Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 11

Move proposal for History of the Eastern Roman Empire
A request to move History of the Eastern Roman Empire to History of the Byzantine Empire has been initiated. Anyone interested is invited to bring his/her opinion. Constantine  ✍  12:47, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

I agree, these articles should be identical 212.175.32.136 (talk) 14:22, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

Last unified empire?
Article says that Heraclius (d.395) is the last emperor of a unified RE. Justinian's reconquest of the West was not complete, but isn't he, or his successor Justin II, a more appropriate nominee for that label, nearly 2 centuries later? The point is that "the empire" is not a rigidly fixed territory: Heraclius did not control all the territory that (say) Marcus Aurelius had, 2 centuries earlier; even Constantine did not. But Justinian and his immediate successors were the last to control the territories of both the Eastern Empire and much of the Western. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)
 * I think you mean Theodosius. Firstly, this is about summarising sources, not the "truth". The source cited (Britannica) says presumably Theodosius was the last one. If you want to put in Justinian instead you'll need to find a source who describes him that way (I doubt you'll find one since he's not usually so described). Without a source, to describe him as the last Emperor of a unified RE (by virtue of the reconquest) would be synthesis. Secondly, I think, if one were being pedantic, with the end of the Western Emperors, the Eastern Emperors were once again sole Emperors of a "unified empire" anyway. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)


 * Hmm: very good points! And yes, I certainly meant Theodosius. :-[
 * This does suggest that labeling anyone (even Heraclius ;-) as "last emperor of a unified RE" is problematic, whether or not Britannica did. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Maps and Heraclius
On maps, it makes sense to put Venice and Genoa. Ravenna with the end of Exarchate became ininfluent for Byzantine Empire.

On Map of extention of Byzantine Empire: For a few period before the Arabs, Heraclius reoccupied Egypt and Mesopotamia, destroying Ctesiphon making the Sassanid Empire a tributary vassal. For few years Heraclius was like Alexander. The Arabs occupied quicly the Middle East, Egypt and Persia because they found an area in post-war crisis and Persian and Byzantine armies exhausted. See Ostrogorsky.

--Andriolo (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)


 * Actually, it would not make sense to depict Venice and Genoa in maps concerning Heraclius. Neither city became influential for several centuries - neither were independent during Heraclius' lifetime. Ravenna was the capital of the exarchate - much more influentual. Also, Heraclius did not destroy or even sack Ctesiphon. You may be confusing Ctesiphon with Ganzak, a palatial city Heraclius sacked during his eastern campaign. Heraclius was no Alexander. He was no Trajan either. He did not get the opportunity to gaze on the ruins of Babylon and got nowhere near the Persian Gulf. He did however defeat the Sassanids against incredible odds and restore the borders to the status quo ante bellum. I suggest re-reading Ostrogorsky. --Tataryn77 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

History of Anatolia?
Why was the box "history of Anatolia" chosen the feature on the right in this article? The Byzantine Empire extended to much of Europe and even North Africa during the course of its history, and during the last century of its existence it had no possessions in Anatolia. It is widely understood to coincide with Medieval Greek civilization and all articles on Medieval Greek history redirect to it, so if one series should feature as most relevant, that would be Greek history. Dubbing Byzantine history as primarily a part of Anatolian history is obviously a choice of some Turkish users influenced by an ideology that tends to appropriate as "Turkish" any past civilization that flourished in Anatolia. One could imagine any number of other templates chosen e.g. history of the Balkans, history of Christianity, history of Eastern Orthodoxy etc. Even history of Turkey might make more sense: Istanbul/Constantinople is located in modern Turkey, but it is not located in Anatolia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.32.136 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)


 * I would have to agree. It is very Turkish biased.  It also assumes that Turkey is the direct inheritor of Byzantium, which is not a settled issue (see below).  Why not have it as "The History of Rome"?, or "Greece"?  I move that this to be removed. Dinky town   talk  14:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)


 * Would anyone object if I removed this section for the reasons above? Dinky town  talk  09:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Successor states
I suggest we add the three states that succeeded the Byzantine Empire upon the fall of Constantinople to the infobox: The Ottoman Empire, the Morea, and Trebizond.

The current situation is a result of a discussion about cutting back on the Byzantine Empire's successor states, which were excessively and vaguely listed. It ended in a decision to remove all the successor states from the infobox and simply leave a link to Legacy of Byzantium, probably because the discussion sparked many alternative proposals, such as adding Russia and removing the infobox entirely. The Empire lost a lot of territory over its history, and we can't list every state that took territory from it. However, I don't see why we don't simply list the three states that Byzantine territory became after the Empire's fall.

I don't feel strongly about removing or leaving the "Legacy" link, but it's certainly not necessary.  Swarm   X 05:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * I agree, and am not very happy about the whole "Legacy of Byzantium" idea, at least as the article stands today (and I cannot really consent to limiting "legacy" to "political succession"). However, given that both the Morea and Trebizond were mopped up within a few years (and since Morea was already a dependent Ottoman vassal before 1453, and Trebizond effectively independent since 1204), why not keep it simple and have just the Ottomans? That is the conventional progression in historiography as well. Or we could link to the successor states category. Constantine  ✍  06:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Those are valid points. Just including the Ottoman Empire sounds fine as well.  Swarm   X 18:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Since we mention the Ottoman Empire, which was an Islamic state, then I think we should also mention other Orthodox Balkan states (like the Serbian Despotate and the Principality of Wallachia) which were culturally closer to the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. The Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond were direct remnants of the Empire, so they should also be mentioned in a list. But, if a list is used, normally all states (which are described as successors by sources) should be added, to avoid adopting a specific point of view (we should avoid claiming that the Ottoman Empire was the only true successor). But, in my opinion, in this case it is better to use a sub-article for the successors issue, and "Legacy of Byzantium" should probably be renamed to "Successors of the Byzantine Empire" (and it should also be expanded). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem with infoboxes is that people tend to try and cram as much information into them as possible, while by their nature infoboxes are designed to provide (over-)simplified overview of key points. I don't think we do anyone a service by listing all the successor states, loosely defined (Umayyads or the myriad Latin principalities anyone?). We can always add a note with the successor states category or a separate article, but I feel rather strongly that the Ottomans should be there, as they were the main political and territorial heir, as well as the state that ended the Byz. Empire's existence and assumed its imperial mantle. It is not a coincidence that the article ends in 1453 and not in any other date. All the other cases have arguments against them, e.g. the Serbian Despotate is actually the successor of various older Serbian states independent from Byzantium from the 12th century already, and as for Wallachia, although a "cultural" successor it was never actually a part of Byzantium. For the purpose the successor fields are designed, the Ottomans qualify best by far. Constantine  ✍  20:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * BTW, I don't agree with the spirit of Cody's comment about the "true" successor. The Ottomans, whether we like it or not, conquered Byzantium and occupied pretty much the same territorial and political niche that it had done. That is a fact, as is the fact that even the conquered Orthodox populations saw in the sultans the heirs of the emperors. It has nothing to do with any perceived "legitimacy" or them being Islamic. If we go by "identity" or "cultural heritage", why not include the modern Greek state as well? Or Albania, since it uses the double-headed eagle in its flag? There's a reason such subjective criteria are avoided in infoboxes, and direct state succession is the only criterion used. Constantine  ✍  20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Sorry, but listing only the Ottoman Empire seems clearly like subjective POV (even if it might be a correct POV, and I do not think we do a real service to our readers, by showing them only one successor). Also, a link only to the Ottoman Empire, would probably not remain stable for too much time. A long list can be avoided by either using a sub-article (like "Legacy of Byzantium", and this was stable for enough time), or perhaps by linking to the category (like you suggested). (Regarding Greece and Albania, information about them can be added in the sub-article about the successors or legacy. And regarding Wallachia, during the time of Constantine I, the Empire also expanded in that region, and possibly also during Justinian's time.) Cody7777777 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm fully with Cplakidas on this one. He put the case very well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Yeah, we can't get too flexible in terms of what is or isn't a successor state. The Ottoman Empire is a successor state. No question about that. I think the Morea and Trebizond should both be included because they're the only two Byzantine/Greek successor states that outlasted the Byzantine Empire- the two Byzantine remnants. But being culturally close does not make a state a successor state. There should be no confusion about including states like that.  Swarm   X 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The role of the Ottoman Empire as a successor state is not questioned here, but even if it can be considered the most legitimate successor, it is not the only one. And regarding the Balkan states, they were not only closer culturally, these states also had territory which had been part of the Empire at some point, and their rulers also saw themselves as successors to the Byzantine Roman Emperors. But there are sources which mention even Russia as a successor, despite the fact that it did not gain any former territory of the Empire until around the 18th century (and in my opinion, it is not a true successor state, but normally we should not ignore sources because we think they're wrong). As far as I see, the best ways to avoid this issue, are either to link to a sub-article discussing about successors, or link to the successors category. Cody7777777 (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Many states claimed to be the successor of Byzantium. Many states were culturally influenced by Byzantium as well. That's not necessarily the same as being Byzantium's successor states, however. Theoretically, any state that branches out of Byzantine territory, or somehow takes Byzantine territory is a successor state. We really should just keep it simple though. The Ottomans conquered the Byzantine Empire, and Morea and Trebizond were the two Byzantine remnants that outlasted the empire. That's the reasoning for including those three states.  Swarm   X 20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The sources mentioned earlier, have actually described Russia as a successor state, not just as a cultural successor. To avoid including it (and also other states), we would need to draw a line (between who can be added or excluded) based on our subjective criteria (and this would go against Wikipedia's principles). And we had lists before, and they did not remain stable for long. But even if we include in a list the Ottoman Empire, the Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond, there should also be a fourth link leading to a successors/legacy sub-article, to allow the inclusion of more details about this. However, I do not see what is the problem with showing only a link to a sub-article or category about successors, which seems simple enough, and without involving any subjective criteria. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Russia claimed the imperial and religious heritage of Byzantium as "Third Rome", which is first and foremost an ideological construct articulated some time after the end of the Byzantine Empire. That is not the same as claiming to be its successor state. State succession is decided on political criteria, religion or ideology do not enter into it: the Federal Republic of Germany is a successor state of the Third Reich, Russia is a successor state to the Soviet Union, etc. From the moment where "end of the Byzantine Empire" means "Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453", the situation is clear-cut. The Ottomans were the successor state to the Byzantine Empire, period. They captured what remained of Byzantine territory, including the all-important capital, they were recognized by the Byzantine population as being the new masters, etc. Bundling them together with a few dozen other states that at various times branched off from Byzantium is disingenuous. Regarding Trebizond and Morea, I would only repeat what I wrote above. Constantine  ✍  11:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * The Ottoman Empire can indeed be considered the most legitimate successor (and that is why it should be shown first in sub-articles or lists about this issue), but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should ignore other points of view. And I have still not seen some strong arguments against showing a link either to a sub-article discussing about successors, or to the category (which you have actually suggested earlier). And regarding Russia, although they might be mistaken, there are sources which have described it as a political successor state. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
 * I am glad we agree on the main point. How about having the Ottomans and a second link to the category? Constantine  ✍  07:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * Your proposal is acceptable for me (although, for the second link I would have preferred we had a sub-article discussing about this issue). Cody7777777 (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)
 * There is no "issue". A successor state is "what came after?" That's it. Russia's claim to be the legitimate successor to the Byzantine empire is covered amply in Third Rome. Fine, the Tsardom of Russia is the "third Rome". It's the successor of the Roman Empire, sure. But it's never considered to be a "successor state" in this context. Okay? Please stop talking about this. Likewise, it's not "the Ottoman Empire is the successor state, period." There were dozens of successor states. There are two options. We can either list all of them (which is reasonably done by creating a list at Successor states of the Byzantine Empire (which I can guarantee will be a disaster because of people who want to include this or that), or we can choose some. The way I see it, the only reasonable way of choosing "some" is to choose the three that succeeded Byzantium after the fall of Constantinople. Yes, one of those three conquered the other two within years. It doesn't matter. Two Byzantine remnants outlasted the empire. Picking and choosing of facts is absolutely terrible history.   Swarm   X 01:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi All - I just found about this discussion just now so my apologies for jumping in late. I believe we all know each other from our own discussion on this subject from nearly two years ago here..., together with snot-flavored coffee and hell-destined flaming infoboxes... I wanted to reinstate my opposition to the Ottoman Empire as a 'successor state' of Byzantium and re-afirm my support for Czarist Russia until 1917. As we all remember, the definition of a successor state was never clarified back then, some even mentioning the Venetian Republic as a successor state, regarding the Fourth Crusade, which I compared with Bonny and Clyde being employed as FDIC bankers by robbing it... I have also been looking at the Legacy of Byzantium article and have seen little progress since I started back in 2009. I thought we had a good agreement back then. I noticed that some were not happy with the title, I'm okay with that change, but we should continue to state our case(s) for the respective reasons for the respective 'successor states' on the Legacy article. To include another infobox describing the non-clarified "successor state" term in this article again would be just starting up the same debate again.

So, would you like 2% or whole milk with that snot-flavored espresso...? Dinky town  talk  03:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * @Swarmx: The Ottomans were certainly not the only successor state, yes. However they were by any definition the main successor state. Picking and choosing of facts is indeed terrible history, but who says that Ottomans plus Morea and Trebizond isn't "picking and choosing"? If we include the two Byzantine remnants, one of which was fully independent since 1204 and the other an Ottoman vassal, why not include Venice, the Duchy of Naxos, the Serbian Despotate etc all the way back to the Umayyads? We have to draw a line somewhere. We have three choices: a) include only a link to a category or list b) include as many states as we can or c) include only some. b) is not unprecedented, but the list would be huge (perhaps we could group the Latin states together using the Latinokratia link). a) is the current solution, I would be mostly OK with changing the link to the category, but it sort of defeats the purpose of an infobox which is to present facts in a simple way. Plus, as I said, I feel that the Ottomans should be shown. For the average reader who wants to know "who/what came after Byzantium", the Ottomans are the simplest answer, and that is what infoboxes are for. Lumping them together with the likes of Naxos, Trebizond and Serbia places them on an equal footing, which is not historically accurate. Except for Russia, and then only in terms of "this is what the Russians themselves declared", the Ottomans are the only state that has any real claim to being the successor of Byzantium in terms of territory, capital and population, not to mention imperial pretensions. @Dinkytown. I am dead set against including Russia. The "Third Rome" concept was a propaganda tool and legitimization device which the Tsars used when it suited them. We could otherwise include Fascist Italy as a successor state to the Roman Empire, or Napoleonic France to the Carolingian Empire, and these cases would even make more sense in territorial terms. Constantine  ✍  06:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Back in 2009, I set up this criteria for the definition of a "successor state":
 * 1) Territorial successor: which can include every country that existed from 565-1453 covering the region from Southern Spain to Armenia, from northern Italy to Egypt - dozens of Medieval nation states (you can include the US as it occupied facist Italy);


 * 2) Cultural successor: a half dozen Orthodox states, Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Wallachia, Greece, Armenia, maybe a few others;


 * 3)Military successor: Ottoman Empire, then Hapsburg Spain, then Britian, then France, then Britain (again), then US, etc...


 * As you can see, its not a simple definition. The only reason why the Ottoman Empire is being put forward as a successor state is that it occupied what was left of Constantinople.  If we use that criteria, then the French Third Republic was a successor, and Queen Elizabeth II is still a Byzantine Empress.  Both these countries occupied Constantinople as part of the Treaty of Sèvres following World War One.  In February 1919, the French general entered the city on a white horse, emulating Mehmed's entrance in 1453 after the Fall of Constantinople, signifying that Ottoman sovereignty over the city was over.  You can continue that, if the Ottoman Empire was the "successor" state, then the Byzantine Empire never died, in the form of Bayezid Osman who is still the official Ottoman sultan today.  If you are going to accept the Ottomans as the successor, then all of the above must be accepted also.


 * Russia on the other hand, inherited everything that was Byzantine; culture, religion, status as 'Defender of the Faith', etc. The Turks only occupied what ruins were left in Constantinople; different religion, objectives, and were not considered "Roman" by any monarchy in the West.


