Talk:Byzantine Empire

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
 This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article star 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.
Main Page trophy

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

Archives
08/2003–08/2006
08/2006-11/2006
12/2006-
Peer review This page has been selected for Version 0.5 and the release version of Wikipedia. It has been rated FA-Class on the assessment scale. It is in the category History.
Other languages 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.

Contents

[edit] "Purported" reason of Great Schism?

Quote: "The schism was purported to stem from the Eastern Church's refusal to accept the western doctrine that the Holy Spirit came from the Father and the Son (filioque), and not the Father alone; in reality, however, there were a number of political interests involved in the division of the Christian Church."

This implies that the Filioque discussion was purely an abstract pretext, and the political issues were the sole real-life reason for the split. Isn't that a bit of a one-sided and anachronistic view? -- 85.179.125.250 01:04, 11 January 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the phrasing could be toned down a bit. It's undeniable, however, that political interests were a key, if unstated consideration. For that matter, maybe if the papal emissaries had been better fed, and less obstinate, the schism might never have happened. Slac speak up! 01:36, 11 January 2007 (UTC)
I'm curious if there is an authoritative source that says this but is it not fair to say that, when the Pope declared Charlemagne the Roman Emperor he had effectively split the Church then and the final "Schism" was more of an excuse to make it official? In other words, my understanding is that the Pope's move with Charlemagne was intended to reassert his authority which the other patriarchs continued to deny. My understanding is that the Schism was, in essence, firing problem employees for insubordination. --Mcorazao 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
The most important reason for the split hasn't been mentioned yet: The issue of papal supremacy. Religiously, the decisive split was under Photius in 867. Photius didn't read Latin and didn't understand the Filioque issue. (Filioque had not yet been adopted in Rome at that time anyway.) The emperor later papered over the dispute to form a political alliance with the pope, but churchmen in the East were never reconciled and asserted their independence at the next opportunity. Kauffner 02:26, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
Kauffner is right; the Coronation of Charlemange annoyed the Byzantine emperors, although they had more or less made up by 812, but I can't think it bothered the Eastern churches that much, whereas Papal supremacy had been an issue for centuries, and remains one today. Johnbod 02:40, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] More on the name

I've read in some places (not authoritative works) that, although the Western Church and the Frankish court would frequently refer to the Eastern Empire as the "Greek Empire" or the "Empire at Constantinople," it was at least as common in Western Europe to refer to it as "Romania." If this is true it is not true if this was before the emergence of the "Holy Roman Empire" or throughout the Middle Ages. In any event, if this is the case it makes sense to at least mention it.

Also, although I have no specific information, "Romania" is much more of a Latin name than a Greek name (i.e. the Greek name looks borrowed from Latin). My guess is that the name actually arose before the so-called "Byzantine period" began, perhaps in Rome. Anybody know anything about that? If so this seems worthwhile to clarify (i.e. that it was not a name the "Greeks" invented but a name they continued to use). --Mcorazao 17:06, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Split proposal

I suggest for this articles to be split into "Byzanine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire", due to the fact that in it`s current state, it merely reflects the Greek vision on the issue. It is simply unacceptable to have the Latin name of the Empire deleted, both from the lead and from the infobox, and insted have only the Greek one. It is simply unacceptable to have all categories deleted except for the "History_of_Greece" one. The "see also" subchapter is full of redundant Greek content (Greek churhc, Greek patriarch, List of Greek patriarchs, History of Greece, Greek culture, etc) Mursili 13:54, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

