Talk:Byzantine Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archives
08/2003–08/2006
08/2006-10/2006

[edit] Banners

Byzantine Empire is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. If you can update or improve it, please do.

This article has been selected for Version 0.5 and the next release version of Wikipedia. This History article has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale.

Byzantine Empire is either included in the 2006 Wikipedia CD Selection or is a candidate for inclusion in the next version (the project page is at WPCD Selection). Please maintain high quality standards, and if possible stick to GFDL and GFDL-compatible images.

Byzantine Empire appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 1, 2004.

WikiProject Echo has identified Byzantine Empire as a foreign language featured article. You may be able to improve this article with information from the Czech, German, Hungarian, Japanese, Romanian, Spanish or Swedish language Wikipedias.

	This article is within the scope of the WikiProject History of Greece; If you would like to join us, please visit the project page; if you have any questions, please consult the FAQ..
FA	This article has been rated as FA-Class on the Project's quality scale. (If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Former Countries, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of now-defunct states. If you would like to participate, visit the project page to join.

History Portal
Geography Portal
Atlas Portal

FA This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale. (FAQ).
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

[edit] Alexios, heroism and the thrill of Byzantine history

I hate to come across as though I'm denigrating the Komnenoi's achievements. They were indeed heroic. But it's no good us just saying so. We need to conform to policy by providing citations and adhereing to the neutral point-of-view policy. I myself find the dynanism, constant struggle, and intrigue of Byzantine history endlessly fascinating, but we're here to take readers through the primary and secondary sources, not to write the book ourselves. Slac speak up! 02:08, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree it's desirable to cite our sources as much as possible; however it's not always easy to find the time to do this. Nevertheless, I will provide an inline citation for the specific section you have mentioned immediately. Bigdaddy1204 10:43, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I repeat for the umpteenth time that pumping the article with Komnenean stuff is objectionable. It may be considered a form of tendentious editing. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 10:49, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

If you are worried about providing an equal number of citations for other sections as well, then you are welcome to add them yourself. However, that is not my sole responsibility. We are all in this together, so work should be shared. You can't expect me to provide citations for the entire article singe handedly. I will focus on citations for the Komnenoi; it is what I have been asked to do, and it is the area to which I am best qualified to add citations. If you are worried that the text of the article provides insufficient detail on other periods of the empire's history, then again I encourage you to rectify this by adding more detail yourself. I have already called for more detail to be added to the 'Golden Age' section. As of today, considerable contributions and improvements have already been made in this section by Attilios; but I don't see any improvements done by you. Why don't you lend a hand and do some of the work yourself?Bigdaddy1204 10:55, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bigdaddy, you seem to ignore my point. The length of the article is already a problem, and you propose to expand it even further? Currently, the article is about 121 kilobytes long. According to WP:SIZE, it should be four times smaller. Therefore, I propose to reduce it to the recommended 32K and split the redundant data (particularly about the Komnenoi) into a separate article, entitled Byzantine Empire under the Komnenoi Dynasty, etc. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 11:51, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

We already have a Komnenoi article where this information would be more appropriate. Adam Bishop 13:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Who gives a @#%$ about the number of kilobytes? Honestly, there are far more important things to think about. This article is currently one of the best sources of information on the Byzantines anywhere on the web. I am frequently praised for my work on Byzantine topics, especially this article. I had someone leave a message on my user talk page today, thanking me for my "Excellent Contributions". This article is helping to correct the horrendous anti-Byzantine bias that still exists in western culture. If you go ahead with your plan to split the article, everything I have worked for will be undone, the article will be ruined, and this excellent resource will be lost.

Before I started work on this article, it was utterly inadequate as a history of the Byzantine Empire - there was no information on the golden age under the Macedonian dynasty, the problems of the empire were signed away in about two sentences, the Komnenian restoration was ignored completely, and there were no maps between 550 and 1204. As for the coverage of the Fourth Crusade and after, it was a jumbled and poorly written mess. I don't expect you to thank me for all I have done, but the fact is that this article would be an embarrassment to wikipedia without my contributions. You don't think so? I guartantee that if you reverted it today to the way it was before I made my first edit, it would immediately lose its featured article status. I appreciate that it needs more citations, and I was planning to work on this today. But there is more to a Featured Article than just the number of references it has.

Now, it seems plain that you want to relocate some information. Personally, I think that the more detailed the article is, the better. If I had my way, I would get the entire article up to the same level of detail that the section on the Komnenoi currently gives. And it would be the best article on Byzantine anywhere on the web. But it seems you will never allow this to happen.

The problem with moving sections elsewhere is that somebody has to write a condensed summary of the information that was moved to replace it. Anything less is not good enough. I for one find this task deeply distasteful. I assume the sections in question are under 'Twelfth Century Renaissance'. Nothing else should even be under consideration.

You'd never get the article to 32k even if you removed these sections entirely and replaced them with nothing. To reduce the article to 32k you would have to absolutely ruin the entire article and reduce it to a pathetic sham of a history. This will not happen. Bigdaddy1204 17:05, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

WP:OWN. Adam Bishop 17:17, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Damn right I feel strongly about this article. I wrote over 9,000 words of it myself, and created 5 new maps to accompany the text. How much did you contribute? And furthermore, it says on that page that "it is still important to respect the work of your fellow contributors. When making large scale removals of content, particularly content contributed by one editor, it is important to consider whether a desirable result could be obtained by working with the editor, instead of against him or her - regardless of whether he or she "owns" the article or not."

Suggesting that the article be reduced to 32k is not remotely reasonable, nor does it "respect the work" that I have put into it. We are not talking about making a few minor changes here or there, we are talking about utterly destroying all my work. This is not reasonable.

Like I said, I don't mind you moving 'Twelfth century Renaissance'. But anything more than that is anathema to me. Bigdaddy1204 17:24, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bigdaddy1204 17:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, see, this is why I pointed you to that link. It's not your article, even if you write a billion words. And what have I contributed? I wrote pretty much the entire article before you even knew Wikipedia existed. But that is irrelevant. Would it help to remind you that the kind of people who read Wikipedia do not have the attention span to read 100 KB of text, nor even 32 KB? Your 9000 words have most likely been read only by you. If you want to be patted on the back for your essays, perhaps Wikipedia is not the best place to write...now, before you call me Hitler again, let me just say that is simply a reminder to be humble, and to remember who your audience is. Adam Bishop 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, getting hot in here. I've not the inclination to dispute nor the stomac to argument at the moment. I would hope that my past actions and tenure will hold me up where my following opinion may let me down. Time is short, therefore I shall regretfully be blunt: Wikipedia is a source of knowledge based upon the collective volunteer work of dedicated editors. Its mission ot help enrich the culture of fellow wikipedians and visitors. As such their needs often take precedence over our own zeal. The guide line of 32k being one of those, as some browser softwares do not stomac well larger work loads. As well, the uninnitiate may be discouraged from undertaking the reading of a massive article. That is why Wikipedia has a marvelous system of links. One article need not hold all the eggs in one place. The Byzantine Empire acticle, considering the massive importance and duration of its subjet is one of those articles that must be consise rather than precise, to be more easily distributed to the widest audiance. From here, large precise and detail article are to be created and connected, such as the Army and Organisation pages have already done or are presently doing.--Dryzen 17:53, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

I can see that it would be possible to move sections such as economy and art etc to different pages. But how does one break up the history of the Byzantine empire? It was a long and proud history. I don't see how having a page entitled 'Justinian's empire' and then another entitled 'golden age' etc will contribute anything. It will just give a disjointed and nonsensical view of the empire. If you cut down the article to the bare bones, it is frankly boring. People are not going to bother to visit other aspects of the empire if the Byzantine Empire page is dull, dull, dull! like it once was. This whole discussion disgusts me. Splitting up the history of the empire would be a grave mistake, as would condensing it to the point of irrelevance. Bigdaddy1204 18:20, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Bigdaddy, your work on the article is appreciated, but you don't own it, right? Bias or not, the FARC guys will FARC it as soon as they spot it, just based of its abnormal size. What was its size when the article was promoted? Perhaps we should return to that length. Let's look at the other articles. Russia (the largest country in the world) is 49K and I'm constantly being told that it should be cut to 35K. There is no lack of Indian contributors in Wikipedia but they keep India at 44K.

You should understand that we can't say all we know about Byzantium in one article. It would take volumes. Your concerns that your work will be lost are not valid. Take a look at History of Russia: each section has a main article of its own, where all details are split. For instance, Russian history, 1796-1855 or Muscovy. From there you pass to more detailed subjects, such as the Time of Troubles, etc. This is how Wikipedia works, as opposed to a paper encyclopedia. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 06:35, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

As a member of the Wikiproject history of Greece who pointed out that this article may soon face FARC (check Wikipedia talk:WikiProject History of Greece#Feautured articles needing citations and our contribution) I think I can interfere. The length is a problem, but not the most serious one. Now there are FAs with more that 100 Kb. And it is wrong to count the total Kbs of an article. It is better to count the kbs of the proe. I agree with Ghirla that the article needs improvements, but I disagree with this insistance on the length. I also don't like Bigdaddy's attitude. This article is not an ownership of his. He must understand it. I'll make my concrete propositions in the next section as Bigdaddy has proposed.--Yannismarou 07:16, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Bravely getting nowhere

I can see from the above discussion that we are bravely getting nowhere with this issue. I have no desire to continue getting involved in a discussion that involves personal attacks or anything of that sort. I have stated my position, as have all. It now falls to us to come up with a practical solution for the article.

I propose that the text under 'twelfth century renaissance' be moved to 'Komnenoi'. I request no other changes be made. Respond here, or hold your peace. Bigdaddy1204 22:31, 12 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmmmm... I don't this is the right attitude. Bigdaddy1204 your article on Manuel Comnenus is one of my favorites and as a Greek I really appreciate your contributions to articles about Byzantine history. But you don't own these articles! They are not your articles. Try to understand that and show some respect to those you have a different opinion. Just respect the right to have a different voice not their opinions themselves.

"Twelfth century renaissance" is not the only part needing imrovements. This article needs a huge range of improvements, such as:

Length: It is 121 Kb. Because of its broad subject, it can remain big, but somewhere around 100 kb. The prose itself cannot be more than 65-70 kb. Nowadays, when they see in FAC a prose of more than 55-50 kb, they break out in pimples! How can we achieve that? By creating sub-pages! Easy! For instance, don't delete "twelfth century renaissance". Just make a summary of it here and create a new sub-article. Most section of the article don't need deletion! Create sub-pages and limit the length of the long sections. Do that with:

"The fall of the Byzantine Empire",
"Early history" (create an article "Early history of the Byzantine empire"),
Shrink "Age of Justinian I". There is a seperate article for him! We don't need all this stuff here!
Shrink "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders". Transfer most of this stuff in Komnenos.
Get rid of "The Komnenian army". Merge it with the new summarized "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders".
Create a sub-page for "Twelfth century 'Renaissance'". Possible name: Twelfth century 'Renaissance' of the Byzantine Empire.
Get rid of "Why did the empire fall?". Transfer its main content in the new sub-article "The fall of the Byzantine Empire" and have a summary of it in the shrinked section "The fall of the Byzantine Empire" of this article.

Citations: This is a huge problem. No citations! We must do something about that now.
See also: Awful section! What is this long list?!!! Most of these links should be incoroporated in the main prose. See also sections are not in fashio any more. It would be nice if could throughly get rid of it.
Bibliography: What is that exactly? Further reading? Then it should go after references.

These are just some remarks. I hope we'll go along here. Otherwise, if we donot reach a consensus, I will move this article to FARC (I haven't done it yet, because I really want the article to keep its star) and then there will be no other way but co-operation. I hope we'll not need that. Cheers!--Yannismarou 07:46, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Very interesting, Yannismarou. So you want to create lots of new articles, which contain much of the information currently in this one. I have been accused of being overly protective of this article. Perhaps you are right. But this is because I did not want all my work deleted, which was what seemed to be suggested in the earlier discussion.

Now your plan to create many smaller articles offers a more constructive approach. You have explained clearly what new articles will be created, and this has convinced me that there is no need to argue anymore. You have said "Most section of the article don't need deletion". If the work will be moved to sub articles, which will then be linked into the main one, then nothing is lost; if nothing is lost, then there is no problem.

I do have a few minor thoughts on the new articles; you have said "Shrink "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders". Transfer most of this stuff in Komnenos." I think that the text might not fit in Komnenos so well. Maybe a better idea would be to create a new article called 'Byzantium under the Komnenoi', or something like that. Then "Komnenian army" could be merged with this.

I thank you for your helpful explanation of this issue, which has helped move this discussion forward and provided a good solution. Bigdaddy1204 08:39, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I also hope to find some time to help in this article. Something difficult during this period, because of my heavy schedule. But I'll keep a close eye on the article.--Yannismarou 08:55, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

And I have no problem with an article "'Byzantium under the Komnenoi', or something like that". Like you I'm an editor who hates deletions of information. That is why, I believe that sub-articles are the most creative solution in these cases.--Yannismarou 08:58, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new article, Byzantine civilisation in the twelfth century, which contains all the information from the section 'twelfth century renaissance'. I have also provided a link to the new article in Byzantine Empire.

I will now condense the information into a brief summary, which will replace the old section 'twelfth century renaissance' at Byzantine Empire. Bigdaddy1204 17:30, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Try this summary to have some inline citations. In this way your new section will be Ok with FAC criteria and further major interventions in this particular section will not be needed.--Yannismarou 17:47, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes I am doing this - you will see that the new sections have citations. I have also deleted 'Komnenian army', replacing it with a brief summary under 'Military reform.' I have provided a link which says

Main article: Komnenian army

. These changes have reduced the size of Byzantine Empire to 116k. Bigdaddy1204 18:42, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Let me strongly argue against arbitrarily cutting the article down. Comprehensiveness is a requirement of featured articles. Length is not. I've had to deal with objections of length from CVG featured article pushes, and this issue has frequently come up. The subject defines the length of the article, not a one-size-fits-all limit. Here's a good example: Ketuanan Melayu (FA Nom). It was opposed multiple times for length and correctly passed for meeting comprehensiveness. If a section is of vital importance to reader comprehension of the Byzantine Empire and its contribution to the history of humanity, keep it. Determining what is vital is up to you, but be careful with the hedge trimmer. --Zeality 18:54, 13 October 2006 (UTC)

Ketuanan Melayu is 101 kbs (not 120 kbs - there is a huuuuuge difference!) and it passed after more than a month of debate if I'm not wrong. This article is 120 kbs. And something else: You speak about Melayu who passed; what about Nagorno-Karabakh War that failed partly because of its lentgh (Overall 101KB, of which 76KB is prose) and the lack of sub-articles? I also agree that content is more important than length. But 120Kbs is toooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo much. Melayu passed with difficulty; this article as it is now wouldn't pass and wouldn't survive FARC! Trust me! And something else: This article has very few citations right now. Melayu is 101 Kb with how many citations? 183! I repeat: 183!!!!! Imagine this article with the current length and, in addition, with about 200 inline citations. We'll get over 130 Kbs! This is the problem. Right now, I have in mind not only the current length, but also the length, when the citations will be added. That is why we should shrink a bit the article (to get it about 100-105 Kbs) without deleting information. Nothing is lost! Somebody who wants more information can go to the sub-articles. That is why they exist.--Yannismarou 07:21, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The 32K limit has seemed far too short to me for some time. It was a limit set at a time of much more primitive browsers, and much fewer high speed internet connections. If one looks at other encyclopedias, articles on important topics go on for a long time. The current focus on 32K articles means that articles on big topics tend to suck. But, there doesn't seem to be anything that can be done about it. 32K it is, and 32K it shall ever be. john k 11:15, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

32 kb limit belongs to history. Now we are speaking about surpassing or not the 100 kb limit!--Yannismarou 13:05, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

One still has to mind the principle of it. Jimbo does not have a crystal ball that says, "all articles can be covered at or under 100 kb." I'm not saying we should keep the article as it is, but I'm cautioning hasty removal of material just to satisfy an arbitrary limit. --Zeality 15:24, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

The only thing I am considering removing right now is the section 'why did the empire fall' at the end. I will not be removing anything else unless people are completely agreed that it should be so. I will not repeat my views on whether the article should be reduced in size. However, I will say that I agree that we should avoid cutting as much as possible. To me, 100k sounds far more reasonable and practical than 32k.

I think the principal areas that should be looked at with a view to cuts are those at the end of the article, which are not part of the continuous narrative running from 306-1453. There are 2,900 words down there which could be reduced. Bigdaddy1204 16:32, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I have just cut down the section 'why did the empire fall', created a new article called 'Decline of the Byzantine Empire', providing a link to it here. I have also provided citations for the entire section on the Komnenoi, from the accession of Alexios right through to 'twelfth century renaissance'. After these changes, Byzantine Empire is now at 114k. Bigdaddy1204 17:50, 14 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the most important task is to add the missing inline citations throughout the article. Then, we'll see if there is anything else needing cutting. I hesitate to add any citations of my own, although I have sources, for two reasons: 1) Bigdaddy is more devoted than me to the article, 2) I don't want to give the impression that I promote my own bibliography. Bigdaddy, I suggest that you get primarily occypied with this task from now on: the addition of citations and the cleaning of "Bibliography" as I had suggested previously. If my contribution is needed I am eager to assist.

Oh! And, by the way, Bigdaddy, since this is a FA, when you citate a printed sources, you must always mention the page number.--Yannismarou 12:03, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

While I have added as many citations as I can, I do not feel that it would be right for me to add citations to the sections that I did not write. Specifically, I am talking about:

1 Name of the Byzantine Empire
2 Identity, continuity, and consciousness
3 Origin
4 Early history
5 Age of Justinian I
6 Fight for survival

Since Adam Bishop has claimed that he wrote these sections, I feel that he should provide the citations for them. Bigdaddy1204 18:33, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Ah, that's not exactly what I said :) There were many intermediaries between me and you! Adam Bishop 19:07, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Guys, we can agree who will add the citations. This is not a major problem. If Adam has no problem with it, then Bigdaddy can also add some citations in these sections. Or you can co-operate. If you want my assistance, I can also do some referencing. But I donot want to be regarded as promoting a specific bibliography.--Yannismarou 19:32, 15 October 2006 (UTC)

Not wishing to be overly argumentative, I nevertheless feel the following quotation fits nicely here: "I wrote pretty much the entire article" - Adam Bishop 18:58, 12 October 2006 (UTC).

But to the point - I request assistance from Yannismarou and Adam Bishop with the citations for the sections I have listed. Bigdaddy1204 00:00, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

As a stylistic point, when someone purposefully misquotes another person, they usually replace the missing words with an ellipsis. Anyway, what I meant was, I worked a lot on this article back when I was a fresh-faced noobie just like you, not that I am responsible for the current text. (And my method at the time was collecting facts from the articles about the emperors, such as they existed at the time. My major source was Treadgold, if anyone wants to go through it picking out what might still be relevant to the current article.) Adam Bishop 00:31, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Yes you are right I should have put ellipsis in there, but two pints of lager and a packet of crisps was coming on the TV so I just copied the words in quickly.

Anyway, I request that you and Yannismarou sort out the citations for the sections I listed earlier. You know better than I what sources were used to write them, and I don't see why I should have to do everything myself, especially as it's not my article. ;) Bigdaddy1204 00:51, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Move the Identity, Continuity & Consciousness and Name of the Byzantine Empire to their own article called Byzantine Identity. This would free up a lot of space and maybe get rid of a lot of the edit wars. Roydosan 11:28, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

hmm I leave for a few days and bam! Huge discussion with pertinence ot the article's future. I'm glade to see that things have progress for a rather engrained argument to a more open constructive form. As youselfs have already mentioned the 32k is lacking in its modernity, few FAs ralely lie below the 80K much less the 32K. With the possibility of repeating certain sentiments mentionned above, here are my own thoughts on the matter. Information though should not be deleted rather boxed up for shipment to another article, as seems to have become the concensus. All sections should keep a mesure of text. From the looks of things our current presentation follows a chronological format, with a finishing summery of the empire's demise and lasting influence? In this case I would beleive it preferable to attmept at a normalisation of section size. The Justinian I and the dual Komnenian sections are taking the show from the extensive history of the Byzantine empire. To the neophyte, the empire fell with the Fourth crusade and the 200 years Palaiologos rulership but an inconscential Dead cat bounce. Bigdaddy1204's work on the post Manzikert dynasty is an excellent piece yet it bloats the article on its information. In the conclusion, we should approach the article with the same stratety on its entirety. Either all great blocks of knowledge or overviews of to be made or made sub-articles. Of wich in sight of a overly massive Byzantine empire article, shortened sections could be the best methode to utilise. --Dryzen 15:20, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I agree that we should aim for all sections to be equal (although I admit that this may not always be possible, due to the lack of sources on the 'dark age' period). My personal preference was to make all sections equally detailed. This was what I had planned to do. But the consensus seems to be that we should be aiming to make this article somewhere in the region of 100k in size. Therefore as you can see I have cut down the Komnenian section to make it more equal to the others, reducing the size to 114k, last time I checked.

I have not cut down the Justinian section; that was not my work, so I will leave it to others to perform this task, if they think it is necessary.