 * Expand the Legacy of Byzantium page and put forward everyone's arguments there. Russia, until 1917, was the foremost successor (Serbia, Wallachia surcumed before 1453).  Anyone else is a distant meager second. Dinky town   talk  14:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dinkytown, come on, you do realize that "successor state" does not mean "continuation", do you? Because what you are writing above is pure sophistry... You are taking arguments out of context, equating temporary military occupation with state succession, take events out of all proportion and make some rather preposterous claims trying to do what? To disprove that the Ottomans are a successor state? Sorry, that is nonsense: First, "state succession" is political, "cultural succession" is a whole other animal that is not limited by borders. Second, Russia tried to set itself up as a Byzantium-in-exile, but no one in his right mind would claim that Russian culture, political structure etc were direct continuations from the Byzantine model. The influence was great, but it resulted in a new distinctly Russian melange, which was lacking in some key ingredients. Third, the Ottomans actually inherited the Byzantine territories and population, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the entire Church structure, as well as institutions in government and finance. So the statement "the Turks only occupied what ruins were left in Constantinople" is flat out wrong. The continuities between the two regimes are great and well-known. Fourth and most importantly however, the Ottomans took the imperial city. Anyone who held Constantinople was the rightful emperor, regardless whether the territory he controlled stretched to the Euphrates or just to the local suburbs. That is why Byzantium ended in 1453 and not in 1204, and that is why the state that conquered them was their successor both in the eyes of contemporaries like Michael Critobulus and Gennadios Scholarios as well as for dozens of modern scholars. We can argue about what to include in the infobox or not, but your thesis on this point is indefensible. Constantine  ✍  15:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Dinkytown, you obviously don't understand what a successor state is, but the closest thing is what you call a "territorial successor". However, it's not every state that existed in former Byzantine territory, it's simply the one state that came after. I would recommend not complicating this discussion by introducing your criteria of what a successor state is. What you call a "cultural successor" and a "military successor" simply are not successor states. Calling Russia a "successor" of Byzantium is done in an entirely different context than what we're discussing here.  Swarm   X 19:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cplakidas & Swarm - There is nothing new here that wasn't discussed two years ago. I provided then what I interpreted of the possible terms of "succession".  First and foremost I wanted to describe that there can be no clear-clear cut definition of "successor state" within this context.  There are going to be many definitions and countries on this this.  That is why the Legacy of Byzantium is important and should be continued.  Cplakidas - You are correct about Michael Critobulus and Gennadios Scholarios in their claims that Mehmet was the 'protector' of Orthodoxy.  I will even agree that Mehmet did his best in carry out the continuity of the Orthodox structure.  However, it was not for the benefit Orthodoxy or the Legacy of Byzantium: he appointed patriarchs to suit his aims in pacifying the Greek population, and; not to give reasons for the West to launch a crusade against Constantinople; he made Aye Sophia into a mosque; suppressed Orthodox conversion and dictated Orthodox policy.  There was no independent structure of the Church.  The Russians claimed after the Council of Florence that they became sole leaders of Orthodoxy when the patriarch of Constantinople agreed to the Latin Union.  The Turks were/are Muslim, Turkic People with different customs, perspectives and agendas.  You state the "..Anyone who held Constantinople was the rightful emperor." That was true during Byzantine times, the Sultan was not part of that Byzantine tradition, but their own.  However, that makes the occupation of Constantinople as part of the Treaty of Sèvres all the more relevant.


 * Compare this with the present-day Dali Lama. I would not call Communist Party of China representatives of Tibetan Buddhism, just because the Chinese controlled Tibet.


 * I am also not the only one claiming that Russia is the sole (or at least major) successor/inheritor of Byzantine Legacy. Quoting George Ostrogorsky:


 * "...Ivan III ...introduced Byzantine ceremonial into Moscow and soon made Russia the leader of the Christian East as Byzantium had once before. If Constantinople was the New Rome, Moscow was to become the 'Third Rome'. The great traditions of Byzantium, it's faith, its political ideas, its spirituality, lived on through the centuries in the Russian Empire." History of the Byzantine State, p.572.


 * This discussion should be on the Legacy page, rather than here. I don't believe an infobox here is going to be accurate.  This page is also long enough.  I also don't believe there is going to be only one answer on this question, that's why it should be on Legacy. Dinky town   talk  20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A lot of good things were discussed two years ago and that discussion was completely derailed because of talk of Russia, Byzantine legacy and a whole lot of other nonsense. Let me say it again: we're not talking about "successor/inheritor of Byzantine Legacy". No one is saying Moscow isn't the "third Rome". But that's an entirely different type of "successor". We're talking about the states that immediately succeeded in controlling Byzantine territory. There are dozens, so I say we should list the three successor states that came after the fall of Constantinople. Russia is not relevant to this discussion.  Swarm   X 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The "nonsense" that you described was a result of a consensus that a lot of people negotiated on, some on this talk page now, and the large majority approved. It was handled in an amicable way and the result was a good product on a difficult issue. I suggest that you re-read that discussion as it had nothing to do with - in your words, "derailing" any issue. All of it surrounded the issue of what was a 'successor' - which had not a simple answer, since Byzantine culture spread far and wide beyond its borders. That's why I re-iterated the list above to remind people of the possibilities. That's also the reason why the Byzantine Legacy page was created to deal with this issue. That page still has the potential of being as good article as this one.

What you are suggesting is this - a territorial succession, and yes that would include dozens of nations. Why just three countries? Why just territorial succession? There are many different types of 'successors' that are equal in weight. The Legacy page was supposed to address all of them and keep this fight off this good article. Dinky town  talk  01:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * A great number of people in the previous discussion had no idea what they were talking about, I assure you. And, the people who "agreed" on the legacy link all expressed different opinions, and this turned up as a compromise. As I said above, a "successor state" is closest to what you call a "territorial successor", but it's still not the same thing as your definition above. Why just three states? Because listing the Ottoman Empire and the two Byzantine remnants is simpler than listing all of them, although listing all is another solution. Listing only the Ottoman Empire is yet another solution, one that I'm about to throw my support behind. Why just "territorial succession"? Because what you call a "cultural successor" or a "military successor" isn't what historians consider a "successor state" to be. The "successor" field in the infobox applies to this one specific context of the word "successor" (as in "successor state"), not your personal, abstract definitions. There's nothing wrong with having a "legacy" page. The problem is not listing any of the Byzantine Empire's successors and linking to that page in a field that's reserved for successors.  Swarm   X 02:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Well, its pretty presumptuous of you to claim that "A great number of people in the previous discussion had no idea what they were talking about..." That is not a good way to start out any negotiation or dialog.  However, the good news is that this issue has already been resolved through the Legacy link where the entire issue could be discuss to nauseousness.


 * Listing only "...the Ottoman Empire and the two Byzantine remnants is simpler..." would be your own opinion, but also it would/could be misleading (for all the reasons described before), as nearly a dozen people had their own lists to bring that were as equally reasonable but not agreeable for different reasons. "Successor state" is not the same as "territorial successor" (for all the reasons described).


 * I would like to know what historian defined what a "successor state" to be. I quoted George Ostrogorsky for the case for Russia, but I know other people would disagree.


 * But what we could agree on was to create a Legacy page - which I still support. We all want a good Byzantine page and we all have good contributions to make.  That's why we have to be nice to each other... Dinky town   talk  03:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Okay, let's go back. Tsarist Russia is the successor state to the Grand Duchy of Moscow. It arguably inherits Byzantium's legacy and culture. However, it succeeded the Duchy. Do you disagree with this concept?  Swarm   X 07:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)
 * [[Image:Qolsharif edit.JPG|75px|right|upright|[[Qolsharif mosque]] in Kazan.]]




 * Well, yes I do disagree - the Russians received their Byzantine influences from several sources, not just one. The Kievan Rus' were the first to be Christianized (Orthodox) in the 800's, later to be taken over by the Grand Duchy of Moscow who were also Orthodox in the 1200s.  The Cyrillic alphabet came from several sources into Russia - all originally from the Byzantines.  And a united Russia continued with that multi-lateral legacy long after the Byzantines were gone, such as in Neo-Byzantine architecture for example in the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, and even in Byzantine rite.  There are other examples of how the Byzantines heavily influenced areas they have never been, such the Islamic architecture of Iran or Kazakhstan.  We don't have this issue with the Austria-Hungarian Empire, or even the Ottoman Empire for that matter.  The Byzantines were very far flung beyond their borders - very unique in this regard. I got the largest Byzantine Church in the Western Hemisphere a few miles from my house - hows that for *really* cool... :D Dinky town   talk  05:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * That's nice, but I'm inclined to point out that none of that has anything to do with succession of states.  Swarm   X 07:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)
 * You're not reading anything above are you? Your succession of states has nothing to do with your infobox; are out of context with the issue at hand; are only related to twentieth century diplomatic definitions and conventions, and yet it strengthens my case:
 * "...Succession may refer to the transfer of rights, obligations, and/or property from a previously well-established prior state...to the new one... Transfer of rights, obligations, and property can include overseas assets (embassies, monetary reserves, museum artifacts), participation in treaties, membership in international organizations, and debts.... [and] ... Cultural continuity ."
 * The US take over of Iraq is more fitting example than Constantinople. So, what Byzantine treaty obligations was Mehmed interested in honoring after his troops looted Hagia Sophia?

(unindent) Dinkytown, your argument essentially boils down to "the bad Turks destroyed Byzantium, they did not respect it so how can they be its successors?" Well, they can, because "state succession" is is not about "who succeeded X culture/civilization", but the answer to "what state entity succeeded state X in a specific territory"? Have a look at any infobox around: you won't find modern Greece succeeding the Byzantines, you won't find modern Bulgaria succeeding the 2nd Bulgarian Empire, you won't find modern Serbia succeeding the Serbian Empire. You will find Italy succeeding the Austrian Empire, you will find the Ottomans succeeding the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo), Austria, Hungary and a half-dozen other states with different national cultures succeeding Austria-Hungary, the CIS states succeeding the USSR, or modern Greece, Serbia, Albania etc succeeding the Ottomans, etc. The criterion is never the culture of the successor state, it is whether it controls part or all of the defunct state's territory. The issue of treaty commitments is irrelevant for the Middle Ages, and in the context this discussion, a red herring. And furthermore, denying cultural continuity when the bulk of the population was the same is highly dubious cherry-picking: Orthodox Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians no longer governed themselves, but that doesn't mean they or their culture vanished overnight. Indeed, the Greeks at least remained as "Byzantine" as they ever were, and IMO far more so than the Russians ever were... Constantine  ✍  10:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Cplakidas, I can agree with a succession state infobox, except to two reasons: 1) Turks were Muslim and thus not a inheritor of Orthodoxy, and; 2) Byzantine culture spread far beyond their borders, like no other nation state has. The "successor state" infobox  works very well for the examples you described and they *are* very informative.  You stated that culture had nothing to do with "successor states".  This goes back to the definition of "successor state" again.  When I first saw that phrase I thought "inheritor" - and so did many people two years ago.  If we can explain the definition of "successor state" within the box (as not done with others), and also describe nation states or issues heavily influenced by Byzantium for reason #2 above, then we might have a deal (i.e. Kievan Rus', Norvgord, Moscova, Islamic Architecture etc.).  But you realize that is a potential fight to break out that the Legacy page was an attempt to solve.


 * I know your Greek, and quite frankly - Mr. Byzantine. You've done some good work on this site and others.  This has been one of the few times we've disagreed.  Regarding being "...more Byzantine".  IMO the common folk never stopped being Byzantine, one of the reasons why I want to go not just to Mistra, but also the environs to learn what the people are like, something that I tried to pick up when I was in Turkey.  However, you've read my info page and know that I am Sami.  For a long time, the Sami of Sapmi never considered us North American "Sami", only as 'want-a-be's.  That has change these past twenty years from documentaries that the Sami of Sapmi learned/re-learned traditions that we kept, but they didn't.  I imagined that same would apply for some Russians as well.


 * BTW: Completely off subject - George Papandreou was born in the town were I live (still trying to find his old address). Greece has been in the news for many months here.  I don't know your politics, but you can either blame him or praise him for having American roots. :)


 * So the question comes up, how can we resolve the issue of 'cultural successor' along side and equal weight with "territorial or successor state" in an infobox format? <b style="color:blue;">Dinky</b> town  talk  22:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)


 * Byzantium's huge influence on other cultures, as well as the fact that the Ottoman Empire had a completely different religion and culture, have no bearing on the fact that the Ottoman Empire was a successor state. No, the Ottomans didn't succeed Byzantium as the center of Orthodox Christianity. It doesn't matter. The Ottoman state still succeeded the Byzantine one. The inheritor of the cultural legacy is not necessarily the successor *state*. In this case, it isn't. As for putting the cultural successor in the infobox anyway, that's something we simply don't do, ever. "Cultural succession" is a highly debatable topic, and while Russia is one claimant to Byzantine culture and legacy, it's not the only one.  Swarm   X 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Even if we also have a direct link to the Ottoman Empire, we should still have another link to the legacy sub-article. Although, I do not have any major problem using a link to the category, my first choice on this issue remains linking to the legacy/successors sub-article, since it was intended for this purpose, and it should also be noted, that the claim made by rulers of various states, to be successors of the Emperors is more a political act, than a cultural one. Cody7777777 (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Swam - Not to describe the unique cultural successor would be disingenuous. That's why we keep coming back to the definition of "successor state" - it dose matter.  You said that "Cultural succession" is a highly debatable topic..."  That's true...  That's why this was all going to be explained in detail on the Legacy page.  Trying to describe this topic in a simple infobox on this page would be controversial.  Again, I never said that Russia was the only cultural inheritor - there are many.  That's why we need the Legacy page to explain all this.  People are looking for a simple solution to this problem in a simple infobox - it's just isn't there.  Now, how would you resolve this issue in an infobox format? <b style="color:blue;">Dinky</b> town   talk  15:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Legacy link in infobox?
Guys, nobody disputes the validity of a Legacy of Byzantium article. So how about the people interested in that go over to that page and actually work on improving it. The question is, what is the link doing in the country infobox. And since this is the question, this immediately ceases to be a discussion about history, becoming nerdy bickering about Wikipedia infoboxes.


 * The "s1" slot in the "former country infobox" is not for "legacy" articles.