OPPOSE Look, this empire is widely known as the Byzantine Empire. That is not a Greek name at all, in fact it is a French name who happens to have established itself. The Greek state is widely accepted to have the best claim as "cultural inheritor" of the BE. The BE gradually stopped using Latin and focused solely on the Greek language. The Byzantine church and its patriarchs survived the fall of the empire and failing to convert the Turks became a ethnik church focussing upon the Greeks/Byzantines besides continuing to convert other ppl (Russians, Serbians, etc). You are free to improve any article in a serious manner. Flamarande 14:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I guess I wasn`t clear: this proposal camed after such "attempts to improve the article in a serious manner" [1], attempts which have hit the Greek POV on the issue. You argued to issues I didn`t addresed Flamarande! Read carefully from "due to the fact that..." and comment on that. Mursili 14:32, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Frankly, I have no idea how that split should be done and what it would achieve. "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" refer to exactly the same thing, no matter how you treat its relation to the Greek ethnicity (which seems to be what you are concerned about, if I read you correctly). Which of the two articles you propose would deal with what exactly? Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:34, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
My point exactly! "Byzantine Empire" and "Eastern Roman Empire" refer to exactly the same thing, yet the current article looks something like Byzantine Empire = Greece and the Greek people and the Greek culture and the Greek patriarchs, since ever! Forget about Romans, forget about the ascendant Latin, forget about other countries whose categories belong too in the cat. section. Forget about everything except Greece and Greeks [2]: the only category allowed in the cats. section is "History_of_Greece" cat. All other will to be deleted. The only name in the lead is the Greek one. The Latin one shall be removed. The "See also" should contain as much Greek-related link as possible, even though it`s redundant. And so on... I hope you recognise irony, and that I didn`t actually meant for the article to be split. It was just the only solution I could find to settle an old issue Miskin (plus a gang of Greek editors) and I had. Mursili 14:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
I don't think that the article looks at all like that. The article describes with precision how the Empire evolved, from a Roman Imperial state (early period) to a Greek monarchy (late period) that recognised its domain after the Fourth Crusade as "their Hellenic land". Whether you like it or not, the non-Byzantines did view Byzantium as a corrupted version of ancient Greece (but we don't take that into account in this article). Nobody here forgets about Romans, but I'm not sure if you know the average Greek called himself "rhomaios" and his language "Romaic" at an official level up until the 19th century. I don't know how familiar you are with Byzantine and modern Greek history, but stating how you don't like some things is not enough of a reason to make changes. As far as I'm concerned you're probably not familiar enough with the topic and you find some things strange or POV because they're unknown to you. This is why you must always provide a source in order to either refute the validity of the existing content. Miskin 15:11, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore:

  • Modern Greek was the language of the middle-late Byzantine Empire
  • Greek Orthodoxy was its religion
  • 'Greece' and 'Greeks' were the state's and the people's principal contemporary name
  • The Empire's elite during its late period recognised itself as 'Hellas' (Greece)
  • The Greek peninsula, islands etc were part of its "native" regions
  • Modern Greeks bare the same names as Byzantine Greeks, are their direct ancestors, follow the same religion of a continuous Church and speak the same language
  • Half of today's Greek state's population are immigrants of the Empire's other native regions (Constantinople and the Anatolian coasts)
  • And the list goes on...

So as a neutral editor, what kind of modern state or culture would you suggest to link with the article? Miskin 15:10, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I added the Latin name in the lead. I was never really against that, it's just not a common wikipedia practice. The 'Imperium Romanorum' is not mentioned in the lead of the Holy Roman Empire nor any article of the countless states that recognised themselves as heritors to the Roman Empire (despite the fact that many of them were regarded as "Latins" by language, religion and culture). In the case of Byzantium it becomes more ambiguous because although the empire started off as the Greek-speaking Eastern Roman Empire, it gradually came to mean the opposite of the "Latin West". In any case I added it in the lead in order to avoid disputes. Similarly the practice of adding a great number of templates "history of X" country under an imperial state is not followed in any other similar article. And as for the "redundant Greek content", Flamarande explained it to you. The Greek Orthodox Church is the only (and principal) Byzantine institution that has an unbroken history since the foundation of Constantinople. The fact that the Ecumenical Patriarch is unofficially recognised today as the "Greek Patriarch" has nothing to do with it. He was recognised in that way in the middles ages as well, but the only difference is that autocephalus Orthodox Churches didn't exist at the time. Ever since ethnic Orthodox Churches became completely independent of the Ecumenical patriarchate, names such as "Russian", "Bulgarian" and "Greek" Orthodox Church were inevitably coined. The article Eastern Orthodoxy doesn't focus on the medieval Ecumenical Patriarcate but on the set of modern independent Orthodox Patriarchates. Miskin 14:40, 20 January 2007 (UTC) PS: Oppose for the obvious reasons.

Clearly the split is unnecessary. If I understand the edit war aright, one of the points of contention is whether various other national history categories besides "History of Greece" (e.g. "History of Albania") ought to appear at the bottom of the page. This might be worth discussing -- for example, I seem to recall that somewhere in my library there's a book called "Byzantine Butrint." --Javits2000 14:43, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not against this practice as long as it's applied on similar articles. Miskin 14:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)
Cf. Austrian empire, and the categories appended thereto. So far as I know there's no standard practice regulating the format of "empire" entries; no legal argument against being progressive if we agree on it. --Javits2000 14:59, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

It's true that there is a cultural, political and even geographical distinction between Eastern Roman and Byzantine history (namely during the 7th century), and eventhough most scholars acknowledge it and mention it, they keep treating it on the same topic. In fact all of what we regard today as "periods of Byzantine history" differ from each other, and we could easily come up with POV arguments to treat them separately. However they are all for numerous reasons included in the subject of the Byzantine Empire. Miskin 14:48, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Oh well, it appears User:Mursili was a sockpuppet of some banned user. I guess now reverting his edits becomes an obligation. Miskin 14:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Antioch

Well, thanks to my stubbed Siege of Antioch (1084), you are gonna have to change the map at 1081 to include the fact that the city remained in Byzantine hands until then. Although having made this request, I confess that I forgot where i found this info!! Well, I think it was at wikipedia, or another internet source. So either the stubbed battle must go, or the map be changed. Tourskin.

