Talk:Leo VI the Wise

Untitled
Absurd surname? He was well-educated and reformed the law code - sounds 'Wise' enough to me.

Leo Grammaticus redirects here but this is wrong
Leo Grammaticus in Patrologia Graeca (ed. J.P.Migne) is NOT the emperor. Someone please correct this one. Dipa1965 (talk) 16:49, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Tactica
Surely the Tactica, an early 10th-century military handbook ascribed to Leo, should be added to the page. Urselius (talk) 12:42, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Question
Someone can tell me, why his name Imperator Caesar Leo Augustus is last in List of Roman consuls? He is last Roman Emperor with Latin name, or what? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.77.94.33 (talk) 11:03, 17 February 2010 (UTC)

Identity of Leo VI's father
Currently, the article categorically states that Leo's father was Basil I, citing Charanis's The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (1963) and Ostrogorsky's History of the Byzantine State (1969). However, more recent authors (Treadgold's A history of the Byzantine state and society (1997) and Norwich's Byzantium: The Apogee (1993)) claim that he was (or at least he believed himself to be) the son of Michael III. Kazhdan, on the other hand (The Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium (1991)) states that he was Basil's son. Should the article reflect this uncertainty, or is there a more recent consensus among Byzantine scholars about his parentage? Oatley2112 (talk) 04:47, 20 November 2010 (UTC)


 * Interestingly enough, Adontz and later Charanis and Ostrogorsky thought that, by their time, the rumor had been put to rest and that Leo was indeed Basil's son and their beliefs were quoted in that regard. Treadgold's and Kazhdan's opinions are important (especially the latter, who was an authority on the matter), but I'm a little less certain of Norwich, whose books are more a popular and uncritical narrative of Byzantine history. --Marshal Bagramyan (talk) 18:41, 1 April 2011 (UTC)

Marriage of daughter to Louis
There is a division of scholarly opinion over whether the planned marriage actually came to pass. You can find sources that accept it, and others that say it cannot be assumed. How is expressing this scholarly uncertainty by saying they 'perhaps' married using weasel words? 50.37.127.139 (talk) 22:46, 9 October 2016 (UTC)


 * And how is showing in a sentence; they married(with a source) and that they did not(with a source), as unacceptable? By placing "perhaps" in the sentence you are ignoring what the The New Cambridge Medieval History states, that is weasel wording. --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:01, 10 October 2016 (UTC)


 * It is not saying 'they married (source) and that they did not (source)'. It is saying 'they married (source), though one guy says otherwise (source)' which first states as a fact the conclusion of a source giving the issue superficial coverage, then as an aside gives the conclusion of a more detailed discussion of the question (and misstates it to boot - Tougher does not come down solidly that they didn't marry, only that it cannot be taken for granted that they did).  It is not ignoring the New Cambridge to qualify the statement that they married, it is just not granting it precedence while relegating Tougher (who, I suspect unlike the New Cambridge editor, actually looked at the question specifically) to secondary status.  50.37.122.67 (talk) 17:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Then Tougher's position of "it shouldn't be taken for granted", is not enough to misrepresent(ie. Add "perhaps") the New Cambridge position. You wish to change the statement concerning Tougher, go right ahead. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:22, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't see what makes the one off-hand sentence in the overview New Cambridge the paragon of accuracy against which all other sources must measure, particularly when comparing it to a nearly page-long discussion in Tougher, a book dedicated to the subject of this article. 50.37.123.115 (talk) 20:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And I don't see where you think you can misrepresent a source instead of explaining in detail the position held by both sources. Per Tougher;


 * "Both Previte-Orton and Ohnsorge have directed their attention to this question of the marriage of Leo's daughter and both assume that it came to pass, though this can be debated."
 * If Tougher is not expressing doubt, then what? --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:24, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
 * And if your "reasoning" is based off FMG nonsense, just know that Charles Cawley is not an academic historian, is not a reliable source, and has errors in his so-called "work". --Kansas Bear (talk) 01:43, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Leo VI the Wise. 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/20090922225302/http://www.serfes.org/lives/stlazarus.htm to http://www.serfes.org/lives/stlazarus.htm

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) 00:59, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

Augustus
Shouldn’t Augustus be added to his Title? He used Augustus on his Coins, seals and even introduced himself with it in his Taktika without Basileus.

“ In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit, the holy, consubstantial, and worshipful Trinity, our one and only true God, Leo, peaceful autokrator in Christ, faithful, pious, ever revered Augustus.”

Just seems weird to me not include Augustus and is kinda of why people think the title was completely dropped with Heraclius. Byzantium is Rome (talk) 07:55, 19 July 2022 (UTC)