Talk:Byzantine Empire

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)

Your idea of, "The final transition to a Byzantine state was during Heraclius..." to "The transition to Byzantine history finally begins..." which would be supported by Ostrogorsky, p106.

So the sentence, "Modern historians, however, 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." could to be replaced by, "The transition to Byzantine history finally begins, during the reign of Emperor Heraclius (r. 610–641), 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.", which the Ostrogorsky source should support. My apologies for the slow response. Your thoughts? --Kansas Bear (talk) 02:13, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hi Kansas Bear, sorry for the length of "my thought". I'd be happy with that so if you don't mind, I'll make the edit and add the reference. If you see any issues feel free to edit it or let me know. In case we don't chat before, Merry Chirstmas. Romaioi (talk) 07:58, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

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)

Incidentally, this should make us wary of using Norwich as a source. Who else would quote Robert Byron like that? But Norwich seems to be deeply embedded all over Wikipedia. Adam Bishop (talk) 22:08, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Good point. I was actually wondering about the same thing, i.e. Norwich's quote of Byron and its effect on Norwich's credibility, a few days ago. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 22:36, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Forgive my sentiments, but subjective assessments of which sources are suitable and which are not seams dangerous; its a form of original research and point of view (WP:OR; WP:NPOV) - like him of not, Norwich is an acknowledged historian. Also deleting verified referenced material runs counter to WP:V. However, I can understand your sentiments concerning the statement (I agree that it sounds romantic), but it is from the literature, it does represent a Historian's attempt at a brief and tangible description of Byzantine culture, and you have not demonstrated that it is not academic fact. I wouldn't know whether its an academic fact either, all I know is that its in the literature and consistent with several sources in illustrating Byzantine culture as a fusion of cultures. So question: What are the thoughts of the suitability of this somewhere else, if anywhere (cited)? Also, what I am aware is an indisputable academic fact is that the Byzantines always saw themselves as Romans. Yet it is not highlighted in the lead section. Any objections to me including it, perhaps as a note? Romaioi (talk) 12:35, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

I don't think that there are any WP:OR or POV issues here. Norwich is a well-known and respected historian. But his writings are getting older and rusty at some points. There is nothing wrong in trying to re-evaluate some of the rusty parts of his work and compare them to modern works. This is just a natural part of the RS evaluation process. I also don't agree with your statement "Also deleting verified referenced material runs counter to WP:V". Deleting material which is verifiable is allowed as long as there are good reasons for deleting it. Not all verifiable facts are worthy of inclusion. Having said that if you want to add this flowery language in some suitable place in the culture section I would not object. Neither would I object if you added a note explaining the Byzantine self-identification as Romans. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

From the Wikipedia article Byzantinist: Greek / Hellenistic culture, Roman state traditions, Oriental influence and Christian faith, together with a relative unity of language and culture, constitute medieval Byzantium. Sounds like a less romantic version of Byron's triple-fusion theory. Yet its not acceptable here and Norwich's credibility is under discussion because of it? Romaioi (talk) 14:16, 13 December 2011 (UTC)

This sounds definitely more sober. No flowery talk of "oriental soul" or "Greek mind" or "Roman body". This is more precise language. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 00:17, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Thanks for both your replies above. I had logged on to place a subsection with a suggested course, but you saved me the trouble. I have a strong preference for the more "sober" style, but there is sometimes difficulty in deciding whether its better to cite the author verbatim to avoid putting words in their mouth (and due to WP:OR), or write a summary that may not articulate something that is not easily described (both were attempted, I actually wasn't a fan of either but it is a fundamental point to make about the Byzantines). In the case of the latter, I usually hope that the regular contributors help improve it. The passage from Byzantinist nails what I was attempting to illustrate (in fact, my attempted inclusions and comments above are consistent with that and surrounding sections). Pending no objections, I'll include [something like] this as a note in the same spot, and cite Norwich, but look to add additional citations over time (the others I have read are not in my possession - if anyone has something, assistance welcome). I would like to potentially include it in the body, but the section reads well and I do not want to disturb the flow.