Interesting. Britannica, s.v. Antioch, gives 1084 as well -- although how much of the surrounding territory remained in Byz. hands, I have no idea.--Javits2000 10:38, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Probably as much as in Trapezounta. Miskin 17:13, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Someone should investigate the issue. Lateron it (the needed changes of the maps) could be added to the improvement-list above. Eventually someone will improve the maps. Flamarande 17:53, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

Thank you Tourskin 02:45, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

I have edited the map, but how do i upload it? Tourskin.

You can upload images in the Upload file section found by the link right below the search field in the Toolbox section to the left on the wiki-skin.--Dryzen 19:20, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

I got it. Thanks Tourskin 19:53, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Now why is it deleted? Its just the same map as before, except I edited it to add Antioch. What's this about? Why are people simply deleting maps without discussing it first? And people call me hard nosed. Can anyone tell me, without being insulting or personal, why I should not return the map? Tourskin 17:41, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

It's because you forgot to specify a copyright status for the map when you uploaded it. This has happened to me before too. Your map was fine. It's just a wikipedia policy to delete files without a licence. Just give it a licence when you upload it, and it'll be fine. For now, I've restored the old 1081 map, but I hope you'll be able to fix your updated version of it soon. Bigdaddy1204 21:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] byzantine empire infobox is now up for deletion

here - since 11 feb. It should have been notified here I think - to be replaced by "former countries" box. Johnbod 17:35, 17 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Imperium Romanorum

I'd like to point out that Basileia Rhomaion is not a direct translation of Imperium Romanorum. Basileia means 'Kingdom' (regnum), Greek for 'Empire' (Imperium) is autocratoria. Miskin 20:12, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Well, did this distinction between basileia and autokratoria exist at the time the term was invented? As far as I understood, the Eastern Roman emperors did call themselves basileus, which in that context definitely does not mean merely "king". Iblardi 23:15, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Iblardi but I don't want to talk with a banned user's sockpuppet. Miskin 00:24, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Fine with me. Iblardi 01:16, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Or should I say User:Greier. Miskin 01:42, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Iblardi is correct. Slac speak up! 05:52, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe but he's a sockpuppet and I don't want to enforce his activity. For what it matters (response to Salc), "autocrator" appears for the first time in Thucydides but not in a political context. It is first used as a direct translation of "Imperium" in the work "Roman History" by Cassius Dio, a Roman who wrote in Greek. Then it becomes a standardised term for "Empire" in the Greek language of the following periods, including the literary variety of Byzantine Greeks. In ancient Greek, "basileus" is used for both King and Emperor, as there is no real distinction between the two. In later Greek, 'basileus' literally means 'King' and 'basileia' means 'reign'. In other words, "basileus" was adopted by Heraclius and used thereafter by Greek writers as a title equivalent to 'Caesar' (Greek Kaisar), and not in the literal meaning of 'King'. This use is equivalent to the metaphorical uses of many Greek words, such as 'Despotes' or even the state's political name 'Rhomaioi'. In medieval Greek literature we often notice phrases such as "rhomaion autokratorias Basileus" (Basileus of the Roman Empire), which makes it clear that in that context it doesn't mean "King" and that "autocratoria" translates to "empire". What I mean is that "basileia Rhomaion" sounds like original research to me, derived from the Emperor title 'Basileus'. Unless there is a source this should be changed to "Rhomaion autokratoria". 'Basileus' on the other hand is not a translation of Imperator nor Caesar. It is a whole new title chosen by Heraclius during his reforms. Miskin 12:28, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Please. A TLG search reveals countless -- or rather, I got tired of counting -- occurrences of ἡ βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων, the rather more elegant ἡ τῶν Ῥωμαίων βασιλεία, and any number of other allowable, and indeed also impermissible, syntactical variants, in such unimpeachably "Byzantine" sources as Psellos, Anna Komnena, Kedrenos, Konstantinos Porphyrogenitos, Georgios Monachos, Skylitzes, Symeon "the Logothete," Niketas Choniates, Pachymeres, Kantakuzenos, Gennadios, Theophanes, the continuators of Theophanes.... and that's just searching for the nominative. αὐτοκρατορία (LSJ: "sovereignty") appears with Ῥωμαίων but thrice, and that only in oblique cases. --Javits2000 14:20, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

