Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 5

Referencing/Sourcing
Having references and sources where none were before is nice, but can we keep them up to date? Gibbon is fun to read but he's not the most up-to-date analysis of the Late Roman period. Slac speak up! 21:56, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Right. Noted fresh off the presses: S. Mitchell, A History of the Later Roman Empire AD 284-641: The Transformation of the Ancient World (Oxford, 2007). This period is amply covered by other recent surveys: Heather, the New Cambridge History. A.H.M. Jones still immensely useful.
 * A few further period-specific tips. Where Mitchell leaves off, Haldon picks up: Byzantium in the seventh century: the transformation of a culture (Cambridge, 1997). Also useful for this period: M. Whittow, The making of Byzantium, 600-1025 (Berkeley, 1996).
 * Iconoclasm still a bit difficult to fill in without plunging further into the literature. Survey by Haldon & Brubaker "in press" for years, hopefully to appear shortly. W. Treadgold, The Byzantine revival, 780-842 (Stanford, 1988), still useful.
 * "Macedonians" surprisingly difficult to fill in; but see, where Whittow leaves off, M. Angold, The Byzantine Empire, 1025-1204 (London, 1984).
 * On the Komnenians in general Magdalino, even if in title limited to Manuel, is nearly sufficient. Slac has already mentioned Harris, Byzantium and the crusades (London, 2003). Of course tons have been written on the fourth crusade itself, including a recent volume by Angold; on the run-up C. Brand, Byzantium confronts the west, 1180-1204 (Cambridge, 1968) remains important.
 * Then for the late period, D. Nicol, The last centuries of Byzantium, 1261-1453 (Cambridge, 1993). There must be something good in English on the successor states; unfortunately I have no idea what it might be. A Russian has this year published 700 pages on Trebizond.
 * But all that being said, as I've already said above, the recent empire-wide surveys (Haldon, Cameron, Treadgold, Oxford History) should on the whole suffice to put together an article like this.
 * A few of these are mentioned in the "sources" list (which incidentally includes an immense amount of cruft), and a few are even cited in the main article. But none of them are really being used. --Javits2000 23:43, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Javits, I see that you know well the subject, and your list is impressive. I must say that I agree with almost all the remarks you did above with the article, and I admire your perception. But this is not enough right now! This article needs people to work on it, and not just express their excellent ideas; the ideas should soon become works! For the past two weeks I tried to improve the article, but I do not have the access to the sources that you have, and which could make an amazing article. I can find Gibbon, Bury, Paparrigopoulos, Britannica, Catholic Encyclopedia I was amazed I managed to find everything from Laiou, Google Book offers partial access to some modern sources, but I know that this is not enough. So, my opinion and my wish would be to see you more involved in the article not just copyediting, but also adding the sources it lacks, where it lacks sources (don't forget that we already have the amazing number of almost 70 sources!!! And I think this is already great!). Your help is necessary for one more reason: until June 20 I'll be away from Wikipedia, and I cannot go on rewriting the article. So, dive into the article, and be bold! I don't know if you are experienced with FA procedures and criteria, but it does not matter so much; I am experienced, and I'll be here to help you, even if I will be on a wikibreak. And this is an invitation not only to Javits, but to everybody else who can further improve the article, and keep FA status. But even if it loses it now, it does not matter so much: we can re-nominate it soon, if we are sure we did the best we could. And I repeat inexperience with FA procedures and criteria is not an alibi for not trying to improve the article (after all you can read for advice pages like this one here with further links). Time constraints of course is another issue, and I recognize that this is a real problem, and a problem I face myself now!--Yannismarou 16:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course I realize that I should stop grousing from the sidelines and actually dig into the article. I haven't done so yet for a variety of reasons; time constraints; other Wiki-projects in process (currently working through Theodore the Studite); etc. To which should be added a certain amount of timidity; it is a big topic & a big task to try to summarize Byzantine history in a few pages, and I admire anyone who takes it on. Myself I very much prefer working on smaller, esp. biographical articles; my only contribution anywhere near to this scale was Umayyad, and that only covers about a century!
 * That said, I'll try to chip away in the coming weeks at the periods I know best, and for which I have the sources immediately at hand. At the same time, I offered the list above very much in the hopes that it might be of use to other editors. For example it's been mentioned before, I think by Bigdaddy, that the late Byz. (i.e. post-1204) section is a bit sketchy on details; that's one that can easily be filled in w/ one readily available & authoritative book (Nicol). --Javits2000 17:05, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