And that's already the end of this discussion about Wikipedia infoboxes. By all means develop the "legacy" article. Summarize it in a section in this article. Do whatever you like to improve our coverage of this. But please stop making it an issue of the "former country" infobox, because it isn't one. --dab (𒁳) 13:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)
 * As discussed before, while the Ottoman Empire is probably the most legitimate successor (for which reason I'm not against also having a direct link to the Ottoman Empire), it is not the only successor, and Wikipedia should not ignore other points of view. The sub-article "Legacy of Byzantium" was intended to be used for this purpose (a link in the infobox successor section), and it should have probably been named "Successors of the Byzantine Empire". The sub-article obviously needs more expansion, but that is not a reason to delete the sub-article, and I had actually hoped, that by placing a link to it there, it might have helped to attract more easily editors interested in improving it. Other possibilities might be linking to the category of successors, or perhaps linking to the Byzantine Empire. But I would have preferred we had an article discussing about this issue, which could offer more explanations about the successors. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are completely ignoring dab's point. This is not something for the infobox. At that position in the box, any link to a sub-article can only be an easter-egg link. Readers don't expect that link, they have no way of finding it, nothing in the design of the infobox guides them to it. The links to actualy successor states are practicable only to the extent that these states can be represented by a reasonably well-known, recognizable flag or other visual symbol. Everything else is simply beyond what an infobox can and should do. Please just stop obsessing over this issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The problem is that it would be subjective POV to show only the Ottoman Empire (even if this is a correct POV), but showing in the infobox a list of all states would be too long. But as I said earlier, I do not have any major problem linking either to the category of successors or to the Byzantine Empire (at least, until the sub-article intended for this issue is expanded). I would prefer a sub-article more than the category, because in an article we could actually explain the reasons why these states are shown (it could also be stated there that the Ottoman Empire had much more former imperial provinces than other states, and in this way suggest that it is more legitimate). And I have to say, that I do not really understand what is so wrong with providing readers with a quick access to a sub-article about this issue. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You are still ignoring the point. (And there is no "POV" involved in stating that the Ottoman Empire took over the capital and eventually 100% of the territory that was controlled by Byzantium just prior to Ottoman expansion. If there is a POV dispute over whether it is legitimate to call the O.E. the principal successor of the B.E., and I mean a real dispute, out in the real world, not just a dispute in the minds of some Wikipedia editors, then point me to it. Failing that, the whole issue about alleged POV sensitivities is a canard.) But that aside, again, why are you ignoring dab's point? The infobox is not designed for links like the one you want to add. You know, ignoring this argument yet another time is not going to make it go away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Indeed, there is no "POV" involved in stating that the Ottoman Empire took over the capital and eventually 100% of the territory that was controlled by Byzantium just prior to Ottoman expansion, but there is POV in claiming that there were no other successors to this state. And I have not disputed that the Ottoman Empire is the principal successor to this state (and for this reason we can have a direct link to the Ottomans, while also having another link for more details), but that doesn't mean it is the only one (the category also shows more states). Russia, and also several balkan states, have claimed to be successors of this state, and I do not see what is wrong with informing our readers about this. (And even if we don't like it, there are sources claiming this.) And regarding Dab's point, as far as I understand that infobox section is meant for allowing readers quick access to various successors, and several infoboxes of other articles (like the current one from Ottoman Empire article) show a long list of states, and using a link to a sub-article, a section or to the category, is in my opinion better than having a long list of states in the infobox. And also as far as I see, Dab has not actually insisted for the removal of this link from the second slot, he insisted for adding the Ottoman Empire in the first slot (if I'm mistaken, I apologize). If you prefer we use a link to the category of successors (which was proposed earlier by Constantine as a compromise) instead of linking to the sub-article or to the Byzantine Empire, I won't oppose, but I still disagree with leaving there only the Ottoman Empire. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * "Claiming that there were no other successors"? But nobody is doing any such thing. An infobox isn't for making any such claims, and it couldn't make any such claims. If we show only one state there, it means we have made an editorial decision to concentrate on the most significant. Only the mind of an obsessed ideologue could possibly misread that as an intended statement of exclusivity. You really, really must stop obsessing over this f..ing box. And you have still not substantiated your claim that there is any "POV dispute" about this issue, outside your own mind. You have demonstrated that some people sometimes choose to use "successor" in a different sense from what this box is about, but you have not demonstrated that there is a dispute between people who do so. – That said, you have now for the third time ignored Dab's and my main point. When will you finally understand that we are talking about an issue of simple, practical reader-friendliness? This slot in the infobox is not designed for links to subarticles that cannot be represented by a simple visual, recognizable visual symbol. Is that so difficult to understand? The link is useless, because no reader can possibly know what to expect before clicking it, and indeed few readers will even see it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Back to consensus from 2009
Actually, re-reading the old discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 10, I see there was a very clear consensus for one solution: a complete removal of the whole set of links from the infobox. Its implementation was merely stonewalled and subverted by the same single user through massive edit-warring. I will reinstate the consensus version again tomorrow, unless somebody else beats me to it. this warning is also still relevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Showing only one successor (or no successors) can give the impression that there are no other successors, since most infoboxes have this section, and they usually show multiple states (when this is the case). (And at least in my opinion, removing that section entirely, makes the infobox look bad, especially when compared to those from other articles.) And during the discussions from 2009, no one claimed (including yourself) to oppose using a link to a successors/legacy sub-article (there was disagreement about using lists of states in the infobox, and no one else wished to continue discussing about these lists), and the fact that this link has remained there for nearly two years, proves that there was a consensus for allowing it (even if not everyone was very happy about it), and it was also more stable than the previous lists. I do not deny that I might had been very insistent about this issue, but you seem to have become obsessed with removing it. And you're accusing me for disruptive editing, because I want to keep a link which can allow a quicker access for readers interested in finding more information about this issue and avoid giving the impression that there is just one successor. I do not like to assume bad faith, but your recent actions seem to have been disruptive enough (especially for an administrator), you have not waited the conclusion of this discussion, and you have attempted to remove this, four times in less than 24 hours. The sub-article did not offered yet too much information, but it was a start (and I was hoping more experienced users could have expanded it, but when I have more time I'll probably try to do it), however I do not see any serious problem using a link either to the successors' category or to the Byzantine Empire (and if we need to add a flag, we could just add a "double-headed eagle", especially since this was a symbol used by some of these successors). If there really cannot be any agreement about this, a mediation will probably be necessary (but I would not really want to waste more time with this). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * The idea with the link to the succession article was not yet on the table when the discussion was done in 2009. And the fact that it has been sitting there since you edit-warred it into the page doesn't mean there was consensus for it, but only that people were tired of your stonewalling. You have still not addressed the principal challenge to this link: there is no conceivable way to package it, within the framework of the infobox template, in such a way that a reader will know what to expect from clicking it. (The idea to clothe it in some random flag such as a "double-headed eagle" just goes to show how absurd this all is. The double-headed eagle is primarily the symbol of Byzantium itself and is already displayed in exactly that function right below; no reader could possibly expect to find a link to a "successor states" article underneath it. Fact is that there simply is no commonly understood, recognizable symbol that readers would consistently associate with "successor states of Byzantium".) – No, I am not willing to waste more time having "mediation" with you either, because I consider you personally unsuited for that. This is problem not about a content disagreement, but with a persistently disruptive personality (yours), and only administrative intervention will solve this. As I said, unless I hear a good reason against it from somebody else, I will reinstate the 2009 consensus version tomorrow; if you revert it a single time, we go straight to WP:AE to get an Arbcom-enforcement topic ban for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Future - Acutally, you are wrong on a few counts. First the Legacy concensus was created back in October 31, 2009 when I made this statement: How about in lue of the infobox successor state content, we have a section titled "Byzantium's Legacy". This could easy be an entire article on to itself."  Because of the complexity of Byzantium's History, creating a Legacy article seamed the best way to solve this issue.  I can go over all the issues I stated these past two years why this was, but I will refrain.  I've also notice that several people have switched opinions on this issue over these years.  I'm the one that filed the complaint against Cody, and he has now switched his opinion.  He is not alone on his position.  I have also noticed that you were on opposite sides then than now.  We should reinstate the Legacy link as that was agreed upon, develop that article, and then leave it alone.  It will resolved many problems in the future. <b style="color:blue;">Dinky</b> town   talk  21:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * There was certainly a consensus to create a section in the article, and/or a separate article, about "legacy". There was not even a mention of including a link to it in the infobox. That link was never agreed upon, and you too have now failed to explain how it could ever become practically user-friendly. It's a freaking blank white box, for Christ's sake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * So we're complaining about the link? Just link it in the info box, with "freaking blank white box" The Legacy sections was nixed because it would have been quite lengthy on an article that was already very long. The link in the infobox was established two years ago and there wasn't any complaints from you, or anyone else.  Why is this a problem now? <b style="color:blue;">Dinky</b> town   talk  22:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I've explained about four or five times why it is a problem. You are not listening. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Regarding the 2009 discussions, the proposal to use a link to the legacy sub-article in the infobox was also explicitly mentioned there, like in my post from the date 19:41, 8 November 2009, "As a compromise, I would propose that instead of adding states in that infobox successor section, the new article about the empire's legacy is added there once it is made, so in this way the infobox could direct the readers to the legacy article..." (and this was actually based on Dinkytown's suggestion of using that sub-article instead of a list of successor states), and no one claimed there to oppose. This proposal was implemented on 19:08, 1 December 2009 and there was no edit-war in this case. And regarding the "Double-Headed Eagle", it was used by several states who wanted to claim a succession from this state, Russia, Serbia, Wallachia, Albania, and there could be others. So I don't think using a "Double-Headed Eagle" as a symbol for other successors, would be wrong. (But in my opinion, even without a symbol this does not seem to be a major problem, and readers could check that link regardless of this.) Cody7777777 (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
 * A link is only useful if readers know in advance where it will take them. Everything else is an "easter-egg link". If a reader sees a flag or coat of arms, like a double-headed eagle, they will obviously expect to be taken to an article about a specific state. Perhaps they will think they recognise it, perhaps not. Perhaps they will think it's an article about Albania, or about Russia, or about the Habsburgs. More likely, in this context, they will just think it's a purely decorative repetition of the larger Byzantine eagle flag they see in the box right next underneath. What no reader could ever possibly figure out in that context is that it will lead them to a general article about "legacy of...". This suggestion is simply ridiculous. Moreover, even if a reader were to recognized the intended symbolism, there'd be a serious POV problem because that symbol would refer only to the Christian states that claimed ideological tradition, completely excluding the one factual successor, the Ottoman Empire, which didn't use the eagle (and which is still the first and probably the only entity that section actually ought to deal with, if we were to have it.) – That said, the reason that nobody objected to the link back then was that people were simply tired of dealing with your antics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we just go back to what we had a mear month ago such as here. I understand that the Turks did take over Constantinople, thus ending the (official) political continuity of the Empire, but later continued (debatable) by Morea, Tribizond, Moscova, Ottoman's, etc. But Byzantium has a complex history and influence that few other cultures/nation states can emulate. I used Liberia's connection with the United States as an example of cultural/political influences of a country going beyond the actual borders of a country. Because of the lengthy debate back in 2009, the Legacy article was a good compromise that people did not follow up on. I suggest that we follow up on that and move on. I see merit in everyone's position here, but we have to move on at some point. <b style="color:blue;">Dinky</b> town  talk  18:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)
 * You still "don't understand why"? No, apparently not. You really didn't hear that, did you. Read again why. Feel free to further develop that legacy article in any way you like, just leave it out of the box where it doesn't belong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Basileia Rhōmaiōn
I noticed that in the infobox as well as on the introductory paragraph of the article, the transliteration of Greek into English follows the rules of ancient Greek. Given the fact that the Byzantine Empire was established in 330AD and that Koine Greek had replaced Ancient Greek as lingua franca by that time, shouldnt transliterations use Medieval Greek phonology, i.e. /vasi'lia rɔ'mɛɔn/ - /rɔma'nia/ instead of /basileia rhōmaiōn/ - /rhōmanía/? --Philly boy92 (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)


 * IPA rendering has to be phonetic, of course. Basileia Rhōmaiōn however is not IPA rendering, but a simple transliteration as used by most relevant works: Basileus->basileia, and Rhomaios->Rhomaion... Constantine  ✍  06:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman successor flag
The Ottomans annexed the Byzantine territory, it would seam proper that their flag would succeed the Byzantine one. The legacy is important, of course, but it would be better placed at the conclusion of the article rather than the flag section. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * See the discussion two sections above, where it is currently proposed to change that. Thanks!  Swarm   X 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks, teaches me to read all the way...108.65.0.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

American English VS British English
I like to be blunt and honest so here it goes: The spelling issue seems to have flared up and all regular contributors are hereby invited to debate and agree upon the issue. I can live with either spelling, but PLEASE don't play the geographical card. To argue that this is an European subject and that therefore it should use the British spelling is simply foolish. The subject of this article is the Byzantine Empire inside the English wikipedia and this isn't about Europe versus the USA. What matters is the history of the article: Which spelling was used in the beginning, and are there any proper reasons to justify a change? IMHO this article probably uses a mix of both spellings because the article was improved by many ppl (some used AE, others used BE). Flamarande (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Might I also add that I live in Europe and that I honestly prefer BE (IMHO it is simply more correct: centre comes from central). However I don't like the use of "geographical excuses". As a matter of fact: the majority of the people of Wikipedia are Americans, the servers are in the USA. Jimbo is American.


 * From a cursory glance at the article history it seems its practice seems to have always been inconsistent, but with British forms ("centre" and "neighbour") predominating somewhat. For much of its history it had at least three instances of "centre"/"centred" and one of "center", whereas immediately prior to the recent edits it had three "neighbors" and two "neighbours", plus one instance of "vigour". The earliest instance of "neighbo(u)r" in the page history I could find was a "neighbour". Most of the major contributors of the page appear to have had more of a European than an American background. I'd go for a standardization towards the British forms, personally. About the rules, WP:ENGVAR indeed does not extend the "write X'ian topics in X'ian English" rule to the whole of Europe but restricts it to topics about English-speaking nations themselves. However, the "servers are in the USA, Jimbo is American" argument is of course just as far off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)


 * It isn't mean as an argument, it's meant to show how the reasoning: "The Byzantine Empire was in Europe and therefore British spelling should be used" is absolutely ridiculous. As I said: I do favour BE, but if you look closely there are 3 or 4 "centers" in the section 'Culture'. I can also live with the current status: use both spellings. It's largely the same for me. Flamarande (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * There isn't any "correct" spelling but throughout the article only American or British English should be used.-- — ZjarriRrethues — talk 22:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd go with Future's concise argument about standardisation toward Brit English and not using two forms of English in the same article which would make Wikipedia look like a parody of an encyclopedia ruled by committee, bent on not offending anyone and ending up with a linguistic salad. Not to mention that I duly appreciated Future's enlightened argument about Jimbo and the servers being located in the USA. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 23:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)
 * Per the reasoning above and as the article uses primarily British English, I've standardised it to BrE with a script. JonC Talk 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * Spelling is one of the various problems (or what I personally regard as a problem) that this article faces. Let's start from the infobox and this useless "Today part of" section. Eh?! What's the raison d'etre of this looong list and what's its encyclopedic value? As if Byzantium had stable borders for 1000 years or as if the fact that Byzantium is "today part of" Kosovo (?!) is of any encyclopedic importance. Additionally, if you look at the WP:SS indications, such as "main article" or "see also", they are a disaster. Dozens of articles without any consideration and without any real interest in whether they offer any additional info or not. Somebody even put under the "Legacy" sub-heading the Byzantium after Byzantium article (in order to advertise the book?) which consists of ... 4 lines! Not to speak about the "see also" list at the end. What I try to say is that the content of this article is of very high quality, exceeding any encyclopedic article about Byzantium and it can be compared with the content of serious scholarship articles. BUT this is not enough. There is obviously nobody to constantly watch the article and prevent whatever may threaten its FA status. And mainly (because stars are not everything and true stars are only in the sky) to prevent the downgrading of its overall quality, because if the proper attention is not given to the "packaging", then the content may also be endangered.Yannismarou (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)
 * I'd certainly support removing the "today part of" passage. This information could far more efficiently be transported by maps, if required. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Serious mistake
It has already been said by others long ago, but I agree. I consider it a serious mistake of the usually very accurate English Wikipedia to begin the "Byzantine Empire" under Constantine (¡!). Do we must to believe, for example, that Arcadius (born in Spain!, designed as Eastern Augustus by his father), and Theodosius II, the son and grandson of Theodosius I, members of the same theodosian dynasty, were'nt Roman emperors, but Greeks? So we forget official inscriptions like this: [Sa]lvis dd(ominis) n[n(ostris) 3] / [Val]entiniano [3] / [Vale]nte et Gratiano [3] Vale[3] / [Va]lentiniani [3] / [Th]eodosius [3]VG / [3] Arcadius Auggg(ustis) [3] / [3 r]ei pu[blicae (Stambolovo, Thrace, Année Épigraphique 1912, nr. 58)?

