Talk:Philippicus

Kaldellis
Hey LouisAragon, how you've been doing? Wanted to open a talk discussion before doing any reverts, since there are some issues to address with the recent edits.

That was extremely unprofessional and stupid of Kaldellis to imply Bardanes is only considered Armenian because an Armenian lobby is campaigning for him to be. That inflammatory and simply false claim alone should disqualify his opinion from being included, which is undue anyway. Unless someone can prove that... ...are all under some kind of Armenian control, the stronger weight of Bardanes being Armenian should remain. Regards, ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:25, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Paul Stephenson of Oxford University
 * Harry Turtledove of the University of Pennsylvania
 * Robin Cormack of the University of London
 * John D'Alton of Monash University
 * Hi thank you for creating this section. I'm well, hope you too. Few things;
 * "That was extremely unprofessional and stupid of Kaldellis (...)"
 * Please pay attention to WP:BLP, regardless of whether you agree or disagree with his works.
 * I disagree with removing Kaldellis. The source is published by Harvard University Press, a renowned academic press. Its author Anthony Kaldellis is a prolific and distinguished (per Christos Malastras) Professor of History who, amongst others, specializes in Greek historiography and Byzantine Studies. The book was furthermore very well received in numerous reviews, including the chapter "The Armenian Fallacy", the chapter in which the sentences in question are mentioned.----
 * - LouisAragon (talk) 16:39, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * I'm alright Louis, thank you for asking, glad you're doing well. Regarding our little disagreement, most historians confirm Bardanes was Armenian and that his name is a variant of the Armenian name Vardan, while Anthony suggests he may have had Persian descent. That is a rather fringe contradiction to most reliable sources, hence I believe he shouldn't be used. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 19:11, 22 November 2021 (UTC)
 * Turtledove is from 1982 (only says that Bardanes is an Armenian name), Cormack is an art historian, and Youssef & D'Alton specialize in studies related to early Christianity. Kaldellis on the other hand is a historian who specializes in Greek historiography and Byzantine Studies, and his book was published 2019 by Harvard University Press. The content in his book doesn't pass WP:FRINGE in any way. Furthermore, Kaldellis' book was received very well in numerous reviews. If it was WP:FRINGEy, reviewers would have mentioned it. You may expand on Bardanes' Armenian origin claim by adding more sources, but Kaldellis should stay per WP:RS, WP:VER and WP:NPOV. - LouisAragon (talk) 23:06, 23 November 2021 (UTC)
 * LouisAragon If I remember correctly, this talk discussion was about removing Kaldellis altogether, which I didn't do hence I didn't find it necessary to reply here. My edit only removed 2 undue things; 1) the lobbying bit, which isn't said by anyone else to my knowledge, 2) Vardan Mamikonian "modern fiction" bit, which isn't even suggested on this article to be rejected in the first place, hence I don't see the relevance of it. I think this is a reasonable reason to remove the 2 bits specifically, wouldn't you agree? ZaniGiovanni (talk) 15:32, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I just expanded the part based on Charanis' source. Charanis mentions Mamikonian as well in his article, so that clearly matches with Kaldellis' later concerns. Given the fact that there are only two sources in the article discussing his origins, it looks much more WP:NPOV now in my opinion. Thoughts? - LouisAragon (talk) 19:49, 15 June 2022 (UTC)
 * I have found even more Byzantinist sources and included them. I also found a source for Kaldellis being excessively hostile towards labeling any Byzantine figure "Armenian", which is accurate because he is even spiteful about doing so for Leo V the Armenian; apparently Kaldellis knows him better than primary Byzantine sources. Kaldellis doesn't just disagree with the work of his elder colleagues, he attacks it for being "modern fairy tales". The "lobby" part is also very odd for a number of reasons: the obvious negative connotations, the fact Iranians actually do have a lobby, and that Greeks are also infamous for lobbying. How can Charanis be considered "Armenian lobby"? Perhaps Kladdeis himself is afraid the Byzantines weren't Greek enough, and he projects his nationalist bias onto others, real (non-Armenian historians) or imagined (lobbies). Also, after re-reading his book, I noticed he specifically wrote: "for all we know, [Bardanes] was of Persian rather than Armenian ancestry". This is a hyperbole, he's not actually suggesting Bardanes was Iranian. ZaniGiovanni (talk) 09:25, 18 June 2022 (UTC)

