Talk:Empire of Trebizond

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 21 January 2020 and 8 May 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Devin Snedden.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 20:33, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Comments
The comment regarding the population exchange makes no reference to the preceding Turkish massacre of allegedly hundreds of thousands of Pontians. This is not a minor oversight. While the official Turkish position remains one of firm denial of genocide, the International Association of Genocide Scholars affirms it as genocide. Few can deny that the atrocities occured. I understand that the wiki article is of the Empire of Trebizond but to imply a clean population exchange is a false one. 203.221.156.52 (talk) 09:30, 20 June 2010 (UTC)

Trebizond
The statement that Trebizond only had "4,000" inhabitants should be corrected. Also the statement that it was an empire in name only(actually a fairly small principality, to use a West European term) should be moved to the beginning of the article.


 * Well you are welcome to edit the article yourself. What would you change the number to? Adam Bishop 06:34, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)

Could whoever authored this entry append a biliography?

Levzur
why do you keep saying Tamar was one of the "main founders" of this state? It's a state founded by the Comnenus family, fleeing the capture of Constantinople...Georgia is involved in founding it as much as the Bulgarians or the Seljuks are in founding the other exile states, wouldn't you say? Perhaps, as the anonymous poster above has asked, we should compile a bibliography for this article. Adam Bishop 23:47, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear Adam Bishop - 1. Alexius I and his brother David were grandsons of David the Builder and before the 1204 they lived in Georgia. Queen Tamar was a main initiator of founding of the Empire of Trebizond under the patronage of the United Georgian Kingdom; 2. About 90 % of the population of the Empire of Trebizond were Georgians (Lazs and Meskhetians). Levzur 13 Apr 2005


 * Ok, thanks. Adam Bishop 04:36, 14 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Caesar Alexius
Levzur, | Gibbon says:

'The wife of Manuel fled with her infant sons and her treasure from the relentless enmity of Isaac Angelus. Fallmerayer conjectures that her arrival enabled the Greeks of that region to make head against the formidable Thamar, the Georgian queen of Teflis, p. 42. They gradually formed a dominion on the banks of the Phasis, which the distracted government of the Angeli neglected or were unable to suppress. On the capture of Constantinople by the Latins, Alexius was joined by many noble fugitives from Constantinople. He had always retained the name of Caesar. He now fixed the seat of his empire at Trebizond; but he had never abandoned his pretensions to the Byzantine throne, ch. iii. Fallmerayer appears to make out a triumphant case as to the assumption of the royal title by Alexius the First. Since the publication of M. Fallmerayer’s work, (Munchen, 1827,) M. Tafel has published, at the end of the opuscula of Eustathius, a curious chronicle of Trebizond by Michael Panaretas, (Frankfort, 1832.) It gives the succession of the emperors, and some other curious circumstances of their wars with the several Mahometan powers. - M. '

| Miller says:

'Alexios Comnenos, the founder of the strange and romantic Empire of Trebizond, was a son of Manuel and grandson of that resourceful adventurer, Andro?nikos I., who, after a series of hairbreadth escapes only possible in South-Eastern Europe, had occupied the Imperial throne, only to be murdered with the utmost savagery by the mob of Constantinople in 1185. His eldest son Manuel was blinded so brutally that he died, leaving two children, Alexios and David. Of their history between that time and the Latin conquest we know nothing. But in the same month of April in which Constantinople fell, Alexios, who had left the Imperial city for Georgia, set out thence at the head of a Georgian contingent provided by the active labour of his paternal aunt Thamar, and occupied Trebizond. The new ruler of that already famous city had much in his favour. He was only twenty-two, he was shrewd, his family was popular on the Black Sea coast, whence it had originally come, and where it had left comparatively recent memories, for in 1182 his grandfather had resided at Oinaion, the modern ?ni?, between Trebizond and Sinope. Those three places all declared for him, and while he remained cautiously in the neighbourhood of Trebizond, his dashing brother David, aided by a body of Georgians and native mercenaries, made himself master of all Paphlagonia, where was situated the ancestral castle of the Comneni at Kastamuni, and extended his power as far westward as Pontic Herakleia, the modern Erekli, well on the way to Constantinople, as ?the herald and forerunner? of Alexios.[1] The latter, in the bombastic style of Oriental majesty, styled himself Grand-Comnenos (with which we may compare the ?Great Lord? of Frankish Athens) and Emperor, and both the grandiloquent adjective and the Imperial title survived for 257 years in his dynasty?the longest, as Bessarion said, in Greek history.'