I understand what you are saying about Norwich. Moreover, no source is infallible so the more independent sources the better.

While we are here, there is something else that I wanted to look at including. Namely, highlight the archaeological evidence discussed above that highlights the urban decline in the period leading to Heraclius' reign. It may flow well there, but it may be more appropriate in another section of the article. It appears that you are well abreast of this article, so I figure that you may have some thoughts. Romaioi (talk) 11:19, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Sorry Romaioi for the delay in replying but I got caught up in a few side-issues around the project. Your proposals sound good. Thank you for the invitation to comment on the archaelogical evidence but I haven't checked this discussion in detail. I will endeavour to do so in the next few days and I will let you know. Take care. Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 04:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

No problems on the delay - I understand. This is the first chance I have had to check back in myself so, as you can see, I face considerable time constraints. I'll follow through with the first two suggestions. If I don't hear back from you before the upcoming break, Merry Christmas. Romaioi (talk) 07:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. Merry Christmas to you too and to Kansas Bear since we are on the same talk page. :) Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 21:00, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Reverts

Just to clarify once more why I have been removing certain stuff from the article:

• I am opposed to the "n4" footnote ("Byzantium essentially constitutes Greek/Hellenistic culture, Roman state traditions, Oriental influence, and Christian faith, together with a relative unity of language and culture") for two reasons: first, it's ungrammatical (look up "constitute"). Second, and of course more importantly, it is simply not what footnotes are for. A footnote is for something that is parenthetical to the main content of the page. Something that, on the one hand, is necessary as background knowledge for understanding some detail in the main text, but which on the other hand would unduly interrupt the main line of argument if integrated there. The footnote "n1" about the term "New Rome" is of this type, and is justifiable. This one isn't. A statement that purports to offer a quintessential summary of what Byzantine identity is ("essentially", no less!) belongs either in the main text, or nowhere at all. I'm not convinced we need such a summary sentence, because the main text of the "nomenclature" and "culture" sections seems concise enough to me, but if you think you need one, then find a place in the main text for it.
• I am opposed to the sentence in the lead paragraph ("Importantly, the Byzantines always considered themselves to be Romans (Rhomaioi).") because it interrupts the flow of the argument. Byzantine self-identification is not what that passage is about. That passage serves to explain one single issue: the conceptual definition of where "Byzantium" starts and the reasons why we are offering the reader an extra article on it when we are also at the same time saying that in some sense it's the same thing as Ancient Rome. For getting that point across, the next sentence ("As the distinction between Roman Empire and Byzantine Empire is largely a modern convention […]") needs to follow immediately on the preceding one ("Byzantium is today distinguished […]"). Everything else is a distraction and extraneous to the context.
• I'm opposed to the recent addition at the bottom ("The Byzantine legacy is […]") because it's unencyclopedic. It contains flowery language, bad non-standard use of block quotes, poor sources (do we really have to rely on thoroughly outdated Paparrigopoulos and non-academic Fermor?), POV editorializing ("at the heart of many issues that face Greece and Greek society today") and unwarranted value judgments ("vividly expressed" […] "the splendours and the sorrows").
• As for No. 108 (talk · contribs), well, yes, whether you like to hear it or not, he is a sock of Deucalionite (talk · contribs), as must by now have become painfully obvious to anybody who knew him back in the day. I didn't recognize him at first when he turned up a year ago, and I kept my mouth shut for a while as long as he was only doing his minor gnoming stuff, but now that he's back trying to sneak in his POV edits about his old ideological idées fixes, regarding ethnic continuity of Greeks through the ages, a topic where he has inflicted immeasurable damage on this project during his six years or more of incessant tendentious editing, I won't tolerate his presence any further. I haven't yet found the time to write up the WP:SPI report, and in fact I resent the fact that I will have to waste considerable time doing that, but that doesn't change the fact that the identity is crystal-clear, and must be so for any old contributor who remembers D.'s annoying habits from before he was banned. I expect every good-faith contributor to this page to help keeping him away. Fut.Perf. ☼ 16:25, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

With all due respect Future Perfect, what is in fact "painfully obvious" is your complete disregard for good faith edit contributions, as well as your complete disregard for maintaining civil behavior while improving the entry's "Stable Version". I, however, already conceded to the edits you've made to the entry and have spoken to you about our (minor) differences. But know that my submissions were made in an effort to assist User:Romaioi whose contributions were done in good faith and in an attempt to improve the "Stable Version" of the entry.

