Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 2

Opening paragraph
Roydosan and Hectorian, this opening paragraph bullshit is getting tiresome. Why do we have a paragraph like that anyway? It tells us nothing about what the Byzantine Empire actually was. Both versions are useless and uninformative. Adam Bishop 16:34, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think that pointing out Byzantium's heritage to the Hellenistic world is uninformative; it explains how a "Roman Empire" ends up being called "Greek Empire" and being inhabited by Greeks, but I'm giving up on the head anyway. Roydosan has already made up his mind and is clearly in some sort of denial about this whole thing, and imo there's no more use trying to talk sense into him. He's changed sourced content, he's even removed direct citations and replaced them with his POV. I restored the native name on the head and removed striking OR terms such as "Greek speaking Romans of the Eastern Empire". Finally I'm replacing "Greco-Roman" with "Hellenistic", the term used in the OHB i.e. the source cited right next to the claim. Regards. Miskin 19:11, 28 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As Miskin says, the Hellenization from Constantine until it's effective culmination under Heraclius is integral to the Empire, it explains why we draw the distinction. Western Europeans have no right to this History, they have already appropriated Classical Roman History away from the Italians (thanks to their enlightenment bullshitters). We will not let them do the same, we Greeks are a proud and ancient people.

No-one is disputing that the Greeks are a proud and ancient people but an encyclopedia is a place for facts not for nationalist sentiment. Maybe you should read NPOV and What_Wikipedia_is_not.Roydosan 15:35, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I support the mention : "During much of its history it was known to many of its Western contemporaries as "The Empire of the Greeks" due to the increasing dominance of its Greek population and distinct culture. " Since this is quite true and expresse the change that came over the empire's long existance. I'l also take this time to support Roydosan's point on Greeks in Alexandria and Antioch. Even to this day both cities hold an important greek minority. As to anonymous... World influencing civilisations are to be cherished and respected by all. Every one as a right to history, one cannot own it, one cannot sell it; it was, it is and will be. Dryzen 13:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't bringing forward any nationalist sentiments, I was just striving to make this article reflect the scholarly neutrality that some wikipedia articles lack. Roydosan's pan-roman views are unfortunately very poorly supported. Dryzen I never denied the undisputed fact that Alexandria and Antioch were Greek cities, I was just annoyed by Roydosan's use of his own terminology such as "Greek-speaking Romans". Frankly I don't know what he's trying to prove, but that edits is completely out of context and makes no sense with the rest of the paragraph. I think he was trying to imply that Alexandria and the urban centres of the Eastern Roman world were in fact inhabited by Hellenized Romans, something which would ignore all sources on the huge Greek colonisation waves of the Hellenistic age. Either way Roydosan makes edits based on his erroneous POV and imperfect understanding of the region's ancient history. He seems to be under the impression that the term "Hellenistic world" refers strictly to the Greek peninsula, and that all "Greeks" were confined within those borders (in the style of the modern Italian nation). Miskin 17:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Confusing wording
This, from the fourth paragraph of the'Crisis and fragmentation' section, makes no sense to me: "However, due to treachery from his opponents who deserted him on the field of battle...". Wouldn't 'deserting him on the field of battle' be a rather chivalrous thing for his opponents to do? ;-) Obviously something different is meant but I don't know enough details to fix it correctly myself.  Thank you. -LambaJan 15:25, 19 August 2006 (UTC)


 * They were his opponents in his own army, who were treacherous, but Romanus didn't know that until they deserted him. Adam Bishop 17:00, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

History template?
Shall we put a footer History template in, Byzantine History is so huge I think it merits it.

Byzantine army article needs a lot of work
I am surprised by how little interest there seems to be in the Byzantine army - such an important article, so closely related to Byzantine Empire. It really needs some work - there are whole sections missing, there is very little about where and against whom the army fought, how effective it was, or any mention of its major battles. I've been doing quite a lot of work on it recently, but it needs more. Please, surely there must be somebody on here who knows or cares about this article, and would be willing to help improve it? It's been 7 months since my last appeal for help, but apart from some contributions by Dryzen, almost nothing has been done by anyone other than myself... Bigdaddy1204 15:41, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

Reasons for revert
My revert was not meant to remove Roydosan's claimed sourced edits (which there are not, since there is neither a footnote nor any reference), but to restore edits that he had removed. Having in mind that he had tried to removed in the past every info he could that linked Byzantium to the Greeks, the removal on his behalf of the info in the previously given link, justifies perfectly my revert. --Hectorian 15:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually the comment was referenced (check what you removed on the edit history) and I strongly object to your statement that I have tried to removed in the past every info he could that linked Byzantium to the Greeks. Since that is not the case at all. Rather I have only sought accuracy not POV pushing. I find it ironic that the Greek POV pushers insist on emphasising the Latin's reference to Byzantium as the 'Imperium Graecorum' etc since that was used as a term of insult when referring to the Byzantine Greeks. Roydosan 17:41, 31 August 2006 (UTC)


 * Are u sure it was? see your edit . U have editted something that looks like a source, but which does not appear as a footnote, or a reference or an external link... It is just a name and title in <...>! The same happened the next time u reverted me.

As for what have u tried to remove from this article, i am too lazy to search the article's history... However, the users who have been involved in this article know well. If i should be a bit less "poisonous" and more accurate, i would say that u have tried to reduce the Greek character of Byzantium and to emphasize its Latin (towards the limis of a "Pan-Latinism"!). As for how "insulting" was the term 'Imperium Graecorum' for the Medieval Greeks, i can only make a comparison with the Greek name (Franks) of that time for Charlegmagne's Empire: he and his citizens claimed to be the successors of the Romans, however they were Franks... and so claimed the Byzantine emperors and citizens, however they were Greeks... The term 'Roman' had long ago stopped been synonymous with the people of Rome... --Hectorian 17:58, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Well I didn't make the reference up if that is what you're implying - I can easily quote the page numbers or quote it verbatim if thats your problem. As for this: If i should be a bit less "poisonous" and more accurate, i would say that u have tried to reduce the Greek character of Byzantium and to emphasize its Latin (towards the limis of a "Pan-Latinism"!). As we in England would say this is complete bollocks. I have never denied that Byzantium became a Greek empire just that it was not the Greek empire. Why on earth I would have a Latinising agenda is beyond me and I challenge you to substantiate this accusation if you can. As For Charlegmagne he and his citizens claimed to be the successors of the Romans No they didn't - Charlegmagne continued to refer to himself as King of the Franks after his coronation (this is verifiable). The term 'Roman' had long ago stopped been synonymous with the people of Rome This is only what I have argued all along (and it is verifiable) which is why it is no insult to refer to Byzantium as the Roman Empire or the Byzantine Greeks as Romans. Roydosan 08:23, 1 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The main point about identity should just be summed up by Ostrogorsky's quote, which calls the Byzantine empire something like "The Greek Empire of the Roman State" (though that quote is probably wrong) I remember the exact quote did sum up the Empire's identity pretty well.


 * Think about it in these terms, if the part of the Roman Empire that had survived had been Britain, then do you think we would be calling it anything other than a 'British Empire'? I can imagine if that had been the case instead of the disdain and hatred british enlightenment atheists (a strong tradition that continues with bigots like Richard Dawkins to this day) showed towards Byzantium would be turned full circle and they would have echoed their universal approval at this 'British Roman Empire' which 'kept the old lights of learning and civilization alive' while praising the 'immaculate beauty of British-Roman mosaics in British Roman Churches'.


 * The British themselves would've probably called it "The Roman Empire". If it had survived long enough, maybe even "The Roman Empire of the British Nation" or something like that. ;)
 * Regarding the debate: "Roman" had long ceased to refer to any ethnic or even cultural group. "Roman Empire" denoted "the universal, only, REAL Empire, of which the others are only inferior mock-ups". In that way, to deny the Byzantines the epithet "Roman" *was* denigrating, as it denied their claim to be the universal empire, rightfully ruling the known world. This had nothing to do with culture, religion, language or even ethnicity. The "British Empire" analogy is not a bad one: calling itself "Roman Empire", it would have laid claim to rule Rome and the world. When Charlemagne would call it "British", he would have suggested that they should just stay on their island and keep out of the world-ruling business. ;)
 * So, why not include all information? I can see no real error in any of them, and both are useful:
 * Henceforth, it was prevalent in the West to refer to the emperor in Constantinople not by the usual Imperator Romanorum (Emperor of the Romans) which was now reserved for the Frankish monarch - a slight to the Byzantines as it threatened their sovereignty, but as Imperator Graecorum (Emperor of the Greeks) and the land as Imperium Graecorum, Graecia, Terra Graecorum or even Imperium Constantinopolitanum''.
 * From the Eastern point of view, the Byzantine court under the Empress Irene allowed Charlegmagne and his successors as to use the title Basileus as long as they did not claim to be the Basileus ton Romaion - a title reserved for the emperor in Constantinople.''
 * Or something like that. Varana 13:15, 2 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Varana, if it had survived in Britain my point is not that the Brits themselves would have called themselves 'The British Empire' but that every single serious scholar from the enlightenment and onwards period would have called them a 'British Empire' or a 'British Roman Empire'.
 * I agree with you about the term 'Roman' losing it's ethnic designation as someone from Latium long ago, but the point is the areas of the Roman Empire that survived were in the Hellenized Greek East, and ergo, there would have been no need for them to self-identify ethnically as the East by the early 7th century and even before was fully Hellenized homogenous unit as far as culture and language go, and thats EXACTLY were the synonym with Roman = Greek comes from, the fact that the 'Latin' West had been conquered while the 'Greek' East remained Roman.


 * Or, to carry the comparison further, the scholars would call it something like "Londinian Empire".
 * For the rest: Umm, yeah. Sorry, but I'm lost a bit about what you wanted to say... The Byzantine Empire was predominantly Greek, ethnically and linguistically. That's a fact. The discussion here, however, as far as I understand it, is about the *historical* name, i.e. the terms used during the existence of the Empire. Roydosan deleted statements that the Byzantine Empire was called Graecia, Imperium Graecorum etc. in the West, which was meant as a slur. Roydosan added a statement that Irene conceded the title βασιλευς ("emperor") to the Frankish kings, but reserved των Ρωμαιων for herself, which is entirely understandable, as only the "Roman" (which is completely independent from nationality) emperor was the "real" emperor, and they'd never give up *that* claim.
 * Both statements are, imo, true. Varana 21:12, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Formatting notice: it was by purpose that the last sentence above was not indented, to set it apart from the proposed article text.

Yes Varana, this was the reasons why i reverted Roydosan. The Byzantine Empire was a Greek Empire (in ethnicity, language, culture and its view by the outsiders). Irene gave the title βασιλεύς to the Frankish kings, so as not them to use the title των Ρωμαίων, since the last title was associated with: ecclesiastic supremacy, land claims, continuation of administration of the Roman Empire, etc etc. It was a diplomatic game and nothing more. Not to mention that she negotiated a marriage between her son and Rotrude, a daughter of Charlemagne by his third wife Hildegard of Savoy, something that could imply an attempt to reunite the remnants of the Roman empire... In any case, it would seem rather silly is someone tried to deny the greek character of Byzantium... Regards --Hectorian 21:57, 2 September 2006 (UTC)

Could people please sign there paragraphs, tis rather confusing to find who is talking to whom. As fot Byzantium and its character, this has already been discussed time and again. For the synopsis, and let me boprrow this from an earlier post by Varana I think: The Byzantine Empire was predominantly Greek, ethnically and linguistically. The key has been enboldened, predominantly does not indicate solely. Akin to the United States being predominatnly anglo-saxon, but calling it English would be serious mis-information. In any event this was not the main point of this discusion was it? I beleive we where talking about the movements of information? Semantics and nationalism seems to be clouding much of this talk page and article. At the onset of any discussion about imperial character, one must remember certain facts, the most important of wich is time. The Byzantine Empire spanned many centuries, in wich time it evolved and mutated, as much on a political and military front as on a cultural and territorial one. Since the fall of this mighty empire, many things have changed and one of them is concepts. The concept of nationalism was not present trough out the medieval world. Empires and kingdoms had more to do with the ruling bodies than the cultures on wich they governed. Peasents would shift from "protector" to "protector" as these battled each other. As can be seen with the back and forth exchanges on the end of the Empire. Warren Treadgold summed it best in his conclusion of A History of the Byzantine State and Society. In the end, to speak of mire once more, I too seem to have lost the original arguement. Yet if I remember correct, my opinion owuld be to keep its myriad of names but to indicate their origins and there temporal values (for exemple to call some one a greek was more of a insult than an ethnic connotation in the Western dark age world). --Dryzen 15:15, 6 September 2006 (UTC)
 * By the standards of a modern nation, the Byzantine empire was an artificial state, largely created by its rulers. The form it took after 285 was the result of an administrative division of the Roman empire made by Diocletian. Constantine I chose the empire's religion and built its future capital. Maneuvering by Leo I and Zeno rescued Byzantium from becoming a plaything of barbarians. Without the determination of Justinian I, the empire would never have expanded to the West. Without the inspired strategy of Heraclius or the prudent management of Constans II, Byzantium would probably have fallen during the seventh century. Its revival from the eighth to the eleventh century was the work of a series of unusually capable rulers, and ceased when that series came to an end. Alexius I rescued the empire from collapse, but it fell to pieces after his dynasty ended. The Byzantium of Michael VIII was a deliberate, if incomplete, restoration of its predecessor. The walls of Constantinople, which had helped save Byzantium several times before, were practically all that preserved the restored empire during its last century.


 * Byzantium never depended on the perceptions of racial or linguistic unity that define a modern nation-state. While most Byzantine emperors strove to impose religious unity, they never quite succeeded in suppressing heresies, schisms, or religious minorities, and their constant striving to eliminate religious divisions drove their subjects apart almost as much as it brought them together. Most Byzantines, though proud of their empire, assumed that God would care for it without aid from them. They considered it the greatest empire in the world, but this opinion had little to do with how big, strong, or prosperous Byzantium actually was. Most of them considered themselves loyal to the emperor, but such loyalty seldom made them resist someone who overthrew him and took his place. The Byzantines, in short, had nothing much like the modern concept of patriotism.


 * Yet, as its durability shows, Byzantium's artificiality was as often a strength as a weakness. By and large it overcame the ethnic and linguistic divisions among its subjects. Few of the empire's religious disputes divided its people along ethnic or linguistic lines, and none did so explicitly or completely. Under the pressure of religious idealists, many of them monks, the Byzantine church defended its principles well, and often forced them upon the state. The central role of the state in defining Byzantium led to fairly good government by pre-modern standards. The bureaucracy was distinguished by its education, competence, and professionalism, and the ruling class usually managed to do whatever needed to be done to preserve the state. Regardless of what leading Byzantines might say or write about their powerful emperor on official occasions, they opposed him when necessary, and at some other times as well. The emperor's power never exceeded that of a western monarch like Louis XIV, who was in much less danger of being overthrown.


 * The differences between Byzantium and the medieval kingdoms that later evolved into nations can easily be exaggerated. In some ways, for example, the history of Byzantium was rather like that of France. Both began as parts of larger empires. Byzantium began as the eastern part of the Roman Empire that was ruled by Diocletian after 285; France began as the western part of the Frankish Empire that was ruled by Charles the Bald after 843. While each of those larger empires was later reunited for a few years, the divisions that created Byzantium and France turned out to be lasting, partly because they corresponded to a previously existing linguistic divide. Diocletian's portion of the Roman Empire was more or less that where Greek, not Latin, was the culturally dominant language, and Charles the Bald's portion of the Frankish Empire was more or less that where the main language was Old French, not Old German. If Byzantium had lasted into modern times with something like the boundaries it possessed between 750 and 1000, it would probably have developed into a predominantly Greek-speaking nation-state, at least as heterogeneous as today's Russia and only a little less so than today's France. As of this writing, France is still some years short of Byzantium’s record of longevity.-A History of the Byzantine State and Society Warren Treadgold (Dryzen)

One of the better articles
I am pretty disenchanted with Wikipedia, and the bigoted, nasty and ignorant people who are determined to push their POV in it. But I would like to say that this is a rare example of a good article. Obviously it could be more complete, but anyone coming to the subject for the first time would come away with a good grasp of the basic facts and structure of Byzantine history. This seems to be mainly down to Roydosan recently, so well done.

I don't notice any "anti-modern-Greek" bias in the article, and some of the comments above (which have much truth in them to some extent) are extreme in neglecting that the whole thing is the Eastern Roman empire, at least in origin and self-identification. The article correctly points out the change to Greek under Heraclius. Before then it is rightly called Roman. By 1453, in a sense, it has indeed shrivelled until it is almost just the kingdom of the Greeks; but that is the end product, not the whole thing. Most people in the West reading this article need to have the Roman nature of it emphasised, rather than the Greek side, in my experience. 81.77.109.121 00:30, 3 September 2006 (UTC)


 * So you Western Europeans can appropriate it's History and Culture just like you appropriated the History and Culture of Rome away from the Italians? Not a chance my friend, the Empire is Greek, understand this now because it's the consensus of modern scholarship as well as all contemporary scholarship: THE EMPIRE WAS GREEK, REMAINS GREEK, AND STAYS GREEK. You also undermine the importance of Language as denoting a difference in ethnicity and culture as far as the division between East and West go. The Eastern Roman Empire was a direct continuation of Hellenistic culture with Christianity. And I don't understand why you consider self-identification as 'Roman' as something denoting a Western Latin rather than an Eastern Roman Greek? (Also, aren't you Latins the ones that constantly pooh-pooh our citations of Alexander's self-identifaction as a Greek?) Can you explain this to me? The Empire even before Heraclius was considered Greek, Heraclius is just the de jure point at which it can be considered to be a break from the 'Latin' past, and also because of his emphasis on a Greek national struggle against the Persians during his war, citing earlier conflicts between them as a way of rallying the people. This is OUR Empire, do you think any other race on earth feels the joy when reading about the campaigns of Vasilios, or the pain when we read about the fall of Constantinople? Your enlightenment buddies realised that Britain and Western Europe had no classical heritage, so they appropriated it from Rome, now you realise there is a big gap in your middle-ages history, and you want to appropriate it from Byzantium. Not a chance.


 * "The Greek Church has seen in the Latins nothing other than an example of affliction and the works of Hell, so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs" - Pope Innocent III


 * Umm, yeah. Whatever. Sometimes I've got to prepare an equally rambling speech about how all this crap talk of "ethnicity" is ruining serious work at WP. In the meantime, good night. Varana, slightly puzzled 02:33 a.m., 4 September 2006
 * If you hapen to be anonymous from the previous bellicose satement of a much too similar nature, please sign your statement. Considering the vindictive tone you seem to appreciate I shall ignore this as puerile want of attention.--Dryzen 15:32, 6 September 2006 (UTC)

Manuel I Komnenos

 * However, from the moment of Manuel's death on 24 September 1180, the Byzantine Empire began a steep decline that would never be reversed.

Judging from this and several other quotes, somebody has gone a bit overboard in the glorification of Manuel I Komnenos. The turning point in the empire's fortune's was Myriocephalon (1176), a battle which occurred while Manuel was still alive. The article blames the post-Manuel collapse on "disasterous rulers," but Manuel's adventurist foreign policy contributed to the collapse by overstreching the empire's resources. (BTW, do we really need to know that he died on 24 September?) Kauffner 13:20, 5 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Agree. Manuel was one of the greatest emperors of Byzantium, however, his death is not usually considered to be the turning point for byzantine empire's history. some scholars say this was Myriocephalon, others Matzikert (when the Turks begun conquering Anatolia), and most the 4th crusade (that partitioned and weakened the empire the most). I think this sentence should be removed or rephrased (and, of course, the exact date of his death shall be removed as well). --Hectorian 16:50, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

I don't agree. If you look at the evidence, it is clear that the Byzantine empire did indeed decline steeply after Manuel's death. Furthermore, Manuel was also the last Byzantine Emperor to rule over a state that was the most powerful in Europe and the middle east. His reign was the last in which Byzantium was a world power. After his death, the empire's military, economic, territorial and diplomatic position collapsed. If you read "The Empire of Manuel Komnenos" by Paul Magdaleno, or "Byzantium and the Crusades" by Jonathon Harris, or "The Byzantine Empire 1025-1204" by Michael Angold, or "The development of the Komnenian army 1081-1180" by J. Birkenmeier, you will see that Manuel's reign was indeed a turning point for the Empire. Also, looking at our own well researched Featured Article on Manuel I Komnenos himself may be useful if you are looking for more information on the topic.

That said, I don't object to the sentence being re-phrased in some way. But I wouldn't write it off completely, because it contains an important truth. The best thing I think is to make a few suggestions for what to replace it with here, and then if no one objects to implement the new wording. What do you think? Bigdaddy1204 10:44, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The point Kauffner is making is that Manuel I Komnenos expanded the Byzantine Empire far too much for his successors to mantain. The same problem occurred in many empires, like the Roman Empire with Trajan, the Mongol Empire under Genghis Khan, and the Ottoman Empire under Suleiman the Magnificent. A great warlike expansonist ruler appears and conquers a lot of territory and greatly expands his empire. The great success depends greatly upon the exceptional qualities of the ruler and the weakness of his enemies. The enemy retreats but he also regroups and simpy waits his time, gathering his strength. The new successor who isn't as exceptional as the old ruler doesn't have the necessary resources to oppose the enemy, who comes back with a vengance. In the end the empire sufers great losses.
 * Everybody blames the sucessor but the cold hard fact is that the old exceptional ruler is the guilty one. Nobody should try to mantain what is impossible to keep and nobody should leave a strong enemy who is simply "pissed off". He should either A) completly destroyed the enemy or B)in the latter part of his rule fortified the border areas and reconsilidated his armies or C)choose a wiser sucessor (the most difficult of all). Of course, as always, nothing is truly as easy as that but if someone looks at Trajan and Hadrian one has to agree that Hadrian was very wise in not mantaining the furthest conquests of Trajan and in regrouping the legions in more defensive positions. One has to wonder what had had happended if Hadrian hadn't been so wise... Received the blame as the successors of Manuel did? Flamarande 11:20, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

Isn't everybody right here? Manuel's reign certainly was the last in which the Empire was the arguably the strongest Christian power. It also saw overexpansion, which led to serious defeat in Manuel's own lifetime at Myriocephalon. Manuel's failure is thus much greater than the other rulers Flamarande mentions. I'm not sure who the incompetent successors of Trajan were - the Empire was at its height for the largely peaceful reigns of Hadrian and Antoninus. Selim II was certainly a weaker ruler than Suleiman I, but Lepanto is generally no longer seen as a particular turning point, seeing as it had few strategic consequences - the Turks still managed to conquer Cyprus, and the peak of their power in the Mediterranean did not come until their conquest of Crete a century later. There has generally been, I think, a tendency to conflate the personal weaknesses of the sultans who followed Suleiman with institutional weakness of the Empire itself, while the latter, I think, did not really develop until the mid-17th century. Arguably, it is Mehmed IV whose reign fills the same function in Ottoman history that Manuel I's fills in Byzantine. Genghis Khan certainly doesn't fit - there was continued expansion for 50 years after Genghis's death - certainly Batu and Subotai's campaigns in eastern Europe can hardly be seen as part of Mongol decline. Kublai would seem to be the culprit who most resembles Manuel here. There's some other obvious examples, though - Edward I's expansion into Scotland, which only fell apart in the reign of his successor; Henry V's resumption of the Hundred Years War, which led to disaster in his son's reign; and so forth. What we need to do, though, is be sure not to conflate personal weakness of individual monarchs with decline of the state, and vice versa. The Byzantine state was in decline at least from Manzikert onwards, and probably entered an irreversible decline after Myriocephalon. At the same time, Alexius I, John II, and Manuel I were clearly strong rulers, in spite of the latter's ultimate defeat late in his reign. Perhaps a strong successor would have been able to recoup some of Manuel's losses, but the weakness of the position of Isaac II and Alexius III seems much more the result of Manuel's overextension than of their own personal failings. john k 14:48, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Some very interesting points and comparisons have been made here. I am glad that we are having a constructive discussion here without degenerating into the destructive arguments that seem to be going on under some of the other topics on this talk page. This is good :)


 * Back on topic - I think it is unreasonable to place the blame for what happened after Manuel's death on him personally. Indeed, if we are going to blame people for what happened afterwards, then we should blame Constantine IX, the empress Zoe, and the many others who mismanaged the empire towards Manzikert, thereby creating the problems that Manuel ultimately never resolved, and which contributed to the collapse after his death in 1180.


