Talk:Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty

Untitled
This article hasn't quite started yet but is part of the plan to decentralize the Byzantine Empire into smaller articles, like Themata, if you will.Tourskin 00:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Well done, Tourskin! You have made a very good start on this new article. Between this article, and Byzantium under the Komnenoi, we have already gone a long way towards fixing the coverage of the later empire at wikipedia, and making up for the weakness of the Byzantine Empire article itself. Good work! Bigdaddy1204 11:10, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Well thank you! Your own edits deserve greater applause - you virtually finished the Komnenoi dynasty! Well anyways we still have a few more to go!Tourskin 16:32, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Images, References
I've finished the bare bones of this article and added a little meat too. Now I need to plug in the references (in wiki form, don't no one worry!) and add a few fancy images here and there and it should be ready to be linked from Byzantine Empire.

By the way, I will also add Palaiologan art here as a section at the end. Soon.Tourskin 04:01, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

1350
Was the empire really in a position to survive in 1350? I thought that, after c.1328, the empire was doomed, because it had lost all of Asia to the Turks and nearly all of the Balkans to the Serbs and Bulgarians. There wasn't enough territory or manpower left to form the basis of a viable state, let alone defend itself from the attacks of its neighbours. What say you? Bigdaddy1204 18:07, 31 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Thats a fair point sorry I thought the map was different. In 1328 it was still good. In 1350 it was in the middle of its worst period, so its arguable whether or not it could have survived if the government stopped tearing itself apart with civil war and concentrated on defending itself. If Byzantium ever had the worst year it would be 1354 when the Turks crossed over and sealed the fate of the Byzantines. The thing is when it had acquired Epirus, its territorial extent looks similar to that in 1091 and we know that in 1091 they were able to recover the situation. I admit that on second glance it looks in a bad shape. Whether or not it is doomed is difficult to say but in 1350 it is probably more doomed than not. Also, I know that in 1091, they had Bulgaria but here they didn't! And here in 1350 they didn't have any Latin help!! Tourskin 22:23, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

GA review
Well, the first thing I see is a big wikify tag at the top of the article, which seems to make it fall under the quick-fail criteria. Now it's not immediately obvious to me why the tag is there, given that there are, at least at first glance, a large number of wiki-links in the article, but from looking at the article edit history, the tag seems to have been placed by in good faith by User:Hmains along with a large number of useful copyedits, not vandalism. I'm going to drop Hmains a note, asking for details on the tag, but unless he explains that it was put there in error, I'm going to have fail the Good article review without further examination. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 17:25, 3 January 2008 (UTC) (copied from User_talk:AnonEMouse)
 * Regarding the 'Byzantium under the Palaiologoi's' article: when I first found this article, it had almost no wikilinks. I proceeded to mark the article as wikify and then worked on linking it up. I did the most obvious links, but it ended up with some redlinks. I did not think I did a complete job and also thought that some of the redlinks might be turned blue with some searching work through WP, possibly finding misspellings, alternate names etc. So that is why I left the wikify notice on it. Thanks Hmains (talk) 04:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Sounds reasonable, then. Quick-failing GA (if 1 day can be considered quick) until that is done. I'd also suggest that the refs be moved after the punctuation throughout. Then it can be renominated. --AnonEMouse (squeak) 14:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)



Illustration
Even with the generic caption Classical literature that was studied included mythical figures such as Dionysus, this is merely decorative here. A classicising sculpture of the Palaeologan period, or a Greek sculpture that was in Constantinople, would serve better as illustrative material. --Wetman (talk) 15:15, 26 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you would be so kind as to find such art? Otherwise, it stays. Tourskin (talk) 21:23, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Pick and choose: https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:Mosaics_in_Chora_Church https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Category:14th-century_Byzantine_mosaics#/media/File:Saint_George_portable_Louvre_OA3110.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.58.231.207 (talk) 03:55, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Obsolete political system?
"The empire's political system, based as it was around an autocratic and semi-divine emperor who exercised absolute power, had become obsolete,"