Hello. I'd like to add concerning the argument of some scholars. The name "Vardan" (as armenian one) is used as an argument in some sources to prove or show origin of Philippikos. But according to scholars tt could be persian, or parthian origin as well. "Vardanes" (also spelled Bardanes) is the Latin attestation of the Middle Iranian name Wardān, meaning "rose". The name is transliterated in Greek as Ordanes and Ordones, and in Hatran Aramaic as wrdn. You can find it in "Personal Names in the Aramaic Inscriptions of Hatra" Enrico Marcato(2018) p.55. You can see sso Iranika article "GEORGIA v. LINGUISTIC Contacts with Iranian languages" As regards to Kaldellis, there is no any reason to ignore the opinion of specialist in Greek historiography and Byzantine Studies, considering comments of User LouisAragon above. Chitosmeris (talk) 17:11, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
 * It's correct that the usage of the name "Bardanes" or "Bardas" alone cannot confirm Armenian ancestry and that it is plausible that some Greeks began to use this name having no connection Armenian ancestry. And the name itself is of Iranian origin and is attested a number of times among Iranians in the Parthian period. However, by the time of the Christian period the name is longer attested with Iranians and is exclusively associated with Armenians (and Georgians). Which is what makes Kaldellis' suggestion of Persian descent for Philippikos so flippant. NantucketMan (talk) 18:21, 6 August 2023 (UTC)

Philippicus vs Philippikos
Why is Philippikos the main name used when he took the Latin Regal name Philippicus, which appears on all his Coins. Given that this tradition continued to at least Theodosius III while not being his native name, I don’t see why the Hellenized form is used as the Primary.

I’ve noticed alot of these 20 year Crisis Emperors have had their Names Hellenized by visitors this last year, with only Theodosius III keeping his Latin Regal Name. Byzantium is Rome (talk) 07:06, 21 March 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree. The naming of Twenty Years' Anarchy emperors is highly inconsistent:


 * Anastasios II is named in Greek, even though his predecessor, Anastasius I Dicorus, uses his Latin name.
 * Leontios and Philippikos are named in Greek, but Tiberius III and Theodosius III are named in Latin.
 * It appears that Philippicus and Anastasius specifically were renamed to a Greek-language page title after a lengthy and seemingly controversial "survey" on Constantine XI's talk page from over a decade ago. As Latin was displaced by Greek on coin inscriptions only in 717 upon the accession of Leo III the Isaurian, I would personally argue that a more sensical and consistent naming standard would be to use Greek names for Byzantine emperors only after Leo III, and for all emperors before him to use Latin names (obviously not counting Anglicized names, e.g. Iustinianus --> Justinian).


 * Furthermore, I noticed that the page name puts Bardanes, the birth name of Philippicus, after his regnal name, and similarly, Tiberius III (born Apsimarus) is listed not as Apsimarus Tiberius, but as Tiberius Apsimarus. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I'm quite certain that Romans appended additional names to their birth name, rather than prepending them. For example, Justinian I (born Petrus Sabbatius) did not become Iustinianus Petrus Sabbatius, but rather, he became Petrus Sabbatius Iustinianus. Similarly, Tiberius II Constantine is Tiberius Constantinus and not Constantinus Tiberius, and Maurice became Mauricius (novus) Tiberius, not Tiberius (novus) Mauricius. There is no better example of this than Anastasios II, who was born as Artemius and adopted the name Anastasius upon his accession as emperor. An authentic coin minted during his reign says "Artemius Anastasius", not "Anastasius Artemius". In fact, Wikipedia even makes mention of this in the infobox. Anastasius even reigned after both Tiberius III and Philippicus, so it's not like this practice suddenly changed. It seems much more logical to me to list the full names of the two emperors as respectively Apsimarus Tiberius and Bardanes Filepicus.


 * Lastly, Tiberius III was renamed to its Latin name from Tiberios III for the valid reason that the article uses "Tiberius" throughout, instead of the Greek name. The exact same applies to Anastasios, who is consistently referred to as Anastasius on his page. On the pages of Philippicus and Leontius, usage of the Latin and Greek names is mixed and inconsistent, but on both pages, there are more instances of the Latin name being used than the Greek one (even if just by a handful of instances).


