Talk:Byzantine Greeks/Archive 1

Comment
The debate from the Byzantine Empire should be continued here. Jarvis' last edits proved that our little dispute can be in fact harmful to other people's hard work in the article Byzantine Empire. I don't want this to be repeated. Miskin 00:19, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Varana what we proposed about the marking point between the Eastern Roman and Byzantine Empires is already treated here. Have a look and at the same time we can discuss the name issue. Miskin 18:15, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Low-level Greek
Quick note on "levels of style." "Low-level Gk." was of course used in writing through at least the 10th c., most notably in hagiography, but also in other contexts (e.g. certain of the administrative and other treatises from the circle of Constantine VII). (Cf. for example I. Ševčenko, "Levels of style in Byzantine prose," JÖB 31 (1981), 289-312.) The major problem is that most of the hagiographic examples were re-written in atticizing Gk. as part of the Metaphrastic project, although enough pre-Metaphrastic lives survive to give us an idea of their style. The question of whether "low-level" written Gk. was equivalent to vernacular / demotic spoken Gk. is another one altogether. In any case there are some fine points here in need of untangling. --Javits2000 11:26, 19 December 2006 (UTC) (a.k.a. "Jarvis").

I think 'popular' or 'vulgar' Greek are more popular terms for 'spoken Byzantine Greek'. If by 'low-level' it is meant 'popular' then it does refer to the spoken vernacular/demotic Greek, in which very few written texts survive. Miskin 00:15, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Right, the problem is that "low-level Greek" has a technical meaning in scholarship on literature, as in Sev. above, quick summary in L. Ryden, "New forms of hagiography" (17th Int. Byz. Cong.): "According to tradition there were three levels of style, high, middle, and low... all three are represented in the hagiography of the early 9th c., the Life of Philaretos the Merciful, BHG 1511z, alone representing the low style. Thereafter the low style fell into disuse [in hagiography, not all around]. This means that with the exception of the L. of Phil. and a few scattered passages in other texts the natural, lively, and picturesque style that makes much early Greek hagiography so attractive does not occur in our period...." (541). But whether or not low-level prose = spoken Greek of some sort is a whole other question; noone would really call VP "demotic," just "simple." --Javits2000 07:01, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Ptochoprodromos
I'm troubled by this reference to the Ptochoprodromic corpus: "As shown in the poems of Ptochoprodromos, Modern Greek had already been shaped by the 11th [sic] century AD and possibly earlier." The poems are written in a mixed style, incorporating a great number of contemporary (i.e. 12th century) vernacular usages -- but they're hardly in "modern Greek" (is there a "sto" to be found therein?). I'm not a native speaker, so I can't say, but I imagine the effect would be something like that of reading Chaucer, if not slightly weirder (the lexicography is eccentric to say the least). I find an article in which Alexiou uses the corpus to argue for the 12th century as the "starting point for 'modern' Greek," (DOP 53, p. 109), but clearly the scare quotes are significant. Please shed some light. --Javits2000 23:03, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

As far as I know the majority of linguists consider the poems of Ptochoprodromos as the first attested text that can be identified as "eary Modern Greek" (H. Tonnet, N. Andriotes and N. Nicholas just to name a few sources easily accessible to me). Andriotes (whose historiography of the Greek language is used by wikipedia and Britannica) clearly states that 1453 is only set as a symbolic starting date in the history of Modern Greek, only to make it compatible with history (which of course also applies to the starting dates of Koine and Medieval Greek). H. Tonnet follows a different and more analytical approach, which ignores the actual historical periods of states, and places its starting point earlier (12th century if I'm not mistaken). There must definitely be some scholars who would put that into question, but in my knowledge, consensus places Modern Greek's starting point at Ptochoprodromos, and many historians speak of Modern Greek as a the vulgar language of Byzantium. However I'm also familiar with some sources that regard the Acritic poems as the earliest form of Modern Greek, hence my edit ""and possibly earlier"". I don't remember whether Ptochoprodromos uses modernisms such as 'ston' or 'sten'. He probably doesn't because I remember that it was the Chronicle of Morea that introduced this construct, but still that wouldn't be a reason to exclude Ptochoprodromos from modern Greek. It definitely doesn't use "tha", which is a pure post-1453 construct. I guess it would be impossible to trace all characteristics of today's demotic Greek to the 12th century, this is why it is often called an early stage modern Greek. I can't draw a parallel to Chaucer because I'm not familiar with his language's phonology. However I know that demotic Greek phonology is unchanged since the 11th century. Miskin 01:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I think I know where the confusion lies. If you have access to TLG (which you probably do) and look up Ptochoprodromica you'll be confused as his language seems to be somewhat mixed. The first page of poem 1 has clearly Atticizing elements (it uses infinitives and other archaisms), but the second page for instance is much more closer to the vernacular. I guess linguists who view it as early Modern Greek must have isolated the "archaism-free" text, and interpreted it as the vernacular. I agree with you that many parts are nowhere near demotic Greek (not even Koine Greek), but those were very different to the texts cited by other linguistic sources. I suppose that not all of his poems are using vernacular language. Miskin 01:40, 20 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Fair enough. There's just a slight danger in characterzing any medieval vernacular text, the Akritic poems included, as being in "modern Greek" unqualified -- by which one generally understands the language of, say, Ta Nea. Hence "early modern Greek" or, as in Alexiou, "'modern' Greek." --Javits2000 07:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Another interesting source on this ("it is conventional to date the emergence of Modern Greek dialects to about the 10th to 12th centuries (AD)"). Miskin 10:40, 3 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi
Where it mentions that it was probably best to be a Greek speaker and member of the Orthodox Church at least in ones public persona, perhaps cite the example of Zeno who was, as we all know an Isaurian known as Tarasicodissa, that was until he changed his name, according to Norwich, to Zeno to appeal to the Greek speakers of the Empire as more of a 'Roman' (i.e. Greek Roman).