Right now I aim to have a map of 476AD added to the article as soon as possible (see discussion below). After this, I will wait. Bigdaddy1204 17:38, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

[edit] If you don't like it that's okay with me...

Language divisions within the Byzantine Empire c.560AD. ██ Greek██ Greek and native██ Latin██ Latin and native██ Aramic██ Coptic██ Caucasian

Western and eastern Roman empires, c.476 AD.██ Eastern Roman Empire██ Western Roman Empire

Hello, editors of that article which is titled "Byzantine Empire". I have made a new map. I like it very much, but you others may in time be found to hate it, so I thought to discuss it here rather than being bold on an article such as this, an article that has become featured. I apologize if I'm being too brash in taking even this action, for I would not like to inflame those intellects which are currently focussed on the more pressing concerns of citation and summarization. Working from the map in Cyril Mango's "Byzantium" on pages 14-15, (that is, stealing from said map) I have made another map working on exactly the same thing. Namely, the divisions of language in Justinian I's empire. If, for any reason you find the image objectionable in any way ("Cyril Mango, though working from primary sources, is a popular historian"; "the image is ugly, and you should not quit that job which you work on in the day"; "we're very busy and don't like you bothering us while we're working!") you don't have to use it. I just thought I'd offer it up for evaluation and possible use.

Good luck to you fellows in all your endeavours! Geuiwogbil 03:29, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the map. I am thinking perhaps it would fit nicely in the article that Roydosan has proposed - identity of the Byzantines. It reveals something about Byzantine identity - the diversity of its languages. Good job, Geuiwogbil! One more thing. Would you be interested in making a map to show the Byzantine empire in 476AD? I feel that such a map would be useful, since at the moment the maps of the article give the impression that the empire started with Justinian... Bigdaddy1204 12:49, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

You mean something like this? Geuiwogbil 23:45, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

The administrative divisions of the Roman Empire in 395, under Theodosius I.

Boundaries of the western and eastern Roman empires c.395 AD. ██ Eastern Roman Empire ██ Western Roman Empire

Just a further question: should the Latin in the language map link to Vulgar Latin, Medieval Latin or Latin? Geuiwogbil 23:57, 16 October 2006 (UTC)

Tell me, did you do these maps yourself or are they from another site (if they are then prepare to provide an authorisation of the owner of the originals site)? Are you interrested in making more maps (for example of the Roman empire)? Flamarande 00:02, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I did make these maps myself, and yes, I have granted Wikipedia the authority to use them for any purpose. I'm a very unreliable person, so I don't think anyone asking me to make maps would find them finished. ^_^ Geuiwogbil 00:11, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, let me try... Could you please make a map showing the "divided Roman empire" (after the death of Theodosius I in AD 395), with the Western Roman empire in red, and the Eastern Roman empire in purple? Nothing really fancy or complicated, but if you know how, you could make them over modern borders in white. I am only asking you because I don't know how to do any maps at all. Flamarande 00:23, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

There's this image, but you're probably familiar with it already. I'm not sure I could do any better, though. My borders, particularly in the Balkans, are really quite unruly. Thanks for asking, though. We have a Wikiproject Cartography or somesuch that could probably help. Geuiwogbil 00:52, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I knew that image and to be frank it is simply too complicated. I need a simpler image in the fashion of the images you provided. Flamarande 00:56, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Here is your image! (I have made it in the image of you!) Hope it suits your purposes, though, as I've said, the borders are still futzy-fresh. Geuiwogbil 01:57, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Bloody hell. That was quick. It seems acurate to me (but then I am not really a profesional). Thanks, mate. I am going to use it in Western Roman empire. Might I make similar requests in the next days (not today, I am not interrested in getting on your nerves) ? Flamarande 02:04, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm quite tired. :P I've made 3 maps in about 24 hours, so I think that's enough for a while. Maybe ask me on Friday, though you'd have to provide something to work with. Really, you should be asking the playas over at Wikipedia:WikiProject Maps. They're like professionals. Geuiwogbil 02:48, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

A few notes: The Danube frontier needs to be realigned to match the Romania-Bulgaria border. I should work on that tonight. Also, some quite helpful individual brought up the conspicuous absence of Aegyptus and the lower Levant from the AD 476 map, so I'll fix those tonight. I'll see what I can do for the borders of the language map in the Balkans, which seem in somewhat worse shape, tonight as well. Geuiwogbil 11:50, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Yup, definitly missing. Basic and understandable, very good for wikipedia, good job Geuiwogbil. If you dontm ind my asking what are you using for the maps? Layers, software and hte such?--Dryzen 14:37, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Photoshop 7.0. I select all of the seas with the magic wand and copy them onto a new layer, and then just paint in the boundaries by hand on the lower layer using one of the brush tools. For the national boundary map overlay I took the original blank map's edited image with boundaries, compressed it to fit on the national boundary map, and used the magic selection tool again to cut the white national boundaries and place them atop the image. The sheer uncertainty of copying from eye to image is what makes me wary of anyone using these images, though I understand how vague maps are better than no maps at all. :P That Egypt thing was stupid. I thought the atlas might have been privy to some Sassanid invasion I didn't know about, or that perhaps I was mistaken in my dating of that one rebellion that swept the region...whose name escapes me at the moment. Perhaps Nabatean? (As you can see my understanding of the region is unfogivably vague) I shall use more common sense in the future.

As a further question, should the boundaries on the 395 map go past Hadrian's wall in Caledonia to the wall of Antoninus? The Antonine Wall page seems to disagree with such a move, but the "administrative divisions" image seems to affirm it. Geuiwogbil 15:24, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

My God! This map discussion has become huge! Nice work, Geuiwogbil. I really can't wait to use that 476AD map, however I will have to wait until it shows Egypt and the lower levant in the empire. If you could let me know when you've completed it, that would be great. Thanks, Bigdaddy1204 17:09, 17 October 2006 (UTC)

Changes done. Hope you all like the finished product. "This autumn, treat yourself to your very own Western and Eastern Roman Empires 476AD.png. You won't be sorry you did." Geuiwogbil 02:17, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou very much Geuiwogbil, your map is just what I was looking for. I have made a few small tweaks (colour changed to red and yellow, cut out northern europe) so that it matches our series of Byzantine Empire maps, and it is now at home in the article. I commend you for your quick response to my request, and praise the quality of your excellent map. Well done. :) Bigdaddy1204 13:30, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

NB: There certainly was diversity of languages, but all the urban and political centers of the empire spoke Greek, and later, when the heartlands of the Empire became South Italy, Balkans and Asia Minor, all these areas spoke Greek natively.

Also, the map does not show that Greek was spoken throughout Southern Italy, it is mentioned in almost every source documenting Belisarius' recapture of Italy that the cities that 'spoke Greek' in the South opened their gates more readily.

I used the colour scheme from the "Ancient Rome" article. Thanks for using it, though. About the anonymous user, (...sign your edits (...even if it's just with an IP address...) ...) it's not my map, I copied it from an external source. I'll go over whatever he wrote and get back to you, although your arguments certainly sound quite reasonable. Should there be a new division of "Greek and Latin"? How far up the peninsula would your penetration go? Was Greek a common language along only the Ionian coasts, or up to Naples and Apulia as well? When you say "urban and political centers" what urban and political centers of the Empire are not colored either "Greek" or "Greek and such and such"? Could you list them? Or, if possible, provide a helpful source? I'd be quite willing to modify this map in whatever way possible to fit up with agreed-upon history. Thank you both very much for your praise and criticism. Geuiwogbil 15:26, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Europe in 476 AD

The Mediterranean Sea and surrounding regions in 476 AD

Sorry to rain on your parade guys but a lot of this sounds like OR to me. Be careful to ensure that any information displayed by the maps is verifiable. 82.110.109.208 11:57, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

To be rather blunt, I`m now of mind to not let anonymous users the benifit of the doubt lest they show the necessary backing. The sheer bulk of anonymous POV pushing Trolls has greatly reduced the reputation of Anonymous users. Geuiwogbil'sm ap fit our current understanding, should someone have valid information to the contrary please speak up and present. If not, I would thank you to reduce glut and possible edit wars by not arguing.--Dryzen 15:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Upon looking at the 476 map, could it be possible to indicate to whom the moscels of the empire had fallen? --Dryzen 15:52, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I really fail to see the problem with anon's comments, since they are only requesting that they be verifiable - which is Wiki policy. Chill out Dryzen! Roydosan 15:55, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

I have nothing against what 82.110.109.208 posted about OR, but it was the one prior to Geuiwogbil's last post (as represented by my indents matching that series of posts) that got to me. But it is true that I`ve grow weary of anons posting seemingly at random with oft time seemingly thinly veiled or blatent threats and POV. Byzantine article seems to catch a large number of these as well as several other article I have interest in at the moment.--Dryzen 18:11, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Moscels? Morsels? You mean draw the Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians and Anglo-Saxons that fall under the old empire's boundaries? I'd be willing to do that. As a note, the later maps in the article should probably do the same as well. The late Byzantine Empire's position seems much more vulnerable with the Ottomans gobbling up the other Turks in Anatolia, the loss of Italy is much better portrayed when the Lombards are drawn, and those Dark Ages seem oh-so-much darker when the Bulgars are occupying the greater part of the Balkans. Too much of any of this would probably detract from the centrality of the Byzantine Empire, however. It might suit the lesser kingdoms (those not called Byzantine) to be coloured in somewhat duller colours with less defined lines of demarcation. In any case, to return to the point from which I have strayed, I would be willing to draw the successor kindoms in, if that's what you were asking for. Geuiwogbil 00:59, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Type-o, Yes I meant "Morsels", by wich the sections of hte empire that rebelled or where conquered. That an intriguing idea you have htere. Drawing some maps with the rival powers in europe, africa and asia. It could certainly set a mood to the periodes and predigament of the empire to readers. Such as astonishemnt at how it sruvived for so long agianst such arrays of opponents and sometime much larger foes (the Arab expansion, the Bulgar Empire, Turks, etc.. at variosu times). But as you put it, it would could stray from showing the empire's control. You can work with transparencies ot dull the colouring right? Mayhaps drawing the local states and then applying a grey film over them to leave the Byzantine in the forfront while the competitors dulled out yet still visible. What do you think?-- Dryzen 12:52, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

I think that would be a very good idea. :) Geuiwogbil 15:12, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Would you look at what I just found! Made in the style of Astrokey's European series, a map of Europe in 476 AD. I'm be willing to make another version better suited to the general sweep of this article, but I think reccomendations on what I should do with this one could help. Thanks again. Geuiwogbil 00:07, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

And I made a modified version, with the recommended gray overlay. Does anyone want me to remove the kingdom labels? Geuiwogbil 00:22, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

I gather that the isolated Roman province in the north of modern France is the Domain of Soissons (it is surprisingly similar with the later Dukedom of Normandy, if a bit bigger). But I am unsure of the identity of the isolated province in the North of Africa. Does it have a specific name? I have also a proposal to make. Wouldn't it be easier for the average user if we mantained the same colours for the single countries (like pink ? for the Byzantine Empire) in the diffrent maps? Flamarande 12:42, 21 October 2006 (UTC)

The current colour scheme is pink/red for the Byzantine Empire, and yellow for areas outside the empire (as per these two maps: Bigdaddy1204 17:29, 23 October 2006 (UTC)

I have created a new 'composite' map of the Byzantine Empire, which can be seen below. What do you think?

[edit] Golden Age & disillusionment

I feel that the coverage of the Byzantine Golden age is not adequate. This is supposed to be the heart of the article; instead in its present truncated form it seems rather half-hearted. I thank Geuiwogbil and Varana gratefully for their kind help with maps. However I have come to expect little or no help from anyone else if I request anything else. I have already asked about this and other things before, and been ignored.

As you can probably tell, I have become a little disillusioned with Wikipedia and some of the ungrateful, obstructionist, nasty, unimaginative and bigoted people who are determined to criticize, complain and even ridicule the hard work of others while contributing absolutely nothing themselves. They devote their energy enthusiastically to destructive edit wars and snide comments, but ask them for constructive help actually working on the text of an article, and they suddenly become the masters of procrastination. I am aware that others have already reached this stage long before me. But this is not the place for a commentary on the negative aspects of Wikipedia. Therefore I will get to the point: I beseech you all to do your best to improve the Golden Age section as best you can. I am willing to help, but I am not going to do it alone.

Perhaps I shouldn't have even bothered to ask, as I very much doubt that anyone will respond with anything more helpful than a personal attack. Prove me wrong. Bigdaddy1204 22:43, 26 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm appreciative of what you have done to work on this article; it seems quite an impressive monument to your endeavours. I do not believe, however, that I could be much help with your work on the Byzantine Golden Age. I have Penguin editions of Psellos and the Alexiad, as well as Cyril Mango's Byzantium. Beyond that, I have nothing.

I live in a farmhouse, half an hour away from a poor town of 60'000, a town lost on a lonely stretch of highway in the middle of nowhere. My only resource is my own sparse bookshelf, with its old used paperbacks assembled from infrequent trips to larger cities far afield. Byzantine resources of a good character are thus somewhat lacking. I could work on anything that merely requires front-end maintenance of the article, but unless you could direct me to an online resource, or unless my own resources could add something, I couldn't really help with this article's content or citation.

I am deeply sorry. As much as I'd like to help, it's just not in the cards.

What would the postcard image be used for? I like the odd dotting of the body with little maps. I don't think they should be replaced by a compilation. Some other things:

The progression isn't immediately obvious. I usually read images left-to-right along horizontal lines. Seeing it arranged along two columns as it is was a bit unsettling to me. Perhaps adding dates would help.
The text should be removed before compression, and either re-written or discarded. It's all jaggy.
My map should really have its big black borders removed...
...and be rotated...
...and have various major cities labeled...
...and have Mauretania removed as a territory of the Western Roman Empire... (I can't find any source other than the Collins Atlas which puts it there. Every Internet search, every other source, just tells me that the Vandals destroyed any and all traces of Roman civilization when they trotted across those semiarid plains. It must have been misprint. Thanks for pointing this out, Flamarande.)
(...)I'm considering the possibility that I should just make a new map using Varana's base, or replace all of Varana's maps with new versions according to my general plans. The second, though not immediately attractive to me or anyone else, would allow complete standardization. Image:LatinEmpire.png could be made according to the plan of the other maps, a 476 AD map could be made without cutting out the Domain of Soissons, and the borders of Byzantium's neighbors could be shown as well. Having Manzikert shown on one of the maps would be useful too.

Sorry for the long post. Hope I've been more helpful than a personal attack. ;) Geuiwogbil 04:09, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for your helpful response, Geuiwogbil. You have raised some interesting new possibilities. About the maps: once I had created the 'postcard' map, I was suprised by the result - it wasn't as good as I had expected, and I also thought it would look better going from left to right and with dates added. However by that time it was getting very late so I went to bed without making those changes.

Interesting point about the text, I think once again you are absolutely right - the resizing of the maps to fit them on the postcard has left the text looking "all jaggy", as you said.

About removing the black borders on your map - yes this is another thing that needs doing. Again lack of time was the reason I didn't already change it yesterday. The same applies to adding the cities.

As for rotating the map, I'm not sure how to do this. I have been using microsoft paint to edit the maps, but it doesn't have an option to rotate the map (at least, not that I know of). I think I would need a more sophisticated program to make that change, but of course I agree to it in principle.

About Mauretania - I think probably the region was outside effective Roman control after the Vandals appeared there, presumably because the extremely disturbed state of the empire at the time prevented the central government from restoring links with the area. The area was probably left to its own devices, much as the province of Britannia had been before it.

I think an animated map which contained all the individual maps from the postcard would be a brilliant addition to this and other pages on the Byzantines. There is already one animated version at the bottom of Byzantine Empire, but it shows old versions of many of the maps and misses out several of them altogether. A new animated map would be great, if I could find somebody to make it for me :) I have left a message on the userpage of the person that made the original, but he/she hasn't responded.

You have said "I'm considering the possibility that I should just make a new map using Varana's base, or replace all of Varana's maps with new versions according to my general plans."

Which maps specifically do you mean here? Varana has created the 1204 map, but how can you replace 'all of Varana's maps' when there is only the one? Or were you referring to my series of maps, with the red/pink Byzantine Empire on the yellow background? If it is the latter, then making a new map using my base could work, or replacing all of my maps with more detailed onces using your base could also work.

Personally I think making a whole new series of maps, and including other nations, as well as labelling more cities and places such as Manzikert, would be the best option. However, it would also be the most difficult option. But it is desirable to have the best range of maps possible.

The new series of maps would have to include all the dates we already have maps for:

476AD, 565AD, 717AD, 867AD, 1025AD, 1095AD, 1180AD, 1204AD, 1282AD, 1453AD.

We should also keep Varana's in-detail 1204 map, since a general map of 1204 wouldn't be able to show the partition of the empire in sufficient detail, because it would be too 'zoomed out'.

The new maps could be standardized, as you have suggested, so that they all have the same cities labelled, etc. What do you think? Are you in favour of creating these new maps? And which base should we use for the project - yours or mine? (I don't mind which) Bigdaddy1204 11:47, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Sorry...I meant your maps. I was somewhat confused, thinking that perhaps your maps were a modification of Varana's or something along those lines. I hadn't paid attention to the mapmakers... I apologize for my confusion. Are you in favour of Dryzen's suggestion to include the Empire's neighbors? If so, I'd like to redo the whole series, with Blankmap v.3 as a base. I don't hold any particular attachment to it, its just that your map doesn't extend as far north as would be necessary to portray the whole of the Western Empire, or far enough south and east to perhaps portray as much of the Middle East as I'd like. If not, your base is probably fine, and I would just remake the 476 AD map. Whatever you'd like. Geuiwogbil 12:10, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

As I have posted on BigDaddy's talk page - returning from a somewhat unexpected hiatus. :(

I could combine the maps above into an animated GIF - I'd rather wait, however, if you decide to change the maps. Just tell. :)

I think using BigDaddy's map base would be better, even for including the Empire's neighbours, and just live with it that not the entire Western Empire would be shown. By extending the map that far north, we draw much focus away from the real topic of the maps (i.e. Byzantium), especially after Justinian.

With regard to sources/citations: Unfortunately, I have only limited access to scholarly literature, though I'll see what I can come up with when I get the chance to use a real library. Varana 14:55, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

I lost my large reply and have not hte tiem to write it over again. It was, to express my understanding of Bigdaddy1204 situation and to ask for him not to despaire. At the very least not until he's spent enough time to read the entire archives. With that done one can then despaire at the bodies left in the mire.

I would gladly be aiding the article with new foudn knowledge of the pre-1081 Byzantine world, yet time and circumstances have not been kind. I've been constrained to talk pages for they are faster read and replied, all my articles on hold.

As to the maps, may I suggest a three form methode? Of wich three types of maps are made with diffrent yet complimenting intent. A single large map with geographic (plains, hills, lakes, etc.) and demographic details (i.e. cities ,etc.), could be geo-politacly themed to any given date, perferably a strong Byzantine periode, yet this would only be filling and not the main point of the image. This first style would act as a reference when people seek information on battles, i.e. "Manzkiert, where is that? lets go look on the big map" The second type, could have some 3-5 maps presenting the geopolitical world during the Empire's important periodes, ex: the Barbarien break up of the Roman Empire, the division between Amirs and Slavic peoples (Byzantine's many ennemies divided) and the fourth crusade break up. Lastly would be a series of dated maps to solely indicate the territorial predigament of the empire with little to no details beyond the borders of the empire and some basic geography. Smaller these as glaced at an understood, the animation of the empire should be based on these. I currently have some visualy dull yet information full maps of the Themes at different periodes (840, 1025). These could be readily converted ot present the empire at those times.--Dryzen 15:38, 27 October 2006 (UTC)

Thankyou for the quick responses :) I think having these different types of maps is an interesting solution. To respond to the earlier posts, I think that we should go ahead with making a new series of maps, which use my base (as Varana has said) and show the empire's neighbours and enemies.

I also think a new map showing where places are, as Dryzen has suggested, could be useful to go at the start of the article, so people can refer back to it for info on where places are.

I don't know if we need a third series of maps to show just the empire's borders and nothing else, because if we do this there could be too many maps in the article; also we would already show the empire's borders with the series of maps showing the 'geopolitical world', as you have said. On the other hand, maps showing just the empire do have the advantage of emphasising the empire, and drawing attention to it rather than other nations. What do you think about this?

Geuiwogbil, would you be willing to help us to create the new series of maps, which would replace the existing series, by showing the empire and its neighbours and enemies at 476AD, 565AD, 717AD, 867AD, 1025AD, 1095AD, 1180AD, 1204AD, 1282AD, 1453AD?

