Talk:Byzantine Empire

Last unified empire?

Article says that Heraclius (d.395) is the last emperor of a unified RE. Justinian's reconquest of the West was not complete, but isn't he, or his successor Justin II, a more appropriate nominee for that label, nearly 2 centuries later? The point is that "the empire" is not a rigidly fixed territory: Heraclius did not control all the territory that (say) Marcus Aurelius had, 2 centuries earlier; even Constantine did not. But Justinian and his immediate successors were the last to control the territories of both the Eastern Empire and much of the Western. Jmacwiki (talk) 05:56, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

I think you mean Theodosius. Firstly, this is about summarising sources, not the "truth". The source cited (Britannica) says presumably Theodosius was the last one. If you want to put in Justinian instead you'll need to find a source who describes him that way (I doubt you'll find one since he's not usually so described). Without a source, to describe him as the last Emperor of a unified RE (by virtue of the reconquest) would be synthesis. Secondly, I think, if one were being pedantic, with the end of the Western Emperors, the Eastern Emperors were once again sole Emperors of a "unified empire" anyway. DeCausa (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Hmm: very good points! And yes, I certainly meant Theodosius. :-[

This does suggest that labeling anyone (even Heraclius ;-) as "last emperor of a unified RE" is problematic, whether or not Britannica did. Jmacwiki (talk) 04:54, 16 April 2011 (UTC)

Maps and Heraclius

On maps, it makes sense to put Venice and Genoa. Ravenna with the end of Exarchate became ininfluent for Byzantine Empire.

On Map of extention of Byzantine Empire: For a few period before the Arabs, Heraclius reoccupied Egypt and Mesopotamia, destroying Ctesiphon making the Sassanid Empire a tributary vassal. For few years Heraclius was like Alexander. The Arabs occupied quicly the Middle East, Egypt and Persia because they found an area in post-war crisis and Persian and Byzantine armies exhausted. See Ostrogorsky.

--Andriolo (talk) 16:26, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

Actually, it would not make sense to depict Venice and Genoa in maps concerning Heraclius. Neither city became influential for several centuries - neither were independent during Heraclius' lifetime. Ravenna was the capital of the exarchate - much more influentual. Also, Heraclius did not destroy or even sack Ctesiphon. You may be confusing Ctesiphon with Ganzak, a palatial city Heraclius sacked during his eastern campaign. Heraclius was no Alexander. He was no Trajan either. He did not get the opportunity to gaze on the ruins of Babylon and got nowhere near the Persian Gulf. He did however defeat the Sassanids against incredible odds and restore the borders to the status quo ante bellum. I suggest re-reading Ostrogorsky. --Tataryn77 (talk) 19:39, 27 May 2011 (UTC)

History of Anatolia?

Why was the box "history of Anatolia" chosen the feature on the right in this article? The Byzantine Empire extended to much of Europe and even North Africa during the course of its history, and during the last century of its existence it had no possessions in Anatolia. It is widely understood to coincide with Medieval Greek civilization and all articles on Medieval Greek history redirect to it, so if one series should feature as most relevant, that would be Greek history. Dubbing Byzantine history as primarily a part of Anatolian history is obviously a choice of some Turkish users influenced by an ideology that tends to appropriate as "Turkish" any past civilization that flourished in Anatolia. One could imagine any number of other templates chosen e.g. history of the Balkans, history of Christianity, history of Eastern Orthodoxy etc. Even history of Turkey might make more sense: Istanbul/Constantinople is located in modern Turkey, but it is not located in Anatolia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.175.32.136 (talk) 14:36, 30 May 2011 (UTC)

I would have to agree. It is very Turkish biased. It also assumes that Turkey is the direct inheritor of Byzantium, which is not a settled issue (see below). Why not have it as "The History of Rome"?, or "Greece"? I move that this to be removed. Dinkytown talk 14:37, 11 August 2011 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I removed this section for the reasons above? Dinkytown talk 09:06, 16 August 2011 (UTC)

Successor states

I suggest we add the three states that succeeded the Byzantine Empire upon the fall of Constantinople to the infobox: The Ottoman Empire, the Morea, and Trebizond.

The current situation is a result of a discussion about cutting back on the Byzantine Empire's successor states, which were excessively and vaguely listed. It ended in a decision to remove all the successor states from the infobox and simply leave a link to Legacy of Byzantium, probably because the discussion sparked many alternative proposals, such as adding Russia and removing the infobox entirely. The Empire lost a lot of territory over its history, and we can't list every state that took territory from it. However, I don't see why we don't simply list the three states that Byzantine territory became after the Empire's fall.

I don't feel strongly about removing or leaving the "Legacy" link, but it's certainly not necessary. Swarm ^X 05:31, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree, and am not very happy about the whole "Legacy of Byzantium" idea, at least as the article stands today (and I cannot really consent to limiting "legacy" to "political succession"). However, given that both the Morea and Trebizond were mopped up within a few years (and since Morea was already a dependent Ottoman vassal before 1453, and Trebizond effectively independent since 1204), why not keep it simple and have just the Ottomans? That is the conventional progression in historiography as well. Or we could link to the successor states category. Constantine ✍ 06:19, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Those are valid points. Just including the Ottoman Empire sounds fine as well. Swarm ^X 18:52, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Since we mention the Ottoman Empire, which was an Islamic state, then I think we should also mention other Orthodox Balkan states (like the Serbian Despotate and the Principality of Wallachia) which were culturally closer to the Eastern Roman/Byzantine Empire. The Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond were direct remnants of the Empire, so they should also be mentioned in a list. But, if a list is used, normally all states (which are described as successors by sources) should be added, to avoid adopting a specific point of view (we should avoid claiming that the Ottoman Empire was the only true successor). But, in my opinion, in this case it is better to use a sub-article for the successors issue, and "Legacy of Byzantium" should probably be renamed to "Successors of the Byzantine Empire" (and it should also be expanded). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:13, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

The problem with infoboxes is that people tend to try and cram as much information into them as possible, while by their nature infoboxes are designed to provide (over-)simplified overview of key points. I don't think we do anyone a service by listing all the successor states, loosely defined (Umayyads or the myriad Latin principalities anyone?). We can always add a note with the successor states category or a separate article, but I feel rather strongly that the Ottomans should be there, as they were the main political and territorial heir, as well as the state that ended the Byz. Empire's existence and assumed its imperial mantle. It is not a coincidence that the article ends in 1453 and not in any other date. All the other cases have arguments against them, e.g. the Serbian Despotate is actually the successor of various older Serbian states independent from Byzantium from the 12th century already, and as for Wallachia, although a "cultural" successor it was never actually a part of Byzantium. For the purpose the successor fields are designed, the Ottomans qualify best by far. Constantine ✍ 20:43, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

BTW, I don't agree with the spirit of Cody's comment about the "true" successor. The Ottomans, whether we like it or not, conquered Byzantium and occupied pretty much the same territorial and political niche that it had done. That is a fact, as is the fact that even the conquered Orthodox populations saw in the sultans the heirs of the emperors. It has nothing to do with any perceived "legitimacy" or them being Islamic. If we go by "identity" or "cultural heritage", why not include the modern Greek state as well? Or Albania, since it uses the double-headed eagle in its flag? There's a reason such subjective criteria are avoided in infoboxes, and direct state succession is the only criterion used. Constantine ✍ 20:57, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but listing only the Ottoman Empire seems clearly like subjective POV (even if it might be a correct POV, and I do not think we do a real service to our readers, by showing them only one successor). Also, a link only to the Ottoman Empire, would probably not remain stable for too much time. A long list can be avoided by either using a sub-article (like "Legacy of Byzantium", and this was stable for enough time), or perhaps by linking to the category (like you suggested). (Regarding Greece and Albania, information about them can be added in the sub-article about the successors or legacy. And regarding Wallachia, during the time of Constantine I, the Empire also expanded in that region, and possibly also during Justinian's time.) Cody7777777 (talk) 21:47, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

I'm fully with Cplakidas on this one. He put the case very well. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:08, 22 June 2011 (UTC)

Yeah, we can't get too flexible in terms of what is or isn't a successor state. The Ottoman Empire is a successor state. No question about that. I think the Morea and Trebizond should both be included because they're the only two Byzantine/Greek successor states that outlasted the Byzantine Empire- the two Byzantine remnants. But being culturally close does not make a state a successor state. There should be no confusion about including states like that. Swarm ^X 02:04, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

The role of the Ottoman Empire as a successor state is not questioned here, but even if it can be considered the most legitimate successor, it is not the only one. And regarding the Balkan states, they were not only closer culturally, these states also had territory which had been part of the Empire at some point, and their rulers also saw themselves as successors to the Byzantine Roman Emperors. But there are sources which mention even Russia as a successor, despite the fact that it did not gain any former territory of the Empire until around the 18th century (and in my opinion, it is not a true successor state, but normally we should not ignore sources because we think they're wrong). As far as I see, the best ways to avoid this issue, are either to link to a sub-article discussing about successors, or link to the successors category. Cody7777777 (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Many states claimed to be the successor of Byzantium. Many states were culturally influenced by Byzantium as well. That's not necessarily the same as being Byzantium's successor states, however. Theoretically, any state that branches out of Byzantine territory, or somehow takes Byzantine territory is a successor state. We really should just keep it simple though. The Ottomans conquered the Byzantine Empire, and Morea and Trebizond were the two Byzantine remnants that outlasted the empire. That's the reasoning for including those three states. Swarm ^X 20:31, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

The sources mentioned earlier, have actually described Russia as a successor state, not just as a cultural successor. To avoid including it (and also other states), we would need to draw a line (between who can be added or excluded) based on our subjective criteria (and this would go against Wikipedia's principles). And we had lists before, and they did not remain stable for long. But even if we include in a list the Ottoman Empire, the Despotate of Morea and the Empire of Trebizond, there should also be a fourth link leading to a successors/legacy sub-article, to allow the inclusion of more details about this. However, I do not see what is the problem with showing only a link to a sub-article or category about successors, which seems simple enough, and without involving any subjective criteria. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:07, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