A better example might be the one of Abba Maximus (Saint Maximus), who was accused by the Byzantine state as a heretic who "loved the Romans and hated the Greeks" (Oxford History of Medieval Europe), and gave the diplomatic response that he loved the Romans because he followed their religion but he also loved the Greeks because he spoke their language. Miskin 13:49, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Removing Millar cite
I'm removing the recent citation of Millar under "Byzantine Greek language" for the following reasons: 1) it has nothing to do with "language," rather the "spiritual center of the empire," whatever that might mean; 2) whereas the suggestion of a crucial break under Heraclius, posited directly above, is well-explained (loss of significant non-Greek speaking territories), the reference to Theodosius II is simply asserted without any explanation; 3) it's tendentiously worded ("many, such as," when only Millar is cited). --Javits2000 09:24, 7 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree I worded it poorly, but I still think the citation has a place. It explains the continuity of a distinctive Greek literary culture throughout the period of Rome which then became what we would describe as Byzantine literature, if you read Anna Komnena you can see the links with the past quite clearly.--NeroDrusus 05:48, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure what you think is missing from the article. That Greek continued to be used throughout the Roman era is made clear in the first paragraph under "language." Anna Komnene wrote in the "archaising "high" style which imitated classical Attic" which is mentioned in the second paragraph -- which is incidentally at the root of Karl Krumbacher's remark, that she had learned Greek as a foreign language (Geschichte der byzantinischen litteratur (1897), 277). Whether this is part of a direct continuity from Roman-era/ late antique literature is debatable. To take Anna, she's writing in a genre ("classical" historiography) which hasn't left any traces btw. Theophylact Simocatta & the continuators of Theophanes ("Theophanes Continuatus" -- 10th c.) --Javits2000 09:04, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you misunderstood my point, if you read Millar, he argues for the primary importance of literature in maintaining a distinctive 'Greco-Roman' culture of the East, and it was partially from this that the East was able to 'realise it's full potential after the fall of the west' (or something to that effect, I can't remember his exact quote). I agree with you that largely it doesn't really need any more sourcing though. What it DOES need, are a couple of images and to be rewritten in a more, how shall i say, 'palatable' style. I mean, the 'meat' of a good article is there, my issue is mostly about how it is arranged.--NeroDrusus 16:01, 10 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Pictures yes! --Javits2000 16:46, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Anna Comnena learned Greek as a foreign language?? You must mean classical Attic Greek..? Miskin 23:56, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Loss of Roman identity during the 12th century?
'the pretence of Romanity began to wear thin in the age of the Crusades'

I disagree. In The Alexiad, not once does Anna Comnena refer to her people as anything but Roman. Furthermore, Anna frequently uses titles such as 'Augustus' and 'Caesar' to describe members of the Imperial family. She also displays a very Roman attitude in describing the Latins as 'Kelts' and 'barbarians' and also describing the Turks and Arabs of the east as 'barbarians.' She certainly does not appear to consider her Romanity to be a 'pretence' and there is no evidence that her identity as a Roman is wearing thin.

The book is thought to have been published at around 1148 I believe, which was the height of the crusader era. Hera52 22:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The paragraph in question is a direct citation from Beaton's book - maybe even too direct and needs to go within quotes. The statement you quoted refers to the impact of the infamous Battle of Manzikert. Miskin 15:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Mascare of Latins
Just started a new page on the Massacre of Latins 1182. Does anyone have a source for more info on any reasons or explanantions for the masacre other than. http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html (Msrasnw (talk) 17:04, 19 February 2009 (UTC))

POV Bias
This article is written from a Western point-of-view. It's biased. --Nikoz78 (talk) 14:00, 21 January 2010 (UTC)

Constantelos
Is an unreliable source that has no place in this asticle. The fact that he has a WP article is not reason enought to label him a "famous Byzantinist". He is nothing of the sort. What the citation says is disputed by all serious scholars. Byzantine Greeks did not as a whole consider the ancient Greeks their ancestors. Unless WP:RS can be brought to the effect that they did this source should be removed.--Anothroskon (talk) 09:24, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, Demetris J. Constantelos was a renowned Byzantine scholar way before Wikipedia had an article written about him. And just because you and "all serious scholars" (extreme appeal to an unspecified authority) say that Demetris Constantelos is "unreliable" doesn't make him so. The only scholar I can think of who supports your view is Anthony Kaldellis who claims that Constantelos pays "lip service to cultural Hellenism" (wording that, even if true, embodies an implicit form of ad hominem). I won't lose any sleep, however, if your insistence over *one sentence* ultimately "blockades" Constantelos's standpoint from being incorporated into the article.

The next issue I find a bit contentious on your part is your statement regarding the Byzantine Greeks and their ancestral ties to the ancient Greeks:


 * Klingender, Francis Donald. Animals in Art and Thought to the End of the Middle Ages. M.I.T. Press, 1971, p. 258. "But, while seeking to reveal the hidden meaning of things in these monumental works, the Byzantines had retained their Greek ancestors' curiosity about the drama of life."


 * Muller, Herbert Joseph. Freedom in the Ancient World. Harper, 1961, p. 334. "The Byzantines did not have to study Augustine to learn that no earthly city is eternal--they knew this from their Greek ancestors, and from long experience in living dangerously."

You can argue, of course, that the aforementioned sources provide no clear argument about the Byzantines themselves regarding the Greeks as their ancestors. But why would the Byzantines even bother to retain the ideas, perceptions, and experiences of their "Greek forebears" (verboten) if they had no physical or cultural connection with them? Here's a simple answer:


 * Jäckh, Ernest. Background of the Middle East. Cornell University Press, 1952, p. 79. "The integration of these two traditions was accompanied in another synthesis, that of Byzantium ("New Rome"), which united the special heritage of her Greek ancestry with the new religious phenomenon of Christianity, to form the new unity of..."

Given that you appear quite attached to this article, you can go ahead and keep it for all the good it'll do you. Auf wiedersehen mein herr. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.186.144 (talk) 18:12, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Please don't mistake my intention here which is only to improve this article and not own it. Your contributions are valuable and I am glad to see you working on it and also would like to see you get an account. As you yourself pointed out the fact that the Greeks were the ancestors of the Rhomaioi (which I fully endorse) does not mean that they were regarded as such by the majority of the Rhomaioi people. It is a fine distinction but you have grasped it allready.


 * Speaking for myself I am a Kaldelist and hope to include some quotes and material from Hellenism in Byzantium in due course. And you are right, Constantelos is a respected source but he is also a nationalist whose opinions are coloured by his ideology.--Anothroskon (talk) 20:04, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Truth be told, it was your contributions that have largely impacted the development of this article. My contributions, on the other hand, are hardly valuable. Any editor could have easily stepped in to make spelling and grammatical corrections.

Anyway, I find that the majority of the "Rhomaioi" did regard themselves as "Graikoi" (or "Hellenes sans paganism") except when it came to pre-1204 politics. It is no secret that before the Fourth Crusade, the Empire's political interests in official correspondences were "Roman" (politically ecumenical) and that admitting to their obvious Grecian civilizational nature would jeopardize their claims to titles and territories. Simple as that.

