Talk:List of Byzantine emperors

Untitled
Archives: Archive 1, Move debate.

Requested move
I have closed the move debate as no consensus. In order to make it clear that the debate is no longer live, I have archived it to: Talk:List of Byzantine Emperors/naming. Mango juice talk 20:09, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Request for comments
Should we use Hellenized or Latinized forms for Byzantine Emperors and dynasties?--Semioli


 * Aw, not again... Adam Bishop 21:28, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * What Adam means is; see the archived pages (and the dates of the last posts.) A lot of editors have voted for freezing the situation for the time being and collecting more information. I'd suggest we stick to this plan. Regards. Valentinian (talk) 22:02, 24 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I did not realize all of this. It was Imladjov who pointed me here on a matter about Constantinople patriarchs. Just a question: what do you mean by "collecting more information" and who is actually doing this?--Semioli 10:41, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Please see Talk:List_of_Byzantine_Emperors/naming. User:Andrew Dalby has offered to try to collect more data as to the use of the two forms, both in relation to context (scholarly- / non-scholarly literature) and in terms of time of publication, since so much of this dispute has revolved around the ratio between the Oxford forms (closer to Greek) versus the Latinized forms in recent material (thanks again, Andrew!) This decision is not binding, but has been voted for by many editors (myself included). The exact form of this investigation will be take place at a time when we've all had a good chance to cool off and reflect of this issue. Following that, data will be collected and used in a later debate on this topic. The collection of data will take time, and anyone is of course more than welcome in helping out in this task. Good ideas on how to do it in practice are also extremely welcome - e.g., it would be incredibly nice if we could find a database already containing most of the relevant publications. Alas, I do not know of any. Finding out how we could get more information on hit rates for the articles in questions might be worth a consideration as well. Given the heated nature of the last debate, I believe it would be the wiser solution to place this issue on the backburner for the time being to allow everybody a chance to think. (I sometimes wonder what the Byzantines would have said if anybody had ever told them that they'd still be controversial more than 500 years after their deaths.) Regards. Valentinian (talk) 11:59, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I was never quite sure whether my proposal got consensus or not. It seems it more-or-less did. Ah well. In due course I will put a message on some of the other talk pages saying that the issue will be under consideration again in early 2007 and inviting assistance, as Valentinian outlines above. Andrew Dalby 12:31, 25 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As a reader on Ancient Rome/Byzantium since the age of 5, I propose a compromise. There can be two possibilities: 1) Use Latinized names for emperors up to Heraclius (with Heraclius being the last), because Heraclius made Greek the official language, or 2) Use Latinized names up to Justinian, because Justinian was the last emperor whose first language was Latin. While I personally perfer the former solution, I'll let the consensus figure out which one is right. -DemocraticSocialism (talk) 23:04, 4 December 2017 (UTC))

This so-called consensus is nonsense - maybe this should have been done before all the page moves to Komnenos et al took place. Maybe they should be moved back to the original pages for this period of consideration. Roydosan 12:40, 25 July 2006 (UTC)

List appearance
Does anyone else find this list, in its present revision, amazingly difficult to read? Perhaps it should be reorganized into tabular form. -- 16:21, 23 March 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Llywrch (talk • contribs)


 * It is difficult to read. If you have a good format in mind, be bold. Valentinian T / C 16:26, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * Readability could probably be improved by removing the Greek versions of the names. If these are necessary (and I can hardly think that they are at all, especially with the Greek Wiki), they should be limited to the first line (or a footnote) of the articles. Separating regents and those who ruled in the name of an emperor by further indentation would probably help, too. Also, the notes relating one emperor to another should be kept to a bare minimum and should only reference relevant connections which explain the succession. Srnec 20:28, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree, Srnec, with your proposals. And as always, I discourage turning this into a table, unless we want to go all the way to adding pictures and stuff.
 * I don't know how many regents we have in this list but they should be indented. However, Emperors deposed and restored should not. Str1977 (smile back) 23:01, 29 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I don't have a good format at hand, but I believe the Greek names are relevant. After all, Greek was the administrative language of the Empire, and other lists also add the native names, e.g. List of Portuguese monarchs. Valentinian T / C 23:08, 29 April 2007 (UTC)
 * But Portuguese monarchs regularly appear under Portuguese names in English (Duarte and Diniz). Greek emperors appear under Greek or Latin transcriptions: Alexius or Alexios, not in the Greek alphabet, which most Anglophones cannot even read. Srnec 13:46, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Exactly. And remember: this is a list. Every Emperor has his own article. Str1977 (smile back) 14:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't know about the rest of you, but I find the tables to be extremely annoying. There is so much biographical info for each emperor that each emperor's entry becomes a page long. --12.217.237.175 (talk) 05:18, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Roman Emperors
The article inaccurately states "The emperors between 300-600 AD regarded themselves as Roman Emperors". Every single Byzantine Emperor considered themselves to be Roman Emperors. Don't forget, History doesn't care what Historians think just as Mother Nature doesn't care what Scientific theories Scientists propose. The Byzantines called themselves Romanoi or Roman.

I think what the article is trying to say is that the Emeprors from 300 to 600 AD were recognized by the Western Germanic Kingdoms as Roman? Anyone here say so?Tourskin 18:22, 1 June 2007 (UTC)


 * It was not until Charlemagne's coronation on Christmas Day 800 that the Western Kingdoms legitimately contested the East Roman Empire's status as the successor to Ancient Rome. Until then the Emperors of Constantinople were considered the undisputed successors of Rome.Zambetis 14:24, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not exactly, the Eastern Empire's status was not contested at all. Certainly not by Charlemagne. Some considered the sole of Irene a problem - later some polemically used the term "King of the Greeks" - but no one ever contested that the Eastern Empire was Roman. Str1977 (smile back) 14:49, 19 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Certainly the coronation of Charlemagne as "Roman Emperor" was viewed as a direct challenge to the universality of the Roman Empire in Constantinople and, like you said, the fact that a woman was on the throne at the time was a taint to its legitimacy for the West. Whether or not the legitmacy of the Roman Empire was directly contested, the coronation of Charlemagne serves as a watershed, after which the Roman Empire in Constantinople was viewed more as a "Greek" than a "Roman" entity.Zambetis 06:25, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * There had been two Emperors in the past. The appelation "Greek" was a polemic but there never was a questioning of fact called the Roman Empire. Str1977 (smile back) 08:21, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Nor am I arguing that. "Byzantines" called themselves "Romans" down to the last day. But what I am arguing is at what point in history did the Roman Empire in Constantinople begin to be PERCEIVED as Greek. Historians use Heraclius' reign as the defining moment of "Byzantium's" "Greekification", for instance. In terms of the Western Kingdom's perception, 800 marks the most convenient date to indicate when the Western Kingdoms began to view the Roman Empire in Constantinople as something "else", mainly Greek. That was why I objected to the previous version. However, I find the current edit: "Although he and his successors regarded themselves as Roman emperors, the reign of Heraclius marks a watershed or decisive break that marks the beginning of the Greek phase of the eastern Roman Empire. After 800 AD the claim to the Roman Empire was shared with Holy Roman Empire." acceptableZambetis 08:41, 20 June 2007 (UTC)


 * But you are mixing two things: the usage of the Greek language and the administrative reforms begin under Heraclius in the 7th century - and it affected the Eastern Empire big time. The changes around 800 did only in so far as the Empire's losing grasp of the West was the pre-condition for the Franks (and no other "Germanic Kingdoms") stepping in. But if you are fine with the latest wording, our dispute is settled. Str1977 (smile back) 08:59, 20 June 2007 (UTC)

Whoah people - this discussion is becoming irrelevant. It is an undisuptable fact and very much common knowledge that every last Byzantine Emperor regarded themselves as the heirs to Rome and thus saw themselves as Roman Emperors. What language they spoke, what culture they belonged to and most of all what people thought of them has nothing to do with what the Byzantines thought of themselves. And they thought they were Roman Emperors, hence Basil I's stern letter to the HRE and mocking his title of Emperor in the 9th century. Even the Turks and the Arabs saw them as Romans, as seen by their name Rum (pronounced like "room" i know cos i'm iraqi). Also, the Ottoman Sultans, who destroyed Byzantium, took the title Kayseri Rum, which meansa Ceasar of the Romans. Tourskin 17:04, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