(unindent) Russia claimed the imperial and religious heritage of Byzantium as "Third Rome", which is first and foremost an ideological construct articulated some time after the end of the Byzantine Empire. That is not the same as claiming to be its successor state. State succession is decided on political criteria, religion or ideology do not enter into it: the Federal Republic of Germany is a successor state of the Third Reich, Russia is a successor state to the Soviet Union, etc. From the moment where "end of the Byzantine Empire" means "Fall of Constantinople to the Ottomans in 1453", the situation is clear-cut. The Ottomans were the successor state to the Byzantine Empire, period. They captured what remained of Byzantine territory, including the all-important capital, they were recognized by the Byzantine population as being the new masters, etc. Bundling them together with a few dozen other states that at various times branched off from Byzantium is disingenuous. Regarding Trebizond and Morea, I would only repeat what I wrote above. Constantine ✍ 11:27, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

The Ottoman Empire can indeed be considered the most legitimate successor (and that is why it should be shown first in sub-articles or lists about this issue), but that doesn't mean Wikipedia should ignore other points of view. And I have still not seen some strong arguments against showing a link either to a sub-article discussing about successors, or to the category (which you have actually suggested earlier). And regarding Russia, although they might be mistaken, there are sources[1][2] which have described it as a political successor state. Cody7777777 (talk) 17:17, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I am glad we agree on the main point. How about having the Ottomans and a second link to the category? Constantine ✍ 07:53, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Your proposal is acceptable for me (although, for the second link I would have preferred we had a sub-article discussing about this issue). Cody7777777 (talk) 09:47, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

There is no "issue". A successor state is "what came after?" That's it. Russia's claim to be the legitimate successor to the Byzantine empire is covered amply in Third Rome. Fine, the Tsardom of Russia is the "third Rome". It's the successor of the Roman Empire, sure. But it's never considered to be a "successor state" in this context. Okay? Please stop talking about this.

Likewise, it's not "the Ottoman Empire is the successor state, period." There were dozens of successor states. There are two options. We can either list all of them (which is reasonably done by creating a list at Successor states of the Byzantine Empire (which I can guarantee will be a disaster because of people who want to include this or that), or we can choose some. The way I see it, the only reasonable way of choosing "some" is to choose the three that succeeded Byzantium after the fall of Constantinople. Yes, one of those three conquered the other two within years. It doesn't matter. Two Byzantine remnants outlasted the empire. Picking and choosing of facts is absolutely terrible history. Swarm ^X 01:45, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Hi All - I just found about this discussion just now so my apologies for jumping in late. I believe we all know each other from our own discussion on this subject from nearly two years ago here..., together with snot-flavored coffee and hell-destined flaming infoboxes... I wanted to reinstate my opposition to the Ottoman Empire as a 'successor state' of Byzantium and re-afirm my support for Czarist Russia until 1917. As we all remember, the definition of a successor state was never clarified back then, some even mentioning the Venetian Republic as a successor state, regarding the Fourth Crusade, which I compared with Bonny and Clyde being employed as FDIC bankers by robbing it... I have also been looking at the Legacy of Byzantium article and have seen little progress since I started back in 2009. I thought we had a good agreement back then. I noticed that some were not happy with the title, I'm okay with that change, but we should continue to state our case(s) for the respective reasons for the respective 'successor states' on the Legacy article. To include another infobox describing the non-clarified "successor state" term in this article again would be just starting up the same debate again.

So, would you like 2% or whole milk with that snot-flavored espresso...? Dinkytown talk 03:49, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

@Swarmx: The Ottomans were certainly not the only successor state, yes. However they were by any definition the main successor state. Picking and choosing of facts is indeed terrible history, but who says that Ottomans plus Morea and Trebizond isn't "picking and choosing"? If we include the two Byzantine remnants, one of which was fully independent since 1204 and the other an Ottoman vassal, why not include Venice, the Duchy of Naxos, the Serbian Despotate etc all the way back to the Umayyads? We have to draw a line somewhere. We have three choices: a) include only a link to a category or list b) include as many states as we can or c) include only some. b) is not unprecedented, but the list would be huge (perhaps we could group the Latin states together using the Latinokratia link). a) is the current solution, I would be mostly OK with changing the link to the category, but it sort of defeats the purpose of an infobox which is to present facts in a simple way. Plus, as I said, I feel that the Ottomans should be shown. For the average reader who wants to know "who/what came after Byzantium", the Ottomans are the simplest answer, and that is what infoboxes are for. Lumping them together with the likes of Naxos, Trebizond and Serbia places them on an equal footing, which is not historically accurate. Except for Russia, and then only in terms of "this is what the Russians themselves declared", the Ottomans are the only state that has any real claim to being the successor of Byzantium in terms of territory, capital and population, not to mention imperial pretensions. @Dinkytown. I am dead set against including Russia. The "Third Rome" concept was a propaganda tool and legitimization device which the Tsars used when it suited them. We could otherwise include Fascist Italy as a successor state to the Roman Empire, or Napoleonic France to the Carolingian Empire, and these cases would even make more sense in territorial terms. Constantine ✍ 06:50, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Back in 2009, I set up this criteria for the definition of a "successor state":

1) Territorial successor: which can include every country that existed from 565-1453 covering the region from Southern Spain to Armenia, from northern Italy to Egypt - dozens of Medieval nation states (you can include the US as it occupied facist Italy);

2) Cultural successor: a half dozen Orthodox states, Russia, Serbia, Bulgaria, Wallachia, Greece, Armenia, maybe a few others;

3)Military successor: Ottoman Empire, then Hapsburg Spain, then Britian, then France, then Britain (again), then US, etc...

As you can see, its not a simple definition. The only reason why the Ottoman Empire is being put forward as a successor state is that it occupied what was left of Constantinople. If we use that criteria, then the French Third Republic was a successor, and Queen Elizabeth II is still a Byzantine Empress. Both these countries occupied Constantinople as part of the Treaty of Sèvres following World War One. In February 1919, the French general entered the city on a white horse, emulating Mehmed's entrance in 1453 after the Fall of Constantinople, signifying that Ottoman sovereignty over the city was over. You can continue that, if the Ottoman Empire was the "successor" state, then the Byzantine Empire never died, in the form of Bayezid Osman who is still the official Ottoman sultan today. If you are going to accept the Ottomans as the successor, then all of the above must be accepted also.

Russia on the other hand, inherited everything that was Byzantine; culture, religion, status as 'Defender of the Faith', etc. The Turks only occupied what ruins were left in Constantinople; different religion, objectives, and were not considered "Roman" by any monarchy in the West.

Expand the Legacy of Byzantium page and put forward everyone's arguments there. Russia, until 1917, was the foremost successor (Serbia, Wallachia surcumed before 1453). Anyone else is a distant meager second. Dinkytown talk 14:11, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Dinkytown, come on, you do realize that "successor state" does not mean "continuation", do you? Because what you are writing above is pure sophistry... You are taking arguments out of context, equating temporary military occupation with state succession, take events out of all proportion and make some rather preposterous claims trying to do what? To disprove that the Ottomans are a successor state? Sorry, that is nonsense: First, "state succession" is political, "cultural succession" is a whole other animal that is not limited by borders. Second, Russia tried to set itself up as a Byzantium-in-exile, but no one in his right mind would claim that Russian culture, political structure etc were direct continuations from the Byzantine model. The influence was great, but it resulted in a new distinctly Russian melange, which was lacking in some key ingredients. Third, the Ottomans actually inherited the Byzantine territories and population, the Patriarchate of Constantinople and the entire Church structure, as well as institutions in government and finance. So the statement "the Turks only occupied what ruins were left in Constantinople" is flat out wrong. The continuities between the two regimes are great and well-known. Fourth and most importantly however, the Ottomans took the imperial city. Anyone who held Constantinople was the rightful emperor, regardless whether the territory he controlled stretched to the Euphrates or just to the local suburbs. That is why Byzantium ended in 1453 and not in 1204, and that is why the state that conquered them was their successor both in the eyes of contemporaries like Michael Critobulus and Gennadios Scholarios as well as for dozens of modern scholars. We can argue about what to include in the infobox or not, but your thesis on this point is indefensible. Constantine ✍ 15:37, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Dinkytown, you obviously don't understand what a successor state is, but the closest thing is what you call a "territorial successor". However, it's not every state that existed in former Byzantine territory, it's simply the one state that came after. I would recommend not complicating this discussion by introducing your criteria of what a successor state is. What you call a "cultural successor" and a "military successor" simply are not successor states. Calling Russia a "successor" of Byzantium is done in an entirely different context than what we're discussing here. Swarm ^X 19:08, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Cplakidas & Swarm - There is nothing new here that wasn't discussed two years ago. I provided then what I interpreted of the possible terms of "succession". First and foremost I wanted to describe that there can be no clear-clear cut definition of "successor state" within this context. There are going to be many definitions and countries on this this. That is why the Legacy of Byzantium is important and should be continued. Cplakidas - You are correct about Michael Critobulus and Gennadios Scholarios in their claims that Mehmet was the 'protector' of Orthodoxy. I will even agree that Mehmet did his best in carry out the continuity of the Orthodox structure. However, it was not for the benefit Orthodoxy or the Legacy of Byzantium: he appointed patriarchs to suit his aims in pacifying the Greek population, and; not to give reasons for the West to launch a crusade against Constantinople; he made Aye Sophia into a mosque; suppressed Orthodox conversion and dictated Orthodox policy. There was no independent structure of the Church. The Russians claimed after the Council of Florence that they became sole leaders of Orthodoxy when the patriarch of Constantinople agreed to the Latin Union. The Turks were/are Muslim, Turkic People with different customs, perspectives and agendas. You state the "..Anyone who held Constantinople was the rightful emperor." That was true during Byzantine times, the Sultan was not part of that Byzantine tradition, but their own. However, that makes the occupation of Constantinople as part of the Treaty of Sèvres all the more relevant.