As for Constantelos, he is simply a Hellenist. Branding this author as a "nationalist" implies that he utilizes pseudo-historical narratives and illogical discourses to substantiate his arguments (not the case in reality). If anything, "Kaldellists" should avoid the implicit ad-hominem "lip service" lingo and focus on Constantelos's forthcoming arguments (not unless they want to be ridiculed for assuming that the phrase "Graikos by genos" is supposedly ambiguous when Priscus, an objective historian, uses it to describe the reason why a Scythian-dressed member of Attila the Hun's court learned to speak Greek). I honestly mean no offense by this, but you must understand that subjectivity is a two-way street and should largely be left aside. Auf wiedersehen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.172.186.144 (talk) 23:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


 * Kaldelis argues quite convincingly in his book that the Romaioi did not merely adopt the name as a political expedient but rather were ethnically so, that is to say they considered themselves to be Romaioi by genos. The Hellenes to them, in so far as they were aware of them, would have been just another of the ancient people that went into the making of their race, the Roman one. Now this isn't to say that the majority of the Romaioi's ancestors were anything other than Hellenes or at the very least Hellenised. Also we must bear in mind that the people's attitudes to that subject changed with time. If we are talking about the Nicean Empire post 1204 then yes the majority of the people considered the Hellenes as their ancestors. But that was not the case pre-1204 when knowledge of and belief in the Hellenes was confined to a few literati.--Anothroskon (talk) 08:30, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Convincingly, but not conclusively. Kaldellis appears to interpret the primary literature in a manner conducive to his somewhat tendentious attempts at proving the existence of a "Roman ethnic identity" that hardly coincides with the general definition of a "Byzantine" (Roman citizenship, Greek ethnicity/language/culture, Christian Orthodoxy). I am not saying that Kaldellis rejects the Greek ancestry of the "Romaioi". However, it does appear that he is erroneously incorporating Greek ethno-cultural connotations to a term that explicitly has political connotations ("Romaios"). Moreover, Kaldellis is trying to convince his readers that only the term "Romaios" was used by medieval Greeks to self-identify as Greeks (by making it appear that the term "Graikos" was ambiguous and only applicable to geography). But why bother questioning Kaldellis on this issue? Here's a simple answer:


 * Harrison, Thomas. Greeks and Barbarians. Taylor & Francis, 2002, p. 268. "Roman, Greek (if not used in its sense of 'pagan') and Christian became synonymous terms, counterposed to 'foreigner', 'barbarian', 'infidel'. The citizens of the Empire, now predominately of Greek ethnicity and language, were often called simply...['the people who bear Christ's name']."

The reason why the terms "Romaios", "Graikos", and "Christianos" were synonymous was because each term reflected an inseparable *aspect* of Byzantine identity. "Romaios" was relegated to politics, "Graikos" relegated to ethnicity/culture/language, and "Christianos" relegated to religion. The Christian Greeks of New Rome adhered to this paradigm quite strictly. Any severe deviations from this rudimentary equation would be met with resistance or condemnation from both locals and aristocrats. If "Romaios" superceded "Graikos", then why would the latter term still be in consistent use throughout the Byzantine period? Angelov is clear on the fact that the term "Graikos" was commonly used and that it was used to denote a Roman citizen's ethno-religious and linguistic orientation rather than merely his place of origin (Greece was not the only area where "Graikoi" resided). Also, many Armenians became "Romaioi" (Roman citizens) but very few of them actually adopted Greek cultural mores (graikosas).

As for the term "Hellene", it was abandoned purely for its religious connotations. But as an ethnonym, it was surprisingly preserved in areas such as Pontus well before its revival during the 12th and 13th centuries. But the ethnonymic substitution of "Hellene" with "Graikos" gave most Greeks the means to maintain their unique heritage without being branded as pagans (even though pagan and Christian rituals in the Greek East were technically the same given that they both stem from Greek cultural norms). What changed after 1204 AD was the *frequency* of the use of terms such as "Hellenes" and "Graikoi" in official documents. It is only after the Fourth Crusade that the "Byzantine equation" undergoes a major paradigm shift where the Empire's politics directly mirrored its painfully obvious Christian Greek civilizational nature. Auf wiedersehen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.108.69 (talk) 18:56, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are some more sources I think would make great additions to the article:


 * Smith, Michael Llewellyn. Ionian Vision: Greece in Asia Minor, 1919-1922. C. Hurst & Co. Publishers, 1998, p. 24. "At the same time the domination of the Byzantine Empire by the Greek element made Constantinople with its magnificent Christian and imperial monuments the capital of a Greek as well as a Christian empire. In theory the Empire was universal, Christian, and multiracial. In practice Hellenism was dominant and the Orthodox Church was identified with Greek culture, language and liturgy. Even before the fall of Constantinople in 1453, in face of the encroaching Ottoman Turks, who battered and undermined the diminished Empire like an irresistible tide Byzantine Empire by the Greek element made Constantinople with its magnificent Christian and imperial monuments the capital of a Greek as well as a Christian empire."


 * Hastings, Adrian. The Construction of Nationhood: Ethnicity, Religion, and Nationalism. Cambridge University Press, 1997, p. 202. "As Christianity split into a diversity of ecclesiastical streams, the dualism implicit within its political agenda – nation-forming on the one side, universalism on the other - was further accentuated. The classical eastern orthodox form stressing the power of the emperor was in principle universalist enough in its vision of Constantinople as the 'New Rome', but in practice Byzantium became a rather thoroughly Greek empire, alienating non-Greeks in Egypt, Syria or the west. This combined with its considerable degree of Caesaropapism led to the generation of a type of church-state relationship characteristic of eastern autocephalous churches of a highly nationalist type."

Auf wiedersehen. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.225.108.69 (talk) 21:22, 25 November 2009 (UTC)


 * A couple of notes on Constantellos, Kaldellis and the state of historical scholarship on the question of ethnicity/nationalism in Byzantium.


 * Florin Curta writes in The Edinburgh History of the Greeks, C. 500 to 1050: The Early Middle Ages, p. 294: “Byzantine Greeks were, in the words of Demetrios Constantelos, 'conscious of their continuity with the ancient Greeks' (Constantelos 1985:309). That argument, however, is demostrably wrong and has by now been seriously challegned. A recent examination of Hellenism in Byzantium concluded that no clear notion exists that the Greek nation survived into the Byzantine times, and that the ethnic identity of those who lived in Greece during the Middle Ages is best described as Roman (Kaldellis 2007).”


 * Kaldellis's book is also cited as supporting the claims that "The Byzantines referred to themselves as Romaioi and thought of their empire as a continuation of the Roman Empire (the new Rome), though the language and culture of the Eastern Empire was Greek" (p. 18) and that "[the Empire's] inhabitants called themselves "Romans", "Romaioi" in Greek, throughout their history, and they regarded their empire as the seamless continuation of the Roman Empire [...] So, right from its inception, Byzantium was a state that perceived itseld as Roman, while being Christian and increasingly employing Greek as its lingua france. These three elements almost encpsulate the empire." (p. 2).