Also Varana, could you make an animated GIF map from the existing maps for now? If it's not too much work? The animated map would preferably use all the individual maps which were used to make Image:ByzantineEmpirepostcard3.PNG [[1]] (listed in the summary). Then when we have the new series of maps, we can decide whether to make them into an animated map, or just leave it. What do you say? Bigdaddy1204 13:05, 28 October 2006 (UTC)

Maps of 476AD, 565AD, 717AD, 867AD, 1025AD, 1095AD, 1180AD, 1204AD, 1282AD, 1453AD with neigbours will take up too much room in this article, mayhaps making a sub-article highlighting the fluctuating borders of the Empire would better house this colelction. My reason for the third series is to take less space while still rpesenting the territorial information. These maps having only the Empire could be shown smaller without loosing inforation, unlike type two. As well Type three dosen't steal the reader from the article; meaning the reader can in a glance read the information of the map and keep on reading the article. With more detailed maps his attention will be bogged down on the represention. We could produce both series 2 and 3, keeping the 3rd here moving hte 2nd to the possible sub-article, with a few samples in the main article. Of course that all depends on the Graphists.--Dryzen 15:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

By the way, where did you get your 1025 map? The borders seem to differ from my own 1025 map.--Dryzen 15:27, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

I intend to contribute to the article (content and referencing issues), including the sections Bigdaddy has indicated. The problem is that right now I don't have the adequate time for such a thorough research and editing. Almost all my important plans in Wikipedia are stagnated for the next 15 days. I understand Bigdaddy's stagnation, but I think that he must take into consideration the fact that some people might bu under important time pressure and cannot contribute whenever they are asked to.--Yannismarou 15:51, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

Updated the animated map with the new version of the 550 map, and the new 867 map:

Animated Map of the Borders of the Byzantine Empire

Varana 17:45, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cheers Varana! :) It's good to see a progression from 717 to 1025 going via 867, instead of just being a massive and unexpected jump! I have a couple of questions/ideas about the animated map. Would you be able to add my new Image:Byzantium476.PNG to the animation? It shows the empire right at the start, it 476AD - their inheritance from the Romans. One more thing. It's being picky I know, but could you also add Image:Byzantium in 1170(3).PNG instead of Image:Byzantium@1180.jpg? It's a more accurate version I made after the first one. If these two features could be added, the animated map would then become perfect! Bigdaddy1204 19:10, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Not picky, if it's more accurate. ;) I've added 476 and swapped 1180 with 1170 (you may need to reload (F5) the page if the previous version still is in your cache). :) Varana 20:39, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Excellent work! Thankyou Varana. You have made the perfect animated Byzantine Map! I will make sure it finds a place on many Byzantine pages :) Bigdaddy1204 22:13, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Good work Varana, as is the usual.--Dryzen 14:19, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Map improvements (only reasonable ones please)

I don't know anything about making maps (or improving them) for the articles, but it seems to me that some of you are quite adept at it. I quite like the maps recently provided, but I see some small things that might (and should) be improved. Here are my proposals; follow them only if you agree with them and are willing to do it. There might be other valid improvements somebody else might wish to point out; please do so but don't exagerate (i.e.: don't clutter the maps with too much info, keep them rather simple). Flamarande 22:54, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

1) besides Rome, Ravena, and Constantinople please mark also Alexandria, Nicea, Thessalonica, and Jerusalem in the maps for they were also cities of major importance (Antioch is in some maps but not in others, this could also be corrected).

2) include the map from 395 AD.

For the clutter we've already been discussing the point by making multiple type maps for their multiple roles in the article. Type one would show city information as well as a myriade ot ofther important and secondary infromtation, this would be the only map that could characterised ascluttered, although there is no such athing a clutter in well made map, only information that you haven't found a use for yet. ;o) As soon as I am able to have my Sources' returned I should be posting a few new maps for Bigdaddy1204 to normalise and Varana to intergrate in his already fabulous animation.--Dryzen 14:26, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm eager to get to work on those new maps you mentioned; I'll be very happy to do what you ask when you are ready! Bigdaddy1204 14:32, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry for hte delay. tic-toc-tic-toc, waiting...--Dryzen 19:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Can you post the new maps for me to work on? If you want me to start right now, I could try to do points 1) and 2) immediately. What are these other maps you have in mind? Bigdaddy1204 19:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I am working on the 395 map right now. Should be finished soon... Bigdaddy1204 20:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Here is the completed 395 map - tell me what you think! Bigdaddy1204 21:18, 22 November 2006 (UTC) :

Sorry for the delay but I noticed it only today, 29 of Nov. It´s great; all the major cities are there, etc. There is only one mistake here. Namely, the division of the Roman Empire into two, the Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire (known to us today as Byzantine Empire). That why I wanted exactly this date (death of Theodosius the Great). Ok, I know that I am pushing my luck here, but could you also include the city of Nicea? As far as I know the city wasn't very important at that time, but it grew in importance into becoming the second city of the empire, and temporary capital of the Byzantine empire (it depends a bit upon ones POV) during the havoc created by the Fourth Crusade). Flamarande 15:11, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Latin names for the Eastern Empire

I know that they stoped using latin after a certain date. However I think it would good idea if this article had both the latin and greek names for the empire.

The latin name was simply Roman empire. The Byzantines used the word Romanos. Besides, the English don't use Celtic to describe their country, so why should the Byzantines use Latin to describe their empire? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.227.129.254 (talk) 17:58, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

There was a term 'Romania' which was used for the empire. It is exactly the same in Latin as in Greek. However, I'm not sure whether this term was used during the early years of the Eastern Empire or that it came into existence only later, which would mean that the Latin 'Romania' was never in use. Later in the Middle Ages, the Latin term was sometimes used in the West to refer to the empire, but by then it had been adapted from the Greek and it did not mean 'Roman Empire', but it did instead refer to what we specifically call the 'Byzantine Empire'. (The treaties by which the empire was divided between the Venetians and the 'Franks' after the Fourth Crusade, for instance, speak of "quarta pars et dimidia totius imperii Romaniae", one fourth and a half of the empire of Romania.)

By the way, the Byzantines used the word 'Romaios' (with omega), not Romanos. Even today some older Greeks refer to themselves as 'Romiós' Iblardi 19:35, 9 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] A Proposal

The article is very long. I propose the following sections (1 Name of the Byzantine Empire 2 Identity, continuity, and consciousness 3 Origin) are moved to their own new article Byzantine Identity. A cursory statement of the Byzantine's continuity with the Roman Empire and it's predominantly Greek population and culture could be mentioned in the opening paragraph (as it is now). As it is the sections tell us a lot about what the Byzantines identity was/wasn't but don't help the article; which should focus more on the historical aspect of the empire and not explore issues of identity. Roydosan 13:25, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan, I understand, but can I ask you a simple question. Do you believe the native Greeks viewed themselves as under occupation by a foreign latin force throughout the period of Byzantium? I don't understand your issue with Byzantium - It is Greek, no one is claiming it was the Hellenic Republic incarnate of the Middle Ages, but that it was Greek is indisputable, the main reason for people neglecting Byzantine History is PRECISELY the emphasis on it's legacy, a Greek continuation of the latin Roman Empire in the East, rather than how it should be, a Greek state of the Middle Ages, viewed in context with other states of the period. The fact people over-emphasize it's legacy is what leads to people dismissing it so often, they simply say 'oh, it was just a half-dead version of the roman empire'. Is there no period of Greek History safe from attack these days? Greeks will fight to the death, myself included, to protect our rightful positions. Just as you would with your own history roydosan, I have never made claims on the Tudor Dynasty or The British Empire. Why because there has been a slight resurgence of interest in Byzantine studies are the western europeans now seeking to appropriate Byzantine History? This unsigned comment was left by 86.141.243.11

You may be right, Roydosan. This might even free up some space for a more detailed discussion of the Byzantine Golden Age under the Macedonians, which is something I've long been calling for. However, the fact that I assume that someone will stomp on me immediately for even suggesting this is indicative of the problem with this article. I apologise for the digression, but I still feel it's difficult to write about any non-map-related issue here without being aggressively flamed by someone. This has driven me away to a certain extent. I got involved in maps instead, a topic that has produced some good results (thanks to Varana and Geuiwogbil) such as a new animated Byzantine Empire map, new 476AD map, etc , and will hopefully produce more when Flamarande and Dryzen come back.

I support your proposal. I'm glad that someone has something new to suggest for this article. Bigdaddy1204 14:22, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I would like to respond to the anonymous post above mine:

"Why because there has been a slight resurgence of interest in Byzantine studies are the western europeans now seeking to appropriate Byzantine History?"

I don't see quite what you mean. Appropriate Byzantine History? Perhaps you are thinking that Roydosan has over-emphasised the Roman aspects of Byzantine Civilisation, to make it more palatable to a western european audience? As it is your comments about western europeans may invite antagonism. Bigdaddy1204 22:16, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Anonymous these issues about Greek nationhood and the Byzantine empire mean nothing to anyone apart from the Greek editors on Wikipedia. Please don't take offence at what I'm saying as that's not what I intend. No-one is disputing the Greek nature of the empire (albeit a nature which identified itself very strongly as 'Roman'). I disagree with your comments about people ignoring the empire as some half forgotten relic of the Roman empire. In my experience people are often greatly interested in the subject once they discover that the Roman empire continued for another thousand years after its supposed end in 476. Anyway this is beside the point. The issue of identity, since it is obviously so controversial, deserves to be dealt with in its own article. Placed in the article here it seems out of place. Far better to have this article to deal with the purely historical aspects of the empire and for issues of cultural identity to be dealt with elsewhere where they can be more thoroughly explored. There could be a link in the article here to the identity article so that it would not be a case of merely removing text but of directing the reader to that information. Roydosan 09:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan since you're British you might as well be interested in reading some British historians on the subject. No historiography treats Byzantine as part of the ancient Roman history, this is just your personal, romantic view and it has no place in wikipedia. Try to finally understand how edits are made in this place. Miskin 12:13, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

And by the way I'm against this proposal because in a way Roydosan is trying to "filter" the article and create what he considers a POV-fork. Obviously we should reduce and break down the article, but not along the lines a POV-pusher defines. Miskin 12:24, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, as usual you've misrepresented me since I never claimed that that was the case. And as for POV pushing that is fairly rich coming from you. I've always been objective and impartial, which you would discover if you actually bothered to read what I have written rather than jumping down my throat because it doesn't fit in with your POV. Anyway this is all beside the point. Moving this stuff, which is fairly irrelevant to the history of the empire, to an appropriate article is not the case of censoring the identity aspect but putting it in it's own article where it can be dealt with in detail. The article would be linked from the opening paragraph so there is no question about eliminating any reference to it. Roydosan 12:31, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Culture and society is as much history as is politics and wars. How would a purely "political" history of Byzantium improve the article, more than a balanced one touching on all aspects of the Byzantine world? If the length of the article is a problem, which I may agree it is, it should be dealt with by condensing the material while mantaining balance on ALL topics, not by turning it into a political history. And the opening sections already does have a link to the identity of the empire - the Names of the Greeks article -, which deals quit comprehensively on who the Byzantines were. Colossus 13:09, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes you're right they are as much history as politics and war are. But, sub-articles are a suitable conduit by which to further elaborate on lengthy issues and the identity aspect is rather long in the context of this article. It would be much better dealt with in its own article and the Names of the Greeks article is insufficient since it excludes the non-Greek aspects of the empire. The identity article could further explore issues of continuity with Rome, the multi-ethnic nature, the Hellenisation of the empire, Orthodoxy, etc. Roydosan 13:33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree, there was a multi-ethnic nature, but its irrelevant to the larger aegis of being a 'Byzantine' which is more akin to being a Greek than anything else. For example, Zeno I had to change his name to Zeno to make himself more acceptable to the native Greeks of the Empire. Also, notable Armenians (the only other ethnic minority who had a great impact on the Empire) would have been so Hellenized by the 6th Century that they would have considered themselves 'Roman' (in the later Hellenistic sense) anyway. Names of the Greeks is not insufficient. And I ask you again, did the native Greeks of the Byzantine Empire consider themselves under occupation for a 1000 years? Of course not. Don't tie Byzantium down with it's legacy, it should be viewed as an Empire that created it's own legacy. There are many more controversial historical issues out there, chances are Richard The Lionheart never considered himself an 'Englishman', yet canonically in many modern sources he is referred to as a 'King of England'. There is no other nation that can draw the linguistical, cultural and religious continuity of Byzantium other than The Hellenic Republic, thats a simple fact. This unsigned comment was left by 86.141.243.11

The native Greeks would not have considered themselves under occupation for the simple fact that they considered themselves Romans as good as the best Roman from Italy. Many Greeks had attained Roman citizenship well before Caracalla's decree of 212 so the Roman identity was well established before the division of the empire. In any case - if one is to consider the 'long' Byzantine empire (330-1453) then the Names of the Greeks article is woefully insufficient, since it excludes the large part of the empire - even Britain if you want to date it from 330 (though I would not go to such an extreme personally). The names of the Greeks article excludes many who were part of the Byzantine empire and considered themselves Romans, therefore it is clearly insufficient. That is not to deny the legacy bequeathed to Greece by Byzantium but to claim it solely for the Greeks is clearly POV and contrary to Wiki policy. Roydosan 14:32, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

As usual, Roydosan's conclusions are based on original research and do not cite any sources. When you invent your own method of historiography we will follow your example and regard the "Romans" as an unbroken national identity that survived until the 15th century (this naiveness is what actually Roydosan supports). Until then I'll stick with the existing methods of historiography. Miskin 19:43, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan, this is my point, they considered themselves Roman, but by the 7th century the lands of the Roman Empire had been whittled down to largely ethnic Greek areas, sure, they still considered themselves Roman, but they certainly didn't consider other former provinces in the West and their populace 'Romans'. What you have in the Roman Empire is quite simple, a Universality of citizenship based largely on a meritocracy, which superceded ethnic division, however, the East always maintained it's own culture (for example there are less archaeological sites of arenas in Asia Minor and Achaea because the Greeks preferred their native games such as horse racing), language and ethnicity despite this. However, what you have from the 5th to the 7th century is a gradual whittling down of the Empire to it's 3 major areas: Southern Italy, the Balkans and Asia Minor - cumulatively there was a large Greek majority in these areas (and a huge Greek majority in Constantinople itself for obvious reasons), they still considered themselves Roman, but in their eyes, the only 'Romans' left were themselves (i.e. Greeks). My point is simply this Roydosan, you say that it's wrong for me to state that Byzantium's legacy is 'solely' bequeathed by Greece. I never stated that, I stated that Greece was THE cultural, linguistical, ethnic and religious continuation of Byzantium, I am not denying the presence of a Byzantine Commonwealth, but the entitlement of say.... Russia, despite being more than Western Europe, is not equivocal to Greece because Byzantium is canonically 'Greek' History for the reasons already discussed.

Claiming Byzantium's legacy is egalitarian in modern day nations is wrong, England for example, clearly has more of a right to claim The British Empire as part it's own legacy than the subjects of the Empire. Same goes for Byzantium and Greece, and also, why should we overturn centuries of historical scholarship that refer to the Byzantines simply as the 'Greek peoples of the Middle Ages' simply because you want to restore a universality that simply didn't exist anymore by the 6th century. This unsigned comment was left by 86.141.243.11

My stance on this time honoured cycle of discussion has already been stipulated. Therefore I shall keep it prompt and to the point of the proposal. The Identity of the Byzantine Empire is an important subject and deserves its own article, a place that will give it the room it requires to be properely presented, something it cannot gain in its present location: an article that must keep its many sections concise due to its already massive amount of information.--Dryzen 16:16, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

sub-articles are a suitable conduit by which to further elaborate on lengthy issues and the identity aspect is rather long in the context of this article. It would be much better dealt with in its own article and the Names of the Greeks article is insufficient since it excludes the non-Greek aspects of the empire. The identity article could further explore issues of continuity with Rome, the multi-ethnic nature, the Hellenisation of the empire, Orthodoxy, etc.

All of them topics commendable on their own right, though I still dont understand why they need to be replaced and moved from the main article rather than expanded upon, simply by placing a link to a more detailed article in addition to the respective identity section. It seems you're firmly set on transforming the currently well-rounded and balanced article into a political history, which would only weaken it. If article length is a problem, which again, I agree it is, condensing the existing material is the way to go, not cuting and pasting away whole sections. Colossus 21:59, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

As it stands, I think we can safely omit the "Identity..." section. It is quite sketchy, with only that quote and the mentioning of Argyropoulos; the "Names of the Greeks" article explains that and a lot more in detail, and is quite good in this regard (we should probably link directly to the "Romans and Romioi" and the following sections). The "Name of the Byzantine Empire" paragraphs should stay; they are necessary for this article. Currently, the "Identity..." stub serves no real purpose. The information therein (i.e. the quote) can be condensed and either moved to the lead paragraph (where a short sentence on "multi-ethnic Empire that became the medieval Greek state" might be in order), or to the "Names..." section. However, it should be merged into those sections, not simply added, as esp. in the lead there already are several statements alluding to the issue, and we should avoid repetition.

If anyone can come up with a decent text on the "Identity..." topic (that doesn't double with the "Names of the Greeks" article), it should be inserted again. Until then, the "Identity..." stub is not necessary (note: the current text - the topic itself does need a place somewhere in the article). Varana 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskin, I have never made any statements that were OR. But here are some quotes if it makes you happy.

“On 17 September he (Liudprand) was once again summoned, this time by the Patrician Christopher, a eunuch, who began the conversation with one or two personal remarks:

‘The pallor of your face, the emaciation of your whole body, the unusual length of your hair and beard, all reveal the immense pain that is in your heart because the date of your return to your master has been delayed…. The reason is this. The Pope of Rome – if indeed he may be called Pope when he has held communion and ministry with Alberic’s son, the apostate, the adulterer, the sacreligious – has sent a letter to our most sacred Emperor, worthy of himself and unworthy of Nicephorus, calling him ‘Emperor of the Greeks’ and not ‘of the Romans’. Certainly this has been done at your master’s instigation… That fatuous blockhead of a Pope does not know that the sacred Constantine transferred to this city the imperial sceptre, the senate and all the Roman knighthood, leaving in Rome nothing but vile slaves, fishermen, confectioners, poulterers, bastards, plebeians and underlings. Never would he have written this letter if your king had not suggested it.’

Clearly this was no time for heroics. Liudprand tried to argue that since the days of Constantine the Byzantines had changed their language, custom and dress, and that the Pope had probably thought that by now the very name of Romans, like their sartorial style, might be distasteful to them; but he did not press the point. Finally he promised that all future letters would be addressed to ‘Nicephorus, Constantine and Basil, the great and august Emperors of the Romans.’”

Norwich, J. J. Byzantium The Apogee. 1991 p. 201

Byzantium is better known as “the medieval Christian east Roman empire, because that is what Byzantium really was.”

Haldon, J. Byzantium at War 2002

In any case, this is all beside the point. The fact that this proposal has generated so much debate proves, in my mind, the necessity of a separate article on Byzantine Identity. Simply using the Names of the Greeks article smacks of POV. Especially since for much of its history the empire included many other ethnic groups. Wikipedia should not be used as a nationalist soapbox - especially when such an interpretation is at variance with the majority of books on the subject. Roydosan 12:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan I hope you can do better than that. I really don't see how those out-of-context citations justify any of your claims or edits. If someone else does then please fill me in. Miskin 13:42, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

We are well aware of the fact they found the term 'Hellene' insulting, because it was a subtle insult over their titular rights to call themselves the 'Emperor of the Romans', as well as 'Hellene' being a synonym for Pagan. I guess what I don't understand about you the most Roydosan, is why you find it so hard to fathom that people can, throughout history, call themselves by different names. You claim this article and the identity section is POV, you talk of the 'minorities' within the Empire. Fine. But you fail to note that peoples such as the Armenians where thoroughlly Hellenized. Let me provide some quotes of my own from Browning:

"By constantly setting themselves in their imagination against the Latins, the Byzantines redefined their own identity..... There is a very real sense in which the prehistory of Greek nationalism can be traced back to the long and traumatic confrontation with the Latin west."

and....

"To these peasents of Asia Minor the millenary traditions of Roman Imperialism meant little. The restoration of Roman power in the west was not an attractive dream. The world they were willing to fight for was that in which they lived - Greek."

You should buy this book, Browning also discusses friction between Greeks and mercenaries in the army. You are against the Greeks like all Westerners are, cheering as bombs were dropped on Serbia. You dont realise how many of us Greeks will stand against you to defend Greek History.