Theodor Mommsen was right when he put the beginning of the Byzantine Empire under Heraclius (emp. 610-641 AD), who was the first ceased to be called "Augustus" (he autodesignated himself as "basileus", the greek word for a king) and replaced the Latin by the Greek as official language of the Empire. These are two historical facts very significant, and I think with a lot more weight than any contemporary historical conventions. Until Heraclius, then, still lasted the "Eastern Roman Empire". Even the Jones and Martindale's Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge) came up to the death of Justinian (AD 565) and the death of Heraclius (AD 641), see for instance this 2003 paper, p. 25: "PLRE's choice of dates became, in general, the canonical dates not only for the late Roman empire, but also for late Antiquity"... I have now no more time, but in sum I do not understand this radical change in the English Wikipedia (since July 2011?). It would be too much to change here and in many other related articles, but not without consensus, obviously. So, I would like only suggest that all this category and ideas should be reviewed. Regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry, I forgot other suggestive catalogue: Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire - Project URL - King's College (London). It corresponded to the published (first part) The Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire I (PBE I, Ashgate, 2001), edited by J.R. Martindale (with D. Smythe). Aim: "The project's goal is to record in a computerised relational database all surviving information about every individual mentioned in Byzantine sources during the period from 641 to 867, and every individual mentioned in non-Byzantine sources during the same period who is 'relevant' (on a generous interpretation) to Byzantine affairs." Regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * History tells us that the Roman Empire was divided several times along an East/West axis only to be re-united again and again under strong rulers. However Constatine the Great established the city of Constantinople as a capital of the Roman empire (at the side of Rome). The last ruler to rule over the whole united empire was Theodosius the Great in 395. Then we have the unglorious end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 whose last ruler was Romulus Augustus. Notice that we have nearly 150 years between this date and Heraclius. So who is going to decide when was the start of the Eastern Roman Empire (also known as Byzantine Empire)? How are we decide that one ended and the other began? Exactly what's the all important diffrence between the two? The official language ("official" as in used by the central bureaucracy)? The use of a title? So if someone changes the official language and uses another name for the chief of state the whole state becomes something diffrent?
 * There simply is not official end of the Eastern Roman Empire and the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. Its government and inhabitants never proclaimed such an event and modern historians use diffrent dates and definitions for a probably gradual development which likely took centuries. In short: Momsen is not the only historian out there and his favourite date hasn't been adopted by the majority of historians. This article merely reflects current historigraphy as it is taught in schools of the English-speaking world. Flamarande (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Thanks you. Well, I think it's a good argument (of mine ;-)) if a chief of State adopts two changes that mark significant decisions, as was the case of Heraclius: 1) moving himself from being a Roman emperor, an Augustus, to be a Greek king, a basileus, and 2) cutting the official use of Latin in his empire and ordering to use only the Greek. Because in those days the chief of state was really the state, and if the chief changed, the state also.
 * On the other hand, I not only mentioned Mommsen! (though I thought he was a good author ;-(...). Anyway, with your final sentence: "This article merely reflects current historiography as it is taught in schools of the English-speaking world", did you exclude the -I think very English and quite authoritative- works and authors I cited earlier, of London, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.? In any case, in the 2003 paper I cited before, from the Proceedings of the British Academy 2003, p. 25, there is a summary of the reasons given, for example, by Martindale 1972, explaining why his (and of another's british authors) Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire - Project URL - King's College (London)) began in 641 BC. Maybe you could check it out.
 * Anyway, I think that the things are not so clear as they are now displayed in this article on the Byzantine Empire and his many related (those of all the roman emperors from Constantine I, for instance), and that there are powerful arguments against. Constantine I founded a new imperial residence in Constantinople (the name Byzantium came also later), based on the new tetrarchical concept; but he did not found the capital of the Byzantine Empire. And, for the aftermath of Theodosius I, an empire divided into two does not mean two different empires. Regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)
 * I suggest you try Encyclopedia Britannica . Take a look at the list of rulers: it begins in 476. This isn't something which we can debate and decide for ourselves. We only reflect what is taught in school.
 * I also disagree with you on many points. However far from me to say that I'm right and that you're wrong.
 * 1st) Heraclius never proclaimed a new state or a new beginning. The notion that if "in those days the chief of state was really the state, and if the chief changed, the state also" is interresting precisely because he never proclaimed a new state or a new beginning. Therefore if we are bound by ancient proclamations we have to refuse that date.
 * 2nd) Constantinople doesn't seem to have been a mere imperial residence. It seems to have been re-founded as a full-fleged capital to such an extent that it even had a seperate Roman senate.
 * 3rd) This has nothing to do with "a new tretrarchical concept" because the Tetrachy was already dead and buried. Constantine knew this because he helped to bury it. The idea of an East/West division on the other hand was becoming a de facto standard.
 * 4th) The aftermath of Theodosius was IMHO the turning point (he was de facto the last ruler over the whole empire). The Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire would follow diffrent foreign policies in which they played the barbarian invaders against each other. They even fought against each other. States which fight against each other are diffrent states unless you whish to argue that these wars were mere civil wars.
 * 5th) There are certainly many arguments against. There are also many arguments in favour. The whole issue is unclear and historians admit that it is unclear. This article won't decide the issue. We will not decide the issue. We won't choose a historian who choose a particular date and follow his book to the end. We can and will mention the most common dates and the reasons behind them and that's the end of it. For a good example go to the article Roman Empire and look for the date of its beginning. There isn't single date, there are several important dates commonly used by historians and writers. Flamarande (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

- Sorry, I read your answer now. Well, I'll take your own last sentences (in "5th"): "There are certainly many arguments against. There are also many arguments in favour. The whole issue is unclear and historians admit that it is unclear..." Altough I can't see the "many arguments in favour", anyway that seems to mean that things are not clear. However, when one reads, for example here, that Arcadius (born in Spain, biological son of Theodosius I) "was the Byzantine Emperor from 395 to his death", and so the emperors who succeeded him, it is clear for me that Wikipedia has sided and does not reflect the existing uncertainties, no doubts, which is in contradiction with what you yourself said, and, most important, with the values of Wikipedia. And this has happened very recently, without anything new that clearly justifies it. So, sorry, I still believe, like others, that it is a serious mistake. Finally, thank you very much for sending me to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but you will understood that any professional historian will prefer the approach of the experts concerned in particular with the Byzantine Prosopography (ut supra) that do not begin it, as Mommsen done, until the year 641 A.D. Regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)


 * History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume 1, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Vasilʹev
 * History of the Byzantine State, Georgije Ostrogorski, p22, The Early Byzantine state:Its development and Characteristics (324-610)
 * The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Elizabeth Jeffreys, John F. Haldon, Robin Cormack, p3, Byzantine studies are concerned with the history and culture of what has come to be known as the Byzantine Empire, that is, the empire of East rome. This was centred on the city of Constantinople, generally agreed to have been founded in 324 by the emperor Constantine to be the captial of the eastern portions of the Roman empire.
 * New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries, P. Magdalino.
 * The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453:Sources and Documents, Cyril A. Mango.
 * The Byzantine Economy, Angeliki E. Laiou, Cecile Morrison, This is a concise survey of the economy of the Byzantine Empire from the fourth century AD to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
 * A History of the Byzantine state and society, Warren T. Treadgold, p103, The Formation of Byzantine Society 284-457.
 * Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565-1204, John F. Haldon, p1, ''The term "Byzantine empire" refers to the easter Roman empire from the end of the "late Roman" period in the eastern and central Mediterranean/Balkan region(from the sixth century, therefore) to the fifteenth century, that is to say, from the time when a distinctively East Roman political formation began to evolve with the recognition of the cultural divisions between "Greek East" and the "Latin West" in the empire's political structure, to the fall of constantinople on 29 May 1453 at the hands of the Ottoman sultan Mehmet II "Fatih", "the Conqueror".
 * A cursory search results in most stating 4th century as the beginning of the Byzantine empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

- Well, Kansas Bear, I guess I surely could also build many literature in the opposite direction. But I think this is not the problem. 1) We have a city that for centuries we discuss was not called Byzantium, but Constantinopolis (ad ex. in coins CONOB = CON(stantinopolis) OB(ryzum)). 2) We have a people who never called themselves "Byzantines", but Rhomaioì (even the Turks recognized their enemies as "Romans"). 3) We have some emperors who saw themselves as heirs and successors of the Roman Empire. 4) Who used Latin as the official language until the mid seventh century AD. 5) They were named Augusti in their official documents as well in their currencies... etc. On the negative side, 6) we have no historical documents attesting to the existence of a "Byzantine Empire" in the centuries III, IV, V, VI, VI... But all this is ignored, no matter how many modern authors wish to defend it. The problem hic et nunc is that, not being clear nor the definition nor the time limits of the Byzantine Empire, since some months in the English Wikipedia all has been changed directly, without a single explanation, without even reflect the background of historical debate that exists. That seems to me not fair or objective. And I think this is not to resolve with a mere list of authors who think so; we know there are authors for and against. For my part I have stressed the problem, and I think that's enough. I leave you with these beautiful coin of Heraclius, a North African, a "Byzantine Emperor" which still defined itself, in Latin, as "Dominus Noster," "Augustus" and "Pater Patriae", as any Roman emperor in the third or fourth century. He wrote in their reverses Victoria Augusta, and his children were yet named Constantinus and Constans.

To end: Certainly I prefer to stay on the side of a great writer contemporary of Heraclius, Isidore of Seville. Writing his definitions of cities, he wrote that circa 627-630 A.D.: [42] ''Constantinopolim urbem Thraciae Constantinus ex nomine suo instituit, solam Romae meritis et potentia adaequatam. Hanc conditam primum a Pausania rege Spartanorum, et vocatam Byzantium, vel quod tantum patet inter Adriaticum mare et Propontidem, vel quod sit receptaculum terrae marisque copiis. Unde et eam Constantinus aptissimam condere iudicavit, ut et receptaculum sibi terra marique fieret. Unde et nunc Romani imperii sedes et totius caput est orientis, sicut et Roma occidentis (Isid. Etym''. XV, 42). "Now is the seat of the Roman Empire, the capital of all the East"... Written in the VIIth century by a learned man, it is quite convincing to me. I respect modern authors, but for some subjects I respect more the ancients. Perhaps the advocates of a "Byzantine Empire" since the IIId or IVth centuries (at the moment Flamarand or Kansas Bear, or anyone else) want tell us if they believe their arguments are really more powerful that the historical testimony of a contemporary author. Methodologically I think not. Regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)
 * Please see Article Titles. Cheers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)


 * Alicia, Wikipedia does not publish original research based on contemporary primary sources; rather, we defer to the best published modern scholarship. I honestly don't know what the best scholarship says about term "Byzantine", but Kansas Bear's summary of serious sources is a start.  If you have good modern sources for a different position, that would be the best way to argue. --Macrakis (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

-- Macrakis, thanks for your notice, but I think that 1) what I am advocating is not an “original research”, and 2) perhaps you have not read this entire debate. Because 1) According to the Wikipedian principle you quoted, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research: “The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material —such as facts, allegations, and ideas— for which no reliable, published source exists... To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented...” etc., is not relevant because 2) if you go to my initial messages, you will see that I started quoting Theodor Mommsen, and some modern British, reputated, authors as Jones, Martindale and others. I think that they could be included in what you call “serious sources”, and could be a “good start”.

On the other hand, I do not see the need to establish now here a long list in favour, probably much longer than the Kansas Bear’s, since the traditional position is to start the "Byzantine Empire" in the VIIth cent. Instead, I invite you to read how is treated the same subject in another Wikipedias, for example the French. I think it may be illustrative of the serious problem that I'm trying to point out (in a similar line of other previous discussions on the same problem):

L'Empire romain d'Orient durant l'Antiquité tardive (IVe au VIe siècle) ; De l'Empire romain d'Orient à l'Empire byzantin (VIIe siècle) ; Chronologie de l'Empire romain d'Orient: Flavius Arcadius (377-408) est le premier empereur romain d'Orient (395-408)" (but revealing the contradictions here); Théodose II, "né le 10 avril 401 et mort le 28 juillet 450, est un empereur romain d'orient. Il règne de 408 à sa mort"... etc. For the French wikipedia, then, it is clear that the Byzantine Empire did not start until the seventh century.

On the other hand (since I read that you know these languages), the Italian Wikipedia seems also to have it clear, in Impero bizantino: "La data prevalentemente accettata dal mondo accademico dell'inizio del "periodo bizantino" è tuttavia il 610, anno dell'ascesa al trono di Eraclio I, il quale modificò notevolmente la struttura dell'Impero, proclamò il greco lingua ufficiale in sostituzione del latino e assunse inoltre il titolo imperiale di basileus, al posto di quello di augustus usato fino a quel momento" but then incurs in a similar contradiction: Arcadio di Bisanzio (¡¡!!): "Flavio Arcadio... Spagna, 377 circa – Costantinopoli, 1º maggio 408) è stato un imperatore bizantino"... etc.

The Wikipedia in Spanish (although always heavily influenced by the Wikipedia in English) reflects some on the term that gives me occasion to finish this too long post: El término «Imperio bizantino»: “''La expresión «Imperio bizantino» (de Bizancio, antiguo nombre de Constantinopla) fue una creación del historiador alemán Hieronymus Wolf, quien en 1557 —un siglo después de la caída de Constantinopla— lo utilizó en su obra Corpus Historiae Byzantinae para designar este período de la historia en contraste con las culturas griega y romana de la Antigüedad clásica. El término no se hizo de uso frecuente hasta el siglo XVIII, cuando fue popularizado por autores franceses, como Montesquieu''.” It seems to me somewhat paradoxical that a new concept coined in the sixteenth century by a German author, supposedly to strengthen the claims of Charlemagne to justify being the heir of the Roman Empire, thus disqualifying the rights alleged by Byzantium (as I read even in the enWP: “...when Charlemagne knelt at the altar to pray, the Pope crowned him Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans") in Saint Peter's Basilica. In so doing, the Pope was effectively reviving the Western Roman Empire and nullifying the legitimacy of Empress Irene of Constantinople...”, and it’s probably the reason why Montesquieu seconds it...) is not followed in the French Wikipedia, but it is in the English! Well, it's only a curiosity more. Returning to the initial problem, if you think that the French Wikipedia (the clearest in this regard) may be also a "serious source", it is clear that what is true in one Wikipedia can not be a lie or confusion (not even deserve to be mentioned) to others. Something is wrong. Greetings. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty involved discussion, and to a degree pointless. My only comment would be to say that declaring the Byzantine Empire "started" under Heraclius is bonkers... what were they then after the fall of Rome in 476 and for a 150 after? And if "Byzantium" is defined in large measure by its Orthodox Christianity, which many authors do, can you ignore the fact that in 380 Theodosius declared Christianity the only state religion? Proclaiming Byzantium's historical antecedence to Theodosius' split, but acknowledging, as the current version does, the lack of a defineable "zero moment", seems to satisfy historical accuracy for many reasons. One could easily stack up authors who would points to the 395 split as being a good starting point for the Christian Roman Empire of the East. KC Gustafson (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion: Orthodox Christianity
Certainly, before the East/West Schism, all of Nicene (and later, Chalcedonian) Christianity was "Orthodox," but the term "Eastern Orthodox," which this article identifies with the official religion of the Empire, came into use in a semi-colloquial fashion in the latter days of the state. I think it would be more neutral to state simply that Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, because Christianity was not divided into Catholic and Orthodox sects until much later. Or, we could make some kind of footnote about this issue (for example: Nicene Christianity; later, Eastern Orthodoxy, or something like that). Also, wasn't Constantine somewhat sympathetic to Arianism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Name and other issues
I know: there were countless other topics about his subject before and there a couple just above this one. However, since this is my first time on this "naming convention dispute", I thought no one would mind. :) Not trying to be picky, but why not change its name to "Roman Empire (Middle Ages)"? It's simple and the most appropriate and wouldn't harm the other article actually called "Roman Empire". We could also add to the lead the name "Byzantine Empire" by briefly explaining that it's a name that became common (albeit anachronistically) in the 18th Century, long after it disappeared.

There is something else that has bothered me for awhile. It's quite common to see here and in other related articles something like "The language spoken was Latin but the Empire became increasingly hellenized until Greek became dominant by the 7th century" or some variation of it. Well, this is simply wrong. First, the Eastern Roman Empire was also a multilinguistic nation. We could say that one language was dominant, eiher because of tradition, or because the dominant groups spoke it or something like that. But we could never say that the people that lived in Egyptian, or Northern African or Palestinian provinces spoke Latin and later spoke Greek. I believe what I'm saying here is no big news for any of you, but still. Second: the country didn't become more hellenized as time passed. Greek culture never died out. It was Latin culture that with time became less important as before. What am I trying to say? We should change for something like "The official language, used for administrative or legal purposes, was Latin, but within time it was supplanted by Greek" or something like that. Regards to all, --Lecen (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * It says the language of the government was Latin then Greek. That seems correct. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Not really. The lead says "...and predominantly Greek-speaking rather than Latin-speaking". I wonder myself what the Bulgarians, the Egyptians, Berbers and others who lived in the Empire would think of this. P.S.: Although the Languages section explains far better. --Lecen (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, I was quoting from the language section. Probably more important, the sentence in the lead you're referring to closely mirrors the cited text.  Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable references and the sentence it is sourcing
This sentence, "However, most modern historians apply the term Byzantine to the period after the accession of Heraclius, as he effectively created a new state by reforming the army and administration, introducing Themes, and replacing Latin as the official language with Greek (which occurred in 620 AD)." is referenced by 3 sources, Initially, I would like quotes from the first two sources. Secondly, since the sentence is written as a reasoning sentence;"...modern historians apply the term Byzantine AFTER the accession of Heraclius....", then the reasoning, "as he effectively created a new state....", the Norwich reference should be removed since Norwich does not state anything about "modern historians" nor their historical perspective. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * 1.Haywood, John; foreword by Cunliffe, Barry (2001) [1997]. Cassell's Atlas of World History
 * 2.Freeman, Charles (1999). The Greek Achievement - The Foundation of the Western World.
 * 3.Norwich, John Julius (1998). A Short History of Byzantium

In Norwich's, Byzantium:The Early Centuries, p26, "The Byzantine Empire, from its foundation by Constantine the Great on Monday 11 May 330 to its conquest by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II on Tuesday 29 May 1453, lasted a total of 1,123 years and 18 days...". Clearly Norwich's opinion is that the Byzantine Empire started in 330. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Questionable?, Reasoning Sentence?, Clearly Norwich's Opinion?
Hello, Having now read some of the discussions I see that this is a bit of a touchy topic for some, and I am not sure why it needs to be. If you place these demands on every edit a contributor makes, particularly one that provides direct sources, it starts to look like bullying.