By the way, Yannismarou, you should be careful of the systematic bias you introduce by using freely available materials -- to be out of copyright, they must be at least 70 years old. J.B. Bury is the most recent author on your list, and he died in 1927. The Catholic Encyclopedia, Paparrigopoulos, and Gibbon -- besides being outdated -- all have very particular points of view. As for the Britannica, I assume you're talking about the freely available 1911 edition -- its article on the Later Roman Empire article is in fact by J.B. Bury. --Macrakis 17:33, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * A note: He refers to the 2002 edition of the Britannica, if he is not lying in his citations: "Byzantine Art". Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2002)..."Byzantine Empire". Encyclopaedia Britannica. (2002)...etc. Geuiwogbil 18:54, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick note: citing is not necessarily a good in itself, and replacement of higher quality content with material for which an internet link happens to be at hand is an illusory improvement. I have in mind e.g. this edit & the recent re-writes of the art & literature paragraphs. And whatever edition of Britannica is being used, if you wouldn't cite it in a term paper, you probably shouldn't be citing it here either. Yannismarou is right to point out that a temporary loss of FA status, should that come to pass, would not be a tragedy; better to work slowly at generating higher quality & better-sourced material, than to paper over a weak narrative with subpar sources. --Javits2000 23:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Exactly. A featured article should be publication-quality, based on sound scholarship and perceptive analysis.  Using out-of-date sources is a papering-over, not an improvement.  In the spirit of the comments above, I personally am going to dedicate myself to the earliest stages of the 'history' sections, ignoring everything else.  I'll work on the tetrarchy, Constaninan shift, and the end of Late Antiquity - finding proper, paper, printed, sources. Thank-you Javits for your excellent list.  Good luck, everyone! Slac speak up! 00:38, 13 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Ladies and Gentlemen, how about these sources:


 * Philip Sherrard, Great Ages of Man Byzantium, Time-Life Books
 * Madden, Thomas F. Crusades the Illustrated History. 1st ed. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan P, 2005
 * Parker, Geoffrey. Compact History of the World. 4th ed. London: Times Books, 2005
 * Mango, Cyril. The Oxford History of Byzantium. 1st ed. New York: Oxford UP, 2002
 * Grant, R G. Battle a Visual Journey Through 5000 Years of Combat. London: Dorling Kindersley, 2005

Some of you might find this alarming, but I am willing to lend a serious hand in getting this article an overhaul. In fact, I'll start making a draft in my user page and then maybe I could show you guys and girls. screw that its too big a challenge. I will just help. Tourskin 15:01, 16 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Of course that's great news, & Mango and Madden will I'm sure be of great help. I would be a bit more cautious with Sherrard, first published in the 60s & very much for a popular audience, as well as with anything that purports to address "the world" or "5000 years." --Javits2000 18:11, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

I appreciate your appreciation! Just direct me what to do and I will help. As for the following book:

Parker, Geoffrey. Compact History of the World. 4th ed. London: Times Books, 2005

Its actually amazing - its got so much important detail and it allowed me to really expand upon my article Byzantine-Seljuk wars and Byzantine-Ottoman wars cos it shows a map and how the frontlines changed with time. Well, I eagerly await the | call to arms!.Tourskin 20:46, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I just realized that the Eastern Roman Empire (formerly a redirect page to the Byzantine Empire) has been expanded into a regular article. The article uses an arbitrary definition of the duration of the Eastern Empire (330-476) and expands upon that period. However, since both articles refer essentially to the same entity, one of them must go, as it is not only unnecessary duplication of information, but potentially misleading. I propose reverting the "Eastern Empire" page to a redirect page, and including its info, either here or, where and as appropriate, in a separate article (or articles) dealing with the early Byzantine period. Cplakidas 09:05, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Actually its the perfect beginning for splitting this article into smaller ones. See the above discussion about the Featured article review. Both can stay and in my opinion should stay.Tourskin 12:18, 14 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Fine, but if an article on early Byzantine history is felt necessary, it should be renamed. "Eastern Roman" is in standard usage equivalent to "Byzantine," if less common (e.g. OED: "Byzantine historians: those who lived in the Eastern Empire from the 6th to the 15th c."); Eastern Roman Empire should therefore be a redirect to Byzantine, as per WP:NAME. --Javits2000 18:06, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Opposed: I think the regular page of the Eastern Roman Empire is better because the Byzantine empire wasn't technically founded until after the death of Heraclisus. It has TWO different languages, not one. Latin AND greek, take notice that the Byzantines have ONE offical language, medeival greek.
 * May I also remind readers that the original article cotained less information about the Eastern Roman Empire thus making it a good idea to have a seperate article.


 * Grah. You're trying to describe a medieval entity with anachronistic C21st terminology. The Empire had no "official language" - officials in it would have worked in a variety of languages - depending on which province they were operating out of.  But Greek was the main language spoken by most of them.  That pre-dated the Byzantine period.  There's no "technical" founding date of the Byzantine Empire - the whole point is there was never a founding date of the Byzantine Empire - that's why its citizens called themselves "Romans" for the entire length of its existence and some time beyond it.  The distinction between "Eastern Roman" and "Byzantine" is an artifical, albeit useful, one that has been created by historians for the purposes of periodisation.  I suspect there is some reason why we might want to maintain a separate "Eastern Roman Empire" article. I don't have a strong view myself.  But to object to the merger on the basis that the two are clearly distinct entities is silly, because they're not. Slac speak up! 20:30, 17 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Comment: Actually it did(if you want to be technical, they didn't count official language in government matters who's archives would tell if they did or not). As you can see if you visit the old byzantine realms, that the earlier mosaics are either in latin or greek, where as later BYZANTINE mosaics are in ALL greek. Secondly(spelled right?), many texts count heraclisus as the last Eastern Emperor. Do I need to List them all?