What were their subsidiary titles, or kingdoms, principalities, etc?
Please make a list. 68.110.8.21 01:20, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure if Byzantine emperors really used these kinds of titles as Western monarchs did... --Jfruh (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Occasionally the title, King over Kings, Ruling over Rulers was used. Tourskin 21:33, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Spanish Royalty?
Where's the proof that the title "Emperor" was bestowed upon anyone after 1453? It's very hazy--I don't think the average person associates Constantinople with F y I, the Catholic Monarchs. Please, elaborate on the background with sources. 68.110.8.21 23:32, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * The Habsburg rulers, traditionaly Holy Roman Emperors, regarded themselves as Roman Emperors. The King of Spain today has relations with all Monarchs, above all with the French Bourbon dynasty and the House of Habsburg. Consequently, the King of Spain is also, by right of blood (along with countless other surving royal-blood descendants) the King of many domains, including that of the Holy Roman Empire and consequently the Roman Empire. Tourskin 21:32, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

Did the title "Roman Emperor", through the inheritance of Ferdinand and Isabel, pass and settle into the Spanish, or the Holy Roman line? When Charles V abdicated, did it go to his brother Ferdinand, in order to append further legitimacy to the Holy Roman title, by uniting the two titles--since while the two titles had been held by two different individuals, it lessened the legitimacy of each one--with the Holy Roman one at a natural disadvantage? 24.255.11.149 (talk) 06:10, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * This question has also been posted (and answered) at the Reference desk/Humanities. --Lambiam 20:27, 22 November 2007 (UTC)

No, it hasn't. Wikipedia lists the Spaniards as having some unique claim to the Roman Empire, but this is a totally crackpot theory. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 20:56, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * The question whether the title "Roman Emperor" passed into the Spanish or the Holy Roman line has been answered thus: "Charles V's brother became Ferdinand I, Holy Roman Emperor and ruler of the Austrian lands while his son Philip became ruler of the Spanish, Italians, and Burgundian lands." If that is not an answer, you need to explain why not – but we can do without rants against Wikipedia and the volunteers who put their effort into writing and improving the articles, as well as answering questions. There are more than two million articles in Wikipedia, and without a better reference there is little we can do with a statement such as "Wikipedia lists the Spaniards as having some unique claim to the Roman Empire". If you see something that is wrong, then fix it – provided that you cite reliable sources for your edits. Finally, cross-posting is discouraged, and it is not at all clear why you think a page about the Byzantine Emperors is a suitable spot to discuss a putative problem with a statement about Spaniards. --Lambiam 22:44, 22 November 2007 (UTC)


 * You are making a straw man out of this. Look at my response below.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Sorry, who is arguing what? It looks as though the two of you have crossed paths of argument. I'll say what I know (which is effectively summarising what WP already says: the last Palaeologus, Andrew, nephew of Constantine XI, left a will in which he designated Isabella and Ferdinand as his heirs to his rights in the Empire. Thus, arguably, Isabella and Ferdinand became Emperor and Empress of Constantinople - or, perhaps, just the rightful heirs to Constantinople. The idea, I suppose, was that as a pretty dynamic and successful and religiously zealous pair, they were likely to claim it and launch a crusade (Andrew previously attempted to sell his rights to Charles VIII of France, another bellicose monarch). What happened to that afterwards, I don't know; List of titles and honours of the Spanish Crown doesn't appear to know, and certainly no actual action was taken to claim Constantinople, so perhaps the Catholic Monarchs didn't bother to do anything about it.


 * It's debateable if F&I had even been willed the title itself, or merely Andrew's rights to the throne: in Constantinople, one did not become monarch by divine right from the moment of the previous monarch's death; one became emperor, either after the emperor's death, or in his lifetime if he chose or rebellion broke out, through the acclamation of the Constantinopolitan populace and army, the consent of the senate (not that that ever meant anything), the coronation of the emperor by the patriarch, and the reverence of the Patriarch before the emperor to show loyalty. Unless that ceremony was carried out, one was not emperor - and since F&I, and for that matter Andrew Paleologus, were never subjects of such a ceremony, whilst they might have claimed to be 'emperor in exile', even Andrew's rights to do so would have been shaky - he'd have had a good right to claim the title, but even if by some chance Constantinople had during his lifetime been recaptured by his allies or the Greeks, he would have only been a high ranking contender for the title, not the automatic holder of the title. That being the case, I doubt F&I and Charles V afterwards would have measured it very highly as compared to that of HRE - HRE was a real title, even if unaccompanied by real power; their rights in Constantinople would have been worth even less than those of Charles in Burgundy (where he could claim to be rightful Duke, rather than to have vague rights to the title).


 * In any case, Andrew's right to will the title was highly dubious anyway: the empire belonged to whoever could get it, as Byzantine history shows, and by that logic, the Ottoman sultans (who actually held Constantinople) had a far better claim; and, of course, if one favours the western hereditary rights argument, then the remaining Paleologi, perhaps the family of Tsarina Zoe in particular, had far better rights as the blood of Constantine XI than a pair simply given a claim in a will.


 * I doubt I've been very much help to whoever was asking the question, but I hope I've clarified some points of the issue. Certainly, it was worth raising the point here, regardless of whether it was raised elsewhere. Michael Sanders 00:38, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Michael, the question was whether the title, if having been devolved through the Royal Catholics, stayed with Spain or went with the HRE title for Ferdinand, because the Spanish and Austrian sides remained separate. One would think that if there was legitimacy to the Byzantine title, as sold to the Reconquistadors, then it would have been sensible to have given it to the Holy Roman Emperor rather than the King of Spain, to nullify any and all rival claims to imperium in Europe.  In fact, I think that was one of the issues of the Reformation and the subsequent Enlightenment--absolute power corrupts absolutely.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 05:33, 23 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, in the eyes of western europe, the title HRE already had all the legitimacy it needed - indeed, if the western notion of translatio imperii was still around, it could have been argued that the Byzantine empire had been illegitimate since 800 anyway - and for the HRE to admit the legitimacy of the Byzantine title would have been to question the legitimacy of his own, since it had been gained by dubious means in 800 - and the HR Emperor was in enough trouble regarding power in the empire without adding in a debate over his legitimacy to rule.


 * But it's unlikely that any of that was an issue. I seriously doubt F&I, and Charles, were particularly bothered about the claim - it was the aim of any potential crusader after 1453 to recapture Constantinople (Philip the Good held a feast in which he swore to do so in 1454), and, as 1204 demonstrates, anyone could become Constantinopolitan emperor. Furthermore, much of the lands that Charles ruled in had never been ruled by the Roman emperors, only the HREs - which might explain why northern Germany went protestant, but ignores the realities of the fact that Charles wouldn't have risked his power further there. And Charles was not a romantic man - he knew that the Byzantine title would give no extra power, that anyone would laugh if he tried to use it to reinforce HRE power, and that he was better off attempting to reinforce the power of the HRE. Furthermore the Roman notion of imperium was becoming increasingly irrelevant; Charles already ruled the Spanish Empire, the greatest power in the world of that time, even if there was no 'Spanish emperor'; so any attempts to prevent rival imperia would have been on the pratical level of preventing France building up its power in Italy and Europe, not concerns about rival 'emperors'.


 * (Incidentally, you could just as easily argue that the reformation and the enlightenment developed because of the removal of the Byzantine emperors. With one emperor gone, the other, due to his weakness of power and the autonomy of his princes, looks increasingly irrelevant; and so the European monarchs begin to claim the absolute power over the church and state which hitherto had been the prerequisite of the Byzantine Emperors. And leads to a swing-back by the European populace). Michael Sanders 15:20, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Well then, did not the HR Emperors act as lieutenants of the Papacy, per Donation of Constantine? That would make the Popes the Western rulers, as the Emperors in Constantinople were the Eastern rulers.  Or, did the extinction of the Byzantine line make a precedent by which the Pope no longer had to crown them in Rome?  Is that also how the Emperor was able to invade the Papal States (Donation of Pepin), without cost to his crown?  The unresolved question, most of all, is whether the Byzantine (legitimist) title went extinct due to its irrelevancy--or whether it went to Spain (needs evidence).  It would also seem that between this Renaissance and the Enlightenment is the only time the Holy Roman Empire had any measure of significance, but as it began in the form of a barbarian imitation of the French (Frankish Gaul), it also fell by the same people (under Napoleon) who thought it had outlived its usefulness, probably since there was no counterweight in Constantinople to compare with.  I think that after this time, several European nations considered themselves rightful claimants to Roman style government, but none of them truly had this, including the Russians.  It took the United States to truly reintroduce classical government, because it was built in the aftermath of the Fall of Constantinople and had no Mediaeval baggage.  24.255.11.149 (talk) 17:46, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure the Popes claimed that the Emperors were their lieutenants, just that the Donation gave them the power to bestow or take away the imperial title if they so wished. And the Papacy would have claimed that they had as much power over the Byzantine title, by the Donation, as over HRE - that is, if they hadn't simply stuck to the argument that the Byzantine emperors since 800 had been illegitimate.