I did my research in TLG as well, although I didn't check with "rhomaion basileia", I just verified that "rhomaion autocratoria" existed. If you think that 'Basileia' is more popular than 'autocraria' then it shouldn't be claimed that it's a direct translation from 'Imperium'. That was my initial point. Miskin 14:51, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

The most precise translation of "basileia" would be "hereditary monarchy" (LSJ); and such was the LRE, at least in the ideal. In any case languages function through use, not through dictionaries, and strive toward mutual comprehensibility. If speakers of Latin refer to something as X, and speakers of Greek refer to it as Y, then X serves as the best translation of Y. In other words, there's a difference between direct translation and literal translation: "ich machte ihn zur Sau" is a direct, if not a literal translation, of "I lit into him." --Javits2000 15:31, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

LSJ is a dictionary of Ancient Greek and gives correctly the ancient definition of the word. However it applies to an epoch where Greek had no specific word for "Empire". The problem is that both basileia and autocratoria have a direct Latin translation: 'Regnum' and 'Imperium'. Therefore it has to be proved that 'basileia' is in some contexts synonymous to 'autocratoria' in order to retain the "direct translation" claim, or keep 'basileia' instead of 'autocratoria'. Miskin 17:56, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

For the moment, the burden of proof lies on you; please, inform us on which authority rests the original claim that "autokratoria" was "the direct [sic] Latin translation" of Lt. imperium. It certainly doesn't serve that function in Cassius Dio, as claimed -- he mostly used ἀρχή. It might be wortwhile, if only for the sake of curiosity, to check du Cange, still our only true dictionary of medieval Greek, which will likely supply a number of possible Latin translations of basileia, autokratoria, or whatever else you might be wondering about. (A truly subtle intellect, du Cange -- to grasp that for any given word there might be a range of possible translations!)
But in terms of usage, it's beside the point; to return to my analogy above, there's a literal English translation of the German "Sau" (sow); which by no means renders "I made him into a sow" a direct translation of the expression quoted. And if that seems an absurd parallel, consider what I must think of this argument. --Javits2000 19:23, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Ἀρχή in that context means authority/rule of the autocratoria. A passage from Psellos goes "Περὶ τῆς αὐτοκρατορίας τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ. Παραλαβὼν δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν ὁ Κομνηνὸς, ἀνὴρ ἐν πᾶσι δραστήριος", what more proof do you need that 'autocratoria' is also used for Empire? Cassius Dio's usage and a dictionary of modern Greek make a good argument to support 'autocratoria=Empire'. I still haven't seen an authority which defines 'basileia' as the correct translation. A medieval Greek dictionary might not do the trick, unless it deals with the literary language. Do you have access to such a source? Miskin 22:06, 1 March 2007 (UTC)

Medieval Greek was a literary language, more or less. Anyway, all this is besides the point. Evidence that αὐτοκρατορία "is also used" to describe the rule of the Empire is not evidence that the best translation of Imperium Romanorum is not ἡ βασιλεία τῶν Ῥωμαίων. The evidence that it is comes from the wealth of Byzantine writers who use the phrase as the standard way to describe the entity which they believed was the continuation of the original Empire. Slac speak up! 01:37, 2 March 2007 (UTC)
Nicely put. Two loose ends
  • there is a dictionary of medieval Greek (literary, of course -- hardly anything else survives!): it's du Cange, Glossarium ad scriptores mediae et infimae Graecitatis (Lyon, 1688 -- many reprints thereafter). Whether out of laziness or actual preference, most Byzantinists, including those outside of the English-speaking world, will just use LSJ.
  • Please, when you post polytonic Greek, use the "Polytonic" tag (see at end of Gk. characters in symbol list). It will thereby become legible. --Javits2000 10:51, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Will it be hard for you to look it up Javits? Miskin 15:09, 2 March 2007 (UTC)