 * I'm sorry, but I don't see how your points disprove what I argue above. Slac speak up! 04:25, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the merger proposal. East Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire have anachronistically been used by hsitorians to refer to the same political entity, namely the Roman Empire. The existence of a separate article covering the the period until 476 leads to unnecessary duplication with the main article. Plus, 476 refers to the end of the "Western Empire", why should it be used as a date that dileneates the "end" of the East Roman Empire and the "beginning" of the Byzantine Empire. I believe 330 is the best possible date to begin a "Byzantine Empire" and so a merger is necessary.Zambetis 12:38, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

The separate article can be useful in the direction of setting out to conform this one to WP:SS. I think that the best course of action would be to keep the Eastern Roman Empire article, but at the same time to move/rename it to something like "Early history of the Byzantine Empire" (a couple of dates could be more appropriate than that but I hope you get the point). --Michalis Famelis (talk)  18:34, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Yup, loud & clear. I think that's the best solution.--Javits2000 19:39, 20 June 2007 (UTC)
 * Support I agree with splitting Byzantine Empire into shorter articles with appropriate Titles to differentiate the eras. Argos '  Dad  17:22, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Im a little ticked off that the Byzzantine Empire is now regarded as the same in Wikipedia. I gave my reasons earlier for not wanting the article merged. Now it has been. I wonder if anyone actually reads these articles. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.154.210.54 (talk • contribs).

Legacy
I believe that the 'legacy' section is inadequate and unfair. There is no mention in the preservation of Greek/Roman arts, sciences and texts during the Byzantine era; no mention in the transmission of the Greek/Roman/Byzantine knowledge through the byzantine emigres and their crucial contribution to renaissance;no mention on Byzantine achievements such as in the law, monetary, military and naval system. I understand that some of these issues are covered partly in other sections. However i think that its more appropriate to have them at the this section that talks specifically about the legacy. On the contrary, as the section stands now, seems too little for an empire of 11 centuries and that most scholars today agree on its contribution to modern European culture; Sopecifically, it says that 'Byzantine culture is important, because of two lines of transmission' to Islam and Slavs. These are of course significant but this phraseology undermine the significance of the direct transmission of the byzantine culture to the west either through westerner scholars or through byzantine immigrants. Not to mention that while there is no space for an influence to the Renaissance movement there is plenty of talk on the preoccupation of the west in the effeminate character of Byzantium (?). I dont mind to do the changes if we all agree. Ipodamos 01:14, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Hold those Kataphraktoi...
I noticed that Asia Minor in 717 was too big for Byzantium - indeed, wasn't there an arab siege of Constantinople at the time? Besides, the victory of Akroinon that the Byzantines won against the arabs - happened in 732, well after 717. Therefore, much of central and eastern Anatolia was occupied and considering that were was a siege of Constantinople, it would not be unreasonable to assume the whole of Asia Minor had fallen. Therefore with this logic, I propose that this map by BigDaddy1204 (no offence, your artices are awesome!):



be replaced with this one:

Caption: Stripped land shows de facto Arab control and "no man's land"

By the way, this reference:

Haldon, John. Byzantium at War 600 - 1453. New York: Osprey, 2000.

Describes Asia Minor as a no man's land, so I have a little backing. I'm not saying that I am absolutely right and that my picture is Imperial authority...

Tourskin 06:10, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Wasn't the siege of 717/18 seaborne though, and didn't the Byzantines still hold the Taurus region? Iblardi 13:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It appears this is not the case. Vasiliev (1952) gives you some backing too: "The Arabian forces on land passed through all of Asia Minor to the west, even during the reign of the two predecessors of Leo, and occupied Sardis and Pergamus, near the shores of the Aegean Sea." Apparently, the Arabs were pretty much running rampant in Asia Minor. Iblardi 13:50, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Okay, so then it sounds like I should just get rid of all "purple Byzantine" bits in Asia Minor. I shall upload the new map then which shows no Asia Minor.Tourskin 17:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Ho, hold your camels. This new map makes it appear as if every town in Asia Minor was occupied by the Arabs in 717. That is not what the sources are saying. My own source at least may indicate no more than that Arab armies were moving through the territory and (temporarily) occupied at least some towns, and that the Byzantines were unable to stop them. I'd propose being conservative for now and keeping the first map until it has been sorted out. Iblardi 17:39, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

How about the map I proposed originally then, that takes all into account without being too vague? The one with stripesTourskin 22:00, 14 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I think that one could be argued for. Iblardi 23:18, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore the text on teh right talks about a battle between the emir of Melitene - which is in Turkey, so at least parts were occupied even in the 9th century. Tourskin 17:16, 15 July 2007 (UTC)


 * That one doesn't count. Melitene is near the Euphrates, east of the Taurus, which was the eastern frontier of the empire for centuries. Iblardi 17:29, 15 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Arab presence in Asia Minor should not be over-emphasised. The (proto?-)theme system remained in place. Iblardi 17:36, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Is it? Check out Melitene, it looks quite asia minor to me.Tourskin 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It says that the emir of Melitene was defeated in the mid 9th century so clearly in 9th century there were some Arabs in Asia Minor. Anyways the map is concerned with the second arab siege of Consntantinople in 717 ratehr than 800's.Tourskin 00:57, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