 * I am not saying this is what we should actually do in the article - it's just an illustration to show that the Byzantine empire already had major problems stemming from the Manzikert period, and that these were problems which the Komnenoi emperors, Manuel included, wouldn't have had to deal with in the first place if it hadn't been for the mistakes of earlier emperors.


 * I think this is largely compatible with what has already been said - the Byzantine empire had some serious problems at this time, which were going to come back as soon as the Komnenoi emperors were gone. But saying that some of their actions may have contributed to the collapse that followed is not the same as saying that they actually caused the collapse in the first place.


 * What really caused the collapse was a combination of many factors; it is possible to argue that, like Justinian, Manuel's lavish expenditure and grand campaigns overstretched imperial resources, leaving his successors with a difficult situation. While I am sure there is an element of truth in this, a competent emperor such as Basil II or Constantine V would have restored the situation within a few years, while preventing any serious losses.


 * I believe that the collapse is best explained by a combination of the above, with the fact that Manuel's successors did show a disastrous degree of foolishness and incompetence (read up on how one of the Angeloi threw Frederick Barbarossa's emissaries into prison, for example - the most stupid thing he could have done in the circumstances, as it confirmed Frederick in his suspicions and made him more likely to attack the Byzantines), and, finally, structural weaknesses.


 * I believe that the disintegration of the military theme system around the time of Manzikert caused a structural weakness that damaged the empire considerably. If you look at the empire before the theme system was devised, it was on the point of collapse. Persians, Slavs, Lombards, Arabs and Avars all rampaged across imperial territory, and emperors were being deposed left right and centre. But once the theme system had been implemented, the empire began to recover; the theme system had offset some of the weaknesses of the imperial system, allowing it to recover and ultimately flourish.


 * However, after Manzikert the theme system was gone, and so the empire was at the mercy of chance and luck, since its survival was now tied to the quality of the emperor in charge. As luck would have it, the three Komnenos emperors gave the empire stable and competent leadership for a century, allowing it to recover its position in the world. But the underlying problems hadn't gone away. Once Manuel died in 1180, the empire was back where it had been before Heraclius, wollowing in a quagmire of agressive and treacherous enemies, at the mercy of the incompetence of its emperor, with no strong mechanism for its own defense. But this time, no saviour appeared to rescue the empire.


 * The Komnenos emperors could, I believe, have restored the empire more permanently by restoring the old theme system, which had served it so well for centuries during the long struggle with the Arabs. However, they never did this, and I believe that this made all the difference between their revival being permanent, and the ultimate collapse of their achievement under their successors. Bigdaddy1204 19:09, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The depopulation of Anatolia after Manzikert would seem to be the real culprit here. I'll certainly agree that the weaknesses of Manuel I's successors played a role in what happened, but I think the eventual fall of Byzantium was already in the cards from before the Komnenoi took over. john k 19:53, 9 September 2006 (UTC)

I think I agree with this - depopulation and the loss of the theme system based in Asia Minor weakened the empire, and the collapse was made much more likely. In the cards, as you nicely put it, is quite a good way of describing it. But the collapse wasn't yet inevitable - as the achievements of the Komnenoi showed. They could have made structural changes that would have ensured the survival of the empire (eg new theme system, based in europe and western asia minor), but they didn't, and the cards eventually came home to roost... Bigdaddy1204 20:35, 9 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To get back to the text of the article, the point that needs to be made is that the Komnenian golden age, such as it was, ended with Myriocephalon (1176) rather than with Manuel's death (1180). Aside from the battle itself, there were other indicators of decline as well. William of Tyre has a passage I can look up about what a sad state the Byzantine navy was in at the time of Manuel's death compared to 10 years earlier.


 * As far as the theme system goes, I don't think there was any policy the emperors' could have followed that would have saved the system. With the return to a money-based economy, wealthy landowners were going to start buying out poor ones, so the military could no longer depend on small farmers as its main source of manpower. The defeat at Manzikert (1076) was a symptom of the empire's failure to address this problem and not the beginning of the decline. Classical Rome faced the same problem and the solution was the Marian reforms -- the creation of a salaried, professional legions. Caesar's legions outclassed any Medieval army. The soldiers fought and the farmers farmed. Isn't that the logical way to organize a sophisticated society? Kauffner 09:43, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

Very good points made here. Classical Rome is a fascinating analogy, and one which I had not considered before. Given what you have said, perhaps I should be arguing that the Komnenoi should have restored not the theme system, but the professional army of Rome instead. An intreaguing possibility!

Be that as it may, however, I wouldn't fall into the trap of calling Myriokephalon a disaster on the scale of Manzikert. I think to say that the golden age came to an end at Myriokephalon is to overrate the significance of the battle to the empire. I have read accounts in more general history books, which claim that the entire imperial army was massacred in an apocalyptic bloodbath of a battle which saw the end of Byzantine power. In reality, however, the battle had little impact from a military standpoint. The best modern studies of the battle I have read are in John Haldon's "The Byzantine Wars", and J. Birkenmeier's "the development of the Komnenian army 1081-1180". Detailed analysis reveals that casualties were not heavy, except among the auxiliaries from Antioch on the right wing. The main body of the army survived the battle intact, as well as the vanguard, which had reached the far side of the pass and was unscathed. The army went on to win a significant victory over the Turks in the following year (1177). Other than a psychological humiliation to the emperor's reputation, almost nothing had been lost, from a military point of view. The frontier remained static.

However, the campaign had certainly been expensive, and no doubt the imperial treasury was hurt by the loss of the seige train and treasure at the battle. This most likely was a contributor to the monetary difficulties Manuel's successors faced. Ultimately, as so often in history, Myriokephalon only looks like the end of the Byzantine golden age when you look at it with the benefit of hindsight. This is reinforced by the dramatic and well publicised nature of the battle, which lends itself all too easily to exaggeration. We know that the Byzantines collapsed in the years after Manuel. It is convenient to use a defeat in battle as a marker for the collapse of the empire, especially since the events are not widely separated in time. But the historical evidence does not allow us to make such a smooth conclusion.

As for how we should rework the section of text in question, I think we need something that explains that the article is now going on to discuss a new topic: the decline of the Byzantine empire. We need a sentence that wraps up the Komnenian period, indicates that the Komnenian period of Byzantine history has come to an end, and that we are entering the decline and fall stage of the empire's history. We need something that explains that Manuel was the last emperor to rule over an empire that was a great world power. Suggestions? Bigdaddy1204 12:27, 10 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Just to come back on this discusion, making an analogy with the Roman empire on can find new perspectives. The first, the professional army that was earlier alluded to, did exist and even participated prior to Manzkiert in the form of mercenaries. The sole difrence in this incarnation was that this professional force held its loyalty only to the coins the Emperors gave it, rather than coin and holding some ideal like the early Imperial Legions. This also brings in the second thought, one must also remember that it was the professional (although degrated in quality) armies that fell before the ennemies of the 6th and 7th centuries. And this as we look on the long history of Rome, seems to present a patern, where as time flows so too does the military system. Changing from citizen army to professional army to mercenary army back to soldier-tenants to Professional to mercenary to pronoia... Finaly looking for a catalyst to the Byzantine troubles one can also allot the blame to Constantine IX and his economic "solutions" (generous tax immunities to major landowners and the church, disbanding of the veteran Iberian (eastern most territories of the empire, see image) Army&Themes).--Dryzen 17:53, 11 September 2006 (UTC)


 * The extensive use of mercenaries at Manzikert suggests that the empire had the money for professional soldiers, but somehow not the will to recreate an army of its own. There were only 5,000 regular army Byzantine soldiers at Manzikert (out of 40,000). Mercenary cavalry found it too easy to take the money and run away when the heavy fighting started.


 * The 6th and 7th centuries were the low point of the Dark Ages. Agriculture was at the subsistance level and the money economy had collapsed. Thus there no way to raise the taxes needed for an adequate professional army at that time. By 1000, the climate had warmed and there was an agricultural surplus. Not as much manpower was needed for farming, so farms were consolodated and small landowners bought out. The problem certainly pre-dates Constantine IX (r 1042-55). Basil II (r. 976–1025) was able to continue the theme system only by rigorous enforcement and arbitrary confiscation. This meant keeping excess manpower down on the farm just a create pool from which part-time soldiers can be recruited. I can't see this policy as a long term solution to the problem (and indeed it wasn't).Kauffner 21:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)

The books I used
These are the books I used:


 * Angold, Michael (1997). The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204. Longman. ISBN 0-582-29468-1.
 * Haldon, John (2002). Byzantium - A History. Tempus. ISBN 0-7524-2343-6.
 * Harris, Jonathan (2003). Byzantium and the Crusades. Hambledon and London. ISBN 1-85285-298-4.
 * Alan Harvey, "Economic expansion in the Byzantine empire, 900-1200"
 * John Haldon, "The Byzantine Wars"
 * J.W. Birkenmeier, The Development of the Komnenian Army 1081-1180
 * Magdalino, Paul, "The empire of Manuel I Komnenos 1143-1180"
 * Norwich, John Julius (1998). A Short History of Byzantium. Penguin. ISBN 0-14-025960-0.

I would like to add inline citations as well; however constraints of time make this difficult. The most I have time for immediately is to place my seven books at the top of the bibliography list, draw attention to them here, and explain that these are the books that I used when I wrote the following sections:


 * 8 Crisis and fragmentation
 * 9 Komnenoi and the crusaders
 * 9.1 Alexios I Komnenos
 * 9.2 First Crusade
 * 9.3 Slow recovery
 * 9.4 John's restoration of the empire
 * 9.5 Manuel I Komnenos
 * 10 The Komnenian army
 * 11 Twelfth century 'Renaissance'
 * 11.1 Economic expansion
 * 11.2 Artistic revival
 * 12 Decline and disintegration
 * 12.1 Death of Manuel Komnenos
 * 12.2 Collapse under the Angeloi
 * 12.3 The Fourth Crusade
 * 13 Analysis of the collapse
 * 13.1 The arrival of the Seljuks
 * 13.2 The structure of the military
 * 13.3 Conclusion

as well as parts of 7 - "Golden age", 14 - The fall of the Byzantine Empire, amd 14.1 - Aftermath.

Hopefully by pointing out the sections I wrote and the books I used to write them, this will be of some help. Bigdaddy1204 22:15, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Moirae (military)
Any of you ever hear of this Byzantine military administration? From its name I would think it a Meros (Merẽ)/Turma. From its commander's title its a Drungus/Chilliarchy and from its unit tree half the Imperial Tagmata. What ever it is it needs attention. Opinions and information is greatly appreaciated. --Dryzen 12:56, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Anyone minds if I delete or change this page to Meros?--Dryzen 13:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)

Fourth Crusade
My recent edits to this section were reverted. However, this has not changed the fact that the original text is poorly written and is not formal enough. It is simply not good enough to leave it as it is. It must be re-written. Examples:

"the leaders of the Crusade ran in to trouble"

too colloquial;

"after some time spent arguing over what to do next"

same;

"The Crusaders ransacked the wealth of a millennium, stretching back to the days of the Roman Empire."

bad sentence structure; and so on. This section lets the rest of the article down. It is glaringly inferior to the rest of the text. You seem to be missing the point that I'm not just adding more details to this article, but I am re-writing it in a more appropriate style. But every time you revert my edits, you are removing all these improvements to the style of the section and putting it back to its unsatisfactory condition.

I don't want an edit war over this, but I'm not going to leave the section alone; it simply isn't good enough as it is.

Now, what I suggest is that I set down the text as I want it to be here, and then you suggest changes and amendments here, and then when we have reached a version we can agree on, we add it to the article. So, here it is:

"The Fourth Crusade Main article: Fourth Crusade The Fourth Crusade was the single most catastrophic event in the history of the Byzantine empire. Considered by many to be the low point of the Crusading era, the outcome of the Fourth Crusade was also a supreme irony. The Crusades had originated in a call for aid by the Byzantine emperor Alexios I Komnenos, who had envisaged the use of western soldiers in the defense of the empire. Yet in 1204, the soldiers of the Fourth Crusade sacked the Byzantine capital at Constantinople and dismantled the Byzantine empire.

Although the stated intent of the crusade was to conquer Egypt, the leaders of the Crusade were placed in an extremely difficult position when they found that considerably fewer men had responded to the call for a crusade than had been expected. As a result, they could not afford to pay for the huge Venetian fleet which they had hired to take them to Egypt. The Venetians would not let the crusaders leave without paying the full amount agreed to, originally 85,000 silver marks. The crusaders could only pay some 51,000. After a period of indecision and argument between the Crusade leaders and the increasingly impatient Venetians, the Venetian Doge Enrico Dandolo made a controversial new proposal - the crusaders could pay their debts by attacking the port of Zara in Dalmatia (essentially an independent community which recognized King Emeric of Hungary as a protector, and which was previously ruled by Venice).

The citizens of Zara made reference to the fact that they were fellow Catholics by hanging banners marked with crosses from their windows and the walls of the city, but nevertheless the city fell after a brief siege. Both the Venetians and the crusaders were immediately excommunicated for this by Pope Innocent III.

In 1202, the Byzantine prince Alexius Angelus, the son of the recently deposed Byzantine emperor Isaac II Angelus, offered to reunite the Byzantine church with Rome, pay the crusaders an enormous sum, and join the crusade to Egypt with a large army if the crusaders would sail to Constantinople and topple the reigning emperor. The crusaders accepted; their fleet arrived at Constantinople in late June, 1203.

The Crusaders' initial motive was to restore Isaac II to the Byzantine throne so that they could receive the support that they were promised. The citizens of Constantinople turned against emperor Alexius III, who then fled. Prince Alexius was elevated to the throne as Alexius IV along with his blind father Isaac.

Alexius IV realised that his promises were hard to keep, as Alexius III had managed to take a large amount of money with him, and the empire was short on funds. In fear of his life, the co-emperor asked from the crusaders to renew their contract for another six months (until April 1204). Opposition to Alexius IV grew, and one of his courtiers, Alexius Ducas (nicknamed 'Murtzuphlos' because of his thick eyebrows), soon overthrew him and had him strangled to death. Alexius Ducas took the throne himself as Alexius V; Isaac died soon afterwards, probably naturally.

The Catholic clergy meanwhile accused the Byzantines of being traitors and murderers since they had killed their rightful lord, Alexius IV. The churchmen used inflammatory language and claimed that "the Greeks were worse than the Jews", and they invoked the authority of God and the pope to take action. Although Innocent III had warned them not to attack, the papal letter was suppressed by the clergy, and the crusaders prepared to assault the Byzantine capital.

Eventually, the crusaders took the city on the 13th of April. The crusaders inflicted a horrible and savage sacking on Constantinople for three days, during which many ancient and medieval Roman and Greek works were stolen or destroyed. Among the loot were four bronze horses from the Hippodrome. These were taken to Venice, where they remain to this day. Despite their oaths and the threat of excommunication, the Crusaders ruthlessly and systematically violated the city's holy sanctuaries, destroying, defiling, or stealing all they could lay hands on; according to Choniates a prostitute was even set up on the Patriarchal throne. When Innocent III heard of the conduct of his pilgrims, he was filled with shame and strongly rebuked them, saying "You vowed to liberate the Holy Land but you rashly turned away from the purity of your vow when you took up arms not against Saracens but Christians… The Greek Church has seen in the Latins nothing other than an example of affliction and the works of Hell, so that now it rightly detests them more than dogs".

According to a prearranged treaty, the empire was apportioned between Venice and the crusade's leaders, and the Latin Empire of Constantinople was established over the ruins of the Byzantine empire. Byzantine power was permanently weakened. After an initial rise of the power of Bulgaria in the first half of the 13th century, the Serbian Kingdom under the Nemanjic dynasty grew stronger and, with the weakening of Byzantium, formed a Serbian Empire in 1346."

Bigdaddy1204 07:58, 21 September 2006 (UTC)

Since there has been no further comment or objection to the incorporation of the above text, I have made the necessary changes. Bigdaddy1204 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

New map requested
It would be useful to have a map showing the partition of the empire's territories in 1204. Any help with this would be much appreciated. Bigdaddy1204 14:26, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a rough one at Commons, also used in Latin Empire and a number of other 1204-related articles; another one here. If you want another one, I think I could help out; say what you want on the map. :) Varana 18:54, 23 September 2006 (UTC)

Thanks very much! I am grateful for such a helpful response. About the maps you have cited - I like the second one (the first one I think is a bit rough, as you said) but I am especially interested in a new map if possible. Maybe taking the area of the lands shown in the first map, but with the division of territory from the second map? I'd like to see for example which lands were given to Venice, and which lands were never occupied by the crusaders (eg Nicaea). Could it be done? Bigdaddy1204 21:18, 23 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Map Tell me what you think and how it could be improved. :) Varana 09:48, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Wow, I am impressed! This map is just what I need. I don't think I need to suggest any improvements - it's great as it is. Good job! If only everyone on wikipedia were as helpful as you! Many thanks, Bigdaddy1204 16:54, 24 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Very impressive. What did you use to draw over the base geography? Lots of information, I hope this map is posted on the Latin Empire article, wich could also use sectiosn for all the duchies, etc, repressented.--Dryzen 13:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks. :) I've been so immodest to add the map to Latin Empire myself. The vassals have all their own articles, which are linked from somewhere there; although I agree that the article could be improved.
 * The map is made in Paint Shop Pro, with a layer with reduced visibility for the coloured areas. Varana 14:59, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I noticed the transparency, our own GIS at work costs alot more yet does less of an Artistic job, then agains it has huge statistic abilities... --Dryzen 13:31, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine discussion
I am keen to continue the fascinating discussion about the Byzantine theme system and army from further back on this page. Specifically, Kauffner has said

"Classical Rome faced the same problem and the solution was the Marian reforms -- the creation of a salaried, professional legions. Caesar's legions outclassed any Medieval army. The soldiers fought and the farmers farmed. Isn't that the logical way to organize a sophisticated society?"

Are we seriously going to argue that the Byzantines needed the Marian reforms? If the Komnenoi had created an army consisting of salaried, professional soldiers, would the wealth of the empire have been sufficient to maintain it? Would it have been possible to maintain sufficient numbers of these troops to hold back the Turks in Asia Minor? In other words, was a Byzantine 'Marian reforms' a realistic possibility?

According to historian Paul Magdalino, by the reign of Manuel I Komnenos a system of forts and field armies stationed in frontier cities had enabled the Byzantines to restore security to Asia Minor. Reasserting Byzantine control over all the most productive areas, the Byzantine armies of this period left the Turks with only the relatively barren plateau of Anatolia.

However, the Komnenian army was not a full time standing army. After the Komnenian dynasty was replaced by the incompetent Angeloi in 1185, the empire's frontiers collapsed, and the empire fell to the Fourth Crusade in 1204.

But this is what makes the discussion so interesting - had the Byzantine army been through a Marian reforms as described above, might it have been more effective against the Turks and other enemies of the empire? Might the empire have survived, and even prospered? Bigdaddy1204 22:00, 25 September 2006 (UTC)


 * Reading Treadgold's piece on Byzantium and its Armies one gets a very clear image of the pre-Komnenian empire. Of its pages one gets to see that the standing armies of old had functioned superbly as swords of the empire, yet by Diocletian's time they where no longer expanding, the armies of Augustus where not capabale shields of the empire. Outsourcing to Barbariens had also weakened the state of imperial armies. Justinian's armies once again took to expansion and performed remarcably under able leadership.
 * Heraclius time mark the early days of the thematic system, it also marked a first low in the empire. Its system perfered brillaintly against the invaders that had so thouroughly blunted the edge of the presential armies. This new system enabled an impovrish Byzantine state to list large armies at reduced cost while retaining production levels. Soldiers could fight as the invaders reached their sectors, be rapidly deployed for deffencive manoeuvers and found themselves with a need and want to defend the empire greater than pay and an as yet-to-be develloped patriotism. These soldier-tenants had property to defend, it was in there interest that the administration remain. This system also enable the military to maintain itself with heirs replacing their fathers as these died or retired. The old unpopular methodes of conscription was over and the plaguing lack of recruits as military service had lost glory was also a thing of the past. This methode kept the empire alive, yet it also indered its re-expansion, soldier-tenants had little want to gain land they could not use. As well, this land would also need to be colonized by new-soldier tenants, either by weakening one fron t of another and reducing bonds the fighters had developped in there communities. The offensive minded Tagmata fixed the problem of displacing thematic troops for offencive campaigns and enabled the emprorers to build an effective spear with there equally effective shield.
 * Yet a combination of events underminded this system. The first being, paradoxicaly, a reacurrence of victories and growth. As the empire won and expandant under the Macedonian and soldier Emperors, a greater burden was placed on offencive troops, Tagmata where therefore also enlarged with new regiments, yet even theres additions could not cope with the need, outsourcing once agian returned, in the form of mercenaries. As these saw most of the action, thematic forces where gradually relinquished to secondary roles. Some regions begun to completely loose their militant traditions, deep within the empire and away form the front lines, the soldier-tenants where no longer generationally called to arms. when campaigning emporers would ask thematic forces to the field and should they not be able to deploy, a monetary replacement. At the same time a military aristocracy begun to take hold of the state. gaining large estates by buying the land unused by htere fellow tematic landholders and using their gained influence to disrupt imperial policy forbidding such acquisition. The mixture of there changed led to emperors distrusting the aristocracy, in hope of undermining their influence they called for monetary compensations of the soldier-tenants (reducing there military efficacity to minimise the power of these should they rebel with the local magnates). Other emporers kept the new methode to reduce militray spending, leaving them free to hold lavish events or bribe whom they needed, all the while assured that mecenaries would be on hand in the event that Bulgars, normans or arabs threatened the borders. This mentality rapidly became self-feeding as weaker emperors followed in succession.
 * With this brief and stereotyped filled synopsis one can determine that by Manzkiert the Byzantine army was in a rather dire situation on paper it could field ian impressive force, in reputation it could reduce a number of opponents, yet in reality it had become but a shadow of itself. In conclusion the thematic system was the system for a retreating empire, yet was a poor choice when presented with a situation of prosperity, were a professional force could maintain longer campaigns and be maintained. A marian army would probobly have also failed before the Seljuk onslaught. In its original heavy infantry form, it would of been slowly withered by the arrows of the rapide horsemen. In the best overall senario, as a saleried professional force of native soldiers following the byzantine art-of-war, compentently led and without internal-powerplays, the chances are they they could of defeated many an opponent and claimed victory. Yet this does was not the case, it would seem ot have been an impossibility of maintaining such a force with the weak emperors and the internal shift of power toward the aristocracy known at the time. The post Manzkiert and post 1204 catastrophy though are not my strong point and I will refrain from making too many assumptions. From what I know it would seem that barring the failed crusader support and aristocratic power struggle, the Komnenian dynasty could of turned the empire back on track and develloped a standing army. Yet as was the case, the emperors had to contend with the imminent problems at hand rather than a longtermed solution.--Dryzen 15:09, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting post, Dryzen. So it appears that what the Byzantine empire really needed was military reform. The Komnenian army was, so far as I can see, smaller than the old theme army. Yet it was not fully professional either (though it certainly had full time units). It appears to have been reasonably affordable, though perhaps not as cheap as the old theme system. However, since it was not quite as permanantly organized as the old Roman army, it needed to be carefully directed by the emperor in order to function properly. This was perhaps the 'Achilles heel' of the Komnenian army. This flaw, when combined with the flaws of a monarchist system of government (occasional bad rulers who cause disasters), contributed to the Byzantine collapse.