Seems like a classic case of differing translation successes. Where one is looking fidelity and the other transparency (if I may borrow our own article'S terminology). Both good measures of success but both creating differing forms of products. Thus you may both be defending correct translations, but both done with and acheiving different goals (definition of successful translation rather than some dark plan). I see nothing wrong and would even promote mention of these findings in the article as to present a well rounded view of Byzantine culture and the difficulties in studying the brilliant civilisation. In this it could possibly be worth while ot explain the reasons for hte findings as well as the mroe preveilant usages (ie, is one more used in common speach, more in use prior or after a certain periode, following a literary movement adn the such). --Dryzen 16:18, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes but the fact remains that 'autocratoria' has a single definition (Empire), while 'basileia' has the double meaning of 'Empire' and 'Kingdom' as it did in ancient Greek. Miskin 23:54, 4 March 2007 (UTC)

"A passage from Psellos goes "Περὶ τῆς αὐτοκρατορίας τοῦ Κομνηνοῦ. Παραλαβὼν δὲ τὴν βασιλείαν ὁ Κομνηνὸς, ἀνὴρ ἐν πᾶσι δραστήριος", what more proof do you need that 'autocratoria' is also used for Empire?"
Interestingly, this citation, if anything, proves the exact opposite of your point. In the second line, βασιλείαν would translate as imperium (power, empire) in Latin, whereas the chapter title merely reads "On Comnenus' [supreme] emperorship". Iblardi 00:27, 5 March 2007 (UTC)
Miskin you seem to derive some pleasure in perceiving that I'm against you. Did I contest "that 'autocratoria' has a single definition (Empire), while 'basileia' has the double meaning of 'Empire' and 'Kingdom' as it did in ancient Greek"? Nope. Reading this though, does make me wonder as to what people think this present discussion is about. Was it not about the validity of terms to present the name of the Byzantine Empire as read/said in its time? Please inlighten me as to the enjeux of the discussion.--Dryzen 17:01, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Lead

I clicked on this page since it was today's featured article. Knowing very little about the Byzantine Empire myself, I was distressed to see that the lead was not a summary of the article. If someone reads no more than the lead or stops reading the page before the end, that reader has not yet received the essential information he or she should have. Also, rather than presenting multiple theories regarding the beginning of the empire in the lead, I would think that one would want to be as clear as possible; the rest of the article is the place for equivocation and explanation, in my opinion. Awadewit 10:27, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

Although you're probably right, it's not that easy to summarise 1000 years of intense history in one or two paragraphs. The late Byzantine Empire had a very different culture from the early one, an ancient Roman imperial steate developed into a Greek monarchy. Mentions of the Empire's exonyms such as Imperium Graecorum and the reforms of Heraclius aim to imply this transition. The current lead focuses on the early period where the Empire is essentially a Greek-speaking Roman Empire. I would also like it to be more representative of the Empire's 1000 of history, but most editors prefer to focus on the Roman element of the early period, as well as the Roman political continuity. Miskin 14:35, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

== BOO! put the picture of stone double headed eagle holding the orb and the cross up somewhere in the article..the one that used to be in the info box

Putting a summary in the lead is indead a challange, one needs simply look at the leads in other long lasting and evolving states to realise that its not a common occurance. A summary would be good yes, but deciding what goes in could take a while. Just the begining of the empire is a point of contention! Including knowledge of passed discussions compromise is a hard acheivement but I'dd be willing to work towards it as time permits with similar editors willing to work out the knots.--Dryzen 16:53, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Infobox

I'm wondering if the predecessor/successor fields aren't getting needlessly cluttered. We're now to understand that the Ostrogothic Kingdom was in some way a predecessor (presumably because of the sixth-century reconquest; but on those grounds we'ld have to include the Vandals & Visigoths as well...); and that the Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond were successors, even though the former outlasted the Byz. Empire by a mere seven years, and the latter by eight. Here again, if we were to be consistent, and add everyone who ended up with a bit of former Byz. territory over the course of the empire, that list would look much longer still....

In any case none of the three are represented by an icon, with the result that the top of the infobox is just getting filled up with question marks. Would it not be more elegant to limit it to the Romans on the one end, and the Ottomans on the other? --Javits2000 12:26, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with the additions of Morea and Trebizond. They intended (at least in theory) to continue the Byzantine Empire without the great City and survived after its fall. Maybe the Republic of Venice should also be added. She controlled the Ionian islands, Crete and at some point under Morossini even peninsular Greece. Miskin 12:50, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd move to remove the Ostrogoths, they never preceedded the Byzantines. As to the Successors I can agree to place the remenant territories of Morea and Trebizond. Venice on the other hand, no, although they kept some territory it was generally kept at that, unlike the Ottoman whom assimilated portions of Byzantime culture: Administrative, Engineering and Legal fields to name a few. Of it would be more elegant to keep it to the formula Rome-Byzantine-Ottoman and the greyed flags with question marks aren't very elegent of themselves, but elegance isn't our priority is it?--Dryzen 16:29, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've always perceived the succession as a geographical concept, otherwise I'd think the Tsardom of Russia was the unarguably true cultural successor state after the fall of Morea and Trebizond. The Ottoman Empire must stay as the undisputed geographical successor, and also as the "container" of Byzantine culture in its 'Rum' millet. So Morea, Trebizond and the Ottoman Empire should be enough. Miskin 17:06, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Good enough -- I've removed the Ostrogoths. Trabzon can limp along for another decade or so.--Javits2000 20:00, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 550 map