 * All in all, I too think that a rename of some emperor pages would be a good move. Specifically, I would suggest to move Leontios to "Leontius", Philippikos Bardanes to "Philippicus", and Anastasios II to "Anastasius II (emperor)" (disambiguation is necessary). In addition, I'd appreciate it if someone could give me more clarity on whether there are contemporary sources that directly corroborate Tiberius and Philippicus placing their regnal names before and not after their birth names.


 * I hope you don't mind me pinging you, as it seems you have not been active since July. I would be interested in discussing this matter with you and with other Wikipedians. LVDP01 (talk) 11:50, 25 September 2022 (UTC)
 * The name inconsistencies are a matter of historiography. No contemporary source uses the forms "Tiberius Apsimar" nor "Philippicus Bardanes". I asume historians use those names because they simply sound better than "Apsimar Tiberius" and "Bardanes Philippicus". It kinda reminds me of Severus Alexander, who is more than often called "Alexander Severus" for some reason. Tintero21 (talk) 18:12, 25 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Fair enough, I will add a footnote about that. What do you think of renaming Leontios, Philippikos Bardanes and Anastasios II to Leontius, Philippicus and Anastasius II (emperor)? LVDP01 (talk) 09:58, 27 September 2022 (UTC)


 * I agree with your proposal. Tintero21 (talk) 14:07, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Alrighty. Thank you for the response! I'll give this an additional few days to see if anyone else wants to chime in. After those, I'm renaming the pages (assuming no objections were raised). LVDP01 (talk) 14:11, 27 September 2022 (UTC)

Requested move 2 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: Proposal withdrawn by nominator in favour of new RM below. (closed by non-admin page mover) Srnec (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Philippikos Bardanes → Philippicus – Consensus reached on article's talk page (Latin regnal names continued to be used on Byzantine coins until 717, but TYA emperors are inconsistently named with either Latin or Greek names regardless)&#32;LVDP01 (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). Dr. Vogel (talk) 11:59, 2 October 2022 (UTC)


 * , this needs to be run as a formal WP:RM, not just a technical request, as there's been discussion. (Note: I'm not objecting personally.) -Kj cheetham (talk) 10:10, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Hi, this needs an RM as Kj cheetham has pointed out. But when you made your request here, you put "discuss = no". Are you ok to change that to a yes? Dr. Vogel (talk) 10:51, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * That's fine by me. There was already a discussion on the talk page, and no objections were raised then, so I figured I was good to go. But if this is the proper procedure, then by all means, go ahead. LVDP01 (talk) 11:53, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I would like to also add that, if we agree to rename Philippikos Bardanes to Philippicus, I'd like to rename Leontios to Leontius and Anastasios II to Anastasius II (emperor) for the same reasons why I believe PB should be moved. I've explained my stance at . LVDP01 (talk) 12:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)
 * A community decision was reached many moons ago to use the names as they appear in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, at least post-476 (as I recall). The only inconsistency in the TYA emperors is Tiberius III, which was moved without discussion. Srnec (talk) 20:52, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
 * The ODB refers to the emperor only as "Philippikos", without the Bardanes. There are names that differ from the ODB, notably Heraclius and his sons. For the other emperors (Tiberios, Anastasios, Theodosios) I just feel it would be weird to use the hellenized names when their namesake predecessors use Latin forms (there are a few other cases like this, like with Nikephoros I of Constantinople and Nicephorus II of Constantinople). I'm just thinking of consistency. Tintero21 (talk) 02:52, 9 October 2022 (UTC)

This is a trivial consideration, but I see that contemporary Latin speakers spelled the emperor’s name “Filepicus”. Using the modern Latinized name would necessitate introducing him as “Philippicus, known in his day as Philippikos or Filepicus”. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 14:34, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

…Which, now that I look at it again, is about the state things are in now. I suppose any concern that I had centers upon his bearing a Latinized name that even the Latin-speaking world of his day did not use. ManuelKomnenos (talk) 14:43, 8 October 2022 (UTC)