There's a good map of the empire in 717 in Haldon, Byzantium in the seventh century, p. 81. It more or less corresponds to the current map, with the important exception of south-eastern Anatolia / the Tarsus; e.g. that bulge on the Mediterranean around present day Anamur, Silifke, Mersin, Tarsus, Adana.... This appears to have been in Arab hands. (I'ld try editing the image myself but have no cartographic skills.) I'ld be hesitant about "striping" all of Anatolia; there were certainly massive & near-continual Arab raids throughout much of _eastern_ Anatolia & the Aegean basin throughout the later seventh and early eighth century (good map: Haldon, op. cit., p. 65), but central Anatolia & the Black Sea coast appear not to have been affected. And in general a brief occupation of, e.g. Pergamon during a military campaign should not be confused with "control": crucial is that the Byzantine administration in most of Anatolia continued to function throughout the seventh & eighth centuries, in howeverso precarious a condition, whereas no Arab administration was ever established in most of the region. --Javits2000 08:24, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Postscript: Melitine, although (_just_) west of the Euphrates, is perhaps more properly "northern Mesopotamia" than "Asia Minor". But that's just semantics. --Javits2000 08:26, 17 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Post-postscript: the Haldon maps are definitely copyrighted & not uploadable, but anyone with cartographic skills who'ld like to see them should feel free to send me an email & i'll send a scan. --Javits2000 08:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the compliment, Tourskin! When I made this map, I used the very maps in John Haldon's book that Javits mentioned as my source. The map as I made it was my best effort at recreating my own version of Haldon's 717AD map. I think Iblardi is right on the issue of whether Asia Minor should be shown as Byzantine or not. I have never seen a map of the period that does not show the Byzantines in posession, however tenuously, of Asia Minor.

I think the key thing to remember is that although Constantinople was under siege, out in the provinces the Arabs were never able to establish themselves, and in any case the crushing defeat they suffered outside the walls of the city meant that the imperial territories were occupied by the enemy for what - 18 months at most? Since this map essentially summs up the empire's position during the 8th century, it surely wouldn't be representative of that 100 years, to show the 1 year that the Arabs were temporarily occupying parts of Asia Minor...

That said, I've no idea what the caption currently reads. There could be scope for a better explanation there. And, more significantly, if there is going to be a link to a separate, more detailed article on the Isaurian/8th century period, then your map with stripes would fit in very nicely.

I've been away for some time. I'm going to have a look at the article now to see what's changed since my last visit... Bigdaddy1204 19:19, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Images
There appears to be a problem with the copyright of the of Justinian; a couple of days ago, a bot went around and replaced the same image in the Justinian and other articles with, which I find rather dull. I was also wondering about the relevancy of the (19th-century) portrait of pope Agapetus I, which is accidentally squeezing together the text of the article, with Justinian on the other side. Iblardi 17:58, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Where's the Tanais River?
The article states: "[Constantinople] was a superb base from which to guard the Danube and Tanais rivers". The link points to Tanais as being the old name for the Don - hardly a vital Roman boundary (if they ever held the territory at all). What was the writer talking about? Patrick Neylan 22:34, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Smaller articles, dealing with specific periods in more detail
Since it seems to have been decided to have Byzantine Empire as a short summary page, with the real detail contained in a series of smaller articles dealing with each period in more detail, shown by link at Byzantine Empire, I have some material to contribute to a sub-article concerning the Komnenian period. I propose that the new page I have created for this material, entitled 'Byzantium under the Komnenoi', be linked into Byzantine Empire, as the start of a project which will eventually enable (contributors willing) all topics to be covered in equal detail. What are your thoughts? Bigdaddy1204 19:40, 21 July 2007 (UTC)


 * How about Komnenian Restoration only? I think that the restoration of teh empire summs everything up in that period. see my later comment.

By the way, alot of the Fall section (that I had added) has been deleted without so much a word... and it was well-referenced!Tourskin 07:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Now that you have raised the issue, I think we need another article for the "Fall" section of the Byzantine Empire. The Decline of the Byzantine Empire article is a mere chronological list of events that bled the Empire to death and not specifically associated with the actual "Fall" between the 13th and 15th centuries. I am open to any suggestions as to what it could be named - how about Byzantium under the Palaiologoi? If thats accepted then Byzantium under the Komnenoi sounds reasonable and within a similar convention. Then we could have Byzantium under the Heraclean, Byzantium under the Isaurian, Byzantium under the Macedonian and so forth.

Tourskin 19:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I think that the idea of a more detailed article, doing for the fall of the empire what I have done for the Komnenoi, would be a very good idea. The fall section as stands is woefully inadequate, and I haven't been able to improve it either, because I experienced the same problem as Tourskin - people deleted my additions without saying a word.

As you suggested, it could be a good idea to call it Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, and I agree with the idea of having a whole series of articles following a similar pattern, e.g. Byzantium under the Isaurians. This would have the added advantage of allowing contributors to contribute as much detail on their chosen period of expertise as they like, without causing any disputes over the text of the actual Byzantine Empire article itself.