On the map showing Byzantium around 550, the small tip of Northern Africa (around the city of Septem/Ceuta) as well as Italy north of the Po are not included, although both regions were part of the empire at that time. Maybe this could be fixed? Iblardi 20:43, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Also, the 1081 map needs to be replaced. Bigdaddy1204 21:34, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Capital in infobox

Someone added Nicaea, Trebizond and Mystras under "capital" in the infobox. Isn't that a bit ... strange? On the other hand, if they are to stay, then a case could be made for including Thessalonica as well, another short-lived successor state capital (from 1224 on). Iblardi 18:34, 10 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont think they should be found there, although all at one point a capital of a Byzantine state only Nicomedia and Constantinople where ruled by the Emperor. Mystras, Nicaea, Trebizond and Thesselonica where as you put it more successor states than the state itself, therefore not the capitols of the empire. Moving back to Nicomedia, I could see it having a mention as a capitol due to its status as prime adminastrive center for the Eastern Roman Empire (Therefore Byzantine Empire) roughly from 286 till 330 (Diocletian to Constantine). Any other thoughts?-- Dryzen 14:37, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't agree with the inclusion of Nicaea, Trabzon, & Mystras either, although I'll admit that the fine points of late Byz. history elude / bore me. As for Nicomedia, although I can see the argument, a) it seems a bit early for "Byzantine" and b) it could open the floodgates to all the other tetrarchic capitals / residences / etc., of which there were a few. Better to say Byzantium starts when Byzantium becomes Constantinople. --Javits2000 14:52, 13 March 2007 (UTC)
That seems to be three against and none for, I'll remouve the namings and shoudl anyone think they deserved to be placed in make a saying of it here first. As to the tetrarchy I can conceid that none should be named, for none legally existed, the Administrative center was the emperor and wherever he chose to reside. As to the beginings of the empire I find the divisions to become evidant under Diocletian and follow Treadgold's notion of 284 as a starting point even if it isn't the main notion presented in the article. But I'm not debating that here, just marking an opinion.--Dryzen 15:26, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Constantinople was not the capital city of the Byzantine Empire between 1204 and 1261, it was the capital city of the Catholic Latin Empire.

Nicaea (capital city of the Empire of Nicaea) was the Byzantine capital city between 1204 and 1261.

BTW, Nicaea (İznik) and Nicomedia (İzmit) are two different cities in Bithynia (northwestern Anatolia).

Nicomedia served as a Roman capital city (between 286 and 330) while Nicaea served as a Byzantine capital city (between 1204 and 1261).

And, without Mystras and Trebizond, the article cannot continue to argue that "the fall of Constantinople wasn't the definitive end and that the Byzantine Empire continued to function for several more years without its historic capital city" (more explicitly, this definition refers to Mystras and Trebizond).

If Milan (Mediolanum), Ravenna, Nicomedia and Constantinople are also accepted as "Roman" capital cities (not just "Rome"), or Bursa (Prusa) and Edirne (Adrianople) are also "Ottoman" capital cities (not just Constantinople/Istanbul), then what's this "Constantinople obsession" in defining the Byzantine Empire?