Compare this with the present-day Dali Lama. I would not call Communist Party of China representatives of Tibetan Buddhism, just because the Chinese controlled Tibet.

I am also not the only one claiming that Russia is the sole (or at least major) successor/inheritor of Byzantine Legacy. Quoting George Ostrogorsky:

"...Ivan III ...introduced Byzantine ceremonial into Moscow and soon made Russia the leader of the Christian East as Byzantium had once before. If Constantinople was the New Rome, Moscow was to become the 'Third Rome'. The great traditions of Byzantium, it's faith, its political ideas, its spirituality, lived on through the centuries in the Russian Empire." History of the Byzantine State, p.572.

This discussion should be on the Legacy page, rather than here. I don't believe an infobox here is going to be accurate. This page is also long enough. I also don't believe there is going to be only one answer on this question, that's why it should be on Legacy. Dinkytown talk 20:33, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

A lot of good things were discussed two years ago and that discussion was completely derailed because of talk of Russia, Byzantine legacy and a whole lot of other nonsense. Let me say it again: we're not talking about "successor/inheritor of Byzantine Legacy". No one is saying Moscow isn't the "third Rome". But that's an entirely different type of "successor". We're talking about the states that immediately succeeded in controlling Byzantine territory. There are dozens, so I say we should list the three successor states that came after the fall of Constantinople. Russia is not relevant to this discussion. Swarm ^X 00:35, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

The "nonsense" that you described was a result of a consensus that a lot of people negotiated on, some on this talk page now, and the large majority approved. It was handled in an amicable way and the result was a good product on a difficult issue. I suggest that you re-read that discussion as it had nothing to do with - in your words, "derailing" any issue. All of it surrounded the issue of what was a 'successor' - which had not a simple answer, since Byzantine culture spread far and wide beyond its borders. That's why I re-iterated the list above to remind people of the possibilities. That's also the reason why the Byzantine Legacy page was created to deal with this issue. That page still has the potential of being as good article as this one.

What you are suggesting is this - a territorial succession, and yes that would include dozens of nations. Why just three countries? Why just territorial succession? There are many different types of 'successors' that are equal in weight. The Legacy page was supposed to address all of them and keep this fight off this good article. Dinkytown talk 01:52, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

A great number of people in the previous discussion had no idea what they were talking about, I assure you. And, the people who "agreed" on the legacy link all expressed different opinions, and this turned up as a compromise. As I said above, a "successor state" is closest to what you call a "territorial successor", but it's still not the same thing as your definition above. Why just three states? Because listing the Ottoman Empire and the two Byzantine remnants is simpler than listing all of them, although listing all is another solution. Listing only the Ottoman Empire is yet another solution, one that I'm about to throw my support behind. Why just "territorial succession"? Because what you call a "cultural successor" or a "military successor" isn't what historians consider a "successor state" to be. The "successor" field in the infobox applies to this one specific context of the word "successor" (as in "successor state"), not your personal, abstract definitions. There's nothing wrong with having a "legacy" page. The problem is not listing any of the Byzantine Empire's successors and linking to that page in a field that's reserved for successors. Swarm ^X 02:17, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, its pretty presumptuous of you to claim that "A great number of people in the previous discussion had no idea what they were talking about..." That is not a good way to start out any negotiation or dialog. However, the good news is that this issue has already been resolved through the Legacy link where the entire issue could be discuss to nauseousness.

Listing only "...the Ottoman Empire and the two Byzantine remnants is simpler..." would be your own opinion, but also it would/could be misleading (for all the reasons described before), as nearly a dozen people had their own lists to bring that were as equally reasonable but not agreeable for different reasons. "Successor state" is not the same as "territorial successor" (for all the reasons described).

I would like to know what historian defined what a "successor state" to be. I quoted George Ostrogorsky for the case for Russia, but I know other people would disagree.

But what we could agree on was to create a Legacy page - which I still support. We all want a good Byzantine page and we all have good contributions to make. That's why we have to be nice to each other... Dinkytown talk 03:19, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Okay, let's go back. Tsarist Russia is the successor state to the Grand Duchy of Moscow. It arguably inherits Byzantium's legacy and culture. However, it succeeded the Duchy. Do you disagree with this concept? Swarm ^X 07:54, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Qolsharif mosque in Kazan.

Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, Novosibirsk

Lakewood Chapel

Well, yes I do disagree - the Russians received their Byzantine influences from several sources, not just one. The Kievan Rus' were the first to be Christianized (Orthodox) in the 800's, later to be taken over by the Grand Duchy of Moscow who were also Orthodox in the 1200s. The Cyrillic alphabet came from several sources into Russia - all originally from the Byzantines. And a united Russia continued with that multi-lateral legacy long after the Byzantines were gone, such as in Neo-Byzantine architecture for example in the Alexander Nevsky Cathedral, and even in Byzantine rite. There are other examples of how the Byzantines heavily influenced areas they have never been, such the Islamic architecture of Iran or Kazakhstan. We don't have this issue with the Austria-Hungarian Empire, or even the Ottoman Empire for that matter. The Byzantines were very far flung beyond their borders - very unique in this regard. I got the largest Byzantine Church in the Western Hemisphere a few miles from my house - hows that for *really* cool... :D Dinkytown talk 05:18, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

That's nice, but I'm inclined to point out that none of that has anything to do with succession of states. Swarm ^X 07:05, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

You're not reading anything above are you? Your succession of states has nothing to do with your infobox; are out of context with the issue at hand; are only related to twentieth century diplomatic definitions and conventions, and yet it strengthens my case:

"...Succession may refer to the transfer of rights, obligations, and/or property from a previously well-established prior state...to the new one... Transfer of rights, obligations, and property can include overseas assets (embassies, monetary reserves, museum artifacts), participation in treaties, membership in international organizations, and debts.... [and] ...Cultural continuity."

The US take over of Iraq is more fitting example than Constantinople. So, what Byzantine treaty obligations was Mehmed interested in honoring after his troops looted Hagia Sophia?

(unindent) Dinkytown, your argument essentially boils down to "the bad Turks destroyed Byzantium, they did not respect it so how can they be its successors?" Well, they can, because "state succession" is is not about "who succeeded X culture/civilization", but the answer to "what state entity succeeded state X in a specific territory"? Have a look at any infobox around: you won't find modern Greece succeeding the Byzantines, you won't find modern Bulgaria succeeding the 2nd Bulgarian Empire, you won't find modern Serbia succeeding the Serbian Empire. You will find Italy succeeding the Austrian Empire, you will find the Ottomans succeeding the Mamluk Sultanate (Cairo), Austria, Hungary and a half-dozen other states with different national cultures succeeding Austria-Hungary, the CIS states succeeding the USSR, or modern Greece, Serbia, Albania etc succeeding the Ottomans, etc. The criterion is never the culture of the successor state, it is whether it controls part or all of the defunct state's territory. The issue of treaty commitments is irrelevant for the Middle Ages, and in the context this discussion, a red herring. And furthermore, denying cultural continuity when the bulk of the population was the same is highly dubious cherry-picking: Orthodox Greeks, Serbs, Bulgarians no longer governed themselves, but that doesn't mean they or their culture vanished overnight. Indeed, the Greeks at least remained as "Byzantine" as they ever were, and IMO far more so than the Russians ever were... Constantine ✍ 10:30, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Cplakidas, I can agree with a succession state infobox, except to two reasons: 1) Turks were Muslim and thus not a inheritor of Orthodoxy, and; 2) Byzantine culture spread far beyond their borders, like no other nation state has. The "successor state" infobox works very well for the examples you described and they *are* very informative. You stated that culture had nothing to do with "successor states". This goes back to the definition of "successor state" again. When I first saw that phrase I thought "inheritor" - and so did many people two years ago. If we can explain the definition of "successor state" within the box (as not done with others), and also describe nation states or issues heavily influenced by Byzantium for reason #2 above, then we might have a deal (i.e. Kievan Rus', Norvgord, Moscova, Islamic Architecture etc.). But you realize that is a potential fight to break out that the Legacy page was an attempt to solve.

I know your Greek, and quite frankly - Mr. Byzantine. You've done some good work on this site and others. This has been one of the few times we've disagreed. Regarding being "...more Byzantine". IMO the common folk never stopped being Byzantine, one of the reasons why I want to go not just to Mistra, but also the environs to learn what the people are like, something that I tried to pick up when I was in Turkey. However, you've read my info page and know that I am Sami. For a long time, the Sami of Sapmi never considered us North American "Sami", only as 'want-a-be's. That has change these past twenty years from documentaries that the Sami of Sapmi learned/re-learned traditions that we kept, but they didn't. I imagined that same would apply for some Russians as well.

BTW: Completely off subject - George Papandreou was born in the town were I live (still trying to find his old address). Greece has been in the news for many months here. I don't know your politics, but you can either blame him or praise him for having American roots. :)

So the question comes up, how can we resolve the issue of 'cultural successor' along side and equal weight with "territorial or successor state" in an infobox format? Dinkytown talk 22:02, 30 June 2011 (UTC)

Byzantium's huge influence on other cultures, as well as the fact that the Ottoman Empire had a completely different religion and culture, have no bearing on the fact that the Ottoman Empire was a successor state. No, the Ottomans didn't succeed Byzantium as the center of Orthodox Christianity. It doesn't matter. The Ottoman state still succeeded the Byzantine one. The inheritor of the cultural legacy is not necessarily the successor *state*. In this case, it isn't. As for putting the cultural successor in the infobox anyway, that's something we simply don't do, ever. "Cultural succession" is a highly debatable topic, and while Russia is one claimant to Byzantine culture and legacy, it's not the only one. Swarm ^X 05:43, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Even if we also have a direct link to the Ottoman Empire, we should still have another link to the legacy sub-article. Although, I do not have any major problem using a link to the category, my first choice on this issue remains linking to the legacy/successors sub-article, since it was intended for this purpose, and it should also be noted, that the claim made by rulers of various states, to be successors of the Emperors is more a political act, than a cultural one. Cody7777777 (talk) 08:59, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Swam - Not to describe the unique cultural successor would be disingenuous. That's why we keep coming back to the definition of "successor state" - it dose matter. You said that "Cultural succession" is a highly debatable topic..." That's true... That's why this was all going to be explained in detail on the Legacy page. Trying to describe this topic in a simple infobox on this page would be controversial. Again, I never said that Russia was the only cultural inheritor - there are many. That's why we need the Legacy page to explain all this. People are looking for a simple solution to this problem in a simple infobox - it's just isn't there. Now, how would you resolve this issue in an infobox format? Dinkytown talk 15:26, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Legacy link in infobox?