 * However, by 1500, all this was becoming increasingly outdated and irrelevant. The Papacy simply weren't able to credibly claim any sort of temporal superiority over kings (the Babylonish Captivity and the Schism had seen to that) and was increasingly being seen as corrupt and sacrilegious. Meanwhile, royal power was increasing due to improvements in circumstances and bureaucracy: the kings of England, France, and Spain were able to exert greater power in their kingdoms, put bigger and more powerful armies into the field, etc. The wars in Italy, for example, have little to do with the Donation of Pippin and Imperial titles (I doubt anyone remembered or cared about the Donation of Pippin by that time, since even the Papacy tended to grab power by illegitimate means, for example usurping Urbino), and everything to do with the abilities of the French and Spanish to send troops there, and a recognition that Imperial rights there could not be backed up, and a willingness to usurp them. As I said, the Fall of Constantinople seems to have degraded the respect given to the HR Emperors, since the 1600th century saw the HRE become even more irrelevant. Charles V, again: his attack on Rome had nothing to do with imperial rights (otherwise he would have justified it as such), and everything to do with the fact that he was the first HR Emperor to have the resources of an Empire (through the Spanish empire).


 * It was a time which saw an increase in political realism, and a move away from ritualism: the HR Empire became recognised as irrelevant and insignificant (it had been significant once, incidentally), and the princes made serious moves towards real independence, using the excuse of religion; it was a time when people didn't care so much about respecting the Pope, or paying lip service to an outdated empire, regardless of what claims it made; and whilst it would be nice to have confirmation, I suspect the lack of references in early modern histories suggests that the Byzantine claim was allowed to lapse - because I really doubt Charles cared about it. The reality was the Turkish Empire threatening Austria, and to the need to defend his interests militarily; sentimental claims to imperium would not have been of much interest to him, I suspect. Michael Sanders 23:22, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * How is it that Spain was any more of an empire than any other country, not under Turkish rule? Both them (for the Reconquista) and Portugal (for Prince Henry the Navigator) were afforded special rights by the Borgias in the New World, while England's marital treaty with the Royal Catholics gave them permission to send John Cabot to Newfoundland, without any controversy whatsoever.  The Valois French (allied with the Scots against the Anglo-Habsburg alliance, in England as well as Brittany) just didn't give a damn about Tordesillas and sent Verrazzano on their own terms, albeit quite late in the race.  If Spain was an empire, than Henry VIII's claims to imperium were not less important.  It's all because of Henry VII, his father, who was one clever man by far!  24.255.11.149 (talk) 04:57, 25 November 2007 (UTC)

Juan Carlos
If Sanders believes anything he told me above, then why does he constantly make Juan Carlos out to be a pretender of Constantinople? He's got User:Strothra breathing down my neck and coupled together, they have reinforced the opposite sentiment of what is written above and I'm now the subject of a 3RR edit war--I have replied, nevertheless. 24.255.11.149 (talk) 07:35, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Pre-Arcadius
Okay, I read the list, and I don't think any of the emperors preceding Arcadius should be included. Here's why. It is true that Constantine I was the first Christian emperor and moved the capital from Rome to Constantinople. However, he was initially emperor of Western Europe, and he ruled the whole empire from 324 until his death. After Constantine died in 337, the Roman Empire was divided and reunited several times. The permanent division did not occur until after the death of Theodosius I in 395. --The President of Cool 22:19, 26 October 2007 (UTC)
 * But Constantinople was the capital of the empire under Constantine and his successors in the eastern empire. Michael Sanders 13:00, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
 * True, but the eastern part of the empire did not permanently divide until 395. Everything that happened before that was just sitting emperors appointing co-emperors and/or arranging for the empire to be divided among their children. I don't think those temporary divisions count. --The President of Cool (talk) 07:13, 23 November 2007 (UTC)
 * Ah, but technically, the two halves were reunited under Zeno (either after the fall of Augustulus or the death of Nepos, depending which source you read). And, in fact, large parts of the western empire were captured under Justinian - including Rome itself. So really, the division after Theodosius I was as (theoretically, and for a time semi-practically) temporary as the previous divisions.


 * Basically, 'Byzantine' is just a term used by historians to conveniently distinguish between the 'Romans' of Antiquity, and the inhabitants of the 'Roman Empire' in the Middle Ages. The problem with that is that there is no clear cut off-point of Roman/Byzantine: to start it at any point gives rise to issues such as this. However, since Byzantine can and is used to mean 'Constantinopolitan', it is arguably simplest, and most accurate, to list all those emperors who ruled over the empire whose capital was Constantinople. Michael Sanders 15:03, 24 November 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally, I agree with The President of Cool on the emperors. (not that he's the President of Cool - that would be me. :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 23:08, 4 December 2017 (UTC)

Format
The current format of the article is a bit confusing. It's meant to be a list, isn't it? Or it's meant to be a table? A list seems preferable from a practical point of view.--K.C. Tang (talk) 09:19, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
 * Agree. Either that or fix the table. The current format of the page is atrocious. Srnec (talk) 16:16, 8 February 2008 (UTC)

Nomenclature
After the closing of the Constantine I move proposals, I was about propose a compromise Constantine I the Great on the grounds that it would prohibit arguments from "consistency", since I knew that other Roman and Byzantine emperors sometimes had nicknames or family names after ordinals in their titles. But when surveying the current titles for Byzantine emperors I realised just how unsystematic it really is. So I have the following questions: Now a look at a few cases: Any comments? Or is this much ado about nothing? Srnec (talk) 16:51, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
 * 1) Should articles on Byzantine emperors (just who is Byzantine is another question) use nicknames at all, ever? If so, always? If not always, when?
 * 2) What about family names like Palaiologos? Even if the family name exists but the family never formed a ruling dynasty? In other words, so we distinguish between family names and epithets?
 * 3) What nickname do we use when there are several possible languages: Greek, Latin, English? Should it depend on whether the emperor's name is rendered in Greek or English? If there is no English form and the emperor's name is in English, do we go with Greek or more familiar Latin?
 * 4) When do the Byzantine emperors begin and the Roman stop? With Constantine? Leo I? Zeno? Justinian I? When do we begin a consistent "Byzantine" nomenclature?
 * 5) Do we ever need to disambiguate with "(emperor)" as we sometimes now do? Could we use Leo I the Thracian instead of Leo I (emperor), for example? Is that always an option?
 * 6) When do we need to disambiguate (in the above-mentioned way)? All the Leos are disambiguated b/c of popes, but not all the Constantines are (yet). If we go to nicknames, they will be. In that case, should the current titles redirect or be made into dab pages requiring dab hatnotes atop the emperors' articles?
 * 1) Nikephoros I could become Nikephoros I Logothetes or Nikephoros I Genikos, but I don't think either nickname is overwhelmingly common.
 * 2) Michael VI could become Michael VI Bringas (which I think is a family, but non-dynastic, name), Michael VI Stratiotikos or Michael VI Stratioticus (I think the Latin looks better with English "Michael"), Michael VI the Warlike or Michael VI the Bellicose (I don't know how common the English is, but I think warlike is more common than bellicose), or Michael VI Gerontas (I don't know if he is ever called Michael VI the Old. That's a lot of options if we even need to disambiguate, but there is a Pope Michael VI of Alexandria and Michaels I, IV, VIII, and IX are disambiguated.
 * 3) Constantine XI could become Constantine XI Dragases (his preference) or, in conformity with his family, Constantine XI Palaiologos. I think his current status looks odd considering all the other Palaiaologoi have a name after their ordinal and if we change the other Constantines he will have to be changed too.

1) The nicknames are about the only disambiguation available prior to the rise of last names. Currently the only Emperors with last names who do not have them included in the article titles are:


 * Romanos I. A Lekapenos/Lecapenus. Several of his sons were co-emperors but we do not have articles on them, they were arguably a minor dynasty in their own right.
 * Nikephoros II. A Phokas/Phocas. Member of a major military family, last name included in the names of articles such as Bardas Phokas the elder and Bardas Phocas.
 * John I Tzimiskes. His family names was Kourkouas but his nickname is better known.
 * Romanos III. An Argyros/Argyrus. Not a particularly well-known family.
 * Michael VI. A Bringas. A family with no other known members.
 * Constantine X. A Doukas/Ducas and a dynasty founder!
 * Michael VII. The second Doukas.
 * Romanos IV. A Diogenes, member of a military family.
 * Nikephoros III. A Botaneiates, another military family.
 * Constantine XI. A Palaiologos/Palaeologus. The only one in his dynasty where we do not list his family name.