Nicaea, Trebizond and Mystras are also legitimate capital cities of the Byzantine realm, ruled by the same Comnenus and Palaeologus dynasties which also ruled in Constantinople. KeremTuncay 18:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll attempt to answer in parts, firstly Nicaea and Nicomedia are indeed two different cities. I dont see why its needed to state this fact as a BTW? I may have misread but no one was confoudning the two here.
Followingly, the remaining states of Byzantine heritage seem to have taken no clear measure of successorship. Therefore they are more properly addressed as successor states than the contignuation of the state itself. Akin to the political entities that arrose after the "official" fall of the western empire.
Lastly, what KeremTuncay has labeled as Constantinople Obscession, has more to do with a lack of normalisation in wikipedia than actual polisphilia. I cannot speak forJavits2000 but my own intentions where to keep the infobox consise and as free as possible from sources of ambiguity and contention. Considering that the article takes the norm of 330 as the starting date, Nicomedia thus can no longer be included without some further changes and surely discussions arrising. While on the subject of ambiguity, Nicaea cannot be placed ahead of the other successor states for the piriode of the Latin Empire, since a number of the other ones could just as well of taken back the capitol, that is without delving within wich had the more important of claim. On this it should be noted the importance that was placed on Constatinople for political heirship.--Dryzen 19:12, 22 March 2007 (UTC)
The inclusion of Nicaea alone (as is the present situation) also seems questionable. Defining Nicaea as the Byzantine capital in the period from 1204 to 1261 would i.m.o. be a form of justification from hindsight. It was by no means certain that the Nicaeans would eventually recapture Constantinople. The leaders of the other major successor state, Epirus, claimed the imperial title as well, and its power was only broken after the battle of Klokotnitsa in 1230. At any rate, there was no such thing as a unified Byzantine empire between 1204 and 1261 - only a group of successor states. This is why I feel uneasy about including any of their particular capitals in the infobox. I think it is at least debatable whether any other cities than Constantinople itself should be listed.
I find there is also an ambiguity in the term "capital city", which could, on the other hand, be used to justify sticking to Constantinople even for the period. Wikipedia says:
"In politics, a capital (also called capital city or political capital (...) is the principal city or town associated with a country's government. It is almost always the city which physically encompasses the offices and meeting places of the seat of government and fixed by law."
On the other hand, in some countries, the Netherlands, for example, the capital city is not the residence of the government (Amsterdam vs. The Hague). Taking such cases into account, Constantinople may (arguably) still be called the capital of the Byzantine Empire from 1204 to 1261, even though the Byzantine government is not seated there. It could be considered a capital under foreign occupation and with its government in exile. But I admit this does not make a particularly strong case. (Capital of a non-existent empire? Hmmm...) Better stick to just Constantinople, then, and maybe leave a gap for the period from 1204 to 1261. Iblardi 17:22, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I decided to go ahead and take Nicaea out. The Empire of Nicaea is simply not the same political entity as the Byzantine Empire. Iblardi 18:15, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
User KeremTuncay, based on the fact that Wikipedia is supposed to reflect consensus alone, Nicaea should not be included. As far as I know, the Empire of Nicaea (I know Nicaea is a city, I was using a pars pro toto in my edit summary) is never labelled "Byzantine Empire" in the literature on the subject, it is simply called "Empire of Nicaea", alongside with the "Despotate of Epirus" (as we do, see for instance the map in the article itself). At the very least inclusion of Nicaea is debatable and therefore not desirable at this point. Iblardi 04:56, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
Iblardi interesting way to make a conclusion. Seems like the current majority sticks to Constantinople, with similar reasons. Since the Successors where so adamant on taking back Constatinople, the ambiguous "capital under foreign occupation and with its government in exile" dose seem to fit the mentality of the generation.--Dryzen 19:18, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Featured Article

How come the bronze star doesn´t appear on the top-right corner; this artcicle is listed as an FA and to me it looks perfect, I think it is the best wikipedia article ive seen so far... TomasBat (@)(Contributions)(Sign!) 13:46, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Successor to Byzantine Empire

After the fall of Constantinople, members of the Palaiologus family continued to claim the title of basileus, and in 1503, in accordance to the will of Andreas Palaiologos, the last Palaiologid pretender, the claims passed Ferdinand and Queen Isabella of Spain. Thus, the kings of Spain were the legal successors to the Byzantine Emperors. I think this is an important enough fact to warrant mention in the article.

No signature, dosen't bode well. I'dd read before that this partucular trade was made more out of a need for money (selling the title) than any major succession. And as said we are left with a rememant line... Still sourced, I see no problem with incorporating this information. --Dryzen 19:10, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] The Name Change

