Talk:Empire of Nicaea

Lascaris or Laskaris?
Dear God ... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.21.159.28 (talk) 21:38, 23 February 2018 (UTC)

Native name in the infobox
Is the current "Basileía tēs Níkaias" ("Empire of Nicaea") really correct as a native official name? Wouldn't "Basileía tôn Rhōmaíōn" ("Empire of the Romans") be more accurate? Cody7777777 (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, the Nicaeans, just like Trebizond or Epirus certainly claimed the title "Roman Empire" in its entirety, but contemporary historians, just like modern ones, often used the forms "basileus of Nikaia" or "basileus of Trapezous" to distinguish between the various claimants. By "official" standards we then ought to change the Empire of Trebizond (or Epirus, in the late 1220s) to "Basileia Rhomaion" as well... Perhaps it would be best to just leave the Greek title away from the infobox, as it implies (as you correctly point out) "officialness", while being a title born out of disambiguation purposes. Constantine  ✍  20:43, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Well, regarding Trebizond at least in their case the official title after 1261 seems to have been "the faithful Basileus and Autokrator of All the East, the Iberians and Perateia", although the empire was probably still considered as Roman. But at least in the case of Nicaea (which also became the new residence of the ecumenical patriarchate) I think the infobox should mention the correct name. Cody7777777 (talk) 22:57, 7 May 2009 (UTC)


 * Wait, wait... The problem is that it is not generally recognized as the Byzantine (or Roman) Empire. Nicaea was a state in exile, and restored the Empire, yes, but most historians (and contemporaries) do add qualifiers when referring to it. Nicaea only became again the Empire after 1261. I am not sure whether putting up blazing titles such as "Roman Empire" is helpful at all in this case. I am going to revert, until I have done some source-checking. Constantine  ✍  00:13, 8 May 2009 (UTC)


 * As far as I understand, that infobox needs to show the state's native name, I think the current "Basileía tēs Níkaias" is anachronic, I don't know for sure what name they used, but I think they probably used the same "Basileia Rhomaion" (you said the same). There is also a source here supporting "Roman Empire" (I realize however it doesn't describe the official name), is there a source describing the current "Basileía tēs Níkaias" as an official native name? Cody7777777 (talk) 15:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Why so little states as Nicaea and Trebizond are called "Empire"? Must be called state of Nicaea and/or mini-state of Trebizond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.174.226.86 (talk) 13:08, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Capital
According the John Julius Norwich (in his Byzantium trilogy) the actual seat of Government was Nymphaeum.--English Bobby (talk) 14:42, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
 * On the one hand, Norwich is more of a popular writer of history than an expert in the subject, so I wouldn't base any argument solely on what he wrote. On the other hand, while the original capital (i.e, where Theodore Laskaris held his court) of this successor state was at Nicaea, under John Vatazes the imperial court was, indeed, moved to Nymphaeum. (Angold, A Byzantine government in exile, p. 63; ISTR Alice Gardner in her The Lascarids of Nicaea: the Story of an Empire in Exile also alludes to this move, stating Laskaris found Nymphaeum a batter location) In any case, the emperors were frequently in the field, which meant the de facto "seat of government" was where ever the emperor happened to be; Nicaea & Nymphaeum were simply where the archives were kept & what bureaucracy that had been salvaged or reconstituted from Constantinople & could not travel with the emperor was located. -- llywrch (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2015 (UTC)

Self identification
I feel that the official name wasn't a single one. Taken into account that official correspondence by state authorities widely used Hellene/Graiki etc. this should be reflected in infobox.Alexikoua (talk) 21:42, 11 September 2018 (UTC)