Tourskin, since you have suggested Byzantium under the Palaiologoi, and you probably know a lot more about it than I do, would you be willing to create that new article, and add in as much detail as you can? Bigdaddy1204 23:14, 24 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Good work on the new article. I think that, once we have completed the Komnenoi and Palaiologoi, our next target should be the Isaurian dynasty; as it is, the Byzantine Empire article is completely distorted, since the years 711-867 are covered in the space of barely a paragraph, whilst other sections are covered in far more detail. The 8th/9th century was important, as it saw the establishment of the Bulgarians on former imperial territory, the stunning Byzantine defeat at the Battle of Pliska, and many important events in both Italy, such as the loss of Rome and Ravenna, and elsewhere in the empire. A new article covering this period in more detail needs to be created. What are your thoughts? Bigdaddy1204 14:35, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with you and look forward to participate. When you are ready! I still got to finish the Palaiologoi. Sorry I'm taking a little long but I need to finish it, add references and a few more images and then I can move on. After finishing with the Isaurians, we can do the Bzantium under the Heraclean and Byzantium under the Macedonians or something similar to those lines. Yes the 8th to 9th centuries are important since the survival of Byzantium in this stage would allow her to grow to great power status in the 10th and 11th centuries. Tourskin 16:38, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Byzantine-Latin Wars
Should we make such an article? Is there such an article? It migtht go with the decision to split into smaller articles.Tourskin 20:25, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Decline of the Empire
This article is linked in the "Fall" section of teh paragraph. However, the article itself does not just mention the events from the 13the century to the 15th century, so it should be moved elsewhere. Tourskin 22:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Aaah!
The Decline section! Yannis I know u know more about this than i do but you must agree with me that the page deserves a section about the decline of the Empire. In any case the link Decline of the Byzantine Empire does not fit in the last section because as you are completely aware the Empire did not start declining a few days before 1453 but its decline and rise and intertwined and confused into History. Thats why the Fall section and the Decline section are different for althought the Empire was in decline from the 7th century onwards (it never ever conquered new lands, only reconquered some of the old lands) it did not start falling into a state of permanent degredation until the late 13th century. Therefore I implore you to keep the section

Regards,

Tourskin 02:08, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Furthermoore There is nothing in this article to explain why the empire fell over the many years it ruled. I.e. the weakness and strengths of the military (theme) political (rebellious nobles) and economic system (Italians) of Byzantium.Tourskin 02:19, 29 July 2007 (UTC)


 * As I mentioned in my edit summary "I do not think that this section belongs here: 1) it is uncited,2) it makes a too long article longer,3) it should be in Decline of the Byzantine Empire."
 * I will not involve myself in an edit war, but I would like other editors to make their comments on this issue. In any case, I do not think that we need such a quite long new section. A paragraph in the "Fall" section summarizing the reasons of the decline would be fine IMO. Why making the article even longer? And why almost no citations in this section?
 * Guys, we all gave a fight here (me and Tourskin as well) to keep the FA status, and we did it. And IMO this is a triumph, taking into consideration the fact that the article is indeed too long and that some sections ("Early History", "Macedonian dynasty") are still un-cited or unde-rcited. Let's not add new problematic sections in the already existing ones, and let's not abolish unwarily what we achieved! Please, I welcome any feedback concerning this new section, and taking into consideration all the factors I mentioned above.--Yannismarou 13:59, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Like we said earlier, the article doesn't have enough. As soon as we finish decentralizing the article, we can cut back on a lot of detail. But we need a decline section as a conclusion. I will cite and reduce where I can. Anyways, the Komnenian section can now be seriously reduced since BigDaddy1204 has more or less finished it. Its gonna take some time.Tourskin 19:13, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Oh, come on Tourskin! Just read what you have written in this section! Mere repetitions of previous sections and nothing more. It is a section that adds nothing! Some examples:
 * Just read the last paragraph of this "necessary section". The earthquake, the civil war, the depopulation etc. Exactly but exactly the same with what is written in the "Fall" section.
 * And let's go to the fall of Constantinople in 1204 and your comments about the mercenaries etc. I read from the section "Crisis and Fragmentation":
 * "Mercenaries, however, were expensive and as the threat of invasion receded in the 10th century, so did the need for maintaining large garrisons and expensive fortifications.[58] Basil II left a burgeoning treasury upon his death, but neglected to plan for his succession. None of his immediate successors had any particular military or political talent and the administration of the Empire increasingly fell into the hands of the civil service. Efforts to revive the Byzantine economy only resulted in inflation and a debased gold coinage. The army was now seen as both an unnecessary expense and a political threat. Therefore, native troops were cashiered and replaced by foreign mercenaries on specific contract."
 * Exactly the same things, and I would say more thoroughly analyzed. The gradual decline of the empire is described in the previous section in a comprehensive and thorough way, following the history and the events. Your section repeats the same things without adding anything new. I say again that this material would be useful in the article Decline of the Byzantine Empire but not here.
 * I'm afraid that, if the utility of this section is not clearly proved by you with a better and more thorough argumentation, I will insist on its removal and transfer to the relevant article. Once again I ask other editors to add their comments here.--Yannismarou 13:12, 31 July 2007 (UTC)
 * More to say: The importance of the loss of Egypt and of the invasion of the Arabs is also analyzed above. The themata and the tagmata systems, their pros and cons the same ... What is this section adding to the whole analysis?! This is my question, and I insist on that. And how can we have in a FA article assertions like "Unlike its predecessor, the Roman Empire, which was far more offensively orientated, the Byzantine Empire focused on survival and defending what it had." remain uncited? Please, some answers. Thanks!--Yannismarou 13:22, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Just a quick comment. I am afraid I cannot see the logic of further reducing the already emaciated sections on the Komnenoi. This article, as Yannismarou has already said, survived a FA review. If the sections were to be reduced any further, it is my opinion that they would no longer function in their necessary purpose - a concise summary of the Komnenian period. What is the point of having a decentralised article on Byzantium under the Komnenoi, if the text at Byzantine Empire does not contain sufficient information to give the reader a basic understanding of the significance of the Komnenoi? Therefore, I object to any attempt to reduce these sections, unless there is a very good discussion about it here first.