Also, I humbly recommend refraining from, as you put it, wasting your time writing reports as Wikipedia is not a bureaucracy and I'm sure that you have more constructive things to do. And though I've made mistakes as a humble quality management inspector, they hardly merit your consistent allegations of "sockpuppetry", which are indicative of your treating the project as an MMORPG rather than as an encyclopedia (if you must know, my "fixation" is quality management, which is hardly ideological). But in any case, I have no incentive towards holding any grudges so I bid thee adieu and humbly recommend that you focus your efforts on submitting more good faith edit contributions without the multiple and consistent use of "colorful language". Have a Merry Christmas (or Happy Hanukah if you happen to be Jewish) and no hard feelings. :-) No. 108 (talk) 17:34, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

P.S. I think you'll find me quite likeable once you get to know me. :-)

Oh my. Another Christmas Special. It must be inspired by The Nightmare Before Christmas. :/ Dr.K. ^{λogosπraxis} 18:00, 20 December 2011 (UTC)

Its after Christmas, so why not. Fut.Perf. ☼, I do not know how that statement (Byzantium essentially constitutes...) was included as "n4", but I included it in the lead as "n1". I do not see the issue with the grammar (but even then it can be modified), nor is it "useless". It was one of several small but fundamental points, included in their final forms (prior to being deleted by you, along with the verifying citations) after considerable discussion above (L1, L2) and accommodating re-writes (ranging from verbatim quotation to various summaries). However, after consulting with Dr. K about a few things, I am happy with the way the lead currently reads, albeit some fundamental points are absent.

The real issue is, in spite of the at-length discussions, citations and relative consensus that was achieved, you stepped in behaving as a supreme judge with impunity for non-adherence to Wikipedia protocols and wiped it out. Yet, many of your obtuse assertions are highly debatable - those pertaining to grammar included. English, for example, has considerable flexibility, with many valid means of presenting content. But what would I know? One thing I do know is, according to your profile, it is not your native language nor do you admit full competence in it. So why the uncivil and condescending attitude?

The forming picture, after all the re-writes and your subsequent actions, is it does not matter in which form a fact is written or what justification is provided. If it is unwanted it will always be rejected.

Regarding, your claim of No. 108 being a sock. Prove it - through the proper channels, rather than flouting multiple wiki-policies. The same rules that apply to general editors should also apply to administrators. There is my 20c worth. Ultimately, I think most people, yourself included, are simply trying to do the right thing. We just go about it in different ways. So on that note, Happy New Year to all, Fut.Perf. included. Sincerely --Romaioi (talk) 14:34, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

Countries today

Should Gibraltar/UK be included? The map includes the Gibraltar peninsula Миша I, Швейца́рская Император 02:47, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Sourcing

I see several unsourced paragraphs under "Reconquest of the western provinces ", "Macedonian dynasty and resurgence" (completely unsourced), "Wars against the Muslims", "Relations with the Kievan Rus'", "Komnenian dynasty and the crusaders" (also unsourced entirely). If these are not fixed, I plan to send the article to WP:FAR. Ten Pound Hammer • ^{(What did I screw up now?)} 23:42, 7 February 2012 (UTC)

States

Why is there no predecessors and successors states on the infobox?-Ilhador- (talk) 11:40, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Because there was an absurdly lengthy and messy discussion about a year or two ago, showing that editors couldn't agree on a workable definition of criteria what to list as "successor states" in this case: only the principal empire that took over the approximate geostrategic role of Byzantium (i.e. the Ottoman Empire)? Or a small number of other successor states? A long list of all polities that were ever created on any territory that had previously been Byzantine? Or even (according to a tenaciously proposed POV position argued by a few editors) certain states whose territories weren't actually part of Byzantium but which raised some ideological claim to some kind of succession to its cultural role (e.g. the Russian empire)? The situation turned out to be so complicated the only consensus that could be reached was to get rid of the whole thing. Fut.Perf. ☼ 18:58, 3 March 2012 (UTC)