I would not be against renaming them for consistancy reasons mostly.

2) When a last name does not exist, a nickname should work fine. Though note than not all emperors seem to have them. Currently the Emperors with nicknames not mentioned in the article titles include:


 * Constantine I. Supposedly "the Great". Actually "Saint Constantine" is much more common where I live (Greece).
 * Theodosius I. "The Great". A title mostly given to him by the Church.
 * Theodosius II. "The Calligrapher" but for some reason his article does not even mention it.
 * Leo I (emperor). "The Thracian".
 * Anastasius I (emperor). "Dicorus" (Greek: Δίκορος, "two-pupiled"). In reference to his having Anastasius had one eye black and one eye blue (heterochromia).
 * Justinian I. "The Great". Not even mentioned in his article.
 * Phokas. "The Tyrant". Byzantine historiography paints him in overwhelmingly negative colors. Though I suspect it had more to do Heraclius' propaganda than his harsh rule. The article does not even mention it.
 * Constans II. "The Bearded", for a stylistic choice in shaving.
 * Constantine IV. "The Bearded", for a common confusion with his father.
 * Justinian II. "Rinotmetos" or "Rhinotmetus" (Ρινότμητος, Rinotmētos, "the Slit-nosed"). For having his nose cut when deposed, yet restoring himself to the throne.
 * Tiberios III. "Apsimarus". Although it was actually his name previous to his elevation to the throne, tends to be used as a typical nick-name.
 * Philippikos. "Bardanes". Same deal. Regnal name and birth name used together.
 * (For some reason I have never seen "Anastasios II Artemios" used though his case is the same as with Tiberios III and Philippikos).
 * Theodosios III. ""Adramyttinos", because he was from Adramyttium.
 * Constantine V. "Kopronymos" (i.e. the Dung-named) derives from kopros (feces, also animal dung) and onoma (name). The nickname used by the hostile iconodule sources refers to him allegedly defecating in the baptismal font or the imperial purple cloth with which he was swaddled.
 * Artabasdos. The "Icon-Lover" or the "Iconodule" for his religious affiliation.
 * Constantine VI. "The Blinded" for the manner of his deposition.
 * Irene (empress). "The Athenian", because she was from Athens.
 * Nikephoros I. "Logothetes" because he was finance minister (logothetēs tou genikou) prior to his elevation to the throne.
 * Michael II. Two nick-names. (1)"The Amorian", because he was from Amorium and his entire dynasty is named after it. (2) "Traulos" or "Psellos" (Τραυλός, Ψηλλος, Latin Psellus), meaning "the Stammerer". Simply because of his stuttering. Note that the second needs disambiguation with Michael Psellos who is a different person.
 * Michael III. "The Drunkard". Because he was supposedly murdered while drunk.
 * Basil I. "The Macedonian". Because he was from Macedonia (theme) and that is the name given to his entire dynasty.
 * Constantine VII. "Porphyrogenitos" ("born in the Purple". Because unlike several of his predecessors, he was born to a reigning emperor.
 * Basil II. "Boulgaroktonos" (the "Bulgar-slayer").
 * Michael V. "Kalaphates" ("the Caulker") for the occupation of his father.

I feel "the Great" throws NPOV out of the window. Would not be opposed to see any of the rest included in titles. In what form or language is a good question that should probably be decided on a case-by-case discussion.

3) Emperors who are known neither by nickname or last name include:


 * Constantius II
 * Jovian
 * Valentinian I
 * Valens
 * Gratian
 * Arcadius
 * Marcian
 * Leo II (emperor)
 * Zeno (emperor)
 * Basiliscus
 * Justin I
 * Justin II
 * Tiberius II Constantine
 * Maurice (emperor)
 * Heraclius
 * Constantine III (emperor)
 * Heraklonas (Which is actually his nickname but his actual name is very rarely used even in primary sources).
 * Mezezius.
 * Leontios. (Whose actual name was Leo).
 * Staurakios
 * Theophilos (emperor)
 * Alexander (emperor)
 * Romanos II (Though he is at times called "Porphyrogenitos" to mirror his father. Technically he was).
 * Constantine VIII
 * Zoe (empress) (though Porphyrogenita is at times used).
 * Theodora (11th century) (though Porphyrogenita is at times used).

I am not sure how would you disambiguate them if needed.

Suggestions on how would you want a list to be rendered? Dimadick (talk) 20:06, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the response. I'm still thinking about what to do with this... Srnec (talk) 23:36, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Split Article
I don't know if its just me but I think that the article should be split into two articles. These I believe should comprise of List of Byzantine Emperors (which already exists obviously) and Byzantine Emperor. I say this because many articles do this with an explanation of what the title is and the actual full history of the title and the list of the physical holders of the crown/s seperately. I propese a vote on this. If you would like to vote please but either a yes or a no at the begging of your message. Please put your vote at the bottom of the page and nowhere else to help keep the disccssion which will hopefully ensue simple and understandable. Thankyou. (Romanorum Imperator (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Yes. Starter of disccussion. (Romanorum Imperator (talk) 18:56, 19 May 2008 (UTC))

Clean up
This list needs a clean up just as i did on the roman emperor list. If somebody wants to helo just contact me on the user page. --Be Black Hole Sun (talk) 19:00, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Motto? (or something)
What about putting as the Emperor's motto "Βασιλεύς Βασιλέων Βασιλευόντων Βασιλευομένων" that was widely something refering to them, as well as the meaning of the 4B flag?--Michael X the White (talk) 19:20, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Should we get rid of the "Notes" column?
The excessive amount of text in the "Notes" column is stretching out the table into an unwieldy mess. I think we should get rid of that column altogether.71.179.198.254 (talk) 04:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
 * Additionally, I think it would be best to continue the column format used on the List of Roman Emperors page, which is much easier to follow.71.179.158.141 (talk) 20:37, 28 May 2009 (UTC)

Missing emperors and wrong dates
Emperors Constantine Lekapenos (R 924-945, d 946), Emperor Stephen Lekapenos (R 924 -945, d 967) and Emperor Christopher Lekapenos (R 921 -931) are all missing from the list. Also Emperor Alexios Komnenos (r 1122-1142) this is not the Emperor Alexios I Komnenos this is the heir and coemperor of John II Komnenos who died before his father. Does anyone mind if I add them?

Emperors Basil reign from 960- 1025, not 976 to 1025. 976 is when he satopped using regent he was still emperor from 960 to 976 it talks about this on his page.

Emperor Constantine VIII ruled from 962 -1028, not 1025 -1028. He was coemperor this counts as part of his reign.

Emperor John II Komnenos was emperor from 1092 to 1143. His emperorship did not start when his father died. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.215.152 (talk) 14:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Talk:List of Byzantine emperors/Proposed move
I have moved a previous set of proposed moves to the above subpage of this talk page, like an archive, in case it is ever brought up again. Srnec (talk) 05:04, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Portraits
Many of the images of portraits on coins are too small to make out the actual portrait. In particular, those images which show both sides of the coin are much too wide to fit well in the portraits column. Since these are portraits, the coin reverse is irrelevant and interferes. AmateurEditor (talk) 23:55, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Another Byzantine person in exile Ferdinando Paleologos (coming from imperial family) dead at the Rupiblic of Barbados
I WOULD LIKE TO ADD ADDITIONAL INFORMATION TO YOUR TEXT ABOUT BYZANTINE EMPERORS.

Ferdinando Paleologos ( coming from imperial family) who died in 1678 has a burial chamber   at the Church of Saint John in BARBADOS.

The source of this information is  the book named  ' Here There And Everywhere ' ,Author: Lord Frederic Hamilton,M. D. Plunkett   page :56

I JUST THOUGHT THAT MAYBE YOU WOULD LIKE TO REVISE THE  INFORMATION  AT WIKIPEDIA TEXT : BYZANTINE EMPERORS IN EXILE. ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Byzantine_emperors )

BEST REGARDS,

ALI TUFAN —Preceding unsigned comment added by Alitufann (talk • contribs) 09:18, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Caesars
I would like to put informations about the Caesars (vice-Emperors), but I do not know which column to use. --TakenakaN (talk) 15:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Number System
As I have observed recently, numbering of Emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire (Byzantine Empire) has been started with Constantine I up to Heraclius. I am surprised that most of the other 100 plus emperors up to Constantine XI have been given. There are 137 official emperors of the Eastern Roman Empire and should be numbered as such to show continuity.