Guys, nobody disputes the validity of a Legacy of Byzantium article. So how about the people interested in that go over to that page and actually work on improving it. The question is, what is the link doing in the country infobox. And since this is the question, this immediately ceases to be a discussion about history, becoming nerdy bickering about Wikipedia infoboxes.

The "s1" slot in the "former country infobox" is not for "legacy" articles.

And that's already the end of this discussion about Wikipedia infoboxes. By all means develop the "legacy" article. Summarize it in a section in this article. Do whatever you like to improve our coverage of this. But please stop making it an issue of the "former country" infobox, because it isn't one. --dab (𒁳) 13:43, 6 September 2011 (UTC)

As discussed before, while the Ottoman Empire is probably the most legitimate successor (for which reason I'm not against also having a direct link to the Ottoman Empire), it is not the only successor, and Wikipedia should not ignore other points of view. The sub-article "Legacy of Byzantium" was intended to be used for this purpose (a link in the infobox successor section), and it should have probably been named "Successors of the Byzantine Empire". The sub-article obviously needs more expansion, but that is not a reason to delete the sub-article, and I had actually hoped, that by placing a link to it there, it might have helped to attract more easily editors interested in improving it. Other possibilities might be linking to the category of successors, or perhaps linking to the Byzantine Empire#Aftermath. But I would have preferred we had an article discussing about this issue, which could offer more explanations about the successors. Cody7777777 (talk) 10:27, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You are completely ignoring dab's point. This is not something for the infobox. At that position in the box, any link to a sub-article can only be an easter-egg link. Readers don't expect that link, they have no way of finding it, nothing in the design of the infobox guides them to it. The links to actualy successor states are practicable only to the extent that these states can be represented by a reasonably well-known, recognizable flag or other visual symbol. Everything else is simply beyond what an infobox can and should do. Please just stop obsessing over this issue. Fut.Perf. ☼ 11:39, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The problem is that it would be subjective POV to show only the Ottoman Empire (even if this is a correct POV), but showing in the infobox a list of all states would be too long. But as I said earlier, I do not have any major problem linking either to the category of successors or to the Byzantine Empire#Aftermath (at least, until the sub-article intended for this issue is expanded). I would prefer a sub-article more than the category, because in an article we could actually explain the reasons why these states are shown (it could also be stated there that the Ottoman Empire had much more former imperial provinces than other states, and in this way suggest that it is more legitimate). And I have to say, that I do not really understand what is so wrong with providing readers with a quick access to a sub-article about this issue. Cody7777777 (talk) 12:05, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

You are still ignoring the point. (And there is no "POV" involved in stating that the Ottoman Empire took over the capital and eventually 100% of the territory that was controlled by Byzantium just prior to Ottoman expansion. If there is a POV dispute over whether it is legitimate to call the O.E. the principal successor of the B.E., and I mean a real dispute, out in the real world, not just a dispute in the minds of some Wikipedia editors, then point me to it. Failing that, the whole issue about alleged POV sensitivities is a canard.) But that aside, again, why are you ignoring dab's point? The infobox is not designed for links like the one you want to add. You know, ignoring this argument yet another time is not going to make it go away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 12:14, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Indeed, there is no "POV" involved in stating that the Ottoman Empire took over the capital and eventually 100% of the territory that was controlled by Byzantium just prior to Ottoman expansion, but there is POV in claiming that there were no other successors to this state. And I have not disputed that the Ottoman Empire is the principal successor to this state (and for this reason we can have a direct link to the Ottomans, while also having another link for more details), but that doesn't mean it is the only one (the category also shows more states). Russia, and also several balkan states, have claimed to be successors of this state, and I do not see what is wrong with informing our readers about this. (And even if we don't like it, there are sources claiming this[3][4].) And regarding Dab's point, as far as I understand that infobox section is meant for allowing readers quick access to various successors, and several infoboxes of other articles (like the current one from Ottoman Empire article) show a long list of states, and using a link to a sub-article, a section or to the category, is in my opinion better than having a long list of states in the infobox. And also as far as I see, Dab has not actually insisted for the removal of this link from the second slot, he insisted for adding the Ottoman Empire in the first slot (if I'm mistaken, I apologize). If you prefer we use a link to the category of successors (which was proposed earlier by Constantine as a compromise) instead of linking to the sub-article or to the Byzantine Empire#Aftermath, I won't oppose, but I still disagree with leaving there only the Ottoman Empire. Cody7777777 (talk) 13:53, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

"Claiming that there were no other successors"? But nobody is doing any such thing. An infobox isn't for making any such claims, and it couldn't make any such claims. If we show only one state there, it means we have made an editorial decision to concentrate on the most significant. Only the mind of an obsessed ideologue could possibly misread that as an intended statement of exclusivity. You really, really must stop obsessing over this f..ing box. And you have still not substantiated your claim that there is any "POV dispute" about this issue, outside your own mind. You have demonstrated that some people sometimes choose to use "successor" in a different sense from what this box is about, but you have not demonstrated that there is a dispute between people who do so. – That said, you have now for the third time ignored Dab's and my main point. When will you finally understand that we are talking about an issue of simple, practical reader-friendliness? This slot in the infobox is not designed for links to subarticles that cannot be represented by a simple visual, recognizable visual symbol. Is that so difficult to understand? The link is useless, because no reader can possibly know what to expect before clicking it, and indeed few readers will even see it. Fut.Perf. ☼ 14:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Back to consensus from 2009

Actually, re-reading the old discussion at Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 10#Support for reducing number of successor states in the infobox, I see there was a very clear consensus for one solution: a complete removal of the whole set of links from the infobox. Its implementation was merely stonewalled and subverted by the same single user through massive edit-warring [5][6][7]. I will reinstate the consensus version again tomorrow, unless somebody else beats me to it. this warning is also still relevant. Fut.Perf. ☼ 15:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Showing only one successor (or no successors) can give the impression that there are no other successors, since most infoboxes have this section, and they usually show multiple states (when this is the case). (And at least in my opinion, removing that section entirely, makes the infobox look bad, especially when compared to those from other articles.) And during the discussions from 2009, no one claimed (including yourself) to oppose using a link to a successors/legacy sub-article (there was disagreement about using lists of states in the infobox, and no one else wished to continue discussing about these lists), and the fact that this link has remained there for nearly two years, proves that there was a consensus for allowing it (even if not everyone was very happy about it), and it was also more stable than the previous lists. I do not deny that I might had been very insistent about this issue, but you seem to have become obsessed with removing it. And you're accusing me for disruptive editing, because I want to keep a link which can allow a quicker access for readers interested in finding more information about this issue and avoid giving the impression that there is just one successor. I do not like to assume bad faith, but your recent actions seem to have been disruptive enough (especially for an administrator), you have not waited the conclusion of this discussion, and you have attempted to remove this, four times in less than 24 hours. The sub-article did not offered yet too much information, but it was a start (and I was hoping more experienced users could have expanded it, but when I have more time I'll probably try to do it), however I do not see any serious problem using a link either to the successors' category or to the Byzantine Empire#Aftermath (and if we need to add a flag, we could just add a "double-headed eagle", especially since this was a symbol used by some of these successors). If there really cannot be any agreement about this, a mediation will probably be necessary (but I would not really want to waste more time with this). Cody7777777 (talk) 19:07, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

The idea with the link to the succession article was not yet on the table when the discussion was done in 2009. And the fact that it has been sitting there since you edit-warred it into the page doesn't mean there was consensus for it, but only that people were tired of your stonewalling. You have still not addressed the principal challenge to this link: there is no conceivable way to package it, within the framework of the infobox template, in such a way that a reader will know what to expect from clicking it. (The idea to clothe it in some random flag such as a "double-headed eagle" just goes to show how absurd this all is. The double-headed eagle is primarily the symbol of Byzantium itself and is already displayed in exactly that function right below; no reader could possibly expect to find a link to a "successor states" article underneath it. Fact is that there simply is no commonly understood, recognizable symbol that readers would consistently associate with "successor states of Byzantium".) – No, I am not willing to waste more time having "mediation" with you either, because I consider you personally unsuited for that. This is problem not about a content disagreement, but with a persistently disruptive personality (yours), and only administrative intervention will solve this. As I said, unless I hear a good reason against it from somebody else, I will reinstate the 2009 consensus version tomorrow; if you revert it a single time, we go straight to WP:AE to get an Arbcom-enforcement topic ban for you. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:47, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Future - Acutally, you are wrong on a few counts. First the Legacy concensus was created back in October 31, 2009 when I made this statement: How about in lue of the infobox successor state content, we have a section titled "Byzantium's Legacy". This could easy be an entire article on to itself." Because of the complexity of Byzantium's History, creating a Legacy article seamed the best way to solve this issue. I can go over all the issues I stated these past two years why this was, but I will refrain. I've also notice that several people have switched opinions on this issue over these years. I'm the one that filed the complaint against Cody, and he has now switched his opinion. He is not alone on his position. I have also noticed that you were on opposite sides then than now. We should reinstate the Legacy link as that was agreed upon, develop that article, and then leave it alone. It will resolved many problems in the future. Dinkytown talk 21:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