Onto the references. Regarding Haywood, the main reference here, the text I have drawn from reads:

This source (Haywood) has the following list of academic advisers listed on the front cover: J.I. Catto (Oriel College, University of Oxford, UK); Professor Robin Cohen (University of Warwick, UK); Professor J.H. Elliott (University of Oxford, UK); Professor Harold James (Princeton University, New Jersey, USA); Professor Maldwyn A. Jones (University of London, UK); Dr Stuart Kewley (University of Cambridge, UK); Dr Stewart Lone (Australian Defense Force Academy); Dr Oswyn Murray (Balloil College, University of Oxford, UK); Professor A.J.S. Reid (The Australian National University); Professor Francis Robinson (Royal Halloway, University of London, UK) and Professor John K. Thornton (Millersville University, Pennsylvania, USA). Hopefully this is sufficient information.

Regarding the Norwich Citation, in discussing Heraclius, on page 97 it reads:

A side issue in relation to your quote from Norwich: Selective choice of quotations from Norwich to make sweeping claims of what his opinion was is somewhat misleading. Norwich seams to attempt what other historians do which is attempt to put Eastern Romans/Byzantines in context of their origins, who they identified themselves as (throughout his books he uses Byzantine and Roman interchangeably, and routinely refers to the Byzantines referring to themselves as Romans), their continually changing culture, where they fit in history, how best to interpret them, etc. Its a convoluted story which has been made more difficult by modern labels. But that is just my view, which is beside the point. One thing the quote I have provided demonstrates is that Norwich does not believe it is as clear cut as you say (in my opinion).

Regarding Freeman, this is one simply refers to Latin disappearing in the east and Heraclius adopting the title basileus:

The Freeman source is secondary relative to the other two, so it can probably be removed.

I took the year 620 directly from the Wikipedia article on Heraclius. Thanks for the lack of good faith. I thought we were all supposed to be on same team here, and that we all aim to help make the content as factual and informative as possible. Romaioi (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)


 * It would be really helpful if you did not accuse other editors of bad faith, especially if there is no suggestion of it anywhere. Please be reminded of WP:AAGF. I also wanted to mention that I approve of the latest edit by Inspector 108 and hope that it will not be reverted. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 04:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)
 * See final modification. The primary source was reincluded due to its pertinence. Otherwise, No 8's mods were great. I'm just trying to help, and don't appreciate being forced to spend almost an entire day defending good faith, commonly known literature-based inclusions. Nor do I appreciate high-handed attempts to undo or undermine those contributions almost as soon as they are submitted. Appears to be a common theme. Please reflect on your actions with others remind yourself of WP:AAGFRomaioi (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing User:No. 108 edit's, I still believe the "Modern historians" at the beginning is a bit much. Numerous historians began their writing of Byzantine history well before Heraclius and I feel we may need to "cover our asses" in that regard. Perhaps an inclusion of, "Although modern historians begin Byzantine historiography by 476, they view the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) as the beginning of Byzantine history proper since Heraclius effectively established a new state after reforming the army and administration by introducing themes and by replacing the official language of the empire from Latin to Greek.''". Thoughts?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts - passage highlights transition well and new statement is true to source, but...
Hi Kansas Bear, its a tough one (sorry if some of this goes over ground that may already have been covered on this page, and facts that you already know - just trying to put my string of thoughts together as succinctly as possible). My approach is to put things in as literally as possible, hence stay as true to the source as possible. I figured, given the apparent calibre of the academic advisers (and the list of advisory editors, whom I didn't list), the source would seam to be quite authoritative.

I originally wrote it in that manner (whilst attempting to stay true to the source) as it seams to flow well with the preceeding text in the article is saying; i.e. that what we are calling the Byzantine Empire had its genesis (or was seeded) with the founding of Constantinople, then 395AD being an important date, likewise 476AD, but had a crucial/definitive official transformation with Heraclius.

It also makes sense based on the chronology of evidence from the transitional period shortly before Heraclius' time:
 * We have the reign of Justinian (r. 527-565), who was widely considered to be the last truly Roman Emperor
 * Justinian' reign is where the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the distinct characteristics of Antiquity begin to end. Namely, urban-based life commenced marked decline toward rural/village based life, Constantinople being the exception (according to the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology, p284-288 ) - this is worth including in the article, if not already there.
 * Both the source I just mentioned and numerous other texts (which I would be happy to track down) describe this changing landscape as primarily a consequence of the plague of 542 AD that caused massive depopulation, resulting in Slavic settlement in the Balkans. (Scientific evidence, in the form of isotope dating studies, support the occurrence of the plague and it being the consequence of a massive volcanic eruption at the time – I would have to track these sources down, once owned copies.)
 * We also have the Church beginning to use its wealth to support the state, both during Justinian's time but particularly during Heraclius' time (multiple sources discuss this, examples being Haywood and Norwich) – we clearly know a distinguishing feature of the Byzantine Empire being its distinctly Christian nature.

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology (p. 284) also defines late antiquity as occurring between 284AD and ~610AD; 610 we know corresponds to the start of Heraclius' reign. And we have the continuation of the Roman Empire spanning both late antiquity and the medieval period contributing to this problem.

In light of the points above, it appears that the social, political, urban, administrative and archaeological changes, whilst they occur over a long period, they change markedly during, and converge on, the time between the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius. So my thoughts, after considering the chronology, and the archaeological evidence in particular, is that the Haywood statement pertaining to “modern historians” is most likely correct. I’m assuming that this is the consensus among the so call "modern historians" due to the kind of evidence above. And given the panel of advisors, who am I to question them?

There clearly are many texts that discuss the foundations or seeds of the Byzantine Empire commencing with the founding of Constantinople and the acceptance of Christianity (to me this is a logical starting point). But that doesn’t mean those historians disagree with the Haywood statement. (I mentioned why Norwich may not think it’s a clear cut issue in my first reply above.)
 * One caveat against the use of the founding of Constantinople as the start of the "Byzantine" period (in light of its use being synonymous with a Christian empire) is this statement by Freeman in a distinctly philhellenic book (p431):


 * Here’s another caveat against several arguments put forward by many historians (a side issue to this discussion) from page 53 of Norwich (ref already in article):

To me, from the formal point of view of adhering to the modern convention of using the term "Byzantine", the picture is a transitional one. In keeping with that, the way the first few paragraphs currently read seams acceptable.

Personally, my view, based on references like those mentioned here (and its just that, my view) is: shouldn't we identify them how they identified themselves; Romans living in the Roman Empire that lasted until 1453/1461 (the only state that can claim direct political lineage from that city traditionally founded in 753BC)? After all, wouldn't they have known their own identity better than us?

I don't think this helped. And I think it inadvertently duplicated ground already discussed previously here. Apologies. Maybe we could amend to something like say: The final transition to a Byzantine state was during Heraclius...? But wouldn't that make it fail WP:OR?

By the way, I think the Byzantine Empire article is excellent. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

References:


 * Your idea of, "The final transition to a Byzantine state was during Heraclius..." to "The transition to Byzantine history finally begins..." which would be supported by Ostrogorsky, p106.
 * So the sentence, "Modern historians, however, view the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) as the beginning of Byzantine history proper since Heraclius effectively established a new state after reforming the army and administration by introducing themes and by replacing the official language of the Empire from Latin to Greek." could to be replaced by, "The transition to Byzantine history finally begins, during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), since Heraclius effectively established a new state after reforming the army and administration by introducing themes and by replacing the official language of the Empire from Latin to Greek.", which the Ostrogorsky source should support. My apologies for the slow response. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Hi Kansas Bear, sorry for the length of "my thought". I'd be happy with that so if you don't mind, I'll make the edit and add the reference. If you see any issues feel free to edit it or let me know. In case we don't chat before, Merry Chirstmas. Romaioi (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Byron's "Triple-Fusion" theory
I removed the "triple fusion" theory from the lead per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Unless this triple-fusion theory is an academically accepted and preeminent fact about the Empire it has no place in the lead. I don't think this is anywhere close to an academic fact and I have a hard time understanding what the "Roman body" of the Byzantine culture is supposed to be, let alone the "mystical, oriental soul" and for that matter even the "Greek mind". It sounds like new-agey, romantic fluff to me. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Incidentally, this should make us wary of using Norwich as a source. Who else would quote Robert Byron like that? But Norwich seems to be deeply embedded all over Wikipedia. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Good point. I was actually wondering about the same thing, i.e. Norwich's quote of Byron and its effect on Norwich's credibility, a few days ago. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 22:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Forgive my sentiments, but subjective assessments of which sources are suitable and which are not seams dangerous; its a form of original research and point of view (WP:OR; WP:NPOV) - like him of not, Norwich is an acknowledged historian. Also deleting verified referenced material runs counter to WP:V. However, I can understand your sentiments concerning the statement (I agree that it sounds romantic), but it is from the literature, it does represent a Historian's attempt at a brief and tangible description of Byzantine culture, and you have not demonstrated that it is not academic fact. I wouldn't know whether its an academic fact either, all I know is that its in the literature and consistent with several sources in illustrating Byzantine culture as a fusion of cultures. So question: What are the thoughts of the suitability of this somewhere else, if anywhere (cited)? Also, what I am aware is an indisputable academic fact is that the Byzantines always saw themselves as Romans. Yet it is not highlighted in the lead section. Any objections to me including it, perhaps as a note? Romaioi (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't think that there are any WP:OR or POV issues here. Norwich is a well-known and respected historian. But his writings are getting older and rusty at some points. There is nothing wrong in trying to re-evaluate some of the rusty parts of his work and compare them to modern works. This is just a natural part of the RS evaluation process. I also don't agree with your statement "Also deleting verified referenced material runs counter to WP:V". Deleting material which is verifiable is allowed as long as there are good reasons for deleting it. Not all verifiable facts are worthy of inclusion. Having said that if you want to add this flowery language in some suitable place in the culture section I would not object. Neither would I object if you added a note explaining the Byzantine self-identification as Romans. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * From the Wikipedia article Byzantinist: Greek / Hellenistic culture, Roman state traditions, Oriental influence and Christian faith, together with a relative unity of language and culture, constitute medieval Byzantium. Sounds like a less romantic version of Byron's triple-fusion theory. Yet its not acceptable here and Norwich's credibility is under discussion because of it? Romaioi (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)
 * This sounds definitely more sober. No flowery talk of "oriental soul" or "Greek mind" or "Roman body". This is more precise language. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thanks for both your replies above. I had logged on to place a subsection with a suggested course, but you saved me the trouble. I have a strong preference for the more "sober" style, but there is sometimes difficulty in deciding whether its better to cite the author verbatim to avoid putting words in their mouth (and due to WP:OR), or write a summary that may not articulate something that is not easily described (both were attempted, I actually wasn't a fan of either but it is a fundamental point to make about the Byzantines). In the case of the latter, I usually hope that the regular contributors help improve it. The passage from Byzantinist nails what I was attempting to illustrate (in fact, my attempted inclusions and comments above are consistent with that and surrounding sections). Pending no objections, I'll include [something like] this as a note in the same spot, and cite Norwich, but look to add additional citations over time (the others I have read are not in my possession - if anyone has something, assistance welcome). I would like to potentially include it in the body, but the section reads well and I do not want to disturb the flow.


 * I understand what you are saying about Norwich. Moreover, no source is infallible so the more independent sources the better.


 * While we are here, there is something else that I wanted to look at including. Namely, highlight the archaeological evidence discussed above that highlights the urban decline in the period leading to Heraclius' reign. It may flow well there, but it may be more appropriate in another section of the article. It appears that you are well abreast of this article, so I figure that you may have some thoughts. Romaioi (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)


 * Sorry Romaioi for the delay in replying but I got caught up in a few side-issues around the project. Your proposals sound good. Thank you for the invitation to comment on the archaelogical evidence but I haven't checked this discussion in detail. I will endeavour to do so in the next few days and I will let you know. Take care. Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 04:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)


 * No problems on the delay - I understand. This is the first chance I have had to check back in myself so, as you can see, I face considerable time constraints. I'll follow through with the first two suggestions. If I don't hear back from you before the upcoming break, Merry Christmas. Romaioi (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Thank you. Merry Christmas to you too and to Kansas Bear since we are on the same talk page. :) Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 21:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverts
Just to clarify once more why I have been removing certain stuff from the article:
 * I am opposed to the "n4" footnote ("Byzantium essentially constitutes Greek/Hellenistic culture, Roman state traditions, Oriental influence, and Christian faith, together with a relative unity of language and culture") for two reasons: first, it's ungrammatical (look up "constitute"). Second, and of course more importantly, it is simply not what footnotes are for. A footnote is for something that is parenthetical to the main content of the page. Something that, on the one hand, is necessary as background knowledge for understanding some detail in the main text, but which on the other hand would unduly interrupt the main line of argument if integrated there. The footnote "n1" about the term "New Rome" is of this type, and is justifiable. This one isn't. A statement that purports to offer a quintessential summary of what Byzantine identity is ("essentially", no less!) belongs either in the main text, or nowhere at all. I'm not convinced we need such a summary sentence, because the main text of the "nomenclature" and "culture" sections seems concise enough to me, but if you think you need one, then find a place in the main text for it.
 * I am opposed to the sentence in the lead paragraph ("Importantly, the Byzantines always considered themselves to be Romans (Rhomaioi).") because it interrupts the flow of the argument. Byzantine self-identification is not what that passage is about. That passage serves to explain one single issue: the conceptual definition of where "Byzantium" starts and the reasons why we are offering the reader an extra article on it when we are also at the same time saying that in some sense it's the same thing as Ancient Rome. For getting that point across, the next sentence ("As the distinction between Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire is largely a modern convention […]") needs to follow immediately on the preceding one ("Byzantium is today distinguished […]"). Everything else is a distraction and extraneous to the context.
 * I'm opposed to the recent addition at the bottom ("The Byzantine legacy is […]") because it's unencyclopedic. It contains flowery language, bad non-standard use of block quotes, poor sources (do we really have to rely on thoroughly outdated Paparrigopoulos and non-academic Fermor?), POV editorializing ("at the heart of many issues that face Greece and Greek society today") and unwarranted value judgments ("vividly expressed" […] "the splendours and the sorrows").
 * As for, well, yes, whether you like to hear it or not, he is a sock of , as must by now have become painfully obvious to anybody who knew him back in the day. I didn't recognize him at first when he turned up a year ago, and I kept my mouth shut for a while as long as he was only doing his minor gnoming stuff, but now that he's back trying to sneak in his POV edits about his old ideological idées fixes, regarding ethnic continuity of Greeks through the ages, a topic where he has inflicted immeasurable damage on this project during his six years or more of incessant tendentious editing, I won't tolerate his presence any further. I haven't yet found the time to write up the WP:SPI report, and in fact I resent the fact that I will have to waste considerable time doing that, but that doesn't change the fact that the identity is crystal-clear, and must be so for any old contributor who remembers D.'s annoying habits from before he was banned. I expect every good-faith contributor to this page to help keeping him away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * With all due respect Future Perfect, what is in fact "painfully obvious" is your complete disregard for good faith edit contributions, as well as your complete disregard for maintaining civil behavior while improving the entry's "Stable Version". I, however, already conceded to the edits you've made to the entry and have spoken to you about our (minor) differences. But know that my submissions were made in an effort to assist User:Romaioi whose contributions were done in good faith and in an attempt to improve the "Stable Version" of the entry.


 * Also, I humbly recommend refraining from, as you put it, wasting your time writing reports as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I'm sure that you have more constructive things to do. And though I've made mistakes as a humble quality management inspector, they hardly merit your consistent allegations of "sockpuppetry", which are indicative of your treating the project as an MMORPG rather than as an encyclopedia (if you must know, my "fixation" is quality management, which is hardly ideological). But in any case, I have no incentive towards holding any grudges so I bid thee adieu and humbly recommend that you focus your efforts on submitting more good faith edit contributions without the multiple and consistent use of "colorful language". Have a Merry Christmas (or Happy Hanukah if you happen to be Jewish) and no hard feelings. :-) No. 108 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)


 * P.S. I think you'll find me quite likeable once you get to know me. :-)


 * Oh my. Another Christmas Special. It must be inspired by The Nightmare Before Christmas. :/ Dr.K. <sup style="position:relative">λogos<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πraxis 18:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Its after Christmas, so why not. Fut.Perf. ☼, I do not know how that statement (Byzantium essentially constitutes...) was included as "n4", but I included it in the lead as "n1". I do not see the issue with the grammar (but even then it can be modified), nor is it "useless". It was one of several small but fundamental points, included in their final forms (prior to being deleted by you, along with the verifying citations) after considerable discussion above (L1, L2) and accommodating re-writes (ranging from verbatim quotation to various summaries). However, after consulting with Dr. K about a few things, I am happy with the way the lead currently reads, albeit some fundamental points are absent.