Given the prosperity of the empire at this time, perhaps "a saleried professional force of native soldiers following the byzantine art-of-war", as you described it, would have been the ideal solution. They would be permanant, elite, and crucially, organized enough to be effective without the emperor's intervention. This might have enabled the empire to survive the mismanagement of the Angeloi, at least long enough for Alexios V (who appears to have had the makings of a great emperor) to take over and lead the empire to success. After all, the Roman empire had the same political weakness as the Byzantine empire - bad emperors such as Nero, Caligula, Elagabalus, and countless others - yet it was able to prosper, despite them. Perhaps the Byzantines could have done the same, given the right military system. Bigdaddy1204 16:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * If, could, would. Ultimatly, it would depend upon the ability and competence of the Imperial goverment to recruit, train, equip, feed, provide for, and to pay everything. Then it would depend upon the quality of the Byzantine generals and their loyalty towards the Emperor and the central goverment. Then it would depend upon the quality of the enemy they would be facing and on the result of military conflicts, which are always unpredictable. Mercenaries are simply a quicker and easier solution. They are veteran soldiers who have their own equipment and only need to be payed. They will fight for the state aslong the state pays their salary. Sadly, they will not fight too hard and aren't too loyal as they do not really care for the survival of the state. Some mercenaries were truly loyal and fought brilliantly for their employer. Others ran as the fighting got rough (as regular troops also did, and do even today).


 * All these "if" discussions are always quite interesting but sadly totally hypothetical. Let me give you my personal view about it. A basic fatal flaw in the Imperial system (in which an Emperor rules with absolute power, limited only by common sense and the threat of rebellion) is that basicly all real power is concentrated in a single person "the Emperor". If that august person is competent and willing all the available resources of the state will be used efficiently to protect and to improve the state (the empire/country). This is the shinning example we all like to see: a mighty empire with a wise and strong emperor. (Do you hear the Imperial anthem? :).


 * What Imperials are forgeting is that sadly the average person everywhere is mediocre. In a group of 20 persons, 15 will be of normal intelligence, 3 will be stupid, and only 2 will be really smart and intelligent (i.e. truly competent). To be competent takes much more effort than to be stupid and ignorant because to be the later one only has to be lazy. Now we all like to think that the children of emperors were carefully educated and prepared, but alas most of them weren't.


 * Believe me, many sons of emperors and kings were manipulated, neglected, corrupted, frightened, bullied, fanatized, and kept ignorant, etc. Almost everyone (the so-called "friends and faithful companions") is keen "to be friends" with the potential heirs to gain a alltoo powerfull patron. Now there were certainly some true friends who helped the future emperor, but too many were only useless yes-men, and others only kissed imperial as*. The two later kinds of "friends" doe not encourage the potential heir to study because they praise the heir allready, and convince him that he is really good: "You are soo wise mylord.". Yea, right, trust a snake before you trust a courtier. Worse, some of these parasites will encourage the heir to be under-average because of the: you don't need to concern with these matters mylord, we, your "true friends", will take care of it. There is a nice girl (or boy, drug, drink, whatever) you truly must meet. Everything is in (our) capable hands. Enjoy your life and don't care for these problems.- attitude.


 * The parents of the heirs (the ruling emperor and his wife) are simply too busy to care for their children. They need to rule an empire (24/7/365) and most of them sadly neglected their children. Worse, as the parents were allready educated in that system they themselves do not see any problem with it. Strong affection was many times even disencouraged as "improper" for an emperor.


 * The product of a dysfunctional family and bad education will be in average a spoiled child, an incompetent Imperial heir, a bad Emperor. Worse, because he will be brownnosed throughout his entire life he will not even be aware of his limitations and acknowledge his ignorance in many matters. He will envy a more competent and succesful general, bureaucrat, etc.


 * Of course nothing is as easy as that, we have many emperors who were competent and some who were truly exceptionally gifted. But if you really count them there are more barely adequate emperors than good emperors, more bad emperors than very good emperors, and more disastrous emperors than exceptionaly good emperors. Why? Because to truly rule a nation is the most difficult, unrewarding, dangerous work and 99% of all of us are simply not truly up to the task.


 * A good Emperor needs to ruthless, cunning, clever, educated, patient, decieving, etc. He can't afford to be weak or lazy. He will have to crush rebellions, killing his own countrymen and executing ppl he knew (sometimes members of his own family). He can't even afford to appear to be weak, therefore it is very difficult for him to be merciful. Many times he will send thousands of ppl (some of them his friends) to their certain deaths. He will be betrayed by alltoo many persons throughout his life . At all times his courtiers will try to manipulate him. At all times he will have to fight for power with persons inside the Imperial bureacracy. He will have to fight with the church unless it gains too much power. Replace church with family member, heir, general, wife, etc.


 * Every Imperial failure (and many are not even the result of his own flaws, but of incomptent underlings) will be used to critisize him by his political opponents (it is much more easy to blame the emperor for everything). And all these fights will continue throughout his entire life. It is alltoo easy to hand the power to a powerful minister and to simply not to care, to expend ones time with concubines, drugs, drink, etc. These pleasures are always avaliable and the emperor is encouraged to use them by too many ppl. It is easier to be a tyrant than just.


 * Paranoia, bad education, false friends, corruption, treason everywhere. We all like to dream abot being an emperor, but trust me, we wouldn't like to be one.


 * The result of a bad emperor will reflect itself upon the quality of the Imperial goverment and will be magnified throughout the entire empire as almost everything depends upon him. In a Western medevial kingdom some figure will hopefully step in: the chamberlain, the prime-minister, the prince, the parlament, whatever. In most empires these figures don't have the same amount of power and autonomy. Many emperors will convince themselves that they can't share their power if an underling meets with failure. Others are simply envious of others ppl success. Many fear to be replaced in a coup by these persons. These persons can also be afraid that the emperor wants to get rid of them, and will rebel exactly because of that.


 * And some heirs of emperors never really wanted to be emperors in the first place (more than we will ever know)! They simply don't have any choice but to inherit the Imperial throne or they will die.


 * By the way, all these flaws exist in all forms of goverment, but in a republic the "ruler" will replaced after some time and the truly lazy are (hopefully) filtered out. And noone reaches the topspots if they don't really want to. And a incompetent "ruler" will be replaced after two terms in the average modern democracy. Therefore the damage a bad ruler can inflict is limited, unlike an empire where the emperor rules for life. A system who shares power amongst more ppl is simply better as it limits the damage a single person can inflict. There will be also more powerful ppl willing to truly fight for the nation as they want to preserve their own power/influence upon the state. It is not accident that empires and "true" kingdoms have disapeared (the emperors of Japan never truly ruled, and most modern monarchs might have some influence but they are mainly there for the show, while parlaments officially rule "in their name"). How many nobles betrayed the emperor/kings as the offer of the enemy brought advantages? Would these nobles betray their country as easily if you gave them a reasonable amount of power in the parlament (e.g. england)? The system only has to avoid to share the power among too many ppl, and almost everyone will remain loyal to his state/country. Flamarande 17:10, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * And to add another point of view (written at the same time as Flamarande's post):
 * Generally, it seems important to me that a military system doesn't exist (and can't exist) all for itself. It is always connected to a specific historical situation, specific economic, political and intellectual circumstances. Not only had Roman military evolved between Marius and Diocletian, but they also lived in completely different situations. Dryzen's analysis makes that quite clear: while the theme system was a very successful response to the needs of the Empire when it was created, some centuries later those needs were quite different. Not only had the Empire changed internally, but it faced also very different enemies. And not only regarding military equipment, but also in political organization and economics. Byzantium was not isolated; when the feudal system was at its peak in the High Middle Ages, it also influenced the solutions Byzantine rulers and aristocracy tried out for their particular problems. While Marius reformed the Roman militia army, he took the porfessional armies of the Hellenistic kingdoms into account (without copying them); feudal structures became common during the Komnenian rule (without just copying the West), as was the spirit of their times. Politics is a game of consensus building, also in an autocratic government, and you can't rule against what others think is right and normal; and the ruler himself is also "only" a child of his times.
 * Umm, to the point: In thinking about alternative approaches that could have changed what happened, we should also take into account the general beliefs about government, and outside influences that required very specific (and maybe unsatisfying) answers. Varana 17:18, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

I would like to briefly say here how impressed I am by the excellent contributions that have been made to this discussion by all contributors. I feel that the discussion has produced fascinating new insights into the fall of the Byzantine Empire. Thanks to this discussion, I now have a clearer and deeper understanding than I have ever done before.

There are a few specific comments I would like to respond to:

"A basic flaw in the Imperial system (in which an Emperor rules with absolute power, limited only by common sense and the threat of rebellion) is that basicly all real power is concentrated in a single person "the Emperor". "

This is exactly the conclusion I reached when I was considering the rise and fall of the Empire in May this year. I was trying to understand why the Roman Republic rose to such power, and why the Byzantine empire fell. I decided that it was ultimately down to two main factors:

1. The political system; and 2. The military system.

The Republic rose to power because its political system limited the damage that could be done by one individual in power, while encouraging competition for office. The result was a superb political system that avoided the disasters that having one man in power often causes.

It also rose to power because of its formidable military system and organization, its uncompromising approach to warfare, which was predominantly agressive and relentless, and a willingness to fight to the bitter end in pursuit of final victory, no matter what the cost.

Later on, both the Roman Empire's and Byzantine Empire's political systems concentrated power in the emperor. This was a weakness of both empires, and led to the collapse of both.

In the case of the Byzantine empire, a highly effective military system had been offsetting this weakness until the Komnenian period. But this brings us to the next point:

"Not only had Roman military evolved between Marius and Diocletian, but they also lived in completely different situations. Dryzen's analysis makes that quite clear: while the theme system was a very successful response to the needs of the Empire when it was created, some centuries later those needs were quite different."

So to make the analogy explicit, we are saying that Heraclius and Manuel Komnenos lived in completely different situations. The needs of the Byzantine empire in the twelfth century required a response to keep up with the changing times. A new military system was needed. But in the twelfth century, the empire failed to reform its military comprehensively for a new era. Therefore, the military system was no longer enough to offset the disadvantages of its political system. Consequently, the empire fell. Would you agree? Bigdaddy1204 20:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)


 * It isn't truly as easy as that, for we are neglecting the competence and capacity of the Turks, a semi-nomadic warlike ppl who fought by diffrent rules and with diffrent tactics and forces. We are also neglecting the fact that the Byzantine empire was many times fighting a two-front war (sometimes even three-front): one in the West against the Slavs, other in the East against the Persians, replaced by the Arabs and Turks, and sometimes in the South (Sicily) against the Sarracens and later the Normans and in the North against whatever tribe appaered. The Byzantine Empire was surrounded by many enemies, and what saved it many times was that these enemies never really combined their offensives. We are also neglecting the tremendous influence of cash. A rich state will have more chances than a poor one. Where did a medieval state get its cash? From taxes obtained from its farmers and from tarifs upon trade. With the raise of the Italian city-states and their trade the cash for the Byzantine Empire slowly dried up. And war is terribly expensive.


 * In the basics you are quite right: Everything changes, and change is the only constant in the entire unverse. It is like a law of nature: something which does not keep adapting itself to a everchanging enviroment will not survive on the long run. If you believe that this also applies to states and political systems then it follows that a state which does not adapt to changing times will surely perish, sooner or later. This is not so easy and logical in Human history (everything Human does not necessarily follow the laws of nature). Several states were quite willing to adapt itself, but were simply outgunned, outnumbered, and outclassed and subsequently simply overrun by their enemies. Flamarande 00:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)


 * To condense the post below: I would not confine it to the military, but essentially I'd agree. Every form of government has inherent weaknesses, and their negative effects have to be minimized. With absolute monarchy, the most glaring weakness is the possibility to have weak rulers. But even then, there is a certain amount of simple luck involved.
 * The Roman Republic had found a very successful formula that brought her domination over the entire Mediterranean world (and, with Caesar, beyond). The old system didn't work anymore, however, when it came to effectively ruling an Empire: we see the Republican leaders, be it Sulla, Pompey, Cicero, Caesar etc. to Augustus, searching for new solutions in several directions. Rome had the power (and the luck) that it could afford almost a century of heavy civil war to sort out its internal problems without being toppled. Augustus' Empire (with its later modifications) proved strong enough for the next centuries, even with weak, mad or otherwise incompetent emperors. With Diocletian and Constantine, the Romans had again leaders who found a way to renew the Empire. However, they could only go in some directions - trying out a republican government was absolutely impossible for them, even if they wanted (and they wouldn't have had the idea, anyway). It may be that this reliance on absolutism contributed to its fall; it was, however, without realistic alternatives.
 * To Byzantium: It has been said about Byzantine court ceremony that it was there to provide a role the emperor could play. Strong emperors could go further and actively shape the Empire according to their wishes; weak emperors could hide behind the ceremony and be emperor just by following protocol. The military system, the imperial bureaucracy, etc. all had similar effects (and the latter two arguably more than ceremony) - so essentially, yes, I'd agree that the Byzantine political system (including the military) set off the weakness of incompetent emperors and enabled the Empire to survive. Some emperors were able to adapt the system to changing conditions so that it could function a while longer; some managed to use what was given to them with maximal efficiency (I would count Justinian among the latter, for instance). The Komnenian reforms strengthened the Empire to cope with the future - the Nicaean and Epirote successor states, both with several very able leaders, quickly got the upper hand over the crusader states, proving that the direction of the Komnenian reforms was right. Pure historical coincidence (okay, not only, but to a large degree), however, lead in 1204 to a combination of weak Byzantine and strong external (Venetian) leadership and an international invading force just at the gates of Constantinople, and that combination was fatal. It had happened earlier with Heraclius, who actually managed to crush the Sassanids, but was helpless when the Arabs started their conquest - an event which he couldn't have seen coming. It happened later, in the other direction, that the Mongol invasion (which came over the Middle East as pure coincidence) delayed the Turkish expansion for some time, giving Byzantium some additional decades. Varana 13:15, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks like we've develloped a balanced panel, enjoyably bringhing support to diffrent contributing facets of the Byzantine fall. I would hope this would de-alienate the oftimes overly present notion that the All hinges on the One. That is, that the fall of, be it Rome or Byzantium, was the result of a single event (at worst) or single factor (at best). Multiple elements led to their collapse. Of course, some do take the lion's share.
 * Develving deep into the military deficiency, one can find curruption of the administration, leading back to the political sphere. This may not be the Emperor's (as a position) sole and much less a single leader's doing, albeit some surely did have a hand in it. What I am brigning to the table is the element of a growth of a counterproductive aristocratic oligarchy.
 * Where, similarly to the late Roman emperors' and as Varana indicated, the court began to dispose of leaders as they sought their own power. Often times reducing a fellow byzantine nobles, if I can be so bold as to use the term, and thus diminishing overall stately power, to selfishly attain higher status. Either by remouving their support in military conflict, sabotaging economic ventures, campaigns of public slander, etc. Weak emperor could but attempted at giving in to there wants in oder to remain the nominal head of state.
 * Another instrument in thsi gorwth was the fact that as time drew on emperors following successful leader had to a large shadow to overcome. Such as Basil II's elimination of taxes for the remainder of his rule, did not put his sucessor in a favorable light as he had to reinstate taxation. The central thematas of wich I spoke about in my earlier text, grew to enjoy military pay with no need for military service as generations one after another saw little to no fighting with the empire expanding. These turned into a threat to emporers, like Constantine IX, who needed to redeploy economic soltions. Saldly many of these, who for better or most likely ill, risked the imperial borders with discharging active military units rather than face disaprouval or rebellion form these, now, more farmers than soldier-tenants. Of course, this decision was influenced by the military aristocracy whom also enjoyed imperial revenue as high level officers and on many occasion had asimilated land from soldier-tenants into there own. All os wich being barely legal, as this was not the old soldier's land but the Emperor's, yet so too was the military aristocracy's original allotment. Therfore it became a transfer of tenantship, maning that discharged tenants woudl of had to return the land they had loaned to the aristocrats. I'm sure you see the effect this would of entailled.
 * Yet,this large and powerful aristocracy, though dilluding imperial efficiency and influence, develloped into a suprisingly effective methode of defending the empire. Without consiouly arranging, it this internal division enabled the empire ot survive With the imperial seat removed, the promiment Byzantines where able to fill the vacume, such as was seen with the respectable might of the successors states following the fragmentation following the fourth crusade. Lines that were drawn around regions of influence rather than administration. As much as they did to perserve Byzantine culture the new organisations had little to gain by returning under the leadership of one of there own and thus we see inter-sucessor state conflicts.
 * This was of course the synopsis of a complex evolution. As mentioned throughout the discussion, change was enevitable and those that seek to portray the empire an its enviroment as static are mistaken to do so. Change it did, survived and at times excelled, from Rome to Constantinople, two millenia of influencing the know world directly and many more to come in legacy.--Dryzen 17:12, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

I hope you are intending to confine this discussion to the talk page...I just thought I should point out that you can't speculate on things like this in the article itself. I mean, it doesn't matter what any of you think about it. Adam Bishop 21:23, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

What a spectacularly rude post! Your comment that "it doesn't matter what any of you think about it" is offensive. I know you're not one to mess around with the formalities of politeness, but even by your standards that was a brilliantly anti-social and tactless comment. It was also totally uncalled for. I was not planning on taking this discussion into the article. But this is as good a place as any to have a discussion about the Byzantine Empire. Oh wait, I can see what's coming next... "this is a page where you must only discuss specific issues pertaining to improvement of the Byzantine Empire article, as per Wikipedia regulation XYZ-123. Discussion that in any way deviates from this is strictly prohibited. If I had my way, you would all be shot. Now go!" Somehow I don't think you will see the funny side of this. But the way you post reminds me of a Nazi. If this response comes as a surprise in any way to you, it is because you don't realise how rude you sound. If it does not come as a surprise, then you meant to be rude. Either way, it isn't good. I suggest you don't respond here, though - after all, it doesn't matter what you think about it ;)


 * Well played, Bigdaddy, bravo. Adam Bishop 05:59, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Now, back to the discussion!
 * I seem ot have missed somethind here in the dialogue between Adam Bishop and Bigdaddy1204, a past encouter mayhaps? As to the discussion I beleive it pertinent ot the understanding of hte Byzantine state. These thoughts, and I distance myself from the term theories, did not materialise by themselves and oft times mirror or relate perceptions held by some or many scholars. As well the large part of theses texts display information (facts if you will), either present on our articles or perhaps forthcoming, that is collected for the reader's understanding. This in the end answering their possible querries, stimulating reflexion or hadding weight to there own understanding. It is at the very least my toughts on it.--Dryzen 15:53, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Komnenian Reforms
"The Komnenian reforms strengthened the Empire to cope with the future - the Nicaean and Epirote successor states, both with several very able leaders, quickly got the upper hand over the crusader states, proving that the direction of the Komnenian reforms was right."

I think this is very interesting. Perhaps the Komnenian reforms were indeed right - a good solution to the problems the Byzantine empire faced at the time. The same held true for the successor states. This was what allowed them both to have such successes. However, they did have one weakness - they had the side effect of laying bare the inadequacy of the imperial system, where all power was invested in the emperor. This is why the empire collapsed under the Angeloi - the political system had become a liability when combined with the Komnenian reforms. What do you think? Bigdaddy1204 23:00, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not well versed in the reforms brough on by the Komnenian dynasty yet from our own article and sections written (in large part by Bigdaddy1204) there seems, like I have written before, to be a chronological cycle. As with Heraclius and Constans II, Alexius I inherited an realm beset on all fronts and seemed on the verge of the abyss. Remarkably, both invested in similar solutions, landed military.
 * Having built this correlation it is doubly supported by the prior texts.Bigdaddy1204 points to a good solution to the problems the Byzantine empire faced at the time and what was this problem? The empire was crumbling due to internal disruption and external pressure. Defence was its goal and, I`ll not repeat myself but it sufices to say, soldier-tenants performed the job admirably. The new dynasty though did return to the old thematic system, its reformation producing the Pronoia. The system of grants was, if you will, what the themes had degenerated into; powerful aristocracy owning imperial land. Stating the de facto as de jure, it helped promote the disperssal of aristocrats. Although these now had more individual power than ever before, they where, as stated in the article, no longer in the capitol where they could mix and plot with fellow abiscious peers. And as I described this had the benifit of leading to powerful successor states when tragedy befell the empire.
 * As seen though, the reforms proved to be exceptionally successful contending with the imminent problems at hand yet proved wanting as a longtermed solution. In short it was a military solution wich neglected the administrative needs to hold it up once a capable line of emperors had dried up. Of course, should the fourth crusade of failed or never have tacken place, mayhaps the empire would of remolded itself in the fires of its own rebellions, as had the Romans and itself before (in this I am refering to these empires knack for producing periodes of turbulent political strife, of wich, like a Pheonix, births powerful dynasties and administrative reforms). Writting this I am reminded of a passage in A History of the Byzantine State and Society by Warren Treadgold:
 * By the standards of a modern nation, the Byzantine empire was an artificial state, largely created by its rulers.  --Dryzen 15:26, 29 September 2006 (UTC)

Golden Age
This section, while it has recently been helpfully expanded by Attilios and reorganised by myself, needs considerable attention. Comparison with the rest of the article is instructive - the section on the Golden Age needs to go into more detail on the successes of the empire, and needs to go beyond the mere stating of facts to explain and describe the situation and nature of the empire at this time. If we are going to get this section to a point where it is equal in consistency, quality of written English, coverage of the topic, and evalution and analysis, to the rest of the article, then it is going to require major work. I don't much fancy taking this task on by myself - I have already written something in the order of 9,000 words for this article as it is (mostly covering the period 1025 to 1204), and I feel it needs contributors other than myself and Attilios (no offense to those who make smaller edits, by 'contributors' I mean those who write new sections or provide major rewrites of existing ones). Bigdaddy1204 16:31, 27 September 2006 (UTC)
 * This is Attilios writing. I'm not of English motherlanguage, so my edits need to be copyedited by other users. I think the featured status given to this article shows the intrinsecal lacks of current Wikipedia, especially in the history field. There are a lot of in-depth articles devoted to singular arguments (to remain near, Byzantine Army) which are far more informative than those of Britannica; menawhile, articles about generalistic items are reather lacking in details. Byzantine Empire is the typical example. Check the pathetic status of History of Italy or Venice for another, whenever there are tons of bytes spent for stupid TV or porno stars. Returning to the point, the fact that this article is well-written, organized, and has a lot of pages does not imply necessarily it is comparable to that of a good encyclopaedias: this because the field it deals with needs further researching and writing. Let me know and stay connected for other additions from mine in the incoming days (by the way, they're mostly from Ostrogorsky). Last word for Bigdaddy: I think history field is not exactly the one attracting hords of Wikipedia editors. Give a glance to WP:Systemic bias or the stats of the most viewed articles to have an identikit of the mean Wikipedian. As an example, I was the SOLE serious contributor to pages like History of Rome for the entire last year! I also have the impression that, in general cultural terms, Anglo-Saxon (especially the US) are less fan of history than "humanistic" countries like Italy or France, for example. Let me know and good work! --Attilios 17:01, 28 September 2006 (UTC)
 * For a bit of wiki-history this article attained FA prior to the current required levels of quality. Also prior edit war have led to man yan editor leave the subject alone, including myself. Seeying that possible efforts might be waisted, while I could work on perifial articles to my heart's content. I must also confess my unbalanced knowledge of the Byzantine empire, heavily leanign on the military and administration, and this prior to 1081. As time permits I will gladly lend a hand, though this may be more confined to reviewing and rewriting than raw data.--Dryzen 18:37, 28 September 2006 (UTC)

Goldfinger?
I added the "said to be 300kg (700pd) gold" from a "Jeapordy!" clue, presumably taken from whatever encyclopedia they use... 12:38, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a great source, I'll leave it there for now but would perfer to have some less debateable source.--Dryzen 13:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Alexios, heroism and the thrill of Byzantine history
I hate to come across as though I'm denigrating the Komnenoi's achievements. They were indeed heroic. But it's no good us just saying so. We need to conform to policy by providing citations and adhereing to the neutral point-of-view policy. I myself find the dynanism, constant struggle, and intrigue of Byzantine history endlessly fascinating, but we're here to take readers through the primary and secondary sources, not to write the book ourselves. Slac speak up! 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's desirable to cite our sources as much as possible; however it's not always easy to find the time to do this. Nevertheless, I will provide an inline citation for the specific section you have mentioned immediately. Bigdaddy1204 10:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I repeat for the umpteenth time that pumping the article with Komnenean stuff is objectionable. It may be considered a form of tendentious editing. -- Ghirla -трёп-  10:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are worried about providing an equal number of citations for other sections as well, then you are welcome to add them yourself. However, that is not my sole responsibility. We are all in this together, so work should be shared. You can't expect me to provide citations for the entire article singe handedly. I will focus on citations for the Komnenoi; it is what I have been asked to do, and it is the area to which I am best qualified to add citations. If you are worried that the text of the article provides insufficient detail on other periods of the empire's history, then again I encourage you to rectify this by adding more detail yourself. I have already called for more detail to be added to the 'Golden Age' section. As of today, considerable contributions and improvements have already been made in this section by Attilios; but I don't see any improvements done by you. Why don't you lend a hand and do some of the work yourself?Bigdaddy1204 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bigdaddy, you seem to ignore my point. The length of the article is already a problem, and you propose to expand it even further? Currently, the article is about 121 kilobytes long. According to WP:SIZE, it should be four times smaller. Therefore, I propose to reduce it to the recommended 32K and split the redundant data (particularly about the Komnenoi) into a separate article, entitled Byzantine Empire under the Komnenoi Dynasty, etc. -- Ghirla -трёп-  11:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * We already have a Komnenoi article where this information would be more appropriate. Adam Bishop 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Who gives a @#%$ about the number of kilobytes? Honestly, there are far more important things to think about. This article is currently one of the best sources of information on the Byzantines anywhere on the web. I am frequently praised for my work on Byzantine topics, especially this article. I had someone leave a message on my user talk page today, thanking me for my "Excellent Contributions". This article is helping to correct the horrendous anti-Byzantine bias that still exists in western culture. If you go ahead with your plan to split the article, everything I have worked for will be undone, the article will be ruined, and this excellent resource will be lost.

