Talk:Heraclius/Archive 1

Avars
This article mentions the Avars but WIkipedia has two articles about Avars: Caucasian and Eurasian. To which does this article refer? Jaberwocky6669 21:54, Jun 26, 2005 (UTC)


 * Eurasian. I fixed.  --Jfruh 01:05, 27 Jun 2005 (UTC)

CHEERS!!!!!

Organization
This article could be organized into subsections. It would ease expansion of the article, and thrust greater clarity upon the text. Calgacus 02:13, 29 August 2005 (UTC)

Heraclius' Ethnic Origins - Greek Or Armenian?
In the article Heraclius is stated as being Armenian or partly Armenian: "He was the son and namesake of the powerful Armenian Exarch of Africa, who had been one of East Roman Emperor Maurice's key generals in the 590 war with Persia."

Originally all sources give him as Greek by his father (I haven't seen anything about his mother though, his father was the offspring of a very well known Greek family) not even "with Armenian blood" - Does anyone have any reliable sources which can back up if he was Armenian or partialy Armenian?

BTW you can't call "Armenian" someone who doesn't even speak Armenian, the most you can tell is "he had Armenian blood by his father's side" (as was the case with Basil I and Tzimiskes), What would an Armenian governor be doing in Cyrenaica anyway?


 * While I don't really know much about Heraclius' ethnicity -- and in fact I think that talking about ethnicity at all in this period is a very tricky thing -- it's no mystery how he might end up in the exarchate of Africa (which is modern Tunisia rather than Cyrenacia, by the way): he was appointed to the post by Maurice. Heraclius the Elder was originally from Anatolia, which is where he proved himself as a general.  It's perfectly possible that his family was originally Armenian and then Hellenized (especially considering that we know almost nothing about Heraclius the Elder's ancestors).  However, just because it's possible doesn't make it so.  Personally, I'm all for taking ethnic identifiers out of the article all together in the absense of firm sourcing. --Jfruh 15:41, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Theophylact Simocatta (Hist. 3.1.1.), John of Nikiu (Chron. 109.27) and Theophanes (AM. 6078, 6100, 6101 & 6102) claim that Heraclius' background is Armenian, whilst a 12th century historian says Cappadocian ... two ideas which do not contradict each other. Other African commanders such as Soloman and John Troglitas (not to mention Belisarius) also had eastern backgrounds. For this, see Walter Kaegi,  Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium . - Calgacus 15:49, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I just went and checked out the biography of Heraclius that was the source for my major rewrite of this article some months back. It's called "Heraclius, Emperor of Byzantium," is written by the Byzantine scholar Walter Kaegi, and published by the Cambridge U. Press, and is the most recent work on Heraclius.  Kaegi talks about the family's "probable" Armenian origin on pages 21-23 of the book, citing Theophylact Simocatta and John of Nikiu, as well as a host of secondary articles.  He says the "preponderance of evidence" points to an Armenian origin for Heraclius the Elder, but that the emperor Heraclius' mother may have been a "Cappaodician" (an ethnic designation that could also include Armenians in a 6th or 7th century context).  Whatever the origins of the family, Kaegi says that "we have no evidence on what Armenian consciousness, if any, either Heraclius possessed"; later he says "presumably Heraclius [the emperor] was bilingual (Armenian and Greek) from an early age, but even this is uncertain."  So, on balance, I think that maybe the article should be tweaked to note the family's probable Armenian origin, rather than just baldly calling Heraclius the Elder an Armenian. --Jfruh 15:53, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * For sure, Heraclius was a Roman in any case; Armenian could only ever be a "background". - Calgacus 15:56, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * I tweaked the text. See what you think. --Jfruh 16:10, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * It's fair enough. Do you think BTW that this article could be doing with organization into sections? - Calgacus 16:30, 4 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Heh, heh, I'm way ahead of you -- check it out and feel free to tweak. --Jfruh 16:35, 4 January 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just what the article needed. When I've finished my current projects, I'll try and add a few things. Perhaps we can one day get an article like the featured-article Julius Caesar. - Calgacus 17:09, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Nobody was Greek or Armenian. There were only Romans. He was a Roman of Armenian heritage/background, like two dozen other Eastern Roman Emperors.--Eupator 17:53, 20 January 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, trying to map modern notions of nationality and ethnicity onto the ancient world is a tricky business. The Roman Empire was multiethnic, and the "Roman" category transcended what we would now call "ethnicity."  An individual during this period could easily accommodate both a "Roman" identity and one that we would think of as an "ethnicity." --Jfruh 18:08, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed tricky to assertain the ethnicity of someone from this period. We question is not whether he was Roman or not as he was. (There was a difference between the Greek 'Romios' which meant an actual Roman from the Italian penninsula and the Greek 'Romaios' which meant ethnic Greek citizen of Rome/ East Rome. 'Romaios' was also a synonym of Hellene or Graikos. So far in this discussion no one has provided any sources on his ethnicity yet the article says he is "almost certainly amrenian"?? I will edit the article saying that it is unclear whether or not he was armenian until somebody provides a source