There was certainly a consensus to create a section in the article, and/or a separate article, about "legacy". There was not even a mention of including a link to it in the infobox. That link was never agreed upon, and you too have now failed to explain how it could ever become practically user-friendly. It's a freaking blank white box, for Christ's sake. Fut.Perf. ☼ 21:15, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

So we're complaining about the link? Just link it in the info box, with "freaking blank white box" The Legacy sections was nixed because it would have been quite lengthy on an article that was already very long. The link in the infobox was established two years ago and there wasn't any complaints from you, or anyone else. Why is this a problem now? Dinkytown talk 22:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

I've explained about four or five times why it is a problem. You are not listening. Fut.Perf. ☼ 22:28, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

Regarding the 2009 discussions, the proposal to use a link to the legacy sub-article in the infobox was also explicitly mentioned there, like in my post from the date 19:41, 8 November 2009, "As a compromise, I would propose that instead of adding states in that infobox successor section, the new article about the empire's legacy is added there once it is made, so in this way the infobox could direct the readers to the legacy article..." (and this was actually based on Dinkytown's suggestion of using that sub-article instead of a list of successor states), and no one claimed there to oppose. This proposal was implemented on 19:08, 1 December 2009 and there was no edit-war in this case. And regarding the "Double-Headed Eagle", it was used by several states who wanted to claim a succession from this state, Russia, Serbia, Wallachia, Albania, and there could be others. So I don't think using a "Double-Headed Eagle" as a symbol for other successors, would be wrong. (But in my opinion, even without a symbol this does not seem to be a major problem, and readers could check that link regardless of this.) Cody7777777 (talk) 05:27, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

A link is only useful if readers know in advance where it will take them. Everything else is an "easter-egg link". If a reader sees a flag or coat of arms, like a double-headed eagle, they will obviously expect to be taken to an article about a specific state. Perhaps they will think they recognise it, perhaps not. Perhaps they will think it's an article about Albania, or about Russia, or about the Habsburgs. More likely, in this context, they will just think it's a purely decorative repetition of the larger Byzantine eagle flag they see in the box right next underneath. What no reader could ever possibly figure out in that context is that it will lead them to a general article about "legacy of...". This suggestion is simply ridiculous. Moreover, even if a reader were to recognized the intended symbolism, there'd be a serious POV problem because that symbol would refer only to the Christian states that claimed ideological tradition, completely excluding the one factual successor, the Ottoman Empire, which didn't use the eagle (and which is still the first and probably the only entity that section actually ought to deal with, if we were to have it.) – That said, the reason that nobody objected to the link back then was that people were simply tired of dealing with your antics. Fut.Perf. ☼ 06:06, 8 September 2011 (UTC)

I don't understand why we just go back to what we had a mear month ago such as here. I understand that the Turks did take over Constantinople, thus ending the (official) political continuity of the Empire, but later continued (debatable) by Morea, Tribizond, Moscova, Ottoman's, etc. But Byzantium has a complex history and influence that few other cultures/nation states can emulate. I used Liberia's connection with the United States as an example of cultural/political influences of a country going beyond the actual borders of a country. Because of the lengthy debate back in 2009, the Legacy article was a good compromise that people did not follow up on. I suggest that we follow up on that and move on. I see merit in everyone's position here, but we have to move on at some point. Dinkytown talk 18:52, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

You still "don't understand why"? No, apparently not. You really didn't hear that, did you. Read again why. Feel free to further develop that legacy article in any way you like, just leave it out of the box where it doesn't belong. Fut.Perf. ☼ 20:54, 9 September 2011 (UTC)

Basileia Rhōmaiōn

I noticed that in the infobox as well as on the introductory paragraph of the article, the transliteration of Greek into English follows the rules of ancient Greek. Given the fact that the Byzantine Empire was established in 330AD and that Koine Greek had replaced Ancient Greek as lingua franca by that time, shouldnt transliterations use Medieval Greek phonology, i.e. /vasi'lia rɔ'mɛɔn/ - /rɔma'nia/ instead of /basileia rhōmaiōn/ - /rhōmanía/? --Philly boy92 (talk) 04:12, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

IPA rendering has to be phonetic, of course. Basileia Rhōmaiōn however is not IPA rendering, but a simple transliteration as used by most relevant works: Basileus->basileia, and Rhomaios->Rhomaion... Constantine ✍ 06:55, 28 June 2011 (UTC)

Ottoman successor flag

The Ottomans annexed the Byzantine territory, it would seam proper that their flag would succeed the Byzantine one. The legacy is important, of course, but it would be better placed at the conclusion of the article rather than the flag section. 108.65.0.169 (talk) 02:52, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

See the discussion two sections above, where it is currently proposed to change that. Thanks! Swarm ^X 05:44, 1 July 2011 (UTC)

Thanks, teaches me to read all the way...108.65.0.169 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 23:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC).

American English VS British English

I like to be blunt and honest so here it goes: The spelling issue seems to have flared up and all regular contributors are hereby invited to debate and agree upon the issue. I can live with either spelling, but PLEASE don't play the geographical card. To argue that this is an European subject and that therefore it should use the British spelling is simply foolish. The subject of this article is the Byzantine Empire inside the English wikipedia and this isn't about Europe versus the USA. What matters is the history of the article: Which spelling was used in the beginning, and are there any proper reasons to justify a change? IMHO this article probably uses a mix of both spellings because the article was improved by many ppl (some used AE, others used BE). Flamarande (talk) 16:54, 2 July 2011 (UTC) Might I also add that I live in Europe and that I honestly prefer BE (IMHO it is simply more correct: centre comes from central). However I don't like the use of "geographical excuses". As a matter of fact: the majority of the people of Wikipedia are Americans, the servers are in the USA. Jimbo is American.

From a cursory glance at the article history it seems its practice seems to have always been inconsistent, but with British forms ("centre" and "neighbour") predominating somewhat. For much of its history it had at least three instances of "centre"/"centred" and one of "center", whereas immediately prior to the recent edits it had three "neighbors" and two "neighbours", plus one instance of "vigour". The earliest instance of "neighbo(u)r" in the page history I could find was a "neighbour". Most of the major contributors of the page appear to have had more of a European than an American background. I'd go for a standardization towards the British forms, personally. About the rules, WP:ENGVAR indeed does not extend the "write X'ian topics in X'ian English" rule to the whole of Europe but restricts it to topics about English-speaking nations themselves. However, the "servers are in the USA, Jimbo is American" argument is of course just as far off. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:28, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

It isn't mean as an argument, it's meant to show how the reasoning: "The Byzantine Empire was in Europe and therefore British spelling should be used" is absolutely ridiculous. As I said: I do favour BE, but if you look closely there are 3 or 4 "centers" in the section 'Culture'. I can also live with the current status: use both spellings. It's largely the same for me. Flamarande (talk) 19:51, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

There isn't any "correct" spelling but throughout the article only American or British English should be used.--— ZjarriRrethues — ^talk 22:35, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

I'd go with Future's concise argument about standardisation toward Brit English and not using two forms of English in the same article which would make Wikipedia look like a parody of an encyclopedia ruled by committee, bent on not offending anyone and ending up with a linguistic salad. Not to mention that I duly appreciated Future's enlightened argument about Jimbo and the servers being located in the USA. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 23:31, 2 July 2011 (UTC)

Per the reasoning above and as the article uses primarily British English, I've standardised it to BrE with a script. JonC^Talk 17:49, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Spelling is one of the various problems (or what I personally regard as a problem) that this article faces. Let's start from the infobox and this useless "Today part of" section. Eh?! What's the raison d'etre of this looong list and what's its encyclopedic value? As if Byzantium had stable borders for 1000 years or as if the fact that Byzantium is "today part of" Kosovo (?!) is of any encyclopedic importance. Additionally, if you look at the WP:SS indications, such as "main article" or "see also", they are a disaster. Dozens of articles without any consideration and without any real interest in whether they offer any additional info or not. Somebody even put under the "Legacy" sub-heading the Byzantium after Byzantium article (in order to advertise the book?) which consists of ... 4 lines! Not to speak about the "see also" list at the end. What I try to say is that the content of this article is of very high quality, exceeding any encyclopedic article about Byzantium and it can be compared with the content of serious scholarship articles. BUT this is not enough. There is obviously nobody to constantly watch the article and prevent whatever may threaten its FA status. And mainly (because stars are not everything and true stars are only in the sky) to prevent the downgrading of its overall quality, because if the proper attention is not given to the "packaging", then the content may also be endangered.Yannismarou (talk) 17:30, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

I'd certainly support removing the "today part of" passage. This information could far more efficiently be transported by maps, if required. Fut.Perf. ☼ 17:43, 27 September 2011 (UTC)

Serious mistake

It has already been said by others long ago, but I agree. I consider it a serious mistake of the usually very accurate English Wikipedia to begin the "Byzantine Empire" under Constantine (¡!). Do we must to believe, for example, that Arcadius (born in Spain!, designed as Eastern Augustus by his father), and Theodosius II, the son and grandson of Theodosius I, members of the same theodosian dynasty, were'nt Roman emperors, but Greeks? So we forget official inscriptions like this: [Sa]lvis dd(ominis) n[n(ostris) 3] / [Val]entiniano [3] / [Vale]nte et Gratiano [3] Vale[3] / [Va]lentiniani [3] / [Th]eodosius [3]VG / [3] Arcadius Auggg(ustis) [3] / [3 r]ei pu[blicae (Stambolovo, Thrace, Année Épigraphique 1912, nr. 58)?