 * I have not been able to find any primary or secpondary source that classifies Trebizond as subject to Georgia, although several say Tamar assisted Alexios I to secure a buffer state. Can you point me to your sources. I am almost finished the Alexios biography and I need to resolve this issue first. Certainly Alexios was declared Caesar (Kaisar) by Andronicus I before his deposition in 1185 and would have retained the title.I think this page should be reverted to my last version. What is the evidence for the demography of Trebizond? Where is the non-Georgian primary source that lists Tamar as the main founder of the state? I did not not exclude that theory in my edit. The current edit, however, presents one theory as bald fact and that is grossly inaccurate. Moreover the current edit excludes much other information in a desperate attempt to present a non-POV view. Alan 00:40, 11 May 2005 (UTC)

Rusudan
(1) 'Rusudan' is an extremely common name among Georgian royal women. David the Builder, Giorgi III, Demetre I and Tamar all had daughters named Rusudan. The existence of a daughter of Tamar by that name does not preclude the existence of a sister. Tamar is commonly described as Alexius' aunt. A Georgian princess married to Alexius great grandfather would not make Tamar an aunt.

(2) I'd need a source to say that Katay was the sole link to Georgia. 'Katay' is also an extremely common royal name in Georgia. It was also the name of Alexios I Comneus of Byzantium's second wife (although the Byzantines call her 'Irene of Alania'.

(3) The Sebastocrator Isaac Comnenus, Andronicus' father, was married to a Katay of Georgia, but that makes her Alexius' great grandmother, not grandmother.

(4) Levzur, who do you say Manuel son of Andronicus of Constantinople married?

I plan on editing the article in a day or so to show both Katay and Rusudan as links to Tamar if there's no answer. Alan 23:22, 30 May 2005 (UTC)


 * Dear friend, I'm Georgian historian. Field of my scientific activity is source studies of the history of Georgia. Tamar of Georgia was the only daughter of Giorgi III! Yes, Katay was mother of Andronicus and great grandmother of Alexius I. Rusudan, wife of Manuel Comnenus was not representative of Bagrationi family. Levzur 31 May 2005


 * I asked for a source. An avowal does not count, especially after some little time insisting Katay was ALexius' grandmother, not great grandmother. Moreover the Wikipedia entry for Giorgi III lists his children as Tamar and Rusudan. I seriously doubt a Comnenus would have married anyone less than a Bagration and I cannot see how Tamar can be described as Alexius' aunt if she was actually a distant cousin. Alan 02:52, 31 May 2005 (UTC)


 * 1. In the article about Giorgi III was a misinformation. Rusudan was Giorgi's sister. In the history of Bagrationi royal dynasty of the 12th-13th centuries we know 2 Rusudan's: sister of Giorgi III and daughter of Tamar; 2. Katay was Alexius's great grandmother; 3. Main sources are following chronicles of the collection of old Georgian chronicles "Kartlis Tskhovreba": "Life of the KIng of Kings David" (David the Builder), "Life of King Giorgi" (Giorgi III), "Life of the Queen of Queens Tamar" (See: "Kartlis Tskhovreba" (vault of the Queen Anna), Edited by professor Simon Kaukhchishvili, Tbilisi, 1942, pp. 200-249). Levzur 06:20, 1 June 2005