"You are against the Greeks like all Westerners are, cheering as bombs were dropped on Serbia. You dont realise how many of us Greeks will stand against you to defend Greek History." HELLO exageration, lies, and nationalism ad absurdum. Never knew that all Westerners are against the Greeks (I heard many times that Ancient Greece is considered the craddle of Western civilization though). Your insinuation that Roydosan cheered as the bombs were falling on Serbia is completly ridiculous. Try to behave like a reasonable and civilized person. Flamarande 13:56, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan,l i still cannot understand... I have been following the discussion, yet i chose not to participate in it so far. Using the Names of the Greeks article is NPOV enough. the term 'Romioi' mentioned there, which happened to be the name used by the Greek Byzantines and the Modern Greeks until late 18th century (and it is still in use by them in a lesser extend at present) is enough to persuade even the most suspicious reader. Apropos, the many other ethnic groups that u mentioned used their own names (e.g., i doubt if u will find a single Armenian or Copt telling u that they ever stopped using their own self-identifing names). btw, has there existed an empire consisting by a single ethnic group? thus, i find the proposal for a separate article on Byzantine Identity, just provocative; the next thing would be to create an article on British or French or German or Ottoman or Russian Empire Identity, in which there will be an effort to present these empires as distinct from the British/French/German/Turkish/Russian people respectively. U know that such an effort is meant to fail, as u also know that minorities and ethnic groups inside an empire do not alter the character and identity of the dominant ethnic group. I bet u know many things about Byzantine history... so, u know that the Medieval Greeks fought wars against the Slavs, Bulgars, Armenians, Georgians, Arabs, Goths, Avars, Persians as well as that they had clashes with the Copts, the Syriacs the Paulicians, etc. Which was the other part in this wars and clashes, if not the Greeks? Hectorian 13:47, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

"...the very designation 'Greek', which we use so freeely today to describe those Byzantines who did not belong to any alien group, is entirely absent from the literature of the period." page 27 of "Byzantium the empire of the New Rome" by Cyril Mango ISBN 1-89880-044-8. I suspect that the whole issue is simply not so clear as we may wish for. Flamarande 14:14, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian the Names of the Greeks article is POV because it assumes that all Byzantines were Greeks - which they most patently weren't. Yes it is true that Greek's came to dominate the empire and were the predominant ethnic group - but they weren't the only ethnic group. The Byzantines would not have understood modern ideas of ethnic or national identity - for them all that was important was membership of the Orthodox Church and the use of Greek in official business (this isn't my take on the situation but a comment in a book I read recently - I'll put up the ref later before anyone accuses me of OR again). Therefore the Names of the Greeks article is blatantly point of view since it is an exclusionary and partial interpretation of history to state that from 330-1453 the only Byzantines were Greeks. Roydosan 14:06, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok, hows this for an article: 'The English are the greatest, blah blah blah, in actuality, the Byzantine people were English people who emigrated to Asia Minor in the 4th century AD.' Happy? Why the heck is it so difficult for you two haters of Greece to understand that people can call themselves by different names throughout history yet remain, ethnically, culturally and linguistically GREEEK? WHY IS THAT SO HARD TO UNDERSTAND??

Flamarande and Roydosan want to make it look like the only period of Greek History is 5th century Athens. Why should not Paparigopoulos be included? He was a great Historian of Byzantium and tied in Greek prehistory to Modern Greek history.

Roydosan, it doesn't matter... It does not matter how many ethnic groups were in the empire (whose borders, anyway vary, depending on the century)... The Names of the Greeks is NPOV enough. it incorporates valuable info on the names the Greeks have used and the names other nations gave to them. The Byzantines had a concept of national identity. just because other medieval states did not have such a concept, it doesn't mean that the Byzantines also didn't! the ancient Greeks, also had a clear concept of national identity, didn't they? also, the Empire, ended its history as a Greek nation state. apart from the books u are reading, i would advice u to also read some translations of medieval greek documents and literature works (better read them in Greek, if u know the language). u will see authors calling themselves 'Romans' (christians subjects of the Roman empire), whose ancestors were 'Hellenes'... It is clearly documented. also, the epic poem of Digenes Akritas, the national epos of the Medieval Greeks (equivelent to the Iliad for the ancients). but even if, as u say for them all that was important was membership of the Orthodox Church and the use of Greek in official business (btw, Greek was not only used officially, but was also the language of the people-better re-check the author of that book), u support the same thing... Greek Orthodoxy and Greek language; religion and language are two of the most important characteristics that make a nation distinct from the others-it is not hard for someone to understand that the Greeks considered themselves distinct from the Latins and western europeans in religious affairs-also, have a look where and by whom the heresies were created: Oriental Orthodoxy, Paulicianism, Nestorianism, Arianism... those people did not consider themselves Byzantines (id est Greeks). the Copts even welcomed the Arab conquerors as liberators... I am telling this again: if someone will try to draw a distinction between the Greeks, as a nation, and the Byzantine Empire, as if Byzantines were not Greeks, i expect from him to do the same for the other Empires as well... And since u are British (and the anon above was rather sarcastic-though he should had avoid personal attacks and such language), i am making a comparison: the British Empire was not British... various ethnic groups participated... Notably the Irish, the Vikings, and later the Native Americans, the Africans (and the Dutch in S.Africa), the Indians and Pakistanis... Also, this empire lacked other feutures that make up a nation, id est language (various Celtic languages... Gaelic, Manx, Welsh, bla bla bla), and also religion: the British were not all Anglicans... Irish Catholics, Calvinist Scots, not to mention the Deists... Several uprisings during the centuries, show that i am right... Or maybe u wanna talk about the origins of the Brits? 25% of Londoners are of Hugenot French ancestry, isn't that right? 8 million British people today are of Irish descent... So, for which "Queen of England" are we talking about? she is of German descent, right? as many Byzantine emperors were of Armenian origin. this is about numerous peoples connected only under a single crown (we know how the Kingdom of Scotland ended its existance, as we all also know what is probably gonna happen on May 2007...), sometimes by force and with, sometimes, common interests... So, under this pretext, the British Empire has nothing to do with the British people... (lol... when India was part of the Empire, the Britons made up just 5-10% of the whole population or the empire!). the very moment u will agree with what i have just said about Britain (and u create an article about the distinct identity of the its people from the modern Brits), i will begin to rethink of a possible similar change in this article. Regards Hectorian 17:42, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

bravo file mou!!! I am a proud greek and i will not let these people take my history from me. yet again they have proven that we greeks have only two allies: God and the serbs.

Errm... Serbs? Now again, what the hell do Serbs have to do with this debate? --- And just a personal opinion: I think it would help much if you would stop to see this as a personal attack. History does not "belong" to anyone.

Anyway, God lives in France and America is His country. ;) Varana 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Hectorian et al.: I think it would be great if a decent text actually came out of this debate. As I see it: We have a multi-ethnic, decidedly all-encompassing Empire in the Roman tradition at the start. On the religious level, this includes orthodox-catholic Christians, Monophysites, several other sects, Pagans, Jews, and more. On the linguistic level, we have Greek (large majority), Latin (esp. in the Danubian provinces), Syriac / Aramaic, Coptic (Syriac and Coptic literature thrives in early Byzantium, until the Arab conquest), and more. Culturally, we have Hellenism transformed by Roman rule with various "indigenous" cultures, esp. in rural areas. And so on: Roydosan has a point, imo, that the Empire did not *begin* as a "Greek" nation-state. (Copts of course never self-identified as "Byzantines" - no one ever did. ;)) Together with the territorial reduction, the Greek character of the Empire grew, as it was more and more reduced to areas where Greeks were dominant.

So later on, we have a "Roman Empire of the Greek Nation", so to speak, with large non-Greek minorities (Armenian, but also Slav, etc.) It would be interesting to take a more detailed look at that time, i.e. the Middle Byzantine period, when the Empire was still "Roman" (i.e. ruling the oikoumene) in theory, but transforming into something like a nation.

And then we have the late period - which can be seen already in Anna Komnene, but esp. after the 4th Crusade (as somewhat of a catalyst) and the Recovery, when Byzantium was the Greek "nation-state" (note the "") also in reality. Chalcondylas, Argyropoulos and other avant-garde proponents of "Hellenism" fall into this period.

To flesh out that development with literature and source citations would be worthwhile, I think. Varana 19:01, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I still cannot see why the Byzantine Empire should be treated differently than the other empires... Btw, i am waiting for an answer about the British Empire that i mentioned above (u all know that i said nothing untrue:)). non Greek citizens did not self-identify as "Byzantines" (since the term was un-invented back then), but they even did not identify as Romioi-the many wars the Armenians, Georgians, Slavs, Avars, etc fought against the Romioi, shows this clearly... I agree on all u said above, and all of them are true... but they belong to a 'Demographics of the Byzantine Empire' article, don't u think? U mentioned above the various religious, linguistic and ethnic minorities (and i could name more, if asked to)... So, i challenge anyone to name one single modern nation (if not an empire of the past!) which is solely occupied by 1 ethnic group, 1 religion and 1 language. Culturally, we have Hellenism transformed by Roman rule with various "indigenous" cultures. How about that?:(about modern Britain) Culturally, we have a germanic nation, transformed by Roman, Norman rules with various "indigenous" (Pictish, Irish, Scottish, Welsh, etc) and "imported" (German, French, Indian, etc) cultures and with lots of Greek and Greco-Roman influences... id est, Britain is not British...

About the comment on Serbs by the anon above, he just quoted the words of Radovan Karadzic: "The Serbs have only two friends, God and the Greeks.", by altering them. he is right about the feelings of friendship between the Greeks and the Serbs, but this is somehow irrelevant to this discussion... Regards Hectorian 19:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

First: Usually, empires become larger over time. Byzantium is somewhat special in this regard, as it (I repeat myself) *shrinked* from "half the world" to a large, but not exactly world-ruling state, while claiming its former status all along. There are some similarities with the medieval "German" (i.e. "Holy Roman") Empire: it was multi-ethnic (German, some French, Slavic peoples, Italians...) and in theory claiming to rule the world. The emperor was "Roman emperor" (and the German king before imperial coronation even "Roman king"), but no one (except inhabitants of Rome) actually would have called himself a "Roman". I'm not as knowledgeable on the subject, but an "identity" section could be justified, if it were well-written. The "Habsburg Empire", esp. in the later stages, would also be an interesting candidate for that sort of article. Yes, it somewhat doubles with demographics. Do we have an article on Byzantine demographics?

That leads to the second point: Generally, I do find it difficult to apply a modern concept like "nation" to a medieval state. The medieval English kingdom was were the English king was sovereign. That included England proper, Wales, large parts of France, etc... nothing new, I suppose. The "nation" as what "really" makes up a state is a modern concept.

What your listing for modern Britain shows is that "British" now is not identical with early medieval Anglo-Saxons. That is imho a commonplace. Cultures incorporate elements and influences from others all the time; that doesn't make today's British less "British" (it makes them less Anglo-Saxon, possibly). The same applies to Greece. (I am talking of cultural developments. I don't care much about ethnicity and "blood".)

So, I'm not sure whether the articles on the German, English, Russian or whatever empire could be improved by an "identity" article. I think that "identity of the Byzantine state" *is* an interesting subject that *could* fill an article. Note that I'm talking of the Byzantine *state*: that state changed. How one would come to the opinion that that is to detach Byzantium from Greeks is beyond me - the whole purpose of that article, as I see it, would be to show how the Eastern half of the Roman Empire *became* "the state of the Greeks" in the first place.

I do believe that Armenians, Syrians, Egyptians etc. identified as "Romani" or "Rhomaioi" or the equivalent of "Roman" in Armenian / Syriac / Coptic when the Empire was "created" (i.e. the whole Empire split, whatever date we choose). Of course Avars did not when they attacked the Empire, as they were not citizens then... Over time, and that is a direct effect of the territorial concentration of the "Roman" Empire on Greek lands, "Romans" became synonymous with "Greeks". Not the other way 'round...

Karadzic: That explains that, thanks. :) Varana 23:46, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Well, empires reach an apogee, and then shrink or immediately get partitioned (the Byzantine belongs to the first group). Thanks for clarifying about modern Britain, and i also agree about the cultural developments, and I also don't care much about "blood". But u also mentioned the medieval German empire and the medieval English kingdom... On the grounds of Roydosan, i bet that there was never a medieval German empire nor a medieval English kingdom (German empire? what about the Czechs? English kingdom? how about the Irish and the French?)... I personally find a possible "identity" article here as expression of extreme POV (we have the article 'Name of the Greeks' for that, and also articles on Copts and Armenians where their position in the empire is explained in much detail)... Thus, such an article is a potential POVFORK. i will not agree in the creation of such an article (id est an attempt to split the greek identity), unless same attitude will be followed for the other empires as well, and not only for the Greek Empire-btw, i guess u know the many similarities in the specific fields we are referring here, between the Byzantine, the Russian or the German Empires (the two last, also claimed to be the inheritors of the Roman...). Lastly, i think an articles on Byzantine demographics will be extremely interesting and that it has much to offer in the general coverage of the Empire in wikipedia. Thanks for bringing that up, even indirectly:) Hectorian 02:07, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

To quote Varana

the whole purpose of that article, as I see it, would be to show how the Eastern half of the Roman Empire *became* "the state of the Greeks" in the first place.

I do believe that Armenians, Syrians, Egyptians etc. identified as "Romani" or "Rhomaioi" or the equivalent of "Roman" in Armenian / Syriac / Coptic when the Empire was "created" (i.e. the whole Empire split, whatever date we choose). Over time, and that is a direct effect of the territorial concentration of the "Roman" Empire on Greek lands, "Romans" became synonymous with "Greeks". Not the other way 'round...''

This is basically the crux of my proposal. The three paragraphs I proposed moving to their own article need to be dealt with more fully. Currently there is a tendency amongst certain editors to write as if the Byzantine Empire was a Greek nation state as understood in terms of 19th century nationalism - this is inaccurate and a sweeping generalisation and simplification of the subject. Not once have I disputed that Greeks formed the majority of the population of the empire; but to pretend that they were the only group over the life of the empire, as using the Names of the Greeks article implies, is inaccurate and at variance with modern scholarship and the historical evidence. This is not about creating a POV fork or "splitting the Greek identity" but of dealing with these issues more fully in their own article. I am not proposing that such a viewpoint should be eliminated from the article, although I personally consider it to be wrong, but that it be balanced with other views. This requires an expansion of the coverage of the subject. The article is already far too long, therefore a new article is the obvious solution. There would be a link to the article where the three paragraphs are currently located so this is hardly a case of ignoring the subject. I think it is naïve to expect that there can be a compromise over the three paragraphs in question which would see them kept at both a reasonable length and in conformity with NPOV. I have nothing against the Greeks, Serbs, or whoever. I just believe in objectivity - something this whole subject could do with some serious improvement in. And as for the British empire - this is not really comparable - the British empire was based around the exploitation of foreign lands (which (even Ireland till 1800) never formed part of Britain) by a ruling class of White Europeans whereas the Byzantines incorporated reconquered territories back into the empire - the only things required of Roman citizenship being membership of the Orthodox Church and use of the Greek language. Roydosan 13:06, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

How about an article Demographics of the Byzantine Empire? wouldn't that be interesting and it would also cover fields that the article u propose is expected to cover? As for the British Empire, look at the respective article... the comparison is clear, the article rather long and the its details many. it is easy to say that certain editors (want) to write as if the Byzantine Empire was a Greek nation state as understood in terms of 19th century, but i guess u do not understand that the Byzantine Empire was as Greek as the British Empire was British, as the French was French, and so on... And this is not something disputed neither by modern scholarship nor historical evidence. Hectorian 13:40, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

1)Roydosan said:

Yes it is true that Greek's came to dominate the empire and were the predominant ethnic group - but they weren't the only ethnic group.

So according to your logic in a couple of centuries present countries like France and England shouldn't be regarded as French and English, because they aren't the "only ethnic groups" in their space. It should be incorrect to use anything other than "British" to refer to English people, since they're only one out of countless ethnic groups inhabiting their country. If we include the Scots the Welsh and the Irish, the "English Kingdom" is but a national myth. You're equating this logic to a medieval state and you expect to be taken seriously. Miskin 14:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

2)Roydosan said:

The Byzantines would not have understood modern ideas of ethnic or national identity - for them all that was important was membership of the Orthodox Church and the use of Greek in official business

Fair enough. But how would you then explain:

the violent deportation of Venetian merchants in 1171 and
the massacre of "all foreigners" of Constantinople in 1182?

To quote Donald M. Nicol:
"The majority of the Empire's inhabitants were conscious of being the inheritors of a civilisation older and greater than any of of the Western nation...The resentment reached its paroxysm in 1182, with the massacre of all the foreigners of Constantinople"
So what is that more ancient civilisation that the western nations didn't share? Can it be the Romans? I don't think so. And who were those mysterious "foreigners" that no one can comprehend? Who were the natives? Can you please give me your opinion on this one? Or would you care to explain the direct citations provided in Phillips' "Fourth Crusade and the sack of Constantinople"? Let me indroduce you to some:

"We don't want their Greeks softening us with their gifts", say the crusaders upon approaching Constantinople by making a parallel with ancient Greek mythology.
"The Romans crucified Christ" - the Greek priests' argument towards their Latin counterparts
"mutually destructive struggles happen not only to beasts but also to nations, such as those who have marched against us Greeks" - Nicetas Chroniates

Nobody ever denied that Byzantine Greeks preferred "Romans", but as Nicol says, so did all nations of their time. The fact that the insisted is because they had a better reason than most of the others - except maybe the Latin-speakers and the conquerors of Rome. You fail to understand that after the fall of the (Western) Roman Empire terms such as "Roman" and "Hellene" lost their ethnic meanings - and that is your problem, not ours. A proof to this anyway is Julian the Apostate's self-proclamation as the "Hellene". Furthermore the term "Greek" (Γραικοί) is often seen in Byzantine original texts, which I really doubt that you have ever studied. Bottom line: Your conclusions are original research that you have failed to back it up with sources. The citations you provided above do by no means justify any of your extreme views. Miskin 14:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"HELLO exageration, lies, and nationalism ad absurdum. Never knew that all Westerners are against the Greeks (I heard many times that Ancient Greece is considered the craddle of Western civilization though)."
Yeah, so isn't that why German scholars used to claim that ancient Greek civilisation advanced thanks to an "Aryan", German elite which migrated from the north? Oh, oh, I know! This doesn't count anymore, it been like 50 years (and a lost war) since then. HELLO, you see the irony? So what's next in the book? Byzantine Greeks were in fact a "German" civilisation? Hmm.. that makes sense, the Romans were German, the Byzantine emperors claimed heritage to the Romans, therefore Byzantium was ruled by a German elite, i.e. a German civilisation! If you don't like being stereotyped then don't stereotype others. Miskin 14:33, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskin if you seriously agree with the following statement: "You are against the Greeks like all Westerners are, cheering as bombs were dropped on Serbia. You dont realise how many of us Greeks will stand against you to defend Greek History." which was directed against Roydosan (by an anonymus user) please, tell us so. I think that such statement and reasoning is completly absurd, and the sentence you quoted is merely an answer to that statement and nothing else. If you disagree, fine by me. If you seriously think that all Westerners are against the Greeks and cheered as bomb were falling upon Serbia ... (I don't know what to write the statement is soo ludricous). Flamarande 01:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC) PS: I am glad to see that Godwin's Law is still alive and kicking.

No I don't, but earlier you jumped on me, stereotyped me and called me names without prior reason. So maybe the anon has been drawing such conclusions because of the attitude of "western" crowd in wikipedia. Miskin 01:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The anon user seems to be a vandal (something which is easy to check if you examine all his contributions in the list). If I hurt your feelings with my remark inside of Template talk:Byzantine Empire infobox, I am truly sorry (ppl who debate usually have a thick skin); I didn't know that you were so sensible, and it was meant as a joke (as the PS: "Ahh sarcasm and irony; two things I will always love." clearly shows. Notice also that I signed it, instead of easily hiding behind an "anonymous IP". Flamarande 02:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Miskin said

Actually people who refer to the residents of the UK as 'English' are incorrect. Since British is an identity which includes not only England but Scotland, Wales & N. Ireland. That's why it's called the United Kingdom not the 'English Kingdom'. You come out with crap like that and you expect to be taken seriously???? And in 1171 & 1182 these were not Roman citizens so your argument falls down. This is all beside the point though. As usual Miskin you jump on any idea which doesn't fit your own personal agenda. Roydosan 14:57, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

"They weren't Roman citizens"? - you really make me laugh! Can you back this up even in the slightest? Please beware of your answer because you're about to humiliate yourself even further. What about Chroniates' statements, a contemporary historian of noble Byzantine family: "mutually destructive struggles happen not only to beasts but also to nations, such as those who have marched against us Greeks". Is he talking about the "non Roman citizens" and the "ethnic Greek population of Constantinople", or just about Byzantine Greeks and foreigners? I see you also chose to ignore Nicol's remark about Byzantines being conscious of their Greek heritage. I never expected more from you anyway. Miskin 21:27, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposal - put to the vote

I am not interested in petty bickering and nationalistic arguments. Therefore I will keep my comments short and to the point. Roydosan has proposed the following sections (1 Name of the Byzantine Empire 2 Identity, continuity, and consciousness 3 Origin) are moved to their own new article Byzantine Identity.

Why not skip the useless arguing about irrelevant issues, and just take a simple vote on whether we should do what Roydosan has proposed?

