history: just look at the curiculum of American and European text books, as demostrated with the opening quotation at the begining of the section. Need another example? Gibbon. Maybe not deny its existance, but indrectly the downplaying by Gibbon for example, almost hides the empire under a rug of obscurity. Biz 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Legacy and Importance section
Does this sentence seem contradictory:
 * "The Roman Empire of the East was founded on Monday 11 May 330; it came to an end on Tuesday 29 May 1453 - although it had already come into being when Diocletian split the Roman Empire in 286, and it was still alive when Trebizond finally fell in 1461."

I'm not sure about this entire section. It seems familiar somehow, especially the sentence about "Robert Byron, one of the first great 20th century Philhellenes..." Isn't that from Norwich's book (at the end, I think)? Could somebody check to see if this section is plagiarized?--JW1805 17:47, 11 October 2005 (UTC)
 * I wrote it, and yes, the quote is from Norwich. However, he is aknowledged in the bibliography so I didn't think it was neccessary to state it was from his book, as he wasn't the person that made the quote.


 * The entire section is definately not plagiarised. I used Norwich as a source when I researched it, but based it mainly on internet material to get ideas on composing the section. The themes may cover ones Norwich used, but they are completely my own words. Actually to tell you the truth, I found Norwich quite useless when I was trying to get inspiration for content of this section.


 * As for it being contradictory, I think it just needs to be worded better. When I added that whole section, I made sure I did not delete any other previous content, and integrated past sentences into the bits I added. The whole Diocletion and Trebizond bits are examples of me trying to weave previous content into the new content. Having said that though, as the Byzantine Empire is just a histiographical term, the whole dating of the issue is going to be a little fuzzy and this sentence aknoweldges that.Biz 21:42, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Images
The page has some great images, but they need a better layout as they make the page look cluttered. I also think we should remove the image "The Byzantine Empire in 1265 (William R. Shepherd, Historical Atlas, 1911)" because it is duplicate information from another map. The other map is consistent with other pictures, hence providing better comparison. And the map is a little hard to read, and needs to be zoomed in to understand it. As the picture exists on many other Wikipedia articles, I think it will do no harm to remove it. Anyone agree? Biz 21:48, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

Term "Byzantine"
"Standardization of the term did not occur until the 17th century, when French authors such as Montesquieu..." Montesquieu is an 18th-century author. Was the term standardized by a previous writer, in the 17th century? I'm not competent to fix this myself. --Wetman 04:29, 30 October 2005 (UTC)
 * It is probably meant to read 18th century. --Tokle 19:06, 30 October 2005 (UTC)

All very interesting, but what is the word's etymology? It doesen't say. More importantly, the impression the reader receives is that choosing between 'Roman' or 'Byzantine' is merely a matter of terminology. It fails to emphasize the qualitative difference between the Roman Empire of antiquity and the Byzantine Empire which emerged in late antiquity - however you date that change. That is akin to referring to the Holy Roman Empire as if it was just the Roman Empire of a later period. RCSB 10:00, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
 * The word stems from the old greek city of Byzantium, which Constantine the Great refounded as Constantinople (Nova Roma). --Tokle 13:10, 1 November 2005 (UTC)

Byzas was the name of the King Of Megara. Megara is situated to the north of Athens. Byzas was a sea explorer and founded a colony opposite Chalkidona, another colony of people from Megara, in 658BC. This new location offered much better geostrategic position, and it was named after himself: Byzantion. When Constantine the Great moved the capital city of the Roman Empire, he decided to build it around this ancient colony of Byzas. However, the name Byzantine and Byzantium was never the name that people of that time would use to call themselves.

It was Hieronumous Wolf that in 1562 published his work: «Corpus Byzantinae Historiae», where the term "Byzantine" is used for the first time to define the Empire and its citizens. And it was two centuries later, that mainly French scholars used this term much more widely and it started being the most common term. The reason behind this new term has to do with efforts by Western scholars to distance the New Roman Empire (the Empire of New Rome - Nova Roma) as the successor of the Roman Empire. The result of this was that historians ignored -at a relatively large extent- any research on the topic. This effect was coupled by the idea that "almost anything happened in Middle Ages is more or less worthless". Nevertheless, since roughly the beginning of 20th century, some prominent historians focused on research on the so called "Byzantine Empire". This focus in being increased today, although it is still not given sufficient attention in terms of the time it lasted (more than a millenium!) and the influence it had to the entire South East Europe at least (Balkans, Russia, Middle East etc) --Ferrara 14:01, 12 April 2006 (UTC)

Improving the article: a project?
I have the Britannica and its article about the Byzantine Empire i hugely superior that our on Wikipedia. I'm trying to improve as possible using Ostrogorsky, Norwich and a German book. I have arrived at Justinian era but the work is hard, especially 'cause at the same time I'm writing the History of Rome. Nobody eager to collaborate? Nobody could use the infos in the Interwiki articles cited above. Anyway, for I'm Italian motherlanguage, if you can keep waching this article to correct my grammar errors. user:Attilios, from Late October.


 * It depends. What is it about this article that strikes to you so badly? Please be specific before making large edits. Miskin 13:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)

Language and ethnic orgins of MACEDONIAN DYNASTY
Can some one here say exactly what was the languiage being spoken by the Macedonian dynasty during the byzantine empire, thankyou
 * It was Greek - there was never a slavic language that was used in the business of the empire from what I understand. Norfolk says the founder of the dynasty was Armenian, although there is contention on this point. This pro-Macedonian website *http://www.historyofmacedonia.org/RomanMacedonia/MacedonianDynasty.htm) says he may be a mixture of slavic and armenian. However also take this website with a grain of salt - it is a little nationalistic, and in some cases, inaccurate (from my perspective on history)Biz 17:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Ethnicity of the Population of the Balkans in the middle ages
What exactly nationalitys was in the balkans in the middle ages, specially in south balkans, any one have statistiks for this thanks user:Intranetman


 * Byzantium never really maintained its hold on most of Balkan territory, not even in its early centuries after the Fall of Rome until Basileus Heraclius. Byzantine lands were limited to Greek speaking territories such as Greece proper and Asia Minor, and so whatever form of nationalism developed reflected that demography. The "Identity" section of the article deals with that. A pan-Balkanic ethnic cartography would be inapropriate as other political entities also developed alongside Byzantium. Colossus 17:18, 18 November 2005 (UTC)


 * What you say can only be partly accepled. The limes danubianus survived quite well till the death of Justinian (565), and started crumbling only after, WITHOUT the exception of Heraclius. And it cannot be forgotten that the Balkans were once again unified in 1018 and remained so till 1186, and that Greece was hardly a part of the Empire in much of the 7th and 8th century, as Ostrogrorsky remembers Aldux 18:00, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Picture Not Showing on Article
I have made many changes to the Byzantine Empire article and one of those changes entailed the placing of a more accurate picture of the Byzantine Empire in 1204 A.D. I tried to maintain the previous picture that I am now trying to replace, but it just would not appear on the article. Strange.

Anyway, I would not mind if someone (or anyone) would help me place the new picture I found on the Byzantine Empire article and somehow fix this little problem of a Wikipedia article not showing a picture.

Later. -Deucalionite 11/26/05 3:54 P.M. EST

Infobox
I'm assuming the infobox was what was being discussed in the above "Flag of the Byzantine Empire" section above. It was added back to this page, and I reverted it. A template isn't really such a bad idea (although the article already has the timeline infobox at the top) but this one needed some work. The problem, as I see it, is it's just too difficult to fill in the "Area", "Population" fields (since it varied greatly over the 1000 year history), "Establishment", "First Emperor" fields (since there is no real dividing line between the "Byzantine" and "Roman" Empires). And to put Preceding State as Roman Empire is sort of misleading as well. Plus, there is already plenty of maps on this page. --JW1805 (Talk) 00:38, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Hmm, still I must point out that most of the countries articles have these "template infoboxes". Perhaps the template schould simply be improved and perhaps merged with the "timeline infobox".

Another point I find "strange": why doesn´t the "timeline infobox" have its own "template/page"? It´s very dificult to expand and improve it.

I read the discussion and can only say that if the flag and motto were wrong or/and outdated, simply improve the template. Flamarande

Byzantine Empire timeline infobox
Hi, I made this "Template: Byzantine Empire timeline infobox" in order to improve the Byzantine Empire article.

I (personal opinion, but I hope that you agree) do think that the infobox being wholly "inside" of the article only confused and scared (it scarred me) ppl away from any antempt to improve it (and to improve the articles is what Wikipedia is all about).

It also seems to be a "official policy" in the making of articles.

It also simply "simplifies" things.

It also ocuppied a lot of space, and the article for itself is "too big" already. Perhaps somebody can merge some things of the Template:Byzantine Empire infobox, if only the "undisputed stuff".

easier, simpler , better

If you don´t agree (but try it out, before judging, I beg you) simply revert it.Flamarande 20:02, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * It looks good, and the code is certainly much cleaner. Nice work! Tom Harrison (talk) 20:14, 19 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Yep, the code definitely looks much cleaner, and it should be less "scary" and much easier for new users to edit. Good job! Squalla 15:55, 21 December 2005 (UTC)

Rewrite, move or de-FA
The current title of this article (Byzantine Empire) suggest it is about a former state, but the structure is essentialy history with a small section on other areas under 'Legacy and importance' heading. At best, the title is confusing, suggesting it is a comprehensive overview of a former country (for good FA examples of this, see Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth or Indo-Greek Kingdom, with country-like formatting). Alternative is to rename this series to History of Byzantine Empire to be in order with our naming standards (FAs: History of Poland (1945–1989), History of post-Soviet Russia, History of the Netherlands, History of Russia, History of Scotland) and non-history parts can be moved to Byzantine Empire (consider also an example of History of Poland (1945–1989) vs. People's Republic of Poland, or History of Poland (1569-1795) vs. Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth). One way or another, this needs to decide what it is and adapt, as currently it is a confusing hybrid of history and former state article types. If no changes are made, I am afraid it should be deFAced, as it is substandard comapred to our newer FAs (mentioned above).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 21:25, 2 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree separating to "History of" is the right route .. but if that is done, does there have to be a re-vote for FA, since the history is the majority of the article? --Stbalbach 23:41, 2 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Once this problem is addressed (assuming it is done fairly soon), then we can 'reconfirm' it at Featured article review. Although another vote (one one or both resulting articles) could do nothing but give us more constructive criticism and further improve the article(s), IMHO. And looking at the article, I think that it may take a while before this can be improved to the level of PLCommonwealth or IGEmpire as a 'former state' type article. I'd recommend moving history to 'history of...' article, FAC it, updating the 'Byzantine Empire', and either FARing it or FACing it if FARC comes to force. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I disagree that this article should be deFAced. Considering the significant recent improvements to the article, including new maps and enormously expanded coverage of several crucial aspects of the empire's history, I think the article is currently much better than it was when it was originally declared a FA. Therefore, it seems unfair that it should now be deFAced. But to answer your point more specifically, I think that since most Wikipedia users will search for 'Byzantine Empire', the article should stay where it is. You mentioned that we need to decide what the article is. I do see a certain logic to your argument in that articles should be consistent. However I do not think that re-naming it or moving things around is the answer. This article is an overview of the cultural and political history of the Byzantine Empire, and as such I think it is perfectly legitimate to point out the lasting relevance and importance of Byzantium to the modern world. I do however agree with you that the small section at the end could do with cleaning up. But is it really necessary to enact draconian deFAcing measures? Bigdaddy1204 00:03, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I hope it won't be. But ATM it would not pass the FA process, and unless that changes, it will have to go. Again, I hope we can improve it (one way or another) so it is not necessary, but currently, as an overview of the former state (as the name implies) this article fails (it is not comprehensive). Culture and politics (and history) are not enough: what about economy, territory, military...?--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 02:01, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps this is my bias as an historian, but when writing about extinct states, what exactly should we focus on if not its history? How can you possibly have any understanding about it if not in the context of its historical framework? I believe the flaw is actually with the other articles; the fragmenting of information is a problem throughout Wikipedia, probably because of the fetish about increasing the article count, I don't know. In any case I do agree with cleaning it up, especially the legacy part; I tried to list it on FARC awhile ago myself. Adam Bishop 03:26, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Adam, have you looked at the examples above? There is a difference between Country X and history of Country X. Even if we are talking about a historical country, that doesn't change the fact that those are separate topics.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:24, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

Adam, we are having the discussion in Roman republic and I am defending a point similar to yours. I fear that ppl simply want more articles like Portugal which describes everything and I mean everything, to a equal extent. Flamarande 16:45, 3 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Adam, though Piotr's argument may be useful in highlighting areas which need to be better covered in these articles. Markyour words 17:38, 3 February 2006 (UTC)

I think there's a good consensus here that we should try to clean up the legacy section as best we can. I agree with Mark about using the comments constructively to improve areas of the article further. I've already tried to bring other aspects into the article, such as urban life, the wealth of the Byzantine Empire during the crusades, and some mention of achievements in literature and art, so as to broaden out the understanding that the article gives the reader. The success or otherwise of a state is not measured just in terms of its wars and battles, after all, and I believe that there is some very good coverage of other aspects of Byzantium in the Origins and Identity & Consciousness sections. It's good to see that people care about this article. With a little effort I'm sure this will all work out well. Bigdaddy1204 20:32, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, I see some good progress - keep up the good job! The section on geography and administrative division is still missing, and our goal should be to have those sections rival history in lenght.--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 06:56, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Manuel Comnenus: Wikipedia Peer Review
I've just placed the article on Byzantine Emperor Manuel I Comnenus (reigned 1143-1180) on the Peer Review page (Peer review/Manuel I Comnenus/archive1). Any comments or suggestions for improvements to this article would be much appreciated. Thanks! Bigdaddy1204 12:51, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

Literature in Legacy Section?
Anyone want to help me put this in? Mold it together with Art and Architecture so it becomes, "Art, Architecture and Literature"? --86.141.70.254 07:50, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

Possibly related, I've made Template:Byzantine culture and added it to Byzantine art to see if anyone thinks it's useful. I thought I'd leave it there for a week or so, and then add it to some other articles. Changes and addidtions, especially visual, are welcome. Tom Harrison Talk 14:34, 8 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Nice work, we'd need more help than just two people though.--86.141.70.254 16:04, 9 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, possible change 'Byzantine Commerce', to 'Byzantine Economy and Commerce'? Gives us more scope to write an article for it.