Although I did not participate in this discussion, I second FutPer. After all, if we cannot agree that Greece was the only successor state, then no state should be mentioned! By the way, I also believe that the "today part of" list is also very long and absurd. What's its utility? And which Byzantine Empire are we taking as basis for conducting it? If it was all my decision, I would have got rid of this list as well.--Yannismarou (talk) 17:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Greek was always the culture of Rome

"Roman paganism" was in fact Greek Religion. The pagan Romans dressed and acted the same as Greeks. There were Greek Roman emperors long before the Christian era. To this day, Greeks consider themselves Roman. In fact, and backed by historical record, no other people can claim such a direct Roman heritage than the Greeks. Greek was pagan Romes main language, and Greek religion their religion, Greek food their food, Greek culture their culture, Greek dress their dress. It's disturbing how biased the West still is.--Nikoz78 (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

What's exactly the relation of this comment of yours with the article?--Yannismarou (talk) 21:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

@Nikoz78. Ever since the conquests of Alexander the Great, Greek was the language of the educated elites in (what were to become) the eastern provinces of the Roman Empire. By the time the Western Roman Empire collapsed, these provinces were almost entirely Greek-speaking. The eastern half of the Roman Empire was, while somewhat smaller, far more populous than the western half, far more urbanized, richer, and far more "cultured".

All that said, while the western half of the Empire existed, it is a grave error to state that Romans in general were Greek in their language, culture, religion, food, dress, etc. Many of them (in the east) were, and many more were certainly not. Most importantly, Latin was the primary language of the Roman Empire, all the way until the early 600s and the reign of Heraclius Augustus. Emperors as late as Justinian the Great (Iustinianus Augustus), even though the Latin west was gone(!), did not speak Greek very well.

It is also a grave exaggeration and oversimplification to equate Roman pagan religion with Greek polytheism. Even if we exclude latter religions and cults like the Sol Invictus, classic Roman polytheism was an amalgam of many religions. Granted Greek polytheism had a major influence, but it itself was already being merged with religions such as Egyptian polytheism, and when we add old Latin and Etruscan myths into the mix, we arrive at a notably altered pantheon.

So what you're saying is correct for the eastern half of the Roman Empire virtually from the start, but it cannot be said of Rome and Romans in general until about the 7th century. It is also important to note that many Romans living under barbarian rule in the west still remained distinctly "Roman" (and Latin) for centuries after the fall of the Western Roman Empire. -- Director (talk) 06:15, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

There was no need to respond to the childish nationalistic first post, which contravenes WP:FORUM. This thread should be deleted as it is not connected (or proposes) any improvement to this article. 109.156.240.149 (talk) 22:39, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree that my comment is a simplification (thank you for your patience, I'm certainly no scholar). My point was that even though Rome conquered Greece, it was in turn itself conquered by Hellenic culture. Also, much of Italy was Greek populated during the rise of Rome, even far north of the city (Magna Graecia). The cultural bias I mentioned above is a very real thing. It's existed for a thousand years and more. The West was obsessed in claiming Roman culture and heritage from Greek-speaking peoples during the Middle Age and still today. But Greek culture has been tied to it almost since it's inception. The article is very clearly written from a western POV. Also, to the poster above: why do you assume I'm Greek? Quite a few nations with the name Niko. --Nikoz78 (talk) 06:42, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I believe that the assuption goes with your opinions and not with your name (and it seems a correct assuption). Allow me to tell you that your arguments continue to be incoherent. How can Roman culture be tied to the Greek culture since its inception? Yes, there were interactions and influences from a certain point on (especially after mainlant Greece was occupied by Romans), but ... "since its inception"?! And what do you mean by saying that "The West was obsessed in claiming Roman culture and heritage from Greek-speaking peoples during the Middle Age"? It makes no sence. Finally, you say that the article is "clearly written from a western POV". What constitutes a Western POV towards Byzantium? How do you perceive it? If you check the article's history, you'll find out that more than half of its "main" editors have been Greek (including me). And if you check the sources, you will realize that there is an abandunce of prominent Greek scholarly works used: Ahrweiler, Laiou, Chrysos, Oikonomides, Kountoura-Galake, Mousourakis etc. etc. Are all these and us as editors of the article victims of this Western POV?--Yannismarou (talk) 15:06, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