It would give people who want to know how many Emperors were on the Eastern throne of the Roman Empire (Byzantine). So whoever was the one that started numbering the Emperors beginning with Constantine, can you do so for the emperors that have not been accorded the same treatment. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talk • contribs) 12:14, 11 April 2011 (UTC)


 * This numbering idea is problematic and has a high potential for OR and POV. For one, there is no clear cut-off point between the "Roman Empire" and the "Byzantine Empire". The two are actually the same entity. The list of emperors traditionally begins with Constantine I, but it is very misleading to label Constantine I (or Theodosius I, Justinian, or Heraclius for that matter) as the "last Roman emperor" or as the "first Byzantine emperor" without some major qualifications to this statement, and infoboxes are inherently unable to provide that. In addition, the line of succession is by no means unambiguous: several lists omit short-lived usurpers like Basiliscus or Artabasdos, and/or include some or all of the numerous co-emperors. Constantine  ✍  12:55, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Infobox Changes
The following Emperors of the Byzantine Empire have a different infobox from the other Emperors and need to be fixed to bring fluidity to the Byzantine Emperors.

The infobox for these following Emperors need to be changed from {{Infobox royalty|monarch to {{Infobox Monarch

Michael I Rangabe
 * Constantine IX
 * Theodora (11th Century)
 * Manuel I Konmnenos
 * Alexios II Komnenos
 * Andronikos I Komnenos

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talk • contribs) 12:26, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

Emperors needing infoboxes
These following Byzantine Emperors have no infoboxes like their fellow Emperors and need to be created for them. The format should be that of {{Infobox Monarch to be in line with the Emperors with that type of infobox.


 * Alexios III Angelos
 * Alexios V Doukas
 * Andronikos II Palaiologos

Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Senjuto (talk • contribs) 12:27, 11 April 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on List of Byzantine emperors. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20150424071336/http://wsu.edu/~dee/MA/BYZ.HTM to http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MA/BYZ.HTM

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers. —cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 15:28, 25 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Checked and fixed, using earliest, not one of the latest, archive snapshots. Dhtwiki (talk) 20:48, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Number of emperors
In the final paragraph before the contents, it is stated that there were 99 emperors in total. Accepting the list as accurate, and ignoring the fact that four of these were empresses, I make the total 96, as follows:

Constantinian	 4 Valentinian	 3 Theodosian	 5 Leonid	        5 Justinian	 5 Heraclian	 6 Isaurian	 6 Nikephorian	 3 Amorian	        3 Macedonian	16 Komnenid	 1 Doukid	        4 Komnenid	 5 Angelid  	 4 Laskarid	 4 Palaiologan	10 Non-dynastic	 9 Pretenders      3 Total          96

John V Palaiologos had three reigns, being deposed twice and restored twice. Similarly, Isaac II Angelos had two reigns. It seems to me that the three 'extra' reigns have been counted as though there were three more emperors, not the same emperors reigning a second and third time, Does anyone disagree? If not, I will change the figure.

--109.152.124.55 (talk) 10:33, 21 October 2015 (UTC)


 * Interesting that you can account for the discrepancy. The paragraph was added here more than two years ago, without reference or explanation, from a Swedish ISP. Maybe it's cultural. Since there's no referral to the literature, it probably counts as WP:OR anyway. If you do make a change, you might include your analysis as a footnote, so other editors have more to go on. Dhtwiki (talk) 21:00, 21 October 2015 (UTC)

Merger proposal
I think this article should be merged with List of Roman emperors. Content is largely duplicated between both articles, and List of Byzantine emperors is basically just a subset of List of Roman emperors, so I don't see why there should be two separate articles for the same topic.  Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 11:35, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose for the same reason that we have different articles on the Roman Empire and the Byzantine Empire. In fact, I would support a removal of the Byzantine emperors from the List of Roman emperors, where they were added in January 2015. IMO, the entire "Eastern emperors" section should be removed or starkly condensed to a summary paragraph, with a "for more information" link to this article. Constantine  ✍  13:28, 5 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Comment Even before that January 2015 edit, about three-hundred years were still duplicated between both articles. (This article starts in 330 AD; that one ended in 600 AD). If we keep two separate lists, it raises the question of where the division between the two lists be located, and whether an arbitrary dividing line might mislead readers. Now, if people think using the "Byzantine emperors" name is important due to its use by many historians, then I would also be fine with merging these two articles into a List of Roman and Byzantine emperors article. The main thing is the merger, rather than the naming.  Chessrat ( talk, contributions ) 07:10, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * The overlap was due to the rather ill-defined notion of when the "proper" Roman Empire ended and the "Byzantine" Empire began. Historians have disagreed on this since forever. People love clear-cut "start" and "end" dates, but these are often not productive in practice, hence the more recent notion of "Late Antiquity" that was a transitive period between Classical Antiquity and the Middle Ages. Furthermore, it is a subject that is tarred with not a little ideological bias that dates to the very first treatments of Byzantine history by Westerners (the Byzantines were not "properly" Romans, thus leaving the "true" heritage of Rome open for claim by Germany, France, Britain, etc.) which you can sort of detect in the old version of the List of Roman emperors article: it ended with the Justinian dynasty, because Justinian I himself was a famous and great emperor (and a Latin-speaker), hence he simply had to be a "Roman" ("Last of the Romans"), whereas the guys who followed him were degenerate Greeks. In modern historiography, at any rate, the end of Late Antiquity and of the "Eastern Roman Empire" as a late antique state is uniformly set in the mid-7th century, after Heraclius, from which point on the transition to the "Byzantine" period is held to have been firmly under way. There are other historians, however, who include the entire Dominate into the "Byzantine" period, in order to juxtapose the absolutistic state established by Diocletian to the still formally republican Principate. That much as an (short) explanation on the overlap, but this historiographic divide also affects how we can name and structure our articles. There is a historiographic term "Byzantine emperor", and it is a subject of study in its own right: there are publications on "Byzantine" emperors that touch upon aspects of the office inherited from their "Roman" predecessors, but treat the subject independently, and vice-versa. In other words, there are "lists of Byzantine emperors" in the real world, in every book on Byzantine history, and they do not begin with Augustus, and many lists of Roman emperors consciously set the Byzantine ones aside or include some up to ca. 500, or Heraclius at the latest, e.g., , . To recapitulate, the merger is not factually incorrect, which is why no-one complains about the navbox, for instance; but it is very much against common practice to lump all of them into one list. The fact that here on enwiki one editor in 2015 thought otherwise and moved material in without discussion is definitely not enough; enwiki remains the only major wiki to have this situation at all. For me, that is an error that ought to be corrected. Constantine  ✍  08:28, 6 October 2017 (UTC)