Before I started work on this article, it was utterly inadequate as a history of the Byzantine Empire - there was no information on the golden age under the Macedonian dynasty, the problems of the empire were signed away in about two sentences, the Komnenian restoration was ignored completely, and there were no maps between 550 and 1204. As for the coverage of the Fourth Crusade and after, it was a jumbled and poorly written mess. I don't expect you to thank me for all I have done, but the fact is that this article would be an embarrassment to wikipedia without my contributions. You don't think so? I guartantee that if you reverted it today to the way it was before I made my first edit, it would immediately lose its featured article status. I appreciate that it needs more citations, and I was planning to work on this today. But there is more to a Featured Article than just the number of references it has.

Now, it seems plain that you want to relocate some information. Personally, I think that the more detailed the article is, the better. If I had my way, I would get the entire article up to the same level of detail that the section on the Komnenoi currently gives. And it would be the best article on Byzantine anywhere on the web. But it seems you will never allow this to happen.

The problem with moving sections elsewhere is that somebody has to write a condensed summary of the information that was moved to replace it. Anything less is not good enough. I for one find this task deeply distasteful. I assume the sections in question are under 'Twelfth Century Renaissance'. Nothing else should even be under consideration.

You'd never get the article to 32k even if you removed these sections entirely and replaced them with nothing. To reduce the article to 32k you would have to absolutely ruin the entire article and reduce it to a pathetic sham of a history. This will not happen. Bigdaddy1204 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * WP:OWN. Adam Bishop 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn right I feel strongly about this article. I wrote over 9,000 words of it myself, and created 5 new maps to accompany the text. How much did you contribute? And furthermore, it says on that page that "it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not."

Suggesting that the article be reduced to 32k is not remotely reasonable, nor does it "respect the work" that I have put into it. We are not talking about making a few minor changes here or there, we are talking about utterly destroying all my work. This is not reasonable.

Like I said, I don't mind you moving 'Twelfth century Renaissance'. But anything more than that is anathema to me. Bigdaddy1204 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bigdaddy1204 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, see, this is why I pointed you to that link. It's not your article, even if you write a billion words. And what have I contributed? I wrote pretty much the entire article before you even knew Wikipedia existed. But that is irrelevant. Would it help to remind you that the kind of people who read Wikipedia do not have the attention span to read 100 KB of text, nor even 32 KB? Your 9000 words have most likely been read only by you. If you want to be patted on the back for your essays, perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place to write...now, before you call me Hitler again, let me just say that is simply a reminder to be humble, and to remember who your audience is. Adam Bishop 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, getting hot in here. I've not the inclination to dispute nor the stomac to argument at the moment. I would hope that my past actions and tenure will hold me up where my following opinion may let me down. Time is short, therefore I shall regretfully be blunt: Wikipedia is a source of knowledge based upon the collective volunteer work of dedicated editors. Its mission ot help enrich the culture of fellow wikipedians and visitors. As such their needs often take precedence over our own zeal. The guide line of 32k being one of those, as some browser softwares do not stomac well larger work loads. As well, the uninnitiate may be discouraged from undertaking the reading of a massive article. That is why Wikipedia has a marvelous system of links. One article need not hold all the eggs in one place. The Byzantine Empire acticle, considering the massive importance and duration of its subjet is one of those articles that must be consise rather than precise, to be more easily distributed to the widest audiance. From here, large precise and detail article are to be created and connected, such as the Army and Organisation pages have already done or are presently doing.--Dryzen 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see that it would be possible to move sections such as economy and art etc to different pages. But how does one break up the history of the Byzantine empire? It was a long and proud history. I don't see how having a page entitled 'Justinian's empire' and then another entitled 'golden age' etc will contribute anything. It will just give a disjointed and nonsensical view of the empire. If you cut down the article to the bare bones, it is frankly boring. People are not going to bother to visit other aspects of the empire if the Byzantine Empire page is dull, dull, dull! like it once was. This whole discussion disgusts me. Splitting up the history of the empire would be a grave mistake, as would condensing it to the point of irrelevance. Bigdaddy1204 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bigdaddy, your work on the article is appreciated, but you don't own it, right? Bias or not, the FARC guys will FARC it as soon as they spot it, just based of its abnormal size. What was its size when the article was promoted? Perhaps we should return to that length. Let's look at the other articles. Russia (the largest country in the world) is 49K and I'm constantly being told that it should be cut to 35K. There is no lack of Indian contributors in Wikipedia but they keep India at 44K.
 * You should understand that we can't say all we know about Byzantium in one article. It would take volumes. Your concerns that your work will be lost are not valid. Take a look at History of Russia: each section has a main article of its own, where all details are split. For instance, Russian history, 1796-1855 or Muscovy. From there you pass to more detailed subjects, such as the Time of Troubles, etc. This is how Wikipedia works, as opposed to a paper encyclopedia. -- Ghirla -трёп-  06:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * As a member of the Wikiproject history of Greece who pointed out that this article may soon face FARC (check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece) I think I can interfere. The length is a problem, but not the most serious one. Now there are FAs with more that 100 Kb. And it is wrong to count the total Kbs of an article. It is better to count the kbs of the proe. I agree with Ghirla that the article needs improvements, but I disagree with this insistance on the length. I also don't like Bigdaddy's attitude. This article is not an ownership of his. He must understand it. I'll make my concrete propositions in the next section as Bigdaddy has proposed.--Yannismarou 07:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Bravely getting nowhere
I can see from the above discussion that we are bravely getting nowhere with this issue. I have no desire to continue getting involved in a discussion that involves personal attacks or anything of that sort. I have stated my position, as have all. It now falls to us to come up with a practical solution for the article.

I propose that the text under 'twelfth century renaissance' be moved to 'Komnenoi'. I request no other changes be made. Respond here, or hold your peace. Bigdaddy1204 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I don't this is the right attitude. Bigdaddy1204 your article on Manuel Comnenus is one of my favorites and as a Greek I really appreciate your contributions to articles about Byzantine history. But you don't own these articles! They are not your articles. Try to understand that and show some respect to those you have a different opinion. Just respect the right to have a different voice not their opinions themselves.

"Twelfth century renaissance" is not the only part needing imrovements. This article needs a huge range of improvements, such as:
 * Length: It is 121 Kb. Because of its broad subject, it can remain big, but somewhere around 100 kb. The prose itself cannot be more than 65-70 kb. Nowadays, when they see in FAC a prose of more than 55-50 kb, they break out in pimples! How can we achieve that? By creating sub-pages! Easy! For instance, don't delete "twelfth century renaissance". Just make a summary of it here and create a new sub-article. Most section of the article don't need deletion! Create sub-pages and limit the length of the long sections. Do that with:
 * "The fall of the Byzantine Empire",
 * "Early history" (create an article "Early history of the Byzantine empire"),
 * Shrink "Age of Justinian I". There is a seperate article for him! We don't need all this stuff here!
 * Shrink "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders". Transfer most of this stuff in Komnenos.
 * Get rid of "The Komnenian army". Merge it with the new summarized "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders".
 * Create a sub-page for "Twelfth century 'Renaissance'". Possible name: Twelfth century 'Renaissance' of the Byzantine Empire.
 * Get rid of "Why did the empire fall?". Transfer its main content in the new sub-article "The fall of the Byzantine Empire" and have a summary of it in the shrinked section "The fall of the Byzantine Empire" of this article.

These are just some remarks. I hope we'll go along here. Otherwise, if we donot reach a consensus, I will move this article to FARC (I haven't done it yet, because I really want the article to keep its star) and then there will be no other way but co-operation. I hope we'll not need that. Cheers!--Yannismarou 07:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Citations: This is a huge problem. No citations! We must do something about that now.
 * See also: Awful section! What is this long list?!!! Most of these links should be incoroporated in the main prose. See also sections are not in fashio any more. It would be nice if could throughly get rid of it.
 * Bibliography: What is that exactly? Further reading? Then it should go after references.

Very interesting, Yannismarou. So you want to create lots of new articles, which contain much of the information currently in this one. I have been accused of being overly protective of this article. Perhaps you are right. But this is because I did not want all my work deleted, which was what seemed to be suggested in the earlier discussion.

Now your plan to create many smaller articles offers a more constructive approach. You have explained clearly what new articles will be created, and this has convinced me that there is no need to argue anymore. You have said "Most section of the article don't need deletion". If the work will be moved to sub articles, which will then be linked into the main one, then nothing is lost; if nothing is lost, then there is no problem.

I do have a few minor thoughts on the new articles; you have said "Shrink "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders". Transfer most of this stuff in Komnenos." I think that the text might not fit in Komnenos so well. Maybe a better idea would be to create a new article called 'Byzantium under the Komnenoi', or something like that. Then "Komnenian army" could be merged with this.

I thank you for your helpful explanation of this issue, which has helped move this discussion forward and provided a good solution. Bigdaddy1204 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I also hope to find some time to help in this article. Something difficult during this period, because of my heavy schedule. But I'll keep a close eye on the article.--Yannismarou 08:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And I have no problem with an article "'Byzantium under the Komnenoi', or something like that". Like you I'm an editor who hates deletions of information. That is why, I believe that sub-articles are the most creative solution in these cases.--Yannismarou 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new article, Byzantine civilisation in the twelfth century, which contains all the information from the section 'twelfth century renaissance'. I have also provided a link to the new article in Byzantine Empire.

I will now condense the information into a brief summary, which will replace the old section 'twelfth century renaissance' at Byzantine Empire. Bigdaddy1204 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Try this summary to have some inline citations. In this way your new section will be Ok with FAC criteria and further major interventions in this particular section will not be needed.--Yannismarou 17:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am doing this - you will see that the new sections have citations. I have also deleted 'Komnenian army', replacing it with a brief summary under 'Military reform.' I have provided a link which says. These changes have reduced the size of Byzantine Empire to 116k. Bigdaddy1204 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Let me strongly argue against arbitrarily cutting the article down. Comprehensiveness is a requirement of featured articles. Length is not. I've had to deal with objections of length from CVG featured article pushes, and this issue has frequently come up. The subject defines the length of the article, not a one-size-fits-all limit. Here's a good example: Ketuanan Melayu (FA Nom). It was opposed multiple times for length and correctly passed for meeting comprehensiveness. If a section is of vital importance to reader comprehension of the Byzantine Empire and its contribution to the history of humanity, keep it. Determining what is vital is up to you, but be careful with the hedge trimmer. --Zeality 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Ketuanan Melayu is 101 kbs (not 120 kbs - there is a huuuuuge difference!) and it passed after more than a month of debate if I'm not wrong. This article is 120 kbs. And something else: You speak about Melayu who passed; what about Nagorno-Karabakh War that failed partly because of its lentgh (Overall 101KB, of which 76KB is prose) and the lack of sub-articles? I also agree that content is more important than length. But 120Kbs is toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. Melayu passed with difficulty; this article as it is now wouldn't pass and wouldn't survive FARC! Trust me! And something else: This article has very few citations right now. Melayu is 101 Kb with how many citations? 183! I repeat: 183!!!!! Imagine this article with the current length and, in addition, with about 200 inline citations. We'll get over 130 Kbs! This is the problem. Right now, I have in mind not only the current length, but also the length, when the citations will be added. That is why we should shrink a bit the article (to get it about 100-105 Kbs) without deleting information. Nothing is lost! Somebody who wants more information can go to the sub-articles. That is why they exist.--Yannismarou 07:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The 32K limit has seemed far too short to me for some time. It was a limit set at a time of much more primitive browsers, and much fewer high speed internet connections. If one looks at other encyclopedias, articles on important topics go on for a long time. The current focus on 32K articles means that articles on big topics tend to suck. But, there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done about it. 32K it is, and 32K it shall ever be. john k 11:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * 32 kb limit belongs to history. Now we are speaking about surpassing or not the 100 kb limit!--Yannismarou 13:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * One still has to mind the principle of it. Jimbo does not have a crystal ball that says, "all articles can be covered at or under 100 kb." I'm not saying we should keep the article as it is, but I'm cautioning hasty removal of material just to satisfy an arbitrary limit. --Zeality 15:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I am considering removing right now is the section 'why did the empire fall' at the end. I will not be removing anything else unless people are completely agreed that it should be so. I will not repeat my views on whether the article should be reduced in size. However, I will say that I agree that we should avoid cutting as much as possible. To me, 100k sounds far more reasonable and practical than 32k.

I think the principal areas that should be looked at with a view to cuts are those at the end of the article, which are not part of the continuous narrative running from 306-1453. There are 2,900 words down there which could be reduced. Bigdaddy1204 16:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just cut down the section 'why did the empire fall', created a new article called 'Decline of the Byzantine Empire', providing a link to it here. I have also provided citations for the entire section on the Komnenoi, from the accession of Alexios right through to 'twelfth century renaissance'. After these changes, Byzantine Empire is now at 114k. Bigdaddy1204 17:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the most important task is to add the missing inline citations throughout the article. Then, we'll see if there is anything else needing cutting. I hesitate to add any citations of my own, although I have sources, for two reasons: 1) Bigdaddy is more devoted than me to the article, 2) I don't want to give the impression that I promote my own bibliography. Bigdaddy, I suggest that you get primarily occypied with this task from now on: the addition of citations and the cleaning of "Bibliography" as I had suggested previously. If my contribution is needed I am eager to assist.


 * Oh! And, by the way, Bigdaddy, since this is a FA, when you citate a printed sources, you must always mention the page number.--Yannismarou 12:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

While I have added as many citations as I can, I do not feel that it would be right for me to add citations to the sections that I did not write. Specifically, I am talking about:


 * 1 Name of the Byzantine Empire
 * 2 Identity, continuity, and consciousness
 * 3 Origin
 * 4 Early history
 * 5 Age of Justinian I
 * 6 Fight for survival

Since Adam Bishop has claimed that he wrote these sections, I feel that he should provide the citations for them. Bigdaddy1204 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, that's not exactly what I said :) There were many intermediaries between me and you! Adam Bishop 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Guys, we can agree who will add the citations. This is not a major problem. If Adam has no problem with it, then Bigdaddy can also add some citations in these sections. Or you can co-operate. If you want my assistance, I can also do some referencing. But I donot want to be regarded as promoting a specific bibliography.--Yannismarou 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not wishing to be overly argumentative, I nevertheless feel the following quotation fits nicely here: "I wrote pretty much the entire article" - Adam Bishop 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

But to the point - I request assistance from Yannismarou and Adam Bishop with the citations for the sections I have listed. Bigdaddy1204 00:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As a stylistic point, when someone purposefully misquotes another person, they usually replace the missing words with an ellipsis. Anyway, what I meant was, I worked a lot on this article back when I was a fresh-faced noobie just like you, not that I am responsible for the current text. (And my method at the time was collecting facts from the articles about the emperors, such as they existed at the time. My major source was Treadgold, if anyone wants to go through it picking out what might still be relevant to the current article.) Adam Bishop 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right I should have put ellipsis in there, but two pints of lager and a packet of crisps was coming on the TV so I just copied the words in quickly.

Anyway, I request that you and Yannismarou sort out the citations for the sections I listed earlier. You know better than I what sources were used to write them, and I don't see why I should have to do everything myself, especially as it's not my article. ;) Bigdaddy1204 00:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Move the Identity, Continuity & Consciousness and Name of the Byzantine Empire to their own article called Byzantine Identity. This would free up a lot of space and maybe get rid of a lot of the edit wars. Roydosan 11:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * hmm I leave for a few days and bam! Huge discussion with pertinence ot the article's future. I'm glade to see that things have progress for a rather engrained argument to a more open constructive form. As youselfs have already mentioned the 32k is lacking in its modernity, few FAs ralely lie below the 80K much less the 32K. With the possibility of repeating certain sentiments mentionned above, here are my own thoughts on the matter. Information though should not be deleted rather boxed up for shipment to another article, as seems to have become the concensus. All sections should keep a mesure of text. From the looks of things our current presentation follows a chronological format, with a finishing summery of the empire's demise and lasting influence? In this case I would beleive it preferable to attmept at a normalisation of section size. The Justinian I and the dual Komnenian sections are taking the show from the extensive history of the Byzantine empire. To the neophyte, the empire fell with the Fourth crusade and the 200 years Palaiologos rulership but an inconscential Dead cat bounce. Bigdaddy1204's work on the post Manzikert dynasty is an excellent piece yet it bloats the article on its information. In the conclusion, we should approach the article with the same stratety on its entirety. Either all great blocks of knowledge or overviews of to be made or made sub-articles. Of wich in sight of a overly massive Byzantine empire article, shortened sections could be the best methode to utilise. --Dryzen 15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should aim for all sections to be equal (although I admit that this may not always be possible, due to the lack of sources on the 'dark age' period). My personal preference was to make all sections equally detailed. This was what I had planned to do. But the consensus seems to be that we should be aiming to make this article somewhere in the region of 100k in size. Therefore as you can see I have cut down the Komnenian section to make it more equal to the others, reducing the size to 114k, last time I checked.

I have not cut down the Justinian section; that was not my work, so I will leave it to others to perform this task, if they think it is necessary.

Right now I aim to have a map of 476AD added to the article as soon as possible (see discussion below). After this, I will wait. Bigdaddy1204 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

If you don't like it that's okay with me...
Hello, editors of that article which is titled "Byzantine Empire". I have made a new map. I like it very much, but you others may in time be found to hate it, so I thought to discuss it here rather than being bold on an article such as this, an article that has become featured. I apologize if I'm being too brash in taking even this action, for I would not like to inflame those intellects which are currently focussed on the more pressing concerns of citation and summarization. Working from the map in Cyril Mango's "Byzantium" on pages 14-15, (that is, stealing from said map) I have made another map working on exactly the same thing. Namely, the divisions of language in Justinian I's empire. If, for any reason you find the image objectionable in any way ("Cyril Mango, though working from primary sources, is a popular historian"; "the image is ugly, and you should not quit that job which you work on in the day"; "we're very busy and don't like you bothering us while we're working!") you don't have to use it. I just thought I'd offer it up for evaluation and possible use.

Good luck to you fellows in all your endeavours! Geuiwogbil 03:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the map. I am thinking perhaps it would fit nicely in the article that Roydosan has proposed - identity of the Byzantines. It reveals something about Byzantine identity - the diversity of its languages. Good job, Geuiwogbil! One more thing. Would you be interested in making a map to show the Byzantine empire in 476AD? I feel that such a map would be useful, since at the moment the maps of the article give the impression that the empire started with Justinian... Bigdaddy1204 12:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean something like this? Geuiwogbil 23:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Just a further question: should the Latin in the language map link to Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin or Latin? Geuiwogbil 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Tell me, did you do these maps yourself or are they from another site (if they are then prepare to provide an authorisation of the owner of the originals site)? Are you interrested in making more maps (for example of the Roman empire)? Flamarande 00:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I did make these maps myself, and yes, I have granted Wikipedia the authority to use them for any purpose. I'm a very unreliable person, so I don't think anyone asking me to make maps would find them finished. ^_^ Geuiwogbil 00:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, let me try... Could you please make a map showing the "divided Roman empire" (after the death of Theodosius I in AD 395), with the Western Roman empire in red, and the Eastern Roman empire in purple? Nothing really fancy or complicated, but if you know how, you could make them over modern borders in white. I am only asking you because I don't know how to do any maps at all. Flamarande 00:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * There's this image, but you're probably familiar with it already. I'm not sure I could do any better, though. My borders, particularly in the Balkans, are really quite unruly. Thanks for asking, though. We have a Wikiproject Cartography or somesuch that could probably help. Geuiwogbil 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I knew that image and to be frank it is simply too complicated. I need a simpler image in the fashion of the images you provided. Flamarande 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is your image! (I have made it in the image of you!) Hope it suits your purposes, though, as I've said, the borders are still futzy-fresh. Geuiwogbil 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Bloody hell. That was quick. It seems acurate to me (but then I am not really a profesional). Thanks, mate. I am going to use it in Western Roman empire. Might I make similar requests in the next days (not today, I am not interrested in getting on your nerves) ? Flamarande 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm quite tired. :P I've made 3 maps in about 24 hours, so I think that's enough for a while. Maybe ask me on Friday, though you'd have to provide something to work with. Really, you should be asking the playas over at WikiProject Maps. They're like professionals. Geuiwogbil 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * A few notes: The Danube frontier needs to be realigned to match the Romania-Bulgaria border. I should work on that tonight. Also, some quite helpful individual brought up the conspicuous absence of Aegyptus and the lower Levant from the AD 476 map, so I'll fix those tonight. I'll see what I can do for the borders of the language map in the Balkans, which seem in somewhat worse shape, tonight as well. Geuiwogbil 11:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Yup, definitly missing. Basic and understandable, very good for wikipedia, good job Geuiwogbil. If you dontm ind my asking what are you using for the maps? Layers, software and hte such?--Dryzen 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Photoshop 7.0. I select all of the seas with the magic wand and copy them onto a new layer, and then just paint in the boundaries by hand on the lower layer using one of the brush tools. For the national boundary map overlay I took the original blank map's edited image with boundaries, compressed it to fit on the national boundary map, and used the magic selection tool again to cut the white national boundaries and place them atop the image. The sheer uncertainty of copying from eye to image is what makes me wary of anyone using these images, though I understand how vague maps are better than no maps at all. :P That Egypt thing was stupid. I thought the atlas might have been privy to some Sassanid invasion I didn't know about, or that perhaps I was mistaken in my dating of that one rebellion that swept the region...whose name escapes me at the moment. Perhaps Nabatean? (As you can see my understanding of the region is unfogivably vague) I shall use more common sense in the future.
 * As a further question, should the boundaries on the 395 map go past Hadrian's wall in Caledonia to the wall of Antoninus? The Antonine Wall page seems to disagree with such a move, but the "administrative divisions" image seems to affirm it. Geuiwogbil 15:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My God! This map discussion has become huge! Nice work, Geuiwogbil. I really can't wait to use that 476AD map, however I will have to wait until it shows Egypt and the lower levant in the empire. If you could let me know when you've completed it, that would be great. Thanks, Bigdaddy1204 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Changes done. Hope you all like the finished product. "This autumn, treat yourself to your very own Western and Eastern Roman Empires 476AD.png. You won't be sorry you did." Geuiwogbil 02:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much Geuiwogbil, your map is just what I was looking for. I have made a few small tweaks (colour changed to red and yellow, cut out northern europe) so that it matches our series of Byzantine Empire maps, and it is now at home in the article. I commend you for your quick response to my request, and praise the quality of your excellent map. Well done. :) Bigdaddy1204 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)


 * NB: There certainly was diversity of languages, but all the urban and political centers of the empire spoke Greek, and later, when the heartlands of the Empire became South Italy, Balkans and Asia Minor, all these areas spoke Greek natively.