"And what do you mean by saying that "The West was obsessed in claiming Roman culture and heritage from Greek-speaking peoples during the Middle Age"? It makes no sence." - The name "Byzantine" itself is an example of this bias, a 19th century Western term; the Holy Roman Empire is another (claiming the "Byzantines" as imposters); the way the West called the late Roman Empire the "empire of the Greeks." The sack of Constantinople in 1204 was inspired by this dangerous bias. You see it still, in these articles about the later Roman Empire. All these are indications of this bias. And during the early rise of the Roman Republic, they were surrounded by and infused with Hellenism. Even on the article Magna Graecia it states that, "The colonists, who began arriving in the 8th century BC, brought with them their Hellenic civilization, which was to leave a lasting imprint in Italy, particularly on the culture of ancient Rome."--Nikoz78 (talk) 15:51, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Latin name and starting date

1. removal of the Latin name. The Latin name of the empire is not the less important than the Greek name but in the last edits, many times it was deleted by some Greek users without any explanation. What is your reason for deleting it? It was the first and the only official language of the Byzantine Empire in the first centuries which are generally known facts and most people know them. You could move the Greek name ahead of it instead deleting, but that would be arguable change as this is deep question and the sorting by time periods, earlier Latin and later Greek is possibly a decision. There were also deleted the periods of official status of Latin and Greek, explain why?

2. starting date and gap between 1204 and 1261 AD. First according to this book Diocletian is the first that seperated Eastern and Western Roman Empires, so the Eastern Empire existed much more earlier than 395:

First Diocletian decided to divide the empire into eastern and western halves and then selected an imperial colleague for himself.

Secondly after the Latin conquest the Byzantine Empire ceased to exist between 1204 and 1261 AD, what are your grounds for removing this? --JeanPirès (talk) 19:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

First, when you are in a discussion with people make sure you get your facts straight especially when casting aspersions based on their ethnicity. User:Cody7777777 reverted you as well. Do you think Cody7777777 is a Greek editor too? Secondly, do I have to infer based on your French username that you are a Frank, therefore bent on deprecating the Byzantine Empire for nationalistic French purposes? See how it can get ugly fast when you play the nationality card? Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 19:43, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

The names added by JeanPires are back-translations into Greek and Latin of a modern term ("Eastern Roman Empire") and as such are meaningless. The Empire never referred to itself as "Anatolike Romaike Autokratoria", or "Imperium Romanum Orientale". Neither did its contemporaries use that names. These names are original research. Furthermore, the source used in the lede doesn't use them, so changing the names while keeping the source is source falsification (inadvertent at best). Athenean (talk) 20:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @JeanPirès: Firstly, the Byzantine Empire was the eastern half of the Roman Empire, which was more hellenized than latinized. After the Muslim conquests it became a very much Greek-speaking (although of course still multinational) state, and again and even more so after 1204. And since after Heraclius the state language was exclisively Greek, the Latin name is simply not as important. Secondly, on the starting date, Diocletian is cited by a few scholars as the first "Byzantine" emperor not so much due to his division, but more due to the introduction of the Despotate system, which is in essence the Byantine autocracy. However, the overwhelming majority support one of the traditional dates, 330, 395 or 476. Thirdly, the Greek name you support is the most incorrect of all, as it is a modern name: "autokratoria" was never used for the state, and the Byzantines themselves never used the "Eastern Roman" bit; they were "Romans", plain and simple. These things have been discussed ad nauseam here before, so best take a look there. When you see that several long-established users revert your edits, perhaps you should ask yourself why that is, instead of reverting back yourself. Constantine ✍ 20:14, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh wow! All the Greek editors descended to comment. You people are just a bunch of nationalists. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 23:31, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Firstly, Athenean "Eastern Roman Empire" is not a modern term, this is wrong. It is used to distinguish it from the Western Empire, and it was the most used one by both Latin and Greek speaking contemporaries until the Western Empire ceased to exist. I indeed made mistake for the Greek name as after 620 the Western Empire have been already destroyed and the name then was only Roman Empire and as I inserted the modern Greek name. The Latin name though should be corrected with "Orientale" as "Imerium Romanum" makes the wrong sense that this Empire was the entire Roman Empire, while it was only the eastern half of it during the most of the official status of the Latin. It is not correctly to claim that "Imerium Romanum" was the Latin name, and secondly misleads. Secondly, Constantine what do you mean with the Latin name is simply not as important? If you claim that it should not be added there is no any valid reason not to add it in the introduction and to remain only the Greek as currently, the empire itself was established as Latin and was not solely Greek, only Latin was the official language until 620, few facts which make the placing of the Latin name in the introduction not only fully warranted but necessary. For the date, I see that there is controversy, why you don't show few sources for the dates then, to compare with this I showed above? However, Diocletian first divided the Empire into Eastern and Western in 285/4, since then the Romans used the divisions "Imperium Romanum Orientale" and "Imperium Romanum Orccidentale", see also this in Western Roman Empire. --JeanPirès (talk) 09:16, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