As for the issue of the decline/fall, I agree with Tourskin that the existing material is inadequate. However, unfortunately I cannot comment on the specific edits that are being disputed, for now. I will return when I have a greater understanding of the issue. Bigdaddy1204 17:20, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I hate to say this, because it sounds stupid, but we're always in an "edit war". Now listen, a conclusion is suppose to repeat the previous text but in a simplified manner. I will improve it later. I just want everyone here to be patient and understand that 1000 years of history is not going to be improved in a few edits. So please be patient!!! I reject all arguments about it beng uncited because I have not even started citing just yet, but the Byzantine Empire did not fall just at the turn of the 13th century you know! It needs a paragraph explaining all of its events in a short and concise manner that gives the reader a quick taste of the reasons why Byzantium fell and then the actual page about the Decline will quench their desires for more detail.Tourskin 00:06, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Tourskin, if such a section adds something new, ok from me. But if it repeats things already analyzed above (that is what happens now), what is its reason of being there. I would be happy to see a concise, improved, and adding to the article section, but, as it is now, yes, I do have serious objections. As far as the Komnenoi section is concerned, I think I am a bit closer to Bigdaddy point of view. Just to mention that I am the one who "trimmed" a bit during the FAR the relevant sections, trying to keep only the most vital parts of the previously extremely long sections.--Yannismarou 11:38, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * [edit conflict] I have to admit that I'm a bit skeptical about the usefulness of this question, "why did the empire fall" -- the short answer is, that's just what all empires eventually do. Note that there are no comparable sections in e.g. Austria-Hungary, Ottoman Empire, Roman Empire, Holy Roman Empire, Abbasid, etc. -- in fact I can't find a single "Empire" entry that does have something similar. Most deal with "decline" in the narrative section & leave it at that. There is admittedly an unusual degree of focus on this question in Byz. history, esp. in the popular variety, the reasons for which are obscure to me; it's as if people have bought the rhetoric of imperial panegryic, etc., and believed the thing should have been eternal, and then are surprised when it collapses. The question also tends to lead to an excessive focus on dates like 1204, 1453, which have a certain romantic appeal, but for understanding the actual nature of byz. culture are of relatively little use. For similar reasons I'm a bit skeptical about the current statement in the section, "the collapse of the Empire was not inevitable"; in fact I would totally disagree; after 1204 there was an "empire" / empires in name only, in reality a little principality, and it was only a matter of time before somebody gobbled it up. I suppose someone could answer that it could have survived as a sort of "Greek kingdom," but that's history in the subjunctive, and in practice just tends to feed into a certain nostalgic sense of "what could have been" if those Turks had never shown up.
 * To me the more interesting question is why the empire survived for as long as it did, and how it managed to maintain a highly centralized state structure that was more "ancient" than "medieval"; i.e. direct collection of taxes, something that was rarely if ever acheived in the medieval west. (And whether, indeed, it survived preicsely by maintaining this type of structure.) A focus on this question tends to lead to a more direct engagement with the unique qualities of Byz. society, whereas a focus on decline tends to lead to a focus on "accidents" (e.g. earthquakes). --Javits2000 12:03, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * If you all feel strongly about this then its best to remove it. I thought it could have been better with it.Tourskin 16:27, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

717 again
I have the map,

The striped bit makes it look ugly but lets the reader know what the Arabs were raidingTourskin 16:32, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I approve of this map. It looks better and is more historically accurate than the one that showed the whole of Anatolia as striped. I do have one question though. Why are Rome and Ravenna linked by a small stretch of Byzantine territory? Although the empire in Italy did look like that in the 7th century, by 717AD the two cities were isolated outposts, according to the map in John Haldon's book, which I based the original version on. Perhaps something should be said about this in the caption? Bigdaddy1204 17:04, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It does look good. This map, at least in Italy, appears to be based on Haldon's 650-700 map; his 717 map does indeed show Ravenna & Rome divided (Lombards, presumably). --Javits2000 18:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Here is one also showing the Themes, drawn as best as I could sorry if the borders are a little of:

Tourskin 19:16, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Excellent work, Tourskin! This is perhaps the best Byzantine Empire map yet. Well done! Bigdaddy1204 14:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Can anybody correct this map?!
Now, check this map:



You see the mis-spelling of Constantinople, eh?! Can anybody correct it? The issue was also raised during the FAR, but nobody did anything to improve it.