 * Also, the map does not show that Greek was spoken throughout Southern Italy, it is mentioned in almost every source documenting Belisarius' recapture of Italy that the cities that 'spoke Greek' in the South opened their gates more readily.


 * I used the colour scheme from the "Ancient Rome" article. Thanks for using it, though. About the anonymous user, (...sign your edits (...even if it's just with an IP address...) ...) it's not my map, I copied it from an external source. I'll go over whatever he wrote and get back to you, although your arguments certainly sound quite reasonable. Should there be a new division of "Greek and Latin"? How far up the peninsula would your penetration go? Was Greek a common language along only the Ionian coasts, or up to Naples and Apulia as well? When you say "urban and political centers" what urban and political centers of the Empire are not colored either "Greek" or "Greek and such and such"? Could you list them? Or, if possible, provide a helpful source? I'd be quite willing to modify this map in whatever way possible to fit up with agreed-upon history. Thank you both very much for your praise and criticism. Geuiwogbil 15:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry to rain on your parade guys but a lot of this sounds like OR to me. Be careful to ensure that any information displayed by the maps is verifiable. 82.110.109.208 11:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * To be rather blunt, I`m now of mind to not let anonymous users the benifit of the doubt lest they show the necessary backing. The sheer bulk of anonymous POV pushing Trolls has greatly reduced the reputation of Anonymous users. Geuiwogbil'sm ap fit our current understanding, should someone have valid information to the contrary please speak up and present. If not, I would thank you to reduce glut and possible edit wars by not arguing.--Dryzen 15:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon looking at the 476 map, could it be possible to indicate to whom the moscels of the empire had fallen? --Dryzen 15:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I really fail to see the problem with anon's comments, since they are only requesting that they be verifiable - which is Wiki policy. Chill out Dryzen! Roydosan 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against what 82.110.109.208 posted about OR, but it was the one prior to Geuiwogbil's last post (as represented by my indents matching that series of posts) that got to me. But it is true that I`ve grow weary of anons posting seemingly at random with oft time seemingly thinly veiled or blatent threats and POV. Byzantine article seems to catch a large number of these as well as several other article I have interest in at the moment.--Dryzen 18:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Moscels? Morsels? You mean draw the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians and Anglo-Saxons that fall under the old empire's boundaries? I'd be willing to do that. As a note, the later maps in the article should probably do the same as well. The late Byzantine Empire's position seems much more vulnerable with the Ottomans gobbling up the other Turks in Anatolia, the loss of Italy is much better portrayed when the Lombards are drawn, and those Dark Ages seem oh-so-much darker when the Bulgars are occupying the greater part of the Balkans. Too much of any of this would probably detract from the centrality of the Byzantine Empire, however. It might suit the lesser kingdoms (those not called Byzantine) to be coloured in somewhat duller colours with less defined lines of demarcation. In any case, to return to the point from which I have strayed, I would be willing to draw the successor kindoms in, if that's what you were asking for. Geuiwogbil 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Type-o, Yes I meant "Morsels", by wich the sections of hte empire that rebelled or where conquered. That an intriguing idea you have htere. Drawing some maps with the rival powers in europe, africa and asia. It could certainly set a mood to the periodes and predigament of the empire to readers. Such as astonishemnt at how it sruvived for so long agianst such arrays of opponents and sometime much larger foes (the Arab expansion, the Bulgar Empire, Turks, etc.. at variosu times). But as you put it, it would could stray from showing the empire's control. You can work with transparencies ot dull the colouring right? Mayhaps drawing the local states and then applying a grey film over them to leave the Byzantine in the forfront while the competitors dulled out yet still visible. What do you think?-- Dryzen 12:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a very good idea. :) Geuiwogbil 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Would you look at what I just found! Made in the style of Astrokey's European series, a map of Europe in 476 AD. I'm be willing to make another version better suited to the general sweep of this article, but I think reccomendations on what I should do with this one could help. Thanks again. Geuiwogbil 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * And I made a modified version, with the recommended gray overlay. Does anyone want me to remove the kingdom labels? Geuiwogbil 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I gather that the isolated Roman province in the north of modern France is the Domain of Soissons (it is surprisingly similar with the later Dukedom of Normandy, if a bit bigger). But I am unsure of the identity of the isolated province in the North of Africa. Does it have a specific name? I have also a proposal to make. Wouldn't it be easier for the average user if we mantained the same colours for the single countries (like pink ? for the Byzantine Empire) in the diffrent maps? Flamarande 12:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The current colour scheme is pink/red for the Byzantine Empire, and yellow for areas outside the empire (as per these two maps: Bigdaddy1204 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)



I have created a new 'composite' map of the Byzantine Empire, which can be seen below. What do you think?



Golden Age & disillusionment
I feel that the coverage of the Byzantine Golden age is not adequate. This is supposed to be the heart of the article; instead in its present truncated form it seems rather half-hearted. I thank Geuiwogbil and Varana gratefully for their kind help with maps. However I have come to expect little or no help from anyone else if I request anything else. I have already asked about this and other things before, and been ignored.

As you can probably tell, I have become a little disillusioned with Wikipedia and some of the ungrateful, obstructionist, nasty, unimaginative and bigoted people who are determined to criticize, complain and even ridicule the hard work of others while contributing absolutely nothing themselves. They devote their energy enthusiastically to destructive edit wars and snide comments, but ask them for constructive help actually working on the text of an article, and they suddenly become the masters of procrastination. I am aware that others have already reached this stage long before me. But this is not the place for a commentary on the negative aspects of Wikipedia. Therefore I will get to the point: I beseech you all to do your best to improve the Golden Age section as best you can. I am willing to help, but I am not going to do it alone.

Perhaps I shouldn't have even bothered to ask, as I very much doubt that anyone will respond with anything more helpful than a personal attack. Prove me wrong. Bigdaddy1204 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm appreciative of what you have done to work on this article; it seems quite an impressive monument to your endeavours. I do not believe, however, that I could be much help with your work on the Byzantine Golden Age. I have Penguin editions of Psellos and the Alexiad, as well as Cyril Mango's Byzantium. Beyond that, I have nothing.
 * I live in a farmhouse, half an hour away from a poor town of 60'000, a town lost on a lonely stretch of highway in the middle of nowhere. My only resource is my own sparse bookshelf, with its old used paperbacks assembled from infrequent trips to larger cities far afield. Byzantine resources of a good character are thus somewhat lacking. I could work on anything that merely requires front-end maintenance of the article, but unless you could direct me to an online resource, or unless my own resources could add something, I couldn't really help with this article's content or citation.
 * I am deeply sorry. As much as I'd like to help, it's just not in the cards.
 * What would the postcard image be used for? I like the odd dotting of the body with little maps. I don't think they should be replaced by a compilation. Some other things:
 * The progression isn't immediately obvious. I usually read images left-to-right along horizontal lines. Seeing it arranged along two columns as it is was a bit unsettling to me. Perhaps adding dates would help.
 * The text should be removed before compression, and either re-written or discarded. It's all jaggy.
 * My map should really have its big black borders removed...
 * ...and be rotated...
 * ...and have various major cities labeled...
 * ...and have Mauretania removed as a territory of the Western Roman Empire... (I can't find any source other than the Collins Atlas which puts it there. Every Internet search, every other source, just tells me that the Vandals destroyed any and all traces of Roman civilization when they trotted across those semiarid plains. It must have been misprint. Thanks for pointing this out, Flamarande.)
 * (...)I'm considering the possibility that I should just make a new map using Varana's base, or replace all of Varana's maps with new versions according to my general plans. The second, though not immediately attractive to me or anyone else, would allow complete standardization. Image:LatinEmpire.png could be made according to the plan of the other maps, a 476 AD map could be made without cutting out the Domain of Soissons, and the borders of Byzantium's neighbors could be shown as well. Having Manzikert shown on one of the maps would be useful too.
 * Sorry for the long post. Hope I've been more helpful than a personal attack. ;) Geuiwogbil 04:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your helpful response, Geuiwogbil. You have raised some interesting new possibilities. About the maps: once I had created the 'postcard' map, I was suprised by the result - it wasn't as good as I had expected, and I also thought it would look better going from left to right and with dates added. However by that time it was getting very late so I went to bed without making those changes.

Interesting point about the text, I think once again you are absolutely right - the resizing of the maps to fit them on the postcard has left the text looking "all jaggy", as you said.

About removing the black borders on your map - yes this is another thing that needs doing. Again lack of time was the reason I didn't already change it yesterday. The same applies to adding the cities.

As for rotating the map, I'm not sure how to do this. I have been using microsoft paint to edit the maps, but it doesn't have an option to rotate the map (at least, not that I know of). I think I would need a more sophisticated program to make that change, but of course I agree to it in principle.

About Mauretania - I think probably the region was outside effective Roman control after the Vandals appeared there, presumably because the extremely disturbed state of the empire at the time prevented the central government from restoring links with the area. The area was probably left to its own devices, much as the province of Britannia had been before it.

I think an animated map which contained all the individual maps from the postcard would be a brilliant addition to this and other pages on the Byzantines. There is already one animated version at the bottom of Byzantine Empire, but it shows old versions of many of the maps and misses out several of them altogether. A new animated map would be great, if I could find somebody to make it for me :) I have left a message on the userpage of the person that made the original, but he/she hasn't responded.

You have said "I'm considering the possibility that I should just make a new map using Varana's base, or replace all of Varana's maps with new versions according to my general plans."

Which maps specifically do you mean here? Varana has created the 1204 map, but how can you replace 'all of Varana's maps' when there is only the one? Or were you referring to my series of maps, with the red/pink Byzantine Empire on the yellow background? If it is the latter, then making a new map using my base could work, or replacing all of my maps with more detailed onces using your base could also work.

Personally I think making a whole new series of maps, and including other nations, as well as labelling more cities and places such as Manzikert, would be the best option. However, it would also be the most difficult option. But it is desirable to have the best range of maps possible.

The new series of maps would have to include all the dates we already have maps for:

476AD, 565AD, 717AD, 867AD, 1025AD, 1095AD, 1180AD, 1204AD, 1282AD, 1453AD.

We should also keep Varana's in-detail 1204 map, since a general map of 1204 wouldn't be able to show the partition of the empire in sufficient detail, because it would be too 'zoomed out'.

The new maps could be standardized, as you have suggested, so that they all have the same cities labelled, etc. What do you think? Are you in favour of creating these new maps? And which base should we use for the project - yours or mine? (I don't mind which) Bigdaddy1204 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry...I meant your maps. I was somewhat confused, thinking that perhaps your maps were a modification of Varana's or something along those lines. I hadn't paid attention to the mapmakers... I apologize for my confusion. Are you in favour of Dryzen's suggestion to include the Empire's neighbors? If so, I'd like to redo the whole series, with Blankmap v.3 as a base. I don't hold any particular attachment to it, its just that your map doesn't extend as far north as would be necessary to portray the whole of the Western Empire, or far enough south and east to perhaps portray as much of the Middle East as I'd like. If not, your base is probably fine, and I would just remake the 476 AD map. Whatever you'd like. Geuiwogbil 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * As I have posted on BigDaddy's talk page - returning from a somewhat unexpected hiatus. :(
 * I could combine the maps above into an animated GIF - I'd rather wait, however, if you decide to change the maps. Just tell. :)
 * I think using BigDaddy's map base would be better, even for including the Empire's neighbours, and just live with it that not the entire Western Empire would be shown. By extending the map that far north, we draw much focus away from the real topic of the maps (i.e. Byzantium), especially after Justinian.
 * With regard to sources/citations: Unfortunately, I have only limited access to scholarly literature, though I'll see what I can come up with when I get the chance to use a real library. Varana 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
 * I lost my large reply and have not hte tiem to write it over again. It was, to express my understanding of Bigdaddy1204 situation and to ask for him not to despaire. At the very least not until he's spent enough time to read the entire archives. With that done one can then despaire at the bodies left in the mire.
 * I would gladly be aiding the article with new foudn knowledge of the pre-1081 Byzantine world, yet time and circumstances have not been kind. I've been constrained to talk pages for they are faster read and replied, all my articles on hold.
 * As to the maps, may I suggest a three form methode? Of wich three types of maps are made with diffrent yet complimenting intent. A single large map with geographic (plains, hills, lakes, etc.) and demographic details (i.e. cities ,etc.), could be geo-politacly themed to any given date, perferably a strong Byzantine periode, yet this would only be filling and not the main point of the image. This first style would act as a reference when people seek information on battles, i.e. "Manzkiert, where is that? lets go look on the big map" The second type, could have some 3-5 maps presenting the geopolitical world during the Empire's important periodes, ex: the Barbarien break up of the Roman Empire, the division between Amirs and Slavic peoples (Byzantine's many ennemies divided) and the fourth crusade break up. Lastly would be a series of dated maps to solely indicate the territorial predigament of the empire with little to no details beyond the borders of the empire and some basic geography. Smaller these as glaced at an understood, the animation of the empire should be based on these. I currently have some visualy dull yet information full maps of the Themes at different periodes (840, 1025). These could be readily converted ot present the empire at those times.--Dryzen 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Thankyou for the quick responses :) I think having these different types of maps is an interesting solution. To respond to the earlier posts, I think that we should go ahead with making a new series of maps, which use my base (as Varana has said) and show the empire's neighbours and enemies.


 * I also think a new map showing where places are, as Dryzen has suggested, could be useful to go at the start of the article, so people can refer back to it for info on where places are.


 * I don't know if we need a third series of maps to show just the empire's borders and nothing else, because if we do this there could be too many maps in the article; also we would already show the empire's borders with the series of maps showing the 'geopolitical world', as you have said. On the other hand, maps showing just the empire do have the advantage of emphasising the empire, and drawing attention to it rather than other nations. What do you think about this?


 * Geuiwogbil, would you be willing to help us to create the new series of maps, which would replace the existing series, by showing the empire and its neighbours and enemies at 476AD, 565AD, 717AD, 867AD, 1025AD, 1095AD, 1180AD, 1204AD, 1282AD, 1453AD?


 * Also Varana, could you make an animated GIF map from the existing maps for now? If it's not too much work? The animated map would preferably use all the individual maps which were used to make Image:ByzantineEmpirepostcard3.PNG [] (listed in the summary). Then when we have the new series of maps, we can decide whether to make them into an animated map, or just leave it. What do you say? Bigdaddy1204 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)
 * Maps of 476AD, 565AD, 717AD, 867AD, 1025AD, 1095AD, 1180AD, 1204AD, 1282AD, 1453AD with neigbours will take up too much room in this article, mayhaps making a sub-article highlighting the fluctuating borders of the Empire would better house this colelction. My reason for the third series is to take less space while still rpesenting the territorial information. These maps having only the Empire could be shown smaller without loosing inforation, unlike type two. As well Type three dosen't steal the reader from the article; meaning the reader can in a glance read the information of the map and keep on reading the article. With more detailed maps his attention will be bogged down on the represention. We could produce both series 2 and 3, keeping the 3rd here moving hte 2nd to the possible sub-article, with a few samples in the main article. Of course that all depends on the Graphists.--Dryzen 15:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, where did you get your 1025 map? The borders seem to differ from my own 1025 map.--Dryzen 15:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * I intend to contribute to the article (content and referencing issues), including the sections Bigdaddy has indicated. The problem is that right now I don't have the adequate time for such a thorough research and editing. Almost all my important plans in Wikipedia are stagnated for the next 15 days. I understand Bigdaddy's stagnation, but I think that he must take into consideration the fact that some people might bu under important time pressure and cannot contribute whenever they are asked to.--Yannismarou 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)


 * Updated the animated map with the new version of the 550 map, and the new 867 map:


 * Varana 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Varana! :) It's good to see a progression from 717 to 1025 going via 867, instead of just being a massive and unexpected jump! I have a couple of questions/ideas about the animated map. Would you be able to add my new Image:Byzantium476.PNG to the animation? It shows the empire right at the start, it 476AD - their inheritance from the Romans. One more thing. It's being picky I know, but could you also add Image:Byzantium in 1170(3).PNG instead of Image:Byzantium@1180.jpg? It's a more accurate version I made after the first one. If these two features could be added, the animated map would then become perfect! Bigdaddy1204 19:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not picky, if it's more accurate. ;) I've added 476 and swapped 1180 with 1170 (you may need to reload (F5) the page if the previous version still is in your cache). :) Varana 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work! Thankyou Varana. You have made the perfect animated Byzantine Map! I will make sure it finds a place on many Byzantine pages :) Bigdaddy1204 22:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Good work Varana, as is the usual.--Dryzen 14:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Map improvements (only reasonable ones please)
I don't know anything about making maps (or improving them) for the articles, but it seems to me that some of you are quite adept at it. I quite like the maps recently provided, but I see some small things that might (and should) be improved. Here are my proposals; follow them only if you agree with them and are willing to do it. There might be other valid improvements somebody else might wish to point out; please do so but don't exagerate (i.e.: don't clutter the maps with too much info, keep them rather simple). Flamarande 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1) besides Rome, Ravena, and Constantinople please mark also Alexandria, Nicea, Thessalonica, and Jerusalem in the maps for they were also cities of major importance (Antioch is in some maps but not in others, this could also be corrected).

2) include the map from 395 AD.


 * For the clutter we've already been discussing the point by making multiple type maps for their multiple roles in the article. Type one would show city information as well as a myriade ot ofther important and secondary infromtation, this would be the only map that could characterised ascluttered, although there is no such athing a clutter in well made map, only information that you haven't found a use for yet. ;o) As soon as I am able to have my Sources' returned I should be posting a few new maps for Bigdaddy1204 to normalise and Varana to intergrate in his already fabulous animation.--Dryzen 14:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm eager to get to work on those new maps you mentioned; I'll be very happy to do what you ask when you are ready! Bigdaddy1204 14:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry for hte delay. tic-toc-tic-toc, waiting...--Dryzen 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you post the new maps for me to work on? If you want me to start right now, I could try to do points 1) and 2) immediately. What are these other maps you have in mind? Bigdaddy1204 19:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am working on the 395 map right now. Should be finished soon... Bigdaddy1204 20:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the completed 395 map - tell me what you think! Bigdaddy1204 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC) :


 * Sorry for the delay but I noticed it only today, 29 of Nov. It´s great; all the major cities are there, etc. There is only one mistake here. Namely, the division of the Roman Empire into two, the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire (known to us today as Byzantine Empire). That why I wanted exactly this date (death of Theodosius the Great). Ok, I know that I am pushing my luck here, but could you also include the city of Nicea? As far as I know the city wasn't very important at that time, but it grew in importance into becoming the second city of the empire, and temporary capital of the Byzantine empire (it depends a bit upon ones POV) during the havoc created by the Fourth Crusade). Flamarande 15:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Latin names for the Eastern Empire
I know that they stoped using latin after a certain date. However I think it would good idea if this article had both the latin and greek names for the empire.


 * The latin name was simply Roman empire. The Byzantines used the word Romanos. Besides, the English don't use Celtic to describe their country, so why should the Byzantines use Latin to describe their empire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.227.129.254 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC).


 * There was a term 'Romania' which was used for the empire. It is exactly the same in Latin as in Greek. However, I'm not sure whether this term was used during the early years of the Eastern Empire or that it came into existence only later, which would mean that the Latin 'Romania' was never in use. Later in the Middle Ages, the Latin term was sometimes used in the West to refer to the empire, but by then it had been adapted from the Greek and it did not mean 'Roman Empire', but it did instead refer to what we specifically call the 'Byzantine Empire'. (The treaties by which the empire was divided between the Venetians and the 'Franks' after the Fourth Crusade, for instance, speak of "quarta pars et dimidia totius imperii Romaniae", one fourth and a half of the empire of Romania.)
 * By the way, the Byzantines used the word 'Romaios' (with omega), not Romanos. Even today some older Greeks refer to themselves as 'Romiós' Iblardi 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

A Proposal
The article is very long. I propose the following sections (1 Name of the Byzantine Empire 2 Identity, continuity, and consciousness 3 Origin) are moved to their own new article Byzantine Identity. A cursory statement of the Byzantine's continuity with the Roman Empire and it's predominantly Greek population and culture could be mentioned in the opening paragraph (as it is now). As it is the sections tell us a lot about what the Byzantines identity was/wasn't but don't help the article; which should focus more on the historical aspect of the empire and not explore issues of identity. Roydosan 13:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Roydosan, I understand, but can I ask you a simple question. Do you believe the native Greeks viewed themselves as under occupation by a foreign latin force throughout the period of Byzantium? I don't understand your issue with Byzantium - It is Greek, no one is claiming it was the Hellenic Republic incarnate of the Middle Ages, but that it was Greek is indisputable, the main reason for people neglecting Byzantine History is PRECISELY the emphasis on it's legacy, a Greek continuation of the latin Roman Empire in the East, rather than how it should be, a Greek state of the Middle Ages, viewed in context with other states of the period. The fact people over-emphasize it's legacy is what leads to people dismissing it so often, they simply say 'oh, it was just a half-dead version of the roman empire'. Is there no period of Greek History safe from attack these days? Greeks will fight to the death, myself included, to protect our rightful positions. Just as you would with your own history roydosan, I have never made claims on the Tudor Dynasty or The British Empire. Why because there has been a slight resurgence of interest in Byzantine studies are the western europeans now seeking to appropriate Byzantine History? This unsigned comment was left by 86.141.243.11

You may be right, Roydosan. This might even free up some space for a more detailed discussion of the Byzantine Golden Age under the Macedonians, which is something I've long been calling for. However, the fact that I assume that someone will stomp on me immediately for even suggesting this is indicative of the problem with this article. I apologise for the digression, but I still feel it's difficult to write about any non-map-related issue here without being aggressively flamed by someone. This has driven me away to a certain extent. I got involved in maps instead, a topic that has produced some good results (thanks to Varana and Geuiwogbil) such as a new animated Byzantine Empire map, new 476AD map, etc, and will hopefully produce more when Flamarande and Dryzen come back.

I support your proposal. I'm glad that someone has something new to suggest for this article. Bigdaddy1204 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the anonymous post above mine:

"Why because there has been a slight resurgence of interest in Byzantine studies are the western europeans now seeking to appropriate Byzantine History?"