I've added something rough, mostly based on chapter ten of Runciman's Byzantine Civilisation. There's plenty of room for improvement, especially in integration with the rest of the page. Here are some links that may be useful:
 * Some writers, poets, and historians:

Tom Harrison Talk 17:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
 * John Chrysostom
 * Dionysius the Areopagite
 * John of Damascus
 * Anna Comnena
 * Theodorus Studita
 * Theodore the Studite
 * Procopius
 * Kassia
 * Gregory Nazianzus

Economy
I was thinking of improving the economy section, but I was unsure of how to approach it. I've already explained the twelfth century economy, for example, in the section on the 'comneni and the crusades', which is where I think that information should stay. But how can we improve the 'economy' section itself? Bigdaddy1204 11:46, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I've put something in, but it was done in haste. Feel free to rework it as needed. It's largely based on Runciman's 'Byzantine Civilisation.' Tom Harrison Talk 16:20, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Good work! The new material has gone a long way to fixing the section. There's one thing that does need to be checked over though. This paragraph:

"In the eleventh century the economy began to decline. The Italians acquired silk worms, undermining the imperial monopoly. The crusades altered the trade routes to the advantage of the Italian city-states. Territorial gains by the Arabs and Turks cut off the empire from traditional trading partners. For political and military reasons the empire was forced to grant concessions to Italian traders, reducing tax revenues"

Although I'm not disputing the truth of these observations, in their current form they may be slightly misleading. Since we know that the period of the crusades, the twelfth century, was a time of great economoic prosperity in Byzantium, the image of a general decline beginning in the eleventh century and continuing to the demise of the empire, does not hold true. Still, I'm sure with a little reworking this paragraph can be fixed, so I'll see what I can do with it asap. Bigdaddy1204 17:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point. Here's a reword; I'm not sure what Mais oui! has going, so I'll leave it here:
 * In the eleventh century, changes began that would eventually undermine the Byzntine economy. The Italians acquired silk worms, reducing the value of the imperial monopoly. The crusades altered the trade routes to the advantage of the Italian city-states. Territorial gains by the Turks in Asia Minor forced Constantinolpe to look elsewhere for its food supply. For political and military reasons the empire was forced to grant concessions to Italian traders, reducing tax revenues. The sack of Constantinolpe by Latin crusaders in 1204 was an economic catastrophe. Although the Palaeologues took back Constatiople in 1261, the empire's economy never entirely recovered.
 * Tom Harrison Talk 18:24, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! I was a bit alarmed at the revert by Mais oui!, but I've put the text back, moved some of it around a bit, used your reword, and written some new stuff of my own. Please let me know whether you think the new version is any good! Bigdaddy1204 19:31, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks good; the section on decline is much improved. Tom Harrison Talk 20:16, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Planned economy
I read somewhere that the Byzantine state monopoly on foreign trade (until the concessions to the Italian sea republics) made it the longest running case of planned economy (7 centuries?) actually longer than capitalism. Could you ellaborate? --Error 05:21, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Many states had a monopoly over certain goods (the British Empire had the monopoly over tea, remember Boston tea party ?) in order to gain more money and taxes. Now to describe this as planned economy is a complete exageration. A state who has a monopoly in certain goods does not run all the national economy and as far as I know the byzantyne society was mainly a capitalist society. Longer than capitalism? First, define capitalism. My personal definition is when the economy is not activly run by the state, and "that" is as old as trade at the dawn of human civilization (at the very least). Tell us the source where that strange statement is written. Flamarande 17:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't know where Error read that, but it is entirely consistent with Runciman's description of the Byzantine economy in chapter 7 of his 'Byzantine Civilisation'. No doubt there are other historians with other opinions, but the idea of the Byzantine economy as a managed economy is certainly one view, and an important one. Tom Harrison Talk 18:44, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I read the article planned economy and I don´t think that it describes accuretly the byzantine economy. Having said that, I am not a expert about Byzantium and in fact I don´t have that particular book 'Byzantine Civilisation' by Runciman (I have others, like "Byzantium a history" ISBN 0-7524-2343-6 by John Haldon).

Now notice the sentence: "the Byzantine state monopoly on foreign trade (until the concessions to the Italian sea republics) made it the longest running case of planned economy (7 centuries?) actually longer than capitalism." . What I disgree is that this sentence claims:

1. a byzantine state monopoly on foreign trade during 7 centuries. I very much doubt that the byzantine state controlled and planned all the trade with all foreign nations in a fashion described as planned economy and monopoly during 7 centuries.

2. actually longer than capitalism. What is capitalism (cheap retorical question)? Is it "the exploration of the masses by the capitalist minority" as described in the communist manifest by Karl Marx? Or is it, free trade completly unrestricted by the State? Nether one? A hybrid between of the first two descriptions?

As far as I know all the States during ancient history (with the exception of the Incas, perhaps) did not plan the economy. The States could have had monopoly of certain goods (like Tea, Salt, etc) in order to get more money. They would certainly try to control certain trade items like ancient China with Silk and other States with Guns. Now to describe this a planned economy is in my opinion simply wrong. But, hey fell free to disagree. I don´t claim to know the whole truth. Flamarande 19:20, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point; maybe we'll hear more from Error. I'll look for Haldon's book. I need a good general survey. Tom Harrison Talk 20:18, 12 February 2006 (UTC)


 * I like the book, it appears to me to be a good acurate and unbiased description of the Byzantine Empire. It is a summary: 170 pages, but is not too expensive 16£99 or 24$99. what I really like is the fact that it does not present the fall as something unavoidable and due for a totally abstract reason and the entry describes the "former views" about the Byzantine Empire in all their hipocrises


 * I forgot where I read about it. Anyway, I find The Economic History of Byzantium edited by Angeliki E. Laiou. It is a paper collection also available as a series of PDFs. Skimming I found that:
 * good documentation on Byzantine economy is very scarce: legal text refer to new concepts with centuries-old names, documents are centered on the capital, the monachal texts are often biased to praise or attack certain emperors. And economics was not very glamourous at the time.
 * In the early centuries, the state had a great influence. Prices and guilds were controlled, the taxes and state salaries served as the economic flow instead of a free market.
 * There are opposite opinions on the role of money vs barter.
 * The economy was centralized in Constantinople.
 * There was a state monopoly on silk, especially purple-dyed. At some time, payments in purple were substituted with money (and the other way).
 * There are authors who talk about a command economy. I don't know the exact difference with a planned economy or other similar terms.
 * The literacy rate was high.
 * --Error 02:31, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

Comment: Most ancient states exercised state control over imports and exports (especially of food and other essentials) when they felt it necessary. This is discussed at some length in Rostovtseff's Social and Economic History of Hellenism. I see no reason to believe the Byzantine Empire was different. Please stop trying to force modern categories on a state that perished in 1461. Septentrionalis 05:20, 27 March 2006 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople, Mehmed II, Loukas Notaras
There's material on these pages that may be of interest to some here, and maybe they could benefit from some inter-linking. Mehmed II has been extensively edited lately, and I'd appreciate others' views. Tom Harrison Talk 16:06, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Collapse of the Byzantine Empire
I've been thinking about how to explain the collapse of the empire. I wanted to compare the low point of the empire in 717AD, from which it recovered, with the low point in 1081AD, from which it did not. A brief experiment reveals that the modern day population of the area controlled by the empire in 1081 is roughly 35 million people, whereas the population of the area controlled in 717AD is about 65 million people. Assuming that population levels in these areas have stayed roughly the same relative to each other since the middle ages, surely this reveals that the empire was significantly stronger in 717AD than in 1081AD. Logically therefore, this explains why the empire was able to recover after 717AD, but not after 1081AD. I would be very grateful for other people's comments and views on this idea, perhaps with a view to somehow including it in the section on 'Reasons for the collapse of the Byzantine Empire'. Bigdaddy1204 00:23, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

For some reason I do find those numbers extremely exaggerated. Do you have a source? Miskin 16:04, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

Yes. I googled the countries in question. As it happens, my information came mainly from the wikipedia articles on Bulgaria, Greece, Turkey and Albania. The CIA World Factbook is also helpful for this information. Although I stress here that the numbers are not exact, they do give a rough idea of the order of magnitude of the populations we are talking about here. To briefly explain the point of the excercise again, I think that the empire had greater underlying strengths in 717AD than its appearance would suggest, and that overall it was in a much better position in that year than in 1081AD. Why should we care? Because, in my opinion, it may help to explain why the empire failed to re-establish itself fully after 1081, and in comparing the position of the empire in its moments of crisis, we can perhaps start to identify its strengths and weaknesses at different points in its history, and in so doing ultimately come a step closer to understanding what happened. Bigdaddy1204 19:10, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

If it's based on original research then it's almost certain that you're mistaken. It's very naive to analyse an Empire in terms of modern "countries in question". You cannot calculate the population of Byzantium by using the birth-rates of Greece and Turkey, if for no good reason, because the Turks were a different people to the Byzantines. There had been massive population movements during and after the collapse of the Ottoman state. During the Ottoman occupation of Byzantium many Turks moved towards the West and many Greeks adapted Islam (hence became Turks). Until 1922 half of the Greek population was situated in Asia Minor and Constantinople. After the population exchanges with Turkey, all Greeks were displaced into the Greek state and vice versa. By that time Turkey had a population of 7 million. Hence the majority of the people we call "Byzantines" (who were not assimilated into other cultures) were displaced into modern Greece. Still it would be naive to use the current Greek birth-rate and assume that it has been uniform the past 1700 years. Furthermore Albanians, Bulgarians and Turks are irrelevant to the people in question, as they have always had independent cultural and ethnic identities. Miskin 14:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Anyway in my opinion the peak of the Empire's strength was reached under the Macedonian dynasty, and lasted until the Battle of Manzikert. From a military point of view, the Byzantine army was by then composed largerly by non-Greek missionaries who had no ethnic bonds to the Empire. This however is not the decline as you present it. The Empire was re-established under the Comnenoi, and re-conquered significant portions of land in Europe and Asia. The decline gradually begins during the Angeloi dynasty and reaches its peak at the fall of Constantinople to the crusader army (1204). That's when the empire loses its political strength, but yet you can't say that it's all over. The second Byzantine renaissance takes place during the 15th century, and for the first time Classical scholarship is introduced to the West. Those events are closely connected to the Italian renaissance and the discovery of the New World (since Colombus used Strabo as his primary source of information). Miskin 14:04, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you've been the victim of misunderstanding here. The point I was making was actually much simpler than you've thought. I wasn't thinking in racial terms, I was thinking more in terms of the numbers of people of whatever nationality the land can support. It's not about birth rates, it's just about how many people exist in a certain area. You said that "Albanians, Bulgarians and Turks are irrelevant to the people in question, as they have always had independent cultural and ethnic identities". That would be true if I was trying to calculate the number of 'Byzantines', but that is not what this is about. I am thinking of the number of people available to the Byzantine Empire as a state. I think that the number of people living in Asia Minor will always be more than the number of people living in the Balkans because the area of habitable land is larger in Asia Minor, which enables there to be a higher population density. So in some ways it is not even about the people themselves, it is about how much use certain geographical areas of land were to the Byzantine Empire. Geography often has important effects on history, for instance the Roman Empire never expanded beyond the Rhine because their supply lines had become over-extended and the land was not considered worth conquering. Bigdaddy1204 17:45, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Roman Greece
There is some discussion at Talk:Roman and Byzantine Greece about merging that page into Roman Greece and Byzantine Empire, if anyone has thoughts. Tom Harrison Talk 15:56, 15 March 2006 (UTC)