 * Thanks. I'll go through them. A number of genealogical sites also report a Rusudan, daughter of Giorgi III (although one describes her as unmarried}. I'll see if we can resolve this one way or the other. Assuming Rusudan, wife of Manuel was not a Bagration, who do you say she was? Do we have any idea why Tamar is so ofen described as Alexius' aunt? We know she was not Manuel's sister. Alan 07:08, 1 Jun 2005 (UTC)


 * All the old Georgian sources (among them the Chronicle of the 2nd historian (biographer) of the Queen Tamar) confirms, that Tamar was the only daughter of Giorgi III. Some Georgian historians (as well as me) consider, that Rusudan was a representative of the Georgian noble family of Jakeli-Tsikhisjvareli (Dukes of Samtskhe-Javakheti). Tamar is described by Michael Panaretos as Alexius's aunt because she was great granddaughter of David the Builder (David's daughter Katay was great grandmother of Alexius). Levzur 02:06, 2 June 2005

Name in infobox
Is the Greek name "Βασιλεία Τραπεζοῦντος" (currently in the infobox) historically authentic? It seems implausible as a self-appellation, given the fact that they pretended they were the Byzantine Empire itself (presumably "Βασιλεία Ρωμαίων"). The article doesn't say anything about any self-appellation. If this can't be sourced, I suggest complete removal from the infobox. Boxes don't need non-English translations at all, unless they are quite notable and well-established. Fut.Perf. ☼ 08:01, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * I put this name as an intermediate between "Αυτοκρατορία της Τραπεζούντας" that a user used to replace "Βασίλειον της Τραπεζούντας", both of which are modern Greek names (the latter one not even one used in historiography). Now, I have not seen an explicit reference of the "Βασιλεία Τραπεζοῦντος" in contemporary historians, but they, being mostly Constantinopolitan, usually use the term "Βασιλεῦς Τραπεζοῦντος" to refer to the Komnenian rulers (but it can also be found in a few Trebizondian chroniclers as well, e.g [Michael Panaretos: Περί των της Τραπεζούντος βασιλέων). However, since the name is not sourced, we can comment it out, until a concrete source is found for the name they used (because if we leave it just blank, someone will fill it in again with something else). Cheers, Constantine  ✍  08:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Thanks for finding this info. I was also just looking at the Panaretos text (but in an English translation). I guess if "Βασιλεῦς Τραπεζοῦντος" is so well attested, "Βασιλεία Τραπεζοῦντος" should actually be good enough. Good job, no further objections from me. Fut.Perf. ☼ 09:18, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Empire of Trebizond translates as Αuτοκρατορια and not Βασίλειον.This term is used by the 101% of the historians.I really can't understand the objection.It's anachronistic.After the fall of Constantinople in 1204 the empire fragmented into various states which have been preserved throughout history with their own distinct names like Δεσποτάτο της Ηπείρου, Δεσποτάτο του Μιστρά.This was specifically called Αυτοκρατορία της Τραπεζούντος! If it was called Βασίλειον then it would have survived in historical sources as that.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 18:34, 6 June 2008 (UTC)


 * The point is that the native name, as used then, was not "Αuτοκρατορία". The Byzantines did not use this term to denote their state, contrary to modern practice, which derives from the foreign historiographical conventions (just as we use the term "Byzantine", although it the "Byzantines" didn't). "Αυτοκρατορία" has been used to refer to the reign of some of the emperors by chroniclers (names escape me at the moment), but, AFAIK, not for the state, which they called "Ρωμανία", "των Ρωμαίων αρχή/κράτος", etc. To the Byzantines, either way, the term Βασιλεύς meant specifically the Byzantine Emperor (or at least anyone who claimed to be the Emperor), and was not used for any other ruler. Therefore, "Βασιλεύς" and "Αυτοκράτωρ" were more or less coterminous, and no danger of confusion existed when one spoke of the "Βασιλεύς" or its derivatives. If you can provide any sources that actually use "Αυτοκρατορία" as a reference to the state, I'll be more than happy to replace the names both here and in the BE page. Cheers, Constantine  ✍  18:50, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