I invite you all to Support or Object to the proposal now, and put an end to this pointless arguing over bigoted nationalistic nonsense. Bigdaddy1204 20:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Supporting and objecting

If you support Roydosan's proposal, write *Support followed by your reason(s). If you oppose the proposal, write *Object or *Oppose followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with ~~...~~) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow others the opportunity to do this themselves. To provide constructive input on the proposition without explicitly supporting or objecting, write *Comment followed by your advice. Bigdaddy1204 22:44, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Sorry Bigdaddy1204, but i do not find the whole discussion as "nationalistic"... I have explained my position in detail. what Roydosan has asked is "disconnection" of the modern Greeks from the medieval Greeks. and this is something i will never agree on. i made comparisons, for which i got no answer. an article 'Byzantine Identity' would stand only and only if other articles will be created regarding the "different" identities of the same ethnic groups (huh?) throughout the ages, id est, only if articles named British Empire's Identity or German Empire's Identity or Russian Empire's Identity will be created to establish a separation between the medieval British, German and Russian identities from the modern ones respectively. Regards Hectorian 21:28, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

I will take that as an Object then, Hectorian ;)
I too will object to this attempt to attack Greek History. Roydosan's whole purpose on Byzantine History topics has been nothing other than to present Byzantine History as the a Roman occupation of the Greek people --86.141.243.11 22:55, 27 November 2006 (UTC) (p.s. hectorian, rally other hellenes on wikipedia to this page so they can express their vote too).
Comment: I will remain neutral for now, given the strong views of those who know more about this topic than I do. Bigdaddy1204 23:03, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Weak object for the time being. The sections can definitely be improved, but I see no need for a separate article for now, if the presented material is not expanded. Varana 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
And comment: People should be rallied - but those knowledgeable on the subject. Defining "truth" by simply creating a majority is what makes Wikipedia potentially bogus and unreliable. "Wikiality" at its best (rather, worst). Varana 23:52, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
Support on the basis that 1)The main article has gotten much too large and would greatly benifit from sub-articles. To this I must point that I do not only support rewriting and outsourcing in this section but do so in any section. 2)To approach the Empire identity question that Hectorian rightfuly brough up, I think it simple to support a dedicated article on the basis that no other Empire Article has indured so much contention and misunderstandings on the subject of its Identity. As well no other article even has 3 sub-sections at the fore touching such subjects. Rather this is either explained gradually through several articles incarnating the ancestry and evolution of the state or the situation posses no problems to the reader in the first place due to ample expossure of information. -) To respond to other similar articles tempting to present the subject I find it most neutral and to the point of presenting an Article simply as Byzantine. A simple and all encompassing term when compared to Byzantine Greeks wich right away does away with the multiethnic nature of the empire (brigning to mind an article that will only speak of the Greek character of the empire or ot the unknowing a Greek division of the empire). This is again used agian Names of the Greeks as this is clearly specific to the Greek history. In other words, the mentioned articles can, do and should mention the Byzantines but these are ill suited to speak only of hte byzantines and the Empire as a whole. I dislike mentioning an exemple yet it may seem prudent to best explain what could be an ambigiuous statement: All French are from France yet not all French speakers are from France. ~ Giving it the feal that All Greeks are Byzantine yet not all Byzantines are Greeks~ Overall I think past relationships between editors and edits are clouding the present discussion. Then again maybe I'm simply lookign at it with x-ray googles and missing the flesh and clothes of it. As with Varana best be objective and stear clear of predefined perceptions given by others.--Dryzen 20:24, 28 November 2006 (UTC)
Object creation of obscure forks. There is no article about "Byzantine identity" in any encyclopaedia I was able to consult. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Due all the respect Dryzen but when I hear such naive argumentations I just get the idea that I'm not dealing with a serious crowd. Just listen to yourself and try to compare your claims with the facts of modern historiography. You say that "All Greeks are Byzantine yet not all Byzantines are Greeks" there fore you conclude that "Byzantine Greeks" (a perfectly well sourced term) is not acceptable (Original research). Do you actually believe that your last argument is a criterion for naming civilisations or states or nations? Do you honestly believe that the "Ottoman Turks" for instance, are called as such because "all Ottomans were Turks"? Do you think that as a wikipedia editor you're in position of making such decisions? This is hopeless, I guess I'll be forced to take the matter into my own hands. There's not even a point in making discussions, you people have done your little original research, made up your minds, and you're not listening to anybody. I think everybody here has to stop taking decisions based on their personal opinions. I'll stick to my sources and ignore all kinds of ranting à la Roydosan. Miskin 02:00, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ahh, It seems that Miskin should abide by his words as well, Do you think that as a wikipedia editor you're in position of making such decisions? and This is hopeless, I guess I'll be forced to take the matter into my own hands. is a mite hipocrite. I would call to your attention the linguistic symbol "~", oft times used to demonstrate uncertant and fluctuative statement. As I said, I was pressed to conjure an exemple and it was the correlation that I was able to attain before my time was up. I never wrote that Byzantine Greeks was an improper term simple that it was misleading should it be used to designate all Byzantine citizens. As to desicions, what moves have I made save discussion? And a passive one at that. To respond to your inquiry: Do you honestly believe that the "Ottoman Turks" for instance, are called as such because "all Ottomans were Turks"? No I do not and expect a number of editors to understand the nuance of it, yet as a wikieditor I am reminded that these articles are not ot be made with the intention of writting for a community of base-knowledge holders. Rather these articles will be seen by all who wander to them. To best answer to this criteria we must best write our article to fit the slowest of the pack, and I am reminded of the oft times advice from my teachers that one should write as if to idiots, that way you are assured to reach understanding from everyone. And if this was not reason enough, simply keeping to Byzantine or Ottoman cuts back on the image of ignoring the other components of the states when the term is used on the vastness of the state (ie. Byzantine Greek article should talk of Byzantine greeks, but Byzantine Greeks is a misleading title for an article on all imperial subjects. Just as an Canadian Anglophones article is unsuited to speak of what it is to be Canadian).

A number of Wikipedians seem willing to discuss and most interesting ideas have been presented, such as Hectorian's brillaint suggestion of demogrpahics for the empire articles. As any knows it will be a great addition ot many if not all the multi-ethnic states. To wich I underline the term State as opposed to nation. In return to my own voicing of opinion you have failed to reduce even commento n my two points leading to such suport, while concentrating on the meager un-numbered one. Although the second after rereading falls short of my objective.

Yet any would be hard pressed to deny that the Byzantine Empire is currently the only article about a state befalling to some crisis revolving around its demographics/identity. Wich indicates that it clear needs discussion. Displacing this contention ot it s own article seems best to give it the attention it needs from dedicated editors. As of yet I find these points to be most reasonable and more so with little actual side taking, if there is even truly such things as two sides in this conflict. I find that you have labled me as something that I may not be. To wich I ponder, what do you see of this editor? What pre-defined background and thoughts have you given onto eternity? as it would seem you have on this very matter? For who is it that has done your little original research, made up your minds and is not listening to anybody? Someone that will I'll stick to my sources and ignore all kinds of ranting in my mind.

Now this is as become a text most verbose as akin to a rant to wish I am sorry for those pressed for time, it is also a sorry state that it has come to these presentations rather than primarily constructive works. I would enjoy constructive critism should it be given as well as thoughts.--Dryzen 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC) P.S. Miskin I think you'll trully be aiming for my head after this considering how slighted you unreasonably felt without my even thinking of you in my earlier post and that on the Template talk, whiles here responding directly.

Actually I started making an article out of Byzantine Greeks before noticing the vote. Maybe we could move the "identity" section there. Miskin 14:23, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Support because Wiki policy clearly states:

The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions.

The current three paragraphs are not long enough to adhere to this. Any attempt to change them is met by a howl of protest by those intent on presenting a Greek nationalist interpretation which is not found in any serious academic books on the subject. A sub-article dealing with it in full would allow all views to be represented. Roydosan 10:28, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Roydosan wake up, the NPOV policy is referring to conflicting views of established sources, not of wikipedians. There hasn't been a open debate to help us determine the existing views. You people are applying NPOV on your own views, this is why I'm saying that this vote is stupid. Miskin 14:18, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I would argue that your highly selective references are in breach of NPOV. Roydosan 14:45, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Hearty Support. The issues involved are too complicated to be dealt with in a paragraph or two in the main article. For a basic statement of the problematics of "Byzantine identity," might I recommend Ch. 1 of Mango's Byzantium: empire of new Rome? It's posted online at Paul Halsall's site: [2]. A short selection:

...the Middle Byzantine Empire was by no means a solidly Greek state. In addition to the Armenians and the Slavs, there were many other foreign elements, such as the Georgians and the Balkan Vlachs. A massive influx of Syrians and other Christian orientals followed the eastward expansion of the Empire at the end of the tenth century; and when, in 1018, the imperial frontier was once more extended to the Danube, it comprised vast areas where Greek had never been spoken or had been extinguished a long time previously. Whether Greek speakers formed at the time the majority or a minority of the inhabitants of the Empire is a guess I should not like to hazard.

...As far as we can judge, the main links of solidarity were two: regional and religious. People identified themselves with their village, their city or their province much more than they did with the Empire. When a person was away from home he was a stranger and was often treated with suspicion. A monk from western Asia Minor who joined a monastery in Pontus was 'disparaged and mistreated by everyone as a stranger'. The corollary to regional solidarity was regional hostility. We encounter many derogatory statements concerning 'the cunning Syrian' who spoke with a thick accent, the uncouth Paphlagonian, the mendacious Cretan. Alexandrians excited ridicule at Constantinople. Armenians were nearly always described in terms of abuse. Even demons had strong feelings of local affiliation and did not want to consort with their fellows from the next province.

Patriotic Greek Wikipedians should not feel that their own national idenity is somehow being singled out by observations such as these. The issues are just as complicated in regard to the English ("Angle" does not equal "English" as understood today); the French ("Frankish" does not equal "French"); the Russians ("Rus"); the Scots ("Pict") and so forth. Most, if not all, modern European national identities are based on the nineteenth-century discourse of nationalism, which in turn was dependent on extremely tendentious accounts of medieval history that are today indefensible in scholarly discourse. --Javits2000 13:27, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

A short addendum: Hectorian's demand for comparable articles on the identity of the British, Russian, and German empires rests on an untenable comparison -- none of these three were medieval empires. And in any case, decolonialization, for example, makes it perfectly clear that the vast majority of residents of the British empire did not consider themselves British. As for Ghirlandajo's observation re: "obscure forks": a copy is not at hand, but I recall that Kazhdan treated the subject at length in the Oxford Dictionary of Byzantium. --Javits2000 14:03, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"he Middle Byzantine Empire was by no means a solidly Greek state."-> doesn't the word "solidly" imply that it was nonetheless a Greek state? Drawing such pulled-by-the-hair conclusions from such a citation makes you look pretty biased, not to mention desperate. Miskin 14:05, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The point of the citation, I would have thought, and of Mango's discussion more generally, is that to speak of a national identity of any sort during the early and middle Byzantine empire is anachronistic. (The later empire may well be a different story-- and it is precisely to allow fine distinctions of this short that an additional article would be useful.) Rather, "the main links of solidarity were two: regional and religious." --Javits2000 16:13, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] roman-empire.net link

While the major part of the site deals with the ancient Roman Empire, there is a section on Byzantium under http://roman-empire.net/constant/constant-index.html . Now, the question is: do we need that information in the external links? If yes, we should give the above link on the relevant section, instead of the whole site. I think it would be best to come to a conclusion on that topic some time, instead of constant reverting and re-inserting. Varana 18:03, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

It is my humble opinion that the site is quite good, and its information about the Byzantine Empire/Empeoros is valuable. I also agree with your proposal to link directly to the relevant part. Cheers Flamarande 13:21, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

Roman-Empire.net is a good source of information, its subsections have a number of valid references for the Byzantine Empire. Sound good on the structuring.--Dryzen 19:16, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] My two cents about Armenians

It seems that the Armenians are always brought up here in heated discussions so I just wanted to comment on that. There were two kinds of Armenians in the Empire, the Romanoi Chalcedonian fully Hellenized (Kourkouas family for example) ones that may or may not have spoken Armenian and for all we know other than having an Armenian name had no other Armenian attributes at all and the Armenian non-Chalcedonian residents. This article only mentions the non-Chalcedonian minority though. There were also non-Armenian families that were Armenianized by marriage such as the Phocades. The former were a majority the latter were a minority. The former would slaughter the latter without a second thought if given an opportunity and vice versa. The former was loyal to the Empire the latter was not. There were some exceptions after the Battle of Manzikert where certain Hellenized Chalcedonian Armenians (Philaretos Brachamios, Thoros of Edessa, Gabriel of Melitene etc.) lost faith in the Empire and ended up being more Armenian, but those days the Byzantine Empire was already turning into a Greek state. There is a very interesting book dedicated to this subject written by the famous Greek pioneer of Byzantine Studies, Peter Charanis: The Armenians in the Byzantine Empire (Lisbon, 1963) Anyway, I would call the Byzantine Empire under the Comnenids, Angelids, Laskarids and Palaiologans an ethnic Greek state.--Eupator 15:29, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantium after Byzantium

There is an ongoing discussion on Talk:Byzantium after Byzantium as to what should be done with this article. Some propose merge into Byzantine Empire. Your comments are welcome. --Ghirla ^-трёп- 08:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The vote is off

I don't know what we're voting for here. Are we voting on making a move, on content of the move in question or on the name of the new article? You people need to make up your minds, for the time being everyone's "support" vote is a reply to some statement made in Talk, and not a support for an actual proposal. The proposal Byzantine identity is out of the question, this is clearly original research and no vote has the right to change WP:POLICY. So stop wasting your time and open up a debate. Bringing up sources is good, but I'm waiting for someone to define a debate before the the procedure begins. So far everyone's been talking about different subjects. Dryzen made a good debate but unfortunately he included his post in a "support" paragraph instead of a separate section. Miskin 14:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nice of you to decide the debate is off Miskin. Who put you in charge? Wiki policy is against original research but original topics are ok as long as the information is verifiable. Clearly, there are no problems finding plenty of references so I don't see how this is an issue. Roydosan 14:42, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Nobody put me in charge, I'm just reminding that WP:POLICY is non-negotiable, and that you're about to find out that you've been wasting your energy on original research. I started a new topic below Roydosan, please tell me now what exactly you regard as "nationalism" and "original research", and I'll respond to you with a citation. Miskin 14:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes Wiki policy is non-negotiable. You might like to read WP:NOT, which states:

Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favourite views. You can also use Wikinfo which promotes a "sympathetic point of view" for every article.

The subject of Byzantine identity is hardly original research - go and read any book on the subject and you will find a discussion on who the Byzantines were, their origins, and what they saw themselves as. Roydosan 15:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Alright then I'll have a quick look... There you go, from Angold's "Church and society in Byzantium under the Comeni", CAMBRIDGE University Press:

"He [Theodore Lascaris]] saw this as evidence of pernicious Latin influence on popular Byzantine romances. His task was to foster the study of philosophy, for there was a danger that 'Philosophy' might abandon the Greeks and seek refuge among the Latins...In a letter to Pope Gregory IX the Emperor John Vatatzes not only claimed to have received the gift of royatly from Constantine the Great, but also emphasised his 'Hellenic' descent and exhalted the wisdom of the Greek people. He was presenting 'Hellenic' culture as an integral part of the Byzantine polity in defiance of Latin claims.

It appears that your accusations of an alleged OR against the Names of the Greeks article was just the side effect of your own ignorance. Miskin 15:29, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I never stated that the Names of the Greeks article was OR - just that it was insufficient on its own and presented the POV case that the only Byzantines were Greeks. In future try reading what I have written, before you get so temperamental. Roydosan 15:48, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do you know, the same source should be able to cover another of your queries. You, Dryzen and some other editors claimed that "Byzantine" can comprise more than one ethnic groups, and that non-Hellenised Armenians and Slavs were also Byzantines (at least that's what I understood). Let's have a look at another citation:

He [Eustathius] noted the usual accommodations of local people with the occupying forces. Some of his most bitter comments were directed against the Jews and especially the Armenians for the way they profited from and gloried in the disaster that had overtaken the Greeks...He noted the lack of respect shown by the Latins for the church services of the Greeks.

So it appears that you were both wrong. The non-Greek (or non-Hellenised) population such as Armenians and Slavs were amused by the attack on Byzantium - a "disaster that had overtaken the Greeks" - therefore they were _not_ regarded as "Byzantines" like you and others have repeatedly claimed. Miskin 16:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Greek here means a member of the Greek Church. Any citizen of Byzantium that was Chalcedonian was Greek.--Eupator 17:44, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Accepted. I never said it meant ancestry from the Dorians and the Ionians, but it did have a distinct meaning, synonymous to 'Romaios'. Miskin 23:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine Greeks

I started an article in Byzantine Greeks in order to move the information which concerns the Empire's people or culture, and by 'culture' I'm not referring to the conquered peoples and/or minorities, so stop wasting your breath by pointing out that Bulgarians spoke Bulgarian. The term "Byzantine Greeks" is used by Finlay himself, the person who first introduced the term "Byzantine Empire" in the English language, and has been used interchaengably with "Byzantines" ever since. Furthermore many historians (e.g. Jonathan Phillips) prefer to avoid exonyms and refer to the middle and late empire's inhabitants simply by "Greeks", like their contemporaries called them. Thirdly, in the historiography based on civilisations rather than states (like Toynbee's), the term "Byzantines" doesn't restrict itself to the Byzantine Empire but all Eastern Orthodox civilisations. In this case the Byzantine Empire's inhabitants are determined strictly as "Byzantine Greeks". Does anyone have an objection with the article name - yes-no/reasons/sources. Don't bother to reply if you're just going to provide us with your personal opinions, provide a citation which has a straight-forward meaning and is not open to personal interpretations. Miskin 14:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, yes, an account of "people and culture" that excludes "conquered peoples and/or minorities" -- terribly enlightened approach. It's a chilly night here in Munich -- maybe I'll go toss my copy of Sharf's Byzantine Jewry on the bonfire. --Javits2000 16:24, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You don't have to throw any jews in the fire, just read my citation in the section right above. Miskin 16:37, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

It comes as a surprise to no one that there were a few (perhaps more?) bigoted clergymen in the middle ages. Whether or not we ought to allow their prejudices to define modern historical discourse is perhaps another question. --Javits2000 16:52, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

So if I'm not mistaken you're suggesting that we should regard this as a load or rubbish because Eustathius was a medieval prejudiced Greek nationalist who discriminated the Jews and Armenians and excluded them from the "Byzantine nationality"? Plus, your inside information has reported that he's part of a small-numbered chauvinist clergy, and doesn't represent Byzantine society. So according to today's human rights organisations it is our duty correct this travesty by claiming in wikipedia that they were all "equals among equals" - all Byzantines. Right? What about the above citations on Lascares' and Vatatzes' Hellenic claims? Are they also part of Eustathius' cult? Miskin 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The Mango quote above clearly shows where Eustathius is coming from: *local* (in this case, religious) identity prevailing over *imperial* solidarity. "They were not regarded as Byzantines" - by whom, when, why, with what aim, and so on? Of course they were regarded as Byzantines - they lived in the Empire. In the situation of the sack of Thessalonica, they accommodated with the invaders, and one of the most prominent figures of another group (probably the majority) complains. Where that means that they were not "Byzantines" (i.e. citizens of the Empire) is beyond me. We do not talk about a modern nation state; we talk about a medieval empire.

Needless to say: I don't regard "Byzantine Greeks" as an appropriate title for a "demographics and identity" discussion. Javits has supplied an excellent quote on that problem and why we can't simply take hostile digressions in the sources as "proof" that they didn't regard others as citizens of the empire. Your sources mostly come from the Comnenian period or later; what about the early (Justinian) or middle (Macedonian...) empire? Varana 17:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm really disappointed by such poor and desperate argumentation. The fact that Armenians are and have _always_ been Eastern Orthodox makes your claim moot. If you think that the Greeks (yeah that's the word, don't be afraid to say it) were "probably the majority of another group" then you're just off topic. Byzantines were only those who accepted Hellenisation, the Greek language, education and religion, i.e. those who became Greek. Whether they were Jews or Armenians was irrelevant. The currect citation proves clearly that the non-Hellenized Jews and Armenians were _not_ viewed as Byzantines but peoples inhabiting the Byzantine Empire, and the term "Byzantine Jewry" doesn't make them any more Byzantine than the term "Ottoman Hellenism" makes the Greeks Turkish. Furthermore there's a bunch of citations that I've provided earlier which all come down to the same conclusion. I'm curious to see how long will it take you to come face to face with the truth. Miskin 18:01, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What are you talking about? Since when have Armenians been Eastern Orthodox? Armenians are/were Oriental Orthodox. HUGE difference. One is Chalcedonian the other is not. Any Armenian that was Chalcedonian and Eastern Orthodox was "Greek", Armenians in the Empire that were not Chalcedonian ie:Paulician, Oriental Orthodox etc. were Armenian. So to be a Byzantine Greek one must meet the following criteria:Greek Church and the Greek language. That's it.--Eupator 18:07, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm not in position to tell the difference between the two Eupator. Nonetheless, it really makes no difference. Miskin 18:20, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it makes a difference in a sense that Chalcedonian Armenians in the Empire were Romanoi, the non-Chalcedonians were not. Starting from the time of Maurice until the Battle of Manzikert these Hellenized Romanoi Armenians played a very important role, and for about two centuries even dominated the Empire.--Eupator 18:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Varana, the Comnenian period starts some 400 years before the end of the Empire, it's not exactly what I'd call an insignificant part of Byzantine history. Furthermore the title "Imperium Graecorum" has existed since at least 800, some 300 years earlier. The citation I provided above was not a direct, contemporary account under my personal interpretation, it was a citation of the modern author's interpretation. But if you want even more specific then I've can help you out:

The Byzantines who were unwilling to let in any Western influence must have been far larger in number than those who had contacts with the West or with Westeners...It was certainly not always a form of contempt for the non-Greeks, the Barbarians. Most of the time it was probably simply a question of indifference or neglect of everything not Greek...Byzantium had no tradition of actively propagating its own culture or of actively combatting foreign people or foreign elements in its society. [Nelly Ciggaar, Western Travellers to Constantinople: The West and Byzantium - Brill Academic Publishers]

I suppose the last sentence alone is sufficient disprove all of your utopian POVs. Miskin 18:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Eustathius by "Greek" doesn't mean Hellenic anyway, he means "Byzantine" or "Romaioi". Your theory on "local" versus "imperial" solidarity proves that you haven't been following my sources closely. Read the citation right above Eustathius, it's about the claims of the Imperial authority itself, and there's nothing "local" coming from them. It goes on to say that the Empire of Nicaea called itself "Hellenic land". Miskin 18:25, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The conversation has degenerated and its point has been lost. The question was whether or not an entry on "Byzantine Greeks" would suitably reflect the concerns which it had previously been suggested should be addressed under "Byzantine identity." To me it's still clear that it doesn't. Of course the Comnenes were important but one can't generalize from one period of Byzantine history to clarify the whole; thus Varana's observation that the situation was clearly different in the sixth and the 9th-10th centuries. The question needs to be addressed carefully, in historical context, which is precisely why the new article, originally proposed, on "Byzantine identity" would be useful.