 * Support The articles have functionally the same content, and even if we were to decide on an arbitrary division between "Roman" and "Byzantine," there would still be a good deal of overlap between the two. Plus if one user wanted to see the full list of Emperors, they'd have to click between multiple articles. Merging the information into one single article makes presents the information in the easiest and most convenient way for the average reader. I Feel Tired (talk) 09:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: I disagree that just because there are separate Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire articles, there should be separate lists. We can distinguish between the need in standard articles to find ways to cut down on the size of an article according to logical and historically understood principles, divisions and markers, and on the other hand lists that by their nature are comprehensive and inclusive. To take a related, if perhaps imperfect comparison: there are separate pages for Roman Republic and Roman Empire, but there's a single page of List of Roman consuls. Or there are pages like List of Chancellors of Germany and List of heads of state of France that span various legal entities with their own articles. A single list of emperors demonstrates the formal continuity that existed. At present, there's the list on this page is entirely a subset of the longer list on the other page.
 * A comment for discussion: I note the list of Byzantine emperors has a paragraph of notes that are useful. Are we going to find a way to incorporate these? Perhaps they get in the way though, a good featured list like List of Prime Ministers of the United Kingdom doesn't have them. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 11:50, 3 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose per Constantine. The eastern and western empires were separate entities and "overlap", as such, is tenuous at best. Having two independent lists is the best approach with, of course, suitable cross-referencing where needed. Jack &#124; talk page 17:10, 26 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The Eastern and Western Empires were not separate entities, the Romans maintained that the Empire was one and unified, but with two separate imperial courts governing it (as in the Tetrarchy or during any previous time where there had been more than one emperor at a time). This is also apparent from that both courts appointed consuls recognized by the other, that laws passed by one court were valid in the area controlled by the other and that the duty of appointing a new Western Emperor fell to the Eastern Emperor in the event of the Western Emperor dying (and vice versa). Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Oppose There is very little benefit in merging the two articles; it might be appropriate to make references to one another when emperors overlap, but the merger of the two articles into one would reflect an ill-inspired historical and functional approach. The fundamental differences between the two empires (ranging from leadership style to courtesan intrigues) would simply be blurred by a potential merger Thevaluablediamond (talk) 22:43, 27 November 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment I do not feel that the observed differences between the "empires" is a good justification for splitting the lists. As the Byzantine Empire was a direct continuation of the Roman Empire, but lasted centuries longer, differences in legislature and culture are to be expected as time went on. The same reasoning could be used to support separate lists for emperors of the Principate, Tetrarchy/Dominate and the Western Roman Empire since the role of the Emperor shifted between them. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Support: Most of the arguments for a merger have already been stated. There is no fundamental difference between "Roman" and "Byzantine" Emperors (the distinction is due to later historiography) and since the point of "divergence" between them is arbitrary and ill-defined, there would always be overlap between the two lists. Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:00, 10 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose merger per the arguments advanced by other editors above, and especially the comments by Constantine. Also there is no consensus for any merger, so there is no justification for any unilateral redirects without clear consensus. Dr.   K.  07:51, 13 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Support Both halves of the empire, though they were effectively separate governments, considered themselves Roman. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 19:11, 13 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional Support I could support this proposal only in the event the Byzantine Empire article is renamed Eastern Roman Empire, and this List of Byzantine emperors is renamed List of Eastern Roman emperors. For terms of historical consistency and accuracy, this is the best approach Wikipedia should take. The Byzantines are Romans, just are the survived eastern half of the united empire. The term Byzantine unfortunately is an ill-intended German invention in a desperate bid to de-Romanize the Eastern Romans in favor of the German Holy Roman Empire, which will always find me opposing. The eastern Roman emperors never referred to themselves as Byzantines, but as Romans, and it is a unique case we are having in Wikipedia, where a German historian renamed an entire empire and its people using a term that never existed back then. -- ❤ S ILENT R ESIDENT  ❤ 18:40, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment It is worth noting that "Western" and "Eastern Roman Empire" are just as much of historiographical inventions as "Byzantine Empire" is. In the view of the Empire itself, the state was never divided and the government in Constantinople never referred to its governed territories as the "Eastern Roman Empire" (especially not after the fall of the west when there was only one empire remaining). It stands to reason that without a western empire there isn't an eastern one either, just a singular Roman Empire . I do however agree that "Eastern Roman Empire" is a much better terminology to use for historical accuracy. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:19, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment The whole Byzantine vs. (Eastern) Roman discussion has been done to death over and over. The bottom line is that we, as Wikipedians, cannot decide what to call it. Historical misnomers and conventions are a dime a dozen. Our task is not to correct them, but to follow common usage, and that is pretty clearly in favour of "Byzantine" in this case. Until that changes in the "real world", any discussion is moot. And for exactly the same reason, this list needs to remain where it is: a "Byzantine Empire" has its own, "Byzantine emperors". Constantine  ✍  14:18, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Comment Do note that I stated that "Eastern Roman Empire" would be better from an historical accuracy standpoint, not that I was necessarily for changing the name. I do believe that Eastern Roman Empire (or just Roman Empire) is the best way to call it but as you say, that could be problematic on wikipedia. Keeping the lists separate is fine by me as long as the "Byzantine" Emperors are also present in the List of Roman Emperors. Though I also believe this to be the case, I would however like some evidence that "Byzantine" is used more often than "Eastern Roman", both popularly and academically. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:20, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Academically, one could start by listing all the departments and journals of "Byzantine" studies out there. Some time ago I compiled a handy list at Portal:Byzantine_Empire/Weblinks. Constantine  ✍  21:58, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Conditional support per Silent Resident immediately above and I have struck out my earlier entry. I agree with SR's argument especially given his point about the origin of the name "Byzantine Empire". Jack &#124; talk page 14:57, 19 December 2017 (UTC)

I do not see sources that support the merger, and I think this is a circumvention of Wikipedia's policy. Third and reliable sources decide, not Wikipedians views. --Phailoteam (talk) 22:37, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not see sources that oppose the merger either. I would be fine with keeping both lists as they are. Ichthyovenator (talk) 16:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)


 * Oh God, I'm cringing at the attempted rehashing of the infamous "Byzantine" vs. "Roman" debacle. Please, spare us. Please. We get it. They were technically the same state. This is not earth shattering news. This is not a groundbreaking revelation. According to common usage and reliable sources, they're considered separate entities. The distinction between these two lists is 100% due to the same exact reason there's two separate articles for the state itself. Historiographically, they're two different subjects, yes, in spite of the fact that it was technically the same state. Anyone with two bits of knowledge on this subject is well-aware of this. The personal POV-pushing going on above is disgusting. Until whatever point the reliable sources and common perception stops drawing a distinction between ERE and WRE, the articles should quite obviously reflect the historiographical point of view, and not the sad, "truth-bombs" that whatever randoms think they're dropping on us. Strong oppose. S warm   ♠  07:58, 9 January 2018 (UTC)

Proposal (from User:DemocraticSocialism)
Alright, I have a compromise solution. The two articles should be merged, BUT it should be titled, "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors".
 * I do not necessarily agree. The Byzantine emperors never referred to themselves as "Byzantine" (nor did any of their contemporaries) and since they are in direct succession to Augustus and fundamentally are Roman Emperors, I feel their place in the "List of Roman Emperors" article is more than justified without the need of adding "Byzantine" to the title of that article. It would be kinda like renaming the article list of pharaohs to "List of Pharaos of Egypt and the Ptolemaic Kingdom" since Ancient Egypt and Hellenic Egypt are normally separated historiographically. If others agree with your compromise however, it could be a decent solution. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:25, 14 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree with Ichthyovenator. While I do agree with the idea that they should all be put into a single list, I think just calling the article List of Roman emperors is sufficient for all the reasons he listed. That said, I would be willing to support the merger as a compromise.
 * Thank you for your suggestion! I Feel Tired (talk) 02:19, 15 December 2017 (UTC)


 * I understand your concerns, and I'm now going to clarify my reasons for naming the proposed article "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors". See, I added the word "Byzantine" to appease those who oppose the merger. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DemocraticSocialism (talk • contribs) 13:39, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * The reasons were quite apparent. Trying to find a compromise in situations like these is a good thing, and though I don't personally like the idea you advanced it is by no means a bad suggestion. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:21, 19 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I similarly like the attempt at finding a compromise, but I find the proposed title, "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors", a little unappealing. There's something canonical or classically encyclopaedic about the page title, "List of Roman emperors", and it correctly includes all those from Augustus to Constantine XI, as they appear, for example, in my edition of Gibbon's Decline and Fall, and other such lists. Whether we need a separate list of Byzantine emperors is a different matter. While I'd be mildly on the side of saying that we don't, I'm not opposed to the current situation continuing, even if "list of Byzantine emperors" is a complete subset of "list of Roman emperors". —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:33, 20 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Without taking a view on this, I'd be wary of editors rehashing arguments that were argued just a few years ago: Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 13. Of course, Wikipedia is an evolving project, and consensus can change, but on a subject this big, it should probably not do so too hastily! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 13:48, 20 December 2017 (UTC)

Sources please! Ηave we third and reliable sources that present a list about Roman and Byzantine emperors together? If not, that is original research. --Phailoteam (talk) 22:44, 24 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Iveagh Gardens stated above that Gibbon's Decline and Fall lists the emperors from Augustus to Constantine XI (which would include emperors called "byzantine"). Livius.org (Link) has separate lists for each century and Western and Eastern/Byzantine Emperors but they are all closely linked together. I'm sure I can find more with time.Ichthyovenator (talk) 10:04, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

I think we can find many different lists and interpret them at will.