American Cultural Imperialism
Someone has been changing the spellings of words in the sections I wrote for the 'Golden era', 'Collapse into Anarchy', 'The Comneni and the Crusaders', and 'Twelfth century prosperity, art & culture'. I wrote the sections in British English; they were changed to U.S. English. I strongly object to this arbitrary cultural imperialism. I do not change articles written by U.S. English speakers to British English, and I am angry that someone should force their national preferences on others. Have some respect, and leave other's work alone. Bigdaddy1204 14:15, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Death to the imperial American dogs! (It is a joke, not to be taken seriously) Flamarande 15:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at his user page, the editor who made the changes may be Canadian. I agree that the spellings ought not to have been changed. Tom Harrison Talk 15:44, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, Then I will change my battle-cry: Death to the imperial Canadian dogs! (It is a joke, not to be taken seriously) Flamarande 16:12, 25 March 2006 (UTC)

lol! My thanks to you for your support. Now let us march on the Canadian Parliament and the American White House with these fearsome battle-cries, and let us use them to strike fear into the hearts of our imperialist oppressors! Bigdaddy1204 22:49, 25 March 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey, I always use proper spellings...although if this person is a fellow Canadian, then this is the second example I've seen of Canadians changing articles to American spellings. Maybe they don't teach Canadian spelling anymore... Adam Bishop 23:04, 25 March 2006 (UTC)
 * Thats strange, British english (Commonwealth) is the prevailing and official english dialect. Of course the foremost spell checks are made via Microsoft Word, this editor may have unlearnt his english to conform to an American english default setting. "On to the march!"Dryzen 12:47, 13 April 2006 (UTC)

Request for inline citations
I am impressed that the editors of this article managed to improve it so significantly in the weeks since my critique. While there is still some material to be added or balanced, I think that the article is rather comprehensive now. The main issue that differentiates it from our current FA-level articles is the lack of Inline citations. Therefore I'd ask the editors to start including them in the article. I'd love to help but I am currently busy doing the same (including inline cits) in my old FA of Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth :).--Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus Talk 17:13, 26 March 2006 (UTC)

A Remarkable Article!
This is a remarkable article indeed!

I can imagine it is absolutely difficult, like walking on the edge of a knife, to write an article on a subject of such importance, which is neutral enough to satisfy most of the readers!

I only have one objection, and it is about the mentioning of FYROM, with its present-day name, in a historical article like this one... I think that when we speak about Byzantium, which is part of a certain historical period, we should use terms that refer to THAT period, and not terms created later. Well, yes, Orthodox Christianity spread to FYROM as well, it also did to Albania and Bosnia (the latter two later became predominantly non-Orthodox), but FYROM, just as Ukraine and (SOMEBODY FORGOT!) Belarus, didn't exist at that time, it was created in as late as 1945 by Tito's Communist Yugoslavia, with the initial support of Stalin the USSR, right? As for Ukraine and Belarus, they adopted Orthodox Christianity while still being a single country with Muscovite Russia at the end of the 10th century, so, if we just said Kievan Rus, it would do fine, right?

I completely agree. However this needs to be done tactfully, because Macedonian's claim they are in fact direct descendants of Alexander the Great, who existed before the Roman empire even began. Possibly, a broad geographic term, and a map with present day political boundaries will be the best to describe this. Biz 01:15, 27 April 2006 (UTC)

Debate: Ethnic Origins of Constantine The Greats Mother Helena
There is some discussion about the ethnicity of the first Byzantine Emperor Constantine the Greats mother Helena_of_Constantinople at Talk:Helena_of_Constantinople, if anyone has thoughts E-mail adress 14:29, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

A little something for Byzantinists
Found at Template:User Byzantine or just copy {_{User Byzantine}} (without the _) in your user box. Dryzen 15:28, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Dryzen. I have added it to my user page :) Bigdaddy1204 21:45, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Which was the Stronger?
Which was the stronger: the Byzantine Empire in 717AD or the Byzantine Empire in 1180AD?



Is that a tricky question? It is simply not as easy as that. Much more important is who ruled when? If a strong and able emperor(s) ruled during the timeframe of the first image and a weak and incompetent emperor(s) ruled the second, the Byzantine Empire as a whole was much stronger during the first image. Also very important is who was the enemy and what was his strength? Flamarande 08:24, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

In the first map the main enemy was the overwhelmingly powerful Ummuyad Caliphate. In the second map the enemy consisted of the Hungarians in the west, who were never much more than a local threat; the Normans of Sicily, who threatened Byzantine control over the western Balkans; and the Seljuk Turks in the east, who were a much greater threat, although in themselves not as powerful as the Ummuyads had been.

Both Leo III and Manuel Comnenus were intelligent, cunning emperors.

The empire in the first period was suffering from hostile raiding, enemies on all sides and the disappearence of its great cities due to economic decline, enemy attack and general uncertainty and disruption. Nevertheless, its perilous position concealed some very real and important strengths. Its armies were powerful and efficient. Its navy, armed with Greek fire, was formidable. The theme system afforded the empire a solid system of military recruitment and supply. And finally the empire's frontiers may have fallen back since previous centuries, but they had come to rest on excellent defensive positions. The Taurus-Anti Taurus mountains in Asia Minor, and the impregnable land walls of Constantinople in the west, protected the heart of the empire and provided it with a heartland that could not easily be taken by any outsider, however powerful.

The empire in the second period was experiencing a period of unprecedented wealth and prosperity, both in the countryside and in the cities, which were flourishing. Nevertheless it also had its fair share of problems. The political situation had become much more complex: the crusader states in the east contended with the Islamic powers for control of the Holy Land; in the west, Italian traders generated wealth within the empire, but they also created political tensions in Constantinople; in western europe, the Papacy and the crusades which it directed through Byzantine lands forced difficult choices on the emperor - the crusades presented dangers as well as opportunities to Byzantium. The Turks, meanwhile, were a constant hastle, raiding in Asia Minor and disrupting the frontier. Byzantine armies were still powerful and efficient, and the fleet was large and competant. As for the frontiers, in the west the postion had improved enormously. The Danube provided the empire with a new and naturally defensible frontier, while enclosing an enormous swath of new territory. Meanwhile, the landwalls of Constantinople were still as strong as ever. However in Asia Minor the frontier was longer and more vulnerable than it had been, though it still enclosed the richest and most populous territories as well as all the ports and trade posts.

Personally, I find it very difficult to decide between the two periods. They both had their strengths and weaknesses. However I feel that the overall position of the empire in the second period offered perhaps the greater potential for an emperor. But I would like to know whether others feel the same, or whether they would disagree with me. Bigdaddy1204 21:37, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Sources required
In my opinion the section "The arrival of the Turks" is largely based on a single editor's POV. I don't know who compiled the section, but unless someone provides a source and citations, I'll proceed to heavy editing. Miskin 22:21, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

And not make myself clearer, it is true that Imperial power declined due to the arrival of new enemies such as the Normas and the Seljuks, but the reasons provided in the article about nomadic life is IMO someone's POV. Miskin 22:33, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I have just completed a major re-write of the section you mentioned. The POV material has been removed, and replaced with a more thorough discussion. Bigdaddy1204 21:58, 22 May 2006 (UTC)

The Empire of the Greeks
known during most of its history to its contemporaries as "The Empire of the Greeks"  Is this right??? Cwiki 23:17, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

Yes. Byzantines were being refered to as both Romans and Greeks. Same for their lands. Colossus 23:50, 8 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's also mentioned in the section "origin of the name". According to my sources that was the exclusive name that europeans used to refer to the Empire and its people (that or Graecia), hence it's important to mention it in the head, as it appears in every contemporary account. The "Byzantine Empire" is a name coined by later scholars, and the "Eastern Roman Empire" only lasted for 2 centuries. The Imperium Graecorum started off an derigatory term so that the Frankish Empire could claim "Imperium Graecorum", but it became the standard exonym of the state. If a Byzantine called himself "Roman" in a foreign language, they wouldn't have a clue of what he's talking about. Miskin 23:57, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

They were only referred as "Romans" by the Islamic word, and that in limited occasions. Miskin 23:59, 8 May 2006 (UTC)

I fixed that up a bit, although I see now it's in the Origin of the Name part too. It's not quite that simple though, maybe my elaboration was helpful...in the west they tended to call them Greeks when they were trying to be pejorative, as you said, but a more neutral name was the "Empire of Constantinople". Of course, I'm not as sure about earlier sources, but during the crusades these are the standard terms - an unfavourable emperor like Alexius I was "imperator Graecorum" to the crusaders, but a favourable emperor like Manuel I was "imperator Constantinopolensis", even if they always referred to the people simply as "Greeks". On the other hand, after the crusades up to 1453 it tends to be the Greek Empire again. As for the Muslims, I am again less knowledgeable, but when do Islamic sources call them Greeks? And why would they do so? The obvious example is the Sultanate of Rum, which borrowed the Empire's name for itself, but I'm sure the Ummayads and Abbasids and Fatimids also called it something like that earlier. Or maybe Turkish states used some variation of "Rome" while Arab states used something different, having been in contact with that part of the world longer? Adam Bishop 02:21, 9 May 2006 (UTC)


 * It's true, the Islamic world did generally refer to Byzantium officially by its political name, "Rum", but a number of Arab and Jewish scholars who were more familiar with ancient Greek history used "Yunan" (<Ionian) in their writings, a collective term which was introduced by ancient Persians (by the time assimilated to Islam). It really is a complicated subject as the Byzantines themselves (even the pre-Heraclian dynasties) were not as naive to believe that all Romans had migrated to the Eastern part and taken up the Greek language. They main ethnic distinction was "Greeks vs Latins" both of which could boast on a Roman past, but only the former could have claims on the Imperial throne. Then again there's always the religious question. According to medieval accounts of church-disputes, the "Greco-Romans" did not consinder themselves the ancestors of those "Latin-Romans" who had crusified Christ (and were therefore condemned); they would thus justify the superiority of the Church of Constantinople. In the eyes of the Westeners, at least by the time of the crusades, the Byzantines were viewed as schismatic, modern Greeks who ruled over a corrupted, Oriental Empire. One of the leaders of the fourth crusade (I think Dandolo) reacted to Prince's Alexius' proposal by saying "We don't want Greeks bearing their gifts", drawing a parallel between the Byzantines and the Mycenaeans of the Trojan War. The Britannica article says that when Manuel I proposed to the Germans (also "Romans" at the time) a joint Imperial expedition against the Normans, Barbarossa responded that "An alliance between the Holy Roman Empire and the Empire of the Greeks, is not one amongst equals". For those reasons I thought that the most popular contemporary name needs to be mentioned in the head. Miskin 12:42, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
 * Every so often this discussion pops up. Calling them the Byzantines is indeed a nice compromise.Dryzen 13:54, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

Thanks. looks much better now. seemed too simplistic Cwiki 07:34, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

The changing face of the Byzantine Empire
Is there any way we could have a section which uses the following images together? Bigdaddy1204 15:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)

(P.S. The order is top to bottom on the left, then top to bottom on the right)





(1)





(2)





(3)


 * Being spread out among the text (having each map to each section pertaining to the time the map present) is the most aestheticly pleasing and it conforms ot how other empire articles are written. Having them here is a an alternative. The best way to implement the flluctuating frontier would probobly be making a map with all the frontiers presented by varying colours in its own section of accompanying text. Of course the more conformed and pleasing methode might not always be the best methode.Dryzen 15:02, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Theatre
Does any know if there were theatrical plays in Byzantium? I think there was some controversy on the matter: some claimed that Byzantines only had religious representations, others that these representations were complicated enough to be regarded as art. If anyone knows sthg on the matter, it might be a good idea to add sthg in the article. --Greece666 21:44, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
 * They most likely kept the tradition of tragedies and definitly influenced the masses in plays of heroes and events, much like the romans and the greeks before them and the europeans after them. The power of such a media would definitly have not gone unoticed by the cunning imperial mind. But like many things that where common to the times, few authors probobly gave any thought to taking note of these. Dryzen 14:54, 12 May 2006 (UTC)
 * There is evident for Byzantine Theater in the early Byzantine period up until the advent of the iconoclastic period. As far as I know, the scholarly debate on the issue is whether certain aspects of Byzantine literature should be regarded as theatrical after this point. As for the period before the iconoclastic era, Byzantine Theater wasn't really highly charged tragedies or comedies but largely sort of what we would call 'low brow' performances with jugglers and things like that. I guess a useful source would also be, strangely enough in the context, Procopius' description of what Theodora used to get up to when she was an 'actress'. :) --86.138.0.221 17:32, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Name (again)
Now the first line says it is "Byzantine Autokratoria" in Greek...but isn't that just a modern Greek translation of "Byzantine Empire"? I thought the point with the previous Greek text, "Basileia Romaion", was to state what they called it at the time (in Greek). Adam Bishop 01:36, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Personally, I would prefer for both English and Greek terms to match the meaning. That is, display in both languages simultaneously either what it was called at its time or what it's called now. Or at least clarify somehow that Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων (Empire or the Romans) is not the Greek translation of Byzantine Empire (Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία). Colossus 02:41, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * In the context that the Empire is presented in the first line, the greek translation fits. Although I would perfer to also have the term used by the Byzantine themselves in greek rather than the translation (So as to reduce the number of passer-by who would mistakenly beleive that Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία rather than Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων was the proper period term). Like Colossus suggested perhaps having both terms and both translatiosn to be presented within the first few lines of hte article.Dryzen 14:33, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
 * I actually meant to use either one term or the other. Using both would be too much too fast. Preferably "Byzantine" could go in the opening sentense, and Basileia Romaiwn above the infobox. Either way is fine by me, so long as both arent squeezed together. Colossus 16:09, 17 May 2006 (UTC)