In that context you are right.Thanks for clarifying.--Ioannes Tzimiskes (talk) 16:02, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I made a couple of changes to the Greek appelation for the following reasons. In Modern Greek, the empire is referred to as η Αυτοκρατορία της Τραπεζούντος, but in the Greek of the age, it was referred to as the βασίλειον. See the historian Critoboulos who says quite clearly, "ἐν δὲ τοῖς ὑστέροις καὶ πρὸ ἡμῶν ὀλίγον καιροῖς καὶ βασίλειον κατέστη ἑνὸς τῶν ἐκ τοῦ βασιλείου γένους Ῥωμαίων τῶν Κομνηνῶν, ἐκ Βυζαντίου μεταπεσόντος αὐτοῦ καὶ ἔργα πλεῖστα καὶ κάλλιστα ἐν αὐτῇ ἐπιδειξαμένου καὶ πολλῶν τῶν πέριξ γενῶν καὶ πόλεων ἄρξαντος· 'In later times, a little before us, an empire was established by one of the descendants of the imperial line of the Komnenoi (Alexios I of Trebizond), who left Byzantium and did many fair works there and ruled over many of the surrounding races and cities."' Michael Panaretos, who has been mentioned above as a Trapezuntine chronicler, often uses the espression παραλαμβάνω το βασίλειον to describe just that. I am also the author of the only English translation online of this author that I know available at http://www.ancientworlds.net/aw/Post/972250&alert=0, which I have revised to make it slightly more clearer though I have not completed yet a revised, final translation of the work. Scott Kennedy--Dustiescott (talk) 17:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

Not an empire
The name of the article is misleading. Empire of Trebizond -even at its greatest extend - was only a minor state which can be called as principality rather than empire. I know some sources call it as empire. But it doesn't comply with the definition of empire in Wikipedia. Nedim Ardoğa (talk) 13:14, 2 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It is true that it was a minor state of the period but is is known and called as "empire of Trebizond" in numerous sources. Simply Google (in Google books) and you will see the term “empire of Trebizond) to appear in more than 130 thousands results.Seleukosa (talk) 11:01, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In historiography, it is always called "empire", because, just as the Empire of Nicaea, it claimed the Byzantine imperial heritage. Eually importantly, its rulers claimed the title of "emperor" (basileus) and were recognized as such. The Byzantine Empire post the 1340s was also a very minor state, and often not even fully independent, but we don't cease calling it an empire, either. History doesn't have to comply with modern Wikipedia definitions ;) Constantine  ✍  12:29, 13 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Claimed, yes. Recognized, barely. By that measure, the village of Yvetot in France was a kingdom. 216.252.75.210 (talk) 14:59, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

The name "empire" does not reflect its actual power. Almost its entire existence, it was a vassal and paid a yearly tribute, it was a vassal of Georgians, Seljuks, Mongols, Ilkhanids, Akkoyun, Ottomans. DragonTiger23 (talk) 14:39, 26 June 2013 (UTC)


 * The term "empire" does not simply mean "very powerful, extensive, all-conquering state"; it originally, and very specifically, denotes a state ruled by a monarch who claims, and is accorded by the world at large, the imperial title. This is the case with Trebizond, just as it was with e.g. the Empire of Ethiopia or the Latin Empire, or even with more recent nation-states like the German Empire. In the end, it is a matter of usage, and this is pretty clear. Constantine  ✍  16:13, 30 July 2013 (UTC)

Future ratings
Having done a fair bit of research on this subject, I'd want to offer this warning to all who want to rate the quality of this article. Most of the recent research ("recent" as in "post WW II", but especially in the last few decades) has been published in Modern Greek & Russian. William Miller's short book, published in 1926, still remains the standard reference in English simply because no one has since written on this topic. Which means, IMHO that this article can't reach FA status unless sources in those languages -- Karpov & Savvides are two researchers who have provided new, important material -- are used appropriately in this article. Since I don't read those languages (my use of French sources has been through machine translation, courtesy of Bing translator, which has given me the gist of the articles I used), someone else will need to take this article to that level. Although that doesn't mean I won't continue to work on improving this article. -- llywrch (talk) 19:48, 17 February 2014 (UTC)

