Talk:Justinian II

Anastasia or Eudoxia?
In the Exile section, the article states that Justinian's daughter Eudoxia was betrothed to Tervel. But in the Family section, this daughter's name is given as Anastasia, with Eudoxia being her mother. Abou 04:11, 8 August 2006 (UTC)

Content is really biased
The article reads as a moralizing history of Justinian II, which is wrong. Then by far the two most cited sources for the entire thing are JB Bury, and Norwich. JB Bury died around a century ago, so he's not to up on current research in the field, and Norwich wrote a narrative history about Byzantium 27 years ago, meant for the layman, that's not scholarly at all. I think the article needs some major revisions, or the allowing for debate in how his rule truly was. 165.123.208.59 (talk) 01:42, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's true of many of our Byzantine emperors' articles, unfortunately. There are too few people interested in the subject and with time to do a proper job of it. As you appear to be knowledgeable, you are more than welcome to fix any shortcomings. That's the good thing about Wikipedia. Constantine  ✍  15:11, 13 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Will do. Wanted to kind of float this first, because some people get really upset about changes without a talk section article first. 165.123.208.59 (talk) 00:06, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Updating the sources?
Would it perhaps be better if the sources were updated to reflect a bit more skepticism in the way that the Basileus was represented by contemporary sources like Theophanes? Constance Head’s reinterpretation of Ioustinianos seems to come to mind as we could insert a header about the controversy among modern scholars somewhere in there? — Viralworld — Preceding unsigned comment added by Viralworld (talk • contribs) 22:03, 11 December 2018 (UTC)

Possible to crop mosaic with Justinian II for better detail?
Could someone with photo cropping skills use them on this picture of mosaic with Justinian II from here https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Granting_of_privileges_mosaic_(detail)_-_Sant%27Apollinare_in_Classe_-_Ravenna_2016_(2).jpg and crop from it a version so that we have his figure's detail: the picture of the full mosaic is kind of unnecessarily large when his detail could be cropped: I would likewise suggest that similar treatment be given detail of his uncle Heraclius (to his right), uncle Tiberius and father Constantine IV. --82.181.143.171 (talk) 15:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)


 * I don't believe that mosaic picture is him, not impossible, but the clothes are not fitting in with Constantine's two brothers and he has no halo. No serious articles that discuss the mosaic even mention his name in relation to it, not the ones I have seen anyway. This article needs to be 100% sure it is not spreading a lie on who the person is.
 * Middle More Rider (talk) 03:15, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

What was a sign of diesobedience?
This sentence in 'second reign' is a bit obscure to me at least. "The expedition was led to reinstate the Western Church's authority over Ravenna, which was taken as a sign of disobedience to the emperor, and revolutionary sentiment" --142.163.195.167 (talk) 14:59, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Why is Justinian II the last "Byzantine" emperor on Wikipedia to be termed the "Eastern Roman emperor"?
This is the last Roman emperor on Wikipedia to not be referred to as "Byzantine", but rather, "Roman". But why? The strangest thing is that this isn't even consistent, both Tiberius III and Leontius, previous emperors, are referred to as Byzantine.

What changed from the rule of Justinian II to Philippicus? To me, this is unneccesarily confusing to the reader, and is not encyclopedic.

I think there needs to be a consensus on when the 'Eastern Roman Empire' ended, and the 'Byzantine Empire' began. Some figures from the 5th century are referred to as Byzantine, some from the 9th century are still referred to as Roman. It's horribly inconsistent. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 10:53, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * That's a fair point.
 * Personally I would nominate either Leo III, Constantine V or Leo IV as the first "Byzantine" emperor, as they could all be seen as the end of Latin, thus non-Byzantine, traditions in their own way:
 * Leo III for discontinuing the use of Latin on solidii around c. 737. (Last Eastern Roman: Theodosius III)
 * Constantine V because the final piece of the Empire where Latin was spoken as vernacular (the Exarchate of Ravenna) was lost under his watch. (Last Eastern Roman: Leo III)
 * Leo IV because he was the first emperor to rule over the Empire when virtually all of its Latin Roman heritage was gone. (Last Eastern Roman: Constantine V)
 * I don't have a preference for either of the three, as all of them make sense to me in their own way. LVDP01 (talk) 13:15, 7 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Consensus may be impossible to obtain, given that there is no consensus in the scholarly world about which date the Eastern Roman Empire transformed into the Byzantine Empire (which makes sense, as the transformation took decades if not centuries to achieve). That being said, it shouldn't stop us from trying to see if one can be achieved for the purpose of consistency in articles. As you point out, it would be confusing to the casual reader if the article on Justinian II referred to him as the Eastern Roman Emperor, but the article on his predecessor Tiberius III was referred to as a Byzantine Emperor.
 * For what it's worth, I've always felt the most sensible dividing line between the 2 labels is the end of the reign of Heraclius (641 CE). The permanent loss of over half of the remaining Roman territory to the Arabs at the close of his reign, his extensive military and administrative reorganization away from the previous Roman model, and the formal use of Greek replacing Latin in the military (leaving only the Law as the single area where Latin endured in the East for another century), all point to a new entity emerging from the old Eastern Roman Empire. It's an argument made by a number of scholars and historians, and I think it's quite defensible. 641 CE also ties in with the now almost universally agreed terminus of Late Antiquity, the period to which the Eastern Roman Empire (as distinct from the Byzantine Empire) belonged. Oatley2112 (talk) 22:52, 7 December 2022 (UTC)
 * I have to agree with this. While I favor the view that the Roman Empire did not end at all, and continued uninterrupted(apart from the Fourth Crusade of course) until the Fall of Constantinople in 1453, it would be best to provide a universal consensus as to when the old Roman Empire of antiquity ended, and the Byzantine Empire of the medieval period began.
 * As you said, 641 makes the most sense, as the reign of Heraclius saw the most change away from the culturally-Latin ancient period of Rome. Thus, I think we should establish 11 February 641 as an informal "end date" for the ancient Roman Empire on Wikipedia. PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:42, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Not that it should be referred to as such in articles, as the date is a little arbitrary, but rather used for referring for individuals or events as part of the Roman or Byzantine Empire PrecariousWorlds (talk) 20:47, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Apart from nothing with the B-word ever existed, the Roman Empire lost the last part of Italy in 1071 when the Normans got Bari. The Roman Empire still had western land in the mid 1100s, Croatia sort of area and below the left side of Hungary, then the Roman Empire had Constantinople up to 1453. On Chios they still called themselves Roman while under Turk occupation up to 1912 and liberation by the Greek navy, who, due to the new Greek state, were now hellenized.
 * Middle More Rider (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2023 (UTC)