The above article present that:


 * List of Roman Emperors [are in the List of Roman emperors]
 * List of Roman Emperors (2) [are in the List of Roman emperors]
 * List of Roman Emperors (3) [are in the List of Roman emperors]
 * List of Roman Emperors (Gaul) [are not in the List of Roman emperors]
 * List of Roman Emperors (Palmyra) [are not in the List of Roman emperors]
 * List of Roman Emperors (4) [are in the List of Roman emperors]
 * List of West-Roman Emperors [are in the List of Roman emperors]
 * List of Byzantine Emperors [are in the List of Roman emperors]

The oll.libertyfund.org presents all the emperors from 27 BC to 1888 AD (Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Holy Roman Empire-German Empire). It follows from the above that the merger is extremely doubtful. Every wikipedian can puts and goes out from the list that he wants. --Phailoteam (talk) 14:29, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * As in a lot of things in history, who is and isn't Roman Emperor is often up to interpretation, yes. As for the Gallic and Palmyrene rulers, the reasons for not including them are pretty obvious, unlike all other emperors in the list, they were rulers of separatist states that did not claim to be "Roman Emperors". The "Byzantine" rulers were in direct succession to Augustus and referred to themselves as "Roman" until the end. Your source on Holy Roman Emperors is from Germany in the late 1800s and seems to consider the "Byzantines" as legitimate until the coronation of Charlemagne. Of course, the Holy Roman Empire as the heir of Ancient Rome is not something widely accepted in modern historiography, but was a useful concept in Nineteenth Century Germany. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:57, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

You can do a very good original research and choose the emperors you want for the list. But wikipedia says "not original research".


 * WP:PRIMARY (Do not analyze, evaluate, interpret, or synthesize material found in a primary source yourself; instead, refer to reliable secondary sources that do so.)

We can all have a view on the subject. --Phailoteam (talk) 19:53, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes indeed. I am arguing that it is not original research to include the "Byzantine" Emperors in the "List of Roman Emperors" since many other lists do the same and several "Byzantine" Emperors are routinely referred to as "Roman". Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:17, 25 December 2017 (UTC)

In principle, the article edits has already been made, without sources. The only purpose is to make the List of Byzantine emperors redirection to the List of Roman emperors. In this discussion there are only views of the wikipedians and all that is needed is support for their views. "List of Roman and Byzantine emperors" does not exist. I understand that some wikipedians write history in wikipedia, but over time these edits are corrected based on sources --Phailoteam (talk) 21:05, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I do not support an article named "List of Roman and Byzantine Emperors", but do support the inclusion of the "Byzantine" emperors in the existing "List of Roman Emperors" as the list is now, as I have shown there are sources that reflect this. Whether this List of Byzantine emperors should redirect to that one or not is not a huge issue for me, but I would oppose removing the "Byzantine" emperors from the List of Roman emperors. Ichthyovenator (talk) 22:03, 25 December 2017 (UTC)
 * I'd add my support to everything expressed by in the above comment. I can't see any good reason for removing the Byzantine emperors from the list of Roman emperors. There may and probably are good reasons not to include the Byzantine period in articles on the Roman empire, but as a list of those who succeeded one after another from Augustus, including them makes sense, and is not unique to Wikipedia. If we were to stop, we'd have to make a clear decision about which ones to include, and there would be a division here among us about which Eastern/Byzantine emperors to include. I cited Gibbon above; his canonical history writes of a decline in the empire from 180 to 1453, and the chronological list of Roman Emperors in my edition (edited by Anthony Lentin and Brian Norman, Wordsworth, 1999) lists all emperors from Augustus to Constantine XI). I certainly can't see any benefit in removing the later emperors on that page. As to whether the list of Byzantine emperors should be merged, my initial response was that there was no harm, as it avoids duplication on different pages here on our project. However, we have continuous runs duplicated in List of German monarchs and Holy Roman Emperor, and it's not necessarily inappropriate depending on the emphasis different pages have. Appropriate text and comment in the introduction of each page can make the right links between them. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 21:55, 1 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose any merger per my comments in the above section. The two distinct topics represent the historiographical stance, therefore it would be POV-pushing to merge them because someone doesn't agree with that. Regarding overlapping content, if it's really an issue, then the Byzantine Emperors included in their standalone article should be removed from the "Roman Emperors" article. S warm   ♠  08:04, 9 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose any merger Per and, as well as my comments above.  Dr.   K.  21:23, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose merger and split from List of Roman emperors following the practical dissolution of the Western Empire. All of the members of the Theodosian dynasty should be incorporated into the main list, since there was direct overlap and interaction between the two halves of the Empire; for instance, Marcian, who comes last here, is usually included in lists of Roman emperors.  Less certain about Leo and his successors, since there was very little overlap or interaction in the final years of the Western Empire.  At this point I would say we should leave them out, and have a paragraph following Romulus Augustus explaining the continuity of the Eastern Empire, and directing readers to the List of Byzantine emperors.  P Aculeius (talk) 14:49, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Comment As for "very little overlap or interaction in the final years of the Western Empire" there was quite a lot of interaction? The second-to-last/last Western Roman Emperor gained the position because of the Eastern Empire, they continued to promote consuls recognized by each other, etc. The Ostrogoths were invited to take Italy from Odoacer by the Eastern Emperor and the Eastern Empire continued to be heavily involved with Western Europe for centuries. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:30, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * On the contrary, there was a significant and growing disconnect between the Eastern and Western Empires beginning with the murder of Majorian by Ricimer in 461. Libius Severus was elevated by Ricimer, had little control over the provinces, and was not recognized by the eastern emperor.  Anthemius, while nominated by the eastern emperor, was deposed by Ricimer; Olybrius was not recognized by the east, nor was Glycerius; Julius Nepos was, but he was deposed by Odoacer after a year; the east did not recognize Romulus Augustus.  During this period the two courts regularly rejected one another's consuls, and managed to appoint only one between them in several years.  Inviting barbarians to invade the Western Empire and seize control of it is hardly the kind of "interaction" that characterizes political unity.
 * There are also perfectly practical reasons why we don't want to combine these lists. The Byzantine Empire may have considered itself the legitimate continuation of the Roman, but nowhere in the west was this considered a political continuity.  The rise of new kingdoms, and eventually a new empire that claimed to be the successor of Rome is testament to this.  Meanwhile, by the sixth century, Constantinople bore relatively little resemblance to Classical Rome.  It controlled only the eastern parts of what had been the Roman Empire, and within a century it would begin losing much of that.  Except for brief periods, it had no control over Rome or Italy.  Greek was replacing Latin as the language of the aristocracy, Christianity had already replaced traditional Roman religion, the manner of dress, the form of architecture, the styles of literature would have been unrecognizable to Augustan Rome, Rome's political institutions had largely been superseded or were becoming obsolete.
 * Readers of Wikipedia will not expect to find nearly a thousand years' worth of emperors after the fall of the Western Empire in the same article; books about Roman history and the Roman emperors generally end in or around 476, not in 1453. Readers would justifiably expect to find a separate article on Byzantine emperors, but there's no reason to have one if it merely duplicates the latter half of the Roman emperors article.  These two articles should never have been merged, and they ought to be split now.
 * You stated that there was "little to no interaction" during the final years of the Western Empire, which is what I was getting at, since the two "divisions" clearly interacted with each other up until the end. I am not denying that there was a lack of political unity between them.
 * I would not say that Emperor Zeno "invited barbarians to invade the Western Empire" when he gave the Ostrogoths permission to invade Italy. The notion of a separate Western Empire was gone at that point, with Zeno being in de jure control over Italy with Odoacer as his vassal. The Ostrogoths were also not just "barbarians", but foederati settled within the imperial borders in Pannonia and somewhat integrated into the imperial system.
 * As for the Byzantine Empire considering itself as the continuation of Roman Empire, it should be obvious to anyone that though separated historiographically, they were the same state. When the Empire was "divided" the East was no less roman than the West and in some ways was more important than the western provinces (Constantinople had been the capital of the whole empire since the 330s, the last emperor to rule the whole empire, Theodosius, ruled from Constantinople, not Rome). Zeno abolished the separate western court after the death of Julius Nepos in 480, abolishing both the "Western" and "Eastern" empires and becoming sole Roman Emperor. The Eastern Empire continued to be recognized as the Roman Empire for centuries by Western Europe until the coronation of Charlemagne in 800 (plus, Charlemagne was crowned as a successor to eastern emperor Constantine VI, meaning that the Western Europeans considered the Byzantines as legitimate Roman Emperors at least up to Constantine VI). The last strongholds in Italy were not lost until 1071 and at least one emperor attempted to retake parts of Italy almost a century later.
 * Now, whilst i firmly consider the Byzantine Empire to represent not only a continuation of the Roman Empire but the exact same state, there is no denying that they are split historiographically by most in some way. Thus, it might be best to keep separate lists of "Roman" and "Byzantine" emperors. There being massive overlap between them is not a large issue in my opinion, but the Byzantine Emperors should firmly stay in the List of the Roman Emperors, they are featured in several lists of roman emperors elsewhere (though not as common as leaving them out, no) with some examples on this talk page and many of them are routinely referred to as "Roman", even the later ones. Ichthyovenator (talk) 18:17, 13 January 2018 (UTC)