"Native of Armenia"?
Someone added that H. the elder was a "native of Armenia", citing Theophylactus Simocatta, which I removed. I did so for two reasons:


 * My understanding of the T.S. passage from secondary sources is that it concerns the family's ethnicity, not its geographic provenance (though if someone has access to the passage itself it would be helpful for this discussion)
 * During the lifetime of the Heraclii there was no separate polity called "Armenia" -- the kingdom had been divided up between the Romans and Persians in the previous century. The term is certainly still used by contemporaries, but there's no agreement on just what geographic is designated by it.

--Jfruh 15:13, 6 February 2006 (UTC)


 * the reference is to Heraclius' ethnic background. I don't think anybody was claiming he was born there. It's quite irrelevant whether or not there was a separate polity called "Armenia", but your edit seems fine. - Calgacus 15:17, 6 February 2006 (UTC)
 * I had added it. I don't disagree with your edit though.

Btw there was no independent Armenia, the territory was still known as such and the population never changed. There is a consenus regarding borders of that period. I'll try and find the exact quote as well as border info. Peter Charanis and Nicolai Adontz have researched this quite thoughroughly.--Eupator 15:31, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

It is indeed tricky to assertain the ethnicity of someone from this period. We question is not whether he was Roman or not as he was. (There was a difference between the Greek 'Romios' which meant an actual Roman from the Italian penninsula and the Greek 'Romaios' which meant ethnic Greek citizen of Rome/ East Rome. So far in this discussion no one has provided any sources on his ethnicity yet the article says he is "almost certainly amrenian"?? I will edit the article saying that it is unclear whether or not he was armenian until somebody provides a source


 * Until someone provides a source? The source was Theophylactus Simocatta, 109-110, and was cited in the article!  I reverted --Jfruh 14:06, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

"The younger?"
I would suggest that this page be IMMEDIATELY moved back to its original spot at "Heraclius" -- unfortunately, I'm sort of afraid to do that without breaking links or something. The emperor is never, in any historiographical context, referred to as "Heraclius the Younger", unless he's being referenced in the same sentence as is father, and then only as a move to avoid confusion. Since everything that is known about Heraclius the Elder is in this article, there's not even any chance that a separate article will be set up for him. --Jfruh (talk) 20:38, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * First of all, welcome to wikipedia. Here, words like immediately and writing in Capitals doesn't bode well - and as an arrogant user I don't usually take that crap. However you do have a fair point. Nonetheless, this reference here:

Uses the words "Heraclius the younger" in contrast to his father who is referred to as Heraclius only. However, wikipedia for some reason as given the sole name to the younger one (since he was the emperor and more important). Therefore I will change it back.

Tourskin 23:42, 17 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Thanks for welcoming me to Wikipedia. I've been contributing for four years now.  I usually don't do the all-caps things, but I react badly when people make major changes -- such as, for instance, moving articles to a different name -- without bringing it up on the talk page first.


