Talk:Byzantinism

Byzantine Empire
Ghirlandajo: I still don't understand why you insist on removing the Byzantine Empire link, directly related to the name of the article. Care to explain? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Trapolator (talk • contribs) 01:01, November 8, 2005

Derogatory use of "Byzantine"
Some salvagable content of Derogatory use of "Byzantine" has been merged here; there have been no objections on talk of that article. --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Third Rome: A book
There's a book titled The Third Rome: Holy Russia, Tsarism and Orthodoxy. Available from Amazon.

It is not just medieval, either. Check out Evgeny Pavlov's writing titled ''[http://www.eusanz.org/pdf/conf02/pavlov_eusanz_2002.pdf The new Third Rome? Moscow in the Russian culture of the 1990s]''. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:28, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Quote: The grandiose programme of Moscow’s reconstruction in the 90s bankrolled by the New Russians was unambiguously ideological in its determination to re- establish the historical role of Russia’s capital, the role obliterated by the 70-odd years of Communist rule: Moscow the heart of Orthodox Russia, the glorious Third Rome of the famous 16th century monastic doctrine, Moscow the bustling hub of merchants and traders—the Moscow that we lost and now have again recovered. Moscow city planners under the omnipotent long- term Mayor Yury Luzhkov attempted to revive foundational myths as they shaped the re- invented image of the city and transfigured its physical and symbolic landscape, setting up new urban icons next to ancient churches and architectural landmarks of the Soviet era. Alongside faceless corporate glass boxes and international-style supermarkets that bear witness only to Russia’s entry into the global economy but not to Moscow’s special place, there emerged monumental public projects designed to celebrate Moscow’s glorious pre-Revolutionary history (still alive in vernacular dreams), and moreover, to recreate it. It certainly does not take a Jameson to recognize in these efforts of negating the Soviet legacy the latter’s stubborn survival and triumph. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 18:30, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Thanks. I do wonder how relevant is this to Byzantinism, though? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Separation of criticism of the term from criticism of the concept
I think that criticism of Byzantine politics and criticism of the concept of Byzantinism as a poor generalisation of Byzantine Empire should be discussed separately. ΔιγουρενΕμπρος! 19:29, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Be bold? --Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus 13:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Byzantinism. 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/20090106162141/http://www.eusanz.org/pdf/conf02/pavlov_eusanz_2002.pdf to http://www.eusanz.org/pdf/conf02/pavlov_eusanz_2002.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20052722103000/http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/goudenhoorn/82alexander.html to http://www.isidore-of-seville.com/goudenhoorn/82alexander.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) 11:37, 8 January 2018 (UTC)

Separating the term Byzantine from the concept Byzantinism
Byzantinism and the term Byzantine really aren't related intellectually. For example I came across the page from a Eurasian page and was confused as to why the majority of the page dealt not in political philosophy but a discussion of a dictionary definition of a word.

I think the pages should be split since they seem entirely unrelated. If there is a relation in the concepts, it should be made more explicit. TheDangerRanger (talk) 11:53, 4 October 2020 (UTC)