Could someone explain this to me? Why was it that Byzantine autocracy was obsolete by the 15th century, yet Russian autocracy would form the basis of a viable state until the early 20th century, and Prussian absolutism in the 18th century is regarded as creating the most militarily efficient state of Europe? (Not to mention Bourbon France's success centuries after the fall of Constantinople.) No doubt the Byzantine system had its own unique aspects, but I think claims that religiously-based autocracy was an "obsolete" system in the mid-15th century demands some explanation. What's an example of a non-obsolete political system in the mid-15th century? 76.215.108.222 (talk) 06:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes a total non-sensical expression, what is it doing here? Someone should remove it! and restore the encyclopedic tone and style in the entire article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.58.231.207 (talk) 03:32, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Too wordy
This article is simply too wordy. We need to trim it. HumanCentipedeStyle (talk) 03:07, 24 November 2013 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.10.111.27 (talk)

The map is inaccurate - it needs to be updated
The map in this article showing the year 1263 is woefully inaccurate. Sogut had already fallen to the Turks in 1231, and Eskisehir hadn't been under Byzantine rule since c.1185 at the latest. The frontiers of the restored empire stretched nowhere near that far east, and hadn't done for centuries. That map is misleading and gives the impression that the Empire held far more territory in Anatolia than was in fact the case at this time.

Below, I have posted a more accurate map, which reflects the historical evidence. I propose the frontier from this map should be applied to the one featured in the article. Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 15:40, 10 September 2015 (UTC)



Edit 2

I have taken the liberty of updating it myself, to demonstrate what I mean. The result is posted below. However, I would ideally prefer if someone with more sophisticated editing tools would create a more 'perfect' version of it, based on the original map and incorporating my change of frontier. Thanks Bigdaddy1204 (talk) 16:08, 10 September 2015 (UTC)



"Greek Byzantium" section
A. Why does the geographical extent of the empire at its height need a source? Read the article on Byzantine history, it has a myriad of sources.

B. .. "Greek culture came to dominate" - "cultural diversity" - firstly, did Greek culture not always dominate since Greek was adopted as the state language of the Empire centuries before (and even in Pagan times was not the pantheon of Greek and Roman gods the same and the architecture and the literature and everything else fused together into the Greco-Roman world..)?