Now about the size of the maps: I like in the articles I write (yes, I do know I am not alone here!) not to put any special size. I put them as they are with no size and then it is up to the reader to click on the picture in order to see a bigger version (so, it is not just a "childish" caprice!). This is the principle I followed during my rewriting here. But, of course, this is not by default the best solution, just because I like it.

So, we have two choices: 1) all maps with no size, 2) all maps (but all of them! And not just those in one or two sections!) with a fixed size (but again will all the maps look having the same size? I am not sure ... ). Which one do we prefer?--Yannismarou 18:42, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest I don't care what size the maps are, so long as a greater resolution is available and the text and the images fit well. As for the mispelling, me to the rescue! Give me a little time...Tourskin 19:02, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Ok? Let me know if anything else needs to be added or something.Tourskin 19:20, 1 August 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks, Tourskin!--Yannismarou 08:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Map size
According to the Manual of Style, images should be kept to a consistent size:

"Cases where specific image width are considered appropriate include:
 * When using detailed maps, diagrams or charts."[]

Therefore, I propose that the consistent size should be 310px for all the maps (which is what most of them already are in any case). It is important to follow these Wikipedia guidelines for images, if we are to keep Byzantine Empire as a Featured Article. Bigdaddy1204 14:36, 2 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have no objection to this.Tourskin 18:13, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

Established: 330
The infobox says:


 * ¹ Establishment date traditionally considered to be the re-founding of Constantinople as a capital of the Roman Empire

Has there been a discussion leading up to this text? What traditions place the starting date of the Byzantine Empire at 330? Certainly, Constantinople was established as a centre of power in the Greek/oriental cultural sphere around 330, but having the Byzantine Empire proper begin at this early date seems very disputable. As the Roman Empire was still undivided at that time, this would mean that it should be called the Byzantine Empire. Now, no historical atlas (to pick one "traditional" source) will call the empire of the 300s "Byzantine". (The case may be different for "Byzantine art", but that is irrelevant, since we are dealing with a political term.) Apart from that, assigning a single year to the genesis of the Byzantine Empire seems rather artificial; as for me, a more cautious phrasing like "established in the course of the fourth century" would be more accurate. In short: [citation needed]. Iblardi 13:01, 4 August 2007 (UTC)


 * How bout we simply write "see intro"? This argument is academic and a solid answer can never be concluded becuase Byzantine is an artificial concept to distinguish one period of the Roman Empire from another, later and very different one. Tourskin 16:52, 5 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Constantinople was "consecrated" in a formal ceremony on 11. May 330, an event which was celebrated thereafter as the "birthday" of the city. One can argue whether it really became a "capital" at this point, or whether it was just another imperial residence, but in the traditional sense the move from Rome to Constantinople has been considered a reasonable starting point for the history of the empire named (after the fact, admittedly) after the latter city. So I see nothing wrong with using this date in principle, as long as we acknoweldge its somewhat artificial basis. --Javits2000 18:50, 5 August 2007 (UTC)

Then again the Empire was very Roman at 330 and after still.Tourskin 03:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, but as it stands the article basically starts with Constantine, with a bit of the tetrarchic background. My opinion is that a) it's nice to have a date in the infobox and b) 330 is as traditional as it gets, as long as the reasons behind the date are explained, which the present footnote accomplishes quite nicely, and is even quite sophisticated ("a" capital instead of "the" capital). If Byzantium is the "Christian Roman Empire," then it starts, roughly, with Constantine; and if it's the "Eastern Roman Empire," likewise. If it's something else (e.g. a massively reduced territorial expanse with entirely different settlement patterns & modified administrative structures, etc.), then it probably starts some time in the 7th century, and the article has to be rewritten. --Javits2000 15:41, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * We should (a) check out other leading sources, perhaps see what Britannica says, (b) your proposal sounds fair but we can't decide what Byzantium is; the christian eastern state or the reduced defensive greek state, no one has ever said with certainty what it is so again, we should check out what historians around the world generally agree on or an encyclopedia like britannica (which i know is not a historian!!). Otherwise it'll be original. Tourskin 16:45, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Agreed. Britannica gives the following: "The latter term [Byzantine] is derived from the name Byzantium, borne by a colony of ancient Greek foundation on the European side of the Bosporus, midway between the Mediterranean and the Black Sea; the city was, by virtue of its location, a natural transit point between Europe and Asia Minor (Anatolia). Refounded as the “new Rome” by the emperor Constantine in 330, it was endowed by him with the name Constantinople, the city of Constantine. The derivation from Byzantium is suggestive in that it emphasizes a central aspect of Byzantine civilization: the degree to which the empire's administrative and intellectual life found a focus at Constantinople from 330 to 1453, the year of the city's last and unsuccessful defense under the 11th (or 12th) Constantine." I think you'll find most historians adopt a roughly similar span; for example, the first sentence of Averil Cameron, The Byzantines (Oxford, 2006): "Byzantium is the modern name given to the state and society ruled almost continuously from Constantinople (modern Istanbul) from the dedication of the city by the Emperor Constantine in AD 330 until its sack by the Ottomans under the young Mehmed II ('the Conqueror') in 1453. The recent survey by Timothy Gregory, History of Byzantium: 306-1453 (Oxford, 2005), starts with the reign of Constantine. Treadgold (Concise history of Byzantium [2002]) starts with the division of the empire in 285, but says "I avoid calling the empire 'Byzantine' until the fifth century, when Constantinople truly became its political and cultural capital.'" --Javits2000 17:19, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * To be honest I had seen Byzantium as starting in 330 but the Roman Empire also existed in that point of time. Therefore I guess the best way to think of it is that Rome was not so much succeeded by Byzantium as transformed into Byzantium, so Byzantium was not really established, but instead, her transformation from Roman to Byzantine began in 330 and the transformation was complete by c. 620 AD. Tourskin 19:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)