 * Norwich's histories are popular not academic, and I'm willing to bet that he didn't use the phrase "Heraclius the Younger" throughout, particularly not when he got to Heraclius' reign itself. It's been a long time since I've read the Norwich books, but since he's doing a continuous narrative, I imagine he discusses Heraclius the Elder earlier in the volume and starts to add "the younger" because the father is already a well-established figure in the book at that point.  Academic histories of Heraclius' reign, such as Walter Kaegi's treatment, would not use that phrase except in restricted contexts where it would be possible to confuse the two.     --Jfruh (talk) 00:05, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Lol I knew u were an older wikipedian than me but I thought I would add it in anyways. Well I dont want to waste my energy arguing over a trivial matter (IMO a trivial matter), and I will take ur word for it that Heraclius is more often applied to the Emperor and not the Exarch. However, Norwich doesn't call Heraclius' dad "the elder". Instead, after calling the would-be emperor "the younger" a few times, he just calls him Heraclius afterwards and makes no mention of dad. Tourskin 00:50, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The War Against Persia: The rest of the story?
The article describes the beginning of the war against Persia and then gets sidetracked talking about themata, without saying anything about the resolution of the war with Persia.

Also, the mention of recovering the artifact which Christians regard as the True Cross from the Persians and restoring it to Jerusalem seems to have been removed. This incident is what Heraclius is best remembered for by Christians, as Christianity both East and West commemorates this restoration annually on the Feast of the Exaltation of the Holy Cross (Sept. 14). While pious legends were certainly built up around the event and historians may debate how large a role the return of the True Cross played in the war itself, Heraclius' returning of the artifact to the Church of the Holy Sepulchre in Jerusalem is certainly historical. Echevalier 22:36, 18 September 2007 (UTC)


 * There was some vandalism here. Let me find out where it went. Tourskin 00:58, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Attention BEFORE YOU EDIT
Wikipedia does not belong only to one Religion. It is designed to be neutral. Do not add irrelevant material. Recently certain users have deleted paragraphs pertaining to Heraclius' restoration of the True Cross. This was Heraclius' greatets personal goal achieved, whether certain users like it or not, he was seeing himself as the protector of Byzantine Orthodoxy. Tourskin 01:03, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Indeed "Byzantine Orthodoxy"? Come now, this was before the schism of the Church and Rome was still firmly in the emperor's hand. Heraclius saw himself as the head of the Church, heir to Constantine, and protector of the Christian Church, not the later idea of Byzantine Orthodoxy. --12.150.161.10 (talk) 05:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Byzantine Orthodoxy is used as opposed to other forms of Christianity which are unorthodox, such as the Assyrian Church of the East, Arianism and Gnosticism. Do you now understand? Why is there a myth that Orthodoxy was invented in 1054? Come now, research before you snidely and wrongly criticize. Tourskin (talk) 05:13, 11 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Excellent comment! Do I now understand? Well what i did not 'understand' was what you were trying to say, not the history of the era of which I am very familiar . I agree with you that there was one Church that was heir to the Church founded by the Roman State in the 4th Century. But to say that this Church was "Byzantine Orthodoxy" is taking it a bit far don't you think? Many Late Antiquity scholars would dispute the use of "Byzantine" to describe the Eastern Empire before the reign of Heraclius and the rise of Islam. It is doubtful that he thought of himself as the defender of "Byzantine" orthodoxy. Rather it is more likely that he saw himself as the defender of Christian Orthodoxy (as head of the One True Church). --12.150.161.10 (talk) 08:12, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * We've encountered problems with the word "Byzantine" time and again, the simple fact is that Heraclius saw himself as the defender of a Christian faith, that we label as contemporary historians as Byzantine orthodoxy. But to make it sound nice, we just say "he was the defender of Byzantine orthodoxy". Tourskin (talk) 16:43, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * That is the point. Heraclius was the defender of the Christian faith, not a "Byzantine Orthodoxy". Heraclius was carrying out the role of set out by Constantine, that is, the Roman Emperor was responsible to God for the spiritual health of his subjects, and therefore duty bound to maintain orthodoxy. So Heraclius, as the only Roman Emperor, was defender of Christian orthodoxy. Why try to be "nice" and by the way who are we trying to be "nice" to? --12.150.161.10 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Western Europe? "Roman Catholic Orthodox Church" wouldn't be a bad way to describe it. ;) 3rdAlcove (talk) 17:25, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Be nice to Western Europe? That would be a first, surely we should be nice to everyone but the Western World :-) Look there was one Catholic Church (that came out of the First Council of Nicaea) that over time had to deal with a variety of other Christian sects leaving due to theological disputes. For a variety of social, political and theological reasons the one Church had unity problems that eventually led to the Great Schism. Calling the one Catholic Church, as it existed in 630, "Byzantine Orthodoxy" is misleading at best. In any event, what is important is that the story of Heraclius returning the True Cross to Jerusalem be included in his article. This event would have been of monumental importance to the subjects of the Empire --12.150.161.10 (talk) 08:14, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Hey, I'm completely with you. You don't need to convince me! I agree, though, we shouldn't be nice to the "Western World". After all they came up with terms such as "Byzantine" to confuse us. ("well it was Greek, not Roman. well actually, it wasn't EVEN Greek. let's call it Byzantine") 3rdAlcove (talk) 11:41, 15 May 2008 (UTC)