 * To comment my recent removal of Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων / Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία: In the context of the whole sentence, the first is wrong. Basileía twn Rhwmaíwn is what the inhabitants called their state themselves; the opening sentence, though, states that "Byzantine Empire is the modern name of the state". The way it was worded implied that Basileía... was the Greek translation of "Byzantine Empire", which is not the case. In that context, Byzantiné Autokratoría would be right (as it is Greek for "Byzantine Empire"), but is not needed.
 * What the Empire called itself, is mentioned later on, and in the Infobox, as well (where it is right, as it translates "Roman Empire"). The opening sentence doesn't speak at all about what the "Byzantines" called themselves, and to translate a term they didn't even use makes no sense. Varana 10:12, 26 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In Greece u can read: Greece (Greek: Ελλάδα, Elládha (IPA: [e̞ˈlaða]), or Ελλάς, Ellás (IPA: [e̞ˈlas])), officially the Hellenic Republic (Ελληνική Δημοκρατία, Ellinikí Dhimokratía (IPA: [e̞ˌliniˈci ðimo̞kraˈtiˌa]). we don't use the term 'Greece', but this is how the others call our country at the moment (same in Byzantine Empire, this is how others name that country at the moment). the name we use is in the parenthesis, this way it must be in this article, since this is how the empire was called by its inhabitants. The same 'disorder' u can see in contemporary Ireland, past Russian Empire etc.... It doesn't have to be the exact translation, u know... But if u insist, the term in greek Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία will be the one to be in the parenthesis. Even the article is titled with a name never used by the Byzantines, so no problem to the exact translation of this name in the language of that state, right? Regards --Hectorian 00:37, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't want to delete the "Βασιλεία τῶν ῾Ρωμαίων" from the opening paragraph at all. There was, however, an IP who changed it to "Βυζαντινή Αυτοκρατορία", and he did have a point, in the context of the sentence. The opening sentence doesn't say "The Byzantine Empire was a state in...", as the one on Ireland, but explains that the name of the article is a modern name.
 * It will, maybe, draw fire from the other sect around here ;), but I think to put the phrase at
 * "Byzantine Empire is the term conventionally used since the 19th century to describe the Greek-speaking Roman Empire (Greek: Βασιλεία τῶν ῾Ρωμαίων) during the Middle Ages..."
 * would be more appropriate.
 * Again - it's not that I don't want the expression. It's just that it didn't make sense to me in the way the first sentence is worded. Varana 12:03, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I dont agree with the statement, the Term Byzantine was used prior to the 19th century and "Greek speaking Roman Empire"... ~ . Could be better.Dryzen 14:47, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Constatine I is the first emperor?
Constantine I is listed on the List of Byzantine Emperors as the first Byzantine Emperor, though on his article, he doesn't have a box on the bottom saying that he was a Byzantine Emperor and who he was succeded by. Also, emperors starting from Constantine I to Theodosius I don't have that box as well. Should I start adding those boxes to the articles? Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 21:38, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Don´t do it! To claim that Constatine the Great is the first Byzantine emperor is simply wrong. Constatine reunfied the whole Roman Empire and therefore is a Roman Emperor, he did not rule over any Byzantine empire (or eastern empire, whatever). He created another capital for the Roman empire at Constantinople thats true, but does that make him a Byzantine emperor? Certainly not. Who was the first Byzantine emperor? It would be the same to ask when was the Byzantine empire founded. Noone can give you a good answer for that. Flamarande 22:15, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Alright, thanks for your notice. :-) Funnybunny (talk/Counter Vandalism Unit) 22:20, 20 May 2006 (UTC)


 * All emperors until 1453 styled themselves as Romans and their land Roman Empire, so by that reasoning there shoudnt be seperate articles for Roman and Byzantine empires in the first place, since they were one and the same. But for better or for worse it's an already widely accepted convention that there did exist a Roman Empire and a Byzantine Empire, and Constantine the Great along with the foundation of Constantinople are considered the starting points of the Byzantine Empire(at least, as major ones). That isnt to say they represented any kind of diversion from the original Roman Empire. Byzantine always meant Roman, so its perfectly fine to consider him the first Byzantine Emperor.
 * There is an inherent problem in the definition of "Byzantine" since it presupposes a rejection of "Romanity", which is self-refuting. Byzantine means the same thing as Roman, only for a different time period. So the problem lies in pin-pointing the changeover from Roman to Byzantine, which is probably impossible, since it was a process and not a singular event that marked it. Colossus 00:09, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

The Byzantine Empire is a modern interpretation to help us digest the enormity of the Roman Empire, just like how we use Augustus as the point where we seperate the Roman republic and the Roman Empire. They are just different stages of the lifecycle of a continuing power. Modern America is very different from colonial America - and yet we don't seperate those two America's. Technology, society, culture - they change. The Byzantine empire inherited its existance, it never was created. Lets not forget that it's the latter stage of the Roman Empire - not a seperate power that was created when Rome fell. Biz 07:54, 21 May 2006 (UTC)

Survey on the use of Latinized/Greek names for Byzantine rulers
Hi. There is a survey on the names of Byzantine rulers at Talk:Constantine XI. Maybe some you are interested in.--Panairjdde 18:05, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

In accordance with the agreement reached in the discussion above, articles on Byzantine emperors are now being renamed to ODB standards using Anglo-Greek spelling. So for example, John II Comnenus has been moved to John II Komnenos.

For the sake of consistency, I will now change the names and links in the Byzantine Empire article to the new format. This is an ongoing process, and so I should point out that it may take some time for all links to be converted. Bigdaddy1204 01:08, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Culture template and archives
This discussion page seems a little long; can we use archives? Also, I noticed while exploring Byzantine topics that a "Byzantine culture" template exists at Template:Byzantine_culture. Could this be expanded to include the other Byzantine topics, such as the army, navy, certain leaders and cities, etc.? Right now, it's not even linked at this main article. A better Byzantine template would ease in navigation. --Zeality 22:32, 23 May 2006 (UTC)

John II Komnenos
I'm looking for volunteers to help with an improvement project on the article John II Komnenos. Anyone who is interested, your suggetions and comments on the article talk page would be very much appreciated. Thanks! Bigdaddy1204 13:52, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Regarding Roydosan's edits + Greek POV?
I've noticed a singular trend in his edits to try and Latinize Greek History (much like Bishop does). I've reverted his edits back as I believe the previous mentions of a Greek Orthodox state of Constantine and other allusions to it's largely Greek nature are not 'pov' but generally accepted Historical scholarship. (this unsigned statement was delivered by User:86.138.0.221 - please sign your statements with four "~". Thank you)


 * I challenge you to find any serious scholar who backs the Greek nationalist line you seem so intent on pushing. Roydosan 07:51, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Try Greek scholars :). Seriously now, only now you have noticed that there is a Greek POV inside (about) this article? As far as I got it, the Greeks see themselves as direct descendants of the Byzantines and believe that the Byzantines were successors of the Romans and the ancient Greeks. This is quite defendable and also logical. But they do tend to get carried away with it, and exagerate enourmously the influence of the Ancient Greeks and of the Byzantines upon History, ad absurdum. Still there is (or was until recently) also a "Brittish-French" POV which saw the Byzantines as oriental, weak, despotic, inferior, and effeminate. Read Derogatory use of "Byzantine" and don't forget to thank Mr. Edward Gibbon a "fine British scholar". He wasn't that bad, but... Flamarande 11:29, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that they are the direct descendants of the Byzantines but it is falsifying history to pretend that the Byzantine empire was a Greek nationalistic state just as Gibbon was falsifying history by parodying the reality of mediaeval Byzantium. The problem is that people are assuming that Roman = Latin. For an excellent argument as to why this is not the case see here. Roydosan 11:53, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It seems to be a fine article and I will read later. My personal opinion upon this whole mess is the following: The "old" unified Roman Empire ended with the division after Theodosius FULLSTOP.
 * After that, we have two empires: the eastern and the western one. BOTH of them are Roman, but NEITHER of them are the "old" Roman Empire. To claim that the Western Roman Empire was the the "old" Roman Empire is wrong (old western view), and simply neglects/ignores the eastern counterpart, AND vice-versa. The Western Roman empire fell quickly, and the Eastern Roman Emperors and the Byzantine people claimed to be (and certainly felt themselves) inheritors of the Western and thus the "Old" Empires. They believed to be Romans.
 * BUT SO WHAT? We are not only what we like to believe we are (self-delusion). In truth: "We" are really composed by what we really honestly think we are, and what other ppl accept we are (a bit philosophical perhaps). If I do a deed which I believe is "good", does it make me a good person? It largely depends, if other ppl also agree that it is a good deed. If the "others" believe that it was a bad deed, I will be considered a "bad person" which did a "bad deed".
 * Let me give you two examples we can follow (strain your brains boys): The history of the USA, Korea, and Germany. With the American seccesion the "South" separated from the "North". Now let's disregard the "rights" or "wrongs", the labels like "rebels" or "unionists". Let us imagine that the seccesion had been peaceful. Then let us imagine that the "North" had been conquered by several countries, and the "South" somehow claimed and believed to be the old US of A. Would that simply make them so? No it wouldn't, because it would be ignoring the historical North. The South would be a lawful successor state, and nothing else. Same should apply to the Roman Empire.
 * The same can be said of Korea (North and South) and Germany (East and West). In the first, both are equal inheritors of old Korea. The second case is even a better example: West Germany was widely considered (and the Germans also believed in it!) the "better" inheritor of the Old Germany instead of East Germany. But still, we accepted the idea of a German reunification (in truth the West just absorbed the East), acknowledging that the East Germany was also a German state. This reunification simply NEVER happened in the case of the Roman states (Justinian successors could not hold Italy). Therefore, the Byzantine Empire which was not accepted as the "old Roman" entity by the Western "Romans/Europeans" cannot be the same political entity as the "old" Roman empire. Flamarande 13:09, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with your comments about the break up of the empire completely althgough I would say the exact date is debatable. But I disagree that the Byzantine empire cannot be the same political entity as the old Roman empire. It may have changed almost beyond recognition but that is called progress - it does not mean that because something changes ipso facto it is not called the same as it was before. The problem we have with identifying the Byzantines is Romans is that they do not meet our conception of what Romans should be, but that doesn't mean that they weren't Romans. All it means is that what it meant to be a Roman and what made up the Roman empire had changed. The Hellenisation of the eastern empire is completely in accordance with this process (although the eastern half of the empire was historically more Greek anyway). Runciman in his short volume on the crusades compared the Roman empire to the US today - they were both very good at making newcomers into full citizens. The US is a nation of immigrants and you will often find people proud of both their ethnic origin and at the same time proud to be American. The Roman empire was similar in turning various nationalities into its citizens. That's why it is possible to have an ethnic Greek who is also avowedly Roman. And don't forget that Greece had been Roman for well over 400 years by the time that the split in the empire occurred definitively. As for your examples I think the case of China and Taiwan is perhaps closer to the mark. Both the Peoples Republic and Taiwan claim to be China and most countries recognise the claim of one and refuse the other; but the people in both states are no less Chinese for the refusal of other states to recognise them. Roydosan 13:49, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * We keep having this same discussion. See "The Empire of the Greeks" section above, for example. The Byzantines called themselves Romans, some of their neighbours called them Romans, some of their neighbours called them Greeks, and now we call them Byzantines. It's not that difficult, and basically, it doesn't matter what YOU think people should have called them or should call them now. Adam Bishop 15:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It does matter (and it isn't only my opinion). Roydosan acknowledges that the issue is a bit unclear and even answers it with a well studied answer and argumentation (unlike you). Eastern Romans were full Romans: I certainly agree with that. The Taiwanese are Chinese. 100% agreement here. What I don't agree is that the Eastern Roman Empire is the SAME political entity as the "old" Roman Empire. Taiwan isn't China, despite any "empty" claims they make (and by now most of the ppl there want full independence, not unification).
 * You are all overlooking the separation. As the old Roman Empire was divided it simply ended. First it turned into "a empire with two emperors", which is largely a ilusion. There were two full Roman empires, who even played the barbarians against each other. Then one state was conquered/ended. The state that remained could claim all it wanted, it wasn't accepted and it simply wasn't the "old" Roman Empire. Unlike West Germany it didn't absorb the other half. The Byzantine Empire was powerful, civilized, longlasting, succesful, and certainly more than worthy. But still a Successor state no more, and certainly no less. Flamarande 10:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, sorry, I'm just sick of reading this argument over and over. Adam Bishop 15:23, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What Roydosan points out is elementary to anyone who has even read just one basic scholarly work on The Roman Empire, that is, the Universalism (even before the Constitutio Antoniana), which existed primarily between Hellenistic East and some areas of the Latin West.