Lead
Per WP:LEAD and MOS:INTRO, the lead section should summarize the body of the article, giving emphasis to material of most importance to the subject. The quotes in the lead regarding reputation and beauty of the women gives excess weight to material that is barely mentioned in the body. I am moving this material to a more appropriate place in the Overview section. Also, the statement about Sinope comes as a non sequitor, so I am removing it for a more general statement. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 01:37, 26 April 2015 (UTC)


 * The article is not finished. The paragraphs you moved out of the lead were to be discussed more fully in a section "Trebizond in popular culture", which I am still researching. (It is an important & detailed topic -- it's part of the mystique of Trebizond.) I'm moving it back. -- llywrch (talk) 23:41, 17 June 2015 (UTC)


 * The proper process would be to develop that section, then to put a summary of it in the lead. The article again violates the policies for the lead section in the ways stated above, and your reversion is improper. Laszlo Panaflex (talk)


 * My theory of article structure is that the lead should be a brief summary of the subject, providing the important points, & putting further information into the body of the article. This allows a user to find the important information quickly & easily, without having to plow thru the rest of the article. I'm unaware that there is a "proper process" for writing an article, & I've been contributing to Wikipedia for almost 14 years & this is the first time anyone has insisted there is one. If you want to get into a pissing match over this, WP:IAR. -- llywrch (talk) 16:53, 18 June 2015 (UTC)


 * WP:LEAD states, "Apart from trivial basic facts, significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." You are adding material in the lead that is barely mentioned in the article (in fact the discussion in the lead is now more extensive and detailed than in the body).  You basically say you are developing the new section you propose in the lead itself, when it should only be summarized in the lead.


 * WP:LEAD also states that "emphasis given to material should reflect its relative importance to the subject, according to published reliable sources." Under the current rendering, the beauty of the women is now presented among the most important aspects of Trebizond.  Do the sources support that view?  You offer two quotes, but the bulk of the article is overwhelmingly on other issues.  In addition, those specific quotations in this and the last paragraph should be moved into the body and summarized for the lead.  The current offering gives too much weight to a few commentators, emphasizing florid, WP:PEACOCK language. The commentary on the wealth of the empire and the beauty of its princesses should summarized in the fourth paragraph, without the quotes. I suggest you review WP:LEAD in depth, for this addition as the second paragraph of the article is clearly inappropriate.  Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 17:30, 18 June 2015 (UTC)

Starting again, these quotes are inappropriate for the lead (as explained above). You state yourself that "the lead should be a brief summary of the subject, providing the important points." Surely you would agree then that a summary should not be more detailed than what it summarizes. These quotes give undue weight to a couple of observers, and is being mentioned by Cervantes one of the more important points about Trebizond? Further, the placement of the statements on reputation and mystique breaks up the historical narrative within the lead. I appreciate that developing an article takes time, but an article should be left in proper order in the interim (which would have been since April with this material had I not moved it before, and has been over a month now). Lastly, your tenure as an editor is irrelevant (I've been here ten years, do you get to pull rank?). I am following clearly stated policy, and your invoking IAR here sounds a lot like you just don't like policy. Please gain consensus for adding such specific quotes in the lead. Laszlo Panaflex (talk) 18:47, 1 August 2015 (UTC)

An English-language source in the works
I just stumbled upon a planned publication by the Dumbarton Oaks Medieval Library: A translation of Michael Panaretos' Chronicle & Bessarion's Encomium on Trebizond. link This will be the second translation of Panaretos' work into English (I made a translation of it from a German translation, which IFAIK is the only other translation); I don't know of any other translation of Bessarion's poem. Thus this book will be vital for promoting any Trebizond-related article to GA or FA class. -- llywrch (talk) 05:07, 9 September 2018 (UTC)

Inaccuracies and mistatements
The wikipedia page of the empire of trebizond as well as various other wikipedia related pages on the same subject all contain the same (repeated with minor variations) bizarre snippets that seemingly were inserted by the same user.