The real issue is, in spite of the at-length discussions, citations and relative consensus that was achieved, you stepped in behaving as a supreme judge with impunity for non-adherence to Wikipedia protocols and wiped it out. Yet, many of your obtuse assertions are highly debatable - those pertaining to grammar included. English, for example, has considerable flexibility, with many valid means of presenting content. But what would I know? One thing I do know is, according to your profile, it is not your native language nor do you admit full competence in it. So why the uncivil and condescending attitude?

The forming picture, after all the re-writes and your subsequent actions, is it does not matter in which form a fact is written or what justification is provided. If it is unwanted it will always be rejected.

Regarding, your claim of No. 108 being a sock. Prove it - through the proper channels, rather than flouting multiple wiki-policies. The same rules that apply to general editors should also apply to administrators. There is my 20c worth. Ultimately, I think most people, yourself included, are simply trying to do the right thing. We just go about it in different ways. So on that note, Happy New Year to all, Fut.Perf. included. Sincerely --Romaioi (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Countries today
Should Gibraltar/UK be included? The map includes the Gibraltar peninsula Миша I, Швейца́рская Император 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

States
Why is there no predecessors and successors states on the infobox?-Ilhador- (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Because there was an absurdly lengthy and messy discussion about a year or two ago, showing that editors couldn't agree on a workable definition of criteria what to list as "successor states" in this case: only the principal empire that took over the approximate geostrategic role of Byzantium (i.e. the Ottoman Empire)? Or a small number of other successor states? A long list of all polities that were ever created on any territory that had previously been Byzantine? Or even (according to a tenaciously proposed POV position argued by a few editors) certain states whose territories weren't actually part of Byzantium but which raised some ideological claim to some kind of succession to its cultural role (e.g. the Russian empire)? The situation turned out to be so complicated the only consensus that could be reached was to get rid of the whole thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Although I did not participate in this discussion, I second FutPer. After all, if we cannot agree that Greece was the only successor state, then no state should be mentioned! By the way, I also believe that the "today part of" list is also very long and absurd. What's its utility? And which Byzantine Empire are we taking as basis for conducting it? If it was all my decision, I would have got rid of this list as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)


 * There was no need to respond to the childish nationalistic first post, which contravenes WP:FORUM. This thread should be deleted as it is not connected (or proposes) any improvement to this article. 109.156.240.149 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that my comment is a simplification (thank you for your patience, I'm certainly no scholar). My point was that even though Rome conquered Greece, it was in turn itself conquered by Hellenic culture. Also, much of Italy was Greek populated during the rise of Rome, even far north of the city (Magna Graecia). The cultural bias I mentioned above is a very real thing. It's existed for a thousand years and more. The West was obsessed in claiming Roman culture and heritage from Greek-speaking peoples during the Middle Age and still today. But Greek culture has been tied to it almost since it's inception. The article is very clearly written from a western POV. Also, to the poster above: why do you assume I'm Greek? Quite a few nations with the name Niko. --Nikoz78 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)


 * I believe that the assuption goes with your opinions and not with your name (and it seems a correct assuption). Allow me to tell you that your arguments continue to be incoherent. How can Roman culture be tied to the Greek culture since its inception? Yes, there were interactions and influences from a certain point on (especially after mainlant Greece was occupied by Romans), but ... "since its inception"?! And what do you mean by saying that "The West was obsessed in claiming Roman culture and heritage from Greek-speaking peoples during the Middle Age"? It makes no sence. Finally, you say that the article is "clearly written from a western POV". What constitutes a Western POV towards Byzantium? How do you perceive it? If you check the article's history, you'll find out that more than half of its "main" editors have been Greek (including me). And if you check the sources, you will realize that there is an abandunce of prominent Greek scholarly works used: Ahrweiler, Laiou, Chrysos, Oikonomides, Kountoura-Galake, Mousourakis etc. etc. Are all these and us as editors of the article victims of this Western POV?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"And what do you mean by saying that "The West was obsessed in claiming Roman culture and heritage from Greek-speaking peoples during the Middle Age"? It makes no sence." - The name "Byzantine" itself is an example of this bias, a 19th century Western term; the Holy Roman Empire is another (claiming the "Byzantines" as imposters); the way the West called the late Roman Empire the "empire of the Greeks." The sack of Constantinople in 1204 was inspired by this dangerous bias. You see it still, in these articles about the later Roman Empire. All these are indications of this bias. And during the early rise of the Roman Republic, they were surrounded by and infused with Hellenism. Even on the article Magna Graecia it states that, "The colonists, who began arriving in the 8th century BC, brought with them their Hellenic civilization, which was to leave a lasting imprint in Italy, particularly on the culture of ancient Rome."--Nikoz78 (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Nikoz, you should familiarize yourself more with this historical issue. And you certainly are displaying a significant amount of bias. The Imperium Romanum Sacrum was the real "official" name of the Holy Roman Empire, virtually from its foundation, and it did not attempt to usurp the title of the Emperors in Constantinopolis - but rather to re-create the Western Roman Empire. That is not to say that the emperors in Constantinople were not offended by this (since Odoacer sent the imperial regalia to Constantinople the emperors there claimed rule over the entire Empire), but there is no question that the titles Charlemagne and Otto I were those of "Roman Emperor" from the start. Similiarly, the term "Byzantine" also does not date from the 19th century (when the West was, incidentally, very much a friend of Greece), but rather from the 16th century.


 * Furthermore the West did not call the Empire "Empire of the Greeks" until the very last centuries when it really became rather silly to call a virtual city-state "the Roman Empire" - and even then this was by no means general practice, and nobody ever challenged the fact that these were Roman Emperors that ruled there. In fact, the Holy Roman Emperors had always acknowledged that they had "colleagues" in Constantinople, but the latter did not acknowledge (until perhaps the very end) that the Holy Roman Emperors were "Roman Emperors".


 * There is no question that Greek civilization had a massive impact on Roman civilization in general. But that influence did certainly not begin in the 8th century BC, but much later, only beginning in earnest after the Roman conquest of Greece and into the Hellenistic world. There is also no question that this was a fundamentally Roman culture with strong Greek influences, and not a Hellenistic culture. In fact, many conservatives in Rome strongly opposed Greek culture, citing homosexuality, for example, as one of its odious, "non-Roman" aspects (Hadrian, for example, was a great philhellene and was known to have been a homosexual).


 * And finally the sack of 1204 was primarily caused by Roman infighting (there were truly innumerable civil wars in the Byzantine Empire), or more directly because Isaakios II Angelos could not pay the crusaders what he promised them, so they can pay the wily Venetians. While there certainly was much West-East tension at the time, that tension cannot be said to have caused the sack of Constantinople. The crusaders had no intention whatsoever of sacking Constantinople until they realized they weren't getting paid. -- Director  ( talk )  16:31, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Latin name and starting date
1. removal of the Latin name. The Latin name of the empire is not the less important than the Greek name but in the last edits, many times it was deleted by some Greek users without any explanation. What is your reason for deleting it? It was the first and the only official language of the Byzantine Empire in the first centuries which are generally known facts and most people know them. You could move the Greek name ahead of it instead deleting, but that would be arguable change as this is deep question and the sorting by time periods, earlier Latin and later Greek is possibly a decision. There were also deleted the periods of official status of Latin and Greek, explain why?

2. starting date and gap between 1204 and 1261 AD. First according to this book Diocletian is the first that seperated Eastern and Western Roman Empires, so the Eastern Empire existed much more earlier than 395:

Secondly after the Latin conquest the Byzantine Empire ceased to exist between 1204 and 1261 AD, what are your grounds for removing this? --JeanPirès (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * First, when you are in a discussion with people make sure you get your facts straight especially when casting aspersions based on their ethnicity. User:Cody7777777 reverted you as well. Do you think Cody7777777 is a Greek editor too? Secondly, do I have to infer based on your French username that you are a Frank, therefore bent on deprecating the Byzantine Empire for nationalistic French purposes? See how it can get ugly fast when you play the nationality card? Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 19:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The names added by JeanPires are back-translations into Greek and Latin of a modern term ("Eastern Roman Empire") and as such are meaningless. The Empire never referred to itself as "Anatolike Romaike Autokratoria", or "Imperium Romanum Orientale". Neither did its contemporaries use that names.  These names are original research.  Furthermore, the source used in the lede doesn't use them, so changing the names while keeping the source is source falsification (inadvertent at best). Athenean (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * (edit conflict) @JeanPirès: Firstly, the Byzantine Empire was the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which was more hellenized than latinized. After the Muslim conquests it became a very much Greek-speaking (although of course still multinational) state, and again and even more so after 1204. And since after Heraclius the state language was exclisively Greek, the Latin name is simply not as important. Secondly, on the starting date, Diocletian is cited by a few scholars as the first "Byzantine" emperor not so much due to his division, but more due to the introduction of the Despotate system, which is in essence the Byantine autocracy. However, the overwhelming majority support one of the traditional dates, 330, 395 or 476. Thirdly, the Greek name you support is the most incorrect of all, as it is a modern name: "autokratoria" was never used for the state, and the Byzantines themselves never used the "Eastern Roman" bit; they were "Romans", plain and simple. These things have been discussed ad nauseam here before, so best take a look there. When you see that several long-established users revert your edits, perhaps you should ask yourself why that is, instead of reverting back yourself. Constantine  ✍  20:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh wow! All the Greek editors descended to comment. You people are just a bunch of nationalists. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Athenean "Eastern Roman Empire" is not a modern term, this is wrong. It is used to distinguish it from the Western Empire, and it was the most used one by both Latin and Greek speaking contemporaries until the Western Empire ceased to exist. I indeed made mistake for the Greek name as after 620 the Western Empire have been already destroyed and the name then was only Roman Empire and as I inserted the modern Greek name. The Latin name though should be corrected with "Orientale" as "Imerium Romanum" makes the wrong sense that this Empire was the entire Roman Empire, while it was only the eastern half of it during the most of the official status of the Latin. It is not correctly to claim that "Imerium Romanum" was the Latin name, and secondly misleads. Secondly, Constantine what do you mean with the Latin name is simply not as important? If you claim that it should not be added there is no any valid reason not to add it in the introduction and to remain only the Greek as currently, the empire itself was established as Latin and was not solely Greek, only Latin was the official language until 620, few facts which make the placing of the Latin name in the introduction not only fully warranted but necessary. For the date, I see that there is controversy, why you don't show few sources for the dates then, to compare with this I showed above? However, Diocletian first divided the Empire into Eastern and Western in 285/4, since then the Romans used the divisions "Imperium Romanum Orientale" and "Imperium Romanum Orccidentale", see also this in Western Roman Empire. --JeanPirès (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * As the others have said, "Eastern Roman Empire" is a modern term, like "Western Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" also are. The Romans, considered their empire to be united during the whole time, and as the following book also claims "It is incorrect because the Roman Empire was one and undivided in the fifth century, and though there were generally more emperors than one, there were never two empires. To speak of two empires in the fifth century is to misrepresent in the grossest manner the theory of the imperial constitution.". And the Western Roman Empire article also uses "Imperium Romanum" (not "Imperium Romanum Occidentale"). Regarding 285, it is actually already mentioned in the infobox as a pre-event. (And I'm not Greek, I actually speak a neo-Latin language.) Cody7777777 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Don't worry Cody. You don't have to parade your ethnic credentials, or lack thereof. In an ideal wiki-world you shouldn't have to. We should be one big happy family. Δρ.Κ. <sup style="position:relative">λόγος<span style="position:relative;bottom:-2.0ex;left:-5.2ex;*left:-5.5ex">πράξις 12:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing
I see several unsourced paragraphs under "Reconquest of the western provinces ", "Macedonian dynasty and resurgence" (completely unsourced), "Wars against the Muslims", "Relations with the Kievan Rus'", "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders" (also unsourced entirely). If these are not fixed, I plan to send the article to WP:FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • (What did I screw up now?) 23:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC) You are all stupid fyi!@!!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.139.210 (talk) 23:20, 10 September 2012 (UTC)

When did the Eastern Empire begin?
I am new to writing in Wikipedia. I was not prepared to this heated debate. One note: the suppression of 395 (save for the info box) as even a candidate date for the formation of the Eastern Roman Empire/ Byzantine Empire borders on the bizarre. Delaying it to the 7th century is also rather strange. Any ref. to historians who do this in the article itself? Year 285 one can understand. If 395 was as administrative a division as 285 than Diocletian is OK. But it is still a dubious choice because Diocletian's measures did not last. He was more a precedent than a beginning. If 395 is taken as merely administrative, one can argue the Byzantine Empire out of existence (good old Roman Empire never expired), which would be technically OK, but rather eccentric. There is no much disagreement on the facts: 285, 324, 330, 395, 476, etc. One way out is to put the question of beginning before the reader, perhaps under 'Historiographical Concerns', and offer possible answers. The answers would depend also on one's historiographical 'measuring stick': legal definition, political history, cultural history etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastUnicorn (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)


 * See Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 10, Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 11 and other discussions... I suppose it might be worth to recreate the section "Dating the empire"... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yes. It seems to me that the problem is two-fold: In the first place, wikipedia uses "Byzantine Empire" as an exact synonym for "Easter Roman Empire," which it really isn't.  In the second place, wikipedia tends to describe the Eastern and Western Roman Empires as separate entities, which they weren't.  As some have stated (with citations) above, there was only one Roman empire.  At various times it was divided into two administrative regions, each with their own co-emperor (and occasionally more than one per region.)  This administrative division was only the case for a short period of less than two centuries (from Diocletian to Zeno) and only intermittently in that period.  Indeed, when Odoacer rose in 476 in the events romantically (and not really accurately) called "the Fall of the Roman Empire" by olde-timey historians it was after only 91 years of separate Eastern and Western co-emperors.  After the rise of Odoacer and the death of Nepos it becomes meaningless to speak of the "Eastern Roman Empire" or the "Western Roman Empire."  We do so for scholarly convenience.  As for the "Byzantine" period, this is a scholarly convention constructed after the end of the empire.  The point of it is to distinguish the increasingly greek culture of the empire after it was severed from its Italian birthplace.  As this is a gradual process, the breakpoint is necessarily arbitrary and scholars have been all over the map.  Those seeking to tell the story of the empire in the east in a geographical frame have chosen to start their narratives at early dates. like Diocletion's administrative subdivision or Constantine's founding of the new capital (or even the conquest of the East under the Republic!)  SInce the putative distinction between Roman and Byzantine is cultural, however, most have gravitated to the big cultural watershed of the 7th century as the time when the Roman and Latin traditions really become clearly supplanted by new innovations in an eastern-focused empire.  Some split the difference by using the end of the Western Empire as the date.


 * It seems to me that the logical solution would be to make separate wiki articles for the "Eastern Roman Empire," which would treat just the history of this subdivision in its various incarnations between 295 and 480, and "Byzantine Empire" which would begin with an explanation that the empire is a scholarly construct and a discussion of hellenization. The actual history of the byzantine period could either be (A) simply included in the Roman Empire entry (most rational, but probably too radical a change for the very conservative slant of the wiki community), or (B) pick a date that is, at the earliest, the 476/480 dissolution of the East-West co-emperor arrangement and at the latest the sweeping away of the "Dominate" reforms of Diocletion under Constans II between 640 and 660.  The later option has the advantage of conceptual clarity (Augutus' reordering of the army/admin/political structures into the "principate," followed by Diocletian's reordering of same into the "dominate," followed by Constans II reordering - finishing Heraclius' reforms - of the same into the "byzantine.") but the earlier date may make for easy encyclopedia use. TheCormac (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The 2nd para. as edited 1 Apr. is fine. LastUnicorn — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastUnicorn (talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the lede?
Well ... I just looked at the article today, four days after my last edits, being ready to restart some work (if you don't know it or if you didn't care to learn about it, I would like to inform you that the article is on the verge of losing its FA star, and from all the editors who want to convince us that they care about the article, only one of them &mdash; besides me &mdash; is trying to do something to prevent such an unfortunate outcome). Unfortunately, I won't restart my editing, because I feel deeply disappointed by what I saw (and I should have noticed it earlier, but I hadn't focused my attention on the lede). The lede as it stands now is a disgrace. 7-8 paragraphs, some of them stubbby; 5 of them (yes 5!) dealing about when the Empire started or ended (an issue that should have been exhausted in one paragraph top, and this was the case before the last changes).