 * However, Wikipedia is not for Byzantologists or Roman Historians, it's for the everyman. The everyman DOES immediately associate Latin and Roman, it's just something that's embedded largely because of the fact Byzantium has always been ignored as far as education goes.

Exactly. Which is why it is disingenuous to insist on referring to it as a Greek nation state. Doing so will both confuse and give an incorrect impression to the average person looking at the Byzantine empire. Roydosan 12:24, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it help to have a couple of quotes? Off the top of my head, I remember Anna Comnena and Nicetas Choniates constantly refer to ancient Greek history and mythology, but Anna at least refers to the empire as Roman. (Although my horrible evil Latin bias still thinks it should be made clear that the empire stems from Rome and not Greece.) Adam Bishop 17:03, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * But what did Rome stem from, and why did many Romans acknowledge the cultural superiority of Greece? Nobody is referring to it as a Greek Nation state. Let's just get that out of the way. But.... It was by a large majority of it's populace in the Balkans and Asia Minor 'Greek' ethnically, their self-identification as Romans was largely due to the spread of Christianity in the East, Caracalla's edict and the association of the word 'Hellene' with pagan. Also I remember reading somewhere (I think it was Browning's book) about friction between native Greeks and foederati in the Army. Imo it should be referred to as the 'Greek Roman Empire', and the West after Diocletian's reforms as the 'Latin Roman Empire'.

Didn't the Crusaders call the Latin Empire "Romania"? john k 20:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes they did - so if they really only saw the Byzantines as Greeks why would they do that? Roydosan 13:48, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Because once the Latins secured their hold in the Balkans via the Crusades, they no longer felt the need to maintain their pretenses to the Roman throne by denying the Byzantines of their customary title. Which is why whereas before 1204 the policy of refraining to call Byzantines by their customary title, aka "Romans", was carefully upheld, after 1204 it was ignored since the ultimate goal of political predominance was already achieved. Constantinople was conquered and a puppet empereror installed by the Latins ruled as "Emperor of the Romans".
 * Byzantines, like Greeks today, where a polyonymus people, and that means they had more than one name to represent them. "Romans" and "Greeks" where used interchangibly in the middle ages for Byzantines, each with equal weight. Latins only returned to the use of "Romania" and "Romans" because of the change in the political enviroment which once imposed policy in the particular issue. Colossus 14:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Regarding a new Byzantine Law page
Me and two other users (Adam Bishop and another guy whose name escapes me), were planning to start a new article about Byzantine Law in general, maybe following it from Late Antiquity after Constantine, to the Corpus Juris Civilis, through the Middle Ages (with references to influence of Maritime Law and reforms during the Macedonian dynasty), up until the fall of the city. Is anyone else prepared to lend a hand?

Erm
"which by the 12th century had already become a synonym for Hellene."

This is a gross underestimation of the situation at the time. Heraclius' reign is generally accepted as the reign that brought Hellenism into primacy above Latin both culturally and linguistically.

Actually that could be a complete misnomer about Heraclius see here. Roydosan 13:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You've posted that link many times before my Latinizing friend, and I have read it, and I see nothing really substantial (hence his titling of his work 'ruminizations'), to suggest that your hypothesis the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire was thoroughly Latin up until the 12th Century. I could, if I had wanted to, edited the page to suggest that Roman had become synonomous with Greek by the 6th Century - As Totila refers to The Byzantines as Greeks, as do many other sources from that century. Not to mention the fact that the Byzantines were still ethnically Greek. If you want to dispute that a Greek can consider himself ethnically Greek, but part of a non-ethnic identity of 'Roman', then I advise you to read Marcellinus. The fact that the Western Roman Empire had fallen though, meant that in the Byzantines eyes, the only other Romans around after this point WERE ethnically Greek, and hence their self-identification as Roman as something partially ethnic beyond the 5th Century.

I picked the 7th century because it was the eventual culmination of Hellenization throughout the Government linguistically, as well as Heraclius' emphasis as the War against the Persians as a Greek War, and his adoption of the title 'Basileus'. If you read Browning, as stated above, you can also read about the friction between native Greeks and foederati in the Army. So if you want to argue with what is generally a consensus among scholars as to when the Empire 'effectively became Greek as opposed to Latin', then please do so.

You obviously have an agenda - this much is not disputed by you, you are a Catholic and you intend to Catholicize and Latinize Greek History to whatever extent you can. But I WILL stand in your way and attempt to maintain an NPOV policy on this page. This is our History, as Greeks, this is MY history as a Greek, I will not let you carry your own personal agenda and try to shape this article around it, and if the Empire WAS latin, as you continously state - then why has all the real Historical scholarship on it (until recently) come from Eastern sources? Western Europeans didn't give a damn about their Eastern Greek brethren then, and they don't now (just look at the Cyprus problem). We ARE the inheritors of Byzantine Culture, it defined what we believe as our natural borders (The Megali Idea), because it is the precursor to the Modern Hellenic Republic. Is it the precursor to the Modern Italian Republic, or French Republic? No. So stop spreading half truths and lies, it's getting ridiculous.

your hypothesis the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire was thoroughly Latin up until the 12th Century. What? Have you actually read anything I have written? Seriously? Because as far as I know not once have I claimed or argued for the Byzantine empire as a 'Latin' empire - but what I have argued against is the idea that they weren't Romans. There is no 'Latin agenda' behind that. Romans had changed by the time of the Byzantine empire to a largely Greek speaking and Greek dominated empire but that does not mean they were no longer Romans!

I advise you to read Marcellinus The period commonly accepted for the Byzantine empire began 200 years after Marcellinus - I'm not disputing what he says but peoples attitudes can change especially obver so long a period of time.

you are a Catholic and you intend to Catholicize and Latinize Greek History to whatever extent you can. Prove it. If you seriously believe what you say you are very much mistaken.

This is our History, as Greeks, this is MY history as a Greek Yes in the same way as an Englishman my people were once part of the Roman Empire and it is part of my history - Constantine the Great was proclaimed emperor in York. Instead of trying to turn the Byzantine Empire into the Greek Empire why not be proud of the fact that the Greeks, conquered by the Romans, rose to such prominence and power that they not only became Roman but redefined what it meant to be a Roman. That would be a more honest portrayal of history and there is no shame in it - no other ethnic group in the Roman empire managed that.

it is the precursor to the Modern Hellenic Republic. I don't think so - The Byzantine Empire ended in 1453 the Hellenic Republic didn't exist until 1821. Roydosan 15:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is what I don't understand about you Roydosan - You claim you have no intentions to Latinize yet you still believe the Universalism of the Roman Empire was maintained into the Byzantine Empire. What I am maintaining is this, someone can be ethnically Greek, but still have the umbrella identity of Roman, much like being 'English and European' - Except in this case the umbrella identity takes precedence because what little remained of the original Roman Empire under Heraclius had a large Greek majority inside it's borders, and hence the universal term could be used as a narrower one without it changing. In regards to your comments about the Hellenic Republic, time is immaterial in this discussion - you have to read about Modern Greece's History to understand the enormity of the influence of Greece's Byzantine past on the Modern Greek nation state post 1829 - in all aspects, from the poetry of Kavafis to the politics of Venizelos. And Marcellinus wrote during Julian the Apostate's reign, sometime after Constantine (the generally accepted starting point of the Byzantine Empire), and my point with regards to his writings is he considers himself both a Greek and a Roman, exhibiting that the two identities could exist in harmony with one another.


 * I hope for all our sakes that you stop this petty argument, I am willing to offer the olive branch if you are willing to reciprocate. We are all here to improve Byzantine articles, and we all mostly share a love of the subject - This is all that is needed for articles about Byzantine History to improve.


 * Link doesnt work. Colossus 17:33, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It does, it just doens't work like an internal Wikipedia link :) I fixed it. Adam Bishop 19:01, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

A very interesting page, despite the poor way in which it is written. The style of that article exemplifies perfectly the obfuscating style of academic writing, which enables the writer to hide behind dense terminology instead of explaining his or her ideas in plain English. I wish more academic writers had both the will and the ability to write in ordinary language. Sadly, it is a skill that is lacked by many of them. Still, though it is laced with waffle the article does bring up some interesting points about the cultural evolution of Byzantium.

Recent intelligent (and, crucially, well-written) works on the demise of the Western Roman Empire have been written by Bryan Ward Perkins (The fall of Rome and the end of civilisation) and Peter Heather (The fall of the Roman Empire). Both of these are excellent, well written history books, and are well worth reading if you are interested in the subject of how the eastern empire lost its western cousin. Bigdaddy1204 21:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Move request for emperors of the Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty
Hi. There is a move request for several Palaeologus/Palaiologos dynasty emperors at Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors. I tought you all might be interested in.--Panairjdde 22:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Greek empire?
When I was reading this article it seems that people like to reference the Byzantine empire as a Greek empire. How is this so? Because they spoke greek it does not mean they are a greek empire, I would think that the greeks were just part of the empire. The Byzantine Empire was originally part of the Roman Empire until it was split and the centre was at Constantinople. From Constantinople they ruled over much of the eastern Mediterranean all the way to morocco. Since the centre was at Constantinople I can’t see how Greeks can even say it is a Greek empire, they were part of the empire, peripheral land. If any country should claim it as ‘their’ Empire I would think it to be the Turks as the centre was at Constantinople or even Rome as it originally was seen as a Roman Empire, ironically it survived the Western Roman Empire. I would think that this topic would be a source of discussion. Further more when the Latin Empire was set up, Greece was conquered by successive European rulers, Constantinople was liberated from the lands of nicea not Greece, someone please tell me what importance Greece had on the Byzantine Empire that it should deserve to claim it as theirs?


 * Start by re-reading the entire article from the top. Colossus 13:41, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Obvious as it is, the article's content is questioned by people of a poor understanding of the subject. I restored edits that I had directly based on credible sources, whether editors here want to accept them or not is irrelevant. Editors who have doubts about the article's neutrality, should use the Talk page before making any edits whatsoever. I'm tired of people like Roydosan who keep removing information that simply don't fit to their personal image of the situation. Some editors' own lack of understanding or denial of the historical truth is the only threat to this article. If you think that a certain edit is a "blatant POV" then paste it in Talk and ask for the editor's sources before removing. If you're still not convinced then try to find a credible source which implies the opposite. If you can't do any of the above then realize that you have no case as far as wikipedia is concerned. Miskin 12:08, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The relation between the word "Byzantine" and Laonicus Chalcondyles is a first for me. Academic consensus credits Hieronymus Wolf for introducing it to historiography. Could you please cite a passage or a work of Laonicus where he makes use of it before Laonicus?

Also, there is a problem in the opening paragraphs of the article. It goes way too far in stressing the Greekness of the empire, being repetitive to the point of pedantry. The "identity" and "the term Byzantine empire" sections cover comprehensively enough the point, so why does it need to be mentioned in the opening paragraph as well? All it does it bulk up space. The reader doesnt need to be told the empire was called "empire of the Greeks" or "Greece" every few lines. I think the opening paragraph at least, should be reverted to the edition prior to Roydosan edits. There is simply no reason for all that additional information to be kept there. Most if not all readers will relate immediately when they read in the first three lines that "Greek-speaking" = "Greek". And those that do not understand the obvious will in the following sections, where the Greekness of the empire is dealt with in detail. Colossus 13:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The information on the head comes from sources which I'm willing to directly cite in case of doubt. It is extremely important to point out how the Byzantine state was viewed by its contemporaries, i.e. a continuation of Classical Greece and not at all connected to the Roman Empire, if for no good reason, because that's how the Byzantine elite also ended up viewing itself in the 14th century. I find it ridiculous and erroneous to try to ignore those facts or try to deprive them of their importance by pretending that the Byzantine state was a nationless entity, supposedly the direct continuation of what most people perceive as "ancient Roman", the latter being officially "dead" since the 5th century AD. I feel that the ethnic Greek connection is indeed overstressed on a different section (I think compiled by yourself), where it says that all some guy in the court of Attila responded that he was a 'Graikos' or something like that. My edits on the head are directly taken from Ostrogorky's work.Miskin 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What about references within Greek works of the time to Byzantium (Buzantion)? Is this refering to a specific region rather than the empire?  Thanks.  Zeusnoos 13:38, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As for the first use of the 'Byzantine' name by Chalcondyles, it wasn't me who claimed it, so you can remove it if you want. The Oxford History of Byzantium however states that Wolf's use of the term was due to his wish to stress the Empire succession to a Classical Greek past. I removed the POV in the article which contradicted those fact i.e. that supposedly Wolf had something else in mind which didn't deny the Roman heritage and similar silly claims. What I do know and am able to source is that Chalcondyles directly referred to the Byzantine Emperor as the "Emperor of the Hellenes", and was generally one of the people who liked to stress Byzantium's Hellenic character, so it wouldn't amaze me to find the word "Byzantium" in his writings. It's nowhere claimed in the article that he popularized it or even tried to give it an official use, that's assigned to Wolf. Miskin 14:22, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

To its inhabitants the Empire was simply the Christian Orthodox Roman Empire of Saint Constantine and its emperors continued the unbroken succession of Roman emperors.