I muster one more quote from Mango, although I understand fully that those who can be convinced have already been convinced.

... if we place ourselves at about the time when the Empire started on the slow course of its recovery, say towards the end of the eighth century, we find a population that had been so thoroughly churned up that it is difficult to tell what ethnic groups were living where and in what numbers. It is often stated that by shedding, however painfully, its principal non-Greek-speaking elements, such as the Syrians, the Egyptians and the Illyrians, the Empire had become more homogeneous. It is also asserted that the non-Greeks were gradually assimilated or Hellenized through the agency of the Church and the army, and that this happened in particular to the indigenous populations of Asia Minor as well as to the Slavs in the Peloponnese and elsewhere in Greece. The critical reader may be advised to treat such generalizations with a measure of caution. It is true, of course, that following the eclipse of Latin, Greek became the only official language of the Empire, so that a knowledge of it was mandatory for pursuing a career or transacting business. Neither Armenian nor Slavonic ever supplanted it as a general medium of communication. It is also true that in the long run Slavonic died out in Greece and in Bithynia, and if any Armenian has been spoken in Thrace within living memory, it was not on the part of descendants of the colonists planted there in the eighth century. But then it is also known that Greek survived in Asia Minor on a continuous basis only in Pontus and a small part of Cappadocia, whereas it had become practically extinct in the western part of the subcontinent until its reintroduction there by immigrants in the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. We would not argue from the last observation that western Asia Minor was not predominantly Greek-speaking in the Middle Ages. However illuminating it may be in some respects, the long view does not help the historian of Byzantium to solve the specific problems that confront him. Was Hellenization, for example, a conscious aim of the imperial government, and if so, how was it implemented and with what success? And if it succeeded in the Middle Ages, why had it not done so in Antiquity under conditions of a more settled life and a higher civilization?

When we look at our scanty sources; we realize that the formulation of the above questions does not correspond to the Byzantine way of thinking. First of all, the very designation 'Greek', which we use so freely today to describe those Byzantines who did not belong to any alien group, is entirely absent from tlie literature of the period. An inhabitant of Greece south of Thessaly would have referred to himself as a Helladikos (a name already current in the sixth century AD), but he could have been a Slav as well as a 'Greek'. The same holds true of other regions whose dwellers called themselves by the names of their respective provinces, for example Paphlagonians or Thraksians (after the Thraksian 'theme' in western Asia Minor). Since, therefore, there was no notion of'Greekness', it is hard to see how there could have been one of 'hellenization'. The only passage, to my knowledge, that may imply something of the kind says that the Emperor Basil I converted the Slavonic tribes from their old religion and, 'having grecized them (graikosas), subjected them to governors according to Roman custom, honoured them with baptism, and delivered them from the oppression of their own rulers'. It has long been, however, a matter of dispute what the term 'grecized' may mean in the present context. What we do hear about, again and again, is the conversion of various peoples to Orthodox Christianity, be they pagan Slavs or Muslim Cretans, and the setting up of an ecclesiastical organization. Here is how the Chronicle of Monembasia describes the activity of the Emperor Nicephorus I in the Peloponnese: 'He built de novo the town of Lacedaemon and settled in it a mixed population, namely Kafirs, Thraksians, Armenians and others, gathered from different places and towns, and made it into a bishopric.' Surely, neither the Kafirs (possibly a generic term for converts from Islam) nor the Armenians would have contributed to the hellenization of Laconia. The emperor's purpose was simply to implant a Christian population and set up a bishopric. --Javits2000 18:39, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

There won't be a Byzantine identity article because such term is original research and a POV-fork to a featured article (Names of the Greeks). Statements such as "although I understand fully that those who can be convinced have already been convinced.", reveals a bias from your part. So you haven failed to answer on the topic and you came up with a long citation which will be again interpreted in 10 different ways. Fill me in on your conclusions from this text, I frankly don't understand where you're getting at. That the term 'Greeks' is freely used for 'Byzantines' and wikipedia should decide to change that? Or did you just paste all that to cover up my previous citations that remain unanswered? So now the 400 years of the post-comnenian period have suddenly acquired a smaller utility than the rest of the Byzantine period. It's strage, you see neither you nor anybody else suggested anything like that before. Prior to my last citations you were generalising about Byzantium's "Romanity" and never made a distinction before. If I find you some western citations contemporary to Phocas what kind of maneuver will you come up with later? You made a good job on hiding the useful citations, I give you that. Miskin 19:26, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

What do I draw from this text? Simply that in the Midd. Byz. period "the very designation 'Greek', which we use so freely today to describe those Byzantines who did not belong to any alien group, is entirely absent from thee literature" and that "Since, therefore, there was no notion of 'Greekness', it is hard to see how there could have been one of 'hellenization'." Therefore "Greek" is an anachronistic term for _certain_ periods of Byzantine history; so that an entry on "Byzantine Greeks" does not adequately address the issue of "Byzantine identity." --Javits2000 19:43, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

As my citations prove below, the 7th century is a marking point in the history of the empire. From the 8th century already it becomes fixed policy in the West to refer to Byzantium as "Imperium Graecorum", so you can only say that it's anachronistic in the early, Eastern Roman period. So it might be initially absent from Greek literature but it is present dominant in all other languages. As I have proved above, in the middle-late period the Empire has already developped a feeling of 'Greekness', which becomes a Hellenic patriotic sentiment (see my citations about Lascares, Chroniates and Vatatzes above). Finally, correct or not, the term is still in use by modern historians and this is acknowledged by Mango himself; he just points out that it can be misleading. If you want to start a trend where Byzantium has absolutely no connection to "Greek" (and you apparently do), wikipedia is not the place to do it. Miskin 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The opinion has often been expressed that as the Byzantine world fell apart, so hellenism was reborn. The proportion of truth contained in this statement seems to be rather slight. It is a fact that starting in the twelfth century, but more particularly after the occupation of Constantinople by the Crusaders in 1204, certain Byzantine authors took pleasure in calling themselves Hellenes; it is also true that there was, especially in the fourteenth century, an upsurge -- not a renascence, if you please, -- of classical scholarship and even of scholastic science. Finally, just as the Byzantine world was ready to collapse there arose that enigmatic figure, George Gemistos Pletho, the Platonist of Mistra, who advocated the regeneration of ancient Sparta and pressed his utopian advice on two Byzantine rulers who, naturally, did not pay the slightest attention to him. Much careful investigation is yet needed before we can appraise the meaning of these phenomena; even so, it is clear that expressions of hellenism during these two or three centuries were largely rhetorical; that they were confined to a very small circle of intellectuals and had no impact on the people. -- C. Mango, "Byzantinism and romantic hellenism," Journal of the Warburg and Courtauld Institutes 28 (1965), p. 33.

'Hellenism' re-established itself in the Greek-speaking regions only in the 19th century (yes 'romaioi' was defacto since then). But the fact alone that a patriotic consciousness was awaken in the heart of the middle-ages, even restricted in the elite circles, is of great importance. You can't draw a parallel to the modern era. Miskin 23:31, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

From Arnold Toynbee's "Greeks and their heritages"

By contrast, the Byzantine Greeks' knowledge of their Hellenic predecessors' language and literature was so ample, and their veneration for these Hellenic treasures was so intense, that they were almost completely inhibited from attempting to create a Greek literature in their own living language, which was Modern Greek at an early stage of this language's development.

As you see this term is perfectly sourced and in wide use (make a google search), and so is simply 'Greeks' (as verified by your own citation). Since we're looking for a name for the people, "Byzantine Greeks" cover all three names: Byzantines, Greeks, and Byzantine Greeks. And I don't see how a couple of biased wikipedia editors with unsourced opinions can be counted above WP:POLICY. Everytime you repeat your same unsouced statements, I'll keep posting the same sources over and over again, until circumstances require a new citation (which I doubt). You've got no sources, you've got no case, and unless you care enough to go all the way to ArbCom for this, I would suggest you to let it go. Miskin 19:35, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

"The traditional notions of 'influence', or of the Byzantine debt to the classical past now seem too simplistic; equally, the notions of ethnicity and identity have come under scrutinity in recent years. We can no longer accept Arnold Toynbee's notorious appeal to ideas of race and ethnicity in relation to Byzantium, yet the rise of nationalism and of appeals to ethnic consciousness in the contemporary Balkans shows that such ideas are far from obsolete. In addition to the political implications inherent in language of ethnicity and race, a large body of theoretical writing has concluded that these concepts are themselves constructs and cannot be regarded as objective terms." Averil Cameron, The Byzantines (Blackwell, 2006), p. 14.--Javits2000 20:06, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

If I'm not mistaken A. Cameron treats Byzantium of late antiquity, it's a given fact that the early period was still Roman in character (albeit not culture), I never disputed that. Yet such views deserve to be mentioned in the article Byzantine Greeks, within context. However, according to Ostrogorky Byzantine history proper breaks off Eastern Roman history in the 7th century, and according to Britannica 2006's article:

Proud of that Christian and Roman heritage, convinced that their earthly empire so nearly resembled the heavenly pattern that it could never change, they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans. Modern historians agree with them only in part. The term East Rome accurately described the political unit embracing the Eastern provinces of the old Roman Empire until 476, while there were yet two emperors. The same term may even be used until the last half of the 6th century, as long as men continued to act and think according to patterns not unlike those prevailing in an earlier Roman Empire. During these same centuries, nonetheless, there were changes so profound in their cumulative effect that after the 7th century state and society in the East differed markedly from their earlier forms. In an effort to recognize that distinction, historians traditionally have described the medieval empire as “Byzantine.”... Proud of that Christian and Roman heritage, convinced that their earthly empire so nearly resembled the heavenly pattern that it could never change, they called themselves Romaioi, or Romans. Modern historians agree with them only in part. The term East Rome accurately described the political unit embracing the Eastern provinces of the old Roman Empire until 476, while there were yet two emperors. The same term may even be used until the last half of the 6th century, as long as men continued to act and think according to patterns not unlike those prevailing in an earlier Roman Empire. During these same centuries, nonetheless, there were changes so profound in their cumulative effect that after the 7th century state and society in the East differed markedly from their earlier forms. In an effort to recognize that distinction, historians traditionally have described the medieval empire as “Byzantine.”

Therefore the designation as Greeks or Byzantine Greeks as well as Byzantines do exist and Britannica's article reflects this consensus. If you think that this is only Toybee's practice then make a google search. "Byzantine Greeks" covers all three of those names, and reflects the political reality of "Imperium Graecorum". As Ostrogorsky put it: "With the death of Phocas in 610 "Byzantine history properly speaking is the history of the medieval Greek Empire"". Miskin 20:54, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

1) The work which I have cited above by Cameron (The Byzantines, 2006) treats the empire from Constantine to 1492. It also inclues a useful section on "Byzantine identity" within the introduction (pp. 15-19), including the following observation: "As for ‘Greekness,’ this can be reasonably applied to the language of education, court and high literature in Byzantium but is far from doing justice to Byzantine society as a whole." (p. 15). 2) That there was a serious rupture in Byzantine history in the 7th century is well-known. Yet the present article considers the Byzantine empire from, again, the foundation of Constantinople to its final sack. Any discussion, therefore, of "Byzantine identity" should encompass the same period. 3) The Britannica article, as you have cited it, does not use the word Greek; it only confirms the seventh-century rupture, which was not in question. 4) Ostrogorski is in certain respects still useful; but remember that you are dealing with a translation of a work (Die Geschichte des byzantinischen Staates) that was published in 1940. It is certainly not the place to turn for an up-to-date appraisal of the state of research on a subject such as Byzantine identity. In the German-speaking world, for example, it has been largely supplanted by R.-J. Lilie, Byzanz: das zweite Rom (2003). --Javits2000 21:23, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right, I guess I missed that part, there you go (2006 edition):

Thanks to the settlements that resulted from such policies, many a name, seemingly Greek, disguises another of different origin: Slavic, perhaps, or Turkish. Barbarian illiteracy, in consequence, obscures the early generations of more than one family destined to rise to prominence in the empire's military or civil service... [and from 'Greek fire'] More specifically the term refers to a mixture introduced by the Byzantine Greeks in the 7th century AD.

You can't just claim that someone like Ostrogorsky has been "largly supplanted". If you do have some citations which criticises his terminology or work than bring them forth, otherwise such claims are out of order. I suppose Cameron also agrees with the 'Greekness' versus Romanity of the Empire, exactly as Britannica puts it: Modern historians agree only in part, maybe Roydosan needs to get that hint. The starting point of the Byzantine empire proper is debatable, but if you agree with the rupture of the 7th century then there's not much more to say. So far I have come up only with exceptionally credible scholars and/or editions which undoubtly reflect consensus. The term "Byzantine Greeks" covers all aspects of terminology and reflects a) Contemporary naming from foreigners (Westeners and Slavs), b) Byzantium's patriotic inclination within its middle/late period c) cultural and racial reality. This forms a solid arguments of constructing an article on Byzantine Greeks. But really, I don't understand why most editors here are obsessed with eliminating the word 'Greek' from the article. I mean, considering the Empire's natural evolution, it would have most definitely wanted to stay linked to Greek history rather than being remember as a soul-less pseudo-roman, dead civilisation. So I can't believe that this bias sources from admiration for that civilisation. I sincerely and sadly do believe that some wikipedians have a bias with Greek history in general. Nobody would ever question whether in what degree the Ottoman Empire was Turkish, or how accurate it is to call Leonardo Da Vinci an "Italian", yet there's always a problem when using the word 'Greek'. Alexander the Great should not be called Greek because he didn't call himself that way, Pericles should be only labeled as an Athenian, Byzantine Greeks should be labeled as Romans because they called themselves as such (contradictory to the case of Macedonians), etc, etc. Oh, and then there's people like Flamander calling people like me nationalists because when they say "jump" we don't say "how high". Don't you think it's getting ridiculous? Miskin 23:19, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The simple fact is that to call the Byzantine empire "Greek" implies a cultural/ethnic construct which is a product of 19th-century nationalism and does not apply to an empire whose primary filiations were religious and political. It would be just as meaningless to call it "Roman," and I've never suggested doing so. The equation of Byz. w/ Greek occurs primarily in the late 19th century, and is connected to the Great Idea; see on this Mango, "Byzantinism and romantic hellenism," as cited above, pp. 40-41, esp. on Paparrigopoulos. The Byzantine empire was always polyglot and multiethnic; in this sense it is precisely like the Ottoman empire, which is also not meaningfully "Turkish," if by Turkish one means the post-Ottoman (Atatürkist) construction of Turkish identity.

The scholarly project of describing Byzantine identity more accuratey is relatively recent, but already includes a significant literature; in addition to the works by Mango that I've cited, see Charanis's studies of demographics; the volume edited by Laiou and Ahrweiler, Studies on the internal diaspora of the Byzantine empire (Cambridge, 1998); Magdalino's "Prosopography and Byzantine identity, PBA 118 (2003), 41-56; und so weiter. All of this work is well summarized in Cameron's new book, which I can't recommend highly enough.

As to a) "contemporary naming from foreigners," it's largely irrelevant to the question of identity, i.e. self-perception. b) the supposed later Byz. "hellenism," see the citation from Mango's "Byzantinism" above, also Speck's "Badly ordered thoughts on philhellenism," in the Variorum volume edited by Takacs. c) "racial reality" -- give me a break. Do you have forensic DNA on this? --Javits2000 23:56, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have DNA forensic but I have a source which observes how the Byzantine Empire of 11th century was restricted almost exclusively to regions of Ancient Greek colonisation (see Ethnic Origins of Nations and Medieval Greek Romance). Furthermore, those terms that you put into question are today in use, and wikipedia's role is not to judge them but reuse them. Anyway I'm off for now. Miskin 00:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantine identity

A brief restatement. "Byzantine identity" is not OR; it is a term in current usage by prominent Byzantinists, as attested, for example, by the works cited shortly above (Cameron; Magdalino; Laiou and Ahrweiler). It also serves as a reasonable translation of the German-language notion of "byzantinisches Selbstverständnis," as for example P. Speck, "Ideologische Ansprüche - historische Realität: zum Problem des Selbstverständnisses der Byzantiner," Südosteuropa Jahrbuch 26 (1994), also a useful source on the topic.

The subject is not suitably covered by the proposed entry, "Byzantine Greeks," as "throughout its history, the Byzantine Empire was a multi-ethnic state" and furthermore "ethnicity as such is, of course, a modern concept, which the Byzantines would not have recognized." (Laiou & Ahrweiler, p. vii).

One happy result of the foregoing conversation is that I have collected a number of recent sources on the subject, and would happily contribte to the composition of an article, were I confident that it would not be shortly thereafter removed. --Javits2000 17:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

A google search of "Byzantine identity -wikipedia" gives 323 results. I noticed that most of them deal with artistic topics, so I tried the string "Byzantine identity -wikipedia -art", which gives only 176 results. If you add a -"Greek Byzantine" you'll be at 160. I guess if you keep filtering possible irrelevant content you'll be able to count the results in your fingers. "Byzantine Greeks -wikipedia" gives 13,900 results. Citing titles of books doesn't help with anything. So far none of your citations prove anything or reflect a consensus, for example nobody ever supported that ethnicity existed in the middle ages. The term "Greeks" when aplied to Byzantium is primarily cultural and religious, after all it was the defacto name the non-Byzantines used ('Byzantines' is a complete exonym). A 'Greek' in the sense of 'Hellenic' identity exists in the middle and late periods only (within Byzantium that is). So there's nothing new coming from your current citations. You have to prove that "Greeks" is restricted or completely out of use in order to make a case. Last but not least, "Byzantine identity is a POV-fork to a featured article, so even if you created it, it would be renamed and/or deleted eventually. Miskin 18:23, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

I'll take Averil Cameron over Google any day, thanks. Septentrionalis 18:33, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

She doesn't really say anything which supports Javits' thesis, last time I checked she referred to the Byzantine Empire as "Greek East". By the way Septentrionalis once tried to make a section on Fallmerayer's theories in the article Greeks, and re-edit the article so that Greek history starts from 1821. Miskin 18:45, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

You've misinterpreted the quote. A multi-ethnic empire does not rule out a national empire. Neither ethnicity nor nationality are modern concepts. Infact, they are rooted very much in the middle ages, and there exist testimonies by several medieval contemporaries attesting to the fact. Laiou only meant that nationality in Byzantium was not based on ethnic affiliation as it does today, - at least not as much early on - but on much more loose criteria inherited from ancient Rome enabling access to non-Greeks as well. As for the application of the term "Greek" and its significance in Byzantium, a quick read of Names of the Greeks should clarify inconsistencies, as it appears most of your views are outdated. "Greek" and "Hellene" were not religious but national terms and were used both within and outside Byzantium.

This argument is getting ridiculous. Time after time whtever "Greekness" of Byzantium is being disputed over and over again for no better reason other than that most contributors havent been bothered to read the article first. Most arguments are already presented in the article. Colossus 19:19, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Javits, thanks for your research. I think it would be great to reflect current work by leading Byzantinologists like Angeliki Laiou (Harvard), Hélène Glykatzi-Ahrweiler (Sorbonne), Paul Magdalino (St. Andrews), Averil Cameron (Oxford), Peter Charanis (†Rutgers), and so on. As you probably know by now, WP is built on the principle of Neutral Point of View, which means that we seek out "all significant published points of view" and give them "in proportion to [their] prominence". As these are the leading scholars of our time in this area, their analyses are undoubtedly most significant and prominent, as are perspectives of scholars in related fields, such as Jonathan Phillips (U. London) and Anthony Smith (LSE). Previous generations of Byzantine scholars such as Ostrogorsky and Mango (and generalists such as Toynbee) no doubt still have value today, but should be put in proper context.