I don't see quite what you mean. Appropriate Byzantine History? Perhaps you are thinking that Roydosan has over-emphasised the Roman aspects of Byzantine Civilisation, to make it more palatable to a western european audience? As it is your comments about western europeans may invite antagonism. Bigdaddy1204 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous these issues about Greek nationhood and the Byzantine empire mean nothing to anyone apart from the Greek editors on Wikipedia. Please don't take offence at what I'm saying as that's not what I intend. No-one is disputing the Greek nature of the empire (albeit a nature which identified itself very strongly as 'Roman'). I disagree with your comments about people ignoring the empire as some half forgotten relic of the Roman empire. In my experience people are often greatly interested in the subject once they discover that the Roman empire continued for another thousand years after its supposed end in 476. Anyway this is beside the point. The issue of identity, since it is obviously so controversial, deserves to be dealt with in its own article. Placed in the article here it seems out of place. Far better to have this article to deal with the purely historical aspects of the empire and for issues of cultural identity to be dealt with elsewhere where they can be more thoroughly explored. There could be a link in the article here to the identity article so that it would not be a case of merely removing text but of directing the reader to that information. Roydosan 09:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan since you're British you might as well be interested in reading some British historians on the subject. No historiography treats Byzantine as part of the ancient Roman history, this is just your personal, romantic view and it has no place in wikipedia. Try to finally understand how edits are made in this place. Miskin 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And by the way I'm against this proposal because in a way Roydosan is trying to "filter" the article and create what he considers a POV-fork. Obviously we should reduce and break down the article, but not along the lines a POV-pusher defines. Miskin 12:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, as usual you've misrepresented me since I never claimed that that was the case. And as for POV pushing that is fairly rich coming from you. I've always been objective and impartial, which you would discover if you actually bothered to read what I have written rather than jumping down my throat because it doesn't fit in with your POV. Anyway this is all beside the point. Moving this stuff, which is fairly irrelevant to the history of the empire, to an appropriate article is not the case of censoring the identity aspect but putting it in it's own article where it can be dealt with in detail. The article would be linked from the opening paragraph so there is no question about eliminating any reference to it. Roydosan 12:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Culture and society is as much history as is politics and wars. How would a purely "political" history of Byzantium improve the article, more than a balanced one touching on all aspects of the Byzantine world? If the length of the article is a problem, which I may agree it is, it should be dealt with by condensing the material while mantaining balance on ALL topics, not by turning it into a political history. And the opening sections already does have a link to the identity of the empire - the Names of the Greeks article -, which deals quit comprehensively on who the Byzantines were. Colossus 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right they are as much history as politics and war are. But, sub-articles are a suitable conduit by which to further elaborate on lengthy issues and the identity aspect is rather long in the context of this article. It would be much better dealt with in its own article and the Names of the Greeks article is insufficient since it excludes the non-Greek aspects of the empire. The identity article could further explore issues of continuity with Rome, the multi-ethnic nature, the Hellenisation of the empire, Orthodoxy, etc. Roydosan 13:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, there was a multi-ethnic nature, but its irrelevant to the larger aegis of being a 'Byzantine' which is more akin to being a Greek than anything else. For example, Zeno I had to change his name to Zeno to make himself more acceptable to the native Greeks of the Empire. Also, notable Armenians (the only other ethnic minority who had a great impact on the Empire) would have been so Hellenized by the 6th Century that they would have considered themselves 'Roman' (in the later Hellenistic sense) anyway. Names of the Greeks is not insufficient. And I ask you again, did the native Greeks of the Byzantine Empire consider themselves under occupation for a 1000 years? Of course not. Don't tie Byzantium down with it's legacy, it should be viewed as an Empire that created it's own legacy. There are many more controversial historical issues out there, chances are Richard The Lionheart never considered himself an 'Englishman', yet canonically in many modern sources he is referred to as a 'King of England'. There is no other nation that can draw the linguistical, cultural and religious continuity of Byzantium other than The Hellenic Republic, thats a simple fact. This unsigned comment was left by 86.141.243.11

The native Greeks would not have considered themselves under occupation for the simple fact that they considered themselves Romans as good as the best Roman from Italy. Many Greeks had attained Roman citizenship well before Caracalla's decree of 212 so the Roman identity was well established before the division of the empire. In any case - if one is to consider the 'long' Byzantine empire (330-1453) then the Names of the Greeks article is woefully insufficient, since it excludes the large part of the empire - even Britain if you want to date it from 330 (though I would not go to such an extreme personally). The names of the Greeks article excludes many who were part of the Byzantine empire and considered themselves Romans, therefore it is clearly insufficient. That is not to deny the legacy bequeathed to Greece by Byzantium but to claim it solely for the Greeks is clearly POV and contrary to Wiki policy. Roydosan 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * As usual, Roydosan's conclusions are based on original research and do not cite any sources. When you invent your own method of historiography we will follow your example and regard the "Romans" as an unbroken national identity that survived until the 15th century (this naiveness is what actually Roydosan supports). Until then I'll stick with the existing methods of historiography. Miskin 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Roydosan, this is my point, they considered themselves Roman, but by the 7th century the lands of the Roman Empire had been whittled down to largely ethnic Greek areas, sure, they still considered themselves Roman, but they certainly didn't consider other former provinces in the West and their populace 'Romans'. What you have in the Roman Empire is quite simple, a Universality of citizenship based largely on a meritocracy, which superceded ethnic division, however, the East always maintained it's own culture (for example there are less archaeological sites of arenas in Asia Minor and Achaea because the Greeks preferred their native games such as horse racing), language and ethnicity despite this. However, what you have from the 5th to the 7th century is a gradual whittling down of the Empire to it's 3 major areas: Southern Italy, the Balkans and Asia Minor - cumulatively there was a large Greek majority in these areas (and a huge Greek majority in Constantinople itself for obvious reasons), they still considered themselves Roman, but in their eyes, the only 'Romans' left were themselves (i.e. Greeks). My point is simply this Roydosan, you say that it's wrong for me to state that Byzantium's legacy is 'solely' bequeathed by Greece. I never stated that, I stated that Greece was THE cultural, linguistical, ethnic and religious continuation of Byzantium, I am not denying the presence of a Byzantine Commonwealth, but the entitlement of say.... Russia, despite being more than Western Europe, is not equivocal to Greece because Byzantium is canonically 'Greek' History for the reasons already discussed.


 * Claiming Byzantium's legacy is egalitarian in modern day nations is wrong, England for example, clearly has more of a right to claim The British Empire as part it's own legacy than the subjects of the Empire. Same goes for Byzantium and Greece, and also, why should we overturn centuries of historical scholarship that refer to the Byzantines simply as the 'Greek peoples of the Middle Ages' simply because you want to restore a universality that simply didn't exist anymore by the 6th century. This unsigned comment was left by 86.141.243.11


 * My stance on this time honoured cycle of discussion has already been stipulated. Therefore I shall keep it prompt and to the point of the proposal. The Identity of the Byzantine Empire is an important subject and deserves its own article, a place that will give it the room it requires to be properely presented, something it cannot gain in its present location: an article that must keep its many sections concise due to its already massive amount of information.--Dryzen 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * sub-articles are a suitable conduit by which to further elaborate on lengthy issues and the identity aspect is rather long in the context of this article. It would be much better dealt with in its own article and the Names of the Greeks article is insufficient since it excludes the non-Greek aspects of the empire. The identity article could further explore issues of continuity with Rome, the multi-ethnic nature, the Hellenisation of the empire, Orthodoxy, etc.
 * All of them topics commendable on their own right, though I still dont understand why they need to be replaced and moved from the main article rather than expanded upon, simply by placing a link to a more detailed article in addition to the respective identity section. It seems you're firmly set on transforming the currently well-rounded and balanced article into a political history, which would only weaken it. If article length is a problem, which again, I agree it is, condensing the existing material is the way to go, not cuting and pasting away whole sections.  Colossus 21:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * As it stands, I think we can safely omit the "Identity..." section. It is quite sketchy, with only that quote and the mentioning of Argyropoulos; the "Names of the Greeks" article explains that and a lot more in detail, and is quite good in this regard (we should probably link directly to the "Romans and Romioi" and the following sections). The "Name of the Byzantine Empire" paragraphs should stay; they are necessary for this article. Currently, the "Identity..." stub serves no real purpose. The information therein (i.e. the quote) can be condensed and either moved to the lead paragraph (where a short sentence on "multi-ethnic Empire that became the medieval Greek state" might be in order), or to the "Names..." section. However, it should be merged into those sections, not simply added, as esp. in the lead there already are several statements alluding to the issue, and we should avoid repetition.
 * If anyone can come up with a decent text on the "Identity..." topic (that doesn't double with the "Names of the Greeks" article), it should be inserted again. Until then, the "Identity..." stub is not necessary (note: the current text - the topic itself does need a place somewhere in the article). Varana 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, I have never made any statements that were OR. But here are some quotes if it makes you happy.

“On 17 September he (Liudprand) was once again summoned, this time by the Patrician Christopher, a eunuch, who began the conversation with one or two personal remarks:

''‘The pallor of your face, the emaciation of your whole body, the unusual length of your hair and beard, all reveal the immense pain that is in your heart because the date of your return to your master has been delayed…. The reason is this. The Pope of Rome – if indeed he may be called Pope when he has held communion and ministry with Alberic’s son, the apostate, the adulterer, the sacreligious – has sent a letter to our most sacred Emperor, worthy of himself and unworthy of Nicephorus, calling him ‘Emperor of the Greeks’ and not ‘of the Romans’. Certainly this has been done at your master’s instigation… That fatuous blockhead of a Pope does not know that the sacred Constantine transferred to this city the imperial sceptre, the senate and all the Roman knighthood, leaving in Rome nothing but vile slaves, fishermen, confectioners, poulterers, bastards, plebeians and underlings. Never would he have written this letter if your king had not suggested it.’''

Clearly this was no time for heroics. Liudprand tried to argue that since the days of Constantine the Byzantines had changed their language, custom and dress, and that the Pope had probably thought that by now the very name of Romans, like their sartorial style, might be distasteful to them; but he did not press the point. Finally he promised that all future letters would be addressed to ‘Nicephorus, Constantine and Basil, the great and august Emperors of the Romans.’”

Norwich, J. J. Byzantium The Apogee. 1991 p. 201

Byzantium is better known as “the medieval Christian east Roman empire, because that is what Byzantium really was.”

Haldon, J. Byzantium at War 2002

In any case, this is all beside the point. The fact that this proposal has generated so much debate proves, in my mind, the necessity of a separate article on Byzantine Identity. Simply using the Names of the Greeks article smacks of POV. Especially since for much of its history the empire included many other ethnic groups. Wikipedia should not be used as a nationalist soapbox - especially when such an interpretation is at variance with the majority of books on the subject. Roydosan 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Roydosan I hope you can do better than that. I really don't see how those out-of-context citations justify any of your claims or edits. If someone else does then please fill me in. Miskin 13:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * We are well aware of the fact they found the term 'Hellene' insulting, because it was a subtle insult over their titular rights to call themselves the 'Emperor of the Romans', as well as 'Hellene' being a synonym for Pagan. I guess what I don't understand about you the most Roydosan, is why you find it so hard to fathom that people can, throughout history, call themselves by different names. You claim this article and the identity section is POV, you talk of the 'minorities' within the Empire. Fine. But you fail to note that peoples such as the Armenians where thoroughlly Hellenized. Let me provide some quotes of my own from Browning:


 * "By constantly setting themselves in their imagination against the Latins, the Byzantines redefined their own identity..... There is a very real sense in which the prehistory of Greek nationalism can be traced back to the long and traumatic confrontation with the Latin west."


 * and....


 * "To these peasents of Asia Minor the millenary traditions of Roman Imperialism meant little. The restoration of Roman power in the west was not an attractive dream. The world they were willing to fight for was that in which they lived - Greek."


 * You should buy this book, Browning also discusses friction between Greeks and mercenaries in the army. You are against the Greeks like all Westerners are, cheering as bombs were dropped on Serbia. You dont realise how many of us Greeks will stand against you to defend Greek History.


 * "You are against the Greeks like all Westerners are, cheering as bombs were dropped on Serbia. You dont realise how many of us Greeks will stand against you to defend Greek History." HELLO exageration, lies, and nationalism ad absurdum. Never knew that all Westerners are against the Greeks (I heard many times that Ancient Greece is considered the craddle of Western civilization though). Your insinuation that Roydosan cheered as the bombs were falling on Serbia is completly ridiculous. Try to behave like a reasonable and civilized person. Flamarande 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Roydosan,l i still cannot understand... I have been following the discussion, yet i chose not to participate in it so far. Using the Names of the Greeks article is NPOV enough. the term 'Romioi' mentioned there, which happened to be the name used by the Greek Byzantines and the Modern Greeks until late 18th century (and it is still in use by them in a lesser extend at present) is enough to persuade even the most suspicious reader. Apropos, the many other ethnic groups that u mentioned used their own names (e.g., i doubt if u will find a single Armenian or Copt telling u that they ever stopped using their own self-identifing names). btw, has there existed an empire consisting by a single ethnic group? thus, i find the proposal for a separate article on Byzantine Identity, just provocative; the next thing would be to create an article on British or French or German or Ottoman or Russian Empire Identity, in which there will be an effort to present these empires as distinct from the British/French/German/Turkish/Russian people respectively. U know that such an effort is meant to fail, as u also know that minorities and ethnic groups inside an empire do not alter the character and identity of the dominant ethnic group. I bet u know many things about Byzantine history... so, u know that the Medieval Greeks fought wars against the Slavs, Bulgars, Armenians, Georgians, Arabs, Goths, Avars, Persians as well as that they had clashes with the Copts, the Syriacs the Paulicians, etc. Which was the other part in this wars and clashes, if not the Greeks? Hectorian 13:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * "...the very designation 'Greek', which we use so freeely today to describe those Byzantines who did not belong to any alien group, is entirely absent from the literature of the period." page 27 of "Byzantium the empire of the New Rome" by Cyril Mango ISBN 1-89880-044-8. I suspect that the whole issue is simply not so clear as we may wish for. Flamarande 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian the Names of the Greeks article is POV because it assumes that all Byzantines were Greeks - which they most patently weren't. Yes it is true that Greek's came to dominate the empire and were the predominant ethnic group - but they weren't the only ethnic group. The Byzantines would not have understood modern ideas of ethnic or national identity - for them all that was important was membership of the Orthodox Church and the use of Greek in official business (this isn't my take on the situation but a comment in a book I read recently - I'll put up the ref later before anyone accuses me of OR again). Therefore the Names of the Greeks article is blatantly point of view since it is an exclusionary and partial interpretation of history to state that from 330-1453 the only Byzantines were Greeks. Roydosan 14:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, hows this for an article: 'The English are the greatest, blah blah blah, in actuality, the Byzantine people were English people who emigrated to Asia Minor in the 4th century AD.' Happy? Why the heck is it so difficult for you two haters of Greece to understand that people can call themselves by different names throughout history yet remain, ethnically, culturally and linguistically GREEEK? WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND??


 * Flamarande and Roydosan want to make it look like the only period of Greek History is 5th century Athens. Why should not Paparigopoulos be included? He was a great Historian of Byzantium and tied in Greek prehistory to Modern Greek history.


 * Roydosan, it doesn't matter... It does not matter how many ethnic groups were in the empire (whose borders, anyway vary, depending on the century)... The Names of the Greeks is NPOV enough. it incorporates valuable info on the names the Greeks have used and the names other nations gave to them. The Byzantines had a concept of national identity. just because other medieval states did not have such a concept, it doesn't mean that the Byzantines also didn't! the ancient Greeks, also had a clear concept of national identity, didn't they? also, the Empire, ended its history as a Greek nation state. apart from the books u are reading, i would advice u to also read some translations of medieval greek documents and literature works (better read them in Greek, if u know the language). u will see authors calling themselves 'Romans' (christians subjects of the Roman empire), whose ancestors were 'Hellenes'... It is clearly documented. also, the epic poem of Digenes Akritas, the national epos of the Medieval Greeks (equivelent to the Iliad for the ancients). but even if, as u say for them all that was important was membership of the Orthodox Church and the use of Greek in official business (btw, Greek was not only used officially, but was also the language of the people-better re-check the author of that book), u support the same thing... Greek Orthodoxy and Greek language; religion and language are two of the most important characteristics that make a nation distinct from the others-it is not hard for someone to understand that the Greeks considered themselves distinct from the Latins and western europeans in religious affairs-also, have a look where and by whom the heresies were created: Oriental Orthodoxy, Paulicianism, Nestorianism, Arianism... those people did not consider themselves Byzantines (id est Greeks). the Copts even welcomed the Arab conquerors as liberators... I am telling this again: if someone will try to draw a distinction between the Greeks, as a nation, and the Byzantine Empire, as if Byzantines were not Greeks, i expect from him to do the same for the other Empires as well... And since u are British (and the anon above was rather sarcastic-though he should had avoid personal attacks and such language), i am making a comparison: the British Empire was not British... various ethnic groups participated... Notably the Irish, the Vikings, and later the Native Americans, the Africans (and the Dutch in S.Africa), the Indians and Pakistanis... Also, this empire lacked other feutures that make up a nation, id est language (various Celtic languages... Gaelic, Manx, Welsh, bla bla bla), and also religion: the British were not all Anglicans... Irish Catholics, Calvinist Scots, not to mention the Deists... Several uprisings during the centuries, show that i am right... Or maybe u wanna talk about the origins of the Brits? 25% of Londoners are of Hugenot French ancestry, isn't that right? 8 million British people today are of Irish descent... So, for which "Queen of England" are we talking about? she is of German descent, right? as many Byzantine emperors were of Armenian origin. this is about numerous peoples connected only under a single crown (we know how the Kingdom of Scotland ended its existance, as we all also know what is probably gonna happen on May 2007...), sometimes by force and with, sometimes, common interests... So, under this pretext, the British Empire has nothing to do with the British people... (lol... when India was part of the Empire, the Britons made up just 5-10% of the whole population or the empire!). the very moment u will agree with what i have just said about Britain (and u create an article about the distinct identity of the its people from the modern Brits), i will begin to rethink of a possible similar change in this article. Regards Hectorian 17:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * bravo file mou!!! I am a proud greek and i will not let these people take my history from me. yet again they have proven that we greeks have only two allies: God and the serbs.


 * Errm... Serbs? Now again, what the hell do Serbs have to do with this debate? --- And just a personal opinion: I think it would help much if you would stop to see this as a personal attack. History does not "belong" to anyone.
 * Anyway, God lives in France and America is His country. ;) Varana 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hectorian et al.: I think it would be great if a decent text actually came out of this debate. As I see it: We have a multi-ethnic, decidedly all-encompassing Empire in the Roman tradition at the start. On the religious level, this includes orthodox-catholic Christians, Monophysites, several other sects, Pagans, Jews, and more. On the linguistic level, we have Greek (large majority), Latin (esp. in the Danubian provinces), Syriac / Aramaic, Coptic (Syriac and Coptic literature thrives in early Byzantium, until the Arab conquest), and more. Culturally, we have Hellenism transformed by Roman rule with various "indigenous" cultures, esp. in rural areas. And so on: Roydosan has a point, imo, that the Empire did not *begin* as a "Greek" nation-state. (Copts of course never self-identified as "Byzantines" - no one ever did. ;)) Together with the territorial reduction, the Greek character of the Empire grew, as it was more and more reduced to areas where Greeks were dominant.
 * So later on, we have a "Roman Empire of the Greek Nation", so to speak, with large non-Greek minorities (Armenian, but also Slav, etc.) It would be interesting to take a more detailed look at that time, i.e. the Middle Byzantine period, when the Empire was still "Roman" (i.e. ruling the oikoumene) in theory, but transforming into something like a nation.
 * And then we have the late period - which can be seen already in Anna Komnene, but esp. after the 4th Crusade (as somewhat of a catalyst) and the Recovery, when Byzantium was the Greek "nation-state" (note the "") also in reality. Chalcondylas, Argyropoulos and other avant-garde proponents of "Hellenism" fall into this period.
 * To flesh out that development with literature and source citations would be worthwhile, I think. Varana 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I still cannot see why the Byzantine Empire should be treated differently than the other empires... Btw, i am waiting for an answer about the British Empire that i mentioned above (u all know that i said nothing untrue:)). non Greek citizens did not self-identify as "Byzantines" (since the term was un-invented back then), but they even did not identify as Romioi-the many wars the Armenians, Georgians, Slavs, Avars, etc fought against the Romioi, shows this clearly... I agree on all u said above, and all of them are true... but they belong to a 'Demographics of the Byzantine Empire' article, don't u think? U mentioned above the various religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities (and i could name more, if asked to)... So, i challenge anyone to name one single modern nation (if not an empire of the past!) which is solely occupied by 1 ethnic group, 1 religion and 1 language. Culturally, we have Hellenism transformed by Roman rule with various "indigenous" cultures. How about that?:(about modern Britain) Culturally, we have a germanic nation, transformed by Roman, Norman rules with various "indigenous" (Pictish, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc) and "imported" (German, French, Indian, etc) cultures and with lots of Greek and Greco-Roman influences... id est, Britain is not British...
 * About the comment on Serbs by the anon above, he just quoted the words of Radovan Karadzic: "The Serbs have only two friends, God and the Greeks.", by altering them. he is right about the feelings of friendship between the Greeks and the Serbs, but this is somehow irrelevant to this discussion... Regards Hectorian 19:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * First: Usually, empires become larger over time. Byzantium is somewhat special in this regard, as it (I repeat myself) *shrinked* from "half the world" to a large, but not exactly world-ruling state, while claiming its former status all along. There are some similarities with the medieval "German" (i.e. "Holy Roman") Empire: it was multi-ethnic (German, some French, Slavic peoples, Italians...) and in theory claiming to rule the world. The emperor was "Roman emperor" (and the German king before imperial coronation even "Roman king"), but no one (except inhabitants of Rome) actually would have called himself a "Roman". I'm not as knowledgeable on the subject, but an "identity" section could be justified, if it were well-written. The "Habsburg Empire", esp. in the later stages, would also be an interesting candidate for that sort of article. Yes, it somewhat doubles with demographics. Do we have an article on Byzantine demographics?
 * That leads to the second point: Generally, I do find it difficult to apply a modern concept like "nation" to a medieval state. The medieval English kingdom was were the English king was sovereign. That included England proper, Wales, large parts of France, etc... nothing new, I suppose. The "nation" as what "really" makes up a state is a modern concept.
 * What your listing for modern Britain shows is that "British" now is not identical with early medieval Anglo-Saxons. That is imho a commonplace. Cultures incorporate elements and influences from others all the time; that doesn't make today's British less "British" (it makes them less Anglo-Saxon, possibly). The same applies to Greece. (I am talking of cultural developments. I don't care much about ethnicity and "blood".)
 * So, I'm not sure whether the articles on the German, English, Russian or whatever empire could be improved by an "identity" article. I think that "identity of the Byzantine state" *is* an interesting subject that *could* fill an article. Note that I'm talking of the Byzantine *state*: that state changed. How one would come to the opinion that that is to detach Byzantium from Greeks is beyond me - the whole purpose of that article, as I see it, would be to show how the Eastern half of the Roman Empire *became* "the state of the Greeks" in the first place.
 * I do believe that Armenians, Syrians, Egyptians etc. identified as "Romani" or "Rhomaioi" or the equivalent of "Roman" in Armenian / Syriac / Coptic when the Empire was "created" (i.e. the whole Empire split, whatever date we choose). Of course Avars did not when they attacked the Empire, as they were not citizens then... Over time, and that is a direct effect of the territorial concentration of the "Roman" Empire on Greek lands, "Romans" became synonymous with "Greeks". Not the other way 'round...
 * Karadzic: That explains that, thanks. :) Varana 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, empires reach an apogee, and then shrink or immediately get partitioned (the Byzantine belongs to the first group). Thanks for clarifying about modern Britain, and i also agree about the cultural developments, and I also don't care much about "blood". But u also mentioned the medieval German empire and the medieval English kingdom... On the grounds of Roydosan, i bet that there was never a medieval German empire nor a medieval English kingdom (German empire? what about the Czechs? English kingdom? how about the Irish and the French?)... I personally find a possible "identity" article here as expression of extreme POV (we have the article 'Name of the Greeks' for that, and also articles on Copts and Armenians where their position in the empire is explained in much detail)... Thus, such an article is a potential POVFORK. i will not agree in the creation of such an article (id est an attempt to split the greek identity), unless same attitude will be followed for the other empires as well, and not only for the Greek Empire-btw, i guess u know the many similarities in the specific fields we are referring here, between the Byzantine, the Russian or the German Empires (the two last, also claimed to be the inheritors of the Roman...). Lastly, i think an articles on Byzantine demographics will be extremely interesting and that it has much to offer in the general coverage of the Empire in wikipedia. Thanks for bringing that up, even indirectly:) Hectorian 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To quote Varana


 * ''the whole purpose of that article, as I see it, would be to show how the Eastern half of the Roman Empire *became* "the state of the Greeks" in the first place.