Referring to "St Constantine" is pretty POV.


 * How is it a POV? "St Constantine" is how Greek Orthodoxy perceives and perceived Constantine the Great, nobody's forcing the reader to believe that Constantine was actually a saint. Miskin 14:26, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * He is not a St recognised by most Christians in the way say St Peter or St John Chrysostom are, so although he is recognised as such by the Greek Orthodox this is not shared by the rest of Christianity and is therefore POV. Roydosan 14:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Honestly I'm being puzzled by some of your remarks. I thought it was obvious to everybody that the use of "Saint Constantine" reflected the Byzantine POV. If you think that it tries to brainwash the reader then by all means rephrase it. That was not at all however my intention. Miskin 14:46, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

However, during most of its history it was known to its Western contemporaries as "The Empire of the Greeks", "Greece" or the "Empire of Constantinople", while Eastern contemporaries, who had not inherited the Roman tradition, followed the Empire's own use of "Roman Empire".

So what? The Greekness of the empire is already discussed ad nauseum below. It does not need to be mentioned here and would only lead to confusion in someone not knowledgable about the Byzantine empire looking at this article.

Today most scholars acknowledge that properly speaking, the "Medieval Greek (Byzantine) Empire" was the unbroken continuation of the Hellenistic World, and its study is often grouped under Hellenology.

I don't think so. No-one is denying the Greekness of the empire but this is going too far. I've never heard any serious scholar make these claims. The unbroken continuation of the Graeco-Roman world the Byzantine empire might be but to describe it as the unbroken link to the Hellenistic world is pushing it a bit. Roydosan 14:18, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So wait a minute, does your objection regard the historical truth of the edits or their actual importance and position within the article? I'm getting confused and you have to make up your mind. Your edit summaries (POV in the head etc) would imply the first one, but now you claim the second. The section on classifying Byzantium under "Hellenology" is almost a direct claim from Ostrogorsky, which concerns historiography. Unless of course you regard one of the greatest Byzantinologists as a "non-serious" scholar, then you have no case. Whether one regards this information important enough or not to be in the head is a matter of personal opinion. What I whole-heartedly consider important enough to be in the head is the fact that Byzantium was a direct continuation of the Hellenistic world (pretty much common knowledge, stated in the Oxford history of Byzantium). Someone who is not familiar with medieval history can easily understand how a Greek-speaking Roman Empire, inhabited by Greeks was suddenly created in that part of the world. To the very same reader it would seem confusing to speak about "THE medieval Roman Empire" while he has learned in school that the Roman Empire ceased to exist in the late 5th century AD. I think the empire's Greekness or Greek identity should be sorted out in the body not in the head. Those claims about some guy chatting to Attila and calling himself a "Graikos" are in my opinion not very important. Miskin 14:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

In a manner of speaking both. Firstly to emphasise the Byzantine empire as a Greek empire is to falsify history insofar as the Byzantines saw themselves quite clearly as Romans (and before anyone complains please understand that Roman does NOT mean Latin) - read the Alexiad of Anna Comnena if you doubt this. Anyone reading this would get the impression that they saw themselves as Greeks (some may have done but in the main the evidence does not support this as being widespread). Secondly I don't see how other people saw them/referred to them as being worthy of mention in the opening para - although it is rightly mentioned later. Ostrogorsky's view, if as you claim, is not shared by all scholars and is therefore his POV - that does not mean he is not a serious scholar.

The purpose of an encyclopedia should be to educate not to perpetuate inaccuracies or give information at the lowest common denominator. True people are taught in schools that the Roman Empire ended in the 5th century - but that is no reason to take that line. The information they were given was wrong. Rather than confirming such an erroneous view an encyclopedia should correct it. Roydosan 14:55, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So how does the argument "what the Byzantines recognised themselves" have to do with anything? Do you think that Mycenaean Greeks called themselves "Greek"? You're just about to admit that your edits are based on original research. What concerns wikipedia is what modern scholars think, which is obviously based on how non-Byzantines viewed Byzantium back in the day. Ostrogorsky uses "medieval Greek Empire" and "Greeks" or "Byzantine Greeks" in the place of "Byzantines" all the time, and so do most of modern historians (see Jonathan Phillips among many others). Having that in mind, I see no reason to give in to some editors' potential chauvinism and denial of the historical truth. You're literally suggesting to ignore and remove what most modern historians take for granted. "The purpose of an encyclopedia should be to educate not to perpetuate inaccuracies or give information at the lowest common denominator." - this is just your opinion, maybe you'd care to read WP:POLICY one more time and find out how edits are made. Miskin 15:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "The information they were given was wrong. Rather than confirming such an erroneous view an encyclopedia should correct it." -> Which is pretty much the definition of original research. This is not just an encyclopedia, it's wikipedia and there are rules to follow. Miskin 15:09, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And I suppose the response to your personal interpretation of Comnena's work would come from the works of Gemistos Plethon. Miskin 15:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

'So how does the argument "what the Byzantines recognised themselves" have to do with anything? Do you think that Mycenaean Greeks called themselves "Greek"? You're just about to admit that your edits are based on original research.' Of course it matters! I am from England and therfore I see myself as English - if you decided to call me an something else that is your choice but it doesn't change the fact that I am English. As for original research - I don't think so - every book I've evr read on Byzantium states that it was the Eastern Roman Empire and that they called themselves Romans. So it is very far from being original research. which is obviously based on how non-Byzantines viewed Byzantium back in the day. No it really isn't - they look at what the Byzantines themselves thought as well. Ostrogorsky uses "medieval Greek Empire" and "Greeks" or "Byzantine Greeks" in the place of "Byzantines" all the time, and so do most of modern historians Maybe he does but I've never seen it any book before and certainly not to the extent that you claim. I see no reason to give in to some editors' potential chauvinism and denial of the historical truth. Except your own. You're literally suggesting to ignore and remove what most modern historians take for granted. No that is not the case - just an accurate portrayal based on what serious scholars know - not on the half baked stuff people get fed in some schools. Which is pretty much the definition of original reasearch. Not if it is verified. Any serious book on Byzantium acknowledges the fact that it was the unbroken continuation of the Roman Empire. That is fact - it is not my opinion. As for Anna Comnena it is not my personal interpretation. Try reading |it

Roydosan 15:24, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, what they called themselves doesn't matter. If the entire world called the English "Saxony" then chances are that futured scholars would use that name. And finally, the Byzantine elite did end up recognising itself as "Hellenic", the only Byzantine body that would insist on being called "Roman" would be ironically the "Greek Church" (as the Latins called it), for they regarded "Hellene" a synonym to "pagan". I gave you the titles of some books, most of which are easy to find, if you insist that you've never seen such terms written before then you can check with your local library. Until you do so please stop removing sourced information and basing your edits on original research. Miskin 15:34, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

It is NOT original research!!! The article is about the Byzantines not about what other people called them. Therefore it seems rather abstract to describe a people and say: ''it doesn't matter how they defined themselves or what they thought they were. No. Instead we'll look at what people in other countries called them.'' Now that just seems a bit ridiculous to me. Fine mention what other people called them and the reasons for it but that should not be the driving force behind how you describe them (in any case the Arabs & Turks consistently referred to them as Romans - and still do so in fact). And none of this is original research - it is just stating what every book on Byzantium worth it's salt will state - that the Byzantine empire was the continuation of the Roman empire and that it's inhabitants called themselves Romans. That is not my POV, that is not original research. That is FACT. Get over it. Roydosan 15:54, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

"Its my belief that were heating over this with a concept that wasn't quite the same 600 years ago, that of Nationalism. The Byzantine Empire was not a single ethnic group, it, much like the Roman empire, might of been rulled by a class dominated by a majority from a single ethnic group, but it did not mean that every one was from that group. Nor might it of even been all that important as we've seen Armanians, Macedonians, etc take the rulling title. Similarly speaking greek didn't make then automaticly greek, convinience made it the official language, just like english in India. Being located near the great centers of hellenes culture and having it as such an integral part of the state surely did homogenize the heterogenous groups. Much like the Soviet Union having Russian language and Russian culture as the state's practice, yet it still hade a multitude of people wheren't ethnicly Russian, nor where they immigrants. As an Empire that lasted centuries independendly from the rest of the Old Roman Empire and a contignuation of its practices, I find it hard to pin point the Byzantines as this or that. There is no clear cut line of anything with the Byzantine as things evolved, like all states do." Now the above part of my post was supposed to be posted some time ago but looks like things have heated up and what I've written mostly inconcequential. But I took the time to write it and by gods I`ll post it, even if I no longer have the time to word it correctly. Now on to something thats been bothering me: "And finally, the Byzantine elite did end up recognising itself as "Hellenic"" If this was only later, than it shouldn't bee used on the whole of the history (something adumbrated in my first paragraph). This is where that compremise term Byzantine comes in handy, its neither against nor for Empire of the Hellenes/Romans. Dryzen 15:56, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

A "Macedonian" ethnic group exists officially only for some 15 years, comparing it to the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantium is an absurde anachronism to begin with. I don't understand how can someone compare the British colonisation of India and the use of the English language to the official language of the Byzantine state. I guess this justifies my additions on Hellenistic age, it proves that many people are confused and it's vital to ellaborate. The Byzantine elite did recognise itself as "Hellenic" and the title "Emperor of the Hellenes" was frequently used from the 14th century. This has nothing to do with the fact that "Greek" was exclusively used by all the European (Latin+Slavic) world in both official and unofficial level, and by part of the Islamic world at official one (see Western Travellers to Constantinople: The West & Byzantium, or the Slavic Scriptures . I suppose your erroneous POV is the answer to why I made those edits in the head of the article. As I said editor opinion doesn't matter in wikipedia, all that matters is to reflect scholarly consensus. All my edits are sourced, and all I've been getting by POV-pushers is "I've never seen that" or "that's not correct because --POV follows--". Unless you can provide a credible sources which would explicitely falsify one of the already referenced claims on the article, please stop wasting my time and provoking edit wars. That goes for everybody who think they're smarter than the academic consensus. Miskin 16:33, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In order to clear up some things, i have to say the following:
 * Constantine the Great is considered a saint by Eastern Orthodox, Roman Catholic, Oriental Orthodox and Anglicans (see List of saints.
 * A word that derives from Roman is still used among the Greeks to identify themselves (see Names of the Greeks) and I would be really shocked if there would be anyone to say that modern Greeks see themselves as Romans...
 * The Western Europeans refered to the Byzantine Empire as the Greek Empire and to its inhabitants as Greeks. Everyone has to admit that, cause it is simply a fact.
 * The Turks also considered the Byzantines as Greeks. in fact, they still name the Greeks of Turkey 'Rum', without them having to do anything with the Roman Empire...
 * And a last comment for those who tried to remove the facts about the Greekness of the Byzantine Empire: the Byzantine studies are listed as part of the Greek History lessons in countries such as the UK, France, Germany, Russia, etc etc, and not as part of the Roman History. I am sick of word-games like 'they self-identified as Romans, Anna Komnene wrote that!''. well, they did identified as 'Romans', with the meaning of 'Christians' after the Edict of Milan. btw, in which language did Anna Komnene wrote? of course Greek!
 * According to all known sources and well known scholars, the Byzantine Empire was the continuation of:1. the Roman World: in terms of system of government, laws, administration, area-the eastern half of the Empire-, and religion-in the sense that Christianity developed within the the Roman Empire-. 2. the Greek World: in terms of origins of the people-and the majority of Emperors-, of language-greek was the mother tangue of the people of the region during all the Roman Empire's era and became official after the 7th century-, of culture- byzantine music, painting, architecture, etc descent (with many foreign infuences) from ancient greek culture (and continue in the one or the other form till today (see bouzouki. In addition, in the early Byzantine empire were still people who worshipped the Olympian Gods, and even though they gradually converted to Christianity, they are still an evidence that the Empire existed as a greek state. --Hectorian 17:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a note, that turks didn't call only greeks Rum, this was a name for all christians in the Ottoman empire including bulgarians, serbians, etc. - Rum milet (Roman people).