What is perhaps more problematic is dealing with older work, such as Paparrigopoulos, and the "ethnocentric" "national ideology and narrative" (Hamilakis) which is still taught as school history in Greece despite attempts at reform. (see K.S. Brown and Yannis Hamilakis, eds., The Usable Past: Greek Metahistories, 2003, ISBN 0-7391-0384-9, especially Hamilakis's article "'Learn History!': Antiquity, National Narrative, and History in Greek Educational Textbooks") It is probably worth discussing as part of ensuring a worldwide view, as it is still supported in parts of the Greek educational establishment (though certainly not unanimously). I suppose that in a full article on Byzantine identity, a historiographical section would have to cover other obsolete theories as well, including Fallmereyer, racial theories, etc. Unfortunately, a lot of these theories suffuse other articles about Greece and the Greeks on Wikipedia.

In any case, I look forward to working constructively with you and others here to move the article forward. As you contribute well-written material based on modern sources, many editors here who will support you. --Macrakis 20:49, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

That's what I also proposed, all views must be echoed within appropriate context in an article with an established and pragmatic name. Miskin 22:21, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

As an interim step I've expanded the existing section on "identity, continuity, and consciousness." Comments, corrections, and additions are of course heartily welcome. --Javits2000 12:02, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Miskin's action in completely deleting this section from the main article and copying (ghettoizing?) it to Byzanine Greeks is thoroughly inappropriate: the text that I wrote had nothing to do with "Greeks," but I am too weary and busy with other concerns to reiterate my objections. I appeal to the aid of other editors. --Javits2000 12:50, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more. That title is IMO lacking (and, sorry, cries "POV fork" out loud), as it doesn't seem to cover non-Greek inhabitants of the Empire to the first reader. A renaming to something without any ethnonym would be best, be it the much-debated "Byzantine identity" or something more descriptive of the content. Reverting.

Starting tomorrow or (at the latest) early next week, I'll be able to skim Lilie on what he has to say on the topic. Good start, thanks. :) Varana 12:57, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

A POV-fork is an article whose content and/or title contradicts an existing, established article (in this case the featured article Names of the Greeks). Due all the respect, putting a bunch of citations (or rather cited sentences) together in order to represent a consensus is not called contribution but propaganda. I moved the section temporarily in Byzantine Greeks, from which a further consensus can be reached. Maybe it's best to move the discussion there. As I demonstrated earlier the google test proves that "Byzantine identity" is not an issue which concerns scholarly community. The three terms "Byzantines", "Byzantine Greeks" and plain "Greeks" are used interchaengably in english-speaking sources. As I stated earlier in civilisation-based historiography, plain "Byzantine" is not at all restricted to the Byzantine Empire. Furthermore in medieval sources (mainly Latin and Slavic but also some Arabic), the 'Imperium Graecorum' and 'Graeci' are standard terms to refer to the empire and its people. Therefore an amalgam of the two terms is in my opinion the best choice to make. I tried to make some copyediting but I don't have all day to spend. I have only used one of my sources so far (which I hadn't cited in this discussion). The article should focus on the culture of the Byzantine Greek people and not just their Greco-Roman self-indentification as it does now. Miskin 15:05, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite right to remark that the text as it stands is awkwardly strung together from cited sentences; but given how contentious this subject seems to be I figured it was the best approach for the time being, lest I be accused of misinterpretation. (Who knew that the self-understanding of the Byzantines was such a hot topic? Annoying as some of the quibbles may be, they beat being tagged with 'antiquarian'!) As for propaganda ("The systematic propagation of information or ideas by an interested party, esp. in a tendentious way in order to encourage or instil a particular attitude or response. -- OED), I'ld be fascinated to learn which particular attitude I am endeavoring to instill, and to what end.

The relationship between google and the "scholarly community" is slight -- perhaps JSTOR might give a better impression. The Arab historians (Tabari, Baladhuri, Masudi, etc.) of course called Byzanz "Rūm," and the same term is used in later Persian sources (i.e. Ferdosi). But in any case the perception of Byzantium by foreigners is a separate issue. Byzantine culture is amply covered by the articles on Byzantine literature, Byzantine music, Byzantine art, etc. The far more restricted issue of self-understanding, identity, what you like, is not so well addressed. On the incoherence of Names of the Greeks, see my remarks on the talk page there. --Javits2000 15:56, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

There's also muslim and jewish scholars calling it Yunan, but it would take me some time to dig out that source now. Maybe it would be easier to look up the definition of 'rum' in a modern Turkish dictionary. I gave it a chance but nobody was interested in fixing that section, so I moved it in Byzantine Greeks where I made an article out of random citations. You wanted a new article, you have it now. There's no point in making bad edits in a main article just to convince (or rather force) people to provide you with an article of your choice. The POV-fork and OR issue remains in the topic of your selection. The content you added was too biased, badly written and manipulative in order to remain in in any article, and it is too irrelevant and out of context in the article Byzantine Empire. I'm quite astonished to find out that other editors are willing to play along with your game, supposedly not seeing how this is just out of order. I spent a great deal of time trying to copyedit your edits and fit them into context. Miskin 23:51, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm not getting into a revert war. But I would request an explanation of the "bias" that you perceive in the text that I contributed. What's my brief? And why, in the "copy-edited" version in "Byzantine Greeks" have all references to religious and linguistic minorities been removed? Were there now no Jews in Byzantium? --Javits2000 00:29, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

If you go through my edits you'll find out that I tried hard to fit that sentence into context but I couldn't. It's perfectly sourced and correct but it just isn't relevant to what we call "Byzantines", therefore does not belong in the article. I tried to fit those languages in the "language" section, but then I realised that this is not about the "languages of the Byzantine Empire", but about the "language of the Byzantines". The Arabs, Jews and Bulgarians are people who occasionally found themselves under Byzantine rule, and were more frequently the enemies of the Byzantines, they were not by any means "Byzantines". When we speak of the "Ottomans" we don't speak about the Phanariote Greeks in the government nor the janissaries and the countless of Slavic, Greek and Arab soldiers in the military, we speak about the "Ottoman Turks", or Turkish-speaking Ottomans if you prefer. Even in our modern times, when we speak of "the French" we are not referring to the massive Arabic "minority" of the country. It's really a simple concept. The bias is the fact that you put together many unrelated sentences in order to manipulate their meaning and make it seem as if there's a question about what you call "Byzantine identity". You didn't care of contributing, you only cared about getting your own article, even if that involved causing damage to an existing established article. Now would you mind moving the discussion to the other article? The content in question has been moved anyway so there's no reason to harrass this one anymore. Miskin 00:53, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, but the problem is precisely that it's been moved, to an article to which hardly anything links ( a few user pages, "Turkish people" and "Muscovite manorialism"). And as a result all reference to the multi-ethnic nature of the empire, including that which pre-existed my contibution (the quote from Ahrweiler's Europeans), has been removed -- which is a problem for the main article. Since you've mentioned it, it's instructive to compare the wiki entry for the Ottoman Empire-- which includes, under religion, discussion of the Greek Orthodox, Jewish, and Armenian Orthodox millets; an intelligent discussion of the millet system and ethnic difference in general under "Concept of Nation"; and two references to the role of the Phanariotes. And in fact, while Ottomanists have political burdens of their own, Byzantinists tend to envy them in this respect -- there is really no equivalent to the ideological pressure to make Byzantium into Ἑλλάς Ἑλλήνων Χριστιανῶν.

I hope that others will understand the seriousness of this issue. As for myself, I really must bow out for a few days, as this controversy has forced me to neglect a stack of texts that lie on my desk, waiting to be translated. --Javits2000 11:09, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

It will have more links if we redirected there 'Byzantines', and started finally making a distinction between 'Byzantine' and 'Eastern Roman' Emperors. On the other hand the word 'multi-ethnic', despite its irrelevant context, appears more than once in the article (makes it almost look biased). I tried not to remove any of your references, I just moved them around in order to fit them in context and remove their quotes. I thought I just explained above why an article about "Byzantines" doesn't have room for the religious and cultural minorities of the Byzantine Empire. Such a section would belong in an article dealing with the demography of the Byzantine Empire, or maybe a section in the main article. If you're able to fit those demographic references into context in Byzantine Empire then that's fine by me. Of course it should be done only for the sake of contribution in order to fit into the main article. Simlarly if there was an article "Ottoman Turks" or "Ottomans", I wouldn't find it correct to speak about Greeks or Jews and Slavs there, even if their contributions in the empire's economy and government were of extreme importance. Since you mention it, I should let you know that it was me who made most (if not all) of those edits that you just praised in Ottoman Empire (you can through the edit history if you like). Of course I never came up with section names such as "concept of nation", this was added later. It was me however who introduced the extremely important role of different religious groups in the empire, and the Ottomans' capabiliting of making use of them. Same for the references of Phanariotes and their role in the Empire's economy and politics (yet I would never claim that they were 'Ottomans'). If it weren't for me none of this wouldn't have been there now, and I can tell you I had a real rough time establishing it, therefore what you just claimed about Byzantinists and Ottomanists becomes moot. On the contrary, Ottomanists do not have to deal with amateur western chauvinism, which uses the logic "if something worthwhile doesn't belong to me, then it shouldn't belong to anybody" (see J. Fallmerayer for details). I guess the western amateur scholarship is less interested in them - I found that out on my own while I was editing the Ottoman-related articles. The editors there, prior to my intervention, were as imbalanced as some editors here, only except in the opposite direction. A look in the article would make you think that all Sultans were the ancestors of Kemal Ataturk, and there was no neutral editors to even care about it. I tried to balance the article to some extent, by starting sections on important topics. If I were using the criteria proposed in here, I should have tried to eliminate all connections to Turks whatsoever. I guess the reason it hasn't been attempted yet is because nobody seem to care about that civilisation, and not because double standards do not exist. Finally, I never claimed nor tried to pass in the article that Byzantium was synonymus to "Christian Hellas" (despite the ironic fact that contemporary Westeners viewed as such, as well as Byzantines of the late period). Such accusations are borderline offensive. My goal is to establish a pragmatic balance on wikipedia's perception of Byzantines and Byzantium, based on modern historical sources and their medieval citations. This is exactly what I did for the Ottoman Empire, and there I had received similar resistance. All sides must be given equal weight, and the reader should be able to understand exactly why those people are often called Romans, often Greeks, and often Byzantines. This will be achieved only when editors of Byzantine-related articles start using the same criteria that are being used everywhere else in wikipedia (unfortunately most of them don't). Having participated in the editing of other similar topics, I'm really saddened to find out that double standards and bias exist at such a degree in this one. Miskin 15:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I find this "discussion" (if one could call Miskin conjuring up strawmen and beating them with wild exaggerations as to the intent of other editors a "discussion") more and more ridiculous. No one wants to eliminate Greeks from Byzantium. I fail to see where that is even hinted at in the slightest. The whole point of the debate and the new article where I wanted to contribute was to have to differentiate what it means when we say "Byzantines". Of course, Jews have no place in an article on "Byzantine Greeks". One should not forget, however, that it was Miskin alone who insisted on calling the article that. Create a new article; ban all other views there; and then redefine what is meant by the new article and delete. Nice tactic. (That's also the reason why I am reluctant to discuss this there. I am happy to move the discussion when I see that the reason for the new article (whatever its name) is not to remove unwanted views to a backcorner, but to discuss all views in the topic in necessary depth.) A "pragmatic balance"? My god, where in the world is "there were no Byzantines except Greeks" called "balanced"?

In one sentence it says "multi-ethnic" and in another "national identity is a 19th century concept". But then the reference to minorities is removed with the reason that they "were subjected peoples, not Byzantines"? Give me a break. After a while, we call every Roman citizen a "Roman", wherever in the Empire he came from (Miskin: that also with regard to your comments on my talk page). Libanios was a "Roman", as was Dio Cassius, or Trajan, or Ausonius, or Augustinus, or Elagabal, or Septimius Severus (who is said to have had difficulties speaking Latin). A "Byzantine" is a subject of the Byzantine Empire. Who the subjects of that empire were, is what interests me in that topic. Under Zenon, a group of Isaurians dominated the government. Herakleios' family probably had Armenian roots. The majority in Byzantine Ravenna certainly was not Greek. To call the Egyptian population "Greeks", stretches the term beyond recognition.

To salvage discussion and work: I agree that we could maybe come to a better solution by drawing a line between late antique and medieval Byzantium, maybe with the reign of Herakleios' dynasty. So that we could have the following structure:

some sentences on the Roman inheritance, a truly world-spanning empire.
a short discussion of the effects of the invasions during the 7th century and the loss not only of Egypt and Syria, but also of North Africa, Spain, (most of) Italy, the Balkans.
a discussion of the self-perception as Greek and "Roman", with comments on the difference between modern and medieval "nations", and the development of something like a national identity.
a section on minorities within the Empire.

Oh, and call it something other than "Byzantine Greeks".

Objections? Varana 17:12, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You're up to Original Research again by inventing alleged scholarly questions. There's no academic concern such as the "Byzantine identity". I didn't invent 'Byzantine Greeks', it was there as a disambiguation page and I used it as an article in order to reduce the main one. This discussion is getting repetitive and tiresome. I've already proved that according to both modern and medieval sources it is evident that there was a "Byzantine people" in a cultural sense - and as Britannica defines it - "seemingly Greek". That means a Greek or Hellenized citizen of the Empire. That fact that Heraclius or Basil I might have had an "Armenian origin", doesn't mean they were Armenians, as their families were long Hellenized. So no, Jews and Slavs have no place in the article on "Byzantines", insisting that they do is just applying double standards again. Byzantines, Greeks and Byzantine Greeks are used by scholars interchangeably, it's not my fault if you haven't read many english books on the topic. Maybe the fact that people are so confused on terminology justifies my choice of 'Byzantine Greeks' as the article's name. Those are simple concepts and the fact that you can't accept them justifies my views on double standards, bias and yes, the lack of a pragmatic balance. Most of the things you suggested are already treated in Byzantine Greeks, have a look for yourself. As for the title's name, we have to agree on a certain terminology. It must be understood (or agreed) that there's no "Greek" ethnic group per say in Byzantium, there's only a Greek culture, masked under and synonymous to "Romios", containing anything Greek/Hellenic or Hellenized element within the empire. Therefore in medieval times, a "Byzantine" is a Greek or Hellenized inhabitant of Byzantium. See the Britannica 2006 definition that I posted above, and Ostrogorsky's line between the Eastern Roman and the Medieval Greek Empire. I won't be interested in opposing views unless it's the direct meaning of a citation (and not its liberal interpretation). Once we have agreed to that, we could start deciding on the name. The discussion must be moved by the way, there's no reason to continue harassing this article. Miskin 17:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

He [Eustathius] noted the usual accommodations of local people with the occupying forces. Some of his most bitter comments were directed against the Jews and especially the Armenians for the way they profited from and gloried in the disaster that had overtaken the Greeks...He noted the lack of respect shown by the Latins for the church services of the Greeks

Do you think for example that in this citation that the author citing Eustathius is using "Greeks" to refer to anything else other than the Byzantines? Miskin 18:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

This is still going on? Miskin that quote doesn't help much. During the Crusades all Crusaders were dubbed Franks or Latins by all local scribes and historians. Does that mean they were Frankish or Latin? No, that means they were Catholic.--Eupator 18:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Precisely, but it proves that Jews and Armenians were 'not' regarded as "Greeks" or "Romans" or in any case as "Byzantines". Maybe for the reasons that they wouldn't be regarded as "Latins". That's what I'm trying to say in response to people who say that "Byzantine" (Greek in religious context), can be Jewish, Armenian, Slavic, and anything within the Empire besides Hellenized people. It can only be Hellenized, Greek Orthodox people. Miskin 18:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes I agree with that. Also keep in mind that many of the Hellenized Orthodox Armenians kept their Armenian names. Look at how many people there are with the name Narses, Bardas, Smbat etc. even family names like Kourkouas. To be a Romanoi one had to speak Greek and be Greek Orhodox. No Jews or other Christians.--Eupator 18:43, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Σκοπητέον καὶ τὰς ἑκάστων τροφὰς καὶ γνωστέον ὡς ἐκ τῶν συμφυλετῶν μὲν οὐκ ἦν ὅ, τι καὶ λάβοιεν, πάντων ἐξ ἴσου πεινώντων, τῶν δὲ Λατίνων ὀλίγοι μέν τινες ἐχορήγουν ὀβολοὺς τοὺς παρὰ σφίσιν, ὅθεν ἦν γλίσχρως ἀποζῆν, οἱ δὲ πλείους διάβολον ἐπικαλοῦντες τὸν ἐπαιτοῦντα, τοῦτο δὴ τὸ παρ’ αὐτοῖς εὐχορήγητον, ὕβρεις ἐδίδουν ὡσεὶ καὶ ψωμόν, καὶ κόνδυλον ὄψον ἐπ’ αὐταῖς. Καὶ ὁ ἔλεος μὲν οὕτως ἦν δυσεύρετος, δίχα γε τῶν ἐκ τοῦ Μυροβλύτου, ὅς, καθὰ καὶ προσυγγέγραπται, πάντας τοὺς πολίτας ἔθρεψεν εἰς ὅσον ἐχρῆν. Εἰ δέ τις καὶ εὐπορηκώς ποθεν ἐθέλοι τιμήματος πορίσασθαι τὸ τρέφον, βαβαὶ τῆς βαρβαρικῆς ἀπανθρωπίας. Ἰουδαίῳ μὲν γὰρ καὶ Ἀρμενίῳ, οὓς ἡ ἀγχιτέρμων Κρανία καὶ ὁ Ζεμενίκος φέρβουσιν, ἐπεμέτρει ἐς ὅσον τε καθῆκον ἦν καί τι καὶ εἰς ὑπέρμετρον, ἑαλωκότι δὲ πολίτῃ ἐλάχιστον, εἴ που καὶ ἐπιστραφείη αὐτοῦ. Ἀρτίδιον γοῦν περιηγμένον ὡς εἰς κρίκον, ὅσον ἂν ἀντίχειρ καὶ λιχανὸς διαγράψαιεν, τριῶν χαλκῶν στατήρων ἀπεδίδου τῷ ἐλεεινῷ πολίτῃ, μόλις ὀβολοῦ ἀξιούμενον. -- De capta Thessalonica, ed. Kyriakidis, 124.

What exactly is this supposed to prove? There's no contrast between ioudaioi/armenioi and rhwmaioi drawn in the text. I should think that any of the sources that I adduced from contemporary, synthetic accounts of Byzantine identity would have been more useful, but no, we're arguing about Eustathius. Good night. --Javits2000 18:52, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

You suggesting again to make original research but I won't play along. I cited the conclusions of an established author (Angold's "Church and society in Byzantium under the Comeni"), I wasn't making up my own. We cannot know if his conslusions were based on the specific citation, or maybe on a different part such as e.g. "Οἱ δὲ ἐξώλεις Ἀρμένιοι λέγεται καὶ καταμιαίνειν ἡμῖν τοὺς ἄρτους"[same ed. p 126 l. 11]. For what I know Angold's drew his conclusions from the entire text. Miskin 22:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite tiring to read all this long discussion, but i had to do so... For start, two comments by Javits2000 attracted my attention: the perception of Byzantium by foreigners is a separate issue: so, no matter the Byzantine Greeks saying that they are "children of the Greeks" and no matter how the foreigners of that time called them... All that matters is to insert anything that disconnects the Byzantines from the Greeks (or that minimizes the greek character of the empire)... Have i understood well? the second one is the greek phrase u've used: to make Byzantium into Ἑλλάς Ἑλλήνων Χριστιανῶν: since u know the phrase, i bet u know that this was the motto of the dictatorship (1967-1974). a really unlucky comment, which i do not want to accept as a personal attack...

The whole issue is getting ridiculous... Would it be much of a problem to create an article Byzantine Armenians or Byzantine Jews for those ethnic groups? and then, place them all in the category 'Byzantine citizenship'... And, sorry for once more, but i cannot help it making comparisons with other empires and nations: I insist that if an article 'Byzantine Identity' will be created, similar articles should be created for all the other empires. If some users tend to believe that the Byzantine Empire was not "greek enough", cause of the armenian, jewish and other minorities, i am expecting them to also support the also unhistorical view that the German Empire was not "german enough", cause of the large Czech and Polish minorities, not to mention that the Prussians were originally non-Germans... So, "clearly" the German Empire was a Baltic one...! In addition, the trap in which many wikipedians fall in order to support a supposed vastly non-greek character of the empire, is really laughable! they throw 5-7 armenian or other names and they think this is enough?! give me a break, please! the Armenians had a prominent role in the empire, and contributed a lot in it, but other times they also fought against it. Would anyone say that modern Britain is not British? but it is more multicultural than the Byzantine Empire ever was... Its kings and queens for the last 2 centuries belong to a german dynasty... prominent british were not that "british" (Paul Reuter, Peter Ustinov, for more see). i do not know where this strong will to eliminate or minimize the Greek character of Byzantium comes from, but be sure that such ahistorical tactics and practices can be followed for every single past/present/future empire/nation-state/federation/kingdom existed/exists or will ever exist on earth... Regards Hectorian 19:35, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I should absolutely apologize for deploying the motto of the junta. I maintain that it is a literally accurate description of the article into which Miskin would sideline the discussion of byz. identity (a Greece of Greek Christians, i.e. "Jews and Slavs have no place in the article on 'Byzantines'"); and the tactics which he employed in doing so ("the vote is off"; wholesale deletion of a previously existing section of the main article and placement of this new text in an article to which no one had agreed) gave rise to a fit of pique. But it was thoroughly inappropriate of me to raise the, in this context irrelevant, specter of a period in which my own country played a sorry role.