''I do believe that Armenians, Syrians, Egyptians etc. identified as "Romani" or "Rhomaioi" or the equivalent of "Roman" in Armenian / Syriac / Coptic when the Empire was "created" (i.e. the whole Empire split, whatever date we choose). Over time, and that is a direct effect of the territorial concentration of the "Roman" Empire on Greek lands, "Romans" became synonymous with "Greeks". Not the other way 'round...

This is basically the crux of my proposal. The three paragraphs I proposed moving to their own article need to be dealt with more fully. Currently there is a tendency amongst certain editors to write as if the Byzantine Empire was a Greek nation state as understood in terms of 19th century nationalism - this is inaccurate and a sweeping generalisation and simplification of the subject. Not once have I disputed that Greeks formed the majority of the population of the empire; but to pretend that they were the only group over the life of the empire, as using the Names of the Greeks article implies, is inaccurate and at variance with modern scholarship and the historical evidence. This is not about creating a POV fork or "splitting the Greek identity" but of dealing with these issues more fully in their own article. I am not proposing that such a viewpoint should be eliminated from the article, although I personally consider it to be wrong, but that it be balanced with other views. This requires an expansion of the coverage of the subject. The article is already far too long, therefore a new article is the obvious solution. There would be a link to the article where the three paragraphs are currently located so this is hardly a case of ignoring the subject. I think it is naïve to expect that there can be a compromise over the three paragraphs in question which would see them kept at both a reasonable length and in conformity with NPOV. I have nothing against the Greeks, Serbs, or whoever. I just believe in objectivity - something this whole subject could do with some serious improvement in. And as for the British empire - this is not really comparable - the British empire was based around the exploitation of foreign lands (which (even Ireland till 1800) never formed part of Britain) by a ruling class of White Europeans whereas the Byzantines incorporated reconquered territories back into the empire - the only things required of Roman citizenship being membership of the Orthodox Church and use of the Greek language. Roydosan 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * How about an article Demographics of the Byzantine Empire? wouldn't that be interesting and it would also cover fields that the article u propose is expected to cover? As for the British Empire, look at the respective article... the comparison is clear, the article rather long and the its details many. it is easy to say that certain editors (want) to write as if the Byzantine Empire was a Greek nation state as understood in terms of 19th century, but i guess u do not understand that the Byzantine Empire was as Greek as the British Empire was British, as the French was French, and so on... And this is not something disputed neither by modern scholarship nor historical evidence. Hectorian 13:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1)Roydosan said: Yes it is true that Greek's came to dominate the empire and were the predominant ethnic group - but they weren't the only ethnic group. So according to your logic in a couple of centuries present countries like France and England shouldn't be regarded as French and English, because they aren't the "only ethnic groups" in their space. It should be incorrect to use anything other than "British" to refer to English people, since they're only one out of countless ethnic groups inhabiting their country. If we include the Scots the Welsh and the Irish, the "English Kingdom" is but a national myth. You're equating this logic to a medieval state and you expect to be taken seriously. Miskin 14:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC) 2)Roydosan said: The Byzantines would not have understood modern ideas of ethnic or national identity - for them all that was important was membership of the Orthodox Church and the use of Greek in official business Fair enough. But how would you then explain: To quote Donald M. Nicol: "The majority of the Empire's inhabitants were conscious of being the inheritors of a civilisation older and greater than any of of the Western nation...The resentment reached its paroxysm in 1182, with the massacre of all the foreigners of Constantinople" So what is that more ancient civilisation that the western nations didn't share? Can it be the Romans? I don't think so. And who were those mysterious "foreigners" that no one can comprehend? Who were the natives? Can you please give me your opinion on this one? Or would you care to explain the direct citations provided in Phillips' "Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople"? Let me indroduce you to some: Nobody ever denied that Byzantine Greeks preferred "Romans", but as Nicol says, so did all nations of their time. The fact that the insisted is because they had a better reason than most of the others - except maybe the Latin-speakers and the conquerors of Rome. You fail to understand that after the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire terms such as "Roman" and "Hellene" lost their ethnic meanings - and that is your problem, not ours. A proof to this anyway is Julian the Apostate's self-proclamation as the "Hellene". Furthermore the term "Greek" (Γραικοί) is often seen in Byzantine original texts, which I really doubt that you have ever studied. Bottom line: Your conclusions are original research that you have failed to back it up with sources. The citations you provided above do by no means justify any of your extreme views. Miskin 14:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * the violent deportation of Venetian merchants in 1171 and
 * the massacre of "all foreigners" of Constantinople in 1182?
 * "We don't want their Greeks softening us with their gifts", say the crusaders upon approaching Constantinople by making a parallel with ancient Greek mythology.
 * "The Romans crucified Christ" - the Greek priests' argument towards their Latin counterparts
 * "mutually destructive struggles happen not only to beasts but also to nations, such as those who have marched against us Greeks" - Nicetas Chroniates

"HELLO exageration, lies, and nationalism ad absurdum. Never knew that all Westerners are against the Greeks (I heard many times that Ancient Greece is considered the craddle of Western civilization though)." Yeah, so isn't that why German scholars used to claim that ancient Greek civilisation advanced thanks to an "Aryan", German elite which migrated from the north? Oh, oh, I know! This doesn't count anymore, it been like 50 years (and a lost war) since then. HELLO, you see the irony? So what's next in the book? Byzantine Greeks were in fact a "German" civilisation? Hmm.. that makes sense, the Romans were German, the Byzantine emperors claimed heritage to the Romans, therefore Byzantium was ruled by a German elite, i.e. a German civilisation! If you don't like being stereotyped then don't stereotype others. Miskin 14:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Miskin if you seriously agree with the following statement: "You are against the Greeks like all Westerners are, cheering as bombs were dropped on Serbia. You dont realise how many of us Greeks will stand against you to defend Greek History." which was directed against Roydosan (by an anonymus user) please, tell us so. I think that such statement and reasoning is completly absurd, and the sentence you quoted is merely an answer to that statement and nothing else. If you disagree, fine by me. If you seriously think that all Westerners are against the Greeks and cheered as bomb were falling upon Serbia ... (I don't know what to write the statement is soo ludricous). Flamarande 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) PS: I am glad to see that Godwin's Law is still alive and kicking.


 * No I don't, but earlier you jumped on me, stereotyped me and called me names without prior reason. So maybe the anon has been drawing such conclusions because of the attitude of "western" crowd in wikipedia. Miskin 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The anon user seems to be a vandal (something which is easy to check if you examine all his contributions in the list). If I hurt your feelings with my remark inside of Template talk:Byzantine Empire infobox, I am truly sorry (ppl who debate usually have a thick skin); I didn't know that you were so sensible, and it was meant as a joke (as the PS: "Ahh sarcasm and irony; two things I will always love." clearly shows. Notice also that I signed it, instead of easily hiding behind an "anonymous IP". Flamarande 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskin said
 * So according to your logic in a couple of centuries present countries like France and England shouldn't be regarded as French and English, because they aren't the "only ethnic groups" in their space. It should be incorrect to use anything other than "British" to refer to English people, since they're only one out of countless ethnic groups inhabiting their country. If we include the Scots the Welsh and the Irish, the "English Kingdom" is but a national myth. You're equating this logic to a medieval state and you expect to be taken seriously.

Actually people who refer to the residents of the UK as 'English' are incorrect. Since British is an identity which includes not only England but Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland. That's why it's called the United Kingdom not the 'English Kingdom'. You come out with crap like that and you expect to be taken seriously???? And in 1171 & 1182 these were not Roman citizens so your argument falls down. This is all beside the point though. As usual Miskin you jump on any idea which doesn't fit your own personal agenda. Roydosan 14:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"They weren't Roman citizens"? - you really make me laugh! Can you back this up even in the slightest? Please beware of your answer because you're about to humiliate yourself even further. What about Chroniates' statements, a contemporary historian of noble Byzantine family: "mutually destructive struggles happen not only to beasts but also to nations, such as those who have marched against us Greeks". Is he talking about the "non Roman citizens" and the "ethnic Greek population of Constantinople", or just about Byzantine Greeks and foreigners? I see you also chose to ignore Nicol's remark about Byzantines being conscious of their Greek heritage. I never expected more from you anyway. Miskin 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Proposal - put to the vote
I am not interested in petty bickering and nationalistic arguments. Therefore I will keep my comments short and to the point. Roydosan has proposed the following sections (1 Name of the Byzantine Empire 2 Identity, continuity, and consciousness 3 Origin) are moved to their own new article Byzantine Identity.

Why not skip the useless arguing about irrelevant issues, and just take a simple vote on whether we should do what Roydosan has proposed?

I invite you all to Support or Object to the proposal now, and put an end to this pointless arguing over bigoted nationalistic nonsense. Bigdaddy1204 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Supporting and objecting

If you support Roydosan's proposal, write *Support followed by your reason(s). If you oppose the proposal, write *Object or *Oppose followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with ... ) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow others the opportunity to do this themselves. To provide constructive input on the proposition without explicitly supporting or objecting, write *Comment followed by your advice. Bigdaddy1204 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry Bigdaddy1204, but i do not find the whole discussion as "nationalistic"... I have explained my position in detail. what Roydosan has asked is "disconnection" of the modern Greeks from the medieval Greeks. and this is something i will never agree on. i made comparisons, for which i got no answer. an article 'Byzantine Identity' would stand only and only if other articles will be created regarding the "different" identities of the same ethnic groups (huh?) throughout the ages, id est, only if articles named British Empire's Identity or German Empire's Identity or Russian Empire's Identity will be created to establish a separation between the medieval British, German and Russian identities from the modern ones respectively. Regards Hectorian 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I will take that as an Object then, Hectorian ;)
 * I too will object to this attempt to attack Greek History. Roydosan's whole purpose on Byzantine History topics has been nothing other than to present Byzantine History as the a Roman occupation of the Greek people --86.141.243.11 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (p.s. hectorian, rally other hellenes on wikipedia to this page so they can express their vote too).
 * Comment: I will remain neutral for now, given the strong views of those who know more about this topic than I do. Bigdaddy1204 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Weak object for the time being. The sections can definitely be improved, but I see no need for a separate article for now, if the presented material is not expanded. Varana 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * And comment: People should be rallied - but those knowledgeable on the subject. Defining "truth" by simply creating a majority is what makes Wikipedia potentially bogus and unreliable. "Wikiality" at its best (rather, worst). Varana 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Support on the basis that 1)The main article has gotten much too large and would greatly benifit from sub-articles. To this I must point that I do not only support rewriting and outsourcing in this section but do so in any section. 2)To approach the Empire identity question that Hectorian rightfuly brough up, I think it simple to support a dedicated article on the basis that no other Empire Article has indured so much contention and misunderstandings on the subject of its Identity. As well no other article even has 3 sub-sections at the fore touching such subjects. Rather this is either explained gradually through several articles incarnating the ancestry and evolution of the state or the situation posses no problems to the reader in the first place due to ample expossure of information. -) To respond to other similar articles tempting to present the subject I find it most neutral and to the point of presenting an Article simply as Byzantine. A simple and all encompassing term when compared to Byzantine Greeks wich right away does away with the multiethnic nature of the empire (brigning to mind an article that will only speak of the Greek character of the empire or ot the unknowing a Greek division of the empire). This is again used agian Names of the Greeks as this is clearly specific to the Greek history. In other words, the  mentioned articles can, do and should mention the Byzantines but these are ill suited to speak only of hte byzantines and the Empire as a whole. I dislike mentioning an exemple yet it may seem prudent to best explain what could be an ambigiuous statement: All French are from France yet not all French speakers are from France. ~ Giving it the feal that All Greeks are Byzantine yet not all Byzantines are Greeks~ Overall I think past relationships between editors and edits are clouding the present discussion. Then again maybe I'm simply lookign at it with x-ray googles and missing the flesh and clothes of it. As with Varana best be objective and stear clear of predefined perceptions given by others.--Dryzen 20:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Object creation of obscure forks. There is no article about "Byzantine identity" in any encyclopaedia I was able to consult. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Due all the respect Dryzen but when I hear such naive argumentations I just get the idea that I'm not dealing with a serious crowd. Just listen to yourself and try to compare your claims with the facts of modern historiography. You say that "All Greeks are Byzantine yet not all Byzantines are Greeks" there fore you conclude that "Byzantine Greeks" (a perfectly well sourced term) is not acceptable (Original research). Do you actually believe that your last argument is a criterion for naming civilisations or states or nations? Do you honestly believe that the "Ottoman Turks" for instance, are called as such because "all Ottomans were Turks"? Do you think that as a wikipedia editor you're in position of making such decisions? This is hopeless, I guess I'll be forced to take the matter into my own hands. There's not even a point in making discussions, you people have done your little original research, made up your minds, and you're not listening to anybody. I think everybody here has to stop taking decisions based on their personal opinions. I'll stick to my sources and ignore all kinds of ranting à la Roydosan. Miskin 02:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ahh, It seems that Miskin should abide by his words as well, Do you think that as a wikipedia editor you're in position of making such decisions? and This is hopeless, I guess I'll be forced to take the matter into my own hands. is a mite hipocrite. I would call to your attention the linguistic symbol "~", oft times used to demonstrate uncertant and fluctuative statement. As I said, I was pressed to conjure an exemple and it was the correlation that I was able to attain before my time was up. I never wrote that Byzantine Greeks was an improper term simple that it was misleading should it be used to designate all Byzantine citizens. As to desicions, what moves have I made save discussion? And a passive one at that. To respond to your inquiry: Do you honestly believe that the "Ottoman Turks" for instance, are called as such because "all Ottomans were Turks"? No I do not and expect a number of editors to understand the nuance of it, yet as a wikieditor I am reminded that these articles are not ot be made with the intention of writting for a community of base-knowledge holders. Rather these articles will be seen by all who wander to them. To best answer to this criteria we must best write our article to fit the slowest of the pack, and I am reminded of the oft times advice from my teachers that one should write as if to idiots, that way you are assured to reach understanding from everyone. And if this was not reason enough, simply keeping to Byzantine or Ottoman cuts back on the image of ignoring the other components of the states when the term is used on the vastness of the state (ie. Byzantine Greek article should talk of Byzantine greeks, but Byzantine Greeks is a misleading title for an article on all imperial subjects. Just as an Canadian Anglophones article is unsuited to speak of what it is to be Canadian).
 * A number of Wikipedians seem willing to discuss and most interesting ideas have been presented, such as Hectorian's brillaint suggestion of demogrpahics for the empire articles. As any knows it will be a great addition ot many if not all the multi-ethnic states. To wich I underline the term State as opposed to nation. In return to my own voicing of opinion you have failed to reduce even commento n my two points leading to such suport, while concentrating on the meager un-numbered one. Although the second after rereading falls short of my objective.
 * Yet any would be hard pressed to deny that the Byzantine Empire is currently the only article about a state befalling to some crisis revolving around its demographics/identity. Wich indicates that it clear needs discussion. Displacing this contention ot it s own article seems best to give it the attention it needs from dedicated editors. As of yet I find these points to be most reasonable and more so with little actual side taking, if there is even truly such things as two sides in this conflict. I find that you have labled me as something that I may not be. To wich I ponder, what do you see of this editor? What pre-defined background and thoughts have you given onto eternity? as it would seem you have on this very matter? For who is it that has  done your little original research, made up your minds and is not listening to anybody? Someone that will I'll stick to my sources and ignore all kinds of ranting in my mind.
 * Now this is as become a text most verbose as akin to a rant to wish I am sorry for those pressed for time, it is also a sorry state that it has come to these presentations rather than primarily constructive works. I would enjoy constructive critism should it be given as well as thoughts.--Dryzen 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. Miskin I think you'll trully be aiming for my head after this considering how slighted you unreasonably felt without my even thinking of you in my earlier post and that on the Template talk, whiles here responding directly.

Actually I started making an article out of Byzantine Greeks before noticing the vote. Maybe we could move the "identity" section there. Miskin 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Support because Wiki policy clearly states:
 * The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

The current three paragraphs are not long enough to adhere to this. Any attempt to change them is met by a howl of protest by those intent on presenting a Greek nationalist interpretation which is not found in any serious academic books on the subject. A sub-article dealing with it in full would allow all views to be represented. Roydosan 10:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Roydosan wake up, the NPOV policy is referring to conflicting views of established sources, not of wikipedians. There hasn't been a open debate to help us determine the existing views. You people are applying NPOV on your own views, this is why I'm saying that this vote is stupid. Miskin 14:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that your highly selective references are in breach of NPOV. Roydosan 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Hearty Support. The issues involved are too complicated to be dealt with in a paragraph or two in the main article. For a basic statement of the problematics of "Byzantine identity," might I recommend Ch. 1 of Mango's Byzantium: empire of new Rome? It's posted online at Paul Halsall's site: . A short selection:
 * ...the Middle Byzantine Empire was by no means a solidly Greek state. In addition to the Armenians and the Slavs, there were many other foreign elements, such as the Georgians and the Balkan Vlachs. A massive influx of Syrians and other Christian orientals followed the eastward expansion of the Empire at the end of the tenth century; and when, in 1018, the imperial frontier was once more extended to the Danube, it comprised vast areas where Greek had never been spoken or had been extinguished a long time previously. Whether Greek speakers formed at the time the majority or a minority of the inhabitants of the Empire is a guess I should not like to hazard.
 * ...As far as we can judge, the main links of solidarity were two: regional and religious. People identified themselves with their village, their city or their province much more than they did with the Empire. When a person was away from home he was a stranger and was often treated with suspicion. A monk from western Asia Minor who joined a monastery in Pontus was 'disparaged and mistreated by everyone as a stranger'. The corollary to regional solidarity was regional hostility. We encounter many derogatory statements concerning 'the cunning Syrian' who spoke with a thick accent, the uncouth Paphlagonian, the mendacious Cretan. Alexandrians excited ridicule at Constantinople. Armenians were nearly always described in terms of abuse. Even demons had strong feelings of local affiliation and did not want to consort with their fellows from the next province.

Patriotic Greek Wikipedians should not feel that their own national idenity is somehow being singled out by observations such as these. The issues are just as complicated in regard to the English ("Angle" does not equal "English" as understood today); the French ("Frankish" does not equal "French"); the Russians ("Rus"); the Scots ("Pict") and so forth. Most, if not all, modern European national identities are based on the nineteenth-century discourse of nationalism, which in turn was dependent on extremely tendentious accounts of medieval history that are today indefensible in scholarly discourse. --Javits2000 13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A short addendum: Hectorian's demand for comparable articles on the identity of the British, Russian, and German empires rests on an untenable comparison -- none of these three were medieval empires. And in any case, decolonialization, for example, makes it perfectly clear that the vast majority of residents of the British empire did not consider themselves British. As for Ghirlandajo's observation re: "obscure forks": a copy is not at hand, but I recall that Kazhdan treated the subject at length in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. --Javits2000 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"he Middle Byzantine Empire was by no means a solidly Greek state."-> doesn't the word "solidly" imply that it was nonetheless a Greek state? Drawing such pulled-by-the-hair conclusions from such a citation makes you look pretty biased, not to mention desperate. Miskin 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The point of the citation, I would have thought, and of Mango's discussion more generally, is that to speak of a national identity of any sort during the early and middle Byzantine empire is anachronistic. (The later empire may well be a different story-- and it is precisely to allow fine distinctions of this short that an additional article would be useful.) Rather, "the main links of solidarity were two: regional and religious." --Javits2000 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

roman-empire.net link
While the major part of the site deals with the ancient Roman Empire, there is a section on Byzantium under http://roman-empire.net/constant/constant-index.html. Now, the question is: do we need that information in the external links? If yes, we should give the above link on the relevant section, instead of the whole site. I think it would be best to come to a conclusion on that topic some time, instead of constant reverting and re-inserting. Varana 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * It is my humble opinion that the site is quite good, and its information about the Byzantine Empire/Empeoros is valuable. I also agree with your proposal to link directly to the relevant part. Cheers Flamarande 13:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Roman-Empire.net is a good source of information, its subsections have a number of valid references for the Byzantine Empire. Sound good on the structuring.--Dryzen 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

My two cents about Armenians
It seems that the Armenians are always brought up here in heated discussions so I just wanted to comment on that. There were two kinds of Armenians in the Empire, the Romanoi Chalcedonian fully Hellenized (Kourkouas family for example) ones that may or may not have spoken Armenian and for all we know other than having an Armenian name had no other Armenian attributes at all and the Armenian non-Chalcedonian residents. This article only mentions the non-Chalcedonian minority though. There were also non-Armenian families that were Armenianized by marriage such as the Phocades. The former were a majority the latter were a minority. The former would slaughter the latter without a second thought if given an opportunity and vice versa. The former was loyal to the Empire the latter was not. There were some exceptions after the Battle of Manzikert where certain Hellenized Chalcedonian Armenians (Philaretos Brachamios, Thoros of Edessa, Gabriel of Melitene etc.) lost faith in the Empire and ended up being more Armenian, but those days the Byzantine Empire was already turning into a Greek state. There is a very interesting book dedicated to this subject written by the famous Greek pioneer of Byzantine Studies, Peter Charanis: The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 1963) Anyway, I would call the Byzantine Empire under the Comnenids, Angelids, Laskarids and Palaiologans an ethnic Greek state.--Eupator 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Byzantium after Byzantium
There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Byzantium after Byzantium as to what should be done with this article. Some propose merge into Byzantine Empire. Your comments are welcome. -- Ghirla -трёп-  08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The vote is off
I don't know what we're voting for here. Are we voting on making a move, on content of the move in question or on the name of the new article? You people need to make up your minds, for the time being everyone's "support" vote is a reply to some statement made in Talk, and not a support for an actual proposal. The proposal Byzantine identity is out of the question, this is clearly original research and no vote has the right to change WP:POLICY. So stop wasting your time and open up a debate. Bringing up sources is good, but I'm waiting for someone to define a debate before the the procedure begins. So far everyone's been talking about different subjects. Dryzen made a good debate but unfortunately he included his post in a "support" paragraph instead of a separate section. Miskin 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you to decide the debate is off Miskin. Who put you in charge? Wiki policy is against original research but original topics are ok as long as the information is verifiable. Clearly, there are no problems finding plenty of references so I don't see how this is an issue. Roydosan 14:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody put me in charge, I'm just reminding that WP:POLICY is non-negotiable, and that you're about to find out that you've been wasting your energy on original research. I started a new topic below Roydosan, please tell me now what exactly you regard as "nationalism" and "original research", and I'll respond to you with a citation. Miskin 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Wiki policy is non-negotiable. You might like to read WP:NOT, which states:

''Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favourite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.''