 * I'm not fighting for edit wars. If its Elite within the 14th century where calling themselves (along with the rest of the world) Hellenes, I don see why that would apply all through out its history. Good post Hectorian, I'm 100% with points 1 and 2, constantine and the western vue that they where greeks. But for Rum... that really does sounds more like Rome and less like Hellenes. As for Miskin, "A "Macedonian" ethnic group exists officially only for some 15 years, comparing it to the Macedonian dynasty of Byzantium is an absurde anachronism to begin with." It is precisely what I was trying to convey in my first paragraph and helps me with my point that we can't depend on the present and near past to attempt to understand an empire 500 years under Turkish rule. As for a Hellenic state, that is wasn't; it was a blend of Hellenic culture and the Roman culture. And those are things scholars support. (P.S. wasn't Alexander of Macedonian stock?)Dryzen 17:42, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding my post 'good':). about Rum... well, this is used for the modern Greeks in Turkey, was used for the greeks by the 400 years of turkish rule, as it was used for the medieval Greeks by the Arabs. i can't see what u are disputing here... indeed, the term comes from 'Rome', but became assosiated with the Hellenes. as the word 'Greek' is attributed to the Hellenes (this is how we call ourselves). about 'blend of cultures', well, every modern and past state is/was a blend... do u think that there exists a country in the western world without greek and roman influences? the modern western system of laws is based on the Roman model (but it would be ridiculous for someone to name e.g. Sweden a Roman state!). the modern western system of governing comes from the ancient greek (democracy) (yet noone would call e.g. Australia a greek state). in the same way, the Byzantine Empire inherited (or continued to have) many roman traditions, systems, etc, but it was a Greek Empire. about Alexander... what should i comment? there have been thousands of posts in wikipedia about him and the ancient macedonians... he considered himself greek, his people and country greek, and all the above were seen as greek by the others (Strabo, Plutarch and all the ancient writers picture him as greek). unless u mean of Macedonian stock, id est of Greek stock. but since u brought up a dispute about 'anachronism', why don't u change this article? isn't it an anachronism to talk about italian in the exact time 10th-13 centuries) u are talking about greeks? Regards --Hectorian 18:31, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It seems I'm getting words put in my mouth and being labelled what I am not. As for the Rum, I wasn't contesting anything, mearly stating that Rum was a derivative of Rome / roman, like you stated above. Your original post was less clear and I simply posted the semantic link. I dont have the inclination to battle anachronisms nor is it my perogative. The subject was brough up and subscenquently was used. It would seem that the "sides" (and I do note that there are more than two perceptions presents) of this dicussion are mired in perceptions of the each other's goals and positions. Mayhaps those involved should clearly stipulate what they are fighting for, what they propose (i.e. changes to article) and finaly a synopsis of why? Reasonable? The current debat seems to have run amok.Dryzen 14:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I'm losing patience with these arguments; I'm sick of repeating the same thing over and over again about modern comparitive methods of self-identification in an ethnic sense and the flaws of this analysis, I'm sick of pointing out that since the Empire was whittled down to a large Greek majority area, the term Roman basically became synonomous with ethnic identification as well (as as far as the Byzantine Romans were concerned, they, the Greek speaking Romans, where the last 'Romans' left), I'm sick of pointing out the connotations Hellene had with pagan, and the connotations of Roman and Christianity. This is getting old, The Empire was not a Greek nation state, but it was solidly Greek by the time of Heraclius in it's perception by outsiders, it's language, it's ethnicity and it's culture (though with an Oriental mix). This is getting fucking tiresome.


 * Also, the original editor seems to have a decidedly Anti-Greek POV, going over Greek topics trying to claim Turkish influence at every possible opportunity.

Miskin, just because you can find a reference for something does not mean it is not POV! Byzantine studies are listed as part of the Greek History lessons in countries such as the UK No they are most definitely not - they are treated quite separately - I studied the Byzantine Empire at school & uni and it was never grouped with Greek history it was always distinct on it's own. This is getting ridiculous - the article should be NPOV and historically accurate. As it is it is refracted through the prism of Greek nationalism and the opening paragraph is failing on both counts. Roydosan 09:13, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Apparently they're not always treated separately, as you can see for yourself King's College classifies it under Hellenic studies . Or is it that King's College organise its courses through the prism of Greek nationalism? Modern Greek emerges in the Byzantine world at least as early as the 12th century AD. Don't you think it will be ridiculous to imply that the Roman Empire of Scipio and Cicero survived well into the middle and spoke Modern Greek? Your abstract version of the story is simply misleading someone who wants to learn the basics on the topic. Your chauvinism on this subject is getting me really suspicious about your neutrality as an editor. Miskin 13:16, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There's another website of a Russian university which groups it with modern Greek . And there's an american one . And there's one from Princeton which groups Classical, Byzantine and Modern Greek studies under Hellenic . Any last comments? Miskin 13:25, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * In case you're interested, it seems that the University of Vienna, in the country where Fallmerayer and Metternich were from, has a programme called Byzantine Studies and Modern Greek Studies . --Tēlex 13:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * When I was an undergrad, Byzantine studies were part of the Classics department (but I don't think that university teaches anything Byzantine at all, now). At my current university, and I'm sure you will all be apopleptic about this, it is taught in the Near and Middle Eastern Studies department. Ha! Adam Bishop 16:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Modern Greek emerges in the Byzantine world at least as early as the 12th century BC What? The 12th Century BC???????? Don't you think it will be ridiculous to imply that the Roman Empire of Scipio and Cicero survived well into the middle and spoke Modern Greek? No because it is quite logical if you follow the history. There is no inconsistency in this if you understand that the Roman empire greatly changed over the course of it's 2206 year history. Changes in language and culture are to be expected over such a long period of time. Your chauvinism on this subject is getting me really suspicious about your neutrality as an editor I feel exactly this way about you. I for one have no intention of denying the Greekness of the empire. What I object to is that this identity is expanded way over everything else to the exclusion of what the Byzantines themselves saw their empire as. Anyone looking at this article would get the impression that the Byzantine empire was a Greek nation state. This is what I object to above all. It is re-writing history! no matter what authors you can misquote to back up your POV this view is a travesty of history and completely in breach of NPOV. Roydosan 14:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Please calm down, both of you; the exaggerations of the Greek nationalists. like the exaggerations of other nationalists, pervade Wikipedia. Byzantists can be reasonably grouped with students of Modern Greek; although not identical, the languages require many of the same skills. Claiming that Constantine XI was the successor of Augustus and Tiberius is no more than he claimed for himself. That being said, this article has always been advocacy, and I am not surprised it continues to be. Septentrionalis 14:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

We're calm. The person who cussed was an anonymous editor. As a response to Roydosan's comment: Not that it's mentioned anywhere in the article, but the "Empire" did become almost a Greek nation-state after 1204. Anyway I don't understand why are you getting all mental because it is mentioned that the subject is often categorised under Hellenic studies, that's just a fact which you characterised as the "prism of Greek nationalism". I don't see why we should mislead the reader into believing that some multi-ethnic Roman people has built a 2206 year-old Empire which started off as a city-state in Italy then and moved around its capital several times, changed its language and location, but has nonetheless remained continuous. An imaginary political entity that we call the "Roman Empire" without any disambiguation whatsoever. Is that the kind of history that you were taught Roydosan? I doubt it, this is just your personal POV that you want to pass in the article. You have some weird ideas about wikipedia and you think that we have to search for the truth and correct the misconceptions that govern the world (such as the end of the Roman Empire in the 5th century AD). I tried to explain to you what is meant by "no original research" but you don't seem to get the picture. Miskin 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Septentrionalis has a long history of trying to pass POV into Greek history-related articles and of following me around. I refuse to debate with a person who thinks that including nazi theories into wikipedia enforces the NPOV policy. That's just the easy way, calling someone names (such as "nationalist") just because you can't come up with a logical argument. Miskin 17:11, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Following you around? I've been watching this article since about the time Miskin began editing. The present argument is an example of why it is largely hopeless. Of course the Byzantine empire is the legal and institutional heir of the Roman state; of course it is culturally descended in large part from the Hellenistic empires, in part because of Roman borrowings from the Greeks from Augustus to Doicletian. Why can't the article say both, citing reliable sources who say so? Septentrionalis 16:04, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Miskin this is not original research. This is what every book on the Byzantine empire will tell you. That the empire was the continuation of the Roman empire. I do not think that we have to search for the truth I just believe that articles should be truthful. What you are attempting is a fabrication of history. What you state here is correct though:


 * some multi-ethnic Roman people has built a 2206 year-old Empire which started off as a city-state in Italy then and moved around its capital several times, changed its language and location, but has nonetheless remained continuous.

This is the truth no matter how unpalatable it is to you. And it is not my partisan POV, it is grounded in historical truth. Unlike the fallacy that the Byzantine empire was the continuation of pre-Roman Greece which you stated earlier. Roydosan 17:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Original research my foot. See here:


 * Modern Greeks call themselves "Hellenes," like the ancient Greeks did. The switch from "Romaioi" back to "Hellene," like the switch from "Vlach" to "Romanian," came from the politics of nationalism in modern times. Greeks needed Western European help to become independent in the early nineteenth century. The Greeks were not likely to attract assistance if the Western peoples thought of Greeks as Byzantines. However, if the Greeks were imagined as the children of Plato and Pericles, then the sympathies of educated Westerners, steeped in the Classical tradition, would be with Greece. In the Greek Revolution of 1832, the "Philhellenic"[Greek loving] sympathies of Britain and other European governments were deeply engaged. Intervention on behalf of Greek independence proved decisive. The name of "Hellene" was revived in order to create a national image which rejected the "Byzantine" past. The names by which things are called are important in shaping our interpretation of reality. People are often surprised to discover that historical labels which define the past are inventions of later scholarship and ideology, not parts of the past itself. Men and women of the Middle Ages did not know that they lived in the Middle Ages: people who lived in Classical Athens or Renaissance Italy suffered the same disability. The people of the "Byzantine Empire" had no idea that they were Byzantine. They regarded themselves as the authentic continuators of the Roman world: the Romans living in Romania. |1

When did I ever deny this Roydosan? I don't understand what do you find so extreme about my edits. You're practically accusing me for things I've never claimed. You're coming up with arguments against the claim that this article should be renamed to "medieval Greece" something extreme that I never came up with. It explicitely mentioned that the Byzantine Empire was the "Greek-speaking Roman Empire" and that its roalty indentified itself Roman. All I did was to point out that the Empire had a direct cultural connection to the Hellenistic world. This does by no means distort the idea of the continuation of the Roman Empire. It only adds important information which explains more about the nature of this medieval state and its people, who ironically viewed the Latins of Rome as their worst enemy. You can't just monopolise the Roman heritage by claiming that it was all about Byzantium. The city of Rome, the other Italian city-states, not to mention the Holy Roman Empire had a great part in the Roman heritage. If Rome and Byzantium were exactly the same thing, then we wouldn't be using different names for them. Having said that, I don't know what are you complaining about. Byzantine history and identity did begin with the Christianisation of Rome and the foundation of New Rome, the Byzantine state itself was never directly founded by somebody, and the early Byzantine culture was continuation of Hellenistic culture. Do you dispute the factual accurracy of those claims or do you think they're not important enough to be mentioned in the head? Miskin 18:39, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I quote:


 * a continuation of Classical Greece and not at all connected to the Roman Empire, if for no good reason, because that's how the Byzantine elite also ended up viewing itself in the 14th century.

As to your other comments I have no wish to deny anyone else their Roman heritage and I haven't argued that Byzantium has a monopoly on it. But what you are stating now is a bit different to what you have been arguing before. If you are willing to be this reasonable now why can't you be so over the opening paragraph. Greek-speaking Roman Empire is all that needs to be stated in the opening paragraph - the Greekness of the empire is dealt with thoroughly enough elsewhere. I do dispute this: the early Byzantine culture was continuation of Hellenistic culture. No it was a continuation of Graeco-Roman culture - over the centuries the two had merged that is why there is no inconsistency in an ethnic Greek identifying as a Roman. Roydosan 18:47, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now you're just pasting text which can be easily misinterpreted when isolated, and I hope you're not doing this on purpose. Let me give you the entire phrase: "how the Byzantine state was viewed by its contemporaries, i.e. a continuation of Classical Greece and not at all connected to the Roman Empire". As you can see I was talking about how it was viewed by its contemporaries, not about what it was, nor what my edits implied. Of course it was in reality the direct continuation of the Roman Empire. You realise of course that being a "continuation of the Roman Empire" and "being the Roman Empire" are two different things. Now read the first two lines of the article and please stop complaining. The article says that it "was the Roman Empire" (known to most people to have ended in the 5th century) and my edits explain what is meant by that. Miskin 19:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

It was a continuation of the Hellenistic culture in terms of language, intellectual life, music and even military among other things. The line between terms such as "Greco-Roman" and "Hellenistic" is very thin, some scholar would argue that the Greco-Roman World was not much different than the Hellenistic, so you're really applying your personal interpretation of those terms there. Nobody spoke of ethnic identities, of course Greek identity was merged with the Roman in the Greco-Roman world, but that's irrelevant to its cultural heritage. This of course, is a referenced claim. Miskin 19:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, just also like to point out that it's considered part of Greek studies at Warwick as well (where I am going to study after my gap year), to be honest I always thought the debate about whether it is considered part of Roman or Greek studies was kind of moot, most Universities do consider it part of Greek studies.