These snippets are misquoted, unreferenced, assembled from various sources out of context and generally disruptive to the text.

"The later Byzantine emperors, as well as Byzantine authors, such as George Pachymeres, Nicephorus Gregoras and to some extent Trapezuntines such as John Lazaropoulos and Basilios Bessarion, regarded the emperors of Trebizond as the "princes of the Lazes", while the possession of these "princes" was also called Lazica, in other words, their state was known as the Principality of the Lazes.[8] Thus from the point of view of the Byzantine writers connected with the Laskaris and later with the Palaiologos dynasties, the rulers of Trebizond were not emperors." The first part is taken from Anthony Bryer, Some notes on the laz and tzan (1967) in People and settlements in anatolia and caucausus. Page 179.

Bryer original Quote: "Byzantine authors, such as Pachymeres regarded the new Empire as being no more than a Laz border state, and to some extent Trapezuntines such as Lazaropoulos and Bessarion concurred".

The second part from Vasiliev, but is cut short and is out of context. Vasiliev original Quote: "Thus from the point of view of the Byzantine writers connected with the Laskaris and later with the Palaiologos dynasties, the rulers of Trebizond were not emperors. But the rulers of trebizond called themselves emperors" [page 31].

The fact that constantinopolitan chronographers of the 13th century don’t call the rulers of trebizond emperors have been noted by a number of modern historians.

See: Fallmerayer, 1827 [ page 78 ], Chrysanthos, Historia tis ekklisias tis trapezountas, 1933, page 57, Vasiliev, Foundation of the empire of trebizond, page 31

Chrysanthos also states [page 31] that byzantine historian of the 15th century (chalcocondyles and frantzes) do call them Kings and emperors.

Serious historians typically treat this issue in the context of the 1282 diplomatic dispute between constantinople and trebizond that concerned the title of the grand comnenoi - and not as an indication of ethnic/structural makeup of the trebizondian state (what is a laz state ?).

In the quoted text of Anthony Bryer, the first-hand references for Lazaropoulos and Bessarion don’t point to anything meaningful that could justify Bryer's claim that they concurred. For Bessarion the reference is to the entire text of Bessarion, Encomium to trebizond. Unsure about lazaropoulos.

For Pachymeres, the text is well know and instructive [mignon, CSHB page 520], quoting it in full.

Greek text: Της των λαζων αρχοντι Ιωαννη παρασημοις βασιλικοις εμπομπευντοι, ου μετον ολως βασιλειας εκεινω, πεμπων πολλακις επηγγελε της μεν καθ' αυτον εξουσιας ανεδην εχειν ως βουλεται, ονοματων δε και παρασημων βασιλικων φειδεσθαι μηδε γαρ αξιον, αυτου βασιλεως οντος, επ αυτου βασιλειου θωκου και πολεως, και τινας αλλους επι του μειζονος τε και υπερτατου φημιζεσθαι αξιωματος, αλλα μερος οντα κακεινον επισυναπτειν τω ολω, μηδε ουτως βασιλικη ταξει την συγχυσιν επιφερειν, τουτο γουν πολλακις ποιων ουδεν πλεον ηνυτεν η το δοκειν μηδεν εχων ανυτειν. Υπερηφανει γαρ βαρβαρος ων και υπερεωρα την προσταξιν και τινας προφασεις του μη αυτος καταρξαι της επι τουτοις παραβασιας αλλ απο πατερων εχειν επλαττετο.... [Michael Palaeologus, the restorer of the Byzantine Empire] has sent many embassies to the archonta of the lazes [John Comnenus], who is parading boastfully with the imperial insignia [purple boots, double headed eagle etc.] even though he has no right whatever to them, neither to the imperial title [emperor of the romans], and he [Michael ] would not object to any other title, and urges him to renounce the imperial title [emperor of the romans] and the imperial insignia. But John being an arrogant barbarian ignores the order, and justifies himself by saying that he did not start this, he got the title from his forefathers …etc

The wikipedia statement above: "their state was known as the principality of the laz" is unsubstantiated - was known by whom, when, where ?.