 * Also, Siniossoglou, who has written a laudatory review of Kaldellis's 2007 book, notes in his 2011 Radical Platonism in Byzantium: Illumination and Utopia in Gemistos Plethon p. 4, that the term 'Byzantine' is "misleading", that 'Byzantines' were (not Byzantine Greeks), but "the Romans of the Eastern Empire and they defined themselves as such" and that "[c]urrent scholarship is slowly moving towards a terminological revision" citing the last chapter in the Cambridge History of the Byzantine Empire (Anthony Bryer, "Roman Orthodox world (1393-1492)", who observes (p. 853) that "Today we call his ("he" being Patriarch Antony IV of Constantinople) flock Byzantines. But this is as helpful as calling the French Lutetians, after the classical name of their capital in Paris") as an example.


 * I observe that Kaldellis's theory seems to be gaining currency among the community of Byzantinists and I infer that the article should be modified per WP:DUE, to provide the reader with a balanced representation of all viewpoints.


 * I also note my suprise that absolutely no use has been made in writing this article of Gill Page's Being Byzantine (CUP, 2008) --which, incidentally, also testifies to the recent move of specialists' consensus closer to Kaldellis's view. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 17:46, 22 November 2013 (UTC)


 * The article is based off of the actual consensus among Byzantinists whereby the Byzantine Greeks were conscious of their classical Greek ancestry/heritage (i.e. Speros Vryonis, Nicholas Svoronos, Alexander P. Kazhdan, Giles Constable, Margalit Finkelberg, Robert Browning, Alexios Savvides, Benjamin Hendricks, Ernst Kitzinger, Kurt Weitzmann, Paul Magdalino, Steven Runciman, etc.). Anthony Kaldellis's Hellenism in Byzantium contains a very selective and, to an extent, overinterpretive analysis of Byzantine primaries designed to promote the misleading claim that the Byzantines were only Romaioi and that the Greeks, upon becoming Romaioi, ceased being Greek during the early and middle Byzantine periods. That Kaldellis fails to mention the consistent use of ethno-cultural (or ethno-linguistic) self-referential terms such as Graikoi in the works of, say, Theodore the Studite is a blunt testament to this simple fact. Furthermore, he deliberately downplays primary evidence that directly indicates the presence of Greek ethno-cultural and ethno-linguistic identity in the Byzantine Empire (i.e. Priscus, Procopius, Theophanes Confessor, etc.), which is something other Byzantinists such as Nicholas Svoronos almost never do. This is not to say that Kaldellis's treatment of Greek identity in Byzantium wholistically lacks merit, but the essential premise of his work (i.e. "Byzantines were Romans who happened to speak Greek and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Roman") is historically untenable and is seen as an extreme position by practically all Byzantinists including Alexios Savvides and Benjamin Hendricks. Surprisingly, the best and most down-to-earth assessment/critique of Kaldellis's premise can be found in this award-winning undergraduate paper from Marquette University:


 * "This approach to Byzantine identity – which asserts that the Byzantines were essentially Greek, but maintained a political and national façade of Romanism – is one that Kaldellis disputes. He asserts that "the Byzantines were Romans who happened to speak Greek and not Greeks who happened to call themselves Roman." With such a characterization, however, Kaldellis neglects both the immutably Greek foundations of the Byzantine Empire in the Hellenic and Hellenistic world, and the geographic and cultural importance of the fundamental shift of social and cultural norms engendered by the second sophistic. More saliently, he neglects the underlying continuity with ancient Hellenism that Byzantine culture and society represented until the fall of the Empire. As will be discussed below, Kaldellis is correct in his characterization of the transformation of Byzantine Hellenism into something of a national identity in the eleventh, twelfth, and thirteenth centuries, but by alienating the fundamentally Hellenic quality of the Byzantine identity from most of the Empire’s cultural and social history, he fails to recognize both Byzantium’s educational, literary, artistic, and philosophical continuity with ancient Greece, and the tremendous influence of Hellenism on the thought and practice of Orthodox Christianity."


 * In short, Kaldellis's work isn't "gaining currency" (even with the support of Niketas Sinniosoglou and Florin Curta) given that the overwhelming majority of Byzantine historical specialists already acknowledge the fact that the Byzantines referred to themselves as Romaioi (including Constantelos), but have chosen to continue to refer to said Romaioi as "Byzantines" (or "Byzantine Greeks") for the sake of preserving certain traditions of their academic discipline. Furthermore, Kaldellis's work hasn't really altered the established consensus given that the aforementioned Byzantinists still agree that the Byzantines were essentially medieval Greeks (a position that is rooted in historical fact as opposed to Western/Greek historiographical constructions). I think that the article need not embrace Kaldellis's extreme position on Byzantine Greek self-identity as that would directly violate WP:DUE.


 * P.S. Although Gill's Being Byzantine has some flaws, it is a good source on explaining certain aspects of Byzantine Greek identity after the Fourth Crusade of 1204. However, it is doubtful that Gill's work complements Kaldellis's extreme position on Byzantine Greek identity overall as Gill's publication was too late in incorporating Kaldellis's works and Gill is mainly focused on post-1204 identity politics between Greeks and Franks. A review by Walter Kaegi of Gill's work can be found here.

Am I banned?
Miskin, I take it that your unexplained deletions mean I am banned from editing your articles? --Mcorazao 14:56, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I did not delete your edit, I only copy-edited to a better, referenced version. Your edit is shown on red font in the diff because I put it on a separate paragraph and not because I deleted it. I understand that you have certain POV on this topic but it has to stay out of wikipedia as long as can't be supported by reliable, published sources. A level of neutrality must be retained, and wording such as e.g. "those so-called 'Greeks'" is not up to the standard. Miskin 17:04, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * However, I did revert your edits in Rum because they replaced directly cited content with original thought. Miskin 17:11, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Apologies. I misread the edits. --Mcorazao 18:37, 18 April 2007 (UTC)


 * O, yes, you are very close to being banned. This will happen suddenly, you will be surprised. The fact that these pages on the ancient history are so much biased is very well known between historians so that the introductory lectures in the US and GB start with: You should NOT, by any means, use Wikipedia articles!!! Great pity, of course – but mostly for the readers of Wikipedia. (Athens-borne) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.83.146.237 (talk) 09:45, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Unclear definitions? Questionable history?
I think this article should introduce the topic a little differently, perhaps more in the fashion that the Byzantine Empire article does. Maybe something like
 * Byzantine Greeks, or Byzantines, is a conventional term used by historians to refer either to the citizens of the Eastern Roman (i.e. Byzantine) Empire, or else the Greek-speaking (Hellenized) community of that empire. This communited was centered mainly in Constantinople, the southern Balkans, the Greek islands, the coasts of Asia Minor (modern Turkey) and the large urban centres of the Near East and Northern Egypt. In systems of historiography such as Arnold Toynbee's, where Byzantium is defined as a civilisation rather than a state, the term "Byzantine Greek" is restricted to the inhabitants of the Byzantine Empire, while "Byzantine" can refer to any medieval state of the Orthodox faith (such as Moscovite Russia).