The subject of Byzantine identity is hardly original research - go and read any book on the subject and you will find a discussion on who the Byzantines were, their origins, and what they saw themselves as. Roydosan 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright then I'll have a quick look... There you go, from Angold's "Church and society in Byzantium under the Comeni", CAMBRIDGE University Press: "He [Theodore Lascaris]] saw this as evidence of pernicious Latin influence on popular Byzantine romances. His task was to foster the study of philosophy, for there was a danger that 'Philosophy' might abandon the Greeks and seek refuge among the Latins...In a letter to Pope Gregory IX the Emperor John Vatatzes not only claimed to have received the gift of royatly from Constantine the Great, but also emphasised his 'Hellenic' descent and exhalted the wisdom of the Greek people. He was presenting 'Hellenic' culture as an integral part of the Byzantine polity in defiance of Latin claims. It appears that your accusations of an alleged OR against the Names of the Greeks article was just the side effect of your own ignorance. Miskin 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I never stated that the Names of the Greeks article was OR - just that it was insufficient on its own and presented the POV case that the only Byzantines were Greeks. In future try reading what I have written, before you get so temperamental. Roydosan 15:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you know, the same source should be able to cover another of your queries. You, Dryzen and some other editors claimed that "Byzantine" can comprise more than one ethnic groups, and that non-Hellenised Armenians and Slavs were also Byzantines (at least that's what I understood). Let's have a look at another citation: He [Eustathius] noted the usual accommodations of local people with the occupying forces. Some of his most bitter comments were directed against the Jews and especially the Armenians for the way they profited from and gloried in the disaster that had overtaken the Greeks...He noted the lack of respect shown by the Latins for the church services of the Greeks. So it appears that you were both wrong. The non-Greek (or non-Hellenised) population such as Armenians and Slavs were amused by the attack on Byzantium - a "disaster that had overtaken the Greeks" - therefore they were _not_ regarded as "Byzantines" like you and others have repeatedly claimed. Miskin 16:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Greek here means a member of the Greek Church. Any citizen of Byzantium that was Chalcedonian was Greek.--Eupator 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. I never said it meant ancestry from the Dorians and the Ionians, but it did have a distinct meaning, synonymous to 'Romaios'. Miskin 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Byzantine Greeks
I started an article in Byzantine Greeks in order to move the information which concerns the Empire's people or culture, and by 'culture' I'm not referring to the conquered peoples and/or minorities, so stop wasting your breath by pointing out that Bulgarians spoke Bulgarian. The term "Byzantine Greeks" is used by Finlay himself, the person who first introduced the term "Byzantine Empire" in the English language, and has been used interchaengably with "Byzantines" ever since. Furthermore many historians (e.g. Jonathan Phillips) prefer to avoid exonyms and refer to the middle and late empire's inhabitants simply by "Greeks", like their contemporaries called them. Thirdly, in the historiography based on civilisations rather than states (like Toynbee's), the term "Byzantines" doesn't restrict itself to the Byzantine Empire but all Eastern Orthodox civilisations. In this case the Byzantine Empire's inhabitants are determined strictly as "Byzantine Greeks". Does anyone have an objection with the article name - yes-no/reasons/sources. Don't bother to reply if you're just going to provide us with your personal opinions, provide a citation which has a straight-forward meaning and is not open to personal interpretations. Miskin 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, yes, an account of "people and culture" that excludes "conquered peoples and/or minorities" -- terribly enlightened approach. It's a chilly night here in Munich -- maybe I'll go toss my copy of Sharf's Byzantine Jewry on the bonfire. --Javits2000 16:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to throw any jews in the fire, just read my citation in the section right above. Miskin 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It comes as a surprise to no one that there were a few (perhaps more?) bigoted clergymen in the middle ages. Whether or not we ought to allow their prejudices to define modern historical discourse is perhaps another question. --Javits2000 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * So if I'm not mistaken you're suggesting that we should regard this as a load or rubbish because Eustathius was a medieval prejudiced Greek nationalist who discriminated the Jews and Armenians and excluded them from the "Byzantine nationality"? Plus, your inside information has reported that he's part of a small-numbered chauvinist clergy, and doesn't represent Byzantine society. So according to today's human rights organisations it is our duty correct this travesty by claiming in wikipedia that they were all "equals among equals" - all Byzantines. Right? What about the above citations on Lascares' and Vatatzes' Hellenic claims? Are they also part of Eustathius' cult? Miskin 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Mango quote above clearly shows where Eustathius is coming from: *local* (in this case, religious) identity prevailing over *imperial* solidarity. "They were not regarded as Byzantines" - by whom, when, why, with what aim, and so on? Of course they were regarded as Byzantines - they lived in the Empire. In the situation of the sack of Thessalonica, they accommodated with the invaders, and one of the most prominent figures of another group (probably the majority) complains. Where that means that they were not "Byzantines" (i.e. citizens of the Empire) is beyond me. We do not talk about a modern nation state; we talk about a medieval empire.
 * Needless to say: I don't regard "Byzantine Greeks" as an appropriate title for a "demographics and identity" discussion. Javits has supplied an excellent quote on that problem and why we can't simply take hostile digressions in the sources as "proof" that they didn't regard others as citizens of the empire. Your sources mostly come from the Comnenian period or later; what about the early (Justinian) or middle (Macedonian...) empire? Varana 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed by such poor and desperate argumentation. The fact that Armenians are and have _always_ been Eastern Orthodox makes your claim moot. If you think that the Greeks (yeah that's the word, don't be afraid to say it) were "probably the majority of another group" then you're just off topic. Byzantines were only those who accepted Hellenisation, the Greek language, education and religion, i.e. those who became Greek. Whether they were Jews or Armenians was irrelevant. The currect citation proves clearly that the non-Hellenized Jews and Armenians were _not_ viewed as Byzantines but peoples inhabiting the Byzantine Empire, and the term "Byzantine Jewry" doesn't make them any more Byzantine than the term "Ottoman Hellenism" makes the Greeks Turkish. Furthermore there's a bunch of citations that I've provided earlier which all come down to the same conclusion. I'm curious to see how long will it take you to come face to face with the truth. Miskin 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * What are you talking about? Since when have Armenians been Eastern Orthodox? Armenians are/were Oriental Orthodox. HUGE difference. One is Chalcedonian the other is not. Any Armenian that was Chalcedonian and Eastern Orthodox was "Greek", Armenians in the Empire that were not Chalcedonian ie:Paulician, Oriental Orthodox etc. were Armenian. So to be a Byzantine Greek one must meet the following criteria:Greek Church and the Greek language. That's it.--Eupator 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm afraid I'm not in position to tell the difference between the two Eupator. Nonetheless, it really makes no difference. Miskin 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well it makes a difference in a sense that Chalcedonian Armenians in the Empire were Romanoi, the non-Chalcedonians were not. Starting from the time of Maurice until the Battle of Manzikert these Hellenized Romanoi Armenians played a very important role, and for about two centuries even dominated the Empire.--Eupator 18:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Varana, the Comnenian period starts some 400 years before the end of the Empire, it's not exactly what I'd call an insignificant part of Byzantine history. Furthermore the title "Imperium Graecorum" has existed since at least 800, some 300 years earlier. The citation I provided above was not a direct, contemporary account under my personal interpretation, it was a citation of the modern author's interpretation. But if you want even more specific then I've can help you out: The Byzantines who were unwilling to let in any Western influence must have been far larger in number than those who had contacts with the West or with Westeners...It was certainly not always a form of contempt for the non-Greeks, the Barbarians. Most of the time it was probably simply a question of indifference or neglect of everything not Greek...Byzantium had no tradition of actively propagating its own culture or of actively combatting foreign people or foreign elements in its society. [Nelly Ciggaar, Western Travellers to Constantinople: The West and Byzantium - Brill Academic Publishers] I suppose the last sentence alone is sufficient disprove all of your utopian POVs. Miskin 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Eustathius by "Greek" doesn't mean Hellenic anyway, he means "Byzantine" or "Romaioi". Your theory on "local" versus "imperial" solidarity proves that you haven't been following my sources closely. Read the citation right above Eustathius, it's about the claims of the Imperial authority itself, and there's nothing "local" coming from them. It goes on to say that the Empire of Nicaea called itself "Hellenic land". Miskin 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The conversation has degenerated and its point has been lost. The question was whether or not an entry on "Byzantine Greeks" would suitably reflect the concerns which it had previously been suggested should be addressed under "Byzantine identity." To me it's still clear that it doesn't. Of course the Comnenes were important but one can't generalize from one period of Byzantine history to clarify the whole; thus Varana's observation that the situation was clearly different in the sixth and the 9th-10th centuries. The question needs to be addressed carefully, in historical context, which is precisely why the new article, originally proposed, on "Byzantine identity" would be useful.

I muster one more quote from Mango, although I understand fully that those who can be convinced have already been convinced.


 * ... if we place ourselves at about the time when the Empire started on the slow course of its recovery, say towards the end of the eighth century, we find a population that had been so thoroughly churned up that it is difficult to tell what ethnic groups were living where and in what numbers. It is often stated that by shedding, however painfully, its principal non-Greek-speaking elements, such as the Syrians, the Egyptians and the Illyrians, the Empire had become more homogeneous. It is also asserted that the non-Greeks were gradually assimilated or Hellenized through the agency of the Church and the army, and that this happened in particular to the indigenous populations of Asia Minor as well as to the Slavs in the Peloponnese and elsewhere in Greece. The critical reader may be advised to treat such generalizations with a measure of caution. It is true, of course, that following the eclipse of Latin, Greek became the only official language of the Empire, so that a knowledge of it was mandatory for pursuing a career or transacting business. Neither Armenian nor Slavonic ever supplanted it as a general medium of communication. It is also true that in the long run Slavonic died out in Greece and in Bithynia, and if any Armenian has been spoken in Thrace within living memory, it was not on the part of descendants of the colonists planted there in the eighth century. But then it is also known that Greek survived in Asia Minor on a continuous basis only in Pontus and a small part of Cappadocia, whereas it had become practically extinct in the western part of the subcontinent until its reintroduction there by immigrants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We would not argue from the last observation that western Asia Minor was not predominantly Greek-speaking in the Middle Ages. However illuminating it may be in some respects, the long view does not help the historian of Byzantium to solve the specific problems that confront him. Was Hellenization, for example, a conscious aim of the imperial government, and if so, how was it implemented and with what success? And if it succeeded in the Middle Ages, why had it not done so in Antiquity under conditions of a more settled life and a higher civilization?


 * When we look at our scanty sources; we realize that the formulation of the above questions does not correspond to the Byzantine way of thinking. First of all, the very designation 'Greek', which we use so freely today to describe those Byzantines who did not belong to any alien group, is entirely absent from tlie literature of the period. An inhabitant of Greece south of Thessaly would have referred to himself as a Helladikos (a name already current in the sixth century AD), but he could have been a Slav as well as a 'Greek'. The same holds true of other regions whose dwellers called themselves by the names of their respective provinces, for example Paphlagonians or Thraksians (after the Thraksian 'theme' in western Asia Minor). Since, therefore, there was no notion of'Greekness', it is hard to see how there could have been one of 'hellenization'. The only passage, to my knowledge, that may imply something of the kind says that the Emperor Basil I converted the Slavonic tribes from their old religion and, 'having grecized them (graikosas), subjected them to governors according to Roman custom, honoured them with baptism, and delivered them from the oppression of their own rulers'. It has long been, however, a matter of dispute what the term 'grecized' may mean in the present context. What we do hear about, again and again, is the conversion of various peoples to Orthodox Christianity, be they pagan Slavs or Muslim Cretans, and the setting up of an ecclesiastical organization. Here is how the Chronicle of Monembasia describes the activity of the Emperor Nicephorus I in the Peloponnese: 'He built de novo the town of Lacedaemon and settled in it a mixed population, namely Kafirs, Thraksians, Armenians and others, gathered from different places and towns, and made it into a bishopric.' Surely, neither the Kafirs (possibly a generic term for converts from Islam) nor the Armenians would have contributed to the hellenization of Laconia. The emperor's purpose was simply to implant a Christian population and set up a bishopric. --Javits2000 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There won't be a Byzantine identity article because such term is original research and a POV-fork to a featured article (Names of the Greeks). Statements such as "although I understand fully that those who can be convinced have already been convinced.", reveals a bias from your part. So you haven failed to answer on the topic and you came up with a long citation which will be again interpreted in 10 different ways. Fill me in on your conclusions from this text, I frankly don't understand where you're getting at. That the term 'Greeks' is freely used for 'Byzantines' and wikipedia should decide to change that? Or did you just paste all that to cover up my previous citations that remain unanswered? So now the 400 years of the post-comnenian period have suddenly acquired a smaller utility than the rest of the Byzantine period. It's strage, you see neither you nor anybody else suggested anything like that before. Prior to my last citations you were generalising about Byzantium's "Romanity" and never made a distinction before. If I find you some western citations contemporary to Phocas what kind of maneuver will you come up with later? You made a good job on hiding the useful citations, I give you that. Miskin 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What do I draw from this text? Simply that in the Midd. Byz. period "the very designation 'Greek', which we use so freely today to describe those Byzantines who did not belong to any alien group, is entirely absent from thee literature" and that "Since, therefore, there was no notion of 'Greekness', it is hard to see how there could have been one of 'hellenization'." Therefore "Greek" is an anachronistic term for _certain_ periods of Byzantine history; so that an entry on "Byzantine Greeks" does not adequately address the issue of "Byzantine identity." --Javits2000 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As my citations prove below, the 7th century is a marking point in the history of the empire. From the 8th century already it becomes fixed policy in the West to refer to Byzantium as "Imperium Graecorum", so you can only say that it's anachronistic in the early, Eastern Roman period. So it might be initially absent from Greek literature but it is present dominant in all other languages. As I have proved above, in the middle-late period the Empire has already developped a feeling of 'Greekness', which becomes a Hellenic patriotic sentiment (see my citations about Lascares, Chroniates and Vatatzes above). Finally, correct or not, the term is still in use by modern historians and this is acknowledged by Mango himself; he just points out that it can be misleading. If you want to start a trend where Byzantium has absolutely no connection to "Greek" (and you apparently do), wikipedia is not the place to do it. Miskin 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The opinion has often been expressed that as the Byzantine world fell apart, so hellenism was reborn. The proportion of truth contained in this statement seems to be rather slight. It is a fact that starting in the twelfth century, but more particularly after the occupation of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, certain Byzantine authors took pleasure in calling themselves Hellenes; it is also true that there was, especially in the fourteenth century, an upsurge -- not a renascence, if you please, -- of classical scholarship and even of scholastic science. Finally, just as the Byzantine world was ready to collapse there arose that enigmatic figure, George Gemistos Pletho, the Platonist of Mistra, who advocated the regeneration of ancient Sparta and pressed his utopian advice on two Byzantine rulers who, naturally, did not pay the slightest attention to him. Much careful investigation is yet needed before we can appraise the meaning of these phenomena; even so, it is clear that expressions of hellenism during these two or three centuries were largely rhetorical; that they were confined to a very small circle of intellectuals and had no impact on the people. -- C. Mango, "Byzantinism and romantic hellenism," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965), p. 33.


 * 'Hellenism' re-established itself in the Greek-speaking regions only in the 19th century (yes 'romaioi' was defacto since then). But the fact alone that a patriotic consciousness was awaken in the heart of the middle-ages, even restricted in the elite circles, is of great importance. You can't draw a parallel to the modern era. Miskin 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From Arnold Toynbee's "Greeks and their heritages" By contrast, the Byzantine Greeks' knowledge of their Hellenic predecessors' language and literature was so ample, and their veneration for these Hellenic treasures was so intense, that they were almost completely inhibited from attempting to create a Greek literature in their own living language, which was Modern Greek at an early stage of this language's development. As you see this term is perfectly sourced and in wide use (make a google search), and so is simply 'Greeks' (as verified by your own citation). Since we're looking for a name for the people, "Byzantine Greeks" cover all three names: Byzantines, Greeks, and Byzantine Greeks. And I don't see how a couple of biased wikipedia editors with unsourced opinions can be counted above WP:POLICY. Everytime you repeat your same unsouced statements, I'll keep posting the same sources over and over again, until circumstances require a new citation (which I doubt). You've got no sources, you've got no case, and unless you care enough to go all the way to ArbCom for this, I would suggest you to let it go. Miskin 19:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
 * "The traditional notions of 'influence', or of the Byzantine debt to the classical past now seem too simplistic; equally, the notions of ethnicity and identity have come under scrutinity in recent years. We can no longer accept Arnold Toynbee's notorious appeal to ideas of race and ethnicity in relation to Byzantium, yet the rise of nationalism and of appeals to ethnic consciousness in the contemporary Balkans shows that such ideas are far from obsolete. In addition to the political implications inherent in language of ethnicity and race, a large body of theoretical writing has concluded that these concepts are themselves constructs and cannot be regarded as objective terms." Averil Cameron, The Byzantines (Blackwell, 2006), p. 14.--Javits2000 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken A. Cameron treats Byzantium of late antiquity, it's a given fact that the early period was still Roman in character (albeit not culture), I never disputed that. Yet such views deserve to be mentioned in the article Byzantine Greeks, within context. However, according to Ostrogorky Byzantine history proper breaks off Eastern Roman history in the 7th century, and according to Britannica 2006's article: Proud of that Christian and Roman heritage, convinced that their earthly empire so nearly resembled the heavenly pattern that it could never change, they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans. Modern historians agree with them only in part. The term East Rome accurately described the political unit embracing the Eastern provinces of the old Roman Empire until 476, while there were yet two emperors. The same term may even be used until the last half of the 6th century, as long as men continued to act and think according to patterns not unlike those prevailing in an earlier Roman Empire. During these same centuries, nonetheless, there were changes so profound in their cumulative effect that after the 7th century state and society in the East differed markedly from their earlier forms. In an effort to recognize that distinction, historians traditionally have described the medieval empire as “Byzantine.”... Proud of that Christian and Roman heritage, convinced that their earthly empire so nearly resembled the heavenly pattern that it could never change, they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans. Modern historians agree with them only in part. The term East Rome accurately described the political unit embracing the Eastern provinces of the old Roman Empire until 476, while there were yet two emperors. The same term may even be used until the last half of the 6th century, as long as men continued to act and think according to patterns not unlike those prevailing in an earlier Roman Empire. During these same centuries, nonetheless, there were changes so profound in their cumulative effect that after the 7th century state and society in the East differed markedly from their earlier forms. In an effort to recognize that distinction, historians traditionally have described the medieval empire as “Byzantine.” Therefore the designation as Greeks or Byzantine Greeks as well as Byzantines do exist and Britannica's article reflects this consensus. If you think that this is only Toybee's practice then make a google search. "Byzantine Greeks" covers all three of those names, and reflects the political reality of "Imperium Graecorum". As Ostrogorsky put it: "With the death of Phocas in 610 "Byzantine history properly speaking is the history of the medieval Greek Empire"". Miskin 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

1) The work which I have cited above by Cameron (The Byzantines, 2006) treats the empire from Constantine to 1492. It also inclues a useful section on "Byzantine identity" within the introduction (pp. 15-19), including the following observation: "As for ‘Greekness,’ this can be reasonably applied to the language of education, court and high literature in Byzantium but is far from doing justice to Byzantine society as a whole." (p. 15). 2) That there was a serious rupture in Byzantine history in the 7th century is well-known. Yet the present article considers the Byzantine empire from, again, the foundation of Constantinople to its final sack. Any discussion, therefore, of "Byzantine identity" should encompass the same period. 3) The Britannica article, as you have cited it, does not use the word Greek; it only confirms the seventh-century rupture, which was not in question. 4) Ostrogorski is in certain respects still useful; but remember that you are dealing with a translation of a work (Die Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates) that was published in 1940. It is certainly not the place to turn for an up-to-date appraisal of the state of research on a subject such as Byzantine identity. In the German-speaking world, for example, it has been largely supplanted by R.-J. Lilie, Byzanz: das zweite Rom (2003). --Javits2000 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I guess I missed that part, there you go (2006 edition): Thanks to the settlements that resulted from such policies, many a name, seemingly Greek, disguises another of different origin: Slavic, perhaps, or Turkish. Barbarian illiteracy, in consequence, obscures the early generations of more than one family destined to rise to prominence in the empire's military or civil service... [and from 'Greek fire'] More specifically the term refers to a mixture introduced by the Byzantine Greeks in the 7th century AD. You can't just claim that someone like Ostrogorsky has been "largly supplanted". If you do have some citations which criticises his terminology or work than bring them forth, otherwise such claims are out of order. I suppose Cameron also agrees with the 'Greekness' versus Romanity of the Empire, exactly as Britannica puts it: Modern historians agree only in part, maybe Roydosan needs to get that hint. The starting point of the Byzantine empire proper is debatable, but if you agree with the rupture of the 7th century then there's not much more to say. So far I have come up only with exceptionally credible scholars and/or editions which undoubtly reflect consensus. The term "Byzantine Greeks" covers all aspects of terminology and reflects a) Contemporary naming from foreigners (Westeners and Slavs), b) Byzantium's patriotic inclination within its middle/late period c) cultural and racial reality. This forms a solid arguments of constructing an article on Byzantine Greeks. But really, I don't understand why most editors here are obsessed with eliminating the word 'Greek' from the article. I mean, considering the Empire's natural evolution, it would have most definitely wanted to stay linked to Greek history rather than being remember as a soul-less pseudo-roman, dead civilisation. So I can't believe that this bias sources from admiration for that civilisation. I sincerely and sadly do believe that some wikipedians have a bias with Greek history in general. Nobody would ever question whether in what degree the Ottoman Empire was Turkish, or how accurate it is to call Leonardo Da Vinci an "Italian", yet there's always a problem when using the word 'Greek'. Alexander the Great should not be called Greek because he didn't call himself that way, Pericles should be only labeled as an Athenian, Byzantine Greeks should be labeled as Romans because they called themselves as such (contradictory to the case of Macedonians), etc, etc. Oh, and then there's people like Flamander calling people like me nationalists because when they say "jump" we don't say "how high". Don't you think it's getting ridiculous? Miskin 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The simple fact is that to call the Byzantine empire "Greek" implies a cultural/ethnic construct which is a product of 19th-century nationalism and does not apply to an empire whose primary filiations were religious and political. It would be just as meaningless to call it "Roman," and I've never suggested doing so. The equation of Byz. w/ Greek occurs primarily in the late 19th century, and is connected to the Great Idea; see on this Mango, "Byzantinism and romantic hellenism," as cited above, pp. 40-41, esp. on Paparrigopoulos. The Byzantine empire was always polyglot and multiethnic; in this sense it is precisely like the Ottoman empire, which is also not meaningfully "Turkish," if by Turkish one means the post-Ottoman (Atatürkist) construction of Turkish identity.
 * The scholarly project of describing Byzantine identity more accuratey is relatively recent, but already includes a significant literature; in addition to the works by Mango that I've cited, see Charanis's studies of demographics; the volume edited by Laiou and Ahrweiler, Studies on the internal diaspora of the Byzantine empire (Cambridge, 1998); Magdalino's "Prosopography and Byzantine identity, PBA 118 (2003), 41-56; und so weiter. All of this work is well summarized in Cameron's new book, which I can't recommend highly enough.
 * As to a) "contemporary naming from foreigners," it's largely irrelevant to the question of identity, i.e. self-perception. b) the supposed later Byz. "hellenism," see the citation from Mango's "Byzantinism" above, also Speck's "Badly ordered thoughts on philhellenism," in the Variorum volume edited by Takacs. c) "racial reality" -- give me a break. Do you have forensic DNA on this? --Javits2000 23:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have DNA forensic but I have a source which observes how the Byzantine Empire of 11th century was restricted almost exclusively to regions of Ancient Greek colonisation (see Ethnic Origins of Nations and Medieval Greek Romance). Furthermore, those terms that you put into question are today in use, and wikipedia's role is not to judge them but reuse them. Anyway I'm off for now. Miskin 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)