The article was recently moved from "Byzantine Empire" to "Eastern Roman (Byzantine) Empire," apparently without discussion on this Talk page. Now, I don't have any particular reason to oppose this name change (And, personally, I actually prefer the title of "Eastern Roman" rather than "Byzantine," since I've always felt its continuation of the Roman Empire, rather than its creation of a new state, is never adequately represented), but aren't we supposed to discuss such changes to the article on the Talk page? Redirect links need to be changed, the article itself might need to be altered, and there are other results that need to be taken into consideration. Shouldn't we talk about this? JBK405 04:13, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I was really surprised there was no discussion about the move. I don't particularly mind the change either, but as JBK405 has said, these things really should be discussed first. People should be given a chance to agree or disagree with an important change like this. Bigdaddy1204 11:57, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'd say this is a misguided application of WP:IAR. However this is a chance to go through a formal page naming discussion. I for one think the current name is ugly with the parentheses and all. As for the "Eastern Roman" vs "Byzantine" dilemma, while my heart and reason votes for the former, I think the "most common name" principle dictates the latter. --Michalis Famelis (talk) 13:27, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I too think the page move should have been discussed first. The current title is rather cumbersome, and as far as I understand the naming conventions, alternate names for something shouldn't be listed in the title of an article. This article needs to be moved to either Eastern Roman Empire or Byzantine Empire, and I can see already that at least one double redirect caused by the move wasn't fixed. Robotman1974 13:50, 24 March 2007 (UTC)
I'll just add my "Amen" to this discussion. One or the other, not both. The new name is too unwieldy. Should the article on Bill Clinton be moved to William Jefferson (Bill) Clinton? Yahnatan 14:29, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

I'll keep it short due to time constraint to post: No questions asked, if one wants to move the article one must discuss. Best way to keep things organised, civil and its Wiki policy. Second, without consideration for my own personnal preferences, Byzantine Empire is the most common name and its usage is a good compromise title for the possible heated debat on namming such a source of hotly debated subjects (One need only look in the archives to see the editwars and what-have-you). --Dryzen 19:34, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Requested move

I've requested that this article be moved back to its original title while a possible new name is being discussed, to fix double redirects and broken links. Robotman1974 13:58, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Flag problems?

Is anyone else having problems seeing the Byzantine Flag? The only time it was up was when the page had been briefly moved. Is it just my CPU? Yahnatan 23:02, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

The flag shows up consistantly for me. Any other wikipidians?--Dryzen 19:03, 26 March 2007 (UTC)
No, I have no problems either. Iblardi 19:52, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Two basic undisputable facts

  • Latin remained as an official language of the East Roman (Byzantine) Empire until it was removed by Heraclius and Greek became the sole official language.

Any person who disputes these two basic facts is either history-illiterate, or blindly nationalist, or a romantic.

I am powerless to educate every single person on the planet regarding Byzantine history. And, honestly, I don't care.

Those who are blinded by illiteracy, ultranationalism or romanticism can continue to revert data. Those who know the truth will keep knowing it, and Wikipedia is not accepted as an academic resource, anyway. KeremTuncay 21:55, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Maybe you should support your claims with sources before starting to accuse the whole community here of being "history-illiterate", something which I find rather impolite. Iblardi 07:20, 27 March 2007 (UTC)
For contestation number one I point above to the discussion on capitols. For the second I suggest reading the long battles on Greek-Latin in the Archives. You find this later a long and heated debate with multiple strong and week supports.
As to historic facts, the first is not as cemented as you would beleive, again mentioned several discussions above. For the second I see very few opponents or mentions to the contrary and thus wonder why it had to be brought up at all. In the infobox it is mentioned Latin for the earlier centuries and the article should reflect this. It did last I read it a while back.--Dryzen 14:50, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Army numbers

With an army that never exceded 140,000? At one point in time, the Byzantines had at leats 20 or so themes,e ach giving 9,600 soldiers - thats 198,000 men. Of course, this was no standing army.68.6.239.36 02:53, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

I have to agree that this passage needs some clarity. Should we take the Empire's starting point as 284, it once had a total exceeding 300 000 men as the Eastern Roman Empire. In 840, it maintained (in on paper (payroll) at least) 96 000 Thematic soldier, plus 24 000 Tagmatic professionnals and an added 34 200 oarsmen, for a total of 154 200 men under its military command. Of course not counting naval personnel but counting the marines, that would be 120 000 men, a nuanced army not exceeding 140 000. Still, the details should be mentioned with such a passage. Such as between 600 and 1453 the army never exceded 140,000. Being careful to consider army as the land forces alone and not the whole of the military.
As to the number 198 000 that is a goodly portion off in the Theme system. Theoretically each administrative Theme should of been a certain number but all to often this was not the case. To take the count of 840 again, the Anatolic Theme numbered at about 15 000 men, while the Thessalonica furnished 2 000. The largest Themes ( Anatolic, Armeniac, Bucellarian and Thracesian) where administativly divided into Turmas similarly sized to other Themes. Over time the yard stick for regiments varied greatly to say the least. --Dryzen 19:13, 29 March 2007 (UTC)

The problem is no-one really knows and given the tendency of ancient & medieval writers to exaggerate troop numbers even were there figures that could be quoted they would be pretty doubtful. Probably best to just omit this one. Roydosan 10:35, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

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