Given that the term "Greek" was used in the Middle Ages as a derogatory term for the Eastern Romans and the term "Byzantine" was brought into play for a similar purpose I think the article should follow the lead of modern historians to, while still allowing "Byzantine" to be used, be careful about overly distinguishing this from "Roman" and to be careful about implying too close a relationship between Ancient Greece and the Byzantine Empire. Such implications are misleading.

Similarly the article is vague about the Byzantine identity in many parts, presumably trying to be "unbiased." Among other things there is the statement
 * Like many other Imperial rulers of the time, Byzantines claimed descent from the mighty Roman Empire and indirectly laid claim to all Christian lands.

This is a bit of a dangerous statement. Modern historians pretty much all agree (as indicated in the Byzantine Empire article) that the Emperors of Constantinople, before the Ottoman conquest, were the legitimate emperors of the Roman Empire. Other claims at best had very tenuous merit. I certainly do think that the article should attempt to be unbiased but I would argue that sticking with the thinking of modern mainstream historians is the more "unbiased" viewpoint here. It is certainly appropriate to state that Western Europeans of the later Middle Ages did not agree with the viewpoint of modern historians (most of those same people also thought the Earth was the center of the universe) but that viewpoint should not be given the same weight as the historians.

Also, I don't think the following statement is appropriate.
 * The evolution from the Eastern Roman into the Byzantine Empire, properly speaking, starts with the reign of Heraclius, when Greek replaced Latin completely in law and administration.

Simply put, there is no universally agreed upon date for the "start" of the "Byzantine" period (and many historians argue that this is a pointless debate since the Byzantine and Roman Empires are the same thing). In particular this date contradicts what the Byzantine Empire article lists as a start date, the founding of Constantinople (I think that article needs to be more careful as well). IMHO, this article should not try to make statements like this but rather leave it to the Byzantine Empire article to clarify these details. --Mcorazao 19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

P.S. As an additional comment, I know that some of the viewpoints expressed are in fact consistent with some of what the Roman Catholic Church says even today. Although Catholic histories can be valuable sources of knowledge it is important to recognize that some of what the Church says is not regarded by mainstream historians as "unbiased" so the information should be treated carefully. --Mcorazao 20:00, 21 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Regardless, the content of the article is very well sourced, so I don't see how it can be put into question by stating one's personal opinion and calling it "unbiased" and "mainstream". For example the edit "The evolution from the Eastern Roman into the Byzantine Empire, properly speaking, starts with the reign of Heraclius" is reworded from Ostrogorky (arguably the best Byzantinist in history) who actually states that it was a transition "from the ancient Roman to the Medieval Greek Empire". We can replace it with a direct quote if you think that this wording is not neutral enough. I don't agree with many of your points, "Greeks" was not used derogatory, it's just how the Latin-speakers always perceived the Greek-speakers, i.e. as "a corrupted continuation of ancient Greece". In fact according to one source this was used as an argument by the Goths in order to get the Italians to join them against Justinian. Anyway all of the other edits you posted come from citations, some almost direct ones. The edit "Like many other Imperial rulers of the time, Byzantines claimed descent from the mighty Roman Empire and indirectly laid claim to all Christian lands." is from George Finlay, though it is common knowledge anyway. This has nothing to do with the Church, I don't know where you got that idea from. If you care to read the sources linked to every paragraph, you'll find out that they are very credible and very "unbiased". If you think that they don't reflect a mainstream view then you must prove it by citing a sufficient number of opposite opinions. So far you've been judging the article as if it was the result of original research, but considering the number and quality of the sources provided, your claims about "non-biased sources" and "non-mainstream" views have no rational basis. Miskin 20:33, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the reply. I didn't say the article was original research. I'm sorry if it sounded that way.
 * I haven't personally read Ostrogorsky's work directly (nor am I a historian) so I'll defer to you if you say the wording is consistent with his statements. However, your quote that the it was a transition "from the ancient Roman ot the Medieval Greek Empire" does not by itself contradict what I said (unless there is more to that than what you have stated). My understanding too, though, is that, although probably few of the details of Ostrogorsky's history have changed since he wrote his book, the viewpoint has shifted a little (i.e. it's not that anybody would say that Ostrogorsky was "wrong" about anything but some recent scholars might argue that the work perpetuated some biases as, inevitably, every historical work does). Regarding Finlay, historians' viewpoints have -- I think -- changed in important ways since his time. His work should be viewed in the same way we view Sir Isaac Newton's work, brilliant and important, but not entirely consistent with the most recent thinking.
 * As far as the derogatory use of "Greek" I have to disagree with you. The Pope and eventually the Franks intentionally referred to the Eastern Romans as "Greeks" specifically for the purpose of not calling them "Roman" and, thereby, challenging their heritage and sovereignty (if you read the Byzantine Empire article it kind of makes this point although, admittedly, not emphatically). There are articles all over the web (e.g. ) that explicitly state that the Eastern Romans saw this as an insult. Similarly Montesquieu later popularized use of the term Byzantine motivated by Westerners' not only wanting to claim the ancient Roman heritage but also wanting to claim ancient Greek heritage and so invented a naming convention to promote their viewpoint. The Eastern Romans themselves did not really know the term "Byzantine" (although, of course, they knew the historical name of the capital's predecesor).
 * Anyway, as I say I am not a historian so I certainly could not get into a battle of documentation with you. I base my comments on what I've found on the web and in discussions with folks who actually are experts on history and have said clearly that there has been a recent shift in thinking among historians away from the "traditional" Western viewpoint toward a more objective stance. I realize a lot of what I have said essentially amounts to a TOMAYTO/TOMAHTO debate but it is often the case that the terminology employed to describe something significantly affects people's understanding of it.
 * In any event, the article does cite cell and seems well researched. I am only trying to suggest improvements (somebody who is more of a history buff would be better suited to supply authoritative references than myself).
 * --Mcorazao 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.S. Regarding the Church, it is common for Roman Catholic sources to be cited in arguing that "Greek" or "Byzantine" was the proper name for the Eastern Romans so I wasn't sure if that played a factor here. Wasn't trying to jump to conclusions. --Mcorazao 22:58, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * P.P.S. Just curious but, regarding your comment on the Heraclius quote, are you contending that the Byzantine Empire article should explicitly 629 (I think that was the date) as the start of the Byzantine Empire (which is not what it says now)? Just wondering ... —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Mcorazao (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 January 2007 (UTC).
 * Hi Mcorazao, I think you make many valid points, and your introduction sounds acceptable to a point, however, the debate in itself is not pointless, nor have I ever heard any historian (as you claim) claim it to be pointless. The conventional date is Constantine's changing of the capital, I think Norwich makes a very good point in regards to this when he states in his 3 volume history of byzantium that the shift it represented was that the Greeks (despite long being Romanized and Christianitized) could no longer view the Empire of Rome as one being ruled by foreign latin speakers in Rome itself. You are quite right about a Western effort to appropriate Roman and Greek History, particularly in Britain (Gibbon constantly refers to the Roman Legions stationed in Britain in the early Imperial period as the 'British Army' as though to believe they were some kind of naturalized Roman citizens with a British ethnic identity - absurd obviously, but the effort has been quite successful), this is not to doubt Rome's universality, but for the vast majority of the Empire's existence, it's 'natural' borders were considered to be the balkans as far north as the Danube and Asia Minor (as well as some parts of Southern Italy), areas which when combined undoubtedly constituted a native-Greek speaking majority.