As the others have said, "Eastern Roman Empire" is a modern term, like "Western Roman Empire" and "Byzantine Empire" also are. The Romans, considered their empire to be united during the whole time, and as the following book also claims "It is incorrect because the Roman Empire was one and undivided in the fifth century, and though there were generally more emperors than one, there were never two empires. To speak of two empires in the fifth century is to misrepresent in the grossest manner the theory of the imperial constitution.". And the Western Roman Empire article also uses "Imperium Romanum" (not "Imperium Romanum Occidentale"). Regarding 285, it is actually already mentioned in the infobox as a pre-event. (And I'm not Greek, I actually speak a neo-Latin language.) Cody7777777 (talk) 09:46, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Don't worry Cody. You don't have to parade your ethnic credentials, or lack thereof. In an ideal wiki-world you shouldn't have to. We should be one big happy family. Δρ.Κ. ^{λόγοςπράξις} 12:33, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

When did the Eastern Empire begin?

I am new to writing in Wikipedia. I was not prepared to this heated debate. One note: the suppression of 395 (save for the info box) as even a candidate date for the formation of the Eastern Roman Empire/ Byzantine Empire borders on the bizarre. Delaying it to the 7th century is also rather strange. Any ref. to historians who do this in the article itself? Year 285 one can understand. If 395 was as administrative a division as 285 than Diocletian is OK. But it is still a dubious choice because Diocletian's measures did not last. He was more a precedent than a beginning. If 395 is taken as merely administrative, one can argue the Byzantine Empire out of existence (good old Roman Empire never expired), which would be technically OK, but rather eccentric. There is no much disagreement on the facts: 285, 324, 330, 395, 476, etc. One way out is to put the question of beginning before the reader, perhaps under 'Historiographical Concerns', and offer possible answers. The answers would depend also on one's historiographical 'measuring stick': legal definition, political history, cultural history etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastUnicorn (talk • contribs) 19:27, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

See Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 10#Unbeliveble mistake concernig begining of the empire, Talk:Byzantine Empire/Archive 11#Serious mistake and other discussions... I suppose it might be worth to recreate the section "Dating the empire"... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:03, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. It seems to me that the problem is two-fold: In the first place, wikipedia uses "Byzantine Empire" as an exact synonym for "Easter Roman Empire," which it really isn't. In the second place, wikipedia tends to describe the Eastern and Western Roman Empires as separate entities, which they weren't. As some have stated (with citations) above, there was only one Roman empire. At various times it was divided into two administrative regions, each with their own co-emperor (and occasionally more than one per region.) This administrative division was only the case for a short period of less than two centuries (from Diocletian to Zeno) and only intermittently in that period. Indeed, when Odoacer rose in 476 in the events romantically (and not really accurately) called "the Fall of the Roman Empire" by olde-timey historians it was after only 91 years of separate Eastern and Western co-emperors. After the rise of Odoacer and the death of Nepos it becomes meaningless to speak of the "Eastern Roman Empire" or the "Western Roman Empire." We do so for scholarly convenience. As for the "Byzantine" period, this is a scholarly convention constructed after the end of the empire. The point of it is to distinguish the increasingly greek culture of the empire after it was severed from its Italian birthplace. As this is a gradual process, the breakpoint is necessarily arbitrary and scholars have been all over the map. Those seeking to tell the story of the empire in the east in a geographical frame have chosen to start their narratives at early dates. like Diocletion's administrative subdivision or Constantine's founding of the new capital (or even the conquest of the East under the Republic!) SInce the putative distinction between Roman and Byzantine is cultural, however, most have gravitated to the big cultural watershed of the 7th century as the time when the Roman and Latin traditions really become clearly supplanted by new innovations in an eastern-focused empire. Some split the difference by using the end of the Western Empire as the date.

It seems to me that the logical solution would be to make separate wiki articles for the "Eastern Roman Empire," which would treat just the history of this subdivision in its various incarnations between 295 and 480, and "Byzantine Empire" which would begin with an explanation that the empire is a scholarly construct and a discussion of hellenization. The actual history of the byzantine period could either be (A) simply included in the Roman Empire entry (most rational, but probably too radical a change for the very conservative slant of the wiki community), or (B) pick a date that is, at the earliest, the 476/480 dissolution of the East-West co-emperor arrangement and at the latest the sweeping away of the "Dominate" reforms of Diocletion under Constans II between 640 and 660. The later option has the advantage of conceptual clarity (Augutus' reordering of the army/admin/political structures into the "principate," followed by Diocletian's reordering of same into the "dominate," followed by Constans II reordering - finishing Heraclius' reforms - of the same into the "byzantine.") but the earlier date may make for easy encyclopedia use. TheCormac (talk) 19:02, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

The 2nd para. as edited 1 Apr. is fine. LastUnicorn — Preceding unsigned comment added by LastUnicorn (talk • contribs) 06:40, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

What happened to the lede?

Well ... I just looked at the article today, four days after my last edits, being ready to restart some work (if you don't know it or if you didn't care to learn about it, I would like to inform you that the article is on the verge of losing its FA star, and from all the editors who want to convince us that they care about the article, only one of them — besides me — is trying to do something to prevent such an unfortunate outcome). Unfortunately, I won't restart my editing, because I feel deeply disappointed by what I saw (and I should have noticed it earlier, but I hadn't focused my attention on the lede). The lede as it stands now is a disgrace. 7-8 paragraphs, some of them stubbby; 5 of them (yes 5!) dealing about when the Empire started or ended (an issue that should have been exhausted in one paragraph top, and this was the case before the last changes).

Athenean, I also disagree with an addition of yours ("As the Empire declined, it also became increasingly culturally and linguistically homogeneous, so that by the Paleologian period it resembled more an ethnic Greek nation-state than the multi-ethnic Empire of previous centuries.") Resembling more an ehthnic Greek nation-state?! During an era that nation-states were not even conceived? That "Greekness" or "Greek identity" was definitely not in the center of Byzantine identity at the time? The Byzantines regarded themselves as "Romans"! What's the source for this parallelism with an "ethnic Greek nation-state"? Allow me just to quote Cameron (the emphasis is mine), which says the obvious: "Linguistically at least Byzantium was a multicultural state and its emphasis on language rather than ethnicity as as the badge of culture followed a Roman precedent of tolerance. The modern nation-state lay in the future, and racial prejudices as such was not a feature of Byzantine culture. Byzantine prejudice existed in plenty, but it was directed in other ways." Yes, indeed, as the article elsewhere correctly states "as the Empire entered its final decline, the Empire's citizens became more culturally homogeneous and the Greek language became integral to their identity and religion", but this evolution and the Paleologian period had nothing to do with a "Greek nation-state". We may possibly trace some roots of the modern Greek nation-state (if we accept that the conception of nation-stated is still valid) in this period, but this is a completely different issue.