Secondly, I do not see how political terms of "cultural diversity" belong in this article. It is so loaded with the current European way of looking at things, and did not even exist before 1935 (http://etymonline.com/index.php?term=cultural&allowed_in_frame=0) so I think we should not try to force down over an article about a 14th century subject, what appears to be 20th and 21st century thinking. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.58.231.207 (talk) 03:29, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Conclusion section source
Can you check where the source of the Byzantine Empire under the Palaiologos dynasty is? -- Sangjinhwa (talk) 11:21, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Disputed flag, factual accuracy of the article declared as disputed
After repeatedly removing my requests for another sources for the flag "Byzantine imperial flag, 14th century.svg", I declared the article's factual accuracy as disputed. It's not possible to delete requests for sources. The user:Cplakidas referred to an article about the flag, but there always is only a link to the 14th-century Castilian Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms, an armorial/geographical manual. Cplakidas claims that there are other sources, but they are not, that's why I insist that he add other sources. If the flag is truly historically authentic, then it is certainly not a problem to provide additional sources, not to repeatedly remove my requests. The appearance of the flag raises doubts as to whether it is truly Byzantine. It shall contain the four Greek letters Beta, but these four are in the design, which is described as "fire steels". The "fire steels" are always in western heraldic armorials as heraldic symbols which here replace the original letters Beta, it representing fire striker as a real thing, it's just a distortion of Greek letters(!) and never on historical portolan charts that contain flags as instructions for naval traders. There are always with the original Beta letters. Here "fire steels" replaced the original Greek letters Beta. Basically, "fire steels" are corrupted letters Beta (or means "westernized"), because they are only in western armorials. This would mean that the flag is only a western interpretation and is far from the real Byzantine flag. The Byzantines didn’t use fire steels form and certainly did not know them, so it is necessary to follow several sources such as portolan charts, not only western armorials such as Book of All Kingdoms. This form is also included in the Rietstap's Armorial, which is another western heraldic armorial, so the credibility of both is quite doubtful. The user:Cplakidas propably doesn’t want to add another sources to the flag he created ten years ago, because it would be clear that his flag is questionable and unreliable. I insist that the flag be provided with additional sources in the description (in the article or in the file). Should its unreliability prove to be replaced by another file that will have a design with original Greek letters and this flag would be marked as "conjectural/fictional" and needs to be renamed as a western interpretation or otherwise. I link to this site for additional information. -- Dragovit (talk) 9:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)
 * propably doesn’t want to add another sources to the flag he created ten years ago, because it would be clear that his flag is questionable and unreliable It is rather preposterous to make such suppositions, especially when I've spent the past weeks cleaning dubious flags that you have scattered throughout Wikipedia. Anyhow, all of this is fine and dandy, except a) that Pseudo-Kodinos himself, in the only Byzantine written account on the imperial flag, explicitly mentions "fire-steels", and the issue is still disputed by scholars, b) the shape depicted in the Book of Knowledge of All Kingdoms accords with that recorded by Pseudo-Kodinos, i.e. a flamoulon, c) the shape of the letters/fire-steels may indeed be too stylized, since I took the design from which was at the time the most accurate (i.e., closest to what the sources were showing) version in Commons. However that is not a reason to declare the entire article as being of 'disputed accuracy'. It is possibly a cause for correcting/updating the flag, which I will do. On the rest, thanks for the site, it is an interesting resource. In the future, my advice to you is WP:AGF and WP:NPA. And, as always, WP:NOR. Constantine   ✍  18:52, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The flag is now corrected, based on File:Johannes V 1742.jpg, File:Denaro of Domenico Gattilusio.jpg, and . Constantine  ✍  19:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * BTW, Dragovit, I hope you realize that the is incorrect, since no Byzantine example has the betas facing inwards, or lying on their 'faces'... Constantine   ✍  19:20, 1 January 2021 (UTC)
 * The essence of all this is that you do not follow your own words in the discussion and therefore it isn't possible to reach an concensus. You said that you removed the "dubious flags in past weeks", the banners of Madrid Skylitzes have nothing to do with it, but what was said in the discussion. In the Czech article you along with flags removed also the labarums that were not related with them, which referred to the old Roman Empire and the Western Roman Empire. The whole Czech article concerns the Eastern Roman Empire from its division by Emperor Constantine I. The labarum is here for the same reasons as in the English article, you removed it there, but in the English article remained, so it seems to me more like a personal attack against me or vandalization of a Czech article, because it's quite illogical and contrary to what we have resolved in the discussion. You also said that Western portolans are reliable, therefore, I logically pointed out that didn't match them. Just follow your own words and discussions, I can't blame you for not remembering what you said. And simply no,  isn't incorrect, it's based on a medieval miniature and also coincides with Western portolans. You may find them incorrect, but they cannot be standing on them when they are based on a specific image, this is how the betas are displayed in portolans. Betas are lying in several portolans, they may have noticed the flag turned, and therefore the betas are lying. If the flag were hung like a vexilloid, the betas would be standing. I agree that you corrected your imperial flag by coins. I think this current design is satisfactory. Thank you. But the fact that betas are standing on the coins does not necessarily mean that there could not be betas lying on the flag on the flagpole. Of course, it's possible that both variants are correct. -- Dragovit (talk) 14:46, 2 January 2020 (UTC)