Theodor Mommsen was right when he put the beginning of the Byzantine Empire under Heraclius (emp. 610-641 AD), who was the first ceased to be called "Augustus" (he autodesignated himself as "basileus", the greek word for a king) and replaced the Latin by the Greek as official language of the Empire. These are two historical facts very significant, and I think with a lot more weight than any contemporary historical conventions. Until Heraclius, then, still lasted the "Eastern Roman Empire". Even the Jones and Martindale's Prosopography of the Later Roman Empire (Cambridge) came up to the death of Justinian (AD 565) and the death of Heraclius (AD 641), see for instance this 2003 paper, p. 25: "PLRE's choice of dates became, in general, the canonical dates not only for the late Roman empire, but also for late Antiquity"...

I have now no more time, but in sum I do not understand this radical change in the English Wikipedia (since July 2011?). It would be too much to change here and in many other related articles, but not without consensus, obviously. So, I would like only suggest that all this category and ideas should be reviewed. Regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, I forgot other suggestive catalogue: Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire - Project URL - King's College (London). It corresponded to the published (first part) The Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire I (PBE I, Ashgate, 2001), edited by J.R. Martindale (with D. Smythe). Aim: "The project's goal is to record in a computerised relational database all surviving information about every individual mentioned in Byzantine sources during the period from 641 to 867, and every individual mentioned in non-Byzantine sources during the same period who is 'relevant' (on a generous interpretation) to Byzantine affairs." Regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 08:44, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

History tells us that the Roman Empire was divided several times along an East/West axis only to be re-united again and again under strong rulers. However Constatine the Great established the city of Constantinople as a capital of the Roman empire (at the side of Rome). The last ruler to rule over the whole united empire was Theodosius the Great in 395. Then we have the unglorious end of the Western Roman Empire in 476 whose last ruler was Romulus Augustus. Notice that we have nearly 150 years between this date and Heraclius. So who is going to decide when was the start of the Eastern Roman Empire (also known as Byzantine Empire)? How are we decide that one ended and the other began? Exactly what's the all important diffrence between the two? The official language ("official" as in used by the central bureaucracy)? The use of a title? So if someone changes the official language and uses another name for the chief of state the whole state becomes something diffrent?

There simply is not official end of the Eastern Roman Empire and the beginning of the Byzantine Empire. Its government and inhabitants never proclaimed such an event and modern historians use diffrent dates and definitions for a probably gradual development which likely took centuries. In short: Momsen is not the only historian out there and his favourite date hasn't been adopted by the majority of historians. This article merely reflects current historigraphy as it is taught in schools of the English-speaking world. Flamarande (talk) 09:25, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

Thanks you. Well, I think it's a good argument (of mine ;-)) if a chief of State adopts two changes that mark significant decisions, as was the case of Heraclius: 1) moving himself from being a Roman emperor, an Augustus, to be a Greek king, a basileus, and 2) cutting the official use of Latin in his empire and ordering to use only the Greek. Because in those days the chief of state was really the state, and if the chief changed, the state also.

On the other hand, I not only mentioned Mommsen! (though I thought he was a good author ;-(...). Anyway, with your final sentence: "This article merely reflects current historiography as it is taught in schools of the English-speaking world", did you exclude the -I think very English and quite authoritative- works and authors I cited earlier, of London, Oxford, Cambridge, etc.? In any case, in the 2003 paper I cited before, from the Proceedings of the British Academy 2003, p. 25, there is a summary of the reasons given, for example, by Martindale 1972, explaining why his (and of another's british authors) Prosopography of the Byzantine Empire - Project URL - King's College (London)) began in 641 BC. Maybe you could check it out.

Anyway, I think that the things are not so clear as they are now displayed in this article on the Byzantine Empire and his many related (those of all the roman emperors from Constantine I, for instance), and that there are powerful arguments against. Constantine I founded a new imperial residence in Constantinople (the name Byzantium came also later), based on the new tetrarchical concept; but he did not found the capital of the Byzantine Empire. And, for the aftermath of Theodosius I, an empire divided into two does not mean two different empires. Regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 11:29, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

I suggest you try Encyclopedia Britannica [8]. Take a look at the list of rulers: it begins in 476. This isn't something which we can debate and decide for ourselves. We only reflect what is taught in school.

I also disagree with you on many points. However far from me to say that I'm right and that you're wrong.

• 1st) Heraclius never proclaimed a new state or a new beginning. The notion that if "in those days the chief of state was really the state, and if the chief changed, the state also" is interresting precisely because he never proclaimed a new state or a new beginning. Therefore if we are bound by ancient proclamations we have to refuse that date.
• 2nd) Constantinople doesn't seem to have been a mere imperial residence. It seems to have been re-founded as a full-fleged capital to such an extent that it even had a seperate Roman senate.
• 3rd) This has nothing to do with "a new tretrarchical concept" because the Tetrachy was already dead and buried. Constantine knew this because he helped to bury it. The idea of an East/West division on the other hand was becoming a de facto standard.
• 4th) The aftermath of Theodosius was IMHO the turning point (he was de facto the last ruler over the whole empire). The Western Roman Empire and the Eastern Roman Empire would follow diffrent foreign policies in which they played the barbarian invaders against each other. They even fought against each other. States which fight against each other are diffrent states unless you whish to argue that these wars were mere civil wars.
• 5th) There are certainly many arguments against. There are also many arguments in favour. The whole issue is unclear and historians admit that it is unclear. This article won't decide the issue. We will not decide the issue. We won't choose a historian who choose a particular date and follow his book to the end. We can and will mention the most common dates and the reasons behind them and that's the end of it. For a good example go to the article Roman Empire and look for the date of its beginning. There isn't single date, there are several important dates commonly used by historians and writers. Flamarande (talk) 12:52, 1 October 2011 (UTC)

- Sorry, I read your answer now. Well, I'll take your own last sentences (in "5th"): "There are certainly many arguments against. There are also many arguments in favour. The whole issue is unclear and historians admit that it is unclear..." Altough I can't see the "many arguments in favour", anyway that seems to mean that things are not clear. However, when one reads, for example here, that Arcadius (born in Spain, biological son of Theodosius I) "was the Byzantine Emperor from 395 to his death", and so the emperors who succeeded him, it is clear for me that Wikipedia has sided and does not reflect the existing uncertainties, no doubts, which is in contradiction with what you yourself said, and, most important, with the values of Wikipedia. And this has happened very recently, without anything new that clearly justifies it. So, sorry, I still believe, like others, that it is a serious mistake. Finally, thank you very much for sending me to the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but you will understood that any professional historian will prefer the approach of the experts concerned in particular with the Byzantine Prosopography (ut supra) that do not begin it, as Mommsen done, until the year 641 A.D. Regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 14:25, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

• History of the Byzantine Empire, 324-1453, Volume 1, Aleksandr Aleksandrovich Vasilʹev
• History of the Byzantine State, Georgije Ostrogorski, p22, The Early Byzantine state:Its development and Characteristics (324-610)
• The Oxford Handbook of Byzantine Studies, Elizabeth Jeffreys, John F. Haldon, Robin Cormack, p3, Byzantine studies are concerned with the history and culture of what has come to be known as the Byzantine Empire, that is, the empire of East rome. This was centred on the city of Constantinople, generally agreed to have been founded in 324 by the emperor Constantine to be the captial of the eastern portions of the Roman empire.
• New Constantines: The Rhythm of Imperial Renewal in Byzantium, 4th-13th Centuries, P. Magdalino.
• The Art of the Byzantine Empire 312-1453:Sources and Documents, Cyril A. Mango.
• The Byzantine Economy, Angeliki E. Laiou, Cecile Morrison, This is a concise survey of the economy of the Byzantine Empire from the fourth century AD to the fall of Constantinople in 1453.
• A History of the Byzantine state and society, Warren T. Treadgold, p103, The Formation of Byzantine Society 284-457.
• Warfare, state and society in the Byzantine world, 565-1204, John F. Haldon, p1, The term "Byzantine empire" refers to the easter Roman empire from the end of the "late Roman" period in the eastern and central Mediterranean/Balkan region(from the sixth century, therefore) to the fifteenth century, that is to say, from the time when a distinctively East Roman political formation began to evolve with the recognition of the cultural divisions between "Greek East" and the "Latin West" in the empire's political structure, to the fall of constantinople on 29 May 1453 at the hands of the Ottoman sultan Mehmet II "Fatih", "the Conqueror".

A cursory search results in most stating 4th century as the beginning of the Byzantine empire. --Kansas Bear (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2011 (UTC)

- Well, Kansas Bear, I guess I surely could also build many literature in the opposite direction. But I think this is not the problem. 1) We have a city that for centuries we discuss was not called Byzantium, but Constantinopolis (ad ex. in coins CONOB = CON(stantinopolis) OB(ryzum)). 2) We have a people who never called themselves "Byzantines", but Rhomaioì (even the Turks recognized their enemies as "Romans"). 3) We have some emperors who saw themselves as heirs and successors of the Roman Empire. 4) Who used Latin as the official language until the mid seventh century AD. 5) They were named Augusti in their official documents as well in their currencies... etc. On the negative side, 6) we have no historical documents attesting to the existence of a "Byzantine Empire" in the centuries III, IV, V, VI, VI... But all this is ignored, no matter how many modern authors wish to defend it. The problem hic et nunc is that, not being clear nor the definition nor the time limits of the Byzantine Empire, since some months in the English Wikipedia all has been changed directly, without a single explanation, without even reflect the background of historical debate that exists. That seems to me not fair or objective. And I think this is not to resolve with a mere list of authors who think so; we know there are authors for and against. For my part I have stressed the problem, and I think that's enough. I leave you with these beautiful coin of Heraclius, a North African, a "Byzantine Emperor" which still defined itself, in Latin, as "Dominus Noster," "Augustus" and "Pater Patriae", as any Roman emperor in the third or fourth century. He wrote in their reverses Victoria Augusta, and his children were yet named Constantinus and Constans.