Even without LastUnicorn's unfortunate edits, the current version of the lede is pathetic. This is no lede for a FA! Even Alexander the Great is there now mentioned! Hercules is only misssing! What happened to the perfectly fine lede of the article, which I last read about 2 weeks before? Is this incoherent listing of events allegedely related with its start or end worth of a FA lede? What have you done to it (whoever did it)?! And why?!!! It was (at least it looked to me as) just ok. Why did you have to destroy it? The Cormac who is partly responsible for this mess did not discuss with anybody in the talk page the changes and expanding of the lede he initiated (devotind three paragraphs [!] to the start and end of the empire), and Cormac was so careless that, e.g., they filled the lede with CEs, while the rest of the article uses ADs (where necessary). I feel it is just a loss of time to continue trying to save the article's quality status, while important changes are taking place undiscussed; changes with which I disagree and which I believe that undermine the quality of the article. I will have to engage myself into tiring edit wars, from which I have consciously decided to abstain the last few years (If I revert, for example, wholly or partly Cormac, then they will revert me back or start protesting for my poor judgment; I have neither the courage nor the appetite to get into this again). If a quality lede is restored (and properly maintained), then I'll reconsider (if anybody cares about what I'll or will not do, and about what happens in FAR)... Since then, I sincerely wish the best possible outcome to Athenean if he decides to keep on his generally fine work.--Yannismarou (talk) 14:32, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Calm down, calm down... It's not the end of the world (nor of an empire). The starting dates (and reasons for choosing one or another) are important and have to be described somewhere in the article. Since at the moment ([1]) there is no obvious section for that, it is only natural that all this information ends up near the definition. If you want it to go somewhere else, move it (preferably to a new section with a suitable name) and leave a summary in its place... After all, there isn't much else that could be done... --Martynas Patasius (talk) 15:16, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, my add to the lede wasn't such a good idea after all. I thought better of it, but didn't have internet access until today. I just saw that there was a sentence about how the Empire became more culturally and linguistically homogeneous in the Language section, and thought of adding something to that effect in the lede. We could add a sentence about how the Empire was ethnically and culturally diverse, becoming less so in later years as it got smaller (forgetting about nation-states. I had read that somewhere, don't remember now, but let's leave it out).

However, the Byzantine Empire is important in the self-perception of the modern Greek state, and is (or was) looked upon as one of its antecedents. Would an add in the Legacy section (a single sentence) about the importance of the BE as an influence on modern Greece be of interest?

Also, we need to address these edits to the lede [2] by User:JeanPires. Athenean (talk) 18:35, 2 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sorry if I have offend someone by not asking their permission before contributing. I meant no harm. But the issue of dates needs to be addressed in a "quality" encyclopedia article and I do think that one paragraph is sufficient, and I am certainly not wedded to the idea that it be the second - I was just making improvements to what I found (and unilaterally creating new sections and rearranging the article structure would have felt disrespectful.) When I make changes, however, I do my best NOT to be careless, by making sure that the adjoining paragraphs flow. Which brings me to my use of CE. All dates in reference works should be in CE or BCE; use of AD is just perpetuation of outdated bias. I am sorry I have not yet had time to correct this usage throughout the article. Perhaps you could?TheCormac (talk) 19:15, 3 April 2012 (UTC)

As per WP:ERA, we are not to arbitrarily change BC/AD to BCE/CE or vice versa on any articles. While this talk page is not the place to discuss the merits of either system over the other, let me interject that BC/AD are not a "perpetuation of outdated bias" any more than Wikipedia's use of Thursday (Thor's day) or January (Janus' month) are. Do you propose that we use "Common Day/Month [X]" to replace those as well? The Quakers have devised such a system, but we don't use it at Wikipedia just because it erases the pagan references. If you want to argue for wiki-wide use of Common Era, I'd suggest starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Manual of Style/Dates and numbers. Until then, BC/AD will not be "corrected" to BCE/CE in this article. — FoxCE (talk • contribs) 20:49, 3 April 2012 (UTC)