 * The problem, I think, is that most mainstream sources will not provide any one date as the empire's starting point. If nevertheless we have to choose one specific year to be mentioned in the infobox I would rather choose 395 as the starting date; this seems legitimate, as in that year, with the death of Theodosius I and accession of Honorius and Arcadius, the Empire is permanently split up into two separate political entities. This still doesn't mean that the early history (324-395) should be skipped over, of course. Iblardi 19:01, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

The 330¹ text seems to cause trouble for the category system. Any technically knowledged with any idea on how to fix it? 惑乱 分からん * \)/ (\ (&lt; \) (2 /) /)/ * 17:05, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Someone must have just copied and pasted the text from the article, so instead there being a foot note there is now just a stupid little number.Tourskin 07:57, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Why?
Why was Eastern Roman Empire deleted?--Philip Auguste 19:39, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Fall of Constantinople
People, I need everyone's help in resolving an edit war in this article as it cannot be decided whether or not the Fall of Constantinople was a decisive victory for the Ottomans or not - please, go to Fall of Constantinople and resolve it one way or another!!!Tourskin 07:59, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Fall of the West
When Odoacer/Odovacar deposed Romulus Agustulus, he sent the Western imperial regalia to the Eastern Emperor. There was then a theoretical re-unification of the whole Empire with the fiction that the German rulers in the West were imperial vicars. This is something that Theodoric at least paid lip service to, indeed many mints in the West continued to coin money with the image and titles of the Eastern emperor (the only emperor) for a considerable time. Dating in the West, even in post conversion England was in the regnal year of the emperor (Bede tells how Caedwalla of Wessex died in Rome in a regnal year of Justinian II).

Urselius 08:58, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * What is your point? The theoretical re-unification wasn't substantiated by facts or realities. Odoacer also recognized Julius Nepos as "his" emperor and coins were minted in Nepos' name (at least that's what the articles say). But it was an all-too empty ilusion. Odoacer ruled in Italy on his own, and never returned any real power/territories to Nepo. Later also Theodoric ruled on his own (and after his death Justinian sent Belisarius and Narses to conquer Italy). Lip-service is cheap; any cunning ruler will give/use it. Theory and legality solely on their own aren't worth anything at all, if they aren't backed by action and aplication. A law inside a book which is never enforced in practice is worth nothing at all. Flamarande 15:32, 13 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I have a number of points, firstly even powerful rulers like Theodoric (who was a Roman patrician as well as King of the Ostrogoths - even that arch-barbarian Clovis was a Roman patrician) found it politic to play the fiction of being appointees of the emperor, they did this because it made ruling their Roman subjects much easier.

It also made the reconquests by Justinian entirely legal, he was merely re-asserting rights that had never been fully abrogated, rights that the German kings had, in many instances, never challenged as such.

It was a legal fiction that lasted, and through the intervention of the church was even extended in part to England, until the iconoclast heresy of the Empire loosened its bonds. It also affected the policy of Charlemagne, his efforts to get Byzantine recognition of his imperial title were not inconsiderable.

Just because rights were seldom or ever enforced physically doesn't make them unimportant.

Urselius 08:47, 14 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Look I am a bit of a cynic/realist. Of course did the Germanic invaders care a bit about "Roman" titles and Byzantine recogniztion. Everything that makes it easier to rule is used by the conquerers. You say that "the re-conquests of Justinian were entirely legal". Since when is war (and military conquest) illegal? It certainly wasn't back on those days. Justinian had ambition and a strong army and good generals and a claim, so he used the claim to pursue his ambition. He didn't go to a court of law; he had the oppositon killed. Is that legal? Flamarande 14:46, 14 August 2007 (UTC) PS: "Just because rights were seldom or ever enforced physically doesn't make them unimportant". Sure, I believe that also, but I guess the starving child in Africa (which also has a right to eat, education, peace) doesn't care about any "rights"; it wants/needs facts. It needs food, a school, and peace. A right which is seldom or ever enforced is worthless.