To end: Certainly I prefer to stay on the side of a great writer contemporary of Heraclius, Isidore of Seville. Writing his definitions of cities, he wrote that circa 627-630 A.D.: [42] Constantinopolim urbem Thraciae Constantinus ex nomine suo instituit, solam Romae meritis et potentia adaequatam. Hanc conditam primum a Pausania rege Spartanorum, et vocatam Byzantium, vel quod tantum patet inter Adriaticum mare et Propontidem, vel quod sit receptaculum terrae marisque copiis. Unde et eam Constantinus aptissimam condere iudicavit, ut et receptaculum sibi terra marique fieret. Unde et nunc Romani imperii sedes et totius caput est orientis, sicut et Roma occidentis (Isid. Etym. XV, 42). "Now is the seat of the Roman Empire, the capital of all the East"... Written in the VIIth century by a learned man, it is quite convincing to me. I respect modern authors, but for some subjects I respect more the ancients. Perhaps the advocates of a "Byzantine Empire" since the IIId or IVth centuries (at the moment Flamarand or Kansas Bear, or anyone else) want tell us if they believe their arguments are really more powerful that the historical testimony of a contemporary author. Methodologically I think not. Regards, --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 19:46, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Please see Wikipedia:Article Titles. Cheers. --Kansas Bear (talk) 22:48, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

Alicia, Wikipedia does not publish original research based on contemporary primary sources; rather, we defer to the best published modern scholarship. I honestly don't know what the best scholarship says about term "Byzantine", but Kansas Bear's summary of serious sources is a start. If you have good modern sources for a different position, that would be the best way to argue. --Macrakis (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2011 (UTC)

-- Macrakis, thanks for your notice, but I think that 1) what I am advocating is not an “original research”, and 2) perhaps you have not read this entire debate. Because 1) According to the Wikipedian principle you quoted, Wikipedia articles must not contain original research: “The term "original research" (OR) is used on Wikipedia to refer to material —such as facts, allegations, and ideas— for which no reliable, published source exists... To demonstrate that you are not adding OR, you must be able to cite reliable, published sources that are directly related to the topic of the article, and directly support the material as presented...” etc., is not relevant because 2) if you go to my initial messages, you will see that I started quoting Theodor Mommsen, and some modern British, reputated, authors as Jones, Martindale and others. I think that they could be included in what you call “serious sources”, and could be a “good start”.

On the other hand, I do not see the need to establish now here a long list in favour, probably much longer than the Kansas Bear’s, since the traditional position is to start the "Byzantine Empire" in the VIIth cent. Instead, I invite you to read how is treated the same subject in another Wikipedias, for example the French. I think it may be illustrative of the serious problem that I'm trying to point out (in a similar line of other previous discussions on the same problem):

L'Empire romain d'Orient durant l'Antiquité tardive (IVe au VIe siècle) ; De l'Empire romain d'Orient à l'Empire byzantin (VIIe siècle) ; Chronologie de l'Empire romain d'Orient: Flavius Arcadius (377-408) est le premier empereur romain d'Orient (395-408)" (but revealing the contradictions here); Théodose II, "né le 10 avril 401 et mort le 28 juillet 450, est un empereur romain d'orient. Il règne de 408 à sa mort"... etc. For the French wikipedia, then, it is clear that the Byzantine Empire did not start until the seventh century.

On the other hand (since I read that you know these languages), the Italian Wikipedia seems also to have it clear, in Impero bizantino: "La data prevalentemente accettata dal mondo accademico dell'inizio del "periodo bizantino" è tuttavia il 610, anno dell'ascesa al trono di Eraclio I, il quale modificò notevolmente la struttura dell'Impero, proclamò il greco lingua ufficiale in sostituzione del latino e assunse inoltre il titolo imperiale di basileus, al posto di quello di augustus usato fino a quel momento" but then incurs in a similar contradiction: Arcadio di Bisanzio (¡¡!!): "Flavio Arcadio... Spagna, 377 circa – Costantinopoli, 1º maggio 408) è stato un imperatore bizantino"... etc.

The Wikipedia in Spanish (although always heavily influenced by the Wikipedia in English) reflects some on the term that gives me occasion to finish this too long post: El término «Imperio bizantino»: “La expresión «Imperio bizantino» (de Bizancio, antiguo nombre de Constantinopla) fue una creación del historiador alemán Hieronymus Wolf, quien en 1557 —un siglo después de la caída de Constantinopla— lo utilizó en su obra Corpus Historiae Byzantinae para designar este período de la historia en contraste con las culturas griega y romana de la Antigüedad clásica. El término no se hizo de uso frecuente hasta el siglo XVIII, cuando fue popularizado por autores franceses, como Montesquieu.”

It seems to me somewhat paradoxical that a new concept coined in the sixteenth century by a German author, supposedly to strengthen the claims of Charlemagne to justify being the heir of the Roman Empire, thus disqualifying the rights alleged by Byzantium (as I read even in the enWP: “...when Charlemagne knelt at the altar to pray, the Pope crowned him Imperator Romanorum ("Emperor of the Romans") in Saint Peter's Basilica. In so doing, the Pope was effectively reviving the Western Roman Empire and nullifying the legitimacy of Empress Irene of Constantinople...”, and it’s probably the reason why Montesquieu seconds it...) is not followed in the French Wikipedia, but it is in the English! Well, it's only a curiosity more. Returning to the initial problem, if you think that the French Wikipedia (the clearest in this regard) may be also a "serious source", it is clear that what is true in one Wikipedia can not be a lie or confusion (not even deserve to be mentioned) to others. Something is wrong. Greetings. --Alicia M. Canto (talk) 19:43, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

This is a pretty involved discussion, and to a degree pointless. My only comment would be to say that declaring the Byzantine Empire "started" under Heraclius is bonkers... what were they then after the fall of Rome in 476 and for a 150 after? And if "Byzantium" is defined in large measure by its Orthodox Christianity, which many authors do, can you ignore the fact that in 380 Theodosius declared Christianity the only state religion? Proclaiming Byzantium's historical antecedence to Theodosius' split, but acknowledging, as the current version does, the lack of a defineable "zero moment", seems to satisfy historical accuracy for many reasons. One could easily stack up authors who would points to the 395 split as being a good starting point for the Christian Roman Empire of the East. KC Gustafson (talk) 20:07, 9 October 2011 (UTC)

Religion: Orthodox Christianity

Certainly, before the East/West Schism, all of Nicene (and later, Chalcedonian) Christianity was "Orthodox," but the term "Eastern Orthodox," which this article identifies with the official religion of the Empire, came into use in a semi-colloquial fashion in the latter days of the state. I think it would be more neutral to state simply that Christianity became the official religion of the Empire, because Christianity was not divided into Catholic and Orthodox sects until much later. Or, we could make some kind of footnote about this issue (for example: Nicene Christianity; later, Eastern Orthodoxy, or something like that). Also, wasn't Constantine somewhat sympathetic to Arianism? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.201.173.75 (talk) 09:18, 30 October 2011 (UTC)

Name and other issues

I know: there were countless other topics about his subject before and there a couple just above this one. However, since this is my first time on this "naming convention dispute", I thought no one would mind. :) Not trying to be picky, but why not change its name to "Roman Empire (Middle Ages)"? It's simple and the most appropriate and wouldn't harm the other article actually called "Roman Empire". We could also add to the lead the name "Byzantine Empire" by briefly explaining that it's a name that became common (albeit anachronistically) in the 18th Century, long after it disappeared.

There is something else that has bothered me for awhile. It's quite common to see here and in other related articles something like "The language spoken was Latin but the Empire became increasingly hellenized until Greek became dominant by the 7th century" or some variation of it. Well, this is simply wrong. First, the Eastern Roman Empire was also a multilinguistic nation. We could say that one language was dominant, eiher because of tradition, or because the dominant groups spoke it or something like that. But we could never say that the people that lived in Egyptian, or Northern African or Palestinian provinces spoke Latin and later spoke Greek. I believe what I'm saying here is no big news for any of you, but still. Second: the country didn't become more hellenized as time passed. Greek culture never died out. It was Latin culture that with time became less important as before. What am I trying to say? We should change for something like "The official language, used for administrative or legal purposes, was Latin, but within time it was supplanted by Greek" or something like that. Regards to all, --Lecen (talk) 17:25, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

It says the language of the government was Latin then Greek. That seems correct. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Not really. The lead says "...and predominantly Greek-speaking rather than Latin-speaking". I wonder myself what the Bulgarians, the Egyptians, Berbers and others who lived in the Empire would think of this. P.S.: Although the Languages section explains far better. --Lecen (talk) 17:35, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Gotcha, I was quoting from the language section. Probably more important, the sentence in the lead you're referring to closely mirrors the cited text. Hot Stop talk-contribs 17:46, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Questionable references and the sentence it is sourcing

This sentence, "However, most modern historians apply the term Byzantine to the period after the accession of Heraclius, as he effectively created a new state by reforming the army and administration, introducing Themes, and replacing Latin as the official language with Greek (which occurred in 620 AD)."
is referenced by 3 sources,

• 1.Haywood, John; foreword by Cunliffe, Barry (2001) [1997]. Cassell's Atlas of World History
• 2.Freeman, Charles (1999). The Greek Achievement - The Foundation of the Western World.
• 3.Norwich, John Julius (1998). A Short History of Byzantium

Initially, I would like quotes from the first two sources.
Secondly, since the sentence is written as a reasoning sentence;"...modern historians apply the term Byzantine AFTER the accession of Heraclius....", then the reasoning, "as he effectively created a new state....", the Norwich reference should be removed since Norwich does not state anything about "modern historians" nor their historical perspective. --Kansas Bear (talk) 07:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

In Norwich's, Byzantium:The Early Centuries, p26, "The Byzantine Empire, from its foundation by Constantine the Great on Monday 11 May 330 to its conquest by the Ottoman Sultan Mehmet II on Tuesday 29 May 1453, lasted a total of 1,123 years and 18 days...". Clearly Norwich's opinion is that the Byzantine Empire started in 330. --Kansas Bear (talk) 19:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Questionable?, Reasoning Sentence?, Clearly Norwich's Opinion?