 * Oppose split of Byzantine Emperors from the List of Roman Emperors per my comments above. There is no good reason to remove them from the main list of Roman Emperors. As for the merger of the two articles, they can be kept separate even with large amounts of overlap as many other lists of this type are (e.g. List of German monarchs and List of Holy Roman Emperors) or be merged as long as the List of Roman Emperors presents a full list of Roman Emperors, as it should. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Oppose change from status quo (i.e., opposed to any split or merger). At the moment, we have two good lists, both of which include the Byzantine emperors, in one case being the whole list, and in another as the later part of a much longer list. And that's fine. It respects different historiographies, and caters to different audiences. Someone reading a standard history of the Byzantine empire would find List of Byzantine emperors a useful page, whereas someone reading Gibbon's Decline and Fall (with a timescale 180 to 1453), would find the longer list useful. As I noted in a comment much earlier in this discussion, there are different sidenotes, as these pages have been built up with different focuses. And that's fine. I struggle to see any benefit in either deleting this current page, or deleting the later Roman emperors from the other page. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:49, 15 January 2018 (UTC)

Request for comment on merger
Could we get outside views on whether to close the proposal to merge this page into list of Roman emperors? Has time enough passed since there was a Supporting comment, or have we otherwise reached consensus? The proposal would effectively simply delete this page. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 15:31, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Are you asking for further input, or for a formal close? If the latter, starting a RfC is the wrong thing to do - you should really post a request at WP:ANRFC. -- Red rose64 &#x1f339; (talk) 19:46, 12 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Thanks, done! —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 10:39, 13 January 2018 (UTC)

Question of the switch from Eastern Roman Emperor to Byzantine Emperor in infobox
Hello all,

Because the matter seems to pop up repeatedly, is there any established consensus on what point emperors stop being called Eastern Roman, and begin to be called Byzantine? It appears there is none, as Maurice is rather arbitrarily the first to be called Byzantine. If I am correct that there is none, I have two suggestions, either of which would be suitable, IMO, as long as it is standardized.
 * 1) That Zeno (2nd reign) should be the last to be referred to as Eastern Emperor, as he abolished the office of Western Emperor:
 * 2) That Justinian be the last to be referred to as Eastern Emperor, as he abolished the office of Western Consul, and his inability to fully recover the west effectively showed that it was gone for good. Iazyges   Consermonor   Opus meum  08:07, 6 March 2018 (UTC)
 * Of course, the cut-off point between "Roman"/"Eastern Roman" and "Byzantine" is very arbitrary and arguably nonexistant. I think it is at the very least reasonable that the Eastern and Western Emperors post-395 follow the same format as the Eastern and Western Emperors before 395, "e.g. "[Number] Emperor of the Roman Empire" with a specifier in the infobox stating that they were Western or Eastern Emperors (as the articles look now).
 * It is important to note that when Zeno abolished the office of Western Emperor he abolished the office of Eastern Emperor too, becoming the only Emperor and at least nominally the ruler of the whole thing. As such, whilst "Eastern Roman" makes the Roman nature of the Empire and Emperors clear, it is historically inaccurate post-480. As such I think Zeno should be the last emperor to be referred to as "Eastern Roman", and his infobox should follow the format of preceding emperors.
 * To me, Zeno as the cut-off point makes the most sense as it is the end of a separate Western imperial lineage (and a separate Eastern one), though some other candidates for the last one to use "Eastern Roman" could be Anastasius I Dicorus (last member of the Leonid dynasty), Justinian for the reasons you stated and Phocas as he was the last one to build something on the Forum Romanum (the Column of Phocas) and the last one before Heraclius (who changed the official language of the Empire to Greek). Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:39, 6 March 2018 (UTC)


 * Definitely concur. Jmacwiki (talk) 17:25, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Contemporary names
Something I noticed in this list, and the List of Roman emperors, is the somewhat weird way the names are treated. For the early, latin-speaking emperors, their contemporary names in Latin are given, e.g. "Flavius Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus", but their names in greek are modern greek names or greek language-versions of their modern historiographical names (as opposed to the latin name for Justinian, the greek one is just translated to "Justinian the Great"). This becomes increasingly apparent with emperors being assigned numerals in their greek names (e.g. "Κωνσταντίνος Γʹ" for Constantine III), something the Byzantines did not do themselves, and using later assigned historiographical names, such as using Κῶνστας Βʹ for Constans II rather than the name Constantine, which is what he actually used himself (admittedly, Κωνσταντίνος ὁ Πωγωνάτος is listed below but only as the "formally" option). I would argue that greek might be inappopriate to use at all before Heraclius, but more importantly I would like to know why there is a difference in how the greek and latin names are used in the article. Ichthyovenator (talk) 12:06, 19 May 2018 (UTC)

Emperors that lived before the west fell.
The article includes the Constantinian dynasty, Valentinianic dynasty, and Theodosian dynasty. The article on the Byzantine empire states that the Byzantine Empire "was the continuation of the Roman Empire in its eastern provinces during Late Antiquity and the Middle Ages." All of these rulers ruled before the Roman Empire fell. So, they didn't rule as a continuation of the empire. If Wikipedia is to be internally consistent then either these dynasties should be removed from the article or the sentence in the article about the Byzantine empire should change. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ewf9h-bg (talk • contribs) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

Valentinian and Gratian (and Constans I)
These emperors ruled in the West, so they don't really belong on this list. They only seem to be here because they were the senior emperors who appointed their co-emperors to rule in the East, but that seems to be too broad a basis for inclusion here. Richard75 (talk) 14:12, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Valentinian I ruled the entire empire 26 February – 28 March 364 (before Valens was appointed) and Gratian was technically also eastern emperor from the death of Valens on 9 August 378 to 19 January 379 (when Theodosius I was appointed). It's all technicalities anyway since there was no real legal division of the empire at any point. Ichthyovenator (talk) 15:04, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

Does anybody else find the inclusion of Constans I a bit weird? I assume he's here only because he ruled a chunk of the Balkans, but he didn't rule over Constantinople and was eventually outlived by his brother. Tintero21 (talk) 17:06, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * There are some lists of Byzantine emperors that do include Constans I; a lot of works can differ quite a bit because what is meant by "Byzantine" differs quite a bit. A History of Byzantium (2010) includes all emperors from Diocletian onwards (including those in the west), the Palgrave Atlas of Byzantium (2005) includes Licinius, Constantine II, Constans I, Gratian, Valentinian II and Honorius (but not the later western emperors). If the criteria that are used for this list on Wikipedia is that we should include emperors who ruled the east from Constantine I onwards I agree that Constans should not really qualify; his part of the empire seems more like an "extension" of the western empire. Ichthyovenator (talk) 23:44, 4 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Yeah I was thinking the same. Tintero21 (talk) 00:19, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Michael IX
Is there a reason why Michael IX isn't on the list? Richard75 (talk) 19:06, 8 January 2022 (UTC)


 * Michael IX only held the rank of co-emperor, he predeceased his father and thus never became the "senior" emperor. Tintero21 (talk) 19:52, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * I actually think he probably should be included–he is assigned a number (unlike most co-emperors) and he is one of the few co-emperors counted by the Byzantines themselves (he's in the Mutinensis gr. 122). Coins from Andronikos II's reign explicitly refer to both as autokrator (source), i.e. equal senior co-rulers (not done for other co-emperors). Ichthyovenator (talk) 20:12, 8 January 2022 (UTC)
 * Oh well, I didn't know that. Tintero21 (talk) 20:30, 8 January 2022 (UTC)

What did they call co-emperors at the time?
I am trying to find out how they referred to co-emperors, especially if they used the latin 'socium' or Greek 'σύντροφος', both meaning associate, either as an official term or just everyday common speech way of reference. Middle More Rider (talk) 21:43, 19 January 2022 (UTC)


 * According to the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, 'senior' emperors used the titles basileus autokrator ('monarch who rules by himself') while the 'junior' emperors bore only the title basileus. As far as I know there was never a proper name for the office of co-emperor. Tintero21 (talk) 21:52, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Thanks, I would also add that it is about referring to whoever the other person is, whether Augustus, Caesar, Sebastokrator etc., if there was a word like 'Associate' or whatever else. Middle More Rider (talk) 22:06, 19 January 2022 (UTC)

Constantine's VII and VIII and "born in the purple"
While both Constantines were "born in the purple," or porphyrogenitus, VII was known by the sobriquet Porphyrogenitus but VIII wasn't, so it is potentially misleading for the list to call both of them that as if it was their name. So I've removed it from VIII and translated it into Greek (keeping the link to what it means) for VII. Richard75 (talk) 14:01, 12 June 2023 (UTC)