 * This is just a comment. A quick search in Ngram shows that "Philippicus" has always been more common until very recently (note how "Philippikos Bardanes" increases in 2008, just after a redirect was made to add his original name). Tintero21 (talk) 03:07, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I've tried this with Anastasius II, Leontius, Tiberius III and Theodosius III as well, and the Latin names have always been more common.
 * Personally, I agree with Tintero on the consistency part. It seems odd to me to use inconsistent naming like this, all based on a discussion held over a decade ago. I believe that it would be much more sensical to use Hellenized names only from 717 onwards, as that's when Latin ceased being used on coin inscriptions (and the, firmly Latin, Exarchate of Ravenna collapsed a few decades later in 751). LVDP01 (talk) 08:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I believe Latin persisted on some coins until the 11th century. And this proposal, by itself, only makes the inconsistency worse. Srnec (talk) 18:38, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * It makes the inconsistency worse? How so?
 * And I haven't heard of Latin coins post-717. Can you elaborate? LVDP01 (talk) 20:32, 9 October 2022 (UTC)
 * We currently have consistency except for Tiberius III, which was moved from Tiberios III without discussion. You want to move one more without having formally proposed to touch Theodosios III, Anastasios II or Leontios. Currently we have one article out of step and you want us to have two. You could have proposed a multi-move RM.
 * I do not know much about Byzantine coinage, but the late use of Latin is discussed in Grierson, Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins in the Dumbarton Oaks Collection and in the Whittemore Collection, 3(2): 184ff. We're not talking about full Latin expressions, I think, so much as letters, abbreviations, the odd word. Srnec (talk) 01:19, 10 October 2022 (UTC)
 * I was planning to request subsequent moves for the other emperors of the TYA, as stated above. That being said, if a multi-move RM is the proper procedure, I will be more than happy to rectify this.
 * As for Latin on coins post-717, that was mainly Greek rendered in Latin letters. The Catalogue of the Byzantine Coins corroborates this. LVDP01 (talk) 09:22, 10 October 2022 (UTC)


 * I suggest you withdraw and do a multi-move for Philippicus, Leontius and Anastasio II. Note that Anastasius II is currently a dab page. I just noticed now that Theodosios III was moved without discussion to Theodosius III back in 2014. Srnec (talk) 00:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Sure, I'll rectify the proposal. LVDP01 (talk) 08:47, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Requested move 17 October 2022

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. 

The result of the move request was: moved. This was a follow on discussion to the one immediately prior, where it was suggested to change the RM from a single page to a multiple. The nominator did a fine job summarizing the previous discussion's points. There was no opposition, and this move is consistent with other articles. All of the destinations are currently redirects to the sources, so no addiitonal work is required. UtherSRG (talk) 11:06, 24 October 2022 (UTC)

–
 * Philippikos Bardanes → Philippicus
 * Anastasios II → Anastasius II (emperor)
 * Leontios → Leontius
 * Usage of Latin was discontinued on Byzantine coins only in 717. Prior to that year, the mentioned emperors were identified by their Latin (not Greek) names on the coins.
 * A quick search in Ngram shows that "Philippicus" has always been more common until very recently (note how "Philippikos Bardanes" increases in 2008, just after a redirect was made to add his original name). The same applies to Anastasius II, Leontius, Tiberius III and Theodosius III as well, with the Latin names having always been more common.
 * A community decision was reached many moons ago to use the names as they appear in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium, at least post-476. However, there are other names on Wikipedia that differ from the ODB, notably Heraclius and his sons. For the other emperors (Tiberios, Anastasios, Theodosios), we feel it would be weird to use the Hellenized names when their namesake predecessors use Latin forms (there are a few other cases like this, like with Nikephoros I of Constantinople and Nicephorus II of Constantinople). We're thinking of consistency. LVDP01 (talk) 08:55, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
 * Support as more consistent than the current setup. Nobody, it seems, has an appetite for Tiberios, Anastasios and Theodosios. Srnec (talk) 16:00, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Srnec. Originoa (talk) 18:07, 17 October 2022 (UTC)
 * Support as per common Latinate usage (though my Ancient Greek heart bleeds). Trigaranus (talk) 13:44, 18 October 2022 (UTC)