 * it's based on a medieval miniature and also coincides with Western portolans. You may find them incorrect, but they cannot be standing on them when they are based on a specific image, this is how the betas are displayed in portolans. but when all Byzantine sources we have display something different, then that must be given precedence, as it is original material. Just a few days ago you were up in arms about portolans being unreliable, and now you argue as if they are entirely trustworthy. You again fail to get the point: medieval sources are unreliable, they need to be cross-checked and cross-referenced before we can accept them. The depictions in Western sources that accord with Byzantine descriptions and actual usage on Byzantine objects should by default be given preference, the rest is merely material supportive of the general appearance of these flags. Constantine  ✍  20:16, 2 January 2021 (UTC)
 * What are the all Byzantine sources you have in mind that you didn't mention any? For example, any Byzantine maps or manuscripts that would compare to portolans? Do you think that when you found two coins with a tetragrammatic cross, one Byzantine and the other crusader/latin (Principality of Achaea), than you know the answer to what the Byzantine flag should look like? That's a joke isn't it? Did you realize that the coins do not show the flag, only the separate cross? On the other hand portolans show the flag as if it were hanging on a flagpole. It is remarkable that the flag is always displayed there as hanging with the betas "lying". Of course, portolans are not always reliable, but that doesn't apply to the Byzantine flag, which is identical almost everywhere, with minor variations. How do you confirm that your flag looks exactly like it used to be and isn't just a cross transferred from a coin to an empty flag? Before, we talked about portolas in a completely different matter, which was the Madrid Skylitzes, then you argued against it by portolans and now you doubt them. I don't understand this approach, either you take these sources seriously, as you claimed earlier, or you just want your selfmade version that you like. I can't depict the betas as "standing" in my picture, which is according to the manuscript of Geoffrey of Villehardouin where the betas are visibly "lying", that would not be a rendition accordingly. Maybe you should have portrayed the betas "lying" on your flag as it is on the portolans, because the coins cannot be used as a basis for creating a flag. -- Dragovit (talk) 14:05, 5 January 2020 (UTC)
 * two coins with a tetragrammatic cross, one Byzantine and the other crusader/latin (Principality of Achaea) The 'one Byzantine' coin alone is enough evidence because it is Byzantine; it is contemporary, and authentic; it is what the Byzantines themselves thought their Empire's insigne looked like. And the 'other crusader/latin (Principality of Achaea)' is not Crusader, nor of the Principality of Achaea, but of the Gattilusi, who were vassals of the Palaiologoi and married into their family, and bore the insigne on their coins as sign of that. And the 'upright' Betas are also evidenced in the arms of the Palaiologos rulers of Montferrat. And accepted by all modern scholars as the 'actual' version of the arms, including, notably, by the site you linked above. And because if the insigne is meant to be read, as indicated in the relevant article, then the betas need to be upright, just as with this example. And because the flag, and we know this from Kodinos, is 'the usual imperial insigne', just on cloth, so if that is the usual imperial insigne, then the flag must be similar. Shall I go on?
 * But they all don't know, right? The Byzantine mint-masters don't know, the imperial in-laws don't know, the cadet branches of the imperial dynasty don't know, modern scholars don't know. But, after having spent a moment to glance at some portolans, after spending a few more moments to glance at Skylitzes, without bothering to read any actual scholarly treatment on the matter, you have an expert opinion... So please, please, stop and think, and temper your arrogance. You are not well versed in actual Byzantine history, you have shown this time and again, and did again just now provide proof of that with grossly mislabeling the Gattilusi coin. At the same time, you are unwilling to listen to someone who actually has spent a lot of time on this topic. This is a pity, but it is your prerogative; it is also my prerogative to call you out on this and make sure that the resulting inadvertent errors are rectified. It also your right (and for that I sincerely thank you, as a matter of fact) to create depictions of all the variants of flags found in medieval sources and upload them to Commons. My problem is with your carelessness in assigning additional interpretations and implicit spins by labelling these flags (e.g. as co-emperor's banners, with no evidence at all!!!!), or placing them in infoboxes and templates as the one and—implicitly, whether you intend it or not—only Byzantine flag, based simply on your choice/opinion.
 * This and only this is my problem with your work, but it is a big one, as it goes against good scientific and editing practices as well as Wikipedia policies. I am really frustrated that you don't seem to realize that your good intentions and some primary sources are not enough, they must go hand in hand with some research into modern, scholarly evaluations of these sources. This is not optional; it is not my opinion; it is required of all of us. Constantine  ✍  17:04, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Your statement seems completely absurd to me. We talk about Byzantine flags/banners all the time, so why did you incorporate Palaiologan arms into our discussion now when it could be a different thing? The Palaiologan arms could look completely different on the flag than the cross on the coins. Why do you rely so much on coins with only a separate cross? Those coins aren't enough for a accurate rendition of the flag, because bothing else can be ascertained from them or that cross. The coins don't show the shape of the flag or how it should be turned to make it clear what position the betas are in. I don't think your approach is much more reliable than mine, it looks like not, because historical flags cannot be reconstructed in this way, those coins aren't reliable enough! The fact that the flag is identical to