Athenean, I also disagree with an addition of yours ("As the Empire declined, it also became increasingly culturally and linguistically homogeneous, so that by the Paleologian period it resembled more an ethnic Greek nation-state than the multi-ethnic Empire of previous centuries.") Resembling more an ehthnic Greek nation-state?! During an era that nation-states were not even conceived? That "Greekness" or "Greek identity" was definitely not in the center of Byzantine identity at the time? The Byzantines regarded themselves as "Romans"! What's the source for this parallelism with an "ethnic Greek nation-state"? Allow me just to quote Cameron (the emphasis is mine), which says the obvious: "Linguistically at least Byzantium was a multicultural state and its emphasis on language rather than ethnicity as as the badge of culture followed a Roman precedent of tolerance. The modern nation-state lay in the future, and racial prejudices as such was not a feature of Byzantine culture. Byzantine prejudice existed in plenty, but it was directed in other ways." Yes, indeed, as the article elsewhere correctly states "as the Empire entered its final decline, the Empire's citizens became more culturally homogeneous and the Greek language became integral to their identity and religion", but this evolution and the Paleologian period had nothing to do with a "Greek nation-state". We may possibly trace some roots of the modern Greek nation-state (if we accept that the conception of nation-stated is still valid) in this period, but this is a completely different issue.

Even without LastUnicorn's unfortunate edits, the current version of the lede is pathetic. This is no lede for a FA! Even Alexander the Great is there now mentioned! Hercules is only misssing! What happened to the perfectly fine lede of the article, which I last read about 2 weeks before? Is this incoherent listing of events allegedely related with its start or end worth of a FA lede? What have you done to it (whoever did it)?! And why?!!! It was (at least it looked to me as) just ok. Why did you have to destroy it? The Cormac who is partly responsible for this mess did not discuss with anybody in the talk page the changes and expanding of the lede he initiated (devotind three paragraphs [!] to the start and end of the empire), and Cormac was so careless that, e.g., they filled the lede with CEs, while the rest of the article uses ADs (where necessary). I feel it is just a loss of time to continue trying to save the article's quality status, while important changes are taking place undiscussed; changes with which I disagree and which I believe that undermine the quality of the article. I will have to engage myself into tiring edit wars, from which I have consciously decided to abstain the last few years (If I revert, for example, wholly or partly Cormac, then they will revert me back or start protesting for my poor judgment; I have neither the courage nor the appetite to get into this again). If a quality lede is restored (and properly maintained), then I'll reconsider (if anybody cares about what I'll or will not do, and about what happens in FAR)... Since then, I sincerely wish the best possible outcome to Athenean if he decides to keep on his generally fine work.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Calm down, calm down... It's not the end of the world (nor of an empire). The starting dates (and reasons for choosing one or another) are important and have to be described somewhere in the article. Since at the moment there is no obvious section for that, it is only natural that all this information ends up near the definition. If you want it to go somewhere else, move it (preferably to a new section with a suitable name) and leave a summary in its place... After all, there isn't much else that could be done... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Yeah, my add to the lede wasn't such a good idea after all. I thought better of it, but didn't have internet access until today.  I just saw that there was a sentence about how the Empire became more culturally and linguistically homogeneous in the Language section, and thought of adding something to that effect in the lede.  We could add a sentence about how the Empire was ethnically and culturally diverse, becoming less so in later years as it got smaller (forgetting about nation-states.  I had read that somewhere, don't remember now, but let's leave it out).


 * However, the Byzantine Empire is important in the self-perception of the modern Greek state, and is (or was) looked upon as one of its antecedents. Would an add in the Legacy section (a single sentence) about the importance of the BE as an influence on modern Greece be of interest?


 * Also, we need to address these edits to the lede by User:JeanPires.  Athenean (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry if I have offend someone by not asking their permission before contributing. I meant no harm.  But the issue of dates needs to be addressed in a "quality" encyclopedia article and I do think that one paragraph is sufficient, and I am certainly not wedded to the idea that it be the second - I was just making improvements to what I found (and unilaterally creating new sections and rearranging the article structure would have felt disrespectful.)  When I make changes, however, I do my best NOT to be careless, by making sure that the adjoining paragraphs flow.  Which brings me to my use of CE.  All dates in reference works should be in CE or BCE; use of AD is just perpetuation of outdated bias.  I am sorry I have not yet had time to correct this usage throughout the article.  Perhaps you could?TheCormac (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * As per WP:ERA, we are not to arbitrarily change BC/AD to BCE/CE or vice versa on any articles. While this talk page is not the place to discuss the merits of either system over the other, let me interject that BC/AD are not a "perpetuation of outdated bias" any more than Wikipedia's use of Thursday (Thor's day) or January (Janus' month) are. Do you propose that we use "Common Day/Month [X]" to replace those as well? The Quakers have devised such a system, but we don't use it at Wikipedia just because it erases the pagan references. If you want to argue for wiki-wide use of Common Era, I'd suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Until then, BC/AD will not be "corrected" to BCE/CE in this article. —  FoxCE   (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To be clear: I did not "arbitrarily change" the dating system.  I simply used the one I habitually do (rather unconsciously) and then, in the TALK page expressed my opinion and advocated for change.  I think if you read the Wiki Manual in full you will find it also says:  "...attempt to establish a consensus for change at the talk page. Reasons for the proposed change should be specific to the content of the article; a general preference for one style over another is not a valid reason."  You seem not to have apprehended my reasoning and I suspect it is because I made assumptions in my above post I did not fully spell out.  I apologize for that; it was careless.  Let me try again:


 * The BC/AD year numbering system differs radically from the examples you cite in that it represents a bias in preference of a living belief system. Christianity remains a dynamic force in the world.  Ancient Norse and Greco-Roman religious beliefs have no such contemporary relevance.  The fact that Christianity remains muscular in our world today does not mean (in my view) that its cultural heritage in the language must be purged.  (Take for instance "Christmas," a day name widely embraced for secular cultural festivals today.)  I hope I am not assuming to much to guess that you agree.  But in the case of discussing world history dates, stacking the linguistic deck towards a currently active, proselytizing religious faith becomes inherent bias that tends to cloud objectivity and understanding.  The impact might be negligible for something like a discussion of the Greenland glacial sheet or the settlement of Scotland, but it would be substantial for this article.  I can think of few wiki topics where the use of CE/BCE was more essential.  Consider:  The Byzantine empire and its history was largely defined by its struggles, exchanges, and relationship with the rising Islamic faith.  Its role as the border state between Christian Europe and the Muslim Middle East and Africa was critical for the historical trajectory of all three continents (Europe and Asia especially.)  The fact of the distinction between Christian and Muslim was the central issue, in all sorts of ways and varieties, shaping the Empire.  Does anyone serious suggest that the history of the empire or its role in world history would be essentially the same if everyone in the middle east had remained Christians from 622 on?   That the Byzantine Empire can be understood in context without an understanding of, for instance, the Umayyad and Abbasid Caliphates, or the Seljurk and Ottoman Empires?  Likewise, can anyone suggest that both Christianity and Islam do not remain vital in our contemporary world?  Or that the relationship between the two faith traditions does not continue to be fraught with controversy?


 * Using the explicitly Christian nomenclature calendar when discussing events so irretrievably knotted with Islamic-Christian religious competition simply becomes advocacy. Using the Islamic calendar and starting the count at the 622 Hijira would be the same.  CE/BCE is a more neutral nomenclature or discussing such pregnant history.  Again, I'm sorry if I assumed too much when I called for the revision, but I had honestly thought the argument in the specific context of this article would be obvious.  I'll try to be more explicit and transparent in the future.TheCormac (talk) 20:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

First use of "Byzantine Emperor"
My non-expert attempt to answer a talk-page query at Mehmet II led me to this medallion legend: 'SULTANI MOHAMMETH OCTHOMANI UGULI BIZANTII INPERATORIS 1481' (Of Sultan Mehmed, descendant of Osman, Emperor of Byzantium, 1481). So it would seem that the first use of "Byzantine Emperor" is earlier than this article would have it. Haploidavey (talk) 10:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. Probably would be WP:OR to use it (as a primary source) here. Without a secondary source referring to it, it can't be certain whether Byzantine is being used in the specifically modern sense, or just a kind of poetic/flowery name for the Emperor of the Greeks/Emperor of the Romans, rather as Anna Komnene refers to Byzantion occassionally. DeCausa (talk) 13:09, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It could be a classicizing variant of the medieval expression imperator Constantinopolitanus, "emperor of Constantinople". Iblardi (talk) 20:28, 14 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, the following also suggests the term is used here only as a synonym for Constantinople, "The medal's obverse identifies him as "Sultan Mehmed, descendant of Osman, Emperor of Byzantium (i.e., Constantinople).", which would be different from the historiograhpical use to designate the whole empire (as started by Hieronymus Wolf). But it is nonetheless interesting.Cody7777777 (talk) 11:13, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Useful answers all round; so I guess the inscription's just cunningly deft, ambiguous and diplomatic. Haploidavey (talk) 12:20, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Successor entry in infobox, for the 1453rd(?) time
I'm personally on record arguing that the whole "predecessor"-"successor" thing should be removed from the disinfobox. However, this was mainly in reaction to those editors who were obsessing about adding a dozen or more questionable entries in there. If we are to have the whole thing, with one "predecessor" entry, then one corresponding "successor" entry is quite appropriate. And the Ottoman Empire is without any doubt the one and only reasonable entry to go there. Dimboukas' argument in this edit summary [//en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Byzantine_Empire&diff=496531347&oldid=496424722] is unconvincing, as Cplakidas pointed out quite correctly in the next edit. If somebody insists, we could bring forward numerous reliable sources confirming that both modern historiography, and in fact also contemporary post-Byzantine observers themselves, have thought about the Ottoman Empire as Byzantium's primary successor. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:49, 9 June 2012 (UTC)


 * This is getting wearisome indeed. Probably we should add another notice at the top of the page, right after the one on the name. Constantine  ✍  17:12, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In the other extreme, one might convincingly argue that many historical realms should be listed in there. "Byzantine Empire" is just a name, this is, in fact, the Roman Empire, and throughout history it was succeeded in many regions by many countries. -- Director  ( talk )  17:27, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but this was conclusively discussed earlier. A big list is simply not useful in the box. Let's not re-open that can of worms. Once you start with more than one entry, where do you end? Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:32, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This does seem one of those pointless, meaningless and of-no-relevance-to-providing-useful-information-to-the-reader type arguments that WP is so good at, and probably best dealt with by removal of the successor/predecessor ref in the infobox. Successor state has a specific meaning in modern international law (applicable to 1453??) which the Ottoman Empire wouldn't satisfy. But I can see that if you look at territorial maps of the two empires at various stages one would, popularly, be called the successor of the other, including by modern historians. Meh...who cares, let's flip a coin. DeCausa (talk) 07:02, 10 June 2012 (UTC)
 * What I wanted to say is that the Ottoman Empire is not a successor state of the Byzantine Empire the way the latter is for the Roman Empire. Different structure and cultures. For example, Alexander's empire is not Achaemenid Empire's successor in my opinion and if I were asked I would say not to include it there too.Dimboukas (talk) 00:25, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I really don't want to repeat the same old arguments but: Did they (both the Ottomans and Alexander's empire) cover approximately the same area as their predecessors? Yes. Did they have similar structures, with a degree of continuity in administration? Yes, even in personnel (the Ottomans inherited many Byz. institutions and many Byz. families converted to Islam, Alexander appointed satraps and made use of Darius's officials). Did contemporaries consider them the legitimate successor? Most definitely (Mehmed II claiming to be Caesar and being referred to as "emperor of Constantinople" by Westerners and as "basileus" by the Orthodox, most famously by Michael Critobulus, the same way Alexander stepped into the Great King's shoes). Modern historians too agree with this.
 * The argument that they differed in religion and language or ruling class is based on the fallacious assumption that states have some intrinsic "nature" that is inherited by their "legitimate" successors. For instance, the oligarchic, pagan and firmly Rome-based Roman Republic of 100 BC had no relation whatsoever to the realities of the Christianized, bureaucratized and despotic Roman Empire of 400 AD, but no one would argue that the latter is not a successor, nay a direct continuation of the former. It is simply that in cases where succession came about by conquest, it is obvious that the point of transition will be more abrupt. The Abbasid Caliphate was also different than the Umayyads in culture, capital, administration and the composition of its ruling elites, but it was still the clear successor. Likewise, modern Russia is different that the Soviet Union (a territorially larger, officially atheist, single-party, communist state), but no one disputes the succession. If we limited ourselves to recognizing cases "the way the Byzantine Empire is for the Roman Empire", then we would have to strike most successions out of the infoboxes, except for domestic regime changes. That is not how they are used, however, nor apparently how they are intended to be used. Constantine  ✍  07:22, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A comprehensive and overwhelmingly persuasive argument, Constantine. I agree.  It seems to me the biggest problem with the whole "succeeded by" in the info box is that wikipedia has never defined what that means.  In my view the only usage neutral and simple enough to be used effectively for this purpose when speaking of defunct states is: "What state next governed this geography and its population."  This definition itself is already fraught enough ("Which part of the geography?  The largest by area, population, or the cultural/political center?  What if the populations were shifted through mass migration?" Etc.) to be a simplified generalization.  Bringing in further (and necessarily more subjective) criteria such as language, art, religion, political institutions, legal codes, etc. simply ensures endless debate and allows too much room for bias and advocacy.  (Not that I am accusing anyone here of either.)  In this case, as you point out, even a foray into these softer interpretive areas leave the Ottoman Empire the obvious answer.  Those who seek to add others by giving added weight to this or that factor are simply trying to add scholarly nuance to a function that cannot accommodate it.  History is messy and almost infinitely detailed.  Lists are simple and clean.  The later can never fully capture the former. TheCormac (talk) 16:18, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Another issue is "Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire". This entity was the "Eastern Roman Empire" only until the fall of the Western Roman Empire. Afterwards, Odoacer returned the western Imperial regalia to Constantinople. From that point onward this was "the" Roman Empire. I propose we just use "Byzantine Empire". The "Eastern" and "Western Roman Empire" really weren't two "independent" empires anyway. They were just parts of the Roman Empire administered by different agusti. Its the same country, same empire. It is a frequent, but simplistic notion that there were these two empires, and that one fell and the other survived. In reality, it was the one Empire, but the court administering the western provinces simply became defunct and was abolished. The "one world empire" is one of the most fundamental concepts in the Roman mentality. The only thing that Odoacer did was abolish the western court and send the regalia to eastern court (which then became the only court of this one Empire). -- Director  ( talk )  16:20, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't disagree that it was the same state throughout its history, (or the OE can be considered the sucessor of the BE) but in that case can someone explain to me why the "Roman Empire" is listed as the predecessor state in the infobox? That just doesn't make sense. This is getting way too complicated and highly pedantic, and the amount of discussion devoted to this matter is just not worth it.  I think as long as the successor and predecessor states are listed in the infobox, the debate will never go away and we will go round and round in circles forever. Would anyone strenuously object if I removed the predecessor and successor state emblems from the infobox? Athenean (talk) 22:59, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

Lead changes
I entered a few clarifications into the lead regarding the term "Eastern Roman Empire" and stated more clearly that both "Eastern Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" are later terms. The usage of the term "Eastern Roman Empire" is more closely defined as primarily serving in the context of Late Antiquity (i.e. up until c.c.a. the 7th century).

As for the infobox, I really think we must simply choose the most common English language name and use it (which I believe is "Byzantine Empire"). "Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire" is confusing, unnecessary, and not in accordance with common practice. A reader might conclude, just for example, that the name of the state was "Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire" from the current state of the (dis)infobox. -- Director  ( talk )  17:29, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I reverted you because I believe the edits seem to be expunging "eastern" rather too obsessively, particularly changing in the first line "Eastern Roman Empire" to "Roman Empire". I understand the "one empire" point that you and one or two other editors are keen on, but the reality is it is standard historiographical nomenclature to refer to the "Western" and "eastern" empires. WP should follow this. As far as deleting "Eastern Roman" entirely and leaving behind only "Byzantine", especially in reference to the later period, I personally don't have a problem with that but there has been a lot of controversy in the Roman v. Byzantine nomenclature controversy on WP. It's just not worth opening that particularly pointless can of worms. let sleeping dogs lie. That's why I reverted those aspects. DeCausa (talk) 17:44, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, please don't try to reinstate again until consensus is achieved here. The existing text is a result of long-standing consensus. DeCausa (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I must say I don't like the implication ("obsessively") that I am pushing some sort of POV. I am quite familiar with the subject matter and the terminology, and having listened to lectures on Byzantine history by Kenneth W. Harl and Thomas F. Madden, I noted that the first thing they both did was they made the historical nomenclature perfectly clear. Yes, "Eastern Roman Empire" is a legitimate and widely used term for this state, but primarily during its Late Antiquity period.