Hello, Having now read some of the discussions I see that this is a bit of a touchy topic for some, and I am not sure why it needs to be. If you place these demands on every edit a contributor makes, particularly one that provides direct sources, it starts to look like bullying.

Onto the references. Regarding Haywood, the main reference here, the text I have drawn from reads:

The Byzantine empire is the term modern historians use to describe the continuation of the Roman Empire after the accession of Heraclius (r. 610-41). When Heraclius came to the throne, the empire was facing defeat by the neighboring Persian Sasanian empire. To save it Heraclius reformed the army and administration to create what was effectively a new state. Greek, which had always been the majority language in the eastern Roman empire, replaced Latin as the official language of government. Because of this, medieval western Europeans saw the Byzantines as a Hellenistic state; however, the Byzantines continued to think of themselves as Romans, until the final fall of their empire to the Ottoman Turks in 1453.

This source (Haywood) has the following list of academic advisers listed on the front cover: J.I. Catto (Oriel College, University of Oxford, UK); Professor Robin Cohen (University of Warwick, UK); Professor J.H. Elliott (University of Oxford, UK); Professor Harold James (Princeton University, New Jersey, USA); Professor Maldwyn A. Jones (University of London, UK); Dr Stuart Kewley (University of Cambridge, UK); Dr Stewart Lone (Australian Defense Force Academy); Dr Oswyn Murray (Balloil College, University of Oxford, UK); Professor A.J.S. Reid (The Australian National University); Professor Francis Robinson (Royal Halloway, University of London, UK) and Professor John K. Thornton (Millersville University, Pennsylvania, USA). Hopefully this is sufficient information.

Regarding the Norwich Citation, in discussing Heraclius, on page 97 it reads:

Culturally, too, his reign marked the beginning of a new era. If Justinian had been the last of truly Roman Emperors, it was Heraclius who dealt the old Roman tradition its death-blow, for it was he who decreed that Greek, long the language of the people [in the east] and the Church, should henceforth be the official language of the Empire, simultaneously abolishing the ancient Roman titles of imperial dignity. Like his predecessors, he had been formally hailed as Imperator, Caesar and Augustus; all these were now replaced by the old Greek word for 'King', basileus.

A side issue in relation to your quote from Norwich: Selective choice of quotations from Norwich to make sweeping claims of what his opinion was is somewhat misleading. Norwich seams to attempt what other historians do which is attempt to put Eastern Romans/Byzantines in context of their origins, who they identified themselves as (throughout his books he uses Byzantine and Roman interchangeably, and routinely refers to the Byzantines referring to themselves as Romans), their continually changing culture, where they fit in history, how best to interpret them, etc. Its a convoluted story which has been made more difficult by modern labels. But that is just my view, which is beside the point. One thing the quote I have provided demonstrates is that Norwich does not believe it is as clear cut as you say (in my opinion).

Regarding Freeman, this is one simply refers to Latin disappearing in the east and Heraclius adopting the title basileus:

[B]y the end of the sixth century Latin had virtually disappeared in the East. In 629 the emperor Haraclius dropped the traditional title imperator and adopted the Greek one of basileus[.]

The Freeman source is secondary relative to the other two, so it can probably be removed.

I took the year 620 directly from the Wikipedia article on Heraclius.

Thanks for the lack of good faith. I thought we were all supposed to be on same team here, and that we all aim to help make the content as factual and informative as possible. Romaioi (talk) 03:05, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

It would be really helpful if you did not accuse other editors of bad faith, especially if there is no suggestion of it anywhere. Please be reminded of WP:AAGF. I also wanted to mention that I approve of the latest edit by Inspector 108 and hope that it will not be reverted. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:08, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

See final modification. The primary source was reincluded due to its pertinence. Otherwise, No 8's mods were great. I'm just trying to help, and don't appreciate being forced to spend almost an entire day defending good faith, commonly known literature-based inclusions. Nor do I appreciate high-handed attempts to undo or undermine those contributions almost as soon as they are submitted. Appears to be a common theme. Please reflect on your actions with others remind yourself of WP:AAGFRomaioi (talk) 04:56, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

After reviewing User:No. 108 edit's, I still believe the "Modern historians" at the beginning is a bit much. Numerous historians began their writing of Byzantine history well before Heraclius and I feel we may need to "cover our asses" in that regard. Perhaps an inclusion of, "Although modern historians begin Byzantine historiography by 476, they view the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641) as the beginning of Byzantine history proper since Heraclius effectively established a new state after reforming the army and administration by introducing themes and by replacing the official language of the empire from Latin to Greek.".
Thoughts?? --Kansas Bear (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

Thoughts - passage highlights transition well and new statement is true to source, but...

Hi Kansas Bear, its a tough one (sorry if some of this goes over ground that may already have been covered on this page, and facts that you already know - just trying to put my string of thoughts together as succinctly as possible). My approach is to put things in as literally as possible, hence stay as true to the source as possible. I figured, given the apparent calibre of the academic advisers (and the list of advisory editors, whom I didn't list), the source would seam to be quite authoritative.

I originally wrote it in that manner (whilst attempting to stay true to the source) as it seams to flow well with the preceeding text in the article is saying; i.e. that what we are calling the Byzantine Empire had its genesis (or was seeded) with the founding of Constantinople, then 395AD being an important date, likewise 476AD, but had a crucial/definitive official transformation with Heraclius.

It also makes sense based on the chronology of evidence from the transitional period shortly before Heraclius' time:

• We have the reign of Justinian (r. 527-565), who was widely considered to be the last truly Roman Emperor
• Justinian' reign is where the archaeological evidence demonstrates that the distinct characteristics of Antiquity begin to end. Namely, urban-based life commenced marked decline toward rural/village based life, Constantinople being the exception (according to the Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology, p284-288) - this is worth including in the article, if not already there.
  • Both the source I just mentioned and numerous other texts (which I would be happy to track down) describe this changing landscape as primarily a consequence of the plague of 542 AD that caused massive depopulation, resulting in Slavic settlement in the Balkans. (Scientific evidence, in the form of isotope dating studies, support the occurrence of the plague and it being the consequence of a massive volcanic eruption at the time – I would have to track these sources down, once owned copies.)
• We also have the Church beginning to use its wealth to support the state, both during Justinian's time but particularly during Heraclius' time (multiple sources discuss this, examples being Haywood and Norwich) – we clearly know a distinguishing feature of the Byzantine Empire being its distinctly Christian nature.

The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archaeology (p. 284) also defines late antiquity as occurring between 284AD and ~610AD; 610 we know corresponds to the start of Heraclius' reign. And we have the continuation of the Roman Empire spanning both late antiquity and the medieval period contributing to this problem.

In light of the points above, it appears that the social, political, urban, administrative and archaeological changes, whilst they occur over a long period, they change markedly during, and converge on, the time between the reigns of Justinian and Heraclius. So my thoughts, after considering the chronology, and the archaeological evidence in particular, is that the Haywood statement pertaining to “modern historians” is most likely correct. I’m assuming that this is the consensus among the so call "modern historians" due to the kind of evidence above. And given the panel of advisors, who am I to question them?

There clearly are many texts that discuss the foundations or seeds of the Byzantine Empire commencing with the founding of Constantinople and the acceptance of Christianity (to me this is a logical starting point). But that doesn’t mean those historians disagree with the Haywood statement. (I mentioned why Norwich may not think it’s a clear cut issue in my first reply above.)

• One caveat against the use of the founding of Constantinople as the start of the "Byzantine" period (in light of its use being synonymous with a Christian empire) is this statement by Freeman in a distinctly philhellenic book (p431):

Constantinople was not planned as a Christian city[.]'

• Here’s another caveat against several arguments put forward by many historians (a side issue to this discussion) from page 53 of Norwich (ref already in article):

Did the abdication of Romulus Augustulus on 4 September 476 really mark the end of the Roman Empire in the West? The Empire, surely, was one and indivisible; whether it was ruled by a single Augustus, or two, or even three or four, was purely a matter if administrative convenience. And was not Odoacer always at pains to emphasize the Emperor’s continued sovereignty over Italy?

To me, from the formal point of view of adhering to the modern convention of using the term "Byzantine", the picture is a transitional one. In keeping with that, the way the first few paragraphs currently read seams acceptable.

Personally, my view, based on references like those mentioned here (and its just that, my view) is: shouldn't we identify them how they identified themselves; Romans living in the Roman Empire that lasted until 1453/1461 (the only state that can claim direct political lineage from that city traditionally founded in 753BC)? After all, wouldn't they have known their own identity better than us?

I don't think this helped. And I think it inadvertently duplicated ground already discussed previously here. Apologies. Maybe we could amend to something like say: The final transition to a Byzantine state was during Heraclius...? But wouldn't that make it fail WP:OR?

By the way, I think the Byzantine Empire article is excellent. Sincerely, Romaioi (talk) 17:36, 10 December 2011 (UTC)

References:

• Freeman, Charles (1999). The Greek Achievement: The Foundation of the Western World. New York: Penguin. ISBN 0-670-88515-0.
• Sherratt (Ed.), Andrew (1980). The Cambridge Encyclopedia of Archeology. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0-521-22989-8. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |1= (help)

Byron's "Triple-Fusion" theory

I removed the "triple fusion" theory from the lead per WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE. Unless this triple-fusion theory is an academically accepted and preeminent fact about the Empire it has no place in the lead. I don't think this is anywhere close to an academic fact and I have a hard time understanding what the "Roman body" of the Byzantine culture is supposed to be, let alone the "mystical, oriental soul" and for that matter even the "Greek mind". It sounds like new-agey, romantic fluff to me. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:35, 11 December 2011 (UTC)