 * There is also a tendency to confuse geographical identity (as mentioned in this article I believe) with ethnic identity, to be a Byzantine (Roman) one effectively had to be culturally, linguistically and religiously what we would today consider to be a 'Greek' (though we Greeks do not call themselves by the name 'Greek' and never have, which casts a certain irony on this whole discussion :) ). I think we also have to go into more detail about what it meant to be a 'Roman' in Byzantine times, and what it meant to be a 'Hellene' in early Byzantine times (i.e. an identification with Greek as a pagan, for example Marcellinus). For example, many point out 'how could Byzantium be what we would today consider to be a Greek Empire when quite a few of its Emperors were Armenian'? The fact is Armenian in middle and later Byzantine times simply referred to a native Greek speaker (most of the Armenian emperors couldnt even speak Armenian), from the province of Armenia.


 * Heraclius is the conventionally accepted date for when the last vestiges of Latin were removed from the Empire, and as such, ending Latin dominance in it's final field of existence in the East - that of jurisprudence. From that point on all Governmental decrees, official letters, Handbooks on Law (for example the Macedonian Code) were written in Greek, it became the predominant language long before this, in fact it had always been the predominant language in the East, but as far as latin as an 'official' langauge in the East goes, Heraclius represents the removal of the the last Latin vestiges from Government. Basically, what it meant to be a 'Roman' had changed - and changed quite a lot, it is simple as that, and that is why we distinguish between 'Byzantine' and 'Roman'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.158.204.19 (talk • contribs)


 * If you would like to be taken seriously User:GreekWarrior, you should stop leaving comments like this on the talk pages of other pages . Be glad that your comment above wasn't removed per WP:BAN - but refrain from posting messages to the talk pages of any Wikipedia article. Good bye. Baristarim 22:03, 29 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Baris you are really too serious, you have to learn to take jokes. Anyway, I will not edit pages but Iwill provide Miskin and others with sources, such as this one, feel free to use it how you will.


 * None the less, we have to face the facts both that the Byzantine world survived against a repeated attack in a way that the Latin world did not; and that a profound attachment to the classical Greek past remained fundamental to Byzantine culture. So with these perspectives in mind, one may venture to suggest that what we find in the third century is not merely that fuller literary evidence happens to reveal more about popular resistance in the Greek East; but rather that the Greek society of the Empire, gained self confidence and coherence precisely from it's vigorous literary and intellectual tradition, and it's intimate connection with it's heroic past.


 * Fergus Miller: Rome, The Greek World and the East, Volume 2: Government, Society and Culture in the Roman Empire (Page 297)


 * Miller's 3 volume set is brilliant for a topic such as this so if you need any more sources ask me.


 * Arbitrarily drawn distinctions between the Eastern Roman Empire (A state which was in existence prior to the fall of the Western Empire, and thus a full 'part' of the Roman Empire) and the 'Byzantine Empire' (A term that didn't come into existence until a century AFTER the fall of Constantinople to the Turks) have always been false. However, you can make some important cultural distinctions between the Empire of Augustus, Trajan, and even Constantine, and the Empire of Mikael Dukas and Basil II. Since it's so hard to define historical states (with the true concept of the nation state not really even emerging until well into the Renaissance), I think it's still important to change some phrasing in this article. Bringing up a previously contested line: "Like many other Imperial rulers of the time, Byzantines claimed the continuation of the mighty Roman Empire and indirectly laid claim to all Christian lands". This statement is almost insulting in that, well into the 'Middle Ages' the Eastern Empire was almost completely inseparable politically from the extinct Western Empire, in the sense that it maintained many of the same institutions of the pre-ceding united Empire. Even after the 'Hellenizing' of the 7th century, the Greeks had a much greater claim to Roman heritage than any other extant nation of the time. This line, neutral on the surface, should not put the Eastern Empire on the same level, seemingly, as other claimants to Rome simply because no other state at the time had a politically legitimate claim (except the HRE, but only contemporaneously, as we know today that the Pope had no actual legal ability to crown an Emperor).


 * Several other lines stand out as almost insultingly vague, such as, "Yet most Byzantine Emperors would list neither Augustus nor Pericles among their ancestors, but Constantine the Great and Justinian, and the Christian emperors of Constantinople.[9]". If this is supposed to be some sort of proof for a delineation between the Eastern Empire and the later medieval Greek one, it bears mentioning that very few Latin Roman Emperors traced lineage from Augustus, either. I'm not sure why Pericles is mentioned. Likewise, Constantine WAS a Roman Emperor, so it's almost a moot point.


 * Ultimately, the question is somewhat unsolvable because it's inherently vague in nature, but it seems it's always just vague enough to make the proponent of whatever argument 'right'. When one speaks of the ethnicity of the later Empire, it was certainly Greek, but when speaks of the political continuity, it was very much Roman (at least up until the fall of Constantinople to the crusaders and the first break-up of the Empire). If, by some trick of fate, the 'Byzantine' Empire existed today, we'd almost certainly be calling them Romans. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)


 * I agree with your points mostly, except the one mentioning 'If, by some trick of fate, the 'Byzantine' Empire existed today, we'd almost certainly be calling them Romans.' That's absurd, the emergence of the word 'Hellene' in the later empire (Constantine XI used the term repeatedly in his speech to his troops when the Turks attacked, proves anything (along with the emergence of a more distinct 'national' consciousness among peoples in the Renaissance and beyond, it proves that the Byzantines certainly would not have been calling themselves Roman. —Preceding unsigned comment added by User: (talk • contribs)