 * What we have is "Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages". This, I believe, is at best simplistic, and at worse just plain wrong and confusing for the reader. It implies that "Eastern Roman Empire" is a wider term than "Byzantine Empire", i.e. that "Byzantine Empire" is a name for a period of history of the "Eastern Roman Empire". That cannot be said to be the case any more than vice versa, and if anything, "Byzantine Empire" might be considered the wider term. Both terms are names for periods of history of the Roman Empire, and are semi-interchangeable - with "Eastern Roman Empire" being a common term for this state primarily in Late Antiquity, while "Byzantine Empire" is more widely used for the post-Heraclian state.


 * Of course, this is by no means a strictly-defined boundary: its rather blurry and the terms do overlap. "Byzantine Empire" is at something of an advantage there, however, as it can be used for the entirety of the period "Eastern Roman Empire" is used, i.e. it can refer to the whole history of this state, but "Eastern Roman Empire" is applied very rarely indeed to the middle and particularly the late Byzantine state (for example, the Palaiologian period).


 * In short, I think its rather obvious that the lead sentence and paragraph are less-than-perfect and can be improved. -- Director  ( talk )  18:00, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't disagree with much of what you say. However, this article has long suffered from a little too much attention to the nomenclature issue. But ultimately it is quite a side point. I think the opening of the lead is by no means ideal (and I agree with what you say) but it is like that because there are some editors that obsess about "Byzantine" being wrong and it's really the "Roman" Empire. Well, that opening is the compromised result. However, to take out "Eastern" just does not reflect widely used historiographical conventions. It's not relevant that that convention is not based on the de jure position. I also agree that any reference to "Roman" for the later period doesn't make much sense. But there are editors around who strongly object to that. I strongly suggest that opening that issue again just isn't a constructive thing to do. DeCausa (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh.. this is another Wiki battleground? Ugh. Let me make myself clear then: as far as I'm concerned "Byzantine Empire" is a perfectly legitimate historical term. I certainly do not mean to replace it with "Roman Empire" or anything of the sort if that is your impression. In the words of prof. Madden, "Byzantine Empire" is a name for approximately the last 1000 years of the Roman Empire. This is the Roman Empire, but it in this period the Roman Empire is called the "Byzantine Empire". That's all there is to it.


 * All that said, I don't think the edit can be interpreted as favoring either side in the dispute you outlined. On the one hand it states more clearly that "Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire" (which it was), while on the other the term "Eastern Roman Empire" is replaced in the infobox and (outrageously!) moved to the second sentence of the lead.


 * My main goals were:
 * to correct the problematic wording of the first sentence, which I think can be very confusing for the reader. As I said above, it implies that "Eastern Roman Empire" is a wider term than "Byzantine Empire", i.e. that "Byzantine Empire" is a name for a period of history of the "Eastern Roman Empire".
 * to remove the confusing formulation "Byzantine (Eastern Roman) Empire" from the infobox. Former country infoboxes use just one, most common English-language name (and also "Eastern Roman Empire" isn't commonly applied to the whole period of the state's existence). The reader could get the idea that the alternative name for this state was "Byzantine Eastern Roman Empire".
 * to more accurately define the usage of the term "Eastern Roman Empire", so as not to imply that the term is entirely synonymous with (or wider than) "Byzantien Empire".
 * Finally, you don't know me if you believe I'd consider backing down for fear of opening a "can of worms" :). If an edit is good for the project - it should go in. Nationalist POV be damned. -- Director  ( talk )  18:33, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't know if it's nationalist POV - it's never been clear to me why it's such a hot topic for some. Looking again at your edits again, I would be happy with them if "Eastern" was reinstated in the first line. But you might want to take a look at the lengthy arguments on nomenclature in the archive before going any further. I won't get involved (or revert your change again). DeCausa (talk) 18:49, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I slightly prefer the older version. I don't think it is necessary to mention in the lede that the terms "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are invented by later historians, though I certainly don't object on that point per se and would be happy to see it included in the Nomenclature section (properly cited, preferably). Athenean (talk) 19:07, 11 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Of the three points I outlined (see above), points #1 and #2 are imo really mistakes that need correcting. They aren't really a subjective "stylistic" issue, but are objective problems that need to be answered. Point #3 is more of a question if and where we should clarify the thing. What exactly do you find objectionable there?


 * Re the explanation that "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are later terms, well, based on Madden and Harl's approach, I really think its a matter of paramount importance that needs to be explained from the start. This really was the Roman Empire. And besides, the information is already basically in the lead paragraph. All I did was add a tiny caveat to the already existing sentence. -- Director  ( talk )  19:54, 11 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I fully agree with you on point #2, I don't that is controversial. The other two points are a little more subtle however.  Looking at your last edit to the lede, I think one problem with saying that the "Byzantine Empire was the 'Roman Empire' in Late Antiquity" is that the Western Roman Empire was also extant during Late Antiquity. That's why I prefer the previous phrasing, "Eastern Roman Empire during Late Antiquity".  Regarding the addition that the terms "Eastern Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" are inventions of modern historians, while that is certainly a valid and important point, I think it is too much of a detail for the lede.  The lede is meant to provide readers with a broad overview and summary of the main contents of the article, not pepper them with details, especially right from the start.  This is a matter of opinion though, and I think we are going to have to agree to disagree on that.  Nevertheless these are important issues, and I would like to see where other experienced contributors stand. Athenean (talk) 22:41, 11 June 2012 (UTC)

The "Byzantine Empire" and the "Eastern Roman Empire" are really the same thing (i.e. the terms overlap). The sentence really makes little or no sense. and I get the impression it was originally "the Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages" and then someone added "Eastern". This really needs to be fixed. And "Eastern Roman Empire" is a term that is almost never used for the late Byzantine state (post-1204), and very rarely for the middle state. We're explaining one term with a narrower term. -- Director  ( talk )  11:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * "The Byzantine Empire (or Byzantium) was the Eastern Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages".
 * I agree it is problematic, but I think the reason for it is that the past arguments have been about "Eastern Roman Empire" v "Byzantine" rather than "Roman" v "Byzantine". I think that using "Roman" in this way is as problematic as "Eastern Roman" for the same reason. Just as, as you say, "Eastern Roman Empire" is almost never used to refer to the later period, even less is "Roman Empire" used post-Heraclius.To the extent that the word "Roman" is used in connection with the Byzantines "Eastern" is almost always attached to it. Taking into account Athenean's point above, I would suggest the following: The Byzantine Empire is the name commonly used by historians for the continuation of the Eastern Roman Empire during the Middle Ages. It may also sometimes refer to the Eastern Roman Empire in late antiquity. DeCausa (talk) 12:19, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Again, we cannot use a synonym (or a near-synonym) to explain what something was. And this was the Roman Empire. What are apples? They're type of fruit. What are dogs? They're a kind of animal. What is the Byzantine Empire? Its the Roman Empire during a certain period. It doesn't matter whether you say "its a name for the Roman Empire during a period", or you just say "its the Roman Empire during a period", but you have to say what the thing was by using a wider term. And, since "ERE" doesn't have have quite the scope of "BE", this is actually worse than using a full synonym. We're actually using a somewhat narrower term.


 * In other words, you can call this state the "Byzantine Empire" or the "Eastern Roman Empire", but you can't define the term you pick with the other one. "The Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages"? Is there another period the Eastern Roman Empire existed in? Because that's implied very strongly (no there isn't of course). -- Director  ( talk )  14:15, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I see the logic of what you are saying in the context of advocating "Roman" over "Eastern Roman". If you see a synonym problem, then it applies to both terms, not just "Eastern Roman". That problem is inherent in defining the BE in terms of "Roman", which frankly doesn't help the reader that much. I think it would make much more sense to start it with something like The Byzantine Empire was a medieval state with its capital at Constantinople. The boundaries of the Empire varied greatly in its thousand year history but its heartland was, for the most part, in the Southern Balkans and Anatolia, although at times, it also included much of the Eastern Mediteranean as well as territories in the western Mediterranean. It could then go on to say it was a continuation or name for or same as eastern Roman Empire etc DeCausa (talk) 15:34, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I notice that the Britannica Lead opens with Byzantine Empire, the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which survived for a thousand years after the western half had crumbled into various feudal kingdoms and which finally fell to Ottoman Turkish onslaughts in 1453. A variant of that would be fine, IMHO. DeCausa (talk) 15:43, 14 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The statement that the "Byzantine Empire was the Roman Empire" is supported by sources, but the historiogragpical term "Eastern Roman Empire" has also been used as a synonym for "Byzantine Empire" (for example, there are sources claiming that the Eastern Roman Empire ended in 1453). Regarding the introduction line, I would have preferred something like the following: "The Byzantine Empire and Eastern Roman Empire are historiograhpical terms used for describing the Roman Empire, centered on the capital of Constantinople, during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages" (and the difference here with the Western Roman Empire, is it was centered on Mediolanum or Ravenna).Cody7777777 (talk) 17:38, 14 June 2012 (UTC)


 * @DeCausa
 * The Byzantine Empire cannot be defined as a "medieval state", as it was not merely "medieval" - it existed in Late Antiquity as well. In fact that's known as the "early Byzantine state". Nor should we define it as a separate state from the Roman Empire. Its the same state, the continuity is completely seamless, as it were.
 * Britannica basically supports my position. Note the difference between "the Byzantine Empire was the Eastern Roman Empire" and "the Byzantine Empire, the eastern half of the Roman Empire". It was the Roman Empire, and Britannica defines it as such.
 * I actually believe it helps the reader quite a bit to define the Byzantine Empire in terms of "Roman". In fact, that's the main thing to explain in the lede: this article covers the Roman Empire in the Medieval period and Late Antiquity. During which time we apply the term "Byzantine Empire" to it. It is the most paramount thing the lede is supposed to do.


 * @Cody777777. I would agree with your proposal. Though we should probably emphasize at some point that "Eastern Roman Empire", as a historiographical term, is user primarily during Late Antiquity. -- Director  ( talk )  17:52, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Shall we proceed with amendments to the lead sentence? -- Director  ( talk )  07:11, 16 June 2012 (UTC)

Maps
Can anyone point me to accurate maps of the 15th and 11th century state? Also, I understand that Basil II's expansion in Armenia isn't accurately portrayed in the 1025 map, but what exactly was the problem with the 1450 map? -- Director  ( talk )  19:20, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * For me it's not a question of accuracy, but I am strongly against cramming 3 maps in the infobox. It looks terrible and I haven't seen it in any other articles. Typically we just show the empire at its largest extent. Athenean (talk) 19:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * We could also portray them all in a single map, like the Ottoman Empire article does. For instance: this (a bit too pale), or this (a bit too inaccurate), this (lacking 565 AD), you get the idea. 565, 1025, 1180 and 1403 should do, I think. Constantine  ✍  19:49, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree three maps is too much and too crowded. There used to be an animated map showing the changing borders, maybe that's a possibility. Not sure what happened to it. DeCausa (talk) 19:52, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm.. Well, I'm afraid I unfortunately just don't have the know-how (or rather the time) to make a new map from scratch. I could modify the three-map collage to fix the errors you specify? Or make it into the original two-map collage (greatest extent & last borders)?


 * @Athenean. Actually, the typical thing to do is to depict the state in its last borders. That's the usual practice. This article and the Roman Empire article are among the exceptions in that respect, and understandably so (the Roman Empire didn't really "fall" until 1453, or arguably 1204, so there isn't a last set of borders that would make sense for the latter, and it would not make sense to show only the remnants in 1453 for Byzantium). Also its misleading to have 14th and 15th-century emblems atop a 6th century map. This was just one of my ideas to have our cake and eat it too. As for how it "looks" subjectively, imo that should be the least of our concerns (and besides, I think it looks just fine :)). -- Director  ( talk )  19:57, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * How about these animated maps? DeCausa (talk) 20:02, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * I don't like animated maps. They save some space compared with separate maps, but they make comparison between the different stages more difficult, they prevent you from reading at your leisure and with your own rhythm, and they are visually detracting when you read the page around them. I would certainly oppose using one in the infobox. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:06, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Second that on the animated maps. I like Cplakidas' suggestion though.  I think it packs more information without being visually distracting. @Direktor: No, depicting the state in its last borders is not the typical thing to do.  We don't do that for Roman Empire, we don't do that for Achaemenid Empire, we don't do that for Sassanid Empire, we don't do that for Ottoman Empire, we don't do that for Inca Empire, in fact I can't find a single article where we do that.  Rather, infoboxes of empire articles almost always show the Empire at its greatest extent, or alternatively the use Cplakidas' proposal (e.g. Ottoman Empire).  And for good reason.  Showing an empire in its last borders is typically not very informative, whereas showing it at its largest extent is.  It shows which areas were influenced by that Empire, whereas what's the point of showing a small area around Constantinople and bits and pieces of the Peloponnese in the infobox? The article is moreover full of maps, I don't see any compelling reason we need to cram a whole bunch of them in the infobox.  Not to mention that once we open the whole multiple-maps-in-the-infobox can of worms, where does it stop?  Why only 3?  Why not 4? 5? And if so, which time points?  And before you know it, we are having another one of these lame endless infobox-related debate that never end (wait, aren't we having one of these even now?). Athenean (talk) 20:34, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Not until you arrived :). I also like Cplakidas' suggestion - but I can't make such a map. If you can find a pd map of that sort I'd be more than happy to fix it up to the best of my abilities. If you can't find such a map, I suggest we use two maps (greatest extent & last borders). -- Director  ( talk )  20:58, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

(unindent) I can make the map, no problem. I am over my head with other stuff right now, however, so it will have to wait a couple of weeks. If anyone else is interested, be my guest. Constantine  ✍  21:03, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * (ec) I can't remember whether it is in Wikipedia or the Commons, but I think there is some kind of map-making help desk or something like that where you put in a request for a map and there is a chance someone might make it for you. It really escapes my memory right now, but maybe other users with more experience about these things (e.g. FP or CPlakidas) know more about this. However, the fact that you yourself cannot make such a map is not an argument in favor of your proposal. Sorry. Athenean (talk) 21:04, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * Um.. what? "The fact that I cannot make such a map" (apparently) means we can't have the optimal solution right now. That's what it means. And that in turn means we are left with the choice of Justinian's map vs a two-map composite image. And of the two, a the two-map "collage" is I think obviously more appropriate for a variety of reasons (as partially outlined above). -- Director  ( talk )  22:36, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * And for the reasons I mention above (I won't repeat them), the Justinian era map is obviously more appropriate. Athenean (talk) 22:40, 18 June 2012 (UTC)


 * The Justinian borders are so atypical of the vast majority of the Empire's history - the Spanish and most of the Italian territories were lost almost immediately, and the Maghreb, Egypt, and the Levant were lost permanently in the 7th century - basically, all of these lands were lost by the end of the reign of Heraclius, who is arguably the first ruler who can really be described as Byzantine. I'd say that the 1025 border makes the most sense as a "typical" map of the Byzantine Empire at the height of its power.  The Justinian episode is more of a quasi-revival of the old Roman Empire than it is a good description of the Byzantine Empire at its greatest extent - not least because Justinian's empire still primarily used Latin as its administrative language, was still administered in the manner of the Roman Empire, and is rarely called "the Byzantine Empire." john k (talk) 20:24, 18 October 2012 (UTC)


 * Try defining 'typical' for an empire that lasted over a millennium. That's why this article follows the convention of representing the empire at its hight. If there is no other easily agreable and neutral way to represent a large empire's footprint, why would the Byzantine Empire be any different? FYI: representing an empire it its hight is representing it at its greatest extent. While the aforementioned animated gif can be a good option in this situation, there are valid reasons for why they are used so sparsely. — Sowlos (talk) 21:01, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, the basic shape of the empire in 1025 - Anatolia, the Balkans, part of southern Italy - is fairly representative of the main parts of the Empire for the last 800 years of its existence. The other areas in the Justinian map - the Levant, Egypt, the Maghreb, most of Italy, part of southern Spain, Sicily, Sardinia, Corsica - were, for the most part, irrevocably lost to the Empire by the middle of the 7th century.  And I would say that while Justinian brought the post-476 Empire to its greatest territorial extent, I'd suggest that most historians would not consider the misleading map of Justinian's ephemeral conquests to represent the "height" of the Byzantine Empire which was, according to most accounts, actually achieved under Basil II. john k (talk) 01:33, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Agree with John. The Macedonian years are known as the "golden age" of the Empire. I was never happy with this map as its so unrepresentative. IMO we should consider using Basil II's reign.

We've got this weird misleading infobox where the Palaiologos emblems are used and Justinian's empire is potrayed. You just know people are getting the wrong impression. -- Director  ( talk )  02:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)