arms is a Western heraldic practice, as far as I know, and wouldn't count on that. I don't have to mention that the Byzantines didn't use the Western heraldry, it's generally known, so arguing with arms that they have some form and therefore the flag must look identical to them is wrong. The arms of the Palaiologos rulers of Montferrat cannot be used as an argument. This is also proven by your flag with wrong "fire steels", which you corrected after ten years, then, I pointed this out to you. Meanwhile, people from all over the world have copied, downloaded and shared the flag, including me, I feel cheated and I don't trust anymore, you have made too many mistakes. I'm not of that opinion, that it's more reliable than others. Now the betas finally have their original form, but it still doesn't mean that the flag is accurate, but that it's one of the possible hypothetical reconstructions that was based on the coins, that's all. I don't know what Pseudo-Kodinos said about the flag, but if it concerned only the arms and not the flag itself, it's of little use as a source for the flag. While my flags are based on the portolans that you recognize or on the manuscript of Geoffrey of Villehardouin and cannot be displayed in any other form than there, if so, it would be a lie contrary to the original depictions, which were drawn by the authors of the portolans. There could not be the portolan/manuscript mentioned as a source, because that would be untrue, it's that simple, therefore it cannot be changed. There is nothing wrong with that. It is our responsibility to reproduce their work, but not to change it. It's common practice to create flags and insignias according to maps and manuscripts, after all, a lot of purpoted or fictional flags without any source attributed to different states has already been uploaded, which isn't my case, because my every flags/banners are based on historical sources, alternatively on the illustration of some history book, no rules were violated. These flags are not my own fabrications, so don't pretend they are, and don't use it as compromising information against me, it isn't WP:NOR. Rather, you can't stand that I created my own flags regardless of your approach, because you only recognize your own point of view and want to restrict other approaches, that's all. WP:NOR applies to you because you have created a complete flag based on the coins that do not represent the depiction of the flag at all and also you created the flag with wrong "fire steels" betas. You are not well versed in actual Byzantine history when you didn't compare Book of All Kingdoms with other sources, such as portolans, before you used it as the only source and than you copied the flag design from the file of the user who created the collection of fictional arms himselves. What a terrible mistake! That's problem with your work. Even after ten years, you didn't do anything with that. -- Dragovit (talk) 00:04, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Your flag created according to the Castilian Book of All Kingdoms with the corrected letters based on Byzantine coins, which means combining two different sources, has been questioned by user Koreanovsky as "changes without sources" and all have been denied by him in all three files, so we are at the beginning again, due to your irresponsibility. You should have been more thorough so that it didn't happen. This was to be expected because the flag was created from two different sources, it can hardly be considered a credible reconstruction, also you failed to mention your sources or improve the description there. So I recommend using a version that is based on a one source, such as an portolan chart or manuscript until the matter is resolved. You can re-upload your corrected flag as a new file, as the user Koreanovsky replied, but the old one will still be preferred. The flag looks nice, but that's all, I'm afraid. -- Dragovit (talk) 13:57, 6 January 2020 (UTC)
 * This is textbook whataboutism. I obviously was not as well versed in Byzantine heraldry then as I am now, and I readily admit that I was lazy with the flag, but that is not WP:NOR, because the firesteel stylization is a) mentioned by Byzantine sources and b) is at least consistent with the later usage of the pattern in heraldry, such as from the Montferrat branch of the Palaiologoi, or some of the portolans (e.g. in the very same site you linked for 'Lodomago, Meseber, Salonico' these could be interpreted as firesteels). For the rest, I never disputed your designs' being based on original sources, I disputed (and still do, and apparently will have to continue to do) the selective and often subjective interpretations you put on them. We are ultimately working for the same cause here, but, once again, I recommend reading WP:PRIMARYSOURCES: that is what your original sources are, and accordingly they must be treated with caution. Constantine  ✍  15:41, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * Please do not create your flag based on the heraldry of the Montferrat italian branch of the dynasty. Western heraldry is an interpretation of the Byzantine original and isn't credible. The letters betas are mentioned somewhere as "fire steels", but nowhere is their exact appearance captured. You yourself said that portolan charts are more reliable. Your flag mentioned the Castilian Book of All Kingdoms as its source, so if you change the design of the Greek letters B, it is more believable, but it no longer has the Book of All Kingdoms as its source. Just compare it with the original and you will see the difference. So I think your flag should look the same as in the book, or it must give up this source. Why not create a flag based on one source instead of this hybrid, which is based on a Book of All Kingdoms and Greek letters from coins? -- Dragovit (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)
 * PS, I just now saw that a random user had reverted my fixes to the Byzantine flags. The fact that, instead of correcting him by reverting the designs, you preferred to tag them instead with a vengeance, is a huge disappointment. Well done... Constantine  ✍  15:49, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * No, that's no vengeance, please just read COM:OVERWRITE, which only allows "minor improvements". Basically any user can change newer version to the original, if fatal changes are made, it can happen again. Therefore, the user Koreanovsky replied that you have to upload the flag again as a new file. Now you've tried to revert it, but it may not last long. -- Dragovit (talk) 16:56, 9 January 2020 (UTC)