Actually Greek-speakers did call themselves Rhomaioi until well into the 20th century. The reason that this ethnonym was given up for 'Hellenes' was due to Western pressure. So there's no need to ask for a trick of fate, this has actually happened already, and it was the West that changed the native name of the Byzantines from Romans to Hellenes in the "Romaic language". Actually the West had never called Byzantium or any Greek-speakers 'romans' in the first place, precisely because the ancient Roman heritage was very much alive in Western Europe and the Latin world. This was acknowledge in Byzantium only after 1204. This is why Hellenic identity became a very important factor in the late centuries of the Empire. Miskin 08:08, 7 June 2007 (UTC)

Miskin, you mentioned and i quote: "...Greek-speakers did call themselves Rhomaioi until well into the 20th century..". No. The name still used until today actually is not "Rhomaioi" as you say, but "Rhomioi" (I am a descendant of a Constantinople family) to differentiate themselves from the Romans i.e. Greek citizens of the Roman empire. Another comment that i would like to make (and a question to who ever has information on this) is that the people coming from the east of the Mediterranean basin call the Greeks with the name Unan which from what i know comes from Ionian. How come after the Byzantine empire this name (more appropriate than Greek) prevailed? [user: Nefeligeretis] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nefeligeretis (talk • contribs) 04:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)


 * The problem with this article is that it is controlled by extreme Greek nationalists and they want to have the adjective « Greek » everywhere. This makes all such articles slightly misleading and, taken together, they make great damage. They even take advantage to invent or reinterpret historians (Ostrogorsky for example – Miskin even cannot spell his name!). Indeed, Byzantium before 12-13 century did not have any Greek connotation. Thanks. (Athens-borne)


 * Nefeligeretis wrote: The name still used until today actually is not "Rhomaioi" as you say, but "Rhomioi" (I am a descendant of a Constantinople family). Sorry! Not true. “Romioi” is 19th century sleng. (Athens-borne) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.83.146.237 (talk) 09:37, 25 September 2014 (UTC)


 * You are right. They made the pages on ancient history completelly usless. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.234.43.180 (talk) 10:05, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 10:36, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

sources distorted
I examined the sources contained in footnotes 4 and 5 of the article's current version and found out that (after an arbitrary edit by an anonymous contributor) the content of the sentence is not actually supported by the references.

Fn. 4 only includes primary sources.

Re fn. 5:

Angelov 2007, p. 96 writes that Graikoi "was acceptable in Byzantium, even though it was rarely used etc" and acquired "far greater extent of usage" after 1204. His footnote 67 states that "the usage of the word Graikoi self-referentially to designate orthodox Greek-speakers is attested in earlier times in Byzantium, although never in official correspondence".


 * Angelov states that Γραικοί was acceptable especially in non-political contexts implying standard/significant term usage by the Byzantine Greeks; only in pre-1204 political contexts would Γραικοί be seldom used. Theban Halberd (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Makrides 2009, p. 74, after noting the usage of "Graeci" from Westerners from the 9th c. onwards states that "Byzantines have also used the term Γραικοί (Greeks) for themselves for cultural reasons, in order to avoid confusion with the term "Hellenes" (pagans), but they never rejected Roman identification in terms of the imperial Roman tradition".


 * Makrides says that Γραικοί was a standard term for cultural and religious purposes implying an important level of usage by the Byzantines. Theban Halberd (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Magdalino's reference (from which the sentence's wording is obviously copied) is p. 420 of the book, where he notes that "in all their writings concerning the Roman church, the Byzantines habitually described themselves as Graikoi in order to avoid confusion".


 * Magdalino states that Γραικοί was consistently used by the Byzantines even if the term was employed as a clarifier in religious contexts. Theban Halberd (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

None of the three sources describes a "habitual" and general usage of the term, but they all speak of a limited, context-specific usage of the term in certain occasions. The sentence should be rewritten to reflect this.


 * Incorrect; Γραικοί seldom appeared in pre-1204 Byzantine political contexts but was used widely in other broad contexts involving Byzantine Greek culture and religion. Theban Halberd (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

Moreover, relevant passages with scholars' estimations should be updated and enriched with recent scholarship employing quantitative research methods regarding the frequency of the appearance of ethnonyms, such as, whose reseach concludes that "up until the early nineteenth century, Graikoi was used by a limited number of intellectuals and in very specific contexts which relate it in one way or another to the West". Ashmedai 119 (talk) 11:13, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Unnecessary as Kaplanis's strict adherence to quantitative methods is flawed: 1) author doesn't appear to have searched the TLG for Greek ethnonyms in other forms (i.e. γραικόω, Γραικοῖσι, Ῥαικός, Γραικοῖς, γραικώσας, τῶν Γραικῶν, Γραικὸς), 2) author doesn't seem to have checked the TLG for terms denoting a homeland of the Γραικοί (i.e. Γραικία), 3) Kaplanis's claim that only a handful of Greek intellectuals used Γραικοί is directly falsified by Byzantine and post-Byzantine primary accounts of Greeks from distinct socio-economic classes using the term for self-identification purposes (i.e. merchants, priests, poets, lexicographers, etc.). Theban Halberd (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)

infobox

 * P.S. Agree with Athenean on infobox; it really has no utility. Theban Halberd (talk) 22:34, 17 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I do not have the time to respond re the use of Graikos at the moment, but I am truly puzzled by you saying that the infobox has "no utility". THe infobox summarizes key information on the article's population for the benefit of the reader: where its members resided, what language they spoke, their religion, and what ethnic groups are related to it. This is useful information and follows the standard use of infoboxes in WP, as far as I can see, in all articles presenting population groups. As I noted in my edit summary in reply to Athenean, there are infoboxes with even less information than the one you removed. If you think infoboxes are generally of no utility, you should not remove one infobox from one article, but raise your objections to a different forum so that a WP policy is issued against their use. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 14:14, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Incorrect as your infobox provides no distinct supplementary facts designed to complement a reader's subject knowledge; it's a needless distraction with information already present in the lead paragraphs (redundancy = disutility). Theban Halberd (talk) 16:55, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * I am afraid you have completely misunderstood the purpose of infoboxes in Wikipedia. They are not used to provide "distinct supplementary facts designed to complement a reader's subject knowledge", but, per MOS:INFOBOX, they serve "to summarize (and not supplant) key facts that appear in the article (an article should remain complete with its summary infobox ignored)" in order to allow "readers to identify key facts at a glance". What you cite as reasons for removing the infobox, are the very reason the infobox has a place in the article, as happens in most if not all articles on population groups. If you disagree with this guideline concerning the use of infoboxes, please go and discuss it in its talk page. Ashmedai 119 (talk) 19:30, 18 May 2016 (UTC)