 * None of the Byzantine Emperors or the Byzantines themselves used any word except Roman to describe themselves. But, by the reign of Heraclius, the Eastern Empire was in the concluding stages of Hellenization and Christianization; it was Heraclius who reformed the military to a defensive one and the language to Greek. Tourskin (talk) 16:45, 13 May 2008 (UTC)


 * Of course the Byzantine emperors never thought of themselves as "byzantine", that was a later invention by historians. To them, it was the Empire of the Romans...period. All the writings of the period and edicts of the Emperors reflect this. How does this have any bearing whatsoever on the discussion on whether it should be called Byzantine Orthodoxy? --12.150.161.10 (talk) 06:43, 14 May 2008 (UTC)


 * How does your assertion that it is not Byzantine orthodoxy have any bearing on my very first message, which was an attempt to get rid of POV about Heraclius' defeat against the Arabs. Who cares what the hell it was and what he was defending that we not my first message, you dragged me into this discussion. Roman, Catholic, Orthodox Byzantine whatever.Tourskin (talk) 22:04, 5 June 2008 (UTC)


 * Look I agree with you regarding the issue of the restoration of the True Cross. I was only objecting to the use of the phrase "Byzantine Orthodoxy". For the reasons outline above, when Heraclius restored the cross he was doing so in the name of the Roman Church (i.e. the church that emerged out of the First Council of Nicaea). But you're right as to starting the discussion over language, my apologies. As long as that language is not in the article, who cares. In any event, what is important is that the article notes that the Persians stole the True Cross, Heraclius took it back and put it back in the Church of the Holy Sepulchre. --12.150.161.10 (talk) 03:47, 11 July 2008 (UTC)

Edits
I think it should be mentioned at the beginning of the article that during Heraclius' reign The Late Roman Empire or The Eastern Roman Empire transformed into Byzantine Empire or Empire of the Greeks. The reasons for this were introduction of the Greek as official language instead of the Latin and the loss of Middle East and Africa to Arabs during his reign and afterwards. 81.214.36.116 (talk) 18:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I removed the claim that Heraclius had personal vendetta against Muslims. In fact, some Muslim sources claimed that he was a crypto-Muslim, a dobtful claim imho. Nevetheless, he didn't personally command army against Arabs, contrary to his campaign against Sassanids(it's claimed he was unable to do so due to his illness, but he was able to do many other things). 81.214.36.116 (talk) 19:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)


 * He remained crazy after the early Muslim victories, which prevented his campaigning. Heraclius would not have sympathized with an enemy he considered heretical to Christianity.  Gabr-  el  21:06, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

"Byzantine Empire" is a term that existed only after the 19th Century, the Byzantines called themselves Roman and said they lived in the Roman Empire, whatever their territorial losses or official language. Whilst it is important for the reader to distinguish between the 'classical' Roman Empire and that later in the East, it would be dubious to claim that it "transformed" from one to the other during the reign of Heraclius due to the use of Greek.