It misquotes Vasiliev who writes: "Pachymeres calls the rules of trebizond princes of the lazes, in other words, he [pachymeres] says their state was the principality of the lazes".

In the Vasiliev text, the rendering of archonta to "prince" and the references to the "principality" are inaccurate translations.

If Pachymeres intended to make such statements he would have used the terms "despot" and "despotate" that could legitimately have been translated to prince, principality, principate. The term "archonta" is a diminutive byzantine title that is typically used for the governor of a city.

In the vociferous and boisterous Pachymeres text, the term "Archonta of the laz" is meant to be an insult.

The same user is engaging in other mistatements.

"As early as the First Council of Nicea, Trebizond had its own bishop.[16] Subsequently, the Bishop of Trebizond was subordinated to the Metropolitan Bishop of Poti.[16] Then during the 9th century, Trebizond itself became the seat of the Metropolitan Bishop of Lazica."

Chrysanthos, page 153 - who was the trebizond metropolitan in 1920 - talks about the history of the bishopry of trebizond.

Trebizond became a bishopry in 787. Was original an episcopy subject first to the bishopry of caesaria and then to the bishopry of neo-caesaria.

Poti [?] might refer to Phasis in Chrystanthos text ?.

Phasis was an episcopy, not a bisopry. Apparently was deserted or destroyed and in 787 when Trebizond was promoted to a bishopry, the episcopy of phasis became subject to the bishopry of trebizond.

The statement "Trebizond itself became the seat of the Metropolitan Bishop of Lazica" is meaningless.

The metropolitan of trebizond was: εξαρχος και υπερτιμος, τραπεζουντος και πασης λαζικης (Metropolitan of trapezounta and entire laziki)

Metropolitan titles in the byzantine times and down to the modern times are made of 3 parts:

The name of the seat, the word pasis(entire) and the name of a region - often archaic.

Eg. Metropolitan, exarchos and ypertimos of
 * Ephesus and the entire Asia.
 * Caesaria and the entire anatolia.
 * Sebastia and the entire armenia
 * Antioch and the entire Pisidia
 * Neocaesaria and the entire pontos polemoniacus.
 * Trapezounta and the entire laziki.
 * Etc….

One should not be reading anything in these titles. -

same user "According to the 10th century Arab geographer Abul Feda it was regarded as being largely a Lazian port".

The quote is also taken from Bryer:, some notes on the laz and tzan.

Bryer's reference to the abul feda text is incorrect.

Meeker in The Black sea turks corrects the reference: Reinard, Geographie d'Aboulfeda, I848-83, vol. 2, part. 2, p. I46

Meeker says that Abul Feda died in 1332.

The original Abul Feda text in the french translation says:

"Tarabozoun. Port grec [Rum] sur la mer de Nitasch [black sea ?]. Tarabozoun est un port célèbre. Ibn Sa'îd dit que la plupart de ses habitants sont des Lezghiens. Au sud-sud-est de Tarabozoun est la montagne des Lezghiens, qui porte le nom de Mont des Langues [Caucausus ?] en raison des idiomes [nombreux] qu'on y parle. Autrefois, Tarabozoun s'appelait Trabezondah [trapezounta ?]

Abul Feda regards trebizond as a greek port on the black sea. Ibn Said [second or 3rd hand reference ?] says that its inhabitants are mostly lezghiens[?] Unclear why Feda thinks the name has changed or why he does not know the laz and thinks that the laz are lezghiens [?] or maybe the french translation is wrong ? there also a number of other mistatements/misquotes by the same user in various other related articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kirkaz01 (talk • contribs) 21:12, 11 January 2020 (UTC)