 * Incorrect as infobox reinsertion violates infobox policy where it explicitly states that the "...use of infoboxes is neither required nor prohibited for any article. Whether to include an infobox, which infobox to include, and which parts of the infobox to use, is determined through discussion and consensus among the editors at each individual article"; there's consensus against having an infobox here, because not every entry needs a (dis)infobox. Theban Halberd (talk) 19:25, 21 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Byzantine Greeks. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070929044335/http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html to http://www.crusades-encyclopedia.com/1182.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 11:57, 17 January 2018 (UTC)

Complaints
There's a duopoly conducting editor suppression against anyone who's knowledgeable about Hellenistic and Byzantine studies. A simple paragraph transfer was reverted twice (once by Jingiby and again by Ashmedai 119) even though it's a "fish" belonging in the "waters" of the Byzantine studies page (first sentence is a dead giveaway: "In modern Byzantine scholarship..."). Also, the claim made by Ashmedai 119 about the (absolute) preponderance of one view of "Roman" identity in Byzantine studies is not a solid consensus view shared by any segment of Byzantinologists (Stouraitis, on page 176, uses ambiguous language, i.e., "could be regarded as preponderant", to describe a potential school of thought). In closing, I suspect this page suffers from two systemic problems: 1. a failure to discern facts from opinions that makes otherwise straightforward information obscure to visitors (example), 2. the misuse of impartiality to promote overlapping dogmas in Byzantine studies rejected by Byzantinists such as the English School (rejected for its racially-charged "thinking" among other problems) and the School of Names (rejected for its intellectual superficiality). Neo-Brasidas (talk) 00:11, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Please, stop controversial editing. The stable version of the lede is balanced and there is no nead of significant changes there. Thanks. Jingiby (talk) 04:43, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Telling me to "stop controversial editing" when the only editors making things controversial are you and Ashmedai 119 is not a valid response that addresses my complaints. By continuing to operate as part of an editor suppression unit, you're validating my suspicions about this page. Lastly, the lede is unbalanced since a singular view in Byzantine studies that "could be regarded as preponderant" is insufficient to justify obscuring the straightforward information about the Byzantines already agreed upon in Byzantine studies. Neo-Brasidas (talk) 05:09, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * If I see the last version of the intro of this article, before your involvement, as well that of and me, was of . The first sentence was the same as at the moment. You insist to change it, but I do not understand why? Also why you try to remove NPOV-part of the Self-perception section? Jingiby (talk) 08:42, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * To answer your first question Jingiby, the topic sentence correctives were meant to meliorate the conveyance of basic information to visitors (plus the direct language in my correctives is closer to the historically accurate language already used in the Byzantine studies discipline: Norman H. Baynes and Henry Moss, for instance, call the Byzantines "Christian Alexandrians"). So to base a topic sentence (or a whole page) on a singular view that "could be regarded as preponderant" in Byzantine studies just doesn't make the cut as far as the agreed upon facts about the Byzantines are concerned in the discipline. As for your second question, the paragraph that you and Ashmedai 119 are so protective of was only transferred to the "Byzantine studies" page since it explicitly and strictly discusses a subfield of the humanities. Seriously, it's odd how you and Ashmedai 119 portray yourselves as "historians" but neither of you knows the fundamental difference between an objective historical fact and a subjective evaluation about a subdiscipline (just put back my edits and stop suppressing me from here on in). Neo-Brasidas (talk) 10:55, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * It is interesting to understand the opinion of the "alleged" historian @Ashmedai 119 about the fundamental difference between an objective historical fact and a subjective evaluation about a subdiscipline. Jingiby (talk) 11:25, 13 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Interesting in what way? Interesting in that you're stalling for time until Ashmedai 119 shows up to support you? Now I'm even more suspicious about this page (don't think that the systemic problems mentioned before won't be investigated even if you and Ashmedai 119 continue suppressing me). Neo-Brasidas (talk) 11:46, 13 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Not only, I am interested in the opinion of @Dr.K. too. Jingiby (talk) 12:49, 13 March 2018 (UTC)

Question on Self-Perception
Hi, I have seen that there was a lot of debate going on about this specific topic and I wouldnt like to take part however I have a doubt. We have the below section:


 * ''First, the preponderant view considers "Romanity" the mode of self-identification of the subjects of a multi-ethnic empire, in which the elite did not self-identify as Greek and the average subject considered him/herself as Roman.
 * Second, a school of thought that developed largely under the influence of modern Greek nationalism, treats Romanness as the medieval manifestation of a perennial Greek national identity.
 * Third, a line of thought argues that the eastern Roman identity was a separate pre-modern national identity.''

What is referenced among others is this: Pontificium Institutum Orientalium Studiorum 2003, p. 482: "As heirs to the Greeks and Romans of old, the Byzantines thought of themselves as Rhomaioi, or Romans, though they knew full well that they were ethnically Greeks."

I have a feeling that this is not reflected above and it is neglected, hopefully not intentionally. Of course we know that the Empire was a multinational and the citizens were calling themselves Rhomaioi, a self appellation used to this day in Modern Greece, however, we need to understand that Greeks were called from the Latins especially after the coronation of Charlemagne. The self appellation Greek didn't not exist at that time equally as many other self appellations of peoples of modern nation states. That does not change the fact that ethnically many of the Eastern Romans were of Hellenic stock as it is stated in the source and this must be reflected.

I would suggest to change the wording of the first "school" and reword it as below:

''First, the preponderant view considers "Romanity" the mode of self-identification of the subjects of a multi-ethnic empire, in which the elite did not self-identify as Greek and the average subject considered him/herself as Roman. However they knew that ethnically were Greeks.'' Othon I (talk) 14:37, 16 March 2018 (UTC)


 * I would assume that none has any objection of this? Also it seems that there is a source falsification regarding the schools. Stouraitis is has stated the following:
 * The main lines of thinking in the research on medieval Eastern Roman iden-tity could be roughly summarized as follows: The first, extensively influenced by the retrospective Modern Greek national discourse, approaches this identity as the medieval form of the perennial Greek national identity. The second, which could be regarded as preponderant within the field, albeit by no means monolithically concordant in its various utterances, speaks of a multi-ethnic im-perial state at least up to the twelfth century, the average subject of which identified as Roman. The third, and more recent, approach dismissed the supposition of a multi-ethnic empire and suggested that Byzantium should be regarded as a pre-modern Nation-State in which Romanness had the traits of national identity.
 * This is not what is reflected in the text, I will workout something on a neutral point of view. Othon I (talk) 17:42, 17 March 2018 (UTC)
 * It seems that none has any argument according to this edit. I have waited enough and based on WP BOLD, Revert, Discuss cycle, I am proceeding to edit the article. Thanks.Othon I (talk) 22:14, 29 May 2018 (UTC)