My concern is not "to insert anything that disconnects the Byzantines from the Greeks (or that minimizes the greek character of the empire)." It is rather to be very careful about using a term that today has a primarily ethnic connotation to describe a society in which the criteria of "belonging" were not at all ethnic. I have no particular interest in describing the actual ethnic composition of the Byzantine Empire -- in fact I think it's not possible to do so, and the effort generally only leads to crackpot theories (for example, and since he's been mentioned, Fallmerayer). To my mind an accurate description of the bonds that did in fact unite the empire (the Greek language, esp. after Heraclius; orthodox Christianity, especially after Justinian; and in all periods, allegiance to imperial authority) would be a useful contribution to the main article. It is also important to recognize that these bonds were not hard and fast (i.e. there was no citizenship test in Byzantium); and that, whether out of tolerance or indifference, certain, and sometimes very wide, degrees of difference were tolerated.

This was the picture that I attempted to present in the text that I contributed to the main article, in an attempt to flesh out what had been previously just a quote from Ahrweiler and a reference to late Byzantine hellenism. But I would much rather that the previous version be returned, than to see the section completely removed.

I should perhaps clarify that when I speak of "identity" I don't mean it in the crude sense, as if there were some question of a new answer ("A ha! The Byzantines were actually Phoenecian!") but in the sense in which it is used in academic discourse today, i.e. how did the Byzantines understand themselves? In what terms did they construct their own identity? In that sense, although the idea of individual articles on minorities is an interesting idea, I'm not sure it's necessary. For an idea of what I do think is a useful introduction to the subject at hand, I would again recommend Cameron's new _The Byzantines_, which is searchable on Amazon and therefore easily accessible. --Javits2000 20:28, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I read your version, and i must say i find it very well-written and interesting. Though, IMO, needs some work. 'cause it seems to give to ethnic, religious and linguistic minorities more place than it should give. furthermore, u do not mention that the terms 'Romaios' and 'Hellene' became synonymous at some point, and thus, the "others" were considered "foreighners" or just "different". the opening comment that the Byzantine Empire was a multiethnic one, is just a pleonasm. and also the sentence concerning regionalism (in whatever sense) is not suitable for an empire centered in the imperial city Constantinople, to which every thema obeyed, at least the greek-speaking ones, such as western anatolia and pontus, as implied. Feudalism never actually existed in Byzantium, and when it began, it did not manage to prevail (cause of the common threat). Lastly, the public "persona" edit seems as if the Byzantines followed any sort of forced hellinization, and that those who spoke other language were forbidden to do so in public (i may be wrong, though, in the definition of the phrase 'public persona'). In conclusion, a clear and quite long paragraph should be added concerning the roots of the byzantine civilisation, culture, language, and religious cults (in some extend), and all those were stemming principally by ancient and hellenistic Greece. i do not mean to remove the roman, armenian and other influences, but at least we should give to the greek element the credit it deserves in this section. what do u think? Hectorian 21:17, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Well of course this is precisely the conversation that I would rather have had from the outset.

How much discussion of minority groups is too much? As has already been mentioned, the article on the Ottoman Empire already includes dicussions of the Greek, Jewish, and Armenian minorities therein.

I am not aware that Rhwmaois and 'Ellhn ever did become synonomous, but if you have a reference on it, then good enough.

Would stating simply that "The Byzantine Empire was multi-ethnic " still be a pleonasm -- "the use of more words (or even word-parts) than necessary to express an idea clearly"? I'm not sure it could be pared down much further than that.

Regionalism -- both regional pride and its obverse, hostility to outsiders, including those from other parts of the empire -- was a genuine and significant phenomenon, and my remarks on it were well sourced. You can't argue it away with generalizations about military administration, which fall under the topic of political allegiance, addressed elsewhere in my text. Nowhere have I suggested that there was a feudal system. Students of Byz. history know well never to use the f-word, lest they be assigned hundreds of pages of Soviet scholarship to summarize for seminar.

The line about public persona is a direct quote of a concise formulation by two contemporary Byz. historians of what it meant to be Rhwmaios. I can't imagine how it can be read to imply a ban on the use of certain languages in public. The question is of how one became successful -- and it wasn't by speaking Norse.

Of course any well-sourced addition on the ancient Greek inheritance would be welcome. --Javits2000 10:12, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't agree more Hectorian. The "special criteria" used for this topic are a double standard and a clear violation of the NPOV policy, and it should not be left unattended. Criteria applied on similar articles should apply here and vice versa. Miskin 22:05, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

So I guess it's all my fault, Miskin the anti-semite fascist who "deleted" Javits' noble contributions in the Byzantine article, and denies that the Jews can be regarded as "Byzantines". Isn't that a little too convenient? Your edits were a bunch of unrelated, cited sentences put together in order to manipulate their meaning. You admitted yourself that it was badly written, yet you never justified why you never took your time for it. I guess you wanted to hurry up for some reason. You were willing to harm the article "Byzantine Empire" in order to force people into giving you a POV-fork, double-standard article "Byzantine identity". That what your "contribution" was about. I _moved_ it at a different place in order to protect this article from your caprices. I removed the refernce on minority cultures because doesn't fit in an article "Byzantines" or "Byzantine Greeks". You can start articles on Byzantine Jews, Slavs, Armenians etc, but default name 'Byzantines', the Ρωμηοί, doesn't include them, and this is something I know by sources, logic and personal life. Stop bringing up the Ottoman Empire as an example, I know very well how it treats the subject because I've edited that article. When you keep repeating something that I have already treated in detail, it makes me think that you're either not reading my edits or that your bias forces you to ignore them. The Armenians, Greeks and Jews of the Ottoman Empire are mentioned in the article "Ottoman Empire", not in the article "Ottomans" or "Ottoman Turks". I would never agree to include them there. Do you or do you not agree that by "Ottomans" we don't mean their subject peoples? It should be done the same about Byzantines. You can add the text (or rather 'sentence') that I removed in the article Byzantine Empire, or an article about Peoples of the Byzantine Empire but not in an article about Byzantines or Byzantine Greeks. Miskin 15:24, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Finally, the fact alone that Medieval Greek was called "Romaika" or "Romaiika" (translated as 'Romaic' or 'Roman'), is suffiecient to prove a point. If you can prove that other languages of the empire were also called "Roman", then you're back in the game. Miskin 15:27, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Byzantines

I think it's lovely that you contributed sections on minorities to the main article on the Ottoman Empire. What I can't understand is why you removed the references to the same from the main article on the Byzantine Empire. My contribution was not, in my admittedly prejudiced opinion, poorly written. It merely held closely to the text of the sources to avoid the inevitable accusation of mis-reading; hardly worth the effort, since the accusation was raised in any case. But again, I would like at least to see the section that existed before my contribution returned to the main article (Ahrweiler's formulation from "The Europeans" + the "Sun King"). Is that agreeable? --Javits2000 15:42, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

I moved it because we had already agreed to remove that section of the article and not to expand it with irrelevant information within quotes. I removed later one paragraph on cultural minorities for the same reason that I would remove similar information from an article (or section) dealing with "Ottoman identity" aka "Ottomans" aka "Ottoman Turks". But you can restore it, within context, in Byzantine Empire or a separate article anytime you want. I don't know how many more times I'll have to explain that. Miskin 16:20, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Many thanks for your kind leave. Not to sound peckish, but you'll understand if I'm reluctant to have another go at present. The good faith gesture would be -- well, but if you have to name it, it's not good faith anymore, is it? --Javits2000 19:23, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Ongoing changes to Byzantine Empire maps + change from pink to (Imperial) purple

I thought I'd best remind everyone that the maps of this article are being improved and replaced, according to the agreement that was made beween Flamarande, Varana, Dryzen, Geuiwogbil and myself on this talk page with regard to maps some time ago. Today I aim to have all my big Byzantine Empire maps replaced with newer versions which include the cities of Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch. At the time of writing, I have added 3 new improved maps already, and will shortly be adding 2 more as I complete them.

If you have any ideas or questions about the maps of this article, or would like to make a request for a new map, feel free to ask here. Bigdaddy1204 16:24, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

The updating of all my Byzantine Empire maps is now done. However, there are several more things that need doing. Firstly, we need to decide which of the two following maps should be used to illustrate the year 476AD:

Either

Which image would you prefer? Please indicate your preference below. Or, if you would prefer a new map to be created, combining aspects of both, please say so. Thanks Bigdaddy1204 17:04, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Choosing between the two maps above I would choose BigDaddy's map; 1st) it has the cities (major point), 2nd) the name of the seas are written down (Black S. and Medi S.). But to be truly honest, I think that an inclusion of the WRE is also worthy. BUT DON'T improve your map yet, depending upon the colour issue below and the results. If the majority agrees with purple, then you (and anyone else who is willling and knows how to do it) may have to change the maps (from pink to purple). But hey, if this is too much work we can keep pink (I like purple better, but then I am not doing the work here as I don't know how to improve maps :). Flamarande 18:14, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I have received no objections, the second of the two maps will now be put in place. Bigdaddy1204 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Another Question

I don't have a clue if the following proposal makes sense to you all (I allready talked with BigDaddy about it and he seems to agree with it), and it is only a proposal; if you don't agree with it simply be honest (I rather apreciate honesty). Everywhere I look, I see the Byzantine Empire in purple. Maps inside of books, computer games (e.g. Rome Total War Barbarian Invasion), book-covers, etc. Even in this article; the main colour is purple (or am I somehow seeing things?). As far as I know that colour had strong Imperial conotations. Only the Emperor could clothe himself entirely in purple. Those who were born in the Purple chamber, etc. And somehow that colour became the colour of the BE. But the maps are in pink! ██ current colour

We could change the colours of the maps of the article. The exact shade of purple I propose to use is the one above being used for the WRE. Therefore I hereby propose the following: "Change from pink to purple, yea or nay? Please give your answer below (and please don't start a debate about it :)" Flamarande 17:47, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

Just to give a further example, the proposed change would result in the maps looking like this:

Bigdaddy1204 18:07, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

It has been suggested that Venice be added to the later maps. I am ready to do this, but any comments on the maps would be welcome... Bigdaddy1204 12:55, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Well I sugested that change :), but my reasons are sound: Ravenna simply lost its importance around 850 AD and Venice slowly gained in importance and power until becoming a regional power of major importance. Flamarande 16:30, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Proposed new infobox

As part of WikiProject Former countries, we have developed Template:Infobox Former Country for use by all former entities: for anything from empires to colonies. I have made a Byzantine version of the infobox based on what you have done here. The infobox also automatically assigns the page to a number of categories. For further information about the infobox, please see the Instructions.

If you have any questions or comments about the infobox (it is still in development so some features are a little sensitive), please ask. Since you have made a dedicated infobox for this article, I decided to set up a draft infobox rather than just replace what you have done - I'll leave that up to you.

I see that there are other specific infobox templates for other Empires (Roman, West Roman, etc.). New infoboxes using the Former Country Infobox can also be made for these. - 52 Pickup 10:48, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Mistake at 1025, & was the restoration under the Palaiologi a 'dead cat bounce'?

I couldn't help but notice the error in the timeline - "Death of Basil II - decline of Byzantine empire begins". This is not true. The Byzantine empire went on to conquer more lands in Armenia, in northern Mesopatamia (Edessa) and the empire did not decline until the crushing defeat at Manzikert. That was the decline. Although the Byzantines lost a great emperor, it was not the end. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 160.227.129.254 (talk) 17:55, 8 December 2006 (UTC).

Map of the Byzantine Empire under Manuel I Komnenos, c.1180

Map of the Byzantine Empire c.1270. Considering its failure to restore the empire to Komnenian proportions, was the Palaiologan restoration a 'dead cat bounce'?

I believe it was John Julius Norwich who placed the decline of the empire as beginning with the death of Basil II. There is an article about this at Decline of the Byzantine Empire, which deals with the many different dates suggested by historians as the start of the decline. The problem is, the decline was not continuous, but rather occurred in brief but dramatic stages, separated by periods of recovery that sometimes lasted 100 years (eg the Komnenian restoration, 1081-1180). Personally, I think it fair to place the origins of the decline somewhere between 1025 - 1070, since the empire had already weakened somewhat before Manzikert - indeed, you could say the battle itself was merely an effect, rather than the cause, of the empire's decline. That said, the aftermath of the battle and ensuing civil wars in turn caused a massive decline in the strength of the empire, which was never entirely reversed. Still, due to the successes of the Komnenoi, it is possible to argue that the empire was still recognizably the Eastern Roman Empire until the late 12th century, and that therefore the real permanent decline should be dated from c.1180 or 1185.

Whether we are to regard the brief restoration under the Palaiologi as a dead cat bounce or not is open to discussion, but I personally would say the empire stopped being a major world power in 1204. Bigdaddy1204 18:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

I think so too. In fact, if i am not wrong, most historians and important figures (e.g. the late Pope) did/do consider 1204 the year after which the Byzantine Empire began to decline. The other dates that have been proposed at different periods, are marked by important events, but none of them was as important and had so deep in time and disastrous for the empire effects. Hectorian 21:30, 8 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Legacy section

Legacy section of this article contains a major POV. Although the Byzantian Empire influenced the Ottoman Empire heavily, the article fails to mention that but it claims it influenced the "European civilisation", an influence I gather, not as well documented as the influence on the Ottomans. BTW, the term "European civilisation" seems to me a bit vague, see Culture of Europe Filanca 12:07, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

This strikes me as an interesting point. In architecture, at least, the Ottomans, alongside the Tsars, could be seen as the most important successors of Byzantium. I'm less well versed in Ottoman administration and economy, but I recall that Hendy was able to reconstruct quite a bit of the Byzantine system by reading back through Ottoman records, which would seem to imply some significant continuity. As for Byzantium, "the only stable state in Europe during the Middle Ages": is that not both hyperbolic and geographically inaccurate? --Javits2000 15:28, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

By 'successors' you must mean 'influenced cultures'. Byzantine art and culture were based on the Eastern Orthodox (later Greek Orthodox) faith and not on a political independence. In Greek Orthodox tradition, Byzantine art never fell out of use. Miskin 20:32, 11 December 2006 (UTC)

Not that I'm backing up those edits, but what do you think about the link between the sack of Constantinople and the Italian renaissance? Had Greek intellectual not taught in Europe, Classical studies would have been confined to the Greek Orthodox church. The west didn't have any knowledge of Greek nor any Latin translations of major Classical works. All of this was introduced along with the migration of Greeks intellectuals to Italy, which was the result of the sack of Constantinople. Knowing that Columbus used Strabo as his primary source in geography, I suppose the fall of Byzantium (both in 1204 and 1453) had a significant impact on the course of western civilisation. I think that this kind of information deserves to be mentioned. In the meantime, some parts of the 'heritage' section could definitely use some rewording. Miskin 18:20, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes, the importance of late Byzantine scholars in transmitting Greek literature to Italy & beyond is indisputable, and a fascinating story. I have no problem with the idea of a significant Byzantine influence on European culture and society. The point is rather that there was also a significant influence on the Islamic world. There one could begin long before 1453 -- for example, with the Abbasid translation movement, which seems to have relied at least in part by texts acquired from the Byzantines. --Javits2000 18:46, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Vote on Byzantine Empire Maps (please)

Having been underwhelmed by the level of interest in this topic earlier, the time has come for a different approach.

Flamarande has proposed that the Byzantine Empire be changed from pink to purple (see image, right) in all the maps of this article. I invite you all to Support or Object to the proposal now, in the hope that some of you are willing to help us improve the article in a constructive way, instead of endlessly arguing over the 'names of the Byzantines' and other such things.

Supporting and objecting

If you support Flamarande's proposal, write *Support followed by your reason(s). If you oppose the proposal, write *Object or *Oppose followed by the reason(s). Each objection must provide a specific rationale that can be addressed. Reviewers who object are strongly encouraged to return after a few days to check whether their objection has been addressed. To withdraw the objection, strike it out (with ...) rather than removing it. Contributors should allow others the opportunity to do this themselves. To provide constructive input on the proposition without explicitly supporting or objecting, write *Comment followed by your advice.

Once again, I beseech you, please take the time to vote. Without your comments, it is starting to feel like this page is dead... Bigdaddy1204 13:15, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I like Byzantine purple, but I think the real "imperial" purple we'd want is more like that reddish purple described on the Purple page, e.g. ██ like this (#66023C), or a bit lighter ██ Fut.Perf. ☼ 13:34, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise. It would be better to have the imperial colour for the empire in the map. I suppose the lighter one would be perfect. IMHO, the darker one would be ungly, compared to the yellow-like for non-byzantine territories, i mean it would immediately attract readers' attention, focusing on the Byzantine territories, instead of looking at the position of the Empire on the map. Hectorian 04:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Ditto. The idea of using imperial purple is a fine one, but it ought to look a bit more like Justinian's robe in San Vitale, i.e. as per Fut. Perf.'s first suggestion: ██ --Javits2000 14:13, 12 December 2006 (UTC)
- Only that for reasons of optimal readability and balance we'd probably not want it to be too dark, would we? And anyway, we're not talking about the emperor's robes or shoes here, just about the territory he's supposed to be treading on, so a little bit diluted purple would seem okay... :-) Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:45, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I would agree with Future Perfect at Sunrise about readability - it's hard to read the names of the cities if we make it too dark. However it does seem that you want something a little stronger than the slightly blueish colour I have provided on the right. Am I right? Bigdaddy1204 14:57, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment I also agree with the issue of readability - the Imperial purple is simply too dark as one wants to see the names of the cities clearly. I quite like the colour in this map it's not too agressive upon ones eyes but I have nothing against another shade of purple.

Everywhere I look, I see the Byzantine Empire in purple. Maps inside of books, computer games (e.g. Rome Total War Barbarian Invasion), book-covers, etc. Even in this article; the main colour is purple (or am I somehow seeing things?). As far as I know that colour had strong Imperial conotations. Only the Emperor could clothe himself entirely in purple. Those who were born in the Purple chamber, etc. And somehow that colour became the colour of the BE. I think that any shade of purple is a better colour for the BE than the current ("My little Poney") pink. Flamarande 16:32, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Comment Quite right about readability -- my art historian's zeal got the better of me and I forgot about the practical concerns of modern design. Still, the "slightly bluish colour" on the sample map reads to me as, well, blue, so that the desired semiotic valence is lost. So yes, something with a little more red might make the point better. (Of course the echt-imperial effect would be gold text on a rich purple ground -- but in practice that would probably just look ridiculous.) --Javits2000 21:06, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Weak oppose. The pink seems to match the background better, and the purple is too close to the colour of the line around the oceans. Something else, shouldnt Carthage be removed from the later maps post 700, wasnt it destroyed in the muslim conquest? --Astrokey44 23:49, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Support The colour may not exactly match true imperial purple but it is pleasing on the eye and looks effective. Roydosan 10:40, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment As a middle-way solution I support the light-blue colour proposed by Bigdaddy. It beats pink and doesn't cause readability problems. Miskin 12:32, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Comment Thankyou all for your responses. It's good to see everyone getting involved constructively. :) Over the past couple of days, I have been experimenting with the maps, in an attempt to try out different colours, especially different forms of purple. However, I have come up against problems with these experiments. It is possible to change all the maps to the colour of the sample map. It is possible to change at least one of the maps to a new, darker 'imperial' purple colour. Yet, due to what appears to be a problem with my software, I have been unable to change certain of the maps to this different 'imperial' form of purple. These problems mean that I am currently unable to get closer to imperial purple than the sample map provided above. I apologise for this unforeseen difficulty, and I feel I must now offer you some new options:

1). We change all the maps to the gentle purple colour present in the sample map
2). We leave the maps as they are, until perhaps a way can be found to make them full imperial purple
3). We leave the maps "my little pony" pink forever

Please indicate which of the above options you would prefer, or if you have a suggestion that I have not mentioned, you are welcome to introduce it. Bigdaddy1204 17:51, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

After carefull consideration I vote for Nr 1. Imperial purple is simply too dark (or it would be fine by me) and pink is ... I simply don't like pink, and think that purple is a better colour for the Byzantine Empire, period. Flamarande 13:43, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
Support, pardon the late inclusion certain events are presently keeping me away from my Wikiengagements. The imperial colour does fit best to represent the empire. But as oft mentioned, the map may require a colour overall to take in the reddish purple. Of course using transparentcies this could be worked over. What software to you use to render these maps? I'll get back to Bigdaddy1204's last proposal in a few moments.--Dryzen 13:49, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Here's a rapid coloration testing using ArcGIS 9.1 software, the colour is 102,2,60 RGB or Imperial Purple with 35% transparentcy. I tried to mimic the backgroound colour but not knowing its RGB composition I got a rough equivalant. Considering I only digitized the Byzantine empire itself and anot the suround topogrpahy the hydrograhy is missing. It does though give us an idea of waht we can do depending on software. With a little trial and error work on the transparency I htink it will work out fine. Maybe a little work on the background coloration as well...--Dryzen 14:33, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../b/y/z/Talk%7EByzantine_Empire_6636.html"