--Narelon (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The disupte about the name "Byzantine" has been done to death on wikipedia. If you really want to point something so obvious out to experienced users, who use only the most common term in existence, go knock yourself out in the archived discussion under the Byzantine Empire article. :) Gabr-  el  16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was simply replying to the first comment in this section, which stated that 'during Heraclius' reign The Late Roman Empire or The Eastern Roman Empire transformed into Byzantine Empire or Empire of the Greeks'. I thought it was clear that I was referring to that. Obviously, I was wrong. Perhaps I should be clearer in future, to make sure 'experienced users' don't feel I'm patronising them.--Narelon (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * An honest mistake. Sorry if I "intimidated" you with my 'experience'. Oh, btw, you're forgiven for being patronizing.  Gabr-  el  22:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Byzantine Empire
"Byzantine Empire" is a term that existed only after the 19th Century, the Byzantines called themselves Roman and said they lived in the Roman Empire, whatever their territorial losses or official language. Whilst it is important for the reader to distinguish between the 'classical' Roman Empire and that later in the East, it would be dubious to claim that it "transformed" from one to the other during the reign of Heraclius due to the use of Greek.

--Narelon (talk) 15:58, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * The disupte about the name "Byzantine" has been done to death on wikipedia. If you really want to point something so obvious out to experienced users, who use only the most common term in existence, go knock yourself out in the archived discussion under the Byzantine Empire article. :) Gabr-  el  16:32, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I was simply replying to the first comment in this section, which stated that 'during Heraclius' reign The Late Roman Empire or The Eastern Roman Empire transformed into Byzantine Empire or Empire of the Greeks'. I thought it was clear that I was referring to that. Obviously, I was wrong. Perhaps I should be clearer in future, to make sure 'experienced users' don't feel I'm patronising them.--Narelon (talk) 18:55, 21 April 2009 (UTC)


 * An honest mistake. Sorry if I "intimidated" you with my 'experience'. Oh, btw, you're forgiven for being patronizing.  Gabr-  el  22:54, 22 April 2009 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 14:57, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Ethiopia
The alliance with Ethiopia isn't mentioned in the Ethiopian or Persian history articles. What is the source? http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/med/fryehst.html

The original source is the life of an Ethiopian saint. Alas, I cannot remember which one...Ikokki

Persecution of Jews
It seems this article has completely ignored the level to which Heraclius persecuted the Jews. He had tens of thousands killed, destroyed synagogues and outlawed Judaism. In fact, from what I gather, he was among the worst of his contemporaries in that respect. Why isn't this mentioned in the article?

http://www.jewishvirtuallibrary.org/jsource/biography/heraclius.html

"Heraclius ordered forced conversion for all Jews in the Byzantine Empire, but the order was carried out only in Carthage. Heraclius asked the king of the Franks to kill all Jews, but he refused. " — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.155.141.161 (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2013 (UTC)
 * While that site has "reasonable" information on the Holocaust, most of the history is not referenced. There is great deal of medieval crap written long after the fact that cannot be verified. HammerFilmFan (talk) 23:01, 21 March 2017 (UTC)

Theodore =Theodore?
Another question: I read in the lemma Theodore Trithyrius: "Heraclius stripped him (i.e. his brother Theodore) off his command and sent him to Constantinople. With Theodore gone, Heraclius appointed Trithyrius to take lead as the commander of his brother's army, meanwhile here we can read that the brother of the Emperor was Trithyrius. I'm afraid here we find a mistake. Can anything help us, please?--Cloj (talk) 21:24, 31 May 2010 (UTC)
 * It's confusing as both men are named Theodore. But cleared it up in the article as it should read Theodore, Heraclius' brother, was removed from power and replaced with Theodore Trithyrius-- Esemono (talk) 08:01, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Islam edit war in the Intro
As per WP:Lead Section: "The lead section should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article. " The information in the intro is not "Muslim propaganda" as you so put it but a brief summary of the "Islamic view of the Emperor" which is important as he is highly regarded by the Muslim world. Further more no one is saying that Heraclius was Muslim but that the Koran CLAIMS he is. This nothing to do with, in your POV statements, what you call "Muslim propaganda." It's a NPOV observation that is notable since there are over a billion Muslims in the world. -- Esemono (talk) 06:41, 15 November 2010 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying the Islamic view should not be in the introduction. I'm saying it should not be in the introduction if there is not a sufficient balance of religious views in the introduction. If you wish to enhance the introduction by including the Islamic view, then simply summarize the Christian view first and then insert the Islamic view below it. Otherwise, the Islamic view is out of place. Also, "something of an ideal ruler" is vague, and should be clarified.--Tataryn77 (talk) 19:54, 15 November 2010 (UTC)
 * The Christian view being? I would say the Christine view is obvious, does it really need to be said they didn't think he was a Muslim?  But if you are looking for everything to be spelled out what about this:

He was the first Emperor to engage the Muslims, and in the Islamic world, he is seen as an ideal ruler who studied the Qur'an, was a true believer of Islam, and viewed Muhammad as the true prophet, the messenger of God. Christians dispute that he was a convert of Islam.

Seems like overkill to me. -- Esemono (talk) 03:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Heraclius was involved extensively in religious matters, including some mentioned at the bottom of the introduction - below the Muslim view. Monothelitism, his marriage to Martina, his relationship with Patriarch Sergius, and the recovery of the True Cross are all more noteworthy religion related matters and should be above any Muslim views of Heraclius. Understand now?--Tataryn77 (talk) 04:58, 16 November 2010 (UTC)
 * So if I moved the sentence to later in the intro you would drop your objections? -- Esemono (talk) 13:53, 16 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Yes, if the topics I mentioned above are included also.--Tataryn77 (talk) 20:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC)

I think it should be noted that the Muslim tradition of Heraclius as a secret-convert are based on early Muslim writings that most Western historians view as "profoundly kerygmatic" (Lawrence I. Conrad. "Heraclius in Early Islamic Kerygma." In The Reign of Heraclius. Edited by Reinink and Stolte. (Leuven, Paris: Peeters, 2002)) and that "enormous difficulties exist" (same source) in using these sources for actual history. While the Muslim viewpoint may be valuable, you can't really include it without noting that virtually every Western historian, regardless of their own faith, would regard the idea that Heraclius "was a true believer of Islam" with skepticism. The point is that the Islamic viewpoint is contentious, and that if it's going to be included in the introduction there has to be a note mentioning that fact in a more explicit way than that "some Muslims" think etc. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.3.137.55 (talk) 05:13, 6 April 2011 (UTC)

No muslim Historians nor anywhere in the Islamic histories or in the Hadith does it say that Heraclius was ever a true believer of Islam. The most it hints to is that he almost converted but was met with resistance by his council and never did. That is not the point of confrontation. The point of confrontation is that the article addresses Islamic Histories as fables. Most of these people do not know what Hadith are and think of it like the Bible when it is not. It is a collection of first hand stories collected by argueably the most thorough Islamic Historian the world has ever known. The people who collected Hadith were not taking the word of anyone who gave them any info. many times they have 6 different narrations of the same event from 6 different people, not one random story from one guy making things up. The narration of the Muslims going to Heraclius to seek refuge in his kingdom is Historical fact which is not in dispute. El-Cheikh gives a ridiculous point, based on nothing and is in fact contrary to any evidence we have, that Heraclius thought that these people were a sect of the Jews and he never met with a Muslim convoy, which is false as these people came to present the message of a new prophet and the religion of Islam, which Heraclius would have known is no sect of Judaism as he was a renown christian scholar and had other scholars among him. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.21.146.203 (talk) 22:07, 15 August 2011 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth there are voluminous writings about the different Roman emperors variously claiming that they were deities, devils, magicians, and monsters (not figuratively but literally). The difference between most of those writings and what appears in the Bible or the Koran is that whereas those other writings are seen by most people today as superstition or propaganda, many of us take the Koran and/or the Bible very seriously. Nevertheless from a historical perspective these books are not considered scientifically authoritative. In other words, saying "esteemed Roman historian X says this but the Koran says that" is misleading in that a religious text should not be put on the same level as recognized historians who use modern standards for historiography. It is not a matter of whether the Koran is correct or not; the issue is whether the author has applied modern, verifiable scientific standards that are broadly recognized. --192.88.165.35 (talk) 19:24, 5 October 2011 (UTC)