My second point is this, nation states as they exist today are the sums of their cultural and historical parts, I'm not sure anyone would disagree with that, because there is such as stark difference the emergence of Nationalism in the 19th century in Europe and self identification of people's before this point, particularly in the Byzantine Empire, you tend to find that people (with no understanding of History), like to compare how people identify themselves in modern day nation states to how they identified themselves before that. For example, Roydosan's argument rests on this crux - That the 'Byzantines' called themselves 'Romans', and ergo they were Latin 'Romans' and not what we would call today 'Greek'. But he completely misses the point, in addition to the fact he is just downright wrong on several of his hypotheses. No one is disputing that there was continuity between the old Roman World.

My point is this, we should resolve it by proposing this - The Empire did have two distinctive characters of a Hellenistic East and Latin West even before Diocletian, despite both remaining solidly Roman, the only thing Diocletian did by splitting the Empire was to formally accentuate this division, after Caracalla's decree many peoples began to self-identify as Roman, and the Greeks not the least, but they still considered themselves ethnically Greek, as Marcellinus' writings show - This was effectively a dual identity, like one considering himself French ethnically but also European, except in the Roman sense, the Roman identity had a far stronger identity because it meant citizenship of a universal empire that had long ceased to have any kind of pure 'Roman' (as in Republican Rome) ethnicity. The introduction of Christianity only helped this identity become stronger in the Greek East, as Hellene became a synonym for pagan - so as the Western Empire crumbled and died, there was no need for an ethnic designation as the only Roman World left was The Hellenistic East, and hence the term Roman became the sole method of self-identification as it adopted an ethnic meaning again.

Even with non-Greek Byzantines they still changed their names upon assuming high office to Greek names because despite the presence of non-Greek minorities (armenians for example), these people had long since been assimilated into Hellenistic Culture.


 * You obviously haven't been taking notice of anything I've written otherwise you would know that not once have I stated That the 'Byzantines' called themselves 'Romans', and ergo they were Latin 'Romans' In fact I have argued to the contrary trying to get away from the concept that Roman=Latin - and before you say it Miskin this is not original research on my part but what several scholars have already stated. I have linked the articles above. he is just downright wrong on several of his hypotheses Which ones exactly? If you're going to say something like that at least give some examples. Roydosan 02:14, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Exactly because the majority of people think that Roman=Latin and because the dictionary definition of Latin is "the language of ancient Rome and its Empire", a disambiguation between ancient Latin and medieval Greek or German Romans must be made. If for no good reason because people will wonder "why on earth is the Roman Empire called something else?". Finally what you removed as POV, i.e. the Byzantine Empire being a cultural continuation of the Hellenistic East, and the term "Byzantium" being coined in order to give a "Classical" sound to the Empire, were both taken from the Oxford History of Byzantium. Miskin 15:28, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

because the majority of people think that Roman=Latin That may be so but an encyclopedia should give the facts not perpetuate ignorance. And before you quote Wiki policy none of it contradicts what I've just said. The quotes may have been from the OHB but as I've said before that does not mean they are not POV. I would say that they idea that Byzantium was the cultural continuation of Hellenistic East is POV - because that is not a view shared by all scholars - many of whom stress that the empire was the contunuation of the Roman Empire albeit increasingly Greek dominated. Roydosan 15:51, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The same source does state that it's the direct continuation of the Roman Empire. The article even goes further and claims that it's the actual "Roman Empire during the middle ages" (a borderline OR definition) so I don't understand what are you complaining about. So far the head states that the medieval Roman Empire (implied political continuity to the Roman state) was the cultural continuation of the Hellenistic World, and points out how it was viewed by its contermporaries. This is extremely important to point out if you take into consideration the other states that would claim political and cultural continuity from the Roman Empire. There had been a heated debate in the middle ages as to who is the heir to the Roman Empire and Rome finally favoured the Frankish emperor. The Byzantine emperor was given the humiliating title "Emperor of the Greeks" and the "Emperor of the Romans" lost forever official connection to Constantinople. This fact alone proves that the Roman continuity from Roman antiquity to medieval Byzantium was never as a simple matter as you present it. Hence the only POV I see here is your persistence on doing it "your way". In other words, most scholars today as well as back in the day, regard by default Roman=Latin. That might be 100% wrong, as it might be the use of "Byzantine" over plain "Roman". However that's how it is, and whether you like it or not wikipedia is obliged to use the established terminology and definitions. You were already wrong about Byzantine studies being an strictly an independent subject in universities. The political continuity from Rome was never put into question, and Rome itself had a great Hellenistic heritage. However cultural elements such as the Greek language are what make the difference between the East and the West. What if I find more sources that acknowledge the cultural continuity between Byzantium and the Hellenistic World? Will you be convinced then that it's a "POV" worth mentioning? Miskin 17:18, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, Roydosan, but u cannot claim that it was not the cultural continuation of the Hellenistic East. u can say that it was the administrative, political, monarchic continuation of the Roman Empire, but about culture (language, music, literature, art, etc)...pfff, u can't:) --Hectorian 17:22, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll make this simple for you. wikipedia is obliged to use the established terminology and definitions. For sure - that's why it should refer to the Byzantine empire throughout but state that it was the continuation of the Roman empire - which the opening para already does. What I object to principally is the reference to "St Constantine" - this is POV as only the Orthodox regard him as a saint (see Talk:Constantine I). And the reference to "the Greek (Byzantine) Empire" as this is incorrect for reasons I've escribed to the nth degree above. What I object to is that anyone looking at this might get the impression that it was a Greek nation state which saw itself in those terms - which it quite patently wasn't; especially if you take the starting point as Constantine - when the empire still included Britain, France, Spain, North Africa - all very definitely not Greek. There had been a heated debate in the middle ages as to who is the heir to the Roman Empire and Rome finally favoured the Frankish emperor. No - when the Pope crowned Charlegmagne he was attempting to restore the empire in the West. He was then regarded as the equal of the emperor in Constantinople but not his rival. In any case the Byzantines regarded him as nothing more than a barbarian. Hectorian I don't think you get what I was trying to say - I was not excluding the Hellenistic culture from this but rather arguing that to say that it was the continuation of Hellenistic culture alone is inaccurate. The Byzantine empire was the direct continuation of the Graeco-Roman world (a culture which is as much Greek as it is Latin, hence the name). By stating it was the direct cultural continuation of the hellenistic world you are missing out a few centuries of cultural input. Roydosan 18:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I do not mind editting 'Constantine I' and not 'St. Constantine', since it is clearly Orthodox POV. In addition, i do not mind referring to the empire as the 'de jure' continuation of the Roman one. nor i would object to the reference about the 'Graeco-Roman world (a culture which is as much Greek as it is Latin, hence the name)' (although u seem to confuse 'roman' with 'latin'), since, indeed, the graeco-roman world was the 'bridge' between hellenistic and byzantine worlds. but i will not agree in the removal of the Empire of the Greeks phrase in the opening paragraph. it is sourced, historically accepted and not disputed by the majority of scholars. furthermore, i would suggest (for the sake of accuracy) to include in the beginning of the article, before the contents (as in Roman Empire, two things: how and when it ended its life as a greek nation-state, and secondly, that the greek kings in the 19th and 20th centuries were assumed as the continuation of the byzantine dynasties, having the descenting number of same-named byzantine kings in their formal titled -hope u understand what i mean-(and thus recognised by all as the successors of Byzantium) . btw, what u said about the Frankish emperors is, of course, correct, with one correction: the Pope disregarded the byzantine emperors as heirs of the romans, after their failure to protect him by the 'barbarians'. --Hectorian 19:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What I'm beginning to find strange, is why Roydosan is just SO persistant, and SO determined to forge a universalism out of the Byzantine Empire when by the early 7th century (a conservative educated guess as far as the extent of hellenization goes), the Empire was Greek ethnically and culturally. The fact they called themselves Romans means nothing. And why the hell are westerners trying to come here and claim the ERE as their own? I mean, they've spent the last damn 3 centuries defaming the medieval Greeks (Romans)! When the idiots didn't even have the balls to take a look at their own Middle Ages history, I mean, look at Britain's Middle Ages History, since the Romans left up until the William's invasion in 1066 they accomplished absolutely nothing! Yet they can attack Greeks about OUR middle ages history, when we had public baths, universities, an effective system of government, philosophers and so on?


 * The Western Europeans have no right to take our Middle Ages history, they have ignored it or defamed it for the past 300 years, now as we see more interest being taken up in Byzantine studies, they want to claim they were a part of it. No, sorry, you can't. anonymous

Anonymous please sign your name for the sake of clarity, and try to be more civil. Don't get too excited with this thing, it's only about the article on an encyclopedia that anyone can edit. Anyone who wants to really educate himself will read some books and will soon find out the reality that Roydosan is trying to hide. What's most ironic is that those very Westeners (namely Franco-Brits) had once instisted that the Greek nation should rename itself from 'Roman' to 'Hellenic' if they wanted to receive support against the Muslim nations. That happened long before the term "Byzantine Empire" was introduced in the anglophone world by Sir George Finlay, the philhellene. Then after everyone realised that the Byzantine Empire was not the unimportant, schismatic, corrupted medieval Greece that they once sought to destroy, they started treating it with more respect. And if Britain hadn't decided to use the Greek army as its proxy in the Anatolian front, western Anatolia and Constantinople would have been parts of the Greek state today, and none of this talk would ever take place. Of course what's done is done and cannot be undone, but it's always funny to point out the irony. What we can do now is at least mention the unbiased truth about this medieval state as it is mentioned in the most credible of sources that Roydosan keeps referring to as "POV". Roydosan you seem to be stuck in the first centuries after the foundation of Constantinople, which are about the Western and Eastern Roman Empires. By the time of Saint Constantine there's a proper Roman Empire with two capitals, not a Byzantine Empire. Theodosius the Great separates the empire into East and West and Anastasius rules over a sole Eastern Empire, but it's not until Heraclius that we speak of a "Byzantine Empire" as the "Medieval Greek Empire", which by the way is Ostrogorsky's term not mine, and whether you like it or not it is in use by scholars today. To quote from Ostrogorsky: "The years of anarchy under Phocas mark the last phase in the history of the late Roman Empire. The late Roman or early Byzantine period, came to an end. Byzantium was to emerge from the crisis in an essentially different form, freed from the heritage of decadent political life, and fortified by new and vigorous sources of strength. Here Byzantine history properly speaking begins the history of the medieval Greek Empire" In any case when Charlemagne was crowed the emperor of the Romans, the pope coined the Byzantine emperor as the 'Emperor of the Greeks', and eventhough he received many insults in return, the title remained in official use until the fall of Constantinople. The Eastern part of the Roman empire that later became Byzantine, had much a more striking Hellenistic cultural heritage for the simple reason that it was almost entirely inhabited by Greek and Hellenised people. Finally I still find your objection in using "Saint Constantine" absurde. The sentence clearly states that Constantine was a Saint only in the eyes of the Byzantine state. Miskin 00:08, 16 July 2006 (UTC)


 * To chime in (yeah, yet more debate *g*): I have some reservations about the sentence "Today most scholars acknowledge that properly speaking, the "Medieval Greek (Byzantine) Empire" was the continuation of the Hellenistic World, and its study is often grouped under Hellenology." While the statement is true in itself, it is one-sided: the Medieval Greek Empire is the heir of the merged Christian Greco-Roman culture of (Late) Antiquity, and so both sides belong here. It was, imho, not the "continuation" of the Hellenistic world proper (which had been absorbed into the Greco-Roman world centuries ago), but only insofar, as the classical Roman Empire itself was heir to the Hellenistic world ("Hellenistic" in the sense in which it is used in English: denoting the world of Alexander's successors until their conquest by Rome). I would therefore propose some wording like
 * "Today, its study is often grouped under Hellenology or Modern Greek, acknowledging that the "Medieval Greek (Byzantine) Empire" was the centre of Greek culture in the Middle Ages."
 * Also, regarding Laonikos: Did he really use the term "Byzantine"? Or did you mean something else? While it is true that in 15th century Despotate of Morea, esp. in the following of Plethon, classical Hellas gained new prominence, those men of literature were creating something *new*, by highlighting the classical pagan roots of the Greek world, and did not simply express common opinion. Varana 09:07, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Terms
I am about to begin working on the military wings of the byzantine culture and have an important question to as my fellow byzantine enthusiasts. Many books use latinized fors of naming soldiery as well as titiles. This could become confusing to the avarage reader or initiate needless minor bickering in some talk pages. Would any have sugestions? Here is are some exemples: Drungaries, Tetrach, Hecatcontarch, Protocarabi, Chartulary, Protobandophorus, ex... Dryzen 17:44, 27 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll go ahead with latinized forms since those are all I have on hand. If you have the old Byzantine/Greek terms, please post them.